World Leaders of Hate to Rail Against ‘Religious Defamation’

Pages: 1 2

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, the Holocaust denier-in-chief who has repeatedly called for Israel’s annihilation, is back in New York this week for his annual United Nations General Assembly tirade against Israel and the West.  He is reprising his favorite Zionist-Western conspiracy lines for what will probably be his last hurrah at the United Nations, as his fraudulent presidency comes to an end.

The Israeli delegation won’t be there this time to walk out. Ahmadinejad’s speech is scheduled to be delivered on Wednesday September 26th, the same day as Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

However, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, did have the opportunity to leave the General Assembly Hall to protest an earlier speech Ahmadinejad delivered Monday during a high-level UN meeting on the rule of law.

“Ahmadinejad showed again that he not only threatens the future of the Jewish people, he seeks to erase our past,” Ambassador Prosor said. “3,000 years of Jewish history illustrate the clear danger of ignoring fanatics like Iran’s President, especially as he inches closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. Those who ignore his hateful words today, will bear responsibility for his deeds tomorrow.  Ahmadinejad heads a state that is the most systematic violator of international law and the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism. It is shameful, disgraceful, and absurd that his voice was part of today’s UN discussion on the rule of law.”

Ahamadinejad is just getting started.  He knows that Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the Syrian regime’s violent crackdown on its own people, assisted by Iran, will come up during the annual open debate meeting of the UN General Assembly, which starts officially on September 25th. He is hurling every brickbat he can think of to distract attention from these issues.

In addition to his “rule of law” speech, Ahmadinejad previewed his rant on Monday in remarks to selected representatives of the media. He claimed, among other things, that Israelis have no historical roots in the Middle East and that Israel is a “fake regime.” He disregarded the entreaties of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during a meeting Sunday evening to consider “the potentially harmful consequences of inflammatory rhetoric.”

While Ahmadinejad ignored Ban Ki-moon’s advice to tone down his own inflammatory hate speech, he hypocritically excoriated the United States for using the excuse of free expression to permit speech considered offensive by Muslims.  “They themselves wrongly invoke the U.N. charter and misuse freedom of speech to justify their silence toward offending the sanctities of the human community and to divine prophets,” Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad’s defenders argue that his critical remarks are aimed at the Zionist political entity of Israel, not at the religion of Judaism.  He may hate Zionists, they say, but that is not the same as the hate speech put forth by the producer of the anti-Islam video and other “defamers” of Islam and its prophet.

Assuming for the moment that hate speech vowing the annihilation of the Jewish people for simply living in Israel and denying the long historical connection of Judaism to the land of Israel can be distinguished from demeaning speech regarding the Jewish faith, Ahmadinejad is still guilty of defamation of the Jewish and Christian religions.

For example, in his opening speech at an Islamic conference in Tehran earlier this year, the Iranian President of Iran said Islam is the only God-created religion, not Judaism, or Christianity. “Islam is a world religion and God has only one religion, that of Islam,” Ahmadinejad said. “He did not send Judaism or Christianity. Abraham was a harbinger of Islam, as were Moses and Jesus.”

Relegating Judaism and Christianity to inferior status vis-a-vis Islam is not unique to Ahmadinejad.  This brand of defamation of religions other than Islam is typical of the Islamist supremacist ideology.

Pages: 1 2

  • oblique

    Truly breathtaking. The world sits on the brink and they continue to pay homage to those who would push it over. Freedom of speech is being attacked at the highest level at this global forum and they continue to appease these despots. I no longer think this is ignorance. This administration is complicit in the imminent destruction of the West.

  • Jaafar_1946

    We should treat Muslims just like Muslims treat Jews.

    • kasandra

      …and Christians, and Bahais and Hindus and Buddhists and animists. It's really remarkable that a "religion" that is completely intolerant of virtually all other religions on the planet is so insistent on respect from those it persecutes everywhere and any time it can.

  • burt

    Somebody had pushed for "reinstating" Crucifix in urine "artwork"…..YES, you can spit on Christians anytime!!!!!
    But sneeze at Islam and they might cut your head off

  • Schlomotion

    "In addition to his “rule of law” speech, Ahmadinejad previewed his rant on Monday in remarks to selected representatives of the media. He claimed, among other things, that Israelis have no historical roots in the Middle East and that Israel is a “fake regime.”"

    In other words Ahmedinejad has cloned the Israeli argument about Palestinians. This is another example of Hasbara propaganda backfiring. Still another example is that the European criminalization of Holocaust denial has opened the door to Muslim anti-blasphemy laws. We would do well to remember that even five years ago Hasbaras were trying to pass these laws in Canada and the United States. Special treatment for Muslim egos will come in on the heels of special treatment for Jewish egos.

    • Stern

      This troll's sole purpose in posting here is to provoke. Disprove or refute his ridiculous arguments and he will respond by changing the subject, finding some other way to provoke.
      The best approach is to IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE.

      PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

      • Atlas_Collins

        He makes the same point I made a few days ago, Stern, in pointing out the hypocrisy that while most posters here would have no problem with the criminalization of "holocaust denial," they sure do get on their high horse when the feral subhuman muslim scum try to use the same playbook to criminalize speech that impugns their filthy little ideology of Islam.

        • Ted G

          Considering you made the comparison in the first place this will probably be lost on you.
          But the Holocaust was an historical fact, while islam is simply a political ideology worthy of criticism.

          What you are putting forth is not a valid point, and there is no hypocrisy.
          I also believe that I have seen several other people express the same thing as you and have been properly educated as to the difference.
          I'm not really surprised that schlo would try to foist this dishonorable canard on the readers here but you should know better.

          • Schlomotion

            I didn't say it wasn't a fact.

            Also, I didn't say that The Holocaust was a more sacred cow than Muhammad. I said that making the doubt of it illegal opened the door to making doubting other Semitic idols illegal.

          • Ted G

            Hey Schlo, how are you doin'…?

            First I directed my response to "Atlas" and I did not imply that you denied the holocaust as a fact.
            However now that we are onto your comment, you did say;
            "Still another example is that the European criminalization of Holocaust denial has opened the door to Muslim anti-blasphemy laws."

            So did you or did you not prop this up as a valid moral equivalency?

            If so (and I'm not sure how else to read that) then my response to Atlas could certainly apply to blow up that comment as well.

          • Schlomotion

            Yes. My mistake. I see you weren't talking to me.

            Yes I did say that criminalization of Holocaust denial has opened the door to Muslim anti-blasphemy laws. No, I did not say they were equivalent or moral.

            In my observation, "moral equivalence" merely means "having the nerve to compare a Jew's action to someone else's." The working theory is that no action by a Jew is morally equivalent to an action by a goy, because Jews are morally superior to everyone else.

          • Touchstone

            "In my observation, "moral equivalence" merely means "having the nerve to compare a Jew's action to someone else's." The working theory is that no action by a Jew is morally equivalent to an action by a goy, because Jews are morally superior to everyone else."

            This is deeply antisemitic, bigoted, hate-riddled garbage, the kind one would expect to find on a site like Stormfront, in which the authors of such drivel care nothing for the truth but only for distorting the truth to fit their preconceived, prejudiced notions. You share this habit with extremist liars of all stripes, such as Muslim radicals or white supremacists.

