"No one lives who insults the prophet."

Peter Cresswell's picture
Submitted by Peter Cresswell on Sun, 2007-12-02 21:22

Peaceful Muslims are out on the streets again observes the New York Daily News:

"Like the avengers who vowed death to novelist Salman Rushdie for his affront to Islam, like those who slew Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for his, like the mobs who ran mindless riot across Europe in protest of cartoons they deemed offensive to their prophet, now tens of thousands of Sudanese Muslims are demanding the execution by firing squad of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, who made the mistake of letting her 7-year-old charges name a teddy bear Muhammed."
Al Jazeera reports that hundreds of protesters marched through the Sudanese capital Khartoum demanding death for the British school teacher "convicted of insulting Islam," chanting "No one lives who insults the prophet." Said one of those demonstrating in support of his stinking sub-human superstition, "It is a premeditated action, and this unbeliever thinks that she can fool us? What she did requires her life to be taken."

This is of course just a fortnight after a Saudi woman was sentenced to 90 lashes for the "crime" of being gang raped (and a further 110 lashes for complaining), and just weeks after Iranian officials confirmed that their Islamic state upholds the death penalty for homosexuals.

All hail this religion of peace.

And can't you just feel the silence from the liberal left ... it's a silence that's almost palpable.


( categories: )

Also

Matty Orchard's picture

The idea that he was banned entirely over a disagreement concerning the definition of apostate is absurd if you just read this thread.

If you want to know what apostate means...

Jameson's picture

... ask a Muslim apostate:

Ibn Warraq: "Any verbal denial of any principle of Muslim belief is considered apostasy. If one declares, for example, that the universe has always existed from eternity or that God has a material substance, then one is an apostate. If one denies the unity of God or confesses to a belief in reincarnation, one is guilty of apostasy. Certain acts are also deemed acts of apostasy, for example treating a copy of the Koran disrespectfully, by burning it or even soiling it in some way. Some doctors of Islamic law claim that a Muslim becomes an apostate if he or she enters a church, worships an idol, or learns and practises magic. A Muslim becomes an apostate if he defames the Prophet’s character, morals or virtues, and denies Muhammad’s prophethood and that he was the seal of the prophets."

Here's another Muslim apostate who - unlike Hirsi Ali and Warraq - hasn't renounced his faith:

"On 14 June 1995, a Cairo Appeals Court for personal status litigation ruled that Abu Zeid, then a professor of Arabic literature at Cairo University, should be separated from his wife on the grounds that his writings included opinions that make him an apostate... Abu Zeid rejects the accusation that he is anti-Islamic in any way. "I'm sure that I'm a Muslim..."

If I were to paraphrase my own quote I would have written: "... apart from [Muslim] apostates like Hirsi Ali, [Muslims are] either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil."

If Rick was confused by the 'apart from' perhaps he should have asked for clarification. Instead he chose to lop off the inconvenient bit so he could arrive at his old chestnut, "Glenn's abusing Muslims again."

But if all this boiled down to the definition of apostate, Rick would still be here. Unfortunately he has a history of misrepresenting those who believe, as Rand believed, that to remain silent in the face of evil is to sanction it.

Oh for goodness sake!

Melissa Lepley's picture

I go away for *one* long weekend, and you all turn vicious.

Look, I realize that, as Rick's friend, I'm hardly impartial, (and I also know how annoying he is to argue with, seeing as how I do it so often!) but this "bad faith" business has got to go.

Does anyone here know what, exactly "apostate" means?

a·pos·tate (ə-pŏs'tāt', -tĭt)
n.
One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

So basically,

"Well at least you've got that right... apart from apostates like Hirsi Ali they're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil."

adds up to:

"Well at least you've got that right... apart from people who are not muslim anymore they're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning those acts of evil."

Is it completely unreasonable that Rick would take that to mean all muslims are sanctioning evil?

If you want to ban him for pissing you off, go ahead. If you want to ban him for being annoying, feel free. This is your little kingdom, Linz, and you can do as you wish. But don't pretend moral outrage.

Melissa

"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."

Lady Warsi and Lord Ahmed

William Scott Scherk's picture

While following Glenn's suggestion to read more on the Sudanese demonstrations I came across a story about the British Muslims, peers of the realm, who got Miss Gibbons pardoned and hustled back home before her flogging could be carried out.

Here's a story from the leftist rag The Guardian that delves into it.

In a nutshell this woman, Baroness Warsi, a Tory, formally carried out the rescue that was finessed by Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, from Labour. Both apparently the kind of Muslim Brits who silently found the Sudanese affair a hideous embarrassment (for the Sudanese Government), and helped all save face. The Guardian piece is hilarious, if only for the characterization of Lady Warsi as "a thoroughly modern British Muslim woman."

It seems Miss Gibbons and Lady Warsi share a Yorkshire upbringing . . . if not a lifelong sinecure and vice chairmanship of the Conservative Party.

I should mention that this was a 'humour story' in some Canadian media. Few actually thought Gibbons would be flogged, as the Sudanese court decided, let alone that the rent-a-crowd in Khartoum would influence events. The reason Sudanese-Canucki Muslims were silent is not that young Moobar has to get to hockey, but that they had to watch Little Mosque on the Prairie . . .



Lady Sayeeda Warsi


Lord Ahmed of Rotherham.

WSS

Mr Perigo asks . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Why is it you emerge from under your rock only when there's an internecine spill?

The internecine spill threads are hugely popular -- controversy sells papers! I do take the time to poke at Scientologist fraud, Nick Otani blunders, and so on.

Are you some kind of ghoulish schism junkie? Remind me—why did I allow you back on again?

You explained it at the time:

Mr. Sherk was booted for being a jerk. A pomo-wanker extraordinaire. But he can come back if he wants. I am appreciating the value of unfettered debate more than ever in the light of the Hsiekovians' anal-retentiveness. Only I hope he doesn't waste so much space with ostentatious visuals.

That was in the blog posting "Sunny Days Ahead for SOLO," which incidentally has 2007 reads to date, vs 1053 reads for this thread.

WSS

No I don't regret it...

