Wednesday, January 14, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

An act of war? Critics of cartoons should be arrested for death threats

The first post-attack, "survivor" issue of Charlie Hebdo is out. Instead of the usual 60,000 copies, it was printed in 3 million copies. One copy costs €3. Most of these nine million euros will go to the victims' families and the magazine. Some of the jokes in the magazine are simple yet cute. For example: An advance copy contained cartoons mocking the two Islamist gunmen who carried out the attack. One has them arriving in paradise and asking, "Where are the 70 virgins?" — "With the Charlie team, losers," comes the reply.

If it were possible to quantify the value of one human life as €0.5 million, one could easily conclude that this tragic story has been profitable for the magazine.

Well, such a quantification is ethically problematic – even though insurance companies have to be aware of such conversion factors. Who may have become a winner is e.g. Luz, now a top cartoonist, who wasn't killed because he overslept. The image on the cover is his.

The cover shows a crying Mohammed who says "I am Charlie" and the situation is described as "all is forgiven". Well, the generosity involved in this image is amazing. I, for one, have not forgiven Mohammed – and indeed, it's Mohammed and Allah, the religion's pillars themselves, who should be primarily blamed for the tragedy. Relatively to Mohammed, the two brothers only played a passive role of mindless tools.

Amazingly enough, lots of Islamofascist apparatchiks dared to criticize the cartoon once again. Some of them live in the Western societies. I find this combination of facts stunning.

Anjem Choudary, a hardcore Islamist demagogue operating in London, classified the image as "an act of war" and "blatant provocation". He didn't forget to emphasize that the Sharia law demands even such super-peaceful pictures of Mohammed to be punished by death. Mr Choudary is just a tip of an iceberg.

What Mr Choudary and similar individuals fail to comprehend is that the Sharia law has absolutely no power or legitimacy in the world's 21st century civilized societies – e.g. in the United Kingdom. The Sharia law is not a part of the legal system or traditions that are exploited to judge people or acts judicially or morally. The Sharia law is just a feature of foreign, uncivilized societies where people are being routinely mass-brainwashed, enslaved, and killed for no good reasons.

(Update: in the evening, I realized that the very same basic demand – that our Western courts won't give special rights to the Muslims or quote the Quran in its verdicts – was also voiced by PEGIDA, Germany's "Patriotic Europeans Gegen the Islamization Des Abend-Occident". Thumbs up for them.)

You may pay lip service to the Sharia law, Mr Choudary, but in the context of the Western societies, this decision of yours only highlights that you are a cruel, underdeveloped animal and a fascist bully. There exists no legitimate way in France or the U.K. to punish the printing of several millions of peaceful pictures of Mohammed. This proves that your suggestion that there may be a "punishment" for the new cartoons means that you are foreseeing, suggesting, or ordering a criminal act – a horrific act not dissimilar to one that has already taken place in Paris.

And one shouldn't overlook that the image of Mohammed offered by the new issue of Charlie Hebdo is much more loving and civilized than the picture of Mohammed as squeezed into the heads of most Muslims in the world. In this sense, we are looking at two possible interpretations of Mohammed and Islam, and indeed, it's the Charlie Hebdo's interpretation that is the much less šitty one.

Mr Choudary, you are effectively telling people not to dare to draw Mohammed, otherwise they may be killed. You know, some people might think that your wish is unwise or unacceptable. What happens when these people disagree with you? Well, we may evaluate this disagreement according to the standard laws and constitutional and moral principles of the Western society. The conclusion is unequivocal: those who draw Mohammed are doing nothing wrong whatsoever – their actions are 100% halal – while you are blackmailing the rest of the mankind. You are really issuing death threats.

I don't think it's acceptable for the likes of Mr Choudary to freely walk on the streets of Western nations or even freely "teach" some gullible Muslim sheep – potential terrorists. You may say that the blackmailing by the likes of Mr Choudary is just a matter of free speech except that last week, we observed a stunning proof that this ain't the case. What Mr Choudary and others are doing is not so much about the free speech – speech is not important and when we subtract the impact of the accompanying terror, the value of the ideas he has to offer is zero or negative. What he is doing is primarily the planning and organization of acts – acts of terror.

So I encourage the United Kingdom to deport this scary terrorist mastermind and I urge all other civilized societies to do the same with similar people who are really trying to do the same thing – to establish a cruel medieval system of institutionalized murders of people for no justifiable reasons. The answer to the question whether it is OK to draw Mohammed is absolutely unambiguous. It is 100% legal, 100% kosher, and 100% halal. It is equally indisputable that the "Sharia law" can't be used as a positive argument in the civilized world – at most, it shows that the proponents of this "law" are uncivilized and dangerous individuals.

Mr Choudary's proclamations must be treated on par with any other death threats. It is unacceptable for some death threats to hide behind the idea that "it's normal in a part of the mankind" to issue similar death threats, and indeed, to murder people according to similar algorithms. The fact that "it's normal" only means that at least 1.6 billion people in the world are incompatible with a civilized character of the 21st century human society. But it doesn't mean that the civilized world should distort its understanding of justice in the direction of the pathological teachings that these people have been contaminated by.

People tightly connected with other cultures who existentially suffer due to the fact that it is absolutely OK to draw Mohammed in France or other Western nations simply shouldn't live here. Their presence here is counterproductive for both sides and it is dangerous.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (79) :

reader RobotUnicornAttack said...

"There exists no legitimate way in France or the U.K. to punish the printing of several millions of peaceful pictures of Mohammed."

Our politically correct Plods have tried though very hard to find a way though:

reader Shannon said...