            What you identify as a "working theory" is only that in your own warped thoughts. Moral equivalence can and does involve equating a vast array of unequal behaviors and attitudes and statements that have NOTHING to do with Jews or Israel. You notice only the examples which involve Jews and pretend these are the only ones in existence. You're hopelessly monomaniacal. Or maybe just plain maniacal. It's YOU who believe you're "morally superior", when in fact you're a guttersnipe, wallowing in muck. And worse, you come to insult Jews on Yom Kippur. You're the Ahmadinejad of the internet.

          • Schlomotion

            So in other words, it is morally equivalent to what is written at Frontpage?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh my goodness. You really are stupid. Do you even understand what moral equivalence is? It means very little without context. If you want to propose moral equivalence or moral distinctions, you have to articulate your theory clearly enough for someone to test it.

            For example, is it wise to outlaw holocaust denial? Well I have seen not one person on this forum detail which statute(s) they refer to. So that makes it very unclear, but what is clear is that the video it is compared to is protected speech under US law. Some speech characterized as "holocaust denial" is also protected. In fact, virtually all of it is protected under most Western laws. The Holocaust is often used to incite violence and hatred. It deserves no special statutes, unless there is a history of the government in failing to protect the Jews against this incitement, and there is. That is the argument, but not my preferred reaction. I find it unjust in many ways, but more critical is the unjust tolerance of lies and liars who foment anger, hatred and violence against Israel, Israelis, and Jews using even more heinous tactics than denying what Nazis did: they quote Islamic texts.

            The laws against "holocaust denial" are explicit, and they are political compromises in place of effective protection of persecuting minorities preyed upon by hateful bigots. Jews are murdered regularly. Please report how many Muslims were murdered by non-Muslims since September 11, 2012. In fact, show me any statistics from any period in history to show that Muslims are persecuted in violation of any laws. Please bring on the facts. Facts are what we use to make our case. Got any of those?

            You're not a very effective troll. You actually help us by provoking questions that enable us to clarify important issues some times, even though you are universally on the wrong side of the issues. You are therefore some times a useful troll. You are welcome to stay.

            Thanks.

          • Schlomotion

            I understand what moral equivalence means in common parlance and what it means when used as inflammatory Hasbara rhetoric. Your personal scientific and rubric-oriented approach to morality is interesting, but certainly not common. Rolling with it though, yes, my statement was about Europe, a continent I do not believe we should emulate in the US. There, the ban on Holocaust denial seems a slippery slope to a ban on denying anything that any Semitic group, such as Arab/Muslims might hold indisputable. There was indeed a push to move those types of restrictions to Canada as well. I think that is undesirable and alien. I also find it asinine and wrong to deny the Holocaust. There was footage.

            Stepping and fetching statistics on how many Muslims were wrongly killed on suspicion of being Al Qaeda, were tortured at Guantanamo Bay or shot at Abu Ghraib, or hit by Predator drones, or beaten for looking like Saddam Hussein is really a dog and pony show. Just because I have not personally reported these things in standards that meet your anonymous rigor does not mean that they did not happen. It simply means that proclaiming they have not been reported and thus somehow don't exist is an argument from silence. There are the 500,000 Iraqis killed in the first wave of the invasion. That would be a lot of people to accuse of an extremist ideology in one go. Perhaps we exclude those because they were not killed in the streets with sticks or beheaded? Does killing them with machine guns and planes exclude it from the category of murder?

            As a point of fact, I do think Innocence of Muslims, contentwise, if it fell out of the sky, would be free speech. Unfortunately, we cannot overlook that this was not a man with a name making a movie and saying this was his view, and standing by it. This was an identity thief who was on probation and set up a business alias to defraud, misled his movie cast and made them speak through trickery, overdubbing, and last minute alteration of the whole basis of the movie. That is not free speech in that context, that is coercion and con, in short swindling people. Then there is the matter of his history of swindling banks, using fake names, and sending proceeds to a mafia in Bethlehem that blows back to this website. Those things are not free. Strictly the content of what was produced could, in theory, be free if it were done in an aboveboard way.

          • Touchstone

            Do you consider Geller's ad campaign an example of free speech? Or can you find some nefarious reason why it wouldn't qualify either?

            If you do regard it as one citizen exercising her right to speak freely, what do you make of Mona Eltahawy's defacing of one of those ads with spray paint? Her defense was that she was exercising her right of free expression by spraying paint on the ads (which someone paid for) and obscuring the words underneath, thereby infringing upon Geller's right of free expression (and costing her money).

            It seems clear that Eltahawy is vandalizing property and using a defense so specious it makes her seem, ironically, a little bit like the unhinged zealots the ads condemn. Just wondering if you support Eltahawy's actions and excuses.

          • Schlomotion

            I found Ms. Geller's ads to be free speech, but since it was also a call for war and a direct insult through a visual megaphone issued by Ms. Geller saying that Jews are civilized and Muslims are savages, I also think the vandalism of said ads with "racist" stickers and pink spraypaint is free speech. If she had run giant banner ads saying "In the clash of civilizations, support the Nordics, not the Bagel-biters" and had put a big swastika on it, it would still be free speech, but I would certainly support the vandalism of those ads.

            We probably differ. I believe in free speech, but I don't necessarily think advertising billboards are sacred and holy. I don't think a wallet has a conscience to form words. I support graffiti, you probably don't. I support vandalism in some cases, you probably don't. Mona Eltahawy is filling in the next stage of Ms. Geller's publicity stunt. She is proving that citizens have the balls to go and swat down her challenge. Really, Ms. Geller wants this to happen. Mona Eltahawy's actions are her own. However, the minion, the Jewish Nation of Islam stooge who was protecting the sign and waving around a camera to catch her "persecution" jabbed Ms. Eltahawy with her tripod stick, and was certainly prepared to do violence.

            I don't want to leave your question yet, though. Ms. Geller's right to purchase gigantic ads insulting the public is actually an enhanced form of self-expression, not simple self-expression. Simple self-expression is speaking. Slightly more complicated is fliers. Even more complicated is zines. Even more complicated is a system of metro bus ads. That's not merely free speech anymore, that is corporate speech by companies using the quasi-public sector to inflict their messages upon a captive audience who have no choice but go to work on the train or bus. Generally, their views are overridden by the payee. What Ms. Geller has done is broadcast insulting messages at the captive public. That is not quite the same as yelling in the square. She might be losing money, but certainly creeps at JINSA and ITAI and a lot of private Israel-firsters will funnel her a lot more money to do mischief with. She's not being put out. She also bought all this fighting and spectacle. That was her motive.

          • Ted G

            You of all people Schlo should know that the written word matters when conveying thoughts and ideas. I have picked out this particular sentence for review. You said this;
            "by Ms. Geller saying that Jews are civilized and Muslims are savages"

            No She did not say that; The signs actually say;

            In any war between the civilized man and "savages" support the civilized man. Defend Israel, defeat Jihad!

            So it was YOU who equates "all muslims" with savages.
            Its possible that this was a Freudian slip given all the empirical evidence out there.
            But its also very possible that this was purposeful, given all the empirical evidence of your writings out there.

            So I'll give you an opportunity to explain. Was it on purpose or was it a mistake? Either way I think your screwed.

          • Schlomotion

            She chose her words carefully. Is there such thing as an Israeli ethnicity on a passport? No. It's Jewish. Israeli means Jewish. Do you think Avigdor Lieberman, Soviet and Kach member, means anything but Jewish when he says Israeli? Geller said Israel is civilized and Jihadists are savages. Then she gave her website link, where you can easily know that by Israel she means Jew and by Jihadists she means "all Muslims."