Robert's picture

... but I had to think hard about it before extending a helping hand. And Rick's actions do give me pause to reconsider that decision. If I am to be faulted for repeatedly checking my premises - so be it.

When I think upon lending assistance to those who annoy me (or worse) I am comforted by the wisdom of John Adams:

"Upon common theatres, indeed, the applause of the audience is of more importance to the actors than their own approbation. But upon the stage of life, while conscience claps, let the world hiss! On the contrary if conscience disapproves, the loudest applauses of the world are of little value."

John Adams (quoted from a letter he wrote to a friend from Harvard University.)

"The conversations we had

Aaron's picture

"The conversations we had about the rule of law and the green spider on Mars..."

What the heck are these discussions, especially the latter? Are they on this site or external?

I

Elijah Lineberry's picture

would love to be enlighted, too! Sticking out tongue

Mike seems to be in a fantasy World of some sort...but there we are.

I have not engaged in business activities in this Country for nearly four years...so...not entirely sure where the SFO comes into it.

Mind you, there are those who may believe that the SFO would let Victoria Uni students look at their files...and about someone with no business dealings within 10,000 miles of their jurisdiction....and there are others who would weigh up the likelihood and credibility of that and draw their own conclusions about what Mike is saying...(and his mental state).

It is not as if a 19 year old stirring and big noting was unique Eye

"I create nothing. I own"

I'm most intrigued...

Jameson's picture

I must've totally missed a post somewhere... Smiling

Well, Eli and Mike ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I say again, if either of you would care to enlighten me as to what the hell you're on about, I'm all ears.

No doubt

Mike Gardner's picture

 I have been planning a major project for a couple of months with quite the opposite intention...and all will be revealed in early January, to the great benefit of solopassion.com and the 'true believers'

I don't doubt that. My family has contacts with SFO...

  • When you cannot defend your actions or arguments attack the messenger to detract attention from your questionable actions.
  • Always show your kindness by doing people favors. You will require the gratitude of such people to come to your aid and defend you.
  • Build up your stature, integrity, and credibility by publicising the good deeds you have done in areas unrelated to the subject of scrutiny.
  • Build a strong base of support. Try to have surrogates and the beneficiaries of your largess stand up for you and defend you.
  • If you can, appear to take the “high road” and have your surrogates do the “dirty work” for you. After all, you cannot control the actions of your zealots.
  • I'm not paranoid sir. This will not play out in the public arena though, so don't worry.

     

    I

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    love these little 'family bunfights' Sticking out tongue gosh Sticking out tongue

    Matty is right that he and I would hit it off socially, and I am impressed at his perceptiveness on that point.

    I am actually quite upfront in my intentions...nothing to hide.
    I seek to destroy socialism in New Zealand...and create a Capitalist Country.

    No secrets there...Mike is on a sticky wicket accusing me of some alternative plan..hence his paranoid absurdities.

    I have been planning a major project for a couple of months with quite the opposite intention...and all will be revealed in early January, to the great benefit of solopassion.com and the 'true believers'. Smiling

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Shit!

    Matty Orchard's picture

    I turn my back for 3 seconds and BAM! What a dramatic thread. Well here's my
    two cents (as if you guys need another participant at this point):

    Rick was being dishonest especially in relation to quoting Jameson and I
    think Mitch was quite right in pointing out the smarmy sarcasm that Rick’s
    posts are often soaked in. I'm not sure if out right banning was called for,
    especially given Ricks input in other areas like the podcasts. However given
    that my personal association with Rick is limited (much more limited than Linz's)
    and given that many or you have had years to assess his character, I don't hold
    my stance on Ricks banning with enough vigor or compassion to try and actively
    change anyone’s mind. I respect Lindsay's judgment.

    As far as Elijah is concerned, for some reason I still can't shake the
    feeling that Elijah is a 'splendid chap' in person but there's no doubting he
    can be an obnoxious prick in cyberspace. His pattern of back peddling has been
    pointed out enough so I wont go in to it again but the 'one of only 4' line of
    crap is just another example of Elis baiting. Going back and forth with Eli is irritating
    but he has been punished for his most outlandish statements and right now I
    think that's all that is called for. You can't say Linz
    has turned a blind eye to all of this; He and Mitch had a fucking conference
    over the issue. As far as I can tell he's 'on notice' and I think that's
    perfectly appropriate and should at least meet the 'bear minimum' bar by any
    fair and decent person’s standards. Once again, not meaning to sound like an
    ass-kisser but I respect Lord Lindsay’s judgment.

    I sympathies with your assessment of Elijah and his presence on SOLO Mike
    but I think you're being a bit of a drama queen with you apocalyptic visions
    and all. 

    Scott

    Lindsay Perigo's picture

    There's one person whose opinion really matters: that's mine.

    Hahahaha! You dig me, boy!

    Rick wrote to the SOLO staff e-loop protesting against my booting of him. Here's what I replied. If folk don't get it after this I don't know what else I can say:

    _________________________________

    Rick - if you are making a case for reinstatement, you'll have to do better.

    There *is* a streak of evil within you, and it was running riot yesterday on the insult-the-prophet thread. It manifests in a seeming compulsion to defend the indefensible and attack the noble in a way steeped in the exact pomowankery you know drives me up the wall.

    I have nurtured you regardless. I have taken the view that when you see someone with a marked good and bad side, harness the good side so that the bad doesn't have time to rear its head and its possessor might take the opportunity to smite it himself.

    All the while there were folk telling me I was mad, that sooner or later your destructive evil would shoot to the fore again as it had so often before. It pisses me off that you have vindicated them.

    Even so, I would give you a look-in, Rick, if I thought there was good faith on your part. But you've no interest in breathing through your nose and learning that I can discern. The conversations we had about the rule of law and the green spider on Mars showed me that, contrary to my assumption, you were not up with Objectivist epistemology and ethics at all. And in your talk-over-everyone way, you weren't interested in finding out. Yet you were prepared publicly to attack Prodos for an alleged lack of understanding of Objectivism which you made no attempt to substantiate.