A few imams in France say that "since these caricatures are not printed in a muslim newspaper, and that the journalists themselves are not muslims, they can do whatever they want. Muslims should not feel concerned by it. Muslims should not try to impose the laws and precepts of Islam on non muslims. It is a mistake of interpretation to make it an absolute prohibition".
(France 2, 8pm News, 13/01/15)

reader davideisenstadt said...

eh...theres socialism...

reader davideisenstadt said...

Yet germany did more in less time without the cunning of the jew. The "palestinian" population continues to grow...what would you have israel do?
Of course supply power to those shooting missiles at them, thats what they should do.
Contrast that strategy with what the french employed in algeria, for example.
Stunning hypocrite that you are, you deserve to live under sharia law, you really do.

reader br said...

Well, I'm very glad to hear that, truly.
However, one verse that springs to mind (and, yes, I have read the Quran from start to finish, though not a Muslim) is :
"9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse."
which, possibly out of context, could be interpreted that one is doing Allah's will to apply Islam to nonbelievers, however much they don't like it. I seriously hope no fundamentalist interprets it in this incorrect way.

reader Gordon said...

She already does---she is Catholic :)

reader Shannon said...

br, I read: "He may cause it to prevail"... may cause... may not... Allah's will, just like our Christian God's, is unfathomable.

Muslims need to understand, like they have in the past, that it is Allah who decides, not them the muslims.

"O you who believe! Allah will certainly try you in respect of some game which your hands and your lances can reach, that Allah MIGHT KNOW who fears Him in secret; but whoever exceeds the limit after this, he shall have a painful punishment." S. 5:94 Shakir

reader Alex said...

Hand or hand grenade?

reader davideisenstadt said...

Eh...the greeks had a whole thing about gay sex and young boys.. research alexander the great a bit; you will find he had a young booy for his pleasure.

Then there are the romans...

Here is a money quote from a famous roman poet

"Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo"

Roughly translated into english as I will fuck your face"
so, this gayness predates islam by at least a millennium of so...Its certainly not islam's fault.

The jews outlawed homosexuality in leviticus, and although some in the world would deny that the jew lived in the middle east, they did, thousands of years before islam.

The current tide in islam isn't good...the wahabists get a ton of funding from the house of saud, and they fund many of the mosques in the united states.

reader andy said...

Cartoons CANNOT be censored in the US unless they call for criminal acts.

reader Alex said...

Can I get a copy of the video of you discussing this rationally with an idiot who has a gun and wants to kill?

reader Swine flu said...

It is a hard fact to swallow, but human civilization is still at the stage of development when war is legal. It is subject to certain constraints based on Geneva accords, but zero collateral damage is not part of those accords. So, your idea that a mistake by a drone operator must be treated the same way as a terrorist act is likely more a wish than a fact in legal terms.

You talk about the need to hold the radicals who commit violence accountable. That's self-evident, but doesn't address the root of the problem. One interchangeably hears the terms "radical Islam" and "Islamism". I like the latter much better, because the former more readily conjures the images of violence, while the latter doesn't focus one's attention solely on the violent aspects of that strain of Islam, but on its spread by non-violent means as well.

For example, Turkey is no ISIS, but it has an Islamist party in power, and is being gradually, but steadily turned away from the more secular orientation it had in the 20th century. You can end up living under the system of customs and laws that are more and more based on Sharia without much violence, and this is a growing concern in parts of Europe too. This type of non-violent spread of Islamism is also something to worry about. That's why I think why focusing only on the violence-based approach to the spread of Islamism is short-sighted. It is an ideology that must be engaged on all fronts.

reader NumCracker said...

Europe, a continent where xenophoby never dies =(

reader br said...

It's pretty clear what the desire is, seeing as the expression was used in the positive. Why would he send his messenger otherwise? And if 'not prevailing' was ok, then why would it matter that idolaters may be against it? One might as well leave them alone. Similarly for your capitalisation of 'might know' - it is an expression of intent. Of course one wishes to succeed in what one intends to do, and if one helps Allah along then you will be on the winning side.
Anyway, I'm glad you can think of alternative interpretations - subtlety is a good thing, in which fundamentalism is often lacking.

reader John Archer said...

"... Choudary is just a tip of an iceberg."

In a nutshell. Ace post, Luboš.

As for "acts of war", the fact that that vile stone-age creed continues merely to exist is an act of war since it is in a permanent state of self-declared war with anyone not living under its dominance.

And since the pisslamic draft consists of ALL muslimes they should therefore ALL be considered enemy combatants. Martial rules apply — the decision on what to do about them is a military one.

At the very least they need to be hunted down and rounded up.

reader John Archer said...

Do you have any comment on those responsible for foisting pisslamic xenos on European populations against their will?

reader John Archer said...

"Let me be clear. I do not see ..."

Clearly you don't. The rest of your post is fog, proving the truth of your assertion.

reader davideisenstadt said...

So the fact that islam as currently practiced endorses the genial mutilation of girls and the subjugation of women, that it denies women an equal voice in islamic courts, that it denies to others the freedom to practice their religion doesn't bother you?
that islamic people kill others for wearing nail polish, or being gay doesn't strike you as perverse?
that khomeini spent tens of pages in his own books dealing with problems that arise from fucking one's goats and sheep... can you eat them after you fuck them?
who can you sell them to...
that the saudis fund research into the medicinal application of drinking unpasteurized camel urine, a practice responsible for MERS...that doesn't strike you as perverse?

reader NumCracker said...

reader BMWA1 said...

