| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Sign posted outside last Friday's panel discussion at UCLA
I like that sign. It shows that we have free speech in this country, and anybody who doesn't want to participate in the discussion has no right to disrupt it.
Last Friday there was a panel at UCLA, discussing the Mohammed cartoons. The panel was sponsored by the UCLA chapter of L.O.G.I.C., an organization based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
The discussion was excellent. The one part of it I want to discuss in this post was the final remarks made by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, Professor of Religion at the Center for Islamic and Arabic Studies at San Diego State University.
I have to give Dr. Mohammed credit for having the guts to be the lone person on the panel representing the point of view of those opposed to the cartoons. He tried to support the argument that free speech has to be subordinate to whatever offends Muslims; his view, of course, would destroy freedom of speech and of religion in this country if it were adopted.
But Dr. Mohammed's concluding words were surprising. He made two remarks. First, that many Muslim scholars are reaching out to moderate Muslims in the West in an effort to reform Islam. He said that the reform of Islam will come from the U.S.
Second, he said that -- quoting from memory here -- "Islam will reform when Muslims get their ass kicked. Sorry for my language -- I'm from the streets."
This was startling, to say the least. It matches up well with what Victor Davis Hanson says, that wars continue until one side loses decisively.
And to hear a Muslim scholar say this, was strong evidence that it is indeed what is necessary.
It seems to me that, as regards this country, one thing that might include could be, identifying mosques where treason is being preached, and expelling their imams and those involved in spreading their preaching.
#1
#2> What you call “treason” would undoubtedly be considered “free speech” by those who are not seething with hatred toward Muslims.
> You clearly believe the first amendment does not apply to Muslims.
You presume that there is no such thing as treason. It's not so.
#3I presume no such thing. You accused a man of committing "violent treason" because he called George Bush a terrorist, said the Jews control the media, and said Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan jails.
Despite your desire to curtail this man's rights, I am quite certain that the U.S. courts would deem this protected speech. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution applies to Muslims too.
#4> You accused a man of committing “violent treason” because he called George Bush a terrorist, said the Jews control the media, and said Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan jails.
No I didn't. Re-read the article you're talking about. Comments on that article, belong with that article.
> Despite your desire to curtail this man’s rights, I am quite certain that the U.S. courts would deem this protected speech. Unfortunately for you, the Constitution applies to Muslims too.
What I said in the post above, was that Muslims committing treason should be expelled. You seem to be arguing, absurdly, that no Muslim can commit treason.
#5>No I didn’t. Re-read the article you’re talking about.
I re-read it. That is in fact exactly what you said. You may wish you didn't say that, but wishing does not make it so!
>You seem to be arguing, absurdly, that no Muslim can commit treason.
Incorrect. I am arguing that a man who is seething with an irrational hatred toward Muslims is going to accuse Muslims of committing treason when they are merely exercising their right to free speech. The fact that you think it constitutes treason to call Bush a terrorist, say Jews control the media, and say that Muslims are being tortured in Manhattan jails proves that I am correct.
#6Please directly quote from my articles to document your assertions. If you're just into name-calling without being able to back up what you say, you're a troll:
What is a Troll?
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Please note the stated policy of this forum: "Abusive remarks and trolls may be deleted."
If you want to continue to post here, quit the abusive remarks, and start attempting to document your statements.
#7Here is your direct quote: "It is all but certain that in this mosque, this imam is preaching violent treason against the U.S." Your only evidence to support this accusation was that he called Bush a terrorist, said the Jews control the media, and said Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan jails.
#8> Your only evidence to support this accusation was that he called Bush a terrorist, said the Jews control the media, and said Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan jails.
Incorrect. The evidence includes the behavior of radical Islamists all over the world, including car-bombings, murders, embassy-burnings, hostage-taking, suicide-bombing, etc. Do you pretend this is not the behavior of radical islamists all over the world?
#9Your argument makes absolutely no sense. The behavior of other people in other countries is not evidence of this man's guilt. Furthermore, the specific crimes you list are not examples of treason. You clearly lack even the slightest understanding of what treason is.
