Jawa Report Notes Geert Wilders’ ‘Fascist Tendencies’

Religion • Views: 5,193

I see that Robert Spencer is spewing some more insults at me today. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

Meanwhile, there’s at least one “anti-jihad” blogger who isn’t being taken in by Geert Wilders’ call to strip Muslims of their right to freedom of religion: The Jawa Report: Cheers for Geert Wilders’ Bravery at Standing Against the Islamist Tide, Jeers for his Fascist Tendencies.

Kudos to Rusty Shackleford. He correctly points out that it’s “inconsistent” for Wilders to claim to be standing up for freedom of expression at the same time as he calls for banning books and taking away basic rights from people; but I’ll go further. It’s deeply hypocritical, and deeply un-American to call for these things. These are fascist opinions. And American citizens who applaud this kind of rabble-rousing populist garbage should be ashamed of themselves.

Jump to bottom

466 comments
1 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:17:42am

Good to see Rusty on our side. At least more than just us can see these Eurofascists for who and what they are.

Thank you, Rusty.

2 Only The Lurker Knows  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:19:26am

And Atlas Pamela shrugs

3 NYCHardhat  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:20:13am

Fascism is inconsistent? Who knew?
/

4 badger1970  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:20:33am

Reading the quotes, I was wondering which side of the issue Geert was. To think that a mere 70 or so years ago, Holland was under Nazi control and for him to spout off that nonsense is more than hypocritical.

I've never read the Koran nor want to.

5 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:20:35am

What are you going to do, Charles? Keep going, I hope. Spencer has a big "Support Geert Wilders" thing on his page. Says it all.

6 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:21:55am

I expect Rusty will be getting some hate mail later.

It's sad that there are Americans who can't see the problem with this. I worry that there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to why we have the liberties we have, and what infringing on one groups rights means- that everyone else's rights are then on the same quicksand.

7 vxbush  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:22:12am

Freedom is tough. Freedom is hard, because it means you have to put up with people voicing opinions and ideas that are antithetical to your own. As long as those words are not turned into actions, freedom requires that you allow those words, within the normal bounds of avoiding problems like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre.

8 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:22:56am

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
www.muslima.com > The internationa muslim matrimonial site.
Hijab in ad.

9 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:23:47am

re: #4 badger1970

Reading the quotes, I was wondering which side of the issue Geert was. To think that a mere 70 or so years ago, Holland was under Nazi control and for him to spout off that nonsense is more than hypocritical.

I've never read the Koran nor want to.

the Nazis actually had many supporters in Holland. For every five Dutch resistance fighters, there were 3 other men who joined the SS. There was an entire division of such men (the Nordland Division).

10 turn  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:24:11am

re: #8 Eowyn2

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
[Link:

11 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:24:44am

re: #8 Eowyn2

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
www.muslima.com > The internationa muslim matrimonial site.
Hijab in ad.

And? A hijab is not a problem in my eyes.

12 turn  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:24:45am

re: #10 turn

wtf?

Hey E, you can JOIN FOR FREE!

13 Arlemagne  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:25:59am

I kind of found it jarring to see you refer to Geert Wilder's opinion as "un-American." Geert not being American and all. But you're right nevertheless.

14 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:26:02am

re: #8 Eowyn2

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
[Link: www.muslima.com...] > The internationa muslim matrimonial site.
Hijab in ad.

Google ads are keyword-driven. They're triggered by the words in LGF posts.

15 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:26:56am

re: #13 Arlemagne

I kind of found it jarring to see you refer to Geert Wilder's opinion as "un-American." Geert not being American and all. But you're right nevertheless.

He is spouting this stuff in America, sponsored by Americans, and Americans are applauding him for it.

I do realize that Wilders is not an American, believe it or not.

16 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:27:34am

re: #10 turn


On the right hand sidebar.
LGF Premium Ad link
LGF Standard Ad link
Newt Gingrich free morning email ad
Muslimas for marriage ad
Amazon MP3 ad.

I will not link to it but it links to the [Link: www.muslima.com...] site.

17 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:27:37am

re: #8 Eowyn2

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
www.muslima.com > The internationa muslim matrimonial site.
Hijab in ad.

Saw it last night. See Charles's #14 for why, but when I saw it, I just chuckled and shook my head.

18 lawhawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:27:40am

Frankly, I'm not surprised by Rusty's take on this. Wilders' position on freedom of speech is antithetical to US doctrine, and supporting him through the Fitna kerfuffle was a contortionist exercise. Kudos to Rusty on this, and I wonder if those who have been attacking Charles are going to do the same to Rusty, who's been on the vanguard of going after the jihadis online.

19 tfc3rid  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:28:25am

I try and steer clear of this whole thing, as it is unseemly to me...

However, I do think that Wilders has been very, very brave in his speaking out publicly, I think that the idea of characterizing Islam as something other than a religion and more of a polical ideology and then banning the Koran is difficult to hear.

We in America have not banned Communism, even though it is a dangerous ideology and killed millions Worldwide. Nor have we banned it's texts.

Europe is a very different place than America and perhaps some of his ideas are rooted in more European understandings and ideas. However, I think any clear thinking American would steer clear of calling for a mass banning of something they disagree with, either on the left or the right.

20 turn  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:28:44am

re: #16 Eowyn2

I saw it, I typed something but it diskapeered on me.

21 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:29:36am

The fascist loving people will never be ashamed because they believe the are actively trying to preserve civilization. Really what they are doing is taking a sword to it.

22 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:29:59am

re: #13 Arlemagne

I kind of found it jarring to see you refer to Geert Wilder's opinion as "un-American." Geert not being American and all. But you're right nevertheless.

I think the problem is that some Americans think these are great ideas. I have even read Americans calling for banning islam here, and they hold up wilders as an example. And these are the sorts of people I meant in my #6- they fail to understand that a government that could take away the right to practice a religion from one group could just as easily take that right away from other groups- including them.

23 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:30:12am

Gotta run. BBL

24 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:30:34am

re: #21 FurryOldGuyJeans

The fascist loving people will never be ashamed because they believe the are actively trying to preserve civilization. Really what they are doing is taking a sword to it.

They are killing the hostage with the hijacker

25 [deleted]  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:30:59am
26 Miss Trixie  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:31:02am

OT

Can someone point out the correct syntax to use when searching for user comments? I've forgotten.

Thanks.

27 turn  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:31:08am

bbl, this is shaping up to be a good day for turn.

28 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:31:23am

re: #6 Sharmuta

I expect Rusty will be getting some hate mail later.

It's sad that there are Americans who can't see the problem with this. I worry that there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to why we have the liberties we have, and what infringing on one groups rights means- that everyone else's rights are then on the same quicksand.

I also fully expect Rusty to get oodles of hate mail today. I would also expect Atlas Shrieks to post a screed against him, and the counterfeit site to speculate on all sorts of insidious allegations against Rusty. This is the price we must pay for standing up for what we believe in. I would rather stand up for what I believe in and get defamed by those who stand for that in which I cannot stand for than to just bend to their will to avoid it.

29 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:32:50am

re: #24 ConservatismNow!

They are killing the hostage with the hijacker

They are making no distinction between the two because in their view why would anyone not instantly rise up and resist a hijacker?

30 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:33:20am

"user:Miss Trixie"

The quotes around the phrase are necessary if the name contains spaces.

31 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:33:26am

Rusty: Hang in there against the flack. Sometimes being honest and being right isn't easy.

We were outraged when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, We were outraged when Nick Griffen spoke in Michigan, and we should be outraged that Geert spouted such trash yesterday in FL.

32 simonml  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:34:06am

re: #8 Eowyn2

OT I just noticed:

Google ad on right side
[Link: www.muslima.com...] > The internationa muslim matrimonial site.
Hijab in ad.

Only pale skinned Muslim women on their front page. A little bit racist?

Granted they do have a partner site called afrointroductions.com

Actually, now that I look at their sites, they're all single race sites for the most part. Don't want any mixing, b/c that'd just be wrong.

33 Miss Trixie  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:34:37am

Thanks, Charles. *mwah*

34 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:34:39am

re: #26 Miss Trixie

OT

Can someone point out the correct syntax to use when searching for user comments? I've forgotten.

Thanks.

user:name

Gonna search for dirt on me, eh? ;)

35 wrenchwench  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:34:41am

re: #28 Honorary Yooper

I would rather stand up for what I believe in and get defamed by those who stand for that in which I cannot stand for than to just bend to their will to avoid it.

Rewrite!

36 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:35:13am

re: #18 lawhawk

If you read the comments on the Jawa Report, the gouls are already attacking Rusty for his stance.

37 Miss Trixie  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:35:41am

re: #34 FurryOldGuyJeans

user:name

Gonna search for dirt on me, eh? ;)

*giggle* :P

38 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:35:45am

What is Islam but a neo-fascist cult? I should know.

39 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:36:04am

re: #36 Honorary Yooper

If you read the comments on the Jawa Report, the gouls are already attacking Rusty for his stance.

A badge of honor, assuredly.

40 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:36:40am

Maybe we should start being on alert for people of Dutch descent. It would make as much sense as condemning all Muslims for the actions of a few.

One of the people killed was a dear old internet friend and mentor, Ben Teague. See my posts on the last two threads.

41 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:37:00am

Ever feel like this guy ?

42 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:37:40am

Geert Wilders showed his true colours when he addressed the Jerusalem conference and called for thinly-veiled action to be taken against Muslim-owned businesses and Mosques:

But what we have to fear most is the creeping Islamisation, the stealth jihad. Because every Islamic neighbourhood, every Islamic shop, every mosque, every Islamic school, every burqa, every veil is regarded by many Muslims as building blocks towards a larger goal, towards domination.
This is in fact the essence of the problem. Not crime, not even the financial burden. The biggest problem is the demographic development, and the way it influences our society at large. Immigration from Muslim countries and the demographics will result in the Eurabia that the brave Bat Ye’or is warning about. It will become reality if we don’t act now.

43 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:37:55am

re: #38 Fuad Al'Razi

What is Islam but a neo-fascist cult? I should know.

Anachronize much?

44 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:37:56am

Could it be that the calmer voices are starting to reassert control. Perhaps this spasm of outlandish (and very anti-American) rhetoric is starting to die down--like a two-year old on the down-side of a tantrum.

Here's hoping.

45 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:38:03am

Islamic theology and doctrine reduce the individual to worthlessness. Any dissenting opinion is crushed through the power of the theocrats running the government/religious state. It cannot be negotiated with. It is more dangerous than European "isms".

46 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:38:10am

re: #18 lawhawk

They attacked the ADL, calling them "Jew Haters", for criticising 'St Geert' so it's a pretty safe bet Jawa will be getting the same sort of treatment from these idiots.

47 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:39:05am

Here we go again.

48 2by2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:40:02am

re: #16 Eowyn2

On the right hand sidebar.
LGF Premium Ad link
LGF Standard Ad link
Newt Gingrich free morning email ad
Muslimas for marriage ad
Amazon MP3 ad.

I will not link to it but it links to the [Link: www.muslima.com...] site.

I have one for Cabot cheese on the right (no kidding) text starts with "Hey New Yorkers", makes you wonder how Google pulls it of to know the location of the viewer, or maybe it's the server of LGF? Who knows, scary those "sophisticated adds"

49 simonml  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:40:34am

re: #41 SasquatchOnSteroids

Ever feel like this guy ?

For years I thought that guy got run over by that tank. I couldn't help but admire his devotion to the cause. Then I realized they never hit him. Any idea how many years he survived the "re-education camps"?

50 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:40:44am

I like the point Rusty makes about Saudi Arabia, and how wilders is basically seeking the same sort of religious fascism for europe that they have in the kingdom.

As has been consistently pointed out here- you can't fight one form of fascism with a different form of fascism. Nice to have another blogger point that out besides LGF.

51 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:40:53am

re: #20 turn

I have nothing against the web site being advertised (although seeing married men looking for more wives is a bit bizarre) but the ad on this site. Its just not good advertising dollars.

Its like seeing a USMC recruitment ad on the Berekely web page.

52 Russkilitlover  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:41:26am

Someone should tell Geert that his advocacy for banning Islam and removing Muslims from countries means that the terrorists won. If people go the way of banning and removing, then the terrorists DID destroy the most fundamental American values.

53 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:41:45am

re: #44 calcajun

Could it be that the calmer voices are starting to reassert control. Perhaps this spasm of outlandish (and very anti-American) rhetoric is starting to die down--like a two-year old on the down-side of a tantrum.

Here's hoping.

I actually see it intensifying. We seem to be heading towards a pogrom of violence of epic proportions, and the fascist loving folks are actively preparing to make it happen.

54 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:41:45am

re: #43 Cato the Elder

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

55 turn  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:42:09am

re: #47 Charles

Here we go again.

Hey Charles, I was trying to use the tip you gave trixie to read some of his other comments. What is the syntax to get all dates for a search? Plus many moons ago you posted a link to a site that explained all the search syntax, could you repost that link please? thanks

56 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:42:18am

re: #47 Charles

Here we go again.

Sorry about that, I woke up a bit gassy this morning. ;)

57 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:42:47am

I would like to announce to my fellow Lizards that I have started a cult, with myself as leader. I am a strong supporter of everyone's inalienable right to join my cult. There is no application fee!

58 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:43:02am

re: #56 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sorry about that, I woke up a bit gassy this morning. ;)

Quit having pizza and beer before bed time!

59 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:43:02am

re: #50 Sharmuta

I could put it into a simple mathematical formula for people to see:

Fascism + Fascism = Fascism
Fascism + Fascism /= Freedom

Any questions?

60 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:43:14am

re: #40 Cato the Elder

I think we should be on the lookout for people of Muslim descent because a lot of terrorists are Muslim. That way we can...uh...pick out the Muslims in a crowd...wait. Okay I got it. I think we should be on the lookout for people of Arab descent because a lot of terrorists are Arab. That way we can pick out the people who look like Arabs...like the Israelis...and...Coptic Egyptians...wait. Okay I got it. We should be on the lookout for people of Asian descent because the largest Muslim country is Indonesia. That way we can pick out all the people who look like Asian muslims...like...oh hell forget it. This thing isn't going to work.

///

61 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:43:37am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

Tell that to the Kosovars.

62 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:43:50am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

However, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Muslims are Jihadis.

63 simonml  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:25am

re: #49 simonml

For years I thought that guy got run over by that tank. I couldn't help but admire his devotion to the cause. Then I realized they never hit him. Any idea how many years he survived the "re-education camps"?

Oh. Apparently he was taken away by police and executed two weeks later. There's no proof of his life or death after the incident, so I think it is assumed he was executed.

64 ROPMA  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:37am

What to do?...What to do?...

Muslims push for sharia law and repression of "islamophobia"

Anyone who advocates pushing back in an effective manner gets labeled a fascist.

What to do?...What to do?...

65 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:41am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

That's what Ayman Al Zawahiri and the Serbian lobby says, why are you pimping their agitprop for them?

66 subsailor68  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:44am

Morning all! This report from Fox news isn't really all that OT, as it's a freedom of speech as related to religion topic:

Al Qaeda's 'Vanity Fair' Targets Americans for Jihad Training

Sometimes defending freedom of speech and religion is very, very hard - but something that must be done...even in cases like this:

The writing may be a bit flamboyant, and while it boasts that “The U.S. grows weaker every day,” there is no explicit call for violence against the country or against Americans.

The "no explicit call" caveat does concern me a little, however.

67 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:44:47am

re: #58 JohnnyReb

Quit having pizza and beer before bed time!

I don't drink beer, and I didn't have pizza last night (I saved it for breakfast). The 3 bean burritos I had as a snack last night might be the culprit though. ;)

68 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:45:02am

re: #53 FurryOldGuyJeans

It will peak--it usually does. That level of intensity is not sustainable and sooner or later most of the reasonably intelligent ones will realize they are being manipulated. The fringe will stay on the fringe. I hope.

69 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:45:09am

re: #64 ROPMA

Oh, FFS. How about defend the Constitution?

70 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:45:37am

re: #32 simonml

nothing appartheid on the male section
all races and creeds from the look at it. All seem to be looking for a woman who 'knows her responsibilities'

71 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:45:41am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

I suppose Irshad Manji, for example, is just a figment of our imagination then? I suppose the beer-drinking, pork eating muslim people I know don't exist either?

72 Kenneth  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:22am

Best laugh all week right here:

ZoBama's "Under My Bus"

Youtube Video
73 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:33am

re: #64 ROPMA

Bullshit, You need to stop lying.

74 so.cal.swede  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:34am

I'd just like to pop in and say: way to go charles.

At first, Geert Wilders looked like a brave, strong, outspoken critic against Islamism, but he finally jumped the Glenn Beck Shark once he started talking about his "Final Solution to the muslim problem".

75 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:53am

Seems to agree with what I thought yesterday.

Agree with most, aside from the banning business.

76 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:55am

re: #56 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sorry about that, I woke up a bit gassy this morning. ;)

The wonderment of carnitas.

77 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:47:17am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper

Yet the pre-eminent theme in Islamic theology is conquest. All non-believers are subject to three main consequences: convert, dhimmi, or death. Is this an loving and furry ideology. I have certainly left it for good, threw it in the trash, put the bags outside, and saw the trash truck take it away.

78 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:47:25am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper

However, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Muslims are Jihadis.

Conversely not all Nazis were German either.

The Europeans have tried since 1945 to stop the rise of anything related to the nazi party and have IMO pretty much failed. They banned all symbols remotely associated with the party. They have made it a crime to even do a "hitler" salute. They even took a guy to court and forcibly removed and retrained his dog that did that salute. I honestly do not see what else they can do at this point.

79 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:47:49am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper

However, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Muslims are Jihadis.

And not all lizards are lizards.

80 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:48:34am

It is my belief that radical islam's two greatest threats are democracy and feminism. Banning books and undermining freedom of conscience are not the solutions to anything.

81 Mithrax  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:48:35am

re: #79 debutaunt

And not all lizards are lizards.

Some of us are nuts!

82 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:48:39am

re: #62 Honorary Yooper

However, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Muslims are Jihadis.

All religions are inherently radical in that they purport to have exclusive knowledge regarding things like what happens when you die. Although Christianity has gone through a reformation, there are still radical Christian cults, though they are a very small minority. Islam can have a similar reformation, which would involve dealing with texts that are incompatible with modern thought. So I agree with Wilders on the danger of radical Islam, but 'banning Islam' is not a viable or desireable solution.

83 charles_martel  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:48:42am

OT: an American company -- in San Francisco, or course -- is openly supporting jihad and the destruction of this country by publishing and al qeada publication. See for yourself:

Scribd Document

I hope we can all pressure them to take down this repugnant content.

