Reason Article: Is this for real?

[Ekrub]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet#commentcontainer

Thoughts?

[Anti Federalist]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet#commentcontainer

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

The "chosen ones" are starting to foam at the mouth, is my first thought.

That unhinged rant was dripping with visceral hatred.

If the word "negro" replaced the word "muslim", no self respecting publication would have come within a million miles of the piece.

[Fozz]

Reason magazine is a crock of SHIT.

This article shows that they reject freedom of religion, which is one of the most important liberties that Americans enjoy.

These fake "libertarians" think that Islam is a greater threat to our freedom than big government. They are just as deluded as Eric Dondero.

[EndDaFed]

Reason magazine is a crock of SHIT.

This article shows that they reject freedom of religion, which is one of the most important liberties that Americans enjoy.

These fake "libertarians" think that Islam is a greater threat to our freedom than big government. They are just as deluded as Eric Dondero.

Where did you get that from? The article is about the chilling effect that radical Muslims have on free speech and then encourages people to speak their mind. No where does it say that Islam must be banned.

"These fake "libertarians" think that Islam is a greater threat to our freedom than big government. "

That is just a straw man argument and is not what the article claims.

More likely the reason why this article was written probably has something to do with the first international Draw Muhammad day.

YouTube - Draw Muhammad Day (First Annual!) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4njJXI8)

[Fozz]

Where did you get that from? The article is about the chilling effect that radical Muslims have on free speech and then encourages people to speak their mind. No where does it say that Islam must be banned.

"These fake "libertarians" think that Islam is a greater threat to our freedom than big government. "

That is just a straw man argument and is not what the article claims.

I found this comment:


"We should immediately cease letting Muslims into this country legally (illegal immigration has nothing to do with this). At the very least, we should require every Muslim to repeat the following two sentences: "Allah is a false god, Mohammad is a pig-fucking lying false prophet who sucks the dicks of goats." If you can't even say two sentences (don't have to swear to it or otherwise affirm it or pray it, just repeat the words - can do it with your fingers crossed if you like) then you're FAR TOO DANGEROUS to be allowed within 500 miles of the USA."

I hate faux libertarians.

[The Patriot]

I found this comment:



I hate faux libertarians.

That was not from the article. But I would agree, we do need to ban all Muslim immigration. So how about instead of getting your muslim panties in a bunch over legitimate criticisms of a backwards faith, you read the article rather than making rash conclusions and then going to the comments section to legitimize those rash conclusions?

[EndDaFed]

I found this comment:

I hate faux libertarians.

You have to be joking? How in any way does the speech of some random nut ball on the internet have anything to do with what the AUTHOR of the article said?

[Cowlesy]

Sometimes, I think a lot of us feel like Stealer's Wheel in this whole debate.

YouTube - Stuck in the Middle with you- Steelers Wheel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAIsqvTh7g)

[The Patriot]

Oh and that moron writer doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the person to report the suspicious car in Times Square was a Muslim Somali Immigrant!



That is absurd, you are saying that the plot wouldn't have been foiled if the vendor wasn't a muslim. It could have been another vendor if not him. His Islamic faith had nothing to do with him reporting the car. If the government didn't allow Muslims, particularly ones from terrorist nations, to immigrate here, this whole scenario would have never happened.

[AmericaFyeah92]

That is absurd, you are saying that the plot wouldn't have been foiled if the vendor wasn't a muslim. It could have been another vendor if not him. His Islamic faith had nothing to do with him reporting the car. If the government didn't allow Muslims, particularly ones from terrorist nations, to immigrate here, this whole scenario would have never happened.

WHAT, exactly, is a "terrorist nation"? Does the Imperial State of America qualify?

[pcosmar]

this whole scenario would have never happened.

The whole scenario didn't happen. (Made for TV Fake)
It was all faked, and now the show goes on with more fear mongering and misplaced hate.

That "bomb" (and I hate calling it that) would never have exploded.
Even IF it had worked it would have been nothing but a car fire.

Educate yourself,, before you go believing shit on TV.

