Michel delivers empty fluff, as usual
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Feb 6, 2007 at 20:40
Michel, I'm afraid your post is 99% fluff and fails to address most of the points you have been challenged to detail and explain. Let's go point by point, shall we?
"I believe it to be a topic of extremely complex nature"
It's not as complex as you make it out. That right there is your problem. You're over-analyzing it, as most people tend to do. It's actualyl very simple. Islam is an extremely violent religion designed by a extremely violent tribal chieftan to appeal to an extremely violent tribal people in order to unite them under his control. You fall into their trap, as so many others do, of over-analyzing and complicating this. That plays into the hands of the Muslims. They're mandated to lie, they have multiple names, and they form hundreds of splinter terror groups in order to confuse the enemy. Until the West learns to ignore the lies of Islam and focus on the root of the problem...Islam itself...the enemy will continue laughing as we twist and contort and writhe in agony trying to "figure it all out".
In all these years of debating everyone from you to Dr. Pipes and others, it always boils down to that one clear fact of life. Islam is violent. Period.
"I believe it must therefore be categorized, segmented. Individual topics and approaches for:"
And by complicating the issue beyond hope, you fail. You cannot take 20 different approaches to one problem and expect them to work. The more complicated something is, the more likely it is prone to breaking down.
I won't even recognize your categorizations because they are false and unrealistic.
"I do not believe that there is one simple solution in response to all segments."
There is. We must force Islam to reform itself. It cannot do that while interacting with the rest of the world. My plan is akin to confining a child to his room to think about his wrongdoing.
"Most of above categories are naturally interconnected and cannot be seen as isolated, but at least in context."
So most of those categories are interconnected, but you want to use separate approaches to each? That makes no sense!
"In order to persevere as society, I feel we must solidify our position first, understand our own weaknesses, then build a "strong defense". In order to evolve and persevere, some self-criticism must be accepted, as one has more credibility, if one acknowledges his own shortcomings."
So many problems with that statement. First, one cannot discuss one's own shortcomings when discussion the reform of Islam with Muslims, because they fixate on how "wrong" your side is. No nation or system is perfect, but America stands head and shoulders above anything else ever done. The emphasis must be on the shortcomings of Islam. Discussion our own shortcomings does nothing to fix Islam and merely serves as a sign of weakness to Muslims (who see self-criticism as weak), it serves to give them a way of evading the problems inherent in Islam, and it takes the pressure off the necessity of reforming Islam. You say "build a strong defense", but that's just a sound bite...all fluff, no substance. What does it mean? And when you say "Solidify our position", well...just what is our position? You and I and Plato and Susan do not agree. So what is "our position"?
"The best leaders I have personally encountered inspired not by way of knowledge or facts, but by their humility in interpreting them. Leaders I admire in that regards are Churchill, Reagan, Willy Brand, Gorbatchev, Gandhi, MLK - just a few examples to frame my individual position."
You met Churchill? You met Gandhi? Gandhi died in '48. That was almost 60 years ago and you're still jetting around giving conflict resolution seminars? You'd be retired by now. More of your ego-puffing.
"Most of my below mentioned suggestions could be initiated by referenda, legal petitions and political activism."
Let's test that statement, shall we?
"I do not promote abolishing our freedoms, but implementing legislature to prevent perversion of its intents. (Thin line between Freedom of Expression and promoting hate and intolerance)"
You don't need legislation, you just have to go back to the Constitution.
"I promote strengthening of our society to counteract any form of (religious) intolerance and fanaticism by means of legislature, marketing, PR and education."
Again, we already have that stuff on the books. It's simply not being enforced. And how do you propose to deal with education and marketing if our society cannot even call Islam a violent religion (ie speak the truth) due to political correctness and stupidity?
"I promote strong (financial) support for families to counteract the decrease of our population."
