censorship offends me

‘Innocence of Muslims’ ‘offends’ Muslims. ‘Well So Fucking What?’

There should be, there must be, no compromise, no backing off the rhetoric of freedom of speech. There is no such thing as the “abuse” of human rights to the freedom of speech.

[dhr]

censorship offends me

[dhr]

This week we have seen the killing of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, as well as several of his staff. His embassy building was burned, the US embassy in Cairo was raided, its flag destroyed, and one proclaiming the supremacy of God placed in its place. In Tunisia tear gas was fired into crowds to prevent a repeat of those events. In Afghanistan President Karzai condemned not the attackers but the cause, in Egypt President Morsi did not launch an investigation into the failure of Egyptian forces to protect the US embassy but instead prepared to launch legal action against those who provoked the attackers in the US.

The cause of all this? “Innocence of Muslims“. A film. A really bad film. I’ve seen it, it’s horrendous, one of the worst films I have ever seen. The production quality is dreadful, it looks like it was filmed in my closet using a mobile phone by a homeless man and some of his mates from the next alley.

How could the cause and effect possibly be reconciled? Well, because the film was about Mohammed, and it was not complimentary. He was depicted as a brute, a paedophile, a sadistic, egotistical idiot who understood only violence and how to convince people to support him.

Sadly the protesters in the Islamic world are not attacking embassies over the insult to the entire film industry in its butchering of the art which has become film-making. Instead they were attacking and killing people over the offensive they took at this depiction of their prophet. All because the maker was a US-citizen. Just because the maker was a US citizen, an envoy who had done his best to aid the democratic revolution in Libya is dead and so are three of his aides.

How exactly did the western world react to that? Generally, with widespread condemnation. US forces are on-route to Benghazi to heighten security (a little late) and Barack Obama has declared he will bring the guilty to justice.

But the reactions of the Presidents of Afghanistan and Egypt are out of line, they are beyond wrong, they are dangerous. They are validating violence as an acceptable reaction to the crime of “offence”. They are saying that it was right for the Muslims of Europe to riot and kill in reaction to the cartoons and again against the publication of this film. But it gets much worse, because they are not the only ones to react in this way. This is the statement released by the US embassy in Cairo:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions… Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

I don’t think the embassy knows what a universal right is, else the word “abuse” could not possibly have been used in that phrase. Can you “abuse” the right to freedom from torture or death? Can you lead a life that is an “abuse” of life itself and so would it be perfectly valid for Islamists to lop off your head? Of course not, and why should freedom of speech be any different? How could the Cairo embassy possibly have validated and sympathised with those Islamists who believe the appropriate response to being offended is to kill innocents?

This goes further than simply a violation of the idea of “universal rights”, it is also a pragmatic nightmare. Too many people have suggested the statement was “pragmatic” in that it may improve relations with Muslims and protect the embassy.

Apparently the term “we do not negotiate with terrorists” is a dead phrase in US diplomacy. Apparently it is perfectly reasonable to respond to irrational acts of violence by attacking the very values your own state stands upon and promotes worldwide. Apparently the best course of action to protect yourselves from further attacks is to give a sympathetic hand to those most likely to attack you by simply joining their side of the argument. Apparently we should just bend over and give over our rights one by one in response to every murderous rampage by those who wish to bind the whole world in the dogmatic and intolerant chains of their extremist interpretation of religion.

I think all of this is best responded to by one of the champions of the educated culture of rights and tolerance we are trying to build, Stephen Fry:

It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights; it’s actually nothing more….. It’s simply a whine. It’s no more than a whine. ‘I find that offensive,’ it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well so fucking what?

Our reaction to the protests in the Middle East should be exactly that. There should be, there must be, no compromise, no backing off the rhetoric of freedom of speech. There is no such thing as the “abuse” of human rights to the freedom of speech. So what if you are offended? Grow a tougher skin. If your only possible reaction to being offended is violence it is you who has made the act of aggression and should be responded to in kind.

Our reaction to the demands of the Islamists who claim “we are offended” should be a very clear and resounding “Well so fucking what?”

Read a response to this piece: Telling Muslims to ‘Do One’ Is Not Pragmatism.

[hr]

Photo credit: jbcurio

[hr]

Comments on this piece are strictly monitored. If you do not have anything constructive to say, do not say it.

