Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Say Hello to the Devil

Michael L.

This piece is a retread from a Times of Israel thing that I did just about two years ago originally entitled, Pamela Geller: The Bête Noire of Progressive-Left Jewry.

Geller is a gadfly and a troublemaker, but she also happens to be correct and is unjustly slandered as a "racist" and a hateful human being.

The truth is that this woman stands against political Islam and thereby stands up for Jewish people, Christian people, Gay people, women, and liberalism.

She makes Maryscott O'Connor look like a right-wing fascist.

She should be honored, but she is maligned.


nakbaatlas2Anyone who follows the American Jewish press knows that gadfly Pamela Geller was recently disinvited to give a talk on the subject of Sharia at Great Neck Synagogue on Long Island.  The reason for this is because progressives constantly tell one another that Geller is a racist.  And if the progressive-left despises Geller as a racist, no one on the planet despises Geller more than progressive-left Jews.  Your average progressive Zionist, i.e., your average left-wing Jewish pro-Israel activist, despises Geller far more than he or she despises even the most genocidal of Israel’s enemies.  They quite literally loathe Geller more than they do Muhammed Morsi, who has compared Jews to apes and pigs, and they hate her more than Hamas which calls quite clearly for the genocide of the Jewish people.

How is this possible?  It’s possible, although still wrong-headed, for progressive-Zionists to despise Geller more than even Hamas because they believe, and constantly tell one another, that Geller is an “Islamophobe” that spreads hate speech toward Muslims.

David Wood has some words on the matter that I would recommend people give a listen to.

For myself, I have tended to be a rather reluctant supporter of Geller.

The reason that I find myself a reluctant supporter of Geller is because I am not so familiar with the body of her work that I know that her critics are entirely wrong.   What I do know for certain is that there is nothing the least bit racist or bigoted in the subway advertisements that her group, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, put up last year.


There is nothing racist or bigoted or “Islamophobic” about the sentiments in the above ad.  By “savage” she is not referring to Muslims, in general, but to those within the Muslim population who believe that they have a theological obligation to kill Jews and to spread an Islamic caliphate across the planet.  She is referring to the people who committed 9/11.  She is referring to the people who slaughtered the Fogel family and chopped the head off of their three month old baby daughter.  She is referring to those imams in the mosques throughout the Middle East who continually and perpetually call for the murder of the Jewish people wherever we may be found.

Excuse me, but are those people not savages?

Furthermore, when Geller says “Defeat Jihad” she is obviously not referring to the tradition within Islam that Jihad refers to the personal struggle for greater spirituality and relations with the deity.  She is not referring to the notion currently being spread in the United States, within a series of advertisments, that Jihad can refer to jogging or efforts at weight-loss.  Rather, she is referring to the the tradition within Islam that Jihad refers to Holy War – the kind with actual blood.  When the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad decided to name itself Islamic Jihad they were not thinking of prayer, nor the building of bridges through friendship, but of the blood of the infidels.

Ironically, and mister Wood points this out in the video linked to above, it is not Pam Geller who is the bigot, but her detractors who tend to be because they suggest, or imply, that violent Jihadis represent all Muslims.  If Geller calls out the violent Jihad, and her detractors claim that this is an insult to all of Islam, and therefore an insult to all Muslims, this can only mean that her detractors conflate Islam with the violent Jihad.

Now that truly is racist because it implies that Muslims, in general, are no better than the worst terrorists in Hamas, which is to suggest that Muslims are savages.

If Pamela Geller is a racist I have yet to see the evidence.  What I see is a much maligned woman standing up to the enemies of the Jewish people and to the enemies of the infidel west.  What I also see are a whole bunch of moral cowards who defame this woman even as they turn a blind eye to the rise of political Islam throughout the Muslim Middle East.

The rise of political Islam during the Obama administration may be the single most significant geo-political event in world history since the demise of the Soviet Union.  The Muslim Middle East is moving from a period of secular-authoritarian nationalism, as exemplified by people such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, to a period of rising theocratic-authoritarianism in the name of Islam.  This, it should be emphasized, is not an improvement.  On the contrary.  While Hosni Mubarack may have been a dictator he, at least, did not believe in some Allah-given right to slaughter Jews and he did not set himself up as an enemy of the United States and the west.

This is what the Muslim Brotherhood has done and it is precisely what Geller opposes.

Of course, it should be something that anyone who believes in secular democracy should oppose, but they don’t.  Mainstream media throughout the United States and Europe largely pussy-foot around political Islam despite the fact that it represents everything that the secular west allegedly opposes.  Devotees of political Islam (or “radical Islam” or “Islamism”) oppress women, hang Gay people from cranes, and promises the slaughter of the Jewish people and they do so in the name of Allah.

What’s not to like?

Ask Pamela Geller, she’ll have some words.


  1. Mike... there is a lot of very "tough" sounding rhetoric on this page and too be honest while it has me shaking my head and sort of laughing - Trudy's rant and your "they can go fuck themselves" are pretty solid as far as rants go. I say this NOT to mock you, but to say I am seriously entertained by reading this.

    Personally, I think Geller is a racist shitbag, and at the same time I can assure you that I dislike Hamas, ISIS, the Hizbollah and the MB (all very different groups) far more than I dislike some little crazy woman from wherever the hell she is from, because in the end - they shoot rockets and actually do fight as opposed to some lunatic yelling on the internet that they like to piss people off.

    Anyway... I have a serious question for you and I ask you because I am curious as to what you think.

    It seems you are saying that you like Geller, and her argument that those who follow "Political Islam" are "savages" is correct. Do I have that right? If so, I ask what specific policies for dealing with this issue do you suggest? Then as a follow-up, what do you think we in America should do regarding this?

    Again, I ask this seriously. I am curious what do you think we should do beyond the stage of just spreading information. What would be your end goal after the information is out there?

    So much of the internet is snark and nastiness so I understand if you read this and feel I am goading you. But I want you to know that I am not. I am really curious as to what Mike Lumish and really all of you think should happen in the end. What do you all really want to see done with Gellar's ads and information.

    1. Mike,
      I am against political Islam.
      I am not for Pamela Geller.
      I agree with vb.
      Geller is a flamethrower.
      She doesn't help, she makes things worse. For everyone.
      I don't dislike her more than I dislike Hamas etc. I don't spend enough time thinking about her to dislike her. She doesn't merit it.
      The EDL in the UK support her. The EDL are racist, bigoted, and frequently violent. Their former leader,Tommy Robinson, left the organisation because of their extremism and their use of violence. He is now reformed, and works with an organisation - the Quilliam foundation - which works to combat extremism. They do interesting work.
      I would be interested to know what you have in common with Pamela Geller beyond her opposition to political Islam.
      Do you imagine Aayan Hirsi Ali supports Geller's views and rhetoric? Or her preferred tactics?
      One can oppose political Islam without embracing people like Geller.

