2006 February 03 Friday
US And British Governments Side With Muslims Over Cartoons

Do not expect the governments of America and Britain to defend our right to free speech against Muslim theocrats. The US State Department of the Bush Administration would prefer that the press not run material that is offensive to Muslims.

In its first comment on the furore, the State Department said: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims."

Answering a reporter's question, its spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."

US State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus says publishing cartoons that portray Islam's founder as a terrorist is unacceptable.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," Hironimus said. "We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

Mohammed was a conqueror who killed lots of people. He wasn't a nice tolerant guy.

Brussels Journal (which has great coverage) points to the pathetic British government reaction. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw says the press should not publish things that will upset Muslims.

"I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been insulting, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.

"There are taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of all aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free speech.

"Nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh religion.

"It should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion either.

"We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation."

At the risk of stating the obvious, multiculturalism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. That the governments and populaces of Muslim countries can respond angrily in so many ways to some cartoons in a Danish newspaper speaks to the size of the conflict in values between major groups of societies in this world. But our "leaders" do not want us to know this.

The problem isn't the cartoons. The problem is that governments of Western countries have allowed people into our midst who think like these Regent's Park mosque Muslims.

Demonstrators marched from Regent's Park mosque, London, to the Danish embassy, with banners reading: "Kill the one who insults the Prophet" and "The only way this will be resolved, is if those who are responsible are turned over so they can be punished by Islamic law, so that they can be executed".

Predictably the Catholic Church is not rushing to defend freedom of speech either.

Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, a retired Vatican diplomat, said: "Freedom is a great virtue but it must be shared and it must not be unilateral. Freedom of satire that offends the feelings of others becomes an abuse, and here we are talking about nothing less than the feelings of entire peoples who have seen their supreme symbols affected."

Freedom must be shared? It must not be unilateral? Just what is this fool trying to say? How does publishing cartoons un-"share" freedom? Again, unilateral? The Catholic Church just wants its own beliefs immune from insults, jokes, and mockery.

The elites want the Western masses to be nice and quiet while the elites pursue their elite interests at the expense of the masses.

Another US State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, had marginally better things to say about the current Danish cartoon flap.

"We find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find those images offensive," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in his daily press briefing February 3.

"At the same time, we vigorously defend the right of individuals" to express views that the U.S. government may disagree with or condemn, he added.

"For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy. And it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend, and we will continue to do so," McCormack said.

But then the State Department writer and McCormack get confused.

One of the offending cartoons, originally published in Denmark, depicts the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb. Islam bans visual images of the prophet. Muslims around the world have condemned the cartoons, saying they fuel a prejudice that equates Islam with terrorism.

Cartoons are fueling that prejudice? The Muslim reaction to the cartoons with calls to kill the cartoonists, death threats against editors, bomb threats against newspaper offices, massive boycotts, demands for suppression of freedom of speech, and their other actions in response to the cartoons show that prejudices against Islam are very well founded. The cartoons describe a real truth about the people in Muslim societies.

"[W]e would urge all parties to exercise maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue," McCormack said. He added that anti-Muslim images are as offensive as anti-Semitic and anti-Christian images and he expressed the hope that people would speak out with equal vigor against such images.

Anti-Muslim images that show Muslims as oppressive and violent convey a great deal of truth. Suppressing those images therefore suppresses the truth.

However, an even bigger issue is at stake. Why should religions be on some pedestal immune from criticism? We criticise secular belief systems. We make fun of, mock, deride, insult, and otherwise attack secular belief systems. Listen to Democrats talking about Republicans or vice versa. Listen to criticism of fascism or communism. Religious beliefs are just as much factors in forming political beliefs as are secular beliefs. Religion matters in politics. Religions should have no special immunity from criticism. Religious believers should not have immunity from criticism. They've provided us with plenty of reasons to criticise them. For our best interests we need to be able to do so, and that holds true especially for Islam.

Update: Muslims hold other values ahead of freedom and that is the key thing you must understand about them.

Summing up the cultural rift between Islam and the West, imam Ahmed Abu Laban told worshippers at Friday prayers in a Copenhagen mosque: “In the West, freedom of speech is sacred; To us, the prophet is sacred.”

Muslim immigrants are incompatible with a free society. They do not want us to look at these cartoons or these cartoons.

Update II: While some European leaders defend the right to freedom of speech the Catholic Church sides against any criticism of religions that causes some of the believers to feel insulted.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said she understood Muslims were hurt, though that did not justify violence.

''Freedom of the press is one of the great assets as a component of democracy, but we also have the value and asset of freedom of religion," Merkel told an international security conference in Munich.

The Vatican deplored the violence but said certain provocative forms of criticism were unacceptable. ''The right to freedom of thought and expression . . . cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in its first statement on the controversy.

So basically the Vatican is illiberal to the core. Glad they stood up to be counted so we know where they stand: in the ranks of the enemy.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 03 10:56 PM  Civilizations Clash Of

John S Bolton said at February 4, 2006 1:54 AM:

The administration and the diplomatic corps have given us another ghastly show of cowardice and traitorous appeasement. Tolerance of aggression is not civilized. 'Understanding' for bestial attempts by moslems to appoint themselves the world's censors is depravity. Moslems will be emboldened to mount large terror attacks in the US by these words of appeasement, and that may be assumed to be the purpose, since even the tiny midget versions of Dean Acheson or April Glaspie know the consequences of such statements of tolerance and understanding, directed towards terrorists.
There is not a problem of prejudice against the moslem; but a problem for those with an interest in getting power from intercommunal hostilities, that the people may correctly identify the nature of the moslem as such.

Kenelm Digby said at February 4, 2006 3:14 AM:

These "cartoons are offensive" - according to the US Government.

Well perhaps so, but I remember the image of the aircraft crahing into the Twin Towers causing more offence and peronal anguish.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 6:23 AM:

I find the Qu'ran itself offensive to my beliefs as an atheist. Does that mean we should censor it?

The people of America need to assert themselves by cleaning house in the state department. I suggest firing them all and hiring people competent to pursue American interests and willing to adhere to American values.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 6:51 AM:

I have a question for Jack Straw. What part of Christianity is taboo?

I mean, if we can have the piss christ and call it art, what is prohibited?

If I wanted to promote the idea that Christ was an ass bandit closet homosexual who got it on with Peter and Paul, I really cannot see any western country stopping me. Judas and the 20 pieces of silver? Well, obviously, the flamers had a lovers spat.

If I wanted to suggest that Mary turned tricks on the sly and made up the whole virginity thing because she was afraid Joseph would think she was a slut, I expect many of the elite lefties would applaud. "Honest, Joey, I never! I swear! ... I am craving some pickle turnips and camel's milk. Would you be a dear?" (For some reason, I want to cast Marissa Tomei as Mary.)

Do we prohibit candid discussions of the Jesuit role in the Inquisition? I don't think so.

These assholes need lessons on what is and is not protected speech.

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 7:35 AM:

Was Cardinal Richelieu Jesuit? In any case, the European Inquisition was as oppressive as the current situation elsewhere. Incidentally, many European Jews during the Inquisition, were forced to immigrate to Muslim countries where they got the impression that the "civilisation" was more friendly to them at that time... If you made the above statements agaist Jesus during the Inquisition times, you would have discovered that the fires of the Inquisition were as hot as the fires in Auschwitz. We shall see what will happen in the future... Maybe the Anti-Christ will incarnate and save all of us from the religious bigots. But I am not voting for the Anti-Christ for the moment, until he officially says whether he is secular of a secret cult leader.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 8:15 AM:

With all due repect, Invisible Scientist, the Inquisition happened before western societies decided it was a good idea to let people speak freely so I am having difficulty understanding what point you are trying to make.

Do you think that in the present day any part of Christianity is sufficiently taboo to prevent candid discussion or to limit press freedoms?

Rik said at February 4, 2006 8:15 AM:

Of course idiotic Jack Straw must use the words 'Hindu religion' and 'Sikh religion', when he could have.. no, should have pointed out how, only thirty some years ago, many people were offended by Life of Brian and Jesus Christ Superstar. In the 1920's the elites were shocked by a famous photograph of a dada-poet cursing a priest (the poor man never knew what him).
There are tons of satirical pictures of Jesus and everything in Christianity, there must be similar Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist, but all of a sudden we should be sensitive to Islam? Get lost!

The sad thing in all of this, is that every muslim in the Islamic world (Middle East + Indonesia) thinks Denmark is to blame. That shows how much a collective, ultranationlist group they really are. As Danish PM keeps saying: it's not his business to interfere with an independent newspaper. 'Denmark' did nothing.

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 9:32 AM:

Bob Badour:
What I am saying is that the human being, and in especially the crowd, is very mechanical. Only the official legal system and a culture that is skin-deep has changed in the world (this is my opinion). The actual human being is the same, and unless there is genetic engineering, it is still possible for the modern Europe to become like it was 60 years ago. If there is just one small nuclear backpack detonated in Paris, there will be mass hysteria in Europe, and anyone with a slighly darker skin will be brutalized (bad news for the Italians, especially the ones who are in the South of Italy.)

raj said at February 4, 2006 11:13 AM:

Invisible Scientist:
"If there is just one small nuclear backpack detonated in Paris, there will be mass hysteria in Europe"

I've been meaning to ask you ('cause you've brought this issue up for some time), how destructive will your dirty bomb scenario actually be. From what I understand, the dirty bombs are more of a psychological terror than a real, physical terror. Am I wrong?

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 12:42 PM:


If a backpack nuke gets detonated in Paris then the Europes would have to be crazy not to deport the Muslims.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 1:00 PM:

I am still struggling to figure out how a backpack nuke is relevant to Straw's hypocrisy and lies.

FWIW, Raj, a backpack nuke is not a dirty bomb. It is a portable mushroom cloud on the order of a Hiroshima or worse. A dirty bomb uses a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive fallout over a small area. A backpack nuke is a portable nuke that flattens cities.


What do you think are the prospects for civil war along racial/religious lines in Europe?

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 1:40 PM:

The backpack nuke does NOT have to be simply a radiological dirty bomb. A radioligical bomb is supposed to be just radioactive material that can be dispersed with explosives, and it would cause only minimal damage in terms of loss of life and radius of destruction. The backpack nuke, however, is just a miniturized atom bomb, which can be as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagazaki bombs, and if it is also possible to boost the yield several times higher...

Randall Parker:
The problem with the deportation method is that even if the foreign born Muslims are deported from Europe, the ones who were born in Europe, do not have a native country to be deported to. Within a couple of generations, these native European Muslims will become the majority.

Bob Badour:
The backbpack nuke is quite relevant to Straw's situation because it will give unlimited ammunition to European Muslims to ask for increasingly more power in Europe, until the become the complete majority. Once the Iranian nukes are built in a couple of years, and mass produced within much less than a decade, these will be made portable, and these portable but powerful nukes will be given to European Muslims who will demand more recognition in Europe.
You asked this question to Randall Parker, but from a purely demographic and economic perspective, given the increasing poverty of the Muslims in Europe (and the relative poverty due to the separation of classes in Muslim countries), the coming civil war, is guaranteed.

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 2:20 PM:


Europe could either conquer a Muslim country to create a place they could deport their Muslims to or pay a Muslim country to take them. This "where to send them" problem has solutions. We just have to want to solve the problem badly enough.

A backpack nuke explosion would not be met with appeasement. The Europeans are a war-loving bunch of people deep down. They've demonstrated this for centuries. Make them angry enough and they will revert to their historical type. It is lurking there.

The sooner the conflict escalates the more favorable the outcome will be for the Europeans. They can solve their Muslim problem right now. They have the resources to do it.

Hugh Angell said at February 4, 2006 4:50 PM:

The line it is drawn, The curse it is cast.

And yet...one must wonder what Randall Parker's point is.

Yes, the fanatic Muslim is THE ENEMY. We can all agree on
that. But what is his solution? He is opposed to US military
operations in Iraq, or so he has told us. He is opposed to
the immigration of Muslims to the US. He even stands 4 square
behind an energy policy that is not yet available.

Behold the simpleton!

Do I have a solution? No, I don't. I do agree with RP that we
must become more adroit, more long term in our thinking but I
have not yet come upon a calculus or regression line that points
us in the direction we must take.

I am happy that we have large, combat capable forces surrounding
the Islamic Republic of Iran. Don't know how we would have them
there absent the military assault on Iraq and Afghanistan. I am
also dismayed, but not surprised that Danish and Norwegian Embassy's
are afire.

Cartoons maybe puerile but then 'international relations' do not
depend on Brioni suits and Swiss hotels. Sometimes events lead
ineluctably to a foregone conclusion. Prepare yourselves for the coming
battle. It is joined. Our POV do not matter much when our enemy is
forcing the issue.

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 5:44 PM:


Solution? A lot of problems can't be solved once and for all. Look at crime. What is your solution for stopping all crime once and for all? Don't have one? If you do not have one then are you a simpleton? Or are you a simpleton because you suppose I ought to have one?

What I see in your diatribes is that since you do not agree with my position on Iraq you go for character smears.

