This Is What Islamic Supremacism Looks Like


Pages: 1 2

Well, of course! And the allegations of Nazi supremacism must also be the invention of anti-Aryan elements. Specific examples of how the Aryan-phobes have exploited the good name of the Nazi movement include the annexation of Austria and territories in Eastern Europe; the occupation of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France; the militaristic rule over the rest of Europe; the bombings of Britain and the invasion into the USSR, not to mention their vast network of concentration camps. Especially misused, misquoted and misinterpreted is the atypical event to which some academics and writers refer as “the Holocaust,” perpetrated by a fringe group of extremist lunatics without the approval of the vast majority of moderate Nazis. Come to think of it, the entire WWII was merely an act of “defensive” supremacism to remedy the insults inflicted on the Aryan master race by inferior people. What a shame.

How loud must one scream into a deaf ear? What else needs to be said to convey the idea that of all the aforementioned forms of supremacism, real or imaginary, Islam is the only one that is currently growing in strength, numbers, and influence? That the current upheaval in the Muslim world has nothing to do with the silly “film” (which they haven’t seen), and everything to do with the impulse to “dominate, control, and rule”? Would using “progressive” phraseology help?

“This is what democracy looks like” was often heard at Occupy Wall Street rallies from hatchlings of the “progressive” eggs we have seen deposited sneakily on the Internet, in textbooks, films, and news coverage. Their leaders also tried to garner the support of Islamists by embracing their alleged grievances, but having showed up only once for a public prayer and witnessing the ungodly Occupy lifestyle, Muslim groups quickly decided they weren’t THAT tolerant. Predictably, this was promptly squirreled away by the Occupiers into the lessons-not-learned tent.

Call me a hopeless idealist who can’t seem to learn his lessons either, but I’ll try to make a point one more time, with this series of images titled “This Is What Islamic Supremacism Looks Like.” Hey, what are the odds they’ll end up illustrating the article on supremacism in Wikipedia?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Well, of course! And the allegations of Nazi supremacism must also be the invention of anti-Aryan elements."

    I use this argument all the time, and the silence always surprises me to this day.

    • tagalog

      Well, the Byzantines were anti-Aryan long before those who opposed the Nazis. Before them, the Hephthalites were anti-Aryan. Then there were the Muslims, who also were anti-Aryan.

  • Schlomotion

    This is one of those colorful "Islam Stinks" articles. The fact is, there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and almost 7 billion people in the world altogether.

    In other words, 88% of people in the world already know Islam stinks. Or else they have no use for it.

    This is not what stands out about the article. What stands out about the article is Mr. Atbashian's use of communist rhetoric when he said "they are about to offer a propagandistic platform to a leading figure of Islamic supremacism." Ah, the language of 1980s USSR is back. A man speaking to people is a propagandistic platform, because in the eyes of Comintern, all speech is propaganda and should be centrally controlled. Ukrainian habits die hard.

    I posit that if Ahmedinejad speaks anywhere in the US, presuming he is here beyond the tight confines of his diplomatic immunity, he will be able to be taken to task for many of his silly ideas, and perhaps heard out on some of his legitimate ones. The horror!

    • Advocatus

      What a sad, pathetic human being you are, Schlo. But no surprise there. You disagree with an author so you immediately resort to some underhanded putdown of his ethic origins. Is that what counts for enlightened opinion in yer eyes?

      Meanwhile, as I've pointed it out to you countless times (alas, to no avail), you'll need to check your facts, mate. to wit: the world's population has already surpassed the 7 billion benchmark. There were numerous reports about that historic event, such as it is, in the media back then. Why don't ya start reading up on stuff eh?

      Carry on.

      • Schlomotion

        Split hairs all you like. You have not demolished the basic premiss that Muslims are not in any way about to the rule the world. Mr. Atbashian's origins are fair game. He posts under the name "Red Square." One can easily imagine an Israeli saying "What do you expect, he is from Waziristan." Sorry. Ukraine has a reputation for producing Magyar crazies and Communists. Maybe if Mr. Atbashian didn't make ready use of Communist terminology, the comparison would not be so easy to make.

        • Western Canadian

          Make an ass of yourself all you like. And boy, do you like.

        • Pontotoc Bill

          SchloMo, you fail to understand that Islamic scholars HAVE said that it is the destiny of Islam to rule the world. Have you failed to understand that simple fact? That Islam requires Muslims to fight until there is no other religion but Islam?

          How pathetic and inane you aer, mental midget.

          • Schlomotion

            So what. They say that's their destiny. On the other hand, there is no such thing as destiny. So they're wrong, and they're dumb, and they'll fail. So who cares?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So what. They say that's their destiny. On the other hand, there is no such thing as destiny. So they're wrong, and they're dumb, and they'll fail. So who cares?"

            There is still much pain in their failure too. We can reduce the pain caused by their efforts when we defeat their lies and act according to knowledge of the facts instead.

            Are you a collectivist that thinks all enslaved people should just suffer their fate because you and your class are content?

          • Schlomotion

            That's quite the inversion of a Platonist hustle, now isn't it? We philosopher kings who don't intervene into Muslim civilization and spare them and their neighbors the pain of a bad ideas' failure are collectivists? On what level was that supposed to seduce me? As a Platonist? As an idealist? As an individualist? Goodness.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "That's quite the inversion of a Platonist hustle, now isn't it? We philosopher kings who don't intervene into Muslim civilization and spare them and their neighbors the pain of a bad ideas' failure are collectivists?"

            No, but collectivists find it easy to ignore that Muslim women are significantly oppressed. Rape in marriage is the right of the man, I could go on. The soft oppression makes them truly second-class or worse in their own societies and is so completely accepted that the women themselves for the most part blame themselves rather than own society, since critical thoughts spoken out loud will be immediately punished with violence up to the loss of their lives.

            They deserve it because they are part of the class (you think subconsciously, if you think about them at all). These women are of no concern to you. This is not even discussing the coercion that most men feel from the beginning of their lives to identify as Muslims. Islam is a coercive cult. Only a collectivist would feel just fine about tolerating this. The other possibility is that you are such a narcissist that you truly care about only 1 person, full stop and no exceptions. That is your only defense from the accusation of collectivist.

          • Schlomotion

            Of course you could go on. That's why Mr. Spencer brings you to the lectures. You don't just get to arbitrarily assign the word "collectivists" to people who won't join the Islamophobia bandwagon though. Kibbutzniks are collectivists. Soc.ialists are collectivists. Hasbaras are collectives and their writers collectivists. I am not a collectivist for refusing to be led around by the nose on recycled college feminism.

            Look at you trying to determine and broker what the defenses from the word "collectivist" are. And Narcissist! There you undo your argument again, using a slur which means I am self-absorbed and self adoring. A one-man collective?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You don't just get to arbitrarily assign the word "collectivists" to people who won't join "the Islamophobia bandwagon though."

            Not arbitrary at all. Your argument was essentially, "So what if they're evil, they won't succeed." This was the argument for allowing the Soviets to expand as long as they could be contained sufficiently to protect US interests. Fine, if the USA is incapable of doing more. But we're forgetting that the USSR was a coercive totalitarian system.

            You make the same argument for ignoring Islam as if there are no victims assuming they don't succeed in their endgame. You treat them as a class. You didn't mitigate your arguments by saying that, "Well, it's coercive but if the West tries to save everyone, we'll lose our own freedoms….etc." You simply ignore the suffering from Islam today because you or your class will is not expected to suffer.

            "Islamophobia bandwagon"? What is "Islamophobia" anyway? The irrational fear of Islam? Please explain how it is irrational. You've not made that case at all. You're a liar or a dupe by accepting deceptive propaganda and repeating it over and over.

          • Schlomotion

            The USSR collapsed. It finished. Was Nietzsche a collectivist for saying soc.ialists should all be allowed their quarter of the world to idealize and destroy and die by the millions in? Was Brzezinski a collectivist for designing Al Qaeda? No. Benjamin Netanyahu is a collectivist for trying to wage war against Iran and get the US to underwrite all the force.

            You have gone from using the tired, recycled college feminism argument to using the tired, recycled "classism" argument. You have been talking down to too many college freshmen. You even moved into threatening to bring the whole show down if the terminology and the explanations don't go your way. This is just like the YouTube videos except without the nervous security guards.

            These claims of yours: sexism, classism. I am not 19 years old. I don't believe in "rape culture" or other silliness from 1995. You are putting way too much effort into throwing back in my face a bunch of inapplicable college lingo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Was Nietzsche a collectivist for saying soc.ialists should all be allowed their quarter of the world to idealize and destroy and die by the millions in?"

            He did express collectivist ideology, but without the full context of the quote, I can only say it could border on collectivism. If these socialists were making individual decisions to go off in the their corner, then in that context the statement is not evidence of collectivism. Making the statement about the Soviet Union would be, because it would be ignoring the rights of the individuals who are being coerced.

            "Was Brzezinski a collectivist for designing Al Qaeda?"

            Maybe, but you need a more detailed argument. Not on that fact alone, no. Collective action is not collectivism per se. If your role is to defend a group of people, you might need to act collectively or to lead a collective action without denying individual rights and the value of the individual.

            Collectivism is when you deny the need to consider the rights of individuals. It is not acting collectively per se.

            What are your thoughts about all of the Muslims who are lied to and forced to hide their criticism for fear of the charge of apostasy? Hmm?

            "Was Brzezinski a collectivist for designing Al Qaeda? No. Benjamin Netanyahu is a collectivist for trying to wage war against Iran and get the US to underwrite all the force."

            So what distinguishes them from one another in your mind? Benjamin Netanyahu is not a collectivist. Zbigniew Brzezinski might be, but it's not clear by your citation.

            Collectivism is rampant on the political left. Did you not know this? Where do you suppose "wealth redistribution" and other "radical reforms" come from? Class victims. We don't need courts to weigh individual cases, just sign up according to your class. That is an example of collectivism heard on the left every day.

            "These claims of yours: sexism"

            I don't think you are sexist, though your particular delusion leads you to harm a class of women through ignorance. That is not sexism per se.

            "classism"

            Maybe Borderline "classism." I didn't hear you pitch that any classes were superior, just that individuals don't matter so much to you. I need to review before rendering any final verdict on that charge. I said you are a collectivist or an extreme narcissist. They are not as far apart as you imagine. Neither cares about the rights of the individual other than his own.

            "You are putting way too much effort into throwing back in my face a bunch of inapplicable college lingo."

            Now you're just projecting. If you don't understand the lingo, maybe it's you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Was Nietzsche a collectivist for saying soc.ialists should all be allowed their quarter of the world to idealize and destroy and die by the millions in?"

            It's not clear. If he had said that about the Soviet Union, then yes. The distinction is whether he spoke about people who had been coerced or whether he was talking about willing participants.

            "Was Brzezinski a collectivist for designing Al Qaeda? No. Benjamin Netanyahu is a collectivist for trying to wage war against Iran and get the US to underwrite all the force."

            That makes no sense to anyone but a simple-minded anti-Semite. What are Netanyahu's motives that make him a collectivist for being a strong leader against Islamic messianic nuclear aggression?

            You make no sense.

            "You even moved into threatening to bring the whole show down if the terminology and the explanations don't go your way. "

            That's a bit vague but I sense anyway that it's also the result of more delusional inference.

            "These claims of yours: sexism, classism."

            No, I said collectivism, narcissism or possibly both based on judging your own typed words.

            "I don't believe in "rape culture" or other silliness from 1995"

            Well that clears up everything….except for your inconsistencies and refusal to take responsibility for your own words.

          • Schlomotion

            The Netanyahu's Ministry of Immigrant Absorption sponsored ads in American Jewish diaspora communities that warn Israeli expatriates that they will lose their identities if they don't return home. The ads described the dangers of marrying American Jews, including the shonde that they will lose their collective identity as Jews.

            Netanyahu rules a country where conscription is the norm and where security overrides individualism, where only settlements and kibbutzes and companies have rights to land and individual landholders from unplanned cities do not. Netanyahu believes American domestic and foreign policy are subservient to Israeli security needs and that we are obligated to fight a war against Iran for him.

            Benjamin Netanyahu is the consummate vertical collectivist who rules from a hierarchy based on moral and cultural conformity and a shared belief in his same paranoias.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The Netanyahu's Ministry of Immigrant Absorption sponsored ads in American Jewish diaspora communities that warn Israeli expatriates that they will lose their identities if they don't return home. The ads described the dangers of marrying American Jews, including the shonde that they will lose their collective identity as Jews."
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collect
            1:: a political or economic theory advocating collective control
            especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
            2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

            >emphasis on collective *rather than* individual action or identity<

            Leading collective actions is not collectivism per se until you compromise individualism. Many individuals participate in collective activities. Jews value individual rights. They also organize themselves collectively. This is not collectivism or any person not living as a hermit in total isolation would be a collectivist. How useful is that as a term?

            "Netanyahu rules a country where conscription is the norm"

            Therefore all statutes are collectivist? I see. We must name individuals. Tom may not pass through the red light, Mary may not pass through the red light, etc.

            "and where security overrides individualism"

            Says you.

            "Benjamin Netanyahu is the consummate vertical collectivist who rules from a hierarchy based on moral and cultural conformity and a shared belief in his same paranoias. "

            Let me summarize for you:

            "I am Schlomotion, the slow troll who hates Jews, Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. He is therefore a collectivist because I hate his leadership values."

            I think we are now clear on your positions. Why does it take you so long with so much verbosity to make your point? I think virtually everyone here already knew your subjective feelings. We just don't care.

            Don't complain about the length of my replies, I'm just working on damage control.

            Clue: leaders lead collectively. That does not make them collectivists, you ninny.

          • Schlomotion

            It's good that you can look up words as you need to. Your asterisks validate my point which is that Netanyahu is a collectivist because he pumps out ad campaigns telling people they are going to lose their collective Jewish identity if they marry into the American diaspora and follow their individualist wishes instead. You also cannot deny that Israel practices conscription and runs kibbutzes, yeshivas, and midrashas to enforce a collectivist religious ethnic identity.

            And let's not pretend as you do that Israel is not on a slippery slope to saying that Tom may not pass through the red light, but Mary may, but Ahmed may not if he is in the car with Tom. They are definitely going there. And right behind it all is Mr. Netanyahu claiming the apocalypse will come if this is disturbed in any way.

            I don't hate Jews. You simply hurl that nonsense out as if flailing out. It is a most preposterous assertion. I don't care if you believe me or not, but for the record, you are wildly off the mark. You are as far off the mark as when you tried to accuse one man of being a collectivist, me, a person who has named no collective and no collectivist goals.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It's good that you can look up words as you need to. Your asterisks validate my point which is that Netanyahu is a collectivist because he pumps out ad campaigns telling people they are going to lose their collective Jewish identity if they marry into the American diaspora and follow their individualist wishes instead."

            Do you really not understand what collectivism is? Collectivism is infringes on individual rights for the sake of the collective. If you want to cite conscription as an example of collectivism, I suppose that's OK. Most of your other example fail because the element of coercion is not there. You need a coercive denial of individual rights, particularly when justified by "needs of the collective."

            Exterminating criminals without due process could be considered collectivism because you seek justice for the collective as more important than justice for the individual. Because of the subjectivity involved, anyone can make claims about collectivism. If you want to deny understanding the distinctions between Islam and it's collective demeaning of all women, fine. You think that is comparable to conscription. OK. You can call each collectivism, but you can't call them morally equivalent. As long as we understand each other, that is what matters with vocabulary.

            "kibbutzes, yeshivas, and midrashas to enforce a collectivist religious ethnic identity."

            Did you read the definition I supplied you with? "Collective identity," not "collectivist identity" until they want to coerce others for the sake of the collective. The key is which takes precedence, individual rights, or centrally mandated "good of the collective."

            "I don't hate Jews. You simply hurl that nonsense out as if flailing out. It is a most preposterous assertion."

            I used hate as a verb. It was an observation.

            "I don't care if you believe me or not, but for the record, you are wildly off the mark. "

            It's just amazing when you ask hateful people why they hate. They will almost universally deny this judgment.

            "You are as far off the mark as when you tried to accuse one man of being a collectivist, me, a person who has named no collective and no collectivist goals. "

            I didn't say you were at the center of a collective planning people's lives collectively. It was a statement about your political views, and how you construct them. You don't value individual rights unless someone reminds you to. I also said that you could be a collectivist, not that you must be one. If you care about others but not individuals, that makes you a collectivist. If you don't care about others at all, that makes you a narcissist. It is also possible to be both at the same time. That is what I've said consistently. I don't know more than that about you. I only know what you say about what your values are and the positions you take.

          • Schlomotion

            "Most of your other example fail because the element of coercion is not there."

            I disagree. You have attempted to use coercion through persuasion several times, some of them not mere argument but rather short-circuit style gambits, hooks and props, as Wittgenstein might say; not exactly arguing, but psychological attempts upon my emotions.

            Also, advertisement is coercion. Buses are ubiquitous, noisy authority figures, beacons. So are billboards. So is broadcast. Focused repetition is a conditioning weapon. Jingles are viral memes. Signage is threat. Flashing lights are stroboscopic pulses, little fists into the eyeballs. Sirens are screams. Coercion is everywhere. Ratchet it up and you have jersey barriers, mobile LRADS, thermal lasers. It's all on a continuum.