    2. Well Mike.. I mis-spoke. She is not a "racist shit-bag" because Islam is not a race. So to correct myself, she is a "Bigoted Shit bag" - my bad.

      As for Political Islam - I don't drop it down to just "For - Neutral - Against" positions. I think it is more nuanced than that. But that said, I don't think that is the discussion for now. I think it just distracts from what I believe (and only saying what "I believe") is the more important thing which is that Geller has a message and wants her message to get out and lead to a result.

      SO.. now that her info. is out there the question is "What should we do with it". After all, information is a tool to help you get somewhere, just having it and ripping Political Islam on some internet board gets you no where except to maybe be a cathartic exercise - kind of like yelling at clouds.

      So, that's why I ask, what do you really want here Mike? There has to be something that you would suggest we do. I mean at DKos, most of those people just sit around judging Israel on one sided information (and often mis-informed information) regarding Israel and the Jewish people. BUT there is a reason that the David Harris Gershon's and subir's of the world spread this slanted info. Why? Well because they want to demonize both Israel and the Jewish People. But ask them what their real end goals are and they won't tell you. They will give you false info. like wanting "justice" for Palestinians or a Palestinian One State Solution without once looking at what the Palestinian Polity actually wants (the destruction of Israel and if you are Hamas or P.I.J. - the death of all the Jews).

      But I don't think that needs to be done here. One can rail all they like about "political Islam" but then that "railing" should be used to promote something else. That is where I am going.

      What do you think we need to do about this? Or should we do nothing and then how much of this is "Yelling at clouds"?


    3. k, I know very little about the EDL, but I know a thing or two about Geller and she is certainly not a racist.

      What I have in common with her is that we both oppose institutionalized racism.

      Where am I going wrong?

    4. It's not that you're going wrong Mike... It's what do you want to see happen. Geller, btw, does not oppose "institutionalized racism" particularly when she engages in it. But it would be more accurate to call it "Institutionalized Bigotry"

      She opposes Islam. Not just political Islam but the actual religion and practice of it. Here are some of her quotes:

      "Islam is not a race. This is an ideology. This is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth."

      — Pam Geller On Fox Business' "Follow the Money," March 10, 2011


      "I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. … I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam."

      — Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010

      Nothing there about "Political Islam", just "Islam" and honestly saying that for Muslims to pray five times a day in the West is somehow "cursing Jews and Christians". Simply put.. that's nuts.

      So obviously has an agenda beyond putting signs on buses telling people that Muslims want to kill Jews. I think the question is WHY? is she putting signs on buses telling people that. What does she want to have happen once people say.. "You know what... I do oppose Islam" - then what?

    5. Geller broke with the EDL in 2013

    6. What we need to do is try to stop muslim immigration. Or life will become very difficult for Jews very soon.

    7. Ok.. so there is the first suggestion.

      Jacob.. if I have it right you are suggesting that no Muslim's be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. anymore? Correct?

      Alright... now if one is suggesting that Muslim Immigrants are a future threat what about first generation Muslims that are here already? Remember too, that the second generation might not be peaceful or assimilated either - Boston Bombing anyone? What about those folks?

      Also Jacob, you mentioned that life will become difficult for us (Jews - I ask because I am Jewish). What do you mean by that?

    8. Boston bombers were first generation. Both came from Kazakhstan. Not much can be done about second generation - they are already citizens.
      It's a problem, certainly. But if we consider Islamization of America as a deadly disease, then stopping more of them from immigrating at least slows down infection rate.

      As to life becoming difficult for Jews: we can look at Europe for a preview.
      Is there anything to suggest that they'll behave differently here?

      And before you call me a racist, I have absolutely no animosity towards anyone based on their genetic makeup. Arabs especially being our close relatives. As long as they don't want to kill me.

    9. Mike,
      As volleyboy says : What do you want to happen?
      Opposition to political Islam is fine, but what do you want to do?
      What do you want to achieve?
      What are you suggesting that is positive?

      Otherwise, it's just purely negative. Isn't it?

    10. Just because one does not have a solution to a problem does not mean that one cannot address that problem or the way the problem is being addressed.

      Geller raises awareness so that when violent acts are committed there is context. Plus, she stands up for Muslims, especially women, that are persecuted under Islam.

      The bigotry towards Geller far exceeds the bigotry from Geller. Among other things, Islam seeks submission and jihad against non-believers, including death. Why are so many afraid of that truth so they must demean people who convey it?

      Why must the sensitivities of one group be respected when that group fails to respect the sensitivities of others? Mohammed needs to be exposed, not protected. Too many are afraid to do the dirty work that Geller does, yet are quick to criticize her as she stands on the front line fighting our battles.

    11. Jacob.. I haven't called you anything. If you feel your views are "racist" then own them and if you don't, don't apologize ahead of time particularly with a "but my best friends are....." type argument and particularly after comparing Muslims to a virus / disease.

      I asked for what you think should be done and what were your solutions. You answered. I appreciate that. I would like to dig a bit deeper into your answer a bit if that is ok.

      Again, I am not passing judgement on you. I just want to know what it is people in this movement really want. As far as I am concerned, this discussion stays on this site.

    12. Oh and Jacob... I stand corrected. The Bombers are first gen - though they came here very young. Still you are right about that.

    13. Well oldschool if:

      "Just because one does not have a solution to a problem does not mean that one cannot address that problem or the way the problem is being addressed."

      Then you are cool with those at DKos like the Useful Idiot (David Harris Gershon) or subir who often point out many problems within Israel but don't offer solutions, rather hiding behind the very argument you make here? Am I correct? If so.. then great, though I have seen you advocate over there against their info. If not (and you do have an issue), why here is it ok but there it is not?

      But again... that is an aside. Because you (and you have called your self this) claim to be part of the Counter-Jihad movement, then don't you think that responsible advocacy involves having policy solutions for a position that you are involved in advocating. Honestly, I cannot imagine that you don't have any suggestions for policy. I mean you are putting out information but are you seriously telling me that you don't have an opinion on that information or a suggestion for how that information should be used?

      Wait... you said:

      Plus, she stands up for Muslims, especially women, that are persecuted under Islam.

      I am not sure how you can say that when Geller has been known to tell Muslims to turn away from their faith, which is after a defining feature of who they are. There are no atheist Muslims. Islam is a religion and nothing more.

      Why must the sensitivities of one group be respected when that group fails to respect the sensitivities of others? Mohammed needs to be exposed, not protected. Too many are afraid to do the dirty work that Geller does, yet are quick to criticize her as she stands on the front line fighting our battles.

      I am not sure how that relates to anything I asked.

      Let me simplify for you.... All I asked is what Mike and others believe should happen with the information given. That's it. Pretty simple. Jacob answered - it was honest and whether one likes it or not that is his honest opinion. I applaud him for at least not being afraid to express that opinion, knowing full well it might not be a popular opinion in society.

