Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Muslims allowed to physically attack atheists in Pennsylvania (year-old news, but it's relevant)
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jan 30, 2013, 1:11:50 PM1/30/13
to
This article, entitled "Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim
Judge Dismisses Case," reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law in a
fair and just secular society:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2012/02/warning-to-atheists-in-pennsylvania.html
Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above article
that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
"The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark
Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge
not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name
and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."
"Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then
blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible
abrogation."
Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of allowing
Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that they be met
with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of secular freedom
as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates the killing of
infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation essentially gives
Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists (and anyone who isn't
a Muslim) on the condition that converting them to Islam fails.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Creationism isn't science; it's science-fantasy."
-- Paul D. Wright (May 18, 2012)
Judge Dismisses Case," reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law in a
fair and just secular society:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2012/02/warning-to-atheists-in-pennsylvania.html
Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above article
that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
"The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark
Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The Judge
not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name
and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."
"Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then
blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible
abrogation."
Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of allowing
Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that they be met
with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of secular freedom
as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates the killing of
infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation essentially gives
Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists (and anyone who isn't
a Muslim) on the condition that converting them to Islam fails.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Creationism isn't science; it's science-fantasy."
-- Paul D. Wright (May 18, 2012)
Dakota
Jan 30, 2013, 1:33:58 PM1/30/13
to
On 1/30/2013 12:11 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
I certainly hope that the judge will be impeached and disbarred.
wrote:
Message has been deleted
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 30, 2013, 4:58:06 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:11:50 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>"Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
>unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
>citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
>while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then
>blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible
>abrogation."
The case gets appealed at a federal and a complaint of serious
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>"Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
>unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
>citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
>while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge who then
>blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a horrible
>abrogation."
judicial misconduct is made, hopefully resulting in disbarment.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jan 30, 2013, 5:59:58 PM1/30/13
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:23:10 -0600
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
> Dakota wrote:
> > FT wrote:
>
> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so
> shocked about it?
Okay, slightly more than a year old, but I'm not shocked -- I'm just
disappointed that Sharia Law was consulted in a legal system that is
not based on Sharia Law.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. When they fail to be impartial,
then they are providing opportunities for injustice.
> >> Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above
> >> article that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
> >>
> >> "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge
> >> Mark Martin is also a Muslim.
>
> He's Lutheran.
I'll take your word for it. Of course the issue isn't whether the judge
follows a religion, rather it's the possibility of religious bias being
applied inappropriately and/or unfairly to justice.
> >> What transpired next was surreal.
>
> Not surreal. He had a knee jerk reaction to an insult to religion.
Impartiality is integral to all judges who are charged with meting out
justice because of how their rulings can impact peoples' lives.
> His speech was ignorant, a misinterpretation of the First Amendment,
> and utterly inappropriate, but he didn't begin to touch on surreal:
>
> "In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many
> Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this
> is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it
> could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
>
> Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights,
> specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people
> use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think
> that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended
> to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss
> off other people and cultures — which is what you did."
>
> In other words, he thinks the First Amendment covers "nice" speech,
> but not speech denigrating something important to him. A bad
> attitude for a judge, but not worthy of calling him a fan of sharia.
I agree that it's a bad attitude, but why bother bringing Sharia Law
into it since Sharia would be "out of jurisdiction" anyway? It does
cause me to wonder if the judge might have wanted to use Sharia Law.
> >> Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of
> >> allowing Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that
> >> they be met with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of
> >> secular freedom as it respects the Islamic doctrine which
> >> advocates the killing of infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any
> >> nation essentially gives Muslims an unrestricted license to kill
> >> atheists (and anyone who isn't a Muslim) on the condition that
> >> converting them to Islam fails.
>
> > I certainly hope that the judge will be impeached and disbarred.
>
> Maybe you should read up on the facts, first. It appears the
> prosecutors may have charged the Muslim with criminal conduct which
> was not supported by the evidence, i.e the wrong charge:
>
> "Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal
> harassment, which requires an "intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,"
> and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or
> might not qualify...depending on exactly what evidence was
> introduced."
> http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/the-zombie-mohammed-judge-lets-discuss/
> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
> http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/
That's an excellent point. If the prosecution screwed up by pressing
the wrong charges, then dismissing those charges was, indeed, correct.
> Nothing could possibly make up for the judge's lack of knowledge of
> the first amendment or his willingness to bend over backward to
In the USA, yes.
> protect religious sensibilities, but *anyone* who leaps on this as an
> example of sharia is as ignorant as the "no prayer allowed in
> schools" religious wack jobs.
To me, this provided something akin to a "test case example" of how
Sharia Law would potentially conflict with the USA Constitution's first
amendment that protects freedom of expression. This isn't a matter of
ignorance on the matter, rather it responds to the fact that "Sharia
my original message).
Regarding "no prayer allowed in schools" I agree that students should
be free to pray if they so choose (as long as it isn't disrupting class
time), but I draw the line where students are forced to pray.
--
'cause when you figure he wanted his followers to drink his blood and
eat his flesh, well, that's as sick as anyone who would fulfill such a
request, even symbolically."
-- L. Roberts (August 27, 2012)
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
> Dakota wrote:
> > FT wrote:
>
> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so
> shocked about it?
Okay, slightly more than a year old, but I'm not shocked -- I'm just
disappointed that Sharia Law was consulted in a legal system that is
not based on Sharia Law.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. When they fail to be impartial,
then they are providing opportunities for injustice.
> >> Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above
> >> article that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
> >>
> >> "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge
> >> Mark Martin is also a Muslim.
>
I'll take your word for it. Of course the issue isn't whether the judge
follows a religion, rather it's the possibility of religious bias being
applied inappropriately and/or unfairly to justice.
> >> What transpired next was surreal.
>
Impartiality is integral to all judges who are charged with meting out
justice because of how their rulings can impact peoples' lives.
> His speech was ignorant, a misinterpretation of the First Amendment,
> and utterly inappropriate, but he didn't begin to touch on surreal:
>
> "In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many
> Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this
> is definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it
> could be punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
>
> Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights,
> specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people
> use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think
> that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended
> to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss
> off other people and cultures — which is what you did."
>
> In other words, he thinks the First Amendment covers "nice" speech,
> but not speech denigrating something important to him. A bad
> attitude for a judge, but not worthy of calling him a fan of sharia.
I agree that it's a bad attitude, but why bother bringing Sharia Law
into it since Sharia would be "out of jurisdiction" anyway? It does
cause me to wonder if the judge might have wanted to use Sharia Law.
> >> Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of
> >> allowing Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that
> >> they be met with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of
> >> secular freedom as it respects the Islamic doctrine which
> >> advocates the killing of infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any
> >> nation essentially gives Muslims an unrestricted license to kill
> >> atheists (and anyone who isn't a Muslim) on the condition that
> >> converting them to Islam fails.
>
> > I certainly hope that the judge will be impeached and disbarred.
>
> prosecutors may have charged the Muslim with criminal conduct which
> was not supported by the evidence, i.e the wrong charge:
>
> "Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal
> harassment, which requires an "intent to harass, annoy, or alarm,"
> and a mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or
> might not qualify...depending on exactly what evidence was
> introduced."
> http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/the-zombie-mohammed-judge-lets-discuss/
> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
> http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/
That's an excellent point. If the prosecution screwed up by pressing
the wrong charges, then dismissing those charges was, indeed, correct.
> Nothing could possibly make up for the judge's lack of knowledge of
> the first amendment or his willingness to bend over backward to
In the USA, yes.
> protect religious sensibilities, but *anyone* who leaps on this as an
> example of sharia is as ignorant as the "no prayer allowed in
> schools" religious wack jobs.
To me, this provided something akin to a "test case example" of how
Sharia Law would potentially conflict with the USA Constitution's first
amendment that protects freedom of expression. This isn't a matter of
ignorance on the matter, rather it responds to the fact that "Sharia
Law is a violation of secular freedom as it respects the Islamic
doctrine which advocates the killing of infidels" (as I pointed out in
my original message).
Regarding "no prayer allowed in schools" I agree that students should
be free to pray if they so choose (as long as it isn't disrupting class
time), but I draw the line where students are forced to pray.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"According to the story, the Jesus character said, well forget that
'cause when you figure he wanted his followers to drink his blood and
eat his flesh, well, that's as sick as anyone who would fulfill such a
request, even symbolically."
-- L. Roberts (August 27, 2012)
Dakota
Jan 30, 2013, 6:17:15 PM1/30/13
to
On 1/30/2013 2:23 PM, L. Raymond wrote:
> Dakota wrote:
>> FT wrote:
>
> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so shocked
> about it?
