Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - May 20, 2010

[BaalChatzaf]

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

Islam was stopped militarily in France. Now recall what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

And at the gates of Vienna also I believe...

At the Battle of Tours and at the Gates of Vienna. It was a temporary check on Islam. The only way to cure the disease of Islam is to extirpate it in the entirety which is not easy to do because there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them are bat-shit crazy. The only practical course is to reduce Islam to a manageable rash.

[Brant Gaede]

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

Islam was stopped militarily in France. Now recall what happened to Charlie Hebdo.

And at the gates of Vienna also I believe...

At the Battle of Tours and at the Gates of Vienna. It was a temporary check on Islam. The only way to cure the disease of Islam is to extirpate it in the entirety which is not easy to do because there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them are bat-shit crazy. The only practical course is to reduce Islam to a manageable rash.

No one ever had any such power nor is it available now. You do not fight the religion as such but its fascist manifestations. After you kill a few of these fascists you bulldoze a grave, toss the bodies in then toss in a few dead pigs and cover them up. Then you go kill some more. Repeat, rinse, take a break and continue. Use the other tools available too such as cutting off the oil bucks. Again, it's a war on fascism, not a religion, and not just any fascism but fascism with legs. Cut off the legs. Beat the face to a pulp.

As for Israel, the Jews need to breed like rabbits so they can do more of this ass-kicking themselves in the decades ahead. You never know when more Obamas will show up, even more dangerous ones.

The fascist warriors of Islam come off a primitive and mostly unproductive base, so the fuel they get is from oil wealth and appeasement and the let's-kill-the-infidel part of their religion, especially the Jews. Just cut off their balls. Then peaceful Muslims can fight their own domestic fascism and further eviscerate this where-they-are cancer. Fascism, of course, is not confined to this religion. It manifests itself secularly everywhere and needs to be fought everywhere right down to its philosophical base. This war will never stop, just vary in intensity and means throughout the future of human existence. Low grade conflict is possible. Consider the present-day fascism of the US government to its own citizens. The way to fight it here at home is not with force of arms but by first understanding what is going on. Then if understanding results in fascist desire, which it already has, turn on the fire hose of truth and intolerance of intolerance. (Go, team, go!)

The main reason the war will never stop is the biological nature of human beings generally and the tendency to group conglomeration built in as a basic means of survival and socialization which starts with a man needs a woman and a woman needs a man and the DNA needs to continue on. After the family comes the primitive kick-ass tribe. No other way to do it. The tribes then get bigger through economic surplus first made possible by the growing of grains resulting in the rise of the city-state and kingdoms. Now we need kingdoms of freedom.

And wealth has given humans the luxury of individualism powered by formal philosophy. This in turn ironically requires a conglomeration of individualists to kick the asses of the other ass kickers so their individualistic asses don't get kicked back into the stone age by the fascists. So governments are instituted among men to protect these "rights" --. . . . .

Individualism is a luxury becomes a necessity becoming as the mother of philosophy gives birth without the benefit of any anesthesia--look, see--the head emerging from the womb!

--Brant

insane American ass kicker warrior

(I affirm this post to be 100% alcohol free under penalty of perjury--B. Gaede, so certified by t.j.Barum, esq. 5/10/2015, commission expired 5/09/2015, so this is de facto, not de jure, and if that's not good enough for you screw you)

[Brant Gaede]

The bastards will respect you if you've got balls and act accordingly. That's why Obama's approach to Iran is so contemptible. He's the anti-Reagan. You civilize jihadists "with a Craig."

"with a Craig" = ??

"Krag." Sorry.

"Damn, damn, damn the Filipinos

Underneath the starry flag,

Civilize them with a Krag,

And return us to our beloved home."

--Brant

nothing against the Filipinos; they're civilized--more than I am even--at least so it seems (I haven't been following their news that closely)

[Selene]

The Krag-Jørgensen is a repeating bolt action rifle designed by the Norwegians Ole Herman Johannes Krag and Erik Jørgensen in the late 19th century. It was adopted as a standard arm by Denmark, the United States of America and Norway. About 300 were delivered to Boer forces of the South African Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krag-J%C3%B8rgensen

[william.scherk]

I am reasonably sure that the Religion of Islam becomes the Religion of Peace whenever it has been stopped from advancing militarily.