I will also note that New York's Republican mayor has defended the imam's comments as free speech protected by the First Amendment (although he did give him a slap on the wrist for failing to make it clear that he did not speak on behalf of the city).
The mayor also said the investigation determined that the imam "teaches a message of tolerance, forbearance, peace and respect to the law to all faiths, equally." But I guess in your mind your baseless accusations and broad generalizations about Muslims in other parts of the world overrule the result of an actual investigation.
#10> Your argument makes absolutely no sense. The behavior of other people in other countries is not evidence of this man’s guilt.
It isn't proof, but it certainly is evidence. When radical imams say the kinds of thing this imam is saying -- when radical imams around the world seem to universally preach violence -- it appears likely that this radical imam may also preach violence as well. And violence used to attack the U.S. is treason.
> The mayor also said the investigation determined that the imam “teaches a message of tolerance, forbearance, peace and respect to the law to all faiths, equally.”
I'm certainly willing to take that into account, if you can provide a link for it.
#11You previously claimed that this proved it was "all but certain" that he had committed treason. You are now backpedaling by saying only that "it appears likely." It appears that you acknowledge that your original claim was a lie. I guess that's a start.
Here is the link you requested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/nyregion/15imam.html
#12Everything to you is a lie, isn't it? To you, just disagreeing with anything you say, makes a person a liar. Well, you don't know how to behave in a polite debate.
The difference between all but certain and appears likely isn't great. If you like, I'll repeat the original statement. "It is all but certain that in this mosque, this imam is preaching violent treason against the U.S."
#13[fentanyl] You accused a man of committing “violent treason” because he called George Bush a terrorist, said the Jews control the media, and said Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan jails.
Where in this post did the author say any of this? I don't see it anywhere above. Thus, by your own standards, you are clearly a liar.
So - since you're completely untrustworthy - let's just sum up your ad hominem attacks on the author instead:
1. You clearly believe the author believes the first amendment does not apply to Muslims, though he has done or said nothing to indicate this. That makes you a conscious and deliberate liar.
2. You made it clear you believe the author desires to curtail the rights of someone in particular for no good reason, though he has said nothing to indicate this either. Same as above.
3. You clearly believe that the author does not wish for the Constitution to apply to Muslims - as you snarked that it is "unfortunate" for the author that it does - though he has never stated this either. So you are either taking his statements out of context, or else you have an clear irrational hatred toward the author's beliefs and principles, which I can assure you are very peaceful, and you desire to destroy this individual and wish evil upon him. The author is a very tolerant person and believes in peace for all mankind, but he can only tolerate so much before...
4. You clearly believe that those who are concerned about Muslim imams in U.S. mosques committing treason - high crimes and misdemeanors - are confusing simple acts of free speech with treason, and not evaluating treason on its own merits; and furthermore, that they are doing so not for any rational reason - such as the one prompting President Roosevelt to intern the Japanese during World War II - but because they are 'seething with an irrational hatred toward Muslims'.
And you 'clearly' imply:
5. Because the author is concerned about imams preaching treason in mosques on U.S. soil, he is one of those who must be 'seething with irrational hatred toward Muslims.'
You've said or implied all of those things. So answer me this: If Dr. Mohammed's conclusion - that "Islam will reform when Muslims get their ass kicked" - is the God's honest truth, then is Dr. Mohammed 'lying'? Is he full of 'irrational hatred toward Muslims' too?
#14sa, well said. Thanks for the support!
>I like that sign. It shows that we have free speech in this country, and anybody who doesn't want to participate in the discussion has no right to disrupt it.
>It seems to me that, as regards this country, one thing that might include could be, identifying mosques where treason is being preached, and expelling their imams and those involved in spreading their preaching.
What you call "treason" would undoubtedly be considered "free speech" by those who are not seething with hatred toward Muslims.
You clearly believe the first amendment does not apply to Muslims.