I propose ideas that will make things less bad. Stopping the immigration of Muslims to the US and deporting all the non-citizen Muslims will make us more secure and less likely to be either victims of terrorism or to have to deal with riots by Muslims or with oppression of women carried out by Muslims in our borders.

As for Iraq: Do you admit that our invasion has reduced the rights of women in Iraq? Do you admit it has brought a popularly elected Islamic government to power just as elections did in Turkey and the Palestinian territories?

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 6:04 PM:

Hugh Angell:
It seems that one reason Randall Parker was opposed to the operations in Iraq, is because the same money could have been spent on energy research. If that much money had been spent directly for energy research every year since 2003, I am sure a lot of breakthroughs would have resulted. The $100 billion per year that we are spending, exceeds the research budget of all the American universities combined together.

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 9:11 PM:


For $100 billion per year I can think of a lot of far better ways to improve the security of Americans.

How about:

1) Hire more police.

2) Build more prisons.

3) Build a wall with Mexico and deport all the illegal aliens.

4) Hire more CIA agents to go gather intelligence on terrorist networks.

5) Hire more FBI agents to do domestic intelligence against Muslims in the United States.

6) Stop letting Muslims immigrate to the US.

7) Spend $10 billion per year more on energy research to obsolesce oil. The research will pay itself back by eventually lowering the cost of energy. It will also reduce the flow of money to the Middle East and therefore make funding of terrorists harder to do.

8) Require visa applications from European nationals of Middle Eastern ethnic backgrounds.

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 10:28 PM:

Randall Parker:
Only $10 billion per year for energy research is just peanuts. Even the peanut farmer Carter can do better than that. We need at least $100 billion per year sustained for at least 10 years in order to restore self-sufficiency in energy. $10 billion per year would barely suffice to subsidize the existing dead-end pork barrel projects like the tokamak. We need a Bronx Project.

Wart said at February 5, 2006 2:04 AM:

Invisible scientist,
With due respect for stereotypes (often useful) only 5-10% of ethnic Southern Italians are officially in the "slightly tanned skin" range (when not exposed for weeks to the sun). Even then they might be "saved" by their facial features. (They are not indians or arabs).
So there shouldn't be too many casualties.

Kenelm Digby said at February 5, 2006 3:47 AM:

With the collapse of White European birthrates that has occurred over the past 60 years, and has accelerated to dire levels in the last 30, it is extremely unlikely that you will ever see the spectacle of a mass, White European army on the fields of Europe again.
To put it bluntly, there are simply not enough young White European men in existence.

Greg Meadows said at February 5, 2006 7:08 AM:

I thought I'd join this discussion.

With respect to energy research, I have a couple points:
1) No amount of research will change economic laws. Saudi Arabia is the low cost
producer of energy with all its vast oil reserves. The situation is similar
throughout the Persian Gulf. This economic reality is what we have to deal

2) We don't need the oil and we don't need to research for new alternatives.
The alternatives already exist. Those alternatives are coal and nuclear.
What is missing is the will to choose these alternatives. It will cost us
more to pursue these alternatives than what we pay now for the the low
cost alternative. Are we willing to pay the price?

If the current flap over cartoons can be reduced to an economic and
diplomatic problem, we can do the following: destroy the Persian Gulf
oil facilities, mine their ports, and destroy their pipelines and all
other infrastructure that supports their oil exports. Then dictate the
peace. In the meantime, switch to coal and nuclear.

Of course, this solution may sound like madness. But is the current direction that
we are heading in any saner?

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 7:25 AM:


Have you considered whether the warlike europeans were cut down by machinegun fire in no man's land during WW I ? Leaving the culturally suicidal wimps we see today ?

I suspect many of the WW I veterans would never have found a date let alone a mate if their betters had returned with them.

Randall Parker said at February 5, 2006 8:39 AM:


Whether the Europeans react to stop the bad trend they are on reminds me of a toad or frog that can be boiled to death if you raise the water temperature of the water it is in only very gradually. The frog has a temperature sensor that reacts to sizes of changes in temperature more than to absolute temperature. So if you raise the temperature only very slowly it will not try to hop out.

What I think is unknown at this point is whether a sharp enough jolt of temperature rise will happen that will be enough to shake the Euros from their slumber. Maybe you are right to be pessimistic on this score. I do not know. But look at the cartoon flap. The Muslims just can't prevent themselves from jumping the gun and making demands too early in Europe's decay.

Or is it too early? Obviously Jack Straw already acts like a good little dhimmi. So maybe I'm wrong. Don't know.

Greg Meadows,

Research will lead to energy sources that are cheaper than what we pay right now for Saudi crude. Even if Saudi production costs remain at a few dollars a barrel we pay a much higher market price. If we developed energy sources that cost the equivalent of $12 per barrel then right now we could save the equivalent of about $55 per barrel.

However, I'm with those who think the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries have greatly overestimated their oil reserves. Back in the 1980s OPEC members overestimated their reserves in order to justify their production allotments.

As for switching to coal: It is dirtier. I do not want all the particulates, mercury, and other gunk in the atmosphere. I want cleaner and cheaper solutions.


The cultural suicide seems more a product of affluence, giving women the vote, and ideology promoted by intellectuals.


The United States currently spends a few tens of millions of dollars on basic photovoltaics research per year. Most solar money goes to subsidize production and other purposes. A whole billion dollars for photovoltaics would be a huge increase.

I continue to be amazed at just how much verbiage gets spewed about alternative energy sources while few press for big increases in research funding.

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 12:15 PM:


I don't know the exact date in the US, but suffrage for women coincided with WW I in Canada. It was an off-shoot of the war.

The ideology bit likewise seems to be a post-WW I phenomenon and perhaps even a reaction to WW I.

Are you discounting the possibility that the wholesale slaughter of brave young men that was WW I might have altered the distribution of genes affecting warlike behaviour in european men? When one adds the effect of WW II a generation later, I find the possibility a real cause for concern.

Of course, on the hopeful side, one can always point to the soccer fans.

Mark said at February 5, 2006 7:13 PM:

Freedom of speech relates to expressing what one believes they are allowed to say. The US and other (democratic) western nations ARE KNOWN to censor what is delivered by the press. That in itself is NOT freedom of speech..or freedom of print, to be precise. The muslim nations however are run by emotionally charged, intellectually average people, with more money, than sense (most of which is obtained through corruption anyway). So with these average people not being able to control their low to average intelligent populi, who have small minds and a shallow ability to think out of the proverbial (islamic) box, you get these half wits using their neanderthal brains resorting to their bare native savage animal selves where burning and beating their chests , which is common practice.

Remember use of words is no good, when blatant violence seems so sweet and perfect. (duh)

It is not fair for the west ( US, UK, Germany, Denmark and others) where freedom of speech or freedom of speech is actually NON-EXISTENT to say that they have freedom of said values. Proof positive of this is the controlled, reviewed reporting coming out of Iraq and other war ravaged areas, where the information is censored, and re-censored before being allowed to print, and even then SPIN is offered to the starving sheep like public, who will absorb verbatim what the CNN's and FOX channels of this world provide.

Enough of freedom of speech, and the knuckle dragging muslims, who feel violence is the IDEAL mode of expression need to be held accountable for their actions. Or at least there governments need to pay.

As far as the cartoonists or affiliated responsible company. with the express knowledge prior to 'demanding' these cartoons would cause serious offence, they also need to be held accountable.

Anyone deliberately causing offence or damage needs to be held responsible. now that would be a grown up thing to do, would it not.

Randall Parker said at February 5, 2006 7:46 PM:


I am an American citizen and I write here on my web logs whatever I think. Much of it is very critical of the US government. The government does not try to stop me. How is it that I do not have freedom of speech or press?

You seem to be complaining about a lack of freedom of the press in Western countries. But then you turn around and demand that the Danish cartoonists should be held accountable. In other words, you want to punish them for saying things. So then you really are opposed to freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Held accountable? Held responsible? What are you talking about? You do not think anything should be published that causes offense? Then I should delete your message since it offends me that someone could write what you wrote. How do you want to be held responsible? Jail time? A fine? Deportation? What's your preferred punishment?

Mark L said at February 6, 2006 1:10 AM:

I am talking about double standards.

There is NO freedom of speech in the US or similar democratic countries. Get that into your head. Your blogs have a universal readership of say 0.000003% globally. New and press have a larger share of readership. See the demographic difference Mr Parker.

So ofcourse your blogs are uncensored...duh?

But the main stream info channels are of course controlled. The US even admits to maintaining correctional reporting.

As far as muslims. They need to settle down and behave rationally and STOP being emotionally driven and use an ounce of intelligence in their cause for seeking justice. Anyway enough from me.

The Danish cartoon saga was done to stimulate the muslims, and it has.

As far as a preferred punishment. Well that is NOT for me to say, but if an official inquiry finds that it WAS done with intent to cause offence then a jail sentence is probably the correct way forward.

Remember journalism that is reporting news has a purpose. A cartoon created (as harmless as that sounds) to cause an emotionally charged reaction with the intent to cause strife, is not something light to forget and roll over.

Lastly, not the same, but the Jewish people do not even let anyone talk fact about the past. remember the Mel Gibson movie, they even threw their toys out of the pram when actual FACT was reported. Hmmm...why was that?

Kenelm Digby said at February 6, 2006 3:35 AM:

On a very general point, I think it is most unlikely that we will ever see the all-out tital wars that raged across the fields of the European continent for centuries, (at least since Roman times), again.I'm not just talking about the two world wars of the previous century but such niceties as the Thirty Years War, The Hundred Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the European religious wars and wars of succession.
Put simply, the *average* White European family has *less* than one son and heir.I doubt that even the most tyrannical of politicians can even coax such a demographic with the will to fight an all-out, no-holds barred total war.
Another point I wish to make, it is my considered opinion from many years of observing the political scene that the Euro-elites, when the time actually comes,will order their armies to fire - with live rounds on spontaneous uprisings of indigenous White Europeans who "have just had enough" with their disposession and insults from the non-White invaders (who will, of course, be tending to eclipse the Whites in absolute numbers).Absolutely no compassion or mercy will be shown by the political class in gunning down White protestors, who threaten the invaders, in contrast to the forbearance shown to the hatred and insults of the invaders.
Believe me or not, but I am convinced.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 8:30 AM:


Not to put too fine a point on things, you are an idiot.

Freedom of the press means the press are free to choose what the hell they want to publish. It does not mean the freedom to publish shit you personally happen to agree with or shit that won't offend anybody. Shit that offends nobody hardly requires constitutional protection, now does it?

Personally, I don't trust the editorial decisions of the NY Times or ABC, so I don't pay much attention to them. But if you think the pamphleteers who stirred up shit for the American Revolution codified the freedom of the press to protect only non-offensive shit, then I am amazed that you can even feed and dress yourself.

How did the world get so filled with morons?

Pico said at February 6, 2006 10:20 AM:

The western press will never publish cartoons which make fun of the holocaust. There is no free press in the west. One need only look at Joe Sobran to know the limits of press freedom in the United states.

Todd Franklin said at February 6, 2006 10:31 AM:

I am a believer of one of the faiths which were ridiculed by the cartoon drawings in question. I am not, however, in favor of curtailed speech in regards to satirical depictions of religion. I do believe the editors could have found a better (wiser) way of expressing their belief in the exclusion of religious faith from so-called "secular" public life. I believe that we can have a "discussion" of our disagreement over religious faith, and its place in social life without unnecessarily offending opposing parties. Few people can have intelligent, meaningful discussion if tempers are riled.

I think that maybe one question that offended Muslims have to ask themselves is: If they are so sure that what they believe is the truth, why would they be so surprised and incensed by the ridicule of unbelievers? Or is that part relative to the "cultural" divide between Middle East and Western views?

Matt K. said at February 6, 2006 11:23 AM:

The controversy over this free speech/cartoon issue has OBVIOUSLY spun wildly out of control.
The Muslim masses(not every single Muslim individual) in the Middle East are currently aflame with a dangerous mob mentality. Arson of Danish and Norwegian embassies is clearly disproportionate to the publishing of offensive cartoons. I encourage all the Muslims calling for moderation to continue their plea for a saner, more rational reaction, but I would also like to make a point to certain Westerners and Europeans who mistakenly think that they're enlightened: While we should be able to publish criticisms of anything we want, including any religion, it should be crystal-fucking-clear what our motivations are. It would have been much wiser to call for conferences, dialog, and public debates between the West and Islamic clerics to convince a large swath of Muslims that suicide bombings (and the pipe dreams that enable them), gang rape, subjugation of women, publicly broadcast executions, etc., etc., etc., damage any attempts promote or defend their religion. We should lend support to Muslim groups whose purpose is to usher in a more tolerant, peaceful practice of Islam.

I do not deny our right to criticize the beliefs and practices of anyone. But any cartoonist who makes insulting caricatures of a religious figure in an attempt to spark an honest intellectual debate is an idiot. It shows that they are fundamentally no more mature than many Muslims who equate all Jews with the actions of PM Sharon; if the cartoons were intended to make Muslims distinguish between terrorism and Islam, they were pathetic. We can defend our Western identity without stooping to idiocy.

