Debate tonight: Is Islam Inherently Violent? -- Eric Allen Bell vs. Nadir Ahmed

They don't call him "Nadir" for nothing.

Sounds like a win for non-Muslims already. If Bell dominates, it will be victory of a novice seeker of truth about Islam over a veteran Muslim liar, and if Bell stumbles, its, well, because he's a neophyte fighting a monster of Islam.

Just keep in mind the old axiom:
Beware of arguing with idiots, they can only bring you down to their idiotic level (as they cannot rise to yours), where they beat you with their experience at being an idiot.

Cannot wait for this debate! Go Eric!

Sounds like a win for non-Muslims already. If Bell dominates, it will be victory of a novice seeker of truth about Islam over a veteran Muslim liar, and if Bell stumbles, its, well, because he's a neophyte fighting a monster of Islam.

Just keep in mind the old axiom:
Beware of arguing with idiots, they can only bring you down to their idiotic level (as they cannot rise to yours), where they beat you with their experience at being an idiot.

Sounds interesting. .hope I can get a signal to the J.G show, and tune-in.

You cannot debate with someone that doesn't/can't debate. Debates are done with rhetoric and dialectic, these pahtological vile scumbags and dolts only spew the most basic ad hominems left and right.

If he really wants to go to that psycho sabbat then tell him that he should stick to showing MEMRI videos, those speak for themselves. Oh and also he should show statistics about persecution, threats, rapes, kidnappings, assault, battery, aggravated battery, mass murder, genocide... etc of non-muslims by muslims in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Balkans, Europe... etc. those also speak for themselves.

Honestly there is nothing to debate. My experience has been that Muslims, after few minutes, get angry and start calling you ignorant, know-nothing, racist, stupid and start threatening to beat you up. It is because they are not trained to have a civil discussion ever, also they really do not have much to stand on. If you say Mohammed was pedophile, they say it is a lie. If you say Mohammed killed others or ordered to kill others they say it was self defense. If you say the "Prophet" had 10 or 12 wives in addition to slave girls for sex, they say he was trying to help them as they did not have anyone to take care of them (because Mohammed killed them?) The only thing to be gained from public debates with Muslims is the hope that a lot of people watch it and (maybe) they see that ISLAM is not a RELIGION OF PEACE, IF RELIGION AT ALL. Only way we can keep our freedom is ISLAM is totally DEFEATED for good.

Oh, even after 1400 years record of terrorism, genocide, murder, rape, killing, looting, and invading people still want to debate if Islam is inherently violent?? Good question, and if you don't know the answer by now you will never know it!!

Islam is inherently violent!! Case closed!!

Just to remind, more than 350 million non-Muslims murdered worldwide by Muslims including 60 to 100 million Hindus and Buddhists in India alone during the last 1400 years. Only the religion of peace can accomplish this record.

@Jaladhi

Second that.

This is just plain ridiculous, like debating the holocaust/holocaust deniers. What for?. The reality and the facts are that Islam is sistematically and consistently the most intolerant, bigoted, violent, autoritarian, oppressive, racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, homophobic.. etc. ideology on earth, alongside socialism(comunism, nazism and fascism).

Are they going to debate the hatred and violence of socialist regimes too? c'mon, why waste time and saliva...

I hope EAB is aware that he is going to debate an illogical, tap-dancing, beating around the bush, obfuscating, threatening, islamic supremacist who is not interested in the truth.

I suggest he spend the time before the debate with a spoiled rotten 4 year old with a psychotic streak and social inadequacies just for a warm up.

Actually it's not possible to debate with a religious supremacist...They start out knowing for a fact you are wrong, and even if you prove you are right, you are still wrong...Look how many times Robert has proved Islamic debaters wrong, and they still claim he is wrong...I'm going to watch this for entertainment purposes, I'm sure it will be entertaining...

It will be interesting to see how Bell, who is a semi-Equivalencist and semi-Ego-Quoquist (at least now -- in his Daily Kos-cum-Michael Moore days not too long ago, he was a flaming Equivalencist and Ego Quoquist), will handle the likely Tu Quoque tack Nadir will take.

I.e., something along the lines of:

"Yes, Nadir, I agree with you that Christianity throughout most of its history, and Judaism (as reflected in the Old Testament and in the oppressive apartheid regime of Israel) are also violent, but Islam is [fill in qualifier of degree here] more violent."

To fill in the blank, will Bell choose "slightly"? Or the slightly stronger "somewhat"? Or perhaps he will be feeling in more of an anti-Islamic mood tonight and go for the bolder "significantly"...?

As far as I'm concerned, the only qualifiers qualified to fit in that blank are "astronomically" or "monstrously" or "screamingly" or "a gazillion jillion vigintillion times".

Who's with the Hesperado Gang on this one, eh....?

I had a debate with Nadir on a similar topic. Things didn't go well for him. You can watch the debate here:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/09/nadir-ahmed-vs-david-wood-does-islam.html

The debate will of course be futile as to convincing the opponent but observers really do learn slot from open debate. If all it does is expose the petulance of the opponent it is worth it.

"Is Islam Inherently Violent?"

The Quran is an inherent part of Islam, and it contains violent commands to be carried out by Muslims in response to not only violent actions but also to non-violent actions. I suppose if a system contains commands for followers to carry out violence in response to purely non-violent circumstances that don't warrant a violent response, then the system is inherently violent, rather than just responsively violent to other violence. Example:

24:2 "(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement."

There are of course many verses in the Quran that command violence, including murderous violence. Islam apologists however will claim that all of the commands for violence, were somehow warranted by violent, treacherous, or seriously threatening behaviour of the non-Muslims. Because the Quran is often a vague and incomplete text, Islam apologists can use this to their advantage. But verse 24:2 is useful to cite when debating in front of western non-Muslim audiences, because it is immediately obvious to the vast majority of them that whipping someone with 100 stripes, and to do so "without pity/mercy/compassion," as a punishment is an act of violence and torture that is not at all warranted by the alleged "sinful" behaviour--which thankfully in the modern West most people do not view as sinful at all (if it is interpreted as fornication, i.e., premarital sex between consenting young adults, which is the main interpretation of zina in that verse).

That, of course, will not stop some apologists from claiming that whipping with 100 stripes without mercy actually means tickle them gently with palm leaves 100 times. (Similar apologetics are attempted for 4:34, which orders Muslim husbands to beat their wives from whom they fear disobedience). But this is obviously a silly interpretation, and the apologist would be foolish to attempt it.

Hence I find 24:2 to be a useful example to illustrate that Islam is not merely violent but inherently so.

There are other examples of a violent response to non-violent behaviour. Allah punishing the disbelievers in the world and the hereafter by burning and torturing them and and so on, because of their mere disbelief in Islam--which is viewed as the worst crime according to the Quran--also shows inherent unwarranted violence. However, it is of less direct practical importance, at least as can be shown in the limitations of most debates, than a direct command for Muslims to carry out violence in response to non-violent harmless actions.

A full argument of course would not limit itself to 24:2. I merely cite it as an example that has many of the ingredients that are desirable for short debates where one wants to limit the range of available apologetics. It is helpful in some cases to have at least one example that does not rely significantly on the Hadith, which apologists often pretend to reject in front of non-Muslim audiences. It is also a useful fallback if the apologist rejects the penalty of stoning for adultery, claiming that they don't follow those hadiths, or that they only follow the Quran, etc.

Taking a broader range of Islamic commands, drawing on Quran, Hadith, and Islamic law, the following may be considered as inherently violent, insofar as they are violent actions in relation to non-violent conditions, actions, and expressions:

1. The main jihad policy to fight the unbelievers if they merely refuse to embrace Islam or accept the dhimma and Islamic law being imposed upon them. Muslims are commanded to carry out the jihad fighting until "The Last Day", i.e., as long as there are non-Muslims out there who don't accept the call to embrace Islam and who won't accept sharia.
2. Killing people for mere expression of apostasy.
3. Killing people for merely criticizing Islam/Muhammad.
4. Killing people for trying to peacefully persuade Muslims to convert out of Islam.
5. Killing people for trying to modify Islam.
6. Killing people for adultery.
7. Killing people for homosexuality.
8. Killing people for "witchcraft/sorcery".
9. Killing a Muslim woman and non-Muslim man if they have a consensual relationship.
10. Permitting Muslim men to rape non-Muslim female captives, wives, and young girls.
11. Permitting Muslim men to beat their wives, slave girls, and children.

Islam is not inherently violent. It is hopelessly and irretrievably violent, because one can refuse an inheritance.

When Tarek Fatah went up against the CAIR-canada rep on a CTV interview about the ground-0 Victory Mosque, the CAIR weasel kept side-stepping the question to admit that CAIR and Dr.Sheema Khan tried to impose the homophobic/misogynistic/pedophilia Shariah law on candian soil until the Muslim women that fled Shariah had come forward in tears to beg the useful idiot leftist Government to never sanction murdering gays in public, flogging females, and condone men in their 50's marrying grils under 10 years old as Muhammad did and as Iran currently endorses.
CAIR has backed almost every Convicted Muslim Jihadist or potential Terrorist as being "Innocent until proven gulty", except.....even when the Muslim pleads guilty to boast of his Jihad for allah, CAIR then claims they are NOT true muslims and misunderstand the peaceful teachings in the Quran and by their violent misogynistic prophet/warrior .

