We need to stop being such cowards about Islam:

So writes Johann Hari in Britain's Independent Newspaper

See:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-we-need-to-stop-being-such-cowards-about-islam-894361.html

"This is a column condemning cowardice – including my own. It begins with the story of a novel you cannot read. The Jewel of Medina was written by a journalist called Sherry Jones. It recounts the life of Aisha, a girl who was married off at the age of six to a 50-year-old man called Mohamed ibn Abdallah. On her wedding day, Aisha was playing on a see-saw outside her home. Inside, she was being betrothed. The first she knew of it was when she was banned from playing out in the street with the other children. When she was nine, she was taken to live with her husband, now 53. He had sex with her. When she was 14, she was accused of adultery with a man closer to her own age. Not long after, Mohamed decreed that his wives must cover their faces and bodies, even though no other women in Arabia did.

"You cannot read this story today – except in the Koran and the Hadith. The man Mohamed ibn Abdallah became known to Muslims as "the Prophet Mohamed", so our ability to explore this story is stunted. The Jewel of Medina was bought by Random House and primed to be a best-seller – before a University of Texas teacher saw proofs and declared it "a national security issue". Random House had visions of a re-run of the Rushdie or the Danish cartoons affairs. Sherry Jones's publisher has pulped the book. It's gone."

In case you think Hari is some sort of "Zionist shill" note that The Independent is one of the most rabidly anti-Israel newspapers in the UK. It numbers among its columnists Robert "I'll sue anyone who calls me an anti-Semite" Fisk.

So a respectable publisher is intimidated into pulping a book.

Is this what we've come to?

Here is the BBC quoting Random House:

'Random House said it had been advised the book "might be offensive" to some Muslims, and "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

'"We decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication," it added.

'The decision was taken "FOR THE SAFETY OF THE AUTHOR, EMPLOYEES OF RANDOM HOUSE, BOOKSELLERS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD BE INVOLVED IN DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF THE NOVEL," said the company's deputy publisher Thomas Perry in a statement.'

(Capitalisation added)

Intimidation works!

Australia censors books all the time. Many books have been censored for political reasons in the USA. In Australia we are about to implement an internet filtering scheme that is modelled on Communist China by the Australian Labor Party. Do you even care about that, which is far more important than some stupid book profiting off the anti-Islam hate in the USA?

It's easy to see why they might be inclined to fury. One incident is not representative of anything, but that book will be taken as a blueprint of all Islamic countries by readers. It's essentially propaganda. Especially as different countries have different ages of consent whcih probably isn't even mentioned in the book.

Many middle European countries for example have ages of consent around the 14 and 15 marks. Your sensationalism about Islam is unwarranted.

Steel

I am aware that Australia is not a bastion of free speech. Censorship in Australia is not news.

Nor, unfortunately, is it news in Europe or Canada.

But, on the whole, the US has less inclined to suppress media than other countries. The US does not have a perfect record; but it is a record that is better than most.

The New York Times, for example, published the Pentagon Papers in the teeth of opposition from the Federal Government. The Washington Post was merciless in its pursuit of Richard Nixon.

More recently it is hard to imagine a press more openly disdainful of it leadership than much of the US media towards Bush.

Nor has the media in the US been afraid to take on the Catholic Church or Christian Fundamentalists.

But Islam seems to have become a no-go area.

Note that Random House specifically cited safety concerns as the reason for pulping the book.

BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION they have caved in to intimidation.

What is more they appear to have caved in before any explicit threats were made! Merely the possibility of a repeat of the Satanic Verses or Danish Cartoons episode was enough to make Random House pulp the book.

The ineluctable lesson: INTIMIDATION WORKS!

That is what makes this so sad.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported Random House's capitulation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html

Asra Nomani, the author of the WSJ article, is herself Muslim.

This is not about Islam per se.