This puzzled me, then I realized you were speaking historically. One adjunct to this is that the Religion is not over there, it is here, in North America. The Religion, of course, is not quite as singular a historical actor as it once may have been. We have so many different kinds of Muslims here, that it is dangerous to see a monolith, a single Religion of Islam. On the whole, Canadian muslims of all stripes are peaceful and law-abiding and fully participating in society. As I wrote in the aftermath of the Ottawa attack, muslims were as revolted as any other aggregate.

I am troubled by the 'hero' status accorded here to simple-minded reductionists, who purvey at times bigotry and irrational alarmism in the face of Islam, as with Geller and Wilders. Wilders wants the Koran banned. This is a hero of freedom?

It is interesting how many folks Geller throws under the bus as either bad muslims, fake muslims, taqqiya muslims, irrelevant muslims -- are folks she once praised. Example, Zhudi Jaffer.

Here's a guy that should get more face-time than hate-preacher Anjem Choudary, in my opinion. From Fox news.

Now, you would think that Geller and her organization would be at least friendly to Jaffer. But no. See his depressing American Thinker article in response to a hatchet job she did on him back in 2011: American Islamists Find Common Cause with Pamela Geller, Here's just a teaser from Jaffer in the American Thinker back when.

Prejudging the King hearings: surprising bedfellows

Witnesses have yet to be called and King's mere mention of me as a possible witness to Politico incited a vicious attack, published right here at American Thinker on January 20 by blogger Pamela Geller. That attack was later amplified and perpetuated by among others Robert Spencer at Frontpage Magazine.

While I appreciate the fact that honest disagreements are par for the course in this intensely difficult and controversial issue, Geller's attacks go far beyond ideology, employing a mixture of fabrications and libelous character assassination. Amusingly, the methods she and her cohorts use to dismiss my work share common cause and technique with the Islamists. In the past, I made it a policy not to respond to such scurrilous attacks but the fact that Geller's diatribe has gained some "currency" on the Internet made this a necessary distraction given also the importance of Rep. King's hearings.

Every one of Geller's allegations are provably false, with the one exception of our deep disagreement on the nature of Islam and the possibility of reform. And even that is a nebulous argument. The following will show that she knew, had the means to know, or should have known they were false. Let's look at her allegations, one by one:

Please have a read of Jaffer's article. I think he deserves support from an Objectivish, rational angle -- support in this case against Geller's misinformation and fabrication. It answers the question: why would Pamela Geller attack the moderate reform-minded Jaffer? Because she irrationally lumps all muslims as a suspect group. Because she can be unscrupulous in her 'intellectual war.'

I am really glad that security was tight at the Garland event, that the would-be murderers were inept, and that no innocent cartoonist or attendant was harmed. I am not so glad that Geller gains a halo.

I don't know how many OLers venture onto the Daily Beast site, but there is a wide-ranging article there that showcases Geller's disdain for fact-checking her own claims.

Here's some pertinent bits from the lengthy Beast article:

Pam Geller and Robert Spencer are being viewed as free speech champions for their Draw Muhammad contest, which turned tragic in Dallas last week. But once a moderate Muslim begins speaking, they quickly turn into what they hate.

The day after two gunmen were killed by police while trying to shoot their way into a Garland, Texas community center hosting a Mohammed cartoon contest, reformist American Muslim activist Zuhdi Jasser appeared on Fox News not only to condemn the attack but to unconditionally affirm the right to free expressionincluding the right to insult Islamand praise defiance against blasphemy bans.

What Jasser graciously did not mention was that the people whose speech he was defendingcontest organizers and anti-Islam polemicists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencerhad viciously attacked him in the past. In a 2011 article published by the right-wing website The American Thinker in response to Gellers screed on the same site, Jasser documented the duos smear campaign in which he was sometimes dismissed as a faux Muslim and sometimes denounced as a camouflaged extremist practicing taqiyya, the doctrine which supposedly allows Muslims to lie in the cause of Islam.

[...]

This is why, while we must stand by Geller as a victim of an outrageous attack on fundamental speech rights, it would be a tragic mistake to treat her or Spencer as leaders in the fight against the radical ideology that has been called Islamism or Islamofascism.