61 thoughts on “‘Innocence of Muslims’ ‘offends’ Muslims. ‘Well So Fucking What?’”

  1. Have you ever tried to deny the Jewish holocaust in Germany or in some states in the US? You would be arrested and sent to prison. There are certain things you can say and certain things you can’t.Insulting the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) has always been and always will be totally unacceptable to Muslims. This is a non-negotiable point for Muslims across the world.A little story from history:During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II the French staged a play that defamed the Prophet Mohammed, written by Voltaire. The French ambassador was duly summoned by the Sultan. The French envoy was first made to wait for a few hours. Then the Sultan Abdul-Hamid II came out in full battle dress. He laid a sword out in front of the envoy and they were ordered to leave. France immediately got the message and stopped the play. The same warning was issued to Britain; the reply was that the tickets were sold out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Khaleefah, in no unclear terms, “I will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad.” The British – who at the time were militarily stronger than the Khilafah – issued an official apology to the Khilafah and stopped the play.

    1. Mohammed1  ”Have you ever tried to deny the Jewish holocaust in Germany or in some states in the US? You would be arrested and sent to prison.”You would not be arrested for denying the Holocaust in the United States. Even the most disgusting anti-Semitic voices are protected under the First Amendment in their right to publish, assemble, and otherwise express themselves. Your second paragraph seems to make the point that there’s a historical precedent in radical Islam for using the threat of violence to stifle free expression. I would also point to the more recent example of the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Most Western media didn’t run them for fear of reprisal.The point the author makes, and a point I agree with, is that as members of free societies we cannot let barbaric, totalitarian systems of thought, which use the threat of violence, dictate the limits of our speech.  

      1. John Q I do not condone the violence and the ambassador should have been protected.Muslims need to use diplomatic pressure to ensure that the sanctity of Islam is preserved, free speech or not.America stifles speech which they do not like (like that of so called religious extremists) they just send a drone to kill them. They say thay promote extremism, doesn’t this video do the same?

        1. Peter Kelly We don’t want to impose it on you but any debate on the rights and wrongs of Islam should be done via civilised debate not via a crudely made video which was made to offend. 

        2. Mohammed1 Peter Kelly You opened with a story you about Abdul Hamid II threatening to attack two countries unless they banned a play that was offensive to Muslims, a story you clearly approved of, but you don’t want to impose ‘sanctity of Islam’?

        3. Mohammed1 Peter Kelly You opened with a story about Abdul Hamid II threatening war on Britain and France unless they banned something offensive to Islam, a story you clearly approved of. But now you claim not to want to impose the ‘sanctity of Islam’. What a hugely unconvincing approach.

        4. Mohammed1 Peter Kelly Sure, I agree, I don’t agree with the video. However I agree with its maker a lot more than the Muslims violently demonstrating across the world and calling down death on those who oppose them.

        5. Peter Kelly Mohammed1 Think about it this way, the way you love your so called ‘freedom of speech’ and would fight to protect it, Muslims love their Prophet 100 times more and would also fight to protect him.

        6. Mohammed1 I’m with Matt here. Your prophet is all ready dead. And it’s not really ‘so called’, it really is freedom of speech. I would fight for many of my freedoms, but I would never fight to oppress those of others.

        7. peterpn77Now I understand why you comment like that, your knowledge of islam come from the site which opposite/hate islam. Wish God will lead you to the real Islam ..aamin.

        1. Mohammed1 Matt Wahnsiedler Then he should take it up with the original film-maker and do so without resorting to violence.The US and its public are not connected to the film, that is something that can only be claimed by the director, actors etc. Violence against any others is simply the slaughter of innocents, the kind of slaughter Muslims are so eager to condemn when the US accidentally hits a village but seem much more wary to do when Muslim fanatics deliberately murder innocent diplomats who previously had been helping their cause. Violence is never, ever, the answer, especially in reaction to simply being offended. Grow up and learn to deal with issues without using violence, the human race is better than that.

        2. Mohammed1 I meant in reference to Voltaire’s (mis)quote: ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’I fully understand the broader context. My position is summed up in that quote. 

        3. Matt Wahnsiedler There are certain things you can say and certain things you can’t.Can you take a loud speaker outside the Whitehouse and shout ‘death to Obama, assassinate the president’? 

