Here is just one of a cascade of mainstream media articles this week that paint Muslims as victims, using the same examples over and over: the Florida church Qur'an burning, the cabbie attack in New York, and the Tennessee church burning. In other words, they're using one incident in which no Muslims will be harmed; one in which an employee of a group that supports the Ground Zero mosque attacked a Muslim cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim; and one case of arson that has no suspects and comes after a good number of anti-Muslim hate crimes that turned out to have been faked by Muslims.
Of course, any time an innocent person is victimized, it is a terrible thing. The attack on the cab driver was heinous, whatever the real allegiances and perspectives of the attacker. The point is just that this much ballyhooed increase in "Islamophobia" that is supposedly making Muslims in America afraid of attacks is largely chimerical, while ABC News ignores the real threat, and its real source, as much as they ignore CAIR's Hamas links and other dodgy aspects. At next Saturday's rally, Pamela Geller and I and the speakers will be always in the presence of guards. Both she and I have received specific death threats from Muslims in recent weeks. Geert Wilders lives under constant guard. In contrast, the Leftist and Islamic supremacist counter-protesters will have no guard, and will need none: contrary to their hysterical rhetoric and the handwringing, no one is threatening them.
What does that tell you?
"Anti-Islam Rhetoric Heats Up Ahead of 9/11: Muslim Groups Prepare for Wave of Anti-Islamic Sentiment as Ninth Anniversary of 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Approach," by Dan Harris and Lee Ferran for ABC News, September 6:
Today, a Christian pastor will hold the second service in a series bashing the planned Muslim community center in downtown New York City in a sign of increasing vocal anti-Islam rhetoric ahead of the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. [...]Critics said such rhetoric is fueling anti-Islam violence. Late last month a Manhattan cab driver was allegedly stabbed by a passenger who reportedly asked him immediately before the attack if he was Muslim. Days later, a fire tore through the construction site of a planned Mosque in Tennessee. Investigators announced last week the cause of the fire was arson.
In response, leaders of Mosques from around the world are reaching out to other faiths for help.
"We are asking people to take into account security concerns... given the almost hysterical atmosphere we're in right now," said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Commercial From Muslim Group: 'I Don't Want to Take Over the Country'
Muslim groups are also running television advertisements designed to improve the image of the faith.
"I don't want to take over the country," one ad states.
Adding to the concern is a fluke in the calendar. This year the 9/11 anniversary coincides with the Muslim day of celebration for the Festival of Eid. Many worry pictures of Muslims celebrating will be misconstrued.
One Muslim advocacy group in Los Angeles was so concerned they contacted law enforcement and the Justice Department to warn them of the overlap.
"The issue I can sense brewing on hate sites on the Internet is, 'These Muslims are celebrating on September 11,'" Hooper told The Associated Press. "It's getting really scary out there."
For whom?
Good thing fewer and fewer people can't see the BS the PC/MC islamophilic MSM peddles for what it is and keep buying it.
I would think it is about time the Christians of Muslim dominated countries - and followers of other minority faiths for that matter - reached out to apply for some understanding, assistance and help. And actually got it this time, instead of the outreach being directed towards Muslims.
But we all know very well the kind of trouble it would lead to, and bending low to the hysterically hypocritical Muslim self-pity is so much easier. Always the Muslims are complaining about this and that, and it's considered bad form to make them or their apologists or indeed anyone pay attention to the wrongs done by Islam - the disasters Islam has caused humankind - for 14 centuries.
PK, for a moment there I thought you said "MSM poodles". I sort of like that even better...
Robert, are there going to be people at the site of the protest early (say, after 10 or 11 am) to give suggestions of how we can help out on Saturday? (Meeting ferries, keeping an eye out for infiltrators, etc.)
An Open Letter to the News Media,
While the mainstream media tries its best to convince us that Islam is under a vicious and unwarranted attack, it must taken into consideration that most of the “free” press has already capitulated to the jihadists, and this means that the “journalists” are under the influence of the jihadists whether they realize it or not. Are we now going to deny the murder of Theo Van Gogh along with all the other threats and attacks against critics of Islam? Are we going to deny the violent reaction to some Danish cartoons or the threats made against South Park? We can not honestly deny what we ourselves have witnessed, and we have witnessed the complete and unconditional surrender of the “free” press and the reality now is that no one in the mass media will speak of Islam unless it is to praise Muslims. Other religions can be criticized, but not Islam; Islam can never be criticized and now the talking heads are telling us that it is islamophobic...that it is a form of bigotry if anyone dares to insult Islam.
In fairness to the media, when threats are made by a group which is known to be violent these threats have credibility because of previous acts of violence, and it is normal for people to back down from such a group. It is also normal for people to find an excuse for their surrender because people don’t want to admit to *themselves* that they are afraid. The word *themselves* is emphasized because it is important to understand that people who live in fear tend to be in denial and it can be hard to get them to overcome their fear since they must first admit that they are afraid. When the mafia controlled Sicily there would be unreported crimes committed on crowded streets, and there was also a universal attitude that a “snitch” was the world’s lowest form of life. In reality, the people of Sicily would not report crimes because of their fear of the mafia, but the subject was avoided and they were able to deny their fear and convince themselves that they were motivated by honor. This shows that a bully influences the thinking of the victim even in ways that the victim is not aware because the victim denies his fear at a subconscious level, and therefore the victim is influenced at a subconscious level.