[RM918]

That was not from the article. But I would agree, we do need to ban all Muslim immigration. So how about instead of getting your muslim panties in a bunch over legitimate criticisms of a backwards faith, you read the article rather than making rash conclusions and then going to the comments section to legitimize those rash conclusions?

Absolutely absurd. Your mentality is exactly emblematic of the sort of decision-making that goes on at higher levels of government. Terrorists use SHOES, ban them! Terrorists use UNDERWEAR, give a bunch of money to our corporate buddies to make a machine to look through them! Terrorists are MUSLIMS, ban all of them! You really don't think all this will do is further cripple our economy, create even MORE terrorists determined to attack us and bankrupt what little is left of our values? Where do we draw the line with completely simplistic and unhelpful decisions that terrorists will merely adapt to? We can't even protect our own borders, you really think our government is competent enough to kick out all the Muslims?

[Fozz]

That is absurd, you are saying that the plot wouldn't have been foiled if the vendor wasn't a muslim. It could have been another vendor if not him. His Islamic faith had nothing to do with him reporting the car. If the government didn't allow Muslims, particularly ones from terrorist nations, to immigrate here, this whole scenario would have never happened.

Why don't you just advocate killing or deporting all Muslims in America (who under your assumption are all terrorists) for the greater good of the world? :rolleyes:

I know, I know, I'm being too PC in suggesting that Muslims are human beings rather than animals who deserve Gitmo torture. :rolleyes:

[The Patriot]

WHAT, exactly, is a "terrorist nation"? Does the Imperial State of America qualify?

Nations with governments that harbor or financially support terrorists or have high amounts of terrorist activity. Like Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine etc etc.

[The Patriot]

Why don't you just advocate killing or deporting all Muslims in America (who under your assumption are all terrorists) for the greater good of the world? :rolleyes:

I know, I know, I'm being too PC in suggesting that Muslims are human beings rather than animals who deserve Gitmo torture. :rolleyes:
I never said all Muslims were terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are muslim, and they bring an alien non western culture that isn't necessary or conducive to the progression of western society, so you are creating strawmen. I said we need to ban all Islamic immigration, not kill innocent people who are here. I am not an Islamic fundamentalist, I don't believe in killing people of different faiths.

[johnrocks]

Personally, I like Reason Magazine, it is made up of various writers so I'm not going to agree with 100% of the things they write but I do think people like Nick Gillespie are great allies and really helps us with the mainstream media.

[pcosmar]

Nations with governments that harbor or financially support terrorists,
You mean like the US.
We trained and supported Bin Laden
We train and support terrorists in South America, ( see, School of the Americas)

We send huge amounts of money and support to the very nations you mentioned.
;)

[Tend yer biscuits.]

There's an image of Mohammed on the SCOTUS?

[The Patriot]

You mean like the US.
We trained and supported Bin Laden
We train and support terrorists in South America, ( see, School of the Americas)

We send huge amounts of money and support to the very nations you mentioned.
;)

Well one, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan weren't terrorists, Bin Laden was not a terrorist at the time. He started Al Qaeda later.

The School of the Americas was not a terrorist training center, they engaged in no terrorist attacks. They were militant anti communists. You can disagree with intervening against communism in our hemisphere, but it wasn't terrorism.

I still don't understand why you justify attacks against innocent people by radical Islamists by excusing them. I just don't support immigration from terrorist nations, I don't want radical islamists or muslims in general in America. Islamic Culture does not mix with western culture, it is unassimilable.

[jmdrake]

Nations with governments that harbor or financially support terrorists or have high amounts of terrorist activity. Like Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Palestine etc etc.

Pakistan used CIA money to support terrorism. And they did it at the behest of U.S. presidents starting with Jimmy Carter (who illegally funded the mujahadeen in order to prod the Soviets into invading Afghanistan) and continuing through Ronald Reagan. By the time George H.W. Bush came along our pet terrorists had accomplished their task. Bill Clinton used Al Qaeada to attack Christians in Kosovo. Then George W. Bush funded an Islamo-marxist terrorist group known as the MEK in order to attack Iran, even though Iran helped the U.S. drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. So if you want to be angry at countries that have supported Islamic terrorism.....

