Should the Construction of *that* Mosque Be Allowed to Proceed?

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Thu, 2010-08-19 04:44
Yes. It's a property rights/free speech issue first and foremost.
50% (22 votes)
No. This is war, and self-preservation trumps the enemy's self-forfeited "property rights."
43% (19 votes)
No. It's a sensitivity issue.
2% (1 vote)
Undecided. There are powerful arguments on both sides.
5% (2 votes)
Total votes: 44

Absolutely Contextual

AristotlesAdvance's picture

Mr. Perigo wrote:

"Absolutes are contextual . . ."

LOL! Now there's an assertion guaranteed to inspire confidence in M. Perigo's intellectual prowess. White is non-white! Black is non-black! A is non-A! Absolutes are non-absolute (i.e., contextual)!

". . . and are rendered no less absolute by being so."

White is rendered no less white by being non-white! A is rendered no less A by being non-A! Absolutes are rendered no less absolute by being non-absolute (i.e., contextual)!

Don't stop. We want more. Smiling

So what are you saying? That

Richard Wiig's picture

So what are you saying? That there is no enemy? I'm trying to get you to clarify what you said below, that you see no enemy? Do you mean that in the broad sense, or just in regards to the mosque developers? That's not clarified at all.

Rick, are you going to answer

Rick Giles's picture

Rick, are you going to answer my question? It's notable for its absence.

It's about as conspicuous as a matchbox toy parked next to a psycadelic whale singing showtunes on the Auckland Harbour Bridge at peek hour during the Christmas Holidays.

Rick, are you going to answer

Richard Wiig's picture

Rick, are you going to answer my question? It's notable for its absence. Do you see any kind of enemy at all? If so, what do you see it as being?

Hi Lindsay. I'm not making

Rick Giles's picture

Hi Lindsay.

I'm not making any claims. Do you have any answers for the curious? If you were to lead, Richard might follow.

It is true that there are those who only assert that they are "right right right" and abuse everyone who is "wrong wrong wrong" with videos and pictures created by others. Now's a chance to distinguish yourself from that mob.

Thanks for the links.

Aaron's picture

Thanks for the links.

The enemy ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is exposed here.

I believe I've made my view known of those who claim this is merely a "bee-sting on a cancer patient" or less. In case it was not clear, I regard them as "sick fucks." How the hell they end up on SOLO is a mystery to me. But I tolerate them because, in the contest of ideas, they expose themselves as the filth they, and the repulsive ideas for which they are apologists, are.

Another "Chechnyan" attack.

Richard Wiig's picture

Aaron,

Richard Wiig's picture

Aaron

gregster's picture

Even if it wasn't Islamist -the principle still applies.

Yes, Aaron. It was Islamic

Richard Wiig's picture

Yes, Aaron. It was Islamic terrorism.

I haven't said that I won't

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't said that I won't discuss things with you, Rick, just that I am not going to waste my time on stupid games. You say you dont' see an enemy. Do you mean an enemy per se, or only in regards to the mosque? If you don't see an enemy in the broader sense, then there is nothing to discuss. If you do see an enemy in the broader sense, then, being the liberty lover that you say you are, I'd expect you to be eager to learn all about the enemy that you see. You don't show any signs of having done that. Will you answer the question? Do you see an enemy to fought, or don't you?

Okay. Just asking a

Rick Giles's picture

Okay. Just asking a question.

Thankyou for your time.

By all means bring this up again in future if anything occurs to you.

Beslan

Aaron's picture

I thought the Beslan school hostages/bombing/etc. was by Chechnyan separatists. Was it actually Islamic terrorism?

I have better things to do

Richard Wiig's picture

I have better things to do with my time than help idiots in their masturbation sessions. How about you tell me what constitutes an enemy of war in your eyes, and explain why the global caliphate movement doesn't constitute one? It would save us all a hell of a lot of precious time.

If you truly valued freedom,

Rick Giles's picture

If you truly valued freedom, then when a serious enemy appeared on the scene you'd certainly want to know all about that enemy

For sure.

But you don't see one. Even after 9/11, Beslan, Mombai, etc, etc, you don't see one. Until you do, then there's no point in me talking to you.

Indeed, that is the first order of business as we have long since established. Without further delay, please offer me a first taste of the great mass of evidence that is at your fingertips.

Just go get the information that will enlighten you. It's that fucking easy.

Richard, come on. Would you accept that as a substitute from a man who sews strong absolute convictions of enemies at the gate inside the door? You've got the goods to put your evidence where your mouth is and I'm listening.

You're not telling me we are in danger, you're telling me to go and find some danger.

If you came by your conclusions honestly and intend to keep repeating them why not distinguish yourself here by offering some reasons?

Chosen. If you choose any

Richard Wiig's picture

Chosen. If you choose any value, whether it be the constitution or a romantic relationship, then, if you want to keep it, you're obligated to, as Ayn Rand put it, act to gain and/or keep that value. If you dont' really give a fuck about it, then it can't be much of a value to you. It's your choice. If you truly valued freedom, then when a serious enemy appeared on the scene you'd certainly want to know all about that enemy. But you don't see one. Even after 9/11, Beslan, Mombai, etc, etc, you don't see one. Until you do, then there's no point in me talking to you. If you ever do come to see what you're blind to now, then you don't need to argue with me about it. Just go get the information that will enlighten you. It's that fucking easy.

You are not very aware then,

Rick Giles's picture

You are not very aware then, Rick.

All too true. Lucky you're around to lay it all out.

It's a good thing that others are more aware than you are, and that they recognise the constitutional obligations that the United States government, and you, are reneging on.

Are they chosen or unchosen obligations? What are they?

I don't see any desire for the truth from you. You merely seek to win an argument for the sake of winning.

I have no argument with you. Only asking for your supporting evidence for these very serious conclusions you're dropping like breadcrumbs.

But, I do appreciate you tried harder than Sandi and that you've done it without abusive language.

You are not very aware then,

Richard Wiig's picture

You are not very aware then, Rick. It's a good thing that others are more aware than you are, and that they recognise the constitutional obligations that the United States government, and you, are reneging on. I don't see any desire for the truth from you. You merely seek to win an argument for the sake of winning. Open your eyes, and then take the time to examine the nature of what you see. If you have no desire to do that, then it's clear that you simply do not care.

