Whatevz. You keep creating and knocking down false strawmen of your own making. Hopefully one day you'll wake up to the fact you are defending totalitarian tyrrany - since no one was worried about your nice cultural Muslim friends the defence of Islamists is the only result of your apologistics.

Man, you're the loon. No matter how one tries to explain oneself you will stick with your initial deluded and inaccurate position.

Don't be an idiot. There is nothing wrong with *respectfully* calling someone of African descent a "black" if they do it themselves. Why deny reality - and all races certainly refer to other races with such terms. Do you feel that statements are only racist when Europeans make them? then who is the racist? who sees the World through racist lenses? you do, because you are racist although you think you are not. What actually matters is the intent - whether you are intending to insult or not. Only a racist would think that it is ok for them to say things but others may not (you are presuming I'm a white). Only a fool denies the reality that some people are pale and some not so.

Rubbish. This is much closer to "Hate National Socialism, love the Germans". Islam is an ideology, very much akin to National Socialism in many ways. The statement you made shows you are a cultural relativist that lacks discernment. The "sin" of Islam is not "coveting your neighbor" or even the commandments to commit taqiyya. It is the shooting of little girls that want education - because *mainstream* Islamists follow Mohammeds words about women being "easily confused" and don't agree with female education - sure not every Muslim feels this way (especially not 'cultural Muslims' that are not even considered Muslims by the Islamists or Qur'an; they are apostates) but when hundreds of millions do then one cannot deny the cause as being Islamic doctrine). The "sins" of Islam include commandments for every able bodied man to make war on unbelievers, permit rape and oppression of women (due to the laws about witnesses to rape), permit killing of virgins for adultery, permit disgusting child marriages (because Mohammed did this), prevent adoption (because Mohammed forced his adopted son's wife to marry him), promote inequality (where non-Muslims are second class citizens to be humiliated as they pay jizya), deny science (after Al Ghazali there is no science, and no point studying science, everything is only subject to Allah's will), then there is the commandment and subsequent and continuing campaign for 1400 years to subdue the entire World to make it submit to Islam, then there is the polygamy and maltreatment of women, then there is the utter hypocrisy about homosexuals (where they condemn them in public but in private the Muslim men with no access to women take their sexual urges out on each other, and children). Only an immoral person would defend this. Unfortunately cultural relativism strips one of reason, discernment and morality. It is very sad that people defend the evil ideology of Islam, people like you.

Once again I will say it. I have no problem with 'cultural' Muslims. The proponents of liberty only have a problem with Islamists and the evil ideology of Islam. Your friends are not the problem, Islam is. So stop being a muppet and defending the indefensible - no one wants to hurt your friends. We only want to defend liberty in the West that is being eroded by the Islamists (eg. UN HRC Resolution 16/18) and their amoral cultural relativist defenders, like yourself.

It is not amoral to discriminate against evil ideologies (in fact it is very moral). So get a clue, eh?

Shows how much you don't know. I have Shia Muslim friends. You see, you lack understanding again and misattribute a caricature of some right wing guy to me. Both false. I have zero problem with Muslims (and hate no-one, so stop making shit up). I have a problem with an evil ideology called Islam (whose main victims are, in fact, Muslims). Most Muslims are cool precisely because they are not pious and do not follow the dictates of Islam. I hope you can comprehend that. The Muslims that are devout and strictly follow Islam are the ones to be concerned about. They believe they are on a mission from Allah and can do as they wish to anyone. National borders, sovereignty, Western laws, natural justice mean nothing to these guys. One is right to be concerned with the rise of such 'Islamists' and warn others about them (since most people, including you apparently, are ignorant of the difference between Muslims and Islamists, and that ideology of Islam is the root of much of the strife in the World today). Does that help you get it now? Or do you still want to project your incorrect mental model onto me and the World?

You really are a muppet that is completely ignorant of what is going on in the World. Then, despite your ignorance, you insult those that do know more than you. Here is General William G Boykin who has a strong supposition that Ambassador Stevens was running guns through Benghazi. Here's an interview with Boykins:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33698.htm
Note that Boykins was *commander* of U.S. Special Forces Command, the deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and a CIA staffer. The interview was conducted by a reputable agency, CNS News.

