World Community Takes On ‘Islamophobia’

Want to see just how far our lords and masters are willing to go in appeasing Islam?  Take a gander at a recent report entitled Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through EducationA joint product of the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and something called the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (otherwise known as OSCE/ODIHR), this document was put together in consultation with “education experts, teachers, civil society representatives and governmental officials” around the world.  I will call it, for short, the Jagland Report, after Thorbjørn Jagland, the ambitious Norwegian politician who, as head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, was chiefly responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, and who, in his current capacity as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, is one of the report’s three signatories.  Given that he is a classic example of the slick, phony European technocrat par excellence – like Dominique Villepin in France and Zapatero in Spain – it is perfectly appropriate to affix his name to this slick, phony masterwork of bureaucrat-speak.

I have written previously about the Obin Report, a detailed study of French schools produced in 2004 by the French education ministry.  That report boldly identified Muslim students and their parents as causing crucial problems in France’s schools, problems that affected every aspect of education: Muslim students refused to read literary works that their religion considers salacious or blasphemous; they would not brook accounts of history that differed from what they had been told at the mosque; they demanded Muslim menus in cafeterias; and so on.  Among the report’s conclusions was that Muslim students tormented their Jewish classmates to such an extent that it was impossible for the latter to get an education in France.  The Obin Report, in short, made it plain that discrimination against Muslim students was not a major problem in French schools – but that discrimination by Muslim students is nothing short of a crisis.

The French report was a brave statement of the facts, set forth in clear, straightforward language.  (The report was so brave, in fact, that the government shelved it at first, only to release it officially after it had been leaked onto the Internet.)  The Jagland Report is both its stylistic and moral opposite.  Take, for example, the very first sentence of the foreword:

Promoting mutual understanding and respect for diversity, along with countering all forms of intolerance and discrimination, must today, more than ever, be absolute priorities for the international community, in order to maintain peace and stability at both the global and regional levels.

The entire report is written in this kind of prose.  Indeed the whole thing reads as if it were designed to be the quintessential example of everything George Orwell complained about in his landmark essay “Politics and the English Language.”  As Orwell pointed out, prose like this, consisting of long series of abstractions strung together in familiar ways, is generally perpetrated by people (or committees) who are setting forth a “party line”: “Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.”  The problem with such prose, as Orwell stressed, is not just its lifelessness, however, but the insidious purpose that usually underlies this lifelessness – namely, a determination to avoid facing up to ugly realities.  (“The great enemy of clear language,” Orwell noted, “is insincerity.”)

Later in the foreword to the Jagland Report comes this sentence: “The attitudes and tensions that lead to inter-communal conflict are often deeply rooted in stereotypes and misconceptions, and one of the most pressing contemporary challenges is to promote knowledge about, and understanding of, different cultures. Educators play a fundamental role in meeting this challenge.”  Note the unspoken assumptions here: first, that tensions between Muslims and others in the West are, in large part, the result of “stereotypes and misconceptions” about Muslims; second, that if non-Muslims come to know about and understand Islam, the “conflict” will disappear.  This claim, which is repeated again and again in the Jagland Report, is, needless to say, contrary to the experience of many non-Muslims, who have discovered that the more they learn about Islam, the more deeply they are concerned about it.

Not surprisingly, the Jagland Report avoids mentioning the origins of the term “Islamophobia,” which was cooked up by the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of shutting down legitimate criticism of Islam.  In addition to using this term, the report also approves of the expression “anti-Muslim racism,” which, it says, “places the issue of intolerance against Muslims in the broader framework of racism and implies the racialization of a religious category. The term stresses the multi-dimensional aspect of intolerance against Muslims, which can be based on factors beyond religion.”  The purpose of this sheer gobbledygook, of course, is to legitimize the idea that criticism of Islam – a religion – can be considered racism.  Later on, in a reference to the danger of “driving racist views underground,” the report explicitly affirms that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism.  (At the same time, curiously, the report stresses the importance of communicating to students that Islam isn’t a skin color – that, in other words, Muslims come in all hues.)

One of the Jagland Report’s major emphases is on the need to recognize “the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others.”  What it avoids mentioning is that Islam itself, as stated unambiguously in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, rejects the very concept of “universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.”  The Cairo document, issued in 1990 in response to the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, repeatedly makes it clear that if any supposed right or freedom is contrary to sharia, that right or freedom is illegitimate, period.  The Jagland Report dwells at some length on the question of rights, providing a list of “basic human rights principles relevant to preventing intolerance and discrimination against Muslims,” including “the equal dignity and rights of all human beings,” “non-discrimination, including on the basis of religion,” “equality of all before the law,” and “freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.”  It is interesting to note that every single one of these principles is utterly contrary to Islamic “principles.”  Indeed, there is no hint in the Jagland Report that much of what it describes as “Islamophobia” is, in fact, a matter of non-Muslims reacting to manifestations of Islam’s utter rejection of the concept of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Obin Report devoted considerable attention to the refusal of Muslim parents to allow their children to participate in various activities, such as school trips and swimming classes: they considered some of these activities to be a violation of girls’ “modesty” and rejected others simply because they didn’t want their kids getting too friendly with infidels.  The Jagland Report brings up this matter too, but approaches it from an entirely different angle: for example, if Muslim parents refuse to let their daughters take co-ed swimming classes with boys, the report makes it clear that the school, not the parents, should be regarded as intolerant because it has failed to “tailor” its swimming program to those parents’ demands.

The Jagland Report offers plenty of recommendations.  It counsels that “school policies and practices should be set up, in partnership with communities and parents, to prevent and counter discrimination against Muslim students.”  It recommends “textbook revision” to eliminate material that might give offense.  It instructs schools to “monitor” students’ expressions of “prejudice.”  It calls for the formation of “focus groups” in which students are encouraged to talk about the “climate of tolerance” in their school, these discussions being “moderate[d]” by “an experienced person, for example, someone from a nongovernmental organization dealing with discrimination and intolerance.”  The report, after serving up a pro forma acknowledgment of freedom of speech, goes on to maintain that certain forms of speech are simply not “appropriate or acceptable in a school classroom.”  So can it be ruled “inappropriate” simply to state the facts about Islam?  (By the end of the report, one gathers that the answer is yes.)

The report further calls for “portrayals of Islam and Muslims” to be “accurate, fair and respectful.”  But how can portrayals of certain aspects of Islam, such as the death penalty for apostates, be both accurate and “respectful”?  The report stresses the importance of discussing “issues where misunderstanding is especially acute, such as the role of women in Islamic societies.”  “Misunderstanding”?  Are we to understand that the message being sent to educators here is that the unpleasant facts about women’s second-class status under Islam are not to be acknowledged in the classroom, and that students who express concern about sexual equality in the Islam world are to be disabused of their “stereotypes and misconceptions” and, if they persists in their error, are to be regarded as intractable Islamophobes?  (In any case: do you notice that when you add up all these recommendations, the picture that results is reminiscent of nothing so much as a Maoist re-education camp?)

Although the Jagland Report pretends to be all for inclusion and integration, it gives its full support to Muslim demands for differential treatment.  It insists, for example, that schools bend to demands for such forms of “religious accommodation” as “prayer rooms, holiday issues and school or sports uniforms that accommodate the need for modesty.”  (Note, by the way, the report’s use of the word modesty: by using the word in this sense, it implicitly accepts the Islamic view that females who don’t wear hijab are immodestly dressed.)  The report also approves of schools granting “exemptions” to Muslims in regard to such things as “religious holidays, non-obligatory religious teaching, participation in class camps and excursions, and clothing restrictions.”

Finally, the report urges teachers to “provide information” to students “on Muslim artists, writers, politicians and scientists that disproves the negative stereotypes held about Muslims.”  Writers?  Salman Rushdie, anyone?  Are teachers allowed to mention the many artists and writers in today’s Muslim world who have been imprisoned, tortured, even executed for crossing the line?  Surely not.  No, let’s not look at the hard facts – let’s not try to figure out why the numbers of scientists, Nobel Prize winners, patents, translated books, decent universities, and so on in the Muslim world, relative to the rest of the planet, are all stunningly low.  Let’s not have an open, honest classroom discussion of the ways in which Islam stifles scientific inquiry and free literary and artistic expression alike.  Let’s just play pretend.

Reading through this mind-bogglingly Orwellian document, one finds oneself wondering continually: How can these people bring themselves to put their names to this disgraceful document?  Do they fully understand where they’re taking us with this sort of thing?  Do they not grasp that what they’ve produced here is a set of directives that has nothing whatsoever to do with combating intolerance but everything to do with adapting schools in the non-Muslim world to sharia norms?  Indeed, virtually all of the examples of supposed intolerance that the report offers up are not examples of intolerance but, rather, of a failure on the part of non-Muslims to shift quickly enough into submissive mode when Muslims come a-complaining.  The basic message of this “report” is that when it comes to Islam, the last thing non-Muslim educators should do is to educate – instead, they should replace the grim facts about Islam with pretty lies, and condemn truth-telling as Islamophobia while training students to be craven dhimmis.

In short, a mischievous, mendacious piece of work – yet another thing for the reprehensible Thorbjørn Jagland to be ashamed of, were he capable of shame.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Chezwick

    Bruce kicks a$$ once again. The fact that he's the eyes and ears for the anti-Jihad in Europe has only one negative connotation: He isn't here in the States similarly calling out the dhimmis for their abject appeasement.

  • MikeWood

    The aim of the report is obviously not to combat intolerance but to cajole non-muslims into adapting to Islamic intolerance. As you say, Bruce, a mendacious piece of work.


    SCREW socialist norway.

  • GuyMacher

    There is no living with Muslims. Eventually we will fight them. or convert, buy a prayer mat and marry our first cousins.

  • Edgar Davidson

    And I noticed that the organization OSCE/ODIHR has an annual budget of 150 million Euros to produce this kind of rubbish. All funded by the EU taxpayer of course.