That I am. Maybe you'd like

Rick Giles's picture

That I am.

Maybe you'd like to supply some wisdom yourself? I've got lots to learn and you seem confident of being informed.

No fucking kidding?!!

gregster's picture

But I wouldn't say I knew as much as you do or know anything about anybody being my enemy.

Fool.

Well, obviously my knowledge

Rick Giles's picture

Well, obviously my knowledge extends at least as far as what you and Sandi have been able to furnish these past years. But I wouldn't say I knew as much as you do or know anything about anybody being my enemy.

So, please go ahead.

Rick, how much study have you

Richard Wiig's picture

Rick, how much study have you put into understanding the enemy? How about, before we go any further, you tell me who and what the enemy is in your eyes.

I'm not sure about that. But

Rick Giles's picture

I'm not sure about that.

But if we accept the premise that you have something clear and presently dangerous to report then I think the inter...wooo there, another earthquake just shook Canterbury....

...then I think the interweb is a poor substitute for raising the alarm.

Do you agree?

Rick

Curt Holmes's picture

The state is robbing me every day. I suppose I should call someone and report it so as to remain credible.

LAPD doesn't know?

Rick Giles's picture

Just been for a walk and had another thought that might be of use here.

If you noticed a store being robbed out your window would you alert the owner or the police or the like?

Or would you leap to the keyboard and start blogging and writing volumes on an internet forum? Write a letter to the editor perhaps?

"Dear Soloists! You wouldn't believe what's going on accross the street! Daylight robbery right outside my window as I watch! And nobody is doing anything about it, nobody has called the police, nobody is raising an alarm...!"

And if this were to go on for days or months, so much the more hypocritical and un-credible you would be. I'm sure you agree.

Do you go along with that hypothetical case? If so, you know the analogy I'm bound to inquire after next don't you?

Thanks for sticking with

Rick Giles's picture

Thanks for sticking with this.

so had to go with the status quo flow in Nazi Germany and sign up. Does this simularity also feature in your analogy?
You must be joking here, right?

Not at all, it's a tough but fair question.

Have you made a report?
I don't have time to write up a report.

If it's something you feel strongly about then why not take a small portion of the time you've spent discussing the matter on SOLO? Indeed, you could also post your report here for us to read.

They don't make the laws though.
Have no laws been broken then?
Are you asking this just to be silly? The FBI, CIA, etc, are not even allowed to use the word Jihad, or any other word that best describes the enemy. When the proper context is not allowed to be recognised, then of course no laws are being broken.

Not to be silly but to express genuine confusion: If you insist these men are doing nothing against the law then how can you ask the state to refuse them basic liberty: freedom of worship?

Well, we're an Objectivist forum so we value empiricism and logical reasoning. If that's how you became convinced then my suggestion is to express yourself that way.
Nothing will convince you. There is a huge amount of evidence, yet in all this time since 9/11 you haven't even taken it upon yourself

How do you know that I wont be convinced by the huge amount of evidence if you will not produce it some of it? Why don't you test that theory out and correct me as I wish to be?

Libertarians don't seek through politics to provide support or moral or happiness to anyone. Liberty begins and ends with an unfettered marketplace for ideas and speech and religion.
Yes, and it only exists so long as it is gained and then defended.

Then, in what way are you gaining or defending liberty by wishing it away from these New York people who have broken no law?

This is why it is said we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness itself.
You're talking to someone who knows that full well.

Then, how do you reconcile that with what you said about liberty as succour to the enemy to boost their morale? Can you understand how others might view those as contradictory conceptions of liberty?

I'd like you to explain why members of the global caliphate movement should be given unfettered access to the United States?
you haven't. You've explained why liberty is a value

Sure, which is surely the starting point for any such explaination. Right? And I do offer to go further into how liberty 'floats all boats' like a rising tide if there's something about that you wish to question. But really, I feel the onus is somewhat on you here for diverging from the principles of the Declairation on Independence that apply here. Are they not men, created equal to other men?

Thanks for offering some reasons for what you believe in Richard. If you think this might go better on the phone or in Skype perhaps I'd be very keen.

On the other hand, the Nazi

Richard Wiig's picture

On the other hand, the Nazi Party also had Oscar Shindler and, I'm sure, lots of people who were not as musical as the Von Trapp family so had to go with the status quo flow in Nazi Germany and sign up.

You must be joking here, right? America should be a haven for anyone opposed to Sharia. There are a few brave muslim souls who do oppose sharia, and they should get support. It ain't coming from you though, is it, who doesn't even recognise the war they are caught in and wants no restrictions because of a possible Islamic equivalent of the von trapp's. Please spare us!

Have you made a report?

I don't have time to write up a report. I've provided you with an excellent starting point for the evidence you say you seek, but you can't even be bothered delving into that.

They don't make the laws though.

Have no laws been broken then?

Are you asking this just to be silly? The FBI, CIA, etc, are not even allowed to use the word Jihad, or any other word that best describes the enemy. When the proper context is not allowed to be recognised, then of course no laws are being broken.

I don't know what it would take to convince you

Well, we're an Objectivist forum so we value empiricism and logical reasoning. If that's how you became convinced then my suggestion is to express yourself that way.

You're a waste of time. Nothing will convince you. There is a huge amount of evidence, yet in all this time since 9/11 you haven't even taken it upon yourself to study it. Even if a dirty bomb went off in NY tomorrow in the name of raising a global caliphate, you would still not be convinced. I truly do not get it.

Libertarians don't seek through politics to provide support or moral or happiness to anyone. Liberty begins and ends with an unfettered marketplace for ideas and speech and religion.

Yes, and it only exists so long as it is gained and then defended.

This is why it is said we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness itself.

You're talking to someone who knows that full well.

I'd like you to explain why members of the global caliphate movement should be given unfettered access to the United States?

Well I did,

No you haven't. You've explained why liberty is a value, to someone who already knows that liberty is a value, but you haven't explained why extending liberty to enemies of war is a value.

Sandi, I'd appreciate hearing

Rick Giles's picture

Sandi,
I'd appreciate hearing your own supporting thoughts on the conclusions you've been drawing, please?

Richard,

In case you haven't noticed, so does the Sharia' movement.