Uh...Michel? Children aren't created via money, but via couples who choose to sexually reproduce. Our citizens are not having children, and many are having multiple abortions. Many others have kids but don't care for them, so they fall prey to the propaganda out there. How is money going to reverse this trend? And where are you going to get al that money from? Do you have any idea how much it would cost to give each person in the USA just $10? Three BILLION dollars.
"I promote forced assimilation and hence an utter revision of all matters concerning Immigration. (Takes also care of the ghettos, as any next generation would be forced to assimilate, if they wanted an education.)"
Again, how do you test for loyalty? "Forced assimilation"? How is that any better than "forced segregation", which is basically what I propose? Either way, it is forcing someone to do something they do not want to do in their hearts. The advantage to my method is that it removes the cancer, yours merely allows it to metastasize. How do you force Muslims to forswear loyalty to their all-encompassing cult of death and swear a higher allegiance to America? How do you force them to disobey major aspects of their religion?
Once again, you paint with a very broad brush, but there are no workable details. It sounds all good and lofty, but it's just fluff, as usual.
"In order to do all of the above, people must again en masse be motivated to partake in the political process – that can be done by means of modern marketing again and by regaining trust in our political leaders."
Once again, nice sounding fluff, but no details. Precisely how do you motivate people to partake in the political process? Politicians rank right down there with used car salesmen for having a bad reputation in studies and polls. How do you get people to regain trust in the politicians when the politicians are all liars, untrustworthy, corrupt, and serving special interests?
"In order to regain trust, the political system must be overhauled. (Term Limits, campaign contributions, porking, corruption, lobbying as just some potential directions)"
Once again, fluff. All these issues have been brought up and discussed and the politicians always swear we'll have changes, and they do not change. So what's your solution to the non-solution? How do you "overhaul" a corrupt system where two parties dominate and where it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to get elected, and all the major money power players are fixated on the two party system? As usual, you skim the surface because what you say sounds good and is to some degree true, but you offer no working details on how you hope to achieve those lofty goals. It's just talk, just fluff.
"General decay of moral and ethical values must be counteracted. (could be done by modern means of Marketing, PR, education and legislature)"
Moral and ethical values must be taught at home. That's the way it's always been. You cannot legislate morals. Do you ever pay attention to all the commercials about not doing drugs, not drinking and driving, not having unprotected sex, and all these other moral sound bites? No effect. Our society is still falling apart. Once again, you give no meaty details to discuss, just fluffy ideas.
"Significant increase of budgets towards our public school system with a resulting higher standard may also eventually contribute to a more engaged and educated populus."
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. We throw more and more money into our schools each year, and each year they go further downhill. Test scores are dropping so dramatically (despite, or perhaps because of, Bush's insane and illegal "No Child Left Behind" project) that we are now dumbing down our tests, including the SAT. They took out the antonym/synonym section because this was considered too difficult for our high school students:
Good is to evil as hot is to ________
And you must not have passed your Constitution test to get in here, because the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional and illegal and has no business existing.
"I see the principles of the US constitution to be a set of principles truly superior to any other form of governing system. In order to evidence that, one must live by example. Hence the above roughly outlined overhaul I propose. Side effect: it covers also the philosophical dimension of "the moral highground"."
Really? How are you going to convince people to return to their Constitutional roots? How are you going to explain to the people that you are abolishing Social Security because it is unconstitutional and a great scam? How will you convince people that we don't need federal funding for schools, health care, etc, because all that is unconstitutional? That's partly what it would mean to live by example in reference to our Constitution. Once again, you offer fluff without details. "We're gonna do this, we're gonna do that". Yeah, but how?
"I believe that integration and inclusion is the better approach than banning and deportation."
You can believe whatever you want. You're still wrong. How do you force someone to integrate when they have no interest in integrating? The illegal Mexicans outright refuse to integrate. They want the turn America into another Mexico. Muslims are the same way. They want sharia law (40% of Muslim youths in Britain, for example, would prefer sharia law in Britain, according to a recent Pew Study). They are fighting for separate courts (Sharia) for Muslims in the USA, Britain, Netherlands, and everywhere else.
