Friday, September 21, 2012

Salman Rushdie to Islamofascists: 'Hey, why don't you concentrate on that other guy...'



Sniveling weasel:

Salman Rushdie: "Actually, no, I don’t sympathize with the Mohammed filmmaker who’s now being threatened"

Rushdie green-lights the fatwa on filmmaker Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, who made the recent "Innocence of Muslims" video. As you may know, Rushdie is a leftie, so his pretense of supporting freedom of speech stops pretty much at his own skin. The sun rises, water is wet, and lefties don't really give a shit about other people's freedom.

The video-delicti obviously had nothing to do with the violence in the Arab Spring New Caliphate. The 9-11-12 murder of our ambassador and the three other Americans was a carefully planned assassination, not a spontaneous sally of indignantly righteous film critics.

The purpose of the Islamofascists in connecting the obviously premeditated terrorist attacks on our embassies with a cheesey sub-Borat video is merely to coax us a bit further toward dhimmitude. They kill our folks, and we respond by violating the constitutional rights of our folks. A jihad two-fer.

The video is quite amateurish, but it portrays the Prophet Profit as an avaricious deluded homicidal pedophile, so it has the virtue of accuracy.

Note to Rushdie: the issue is free speech, which is a fundamental human right, endowed by our Creator. I know that you, as an atheist, don't believe in our Creator, but you live under the remarkably free and tolerant Christian civilization that was built by people who do believe in our Creator. Succinctly: our Christian civilization is the only thing between you and a Religion of Peace™C4 suppository. Your low opinion of the Mohammed video, or the opinion of a Kaba-full of hypertensive Islamic jackals, or the opinion of a White-House-full of Obama Administration dhimmi, does nothing to mitigate the absolute fundamental right of the man who made the video to make the video.

It's the same absolute fundamental right-- exactly the same right-- that you had to write The Satanic Verses.

Another note to Rushdie: a Iranian religious foundation from the Religion of Peacejust upped the reward for murdering you to $3.3 million, from $2.8 million.

Groveling doesn't work, pal. Join the resistance.

12 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Well, why should Salman Rushdie support the makers of a deliberately inflammatory film, with which he had nothing to do?

    You should be relieved that virtually no one reads your blog, particularly not Muslims, otherwise you might be the target of a fatwa. Richard Dawkins has stated that he goes out of his way not to upset Muslims, because many of them are batshit crazy.

    A completely understandable policy as far as I'm concerned.

    Tell me; how many conservative politicians and church leaders in America have come out supporting the makers of this film? Including your beloved Catholic Church.

    The trouble is that actions such as the making and publicizing of material such as this film cost human lives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...avaricious deluded homicidal pedophile, so it has the virtue of accuracy."

    See, I think that's kind of the problem. When we talk that way, there's no room for coexistence.

    Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think we should be compelled by law to shut up about such things. That would be a violation of our rights. I do, however, think that civilized people should keep it civil.

    People have a right to say what they want in this country. Or at least they did until "anti-bullying" laws. People have a right to say things that are racist, but they're still racist. People have a right to say things that are sexist, but they're still sexist. People have a right to say things that are Christophobic, but they're still Christophobic.

    I've known a few Muslims in my life. I can think of four who were pleasant people, not crazy, and not hot for jihad.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a hard time arguing with the description, TRISH. It sounds mean, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. @Trish:

      [See, I think that's kind of the problem. When we talk that way, there's no room for coexistence.]

      If coexistence were a real option, I'd be all for it. While it is certainly true that most Muslims (in the US) are peaceful decent folks who coexist reasonably well, that is not true at all of the Islamofascists in Iran, Egypt, Palestine, etc.

      There is a story about a British viceroy in India who outlawed the Hindu custom of throwing widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. The local Hindus complained about the law, saying that sacrificing the widow was a tradition that went back a thousand years. The viceroy said he understood. He noted that the British had a custom also that went back a thousand years-- they hang people who kill widows.

      I am fine with coexistence with Islam-- on our terms. Freedom of speech and a raucous public debate without violence are some of our terms.