On the other hand, the Nazi Party also had Oscar Shindler and, I'm sure, lots of people who were not as musical as the Von Trapp family so had to go with the status quo flow in Nazi Germany and sign up. Does this simularity also feature in your analogy?

Have you considered showing your evidence to the LAPD, CIA, FBI? Will it stand up in court and may I know?
You can rest assured that those organisations no doubt know of the evidence.

Have you made a report?

They don't make the laws though.

Have no laws been broken then?

Well then, it must be a key premise of yours that there is a state of war here. And I'd appreciate it if you'd make a case for that here rather than assuming it.
I don't know what it would take to convince you

Well, we're an Objectivist forum so we value empiricism and logical reasoning. If that's how you became convinced then my suggestion is to express yourself that way.

Libertarians don't seek through politics to provide support or moral or happiness to anyone. Liberty begins and ends with an unfettered marketplace for ideas and speech and religion. This is why it is said we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness itself.
Well, an enemy of war is at the gate, and it is inside the door, and not only that, people such as yourself are welcoming them in.

What's our gate doing inside our door in the first place? Sounds like bad feng shui.

I'd like you to explain why members of the global caliphate movement should be given unfettered access to the United States?

Well I did, and I'd love to do some more explaining but you've not responded to anything so far. Indeed, I'm the only one talking about liberty and persuit of happiness. On the other hand, you're the one who is taking exception to the Declairation on Independence without giving reasons.

Why does/should this liberty extend to them?

No, why should it not? Are they not men, created equal to other men? That is my why.

How does the country, or liberty in fact, gain from that?

I'm sorry, I don't want to insult your intelligence. Are you asking how individual liberty and free states benefit from equal rights? I feel like I'm going to be talking about Riccardian comparative advantage soon if I don't make sure you're asking what you seem to be asking.

Another example

Sandi's picture

Rick, you ask for a state of war premise?

Sandi's picture

Who are the Nazi's in Germany?

The Nazi political party must

Richard Wiig's picture

The Nazi political party must have had some pretty nasty blokes in it.

In case you haven't noticed, so does the Sharia' movement.

Have you considered showing your evidence to the LAPD, CIA, FBI? Will it stand up in court and may I know?

You can rest assured that those organisations no doubt know of the evidence. They don't make the laws though.

Well then, it must be a key premise of yours that there is a state of war here. And I'd appreciate it if you'd make a case for that here rather than assuming it.

I don't know what it would take to convince you. It seems that nothing will convince you, not even the violent actions of the enemy. If you want evidence of Imam Rauf's support for sharia then I can't do better than point you to Pamela Geller's site as a starting point.

Why the need to explain the need to fight the enemy?

Not that. Liberty does not bestow succor nor moral but only unfettered pursuit..

Well, an enemy of war is at the gate, and it is inside the door, and not only that, people such as yourself are welcoming them in. I'd like you to explain why members of the global caliphate movement should be given unfettered access to the United States? Why does/should this liberty extend to them? How does the country, or liberty in fact, gain from that?

As we both know, a

Rick Giles's picture

As we both know, a free-market in ideas and liberty go hand in hand, but this is not about a free-market in ideas.
In the same way that limiting the freedom of nazis to build buildings on allied soil during WWII was not about destroying a free-market in ideas and had everything to do with defending a free-market in ideas.

I didn't know that. The Nazi political party must have had some pretty nasty blokes in it. Have you considered showing your evidence to the LAPD, CIA, FBI? Will it stand up in court and may I know?

If there was no state of war then there would be no issue, other than the one of answering religious ideas with better ideas.

Well then, it must be a key premise of yours that there is a state of war here. And I'd appreciate it if you'd make a case for that here rather than assuming it.

If so, could we assume there is a state of war and have you explain how this changes the political situation?
Why the need to explain the need to fight the enemy?

Not that.

Liberty does not bestow succor nor moral but only unfettered pursuit. These are not the same things, as I tried to explain above. My question is, how does that political situation, or conceptual definition, take exception if a war is going on?
[ref. Wed, 2010-08-25 06:05]

"University education" ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is, alas, nowadays, a contradiction in terms.

Outstanding questions

Richard Wiig's picture

As we both know, a free-market in ideas and liberty go hand in hand, but this is not about a free-market in ideas.

How not?

In the same way that limiting the freedom of nazis to build buildings on allied soil during WWII was not about destroying a free-market in ideas and had everything to do with defending a free-market in ideas.

Everything you say, Rick, stands upon ignoring the state of war that exists.

Do you mean that if there were not state of war then you would agree?

Of course. If there was no state of war then there would be no issue, other than the one of answering religious ideas with better ideas.

If so, could we assume there is a state of war and have you explain how this changes the political situation?

Why the need to explain the need to fight the enemy? Is it, as Linz suggests, because of your university education?

You are acceding to "Their

Rick Giles's picture

You are acceding to "Their right to property versus our right to survive"
"This is war, and self-preservation trumps the enemy's self-forfeited "property rights."

If you think you have good reasons for what you are saying here there are outstanding questions from me above going back to September that I'd like to see you take a good swing at. I think you might not have thought this through fully?

To all those who voted "Property Rights First and Foremost"

Sandi's picture

Think again.

You are acceding to "Their right to property versus our right to survive"

"This is war, and self-preservation trumps the enemy's self-forfeited "property rights."

The results of this poll is a classic illustration of why democracy fails.

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/06...

AND, FYI Children, We ARE NOT

Neil C. Reinhardt's picture

AND, FYI Children,

We ARE NOT at WAR with the MOSLEM RELIGION!

We ARE AT WAR with MOSLEM TERRORISTS!

We are no more at war with ALL Moslems any more than we were at war with ALL Christians AFTER a Christian Identy member TIM MCVEIGH bombed the Federal Building in Ok. City.

OR, the rabid ass Christian ERIC ROBERT RUDOLOPH blew up gay bars, health clinics and the Olympics in Atlanta, GA.

OR, the Christian TERRORIST and HATE groups rob our banks, kill other Americans and who sadly, INFEST our country.

OR the Fact SOME Christians STILL hold their WITCH TRIALS in the US!

The last one was in 2006 in the State of Ok when CHRISTIAN town and school officals as well as the Police attempted to find an Atheist and his family quilty of things they had NOT done.

Last, SORRY for the "Children" bit only when you area old as I am, most are young enough to be my children.

