I've got a solution - give google the bomb.

Then when these fuckers start rioting, google can just nuke them and be done with it.

I'm willing to bet Google bends over forwards to find a solution that suits the primitive savages. Their record so far speaks for itself.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3VbZIVsmJGM/TJLk3Mb2r2I/AAAAAAAAADA/6Ve2fcE2Dts/s1600/porky.mohammed.jpg

HA!

You can't say Mohammed without saying ham!

And for those interested, the best collection of Mohammed images on the web is here:

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Knock yourself out, Majeed!

I'm willing to bet Google bends over forwards to find a solution that suits the primitive savages. Their record so far speaks for itself.

How so? Didn't they pick a fight with the Chinese government over censorship??

Didn't they pick a fight with the Chinese government over censorship??

When you say "picking a fight" I take it you mean "cooperating fully with the Chinese government"?

Also, for most of the 8 years of W's presidency, there was a google bomb linking the term "miserable failure" to the whitehouse.gov site. Google claimed it to be an impossible problem to fix.

Within a week of The Won's inauguration Google found a way to disable that linkage. Coinky-dink?

If your interested in preserving more of your privacy from Google, try http://www.startpage.com/eng/protect-privacy.html

Aren't Muslims supposed to avoid all images of Mohammed? The search link in the article is clearly searching for images. If you don't want to see images of Mohammed, don't search for images of Mohammed.

I don't like looking at spiders. I don't Google images of spiders. Problem solved.

This reminds me -- I need to pick up some more ammo for my shotgun and pistol. Oh yeah, I need to get a carbine rifle on hand.

I don't really care what a pigheaded, ignorant, blind, theistic, cretin wants. If you don't like it, don't look.

> Also, for most of the 8 years of W's presidency,
> there was a google bomb linking the term
> "miserable failure" to the whitehouse.gov site.
> Google claimed it to be an impossible problem to
> fix.

> Within a week of The Won's inauguration Google
> found a way to disable that linkage. Coinky-dink?

Google fixed the problem January 2007 and Obama was elected November 2008, so no "coinky-dink"

I don't like looking at pictures of spiders either, LauraB. Therefore, I DO google pictures of spiders. They terrify me.

First, this column is factually incorrect, at least according to UNESCO statistics on literacy. In fact, what is impressive is that adult literacy rates in the brutally occupied territories of Palestine are near 90%. Here are some other important countries: Indonesia 92%; Jordan 91%; Turkey 88.7%; Lebanon 89.6%; Syria 83.1%; Iran 82.3%; Egypt 66.4% (A truly tragic figure). In Arab regions, which does not cover the entire Muslim world, I know, youth literacy rates were at 76.3% in 2002--not great, but not as brutal as the statistic you adduce. In fact, virtually the only continent with states consistently below 50% literacy is Africa--and that for multifarious reasons. Of course, literacy rates in Afghanistan are low, but the causality is complicated.

Islam was actually a very powerful and progressive
ideology that united disparate tribal groups in the Arabian peninsula and soon formed an incredibly advanced civilization. Obviously there are many variables linked to its decline; in recent years, however, imperialism is probably the most explanatory. I guess the "backward" Muslims still have a lot to learn about bombing countries and propping up autocratic regimes from "progressive" and "literate" countries like the United States and Britain (for just a simple example, you can look up how much military aid flowed from the United States to Egypt during the Mubarak regime). And they also have a lot to learn about stealing and dominating resources and land and, apparently, about "democracy."

As far as the rest is concerned, why not try to be understanding and reasonable instead of contentious. Shifts in social technologies always cause massive stress. If you look through a history book, you will discover that the Western world went through years of tumult. It is understandable to be fearful and anxious about new technologies and the way they tend to erode comforting ideologies and narratives. Perhaps instead of attacking others, the world would be a better place if we criticized the injustices our own government is committing--especially since that is something we can actually control. To paraphrase another person: we could have a conference about the crimes of Caligula but it would have zero moral significance.

Bo, name three things created by aherents of islam that benifited mankind and contribute to society

Also, caligula is dead and isnt currently forming cells of zombie romans bent on murdering anyone who doest worship his god

I would suggest reading about Ibn al-Haytham, who is considered "the first scientist" by many historians. The developments of Islamic civilization are too numerous to name...but for a few things, they were translating Aristotle before the Western world; they began developing optics; they produced hospitals and a vibrant medicinal practice; they produced early pioneers in chemistry; they produced brilliant mathematics, including the development of algebra and algorithms. A useful exercise would be to read some of the primary sources. It is fascinating to read how people of the early Islamic civilization viewed the west: namely as barbarians. And, objectively, at the time Islamic civilization was far more advanced.

