polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

Is she inconsiderate??  What IS she saying with the niqab after the Paris attack?



Do remember that the Voltaire reference is to free speech - something you Muslims will never allow.

It is not about being uncouth, inconsiderate, gormless.

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:


Right you are. I’ll inform Mormor.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:


You were caught out from early on in this thread FD. At first you tried to pretend its about standing up against self-censorship, but after I pointed out that simply voicing your opinion that something is inappropriate (eg offensive cartoons) is not self-censorship, you proved that you are only interested in demonizing people who don't 'stand in solidarity' with sheet-stirrers:

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:50am:


and...

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am:


It was about this time you pulled out your 'we must choose a side' gem.

If you trully supported free speech, you would 'stand in solidarity' with *ALL* people who exercise their freedom, until such time as they actually start advocating censorship. And that absolutely should include those who wish to kick the Charlie Hebdo's "while they are down". The alternative is to say that freedom should involve supporting the right of some expressions, but not others. But you refuse to acknowledge this hypocricy of yours because you are so blinded by your obsession with "taking a side", which of course has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:


Soren, please tell me you are not saying a niqabi deliberately wears her niqab specifically to be incosiderate of terrorist victims - no??

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:


Good grief, the revolution really has begun.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

She absolutely is, as is her pajama wearing husband with the ridiculous beard and as are you.

Nothing will get through to any of you. Crusades, cartoons, whatever - you will always feel justified in your jihad because jihad is eternal.

What are you rebelling against, Mohammed?

Whadday got?


There is no negotiation with jihadi Muslims because there is no compromise with Muslim jihad.  This is why Islam is incompatible with the pragmatic, enlightened, reasonable West: jihad is non-negotiable, fanatic, totalitarian.

And you are a jihadi, Gandy, as are all the niqabis, hijabis, bearded numpties and the 'vast majority' crowd. The San Bernardino jihadi was ' vast majority' when his colleagues gave him a baby shower 6 months ago. Now he is 'tiny minority' nuffin to do wiv Islam lone wolf. As is his wife.

To you, Islamic jihad is non-negotiable. It's only elastic (taqiyya).  We had Muslim jihadi attacks once a year. Then once a month. Now it's every day. But Islam has nuffin' to do wiv Islamic jihad.


'Vast majority mainstream Muslims' - your credibility is in the toilet. All you have is empty words. You are completely ineffective, completely irrelevant, completely cowardly and two-faced.

With your endless victimhood-mongering you have thrown your credibility down the toilet as well.i

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:


Labelling people who express their view of what is and isn't appropriate to publish as underminers of free speech and hypocrites is. But of course I will defend to the death your right to demonize people.

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:


No, this has never been about what expressions you would defend, its about your narrative of what does and doesn't undermine free speech. Thats why you pretend criticising Charlie Hebdo's choice of publications is calling for self censorship and demonising them as being on the wrong side of freedom. If you were honest about free speech, you would not frame the free speech narrative as being about "choosing a side", where supporters of free speech tiptoe on eggshells around victims of terrorism, not daring to criticise their provocative expressions, while on the other hand  the underminers of free speech - who commit the high crime of not being intimidated by external factors to express their view that certain expressions are wrong.

In 1941, FDR proposed his famous Four Freedoms. Some seventy years later it may be time to add a fifth freedom to that list. Freedom from Islam.

Freedom from Islam would have seemed like an unlikely candidate back in 1941 when the worry was over secular ideologies, but as the West and its ideologies have fallen into a soporific state of decline, the fascism that concerns us no longer wears a military uniform or any of the trappings of nationalism, but instead wraps itself in the turban of religion.

Of those four freedoms, three are directly endangered by Islam. We have seen Freedom of Speech being burned in effigy across the Muslim world, and even in the urban centers of Western nations. The Muslim bomb plots aimed at synagogues and the specter of America’s first, albeit unofficial, blasphemy trial, warns us that our Freedom of Worship is also under threat.