        4. Peter Kelly The thing is, there are some that would! Not all are as intelligent as you. In a situation like this people of the ME with pent us anger over the imperialistic hand of the US will react without thinking.The correct way would be to show our anger (without violence) and let our leaders use diplomacy to get an official apology (which we did get).Please understand that the are 2 billion Muslims in the world and this video was HIGHLY offensive to all of them. The video originated in the US so that’s where anger was directed.

        5. Mohammed1  I’m uncomfortable with that statute, but there are obvious differences between announcing an intention to do murder and hurting someone’s feelings.

        6. Mohammed1 Peter Kelly So what? Why should non-Muslims care whether you are offended at a film they are completely unconnected to? It’s none of our business, we are not connected in any way to the film and its maker. And yet despite that we face the threat of terrorist attacks, the murder of our innocent ambassadors and a threat to all our friends and relatives in the Middle East. Are you surprised non-Muslims often hate Islam when this is the threats they have to live with for things they never did?

        7. Peter Kelly Non Muslims may hate Islam but suprisingly, many are accepting the faith and converting in their droves.Morals is what separates us from animals, being polite doesn’t harm anyone.

        8. Mohammed1 Largest growing group in the world? Atheists. Islam is stalling, it’s only so long before it begins to run in reverse. I’ve already said I disagree with the video, largely because I don’t agree with being spiteful for no reason. Also there are many things which separate us from other animals, morality is not one of them.

        9. Informed It’s not ‘free thought’, it’s ‘insulting people’, like you do so telling muslims’s mind like that. Are you a dog LOL. I suggest you to study Islam well before comment such things.

        10. Peter Kelly Violence against any others is simply the slaughter of innocents, the kind of slaughter Muslims are so eager to condemn when the US accidentally hits a village but seem much more wary to do when Muslim fanatics deliberately murder innocent diplomats who previously had been helping their cause. I’m so stunned about the highlighted portion of this comment, when bored marines or airman bomb a village ‘accidentally’ we should sum up the loss of lives as what ‘not equaling to that of an America’. The thing is had there been an official protest by an Muslim the video would have gone viral and  not to mention the debate to be had about how ‘towel heads’ need to come into the future, so they do what is most effective to stop the video and prevent any future occurrences. Might not be right depends on from what side of the coin you are looking but It was effective. I cant get to see the video because it has been pulled from every website I know. 

        11. Peter Kelly Mohammed1  That is an very interesting point. I think some animals do exhibit what we would call morals. I think animals understand far more than we give them credit for. But I’ll read up on it and compare this with my own experiences in dealing with animals.

        12. Apimpnamedbizmark You think Americans deliberately kill villagers when they are bored? I know some soldiers are not exemplars of virtue but they’re not exactly murderous sadists.These videos/cartoons etc. will not be stopped. Ever. It’s impossible, there’s 7 billion people in the world of which a majority are non-Muslims, someone is always going to create offensive material. The problem is not stopping this material, it’s stopping the insane responses they provoke.

  2. I agree, the violence is despicable. However, If the US did not already have such a horrible reputation in that area of the world, maybe they would not have even paid any attention to it, or be so quick to irrationally place blame on all Americans (just like how some Americans tend to blame all Muslims for 9/11, none of which are rational reactions). What about the fact that US foreign policies have been influencing the politics and economics of almost every country in that region? I agree, what is happening is completely out of line. But what do you expect from people have gone through years and years of oppression (socially and economically) and violent revolutions? They are subject to propaganda along with lacking information and education. I am not saying they are dumb, but they are bound to be ignorant about certain things like we are in the Western world. In all of this, religion is all some of these people have left, and after years of witnessing violence maybe violence is all they know. All I am saying is…maybe this is all the result of everything that has happened within the past decade. Public backlash in the face of violence and instability is not new. Maybe read up a little on the psychological and social effects of revolutions on democratizing countries. I can give you a few articles to read. I agree with you, none of this is rational, but a lot of politics and human behaviour is not. Maybe if you understood them a little more then you could analyze the situation more efficiently :) I find this article to be rather…unacademic for a Masters student. 