84 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:48:47am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

You are not old fashioned, you just love to spout fascism and fascist talking points. You parrot the agitprop of the folks Charles writes about.

Go join some other blog, you will be infinitely more comfortable spewing your hatred there.

85 Only The Lurker Knows  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:04am

re: #64 ROPMA

Please define in an effective way.

86 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:04am

re: #71 Jimmah

Islamic theology brands her as an apostate, she is NOT a Muslim. She is a non-believer with a Muslim name.

87 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:13am

re: #79 debutaunt

And not all lizards are lizards.

Some lizards are reptiles. Some lizards are amphibians. But all lizards love the taste of seared gamey buttocks.

88 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:15am

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

89 Baier  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:16am

re: #74 so.cal.swede

I'd just like to pop in and say: way to go charles.

At first, Geert Wilders looked like a brave, strong, outspoken critic against Islamism, but he finally jumped the Glenn Beck Shark once he started talking about his "Final Solution to the muslim problem".

I'm disappointed too. Sometimes I get the wrong end of things, apologize, and correct myself, let's hope that's all it is. I doubt it however.

90 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:18am

re: #49 simonml

For years I thought that guy got run over by that tank. I couldn't help but admire his devotion to the cause. Then I realized they never hit him. Any idea how many years he survived the "re-education camps"?

Not sure, doubtful he even made it out alive.

One man with courage is a majority.

~Thomas Jefferson

91 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:30am

re: #88 Ben Hur

nope

92 gman  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:49:48am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

You're comparing a member of a political party (or admirer thereof) with a member of a religious group. I know plenty of people who could be considered "moderate" christians as opposed to fundamentalists.

93 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:06am

re: #91 ConservatismNow!

nope

That's what I thought.

94 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:14am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

No.

95 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:34am

re: #94 Charles

No.

Thanks.

Wasn't sure.

96 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:48am

re: #64 ROPMA

Sharia ≠ Freedom of Religion.

97 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:00am

re: #84 FurryOldGuyJeans

Where do you think I live? Do you think I support Fascist ideology?

98 tfc3rid  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:24am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

Exactly my point above...

Nor are texts like The Communist Manifesto... For God's sake I had to read it for class in a Catholic College.

99 Baier  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:43am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

I read a book on communism when I was 17 and decided I was one for a few months. I'm not looking forward to my daughters teenage years...payback is a bitch.

100 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:43am

re: #80 Sharmuta

It is my belief that radical islam's two greatest threats are democracy and feminism. Banning books and undermining freedom of conscience are not the solutions to anything.

Caroline Glick doesn't agree about democracy; it seems, in the Muslim world, the radicals win in democratic elections.

This explanation is really nothing more than an observation. It observes that the populations of Islamic countries and societies support Islamist parties like the AKP and Hizbullah and Hamas because they support what they stand for. This explanation notes that tens and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Turks, Egyptians and others voluntarily congregate in public venues and swoon when Islamist leaders tell them that Islam will defeat the West and promise the death of America and the death of Israel.

The jihadist message resonates with them. Their hearts and minds have already been won over. Contrary to what Western leaders as distinct as Bush and Obama believe, the hearts and minds of the Islamic world are not presently in play. From Beirut to the Taliban-controlled Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan, jihadists enjoy public support because the public supports their aim of defeating the West with bullets, with bombs, and with ballots.

101 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:46am

re: #64 ROPMA

What to do?...What to do?...

Muslims push for sharia law and repression of "islamophobia"

Anyone who advocates pushing back in an effective manner gets labeled a fascist.

What to do?...What to do?...

Accept the label and refuse to let anyone get their mitts on the Constitution. You are damned either way by the America haters of all stripes.

Yes, anyone who advocates for laws banning a particular religion or religion's holy books ultimately hates America because we were fundamentally constituted to resist such lunacy.

102 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:52:04am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

NO.

Celebrate May Day!

103 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:52:20am

re: #98 tfc3rid

Exactly my point above...

Nor are texts like The Communist Manifesto... For God's sake I had to read it for class in a Catholic College.

And my 7th grade teacher should be jailed for making Silent Spring by Rachel Carson required reading!

104 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:52:33am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

No, and no. Still didn't stop a lot of people from trying.

105 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:52:57am

Thanks for the discussion. I'll be back later, got to drop off my Fascist car at the repair shop.

106 Kenneth  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:00am

re: #86 Fuad Al'Razi

Irshad Manji considers herself a faithful Muslim. No matter what the fundamentalists think of her.

107 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:20am

re: #104 FurryOldGuyJeans

No, and no. Still didn't stop a lot of people from trying.

I was pretty sure it wasn't now, though I thought that it was during the "height" of the Cold War.

Maybe I'm confusing that with the attempts to.

108 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:30am

re: #97 Fuad Al'Razi

You spout such crap and yeah I do believe you are a support of fascism.

109 tfc3rid  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:33am

re: #104 FurryOldGuyJeans

No, and no. Still didn't stop a lot of people from trying.

People could try all they want I would imagine that SCOTUS would find it unConstitutional...

110 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:51am

re: #77 Fuad Al'Razi

Yet the pre-eminent theme in Islamic theology is conquest. All non-believers are subject to three main consequences: convert, dhimmi, or death. Is this an loving and furry ideology. I have certainly left it for good, threw it in the trash, put the bags outside, and saw the trash truck take it away.

I agree that those themes are very prominent parts of Islam, but denying the possibility for muslims to reject all that while still calling themselves muslim is going to be very counterproductive in terms of fighting jihadism. One thing that seems to unite about believers of all faiths is that they can learn to ignore the parts of their scriptures that they aren't comfortable with.

111 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:52am

Banning free-speech in America?

There's an app for that.

112 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:53:53am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

Islam itself, if truly followed, does not allow for moderation. It is a religion of starkness. That being said, Christian religions, for many years, fought with each other just as the Sunni/Shi'te/Wahabi do now.

Nowadays, the most radical thing you'll hear about is someone telling someone else "you're going to go to hell if you dont convert. (we are not going to delve into the minds of psychopaths who happen to have been baptized this religion or that on the say of their parents.)

There will always be psychopaths from each type of religion. But most religions to not propegate full and total murder of those who disagree.

113 so.cal.swede  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:01am

I like how these threads always have a very high Godwin's Coefficient.

114 subsailor68  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:08am

re: #103 JohnnyReb

And my 7th grade teacher should be jailed for making Silent Spring by Rachel Carson required reading!

I'm not sure about Silent Spring. Now, if you're proposing a stiff sentence for assigning Silas Marner......

;-)

115 VegasRick  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:17am

re: #105 Fuad Al'Razi

Thanks for the discussion. I'll be back later, got to drop off my Fascist car at the repair shop.

You drive a Yugo?

116 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:26am

re: #109 tfc3rid

People could try all they want I would imagine that SCOTUS would find it unConstitutional...

That pesky 1st amendment gets in the way of a whole range of things people want to see banned don't it?

117 hans ze beeman  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:31am

Klingon woman
Pamela Geller

118 so.cal.swede  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:38am

re: #111 Ben Hur

Banning free-speech in America?

There's an app for that.

i can go back to work with a smile now.

119 Arlemagne  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:54:53am

re: #15 Charles

Charles,

I know you realize that. It just struck me as odd, that's all.

120 subsailor68  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:09am

re: #116 JohnnyReb

That pesky 1st amendment gets in the way of a whole range of things people want to see banned don't it?

Thank heavens!

121 experiencedtraveller  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:10am

I just left Holland. The most dangerous thing I saw was cute chicks on bikes TEXTING. Seriously, I almost got hit (her fault!)

And my condolences to the Dutch people for the wicked fool who crashed into the parade. Hanging out with Dutch people on the Queen's Birthday is one of the world's best party days. Sad day this year...

I think Wilders needs to tone it down. Banning books ain't gonna fly in the US. Never.

122 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:38am

I can't think of one single presidential election ballot that didn't have the communist party candidate for a choice. Don't ever remember the names, but they've always been on the ballot.

123 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:42am

re: #113 so.cal.swede

I like how these threads always have a very high Godwin's Coefficient.

However, Godwin's Law does not apply if one is actually talking about fascists and Nazis.

124 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:50am

re: #86 Fuad Al'Razi

Still doesn't change one whit what SHE believes.

125 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:55:53am

re: #86 Fuad Al'Razi

Islamic theology brands her as an apostate, she is NOT a Muslim. She is a non-believer with a Muslim name.

Why make it up to the fundamentalists to decide who is Muslim? Do we apply a similar rule to Christianity? Are there any Christians here who are waiting to be approved as Christians by the Phelps family?

126 MikeAlv77  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:56:18am

I think that it will be a challenege to get a reformation of Islam. They believe that the koran is the "actual" word of god that cannot be translated. I am not saying it is impossible but a fundemantal change will be needed. The basic premise of christianity is still love. With Islam I am not so sure. Not being fascist or anything. Just saying it will be a long, hard bloody road

127 so.cal.swede  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:56:29am

re: #123 Honorary Yooper

However, Godwin's Law does not apply if one is actually talking about fascists and Nazis.

mmm. straw man?

128 Ojoe  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:56:30am

There are already laws against blowing people up, or inciting others to blow people up.

Enough to enforce these.

129 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:56:55am

The main problem fostering radical Islam is indoctrination by religious leaders and educating children solely or primarily through memorization of the Koran. The reformation was brought about by having a large portion of the populace educated in science and philosophy which allowed people of faith to recognize inconsistencies in their own religious texts. However, there seems to be little promise of broadening education in radicalized areas.

130 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:26am

re: #100 Kosh's Shadow

I think the foundation is still too weak for most islamic countries to understand democracy, but this can be fostered as it was in Iraq. As for Pakistan- the Pakistanis are slowly turning against the Taliban.

131 Only The Lurker Knows  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:48am

re: #125 Jimmah

Why make it up to the fundamentalists to decide who is Muslim? Do we apply a similar rule to Christianity? Are there any Christians here who are waiting to be approved as Christians by the Phelps family?

*shudder*

And I am not even a Christian.

132 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:49am

re: #109 tfc3rid

People could try all they want I would imagine that SCOTUS would find it unConstitutional...

I am beginning to have less faith in that branch of government rejecting such thinking when we have justices actively using international law instead of the Constitution to make rulings.

And whoever O appoints as Souter's replacement makes such muddle-headedness even more likely to happen.

133 MikeAlv77  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:53am

re: #110 Jimmah

I agree that those themes are very prominent parts of Islam, but denying the possibility for muslims to reject all that while still calling themselves muslim is going to be very counterproductive in terms of fighting jihadism. One thing that seems to unite about believers of all faiths is that they can learn to ignore the parts of their scriptures that they aren't comfortable with.

But then they can't be followers of that religion. If I just "remove" the parts I don;t like and keep the parts I do like, then its not "islam" or "chrisitanity" or any other religion. I am making something else

134 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:55am

re: #125 Jimmah

Why make it up to the fundamentalists to decide who is Muslim? Do we apply a similar rule to Christianity? Are there any Christians here who are waiting to be approved as Christians by the Phelps family?

I think he may be differentiating between Muslims that live in the West and Muslims living in Arabia, fully immersed in Islamic culture, religion, politics, etc.

In that situation, it doesn't matter what you think about or call yourself, it's what the Islamic authorities think you are.

Or maybe not.

135 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:57:58am

re: #127 so.cal.swede

mmm. straw man?

No. The topic is about Rusty noting Wilders's fascist tendencies. Hence, we are talking about fascists, and Godwin's Law does not apply since we are not calling each other Nazis or fascists as an argument.

136 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:58:00am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

No, but we mocked the hell out of them.

137 Athos  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:06am

re: #50 Sharmuta

I like the point Rusty makes about Saudi Arabia, and how wilders is basically seeking the same sort of religious fascism for europe that they have in the kingdom.

As has been consistently pointed out here- you can't fight one form of fascism with a different form of fascism. Nice to have another blogger point that out besides LGF.

The sad part is that we're celebrating another pointing out what should be obvious to all.

138 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:15am

re: #134 Ben Hur

I think he may be differentiating between Muslims that live in the West and Muslims living in Arabia, fully immersed in Islamic culture, religion, politics, etc.

In that situation, it doesn't matter what you think about or call yourself, it's what the Islamic authorities think you are.

Or maybe not.


Or maybe that's not what he's saying, I meant.

139 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:15am

re: #136 debutaunt

No, but we mocked the hell out of them.

Mockery is one of the best weapons in our arsenal.

140 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:22am

re: #88 Ben Hur

Was/Is the Communist Party banned in the US?

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

141 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:23am

re: #131 Bubblehead II

*shudder*

And I am not even a Christian.

If Phelps is the determinant of what it means to be a believer then I want to be a neo-pagan Islamic Hindu Atheist.

142 gmsc  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:59:29am

I'll worry more about Geert Wilder's "Fascist Tendencies" after we're done dealing with 0bama, the Dem Congress, and their bridge loans to nowhere.

143 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:00:06am

re: #139 Honorary Yooper

Mockery is one of the best weapons in our arsenal.

Along with Daisy Cutters and Flame Throwers.

144 Thom  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:00:31am

83 charles_martel

That's called "freedom of speech" you Nazi asshole.

/

145 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:00:45am

re: #140 MandyManners

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

Burn the witch!

146 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:01:13am

"There's no such thing as a moderate muslim" is a talking point spun out by the serbian lobby back in the 90's to undermine the then potential independence (and now real,) of Kosovo. The Jatras' and others expouse this point. Robert Spencer Expouses this point, and Serge Trifkovic does as well. If you search back at where their articles appear, who funds them and who publishes their books you see a pattern.

This goes along with the other insidious agitprop like "kosovo's are harvesting Serbian Soldier's organs" etc.

It's a fascist talking point basically designed to eliminate all possibility of reform and to lump hundreds of millions of moderate muslims in with terrorists. It's flatly wrong. There are Muslims killing actual terrorists for us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They are truly anti terror and anti jihad while the Euro populists who like to wear the label are really just scenery chewers looking for votes. Don't be suckered.

147 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:01:53am

re: #133 MikeAlv77

But then they can't be followers of that religion. If I just "remove" the parts I don;t like and keep the parts I do like, then its not "islam" or "chrisitanity" or any other religion. I am making something else

Then there sure as heck are a lot of Christians that are Christians.

And I mean A LOT. Like- almost all of them.

Fact is- we all fall short in the eyes of God.

148 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:02:09am

I've got an idea! Let's kill everyone on the planet. Then, this tricky matter can be easily resolved in the afterlife (or not).

149 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:02:10am

re: #139 Honorary Yooper

Mockery is one of the best weapons in our arsenal.

And it is being blunted by "Hate crime" legislation.

150 VegasRick  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:02:51am

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Great news!
/

151 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:02:52am

re: #129 Gordon Marock

The main problem fostering radical Islam is indoctrination by religious leaders and educating children solely or primarily through memorization of the Koran. The reformation was brought about by having a large portion of the populace educated in science and philosophy which allowed people of faith to recognize inconsistencies in their own religious texts. However, there seems to be little promise of broadening education in radicalized areas.

re: #130 Sharmuta

The post I quoted above explains why. As long as the radical Muslims control the education and press, they'll get all the support. Unfortunately, putting them in power just consolidates that power. Bush also had it wrong, putting elections first.

But this does make it harder for them to develop advanced weapons. If we'd just stop selling them the weapons, they'd be reduced to attacking us with swords and camels.

152 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:02:55am

re: #140 MandyManners

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

Go piss up an iron curtain.

153 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:07am

re: #146 Thanos

"There's no such thing as a moderate muslim" is a talking point spun out by the serbian lobby back in the 90's to undermine the then potential independence (and now real,) of Kosovo. The Jatras' and others expouse this point. Robert Spencer Expouses this point, and Serge Trifkovic does as well. If you search back at where their articles appear, who funds them and who publishes their books you see a pattern.

This goes along with the other insidious agitprop like "kosovo's are harvesting Serbian Soldier's organs" etc.

It's a fascist talking point basically designed to eliminate all possibility of reform and to lump hundreds of millions of moderate muslims in with terrorists. It's flatly wrong. There are Muslims killing actual terrorists for us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They are truly anti terror and anti jihad while the Euro populists who like to wear the label are really just scenery chewers looking for votes. Don't be suckered.

I'm pretty sure other groups in the ME were discussing that point before the 90s.

NOt to take away from what you wrote, of course.

154 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:08am

re: #142 gmsc

I'll worry more about Geert Wilder's "Fascist Tendencies" after we're done dealing with 0bama, the Dem Congress, and their bridge loans to nowhere.

Let Nowhere Man take the ferry!

155 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:16am

re: #145 Ben Hur

Burn the witch!

Watch out she swings a mean broom!

*Dives under the table with BH*

156 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:21am

re: #145 Ben Hur

Burn the witch!

hahahahahahahhaaha

157 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:23am

re: #140 MandyManners

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

I have to say I didn't.
But I did vote for Jimmy Carter.
BIG mistake.

158 capitalist piglet  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:33am

re: #140 MandyManners

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

What happened to change your politics, Mandy?

159 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:33am

re: #142 gmsc

I'll worry more about Geert Wilder's "Fascist Tendencies" after we're done dealing with 0bama, the Dem Congress, and their bridge loans to nowhere.

Can't we be concerned about many things at once?

160 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:03:56am

re: #145 Ben Hur

Burn the witch!

I'm glad I invested in asbestos undies.

161 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:03am

re: #147 Sharmuta

Then there sure as heck are a lot of Christians that are Christians.

And I mean A LOT. Like- almost all of them.

Fact is- we all fall short in the eyes of God.

I'm 6'5".

162 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:23am

re: #152 debutaunt

Go piss up an iron curtain.

Won't that make it rust?

163 horatiolust  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:24am

Charles--

For purposes of clarity - define "fascism". If by "fascism" you mean "authoritarian" or "nationalistic" or "right-wing", then please tell us how the "right wing" differs from the "left-wing" with regard to positions the "left" doesn't approve of, and steps the "left" would take through legislation banning those actions.

If you mean "Nazi-like", please tell us how this differs from "Communist-like".

Now if in this whole discussion and use of language, you mean to suggest you're opposed to any authoritarianism of any kind, fair enough. If you are also suggesting the no particular concept of civilization (i.e. Western) are better than any others (i.e. Islamic/Koranic), that would be nice to know as well.

It is interesting that in Wikipedia's introduction to the term "fascism" is this statement: "No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists often disagree on what a concise definition would consist of."

