JerrySeinfeld

Go to 2:48 for two more examples of "condemning violence" and "moderate" muslims who are clearly lying

Now I could go on about the teacher who was sacked for teaching young Muslim girls to swim (the majority Muslim parents pressured his superiors to do so) but we'll leave that for another day. On another thread I talked about the sneaky ability of a radical to dress up in drag as a "tolerant" "Moderate" Muslim for the right audience. I was asked for examples. The first example I gave was Revolution Muslim, a website which put a price on the heads of the South Park creators, then "denounced" violence. "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy" - Omar Bikram Mohammed, Muslim Cleric What I think a lot of Muslim apologists like to do is make blanket statements without doing their research. Example: "the vast majority of Muslims are moderates". But if you look deeper, the population of immigrant Muslims in host nations is becoming more radicalized than their parents, not more westernized. Even if you look at the graduating class of the Unibversity of Cairo in the 1970s - none of the women wore burqas or hijabs. But today's graduating class pictures show most of the women wearing them. Thanks to Saudi money, a Wahhabist imperialism is taking place worldwide, resulting in an ever mor radicalizing of a once-moderate religion. Have a look at the attached video. It illustrates both of my points, that the religion is becoming ever more radicalized over time, and if you particularly look at the 4:00 minute mark till the end, a sneaky woman who is clearly lying to put on a "moderate" face for a very radical underbelly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XcSQJSOab8&NR=1

Yea - lets all switch to hydrogen fuel cells because the only emission is H20 Vapour. Problem is CO2 is the number two greenhouse gas emission. Number 1? Water vapour.

If you look Michael, I cite the example of revolution muslim directly below the statement. All you have to do is read it. I suppose you`re right, Michael. Every second day when a new incident of Muslim violence or intimidation is reported and it`s put forth on this page, you indeed repeatedly reach for your age old platitudes `nothing to see here`, `most muslims are moderates etc. etc. etc., and tomorrow when we get yet another example you`ll reach for them again...and the next day, and the day after that....

"Harmful emissions"? Carbon Dioxide is food for plants. Grade 6 science. Look it up. It's odd you can't even see the oxymoron you just typed. But I totally agree with the first half of the statement: Indeed, there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop. One of them is the ever changing climate of the earth. As I drove past "The Chief" the other day I was awestruck at it's size and beauty, realizing it was once under hundreds of meters of ice. Then I passed a prius on the highway and started laughing. The poor sap behind the wheel couldn't understand the irony of his arrogance, driving a prius to save the earth from future Chiefs. Funny shit. A perfect picture, really: A guy in a prius driving past something as impressively humbilng as the Chief, created by a melted glacier millions of years before the first smokestack, elegantly illustrating the meaninglessness of his impressively large ego.

I think more to the point, Michael, is a saying once used to describe the AIDS crisis: silence = acceptance. And far too many "moderate muslims" are silent. They know they don't have to overtly support extremists because the actions of the few extremists is helping along creeping Islamic dominance. And in a sneaky fashion, many will "denounce violence" without really aggressivly trying to eradicate that violence. One thing you need to realize about parts of Islam is that many of it's followers have studied our demcratic society far more than we have studied theirs, and that they are willing to lie and use our ultra-tolerance to their advantage. They don't fight fair, they fight like weasels. "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy" - Omar Bakri Mohammed, Muslim Cleric What this means in practice is that a website like revolution muslim can put a price on the head of South Parks creators, then add a few lines aobut denouncing violence to avoid legal problem. Say what you want about Muslims that "in theory" don't demand death for Blasphemy, but look around you in reality. In parts of europe, it is in practice not legal to insult Islam. Just look at the trial of Geert Wilders as an example, or the death of Theo Van Gogh or the attempts on the life of Danish cartoonists, or the banning of burger king chocolate swirls, or the banning of blow of male dolls, or the human rights tribunals in Canada or the death threats agianst South Park, and even a UN resolution against Islamic blasphemy...WORLD WIDE! It's very tricky. Because on one hand, you have apologists continuing their boundless tolerance bending over baqckwards to pretend there is "nothing to see here" - and citing the reams of "moderate" muslims, but on the other hand, you have a consistent pattern of oincreased Muslim dominance in non-muslim "democracies" happening on the ground virtually every day. The divide between your cumbaya dreamworld and the reality on the ground widens every day. Just look at this forum as a perfect example. It is riddled with dozens of actual real world examples of Muslim misbehavior, followed by the obligatory left wing "nothing to see here" knee jerk poodle-trained multi-culti apologist reaction. New headline "Muslims worried about backlash from tomorrow's bombings"