            I certainly value individual rights. I don't submit to recruitment. That's different. Of course I care about other people, but not all of them equally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You have attempted to use coercion through persuasion several times"

            And you have falsely conflated persuasion and coercion. You lose.

            "I certainly value individual rights. I don't submit to recruitment."

            The phrase, "submit to recruitment" is meaningless in this context. So what? I have consistently argued for defense of this right. You are the one who doesn't care who has individual rights of (Western standards for) liberty as long as yours are not threatened.

            "Of course I care about other people, but not all of them equally."

            Exactly. You ignore entire classes of people who are not worth even contemplating as individuals collectively rather than just a homogenous group all deserving of the same fate by virtue of circumstance. This is an example of collectivism.

            Get over it. You won't weasel your way out of words you've already published. You can delete what you published, but not my quotations of extracts.

            Whatever. Go take a vacation and think about what you learned. If you are as smart and as loving as you say you are, then you'll grow from this conversation. Time will tell if I'm being too optimistic about you.

          • Schlomotion

            That is another trick. Persuasion using deception is coercion. Misleading, or passing on disinformation is a form of warfare, e.g. violence. Your repeated use of snares, false options, no-win continua, these are all violences. I have watched you tune your rhetoric dial to see if I am feminist, racist, idealist, emotionalist, collectivist, susceptible to contradictions. I am conflating nothing. I am placing your approach on a continuum with jihad.

            In less inflammatory language, I would prefer that everybody choose to exercise individual rights, but if they are unwilling or unable, I am not about to convert, evangelize or liberate them. That does not make me a collectivist. Not being altruistic to whole swaths of people does not make someone a collectivist. You are inverting the definition into its negative.

            I am not trying to get out of any words. I stand by everything I have said in this discussion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Persuasion using deception is coercion. Misleading, or passing on disinformation is a form of warfare, e.g. violence. Your repeated use of snares, false options, no-win continua, these are all violences. I have watched you tune your rhetoric dial to see if I am feminist, racist, idealist, emotionalist, collectivist, susceptible to contradictions. I am conflating nothing. I am placing your approach on a continuum with jihad."

            Then you've stepped beyond the Western worldview and made yourself a victim based on lies you accept. Poor you.

            "I would prefer that everybody choose to exercise individual rights, but if they are unwilling or unable, I am not about to convert, evangelize or liberate them. That does not make me a collectivist. Not being altruistic to whole swaths of people does not make someone a collectivist. You are inverting the definition into its negative."

            My evidence comes from your statement that no harm comes from allowing Islam to perpetuate its horrors since there are no important victims. I leave it to others to analyze what I've said in context. Nobody here believes your deceptive summaries. If you've been deceived, you did it to yourself. Don't try to invite me down that path. I won't follow.

            "I am not trying to get out of any words. I stand by everything I have said in this discussion."

            The check is in the mail. Really.

          • Schlomotion

            Harm does come from allowing Islam to perpetuate some of its actions against its own adherents and also against its non-adherents.

            We can say the same of the Catholic Church whose dogma that the Church is inviolate permitted organized ped.oph.ilia to persist. The answer was to prosecute the criminals, and for the public to openly disdain the Church and for it to forfeit some lands as payment of settlement. All of that punishment was legit. But to say "I am going to destroy Catholicism" is really a quite different proposal akin to Stalinism.

            I support every bit the right of people to try to disseminate information subversive to religion and government where they see fit. My issue with tracts however is whether they batter a captive audience, are accusatory, insulting or in truth not subversive but really mainstream run of the mill bigotry.

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

            And when was the last trial and sentence meted out? Let's think with islam that was huh, yesterday. With Catholicism it was how many hundreds of years ago?

            I'm waiting for a link and source from you with a date and case.

          • Kufar Dawg

            As a lying muslime?

          • Advocatus

            I don't recall ever agreeing with you about pretty much anything, but, boy, do I agree with you about this one.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I don't recall ever agreeing with you about pretty much anything, but, boy, do I agree with you about this one."

            Collectivism? Writing off a whole class of people to suffer from their coercive cult membership because it was their class destiny?

            Perhaps I am reading this wrong since you didn't quote what you replied to.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "You have not demolished the basic premiss that Muslims are not in any way about to the rule the world."

          Nobody ever said the risk comes from the possibility that they might achieve their strategic goal. The risk and harm comes from the tactics being used for 14 centuries. They also happen to rule over an oppressed population during that entire time: female humans.

          No problem for you. You feel free, you feel no threat from Islam, therefore all threats are exaggerated.

          You're quite the narcissist, aren't you?

          • Advocatus

            Schlo is right that they will not rule the world as they are planning, barring some sort of catastrophe, but you're also right that it will take a whole lot of sweat, blood and tears to roll back the tide of Islamic militancy. Not only that, but it will take generations until the stultifyingly bigoted and inane creed of Mohammed gets its proper due once and for all in the marketplace of ideas.

            Yet it won't be people like Schlo who will be standing in the way of Islamic headhackers. He'll be hiding in the basement sending out a regular flurry of snide comments about how all this murder and mayhem is irrelevant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Schlo is right that they will not rule the world as they are planning, barring some sort of catastrophe, but you're also right that it will take a whole lot of sweat, blood and tears to roll back the tide of Islamic militancy."

            I never heard anyone say that there was a risk in their ultimate success.

            "Not only that, but it will take generations until the stultifyingly bigoted and inane creed of Mohammed gets its proper due once and for all in the marketplace of ideas. "

            Exactly. That is what we are doing here! You see, the military options are the last resort in our culture. We are working on the peaceful options by propagating fact to replace lies.

            "Yet it won't be people like Schlo who will be standing in the way of Islamic headhackers. He'll be hiding in the basement sending out a regular flurry of snide comments about how all this murder and mayhem is irrelevant. "

            I think his attitude comes from the knowledge that he is at this point far enough removed physically that it doesn't matter to him what happens as long as he can count on remaining aloof, getting involved only to pester people and act like the contrary critical thinker.

          • Schlomotion

            Here you go again, impugning individualism in favor of some kind of obligatory saving the world from a bad religion. Ayn Rand shrieks from her grave.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "impugning individualism in favor of some kind of obligatory saving the world from a bad religion."

            You need to explain your remark if you expect further dialog on any point you think you made. I impugned Islam, collectivism and narcissism, not individualism. Nice try though.

            "Ayn Rand shrieks from her grave."

            Interesting. Did you imagine yourself understanding what she wanted to say?

          • Schlomotion

            It's simple. You are trying to recruit, and then cajole and demean those who will not enlist. You have recycled the campus feminist guilt trip, the Platonist utopian mandate, and then tried to reverse psychologize and sling the collectivist epithet against someone who questions your collective goal. An individual has critical thinking skills and is able to oppose Islam and Islamophobia at the same time. That's easy too, considering that they are two competing Semitic fanaticisms. You share the same manner of accusation as Mr. Thornton, hurling the accusation of self-seeking, self absorption at people who unbellyfeel the Ingsoc of fighting the Islamic Goldstein.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are trying to recruit, and then cajole and demean those who will not enlist. You have recycled the campus feminist guilt trip, the Platonist utopian mandate, and then tried to reverse psychologize"

            You miss the point that facts matter. Tactics are relevant, but meaningless when you deny the possibility that one can be in fact fighting on the side of righteousness. Otherwise you deny any existence of morality.

            Well, do you?

            "and sling the collectivist epithet against someone who questions your collective goal."

            Having a collective goal is not morally equal to collectivism until it denies the rights of the individual. I do no such thing. You do. You deny the rights of millions of Muslims because they are too far away, too detached from your life for you to worry about.

            Did you not say that we should just get along with the way things are since there is no risk of the caliphate scheme succeeding? Did I totally misunderstand your point?

            Let me ask you point blank, why would you or anyone want to suppress facts about a cult that uses lies to incite murder to the tune of millions of people? Lies that incite murder should first be fought with truth, and then weapons only as a last resort.

            I'm trying to save people from misery and you have a problem with that.

            "An individual has critical thinking skills and is able to oppose Islam and Islamophobia at the same time"

            Only if they are ignorant of the true facts. Critical thinking skills alone do not make you well-informed. It just opens the possibility for you to get there. You haven't arrived yet.

            "That's easy too, considering that they are two competing Semitic fanaticisms"

            Yawn. Do you remember what we call that? M____ E_______. This is getting…yawn…

            "You share the same manner of accusation as Mr. Thornton, hurling the accusation of self-seeking, self absorption at people who unbellyfeel the Ingsoc of fighting the Islamic Goldstein."

            Did you just say something?

          • Schlomotion

            I think Peter Tosh fought on the side of Righteousness. Capleton did. Kahlil Gibran did. You sure don't.

            "You deny the rights of millions of Muslims because they are too far away."
            No. They deny those rights. They discard them. That's their prerogative. I don't have to join up. I don't have to destroy their belief system either, as you said was your goal. If facts matter, then the fact matters that I did not choose Islam for Muslims living 6213.1 miles away from Boston in Mecca. They chose it.

            "Let me ask you point blank, why would you or anyone want to suppress facts about a cult that uses lies to incite murder to the tune of millions of people?"

            If Islam is a cult, then Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism are cults. You are simply stating your religious preference using inflammatory language. I do not have any stake at all in suppressing facts about cults or religions, because I am an atheist, a Jain if I am in a good mood and feeling generous.

            As I have said before, "moral equivalence" is simply the act of comparing the behavior of allegedly morally superior Jews to the behavior of the people they hate. Just like in your bus ads.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I think Peter Tosh fought on the side of Righteousness. Capleton did. Kahlil Gibran did. You sure don't. "

            Back to your usual standards for clarity.

            "You deny the rights of millions of Muslims because they are too far away."
            No. They deny those rights. They discard them. That's their prerogative. I don't have to join up."

            Really? What percentage of Muslims are born in to their class, and what percentage are willing converts? Hmm? Any clues smart guy?

            You've just revealed that you know almost nothing about Islam. You have overlooked the most important issue: coercion of believers and anyone else within their control.

            Wow. How can someone write with such confidence about such a critical subject he is so ignorant about?

            "If Islam is a cult, then Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Taoism are cults."

            Any time I want to destroy your credibility I will republish this quote. You have no clue about what you are talking about.

            "As I have said before, "moral equivalence" is simply the act of comparing the behavior of allegedly morally superior Jews to the behavior of the people they hate. Just like in your bus ads. "

            From your point of view as someone who denies morality, of course they are all morally equal!!! But your point of view is not universally accepted. That is why moral equivalence arguments are fallacies unless you show your evidence when you argue for it in context. In theory you can propose morally equal positions, but you think moral equivalence is universal!!

            LOL!

            Why is it against the law to steal and murder? Why?

          • Schlomotion

            What I am is not ignorant, but rather, throwing flak in your "questions and answers" rundown which is so like the Nation of Islam.

            "Why is it against the law to steal and murder? Why? "

            Because generally, people, even if they want to steal and commit murder don't want it done to them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What I am is not ignorant, but rather, throwing flak in your "questions and answers" rundown which is so like the Nation of Islam. "

            Few admit to their ignorance before the problem gets solved, especially narcissists.

            >"Why is it against the law to steal and murder? Why? "
            "Because generally, people, even if they want to steal and commit murder don't want it done to them."

            So the laws are based on the "Do unto others" guideline? Are there any additional or competitive guidelines, or just a self-interested pure democracy working the odds?

            Now we're getting somewhere.

          • Schlomotion

            "Are there any additional or competitive guidelines, or just a self-interested pure democracy working the odds?"

            We can probably just skip the two-bit civics lesson and skip to your point. Imagine I have a degree in Political Science, please. We are a little bit low on the chain of the Socratic Method right now. Can we bump up past Plato, Socrates, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Tocqueville and the Lyceum Address?

            We can go to the part about all the instituted restrictions, protections, checks, and compelling government interest if you like.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We can go to the part about all the instituted restrictions, protections, checks, and compelling government interest if you like. "

            No, the original question along this sub-thread was, "Why is it against the law to steal and murder?" or what is the source for making moral distinctions? How do you decide what is moral? Does morality exist?

            Democracy is one theory of the source of morality or society's moral codes. What is your theory?

          • Schlomotion

            Moral distinctions are solely made in one's own mind after being conditioned by families and societies.

            My theory of morality? My morality is to do whatever is within my ability and try not to harm others. In theory everybody should be able to keep to themselves and find happiness without infringing upon others. In practice that is not the case. Frequently people solely infringe upon others as their first choice. Life is a game. You get to find maximum satisfaction while avoiding being infringed upon. And you get to love people and be loved. That's about the source of all my moral theories. And trial and error. Live as long as you can, live as well as you can. Enjoy the world. We all die soon.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Moral distinctions are solely made in one's own mind after being conditioned by families and societies. "

            OK. So morality is totally circumstantial, and then self-interest comes in to play. How about "might makes right?"

            My theory of morality? My morality is to do whatever is within my ability and try not to harm others. In theory everybody should be able to keep to themselves and find happiness without infringing upon others."

            But what about self-interest? What if I am interested in something that conflict with the self-interest of another person?

            Who defines infringement anyway, since we are all developing morality independently?

            Well OK, let's say that is how you got where you are. How would you feel if you were born a Muslim in Saudi Arabia?

            "In practice that is not the case."

            Then why present this as a theory? You should have stated it as an ideal, not a theory.

            "Frequently people solely infringe upon others as their first choice."

            Only if that is in their self-interest.

            "Life is a game. You get to find maximum satisfaction while avoiding being infringed upon."

            So life is a game. Games have rules. Who makes the rules?

            "And you get to love people and be loved. That's about the source of all my moral theories. And trial and error. Live as long as you can, live as well as you can. Enjoy the world. We all die soon."

            Can you admit how incoherent your "theories" are? You stated a lot of independent axioms. However, this could be the start of a new awakening for you. What if you love someone who was born a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, and she is not allowed to see you even though she wants nothing more than to love you and be with you? What do you do now in your world of morality?

            She's extremely beautiful and saved herself for you. Oh well. Never mind. Too far away. Forget her. She doesn't really count. And besides, how many oppressed women can there be anyway among only, you know, 1.5 billion or so Muslims?

            "Enjoy the world. We all die soon."

            Yes, make sure you think of yourself first and last, while pretending to love others (so long as there is no conflict with your self love).

          • Schlomotion

            "Morality is totally circumstantial" has to be qualified with each person develops an internal database of what is the right thing to do in certain circumstances We accumulate and refer in our mind to "cases." We do case based reasoning based on our stockpile of interactions.

            Sometimes might does make right. I'll give you an example: I am building my own house. I dug the foundation by hand using a shovel. It took a year to get a hole that is 20 feet by 40 feet by 8 feet deep. I moved 768,000 pounds or 384 tons of dirt in 1 to 70 pound increments. During that time I found and threw many rocks. One of them was a ton and a half. That one I tried to split. Lacking feather wedges, that was impossible by brute force. That one I dug a deeper hole for and moved it into it using an iron bar. It took about three hours.

            Sometimes might does not make right. Sometimes leverage makes right. Sometimes moving something sideways makes right. Sometimes deepening makes right. And sometimes making the stone into a coffeetable makes right. In my hometown, my ancestor John Greenleaf Whittier's family simply built a raised bedroom over a massive stone.

            Incidentally, I met another man who was trying to lever a quarter ton stone out of his front yard. This one I pulverized in ten minutes with a sledgehammer. Sometimes might makes right, and always composition of the material matters. Maybe that is like "Facts." You say Facts Matter. Really, matter supersedes facts.

            You asked what if my self-interest conflicts with that of another person. Then of course, I would have to either negotiate, alternate, share, forfeit, compromise, or just steamroll the other person. I really dislike the last one.

            "Who defines infringement anyway, since we are all developing morality independently?"

            There are legal definitions, but you also answered your own question. Since we are all developing morality independently, each man says what infringement is. So does the dictionary. I have an additional answer of my own:

            Infringement is simply a limitation on the degree of freedom. Most infringement is physical. Some of it is statutory. You work around physical infringement physically. You work around statutory infringement by either changing the statute, or by my preferred method of putting distance between myself and the enforcers of statute that they are physically and mentally unfit to traverse.

            "So life is a game. Games have rules. Who makes the rules?"

            The rules are self-assembled by accumulated nonrandomness of the random medium. Rules on Earth, for example include gravity. Men try to write rules all the time. Without the willingness to kill other men, these rules have very little force. Rules of physics supersede rules of committee in everything. Man can bend rules. Man can work around the rules. Rules are written by a what (qua) not a who (qui) That's all there is.

            Yes. I can admit that my theories are incoherent. So is matter, depending on the level and state at which you examine it. So are light patterns. I am not phobic of coherence vs. decoherence or incoherence. I am comfortable also with having a lot of independent axioms. I use a neural/cybernetic model, not a religious or a logical positivist model of reasoning.

            You asked me a King Solomon style question:

            "What if you love someone who was born a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, and she is not allowed to see you even though she wants nothing more than to love you and be with you?"

            Simple. Either you win the father's favor, you convert, you abduct the woman, or you forget about her. In some fantastic cases, you amass a supply of horsemen and level the country and build said woman a marble bathtub. You always leave out human flexibility, human courage, and physical fighting.