Clarity, is, as Dennis Prager suggests, more preferable to agreement.

164 JohnnyReb  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:33am

re: #126 MikeAlv77

I think that it will be a challenege to get a reformation of Islam. They believe that the koran is the "actual" word of god that cannot be translated. I am not saying it is impossible but a fundemantal change will be needed. The basic premise of christianity is still love. With Islam I am not so sure. Not being fascist or anything. Just saying it will be a long, hard bloody road

That brings up a thought I had recently. It may be stupid but here goes.
1. The Koran is the literal "word of God" and it may not be changed in any way.
2. It was written in archaic Arabic. That language has not been used for 200+ years.
3. The Koran is now written in modern standard Arabic.

So, how the heck do they know if they didn't make any "typos" or mistranslations over the years of language changes? And if so, is it now really the unchangeable word of god?

165 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:36am

Within the context of Europe, if Islam were indeed a "totalitarian ideology" (determined however they so-label other ideologies), would such a statement by Wilders be consistent?

I certainly agree that free political expression is superior to banning parties, etc, but if that were never going to happen in Europe(ie: nazi party remains banned forever, etc), shouldn't their system be consistent? Meaning if they ban one totalitarian ideology, then shouldn't they ban all of them?

Clearly a real 1st Amendment is better, though in the context of 20th century history I suppose you can see why they were so worried—the typically unspoken reality that is that much of Europe supported the Nazis one way or another, so after the war, they thought it best to ban them altogether. I think that allowing them to gather openly is better, because it puts them in the open for everyone to see, which IMO would end up marginalizing them more, not less than forcing them into the shadows to some degree.

Not only should Europe make a proper "1st Amendment," they should make sure the process to repeal any such amendment is virtually impossible (in case a future fundamentalist majority wishes to start putting religious laws into effect).

Fascism (not the common misuse today, but the real thing) was really supposed to be secular—replacing god with State, basically. I suppose strictly speaking banning one religion is a start towards banning all of them. From a government standpoint, banning any government involvement with religion would certainly be a good thing, as opposed to banning the practice of religion (which would just drive it underground, anyway).

166 yma o hyd  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:37am

re: #128 Ojoe

There are already laws against blowing people up, or inciting others to blow people up.

Enough to enforce these.

Exactly.
Use the law - enforce it, not with multi-culti ifs and perhapses, but as it is.

Thing is, thats a bit more diffcult and less 'glamorous' than demanding to ban this that and the next, to throw innocent people out and generally borrow concepts from the cookbooks of the inhuman totalitarians.

And thats why we get a Wilders ...

167 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:04:49am

re: #157 Kosh's Shadow

I have to say I didn't.
But I did vote for Jimmy Carter.
BIG mistake.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.

168 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:08am

re: #161 Ben Hur

I'm 6'5".

Oh! Then I'll have to start calling you "Big Guy".

169 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:19am

re: #145 Ben Hur

Burn the witch!

If she weighs the same as a duck, then, sadly, she must be burned.

170 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:19am

re: #160 MandyManners

I'm glad I invested in asbestos undies.


When did you start with the undies?!?!?!

171 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:28am

re: #153 Ben Hur

Certainly Said Qutb and the MB were, but why are some so stupid as to follow their dichotomy? It's ridiculous to further their takfirist ideology for them.

172 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:29am

re: #159 MandyManners

Can't we be concerned about many things at once?

Multifascking.

173 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:50am

re: #142 gmsc

I'll worry more about Geert Wilder's "Fascist Tendencies" after we're done dealing with 0bama, the Dem Congress, and their bridge loans to nowhere.

We don't get to pick which war we get to wage, our enemies have that option.

174 Irish Rose  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:05:51am
I see that Robert Spencer is spewing some more insults at me today. Oh well, what are you gonna do?

Not a damned thing, Charles... I suspect that you're seeing the insults ratchet up because Spencer is taking a hit in the pocketbook.

Kudos to you, Rusty, for being intelligent enough to see the truth and bold enough to say what must be said. We need more bloggers like you, and I'm pleased as punch to have you on my blogroll.

175 Only The Lurker Knows  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:06am

re: #140 MandyManners

OT

Mandy, I tried to answer your last question to me in the LNDT, but you had left before I finished composing and posting it. It is #403.

176 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:07am

re: #158 capitalist piglet

What happened to change your politics, Mandy?

I studied Communism and then looked at the real world. And, then there was Lt. Col. North in his uniform testifying before Congress....

177 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:18am

re: #54 Fuad Al'Razi

I know, call me old fashioned, but is there such a thing as a "moderate Nazi"? Moderate Islam simply does not exist.

Actually, there were plenty of moderate Nazis.

Heidegger, for example.

Also lots of fellow travelers, opportunists, and people who just wanted to be left the hell alone.

Does that excuse Nazism? Heck no.

But there are degrees of culpability. Otherwise de-Nazification would have involved wiping out an entire nation.

In case you don't remember, we didn't do that.

178 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:28am

re: #160 MandyManners

I'm glad I invested in asbestos undies.

Undies are just so confining.

179 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:46am

re: #163 horatiolust

Hey, why don't you give us your personal definition first?

180 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:57am

re: #168 Sharmuta

Oh! Then I'll have to start calling you "Big Guy".

Darling, you would call me that if I was 4'5".

181 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:07:31am

re: #178 FurryOldGuyJeans

Undies are just so confining.

TMI!

182 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:07:36am

re: #170 Ben Hur

When did you start with the undies?!?!?!

LOL!

183 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:07:41am

re: #71 Jimmah

I suppose Irshad Manji, for example, is just a figment of our imagination then? I suppose the beer-drinking, pork eating muslim people I know don't exist either?


Jack Muslims?

184 debutaunt  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:07:42am

re: #176 MandyManners

I studied Communism and then looked at the real world. And, then there was Lt. Col. North in his uniform testifying before Congress....

Did he need his fancy home security system to keep you out?

185 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:07:51am

Banning books and parties may be "un-American," but "fascist"?

Is it "fascist" of Germany and Austria to ban Mein Kampf?

It is "fascist" of Germany to try to ban Nazi parties? To do so according to German law, it must show that such a group "poses a threat to democracy in Germany."

Why not?

186 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:08:04am

re: #180 Ben Hur

Yes I would, Big Guy.

187 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:08:05am

re: #172 SasquatchOnSteroids

Multifascking.

It helps to be ambidextrous.

188 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:08:13am

re: #140 MandyManners

I voted for CPUSA in my first presidential election.

Almost as bad as having voted for Ross Perot, twice. ;)

189 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:08:20am

re: #114 subsailor68

I'm not sure about Silent Spring. Now, if you're proposing a stiff sentence for assigning Silas Marner......

;-)

Great Expectations

190 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:02am

re: #171 Thanos

Certainly Said Qutb and the MB were, but why are some so stupid as to follow their dichotomy? It's ridiculous to further their takfirist ideology for them.

Good point.

191 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:13am

re: #175 Bubblehead II

OT

Mandy, I tried to answer your last question to me in the LNDT, but you had left before I finished composing and posting it. It is #403.

I think you're right in your assessment.

192 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:14am

re: #187 MandyManners

It helps to be ambidextrous.

I would bet that being double and triple jointed would be beneficiary to boot.

193 Kenneth  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:29am

re: #134 Ben Hur

Takfir

In Islamic law, takfir is the practice of declaring "unbeliever" an individual or a group previously considered Muslim. Some Muslims consider Takfir (declaring someone a Kafir) to be a prerogative only of either the Prophet -- who does that through Divine revelation -- or that State which represents the collectivity of the Ummah (the whole Muslim community).

Extremist movements that have been ready to practice takfir - the earliest medieval Kharijites and modern groups such as Takfir wal-Hijra and the GIA, who regard virtually all self-styled Muslims as kafirs whose blood may legitimately be shed - have been condemned by more mainstream Muslims.

194 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:31am

re: #187 MandyManners

It helps to be ambidextrous.

Link ?

195 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:36am

re: #185 kamala

Banning books and parties may be "un-American," but "fascist"?

Is it "fascist" of Germany and Austria to ban Mein Kampf?

It is "fascist" of Germany to try to ban Nazi parties? To do so according to German law, it must show that such a group "poses a threat to democracy in Germany."

Why not?

Yeah, it is kinda fascist. Personally, I will read whatever the f*ck I choose. If you want to use the force of government to stop me, you may be a fascist.

196 Athos  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:53am

re: #185 kamala

Karma: -4
Registered since: Jun 15, 2004 at 1:27 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 242
No. of links posted: 0

The moles are coming out of the woodwork.

197 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:09:57am

re: #178 FurryOldGuyJeans

Undies are just so confining.

So they say.

198 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:10:29am

re: #187 MandyManners

It helps to be ambidextrous.

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

199 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:10:32am

re: #197 MandyManners

So they say.

I believe I just did, dearie. ;)

200 SasquatchOnSteroids  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:10:37am

Tee Time. Everyone stay safe.

201 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:10:47am

re: #184 debutaunt

Did he need his fancy home security system to keep you out?

I eventually removed the trackng chip from my left foot.

202 gman  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:10:50am

re: #146 Thanos

"There's no such thing as a moderate muslim" is a talking point spun out by the serbian lobby back in the 90's to undermine the then potential independence (and now real,) of Kosovo. The Jatras' and others expouse this point. Robert Spencer Expouses this point, and Serge Trifkovic does as well. If you search back at where their articles appear, who funds them and who publishes their books you see a pattern.

This goes along with the other insidious agitprop like "kosovo's are harvesting Serbian Soldier's organs" etc.

It's a fascist talking point basically designed to eliminate all possibility of reform and to lump hundreds of millions of moderate muslims in with terrorists. It's flatly wrong. There are Muslims killing actual terrorists for us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan. They are truly anti terror and anti jihad while the Euro populists who like to wear the label are really just scenery chewers looking for votes. Don't be suckered.

You're absolutely right. Once you stereotype a whole group, it's easier to smear them from that point forward.
Wikipedia has a list of Islamic Schools and Branches- there are moderate and radical denominations within Islam

203 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:11am

The CPUSA was not banned in the US, even though it was very much the creature of Moscow. It was funded by the Soviet government, and it toed their party line on every occasion, even the leaders of the CPUSA were vetted, and approved/dumped on orders from the Kremlin. (The Soviet World of American Communism demonstrates this quite clearly using Russian records)

204 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:19am

re: #200 SasquatchOnSteroids

Dinner is coming here too. Later.

205 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:22am

re: #200 SasquatchOnSteroids

Tee Time. Everyone stay safe.

FASCIST!

Oh, sorry.

Thought you wrote, "Tea Time."

206 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:32am

re: #195 Gordon Marock

Yeah, it is kinda fascist. Personally, I will read whatever the f*ck I choose. If you want to use the force of government to stop me, you may be a fascist.

Well I'm sure the German & Austrian neo-nazis will appreciate your support against fascism.

207 ConservatismNow!  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:33am

re: #133 MikeAlv77

But then they can't be followers of that religion. If I just "remove" the parts I don;t like and keep the parts I do like, then its not "islam" or "chrisitanity" or any other religion. I am making something else

I guess all those Baptists, Catholics, Presbytarians, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists, Huegonots, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Christian Scientists, 7th Day Adventists, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards should not call themselves Christian anymore.

208 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:35am

re: #188 FurryOldGuyJeans

Almost as bad as having voted for Ross Perot, twice. ;)

I was rock-solid Republican by then.

209 Kenneth  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:11:39am

Girl beats off muggers with marching band baton

Mandy?

210 MikeAlv77  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:08am

re: #166 yma o hyd

Exactly.
Use the law - enforce it, not with multi-culti ifs and perhapses, but as it is.

Thing is, thats a bit more diffcult and less 'glamorous' than demanding to ban this that and the next, to throw innocent people out and generally borrow concepts from the cookbooks of the inhuman totalitarians.

And thats why we get a Wilders ...

And this is the reason it will be very difficult to "combat" radical islam in Europe. The europeans will not stand up and get rid of the multi-culti "feel-good" stuff they currently have. I feel that Eurpoe will get its back to the wall and then its gonna get nasty when these two groups finally decide to find out who gets on top. If idslam doesn't moderate itself and allow freedom of consioence and speech, it won't work out real well

211 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:19am

re: #209 Kenneth

Girl beats off muggers with marching band baton

Mandy?

She beat them off?!?!?!?!?!?

212 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:24am

re: #178 FurryOldGuyJeans

Undies are just so confining.

Fundies are much more fun! It's even in the name.

213 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:36am

re: #198 JCM

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Giving my right arm wouldn't be such a loss being that I am equally clumsy with either.

I hate Latin, such inherent bigotry displayed with words like sinister and ambidextrous. ;)

214 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:36am

Gotta' go chop some things for tonight's quiche. bbiab

215 Mithrax  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:44am

re: #209 Kenneth

Girl beats off muggers with marching band baton

Mandy?

I'm guessing that if it was Mandy, those poor muggers would be in the hospital.

216 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:12:54am

re: #195 Gordon Marock

Yeah, it is kinda fascist. Personally, I will read whatever the f*ck I choose. If you want to use the force of government to stop me, you may be a fascist.

No, you might be totalitarian, etc, but IMO fascism should only apply to ideologies that look like Italy under Mussolini, and other, similar State actors. Throwing the word around belittles what it really was.

217 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:13:23am

re: #215 Mithrax

I'm guessing that if it was Mandy, those poor muggers would be in the hospital.

If she had her bat with her, it'd be the morgue for at least half of 'em.

218 MandyManners  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:13:33am

re: #209 Kenneth

Girl beats off muggers with marching band baton

Mandy?

FUCKING-A! (I keep mine in the car.)

219 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:13:49am

re: #164 JohnnyReb

Did you hear about the old priest who was translating old religious scrolls. All of a sudden he started waving a scroll around and screaming.

When the other priests got him calmed down, he looked at them and said

"They left out the 'R'"
"They left out the 'R'"

220 Irish Rose  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:14:29am

re: #28 Honorary Yooper

I also fully expect Rusty to get oodles of hate mail today. I would also expect Atlas Shrieks to post a screed against him, and the counterfeit site to speculate on all sorts of insidious allegations against Rusty. This is the price we must pay for standing up for what we believe in. I would rather stand up for what I believe in and get defamed by those who stand for that in which I cannot stand for than to just bend to their will to avoid it.


Amen.

Mr. Shackleford is in for a bit of a rough ride...make sure you update your links, if you own a blog or website, and do what you can to support him.

221 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:14:44am

re: #208 MandyManners

I was rock-solid Republican by then.

I was then as I am now a conservative independent.

222 Chingachgook  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:14:51am

I don't agree with you at all concerning Spencer or Wilders. I don't know why you end up at conflict with so many others that oppose the fanatics of Islam but I suppose you have your reasons.

The unamerican comment is very insulting. If I don't agree with you I guess that tag applies to me?

I appreciate the CAIR info I find here. The other stuff isn't necessary.

223 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:15:21am

re: #216 spudly

No, you might be totalitarian, etc, but IMO fascism should only apply to ideologies that look like Italy under Mussolini, and other, similar State actors. Throwing the word around belittles what it really was.

And in this case, Charles has done his homework. "Fascist" is not getting tossed around lightly here. While it's unfortunate the term is so abused, there really isn't another word to call an actual fascists besides "fascist".

P.S.- Lizards, if you haven't read the book in the link just above yet- do so.

224 Mithrax  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:15:44am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Go write your own blog then.

225 Only The Lurker Knows  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:15:52am

re: #191 MandyManners

Thanks

226 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:15:56am

re: #213 FurryOldGuyJeans

Giving my right arm wouldn't be such a loss being that I am equally clumsy with either.

I hate Latin, such inherent bigotry displayed with words like sinister and ambidextrous. ;)

You're just irate you got left out.

227 horatiolust  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:16:28am

Hey, why don't you give us your personal definition first?

I'm not the one using the term in any of these threads/comments. I am trying to understand what those who are mean by it. More specifically, I'm trying to understand what Charles means by it.

228 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:16:43am

re: #222 Chingachgook

I don't agree with you at all concerning Spencer or Wilders. I don't know why you end up at conflict with so many others that oppose the fanatics of Islam but I suppose you have your reasons.

The unamerican comment is very insulting. If I don't agree with you I guess that tag applies to me?

I appreciate the CAIR info I find here. The other stuff isn't necessary.

And do you have any idea what the fuck you are talking about? Of course not, otherwise you could not make the statement you just did, unless of course, you are a troll.

Had to get my "whack a fascist" jab in for today before I leave for work.

229 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:16:44am

re: #206 kamala

Well I'm sure the German & Austrian neo-nazis will appreciate your support against fascism.

Europe is having, in part, their problems with growing fascism and radicalism simply because they allowed for government to ban books.

230 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:16:55am

re: #227 horatiolust

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

231 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:16:57am

re: #212 CyanSnowHawk

Fundies are much more fun! It's even in the name.

Thanks. Now I'll have that image in my head whenever I think of religious fundies.

232 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:17:01am

I saw a Sikh jogging today. Full Sikh outfit, turban, entire ensemble.

Was very cool to see.

I love America. I really do.

233 2by2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:17:22am

I see dark clouds gathering over Chingachgook.

234 yma o hyd  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:17:25am

re: #210 MikeAlv77

Indeed.
Its thanks to a by now pretty entrenched tradition of LLL multi-culti politics, brought to the differen European countries by their leftie politicians.
Its also percolated to the EU politics by now.
And lets not forget that some of the 'great and good' here in the UK are extremely accomodating - even a certain Christian Archbishop.
(The other one - not!)

So to address this requires a change in politicians - and in political culture.
Making the politicians actualy listen to the people, without screaming 'racist' at every critique, would be a good start ...

Point is - the laws are there, they just need to be applied, sine ira et studio.

235 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:17:29am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Then go some place else and write your own blog.

236 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:01am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Proposing to ban a religion is involtion of the founding principals. Therefore it is anti- or un- American because it violates our core values.

237 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:08am

re: #231 Honorary Yooper

Thanks. Now I'll have that image in my head whenever I think of religious fundies.

Not a bad thing having that image instead of someone like Phelps.

238 yma o hyd  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:23am

re: #213 FurryOldGuyJeans

Giving my right arm wouldn't be such a loss being that I am equally clumsy with either.

I hate Latin, such inherent bigotry displayed with words like sinister and ambidextrous. ;)

Aww - sorry I used Latin in my previous post!

:-)

239 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:26am

I agree with the term as applied to some of the fascist groups seen in Europe by Charles. I was referring to the Wilders comment regarding removing religious protections given to Islam.