    14. No "some of my best friends" argument here. Just pointing out that I dislike them because they want to kill me, not because of their "race".

      As far as Jews are concerned, Islam is indeed a deadly disease: how many live in Islamic State? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Under PA administration? Any place with Sunni majority?

    15. No, you are not correct. If I object to anti-Israel people, it's because they are deceptive in the things they say, not because they do or do not have or offer solutions.

      As for Geller and Muslim women, watch her recent talk at Brooklyn College. I don't think you know as much about her as you say. You seem too eager to point a finger and name call instead.

      What I say here does not need to relate to what you ask, which I think is nonsensical. So long as most people are unaware, the act of providing information, even without solutions, is a good unto itself.

      To simplify for you, here is what Geller said in Time:

      Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

    16. Ok Jacob, fair enough... SO if Muslims want to kill you (us), what should we do with those that live here already? I mean isn't there danger involved there?

      Jacob, again.. I am not debating you about Islam - I don't know why you keep going to that. All I am doing is asking about your "end game" so that I better understand the folks I am talking too.

    17. Here is the link for her talk, where she specifically mentions Muslim women by name that she fights for, and challenges those who speak out against her, but not for them.

    18. And oldschool - how are they deceptive? Look at subir's latest piece at DKos... He publishes reports straight from "Breaking the Silence" they are a group of Israeli soldiers who talk about what happened wrong in their military service. Personally, I believe them - but just because I believe them doesn't change my opinion that "Operation Protective Edge" was necessary. So... how is subir being deceptive? The only way I can think of is that he is only reporting out of context situations without telling the whole story in order to change ones opinion about Israel.

      Ok, enough of that. Anyway, I am cool with you supporting Geller - that is your prerogative. No worries. I am just asking you... now that Pam is out there on the front lines fighting your battle for you (Your words), what do you advocate someone does to back her up? She has warned you to the dangers of Islam.. Ok.. so what do you do with or advocate for as a result of her warning. OR are you just ignoring her warning? If so, then why bother defending her?

      Come on oldschool... If one accepts that Geller is right and totally justified in her advocacy, then what do you think we should do about it. Or should we do nothing? What do you think and why are you so ashamed of your politics that you don't offer a position?

    19. Jacob,
      Islam is not a " deadly disease", in any sense.
      About 1.5 billion people on the planet belong to the religion of Islam. A tiny percentage of people have any interest in killing anyone.
      It is true that there is quite a lot of antisemitism in some communities. That is something that needs to be addressed. That is a difficult thing.
      There is growing antisemitism from many groups. In America, and in Europe.
      That is an issue that is worth discussing.
      It is important.
      Islam is not the same as Islamism.
      Islam is a faith. Islamism is a political ideology. The vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists.
      America is a strong country that can learn to absorb people of all faiths. It has a good history in that respect.


      I agree with you that I would like to know what, if anything, Mike wishes to see happen in response to the challenges posed by political Islam, in the US, and around the world.

    20. Well thanks K...

      I think that is THE important question but not just for Mike... I think for everyone who posts here. I mean we get some very strident posting with some very strident opinions. Ok.. that's cool... but where is it leading too. What do people want to see happen? Jacob answered with a "Cut off Muslim Immigration" ok.. that is something.

      K - I think the thing here is not to be judgemental. I agree with what you wrote to Jacob, but, that is neither here nor there. Jacob has the courage of his convictions to state what he feels. I respect that. I may not agree with it, and I may not respect what he believes BUT I respect that he at least has a position to advocate for and is honest about it.

      In all my years at DKos I could never get the anti-Israel crowd to be honest about their endgame. It's important because once the B.S. is out of the way, then people can have honest discussions.

    21. vb,

      I didn't intend to judge anyone, and apologise if it came across that way.
      I absolutely agree with you that it is infinitely better for people to state their opinions honestly. When people are open about their views that is a good thing. Considering the amount of people who engage in evasion and obfuscation, it is a far better thing to have discussions in which people feel happy to express their views and thoughts in a direct manner.

      This is an interesting thread.
      It would be good to pursue it to explore the main issues further.

      It is only possible to have a proper debate when everyone feels able to say what they think, and to ask others to do the same.
      I am hopeful that we can do that here.

    22. vb,

      Re the ' breaking the silence report ', there is a piece by Matti Friedman which is really interesting on that. If you haven't seen it, it is available at uk media watch ( and many other sites), I would be interested to know what you think of it. I found it informative and helpful.

    23. k, is this Islam or Islamism:

      "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him."

      Is there a moderate muslim version?

      Volleyboy1, what to do with those already here: ridicule their beliefs until it's seen as "uncool" to be a muslim. Laugh at them on Saturday Night Live.
      Create a stigma associating Islam with stupidity and backwardness. Make them ashamed to admit to their religion. Drive them to proudly eat ham sandwiches and own dogs to show off how American they are.
      In a generation it might stick.

    24. Jacob,
      Religious texts sometimes contain difficult material. Those particular lines are not representative of an entire religion. Or its scriptures.
      The New Testament contains some virulently antisemitic passages. Over time - as we have seen with both Judaism and Christianity - it is possible to begin to look at religious texts in new ways. And to be able to put certain parts of them, and certain ideas within them, into a new perspective. One that does not involve a fundamentalist or literal reading. With the right people behind it, there is hope that the texts of Islam can go through that transformative process.
      There is reason to believe that will happen. None of these texts need to be discarded. They need to be opened up to be studied and interpreted in a more modern way. There are key figures in the Muslim world who are advocating that that should happen. We should hope that comes about.

    25. k,
      New Testament is not antisemitic as it was written for Jews by Jewish followers of a proposed messiah candidate. It contains four human reports on the life of Jesus, and a bunch of letters by another human.
      All the antisemitic stuff is a matter of later interpretations by fathers of the church when it went fully gentile.
      So it is possible for a Christian to get rid of objectionable parts without compromising his belief in primary texts.

      Quranic verses by contrast are the very words of Allah, from a book that existed before creation. He doesn't like Jews very much. And Mohammed was a perfect man that muslims are supposed to imitate. He killed a lot of Jews, and left clear instructions how to deal with the rest. One of these I posted above. How do you reform that?

      So yes Islam is a faith, but one that claims we are enemies of god fit for slaughter. Aztecs also had a faith. Not every faith deserves respect.

    26. "Jacob.. I haven't called you anything. If you feel your views are "racist" then own them and if you don't, don't apologize ahead of time particularly with a "but my best friends are....." type argument and particularly after comparing Muslims to a virus / disease."
      What a bullshit reply.

      "I asked for what you think should be done and what were your solutions. "
      Are you asking or interrogating?

    27. The only way I can think of is that he is only reporting out of context situations without telling the whole story in order to change ones opinion about Israel.