The Host got scared when the truth started to come out because the Saudi's are part owner of the TV network and have big Contracts with Bell canada that is in on the ownership too.
The best the mouthpiece could do is call Tarek a hate-filled islamophobe spreading lies, but CAIR never did deny they endorsed Shraih Law and still want it to rule in canada.

Asking if Islam is inherently violent is about as unnecessary as asking if the Pope is Catholic. The fact, though, that such a query must be posed is dispositive of just how silly are the times in which we live. The Age of Nonsense marches on.

Let's hope this exceedingly foolish Age closes soon and is followed by a wiser Age. If so, it will necessitate that those twin idiocies, Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, developed and embraced by the modern Western Left and meekly accepted by too many on the Right, become dead and gone once and for all. Just as Islam can never be reformed, so can the West never be right again as long as PC/MC still hangs around. Bank on it (with interest, so as to extra annoy the Muzzies).

I'm looking forward to this. "Honor Killings in Islam" with David Wood, C.L. Edwards, Darwin Jiles, and Pamela Geller was quite informative.

On the subject of allowing Muslims to build mosques, I hope to learn that Eric's "awakening" has brought him closer to the threshold of reality--if not helped him cross it--and that he is, now, dead set against the idea.

I can only hope.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

Im listening to it right now and its a shi* show. Eric cant get a word in edge-wise.

This was not even a debate much less "The geat debate on Islam". Spencer should not have even showed up and Jamie should not been moderator. Bell's opening comments where stellar indeed, and I was looking forward to seeing a newbie counter-jihadist stomp a black hole in Nadir's butt, but Spencer and Glazov got in the way and both should have stood down and shutted the hell up. It was a waste of my damn time.

I listened to the whole thing. Eric made some good points in the late rounds but this Nadir character, showed anything but, in the alloted time.

As a summary, it was a false tu quoque argument against Christianity, with a whole lot of Palestine and the Israeli Jews are evil sort of stuff.

Muslim textbook obfuscation. It certainly didn't sway a single non-Muslim mind, unless one was thinking of "reverting", for whatever suicidal or homicidal reason.

Nadir actusally made the statement that "Christian terrorism", laughable on it's face in and of itself, is actually more concerning than Muslim terrorism.

Apparently someone not named Ahmed, somewhere in the world might be in agreement, though I am still skeptical.

Spencer of course, was unflappable in the very limited time he was afforded to respond, swimming in a sea of a Muslim liar and an anti-jihad novice, moderator aside.

Hmm, I only listened to a minute of the debate, but I was curious what any response members had to Nadir's challenge to show where Islamic scripture (I believe he said something else) calls for fighting against unbelievers because they are unbelievers.

Nadir seems to take a peculiar interpretation of a certain hadith - he cited the same hadith debating David Wood, claiming it didn't actually call for warfare against all unbeliers - and also argued other ahadith were simply parallel sayings of the one he quoted.

Alright I've just finished listening to the show. For those who didn't hear it, I will say that this show was extremely chaotic, with too many voices drowning each other out. Jamie moderated, and besides Eric and Nadir, Robert was invited to comment on various parts. Naturally, some verbal scraps broke out, and the whole thing got out of hand.

One thing that did emerge, though, was that Nadir acknowledged that Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine years old, but Nadir claimed that the sex was consensual. This is enough to expose Nadir's perversity to highlight that he does not think that constituted rape. (And rape of a nine-year-old does, as was pointed out to Nadir, constitute violence, thus making it relevant to the debate topic).

Besides engaging in a lot of tu quoque and starting a lot of rhetorical fires, Nadir tried to put a subtopic on the agenda, namely, Does Islam, specifically the Islamic scripture (which in his view would include the Quran and Hadith), teach violence against unbelievers because they are unbelievers?

Eric did eventually cite a couple of hadiths in response, one of which did answer the challenge directly.

The most direct answer I would have given (including some reiteration of what I wrote above in previous post):
1. Jihad warfare to fight the unbelievers if they refuse to embrace Islam or refuse to live under the dhimma/ Islamic law as prescribed for non-Muslims(which denies them the ability to be non-believers).
2. Death penalty for apostasy, and war against apostates.
3. Death penalty for blasphemy (i.e., expressing oneself as an unbeliever).

All of these are based to varying extents on the Quran and each is spelled out fairly explicitly in the Hadith. The fact that these policies were established in Islamic law shows that Muslims themselves came to this same conclusion

Does Islam, specifically the Islamic scripture (which in his view would include the Quran and Hadith), teach violence against unbelievers because they are unbelievers?

I never understand why Western Muslims divorce Islam's interpretive tradition from their interpretation of Islam.

Citing Muslim scholars to confirm how Islam is actually interpreted and practiced is the fairest and most accurate way to gauge Muslim belief.

Nadir Ahmed isn't arguing what Muslims believe, he's arguing what he personally believes as a Muslim. The Koran is only a book, like all holy scriptures; it's her believers who put her words to action.

I'm not quite sure I see how Eric Allen Bell is qualified to have a debate against any Muslim apologist. He's still cleaning the earwax of his Leftist swimming pool out of his ears, for God's sake.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

If a nine year old has consent then surely such nine year old has the freedom to refuse. Yet, isn't such refusal one of the prime excuses for disobedience killing. Inherently violent.

Who in the "Islamic" community will rise to the aid of a nine year old that refuses? Would the guest?

Is Islam Inherently Violent?

it would be like saying is the bible inherently violent.

It all depends how you interpret it.

Jesus accused the jewish leaders of not obeying the bible when the bible instructs to kill disobedient children:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A4-7&version=NIV

Liberal muslims will interpret that passage by saying that jesus was not ordering the death of disobedient children

but rather accusing jewish leaders of not obeying the law in general.

Radical muslims like Al-Qaeda ( a very tiny minority ) would interpret what Jesus said as an order to put to death, disobedient children.

"A couple years later, after spending time in Juvenile Hall, a mental hospital and then finding myself in a group home for troubled teenage boys, I started to have a bit of a revelation. " -Eric Allen Bell

Did you know that? I didn't know that.
It's not a secret, though.
He made a movie about his experience.

This is his MySpace page.

· Status: Single
· Here for: Networking, Dating, Serious Relationships, Friends
· Hometown: Fountain Valley, CA
· Orientation: Straight
· Body type: 5' 7" / Average
· Ethnicity: White / Caucasian
· Religion: Christian - other
· Zodiac Sign: Virgo
· Children: I don't want kids
· Occupation: Ward Of The Court
Schools
Fountain Valley High
· Fountain Valley, CA
· Graduated: N/A
· Major: I got arrested
· Minor: Sent to a school for fuck ups
· Clubs: Orange County Juvenile Hall, Units D and L
www.myspace.com/103312818

There is such a disconnect between how EAB sounds and what his background is, that I just have to share.

While his troubled youth, and lack of formal education may be surprising, it is his inability to answer questions honestly that I find alarming.

On the 3/07/12 edition of the Jamie Glazov show Eric Allen Bell denied having any New Age connections.

He never told us he branded his site as New Age.

"Global One TV: Online Spiritual Television for a New Age"

https://www.google.com/search?q=Global+One+TV%3A+Online+Spiritual+Television+for+a+New+Age&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Eric Allen Bell also denied endorsing Ramatha, but EAB likes the movie "What the Bleep" on his BellMedia Facebook page.

"What the Bleep" is a Ramtha movie.

The three people who made WTB are former students of Ramtha.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2005/05/17/betsy_chasse_what_the_bleep_interview.shtml

Their production company "Lord of the Wind" is named after one of Ramtha's books.
http://www.ramtha.com/html/community/teachings/enlightenment.pdf

The film's credits give special thanks to JZ Knight, who is Ramtha.

Over, and beyond this, Ramtha is in the movie. She/he/they appear several times; it is impossible to miss this.

Who/what is Ramtha? I'll let Roger Ebert tell you -

" Only after the movie was over did I learn from my wife, who is informed on such matters, that the sane woman who made perfect sense was in fact Ramtha -- or, more precisely Ramtha as channeled by the psychic JZ Knight, who would seem to be quite distinctive enough without leaving the periods out of her name. And who is Ramtha? From Cathleen Falsani, the religion writer of the Sun-Times, I learn that Ramtha is a 35,000-year-old mystical sage from the lost continent of Atlantis. "
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/REVIEWS/409100306/1023&template=printart

Knight brought suit against a woman from Berlin named Judith Ravell for disturbing Knight's psychic state and leaving her "hanging in spiritual limbo" during the five years Ravell claimed she was also channeling Ramtha. The case was brought to the supreme court in Vienna and lasted over five years, at the end of which Austria's supreme court awarded copyright to J.Z. Knight as the sole channelor of Ramtha, and Ravell was made to pay $800 in psychic damages to J.Z. Knight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Z._Knight#Court_cases http://www.rickross.com/reference/ramtha/ramtha16.html

And, EAB doesn't just like this film, he posts segments of it on his GlobaloneTV site.

Including this segment that is the interview with Dr. Joe Dispenza, a master teacher at Ramtha School of Enlightenment.
http://www.globalone.tv/video/i-create-my-day

He also gives special attention to another figure from WTB, Dr. Emoto.

Good ol' Dr. Emoto, his contribution to the world is his discovery that if you label one jar of water, "I Love You", and another jar of water "I Hate You", the one labeled "I Love You" will produce nice looking crystals. While the jar labeled "I Hate You" will produce ugly crystals.