    You cite an apparent discrepancy between what I said the day before yesterday and yesterday. The explanation should be obvious: the aforementioned thread on which you behaved exactly like the Rick of yore, prompting Mr Cresswell to observe:

    Mr Giles is neither sane nor honest. I'm surprised it's taken so long for others to notice. And he's also a weasel. That shouldn't have taken any time to notice. Murderous arseholes shout "No one lives who insults the prophet." They rant "Behead those who insult Islam." Ayn Rand explains, "One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil." Meanwhile Rick Giles insists, "New Zealand Muslims [should] be more concerned with chicken treatment in Foxton," and demonstrates that while the world burns with evil he himself is more interested in clever-dick hair-splitting and weasel-like evasion. Say what you mean and mean what you say? He has nothing to say. Never has.

    Rick, there are folk here who were prepared to chip in toward your air fare should it have come to that. These same folk are now aghast at your behaviour. Doesn’t that tell you something? Are your alarm bells not ringing?

    The matters on my mind today were not on it when I took you to dinner, Rick. I did tell you not to wade in out of your philosophical depth in the Podcasts. I did tell you to do Prodos the courtesy of answering him. I did try to get it through to you that no one here was saying every Muslim is a terrorist. I did suggest that you do folk the courtesy of actually thanking them for their solicitude when you were in jail. But no issue struck me as terminal. Au contraire. I was looking forward to your future efforts. If you still don’t understand why that is no longer so, I can only repeat what I told you on the phone: review the thread from yesterday, then take a look in the mirror.

    Linz

    Rick Giles and Elijah Lineberry

    atlascott's picture

    Rick is an odd bird. He is a Muslim defender and apologist. He is a complete and total weasel. I beat on him, and beat on him, and beat on him on the immigration issue, and he finally conceded. The thred went on forever. I was called a racist and other things. He finally wore down. But his participation cannot in any sense be deemed honest or in good faith. That has been abundantly clear on several threads. I often wondered why Linz would associate with a guy like that, but I do not presume that Linz reads every post on every thread.

    LET'S BE CLEAR THAT THESE FACTS NOTWITHSTANDING, NO ONE SHOULD REGRET HELPING A GUY WHO IS BEING IMPRISIONED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HE WAS IN.

    Elijah is a racist and acts like some genteel wealthy dandy. Period, plain and simple. He is also a weasel of a slightly less egregious order than Rick. But this is not an honest person. This is a person who states racist tripe and then says he was joking, or misunderstood, etc. etc.

    When people point this out, he calls them umbrage-takers. He's a weasel. Yeah, I know he apologized, and that's why Linz suffers him.

    There's one person whose opinion really matters: that's mine.

    But as to this site, its up to Linz. There is a delicate balance here between Randian barring people from participating as soon as they show any perceived flaw and value-less acceptance of anyone. We ought to allow people of different opinions, styles, etc. Even wrong people.

    Just not demonstrated evil (racism) or deception (weaselism).

    I dont pretend to have a better handle on how to make these decisions than Linz does. They are tough decisions and I know Linz approaches them with consideration and good faith, erring on the side of caution generally.

    Scott DeSalvo

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

    Mr. Scherk

    Lindsay Perigo's picture

    Why is it you emerge from under your rock only when there's an internecine spill? And then, only to utter some unintelligible drivel? Are you some kind of ghoulish schism junkie? Remind me—why did I allow you back on again?

    Mike ...

    Lindsay Perigo's picture

    Of course you may continue to post.

    And if there's something I'm missing about a diabolical plot to take SOLO down, and me with it, I'm all ears. But forgive my being a little sceptical at this point.

    Didn't you want to learn about Objectivism too?

    LP's Decision

    Mike Gardner's picture

    If Lindsay Perigo lets me I will continue to post.

    Lineberry has good reason to dislike me. He knows I am on to him.

    It may seem incredible to some that a mere ignorant student may have family who are  well connected and not working class by gum. 

    I'm not going to stand by and let this man destroy SOLO and take LP down with it.

     

    I recall...

    Olivia's picture

    You might not recall, but I was banned for a time, on grounds of good faith, and am here on sufferance.

    ... and I also recall how glad I was to see you go. You're as mad as a meat-axe. In fact, I think you'll probably judge that a compliment. But I mean it as an insult from the bottom of my heart Sherkjerk.

    *groan*

    Jameson's picture

    "But it is Lindsay's opinion that matters."

    Take another read through Rick's last posts, William, you'll see that there is nothing subjective about his lack of good faith.

    "... and am here on sufferance."

    Don't let us keep you...

    May I suggest Mike and WSS? [Robert]

    William Scott Scherk's picture

    Thanks, Robert --

    In brief, I did address Elijah directly, by name, in my last post.

    I did point out to him that generalities like "some people" can be misinterpreted. Looks like we agree, you and I.

    I haven't much read Mike's (Gardner) posts. Since Elijah named him as one of the bad faith people, I will give his output a closer gander.

    My other point to Elijah was that he, I, Mike, Glenn, anybody and his dog can say they always post in good faith. But it is Lindsay's opinion that matters.

    You might not recall, but I was banned for a time, on grounds of good faith, and am here on sufferance.

    Like I said below, "But please note I will respond to any criticism directed at me."

    (word count: 140, 15 less than Elijah's last post)

    Hear, hear...

    Jameson's picture

    to terseness and clarity! I'm not reading your posts anymore, Scherk... way too much verbiage.

    Mike

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    Gardner joined this site for the sole purpose of bad mouthing me.

    Every post he has made has been a personal attack against me.

    He is the number 1 "bad faith" poster in the history of solopassion.com (and that takes some doing)..and now mentions the horrific crime that this website is disliked at socialistwankfests.com!

    Well, so what? ...if anything I am delighted at how we are viewed at Salient or wherever! Sticking out tongue

    I understand there are various people who in their babyish prissyness "will not engage" with me...once again I say 'so what?'

    Their problem is they can tell I have a finely tuned 'Bullshit Radar' and therefore can very quickly and easily see through them Eye

    There is nothing at all "going on here" except a lot of socialists busting into tears and foot stamping because "he hates us" Sad ...(in constrast to the credibility elsewhere in society)

    "I create nothing. I own"

    He is judged by how he appears here.