            She is a coward, and you are a coward on her behalf.

          • Touchstone

            You're worse than a coward. You endorse criminal activity. You openly admit to defaming people; you share your fantasies about murdering people you dislike (you'd like to "wring the neck" of Ben Shapiro; you'd "gladly throw Michael Moore into a pit of sharpened stakes"); and now you endorse vandalizing property.

            You parrot Eltahawy's supremely *SELF-SERVING* nonsense with this line:

            "I also think the vandalism of said ads with "racist" stickers and pink spraypaint is free speech."

            Wrong. Placing a counter-ad of your own would be an example of a free-speech response. The response you endorse infringes on the free speech rights of the person you're content to target. You can't honestly be supporting Geller's right to free speech IF YOU SUPPORT THE ACT OF COVERING UP THE WORDS IN HER ADS! There's no more free speech if the damn speech is violently covered up and can no longer be seen! You defend third-world, totalitarian, thuggish behavior and call it free speech. And you have the nerve to define "the American mind" for the rest of us?

            You're an anarchist at heart, not an American constitutionalist, but it's a very selective anarchy. You're happy to support vandalism and defamation (and even murder) if you share a hatred of the targets. The term "self-serving" is tremendously appropriate: you elevate your SELF above society's laws, in effect above other selves (like Geller and Hall, for instance). You sound like someone with narcissistic personality disorder who arrogantly believes he answers to a higher authority: himself. If there's something you want done, even if it's against the law, and even if people get hurt in some way (physically, psychologically, monetarily), you endorse it. You'll always find a slimy, slithery way to justify whatever unsavory deed you want done, and you'll make it sound like you're the one taking the moral high ground. The ends justify the means.

            It's laughable that you spend so much time condemning bad behavior when you're so quick to rationalize a different set of bad behavior. Like I said, you're wallowing in muck, and your post above proves it beyond a doubt. It's a mini-manifesto of sorts, making it clear what kinds of methods you endorse. You seek chaos through anarchy. Well, if you have the courage of your convictions, I dare you to go spray-paint an ad, making sure you capture your deed on video so the rest of us can see it. Anything less would be *cowardly*, right?

          • Schlomotion

            You have temper issues.

            Graffiti is not really a criminal offense, it's a civil infraction. On top of that, it's awesome art. I love it.

            You're such a linear thinker. Vandalizing Ms. Geller's ads doesn't squelch her speech. It enables it. Ms. Geller wanted to promote a dialogue of outrage and vandalism and mass hysteria. So she's got it. Her speech was enhanced. On top of that, the ads are meant to provoke media coverage and more layers of speech. This too is enabled by the response to her ads. How linear, how dull of you to think that this should be a war of sponsored ad vs sponsored ad. Her ad campaign can't be unsaid at this point. Read your Virilio. That is not how the entropy of an information bomb works. It can only be inflamed. Vandalizing her ads inflames them. Geller is herself an incendiary flamer who lives from publicity stunt to publicity stunt. You insist on portraying heavily funded Zionist propagandists as persecuted and squelched consciences. Poor Sumner Redstone. Poor Edgar Bronfman. Poor Rupert Murdoch. You are so amusing.

            So now spraypainting and stickering is a violent act? Then the banner ads were a violent act as well. Actually, the real violence was Geller's stick-swinging stooge. The real violence is the men with guns who took away a woman for painting.

            Thanks for the free diagnoses. I am actually both an American Constitutionalist and an anarchist at heart. Of course I elevate myself above society's laws. I am not a committee. I am a homo sapien. Society's laws are not always right. Certainly social mores are not always right. I think it's funny that you consider it a personality disorder to answer to one's own λόγος, one's own αὐτάρκεια, one's own auctoritas or simply one's own (suus). Some classicist. Some author.

            "You seek chaos through anarchy."

            I seek the persistent creative destruction and separation from material obsession in keeping with a Shivaic/Vishnaic principle. I am a Nietzschean, at times a Randian, and usually a Cynic except for when I am physically being utopian and making things. The real authority comes from physics, not from metaphysics. Metaphysics is epistemology and its much lower subset "should." Physics is: Ms. Geller can put up an ad, and someone else can even more easily take it down. The default state of an advertisement is down. I don't need to vandalize that fool's ads because it's already being done, and besides, they are a self-vandalism of stupidity. They are a shame and a travesty. Less deep thinkers feel the need to physically brand her ads. I endorse that, but it is beneath me to copy their actions. I can speak about them with the same effect of vandalism.

          • Touchstone

            "Graffiti is not really a criminal offense" — What Mona did is of a piece with the other law-breaking you endorse. That was the point.

            "On top of that, it's awesome art" — You fool. As if all graffiti is an attempt at art! Mona wasn't creating art, she was defacing property. An anarchist with a can of spray-paint doesn't guarantee an aesthetically pleasing result. You're changing the subject, as usual. The merits of artistic graffiti — as distinct from destructive graffiti — are a completely unrelated topic. Try to focus.

            "You're such a linear thinker." — Yeah, yeah, I get it. Geller's eating it up. She loves the attention, and it helps her campaign. Again, that's not the point. You're taking the focus off YOU and putting the heat on Geller. My point is directed at you: You support activities which are against the law. The ramifications of your argument which you don't take into account, you brilliant lateral thinker you, are that everyone could grab some spray-paint and deface whatever the hell they wanted to at any time. That's chaos. One Mona caused a stir and necessitated police activity, drawing them away from potentially stopping other crimes. You advocate a thousand Monas, meaning a variety of consequences including thousands of police officers wasting valuable time. You seek chaos. You endorse it, at least, and deem opposition to your madness "dull, linear thinking". Nowhere in your thoughts do you attach any importance to law and order. Society functions when people respect law and order, not when theatrical attention-seekers take matters into their own hands, which is what you endorse, presumably because you'd enjoy the entertainment.

            "So now spraypainting and stickering is a violent act?" — No, fool. It became violent when Mona aggressively painted Pamela Hall as much as the ad. Then it became a case of Hall insisting on standing in front of the ad — which she's perfectly entitled to do — and Mona not letting her do so in peace. The introduction of Hall changed the nature of Mona's acts; they became something even more aggressive and brazen than what they were before Hall entered the frame. Hall was entitled to try to block Mona the aggressor from covering her with paint. It wasn't "stick-swinging", it was more like self-defense.

            "The real violence is the men with guns who took away a woman for painting." — You're an idiot and a liar. As if all she was doing was "painting"! You make it sound like she was in a park somewhere, capturing the landscape in oils. What an inveterate propagandist you are, endlessly distorting reality until it comports with your predetermined conclusions. She was committing an act of vandalism, not "painting" innocently.

            "Society's laws are not always right." — And this is why some people get law degrees and try to change the system, slowly and purposefully — and legally. The methods YOU endorse to achieve societal change are violent and criminal and necessitate a collapse of law and order.

            "I don't need to vandalize that fool's ads because it's already being done" — No, what you're doing is taking the coward's way out, as expected. You don't want to risk being arrested. Why do that when OTHER people, meaning LESSER MORTALS, are already being arrested for crimes you hope they keep committing? Let others fight and pay the price, while you watch it all on youtube eating popcorn and typing away. How heroic. How predictable you wouldn't have the courage of your convictions.