It is about (self) censorship, about appeasement and, perhaps above all, about the manner in which the media have been INTIMIDATED by Islam.

stevenimeyer, the US media are propagandists. The entire lot. Unfortunately you seem to have a different opinion so I will post a couple of links to hopefully change your mind. What Nixon was indicted for was trivial to what the Bush administration and officials have gotten away with. I have many examples but I will post a couple only about recent news, plus a couple of general articles that show how serious and widespread this agenda is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtdVS8646GI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONICYAHcTcc

http://www.ccmep.org/ccmep/american031902.html

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/free_internet.htm

Steel,

I watched your second youtube link. I am at a loss to know what point you are trying to make.

What I saw was an alleged attempt by just ONE of America's MANY news outlets to manipulate the news.

Perhaps they were. I do not consider Fox a reliable source.

But what point are you trying to make?

If you have an open media you are going to have multiple points of view. Some outlets will emphasise one aspect of the news over another.

If the US media were all reporting from the same perspective, call it the "Steel Perspective," I would smell a rat. But the fact that there are multiple sources of news, many of which you or I find disagreeable, leads me to believe there is little if any censorship in the US.

The youtube feature you linked is itself freely available in the US. That hardly smacks of censorship.

In addition to the MULTIPLE US media outlets such as Fox (yeccch!), CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, TIME magazine, all expressing radically different points of view, Americans have ready access to virtually ALL foreign media. The BBC and Aljazeera both have a wide following in the US.

Many Americans also get their news from websites such as the Guardian, Spiegel, Xinhua, Haaretz, IQRAA, etc.

Robert "I'll sue you if you call me an antisemite" Fisk, as rabidly anti-Israel as they come, is widely read in the US and collects big bucks by going on the lecture circuit telling Americans how evil their government is.

I am not debating the QUALITY of US media Steel. I am simply pointing out that the US has a wide-open media market with little sign of censorship.

You may not like the way the US media report. Neither do many Americans. However, since there is NO CENSORSHIP they solve the problem by going to foreign-sourced media. Some even tune in to our ABC over the internet.

You’re going to have to do better than that to demonstrate censorship in US media.

Err Steel....

the book about Jewell of Medina was not a 'hate' book..it took a very sympathetic view of the girl and regarded her as a heroine....
She was virtually 'sold' at 6 and in my view raped at 9, and how any non brain damaged person can conceive of her falling in love with the old bugger who used her.. is if anything a testimony to the reality of Stockholm syndrome.

check your facts first please.

The above aside.. the book SHOULD have made much of the AGE of the man... and described it as it really is.. disgusting..degenerate..disgraceful and destructive when one considers he is held up as an example for all to follow TODAY.

I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion. I can't document every incident, but the second two links certainly should have woken you up a bit even so. What I posted was the tip of the iceburg. You can list every media outlet you like that tumbles out of your mind, it doesn't change the fact they are all owned by the same few people and interests. Many news items here in Australia and elsewhere simply receive no coverage for this reason. You could read any of the Fairfax papers and you are reading the same opinion and news, only photocopied or rewritten. The variety you talk about is a drop in the bucket. Read the other two links a bit more thoroughly before you make your mind up on this. I can find an endless amount of examples. Here are more: http://www.blacklistednews.com/

Steel,

OK I cheated and created a secondary ID.

You are making no sense. You write:

"You can list every media outlet you like that tumbles out of your mind, it doesn't change the fact they are all owned by the same few people and interests.."

Let's examine that statement confining ourselves to the major media outlets to start.

Are you seriously suggesting that the NY Times and Fox are owned by the same people or interests?

Or that CNN is part of the Murdock stable?

Or that Rupert controls TIME Magazine.

PBS (Public Broadcasting System) is not actually owned by anyone and seems to serve mainly as a conduit for the BBC.

The Guardian is owned by an independent press trust.

Al Jazeera is definitely not controlled by any American "interest" and is becoming a major news outlet in the US. I should imagine they cover most of the stories in the Middle-East you would like to see covered.

Ditto the BBC.

This does not take into account the tens of thousands of independents including IndyMedia.

