Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (13012)	3/20/2009 9:10:55 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	2 Recommendations Respond to of 20106

Yesterday we emailed you the link to a video of an Islamist matter-of-factly discussing how easy it would be to smuggle anthrax across our border and kill over 300,000 people. Since then over 40,000 people viewed the video, demonstrating the reach ACT! for America currently has. Juxtapose that video with the comments recently made by Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano. As the commentary below notes, Napolitano referred to Islamist terrorism as “man-caused disasters.” As Diana West asks, “Is this a joke?” Unfortunately, no. Political correctness is running so rampant in Washington that the person charged with protecting our “homeland security” twists herself into an absurd rhetorical pretzel in order to avoid using the “I” word. Imagine the scorn that would have been heaped on Franklin D. Roosevelt if, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he declared war on “man-caused disasters”! That tells how much things have changed in Washington. We asked yesterday “Why is our shared ACT! for America mission so important? Why is the Islamist threat so dangerous? Why is it essential that we overcome political correctness in America and awaken citizens everywhere?” You see, we are not only fighting the evil of radical Islamists who are intent on destroying our way of life and replacing our law with shariah law. We are also forced to contend with the willfully self-deceived in our government who are more concerned with appearing respectable than with protecting our safety and liberty. What can YOU do TODAY that will help us take one more step forward in combating this lunacy? ............................................................. The war on "man-caused disasters" But what if the jihadist is a woman? We're not fighting a War On Terror anymore. And we certainly aren't fighting a defensive action against the global jihad and/or Islamic supremacism. No, what we're doing is fighting a War on "man-caused disasters." Feel better? Feel more politically correct? Less bigoted, racist, and Islamophobic? Good, because that's all you're going to get from this. You certainly aren't going to get any insight into who the enemy is, or why he (or she, Janet, you sexist) is doing what he is doing. "'Away From the Politics of Fear,'" from Spiegel, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in): Janet Napolitano, 51, is President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary. She spoke with SPIEGEL about immigration, the continued threat of terrorism and the changing tone in Washington. SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country? Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur. Diana West comments: Is this a joke, a late-night skit's attempt to skewer PC lingo? No, this is PC lingo. Having abandoned the idiotic but at least somewhat bellicose moniker "War on Terror," we are now into, what...the "Intervention into Man-Caused Disaster." Of course, there are two PC problems with the "nuance" Mzzz Napolitano claims. There is that pesky term "man"--sure to rile the feminists, let alone the female suicide bombers. Brace for the day when Secretary Janet discusses "Person-Caused Disasters." But that leaves the fact that the kind of "persons" who cause the "disasters" in question believe that Allah, not man (and certainly not woman) causes everything. Remember Operation Infinite Justice? That was the name the US tagged onto the military campaign against the Taliban until Muslims complained (p. 166) on the grounds that they believe only Allah dispenses justice, infinite or otherwise. (And that was enough for Uncle Sam to changes names, natch.) This line of religious belief surely makes "Man/Person-Caused Disaster" practically a term of defamation. I'm thinking Madame Secretary will have to go with something else, maybe renaming the whole agency for further sensitivity's sake. Department for the Prevention of Allah-Caused Disasters, anyone?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (13012)	3/22/2009 1:32:04 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Respond to of 20106

Netherlands Supreme Court: Insulting Islam is not insulting Muslims jihadwatch.org "Yesterday's acquittal can have consequences for all future court cases on insulting followers of a faith or ideology, including the notorious case against MP Geert Wilders." The chief problem is that insult is in the eye of the beholder. If a non-Muslim points out that all the Islamic sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, Muslims in the West say that they're insulted. But this is to say that they're insulted by the truth, which suggests that in reality they are insulted that a non-Muslim would bring this truth to light when they would prefer to keep it concealed. "Supreme Court: Insulting Islam is Not Insulting Muslims," from NISNews, March 11 (thanks to all who sent this in): THE HAGUE, 11/03/09 - The Supreme Court yesterday produced an important ruling in principle in favour of freedom of speech. The highest court of the Netherlands acquitted a man of insulting Muslims although he dubbed Islam a tumour. The Supreme Court quashed a ruling by an appeal court in Den Bosch. As had a district court earlier, the appeal court did find the man guilty. Yesterday's acquittal can have consequences for all future court cases on insulting followers of a faith or ideology, including the notorious case against MP Geert Wilders. According to the country's highest court, people expressing themselves offensively about a religion are not automatically guilty of insulting its followers, even if the followers feel insulted. "The statement must unmistakeably refer to a certain group of people who differentiate themselves from others by their religion," ruled the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acquitted a man who in November 2004 stuck a poster in his window with the text: 'Stop the tumour that is called Islam'. While people may not insult believers, they can insult their religion, according to the Supreme Court. "The sole circumstance of offensive statements about a religion also insulting its followers is not sufficient to speak of insulting a group of people due to their religion." The appeal court in Den Bosch had ruled that "in view of the bonds between Islam and its believers," as well as being unnecessarily offensive to Islam the poster was also offensive for those who practise Islam. But "the appeal court thereby gave too wide an interpretation of the expression 'a group of people according to their religion', as it occurs in Article 137c." The case was about Article 137c of the Criminal Code, which makes offensive statements about a group of people an offence. It was not about incitement to hatred or discrimination, the Supreme Court stressed. Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Wilders, meanwhile internationally known for his struggle against Islam, will be tried for insulting Muslims as a group. The court that will handle his case will have to take yesterday's Supreme Court ruling into account....