            Had you been around at the time, surely you would have said, "Why should I storm the beaches with the rest of the expendables? It's already being done on my behalf." The very picture of valor.

          • Schlomotion

            Yes. I do support all sorts of activities that are against the law. Some of them I materially support. "The law." Legislation. Lex. Contractual stipulations and conditions. So few of these were laid at meetings I was invited to. So few of these artifices actually have bearing on me without the blue men with the guns. The Violence Smurfs. If you do not obey, then they flash you lex naturalis, the right to kill you. Against legare I pit legere. What I have gathered in my own mind is superior to law. Some men say "do not" while other men do. Doing beats prohibiting. That is basic Zen.

            "Law." Now order: Order, or orders? We are ordered by Geller: "(You) support the civilized man," meaning The Jew. We are ordered by the Port Authority: "Do not touch or deface holy commercial relics hanging in the 'public' transportation area." We are ordered by police: "cease and desist changing the composition of paid authoritarian advertisement and disperse from 'public' transportation area." Obeying even all of these, we are ordered: "go to jail for trespassing upon 'public' transportation area without showing the identity card and submitting to swabbing!"

            Taking "order" in its proper usage: arrangement, group, class. Taxonomically we should be ordered only descriptively by type, and rise to the level of our own command and ability. In daily practice we are merely arranged, grouped, classed and shunted and chatteled around by some quite silly and unworthy individuals and pea-brained committees. Living under the Novo Ordo Seclorum and e pluribus unum, we are supposed to be able to hunt, fish, travel, assemble, speak, build a home, the approved undertakings (annuit coeptis) being liberty, freedom from ridiculous and overbearing taxation, and most importantly, the ability to get along with our fellow citizens and not be trying to get them to blow up buses.

            I think you know pretty well that I will gladly risk being arrested.
            http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1

            In the case of Ms. Geller however, I have greater goals than being arrested. Getting arrested is a good way to confront police. It is not a good way to confront propagandists. It is quite a stretch though to compare Geller's subway ad to Normandy.

          • Ted G

            Schlo you can't be both an Anti-semite and an American Constitutionalist at the same time.

            I wonder does that actually qualify as an oxymoron. lets see "live death", "smartly stupid" "anti-Semite American Consitutionalist" close.

          • Schlomotion

            Actually, you can. People like Robert Solomon Wistrich have lowered the academic bar for antisemitism from "hatred and discrimination" toward Jews to "opposition" and even "silence" toward specific claims of specific Jews. That's an easy mark to hit without even trying.

            Anyway, I am not an antisemite. I also don't care if I am called one. I figure that's win-win. I don't hate Jews, and I don't care if they accuse me of hating them. I feel free of the whole issue most of the time.

          • Ted G

            Wow is that really your rationale? Now that's what I call parsing.

            So it was deliberate eh?
            Totally ignore the fact that you did actually lie in writing and are now not only admitting it but are in fact doubling down with this really slippery excuse for it. Nope it doesn't wash schlo!

            BTW nearly 20% of the population of Israel is of Arab (muslim) descent. Do their passports mean they are Jewish?

            You have condemned yourself schlo, don't be mad at me for simply pointing it out.

          • Schlomotion

            "Do their passports mean they are Jewish?"

            No, but like Jews, they cannot designate their nationality as "Israeli."

          • Ted G

            In this single string alone I have proven you a liar and propagandist and this is your response!

            Schlo you are without honor or integrity. I'd add the you have no shame or credibility but I think that should be obvious.

            IMO Honor is a gift a man gives to himself.

            For me the highest compliment I can give is to tell a man that I respect the honor he keeps. I also hold the opposite to be true.

          • Schlomotion

            What did you say here? That you watched Rob Roy? That you're amazing at the art of sophistry?

            That's nice.

          • Ted G

            Wisdom is wisdom regardless of the source. Good movie BTW.

            Here's another one for you schlo…

            "The older I get the less I pay attention to what a man says but more what he does."

            Nothing I have written requires any real deep analysis to understand Schlo, to what sophistry do you refer?
            I do find it amazing that you were caught in an outright lie yet still have nothing to say for yourself.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Nah, islamic Jew hatred isn't even a one-trick pony on FPM Farshad.

          • Ted G

            First ,thx for you response.

            Then…(and I am chuckling as I write), weell….okaaayy…
            I guess I should begin by quoting myself back "(and I'm not sure how else to read that)".

            And end with, in regards to "In your Observation" as it applies to being a clarifying explanation I guess you'll just have to try and picture a face with one eyebrow raised expressing quizzical doubt.

            But O.K.
            P.S. this in no way implies approval or acceptance of the content within your explanation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I didn't say that The Holocaust was a more sacred cow than Muhammad. I said that making the doubt of it illegal opened the door to making doubting other Semitic idols illegal."

            Doubting the Holocaust is not illegal anywhere. Certain specific claims that go against certain established historical facts can be deemed illegal by statute in select circumstances and in select sovereign nations. This is not something I support. This is not relevant to the discussion of blasphemy limiting laws. Blasphemy is in the ears of the hearer. There is no way to discern whether the blasphemer is making a valid critical statement. Therefore there is no justification for creating special protections. Period. You can focus on trivial similarities or accept the salient distinctions.

            In truth, it harkens back to the days of European totalitarian regimes. What sane person wants to go there?

          • Schlomotion

            Anything is in the ears of the hearer. If agents of certain "select sovereign nations" hear someone giving a symposium of unfavorable Holocaust recounts, he can be arrested. It is a blasphemy against the state. The state bans a certain kind of speech and to defy the state on that matter is a bureaucratic and civic blasphemy, similar to not rising before a Judge. Similarly, speaking outside of a "Free Speech Zone is a blasphemy to the major seated parties in the United States, the blue armed guards that they hire and the companies that set up the fancy cages for people to be "free" in.

            In truth, this should all be blasphemous to Common Law and to people who know and love their Constitution. I think this website has tried to capitalize on the fact. Certainly Mr. Horowitz has intoned on television this month that any legal repercussions on Mr. Nakoula should be considered a kind of blasphemy against US principles of Liberty and that it is a blasphemy for the President to apologize to foreign counties as a matter of course. The intent is to portray the only acceptable course as rejecting all of this behavior as anathema and calling its perpetrators "Natsies."

          • Kufar Dawg

            Fallacy of argumentation employed: argument by false analogy. Denying the Holocaust (an accepted historical fact because the Nazis loved keeping detailed records and there is plenty of eyewitness testimony) has nothing to do w/committing blasphemy or defaming islam.

          • Schlomotion

            Sure it does. Denying the Holocaust is a blasphemy against the memory of those who died. Do you think you can find a lot of Jews who will say otherwise?

          • http://thereligionofpeace.com shnarkle

            Way to go Ted G

          • Atlas_Collins

            Your claim to owning "historical fact" as regards the holocaust can and has been disputed by people you would probably call "deniers." My point is that in many places these "deniers" are criminalized for daring to question what you claim to be "historical fact."

            My further point is that anytime it's against the law to question "official history," then there's obviously a problem with Truth somewhere, isn't there?

            To further hammer home my point, there are probably many here — such as yourself perhaps — who have no problems whatsoever with criminalizing any questioning of the official holocaust story up to and including forensic investigations (illegal at all holocaust sites across Europe) because you are utterly convinced with almost religious devotion of the veracity of the story of the "Shoah."

            In that light, Mr. TedG, there is no difference between feral muslims demanding free speech be curtailed in regards to criticism of Islam and Shoah Rollers demanding the criminalization of "holocaust denial."