  • A Finn

    Thanks,Bruce, for the intelligent review of the report.

  • Schlomotion

    As Mr. Bawer is one of the better writers at Frontpage, I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I buy into the part about the "international community" issuing shadowy and bland white papers on how to socially engineer more acceptance and multiculturalism. No doubts about the industrial, sanitized dogma, and the fact that they overlook that it's not merely stereotypes but fanaticism that perpetuates this inability to get along.

    Here is where I disagree:

    1) I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood invented the term Islamophobia. It was a natural reaction across the board and easily extrapolated from Homophobia.

    2) I don't think it's true that "non-Muslims, who have discovered that the more they learn about Islam, the more deeply they are concerned about it." I read the Koran in English, then in Arabic with the help of an Arabic dictionary. I studied the Huruf i Muqata'at and the various phases of Islamic philosophy. I am not concerned about Islam. It's not as alien as it is made out to be.

    3) I don't agree that anti-Islamophobes "implied the racialization of a religious category." The prestigious honor of racializing a religious category goes to the Jews. And since anti-Islam is largely a Jewish pastime, they have communicated this mental virus of a meme into Islam. It's like when they go on a crusade against FGM and find themselves defending the rights of mohels to do ora.l stanching.

    I do agree with the assertion that Muslims cause problems by being obnoxiously zealous about what they will and won't do in a public or school setting. We can compare this to Christian fundamentalists and Haredis. They are all annoying and practice anti-assimilation as a means of public protest and attention getting.

    I agree with Mr. Bawer's revulsion at all the prior restraint and kowtowing that the UN/Fabianists are trying to legislate. I disagree that Islamophobia should be banned. I think it should be merely ridiculed.

    • Chezwick

      "I am not concerned about Islam. It's not as alien as it is made out to be."

      Stoning adulteresses….amputating the limbs of thieves….executing apostates and blasphemers….hmmmm. No, not alien at all….(cough, cough).

      • Schlomotion
        • Drakken

          More ignorant moral eqivilancy BS, you are either for the west or you are with the muslims, which is it?

        • Chezwick

          When was the last Christian or Jew who was stoned for adultery or executed for apostasy?

          • Roger

            They were the ones that had the Christian suicide vest I think?


      • rulieg

        don't forget jailing teachers for naming teddy bears "Mohamed"…going batsh*t crazy when someone burns a Koran…and murdering people when someone prints a cartoon that is "offensive" to the "prophet."

        not strange if you live in Gaza. otherwise…pretty alien.

        • Schlomotion

          Let's not forget that you said:

          "I think it's vitally important that Romney not select another clean-cut white male for VP."


          "as a Jew who converted to Christianity at age 40, I am often frustrated by the liberal Jewish reaction to evangelicals."

          • Roger

            So, you couldn't address the points and used a straw man argument to divert attention from the point made.

            How typically troll of you.

    • Touchstone

      "since anti-Islam is largely a Jewish pastime"

      You're so easily lulled by what seems like media ubiquity. You make sweeping observations about the world but in fact are just reporting on what's happening inside your bubble. I remind you that there are only a few million Jews in the world, most of whom are just trying to get through life like everyone else, and thus have nothing to do with any hostile pursuit of Islam. So what you delusionally believe is "largely a Jewish pastime" (not Zionist, mind you, but *Jewish* — how easily you abandon this longstanding pretense) is probably the work of a few hundred people, maybe a few thousand. This small group becomes WORLD JEWRY in your feverish mind. (Or was that the "American mind"? Hey, weren't you the self-styled paragon of the "American mind"?)

      A few hundred million Hindus might make you rethink your claim. Not to mention all those Coptic Christians, American Evangelicals, South Sudanese, Nigerian Christians, an increasingly threatened or intimidated European population, and many Christians in general, dating back to the Crusades. Granted some of the above groups aren't influencing your local media like your bugbear *the Jews*, but the point is that an ENORMOUS number of people around the world, from disparate backgrounds, share a common concern with respect to Islamic fundamentalism, often because they've felt its sting. To varying extents, all these groups make it a "pastime" (i.e. a serious-minded preoccupation) to look critically at Islam and protect themselves from its extremist, hostile elements.

      "I disagree that Islamophobia should be banned. I think it should be merely ridiculed."

      You're ridiculing something that doesn't exist in the minds of most of the people who stand accused of it. What you actually seek is something much more far-reaching than "ridicule". You seek to SILENCE people who share a concern about a certain religion that is more like a threatening political ideology in the hands of far too many of its adherents.

      Nobody is preventing you from hysterically blaming *the Jews* for wrecking your country. You're free to share your paranoid delusions as frothingly as you'd like. But you seek to prevent *the Jews* from taking a critical look at *Islam*. Branding such reasonable activity "Islamophobia" is one of the means by which you and your like-minded muzzle-appliers intend to silence *the Jews* and other undesirables. Your concept of "Americanness" is too narrow and restrictive to allow for the protection of free speech for *the Jews* whose "pastimes" you deplore.

      • Schlomotion

        As I said before, Islamophobia is really run by no more than 50 people, and the core element is around 20, the arch-haters numbering closer to 5. Most of them are Jewish. That's not my fault. I didn't give birth to them.

        What's funny is that most people haven't heard of the people who churn this crap out. If you ask people if they have heard of David Horowitz, of Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller, they haven't. Then they may have heard of Daniel Pipes, or maybe Frank Gaffney, but they don't know why.

        • Touchstone

          Nobody "runs" Islamophobia. You compound one feverish, paranoid accusation with another. You're a crackpot conspiracy theorist promulgating half-baked ideas. You're on a witch-hunt without realizing that you won't change anything even if you burned all those witches at the stake (or threw them onto "sharpened stakes", as you want to do with Moore).

          If all the people you mentioned suddenly fell silent, there would still be vast swaths of humanity convinced that Islam is one unhappy religion and other brave souls committed to reporting on the ongoing horror show.

          It all comes down to freedom of speech, a right you're not willing to extend to the undesirables on your hit list. Geller, Gaffney, Spencer, Horowitz, Darwish, John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Dinesh D'Souza, Melanie Phillips, Brigitte Gabriel, whoever — the lowly serfs who disagree with Your Eminence do in fact retain the right to speak their minds. How that galls you!

          • Schlomotion

            Oh yeah they do. Islamophobia (Inc). is a Hasbara swindle paid for by a small handful of people including Aubrey Chernick, Eliana Benador, Sheldon Adelson, Charles Schusterman, Edgar Bronfman, and Raphael Shore just to name a few. They run Islamophobia according to the Abe Foxman method of identifying he who pays the piper calls the tune. As you say "it all comes down to freedom of speech" or rather, how much freedom you have to buy a certain kind of speech if you are a wealthy and corrupt Israelist.

          • Chezwick

            My God….you probably believe in the 'Protocols' too. Sick puppy.

          • Schlomotion

            Nope. No need. Reality is better than fiction.

          • rulieg

            ok, why are we even talking to this clown Schlemiel in Motion? we don't need to read any further than "Hasbara swindle" to know he's just a garden-variety Jew-hater. he's just here to see who he can wee-wee up.

            therefore…troll away, troll. my suggestion is we ignore him. anyway, schlub, don't you have to get back to your job at the State Department?

          • Schlomotion

            Aww Ruth, but Hasbara is a swindle. I'm not allowed to say that? How else would you describe a heavily funded propaganda outfit for a foreign country cuckolding Americans? What if it were a foreign country with a religion different from your favorite?

            By the way, you're funny:

          • Roger

            You're allowed to say just about anything here. But it doesn't appear to be selling well.

            They smell the BS before they thumb you down.

          • Drakken

            No such thing as islamophobia Sparky, islam is it's own worst enemy, kind of like you, a self loathing, self hating leftist/progressive who hates his own kind. So put your money where your jew hating mouth is and go join your jihadist brothers, we'll be waiting for you ;)

          • Schlomotion

            You'll be waiting for me? I thought I was waiting for you. You promised me some spades.

          • Touchstone

            "a Hasbara swindle paid for by a small handful of people"

            So everyone I mentioned, and any critic of Islam I could POSSIBLY mention, is on Adelson's payroll? Seriously? Could you try any harder to sound like a paranoid kook?

            I think you basically just have a problem with anyone who criticizes Islam (you instantly suspect them of being on someone's payroll, sans evidence), and with any Jew who would rather defy his genocidal enemies than go like a lamb to the slaughter (after which you would remind us all, while wiping away your crocodile tears, how "bad" the massacre made you feel and how "sorry" you are that it happened).

            It galls you that a minority of Jews have decided, in light of prior massacres, to vigorously fight to survive. The names of defiant Jews are ephemeral and interchangeable. They're just soldiers who can be replaced. It's the survival instinct of the tribe you're really trying to crush, and for the piss-poor reason that it *irritates* you. You want an entire people to lay down their guard because doing otherwise really messes up your day. Such are your priorities.

          • Schlomotion

            No, actually, it's a fact that Aubrey Chernick pays for this site and a few grants roll in too. I said who and by whom. I could easily make it more detailed, even though you want to make it vague, broad and generalized. Maybe next time you rattle off a list, they should not all be from the same media company.

            Also, nobody but you said that I have a problem with Jews at large surviving. I said that I have a problem with Jews with a bunker mentality subjecting Americans to constant scathing and bitter condemnation, subjecting our candidates to Likud's litmus tests, and hysterically crying Holocaust every time someone catches them bulldozing another guy's farm.

            Hey, but don't take it from me. Take it from that "crazy Jew-hater" Richard Silverstein at Tikkun Olam:

          • Touchstone

            "nobody but you said that I have a problem with Jews at large surviving"

            You seem surprised that writing two thousand scathing posts criticizing Jews who fight back might give some folks the wrong idea about you.

