Friday, May 29, 2009
Immigration / Politics / Silverman Loews Pulls Plug on Islamophobe Symposium
Posted by Jack Silverman on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:26 AM
The hotel that was hosting our symposium has bowed to intimidation. They cancelled our plans due to concerns for the "health, safety and welfare of their employees and other guests."According to the New English Review's symposium schedule, the event "will be held at an [sic] secure, undisclosed location." When called by the Scene, Loews Vanderbilt had no comment, which leaves the cause for the cancellation open to speculation. Did Loews get threatening emails or calls? Did they figure out what the symposium was about, and fear alienating guests and employees who may be Muslim? Or did they just decide they didn't want to have anything to do with these agents of intolerance? It's anyone's guess. In related news, the Scene was thrilled to learn we were featured on the blog Bare Naked Islam, whose slogan is, "It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you." Another feather in our cap.
Comments (59)
Showing 1-50 of 59
Undoubtedly, Lowes Vanderbilt canceled the New English Review hate fest because the management at Lowes has a social conscience and they practice what they preach.
like
dislike
Kudos to Lowes. I thought it quite strange that the event was being held there. I wondered what Nashville did to deserve such an extremist group to come here. Maybe they will take the Nash Trash Tour.
You fail to mention that Thomas A. Negri, who is managing director of Loew’s Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex, also serves on the board of advisors of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.
It is also interesting that on Monday, Mr. Negri is hosting the following:
----------------------------------------
MEDIA ADVISORY
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: Elias Feghali, 615-833-0384, elias@tnimmigrant.org
Community Leaders Launch the Nashville Component of the National Campaign
To Reform Immigration For America
Local labor, faith, business, and immigrant community leaders will gather as partners to launch the Reform Immigration FOR America Campaign, a broad-based national effort to fix the broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform legislation
WHAT: Press conference announcing the launch Reform Immigration For America, a national campaign to fix the broken immigration system through legislative reform.
WHEN: Monday, June 1st 2009 at 12:00pm (CT)
WHERE: Loews Vanderbilt Hotel, 2100 West End Ave Nashville, TN
WHO: Tom Negri, Managing Director of Loews Vanderbilt
Jerry Lee, President of the Tennessee Chapter of the AFL-CIO
Avi Poster, President of the Coalition for Education about Immigration
Remziya Suleyman, Policy Coordinator for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition
Sonnye Dixon, Pastor of Hobson United Methodist Church
Organizations and individuals interested in joining the Campaign to Reform Immigration For America can do so by visiting: http://www.reformimmigrationforamerica.org/
or in Spanish: http://www.reformamigratoriaproamerica.org/
Individuals interested in joining are encouraged to text “justice” or “justicia” to 69866.
###
For media inquiries to the Reform Immigration For America’s National Press Office, please contact: Shuya Ohno, cell (202) 309-5645, sohno@immigrationforum.org
---------------------------
I smell a lawsuit brewing....
It amazes me to so many on the so-called tolerant left seem to have no problem with an event they disagree with being canceled without an explanation. It is even more amazing that the author of this blog is proud that a group of people will not be allowed to openly express their viewpoints.
Had the same thing happened to a left-wing group, all of you would no doubt be screaming censorship and filing lawsuits claiming your rights had been violated. Protests would ensue and the author of this blog would likely be leading the charge.
Whether you agree with their opinions or not, the simple fact is that the organizers of this group have an excellent breach of contract suit here. This event has been planned for months and now suddenly, days before it is scheduled to occur, it has been cancelled by the manager of the hotel who has links to a group that is in direct opposition to their viewpoints.
Not only that, but two days after cancelling it, all of the sudden, the same man is organizing an event with the group he is affiliated with.
I also have to note that the author of this blog has conveniently omitted all of these facts, no doubt because it does not fit into his mind set nor the narrative his wishes to promote.
One could even say that Mr. Silverman could be drawn into such a suit due to his possible involvement in this controversy.
Mr. Negri may have a lot of explaining to do to the legal department of whoever owns the Loew’s Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex, because he has opened them up to a huge lawsuit here.
Mr. Steele,
For having such a strong and well researched viewpoint on this matter, I would expect that spelling Loews correctly would help establish your credibility.
Loews (and Mr. Negri) should be appalauded for putting the safety and welfare of it's guests and employees first rather than money generated by the business of hate.