          • Ted G

            It is not criminal here in the USA to deny the holocaust, but it is rather slimy. We have free speech here after all, even for the deniers.

            Please can we not get into this further argument as to the historical validity, that's just a waste of my time, especially if you are just going to do go down this rat hole about who gets to define historical truth.

            I have no religious devotion at all. So whether you really believe this stuff or are just trying to poke and prod deliberately to provoke an emotional response has no impact on me.

            Your point about the value of making it a crime to question "official history" is interesting and has some valid concerns. Laws usually all have motivating factors, what was the motivation for this one (In Germany where it actually exists I mean)? Was it a misguided attempt at totalitarianism to adhere to the "Official History" or was it an attempt to keep actors from attempting to re-write history? Context is everything.
            I don't necessarily endorse this type of restriction, but in this case I do understand why they tried. Do you?

          • Atlas_Collins

            My point here was not to argue the veracity of the holocaust story. My point was to illustrate certain hypocrisies that are rampant amongst the FP staff and readership. We are in agreement that any attempts to curtail, limit or forbid any avenue of free inquiry are "misguided."

          • Ted G

            Thx Atlas, I see we have some areas where we can agree.

            I just felt and I hope conveyed that if you want to express disapproval of hypocrisy that you provide examples of, well actual hypocrisy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Your claim to owning "historical fact" as regards the holocaust can and has been disputed by people you would probably call "deniers." My point is that in many places these "deniers" are criminalized for daring to question what you claim to be "historical fact."

            It's a fact that I like blue. It's an objective fact that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis. Until you can cite more specific instances of people being unjustly silenced for arguing against history, we have to assume that you don't know what you're talking about. How many people have been prosecuting for "Holocaust denial" and let's take a look at that. Let's look objectively at how much this truly has in common with calls for protecting Islam from being criticized as if we are all to assume Mohammed *really did* speak for God, and deserves legal protections from all criticism.

            They are not criminalized for being "daring" but for violations of statutes. You need to cite your cases if you expect to be taken seriously. Do you even know what you're talking about, or are you repeating second and third-hand accusations?

            "To further hammer home my point, there are probably many here — such as yourself perhaps — who have no problems whatsoever with criminalizing any questioning of the official holocaust story up to and including forensic investigations (illegal at all holocaust sites across Europe) "

            That depends on whether or not you are referring to people who ignore the previous forensic investigations. This is clearly done to deceive. Should that be illegal, that is an interesting discussion. What is more interesting is you are presenting only part of the truth. Perhaps you were only told part of the truth. Partial truths can be just as deceptive as outright lies. That is the case here.

            If someone takes the same theory, and directly refutes previous forensic evidence, that is absolutely legitimate. Nobody ever got prosecuted for that. It's not that hard to distinguish hate-driven "investigations" when you have enough time to look through their actions, but it can take a few hours in some cases because they have had to adopt stealthy tactics by cloaking their motives. The telltale signs are ignoring previous published data. If they can refute it, they should. When they ignore salient forensic data, generally this indicates they are biased and in the case of the Holocaust, playing a deadly game of irrational hate fomented by lies. Even when facts are employed, when you dig deeply enough the hate is fueled by lies. Not so with Islam. With Islam, the lies propagated by Islam fuel the hate against it, and the ones who turn violent are the liars. If that changes, perhaps political compromises will be needed to "protect" the persecuted. Right now, the "Islamophobic" speakers are the persecuted ones.

        • Stern

          I don't care what points schlomo makes, because as soon as you argue against him – as Ted G has done – he will change the subject and hit you with another provocation. That's not "debate", it's drive-by anti-Semitism and I, for one, believe it must be dealt with in the best way possible: by creating a vacuum in which it simply dies.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

            You ignore them they move in like crab grass.

            Ridicule, that's something they don't know how to deal with.

          • Drakken

            I say let this sub human POS spout and froth at the mouth for all to see, so there will be denial at a later date. Let them hang themselves with their own words.

        • Kufar Dawg

          One of these things is not like another, can you figure out which one it is?

      • bkopicz

        Stern

        I absolutely agree with your comments

    • Mo Schlotion

      Hasbro makes really good toys. Did you know that they make Mr. Potato Head and Nerf balls?

    • Ghostwriter

      LIke you,Schlockmotion,A-jad hates Jews and wants them dead. Your so-called "Hasbara propaganda" is in fact,reality. Not that you care. You and those like you just want dead Jews,that's all.

      • Nakba1948

        Looks like the loop is running again.

        if
        x says something that hurts Ghostwriter's feelings
        x is anti-Semitic and wants to kill all Jews
        end

        • Ghostwriter

          Well,Jews have been persecuted for years,Nakba1948,mostly by people like you and Slugmotion,who think of think of them as equivalent to insects rather than people.

        • Touchstone

          Ah, the coward finally emerges from hiding. Now you'll resume your hit-and-run comments, won't you Nakba? What a cowardly operator you are, never responding to criticism, never defending your points. You just poke people in the eye and run away in fear. How do you live with yourself?

          Nothing illustrates the bankruptcy of your arguments more than the fact that you're too cowardly to defend them. You forfeit every debate you begin by running and hiding like a sniveling coward.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Happy eternal Nakba DB! Remember to drink a big glass of steaming camel urine each and every day!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Your so-called "Hasbara propaganda" is in fact,reality."

        Telling partial truths allows him to seem like he has a point. We're hypocrites for hating liars because really there is no moral difference between propagating facts and refuting them.

    • Newspaniard

      Remember the old adage, "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS"

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "In other words Ahmedinejad has cloned the Israeli argument about Palestinians. This is another example of Hasbara propaganda backfiring."

      So the Israelis make efforts to clear up lies told about Palestinians, and then the Iranian president doubles down on the lies by calling the Isrealis liars, and you can't distinguish the difference? You think Israel shouldn't try to defend itself against lies because the liars will pull a reversal?

      Wow. You really just want to give in to anyone who pushes you around. There are no morally correct positions, just convenient ones?

  • Gee

    Interesting – every government official in the United States from the lowest to the highest has to take an oath to support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and here is a Secretary of State not only not doing that but attempting to overthrow that same constitution.

    Time to remove those that will not fulfill their oath

    • Jim_C

      Do it. Does anyone know any lawyers?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

        Do you mean honest lawyers?

      • Kufar Dawg

        David Yerushalmi, but he's busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

  • Stern

    How did it happen that anyone who professes a deep belief in Judaism or Christianity is an "ultra", considered a believer in "fairy tales" or "withcraft", while anybody who professes a belief in Islam and its most vicious and hateful practices is considered deserving of respect and consideration and must be treated with the utmost caution.

    What has happened to us, people?

    • Drakken

      I call it Stockholm Syndrom on steroids.

    • Stephen_Brady

      It's called "terrorism", and it's sanctioned by the "holy prophet" himself. He saw the value of it, and his followers do, to this day. They offend us, and we have to take. We offend them, and we die. It's a powerful tool that Muslims have used since the 7th Century, and it will continue to work until we stop turning the other cheek.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "How did it happen that anyone who professes a deep belief in Judaism or Christianity is an "ultra", considered a believer in "fairy tales" or "withcraft", while anybody who professes a belief in Islam and its most vicious and hateful practices is considered deserving of respect and consideration and must be treated with the utmost caution."

