Not long ago Robert Spencer and another speaker were attempting to elucidate, for an audience in New York, the ideology of Islam, that ideology that explains, without much trouble, the behavior of many Muslims, and the real attitudes of many more. Someone in the audience caused a stir, and while the security guards ran to deal with it, from an unsecured side door out rushed two people bearing pies that they flung at Spencer (who successfully dodged the pie meant for him) and his associate, Mr. Elan Journo, who was not quite so quick, and was hit. These were pies, and pie-throwing may make us think of the late Soupy Sales, and campus shenanigans that are supposed to be hilarious but somehow never are.
But in this case, the pie-throwing was no joke, because what the speakers were speaking about was Islam, and in many countries many death threats have been delivered, and some of those death threats acted upon, in many different places. A Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie was stabbed to death; a Norwegian translator was attacked but survived. Political figures, such as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, have been killed. Cultural gadflies, who dared to deal with Islam as they dealt with Christianity or Judaism or the monarchy or anything else, such as Theo van Gogh, were killed. Wafa Sultan must live in hiding. Geert Wilders, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Magdi Allam, in Europe, must all travel with a constant escort of armed guards, and Wilders, at least, must frequently move from house to army base to house.
People suddenly appeared from the side entries running toward the speakers with something that "looked like pies" -- but pies can contain all kinds of toxic substances, and can even conceal bombs. How are the police or security guards to know that what is being hurled is a pie, that the pie contains nothing toxic, that the pie is not a diversion for someone else's gun? If we did not have a long history, in this country and in other countries, of Muslim death threats, and the carrying out of such threats, we would not be compelled to consider this possibility.
Given the world today, we must consider it. And those who disrupt such gatherings which attempt, in the mildest and most reasonable of ways, to present certain uncomfortable home truths, should be met with appropriate force. "Appropriate" force means "reasonable" force. If such an attack were made, say, on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, would her contingent of Dutch bodyguards, trained in the use of deadly force, not be perfectly justified in not hesitating, not waiting to find out, but in using that force? And those who protect Geert Wilders?
Charges should be pressed, and a case made that will ensure the pie-throwers are themselves thrown out of decent society. A jail sentence might be just the ticket. A little time in Riker's can help change behavior, if not win hearts and minds. The hearts and minds of those who threw those pies are impervious to reason and decency. So forget about that. Just change their behavior. And make the punishment sufficient to give others pause.
If those setting out the ideology of the Nazis before an audience in, say, New York, in 1942, that is, once the war had begun, been attacked, what would the government have done to the attackers? But, you will say, we are "not at war." Oh yes we are. The Jihad war has begun in earnest, and along with the many thousands of terrorist attacks by Muslims recorded just since 9/11/2001, the other instruments, even more effective than those acts of terrorism, of Jihad include deployment of the Money Weapon (and the propaganda it can buy), campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
Those who attempt to shut down or intimidate, not rabble-rousers, but all those who try to elucidate matters by quite reasonably bringing to the public's attention the texts and tenets of Islam that explain the acts and the attitudes of many Muslims, which cannot be changed unless Islam itself were to be changed or the Qur'an cease to be regarded as the uncreated, literal Word of God, should be heard. For what they are attempting to make clear is that those texts, those tenets, explain Muslim behavior, including the behavior of those murderous smilers in that novemdectet, acting -- as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Magdi Allam, and all the other defectors from the Army of Islam well know and have explained and explained -- according to, and not in opposition to, the texts, the tenets, the attitudes, the atmospherics of Islam. Not all Muslims take Islam fully to heart. Some, fortunately, are lapsed or indifferent or bad Muslims. But those who take their Islam straight up, instead of on the rocks, need to be understood. We won't have what the Muslim boys in the back room are having; we just need to know exactly what is in their drink. And that is an effort that recent events at Fort Hood make clear that many of us, and many of those who rule over us or are supposed to instruct or defend us, have not yet done. But they will.
At staringattheview.blogspot.com I did a recent post about the moving book "The Good Soldiers". The point of the post, however, was not the book but the fact that one of the main characters, the LT COL who led the battalion featured in the book, had the naive "if Islam is a religion of peace, why are Muslims acting this way?" understanding that seems to be widely spread throughout the military.
Jeff Cooper, the father of the Modern Technique of the Pistol, wrote an essay on the proper response to personal assaults to which I commend JW readers:
http://www.frfrogspad.com/crisis.htm
Excerpt:
"We have the problem; never mind why. What shall we do about it? In a socialist atmosphere, the immediate response is to hand the problem to the state. ...
"Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That's the state's simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty.
"No deal.
"The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand — YOU!"
