Noah, Tat twam asi. Muslim. And 500 million deaths. OM shanti, shanti

Submitted by Plato (India), Feb 7, 2007 at 23:20

Hello Noah,

I tried using bold as you suggested for my comments in the repost. But did not work. I hope it works this time.

I don't know how you guys, Noah and Susan, do it. Practically instant instant reposts to so many on this forum and pretty detailed ones too. Are you prosperous retired people. Tell me if I am right, if it is not a secret. Do you have a whole lot of people working for you on these posts? I am having a tough time juggling time between work and moonlighting on this forum. Answering this particular post has my finger joints creaking, my wife screaming and my eyes watering....

This particular post I attacked enthusiastically for several hours but enthusiasm waned toward the end. However, I have tried to pick and choose what I replied to, towards the end. I hope what I have left out were not of particular importance to the substance of our discussion.

Noah, please take your time on this one. I have Susan to answer. My babbling may become worse if I don't get some time to relax.

You comments are to be found in inverted commas. Some of my comments to which you were responding have been left out to shorten this post:

"Where? When? Precisely where and when in Islamic history have these trickles coalesced into gant rivers? It's 1,400 years later, and we're still waiting for anything more than a trickle at best. Yes, the Grand Canyon was carved by a small river, but we don't have that sort of time frame to wait."

If Gibbon is to be believed the Moors of Spain did a pretty good job for some time. It took Christianity around 1800 years to go from persecuted minority living in catacombs to inquisitors to genocidal invaders to finally settle down as freedom loving democracies. You have to wait and watch only for another 400 years.

"And then I point out the rally in Arizona where a community of 50,000 Muslims failed to generate even a couple hundred Muslims speaking for peace..."

That is the figure I was working with.

"Look, remember when we kicked those immams off the airplane for acting suspicious a few months back? Somehow, the Muslims in Arizona managed to gather between 100 and 200 members to protest that incident"

You have come with about the same numbers for both rallies

"A Muslim was removed from the Phoenix Human Rights Commission due to his anti-Semitic nonsense (including publishing a Yellow Pages book that shows "Palestine" but no Israel on the map), and the Muslims managed to gather at least a few dozen people to protest that."Very impressive number you have there, considering the terrorist Muslims are so well organised.

"Bottom line, Muslims will come out of the woodwork in America to condemn a tv show that portrays Muslims realistically, they will come out in large numbers to protestr.."I believe Muslims are weak-kneed when protesting terrorism but the numbers you have quoted for pro-muslim issues are not very impressive. I am sure the numbers would have been higher. They probably feared targeted surveillance.

"You detest the fact that your liberals fear offending them in your countries but approve of shocking and awing Muslim nations. Which is why we see Muslim leaders jump when you say rise. A better bargain than having to wear a crufix at work."

I have no clue as to what you're trying to say here. Can you explain your point?"This was what you said: I said "the Western world". In America, in Britain, in so many Western countries, we fear offending them. We dance around the issue and bend over backwards to avoid "offending" them (for example, not allowing people to wear a crucifix necklace at work). We use euphemisms to avoid calling them what they are.

Your liberals fear offending the Muslim living among yourself but the polls indicated support for the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Muslim leaders have seen this happen to so many other leaders too (Mossadeq, Allende, Noreiga, Lumumba). You have garrisons practically all over the ME. In fact if I am not mistaken Qatar hosts not only Al Jazeera but also vast US military facilities. Your military personnel are there in Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, one or two CIS Islamic states. A phone call from Colin Powell made Musharaff, the man with the Islamic nukes, make a U-turn in his Taliban policy, not a very convincing one though it is. The Muslim leaders better jump when told to rise."There is no question...we didn't do it right. Anyone with a squirt of military training (or even a squirt of common sense) knows that you first secure the area you conquer before moving on and releasing the enemy combatants behind you."Noah, you really have me worried there. The leader of the free world without a squirt of military training or even a squirt of common sense. What am I supposed to make of that. You spend billions every year for what and on who? You mean to tell me that all those soldiers have been training with toy guns and planes. Or that West Point turns out world class idiots? No wonder Bin Laden is relaxing on his silk pillows in his air-conditioned cave without a care. Now that is scary.

