This is Arthur's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Arthur's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Thanks to Max Kuenkel for the link. My rough estimate of 200 million seems pretty close. I think there might be some stretching going on by the author of the piece at
I fully agree with all the points made by Egghead, except one. I think that signs in words with facts are better than signs with pictures. For every picture we can produce of Islamic atrocities, they can produce another one or more of dead Muslim civilians, maimed babies, etc. It just gets to be a competition as to who can get more emotions riled up. The Muslims simply have no way to prevail if the comparison is between their documents and their history and those of other cultures. Muslims know it, and that is why they are trying to shut everybody up. That is the main reason why everybody should express themselves about the facts at every possible opportunity. Also, I want to ask Egghead about the source of the estimate of 270 million killed by Muslims. Is there some scholar who has done some research on this? My personal "off the cuff" estimate was over 200 million killed by Muslims, but it looks like others are more precise. Do you have a link with some info on this question?
In the final days of August, I had posted a number of comments on suggesting that people who oppose the Ground Zero mosque might bring large banners to the rally on September 11 stating some of the important facts about Islam. I provided many arguments in support of my suggestions. In response, Mr. Spencer posted a note on September 1 entitled "Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero." In that posting, Mr. Spencer had initially said that signs would be confiscated, but that part of his posting has now apparently been removed. There were a large number of comments (over 130) in response to Mr. Spencer's posting. I requested that Mr. Spencer respond to some of the points I had made. Mr. Spencer did post a very short response early in the morning of September 2, which stated "It is a solemn day. It is not a day for inflammatory rhetoric." Although I agree with Mr. Spencer that it will be a solemn day, I do not find that fact to be a sufficient justification to allow only a few people to express themselves. Many people who attend the rally will conform with the others in deference to Mr. Spencer's wishes. He deserves a great deal of credit for organizing the event. But some of the people reading these comments may have their own ideas. They may feel that their voices should be heard as well, and not just the voices of those who have the microphone. The great thing about living in America is that it provides opportunities for all voices to be heard who wish to speak. THE REMAINDER OF THESE COMMENTS ARE FOR THOSE READERS WHO FEEL AN URGE TO SPEAK AND WHO WANT THEIR VOICES TO BE HEARD ALSO. I THINK THAT THE BEST WAY TO HONOR THE 3000 PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED THAT DAY IS TO PUBLICLY IDENTIFY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHO THEIR REAL KILLER WAS. See if you agree with me on this. I say the 19 hijackers were merely hired hit men. I SAY THAT THE REAL KILLER WAS THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. That prophet made an offer of eternal paradise, limitless pleasure, and glory to people who would kill the unbelievers for the sake of Allah. His offer has been in place for 14 centuries. The hijackers merely accepted his offer. It was a contract killing on a massive scale, and not really much more. (I think that the hijackers have found out that they got cheated in that contract.) If this point of view makes sense to you, or if you have other thoughts you want to express, I am offering the following suggestions for your consideration as to how to make your speech the most effective. BENEFITS OF SIGNS AND BANNERS If a lot of people appear at the rally, wave flags, and express sympathy for the victims, that will merely demonstrate that the organizers are able to assemble some sizable gathering. The number of people who actually appear will depend upon the weather, how many have been notified, and how easy it is for them to attend. After it is over, they will be labeled as flag-waving right wingers (particularly if they applaud Mr. Wilders) who are trying to capitalize upon the natural sympathy evoked by the victims of the terrorist attacks. There will be minor arguments about the estimate of how many people attended. The media will trot out Muslims who suffered in the same terrorist attacks, as well as families of the victims who are now supporting the Ground Zero mosque as a gesture of forgiveness. Muslims and mosque supporters, if they are determined to do so, will organize a counter-rally at some point which will probably have a larger number of people present. The whole affair will be seen as a competition for sympathy, and the net result will likely be no change in anybody's behavior or decision-making. Since 70% of the population is already against the mosque, if a very large number of people don't show up then the media will conclude that people do not feel strongly on this issue. Moreover, if you were interested in having your voice