240 MikeAlv77  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:28am

re: #207 ConservatismNow!

I guess all those Baptists, Catholics, Presbytarians, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists, Huegonots, Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Mormons, Christian Scientists, 7th Day Adventists, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards should not call themselves Christian anymore.

But none of those removed any parts. They might have interpreted parts differently. the only argument I can see is the catholics with the aprocrapha (sp) but all those use the same bible.

241 Gordon Marock  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:31am

re: #206 kamala

Well I'm sure the German & Austrian neo-nazis will appreciate your support against fascism.

I don't support neo-nazis. The law should be that any political party has a right to associate and run for office as long as they don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government, which is a crime. So what you get in Europe is a bunch of code words and hidden agendas.

242 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:41am

re: #202 gman

You're absolutely right. Once you stereotype a whole group, it's easier to smear them from that point forward.
Wikipedia has a list of Islamic Schools and Branches- there are moderate and radical denominations within Islam

Beyond that their approach to the issue would be like a fundamentalist taking the bible at face value and ignoring everything ever put forth by Christian theologists after. Throw out Martin Luther, all the Popes, St. Augustine, and all denominations of Christianity etc. - if we were to look at Christianity the way they look at Islam then we must look at only what's written in the bible and interpret it literally, only occasionally straying afield to quote mine from extreme Christian people like Fred Phelps and David Koresh.

243 Eowyn2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:18:43am

re: #147 Sharmuta

Then there sure as heck are a lot of Christians that are Christians.

And I mean A LOT. Like- almost all of them.

Fact is- we all fall short in the eyes of God.

All 'Christianity' requires is the belief that Jesus is the son of God. After that you have to get into different sects.

244 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:19:13am

re: #236 JCM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Proposing to ban a religion is involtion of the founding principals. Therefore it is anti- or un- American because it violates our core values.

PIMF

in violation...

245 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:19:18am

re: #232 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I saw a Sikh jogging today. Full Sikh outfit, turban, entire ensemble.

Was very cool to see.

I love America. I really do.

Sikhs are badasses.

Once were great warriors kicking ass on elephants.

They would Sikh and destroy.

246 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:19:45am

re: #231 Honorary Yooper

Thanks. Now I'll have that image in my head whenever I think of religious fundies.

You're welcome.

247 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:20:05am

re: #239 spudly

I agree with the term as applied to some of the fascist groups seen in Europe by Charles. I was referring to the Wilders comment regarding removing religious protections given to Islam.

Hey, if you are going to comment here and continue a thread of ideas and statement of other Lizards, why don't you use the quote or reply function, so we know what statements you are comment on?

248 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:20:15am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Would the label of asshole be more acceptable to ya?

249 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:20:21am

re: #163 horatiolust

Charles--

For purposes of clarity - define "fascism". If by "fascism" you mean "authoritarian" or "nationalistic" or "right-wing", then please tell us how the "right wing" differs from the "left-wing" with regard to positions the "left" doesn't approve of, and steps the "left" would take through legislation banning those actions.

If you mean "Nazi-like", please tell us how this differs from "Communist-like".

Now if in this whole discussion and use of language, you mean to suggest you're opposed to any authoritarianism of any kind, fair enough. If you are also suggesting the no particular concept of civilization (i.e. Western) are better than any others (i.e. Islamic/Koranic), that would be nice to know as well.

No.

250 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:20:22am

re: #232 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I saw a Sikh jogging today. Full Sikh outfit, turban, entire ensemble.

Was very cool to see.

I love America. I really do.

Here in my neck of the woods, there's a Sikh who can be seen going around town in one of those three-wheeled BAJAJ truck deals. Not sure why that's his vehicle, but he sure does his part to keep Austin weird.

251 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:20:42am

re: #227 horatiolust

Then why the long dissertation? Just ask, it takes one sentence.

252 ArchangelMichael  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:00am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Just what part of book banning and denying First Amendment rights isn't unamerican in your opinion?

253 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:12am

re: #229 FurryOldGuyJeans

Europe is having, in part, their problems with growing fascism and radicalism simply because they allowed for government to ban books.

"Banning a fascistic book is fascist and yields growing fascism."

Good stuff!

254 avanti  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:15am

Just for our Palin fans. (remix of Reagan's bear in the woods ad.)
Palin.

255 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:18am

OT via Medaura's estimable husband: "If US government contractors had designed the iPhone."

This thing is for real. As I commented to Michael, it looks like something sketched by Castro on a bad beard day. The Trabant of handheld devices.

And guess what? It's not even going to be used for the real census as was originally intended - just for verifying addresses and other preliminary work.

There are 525,000 of them, at a cost of $1,142 each. Total $600 million. Commissioned under George W. Bush. Pork for somebody's best friend's favorite lobbyist's client.

With a phone jack, for God's sake.

256 redstateredneck  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:30am

re: #243 Eowyn2

All 'Christianity' requires is the belief that Jesus is the son of God. After that you have to get into different sects.

More than a belief. An acceptance of him as your savior. Satan believes he's the son of God.

257 lawhawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:21:40am

re: #245 Ben Hur

Searching, seek and destroy.

258 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:22:10am

re: #245 Ben Hur

Hi Ben! The dude was about 70. Just hi-tailing it down the street. Thought he was running from or too...but he wasn't either. Was just out for a jog.

Why would we want to fade to gray? I'll never understand the "get others away" meme's.

I'm all about killing the bad ones, but, damn! It was cool!

259 Athos  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:22:33am

re: #254 avanti

Only trolls try to derail and hijack threads. Still trying to be the next nodrog?

260 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:22:48am

re: #252 ArchangelMichael

Just what part of book banning and denying First Amendment rights isn't unamerican in your opinion?

Only when it comes to banning something he likes. Otherwise it is all to be denied.

261 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:23:05am

re: #229 FurryOldGuyJeans

Part of the problem with europe is they are dominated by the unconstrained vision, as described by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions. As an example of what this entails, I'll quote Dr Sowell on the two visions and how they see equality:

Like freedom and justice, equality is a process characteristic in the constrained vision and a result characteristic in the unconstrained vision.

You can see this in europe where equal application of and treatment under the law is inconsistent because they don't value the process, but rather the result.

It's why they fail to see how just applying their own existing laws would solve some of these problems. Instead they seek to please everyone while pleasing no one.

262 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:23:47am

Oops! Work.

263 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:23:51am

re: #241 Gordon Marock

I don't support neo-nazis. The law should be that any political party has a right to associate and run for office as long as they don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government, which is a crime. So what you get in Europe is a bunch of code words and hidden agendas.

So you're saying that if a party does advocate "the violent overthrow of the government" it should be banned?

264 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:23:54am

re: #254 avanti

Your first post in the thread and you have to be such a hijacking troll. Typical.

265 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:23:57am

re: #254 avanti

Just for our Palin fans. (remix of Reagan's bear in the woods ad.)
Palin.

Hey jerk, why do you go off topic right in the middle of what is evidently a VERY on topic thread.

Asshole, you are so fucking self-absorbed that you don't even realize what you are doing.

Git.

266 JCM  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:24:23am

re: #259 Athos

Only trolls try to derail and hijack threads. Still trying to be the next nodrog?

A bear shits in the woods.
A troll shits in the threads.

Nature.

267 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:24:27am

re: #262 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oops! Work.

Ugh! You need to quit saying such nasty words! ;)

268 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:24:46am

re: #253 kamala

"Banning a fascistic book is fascist and yields growing fascism."

Good stuff!

Yes, believe it or not, any restriction on the free exercise of speech or religion is an inherently totalitarian act; it is otherwise indistinguishable from restrictions on literature or organizations imposed by fascist regimes or commie ones of the old school.

It is possible, believe it or not, to oppose an evil without co-opting its methods; whenever possible, this should be the way to go.

269 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:24:55am

re: #253 kamala

"Banning a fascistic book is fascist and yields growing fascism."

Good stuff!

No, twit, it drives it underground. And just like a perennial weed, it sprouts back up, only it sprouts back up trashing new symbols and traditions. Better to have it exposed to the sunlight where all can see it for the tripe it is.

270 avanti  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:26:47am

re: #264 FurryOldGuyJeans

Your first post in the thread and you have to be such a hijacking troll. Typical.

OK, I screwed up. I learned the 100 post limit before going off topic rule. Just saw the Palin thing, saw you were over a 100 and thought it was neat. Sorry, leaving again.

271 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:26:51am

re: #253 kamala

I see you and a clue are complete strangers.

272 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:27:03am

re: #257 lawhawk

Searching, seek and destroy.

You?

Metallica?

273 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:27:21am

re: #268 Guanxi88

Yes, believe it or not, any restriction on the free exercise of speech or religion is an inherently totalitarian act; it is otherwise indistinguishable from restrictions on literature or organizations imposed by fascist regimes or commie ones of the old school.

It is possible, believe it or not, to oppose an evil without co-opting its methods; whenever possible, this should be the way to go.

Gotcha... so the current government of Germany is fascist?

274 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:27:44am

re: #270 avanti

You are just so fucking self-absorbed. Welcome to scroll-over country, shit-for-brains.

275 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:28:07am

I still think that you have to look at political statements within the context of the political system that they come from, as much as I disagree with Wilders on this issue. If their laws ban totalitarian ideologies, then they should ban all of them, even if one happens to be a religion. What is it that makes a religion? God. Should only secularists be in a position to be banned?

Again, as an American, I think none should be banned, I'm just trying to get a handle on the European context. If Europe will never permit secular, totalitarian ideologies to exist , then they should probably do the same with religious totalitarianism (of course they allow communists, and what could be more totalitarian than that?). It's such a can of worms that it's better to allow all of them, then fight them with free expression—and NEVER cave to laws that permit any curtailment of free expression (defamation laws, etc).

276 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:28:13am

re: #271 FurryOldGuyJeans

I see you and a clue are complete strangers.

Is the current German government fascist?

277 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:29:15am

re: #263 kamala

So you're saying that if a party does advocate "the violent overthrow of the government" it should be banned?

Any demonstrably coordinated action under an accountable leadership that has the purpose, intent, or effect of causing or hastening the overthrow of a system of government by use of force of arms or threat of same is conspiracy, and is illegal.

So, to answer your question, yes, criminal organizations are illegal. To make the claim, however, that this is applicable to, say, Islam, is akin to banning Italian-American social and civic groups because everyone knows the Mafia is behind the lot of them, and has its tendrils throughout the community. (Forgive me, Don.)

278 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:31:31am

re: #273 kamala

Gotcha... so the current government of Germany is fascist?

The wisdom of their decisions to ban certain political symbols, organizations, and other groups can be called into question. However, as the nation allows a diversity of opinion on political matters, permits the free exercise of religion, and, in general, bans only organizations with demonstrable connections to criminal and/or terroristic groups, I'd say the "gotcha" is either pre-mature (they're not there yet) or a bit too late (we blasted the last fascist German government out of existence over 60 years); still, nice try.

279 FurryOldGuyJeans  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:31:46am

re: #276 kamala

You keep on affirming your dislike for getting acquainted with a clue.

280 Ben Hur  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:31:49am

Top 15 Confucius Sayings

Pay attention to these because they can save you from some difficult times.

Man who eat many prunes get good run for money.

Baseball is wrong. Man with four balls cannot walk.

War doesn’t determine who is right, only who is left.

Wife who put husband in doghouse soon find him in cathouse.

Man who fight with wife all day get no piece at night.

Man who run behind car get exhausted.

It take many nails to build crib but one screw to fill it.

Man who fishes in other man’s well often catches crabs.

Man who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with stinky fingers.

Marriage is like game of poker. You start with pair and end with full house.

Man who farts in church sits in his own pew.

He who eats too many prunes, sits on toilet many moons.

Elevator smell different to midget.

Those who quote me are fools.

Confucius say too damn much.

281 horatiolust  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:31:56am

From the book referenced in #223

* a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

Sounds like proponents of anthropogenic global warming to me. Specifically Al Gore - a Democrat

* the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it;

Uh oh - can't have conservative African-Americans, or gays who vote Republican

* the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external;

Hmmm...Black Liberation Theology come to mind?

* dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

Damn those who oppose us and are trying to diminish our group like Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Janice Rogers Brown.

* the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

No white males need apply. No Congressional White Caucus. Hell, no Congressional Catholic Caucus or Jewish Caucus. Only Black

* the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny;

Isn't He The One? Didn't Oprah as the question?

* the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;

Do not, under any circumstance, question His decisions or policies. If you do, you must be a racist, or worse, a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal Republican or ....shudder....conservative

* the beauty of violence and efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success

"No Justice. No Peace." Wonder who chants that?

Again - what is the difference between "fascists" and "communists"? Leftists or Rightists? If Hitler was to the right, and Stalin to the left, to whom do you feel greater affinity and why?

282 yma o hyd  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:32:52am

re: #268 Guanxi88

Yes, believe it or not, any restriction on the free exercise of speech or religion is an inherently totalitarian act; it is otherwise indistinguishable from restrictions on literature or organizations imposed by fascist regimes or commie ones of the old school.

It is possible, believe it or not, to oppose an evil without co-opting its methods; whenever possible, this should be the way to go.

Just so!

I'm reading Shirer's 'Rise and Fall' right now.
One striking point is that the German Justice, generally, was not blind but applied the law differently against Nazis and Commies.
we onow the result.

Point is - use the laws, don't create special ones for this or that 'special' case. They will be used against you.
Once a precedent has been created, there is no way this will not be used for a totally different case.

283 Athos  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:32:57am

re: #274 FurryOldGuyJeans

You are just so fucking self-absorbed. Welcome to scroll-over country, shit-for-brains.

No wonder he likes the Dear Leader so much - they're both extreme narcissists.

284 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:33:17am

re: #281 horatiolust

Why are you trying to dredge up this nonsense again?

horatiolust
Registered since: Jun 25, 2007 at 8:31 am
No. of comments posted: 5
No. of links posted: 0

285 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:33:57am

re: #222 Chingachgook

Do you read and understand anything that is said here? Suggesting that anyone be denied their otherwise "inalienable rights" is un-American.

286 spudly  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:34:14am

re: #277 Guanxi88

No, Islam does have a "constitution" or mission statement, it's called the Quran and the hadith. If you have party (club, whatever) that uses Mein Kampf as it's founding document... you're a totalitarian club :)

I think it's fair to lump Islam in there, at least until we see some sort of Reformation. Remember that being in a religion is a choice. By being a member, you are saying you agree with its tenets.

Not saying it should be banned (on the contrary, since I believe in free expression), just that's how I see Islam (and other fundamentalisms)

287 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:34:46am

re: #278 Guanxi88

The wisdom of their decisions to ban certain political symbols, organizations, and other groups can be called into question.

Right, so you're saying banning books might be "called into question" but not "fascist." I agree with that. Not sure anyone else here does.

288 avanti  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:35:20am

re: #274 FurryOldGuyJeans

You are just so fucking self-absorbed. Welcome to scroll-over country, shit-for-brains.

Look, enough is fucking enough. I saw the tread was well over 100 posts, I saw other off topic posts, so I tossed in what I thought was a neat Palin video. Unless there is some unwritten rule about who can or cannot go off topic late in a tread, get off my case.

289 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:35:45am

Sometimes the trolling just gets so freaking obvious.

290 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:01am

re: #255 Cato the Elder

OT via Medaura's estimable husband: "If US government contractors had designed the iPhone."

This thing is for real. As I commented to Michael, it looks like something sketched by Castro on a bad beard day. The Trabant of handheld devices.

And guess what? It's not even going to be used for the real census as was originally intended - just for verifying addresses and other preliminary work.

There are 525,000 of them, at a cost of $1,142 each. Total $600 million. Commissioned under George W. Bush. Pork for somebody's best friend's favorite lobbyist's client.

With a phone jack, for God's sake.

This is the sort of thing that comes out of a very long government acquisition process, with some key requirements that are just not available in COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) systems. The data security requirements are mentioned in the linked article. I wonder when it was originally contracted and what the initial requirements were?

291 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:19am

re: #276 kamala

Is the current German government fascist?

No, because they have banned a party and material and icons that have historical evidence, in their own country, of breaking the laws of that country.

Where as you may have certain Muslims in Germany that have broken laws, even broken laws because they perceive that they are doing Allah's will, you cannot ban a whole religion for the mistakes a a few.

Not any more than in this country we have many groups that speak and preach against jew, blacks, catholics, groups who meet to plan revolution, militias and so on. But we do not outlaw these groups, or move to stifle them unless, as in the case of Waco, they overstep the bounds of the law.

Why is this so had for you to understand. Why don't you look up book banning, fascism and the sort and do a little research on you own instead of looking like an idiot here.

It doesn't become you at all.

292 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:22am

re: #287 kamala

Right, so you're saying banning books might be "called into question" but not "fascist." I agree with that. Not sure anyone else here does.

The measure is, overall, a bit heavy-handed, to put it mildly. Unnecessary in a free society, such as ours.

293 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:23am

re: #273 kamala

No. That is sophistry on your part.

The continental Europeans have a different social and political tradition apart from the English and Americans. Prior restraint is part of that tradition, whereas we have nearly unfettered freedom of expression. That is why is it illegal to deny the Holocaust and to don nazi symbols.

294 horatiolust  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:36:52am
No.


OK - it's your blog and we are merely guests. Given that some of us visit infrequently and post even less, perhaps out of common courtesy you as our host might reconsider your answer.

If not, so be it.

295 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:37:04am

re: #287 kamala

Right, so you're saying banning books might be "called into question" but not "fascist." I agree with that. Not sure anyone else here does.

Banning religions, taking away people's rights, and banning books are absolutely fascist techniques. They're also used by other totalitarian ideologies.

They are not used by Americans.

296 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:37:23am

re: #294 horatiolust

OK - it's your blog and we are merely guests. Given that some of us visit infrequently and post even less, perhaps out of common courtesy you as our host might reconsider your answer.

If not, so be it.

No.

297 dwells38  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:38:35am

re: #77 Fuad Al'Razi

So Fuad what do you think is a possible resolution to this then? I get the point that what we think of as moderate Muslims may merely be bad Muslims in some imam's view and according to literal interp of Koran. But I don't think we want to trample on anyone's right to worship peacefully as they wish. It's certain here in America that there are many, many thousands of Muslims who are peaceful and well integrated and not violent or approving of violence. And they appear to be tolerant of other's faith and (I hope) non-faith. Banning Islam altogether would deprive those people of their right to worship.

My question boils down to: Is there any hope of reform and is reform the only hope?