If you don’t like the coverage in Fairfax here is a link to Al Jazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/

If you'd like an explicitly Zionist conspiracy site try David Duke.

http://www.davidduke.com/

I frequently go onto the Indian newspaper sites. Try the Times of India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/default?xml=0&

The fact that most media outlets do not cover the news in the way you would like to see it covered does not prove there is censorship.

Steel,

Consider that maybe, just maybe, the major news outlets do not present wall to wall coverage of "Americo-Zionist" conspiracies because no such conspiracies exist.

Or if they do exist the viewing public may prefer to watch Big Brother or Lost or football. Appalling but there it is.

And maybe the Israelis do not actually "murder" Palestinian teenagers. Maybe they happen to be casualties in a bitter war. Maybe Mark Schneider of "Accurate Press" is as much a propagandist as you accuse the US media of being.

But, and this is the point, no one is censoring Mark Schneider of "Accurate Press.

As stated above, the book is not anti-islam. From reports it paints a loving "romantic" relationship between Mohammad and Aisha. It is another "Islam is wonderful" book that will overlook important facts from the traditions, like Mohammad beating her, the raid on Banu al-Mustaliq and rape of the women and Aisha's part in the story, the wives' bitter relationships, the comments from Aisha regarding abuse of Muslim women, etc.

So why was it cancelled? To serve as an example to infidels not to talk about anything Islamic -- to make it clear to infidels that Islam is off limits, always. Muslims will tell us all we need known about Islam.

Steel, the question is NOT age of consent. The issue is the morality of an old man having sex with a 9year old. Period. Be aware that this age is given 3 times in different places in the ahadith. Do not insult us pretending she was 14-15-18.

On the other hand, we cant say it was pedophilia. We don't know if Aisha had reached puberty. The traditions don't say. However she was still playing with dolls.

Even so, a great evil was done. The evil was the example. Because of what Mohammad did, because of what is written in the traditions and because of what Allah allowed his faithful to do and write (speaking from an Muslim viewpoint), a terrible example was given has destroyed the bodies and lives of millions of girls for over 1300 years -- because Islam's prophet did it, it must be good. Here is a quote from a British paper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/feb/22/ukcrime.gender

Notice that the example of Islam's prophet is cited to justify this vile practice. One would think that if Allah is god, if he is all-knowing, if he knows the future, if he cares about innocent young girls, he would have taken steps to clarify the situation or prohibit this evil. This is not theology, this is logic. The only explanation then is that this abuse happens because Allah let it happen. Allah doesn't care about little girls. Allah approves of rape.

Pathetic!

Kactuz

Kactuz your post started off reasonably but ended terribly. There is simply no justification for making such an absurd out of context statement about Islam. It's disgraceful. Not least because it was normal to marry and sleep with girls of similar age in the past. It was normal practice. IN THE WEST AND EUROPE. Partly of necessity, but partly that you and I can't choose age of consent over nature and biology.

Part of the reason you do not have a mature understanding of history, is because our society would censor any representation of life as it was (unless only murderous acts, torture or violence were involved...then it's all ok). That is a tragedy from a historical perspective but it's a fact in our society. No amount of contemporary rage will change the fact that it was normal back then to do this. If a 'girl' could be impregnated, then she was a woman. Period. Biology dictated this fact. Same with 'boys' who probably sired sons as soon as biology dictated they could. What we understand a child to be and how a child is defined today, is absolute nonsense when applied to history.

I could not care less about what a sociopathic 7th century warlord may or may not have done.

What I do care about is that a 21st century mainstream US publisher, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, was so intimidated that it pulped a book apparently before any actual threats had been received.

This is the issue.

This is the path to servitude.

A type of servitude called "dhimmitude."

Steven.. and Steel....

'path to dhimmitude'.. indeed. This morning there was an interview with Geert Wilders. He is continually with 6 bodyguards and uses safe houses.

For what reason would he need to do this?