>
> Dakota wrote:
>> FT wrote:
>
> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so shocked
> about it?
>
>>> Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above article
>>> that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
>>>
>>> "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark
>>> Martin is also a Muslim.
>
> He's Lutheran.
>>> that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
>>>
>>> "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge Mark
>>> Martin is also a Muslim.
>
>
>>> What transpired next was surreal.
>
> Not surreal. He had a knee jerk reaction to an insult to religion. His
>>> What transpired next was surreal.
>
> speech was ignorant, a misinterpretation of the First Amendment, and
> utterly inappropriate, but he didn't begin to touch on surreal:
>
> "In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many
> Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is
> definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be
> punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
>
> Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights,
> specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people
> use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think
> that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended
> to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss
> off other people and cultures — which is what you did."
>
> In other words, he thinks the First Amendment covers "nice" speech, but
> not speech denigrating something important to him. A bad attitude for a
> judge, but not worthy of calling him a fan of sharia.
>
> utterly inappropriate, but he didn't begin to touch on surreal:
>
> "In many other Muslim-speaking countries, err, excuse me, many
> Arabic-speaking countries, predominantly Muslim, something like this is
> definitely against the law there, in their society. In fact, it could be
> punished by death, and frequently is, in their society.
>
> Here in our society, we have a Constitution that gives us many rights,
> specifically First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people
> use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think
> that’s what our forefathers intended. I think our forefathers intended
> to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss
> off other people and cultures — which is what you did."
>
> In other words, he thinks the First Amendment covers "nice" speech, but
> not speech denigrating something important to him. A bad attitude for a
> judge, but not worthy of calling him a fan of sharia.
>
>>> Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of allowing
>>> Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that they be met
>>> with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of secular freedom
>>> as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates the killing of
>>> infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation essentially gives
>>> Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists (and anyone who isn't
>>> a Muslim) on the condition that converting them to Islam fails.
>
>> I certainly hope that the judge will be impeached and disbarred.
>
>>> Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that they be met
>>> with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of secular freedom
>>> as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates the killing of
>>> infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation essentially gives
>>> Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists (and anyone who isn't
>>> a Muslim) on the condition that converting them to Islam fails.
>
>> I certainly hope that the judge will be impeached and disbarred.
>
> Maybe you should read up on the facts, first. It appears the
> prosecutors may have charged the Muslim with criminal conduct which was
> not supported by the evidence, i.e the wrong charge:
>
> "Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal
> harassment, which requires an "intent to harass, annoy, or alarm," and a
> mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not
> qualify...depending on exactly what evidence was introduced."
>
> http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/the-zombie-mohammed-judge-lets-discuss/
> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
> http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/
>
> prosecutors may have charged the Muslim with criminal conduct which was
> not supported by the evidence, i.e the wrong charge:
>
> "Moreover, it appears that Elbayomy was prosecuted for criminal
> harassment, which requires an "intent to harass, annoy, or alarm," and a
> mere physical attack with an attempt to grab a sign might or might not
> qualify...depending on exactly what evidence was introduced."
>
> http://abovethelaw.com/2012/02/the-zombie-mohammed-judge-lets-discuss/
> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/24/pennsylvania-judge-throws-out-charge-for-harassing-atheist-while-calling-the-victim-a-doofus/
> http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/24/charges-dismissed-in-pennsylvania-prosecution-for-attack-on-zombie-mohammed-atheist-parader/
>
> Nothing could possibly make up for the judge's lack of knowledge of the
> first amendment or his willingness to bend over backward to protect
> religious sensibilities, but *anyone* who leaps on this as an example of
> sharia is as ignorant as the "no prayer allowed in schools" religious
> wack jobs.
>
Of course it has nothing to do with Sharia. My complaint is that the
> sharia is as ignorant as the "no prayer allowed in schools" religious
> wack jobs.
>
judge justified his dismissal of the case by suggesting that insulting
Islam does not qualify as free speech. He also added that he was
personally offended by the victim's demeanor on the night of the
attack. His personal feelings about the case are irrelevant. He should
decide the case on the facts and the law.
Dakota
Jan 30, 2013, 6:23:57 PM1/30/13
to
victim couldn't appeal the finding as he was not a party to the case.
It's not clear to me whether dismissing the charge is equivalent to
finding the defendant not guilty. If it is the equivalent, protections
against double jeopardy would seem to apply.
Irreverend Dave
Jan 30, 2013, 9:51:02 PM1/30/13
to
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
supposedly to settle family disputes and divorces. The problem is that
once the door is opened, the scope broadens. It was met with protests.
Not surprisingly many of the protesters against Sharia were muslims. The
provincial government shut the door on it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-
20050909.html
--
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt - Ambrose Bierce
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jan 30, 2013, 11:49:44 PM1/30/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:51:02 +0000 (UTC)
Irreverend Dave <revere...@ministerpants.com> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
> > This article, entitled "Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim
> > Judge Dismisses Case," reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law
> > in a fair and just secular society:
> >
> > http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2012/02/warning-to-atheists-in-pennsyl
> > vania.html
> >
> > Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above article
> > that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
> >
> > "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge
> > Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The
> > Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr.
> > Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, heâ
Irreverend Dave <revere...@ministerpants.com> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
> > This article, entitled "Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist; Muslim
> > Judge Dismisses Case," reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law
> > in a fair and just secular society:
> >
> > http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2012/02/warning-to-atheists-in-pennsyl
> > vania.html
> >
> > Here are two paragraphs from different sections of the above article
> > that may save you time reading it in its entirety:
> >
> > "The case went to trial, and as circumstances would dictate, Judge
> > Mark Martin is also a Muslim. What transpired next was surreal. The
> > Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr.
> > €™d be put to death."
> >
> > "Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
> > unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
> > citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free
> > man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge
> > who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a
> > horrible abrogation."
> >
> > Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of
> > allowing Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that
> > they be met with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of
> > secular freedom as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates
> > the killing of infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation
> > essentially gives Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists
> > (and anyone who isn't a Muslim) on the condition that converting
> > them to Islam fails.
>
> Someone tried to sneak Sharia Law into Ontario back in 2005. It was
> supposedly to settle family disputes and divorces. The problem is
> that once the door is opened, the scope broadens. It was met with
> protests. Not surprisingly many of the protesters against Sharia were
> muslims. The provincial government shut the door on it.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-
> 20050909.html
I suspect that at least some of those Muslims have probably been
> > "Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
> > unacceptable. That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
> > citizen in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free
> > man, while the victim is chastised and insulted by a Muslim judge
> > who then blamed the victim for the crime committed against him is a
> > horrible abrogation."
> >
> > Whenever any politicians even talks about the possibility of
> > allowing Sharia Law into your country, it is very important that
> > they be met with resistance because Sharia Law is a violation of
> > secular freedom as it respects the Islamic doctrine which advocates
> > the killing of infidels. Permitting Sharia Law in any nation
> > essentially gives Muslims an unrestricted license to kill atheists
> > (and anyone who isn't a Muslim) on the condition that converting
> > them to Islam fails.
>
> Someone tried to sneak Sharia Law into Ontario back in 2005. It was
> supposedly to settle family disputes and divorces. The problem is
> that once the door is opened, the scope broadens. It was met with
> protests. Not surprisingly many of the protesters against Sharia were
> muslims. The provincial government shut the door on it.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-
> 20050909.html
enjoying the freedoms that are available to everyone here in Canada and
didn't want to risk losing them by way of a system they left behind in
whatever oppressive Islamic regime they came from.
Good for them, they're acting like real Canadians which means they take
their citizenship status seriously. I have respect for people who take
a stand to protect freedom.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Those who want to be offended don't have the right to try and close
down the newspaper that offends them."
-- Christopher Hitchens ("freedom of expression must include the
license to offend" debate in 2006)
Frank Galikanokus
Jan 31, 2013, 12:18:57 PM1/31/13
to
JAM
Freedom Man
Jan 31, 2013, 1:23:12 PM1/31/13
to
See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Jan 31, 2013, 8:05:31 PM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 11:18 am, Frank Galikanokus <FrankGalikano...@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Not a single link to other than anti muslim blogs?'
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places
whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. -
2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion
reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no
persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is
hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and
forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If
you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. -
3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are
dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah
3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world
for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he
is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah
4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject
faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find
them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure
till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that
they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends
of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.