Having said that, I will NEVER TOLERATE ANYONE who goes out of their way to attack innocent people. I would not hesitate to defend myself or anyone else in the case that a rampaging extremist tried burn down my home or my museums, bars, clubs, or government buildings to give an outlet to their agitated religious sensibilities.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 12:22 PM:


Does that mean those who publish Qu'rans are idiots over what the Qu'ran says about my faith? Or do you think Mohammed may have had a motive other than intellectual debate?

Let's be crystal fucking clear: The paper published the cartoons to explore a charge that Islamists had intimidated western artists into voluntarily imposing Shariah on themselves. It seems crystal clear to me that the charge was perfectly valid and that the paper achieved an important and fundamental goal of informing its readership.

If the motive was not to spark an intellectual debate but to alert an uninformed western populace to a very real threat to their core values, then the paper's editors were absolute fucking geniuses.


With all due respect, I have seen almost no evidence that any muslim wants to have an intelligent, meaningful discussion. There are one or two voices out there like Irshad Manji, but for some strange reason I doubt the bulk of Islam is going to rally behind a lesbian for modernizing the faith. While I accept miracles when they come, I don't pin my future on them.

Contrary to your characterisation, I think this episode has only alerted the populace to the pre-existing irrationality and absurd anger that is so sadly prevalent in Islam. And it is neither my responsibility nor the responsibility of Danish newspapers to transform the Islamic faith. That, I leave to muslims themselves.

As for the cartoons, they do more to ridicule the newspaper that published them and the author who made the original charge than to ridicule Islam. In fact, the cartoons are so innocuous the shit stirrers who toured the middle-east inciting violence had to use different cartoons entirely to achieve their goal.

If you want to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion, why are you not pointing out that the state run media in Syria and Lebanon did far more to incite the violence than the Danish newspaper did? Why have you made no mention of the disgusting antisemitic caricatures that appear frequently in Islamic media?


Actually, I have seen many caricatures of Israel, Israeli politicians and the holocaust over the years. Your argument is based on a complete fallacy.

And I am hoping that this cartoon episode leads to the end of hate speech laws. I find those laws almost as vile as I find Mohammed.

Mark said at February 6, 2006 2:07 PM:

Bob Badour, clearly the word 'crystal' seems to be your flavor of the day. You are a moron for even considering the publishers/creators of these said cartoons to be geniuses.

knowingly depicting a reknowned religous figure by approx 1.5+ billion people is not a wise move. given that you already have a mountain of knowledge that the radical 0.00005% minority of so called muslims love this 'petrol on the fire' routine.

Mr Badour, you are further still a moron for even considering that slander, depiction of a popular figure to be a perfect statement. No matter which side of the fence you sit on, be that for freedom of speech or against it.

Oh and get your facts straight about the cartoons. There are only a select few cartoons that ACTUALLY caused offence. Go read the news reports from other (Non-censored, Non UK/US sites, you person with below average intelligence.

Stop your rants about freedom of speech. All westerners including the invaders (dumb nuts) muslims ALL believe in FREEDOM of SPEECH. They DO NOT believe in mockery and insults.

Lastly, if you do decide to contribute any further pearls of 'Bob Badour' facts or 'Bob Badour' nuggets of information, don't make them personal sentiments, base them on ACTUAL researched facts. You half brained illeterate typist.

jimi said at February 6, 2006 2:49 PM:

I think that we gave a lot of attention to all this cartoon thing, and this is good only for the newspaper which has become famouse because of that.As for the muslims they should understand that here we are used to live in freedoom and we like it. If they dont like it or they can't handle it, they can go back from where they came (in their non democratic countries, as they describe them when they want to stay here). Or if they want to stay they have to live in our way. I am fed up by waching European cities transformed in 15 centuries arabic cities, with all these muslims in the streets dressed in their old traditional clothes and behave in their ancient customs.
As for the americans, what do u expect from them: DID THEY EVER SUPORTED EUROPE? OR DO THEY HAVE DEMOCRACY THERE? well i dont think so.
As for british: SAME AS ALWAYS, AGAINST E.U. and as general CHARLES de GAULLE said they are the first enimies of UNITED EUROPE and its principles.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 3:05 PM:

With all due respect, Mark, slander (or more properly libel in this case) requires two components: 1) The statement has to be damaging and 2) the statement has to be false.

If one says that Mohammed was a genocidal pedophile, one merely repeats history as recorded by muslims themselves. No slander there; even though, some might consider the succinct observation damaging. On the other hand, the Danish cartoons do not meet either of the two requirements: they are neither damaging nor untrue.

In fact, the Danish cartoons were generally more critical of the newspaper than of Mohammed or of Islam.

If you want to criticize anyone for inflaming those brutish stupid churls who burned down embassies, you need to criticize the Syrian regime and their puppet media. And even more so the brutish stupid churls themselves.

Your apparent belief that political satire is anything but mockery and insults only confirms the opinion of you I already expressed. People who believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press absolutely believe in the importance of protecting mockery and insults.

You could learn a thing or two from Larry Flint. I suggest you try looking at more than the pictures.

Besides typing arbitrary and made up strings of zeros followed by a 5, what 'facts' have you posted? Randall's articles are full of links to articles that, if you were to click through them and read, would show that the Syrian government did more to incite the riots than anyone else.

Kathy said at February 6, 2006 3:35 PM:

Every western media outlet should be publishing these cartoons in support for freedom of speech. As an American, who has to see the cartoons on foreign press websites, I am throroughly disgusted that U.S. national news broadcasts have refrained from showing them. Stand up for freedom of speech! Radical Wasabists and violent killers masquerading as religious followers are nothing more than criminals. Burning embassies? Threatening to kill editors and cartoonists? Finally, the world gets to see the true face of Islam. And it's ugly. Stop them now before they destroy the world.

Ellen Dunthorne said at February 6, 2006 4:44 PM:

Right on, Kathy! If every outlet everywhere published them it would show the press, and the people cannot be bullied.

Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 5:14 PM:


Speaking of researched posts: Where's your evidence for the assertion that all of the US press is controlled? Controlled by the government?

keith said at February 6, 2006 5:43 PM:

jimi not only do we have a democracy,we taught your backward asses what one is.
also,i believe it was the u.s.a. that supported you when you needed it most.

Berry Monster said at February 6, 2006 7:16 PM:

The U.S. and Britain don't approve the use of cartoons to offend muslims.

Instead, they prefer other approaches:

- lying about them having WMDs
- invading their countries
- bombing their cities with forbidden chemicals (Fallujah)
- stealing their oil
- keeping them in prison without trial
- recording and distributing scenes of prisoner torture
- desecrating the Quoran... privately

and last but not least

- prosecuting those who dare to reveal the above (Newsweek, Paige)

Jorge D.C. said at February 6, 2006 8:09 PM:

To Bob, you make some good points but still manage to leave a bad impression. Why litter the thread with profanity? Maybe because boorishness and atheism are a natural fit?

And then you uncork this:

"If you want to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion..."

Ha ha ha.

Potty mouth posts seem highly ironic on a website that addresses cultural preservation/degradation issues. And isn't this thread is a debate over responsible free speech?

Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 8:16 PM:

To the guy McKenzie who posted an all caps message:

1) I deleted the message because it was in all caps.

2) You can write it again in mixed case and I'll let it stand.

3) But try using the carriage return so that it is not all one long paragraph.

Marcelo Rivadeneira said at February 6, 2006 8:50 PM:

I Think evrybody is crazy. The thing is as simple: What do we hold for sacred? Our flag?, Motherland? our faith? I'm a cristian, but if I see a cartoon that seems offensive to me or to whatever might be sacred to me I'd simply try to figure out the message, turn the page and in the next minute will it will be out of my mind.
In the 80's someone burned an American Flag in a public place. The police arrested him, and a judge ruled that if the flag was his property he had the right to do whatever he want with it. He'd probably got a fine for contaminating the air with smoke


Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 9:28 PM:

Jorge D.C.,

Unfortunately some people too often put their own immediate emotional needs above having a rational discussion. This demonstrates how important maturity and self restraint are for civilized society to best flourish.


The Muslims want power over us. They want us to limit what we do in our countries based on their religious definitions of what is acceptable. Mind you, they'd never think of doing the same in return.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 10:01 PM:


My rights are sacred to me. Freedom of religion. Freedom of expression. etc.


I have met boorish Christians, boorish Muslims, boorish Jews and even boorish Animists. It's not anything unique to members of my faith.

kevin said at February 6, 2006 11:33 PM:

I am a firm believer in the freedom of speech, and back the cartoons authors and the newspapers that printed them.Most civilized nations firmly back that fundemental right, and have in their protection laws to keep them from prosecution.And it don't matter what the offese is, anyone remember the cartoon printed by hustler Magazine that was the biggest case in US history as far as the freedom of speech goes.Our own government is the biggest contradiction in that6 they claim to back it up, but believe they should not be printed, well too bad it is our right in this country.We have our own radicals here, and they don't come i9n the form of muslims, but come from these religious sects that want it their way or no way;the terrorists that hide in foreign mid eastern lands have a lot in commkon with our own fascist government, that at times are dangerously close to naziism.

Mark L said at February 7, 2006 4:18 AM:

the sad part is that in the name of freedom we can all hide behind our in-appropriate actions. in the name of freedom we go and invade their countries...why?

Oh yes, we want to remove a tyrant.....Wait.....he was the one that we put in power
a dog we trained to do as we wanted him to.....till oneday he decided to run off and do his own thing

then it was time to put him down.......that situation has occured not once but again and again


the one thing america has an abundance of and all those.....arabian control freaks who UK placed in power
since before UK's intervention the bedouins didnt care much for control
so now that oil has been controlled........the dog has been caught.......we can claim freedom for all

when in fact there is more unrest and associated crap since........when he was in control


back to the point of freedom........when the local civilian iraqi's fight our boys
we call them insurgents........yet in any other situation they would be referred to as 'PATRIOTS'

but it seems through the freedom of speech the word PATRIOT has now
been trademarked only for use by Americans worldwide

There has been an amazing deluge of support for the civilians or the world where oppresion in
the name of democracy has gone in and stamped its brand of freedom.........so let me get this straight

the american way is the right way...correct..since only we know what it is to be totally free.....Bull..is what i say

01. why is it that americans feel THEY need to be the ones to police the world
02. why does the terrorists all get branded as Islamic when infact everyone with half a brain knows that Islam does not condone terrorism
03. when the IRA were doing there thing, they were referred to as terrorists, not as CATHOLICS..or christianity was not blamed
(double standards)
04. There is radical aspects in every religon (check out the snake worshipping christians in the deep south)
are they representory of mainstram christiantiy...?
05. Media is sifted and reports only what it is allowed to ..get that in to your thick heads
06. America will not comply with world pollution control....who is going to impost sanctions on them?


So my literate friends, i merely state, freedom of press is not in question here, neither is freedom of speech

but deliberately creating a situation which you know will cause anguish is the problem. You can print what you like as long it is not done with the INTENTION of causing a problem.

If you did it without knowledge then there would be no problem in stepping upto the plate and admitting the mistake. Anyway anything Denmark and associated countries do now is too little too late. The 2 celled half brained radical fanatics are always looking for a celebratory cause such as this to go on a blind mindless rampage further tarnishing the image of Islam which is already corroded and in the gutter.

Enjoy the freedom or the lack of it...........from which ever vantage point you stare at it.

Emileo said at February 7, 2006 5:41 AM:

I am an arab Iused to work in us marchant marine 1970,we took five tanks to Saudi arabia at that time.the sailers and I tried to go to see the city of Jedie,ghess what happen? you are infdale you are not allowed.I wish these pictures in the papers 35 years ago,so the west and the Us knows what kind of peoples you dealing with.

Roy said at February 7, 2006 5:50 AM:

Mark L,

Why should I believe that "Islam does not condone terrorism" when I've heard countless muslim clerics both defending and encouraging it?

Your point about the IRA makes no sense. IRA terrorism was about English rule, and further was never condoned by the Catholic church.

And finally, regarding the "snake worshipping christians in the deep south", can you point me to a single instance of terrorism or violence by even one member of that sect? Look, I think Kabbalah is a nutty religion, but I've never heard a single member encourage violence. If you can't see the difference between weird and violent, then any discussion with you is pointless.

Mark L said at February 7, 2006 9:46 AM:

You know terrorism is the tool of those who feel
they have no other way forward
where the use of dialogue has no impact

case and point 'Iran'

Currently, Iran has complied with ALL the set
processes that countries being lead by the US
have laid out, from controlled to random

But, as yet, the US and the rest have to be convinced
that this is the actual truth

The bear fact is that Iran WILL be embroiled into
war when all the rest gang up on it, Iranian
militants will create terrorism and this entire
vicious circle will again start, will the find the
weapons, who freaking knows. Like last time, no
doubt they may not.

Whats my point.

Simple, the minority radicals clerics and associated
fanatics need to be approached with a prospect of
dialogue and relative tact. The heavy handed use of
force only antagonises the situation.

Lastly, American preference for Jewish violence in
Palestine never caused an uproar the world over infact
the west condoned the blatant over use of weaponary.

Is that not initself a form of terrorism when you are
trying to hunt people who throw rocks with machine
guns. So give me a break.