            "Maybe next time you rattle off a list" — Did you read the complete list? Is every person I mentioned on the same magnate's payroll?

            Is Geert Wilders living with round-the-clock security because he enjoys the ever-so-cushy lifestyle that comes with being on an "Islamophobe's" payroll?

            I didn't see Ron Paul subjected to any "Likud litmus test". Did he fail to catch on because all those evil Jewish masterminds wrecked his candidacy, or because people made up their own minds that he wasn't the best choice?

            It doesn't matter if a candidate flies to Israel or not. You're insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans if you believe their candidates must be packaged and gift-wrapped. Talk radio can't make or break a candidate; neither can Fox News, AIPAC, FPM, Adelson or anyone else you're obsessed with.

          • Schlomotion

            I am not surprised in the least. This place is a haven of wrong ideas.


            1) Geller, Spencer, Horowitz, Darwish = Aubrey Chernick
            2) Geert Wilders = anonymous international financiers, David Horowitz = Aubrey Chernick, Scaife, Bradley, and Olin
            3) Dinesh D'Souza = Scaife, Olin, ALEC, Gerald Molen
            4) Brigitte Gabriel = Frank Gaffney, Noah Weinberg, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Carol Taber
            5) Frank Gaffney = Raphael Shore, Robert J. Loewenberg
            6) Melanie Phillips = Raphael Shore
            7) John Bolton = JINSA, BCCI

            Geert Wilders is living with around the clock security because he is the David Duke of the Netherlands and does paid world tours to promote religious persecution. Who cares if he enjoys his lifestyle?

            You are wrong on Ron Paul too. Ron Paul is the quintessential target of the Likud litmus test. Don't on my leg and tell me it's raining.

          • Touchstone

            "This place is a haven of wrong ideas."

            Like the "wrong idea" Jews get when Nasrallah expresses his hope that every Jew in the world gathers in Israel so we can all be killed? Or the "wrong idea" Jews get when a persistent crank says "Zionists are no better than Mengele"? Gee, I wonder where all those wrong ideas come from! You look at the effect and ignore the cause. Relentlessly criticize Jews who dare to defend themselves, and Jews just might suspect you of wishing them ill. (It's a curious thing that Jews who insist on drawing breath are always far less popular than the ones who were murdered by Nazis.)

            Rather than places like this being a haven of wrong ideas, they're usually a haven for anti-Jewish cranks who GIVE Jews the wrong idea by being so endlessly hostile. So yes, you shouldn't be surprised in the least that you're a wellspring of wrong ideas. Just look at the awful things you've written. You traffic in glib, anti-Jewish obscenities.

            Funny thing about the payrolls. You're implying that someone put words in their mouths and paid them to speak. It's more likely that they've always held a certain set of beliefs, made a reputation by expressing them, and became champions of a cause that happens to be supported by a few wealthy people. The fact of being financially rewarded for their efforts doesn't mean they don't believe passionately in what they say and do, or that they wouldn't otherwise be doing it. In fact, whatever remuneration they might receive is likely the RESULT of being passionate exponents of a cause you happen to oppose with all your might. More power to the backers who help give voice to what otherwise would be silenced to the detriment of the voiceless.

            So your point about them receiving compensation for their efforts is what? That they're beholden to the folks who pay them? That they must toe the line? Are you saying these brainy people are mere puppets? Did it ever occur to you that they might all be on the same team with a common purpose, rather than pairings of lackeys and their evil masterminds? You seem to think you've drawn back the curtain here, but much like Geraldo, your discovery is crushingly anticlimactic and inconclusive.

            Your paranoid brain insists on seeing industries everywhere. You speak of a "Holocaust industry". You harp on payrolls to make a point about the Islamophobia industry. But what I see are intelligent, insightful, knowledgeable, persuasive individuals to whom I'm grateful for providing an alternative view that fascist elements masquerading as tolerant liberals aim to mute.

            And how is Geert Wilders the David Duke of the Netherlands? I'd like to see you write that equation on the blackboard, professor. Wilders is just about the most falsely accused, unjustly maligned person I've ever seen (since Dreyfus, anyway). Duke was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Wilders is fed up with intolerant Muslims who behead filmmakers in the street. Catch the difference?

            Care to elaborate on Ron Paul, by the way? My point is that, if he was going to succeed he would have, regardless of whatever forces were arrayed against him. Nobody stopped him from appearing on televised debates. Nobody prevented him from advertising his message. Nobody prevented him from raising money. He failed because he didn't connect and he was let down by his staff. Target or not, the point is that all those bad, bad Jewish bogeymen didn't and couldn't sink his ship. Only he had the power to do that. Deal with it. Deal with reality. Perhaps you need hypnosis to cure you of your paranoia. Whatever works.

          • Schlomotion

            Well, we can agree that in defense of Israel, an apologist can always claim that something happened right before his action that justified his action, all the way back to Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the snake. But nakedness is nakedness, and the naked fact is that Israel is over the line, and B'Tselem has been kind enough to bean count that the fight between Israel and Palestine is mostly the IDF killing Palestinians. The naked fact is that Israelis do things like run Americans over with bulldozers, back over them to make sure, and then deny, and then find themselves not guilty, and then warn people that this is what befalls all who stand against Israel. The naked fact is that Netanyahu wants to launch a preemptive strike against Iran with the US' approval and military backing. And, the naked fact is that two posts ago you were trying to say that PJ Media is not bankrolled by Aubrey Chernick, when he in fact, started PJ Media and gives it infusions of money. Naked.

            So, why not compare me to a Nazi. That's always fun. Except that it doesn't work anymore. Try 30 years ago.

            I like the fact that you changed tracks and went from trying to say I was merely imagining that these propagandists have centralized financial backers, to saying that, oh yes, they do have them, but it is a wonderful meritocracy, where these people have earned, by having so eloquently stated their marvelous opinions, the financial backing of similarly concerned magnates who also just happen to be Jewish Zionists involved in the settlements racket. That's good. It reminds me of how people used to be cuckolded and abused for saying "Zionist," upbraided and ridiculed for referring to the existence of an Israel Lobby, called kooks for talking about AIPAC, and conspiracy theorists for saying that Paul Wolfowitz was passing US secrets to Israel.

            Now we can say that these hapless victims of my paranoia are "all on the same team with a common purpose." That sounds much nicer, doesn't it. Like it's a soccer team or an orchestra or the season of new Hawaii Five-0. Except, no, only some of the writers are good. Many of them are just pseudo-academic racists who can barely string a sentence together, and a few budding tabloid columnists. This is why Frontpage is always trying to pad its staff. Unfortunately, it pads its staff with Iran-Contra burnouts and out of work warmongers who can only call for a coup and start a war to get the cash rolling again. But let's call them foreign policy experts, and distinguished Shillman Fellows. It sounds so much more convincing as it does when they painstakingly cross-quote one another like people who are trying to get their team hired in a company by pulling one another in.

            I speak of a Holocaust Industry. Norman Finkelstein does it better. I speak of an Israel Lobby. John Mearsheimer does it better. Probably, what nobody does better though is find the real database of this web of slime and throw it so relentlessly in your face while Hasbara assembles its best and brightest troglodytes to use the most hackneyed and outdated rebuttals since before and after Mitchell G. Bard.

            Geert Wilders, synonym, Pim Fortuyn. Synonym, Jorg Haider. Ethnic nationalist, bigot, hired speaker from the bordello of passive aggressive race politics. He looks and sounds just like the new and improved moderate David Duke. No. I don't catch the difference between these two whitewashed bigots who target semites.

            I don't need to elaborate on Ron Paul. We all just saw the election where the caucus in Iowa was discarded, where Maine's districts were excluded, where journalists refused to list him among the top candidates and refused to report when he won straw polls. We saw where Jewish Republican groups said that all costs he must be blocked because he is anti-Israel. We saw the fake publications branding him a racist. We saw Roger Villere's goon squad dislocate the hip and break the fingers of delegates who voted him out of his chairmanship. We saw the RNC dispose of Robert's Rules of Order and then block the delegates and rewrite the delegates process. What's to elaborate?

          • Roger

            Israel has this silly determined plan to survive.

            That offends you.

            So what.

          • Drakken

            Nationalism is on the rise because the govts of Europe are failing their people and the govts are scared to death, hence commis like you are scared of what is going to happen.

          • Touchstone

            It's true, at first I was incredulous that the columnists and speakers I've grown to admire shared some of the same backers. Not because I find that arrangement evil, as you do, but because it seems too coincidental.

            Maybe I shouldn't assume your information is correct, but let's say it is. Now I'm at a point where I'm still wondering what's so evil about it. Much of what you call "slime" sounds like information that's too important to go unreported. I don't even feel compelled to give you a troglodyte rebuttal today. I'm simply appreciative that I can read what's published here and file it away in my mind along with the other media content I ingest elsewhere.

            Who knows, maybe one day you too will attract the attention of a wealthy billionaire who will enthusiastically support your tireless crusade to deprive competing writers of oxygen and help you expand the reach of your sharpened-stakes operations until all your opponents have been rubbed out by the ever-so-ethical methods you have in store for them.

            By the way, you didn't make the slightest shred of a case for why Geert Wilders deserves such opprobrium. Now I'm left wondering how many others you've slandered out of COMPLETE IGNORANCE. You're in the same category as *troglodytes* who badmouth a movie without having seen it, or a book without having read it, flinging mud based on nothing at all but hearsay. You've let others do the work for you on Wilders. Presumably you've done the same with respect to everything and everyone else you've trashed.

            "Israelis do things like run Americans over with bulldozers"

            You took what was a tragic accident, not a deliberate act of cruelty, and distorted it to the point where you besmirched ALL ISRAELIS, claiming that they "do things" like that. You don't seem able to comprehend how wrong a statement like that is. You've not only traduced one innocent man, but an entire nation. You're the quintessential bigot, the ultimate troglodyte. You demonize Jews (yes, Jews) as effortlessly — and as unmediated by higher thought processes — as you breathe. You're so blithely careless with your sweeping statements, you discredit yourself down to a value of zero.