It was said that he will need to do this for the rest of his life, because even if in 35 yrs time he is old and doddering around in his garden, he will be in danger from.. u know who...

The more important question is..'why'.. well it gets back to the essential violence and evil and example of the founder of the faith he is criticizing.

If.... such security is needed in the West.. what does this say about the nature of the community in question? It says there is an extreme element, which see's its role as 'enforcer'... which is not found in any other religion to my knowledge.

This is the same as the Mafia operations.. they will find you or hunt you for the rest of your life if you break their code.

As far as I'm concerned.. 'no community.. no extreme end' it's really simple.
My solution is conversion and 'legal'...limiting migration and infringment of our law and constitution.. but we often have a legal fight to retain the freedom to proclaim the alternative and expose the falsehood. (see 'constitution and discrimination' thread)

As long as I say something Muslims like ("dont know if Mohammad was pedaphile") I am making sense. When I add an obvious sequence of logic, I am suddenly an ignorant fool.

I will explain it again.
1. Mohammad married Aisha
2. Ahadith say she was 9 (different writers including Muslim+Bukhari)
3. Quran says "in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example" (33:21).
4. In some Muslim societies/communities these facts are used as a justification for marrying young (pre-puberty) girls.

Here is another link:
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2
Look at the face of the little girl married at age 8. Remember her.

5. Its not Mohammad's fault because "There is no fault in the Prophet in what Allah has decreed for him" (Quran 33:37) Allah made him do it.
6. So Allah, who is supposed to be allpowerful and allknowing (Sura 1) did as follows: (a) he let/made Mohammad bed a child (b) even if she was physically a woman Allah did not think it important to register this important fact (c) he let his inspired writers record the event knowing that everything Mohammad did would be considered example.
7. So Allah is partly responsible for the suffering of these children.

That is logic -- hard, sad facts.

Do not use the old 'out of context' excuse. I understand words. I know Islam. If you must make an excuse please be more creative (I collect excuses)
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html

Why is it everytime one points out to a muslim or sympathizer the hate, discrimination and violence in Islam we get these insipid excuses? Isnt the fact that the so-called eternal Quran is full of privileges and exceptions for Mohammad, given to Mohammad, by Mohammad, to benefit Mohammad rather suspicious?
http://www.kactuzkid.com/suspicious.html

If a person refuses to condemn the hate/violence in Islam, or the vile actions of Mohammad, he/she accepts those things and are partners in evil. This is why the future will not be nice; this is why Muslims cannot be trusted.

Kactuz

PS: Aisha was childless (couldnt be impregnated?), so was she a child? Did the early marriage destroy her premature body?

You are so gullible, Boaz.

>>...an interview with Geert Wilders. He is continually with 6 bodyguards and uses safe houses. For what reason would he need to do this?<<

Quite simply, Boaz, because if he didn't, no-one would take any notice of him at all. Without people like you constantly asking "why do you need bodyguards, Geert?", he would long have faded into insignificance.

He is the Dutch answer to Mosley/Powell/Boaz.

Mosley claimed that he was not anti-Semitic. He just didn't like the way Jews ran the country.

Powell claimed that he was not a racialist. He just thought that blacks and Asians had no right to live in Britain.

Wilders/Boaz/Polycarp claim that it's not Muslims they hate, just Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam

Despite all the hype about the man, his party occupies nine seats, out of a hundred and fifty, in parliament.

Despite all the "sky is falling" rhetoric, only 6% of the Dutch population are Muslim.

You and he, Boaz, also share the ridiculous view, that non-Muslims are permanently at risk of being bumped off by Muslims.

If you actually look carefully at the "evidence" for this, you will find that practically all Muslims share the same risk.

Go on. Look it up. It's right there, in Geert Wilder's March speech.

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1810

You can safely ignore the editorialising, which is just the same old alarmist tripe.

Pericles.. you never fail to fascinate me... in particular how you can completely deny the obvious and allow prejudice to run your increasingly irrational mind.. seriously....

You charge at the red rag, but fail to see it is held by a matador...the real target worthy of attack.