You also don't understand Muslims. They're a tribal people. They do not think of themselves as Saudis or Iraqis or Iranians. They are Muslims first, then they have their tribal affiliation, and the country they live in is virtually irrelevant to them. Because you, Michel, do not understand tribal mentality (which sorta shoots down your claim of having lived with them so often in their ghettos and villages), you do not understand why your claim is pure fluff. How do you integrate a group of people who are not here to integrate, but rather to transform our society into the one they came from? You simply do not know what you're talking about.
"I agree with Plato's rationale in response to the latter strategy and hence deem such as not only morally and ethically questionable, but in a pragmatic context as not feasible. (Plato definitely put some dents into that strategy in his last post, to say the least)."
Plato put no dents in my plan. He whined about Native Americans, and then I shot down all his criticisms point by point.
"I believe in education vs alienation"
And when the enemy denies your education and alienates himself due to his own belief system, what do you do? Another piece of fluff because you don't understand the subject (as you admit). It's clear you're into modern marketing, because nowadays it's all about making something sound good without saying anything substantial about it. That's what you do here. How do you force someone to stop alienating himself? That's what Muslims do.
"A unified school system, federally regulated and mandated equally for all ( no catering to minorities) will contribute to a balanced population demography and potentially to a commonly shared identification as US citizens and patriotism"
What kind of so-called American are you? You claim you just arrived here after studying our Constitution, and yet you mandate a federally funded and managed school system that is clearly unconstitutional? The Dept. of Education is the very instrument that is being used to screw up our school and which has turned them into PC indoctrination camps instead of being centers of learning.
See Michel, you're part of the problem. You pontificate, but you prove by all your puffing and blowing that you do not know what you're talking about. You're not entitled to an opinion. You have no clue about anything, and you drive that point home every time you post!
"Intensify the war on terror on all fronts (economical, intelligence etc.)"
Of utmost importance in any war is the concept of not allowing the enemy to infiltrate your home front. In order to intensify the war on terror on all fronts" would mean expelling or eliminating the enemy at home, the subversives and the sleeper cells. You're not willing to go there, so your claim is false and dishonest. Also, there is no such thing as a "war on terror". That's idiotic. You cannot commit a war against an action. The war is against Islam, which is a violent, militant, expansionist religion. Terror is simply one of the methods that Islam is using to defeat us. Enacting a "war on terror" would be like going to war with the Nazis and saying "We're going to war against howitzers" and then targetting only that one weapon in their arsenal. That would be insane.
You, Michel, fail to pass the very first test as to whether someone is qualified to speak on the subject. You refuse to ackowledge and name the enemy (Islam). You instead prefer dishonest and misleading euphemisms such as "war on terror". Hence, you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter.
"Global intelligence network by networking computer systems of all intelligence agencies a la Interpol for just terrorism related data (so it would be feasible)"
Been done already. How do you propose dealing with all the subversives (politicians and media) here who leak information about us tapping phone calls, the subversives in the media who whip that into a frenzy and distort the facts, and the average moron in the streets who stand with Cindy Crawford and whine about our tactics and try to undermine our war effort by trying to deny the ability to tap phones or to torture terrorists?
Once again, fluff, Michel.
" Assigning budget for a border control which deserves its name"
We already have plenty of money in the budget. The problem is that we don't allow the border patrol to do its job. They cannot even chase fleeing suspects. You're like a typical politician with a one-track mind when it comes to solutions...throw money at it! Sorry, that does not work. You can assign an extra hundred trillion dollars to border patrol. If we do not enforce the law, if we do not have the will to fight, then all that money is useless. So once again, fluff.