God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns
supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast
men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred,
they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of
understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter
in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from
obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the
unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for
them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has
been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion
of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the
tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The
unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: )
Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and
pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of
Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh
with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. -
9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in
return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause,
kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them
find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those
of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow
their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble
their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to
them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
- 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have
made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them
free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.
- 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the
battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low,
bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their
deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition,
and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. -
48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the
unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to
enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn
forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. -
98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them
to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
-------
KORAN promises of houris in heaven:
Single-minded slaves of Allah... will be honored in the Gardens of
delight, on couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is
brought round for them, white, delicious to the drinkers, wherein
there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are
those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, pure as they were hidden eggs.
- Surah 37:40-49
Lo, for those who ward off evil is a happy journey's end, Gardens of
Eden, whereof the gates are opened for the, wherein, reclining, they
call for plenteous fruit and cool drink therein. And with them are
those of modest gaze, companions. This it is that ye are promised for
the Day of Reckoning. - 38:50-54
Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens
and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one
another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely
eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not
death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the
doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. -
44:51-57
Lo! Those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight...
reclining on ranged couches. And we wed them unto fair ones with wide,
lovely eyes... and we provide them with fruit and meat such as they
desire.... - 52:17-22
...Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both
the gardens near to hand.... Therein are those of modest gaze, whom
neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.... - 55:54-56
Those are they who will be brought nigh, in gardens of delight...
reclining therein face to face. There wait on them immortal youths...
and fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, like unto hidden pearls, reward
for what they used to do.... Lo! We have created them a creation, and
made them virgins, lovers, friends. - 56:11-37
(Different translation) Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous
eyes... virgin-pure and undefiled.
--------
Koran "sharia" punishments:
As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their
hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment
from Allah. - Surah 5:38
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
wrote:
"Not a single link to other than anti muslim blogs?'
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places
whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. -
2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion
reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no
persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is
hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and
forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If
you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. -
3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are
dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah
3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world
for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he
is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah
4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject
faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find
them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure
till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that
they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends
of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them.
God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns
supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast
men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred,
they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of
understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter
in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from
obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the
unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find
them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for
them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has
been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion
of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the
tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The
unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: )
Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and
pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of
Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh
with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. -
9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in
return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause,
kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them
find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those
of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow
their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble
their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to
them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell.
- 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have
made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them
free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens.
- 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the
battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low,
bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their
deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition,
and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. -
48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the
unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to
enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn
forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. -
98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them
to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
-------
KORAN promises of houris in heaven:
Single-minded slaves of Allah... will be honored in the Gardens of
delight, on couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is
brought round for them, white, delicious to the drinkers, wherein
there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are
those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, pure as they were hidden eggs.
- Surah 37:40-49
Lo, for those who ward off evil is a happy journey's end, Gardens of
Eden, whereof the gates are opened for the, wherein, reclining, they
call for plenteous fruit and cool drink therein. And with them are
those of modest gaze, companions. This it is that ye are promised for
the Day of Reckoning. - 38:50-54
Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens
and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one
another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely
eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not
death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the
doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. -
44:51-57
Lo! Those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight...
reclining on ranged couches. And we wed them unto fair ones with wide,
lovely eyes... and we provide them with fruit and meat such as they
desire.... - 52:17-22
...Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both
the gardens near to hand.... Therein are those of modest gaze, whom
neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.... - 55:54-56
Those are they who will be brought nigh, in gardens of delight...
reclining therein face to face. There wait on them immortal youths...
and fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, like unto hidden pearls, reward
for what they used to do.... Lo! We have created them a creation, and
made them virgins, lovers, friends. - 56:11-37
(Different translation) Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous
eyes... virgin-pure and undefiled.
--------
Koran "sharia" punishments:
As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their
hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment
from Allah. - Surah 5:38
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Jan 31, 2013, 9:30:48 PM1/31/13
to
not an actual ruling (e.g., for or against, partially or in full, and
with regard to one or both parties), but doesn't necessarily terminate
jeopardy.
I also understand "double jeopardy" to be a sort of safety measure to
protect a defendant from the jeopardy of being successfully prosecuted
twice for the same crime, unless special conditions are granted...
I recall that if the dismissal is granted due to clarical or pother
procedural errors, then jeopardy is normally satisfied (unless a
reasonable objection is presented and accepted within applicable
statutes) and the "double jeopardy" barrier goes into effect.
Also, if the dismissal is granted after a guilty verdict, then the
prosecution can appeal the dismissal so as to remove the "double
jeopardy" barrier, but the official "guilty verdict" prior to the
dismissal is, I believe, the key element in this.
(If any lawyers here would like to correct or clarify this, I'd be
delighted to learn some more.)
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Religion once ruled the world -- it was called the Dark Ages."
-- Ruth Green
fasgnadh
Feb 2, 2013, 9:02:11 AM2/2/13
to
Findem Turdbar, the non-thinking atheist gobshite whined pathetically:
>
> This article, reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law in a
under US law in a US court.. if he thinks he is hard done by he can
appeal, ..he hasn't because he's a lying atheist arsehole who may soon
be doing time! B^D
"Ernest Perce V – American"Atheists' Pennsylvania State Director
– may soon be spending time in jail because he released
audio footage -- via a Youtube video -- of a court proceeding
that occurred as a result of him allegedly being attacked by a
Muslim man while dressing as 'Zombie Mohammad' in a 2011 Halloween
parade in Mechanicsburg, PA. According to the description of a
released video by Perce, Judge Mark Martin – the presiding judge
of the court proceeding -- is threatening to hold Perce in contempt
of court for releasing recorded audio of the case
http://www.examiner.com/article/zombie-mohammad-ernest-perce-threatened-with-jail-for-releasing-audio-of-trial
Atheist do the crime, Atheist do the time! B^]
The judge effectively said the atheists had gone there to insult
and provoke Muslims and that there was no evidence that the altercation
which resulted constituted an assault by the defendent
with 'intent to harm or intimidate' which would constitute a crime!
Case dismissed! B^] Let the atheist WHINING begin! B^D
.. referring to the defendant,
"If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would
have been a little bit more of an altercation,
something far more substantial as far as testimony going on
that there was a conflict. Because there was not, it is not
proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant
is guilty of harassment. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge."
Semms like a perfectly resoonable judgement and makes the atheist pussy
look like the failed provocateur he set out to be!
B^D
Perce is clearly in violation of US law when he tries to have his failed
case
RETRIED IN THE MEDIA, by posting a recording of the trial;
"in the description section of the video, [he] encourages persons to make
decision as to whether Judge Mark Martin had acted appropriately
or not and contact the judge via telephone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=youtu.be
> "Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
> unacceptable.
I agree, if a US citizen wants to dispute a courts decision, which
basically found he was a provocative tosser who wanted to insult and
offend and then whined like a little bitch at an altercation which
did not reach the seriousness of a criminal act, the appropriate
course of action would be to appeal.. no citizen in one of the free,
open, progressive, RULE-OF-LAW secular democracies set up by majority
religious societies, can run a Kangaroo court in the media, it is
CONTEMPT and he should be charged! B^]
> That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
> citizen
Sorry, I know you atheist believers think your beliefs trump the
evidence AND due process, but the man was found NOT GUILTY.
You can appeal, but people are already LAUGHING because once more the
lying atheist tossers who SET OUT To INSULT AND PROVOKE PEOPLE didn't
get the result they wanted and are now bleating like wee girlies!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAA
So much for 'atheism is nothing more than a non-belief in God'
Atheism is clearly ANTI-THEIST propaganda and posturing,
and no one cares if they get their arses kicked for it!
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
The muslim protested atheist lies and propaganda
> in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
The law was upheld.
The Atheist stooge
> is chastised
for wasting the courts time with his feeble anti-theist posturing.
Whenever any atheist fuckwit responds to US court proceedings by talking
> about the possibility of allowing Sharia Law into your country,
> it is very important that they be met with
Mockery and derision for being complete tossers!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Remember EVERY atheist state was
> is a violation of secular freedom
which has only ever been created in MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies,
NEVER ONCE in any atheist state, which were ALL totalitarian
tyrannies, corrupt, nightmarish regimes of terror, torture and death!
> Permitting
an atheist state
people were killed, far more than ANY religion in all of human history,
during which religious societies created the great and enduring
civilisations which even these atheist hypocrites prefer to live in.
Forget their words, they are all lies, it's their ACTIONS in choosing
to live in a nation that declares 'In God We Trust' rather than the last
atheist shithole, North Korea, which reveals the truth about
atheists!