            I read recently that the man who drove the bulldozer was traumatized for life. Doesn't sound like the deliberate act of a cruel man, not that facts would matter to you. You really, really, really need the narrative to be "evil Jew gleefully murders innocent American", so you'll cling to that story for dear life. You sure you've got the facts straight? Or do you not require facts to fuel your rants? From what I've read, the girl was tragically but recklessly the author of her own misfortune, and the driver wasn't at fault. In any event, at times like this I feel there's only one appropriate thing to say: "I feel bad about it and I wish it didn't happen."

          • Schlomotion

            I don't want to leave anything out.

            I agree that stupid and fanatical or murderous behavior of certain Muslims in the name of advancing their religion should definitely be a matter of public record and brought to justice. Really, it is already. Police investigate murder, courts try criminals, jails hold them. Beyond that, the yellow journalism that Islam and Muslims are some kind of unique malaise that must be stamped out as opposed to other religions, I just don't buy into.

            What I find malevolent about all the central financing of anti-Islam, counter-Jihad, Hasbara is multifold. One problem is that Pamela Geller is trying to instigate bus vandalism and bus bombings using Aubrey Chernick's money. Another is that Peder Jensen is trying to absolve himself of his role in getting Anders Breivik to go on a shooting spree, and then modulate his tone for the next Anders Breivik using Aubrey Chernick's money. I have a problem with Charles Jacobs denying people equal access to houses of worship using Charles Schusterman's and Aubrey Chernick's money and money that Anna Kolodner and Monty Gold swindled by slumlording in Brookline. I think it's bad that "Sam Bacile" who is from Kufar Dawg's neighborhood and Brigitte Gabriel's outpost in Riverside, made a psyop video with a $5 million donation from 100 Jewish individuals in order to instigate a riot in Egypt and then scream for retaliation. I have a problem with Hasbara organizations using slush funds to hire citizens to oppose the construction of places of worship. Also, I oppose the media mafia concept in general.

            Geert Wilders, I almost feel sorry for, because whereas Geller is trying to buy bus bombings, and Fjordman/Jensen is trying to whip up anti-multiculturalist shootings, Geert Wilders seems to be to be trying to buy suicide. I don't fault him for hating Islam. That's his prerogative. However, he doesn't stop there. He wants to deprive Muslims of their clothing, make the Koran illegal, and deport and expel Muslims from the Netherlands. If I wanted to do those things to Jews, you would have a few choice words for me. If you say that Jews are better than Muslims and therefore it's inapplicable, then that's bigotry. I dislike that bigots like Geert Wilders come here and do lecture tours to spread the ideas of war and deportation and Statism on the dime of Aubrey Chernick.

            Regarding Rachel Corrie: if the IDF soldier who killed Rachel Corrie comes forward with a genuinely remorseful eyewitness account that will definitely soften my opinion. So far, I read the four eyewitness accounts from her friends. Right now, I believe them and not the Israeli Government because the Israeli version is rote and lacks detail. Also, the IDF doing a drive-by on her memorial with the same bulldozer and threatening to run everybody over doesn't smack of remorse.

            Anyway, here is the account I read:

          • Roger

            The muslims in Libya that murdered the four Americans, I just want to make sure….

            Were they 'moderate' muslims?

          • Drakken

            Rachel Corrie got exactly what she deserved, a well earned Darwin Award. It is an abject lesson to you leftist who fight for the islamic savages. I more Darwin Award winners in the future.

          • Touchstone

            "the yellow journalism that Islam and Muslims are some kind of unique malaise that must be stamped out as opposed to other religions"

            It's hard to get through to someone who keeps insisting that all religions are the same and must therefore be treated the same. I doubt you're missing the IQ points necessary to comprehend that it is indeed conceivable for one religion to stand out from the rest, especially at certain periods of time and in various regions, but for some reason you just refuse to drop the braindead insistence that ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME.

            There's only one religion's prophet who is forbidden to be mocked, or even depicted, on pain of death. There's only one religion whose holy book is forbidden to be defiled, on pain of death. There's only one religion whose apostates receive death sentences. The slightest insult to Islamic sensibilities meets with violent riots and widespread destruction, as any news channel you tune to right now will reveal.

            Don't tell me there's no palpable difference between Islam and other religions, today, right now, in the 21st century. Not centuries ago, when other religions burned and stoned people too. But right now. Today. Cut this disingenuous crap already. Nobody's a bigot or an "Islamophobe" for pointing out what's blisteringly obvious to everyone's eyes, right now, at this very moment, on our TV screens. Why is Cairo burning right now, if not because of the CHASM of difference that exists between this particular religion and all others?

            "He wants to deprive Muslims of their clothing, make the Koran illegal, and deport and expel Muslims from the Netherlands"

            What the hell are you saying about clothing? Are you referring to the same (and sane) ban on burkas that exists in France? If so, there's nothing wrong with that ban. As for expelling Muslims, I've heard him say over and over that it's only the violently intolerant ones he'd punish. I second the motion to deport rampaging thugs who are a danger to society at large. As for outlawing the Koran: if a book has the power to incite mass violence and promote genocidal intolerance, and supplants the law of the land among the communities of its adherents, it's not extreme to at least discuss the banning of such a book. I'm against the banning of books on principle, but not the banning of something that poses a danger to society. In certain vulnerable societies, the Koran might qualify. Wilders knows his country better than you do. There's no urgent need to ban the Koran in the USA. In the Netherlands, perhaps it's one measure among many that's being proposed not by bigots but by patriots who sense their country is at a dangerous tipping point. How easy it is for you to judge from way across the pond.

            For someone who rails against Zionist troglodytes, you sure don't seem to have the slightest problem with Islamic ones. But hey, we're all well acquainted with your hypocrisy by now.

            "So far, I read the four eyewitness accounts from her friends"

            Ah, from her friends. Her friends! Why didn't you say so? Her friends couldn't possibly be biased in her favor. Nope, that NEVER happens.

          • Schlomotion

            All religions are the same. All peoples' behavior is not the same. Does every Coptic Christian forge checks and make anti-Islamic videos? No. Similarly, one can be a Muslim without acting like a terrorist. Similarly, not every Jew is Baruch Goldstein, and not every Christian is John Salvi. John Salvi. There's a Christian terrorist just 8 miles from my house! They don't believe in evolution or modernity, but you don't see me going around saying their religion is worse than all the others. All major religions require some form of submission. This is why I am not a member of any religion, but rather I have only seen fit to learn about them. I have studied Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, the list is really too long. Suffice it to say that submission of your λόγος to its λόγος is the one pale they all have, which is really not worth crossing.

            I agree that Muslims are perhaps the most famously militant and savage about their religion these days, at least in the sense that they will do physical violence, while say, Jews would prefer to do psychological and economic violence. Still, the Koran is an interesting read. I would never become a Muslim though, and I definitely wouldn't endorse (or reject) a religion by force or threat of violence.

            The truth is, I have been threatened indirectly by Christians and Jews a lot. The Christians put it off on angels and God while the Jews put it off on Muslims. No Muslim has ever threatened my life, though a couple of Black Muslims have. The Black Muslim threats are more interesting because they will say that God is going to kill me, but by God they mean themselves. I have never been threatened by an Orthodox Muslim of any denomination. I assume this is all because of chance heavily weighted by statistical probability, and not because they are more honorable than others.

            If you live in a country where there are violent clashes with Muslims, then of course, I sympathize a little bit and acknowledge that your situation is different. If there are stick beatings and shootings in the street of your country over this, then I sympathize. If your complaint is that you have clerics preaching bigotry and violence or expulsion of the infidel, then I do not really sympathize. We have those in the United States as well. Robert Spencer is one such cleric, essentially the Louis Farrakhan of the Melkite Greek Church and preaches under an alias in Manchester, New Hampshire, just like an Islamic Cleric might do in Manchester England. These bigots make the most use of the rights our countries are kind enough to share with them.

            If you are talking about Norway, they have as much if not more of a violence problem with counter-jihadists as they have from Jihadists. If you are talking about the Netherlands, then I have sympathy for the loss of your national cultural fabric, but cannot bring myself to endorse a guy who wants to tell his citizens how to dress, what to read, what to believe, how to worship, and also managed to alienate Pfizer so badly that they pulled their donations out of some foundations that he was affiliated with.

            Regarding Rachel Corrie, naturally her friends have the bias of having liked her. However, this does not change her clothing from bright orange to dirt brown. It doesn't change the position of the bulldozer blade from down to up. It doesn't change the serial numbers on the bulldozer or create the bulldozer out of thin air at the memorial the following day.

          • Roger

            Schlo, you really are incapable of thought.

            All religions are not the same. On this you're a propagandist.

            Each religion is different on many levels. They have distinct dreams, goals, approaches. They have ideals that are distinctly their own.

            Most want peace, and to make people aim higher, better.

            But some don't. One in particular doesn't care what means it takes to push itself on others. And they treat their women badly too.

            Not everyone that wants the prestige of a certain religion adheres to it. That's what you allude to, but don't blame the religion for the folks that don't care to follow it.

          • Schlomotion

            "Each religion is different on many levels. They have distinct dreams, goals, approaches. They have ideals that are distinctly their own. "

            That's what makes them all the same.

          • Roger

            Was that supposed to pretend to make sense?

            Hindu's believe in many gods. Buddists believe in reincarnation.

            Christians believe in neither. Yet you pretend they are the same?

            Schlo, you crack me up. That thin transparent pretense at sophistication is slipping….