    Robert's picture

    And he has just stated that he ~always~ posts in good faith. Which, given his previous posts, only underlines my own stance. The stance assumed by others is there own business as is the time they take to evaluate that stance.

    May I suggest Mike and WSS, that you stop the oblique references and say what you mean to a person in particular.

    For example: "Am I the only one who can see what is REALLY going on here?"

    I've no idea WTF you are talking about.

    Mike...

    Olivia's picture

    only one person left Solo because of Elijah. Joe Maurone. Keep your facts straight.

    Let the Good Faiths roll

    William Scott Scherk's picture

    Elijah writes:

    [I] am one of only 4 people on solopassion.com who always posts in 'good faith'. Without exception.

    I would say that it is the site owner who ultimately decides that, Elijah, or at least is the final arbiter in this place. In that sense, both you and I (and Glenn) can believe that we are among the four, and yet Lindsay may decide otherwise.

    I could post a couple of online dictionary definitions of 'Good Faith,' and you might agree with me that people of good faith still have to convince the others in discussion of their bona fides. It just stands to reason that we humans are suspicious of the motives of others.

    Elijah, I wonder if what gets up some people's noses about you and me and the other guy can be when we don't actually name the enemy. For example here below, I take your other paragraphs and try to figure out who exactly you are talking about:

    [ . . . ] the constant flow of posts engaging in personal abuse, trouble making, deceitfulness and other nefarious activities...which are directed towards me and others.

    Now, I might imagine that you are referring to my post calling you a twat, below. Fair enough. But you can appreciate that you haven't actually fixed 'trouble making' to an individual. That is your style, and nothing wrong with making general statements like that, as we all do, but it can lead to misunderstanding. Often it is better to be specific in who you exactly mean when doing so. That is why I called you a twat. Nothing personal. I know from reading you avidly here, that you are not personally troubled in your heart by stuff like that, only in the abstract.

    Similarly, in the abstract, you also note: "the greatest offenders," and "many people" who can be "viewed as "a good bloke" by other people." I agree, but I can only guess who you are talking about. I assume you are referring to me, among others. Fair enough, and no offence taken.

    Finally, "Look to yourself before pointing the finger at other people."

    Good advice. Good advice for all. I suspect that you, being human, find it occasionally difficult to do this. I do. But please note I will respond to any criticism directed at me. Thus . . . unless you do so, I will from now on not address you in second person ('you'), but rather in third ('he'). I trust "some people," including you, will understand why.

    WSS

    What  Lineberry is like in

    Mike Gardner's picture

    What  Lineberry is like in real life is irrelevant. He is judged by how he appears here, in cyberspace. Most people would not be openly racist face to face.

    In a short space of time he has made SOLO a laughing stock, or worse, on several sites. He has reduced the number of contributors to a trickle. 

    Am I the only one who can see what is REALLY going on here? I think him being a racist is the least of your worries. 

    And who would those 4 be?

    Jameson's picture

    Puzzled

    I

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    am one of only 4 people on solopassion.com who always posts in 'good faith'. Without exception.

    Contrast that with the constant flow of posts engaging in personal abuse, trouble making, deceitfulness and other nefarious activities...which are directed towards me and others.

    I find it risible that the greatest offenders are generally those who not only truly believe themselves to be doing the opposite...but also proclaim themselves 'rational' and other precious, self satisfying adjectives.

    I am sure there are many people who post on solopassion.com a lot of disgusting comments....then close down their computer, have a pleasant smile on their faces, and are viewed as "a good bloke" by other people.

    Look to yourself before pointing the finger at other people.

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Perhaps...

    Robert's picture

    you read my opinion of that particular person too. I trust I was clear enough.

    Was I also not clear to Linz when I suggested that he need to clarify Elijah's true nature in his own mind and that that would take time?

    Unlike Elijah, Linz (and PC, and myself) have known Rick for a number of years - at least 6 by my counting. And in that time, Rick has not changed his spots in that time. He has engaged in pointless clever-dick hair-splitting in damn near every discussion I've ever seen him engage in.

    Linz has met Elijah face to face and so has PC, both seem to think he is less racist than he seems from this end of the computer terminal. So I have to allow for the fact that he may not be as he seems when judging Linz's decisions.

    But until Elijah's internet persona matches the persona that Linz, PC, Jameson etc. know & accept, I will continue to stand by what I said before. Good faith in debating and all that...

    I

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    think deceitfulness and bad faith when posting on Solopassion.com are wrong.

    Rather like 'manufactured umbrage' Eye

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Gosh

    Richard Goode's picture

    Honesty and good faith in debating is not optional.

    But racism and snobbery are jolly good. Puzzled

    What else do you do

    Robert's picture

    with a poster who deliberately misquotes another member, and makes out that they meant the opposite of what they wrote.

    Honesty and good faith in debating is not optional.

    Thirteen words, Aaron . . .

    William Scott Scherk's picture

    What happened to the bear? Burned, pilloried or flounced?

    Danged umbrageous racist Moh-Mohs.

    WSS

    PS - That flouncer Joe Maurone first welcomed me to SOLO by telling me I should go bowling with Rick. Rick chatted with me later in the original SOLO chatbox (before my beheading) and made it to Victoria, British Columbia, but no further north.

    For all his wartiness, I have admiration for loose cannon / devil's advocates like Rick. The opera of Moonberry (is he? isn't he?) earlier accompanied the GoshitsgoodtohaveyoubackRickmylove fawning.

    Just who is the fuckwit and noxious moron, some of the tomorrow people may ask. Oh well. There we are. The Emperigo has found a bad faith. Not just the demented Sudanese Moh-Mohs/demonstrators, but the irksome Rick with his big mouth and strong opinions. Hmmm, Rick Giles, a believer in, oh, the Cult of Ayn Rand and Individualism . . . and twats who worship mammon and fine young flesh . . .

    Yes, let the twat Moonberry rest on his ethnic cleansing Hebrew-speaking bleeding fat arse . . . and open the trap door under the real BAD FAITH of a man who holds his ground.

    Oh well. The worm turns. The irony escapes. Let's get rat-arsed and vote eLijertarianz.