"How will they come in if we deny any foreign Muslims from arriving via airplane, boat, etc? Citizens of Muslim countries could easily be kept out. Muslims trying to come in from other countries would have to be screened a bit more diligently, but that's not hard to do. Yes, it can be done."I am not sure but you have been trying for decades to keep out the Mexicans. What is the level of your success? Muslims need not carry Muslim sounding names, nor will their passports indicate they are Muslims. You have your job cut out for you to keep out Muslims bent on terror.

"No thought control. But Muslims would be banned as an enemy force, and as an evil ideology, no different from how we suppress Nazis, skinheads, white supremists, etc...Just thought control by another name. No different from Mo calling attacks on neighbouring countries 'changing its political dynamics'.

"I'm sure some will be able to sneak in. They won't be able to do much though..."Its the sneaky ones you should worry about. They will come with deadly intent.

"It's not hard. America shares no border with any Islamic state. They are all overseas. So it's easy to keep them out. As for pinning them in over in the Middle East, security walls and zones can be built, visas denied, immigration denied, etc. If they come in illegally, we kill them. It's that simple.."I agree killing is the simple part. As to the others, I am no security specialist, but still it looks pretty simple-minded to me. But good luck to your strategising. You make it sound so simple.

"...2 million living in America and eroding our country while plotting atrocities (which are possible only because the dwell amongst us). So no, your concern is irrelevant. There is no danger from that aspect "Starting from Bin Laden all the plotting was done outside of the US of A and implemented in it.

"Again, absolutely irrelevant. America exists, period. It is recognized by every country on earth and has been for about a quarter of a millenium. Even Native American tribes recognize it."You are speaking on behalf of the natives. Let one of the few surviving ones including those who are your friends come forward about what happened to their ancestors.What choice do the native Americans have?

"Not at all. Remember, there would be no ships or planes allowed to arrive from any Muslim country, and for all Muslim countries that means complete denial since none of them share borders with the USA and are half a world away. Flights from other countries would be screened. Many other countries would follow our lead and deport their Muslims, so there would be even less to worry about."Yes I know you have that aspect of your strategy all nicely tied up and packaged. I will stop worrying only when I get a second opinion from another strategist who has had a close look at the ribbon you used to tie up your package and confirm the ribbon is strong enough to prevent the contents from spilling out.

"Look at it this way. If the Muslims pull off their American Hiroshima plot, we're talking tens of millions. Something on the scale of 25 million. Those are just the immediate deaths from the bombings. God only knows how many would die after that from the after effects, starvation, predation, etc. If China or Russia decides to kick us when we're down and finish us off, we're talking over 50,000,000 to 200,000,000 dead in America, and of course there's the tens or hundreds of millions who will die from our retaliatory strikes. You're looking at the possibility of half a billion or more people dead, due to actions instigated by Muslims living in America.

In contrast, removing Islam and Muslims from America would result in far less than 2 million deaths, which is a hell of a lot better than HALF A BILLION! Most Muslims would probably leave once they realized we were banning/outlawing Islam and shutting down mosques, etc. They'd realize that if they left peacefully, they'd get to keep their money and their belongings. If they don't they die and lose everything. I'd guess (and this is just off the top of my head based on nothing), that perhaps 10% at most would react violently and have to be killed. That's 20,000. Again, far better than 500,000,000, and compare that to how many we lost in one attack on 9/11."I am trying to digest those figures you are tossing around. There is also a feeling of de ja vu about your Hiroshima plot scenario. Researching that Muslim habit of blaming everyone around for what one or two did seems to have rubbed off on you. Oh yes. Now I remember the cartoon story where Muslims turned around and attacked the nearest Christian for what happened in a country they had not even heard about. You say Muslims pull off this plot. What you are not saying is if Al Qaeda or Pakistan pull this off. By your own estimate there are 1.2 billion of them scattered over the planet and they are, if not privy to the plot, certain to acqueisce. So Al Qaeda is Muslim, Pakistan is Muslim. Let us vaporise them and also Mecca Medina, Al Azhar, Tripoli, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, southern Thailand, Mindanao while we are about it.. A job well done. That is the very Muslim reaction you so detest.