Here are some salient facts which have bearing on the issue about which you seem to be in blissful denial.

-Critics of Islam are always targets of violent threats.
-Salman Rushdie, Theo Vang Gogh, Hirsi Ali, Nick Griffin etc etc.

Of them, Van Gogh, is dead, murdered by a Muslim.

-You know full well the level of hate displayed on the many signs in the various london protests such as "Butcher those who insult the prophet"

All this you know... yet.. you irrationally claim that the only reason Wilders has 6 bodyguards is to get attention?....

My goodness.. I though you were on a reasonable plane there with your Discimination comments, for goodness sake.. don't take your irrationality here into that thread...

When all the evidence points to either moderate Muslims seen as 'spiritual quizzlings' or.. non Muslims seen as 'enemies of Islam' and being threatened or killed...by normal, Quranic Muslims, then...it is utterly irrational and.. ludicrious for you to blame the bodyguards for the problem.. in fact it's probably not even what a sane observer would say, certainly not an educated one as you seem to imply about yourself.

Have a lay down old son, a cuppa ... relax.. do some reflecting on 'facts->Conclusions and clear thinking'

Pericles,

Let's consider the facts.

In 1988 Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death sentence on Salman Rushdie on account of his novel, The Satanic Verses. The "fatwa" remains in effect.

At the time of writing Rushdie remains unharmed. However:

--Hitoshi Igarashi who translated Satanic Verses into Japanese was assassinated in 1991

--Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, survived an attempt on his life in the same year.

--William Nygaard, the Norwegian publishers survived an attempt on his life in 1993.

In addition:

--Theo van Gogh, a fierce critic of Islam, was assassinated in 2004

--Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist, was evicted from his hotel, where he lived under police protection, because the hotel management thought his presence posed an unacceptable risk to the hotel, the staff, and the guests. Westergaard drew the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. (See: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,536544,00.html)

--And now, in August 2008, a respected publisher pulps a book with an Islamic theme citing fears for the safety of its staff.

These are only the high profile cases. Attacks on Christians in eg Pakistan as well as attacks by Shia on Sunni and vice versa continue.

Consider also the case of Taslima Nareen.

Quote from The Times, 30 November 2007

"Taslima Nasreen, 45, a former doctor, said today that she hoped that the move would appease fundamentalist groups and end a controversy that forced her to leave Calcutta last week."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2978120.ece

There are probably many more unreported cases.

And now Pericles seems to think that Wilders doesn’t really need bodyguards. He's just grandstanding.

Truly there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Your last post tells us rather more about Pericles and his refusal to face reality than it does about Wilders

What a pathetic beat-up!

I agree with Steven to the extent that the publishers have been piss-weak. However, nobody's censored this novel except them - based on what appears to be nothing more than Islamophobic paranoia and projection. No threats were made.

Rather, one of their editors thought that somebody might threaten Random House and/or the author, so they claim to have pulped their print run - not to mention the $100K advance they apparently paid the author. It seems that the author is actually a journalist, and this is her first novel.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. There's something decidedly on the nose about this.

My take is that Random House might have shown more spine if the novel had literary merit like Rushdie's, but if it was merely a salacious page-turner it was probabky ultimately cheaper to pulp it in the face of their own paranoia.

In which case, it's no great loss, is it?

CJ Morgan

I am not going to debate the literary merits of a novel I've never read.

The "loss" is the fact that Muslims could intimidate a respectable publisher to that extent.

Give the events I cited in my previous post it is hard to dismiss Random House's fears as mere paranoia. People have died at the hands of Muslims who have taken a dislike to their literary or video output. Others have had narrow escapes.

I forgot to mention that Westergaard was living under police protection in an hotel because Danish police had uncovered a plot to murder him. (Same link as previous post)

Is that also a case of paranoia?

Given the weight of evidence the paranoia theory is wearing a bit thin CJ Morgan.

Like Pericles you seem unable to face reality.

steven>"You’re going to have to do better than that to demonstrate censorship in US media."