    Burn them, burn them all. Let the Emperigo sordid out.

    Oh!

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    did I get the wrong end of the stick here?

    I thought he had 'flounced'..but...was he banned?

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Two words, Aaron ...

    Lindsay Perigo's picture

    "Bad faith."

    WTF? I'm against Rick's

    Aaron's picture

    WTF? I'm against Rick's 'moderate Muslim apologism' (I haven't been participating in the discussion, but Lance seems closest to my viewpoint) but he didn't seem to unduly be a dick about discussing it and it's not like Rick's a one-trick pony who doesn't discuss anything else. Yes his stance here is wrong - but he's not trying to bring us Catholic arguments for God, not advocating ethnic cleansing, not trying to get us all to discard modern psychology and join L. Ron Hubbard, or other anti-Objectivist viewpoints that have received greater toleration on this site. Why Rick?

    I

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    have just read this thread now...and...Rick has departed? Shocked ..gosh, I am rather surprised about that.

    Sorry to see him go as some of what he said, apart from being odd, was highly entertaining.

    "I create nothing. I own"

    On a lighter note...

    Richard Goode's picture

    Who's the cuddliest? Gillian Gibbon's daughter, Jessica? Or Mohammad, the teddy bear?

    Quite frankly...

    Robert's picture

    I have no idea whether Rick is insane or not. But given his ability to gum up SOLO threads with utter incomprehensible bullshit (to say nothing of evil appeasement), he had to go.

    I was wondering if and when I would ever regret attempting to help free him from the jail in Michigan...

    I was kind of hoping that 30-odd days in jail without charge for a minor infraction of the law might have given him enough clarity to see the Saudi issue in its true light and the balls to say so unequivocally. Sadly...

    Nothing 'mad' about it at all, Paul!

    Jameson's picture

    He fucking deserved it!

    ... well, that was interesting

    dinther's picture

    I too was getting increasingly annoyed with Rick Giles as he keeps shifting and bending on the various current threads but I think the other Soloists were wrapping him up good and tidy.

    It is a pity you flushed Giles as it leaves images in the mind of mad old Perigo with his finger on the delete button.

     

    Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at the re-newed carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

    Hoo-fucking-ray!

    Jameson's picture

    I feel a fool for having supported him earlier.

    The weasel ...

    Lindsay Perigo's picture

    ... has been flushed down the loo. I've read enough.

    My apologies for giving it the benefit of the doubt for way too long. Its history should have told me all I needed to know. This is a slimy little fuck with a deep streak of evil running through it. A slimy fuck that's no longer on SOLO.

    Linz

    Appeaser Weasel

    Jameson's picture

    Rick: "Much in the same way you are when it comes to the local rates levy in the Otago town of Omaru? I haven't heard you speaking out against it Glenn. Stop covertly sanctioning these tax acts of evil upon southerners with your silence. Like that logic?

    Rand: "To combat petty larceny as a crucial danger, at a time when murder is being committed, is to sanction the murder."

    Weasel

    Peter Cresswell's picture

    Mr Giles is neither sane nor honest. I'm surprised it's taken so long for others to notice.

    And he's also a weasel. That shouldn't have taken any time to notice.

    Murderous arseholes shout "No one lives who insults the prophet." They rant "Behead those who insult Islam."

    Ayn Rand explains, "One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil."

    Meanwhile Rick Giles insists, "New Zealand Muslims [should] be more concerned with chicken treatment in Foxton," and demonstrates that while the world burns with evil he himself is more interested in clever-dick hair-splitting and weasel-like evasion.

    Say what you mean and mean what you say? He has nothing to say. Never has.

    You know EXACTLY what I said

    Jameson's picture

    you dishonest little turd!

    "I'm applying Glenn's principle. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. 'Muslims are either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil' he says. All Muslims are thus damned."

    Where's the question mark, Dick?

    "Good on you mate. Together we will make sure nobody on this forum ever doubts it again."

    That remark actually made my skin crawl...

    "From 'covertly sanctioning these acts of evil' to 'doing their bit to perpetuate' is a wonderful leap in your education."

    ... and that one made me want to commit an act of violence.

    To make myself crystal-fucking-clear on this, Rick, I wholeheartedly concur with Ayn Rand when she wrote, "One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil."

    Clearly you do not.

    And the sickly...

    Mitch's picture

    smarmy, sarcastic tone is really starting to annoy me.

    And no, the fact that arguments go round and round is not a mark of your quarry. Arguing with you is like trying to catch an eel with bare hands. You're constantly ducking, weaving, twisting, and dragging up red herrings to deflect attention from your loathsome appeasment/neutrality.

    Like the illogical application of "Glenn's principle" on this thread, or your response to Robert Winefield on the "USA: Master of the Universe" thread:

    "strangely tranquil over a very real threat to the sovereignty to an individual (ie a gang-raped woman in Saudi Arabia)."

    "My writing output this week should be enough for most without my trying to cover every newsmaking threat to individual sovereignty on the cards at the moment. But I'm flattered you're asking for more."

    Another smarmy, sarcastic reply. In all your volume of writing this week you have managed to refute those who are outraged at the latest Islamic barbarism, but I haven't seen you take the time to express outrage yourself. Disgusting. 

    I await your sickly, smarmy, sarcastic response, proclaiming that you aren't being sickly, smarmy or sarcastic.

    I pronounce you cured

    Rick Giles's picture

    By the way, I've yet to see an argument with you that doesn't go round and round and round

    A mark of my quarry, I'm afraid.

    Point scoring is all you seem to be trying to do here Rick

    I never initiate personal attacks, I only retaliate as I'm able.

    You have yet to acknowledge that you deliberately truncated my quote in order to misrepresent me and arrive at the conclusion that I believe "All Muslims are thus damned."

    I thought you said they're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil. Muslims, that is.

    But I didn't leap to conclusions of literary interpretation did I? I asked if that was what you meant. Pointed out the rammimfications too.

    I'm delighted to learn you didn't intend that. Having you agree with my point of view is all I sought to achieve and now I have it.

    I said no such thing. I specifically stated that there are Muslims who DO NOT sanction atrocities committed in the name of their religion.

