The controversy over the anti-Islam YouTube film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” isn’t going away. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called for mass demonstrations last week, and yesterday thousands of Muslims converged outside Google in London to demand the removal of the YouTube clip:
A protest by 10,000 Muslims outside the offices of Google in London today is just the first in an orchestrated attempt to force the company to remove an anti-Islamic film from website YouTube in Britain. …
Organiser Masoud Alam said: “Our next protest will be at the offices of Google and YouTube across the world. We are looking to ban this film.
“This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed. …
One of the speakers, Sheikh Faiz Al-Aqtab Siddiqui, told The Daily Telegraph: “Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people.
That’s an odd quote: “Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well.” On the surface, the speaker seems to be criticizing terrorism, when in fact he’s justifying it. If mocking a religious figure like Mohammed is considered “terrorism,” that would legitimize a violent response. He’s saying you can’t end terrorism against people unless you also end “terrorism against feelings.”
Another protester interviewed in the article said basically the same thing:
Self-employed businessman Ahmed Nasar said he was worried the video could lead to violence in Britain in the same way as it had abroad. “If you push people too far,” he said, “You will turn the peaceful elements into violence.”
Yet another attempt to blame the victims for Islamic terrorism instead of the perpetrators. And these aren’t isolated opinions. The Organization of Islamic Conference, a group that represents 56 Islamic states, called for a global ban on insulting Muhammad at the United Nations last month, claiming that offensive speech could “provoke people to violence.” Not that there’s any chance of a global speech ban actually happening, but it’s a campaign that many Muslim leaders — including ones considered “moderate” – are invested in.
Missing the real point: both Google founders are Jewish. nFits well with the lie that never dies – n nbtw, keep us updated on Morsi's blasphemy law for Egypt, which would include any 'disrespect' for all 15 of Islam's messengers/prophets, starting with Adam. When I read that Islam has re-written history to make Adam the first Muslim, and then Noah, Abraham, Moses, Kings David and Solomon – all I could think of was the song from Singing in the Rain "Moses supposes" n nIslam needs music, and a sense of humor.
Heh. Two can play at this game. n nHow about this: n nFor every act of terrorism by Islamic bad guys, 1000 Korans will be burned. For every threat, a cartoon of Mohammed with bunny ears will be published. n n'It's up to you, guys. Behave nicely or the Koran gets it!' n n n n
The poet Yeats warned "and the middle shall cease to hold." n nI am more afraid that it will become a situation of for every act of terrorism, we burn/bulldoze a mosque and kill everyone inside, taking efforts to ensue that there are no survivors. n nThis is how things are done elsewhere in the world. This has happened in this country in the past, during the Revolutionary War when people were locked inside churches and burnt to death. I fear that sooner or later some "tipping point" will be crossed and the current situation where our side plays by "Marqus de' Queensburuy Rules" and they don't will end — with us being lowered, by necessity, to their level.
Won't happen. Don't worry. n nIf the Israelis haven't gone apesh*t over the provocations, America never will. n nThe euros, on the other hand . . . . but if they're going to, they better do it before they're in nursing homes with North African immigrants wiping heir a$$es . . . n n
Do not forget that this country once had a "Know Nothing" movement that essentially did take on the Catholic Church — which, unlike Islam, really wasn't picking a fight with them.
What is the basis for your astoundingly ludicrous statement that people were "locked inside churches and burnt to death" during the American Revolutionary War? This assertion is patently false…unless, is it possible that you have a factual source, one that perhaps has eluded every historian for centuries, for your claim? n nPray tell, pace Yeats, just precisely where is the "middle" between mediaeval Islamic savagery and, say, the Geneva Conventions on state warfare? Between Sharia and religious freedom? Between the tyranny of the Caliphate and a democratic republic? The 'middle' is a comforting myth…but should never be confused with reality.