"Draconic penalties for hate crimes and terrorism of any kind (life sentences instead of death sentences is much more deterring in face of Muslim terrorism)"
First of all, the concept of "hate crimes" is nonsense and simply a political bandage on a non-problem. Terrorism is not a crime, it is an act of war. You clearly do not understand the difference, hence once again you are blowing fluff and proving to us that you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter.
"Implement legislature to intelligence gathering by drastic means (including torture – but also independent control by judicial branch )"
Been there, done that. Got a lot of stupid whiners complaining about it and a lot of even stupider politicians apologizing for it and trying to prevent it.
"Strong and decisive retaliation geared at any organization and/or government in support of terrorismup to and not limited to military action."
That "oraganization" would be called "Islam". CAIR is the single most disruptive and subversive Muslim group in the USA, there is no question about it. We have to forcibly remove them, as they are twisting and using our own laws against us in order to undermine our will and our power. How do you "retaliate" against CAIR? Do we lock them all up and use tons of taxpayer dollars to feed and cloth them,and to buy all those rubber gloves so that we don't "soil" their precious Korans when we deliver them in jail? Once again, you have no solutions, just fluff and sound bites, typical of a marketing/PR exec.
"Revise military doctrine and org towards special forces ( mini armies)
Why spend the money to station forces? And how does this protect the mainland? Better to deport and then contain and isolate. That is the tactic used to contain virulent outbreaks of viral or bacterial nature. It works, and it's proven to work. We need to use it on Islam.
"Sustain elevated budgets for upkeep, motivate, pressure, influence Europeans on all levels to follow suit."
Right, our allies in the UN, who always vote against us. Who provided Saddam with military aid, strategy, and secrets once we invaded? Who made back-door deals with Saddam despite having voted for sanction? Ever heard of the food for oil scam, Michel? Spain caved in to the terrorists after just one bombing!
"Much of above mentioned ideas would eliminate them as a "threat", inasmuch, as any minority would learn it to be very hard to pervert and subvert this strong and unified society which I deem as possible."
Amazing. You've just spent about a thousand or so words saying nothing, spewing fluff that has no basis in reality and with no workable details, and then you pat yourself on the back for having "solved the problem". You haven't even accurately identified the problem, Michel! You skipped step one.
"I believe that there is a large number of Muslims here, who do not engage in any criminal or subversive activities and do not plan to do so. It is irrelevant, if the number is 3 M or 30."
First of all, it is not irrelevant whether the number is 3 million or 30 million. That's a difference by a factor of 10, for one thing. Having 30 million and using the absurd claim that only 10% of them are bad would create a standing army of 3,000,000 in our country as opposed to only 200,000 using the true numbers. That's the difference between a large militia and the combined armed forces of Russia and China!
It also proves that you don't have your facts straight, that you don't do the research, that you don't have anywhere near an even cursory understanding of the problem, and it undermines any smidgen of credibility you might have once had. The fact that you blow it off as irrelevant when your huge mistake was confronted shows that you simply don't care about the subject. It's just a game to you.
"Fact is, that the minority is growing, that it is a significant number and that this minority has not (yet) engaged in large scale militancy."
I'd call flying planes into skyscrapers and the Pentagon and killing 3,000 people "large scale militancy". I'd call trying to poison Congress and sending anthrax spores through the mail all across the USA to be "large scale militancy". What does it take for you Michel? A nuclear attack on New York City? And you clearly do not understand the enemy or the nature of war, because you are totally ignorant of and obvlivious to the various forms of warfare being used by Muslims against us, including the migratory attack, which has 1,400 years of historical precedence as well as more modern precedence in Europe.
"I feel that there is ample time for a societal overhaul, until that minority grows to "critical mass"."
Then you're delusional and not keeping up with recent events, that's for sure.
"I feel that demonisation of this minority leads to "creating the monster" as a natural response."
Again, clueless. The fact that you consider admitting the problem (ie acknowledging Islam as the core problem) "demonization" shows that you just don't get it and aren't on our side. We're not creating a monster, we are identifing a monster. One that you personally are comfortable in pretending does not exist until it comes to decapitate you.