[maqsur]

Pakistan used CIA money to support terrorism. And they did it at the behest of U.S. presidents starting with Jimmy Carter (who illegally funded the mujahadeen in order to prod the Soviets into invading Afghanistan) and continuing through Ronald Reagan. By the time George H.W. Bush came along our pet terrorists had accomplished their task. Bill Clinton used Al Qaeada to attack Christians in Kosovo. Then George W. Bush funded an Islamo-marxist terrorist group known as the MEK in order to attack Iran, even though Iran helped the U.S. drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. So if you want to be angry at countries that have supported Islamic terrorism.....

No point arguing with Patriot, his mind is made up about 1.5 billion people. Some peoples' minds cannot be opened. Sad way to live really, but best of luck regardless to him.

[jmdrake]

Well one, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan weren't terrorists, Bin Laden was not a terrorist at the time. He started Al Qaeda later.


LOL. Where do you get your history from? You should take the time to read "Holy War Inc." It explains the genesis of OBL's network (which was dubbed "Al Qaeda" by the west, not by him). We gave Pakistan money under the table to fund the mujahadeen because when we started doing it (before the Soviet invasion) it was a violation of international law. Pakistan gave the money to the most anti-western, terrorist groups it could find including OBL's group. There were mujahadeen who weren't terrorists, but they had to get the leftover crumbs. Oh, and Condoleeza Rice actually quoted "Holy War Inc" on her "identifying misinformation" website to "prove" that the U.S. didn't create Al Qaeda. (She conveniently left out the part about where Pakistan got it's funding for the covert operation from.)

[jmdrake]

delete

[pcosmar]

Confused as to who terrorists are?

This IS a Terrorist.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/214/batfthug.jpg

[The Patriot]

Pakistan used CIA money to support terrorism. And they did it at the behest of U.S. presidents starting with Jimmy Carter (who illegally funded the mujahadeen in order to prod the Soviets into invading Afghanistan) and continuing through Ronald Reagan. By the time George H.W. Bush came along our pet terrorists had accomplished their task. Bill Clinton used Al Qaeada to attack Christians in Kosovo. Then George W. Bush funded an Islamo-marxist terrorist group known as the MEK in order to attack Iran, even though Iran helped the U.S. drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. So if you want to be angry at countries that have supported Islamic terrorism.....

I don't support Musharaff or American intervention, but he wasn't a terrorist. And America never funded MEK, they received a terrorist designation from the State department in 1997. If Marxism/socialism concerns you, then let's talk about Ahmedenijad having friendly relations with Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
http://newzimsituation.com/355039k/iran-will-stand-by-zimbabwe-ahmadinejad-zimbabwe-i.htm

[Vessol]

That is absurd, you are saying that the plot wouldn't have been foiled if the vendor wasn't a muslim. It could have been another vendor if not him. His Islamic faith had nothing to do with him reporting the car. If the government didn't allow Muslims, particularly ones from terrorist nations, to immigrate here, this whole scenario would have never happened.

Wait, you're trolling, right?

[AmericaFyeah92]

Well one, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan weren't terrorists, Bin Laden was not a terrorist at the time. He started Al Qaeda later.

The School of the Americas was not a terrorist training center, they engaged in no terrorist attacks. They were militant anti communists. You can disagree with intervening against communism in our hemisphere, but it wasn't terrorism.

I still don't understand why you justify attacks against innocent people by radical Islamists by excusing them. I just don't support immigration from terrorist nations, I don't want radical islamists or muslims in general in America. Islamic Culture does not mix with western culture, it is unassimilable.

The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"


Can someone in power qualify as a "terrorist" for you, or is it only rebels, insurgents, and underdogs?

How are Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Shah, the the Saudi Royal family, and all the other US-installed or US-backed dictators not terrorists?

Not to mention the Contras, Afghan Warlords, etc.

How are all of the people we incinerated or displaced or starved in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. not victims of "terrorism"?

[jmdrake]

I don't support Musharaff or American intervention, but he wasn't a terrorist.