...

steven>"Censorship comes to America"

I have provided censorship examples that are much more important than this decision on a stupid book and more prevalent. Propaganda btw is essentially censorship. Look up the owners of media in the USA. There is next to no competition at all.

Methinks a little pot-and-kettle activity is occurring here, Boaz:

>>how you can completely deny the obvious and allow prejudice to run your increasingly irrational mind<<

You are, in your zeal to portray us all as being under threat from every passing Muslim, missing the obvious.

It is all there, in your mate Geert's speech.

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1810

“The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims”

He's nailed his colours to the mast, just like you do: we are all about to be murdered in our beds.

Then he tells us, in the same speech:

“The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.”

He goes on to point out that there can be no such thing as moderate Islam. Which by definition means that there can be no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

Are you with me so far?

OK, now here's the question.

If the root cause of these terrorist acts against non-Muslims is strict adherence to a literal interpretation of a few Surahs in the Qur'an, why are we not seeing the streets lined with the bodies of the 99.9% of the Muslim population who abjure violence against their fellow man?

Logically, they should be at equal risk to the rest of us.

What we are seeing is nothing more than terrorism for the usual reasons – acquisition of power, and control over others. Everything else is a useful smokescreen, fuelled by propaganda, with the targets helping the process along by jabbering in fear every time another threatening pronouncement is made.

Fear is driving the entire agenda. Religious fear is of course the most powerful of all, simply because it is based in irrational emotion – the “irrational” here not being figurative and pejorative, but merely literal.

It seems to be working, too.

I'm seeking a court order to have CJ and PERICLES institutionalized for the good of society :) Larundel awaits you blokes.. shame shame..

GOOD GRIEF!

Pericles, (TweedleDee) in the light of the numerous cited documented examples of threat, violence, intimidation and murder..is living in some psycedelic twilight zone.. along with CJ (Tweedle-very-Dum) who after years of academic study....(sitting beside Dorothy in the land of OZ?) does not know the difference between 'well founded rational' and 'unfounded irrational'.. as he uses a totally innappropriate term "Islamophobia" for something that is clearly not 'that' in fact..it is it's opposite.

Given that CJ... with his 'string of academic qualifications' would use an innapropriate term, *knowingly*... it begs the question as to his motivation? Political?

With Genetic diversity, the problem is..when majorities.. suddenly become 'minorities' by some quirk of international politics (Serbs in Bosnia)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D61530F93BA15752C1A962958260

So.. genetic divesity is great.. I for one have done this.
But cultural sedition from minorities is unnaceptable and must be opposed at every crossroad.

Thus, it is extremely important for Governments to exercise wise stewardship of the immigration mix, such that our migrant community is varied and has diverse and reasonably equal representation of races and non threatening cultures/religions.

Another way of putting that is 'divide and rule' :)

You are also missing the point a little, stevenlmeyer.

>>Your last post tells us rather more about Pericles and his refusal to face reality than it does about Wilders<<

When you get to my age you see things with a little more of a historical perspective.

Have you heard of ETA? Khmer Rouge? Tamil Tigers? FARC?

Their major weapon has never been the size of the gang, or the rightness of their cause. Merely the level of fear they could insert into ordinary people's lives, simply by identifying them as potential targets.

The IRA used precisely the same tactics when they randomly targetted restaurants and pubs, and left bombs in bags on tube trains.

The idea is to make as many people as fearful as possible, that “they may be next”

Anyone who travelled the London Underground in the eighties knows exactly what I am talking about.

These are terrorists, using terrorist tactics.

There is not a world-wide conspiracy to kill us all in our sleep, or even to hang us high in a public place as a lesson to others.

Just a small number of deranged – but intelligent – terrorists, whose objective is to increase their own power over the lives of other people.

That's what the IRA were about, and what Shining path and the rest of them are all about.

What they are really, really good at, is playing upon our own deepest fears – of imminent death, or the death of family and loved ones – and encouraging us to react irrationally to those fears.