      1. Mohammed1 dailst I definitely do not agree with you either….I come from a Muslim background and I sort of see where you are coming from, but naming historical references such as the one you did is completely irrelevant to the issue today. People did a lot of things back then that no one would approve of today. I was merely pointing to reasons for why people would behave a certain way in certain situations, so people could understand them more. But do not get me wrong, in NO way do I think this behaviour is acceptable. Both you and Peter are wrong in the manner you are addressing the issue. I do not believe in religious leaders nor do I think Muslim leaders should “fight” in the name of the prophet in 2012. Do you not realize this nonsense is going to cause more problems for the people in middle-east? More hatred? It is never about religion my friend, its about always about money and power, and religious leaders always jump on controversies like this so no one expects them to address real issues like poverty, unemployment, economy, etc. It is always the people who are hurt in the end by the lies perpetuated by elites who promise them a better life. You really think its about the prophet? NO. That person who violently protested over this was not merely thinking about the prophet, he was thinking “my life is a disaster but my leader promised me a better life if I fight for my religion”. 

      2. Mohammed1 dailst After all, Roussau predicted exactly this: ” we would see leaders stirring up everything that can weaken an assembly of men by disuniting them; everything that can give society an air of apparent harmony and sow in in the seeds of real division; everything that can inspire mistrust and mutual hatred in the different orders through setting their rights and interests into opposition, and, consequently, fortifying the power that contains them all”. Because, those who truly love Islam, like my kind old grandmother, would never approve of violence or hatred towards other people. Unfortunately, it is the elite comfortably sitting at top that manipulate the public’s emotions whenever they see the opportunity. They take advantage of people’s vulnerabilities, and that I find to be disgusting. Thus, in this case, the prophet and this “movie”, are actually quite irrelevant. It really could have been anything to stir up events like this…all you need is a propaganda machine and a miserable audience desperate for hope. 

    1. dailst I agree to some extent, you may find this article by me elsewhere interesting: http://conflictandnews.blogspot.com/2012/02/allure-of-religious-violence.htmlAs for being unacademic, I’ve just written a 15,000 word thesis and was asked to write an opinion piece. I wasn’t trying to be academic, rather to fight one side of a two sided debate whether the other was written by Tom Anderson in the accompanying article. A more journalistic approach can be seen in the latest article on my site, but generally when asked to produce an opinion piece for a debate I do just that, rather than trying to produce an academic piece which is too dull and high-brow for a wider audience.The blame for all things around the conflict go both ways. America has done itself little favours with its heavy-handed military actions in the Middle East, and Islam has done itself no favours through the extreme and intolerant actions of many of its followers. This does not mean, however, that violence against innocents unconnected to the imagined sins of a few are ever acceptable.

    2. @dailst I agree to some extent, you may find this article by me elsewhere interesting: http://conflictandnews.blogspot.com/2012/02/allure-of-religious-violence.html. As for being unacademic, I’ve just written a 15,000 word thesis and was asked to write an opinion piece. I wasn’t trying to be academic, rather to fight one side of a two sided debate whether the other was written by Tom Anderson in the accompanying article. A more journalistic approach can be seen in the latest article on my site, but generally when asked to produce an opinion piece for a debate I do just that, rather than trying to produce an academic piece which is too dull and high-brow for a wider audience.The blame for all things around the conflict go both ways. America has done itself little favours with its heavy-handed military actions in the Middle East, and Islam has done itself no favours through the extreme and intolerant actions of many of its followers. This does not mean, however, that violence against innocents unconnected to the imagined sins of a few are ever acceptable.

      1.  I enjoyed your article. However I have a HUGE problem with: “produce an academic piece which is too dull and high-brow for a wider audience” . This is what is wrong with today’s journalism (although I understand you are no journalist and this is merely opinion). Imagine a person, similare to you in intellect, in Egypt, who goes on and writes an “opinion” piece similar to yours only attacking the American side. Reading this opinion piece I would have never guessed the contents of the article you gave me. This only serves as useless propaganda. This page comes up second on google NEWS. How many people do you think have read this, read your credentials, and completely believed your bias and rather radical point of view? I am no Masters student, just a poli sci undergrad in my last year. But in my personal opinion, people of higher education should always uphold academic standards. Whether it is a research paper, article, or blog. By standards I mean always producing a valid argument in at least a polite manner. If I were you, I would not reduce myself to this kind of writing, but that is only my personal opinion. I generally even dislike commentary columns in newspapers because they lack useful content. I personally prefer to use the tools learned in my discipline to spread useful information for the improvement of humanity instead of adding to the clutter in this age of over-information. Again, that is my personal philosophy and opinion. Best of luck with your degree. 