Even Emoto does not say this is science.
"We have two eyes, why do need double blind?"
@6:56,
http://www.globalone.tv/video/masaru-emoto-water

Dr. Emoto is a scoundrel, but not without his charm. Here he is selling his mush to the Muslims, who appear to be eating it up, so I guess he can't be all bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpkFWd5bMhc

But, why would Eric Allen Bell call this science?
http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.globalone.tv/profiles/blogs/the-healing-power-of-water

The above link is especially interesting because it appears to show EAB likes to cast "spells" on people.

I also think it is worth pointing out that Eric Allen Bell's friends at the Institute of Noetic Science give credence to "What the Bleep", Ramtha, and Dr. Emoto.

Here is their study guide to the movie "What the Bleep".
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Bleep_Study_Guide.pdf

But, it isn't just that he is way too involved with the New Age pseudo science crowd .

EAB has also promoted "Loose Change", and this was just three weeks before he wrote his first piece for Daily Kos about Loonwatch.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88HI_GSm0WQJ:www.occupyamerica.tv/video/loose-change-final-cut-2007-full-length+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

He is still touting the anti-Jewish, Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche inspired "Zeitgeist" on his web pages.

Take it from me, Eric Allen Bell is different.

EAB here -

Larry, you are obsessed. You have contacted numerous individuals involved in Counter Jihad, by email, and bothered them with this misinformation.

As I have stated already, "Ramtha" is a kook. In no way do I agree with this snake oil saleswoman, endorse her, follow her, etc.

Global One TV, my site, is committed to an inquiry around the nature of consciousness. I get it that this is not your cup of tea. But why are you so threatened by having someone who is not "Brand X" involved with Counter Jihad? It's exactly this type of narrow-minded thinking that contributes to the movement being perceived as a club for Republican Christians only. You are not helping the cause of Liberty and Human Rights this way.

Counter Jihad, in order to succeed, must overcome a lot of hurdles, not the least of which are brain dead Liberals. That said, the movement really must be reframed as it is currently perceived as an Evangelical movement and a partisan movement.

In fact, Counter Jihad is about Liberty and Human Rights. So if I am not exactly your kind of person, can we look for commonality as we are all fighting on the same side when it comes to the very real threat of Islam?

Thanks,

Eric

Peter -

Islam and freedom cannot coexist. Eventually, it becomes a zero sum game.

Eric

I do agree with the comment below....idiots have no boundries.
We DO!
Becareful. Make your point, but do not allow secondary messages to seep in...

Just keep in mind the old axiom:
Beware of arguing with idiots, they can only bring you down to their idiotic level (as they cannot rise to yours), where they beat you with their experience at being an idiot.

A few observations on the debate and perhaps (if I may be so bold) some suggestions. When debating an imbecile it is always advisable to give him enough rope to hang himself.

After listening it occurred to me that Nadir spent a most of his time arguing that he was not allowed to speak and a greater amount of time pretending that he did not know who he was speaking to. This smarmy SOB tried to pretend he was being sane and rational by speaking in a “honey-dipped” tone and pleading (are you surprised?) “victimhood” when in fact he was morally and ethically bankrupt in his comments.

My point is that the moderator, Robert and to a lesser extent Eric gave this fool this defense simply by jumping in when he said anything outrageous (understandable because everything he said was beyond stupid).

However, in doing so they allowed this clown (in his oh so smooth and friendly use of the English language (gag!!)) to continue his transparent attempt to pretend that he had not been given an opportunity to explain islam. It allowed him to take the position that they were unwilling to listen to the “truth” (at least insofar as this moron was concerned). Most importantly it gave him the opportunity to divert the discussion and took his feet away from the fire – it is exactly what he wanted.

Those of us who have been around JW for a while know the hollowness of his arguments. It would have been far better to let him speak and truly lay his cards on the table and then decimate him in reply.

What he was saying was garbage and speaks for itself. A few well chosen words given after his mindless monologue would have simply made the man look like the astronomical fool he was.

Sometimes gentlemen less is more

Is islam VIOLENT? OF COURSE it is!

Is islam HATEFUL? OF COURSE it is!

Is islam DECITFUL – BEYOND ALL MEASURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jamie, you really need to improve your broadcasts. There was way too much interrupting and off topic jousting. The fact that Robert was brought in unannounced was tacky. Maybe you could use a bell or something to cut off the speaker. As the host I don't believe it was your position to question this apologist....it was up to Eric. Try to tighten things up. I'm sure you'll improve over time.

I have challenged the Pedophile Prophet Apologist, Nadir Ahmed, to a rematch and he is back peddling.

Lemon Lime -

"Bell's only credentials consist in the fact that for years he was a flaming Leftist who had an epiphany apparently a few months ago leading him to sorta kinda come to orient himself in the general vicinity of the direction of being against Islam -- while still retaining sufficient PC MC safeguards around that new orientation to buffer himself from taking any concrete, and concretely uncomfortable, positions against Muslims."

Clearly you have no idea how far I have stuck my neck out in the past few weeks, in the media, in my personal life, financially, professionally - all with consequences.

I don't get paid for this. I'm not seeking recognition. I'm fighting the same fight you are, perhaps not always the way you think I ought to. But how dare you diminish the amount of personal risk and sacrifice I have taken on in order to reverse my position and reach out to a lot of people to do the same.

Best to get your facts straight before making sweeping comments which have no basis in reality.

Eric

By definition you can't have a rational discussion about the transcendent and moral aspects of religion unless both parties agree that the foundation for the discussion is rational philosophy. That is conceptual logic.

So don't be surprised if such a discussion reveals no new knowledge, is chaotic and basically a waste of your time.

As a theologian Robert Spencer of course knows this, and that is why he should have stayed away from this nonsense. Spencer's gift is his ability to document less well known and possibly inconvenient aspects of Islam from original sources that became dogma by acceptance of the leading schools of jurisprudence.

When undecided listeners can hear from themselves, a Muslim scholar try to defend "consensual pedophilia" they are shocked.

They aren't so shocked when they hear it from us. And that is why a debate is always a good idea. It provide evidence.

@ Peter

You wrote: 'are you saying there are no secular muslim countries?'

Correct! There are no secular Muslim countries! There are only secular countries where Muslims are trying to turn them into Islamic theocracies.

Secularism is anathema to Islam! Everyone knows that, you clown! Especially Muslims!

I apologize for my numerous typos. Nap time.

Eric should quit while he is ahead.

Here you can see him denying he supports Ramtha, and yet all of his actions are otherwise; he promotes "What the Bleep" , he promotes individuals that appear in the movie, he shares their point of view, and when asked about this, he denies it.

If you are promoting "What the Bleep" you are promoting Ramtha, and you are definitely New Age. Why lie about this? What is he selling?

I'm sorry if I am breaking anyone's toy, but no one is vetting him, and I am telling you, he is not ready for prime time.

Eric Allen Bell and the Law of Attraction

http://www.globalone.tv/group/lawofattractiontv

More New Age pseudo science quantum flapdoodle from EAB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction

You will notice that Eric does not deal with the substance of what I am saying.

I have shown to you that he promotes "What the Bleep", he promotes people who appear in that movie, he supports Ramtha, and her message, that is, you can create your own reality.

There is no way of spinning this.

There are many other examples of his affinity with the New Age. Why is he lying about this?

What is it about "What the Bleep" that he likes, or, for that matter "Loose Change", and "Zeitgeist"?

He has also called OWS a spiritual movement, and has described "Remote Viewing" as spiritual.

Eric Allen Bell lies, and that's the truth.

The title of this thread concerns Eric Allen Bell. I myself do not know what he is doing here, but here he is none the less.

The difference between how he presents himself, and who he is so stark that it may sound "mean" to bring it up, but it is the truth.

We are still waiting to hear what it is he likes about "What the Bleep". I am interested in the answer to that question because I think WTB is a complete scam.

I don't understand what he is saying; he supports "What the Bleep", but not Ramtha. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.

Why don't we see him saying anything like that at Globalone?

"An excerpt from Dr. Joe Dispenza's interview from "What the Bleep Do We Know" on creating my day and setting intention. If you want to know more or understand fully what he is talking about I suggest you watch the film "What The Bleep do We Know." - Eric Allen Bell .

Do you see any qualifications here? Any warnings about Ramtha?

Joe Dispenza is a master teacher at Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

How could he not know "What the Bleep" is about Ramtha?

You tell me what's going on.

From one of the more recent stories on the French Muslim mass-murderer:

“He isn’t the big bearded guy that you can imagine, you know the cliche,” said Kamal, who declined to give his family name. “When you know a person well you just can’t believe they could have done something like this.”...

Another "decent fellow."

_______________

Eric Allen Bell precisely and explicitly promotes the idea of trusting the majority of Muslims. I'd like someone to explain to me how that is good for the anti-Islam movement. But I won't hold my breath for an adequate explanation.

The typical multiparagraph propaganda characteristic of lyingengine's JW postings where reduced to four letters upon Andrew Breritbarts recent passing:

oh no.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/andrew-breitbart-has-died.html

With the capacity and ability to reach the multitudes via documentary film you share with Andrew Breibart, it is easy to see why the likes of lyingengine would like to antagonize your efforts to unmask their not so moderate, acceptance of the raping 9 year old's to use as an example.
The obvious disdain and contempt he holds for you masks a certain fear and hate stemming from your copyrighted questionnaire wich easily uncovers the nakedness of even a "moderate muslim" who is unable to accept that who he belives in, emulates and adores is clearly a very, very sick and demented murderer.

easily uncovers the nakedness of even a "moderate muslim" shame..
meant to type

Okay, I'm going to address this issue of "What The Bleep".