    Good on you mate. Together we will make sure nobody on this forum ever doubts it again.

    And I maintain that those Muslims who remain silent in the face of these atrocities are doing their bit to perpetuate them.

    From 'covertly sanctioning these acts of evil' to 'doing their bit to perpetuate' is a wonderful leap in your education.

    School's out, I pronounce you cured.

    Lance...

    Jameson's picture

    that link was fuckin' funny... thanks! Smiling

    I stand by the WHOLE quote, you weasel!

    Jameson's picture

    You have yet to acknowledge that you deliberately truncated my quote in order to misrepresent me and arrive at the conclusion that I believe "All Muslims are thus damned."

    I said no such thing. I specifically stated that there are Muslims who DO NOT sanction atrocities committed in the name of their religion. And I maintain that those Muslims who remain silent in the face of these atrocities are doing their bit to perpetuate them.

    I'm not the only one who thinks so...

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

    "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period... was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

    "To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.
    The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: 'Judge, and be prepared to be judged.'"

    "One must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere "I don't agree with you" is sufficient to negate any implication of moral sanction. When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required. But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent."

    This one one has you written all over it, Rick:

    "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it."

    Point scoring

    Mitch's picture

    is all you seem to be trying to do here Rick. Whatsmore, you have dropped all context when "applying Glenn's principle", and you don't seem to be getting that when Lance and Glenn try to explain it to you.

    By the way, I've yet to see an argument with you that doesn't go round and round and round and round in circles. I can't quite put my finger on why yet though. Hmmm.

    I wait in anticipation to see which of my words will now be quoted back at me.

    Analogical reasoning not being employed

    Rick Giles's picture

    I'm applying Glenn's principle. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum
    Fine, if it's not an analogy, your reductio ad absurdum doesn't hold.
    How come?
    For one thing, we can surmise from Glenn's philosophy, that he is against a rise in rates in Oamaru

    That only works if you've assumed he is incapable of self-contradiction and that his tax policy trumps the Glenn Principle.

    But I'm not seeking to make an analogy. I present no analogy for you to analyse. I'm seeking to apply the principle he seems to have set down.

    Silence is sanction.

    I do invite contradiction, Mr Jameson.

    How come?

    Lance's picture

    For these reasons: For one thing, we can surmise from Glenn's philosophy, that he is against a rise in rates in Oamaru (We can't do that with FIANZ). Even failing that, there is no indicator in common with those opting to raise rates that we could use to assume Glenn would be silently sanctioning a rates rise (but there is with FIANZ and 'fundamental/violent/jihadist Islam').

    Muslims:

    Rick Giles's picture

    They're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil.

    If you're going to talk your way out of this, GJ, you've got to talk that one down a bit. Don't remind us you said it, that's my tip.

    Rick gets un-owned

    Rick Giles's picture

    I'm applying Glenn's principle. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum
    Fine, if it's not an analogy, your reductio ad absurdum doesn't hold.

    How come?

    Yes, you're right, in fact what I said to you was that it's a fine line when attacking violent Islam to not get swept up in "rabid" anti-Islam.

    Yes.
    Lucky I'm around.

    And by using 'damning evidence' I had slipped a toe over that line. I recant the 'damning evidence' and replace it with 'reasonable assumption'.

    Good lad.

    I still have a general distaste for benign Islam, am wary of 'silent Islam', and get frothy at the mouth over 'violent Islam'.

    Nothing wrong with any of that.
    Just stay vigilant in future, listen to me, and be suspicious of that hot-head in Auckland and his twin, Richard.

    Very bad faith, Rick:

    Jameson's picture

    You've used my quote...

    "by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil."

    "By silence one covertly assents to evil?
    Very well, your silence over Oamaru damns you."

    ... twisted it...

    "By silence one covertly assents to evil? Absurd. One cannot pause for breath without covertly assenting to evil!"

    ... bent it...

    "I thought Glenn had certainty? They (Muslims) are all sanctioning evil- the only distinction is to discover if it's covert or overt."

    ... mocked it...

    ..."Anybody not read that? I thought I read that. Tell me I didn't read that."

    ... and concluded...

    "I'm applying Glenn's principle. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. 'Muslims are either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil' he says. All Muslims are thus damned."

    Now, let's have a look at the WHOLE quote:

    "...apart from apostates like [Muslim dissident] Hirsi Ali they're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil."

    Reductio ad absurdum indeed.

    For Ickle Wickles

    Lance's picture

    Death To Those Who Insult Ayn Rand!
    Now if the ARI was out protesting with that on their placards and calling for the beheading of some poor school teacher who had named teddy John Galt, then it would be reasonable to assume that if Glenn, or even SOLO as a whole, remained silent while still being aware of it, he/we would be offering 'silent sanction'. I'd expect 'moderate objectivists' would be quick to express outrage and disgust.

    Now I agree, that not every Muslim who doesn't speak out is offering silent sanction. There are probably many secular habitual Muslims that probably don't think about how it relates to them.(Ack, I used 'probably' twice in the same sentence and yeah, I really do think Sticking out tongue) But when organisations like FIANZ to fail to speak out, when not only do they positively identify themselves as Islamic/Muslim, they actively engage in promoting and discussing Islam, a reasonable assumption can be made that they are offering 'silent sanction'. But yes, as they say: "It ain't necessarily so", though it's enough for me to notice and be concerned.

    Fine, if it's not an analogy, your reductio ad absurdum doesn't hold. Sticking out tongue

    Yeah, it would be nice if some cluster of these Kiwi heritics would make the effort. But they don't have to. And if they don't that's not damning evidence that they all sanction evil.

    I'm telling you this, but I think you already know. In Wellington you knew.

    Yes, you're right, in fact what I said to you was that it's a fine line when attacking violent Islam to not get swept up in "rabid" anti-Islam. And by using 'damning evidence' I had slipped a toe over that line. I recant the 'damning evidence' and replace it with 'reasonable assumption'. I still have a general distaste for benign Islam, am wary of 'silent Islam', and get frothy at the mouth over 'violent Islam'.

