December 9, 2007

Repent Islamophobe, Or We Kill You!

When the concept of "multiculturalism" was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant "more pavilions at Folkfest";

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother. In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.


A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death.


Posted by Kate at December 9, 2007 9:54 AM

The Sunday Telegraph has an article to the same effect:

Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity

"Intimidation is very widespread and pretty effective," says Maryam Namazie, a spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She believes that many of the deaths classified as "honour killings" are actually murders of people who have renounced Islam....

Posted by: Charles MacDonald at December 9, 2007 10:00 AM

Ah, yes, the Trudeaupian Cultural Mosaic is looking a little cracked these days, isn't it?

Vaguely sticking to the same general theme of tolerating the intolerable, I'm with those hoping that something positive results from this high-profile Human Rights assault on Macleans and Mark Steyn. The Blogosphere is turning it into a major embarrassment for Canada and earnest people don't like to be ridiculed and exposed as fools, do they?

Steyn himself has referenced David Warren, who says in his most recent column:

My hope is that this case against Mark Steyn and Maclean's will be fruitful. It will be, if it inspires enough people -- especially journalists, of all political persuasions -- to express outrage at what has been done; and inspires Canada's free citizens into the necessary political action to put an end to the human rights commissions themselves. The worst possible result, is if the case fails to produce this response.

Posted by: Drained Brain at December 9, 2007 10:15 AM

Tolerance is for people with no standards of behaviour.

Posted by: DDT at December 9, 2007 10:22 AM

We are called to be tolerant so that we can allow the most intollerant people of the world into our country. What the F is wrong with us?!?

Posted by: a different Bob at December 9, 2007 10:24 AM

But no concealed carry permit for this chickie, of course. Britain is not a -free- country, after all.

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2007 10:31 AM

For anybody who doesn't think that Islam is a political/military ideology, what's the typical military penalty for desertion?

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 9, 2007 10:35 AM


I wish they'd go pick on China.

Posted by: pok at December 9, 2007 10:47 AM

This surprises everyone why? The writing has been/is on the wall......the only good Christian is a dead Christian........time WE stared fighting back isn't it? Where is Richard the Lion Hearted when we really need him?

Posted by: odie441 at December 9, 2007 10:50 AM

Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no conviction, Gilbert Chesterton.

The unprincipled the weak and the lazy accept all views as defines a liberal, it must be a mental disorder. Beware a liberal, they are cheats, lazy and liars, if to no one else, themselves.

Posted by: Western Canadian at December 9, 2007 10:55 AM

I saw that the other day. Here is an interesting talk show debate on the same subject.

Posted by: Unclemeat at December 9, 2007 10:56 AM

A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another religion should be punished by death.

Too bad these polls don't take names and addresses. And, when do we get to vote these repulsive young people, their parents, their imams off of the island?

If this was a nutball religious sect that had 1 out of 3 of them advocating cannabalism no way would they be invited to colonize the west. Even the most morally degenerate lefty would back off of that, but, advocating homicide, hey, being only a poll opinion, it's bascially ignorable in the left's multi-culi paradise. Why in the name of sanity and reason is one more Muslim allowed into Britain? Or any western country for that matter?

36% condoning homicide is an appalling response.

Posted by: penny at December 9, 2007 11:02 AM

The leftist dummies want to get rid of Conseravtism and the white man's world.

By importing millions of muslims into the west, they're doing just that.

They're goal is to make the country as liberal as possible.

That way, eventually there will be no people to boot them out of office.

It's funny how the leftist loons are in bed with a terrorist religion.

I though the left stands for human rights.

I guess not.

Posted by: Fred Bracken at December 9, 2007 11:12 AM

"A study this year found that 36 per cent of British Muslims ..."

I hate these things.

You get the result desired by choosing whom to ask.

I expect that most British Muslims care about little beyond a full stomach and exhausted genitals, much like the majority of their neighbors.

Posted by: pok at December 9, 2007 11:14 AM

" I wish they'd go pick on China "

The Chinese have a fierce sense of national identity, faith in their in culture and respect for the history of their civilization... they'd drop like a sledgehammer on anybody who tried to take them on. The sand fleas know it, which is why China is not picked on.