Now for those figures. Well researched I am sure. 25 million, when Al Qaeda strikes,and counting into the indefinite future. God only knows how many. Again just a figure of speech ( you have educated me). And God forbid (figure of speech) China and Russia chip in with their contribution, God willing, with only clean bombs. Let us take a middle figure, 100 million. Just peanuts when the fate of the world is at stake. That is just the beginning. Then the Empire strikes back not at just the Chinese and Russians but also at all Muslim population centres. Now we have a more respectable figure, 500 million. Assuming that everyone has been careful enough to explode only clean weapons, except Al Qaeda and Pakistan who are still in the nuclear stone age, but they don't count. You will notice I have merely repeated your figures. Because they need repeating. Now that still leaves 800 million Muslims alive, discounting the 100 million that died in the US. I have assumed your bombs kill only the Muslims, so much more satisfying assuming only the instigators will be picked up by the explosions and radiation. I thought I gave a better solution with not a solitary Muslim alive and you dismissed it as wishful thinking."In contrast, removing Islam and Muslims from America would result in far less than 2 million deaths, which is a hell of a lot better than HALF A BILLION! Most Muslims would probably leave once they realized we were banning/outlawing Islam and shutting down mosques, etc. They'd realize that if they left peacefully, they'd get to keep their money and their belongings. If they don't they die and lose everything. I'd guess (and this is just off the top of my head based on nothing), that perhaps 10% at most would react violently and have to be killed. That's 20,000. Again, far better than 500,000,000, and compare that to how many we lost in one attack on 9/11.Yes that is a great bargain 2 million for 500 million. And an even better bargain just 20,000 deaths instead of 500 million. A master plan that can't be faulted. Every last detail worked out. Who can resist such a great bargain. But just a little niggling thought at the back of my mind that refuses to go away. If out of the 250 million or so Americans all the country could find are strategists and planners with not 'a squirt of common sense or military training' leading to the uneducated terrorist Muslims in Iraq running 150,000 of the best trained and armed troops in the world to the ground, where is the guarantee that you can get away with just 20,000 dead. Where is the guarantee that your new strategists will have a piffle more that a squirt of military training and commonsense? Stupid me, that's where you come in with your master plan to end all master plans.

Your plan must be way beyond brilliant as it guarantees only 20k casualties. As you have so kindly reminded me several times I am stupid and a fool to boot and as to common sense your strategists could do worse than me which is why I can't see the brilliance of your master plan. Or it is so brilliant that it hurts my eyes, I can't see. All I can see through the flash of MOABs and neutron and nuclear bombs is 500 million dead, the figure you so thoughtfully provided. And still 800 million Muslims left standing. A long way to go before you can write 'The Last of the Muslims'. Oh the native American leit motif again. The brilliance of your plan brought tears to my eyes when I compared it with the stupidity of my virus attack plan. A stupid fool of Falstaffian proportions."That's called a figure of speech, Plato. God has no say in the matter."All the best laid plans of men and mice... also a figure of speech, or near. God, chance does it make a difference?

"It would not add tens of millions."It is your plan, all worked out. I go with it.

"The Chinese and the Russians do. Pakistan could be taken out without harm to the surrounding countries."Again all worked out in minute detail. You will use only clean weapons. And sure the neighbouring countires will just suffer a little dust haze after Pakistan has been reduced to a dust bowl.