      First you teach that all facts are subjective. Then you teach that Islamic lies about colonialism and the crusades (the colonial policies were driven in part by the knowledge about the history of the crusades) are just differences in "world view."

      No, it is very obvious that in the West, the whites rule everyone through ancestral theft. The victims are all of the others. The loudest victims get the most protection, as long as they seem prepared to continue to elect the socialist politicians.

      Judeo Christian theology is white theology.

      That's how. Muslims are the loudest "victims," and nobody cares about finding the underlying objective facts.

  • pate

    It is time the Western World realized that Islam is not just a religion but a political movement with the goal of creating a Global Caliphate. If that realization does not sink in soon it will be too late and Europe will be Islamized then their final victory will be the US. Wake up America!!! Obama is leading us down the path of the Islam Caliphate!

    • Jim_C

      I would like to know how this Islamic Caliphate will begin, and how the West will fail to notice it.

      To get power you need to be willing to fight for it. When have these guys been willing to do anything out in the open, without women and children to hide behind?

      I wish they would. Personally, I think it would be great to have an actual army to fight and country to blow up, instead of providing an ersatz police force for them.

      • Stern

        Look to France, where police are too afraid to go into certain areas. Or Britain, where Muslims are taking over neighbourhood after neighbourhood, and attacking British women who don't cover themselves. It's happening now – and you're failing to notice it.

        • Jim_C

          Sounds more "mafia" or gang-ish at best. Doesn't sound like caliphate level stuff.

        • Sunbeam

          They are not supposed to do this in your country. They are doing this is because you allows them to do so. The Westerner are too lenient when comes to this sort of thing. They take it too lightly, thinking it may not be anything. But what they do not know is they're burring their feet down into your soil, deeper down to take possession of it and soon to control the whole land and rule it as an iron fist with no escape. Learn your lesson and wake up now before you loose all your rights to power. And it is that so easy to them with no sweat whatsoever. Remember this, England, these people will never be grateful to you for your kindness and leniency, but will instead take advantage of all this privileged accorded them to further their agenda. You are about to loose power in your very own land if you remain adamant about all this. Time to wake to action to repel.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I would like to know how this Islamic Caliphate will begin, and how the West will fail to notice it. "

        It has already begun. Each recognized sovereign ruler who claims to follow Sharia can make a claim to rule the Ummah. In practical terms, they'd have to dispose with the Shia Sunni rift, or get the Sunni rulers to agree to go public against the others before resolving the problem of Shia Iran. That is most likely.

        Actually, nobody said that "We must stop them because IF they succeed, THEN we have a problem. We have huge problems because they are trying to establish the caliphate. Success is not required to ruin your day. Our nation is already suffering great harm even before they advance this cause any further.

        "To get power you need to be willing to fight for it. When have these guys been willing to do anything out in the open, without women and children to hide behind? "

        When the battle is clearly winnable, they send in the pawns. An outright military victory can't happen without Iran or another maniacal, irrational regime in possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan though could step up and cut a deal with the Saudis. It could get ugly faster than the Internet if certain factions agreed to worth together.

        The thing in favor of the stealth jihad (present tactics) is that it seems more likely to succeed with the likes of you going around denying risk. There are many gullible, uninformed people like you.

        "I wish they would. Personally, I think it would be great to have an actual army to fight and country to blow up"

        I agree with that. That would be a lot more respect-worthy than this bull$hit we see now. We love it (the idea of a direct confrontation) because we know they'd lose, and so do they. Why blow their chances when they are on the cusp of great political achievements that would make future victory all the more likely?

      • Kufar Dawg

        Why fight to take over a country when you can buy it?

  • amspirnational

    Klein says the Iranian leader is guilty of hate for saying Islam is the only true religion.
    I can name dozens of Christian denominations which say the same thing about their
    own denomination.
    Moreover, the Iranian leader has never spoke in hateful terminology in reference to the Jewish community in Iran, which has lived there perhaps since Bible times. More evidence he is anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.
    As are many Jews. http://www.jewsagainst zionism.com.

    • Drakken

      You remind me of the very jews that walked happily to the trains stations not quite believing that the guy with the funny mustache actually meant what he said.

    • Ghostwriter

      Right,and I'm Mickey Mouse,amspirnational. A-jad made himself clear. He wants to wipe Israel of the map and cause a second Holocaust. The Jewish community in Iran is so afraid of this guy that they'll say anything to keep from getting killed. A-jad hates Jews and wants them DEAD. End of story.

      • Kufar Dawg

        The Jewish community in Iranistan is shrinking and has been ever since the formation of the Islamic "Republic". I've met Iranian Jews and they have nothing nice to say about the Islamic Republic.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Klein says the Iranian leader is guilty of hate for saying Islam is the only true religion. "

      Wrong. Please quote the relevant text rather than using troll techniques of using false paraphrases.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Moreover, the Iranian leader has never spoke in hateful terminology in reference to the Jewish community in Iran, which has lived there perhaps since Bible times. More evidence he is anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.
      As are many Jews. http://www.jewsagainst zionism.com."

      More evidence that is has some political chops, and an acceptance of the dhimmi. He's not anti-dhimmi apparently. Wow. Such progress. How about you go and live there and let us know how wrong we are?

  • Jim_C

    From the article:

    "We need, but will not get, a forceful response, delivered by President Obama from the United Nations General Assembly podium, in which he unequivocally affirms that this country will be guided first and foremost by the principles of the United States Constitution. This includes the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs…"

    From Obama at the UN:

    “Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -– even views that we disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened….Those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”

    Guess "we got it," after all, eh? Will you acknowledge that?

    • Ted G

      You know what Jim_C I'll give him this statement and rate at least this excerpt only a "B-".
      And here's my reason, because he accepted the muslim world position that the movie was "Hateful speech", and also accepted the content of the movie in question as "Slander".
      Has there been any real review of the content and whether it was grounded in fact or fancy? NO there has not. And why not?

      This statement was carefully worded on purpose to walk a tightrope between mollifying the islamics of the world while still trying to fend off Americans who criticize his ambivalence towards real liberty.

      • Stern

        Great response Ted!

      • Jim_C

        I don't think that movie was designed to be informative and edifying, I think it was designed for the purpose it achieved. Reason being the duplicitous circumstances under which it was made.

        That said, it would be pretty interesting, indeed, if something with a similar subject were designed to be informative and edifying. I say "interesting," I don't want anyone to get hurt, but if I were in the intelligence business…I'd be looking to finance such an effort. Anything to throw daylight onto this "touchy" topic.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I don't think that movie was designed to be informative and edifying, I think it was designed for the purpose it achieved. "

          That's an entirely separate issue that makes the whole affair even worse. What if Muslims created the film to incite hatred against the USA, Jews and specifically Jews in Israel? Now what will do think of Obama's appeasement efforts?

          You can not appease fatalists.

          • Jim_C

            Oh brother. It's not about appeasement, it's about not causing riots all over the place that result in the deaths of innocent people based on some statement you make–however true that statement may be.

            Do you honestly think the people in charge of the country don't think Islamo-fascism is a serious threat?

            No American president–conservative, liberal, libertarian, martian, ever–is going to say "We're at war with Islam." It's not going to happen. Allen West will never be president. Deal with it.

            As for them making such a film, I don't doubt they have. They've probably made several. So what? And if they did it in the USA, I'd invite them to the FBI offices for a few chats, put them all on watch lists, investigate to see if there were any criminal activiites associated, and do what I could to make their life legally inconvenient. That's what we do.