No it's not as simple as that, but in a world uncontaminated by political correctness, that would be the logical starting point. We are the only society so self-hating that when a group of Muslims attacks us, the first thing we do is visit a mosque,apologize to Muslims and bend over backwards to make sure we never suspect Muslims of doing anyone any harm. Can you imagine if, during the second world war, a boatload of germans showed up on the shores of Dover and were greeted by a 23- year old government employee with a metal detector handing out citizenship guides and never once asking if any of them are Nazis? That's pretty much whats happening today. The war on terrorism will not be won solely on the battlefield of Afghanistan or Iraq. It is also a battle of wills. We need to throttle their ideology as much as we need to blow up their camps, and that's not possible if we're busy apologizing for insulting said ideology. If you were a Muslim, who would you rather side with, the strong, confident culture of the old country? Or the shrivelled weak apologetic wimpering apologetic vacuum state of the west's elite left wing thinkers? No wonder british subjects are blowing up the tube.

So we should not be allowed to criticize other people's belief systems? That sounds like Saudi Arabia to me. Isn't that what this forum is about: the ability to debate freely and openly without threat of death? I can't believe anyone would take the other side on this issue, but you've found a way. How does it feel? To attack freedom of artistic expression, speech and to defend murderous thugs, yet still find a way to stilt yourself into the false perception of moral high ground? I love the political left for entertainment alone. Take a crime then work backwards, determine which aggrieved non-white group perpetrated it, then contort and twist to justify said crime. Then ice the cake by postulating about how we all need to change to accomodate the criminals.

Let's be honest, airport security is is nothing more than a multi-million dollar attempt to not offend Muslims. Here's a brain teaser: would it make a lot more sense to stop looking for bombs and start looking for bombers? Last time I went to the US the security guy spent 30 excruciating seconds examining the miniscule detail of my passport. Didn't even look at me once. Why pour over the possibility of fake documents when we're busy giving real ones to millions of undocumented every year anyway? If we put a copy of the Koran at every security check point and showed it to people, asking them: "would you do anything to defend what's in this book?" we'd stop 99.9% of the problem. Maybe - but then again radical Islamics are cowardly fighters who won't put on a uniform so you never know. The point is, religion is a good starting point for screening. Why pat down granny Smith when everyone on the planet knows who we should be looking at. I always get a kick out of the whole charade at the airport, especially when I get to watch some guy in a turban naqmed Mohammed give the extra side bar shoe-removal routine to some elderly guy named John Smith. It never ceases to amaze me the degree with which our society will contort, inconvenience and lie to itself in the name of multi-culti political correctness.

Ok. Obama came into office with a big statement about "hostile" nations. Remember his inaugural address? To Iran et. al we will "extend a hand if you will unclench your fist". And one of Obama's first order of business is to go to Cairo and give a big friendly speeech to "The Muslim World". Well, it's been a year and some. Let's discuss how this new appproach is working so far. I will start with some of my own thoughts: First, I believe the blind desire to do the opposite of Bush is not a policy in and of itself. Second, there is a school of thought that emerged after 9-11 which basical goes something like this: "it's our fault, if only we weren't such a big bad evil doer to other nations, then they wouldn't hate us so much. If we were just nicer, then all these problems would just go away." It's a sort of "click your ruby heels together three times" approach to foreign policy and it best it's delusional, and a worst, dangerous. When Obama came into power, Iran had 2 centrifuges enrishing uranium to 5%, and today Iran has 8 centrigues enriching to 20%. During Obama's administration a crooked election took place which was protested by an uprising of people demanding transparent democracy. The uprising was squashed by murderous mullahs keeping the current regime in line. Meanwhile we've witnessed the first Muslim terror attack on US soil since 9-11 at fort hood, and another attempt with the Panty Bomber. So much for the "we're just not being nice enough to them" approach to foreign policy. So the question: Is Obama's outstretched hand being met with the same old fist? and if so, what kind of change are we truly witnessing here? was Bush right all along, and is Obama wasting his time trying to sing cumbaya? We were promised a kinder gentler and more effective policy by Obama, a little more venus to Bush's mars if you will. Well, we've got the more Venus part in spades, but is it working? Maybe it's time Obama grew some cojones.