That is a documentary film and one which I highly recommend. It presents a broad spectrum of questions regarding the nature of consciousness and how new discoveries in the field of Quantum Physics are possibly creating a new science - a science of consciousness.

In this interesting and often entertaining documentary, interviews range from well respected scientists to some of the more nutty new agers and their ideas about "manifesting". This movie came out before the book, "The Secret". Which, by the way, I feel that "The Secret" is mostly bullshit.

What particularly interests me about this dialogue between mysticism and science is this: For the longest time I have wondered, "Does the mind exist in time or does time exist in the mind?" Many people I've known thought that the very question itself seemed like a waste of time, like splitting hairs, but it interests me nonetheless.

This "new science of consciousness" says that the answer to this question would be "Neither. Both time and the mind exist inside of non-local consciousness". Interestingly enough, the filed of Quantum Physics is grappling with this question and finding that this can neither be proven nor dis-proven.

Roughly 2,500 years ago came a book called the "Tao Te Ching". This is the principal text in Taoism. In it, Lao Tsu says that "Everything and nothing are the same thing, only called by different names". In other words, what science is just starting to possibly figure out, sages might have known for a very long time, without the use of any fancy equipment - rather by quieting the mind and looking inward.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here that this is valid or true, merely stating my own interest in the proposition.

I do feel, intuitively, that non-local consciousness is the ground of all being. I cannot prove it. I have no evidence except that when I meditate, this seems self evident to me. I am not asking anyone to accept this.

That said, my site, www.GlobalOne.TV is devoted to an inquiry around the nature of consciousness. In the past 2 years I have had 24 million visitors. Global One TV is one of the most popular websites/blogs for alternative spirituality and it is a passion of mine.

I have nothing to hide. I don't like the word "new age" because to me that implies a lot of superstitious wishful thinking. But it is no big secret that I am very interested in studying consciousness, that I feel strongly that the Vedas (certain ancient Indian teachings) may have figured out important aspects of understanding who and what we are and that science is just now catching up. More to be revealed, no doubt.

I hope this clears up the conspiracy theory that I am a secret New Ager. I wonder if next Larry will demand I show my birth certificate ;)

Peace,

Eric

You will notice Eric completely side stepped Ramtha.

"What the Bleep " is a scam, and a warning sign.

livingengine,

Perhaps you are not as concerned as I am by the extent to which someone (particularly someone to any degree influential) is anti-Islam and anti-Muslim, but your issue here with Bell made me think of a question to ask you: Assuming everything you say about Bell is accurate and if the worst conclusions can be drawn therefrom, would you forgive them all if -- Bell's position were actually anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rather than some pale decaffeinated version of same (however robustly it may be marketed as being)?

I know I would.

Bell wrote:

"Thankfully, most Muslims are not devout."

What's "most" of 1.3 billion? At least something like 600-700 million people spread out all over the world in 70+ countries.

Bell can't possibly know what he is claiming to know (unless he has a mind-reading machine). That kind of unfounded -- and impossible to verify -- claim would become positively reckless were it to inform Western policy with regard to the problem of Islam.

Not to mention that it's preposterous, and a symptom of a mind compromised by PC MC.

In fact, that kind of claim (only somewhat more preposterous even than Bell's) already is informing Western policy with regard to the problem of Islam. And it has been having positively reckless consequences already (which will likely only get worse, until significant changes are made).

What's ironic here is that with regard to the problem of Muslims, FOX News is approximately as soft as is Bell. Bell's beef with FOX News evidently has its source in other sociopolitical issues unrelated to the problem of Islam, about which he feels it is apparently overly neo-con.

Whether FOX News is, on sociopolitical issues unrelated to the problem of Islam, conservative to the point of bias may well be a conclusion derived from setting one's barometer reading of "non-biased news" according to the mainstream media -- a setting that is already skewed Leftwards.

The entire West in the past 50 years has undergone a sea change by which the Center has shifted tectonically Leftwards, and the mainstream media has gone along with this trend. Thus, any attempt by a news network to re-establish the Center will be perceived to be "Right wing" -- just as the driver of a car that has suddenly dangerously swerved to the left will feel the compulsion to turn his steering wheel to the right just to get the car back onto the center of the road.

Of course, it would be disingenuous to portray FOX News as merely and exclusively on a mission to establish a purist Centrism with regard to reporting and analyzing the news. They have also been concerned to offer an alternative in a market that has been for too long monopolized by Left-leaning news media. I thought Bell was all for the underdog and for the Occupy movement. So what's wrong with one measly news corporation, out of a market where one slant is monopolized by everybody else, trying to provide a view that has become more and more marginalized and mocked by the popular cultural airwaves?

But let's not forget the irony with which I began my comment here.

"looking right into the news camera and saying that the solution is for the Muslims to find Jesus."

The only fault I find with that viewpoint is that it's unrealistic -- just as Bell's view that "information" is going to reform the Islam out of Muslims.

If 1.3 billion Muslims actually found Jesus in a way that eliminated the Islam in their psyche (which would be a perfectly consistent possibility, given what Jesus taught and given how decent the vast majority of Christians are, with unremarkably normal and human imperfections aside), the world would be a far, far better place -- staggeringly better; for the consequence would be that millions of instances of murder, torture and horrible oppression that Muslims are causing all over the world would vanish.

I say this as an agnostic who is liberal about quite a few sociopolitical issues, by the way.

So it would be nice if the unrealistic hope of the Counter Jihad folks were pragmatic; but I'm afraid it's not. In its own way, it is just as reckless as Bell's non-violent optimism about Muslims.

My God!

I can't believe the Mallice towards EAB. Becasue he is into some different spiritual discipline?!
Because he dosn't have enough hatred towards Muslims?!
I don't read the comments here that often ( dispite some posters offering some quality insights and info.) becasue the board degenerates into right wing xenophobia as often as it furthers constuctive startegies for countering Jihad and by extention Islam.
My hat is of to Eric for putting up with this crap. While I don't agree with him on spiritual matters ( isn't that what is supposed to make us different from the Islamists) I think he is right on when it comes to his observations of Islam and of Muslims, most of who are illiterate, and don't know/care of the jihadist and supremicist teachings found in their religeon.
If the counter Jihad ( or whatever we want to call it ) is going to be a soley conservative Jewish/Christian etc.. movement, it is bound to fail. If it can embrace it's diverstiy ( I know that line will tick some people off) of thought and beleif ( isn't that one of the main things we are fighting for?) then it will finaly wake up "clueless liberals and conservatives" alike.

PS sorry for all the spelling errors

Bottom Line: Take a look at the top story at JW, in which we learn that the French Muslim assassin of little children (and others) was a member of a group that claims to have as its mission the fight against "Islamophobia".

As Spencer rightly observed:

[The French Muslim group] Forsane Alizza is a telling indication of how the stealth jihadists who promote the Muslim Brotherhood-coined concept of "Islamophobia" are working hand-in-glove with violent jihadists.

The CNN story which Spencer then relays goes into the typical head-scratching bafflement as to how the French Muslim assassin "radicalized" (perhaps, as Eric Allen Bell would tell us, it was because he didn't have enough "information"):

...What is unclear is when and how Merah was radicalized, whether online or through membership of a radical Islamist group in Europe. Gueant said Wednesday that Merah became radicalized amid a small salafist group in Toulouse and had connections to a group called Forsane Alizza ("Knights of Pride"). But there is no evidence that any of its members was involved in or aware of his plans.

Forsane Alizza was outlawed in January by the French government, which alleged that it was a terrorist organization training members "for armed combat." For its part, the group said its mission was to fight Islamophobia...

The problem with Eric Allen Bell is not only that

1) he provides us no way to pre-empt such violent attacks

but that also

2) his soft views about Muslims -- that the majority of them are harmless because "not devout"; that they will reform through a non-violent process of our helping them gain access to more "information" which will modernize them (why would that be necessary, if they are already "not devout" and harmless, one wonders...?); and that we must give all Muslims the benefit of the doubt of innocent until proven guilty with an AK-47 in hand or a bomb-belt on chest -- actually would, if translated into policy, positively hinder any attempts for our societies to take rational pre-emptive actions to protect ourselves from Muslims like the group Forsane Alizza and one of its members who this past week in the name of Islam massacred innocent people (including children in cold blood) in two different places in France.

Correction:

"Take a look at the top story at JW..."

Of course, in the hour or so since I posted my comment, several more stories about the deadly depravity of Muslims (the majority of whom -- at least over 800 million around the world -- are, according to Our Darling Bell, harmless) have raised Mt. Jihad Watch with its horrifying mountain of data about Muslims ever higher, supplanting the story to which my previous comment referred.

Years ago, before this mountain had already surpassed Mt. Everest in its vertiginously sickening and alarming magnitude, it was already time to get serious in our rhetoric about Muslims. Even then, there was no excuse for the relative softness of most Jihad Watchers in their varied exculpations of Muslims. Now, one feels past the point of a Lewis Black bursting blood vessel to the brain.

In This Farm Town, Gurus Transcend Party Politics

"FAIRFIELD, Iowa -- In the run-up to today's caucuses in Iowa, candidates have had to scrutinize the issues that move voters here. In this town, many care less about immigration than meditation.

"Are you familiar with Transcendental Meditation?" Craig Berg, a bearded man in a faded parka, said as he buttonholed Republican candidate Fred Thompson during a recent campaign stop here.