          • Schlomotion

            I met the Dalai Lama before. He was the same as the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who I met on a different occasion. They were both the same as Bill Clinton, who I also met. Ultimately they were the same as Charles Jacobs, who I also met. And you know, they are the same as the guy who works at the gas station. Who are you to take a person out of the world when you can barely put one into it and keep it going? All religions are the same, and all people are the same.

          • Roger

            They are not the same, even if I make it simple so even you can understand it, I can still make the point.

            They wear different hats.

            The robes of the Dalai Lama are worn for a reason. The hat of Desmond Tutu worn in official religious ceremonies stands for something, and is worn for a reason.

            And you chose to overlook that to make a flawed point.

            Do you think the hat of the pontiff was accidental to match his eye brows or something?

          • Touchstone

            "All religions are the same" — Thoughtless and superficial. You're forcing sameness where profound differences exist. Those differences have real-world consequences; pretending they don't exist has even more real-world consequences. Just because similar elements exist doesn't render every religion "the same". Every galaxy contains stars; that doesn't mean every galaxy is identical. Every city has buildings and people and roads and crime and so on; that doesn't mean every city is exactly the same.

            "All major religions require some form of submission" — Huston Smith's translation of "Islam" is "the peace that comes with submission". That's why it's deceptive when Muslims tell you that Islam is "a religion of peace". It's primarily about submission, much more so than any other religion. It's much more political than any other religion. And there are many more aggressive Muslims with a triumphalist, totalitarian attitude — borne of their history of imperialism and also of the nature of the Koran itself, which is a license to get away with a variety of bad behavior — than any other type of religious adherent. Surely there must be something different about a religion that features so many hypersensitive, aggressive zealots. (And before you tell me that the Bible promotes bad behavior too, remember this: the Koran is considered to be the immutable word of Allah, whereas the Bible is considered to be "inspired" by God, but not God's actual words. This might be the most salient difference between Islam and other religions, and why attempts at Islamic reform meet with hostility and failure. As Erdogan reminds us, Islam cannot be changed. And why? Because Muslims insist that the Angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad. How can something of divine origin be subject to human reforms? The very idea is sacrilege, so the barbarity rages on.)

            "Jews would prefer to do psychological and economic violence" — A gratuitous insult deriving from your compulsion to equate two unequals. We're talking about the wild overreaction to a short, silly video by Muslims (which you were quick to blame on Jews at first, so eager were you to believe the initial misleading reports about its authorship). Jews won't rampage violently in the street and kill people at embassies. But Jews are entitled to respond in some fashion to slights or threats. Perhaps that might involve civilized methods with "psychological" or "economic" components, but you seem to seek total submission from Jews to any assault. No retorts allowed (that would be a "psychological" reaction, and we can't have that), and no boycotts either (that would be "economic"). Heaven forbid a Jew retaliates in ANY way. You and the other kneejerk equalizers would slander Jews as savages even worse than rampaging Muslims. (Ironic how you seem to imply that Jews should always submit, despite your criticism of submission in a religious context).

            Surely you wouldn't object to boycotts? Isn't that the weapon of choice for the anti-Israel crowd? Isn't that an "economic" line of attack? Isn't Israel Apartheid Week a "psychological" form of attack? Are you clumsily revealing yet again your love of double standards where Jews are concerned? I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

            "I have never been threatened by an Orthodox Muslim of any denomination." — Of course you haven't. You're an apologist for them and an attack dog fighting their enemies.

          • Schlomotion

            I have to laugh to read that you think Muslims have cornered the market on religious triumphalism, belief that their liturgy is the absolute given word of the deity, and religious imperialism. That's comedic gold.

            As for the idea that Islam cannot be changed, Erdogan is wrong, or your version of Erdogan is wrong. Islam changed when it split into Sunni and Shia. Islam changed with the Sufis. Islam was changed by the poetry of Rumi. Islam changed during the Kalam (speculative theology) of the Umayyad Dynasty with Mu'tazilah arguing for supremacy of reason and free will, and then again with the Ash'ariyyah moving it back to literalism. They were enlightened by the Khwarazmians and by the Persians and debated in Baghdad. Who are you kidding? Then, again Islam is changing in the face of modernity and technology. Not as much as you would like, but then, so what?

            I don't think Jews should submit. I never said that. You don't see me following a submissive religion. But similarly, I can't submit to Hasbara either. I am not going to don some submissive and agreeable attitude toward the expansion of Israel and the slaying of their enemies, or suffer being measured up to the Nazis every time an Israeli nationalist doesn't get his way. And frankly, I meet a lot more of you than I do Muslims.

            You have worked up quite a nice little mythology about how your favored religions rank more highly than others and that somehow because I do not toe the line on Israel I work for Islam.

          • Touchstone

            "That's comedic gold." — Only if you have no sense of humor, have no eyes to see what's happening in the Middle East and beyond, and remain pig-ignorant of the fundamental differences between the world's major religions. It's your (willful?) ignorance that's laughable. Go read a book already.

            "Islam is changing in the face of modernity and technology" — Any hard facts to back up this throwaway boilerplate? By the way, go and actually read what Erdogan said before "correcting" me (not that doing some research would prevent you from spinning the truth).

            "I don't think Jews should submit. I never said that." — Of course you didn't SAY it. You implied it. Hence the irony. You're too obtuse to catch the moments of irony you provide. Anything Jews say or do in their defense, you condemn. The implication — i.e. what's communicated but not explicitly "SAID" — is that Jews must submit to their fate. Submit to the onslaught. No fighting back by any means, including economic, psychological or militaristic. And this from a defiant rebel who rejects all forms of submission. One standard for you, another one for Jews.

            "the expansion of Israel" — The anti-Israel mob clings to this slanderous lie, this delusion, this false belief not supported by facts or amenable to reason. And they usually do so from the comfort of their conquered, stolen lands which generally range from being a few hundred times larger than Israel to many thousands of times more massive. (I do believe you just provided one of those ironic moments again.) Try to remember that expansionist countries don't give back huge territories (and potential buffer zones) like the Sinai.

            "because I do not toe the line on Israel I work for Islam" — Your phrasing is predictably self-serving. It's not because you don't toe any line that I accuse you of serving Islam's aggressors; that's just the false reasoning you present because it makes your cheap spite sound like righteous defiance. You're a propaganda mill for yourself. No, the reason you serve Islam is twofold: one, you're an apologist for the evils done by its most aggressive, primitive elements, endlessly brushing the vile things they do under the rug, and drawing false equivalencies with Jews and Jewish behavior; two, like I said earlier, you're an attack dog fighting its most hated enemy. You've gone light years beyond merely being one who doesn't toe the line. To expend so much energy issuing relentless, vicious, prejudiced, prolific condemnation and slander is, in effect, to toe the ISLAMIST line. You're not in neutral territory somewhere between the poles of the two warring parties. You're firmly ensconced in the enemy camp, launching missiles at the side whose line you merely claim not to toe.

            By the way, you DID jump to conclusions and blame Jews for the incendiary video. You took the bait. You're a dupe, eager to believe anything that condemns Jews and Israel. That's another thing that makes you complicit in the global propaganda war against Jews and Israel. At the very least, it's something that makes you gullible.

            "frankly, I meet a lot more of you" — I'll go right ahead and lump you in with the rest of the drooling bigots and liars and hypocrites and ignoramuses among the anti-Israel crowd, just as you lump me in with the "troglodytes" on whom you've declared your little holy war.

          • Schlomotion

            You really ought to read Ralph Peters. It's like you, only in a different opinion. He says things like:

            "Whether cast as divinely sanctioned liberation struggles or simply about one bloodline getting its own back from another, these conflicts over God's will are never amenable to reason. Self-righteous journalists love to claim that the first casualty of war is the truth, but that's a self-serving lie; the first casualty in any form of violence is reason, that weakest and most disappointing of learned human skills."

            Just there is an example of how someone could use the same favorite indictment words as you but say something totally sensible.

          • Roger

            Schlo, he is saying something sensible. And you, you don't even realize it.

            It says a lot about where you're coming from.

          • Touchstone

            You're like a child fixated by a shiny object. To you, that shiny object is a word or phrase used by more than one person. How smart it must make you feel to notice the same word or phrase used more than once. Nothing betrays the childlike simplicity of your mind more than your gleeful satisfaction at discovering patterns, or manufacturing them where they don't exist, and pretending they hold some deeper meaning worth talking about. Vapidly pointing out "indictment words" also gives you something to say as a substitution for a cogent defense, or ANY defense, against what you're being accused of. Can't think of a decent rebuttal? Hey, why not squirm out of it by pointing out allegedly canned phrases! That should do the trick! Nice try…

            Aside from that, you're simply too lazy and too cornered to offer anything but a throwaway little nothing of a post, dodging the majority of what I wrote.

            Any more Egyptian-authored videos you'd like to blame on Jews? Or are you finished a day's work of baiting Jews with false accusations?

          • Schlomotion

            I stand convicted. I do read through your comments and pick out the shiny things. You may in fact be this tedious person who is obsessed with defending Israel against its imagined enemies. But what if you are not? What if you are actually a decent writer moonlighting as a commenter here, and might slip up, revealing yourself as someone who has actually written insightful books? Maybe you are only playing at the parlor game of convicting people of perceived hypocrisies and intellectual crimes and misdemeanors.

            Obviously, I don't care what you accuse me of. There is no court, no jury, no jailer, no executioner. What is interesting is the shiny arguments you make, periodically.

            I'll answer your points.

            All religions are different in their liturgy and their rituals, but in terms of what they promise and what they demand, they are the same. They all link back (re-ligio) to some primal event which is supposed to renew us if only we submit. In essence, religion is a substitute for Love.

            Regarding Erdogan, the first quote I could find that was not by Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller said "Islam and democracy are not contradictory. A Muslim can run a state very successfully." Maybe you have a better link that shows Erdogan to be a raving lunatic.