            You accuse me of pretending to love people. On the other hand, I know my own life better than you.

          • Kufar Dawg

            So you've been reading the Republic eh?

            What a 'tard, islamofascist states regularly demonize Jews, because the holy
            books of islam do w/more frequency than Mein Kampf.

          • Schlomotion

            No. Narcissists spend seven figures a year trying to make Israel look good and Muslims look bad (worse). PR is narcissism. Ronn Torossian is a narcissist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No. Narcissists spend seven figures a year trying to make Israel look good and Muslims look bad (worse). PR is narcissism. Ronn Torossian is a narcissist. "

            Whether or not your examples are valid does nothing to defend you from the charge.

          • Schlomotion

            You are not in any position to put charge on me. Charge. How superstitious! Like cooties! You don't dispense attaintedness, and you don't add electrons to people.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are not in any position"

            Wrong yet again. It's analysis based on your words expressing total lack of interest in how Muslims end up in their fate, because as you say, they deserve it due to their "choices." Given that nearly all Muslims were coerced to become identified as such, this is extremely cold or grossly ignorant, possibly both.

            You want "Islamophobes" to stop "hate speech" since you have no personal stake in the outcome of the present activities of the Islamic supremacists.

            Collectivism or narcissism, possibly both.

          • Schlomotion

            Let's go with extremely cold.

            Also, I do not want Islamophobes to stop "hate speech." Again, I am not a college student. Please know your audience. Let's also not forget that Jews disseminated the term "hate speech" in the late 1980s to restrict antisemitism. This is your fallout. You are free all you like to expel your "hate speech" (allegedly attainted speech). If you do it in someone's face, you are using fighting words and risk an assault. If you do it using corporations and payments, and banner ads and newspapers, and TV stations, you are not exactly a speaker anymore, you are a Creeler, an agent and an agency. Specifically, you are an agency. By all means speak as obnoxiously as you want as an agency, enhanced with all your monies and props. Go ahead and burn your crosses on the sides of buses. Just remember that it is still fighting words. If your banner is in someone's face, it risks an assault on the banner.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Let's also not forget that Jews disseminated the term "hate speech" in the late 1980s to restrict antisemitism"

            Can you see my eyes rolling?

            "This is your fallout"

            Me? Huh?

            "You are free all you like to expel your "hate speech" (allegedly attainted speech)."

            Your use of pronouns is confusing. "You" collectively as in all those who fight for the truth?

            "You are free all you like to expel your "hate speech" (allegedly attainted speech). If you do it in someone's face, you are using fighting words and risk an assault. If you do it using corporations and payments, and banner ads and newspapers, and TV stations, you are not exactly a speaker anymore, you are a Creeler, an agent and an agency. Specifically, you are an agency. By all means speak as obnoxiously as you want as an agency, enhanced with all your monies and props. Go ahead and burn your crosses on the sides of buses. Just remember that it is still fighting words. If your banner is in someone's face, it risks an assault on the banner. "

            Are you conflating all critics of Islam with Jews collectively? Wow, you really are demented.

            I speak for myself as an individual, period. Get that straight fool.

          • Schlomotion

            We disagree on truth. Truth is easy. Truth doesn't have to be fought for. Truth makes itself known like when you trip and gash your leg on a stone. That's the truth.

            If you can conflate jihadists will all Jews, and Muslims with Islam which must be destroyed, etc etc, then it's fair game to equate the more vicious and intolerant critics of Islam with the Zionists that pay for them to keep their Infoshops open. I didn't even compare you to all Jews. Shoot. I talked to eight Jews today and none of them had Islam on their mind.

            I don't think you speak for yourself as an individual at all. You already tried to rope me into Zionism, into anti-Islam, accuse me of collectivism, of individualism, of violating feminism. I don't think you speak for yourself. I think you speak for Aubrey Chernick and Raphael Shore.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We disagree on truth. Truth is easy. Truth doesn't have to be fought for. Truth makes itself known like when you trip and gash your leg on a stone. That's the truth."

            Truth is constructed on objective facts. If you don't have objective facts to back up your truth claim, you have to qualify your statements. Follow that guide and you won't be so confused about what truth means.

            "Truth doesn't have to be fought for"

            That's a stupidly broad statement that is not quite universal. Don't fight for the truth about what the US Constitution says. Back to narcissism again. You feel no threats, you feel no need to fight over truth claims. I get it.

            "If you can conflate jihadists will all Jews"

            What? Who did?

            "Muslims with Islam which must be destroyed, etc etc,"

            Why would you conflate people with their ideology? Generally speaking, conflation is bad. You have no good reason to conflate Islam and Muslims.

            Destroying lies is not the same as destroying liars. If I wanted to destroy your lies, I sit like this and type. If I want to destroy you personally, that is another more serious matter. Get it?

            "I don't think you speak for yourself as an individual at all."

            You literally made me laugh out loud.

            "I think you speak for Aubrey Chernick and Raphael Shore."

            Go make those phone calls you promised to make. Nobody wants you to come to any serious harm. Take care of yourself first and then try to think rationally when you've recovered a bit.

          • Schlomotion

            There is a lot of cart before horse in this last post of yours. Mainly: "Don't fight for the truth about what the US Constitution says." The Constitution merely enumerates the rights and also leaves the unenumerated rights to the People. In practice, however, I am the rights. Few things are as surprising and maddening as when someone actually uses a right, actually refuses to give up the right simply because someone has a bit of paper, a gun, a Taser, a pointy hat, blue clothing, black robes, or a theological book tucked under his arm. Simply being yourself and acting with authority and refusing attempts to make you unfree have lethal force. Literally, lethal force.

            I had made some point earlier about the conflation of Jihadists and Muslims in the Geller ads which is a necessary outcome of mismatching Israel to Jihad. We are forced to piece together the rest of the meaning of this blind communication using other Gellerisms such as the call for Islam to be destroyed.

            I promised to make phone calls? When? Are you confusing me with Choi in Chicago or some other crazy poster? I am still Robert Goodwin from Arlington, MA.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In practice, however, I am the rights."

            In practice (an action verb) I am (passive verb). Which is it? Your existence in practice (by practicing your existence?), you are existentially "the rights?"

            What are you saying?

            "Few things are as surprising and maddening as when someone actually uses a right, actually refuses to give up the right simply because someone has a bit of paper, a gun, a Taser, a pointy hat, blue clothing, black robes, or a theological book tucked under his arm. Simply being yourself and acting with authority and refusing attempts to make you unfree have lethal force."

            You seem to possibly be saying in an incredibly verbose and vague manner that by expecting your rights to be honored you somehow violate others rights? Well, if that were not the case, there would be no need to have rights defined and enforced. Guess what? There is a great need. You are a narcissistic anarchist because you are totally naive as to the gifts you have been blessed with by your circumstances. In simple words, you take your life circumstances for granted, and this is disrespectful to the vast majority of humans who would give all they have to trade places with you. What did you do to earn this advantage?

            "I had made some point earlier about the conflation of Jihadists and Muslims in the Geller ads which is a necessary outcome of mismatching Israel to Jihad"

            How did she conflate Muslims with Jihad? She "conflated" Jihad and savage, sort of but not really. The inference was that jihadists are savages, not that all savages are Jihadis. You are simply confused. Let's look at the simple ad. By the way, the ONLY problem I have with it is that I know the politically correct will make a big stink over a word that is literally perfect in its use: savage. It was tactically stupid to use that word, but I think she got that from an Ayn Rand quote.

            The ad stated:

            "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel defeat jihad"

            We have the "civilized man" against "the savage" and we are told to support the former. We are then told explicitly to support Israel, identifying it as the "civilized man" reference. The call to "defeat Jihad" then defines who the savage refers to (Jihadis fighting Israel.

            Now please explain all of your extended statements that were not made in this ad. How did you get there from the words of the ad?

            Lying? Delusional?

            "a necessary outcome of mismatching Israel to Jihad"

            I can only imagine what you are referring to. The nice thing about studying history comprehensively and carefully is that the clarity makes it easier to remember the facts. When lying about history, the opposite happens. Narratives lose focus and the myths begin to be contradictory to more than just the facts but to each other.

            The war in the middle east in Israel, and virtually every conflict since Mohammed has been about Jihad. There have been exceptions, but fighting Israel in the middle east is ALWAYS justified by Islamic history, They NEVER use any other justification unless they are lying even more than they do about history. They don't bother telling those lies except in English for suckers like you. It's about jihad.

            "I promised to make phone calls? When? Are you confusing me with Choi in Chicago or some other crazy poster? I am still Robert Goodwin from Arlington, MA."

            Take your pills and call your doctors as you promised! Stop the games. You are only hurting yourself worse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We are forced to piece together the rest of the meaning of this blind communication using other Gellerisms"

            In other words, YOU conflated with your inferences. Unless you can quote in context to prove your point, you might as well quote statements by paraphrasing the dictionary and attributing it to whoever you want.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Let's go with extremely cold."

            That's a confession I'll remember. You didn't deny the other accusations either. Then again it's not clear you understand them yet. I published the defintion of collectivism, here's the other one you need:
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narciss

            &gt;1 : egoism, egocentrism&lt;
            2 : love of or sexual desire for one's own body

            That might still confuse you… http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egocent
            ego·cen·tric
            adjective ˌē-gō-ˈsen-trik also ˌe-
            1 : concerned with the individual rather than society

            Notice this is concern with the individual, the one (yourself)…not with individuals plural. You are concerned only about yourself. Others are merely theoretical satellites within your orbit or not. You have no personal concerns about Islam, therefore you have no concerns at all about Islam! It's all about you.

            This does not preclude you from being collectivist. There is you, and the others. There is probably a close link between narcissism and collectivism. It's not really my field of study, but an interesting thought for the day.

            I have to admit, this was more interesting than I expected it would be. You've really finally come out of your shell, as far as you dare that is. You deserve credit for that, at least.

            As an analyst of others, you suck. Work on understanding yourself much better before you try that. Those are my words of wisdom for you.

          • Schlomotion

            I don't deny your accusations because I don't vest you with any authority to impugn me. That authority comes from me. I don't bestow any on you. You haven't earned the credit to impugn me.

            You are playing with your dictionary again.
            Egoism, egocentric. Your hustles are so old. So so old and outdated. Are you channeling Gloria Steinem now? Whoa, let's go back to 1970.

            Guess what, babe? Ego means "I" in Latin. If I am not centered on that, then there's something wrong with me. Why would I be carting you around in my mind too unless you were sublimely intelligent or loveable? Beyond that, why would I be carting a race or an ethnicity or a religious group around my center to throw me all off-center? Beggars all. Such a sense of entitlement you have to Occupy Me. Am I supposed to be ashamed of having a sense of Self and not automatically throwing it into your Jewish Mahdi Army to go trample out Islam? Crazy! Such presumption.

            I am as surprised at your continued use of canned soc.ial engineering tricks as I am saddened that any young impressionable person might not know what to say to you when you use them.

            You even used the "tear down my sense of self and force me to do self-analysis." You resurrected a small piece of SPUSA just there, didn't you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are playing with your dictionary again."

            If you clearly demonstrate that you understand a word in context, there is no need for me to do that. I was trying to help you.

          • Schlomotion

            Let's assume that whatever words you are using, I know not only the word, but the root word, the language of origin, about four synonyms and the same word in a couple of languages. If we differ over a word, I am doing it on purpose.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Let's assume that whatever words you are using, I know not only the word, but the root word, the language of origin, about four synonyms and the same word in a couple of languages. If we differ over a word, I am doing it on purpose."

            That would defy the evidence I have at hand.

          • Kufar Dawg

            No one needs to make Israel "look good" the Druze, Christians, Bahais and Jews know what their fate would be in any of the various islamofascist states of the Mid-East and N. Africa.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Yeah the ethnic cleansing of:

          i. Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistain and Bangladesh
          ii. Jews from Egyptistan, Iraqistan, N. Africa and Syria
          iii. Christians from Iraqistan, Syria and Egyptistan
          iv. Buddhists and Hindus from Afghanistan

          were all just illusions.

          Your jihad is one of islamofascist delusion, where the kufr is the one oppressing the islamofascists.

    • http://twitter.com/ThePeoplesCube @ThePeoplesCube

      Then John McCain must also have Ukrainian habits and see through the eyes of Comintern, because that phrasing was borrowed from his 2008 presidential debate with Obama in Mississippi: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/0

      MCCAIN: "Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition…. Here is… Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a ***propaganda platform*** to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior."

      And Hillary Clinton must also be Ukrainian, because she told Obama almost the same thing In a June 2007 debate in South Carolina: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Battle_2008_Hi

      "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

      Call someone quick! The highest levels of US government have been infiltrated by Ukrainians!

    • tagalog

      Just for the record, Ukrainians hated the Soviets so much because of what had been done to them by the Communists of Russia, that they greeted the Nazi invaders in 1941 as liberators.

    • Ghostwriter

      Your idiocy is indescribable,Schlomotion. It would take years to describe how inane,stupid and just plain stupid your posts are. Stupidity,thy name is Schlomotion.

      • Kufar Dawg

        Defending islamofascism practically requires the suspension of logic and reason and make no mistake
        about it, that is exactly what Abullah Al Schlomotion is doing by indirection.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "This is one of those colorful "Islam Stinks" articles.

      Until Islam is destroyed, we need more too.

      "The fact is, there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and almost 7 billion people in the world altogether. "

      Yes, and what?

      "In other words, 88% of people in the world already know Islam stinks."

      You assume what percentage of people know the facts?

      "Or else they have no use for it. "

      Having "no use for it," those are your words for ignorance or rejection? Ignorance is no good because it leads to being used.

      "What stands out about the article is Mr. Atbashian's use of communist rhetoric when he said "they are about to offer a propagandistic platform to a leading figure of Islamic supremacism." Ah, the language of 1980s USSR is back"

      You've again conflated statements without regard for whether any statement in question is true or false.

      "Ah, the language of 1980s USSR is back. A man speaking to people is a propagandistic platform, because in the eyes of Comintern, all speech is propaganda and should be centrally controlled. Ukrainian habits die hard."

      Facts matter. You can't indict someone because you have strange associations in your mind with what you incorrectly infer.

      "I posit that if Ahmedinejad speaks anywhere in the US, presuming he is here beyond the tight confines of his diplomatic immunity, he will be able to be taken to task for many of his silly ideas, and perhaps heard out on some of his legitimate ones."

      You have not stated the true problem: he is given credibility when he is allowed the prestige of speaking at the UN and his radical positions appear mainstream and acceptable in the minds of those who don't think much. I am sure you can understand that, since you seem to fall in to this trap too.

      • Schlomotion

        You are using the Marxism again. "Ignorance is no good because it leads to being used." Why?

        Because all speech is a platform for propaganda which should be centrally controlled.

        No. Out of the 88% of people in the world who have no use for Islam, some are too young, some too old, some are mentally disabled, some are bogged down in their own different "-ism," and hopefully, a great many of them are just too happy and successful, too intelligent to have any major use for it.

        You and your "Facts Matter." You are Pamela Geller. Let me be the one to tell you personally that I have the utmost disdain for your political activity.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Ignorance is no good because it leads to being used." Why? "

          Specifically about Islam, ignorance is easy to exploit because they have so much money and power and have successfully represented themselves as oppressed victims of the West, especially Christians, Britain and the USA.

          It is almost impossible to estimate just how much money is spent on deceiving the ignorant in to believing lies. You are a perfect case to illustrate the danger. You defend Islam through ignorance. To fully understand yourself in this illustration you must first resolve the ignorance.

          "Because all speech is a platform for propaganda which should be centrally controlled."

          Quoting totalitarian ideas for what reason sir?

          "No. Out of the 88% of people in the world who have no use for Islam, some are too young, some too old, some are mentally disabled, some are bogged down in their own different "-ism," and hopefully, a great many of them are just too happy and successful, too intelligent to have any major use for it."

          Do you know the definition of "coercive?"

          "Let me be the one to tell you personally that I have the utmost disdain for your political activity."

          That was true long before I read your first trolling articles. I could never take that personally. It's you who has the personal problem. What is useful is that our conversations seem to have been somewhat therapeutic for you. Although you are more openly angry, this could be the path to a breakthrough in your discovery that you have been wrong.

          Ever hopeful that facts will prevail, yours truly…
          \

          • Schlomotion

            Even though I have read the Koran (Maulana Muhammad Ali Version and the Penguin version), read through it again using Steingass Learner's Arabic to English Dictionary, and studying the Alamut assassin sect, and Al-Ghazali, the Huruf-i-Muqata'at, and the Motekallamin, I still don't ever recall defending Islam through either ignorance or intelligence. You wrongly presume that I am pro-Muslim. I can take them or leave them.

            As for Muslims having money and power and a big guilt trip against the West, the same could be said of Jews with this whole 3,000 years of oppression bull-crap. I have read the Pentateuch in and out of Hebrew, Marx and Margolis and Judaica books out the wazoo. Still, I have not defended or really attacked their existential right to exist anywhere, like you do Muslims.

            I certainly know the definition of "coercive" having memorized the Ninth Collegiate Dictionary in 1987.