Candidates typically arrive here prepared for that question. The campaign of Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware has let it be known here that his former chief of staff is an adherent of Transcendental Meditation. During an outdoor rally here last summer, Sen. Barack Obama turned his podium east out of respect for the Transcendental Meditation view that east is the natural direction of energy flow." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119932860523364137.html

And for 12 years ending in 2004, Fairfield was home to a peace party, called the Natural Law Party, which hoped to elect a Transcendental Meditation practitioner as president.

Some locals regarded with skepticism the construction of two gold domes wherein Maharishi followers gathered daily for mass meditations. Natives lived uneasily with the outsiders, dubbing them "Rus" (pronounced "rooz") -- a shorthand for "Gurus.''

For politicians, a challenge here is to respect the community's faith in Yogic Flying, or mass meditation.

Other names mentioned in this article include: Sen. Joseph Biden, and Ron Paul.

The Natural Law party is the party of the Maharishi, former spiritual guide to the Beatles. John Hagelin has run as a Presidential candidate for the Natural Law Party.

Eric Allen Bell adores the Maharishi, and has several posts promoting John Hagelin at Globalone.

http://www.globalone.tv/main/search/search?q=hagelin

In a Globalone post entitled "The Power of the Collective", Eric Allen Bell promotes the fiction of Hagelin reducing the crime rate in Washington D.C. with his "Yogic Flyers".

From June 7 to July 31, 1993, up to 4000 participants of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programs gathered together in Washington, DC, to form a Group for a Government Global Demonstration Project.

Under the direction of Dr. John Hagelin, violent crime in Washington, DC was significantly reduced as predicted during the time of this World Peace Assembly. The study presenting these findings was published in Social Indicators Research. http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.globalone.tv/profiles/blog/show?id=3026128%3ABlogPost%3A112036&commentId=3026128%3AComment%3A128865&xg_source=activity

Of course this is not true. Some reports say Washington had a record number of murders in those two months.
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103#reader_0195147103

Hagelin received the Ignoble prize for this stunt that is reminiscent of the Muslim mass prayers in public.

Hagelin is also in "What the Bleep".

In my opinion, Eric Allen Bell has irepparably tarnished his own reputation here at JW. To be a recent convert to the anti-Islam movement, while laudable, has apparently not been accompanied by the logical reality that Christianity and Fox News are not the actual scourge of the West. That latter sentiment, which Bell appears fixated on, and deistic beliefs in general, are textbook examples of liberally-bent demoguoguery.

Islam, and the vehicle that currently sustains its expansion in the West, politically-correct, multi-cultural liberalism, is the bane of modern sociry, not the lack of access to resources. Goodness, what tripe.

One can overlook a temporal dearth in adequate historical and doctrinal knowledge of Islam in a person and still support that person in the bigger picture of the movement's necessity. One cannot and should not overlook a vitriolic millitant atheistic belief, or pseudo-Buddhist/Hindu subscription, which alienates far more potential allies against the problem of Islam at the onset, due to thoughtless, emotional and wholly unnecessary comments.

Eric Allen Bell essentially argues like a Muslim. His nonsensical, off-topic attribution to Christianity as a mainstay obstacle to science, which as he has stated previously, "what does this have to do with the colunter-jihad movement?", in addition to a pointed critique of Fox News exclusively, reeks of support of the very same talking points that Muslims try to introduce dishonestly into discourse.

Now I am neither a devoutly religious person, and I certainly am not a Fox News lap-dog, or even a registered Republican for that matter. But I would never have had the audacity to talk about stopping the onslaught of Islam with a requisaite accompaniment of crushing all deistic belief globally. The former is quite a lofty goal. The latter is downright laughable.

Eric Allen Bell argues for essential points that mirror the modern secular liberal worldview.

I will not address him any more on this thread and I officially withdraw any future support for him personally in this movement. He will only help to divide it, but then again, that may be his covert intention anyway.

Just say no...to Eric Allen Bell.

So Awake -

In other words, so long as I remain critical of Christianity and Fox "News" I am not welcome at Jihad Watch?

Eric

Eric Allen Bleep.

I am finding the comments section here to be almost as ignorant, mean and nasty SOME OF THE TIME as on LoonWatch.

I question whether some of you care about Counter Jihad, or if you're just looking for a place online to blow off some steam.

I should not be attacked every time I enter the comments section here at JW, which is seldom. But instead I'm being tag teamed.

I will contradict myself this one final time and reply to Eric Allen Bell.

Bell wrote:

"In other words, so long as I remain critical of Christianity and Fox "News" I am not welcome at Jihad Watch?"

Scare quotes of "news" referring to Fox aside, you will not now be permitted to now claim yourself as a victim here.

I have not once quoted "Livingengine"'s criticism of you here on this thread. That is between you and he. In fact, I haven't even explored a single offered link in that vein in support of my argument against your comments here on this thread.

As far as "LemonLime"'s criticism of you on this thread, the very same. It's unfortunate for you that you are not privy to LemonLime's historical discourse here at JW, his general negative disposition to all billion plus Muslims on this planet, and his his general disdain for the site's host, Robert Spencer. That is your learning curve, not mine.

I do take exception to your supposed counter-arguments to my criticism of you, and also "Wellington"'s, at this point.

In my estimation, you have offered no cogent counter-argument as to why your statement that "religion is stupid" and "Fox News is stupid" is valid in any way besides your own personal beliefs.

Based on those explicit statements by you on this thread, I concluded that I cannot support you in any way going forward. Offended? Too bad. I couched my argument that based on those baseless statements by you, that you are a divider, not a uniter in this most pertinent movement. Couple that with your general lack of knowledge on Islam, and this seems like the only sane conclusion as a criticism of you to represent this movement as a leader.

You essentially didn't counter-argue any of my specific criticisms posed to you on this thread but that was expected. You deemed me, and every deist who happened to watch Fox, as stupid.

My summary judgement of you Eric is this:

1) You woke one day, a commited liberal in every way, shape and form, to to finally question and speak about Islam, due to the mountains of empirical evidence, that it is contradictory to this "Religion of Peace" mantra that you and your ilk have posited forever, dishonestly through the mainstream liberal media in the blogosphere.

2) That in doing so, you were unceremoniously outcast from your supposed friends at the Daily Kos, a collection of anti-Israel pundits, who also regularly condemn Christianity in general as a subscription of hardcore, intolerant "sky-fairy" lovers who want to impose Christian theocratic oppressive control over the masses in the U.S. I'd speak or Europe, but it seems apparent to me that you know nothing about Europe.

3) In your mental processing from that shock, and out of anger, you went all-in with your new found enlightenment about Islam, and the liberals who wholly abandoned you, to try to latch on to Robert Spencer and tout your wares to this issue and keep yourself relevant in the blogosphere, while trying to use him as an assist in "your" debate with Nadir. Robert was open and accepting to that invitation, which you absolutely needed, but it was a mistake on his part in my estimation.

You are trying to use Robert to re-invent yourself. That's despicable, especially when what you are trying to say here is in direct contradiction to your unattractive, mullet-wearing bio that you don't want kids, (I assume that you have none), yet how dare anyone question your recent "sacrifice" to this cause to date as you self-righteously pontificated in this very thread, but I digress.

Back on topic. Eric Allen Bell wrote:

"In other words, so long as I remain critical of Christianity and Fox "News" I am not welcome at Jihad Watch?"

You are welcome to comment here on JW as long as the administrators of this site allow to be, just like the KOS.

That said, it appears that I have a new barrel of fish to shoot, over and over again, under the same constraints of course.

Just Say No.......to Eric Allen Bell.

I WILL NEVER SUPPORT HIM!!

Hello Eric,

I was raised in SF as a Catholic but never resonated with it, so I rejected it, yet I have always been hungry for spirituality. This led me into meditation, the Tao, Zen Buddhism, Hinduism (the vedas & Mahaberata, bhagavad gita, etc), Krishnamurti, and then a number of great teachers of non-duality reality, namely, Papaji, Gangaji, Ramana, Nisargatta Maharaj, and many more. I have been blessed. As a mater of fact, spirituality, music, and sport (I make my living as a tennis instructor), have been the central focus of my life and would likely have continued unabated had we not had 9-11. After 9-11, I began to study islam as it was the only logical, honest, and patriotic thing to do. ObL was quoting the islamic scriptures to justify his actions, yet GWB was saying that islam was a 'religion of peace'. This was like hearing two clashing chords at the same time, so I did what I usually do: I learned for myself the truth of islam so I didn't need anyone else to inform me. What I discovered is what we both now know: islam is a sick & twisted ideology which infects all who come into contact with it-including non-muslims. Terrorism, intimidation, lying, hiding under the guise of religion, and fanatical devotion to the cause, work, plain and simple. This is part of why islam has been so wildly successful.
I am very inspired by your story and your willingness to sacrifice your standing-and all that goes with it (money, friends, connections, etc). For this you are to be commended and I applaud you. Part of why I am inspired by you is that we share a similar spiritual path-interest in consciousness- (which is why I started my post with a brief description of my interests), and a similar recognition that spreading this information of the truth of islam IS how we win this war that has been declared on us, indeed, has been declared on the entire world of non-muslims. As most on this board know, Truth is on our side. Unfortunately, many are not interested in Truth (islamists, far leftists/progressivists, apologists for islam), rather they are interested in power, while still many others are ruled by fear, and so, will side with islam so as to not rock the boat and become a target of islamists or leftists. The bottom line is we must win the information/propaganda war and part of that is we have to win over leftists, the msm, politicians. As you have said, this issue needs to be reframed as not having to do with political parties but rather something that we can all agree on and come together around. The difficulty in this, imo, is that it is the leftists who have framed this as a partisan issue and it the leftists who are in control of what is deemed ok and not ok to say. How to get around that? I believe that we have to form alliances. There are far more people who are ultimately threatened by islam than who are islamists. We must begin to form these alliances. Almost everyone on the planet has been adversely affected by islam. Hindu's, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sikh's, Africians, Europeans, all the conquored. We must begin to form alliances and coalitions to deal with a group that wants to annialiate all of us and are incredibly well organized towards that goal and incredibly committed. I look forward to hearing more from you about how to begin changing peoples minds and hearts about this subject and how to cut through differences in order to align together for what amounts to our own freedom and lives. On that we should all be able to come together on. We just need to cut through the indoctrination. No small task indeed but together we can do it. Take good care. I wish you the best. Namaste!
Rob aka Nagesh