        1. dailst And that is why the head of this website has produced a piece giving the other side of the argument, linked to by this page. The aim in these debate pages is to present both sides, and this is what we have done. You can see similar debates on the main page in one-article form, but we felt this issue deserved more word-space.

      2. Peter Kelly I enjoyed your article. However I have a HUGE problem with: “produce an academic piece which is too dull and high-brow for a wider audience” . This is what is wrong with today’s journalism (although I understand you are no journalist and this is merely opinion). Imagine a person, similare to you in intellect, in Egypt, who goes on and writes an “opinion” piece similar to yours only attacking the American side. Reading this opinion piece I would have never guessed the contents of the article you gave me. This only serves as useless propaganda. This page comes up second on google NEWS. How many people do you think have read this, read your credentials, and completely believed your bias and rather radical point of view? I am no Masters student, just a poli sci undergrad in my last year. But in my personal opinion, people of higher education should always uphold academic standards. Whether it is a research paper, article, or blog. By standards I mean always producing a valid argument in at least a polite manner. If I were you, I would not reduce myself to this kind of writing, but that is only my personal opinion. I generally even dislike commentary columns in newspapers because they lack useful content. I personally prefer to use the tools learned in my discipline to spread useful information for the improvement of humanity instead of adding to the clutter in this age of over-information. Again, that is my personal philosophy and opinion. Best of luck with your degree.

  3. The muslum community across the world needs to get over it and join at least the year 1900 if not 2012. I mean if you are going to get upset over a movie across the world that 99.99% of us think is stupid and then go out and protest against us then you need a life. Did we not help Libya deopse Ghadafi. Now we are the bad guy because of one idiot. One idiot led the 9/11 strike and we didnt go to war with Saudi Arabia just because Bin-Laden was born there. As with any religion you always have radicals that make the 90% that are good look bad.

  4. Okay so in Jamaica when we exercise our freedom to say ‘Fire on a homosexual’ we get flack from groups in the US over freedom of speech but Muslims can’t protest being disrespected. With freedom comes responsibility so there is a lesson well learnt

  5. Muslim speaking. We all disagree about the killing of the ambassador in Libya, that wasn’t part of the ruling of Islam or the right way Muslims should act. That was the act of an angry, disrespected group of people. Nonetheless,  they apologized about what they have done and they feel great remorse. How about you all watch the truth about the Prophet Mohammed ( peace be upon him)? Here’s a really good video about our beloved.. this is why we love him so much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDqnRqTVtCo

    1. InasAbuhasna ’We all’ is a gross overstatement. Although they may not be a majority there is a lot of sympathy for the violence aimed at US embassies worldwide, which can easily be seen by the number which have been overrun across many states. 60% of Egyptians believed Denmark was their enemy after the Danish cartoons, a third of muslims believe 9/11 was morally justifiable. These are not small numbers.The video itself is heavily biased and not exactly fully accurate, though I understand there are many sides of Mohammed, of which the peaceful man was one.

      1. Peter Kelly InasAbuhasna That is true, “we all” was an over statement. However, the educated Muslims, who know Islam, believe that was truly unjustifiable. Look, these days if you want to know about Islam and it’s true meaning, unfortunately you can’t take the majority of the Muslims  as your guidance. Islam is a beautiful religion, you just have to learn about its history and how the Prophet Mohammed ( Peace be upon him) used to teach Islam.What do you mean “biased and not fully accurate”, which part exactly?   A great number of the people converted to Islam after this whle situation by doing some research about the Prophet and they learned what kind of an extraordinary man he was and about the religion he was teaching. If you do decide to do some research, stay away from subjective resources.One more thing, why is it that when a non-Muslim commits a crime, he’s a human being committing a crime. But when a Muslim person commits a crime, its “Islam” that commits the crime?

        1. InasAbuhasna Peter Kelly I did not watch this vedio but I watched Innocence of muslims ,whether this is depicting prophet mohammad or not but surely it is depicting contemparory muslim behaviour no body can doubt about it. May be  watching the behaviour of  contemporary muslima  director came to the conclusion that  Prophet muhammad is like that.Another thing non muslim never give justification from holy book which is really created by GOD for his killings , but muslims  giving justification from HOLY QURAN??. for inhuman things.