Here is an interesting item on this story originating from Turkey, it seems to be not very widely reported but on a MSM US outlet (I have not seen an EU report on this as yet):

Looks like a (presumably Kemalist-orienetd) publisher in Turkey tried to reprint the Charlie edition and got the boot.

reader Shannon said...

Hey! One of them has stolen our pencil ! :-)

reader John Archer said...

OT with inflammatory intent. :)

Dear Shannon,

Here in the UK one gets acquainted with the output of the Archbish of Cant and other dignitaries of the Church of England and, to a very slightly lesser extent, with the output of similar cant-mongers in the other denominations. While we're at, I include the occasional rabbi we hear from in this rabble too.

Long acquaintance with the painful casuistry and general all-round bolloxian dialectic of this bunch has enabled me to distill a template for one their speeches.

Barring order of presentation the following pretty much covers the lot:

"In a very real sense, not is . [audience now fully asleep] ."

You see they have advanced way beyond their mediaeval ancestors counting the number of angels dancing on pinheads (or other similar venues presumably) and embraced flat-out contradiction, the power of which enables them to draw any conclusion they find convenient to the moment.

It's always like this with that lot.

Still, it's infinitely preferable to listening to those incoherent lobotomised spewshit immamorons who can't even form sentences when someone shoves a microphone in front of them.

Anyway, please feel free to continue using my template when speaking ex cathedra on matters ecclesiastical. :)

reader Gene Day said...

I agree completely, Shannon. The act of forgiveness is a miracle and it is the only route to a higher level of reality. Not very many people understand this but I know several muslims who do.
Nonetheless, we are at war with al Queda, ISIS and their backers. My country has suffered more at their hands than has your country but our hearts are with you in your grief. We will work diligently with all peace-loving people to rid the world of this cancer, which is centered on the Arabian Peninsula. In the end, truth will triumph over evil.

reader Swine flu said...

"I do not see the ancient writings to be reflective of the true beliefs and behaviors of most Muslims."

The Islamic world is clearly still grappling with the issues of modernity. In the case of Turkey, there is even a regression afoot.

And what do you call stonings for adultery in Iran? How modern is that?

reader scooby said...

"In a very real sense, not <X> is <X%gt;. <waffle waffle bollocks waffle bore bore more bollocks waffle bore ...> [audience now fully asleep] <if any, put conclusion here or simply trail off muttering while you go>."

reader John Archer said...

Thank you very much. :)

I'm still taking case to the ECHR though. Mainly because it'll slow the fcukers down on the rest of the shit they're spewing out.

reader Shannon said...

Dear John, evil side of Shannon follows: you are right that most imams are hardly articulate, even in France yo! Occasionally though we have some who manage to hide their evil intent in a clever way: trying their best to embellish their fucked up religion. Since muslims do only and solely understand the "schlague" due to a very strong tradition of physical abuses, we might have to give them a taste of their own medicine ultimately.
I think we should warn them first as I am certain a good warning, a clear one, would be enough to induce a change of behavior. We have shown in the past how evil we can be too, haven't we ?
Sincerely : I do hope and pray we will never have to go down that way.

reader Edit_XYZ said...

The HUGE problem the west has is that the muslims will outnumber the indigenous white population in, at most, 30 years - the work of leftist politicians and policitally correct, multiculturalism propaganda/indoctrination.
And most of these muslims (~80+ percent) DO want to implement shari'a - which is uttely incompatible with western values; 15% of muslims world-wide support ISIS and its methods for implementing shari'a.
They'll vote it in or they'll intimidate or politically correct it in.

The west will be destroyed - not only culturally, but genetically. It will become just another muslim hell-hole.
This is the fate we leave for our children.

reader Vangel said...

In the US self censorship is the norm. Remember Bill Maher pointing out that the suicide bombers were not cowards. As was pointed out, that same comment today would have gotten him fired.

And note that when someone does not censor a message and someone reading it gets offended the American university system usually takes action. As the NYT points out:

"Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians."

Note that I have no problem with private discrimination for the same reasons that Big Gay Al brought up.

Sorry my friend but until the American and European education systems throw out the speech codes you cannot spin the hypocrisy away.

reader Honza said...

Lubos, I think many people (likely including you) misunderstand one very important fact. They think that muslims are moving to Europe from their countries, because they think that life is better in Europe, and therefor they can be asked not to ruin it for everybody by not pushing "silly" things like sharia or censorship of cartoons, or move back to the country of origin. But in fact Muslims are quite happy with way of life in their countries. They are moving to Europe in order to take over, and as long as the current inhabitants do not like sharia, they should move away. I am affraid that the only way to change it is to say "No, thank you, we are not interested!" in the same way Charles Martel did in 732. His request was undesrstood and honored for several hundred years.

reader Vangel said...

LOL...I hope that this was a bad attempt at irony or sarcasm because logical it isn't. Most people do not pack up and leave their countries where you say they are comfortable to go abroad in search of lands to conquer decades into the future. They move because they are in search of a better life. And most Muslims find a better life in Europe and just want to be left alone to live in peace. That last part seems to be lost on may of the religious warriors.

reader Edit_XYZ said...

Empty propaganda coming from a 5th columnist wanna-be.

For the readers of this blog:
As all studies done on the muslim immigrants' values and ideology, the behaviour of their vast majority - including vis-a-vis this latest Charlie Hebdo incident - indicate, muslims want everyone else to submit to them.

Here, some studies showing the percentage of the ones that not only support shari'a, but support ISIS:

reader Honza said...

