The Left cares nothing about Muslim-on-Muslim killings …
… just as it cares nothing about black-on-black killings in the inner cities.
The only killing of a Muslim that concerns the Left is if a Jew does the killing, or a Western nation does the killing.
The only killing of a black person that concerns the Left is if a white person (or an Asian, defined as “white adjacent,” or a “white Hispanic”) does the killing.
There is a pattern here, which is that the Left pretends to care about Muslims who are killed or black people who are killed. But it does not. It cares about who it can blame.
In Yemen, a civil war has been ongoing for nine years:
According to the UN, over 150,000 people have been killed in Yemen, as well as estimates of more than 227,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine and lack of healthcare facilities due to the war.
But I haven’t heard a peep about it from our Left. Have you? In Syria, likewise, although that one’s been going on since 2011:
The war has resulted in an estimated 470,000 – 610,000 violent deaths, making it the second deadliest conflict of the 21st century …
Look at those numbers. Whether they’re exact or not, clearly the number of dead is high. We do hear about Syria now and then, but mostly because the US backs some of the parties, as do Russia, Turkey, and Iran. Both of these conflicts, as well as others, dwarf the Iraeli-Palestinian one in terms of deaths. But because Israel can be demonized in the latter conflict, it gets the attention and the Palestinians are the favorite victimized group of the left and academics (redundant, I know) and of the Muslim world.
NOTE: I wrote the above last night as a draft. Today I saw this post by Stephen Green on the very same topic:
While the Israeli-Hamas war garners all the attention … “No Jews” [trending on “X”] shows that, even with a brutal war raging, Gaza doesn’t even top the list of how bad Arabs have it…
…at the hands of their fellow Arabs. For much of the Islamic world, Israel serves as both a convenient distraction and a convenient excuse from just how badly most of the so-called “house of peace” (Dar al-Islam) runs its affairs.
For every leftie complaining about Israeli’s treatment of Gaza Palestinians, there is exactly zero taking public notice of how they’re being treated in Syria. …
If author and former Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters is correct, the violence would only grow worse if Hamas or Iran were to succeed in wiping Israel from the map. “The destruction of Israel,” he wrote in the afterword to “The War in 2020,” would be “less likely to trigger Islamic unity than to utterly dissolve it. Unable to direct their frustrations at the Zionist devil, the Islamic nations of the Eurasian landmass would quickly rediscover the holy and delectable mission of slaughtering each other over trivia.”
Excellent point.
Trump spotted the Iran vs. Saudi conflict and realized that to the Saudis and the Gulf States, Iran was much more threatening than Israel. The Saudis, even after 10/7 and the Israeli-Hamas war, are still saying that powers in the Arab world should accept the existence of Israel. Arabs are neither Turks nor Persians.
There is a pattern here, which is that the Left pretends to care about Muslims who are killed or black people who are killed. But it does not. It cares about who it can blame.
This pattern can be extended out to the rash of violent attacks committed against Asians in recent years as well. Since the overwhelming majority of those attacks were perpetrated by non-whites you tend not to hear too much about them from MSM sources other than vague allusions to an increase in violence against Asians without any sort of clarification or specificity. And at any rate, we’ve seen that Asians aren’t as generally favored as a victim group by the Left since they tend to be much more successful in meritorious Western societies than other minority groups. They’re often considered “white-adjacent” or some other such nonsense and therefore less useful to grievence based narrative construction.
It’s, unfortunately, simple. Idiotically simple.
There are many in the world playing a game with only one rule, “I win. You lose.”
We keep trying to shoehorn additional rules into their game; biology, history, ethics… It’s a fool’s errand because that is not the game they are playing.
They are not trying to reason towards an accurate conclusion.
They are not becoming educated to evolve towards understanding ultimate truths.
They simply want to win. And, of equal importance, others must lose. It’s a version of Somerset Maugham’s adage.