            And no, I don't care if Jews want to boycott Muslims. Go ahead. The Jewish boycott of France didn't work out too well. I think boycotts are rather silly, myself, though I understand why people might not want to give business to other people.

            I have never endorsed an Islamist line. That's garbage. An Islamist line is that Allah is the only God and the whole world will submit to Islam or drink scalding water in hell. I don't believe that at all. If Islamists were as vocal and obnoxious here in the United States as Zionists, I'd tell them off too.

            Am I supposed to answer your claim that Israeli expansion is a "slanderous lie?" Because, when I look at a map over the years, I see Israel becoming an all Jewish owned knife shaped shard in the middle east and the non-Jewish section diminishing to nothing. I see a country that kills international peace groups with impunity and savages Americans when they make decisions that go against Likud.

          • Touchstone

            "You may in fact be this tedious person" — No more tedious than you. I cite your more than two thousand petty, spiteful posts as evidence. But I'm glad I'm making you suffer the sensation of tedium. An eye for an eye, after all.

            "defending Israel against its imagined enemies" — Are you a figment of imagination? Are the hordes of Muslims wrecking their own cities in paroxysms of hate mere apparitions? Are the exterminationists who lead various Muslim countries and communities not painfully real? Are their ululating, willing stormtroopers not real too? (And how long will it take you to catch me in the act of using the shiny word "ululating" once too often? Until you notice another "Zionist troglodyte" using the same word, that's how long. Then it will magically become an "indictment word".)

            "the parlor game of convicting people of perceived hypocrisies and intellectual crimes and misdemeanors" — Oh, I certainly do perceive a great deal of hypocrisy coming from you. I suppose you think your daily defecations of hypocrisy are just figments of imagination too. Anything you want to be denied and covered up, you dismiss as "imagined" or "perceived". To you, Israel has no real enemies, and the anti-Israel gang isn't guilty of monumental hypocrisy. Nothing to see here, folks.

            "Obviously, I don't care what you accuse me of. There is no court, no jury, no jailer, no executioner." — This is particularly revealing. Yes, you don't give a crap about the integrity of your commentary — only because there's no penalty or consequence of any kind. You're admitting your guilt on the charges of hypocrisy, double standards, lies, slanders, hyperbole, distortions, misrepresentations and the like, because no price will ever be exacted from you. If you aren't made to answer for your wrongdoings, you'll just keep on doing wrong. You're an anarchist at heart who starts caring about whether you're guilty of things like slander and hypocrisy only when your ass is on the line.

            The extreme example of this attitude is the SS, who had no compunction about all the Jews they killed until they were caught and had to claim they were just "following orders". Facing the hangman's noose, they suddenly discovered things like "integrity" and "honor". (I admit I enjoy the fact that outrageous comparisons to Nazis make your hair turn grey. But as hysterical as my analogy seems, it's actually true. You're like every unprincipled person who gets away with murder — so to speak — until he simply can't anymore, purely because of external forces, not because of his own self-restraint. It's not in YOU to put a stop to your iniquity, paling as it does by comparison with that of actual murderers. It's up to OTHERS to make you discover virtue. This truth is a huge stain on your character. And you will discover virtue only when you face the prospect of punishment, but there's no such prospect on the horizon, alas.)

            "in terms of what they promise and what they demand, they are the same" — Christianity and Islam promise heaven or hell. Not so Judaism. Some folks find distinctions like this somewhat important, but those are people with subtler minds than yours.

            "An Islamist line is that Allah is the only God and the whole world will submit to Islam or drink scalding water in hell." — That's the kernel, but there's so much more to it than that. Consider what lies in store for Jews, gays, women, apostates, and even petty thieves (limb amputation) anywhere the seed of sharia is planted. Consider honor killings (not exclusive to Islam, but certainly a common practice). Consider the efforts currently underway to outlaw criticism of Islam. That should outrage you as an American who apparently derives daily pleasure from the intersection of his right to free speech and his internet connection.

            "I see Israel becoming an all Jewish owned knife shaped shard in the middle east and the non-Jewish section diminishing to nothing" — Israel is more than 20% non-Jewish. Its minorities are not diminishing, but growing. It's the Jewish sections of various Arab countries that "diminished to nothing" in 1948-49. But ethnic cleansing directed against Jews doesn't get you too exercised.

            "I see a country that kills international peace groups with impunity" — Are you seriously expanding upon a few sporadic incidents like what happened to the bat-wielding Turks on the Marmara, as well as one girl's tragic accident with a bulldozer, and spinning that into the gargantuan lie that "Israel systematically kills peace groups"? Curious that terrorist atrocities against Jews — be they at the Munich Olympics or at a Bulgarian airport or at an Argentinian community center — probably don't impress you. Nope, nothing systematic about the activities of the hordes plotting to extinguish all Jewish life on Earth. (Such hordes are merely products of a fevered "imagination".) Let's focus on "Israel killing peace groups" and pretend we've spotted another shiny pattern.

          • Schlomotion

            Your questions about what is real should really be directed to Jorge Luis Borges. You layer imaginary facades of threat complete with gargoyles over real people, some of them in places where their jumping up and down and ululating only generates a big sand cloud. It is Magic Realism. It is of a higher order than the other commenters here who walk around in a fugue of biblical prophecy, ROTC militarism, and bar mitzvah projects gone wild, but it is still a celluloid of fear overlaid upon a sheet of real. Someone has watched too much Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and The Wind and the Lion. The SS, the Orcs, and Sean Connery are not coming to eat the Jews, and I am never going to be on a witness stand saying "nein." First my toe is supposed to be on the line, now my rear end is? The line is imagined. It is a line in your mind.

            You like to point out hypocrisy. To me, identifying hypocrisies is just rhetoric, and linear rhetoric at that. It is a middle-brow rhetorical construction designed for consumption by the beasts in the front row. Sometimes I try to remind myself that you might actually think this way and be truly motivated by finding and stamping out hypocrisy. Are you Jesus? Is this the Last Supper? The denunciation of hypocrisy was done better in Matthew. Really, it stems from some primordial archetype where someone is doing something while telling someone else not to do it. But in this case, and for those you defend, I am a man eating a leg of chicken and and you are a man who scolds me while defending the "same" right to be gnawing on a baby's leg. Every time you say "hypocrisy" I think "suc.ks to your assmar." You validate William Golding.

            I cannot tell you how liberating it is to breathe the air of unpunished thoughtcrime while you imagine consequences, reckonings, and the shackles of virtue that bear no resemblance to ἀρετή. We breakdanced and you sniffed my move and made a stinkface, but the authors had to hammer up two articles, one debunking Islamic Democracy, and the other vilifying Recep Erdogan. Poor writers. Adam Mansbach and Saul Williams are smarter than all of them. I know I'm not guilty of slander and hypocrisy. That helps me be so glib, you know, when I do stop to care whether or not your ceremonial claims that my statements are false or defamatory might actually be heartfelt. I am engaged in defaming knaves so the charge of defamation is hollow. Darkness is famed for its obscurity. I do not defame it by calling it black or shining a flashlight upon it. Specifically, Robert Spencer is a knave. Pamela Geller was a knave by trade and now also by script and hoax. Nakoula Nakoula is an even bigger knave. You tarnish my raiment for saying so, I remove my raiment.

            Back to Erdogan. The man runs a substandard country. That's all that can be said of him. He's not an example of a threat to the First Amendment. For one thing, he's way over in Asia Minor. There is an example of you overlaying figment upon real. It does not outrage me. He is so far from here. Additionally, perhaps it might enrage me, if it could. Would it outrage me? No. There are outrages. From myself, my scorn and vilification might outrage, but I would never passively be outraged. This is perhaps why I am immune to emoting on cue. There is your is also your proof that I am not an Islamist.

            If you value hypocrisy as a trope, consider that you use the term "self-serving" all the time as a pejorative, you insist that my defense of the rights of free expression must begin with other people and end with myself, but you view the world as skewed against the Jew, of which you identify. Circumspectly, you want Platonism for others and Aristotelianism for yourself. You want reason and logic, just like the Mu'tazilah, but also supremacy of the word, just like the Ash'ariyyah. Israel is a self-serving people and you have incessantly defended its collective self-service. I admit, this is just rhetoric on my part. I don't see you as damned or tarnished by my observation. It is imaginary.

          • Roger

            Yawn….. and to think you pretend to have something to say.

            It's almost convincing (not).

          • Touchstone

            The main reason you keep accusing me of facing imaginary threats rather than real ones seems to be that the threat level isn't high in the USA as it is elsewhere. You keep restricting the realm under discussion to America's borders. Maybe I need to be more specific when I discuss threats. It's obviously the Jews in Israel who face a more dire threat than Jews elsewhere. Since many of the articles here focus on Israel and the Middle East, I didn't think I had to spell that out.

            "The SS, the Orcs, and Sean Connery are not coming to eat the Jews" — The next time you lecture me on this, search that enormous brain of yours and ponder just what it is that keeps the Jew-eating monsters at bay. It's a place called Israel, largely. Yes, it's a bit of a paradox: Israel raises a lot of ire and so one could make a case that its existence endangers Jewry. But when one considers what happened to Jews in the not so distant past, it seems helpful to have a place of refuge set up for Jews, complete with a cutting edge military. Security through strength. Not security through utter dependence on the kindness of strangers. Nowadays, thanks to Israel, eating Jews will have serious consequences for the eater. To some extent — and only to some extent — that prospect poses a deterrent to a would-be Hitler.

            You can't see the cause and effect link between Israel's security and Jewry's security. You just assume that Jews are magically secure today and always will be. But that's folly. You're the one imagining things. Magic realism is indeed the right phrase. You seem to believe the hard-won reality that Jews are secure is magically based on nothing. But it's based on pain, suffering, war, sacrifice, high anxiety, military spending, conscription, hasbara, and so on.