If the journalists in our society could only be honest about their fear they might be able to see how the entire process shows that the violent jihadists and many “moderate” Muslims leaders are actually working together. This is not to say that all Muslims are jihadists, but only to say that when a Muslim claims to be a moderate this does not prove they are a moderate. Since jihadists are willing to use violence, it shouldn’t be so hard to consider that some jihadists are also willing to use deception, including the deception of presenting themselves as a moderate while working with and pursuing the same objective as those who use violence.
The violent jihadist will say, “If you insult Islam we will kill you”. Then the “moderate” Muslim will say, “It is bigotry to insult Islam”. The media, which has already capitulated to the violent jihadists, will embrace the idea that insulting Islam is a form of bigotry since it provides an excuse for their self-censorship and therefore a way to deny their cowardice. It is their own fear of the jihadists that prevents the “journalists” from using reason or objectivity when dealing with Islam. Every religion has its critics, so if hostility towards Muslims is growing, it is not because of the critics of Islam; but because of the ammunition provided to the critics of Islam by the Muslims themselves. Hostility towards Muslims is growing because of the violence and oppression in the Muslim world and the violence in the West coming from followers of Islam. Most people can see this, but the people in the news media are blinded by fear. They have surrendered their own free speech and now they want the rest of us to join them in their fear-imposed prison.
It is bigotry to insult Islam? Is it really? Is disagreement with Islam really something that must be condemned and ostracized like bigotry? Those who are open critics of Islam are already under the threat of death, but even that has not been enough to shut them up, so calling them bigots will not shut them up...it will only cause people to not give fair consideration to what they are saying, but it seems that that is the real objective. It seems that the “moderate” Muslims cannot allow any criticism of their religion...none whatsoever. What good is freedom of speech when it comes to sports and fashion if we don’t have freedom of speech when it comes to politics and religion? I want some of the talking heads to answer that last one.
Stash
I would like this presented to as much of the news media as possible, and feel free to correct or modify it.
I prefer the term 'islamic Awareness' to Islamophobia. here is no such thing as 'Islamophobia', just as there is no 'Lionophobia' or 'Tigerophobia' . A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of Islam is rational and well justified...
1) Islam is monolithic, static and unresponsive to change. It is based on the Koran, a hate-filled rant written by a psychopathic pedophile which claims to be the 'Eternal Word of God'...
2) Islam does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them in any positive way. Islam is totally different from any other religion. There is no Golden Rule. There is no 'Thou Shalt not Kill', no requirement for truth...
3) Islamic culture continues to be in all respects inferior to the West. It produces no artistic or scientific output of any significance. Islamic society is barbaric, irrational, primitive, tribal and sexist. Stonings, honor killings, use of women as possessions, institutionalised pedophilia and incest, polygamy and illiteracy abound. Aggressive arrogance is used as a cover for barbarous ignorance.
4) Islam is violent, and aggressive to its very core. The Koran advocates terrorism and Allah rewards those who kill infidels. Islam is engaged in a 1400 year old 'clash of civilisations' where all other cultures are regarded as 'Jahiliya' to be destroyed, censored and suppressed. The world is divided into Dar al-Harb and Dar-al-Islam. Dar al-Islam has bloody borders and is permanently at war with Dar al-Harb...
5) Islam is a political ideology as well as being an irrationalist cult, and is used for political advantage, often by cynical rulers who live as playboys in the fleshpots of Dar al-Harb. Although utterly irrational and obscurantist, Islam survives because it provides the justification for a medieval power structure where the priests are at the top, the Islamic male in the middle, and women and kaffirs at the bottom.
6) Muslims are continually criticising the West - moaning, whingeing, whining and complaining, even when they have chosen to come and breed here. The are perpetually pleading for special treatment with alternating temper tantrums and threats of riots and terrorism interspersed with sulky infantile displays of victim status...
7) Uniquely among immigrants, Muslims refuse to fit in with the host society. Instead they expect the hosts to fit in with them. This causes real problems in employability as the employer can expect far greater numbers of lawsuits alleging discrimination etc from Muslim employees than from less 'victimised' groups.
8) Wariness about Muslims is natural and normal. These people really do want to kill us, plunder our property and rape and subjugate our children. The Koran tells them to do it and their role-model Mohammed set an example of divinely justified criminality which Muslims endeavor to follow... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-awareness.html
"contrary to their hysterical rhetoric and the handwringing, no one is threatening them."
Yeah, but just in case...
The stupid MSM and the even dumber leftist bloggers and 'journalist's, are encouraging Mahoundian attacks...If any attacks actually happen, we can lay half the blame on them and the other half on the violence prone Mahoundians...The third half we blame on Geo Bush...These people should be arrested for inciting riot...
The articles are coming fast and furious by too many media outlets to count (last count 267 on Google). There is no question that the extreme radicals such as the Qu'ran burning church are getting huge press coverage. The problem is that these media outlets are lumping the SIOU & mega mosque Movement in with them as if they where all one movement in attempt to marginalize the focus and the specific cause which deals with the Mosque to close to ground zero.
How we combat this is unfortunately not going to be easy. There is no question that Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer among many others will have to get out the message in the next 72 hours in an attempt to separate themselves from those who are doing a disservice to the cause.
Hopefully an effort can be made on conservative programs like Sean Hannity to let the public know that the SIOU is not affiliated in any way with the Qu'ran burners in Florida.