      That is deception to me.

      Geller is fighting a battle for all of us, even you, whether you like it or not.

      I am not ashamed of my politics and do not hide my views, but offer them when I choose, whether or not I have a solution about how to end the insanity. That does not make the views any less valuable than someone who purports to know the answers.

      The difference between Geller and her enemies is that she would disappear if there was no threat, but if she was not there they would persist in their hate and their reliance on violence.

    28. Jeff... I am asking.

      I am really curious about where people are coming from and what they ultimately want to achieve. I feel that if motives are clear, it contextualizes beliefs and in the end makes for more honest discussion.

      And honestly Jeff... I don't really give a shit if you like my reply or not. So there is that kinda tough shit isn't it. Go whine to someone who does care... Clear enough for 'ya?

    29. Jacob.. that's an honest answer. I don't agree with you but I do appreciate that you answered honestly. So thanks.. You don't know how refreshing it is to actually have an honest discussion with someone on the internet.

    30. That's deception to me as well oldschool... So I am just going to leave it at that.

      So.. for the sake of this discussion, what policies do you think should be enacted to deal with the threat the Geller describes? Do you agree with Jacob that a persons Islamic faith should be a qualifier (or in this case dis qualifier) for immigration to the U.S.? Do you agree with him that there should be social stigmatization of Islam here?

      I am curious as to what you believe we should do with the information presented?

    31. K - I haven't seen Matti Friedman's piece. I know a lot of people who served in the IDF (well a lot on a personal basis - not a lot in general), I practice Krav Maga with a number of them. When I lived in Israel I played Rugby with a number of guys who served in Lebanon. I tend to believe the Breaking the Silence reports. I have really no doubt that those things happened.

      But that said... War sucks. People make all kinds of decisions in war that are both unfortunate, and sad... And sometimes (well a lot of the time) the wrong thing happens. But that doesn't invalidate the need for something like "Operation Protective Edge". Hamas is a threat needed to be dealt with. Anything the Israelis did pales in comparison to what Hamas did or would have done. That too is reality. I completely supported and still do support Israel in it's involvement in "Protective Edge" and honestly in combat (which thank G-d I have never been in)... I think your responsibilities are too your fellow soldiers and comrades.

      SO.. I think the thing to do is to listen to these IDF vets and let them tell their story. They deserve that much for putting themselves in harms way.

    32. k,

      Have you read, Among the Believers : an Islamic Journey, 1981, by Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul? It provides insight into Muslim culture. Ideas that justify violence and oppression of women and non-believers is widely held.

      In this country, there should be nothing wrong with treating Muslims like everyone else. That's the solution. And not call doing so Islamophobia.

      In the larger context, we are just observers. That's why all the commotion here about "solutions" is odd. The solutions of our leaders is what matters, and if they are bankrupt, is it forbidden to say without an alternative?

      Dark forces will continue to push until good forces take a real stand and develop effective policies not built on expediency or political opportunism, but to promote liberal Western values.

      The matter is now out in the open. It can no longer be ignored. Each day brings a revelation. We have no choice but to deal with it. Weakness is not the answer. That is history's lesson.

      When the surreal finally becomes real, and that time approaches, there will be a shift that will separate our time from the next one. The sea change has begun, the impetus grows, but there is far to go. I hope that the good guys prevail.

    33. VB,
      I wasn't whining, I was calling it bullshit. It's obvious that Jacob doesn't consider his views racist, and I think you knew that.

      But thanks for clearing up your sincerity about asking.

      As for your last paragraph, I could have done without it, and so could you.

    34. vb,

      What do you think is proper to ascertain from someone that is immigrating?

      In tha context, is it fair to determine what Islamic tenets a Muslim believes? Is it fair to determine if a Muslim believes that Islam and democracy are incompatible?

      Geller is right when she said that many are Muslim in name only. She is also right to confront the notion that Islam is religion of peace, which myth is perpetuated by Muslim activists, another example of deception. She is not afraid, like many, to be labeled or threatened. Anyone can labeled and misrepresented. We are better off having Geller on the front lines, and we should promote the message she, and other brave souls, deliver.

    35. Maybe Jeff.. but I did not appreciate what you wrote and I did consider it whining. But let's get past this...

      Anyway, how about we start off on a different footing.

      I get that Jacob doesn't consider his views racist. And honestly I am not here to judge him for his views. I just really wanted his honest opinion as I would want yours as well. There is no hidden intention. I am really curious as to what you folks believe.

      I don't like Geller and I don't like what she stands for. I think very differently than most people here do. No biggie though. Lately I have been thinking about "end game" and what do people really want. I am questioning both the Left and Right (you should see what I wrote to my Liberal friends regarding the travesty that is DKos) . I think sides are both rife with disinformation. Now notice I used that term "disinformation" than "misinformation". I say that because I think the Left is taking up the FAUX News version of disseminating stories. I do think the Left is still more honest in their reporting but they are "catching up" to the Right.

      So.. anyway, it all comes back to my first question... If you agree with Pam Geller, What does one or should one do armed with Geller's information? What would be your recommendations for policy?

    36. oldschool as an aside.. I have read "Among the believers" I have it in my bookcase as I type that. It is an interesting read.. As for what I believe... Honestly, I don't think religion should be a "litmus test" for anything. I think that opens up too many doors I don't think I want to see opened.

      I know many non-Muslims who question whether their beliefs and democracy are compatible. I see many Jews actively questioning that as well...

      So... anyway, I am curious. What do you believe we should do regarding Geller's information here in the U.S.? Do you believe that we need to take action against what you consider "Political Islam" and if so, what action should we take?

      I am asking you a specific policy related question and I am asking you to speak in specifics please not generalizations. What kinds of policies wrt this do you support?

    37. Give it up! It's a specious hypothetical full of vague words, to "take action" against what I "consider" to be political Islam.

      Are you against taking action against people that violate the law and support declared terrorists?

      In my view, asking about a person's orientation is no litmus test. We should not grant status to undesirables. There is nothing wrong in trying to find out about a person before they immigrate. That is the immigration law that applies to everyone else.

      Many Jews questioning the legitimacy of democracy? Compared to Muslims? You jest.

      Doesn't sound like you have many solutions to the issues Geller is raising either, other than to label her as a freak not worth listening to. If you think that things would be better without her, I think you are mistaken. Awareness is a powerful tool, especially where there has been hardly any because people are intimidated from speaking out for what is right.

    38. Jacob,
      There are certain passages in the Gospels which have provided the inspiration for what we understand as modern antisemitism. Notably, in "John" and " Matthew".
      They are anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism.
      And have been exceptionally powerful.