            It's a bit laughable that you fail to grasp the role Israel plays in deterring the monsters. You'll probably claim you DO grasp it, but if you truly did, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize Jews who defend Israel, because you'd realize the ongoing need to secure it.

            "You like to point out hypocrisy" — Yes, but I don't have to look too hard for it. Your posts are so rife with it, examples leap out at me. It would take much more effort NOT to point it out. And it doesn't matter if there are no consequences for you; pointing it out (like pointing out other transgressions of yours) is useful to the extent that it makes people take you less seriously. Deride it as middle-brow all you want (or am I being promoted from troglodytic low-brow?). It still serves the purpose of weakening your arguments. You say your goal is to mock and impugn; why can't that be mine as well? You mock the authors here, and I mock people like you. Everybody's happy. What makes you think your antics are any less middle-brow than having your own endless hypocrisy pointed out? Once again with the double standards. You want free reign to mock, but you don't want to be mocked yourself. Yet mocking the anti-Israel Jew-baiters is just as necessary to me as mocking Zionists is to you. Live by the sword…

            "designed for consumption by the beasts in the front row" — You're endlessly condescending. You seem to define yourself based on how superior you feel to others. Don't look now, but anybody who wants to wring necks and toss people on sharpened stakes isn't too far removed from the lowly beasts he's desperate to distinguish himself from. You fit right in with the troglodytes you sneer at, picking up stones, hurling them at the poor soul buried up to her neck. You're a literate beast, but a beast nonetheless.

          • Touchstone

            "But in this case, and for those you defend, I am a man eating a leg of chicken and you are a man who scolds me while defending the "same" right to be gnawing on a baby's leg." — Nice sentence. But it's just more of your own version of magic realism, or delusional realism, in which you see yourself as endlessly virtuous and your opponents as hopelessly villainous. You need to maintain this imagined dichotomy. It's the source of your sanctimonious lecturing. But you've said so many prejudiced, malicious things that I'm forced to conclude you're self-deluded. Your self-regard is inflated. And you're far removed from any war zone, so who are you to judge those trapped in one? Is defending the right of Israeli Jews to protect themselves from genocidal beasts your idea of endorsing the eating of babies?

            It's stunning that you harp on the "beasts" who write posts here and give a pass to the real live beasts training for genocide as we speak. They're not gargoyles, they're real. Because they're mostly far away, you confuse geographical distance with non-existence. But I read about them all the time and I know that Israel has its hands full in fending them off, and in maintaining an edge so they'll be fended off indefinitely. By contrast, you needn't fend off anyone besides "tedious" posters on the net. How heroic. You speak much of imagination yet lack enough of it to appreciate Israel's dilemma. Easier to dismiss them as beasts gnawing on baby's legs.

            "You validate William Golding" — And you're a cross between Piggy and Jack, the intellect of the group who happens to be vicious and egocentric.

            "I know I'm not guilty of slander and hypocrisy" — It's a rare post when you DON'T stand guilty of either.

            "I am engaged in defaming knaves so the charge of defamation is hollow" — Not hollow, but less resonant. People care what Spencer says. Hardly anyone cares what you say. (Sorry.) But within the confines of our little comments-section world, people do seem to care enough what other posters say, so to that extent it helps if one can discredit a relentless critic like you.

          • Touchstone

            Just for fun, see if you can find anything noteworthy about the juxtaposition of these two comments of yours:

            "I know I'm not guilty of slander"
            "I am engaged in defaming knaves"

            Did you know that slander is a form of defamation? The other is libel. Did you know that your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing? It's amusing when a hyper-literate Mensa member like you makes such a clumsy mistake, especially in the midst of a supercilious lecture on "middle brow beasts in the front row". That's the trouble with words. You have to keep track of them. You're not so good at that.

            "you use the term "self-serving" all the time" — In part I do it to aggravate you, because I know it's always on your radar.

            "you view the world as skewed against the Jew… Israel is a self-serving people and you have incessantly defended its collective self-service" — I concede the point, to an extent. I do see a big chunk of the world as skewed against Jews, but it's easy to offer ample proof of that, despite whatever minor exaggerations a display of the evidence might entail. There's just too much evidence of that truism to make me feel ashamed for conceding the point.

            As for Israel being self-serving, once again I remind you that you don't live there. You don't live in the Middle East. You don't live anywhere near a war zone, despite your grumbling about checkpoints. You remind me incessantly about how I magnify threats, suggesting that you yourself don't sense any danger to your own person. But people in Israel and other places do sense that kind of danger. And what happens over there affects us here. I feel for their situation and I'm sensitive to my own. I think about growing dangers in Europe and closer to home. I can be self-interested but also interested in the fates of others, cognizant of how interconnected people are nowadays. I don't put up a wall like you do and callously disregard what happens to people beyond the wall. You're PURELY self-serving… except when you find it expedient to weep for the Palestinians or the Rachel Corries. Given your overwhelming egocentrism and reflexive downplaying of threats to others, I consider any tears you shed for others to be that of a crocodile, your true motive being to inflict damage on those you disdain. Your self-concern is as constant as your unconcern for the untermenschen.

          • Touchstone

            "Israel is a self-serving people" — No more self-serving than other humans, really. Perhaps they seem special to you in this regard because you live among pro-Israel people who advocate for them. Or maybe because they face so much more murderous hostility than any other country. If the people of Madagascar were demonized and threatened and condemned at the UN to the same degree, and if they too had a 2000 year history of persecution and scapegoating, and if you had lots of neighbors with relatives in Madagascar, and if Madagascar was always front page news — well, over time, you just might accuse the people of Madagascar of being more self-serving than others. But that's because you have trouble appreciating context.

          • Schlomotion

            I said Ralph Peters comes across as sensible. He is at least, honest in his apologia for massacring people:

          • Roger

            Still doing all that opposition research?

            I'm so almost impressed. If you had thoughts of your own backed by facts and logic you could have comments that stood on their own.

        • William

          Please tell me what is being churned out, that you call "crap", by the people you have mentioned. Please give specific examples, things that can be objectively verified.

          • Schlomotion

            Oh, for heaven's sake, I put it on my profile page about 1000 times. Have fun!

          • Roger

            And it was all promptly laughed at.

        • Indioviejo

          Most people who voted for Obama never heard of Rev. Wright, or Frank Marshall Davis, or that Obama's Dad and Mom were Communist, so what does this say of "most people?"

    • Drakken

      So you openly side with the muslims over us Westerners? Good to know when the troubles begin.

    • Ghostwriter

      Another pathetic attack on the Jews,eh Schlomotion? Is it any wonder why we have absolutely zero respect for you?

      • Roger

        As high as zero?

        • Sunbeam

          Give him a thumbs down and ignore him.

          • Roger

            And how does that explain why he's wrong and expose the stupid and hate he wants to spread here?

            Why do you think our allowing his kind of evil to go unchallenged doesn't give it time to grow stronger?

    • Sunbeam

      I disagree with you. You chose to ignore the reality of truth. You rather stand by with the alien than with your comrades of the West. You think all of us who speak out are of the illusions and that it is all being made up. Nobody is as free as you would think would make up such sensational news as this if it weren't true. I applaud those who take effort to report news the way it is that the main media refuse to report. You cannot silence us. We will continue to speak for as long as we can at all cost. Together we stand, together we unite and we shall prevail. God bless America!

    • Western Canadian

      Islamophobia is just as dishonest and contrived a term as homophobia. Neither are either legitimate words, nor legitimate concepts. Both are fabrications, designed to tell anyone who questions or doubts, to SHUT UP!! Both are designed to and intended to end any debate before it even begins. No wonder you like both terms so much.

      As for your claim to have read the koran etc, no, untrue on all counts. You have a rather bad habit of claiming knowledge that your poor and sad rants confirm you lack.

  • Drakken

    What this dhimmi report states is that us westerners must bow and kneel to any and all islams demands, well I for one say not only no but hell no! Tell the muslims we will no longer accept the unacceptable, we will no longer give into their demands, we will never give into their threats of violence. Tell them that if they give us jihad, we will return the favor with a Crusades. Let them know fear instead of us. For Christs sake stand up and be counted! Weakness to the muslims invites aggression, show strength and resolve in the face of islam and give them a mailed fist, it is the only language they respect and understand.

    • Sunbeam

      I am glad you see this. Weakness to the Muslims invites aggression, show strength and resolve in the face of Islam and give them a mailed fist, it is the only language they respect and understand.

  • Bob Avakian

    Not all phobias are bad. Some phobias exist to save lives. In the case of radical Islam, phobia is justified and is lifesaving.

    Lenin was quoted as saying, "When it comes time to hang him, the Capitalist will sell you the rope". I guess we'll sell the radical Islamists the sword to decapitate us?

    • Chiggles

      Sorry, the real Lenin never said that. And the real Bob Avakian would know that.

      Not disagreeing otherwise.

  • Porky's2istan

    Good article, but also horrifying.

    I think that Europe has completely lost it's backbone. The last time Europe wanted 'peace at any cost' it allowed nazism to rise. This time it will be the rise of islamism. There weren't actually that many nazis but they managed to kill tens of millions of people. With 50 million+ muslims the death toll could reach billions. The sick thing is, after we (Europe + America) finally defeat them, Europe will probably let the 'good' muslims still live in Europe and have to fight another war 20 to 40 years after that one.

    • Drakken

      No the Euros won't let the peaceful ones stay, they will do to them what the Serbs and Croats did.

      • Jim

        Ya think?? Look what we did to the Serbs and Croats…..The free world turned on them….For the most part those who swallow the muslim lies and deceit and close their eyes to the reality of what is truly going on here would rather turn their guns on our friends than face up to the reality that Islam and its followers are causing all this chaos and mayhem….Only the Liberal Left would defend those who behead innocent people and send children or handicapped people to their deaths, such as the Taliban do…..No outrage shown by the Islamic world or their cronies in the Western media…..but let just one of our troops step outta line….Jeez, we never hear the last of it……PATHETIC is an understatement….