So does one simple typo invalidate my points? I think not.
Mr. Negri has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that there was a safety issue. None. If there were threats, one could rightly assume that they originated on this very blog by some of the participants who commented on the previous thread. It only takes one person picking up the phone and saying they "felt threatened" by the event and Mr. Negri would have "an excuse" to throw the group out.
I would imagine that "the safety and welfare of it's guests and employees" may very well have been threatened by someone posting here.
Calling the organizers hateful does nothing to excuse what has been done here. As I said before, if the same thing had happened to a left-leaning organization, action alerts, e-mails and protests by the usual suspects would have taken place. But since the organizers have a view point you disagree with, the suppression of their ideas is applauded. I find this disturbing.
Once again, the left will tolerate any opinion, but only as long as it does not clash with their own. Those who disagree with their mind set are to be shunned, vilified and subjected to hideous accusations.
Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn would be proud. The left have adopted their vile tactics quite well.
"Whether you agree with their opinions or not, the simple fact is that the organizers of this group have an excellent breach of contract suit here."
Something tells me Loews has nothing to worry about. And that group does have a first amendment right to spew off their venom if they want to. But Loews, as well as any private business, has a right to not have their event be held at their venue. There are far more legitimate right-wing groups that I would feel sorry for if this happened. These guys aren't one of them. Sorry.
Harry, I understand you're riled up here, but you're making no sense.
You say "It is even more amazing that the author of this blog is proud that a group of people will not be allowed to openly express their viewpoints."
Apparently, you haven't read the story. The event wasn't canceled. It's still going on. They're having it at an "undisclosed location." Which is interesting in itself, since they seem to be suggesting Loews bowed to intimidation, yet they're afraid to tell where they're having it.
You say it's an issue of censorship, free speech, being allowed to express viewpoints, etc. Do you understand what those concepts mean? Have you actually read the First Amendment?
There's nothing in there that says, "Hotels must allow any group to congregate there and say whatever they please." I'm sure most hotels aren't going to host a Nazi organization, a survivalist symposium or even a convention of death metal bands for that matter. That's their choice. They have no obligation to do so.
As far as the breach of contract, I have no clue about the legal ramifications. That's between the symposium and the hotel. But I do find it amusing that you feign such concern for freedom of speech, yet suggest that my expressing my viewpoint is reprehensible, and that I might even somehow be legally liable for expressing a viewpoint on a blog. Good one.
Bottom line? I think the people behind this symposium are misguided, full of hate, and are contributing to the problems we're facing, which are a complex mix of geopolitical, economic and cultural factors—not a simple "Islam is the enemy." Still, I fully support their right to express their opinions. And nowhere did I suggest I don't. I'm glad we live in a society where they can say whatever they like. That doesn't mean I'd host them at my house, or that if I owned a hotel, I'd want them convening there.
Your contention that I don't tolerate their opinion or don't feel that they should have the right to express it is unsupportable by anything I wrote. I strongly disagree with their opinions, and they strongly disagree with mine, but I don't feel their views should be suppressed. Did we suppress the 75 mostly dissenting comments on the last blog post about the subject?
So much hot air, so little truth. Chris 1974 is quite right. Loews management is not stupid, and a hotel is private property. First amendment rights have not been threatened here. If there is a pending/threatened lawsuit Loews will not send out press notices telling there side of the story,that's what court rooms are for,to have that expectation is foolish. Hotels also don't cancel business in the middle of a bad economy for flimsy reasons. I think Negri has been GM there well over a decade, I would guess Loews Corp. know the guy pretty well by now and approves.
But Chris, you would have to agree that Mr. Negri has an obvious conflict of interest here - one that Mr. Silverman did not think important enough to mention in his report. Mr. Silverman may have his own views, but omitting these key facts about this matter only diminishes his credibility and that of the Nashville Scene.
Another question is this: Why did Mr. Negri wait until mere days before the event was to take place to give them the heave-ho? This gathering was planned months ago. One could assume he did it because the group would have been hard pressed to find a new location to hold their event. It is also interesting to note that Mr. Negri apparently feels that the group he is part of has "a right" to use the hotel's facilities while those he obviously disagrees with does not.
Clearly I support Loews for making a decision based on ethics and integrity.