      Of course, great amounts of anti- jewish/ anti- Semitic thinking and theology was to be added on over the centuries.
      However, those particular pieces in the Gospels were the foundations for what followed.
      It was only after the - very late - process of subjecting biblical texts to exegesis that it became possible to see that some parts of those texts might have been manipulated ( with later interpolations) for the purpose of, for example, political expediency Opening up religious texts to critical examination ( hermeneutics) is how we get to explore when, how, why, by whom, and, for whom they were written. That is why it is so vital.
      The allowance of that process opens up ALL questions. And allows for new perspectives. On every aspect concerned. It paves the way for the beginnings of understanding that texts may have been written by men, and not gods.
      These processes have been enriching for the world. Debate, of course, will always continue, but that openness to critical examination makes an extraordinary impact on culture.

    39. k,
      John and Matthew are both ragarded as human. I'm not sure there was a "Judaism" at the time of their writing for them to be against. Judean people suffered a religious crisis as a result of Temple destruction, early Christianity was just one of the ways of coming to terms with it. Maybe they used harsh polemic trying to sway other Jews to their ways of thinking.
      That it was later misunderstood by gentiles is not their fault. These books were never meant for them.

      But this is off topic. My point was that Gospel writers were human, and their opinions are just that.

      Whoever designed Islam made especially impervious to change: It's the final revelation (no updates possible), it's the literal word of god, it's an uncreated miracle (no possibility of human error or questioning text veracity), and apostasy is punishable by death (you can't leave). All the bases are covered, Where do you see any opening for reform?

    40. Wow oldschool.. really? Are you that ashamed of your convictions that you cannot share them and would hide behind bluster to distract from the fact that you will not endorse any policy solutions?

      It is not a hypothetical question at all.. It is a very specific question. Given Gellers information, what do you think we should do regarding "Political Islam"? What actions should our Government take? Jacob suggesting saying no immigration for Muslims. Do you agree with that?

      Also.. this is kind of interesting:

      "We should not grant status to undesirables."

      Specifically what makes one an "undesirable"?

      I agree background checks should of course be part of an immigration screening - however, is a person's religion indicative of their character in your mind? Should a persons faith be a disqualifier to their status in your mind? Those are not vague hypotheticals those are straight up specific questions.

      Then there is this:

      Many Jews questioning the legitimacy of democracy? Compared to Muslims? You jest.

      No, I don't "jest". Of course, when you compare sheer numbers that is silly because in terms of sheer numbers there are 1.6 Billion and somewhere south of 16 million Jews. But of course you know that and are trying to distract.

      You are familiar with Bayit Yehudi's plan for the Occupied Territories (the Bennett plan which allows for limited autonomy in certain areas - hardly a democratic solution), or the Right Wing of LIkud's plan which would continue the Occupation in perpetuity even if there was no longer a Jewish majority in Israel? You are familiar with that, right? That is hardly "democratic"

      So no... I am not jesting.

      Oh and before you go off and try to distract with some nonsense about what I support. Here are my specific positions:

      See oldschool, I am not afraid of making specific suggestions.

    41. Why are you so prone to characterize others, rather than just say what you think?

      For your info, I am not ashamed and feel no obligation to explain myself to you. Why you cannot accept that is your problem.

      I already said that immigration laws should be followed when it comes to determining eligibility. Perhaps you should educate yourself more about immigration law.

      The issue with Islam is that it is a religion AND ideology. Therefore, it is fair game to look deeper into the connection for a potential immigrant.

      I am not distracting either. That is just another function of how your mind seems to work. Simple research will show that many question the compatibility of Islam and democracy, among them Muslims. There is, of course, the Cairo Declaration. Your suggestion that many Jews also disfavor democracy is absurd on its face. Some Jews may do that as a reaction. Islam seems to do it as a premise.

      Yes, you are just better than me. I understand.

    42. Why are you so prone to characterize others, rather than just say what you think?

      Project much... I am not characterizing you, or anyone else... I am asking you some pretty simple questions.

      For your info, I am not ashamed and feel no obligation to explain myself to you. Why you cannot accept that is your problem.

      I can accept that you are indeed ashamed of your ideas since you seem not to want to share them. But I have no idea what your political suggestions are since you refuse to express them. Why is it so hard to express them? You constantly post vague and very generalized points regarding this subject. I am curious as to what specific policy initiatives you believe should be enacted in order to combat "Political Islam". You must advocate for something, don't you?

      I already said that immigration laws should be followed when it comes to determining eligibility. Perhaps you should educate yourself more about immigration law.

      Ok, so let's be clear. Are you saying that immigration laws in the U.S. are sufficient to deal with this issue? Are you saying that you feel nothing further should be done on this issue wrt immigration? Fair enough.

      Are there any other general policies you would advocate for in dealing with "Political Islam"? Geller portrays it as a danger, Is there anything you would suggest as to how to deal with this danger?

      Your suggestion that many Jews also disfavor democracy is absurd on its face. Some Jews may do that as a reaction. Islam seems to do it as a premise.

      Apparently you not only are unfamiliar with Right Wing Israeli politics but you also don't do well with reading comprehension.

      I never said that "Many Jews "disfavor" democracy". Ever. What I specifically said was: I know many non-Muslims who question whether their beliefs and democracy are compatible. I see many Jews actively questioning that as well...

      What that means is that I happen to see many Jews ultimately questioning their committment to democracy, particularly as it relates to The question regarding the Occupied Territories / Judea and Samaria. That is a fact. Not a supposition. AND it is a fact borne out by specific policy positions and decisions.

      That does not mean they "disfavor" democracy. That just means that they are wrestling with theory vs. application. Nice try though.

      Yes, you are just better than me. I understand....

      I never said I was "better than you". I just happen to be much more honest and forthcoming than you. Is that being "better"? If it is... Thank you for the compliment.

    43. I am included in "others." I am not the only one, however. That is your history and pattern, to throw out characterizations of those you find disagreement with. Look at what you said about Geller! Enough said.

      I share what I like. That is MY history and pattern. You can be no less vague and ambiguous than me. However, to say I am ashamed is preposterous. Talk about projection! Maybe I am just not interested in being subjected to your prosecutorial method, mischaracterizations and nitpicking. As if I OWE you an explanation anyway.

      You can offer all the solutions you like. You cannot help but do so. I do not have that need to prove myself to anyone, but it seems like you do.

      Fine, incompatible and disfavor are not the same, but they occupy the same field. You are playing word games. That is why I used disfavor to show the distinction involved. The Islamic disfavor of democracy is intrinsic, the Jewish/Israeli one is borne of armed conflict. Erase the conflict and it goes away. You compare apples and oranges in this regard. As I recall, you argued the Egypt was a democracy under the MB. We have different notions about what constitutes democracy.

      I think it would be fine to expand scrutiny of immigrants to include political-religious beliefs and acts that may fall within categories of exclusion. Particularly at the consular level.

      Nothing more to add or say, other than my belief that Geller does what is necessary now, to help open eyes about the incompatibility of Islam and Sharia with democracy, and to refute the notion that Islam is about peace, when it is mostly about submission.