This viewpoint is quite popular, becasue it's easier and lazier to feel warm and fuzzy and say "religion lost" and then sweep threats of violence under the rug and say "well is freedom of speech really necesary anyway? I mean, c'mon, these guys are offended, and the fact that a few film makers and artists got killed isn't a wake up call in the fight for freedom of speech, it's just more evidence of why we should never insult the prophet" With that kind of thinking, I'd say you've de facto become one of those millions of "moderate muslims" we keep hearing about: not explicitly violent, but aquiescant to the concepts of threatening violence and never insulting the prophet. It's quite common for people to look at the world of the past 50 years since WWII and become comfortable with the false idea that this is how things will always be. In reality, however, it could be argued that the half century of peace, properity, democracy and freedom has been guaranteed by a strong US world order, and that it is merely a moment in history - the american moment. It's quite clear Obama wants the american moment - that period of time wheen america guaranteed security for other nations - to end. But that's not what this debate is about. Moreso, it's about what comes after that moment. There are certain aspects of Muslim culture which are objectively inferior to what we consider as a free society. Are these becoming a bigger problem? Is Michael right - did "religion lose"? The numbers would suggest the exact opposite. In 1970 the western world populace made up roughly 30% of the world's population and the muslim world made up roughly 15%. In other words, "The west" was twice as big as the muslim world. Today, the two both stand at 20%, and the Islamic populace is advancing rapidly, while the west continues to shrink. Ask yourself, if today you can't have a chocolate swirl on the top of an ice cream cone at Burger King because it insults the prophet, you cant have artistic freedom because it insults the prophet, you can't make movies because it insults the prophet and you can't publish cartoons because it insults the prrophet...ask yourself if this is what is happening in the western world right now, what will a 2030 world look like when the muslim populace has advanced to 30% and the western populace has shrunk to 15%, with ever increasing death threats and agressive lobbying? Religion lost the culture wars? Try telling that to Geert Wilders, filmmaker theo van gogh, or 14-year-old girl codie stott.

Here is a brief excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail column Let's set aside the psychologic implications of self-hatred for a moment. So to summarize, the left wing enviro-crowd is using the volcanic eruption to remind us that the earth is big, vast and uncontrollable and humans are a tiny, arrogant flea? Fine. But if that's the argument, shouldn't these same environmentalist types be looking directly in the mirror and using same argument on themselves? After all, what's more arrogant than believing that by changing the type of car you drive to work, you can actually have an effect on the heavens and the climate? Just sayin'.

Michael all you need to do is look at the head of the anglican church agreeing that we will soon see elements of sharia law in England to see where Canada is headed if we pursue the same path of multiculturalism. That;s the scariest part about sharia - it creeps in while apologist moderators are busy making excuses for Islam. Need I provide a cite?

Iran wasn't 3 years from a nuclear bomb in 1988, bub

Hmmm. We walked into a country and created a democracy. "When a guy's life goal is to blow himself up and you beat him to the punch - you are HAULING ASS" (Dennis Miller) A trillion well spent keeping the country safe and establishing a true democracy in the heart of nutterland. Versus the well used funds in Obama's stimulous plan BUSH: 2,689 days without a terrorist attack on home soil. OBAMA LASTS LESS THAN A YEAR And now Obama wants to give it all back. And I like Palin - so yes I'm proud. Helluva at least a couple of steps up from *Bleepin* Joe Biden Anyway we digress. I thought this was supposed to be a thread about insulting Islam. If you want to start a thread about Palin you should do it on your own thread.

(Sigh) teaching history lessons to the willfully blind can be such a thankless task... Now shall we continue with your baseless ad hominem logical fallacies or get back to the actual title of this topic? It's quite clear who's off base here, Michael. On the one hand we have someone interested in debating the actual topic (me) and on the other, we have someone who hurls baseless accusations unrelated to the topic at hand (you).

You call a victorious war in Iraq a "bottomless sinkhole"? No wonder people don't trust the left with foreign policy. TARP was Bush, dude - so yes a success. Thanks for the link.

It's not a Hysterical Post Michael, it's a simple fact. After 9-11 attacks, virtually every world leader of consequence in the western world visited a mosque shortly thereafter. And the buzzword of the day was "root causes" - ie. what did WE do to deserve this. Look it up. I can't spend all day finding cites for obvious facts just because you aren't aware of what happened in the world in the days following one of the biggest events in world history. Anyway I bit on your bait. How did I allow you to drag a conversationb about the Enviro trojan horse into a debate about Islam? Aren't you supposed to be the moderator, ensuring we all stay on topic? Jesus.

A trillion over 6-7 years. To defeat murderous regimes hellbent on destoying our way of life. Obama spent a trillion last tuesday.

An odd post on the topic of environmentalism. Yet, Michael, you're the "unemotional" one? Let's stay on topic shall we?