"A successful "Domino" strategy could be implemented to further modern democracy and human rights in this region as well as eliminate the breeding grounds for radical fundamentalism."
How is this vacuous fluff any different from the previous vacuous fluff you've been posting? I've already confronted you on this very issue several times already, and still you skirt the issue. Precisely how do you plan on promoting decency and human rights in countries where such things are outlawed by the Cult of Death, and where you are beheaded or stoned to death for criticizing it or for trying to institute reform? Where Bibles and other holy books are outlawed? Where human rights and decency are looked at as weakness?
See Michel, this post is typical of all your posts. All fluff, no details. Wishful thinking and fantasizing with no link to reality whatsoever. Sound bites that sound good, but that leave you with an empty stomach.
"Support integration of Turkey into EU with "by design" control of positive development as far as the modern principles of democracy are concerned."
Sure. Like they need more Muslims in the EU!
"Support liberal tendencies ( grassroots) in Jordan, Egypt and the likes, help them to become "model states of democracies with ISLAM as predominant religion, yet separated from state. Support in form of individual Marshall plans, custom -tailored, monitiored per each of these countries. Support stable economies, eliminate the base. Provide jobs and that base will shrink, is my ideology. (See Ireland as template)"
Oh, sure! You want us to unconstitutionally and illegally pump even more billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars into these countries despite the fact that the billions we have already pumped in have only been used to fund terrorism against us? Let me ask you, Michel...how do you manage to type while wearing that straight jacket? I thought they didn't let inmates in Bellevue access the internet.
Why is it our job to give money to these countries anyway? Why don't they use their own wealth to improve themselves instead of spending in on terror weapons, terrorist armies, and a propaganda system? You do realize, don't you, that the Saudis have high unemployment because so many of them with their inflated egos are "too good" to do menial tasks? They all think they're entitled to a kings' ransom for working at McDonald's. That's why they have to import so many workers in the service industry while millions of Saudis are unemployed.
Once again, Michel, you prove that you have no clue about the subject, you are not dealing with reality, you are totally uneducated on the matter, and you are therefore not entitled to an opinion.
"Show of strength and power towards IRAN and Syria up to and not limited to intrusive means of warfare. In the case of IRAN I sadly can only see a full out invasion"
Do you, Michel, personally have the backbone to advocate tactical nuclear weapons in that invasion? Because you do know that's what it would take, correct? Their bunkers are buried so deep and are so hardened that most likely only low-yield tactical nukes can take out their nuclear missile sites. Are you man enough to go that far, or would you prefer a disastrous, limited, ineffective attack that will only serve to embarass America once again and embolden the enemy ever moreso?
"Action, backed by the entire industiralized world, must be taken, before Israel is put into the literal corner, where they do not see any other way to survive, other than employing their own ear arsenal."
Well you can't count on Europe or the UN to back us. They've proven that they cannot be trusted. We've protected them from the Soviets for so long that they've lost the will to defend themselves. In this, we have one ally...Israel.
"Topple the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia, seat of fundamental leaders of the religious movement after all. Once moderate voices sound off Mecca and Medina, a large segment of the global Muslim pop will follow. Apart from the fact that the financial backbone of Al Khaeda and the likes would be gone."
You truly are delusional! Do you honestly believe that nonsense you just wrote? It's mind-bogglingly in denial of reality and it's hard to imagine that even you believe it. You really think there are all these moderate Muslims just waiting to "pop up" and reclaim their religion? You're crazy. And how do we control the oil fields once we attack Saudi Arabia and Iran? Do you realize how much economic instability would result if we did not immediately sieze the oil?
"Force feed some form of new radical idea as to ISRAEL/Palestine in order to resolve the impasse and continuous burning ember of the mutual hatred in that region."