    44. Heh...

      .....Maybe I am just not interested in being subjected to your prosecutorial method, mischaracterizations and nitpicking. As if I OWE you an explanation anyway.

      I never said that you "owed" me an explanation.. that is all in your head. You don't. I just don't understand the lack of courage in your convictions. All I am asking you for is your opinion. Not to rip you apart, not to judge you. I am just asking you some simple policy questions. So as to better understand where you are coming from. The fact that you think your bluster and manufactured outrage can hide that you simply don't want to answer the question is on you not me. I find it odd though that you are unwilling to suggest policies or political actions to deal with something that you consider this important. Surely you must some have some ideas regarding policies that you support.

      And to further distract you toss this:

      As I recall, you argued the Egypt was a democracy under the MB. We have different notions about what constitutes democracy.

      and you re-call incorrectly. What I said was that the MB was democratically elected in Egypt, (and they were) NOT that the MB ruled or would rule in a democratic fashion. There is a big difference there. I also did not object to al-Sissi's "move" (which also has popular support in Egypt - according to people I know who live there). Democracy is not subject to "notions". It's a word that actually has a definition and there are different gradients like "Representative Democracy" or "Parliamentary Democracy". No matter how they are borne (and I would say that extremely religious Judaism like any other orthodox faith issues with democracy), there are still many in our community that question various degrees of democracy.. including me.

      As for this:

      ..Geller does what is necessary now, to help open eyes about the incompatibility of Islam and Sharia with democracy, and to refute the notion that Islam is about peace, when it is mostly about submission.

      I would agree with her and you that Orthodox Islam (and really any religious Orthodoxy - though she does not make that point) has incompatibilities with democracy and that Islam is certainly not a religion of Peace. The difference between Geller and I.... I don't have to hate or use bigotry to make my point.

      BUT again.. if you believe Geller is correct, what course of action do you suggest we take to deal with this important issue?

    45. Of course I don't, though you act like I do. it. That is what I have been saying. Yet even now you keep asking. You just can't help it, I guess.

      Democracy is not subject to notions? You cite two different notions of democracy in the very next sentence! Amazing! Reading the rest of what you say about it, it's ironic you say that I am the vague one.

      As I recall, you overemphasized the election in the analysis of the MB's rule of Egypt. If you supported Morsi's removal, great. A prime example of Islam and democracy not being compatible. Why you had to even brings Jews into the conversation, like an equivalence, is beyond me, for reasons mentioned.

      Geller is fighting bigotry, more than those who call her a bigot, yet really have not heard what she says.

  2. You don't get it. It does not matter in the least whether you like her, agree with her or anything. All that matters is that you don't get to stand on a street corner and direct a mob to firebomb her house. And the funny thing is that volleyball is making HER case because he's free to complain she's a racist and no one's going to either kill volleyball OR be motivated by volleyball to kill Pam either.

    After all, YOU'RE the Americans. You started out tarring and feathering colonial tax collectors and blowing up Royal navy ships. Even taking up arms against the crown. You'd never have the American revolution in this day and age. You'd have CNN calling for everyone to shut up and not irritate your masters.

    1. Yeah, well, I am going bass fishing in Tennessee in a few days, so fuck you.

      I have to say, tho, that I am pleased that VB dropped in.

      I want to be challenged and disagreed with.

      Not always, but sometimes.

  3. Trudy,
    I said on a previous thread that no one has the right to use violence against Pamela Geller, or anyone else, simply because they do not like what they have to say. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct.
    I have no problem that Pamela Geller says what she says. It's a free country. I happen to disagree with her, that's my prerogative.
    I repeat: no one has the right to use violence or the threat of violence to stop someone from expressing their views.
    What I am interested in is which of Pamela Geller's opinions Mike finds himself in agreement with. Beyond just opposing political Islam.

  4. Jacob,
    I am not satisfied that she is a racist either in spite of VB's attempts.

    Everyone else,
    But I come from times when this was not a first and last thing considered in any debate. I lived in the age of Aquarius. We are now in the age of race bait. And who'd a thunk it back in the day that much of the race baiting would be coming from the left? I liked the age of Aquarius much better. We weren't talking everyday about what percentage of 1.5 billion (or however the fuck many) Muslims were peaceful. In fact, we weren't talking about Muslims at all, and that worked rather well for me. But now we are. Any theories as to how Islam became such a hot topic?

    Someone here said that 1.5 million "belong" to Islam. Maybe its about time that Islam belonged to them. Maybe they ought to own it, take a look at it and see how it might be improved, because the majority of people in the world aren't Muslim and don't want to be Muslim and don't want a "tiny" percentage of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, telling them what they can and cannot say, write, draw or think on penalty of death.

    Some very peaceful people become absolutely unhinged, verbally abusive and even lethally violent when Jews and/or Israel are mentioned.
    Those who do these things are motivated by "information." Getting any type of information mainstreamed is worth at least 90% of the game it would seem.

    Information is super duper important. Where would the hate Israel crowd be without all that "information" spewed out day and night. Would such a crowd even exist? You think the MSM would be reporting all the bullshit I saw on the nightly news about the Gaza war without a decades long steady stream of poisonous propaganda from the Arabs and their "western progressive handmaidens"? (h/t Caroline Glick)
    They call it the Information Age!

    BtS mostly stands for Bull the Shit. I'll be the second here to direct people to UKMediaWatch for Matti Friedman's take (much more even-handed and eloquent than mine).

  5. Well, I am just waiting to sort out the wreckage.

    But, hey, if we cannot disagree among ourselves then there is no point in having a discussion.

    In the mean time, I am getting ready to go to Nashville.

    Laurie has relatives in Tennessee. We are going to spend a few days touring the city and hitting up the Grand Ol Opry and maybe even going to Lynchburg, which is the home of Jack Daniels. I honesty do not see the point given that Lynchburg is a dry county. Plus, ya know, it's called Lynchburg... which frightens my Jewish Liberal Heart.

    We are also going to spend a few days in a cabin on some big lake and see about getting some Largemouth Bass.

    Or Smallmouth Bass. That will be OK, too.

    You guys should know not to look for me at the Elder's place on Sundays for a few weeks, as I am on hiatus.

    1. Have a good trip. I just wanted to let you know that Ruth Wisse has a new piece in Mosaic worth reading, if you didn't already know. I found it through Elder's joint last night.

    2. Jeff, thanks for the tip.

      I'll check it out.

      I do like Wisse... even more than Geller.


  6. I want to thank Volleboy1 for joining the conversation.

    This thread has been terrific because on-line discussion matters. It matters because it is just people with points of view talking with one another.

    This is the nature of democracy.

    There has been a lot of conversation in this thread and I cannot address everything.

    What I would like to address is this:

    Volleyboy1 calls Pamela Geller a "Bigoted Shit bag."