    • Jim

      WE could always bomb them with pork chops and the like ;-D
      Oh wait though……that would breach their Human Rights and be disrespectful….we couldn't allow that to happen.

      Hell…it would seem that a murdering islamist can just grow a beard and it brings the judiciary in the good ol USA to its knees…Trembling about his Human and religious rights…..

      Buddy, in my book you gave ALL your rights up when you callously murdered those around you who trusted you……All in the name of your so called religion and so called prophet….

      • Porky's2istan

        "WE could always bomb them with pork chops and the like ;-D"

        That's funny. It reminds me of my current cologne.

        (A dab behind each ear keeps those pesky terrorists away.)

  • Ghostwriter

    Unfortunately,the past few decades have given us Americans good reason to be afraid of Islam. Not the least of which,their constant terrorist attacks on us.

  • Hank Rearden

    WHAT has happened to the Norwegians. Maybe they were always pussies. More and more on sees what Hitler must have seen in the 30's – that much of Europe is worn out, believes in nothing, certainly not itself. This report has no respect for the cultures from which it springs. This "tolerance" thing has become a Leftist weapon. Just how far is this guy Jagland willingt to go with this "tolerance" thing? Would he let his daughter be raped to "tolerate" the view of the rapist? Let freeloaders into his home? Islam wreaks devastation wherever it is practiced. It is the most repellent philosophy widely practiced today. WHY would you want to welcome it into your country?

  • Greg

    Maybe this idiot Norwegian bureaucrat should briefly move to a Muslim ghetto and send his kids to a school there to fully appreciate the flowers of multiculturalism and diversity.

  • Indioviejo

    Why say Islamophobia when what people are really feeling is Islamonausea. There. I feel better already.

  • Horace

    Communism is out of fashion for the destructive atheist liberal. Now their party line is to facilitate the takeover of western countries by Islam. They know damned well what they are doing. Pure evil. Monstrous. Suicide.

  • Elisabeth

    And this, my friends, is the reason why the Counterjihad is present at these OSCE/ODIHR meetings! Next one is coming up at the end of this month, in Warsaw, Poland. We will be there, we will speak up, just as we are there and spoke up at most other meetings. Where are you Americans during these meetings?

  • Jason Joseph

    This type of appeasement is not good for world peace. In fact the evil of some muslims are being covered up and appeaseed. Some of thsi appeasement is part and parcel of the ideology of hate.

  • reflecting 1a

    14 trillion dollars in middle eastern oil money in the last 30 years can and has bought a number of small countries and parts of larger ones. Solution–either stop buying gas or shut up.

    • Roger

      Or drill and use our own.
      Anwar is just sitting there all alone and belongs to us now.

      • reflecting 1a

        I assume you mean ANWR. That's just kicking the can down the road for a few years when things will be worse. Check out IAGS.

        • Roger

          We need that can kicked down the road. During Clinton the mantra was it would take ten years to develop that oil. Well, it's ten years later and gas is $4 a gallon.

          Drill here, drill now.

          • reflecting 1a

            Oil for power is a dead end game. Destructive of the environment, destructive of politics, destructive of national security,destructive of the economy, destructive of western civilization and in due time–sooner than later– it will be gone. Unless you're enjoying the music as the Titanic goes down, we need something different here and now.

          • Roger

            Oil for power is the game.
            Why don't we play it to win?

            And the solar green energy push is leaving spain a waste land. How is that better?
            And the pollution, if you really are bothered by it, is from communist countries like China. Why don't you go protest over there if that's your real agenda?

            We can drill oil refine it and burn it safely and without leaving much of a mess. One eruption of Mt St. Helens put out more pollution.

  • topeka

    upshot … so they want to modify edumacation for Islam … what they have already done for Progressivism and Leftism…

  • Roger

    Hitler had a nominal Christian heritage.

    But followed none of Christ's teachings or the values from them.

    If anything that would show he rejected Christ and only used the church for political influence.

    You still fail, but are too much the 'wee' little man to admit it. The hate blinds you. Aren't you due for a lunch break from your work terminal? Or did you bring a liquid lunch to work with you?

  • njuma93

    Oh boy this is stupid.

    I am a muslim and in my school all sorts of measures were taken to make ALL students feel comfortable. This student body consisted of Hindus, Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    Secondly, I am indeed going to repeat what the author of this article found rather appalling. These extremists have no clue about Islam. Take it from me because I am a muslim who knows the truth. By having things such as islamophobia, we all are just helping these extremists succeed in what they desire – FEAR IN OUR HEARTS.

    And if anything, how many of you are aware that in the Holy Bible is actually one of the 4 Holy books in Islam?
    how many of you are aware that we RESPECT and truly BELIEVE in Jesus {Peace be upon him]?

    My very own friends are from different backgrounds and beliefs. The best way to fight such extremists is to stand up united rather than create fear of the other among ourselves.

    AND PLEASE.. do not get me wrong. I am NOT on the side of these extremists. I probably hate them more than you all ever would.. They changed the way I can live. I can no longer visit countries without being screened thoroughly. I feel scared to reveal that I am a muslim in fear that I may be ridiculed. If I ever visit my Christians friends, I never reveal my beliefs in fear I may offend them. ALL BECAUSE OF STUPID PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY'RE MUSLIMS.

  • egretzin

    This reminds me of the difficulties orthodox Jewish children face within secular school. Jewish girls are required to dress modestly (though these restrictions are nowhere near as limited nor strict as they are for Muslim girls), they eat a special diet (Islamic dietary laws are similar to kosher laws: not eating pork, not eating the blood of an animal, etc.), ultra-orthodox parents may not feel comfortable allowing their boys and girls to be in the same swimming class (at least not without the appropriate swimming attire– swimsuits that cover the knees and elbows), and they celebrate a number of holidays the secular world does not recognize, and secular schools do not give time off for. Despite the similarities in religious restriction between these two groups, there is a huge difference in the outcome. Where Muslim parents complain relentlessly until laws are passed that demand they be treated with tolerance, Jewish parents either cope as best they can (allowing children to opt out of certain school activities, providing supplemental religious education after school, having children bring a packed lunch from home rather than eat school supplied lunches), or they raise their children in areas with substantial Jewish populations, and have them attend Jewish grade schools where these issues do not exist. No one is mandating that Muslim children take part in school activities they disagree with, but it is important to note the difference between being tolerant, and completely restructuring modern secular schooling to fit the wants and needs of its most religious attendees. I agree that there are certain things a secular school should tolerate (a parent keeping a student home for a religious holiday), or provide (perhaps a vegetarian lunch option for students with special dietary needs) when it comes to religion. But at a certain point these families are crossing the line in terms of what should be expected from a non-religious school. Rather than angrily demand respect and attention, these parents should instead enroll their children in schools that are more accommodating– the fact that they haven't makes one wonder what their actual motive is in this battle.

  • Roger

    Oh my, is that green economy like communism?

    It may have never worked before, and it may destroy all in it's path… but maybe next time it can be forced on someone and have a different outcome?

    Come on, petroleum geared economies, natural fuels such as coal wisely used create jobs and prosperity. And it was Obama that defunded hydrogen fuel cell development. It was just about the onlything Obama has ever defunded. So don't pretend obama wants to create abundant energy.

    And of course drilling makes a difference, why don't we try it. Then you'll be proved wrong. Don't you remember under Bush 41 there was so much drilling that the price of oil was too low and oil companies were losing money?

  • WTE

    Of course I never said a thing about obama. Losing the coal industry would be a bad thing for us unless they look at other ways to make money. We have tried drilling, remember BP? <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”RIGHT: auto” dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>

  • Roger

    You 'wee' little man you. You sit all day long at your work terminal spewing hate and divisiveness. You actually think anyone takes you seriously you little man you?

    You have another here of using muslim friendly/iranian centric talking points. The muslim oil producers would love to see the US dependent on their oil production so they can keep screwing us on price.

    Drilling worked for dozens of years, and it wasn't until it was heavily regulated and over seas productioin that prices shot up.

    BP? They had an accident, so what. The shores have recoved and how many innocent victims died? Go ahead and show how many people along the shore died.

    I can show more died from muslim activists on 9/11 at our embassy in Libya. Do you want to go there?

  • Roger

    Those sad stories, they don't show that Iran drills any safer.
    They don't show photo's of children in hospital beds, or grave markers for those who perished.

    So, you have talking points that would lead us to a weaker position with a lower quality of life.

    Typical for a muslim friendly troll that works at spreading propaganda from his work terminal.

  • WTE

    Come back to reality roger. I said we NEED TO GET AWAY FROM OIL <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”RIGHT: auto” dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>

  • Roger

    Get back to reality, there is no viable alternative at this time.

    That's the real world wee. By the way, I'm sure it's completely unrelated as to the way you want us weak, but our president of muslim heritage defunded fuel cell research as one of the first acts as president.

    Why would he do that unless he wants us short of energy and dependent on unfriendly oil suppliers?

  • Roger

    Oh come on wee, you small little man.

    Oil is our society. From plastics to tar for roads. It improves our quality of life and we have enough in our own territory we don't need to buy it from people that want to murder us.

    And travis was lying, much like you do. I showed him I could lie too, if you had quoted my entire comment it would show that.

    But as the troll you are, you never use quotes as they were put out.

  • WTE

    And any one with a brain knows we can yous alternatives to oil. Tell me roger why can you twist peoples comments around? <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>

  • Roger

    Oh please, tell the waiting world.

    What alternative is that exactly?

    We're all waiting, you small little man. Such a 'wee' thing….

  • WTE

    <a href="<br /> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV style=”FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt”> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style=”BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px”></DIV>

  • Roger

    And every economy that tries to impose those drops into a steep decline, ie spain.