I know Caligula is dead; that is my point: it would have no moral significance to debate his crimes. Nor does it have moral significance to berate a civilization. We can't control them. We can, however, control our crimes against them, which is what we should therefore focus on.

Muslims are the fathers, not the sons, of the desert. That's easily forgotten when you're rhapsodizing about the achievements of Islamic civilization.

Mohammed & company did not create that civilization out of nothing. The Middle East was where civilization itself began. The first cities, the first agriculture, the first writing, the first bronze & iron...the list is endless. All of these things were invented in the Middle East thousands of years before the West or China or anyone else came up with them. So when Islam conquered the Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Pagan lands of the Middle East & North Africa, it inherited this entire fantastic legacy, and a huge head-start over the rest of the world. Yet by the 13th century, the Golden Age of Islam was pretty well over, and the place where civilization began was in steep decline toward its present state of backwardness. Modern Western imperialism in the Middle East did not get under way until Napoleon's Egyptian Campaign in 1798, and by that time Egypt (and the entire Middle East) was a sad shadow of its glorious pre-Islamic self.

From my perspective, Mohammed & friends did not build a great civilization out of nothing in the desert. Islam took the first & greatest civilization, squandered it, and destroyed it.

Bo, the indians had algebra more than fifteen centuries before muslims, Babaloynians had it nearly a millenum before that.

As greek history is considered 'western' history Aristoltle being western was therfore known in the west before being translated into Arabic.

Islamic civilzation was not ore advanced it was nonexistant. As Martin pointed out the middle east was a civilization hot spot, which Islam consumed and decimated.

I asked you for something the followers of Islam created which benifited mankind, not for things they inherited or stole from others and eventually ground into the dirt.

I should have been more clear about Aristotle. Obviously his contemporaries and many after were quite aware of him; however, after he was "lost" from civilization the Muslims significantly contributed to his renaissance by translating his works and distributing them. On algebra, I also should have been more lucid. I did not mean to imply that Islamic civilization created algebra; I meant to imply that they made significant developments to it. They also founded the first "modern" hospital, produced many brilliant philosophers, historians, chemists, and other intellectuals. I think that is sufficient for a civilization.

In some sense, however, all of that is beside the point. I do not understand the point of hurling invective at a massive group of people, many of whom are very tolerant and decent. That is just as "irrational" as religious beliefs and has no foundation in the empirical world. I have many friends from the middle east and they are just like you or me; they also report that much of the social life in their country is the same as here. Of course there are extremists in the middle east, some Christian, some Jewish, some Muslim, just as there are extremist here. The most extreme groups, however, are the brutal autocrats that the west has propped up and continues to support to this day. If we want to denigrate anyone, we should denigrate ourselves for allowing that to happen. It is simply irrational hypocrisy to cast aspersions without first looking in the mirror (granted that such hypocrisy is a very fundamental human trait...one that I certainly possess).

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the statistics sited in this column about literacy rates are completely erroneous. Here is a link to the 2009 human development report on literacy: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/89.html. This might be an honest mistake, but, in deference to the truth, it should be corrected.

As far as religion goes--a consistent theme here seems to be to derogate religion--I am not sure I understand the point of attacking religion. It provides a comfortable and meaningful narrative for many people and is certainly less pernicious than many political myths (libertarianism and the so-called efficiency of the "free market" just to name one political myth. In point of fact, almost every successful industry in America, especially of the high tech variety, was funded by the public through the pentagon or though government subsidies, including the technology we are taking advantage of right now--namely, computers and the internet. It is very difficult to pay for research and development for a product that might not bare fruition for many years). Furthermore, as I noted earlier, it is useful to remember that changes in technology often produce anxiety--this was quite true in the West and is probably nearly an universal law of sociology. Respect, tolerance, and an honest look at one's self in a mirror are best for creating a moral society, not attacking groups of people for "irrational" or "baseless" beliefs, save when those beliefs cause deleterious behavior and when those beliefs can be affected by you or me. In the case of the beliefs of people in the middle east or in Africa, I am pretty sure that they are immune from our criticisms.

For this point I'm going to break your sentence up the way it should be written. You are conflating points.