Well, little bit of sarcasm aside, you say pretty much what I had:"And most Muslims find a better life in Europe and just want to be left alone to live in peace." They want to move in and be left alone. meaning to keep living the same way they used to, without anybody to tell them to change (perhaps give them some money). And if you feel like not leaving them alone, you should either move away or they kill you.

reader Gene Day said...

Not all muslims are inarticulate. Here is one worth listening to:

reader Gene Day said...

People move only for economic reasons and they do it despite the risks. They don’t know what their lives will be like in their adopted land but they are optimistic enough and/or miserable enough to take their chances.
My own personal family has been through this experience multiple times and my country, the US, is almost completely filled with families having this shared history. We are a melting pot without the deep cultural identity of European countries. In a sense, we are an artificial country based primarily on ideas rather than shared history.
We are now engaged in integrating a huge influx of foreigners, our latinos, into the fabric of our lives. In California alone we have three times as many latinos as there are muslims in France and all is going well.
The difficulty of integrating muslims into French society has deep roots and I don’t pretend to have all the answers but intermarriage is the thermometer that measures progress in integration. Soon, we will be unable to identify our latinos as something apart.

reader momo said...

Ten thousand or more white europeans are born every single day. The future belongs to them. There's hope.

reader Swine flu said...

Any more realistic and sensible suggestions on how to integrate the existing immigrants?

As just one example, the US sharply reduced its immigration rates between 1929 and the 1960's, and this hiatus allowed the country to better integrate the immigrants who were already here.

reader pEGO said...

Is there necessary to give fire, into fire ?

Lumo you as Harvard fellow know rule that if there is problem with something firstly that person point out that I do not like that/this. Second time also I point out that I don’t like it. As I know arabians did that. I am awfully sorry regarding this tragedy and my all my
condolences to people that died in this tragedy, sorry for this but it is only my artistic point of view and also I would like to point out that I am awfully sorry regarding tragedy but as world class artist view that poor art was unable to get other “comment” as that and I point out that I am not arabian, islam allied. At the end regarding terrorist I quote Slovak saying “They ate what they cooked”. Anyway everybody think that he/she is artist, but there is no way
to kill people for poor art even… That prehistoric thinking.

If arabians that don’t like it should find other way how to respond. We are Europe culture based on morals that follow ten God rules and killing people is not permissible even highest aim.

I post this song from singer Iron Maiden called Brave new world. Would we that world ?

Dying swans
Twisted wings
Beauty not needed here
Lost my love
Lost my life
In this garden of fear
I have seen
Many things
In a lifetime alone
Mother love
Is no more
Bring this savage back home

House of pain
Makes no sense of it all
Close this mind
Dull this brain
Messiah before his fall
What you see
Is not real
Those who know will not tell
All is lost
Sold your souls
To this brave new world

A brave new world
In a brave new world
A brave new world
In a brave new world

In a brave new world
A brave new world
In a brave new world
A brave new world

Dragon kings
Dying queens
Where is salvation now?
Lost my life
Lost my dreams
Rip the bones from my flesh
Silent screams
Laughing here
Dying to tell you the truth
You are planned
You are damned
In this brave new world

A brave new world
In a brave new world
A brave new world
In a brave new world

In a brave new world
A brave new world
In a brave new world
A brave new world

Dying swans
Twisted wings
Bring this savage back home

--singer, Iron Maiden song Brave new world

reader Gene Day said...

If they are diligent (and they may not be) they can learn a great deal about a country but they cannot envision their day-to-day interactions with the natives and that is all that really matters.

reader Swine flu said...

They will not be able to foresee the nuances, but they will have a general idea in advance. As one example, if there is substantial discrimination when trying to find a job, they will know it.

Besides, at least in Great Britain, some of the radicals are not even first-generation immigrants, and their parents weren't like that. With that group, the whole issue of prior knowledge is altogether moot.

reader MikeNov said...

No, that is not what the Koran says. It commands to kill those who slander Mohammed as well as infidels.

reader Peter F. said...

People do of course also move, or flee, for fear of getting murdered. But this does not mean they also make suitable citizens where they move/flee to.

reader Swine flu said...

In the end, just about everybody sucks:

reader Gene Day said...

I would not be proud of your cynicism, Alex. I will turn eighty next year and have come to learn over the decades that Ann Frank was right; people really are good at heart. Rage is never a basis for beneficial actions and it should not be maintained. On an individual basis, it will eventually kill you.

BTW, intolerance is not a form of violence. It is abhorrent but it is not violence.

reader zeGogglesDoNossing said...

If you peak behind the Holy man's mask, you find a kid who drank himself out of med school:

similarly, if you look into the Wahab's injunction against representations of the prophet, you find a convenient pretext for the Sauds to wage war against the Hashemites.

if you look into the framing of this issue as a clash of cultures, you find

reader John Archer said...

"Any more realistic and sensible suggestions on how to integrate the existing immigrants?"

E: Thank you, but I don't want any brussels sprouts in custard.

G: But it's there on the table in front of you.

E: Yes, I know. I can see it.

G: When are you going to eat it?

E: I'm not. I don't want any brussels sprouts in custard.

G: But it's on the table in front of you.

E: Yes, I told you already that I can see it. In fact I saw you put it there.

G: So when are you going eat it?

E: [Long pause] You're from the government, aren't you?

B: Yes. When are you going to eat your brussels sprouts in custard?