We in the west can not see a balanced arguement since
like sheep we prefer to be spoon fed information and
from that we take and make our own deductions.

Freedom of speech is exactly that. Freedom to deliberatly
cause unrest and create a emotionally charged situation
is a crime. And should be addressed.

Let me make one comparison. Mel Gibsons movie about Christ
was supposed to be based on fact. Yet the Jewish masses
tried there darndest to make and issue out of it, why?
Simply since it would make them look bad, and ofcourse the
negative publicity was not wanted.

Anyway enough said. I have too much too say, and i am tired
of reading people who only read one side.

Live your imagined free lives.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 10:58 AM:
You can print what you like as long it is not done with the INTENTION of causing a problem.

The sort of stuff above is why I say you are an idiot. Are you suggesting that the Sam Adams's and the Ben Franklins and Paul Reveres did not intend to stir shit with England? They are both the people who were publishing the pamphlets and the people who cooked up the freedom of the press.

The freedom of the press was created specifically to protect those with the INTENTION to cause problems. Those who cause no problems hardly require constitutional protection, now do they?

01. why is it that americans feel THEY need to be the ones to police the world

Because they are certain nobody else will pursue American interests. Duh.

02. why does the terrorists all get branded as Islamic when infact everyone with half a brain knows that Islam does not condone terrorism

While not every muslim climbed onto a plane to fly it into a building, every terrorist who climbed onto a plane to fly it into a building was a muslim.

03. when the IRA were doing there thing, they were referred to as terrorists, not as CATHOLICS..or christianity was not blamed (double standards)

I recall that period quite well and everyone knew that the Ulster conflict was a Catholic/Protestant, ethnic Irish/ethnic English tribal conflict. It was regularly discussed in the media, and I don't recall any catholic ever complaining about that discussion. By the same token, when someone says PLO Terrorist, everyone knows the Palestinian conflict is Jewish/Islamic, Israeli/Palestinian tribalism without referring to the terrorist as Islamic.

However, while no general conflict exists between Catholics and Protestants and the Irish/English conflict is geographically limited to a county in Northern Ireland, the PLO is part of a much larger pattern of terrorism inflicted by various Islamist groups pursuing conflicts with various ethnies over a broad geographic area--essentially worldwide.

Thus, one might refer to the PLO terrorist as an Islamic terrorist to refer to the larger phenomenon that includes Hamas terrorists, Al Quaeda terrorists, Hezbollah terrorists, Islamic Brotherhood terrorists, Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists, Al Fatah terrorists, Chechnyan Islamic terrorists, Indonesian Islamic terrorists, Malaysian Islamic terrorists, or any number of other Islamic terrorist groups.

There are plenty of non-islamic terrorist groups as well, but no other broad category currently exists that pursues terror with the fervor of the Islamic terrorists.

I see attempts to stifle discussion of the larger phenomenon as open support for the goals of Islamists and the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

04. There is radical aspects in every religon (check out the snake worshipping christians in the deep south)
are they representory of mainstram christiantiy...?

What makes you think the Islamists are radical as opposed to fundamental?

Snake worshipping is a far distance from anything you will find in the new testament. Christian fundamentalist groups like the Quakers, the Amish and the Mennonites who take a very literal interpretation of the new testament are singularly non-violent. They also form a small segment of the overall faith; however, the more mainstream Christian sects do not stray all that far from the base texts either.

The Islamist organizations are fundamentalist too--they use a very literal interpretation of the base texts of Islam to instruct them in their terrorism. Are you suggesting that the mainstream Islamic sects stray far from the base texts of Islam?

05. Media is sifted and reports only what it is allowed to ..get that in to your thick heads

Allowed to? Like I said before, you are an idiot. Just because a media outlet fails to agree with your nutty paranoid view of the world doesn't mean some external force prevents them from joining your idiotic lunacy. Freedom of the press means they are free to publish what THEY want to publish not what YOU would force them to publish.

06. America will not comply with world pollution control....who is going to impost sanctions on them?

World pollution control? Um, nobody else does either. At least America is honest about it.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 11:09 AM:
Yet the Jewish masses tried there darndest to make and issue out of it, why?

Mass hysteria. The Simon Weisenthal Center, for instance, lost my respect and my support over their promotion of that hysteria. Their actions were overtly censorial just as the muslim demands for our silence and apologies are censorial.

Why do you currently pursue an equally censorial agenda while criticizing others for the same?

Mark L said at February 7, 2006 11:23 AM:

I am interested in the retorts. As an American it is easy to preface all defence of my country by standing behind the walls of protection it offers. But it is always interesting to occasionally stand on the other side and look in. Whilst doing this, you can easily get a flavor of what drives your fellow country folk. My intellect it seems loses to the giddying heights of your ability to convey with such succinct nature your passion for the true angle.

To end my sad, poorly researched contributions, I would like to say. That freedom of speech and more importantly the freedom to do as you please are mere fabrications of reality. The truth is that the world is a policed state and only assumed accepted allowances are granted to the masses. Sadly, most of your research comes from the information you have readily on tap, which again makes my point that to have a more accurate picture you need to think out of the box, and look further afield than the information immediately made available to you.

Never mind. My ability as a writer of my sentiments fall pail to you ability as an intellectual
Thank you Bob, for making these few days, interesting.


Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 11:50 AM:

With all due respect, Mark, I expand my sources as I see fit. On September 11, 2001, the Islamic terrorists finally convinced me they posed a real threat. I bought two boxes full of books on Islamic history as well as english translations of the core texts, and I started reading to try to find out what motivated them.

Since that time, the reactions and behaviours of muslims have almost universally reinforced the opinions I developed as a result of my research. The Irshad Manji's who do not reinforce my opinions are on the extreme margins of the faith -- farther out from the core of Islam than even the snake cults are from the core of Christianity.

In fact, I would say Irshad is at least as far from the literal Qu'ran as NAMBLA is from the literal Holy Bible, and I do not mean to disparage her at all or compare her to NAMBLA when I say that. However, muslims are as likely to accept moral instruction from a known lesbian as christians are likely to accept moral instruction from known pederasts.

And compared to Randall I am a dilettante at research. Randall easily reads 100 times as much as I do and puts 100 times as much effort into finding original sources and raw data as I do.

Misha said at February 7, 2006 11:57 AM:

The undisputed fact is that majority (no, ALL) Muslim countries have poor, backward, uneducated populous.
Rather then preaching and practicing the enlightenment and uplifting (like Indians and Chinese do), they choose to blame the world (the rest of us, who are better off) for their own misery.
That IS the issued and IS the problem.
US is #2 scapegoat. Europe (with all their anti-Semitic and apologetic friends), but still too white, too Christian is #3.
But Israel (and all other Jews by association) is #1. Why? Because unlike the reset of WEST, they are in the EAST. Right next door. Same desert, same heat... And yet they manage to prosper. And by that they are the cause for all Muslim's problem.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 12:15 PM:


The Islamists would dispute that fact by pointing to the Caliphate period and the wealth of the Spanish Moors, the Ottomans etc.

Donald said at February 7, 2006 12:45 PM:

What does it solve, all of this fighting that has been going on for years (religion). Do any of the religions preach to turn the other cheek, and forgivness. That war, fighting, and destruction is not the solution. I know we are not in a perfect world, but we as people need to get over it, return to the truth, vote politicians and leaders we "hope" who actually care about people and not oil. I wish I could say the right things to make people understand, but im trying, one person at a time.

Misha said at February 7, 2006 12:50 PM:

There is nothing to dispute. At those times Caliphate, Moors were in fact more enlightened then backward Europe of Inquisition. But that is exactly the point. From then on the West managed to progress and Moslem East regress. Until and unless these societies will realize that the problem is within; that the answers are not in “scapegoating” and that “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” on Muslim prime time is not helping;
until the time they will accept and embrace help from more advanced West (and East); until the time, when their role model will become North Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, India, China and not Iran and Gaza NOTHING WILL HELP.
The West should leave them alone and protect itself.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 2:08 PM:

Yes, Donald, fundamentalist Christians believe in turning the other cheek.

However, they are only really able to do so because they are surrounded by other nominal Christians who are willing to pick up arms for their defense. We need to communicate to those who believe their religion instructs them to war with us that their cause is hopeless. It would help if the US State Department would stop encouraging them.

Randall Parker said at February 7, 2006 4:01 PM:


I'm with you. Your categories of scapegoats are correct. They don't want to admit to their own shortcomings and so they blame us. Also, I agree, leave them alone and protect ourselves. We need better border control and internal immigration law enforcement.

We should keep the Muslims out of the West until they change their thinking. Though as dumb as they appear to be on average maybe we should wait even longer until genetic engineering really changes their thinking.

Mark said at February 7, 2006 4:07 PM:

Fact: No country will sell it self short for the cause of another.

The Americans do NO wrong in doing what they deem appropriate to protect us, the people.
We may not agree with the political games, the under handed dealings
the silent big brother approach

But the the truth is that America is the worlds most accomodating country in the world

This freedom of speech bull, is out of hand. Lord knows where it will stop, and the
random violent illiterate handful only progress the hate of Islam and subject it to
another level.

What happened 1400 years ago, does not equate with the norms of today. It was right for
those who existed then. The Mohammed marrying a 9 year old was right for that time, and
this practice is no obsolete in mainstream Islam. But then again, 400 years ago, Europe
was no safe haven of moral standards, and the American south is even today littered with
similar incestuous stories and back wards actions. So arguing that Mohammed was a child
molestor holds no real water in todays arguement.

All religon expanded through the use of the sword, spear and or relative weapon,
Christianity is no different.

Enough. The new cartoon of Adolf and Anne Frank again encases the mindless tit for tat
mentality of these spineless few, since this arguement again has changed into a Islam vs
Judaism scenario.

Well, as far as political processes go, this circus will sell papers, provide excellent
airtime, and all I can say, is that anyone causing damage needs to be held accountable

Goodwin said at February 7, 2006 8:23 PM:

Reading through these comments, I believe this to be a perfect example of Goodwin's Law. Google it.

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 9:14 PM:

Okay then, Mark,

How do you suppose we should hold you accountable?

Randall Parker said at February 7, 2006 10:12 PM:

Angry Asian,

I deleted your post because it was all in caps. I hate posts that are all in caps even worse than I hate threads that deteriorate into rants of intellectually lazy idiots who think profanity is a substitute for considered thought (Angry Asian's post was also heavily laden with profanity and that did not help make his writing any more compelling).

Mark said at February 8, 2006 1:27 AM:

Hold me accountable for what?

For provoking you into talking more openly about what you desire to believe in.

Hold me accountable for whatever you like. The fact that you believe 100% that
the whole 9/11 could not be the trigger self pulled by the US Government, an
actual catalyst to initiate its overall gross plan for the US overall, and the
real reason to go to war, shows that you have no real acceptance for anything
other than what you know.

Ah well, there is no certainty that what people like me say, let alone what
people like you say. Islam as a religon is NOT wrong in what they say. They
are spot on.

The problem with Islam is that it is a religon that is unchanged. Unlike others
which have conformed to the winds of change and have lost their core essence.

Islam was perfect for when it came about, NO one even try and discount that
statement. BUT...due to the way it has been preached and believed in, the old
laws still carry the weight, and that is one of the main reasons why it seems
abhorrant and so out of date. Moreover Islam has only just over the last 15
years tried to become mainstream acceptable with countries like Turkey saying
islamic prayer on the mat, is similar to yoga. so equating its practice to
something more commonly accepted.

Anyway, the other day the jewish practice of sucking blood from a childs
circumcised penis by Rabbis has been reviewed and the state of NY are blocking
it. The Orthodox jews are in uproar since this practice is a valid and sincere
part of the belief system, however they continue to practice it even though it
is against the law now, since 5 children have died after contracting diseases
from the Rabbis who did the act. Herpes was common.

My point, is simple. Even today some religious practices remain weird to us
due to our level of understanding.

Islam needs to change to days ways, and conform to the demands of life as it is
today, and until it does not shed some of its, extreme practices, it will always
be a source of conflict, with the morally lacking, ethically free and hedonistic
society of today where porn is free, child abuse is rife, rape is common, theft
from person and business is expected and trust in non-existent.

Be real Mr Badour, you may be intellectually more adept, but I think your closet
geek approach to research only again shows your inability to review and accept
anything other than what your (western) research shows

Bob Badour said at February 8, 2006 4:14 PM:

Hold you accountable for the damage you cause by spreading your idiocy, of course. Did you not want to hold accountable those doing damage?

About three quarters of the material I read was of eastern origin and written by muslims. Have you read the Qu'ran? Have you read any history?

Other than pulling nonsense out of your ass, what have you done to try to identify the anchor that binds so many muslims to the dark ages?

I find it ironic that you fault the west for rape, child abuse and theft. Considering that muslim history records Mohammed, the paradigm of the ideal muslim, as a rapist and thief who fucked a nine year old.

Mark L said at February 8, 2006 6:54 PM:

Again, you miss the point. Remember our hick ancestory was doing that less than two hundred years ago. And in some states they still do exactly that. if your intrepretation of the wrongs of Islam relate to something 1400 years ago, then you are more of a closet geek than i had previously imagined.