heard, your voice will be limited to one tiny flag waving in a sea of several thousand. Some people who attend such a rally try to have their voice heard by shouting slogans in a large group. While that approach may make you feel good because you have a lot of people on your side, to the media you will look like someone who is driven more by the emotion of a crowd rather than by knowledge and clear thinking. Also, Mr. Spencer's point would come into play -- namely that shouting slogans might appear to be inappropriate following a solemn ceremony. The slogans would only be heard for a short time, and the people shouting them would develop hoarse voices. There would undoubtedly be counter-demonstrators shouting opposing slogans. People who use signs and banners will have substantial advantages. They will be communicating an idea that the media will not be able to ignore. It will be nearly impossible to distort that idea by selective editing or an inaccurate quotation. The communication will be quiet and will not interfere with the solemnity of the occasion. (You may want to not display your banner during the memorial itslef.) Furthermore, the idea will be communicated for hours as long as the sign or banner is on display. It is possible to make gigantic banners by stitching together bedsheets and painting your message on the banner. The banners can be suspended from windows in nearby buildings, or they may be held up by walking sticks. (You might want to check with the NYPD regarding what types of poles they will not allow, but I doubt they would seize walking sticks. I don't know whether there are any laws or regulations pertaining to suspending banners from buildings.) If the NYPD were to take some action inhibiting your ability to express yourself, which I very much doubt that they would do, you would have a very strong case for violation of your First Amendment rights. In that situation, there would be lots of lawyers willing to represent you for free and you would become a national symbol for free speech. The bigger the banner is, the more likely that cameras will focus on it. Remember that a large number of the media representatives from around the world will probably be covering the event. MAKING AN EFFECTIVE MESSAGE If you decide to use a sign or banner, the first question that comes up is what your message should be. Some people think that strongly worded, emotionally charged messages such as "Mohammed was a pig!" or "Islam is like Naziism!" or "Send the Muslims back home!" are the most effective. But remember that your message is going to a wide audience, most of whom may not know much about Islam, and many of whom may be relatively neutral on the subject. They will have a very hard time understanding what rational basis, if any, you have for your message if it is of this type. You will be seen as an irrational hate monger if you use such a message, and it will actually work against your goal of opposing the mosque. You will be labeled as somebody who suffers from Islamophobia in that situation. Many people who are formulating a message don't think about the difference between facts and conclusions. If your message consists of a conclusion, then you leave the viewer wondering about what the basis of your conclusion is and whether you are biased. You essentially deprive the viewer of the privilege of making up his or her own mind about the situation. You also do not communicate any useful information, other than the fact that you have come to a particular conclusion. Conclusions by themselves, even if they come from very influential people, are not very effective. They only have some influence upon people with a sheep-like mentality who have already decided that they will go along with whatever the influential person is saying. Most politicians speak in conclusions with relatively little facts behind them. A powerful fact, on the other hand, is much more effective. It forces the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion based in part upon the fact that has been expressed. If the viewer refuses to accept the fact, he weakens his own position and appears to be dishonest or closed-minded. The person expressing a powerful fact always gets the upper hand. I have been following the debate about the Ground Zero mosque, and it seems that the people involved have not understood this principle. I have not seen even one article in the mainstream media nor even one public presentation by any person in which the powerful facts relevant to this debate have been expressed. (I admit that I have not seen video of every public presentation given by every person on this issue.) Most of the facts expressed by people opposing the mosque are relatively weak facts, such as the historical architectural style of the building, the impact of the landing gear, the failure of the Imam to condemn a terrorist organization, the questionable background of the fund raiser, etc. The strongest fact mentioned is that various people will feel offended and hurt by the presence of the mosque. The people supporting the mosque cite practically no facts in their favor, only conclusions about tolerance and religious freedom. They also claim that various people will be offended and hurt if the mosque