You apoplectic rage was misplaced. Admit it, you have a poor grasp on what is going on. You have the temerity to throw insults at me when you don't even know the facts. I would be ashamed if I was you. Sometimes people know more about a subject than you do. So I would suggest chillin' and opening your mind to what people are trying to tell you. Also, a trivial search on Google will reveal a wealth of facts (including the video link I've posted). Isn't it better to do you research rather than making an (incorrect) assumption as you did.

It is always ok to be wrong. It is arrogance to ignore facts presented to you just because they don't fit with your (incorrect) current worldview. If you open your closed mind and use the Scientific Method you would greatly profit from the diverse points of view on Slashdot.

Stop assuming you already know everything.
Do. your. research.

You really have no rebuttal do you. You have no proof, dismiss factual data and cannot rationally counter the points I made and data I linked. So you come up with the dhimmi-esque statements. You are the dhimmi but are too ignorant to see this. If you have verifiable counter points I'm all ears - but you don't, you lack any sophistry so resort to idiotic pop-psychology arguments. There is no point debating you - you simply won't consider facts presented to you - and instead come up with a bullshit deflection that projects your own jeans-creaming fantasy. Lame.

That is completely false. Most of the opponents of the *ideology* of Islam are not racist in any way. The are proponents of liberty for all men. The problem is that Islamists slander these liberty defenders as racist (which is completely counter-factual), the mainstream media repeat this slander, and unfortunately moral people (which probably includes yourself) believe the slander rather than independently checking what the counter-jihadis have to say. Counter-jihadis like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are routinely slandered as racist yet nothing could be further than the truth. They repeatedly say they have no problem with Muslims, they do have a problem with the evil ideology called Islam. If only people like yourself would listen to what the jihadis were saying (that the Qur'an is the motivation for their terrorism), what the counter-jihadis were saying (liberty for all, and Islam is diametrically opposed to Enlightenment/secular humanist values).

False again. Political correctness requires you be "nice" and "not offend anyone". You cannot speak *Truth* in case some hyper-sensitive Islamist gets offended by such truth (note: Islamic Law defines slander as something a Muslim does not want to hear - even if completely true). Political correctness is all about not speaking the plain truth, and there is no right to offend. In this way Political Correctness is the antithesis of Free Speech. One cannot support Political Correctness and Free Speech - they are in opposition. I choose to support liberty for all men and Free Speech, Equality for Women, Freedom of conscience, Equality of all races, Homosexual rights, animal rights, protection of minors, etc. That's why I try and make a case against Islam, Political Correctness, and the swathes of the Political Left and Right that support these and oppose Liberty. So don't call us proponents of liberty racists, it just shows you don't understand what we are talking about and what we fighting against. :)

The way you use that word shows you don't really understand it at all.

Could you? you really think that? what a load of bullshit. Plus, there is a fundamental difference. Islam specifically comments all able bodied men to wage jihad on unbelievers. Of course, since you have read the Qur'an you will realise verses like Sura 9:5 abrogate all the peaceful verses and command this. This is *mainstream* Muslim doctrine. Perhaps you haven't ever read the Qur'an and hadiths and don't realise just how evil they are. Rather than acknowledge you are ignorant about the subject you spew insults that opponents of the *ideology* of Islam are 'loons'. Rather than be a dick perhaps you should actually read the Qur'an for yourself. No sane non-dhimmi would ever defend it. Either you are complicit or you are an idiot to defend the indefensible evil. You then proceed to dismiss facts (eg. the massive attack statistics where the jihadis say they are motivated by Qur'anic teachings, but your apply your racist judgement and give them a pass instead of accepting the reasons they *say themselves*) . How about you get a clue and stop excusing evil. You are being a dhimmi and it is undignified and shameful. Stand up for liberty of all people - oppose the evil ideology that is Islam (instead of making excuses for it). Oh yeah, and please do some objective research.