The reality of this matter is not right or left, conservative or liberal. It comes down to a business decision. Loews, just like any business, willfully entered into a contract with NER and elected to break that contract. Without knowledge of the terms of that contract, it is purely mindless speculation to say that Loews can be sued. A company as large and well established as Loews certainly is savvy enough to have cancelation clauses in their contracts. Tom Negri owes nobody any reasons or justifaction for this decision. Loews is a privately owned company and does not have to anwser to the public with regards to business decisions.
Mr. Steele presents the same, worn out mentality that has brought the GOP and conservative "right" to a crisis point in America. In November, the election was decided by a margin of 9.5 million votes, the largest margin in decades. Clearly America has grown tired of these divisive and counter-productive ideas.
What NER represents is hate, discrimination and fear. Their vehicle for selling this "product" is spreading carefully picked through half truths. As NER uses fear and misunderstanding they rely on goons such as Rush Limbaugh and (wanna be Rush)Steve Gill to carry the torch thinly veiled as "right vs. left".
The methods NER use to promote their agenda is a direct descendant of Adolf Hitler, using fear based on lack of understanding to generate anger. Once the population is angry enough, horrific and unthinkable acts can easily be justified as "the best interest of our people". These are not the fundamentals that our country was built on and we, as a nation should be weary of any fear mongering.
Can't wait to see what venue in Nashville was desperate enough for dirty money to pick up this hot potato.
I don't know if I buy your argument, Harry. The man's got a right to decide how best to run his hotel; that's a pretty conservative philosophy. And just because he's involved with an immigrant group doesn't make it a conflict. These are his beliefs, it's a private hotel, and he gets to decide what's best for its operation.
It is unfortunate the Loews pulled out at such a late date. I understand the difficulties for your group. But my guess is that he didn't know what you were about until a late date. And whatever you feel about the virtue of your group, he also has the right to find it lacking in virtue. I guess I'm not seeing the evil or the conspiracy here.
If you ran a hotel, you'd have the right to not cater to Muslim groups if you thought their message was somehow untoward. Tis the nature of private enterprise, which surely you favor, am I right?
I work at Loews and privately mentioned to another employee last week how I was concerned about this group and certain safety issues. I have to say I'm relieved they are not having the symposium at the hotel.
Believe me, times are very, very tough for the service industry and this was not some flippant decision based on views. I can't imagine how much revenue was just lost, but I know there was a good reason for it.
What I find funny is how everyone is pussyfooting around the "safety" issue.
Why is there a safety issue? Could it be that there are some throat cutters running around masquerading as religious men?
I guess all it takes is a bomb threat to stop a forum on Radical Islamic Fundamentalism. Now that is just pure speculation but I would be willing to bet a PanCake Pantry breakfast that this cancellation directly centers on received threats.
Yes, of what safety are they concerned with. Are they afraid of Jihadis with dinner knives racing through the convention halls screaming Allah Akbar ?
I agree wholeheartedly with Harry.
And in my own personal opinion, this is not some "hate" group as some have chosen to paint them, but an awareness group. All you seem to be trumpeting is silencing the voices of concerned American Citizens who want to spread the truth of a very real and impending threat to American lives (Note the Capture by the FBI of 4 Islamics the other day who tried to blow up 2 Jewish synagogues in the Bronx and a military base)
No one is saying nominal Muslims adhere to the tenets which say to dominate the planet for the Ummah, but many do adhere to it, and they vocalize it on a regular basis, but ignorance is bliss to some, and one of the doctrines of Islam is Taqiyya which is deception for the furtherance of Islam, which is regularly employed by fundamentalists in Darul-Harb (non Muslim countries)
Simply smearing these astute concerned Americans and Ex-Muslim speakers who love this country enough to warn those who may fall into the same problems their home countries have is an insult to free speech and makes me question the allegiances of some who are afraid to let them speak.
Adelina, I have to admire the ambitious, if twisted, logic of your last paragraph: You're saying that by exercising my right to free speech I am insulting free speech? Hmmm...
And I'm not afraid to let them speak, nor did I ever say so.
If I ran the hotel, I'd have just hired a fuckload of Muslim waiters for the event and placed bets as to who would be the first brave attendee to eat the food they probably thought was poisioned with Korans or something. This is why I do not run a business.