        2. InasAbuhasna Peter Kelly All of the 9/11 bombers were educated, some were even Phd. holders. I know the history of Islam fairly well, having studied it, and it is a religion born in violence and so one which justifies violence.As for biased and not fully accurate – The entire video only ever mentions the best parts of Mohammed and the most peaceful. He was a very violent person who did not only do good things, many today would be seen as evil.Your last point is false, it is not Muslim or non-Muslim. It is when they use Islam to justify their crimes (which is often very easy to do).

      2. Peter Kelly InasAbuhasna @InasAbuhasna @Peter Kelly All” of the 9/11 bombers were educated, some were even Phd. holders. I knowthe history of Islam fairly well, having studied it, and it is areligion born in violence and so one which justifies violence.As forbiased and not fully accurate – The entire video only ever mentions thebest parts of Mohammed and the most peaceful. He was a very violentperson who did not only do good things, many today would be seen asevil.Your last point is false, it is not Muslim or non-Muslim. It iswhen they use Islam to justify their crimes (which is often very easy todo).”Inconsistency I see? In the fist post you wrote and I quote “  The video itself is heavily biased and not exactly fully accurate,
        though I understand there are many sides of Mohammed, of which the
        peaceful man was one.”  And in the second post, the one I copied and pasted from your profile since I can’t seem to find it on this page, you called my beloved Prophet Mohammed a very “violent” man. How can someone be given two opposite attributes from the same person?  I thought it was old news that 9/11 was an inside job, it didn’t reach you yet? Proof is everywhere, it’s all over youtube.. get with the program. Another thing, Islam comes from Salam, and its translated as Peace. So if the religion is called peace, and the very first things the Prophet  did was violent.. then HOW would they have followers? Do you take humans to be THAT stupid? Arabic was their first language so they would’ve put it together. Your problem Peter, is that you don’t use your own mind. The statements you stated as ‘facts’ were acquired statements from very subjective and hateful resources. Apparently you were raised to believe everything you see on TV, which is very dangerous if you don’t know.

        1. Peter Kelly A story that proves the Prophet Mohammed ( Peace be upon him) was a true Prophet (S) from Allah (SWT): There was an eclipse on the day that the Prophet’s son Ibrâhîm died.Some superstitious people said that the sun eclipsed because of theyoung child’s death and the Prophet’s sadness on that day. The Prophetcorrected their understanding. Al-Mughîrah Ibn Shu’bah narrated: On theday of Ibrâhîm’s death, the sun eclipsed and the people said that theeclipse was due to the death of Ibrâhîm (the son of the Prophet).Allah’s Prophet said, “The sun and the moon are two signs amongstthe signs of Allah. They do not eclipse because of someone’s death orlife. So when you see them, invoke Allah and pray till the eclipse isclear.”  Related by Al-Bukhârî and Muslim. If it had been another human, he/she would’ve been drunk with power and he/she wouldn’t have corrected their false opinions.

        2. Peter Kelly Anyway I’m not coming back since you have no facts to put up an argument with. Sorry for spamming your page, I didn’t mean to. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert EinsteinPeace, Inas

  6. peter62 Peter (62) , I broadly share your sentiments but I have grave problems with ‘ the only way we will ever get anywhere close to world peace is if we
    rid ourselfs of this evil , murderous religion once and for all along
    with there book of lies the coran’  The world would generally be a more amiable place without islam constantly pressing down on it as islamic societies will never rest until the rest of us acknowledge that ‘There is no God but Allah’ and pay them tribute.  But what you advocate is not feasible without genocide and I can’t be a party to this. Unlike Peter Kelly and his NATO buddies, I think we should leave traditionally islamic lands i.e post WWII to the muslims to govern as they wish and severely curtail their numbers and influence in Europe, the US and other traditional non islamic countries. The problem is the many western governments have cosied up to islamic regimes for military or resource strategic reasons and it is why we are in the mess we are in. I’ll have to write an article on this soon.