            Your appeal to the ignorance of the opponent falls rather flat as well. You have the option of calling me academically stupid or biased. I believe you said "a dupe and a liar." That is about as factually based as saying that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR. I know he doesn't.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Fallacy of argumentation employed: argument by false analogy. Jews are in no way trying to
            establish a global rabbinate, muslimes have been found to be explicitly seeking a global caliphate and taking action to further those ends.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Jews are in no way trying to establish a global rabbinate, muslimes have been found to be explicitly seeking a global caliphate and taking action to further those ends."

            But they're both monotheistic. They must be the same thing. Muslims revere Moses and Abraham too. It's all good. Nothing else matters…nothing at all! Oh yeah, Jews have money too so ignore all of the jihad funding from petro-dollars. None of that matters now that we understand Islam is no different than any other religion.

          • Schlomotion

            This just gets back to the fact that Zionist Jews think that Jews are better than Muslims. Even with the power of the Socratic Method behind it, it's still Comte de Gobineau.

          • Kufar Dawg

            They are better, DEMONSTRABLY better in not only the 20th century but the 21st Ahmed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "This just gets back to the fact that Zionist Jews think that Jews are better than Muslims."

            Civilizationally, Islamic society is based on lies about Jews and others, not to mention calling explicitly for their murder collectively. How can anyone get confused about which is superior? Jews generally work to purge lies and injustice. Islam compels Muslims to use circular reasoning and reject all "unIslamic" ideas.

            How can ANYONE possibly claim moral equivalence between Islam and anything Jewish or non-Islamic for that matter? It's insanity or gross ignorance. What is your plea?

          • Schlomotion

            When you say support the civilized man not the savage, you forget that the civilized man has excuses for being a savage outside of his civilization. That's why you horrible people invented terms like Homeland. There's a big lie that our civilization has been built on since 9/11. All of a sudden former US citizens are on aliyah.

            Crappola.

            All civilizations are built on some kind of lie. Islamic societies have their lies and their Sharia. Jewish societies have their lies and their Halakha. German society has its Kantianism. When you stand around beating your chest that your civilization is better you are an ape.

            "Jews generally work to purge lies and injustice."
            The same could be said of Muslims. Really, David Yerushalmi is a practitioner of Jewish fiqh under the guise of American Law. Want to talk about savages? Do you think that Orthodox Jewish lawyers dress better than Orthodox Muslim Lawyers? Do you think Halal is radically different from Kosher?

            Do you think that Haredi sikrikim stab gay people to death more mercifully than Muslims do?

            Do you think that Yigal Amir's pronouncement that Rabin was a rodef and worthy of extrajudicial killing was more sound and rightheaded that the average fatwa?

            Do you think that a midrasha is more civilized than a madrassah?

            Do you Jewish hadarat nashim is more reasonable than Muslim gender apartheid?

            Frankly, the more ways I look at it, the easier the moral equivalences are to make.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "When you say support the civilized man not the savage, you forget that the civilized man has excuses for being a savage outside of his civilization."

            Totally wrong in the case of Islam. Islam was conceived as a reaction, a rebellion against Judaism, Christianity and a power play against Arab Paganism. There is no excuse for Islamic lies. The authors have no excuses.

            Now if you want to defend individual Muslims, I would agree with you. I'm not sure that's what you're doing though since I attack Islam and present those innocent savage Muslims as victims, until it can be demonstrated that they should know better. Anyone should know better than to physically attack another person or to incite another to do the same over unproved theological beliefs.

          • Schlomotion

            Your disdain for Islam is simply a lifestyle preference. I may even agree with it, as I am not a Muslim either. Nevertheless, if you drive a Judaism instead of an Islam or a Melkite Catholicism, that's a BMW to an Audi to a Lexus. It's your preference. Islam shifts poorly, has a lousy gearbox, explodes sometimes. That's why I don't drive one and I don't care if they do. Sure, if they park one next to me, I might look twice and walk out of range.

            I certainly agree with you completely that "Anyone should know better than to physically attack another person or to incite another to do the same over unproved theological beliefs. " Some people don't know better. That's why there are laws against assault, battery, and murder. But before all that, there is physical fitness, cleverness and self-defense. Being kind and engaging helps as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Your disdain for Islam is simply a lifestyle preference. I may even agree with it, as I am not a Muslim either. Nevertheless, if you drive a Judaism instead of an Islam or a Melkite Catholicism, that's a BMW to an Audi to a Lexus. It's your preference."

            It would be if I didn't cite objective history to justify my positions. I do, therefore my positions are justified and not mere preference. I use standards that exist outside of my own desires and self-interests.

            Wrong again sir.

            "I certainly agree with you completely that "Anyone should know better than to physically attack another person or to incite another to do the same over unproved theological beliefs. " Some people don't know better. That's why there are laws against assault, battery, and murder. But before all that, there is physical fitness, cleverness and self-defense. Being kind and engaging helps as well. "

            You'd be surprised how many in the West do know this, yet are attacked by liberals who make so many assumptions, limited by the scope of their knowledge about Islam and its history.

            Start with http://www.amazon.com/Bernard-Lewis/e/B000AP9JRK/… Bernard Lewis, and then follow his sources.

          • Schlomotion

            Thank you. I will.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "All civilizations are built on some kind of lie"

            This is only true to the degree that people make up civilizations and people are imperfect. Islam is a civilization based on lies that are objectively false, counter to civilizations that existed before it, and offered no evidence why they should correct those that came before it. In addition, once they did this, they encoded in their values the idea that questioning these beliefs was evil. Allah himself supposedly states that believers should not ask questions once they accept Islam, nor "Insult" (contradict the lies) Islam even before you follow it.

            "Jewish societies have their lies and their Halakha. German society has its Kantianism. When you stand around beating your chest that your civilization is better you are an ape. "

            All other modern civilizations based on Judeo Christianity accept that you must show evidence and reason for your claims. Islam, not. Without this distinction, Islam could never exist. It's fundamental to the problems today with Islam against everyone else.

            >"Jews generally work to purge lies and injustice."
            "The same could be said of Muslims."

            You can say anything. The question is whether or not the statement is true, and your reply is not. Questions that contradict Islam lead to charges of apostasy, which leads to a high risk of murder.

            Jews and Christians will often cite the 10 Commandments as their foundational document for guiding morality. "Though shalt not lie." You think this has no effect on their civilizations? Where is the parallel in Islam?

            "Want to talk about savages?"

            Your arguments here respond to a statement I did not make. I did not state that all individuals that you can slander as savage come from Islam.

            I spoke of ideology and the effects of those ideological distinctions. Islam is not morally equal to Judeo Christian theology.

            "Do you think that Orthodox Jewish lawyers dress better than Orthodox Muslim Lawyers?"

            I don't care how anyone dresses.

            "Do you think Halal is radically different from Kosher?"

            Yes it is, but you can find elements in common to deceive someone who doesn't know any better. Halal mimics kosher in many ways, but extends it to control Muslims and to ape the superficial piety of Jews and Christians.

            "Do you think that Yigal Amir's pronouncement that Rabin was a rodef and worthy of extrajudicial killing was more sound and rightheaded that the average fatwa?"

            You can compare one (or several) extreme case(s) to the *average* fatwa? Intelligent people see immediately that you've lost your case. If you can't do better than that, it's an admission that your arguments have failed. The extreme cases CAN NOT be supported by the Judeo Christian texts while fatwas are considered binding in Shia Islam, and defines what is already binding in Sunni Islam. There are also non-binding fatwas in Sunni Islam, but they generally serious attempts to interpret fundamental Islamic Sharia (law).

            Your examples prove my case again.

            "Do you think that a midrasha is more civilized than a madrassah?"

            Generally yes.

            "Do you Jewish hadarat nashim is more reasonable than Muslim gender apartheid?"

            If by "Muslim gender apartheid" you mean to describe the requirements to demean and oppress women throughout their lives and in all circumstances, yes of course there is a difference you psychopath.

            Your arguments only sound reasonable to the ignorant reader.

            "Frankly, the more ways I look at it, the easier the moral equivalences are to make. "

            Easy for you because you have no problem with your own failure and ignorance. That was actually something I tried to reveal to you when I first discussed it with you. Moral equivalence arguments are very easy to construct, but most of them fail. They are common, but that does not make them correct. The most you can hope to achieve is to find that A vs. B have no clear moral distinctions. With Islam, that is impossible. You just have no clue what you are talking about and what you stepped in.

          • Schlomotion

            Perhaps, as you say Islamic society is more false than other kinds of false and more morally inferior in its falsity than other peoples' falsity. Still, that sounds like a lifestyle choice, not an accomplishment.

            You don't like Islam and want to debunk it? That's fine with me. That is an action. That type of action doesn't hurt anybody. I agree with it. When it moves into "destruction, stamp it out, eradicate" then we are into the realm of Hitler language, and I disagree.

            About Truth and Justice, both Islam and Judaism have jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to live under Sanhedral jurisprudence any more than under Fiqh. I prefer my 18th Century government with 19th and 20th Century modifications. Yerushalmi is doing Halakha vs Sharia. Truly, I never thought I would live to see the day when the dossier-making King of "Unacceptable" Mr. Abraham Foxman would be made to look normal by another guy.

            You don't care about how anyone dresses? What about hijabs? Uglier women seem to prefer them. Have they no right?

            From my perspective, Jews and Arabs are near in language, near in alphabet, near in region, near in genome, near in fanaticism, near in appearance and near in most regards. Since the dull and belligerent consider themselves diametrically opposed, it makes the most sense to me to compare their similarities in all things.

            You answered yes that you believe all the Jewish mitzvahs are superior to all the Muslim mitzvahs even though most of them have the same names, the same consonants, and similar restrictions. It's like tomatoes are better than tomahtoes. Not on Corn Flakes, they are not. As an American and having grown up in the seventies when largely Jewish women were harping that being in a household was chattel slavery and male chauvinism when the going stereotype put out by their men was that they thought cooking working and f-king were places in China, to hear you now endorse hadarat nashim and distinguish it from Islamic gender apartheid is laughable. Let's not make too little about Haredi daggermen, shall we?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Perhaps, as you say Islamic society is more false than other kinds of false and more morally inferior in its falsity than other peoples' falsity."

            Bingo. You admit that Islam is unequal to others.

            "Still, that sounds like a lifestyle choice, not an accomplishment."

            Huh? Moral judgments and choices are separate discussions.

            "You don't like Islam and want to debunk it? That's fine with me. That is an action. That type of action doesn't hurt anybody. I agree with it. When it moves into "destruction, stamp it out, eradicate" then we are into the realm of Hitler language, and I disagree."

            Islam is an ideology, a theology. What then is the difference between debunking and destroying it or any idea? Perhaps a matter of degree only. I want to do a complete job of debunking it. Excuse my efforts to be clear and succinct. I see that is not too effective with you. Long conversations are necessary for you, no matter what the subject or however irrational the conversation gets. You must enjoy the chaos.

            How about saying that I want to debunk Islam to the point that there are statistically just as many murders in the name of Jesus and Mohammed? Don't forget about the Islamic justifications for oppression…so maybe I want to debunk it to the point where one can plausibly argue that Islam as understood today is no less moral than Judeo Christian ideologies? That works for me.

            This only took so long because of the delusional assumptions you make and your unwillingness to ask straightforward clarifying questions. You're evidently afraid of showing respect to the people you speak to.

          • Schlomotion

            "I want to do a complete job of debunking it."

            How do you personally do this outside of comments sections?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "About Truth and Justice, both Islam and Judaism have jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to live under Sanhedral jurisprudence any more than under Fiqh. I prefer my 18th Century government with 19th and 20th Century modifications. Yerushalmi is doing Halakha vs Sharia."

            No accused person would choose any differently. That is why Islam is not morally equal to Judeo Christian civilizations and theology. It's not just a preference.

            Jurisprudence is not necessarily justice as we define it in the West. I did not ever say "any notion of justice is fine." I am always clear that I assert their notions of justice are unjust, because their totalitarian theology is built on lies, and you can't have justice fused with fundamentally false foundations and theories of morality.

            "Allah said you must die."

            "Can I get some time to explain and defend myself?"

            "No."

            "Gee, too bad for me."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " I never thought I would live to see the day when the dossier-making King of "Unacceptable" Mr. Abraham Foxman would be made to look normal by another guy. "

            Abe Foxman obeys American law. What more can I ask of him as long as he is not pushing dangerous lies? You want to testify against him, make your case explicitly.

            "You don't care about how anyone dresses?"

            Of course not.

            "What about hijabs?"
            Whatever, all fine with me as long as there is no coercion in dress. The issue is again, coercion and oppression, not individual choices for oneself.

            "Uglier women seem to prefer them"

            Who are you to judge ugly?

            "Have they no right? "

            Now your returning to idiot mode. I have been perfectly consistent and clear about my positions on rights of individuals.

          • Schlomotion

            Foxman seems to have mellowed out and acted more American over the past 23 years. Now he is considered an Uncle Tom or an Uncle Moses by Hasbara hardliners. He still tries to get final cut over movies he didn't produce. He still claims the Bible is antisemitic. My jab was actually at Yerushalmi who seems to be fighting to have Halakha wherever Sharia might potentially move in in his far-fetched imagination.

            That you don't mind about hijabs sets you far apart from many of the louder voices on this site.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "From my perspective, Jews and Arabs are near in language, near in alphabet, near in region, near in genome, near in fanaticism, near in appearance and near in most regards. Since the dull and belligerent consider themselves diametrically opposed, it makes the most sense to me to compare their similarities in all things. "

            Completely trivial. This only shows more reasons for destroying Islam so that Jews can reach out to them after the threats of this foul, false ideology are diminished.

          • Schlomotion

            I have spoken to a few Muslims and there was not one time where any of them didn't agree that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share three parts of the same cultural and religious heritage. That seems sensible to me. These other guys must just be cranks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You answered yes that you believe all the Jewish mitzvahs are superior to all the Muslim mitzvahs even though most of them have the same names, the same consonants, and similar restrictions. It's like tomatoes are better than tomahtoes. Not on Corn Flakes, they are not. As an American and having grown up in the seventies when largely Jewish women were harping that being in a household was chattel slavery and male chauvinism when the going stereotype put out by their men was that they thought cooking working and f-king were places in China,

            "to hear you now endorse hadarat nashim"

            Did not. Quote me in context, liar. Maybe you are a Muslim?

            "and distinguish it from Islamic gender apartheid"

            Endorsing and distinguishing are distinct. Do I need to publish more word definitions for you?

            You citing similarities in no way refutes the distinctions I illustrated. You lose again, and again, and again.

          • Schlomotion

            In context you claimed that Jewish hadarat nashim was not coerced but Islamic hadarat nashim is. Then you called me a psychopath.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Even though I have read the Koran (Maulana Muhammad Ali Version and the Penguin version), read through it again using Steingass Learner's Arabic to English Dictionary, and studying the Alamut assassin sect, and Al-Ghazali, the Huruf-i-Muqata'at, and the Motekallamin, I still don't ever recall defending Islam through either ignorance or intelligence. You wrongly presume that I am pro-Muslim."

            You are pro-Islam by spreading lies about it. Whether through malice or ignorance, I did not claim to know.

            "As for Muslims having money and power and a big guilt trip against the West, the same could be said of Jews with this whole 3,000 years of oppression bull-crap."

            It's not power or influence per se, it's the fact that these advantages are used against the West in order to replace all non-Islamic governments, and even though they will be unlikely to succeed, the pain will continue to be great until we have exposed the lies. You oppose truth. In addition, few Jews lie (none that I ever met) while Muslims are unable to tell the truth about Islam because the cult can not exist without the lies it is built upon.

            "I have read the Pentateuch in and out of Hebrew, Marx and Margolis and Judaica books out the wazoo."

            Lots of people read.

            "Still, I have not defended or really attacked their existential right to exist anywhere, like you do Muslims. "

            That's pure insanity. When did I threaten anyone with annihilation or violence? No wonder you have such problems reasoning, your reading comprehension is perhaps the problem, and imagining things might account for the rest.

            "I certainly know the definition of "coercive" having memorized the Ninth Collegiate Dictionary in 1987."

            Then it either does or does not matter to you that most Muslims are coerced members of their civilizations? Which is it? You say you are not ignorant, yet you say so many things that are not true. How can you reconcile that?

            "Your appeal to the ignorance of the opponent falls rather flat as well. You have the option of calling me academically stupid or biased. I believe you said "a dupe and a liar." That is about as factually based as saying that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR. I know he doesn't."

            In theory, Cooper could work for CAIR, there is just no evidence known to me that he does. Your example is ridiculous unless I know that he does but you insist that he doesn't. In the latter case, that would be consistent with the ignorance you display about Islam. You think you know all of the facts, your statements prove otherwise.

            Your nut shell game examples are silly. Nobody takes them seriously.

          • Schlomotion

            "You are pro-Islam by spreading lies about it. Whether through malice or ignorance, I did not claim to know."

            I took a walk up Copp's Hill Burying Ground. As I stood over Cotton Mather's grave, I considered the fact that he was a spurious academic who made arguments similar to yours when he was pushing Spectral Evidence. I wondered what it must have been like for Torquemada to believe the same thing as he burned the foot soles of Jews to prove they were not really Conversos, but Satanists. I considered the similarity between all of you and the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that you have tried to attaint me with the witchcraft of Sharia for disagreeing with you puts you in league with all the schemers and charlatans of that dark age.

            "You oppose truth."