This story is getting around. For those of you harping on the "safety" aspect, I will quote this article found here:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/geert_wilders/2009/05/28/219305.html
"In a written statement to the conference organizers, Negri said that the hotel had “not received any information related to a specific security threat concerning this event,” and declined to provide any justification for cancelling it at the last minute."
There were no threats? He declined to give any justification? This sounds more and more like Mr. Negri had an issue with the group's views rather than the "safety" of his employees or guests.
When people like "whew" talk about "how I was concerned about this group," it sounds more like "I don't agree with their views, therefore I'll tell the boss that I feel 'threatened' by their presence and that will get rid of them..."
However, whenever someone else says they feel threatened by, say Muslim extremists or the rent-a-thugs of ACORN and the like, they are called unwelcoming, haters and racists.
Funny how that works.
I still say that the group has a good basis for a massive lawsuit.
Eh, probably not. I'm willing to bet there's a subsection on the terms and conditions that states the hotel can pretty much cancel whyever the fuck they want to and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Of course, I am not currently holding the contract, but I'd say that's pretty much standard fine print, right?
Well, since the next paragraph in the story says:
"One of the conference organizers told Newsmax on Wednesday that the group was considering a lawsuit against Negri and the Loew’s hotel chain for 'unlawful breach of contract.'"
I doubt they "can pretty much cancel whyever the f@#$ they want to and there ain't nothing you can do about it."
BTW, the foul language doesn't help your argument at all. It makes you sound like an immature brat. If some of you acted a little more respectfully toward those who disagree with you, people would take you more seriously, instead of dismissing you as an unsupervised 12-year-old.
Acting respectfully towards those that disagree with you? The ironing is delicious.
Harry,
Go see the comments section of the last post on this subject if foul language disturbs you. Ashley using the f-word once doesn't hold a candle to most of the folks who shared your viewpoint and took me to task. They're some of the most petty, foul-mouthed, name-calling folks I've encountered. Does it offend you when they do it?
And though I do swear like a sailor both at home and abroad, I'd like to make a few additional points:
1. I'm genuinely concered that links you're posting would lead to a hate site and I'm trying to avoid them, which is why I did not read the story (or paragraph) you posted and
2. Did you see the comments the first post generated? Those were embarrasingly rude, hateful, and let me know pretty much everything I needed to about the group.
3. I said I wasn't holding the contract, that those kinds of T&Cs seem standard. People don't read shit, dude. Don't get your hopes up.
Harry, you're kind of scaring me.
This is not about Tom Negri. This is not about freedom of speech or political agendas. Loews Hotels or Tom Negri do not have to explain their choices to anyone including NER.
The hotel simply chose to not be involved with an event that, due to it's subject matter, opened the door to safety concerns for it's staff and guests. Can we ask why NER has chosen to move the event to a "secure, undisclosed location"? A very telling commentary about the security concerns associated.
In typical fashion for an organization based on nothing more than "fear what you don't understand", NER has proven that their weapon is not fact and purpose but rather anger and manipulation of the media.
Loews and Tom Negri did the right thing by putting the safety of guests/employees before revenue. In this economic climate, no businessman with tenure such as Tom Negri would sacrifice revenue for his own political agenda. Move on to the next scapegoat and leave this guy alone.
And honestly, Loews is a multi-billion dollar corporation where hotels are a tiny portion of their assets. Do you really think a "farm-league" organization like NER would be able to go anywhere with this?
Uh...a hate site? So anything that has content you disagree with is a hate site? While Newsmax has a obvious conservative slant, it reports news and can not be classified as a "hate site." Have you read some of the opinions on Daily KOS or democratunderground.com?
THAT'S hate, folks.
I can't speak for those that posted on the other thread. I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation, but it seems that all anyone can do that disagrees with a conservative is call everyone haters and racists while injecting as many swear words as they can.
BTW, this is spreading all through right leaning blogs, so I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this matter.
SCARING you? You must frighten easily. I'd see someone about that.
The fact is this. The event was announced MONTHS in advance. The details were posted on the NER's website for MONTHS. With directions, how to make reservations and, frankly, lots of language about what a wonderful hotel the event was taking place at.
Then Mr. Silverman's critical blog post takes the event to task last week, labling the participaants as "Islamophobes" and spurring those of a like mindset to action. Suddenly, a few days before the event, the manager of said hotel cancels the event, leaving the group to scramble to find a new venue.