Geert Wilders, surrounding himself with six bodyguards, is are merely indulging in look-at-me politics, encouraging others to feel the same fear that he does.

Or that he pretends to, in order to make his political statement.

After all, he supposition that he needs six bodyguards never needs to be tested, thanks to the Wimbledon tiger theory.

>>Truly there are none so blind as those who will not see<<

I see what I see, stevenlmeyer. I don't invent problems where there are none.

Well Boaz, it looks like you blinked.

>>Pericles, (TweedleDee) in the light of the numerous cited documented examples of threat, violence, intimidation and murder..is living in some psycedelic twilight zone..<<

It is a truism that when you have lost an argument, all that is left to you is bluster.

This is bluster, pure and simple.

Also, I might point out - although it isn't entirely clear at whom this was directed...

>>he uses a totally innappropriate term "Islamophobia" for something that is clearly not 'that' in fact..it is it's opposite.<<

Guess what?

Neither CJ nor I used this term. You imagined it.

It looks suspiciously as if you have lost the plot, Boaz. Despite an attempt to renew yourself with another name, your arguments remain as hollow and superficial as ever.

Have another look at your position.

>>...numerous cited documented examples of threat, violence, intimidation and murder<<

Well, yes.

But they do not differ in any material way from the threats of terrorists down the ages. You have chosen to elevate this particular category of threat to a level that enables you to feel comfortable in vilifying an entire religion.

That is your choice. It is also the choice of your current hero, Geert Wilders, to exaggerate the threat to a level where he professes to need six bodyguards.

Six!

How does that work, Boaz? Two in front, with pistols drawn? One each side, with dark glasses and lapel microphones? Two behind, walking backwards, watching the shadows.

Interestingly, it is also throwing down a challenge - come and get me! - that no-one has taken up. Look at some of the political assassinations of the past, and tell me that six bodyguards actually make a difference.

Come on! It's theatre, pure and simple.

A particularly nasty piece of whack-a-mozzie theatre it is too. Reminding people constantly of the "danger" he is in, and by definition everyone around him.

Not forgetting those moderate Muslims. They're just as much at risk, aren't they?

We know, because Geert tells us so.

Pericles

I am probably older than you. I am even old enough to remember the Mau Mau!

Your post shows a lack of understanding of terrorist groups. Let's take the IRA as an example.

At any one time the IRA had few men under arms. But they were far from a fringe group. They had a global network of supporters among the Irish diaspora who supplied finance and, occasionally, logistic support. They also had until recently a relatively safe haven in Republic of Ireland.

What ultimately brought the IRA to the negotiating table was generation change. A new generation of the Irish diaspora were less enthusiastic in their support. Even within the Republic there was a sense that they were an anachronism. This enabled governments, especially in the Irish Republic and in the US, to crack down on their support base.

It is interesting to compare the IRA with the Chechen rebels. The Chechen rebels are what the IRA might have become had there been a global Catholic terror network they could have utilised for support.

The IRA had limited aims. Had the Brits given Ulster to the Republic their attacks would have ceased. The IRA never attacked third parties. They never killed people who wrote books they did not like.

The goal of Muslim terrorists – especially in Europe – seems to be nothing less than the remaking of European society. The actual terrorists may to be few in number but, like the IRA, they could not function without a network of sympathisers and their financial support.

Pericles, stop being naïve about this. PERSISTENT terrorist groups cannot function without a support base. They are thus NOT a fringe.

Given the documented cases of murderous attacks on those whom Muslims dislike your insistence that Wilders' bodyguards are "for show" is strange.