And for your information, the anchor that binds all muslims to the dark ages, is the mere fact that it is the only true pure religon which can without a shadow of doubt prove itself right back to the beginning. Unlike the bible, which does not even refer to itself, written on scraps by people who were not even scholars, and then changed for the times. the torah no different.

so, Mr intellectual Badour, as I said. your research has been fruitless, your puny mind already made up, you are no better than the half witted muslims who cause the violence, since as read as you are, your interpretations of what you have read are clearly wrong.

grow up, and go and re-read your books, but with an open mind, and not the approach of a dumb hick, that you sound like

Bob Badour said at February 9, 2006 1:28 PM:
And for your information, the anchor that binds all muslims to the dark ages, is the mere fact that it is the only true pure religon which can without a shadow of doubt prove itself right back to the beginning.

Now you really expose your ignorance. The muslim histories and hadiths were written decades and sometimes centuries after the death of Mohammed.

The Qu'ran itself is fractured and incomplete. The doctrine that it is the actual word of Allah did not begin until after a human committee reviewed all the various versions available at the time and discarded those parts they did not like.

You really are a perverse person if you equate ignorance with actually reading what muslims write about themselves for a muslim audience. You have yet to open your mind sufficiently to open a book. Idiot.

Bob Badour said at February 9, 2006 6:30 PM:

In response to something Pico wrote above and I have seen repeated by Islamist apologists several times recently:

The western press will never publish cartoons which make fun of the holocaust. There is no free press in the west. One need only look at Joe Sobran to know the limits of press freedom in the United states.

But then how does one explain the existence of http://www.stormfront.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21 in the western press/media? (Sorry, I did not make it clickable because I don't really support their views.)

Mark L said at February 10, 2006 6:47 AM:

BOB: Now you really expose your ignorance.

MARK: Bob, Your research is flawed. Since it seems you are a read man, in some ways, its a shame that all that research that you claim to have absorbed is all sectionalisd historical information. Let me explain. The Quran is one book that has always been considered to be the word of god. Right from the onset. While Muhammed was alive. This is verifiable with dialogue with any Muslim from any sect. However, during the time of Mohammed some sections were removed on the instruction of Muhammed. Whilst he was still alive. But Shites claim those to be still the word of god, so the Quran as it is today with 30 chapters is globally considerd to be complete as opposed to the Shites who claim it to be 35 chapters. Those include the ommited sections.

The muslim histories and hadiths were written decades and sometimes centuries after the death of Mohammed.

MARK: What the heck do they have to do with the Quran. This is a new topic, we were only talking about the Quran and its legitimate/incomplete nature. Stick to the topic. But since you mentioned the hadiths they are the writtings of the sincere followers who claim to have seen Muhammed act in a certain way, or explain a certain paragraph so these are his words/actions explained. It is these that divide islam in to its various sects.

BOB: The Qu'ran itself is fractured and incomplete.

MARK: It is NOT incomplete you idiot. Only the Shites claim it to be so. God only knows where your research comes from. The Quran has been proven to have been complete since day zero. Here's a link for your reading time, to prove what people say in the US: http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/Bible_vs_Quran.asp Read the section about the Quran and try to absorb this. Take a moment and then talk to some muslims and again, reflect on this. Since the last years of research that you have done has been a waste of time.

BOB: The doctrine that it is the actual word of Allah did not begin until after a human committee reviewed all the various versions available at the time and discarded those parts they did not like.

MARK: It was always considered a word of God, since Muhammed always told his followers, it was so. Right from the beginning. Read some Arabic text translated into English.

BOB: You really are a perverse person if you equate ignorance with actually reading what muslims write about themselves for a muslim audience.

MARK: If you are reading some fanatics books, radical theorists writings, then no wonder you are loose with your intellectual offereings. You may be read, but clearly what you have read is in question.

BOB: You have yet to open your mind sufficiently to open a book. Idiot.

MARK: Again resorting to half brained jibes succinct of some one clearly inadequate in their ability to comprehend researched dialogue. I am a tutor in an instittute of learning. My interests vary and Islam has always been a confounded area which has been hardly researched by many. Hence my interest. As far as my research it comes from talking to muslims and reading what they read, in the mainstream not marginalised books/pamphelets that no one reads.

BOB: This is is my last chunk of dialogue with you since you are clearly vexed, with you inability to understand anothers positions. Islam is a dark religon which is trying to modernise at a slower pace than it should, but your take on the situation makes it seem like a cult.

You are truly a work of art. Bob and no doubt a sad soul, possibly friendless. So my initial advice. Get a life

Haris said at February 10, 2006 10:35 AM:

My Comment on this issue:

I am a born in Europe and raised Muslim, but Islam is not my faith. I am proudly Agnostic but still respect Islam as well as any other religion. I will have to say that I disagree with a lot of the comments said on here. Publishing those cartoons is just wrong. I fully support the freedom of speech and expression... but in today's world there has been so much opression in the middle east from the west that something as small as publishing a cartoon will trigger the Islamic people to say "Ok thats enough." 90% of all current wars and happenings are within a country that has muslims as the largest population. And who are the invaders? Of course Westerners who's country's population largely has another religion other then Islam. The cartoons triggered an unity and hate within the Islami world. Even people who favored the west are now turning against it. Were the cartoons really helpful in anything??? NO!!! They just cause a bigger mess. I guess the people who published the cartoons want a war with Islam. I was born in Bosnia and honestly don't like a lot of things what is being done in the middle east by Muslims (the way they treat the women, are way too serious about everything)... they do things a lot differently then we do. Less then 1% of the Muslim population are extremists, and the other 99% just wants to live in peace. Obviously they can never live in peace when the bad 1% causes the west to find a reason to attack their country and that creates more extremists from the people that never had any reason to go against the west. This HATE has to stop. It did not start with the Muslims... It all started with Westerners creating the country of Israel by taking land from Palestinians. But that is a whole different discussion. Israel will still be there, but its becoming less likely that there will ever be peace as long as its there. The west has to find a way to calm down all this hate and be more considerate about things. It is the only way to peace.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 2:50 PM:


The problem is the 1% who are violent muslims are the good devout muslims who follow the base texts of the religion. The 99% are bad muslims. Good people but bad muslims.

I have difficulty giving much credence to a self-admitted apostate who supports a religion that says apostates are to receive the curse of Allah, the angels and all mankind. Of course, I have difficulty with any religion that curses incessantly.

You say the hate did not start with Islam. Have you read the Qu'ran? The Sira? Are you aware of Mohammed's acts of genocide, murder and pillage?

You seem to blame the recent violence on cartoons that were published months earlier while ignoring the role of Syria's state-controlled propaganda machine immediately before and during the unrest. I don't find that rational.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 2:54 PM:


You are an idiot. The muslims you talk to lie to you.

35 chapters? I count 114.

Read the Qu'ran. Anyone with at least half a brain will immediately realise that it is fractured and incomplete. As well as violent, vitriolic and vile.

Instead of giving links to the delusions of a modern propaganda machine, I suggest you read the actual source material.

Yes, I agree I read the works of a completly insane evil fanatic: Mohammed.

Are you suggesting the Qu'ran is a marginalized book/pamphlet? The Qu'ran is the base text of a cult with a billion followers. How many billions does it take to make a mainstream?

Mark, Islam seems like a cult because it is a cult. It was made up on the spot to satisfy the perverted fetishes of a vile insecure man. Until muslims start demonstrating anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty, the only rational approach is containment. Islam is a viral scourge that is incompatible with modern civility.

P.S. I feel sorry for those afflicted with your tutelage.

Mark L said at February 10, 2006 10:07 PM:

Bob you are a complete and utter waste of human life, 114 chapters, which planet are you from. is there any light on up in that head of yours. I will be silent now, since you are no more an intellectual than you are a man. Good luck in your happy Badour world of fiction.

Mark L said at February 11, 2006 10:15 AM:

I stand corrected Bob. I used the wrong word. There are 30 sections to the Quran, I mistakenly thought that is what you meant. Yes there are 114 chapters. Touche.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 4:37 PM:


You are an idiot. The division of the Qur'an into 30 equal parts to pace the reading of the entire book over the month of Ramadan has absolutely nothing to do with missing sections.

The divisions land arbitrarily in the middle of chapters to divide the work into equal parts.

If there were more content to the Qur'an, they would still divide it up into 30 equal parts and just put the divisions where it would balance the length.

J.P. Terence said at February 11, 2006 7:11 PM:

What a read. Such a diverse amount of personal issues covered in political agenda dissection. From Mr Parkers nuke comments, to Mr Badours/Mr Ls combats i see alot of emotion association with this subject. Ah well, freedom of speech allows for these forums to exist. I do however find personal attacks distasteful in all discussions, so Mr Badours retorts are some what pleasing to read, but childish, due to the level of name calling. Mr L, however I feel is a muslim, since his knowledge base seems more hands on. I am certain this blog will continue to amuse, since this school yard approach to listen to what I have to say really makes for a fun read.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 12:17 AM:

Knowledge base? What makes you think Mark has one? It doesn't take much to realize he is just making shit up as he goes along.

Mark L said at February 12, 2006 11:32 AM:

Bob, re-read my interactions with you, amongst your interactions with others, and it is quite clear that you are a well read person. But it is sad to see that you lack the basic components which make for a 'normal' human being. Even when I agreed with your postion, due to a mistake on my part, you still call me an idiot. I suppose, you lack the essential aspects of personality due to the lack of real social interaction, and your books offer you some normality.

Bob, you may have a good perspective on Islam, but your sad single celled approach to people, make you a sad, person. Well Robert, hope your smile spreads across that smug face, in the appreciation, that you are the 'correct' person.

Terence, nearly right on the muslim, situ. In actual fact I am not a muslim, but do have real dialogue, with real muslims and I can hand on heart say, all the misquotes that Mr Badour has stressed are based on information that I have discussed with real muslims. Sadly, Mr Badours brilliant stance ranges from the book smart situation, so he lacks the real life muslim perspective. but hey, no doubt I am wrong again, since allegedly I make all my research up as I go along.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 12:05 PM:


You are an idiot. Instead of accusing me of misquoting something, why not provide the link to the correct quote? Or better yet, click through the links I gave you.


I stand corrected on one point, though: Mark is not making shit up as he goes along. According to his recent post, he is mindlessly and uncritically parroting what a friend of his makes up as his friend goes along.

I don't see how that makes Mark any less of an idiot; although, I suggest his muslim friend considers him "a useful fool" a la Stalin's useful fools.

Mark L said at February 12, 2006 6:58 PM:

See, simple things, please simple minds. I never said, that I was obtaining information from a friend. I said, 'dialogue with real muslims' muslims (which is plural, as in 'many' more than one, and at no point was a reference made to a friend.

Aside, this is no longer a worthwhile blog to frequent, since Bob Badour, has claimed his authority on the truth as he sees fit. Plus discussion with someone who resorts to name calling, simply highlights the true nature of his own sad existence. If you click on Bob Badours email you get a link to same gambling porn link, so that further highlights Mr Badours position as a good and decent man.

Sadly, my inbox, has had an influx of emails supporting my position, but alas. this is my FINAL post. Bob, you are a worthless, personal opinion promoting righteous selfish nobody. Oh, and lastly, I have shared your writings with a few (remember few is more than one) muslims and they do think you are a genuinely misguided person. Anyway enjoy your life, you did add a comic twist to my time on here.

Notice, I have never referred to you as an idiot, since something do not need to be said, to be true. The actions speak louder than any words.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 12, 2006 7:32 PM:

Bob is an idiot, sincehe say to everyone idiot.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 10:31 PM:
Sadly, my inbox, has had an influx of emails supporting my position

I have no doubt that plenty of people will encourage you to remain an idiot rather than actually open a book. As I said, you are a useful fool.

J.P. Terence said at February 13, 2006 5:09 AM:

Really Bob, this is not a forum for you to be personal with those whose opinions flawed or variable to yours. You do show a childish approach to your geekish facts. I did click on your email link, and safe to say that you are a geek. Mark's position about Islam may not be accurate, but he did mention that his knowledge came from actual interaction with muslims. Enough. You need to be considerate in your reponses, and calling everyone an idiot, since I see that you have opened most dialogues with such references show you to be an impatient, petulant child like man, who may be well read, but like Mark said, you are no doubt a social leper. You come across as an authority on Islam, yet nothing you say, comes from the heart.

Walk away from the computer, and go try talkin to real people, if you can in your old age. There is still time.

Bob Badour said at February 13, 2006 7:50 AM:
Mark's position about Islam may not be accurate, but he did mention that his knowledge came from actual interaction with muslims.

Replace "muslims" with "communists" or "nazis" and you will understand why I consider him a useful fool.

calling everyone an idiot

I didn't call everyone an idiot. I called the idiot, Mark, an idiot. He talks to hear his own voice without any regard whatsoever for accuracy or honesty. He makes shit up as he goes along. That's easy enough for anyone to verify.

If you think it is appropriate to coddle someone like that, then coddle away!