Wow… The ignorance is amazing and let me first state that only a third of the population supported the Patriot cause – a third of the American population (called "Loyalists" and/or "Tories") supported the British cause, and the remaining third simply didn't care. n nMy family had to abandon everything and flee up a "spotted tail" and into the then-wilderness of Central Maine — that I do know. There were "Committees of Public Safety" on the Patriot side which did some truly obnoxious things — the term "Lynching" comes from that — a man named "Lynch" in I believe Virginia who was quite ruthless in his pursuit of Loyalists. And the British were equally obnoxious — I once found an interesting primary source relative to the burning of Falmouth (Portland) Maine. n nThe war got more vicious on both sides as it dragged on — and perhaps you have seen a movie known as _The Patriot_ — my understanding is that most of it is based on factual occurrences. Now a lot of the uglier side of the Revolution was never taught because of the influence of the DAR, but never forget that we live under a Constitution written in 1787 and not the Patriot government of 15 years earlier. n nAs to burning churches and such, such things continued after the war. There is the 19th Century case of the Catholic Priest John Bapst who was nearly burnt to death in Ellsworth — but versions vary about exactly what happened. n nBeyond that, I really don't have the time to go pull specific citations…
As I thought – relying on a scene from a fictional movie as historical evidence. Is "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" sound history, too? You do know what fiction is, don't you? Fiction, as in, from the screenwriter's imagination, as in, not true. You have no time to pull specific citations on any ARW burning church massacres because they do not exist. As to the rest of your screed, none of it – from Tories to lynching to 19th century priests – addresses the one factual point I raised, so your scattergun spew of irrelevant and unrelated facts proves that you have nothing. All you can do is call the person – that would be me – who is correct, "ignorant." A simple statement that you were wrong would have sufficed; your descent to ad hominem is the icing on the cake of your intellectual flatulence.
The documentation for John Bapst includes a high school named after him. Both sides — Catholics & Protestants — both recognize what happened and that the record really isn't quite clear on all the specifics, but that one doesn't need that to have a general idea of what happened. n nI am not willing to be an unpaid research assistant for someone who wouldn't accept facts regardless of the quality of my sources — and as to ad hominems, may I inquire as to who used the term "intellectual flatulence" and who did not? n nBut in passing I will mention the Gnadenhutten massacre — of which the victims may have been dead or dying before put into the church and burnt — but that is generally accepted to have happened.
LOL – you still cannot take responsibility for making a false assertion that, to quote you, "This has happened in this country in the past, during the Revolutionary War when people were locked inside churches and burnt to death." At no time during the Revolutionary War did this occur. Never. Not once, let alone multiple times as your use of the plural 'churches' suggests. n nWords have meaning, and truth matters. If you indeed have come into possession of a doctorate in education as implied by your moniker, and teach students, please convey to them my deepest sympathies – little is worse than having a teacher incapable of admitting he erred. Perhaps it's time you put on your Big Boy Panties and admitted a mistake? Or do you wish to continue snarking about unrelated occurrences? It is a fact that people have been locked inside buildings and burned to death many times in history – which has not the slightest connection to the false claim that people were likewise killed during the Revolutionary War. Sheesh!
Too timid. Every riot every act of violence is met with 100 people lynched, their heads stuffed on pikes their houses burned to the ground.