At http://staringattheview.blogspot.com/ I recently posted about the moving book The Good Soldiers. The point of the post, however, was not about the book but the frustrated comment blurted out by Lt. Col. Kauzlarich about why, if Islam is a religion of peace and jihad is a struggle for spirituality, do Muslims act the way they do.
It's unfortunate that the Lt Col, as well as the vast majority of American military leaders in both Iraq and Afghanistan, are not only not reading but have probably never even heard of Wafa, Robert, Hugh, and the many others who are leading this much smaller but extremely important battle. Hopefully, that will change.
Alumni need to apply pressure via the witholding of contributions and to make it clear why they are doing so.
I wrote to the dean of my wife's alma mater doing just that, saying that we were witholding this year's contribution because we were afraid that Mt Holyoke had an idea of diversity which only encompassed liberal, left-leaning people of all races and backgrounds. I pointed out that diversity meant including people of diverse thinking as well.
They got the point, wrote back and agreed. Shortly thereafter, the alumni magazine featured two blond women on the cover with a caption stating that Mt Holyoke recognized diversity of views, both liberal and conservative. We resumed contributing.
But how many alumni understand the negatives about Islam? That's key, because without that, there will be no effective pressure for change.
The problem is that when it comes to Islam, the brains of otherwise intelligent people tend to shut down.
I can explain it any way I like, but it's still "racist" to criticise Islam. For instance:
If anyone puts a label on themselves, then one can assume they believe in the baggage that comes with that label right? For instance, if someone calls themselves a Nazi, it's safe to assume they hate Jews. If someone calls themselves KKK, it's safe to assume they hate blacks.
"Right"
So, if someone calls themselves a Muslim, I think it's equally safe to assume that they at least hate Jews, homosexuals, women with uncovered hair, pigs and dogs (and perhaps music, art, democracy and free speech as well).
"Yer racist"
Sigh.
And speaking of dogs, is anyone here in Ontario? I've been hearing of attacks on dog parks in Toronto (and recently as far north as Parry Sound, this past summer) a lot for the past couple of years. I remember they did catch one poisoner, but they let him off with the excuse that he was trying to poison raccooms who were "getting itno his community garden" - which I think is a loard of bollocks, and frankly, he should have been up on cruelty charges for the raccoons, _ANYWAY_, and been told that instad of poisoning in a public place by a public dog park, he should simply get some chicken wire and better fencing.
It's telling that these attacks have been happening primarily in Toronto, which is now more than 53% foreign-born (with likely a very high Muslim population.)
Even our DOGS are suffering from multiculti/high immigration policies.
Um, Jewdog, was the university assuming that only blue-eyed I'm assuming) blonde-haired people are conservative or what?
No, it was an illustration that two people of similar appearance can hold differing views.
On December 7th 1941, the Japanese attacked the United States Navy at Pearl Harbor. Within 24 hours a State-of-War was declared.
ON September 11th 2001, the Muslim terrorist, trained and funded by Saudi Arabia attacked the World Trade Center, which had no military significance. Why was war not declared?
WE-ARE-AT-WAR. We do not need to identify the enemy, they have identified themselves. We do not need to sit back on our butts and wait for the next attack, we can act now.
Ah, OK. I suppose they couldn't get an Egyptian Muslim and a Copt to stand side by side? >;)
Charges should be pressed.
Yeah, just like they shoulda been pressed against the Six Imams for the federal felony crime they committed at MSP airport. Instead each got a 6 figure payoff for having been detained for a half-hr.
Shoulda been pressed against the not one, but two, groups of Moslem Activists who gathered around or in the toilet in front of understandably scared Infidels on their respective planes. No charges there, either.
*** 8:59 ***
It is so pathetic that globo-socialist students in their fervid opposition to free speech are carrying water for the Moslems, who have become a cause celebre for Marxists.
*** 72:15 ***
The 6th Pillar of Islam is a powerful force that in these modern times has replaced agitprop with somnoprop, a powerful drug coursing through the veins of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Van Susteren, Jason Lewis, Beck, Will, and I think even the potentially great Krauthammer.
*** 92:8 ***
Asleep, or at least quite drowsy, the Moslems are intimidating our way into catastrophe. The inducement to self-censorship is by far the most major of all the awful problems presented to us by Islam.
Hugh gives the hypothetical example of what the government would have done to a pro-Nazi speaker in 1942. But we have the real example of what it did to opponents of the war in WW1: under the Sedition Acts, hundreds of individuals, including presidential candidate Eugene Debs, were jailed, and scores of periodicals and publications were shut down. To silence opponents, the Post Office refused to carry anti-war magazines, and the war production bureaucracy refused any allocation of newprint to anti-war publishers. These were the actions of a liberal-left acministration, and were upheld by the courts. Yet Imperial Germany never posed any threat to the U.S. nearly as dangerous as those posed by Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, or presently by belligerent Islam.