Not only that, but the hotel manager then swiftly arranges an event by those who will, more than likely, smear the group he just kicked out. A group he has well established ties to.
Do you expect me to believe that the manager of this upscale establishment had absolutely no clue about the subject matter of this major conference that was scheduled for MONTHS in advance? With the subject matter and participants known by everyone involved, including the management of the hotel?
Andrew, you say "The hotel simply chose to not be involved with an event that, due to it's subject matter, opened the door to safety concerns for it's staff and guests."
Why should the hotel be worried about safety? Were they frightened of those attending the conference? Or did someone threaten the participants? Something stinks here. I am beginning to believe that the "threats" were generated in-house to justify the eviction by either someone in the hotel or the TIRRC, which he is affiliated with.
If this goes to court, and I imagine it will, Mr. Negri and the hotel very well may have to "explain their choices" under oath.
Harry, I think the hotel manager just came to the rather reasonable conclusion that the group he was hosting really doesn't like Muslims. And since he operates in a university neighborhood, where people tend to be prickly about groups that appear racist, he decided that wasn't very good business, especially since he likely hosts Muslim guests.
So while you're free to have your views, and surely believe they're just, you also must understand that a good chunk of America may consider you weirdos they'd prefer not to have around. You have every right to believe what you do. He has every right to respond accordingly. I don't think his motives here are all that clandestine.
But I do think you're falling into that conservative trap of playing the victim. It's an unbecoming way for grown men, wouldn't you agree?
Look dude, you are reading way too much into my wording. A lot of the comments from the previous post were weird and scary, and I would say that the last link in Jack's article up top was hate-site-ish. I had never heard of the source you were quoting and didn't want to run any risk on my work computer.
The whole point of the event was to talk shit about Muslims and Islam, Arabs and Semites and so forth. I certainly don't think everyone who holds a viewpoint contradictory to mine is a frothing-at-the-mouth racist or crazy person. Hell, some of my best friends and family have really conservative opinions (I know a black guy, too!). The people seriously up-in-arms about this event being kicked out of the hotel? Those are racists and crazies, in my eyes.
"BTW, this is spreading all through right leaning blogs, so I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this matter."
The myth that Obama is Muslim and is not a natural born citizen has also spread through right leaning blogs. And I am not hearing a lot about those issues much anymore. Of course, I only subject myself to right leaning blogs when I'm in a masochistic mood. The problem is that most of these issues never get past those right leaning blogs. The so-called Right these days is not much more than an echo chamber. Hard core devotees but a small minority of the population at large, who could care less about such issues.
Pete, it's been my experience that people at universities like Vandy tend to be prickly about groups that they simply disagree with. They end up labeling them racist to shut down any further discussion of the issue at hand.
Statements like "a good chunk of America may consider you weirdos they'd prefer not to have around" is disturbing. Several decades ago, preferring not to have certain people around was backed up by ugly laws in the south...that is until Dr. King got to work. Others used far more extreme measures against "weirdos they'd prefer not to have around" too.
I agree - it is stupid to hate someone based on the color of their skin. Or, say, their religion.
Most people in this country don't understand that the fight against radical Islam is not directed at "moderate Muslims." They are not the problem at the moment. Basicaly, they are irrelevant because they are not actively subverting us with cultural or violent jihad but they won't repudiate it either. If you look at the history of modern Islamofascism, you will find that the moderates appear kind of neutral UNTIL Islam becomes a majority and then they fall right in line with the extremists. If you want our government to allow Sharia law courts in America, for instance, then continue to make no distinction between political correctness and objective reality. I know nothing about this group that was going to meet at Loews. They may be just as radical as the people they have targeted. But the threat of jihad is real and increasingly obvious. Check out ACT!for America.org.
Ashley said: "I agree - it is stupid to hate someone based on the color of their skin. Or, say, their religion."
I agree, which is why I support the NER. To quote Islamic hadith:
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Ishaq:403 “Allah killed twenty-two polytheists (Hindus) at Uhud.”
Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”
Tabari VII:99 “In this year, the killing of Abu Rafi the Jew took place. The Messenger sent some Ansar under the command of Abd Allah and Abd Allah against the Jew. Abu Rafi used to injure and wrong the Prophet.... Abd Allah said to the others, ‘Stay where you are, and I will go and ingratiate myself with the doorkeeper to gain entrance.’ Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children]. I came out, filled with puzzlement, and went towards a ladder in order to get down but I fell into a moonlit night and sprained my foot. I bound it with my turban and moved on. I came to my companions and said, ‘By Allah, I will not leave till I hear the wailing of their women.’ So, I did not move till I heard them crying for the Jewish merchant. I said, ‘Deliverance! Allah has killed Abu Rafi.’ I got up, feeling no ailment, and proceeded till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.”
Tabari VII:112/Ishaq:372 “When a blind Jew became aware of the presence of the Messenger and the Muslims he rose and threw dust in their faces, saying, ‘Even if you are a prophet, I will not allow you into my garden!’ I was told that he took a handful of dirt and said, ‘If only I knew that I would not hit anyone else, Muhammad, I would throw it in your face.’ Sa’d rushed in and hit him on the head with his bow and split the Jew’s head open.”
Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue.
NER does not call for violence against Muslims, or anyone else. NER points out the intolerance of Islam towards all other religions (Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism), and makes note of acts of Islam-motivated religious violence.
Andrew Young said: "As NER uses fear and misunderstanding they rely on goons such as Rush Limbaugh and (wanna be Rush)Steve Gill to carry the torch thinly veiled as "right vs. left"."
I defy you to find one quotation of Rush Limbaugh at NER. And I've never heard of Steve Gill. He has never been referenced at NER either.
That is called a "straw-man" argument.
I also defy you to point out the "misunderstanding" of NER. Please feel free to use Qur'anic quotations, quotations from the hadith, or your knowledge of the 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence.
Let me ask you non-critical thinkers something. Why on earth should ANY Muslim be supportive of Jihad. WHo the fuck cares if some Muslims are offended? I'm offended when women are stoned, gays are hanged, thieves (even children) get their limbs chopped off, and girls as young as six get forced into marriage. What is really wrong with you people that you can't see this is wrong?
We had a wonderful seminar at a beautiful hotel. First choice didn't work out, but the second choice did.
I accept the inherent risk involved in being labeled paranoid, or worse yet, in the current vernacular, a “hate monger,” possibly even that catch-all contemporary slur, “racist,” for what I am about to disclose in a public forum.
Personally, I consider the presently fashionable compassion and indulgent sympathy (with its insistent attendant endeavor to “understand” and identify with acts of aggression) will only hasten and aggravate the imminent peril of a publicly declared and acknowledged Muslim ideology. Islam is dedicated to the annihilation of a despised Western civilization, and the accommodation of its consequent universal supremacy.
This is not I, a presumed mad dog, voicing a personal bigoted and xenophobic opinion; the most respected and venerated Muslim political and religious leaders have recently (actually since the seventh century) publicly expressed a global Caliphate and the installation of Sharia Law as their goal.
There is no doubt that not all Muslims are terrorists; what is beyond question is that all terrorists are Muslims. Undoubtedly some would quibble with this generalization, citing Timothy McVey and such other non-Islamic individuals and groups who have dabbled in the nefarious practice; I consider this to be no more than a deliberately calculated fraudulent maneuver. It is Islam, and Islam alone which is responsible for provoking the overwhelming majority of deliberate, unrepentant, wicked manslaughter labeled Jihad that is in vogue by Muslims throughout the entirety of today´s world.
I doubt that any serious student of history would disagree that the destruction of the Christian States extant during the period of incipient Islamic expansionist colonization throughout North Africa, including Medieval Spain and the Balkans, was accomplished with an extraordinarily sadistic and sanguinary cruelty and viciousness; even taking into consideration the brutal historical antecedents of the period.
A similar assessment is valid concerning the recent twentieth century Ottoman genocide of Christians, Armenians and Greeks, which for some enigmatic reason is never referred to as what it actually was: an Islamic Jihad.
Therefore, the logical conclusion to be drawn would inevitably have to be that an extraordinary proclivity to insatiable, sadistic violence is purview to Islam.