Of mosques and mayors

Rosie's picture

A comment I found very interesting, but also alarming, on the One Jerusalem site:

By Morris Kanowitz on September 6, 2010 1:32 PM

"Rauf says his religion forbids him to change this project. What he doesn't say is why and what specifically his religion is....It is becoming increasingly apparent that Rauf is not a Sufi but a Wahabbi/Salafi Muslim and that is why he can't change the project. Wahabbism is a Muslim supremacist ideology that cannot concede anything to infidels and dhimmis. The purpose of this Mosque/Cultural Center is to memorialize Wahabbi Islams' success in taking out the symbols of U.S. financial power and the eventual defeat of the country by Islam. This mosque/center will stand as a symbol to all Wahabbi jihadists that triumphant Islam has begun its "war" against the seat of Judeo-Christian power.

The project was originally called the Cordoba Project. When the Muslims conquered Spain and set up the Ummayad Caliphate in Cordoba, the first thing they did was convert the magnificent Cathedral at Cordoba into a Mosque, which is what Muslims always do when they conquer a people. So it was no accident that Rauf called this mosque/center the Cordoba Project...symbolically it represented the seat of the impending Caliphate here in America. For that reason alone it must be opposed.

In light of that it is puzzling why it has the support of the useful idiots like Bloomberg et.al. I wonder if it has anything to do w/the fact that the Mayor is moving his operational hq of his Bloomberg Enterprises to Dubai...a move that will generate annual profits of $5 billion a year? (reported in the Dubai Press). If our leaders can be bought off for money, it just might come to pass that the mosque/center does indeed become the seat of the American Caliphate."

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's all true.

Fox have had a lot to say about it too.

The world has gone beyond insane.

I don't know whether anyone

Rosie's picture

I don't know whether anyone subscribed to One Jerusalem when signing the petition against the erection of the Mosque but this arrived in my email today. Although I haven't verified its contents as truth, if it is true then this is very worrying and almost unbelievable.

"ACTION ITEM :: Hillary, Fire the Imam!

Dear Faithful Friend of Israel,

As many One Jerusalem supporters are aware, the US State Department has been funding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque -- on his travels in the Middle East. In fact, this Imam is supposedly representing the United states on a goodwill mission overseas. Well, we are fed up!

Over the last several weeks, we reported the facts -- this Imam is hardly a moderate. Tell Hillary -- Fire Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf from the US State Department!He refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization, and has said that the US has more Muslim blood on their hands then al-Qaeda. Imam Rauf calls for Sharia law to be brought to the US and for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be "solved" by a one state (Arab!) solution. Appalling!

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is hardly someone who should represent the United States anywhere, and certainly should not be funded by our tax-payer dollars! Tell Hillary to drop the Imam!

We've created a special website for you to send a quick email to Secretary of State Clinton, and to join the Facebook Fire effort. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf should not represent the United States.

Please spread the word to all your contacts - Hillary, Fire the Imam!

Sincerely,
Allen Roth & David Goder
www.OneJerusalem.org

Leonid "That's what makes me condem and despise them"

Sandi's picture

By the way, I love this clip because Dongahue's humility is priceless. Watch the shoulders droop.

This man concedes because he is out of his depth. His rotten morality has been destroyed and thus his self esteem has been destroyed.

This man has lost his purpose because of his lack of reason.

 

Gregster

Leonid's picture

No, that you who is asking for trouble by seeking to turn the whole country into the secret police's paradise. Such a pity that you are living in the wrong place and time-in Soviet Russia you could have been a great KGB officer, almost like Putin. Rather go to North Korea and learn by your own ass-hole how it feel to be really screwed.

More sense, almost

gregster's picture

'In any case you don't need to put the whole Muslim community under surveillance for this purpose."

No you don't, you're right. Nobody has said that you would need to. Just more of your dishonest representation. You would however need to place every leader of every section of the filthy spreading virus under surveillance - that means every mosque, and every gathering. If you didn't, then you would be asking for trouble. They asked for it - they should get it. That's not a collectivist stance - it's justified self defense. We have enough anti-human religionists already without inviting the even more primitive species to enlarge their orgy for death. I hope the law enforcement authorities do see it as such a war. Screw you.

A tribute to those who voted "Free Speech first and foremost "

Sandi's picture

The new face of France.

Free to speak, as long as you worship Allah.

Free to speak, as long as you are not a woman.

Free to speak and damn business trade.

Free to speak, unless you've parked and want to move your vehicle.

Free to speak, do you think that an infidel who spoke out against Islam on this street in France, would live to tell the tale?

Free to speak, as long as it is Arabic in France.

Where are the women in this "religion" of equality?

Linked from Atlas Shrugs

They are already putting the

Richard Wiig's picture

They are already putting the muslim community under surveillance. It's only because the muslim community is under surveilance that things like the Holy Land Foundation are being uncovered, and that would-be-bombers, such as the Times Square bomber, are being caught. For this we can thank people who think contrary to what Leonid thinks. If Leonid was in charge, Times Square would have blown.

"Now you're thinking - now -

Leonid's picture

"Now you're thinking - now - how do we gather this evidence?"
How did they gather it for the trial? I don't think that to trace 12 million dollars' donation is such a big problem even for FBI. In any case you don't need to put the whole Muslim community under surveillance for this purpose.

Some sense from Leonid?

gregster's picture

Now you're thinking - now - how do we gather this evidence?

Kyrel

Leonid's picture

"So how should the West handle all these moderate and mainstream Muslims in our midst?"

Exactly as you described in your post. By the trial based on factual evidence, not presumtion.

Moderate Bastards

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Most Muslims in the West and elsewhere are genuine jihadis and monsters in that most give to jihadi and shariaist charities. So the question arises: If a guy gives $100 to an organization of mass-murderers and mass-enslavers, what -- based on pure, impartial, objective justice -- should his punishment be be? What if it's $1000 or $10,000 donated over many years?

If it tends toward the latter, I say: fines, jail, loss of citizenship, deportation, and heavy public moral condemnation.

Bear in mind that before their trial, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was America's biggest Muslim charity, and evidently totally "moderate" and mainstream. Still, they were convicted for funding jihad ("financing terrorism") in 2008. They sent $12 million to Hamas, among other acts. At the trial, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America were also found to be unindicted co-conspirators. These are two more "moderate" and mainstream Muslims groups -- the two biggest and most popular in the U.S., as far as I can tell.