In his 2011 response to their attacks, Jasser warned that Gellers and Spencers genre is headed in only one directiondeclaring an ideological war against one-fourth of the worlds population and expecting to neutralize the Islamist threat by asking Muslims to renounce their faith. It is, perhaps literally, a dead end.

[anthony]

Over the top, if not unjustified, making a mockery of a religion and the faithful. It is wholly gratuitous, and I cannot want to take away what comforts a person and brings him certainty. But that's reality. People express themselves in many ways every day, nastily, jokingly or innocently, and no sensible person can consider himself above being targeted by possible insult, Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Objectivists, and all. If over the top, it also doesn't come close to how 'over the top', Islamist terror gangs have responded to feeling offended. Perhaps that's the shock tactic message of this Garland event: You are joining and dealing with our civilisation in the West, we aren't joining you -- so get used to our ways, buddy. There is even some implied respect for the Muslims in that message.

I don't think one can go by the relatively small numbers of settled Musims in North America, I'm sure likable, decent people like my neighbour, Farouk. Generally, they've arrived there for a good reason, to escape what's behind them. They are not included in what I've said.

Of the millions more Muslims sitting on the fence to see how things pan out, or privately enjoying the newfound power and fear attached to their religion, one keeps detecting the "soft bigotry of low expectations" from appeasing Western commentators. The same ones, without consistent integrity, who often deride Christians. And who is being killed in the name of Christianity?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about people who chant, "Death to the USA" and call us the Great Satan?

How dare they?

I say, let's send in the hit squad on those folks.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I said nothing about Wilders and my hero reference was apropos to the event Pamela and Bosch were involved with. They are on the right side of right.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

How about people who chant, "Death to the USA" and call us the Great Satan?

How dare they?

I say, let's send in the hit squad on those folks.

Michael

Not the same as moral sanction to kill Jews and to get on with it and throw in the other infidels when you can.

--Brant

that's war

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well then...

 

Try this:

 

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That's a story but the untold story containing this story is--? Well, I don't want to ruin the enjoyment of watching this very funny video. It's too easy to figure out anyway.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well then...

Try this:

Michael

Use the back button to see the video.

[anthony]

I was hasty in writing that I think there's something rotten in the state of Islam -- to explain, primarily there is something rotten (obviously) in the state of Arabia...but also Islam, most of whose adherents are perhaps innocently - but not entirely - allowing themselves to be the ideological cats'-paws for power ambitions of a scale which is too incredible for an average Westerner to take in. I think ISIS, AQ, Taliban, et al, are only the shock troops who perhaps themselves don't know the full degree they are being used by men of sophisticated power and huge wealth. To me it looks like the religion is the ideological front that is being used to pave the way for the submission of masses and whole nations into one empire. This by quiet men, behind even the political leaders, who well understand the psychology of western guilt and compulsive tolerance - and, the West's self-sacrificial ideology.

I think we've been witnessing opening moves in an orchestrated campaign that dwarfs any propaganda strategy ever devised .

I am no expert on Islam or any religion, though what I've read of it does dismay me for its dogmatic ambiguities of peacefulness and forceful submission. However, from background, observation and personal contact, I believe I do have a fair insight of individual and collective Arabian thinking, character and emotions. In a big way, as I've tried to say, Islam is secondary to those. In discussing Muslims, we should first be considering the Arab mind.

[Brant Gaede]

Okay. Then compare sect by sect and Arab to Persian. "Secondary," however, is like saying the heart is secondary to the head. Just try to remove one and see what happens.

--Brant

[anthony]

Okay. Then compare sect by sect and Arab to Persian. "Secondary," however, is like saying the heart is secondary to the head. Just try to remove one and see what happens.

--Brant

I'll leave such comparison to WSS, although naturally - along with all the nationalities -I am aware of many further ethnic distinctions, if one wants to break it down. I don't think it matters at this stage. If you recall, it wasn't long ago (about 30+ years) that westerners spoke of and heard (vaguely) only of "Arabs" and their quaint or romantic customs. For people like my mother's family living in Arab countries for generations (for better and worse, but constantly looked down upon as dhimmis), the religion was less explicit to that over all ethnicity. She spoke of Arabs (as I gather they referred to themselves) never of Muslims and could in fact speak quite good Arabic and cook very good Arabic food. One could accurately call her an Arabian Jew.