I recently entertained an interesting conversation with a Jewish scholar who intimated that he considered the Ottoman genocide in the 1930´s of the Greeks and Armenians to have been provoked by atrocities against the Muslims by the latter. It would have been unproductive for me to sustain a dialogue on what came first, the chicken or the egg, however I was able to maintain with certitude that historically, including in our present era, it is the Muslim who exposes a primitive seventh century barbarity; neither Greeks nor Armenians are recognized for the brutally homicidal history of Islamic conquest and colonization of the “infidel.”
I consider it an unfortunate necessity, given the inexcusable lack of awareness of those whose commentary I have here read, to mention that in recent history no other religion (we can question whether religion is the fundamental underpinning of Islam, but that would be material for a different discourse) has committed the atrocities attributed to Muslims as required by Allah in the Qur´an, and more importantly quoted by the Jihadists themselves as the established doctrine authorizing their murderous rampages.
I mention this only as an aside to what some consider equivalence between “evil Muslims” and “evil Christians.” As an atheist pretending to historical erudition, I find no comparison regarding “evil Christians” and the immoral, horrific, comprehensive and indiscriminate Qur´an sanctioned malevolence. I cannot cite contemporary examples of Biblically sanctioned “evil Christians” that can approximate Islamic theocratic degeneracy.
It is considered politically correct to vilify Christians, and the Crusades in particular for initiating, and thereby being responsible for a subsequent Islamic self-defensive rage. It appears that no one is cognizant of the fact that Islam originated its rampage in the seventh century, and the first Crusade was launched in 1095.
Ignorant filmmakers or perhaps those with an agenda, (Ridley Scott comes immediately to mind) make misleading movies such as "Kingdom of Heaven," which historians, including Jonathan Riley-Smith of Cambridge claim to be “rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to "The Talisman," which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilised, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality. It's Osama bin Laden's version of history."
Historian and author Thomas Madden: "As a historian it naturally irritates me that there are people who will leave theaters certain that Scott and his writer, William Monahan, have served up something that approximates reality in the Middle Ages. They haven’t.”
Ah! But moviegoers worldwide have borne graphic witness to the exploits, and for them that is undeniable, explicit truth.
Regarding contemporary Muslim countries, Samuel Huntington remarked: "Islam has bloody borders." Indeed.
The short memories humans possess is undeniably remarkable, and the fondness, particularly considering today’s eager multicultural yearnings for overlooking atrocities and pretending at an inexistent equivalency between the cultures of Hottentots and civilized societies is appallingly unintelligent. Somehow we have forgotten all the extraordinarily significant advances vis-à-vis technology, medicine, and science, to mention only a few that were the result of an intensifying individualism in England, producing an industrial revolution which plucked Western Civilization from the harsh bondage of the Middle Ages.
The all too common fashion of self-flagellation by the West for perceived offenses can only be attributable to ignorance of historical fact and/or an ideologically motivated dishonesty and fabrication.
It is not the twenty first century West that is responsible for the inexcusable subjugation of the Copts in Egypt (with the now attendant shockingly indecent butchery of their swine because the Qur´an instructs Muslims that pigs are the progeny of Jews), nor the oppression of the Zorastrians, Assyrians and Christians in Iran, the Hindu, the Budhist, the prohibition against any religious structure other than a mosque being erected in the Arabia of the Saudis, the desecration of churches in an allegedly secular Turkey, etc., etc.
I suspect my dispute with Islam will fall on deaf ears; today in the West we must not offend Muslim sensibilities by speaking truth, rather we should flagellate ourselves as contemptible, worthless infidel sinners.
Way to go there you brown nosing Jack(ass). Everyone else in America seems to have freedom of speech but when it comes to anything Islam being polictically correct trumps freedom of speech. Come on!!! Hey Jack, Jihad is real. Sharia Law is real. Hate speech from the Koran is real. Use that noodle that G-d gave you and do some research for yourself.
Ares, you say that, "religious leaders have recently (actually since the seventh century) publicly expressed a global Caliphate and the installation of Sharia Law as their goal."
Isn't that Christianity's goal? To convert the whole world to Christianity? Most Christians I've met here in Nashville would say so, as do pretty much all evangelists.
And when it comes to most of your contentions about Islam, I would agree with them, if you were to put the word "radical" in front of "Islam." I will acknowledge that perhaps moderate Muslims don't do enough to denounce the more radical elements of the religion. But "radical Islam" is a result of the religion being politicized, misinterpreted and misused to brainwash and recruit often poor and undereducated people living in adverse circumstances.