I'm wondering if an absence of signs carried at ground zero this Saturday might be a better way to go, given how effective the absence of signs was at the Glenn Beck Rally, which made it difficult for them to be attacked by the liberal media.
Phobia: an irrational persistent fear...
No. We're not afraid. Just assertive in quelling the lewd and laschivious demonstrations and indulgences of the historically ignorant appetite of Islmophiles.
PC is an intellectual equivalent of AIDS
In the final days of August, I had posted a number of comments suggesting that people who oppose the Ground Zero mosque might bring large banners to the rally on September 11 stating some of the important facts about Islam. I provided many arguments in support of my suggestions.
In response, Mr. Spencer posted a note on September 1 entitled "Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero." In that posting, Mr. Spencer had initially said that signs would be confiscated, but that part of his posting has now apparently been removed. There were a large number of comments (over 130) in response to Mr. Spencer's posting. I requested that Mr. Spencer respond to some of the points I had made.
Mr. Spencer did post a very short response early in the morning of September 2, which stated "It is a solemn day. It is not a day for inflammatory rhetoric." Although I agree with Mr. Spencer that it will be a solemn day, I do not find that fact to be a sufficient justification to allow only a few people to express themselves.
Many people who attend the rally will conform with the others in deference to Mr. Spencer's wishes. He deserves a great deal of credit for organizing the event. But some of the people reading these comments may have their own ideas. They may feel that their voices should be heard as well, and not just the voices of those who have the microphone. The great thing about living in America is that it provides opportunities for all voices to be heard who wish to speak.
The remainder of these comments are for those readers who feel an urge to speak and who want their voices to be heard also.
I think that the best way to honor the 3000 people who were killed that day is to publicly identify, for the first time, who their real killer was. See if you agree with me on this. I say the 19 hijackers were merely hired hit men. I say that the real killer was the prophet of Islam. That prophet made an offer of eternal paradise, limitless pleasure, and glory to people who would kill the unbelievers for the sake of Allah. His offer has been in place for 14 centuries. The hijackers merely accepted his offer. It was a contract killing on a massive scale, and not really much more. (I think that the hijackers have found out that they got cheated in that contract.)
If this point of view makes sense to you, or if you have other thoughts you want to express, I am offering the following suggestions for your consideration as to how to make your speech the most effective.
BENEFITS OF SIGNS AND BANNERS
If a lot of people appear at the rally, wave flags, and express sympathy for the victims, that will merely demonstrate that the organizers are able to assemble some sizable gathering. The number of people who actually appear will depend upon the weather, how many have been notified, and how easy it is for them to attend. After it is over, they will be labeled as flag-waving right wingers (particularly if they applaud Mr. Wilders) who are trying to capitalize upon the natural sympathy evoked by the victims of the terrorist attacks. There will be minor arguments about the estimate of how many people attended. The media will trot out Muslims who suffered in the same terrorist attacks, as well as families of the victims who are now supporting the Ground Zero mosque as a gesture of forgiveness. Muslims and mosque supporters, if they are determined to do so, will organize a counter-rally at some point which will probably have a larger number of people present. The whole affair will be seen as a competition for sympathy, and the net result will likely be no change in anybody's behavior or decision-making. Since 70% of the population is already against the mosque, if a very large number of people don't show up then the media will conclude that people do not feel strongly on this issue.
Moreover, if you were interested in having your voice heard, your voice will be limited to one tiny flag waving in a sea of several thousand.
Some people who attend such a rally try to have their voice heard by shouting slogans in a large group. While that approach may make you feel good because you have a lot of people on your side, to the media you will look like someone who is driven more by the emotion of a crowd rather than by knowledge and clear thinking. Also, Mr. Spencer's point would come into play -- namely that shouting slogans might appear to be inappropriate following a solemn ceremony. The slogans would only be heard for a short time, and the people shouting them would develop hoarse voices. There would undoubtedly be counter-demonstrators shouting opposing slogans.
People who use signs and banners will have substantial advantages. They will be communicating an idea that the media will not be able to ignore. It will be nearly impossible to distort that idea by selective editing or an inaccurate quotation. The communication will be quiet and will not interfere with the solemnity of the occasion. (You may want to not display your banner during the memorial itslef.) Furthermore, the idea will be communicated for hours as long as the sign or banner is on display.
It is possible to make gigantic banners by stitching together bedsheets and painting your message on the banner. The banners can be suspended from windows in nearby buildings, or they may be held up by walking sticks. (You might want to check with the NYPD regarding what types of poles they will not allow, but I doubt they would seize walking sticks. I don't know whether there are any laws or regulations pertaining to suspending banners from buildings.) If the NYPD were to take some action inhibiting your ability to express yourself, which I very much doubt that they would do, you would have a very strong case for violation of your First Amendment rights. In that situation, there would be lots of lawyers willing to represent you for free and you would become a national symbol for free speech. The bigger the banner is, the more likely that cameras will focus on it. Remember that a large number of the media representatives from around the world will probably be covering the event.
MAKING AN EFFECTIVE MESSAGE
If you decide to use a sign or banner, the first question that comes up is what your message should be. Some people think that strongly worded, emotionally charged messages such as "Mohammed was a pig!" or "Islam is like Naziism!" or "Send the Muslims back home!" are the most effective. But remember that your message is going to a wide audience, most of whom may not know much about Islam, and many of whom may be relatively neutral on the subject. They will have a very hard time understanding what rational basis, if any, you have for your message if it is of this type. You will be seen as an irrational hate monger if you use such a message, and it will actually work against your goal of opposing the mosque. You will be labeled as somebody who suffers from Islamophobia in that situation.