I understand your point of view but it is two decades out of date. The Left is not for individual liberties or Free Speech. Look at how the Left demonize anyone with any dissenting view. Example: If you believe in global warming (undeniable) but are still skeptical/researching its cause (whether the most significant cause is anthropomorphic or not) then you will shot down in flames. If you criticize Islam (an ideology) you are shot down as a racist (its a non-sequiteur, that that doesn't matter to the Left). Yes, the Right are bad, as you say. I agree. It turns out that the Libertarians are the ones promoting individual liberties. Yes, they are not perfect, and their economic programme may be too lassiez faire - but it is all moot if the Left and Right don't act to stop the creeping Sharia and its enabler, Political Correctness, that is eroding Free Society.

Actually (and surprisingly) no. The only true Religion of Peace is Jainism. Here is an excellent (short) video by Sam Harris explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U "Sam Harris: The Problem with Islamic Fundamentalism are the Fundamentals of Islam"

Actually quite the opposite. What I pointed to is a daily list of fatal attacks. These are *facts*. It must be nice for you to live in a cocoon where you don't to examine *facts* and statistics and instead throw around perjoratives like 'loon' with no basis in fact. You sir, are the enemy for Freedom. Look at the facts/statistics goddamit !

More Leftists bollocks. Remember, the BBC has fallen greatly and is no longer an impartial source. How about you cross-check multiple independent sources as a proper researched would do. Then you would encounter survey results like these:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Shari'ah)
Well, they already have that with 87 Sharia courts already operating in the UK. It is quite possible that these courts will be extended to non-Muslims in the future when they have disputes with Muslims. This has already happened in numerous states in the US, where the Constitution has already given way to Sharia in several court cases. Google is your friend if you want to find the truth.

So stop being lazy and use the Scientific Method - cross-check the *facts*.

Your counter facts, please. Otherwise you could look at some of the references I supplied and get a clue at what I was trying to say :) That link, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks ought to clue you in to the reality of Islam a fair bit. The Obama Administration is deluded by the Leftist "narrative" of cultural equivalence and that "moderate" Islamists can be supported and "extremists" sidelined.

The *facts* are that the mainstream of Islam approves and supports jihad and global Sharia (Google for the surveys). Negotiation and appeasement won't work. This is a fight to the death between the supporters of Enlightenment values and the Islamists.

I suggest you do the research yourself. Look at the agenda of the OIC (Stephen Coughlin's videos on YouTube are simply the best explanation). Read the Qur'an and hadiths - they would be condemned as an ideology of utter hate speech if they weren't cloaked in a fig leaf of plagiarized superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Check the *facts* rather than just going by what you think you know. That's all I ask.

What facts do you have to oppose this? What is known about Benghazi is that Ambassador Stevens was closely working with groups against (monstrous) Gaddafi who had given up his WMD programme, was still a brute, but was fighting Al Qaeda in the Maghreb. The US organized for weapons to go to the rebels in Libya. Note that Benghazi as a city has supplied Al Qaeda with more homicide bombers than any other city in the World. The Benghazi embassy was organizing to ship ex-Libyan weapons to the Syrian Sunni rebels through Turkey. The attack on the embassy was watched by US drones in real time and the President and Secretary of State did nothing. What they did do is deflect their undercover activities with a bogus story about the Innocence of Muslims video (and even though factual and under the First Amendment rights of the producer they worked to suppress it). The Obama Administration is petrified that the truth about Benghazi gun running comes out. They believe they can arm Muslim "moderates" but the thing is Muslims may be moderate but the ideology of Islam is never moderate (so said Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister).

So, your facts and references please. Yes, it sounds incredible that a US Administration would do this - but that is what they did. Unfortunately some Al Qaeda militias went and ruined their plan. The Obama Administration's foreign policy is coming apart at the seams (although the complicit mainstream media tries to deflect it as much as they can). The reason it is coming apart is because reality is catching up with them. Obama thought the US was bad and the cause of the troubles of the Middle East and by promoting "moderates" he could suppress the dangerous Salafis. This was completely delusional - but the Left has always acted on ideology and theory rather than look at actual reality and facts.

There is a great deal more to tell. I won't bother starting with it unless you are actually interested and have an open mind (in which case I'd be happy to point you in the correct direction). Some people do have an open mind and can see the *facts* I'm trying to relay - that's why they kindly gave me +5.