    Darth Lance

    Rick Giles's picture

    But what stories don't make international headlines is on the face of it very hard to know.
    Not that hard really. It just takes a bit of delving beyond the front page.

    Funny. A guy yesterday was telling me it wouldn't be on the radar screen at all, or at best just a blip on the edge. Do you know him? Eye

    I'm interested to see the reply. You've been well and truly "owned" here.

    That's what Darth Vader said before his arms and legs got chopped off and his chest caught on fire.

    By silence one covertly assents to evil?
    Very well, your silence over Oamaru damns you.
    Utterly false analogy Rick

    What analogy would that be, Lance? I have no analogy.

    I'm applying Glenn's principle. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum.

    'Muslims are either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil' he says. All Muslims are thus damned.
    If I questioned the wrong principle, he'll tell me. And I did use question marks.

    By silence one covertly assents to evil? Absurd. One cannot pause for breath without covertly assenting to evil!

    ...teddy John Galt, then it would be reasonable to assume that if Glenn, or even SOLO as a whole, remained silent while still being aware of it, he/we would be offering 'silent sanction'[for acts of evil]

    Who needs wishy washing 'reasonable assumption'?

    I thought Glenn had certainty? They (Muslims) are all sanctioning evil- the only distinction is to discover if it's covert or overt.

    Anybody not read that? I thought I read that. Tell me I didn't read that.

    It's better I be 'owned' for not being able to read than to think Glenn has been owned for saying this.

    Now I agree, that not every Muslim who doesn't speak out is offering silent sanction

    You might like to run that past Mr Jameson then.

    There are probably many secular habitual Muslims that probably don't think about how it relates to them.

    Ya think?

    But for organisations like FIANZ to fail to speak out, when not only do they positively identify themselves as Islamic/Muslim, they actively engage in promoting and discussing Islam, is damning evidence of silent sanction.

    For SOLOists it was "reasonable assumption" and for Kiwi Muslims it's "damning evidence." Was your objectivism switched on all the time you were writing, Lance?

    Hey, they're a Federation of Kiwis who like God and want to support each other with a focus on what's going on in their country, New Zealand. International political activism isn't the reason these jokers formed a Federation, who the hell are you to tell them how and why to associate?

    Yeah, it would be nice if some cluster of these Kiwi heritics would make the effort. But they don't have to. And if they don't that's not damning evidence that they all sanction evil.

    I'm telling you this, but I think you already know. In Wellington you knew.

    In gaming parlance that

    Lance's picture

    In gaming parlance that would be: "lolz, pwnt!"

    http://rick.giles.justgotowned.com

    Sure, you will recall that...

    Richard Wiig's picture

    ... and others no doubt, if you think hard enough.

    But what stories don't make international headlines is on the face of it very hard to know.

    Not that hard really. It just takes a bit of delving beyond the front page.

    Rick gets "owned".

    Mitch's picture

    I'm interested to see the reply. You've been well and truly "owned" here.

    Why the delay?

    Very good clarification Lance

    dinther's picture

    And to Rick: You can never be sure of anything. That is the very reason people always stand by and watch. After-all "I might have it wrong"

    But when something looks like shit, when it smells like shit, it most likely is shit and suitable action should be taken. Don't go and eat it too.

     

    Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at the re-newed carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

    Yes!

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    splendid point, Lance! Laughing out loud

    To remain silent implies consent to various activities...(which is why they are constantly repeated)

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Utterly false analogy Rick.

    Lance's picture

    Utterly false analogy Rick. For one thing, we can surmise from Glenn's philosophy, that he is against a rise in rates in Oamaru. Even failing that, there is no indicator in common with those opting to raise rates that we could use to assume Glenn would be silently sanctioning a rates rise.

    Death To Those Who Insult Ayn Rand!
    Now if the ARI was out protesting with that on their placards and calling for the beheading of some poor school teacher who had named teddy John Galt, then it would be reasonable to assume that if Glenn, or even SOLO as a whole, remained silent while still being aware of it, he/we would be offering 'silent sanction'. I'd expect 'moderate objectivists' would be quick to express outrage and disgust.

    Now I agree, that not every Muslim who doesn't speak out is offering silent sanction. There are probably many secular habitual Muslims that probably don't think about how it relates to them. But for organisations like FIANZ to fail to speak out, when not only do they positively identify themselves as Islamic/Muslim, they actively engage in promoting and discussing Islam, is damning evidence of silent sanction.

    Jameson the terrible

    Rick Giles's picture

    Why, yes. Thrashed an Oamaruite at tennis yesterday.
    But last time I was there they were protesting spiritedly against something to do with the new public swimming pool. Ages ago.

    That Glenn persecutes these hardworking people so....makes my heart break.

    Have

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    you ever been to Oamaru, Rick?

    I have always thought it is a splendid market town, lovely architecture, friendly people, I enjoy passing through from time to time.

    "I create nothing. I own"

    I am sure there would be

    Rick Giles's picture

    I am sure there would be 15,000 of these people who would happily kill innocent white people

    How sure?

    Rick, if you think rate rises in Oamaru are in any way comparable to the horrors unfolding in the Islamic world then

    The comparason starts and ends with the point I made.

    By silence one covertly assents to evil?

    Very well, your silence over Oamaru damns you.

    A lesser scale, I grant you. But perhaps I could have selected another example. I'm sure there are many worse acts of evil in the world today, and in history, which you have not raised your voice against.

    I DESPISE your logic!

    Jameson's picture

    Rick, if you think rate rises in Oamaru are in any way comparable to the horrors unfolding in the Islamic world then I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand this issue at all.

    Rick

    Elijah Lineberry's picture

    lost me about the time he mentioned Omaru [sic] Shocked...but I think he is wrong about Muslims in this Country.

    There seems to be an idea we have a 'silent majority' of these chaps who are all law abiding, anti-terrorism, anti-Jihad and "Moderate".

    I do not believe that for a moment!

    I am sure there would be 15,000 of these people who would happily kill innocent white people in the name of paedophile prophets and witchcraft, if only they could get away with it!

    I hate to say it, but Rick's attitude is what is wrong with this country.