Abdul Qureshi said at February 13, 2006 6:18 PM:

Bob you are the idiot, for dissing anothers opinions. for comparing islam to nazis and communists it shows you are an egg. islam does not condone the false gods, and does not appreciate any fake prophets, followers or non moral and ethic-less leadership. you moron you condone a society full of rape, murder robbery and porn, a soceity free to ruin childrens lives. where a man can rob another on a street and be sentences to 7 years in prison for aggravted assault, and for murder can get 4 years served. bob you are the idiot for comparing islam with communism which is not religon. go back to your books you old sad hell bound atheist. remember an atheist is someone who hasnt the balls to commit to anything. may allah have mercy on your dark heart and partial soul, fool

Mark L said at February 13, 2006 7:23 PM:

Terence / Abdul, thank you for the support, but it is not neccessary. If you look at the other PARAPUNDIT blogs, you will see Mr Bardours, rants. It is fair to say this social outcast, has no life, and lives online. So in no way shape at all will this bigot ever respect another human, since no doubt his mother and father no doubt abandoned him at an early childhood stage, hence his disagreeble, lost child like behaviour, where he has to resort to name calling. I do appreciate that my opinions may not by congruent to his staple diet of facts alone, but his inability to rise above the differences show him to be a shallow, unforgiving and more importantly a sad facsimile of a man. I have utter sadness for any family that this real social loser, may have, since no doubt he goes around calling everyone an idiot. Anyway, i do respect learned men, but not ones whose own head is so far stuck there own backsides and where there opinion is perfect.

Ah well, onto the next clown, this one bores me. But thank you again, for your understanding, but addressing this nutjob is not neccessary. Be safe and may your lord protect you as mine does mine.

Bob Badour said at February 13, 2006 10:29 PM:


I did not diss his opinions. I dissed his ignorance and stupidity that drove the opinions.

An agnostic might not commit to anything, but as an atheist I do have the "balls" to commit: There is no god, no ilah, no allah, no yahweh. Absolutely none whatsoever. I am a lifelong devout atheist.

Out of respect for my agnostic friends, I suggest it takes more "balls" to stand up to the pressure to commit.

Communism and nazism are both very much religions; both are accepted on faith by irrational followers exactly like Islam is. Neither communism nor nazism condone your false god either, so I guess that part is mutual.

In fact, just as Islam and Christianity are monotheistic with Islam being an evil monotheism, both my deeply personal faith and communism are atheistic with communism being an evil atheism.

you moron you condone a society full of rape, murder robbery and porn, a soceity free to ruin childrens lives

Sadly, you will find such evil in every society and especially in Islam. At least my society condemns evil. The base texts of Islam and Mohammed himself condone rape, murder, robbery and pedophilia. Unlike your useful fool, I have actually opened your religious books, and I do not speak from a position of ignorance.


I don't call everyone an idiot. I save that for the especially egregious and vocal idiots. For the "vociferous ignorami" as one of my friends likes to call them.

Dave D. said at February 14, 2006 2:41 AM:

Go Bob Go, learning something everyday from your post. Thanks man


Abdul Qureshi said at February 14, 2006 3:17 AM:

if you are a read man, then the 'lanath' of allah, lord, etc of whom you do not believe is on you. you speak vile filth based on ignorance. the devil, again one you do not believe shall have your soul.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 10:59 AM:



Why is it when a muslim wants to speak something truly vile he reverts to urdu or arabic?

Are you trying to prove that your religious texts are full of curses and violence? Are you trying to prove that muslims knowingly try to hide that fact from decent people?

I only repeated what I (and others) have found in the base texts of your religion. I agree it is vile filth, but I am surprised you would speak so of the Qur'an and the Hadith.

I have a challenge for you. Find anything even remotely as violent and repulsive as Al-Anfal 12 in the New Testament:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

String together actual quotes from the New Testament in any order and completely out of context to create a document even a tenth as damning as Craig Winn's analysis of Islam's base texts.

Ask yourself, honestly, whether you are just a puppet of the Saudi propaganda machine obligingly ignoring the negligence and disdain the Saudis have for other muslims.

Bob said at February 14, 2006 1:35 PM:

you are a man, a well read man. but sadly your life is wasted. to know that after you die that will be it. all this hate of religion, makes me sad. to have love in your heart makes for a great life, and knowledge the lord god, jesus or allah will be there for you, must offer some cofmort, but you, sadly you will never have peace. sad lonily man, no better than the clerics spreding propoganda and as you said not fearing the lord. ah well thank you for the links, you have convince me you are a fool

Bob said at February 14, 2006 2:43 PM:


You said "The problem is the 1% who are violent muslims are the good devout muslims who follow the base texts of the religion. The 99% are bad muslims. Good people but bad muslims."

100% not true.

My grandmother was the biggest religius muslim I have ever met and she was nothing but the nicest person in the world. She would have died for her friends and yet prayed every day. Mark, you really dont know what the fuck you're talking about. Fucking idiot.

Haris said at February 14, 2006 2:43 PM:


You said "The problem is the 1% who are violent muslims are the good devout muslims who follow the base texts of the religion. The 99% are bad muslims. Good people but bad muslims."

100% not true.

My grandmother was the biggest religius muslim I have ever met and she was nothing but the nicest person in the world. She would have died for her friends and yet prayed every day. Mark, you really dont know what the fuck you're talking about. Fucking idiot.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 2:46 PM:

Abdul (aka Bob),

If I hated religion, I would not choose to be a religious man myself. If I had anything against faith, per se, I would naturally choose agnosticism. (Not that all agnostics have to have anything against another person's faith.)

I believe, on faith, that no god exists, and I have the intellectual honesty to assert my belief.

My faith curses nobody. Your curses ("lanath") are filled with hatred. I am not. Mohammed and your Allah are filled with hatred and violence. Very few religious leaders and religious texts contain the sort of hatred and violence one finds throughout the Hadith and the Qur'an and consequently throughout Islam.

You say I will never have peace, but I have peace every day. Perhaps not every moment of every day, but I have moments of serene peace and beauty and joy every day. My faith instructs me to seek them out whenever and whereever I might find them every day. The terrorists live in a hell of their own making every day of their pathetic hate filled wasted lives.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 2:56 PM:


I think you have established that your grandmother was a good person. Have you established that she was a good muslim, though?

Did she pursue Jihad? Or did she stay behind while others pursued Jihad? Of course, it's not entirely clear that Mohammed ever wanted women to fight to expand Islam. He seemed to treat them more as chattel than as soldiers.

I think it is easy enough to find examples of Christians who showed high religiosity who were not good Christians. The mafiosa and their wifes and mothers for instance.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 3:13 PM:

P.S. You mention that your grandmother prayed a lot. Did she read a lot? Was she well-versed in the Sira?

Stephanie Harbor said at February 16, 2006 7:39 AM:

Freedom of speech means the ability to say what ever you want to say. Right? However when some one makes a statement with the intent to inflame, with a pre-mediated design to cause offence, then again that does fall into the remit of freedom of speech, but does that constitute an offence?

As far as freedom of speech? Can anyone explain to me what spin is? When the elected officials censor, control and drip feed claimed politically sensitive information which would make their decisions seem anything but noble, what is that called? When the elected government gets all staff to sign a secrecy act, not to leak information on questionable events, is that right?

Too many politically fired up muppets on here. So with no lives it seems. I have no positions but would like answers from any one of the experts on here.

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 12:31 PM:

Are you suggesting that inflaming public sentiment against injustice is wrong? That we should care more about the feelings of the unjust than about justice itself?

Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Thus, it would be wrong for a Danish newspaper to instruct the Danes to decapitate muslims or to burn down mosques. The Saudi and Syrian state-controlled propaganda machines showed how powerful such incitement can be.

Inflamation, on the other hand, is very much protected speech. Why would we need to protect innocuous speech?

Of course, premeditated offense is protected. Are you suggesting that the pamphleteers who fought the American Revolution and who enshrined the freedom of the press in the bill of rights did so accidentally?

What would I call it when a politician lies? Self-preservation.

Secrecy is a tricky thing. We need to have secrets to defend ourselves against our potential enemies. Most information in the hands of the US government is available directly to the public through the freedom of information act. But some of it has always been secret and some of it will always be secret.

Americans elect senators and congress critters to review and have oversight of classified documents to keep the executive branch from committing excesses. Checks and balances aren't always perfect, but they sure beat the alternatives.

Stephanie Harbor said at February 17, 2006 8:08 AM:

Bob, I have read you previous comments. And if you can rationalise the the inciteful actions of a democratic so called civilised nation with historical actions which have no similarity to this situation, then, to use one of your own words. You are an idiot.

If a politician lies, that is called self preservation. What a crock!

Here's a few more for you.

What do you propose is the solution to this the claimed Islamic grieviance?
Is Islam a religon full of blind sided fanatics?
Should western views have any real influence on the middle east
Islam is a dated religon, however if it was to adopt (list 3) approaches to the western world, it would find itself getting along with much more ease

Bob, no offence. But you really do need to get out more. But am interested in your take

Mark L said at February 17, 2006 1:01 PM:

Steph, It's the idiot here (Mark L) seems, you have stumped Bobby. But I don't think for long. He will undoubtably find some loose irrational presciption for this dementia called Islam. But as always, I will come back to read the trash he provides in justification for his position. Thanks for the laughs though.

Bob Badour said at February 17, 2006 4:10 PM:


Stumped? You are an idiot. I had to drive my dog to Charlottetown to start chemotherapy today. I apologize if I was unable to respond in the timeframe you prefer.


The cartoons published in a Danish newspaper were far less inflammatory than the pamphlets the founding fathers of the United States passed around.

If a politician lies, that is called self preservation. What a crock!

Are you suggesting politicians won't lie to save themselves? I mean: Besides George Washington and the cherry tree? I think one would have to be very naive to think a politician would piss away a career over the truth. Of course, that depends on what you mean by "is".

What do you propose is the solution to this the claimed Islamic grieviance?

Nothing at all. The Saudis stirred up the ignorant masses to distract them from the Saudi indifference to muslim lives -- particularly south asian lives. It's their problem -- not ours. We have freedom of speech. They just have to deal. They don't want our embassies? No problem. We don't want to give them visas anway.

Is Islam a religon full of blind sided fanatics?

Not yet. Luckily, most of Islam is ignorant of what the religion is all about. Those who study in religious schools are generally taught to recite the Qur'an phonetically in religious arabic without being taught what any of it means. Islam is still largely illiterate, which means few muslims have read the base texts for themselves.

Regarding fanaticism, one needs to keep something in mind: While the Branch Davidians were far out whacko fanatics and loosely Christian, the terrorists are fundamentalist muslims who take a very literal interpretation of the Hadith and the Qur'an. I see many parallels between David Koresh and Mohammed. Imagine what the Branch Davidians would have looked like in 1400 years if they hadn't burned alive.

The truly literate and pious muslims like Sistani, Khomeini and the blind sheik would like to enslave the world to Islam. That doesn't necessarily make them fanatics or blind-sided.

Mohammed repeatedly told his followers that they must fight in Jihad and that those who refused are hypocrites. Why do you think so many middle-class yemeni-american and saudi-american etc. young men travelled half-way around the world to fight in Afghanistan and Bosnia and Chechnya? Where do you think the concept of mujahideen comes from?

Should western views have any real influence on the middle east

I really don't care one way or the other. They live in a shithole over there. If they want to raise themselves out of the shithole fine. If not, that's their problem. I won't let them drag me in.

Islam is a dated religon, however if it was to adopt (list 3) approaches to the western world, it would find itself getting along with much more ease

Islam is an evil creed. The religion would have to ditch the base texts that formed it and fundamentally reform itself. I don't have much hope for that ever happening.

When Christianity reformed, it reformed around the gospel not by rejecting the gospel.

Stephanie Harbor said at February 17, 2006 5:02 PM:

Why are you an atheist?
Evolution over creation is it?
The most considerate religon is?
Your one sentence defintion of the freedom of speech?
the worst book on islam in your opinion is the Quran ( i assume)
which is the best book on islam that you have ever read and would recommend for naive readers

why do you hate islam so much other than the obvious

hope you dont mind my asking?

Bob Badour said at February 17, 2006 7:14 PM:

I find your question about my alleged hatred for Islam rather like asking someone when they stopped fucking sheep. I do not hate anyone; although, plenty of people hate me. Your question presupposes a fallacy.

You ask me why I am an atheist. I believe there is no God, and that makes me an atheist. Your question is kind of like asking me why I am male. I am male for the very obvious reason that I have normal male anatomy.

I am not sure what you are asking with "Evolution over creation?" It doesn't seem to be a question; although, it has a question mark at the end. In general, I favour science over faith, if that is what you are asking. However, I don't take that as an absolute or I would have to be an agnostic. In an absence of scientific evidence, I rely on faith.

I have never tried to rank religions on considerateness. I suspect one will find considerate and inconsiderate sects within any sizable religion just as one will find considerate and inconsiderate people.

You assume incorrectly regarding the worst book on Islam. The Qur'an and the Hadith are the ultimate books on Islam. They are the authoritative sources regardless of what is in them.