You, CJ Morgan and Steel seem to be like Polykarp whom you despise. You have your views and you are not going to let the facts get in the way

What sort of facts have you provided that have gotten in the way of my statements so far?

stevenlmeyer/smeyer: << You, CJ Morgan and Steel seem to be like Polykarp whom you despise. You have your views and you are not going to let the facts get in the way >>

Er, no Steven. It's you, Boazycrap and a couple of others at OLO who confabulate imminent danger for the rest of us at the hands of your imaginary foes. The current issue seems to be entirely manufactured:

* Random House gives $100K advance to first time author for a romantic novel loosely based around Mohammed and Aisha, well known objects of salacious fascination for Western pulp fiction market (not)

* Publisher's editor, at galley proof stage, suggests that said pulp fiction might attract violent response from evil Muslims whom the novel is designed to offend

* Random House announces that it has institutionalised Islamophobia by pulping the first run of the novel, due to imagined threats that only just occurred to it at the point of publication, supposedly post-printing.

Frankly, I think the whole thing's bullsh!t, and our resident Islamophobes have taken it and run with it, as is their wont.

At least it's funny to watch, in a schadenfreude way :)

It is an almost perfect analogy, stevenlmeyer.

>>Let's take the IRA as an example<<

First, simply substitute "Islamic terrorists" for "the IRA", and "rogue Islamic states" for "the Irish diaspora" in your paragraph, and see what happens.

"At any one time Islamic terrorists had few men under arms. But they were far from a fringe group. They had a global network of supporters among rogue Islamic states who supplied finance and, occasionally, logistic support.

See what I mean?

These are ordinary, run-of-the-mill terrorists. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>What ultimately brought the IRA to the negotiating table was generation change<<

The same will happen to Islamic terrorists. In the same way that the blinkered Bostonian finally stopped giving money and “moral” support to the IRA, the politics of the rogue states will shift away from lending their name to murder.

The parallels don't stop there.

>>Had the Brits given Ulster to the Republic their attacks would have ceased.<<

The IRA knew this would not happen. Not because of “the Brits”, but because the six counties consistently voted themselves to be part of the UK.

Similarly, Islamic terrorists know that there is nothing that they can be “given”.

>>The IRA never attacked third parties.<<

Oh, please.

Kings Cross and Euston station? Birmingham pubs? Christmas shopping at Harrods?

>>They never killed people who wrote books they did not like<<

You'd need to be able to read first.

But does the name Airey Neave mean anything to you?

>>stop being naïve about this. PERSISTENT terrorist groups cannot function without a support base. They are thus NOT a fringe.<<

I have no idea where you got the idea that I consider Islamic terrorism “fringe”, stevenlmeyer. It is certainly not a word I have ever used.

They are, however, “merely” terrorists. Having lived through the IRA atrocities, and being aware that these people care nothing for human life, yes, they are a concern.

But to turn them into bogeymen that lurk under every Christian bed is, frankly, to hand them a victory that they haven't earned, and certainly don't deserve.

Looks like "The Jewel of Medina" is to be published after all.

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSN0330476620080903

My guess is that the reaction from Muslims will be approximately zero. However the publicity resulting from Random House's cowardice will probably multiply sales. This could prove a windfall for author Sherry Jones.

I read the dreadful "Satanic Verses" after Khomeini's death sentence on Rushdie. I think I shall give this one a miss.

Question:

Random House is a subsidiary of a German company, Bertelsmann AG. Was it the German head office that pressured the American subsidiary into ditching "The Jewel of Medina?" European companies tend to display more fear of Islam than American ones.

Thanks for the update, Steven. Like some of us said, your fears appear to have been somewhat exaggerated.

However, the question with which you ended your update seems just a bit tenuous. Do you know the saying about flogging a dead horse?

Thanks for having the integrity to own up to an overreaction in setting up the thread in the first place, stevenlmeyer.

But marks deducted, I'm afraid, for the somewhat churlish addendum.

>>Random House is a subsidiary of a German company, Bertelsmann AG. Was it the German head office that pressured the American subsidiary into ditching "The Jewel of Medina?" European companies tend to display more fear of Islam than American ones.<<

Possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely.

In my experience, American subsidiaries take not a blind bit of notice of their European head office, and take instead great delight in contradicting, upstaging and generally annoying the cr4p out of them at every opportunity.