Posted by: tom at December 9, 2007 11:23 AM

Harper dearly needs a majority govt. then he will start the process to return Canada to a proud country of defenders of freedom not capitulating limp wristed peace keepers. Western countries need to wake up as to how dangerous liberalism really is, the dullard pearson recieved a country that was 750.000 in debt, and with his stupidity of welfare for all and the myriad of moronic policies the stinking communist turdeau brought in together they put us 250 billion in debt. That started a huge snowball of debt couple that with bringing in immigrants that were told to vote only lieberal and you see our problem, we dont need any more of the same, for future generations sake. But a Lieberal never sleeps and perpetually comes up with new scams to steal wealth so they don't have to be productive. Alas: Global Warming! What are they working on next any bets?

Posted by: Bartinsky at December 9, 2007 11:30 AM

"I expect that most British Muslims care about little beyond a full stomach and exhausted genitals".....except, pok, once you scratch past that commonality there is always the intolerant, violent and irrational Mohammed and his Koran demanding obedience or eternal damnation, not a factor with the non-Muslim population.

You get the result desired by choosing whom to ask.

pok, the poll chose Muslims as the question applied to them and them only.

Your second comment cancelled your first one out which gives you a zero for consistency and substance.

Posted by: penny at December 9, 2007 12:18 PM

"I expect that most British Muslims care about little beyond a full stomach and exhausted genitals, much like the majority of their neighbors."

pok - you've expressed your feelings without any facts whatsoever. Muslims are people, of course. Some are moderate backsliders, some are moderate secularists, some are violent, hate-filled terrorists. The consistent and on-going problem is the shared, foundationally violent ideology contained in Islamic texts and preached throughout the world.

Maybe you should look into it before commenting.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 9, 2007 12:20 PM

According to this article, the police protection "Hannah" is living under involves placing her name on an 'at risk' list and giving her a phone number to call if she's afraid.

Posted by: Leslie at December 9, 2007 12:58 PM

This is very common in Canada as well. I know of several people who had to change their names, move across the country and still were chases by fanatics threatening to kill them.

Posted by: southernontarioan at December 9, 2007 1:06 PM

If the catholic church wants make itself less useless, this would be a good time to get into the business of helping to protect converts from Islam.

Other Christian churches might consider this too. They have great world-wide networks and tons of other people's money. Why not fight the war on terrorism in that way. No shooting required.

Posted by: John West at December 9, 2007 1:09 PM

Protect them how, John? Under the current regime, if you arm yourself with so much as a pointed stick you get jail time.

What you gonna do, take a nice medieval convent building and surround it with tonsured friars bearing pillows?

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2007 1:21 PM

From David Thompson's blog:

In his introductory chapter, Ibn Warraq reproduces a pronouncement on apostasy in Islam from the ultra-conservative Tehran daily Kayhan International in 1986. It includes this observation.

The anti-apostasy punishments of Islam are proper laws to rescue mankind from falling into the cesspool of treason, betrayal, and disloyalty and to remind the human being of his ideological commitments. A committed man should not violate his promise and vow, especially his promise to God. (p. 32.)

A more wrong-headed idea is difficult to imagine. To define changing one’s mind about any particular set of ideas and truth claims as treason, betrayal, and disloyalty is to forbid thinking itself. Making the human being’s ideological commitments a permanent, irrevocable matter of loyalty is to impose ossification, dogmatism, conformity, and plain mindless stubbornness on an entire society, or, worse, an entire global ‘community of believers’.

Posted by: irwin daisy at December 9, 2007 1:25 PM

John West: But alas! the churches are too busy with "interfaith dialogue" [read: apology monoglue, or appeasement with a view to power-sharing].

Me 'n ET have it out from time to time about whether the Arab-Israel conflict is jihad or not. Me, yes, she, no, but worse "nothin to do with Islam".
Recently read that over the past 50 years the Arab Christian pop. in the "occupied territories" has declined from 15% to 1.5%, which is a 90% decline. These Christians have everything in common with their Arab neighbours except Islam. On another note, apparently the Muslim pop. of India has increased from 10% to 15%, a 50% rise. That's critical mass for jihad.

I'm remembering the Biafra crisis in the 60s when I was in university. Sudden wonder: was that jihad?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 9, 2007 1:37 PM

Well I think the police are being very insensitive to the Islamic culture. They should be embracing the diversity of honour killings, not suppressing it with their imperialistic white privilege.

Hannah should turn herself in to the family so as not to upset the 1/3 of Muslims who's faith requires her to die.