Yeah, just stuff it down their throats. Some undefined, ambiguous, non-defined "idea". Don't bother us with details as to precisely how you're going force them to accept this vacuous, undefined radical new idea, just "do it". And you clearly are dishonest in your post (as usual), because Israel does not have mutual hatred for the Muslims. Case in point...Palestine. The so-called Palestinians want to form a second Palestinian state (the first being Jordan since they're all Jordanian) called Palestine, and they have already publicly stated that no Jews can live in their state. Hamas and the PLO are still mandating the utter annihilation of Israel. Israel on the other hand is handing over territory, they allow Muslims to vote and even hold office.Show me a Jew holding office in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Israelis give the Muslims more freedom, happiness, rights, and high quality of life than they can obtain in any Muslim country.
Michel, you are utterly clueless and delusional when it comes to world affairs. Go back to your fantasy world and leave the solution to real men who have a clue.
"My idea would consist in some form of a Vatican style solution, as far as the combined holy sites are concerned."
"Some sort of" solution? "Some form of" new ideas? See what I mean, Michel? You speak in empty, meaningless sound bites. No details, no thought, just "something" that sounds good. Never any details, never any analytical thought, just goofy undefined and unrealistic sound bites thrown out because they sound lofty but with no substance to give them any meaning.
"The UN could be in charge of all holy sites and otherwise completely demilitarize those."
Riiiight! The clearly anti-Semitic UN that has repeatedly condemned Israel every time they kill a terrorist leader but that refuses to condemn terrorist actions taken by the so-called Palestinians? The clearly anti-Semitic UN that stood by and did nothing in Lebanon? As I said Michel, you live in a Fantasy Land in your head, and have no clue when it comes to actual reality. You offer absurd non-solutions that are nothing more than empty sound bites with no connection to reality and no hope of working.
"Maybe such a solution could only be achieved by massive UN backed troop presence throughout this entire area. Disarm all groups in Palestine (Hamas, Fatah etc., by placing 500000 soldiers in the area with clear directives and rules of engagement in any case of violence. Seal the borders air tight. Yep - that would cost a fortune, but I deem a huge bill now better than an endless conflict for the next 100 years. Time for the UN to justify its existence."
Oh sure! Who foots the bill for all that? The USA, which is the main fund for the UN. We've seen how biased the UN is against Israel, so they cannot be trusted. Disarming all terror groups in Israel would mean a bloody and violent war that would escalate to involve state actors (Syria, Iran, Lebanon) and would most likely lead to all-out (and possibly nuclear) war. And you, Michel, are not willing to go there. Are you so foolish and naive to believe that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO would simply hand their weapons over to UN troops? Maybe in your internal Fantasy Land, but never in actual reality.
Finally, you cannot disarm hatred. The so-called Palestinians would resort to sticks and stones if need be to murder innocent Jews, since they are virtually prehistoric barbarians. And I thought you didn't like my idea of penning them in? Now you do? Make up your mind!
"Please understand - I am standing here with a penlight inside of the Carlsbad Caverns, unable to explore the entire matter. Above is only a short term catalogue of potential tactical approaches the West could take."
Right, Indiana Jones. You're typing all this on a laptop in the caverns. I thought they disallowed laptops inside the caverns. Or did you sneak in, because tours don't sit in one spot long enough to type such a long post. Your credibility, virtually non-existent as it is, just took another powerful blow.
"My ideas may not be easy feasible, or will take a long time."
Your ideas are vacuous fluff to be flushed. They do not contain any sort of detail and exhibit no evidence of analytical thought or logic. They fly in the face of reality and history and provide no working details. They're empty sound bites, as they always are coming form you.
"But, as Plato so eloquently responded, seem at least more pragmatic than banning a religion, deporting its followers back to the middle east, or nuking entire countries."
They sound like the fantasies of a man disconnected from reality, that's what your ideas sound like. They are anything but pragmatic, as they deal in phantasms and illusions and offer no solid details grounded in reality. You propose that we enforce "some sort of idea", "somehow", but without explaining precicely which idea or how. Michel, your post is nothing more than a hot air balloon once more, and I just poked a needle into it. BOOM! And so it ends.