            No. We are already discussing the truth, that Islam is not going to take over the world. That you tuners and dousers and missionaries and cleansers are not going to enhance or obscure the process with your traveling sideshow. Yours is the same confidence trick as the companies that sell courses on how to find hidden racists at universities and companies. You are an Amway of religious bigotry and Zionist chauvinism. It's not a far cry off from talking people into subprime car loans. Facts Matter.

            "Then it either does or does not matter to you that most Muslims are coerced members of their civilizations?"

            The same is true for Christianity and Judaism, even Mormonism. It does not matter except personally and philosophically to the individual. They are free to hike to the nearest copy of Ibn Warraq.

            "In theory, Cooper could work for CAIR, there is just no evidence known to me that he does. "

            That's foolishness. Your buddy, the other scam artist, Walid Shoebat, who siphons tax dollars into his own pocket and into Keith Davies' pocket, so he can live in a huge mansion in Newtown, PA simply lie about people and accuse them of being in CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood while people like Lance Silver and Joseph Puder falsely advertise them as "professors." There is no "theory" that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR, there is only Shoebat's lie that he does. Shoebat, whose cousin is an identity forger and meth-money launderer for the Nakoula movie. The truth is, there is a lot more scamming and cahooting going on in your camp than in any camp of alleged "Islamic supporters" that you accuse me of.

          • Kufar Dawg

            Instead of Torquemada, why don't we talk about the muslimes who went on a rampage when a Jewish governor was appointed to rule them in Al Andalus and some ten thousand Jews were slaughtered?

            The ethnic cleansing of the Mid-East and N. Africa of all non-muslims is proceeding nicely Abdul Al Schlomotion, you wouldn't think anyone would notice, but they have.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Instead of Torquemada"

            His citations were for the purpose of creating yet another false moral equivalence argument. My criticism of Islam is morally equivalent to torture. This according to his feelings.

            Now we know why he loves Islam so much. He is so easily offended and hurt in his feelings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " I wondered what it must have been like for Torquemada to believe the same thing as he burned the foot soles of Jews to prove they were not really Conversos, but Satanists. I considered the similarity between all of you and the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay."

            Would you like to join me when I torture people today? Maybe you'll enjoy it as much as me and my evil collaborators do.

            All you're doing is testifying against your own ability to process facts. In that sense, you are liberal through and through. You cite your emotions as arguments. You "wondered what it must have been like" because you are a psychopath. This has nothing to do with me or any other critic of Islam. You need therapy. That is all we learned from your rhetoric. I'm not joking either. Words are not violent, yet you invoke notorious torture. Get help.

          • Schlomotion

            "Would you like to join me when I torture people today? Maybe you'll enjoy it as much as me and my evil collaborators do."

            Interesting. What is the proposal? Tell me more.

            That was the interesting part of your post. The dull part was where you pulled out the short con and tried to accuse me of being an emotional reasoner. (Or impugn that). Always trying for a handle. Maybe I'm gay. Maybe I'm effeminate. Maybe I hate being called a woman. I am egotistical, so I must be vain, right? Susceptible to psychodramatic rundowns and suggestions of infirmity? A hypochondriac? What if I don't have any weaknesses?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"Would you like to join me when I torture people today? Maybe you'll enjoy it as much as me and my evil collaborators do."

            "Interesting. What is the proposal? Tell me more."

            The statement was to direct your attention to the fact that I don't torture anyone. I advocate destruction of an ideology based on lies, incitement, slander and just plain destructive ideas in general. I'm arguing against totalitarian ideals, and you cite the actions of totalitarians. You think this makes sense because false moral equivalence beliefs corrupt almost every proposal you suggest.

            " Maybe I'm effeminate. Maybe I hate being called a woman. I am egotistical, so I must be vain, right? Susceptible to psychodramatic rundowns and suggestions of infirmity? A hypochondriac? What if I don't have any weaknesses?"

            We've already identified enough of your weaknesses, I was helping you get a grip on them and showing you that we can see them. By all means add to the list of that's what helps you.

          • Schlomotion

            "I advocate destruction of an ideology based on lies, incitement, slander and just plain destructive ideas in general."

            And do you do this solely through discourse? What is an example outside of this conversation?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "We are already discussing the truth, that Islam is not going to take over the world."

            But nobody said it would succeed, and nobody disagreed with your "timely reminder" as straw man.

            "That you tuners and dousers and missionaries and cleansers are not going to enhance or obscure the process"

            Jihad is now "the process?"

            "with your traveling sideshow. Yours is the same confidence trick as the companies that sell courses on how to find hidden racists at universities and companies. You are an Amway of religious bigotry and Zionist chauvinism. It's not a far cry off from talking people into subprime car loans. Facts Matter."

            Yes, and the fact is that Islam matters because Islamic jihad kills people daily. Those are facts.

          • Schlomotion

            Funny you should mention "The Process" in that tone of type because you have tried to run it down on me about ten times in this discussion so far.

            No. By the process, I was referring to Islam's inevitable failure to embrace its "destiny" to take over the world. This is not being sped up or slowed down, or lit up or shaded by your actions. You are just posturing, doing little stunts and whipping the masses into a frenzy. You can elevate it into some kind of lofty description but really, I have done this stuff before too in one manner or another so you can't really put a shine on it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Funny you should mention "The Process" in that tone of type because you have tried to run it down on me about ten times in this discussion so far. "

            You need to be more clear when asking questions caused by your confusion. "Process" has meaning only in context. What is the meaning in the context you used it?

            "No. By the process, I was referring to Islam's inevitable failure to embrace its "destiny" to take over the world."

            OMG! I said: "Jihad is now "the process?" because you were unclear. It could have been Christian evangelism in the context you used it. I asked a clarifying question because you are so obtuse. So jihad IS the process in your statement, or do you know what Jihad means?
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

            1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline

            "I was referring to Islam's inevitable failure to embrace its "destiny" to take over the world"

            They have embraced their destiny.
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/embrace

            embrace:

            1a : to clasp in the arms : hug
            b : cherish, love

            2: encircle, enclose

            3 a : to take up especially readily or gladly <embrace a cause>
            b : to avail oneself of : welcome <embraced the opportunity to study further>

            4 a : to take in or include as a part, item, or element of a more inclusive whole <charity embraces all acts that contribute to human welfare>

            We agreed they will fail in their end goal to accomplish a global caliphate that rules the entire globe. Now they only have 56 nations. They have a virtual caliphate in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but you can only have one clear leader in the globe to be considered Caliph. They're not that far off, and they only lost their last caliph as a result of WWI. Not too strong on world history, are you?

            "This is not being sped up or slowed down, or lit up or shaded by your actions"

            Another thing in common you have with Islam: fatalism.

            "You are just posturing, doing little stunts and whipping the masses into a frenzy"

            You just contradicted yourself. A massive frenzied defense would be slowing them down. Which is it fool?

            "You can elevate it into some kind of lofty description but really, I have done this stuff before too in one manner or another so you can't really put a shine on it. "

            You just think you can compare any pair or set of things because you feel they have enough in common. You silly person. You've done this "stuff" before?

            Paraphrasing what you imply:
            "Writing is all the same. It doesn't matter what position you take, whether you are correct or not because there are no objective truths. It's all pointless."

            If you feel that way, go find your love. Life is a game. You told me that. You get no love here. You are one big contradiction of your own words.

            How old did you say you are? "Not 19" leaves a lot of possibilities.

          • Schlomotion

            You are trying another thing. You are trying establish that you ask questions out of probing or Socratic guiding and I ask them out of confusion. By that, you are trying to establish a rank between us that does not exist. I want to note that. That also will not work.

            You have defined now also jihad and embrace. I posit to you that Birthright Israel, Hasbaras, and Kach, which is still running and soliciting donations on Think-Israel, also embrace jihad. They embrace the aggressive campaign which also includes economic and physical violence. They also have some who embrace it as a first matter of course, people like:

            Mike Guzofsky aka Yekutiel Ben-Yaakov, Baruch Goldstein, Noam Federman, Yigal Amir, Baruch Meir Marzel, Avishai Raviv, Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, and Michael Ben-Ari.

            Let's also use the Arabic dictionary. Jihad is invitation to profess Islam, war against the Infidels, and the root word hard ground. So, mostly, Jihad is arabic for Hasbara. Looking for hard ground to wage war, mostly verbally and by protestation and professing. You are a jihadi. You are a nonviolent jihadi. Don't say there is no such thing, all societies produce them.

            A massive frenzied defense would most certainly not be slowing them down, it would be revving them up. I don't buy into your jihad any more than I buy into theirs.

            You asked my age. I am 39.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are trying establish that you ask questions out of probing or Socratic guiding and I ask them out of confusion."

            You are free to offer more plausible explanations, and generally you fail. That is all I go by.

            "Birthright Israel, Hasbaras, and Kach, which is still running and soliciting donations on Think-Israel, also embrace jihad."

            I use the word Jihad explicitly to define fighting for Islam. You use it as though moral equity has been established when it has been debunked and even conceded to be false by you. Why would you continue to try to deceive by describing legitimate pro-Israel political activity as "jihad?"

            Attempts to conflate are merely sneaky attempts to convey a moral equivalence that simply does not exist between Islam and any other belief system. You are a chronic deceiver.

            No offense intended.

          • Schlomotion

            I don't get offended easily, and rarely, if ever by discussion.

            Regarding Jihad, I am not concerned with establishing moral equity. I don't care about whether the justification, or the rationale, or the preference for it is equal in religious or Kantian imperatives. I simply observe that Jews and Muslims enjoy their physical and metaphysical holy-fighting with a similar gusto.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I simply observe that Jews and Muslims enjoy their physical and metaphysical holy-fighting with a similar gusto. "

            Another non-salient and subjective observation designed to keep you from ultimately openly conceding to the arguments at hand.

            None of your observations are simple. Look how long it took you to make that trivial point.

          • Schlomotion

            If enough subjects come to the same conclusion, perhaps there is something to it. I am sure a series of bus ads asking whether Jews are habitually annoying would be met with the utmost understanding and no one would raise a question whatsoever about the good intentions of asking via mobile billboard.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Let's also use the Arabic dictionary. Jihad is invitation to profess Islam, war against the Infidels, and the root word hard ground. So, mostly, Jihad is arabic for Hasbara. Looking for hard ground to wage war, mostly verbally and by protestation and professing. You are a jihadi. You are a nonviolent jihadi. Don't say there is no such thing, all societies produce them."

            Don't be an idiot. Even an idiot can read words in context to know exactly how I use jihad, and any sincere interlocutor would not feign confusion on this point. Or are you prepared to admit that you are a confused idiot?

            Conversation is about conveying information and moving towards clearly communicating ideas. You are working against that. It's obvious to anyone.

          • Schlomotion

            I am neither feigning confusion nor being insincere. I know what Jihad means and I am holding you to the full definition, not merely your preferred primary definition. I am holding you to the whole bag from Steingass, including the root and the connotation and the denotation.

            "Or are you prepared to admit that you are a confused idiot [or else insincere]?"

            Do you think that after reading Sophistical Refutations, I would select from a false choice?

            The definition of Jihad encompasses zealous evangelism, apologetics, and fighting. Also, Jihad is not one of the Five Pillars of Islam. It is not even one of the seven critical conditions of the Shahada. It's fair game to brand any evangelist and any would be extirpator of competing religions of Jihad, including yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I am neither feigning confusion nor being insincere. I know what Jihad means and I am holding you to the full definition"

            Then you are using this as a tactic to avoid facing the salient points of my argument. You're trying to win by getting the last word, no matter what words those are. You've already conceded to every salient point I've made about Islam and the need to refute, "debunk" or even "destroy it Ideologically."

            You're driving in circles. The question is whether you are doing it consciously, and if so, what do you think you are accomplishing?

            Want to start over at the top of the thread where you say it doesn't matter if violent Muslim Jihadis want to have a global Caliph because they can't fully succeed?

            Do you or do you not understand my use of the word, "Jihad?" It's that simple. Any other deviation is non-salient to the conversation at hand.

          • Schlomotion

            This will be the third time that I said that I understand your use of the word and also the definition of the word itself.

            You have now tried to establish that we will use the dictionary when you say, but not when I say. Where would you be, either here or at your lectures without trying to close the ground so early in a discussion by such deceptions and by trying to establish yourself as the sole purveyor of academic authority?

            What am I accomplishing, you ask. I am determining for myself and for savvy readers quite well what the structural and intellectual and rhetorical weaknesses are of your core editorship. I am preparing for the inevitable, cordial, nonviolent, and fruitful face-to-face meeting where I am sure we can discuss these wonderful ideas on fair footing without the use of words like "idiot, stupid, moron" etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You have now tried to establish that we will use the dictionary when you say, but not when I say."

            If you are trying to clarify your ideas, go for it do anything you want. If you are trying to put words in my mouth or the mouths of others, I will call you on it. Generally, I'm against deception while your for it. That is what is called salient. That is the distinction I draw between what I do and what I object to in your behavior.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"Then it either does or does not matter to you that most Muslims are coerced members of their civilizations?"

            "The same is true for Christianity and Judaism, even Mormonism. It does not matter except personally and philosophically to the individual. They are free to hike to the nearest copy of Ibn Warraq."

            Idiot. Islamic doctrine calls for killing anyone who leaves, even those (which includes most of them) who were born or otherwise roped in in the first place. This is simply not true for any other religion. I want to also state that this is not mere threat but carried out daily. Furthermore, the charge of apostasy can lead to the death of Muslims for not being "Muslim enough." We are not talking only about those who explicitly reject Islam (though they die most immediately), we are also talking about those with flawed theology or behavior in the eyes of the armed coreligionist.

            Your statement is 100% false and ignorant.

          • Schlomotion

            Islamic doctrine calls for killing anyone who leaves. So what? They call for it. Ole King Cole called for his bowl. Cheese calls for crackers. If you don't buy any, you don't eat any. You seem to keep thinking that Islam always gets what it calls for. And did Christians get Jesus back in December of 1999? Did the Heavens Gate get whisked onto a spaceship? Have Jews gotten an undivided Jerusalem? Are there no ex-Crips?

            You keep making the teleological error. Wanting and calling for doesn't cause getting.

            "killing anyone who leaves [...] is simply not true for any other religion."

            Not true of people who offended a Vodoun shaman? Not true of people with "curses?" Not true of people who get gunned down outside the abortionist? Not true of intelligence agencies and companies either? And what about shunning? Is Gilad Atzmon allowed to quit Jewishness? Was Mordechai Vanunu allowed to break with the Israeli military and join the noble ranks of Nonproliferation? No. Imprisonment.

            You are simply wrong that religious killings only occur daily in Islam. Haredi Jews, harass women, stab people to death and vandalize shops all the time.

            The most important part of your claim though is that people can't walk away from Islam without being killed. That claim assumes that only Muslims are armed, that only fanatics can kill.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Islamic doctrine calls for killing anyone who leaves. So what? They call for it."

            Clean your glasses. I wrote:

            "Islamic doctrine calls for killing anyone who leaves, even those (which includes most of them) who were born or otherwise roped in in the first place. This is simply not true for any other religion. I want to also state that this is not mere threat but carried out daily. Furthermore, the charge of apostasy can lead to the death of Muslims for not being "Muslim enough."

            What makes your reply stupid is this line particularly:

            > "I want to also state that this is not mere threat but carried out daily."<

          • Schlomotion

            As an American, roadway deaths, suicides, street shootings, and incurable diseases get more more riled up than Muslim exit killings. Frankly they are nowhere near as common, local, or many.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "As an American, roadway deaths, suicides, street shootings, and incurable diseases get more more riled up than Muslim exit killings."

            I never once said or implied that those priorities are lower than dealing with Islam. Work on those if you wish, but stop actively assisting Jihad liars.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "And did Christians get Jesus back in December of 1999? Did the Heavens Gate get whisked onto a spaceship?

            Another stupid analogy. Muslims DO get to kill people declared apostates every day. Learn to read with enough comprehension to reply with something useful to say.

            "Have Jews gotten an undivided Jerusalem?"

            Yes they have. They are the sole sovereigns. But that is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

          • Schlomotion

            You certainly have anger issues that get sublimated into accusing people of stupidity and idiocy. Apparently there is neither moral equivalence nor situational equivalence, nor equivalence in satisfaction between these great religions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Apparently there is neither moral equivalence"

            Correct.

            "nor situational equivalence"

            You can find some trivial examples to the contrary, but generally this is true.

            "nor equivalence in satisfaction between these…religions."

            You can find some trivial examples to the contrary, but generally this is true.

          • Schlomotion

            This just strikes me as a kind of extreme or holistic case of personal preference.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Not true of people who offended a Vodoun shaman? Not true of people with "curses?" Not true of people who get gunned down outside the abortionist? Not true of intelligence agencies and companies either? And what about shunning? Is Gilad Atzmon allowed to quit Jewishness? Was Mordechai Vanunu allowed to break with the Israeli military and join the noble ranks of Nonproliferation? No. Imprisonment."

            The discussion is Islamic theology and the effects on the world. There is no other religion that calls for killing apostates. This doctrine is carried out anywhere they are not prevented from doing so by non-Islamic sovereigns. Daily.