As far as religion goes--a consistent theme here seems to be to derogate religion--I am not sure I understand the point of attacking religion. It provides a comfortable and meaningful narrative for many people

As a point of reference there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs. If you want to believe in god, Allah, Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever your belief is. You showing up at my door trying to preach your religion doesn't rise to the level that disturbs me.

When you blow up buildings you have risen to a point that you and your group disturb me and others. When the leaders of your religion don't disavow your views -- that is saying they accept and approve of you blowing up buildings. That is not acceptable in a civilized society.

and is certainly less pernicious than many political myths (libertarianism and the so-called efficiency of the "free market" just to name one political myth.

Unfortunately the U.S. doesn't have a true Free Market system. The rules, regulations and laws from the EPA, USDA, CPSC, FAA, FDIC etc. doesn't really allow business to grow and thrive the way it should. I will agree that some regulation is needed -- but the level that has been reached is ridiculous.

What you are trying to do by associating religion with commercial activity is to distract us from fact that the Islamic religion is stifled from the before the 16th century.

When you can be at least that intellectually honest, we can talk.

closer to the 9th or 10th acctually

Jim P,

Thanks for the comment. First point: "When you blow up buildings you have risen to a point that you and your group disturb me and others. When the leaders of your religion don't disavow your views -- that is saying they accept and approve of you blowing up buildings. That is not acceptable in a civilized society."

This is a common sentiment--that religion causes/caused individuals to blow up buildings (Oklahoma or New York). I think the truth is more complicated. Scott Atran, for example, has sedulously analyzed suicide terrorism, and concluded that rising political, economic, and personal expectations, coupled with crushing set backs in those areas, leads to support for terrorist groups and leaders. He does agree that religious ideology plays an important role in the psyche and speech of the "charismatic" leaders of terrorist networks, who use religion to manipulate others, including themselves, into grisly deeds. However, the Tamil Tigers are the world leader in suicide terrorism and they adhere to a Marxist/Leninist ideology. Atran suspects that it is the ability of an ideology to create "fictive kin" that makes it powerful and that can create the conditions for the sacrifice necessary for suicide terrorism.

If we are going to be "intellectually honest" however, we have to note how horrific our foreign policy has been, and how that lays the ground work for a spreading conflagration of abhorrence. Just because the leaders of many terrorist movements are fanatical doesn't mean their adherents are. Many of them have legitimate complaints about US foreign policy and are disgusted by affronts to their own land and liberty. To date, the US has a military presence in over 100 countries, most without democratic political structures. Obviously backing corrupt autocracies that rule against the will of their subjects creates disdain and a fertile ground for suicide terror. We also continue to support other countries that have compiled ghastly human rights records (extensively documented by AMNESTY International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem) within their own borders (and sometimes within occupied borders).

Most Muslims, like most Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, are not fanatical and simply find comfort and peace from their religion. I cannot fault them for that.

Next point: "Unfortunately the U.S. doesn't have a true Free Market system. The rules, regulations and laws from the EPA, USDA, CPSC, FAA, FDIC etc. doesn't really allow business to grow and thrive the way it should. I will agree that some regulation is needed -- but the level that has been reached is ridiculous.

What you are trying to do by associating religion with commercial activity is to distract us from fact that the Islamic religion is stifled from the before the 16th century."

I agree with your first point here, as I explicitly stated in my comment. The U.S. doesn't have a free market system--the idea that it does is a myth. Secondly, most real economists, those who deal with applied economics and not simply theoretical economics, realize that a "free market" system would be absolutely ineffectual. I cannot think of a single country that developed by using principles of free markets and free trade. I also cannot think of a lot of thriving industries that developed through the free market. As I said before, most of them developed through public funding--so the basic equation: public risk, private profit. I am all for public investment, but we have to be honest about it and not parade myths about the free market (which, gladly, you do not) so that we best decide how to invest and how to distribute profits.

Finally, I wasn't trying to associate religion with commercial activity; I was trying to associate theological religion with economical religion. My point was that theological religions are probably a hell of a lot more salubrious than economic religions (free markets, et cetera...basically a myth propagated by corporations who love to take public funding, other subsidies, and receive huge tax benefits, but hate to share their profits). I think that is honest enough. I am not a competent enough scholar of Islam to discuss the multifarious reasons for the civilization's decline. However, I can assert that the religion sensu stricto did not cause the collapse of the middle east.