--
"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
>
> This article, reveals the danger of accepting Sharia Law in a
> fair and just secular society
Bullshit, it has nothing to do with Sharia, the atheist faces charges
under US law in a US court.. if he thinks he is hard done by he can
appeal, ..he hasn't because he's a lying atheist arsehole who may soon
be doing time! B^D
"Ernest Perce V – American"Atheists' Pennsylvania State Director
– may soon be spending time in jail because he released
audio footage -- via a Youtube video -- of a court proceeding
that occurred as a result of him allegedly being attacked by a
Muslim man while dressing as 'Zombie Mohammad' in a 2011 Halloween
parade in Mechanicsburg, PA. According to the description of a
released video by Perce, Judge Mark Martin – the presiding judge
of the court proceeding -- is threatening to hold Perce in contempt
of court for releasing recorded audio of the case
http://www.examiner.com/article/zombie-mohammad-ernest-perce-threatened-with-jail-for-releasing-audio-of-trial
Atheist do the crime, Atheist do the time! B^]
The judge effectively said the atheists had gone there to insult
and provoke Muslims and that there was no evidence that the altercation
which resulted constituted an assault by the defendent
with 'intent to harm or intimidate' which would constitute a crime!
Case dismissed! B^] Let the atheist WHINING begin! B^D
.. referring to the defendant,
"If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would
have been a little bit more of an altercation,
something far more substantial as far as testimony going on
that there was a conflict. Because there was not, it is not
proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant
is guilty of harassment. Therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge."
Semms like a perfectly resoonable judgement and makes the atheist pussy
look like the failed provocateur he set out to be!
B^D
Perce is clearly in violation of US law when he tries to have his failed
case
RETRIED IN THE MEDIA, by posting a recording of the trial;
"in the description section of the video, [he] encourages persons to make
decision as to whether Judge Mark Martin had acted appropriately
or not and contact the judge via telephone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9IyrpOnbs&feature=youtu.be
> "Needless to say, this is totally, completely and unequivocally
> unacceptable.
basically found he was a provocative tosser who wanted to insult and
offend and then whined like a little bitch at an altercation which
did not reach the seriousness of a criminal act, the appropriate
course of action would be to appeal.. no citizen in one of the free,
open, progressive, RULE-OF-LAW secular democracies set up by majority
religious societies, can run a Kangaroo court in the media, it is
CONTEMPT and he should be charged! B^]
> That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States
> citizen
evidence AND due process, but the man was found NOT GUILTY.
You can appeal, but people are already LAUGHING because once more the
lying atheist tossers who SET OUT To INSULT AND PROVOKE PEOPLE didn't
get the result they wanted and are now bleating like wee girlies!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAAA
So much for 'atheism is nothing more than a non-belief in God'
Atheism is clearly ANTI-THEIST propaganda and posturing,
and no one cares if they get their arses kicked for it!
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
The muslim protested atheist lies and propaganda
> in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man,
The Atheist stooge
> is chastised
for wasting the courts time with his feeble anti-theist posturing.
Whenever any atheist fuckwit responds to US court proceedings by talking
> about the possibility of allowing Sharia Law into your country,
> it is very important that they be met with
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Remember EVERY atheist state was
> is a violation of secular freedom
NEVER ONCE in any atheist state, which were ALL totalitarian
tyrannies, corrupt, nightmarish regimes of terror, torture and death!
> Permitting
an atheist state
> in any nation essentially gives
atheists
> an unrestricted license to kill
in the atheist regimes of the 20th centurey over 80,000,000
people were killed, far more than ANY religion in all of human history,
during which religious societies created the great and enduring
civilisations which even these atheist hypocrites prefer to live in.
Forget their words, they are all lies, it's their ACTIONS in choosing
to live in a nation that declares 'In God We Trust' rather than the last
atheist shithole, North Korea, which reveals the truth about
atheists!
--
"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
Feb 2, 2013, 9:26:41 AM2/2/13
to
On 31/01/2013 10:17 AM, Dakota wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 2:23 PM, L. Raymond wrote:
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> FT wrote:
>>
>> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so shocked
>> about it?
Atheists like to recycle the same stale BEAT UPS! B^D
> On 1/30/2013 2:23 PM, L. Raymond wrote:
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> FT wrote:
>>
>> This incident was from Halloween 2011. Why are you suddenly so shocked
>> about it?
>> He's Lutheran.
B^D
Sounds like the atheists believed ANY hysterical atheist blogger!
>>>> What transpired next was surreal.
>>
>> Not surreal. He had a knee jerk reaction to an insult to religion. His
>> speech was ignorant, a misinterpretation of the First Amendment, and
>> utterly inappropriate
from Militant atheists in USENET:
"I will say to you Islam, 嚙踝蕭I do not respect your filthy, repugnant, and
vile views.
I will not allow you put fear in my mind or those whom I know!
I will not be silent with my disdain and disgust for your culture or
your terroristic ways.
I am an American Atheist, and I am not afraid to deal with you openly
and in the same manner that I treat christianity. I am not afraid to
publicly blaspheme your pedophile prophet Mohammed of Islam.
I will do this on a corner, in a crowd or a parade! While so many
others draw mohammed, I am Mohammed in open public!
Am I worried about being attacked or death threats?
I嚙踝蕭m more worried that if I stay silent that the energy and emotion
within me will be worse to me than being attacked or even death threats!
So do your worst and I will do mine.嚙踝蕭
- Ernest Perce V, PA State Director
" From a state director, apparently endorsed by American Atheists, Inc.
(Official). Irresponsible hatred and bigoted racism towards a billion
people? Check. Know-nothing atheism rearing its ugly head again? Check.
There are more dignified and civil ways to defend civil society, surely.
Those who would teach others the value of free speech should use it for
something better than this.
And people wonder why atheist public relations is so difficult嚙皺.
brought to you by folks unconcerned for the public reputations of anyone
save themselves. Atheists 嚙踝蕭doing their worst嚙踝蕭 shouldn嚙踝蕭t require
descending to their target嚙踝蕭s level. And we wonder why atheists aren嚙踝蕭t
generally trusted? I wouldn嚙踝蕭t trust someone so motivated by hatred, either."
- John Shook, Centre for Inquiry
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/12/12/the-wrong-way-to-challenge-islam/
B^D
the poor hysterical tosser was ranting in overdrive, spittle flying, why
are atheists
so intent on revealing that far from their lying claim 'we just don't
believe in God' they
are are actually rabid, hate-filled anti-theists on a Jihad;
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Not satisfied with murder, Steve favours GENOCIDE of every
Muslim man woman and child, just for believing in something
the Atheist thugs want to prohibit again, freedom of thought and belief;
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
"Ernest Perce V 嚙碾 American"Atheists' Pennsylvania State Director
嚙碾 may soon be spending time in jail because he released
audio footage -- via a Youtube video -- of a court proceeding
that occurred as a result of him allegedly being attacked by a
Muslim man while dressing as 'Zombie Mohammad' in a 2011 Halloween
parade in Mechanicsburg, PA. According to the description of a
released video by Perce, Judge Mark Martin 嚙碾 the presiding judge
that occurred as a result of him allegedly being attacked by a
Muslim man while dressing as 'Zombie Mohammad' in a 2011 Halloween
parade in Mechanicsburg, PA. According to the description of a
of the court proceeding -- is threatening to hold Perce in contempt
of court for releasing recorded audio of the case"
http://www.examiner.com/article/zombie-mohammad-ernest-perce-threatened-with-jail-for-releasing-audio-of-trial
Atheist do the crime, Atheist do the time! B^]
>>>> Whenever any
of court for releasing recorded audio of the case"
http://www.examiner.com/article/zombie-mohammad-ernest-perce-threatened-with-jail-for-releasing-audio-of-trial
Atheist do the crime, Atheist do the time! B^]
lying atheist
>>>> talks about the possibility of allowing Sharia Law into your country,
>>>> it is very important that they be met with resistance
>
>>>> it is very important that they be met with resistance
>
> Of course it has nothing to do with Sharia.
Of course not, more atheist BEAT UP! B^D
--
"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!嚙踝蕭
fasgnadh
Feb 2, 2013, 9:49:57 AM2/2/13
to
On 1/02/2013 4:18 AM, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
>>
>> This article, entitled "Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist;
There is no evidence of the defendent admitting any such thing,
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
>>
>> This article, entitled "Muslim Admits to Attacking Atheist;
and the atheist "Zombie Mohammed", aka Ernest Perce V, could face
charges for contempt of court for attempting to break US law! B^D
"When the Pennsylvania case went to court in December 2011, the charge
against the offended Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy, was dismissed for lack of
evidence" - Loonwatch.com
>> http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2012/02/warning-to-atheists-in-pennsylvania.html
>
> Not a single link to other than anti muslim blogs?