Many people who are formulating a message don't think about the difference between facts and conclusions. If your message consists of a conclusion, then you leave the viewer wondering about what the basis of your conclusion is and whether you are biased. You essentially deprive the viewer of the privilege of making up his or her own mind about the situation. You also do not communicate any useful information, other than the fact that you have come to a particular conclusion. Conclusions by themselves, even if they come from very influential people, are not very effective. They only have some influence upon people with a sheep-like mentality who have already decided that they will go along with whatever the influential person is saying. Most politicians speak in conclusions with relatively little facts behind them.
A powerful fact, on the other hand, is much more effective. It forces the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion based in part upon the fact that has been expressed. If the viewer refuses to accept the fact, he weakens his own position and appears to be dishonest or closed-minded. The person expressing a powerful fact always gets the upper hand.
I have been following the debate about the Ground Zero mosque, and it seems that the people involved have not understood this principle. I have not seen even one article in the mainstream media nor even one public presentation by any person in which the powerful facts relevant to this debate have been expressed. (I admit that I have not seen video of every public presentation given by every person on this issue.) Most of the facts expressed by people opposing the mosque are relatively weak facts, such as the historical architectural style of the building, the impact of the landing gear, the failure of the Imam to condemn a terrorist organization, the questionable background of the fund raiser, etc. The strongest fact mentioned is that various people will feel offended and hurt by the presence of the mosque. The people supporting the mosque cite practically no facts in their favor, only conclusions about tolerance and religious freedom. They also claim that various people will be offended and hurt if the mosque is not built.
As far as I am concerned, as soon as I am told that a mosque is being planned so close to Ground Zero, the most powerful facts have to do with the character of the prophet and the holy book that will be glorified in that mosque. The landing gear, the Imam involved, and the fund raising fellow are all practically irrelevant to me. It helps to know that many people will be offended by the construction of the mosque, because that means that many people will ultimately oppose the mosque.
If you agree with this thinking, you might want to decide for yourself what you believe to be the most important single fact about Islam that should be known to the public. I have thought hard about this question, and in my opinion the most important fact is that the prophet of Islam beheaded over 600 captive Jews and saw their heads fall into trenches that had been dug for this purpose. (The fact that they were captive means that they posed little threat, and the fact that trenches were dug means that the prophet of Islam may have been one of the first major historical figures to make an industrial activity out of killing people.) I think this historical fact is so important that no person in the world should be considered reasonably well educated if he or she does not know this fact. (I thank Mr. Spencer for making this fact widely accessible in Western countries.) This fact goes a long way to explaining why the 19 hijackers attacked on September 11, and why every person who says that the prophet of Islam is a divine messenger in fact directly or indirectly supports violence against unbelievers.
Now I submit that any institution that glorifies such a prophet has no rightful place anywhere near where 3000 people were murdered, and especially if they were murdered in the name of that prophet. What can any reasonable person think in the face of this fact? How can Mr. Bloomberg support a mosque that will necessarily glorify such a prophet? How can Jon Stewart make jokes about people who oppose the mosque if he is forced to confront this fact? Why has this fact never entered the public discussion about the Ground Zero mosque?
If you believe that this fact should be known to the public, you can make a large banner that says "THE PROPHET OF ISLAM BEHEADED 600 CAPTIVE JEWS AS THEIR HEADS FELL INTO TRENCHES!" In small print below this fact, you can give the source which is the Sirah Rasul Allah (the biography of the prophet of Islam).
Here are some additional facts that you might want to put into banners, along with their sources:
Koran 9:5. Allah ordered Muslims to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them.
Koran 8:39. Allah ordered Muslims to fight the unbelievers until the religion in the entire world is for Allah alone.
Koran 8:12. Allah revealed to the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Koran 9:33. Allah has sent the prophet Mohammed to make Islam superior over all religions even though the disbelievers hate it.
Sahih Al-Bukhari is universally recognized in the Islamic world as accurately describing the deeds of the prophet of Islam. Here are some of theose deeds:
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: The prophet of Islam married Aisha while she was six years old and started having sex with her while she was nine years old.
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: The prophet of Islam said, "If someone changes from his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Here is another interesting and important fact from June 2007:
2000 highly respected Islamic scholars and clerics of the Pakistani Ulema Council gave their highest honor to Osama Bin Laden.
There are many other similar facts to choose from, which you can find on this web site (JihadWatch) or on other web sites such as TheReligionOfPeace.com. I hope that in their speeches, either Mr. Spencer or Mr. Wilders will provide a detailed discussion of some of these points, and will refute the arguments offered by supporters of Islam in response to such points. Mr. Wilders is a particularly effective speaker regarding Islam, and I hope that in his speech he gives a slow and graphic description of what the prophet of Islam must have done when he beheaded 600 captive Jews, so the listener has a clear picture in his or her mind of exactly what must have happened.
I don't think the television cameras will be able to avoid such banners. If you have a large banner with such a message, there is a fairly good chance that some reporter will want to interview you. So it will be important to make sure you are knowledgeable about the source of the fact in your banner.
