Of goats and men
Bookworm on Sep 20 2006 at 8:21 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
A week or so ago, Laer posted fairly lightheartedly about a Sudanese man and his goat, and I sent you over there (along with a bad joke). The same bestiality issue in that story appears in a more serious vein, with someone losing a job for stating a fact, which Laer also follows. As you read Laer’s latest post, you may also want to read this and this, both of which I found thanks to a comment Ymarsakar left. Clearly, the matters in Laer’s post and my links are fringe activities (or at least I hope they are), and I’m willing to bet everything I own that the vast majority of Muslims do not follow these unsavory precepts. Still, these things are out there, and it’s shameful to fire someone for stating the truth — although, without knowng what he said, I’m willing to be he could have done it more tactfully and more factually.
Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “Of goats and men”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think we should be able to do the same thing to those who criticize Bush as well. That way everyone can live under a state of martial law, not just those who criticize Islam.
Concerning CAIR and the ACLU’s status as civil rights organizations, in the pursuit of caring and compassionate policies that restore and maintain human dignity, there’s a very simple way to determine whether that is true or not.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2001/07/13/un_gun_control
If they are for gun control in the US, they are not for civil rights. If they are for promoting the ownership, the training, and the education in the use of handguns, shotguns, and rifles as part of a person’s self defense, then they pass that test.
The logic is simple. If someone is worried about discrimmination and “phobia” of whatever brand or stripe, then having the weapons to protect yourself against mob violence independent of possibly suborned police units, would be the rational and common sense policy. The only reason why CAIR and the ACLU oppose people with guns, is that people with guns are hard for them to control. And also people don’t need guns when there is no actual threat. If the threat is manufactured like “islamophobia” or the ACLU’s “mistreatment and discrimination against Tookie campaign”, then why would you need protection from a non-existent Islamophobia?
CAIR and the ACLU both like shutting down free speech. Via intimidation, legal intimidation, financial and economic intimidation. It’s not just the threat of censure. Meaning, people who criticize Islam don’t just have to fear being called “names”, like politicians. No, people who criticize Islam are vulnerable to many intimidation tactics, not least of all is simple images on tv threatening violence.
You know in interrogations that just the perception on the part of the prisoner, that pain is “on the way” can break the prisoner’s will to resist and get him talking. Well, the same psychological intimidation works wonders here in the United States when you have more lawyers and more legal infrastructure than the guy you are fighting.
Intimidation using legal means, is still intimidation. It is just legal intimidation, and the punishment inflicted upon people is called legal punishment. Is it moral or ethical? No. But then again, it is not as if the ACLU and CAIR exist for moral or ethical reasons, you know.
Here’s another thing I found that illustrated the same sort of thing, except one year removed from the present.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/ellsworth/2005/08/censorship-and-cair-radio-host-michael.html
It’s called a campaign. Not a campaign of terror, since CAIR is the domestic propaganda front for the Global Islamic Jihad. Islamic Jihad does the violence and the terror. CAIR plasters a veneer of civilization and “reasonableness” ontop of it, to protect it from critics.