The opponent is anyone succeeding*. The Founding Fathers created the most successful system of government ever penned by man? Their memories must be erased and that system destroyed.
The Jewish people took a patch of desert land with no natural resources and turned it into the most productive and prosperous nation on Earth? They and their creation must be destroyed.
They will use any convenient tool at hand to get closer to their goal; gender, race, ethnicity, economics, the environment… But they care about the tool as much as we care about a hammer. It’s useful when there is a nail blocking one’s progress, but when it becomes a burden to carry it is easily abandoned.
*This is why they so quickly turn on one another; “eat their own.” They only belong to groups to the extent that a group helps them along their goal. (“I win. You lose.”) The group is of no importance beyond it’s usefulness in their selfish cause. And, when a more obvious, successful adversary is not in their path they promptly turn inward to attack whomever is near because it’s not a team game. It’s an individual pursuit.
Amazing the parallel with blacks. Mass murders every week and nary a peep. Hey, that rhymed!
Obviously, Richard Crook. A black person killed by a white police officer becomes a martyr, but the black people killed daily by other black people in places like Chicago are not useful to the narrative, so they don’t matter.
If there were no Isreal the Middle East would devolve in to Muslim sectarian warfare in a hurry. And you can bet the Palestinians would be one of the first groups to be wiped out.
Don’t leave out the Muslims versus the Christians. They’re not as vocal about Christians since Mohamed didn’t single them out in quite the way he did the Jews, but there’s plenty of hatred there. I remember the civil war in Lebanon in the 70s that cost half a million lives and drove out the Christians. Lebanon was supposed to be the Christian state, just like Israel was supposed to be the Jewish state.
There’s currently a war in eastern Nigeria of the Muslims against the Christians where they are burning down village churches, killing all the men, and enslaving the women and girls.
Let’s not forget the Arab Spring (2010?) that was supposed to bring western democracy to Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) was elected as the government and promptly began instituting Sharia law and persecuting the Coptic Christians by murdering them and burning down their churches which date back to the time of Jesus. The army overthrew them and kicked them out into Gaza. The army eventually had to dig up and close tunnels between Gaza and Egypt to keep them out (sound familiar?)
Changing religions, there is the ongoing 70 year low level war between India and Pakistan. When the British Empire gave India its independence in 1948, it broke into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan at the cost of a million lives. (There are also recent reports of mobs in Pakistan murdering Christians.)
Somehow all the violence between Islam and the rest of the world is of no consequence.
Paul in Boston:
Please see today’s post – and the video there – about the Islamic roots of Jew-hatred. In the video they discuss Muslim hatred of Christians as well.
Islam is neither peace nor love. It is about submission to the revelations given to their prophet, which cannot be changed or modified. Among those revelations were commands to subjugate or kill all non-Muslims. Pagans are treated very roughly (hence the brutality towards Hindus), Jews are hated and targeted for extinction, and Christians are tolerated only so far as they are properly submissive to their Muslim betters. It’s in the Qur’an and the hadith; these statements are not invented to make Muslims look bad; they are true.
We had Muslim friends and colleagues in Egypt and in Turkey. They were, by their own descriptions, “not fanatics.” This meant they did not hate or want to kill non-Muslims. This is probably the majority worldwide. Unfortunately the minority is sufficiently large to pose a danger to the entire world, including to non-fanatic Muslims.
This meant they did not hate or want to kill non-Muslims. This is probably the majority worldwide.
Kate:
I imagine so.
However, I would note that their lack of fanaticism doesn’t mean they will oppose their co-religionists’ fanaticism. Partly because I think “moderate” Muslims know that, like it or not, the fanatics are practicing true Islam.
I suspect most Muslims are to some degree anti-Semitic. Which shouldn’t be surprising given the genocidal bedrock anti-Semitism of Islam.
It’s problem.
Say what you will about Christianity’s violent, intolerant past, Christians have deeply reformed their religion.