"And remember, in many cases we would not even need to use nuclear weapons. We have the capability of taking out cities with conventional weapons."I know you have smart bombs with higher kill rates but just a little thought cropped up in my stupid mind. How many tons of ordinance was dropped on Vietnam. My stupid mind remembers something about it exceeding all the stuff dropped in WW1 and WW2 combined. And that gave food for thought to my stupid self. Vietnam was the lean and hungry tiger that mauled you. And now it is set to become one of the fat cats of Asia.

" think your plan instead of talking about a few tens of million dead must be revised to reflect the few millions that will survive. You now have a brand new shining glassy planet."

Now you're just being absurd."Oh sure. How could it not be, yours truly being stupid.

"Yes, it should be very comforting. My method reduces the chances of a global thermonuclear war to nearly zero. Allowing the Muslims to continue on their current global crusade virtually assures a nuclear war. In my scenario, a nuclear war is nearly impossible. In the scenario of doing nothing, a nuclear was is pretty much inevitable. Which do you prefer?"Can you please tweak your plan so that the 'nearly' occurring twice can be taken out. It make me nearly extremely nervous. "..pretty much inevitable." I will admit that is pretty prescient of you. I will tell you my preference after you get rid of the two 'nearlys'.

"Those who agree to leave peacefully would be processed and deported in a civilized manner. They would realize that peacefully leaving would result in being able to keep their money and their belongings (they would of course have to sell their homes). Most will "get out while the getting is good", to use an American idiom. The rest would have to be forceably rounded up and deported, or killed if they resist."America's civilized nature was not in doubt until I read all of the above. And I am sure those who leave peacefully will get a handsome price for their homes. Your BBB will ensure that.

""Does your plan guarantee that the Muslim world can be sanitised of WMD's."

Yes, because only Pakistan has them, and we'd pre-emptively take them out along with Iran. Any nation selling nuclear material to an Islamic country would be targetted as an enemy".Okay. Pakistan and Iran are kaput. Why will Russia and China not makea little nuclear money on the side as they are doing now. You going to target them. This I gotta see.

"As I said, it's probably inevitable that some will still exist, be overlooked, or manage to sneak in. That's not much of a threat at all...insignificant compared to the threat of keeping them here. And remember, the Islamic world would keep a tight leash on their terrorists, since it would be made crystal clear that any mass terror attack on America by Muslims would result in thermonuclear annihilation of Islam and all Islamic population centers and "holy sites". I'm sure Saudi Arabia will not be funding terrorists or allowing them to plot atrocities once they see what we do to Iran. Without state backing, Muslims pose very little threat."Pakistan supposedly has a tight leash on their terrorists. And there are enough terrorists out there who will welcome thermonuclear annihilation as a short cut to martyrdom and the pleasures of direct entry to heaven instead of having to wait till Judgement day. Let us hope the Saudis are listening in but how are you going to prevent Bin laden type individuals (not much of a threat) among Muslims from doing unacceptable damage. Oh I know, you will squash the whole lot of them with thermonuclear annihilation.

"Typical. I challenge you to come up with a detailed and realistic plan, and you can only spew nonsense. You wonder why we don't respect your opinion, Plato? It's because of posts like this. Snotty, absurd, irrelevant responses is all we get from you. Face it, your side is clueless about what to do. You have no idea at all, outside of pronouncing insane, unrealistic half-baked ideas and New Age platitudes."I only want you to listen to my opinions not respect them. Those who violently disagree with one's opionions cannot possibly respect them. And that has been obvious here. Nobody can possibly respect people who are snotty (as in what comes out of the nose?), absurd, irrelevant, insane, given to unrealistic half-baked platitudes, spouting nonsense. You know stupid people don't expect respect (they don't know what respect is) and you already know about my stupidity, it has been laid bare in my posts here.