            :You are simply wrong that religious killings only occur daily in Islam. Haredi Jews, harass women, stab people to death and vandalize shops all the time. "

            I said that Islam is the only religion that calls for murder of apostates, and people do this frequently. Those are objectively true facts. I didn't say that nobody else ever uses religious motives for crime. Statistically you can find murders for any sort of motive or pretext. The discussion page we are on is focused on Islam and I made explicit, factually true statements while you try to use moral equivalence and other false comparisons to try to imply that Islam is really not different than any other religion or belief system. Say it all you want, it is by many objective measures the deadliest ideology known to man. Your attempts to disprove the article above, and my statements, have all failed completely.

            "Haredi Jews, harass women, stab people to death and vandalize shops all the time. "

            If that were true, I'd find out how they justified this crime streak lasting how many centuries, and I would denounce their justifications as being destructive and unjust, inconsistent with Western justice. Got any URL for me to examine your statistics?

            "The most important part of your claim though is that people can't walk away from Islam without being killed. That claim assumes that only Muslims are armed, that only fanatics can kill. "

            Wrong again. People can't walk away without RISK of being killed, moron. The RISK is there. Not only this, but even if your murderous fantasies are true and your theoretical Muslim gets away, he may live as an apostate for a period of time, but the risk of murder never leaves. Any Muslim may kill any apostate at any time. Even Obama has been threatened on that basis. Obama is an apostate Muslim according to Islamic doctrine.

          • Schlomotion

            I never said that you did not establish that Islam is a barbaric religion and culture in many ways. Again, I agreed on that. I disagree with what you think may be done about that, and I disagree about who you are entitled to enlist in that effort. I also disagree with what may be done to tease and taunt the American public until they adhere to your campaign. One of my ways of demonstrating this disagreement is to point out the many similarities with all kinds of purgative, puritanical movements, including yours.

            If you are interested in investigating Haredi stabbings, Haredi harassment of women, Haredi enforced dress codes, Haredi arsons, and fanaticism coming from the Eyal kibbutz, feel free type any of that into a search engine. The Internet is virtual. I do not subscribe to the theory of Hyperlink Verificationism.

            "People can't walk away without RISK of being killed, moron."

            Life contains risk. You certainly don't consider it risky to call people "fool, idiot, stupid, and moron." I wonder why that is. To me it is simply a sign of exasperation and poor taste. Have you not read Epictetus? There is risk in eating food, risk in taking a shower, risk in crossing the street.

            Obama was also threatened with murder by Andrew Adler for his apostasy from Likud.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I never said that you did not establish that Islam is a barbaric religion and culture in many ways. Again, I agreed on that."

            sav·age (svj)
            adj.
            1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
            2. Not civilized; ***barbaric***: a people living in a savage state.
            3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
            4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
            5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.

            Islam is savage, Jihadis (people who follow fundamental teaching of Islam by fighting) are savages. This is not politically correct to say, but that is no argument against whether it's true.

          • Schlomotion

            Not master of the double negative, I see. I agreed that Islam is barbaric in many of its aspects. That's why I don't follow it. Saying that Islam is savage, however, is off, because Muslims clearly cultivate a desired form of person and mores, and they are domesticated by their rules, restrictions, customs, laws, and nonrepresentational adornments.

            We could probably talk for hours about why the idea of domesticating human beings is itself barbaric. It is a motif of animal husbandry applied to homo sapiens.

            Yes, barbaric is a synonym for savage. But then again, not all synonyms are the same by degree. Have you ever used the thesaurus? Weren't you just fighting a moment ago for forcing interlocutors to choose preferred definition 1 in all cases of you being in charge?

          • Schlomotion

            Not master of the double negative, I see. I agreed that Islam is barbaric in many of its aspects. That's why I don't follow it. Saying that it Islam is savage, however, is off, because Muslims clearly cultivate a desired form of person and mores, and they are domesticated by their rules, restrictions, customs, laws, and adornments.

            We could probably talk for hours about why the idea of domesticating human beings is itself barbaric. It is a motif of animal husbandry applied to homo sapiens.

            Yes, barbaric is a synonym for savage. But then again, not all synonyms are the same by degree. Have you ever used the thesaurus? Weren't you just fighting a moment ago for forcing interlocutors to choose preferred definition 1 in all cases of you being in charge?

          • Schlomotion

            Not master of the double negative, I see. I agreed that Islam is barbaric in many of its aspects. That's why I don't follow it. Saying that it Islam is savage, however, is off, because Muslims clearly cultivate a desired form of person and mores, and they are domesticated by their rules, restrictions, customs, laws, and adornments.

            We could probably talk for hours about why the idea of domesticating human beings is itself barbaric. It is a motif of animal husbandry applied to homo sapiens.

            Yes, barbaric is a synonym for savage. But then again, not all synonyms are the same by degree. Have you ever used the thesaurus? Weren't you just fighting a moment ago for forcing interlocutors to choose preferred definition 1 in all cases of you being in charge?

          • Schlomotion

            Not master of the double negative, I see. I agreed that Islam is barbaric in many of its aspects. That's why I don't follow it. Saying that Islam is savage, however, is off, because Muslims clearly cultivate a desired form of person and mores, and they are domesticated by their rules, restrictions, customs, laws, and nonrepresentational adornments.

            We could probably talk for hours about why the idea of domesticating human beings is itself barbaric. It is a motif of animal husbandry applied to homo sapiens.

            Yes, barbaric is a synonym for savage. So is heathen. But then again, not all synonyms are the same by degree. Have you ever used the thesaurus? Weren't you just fighting a moment ago for forcing interlocutors to choose preferred definition 1 in all cases of you being in charge? When you say they are "savage" it comes off a lot like the word "Infidel."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Not master of the double negative, I see. I agreed that Islam is barbaric in many of its aspects. That's why I don't follow it. Saying that Islam is savage, however, is off, because Muslims clearly cultivate a desired form of person and mores, and they are domesticated by their rules, restrictions, customs, laws, and nonrepresentational adornments. "

            Calling them savage may be subjective, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use the word. It applies and can be argued as accurate even if plausible arguments against this can be made.

            My point goes back to your objection to the Geller ad. Therefore in this context your point is invalid. Geller can accurately call them savages if she wishes to convey that opinion. She has plenty of facts to back it up and if she doesn't, then I can.

            It was just a tactical failure on her part (IMO) to say this and allow the PC police like you to attack her for being "racist" with religious and behavioral criticism.

            "Yes, barbaric is a synonym for savage"

            Then what is the hue and cry all about?

            "Weren't you just fighting a moment ago for forcing interlocutors to choose preferred definition "

            Yes. In the context of the conversation, I am not arguing that you should see Muslims or Islam as savage, but rather that it was perfectly acceptable for Geller to do so (she is not in the conversation, so we obviously can't expect her to modify her language to suit you as it goes forward). I merely expect this from active participants who expect to be taken seriously.

            I don't use the word "savage" because it is unreliable today, not knowing how the audience will understand it. But I won't call someone a racist who uses it correctly either. I can criticize Geller as unwise, but not incorrect or racist in this ad.

            "When you say they are "savage" it comes off a lot like the word "Infidel."

            IMO, it's worse than infidel because it's even more vague to today's populations. They don't get it. It's almost an obsolete word. Infidel is a non-believer. If you know the worldview of the speaker, it is clear what they are saying. Which is by the way, the reason moral equivalence fallacies are so dangerous. Not all worldviews are equal. People make incorrect assumptions about worldview and then wrongly buy in to moral equivalence through their ignorance.

            Please help with clarity, not confusion. You are of course not coerced or commanded to do this. I don't coerce anyone to do anything.

          • Schlomotion

            Unfortunately, the Semitic tribes only offer race, religion, ethnicity and nationality as a package deal. Ms. Geller is one of those, and her opponents are one of those. So it was easy to begin with to fall into the accusation of racism. Secondly, her use of the language savage vs civilized draws upon the ideas of British Colonialism and Comte de Gobineau, which are racist, so there she earned another big R. Thirdly, she only goes after people of Arab abstraction and then tries to link them to the Muslim Brotherhood. She racially profiles her targets, so again, racist. Fourthly, like you, she believes that Jews are morally superior to Muslims. That's ethnic chauvinism, which again is racist. Her last job was also cooning and crooning to black people to rope them into subprime car loans though she blames this all on her ex husband. On the Suhail Khan video she is even doing an angry-black woman routine. It's right on video. Again, racist.

            Still, Ms. Geller is not politically incorrect. She is behaviorally incorrect and socially incorrect. She yammers and insults people with paid advertisements because they are one of the few places, like in a lecture hall stocked with shrill speakers and hired ronin and rent-a-cops where you can shout people down and insult them and cleverly avoid being answered back.

            I think you have even less expertise than Walid Shoebat. I would prefer more clarity in the world between licensed experts with degrees and demonstrable records of finding and bringing people to justice for their "savagery" and people who use 501 c 3s to insult the public and fund spurious books.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Unfortunately, the Semitic tribes only offer race, religion, ethnicity and nationality as a package deal. Ms. Geller is one of those, and her opponents are one of those. So "

            I smell collectivism again, the diminishing importance of individuals. "One of those' indeed. You call her a racist? LOL! Racism is blind in the eyes of the beholder.

            "it was easy to begin with to fall into the accusation of racism."

            The charge was made against her ad on the superficial (prima facia) evidence of its content, not against her and certainly you offered no other evidence.

            "Secondly, her use of the language savage vs civilized draws upon…"

            An argument can be made that the term reminds some people of racism due to the history of the word's use. That is not what she was accused of. It was claimed that the ad is racist. It's not. In context, only ignorant people would think of racism when reading that ad. That is why she was stupid. The ad is to inspire the ignorant to get educated. She helped the opposition claim victimhood.

          • Schlomotion

            "In context, only ignorant people would think of racism when reading that ad."

            Balderdash. She constructed a deliberately confounded context. It is very savvy blind communication. You don't get to appeal to simplicity in matters of funded and orchestrated mass advertisement. She took labors to construct her meme.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Balderdash. She constructed a deliberately confounded context."

            She was quoting Ayn Rand. Not many people are aware of this. What is the name of her 'blog?

            She's not very creative or intelligent. She is counter-productive. I read only enough of her to realize that. In fact, the very first thing I said to you directly was regarding Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and what I said was that he is not discerning enough in his use of sarcasm nor who he allows to use his name. I was referring to Geller.

            She is not a racist, though she sounds like she is motivated by hate, which is considered de facto racism or bigotry to people who do not understand Islam and hence do not understand the legitimacy of her moral outrage.

            It's really a pity how messy and complicated the world can be, and never more so than when you don't have all of the salient facts.

            "She took labors to construct her meme"

            It was a direct quote from a book. She didn't take enough labors. She has no useful advisers as far as I can tell. Her fans are sycophants who can't find the courage to rebuke her. I have nothing to do with her because she is dangerous to her own legitimate objectives, which I share with her in general.

          • Schlomotion

            She was quoting Ayn Rand in order to make a case for war and for welfare payments and military gifts to Israel as well as to incite violence on buses. What does she produce other than self-satisfaction, war propaganda and hypes in the media? Where are her great philosophical books. She's no Randian. She had better quote Ayn Rand. She sure as heck can't live Ayn Rand. As I said, she places even below Yaron Brook who like the core of Frontpage live from rental hall to rental hall on Crystal Geyser. Pamela Geller is not a producer. She is a legalized vandal who does Hasbara permission walls on public transportation.

            The truth is that in this post, you have given a lot more than usual. I remind myself constantly that there must be some kernel of self-belief behind all of this activity that exists independently of financiers and of countries and of religion. It is certainly not beyond belief to me that Ms. Geller or Mr. Spencer possess within themselves certain truly held beliefs that may be based on dearly held observations or events. It is also not beyond my belief that Ms. Geller just bit a chunk of something and then slapped a pro-Israel slogan at the bottom. As was the case with the Innocence of Muslims, that was cold and calculated but also not creative or profound.

            When you spoke initially, you came off as full Geller, complete with the "Facts Matter" that she likes to use when trolling other blogs. This post of yours appears to be a repudiation of Geller but not for the principles for which she allegedly stands.

            At this point I would be interested again in how you act on your shared objectives outside of comment section discourse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "She was quoting Ayn Rand in order to make a case for war and for welfare payments and military gifts to Israel as well as to incite violence on buses."

            You really would get a lot more traction from your arguments if you didn't sort of mimic her style. In fact, you are quite a bit more hyperbolic, but you probably feel justified by your emotions towards her or her actions as she feels justified by Islamic tyranny. I'm not trying to be harsh, all humans must watch out for our natural tendency towards hypocrisy.

            As I said, you'd get more traction if you focused on objections that you can show to others with evidence rather than imagine you can look in to her soul. I've already noted my objections to her. I have nothing to do with her because she has angered everyone but the choir. Not good. Not effective. She's a good cheerleader maybe, but I don't know if she wins new, thoughtful people to her arguments. That doesn't make her wrong in her claims though.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "She is a legalized vandal"

            That's obviously an oxymoronic statement. Vandalism is illegal. She went to court and won at least 1 case at an appellate court. The judge was very clear how important political speech is to protect.

            I don't read her articles unless by accident. but when she makes the larger news impressions I pay attention. That was important.

            I objected to the word "savage" because it won't motivate anyone to seek out the facts. It seems like hate speech if you don't know why she used the word. Therefore the ad was not productive in my opinion. At least I thought so before she went to court. What changed my mind? Well, if she wanted to get publicity by forcing people to discuss her justifications, maybe she succeeded in that. I can't say. It still would not be my choice.

            "I remind myself constantly that there must be some kernel of self-belief behind all of this activity"

            I can assure you that all of their positions and claims are fully justified by the facts. I simply disagree with their tactics and use of language. I think that I can be pretty aggressive at times and really I think that I go right to the edge, therefore I can't support anyone who goes even further or I'd go there myself. I don't. I'm never confused about what I object to and who the victims are. I've seen these things with my own eyes and ears and have accepted the realities for too long to sit around with boiling anger. Showing or representing anger rhetorically is some times useful, but when one is personally angry, it's best to go rest and process thoughts.

            " It is certainly not beyond belief to me that Ms. Geller or Mr. Spencer possess within themselves certain truly held beliefs"

            It's unfair to put them together as equals, thought Spencer seems to tolerate this, he's a fool to do so. I think that Geller is playing catch-up and tries to rise to the level of peer with Spencer. Maybe Spencer is inspired by her emotional presentations to do likewise.

            These are things that are far beyond my control, and certainly I have no need to defend them. I occasionally defend what they say. In fact I feel I must at times because their controversial language allows the focus to be shifted. The full truth about Islam is very complex for Westerners to understand. It is an apparently barbaric civilization and people assume the individuals must be backwards and stupid. People of all walks of life have roughly equal potential with one another, certainly this is true collectively. The most sophisticated politicians are the Islamic supremacists. They are sophisticated in the politics of Islam and the politics of Islam against the West and the rest of the world. This is what they apply their intellectual talents towards. Even Medical Doctors in Islam can be corrupted by the ideology. This leads to false conclusions when judging superficially from Western views.

            The bottom line is that I can not speak for others when I don't fully understand their motives myself. I can defend their ideas when I know they speak truthfully. That's about it.

          • Schlomotion

            You are certainly more accepting of these people swan-diving off the limb of credibility than I am, probably because of the shared objectives and shared impetus, nevertheless, I can agree with this last post entirely.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "As was the case with the Innocence of Muslims, that was cold and calculated but also not creative or profound. "

            My artistic sensibilities were offended. This made me think in my gut that the producer or director wanted to provoke people…but then I realized just how campy so many films are. They might have been sincere, I don't know. What is truly offensive is the facts of history about Islam. If you are not aware of the facts, and you just think it's like any other religion, then you might find it hard to believe they could be so careless. Probably they knew the facts themselves are offensive, and if they got any feedback that their film was offensive, they chalked it up to that rather than their "campy" and "disrespectful" production values. I find it interesting how many lies were spread about it's funding and length because it is so clearly a film that is barely credible as a student project. It could be just an unfortunate combination of fed up persecuted Christians who have no artistic or writing talents and expected that no matter what they did. they would offend people just by approaching the taboo; facts about Mohammed. It's unfortunate on the one hand, and fortunate that relatively few people were killed and wounded in order to expose the attitudes of Islamic leaders and followers alike around US embassies and the UN chambers. It's all sad, but this sad story dates back to the 7th century AD.

            "When you spoke initially, you came off as full Geller, complete with the "Facts Matter" that she likes to use when trolling other blogs. This post of yours appears to be a repudiation of Geller but not for the principles for which she allegedly stands. "

            That may have been your impression, but I've written enough to clearly speak for myself. I don't read her much so I can't say how much we have in common in terms of approach. From what I have seen though, I can't quite understand how you got that impression. You do seem to jump to conclusions and read a lot in between the lines of things. Again, this is common today and how students are taught to think. They are taught by teachers and professors who model this behavior. It's everywhere.

            "At this point I would be interested again in how you act on your shared objectives outside of comment section discourse."

            I don't have a public face of "Jihad fighter" as they do. I don't see a productive way to do that, other than my project that is not ready for publication.