LemonLime,
I agree with you that the anti-jihad movement will be best served when we can say that the problem is islam AND muslims. Until that happens, we are dancing around the reality of the situation, dancing around the truth and, on some levels, contributing to the overall confusion which islam needs and wants and for it's success. Political correctness is such a powerful force that it's adherents easily win arguments (not good arguments but spin arguments), when such frankness is spoken. As Pamala Geller says, 'Truth is the new hate speech'. How true. I would say that all of the the most prominent anti-jihadists (Geller, Spencer, Wilders, Brigitte Gabriel, etc), all say that they have no problem with muslims, or islam, if it is practiced peacefully. The question I have is, is this just a strategy or what they actually believe? I hope it is just a strategy to get past the political correctness but pc is a powerful force that can confuse even the most awake people because it shapes how we think and lets us know that there will be consequences for straying outside of the allowed boundaries. Within this narrative, it is not allowed to say that islam is essentially a disease and that muslims are the carriers of the disease (to varying degrees). With this type of truth telling, you will be shot down very quickly and will have been discredited to such a degree that you will have no platform to reach people; either that or no head, curtesy of a muslim jihadist. The question is, what is the best strategy to enlighten peoples minds and hearts as quickly as possible so that a critical mass of people wake up to the the reality that MUSLIMS who are inspired by islam (yes MUSLIMS), are going to destroy us all if we don't stop them? Is the best strategy to dance with pc in order to ease people into the reality that we know is coming with regard to islam and muslims, or is it best to just break the door down with truth. I tend to favor the latter but it is also nearly a death sentence, either in lively hood or with ones life. However, with the clock close to 12 midnight in this fight for our lives, we may have to put everything on the line en masse to stop this most formidable of foes. Peace to you.
Rob

LOL

I just read Rob's next comment after I asked.

Hi Eric & Kinana of Khaybar,
I believe that this is a very interesting and important discussion and I relish the opportunity to bounce some of these ideas off of you. Thanks for that. My whole life I have been interested in Truth and consciousness and life. This is how I approach my study and inquiry into islam and what, if anything, to do about it. As you said Eric, it is also an opportunity to look into oneself. Even though I'm studying islam and wishing to find ways to stop it, I am still fundamentally Truth centered. I am life centered. I am knowing centered. This is what moves me. So, I wouldn't say that I am intrinsically anti-muslim or even anti-islam because at my core I am pro-Truth and pro-life. I am interested in Truth exposing untruth, and therefor Truth expanding through form. I see islam as anti-life which I see as like a spiritual disease which infects people and spreads through people and affects them, and also us. If there were no muslims there would be no islam. Without humans to put islam into action, then islam would not be able to exist. Islam is first spirit. It is then a collection of ideas that form an ideology. It is belief given by many human beings (muslims) that give it form. Every human being has choice in what we believe and must be held responsible for our beliefs and subsequent actions based on those beliefs. I know it to be true that we all have inner guidance (conscience) that informs us what is right and what is wrong. Granted, the indoctrination that most muslims receive is off the charts in comparison to what most of us have received, however, they are still responsible for their own choices of what they choose to believe and what actions they take. In opposing islam and those who give it life (muslims), I am taking a stand for my love of life and what is good. I have a very clear knowing that goodness and life are worth fighting for and opposing intolerance and hate is a just and noble pursuit. We need to wake people up in mass to this and then we can save ourselves, and those 'good' muslims will be the beneficiaries as well. Take care!

Rob

What Peter fails to take into account is history.

The modern residues of secularist inhibitions to Sharia in Muslim polities are chiefly due to two historical factors:

1) Western Colonialism, during which an alien secularist belief system was imposed upon Muslims against their will

2) Post-Colonialist Muslim dictators who for various reasons played a double game of courting Western support in a new world ruled politico-economically (as well as to a great extent pop-culturally) by the West (with America increasingly at its vanguard), and in so courting support, repressed by dictatorial force the natural sociocultural appetite for Sharia among their Muslim populations (with this appetite then often conflating with jihadist guerrilla "resistance" movements in turn often flaring up into civil wars and attacks on neighboring non-Muslim populations).

The Western process of moving beyond its own blasphemy laws, relics of a quasi-theocratic history of Christendom, was, by contrast, an organic internal process of deep change on a cultural and psychological level -- not imposed from without by foreign occupiers and/or by homegrown tin-pot dictators (some of whom had more mettle than others -- e.g., an Ataturk or a Shah of Iran who, though dictatorial, at least were enlightened enough to have a degree of appreciation for the virtues of modern (Western) progress, rather than purely exploitational (not to mention psychotic) despots a la a Saddam or Khaddafy).

Etc.

These kinds of historical complexities and contexts just fly by the airhead of a Peter who has simpler fish to fry, and whose humble frying pan is too small to fit too many uncomfortable facts.

Thursday, Sep 16, 2004 1:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
“Bleep” of faith
An indie film gets buzz and a big rollout. But "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" uses questionable on-screen experts -- and appears to be an infomercial for a controversial New Age sect.

By John Gorenfeld for Salon.com

Last week, the national release of the independent film “What the Bleep Do We Know!?” seemed to be just the latest success story in the Year of the Documentary — a little movie that could, launched into 60 theaters across the country by Samuel Goldwyn Films after selling out small theaters for months. The film’s co-director, William Arntz, has called it “a film for the religious left,” an answer to “The Passion of the Christ.” It presents itself as the thinking rebel’s alternative to Hollywood pabulum: a heady stew of drama and documentary, starring Oscar-winning actress Marlee Matlin as a Xanax-addled photographer who discovers joy when she learns that quantum mechanics makes spiritual wonders possible.

But the film — buoyed by a slew of stories in regional and national outlets (including Salon) about its supposed grassroots success — has largely avoided much skepticism. And as the distributors launched a national advertising campaign, on NPR’s “All Things Considered” among other outlets, and earned respectable reviews from a number of critics (the San Francisco Examiner calls it a “smart film,” and Roger Ebert, while not thrilled, gave it a thoughtful two and a half stars), their movie has managed to avoid much scrutiny of what, exactly, it’s really about — and who is behind it.

That has meant little attention has been given to either the film’s agenda, or its questionable use of supposed experts. At least one scientist prominently interviewed in the film now says his words were taken out of context. And two other key subjects in the film are not fully identified: a theologian who, the film fails to divulge, is a former priest who left the Catholic Church after allegations of sexual abuse; and a mysterious woman identified only as Judy “JZ” Knight, who is actually a sect leader claiming to channel a 35,000-year-old warrior spirit named Ramtha. The film’s three co-directors are among those who follow Ramtha and look to Knight’s channeled maxims to decipher the mysteries of life. These Ramtha followers reportedly number in the thousands. But critics call the sect a cult.

***

David Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda. “I don’t think it’s quite right to say I was ‘tricked’ into appearing,” he said in a statement reposted by a critic on “What the Bleep’s” Internet forum, “but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film … Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.”

“I certainly do not subscribe to the ‘Ramtha School on Enlightenment,’ whatever that is!” he finished. Albert provided Salon with an excerpt from a piece he’s writing on the subject, in which he says, in part, “I’m unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis.”

Knight’s role as the voice of Ramtha is the most striking — but hardly the only — omission of the film, which could easily be interpreted as a full-blown infomercial for Ramtha. Two other on-screen experts are not identified as Ramtha associates: Dr. Joe Dispenza, chiropractor and mystic, listed as a student on the Ramtha Web site; and a man identified only as “Dr. Miceal Ledwith.”

Ledwith (at one time Monsignor Michael Ledwith) was once on track to be the next archbishop of Dublin, but the theologian stepped down as president of Maynooth College in 1994, after a complaint that he had sexually harassed a young seminarian. It was later revealed that Ledwith had allegedly paid an six-figure sum to a man who accused him of sexual abuse. Ledwith has maintained his innocence but left Ireland for the more placid confines of Monterey, Calif. On the “Bleep” Web site, Ledwith’s relationship with the Catholic Church is only alluded to in a claim that he was once “charged with advising the Holy See on theological matters,” but he is not identified as ever having been a priest, or even as a lecturer at the Ramtha school. According to a Ramtha Web site, Ledwith has joined “Ramtha’s core of appointed teachers.” (The Ramtha school and Ledwith have not responded to requests for interviews. The “Bleep” Web site recommends that journalists contact an independent publicist, but the movie previously listed as its P.R. contact Pavel Mikoloski, also director of public affairs for Ramtha’s school.)