If you want to have some fun with the media, and you don't mind spending a little extra money, you can carry such a banner with a factual quotation while wearing a burqa. (Make sure that bushy eyebrows and hairy arms are not showing if you are male.) The politically correct spineless mainstream media will be very afraid to criticize the fact that is expressed in your banner, since you will appear to be a devout Muslim. Nobody will be able to accuse you of being an Islamophobe. Meanwhile, members of the general public will get an accurate idea of what Islam truly is.
WHY THE RIGHT TIME IS NOW
Some people think that September 11 should simply be a solemn day for remembering the victims and for showing patriotism. That is certainly a reasonable point of view. But that point of view is not consistent with having Mr. Wilders speak, since he is known for being forthright about the violence that is practically an essential ingredient in Islam. Moreover, as a general matter I don't think that people with one point of view should try to control people with a different point of view.
I think that there is a very short time window for having a public discussion of the facts about Islam, and this rally may be one of the last important opportunities. Here is my reasoning.
In Europe, because of political correctness and the large influx of Muslims, it is now practically impossible to have a rational public discussion of the key facts about Islam. Mr. Wilders is on trial for doing nothing more than making an accurate movie about Islam. In the United States, I have found that practically on a daily basis there is some article in the mainstream media about so-called "Islamophobia" and about how Muslims are allegedly being victimized. This includes all major newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, as well as the major networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. They are all taking the position that they must allegedly "educate" the public about tolerance, religious freedom, and the prevention of bigotry. They are refusing to publish any article in which the facts and the points of view of people who oppose the mosque are discussed in a rational fashion. (I have actually tested this with the New York Times for example. To show that they are open-minded, they will publish comments containing opinions and conclusions from people who oppose the mosque. But as soon as a comment contains devastating facts about Islam, they will censor that comment.)
I think that the reality is that the mainstream media is suffering from "Factophobia" about Islam, which they refuse to admit.
On top of the labels of "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" that are being applied, pressure is mounting from the government and military to not criticize Islam. Their arguments are that criticism of Islam in the United States makes it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members (I doubt that is true), and that it makes it harder for American soldiers to operate in Muslim countries (which is likely true to some extent).
The one thing that practically nobody talks about in full detail is the looming nuclear weapon threat from Iran. People are willing to admit that Iran is probably about one year away from developing a nuclear weapon, practically everybody argues against an attack on Iran, but nobody talks about the consequences when Iran has a nuclear weapon. What will happen almost certainly (and will be facilitated by the likely slow disintegration of Iraq as American forces decrease military activity) is that Iran will engage in more provocative and threatening rhetoric against the United States after it has a nuclear weapon. Right now, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated, we can be almost 100% certain that it was the work of rogue officers in the Pakistani military. This reality keeps Pakistani weapons under control. After Iran gets a bomb, and after Iranians begin making threatening comments, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated it will be very difficult to determine quickly whether it was Pakistani or Iranian. (The problem will be much worse if three Islamic countries have the bomb.) The US military will be morally paralyzed because it will not know who to retaliate against.
Because of the likely vociferous Iranian threat, and because of the irrational (and practically suicidal) state of mind of many military and government people in the Islamic countries, Americans will be under great pressure from the media and from government officials to avoid criticizing Islam for fear of provoking attack by a smuggled nuclear weapon or a smuggled dirty bomb.
Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, if there is not sufficiently effective opposition, the mosque supporters may actually be starting their construction work in one year. By that time, it may be too late to prevent the mosque from being built.
All of this means that we may have a window of only about one year in which to have a thorough public discussion about what Islam actually is. And I very much doubt that within the next year it will be possible to organize another large rally regarding the Ground Zero mosque, given that commemoration of September 11 is one of the important factors contributing to this rally.
Finally, to my knowledge there has never been a public demonstration recorded on camera in human history in which the basic facts of the incitement to violence in Islamic religious doctrine were on public display in the form of large banners. (Mr. Spencer can correct me if I am wrong.) Those of you who choose to make your voices heard may be doing something that has never been done before. To all such people, I say:
Make some history on September 11, 2010.
"The attack on the cab driver was heinous, whatever the real allegiances and perspectives of the attacker."
True.
Unless of course the cabbie himself was complicit. Not saying he was, just wondering....
In other words, they're using one incident in which no Muslims will be harmed; one in which an employee of a group that supports the Ground Zero mosque attacked a Muslim cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim; and one case of arson that has no suspects and comes after a good number of anti-Muslim hate crimes that turned out to have been faked by Muslims.
In a better world, senators would be publicly questioning the intentions of ABC in this matter, and calling for the FCC to review the network's license.
But we don't live in a better world, or even a rational world. We live in a time when the Feds sue a state for having the temerity to enforce a law the Feds refuse to enforce, even though they're sworn to enforce it.
That takes the cake, but ABC is in hot pursuit of the Feds' capacity for bullcrap.
The boys over at CBS, NBC and CNN must be burning with jealousy at this.
"If you want to have some fun with the media, and you don't mind spending a little extra money, you can carry such a banner with a factual quotation while wearing a burqa. (Make sure that bushy eyebrows and hairy arms are not showing if you are male.) The politically correct spineless mainstream media will be very afraid to criticize the fact that is expressed in your banner, since you will appear to be a devout Muslim. Nobody will be able to accuse you of being an Islamophobe. Meanwhile, members of the general public will get an accurate idea of what Islam truly is."
No... Don't do this...
This is just potential ammunition for the real propaganda artists in the MSM...
Infiltration is bad enough, don't give them a moral equivalent to base their disinformation missions on...