If you refuse to see or acknowledge how our presence in Iraq and killing of thousands of innocent people ("collateral damage"), or our cozy relationship with the Saudis has contributed to this process, than you're not being intellectually honest.
I'm not in any way suggesting that these circumstances justify the behavior of extremists. But just like in medicine, if you've misdiagnosed the cause of a disease, you can't treat it effectively.
And if I didn't no any better, I'd think you were just as excited at the prospect of a holy war as Islamic extremists are.
Jack, there is a bit of a difference between Christianity's goal to bring other to Christ through evangelism and free choice and the Islamic desire to convert by force. I guess that must be hard to discern since many with your perspective attempt to make that comparison.
David, I agree with you. There is a difference. I was pointing out that the goal was the same, and both goals represent an inherent intolerance to other viewpoints and belief systems.
I am a Muslim convert, 49 years old and I live in Saudi Arabia. I am married to a white woman. She is a brunette. I am allowed up to 4 wives at one time and I have my eyes on a petite blonde with blue eyes and beautiful bod. She is about 23. Hopefully after her, I will get 2 more. I am partial to white women.
I know many of your men would be jealous, but all you have to do is convert and you too would be free to learn how to win over white women.
Artemis:
None of your quotes is related to Hadith or Islam.
You are either an IGNORANT parrot quoting hate mongers, or a big fat LIAR and racist.
Get an education before you write about others.
David Tao:
Have you ever read about the Spanish Inquisition that subjected both Jews and Muslims to brutal torture in order to convert them to Christianity?
Contrary to what Islamophobes and hate mongers claim, Quran says: "There is NO compuslion in religion". This is what mainstreet Muslims believe.
"Yaya Al Amrikia"? Get the spelling right to be close to believable. I see that you are trying to stroke a sense of racist white pride. I hope we've crossed that bridge a long time ago.
Jamal, maybe you need to read up on the Spanish Inquisition. It had nothing to do with converting Jews or Muslims to Christianity. It was established by the Catholic monarchy of Spain with the Pope's blessing to root out "heretics" and punish them. Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism were much persecuted as heretics as were Protestants. Muslims and Jews were not persecuted by the Inquisition but instead were driven from the country in 1502 and 1492 respectively in a quest for cultural purity. This is not to say they did not suffer religious persecution, just not through the Spanish Inquisition. Money was also a driver as the Church and government confiscated the properties of those convicted of heresy. It had nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.
Jamal,
I give quotes from core, mainstream Islamic documents, _with citations_ so that anyone is free to go look them up and see if they are taken "out of context" or are "badly mistranslated".
You respond by saying "Nuh uhhh!", and calling me ignorant, hate monger, big fat liar, and racist. Without, of course, one word to point out where anything I've quoted is inaccurate, or how simply quoting Islamic doctrine could make me a "racist".
Childish namecalling? A+
Rational discourse? F
No matter how many conversations one has regarding Islam and jihad, the level of discourse never seems to change.
I wonder why?
Artemis,
With all due respect, I made the argument that you are fabricating your quotes. I am a mainstreet Muslim who has never seen or heard such fabricated quotations!
Your Bukhari's quotation is no where found in Bukhari's books and neither Ishaq's, except in websites that people like you are fabricating, and they are quite a few.
Check out http://www.sacred-texts.com/. I know this is a challenge for you.
Enough of those hate-mongers like you, Bin Laden, and other extremists who are seeding twsited views of people of other religions and denominations.
David Tao,
Thanks for your comment.
Nowhere in my comment did I say that the teaching of Christ allows such brutal acts against humanity and neither are the teachings of Moses or Mohammed. However, the Inquisition is a fact that is well known to have been committed in the name of Christianity against people of other denominations. http://www.newsweek.com/id/194523
Just imagine if these actions were committed by Muslims, wouldn't you blame Islam's teaching?
Muslim also believe in free choice to belief and people are eventually judged by their deeds and their faith in their heart.
Please check more of that on http://whyislam.org/
Peace.
Jamal, apparently you don't even know your own religious books. I gave the citation: Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6. Anyone, including you, can look it up for yourself.
Jamal, here is the link:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/001.sbt.html
With all due respect, I don't trust a word that you say.