Later in the film, a “scientist” explains that, thanks to the strangeness quivering below the subatomic level, meditating monks have lowered the crime rate in Washington, D.C. But not until the end of the film do we learn that the scientist making this claim, John Hagelin — who once ran for president — conducted the research while teaching (until 1999) at Maharishi University, the school named for the Beatles’ guru. In JZ Knight’s own publications, Ramtha’s existence, too, is frequently explained in terms of quantum mechanics.

Funding for the $5 million “Bleep,” according to various published interviews with the film’s creators, comes not from Ramtha but the software fortunes of director Arntz, who designed the job-management application AutoSys. Now popular in Unix environments, the program sold for more than $14 million in 1995. (Eerily, the startup money for AutoSys was also of Atlantean origin, or so the original investor claimed. A 1999 piece in Wired by David Diamond described the life and suicide of Frederick Lenz III, a guru in his own right, who called himself not Ramtha but Rama. The software mogul told those who rendezvoused with Rama that he’d taught meditation classes on Atlantis. Later, Lenz said his students were bent on his murder, and he plunged himself into the waters of Long Island Sound with a $30,000 watch on his wrist and 150 tabs of Valium in his bloodstream.)

On the film’s Web site FAQ, the filmmakers answer the question of whether “Bleep” is a recruitment film coyly, stating that “the short answer is no. During the making of the film [originally to be titled 'Sacred Science'] it was decided that what was important was the message, not the messenger — whoever that may be. Some people may be inspired to check out RSE, and some people may be inspired to major at MIT in quantum teleportation.” (At press time, MIT was not yet offering such a major.)

Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment had previously promoted itself in its own films, but those had a lower budget. One was “Bleep” director Mark Vicente’s 2002 “Where Angels Fear to Thread.” Its trailer (available here) introduces Ramtha in the fashion of “Lord of the Rings,” swinging a blade and raising a goblet to “the challenge of being an individual.”

“Bleep” is a much slicker introduction. Its success relies heavily on word of mouth, accelerated by the use of “Bleep Teams” organized by Captured Light Industries, the production house set up by Arntz to create “Bleep.” (The film’s other production house, Lord of the Wind, is named for Ramtha himself.)

Heading the Bay Area street team is Kathy Vaquilar, who organized regular “Bleep” events in at least two cities a week during August. On Saturday, Aug. 14, she helped organize a discussion in Berkeley that featured a Ramtha representative, Cindy, “who told us more about the film’s background, how it got started, and about the school,” she posted on the “What the Bleep” forum the next day, when the movement was spreading to nearby Walnut Creek. The next night, a meeting was slated for San Francisco.

Vaquilar told Salon that she coordinates the “Bleep” campaign with a representative of Captured Light. “I don’t know that much about the Ramtha school,” she wrote in an e-mail to Salon, and hastens to defend its role. Knight, she writes, “was only used as an interview subject. What is taught at the school might seem weird to most mainstream people, but for those who study or read the same materials on their own without any connection to the school or to JZ Knight, their stuff is not considered unusual, but rather part of what’s already cutting edge.”

That edge is something Vaquilar is familiar with. In August she promoted the film at the Bay Area’s UFO expo in Santa Clara, serving double duty with the International Contact Support Network, which comforts those who say they’ve encountered extraterrestrials. Vaquilar herself has written about meeting insectoids, who treated her fairly well; but Knight, speaking in the voice of Ramtha, has warned her own followers of the “Gray Men,” a clique of hostile off-worlders controlling Earth’s banks.

On the surface, the movie doesn’t seem to be targeting the E.T.-obsessed; in fact, it seems to follow in the footsteps of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” by asking us to thrill to the tapestry of space-time. But it has very little patience for Enlightenment concepts like measurable results and scientific proof. In the new science of “Bleep,” symbolized by disembodied equations and CG bubbles flying at us like stars at warp speed, we’re past all that.

We’re also told that when Columbus came to America, the natives literally couldn’t see his ships. They couldn’t think outside the box of Indian life. And in a subway that seems like one of many conceits borrowed from the “Matrix” movies (whose metaphor has similarly been borrowed by David Icke, the British author who says the world is controlled by lizard men), the heroine learns that you can see chi energy particles of love, that they’ve been captured in photographs of water blessed by Buddhists. At this juncture Matlin hears a voice in her ear: “Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?” It’s Quark, the greedy alien from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”! Actually, it’s the guy who plays him, Armin Shimerman, as one of several mysterious strangers guiding her to the truth.

The impression left from sitting through a screening of “What the Bleep” is that a lot of people enjoy hearing their griping about religious fundamentalists reflected back to them, backed by science. There’s also plenty of stroking of lefty values; Ramtha has declared that all world religions have in common “the suppression of women,” adding, with the brashness surely fashionable in the 33rd century B.C., “No woman who had an abortion has sinned against God. F@#k all those assholes who tell you that.” On the other hand, papers from Knight’s 1992 divorce case with Jeffrey Knight hint that Ramtha is an ancient homophobe, who allegedly declared that AIDS was Mother Nature’s way of “getting rid of” homosexuality and told Jeffrey Knight he should reject modern medicine and overcome the disease using the school’s breathing techniques, according to court testimony. Tom Szimhart, a “deprogrammer” who testified on behalf of Knight’s husband (who eventually died of the disease) called the Ramtha school a cult with an anti-scientific bent.

The “backward” religion of Christianity, Ramtha explains in the movie, doesn’t appreciate how the parables of Jesus are explained by photon waves and probability — just as creationists suggest that the latest archaeological science can explain Noah’s Ark and a very young Grand Canyon. The cumulative effect of “What the Bleep” — whose co-director, Betsy Chasse, produced the evangelical teen comedy “Extreme Days” (2000) — makes you wonder if it isn’t as fundamentalist as the Christianity and Islam that Ramtha inveighs against.

Even the father of the Isn’t the Universe Amazing genre, the late Sagan, called Ramtha out. He opened his 1997 book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by asking why, if Ramtha is 35,000 years old, he gives us only “banal homilies” (sample: “I have come to help you over the ditch … It is called the ditch of limitation”) instead of telling us, say, about the currency, technology, social order and use of birth control in prehistoric Lemuria — a country popularized by Madame Blavatsky, the turn-of-the-20th-century psychic. Sagan’s argument, which couldn’t be further from the movie’s, is that science has exposed so many natural wonders, there’s no need to gild the lily with gray aliens, telepaths and the spirits of Cro-Magnon shoguns roaming the Evergreen State.

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/16/bleep_2/

What the Bell is going on here?

Ramtha on the Merv Griffin Show 1985

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3tugG0ch7s

Oh, the humanity.

Djibouti:

"Legal system: mixed legal system based primarily on the French civil code (as it existed in 1997) and Islamic religious law...

Those evil French Colonialists, trying to make life more tolerable, enlightened, and humane for the Muslims!

And that is a specific example, by the by, of exactly what I was referring to in my previous post concerning the history of the situation of which Peter seems oblivious -- one example out of thousands one could adduce all over the world. Think, for example, of what the Dutch did for all those Indonesian Muslims, precisely through attenuating their hellish Sharia in various ways, some subtle some not so subtle. Etc.

And Peter has the doubly annoying gall to try to insinuate that the West is equally culpable of having blasphemy laws related to religion -- when it was the West itself that over 100 years ago (even often on back over 200 years ago) that imposed secularism upon Muslims thus helping to attenuate the religiousity of Islamic law! Leftists are not merely annoying and dangerous in a simplex way -- they manage to twist their annoying and dangerous tendencies into Escher-like double-helix contortions, reflecting some strange neurosis or psychosis at the heart of their thought, where lies throbbing the grotesque paradox of self-hatred of the West and, deeper into the Leftist psyche, a hatred of the cosmos itself which is what ancient Gnosticism was all about. As the philosopher Eric Voegelin pointed out, the ancient Gnostic tended to translate his hatred of the cosmos into a desire to escape, through some myth of an "Alien God" who would offer them a key to finding a literal way for their "pneumatic spark" to escape from the cosmos, while the modern Gnostic tends to translate his hatred of the cosmos into various Utopian enterprises, trying to transform society in various ways -- whether through social engineering or in more aggressive, totalitarian ways, as with Soviet and Chinese Communism.

At any rate, beyond Peter, I suspect that Bell cannot possibly rest comfortably in the mere explanation that Islam is evil and that Muslims who follow it are bad, and leave it at that. Given his New Agey inclinations as documented by livingengine, and given various things Bell himself has written, it would be surprising if he didn't think there were some ulterior forces behind Muslim extremism and terrorism; though he may well be astute enough to know that he should suppress his candor in this regard here among Jihad Watchers, lest our misgivings, already bad enough, turn into outright mass rejection even Spencer would have to notice and do something about.

From his bag of tricks, Peter purveys the curious notion that the progress of civilizations must follow the same form and structure as the growth of biological individuals -- so that, in this example, if Christianity got a 600-year head start, then that means that Islam is 600 years behind in progress; as though civilizational progress were dependent entirely on the passage of time. There are so many things wrong with this one doesn't know where to start.

First, it is simply a theory or hypothesis, but Peter assumes it is a brute fact. He provides no argumentation to substantiate so treating it.

If Judaeo-Christianity + Graeco-Roman philosophy (the West) has progressed, one is forced by the theory (if one assumes it must be fact) to chalk that progress up to the passage of time.

This further assumes all civilizations and cultures are essentially the same, and all will progress at the same rate, and with the same quality, and because of the same causal factors. These are other theoretical or hypothetical aspects to the theory that have yet to be substantiated, but which Peter simply assumes to be brute fact.