298 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:39:01am

re: #288 avanti

Look, enough is fucking enough. I saw the tread was well over 100 posts, I saw other off topic posts, so I tossed in what I thought was a neat Palin video. Unless there is some unwritten rule about who can or cannot go off topic late in a tread, get off my case.

Grow up and stop being so self centered. This thread was evidently ON TOPIC, very much on topic. You broke in and went off topic. No, there's no rules, but common decency (and common sense), should tell you that your post was an interruption.

Well, I used decency and common sense in the wrong context, since you lack both.

Sorry to confuse you.

Grow up, you jumped in, take the licks.

299 hans ze beeman  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:41:34am

re: #291 Walter L. Newton

No, because they have banned a party and material and icons that have historical evidence, in their own country, of breaking the laws of that country.

That's the point.

It would certainly make me feel physically ill to find Mein Kampf in a German book store.

Germans banned the book because they didn't trust themselves.

300 Guanxi88  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:41:39am

re: #286 spudly

No, Islam does have a "constitution" or mission statement, it's called the Quran and the hadith. If you have party (club, whatever) that uses Mein Kampf as it's founding document... you're a totalitarian club :)

I think it's fair to lump Islam in there, at least until we see some sort of Reformation. Remember that being in a religion is a choice. By being a member, you are saying you agree with its tenets.

Not saying it should be banned (on the contrary, since I believe in free expression), just that's how I see Islam (and other fundamentalisms)

1) I'm not 100% certain that the Reformation of Islam should be the condition of the acceptance of adherents of Islam and the (peaceful) dissemination and practice of their beliefs by a modern nation; the potential for abuse is too great to be ignored. (Damned Pentecostals! Once they stop with the glossolalia and sketch out a coherent theological-political system, then can we permit them to hold office. Mormons, with their as-yet unmodified universalism of message and purpose; can't ahve one of them in power - he might work to spread the message. Etc.)

2) Mein Kampf, as a work written by a man and understood by its readers as a work written by a man and addressed to other men, is not subject to the rules of interpretation by its readers that a work understood by its readers as being of divine authorship is. Again, subjecting prophetic writings to this sort of test would be unwise and needlessly prejudicial against believers in revealed religion.

301 Syrah  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:42:07am

re: #22 Sharmuta

I think the problem is that some Americans think these are great ideas. I have even read Americans calling for banning islam here, and they hold up wilders as an example. And these are the sorts of people I meant in my #6- they fail to understand that a government that could take away the right to practice a religion from one group could just as easily take that right away from other groups- including them.

I think there is another danger in the movement to deny that Islam is a religion.

Its an end run around our freedom of religion principles by declaring that it is not a religion, and not covered by nations traditions and laws concerning Religious freedoms.

302 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:42:31am

re: #281 horatiolust

How does any of what you say apply to the topic at hand?

Answer- it doesn't. You'd rather deflect attention than look at the 800 pound gorilla. Well- I'm sick and tired of deflection.

Re-read the list only thinking of european "counter-jihad" politicians, or spare us your deflection, because we're not buying it.

303 yma o hyd  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:42:40am

re: #288 avanti

Look, enough is fucking enough. I saw the tread was well over 100 posts, I saw other off topic posts, so I tossed in what I thought was a neat Palin video. Unless there is some unwritten rule about who can or cannot go off topic late in a tread, get off my case.

The unwritten rule, dear avanti, is called 'tact'.

Got nothing to do with who can or cannot post OT - its got everything to do with following the thread and the arguments.

304 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:43:59am

re: #290 CyanSnowHawk

This is the sort of thing that comes out of a very long government acquisition process, with some key requirements that are just not available in COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) systems. The data security requirements are mentioned in the linked article. I wonder when it was originally contracted and what the initial requirements were?

I know about COTS vs. MILSPEC, etc., but come on. They use off-the-shelf laptops on the space shuttle.

In any case the point is it doesn't even meet the needs it was originally designed for - to do paperless census interviews. It's just a clunky, dot-com era PDA address book with GPS and a phone jack. Can you say "Newton"?

And data security can be provided by means much simpler than a biometric sensor. Come on! Encryption 101.

Not impressed.

305 nyc redneck  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:44:37am

rusty 'cheers for geert's bravery at standing up against the islamic tide' but
disagrees w/ him abt. banning the koran.
that sound very reasonable to me.
the koran should not be banned.
it needs to be readily available to anyone who wants to investigate and understand islam and the jihadis who take their instructions from it.

306 avanti  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:45:47am

re: #298 Walter L. Newton

No, there's no rules, but common decency (and common sense), should tell you that your post was an interruption.

Well, I used decency and common sense in the wrong context, since you lack both.

Sorry to confuse you.


Grow up, you jumped in, take the licks.

Walter, I know you don't like me, but I am confused. If you review the thread, you'll see more then a few OT posts before mine. I want to be a good guest, but I am confused.

307 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:46:19am

re: #302 Sharmuta

How does any of what you say apply to the topic at hand?

Answer- it doesn't. You'd rather deflect attention than look at the 800 pound gorilla. Well- I'm sick and tired of deflection.

Re-read the list only thinking of european "counter-jihad" politicians, or spare us your deflection, because we're not buying it.

That's exactly what it is. And I don't feel like playing the game.

308 dwells38  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:46:37am

re: #280 Ben Hur


Well thanks for that. Although those jokes were completely banal at least they weren't mind-numbingly juvenile.

309 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:48:16am

re: #291 Walter L. Newton

No, because they have banned a party and material and icons that have historical evidence, in their own country, of breaking the laws of that country.

Where as you may have certain Muslims in Germany that have broken laws, even broken laws because they perceive that they are doing Allah's will, you cannot ban a whole religion for the mistakes a a few.

Let's look at what you wrote: banning the Nazi party is acceptable in Germany because there is "historical evidence" that people in that party have broken German laws. But isn't it wrong, in your own words, to ban a whole party "for the mistakes of a few"?

310 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:48:37am

Charles do you mean the game where five hundred posts later we get to "buh buh but but ... we allied with Stalin...." ?

311 avanti  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:48:53am

re: #303 yma o hyd

The unwritten rule, dear avanti, is called 'tact'.

Got nothing to do with who can or cannot post OT - its got everything to do with following the thread and the arguments.

I'll leave confused as ever since the bitching about my OT post is now way more disrupting to the thread then my Palin post.

312 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:50:47am

To sum up the troll argument: Because they are bad we must be bad to defeat them...

313 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:50:48am

re: #295 Charles

(Frankly, I do see much of this as a "European problem"...For example, in Germany, France, etc., I don't think they have a "Freedom of Religion" clause like the one contained in the U.S. Constitution. In some of these European countries, it's the government which defines what is or is not a "religion" ( and this definition of what constitutes a "religion" then relates to tax laws, donations, construction of religious buildings, etc. Again, in some countries in Europe, when you fill out a tax form, you check off what religion you are -- this info then is used by the government to determine how much tax money will be granted to Religion X..this is how many "religions" are funded -- not through individuals, but through the state. So, for example, Scientology is not recognized as a "religion" in Germany. It's considered a "cult" and is entitled to no state subsidies (as would a recognized religion). Anyway, I think overall there is much, much more government (state) intervention in the oridinary lives of citizens in Europe -- not so much in the U.S. or Canada...)

314 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:51:00am

re: #310 Thanos

Charles do you mean the game where five hundred posts later we get to "buh buh but but ... we allied with Stalin...." ?

Yep, that game. Or the revisionist game where they try to redefine fascism.

315 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:52:10am

re: #313 J.S.

The point, though, is that Geert Wilders is spouting this stuff right here in America, on a speaking tour sponsored by Americans, and he's being applauded by Americans for advocating things that are simply un-American.

316 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:53:02am

re: #301 Syrah

I think there is another danger in the movement to deny that Islam is a religion.

Its an end run around our freedom of religion principles by declaring that it is not a religion, and not covered by nations traditions and laws concerning Religious freedoms.

I think that's a very good point, Syrah.

This solution is working to undermine the law instead of working within the law, where again, simply applying some of the laws they already have on their books should be enough of a start to dealing with this issue. Instead of applying the laws that make car burning and rioting crimes, they create no-go zones. So the extremists' solution to this is to undermine the civil contract more by attacking freedom of conscience instead of applying the law equally to all citizens.

317 blangwort  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:53:24am

The problem with defining Islam is like defining what Christianity is. There are many opinions, and some of them are very exclusive.

People like Robert Spenser interpret the Koran and the Hadith in abstract. You could do the same with the Hebrew Bible and you could find all sorts of strange things advocated there too. Nevertheless, the view taken by most people is that the Bible should be read interpretively. Unfortunately, that's not how most Madrassas do things these days.

The real problem is where Middle Eastern Governments, such as the Saudi government, have spent significant money on a bunch of wide-eyed cult followers, by funding religious schools all over the world.

So now we have a bunch of fundamentalist hate mongers thanks to Saudi funded Madrassas. It would be as if the US government had, instead of fighting the KKK in the 1950's, given them government funds to build "Christian" schools all over the world, just to shut them up.

Even if Wilders were right, and Islam should not be accorded the protection and status of a religion, we don't ban political movements either. But we do watch them closely. And I think we should monitor these schools, and these mosques. When they step out of line, they deserve no less attention than the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Charles Manson, Rev. Moon, or any of several hundred other idiots who cloth themselves in the guise of a religion.

We can't stop them from believing whatever delusions they want to think. But we can establish hard guidelines for behavior while living in a Western Country. When in the West, do as Westerners do.

318 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:54:36am

re: #287 kamala

Orwell said that word will lose their meaning. he was certainly right about the term "fascist". It's a word that has been bandied about so much that I doubt many people would recognize a true fascist if it crawled up and bit 'em in the ass. It's why people swoon when someone has the gall to describe BHO's economic policies as "fascist"--it's because the word has lost its meaning due to the over-use of the term as a pejorative. It's not unlike the government official who was pilloried in the press for using the term "niggardly" in its proper context; just the alliterative nature of the word sent a certain segment of the population into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation-many of whom were ignorant as to the meaning, let alone the derivation of the term.

For you to keep using the "fascist" term indicates either an ignorance of the nature of the term, or a blatant attempt to get someone to buy into your strawman. It is a weak technique.

There is a vast difference between a government with a history of limited censorship conducting that censorship within the traditional boundaries, and a government that promotes a cultural intellectual purging including book burnings, prosecutions, deportations, etc. So, no, the current German government is not moving toward totalitarianism as you posit.

319 2by2  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:55:01am

re: #309 kamala

Let's look at what you wrote: banning the Nazi party is acceptable in Germany because there is "historical evidence" that people in that party have broken German laws. But isn't it wrong, in your own words, to ban a whole party "for the mistakes of a few"?

I see very dark clouds with occasional thunder over Kamala.
You might want to troll away, there will be lightning, asshole.

320 Kenneth  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:55:19am

re: #309 kamala

Let's look at what you wrote: banning the Nazi party is acceptable in Germany because there is "historical evidence" that people in that party have broken German laws. But isn't it wrong, in your own words, to ban a whole party "for the mistakes of a few"?

So it was only a few Nazi's who made mistakes?

Get the hell out of here you vile piece of shit!

321 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:55:33am

re: #307 Charles

That's exactly what it is. And I don't feel like playing the game.

"Look over there! Communists!" just isn't as much fun as it used to be.

322 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:56:01am

re: #304 Cato the Elder

I know about COTS vs. MILSPEC, etc., but come on. They use off-the-shelf laptops on the space shuttle.

In any case the point is it doesn't even meet the needs it was originally designed for - to do paperless census interviews. It's just a clunky, dot-com era PDA address book with GPS and a phone jack. Can you say "Newton"?

And data security can be provided by means much simpler than a biometric sensor. Come on! Encryption 101.

Not impressed.

That's not the only facet of data security. That thing is likely loaded with multiple layers, and the biometric scanner is just one of the base requirements. It's all about the requirements, and arguments about build our own to MILSPEC or use COTS have been raging for decades. Ever programmed in Ada?

Also, didn't mean to imply that this is not some back room deal as you suggested, only offered an alternative based on my experience in Gov't contracting and applied a bit of Heinlein's (Hanlon's) razor as well.

323 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:56:07am

re: #314 Charles

Yep, that game. Or the revisionist game where they try to redefine fascism.

Oh, the redefine what's really left and right game. Yeah I remember that one. It's come up a lot lately.

Here's a clue for the people still mired in last century lingo: left and right are pretty meaningless gauges in this century. Try thinking in three dimensions, simplex doesn't work in this century.

324 lawhawk  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:56:26am

re: #272 Ben Hur

Absolutely. Seen 'em four times.

Oh, and you know what will really bake your noodle? I'm a huge NIN fan (and yes, I know that Trent Reznor is moonbattish).

325 Syrah  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:57:24am

re: #316 Sharmuta

I think that's a very good point, Syrah.

This solution is working to undermine the law instead of working within the law, where again, simply applying some of the laws they already have on their books should be enough of a start to dealing with this issue. Instead of applying the laws that make car burning and rioting crimes, they create no-go zones. So the extremists' solution to this is to undermine the civil contract more by attacking freedom of conscience instead of applying the law equally to all citizens.

Both over there and here at home.

It kind of freaks me about a bit when I see it argued here.

326 gman  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:58:57am

re: #242 Thanos

Beyond that their approach to the issue would be like a fundamentalist taking the bible at face value and ignoring everything ever put forth by Christian theologists after. Throw out Martin Luther, all the Popes, St. Augustine, and all denominations of Christianity etc. - if we were to look at Christianity the way they look at Islam then we must look at only what's written in the bible and interpret it literally, only occasionally straying afield to quote mine from extreme Christian people like Fred Phelps and David Koresh.

When we let our emotions rule supreme, we always end up with a cloudy view of what's happening, even though our "feelings" feel justified. My anger over what happened on 9/11 resulted in my lumping terrorists and Islam together. Islam entered my thoughts for the first time and those thoughts were not good ones. Now, I realize that the terrorists are just a small percentage of Islam and my guess is that the self- appointed terrorist leadership has selfishly co- opted religion for the attainment of power (not the first time this has happened in the history of mankind).

327 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:59:20am

re: #318 calcajun

Orwell said that word will lose their meaning. he was certainly right about the term "fascist". It's a word that has been bandied about so much that I doubt many people would recognize a true fascist if it crawled up and bit 'em in the ass. It's why people swoon when someone has the gall to describe BHO's economic policies as "fascist"--it's because the word has lost its meaning due to the over-use of the term as a pejorative. It's not unlike the government official who was pilloried in the press for using the term "niggardly" in its proper context; just the alliterative nature of the word sent a certain segment of the population into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation-many of whom were ignorant as to the meaning, let alone the derivation of the term.

For you to keep using the "fascist" term indicates either an ignorance of the nature of the term, or a blatant attempt to get someone to buy into your strawman. It is a weak technique.

There is a vast difference between a government with a history of limited censorship conducting that censorship within the traditional boundaries, and a government that promotes a cultural intellectual purging including book burnings, prosecutions, deportations, etc. So, no, the current German government is not moving toward totalitarianism as you posit.

You missed my point entirely. I'm arguing that Germany is not totalitarian, not fascist, and does not employ "fascist techniques," despite the fact that it bans Mein Kampf and has tried to ban the Neo-Nazi party. Others here disagree.

328 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 10:59:46am

re: #325 Syrah

Both over there and here at home.

It kind of freaks me about a bit when I see it argued here.

Absolutely. And not just on issues around islam.

329 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:00:19am

re: #315 Charles

Yes. (tragic really -- I think there needs to be a re-vitalization (refresher courses?) on the most basic, constitutional principles in the United States...mandatory history/citizenship classes for American students?)

330 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:01:24am

re: #326 gman

Dhimmi !

////// I've been called that too for being specific in who our real enemies are....

331 Honorary Yooper  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:02:05am

re: #327 kamala

Troll, troll, troll your blog gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, you are not a scream.

332 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:02:33am

re: #309 kamala

Let's look at what you wrote: banning the Nazi party is acceptable in Germany because there is "historical evidence" that people in that party have broken German laws. But isn't it wrong, in your own words, to ban a whole party "for the mistakes of a few"?

You keep missing the point. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are superimposing American morality on a country with a different social tradition. Germany has a history of banning parties before the nazis. So do the French, Italians, etc. We do not. They have a different set of priorities than we do; they prize order and stability ability above certain liberties while we are the reverse.

The concern here--in this country and on this blog--is that we will reset our priorities and make them in line with the Europeans. Once that happens, free speech and freedom of association become privileges-not rights.

333 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:03:42am

re: #332 calcajun

You keep missing the point.

It's deliberate.

334 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:05:01am

re: #320 Kenneth

So it was only a few Nazi's who made mistakes?

There is a difference between parties, books, and individuals. Parties have platforms, agendas, ideologies. Books are just written opinions. People are people, there are good people and bad people.

You can't have it both ways: if you want to say that all parties are legal and that only "people" can do bad things, then you shouldn't ever ban a party or a book. Thus, it's wrong for Germany to ban the Nazi party. But if you're going to accept banning a Nazi party as an "ok" thing to do, then other parties that have platforms, agendas, and ideologies that include overthrowing a government should be banned as well. The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, fits that bill nicely. And same thing goes for books. If it's ok to ban "Mein Kampf," then books with similar objectives should be banned too, no?

335 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:06:01am

re: #333 Charles

Silly me. I'm hoping for a "teachable" moment.

336 Vik  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:06:50am

Caveat: Here's what few people seem to grasp.  
 
Even supporters of free speech do not support the use of free speech as an incitement to murder.  
 
As practiced in many mosques, Islam uses free speech as an incitement to murder.  
 
Any review of clips on memri.org will document that mosques are frequently used to preach violent hatred and murder against non-Muslims, precisely following the view of the Koran Rusty presents in his post.  
 
Here is how one Saudi columnist described his personal experience with this incitement to murder, just last February. [Link: tinyurl.com...]
 
“If we want to protect our young children from one day becoming fanatics or terrorists, we need to provide them with a completely new culture that is radically different than the religious, intellectual, and social culture that has dominated us for many decades, and still does. Instead of teaching your children hostility, or letting someone else teach them hostility, towards those of other religions, teach [them] religious tolerance, which will [ensure that while] they differ from others in religion, they will share with them their common humanity…  
 
“If he listens to the imam at the mosque praying at the top of his voice for [Allah] to destroy [others], ask him to forget what he heard, and to remember to love all and harbor hatred towards none, and [tell him] that the values that [should] motivate him are those of coexistence and cooperation.”  
 