"Controversy broke out last February after a Pennsylvania judge, citing
insufficient evidence, dismissed a harassment against a Muslim man who
allegedly �attacked� an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as
�Zombie Muhammad.�
When the Pennsylvania case went to court in December 2011, the charge
against the offended Muslim, Talaag Elbayomy, was dismissed for lack of
evidence
Zombie Muhammad turned out to be Ernest Perce V, the director of the
Pennsylvania chapter of American Atheists. Though the American Humanist
Association (also an atheist organization) carried a more balance
account of the incident, the controversy quickly went viral all across
the looniverse, with sensational headlines and baseless claims the judge
was a Muslim (he wasn�t), and that he applied Islamic Law in the case
(he didn�t). They also claimed the judge had denied Zombie Muhammad�s
right to free speech, scolding him and saying:
Before you start mocking someone else�s religion you may want to
find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus�"
- http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/ernest-perce-v/
--
"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Feb 2, 2013, 3:58:45 PM2/2/13
to
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=777
The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s
by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front
group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman
Muhammad -- who was with that organization when the word was formally
created, and who has since rejected IIIT's ideology -- now reveals the
original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome
term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in
the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down
critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term
designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing
critics and silencing them.
This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood's "General
Strategic Goal for North America," by which the organization aimed to
wage "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their
hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over
all other religions." To implement this plan, the Brotherhood enlisted
the help of 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" (one of which
was IIIT), whose task would be to depict themselves as civil-rights
groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was
allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded
fear of them -- i.e., by a society replete with "Islamophobia."
Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did
not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after
9/11. Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-
rights activists have regularly accused the American people, American
institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of
harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims.
The accusers charge that as a result of this "Islamophobia," Muslims
are disproportionately targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and
acts of discrimination.
But FBI data on hate crimes show that the foregoing accusers are
wholly incorrect. The incidence of anti-Muslim abuses nationwide has
actually declined since September 2001.
Moreover, anti-Islamic hate crimes are but a fraction of overall
religious hate crimes. In fact, the overwhelming majority of such
crimes target Jews. In 2006, for instance, fully 66 percent of
religiously motivated attacks in the U.S. were against Jews, while
just 11 percent targeted Muslims, even though the Jewish and Muslim
populations in the United States are similar in size. In 2006, a total
of 156 anti-Islamic hate crimes were committed nationwide -- a 68
percent drop from 2001.
The FBI report discredits CAIR’s alarmist narrative of “Islamophobic”
lynch mobs marching on mosques across America. It shows that in
reality, Americans have been remarkably, and admirably, tolerant and
respectful of Muslims and their institutions since 9/11.
Each year, CAIR, which claims to be the “Muslim NAACP,” releases a
report citing thousands of alleged civil-rights and physical abuses
against Muslims, which largely are based on anecdotal reporting from
members of its organization. Despite CAIR’s obvious bias (and proven
record of dissembling), the mainstream media often report its numbers
unfiltered and without question.
But a careful analysis of the numbers shows that the incidents
reported by CAIR are mostly victimless crimes. For instance, in its
2006 report CAIR listed as “hate crimes” such occurrences as:
someone placing a copy of the Quran in a toilet at the library of Pace
University in New York
someone trampling on a “flower bed” at a mosque in Texas.
Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was virtually no
vigilantism or violent backlash against Muslims in the United States.
In November and December 2001, Zogby polled American Muslims and found
that only 6 percent had suffered “physical abuse or assault.”
In October 2010, CAIR announced that it was forming a new
“Islamophobia” department that would produce an annual report tracking
“trends in rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims and ... offer
accurate and balanced information to be used in the struggle for
tolerance and mutual understanding.”
A Nexis search suggests that the term "Islamophobia" was first used in
the media around 1990, when a Soviet Academy of Sciences academic told
an Uzbekistan-based newspaper that Soviet leaders' “Islamophobia”
might trigger an “Islamic explosion.” In 1995, Jordan’s Prince Hassan
used the word in an address at the UN General Assembly, asserting that
many people were using "inflammatory rhetoric" to "ta[r] all Moslems
with the brush of fanatical extremism." In 1996 the British think tank
Runnymede Trust established a Commission on British Muslims and
Islamophobia, which later produced a report entitled “Islamophobia: A
challenge for us all.” In the late 1990s, Iranian diplomats used the
term with increasing frequency at the (now-defunct) UN Commission on
Human Rights, characterizing the phenomenon as “the perception of
Islam and its followers as threats to the West.” Today, references to
"Islamophobia" appear regularly in UN documents.
Much of this summary is adapted from: "Hyping Hate Crimes vs.
Muslims," by Investor's Business Daily, December 7, 2007).
The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s
by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front
group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman
Muhammad -- who was with that organization when the word was formally
created, and who has since rejected IIIT's ideology -- now reveals the
original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome
term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in
the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down
critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term
designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing
critics and silencing them.
This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood's "General
Strategic Goal for North America," by which the organization aimed to
wage "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their
hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over
all other religions." To implement this plan, the Brotherhood enlisted
the help of 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" (one of which
was IIIT), whose task would be to depict themselves as civil-rights
groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was
allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded
fear of them -- i.e., by a society replete with "Islamophobia."
Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did
not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after
9/11. Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-
rights activists have regularly accused the American people, American
institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of
harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims.
The accusers charge that as a result of this "Islamophobia," Muslims
are disproportionately targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and
acts of discrimination.
But FBI data on hate crimes show that the foregoing accusers are
wholly incorrect. The incidence of anti-Muslim abuses nationwide has
actually declined since September 2001.
Moreover, anti-Islamic hate crimes are but a fraction of overall
religious hate crimes. In fact, the overwhelming majority of such
crimes target Jews. In 2006, for instance, fully 66 percent of
religiously motivated attacks in the U.S. were against Jews, while
just 11 percent targeted Muslims, even though the Jewish and Muslim
populations in the United States are similar in size. In 2006, a total
of 156 anti-Islamic hate crimes were committed nationwide -- a 68
percent drop from 2001.
The FBI report discredits CAIR’s alarmist narrative of “Islamophobic”
lynch mobs marching on mosques across America. It shows that in
reality, Americans have been remarkably, and admirably, tolerant and
respectful of Muslims and their institutions since 9/11.
Each year, CAIR, which claims to be the “Muslim NAACP,” releases a
report citing thousands of alleged civil-rights and physical abuses
against Muslims, which largely are based on anecdotal reporting from
members of its organization. Despite CAIR’s obvious bias (and proven
record of dissembling), the mainstream media often report its numbers
unfiltered and without question.
But a careful analysis of the numbers shows that the incidents
reported by CAIR are mostly victimless crimes. For instance, in its
2006 report CAIR listed as “hate crimes” such occurrences as:
someone placing a copy of the Quran in a toilet at the library of Pace
University in New York
someone trampling on a “flower bed” at a mosque in Texas.
Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was virtually no
vigilantism or violent backlash against Muslims in the United States.
In November and December 2001, Zogby polled American Muslims and found
that only 6 percent had suffered “physical abuse or assault.”
In October 2010, CAIR announced that it was forming a new
“Islamophobia” department that would produce an annual report tracking
“trends in rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims and ... offer
accurate and balanced information to be used in the struggle for
tolerance and mutual understanding.”
A Nexis search suggests that the term "Islamophobia" was first used in
the media around 1990, when a Soviet Academy of Sciences academic told
an Uzbekistan-based newspaper that Soviet leaders' “Islamophobia”
might trigger an “Islamic explosion.” In 1995, Jordan’s Prince Hassan
used the word in an address at the UN General Assembly, asserting that
many people were using "inflammatory rhetoric" to "ta[r] all Moslems
with the brush of fanatical extremism." In 1996 the British think tank
Runnymede Trust established a Commission on British Muslims and
Islamophobia, which later produced a report entitled “Islamophobia: A
challenge for us all.” In the late 1990s, Iranian diplomats used the
term with increasing frequency at the (now-defunct) UN Commission on
Human Rights, characterizing the phenomenon as “the perception of
Islam and its followers as threats to the West.” Today, references to
"Islamophobia" appear regularly in UN documents.
Much of this summary is adapted from: "Hyping Hate Crimes vs.
Muslims," by Investor's Business Daily, December 7, 2007).