E: OK. Let me explain something to you. I'm sitting here minding my own business with not a care in the world and you come along out of nowhere, place a bowl of brussels sprouts in custard in front of me and want me to eat it. Maybe some people would be happy about that but no one I know and certainly not me. I'm not happy at all. I didn't ask for it and I don't want it. I hate brussels sprouts at the best of times anyway. But in custard too! Nothing could appeal to me less. But most importantly YOU didn't ask me if I wanted it. Now take it away.

G: You're not being very helpful. You have to eat your brussels sprouts in custard. You have to eat it because we're the government and we say you do. So now let's be realistic and sensible about this. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might proceed with the eating?

E: You mean like putting some cream on it?

G: YES YES! Now you're getting it. Would you like some cream?

E: No.

G: Why not?

E: I don't like cream.

G: But you...

Unfortunately G never got to finish his sentence because E leapt out of his chair and ripped his throat out with a dinner fork and then proceeded to beat his brains into a bloody pulp on the pavement for the next 10 minutes with a leg of the chair that he'd previously broken across his head and back.

It was enough to set off what became known as the 'Brussels sprouts & custard' riots all over the country. The government fell and was replaced by a man called Oliver Cromevenbetter. Brussels sprouts and custard supplies everywhere were burnt, dumped in landfill or thrown into the sea, along with their stockists and importers, but especially the importers.

The history of the whole affair hasn't been written yet mainly because it hasn't happened yet, but all indications are that it will be a good one because people are now very much happier in a land free of brussels sprouts and custard and Oliver Cromevenbetter is setting up institutions of governance which will in future actually represent the will of the people, something complete unheard of before. For the time being he's calling the scheme 'mobocracy' but the name to be given at the actual Christening is still the subject of intense realistic and sensible debate.

I'm sure they'll all live happily ever after. And that's my realistic and sensible forecast. :)

Integrated unwanted aliens = brussels sprouts in custard = anathema.

reader Gene Day said...

Perhaps I am not an atheist after all, Shannon. I do hold a few things sacred, especially truth and justice.

I am slowly coming to appreciate your wisdom, Shannon. Perhaps it is Christian wisdom but there is nothing wrong with that. My background is Christian but I quit the church long, long ago. Maybe, in a sense, I am coming home. I do hope to hear more from you.

reader Smoking Frog said...

I wonder if anyone here has read Robert Ferrigno's "assassin" trilogy: Prayers for the Assassin; Sins of the Assassin; Heart of the Assassin. It's very entertaining. (I haven't yet read the 3rd novel.) It's about an Islamic takeover of the United States. The story takes place in the 2040s, decades after a simultaneous nuking of Mecca and New York City. The FBI blames it on Israel, extracting a confession from an Israeli man. Within not many years following this, millions of people convert to Islam. There is a civil war, ending with the establishment of the Islamic States of America in the north, the - I forget, but it's non-Islamic - in the South, plus a few non-Islamic states in the West. Every year In the Islamic States the confession is shown on TV. Now in the 2040s, a great discovery is made. As I said, it's very entertaining. Definitely it should be a movie, but I doubt anyone has the guts to touch it.

reader Luboš Motl said...

OK, Honzo, I don't really believe that most of the Muslims who move to Europe are doing so in order to spread their religion or culture.

Note that the terrorist brothers were (the first generation) born in France - they weren't those who were deciding whether they should move to France.

reader FlanObrien said...

This gentleman's blog lays into Muslims and retarded Arab culture unmercifully.
He is a Quranist - accepting only the Quran and rejecting all other baggage that Muslims bow down to. Author of Club of Doom, The Collapse of Islamic Countries. Certainly his blog demonstrates that 99% of Muslim stupidity is not in the Quran. Example - the 5 Pillars (Mecca, praying 5 times a day, etc), abusing women, ain't there. See the book Biblical Mullahs on
He creates a laughing stock of the 20 odd Muslim sects and 30 odd Shariah's, but traitorous Western politicians and "religion of peace" fools bow down to this crap. It seems Syed, the above mentioned author, is the only Muslim writing in English to call out Muslims based on cool logic, humor, data and the Quran itself. He deserves to be read by all who frequent TRF.

Can leftists be stopped from harvesting votes through mass immigration of the poor and uneducated? The EU is in favour of this importation. Why? Apart from the massive pensions debt they created, does Europe really need to keep up this flow of the uneducated? Surely robotics and the next Machine Revolution (AI) will erase the pensions debt. Japan, in a worse demographic state, accepts this principle. Why not the EU?

The flow begins to look like a deliberate act of economic war, potentially leading to civil war.

reader Marha said...

Anyone who agrees with various hate speech laws and similar BS has no moral right to complain about islamists wanting to ban insults of the prophet.

reader Dilaton said...


Wilde uncivilized barbarian hordes should be allowed to play their sick disgusting games, such as Scharia for example, at most in their original countries.

In supposed to be civilize regions, such as the EU for example, death threads based on such sick games should be taken very serious and treated appropriately by some international legal system.
It such international EU wide laws, that allow to protect EU citizens against such criminal EU wide death threads do not yet exist, to implement them should be a high-priority task for the EU governemental instances.

Indeed, to solve such highly important and urgent issues as EU wide death threads, should be what we have international EU instances for. They should be there to protect European citicens against such things for example, istead of installing a huge bureaucratic overhed of unneeded rules and laws that unneccessarily negatively interfer with the everyday life of innocent people !

reader Luboš Motl said...

Hi, as far as I am concerned, I surely have the moral right, and to prove it, I immediately banned you, too.

reader Cesar Laia said...

The drawing is not that inocent, turn it 180º and it's a "f*ck you" message. ;) And that's really cool, btw.

reader br said...

