Bydio

From Atlas Shrugs:

Killers are everything but original. If the pictures sent by were not reminiscent enough of Islamist vigilantes, his argumentation cannot be more identical - his college classmates and teachers were not moral enough to live and therefore he had a right to kill them:

You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything

The Iranian supreme court could not agree more. It has just reaffirmed that according to their interpretation of Muslim law, individuals have the right to decide that their fellow citizens are not moral enough to live and proceed to execute them:

The Iranian Supreme Court has overturned the murder convictions of six members of a prestigious state militia who killed five people they considered “morally corrupt.” . . .

The ruling stems from a case in 2002 in Kerman that began after the accused watched a tape by a senior cleric who ruled that Muslims could kill a morally corrupt person if the law failed to confront that person.

Some 17 people were killed in gruesome ways after that viewing, but only five deaths were linked to this group. The six accused, all in their early 20s, explained to the court that they had taken their victims outside the city after they had identified them. Then they stoned them to death or drowned them in a pond by sitting on their chests.

In other words, Iran would be acting virtuously if it used its nukes to destroy any country (not only Israel) it considers too immoral to survive. Oh, yes, the IAEA just informed us that Iran produces nuclear fuel in underground facility.

So I’m reading an article at Dhimmi Watch originally from the UK Daily Mail, and one of the first paragraph makes some startling points about this woman’s views:

And despite her presentation by Channel 4 as a moderate, in the past the 38-year-old has described non-believers as “rats in cages going round on a treadmill” of consumerism, and declares she would like to see Britain’s pubs converted into mosques.

Pretty wild stuff.  So I read on, and see:

Atkinson went on, in an essay published on the Internet for fellow muslims: “When I see large numbers of non-believers I feel very sad for them as they remind me of rats or gerbils in cages going round and round on a treadmill, believing that they are fulfilling their sole purpose in life and reaching their true destiny (which is Argos).

“If only they could uncover their eyes and see the damage they cause themselves and to their children.

“I feel certain that if they were to have a tiny glimpse of what Islam could give them there would be Mosques on every corner instead of pubs.”

So that first interesting paragraph somewhat overstates this woman’s position.  Now I don’t agree with the woman — she’s a mixed-up radical searching for a cause greater than herself to justify her existence, and works for radicals with bully-tactic ethics — but the Daily Mail was stirring up some shit, so you know you can’t exactly trust what the Daily Mail reports because they like to overemphasize some points for sensationalism.

Further, I’d bet that some women do find freedom in being relieved of responsibility for certain things. It’s much easier to follow when you “know your place” as described by a book than it is to lead in a society where you have to make more decisions for yourself.

Freedom for some is slavery for others, but the ultimate freedom is being able to decide for yourself which to choose. That’s what I try to stand for; not freedom for freedom’s sake, but freedom to choose your own path, no matter if it’s making it in the world of business or becoming a veiled housewife.  The ability to choose your path is the real freedom.

From American Thinker:

As the New Year approached a man went to a rabbi  to repent because  he had gossiped during the past year.  The rabbi told the man to slash open a feather pillow, allowing the feathers to blow about and then return the next day.  Puzzled,  the man nevertheless did as he was told.   The next day the rabbi instructed the penitent to now gather up all the scattered feathers and stuff them back into the pillow case.  “But” the man protested “the feathers have blown all over, far away.  I’ll never be able to find them.”

“Exactly” the rabbi replied.  “And the same is true with gossip. Don’t do it.”

So I heard from Dhimmi Watch about this idiotic postcard made by War On Want, and once I took a good look at it, I saw what the problem was… the arrow was facing the wrong way. I decided to fix that.

Original (kinda):

New Freshness:

Militant about “Islamism”

Daniel Pipes wages “hand-to-hand combat” with a “totalitarian ideology.”

by Janet Tassel

“It’s a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution.”

~Daniel Pipes

My response to a post on The Jawa Report:

“As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office.”

If there are any Muslims in his district, he’s not representing their religious beliefs in his government office (I assume it’s his gov’t office). If he was merely representing his own religious beliefs, this would just be an inelegant letter (though as a politician, he should be more politically savvy with his words), but he’s saying this as a Representative of “the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia”.

If his Judeo-Christian display — and disregard of any other religion — is only as a Representative of Virginia, then he’s wrong.

I’d bet money that the stuff on the wall is up there because he’s down with Buddy Christ, and that’s fine by me, but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu’ran.

“When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand.”

As opposed to that OTHER book.