    "I create nothing. I own"

    Omaru

    Rick Giles's picture

    As a political enthusiast yourself you've got the mindset that everybody else in New Zealand, and the world, is the same.
    You think the only reason why the local Muslims haven't expressed their outrage over such atrocities is because they have to take Javed Jnr to hockey practice? C'mon, Rick

    It's true.
    There would be plenty of time for politics in our lives if we took away hockey practise, giving birth, having sex, mowing the lawns, buying a fridge, selling the house, going to the movies, finding a job, going to the pub, reading Atlas Shrugged, courting girls, paying bills, attending weddings, making breakfast, studying for exams, going to school camp, learning to fly a plane, going to Sydney to audition for acting school,....

    Kiwi Muslims have their own lives to attend to.

    But I also made the point about leisure time. A bit of security and spare time allow us to take an interest in Sudanese judicial proceedings in a way that you, sir, were yourself justifiably distracted from throughout November.

    Yes, it was their October '07 issue,

    And the story made news headlines when?

    They didn't even have a chance to pull their heads out of mortagage repayments, chicken-preparation, and junior hockey!

    Care to put your appeasing ass on the line and wager $100 that their next issue covers the teddy bear story?

    New Zealand Muslims don't require appeasement, Jameson. Why can't I stand up for them the same way I do for you- seeing as your SOLO participation wilted in October and November?

    by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil.

    Much in the same way you are when it comes to the local rates levy in the Otago town of Omaru?
    I haven't heard you speaking out against it Glenn. Stop covertly sanctioning these tax acts of evil upon southerners with your silence.
    Like that logic?

    Could you be any more appeasing, Rick?

    Jameson's picture

    "Most people have quite enough on their minds seeing to their own material needs and the raising of their children. When they have the right conditions and a bit of leisure time, then they can afford to take up such interests."

    You think the only reason why the local Muslims haven't expressed their outrage over such atrocities is because they have to take Javed Jnr to hockey practice? C'mon, Rick!

    Yes, it was their October '07 issue, and the Saudi rape victim was originally sentenced in October '06. As far as I'm aware this story hasn't been mentioned in any of their previous newsletters. Care to put your appeasing ass on the line and wager $100 that their next issue covers the teddy bear story?

    "moderate Muslims: No such thing."

    Well at least you've got that right... apart from apostates like Hirsi Ali they're either overtly or, by their silence, covertly sanctioning these acts of evil.

    I think my new photo is

    Rick Giles's picture

    I think my new photo is waiting for admin to approve it, is all.

    point Richard's making: that these disgusting acts of barbarism are happening all the time!!

    But I did see that point.
    And then, as you could read above, but I'll help you by repetition, we woudln't know would we?
    In contradiction to Richard, I do remember it happening before and being reported.
    And if it were unreported, how come you know? Who's your man in Africa?

    moderate Muslims

    No such thing. That's like calling you a moderate freedom-lover.

    I just checked the latest FIANZ newsletter, and while there was no mention of the horrific stories Peter posted

    ...because that's the October newsletter, and this news story is hot-off-the-press now, in December....

    MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY

    And why wouldn't New Zealand Muslims be more concerned with chicken treatment in Foxton than African political affairs?

    You are the one to think they are connected or to blame for what other practising Muslims do elsewhere. They do not, and nor should they.

    As a political enthusiast yourself you've got the mindset that everybody else in New Zealand, and the world, is the same.
    Most people have quite enough on their minds seeing to their own material needs and the raising of their children. When they have the right conditions and a bit of leisure time, then they can afford to take up such interests. And I think you have that insight because you mentioned it to me in Auckland.

    PBUH

    Richard Goode's picture

    It's enough to make you vote Vegetarianz.

    Photo please, Rick - you know the rules...

    Jameson's picture

    ... and while you're at it, could you pull your head out of your ass and see the point Richard's making: that these disgusting acts of barbarism are happening all the time!!

    However, your story does further highlight the fact that non-Muslims are clearly more outraged by these atrocities than moderate Muslims. I just checked the latest FIANZ newsletter, and while there was no mention of the horrific stories Peter posted above, they did an in depth report on this:

    MECHANICAL SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY

    ... the FIANZ Ulama Board after carefully observing the procedure concluded that the process of Mechanical Slaughter by Turks Poultry in Foxton can be accepted as “Halal” provided the following conditions are fulfilled:

    Conditions

    The machine should be manually operated by Halal slaughtermen. The processing speed should be maintained at such level, so the Halal slaughterman can easily say the prayer on each chicken.

    The electric knife must be sharp.

    For each chicken the slaughterman must press the button and must say the Tasmiah (Bismillahi Allahu Akbar) at the time of pressing the button. It is the throat that is cut ensuring the severance of the esophagus and jugular veins. There should always be two Muslim slaughtermen, one on the mechanical knife and the other one to inspect each chicken and to make sure that it has been slaughtered properly. He should slaughter manually any chicken that is missed by the mechanical knife, provided that the chicken is alive. If it is dead, then it must be declared non-Halal and should be removed from the chain and put aside.

    In case if the current speed increases, then more Halal slaughtermen are required to be able to manually check and slaughter the chicken missed by the mechanical knife operated by the first Halal slaughterman.

    Actually Richard, I do

    Rick Giles's picture

    Actually Richard, I do recall a Nigerian woman in 2002 who was to be stoned to death for being a solo mother.

    That made the news, and outraged Auckland university students put up a display and circulated a petition asking for an end to such barbarism. And that was just for some unknown woman in Nigeria.

    But what stories don't make international headlines is on the face of it very hard to know.

    They want her strung up for

    Richard Wiig's picture

    They want her strung up for blaspheming the name of their prophet but they could as equally be riled over her corrupting the kids minds by teaching them to vote, which was the purpose of the whole bear naming exercise. Voting, or democracy, is very unIslamic; there's no need to vote when the Qur'an is the whole of the law.

    There's nothing in this incident though that is out of the ordinary. It's just that this woman happens to be British, so it's been widely reported. If she was an Indonesian christian, or Nigerian, or whatever, it wouldn't be on the radar screen at all, or at best just a blip on the edge.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.