Michael - when you reply to my case with one line drive by dismissal it makes it very difficult to have a debate. You as moderator should be aware of this. Remember this is an online forum. People have lives, too. You can't compel someonee to reply to you on your clock if they have a dinner to attend or a show to get to or maybe a hockey game got their attention because the people online weren't giving them a decent enough mental workout. But in the spirit of debate I will try to coagulate your one liners with a coherent more than one line reply worthy of rebuttal and debate. First, I do absolutely assert that Islam is a political project. Look at the evidence. If you are a group that attempts not solely to worship, but to undermine the very articles of the charter of rights and freedoms by undermining freedom of expression, one of the fundamental tenets off democracy, then it extends beyong a mere religion. How exactly have I misrepresented things? I state the simple facts of the case: 1. MacLeans ran a column about demographic trends and Islam - admittedly not the most flattering article. 2. CIC filed a complaint because they felt offended or "personally victimized". 3. In doing so, have attempted to undermine freedom of press and expression in this country toward anyone who says something inflammatory about Islam. These are the facts. This is not misrepresentation. Michael, just because you throw around terms like "misrepresentation" or "Islamophobic" doesn't exclude you from having to debate facts. Here, have a look at this clip from a similar case overseas in Britain/Denmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83AZD4TgoQ&feature=related Now, given that these are two similar cases of Islamic representatives refusing to accept the simple concept of freeedom of expression/discourse/press in our democracy (one trying to overturn the very concept through the "courts" and the other threatening violence and death), it's clear Islam is more than simply a religion, but a political project aimed directly at undermining the very traditions of democracy. And please Michael, in the future try to actually write something. If all you do is say "you're wrong" or "you're overrepresenting", then you're not debating, you're just contradicting. You're the moderator, you should be discouraging mere contradition, not displaying it. Oh, and in addition I will addreess your comment that, had the CIC won, we would be one step closer to Sharia in Canada, is hyperbole. I beg to differ. Sharia law makes it illegal to insult the prophet. If Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant had lost their cases to the CIC, then it would be de facto illegal to make statements insulting to the prophet in Canada - which is exactly wat Sharia Law states. So indeed, we would have been one step closer to Sharia. How can you deny this simple fact without reaching for your all purpose bogeyman phrases like "Islamophobia" or "Hyperbole". Use facts, not catch phrases.

Ok so the models were clearly wrong. Ten years of steady global temperatures have contradicted the predictions of a decade ago which modelled for a surefire warmer earth. It hasn't happened. Then comes climategate and the email saga of the CRU at east anglia. These guys basically re-wrote what "peer review" means to fit their tunnel vision view of the world - and deleted the raw data! Of course, after a special investigation by a committee of lifelong environmental activists (LOL), they were found "not guilty" of any wrongdoing. What a surprise! Meantime Al Gore is actually becoming a bit of a liability for the cause. Zipping around the world in his private jet, burning 10,000 KW hours per MONTH in his house (what's he doing in there, anyway?) - all, of course, offset by buying carbon credits from his multi-million dollar asset management firm (which sells carbon credits), well on his way to becoming the world's first carbon billionaire - won't take unprescreend questions, won't debate anyone of merit, all this despitee a now-laughably fraudulent movie. So the IPCC predictions were incorrect, the chief sources of these predictions are under intense scrutiny for data manipulation and deletion, as well as rigging the peer review process, celebrity spokespersons are becoming buffoons and then <POOF!> an icelanding volcano explodes, revealing to the world the true powers that nature has on climate, as opposed to the cooked up manmade threat ergo your evil SUV. And your taxes are still going up. My point? In the past week I have encountered: an environmental fee for renting a houseboat, several times paid carbon tax for filling my tank with gasoline, a surcharge for using more than the "government allowed" amount of energy in my home, an extra charge for using bags for my groceries, just to name a few. And it occurred to me: carbon is life. And if carbon is life, then life is taxed. And it all makes sense: if you're a big time, big government, tax and spend socialist who believes in confiscating money from the people in the world who actually produce things, and then controlling people's behavior, then environmentalism is the perfect trojan horse: using the simple logic of "saving the planet" , by default everything you do is taxable, and certain things you do are not allowed. In some latenight poker gamee in hell, Stalin, Mao and Hitler are kicking themselves: "it's all to save the planet for your childeren - why didn't I think of that?" This is scary stuff. Fortunately, it seems people are catching on just in time. Sure a few taxes got through, but I think people are realizing the jig is up. We can only hope.

The summit was worse than a joke - after all, what serious leader in serious times would hold a summit on nuclear arms reduction, and not even have Iran on the agenda? More poseur politics from a poseur President. Guy may be smooth, but I just don't take him seriously anymore. But hey, Canada is giving up some enriched Uranium - so you can breath a big sigh of relief.

Oh really? Obama has spent 3 times what the Iraq war cost in less than one year, on government earmarks for democrats largely. Meantime Iraq is having free and open national elections which includes long sought after sunni participation and Iranian uprisings are demanding more freedoms and democracy. This path was set by Bush and Obama wants to dismantle it.

And it was GW Bush who often acknowledged behind closed doors the long term nature of the struggle necessary to civilize these barbaric regions. Iraq was a start - and a good one. Look what happen in Iran after Iraq got free elections: the people rose up. So Bush was right all along. Unfortunately, Obama sided with the mullahs, carefully hedging his public bets. How could he side with the uprising in Iran when he had publically promised to "extand a hand" to the mullahs? I guess sometimes all this "nuanced diplomacy" bullshit isn't all it's cracked up to be. Bush was right. Admit it. And now Obama's f*cking it up.