So how should the West handle all these moderate and mainstream Muslims in our midst? Puzzled

"It is actually a mosque and

Leonid's picture

"It is actually a mosque and not a prayer room."
A mosque with swimming pool?

"I take it he's one of your

Leonid's picture

"I take it he's one of your favourite reads then Leonid?"

Actually not. But how Dyer's position on climate change connected with his description of GZ mosque?

Lindsay,-

Rick Giles's picture

All things being equal, *of course* these scummy savages should be free to build a shrine to their superstition anywhere they like, as long as they own the relevant property. But all things are not equal. The scummy savages have explicitly, by way of fatwa and numerous videos and propaganda tracts, declared war on America, on Israel, on Western Civilisation, on freedom itself.

I'm not sure who you mean. Have the particular property developers in question made these explicit threats and are getting away scott free so far, unreported to the authorities? Surely then they've broken some law. Or, more likely I guess, there is a principle of guilt by association? But, that would be unjust. I'm not sure which, if either, is being applied here.

Absolutes are contextual, and are rendered no less absolute by being so.

I understand that but I don't recognise a context in which the market for faith could be improved by government regulation.

And isn't that really what we're talking about here?

Thunderf00t - a voice of reason as always

Sandi's picture

 

I will not be lectured on the virtues of tolerance, or accept bargaining chips labeled 'in the name of tolerance' from someone who, in order to comply with their religion get down on their knees 5 times a day and pray to a icon of discrimination.


Image linked from Jihad Watch

Dyer

gregster's picture

is a fool. He calls climate change a "phenomenon." http://vodpod.com/watch/167703... There he waffles on in support of his book Climate Wars. I take it he's one of your favourite reads then Leonid?

The criminal past of developer who wants to build mosque

Marcus's picture

Revealed: The criminal past of developer who wants to build mosque at Ground Zero
By Mail Foreign Service

31st August 2010

The developer hoping to build a mosque near to the site of the September 11 attacks has a string of criminal convictions, it has emerged.

Sharif El-Gamal, a muslim, heads a property investment firm that owns the New York building where the $100 million (£65m) Islamic centre would open.

But the 37-year-old has a chequered past.

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in 1990, driving while intoxicated in 1992 and attempted petit larceny (theft) in 1993.

The following year he was arrested on a charge of patronising a prostitute, which was pleaded down to disorderly conduct.

He also pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after an arrest in 1998 for petit larceny, which was dropped to possession of stolen property, and after an arrest in 1999 for trespassing.

In 2006, El-Gamal was sued by a tenant who said the developer had roughed him up in a rent dispute. El-Gamal denied the claims, arguing that the tenant had attacked him.

The case was settled in 2008, records show. The tenant's lawyer said El-Gamal paid Vassiliev $15,000 (£10,000)...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Well, she's wrong. That's

Richard Wiig's picture

Well, she's wrong. That's what they said to start with. It is actually a mosque and not a prayer room.

Sandi

Leonid's picture

Islam is a religion. I think this is undisputable fact. Your point is that some people use Islam as political tool, as they used and still using Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism.

If you have been paying attention...

Leonid's picture

GWYNNE DYER writes :"If you have been paying attention, you will know that it is not actually a mosque. If the sponsors can raise the money (which remains to be seen), it would contain a prayer room, but also a restaurant, a 500-seat theatre, basketball courts and a swimming pool that would be open to all. It would not have a minaret, but there would be a memorial to the 3000 people (including 300 Muslims) who died in the 9/11 attacks." http://www.citizen.co.za/index...

Now, to what exactly do you object, to the swimming pool, prayer room or to the memorial?

Leonid, you say

Sandi's picture

"Islam is the world religion of 1.5 billion people, which are mostly not militant and not political."

No. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that demands and maintains control of all aspect of life, politics, law and religion.

Absolutely

Doug Bandler's picture

Then again, it shows the value of unimpeded debate, no?

It absolutely does. Which is why SOLO is special.

Dr Yaron Brook

Sandi's picture

"Islamists are much more passionate about Islam, than Europeans are about Western civilisation"

4th Aug 2008 - Ayn Rand Institute

Also see clips 1, 3 & 4.

Yes Lindsay, it is a superb piece from Rand. I particulary love the last sentence.

"When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes."

Doug

Leonid's picture

"This is not what Lindsay has advocated."

I provided direct quotation.

"No one has made this argument."

Richard did number of times. Read his posts.

"It is necessary because there is no way to tell if a Mosque or a Muslim is peaceful or a stealth Jihadist especially since stealth Jihad is a core component of the Sharia political ideology."

It's like to say that you are suspected of rape. You have the ability and equipment. Prosecution on the basis of suspicion is a trade mark of dictatorship.

"You are denying the abundant concrete evidence that is known about Islam and its Sharia faithful adherents. That is not being objective."

This is also the abundant concrete evidence that the vast majority of religious Muslims, and some of them take their religion very seriously, don't do terrorism and actually object to it.

Objective means related to reality, not to the selected part of it.

"Islam has a political/military ideology"

No, Islam is the world religion of 1.5 billion people, which are mostly not militant and not political. Those who want to oppress them are.
"

Gregster

Leonid's picture

"I was talking about keeping mosques and many of their leaders under surveillance,"

No, that wouldn’t be sufficient for your purpose. They may gather not only at mosques but at homes, community centers, sport clubs, charity organizations, cafes and restaurants and many other public and private places. You have to keep eye on all of these.
Besides, who said it’s impractical? Stalin did it with great success.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Lindsay, accept my apology. I was wrong to question your integrity. All I can say in my defense is - to paraphrase Pope - I hope I am wiser tomorrow than I was yesterday.

No apology necessary, but I appreciate the gesture, which, actually, made my day. I didn't think you were questioning my integrity. It's that Brandroid garbage about my being too emotional that pisses me off. I've had that from Day One from Babs and her worshippers, and frankly, in the immortal words of Mr. Moeller, "I'm fucking sick of it." If your superior wisdom tomorrow consists of your being able to see that my emotion followed my reason that's the only "apology" I need. I think you were just a bit slow to see about Leonid what became clear to me weeks ago and is now abundantly clear to us all.