          • Ted G

            Sorry Jim_C but what you said IS absolutely appeasement. You seem to be willing to give up your liberties in the face of intimidation. I am not.
            You also seem to buy into the idea that it was the provocation itself (manufactured or not) that is to blame for the loss of any innocent life as opposed to the primitive savages who actually did the murdering. I do not accept that!

            I get the impression that you mean well, but this cannot be the stance. We cannot stop telling the truth to the muslim world because they threaten to riot and murder.

            Here's some of my truth.
            Mo is not my prophet,
            I don't believe in Mo and
            I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect Mo, and also
            based on my own research mo and islam do not deserve my respect.

            I write my truths above in an attempt to illustrate a point. That is this, If I were to utter these words in an islamic country in front of a group of islamists…chances are I would be murdered. The secondary point is to explain that their demands are not reasonable demands to simply ask for some respect. Their demands are "Silence or I will kill you!" I will not accept that!

            To people I will give the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise, but an ideology based on a body of writings fully available for all to review deserve no consideration of respect up front, only a judgment after their review. I have reached my conclusions after I read the islamic trilogy not before. If you have not, I encourage you to also read it/them and then make your own judgement.
            You may change your view much like Jefferson did.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Here's some of my truth.
            Mo is not my prophet,
            I don't believe in Mo and
            I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect Mo, and also
            based on my own research mo and islam do not deserve my respect."

            Arrest the blasphemer! He's starting more riots!! I knew we needed special laws, I just know it!! We need active firewall scanners to delete blasphemy before my sensitive ears, eyes and sense of smell can be offended.

          • Jim_C

            Ted G, I haven't given up, nor will I ever give up my liberties. Not only am I aware of who (and what ideology) is truly to blame for the riots, I also have read those things, and share your view.

            My point was that a world leader is not going to fan the flames where and when so many American lives are at risk. Sorry–that is not "appeasement." But I accept your grade of B-, here, because I absolutely get where you're coming from.

            I do think our intelligence community should actually be working on similar enterprises to that film. We are never going to "force" (beyond a massive bombing campaign) that region to accept the liberal freedoms we've fought for and enjoyed for 200 years–they have to come to that themselves. But we can, covertly, help that process along.

          • Ted G

            Jim_C Thank you for taking the time with what I see here as an honest and sincere response.
            We seem to have similar concerns and even though we may disagree on the issue of appeasement, it is only a matter of degrees. I get your point, I do. I just think in this case it is not apt. I say this because we are not dealing with rational parties. You can only negotiate with rational parties. Irrational parties look at appeasement as a weakness and an opportunity to push for more.

            A couple of metaphors come to mind "Poking a sleeping bear" or "Stirring a hornets nest".
            Both of these result in a mindless rage and/or a swarming mass of destruction and inflicted pain. But here is where that comparison ends. Because the mindless rage of the mob (muslims) is simply a tool guided by the ideology and exploited by other malevolent actors on the world stage such as islamic clerics, the OIC, the Arab league, various leaders of islamic countries and even here in the USA groups such as CAIR, the IIIT and the MSA who all use this to push for their agenda in support for genocide and global blasphemy laws. These are all our ideological enemies.

            Obama gave them what they wanted to hear and that was basically his agreement that they have an argument. He agreed with them!
            Now you hinted that our intelligence community should be doing things like this…I hope I am not taking to much liberty here, but doesn't that mean that we should be attacking the ideology itself and calling out the parts of the world that supports this twisted idea of justice. I f so then Obama is not helping. In fact I think he is aiding and abetting.

            So I guess my position is and I hope I don't strain the metaphor too much, but if we are manipulated into the path of the bear or if the hornets nest is thrown at us, then we should not only kill the bear and burn the hornets nest we should then go straight after the parties that orchestrated, guided or exploited the situation. And there should be no apologies when we do it.

          • Jim_C

            No apologies for standing for human liberty–100% right!

            I think the "rational vs. irrational" parties notion can be overstated. When things ramped up in the Cold War, many in the US saw the Soviets as "irrational" and they, we know, saw Reagan as "irrational" and what that meant was, capable of attacking at any time despite the idea of mutually assured destruction.

            I am not sure the mullahs (or whomever) don't use the "irrationality" of Islamism in a cynical way, much as the Soviets had their pretense of proletarian populism.

            Not to make too fine a point of it. The threat of serious weaponry in renegade, irrational hands is probably the biggest (non-economic) threat to world stability.

            Now I don't think we should attack the ideology outright so much as "sell" our ideology of human liberty by helping engineer situations in which their ideology is exacerbated by high profile free speech issues–situations where their leaders are placed in front of a world audience defending their oppression. Much like when the neighborhood imam is called out on the question of apostasy–they hem and haw and dance around. Too few people see that.

            I think more situations like that can be engineered through media, entertainment, and other things in a subtle, but more concerted way. It may, as you say, bring about that hornets nest situation. But maybe it brings about revolution. In some ways, the availability of media (iphones, etc) in those countries already has. They're able to look at the rest of the world and say "Why aren't we like that? Why can't I live like that?" You couldn't do that 20 years ago in those countries unless you were privileged and usually highly educated.

            We also have to remember that the USA is exceptional in that we believe freedom is not granted by government, but something we are born to. Sometimes we can take that for granted, and sometimes we don't realize that's not an attitude even our closest allies necessarily share. So it's a long game…anyway, thanks for the civil comments!

          • Ted G

            Jim_C And thx to you as well!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh brother. It's not about appeasement, it's about not causing riots all over the place that result in the deaths of innocent people based on some statement you make–however true that statement may be."

            Yes, it is about causing riots. Who caused the riots, idiot?

            "Do you honestly think the people in charge of the country don't think Islamo-fascism is a serious threat?"

            Some do and some don't. That is beside the point completely. The question is really; does appeasement work when the appeased will naturally (according to their theology) believe that Allah forced the appeaser? It literally encourages them. They are told this is an indication that Allah is on their side. Did you read what I wrote about fatalism?

            "No American president–conservative, liberal, libertarian, martian, ever–is going to say "We're at war with Islam." It's not going to happen."

            Not any time soon.

            "Allen West will never be president."

            I agree, but that doesn't make him wrong. That just shows the state of politics in America.

            "Deal with it."

            LOL. I deal with stupidity all day long.

            "As for them making such a film, I don't doubt they have. They've probably made several. So what?"

            So what? We've already announced who we say made it, what his motives were, and so forth. You moron. We should have defended free speech and due process and said nothing else. Anything less is by definition anti-American, unless when you use that hyphenated word, the America in your mind has been re-imagined by totalitarian dreamers.

            "And if they did it in the USA, I'd invite them to the FBI offices for a few chats, put them all on watch lists, investigate to see if there were any criminal activiites associated, and do what I could to make their life legally inconvenient."

            How progressive.

            "That's what we do."

            Due process? "Legally inconvenient." The word "legally" has the same meaning as "rules of the game" to you. Made to be manipulated.

          • Jim_C

            So you would have the president of the world's greatest country fan the flames in the Islamic world and endanger our soldiers, diplomats, and everyone else trying to do work in that region just to make a point? He DID defend free speech, pretty clearly. But he's not about to let the world's greatest country be identified as "approving" that film. Because that's what would happen. I don't expect you to get that–but an intelligent person might.