The Saudi columnist plainly states that the result of imams preaching an incitement to murder at mosques, is that children become terrorists.  
 
It is a mistake to support incitement to murder - one which is massively documented as resulting in murder, in the worldwide murders committed in the name of Islam - as being an acceptable use of free speech.  
 
Proclaiming one's support of free speech while ignoring this deadly danger is to blind oneself to the facts.  
 
It is essential - if we are to protect ourselves from this violence - that we come up with a policy that defends our free speech, while eliminating the incitement to murder that is inherent in the view of the Koran Rusty himself presents, and which is of course therefore often preached in mosques.

337 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:07:18am

re: #333 Charles

It's deliberate.

I'm not disputing that book banning and party banning is un-American. I'm all for keeping every book and every party legal in America, and disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

I'm disputing the term "fascist." If it's "fascist," then Germany and Austria are "fascist" too.

338 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:09:29am

re: #337 kamala

Something that individual fascists understand almost at birth

Youtube Video

Which "personality" do you support?

339 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:12:39am

re: #337 kamala

Then look at the history of those countries and you will see that their social priorities are in different order than ours. They have the tradition of banning books, parties etc. In American English, that means that they have a history of denying people freedom of speech and association. In many ways, it works for them, and as with all things it works in moderation to keep the more extreme political elements at bay. But it does not an will not work for us. It is why we recoil in shock when people like Wilders stands side by side with avowed neo-fascists/national socialists. He's doing his cause more harm than good by doing so.

340 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:14:17am

re: #337 kamala

I'm not disputing that book banning and party banning is un-American. I'm all for keeping every book and every party legal in America, and disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

I'm disputing the term "fascist." If it's "fascist," then Germany and Austria are "fascist" too.

1) Should Islam be a valid, legal religion in European countries?
2) Should Muslims who live in European countries be allowed to stay in those countries?

Two simple answers, a yes or no will do.

341 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:14:23am

Interesting dinging going on in this thread.

342 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:14:27am

re: #320 Kenneth

So it was only a few Nazi's who made mistakes?

Marge Schott thought that, too./

343 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:14:51am

re: #336 Vik

Islam is a religion, probably one of the most pure religions we have on the face of the planet, since it tries very hard to rule among it's followers as a theocracy. At least in the US, they deserve the same considerations that all other religions do. Yes, the Koran contains a lot of passages that are hateful and basically the book is a manual detailing how to bring the world under the control of Islam.

All in all, I would say it's a very vibrant and powerful religion. What can we do about it. Use every law we have available to stop any Muslim that is breaking our laws. Take every possible opportunity to expose Islam's human right violations, include the horrid way they treat woman. Mount effective apologetic campaigns that will educate the public as to the practices of Islam that are at odds with the modern world and basic freedoms.

But to shut them up, that is wrong, and against every principle we stand for in this country.

344 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:14:59am

re: #74 so.cal.swede

I'd just like to pop in and say: way to go charles.

At first, Geert Wilders looked like a brave, strong, outspoken critic against Islamism, but he finally jumped the Glenn Beck Shark once he started talking about his "Final Solution to the muslim problem".

What final solution might hat be?

345 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:15:16am

re: #340 Walter L. Newton

You might ask him about India while you are at it.

346 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:17:33am

re: #344 Jr Ewing

Mass deportations.

I must confess that I thought it would have been a good idea--but in a moment of pique--9/11/01.

347 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:17:40am

re: #345 Thanos

You might ask him about India while you are at it.

I took that tack because I see a possible bigot here, pretending to be something else, and I wanted to cut to the chase with kamala.

I believe we are feeding a bigot in the least, a full blown racist in the making.

348 Syrah  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:19:06am

re: #341 Sharmuta

Interesting dinging going on in this thread.

Dallas reruns?

349 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:20:24am

re: #348 Syrah

nope-Dynasty.

350 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:20:51am

I smell dead thread. Or, at least very sleepy.

351 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:23:35am

Kamala ran away, poor thing. I'm off to work at the theatre is a few minutes. No business like show business and all that rot.

352 Syrah  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:23:43am

re: #349 calcajun

nope-Dynasty.

That's the one that kept teasing us with a jello tub wrestling showdown between Krystle and Alexis isn't it?

I confess, I was never able to understand all the fuss over those shows.

353 kamala  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:28:07am

re: #340 Walter L. Newton

1) Should Islam be a valid, legal religion in European countries?
2) Should Muslims who live in European countries be allowed to stay in those countries?

Two simple answers, a yes or no will do.

Yes and yes.

354 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:28:58am

re: #351 Walter L. Newton

Was he a troll, misguided or just a bad grasp of English?

355 charles_martel  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:30:44am

re: #133 MikeAlv77

But then they can't be followers of that religion. If I just "remove" the parts I don;t like and keep the parts I do like, then its not "islam" or "chrisitanity" or any other religion. I am making something else

Well, it depends on the religion. In Christianity, salvation depends on believing in Jesus Christ. That's it. Everything else is desirable and good, but your salvation does not depend on it. In Islam, on the other hand, salvation is never guaranteed, every muslim is judged by Allah at Judgment Day, and their fate is not guaranteed. Therefore, being as obedient as possible is their best hope of entering paradise.

356 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:30:46am

re: #346 calcajun

Mass deportations.

Got any links or youtube clips of wilders saying such things?

i cant seem to find any.

357 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:38:50am

re: #356 Jr Ewing

That's the gist of his comments referenced on a thread from last night.

358 Sunlight  Fri, May 1, 2009 11:42:25am

It has seemed to me since Charles turned over this rock last year (or is it 2 yrs ago now) that the Euros tend to want to regulate speech, but don't want to enforce their laws. The U.S. is not far behind on this trail. So, you have these Euros calling for outlawing Islam, but not calling for arrest, trial, incarceration, etc. of car burners, for example, regardless of political (or religious) affiliation.

359 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:07:40pm

Does Wilders have any connections with fools like this?

The far right is on the march again: the rise of Fascism in Austria

360 JHW  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:08:45pm

Yeah right, ban the Koran,to say nothing of ethical matters it would be as productive an enterprise as bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon. Probably the most memorized book on earth, calligraphy is well respected in the Arabic world and finally computers and printers aren't under lock and key. Remember Solzhenitsyn and other Russian dissidents with their mimeographed samizdat, even the KGB couldn't stop them.

361 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:11:05pm

re: #357 calcajun

That's the gist of his comments referenced on a thread from last night.

Banning books or religions is a ridiculous thing to say.

362 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:12:55pm

re: #359 Jr Ewing

Does Wilders have any connections with fools like this?

The far right is on the march again: the rise of Fascism in Austria

I don't know if Wilders is connected to them -- but Heinz Christian Strache was one of the speakers at last year's meeting of the "Pro Koln" fascist group.

Remember? The "Pro Koln" group that Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are still defending?

363 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:15:45pm

re: #361 Jr Ewing

yep. it is.

364 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:16:32pm

re: #362 Charles

I thought wilders was considering aligning with the far right EU party people.

365 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:17:42pm

re: #364 Sharmuta

I thought wilders was considering aligning with the far right EU party people.

He mentioned Vlaams Belang specifically; I don't know if he mentioned other parties. But it's a very tiny step from the Vlaams Belang to the Austrian Freedom Party.

366 William Teach  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:19:24pm

Rusty also wrote a heck of a lot more then just "noticing Wilders' Fascist tendencies." He also included some kind words and support of Wilders. Why no mention of that?

367 TS  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:25:36pm

Love Jawa!

368 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:36:52pm

Charles:

I know what you think BUT and this is a big BUT, the situation in Europe is far different from the one in the United States. The elites have betrayed the people and the people doesn't have a recourse because of the system. Because of it (and I deplore it) the reaction will come from the yobs, the football hooligans etc. because the elites do not want to act.

Wilders must be seen in this context. And compared to others, he is much better.

369 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:45:44pm

re: #368 Pitiricus

We've heard all the excuses for why europe must turn to fascists long before this comment, and it's still not acceptable. The fascists are not a solution to anything- they will only make things worse.

370 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:52:23pm

Then you are clueless about Europe Sharmuta. First, Wilders isn't a fascist. Given that Mein Kampf is banned in a lot of European countries (Germany and France among others - I don't know about Holland), to ban the Koran isn't the deal it is in the US. A lot of books are banned in a lot of European countries for a lot of different reasons. Second, quite often in European history the street had to react in order to induce change, because the elites ignored them

The context is different. So is the history. And to compare Wilders to Le Pen shows an ignorance of the context quite outstanding. I don't know enough about the Vlams Belung to judge what it is, but I know enough about Wilders.

His party will probably garner the most vote at the next elections in Holland. And this is good.

371 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 12:56:07pm

re: #370 Pitiricus

I think the problem is we Americans "get" europe just fine. You'll rise up, take it to the streets, oust your elites and replace them with new elites. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Except this time- don't look to America to come bail your asses out again. I'm tired of spending our treasure on those who neither appreciate it nor learn from their own history.

372 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:01:51pm

No, you don't get it at all.

And stop with these ridiculous "we won't come." May I remind you that part of the reason the Second World War started was the cluelessness of an American president, Wilson? He was the one who unleashed the poison of nationalism in Europe at the Treaty of Versailles. Also that Americans needed Pearl Harbor to declare war. So it was in their own interest.

What now is happening in Europe is a reevaluation of some ideas propagated by academics (and may I remind you coming from the United States) on the value of multiculturalism versus a national identity. The problem is that the elites are clueless (not unlike the obamination)... Given that in Holland the electoral system is such that you need a coalition, change will be very difficult. But Wilders is one agent of change. He is not a fascist at all. What he says make a lot of sense in the European context.

373 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:06:20pm

re: #297 dwells38

At this time in history, unfortunately I see no possibility in a reformation in the foundations of Islam. As it stands today, there is no viable organization that can achieve any reformation without changing the foundations of Islam. Which by its very existence, Muslims consider it as the "unfiltered and final word of Allah".

Thus, no possibility of foundational change, no possibility of reformation, it remains at the moment, a committed enemy ideology of Western Civilization.

374 [deleted]  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:06:39pm
375 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:08:44pm

BTW

Wilders doesn't advocate mass deportations. He advocates a moratorium on Muslim immigration to Holland.

376 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:09:34pm

No- he advocates stripping citizens of their citizenship and then deporting them.

377 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:09:49pm

re: #372 Pitiricus

Did you happen to read the Rusty Shackleford's blog entry (it's at the top there -- just click on the link and read the entry at Jawa Report). Rusty Shackleford lists the items in Geert Wilders speech which demonstrate Wilders' fascist tendencies...(that's the argument -- that Wilders would take the individual human rights away from Muslims -- their right to practice their religion, their right to free assembly, their right to free speech, etc. To the extent that Wilders wishes to do certain things -- ban the Koran, deny Muslim immigrants entrance into Holland, deport Muslims, close/stop building mosques, etc, etc., -- this indicates Wilders' trend toward fascism...that's the State trumping individual human rights and liberties. and Why? Because they're Muslims?

378 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:10:39pm

re: #315 Charles

The point, though, is that Geert Wilders is spouting this stuff right here in America, on a speaking tour sponsored by Americans, and he's being applauded by Americans for advocating things that are simply un-American.

In Germany, the government has declared that Scientology is not a religion -- something that we in America wouldn't do for fear of violating our First Amendment protections of religion. Wilders is advocating his government declaring Islam to be not a religion -- which is absurd, in the sense that his grounds (Islam is a total political system) applies to the Old Testament as well.

Wilders also argues that there should be reciprocity in only allowing new mosques to be opened in Europe if new non-Islamic houses of worship are allowed to open in Islamic countries. That's a wrong-headed approach to the issue, as it only gives the Islamic countries the excuse that the West is agreeing with their policy of not allowing minority houses of worship to open.

But when he comes to the question of what is being preached in European mosques and taught in Islamic schools in the West, the difference with America is one of degree. Even in the USA, the government interferes with religious practice when that practice threatens the State and its citizens. Teaching pupils that all Jews are going to Hell because they are not saved with the teachings of one's own religion is religious freedom; teaching pupils that they have a Divinely-commanded obligation to kill all Jews is not a protected aspect of religious practice. Where Wilders calls for outright bans and abolitions, we in America call for establishing limits and regulations.

Wilder's calls for banning Islam as a totalitarian political movement are motivated by the same European impulses to ban Naziism. Thank God in America we let our Nazis march through Skokie to help celebrate the opening of the Holocaust Museum -- because that reflects the fact that Naziism never took over our country and turned it into a charnel house. (On the other hand, they DID ask if I was or had ever been a member of the CPUSA when I applied for my security clearance -- I guess my grandparents, who were card-carrying Party members, would have been offended at that infringment on my civil liberties, but I was somehow OK with it.)

379 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:12:34pm

re: #358 Sunlight

It has seemed to me since Charles turned over this rock last year (or is it 2 yrs ago now) that the Euros tend to want to regulate speech, but don't want to enforce their laws. The U.S. is not far behind on this trail. So, you have these Euros calling for outlawing Islam, but not calling for arrest, trial, incarceration, etc. of car burners, for example, regardless of political (or religious) affiliation.

French police are pathetic.

'Barbarian' defies court over torture and murder of Jew

'Anti-Semitic' killers only wanted money, say police

380 Fuad Al'Razi  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:13:50pm

re: #297 dwells38

An additional point, the reason most Muslims are law-abiding in the USA is due to the fact that they do not live in a MUSLIM NATION. It is the USA that affords them the possibility of economic, social, religious, and political freedom.

For these possibilities, they should consider the gift that is the United States of America, and consider leaving Islam permanently.

381 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:15:16pm
Even if Wilders were right, and Islam should not be accorded the protection and status of a religion, we don't ban political movements either.

In the United States, no. In Europe, yes. The Vlams blok was banned in Belgium. The Unité Radicale was banned in France and the Batasuna party in Spain. In Holland they have banned the the Nationale Volksparti. And Nazi party are banned in Germany and fascist ones in Italy.

Europe is different from the United States. Its history is different, the constitutions of the different states is different. In some ways the processes began in Europe were achieved in the United States much before they were in Europe. Or maybe European history has taught different lessons than American history, this I don't know.

382 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:17:32pm

re: #366 William Teach

Rusty also wrote a heck of a lot more then just "noticing Wilders' Fascist tendencies." He also included some kind words and support of Wilders. Why no mention of that?

I did mention it. I wrote it on that chip that's on your shoulder. Go ahead, have a look.

383 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:22:25pm
Wilders would take the individual human rights away from Muslims -- their right to practice their religion, their right to free assembly, their right to free speech,

What Wilders want is:

1) the 'fascist Koran' outlawed in Holland 2) the constitution rewritten to make that possible 3), all immigration from Muslim countries halted 4)Muslim immigrants paid to leave and 5) all Muslim 'criminals' stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported 'back where they came from'

Quite different from what is written. Immigrants do not have the Dutch citizenship yet. Not very different from the immigrants in the US! Also, the only ones he wants to strip of citizenship are the criminals. There is a question on how they acquired this citizenship and does their life of crime justify the stripping of it. It is far from what Jawa says

Wilders has also said ""My allies are not Le Pen or Haider. We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups."

What he advocates make sense in the Dutch context.

384 Vik  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:24:02pm

@343, Walter:

But to shut them up, that is wrong, and against every principle we stand for in this country.

This is very difficult for Westerners to grasp. Here's how it works. Imams in mosques call for murder, and some of the people listening respond to the call and commit murder, often mass murder. Unable to predict in advance which of the people in the mosques will randomly decide to commit mass murder, the society is paralyzed. Locking up the killers doesn't protect you from the next ones to respond to the imams' incitement to commit murder. As a result only one side in the conflict between Muslims who follow the Koran, and Westerners, is armed -- namely, the Muslims. This is why France, Germany, England, etc. etc. etc. are losing the war against Islam.

We have to face the facts and find a way to deal with them, that defends our free speech, while eliminating the incitement to murder that is inherent in the view of the Koran Rusty himself presents, and which therefore is often preached in mosques - or we will suffer the same fate as these European nations.

385 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:26:26pm

Making sense does not equate to being right.

386 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:27:57pm

From

Liveleak Video

This is what Wilders say. Note that there is a law in Holland against hate speech it seems.

Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present! Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a
barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran's core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war "“ a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today's Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect...

387 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:32:56pm

re: #385 Sharmuta

Put another way, just because you feel strongly about something does not make it right.

388 calcajun  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:35:32pm

re: #386 Pitiricus

The same could be said for the Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus--at the very least.

BTW- I am a fundamentalist Christian.

389 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:36:49pm

re: #383 Pitiricus

You really don't seem to "get this"...Do you have any, say, sacred texts in your religion (assuming you might be "religious")? And, what role does that text play in the practice of your religion? Shall we ban the Christian Bible since I can dredge up quotes which sound to me to be hateful and violent? That wouldn't be an infringement on your religion or your ability to practice it? (What's next? Burning the Talmud?) (Book banning also illustrates a violation of the principle of Free Speech -- and one's rights to Intellectual Freedom...and no g.d. government telling me what I can or cannot read -- thank you.) And, closing down mosques also is a violation (as Rusty notes) of the freedom of assembly. Finally, as Charles here has pointed out (repeatedly) the criminalization of Muslim immigrants (based on what? how do you define "criminal"? By virtue of the fact that thanks to a change in the constitution of Holland, that the Koran becomes an illegal book, then anyone caught in possession of said text thereby becomes automatically a "criminal" and is thus subject to deportation? How is this "ok"?)

390 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:41:51pm

Jawa has an American's reaction. But Holland isn't the United States.

Mosques shouldn't be build in Europe by Saudis but maybe under the tight control of the government. And in Europe, Governments are behind the building of Churches, contrarily to the United State.. I don't know the case of Holland but in France since 1789 and more recently since 1905 the building of any religious house must be approved and is under the control of the government (I don't have time to enter on the reasons... They go back to the fight between the Church and the Kings).

Europe has very different rules (something Jawa remarks), result of its history. So that an American solution cannot work in Europe. The solutions will be different for each country.

391 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:45:51pm

re: #390 Pitiricus

Do you own a copy of the Koran? ...if so, you better get rid of it...lol

392 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:46:37pm
You really don't seem to "get this"...Do you have any, say, sacred texts in your religion (assuming you might be "religious")? And, what role does that text play in the practice of your religion? Shall we ban the Christian Bible since I can dredge up quotes which sound to me to be hateful and violent? T

Contrarily to Christianity and Judaism who have the Magisterium (for Catholicism), the conscience (for most Protestant churches) and the Talmud, the Oral Torah and the role of the sages for Judaism which allows a new interpretation of the texts when circumstances change, Islam consider the Koran to be the word of God and do not have a science of exegesis since the khalif Al Mamun, the son of Harun al-Rashid. This means that what is written in the Koran must be interpreted literally. So you stome the adulterous woman evben today and you kill the apostate, because it is written.