I have to say I've been stunned on an ongoing basis by the things he's come out with, including the imputing to me of views I don't hold. Illuminating, baffling and revolting all at once. Then again, it shows the value of unimpeded debate, no?

Leonid

gregster's picture

"To keep millions of Muslims in the West under surveillance means creation of totalitarian KGB-style state. If that what you want you always can go to live in North Korea."

I realize that's impractical. I was talking about keeping mosques and many of their leaders under surveillance, before closing them, and jailing the would-be-murderers.

More Bullshit from Leonid & my apology to Lindsay

Doug Bandler's picture

He suggests to close all mosques not on the grounds of any evidence of hostility, but simply on the basis of presumption, as any dictator does.

This is not what Lindsay has advocated. Lindsay has said that Mosques are known centers of Jihad propaganda dissemination. They are also known centers of Jihad recruitment. In light of that, the presumption of innocence no longer applies to Muslims and Mosques especially now in a time of war (even if undeclared). Muslims are not innocent but they are also not guilty. They occupy a special classification before the law - suspicion. This is not collectivism. This is a rational assesment using the process of induction. It is necessary because there is no way to tell if a Mosque or a Muslim is peaceful or a stealth Jihadist especially since stealth Jihad is a core component of the Sharia political ideology. You are denying the abundant concrete evidence that is known about Islam and its Sharia faithful adherents. That is not being objective.

Your statement that all religious Muslims forfeit all their rights including right to live, just because they accept teaching of Islam belongs to the same category.

No one has made this argument. You are making shit up.

That means initiation of force which undermines the very foundations of Western civilization as we know it.

This is the cental error of your entire view of Islam. Identifying that Islam has a political/miliary ideology built right into it with a well defined goal of world domination and recognizing that this totalitarian ideology is extrememly popular amongst Muslims and further recognizing that moderate Muslims do nothing to remedy this but in fact provide support for it all mandates the conclusion that Muslims and Mosques require different political treatment. This is NOT COLLECTIVISM! This is rational judgement appled to the facts on the ground.

Leonid, you have your head up your ass regarding Muslims and Islam. Its a shame. Your evil position on this has basically wiped out any good will I had for you previously. I'm sorry I defended you against Lindsay.

Lindsay, accept my apology. I was wrong to question your integrity. All I can say in my defense is - to paraphrase Pope - I hope I am wiser tomorrow than I was yesterday.

Richard

Leonid's picture

Richard "But Lindsay hasn't advocated a ban on Islam and the closure of all mosques."

Doesn't he?

That what Lindsay advocates:

"*I* personally have said that all mosques, in the context of Jihad declared by them, should be presumed to be Jihadist HQ, and closed, unless they can prove their anti-Jihad credentials. I stand by that."

That means initiation of force which undermines the very foundations of Western civilization as we know it. The full meaning of this statement is a call to establish totalitarian dictatorship which inevitable leads to atrocities. He suggests to close all mosques not on the grounds of any evidence of hostility, but simply on the basis of presumption, as any dictator does. The statement which postulates that the only good Muslim who takes it (his religion) seriously is the dead one is a call for genocide. Your statement that all religious Muslims forfeit all their rights including right to live, just because they accept teaching of Islam belongs to the same category. The premise of “war against Islam" on which your conclusions are based, doesn't hold water. If you and Lindsay want to fight real war against real Jihadists, then volunteer to Army and go to Afghanistan. This takes little bit more guts than to fight mostly peaceful, unarmed and law obedient population with the force of all powerful state.

Answer the question please,

Richard Wiig's picture

Answer the question please, Leonid. What atrocities has anyone here advocated?

In this context every Muslim who takes his religion seriously. Compare it with another Lindsay's statement "*I* hate *all* Muslims, on principle, for the wanton savage stupidity of their beliefs. There's not one I like. Got it? So I'm an Islamophobe? Proudly! But guess what. Unlike them, I won't force my views on anyone. Not on them, not on anyone."

This is a premise which you claim I misrepresent. The fact that a ban on Islam and closure of all mosques IS AN INITIATION OF FORCE apparently eludes him.

But Lindsay hasn't advocated a ban on Islam and the closure of all mosques. He's advocated putting pessure on mosques to show that they're working against the Islamic supremacist ideology that motivates the violent Jihadists. Muslims who actually are against Islamic supremacism and the violent jihadists, given the context of their active warfare, should have no problem with that. So please, answer the question. What atrocities? If you cannot answer, then retract your statement and apologise.

Thanks, Doug, and Sandi.

Richard Wiig's picture

Thanks, Doug, and Sandi.

Doug

Leonid's picture

"His epistemology should lead him to better than that."

I'd be grateful if you can show where my epistemology went wrong.

Gregster

Leonid's picture

First, I don't have a penchant for late term abortions and for abortions at all. I've stated this explicitly number of times.

Second, you simply don't know what you are talking about. To keep millions of Muslims in the West under surveillance means creation of totalitarian KGB-style state. If that what you want you always can go to live in North Korea. In my opinion the much better solution is a support and endorsement of peace-seeking Muslims, so Muslim communities themselves would reject terrorists from their midst.

What really disgusting is that some Objectivists eager to use the initiation of force as a solution for any problem.

Who takes what seriously?

Leonid's picture

"Who takes *what* seriously? Who takes violent Jihad seriously. Such a Muslim is only good when he's dead."

In this context every Muslim who takes his religion seriously. Compare it with another Lindsay's statement "*I* hate *all* Muslims, on principle, for the wanton savage stupidity of their beliefs. There's not one I like. Got it? So I'm an Islamophobe? Proudly! But guess what. Unlike them, I won't force my views on anyone. Not on them, not on anyone."
This is a premise which you claim I misrepresent. The fact that a ban on Islam and closure of all mosques IS AN INITIATION OF FORCE apparently eludes him.

The notion of self-defense at least in Objectivist context means the usage of retaliatory force against those who initiated it. Show how the practice of Islam which doesn't include Jihad is initiation of force?

"Not all Muslim leaders are violent jihadists."

True, as like as not all Muslims. Why then, all Muslims should be suspicious of terrorist activities and denied of their rights? Why all mosques should be banned or be under constant surveillance?

"We find ourselves in a war, not of our own making, initiated by jihadists. A fact."

The fact is that Islam is not equivalent of Jihadism.