How dare the West try and suppress one of the most important rituals of the Religion of Peace? That's racist. And the police threatening violence to protect her? Violence is wrong!

There. I channeled a Lefty.

Posted by: chris at December 9, 2007 1:37 PM

me no dhimmi, you are misquoting me. I do not refer to the 'Arab-Israeli conflict' but to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Your error is to merge an ethnic identity (arab)with a national/political identity (Palestinian).

That would be like discussing WWII and merging an ethnic identity (caucasian) with a national/political identity (German). That certainly would have mixed up the war tactics, wouldn't it!

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2007 1:49 PM

ET: Sorry, honestly hadn't intended getting into this here. An offhand remark.

I recall your excellent tutelage on "begging the question" which I'd never really understood.
Hoping I got it right, I'd say that you are begging the question when you refer to this as a "nationalist" movement which I've never accepted. And I have lots of ammunition, including very telling quotes from Arab leaders that confirm my view that the "Palestinians" are a propaganda construct post 1967 thereby switching the David-Goliath roles. There's nothing that I believe more fervently than this.

BTW, I recently encountered a extremely interesting piece about how the KGB created the PLO, and how the PLO went to visit Ho Chi Min's folks in N Vietnam for advice on this matter, which was: stop talking about destroying Israel and reframe it as a nationalist liberation movement. While I can't be certain of the veracity of this claim it fits my understanding of the Arab-Israel conflict.
A few months ago Kate started a thread from one of my reader tips -- a piece by Jeanne Kirpatrick about the Palestinianization of the UN. How Arab mass murder got justified as a "liberation" movement.

While on the subject: I've meant to ask you several times: were you pro-Israel in June 1967? I WAS ... and remain so while being mystified by how western opinion changed so radically. I think some of the foregoing as well as Bat Ye'or's brilliant analysis explains it -- for me anyway.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 9, 2007 2:31 PM


Posted by: Spurwing Plover at December 9, 2007 3:02 PM

me no dhimmi - I don't think that referring to the Palestinian movt as 'begging the question'. The fact that you refuse to accept Palestinians as comprising a nationality doesn't mean that a topic about their fight for nationality is 'begging the question'.

Just as the topic of the Basque 'nation' or the Quebec 'nation' isn't a situation of 'begging the question'.

Your merging of ethnicity and nationality means, for example, that you could readily say that, if Muslims again took over Spain, that the existing population of Spain should leave because they had 'homes' in the other caucasian countries of the area, ie, France, Germany, etc.

I disagree that the Palestinians are a post 1967 propaganda construct; if that were the case, there wouldn't have been any 1948 clear UN outline of the two states of Israel and Palestine.

I think your KGB etc ideas are part of the book of conspiracy theories...

I'm against zionism, as I'm against any notion of 'first footprint' privileging any ethnic group. After all, that would mean that all non-natives ought to leave the continent of America.
As an atheist, I'm also against any 'god gave us the land' - an unprovable declaration.

I'm in favour of a two-state solution. But a fair one. That means that Israel ends the occupation, gets completely out of all the settlements by which it has enlarged its territorial claims, and pays compensation for lost homes and farms. Since Israel refuses to give up its illegal settlements - it will have to deal with the demographics. It can't be a one state solution because of Israel's insistence on a Jewish majority. So....

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2007 3:08 PM

Gotta love those new British values, "do as I say or suffer the consequences" (tongue in cheek).

Posted by: sf at December 9, 2007 4:12 PM

ET, what if your two-state solution is impractical, given the nature of Israeli and Palestinian cultures?

Example at hand, the Palestinians would be all in favor of executing this Hannah girlie in England. Many would volunteer to travel there and execute her personally.

Most Israelis of my acquaintance would volunteer to travel to England and execute her father. Sabras are like that.

Making a two-state solution difficult, yes?

I do think a two-state solution would work, as long as the Palestinian state is relocated to Siberia. Hell, we could do here in Ontario. Give them their own country the same size as the West Bank, 20 miles north of Highway 11 out by Kapuskasing. In November. The ones who make it to January get a free ax and lessons on how to build an igloo.

Beyond that, they need a serious conquering IMHO. As do these scumbags in England, apparently. Fire and the sword, best attitude adjustment available for uncivilized, women hating barbarians.