is not built. As far as I am concerned, as soon as I am told that a mosque is being planned so close to Ground Zero, the most powerful facts have to do with the character of the prophet and the holy book that will be glorified in that mosque. The landing gear, the Imam involved, and the fund raising fellow are all practically irrelevant to me. It helps to know that many people will be offended by the construction of the mosque, because that means that many people will ultimately oppose the mosque. If you agree with this thinking, you might want to decide for yourself what you believe to be the most important single fact about Islam that should be known to the public. I have thought hard about this question, and in my opinion the most important fact is that the prophet of Islam beheaded over 600 captive Jews and saw their heads fall into trenches that had been dug for this purpose. (The fact that they were captive means that they posed little threat, and the fact that trenches were dug means that the prophet of Islam may have been one of the first major historical figures to make an industrial activity out of killing people.) I think this historical fact is so important that no person in the world should be considered reasonably well educated if he or she does not know this fact. (I thank Mr. Spencer for making this fact widely accessible in Western countries.) This fact goes a long way to explaining why the 19 hijackers attacked on September 11, and why every person who says that the prophet of Islam is a divine messenger in fact directly or indirectly supports violence against unbelievers. Now I submit that any institution that glorifies such a prophet has no rightful place anywhere near where 3000 people were murdered, and especially if they were murdered in the name of that prophet. What can any reasonable person think in the face of this fact? How can Mr. Bloomberg support a mosque that will necessarily glorify such a prophet? How can Jon Stewart make jokes about people who oppose the mosque if he is forced to confront this fact? Why has this fact never entered the public discussion about the Ground Zero mosque? If you believe that this fact should be known to the public, you can make a large banner that says "THE PROPHET OF ISLAM BEHEADED 600 CAPTIVE JEWS AS THEIR HEADS FELL INTO TRENCHES!" In small print below this fact, you can give the source which is the Sirah Rasul Allah (the biography of the prophet of Islam). Here are some additional facts that you might want to put into banners, along with their sources: Koran 9:5. Allah ordered Muslims to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them. Koran 8:39. Allah ordered Muslims to fight the unbelievers until the religion in the entire world is for Allah alone. Koran 8:12. Allah revealed to the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Koran 9:33. Allah has sent the prophet Mohammed to make Islam superior over all religions even though the disbelievers hate it. There are about 150 other verses in the Koran that support violence against the unbelievers. Sahih Al-Bukhari is universally recognized in the Islamic world as accurately describing the deeds of the prophet of Islam. Here are some of theose deeds: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: The prophet of Islam married Aisha while she was six years old and started having sex with her while she was nine years old. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: The prophet of Islam said, "If someone changes from his Islamic religion, then kill him." Here is another interesting and important fact from June 2007: 2000 highly respected Islamic scholars and clerics of the Pakistani Ulema Council gave their highest honor to Osama Bin Laden. There are many other similar facts to choose from, which you can find on this web site (JihadWatch) or on other web sites such as I hope that in their speeches, either Mr. Spencer or Mr. Wilders will provide a detailed discussion of some of these points, and will refute the arguments offered by supporters of Islam in response to such points. Mr. Wilders is a particularly effective speaker regarding Islam, and I hope that in his speech he gives a slow and graphic description of what the prophet of Islam must have done when he beheaded 600 captive Jews, so the listener has a clear picture in his or her mind of exactly what must have happened. I don't think the television cameras will be able to avoid such banners. If you have a large banner with such a message, there is a fairly good chance that some reporter will want to interview you. So it will be important to make sure you are knowledgeable about the source of the fact in your banner. If you want to have some fun with the media, and you don't mind spending a little extra money, you can carry such a banner with a factual quotation while wearing a burqa. (Make sure that bushy eyebrows and hairy arms are not showing if you are male.) The politically correct spineless mainstream media will be very afraid to criticize the fact that is expressed in your banner, since you will appear to be a devout Muslim. Nobody will be able to accuse you of being an Islamophobe. Meanwhile, members of the general public will get an accurate idea of what Islam truly is. WHY