Behavior modification...Skinners idea of ignoring negative behavior, while re-enforcing positive behavior, might work well with some psychotics and mentally challenged people, but it is the wrong strategy to use with the left or Islam...
Islamic behavior like the lefts, is not modify able...but it is stop able.
But first we need to throw Skinner out of office...
The thing is, even when dealing with animals in training, while positive behaviour must be encouraged and rewarded, you can't ignore negative behaviour (such as getting into the garbage, or disobeying an important command.) However, with most dogs and cats, a stern NO and display of displeasure (even talking about what they did in a bitchy voice) is usually good enough to shame them and let them know you don't like what they did, and temporary rejection (refusal to pet them when they try to suck up to curry favour back - even just a few minutes of rejection can get the message home.
eg, one of my cats sometimes forgets she is not allowed to walk on kitchen counters now that my ex is gone (he allowed her to do this.) However, all I have to do is snap my fingers and point, and she jumps down, knowing that this gesture is a sign of disapproval.
Well, there's also the complicating fact that sometimes they'll do something they know I don't want them to, just to get my attention, or in hopes that I'll put them outside even after I said "no" (because it's dark, or the road out front is very icy, etc. Such proclomations are made out of considerations for their safety.) Yes, I know damn well that they're intelligent enough to play the manipulation game back at me, and I had to learn what they are actually up to at times. I also learned that if I just stick to my guns and keep saying "No, you're not going outside for anything right now", they'll eventually get bored and give up.
And as always, rules and training should never be arbitrary. While an animal (or a human with sub-normal intelligence) may never understand the full reasoning behind what they are taught, they must at least understand that it's important.
Anyway, the point is, you can't ignore bad behaviour, period. When someone wilfully engages in bad behaviour, and holds beliefs that tell him he has the right to engage in bad behaviour, then you REALLY have a problem you can't ignore.
I get it. Here's my holiday schedule.
http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2009/11/silent-night.html
The Liberals/Leftists use pie throwing as implied threats as well as for shutting down discussion.
As one well known(and now deceased)liberal pointed out to me some years ago 'Pie throwing is a way of letting certain people whom they hate know that they can be "gotten to" anytime the Liberals want.' Substitute the pie for one filled with acid, fecal material, a brick... you get the picture.
In short pie throwing should be viewed as assault and battery upon a individual given the ugly intent behind it.
Hugh mentions the Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie, Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Magdi Allam as among those who were either killed to "protect" Islam or who remain under death threats. Another name that comes to mind is the French teacher Robert Redeker, who has had to give up his career and his home because of credible threats to himself and to his family, all due to an article he wrote.
From an article in Time magazine:
Robert Redeker, 52, a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled "Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?," Redeker's article called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence" that shows the prophet Mohammad to have been "a pitiless warlord, pillager, massacrer of Jews and polygamist." The very day the piece came out, Redeker started receiving e-mail death threats. In a letter to a friend published this week in Le Monde, Redeker wrote that one website condemning him to death included a map showing exactly where he and his family lived, along with photos of him and his workplaces. In the letter, published as part of an appeal of support signed by French intellectuals including Bernard-Henri Levy, Andre Glucksmann and Elisabeth Badinter, Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. "I'm a homeless person," he complains. "I exercised a constitutional right, and I'm being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1541776,00.html
(Amazing that Time magazine covered this.)
Dealing with zealous Muslims is bad enough but having also to deal with self-righteous left-wing idiots who have allied themselves to anyone or anything that is anti-Western (like zealous Muslims) is solid evidence of just how difficult the fight is to prevent Islam from prevailing in the West. We're up against thugs and fools, not just one or the other. It's a double fight.
Spirit Wolf - well said.
Hugh,
any chance we can get your take on Islamic charities?
Blowhard Geraldo Rivera on O'Reilly loudly declared that Hasan Malik's transfer of $ 50.000.00 to Islamic charities had no significance at all.
Your views?
Another very useful post from you, Hesperado. I hadn't seen that horrific bit about Redeker. I wish the people who are terrorizing him could be found and put in jail for life, or executed, or sent to an Islamic country.
Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Geraldo, even for him, has been moving steadily to the left lately. I suspect that he is trying to get a slot on MSNBC when his contract expires.
Great comment, right to the point!
I shall use this line of reasoning myself in the future.
Pie throwing at such an event should be treated as assault and battery, or at a minimum as physical intimidation. As another poster noted on this thread, "pie throwing" in such venues is a sign to the victim that they are vulnerable. It is akin to waking up to see a knife plunged into the pillow next to you at a motel.