I didn't say he was a terrorist. I said he openly supported terrorism! His intelligence chief funded 9/11. His government funneled $500,000 to Al Qaeda in 2005 under the guise of paying off a "tribal debt". The madrasses that created the Taliban were created to fuel Pakistan's terrorist proxy war against India via Khashmir. Even Hamid Kharzai openly talked about how the madrasses that Musharraf set up were not really madrasses but were terrorist training camps. And he said this at a joint press conference right in front of Musharraf! Pakistani nuclear scientists were caught meeting with Al Qaeda. Once that got out Musharraf had those scientists sent to Myanmar outside the reach of any U.S. extradition treaty.

http://www.newsline.com.pk/Newsdec2003/newsexe1dec2003.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/asia/26tribal.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF04Df05.html




And America never funded MEK, they received a terrorist designation from the State department in 1997.


They killed U.S. military and civilians back in the 1970s when they were part of the Islamic revolution. But they fell out with the Ayatolla because while he was against America, he wasn't pro commie. And we have funded them. We took them under our protection after we drove Saddam from power. We use them for intelligence in our cold war against Iran. Intelligence NEVER comes for free. Saddam had them under his wing for the same reason we have them under ours. Because they are against the current Iranian government.




If Marxism/socialism concerns you, then let's talk about Ahmedenijad having friendly relations with Zimbabwe and Venezuela.


We have friendly relations with COMMUNIST China and COMMUNIST Vietnam. So clearly you have no point. There isn't a nation on earth that doesn't have friendly relations with some marxist nation. And if you don't like the idea of being force to live in a North American Union and the dollar being replace by a single currency for the western hemisphere you should thank Hugo Chavez because, according to former President Vicente Fox, resistance from Chavez is the only thing that stopped their plans.

YouTube - Vicente Fox hints about a North American Union (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ)

Yes Hugo Chavez is a power hungry megalomaniac. But that useful idiot helped slow down the Bush/Fox/Harper cabal that almost destroyed all three nations in one fell swoop.

[jmdrake]

Have you met a Muslim American before? Or more specifically a Muslim American family.... you seem to be very ignorant, 5 Muslim majority nations have elected women as their heads of state, don't make up stupid attacks based off no intellectual thought.

Dontchaknow? All Muslims support terrorism unless the government tells you that they don't support terrorism even if there is ample evidence that the particular Muslims in question are actually terrorists. That's how certain people can say "ban all Muslims because their terrorists" but still convince themselves that supporting Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets was ok because "he wasn't supporting terrorism" and supporting the MEK and people like Musharraf (who thankfully is gone now) is somehow ok even with all of the evidence that Musharraf supporting terrorism. And we'll ignore the fact that Iran helped us drive the Talbian OUT of Afghanistan simply because they are "friendly" with pseudo communist countries like Venezuela while we are joined at the hip with outright communist countries like China. But what do you expect from a country that kept friendly relationships with Saddam even after the gassing of the Kurds and yet years later used the gassing of the Kurds are part of the justification for invading?

[Roxi]

He started Al Qaeda later.


Let me give you a hypothetical scenario.

The CIA creates a file of everyone from Australia who has ever been caught smoking, possessing, or selling marijuana (In Australia) They name this file "fourtwenty mates" They use the US Media to convince us that this group "fourtwenty mates" is a horrible group that is dangerous to the US and launches a war against them. Within a couple years everyone says "the fourtwenty mates are going to come destroy our children, if we don't keep bombing Australia!" Americans start hating everyone from Australia because of this small group of people who happen to be in that CIA file.

now replace Australia with the middle east, and "fourtwenty mates" with "Al-Qaeda" and you get the picture.

Bin Laden never created some group that called themselves "Al Qaeda"



you should probably check out http://www.non-intervention.com That guy could teach you something.

[Roxi]

and heres kinda a cool website which I will give the first part of here in quotes http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.html


"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." -- Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook



"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".

So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?

[Fozz]

Have you met a Muslim American before? Or more specifically a Muslim American family.... you seem to be very ignorant, 5 Muslim majority nations have elected women as their heads of state, don't make up stupid attacks based off no intellectual thought.

That fool probably considers Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders to be intellectuals. He seems to be parroting their bullshit talking points.

[constituent]

Wait... Pol Pot wasn't a communist terrorist?