So, your counter evidence, pretty please :)

You give the solution in the post. The Free World needs to enact laws that essentially state the following:

• All citizens are subject to the same laws (no exceptions!), and
• Citizens are only subject to national laws (no foreign laws).

These conditions prohibit the application of Sharia in the West. This is the most substantial part of what needs to be done. The last thing to do is to enforce the existing local laws. That means you don't let Muslim rapists off "because they didn't know" (as happened very recently in Britain), or let Muslims terrorize the media and populace when those people exercise Free Speech rights that are critical of Islam (just as they are free to be critical of every ideology and religion).

The Soviet Union did spread its ideology to the West (eg. funded many Leftist groups, particularly in academia). While the Soviet Union did collapse much of its points of view are now very fashionable amongst the political elites and academic institutions. The Left is all about equality. That sounds good in theory but in practice it is totally against individual initiative, entrepreneurship, individualism and unorthodox thinking. Equality trumps everything else. The left believe that "discrimination" in any form is a problem - but discrimination is required for discernment. Without discernment everything is equivalent, there is no good and evil, everything is relative. There is no superiority of the Free World over barbaric and inhumane practices because cultural relativity says they are equivalent. Hence, there is no reason to oppose evil in the World because one man's evil is another man's good. This is complete bullshit and is this is why strong and aggressive Islamists (eg barbarians) are able to agitate and bend the West to their will. The Leftist agenda lacks the moral clarity to analyze and oppose the Islamist agenda. In fact, the Left is so determined not to pass discernment/discrimination that they actively aid and abet the Islamists. The Left choose to ignore what the Islamists have been saying for 1400 years - that the Islamist goal is not mutual tolerance but the goal of Islam is to dominate the entire World, sooner or later.

Even worse than the lack of discernment by the Left is their rapid suppression of any dissenting views. They also are completely for conformity to their views and shut down any opposing views, even it factual, through personal attacks (eg. slandering Geert Wilders and the EDL as if they were decendants of Nazis and the KKK, when their agenda is defending individual liberties exactly as the original Left did). The new Left supports the collective over individual rights. The funniest thing is that the new Left basically have the same goals and tactics as the old political Right. It is the new Right (eg. libertarians) who believe in dissenting views, morality over equality and individual rights and the new Left opposes it. Black has become white and white has become black in our crazy world. We also get what used to be the bastion of liberty (the US) no longer promoting liberty but installing and defending opponents of liberty (Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood). The political Left are also much more ideologues (who ignore facts and realpolitik) than the libertarians.

So, with regard to the Islamists the actions of the political Left can be described best by a quote from Winston Churchill
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Appeasement is the policy of the Leftist political elite in the West and of the academics supporting them (and the academic and educational institutions that are inculcating our young with a Left-friendly and Islamist-friendly politically correct agenda). The whole culture of the West is being steeped in appeasement rather than standing up for liberty of all people. The political Left has been sewing the seeds of Western demise for decades. The Left means well but whatever it touches it ruins (well-meaning to support people but introducing massive state dependence instead of individual initiative, and promoting the Big State as the solution to all problems).

Not true. Oil is part of the Leftist "narrative" and popular in belief but the real reason is that the Middle East always exports its troubles to other countries. The reason for that is the dictates of Islam - but most in the West didn't understand Islam well enough to know that until recently, all they saw was terrorism (actually jihad) affecting the West.

The cowardice of the political Left has caused many thinkers to leave it. For example may ex-lefties like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell are sickened by the immorality of the Left's "cultural relativism" and cowardice in the face of those who would strip us of our Enlightenment liberties. Just because you oppose the Left doesn't make you on the Right either. Libertarianism is probably closer to those that champion individual liberty without becoming slightly oppressive like the Christian Right (eg. anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-contraception etc). However, the Leftist-Islamist "Red-Green" Alliance intends to be Big State totalitarian and is far far worse than the mistaken Christian Rightists. That's why it is moral to oppose the Left and stand up for liberty values.

