Sunday, November 15, 2015


A diary on dailykos has the bright idea "#CallThemDaesh". One of the reasons not to call ISIS ISIL or ISIS is because of the word "Islamic". " blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists".
Then, in the comments, when someone posts "we should bomb those animals", there is a conversation about how we should never forget that Daesh is made of human beings too.

My response (with minor corrections)

There is this thread down there in which they try to argue that we must never forget that Daesh is made up of humans.  But the whole “call them Daesh” movement is to make us forget that they are Islamic.  It is very hard to know what liberals want one to remember and what they want one to forget.

I’ll also note that Daily Kos liberals have no problem in calling the Indian RSS Hindu, instead of just using the name “RSS”.  They’re welcome to dislike the Indian Prime Minister Modi and his political party, the BJP; but would they show the same consideration in not terming them “Hindu” as they are trying to not term ISIS “Muslim” or “Islamic”?

For that matter, would they stop talking about the “Christian Right” in America? After all, they are not Christian, right, right?

Of course not, they’d never do so.  They’re Daily Kos Liberals, a mirror reflection of the brain-dead Tea Party.  Sunday morning we’re going to hear from Egberto Willies about whether liberals live in a bubble.  The answer is a resounding Yes!

Another diary on dailykos (no, I'm not going to link to it either) declares:
Tonight, we stand united with all of those who stand against terror, despite their country of origin. 
I responded:
Meaningless words:  "Tonight, we stand united with all of those who stand against terror, despite their country of origin."

1. Are you willing to send troops to those countries of origin to end the terror there?

2. Are you willing to put sanctions on your “allies” who sponsor the warring terrorist factions in the countries of origin?

3. What if ending terrorism means what ending Nazism did?  Ending Nazism meant abandoning the countries of Eastern Europe to Soviet domination for some fifty years.

4. Does “standing against terror” mean willingness to ally with those who are actually fighting ISIS on the ground — namely Assad’s Syrians, the Russians and the Iranians?

My guess is the answer is No to each of these questions.  That is why all this “we stand united” is pious claptrap.  I’m sure it makes you feel good.  I hope it is for only all of five minutes.

There’s a second reason this is pious humbug.  It is because in this blanket statement, you don’t know whom you stand with.

Let’s say the Grand Mufti of the Mecca Mosque has, very nicely and properly, condemned the attacks in Paris.  Surely he stands against terror and you can be united with him?

Right! This very same person is against women’s rights, even just to drive; would execute homosexuals; supports the 1000 lashes on the blogger Raif Badawi for writing against (the religion that should not be named, see the #CallThemDaesh thread).  He probably approved of the Saudi religious police pushing fleeing girls back into their burning dorm because they shouldn’t be seen unveiled, and where the girls perished.

Heck, this person supports the spread of Salafi (religion that should not be named, see the #CallThemDaesh post), which is one of the major contributory causes to terror and to the existence of refugees.

But “he’s against terror and we stand united against him”.  What utter BS!  Daily Kos liberals don’t even stand united with GOP members  — Americans -— who are against terror, so much for “despite their country of origin”.

One must despair at the extent of human stupidity.  On one side are conservatives who are impervious to facts, and on the other side are liberals, who are impervious to reason.