Ms. Goodman deserves credit for catching these two quotes, particularly the first one. n nThis is textbook fascism. n nWhat they are saying is really quite simple — and being missed because we view the world through the lens of the liberal enlightenment, where it is not acceptable to commit cold-blooded murder and kill someone simply because he/she/it holds a view different than yours. n nWhat they are saying is that anyone who expresses a view outside the proscribed orthodoxy of thought must suffer an immediate death — and that it is what fascism is — that no dissent can be tolerated, and that use of deadly force is justified in accomplishing this. It really is quite scary — and we need to stop viewing this through our own lens of religious tolerance. n nReligious values are, after all, only values. On the most detached objective basis, there really is no difference between belief in Mohammed and belief in the Red Sox — and there really is no objective difference between the offense felt by those who insult Mohammed and those who insult the Red Sox — and there is no difference between the social acceptability of murder either. n nAfter all, "Red Sox Nation" can tolerate no dissent. n nOn a more realistic perspective, does anyone remember where a different religion — and I feel comfortable calling it a "religion" in the objective sense — that of Eugenics went to? It too had views which no one was allowed to question, including that of the so-called "ideal Aryan" which led to the Holocaust and such. And that is where this could well lead to as well. Scary…. n nAlana, the word is "fascist" and it has nothing to do with religion. "Islam" only defines the *type* of fascism it is, much like Hitler's could be described as "antisemitic" (although that was only one facet of it). We also can use three highly detailed terms from psychology — "pathological", n"crazy", and "nuts" — to some extent, psychology is a formalization of the so-called "social contract" — the rules as to how human beings are expected to relate to each other in a civil society. n nThe "social contract" essentially is that I can't take your life, liberty or property just because I want to, and that you have the right to the assistance of the entire society in the event I attempt to do so. What this does is revert to the so-called "state of nature" where I can do so – with impunity – but only in a very narrowly defined area which will inevitably expand (watch for the feminists) to the point where the middle ceases to hold and everyone reverts to this "state of nature." n nThomas Hobbes put it best: life in "a state of nature" is "boorish, brutal, and above all else, brief."
Take all your personal, religious and social values and put them in one box. And then go into another dimension of thought. n nImagine that there was a religion, in this case Judaism rather than Islam, which had some religious teachings about food (i.e. the Kosher Laws). Imagine that the Jewish population was in all ways demographically identical to the world's Islamic population. n nWould we tolerate (would a lot of Jews tolerate) the social acceptance of murdering anyone who ate a Lobster? What about someone like me who used to catch lobsters by the hundreds of pounds and still has a few of his bouys floating around — does the offense one may suffer upon sight of my lobster bouy license my murder? n nAnd do the lives of those who "keep Kosher" depend upon knowing that anyone who doesn't will be killed? That is exactly what is in the first quote that Ms. Goodman was intrepid enough to find for us — implied is that the very survival of the Muslim population depends upon their knowing that anyone who insults Islam will die. n nAny Rabbi legitimizing violence against those who fail to "keep Kosher" would be locked up, we all know it. His fellow Rabbis would be so offended that not only would they turn him in but likely volunteer to translate what he said from Hebrew at the trial. They would do this not because they weren't Jewish but because they *were.* Something like this would be an affront to everything they believed in, they would be screaming from the rooftops that this was not what Judiasm was all about. n nNow they well may do this "within the faith" and quietly, they may just ease the Rabbi into a quiet (and cloistered) retirement, they may encourage the whole matter to be kept quiet — but they wouldn't let it continue. Nor would the congregation which would at least distance itself from him, much as I have distanced myself from the UCC (and not just because of Rev. Wright.) n nBut the bottom line is that a Rabbi calling upon the congregation to murder Ed because he is a lobsterman simply wouldn't be doing it for long — he would be stopped first by other Jews and then by the larger society if they didn't because religious tolerance doesn't extend to the murder of nonbelievers. n nSo why is Islam granted this special license? n nJust because the people who offend Islam are schmucks doesn't mean they aren't human beings. The most basic principle of liberty is that if something can be done to someone else (no matter how much you enjoy seeing it done), it not only can but likely will eventually be done to you as well. Harvey Silverglate tells this far better than I can, but the basic analogy is that if you cut down every tree chasing someone and then the situation changes to one where you need to hide, there won't be any trees for you to hide behind. n nI also like to remind people that the organized murders of the Holocaust did not start with the Jews. The Nazi's started on a smaller scale with the organized killing of the disabled — the retarded, the brain-damaged victims of WW-I poison gas, etc. People whom folk really didn't care that much for, and didn't mind seeing "disappear." Many argue that had they been confronted and stopped on this, there would have been no death camps later.