Alternative media talks about the totalitarian evil of Sharia. Mainstream media *almost never* talks about Sharia - even when Islamist crimes against humanity happen every.single.day. Unfortunately most of the victims of Islam are Muslims, but the left-leaning mainstream media is careful never to criticize (and thereby implicitly enabling the evil to continue). Watch the news, the media usually take great pains to demonize Israel and soften the message from the Islamists (and never, ever link the common cause of the Islamists acting with the same intended goal from Algeria to Indonesia). Here are some *facts* for you to digest:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Especially "The List of Fatal Islamic attacks' (a staggering 20369 attacks from 9/11): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

If you believe in individual liberties, Free Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Women's Rights, Homosexual Rights etc then you cannot support either Left, Right and absolutely not Islam. The only people who promote and *defend* these rights are the libertarians. I reluctantly came to this conclusion after much research.

Exactly! Alan Dershowitz made the same statement with regard to Hamas. If anyone is under the illusion that the Islamist agenda and secular democracy are compatible you know have two case studies for this point of view. When the "torch is passed" from wimpy suicidal democracies to Islam each man will get one vote, one time.

Does any Free Man want this? hell no! and we shouldn't accept it for our fellow global citizens in other countries. Support anyone who believes in an supports *individual liberties* and opposes the tyranny that inevitably arises from the non-individualist *collective*.

If you are in the US that means take a look at the facts of the Obama Administration. Do they support individual liberty? (no) are they supporting the (evil Islamist) Muslim Brotherhood? (yes). That Administration believes it knows better than its citizens what is good for them. It promotes the (heartless) collective at the expense of the individual. Don't believe me? Then please look at the track record of decisions. Obama certainly has pizzazz and glamor, but his policies are against the Constitutional Rights of US citizens. Yes, Obama is not alone in this, both Democrats and Republicans want Big Government at the expense of civil liberties (although the citizens are heavily taxed to pay for the Big Government and its entitlement promises). Again, support anyone who is for individual liberties - that is the only way you will revive your Republic (which has largely been scuppered, if you look at the evidence; just think of the things you cannot say in public anymore; or what border agents can do to you; or how Obama's NDAA can kill US citizens on US soil without any judicial oversight whatsoever). ps. I'm not a Republican nor a US citizen. I just see that at the time the World needed strong US leadership to promote liberty and freedom around the globe there is instead a neo-Marxist ideologue that is aiding and abetting inviting the enemies of the Free World (eg. the Muslim Brotherhood) into decision making in the White House. Unbelievable! What would be great is a strong leader in the US that would stand up and promote liberty and freedom for all global citizens around the World. Sadly, Obama is not that man. The "change" he promised appears to be a Big State that progressively strips the liberties of US citizens, and stands idly by while oppressed masses yearning for true democracy in Iran and Egypt call for at least a few words of encouragement from a US President.

Ah, a clueless apologist - we knew you'd drop by.

If by "Egypt" you mean the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist dominated government has every right to deny what 80 million Egyptians see then you'd be right.

If by "Egypt" you mean that the 80 million people ought to have a right to make their own minds up as to what is good and what is bad, they you most decidedly are *wrong*.

No one is arguing about Egypt's sovereign right to do this. The problem being discussed is that a small group of people are dictating what a great mass of people can and can't see. Egyptian society is going backwards and the liberties of its people are being eroded. Egypt is not headed for Enlightened democracy, it is on a path to become a hellhole of the magnitude of Saudi Arabia (or Iran). Nice one Obama! (you fskn clueless ideologue!!!111)

You cannot be for Free Speech and think that a government is doing good by censoring *all of YouTube*. So please don't be clueless. Those in the Free World are doing good by making noise about the freedoms denied to our fellow citizens. It's not because we see ourselves as superior (although our culture is superior to Islamism) but because we want the Egyptians to experience the same freedoms we have. Our lives and governments are not perfect, but they're a damn sight better than where Egypt is now, or where it is headed.

The rights of the 80 million people (well, whatever proportion have YouTube access, which is still more than most non-Egyptians think) are more important than the theocratic ideology of the Egyptian Government. No Free Man should support the blanket censorship of YouTube by a Government unless it is actually hate speech (which this video certainly wasn't; it was merely *true facts* that exposed the tyrannical warlord Mohammed for the monster he was).

So stop giving your consent to evil! Free Men must research and oppose the evil ideology called Islam.