For you Lefties, I'll add that Muslims (and Palestinians) who are civilized and non-women hating, who DON'T believe in honor killing, or suicide bombing, or shooting school children, or dropping concrete blocks on old ladies from tall buildings, or etc. can have a free pass from the attitude adjustment scenario. Obviously.

It's just that we're going to have a problem sorting out the two types if the good guys don't stand up and say something...

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2007 4:13 PM

ET, here's that piece with reference to N Vietman

This section: How the Lie Began.

I'm totally with you on conspiracy theories, but I really don't think the KGB-PLO is one!

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 9, 2007 4:21 PM

The story highlights the “Islamophobes” unwarranted concerns that there has been an invasion of violent cultist ideologies within our pre-Islamic moderately safe countries, no?
It’s obvious that there are now two distinctive governments running many of the European countries: One legitimate and one fighting for legitimacy. The first government is the ancestral one that developed its people to the high standards that they take for granted today. It now exists in it’s own shadow of political correctness and fear.

The second government is the violent, fascist, religiously militant one that hides in the shadows of European city “Non Go Zones” and is growing exponentially.
When this second abomination makes its bid for Sharia law to our respective legislative bodies and looses its current bid - it does not go away. It continues to evolve like any virus adapting to the continually ineffective antibodies temporarily repelling it.

This shadow government is only just now gaining firm “footholds” on our North American continent. Their greatest strengths are a covert patience, building their community numbers to strengths that can attack our own politically weak governments and our dozy PC populous. In the interim they harass, torture, maim and kill their own dissidents in-house, biding their time until they can extend their version of peace and law onto the rest of us.

Posted by: Knight 99 at December 9, 2007 4:21 PM

The Police should hand her over to the authorities.

The people of Britain appreciate the tender mercies of their new overlords in the Islamic Republik of Britain, she must show respect or face the consequences everyone will eventually face.

Posted by: philanthropist at December 9, 2007 5:02 PM

The problem, phantom, with your suggestion is that it is based on pure speculation.

You don't know 'the Palestinians or many of them' or 'most Israelis'. So, I don't think it's correct for you to declare their intentions. Just as I get upset when Layton and Dion inform me that 'Canadians don't want an election' or 'Canadians want such and such'.

I don't think that moving a people from one ecological envt to another has any meaning. What's your point?

Yes, they must change their ideology; they are living within a medieval era ideology (which we westerners also went through at one time - when we burned witches and heretics and so on)..There are others who could also change their ideology. Man-hating feminists! Utopian activists and anti-capitalists!

me no dhimmi - as I've said before, we'll simply have to 'agree to disagree'. There's not much point in any discussion.

Posted by: ET at December 9, 2007 5:16 PM

philanthropist.....There’s a point. Maybe we should allow them to publicly execute her in Trafalgar Square with global coverage. The public executions broadcasted from the Middle East don’t seem to have much affect on our “all knowing” left.
Possibly have the Liberals sell hotdogs (beef & no profit) during the event to celebrate their new masters political success.
The biggest flaw in the suggestion I believe, is that they would worry too much about the martyrdom bestowed on the poor girl when it’s so much better to just kill her by hand in the family home and out of site for the time being. The public stoning (sorry bricking - it is England you know) will probably (unfortunately) need to wait for a while.

Posted by: Knight 99 at December 9, 2007 5:18 PM

ET: Damn, do I still not get "begging the question". You shudda seen how long it took me to get "notwithstanding".

What I meant is this: if you're starting premise is that it's a "nationalist" movement, then certain arguments flow from this: the "Palestinians" are the victims, "freedom fighters", bravely fighting for "their land" which was "stolen" from them by the colonialst/zionist/nazi-like entity. The problem is still not resolved; the greater military power belongs to Israel; ergo, the lack of a solution must be Israel's fault. And that certainly seems to be your argument in a nutshell, including your persistent refusal to acknowledge that more Jews were displaced than Arabs, and who received no compensation.

But I don't accept that starting premise. It is not, and has never been, a true "nationalist" movement because there is no such people as a "Palestinian people". Again, there was no nationalist movement in evidence when Jordan and Egypt annexed the West Bank and Gaza respectively in 1949, and the Arabs of Palestine stuck with the imperialist Ottomans (Turks, not Arabs) to the bitter end.