    That is, I have to say, rather strong language.

    It is, in fact, defamatory language and I absolutely do not approve of it.

    I would think that if someone were to make such an extreme claim in a comment that he would back it up within that comment, but Jon fails to do so.

    I would recommend that if anyone cares about the the truth that they give a listen to David Wood at the top right of the page.

    k makes a point when she says that Geller is a flamethrower.

    But, then, some people would consider me a sort-of flamethrower myself.

    Don't you think?

  7. A modest suggestion, instead of evaluating Pamela Geller by how emphatically she shouts that Hamas and allied organizations are savages, evaluate her by how many people she induces to believe that Hamas and allied organizations are savages.

    I appreciate that Geller recognizes the threats posed by the Islamist consortium. However, there is a risk that her over-the-top rhetoric could draw a connection in the public's mind between highlighting the actions of the various Islamist groups for which we call them savages and tarring everyone who prays five times a day facing Mecca with the same brush whether they support Islamic supremacism or not.

    1. I disagree.

      The reason, Sar Shalom, is because most of the West does not really care about al-Sharia because it seems remote. The worst that can be said about Geller, for the most part, is that it is seems to many people that she is shouting too loud.

      I think that she is way ahead of the curve and needs to shout loudly.

      I also think that she needs to be listened to because the rise of political Islam is one of the most historically important moments since the demise of the Soviet Union.

      We are living in a very interesting political moment and we should not close our eyes, as Obama does, to what is happening.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Previous comment should be "How many Kasim ...?" Duplicate was deleted.

  8. Mike... I appreciate your hospitality

    I wish you would address the main question as to what policies you would like to see followed to deal with the threats that you are saying Geller deals with. OR do you think that there need be no new policy initiatives, and that what we have in place is fine?

    HOWEVER, this is your blog and you can do what you like with it (you certainly don't need my permission for that, I am just using the expression).

    As for this:

    I would think that if someone were to make such an extreme claim in a comment that he would back it up within that comment, but Jon fails to do so.

    I disagree I think I have proved my point AND even threw in two quotes showing her bigotry.

    Telling Muslims that praying five times is "offensive" is bigoted. Geller did exactly that. Praying five times a day is a tenet of their faith. Just imagine if someone said that davening daily was "offensive" or that Judaism is an "ideology" how would you feel about that? I think you would be offended by that and rightly so.

    As for the "shit bag" part of the remark... I don't like bigots and Geller in my mind is a bigot. That is just a personal addition.

    Some other information on Geller can be found through the Anti-Defamation League at:

    Anyway, I hope that you have a nice relaxing vacation.

    1. Jon,

      please forgive me for not reading everything that you write.

      I assume that you do not read everything that I write, either.

      You claim that Geller is a bigot because she said something in a disparitive manner about Muslims praying five times a day?

      Well, that's just dumb. Not on your part, but on hers.

      I think, tho, that when you approach someone who you disagree with, you need to address their strongest arguments, their main ones, not their weakest side comments.

      Geller's argument is that Sharia is not healthy for young children and growing daisies... if you get me.

      That is, Sharia calls for the second and third class citizenship of all non-Muslims and, ya know, stoning women to death for adultery, and little things like that.

      Given that the Muslim population is around 1.5 billion people and a significant number of those people are enthusiastic about killing Jews, and head-chopping, more generally, I honestly believe that we can forgive Pamela for her over-enthusiasm, you might say.

      In any case, you should be in opposition to the head-choppers, don't you think?

      As for what is to be done... you oppose it.

      You stand up for that which is within the best interest of your own people.

      This is the way American politics has always been conducted.

      You stand up for your own people.

      Is this complex?

    2. btw, thank you for this!

      I honestly did not know that the ADL came out against Geller and Spencer.

      I think that the organization was mistaken, but it is the ADL and in 2011.

      I am not certain that I would have favored Geller in 2011, either.

      But political sands are shifting, my friend.

      You and I are close to the same age and we came up within a particular political milieu.

      You know what?

      You are a good guy, but we disagree, and there is nothing the least little bit wrong with that.

    3. Nope, I agree - there is nothing wrong with disagreeing. After all, we wouldn't be human if we agreed on everything.

  9. Actually Mike, when you are in a conversation with me I do read everything you write. It's only both polite and fair. I may miss an argument here and there or misunderstand a point but I never blow off your responses. Not one bit.

    So I appreciate you admitting to not really reading my stuff. At least you own up to that and that is fair. At least I know what I am dealing with when I type responses to you.

    I don't claim Geller is a bigot just because of that, I claim it because it is true and it is documented. I just cited two of her odious quotes. Pardon me, but I don't think that you would be quite so forgiving if someone said the same things about Jews.
    Again.. Here is the ADL Link regarding Geller:

    Since you are supporting Geller take a look at that.

    Now do I get that Geller opposes Radical Islam? Sure. (And that is a good position to take) but so do many other people that I would not want to be associated with. I think that Geller represents the worst of that opposition. Is she as bad as the "head choppers"? Of course not. They chop heads, she just incites people one way or the other. So please do not infer that I prefer the jihadi's to her. I don't. I don't like either of them.

    But yes there is a very complex thing at work here.... the concept of "standing up for one's people". I dare say that what you and I define as standing up for one's own people, might be different in both a tactical and strategic sense. To me, Geller doesn't stand up for me. To me she stands for bigotry and hatred. Just in another way.

    BUT also, The concept of "standing up for one's people" is a complex issue. So again I ask you... Given Geller's information what do you think as a society we need to do with it? Are there any policies or courses of action that you would suggest in order for us to better deal with the issues Geller raises?

    So there is that.

  10. Volley, actually the US and other nations are already doing stuff with the kind of information Geller and others document. Lotsa stuff from laws to bombing. Does more need to be done? Probably, but really things are not all that bad in the US if one looks at and believes various polls. The fact that worldwide events can sustain her blog (and lots like it) this long with daily atrocities (sometimes multiples,) is scary.

    I don't support the idea of banning Muslim immigration. More vetting might help but really, has it ever helped with other populations of immigrants who brought their problems with them? I don't think so. I would support covert intelligence in identified hate preaching mosques, etc. Probably already being done cause has the government EVER not infiltrated and spied on problem groups? Course this is a government that has identified the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate so who freaking knows.

  11. Fair enough Doodad.. you had me until the very last sentence. But let's blow that one off and agree to disagree...

    Thanks for addressing that. I appreciate it.

  12. Volley

    ""I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. … I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam."

    The problem here is:

    1. There is a prayer translation that says:

    " The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

    2. There is commentary by Muslim scholars that identifies "those who earned Your Anger" as Jews and "those who went astray," as Christians.