"morals that follow ten God rules"

umm, have you actually read the Old Testament? Leviticus (the book of Laws) Chapter 19 and onwards would be a good start (Chapter 19 contains a version of the ten commandments, but carry on reading the very next chapters, 20 to the end, for some eye openers, written by the same hand). And as we know from the Gospel of Matthew

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
It seems to me that anyone who takes the Torah/Bible/Quran literally and follows it to the letter will generate an awful lot of bloodshed, unacceptable to our modern values. Our modern values are (thankfully) very much a pick-and-mix of the 'good' bits from the Bible. The bad bits are pretty horrendous, and it seems most people skip over those, but one should be aware they exist. Even modern fundamentalist Christians don't actually follow what is written in the Bible, but unfortunately modern fundamentalist Muslims take their 'laws' much more literally.

reader Shannon said...

Islam applies to muslims, it does not apply to non muslims. OK?

reader br said...

According to some Muslims, but what do the fundamentalists think? If you want to understand and solve a problem, you have to go to where the problem is.

reader Shannon said...

First I don't think the verb "think" is appropriate beside the word fundamentalists ;-). The source of the problem is equally in our camp (for being to loose about immigration) and in their camp with their fucked up religion (of a biblical size problem).
We are at the beginning of a new Occident but I have no clue how it is going to turn out. I would like to see muslims arrogant attitude in Europe, which is not a land of Islam, decreased by an order of magnitude.

reader davideisenstadt said...

well, these are the glory days for the house of saudi...see link below:

yeah, thats one alternative...some people, a lot of people think its a good alternative

reader Vangel said...

"It is a hard fact to swallow, but human civilization is still at the stage of development when war is legal. "

I am sorry my friend but we saw the allies hang Nazis who never violated German law and simply obeyed order. The justification is the violation of natural law, which the prosecutors called a 'crime against humanity'.

Now I do not know about you but I consider killing innocent people who are not armed and no threat to be a criminal act. I imagine that if you really thought about it you would also consider it a criminal act. After all, having American and Canadian pilots acting as al Qaeda's airforce in an undeclared war in Libya looks to me to be a criminal act even if they were obeying orders from their NATO commanders.

I think that one of the best films ever made about the current turmoil, even though it took a number of liberties and suffered from dumbing down due to edit restrictions, is Ridley Scott's, The Kingdom of Heaven. My son rewound the movie to a scene where Edward Norton, who plays the role of the the leper-king Baldwin, tells Bloom, who plays Balian of Ibelin, that while a man can be moved by a king his conscience is his own, just after Balian tells Baldwin that he will not be a part of the killing of his sister's husband so that he can be king beside her. He recognized that as exactly the same message that he saw when Antigone tells Creon that there is a higher law than the king's and as the same message delivered at the Nuremberg Nazi trials.

I think that is where we stand today. We see great injustice being done by people falling the orders of Barrack Obama, Steven Harper, François Hollande, or David Cameron and confuse those orders with the wishes of the people that they supposedly represent. But we saw what happened when Obama gave in to King, Graham, and the other neoconservatives and decided to ask Congress to support attacking the Syrian government. The people told their representatives NO and there was no support for such an approval.

Our problems stem from caricature that has us think of individual actions as representative of all in a particular culture. When we react against innocents in that culture all we do is provide fuel and energy that help extremists' recruitment and fund raising activities.

I also find it very distasteful that the same idiots who speak out for freedom of speech on the cartoon issue ignore the speech codes in public companies and on university campuses. As I pointed out, the Charlie predecessor was shut down by the French government for insulting de Gaulle. Most in the French public supported that action because they thought of the former President of France as a sacred figure that should be immune from ridicule. In the United States the federal government threw Jews writing in Yiddish for opposing entry into World War I and Eugene Debbs, the Socialist labour activist, for telling people not to volunteer to die in the trenches. While I do not think very highly of Debbs' economic ideas he was clearly right when he pointed out that, "In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People."

reader Vangel said...

"So, your idea that a mistake by a drone operator must be treated the same way as a terrorist act is likely more a wish than a fact in legal terms."

There is no mistake. The drone operator knows that there are kids in the wedding party but he is told that there may be a high value target that has to be taken out. He takes the shot knowing that he will kill plenty of innocent people. How is that any different than an extremist who sets off a bomb in a market to take out a few soldiers who are occupying his country or some Palestinian extremists setting off a bomb to kill a soldier at an outpost and kills Israeli civilians?

Note that I am more than willing to go through the logic but do not seem to have any takers among the war party advocates.

You talk about the need to hold the radicals who commit violence accountable. That's self-evident, but doesn't address the root of the problem. One interchangeably hears the terms "radical Islam" an d "Islamism". I like the latter much better, because the former more readily conjures the images of violence, while the latter doesn't focus one's attention solely on the violent aspects of that strain of Islam, but on its spread by non-violent means as well.

I am sorry but I don't really understand what you are saying. In a free society that is unable to violate individual rights because there is no Parliamentary Supremacy no peaceful actions by anyone is a threat to one's liberty. The solution is more freedom, not more concentration of power in the hands of the few. If you and some other counterparty both choose to settle your dispute in a private court why would I object to it even if I had the right to? Didn't David Friedman write that Gypsy and Jewish law was used to keep order among people living inside of Europe for centuries and that the results were satisfactory? Why is a monopoly on power a preferred system of governance than a voluntary society that permits experimentation and voluntary compliance? Since most second generation European Muslims drink alcohol, smoke pot, watch porn, or engage in premarital sex, why would you think that they would choose to go back to the system that the extremists favour?