As to fair, well of course, I might argue that it wasn't fair that 78% of the Palestine mandate intended as the Jewish homeland was given to the Arabs (Jordan) by the British who betrayed the Jews out of political expediency, after championing them for several decades. So I might argue that Jordan is "occupied territory".

Yes, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. BTW, I'm not a Jew and have no personal friends who are Jews. Just saying.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 9, 2007 5:40 PM

My point ET ma'am, was that since they voted in a terrorist org in their one and only legit election ever, and since of late they have been happily killing each other instead of the Jews, it seems unlikely they will change their tune voluntarily.

As interventions go, if the UN yanked the lot of them out and left them to sink or swim in the north woods it could hardly be worse than the present arrangement.

As Marie Antoinette might have said, "Let them eat moose." (Well, she would have said mousse, but you get the idea.)

I admit, shelling them in situ as the neighboring Arab states have been doing might be cheaper in the short run. But so messy!

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2007 7:04 PM

Er, The Phantom, as the elites are wont to say, "That is not helpful" and does not further the cause of defending Israel in the front line of the global jihad.
I do however feel that the UN and specifically UNRWA (called a day job for terrorists in a recent article) has created a disastrously perverse incentive structure that guarantees that no peaceful resolution will be found.
The UN, er, is not only not helpful, it's the cause of the seemingly permament conflict in my view. That and the continuing terror subsidy from the West.

And Condi, er, is not helpful either, not only deep-sixing the Bush Doctrine but actually joining in on the jihad with millions more to the good terrorists of Fatah, who, er, actually did most of the suicide bombings from the West Bank, while, I gather, the IDF is starting to confiscate Jews' guns.

And as to two states, notice how at Anapolis no Arabs actually confirmed Israel's right to exist which, er, seems like a basic requirement. Actually, I believe they confirmed that Israel should not exist. And I believe the Jews were asked not to darken the doors the Arabs came through. They were, er, enjoined to enter through the service entrance. That's ironic considering Condi's early life!

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 9, 2007 7:48 PM

I think I's be tempted to look good old dad up and pop a cap in his ass.

Posted by: mojo at December 9, 2007 8:31 PM

ET has a problem with Jews but no problem with the mythological people Palestinians. As to the two state resolution Jordan was carved out of 70% of "Palestine" where no Jew is allowed to reside. Israel must accept its Arabs (who have full citizenship and hold just about every political office), while another Arab state resulting from an agreement must also be Jew free.

Anti-Zionism is actually the mother of anti-Semitism. No more, no less.

Posted by: Alain at December 9, 2007 8:43 PM

"""""And I believe the Jews were asked not to darken the doors the Arabs came through. They were, er, enjoined to enter through the service entrance"""""

and if that is true, we can see how far backward the situation is sliding.

this could cause some panic in the Jewish corner, causing them to ready an "appropriate respones", another war, jewish planned this time!!!!!

and ET, there is no such thing as a palastinian nationality, they are simply a convenient constructed segement of the arab population

Posted by: GYM at December 9, 2007 8:46 PM

Us oldies can remember when Palastine was occupied by Arabs and Palastinians(Jews). Somehow it all changed in the late '50's- early '60's. Starnge.

Posted by: Chris at December 9, 2007 9:03 PM

There was a two state solution back in 1947 at Israel's inception, the Arabs rejected it and immediately waged war. I'm tired of hearing about Israeli occupation of Pa;estinians when in the all of history no victor, especially in wars they did not initiate, has ever been expected to voluntarily give back an inch. The Arabs are lucky that they got the Sinai and southern Lebanon back.

It isn't enough that 1.5 million Palestinians are full citizens in Israel, given an equal chance at higher education, have voting rights, are protected equally under the law and enjoy a much higher standard of living than their Gaza/West Bank terrorist counterparts?

Sadat was murdered as he was making overtures for a two state solution with Israel. He recognized the Jewish state, made a trip to Tel Aviv no less, which was his death warrant.

Arafat walked from the Oslo Accords, another two state solution shot to hell by the Palestinians.

Isn't is pretty obvious by now that there is nothing anyone living in proximity to Arab tribalism and Islam can do that ever appeases that beast.

If Palestinians are failed and defeated deadbeats, they've brought it upon themselves time and again over 60 years of very bad choices.

Posted by: penny at December 9, 2007 9:39 PM

Me No Dhimmi sayeth: "Er, The Phantom, as the elites are wont to say, "That is not helpful" and does not further the cause of defending Israel in the front line of the global jihad."