"Muslim" has risen, in more ways than one. The people now identify with a sort of Muslim Pride.

To a point, we can't blame Arab-Muslims for feeling patronized, used, ignored and ostracized for so long by the West, especially Europe.

Of course, as you say, it's now an inseparable concept, excepting some few Christian Arabs. Lebanese in SA were originally from Syria, by way of Lebanon, for instance..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well then...

 

Try this:

 

 

 

Michael

 

Looks like SNL ripped this skit off from a skit on the Canadian comedy show, “This Hour Has 22 Minutes”:

 

 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From here:

Wow.

Does that say it all.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

From here:

Wow.

Does that say it all.

Michael

It do....

[william.scherk]

I've read comments in several places on the web by people wanting to punch Choudary when they see this video.

I have always wanted to punch Anjem Choudary in the face. In the British media he is almost always introduced as "Hate Preacher," and I say for good reason. He has no mosque, he has trivial support from Muslim leaders and congregations. He is a self-promoter and a zealot. This doesn't mean he should go on a No-Fly list or be banged up on shoddy 'hate speech' grounds**, but I think he is not the kind of preacher one finds on every streetcorner, expressing a majority opinion.

[...] ** Choudary has a travel ban imposed on him by the UK government. and faces charges related to terrorism-support.

... and .... he is charged, sayeth the Telegraph.

Anjem Choudary protests innocence as charged with terror offence

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary launched a 20 minute court monologue protesting his innocence after being charged with a terror offence for the first time.

The controversial cleric said he would be pleading that David Cameron, the police and the courts are the guilty ones after being accused of inviting support for the terror group Isil.

The 48-year-old claimed his arrest and charge was a “political manoeuvre to silence Muslim voices” and insisted he would defend himself in court. [...]

The pair allegedly encouraged Muslims to obey the so-called Islamic State as a caliphate in online messages despite it being a banned terrorist organisation.

It is believed to be the first time Choudary has been charged with a terrorism offence.

When asked how he intended to plead, the former lawyer said: “I will be pleading Cameron, police and the judges are guilty and the only people who are innocent here are me and Mr Rahman.”

Good luck with that, you idiot.

Edited August 5, 2015 by william.scherk

[Libertarian Muslim]

Is no one else concerned with the type of legislation that might be required to charge someone with a crime like this? As to how flimsy the evidence might be and how it could be used to deprive the people of the UK of their liberty in the future?

[Brant Gaede]

Is no one else concerned with the type of legislation that might be required to charge someone with a crime like this? As to how flimsy the evidence might be and how it could be used to deprive the people of the UK of their liberty in the future?

I thought the legislation was already up and running in law.

If I walked around my city orally and with a sign advocating killing police officers, I would not be looking to test a law in court; I'd be trying to get police officers killed.

Do you have something else in mind? Have I missed the point of this discussion?

--Brant

the people in the UK have already been deprived of so much freedom as to make your concern of no concern in and of itself--and you could almost say the same about any democracy except maybe one or two small ones, one a small north Atlantic island and one European land-locked next to Austria--the Brits got what they want and deserve and if they want more freedom they best go get it, if they even remember it

[Libertarian Muslim]

I thought the legislation was already up and running in law.

If I walked around my city orally and with a sign advocating killing police officers, I would not be looking to test a law in court; I'd be trying to get police officers killed.

Do you have something else in mind? Have I missed the point of this discussion?

--Brant

Oh it is. I agree with what you are stating regarding such a sign as it is a clear incitement to violence.

My concern is more with how the legislation is written.

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

That's quite vague. What constitutes inviting support or support in itself? Can it be used to limit criticism of the British Government's foreign policy?

Would I go to prison for saying that I believe Northern Ireland should be a free and independent state? It seems somewhat dangerous.

[Selene]

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

Is there a better link?

Also, great to see you here again. I value your insight.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LM,

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

Is there a better link?

Also, great to see you here again. I value your insight.

A...

Thank you, sir. A pleasure.

Try this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

LM,

Michael

A pleasure to see you, sir