            The 2 things I do is direct help to Muslims and those, uh, under their influence in focusing on achieving goals that their imam's call worldly and "western influence," like how to succeed in business etc. The second thing I have going is a huge collection of documentaries and history publications that I hope to use in creating a comprehensive distillation of the history one needs to know to decide for oneself how to deal with Islam. Facts do matter, and eventually the truth can bring people to peace rather than war. They have to sit around and tolerate the discourse long enough to find the common threads of truth and hence agreement and common cause.

            The one thing we agreed on is that lies are bad. That is a start.

          • Schlomotion

            Forgetting the Nakoula video entirely, anything that you produce that is more thought out than 2016 Obama's America is bound to be at least interesting. I agree with most of your last post.

            Your earlier use of the phrase "Facts Matter" and the general approval of the shared mission of anti-Islam, the LOLs and the eyerolls, the ever shifting rundown of appeals to ideas of collectivism, to feminism, to narcissism, to Islamism are what made me think I was talking to Geller.

            I did a preliminary look at Bernard Lewis, and have a book to pick up by him. I watched a few of his videos, and so far he seems like someone using the British Colonialist routine to sell a rehashed cultural chauvinist tract, archaeologizing Islam every four years. I will read one of his books though to confirm or negate that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Thirdly, she only goes after people of Arab abstraction and then tries to link them to the Muslim Brotherhood"

            What a freaking lie. Give me a break.

            "She racially profiles her targets, so again, racist."

            Arabs are racist in accepting Islam I guess. You can produce no evidence for this stupid claim. You're just running your mouth again.

            "Fourthly, like you, she believes that Jews are morally superior to Muslims"

            No, one can't say that broadly as you have. The discussion is about ideology and truth seeking vs. propagating lies and using violence to squelch any form of criticism that might reveal the truths behind those lies.

            "Her last job was also cooning and crooning to black people"

            So Bill Clinton, the biggest promoter of the program, trying to help, "disadvantaged people" is an even bigger racist? OK, fine.

            "Still, Ms. Geller is not politically incorrect. She is behaviorally incorrect and socially incorrect"

            So being "socially incorrect" precludes one from being politically incorrect? You live in your own world of delusion.

            "I would prefer more clarity in the world"

            That's ironic. So you are above politics. OK. You're so special, I think that is what makes it so difficult for you to get along with others here in conversations. We'll just agree that you're so special.

          • Schlomotion

            You didn't address the part about Ms. Geller's history of predatory lending through shucking and jiving. It slipped through.

            "The discussion is about ideology and truth seeking vs. propagating lies"

            So it's counter-jihadist furqan. Another kind of Jihadism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You didn't address the part about Ms. Geller's history of predatory lending through shucking and jiving. It slipped through."

            I don't know what you are referring to. I thought you were referring to alleged predatory home loans and I snipped your statement. If those are distinct accusations, I need an explanation before I can comment.

            OTOH, there's a lot of mudslinging and I've already criticized her about what I have have observed directly. I care little about accusations of her past unless they have significant relevance and are supported by some evidence. Otherwise it seems really pointless.

            "So it's counter-jihadist furqan. Another kind of Jihadism."

            It's counter Jihad and fighting lies with facts. If you want to call it jihad for your own personal reasons, that is fine. Most people wouldn't do that unless they were attempted a futile moral equivalence argument. We've already agreed on distinctions between Islam and cultures that strive to purge lies, so I'm not worried about that.

          • Schlomotion

            I can appreciate that you don't want to follow a character analysis of Pamela Geller from when she was in her best dyed hair and fake nails trying to talk black guys into overextending themselves on car loans which her husband then dishonestly underwrote. So we can just not address whether she is a serial con artist.

            It is not futile to show the equivalence of counter-Jihadist furqan and Islamist furqan. It is not futile to show the equivalence between Jewish ta'assub and Islamic ta'assub. That word means "tribalist fanaticism," by the way. It is not futile to show it, it is merely something that makes the Hasbarist automatically condemn the statement on the basis that Jews are morally superior to non-Jews.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I can appreciate that you don't want to follow a character analysis of Pamela Geller from when she was in her best dyed hair and fake nails trying to talk black guys into overextending themselves on car loans which her husband then dishonestly underwrote. So we can just not address whether she is a serial con artist. "

            Not without establishing relevance and showing evidence. One, we don't know if its true, and two, we don't know if she reformed herself. I see this as an attempt to pile on to accusations against her based on little to no evidence.

            I repeat: she's not diplomatic enough, and this compromises her effectiveness. This is not a personal judgment because I understand her moral outrage. I think she tunes her rhetoric to others who already share her moral outrage. Maybe this accomplishes something, I can't say. What I object to is that her image taints the image of those who try to educate those who truly don't know all of the facts.

            "It is not futile to show the equivalence of counter-Jihadist furqan and Islamist furqan. It is not futile to show the equivalence between Jewish ta'assub and Islamic ta'assub. That word means "tribalist fanaticism," by the way. It is not futile to show it, it is merely something that makes the Hasbarist automatically condemn the statement on the basis that Jews are morally superior to non-Jews."

            My belief is that without knowing how Islam is morally inferior, one might misunderstand their arguments. Ever consider that? Obviously the case must be made and there should be no expectation that anyone can just declare another person or group morally inferior. With Islam, it is not at all difficult to make the case.

            I never said for example that the Native Americans (AKA "Indians") were morally inferior to Europeans. They lost because they were not sophisticated enough to secure borders and property. We can't judge them personally or even collectively beyond what the facts show. They were unsuitable as sovereigns under modern circumstances. That is all you can say.

            Islam on the other hand is morally inferior because it is based on lies that are proven to foment violence, murder and oppression wherever you allow it to take root. We can use history for evidence and compare history to its theology to traces causes and effects.

            Hebrew theology and its ancestors strive for due process, rights of the individual, offering forgiveness, benefit of the doubt, etc. It's easy to make the case of moral superiority in relationship with Islam.

            Is Hebrew theology morally superior to all others? That case is harder to make and should not be accepted as a given. Given the wide influence of Hebrew theology upon secular society, it's foolish to make angry aggressive assertions to those who disagree on the premise of Hebrew moral superiority. It's largely theoretical to Europeans and Americans in most cases.

          • Schlomotion

            I would be interested as to what you consider to be the specific unique qualities of Islam which qualify it for moral inferiority to other religions in such a way that they could be considered objective and not merely personal preferences.

            It seems to me that even if your evaluations are somewhat objective, that means merely that Islam goes against your personal preference as an Objectivist. In short, I question the possibility of an objective condemnation of a religion that does not somehow condemn all religions and Islam in particular as simply an extreme case of religion at large. How do you do this without at least appealing to a Kantian moral imperative?

            Regarding Geller, she was co-owner of Universal Auto World whose husband and whose co-administered clients were all "savages" by her ad campaign's definition.

            This is a more colorful description of the scandal:
            http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/ny-p

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I would be interested as to what you consider to be the specific unique qualities of Islam which qualify it for moral inferiority to other religions in such a way that they could be considered objective and not merely personal preferences."

            1) Islam is founded on specific lies that incite murder since its inception through today

            2) Islam forbids questioning its claims

            3) Islam demands striving for world domination, displacing all other religions and sovereings

            4) Hebrew theology has created a legacy of justice where significant effort is required to find the truth, pursue justice as a rational and reasonable process, etc.

            If you can't see the distinctions at this point, you're simply refusing to look.

            "Regarding Geller, she was co-owner of Universal Auto World whose husband and whose co-administered clients were all "savages" by her ad campaign's definition"

            Her ad implies Jihadis are savages. She served Jihadis? Maybe she was naive then? That argues against racism since she waited to know the facts.

          • Schlomotion

            I look forward to the book showing that Jews are morally superior to Muslims. It should go over well.

            I don't think Geller can be described as naive for pushing drug dealers and gang members into expensive car loans. One wouldn't use the word "naive" to describe that. One would use the expression "racketeer."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I don't think Geller can be described as naive for pushing drug dealers and gang members into expensive car loans. One wouldn't use the word "naive" to describe that. One would use the expression "racketeer."

            I think you're reading a lot in between the lines. Was she among those arrested? What are the charges?

            As far as loans and discernment, referring to her as naive was a regarding the implications of the loans to the borrower, not the borrower's alleged status in society.

            Are drug dealers supposed to be punished by peers by denying them trade? I'm not sure where you're going. It seems like a smear with little evidence or even substance.

            I understand you have a creepy feeling about her. So do I. I really don't see the value in more focus on her. Maybe if she becomes more important to the movement, I'll need to revisit the allegations, but I'm skeptical about that need for the moment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I never said that you did not establish that Islam is a barbaric religion and culture in many ways. Again, I agreed on that. I disagree with what you think may be done about that"

            You are very inconsistent. I can quote you agreeing that I can "debunk it" but disagreeing about "destroying" it (an ideology should not be destroyed when it is savage and objectively false?)

            " I also disagree with what may be done to tease and taunt the American public until they adhere to your campaign. One of my ways of demonstrating this disagreement is to point out the many similarities with all kinds of purgative, puritanical movements, including yours. "

            That would be fine if you ever made a useful point. As smart as you think you are, you clearly are in way over your head on these subjects. I am sorry, but you've rarely if ever added useful commentary. I am sure you have that ability, so I don't want to insult you personally, but I must be clear and honest about the discourse. Some times it may feel like I am attacking you when I try to show where your limits might come from. Ultimately those ideas are for you to accept or reject.

            So you think you're a modern Neitzschie?

            "There are more idols than realities in the world: that is my "evil eye" upon this world; that is also my "evil ear." Finally to pose questions with a hammer, and sometimes to hear as a reply that famous hollow sound that can only come from bloated entrails — what a delight for one who has ears even behind his ears, for me, an old psychologist and pied piper before whom just that which would remain silent must finally speak out."

            You're both an arrogant waste of time with flawed thinking behind your megalomania.

            "If you are interested in investigating Haredi stabbings"

            If you convince me that this is as serious as Islam, I'll put it on my list. This would never be an argument for changing my approach to Islamic ideology. Maybe after Islam is "completely debunked" (destroyed ideologically), I'll work on the roots of that problem. How is that?

            >"People can't walk away without RISK of being killed, moron."

            "Life contains risk."

            Indeed. Some risks are far greater than others. If we were talking about the philosophy of risk management, your comments might be useful. Quoted in context, your clearly trying to use relativism again because you believe so much that nothing really matters…until it threatens you personally that. Then I am sure your attitudes about risks and murder would change immediately."

            "Obama was also threatened with murder by Andrew Adler for his apostasy from Likud."

            Rolling eyes again. How did the Likud members react to this? Your exception to prove my rule was useful. Thanks.

          • Schlomotion

            "I can quote you agreeing that I can 'debunk it' but disagreeing about 'destroying' it (an ideology should not be destroyed when it is savage and objectively false?) "

            Yes you may. But not the part in the parenthesis. You have not established that you solely wish to destroy the ideology using rational discourse. You are certainly entitled to attack it with mental scalpels and beep hammers, but if you want to harass and intimidate the public with loud signs and fund the English Defense League, and accuse Huma Abedin and Anderson Cooper of being members of the MB, your Logical Positivist rhetoric and Objectivism aren't going to excuse your Jihadism.

            "As smart as you think you are, you clearly are in way over your head on these subjects."

            Preposterous. You are simply an academic charlatan and false expert on a non-issue.

            "So you think you're a modern Neitzschie?"

            No. I am a Nietzsche for the Internet Age and for the era of virtual telepresence 15 years from now. Geoff Waite was the last best and sad hope of preventing me.

            "your clearly trying to use relativism again because you believe so much that nothing really matters"

            Where appropriate, yes I am. That is basic Epictetus again. But not because I believe that nothing really matters. That would not be very Nietzschean of me, would it? I only believe that Der Muslimfrage is not everything and barely anything.

            You should get your eye rolling problem fixed. Cookie Monster has that problem. Strabismus. An eye patch might fix that and also make you a more severe looking counter-jihadist.

            The Likud members where aghast that Mr. Adler said so openly what someone like Mr. Dershowitz knows should not be discussed in public forum. Mr. Adler was an unwitting moser no?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"I can quote you agreeing that I can 'debunk it' but disagreeing about 'destroying' it (an ideology should not be destroyed when it is savage and objectively false?) "

            "Yes you may. But not the part in the parenthesis. You have not established that you solely wish to destroy the ideology using rational discourse. You are certainly entitled to attack it with mental scalpels and beep hammers, but if you want to harass and intimidate the public with loud signs and fund the English Defense League, and accuse Huma Abedin and Anderson Cooper of being members of the MB, your Logical Positivist rhetoric and Objectivism aren't going to excuse your Jihadism."

            You're conflating again. What I do is independent of what others do. I am not so sure the EDL is evil either. But then again, I have little interest for now.

            I'd say that based on my superficial knowledge about the Geller Spencer gang that they need a strong and wise leader to help them clean up their image. What I did observe directly is that they use unwise language that can be easily distorted by their enemies. This is foolish. It doesn't make them racist. It might make them bigoted had they not already established the research behind their opinions. They need to avoid excessively hateful rhetoric because taken out of context, it can make them look like hate is their motive rather than the rational outcome of their moral outrage.

            Other than that, I think your analysis is inaccurate due to an incomplete understanding of Islam today and historically. This is more evidence in support of my opinions. This doesn't make you below average in any sense, you just don't have the information you need to judge yet.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"In theory, Cooper could work for CAIR, there is just no evidence known to me that he does. "

            "That's foolishness."

            It's your foolishness, you cited the theory.

            "There is no "theory" that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR, there is only Shoebat's lie that he does."

            You have evidence that proves both the theory false, and that Shoebat maliciously propagated this theory or statement knowing it was untrue? I'm calling your bluff. Where is the evidence for YOUR theories?

          • Schlomotion

            Yes. I do. Anderson Cooper rolled his eyes and smirked when he was accused of being in CAIR and then said he wasn't. He is an upstanding guy. Plus he didn't say "Hey don't kill me, I work for CAIR" when he got bogged down in the Egyptian Revolution. He would have admitted it and then challenged Shoebat to explain why that is bad. Because Anderson Cooper has integrity. Also, in 2010, I saw him on Dauphine Street, French Quarter at Decadence. He was going to Oz, not going to a cave to learn how to make bomb belts. That's how I know.

            Shoebat, on the other hand constantly makes microfacial expressions of a liar, as clearly depicted in the CNN video when asked about what his organization does, how it does, how much he makes, where the money goes. He lies about who knows what at Walid Shoebat Foundation. And then Keith Davies is clearly a gangster hustler in every aspect of his demeanor. Again, Shoebat lied about being a professor for ITAI and also used the alias Shubat. Also, what's his middle name? Is it Salameh? Maybe he will get to testify at Nakoula's trial too. He lied about being a terrorist. His cousin deals meth and forges passports. His 16 year old son is hawking a book about Satanic Influences on Shoebat's site. Shoebat has been exposed and derided all over the place just not audited yet by DHS. And Shoebat just throws around accusations that people are in CAIR whenever they question his operation. That's how I know he's lying.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Yes. I do. Anderson Cooper rolled his eyes and smirked when he was accused of being in CAIR and then said he wasn't. He is an upstanding guy. Plus he didn't say "Hey don't kill me, I work for CAIR" when he got bogged down in the Egyptian Revolution. He would have admitted it and then challenged Shoebat to explain why that is bad. Because Anderson Cooper has integrity."

            You'd know if Cooper was hiding something big, right?

            "Shoebat, on the other hand constantly makes microfacial expressions of a liar, as clearly depicted in the CNN video when asked about what his organization does, how it does"

            According to who?

            "how it does, how much he makes, where the money goes. He lies about who knows what at Walid Shoebat Foundation. And then Keith Davies is clearly a gangster hustler in every aspect of his demeanor. Again, Shoebat lied about being a professor for ITAI and also used the alias Shubat. Also, what's his middle name? Is it Salameh? Maybe he will get to testify at Nakoula's trial too. He lied about being a terrorist. His cousin deals meth and forges passports."

            Just say it: "Pro-Israel Scum." That's all it takes.

            For what it's worth, I don't depend on Shoebat or any single source for anything. I trust nobody completely because people make mistakes and I like to be sure. I don't use subjective measures like you because as we see in your case, this tends to make things line up behind your biases. But you already admitted that objectivity is an illusion. Why then should anyone listen to you when they don't like what you say? How are you serving your own interests if you are living according to your stated beliefs by trying to distract and cause drama with a bunch of people who you totally disagree with, even hate? How does that fit in with your "life game" or your morality?

            "His 16 year old son is hawking a book about Satanic Influences on Shoebat's site"

            Well then, these are obviously scum by your standards when we add the hatred of Jews and Christians, which dovetails nicely with the answer to the question, why is this guy so pro-Islam? The same enemies: you hate everyone else too, but none more than what some call "the people of the book." If only you could find a better pretext to attack Christians directly! Israel will have to do for now.

            You've revealed both the superficial side of your life philosophy and the more honest dark side too. You are driven by hate when you claim to be motivated by love and "live and let live." You curse the Israelis with, "Live and let die" every day (you live, they die). You wish.

          • Schlomotion

            You have committed a common subterfuge. You have moved from asking me to disprove Shoebat's accusation that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR to disproving your claim that Anderson Cooper is a crypto-Muslim hiding his membership in CAIR. That is quite a bait and switch.

            "According to who?"