I gave you a plan that eliminated 1.2 billion people and your best(worst?) case scenario could eliminate only 400 million. But then you know mine is unrealistic and half-baked etc. whereas a country that could come up with war strategists with not even a squirt (figure of speech) of commonsense are now going to come up with a detailed plan that will have a range of casualties anywhere from 20,000 to 500 million. Comonsense, at least my kind of commonsense, tells me paper plans are as useless against the threat we are faced with as the paper it is written on."Again, you are not listening. Once they are confined to their own hellish corner of the world, they will be too busy fighting one another (Sunni vs. Shia) to give us any thought. While they will be unable to attack most Western countries, they will have easy access to one another. And their orgy of death will continue, only against one another. Like others have mentioned, sell both sides weapons, pass the popcorn, and watch them extinct one another."They have been fighting each other for 1400 years and still gave us plenty of thought. We will have to sell them some neutrons and MOABs before we will hear their death rattle, but then we cannot guarantee where they will land just as happens with the other toys we hand them. We will have more than popcorn popping in our hands.

"Read your history. It took the Crusades to finally exhaust Islam and stop it from dominating the world. Sure, we could come out stronger after another battle of civilizations, but at what cost? Nuclear war? The last war between Islam and the civilized world involved only swords, horses, and bows and arrows. Now we have nuclear weapons, and they are also close to having them (indeed in the case of Pakistan do have them)."What! The Crusades exhausted them? I thought I was the only delusional one here. As long as they blindly believe their Book, they will never be exhausted. They will be truly exhausted when they realise the nature of the book they swear by. If you can up with a plan to expose the Koran and other scriptures to the Muslims I will be first in line to approve that plan. Cheaper, and less blood and body parts on our TV screens.

"Again, New Age psychobabble. It sounds good, it sounds peaceful, it sounds oh-so-simple and kind and gentle. Show me how you hope to accomplish that! In detail. How are you going to manage to convert Saudi Arabia, which hosts Wahabism and is one of the main sources of Islamic terror on the planet. What, Plato, do you think you're going to be able to go to Saudi Arabia and start denouncing Wahabism and preaching "Peaceful Islam"? Get real!"I am especially fond of this psychobabble. Challenging the well-spring of their belief sounds simple kind and gentle? I have some experience of it. It is like twisting a serrated knife thrust in their rib-cage. Sometimes out comes the bullet and they are all the better for the pain. The Book of islam is under scrutiny everywhere. You may not admit it or know it but you are playing your part in it. You don't have to dive into a whirlpool (Saudi Arabia) to save a drowning man and die yourself, you throw him a lifejacket.

"You say there are no peaceful Muslims."

You are a liar

. I never said there are no peaceful Muslims. I said there are no significant aggregations of moderate Muslims and that the peaceful ones are aberrations, exceptions to the rule, an insigificant number in the big picture.

Keep your eyes on the underlined words when you read Mo's double speak (my paraphrasing): Muslims are allowed to change the political dynamics of other countries where sharia is not practised. I did not know we are expected to be mathematically precise in our observations. The thrust of the argument is irrelevant it seems. I will now take even longer to answer as I will agonise about whether I got the exact mathematically correct drift of your posts. As in differential calculus where in the limit delta x tends to zero the number of peaceful Muslims in the aggregate are just aberrations like the zero in calculus, zero but never really zero. Your mathematical definition of the quantum of peaceful muslims compared to the violent ones has exposed me as a liar, shame on me."And yet you cannot locate them. You cannot find them existing anywhere in large numbers. You concede that we have no evidence of significant numbers Muslims in America or elsewhere working for peace. We have proven that Muslims even in America will turn out to protest tv shows, to support elected Muslims, and to protest legal detainment of suspicious Muslim terror suspects, but refuse to turn out to denounce terror. Where is your evidence that there is a significant portion of Islam that is peaceful? Can you name one single peaceful Islamic country on earth? One that is not barbaric and that does not supress freedoms and rights? One that does not engage in religious intolerance, rape, barbarity, genocide, etc?"What is considered significant by one person could look insignificant to another like a glass being half empty or half full. And if you do not hold me to the gold standard of American values I could name some Muslim countries that are struggling to reach those standards.