      1. Peter Kelly peterpn77 peter62   Hi Peter,The only reason why I called NATO your buddies was that you seemed to besympathetic to their cause in your article ‘The Allure of Religious Violence’.You seemed impressed by the way NATO can potentially use overwhelming force to bring a reasonably localised conflict to an end as in the case of the Bosnian war, which by the way I supported. The Serb militias and paramilitaries shamed their national identity there.. . Moving swiftly on- NATO should have gone out with the Cold war. From Kosovoonwards NATO’s justifications for military intervention have beennothing but lies. It has not only strengthened the hand of islamicextremists by a) either directly helping them as in the case of Libyaand Kosovo or b) by providing them with reasons to justify theirjihad due to the ‘collateral damage’ inflicted by NATO missilestrikes. Incidentally this term ‘collateral damage’ really offends mebecause it is used to mask the reality of what actually happens which is the defenceless and innocent (children) being shot dead orblown up.

    1. mutosheep peterpn77 peter62  I am with you on the reasons for the UK, American, French governments having cosied up to dictators  in the past, i.e to keep a lesser of two evils in power. But don’t you think it was the Bush Administration i.e the Republicans who let the genie out of the box when they overthrew Saddam Hussein? Since then majority of the Christian and other non muslim communities have been terrorized into fleeing from that country. But governments in the west turned a blind eye to this as they need to extract themselves from that mess asap. As for policies, there is really very little difference if any between the Bush and Obama foreign policies. And I don’t see what justification you can have for calling the UN a facist body. If the NATO member states gave this military power to the UN for solving world conflicts by democratic consensus, I think the world would be a much better place. But no the U.S wants to maintain it’s illusion to total spectral domination and we the United Kingdom slavishly follow.

  7. peter62  ” the only way we will ever get anywhere close to world peace is if we ridourselfs of this evil , murderous religion once and for all along withthere book of lies the coran as we will continue to have conflicts withthem  as they continue to try and force there ideoligy upon us.”Yeah, because The U S of A isn’t the one in mostly all of the Muslim countries committing genocide. Finally some common sense! Rid yourselves of us, get your genocidal troops out of our country! Nobody asked for the U.S’s “help”!

  8. Hi Peter  My posting froze.  I did not get to post what I wanted.   That first part was a quote from a commentator below me.  I was quoting the phrase and then was going to add  (no joke):  1) who are they?  2) and if by they you mean the rioting people who killed the ambassador they did not feel remorse but actually danced in the streets after they killed him and several members of his staff.    love your blog all the bestGeoff Howard

  9. There’s also a lot of videos scattered on Youtube about Islam criticizing Christianity. They also posting some pictures of Priest converting into Islam. Is there any violent protest happened around the world about these videos? Nothing!See? what they are protesting? if we really know ourselves to where we are going or we are just following our prepared path that we think we are happy and living a prosperous life, why do we need to protest about the film?Im not against Islam. im not also a devoted christian. i have a lot of Muslim friends. We are happy together because we are not after the RULES of religion. We are living in a way that we know we are going to grow with God’s/Allah’s grace and to be a good model for other circle of friends.

  10. from a Muslim commentator – “We all disagree about the killing of the ambassador in Libya, that wasn’t part of the ruling of Islam or the right way Muslims should act. That was the act of an angry, disrespected group of people.” ……………………………………………………………………….so what happening? its only about angry?……………………………………………………everyone have the right to be angry. Christianism also teach not to be angry. maybe the people behind this film was ANGRY… so they was just angry… so they used film to tell the world that they are angry. Sometimes when I’m angry I want to kill a person but thanks to my parents they told me that it is a sin to kill a person. So im not talking about religion, it is about how our parents teach us…………………………………. if we are angry it is OK to kill dozens of innocent of people? So Im not talking about parents, it is about culture………………………………

  11. Hi Peter,The only reason why I called NATO your buddies was that you give the impression of NATO being a force for good in your article ‘The Allure of Religious Violence’. It comes across that you are in favour the way NATO can potentially use overwhelming force to bring a reasonably localised conflict to an end as in the case of the Bosnian war, which by the way I supported. The Serb militias and paramilitaries shamed their national identity there.. . Moving swiftly on- NATO should have gone out with the Cold war. From Kosovo onwards NATO’s justifications for military intervention has beennothing but lies. It has not only strengthened the hand of islamic extremists by a) either directly helping them as in the case of Libya and Kosovo or b) by providing them with reasons to justify their jihad due to the ‘collateral damage’ inflicted by NATO missile strikes. Incidentally this term ‘collateral damage’ is used to mask murder of the defenceless and innocent (children) who are blown up.

Leave a Reply