THE RIGHT TIME IS NOW Some people think that September 11 should simply be a solemn day for remembering the victims and for showing patriotism. That is certainly a reasonable point of view. But that point of view is not consistent with having Mr. Wilders speak, since he is known for being forthright about the violence that is practically an essential ingredient in Islam. Moreover, as a general matter I don't think that people with one point of view should try to control people with a different point of view. I think that there is a very short time window for having a public discussion of the facts about Islam, and this rally may be one of the last important opportunities. Here is my reasoning. In Europe, because of political correctness and the large influx of Muslims, it is now practically impossible to have a rational public discussion of the key facts about Islam. Mr. Wilders is on trial for doing nothing more than making an accurate movie about Islam. In the United States, I have found that practically on a daily basis there is some article in the mainstream media about so-called "Islamophobia" and about how Muslims are allegedly being victimized. This includes all major newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, as well as the major networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. They are all taking the position that they must allegedly "educate" the public about tolerance, religious freedom, and the prevention of bigotry. They are refusing to publish any article in which the facts and the points of view of people who oppose the mosque are discussed in a rational fashion. (I have actually tested this with the New York Times for example. To show that they are open-minded, they will publish comments containing opinions and conclusions from people who oppose the mosque. But as soon as a comment contains devastating facts about Islam, they will censor that comment.) I think that the reality is that the mainstream media is suffering from "Factophobia" about Islam, which they refuse to admit. On top of the labels of "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" that are being applied, pressure is mounting from the government and military to not criticize Islam. Their arguments are that criticism of Islam in the United States makes it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members (I doubt that is true), and that it makes it harder for American soldiers to operate in Muslim countries (which is likely true to some extent). The one thing that practically nobody talks about in full detail is the looming nuclear weapon threat from Iran. People are willing to admit that Iran is probably about one year away from developing a nuclear weapon, practically everybody argues against an attack on Iran, but nobody talks about the consequences when Iran has a nuclear weapon. What will happen almost certainly (and will be facilitated by the likely slow disintegration of Iraq as American forces decrease military activity) is that Iran will engage in more provocative and threatening rhetoric against the United States after it has a nuclear weapon. Right now, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated, we can be almost 100% certain that it was the work of rogue officers in the Pakistani military. This reality keeps Pakistani weapons under control. After Iran gets a bomb, and after Iranians begin making threatening comments, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated it will be very difficult to determine quickly whether it was Pakistani or Iranian. (The problem will be much worse if three Islamic countries have the bomb.) The US military will be morally paralyzed because it will not know who to retaliate against. Because of the likely vociferous Iranian threat, and because of the irrational (and practically suicidal) state of mind of many military and government people in the Islamic countries, Americans will be under great pressure from the media and from government officials to avoid criticizing Islam for fear of provoking attack by a smuggled nuclear weapon or a smuggled dirty bomb. Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, if there is not sufficiently effective opposition, the mosque supporters may actually be starting their construction work in one year. By that time, it may be too late to prevent the mosque from being built. All of this means that we may have a window of only about one year in which to have a thorough public discussion about what Islam actually is. And I very much doubt that within the next year it will be possible to organize another large rally regarding the Ground Zero mosque, given that commemoration of September 11 is one of the important factors contributing to this rally. Finally, to my knowledge there has never been a public demonstration recorded on camera in human history in which the basic facts of the incitement to violence in Islamic religious doctrine were on public display in the form of large banners. (Mr. Spencer can correct me if I am wrong.) Those of you who choose to make your voices heard may be doing something that has never been done before. To all such people, I say: Make some history on September 11, 2010.
Arthur is now following The Typepad Team
Jun 4, 2010