Leonid

gregster's picture

"The government has the right to protect its employers, the people."

Fine. But I asked " by what means exactly in your opinion " government should protect all of us from the Islam's menance. You didn't answer. Please verbalise it.

By keeping these greasy Mecca-looking creeps under constant surveillance. It wouldn't take long to gather enough evidence of plots to kill, as has happened in Britain. There would be many innocent westerners dead if we took your line Leonid. As a medical doctor I find you're rather flippant with protection of lives - perhaps that explains your penchant for late term abortion?

In my opinion if West will ever adopt your ways, pretty soon you will find yourself in the re-education labor camp together with all Muslims, intrinsicist libertarians, "objectivists" of your kind and other useful idiots who helped to build it.

If West (sic) adopted your ways, there would be no camps to attend. There is no greater threat to liberty than the virus of death and anti-Jew hatred breeding through these stinking fucking greasy death-worshippers. You disgust me. [That doesn't mean all of them - the ones that want out better get out. I think that's reasonable.]

Sandi

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That Rand quote is just about my favourite.

And haven't we seen our share of "vacillating characters" right here?!

Bravo Richard!

Sandi's picture

When one reads the absolute contrary reported in the MSM, one must surely undsterstand the reality of war.

"The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes."

Ayn Rand

Richard

Doug Bandler's picture

I just wanted to let you know that your arguments are, IMO, excellent and they have pushed me further to the anti-Islam side than I previously was. They have given me some clarity on certain issues. Thanks for that.

Leonid sadly has jumped off the deep end is making arguments that I see Leftists make routinely. That is disturbing. His epistemology should lead him to better than that. The position taken by you and Lindsay is gaining popularity with Objectivists. Even Binswanger is slowly moving to the Islam-is-the-problem side.

I don't know if you blog Richard, but I almost wish you did. You could specialize in analyzing things Islam from the Objectivist / Objectivish perspective. Thanks again.

Observe: 1. The only good

Richard Wiig's picture

Observe:

1. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one. "

Who takes *what* seriously? Who takes violent Jihad seriously. Such a muslim is only good when he's dead.

2. All Muslim religious leaders take their religion seriously

Not all muslim leaders are violent jihadists.

Ergo: they all should be killed

A conclusion derived from a misrepresentation of the premises.

1. All Muslims are under suspicion as terrorists

All muslims are potential jihadists. A fact.

2. We are in war against Islam

We find ourselves in a war, not of our own making, initiated by jihadists. A fact.

3. All Muslims therefore forfeit their rights

We have the right to self-defence in which any defensive action may constitute what, in other circumstances, would amount to a violation of rights. Standard Objectivist morality in regards to self-defence.

Ergo: All Muslims should be detained and interrogated (preferably with water board) in order to find out who is a terrorist and who is taking his religion seriously.

A complete and utter non-sequiter. Self-defence means taking reasoned defensive actions; not arbitrarily rushing in on a blind campaign of terror.

If you don't like conclusions, check the premises.

I think you had better check your premises. I ask you once again, what atrocities has anyone here advocated? Seeing as you're consistently saying that people have, I think it's appropriate for you to give an answer.

Olivia

Leonid's picture

No, CIA and FBI don't have at present the budget and manpower to check who out of 2 million Muslims is taking Islam seriously. In order to do that they have to become the dominant power, in other words USA has to become a police state. Moreover, who and how will decide what does it exactly mean "to take religion seriously"? Does a person who prays 5 times a day and gives charity take his religion seriously? And if it only 4 times a day? 3+1 Hajj? 2+halal? See what happens when one tries to apply arbitrary standards. And on this loose basis you suggest to unleash the power of state on massive scale against the large slice of mostly law obedient citizens, just in order to catch few terrorists? Even KGB with all their huge repressive machinery never successfully completed such a job. Do you think that CIA and FBI could compete with KGB in creation of totalitarian regime? However, to find the preachers of Jihad is not a problem at all. They do it openly, to the large audience. Instigation for violence is a criminal offence in any civilized country. Recently such Imam has been deported from UK. Rauf is no more excrement than Jeremiah Wright. They both are anti-American, but they don't preach violence. Do you think that they both should be banned? If so, what would happen to the 1st Amendment?
Sharia is religious law. It cannot be enforced as a private enterprise. Its implementation requires power of state. Do you imply that in America state endorses and enforces Sharia law? I think that such a conclusion is a bit farfetched.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"You don't debate this issue in good faith, Leonid."

I don't debate. I just bring yours and Lindsay' premises to their logical conclusions.

Observe:

1. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one. "
2. All Muslim religious leaders take their religion seriously
Ergo: they all should be killed

1. All Muslims are under suspicion as terrorists
2. We are in war against Islam
3. All Muslims therefore forfeit their rights
Ergo: All Muslims should be detained and interrogated (preferably with water board) in order to find out who is a terrorist and who is taking his religion seriously.

If you don't like conclusions, check the premises.

EDL's Tommy Robinson

Richard Wiig's picture

A chat before we go to Bradford.

Leonid...

Olivia's picture

Who has the time, money and manpower to check which Muslim is taking his religion seriously?

The CIA and the FBI.
They should be in mosques all over America checking out which mosques preach Jihad & Sharia the loudest, which have militant connections, which preach Anti-Western hatred and fire up eager youths with nothing better to do... if it's coming from the immigrant quarter they can fuck off back to their homeland instead of leeching off a host country. If it's coming from homegrown groups, monitoring these pieces of shit needs to be done as a matter of routine. It's not that hard. But the current administration is so cozied up in bed with Muslim excrement like Faisal Abdul Rauf, they won't prioritize law enforcement in favour of the Constitution, they'll prioritize it in favour of political correctness and Sharia Law, like that recent Muslim rally in Dearborn where the guys handing out pamphlets, a constitutional right, were removed by squads of police within 3 minutes. Sharia won.

I would also like to repeat to you and everyone else, Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology.

I think tough measures need to be taken to force the hand of "moderates" to choose. Constitutional Law or Sharia Law? They are not compatible.

How you get this:

Richard Wiig's picture

How you get this:

"That exactly means that all their leaders should be arrested as Jihadists and terrorists and held in captivity until they prove their innocence."