"It is a solemn day. It is not a day for inflammatory rhetoric.
Great post, Arthur. As you no doubt know what he's wary of is the MoveOn.org crowd coming in with Trojan Horse placards, thereby providing fodder our news entertainer elite needs to discredit the anti-GZM rally.
*** 92:10 ***
The skids are greased cuz the news entertainers -- with the partial exception of Fox News and the compplete exceptions of Rush Limbaugh and his competitors on conservative talk radio -- are only too happy to do the Moslems' bidding, at every turn and in any way possible.
This is a powerful tool for the Moslems. They hold a lotta cards, from the White House to the Congress to the state houses to K - 16 schools to the permanent gubmint to the board rooms and now fer Chrissakes even to the Pentagon.
A lotta weapons to enforce self-censorship, the most effective kind of all, and to intimidate with the 6th Pillar of Islam.
Mackie,
I dropped Dove Outreach Center a line a few minutes ago, enumerating the reasons that book burning is not such a good idea. I suppose the pastor will stop reading at the point where I opined that some might see their bonfire as superstitious and ignorant.
Arthur (and others),
With respect to all suggested well-reasoned articulate ideas to improve or alter the Rally: I believe I am not alone in confidently relying on Mr. Spencer and Mrs. Gellers well-considered planning and approach.
Further with genuine respect to all who post here (trolls excepted) I believe the approach will be a learning momemt for all. The focus is, and should be, on the presentations of the esteemed erudite brave speakers.
There's a reason Robert and Pamela requested that no signs be permitted. And with respect, Arthur, you vividly illustrate the reason for that request. Do you not think that you and your signs would be singled out by the MSM and splashed all over the media as examples of the "Islamophobia" label they are so anxious to tar us with? Every inflammatory sign you display could be used to nullify the effects of potentially hundreds of other equally earnest demonstrators who choose to respect the solemnity of the occasion according to the request made by Robert and Pamela.
This is not just about you, Arthur. It is about all of us. It would be good to resist the temptation to push yourself front and center and respect the requests of the organizers. There will be other occasions when signs are appropriate.
The lickspittle media are the true sufferers from Islamophobia.
They are so afraid of Islamic reprisals that they dare not do their job and fearlessly examine the ideology and bloodsoaked historical record of this imperialistic, intolerant, theocratically-tyrannical movement.
They pre-censor themselves concerning Islam because they are terrified of a jihadi's bomb or bullet or butcher knife.
The MSM are the true Islamophobes.
Those who honestly examine and criticize Islam's hermaneutical flaws and delusional lunacies and terroristic impulses are not Islamophobes, but Truthophiles.
Wouldn't it be best if Spencer handled the job of communicating the facts about Islamic doctrine to everyone?
The mainstream media just itches to find signs and banners that they can use to paint the masses with a broad, negative, inaccurate brush.
They are worms, sneaks, cowards, and liars who think that if they stroke the crocodile, they'll be eaten last.
Simply, they cannot be trusted.
It is vital that they are provided with nothing to use against the vast majority in this country.
This rally has got to go off without a hitch, for the good of the nation, not the satisfaction of a handful.
The causal diagram for this scenario looks like this:
Anti-non-Muslim rhetoric in sermons throughout the Muslim world continuously every Friday for the last 14 centuries --> violence inspired by Islamic ideology --> rhetoric fueling anti-Islam violence.
Hey Arthur, don't you think it's pretty nervy to be using Robert's forum to instruct people to do the exact opposite of what he wants? ....No, I guess not.
And why do you remind me of a particularly annoying know-it-all troll called A.E.Moiera over at Atlas.He tried to instigate some serious actions that would have completely delegitimized the protest.
Here's a thought, why don't you put your energy into arranging another mosque protest, on a different date, where you can dictate the details?
@Eastview:
I don't think factual signs can be labeled as "Islamophobia."
Facts have to affirmed, investigated, or argued.
I think purely rhetorical signs can be labeled "Islamophobia," such as "All Muslims are pigs!"
If there is no assertion of these facts at the rally, even by Mr. Spencer and Mr. Wilders, then the rally will be a total dud. I will be embarrassed, and I and others will see it as attention-seeking dhimmitude. (It doesn't matter that the excuse is "appropriateness." The MSM always have excuses such as not being too inflammatory, not selectively quoting Islamic sources, we don't have enough time to get into that, etc.)
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PROPHET OF ISLAM HAS EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC AS THE ONE WHO INCITED THE KILLINGS.
If there is an assertion of these facts in the speeches at the rally, the accurate signs in the audience will simply show that the speakers have a lot of support.
Why should only a few voices be heard, and why should everybody else look like sheep?
One more point:
If factual signs are discouraged, then the only anti-Mosque signs will come from people who are not aware of or are not following Mr. Spencer's suggestions, or signs by people planted by the pro-Muslim group. (These may be genocidal or racist signs.)
Those few blatantly bigoted signs will then be ALL that the media have to focus on, and all that will be used to paint the entire rally.
I would really like Mr. Spencer to think hard about my points. Unless Mr. Spencer is confident that he can control all of the thousands who will attend, I think my ideas are superior to his on this issue.
I think a logical response, rather than a command or a declaration, would be appropriate.