"I consider Noah's negative examples as much as non-representative as mine. In the end, he admitted himself, his Muslim friends disappointed him. So logically deducted, his experiences were in fact negative, even, if they started up as positive. Hence I am provenly right in my assessment of him arguing at least in part from a mindset of negative personal experiences."
Wrong again. They were never my "friends", and you have misquoted and misrepresented my statements once again. They were neighbors who treated me like a king on the surface, but I always saw through that. There was no question even back then, as to what they were really like. I learned this during constant and frequent discussions and debates with them. My experience is also backed up by solid investigation, hard and accurate logic and analytical thought, reputable polls and studies, historical and modern precedence and current world events, not to mention the words and actions (as well as inactions) of Muslims worldwide.
" I on the other hand mainly focused on one of my categories, our domestic minority and can not find overwhelming evidence for their evil nature."
That's because you clearly do not understand the enemy, you do not understand the nature of their cult, you are not in any way knowledgable of historical events and precedence, and you are admittedly ignorant on the matter.
"I did indeed call for "censorship" or even closing the session, as for my taste the tonality became extremely hostile, insulting, offensive and disturbing. I stand to that call."
If that's true, then you should immediately go to some embassy, revoke your citizenship in America, and get out. You have no business being here if you think that censorship is good and you call for it simply because people exposed your lies and ridiculed your absurd claims.
" too - I sadly admit - used inflammatory, offensive language - Albeit - I formally apologized, whereas my apology was "used" to further twist my meanings or "slap me in the face.
Stop whining. Had you been in a Muslim country they would have stoned you to death, cut your head off, and paraded your corpse through the streets.
" I subjectively perceived the tonality as aforementioned - hence, Yes - I endorse censorship (to an extent) for any form of expressed intolerance and hatred."
Your mentality sets a dangerous precedent. You believe that censorship is called for in order to deal with the mere exposure of liars and calling a spade a space. Yes, some mild insults were thrown your way, and some were coming forth from you as well. In America, in a truly free country, that right is protected. I means you have to endure ridicule and derision when it is directed at you. It means hearing the unpleasant truth when you don't want to hear it. You clearly do not understand what America is all about, and should leave if this stuff offends you.
"Is it just me who feels, that too much freedom of expression is granted in this blog?"
"Too much freedom"? Why don't you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia? Perhaps then you'll drop the absurd claim of "too much freedom".
"But we are talking about real people here, real victims, real blood and I tried to reason for some consideration for the accompanying misery and the terrible consequences resulting from such action."
Misery and consequences they brought on themselves. Don't expect any sympathy from me.
"I disclaimed my estimate ( of course conveniently overlooked). But the actual number is in fact irrelevant. We obviously agree that the number is significant, and even, if only 4M, percentage wise the homegrown Muslim unrest or militancy is marginal compared to our own. Current statistics of the prison pop here in the US seem to evidence that."
You did not disclaim your highly inaccurate "estimate". You stuck to it long after I called you out on it. In fact, I called you out in it twice, and after that you repeated your claim to Sohail. You refuse to acknowledge that the most accurate estimates come to just 2 million. You still cling to double that, by claiming 4 million. You cannot admit when you're wrong, and you cannot deal with reality.
"So are they true of other movements, and I do not ignore it, but would oppose all such efforts instead of just vilifying one."
Wrong. Back your latest absurd claim. Show me where Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc are trying to eradicate an entire civilization and institute a second Holocaust. Show me where those other religions are cutting off heads of those who convert to other religions or who criticize those religions. Show me where Chrisitans, Buddhists, etc are out raping, murdering, arsoning, and rioting over cartoons.
Michel, renounce your citizenship and go back to Fantasy Land. It's your only hope.
Reader comments (2098) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes