Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Reading a sura a day keeps Satan away

Islamo-Fascism

Hating Islam

HATING  ISLAM

Some people seem to think that hating Islam is immoral.

I hate Islam the same way I hate Fascism, Communism, imperialism, the Ku Klux Klan, the GOP and the Mafia. And for exactly the same reasons. I am very familiar with Islam, having minored in Islamic Studies, traveled in many Moslem countries, learnt Arabic, read the Koran, the works.

I admit Islam is a mixed bag. During its 14 centuries it has benefited by many humane and enlightened influences. Certain currents in Islam I find unobjectionable. However the essence of Islam is still overwhelmingly marked by its founder Mohammed, a narcissistic, psychopathic killer.

The more I got to know Islam the more I hated it. Why? Because Islam reminded me of Fascism. I know about Fascism because I grew up in a Fascist-ruled country and subsequently studied European history of the early 20th century.

Islam combines some of the most repulsive traits of any existing belief system.
It is the utter antithesis of the values I admire in Western civilization.
Hatred for Islam is a natural human instinct.

However I am equally repelled by professional Islam-hating right-wing reptiles like the Gingrich and the Gangsters Of Petroleum (G.O.P.) and utterly reject their criminal buffoonery.



We will turn Islam into a branch of Archaeology!  Islam is the most highly developed form of barbarism. Islam: An ideology of genocide driven by systemic paranoia.  Islam is a religion, just as a coffin is a piece of furniture.  The principal risk factor for Mohammedanism is ignorance. Death to Islam.  Deobanditry – The most lethal strain of Mohammedan horse-shit known to man.  Islam makes you stupid. The Interminable Compendium of Mohammedan Mumbo-Jumbo. "The tree of liberty  must be refreshed  from time to time  with the blood of  Mohammedan fanatics." We hate Islam because Islam is so exceedingly odious! The only good Islamo-Fascist is a dead Islamo-Fascist. Q.  Is Islam a terrorist religion?   A.  Depends what you mean by “religion”.   Areas infested by bloodthirsty Mohammedans. How much pig urine do you need to desecrate 20  million Korans? Islam sanctifies rage.  Fuck that monotheist crap! Sayyid Qutb -- Purveyor of Islamic Horseshit. If the Koran is art, then Mohammed was a bullshit artist.   

Saturday, 18 September 2010

Is the Koran art?

If the Koran is art, then Mohammed was a bullshit artist. 

DEAN? YOU MEAN JAMES DEAN, THE ACTOR?

islam is a stinking heap of hypocrisy
its founder mohammed was a psychopathic killer
since mohammed’s death islam has not ceased to improve
many of his successors were good, kind and wise men
islam has made encouraging progress
at this rate, in a few more centuries it may become an acceptable doctrine

Igor Slamoff

Tactical Theology 101 (or Guide to Islamic Hanky-Panky)

I agree that Pamela Geller is a right-wing crackpot. However that does not entitle you to assume that whoever she attacks (in this case Islam) must therefore be a paragon of virtue. You seem to be applying the rule of thumb “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. And I, for one, do not regard Islam as a friend, but as a foe.

I minored in Islamic Studies. I read about Islam, traveled through Moslem countries and associated with Moslems for over 16 years. I speak and read Arabic and some Turkish. I am well acquainted with much of Islam’s history and theology.

I gradually grew to detest Islam and now avoid it like the plague, for the same reason I avoid prisons -- they impinge on my freedom. I still enjoy the company of people from countries where Moslems predominate. I have no personal animosity toward them. Just as long as they don't get preachy.

My attitude toward Islam resembles my attitude toward Communism. It has its good points – many of them accidental -- but on balance it SUCKS BIG TIME. I traveled to many Communist countries, by the way, and am an expert on Marxism.

Like Communism, Islam was designed largely as an instrument of world domination. Certain fanatical Moslem elites still conceive of Islam as a device for conquering the planet. Enough of them think thus, that a general attitude of cautious skepticism toward unfamiliar Moslems is advisable.

Islam’s founder was a wily politician who felt entitled to command others and by hook and by crook became supreme ruler over many thousands of people, but only after climbing over piles of corpses. Mohammed’s morals were fairly mainstream for his time, the 7th century of our era. In other words Mohammed’s methods closely resembled those of Heinrich Himmler, Lazar Kaganovich, Attila the Hun and bloodthirsty hyenas of that ilk.

Mohammed designed Islam as a makeshift ideology that would ensure his followers’ loyalty and cement the cohesion of his sect, while constantly making tactical theological shifts in response to the political challenges of the moment. For example he once adjusted his doctrine to enable recruitment of additional deities, as a condition of an alliance with a certain tribe in Mecca. So for a number of years Allah had to share the limelight with three fat tribal goddesses. Eventually there was a falling out and monotheism again emerged triumphant. This Islamic hanky-panky was rendered plausible by proclaiming -- no doubt with wrinkled brow – that the angelic revelations vouchsafed to Mohammed that had enthroned the three obese goddesses were found to have been deceitfully planted by Satan. Since then those passages of the Koran have been known as the Satanic Verses. But they were not deleted.

Consequently, the Koran consists largely of expedients and subterfuges, thoughts pragmatically designed for purely practical purposes, one-shot deals. It lacks overriding, transcendent themes and moral maxims. It has no philosophy and no ethics.

Islam is the Cult of the Opportune.

What I find especially reprehensible about the Koran is its manipulative, instrumental nature, as an aggregate of ideas conceived piecemeal and predominantly as tools for achieving practical ends. The Bible too contains a lot of propaganda from antediluvian political struggles, but the Bible has the saving grace of having been composed over millennia by people who did not know each other and consequently were unable to conspire and agree on a common story.

The contrast to the Koran is flagrant. The Koran was cooked up by just one biped, allegedly with the complicity of an Archangel (I didn't check to see if Archangels are bipeds too).

The Koran is the script of the aspiring dictator and then the successful one.
Seen from this perspective, suddenly I understand Geert´s likening the Koran to Mein Kampf. However Mein Kampf is programmatic, whereas the Koran is a chronology of the doctrine’s historical evolution.

Islam's doctrinal development was largely dictated by political gambits, slander, gossip and shady deals with obdurate nomads, all of them designed on the spur of the moment under a hot desert sun. Accordingly, Islam can legitimately be conceived of as a radorg, i.e. an organization driven by a R.A.D., or Randomly Assembled Doctrine. The term radorg was recently introduced in the field of stochastic quantum ethics by the noted paleontocrat Akira Curaçao.

I wonder if it is possible to make any a priori predictions concerning the nature, traits and behavior characterizing organizations driven by randomly assembled doctrines. It might become necessary to distinguish among various types and parameters of randomness.

To put it bluntly, the trouble with Islam is that it simply does not pass the laugh test. It's a blatant pastiche of prefabricated ideological contraptions and tall tales crudely welded together more or less at random for obviously political and personal motives by a Prophet whose day job was plundering caravans and beheading infidels, and had scant patience for eschatological niceties.

It's not a particularly well-arranged assortment of ideological hardware. It's full of contradictions. However the contradictions merely reflect the Koran’s jerry-built opportunistic character. Since it was established neither according to plan nor as an intentional extrapolation of pre-existing traditions, the Koran’s contradictions are merely an optical illusion elicited by the reader’s fatuous quest for consistency. The moment one abandons the quest for consistency, the contradictions disappear. The Koran is a toolkit, a bag of tricks. Consistency would be a severe drawback to the Koran’s usefulness.

The Koran serves as a high-power buzz, a vertiginous maelstrom of pedestrian commonplaces repeated obsessively for centuries. All of this wouldn't be a big deal if they at least knew how to behave. But the egregious attitudes and conceits invoked by the bandit cult are usually radically anti-social in nature. I wouldn't mind them if they weren’t so menacing.

But as things stand, i.e. large chunks of Moslemhood obsessed with an imaginary persecution of Islam by Westerners and possessed of a generally truculent approach inculcated by the martial traditions of Islam, on the one hand, and on the other hand no explanation or logical justification of their feeble-minded persecution yarns, nor any inkling of how important it is to try to discover the truth instead of merely rediscovering one's own prior conclusions.

I'm not denying that some countries exploit and threaten others. and often enough – but not always -- the aggressor is Western and the victim Mohammedan. But that does not warrant a procedure whereby all attacks from W to M are lumped together as part of the same process. This is an explosive mixture. The irrational component of Islam has in part triumphed. The faithful run amuck. They cannot be brought to reason.

I wager that on a map comprising various countries on which each country is randomly assigned a single color and there are 5 colors for countries, it is possible to use the same arguments that the Islamists apply to demonstrate the alleged worldwide assault on Islam, to demonstrate that orange countries are systematic aggressors of blue countries or some such nonsense.

I don't feel inclined to play along with this farce, which has been going on for far too long and recently became exceedingly popular, whose story line is that Islam is somehow a respectable body of ideas that deserves to be defended against its critics. I can't begrudge Moslems their freedom to entertain their peculiar ideas and celebrate their rites, as long as no mayhem is involved. However I do not recognize those ideas as constituting anything worthy of reverence or respect, nor any kind of model worthy of imitation.

On the contrary I find them a fairly random haul of miscellaneous cultural flotsam and jetsam, marked by a heavy sadistic streak, that constitutes a colossal fraud and deception and the cloak under whose concealment countless Moslems and non-Moslems are cruelly exploited and oppressed. And ridiculous on their face to boot. [1]

Whatever tolerance I extend to Islam is the same I show to madmen and infants.


[1] Note on countervailing trends in Islam
The reader may well object to my line of reasoning by stating that I am disregarding aspects of moslem culture that operate in the contrary direction, and are thus countervailing forces worthy of mention. . To this I reply that I am skeptical about the existence of an Islamic civilization as such. I'm not necessarily disputing that Moslems are largely civilized, merely stating that some ethnic and cultural traits of Moslem countries create contrasts among Moslem countries that are as strongly marked as those that exist among countries of differing faiths. Accordingly I don't consider all thought expressed by Moslems “islamic thought”. A certain cultural artifact may occur in a moslem country but nonetheless be autochthonous and antecedent to Islam’s arrival. Thus for any given countervailing cultural artifact, it must first be determined whether the item really is Islamic in character, and not stem from some ethnic or other source. This approach is especially important in view of Islam’s innate tendency to conflate issues of nationality, ethnicity and language with religious issues, as in the mythical ’Umma.

Reflections on Islamophobia

“Islamophobia” means “fear of Islam”. If you say Islamophobia is unwarranted, you imply that nobody has any reason to fear Islam or its adherents.

Let us examine this statement for a moment. “Nobody has anything to fear from Islam or its adherents.” Hmmm. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that nobody has anything to fear from Islam or its adherents? What objective, verifiable characteristics must a population group display in order for it to be truly said that nobody has anything to fear from its members?

Let's take a standard, I think we can all agree that nobody has anything to fear from Quakers. I think that is an uncontroversial statement. Offhand I don't recall any Quakers prominent in organized crime. Quaker terrorist organizations? I draw a blank. I am certain that if we wade through the crime statistics we will find very few violent Quaker criminals. Why am I so sure? Well, because they’re pacifists, for one. They have a strict ban on physical violence of any sort. They refuse to do military service. They don't go to bullfights. There is a clear and consistent pattern in Quaker society of avoiding violence of any kind, against any living creature. That tradition of non-violence is centuries old and has marked Quakers since their earliest beginnings.

Now let's see about Islam. What is the share of Mohammedans among people convicted of violent crimes? Is it higher or lower than the share of Quakers? I think if we could figure out that ratio it might give us some insights into the issue of whether Quakers pose a greater threat of violent crime than Moslems or not. I'll make a note of that. I could check the figure, of course, but I sort of instinctively surmise that … you know? I’ll pencil in: “Quakers win.” We can change it later if it turns out to be wrong.

So, let's see, any other magnitudes that should be measured? Yes, what are Islam’s teachings on violence? I think that across-the board bans on violence of any sort are extremely effective in discouraging violence. I can imagine if instead of broad bans you had individual prohibitions on narrowly defined, specific types of violence, there would be many loopholes left open to circumvent whatever restrictions might exist.

Once, in Miami, I asked a Pakistani cleric for cites in the Koran that ban murder. I still remember with amusement and horror reading one of the verses he referred me to. It said something like “Don't kill and eat your children, for help is on the way!” Is that a ban on murder, or an emergency call from the psych ward?

Another factor is that it seems to me that people who have an inbred culture of pacifism must have all violent reflexes bred and trained out of them. So they would have little spontaneous urge to commit acts of violence. Far less than people whose moral code is more permissive in the mayhem department. Seems to me the Quakers have an edge here.

“Permissive” in this context would apply to any cult with a history of expansion by warlike means. And in this connection, I do seem to recall some unpleasantness around the 8th century or so, when Islam conquered in less than one century a larger surface than that of the Roman Empire in its prime.

Any religious movement that is endowed with its own ritual methods of execution should likewise be suspected of violent propensities. In this connection, Islam is renowned for the variety and inventiveness of its methods of ritual execution. Puts the Mafia to shame.

Ibn Adolf’s advice on combating Islamophobia

Addressed to a Mohammedan web site in connection with a severe outbreak of Islamophobia:

The “belief that Muslims pose a security or terrorist threat" may well be “false”, as you state. This is undoubtedly true of most Moslems.
You rightly point to “media bias” and other distasteful factors.
However you left out an Islamophobia-promoting factor that in my opinion is extremely important: the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Whichever way you cut it, Muhammad was a violent fanatic, a slave trader and an unscrupulous highway robber endowed with a particularly bloodthirsty outlook and a vicious temper.
MOHAMMED WAS A HEAVY-DUTY SON OF A BITCH.
Mohammed ordered his followers to make war on each other and on non-Moslems.
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF WAR.
I suggest you devote part of your heroic struggle against Islamophobia to a thorough revision of your sacred writings and throw out about half of them -- the more bloodthirsty half.
I am certain that such an effort would help Moslems a great deal.
And non-Moslems too.

Peace be with you.
Ibn Adolf

Entitled to Palestine

Hamas claims that the Moslems are entitled to Palestine.
They say it's theirs.
But that’s not all.
Hamas also claims that any land that was ever inhabited by Moslems belongs to Moslems forevermore.
So they don't only want Israel back.
They also want Spain back.
And they want Hungary back.
And they want Greece back.
And they want the Ukraine back.
And they want Sicily back.
And furthermore they claim they are entitled to wear burqas on the Champs Elysees.
And scuba diving equipment at the opera.
And Halloween costumes at graduation ceremonies.
I say fuck’em.
I don't want those crazy motherfuckers getting any land at all.
People suffering from delusions of grandeur should be kept under tight control.

Confessions of an Islamophobe




Recently I did a Web search for “Islamophobia" and stumbled upon a moslem web site in Britain. I reproduce beneath some of its contents. Afterwards I write some diabolically Islamophobic remarks.  

“Confronting Islamophobia

http://www.insted.co.uk/confronting%20islamophobia.pdf

 Complexities and tensions

“During the war in Iraq in 2003 a student at a secondary school in central England approached one of the staff. She was of Pakistani heritage, as was the member of staff. She was being teased, she told the teacher, by other students in the playground and on journeys to and from school. 'We killed hundreds of your lot yesterday … Saddam's your dad, you love him, don't you … we're getting our revenge for what you Pakis did to us on 11 September…' The teacher asked if she had told her form tutor. Yes, she had told her tutor, and her tutor had said: 'Never mind, it's not serious. It'll soon pass. You'll have to expect a bit of teasing at a time like this.”

“The story illustrates several different facets of the task of confronting Islamophobia within the education system. There is the need, most obviously and immediately, to give support and assistance to young people who are being targeted and attacked. Almost as immediately, students who engage in verbal abuse and banter, or in even worse and more hurtful behaviour, have to be challenged and stopped. Third, there is a range of skills, understandings and qualities required by teachers, and issues around the kinds of inservice training and professional development that should be provided. Fourth, there are issues to do with school ethos; the content of the curriculum; the procedures for dealing with unacceptable behaviour; and school leadership. This chapter considers principally the fourth of these clusters of topics. At the risk of over-simplification and of sloganising, the fourth cluster can be said to be about confronting institutional Islamophobia, as distinct from confronting the attitudes and behaviour of individual students and teachers.1
The story cited above evokes the complexities of everyday life in a school – the tensions between students, and between students and teachers, and within the teaching body. It evokes too the inexorable impact on such tensions of events in the wider world, both in the present and in the past. Often, teachers do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding to be totally confident that they are doing the right thing. Even when they can be reasonably confident, they are painfully aware of competing pressures on their energy, attentiveness and sense of priorities, and it's as if they seldom or never have sufficient time and space to think and reflect."

Igor Slamoff’s remarks:

How come you classify this incident as Islamophobic? I doesn't say anywhere that the girl was a Mohammedan. Why do you assume she was a Mohammedan? She might have been a Christian or belong to some other religious minority in Pakistan. An Ahmadi, perhaps. The Paki government states that the Ahmadis are not Moslems. The Ahmadis, on the contrary claim that they ARE Moslems! 

What is the likelihood that the girl belongs to one of the persecuted non-Islamic cults of Pakistan? Pakistan is 97% Moslem. So we can assume that the likelihood that the girl is not a Moslem is 3%.  But wait a moment. Since non-Moslems are persecuted in Pakistan, the proportion of non-Moslems among Paki emigrés  is probably much higher than 3%.

For example, Iraqi Christians make up only ten per cent of the Iraqi population. But more than half of Iraqi refugees are Christians. That would seem to imply that many Iraqi Christians have been forced to leave their homes by … by Iraqi Moslems, I suppose.

Consequently the likelihood that the girl is not a Moslem is much, MUCH higher than just 3%. For example, if we assume that the religious distribution of Paki émigrés is proportional to that of Iraqi émigrés, then the likelihood that the girls is not a Moslem rises to 15%. In any case it is by no means a negligible figure. Hence there can be no justification whatever for assuming that a Paki émigré is a Moslem. Thus the girl’s religion – if any – is undetermined. To assume that  she is a Moslem is therefore simply rubbish.

I would say more. To assume she is Moslem is clearly a deception. It seems to be designed to make it seem as though ALL Pakis were Moslems. To identify Pakistan with Islam. Clearly a propaganda gambit.

Getting back to the SO-CALLED Islamophobic incident, because I have seen no mention of the girl’s religion, there was no visible animus against Islam. There was mention of Pakis – as far as I know Paki refers to a country, not to a religion. The girl wasn't harassed because of her religion – whichever that might be, because it hasn't even been mentioned -- but because of her ethnicity or ancestry. So what the hell does Islam have to do with all this? How come Islam is barging into every possible issue? Why are issues of interethnic conflict spontaneously reformulated in religious terms? What's your game?

As a matter of fact I find certain expressions rather peculiar. I honestly don't know what to make of the following item 6 of the “8 basic traits of Islamophobia.”

“Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.” I see. So the situation is that Islam was criticising the West. This Islam chap, is he a foreign resident? I don't recall having seen anyone of that name mentioned until now.

Oh, so it's not an actual person, I see. Well, but actually, when criticism is made, generally it's made by a person, right? Or if it's a collectivity, the criticism is stated by some office holder of the group who can legitimately claim to speak in the group’s name. So what was the name of the Moslem organization official that uttered the criticism?

What, no organization? But then nobody is legitimated to speak on behalf of the group. If the group has no structure, if there are no collective decision-making process, no agreements within the group on how to act in given situations, then each member of the group must speak for himself. So it actually does not make any sense to say "Islam was criticising the West”, because Islam is an imperfectly structured entity and does not issue unified criticisms. At least since 1923, when Mustafa Kemal abolished the Caliphate.

 Actually, the way it sounds when you say “Islam criticizes the West”, it sounds as if Islam were, well, you know, sort of a … a monolithic bloc. Hm, I think I read that expression “monolithic bloc” just a short while ago. Where did I read it?

Oh, here it is: “Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc.” Let me see, who is this seeing Islam as a monolith? Oh. Seeing Islam as a monolith is one of the traits of Islamophobia. Not just ONE of the traits, it's the very first Islamophobic trait mentioned!

So Islamophobes see Islam as a monolithic bloc. I wonder if this web site http://www.insted.co.uk/ is run by Islamophobes! That would really be a crying shame, because a Moslem community organization run by Islamophobes sounds like a very tense setup. If you know what I mean.

Of course, if the Moslem community dislikes being led by Islamophobes, then they can just elect some non-Islamophobic officials the next time they have elections. Well, they have to have elections because in democratic countries all organizations must be democratically organized. And that means regular elections. Now why would Moslems choose to be led by Islamophobes? Something fishy here.

Of course perhaps eventually the demands of certain Islamic groups may be satisfied, namely that Islamic law be instituted, either just for the Moslem community or the UK as a whole. Not very likely, at least not right away.

But if Sharia were imposed, I'm not sure that there would be any general guarantee of internal democracy within civil organizations. Sharia as such makes  no mention of democracy. Or human rights, for that matter. So under Shariah these Mohammedans   might actually be forced to accept Islamophobic leadership.

But of course that wouldn't happen, because I strongly presume that under Shariah  Islamophobia would be considered equivalent to “waging war against  Allah and his Prophet”. A capital crime. So those Islamophobes who run this Mohammedan site would be promptly executed. By stoning, perhaps. Or else by another Mohammedan favorite: slitting their throats. I believe this technique is highly recommended by the Koran. Or am I thinking of chopping their heads off with a scimitar? Hmm. I really must consult the catalogue of Islamic methods of execution.

Another peculiar thing I found in the recommended measures to combat Islamophobia. , “Students who engage in verbal abuse and banter, or in even worse and more hurtful behaviour, have to be challenged and stopped.” Curriculum changes, punitive sanctions for miscreants, training of teaching staff, yes, yes,  all sounds quite reasonable.

But something seems to be missing. How about encouraging more empathy and dialogue? Perhaps training in how to defuse conflicts. I don't see any of that. All the solutions proposed are administrative  and bureaucratic. Miscreants are to be “challenged and stopped.” And then what? How about some discussing with the  kids general issues of dealing with social conflict, dialogue with alien ethnic groups?

The closest they get to suggesting that students be taught to engage in dialogue with outsiders, and all that, is “changes in the curriculum”. Hmm, I wonder what kinds of changes they have in mind. Sounds terribly mysterious. They certainly keep their cards close to their chests. Cagey.

Conclusion:

Just by reading one or two pages of a Mohammedan community site in Britain I encountered five or six anomalies or internal contradictions, bizarre turns of phrase, needlessly vague formulations, and to top it off a rigidly bureaucratic approach that does not empower individuals but solves everything through administrative procedures.  No mention of dialogue, individual decision-making, learning to cope with conflict, harmony, empathy or non-violence.

I perceive a persistent recurrence of these Kafkaesque situations in connection with some Mohammedan institutions. There is a clear sense that not all is what it seems. Somebody appears to be implementing an unspoken agenda that constantly generates ungrammatical or nonsensical statements. That is, statements that make no sense in terms of regular  English. But perhaps make perfect sense if the words they use are actually code words that mean something else instead.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Perhaps it isn’t just paranoia when I sense that  Moslem community leadership is building a state within a state, creating an “Islamic” space where Western law and customs do not apply.

This has recurred so often that I am really moved to drop the whole program of trying to reach a compromise with Islam. I am  persuaded that there can be no give and take with Islam on a basis of mutual trust and bona fides. Mohammedan political structures  are essentially seditious. Islam instinctively seeks to undermine and then dominate whatever milieu it inhabits. Any concession leads only to even more-outrageous demands.

The insidious, i.e. disloyal, deceptive, mendacious and opportunist streak in Islam is a mile wide. Islamic elitism implies that agreements with outsiders can be broken at will.

What is the purpose of continuing to try to be friendly with and get along with a world view that clashes so brutally with our culture, constantly demands new rights, has a murky, neither-fish-nor-fowl character that makes it act at times like a labor union, at times like a political party, an army, a pirate crew, a mutual back-scratching association?  Oh, yes, and they claim that all lands that were once controlled by Mohammedan are Mohammedan forevermore. This vile, scheming attitude that characterises Islam, its combination of overweening arrogance and smugness on the one hand with crude, simple-minded patterns of thought on the other, its formulaic approaches, its overkill of ritual and its completely atrophied ethical code that has no internal logic but is merely a catalogue of what the boss  man said, all this will one day drive me to despair.  

Really, what’s the point? At the same time they’re pursuing their agenda of world conquest, practically as a reflex motion. And lying to you every time they get a chance.  This is hopeless.

I favor dialogue with Islam. A  dialogue like the one conducted at 3 a.m. by a police sergeant through a bullhorn with a gang of kidnappers. That kind of dialogue.

Israeli Boycott


Comment on Lawrence Davidson's Why the Israeli Boycott Is Growing, September 8, 2010
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/090810a.html

Your article is very sensible. The Jews have indeed despoiled the Moslems once more. But your repudiation of such Jewish deeds rests on the premise that the Palestinians have a stronger claim to Palestine than the Jews. How do you justify this belief?

I reach the opposite conclusion. I think the Jews’ claim is stronger then the Moslems’. Consequently the Jews are entitled to do what they please in Palestine.

I reason as follows: the Jews claim that God gave Israel to the Jews. On the Palestinian side Hamas’ claim is that since Israel was once inhabited by Moslems, God ordains that it must remain Moslem forever.

Consequently it’s a God vs. God dispute. Since gods are assumed to have equal standing (all the more since apparently it was the same God both times), the issue is settled by determining which party has the prior claim. Since God handed Palestine to the Jews before He let the Moslems live there, the Jews have prior claim and Palestinian claims are pronounced null and void.

Funny, huh? Not in the least! This is a serious legal argument!

If the Palestinians declare through the agency of their holy terror group that they are entitled to Palestine because they are Moslems, then I retort that Somali Moslems or Philippine Moslems would do just as well. Why must be Moslems chosen to live in Palestine be Palestinian?

By seriously advancing a claim grounded in a superstitious load of codswallop garnished with a sprig of mumbo-jumbo, the Palestinians have in effect proclaimed that they don’t really want Palestine back after all. What they want to do is have Moslems live there, Moslems from anywhere.

Of course such a claim is ridiculous on its face. The native of a land cannot assign his native rights to a foreigner merely because the foreigner happens to cultivate matching superstitions and they reciprocally feed each other an identical line of supernatural malarkey!

If I cut my children out of my will and instead left my estate to the Mystic Temple of the Sublime Shamballah, the probate judge would automatically rescind my will and my estate would revert to my natural heirs, i.e. my children. And rightly so! At least under local law.

If speech has meaning, then good arguments should prevail over bad ones. People should be rewarded for expounding sound, persuasive arguments and punished for brandishing deceptive, superstitious and nonsensical arguments.

Anyone who pays the slightest heed to Hamas´ obscurantist farrago invoking cosmic laws is rewarding destructive and irrational behavior. To even utter such a preposterous argument is an insult to human intelligence!

And last but not least, to even consider paying attention to Hamas’ pious twaddle means to accept the authority of the Shariah.

In my opinion the Palestinians waived their claims to Palestine by assigning them to strangers. Strangers by the name of Mustafa and Ali and Kareem, but strangers nonetheless.

Palestine now belongs to the Jews. Shalom.