            See, I don't think that's a hard distinction to grasp. But then I'm sure we wouldn't even have to grasp it if a Republican were president and did/said the exact same things as Mr. Obama. Mr. Bush witnessed many attacks on embassies and a couple ambassador assassinations. Funny–Don't remember a lot of "outrage" against him, here.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Are you a mind reader? How do you know the intentions of the film maker? And, more importantly, why should I care? The muslimes who went on a rampage didn't have to watch the film, no one but a gun to their head and forced them to watch the movie and the movie itself didn't in anyway advocate the scuzzlums go on a murderous rampage.

    • Joseph Klein

      Obama did finally come through with a strong statement, which I acknowledge. Either he is finally getting the message or having an election year conversion. I hope for the sake of the country that the former is the case, in case he is re-elected.

      • Jim_C

        Thank you, and keep pushing for that clarity from our leaders.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Guess "we got it," after all, eh? Will you acknowledge that? "

      Obama knows how to solicit policy and speech consultants to recover politically from his idiotic policy disasters. He's a politician that follows, with lies when necessary.

      What is your excitement about? You are excited that a treasonous politician managed a political recovery of sorts without changing his policies or positions that led directly to those unprecedented failures? The USA is on the verge of being attacked at any moment by Muslims who smell blood in the water with a Muslim or virtual Muslim on the inside working for them. Muslims understand double-talking politicians because even their so-callled perfect prophet employed the exact same tactics, calling them halal for followers (slaves of Allah) as well.

      Wow, you really are the optimist. Or does that make you one of the sycophants?

      I can acknowledge that.

      • Jim_C

        "The USA is on the verge of being attacked at any moment by Muslims who smell blood in the water with a Muslim or virtual Muslim on the inside working for them."

        Oh? If "objective facts matter," display some.

        Otherwise, it's paranoid blather.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "If "objective facts matter," display some."

          You must not pay much attention. You don't see the riots around the US embassies?

          Google.com: us embassy riots

          Those are facts. "Blood in the water" is obviously rhetorical and subjective. That doesn't negate the objective facts that are considered when formulating the subjective analysis.

          "Otherwise, it's paranoid blather."

          As paranoid as thinking the rain storms will come. Exaggerating risk can be characterized as paranoid, but denying risk is clearly always delusional.

          • Jim_C

            No, no–don't pretend you were talking about the embassy attacks. Where's the "Muslim or the virtual Muslim on the inside?" Got facts? Otherwise it's just paranoid blather.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Yeah worldwide islamofascist terrorism is just "paranoid blather". Idjit.

    • Carl

      A bit late but I wonder if the Muhammadan world is ready to ban the blasphemies the quran contains about Jesus Christ? Such as He is not the Son of God, was not crucified or resurrected from the dead, the Bible calls the one who says this a liar and an antichrist. Of course these blasphemies originated with the Islamic prophet himself. This makes Muhammad a blasphemer and the quran a book of blasphemy! And since they want to ban speach that offends the religious feeling of religions, lets ban it too. I wish our leaders had the balls to say that at the UN to old Mahmud's face, but they don't so we will continue looking like a pussy west like we always have. Do feel free to pass on what religious hypocrites muslims are. Muslims need to be called out publicly, and told what they need to hear. Oh God send us a spokesman for the truth who will tell em savages that we are all Salmon Rushdie.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "A bit late but I wonder if the Muhammadan world is ready to ban the blasphemies the quran contains about Jesus Christ?"

        Islam IS nothing without its collections of blasphemies. I mean that literally. Remove religions blasphemy from Islam and it no longer exists. Those are facts. They would cease to be Muslims when they seriously considered these facts. They'd be apostates and subject to murder by those who are not yet enlightened.

        What we have to do it arrange for a coordinated seminar so that they can all be addressed at one time. We call out those sensible Muslims and offer immediate sanctuary. This won't happen any time soon, if ever. You still have to define the ideal situation before you can develop the best possible solution to any problem.

        • Kufar Dawg

          A "sensible muslim", is no longer a muslim at all, they're apostates.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Um, what about the hatred and persecution of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Bahais by your scuzzlum brethren all over the world Ali? Why isn't your president interested in that? Because it's commonplace, in every islamic state, right now.

  • EthanP

    Bush , Clinton maybe. Obama NEVER!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning….

  • marvin Fox

    In the beginning, B. Obama was touted as a new an more powerful voice for the American presidency. He would be the unifier, all things to all people, wise beyond all others. Enough Americans were conned into that view by the applause of a minority that B. O. was elected.
    Now! We have what we have! Our President wars a neighborhood organizer; unfortunately, the world is not a neighborhood and he can't organize it. He is what he is, and the world is what it is. Neither works well with the other.
    Marvin E. Fox

    • Kufar Dawg

      He'll unify us, whether we like it or not, under islamofascism and woe betide those who don't want to be unified.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Hillary should have told zadari that the United States government is not a theological institution, and doesn't rule on whether films, books, or statements are "blasphemous".

    Not likely, mates ….

    • Kufar Dawg

      The clintons have received tens of millions of dollars from islamofascist petrostates in business dealings. Business dealings that the more prescient might call bribes, but maybe not.

      • Stephen_Brady

        This is completely true, and so Hillary would never say what I indicated she should say. After all, she still intends to be Clinton II, in the White House. Also, a large part of Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign was financed, illegally, by the Chinese, in return for missile technology (which was classified, for which Bill should have been prosecuted, after he left the presidency). This explains the generational leaps made by the Chinese in ICBMs, since that time.

  • Sunbeam

    Who is guilty of hate speech here? Iranian President kept harping about Israel's elimination from the Middle East, not knowing Israel's root of existence stems from thousands of years of history there. The only hate speech that has been regularly spoken off is from the country Iran itself and its leaders. They'd managed to poison the minds of many Muslims from around the world. They kept harping about how it hates Israel and its objective to destroy the nation and its people. Isn't this a hate speech? Isn't this dangerous a threat? And the world is silent. He gets away as he always gets away with all the hate speeches he made. Iran is a real threat to the world and it is inflaming this animosity among Muslim Nations to take up this war. It uses religion as its cover up source to pursue this very agenda.

    • Kufar Dawg

      No one has poisoned the minds of muslimes. Their holey books of hatred are all the poison they need.

  • Mullah be Damned

    If we lose the right to mock Islam, we're fu*ked.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "poor Hillary was delegated the unpleasant task of listening to Zardari’s rant against what Pakistan has labeled the “blasphemous” video posted on YouTube. “One or two insane persons should not be allowed to endanger world peace"

    Precisely why Islamic theology and their lies about history and contemporary events must be refuted constantly and aggressively.

    "… in the garb of freedom of expression,” he said, effectively blaming the video for the riots in Pakistan last week resulting in twenty-one deaths and more than two hundred people injured."

    Yeah, right. The world should be governed according to religious feelings. And they said time travel was impossible, but the whole region travels back to the 7th century any time their feelings take them there. Or perhaps they never left? So time travel really only occurs when you accept the lies of Islam, and you can only return when you rediscover the objective facts that refute Islamic lies.

    Got it.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Islamic states are misery theme parks where you can visit the 8th century while living in the 21st.

  • Kufar Dawg

    I believe something like a dozen Iranian Jews have been hung for being spies in the Iranian Islamic Republic, but only after closed courtroom "trials" with no public scrutiny whatsoever and no appeals process.