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Feb 2, 2013, 4:15:33 PM2/2/13
to
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Loonwatch-List.htm.htm
Responding to Loonwatch's Attack on the TROP
List of Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11
by Glen Roberts, Editor of TheReligionofPeace.com
(August 25, 2012)
This article is a belated response to an attack by the website
“Loonwatch” on
TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) which appears to raise questions about
the
integrity of the broadly cited list of Islamic terror attacks
maintained by TROP.
Loonwatch is an apparently well-funded Islamic website run by an
anonymous group which exists for two general purposes: to publicize
incidents of offense to Muslim-Americans (which are mostly trivial
against the horrific discrimination faced by religious minorities in
Muslim lands), and to slander critics of Islam, usually by pretending
that they are making bigoted arguments against Muslims as a people
when they really aren’t.
The people behind Loonwatch generally ignore or severely downplay
Islamic terrorism, since the significance of the issues they promote
compares poorly to the hundreds of shootings, bombings, stabbing and
beheadings that occur each month in the name of Allah. My own
website, TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) is a frequent target of theirs,
since it presents a litany of Islamic violence that is difficult to
ignore.
As with other Muslim organizations in America, such as CAIR, Loonwatch
suffers from a near absence of moral perspective. While fervent
members of their own religion go about imprisoning, assaulting,
beating, igniting, shooting, bludgeoning, and torturing Christians who
share their faith in Islamic lands, for example, these groups whine
incessantly about bacon bits, hurt feelings and the inexorable
“someone didn’t hire me because I wear a hijab”. Very rarely will
they even bother to denounce specific atrocities meted out in the name
of Islam, much less channel their influence toward resolving far more
serious problems associated with their faith.
It is this astonishing narcissism that compelled me to being compiling
a list of Islamic terror attacks in 2002. In the ten years since, it
has grown to about 20,000. My original hope was that confronting
Muslim organizations with the magnitude of violence committed in the
name of their religion might inspire a realignment of priorities more
in keeping with that of other faith and value systems. Obviously, this
did not happen.
Instead of inspiring action toward ending the violence, these groups
respond merely by trying to discount and shift responsibility, almost
as if it is a game. For their part, Loonwatch has produced several
articles and videos over the years attempting to manipulate others
into believing that the list of attacks is entirely fabricated or that
Islam plays no role in the violence. Theirs is the sort of religion
that fosters self-absorption without self-reflection, it seems.
Loonwatch demonizes any critic of Islam with a broad-brush. It
matters little to them, for example, that my site takes issue only
with a supremacist ideology that openly touts the superiority of
Muslim men and the relative inferiority of everyone else, or that I
passionately denounce the mistreatment of Muslims and openly
discourage desecrating copies of the Quran. They prefer instead to
blindly slander TROP as a “hate site” and insinuate that there is a
sinister effort on my part to promote a false agenda.
A July 10th article on Loonwatch, modestly titled
“TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s
‘War on Terror’”, appears to be a slightly more sophisticated attempt
to disparage the list of attacks. After years of implying that the
incidents on the list were fabricated, it seems that someone at
Loonwatch actually analyzed a month’s worth of TROP data and could not
find a single one that had not occurred. The focus then shifted to
absolving Islam of responsibility for the attacks based on a handful
of items that appear to fall into a grey area.
Before delving into a detailed response (in which I expect to lose a
few readers) I will point out that I have always said the TROP list is
not a scientific product but rather an honest effort to gather an
accurate record of true Islamic terrorism. I define an attack as an
incident of deadly non-combat violence in which it can be reasonably
assumed that religion was a key motive (it does not have to be the
only factor). I am committed to truth and always open to correction.
At one time in the past, in fact, I even tried (unsuccessfully) to
dialogue with the Loonwatch staff.
According to the July 10th article, Loonwatch is now admitting that
the violence on the TROP list is real, but claims that about 7% of the
incidents are either not terrorism or not Islamic. This is a fair
complaint, but even if true, hardly justifies the over-the-top
conclusion that I am guilty of a “propagandistic spin-job” replete
with “lies.” Why would anyone intentionally taint such a large list
with bad seeds? Obviously, the truth is more complicated and requires
a closer look.
Loonwatch combed through 203 fatal attacks from about June 6th to July
7th, 2012 and found only 15 with which they took issue (one of these
had already been removed from the list, but more on that later). Of
the 15, seven were “honor” killings and the other eight allegedly fall
into four additional categories which should have precluded them from
a list of Islamic terror.
Since half of Loonwatch’s objections pertain to honor killings, it
bears mention that for years, I have acknowledged on TROP that “a
handful of incidents on the list may not fit the traditional
definition of a 'terror attack’” and I used honor killings as a
specific example. Others may disagree, but in my opinion, killing a
woman in cold blood for violating Islamic morals is Islamic terror.
For its part, Loonwatch casually dismisses honor killings as a broad
phenomenon that is “unrelated to Islam” and practiced by “various
cultures around the world.” This is quite a stretch given that well
over 90% of honor killers are Muslim males who often credit their
religion. It is Islamic law after all that raises consensual sex to
the level of capital crime. Readers can make up their own minds as to
whether honor killings fit their definition of a terror attack, but it
seems to be somewhat academic here given that less than 1% of the
casualties on the TROP list actually fall into this category.
Two of the remaining eight attacks with which Loonwatch takes issue
are of Taliban in uniform shooting NATO soldiers in the back while
yelling praises to Allah. Loonwatch doesn’t deny the religious angle,
but argues that the attacks shouldn’t qualify as terrorism because the
victims aren’t civilian. (In fact Loonwatch actually says that their
definition of terrorism is “the targeted killing of civilians in the
furtherance of a political cause”, which would necessarily preclude
any act of religious violence).
I’m not sure where it is written that terror attacks against people in
uniform shouldn’t count, particularly in a non-combat situation. The
victims in these two incidents were murdered while in the process of
training Afghan security to defend their country from terrorists who
routinely blow up marketplaces and Muslim schoolchildren. Is
Loonwatch arguing that they should not have been doing this? The
logic seems a bit vague to me, and I suspect that there may be an
ulterior agenda.
Of the six remaining incidents, Loonwatch insists that two should be
classified as “non-religious.” One of these, incredibly enough, is of
two Christian musicians in Egypt murdered by “ultra-conservative
Salafis” who consider music “prohibited as a distraction from
religious duties”. The murders occurred amidst other Salafi killings
and the distribution of leaflets warning Christians of “a tragic end
if they do not return to the truth.”
All of this is pure coincidence according to Loonwatch, which claims
that “most reports say a religious motive is not suspected”. But this
is not true, which is why out of “most reports” they produce exactly
zero. While there was a very early write-up, copied by other sources,
in which unnamed local officials claimed they were still working on a
motive, their lack of candor probably had more to do with the intense
rioting taking place at the time.
This is typical of Loonwatch, which uses deceitful tactics to make it
appear as if others are guilty of the same. In my case, they take
advantage of the fact that there are almost always news articles
published in the immediate aftermath of an attack which state that no
one has yet claimed responsibility, even though Islamic terror is
later confirmed or reasonably inferred (such as the wave of July
attacks that were claimed in August by the "Islamic Army of Iraq"). I
never asserted that I wait until the outcome of criminal trials to
post attacks, only that I never post anything that I believe to be
false.
The other “non-religious” attack on our list, according to Loonwatch,
was the shooting of a police officer in Dagestan by an “insurgent”.
But, if the insurgency in Dagestan is non-religious then someone
forgot to tell the participants. Here’s a quote from one of them in a
recent article: “I ask Allah for the opportunity to kill as many
kafirs as we can.” Does this sound non-religious?
Two of the remaining four attacks on Loonwatch’s list occurred against
Buddhists in Thailand and Myanmar. This can’t be terrorism, says
Loonwatch, because Muslim populations in these two countries are
discriminated against. Only in the upside-down world of Islam is it
acceptable to kill innocent people on the basis of their group
identity. Loonwatch and I will just have to agree to disagree on
this.
Finally, we reach the last two attacks from the list of 15 to which
Loonwatch takes issue. Both of these occurred in Pakistan and were
subsequently claimed by the BLA (Baluchistan Liberation Army). The
BLA may be Sunnis, but they are not an Islamic terror group.
Loonwatch says these two attacks don’t belong on the list… and they
are absolutely correct! However, there is also a bit more to the
story than they are letting on.