A book for naive readers? That depends on how much time one has to invest. If one has time, I recommend reading several translations of the Qur'an and several Islamic histories. If one lacks the time for that, I suggest getting one or two histories, a Qur'an or two for reference and then read Prophet of Doom using the other works to verify accuracy.

Regardless, I encourage everyone to learn what is at the core of that religion. Too many people lie about the nature of the beast, and only education will overcome the big lie.

S said at February 19, 2006 5:15 AM:

Jahn, stop the profane. I do concur that Bob is a fool, but to be fair, you are an angry little man also. I have no idea what faith if any you have but it would be interesting. You are not a muslim, yet you defend them. You are not a westerner yet you support them. Just to add depth, clarify your personal choice of belief system, it would make accepting your statements easier or humourous.

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 8:14 AM:


Do you have anything substantive to offer? Or are you limited to character assassination too?

S said at February 20, 2006 1:21 AM:

Bob, I do not want to engage you in any religious debate. You are a hate monger! You are exactly the sort of man, that makes things worse. I have read your assertions that Mohammed was evil, hence Islam is evil. You assume I am not into any character assassination. I would say that I am not, you however are determined to spread your hate of islam and also Mohammed. If you did read any moderate recent Islamic texts about Islam and Mohammed you would know how displaced your assumptions are. But, we all know that ignorance is bliss. And you are a prime example of that. But, please do not take this comment as me having a go at you, since I cannot be bothered. I see enough people have tried to discuss points with you, but you are firm in your beliefs, so that is fine. I will not try to go up against your intellect.I see no point. But I do reserve the right to think you a fool. I hope you don't make a meal out of that.

Mark L said at February 20, 2006 10:19 AM:


seems like you are 'NOT' the flavor of the month (with anyone :-). After reading all the crap that you have been spewing,(sorry I mean sharing) with those that have challenged you, I can hand on heart say you are a grade 'A' twat (as the brits say) I mean even the passers by seem to spit on your low life stature and that ability you have to offend even the most softly spoken.

Anyway i'm the idiot as you say, so hey who gives a monkeys left testicle what i think. but you being an authority on islam seem to be fairing really well in your ability to convince each and every one who confronts you.

Well, wallow in this, since the only real person who has come to your aid, is Randall. Seems you guys are best friends and have created this little haven to expound your racist bigoted and intellectually lacking rants. Mr Randall and you seem a little too cost for comfort so it seems he can monitor what stays and waht does not, and i would not be surprised to see this posting erased.

Ah well, you are a really funny guy, and I appreciate your volunteering to represent the real plebian role that you have adopted in most of the discussions with anyone who seems to challenge your little brain.

I mean you offended Haris, and Steph wanted to know more of your shit. Jorge DC said it the best:

To Bob, you make some good points but still manage to leave a bad impression. Why litter the thread with profanity? Maybe because boorishness and atheism are a natural fit?

Killer statement. Ah well all that education, all that insight and all that aptitude. All wasted on your natural ability to be a socially ignorant, and an top of that I feel you are genuinely obtuse. Stuck in your silly hick ways, with your mental congruency of a typical selfish self centered self promoting heathen.

Bob finally, again i say you are a funny guy, and reading your contributions parrallels watching a pig in shit. even though it is funny at the time, it does get boring, but hey, who cares. some people love pigs. I do, so I will always have a soft spot for you.


PS. That comment about you having faith, faith that there is no god. That was a smooth move, you had me rolling with laughter. I said touche Bob, touche. you really are heading straight (no left or right turns...or pitstops) for hell. So cool...so darn darn cool

Jones said at February 20, 2006 1:45 PM:

Hmm, anyone but me think that all these terrorists need to be taught that there will be many consequences for there actions?
Think about it if they can kill us and yet we defend them and say that we cannot hunt them down do you think they will stop? What I think is that if you suddenly began to kill muslim civilians (Spare the thought) that they will begin to learn perhaps this isn't such a good idea. Now i admit this is unsavoury to say the least and that a good deal of the world would not go along with it, but on a whole if you were to kill indiscrimanately all these people then they would start to fear us in such a way to make them cower before our thought... Heh best way to get rid of a problem is to kill it as demonstrated by the Japanese massacre of the christian population of japan oh so many years ago.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 1:49 PM:

Well then if atheists go to hell then I'd rather go to hell for an eternity them obey a god that asks me to murder and rape and take what is not mine because it is not of my belief, as it is said that Allah, Jesus, and Yaweh are the same person though one would have to explain to me how it works when they've such different personalities.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 1:52 PM:

Anyways fun is this conversation topic I'm just throwing ideas out at random so you people can debate them. So go ahead DEBATE!

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 2:14 PM:


Your earlier post already was character assassination as was most of this more recent one. What good is it to try to claim otherwise?

If you did read any moderate recent Islamic texts about Islam and Mohammed you would know how displaced your assumptions are

Recent texts by necessity must use the base texts as the only available raw material. I have seen no evidence that the terrorists or the hundreds of millions of muslims who support the terrorists pay any attention to 'recent texts'.

After your 'recent texts' end terrorism and end the demands to impose sharia on the west, come back and we will discuss how you accomplished the feat.

you are firm in your beliefs

Not beliefs, facts. And the facts are right before my eyes, which make your pathetic denials easy to ignore. Anyone can open the base texts and see those facts for himself. I urge everyone to do so.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 2:15 PM:


I repeat: you are an idiot.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 2:26 PM:


Until some sizable number of muslims show us anything resembling intellectual honesty, I think the best approach is to leave the muslims in Islam and to encourage those already here to return to Islam.

One recommendation I would have is to neuter the corpses of dead terrorists and inter the sexual organs encased in some sort of pork byproduct. Of course, that probably violates some international convention on warfare.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 3:38 PM:

Haha, oh man that one is rich.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 3:52 PM:

Has anyone actually seen these cartoons? There really not that bad, I see worse about Christianity on the TV and I live in a Christian nation.
Also, anyone notice that they're almost being internationally hidden like some sort of political kiddy porn? I've only found one site on which I've found the pictures and that one was recently "discontinued" sounds a tad fishy to me.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 3:54 PM:

Wait, correction there is one link i have found with most of the pictures http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/Fagrzoom1.jpg

Jones said at February 20, 2006 3:58 PM:

If muslims are willing to kill over comics for their oh so "peaceful" god what's to stop them from killing people for anything?

Randall Parker said at February 20, 2006 5:41 PM:

Jones, go to the front page of my blog and you will find links to the Danish Mohammed cartoons in various posts I've made. Or see the Brussels Journal reproduction of the cartoons.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 7:02 PM:

Thank you for the post.

Mark L said at February 21, 2006 10:12 AM:

One recommendation I would have is to neuter the corpses of dead terrorists
(Posted by: Bob Badour on February 20, 2006 02:26 PM )

What I think is that if you suddenly began to kill muslim civilians
(Posted by: Jones on February 20, 2006 01:45 PM )

So you guys are the authority on intelligent religious debate?
As if

And yes Bob, I know i'm the idiot!

Abdul Qureshi said at February 21, 2006 1:43 PM:

Badour is a hate mongerer. and this jones seems like he needs to be reported also. Maybe this site needs to be reviewed by the authorities

Randall Parker said at February 21, 2006 5:19 PM:

Abdul Qureshi,

Which "authorities" would you want to review this site? I'm an American. I have freedom of speech. No governmental "authorities" are going to stop the arguments here.

Jones said at February 21, 2006 5:50 PM:

I would appreciate if my words were not to be taken out of context, also you know that was a jibe by Bob why make it out to be anything different.
At least we aren't actually sawing off peoples heads.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 22, 2006 5:25 PM:

If bob the fucking atheist, and you the fucking ignorant can take islam wholly out of context since you feel like it, then i am afraid i did not take anything out of context. i read what i saw, and interpreted based on what i saw. and remember killing the invading occupying forces is called being patriotic to your own country, or as you americans now feel that patriotism is only an american word, and any arab doing it is an insurgent. you guys make me sick. hacking up the dead is the sickest thing you bastards can do, yet i know that only an american can do that, remember the american patriotic soliders burning the bodies of two afghan fighters, and the explanation the americans offer is that they were affected, well you bloody americans release poisons and the wonder why they were affected. so remember butcher the dead, your governments already do it, why not make it a rule. geneva convention my ass

Jones said at February 23, 2006 2:20 PM:

Abdul Qureshi go fuck a pig, the shit your own people do and get away with is far worse, since when is killing christians just because they're christians in Pakistan called "Patriotic"? And no they weren't westerners they were converts. Your sick "Prophet" was a lecherous old man who in this day and age would've been shot for his crimes.
You personally sicken me, at least the terrorists made no move to hide that they were killing people because they were unbelievers, your just some piece of human swine that crawled out of your mothers unwilling uterus.

Jones said at February 23, 2006 2:31 PM:

Besides what I was saying that if these sick bastards get to kill our civilians and sit in there holes calling us weak that they will ever stop? And though perhaps not a Geneva Convention idea but one that unfortunately would work is if you hunted down people of relation to them they might reconsider there line of work. Ex: Terrorist blows up building, America finds his sons and says any more bombs go off they die.
(Sound familiar to release our captives or these people die?)
Now look what you made me do, I got all sloppy in my grammar.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 24, 2006 3:29 AM:

Jones, fucking pigs is a white man trait, having sex with animals is an american thing. believe me, go look at the website, and you will see american porn filth showing you this, and will never show you a colored man doing this. so again, do not project your own personal fantasies on to me, again you show your illiterate nature by making wild assumptions, that i share the same desires as you. as far as pakistan religious killings, that has nothing to do with this conversation, but since you did bring it up, bear in mind, since it has happened where is the US now. why has america not intervened and helped the innocents. simple there is no oil there and musharraf is there dog at the moment serving them faithfully. when he is no longer needed america will again intervene. so to answer your question, look at the current politics. as far as me crawling out of my mothers uterus, you are right we all do that. you did to, so that is only fact. or are you saying you came from somewhere else. like maybe from a swines uterus that your father may have chosen to mate with. well that is not meant to be offensive just correcting your understanding about human child birth.

lastly, the terrorists who kill civilians. have you any evidence that everytime this happens it is a terrorist situation. the truth is that it has been known to be americans killing civilians to make the terrorist threat seem worse than it is. simple politics. create the threat from which the people fear and then you can impose your own changes. god you are a bigger fool to think that all terrorist threats are by those who are made to be the enemy.

as far as your grammar. well since you are a hick it seems the mere fact that you can type is an advancement from the beer swilling stature your family is so intune with. so you are the best your family has to offer. at least you can string some sentences in a row and make it sound like a paragraph. good on you.

Jones said at February 24, 2006 6:25 PM:

Actually fucking animals is a Brazilian thing, and I brougt pakistany killings up because we make a hoo-ha over cartoons depicting a sick bastard and the Muslim community goes crazy whereas they kill people and we say nothing.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 25, 2006 12:01 PM:

you see calling the islams prophet what you did shows your true level of humanity. the fact is that you're not worth the muck of any terrorists boots. the reason why the west condones any killings is because there is no dollar value associated in it for them. you fucking americans fuck your own mothers, your own grannies, horses, dogs and anything else. enough sick children fuckers today are all white. so dont blame the brazilians since it is your own kin that does this. islam is the only pure religon left on this planet. accept that as a fact. also granted it needs to embrace elements of change to accurately its position and also to be accepted globally. but sick fucks like you and your girlfriend badour cannot help but hold on to elemental straws and spread hate as you see fit.

fact: islam is a real threat to the western social structures and dumb asses like you and the rest are here to paint it as a dark cult, whereas the learned see islam and its real position in society. so talkijng filth is common amongst your sorry high school drop out types. anyway enough. christianity is not even a real fucking religon. jesuss words have been changed so much that reflect nothing accurate. and you want islam to go through the same changes, well it is not going to happen. islam is a purists religon and nothing and no one can change that since allah himself protects it. badour and anyone else who has read any version of the quran knows it. so go fuck yourself and try to keep yourself out of the barnyard.

Bob Badour said at February 25, 2006 6:19 PM:


That was not a jibe. Dead terrorists are dead in any case, and while still alive, they were seduced into their vile crimes by graphic promises of a paradise full of virgins ready for their personal pleasure. I suggest interring the genitalia separate and encased in a pork product as a graphic way to convince other potential terrorists that should they arrive in paradise, the virgins will nothing to worry about regarding their eternal chastity.


Thank you for showing us what Allah's fine example of constant cursing brings out in muslims.

fact: islam is a real threat to the western social structures

With all due respect, Islam is a threat to nothing but muslims. Your Jihadists are little more than the annoyance of a fly on a horse's ass in spite of waging an incessant war against us for decades.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a threat to western social structures.