      [Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think we should be compelled by law to shut up about such things. That would be a violation of our rights. I do, however, think that civilized people should keep it civil.]

      I agree, but "civil" is a relative term. If I call Pol Pot a mass-murderer, I'm not really being uncivil. It's just true. What I said about Mohammed is simply true. That's not uncivil. Threatening to kill people-- or actually killing people-- because you don't like their cartoon or video is uncivil.

      [People have a right to say what they want in this country. Or at least they did until "anti-bullying" laws. People have a right to say things that are racist, but they're still racist. People have a right to say things that are sexist, but they're still sexist. People have a right to say things that are Christophobic, but they're still Christophobic.]

      Your implication is that I'm Islamophobic. Hardly. It's a silly term, and telling the truth about Islam and the "prophet" isn't "phobic" in the least.

      Fearing to tell the truth is a bit phobic, however.

      [I've known a few Muslims in my life. I can think of four who were pleasant people, not crazy, and not hot for jihad. ]

      I know many Muslims, as colleagues and patients, and they are some of my nicest acquaintances. I know a few Scientologists also, and they're nice people.

      That doesn't mean I'm not going to tell the truth about Scientology and Islam.

      We must be very careful not to censor ourselves out of fear of what fascists will do. When we do that, the bad guys win, and over time, we lose our freedom.

      Delete
  3. So Rushdie doesn't sympathize with the filmmaker. In Egnor's depraved mind that translates into green-lighting the fatwa on the filmmaker. You're a sick fuck, Egnor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I watched the little clip with Rushdie on Today.

    He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, he does say that defending free speech sometimes means defending things that are disgusting. I agree. On the other hand, he says he doesn't feel sorry at all for the film maker because he set out to offend with his tawdry little film, as opposed to Rushdie's "serious novel." It's kind of an irrelevant point.

    So Troy, when you say that Egnor believes that not sympathizing with the film maker translates into green-lighting the fatwa...that's kind of true. People want to kill this man and Rushdie doesn't care. He made a tawdry little film, so...he's got it coming? What other conclusion can I draw?

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hope we all agree that the making and promotion ‘The Innocence of Mohammad’ was a bonehead move that animates our enemies and needlessly puts western and Christian lives at risk.

    What did its makers hope to accomplish? I can’t imagine that they thought any good would come from it. They had to have known that there was a good chance that events would unfold something like they have. They have done more to add to the enmity of Muslims than any number of bin-Laden videos, and should be held accountable in the court of public opinion for their stupid stupid move.

    I’m not suggesting we bow to Islam or give up on free speech, but we as individuals have to be smart about how we proceed. The chorus of voices coming from Christian America that supports this video is also heard around the world. Smarten up and shut up; we need to deal with the angry dogs of Islam, but poking them in the eye with a stick won’t help.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The video is quite amateurish, but it portrays the Prophet Profit as an avaricious deluded homicidal pedophile, so it has the virtue of accuracy."

    It portrays The Madman as Moslems themselves have for 1400 years been proudly saying he is/was. It's simply the dramatization of some vignettes from his “official biography” that Moslems themselves put together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit lies islamophobe.

      Please explain the scene with two women chasing Mohamed around the bedroom hitting him with shoes.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. @KW:

      "islamaphobe"?

      Actually you seem a lot more "phobic' about islam than Ilion or I.

      You're afraid to tell the truth.

      Delete
    3. Religious fanatics and fundamentalists of all stripes are the problem. Be it Piss Christ or The Innocence of Mohamed, they lash out like emotional little bullies when their feelings are hurt.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Notice that KW -- who, being a leftist, is inherently dishonest -- demands that I must "explain" the one scene, out of 19 scenes, which is not contained in Moslem writing about ol' crazy Mo.

      I take this to mean that KW *knows* that the other 18 scenes *are* accurate depictions of what the Moslems themselves have been saying for 14000 years about craze ol' murdering Mo.

      And he dares to call me a liar! It's to laugh, isn't it?

      Delete