Adding to that the xenophobic undertones of anti-Muslim sentiments on immigration and religious displays in his office, you just have someone who appears to be more of a hick than a thoughtful politician.

Virgil Goode may be a great guy, but he comes off as a blustering simp in his letter.

More:

In my opinion, Muslims who come to the U.S. seem to assimilate quite well. We have hardly any daily Muslim violence here compared to what many European countries face on a daily basis. I like to think it’s the lack of Socialistic programs — compared to the scale of European Socialism — that allows people of other cultures to integrate more thoroughly to “America: The Concept”.

Rep. Goode did mention a drain on our social services as one of the reasons he’d like to curtail Muslim immigration. Maybe an inability to utilize U.S. social services by anyone who isn’t a citizen would allow all immigrants who come here to be of a more desirable stripe. After all, when you have to hustle to put food on the table, and see the success of others in your peer group, you have less time and tolerance for radicals.

This is not to say we don’t get radicals, or that more radicals won’t come to the U.S., but it seems to me the vast majority of Muslims in this country are not radicals, and assimilation into our American culture is what most of the Muslim immigrants want.

As for Rep. Goode’s office wall, I don’t really care what he puts on it. However, he gives no explanation why he wouldn’t put a Qu’ran on his wall when asked about it by the Muslim student. From the tone of the letter, I interpreted his rejection not to his not being Muslim, but to his seeming general dislike of anything Muslim.

I personally have not read the Qu’ran, but I do read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch blog every day. I highly recommend it.

Thank you for your questions and comments, MCPO Airdale.

Gotta love it when the extremists shove their feet in their collective mouths.

From Atlas Shrugs:

[Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister Avignor Lieberman] began his remarks by saying that those who are not faithful to Israel cannot expect to have full rights. He would have  Israelis to sign a commitment to loyalty to the Israeli flag and to its national anthem, and of requiring service in the army or other national service. Citizens who wouldn’t  sign the declaration could continue to live in Israel, working, studying, and getting health care benefits, but they could not vote in national elections or be elected to national office.

“It’s not racism. The test is loyalty, not their religion.”

[...]

“Israel has the right to demand full allegiance from all its citizens. He who is not ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish and Zionist state, cannot be a citizen in the country.“

So let me see here… the loyalty test is not about religion, but you have to swear loyalty to Israel and recognize it as a Jewish and Zionist state.  Umm… douchebag.

Yes, Israel has a right to demand loyalty, to discriminate, just as Saudi Arabia does, but please don’t say you aren’t discriminating when you are.  If anyone of another religion who wants to live and participate in Israel’s direction must swear allegiance to the country and recognize it’s a (theocratic) Jewish country, then yes, it’s about religion.  When it comes to a Theocracy, it’s always about religion.

On the plus side, Israel doesn’t bar people of other faiths from going to Jewish holy sites just because they’re not Jewish (as far as I know).

Oh, and here’s your daily hard-on:

Ahmadinejad greeting Neturei Karta rep

hy·poc·ri·sy

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

Okay, now to give an example of hypocrisy:

Muslim pilgrims urged to complain Washington Times

American Muslims making a religious pilgrimage to Mecca are being encouraged to file civil rights complaints if they feel discriminated against by airlines.

[...]

A guide issued by CAIR advises Muslims that “as an airline passenger, you are entitled to courteous, respectful and non-stigmatizing treatment by airline and security personnel.”

“You have the right to complain about treatment that you believe is discriminatory,” the guide says.

So what’s the hypocrisy, you ask?  From ReligionFacts.com:

Few non-Muslims have ever seen the rites and rituals of the Hajj, as non-Muslims are strictly prohibited from entering Mecca and Medina. Roadblocks are stationed along roads leading to the city.

So Muslims are encouraged to file anti-discrimination lawsuits against airlines while traveling on a religious journey to a destination that, for centuries, has specifically discriminated against non-Muslims.

Where’s our right to complain about THEIR discrimination against non-Muslims?

What if the Ku Klux Klan made a similar statement, saying “file an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the airline if they don’t treat you like the master race while flying to a Klan rally.”  People would go apeshit over that.  Neither Christians, Jews, Hindus, nor Buddhists do this shit, so Muslims shouldn’t be able to get away with this kind of manipulation.

If they want religiously segregated cities in their own countries, fine, that’s their prerogative (even if it is retarded), but playing this hypocritical politically-correct game is bullshit and they should be called out for it.

Update 20061214: Others have picked up on this.

CAIR Sets Up Grievance Theater Hotline
CAIR urges Muslims making pilgrimage to Mecca to file civil rights complaints against airlines