The source of anger is perceived injustice that comes from oppression. Remove that and we will have a much freer, more prosperous, and a more peaceful society.

reader Vangel said...

"For example, Turkey is no ISIS, but it has an Islamist party in power, and is being gradually, but steadily turned away from the more secular orientation it had in the 20th century. You can end up living under the system of customs and laws that are more and more based on Sharia without much violence, and this is a growing concern in parts of Europe too. This type of non-violent spread of Islamism is also something to worry about. That's why I think why focusing only on the violence-based approach to the spread of Isl amism is short-sighted. It is an ideology that must be engaged on all fronts."

Giving up the little freedom that you have left is hardly the solution to the 'problem' that you cite. If an accuser and accused decide to settle a dispute in any system acceptable to both why should we meddle? Why is it that we should tell individuals what they can and can't do with their bodies even when they do not violate the rights of anyone else.

reader Vangel said...

So the fact that islam as currently practiced endorses the genial mutilation of girls and the subjugation of women, that it denies women an equal voice in islamic courts, that it denies to others the freedom to practice their religion doesn't bother you?

I do not believe that anyone other than you owns your own body so no, I think that mutilation is not acceptable. I also think that parents do not own their children but the right to look after those children so they cannot make decisions to harm children.

And ISLAM DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GENITAL MUTILATION because most Muslims do not engage in it. Any Muslims who engage in the practice where it is illegal should be prosecuted for the mutilation of children just as anyone else would be. For the record, I consider involuntary circumcision to be a form of child abuse as well so I would be looking into that practice also if it were my business to do so. But note that I can't do that because it is perfectly legal in the country where I live.

But there is a bigger question here. In human society there are always many evils that will be with us for as long as there are human beings. Some of those evils tend to be accepted in some societies. After all, the English still discriminate against the Irish and the French still try to regulate the use of language. Why is it my business to go to those countries and try to change them by using military action? And note that my use of the word 'country' is not appropriate because some of these are artificial constructs that have had artificial borders drawn by some colonial power, usually England or France, that house a number of different tribes with very different customs and religious beliefs. Some of these tribes have been at war with each other for centuries and will be at war long after we are in the ground.

Why should I allow some political hack to try to act in my name to rid the word of the supposed injustice that is acceptable to people in the country in which the injustice takes place? Should my son die so that some rich Saudi woman can drive in her own country as she does in Egypt when she is looking for the boy-toys at the Cairo Marriott Hotel & Omar Khayyam Casino?

reader Vangel said...

It is not modern at all. But why is it that I am supposed to send my military to deal with that injustice when there are so many others around the world? Is very injustice to be fixed by sending troops in power and changing one set of tyrants for another? Why should I be forced to pay for it when all those who want action are perfectly capable of funding any activity that they choose to engage in?

Didn't you guys ever read Washington's Farewell Address in school? If you did, what part of it did you not understand? Note that Ismicists are less a problem for me and my freedom than an aggressive government that spies on my activities and regulates every aspect of my life.

reader br said...

Unfortunately, rationality doesn't seem to work too well. This recent story is quite disturbing:
“I calmly explained to him that what he was saying was not the reality of Islam. I thought I could calm him down, but it had the opposite effect. He went crazy."
As far as I know, the shop/shopkeeper hasn't been attacked yet, but it's not a pleasant story.

reader Swine flu said...

I would say that it shouldn't forcibly apply to anybody, Muslims included, especially in a Western country.

reader Swine flu said...

The Islamists are free to ban insults of the prophet in their own countries, but not in the West. Basically, hate speech laws have been written by "our idiots" and will be dealt with by "us" within "our" political system. The idea of banning the insults against the prophet issue comes from "their idiots" and has no place in "our" countries.

reader Gene Day said...

Yes, a small percentage of immigrants move to avoid danger. I really included this group when I wrote that being "miserable enough” was a motivating factor but I ought to have said that people move mainly (not only) for economic reasons.
Actually I have personally known families of Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians who did exactly that. And, of course, much larger numbers of Jews who fled for their lives from Europe. All of these people are now making positive contributions to life in the US. My daughter married into one of the Iranian families and my twin brother into a Jewish family from western Ukraine.

reader Gene Day said...

If the playing field is not level it is not a “nuance” and it cannot be level if the newcomers are not welcomed. If they are treated as honored guests, a characteristic of virtually all of their native cultures, integration will go well. The day-to-day interactions are actually the whole story.
Radicalism in youth is a different problem but one that screams for attention.

reader pEGO said...

On my grammar school I established team for check me on to discover what human secrets are.
First year we learnt propositional math logic same as Lumo on his alma mater in Prague. Second year I dealt with subconscious – how colors affect mood, shapes, body language and so on. Next years I went deeper into spirit. And there is rules called also ten God rules

1. I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.

// simple explain
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total
obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through
me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” Quote Frank Herbert novel, Dune

2. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
// simple explain
You had something to hide
Should have hidden it, shouldn't you
Now you're not satisfied
With what you're being put through
It's just time to pay the price
For not listening to advice
And deciding in your youth
On the policy of truth
Things could be so different now
It used to be so civilised
You will always wonder how
It could have been if you'd only lied
It's too late to change events
It's time to face the consequence
For delivering the proof
In the policy of truth
Never again
Is what you swore
The time before
Never again
Is what you swore
The time before
Now you're standing there tongue tied
You'd better learn your lesson well
Hide what you have to hide
And tell what you have to tell
You'll see your problems multiplied
If you continually decide
To faithfully pursue
The policy of truth
Never again
Is what you swore
The time before

--DePeCHe MoDe, song Policy of truth

3.Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.