Should the Jihadists acquire the ability to detonate a nuke in a western city, they will become a threat to western lives. If that should ever happen, expect the backlash to be swift, severe and very, very bloody. In that scenario, look to the example of Mohammed's treatment of the Banu Qurayza for the west's treatment of potential Jihadists.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 25, 2006 6:51 PM:

Badour, glad to see you crawled back from the gutter. islam is not a threat to muslims fool, it is a threat to all non-believers and kafirs such as yourself. islamists do not hide behind the nuke, the silent war is waged by your kind. the infidel. nerve gas, poisons all creations of the west, tested on the poor and then sold to the idiots like saddam. so before you go on and sell your version of events, please understand that islamists will fight the fight till the end. and it will not be shooting the kafirs in the back. as far as the banu qurayza. see you are a fool. again it was the Quresh, or banu quresh. get the spelling right, i am certain your spelling is from some side line second grade mufti, since all the links you provide are from extremist, mirzahi or shia web sites.

lastly, explain this. if mohammed was such a nutcase. then why over the course of 40 years prior to his declaration as prophet did the quresh trust him with most of their possessions. he was always a respected and honored man. so why was that. not really the sort of treatment people give to a nut job that you and your shallow friends make him out to be. get real

after consideration, i do admire your steel as a man to remain an atheist. but remember this. as an atheist it does not give you right to go and speak bad and rile the spiritual leaders. your analogies and explanations are founded in your ignorance of the true meaning of bling faith. your faith as an atheist is supported by your firm belief in no god and death being the final step. all i can say to that is that what a shame that the power that be blessed you with the ability to decide, yet like a fool, your believe in absolutely nothing spirtual other than the value of faith being nothing more than a cult gone international

ah well. for yoru information, islam is already a nuclear power, i believe the pakkistani muslims are well equipped. i dont see them waving and flailing their arms and selling the whole i will bomb you theory you presuppose. but then again the only nation to ever exercise the use of nukes was your motherland. and even then it was never over a military location. they used it on civilians like cowards. but hey americans are nothing more than bullies anyway. so keep up the good fight and sell your soul to the lost cause of nothing. fool

Bob Badour said at February 26, 2006 5:08 AM:
it is a threat to all non-believers and kafirs such as yourself

Oh? Do tell us more. Why is that?

please understand that islamists will fight the fight till the end

Please understand that should the Islamists become a credible threat, the end will come very swiftly.

again it was the Quresh, or banu quresh. get the spelling right

No, I have the spelling right. Mohammed did not murder all of the men of his own tribe; although, I am sure he probably wanted to. He murdered all of the men of the Banu Qurayza and handed out their widows and daughters to his thugs. Are you ignorant of your own religious history? Or were you playing dumb to deceive people?

since all the links you provide are from extremist, mirzahi or shia web sites

Are you saying the University of Southern California is an extremist site and that all three translations of the Qur'an they publish online are extremist versions?

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the terrorists who committed 9/11 Sunnis? Are you saying the Shias are the extremists? If the Shias are the extremists and the Sunnis are the terrorists, who remains?

"Mirzahi"? Did you mean "mizrahi" ? Even so, I don't recall linking to any jewish sites. Are you experiencing some sort of paranoid hallucination?

he was always a respected and honored man.

In other words, he was a respected man until he revealed himself to be a murdering rapist and thieving genocidal pedophile. After that the Quresh did not respect him at all. Everything in the Qur'an and the Hadith suggests the Quresh changed their opinion of the vile creature. What was your point again?

as an atheist it does not give you right to go and speak bad and rile the spiritual leaders

You are absolutely correct. My basic human rights give me that, and those rights are not exclusive to atheists. We all have those rights. If you want to censor anything I say that might offend you, remember that your religious texts offend and insult me. Shall we censor the Qur'an and the Hadith too?

all i can say to that is that what a shame that the power that be blessed you with the ability to decide, yet like a fool, your believe in absolutely nothing spirtual

And all I can say is what a shame that you cannot stand on your own without some perverse little spirit granting you the permission to decide. Or did your perverse little spirit even do that? Did he not decide your outcome before you were born?

i believe the pakkistani muslims are well equipped

Well, equipped in any case. Fortunately, Musharraf does not adhere as closely to the literal interpretation of the base texts of Islam as some others do. It is a concern, though, that Pakistan is so politically unstable. If the Jihadists get nukes, they may do it by seizing Pakistan. Since you claim to believe in a god, I suggest for your sake and for the sake of your coreligionists that you pray that never happens.

the only nation to ever exercise the use of nukes was your motherland

What are you talking about? Canada never nuked anybody.

I reiterate: Islam is a greater threat to muslims than to anybody else. Of all the people who died in the protests over some silly cartoons, how many were kafrs?

Jones said at February 26, 2006 11:03 AM:

I know I'm not being polite but I'm sick of arguing on an intellectual level when it doesn't get through to anyone.

Bob Badour said at February 26, 2006 4:16 PM:


The goal is not necessarily to get through to the armchair jihadists who show up here to deny the nature of the base texts of their faith. The goal is to get through to the majority of people in the west who are stuck in denial and wishful thinking.

Most people want to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that muslims are good tolerant ecumenists. If that were true, the world really would be a better place. However, in the present, that world is a fantasy.

We in the west have been conditioned by marxist assholes to think our culture is less than it really is. Our culture is the greatest culture the world has ever seen. Compared to our culture, Islam's culture is vile, disgusting, petty and brutish.

We all need to put the Islamic chauvinists on the defensive where they belong.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 27, 2006 4:16 AM:

The goal is not necessarily to get through to the armchair jihadists who show up here to deny the nature of the base texts of their faith. The goal is to get through to the majority of people in the west who are stuck in denial and wishful thinking.

So this blog is for the weak, meek in faith and not for the islamic sheep who follow blindly,never really questioning their faith, but merely drinking up the sermons that the imams decide to dispense.

Most people want to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that muslims are good tolerant ecumenists.

Bob, islam has always been tolerant of non-muslims. if you are as read as you claim then you will know that the quran promotes this in countless places. and most islamics today are as so.

If that were true, the world really would be a better place.

Bob, the reason why the world is not a better place is because of moral, ethical decay in the world, which is predominatly driven by the desire to have more in this world.

However, in the present, that world is a fantasy.

Funny you should say that, since islamics believe that all non-muslims including people of your faith are living in a delusional state. the desires in the west are for better life, better living which is only a temporary existence for preperation for the eternal afterlife. its like a test. depending on how many points you score in this life, will determine what level you attain in paradise. but non-islamics have lost that belief, and feel that the only thing that matters is this life, and there is nothing else after this. fundamentally that is the main difference.

We in the west have been conditioned by marxist assholes to think our culture is less than it really is.

Again Bob, I hate to agree with the Marxist assholes, but your culture is nothing to be proud of. And this marxist asshole belief is held by ever faith that follows a belief in the after life. Want me to give you examples of your good culture?

Our culture is the greatest culture the world has ever seen.

OK, the words of the roman emperors, the dynasties and the other ruling empires, who all felt that their ways were globally ever lasting, but they all succombed in the end. darn i cannot believe the west would already feel that this is the best it can get...

Compared to our culture, Islam's culture is vile, disgusting, petty and brutish.
WOW. ok here I feel we need to share a few perspectives. Islam promotes marraige, (not child marraige..different topic) family, looking after your parents, non-drinking, faith, business, harmony, and jihad only when provoked. Your culture lets see, believes in sex before marraige, sex with family members, porn, rape only punished with a few years in jail whereas in islam it is rewarded by death, murder is rewarded by only 4 years in jail if proven whereas in islam it is rewarded by death if proven, the lack of respect for parents in elders and others is common in the west. the global americanisation of the world is a non-stop invasion that occurs on a day to day basis. america makes programs where other cultures are diminished and american values are sold as the virtuous righteous alternative to indiginous ways that have been established in the past. this invasion is promoting your culture where the respect of all that has been is being chipped away. so you are right, your culture which promotes homosexuality, and sex with sisters and brothers and animals is becoming the predominant strain. and over the next hundred years your culture will have become ingrained into all societies and all so called non-democratic states here. so again bob you are right. your culture of promoting lack of respect and faith is gradually changing the world.

We all need to put the Islamic chauvinists on the defensive where they belong.

See that final statement tells me one thing. You are not concerned with organised religon so much as you are upset with Islam. Your one man mission to make islam into a vile religon is based on your faith as you call it. bob, continue the good fight and continue your belief that you position is the perfect one. Let me leave you with one final thought. when your time is near, and you are feeling age, creeping around you. when your joints ache and you know that time is short, when breathing becomes difficult and that pain in your chest seems alot more painful than it ever has. when the reality that death is so close and the end is literally facing you face to face. the belief that this is the end, and all that you have been and all that ever did will now come to an end. when the knowledge that your faith in nothing has been the rock in your life and your rejection of all that promotes an afterlife in any faith is something you avoided will be real, know that at that stage any religon any faith offers your comfort, in the knowledge that death is merely a stage one needs to experience to get to their real life. i am not talking about virgins in heaven and the boiling heat of the hell. merely saying that death is not the final stage of our evolution. but for you there will be no comfort and i hope the pain of knowing that moments later you will be nothing more than a pile of decomposing flesh will comfort you. when your energy transfers out of your heaving flesh in dissipates into nothing.

Putting islamic chauvenists on the defenesive is something you cannot do. islamic chauvenists. LOL..would have you for breakfast. Lastly, Bob, ever thought of doing the talk circuit selling your belief? and knocking islam. I am certain you would be a real hit

Bob Badour said at February 27, 2006 12:31 PM:
So this blog is for the weak, meek in faith

Randall has his own reasons for running the blog. My goal posting in these threads is to start getting through to the majority of people in the west who are stuck in denial and wishful thinking. I suspect the majority of the people in the west, like me, are bold and strong in their faith. Just as Randall and other agnostics are bold and strong in their embrace of reason over faith.

However, most westerners have been fed a continuous stream of lies from armchair jihadists like yourself as well as from an essentially marxist newsmedia. When those lies are what the people WANT to believe, they are likely to accept the lies uncritically.

The base texts of Islam are extremely violent and intolerant.

Bob, islam has always been tolerant of non-muslims.

You are lying. Mohammed was tolerant through his Meccan period and became totally intolerant later in Medina. In fact, he became a genocidal murderer who forced all pagan Arabs to convert to Islam. He barely tolerated Christians and Jews as second-class citizens.

Which is one to believe? A handful of very brief tolerant passages from the Meccan period? Or lengthy intolerant chapters instructing muslims to murder and plunder for the good of the faith? I would think the later parts supercede the earlier parts. In fact, is that not a core tenet of the faith? Does the Qur'an not supercede earlier prophecy?

At no time has Islam ever really tolerated atheism.

the reason why the world is not a better place is because of moral, ethical decay in the world

I agree. Look how far Islam has already fallen by following the immoral teachings of a murdering rapist and pedophile. Likewise, look how far much of the world has fallen by following the immoral teachings of Marx.

since islamics believe that all non-muslims including people of your faith are living in a delusional state

While they believe I am deluded, all factual evidence points to their own delusion. I am an atheist and not a kafir. Muslims are the kafirs.

feel that the only thing that matters is this life

All absolutes are false. When you say the "only" thing, you deceive yourself.

Want me to give you examples of your good culture?

You don't need to. My culture has produced the fairest and most just political system ever conceived by man or god. My culture has raised standards of living to the point where the destitute live better than the kings of yester-year. My culture is the singularly most tolerant and forgiving culture ever. My culture is the most dynamic and vigorous in the world.

Have we fought wars? Yes. And won them too.

Have we faced internal threats? Yes. And we defeated those as well.

Have we used nuclear weapons? Heck, we invented them. We have used them, and I have no doubt we will again.

Are we responsible for the poverty, brutality and abject squalor of Islam? Not at all. That's a mess of Islam's own making in spite of and largely due to Islam's petulant and infantile rejection of personal responsibility.

who all felt that their ways were globally ever lasting

What makes you think I believe my culture will last forever? Dynamism is a greatness of my culture.

I fully expect barbaric tribalism to try to destroy my culture. I fully expect advances in technology to increase intelligence and alter society in ways we cannot even dream of at this time.

Will the world see even greater cultures in the future? I sure hope so.

Will the world see the end of greatness and a return to brutal barbarism? It's possible. I won't let that happen without putting up a fight.

Islam promotes...jihad

It doesn't matter how you qualify it. Islam promotes violence and brutality. The qualifications are meaningless because muslims have preserved Mohammed's own deviousness for twisting reality to match their own perverse desires.

Islam promotes the subjugation of everyone--especially women who it treats as inferior in all ways.

Islam promotes family

That's not how I read things.

your culture which promotes homosexuality, and sex with sisters and brothers and animals

See my comments above regarding the factual evidence for delusion. You, sir, are deluded.

Your one man mission to make islam into a vile religon is based on your faith as you call it.

I don't need to make Islam into anything it already is and has always been. The base texts of Islam are vile.

Putting islamic chauvenists on the defenesive is something you cannot do

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You, yourself, strike me as very defensive.

Abdul Qureshi said at February 28, 2006 2:59 AM:

bob, you are a brilliat fool. a one track mind mouse. lost in your own maze of confusion and there is no way out. you have absolved yourself of any real reason and can now only find fault with religons. atheism is a disease since no religon accepts it as a reasonable course of living. feel free to live in the lack of real belief and go with god.

Bob Badour said at February 28, 2006 5:52 AM:


I don't recall finding fault with religions. I recall finding fault with the base texts of Islam and with Mohammed's pedophilia, murder, rape and thievery.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©