Coptic Christians, who for many centuries were forced to live in an atmosphere of terror, subject, like all Christians in the Muslim world, to blasphemy trials as tools of persecution, have found that their land of refuge here is not so different a place from their old homeland after all. As Coptic Christian churches are patrolled against the threat of Muslim violence and one of their own is on trial for offending Muslims, they cannot help but wonder what happened to the vaunted freedoms to worship and believe, to speak and be free, that first drew them to this country.

And third, Freedom from Fear, not a right but the outcome of a well-managed system of government, has been under attack by decades of Muslim terrorism whose purpose is to terrorize the non-Muslim into surrendering to its demands. Instead of freeing us from Muslim terror, government authorities have universalized it, spreading it about as much as possible to avoid offending Muslims by drawing attention to the motives and religion of their terrorists.

Finally, there is Freedom from Want, which like Freedom from Fear, was an example of positive rights being snuck into a national compact based on the negative rights of minimal government, and yet it is interesting to note how the liberal mega-state has failed to uphold even its own four freedoms.

Domestic drilling is banned, while the oil wells of Saudi Arabia and the other backward monarchies, that fund terrorists with one hand while slipping bribes to our officials with the other, go on pumping day and night. Gas prices in America keep climbing and the terrorists draw out those record profits to expand their sphere of terror.

Despite all this wealth, created by non-Muslims for Muslims, where Islam goes then poverty soon follows. Even with wealth, the Muslim world remains a place of great poverty where powerful families and organizations control access to the economy and women are kept out of the workplace. Muslim economic failure has been chronicled elsewhere and yet it is worth noting that Muslim immigration fills up not only the prisons of the West, but also its social service centers.

When Islam has the freedom to undermine freedom of speech and freedom of religion then no freedom is safe. And when Muslim immigration is unleashed on the free world, then freedom from fear and even freedom from want also become distant memories.

Why discuss the Four Freedoms at all? Perhaps because they remind us that the freedoms inscribed into the Bill of Rights are meant to protect us against the abuses of government authority. And yet there is a more primal form of freedom that must first be defended if those freedoms are to have any meaning at all.

Before the American colonies were free of British rule, the Bill of Rights could have no function. The first freedom, before all freedoms from domestic government authority, is the freedom from rule by external oppressive forces. Only when a people are free of foreign dominance and alien rule and are able to lift their heads and make their own laws without fear of their oppressors, can there be true freedom.

The first freedom in the days of the American Revolution was freedom from British rule. The first freedom in 1941 was freedom from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The first freedom during the Cold War was freedom from Communism. The first freedom in our own time is freedom from Islam.

The freedoms of our Constitution express a relationship between us and our government. But when a third party invades this relationship and imposes its will on both parties then the relationship can only be rebuilt by banishing this external oppressive force. When that oppressive force is comprehensive enough, when like Nazism, Islamism or Communism it represents both a physical means of conquest as well as a political ideology with its own cult, then freedom comes to be defined in terms of being free of that external force.

Islam is not a subject for civil liberties debates. Those only address the relationship between a people and their government. It is not a constitutional issue because Islam already has its own Constitution, its own government and its own set of laws. It is a wartime matter.

There are two kinds of wars: wars of survival and wars of choice. The war of choice is optional; it may be fought or it may not be fought. There may be compelling moral, political or economic reasons why it should be fought, but if it is not fought then life for most people will still go on much as it has before. And then there are wars of survival. Those wars are no more optional than fighting off a shark circling you in the water is optional. A war of survival is a conflict where an external force is determined to conquer the United States and eliminate the rights, freedoms and identities of all Americans. And in a war of survival, freedom is defined by remaining unconquered.

Freedom from Islam is the fundamental freedom of our time. It is the freedom in whose shelter America can still be America.  It is the freedom on which all other freedoms depend.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.