// if you have success to
celebrate you should celebrate

4.Honor your father and your mother.
// your mother and your father are you blood and was solving same problems as you, so listen their advice carefully

5.You shall not kill.

// if you kill somebody never is alive and you do not know where was your problem. Each person has something to tell ...

6.You shall not commit adultery.
// childhood is discovering world, if you commit you break down someone world and could not help to improve our World

7.You shall not steal.
// if you steal something, certainly is that missing somebody and he/she will try to find

8. You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor

// there is still more witnesses that know truth

9.You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

// there is relationship between neighbor and his wife, you are going to be fifth wheel on carriage

10.You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

// there is relationship between neighbor and his goods connected to society, if you covet will be missing neighbor and society.

This is not only ten commandments but also equilibrium states of spirit. If you break it you are not in equilibrium !!

I am working on prove of bible, unfortunatelly only first two chapters have numerical data..

My very early version

Other parts of bible are describing seven deadly sins à vanity,
gluttony, lust, wrath, envy, avarice, sloth , that if are under control drives
us forward otherwise kill us. I am writing book that is my early version
in Slovak language so use translator if you wish translate it. There is described seven deadly sins church view, my view from discussion and
observations and also artistic view from daily life. I am working on
English version of this book.

Other parts of bible are too robusts and only for computer
analysis, I am planning use it as algorithms for my cold fusion project
based on vacuum polarisation during this phenomenon photons
break down to electron-positron pairs they split and produce energy.

reader br said...

Well there you go - picking out what you want and ignoring what you don't want.

You missed Leviticus 27:34:
'These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.'
which surely refers to the whole of Leviticus, which contains a couple of hundred commandments (ok, I didn't count, but there are lots, and they are definitely commandments). So what of the other commandments? In Leviticus, what we have separated out as the top 10 have no special status. In other words, they have the same status as all the stoning to death ones. So why not live by those also? They were given by the LORD to Moses at the same time.

reader pEGO said...

Holy Bible is manual how to “awake” from seven deadly sins vanity, gluttony, lust,
wrath, envy, avarice, sloth , that roots each of us has from born. This seven deadly sins to some level if there are under control drives us forward, if not kill us. There is connection between seven deadly sins and ten commandments …

There is one joke in Slovak language so I will try to translate to English.

Firstly I would like to point out that I wouldn’t dishonesty anyone I respect religion,
but for explanation I think it is all right.

Joke: Moses came from Sinai and told “ God gave me 100 commandments, I negotiated to 10 “

And so it is, as society progress that “sift” to this ten commandments.

reader br said...

'And so it is, as society progress that “sift” to this ten commandments.'
Sifting is good, and it seems reasonable to discard 90% (or more) of the LORD's commandments, as you do, but then it seems irrational to say that your beliefs are 'based on' the Bible. Of course, it wasn't Moses who negotiated them down to 10, all the other ones are still there, it is later sifting that has done it. More importantly, what would you say to someone who wanted to take them all seriously? To me, this is the problem with Muslim fundamentalists, who are at least consistent. This is one case where consistency can be a bad thing.

reader pEGO said...

commandments – others almost no significance at present 21st century.

reader br said...

But the 'opponent' (who isn't me by the way :) ) would argue - 'But the LORD gave ALL these commandments, so I will follow all of them'. And so it goes on... Anyway, nice talking with you, I'll leave it at that.

reader pEGO said...

Question is
not what God gave, but why?
God gave commandmenst for achieve inner piece as I mentioned “awake” from seven deadly sins vanity,
gluttony, lust, wrath, envy, avarice, sloth. Society is also work of God and as
time fly we have progress in science that is also God work, that “ sift “ other
commandments to almost no significance.

reader Shannon said...

The difference, Gene, is that your family and friends in the US feel "American" and are proud of it for whatever reason. Our muslims immigrants do not feel French, they hate France and Europe too, They hate our laws, our police, our mentality etc etc etc... not all of them of course but the problem is that they are all on the side of the terrorists in this Charlie assault. This is a fact, Gene. They all say killing is no good but, but there is always a "but".
So what do we do now ?

reader Philip Weisler said...

Well some time ago I formed my own hyopthetical ''roadmap of faction'' with a number of points that a new, moderately conservative and anti-Isalamization government could use once in power.The first thing actually is to simply start persecuting hate preacher scum under the laws that DO exist already but are not being applied due to the lack of political will.

You take Germany for example. Due to certain (partially historical) reasons, the framework for free speech is not as ''free'' as in the US. The laws against Volksverhetzung /''Incitement of people'') are quite tough and theoretically cover far-left and islamist agitation as well. However, there simply is no (political) will to enforce the laws in case of self-hating occidentophobic far-left scum or Islamofascists. This has to change. I'm pretty sure that we could get rid of the worst garbage like Choudary under existing laws, too.

(As a note - I'm non-partisan in Ukrainian matters - , Yanukovich also had all the law on his side to imprison and prosecute the leaders of the violent demonstrations but t

here was no political will/courage).

reader Rehbock said...

one thing exceptional in our cultures is that we tolerate those that tolerate our rights and respect our laws.
If someone despises that the laws of Islam are my toilet paper, they are welcome to use Dirac or Genesis for theirs. If they threaten me or harm people for saying these things or wiping my posterior with theIt prophets then they are Murderous criminals. I don't think it matters where they were born or what delusions they claim as long as they die wherever and whenever they are. They were free to speak until they became a threat.