I dare say that is true. Wishfull thinking on my part. The justice of it appeals to me.

Perhaps we could take the UN and dump THEM in the woods? Because I really think somebody in this mess needs to spend some time being hunted by bears. And wolves. Lots of wolves.

I'd settle for Hannah's father getting tossed over the wall of the bear exhibit at the London zoo. Jihadi, meet grizzly.

Posted by: The Phantom at December 9, 2007 9:52 PM

I’m not sure why anyone from the west really cares one way or another what happens over there, aside from religious prejudice of course. Does anyone on this thread actually know any Israelis or Palestinians personally? Let them duke it out and may the best and strongest win!
More immediate concerns to us in the west and questions we should ask are, “Who is knocking down our back door”? Bringing back the original topic of this thread.

I don’t know any Israelis or Palestinians personally so really try not to take a side. But obviously one of these groups lives well and at peace within our own society, keeping to themselves as they enjoy the freedoms provided them, quietly practicing their personal beliefs in private.

Indeed that does predispose me to a little unconscious bias in their favor I suppose, and I’ve never met one. At the end of the day I wonder which group is the most likely to strap on a suicide bomb and walk into a restaurant where I live in the future. Pre-emptive action and a strong hand seems to be the only language understood throughout the Middle East. The not understanding part of that in the west is what makes us a laughing stock throughout the remainder of the world.

Posted by: Knight 99 at December 9, 2007 10:10 PM

Ahhh. That explains ET's stubborn position that she knows Islam when she actually knows nothing about it.

She is "against zionism" ( and as zionists are invisible to the naked eye, she means Jews ). I once viewed Israelis (not mythical Zionists )
similarly when I was uninformed about Islam and the pain and embarrassment that all Muslims feel at having free Jews in their midst NOT under their protection. She is obtuse about this because she "anti Zionist". Perhaps she will learn about Islam and begin to see clearly the reasons things are as they are. Till then her argument is tainted.

Palestinians? There are Jordanians and Egyptians. As has been said a few times already "palestinians" are a construct, post '67. In fairness antisemitism can blind you to the reality of the situation.

Posted by: BL@KBIRD at December 9, 2007 10:45 PM

It's hard to understand what the authorities in Britain are thinking. I assume that, here in Canada or in the US, anyone who made a public call for the murder of an innocent person would be arrested. Why isn't this happening in Britain?

Maybe there have been arrests and I've just missed it, or maybe it's not being covered; I don't know. Have any commenters here heard anything about any British Muslims being arrested in these sorts of cases? If there haven't been arrests, that may be the most disturbing thing of all.

Posted by: EBD at December 9, 2007 11:12 PM

This is the first time (over the past 2-3 years of debating this topic with her) I have actually seen ET admit that she is "against zionism". Hmm isn't that interesting.

Zionism is the nationalistic struggle of Jews. ET accepts "Palestinians as comprising a nationality" and thinks "their fight for nationality" is legitimit. But the nationalistic aspirations of Jews - nope, no way. Where does she actually think Jews come from? Who named those places Jerusalem, Bethleham, Hebron, Jerico etc?

She says 'As an atheist, I'm also against any 'god gave us the land'". The return of Jews to their homeland 1800 years after the Romans kicked them out, is a disturbing fulfillment of biblical prophecy that bothers atheists. They tend to respond by being pro-"Palestinian".

Thanks to me no dhimmi, irwin daisy, penny, Phantom, alain, and others who continue to point out the fallacies in the point of view espoused by ET.

Posted by: ex-liberal at December 10, 2007 10:06 AM

Maybe if some people here directed their anger at the Muslims and the people actively abbetting them instead of spouting the usual timeworn, generic liberal bashing nauseum, or in other words, build a coalition, we might get somewhere. By the way, will someone do something about the pathetic tab order of this form?

Posted by: jakealope at December 10, 2007 12:34 PM

ex-liberal: Yeah, I was very surprised by ET's admitted anti-Zionism. She does however argue for a two-state solution, one of them for the Jews. But that IS Zionism by my lights. The perfectly rational lesson from millennia of persecution -- the need for a Jewish homeland with a Jewish majority. She does not argue like one of my former friends that Israel does not have a right to exist (while evidently Pakistan does!) but sadly her position, unwittingly, supports that view.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at December 10, 2007 1:05 PM