Speaking of black-on-black killings, I recently learned that the Second Congo Civil War (1998-2003) killed an estimated 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and malnutrition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
It’s a complicated story and to some extent it was fallout from the Rwandan genocide.
Wiki terms it “the deadliest conflict since WW II.” I never noticed it.
As I said in the previous thread this is what Israel’s enemies like to do to each other when they don’t have a Jew to gas.
huxley, you’re probably right; plus, my non-fanatic friends didn’t particularly want to be killed for saying what they thought in the wrong places.
People talk about a “reformation” of Islam. The problem is that returning to the sources is what fanatic Islam means. In Christianity, “reformation” meant returning to the sources, and stripping away medieval accretions. Whatever one may think about that, violence is not found in the Christian sources, whereas it is foundational to Islam. Muslims began killing each other not too long after their prophet’s death.
that is a fundamental problem the ahmadiya or even the sufis (who can prove to fight when need be) the were the core of the Chechen resistance in the 19th century to Russia, and not a small part of the Iraqi senior staff, in the resistance are outliers
The Left cares about nothing but POWER!!
Neo,
I’m sure I’ve said it before, I just don’t think the Jews are the real reason, it’s the Suez canal and the Persian Gulf, conflict in Israel is just an easy excuse to go there.
neo correctly observes, “There is a pattern here, which is that the Left pretends to care about Muslims who are killed or black people who are killed. But it does not. It cares about who it can blame.”
“Who it can blame” as it relates to advancing the Left’s narrative/agenda. Falsely pretending to care is obviously deceitful. Those who support the left know that and justify it through rationalization. Which makes them complicit in the deceit.
People can protest all they want that their intentions are well meaning but when they ignore the results of the policies they support, they deepen their complicity. Knowingly condoning evil through willful blindness is akin to the bank robber driving the getaway car who when caught claims that they are not responsible for the murder of the bank teller by the other robbers.
Kate, huxley, Paul in Boston et alia,
In “America Alone” Mark Steyn laid out a lot of evidence that wherever an Islamic country buts up against a non-Islamic country there is trouble and whenever a native population hits around 15% Muslim trouble bubbles up and doesn’t stop until Muslims become a majority or a minority of lower than 15%, or so.
I don’t see how one practices Islam with any level of fidelity without voting for a theocracy as soon as it is viable. Along with Muhammed’s words, Muslims have years of Sh’ria Law that detail specific, immutable ways society must function. Where Muslims are a majority Sh’ria has to be the law of the land; otherwise they are not practicing Muslims. This is why police in Muslim dominated areas in France, England, Germany even parts of Michigan, allow Muslim neighborhoods to function fairly independently. It avoids a lot of friction because the Muslims don’t believe French, English, German, Michigan or U.S. law can be above Sh’ria.
Imagine if Congress had a majority of people who think like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. How long would it take before Sh’ria was the law of the land and the Supreme Court answered to an Ayatollah?
It is a non-negotiable precept of Islam.
Caroline Glick Show, “After Hamas Attacks, the Left Needs to Wake Up” (31:01): https://youtu.be/UxVTdRlyrhg?si=ez43t_-tBj9ZKFe5
Biden, Blicken, and Sullivan are enemies of Israel.
I don’t see how one practices Islam with any level of fidelity without voting for a theocracy as soon as it is viable.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Exactly.
I’m pretty unhappy with Muslims these days, but I know that mostly they are not bad people, but people with a bad belief system.
Be careful what you believe, because you will believe it.
Yeah Kate, obviously. I saw it up close living in Chicago. This is just tiresome. This has been going on for so long I’m surprised this is still a thing. The world’s greatest statesman had it right:
When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong—these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
Richard Cook:
That’s a great Churchill quote.
You mean BLM doesn’t care about the black-on-black murder rate? Oh no, surely not! There’s an old saying about hypocrites, “hypocrites are people who lie to themselves”. And of course, they believe these lies.
Neo –
I am a big fan of his. Unfortunately it’s so accurate for these times.