In the first place, one of these two attacks had already been removed
from the list. The July 6th bombing of a bus in Turbat was
specifically described by TROP as “suspected” and it was never on the
site for even a full day, having been pulled after the BLA claimed
responsibility. Evidently, this happened to be the window in which
Loonwatch captured their data. I’ll give them the benefit of the
doubt by assuming that they did not know the item had been removed
from the list, but they may want to consider cutting some slack of
their own here as well.
Terror attacks in Pakistan’s Baluchistan region are notoriously
difficult to analyze since there is both Taliban activity and a
separatist ethnic insurgency by the BLA. It is also a region in which
Shia bus passengers are routinely blown up and brutally shot to death
by Sunnis in cold blood for no reason other than their religious
affiliation. In fact, 31 Shia passengers were killed in three attacks
similar to the Turbat bus bombing in this same region during the 30
days analyzed by Loonwatch. This is why better minds than mine were
also initially fooled into suspecting that this attack by Sunnis on a
bus bound for Shiite Iran was sectarian, even if it was admittedly
premature to post on TROP.
That presumably leaves only one incident out of a pool of 203 which
was a genuine mistake: the June 27th bombing of a train in Quetta that
was subsequently claimed by the BLA. Loonwatch gets credit for
finding this, but when the calculated margin of error is less than one
half of one percent, it is highly disingenuous to conclude, as they
do, that “facts are no hindrance for TROP propaganda.” Who is really
guilty of the spin-job here?
The truth is that there are dozens of deadly BLA attacks that occur
each month which are not on my list. I also filter out hundreds of
political killings that occur in Karachi each year to include only
sectarian attacks. Mistakes that I make are later corrected, and if
there are one or two incidents out of every 200 on the list that don’t
belong, then there are almost certainly hundreds, if not thousands of
other Islamic terror attacks over the last ten years that I did not
catch at all or disregarded for lack of a reliable source.
By contrast, Loonwatch entertains standards of “Christian” terrorism
that are loose to the point of laughable. Their criticism of my site
actually pulls from the work of Sami Zaatari, who is known for having
touted a list of what he called “Christian terror attacks” on Muslim-
Responses.com. Although he has since gone to great lengths to purge
it from Internet archives, Sami’s "list" was a collection of a few
dozen bombings carried out over the last 50 years by a motley crew
that included Columbian drug gangs, the KKK, leftist terror groups
like FARC, and the Marxist-atheist IRA. Most of the perpetrators were
not even remotely religious.
In fact, Loonwatch's own record in the credibility department is a bit
sketchy. For example, they are still hammering Robert Spencer for
warning that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Egypt -
scientifically dismissing it as “loony fear-mongering” on the part of
someone who “isn’t qualified to speak on such subjects”. Loonwatch's
own panel of experts assured them that Islamists in Egypt were “simply
too weak to overtake the secular opposition” in the upcoming
elections. Then the elections were held… and Islamists took 76% of
the legislative body… and the presidency.
In the case of Loonwatch's attack on TROP, the real story isn’t so
much whether or not 7% of the incidents on the list fit their personal
requirements, but rather their lack of interest in the other 93%.
Even if half the list could be legitimately disregarded (which it
cannot), it would still leave a great deal of horrific violence done
in the name of Islam each and every day. There seems to be no flicker
of recognition on their part as to the larger problem.
The 202 Islamic terror attacks documented in the period analyzed by
Loonwatch occurred across 26 countries. They ranged from Abu Sayyaf
strafing elderly women with gunfire in the Philippines to a secular
blogger stabbed in the throat by fundamentalists in the Maldives. Of
the 1,061 people killed, the incidents with which Loonwatch takes
issue accounted for just 36. More innocents than that were massacred
in a single Sunday’s worth of church bombings on June 17th by
Islamists in Nigeria, who openly credited the Quran's imperative to
fight Christians. In Kenya, Mujahideen threw grenades into two more
churches and shot worshippers as they fled. In Tunisia, videotape
surfaced of an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity being gruesomely
beheaded to shouts of ‘Allah Akbar’ by those who prayed beforehand.
Meanwhile, Loonwatch scours for anomalies in order to make the weak
point that a few dozen deaths out of every thousand may not fit the
traditional definition of terror attack victims since they were women
stabbed in the name of Quranic morals or troops shot in the back by
Allah-praising Islamists while trying to protect Afghan children.
There’s the moral victory? Really?
Here’s a tip for Loonwatch. Take another look at that list and see if
you can tell where religious tolerance is needed most in the world
today.
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page
Responding to Loonwatch's Attack on the TROP
List of Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11
by Glen Roberts, Editor of TheReligionofPeace.com
(August 25, 2012)
This article is a belated response to an attack by the website
“Loonwatch” on
TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) which appears to raise questions about
the
integrity of the broadly cited list of Islamic terror attacks
maintained by TROP.
Loonwatch is an apparently well-funded Islamic website run by an
anonymous group which exists for two general purposes: to publicize
incidents of offense to Muslim-Americans (which are mostly trivial
against the horrific discrimination faced by religious minorities in
Muslim lands), and to slander critics of Islam, usually by pretending
that they are making bigoted arguments against Muslims as a people
when they really aren’t.
The people behind Loonwatch generally ignore or severely downplay
Islamic terrorism, since the significance of the issues they promote
compares poorly to the hundreds of shootings, bombings, stabbing and
beheadings that occur each month in the name of Allah. My own
website, TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) is a frequent target of theirs,
since it presents a litany of Islamic violence that is difficult to
ignore.
As with other Muslim organizations in America, such as CAIR, Loonwatch
suffers from a near absence of moral perspective. While fervent
members of their own religion go about imprisoning, assaulting,
beating, igniting, shooting, bludgeoning, and torturing Christians who
share their faith in Islamic lands, for example, these groups whine
incessantly about bacon bits, hurt feelings and the inexorable
“someone didn’t hire me because I wear a hijab”. Very rarely will
they even bother to denounce specific atrocities meted out in the name
of Islam, much less channel their influence toward resolving far more
serious problems associated with their faith.
It is this astonishing narcissism that compelled me to being compiling
a list of Islamic terror attacks in 2002. In the ten years since, it
has grown to about 20,000. My original hope was that confronting
Muslim organizations with the magnitude of violence committed in the
name of their religion might inspire a realignment of priorities more
in keeping with that of other faith and value systems. Obviously, this
did not happen.
Instead of inspiring action toward ending the violence, these groups
respond merely by trying to discount and shift responsibility, almost
as if it is a game. For their part, Loonwatch has produced several
articles and videos over the years attempting to manipulate others
into believing that the list of attacks is entirely fabricated or that
Islam plays no role in the violence. Theirs is the sort of religion
that fosters self-absorption without self-reflection, it seems.
Loonwatch demonizes any critic of Islam with a broad-brush. It
matters little to them, for example, that my site takes issue only
with a supremacist ideology that openly touts the superiority of
Muslim men and the relative inferiority of everyone else, or that I
passionately denounce the mistreatment of Muslims and openly
discourage desecrating copies of the Quran. They prefer instead to
blindly slander TROP as a “hate site” and insinuate that there is a
sinister effort on my part to promote a false agenda.
A July 10th article on Loonwatch, modestly titled
“TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s
‘War on Terror’”, appears to be a slightly more sophisticated attempt
to disparage the list of attacks. After years of implying that the
incidents on the list were fabricated, it seems that someone at
Loonwatch actually analyzed a month’s worth of TROP data and could not
find a single one that had not occurred. The focus then shifted to
absolving Islam of responsibility for the attacks based on a handful
of items that appear to fall into a grey area.
Before delving into a detailed response (in which I expect to lose a
few readers) I will point out that I have always said the TROP list is
not a scientific product but rather an honest effort to gather an
accurate record of true Islamic terrorism. I define an attack as an
incident of deadly non-combat violence in which it can be reasonably
assumed that religion was a key motive (it does not have to be the
only factor). I am committed to truth and always open to correction.
At one time in the past, in fact, I even tried (unsuccessfully) to
dialogue with the Loonwatch staff.
According to the July 10th article, Loonwatch is now admitting that
the violence on the TROP list is real, but claims that about 7% of the
incidents are either not terrorism or not Islamic. This is a fair
complaint, but even if true, hardly justifies the over-the-top
conclusion that I am guilty of a “propagandistic spin-job” replete
with “lies.” Why would anyone intentionally taint such a large list
with bad seeds? Obviously, the truth is more complicated and requires
a closer look.
Loonwatch combed through 203 fatal attacks from about June 6th to July
7th, 2012 and found only 15 with which they took issue (one of these
had already been removed from the list, but more on that later). Of
the 15, seven were “honor” killings and the other eight allegedly fall
into four additional categories which should have precluded them from
a list of Islamic terror.