"Come on Plato! Time to put your money where your mouth is. Show me proof of your mythological moderate Muslims. In any given country, you would need more than 50% of the Muslims to be working for reform in order for it to change. Good luck finding even a single community where even 1% is doing so."Yes wish me good luck. For me even a fraction of 1% is okay. When the Church was riding high what percentage of the christian population do you think would have thought of bucking it. Some hindu scriptures can give the Koran and Hadith a run for their money but who practices them now. It took them maybe 3000 thousand years to reach this state inn India. I know, you are not willing to spare the time.

"A thought experiment for you in return. What if you just shut up about the Native Americans since there is nothing we can do about that and since it is irrelevant to this discussion? Oh, but then you would have to focus on the issue and actually present a well-reasoned and detailed plan that actually acknowledges history and reality. Never mind, you're clearly not capable of that. Just keep whining about the Native Americans. And join your buddy Michel in exile. But don't exect the rest of us to address your goofy attempts at evasion."That was not an experiment but an instruction you gave. However. Since you already know the answer to the thought experiment you threw at me my answer is superfluous. But allow me to expand on why I bring up the Native Indian issue. First of all they still exist in some corners of your country. Second I may be wrong, but I have never heard of a public apology by your government or senate for the valiant deeds of your recent forefathers. The Germans are reminded every now and then of the Holocaust, as rightly they should be. Why do you get hot under the collar about the Holocaust in the Americas. You are a military tactician and strategist and I need not tell you, you attack the weak point of your opponent. And like Ali working on his opponent's cut eye brow I am working to open the chink a bit more to see what is under the skin.

Now that you have released some more details of that detailed plan of yours (with the reality of history built into it) the greatest number at risk is 500 million deaths which is insignificant, like those mythical peaceful Muslims, or happily if all the well laid plans of mice and men go as planned only 20,000 deaths. Which is like delta x going to zero in the limit. I am comforted by the fact that you think your plan is well-reasoned and detailed. It surely is as mathematically accurate and detailed as your demonstration of why I am a liar.

I wrote:

""The hardest question here is one of ethics. The ethics of having decimated a whole race. Remember the Holocaust is also in the past, why is everyone obsessing about it today in the twentyfirst century. "

Do you deny that the Holocaust happened? Is that what you're getting at? Why is everyone obsessing about it in the 21s century? Well, Plato, maybe you've been living in a cave somewhere but in 2006 Iran threatened publicly to create another Holocaust and to wipe Israel off the map. They also spoke of a world without America (ie "let's also annihilate America"). And once again, I am not advocating decimating an entire race. Islam is not a race, in case you weren't aware of that fact. I am advocating the decimation of a psychotic death cult, a depraved belief system that brings genocide, slavery, and misery everywhere it is allowed to take root.""

I take shelter under the Muslim context cover. If you don't read it with the immediate next sentence it could look as though I am a Holocaust denier, but read with the next sentence it is just a counterpoint to the Indian situation and later to what could happen to the Muslims in the USA. Your rhetorical questions imply that I am Holocaust denier. And fit to be taken to court for sentencing (the last part is my conclusion)

I am with you there all the way but not by genocide and misery even of a death cult, for sure then you will become their mirror image. That is my worry which is stupid New Age psychobabble to you."Like I said, let the Sunnies and Shiites extinct one another for all I care. Just let them do it in their own backyard."Your wish is coming true in Iraq with some help from your government. You should be happy. Your action there has probably created more terrorists than ever existed and one of these days if somebody out of Iraq strikes in the US how many more boots are you going to have on the ground. You will say blame the fake hawk Bush and his pseudo-hawk advisers.