            According to me. Let's put the video to a forum, shall we? I suggest a small setting where many people can watch this video and see if based on their view of Shoebat's and Davies' changes in color, shuffling, eye movement, verbal vagueness, stonewalling, shifting from foot to foot, dramatism, and immediate throwback of certain words like "scam," they don't conclude that Shoebat and Davies are scam artists.

            "Just say it: 'Pro-Israel Scum.' That's all it takes."

            That's not all it takes. I support the existence of Israel in situ with only mild, marginal adjustments to fence and road so that they might share fairly the region.

            I do admit, as you say, that Walid Shoebat is scum by my standards. But it is far more constructive to show why, to take apart the semiotics of his scam, and to make reference to more reputable people and these excellent exposés. I did a good exposé on Charles Jacobs, on Anna Kolodner, on members of Earth Liberation Front, and on Boston Indymedia's link to street fighting in Mexico. Exposés of purported scum, and direct verbal discussions are effective. Not effective, if say, you demand 10,000 dollars from Suhail Khan in order let him debate your charges publicly, and he tells you off soundly on video, but still.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You have committed a common subterfuge. You have moved from asking me to disprove Shoebat's accusation that Anderson Cooper works for CAIR to disproving your claim that Anderson Cooper is a crypto-Muslim hiding his membership in CAIR. That is quite a bait and switch. "

            No, you are the one pushing this distraction about Cooper and CAIR. None of this is salient to the conversation. You just hate losing so you keep pushing for more distractions to try to win superficial arguments.

            "According to me. Let's put the video to a forum, shall we? I suggest a small setting where many people can watch this video and see if based on their view of Shoebat's and Davies' changes in color, shuffling, eye movement, verbal vagueness, stonewalling, shifting from foot to foot, dramatism, and immediate throwback of certain words like "scam," they don't conclude that Shoebat and Davies are scam artists. "

            None of my positions are dependent on them winning popularity contests. I'm not dependent on them for anything.

            "That's not all it takes. I support the existence of Israel in situ with only mild, marginal adjustments to fence and road so that they might share fairly the region."

            Fine, but not before the Jihad is dealt with. Then it's up to the legitimate sovereigns to determine the leadership and policies of their nation.

            "Walid Shoebat is scum by my standards. But it is far more constructive to show why, to take apart the semiotics of his scam, and to make reference to more reputable people and these excellent exposés. I did a good exposé on Charles Jacobs, on Anna Kolodner, on members of Earth Liberation Front, and on Boston Indymedia's link to street fighting in Mexico"

            We sure never have to worry about your use of biased sources.

            This is not about defending people who advocate destruction of Islamic ideology. It's about ideas, not people. If you want to use them as an example, fine. But your evidence against Shoebat does nothing for your positions on Islam, Israel or much of anything else. Just more smoke and mirrors, which seems to be instinctive for you.

          • Schlomotion

            How many of these false accusations by your organizations of known and vetted professional personalities with respectable careers can be called distractions?

            "None of my positions are dependent on them winning popularity contests. I'm not dependent on them for anything. "

            I don't believe that. There's a lot of cross-promoting going on. Even with Nasralla Abdelmasih.

            "This is not about defending people who advocate destruction of Islamic ideology. It's about ideas, not people."

            I disagree. Ideas are little events that can only happen inside of people. The people I bring into the discussion are purveyors of ideas designed to make people paranoid, go to war, persecute religions, and endure facefuls of insults while they wait for the bus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The truth is, there is a lot more scamming and cahooting going on in your camp than in any camp of alleged "Islamic supporters" that you accuse me of. "

            That's an incredibly broad and vague accusation and has nothing to do with the salient issues. I'm not a collectivist. I only accuse you of what I can see you are accountable for: your words published with the account I am replying to.

            Islam is destructive. Many critics like me seek to mitigate and eliminate that destruction. Why are you so confused about this? That was a rhetorical question that you can choose to answer after you have some progress in your therapy sessions.

          • Schlomotion

            Now finally, you are throwing the Objectivism card. Bravo.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A non-answer. How is objectivity out of place in this conversation in the context I used it? Is this phrase, "throwing the Objectivism card" supposed to make me feel remorse?

            You reject objectivity. That explains a LOT.

            To recap, you made the erroneous statement that we should not be worried about Islam since their ultimate strategic goal will fail. Never mind they've been failing for 14 centuries and millions have died while billions have suffered misery and oppression due to this goal. It's all good anyway because the nearest Islamic supremacist sovereign is over 10,000 kilometers from your Internet connection.

            Objectivity sucks, and morality comes from enlightened self-interest. Life is a game, enjoy it while you can.

            That's one description of narcissism. But that is not the most salient point. The most important point is that your original statement is false: the risk of Islam comes from the violence, oppression and destruction caused by their tactics, not by the risk they will succeed in their end game.

          • Schlomotion

            I don't reject objectivity. I reject when Hasbara jihadists appeal to Objectivism. It merely explains that that trope won't work either.

            To say that Islam has been failing for 14 Centuries is hardly an objective assessment. It is a statement of preference.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "To say that Islam has been failing for 14 Centuries is hardly an objective assessment. It is a statement of preference."

            Stated in isolation, this would be literally true. However, in context, most people would understand that the billions of murdered and oppressed people were the objective facts from which I derived my subjective summary. Or put another way, I derive my subjective summaries from objective history.

          • Schlomotion

            Billions of murdered and oppressed people? B. I. Double-L. yons of people murdered and oppressed by Muslims? Don't you think you exaggerate a pinch?

            To clarify, with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, if they each killed one person, that would not only be a helluva weekend, but it would only make 1.5 billion murders. So what are you imagineering?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Billions of murdered and oppressed people?"

            The total numbers of murdered and oppressed Muslims exceeds billions even today, but I could increase that number if we go back to its creation. They've all been lied to, and those lies lead to significant oppression and death.

          • Schlomotion

            Smells like accounting fraud to me.

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

            Like your progressive friends that doctor the unemployment rate?

            Nope, sadly they're pretty accurate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, how many Muslims have we had historically based on any published source? Let's stipulate that only female Muslims have been oppressed by Islam. How many is that?

            Now people who kill others (oops, do victims of Islam count too?) and die doing it might be considered to have been oppressed, if they did so based on being lied to. How many would YOU guess that to be, even using the lowest possible numbers?

            I'll revise my estimate based on any reasonable new information.

    • Ghostwriter

      You seem to be a big fan of A-jad,aren't you,Schlomotion? You two certainly have a lot in common. The biggest one is that you both hate Jews and want them exterminated like cockroaches. You both also have all the humanity and decency of Richard Speck,a guy who raped and killed several nurses. Why don't you go back to the sewer from which you were spawned from?

  • Demetrius M

    It's funny, we are taught that history teaches us about the events of the past.. Sometimes history changes, an example is that of the Vandals of Europe. Turns out they may not have been as bad as history had taught us. Their time of activity was roughly 300 years.
    Islam's history of violence spans almost 1500 years and it is the same story in each geographical location and generation. Violence is their tool now as it has been throughout history.

    Look at the stories coming from Europe, specifically Malmo Sweden. Does the term "killing you softly" mean anything?
    These supposed "academics" are either very stupid or traitorous.

  • MJR

    Defensive supremacism … Ye gods. As Humpty Dumpty said, words mean exactly what I want them to mean.
    Just wanted to say that I am embarrassed to say that that Wikipedia entry must have been penned by a Brit, as, pace your sic, practised with an 's' is correct in British English.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Defensive supremacism"

      I thought that was clever too.

  • CBW

    I've always enjoyed Mr. Atbashian's remarks of brutil honesty no matter how much those on the left ignore and try to deni the truth. I love The Cube comrade Red Squere, though I am not registered with the union per say. I always find even the silliest parody to be nothing more then the closest thing to the truth the main stream media twists and turns into blantent lies evoiding the ways of the real world. Even more so your willingness to tell the truth through the experiences you went through during the USSR, give me great hope in the most serious of your editorials.
    Keep up the great work Comrade yours is a success that shouldn't go unnotice even if re-education teaches me otherwise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.imm Jeffrey Imm

    This article misrepresents my views in an alleged quote that it attributes to me that I did not provide this author, and is not part of my writing or websites. I have asked Mr. Oleg Atbashian to remove it. I consistently support Universal Human Rights for all people of all religions, and promote the human rights of all of my fellow human beings of every religion and every identity group. I completely and totally reject those who seek to attack and defame an individual religion, such as Islam, or any religion.

    • Stuart Parsons

      Why do you reject those who attack a religion for whose God their is no verifiable evidence whatsoever and whose self-proclaimed'Prophet and Messenger' killed all who spoke out against him. Furthermore. Islam's, own primary sources, Quran, Sunnah and Sirah, reveal the mad 'Prophet', with the support of his deluded followers, to whom he promised much war booty and captive women and girls to rape, lied, plotted, tortured, killed, robbed, ransomed and raped his way to absolute power…….. or do you have evidence to show the Holy Dictator Muhammad did not do all these things and really was al-insan al-kamil and uswa Hasana ?

      • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.imm Jeffrey Imm

        I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for all people of all religions and all identity groups. I do not and have not attacked anyone's religion, including Islam, and I respect all people's rights to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I completely and totally reject those who seek to attack and defame an individual religion, such as Islam, or any religion. "

          Then you've attacked me. You must either hide completely, or come out for or against Islam. The moment you know the facts about Islam, you either aid it (against all others) or you attack it. There is no neutral position because war is hopelessly fused to this ideology.

          You need to invent a new religion to replace Islam and then make it clear you are referring to *that* Islam, and not the historical version. Better yet, why not be clear and just denounce its past and present? That is the only true hope for the future; accepting reality, no matter how unpleasant.

          • Sunbeam

            True indeed. They're trying to stop freedom of speech so that they can have total control over every aspects of life. This is the main reason of all reasons. Once they achieve this, it will be the end of us, they will have total control over all the earth. Just imagine if you're to live in the world under this rule where we can't speak out or against it because it is arbitrate, how it would be like. It will be total frustration. Look at their countries especially in the Middle East and the African Continent, where they rule, have they been a good example to the world? None! except unrest and violence. Power and governing seems to be the order of the day. All of this stems from the one wrong ideology which has deluded its people for a very long time..

        • Kufar Dawg

          Gee, the ideology of islam is chock full of explicit antisemitism, some of it genocidal in character. Why should I respect it? Because you and the rest of the corrupt tools in the UN say I should?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        He's saying he wants to keep his head in the sand and keep off the hit lists.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " I consistently support Universal Human Rights for all people of all religions, and promote the human rights of all of my fellow human beings of every religion and every identity group. I completely and totally reject those who seek to attack and defame an individual religion, such as Islam, or any religion. "

      That is simply not possible since Islam demands superiority, not equality. If you have true equality, Islamic leaders will be able to foment anger and attacks and if you have the Islamic supremacist leaders happy, you have enslaved all others.

      Grow up.

      • Sunbeam

        How true this is. The bottom line is about power and control. Is about conquering and above every one else. That's what it means when it says "be submissive". Only the Ruler of this world knows be submissive to who. It has managed to delude the world's 1.5 billion people. Thus they've been led captive and enslaved. Only the might of God could set them free.

  • Brett

    Ah yes, Wikipedia — the Al-Azhar of political correctness. Wikipedia's definition of "fascism" is wonderfully schizoid as well. They identify fascism as "far-right wing" as if to suggest that if one is a leftist, it is simply impossible to be a fascist. How they love to reassure themselves! Considering that anyone who holds their ground against the left is labeled as a "far-right extremist" it follows that anyone in opposition to the Democrats is by definition a fascist. Nevermind that the classic example of fascism, Nazi Germany, were the National SOCIALIST Party, they hated jews, burned books and cozied up to islamic supremacists — exactly like their Democratic Party brethren are doing today when they hate jews, lobby to ban youtube videos, argue against free speech and cozy up with islamic supremacists. But that's all just a CrAzY coincidence because Wikipedia asserts that fascism is an exclusively right wing ideology and everyone knows that Wiki is the sole undisputed authority of neutral, flawless knowledge in the known universe.

    • Omar

      Wikipedia is wrong about fascism being in the "extreme right". In reality, fascism is a far left-wing ideology which despised democracy and free-market capitalism. In fact, fascism and communism are very similar in ideology. The main difference between the two was the concept of nationalism vs. internationalism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.imm Jeffrey Imm

    In defending human rights, we must not commit human wrongs. This is why it is so important to Choose Love, Not Hate as a compass of decency and dignity in our vital but difficult task. The answer of the Anti-Islam community to human rights problems are to commit their own human wrongs. I reject this and I reject the Anti-Islam community. I explain my position at Responsible for Equality And Liberty at "Human Rights and Human Wrongs." http://www.realcourage.org/2012/09/human-rights-a

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "In defending human rights, we must not commit human wrongs. This is why it is so important to Choose Love, Not Hate as a compass of decency and dignity in our vital but difficult task."

      Discernment and critical judgments are not de facto hate. By characterizing speech as hate, you are hurling aggressive criticism against the speaker and possibly escalating the hostility by ironically introducing your own hate in the conversation.

      I'll read your article and get back to you. Thanks.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      From the article you cite with your URL:

      "But this wasn’t enough for Ms. Geller, who also leads another name for the SIOA/SION group called the “American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).” She then decided to promote a series of poster in the NYC, Washington DC, and San Francisco public transit systems calling people “savages.” The complete ad reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” Ms. Geller knew very well this would promote controversy, which is really all that she wants to accomplish."

      Are you not attacking Geller speaking for motives you can't possibly judge?

      With regard to her ad, I had the feeling it was too harsh myself, but I couldn't come up with a more diplomatic wording without changing the meaning. How would you phrase the same statement without changing its meaning? Do you deny that Jihadi terrorists are savages, or do you have a more diplomatic way of communicating this statement? They're behaviors are alien to Western norms and laws. Calling them savages is a moral judgment, which is not easy to do in today's political correct climate that assumes we will never have to make such statements since all cultures are supposedly morally equal. But they aren't.

      Any ideology that replaces rule of law and due process with fatalism and murder in the name or honor is morally inferior to Western liberal democracy. It's really that simple.

      I repeat, I am uncomfortable with how the ad reads, but she is not lying and I can't accuse her of any wrongdoing. I think her blogs are too angry at times. I don't read her articles on that site but some published on frontpage are fine. I don't respect her judgment necessarily, but most of the time I have to admit she is usually right. She just needs to purge the anger and channel her moral outrage more productively.

      If Geller was the only or the biggest problem, I wouldn't be wasting my time. She's a minor actor used as a focal point by those who want to be considered victims. She has every right to be angry, but is allowing propagandists to win many arguments with people who think like you do. You haven't done your due diligence in researching the problems with Islam.

      "The Anti-Islam movement remains determined, probably not unlike the Bin Ladenist movement, to seek to continue to keep people agitated and angry."

      How dare you? I hope Geller doesn't manage to hijack any planes and destroy Mecca. Oh my gosh, that would be horrible and we really need to worry about that. You are a psychotic.

      "Today, on the FrontPage Mag website, we see articles condemning Egyptian human rights activist Mona Eltahawy and an article stating that “Islamic supremacism” is actually “Islam.”"

      I don't agree with their conclusion, but there is a certain logic to their case. She assaulted someone who tried to prevent her from vandalizing the ad you say is the moral equivalent of terrorism.

      Where is your love for Geller? Aren't you risking offending her with your hateful criticism? Or do you "love" bin Laden and this is how you show love?

      You have done nothing to address the salient issues at hand. Islamic supremacists will use your positions and tactics against the West and all other non-Muslims. I am not thankful at all for your work. You are a dupe, unless you are a Muslim.

      Love should be a guiding principle, but not naive love and superficial appearances of it. It's more serious than that.

    • Kufar Dawg

      What a pile of steaming BS. Why don't you preach that BS in any islamofascist state vis-a-vis the human rights of anyone non-muslim? Why don't you address the issues that Jews aren't allowed in Saudi Arabia? Or that any religion besides islam may not be practiced in Saudi Arabia? Is the Jew hatred in the holy books of Islam acceptable? Your courage is nothing but mealy mouthed appeasement of the totalitarian, supremacist ideology that is islam now.

    • Sunbeam

      To Jeffrey Imm, we do not know what you're talking about. You are an ignoramus. To Islam or the Muslims, they are above everyone else on this planet. They are first class while others are inferior, and there is no God, except their Allah and its messenger Moham-mad. I hope you do a little research before you make your stand. (To Islam there's no equality in all aspects of life)

  • Regina

    As Geller said, are they Jihadists? I mean what the heck are they reading into for crying out loud? Savage is what it is. I don't get this crap about debating free speech? Geller, Spencer..they don't throw rocks and shout down someone they happen to disagree with! Besides, nobody says a peep about the anti semetic ads they'd been running? The only ones who are out of their ever loving minds are Obama, Hillary and these nutty leftists. I had to rub my eyes last night when I read what she said in regard to giving the Islamists 450 mil! I think..here she is in this position on the worlds stage..yet not a shred of wisdom! Here they are explaining why they need to use our money to support..prop up the supremists who use rape jihad..who own slaves NOW- today, in this day an age. I'm sick of this whole racist baiting garbage while they suck up to an idiology where there is no such thing as humanity!!