This makes the quotes from the Koran a literal blueprint for conduct, which the OT or the NT are not for Judaism or Christianity. Tell me when was the last time that an adulterous woman was stoned in Judaism? In Christianity?

393 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:47:22pm
Do you own a copy of the Koran?

Used it as toilet paper after reading it.

394 J.S.  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:50:05pm

re: #392 Pitiricus

Well, you see, if an adulterous woman is stoned (or there is an attempt made to do so) in Holland, I would expect the police would be called in to investigate, and then (given sufficient evidence) the culprits would be charged with a crime, such as attempted murder. That's the way most modern democracies in the West work (last time i checked.)

395 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:54:33pm
he culprits would be charged with a crime, such as attempted murder. That's the way most modern democracies in the West work

Except that it isn't how it works in the Muslim community. Most Honor killings are disguised and only in the last years the police is making an effort to identify them.

[Link: www.feminist.com...]

For in the shadows of the famously tolerant and peaceful Netherlands has long lurked a secret it took Hirsi Ali's courage to lay bare: Honor killings.

Because these killings long were kept hidden and unspoken in the Muslim community, the actual number of such murders that occur in Holland every year is unknown, though Hirsi Ali believes it could be as many as 50, possibly more. While Muslims account for less than 6 percent of the Dutch population, Muslim women are 60 percent of those in battered women's shelters. The government was reluctant to talk about the situation, Hirsi Ali says, because they believed tolerance required respecting different cultures and traditions. ..

396 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:56:15pm

re: #384 Vik

@343, Walter:

This is very difficult for Westerners to grasp. Here's how it works.

Thanks for the lecture, Vik. In case you haven't noticed, I've been posting about what's preached in SAUDI mosques for years at LGF.

The keyword is SAUDI mosques. Unless you have evidence that the same thing is going on in every mosque in the US, your claim that we need to "face the facts and find a way to deal with them" is nothing more than blind bigotry and hysterical alarmism. If this were happening in the US, we'd have seen more attacks here since 9/11.

Instead, we saw VERY few attacks, and almost none for years now. You're the one who's not getting it here.

397 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 1:59:40pm

re: #383 Pitiricus

What he advocates make sense in the Dutch context.

Even if that were true -- and the Dutch authorities don't seem to agree with you, by the way -- this crap is being spouted here in America, and applauded by American audiences. The Netherlands can do whatever they want, it's their country -- but when people like Wilders try to bring their repressive, fascist attitudes to America I'm going to speak out against it. We don't want it here, we don't need it here, and it's not going to happen here.

398 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:00:20pm

re: #395 PitiricusAli says, because they believed tolerance required respecting different cultures and traditions. ..

Pat says it best.
Pat Condell

399 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:03:29pm

re: #390 Pitiricus

The American form of government is completely different from the europeans- this cannot be denied.

The reason why though is europeans have a fundamentality different set of pre-cognitive, underlying assumptions about power and social issues. The reason the two areas in question here are so different is that America didn't have the hierarchy of royalty, nobility and gentry that europe had/has. You said it yourself- you're ruled by elites. They are your surrogate social decision makers.

In America, we have a systemic process that we protect. When we have riots and car burnings- the criminals are arrested and prosecuted because we value the rule of law. Even when the laws are flawed, we work within our system to correct it, where as you guys create new rules, like no-go zones so as to not disrupt society.

But it DOES disrupt society to not uphold the law- to alter it at a whim to be "fair". Your elites don't care about the process- only the results they think they'll achieve with their "solutions". This is why they ban books and political parties. They think the result will be no fascists. All they've done is make the fascists hide their tracks better. Fools.

And you're a fool too if you think the opposite end of this same mindset is any sort of answer. You don't want to hear the simple truth- perhaps it's too American for you- try upholding your laws. Try having a process applied equally to all citizens and upholding it even if the results at times seem unfair. Protect the process, don't seek the way to the desired end result. That path always comes with unexpected and unintended consequences. Don't believe me? Look around you- you're living in it.

400 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:06:00pm
- and the Dutch authorities don't seem to agree with you, by the way

Wilders is a member of Parliament with a party set to take a plurality of votes at the next elections. Of course other parties will attack him. But the Dutch authorities have never accused him of fascism or the rest. They have been quite afraid of the result of Fitna, but they let it be.

As to expose this in the United States? Well didn't you say you were for freedom of speech, which exists in the United States. He was invited and exposed his ideas, like all people do in similar circumstances.

401 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:07:16pm
But it DOES disrupt society to not uphold the law- to alter it at a whim to be "fair". Your elites don't care about the process-

As I showed, there is already a law against hate speech in Holland. So why not to apply it to the Koran? It isn't altering.

The Law exists. The fact it is not applied is the scandal.

402 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:09:56pm

re: #401 Pitiricus

No- the scandal is you have speech laws. Americans find this disturbing and the antithesis of what we believe.

But please go on missing the point of that post. I have full faith that europe will continue to not get the distinction.

403 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:10:21pm

re: #400 Pitiricus

As to expose this in the United States? Well didn't you say you were for freedom of speech, which exists in the United States. He was invited and exposed his ideas, like all people do in similar circumstances.

That's right, he has the perfect right to say this garbage.

And I have the perfect right to speak out against it, whether you like it or not.

404 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:11:39pm
And you're a fool too if you think the opposite end of this same mindset

It isn't the opposite end. The fact is that the Law exists and isn't applied. So banning the Koran is within the Law. Putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration too. I am not sure about stripping criminals of their citizenship in Holland but in my native France for centuries there was a Law that allowed to be stripped of citizenship if you committed some crimes. Maybe the same exists in Holland, I don't know.

The fool isn't me, it is you who compare a system with another without taking History into account.

And by the way Holland was since the 16th century one of the most tolerant societies in Europe. Much more tolerant than the American colonies of the time.

405 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:11:49pm

re: #396 Charles

Thanks for the lecture, Vik. In case you haven't noticed, I've been posting about what's preached in SAUDI mosques for years at LGF.

The keyword is SAUDI mosques. Unless you have evidence that the same thing is going on in every mosque in the US, your claim that we need to "face the facts and find a way to deal with them" is nothing more than blind bigotry and hysterical alarmism. If this were happening in the US, we'd have seen more attacks here since 9/11.

Instead, we saw VERY few attacks, and almost none for years now. You're the one who's not getting it here.

That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A LOT of things changed in the USA after 9/11 to make it more difficult for domestic terrorists of any stripe to carry out attacks, and specifically to monitor American msoques and other Islamic institutions for signs of hostile plots against the USA.

In fact, as you've yourself noted, "our friends the Saudis" have explicitly attempted to export Wahabist/Salafist teaching to American mosques and Islamic schools, e.g., Islamic Saudi Academy Teaching Hatred, Sharia. Is such instruction in a religious school Constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion, or does the government have a right and obligation to protect other citizens (and the pupils themselves, by the way) from the consequences of this indoctrination?

406 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:17:26pm
And I have the perfect right to speak out against it, whether you like it or not.

As I told before, you attack without any historical or societal perspective. The Laws in Holland already cover part of what Wilders advocates. Holland is a very successful society since the 16th century because it was able to have Laws and rules that fitted its context and needs.

So making all Dutch residents respect these Laws is the role of the government and if it doesn't do it, it is the role of the concerned citizens to make it do it. This is what Wilders do. And this is what his supporters want the government to do.

Dutch laws are different from American laws, so you cannot ask a Dutch politician to respect the Laws of the United States.

Just to add, there is an established religion in Holland... Different from the United States again!

407 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:17:42pm

re: #405 stuiec

That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A LOT of things changed in the USA after 9/11 to make it more difficult for domestic terrorists of any stripe to carry out attacks, and specifically to monitor American msoques and other Islamic institutions for signs of hostile plots against the USA.

Of course. I agree with that. Mosques that were involved in radical activity were placed under surveillance, plots were disrupted, etc. None of this changes the fact that what's happening in Saudi mosques is NOT happening here in the US. Every attempt of the Wahhabis to introduce their radicalism here has been shut down by legal means, or exposed by blogs or newspapers. (Yes, newspapers have done some work on this.)

There's no fallacy here at all. I'm very well aware of all those factors, and I agree that they've had a big effect in mitigating the spread of radicalism in the US. The point is that we don't have the same conditions here in the US as Vik is yelling about in Saudi Arabia.

408 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:17:55pm

re: #404 Pitiricus

You don't get it at all. You're trying to use the false solution to the problem of extremism in europe, which was to ban books and criminalize certain speech. Your existing laws on this are already flawed and not worth upholding because they limit personal liberty. You still have nazis even though they're banned! So applying a bad law equally isn't the answer because it's already failed. Applying it even more isn't going to solve your problem- it will only create new problems.

But carry on- I know you'll continue to miss the point.

409 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:19:28pm

re: #406 Pitiricus

You're the one with no perspective.

410 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:19:54pm

re: #406 Pitiricus

As I told before, you attack without any historical or societal perspective. The Laws in Holland already cover part of what Wilders advocates. Holland is a very successful society since the 16th century because it was able to have Laws and rules that fitted its context and needs.

So making all Dutch residents respect these Laws is the role of the government and if it doesn't do it, it is the role of the concerned citizens to make it do it. This is what Wilders do. And this is what his supporters want the government to do.

Dutch laws are different from American laws, so you cannot ask a Dutch politician to respect the Laws of the United States.

Just to add, there is an established religion in Holland... Different from the United States again!

When Geert Wilders comes to America and spreads his crap here, I don't care about Dutch laws. I care about the Americans who are being swayed by this populist ranting.

You may think I'm ignorant of the "historical perspective" (I'm not), but I'm going to continue speaking out against importing this intolerant, anti-freedom bigotry to my country.

411 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:23:32pm

More than my fellow Americans- europeans need to read A Conflict of Visions.

412 danrudy  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:24:07pm

re: #401 Pitiricus

Dude has a point!

413 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:24:39pm
In fact, as you've yourself noted, "our friends the Saudis" have explicitly attempted to export Wahabist/Salafist teaching to American mosques and Islamic schools

Same in Holland... This is why the government is now making life very bad for foreign imams...
[Link: www.militantislammonitor.org...]

Dutch Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk has told Muslim clerics in the Netherlands that they need to assimilate into Dutch society. The minister, a member of the liberal-conservative VVD party, delivered her message in person at the weekend when she attended a meeting with some 50 imams, saying that she wished to continue her dialogue with them next year, only then in the Dutch language. She also called for the creation of a course in the Netherlands to train new imams. However, it was just one aspect of her meeting with the Muslim clerics that grabbed most of the headlines, namely her attempt to shake hands with one of the imams. The handshake was refused. I

And [Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

The Netherlands — which is home to about 800,000 Muslims, nearly 6% of the population — has insisted that all imams receive training in Dutch culture since October 2002....

The vast majority of European imams come from north Africa, the Middle East or the Indian subcontinent. Often they do not share any common language with second and third-generation European Muslims, let alone understand the difficulties of growing up in the West...

Meanwhile, many Dutch politicians think that the course does not go far enough. There is a move in parliament to extend the compulsory training beyond courses in Dutch values to cover the religion itself. In other words, Dutch imams would be taught to preach Dutch Islam.

Sterk got the backing of 135 out of 150 MPs for the proposal. She admits that she does not want equivalent measures for incoming clerics from other religions: “We talk of imams because there’s a special problem. They cause more trouble than the rabbis or priests.”

414 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:27:24pm

re: #412 danrudy

No- he does not! Banning books and hate speech was not the answer to dealing with nazis. The nazis just went underground, but they're still there. It didn't work, so applying it more is likewise no solution.

415 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:27:49pm

The bottom line is that only a fringe group of extremists are listening to people like Geert Wilders anyway -- fools like Pamela Geller. His ideas are going exactly nowhere in the United States, and will never gain any traction.

416 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:30:44pm
. Your existing laws on this are already flawed and not worth upholding because they limit personal liberty.

This is complete nonsense. Each society has its own laws, the result of its history. These laws have worked very well for these countries and they don't want to change them because you consider them crap. As simple as that. The way laws must be judged is on how well they serve the goals of their society.

Laws in Holland have been successful in creating a wealthy, peaceful society. Most Europeans would tell you that the second amendment is crap. Americans do not consider it so.

By the way, there was never an absolute freedom of speech right in the United States either. There are limits and the limits depend on the society.

417 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:33:31pm
The bottom line is that only a fringe group of extremists are listening to people like Geert Wilders anyway

Well given that he is on line to have one of the biggest bloc of deputies in the next Dutch Parliament (27 deputies), you are wrong. And given that he is a Dutch politician, he really couldn't care less about the votes of Americans...

At the end of the day what is important for him are the vote of the Dutch.

418 danrudy  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:37:22pm

re: #410 Charlesre: #414 Sharmuta


It is not for you or I to agree or disagree with their laws. It isn't out country.
Their country their laws
I believe his point was that they are selectively applying their laws.

Their laws ban books that are hate books. Do you think the Koran is a book that teaches hate? If so, should it be banned to be consistent with their laws. You don't necessarily have to agree with the law to see if they are applying it consistently.

419 Pitiricus  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:41:17pm
No- he does not! Banning books and hate speech was not the answer to dealing with nazis.

It dealt with it very well in Europe. Neo-Nazis are a minority without any political power.

And banning the Nazi party in 1930 would have probably saved 60 million lives.

As to Wilders
[Link: www.expatica.com...]

According to Dutch opinion polls, if parliamentary elections were held today the Freed Party (PVV) of populist leader Geert Wilders would become the largest party....

The PVV has 27 seats in the polls, while the Christian Democrats - the largest party in the governing coalition - has 26.

He has been rising in the polls since the Amsterdam appeals court decided to try Wilders for anti-Muslim comments six weeks ago.

420 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:43:34pm

re: #416 Pitiricus

The way laws must be judged is on how well they serve the goals of their society.

And that's the problem right there. You think you can set goals with laws designed to achieve them for society. Society is too complex for such tinkering.

Economics is a good example of what I'm trying to convey to you. You guys have socialism- you think you can design a better economic outcome for society.

In America, we have capitalism. That business does what is in their best interests within the law, and the benefits to society are a beneficial, but unintended effect.

Of course- neither of these economic systems are pure on either continent, but that is beside the point. You tinker and fail. We established our rights and the process by which we guard them.

421 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:45:40pm

re: #419 Pitiricus

Our nazis are not banned and are completely powerless and utterly rejected.

And neo-fascists most certainly hold offices in various government positions throughout europe, so I don't believe you.

422 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:47:38pm

Does Rusty know about the Dutch hate laws?

from OP link.

The truth of the matter is that I agree with Wilders that the Quran is just as hateful -- yes, I've read it. I have two translations of it in my office including the watered down translation sent to me by CAIR -- as anything Hitler ever wrote, if not more so. The Quran calls for Muslims to convert or kill all non-monotheists and subjugate Christians and Jews. Hitler's genocidal tendencies weren't quite as ambitious.

While I agree with Wilders' basic premise, I cannot support the banning of any book based on the notion that it is hateful.

423 amir  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:49:26pm

I have been reading this thread which has been very interesting. I have not read much about Wilders before and have not seen Fitna. I just read his ten key points called Klare Wijn on wikipedia. Some of it makes sense like a five year ban on immigration from non-Western countries. Other points are outrageously xenophobic and not enforceable like a permanent ban on preaching in any other language but Dutch. I agree with a lot of what Pitiricus is saying but when Pitiricus says: "Laws in Holland have been successful in creating a wealthy, peaceful society", I'll just say one thing - if Holland bans the Koran the last thing Holland will have is a peaceful society. With five percent Muslims, banning their holy book will not lead to peace. More likely it will lead to uncontrollable riots. It's just a provocation on Wilder's part for attracting attention.

424 Sharmuta  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:50:16pm

re: #418 danrudy

It certainly is their country where they're free to do what they wish, but I'm certainly free to voice my opinion that european political philosophy is flawed and state my reasoning for thinking so.

425 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:50:20pm

re: #419 Pitiricus

Since you're so much in favor of restricting speech and banning things, I'm sure you'll have no objection to being banned from spreading any more of your BS at LGF. Bye now!

426 amir  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:51:47pm

A big difference between US and Europe is that the US has a two party system where by radical parties are effectively banned from any political power without actually outlawing them.

427 Jr Ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:53:16pm

re: #423 amir

if Holland bans the Koran the last thing Holland will have is a peaceful society. With five percent Muslims, banning their holy book will not lead to peace. More likely it will lead to uncontrollable riots. It's just a provocation on Wilder's part for attracting attention.

Doubt very much the Koran will be banned.

428 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:55:47pm

There's absolutely no chance that the Koran will be banned in the Netherlands or anywhere else. This is nothing but populist political theater, playing to bigots and extremists to increase Wilders' political standing. It's a cynical power play.

429 Wishbone  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:55:52pm

re: #415 Charles

The bottom line is that only a fringe group of extremists are listening to people like Geert Wilders anyway -- fools like Pamela Geller. His ideas are going exactly nowhere in the United States, and will never gain any traction.

What........... Fringe extremists like Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch?

Whatever you think of Wilders, it's more than just the 'fringe extreme' elements who want to know what he has to say for himself.

430 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:57:27pm

Yeah Pitricus, the Dutch are a very different society. We get it. You are supporting a populist pundit hater who wants to abrogate the rights of others. It reminds me of the Dutch sending the ones they hated last time to Sobibor.

Don't worry about those Euro tribal nationalists behind the curtain...

431 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 2:58:56pm

re: #429 Wishbone

What........... Fringe extremists like Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch?

Whatever you think of Wilders, it's more than just the 'fringe extreme' elements who want to know what he has to say for himself.

I was speaking of fringe extremists in the US. There's no support for this crap here.

432 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:01:25pm

re: #430 Thanos

Yeah Pitricus, the Dutch are a very different society. We get it. You are supporting a populist pundit hater who wants to abrogate the rights of others. It reminds me of the Dutch sending the ones they hated last time to Sobibor.

Don't worry about those Euro tribal nationalists behind the curtain...

Every time, the same rationalizations and deflections. It really gets old.