"If you want to whine about the poor Native Americans, go do it on a Native American site or debate. Our discussion has nothing to do with the subject of Native Americans, it is nothing more than an attempt at evasion and obfuscation which you repeatedly bring up and which is repeatedly shot down. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. I guess that tells us something, doesn't it?"The Native Americans are really getting under your skin. And because of what your recent forefathers did. So if we learn from history we or our descendants will not be condemned to repeat it. If you end up annihilating 500 million muslims (the worst case scenario in your detailed plan) a descendant of yours may have to squirm with discomfort when he has to field a similar question. Shoot me down again. But the Native Indian issue will rise again like the Phoenix.

In mathematics our instructors advised us to do some problems again and again and expect to get different results until we started getting the same result. It felt as though they were trying to drive us insane but it didn't. They clarified my thoughts, made my understanding of math that much clearer. I guess that taught me something. When you learn to ride a bicycle you keep falling off but you repeat it expecting a different result.

I wrote

I see that you're one of those strange people who believe that you can fight a war without collateral damage. Once again, you're not dealing with reality. Nor do we laugh away such issues. We try to minimize it."You have minimised it to the extent of 100 million out of about 600 million. Reality begins where delusion ends.

I wrote

"The right to life is not a right to destroy another's life. There is also the law of answering for one's actions. In other words, the right to life does not absolve one of the karma that comes from taking another's life. If you go out and murder a child, your "right to life" is forfeit. Same idea on a larger scale. Muslims share the inherent right to life, however they also share the karmic repercussions of starting a war against freedom and life itself. That is inescapable, and the "right to life" is subordinate to the law of karma."Yes the right to life is forefeit when you kill some one else, but I believe in the more humane European sense of the forefeiture. Your right to life as a free being is forefeit. The old saw about two wrongs not making a right. Now for the law of Karma:

The above is what I got from Wikipedia. You seem to have tweaked the concept to punish people in the present life itself than in the reincarnated one as in the original. I agree with you. I don't want to wait for the reincarnation of my oppressor to be punished by his being born as a weakling and me the school bully who slaps him around, and me and him not even aware we are just playing out our karma, nice thought though it is. If what is happening in the world is according to karmic principles why are you so worked up about Muslims running rampage. They are just working out their karma. So Islam and Muslims exist in spite of an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent God. With karma you are sailing close to Islamic fatalism. Everything is as Allah wishes and we are just the dramatis personae of the story Allah is playing out in his mind. Everything that is happening is just inevitable. It is our karmic destiny (or Allah's wish) to have this conversation.

Karma is a concept in Hinduism which explains causality through a system where beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions throughout a person's reincarnated lives. Karma in Hinduism explains the problem of evil that persists in spite of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God; it is thus related to theodicy.

"That is inescapable, and the "right to life" is subordinate to the law of karma."

No. It is just karma working inexorably towards you and me and the people who find themselves in Muslim bodies today meandering metempsychosically through time to merge with the eternal Brahman. Very ancient Pythagorean and Indian pschobabble. 'Tat twam asi'. Thou art That. And that THAT is really, really deep. Go figure, as dhimmi no more says.

Plato, this infinitisimal spark of Brahman, is ready to drop from fatigue. Om Shanti, Shanti.

: "Killing involves ending the right to life, the greatest freedom of all, even of someone who does not allow that right to another such as Muslims who kill for blasphemy and apostacy.":"Yes, Yes the US has been known to laugh away collateral damage. I can't argue with what is a national given" The hardest question here is one of ethics. The ethics of having decimated a whole race. Remember the Holocaust is also in the past, why is everyone obsessing about it today in the twentyfirst century. Why is the Indian case any different and does it not count as a holocaust? And the ethics of deporting millions of Muslims,the good and the ugly along with the bad Don't tell me. You don't care, their ethics are deplorable..

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".