Thinking people quickly lose respect for commands that do not have good reasons behind them.
dear arthur,
first, allow me to sincerely congratulate you for your factual accuracy and eloquence. while i agree with the end result you are trying to achieve, i must agree with 'eastview', 'what?' and others, whose views are supportive of mr spencer's and ms. geller's request of "no signs, just flags"
trusting either of them, or mr wilders to make a speech that will open the eyes of the ignorant, will be factual, and could be labeled as inflamatory, not even by the most ardent koranophile msm 'reporters' (spit!...)
wih no disrespect meant whatsoever, i believe that while some of us may know our islam facts cold, suffice it, for the 'reporters' to pick on someone who cannot fire right back in an eloquent and quiet confidence manner, that they will use 'joe-the-banner-carrier' over and over as an example of a person that is inciting for hate.
given a proper forum, i believe you would do a fantastic job to show the scumbag masquerading as a journalist what a lowlife appeaser p.o.s. he/she really is and maybe even educate him/her in the process, but since we are talking about a random event we must think in terms of probability, and to fight for the greater cause. your moment to shine will still come arthur, i'm sure!
typo!
"trusting either of them, or mr wilders to make a speech that will open the eyes of the ignorant, will be factual, and could be labeled as inflamatory.."
should have been "...will be factual, and COULD NOT be labeled as inflamatory..."
sorry for this .
Arthur,
You just won't knock this crap off, will you?
Get over yourself, Arthur; this is not about you or your self-anointed "superiority." Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller have planned, financed and perspired to make this happen. It's their "skin" in this, not yours. But in your arrogance, you use Mr. Spencer's forum to urge disrespect for his wishes? That's hitting below the belt, Arthur.
How about at least trying to break free from your self-aggrandizing "Arthur knows best" bubble JUST ONCE and honor the wishes of those
who've taken the ball and run with it on this mosque-business from day-one?
And, BTW, as a symbol of freedom and hope, the American flag is unassailable.
I'll say it again: Go start your own movement if you have all the answers. Meanwhile, how about supporting the folks DOING THE WORK NOW? Can your highness comprehend that concept?
@neil:
Now that is a good and thoughtful reason to support Mr. Spencer's opinion.
But couldn't the reporters just as well pick some random uninformed person to interview if they wanted to show bigotry? (This is the standard tactic that media people use if they want to take an irrational position.) In other words, whether or not the person is carrying a banner would not make that much difference if the person is poorly informed and on camera.
Finally, another thoughtful and analytical person who agrees with me!
This is a posting from the website AtlasShrugs in response to my posting. Note his logic (P.S. it wasn't me using a different name):
Egghead said...
Pamela and Robert, I greatly appreciate all of the great work that you do. You are absolutely amazing. Hats off to both of you!
I realize that you and Robert are PERSONALLY in a difficult situation with the issue of rally signs. I realize that if agitators appear with "unfortunate" signs, you two will be held responsible by the press and Muslim organizations because you are the rally organizers. I realize that you two and your various organizations and donors are financially subsidizing the rally so you feel as if you have a right to make reasonable requests of rally attendees.
However, I believe that you should seriously re-consider your prohibition of rally signs for the following reasons:
1. Prohibiting signs essentially imposes soft Sharia Law upon rally attendees. Sharia Law considers any criticism of Islam to be blasphemy with an attendant ummah-wide death sentence. If you prohibit signs, you are acting in accordance with Islam's blasphemy laws.
2. Prohibiting signs is NOT going to keep agitators from appearing with "unfortunate" signs, but it will prevent rally attendees from expressing an articulated point of view. Although you live where it is convenient for you to attend multiple rallies (some of which may allow signs), many attendees will only be able to attend this specific rally.
3. As some lawyer probably told you by now, confiscating signs is probably illegal. If rally attendees are standing on a public street corner, they may hold any signs that they like. Isn't that the point of the First Amendment?
4. As important as respect for the 9-11 families may be, respect and ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the over 270 million non-Muslims violently murdered victims of Islam is even more important - and RECOGNITION of current foreign non-Muslim victims of dhimmitude is even more important. The best signs from your June rally were the signs that showed the various non-Muslim genocides being conducted TODAY in the name of Islam.
Also crucial is ACKNOWLEDGMENT that the majority of Muslim girls worldwide are victims of female genital mutilation - and ACKNOWLEDGMENT that 51 million child brides are enslaved in loveless forced marriages - mostly in Islamic countries - and ACKNOWLEDGMENT that Sharia Law refuses to accept any women's testimony in the matters of rape and child molestation.
I believe that you need to ask yourself: What is the purpose of the 9-11 rally?
You have stated that the purpose is to mourn. I disagree.
I believe that the purpose MUST be: To inform non-Muslims about the seriousness of the Muslim threat to establish a worldwide caliphate ruled by Sharia Law.
As sad as it is, the dead are too late to be saved from Islam - and may be remembered but NOT helped.
BUT, the living are here and MUST be warned of the suffering imposed by Islam and Sharia Law.
My sincere advice to you is for you to ask rally attendees to submit their ideas for signs and sign slogans for pre-approval by you. You could even publish sample sign slogans on your websites. You could even choose specific areas for educational focus such as past and present Islamic genocides of non-Muslims and Islamic abuse of women and children.
If "unfortunate" signs appear at the rally, you can say that those signs were NOT pre-approved by you.
I believe that your commenter Arthur is correct, and the window of opportunity is fast closing on any chance for legitimate public education and criticism of Islam. This highly publicized rally may be one of the last chances for large scale public education before the Muslim-dominated United Nations adopts Islamic anti-blasphemy laws that will affect us all - especially anti-Islam bloggers.