From this:

"*I* personally have said that all mosques, in the context of Jihad declared by them, should be presumed to be Jihadist HQ, and closed, unless they can prove their anti-Jihad credentials. I stand by that. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one. "

Is beyond me. Unless of course you think that all Muslim leaders support the Islamic supremacist agenda? But we know that isn't true. You don't debate this issue in good faith, Leonid. That is entirely clear.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"*I* personally have said that all mosques, in the context of Jihad declared by them, should be presumed to be Jihadist HQ, and closed, unless they can prove their anti-Jihad credentials. I stand by that. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one. "

That exactly means that all their leaders should be arrested as Jihadists and terrorists and held in captivity until they prove their innocence. We shouldn’t worry about the concept of presumption of innocence, evidence, state's onus of proof, legality, property rights, freedom and other western technicalities invented by Islam's apologists, treasonists and other double agents. After all we are in war against Islam. Better off, kill them all. They are the ones, who for sure take Islam seriously. Even better, kill all Muslims. Who has the time, money and manpower to check which Muslim is taking his religion seriously? Failure to do so would mean that state supports terrorism as Reverend Jeremiah Wright observed. You belong to him.

You stupid bastards!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I see there's a bit of a rearguard action in favour of the first option in this poll, the appeasing quislings' one.

This is a "victory mosque," you "useful idiots"!

It seems to have escaped the attention of you stupid bastards that the Islamogoblinazis declared war on us. And waged it.

And the Islamogoblinazis' chief apologist on this site is now saying the notion of "war against Islam" is a stolen concept perpetrated by drunks. I'm sure the ARI will find that characterisation interesting. And I wonder who here has said that the leaders of all mosques should be arrested and prosecuted? *I* personally have said that all mosques, in the context of Jihad declared by them, should be presumed to be Jihadist HQ, and closed, unless they can prove their anti-Jihad credentials. I stand by that.

I think you'd find the much-vaunted "moderate" Muslims, in such circumstances, renouncing Jihadism in short order, something they've singularly and conspicuously failed to do up till now. Why would they do it, when confronted with mushy treasonists like Leonid?

The only good Muslim is one who doesn't take it seriously. The only good Muslim who takes it seriously is a dead one. The only good foreign policy is one that kills him.

Gregster

Leonid's picture

"The government has the right to protect its employers, the people."

Fine. But I asked " by what means exactly in your opinion " government should protect all of us from the Islam's menance. You didn't answer. Please verbalise it.

In my opinion if West will ever adopt your ways, pretty soon you will find yourself in the re-education labor camp together with all Muslims, intrinsicist libertarians, "objectivists" of your kind and other useful idiots who helped to build it.

The context of war

Leonid's picture

"1. The first step is a proper identification of the enemy and recognition of the context of war."

Exactly. And the notion of war against Islam is stolen concept, that is- "is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concepts on which it logically depends. ( Philosophy: Who Needs It, 22)

The context of war defines the usage of physical force in order to achieve political goals. War is armed conflict between different groups of people. Islam is a religion, that is-a system of believes. One cannot shoot, bomb or nuke Islam, only Muslims. One cannot wage a war against ideas by using shotguns and bombers, but only by using of better ideas. The fallacious notion of war against Islam leads to contradictory conclusion that all mosques are HQ of terrorism and therefore should be prohibited and ALL Muslims should forfeit their rights. This is true that SOME mosques can be terrorist HQ and their leaders should be promptly arrested and prosecuted, but to make such a general statement in regard to ALL mosques is pure collectivism. If this assumption were true, then all leaders of Islam in the West should be prosecuted, which is obvious nonsense. This notion is factually wrong even in Muslim countries (otherwise countries like Pakistan who actually fights Taliban would have to ban all their mosques), let alone in the West. This conclusion is a direct result of lose, sloppy steps of nihilistic nonconformity with any principals, Objectivist or otherwise, which can only lead to contradictions, and eventually, to the support of all powerful totalitarian state. How such an idea could be even conceived by Objectivist is beyond my comprehension.

Newt Gingrich - No Mosque at Ground Zero

Sandi's picture

Brief Reply to the 'Coercively Shut Down the Mosque' Folks

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Lindsay writes:

[Respecting Muslim property and free speech rights] would be all fine and dandy except for one thing—you're at war with them. They declared it. It's suicidal not to take them at their word. This Mosque will be another Command HQ for them.

Imagine a group of Nazis in 1941 buying up some land in an area of London blitzed by German bombers, proposing to build a Centre for National Socialism and erect a statue to Hitler on it—and Londoners saying, "Yes go ahead. It's a property rights and free speech issue."

Good points. Moderate, mainstream Muslims have been at war with the West for almost 1400 years now. They've tried hard to conquer and enslave all of us.

But over the last century or two their war-making has changed. It's become largely verbal, because the Muslims are an extremely weak enemy militarily, financially, intellectually, and otherwise.

And Muslims collectively aren't a unitary group for purposes of military war. They're mostly divided up into separate, very-different countries. They can't all be rightly killed, or jailed, or even fined simply for being Muslim. They have to physically violate the life, liberty, or property of Westerners first, before a physical counter-attack can properly begin. They need to fund jihad via Muslim charity; or fund, arm, and command proxy troops in Iraq and Afghanstan; or nationalize our Mid-East oil; or some such.

And even then only Muslims truly and directly responsible for aggression can be warred against. Average, normal Muslims are truly evil, and should be publicly loathed, because they morally and verbally support jihad and sharia. They generally constitute traitors who should lose their Western citizenship and be deported. But they can't rightly be murdered or freely attacked just for being Muslims.

And because the uncertain, feckless West hasn't officially declared war against Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, etc., those who morally and verbally support such aren't absolutely at physical war with the West. They're just being extremely obnoxious and depraved, which warrants loud visceral hatred and social pariah status, but not physical aggression, nor loss of private property and free speech rights.

At the least -- this is my quick exegesis and "deconstruction" of some of the "Islam is at war with the West" issues.

1. The first step is a proper

Richard Wiig's picture

1. The first step is a proper identification of the enemy and recognition of the context of war. From there on in it's whatever legal mechanisms are available to defeat the enemy.

2. Jeremiah Wright, so long as he is not involved in a militant campaign, has every right to his church and to verbalise his bilge, as do useful idiots.

3. Where Louis Farakhan and his mosque stands is up to him.

Comment viewing options

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