    Is it a curse? Well, eye of the beholder. Is it offensive? Probably to a lot of Jews and Christians it is or would be if they knew about it. I mean 5 times a day, 365 days a year X a lifetime X how many billions of Muslims who have ever prayed. That's some nasty brainwashing, man. But maybe Geller needs to take a pill. Or maybe she doesn't.

    Being neither Jew nor Christian (except in name only,) I am not offended but I do worry about all that brainwashing just like I'd worry about a trillion Christians dissing Muslims or Jews in their daily prayers since forever. And so on....

  13. The bottom line is that there is a political movement throughout the Middle East known variously as "politial Islam" or "radical Islam" or "Islamism." This movement is expressing itself within various organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, the Islamic State or ISIS or ISIL.

    And so forth.

    This political movement is grounded in al-Sharia and what that means, aside from the usual chopping of body parts, is second and third-class non-citizenship for all non-Muslims.

    Given the fact that there are millions of people who believe in this movement it is incumbent upon those of us who this movement would subjugate to stand up and say "no."

    Essentially that is all Geller is doing. No to Sharia and no to the Jihad.

    Volleyboy1 wants practical answers to difficult questions. Just what is to be done about this?

    That's a more than fair question.

    Let me put it to you this way.

    Were I president of the US I would make it very clear that it is US policy to oppose al-Sharia and therefore to oppose all organizations that promote political Islam.

    This being the case, there are things that we can do and things that we should not do.

    For example, one thing that we should not do is support the Muslim Brotherhood, as the Obama administration did, morally, financially, electorally, and militarily.

    We should not be supporting Hamas and I would encourage our European partners to stop funding the potential genocide of the Jews of the Middle East via funding that heinous organization.

    I would also put together a serious coalition to go after the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    Those gentleman, with their proclivity for burying children alive, should be eliminated.

  14. Ok Mike...

    First off, let me say that I appreciate your answer. To be honest, I think it is a bit vague in the sense that I believe it is a bit too general. THAT SAID... I honestly, greatly appreciate that you took the time to answer and at least lay out some guidelines.

    As you are aware, I cannot agree with you regarding your statements about the MB and the Administration but, I don't want to get into that here because I will never see what you are seeing here and I don't believe you will ever see what I am saying about that. As you said - disagreements are ok.

    So... one thing we def. agree on is this:

    We should not be supporting Hamas and I would encourage our European partners to stop funding the potential genocide of the Jews of the Middle East via funding that heinous organization.

    While I don't think we actually "support" Hamas (and we don't), I do think that since Sec. Kerry has been in place, we certainly have not been as stridently against them as we should be. I believe we need to certainly be more politically active against Hamas and those who would fund them and their tunnel building. Things we as a nation can do...

    1. Condition levels of Military Aid to those states that support Hamas (this of course would negatively affect our local coalition against ISIS and could allow for an increase in Iranian Hegemony - but diplomacy and life are about taking risks to get what you want.

    2. Counter at the U.N. with anti-Hamas policies. We cover 25% of that orgs. bills (and that too should be reviewed), how about we have a "diplomatic offensive" against Hamas. Again, it would negatively affect us in that region to a degree, but, you cannot play "scared" all the time.

    3. As you suggest - simply cut funding to those groups or affiliates who support or promote Hamas.

    Now, all of these suggestions come with problems, but there are no perfect solutions and none that carry no risk. So.....

    As for ISIS, Whew.. that is a bear.. Hamas is actively striking AGAINST ISIS in Gaza. Also, in all honesty it is Iran and the Shiites along with our bombs as well as the Kurds that have put the brakes on them. This is a topic that deserves it's own post. Personally, I would support American direct involvement, but not in conjunction with Iran or Hizbollah. More perhaps in direct alliance with the Kurds.... Yes, yes I know the issues involved here with Turkey, and ground forces in Iraq... But perhaps it is time for a new alignment. Particularly with the Russians meddling in support of the Shi'a regimes.

  15. Having a similar argument at New Matilda, an Australian left wing site. Probably the most prominent of the genre.

    I believe I am making progress.

    1. Laurie and I are on the road, but I will check it out, Geoff.

  16. I'm amazed at the trend of the comments. Our society is being reduced to a bunch of sniveling milquetoast metrosexuals. Anyone who points out the dangerous behavior of a certain group is labeled a racist or bigoted sh*tbag. We have become so intolerant of intolerance that we are dropping all defenses so as to avoid any chance of conflict. Sadly, those who are causing the sky to fall, so to speak, have no such governance on their behavior.

    1. I have to say... this might be the first time I have ever been called a "sniveling milquetoast metrosexual"... LOL - pretty nice.

      Now excuse me while I order my Grande, lowfat, decaf vanilla macchiato with extra fluff and a dash of cardamon. ;-)

    2. Dalai,

      The essence of your statement is this:

      "Anyone who points out the dangerous behavior of a certain group is labeled a racist..."

      I fully agree.

      Political Islam is a political movement. Like any political movement it is open to criticism. This is particularly true given the fact that political Islam opposes the civil liberties of Jewish people, Christian people, Gay people, women, and liberals.

      We must not be afraid to oppose this movement. It is imperative that we speak out against it.

      Islamists, like those in the Islamic State, kill people not as a matter of self-defense, but on religious principals.

      We must oppose this horrendous thing... by any means necessary.

      Please correct me if I am wrong, however, but I suspect that you meant to write:

      "We have become so tolerant of intolerance that we are dropping all defenses..."

      If so, I agree.

      I also disagree, however, if you meant to suggest that VB is a "metrosexual."

      I only know VB so much, but I've met him in the flesh more than twice - we drank beer together - and I can assure you that the very last thing in this world that he is a "metrosexual."

      {Not that there is anything wrong with that!}


      The guy knows Krav Maga for fuck's sake.

      And I write to you gentlemen and ladies this evening from the beautiful city of Nashville, Tennessee.

    3. Mike... enjoy your trip... there is always politics when you get back.

      I have been called a lot of things but "metrosexual" has never been one of them. But hey... if that Dalai's feeling.. then who am I to argue with him / her? ;-)

    4. Criticisms need to be grounded in something that resembles reality.

      You and I have disagreed on how to approach the Arab-Israel conflict.

      But I am not going to allow this kind of misrepresentation of you go down on this site.

      I simply won't have it.

      And neither, I am sure would your beautiful wife.

    5. "Metrosexual" sounds like me - except for the "young" part," the "fashionable" part, and the fact that I live all the way the fuck in the woods.;-)

  17. Just to be clear:
    It is entirely true that, for all sorts of reasons, there has developed a climate in which any concerns about the beliefs or actions of people from a Muslim background will almost certainly be met with allegations of bigotry or racism. It is stifling debate in the public sphere.
    It is also true to say, that some people who are raising their voices to join that debate, actually are bigots. Including some people who might receive a lot of attention.
    Both things can be true.

    1. This too K.. is very true. Well said.

    2. Yes, of course. This has been and will always be the case.