Since half of Loonwatch’s objections pertain to honor killings, it
bears mention that for years, I have acknowledged on TROP that “a
handful of incidents on the list may not fit the traditional
definition of a 'terror attack’” and I used honor killings as a
specific example. Others may disagree, but in my opinion, killing a
woman in cold blood for violating Islamic morals is Islamic terror.
For its part, Loonwatch casually dismisses honor killings as a broad
phenomenon that is “unrelated to Islam” and practiced by “various
cultures around the world.” This is quite a stretch given that well
over 90% of honor killers are Muslim males who often credit their
religion. It is Islamic law after all that raises consensual sex to
the level of capital crime. Readers can make up their own minds as to
whether honor killings fit their definition of a terror attack, but it
seems to be somewhat academic here given that less than 1% of the
casualties on the TROP list actually fall into this category.
Two of the remaining eight attacks with which Loonwatch takes issue
are of Taliban in uniform shooting NATO soldiers in the back while
yelling praises to Allah. Loonwatch doesn’t deny the religious angle,
but argues that the attacks shouldn’t qualify as terrorism because the
victims aren’t civilian. (In fact Loonwatch actually says that their
definition of terrorism is “the targeted killing of civilians in the
furtherance of a political cause”, which would necessarily preclude
any act of religious violence).
I’m not sure where it is written that terror attacks against people in
uniform shouldn’t count, particularly in a non-combat situation. The
victims in these two incidents were murdered while in the process of
training Afghan security to defend their country from terrorists who
routinely blow up marketplaces and Muslim schoolchildren. Is
Loonwatch arguing that they should not have been doing this? The
logic seems a bit vague to me, and I suspect that there may be an
ulterior agenda.
Of the six remaining incidents, Loonwatch insists that two should be
classified as “non-religious.” One of these, incredibly enough, is of
two Christian musicians in Egypt murdered by “ultra-conservative
Salafis” who consider music “prohibited as a distraction from
religious duties”. The murders occurred amidst other Salafi killings
and the distribution of leaflets warning Christians of “a tragic end
if they do not return to the truth.”
All of this is pure coincidence according to Loonwatch, which claims
that “most reports say a religious motive is not suspected”. But this
is not true, which is why out of “most reports” they produce exactly
zero. While there was a very early write-up, copied by other sources,
in which unnamed local officials claimed they were still working on a
motive, their lack of candor probably had more to do with the intense
rioting taking place at the time.
This is typical of Loonwatch, which uses deceitful tactics to make it
appear as if others are guilty of the same. In my case, they take
advantage of the fact that there are almost always news articles
published in the immediate aftermath of an attack which state that no
one has yet claimed responsibility, even though Islamic terror is
later confirmed or reasonably inferred (such as the wave of July
attacks that were claimed in August by the "Islamic Army of Iraq"). I
never asserted that I wait until the outcome of criminal trials to
post attacks, only that I never post anything that I believe to be
false.
The other “non-religious” attack on our list, according to Loonwatch,
was the shooting of a police officer in Dagestan by an “insurgent”.
But, if the insurgency in Dagestan is non-religious then someone
forgot to tell the participants. Here’s a quote from one of them in a
recent article: “I ask Allah for the opportunity to kill as many
kafirs as we can.” Does this sound non-religious?
Two of the remaining four attacks on Loonwatch’s list occurred against
Buddhists in Thailand and Myanmar. This can’t be terrorism, says
Loonwatch, because Muslim populations in these two countries are
discriminated against. Only in the upside-down world of Islam is it
acceptable to kill innocent people on the basis of their group
identity. Loonwatch and I will just have to agree to disagree on
this.
Finally, we reach the last two attacks from the list of 15 to which
Loonwatch takes issue. Both of these occurred in Pakistan and were
subsequently claimed by the BLA (Baluchistan Liberation Army). The
BLA may be Sunnis, but they are not an Islamic terror group.
Loonwatch says these two attacks don’t belong on the list… and they
are absolutely correct! However, there is also a bit more to the
story than they are letting on.
In the first place, one of these two attacks had already been removed
from the list. The July 6th bombing of a bus in Turbat was
specifically described by TROP as “suspected” and it was never on the
site for even a full day, having been pulled after the BLA claimed
responsibility. Evidently, this happened to be the window in which
Loonwatch captured their data. I’ll give them the benefit of the
doubt by assuming that they did not know the item had been removed
from the list, but they may want to consider cutting some slack of
their own here as well.
Terror attacks in Pakistan’s Baluchistan region are notoriously
difficult to analyze since there is both Taliban activity and a
separatist ethnic insurgency by the BLA. It is also a region in which
Shia bus passengers are routinely blown up and brutally shot to death
by Sunnis in cold blood for no reason other than their religious
affiliation. In fact, 31 Shia passengers were killed in three attacks
similar to the Turbat bus bombing in this same region during the 30
days analyzed by Loonwatch. This is why better minds than mine were
also initially fooled into suspecting that this attack by Sunnis on a
bus bound for Shiite Iran was sectarian, even if it was admittedly
premature to post on TROP.
That presumably leaves only one incident out of a pool of 203 which
was a genuine mistake: the June 27th bombing of a train in Quetta that
was subsequently claimed by the BLA. Loonwatch gets credit for
finding this, but when the calculated margin of error is less than one
half of one percent, it is highly disingenuous to conclude, as they
do, that “facts are no hindrance for TROP propaganda.” Who is really
guilty of the spin-job here?
The truth is that there are dozens of deadly BLA attacks that occur
each month which are not on my list. I also filter out hundreds of
political killings that occur in Karachi each year to include only
sectarian attacks. Mistakes that I make are later corrected, and if
there are one or two incidents out of every 200 on the list that don’t
belong, then there are almost certainly hundreds, if not thousands of
other Islamic terror attacks over the last ten years that I did not
catch at all or disregarded for lack of a reliable source.
By contrast, Loonwatch entertains standards of “Christian” terrorism
that are loose to the point of laughable. Their criticism of my site
actually pulls from the work of Sami Zaatari, who is known for having
touted a list of what he called “Christian terror attacks” on Muslim-
Responses.com. Although he has since gone to great lengths to purge
it from Internet archives, Sami’s "list" was a collection of a few
dozen bombings carried out over the last 50 years by a motley crew
that included Columbian drug gangs, the KKK, leftist terror groups
like FARC, and the Marxist-atheist IRA. Most of the perpetrators were
not even remotely religious.
In fact, Loonwatch's own record in the credibility department is a bit
sketchy. For example, they are still hammering Robert Spencer for
warning that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over in Egypt -
scientifically dismissing it as “loony fear-mongering” on the part of
someone who “isn’t qualified to speak on such subjects”. Loonwatch's
own panel of experts assured them that Islamists in Egypt were “simply
too weak to overtake the secular opposition” in the upcoming
elections. Then the elections were held… and Islamists took 76% of
the legislative body… and the presidency.
In the case of Loonwatch's attack on TROP, the real story isn’t so
much whether or not 7% of the incidents on the list fit their personal
requirements, but rather their lack of interest in the other 93%.
Even if half the list could be legitimately disregarded (which it
cannot), it would still leave a great deal of horrific violence done
in the name of Islam each and every day. There seems to be no flicker
of recognition on their part as to the larger problem.
The 202 Islamic terror attacks documented in the period analyzed by
Loonwatch occurred across 26 countries. They ranged from Abu Sayyaf
strafing elderly women with gunfire in the Philippines to a secular
blogger stabbed in the throat by fundamentalists in the Maldives. Of
the 1,061 people killed, the incidents with which Loonwatch takes
issue accounted for just 36. More innocents than that were massacred
in a single Sunday’s worth of church bombings on June 17th by
Islamists in Nigeria, who openly credited the Quran's imperative to
fight Christians. In Kenya, Mujahideen threw grenades into two more
churches and shot worshippers as they fled. In Tunisia, videotape
surfaced of an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity being gruesomely
beheaded to shouts of ‘Allah Akbar’ by those who prayed beforehand.
Meanwhile, Loonwatch scours for anomalies in order to make the weak
point that a few dozen deaths out of every thousand may not fit the
traditional definition of terror attack victims since they were women
stabbed in the name of Quranic morals or troops shot in the back by
Allah-praising Islamists while trying to protect Afghan children.
There’s the moral victory? Really?
Here’s a tip for Loonwatch. Take another look at that list and see if
you can tell where religious tolerance is needed most in the world
today.
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page
0 new messages