Re. signs.
This rally is not the first, last and only rally against the GZ mosque (or, for that matter, against any other mega-mosque) that will be held.
I think another rally might profitably be held on the three days that comprise All Hallows' Eve, All Saints' Day (plenty of Christian - and Jewish -martyrs butchered by Islam, past and present, to commemorate!), and All Souls' Day, the Day of the Dead, which is the perfect day on which to draw attention to Islam's murderous doctrines and its mass-murdering habits both historic and contemporary.
And there is nothing to stop the likes of Arthur taking what he proposed to put on banners, and putting it on posters and fliers and leaflets instead, and stuffing these into their pockets, and then making like Johnny Appleseed, as they wend their way to the rally, and as they wend their way homeward after.
Pop a few juicy samples of Islam's Texts of Terror into the letterboxes of, inter alia, St Paul's Chapel, St Peter's Catholic Church, and the chapel of St Joseph the Worker; or just slip quietly into the church, sit in the pew, light a candle, and...when you leave, accidentally on purpose, leave your nicely-printed-and-got-up leaflet behind, for the curious to pick up and, mayhap, peruse. The same might be done in a New York cafe after the rally is over: buy your coffee, flip through one of the glossy magazines provided for the diversion of customers and...tuck into said magazine, before you depart, your little slip of paper with an elegantly-printed Quran verse and a sentence of explanation and warning.
Those who are open critics of Islam are already under the threat of death, but even that has not been enough to shut them up, so calling them bigots will not shut them up.
That's a very good point! Why would an 'islamophobic bigot' risk his life to criticize islam? Bigots tend to be rather shallow, ignorant people, not tireless activists devoted to truth, justice, and freedom. If death threats don't intimidate, name calling certainly won't.
The MSM know they are losing the battle to brainwash the American people into believing that islam is a harmless, peaceful religion so they have shifted from bombastic, condescending mode to hysterical liberal mode. They flood the airways with their biased 'facts' day in and day out but the ignorant masses aren't buying it. They blame Fox News, their sole competitor, but Fox is not to blame. The truth is obvious to everyone but them!
Cognitive dissonance cannot be ignored forever except by certain people who refuse to believe anything that does not correspond with their relativistic ideals and fantasy version of reality. These useful idiots for islam are quite similar to muslims; both are group thinkers and ideologues.
Good informative leaflets are available from 1. The Australian Islamist Monitor, an excellent Aussie-based website, and care of 2. the Citizen Warrior website.
Here's the leaflet the Australian Islamist Monitor folks have produced and made available as a PDF all ready to print as many as you want:
http://www.islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/aimbrochure.pdf
Just stick some nice glossy paper in your printer, and you're all set. There are some Australian references in the wording, as it was originally intended for Australian readers; but nothing that detracts from its general usefulness.
And here's the Citizen Warrior site, the page that provides links for leaflets:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/02/liberty-vs-sharia-pdf-flyers.html
Fill your pockets and/ or handbag and - using your discretion and imagination - sow them far and wide.
The Barnabas Fund puts out an excellent and truthful little 10-page (five leaves) pamphlet about Sharia. You will find it on this page of their website:
https://barnabasfund.org/AU/BooksResources/Free-print-media-resources/?&page=barnabasbooks&first=no&pages=all
For a trifling sum (less than one American dollar) you can obtain a glossy, professionally-produced pamphlet to keep in your handbag or briefcase, or at your desk, to help you inform anyone with whom you get into conversation on the subject of Islam.
It is completely accurate and does not gloss over the threat that sharia poses to religious and political freedom in non-Muslim countries.
(I just got 3 copies: one for myself, one for my church's parish library, and one 'for whom it may concern').
Arthur thinks he's in a power struggle with Robert, I wonder who'll win?
arthur, despite your 'name', trust me when I tell you that the knights are gathering at Robert's round table, not yours. Believe you me. Common sense seems to be elluding your highlyprogrammed faculties of comprehension. Nothing a good slap-and-toe-up-the-posterior wouldn't solve, I'll warrant.
Of course it is the free societies that must consider the unintended consequences of offending Islam. So we have an appeal from General Patreaus for the "Dove" church in Gainesville to stop their exercise of rights because of the threats to our military personnel in Afghanistan. My first thought was of my soldier in Iraq and state dept cousin in Afghanistan. My second was that every fall Saturday in Gainesville for home games there are 92,000 football fans cheering the Gators, including me, win or lose, at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium on the campus of the University of Florida. That is one huge target.
And frankly, if we are to fight this tyranny that is Islam we must go on exercising our rights as free people. I can think of at least a dozen protests Dove could make that would not "offend" the Muslims quite as much as burning that despicable book and yet make their point of how evil they believe Islam is. But that is their right. But I wouldn't do it. It is provocative. Just as so many of us find the Muslim effort to build a mosque within steps of Ground Zero a totally insensitive and provocative idea.
Our rights are fundamental, but we do need to be smart about exercising them over barbarians. Muslims don't care about how many of their own they kill, they can and do justify anything. We do care about every single individual, that is one part of the Judeo-Christian message that sets us so far apart, and so superior to Islam.
gee, yes.
The AP is aiding the global jihad in declaring "defensive" jihad, as required under Sharia law (of being in defense of Islam, Muslims, Muslim honor, all things Islamic).