Finally (for now), even if verified, the theory assumes a relaxed lofty stance of abstract description; whereas, the fanaticism that leads to the support for blasphemy laws in Islamic culture today is directly related to the metastasizing terrorism aruond the world. We don't have the luxury of waiting for Islam to "evolve" -- especially considering that it shows signs, all over the world, of regresing (as measured by a revival of support for backward religiosity), not progressing.

...and Peter,

LemonLime in his most recent post makes some points that cannot be ignored.

"I get a strong sense of continuity between the words on the screen, and the real person who has sat at a computer desk and typed them." - DDA

Hi Dumbledoresarmy,

I get an opposite feeling about him; his words do not match his actions.

Look at the way he handled the question of Ramtha, he sidestepped it completely. This is not ethical.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/debate-tonight-is-islam-inherently-violent----eric-allen-bell-vs-nadir-ahmed.html#comment-867190

I have reviewed the exchange between Andrew McCarthy, and Robert Spencer, as well as the Restoration Weekend appearance of Bosch Fawstin, and I don't any where see a call to abuse random Muslims.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281617/islam-or-islamist-andrew-c-mccarthy

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281771/truth-about-islam-robert-spencer

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/transcript-spencerfawstinmccarthy-on-moderate-muslims-restoration-weekend-2011.html

But this is what EAB did on the Jamie Glazov show. He is proud of it, and says he will do it again, and I believe him.

Remember, this is someone who spells liberty, and humanity, with capital "L", and a capital "H". Things like this put me on guard.

If you listen to the Mar 6, 2012 edition of the Jamie Glazov Show, you will hear Eric Allen Bell say that Robert Spencer just told Al Qaeda that he is on Sunset Blvd with Lucille Ball. "Not so smart", he adds.

But, I don't hear Robert Spencer saying any such thing, until Eric Allen Bell underscores it. It is in fact Eric Allen Bell who is telling Al Qaeda where Robert Spencer is.

I think there should be zero tolerance for this kind of veiled hostility.

@1:32
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/03/07/the-jamie-glazov-show

He is not smart, not articulate, and not a leader. I am not trying to turn people against him, but they should not pretend he is something he isn't.

livingengine,

You're usually good about documenting your claims.

You neglected to document one claim, that Bell advocated the "abuse" of "random Muslims". Can you please provide your proof that Bell advocates that?

My impression of Bell is that he is irrationally loathe to mistreat Muslims and would actually be against such a thing -- even to an irrational extent where our safety might depend upon an action that only is perceived to resemble the random mistreatment of Muslims.

Hi Lemon Lime -

On the Feb 28, 2012 edition of the Jamie Glazov show, Eric Aleen Bell asked a caller to the program a series of suggestive questions that led to a predetermined conclusion; renounce Muhammad, submit to me, or I'll call you a Nazi.

"Will you condemn the Prophet for killing people? Yes, or no?"

The "yes, or no" part is the submission part; she has to submit to either a "yes", or "no" to his question. She also doesn't get a chance to renounce parts of Muhammad, and then we get the "You're a Nazi!" talk.

Isn't that a Left Wing cliche by now?

I just think it was dazzlingly nasty, and gratuitous, and inept. And, he did it in front of Robert Spencer . . .

It was much more revealing of him than it was of her.

Compare him with Jamie Glazov's questions. There is communication happening.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/02/29/the-jamie-glazov-show

The following week, he said he would do it again.

What an oaf.

This is the future? Without him the counter jihad movement will never get out of first gear?

Don't take any wooden nickles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYlfP0_hs0

New Aquarian Age & World Government

Posted by Eric Allen Bell on January 10, 2010 at 9:00pm

Article by G Kumar

*************************

The Third Testament

The New Age has been referred to as the Third Testament. While the Old & the New Testaments emphasized that Truth is Freedom (Veritas vos Liberabit), New Age Philosophy averrs that Knowledge alone is Freedom. Self Knowledge or Knowledge of the Absolute Self alone can make you free ! Global Oneness alone can save the world. Globalists alone can bring a planetary transformation and not those who champion the cause of a Nation or a Civilization.

Some prominent globalists are Jeremy Rifkin, Norman Cousins, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, John Denver, George Lucas, Norman Lear, Alice Bailey, Alvin Toffler, Dr. Barbara Ray, Benjamin Creme, Levi Dowling, George Trevelyan, Fritjof Capra, Abraham Maslow, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Ruth Montgomery, Shirley MacLaine, J.Z. Knight, Marilyn Ferguson, David Spangler, Nelson Mandela & Gorbachev.

********************************

The Dot Com disaster , the 9/11 WTC attack – all these are indicators that it is time for us, as a global community, to evolve to a higher level of Consciousness and usher in a New Age. The main reason for the 9/11 disaster was our lack of global unity and separativeness.

*********************************

As it is a syncretic Movement ( Syncretism holds that all religions are essentially One ), it will bring forth global integration & Spiritual Democracry.

*************************************

The New World View is Monism ( All is One) , Holism ( Reality is organically One ) & Pantheism ( The Universe is divine & earth is sacred ).

All regressive thinking & negative tendencies will fade away and Enlightenment will dawn. The Aquarian Age will usher in a major Shift in intellectual thinking, as it is the Shift of the Ages ! Astrology will regain its pristine glory and guide humanity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100114235115/http://www.globalone.tv/profiles/blogs/new-aquarian-age-amp-world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg

The Lancet report has been criticized as being excessive in the estimates of the number of Iraqis killed by :

The New England Journal of Medicine
The Los Angles Times
Opinion Research Business
The Iraq Body Count Project

Moreover, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suspended the privileges of Lancet report author Dr. Burnham to serve as a principal investigator on projects involving human subjects research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

Muslims should be more afraid of other Muslims than of Western civilization which has repeatedly helped Muslims over, and over, and over again.

"Then Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric and anti-American militia leader, gained power in our area. His militia began targeting Americans and declared that all Iraqis who worked with Americans were traitors. "
http://www.rescue.org/blog/my-brother%E2%80%99s-love-iraq

""When we were there in Baghdad, we didn't know who is the enemy," says Sayf al-Tabaqchali, a medical resident. He left Iraq in 2006, his doctor's career over before it began. "The government, the militias, the Iraqi resistance group, the police — everybody is maybe a threat.""

"Two of his cousins were kidnapped and killed, he says. Several friends and some professors were kidnapped, too. About half his class emigrated, Tabaqchali says, just like he did."
www.npr.org/2011/12/31/144489695/iraqi-refugees-struggle-for-peace-in-america

Everyone wants to live here because it is better here, by orders of magnitude. No one wants to live in a Sharia state.

The jahadis have made it clear that if they had F-16's they would use them. If they had nuclear weapons they would use them. There will be no appeals to international law, they will just kill, and keep on killing.

Here is a thought experiment you can try on your own. Make a list of advancements brought to us by Western civilization in the last 200 years, and another list of societal advancements made by Islamic civilization in the same time frame.

I'll get you started on the Western list with:
the Internet,
polio vaccine,
refrigeration,
and the internal combustion engine.

Compare these two lists, and with that I give you the last word.

God Bless America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnQDW-NMaRs

"Psychic.CON?" is documentary feature by filmmaker Eric Allen Bell.

The movie features interviews with professional psychics, mediums, astrologers and long time clients of this multi-billion dollar industry - the industry of selling the future.

Slated for production in 2009, "Psychic.CON?" will give you exclusive access and insight into the industry of putting one's fate in focus.

Are all psychics are phony? Are any of them real? Is it actually possible for a person to be able to see into the future? Discover the fine art of neurolinguistic programming (NLP). See the fundamentals of a cold reading exposed. Look into the mystery surrounding the alleged gift of Clairvoyance.

Are there any real psychics, or is it all just slight of hand? What about the numerous psychic claims that just cannot be explained away?

In Psychic.CON? we set out to distinguish the contenders from the pretenders, using science and reason.

http://psychicdocumentary.com/

The Bigotry of Eric Allen Bell

Repeatedly, Eric Allen Bell called for Sabah to condemn Muhammad.

29:38 "will you condemn the prophet for killing people, this is a yes, or no question."

30:50 again asking for condemnation of Muhammad

31:27 "I'm not labeling you. I'm giving you an opportunity to present yourself for who you really are."

31:40 again asking for a condemnation of Muhammad

31:56 labels her a Nazi - "you're the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer."

36:40 again asking for a condemnation of Muhammad

39:40 yelling "She's 9 years old."

44:55 "stop being a Muslim", and "snap out of it"

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/02/29/the-jamie-glazov-show

A week later, when Eric was confronted with this on the Jamie Glazov show, he was unrepentant, said the caller was "worse than a Nazi", and promised to do it again.

" . . . we will destroy you. We will not apologize. We will not make concessions. We will not send aid. We will not negotiate. If you attack us, threaten us, take our people hostage or try to develop a nuclear bomb, we will destroy you. " - Eric Allen Bell
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/03/interview-with-documentary-filmmaker.html

"People like Eric Bell need to be exposed. They are given entirely too much credibility. I hope that I have demonstrated at least one way to break their arguments apart. "

" In the end, I deemed the viewpoint of Eric to be hypocritical, intolerant and religiously bigoted – the very terms he and most of the crowd he had gathered were so eager to throw around. "
- David Christopher 2010
http://web.archive.org/web/20100921110652/http://www.davidchristopher.net/dc/node/12