433 citizen_canuck  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:31:00pm

re: #415 Charles

Geert Wilders is riding at the top of all political polls in Holland. Gaining ground week after week. The Dutch are seeing first hand what an increasing population of muslims does to a western society. And it isn't pretty!

434 Randall Gross  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:34:31pm

Notice how the Geert/VB/etc. trolls almost always come from outside the US?

435 Aye Pod  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:38:49pm

re: #383 Pitiricus

What he advocates make sense in the Dutch context.

Sure. Like Hitler's laws for the Jews made sense in a German context./

436 Jr ewing  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:45:53pm

re: #433 citizen_canuck

Geert Wilders is riding at the top of all political polls in Holland. Gaining ground week after week. The Dutch are seeing first hand what an increasing population of muslims does to a western society. And it isn't pretty!

Holland is the most liberal country in Europe..

437 Vik  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:55:27pm

Charles, you know from experience that I am a friend of this site and of the fantastic anti-Jihad work you do here. I beg you to permit the free exchange of views, without the use characterizations such as "blind bigotry and hysterical alarmism", "screaming", "yelling", etc. These kinds of characterizations shut down free communication of views, when that's what we greatly need.

The keyword is SAUDI mosques

Saudi mosques, mosques in the UK (as I learned about via your posts on the mosques in England), France (second link here), Germany, Italy, Canada, Sweden, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Yemen, Syria, etc. etc., and yes, there is also evidence of the radicalization of mosques in the U.S. (All links are from LGF).

Given that the Koran calls, in Rusty's words, "for Muslims to convert or kill all non-monotheists and subjugate Christians and Jews," it should not be surprising that many imams preach this.

The mechanism is clearly established - imams in mosques (not in all mosques), following a view of the Koran similar to Rusty's, preach an incitement to murder,
and some number of their followers carry it out.

Therefore, as I noted in 336, it is essential - if we are to protect ourselves from this violence - that we come up with a policy that defends our free speech, while eliminating the incitement to murder that is inherent in the view of the Koran Rusty himself presents, and which is of course therefore often preached in mosques.

438 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:00:42pm

re: #437 Vik

Therefore, as I noted in 336, it is essential - if we are to protect ourselves from this violence ...

What violence? Who are you protecting yourself from? The guy who runs the halal meat shop on Washington Boulevard?

- that we come up with a policy that defends our free speech, while eliminating the incitement to murder that is inherent in the view of the Koran Rusty himself presents, and which is of course therefore often preached in mosques.

And you propose to do that by restricting the freedom of religion of Muslims?

The fact is that we already have policies in place to protect people from Islamist violence. They're called laws. And the people who enforce these laws are called police. When the Islamists are in other countries, the enforcers are called the US military.

Not "bloggers." And definitely not people like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders.

439 infidel4ever  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:07:47pm

Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands from being sold in bookstores etc. It is however available in the regular public library, but cannot be taken out. So if I wanted to I could go to my local library and read it there. They have 3 copies (Dutch translations).

Also available are:

Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf [Boek] : geschiedenis - fragmenten - commentaren Werner Maser 1998 (history, excerpts, commentary)

Hitlers brieven en notities [Boek] : zijn wereldbeeld in handgeschreven documenten Adolf Hitler 2004 (Hitlers letters and notes, his world view in handwritten documents)

Hitlers tafelgesprekken [Boek] Adolf Hitler 1980 (Hitlers table conversations)

Not to mention the internet...

440 Vik  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:21:48pm

re: #438 Charles

What violence? Who are you protecting yourself from?

A case in point may be the "sudden jihad" violence, such as that which you have documented in Dearborn, Seattle, North Carolina, etc. I submit that the mechanism (as per my comment #384) which produces Islamic terrorists in so many nations around the world, is likely the same mechanism that produced these instances of sudden jihad here in the U.S.

Also, since this mechanism is well-established around the world, it is necessary to take steps to prevent it from producing further violence here in the U.S.

The existing U.S. laws, may not be sufficient - we may need a new law, which would not be shocking - new laws are passed all the time to deal with new situations. After all, the U.K., France, the Netherlands, etc., all also had laws, which proved insufficient, precisely for the reason I outlined in #384:

Unable to predict in advance which of the people in the mosques will randomly decide to commit mass murder, the society is paralyzed. Locking up the killers doesn't protect you from the next ones to respond to the imams' incitement to commit murder. As a result only one side in the conflict between Muslims who follow the Koran, and Westerners, is armed -- namely, the Muslims. This is why France, Germany, England, etc. etc. etc. are losing the war against Islam.

Per your excellent question:

And you propose to do that by restricting the freedom of religion of Muslims?

I really haven't proposed anything specific yet. I think it's going to take a lot of us putting our heads together to come up with an effective approach. Your question goes to the heart of the issue - what exactly are we going to do in the U.S., that they didn't do in the UK, Germany, France, etc. etc., so as to protect us from what has happened in those nations?

441 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:26:38pm

re: #438 Charles

What violence? Who are you protecting yourself from? The guy who runs the halal meat shop on Washington Boulevard?

No. The limo driver at LAX.

And the imam at the mosque in Lodi.

And the pizza deliveryman and his friends in Cherry Hill, near Fort Dix.

Or the six upstanding citizens of Miami who must be innocent of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower because they haven't been convicted in two trials, but are somehow still facing a third trial.

Or the two ex-cons who robbed a series of gas stations in L.A. in hopes of financing the arms for their personal jihad on synagogues and military installations.

Nope, no Islamic extremist incitement in America. Nothing to see here, move along.

442 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:39:07pm

re: #441 stuiec

No. The limo driver at LAX.

And the imam at the mosque in Lodi.

And the pizza deliveryman and his friends in Cherry Hill, near Fort Dix.

Or the six upstanding citizens of Miami who must be innocent of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower because they haven't been convicted in two trials, but are somehow still facing a third trial.

Or the two ex-cons who robbed a series of gas stations in L.A. in hopes of financing the arms for their personal jihad on synagogues and military installations.

Nope, no Islamic extremist incitement in America. Nothing to see here, move along.

And all of them were caught and/or stopped by law enforcement.

Got anything more recent than two-to-eight years ago?

443 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:45:23pm

re: #441 stuiec

This is getting a little ridiculous. There may be a few mosques in the US that are preaching hatred and jihad (but if so, where?), but the bigger problem by far is the hysterical over-reaction epitomized by people like Pamela Geller, who literally see jihadists lurking in every single mosque.

My point is that there are already laws and agencies in place to deal with any real incitement. And as far as I can tell, they've been doing a damn good job of it. There's been no repeat of 9/11, and all of the cases you're citing were either lone wolves, or plots that never came close to being executed.

To jump from the situation we're in now to "we've got to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal" is silly, self-defeating, unnecessary, and un-American. The people who are advocating this stuff are marginalizing themselves and making themselves look like kooks -- because they are kooks.

444 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:46:40pm

re: #407 Charles

There's no fallacy here at all. I'm very well aware of all those factors, and I agree that they've had a big effect in mitigating the spread of radicalism in the US. The point is that we don't have the same conditions here in the US as Vik is yelling about in Saudi Arabia.


With due respect, the following is a logical fallacy on your part:

If this were happening in the US, we'd have seen more attacks here since 9/11.

Instead, we saw VERY few attacks, and almost none for years now.


The lack of successful attacks in the USA after 9/11 is not proof that Islamic radicalization hasn't been taking place in the USA since 9/11.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has been conducting The Radicalization Project to track this phenomenon in the USA.

For the past year, CTR has conducted groundbreaking research through the Radicalization Project on the phenomenon of "homegrown terrorism," Westerners who have chosen to take up arms against the society in which they were born or raised. This phenomenon is recognized by scholars and policymakers alike as a growing national security challenge. As a recent NYPD report on homegrown terrorism notes, the threat is difficult to identify and defend against: "Radicalization is indiscriminate and those attracted to it include ... citizens from all walks of life." To date, most studies into the radicalization process for homegrown terrorists have fallen short in their ability to help the U.S. properly defend itself. Previous attempts have been general and preliminary in nature; moreover, much of the writing on this topic has been overly technical, rendering it inaccessible to lay readers and even most policymakers.
445 danrudy  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:48:31pm

re: #424 Sharmuta

Of course you are....and you are doing it very effectively.

I didn't think Pitiricus was doing such a bad job for the other side and I was enjoying reading the exchange...but then he was banned. (I am not sure why though...perhaps something else was going on behind the scenes or there were additional posts I need to go and look at more carefully.)

446 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:49:15pm

re: #444 stuiec

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has been conducting The Radicalization Project to track this phenomenon in the USA.

Cool, so let me know when they discover something real. So far I don't see anything solid at their website.

447 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:57:00pm

re: #443 Charles

To jump from the situation we're in now to "we've got to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal" is silly, self-defeating, unnecessary, and un-American. The people who are advocating this stuff are marginalizing themselves and making themselves look like kooks -- because they are kooks.


I think it IS kooky to advocate banning the Koran and stripping Islam of its official recognition as a religion. On the other hand, it's kooky to deny that the teachings of the Koran and the other exegetic scriptures of Islam teach a fundamental hatred of Jews and a duty to subjugate or exterminate monotheistic non-believers -- and exterminate rather than subjugate polytheists and atheists. If someone believes that to be a true and good believing Muslim, he must follow the exact literal teachings of the Koran, he's going to have difficulty in accepting non-Muslims as equal citizens in a Western democracy.

What's even KOOKIER is when the head of Comedy Central decides he can't allow South Park to show an innocuous depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in the same episode in which they show Jesus defecating on an American flag. It sort of indicates that either the irrational fear of Islamic terror has spread far wider than right-wing blogs, or that the fear of Islamic terror isn't quite as irrational as some may think.

448 danrudy  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:57:30pm

re: #443 Charles

CHarles ,
DO you believe in hate crime legislation?
I once had this discussion with my wife (who is against it ).
Regarding a hate crime against a homosexual or someone of a particular religion she thought that if one of these members of a group were attacked SPECIFICALLY because they are a member of said group the laws on the books should be enough to punish them. For example, if a guy went out and killed a homosexual because he hates homosexuals (rather then for some other reason like they were in an argument that got out of hand) she argued that he should be tried for murder. Nothing more or less.
I disagreed.

I view such a crime as more then the simple act itself. In addition to hurting the immediate victim of the violence there is also the attempt to strike fear in the hearts of all members of that group. In this instance, I prefer to get in the head of the criminal and claim that there are multiple victims since the essence of the crime was also to strike fear in that group. THus more then one victim.

I take the same view with regard to Islamic terrorism. There is the act itself and the attempt to sow terror in the hearts of anyone who hears about it.
The victims referenced in #441 are not simply the ones who end up in the hospital or the morgue. They are all of us who are members of the targeted group (which could be as vast as all Americans)

449 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:57:35pm

re: #444 stuiec

I just read through The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' "Homegrown Terrorists" report, and there's absolutely nothing in there that supports the idea that a substantial number of American mosques are preaching jihad and violence. The case study is Adam Gadahn, and the other people mentioned are cases where law enforcement did their jobs and caught the radicals before their plots could be executed. No evidence at all of a grand structure that's radicalizing American Muslims, but lots of evidence that these people are the exception rather than the rule.

450 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:09:32pm

re: #446 Charles

Cool, so let me know when they discover something real. So far I don't see anything solid at their website.


Here is something that's real (i.e., that's been published on a website). It's the NYPD report on Radicalization in the West.

Tiny excerpt from the 90 page PDF:

OUTSIDE EXPERT’S VIEW: Brian Michael Jenkins,
Senior Advisor to the President of the Rand Corporation

The United States and its allies have achieved undeniable success in degrading the operational capabilities of the jihadist terrorist enterprise responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, and numerous subsequent terrorist operations since then. However, we have not dented their determination, prevented their communications, or blunted their message. We have not diminished their capacity to incite, halted the process of radicalization, or impeded the recruitment that supports the jihadist enterprise. Indeed, recent intelligence estimates concede that “activists identifying themselves as jihadists are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” As a consequence, “the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad, but also in the Homeland. As the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief Intelligence Officer testified in March 2007, “radicalization will continue to expand within the United States over the long term.”


The report also points out the the ability of al-Qaeda to inspire lone wolves to commit "autonomous jihad" is a huge threat -- not surprising, considering what the lone wolves Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were able to achieve without significant outside support beyond ideological motivation.

451 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:17:18pm

re: #450 stuiec

The United States and its allies have achieved undeniable success in degrading the operational capabilities of the jihadist terrorist enterprise responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, and numerous subsequent terrorist operations since then.

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. We have made enormous progress against the jihadi terrorists.

Is there still a threat? Yes, and we still have to be vigilant -- but the measures advocated by people like Wilders are insane.

452 William Teach  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:34:10pm

Charles, re: 382

I did mention it. I wrote it on that chip that's on your shoulder. Go ahead, have a look.

Um, actually, no, beyond mentioning the title of Rusty's post. But, let me be clear: I do not agree with Wilders call to ban the Koran.

453 stuiec  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:34:13pm

re: #451 Charles

And this is exactly the point I've been trying to make. We have made enormous progress against the jihadi terrorists.

Is there still a threat? Yes, and we still have to be vigilant -- but the measures advocated by people like Wilders are insane.


Here's the money quote of the report. It indicates that we have to be vigilant over a whole lot of people for whom there's no current probable cause to be vigilant.

IMPLICATIONS

The global jihadi-Salafi movement poses a significant challenge to law enforcement and intelligence since the radicalization phenomenon that drives it is spontaneous, indiscriminate, and its indicators are subtle. Identifying whether an individual is being radicalized is hard to detect, especially in the early stages.

• The individuals are not on the law enforcement radar. Most have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble. Other than some commonalities in age and religion, individuals undergoing radicalization appear as “ordinary” citizens, who look, act, talk, and walk like everyone around them. In fact, in the United Kingdom, it is precisely those “ordinary” middle class university students who are sought after by local extremists because they are “clean skins”.

• In the early stages of their radicalization, these individuals rarely travel, are not participating in any kind of militant activity, yet they are slowly building the mindset, intention, and commitment to conduct jihad. As evidenced by all eleven case studies these groups, or clusters of extremists:

a) Act autonomously, can radicalize quickly, and often are made up of individuals, who on the surface, appear to be well-integrated into society.

b) Are not “name brand” terrorists or part of any known terrorist group. For the most part, they have little or no links to known militant groups or actors. Rather they are like-minded individuals who spend time together in clusters organized, originally, by previously established social network links.

c) Are not crime syndicates and therefore, applying organized crime strategies will fail.

The challenge to intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the West in general, and the United States in particular, is how to identify, pre-empt and thus prevent homegrown terrorist attacks given the non-criminal element of its indicators, the high growth rate of the process that underpins it and the increasing numbers of its citizens that are exposed to it.


Knowing that there aren't obvious indicators of who's likely to radicalize and blow up a subway car, where do we as a society draw the line between the vigilance necessary for survival and the civil liberties of individuals? Banning Islam and shutting mosques is crazy talk... but is it equally crazy to keep mosques under surveillance for signs of radicalization among their members? The halal butcher on Washington Ave. may be a perfectly fine fellow, but what if he -- like the pizzeria owner in Cherry Hill -- has a son who's fond of jihadist videos on the Web?

Where do we take our stand?

454 gnargtharst  Fri, May 1, 2009 5:58:04pm

At some point here, is anybody going to hazard a definition of the term "fascist"? It's been thrown around a lot in this, and other recent discussions. It appears that most use it in a vague perjorative sense, with no particular details.

I'm sceptical of any label which puts communism and fascism at opposite ends of a political spectrum, implying that the primary alternative is simply a mixture of different types of oppression.

455 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:00:17pm

re: #453 stuiec

is it equally crazy to keep mosques under surveillance for signs of radicalization among their members?

Uh, no, and it didn't say it was.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure those law enforcement agencies I mentioned are already doing that. I don't think Pamela Geller's BREAKING EXPOSES! of faceless people speaking unintelligibly on videos shot by unnamed people really count toward that.

456 Salamantis  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:02:08pm

re: #195 Gordon Marock

Yeah, it is kinda fascist. Personally, I will read whatever the f*ck I choose. If you want to use the force of government to stop me, you may be a fascist.

How can you know your enemies if you can't read what they've written?

457 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:03:28pm

re: #452 William Teach

Charles, re: 382

Um, actually, no, beyond mentioning the title of Rusty's post. But, let me be clear: I do not agree with Wilders call to ban the Koran.

Well, sorry -- but once someone starts talking about stripping people of their right to freedom of religion, they've lost me. I don't care how many other valid points they might make. That's the deal breaker.

458 [deleted]  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:14:59pm
459 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:20:12pm

re: #458 Ectopistes migratorius

Please stop Charles.

No.

460 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:21:06pm

And there is absolutely no chance of any kind of reconciliation between Robert Spencer and me. None.

Don't waste your time trying to make it happen, Rusty.

461 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:22:00pm

Ectopistes migratorius

Registered since: Nov 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0

462 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:25:54pm

re: #458 Ectopistes migratorius

This person is a twice-banned user -- for posting hateful, extreme comments. Previous names:

Alas
Purple Prose

463 Lynn B.  Fri, May 1, 2009 8:15:24pm

re: #460 Charles

And there is absolutely no chance of any kind of reconciliation between Robert Spencer and me. None.

Don't waste your time trying to make it happen, Rusty.

While I have a lot of respect for Rusty, this mantra of "why can't we all get along" wears very thin if you've actually followed the progress of this rift.

The unfortunate reality is that "letting it go" is the slippery slope into aligning with the bigots or "seeing no evil" with respect to those who do. Too bad for them that Charles isn't willing to do that.

464 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 1, 2009 9:52:59pm

re: #463 Lynn B.

While I have a lot of respect for Rusty, this mantra of "why can't we all get along" wears very thin if you've actually followed the progress of this rift.

Yes, it gets very old to hear that from people who obviously don't know the first thing about the issues under discussion.

The unfortunate reality is that "letting it go" is the slippery slope into aligning with the bigots or "seeing no evil" with respect to those who do. Too bad for them that Charles isn't willing to do that.

Don't worry. I'm not letting anything go. The more people who say that to me, the stronger my resolve becomes.

465 avspatti  Sat, May 2, 2009 12:10:27pm

re: #243 Eowyn2

All 'Christianity' requires is the belief that Jesus is the son of God. After that you have to get into different sects.

You forgot the repentance of sin part.

466 avspatti  Sat, May 2, 2009 12:16:58pm

re: #249 Charles

But, why not? It WOULD be helpful to define terms. at least for me.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 437 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1