Bo, all of your bullshit is straight out of Stalin's playbook. You are denying the truth of Islam while at the same time trying to deflect blame onto Americans. Narcissistic behavior is a cultural standard in the Middle East, as you have so excellently demonstrated. 90% of born-to-murder Palis are literate? Bought-and-paid-for UNESCO says so? BWHAHAHAHA!

Fact: One of Islam's most basic commandments is that Islam does not tolerate the existence of any other belief system. Believers are commanded to wage eternal war against all others. You cannot deny this.

Fact: Those engaged in jihad are at liberty to violate all of Islam's commandments. We know this by the fact that the 9/11 hijackers went out to strip clubs, drank, and patted kiffir fannies the night before they killed 5000 innocent civilians (a lot less than they intended to kill, actually). Islam isn't a religion, it's a virus.

Cousin Dave: I am not sure I can comprehend much of your screed; nor do I understand why you use a "irrational" an uncivil tone. However, I will address a few of your asseverations.

First: "Bo, all of your bullshit is straight out of Stalin's playbook. You are denying the truth of Islam while at the same time trying to deflect blame onto Americans."
The assertion that my "bullshit" is straight out of Stalin's playbook is made without any evidence; I am not even sure what "bullshit" you are referring to. I am not trying to "deflect" blame onto Americans; I am trying to deflect blame onto you and me, the people who allow our foreign policy to operate as it does. If you can contradict the facts I cited about American foreign policy, feel free. In lieu of such contradictions, your assertions are difficult to take seriously. And, by the way, my assertions are no different from the ones being made by American intelligence officials, who often view the world more accurately than cloistered ideologues.

Furthermore, I am not sure what "truth" about Islam I am denying. I have noted many times that there are radical Islamic believers, just as there are radical Christians, radical Jews, radical Hindus, radical nationalists, radical Marxists...et cetera. It is very difficult to compare and contrast "pure" ideologies. They are contextual and arose to satisfy the needs and desires of a certain group of people in certain ecological conditions. On this, it can hardly be denied that Islam was incredibly successful.

Second: 90% of born-to-murder Palis are literate? Bought-and-paid-for UNESCO says so? BWHAHAHAHA!

I take it that the end of these rhetorical questions is contempt filled laughter meant to repudiate the statistics I cited. Again, there isn't an argument, so it is difficult to take seriously. The phrase "born-to-murder Palis" is incredibly intolerant and irrational. Do you think that Palestinians have genes so much different from other people? I would guess not. I would suggest that you travel to Palestine and view the conditions that they live under for yourself. If you still feel justified in throwing invective their way, fine. I doubt, however, that you or I could live for more than a few weeks there without losing our minds.

Next: "One of Islam's most basic commandments is that Islam does not tolerate the existence of any other belief system. Believers are commanded to wage eternal war against all others. You cannot deny this."
This is an empirical claim and one that can be quickly repudiated. Non-Muslims lived under the status of dhimmi in Muslim lands and were allowed to practice their religion and they were not forced to convert. (It was considered inappropriate to force religious conversion). Many of the people of the Byzantine and Persian empires were glad to live under Islamic rule because it allowed them more religious freedom. The status of polytheists is a little more tenuous, but there is certainly no commandment to wage an eternal war against them. In contemporary times, different religions continue to freely practice in many Islamic countries, including Iran. Of course there are all kinds of abuses and there are limits on the political aspirations of non-Muslims, but that is no different from here or Britain. For example, in America, a non-Christian could never ascend to presidency, and would have trouble grabbing a congressional seat.

Finally: "Those engaged in jihad are at liberty to violate all of Islam's commandments. We know this by the fact that the 9/11 hijackers went out to strip clubs, drank, and patted kiffir fannies the night before they killed 5000 innocent civilians (a lot less than they intended to kill, actually). Islam isn't a religion, it's a virus."

I am not sure what the first part of this has to do with anything. As for the second part: yes the murder of 5000 innocent civilians is brutal and despicable. Your Dawkins like claim that "Islam is a virus" is a non sequitur. Let us again be intellectual honest for a moment. How many innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq? A very, very, low estimate would be 300,000 (most estimate are around 800,000). The most basic moral principle, one accepted by nearly every serious moral thinker, is that one should look at one's self and the consequences of one's behavior first. It doesn't do a lot of good, in other words, to criticize other people's crimes when nothing can be done about them. Sure, there are many horrific atrocities around the world and there are many horrific ideologies (or corruptions of ideologies), but what good does it do to criticize them (other than maybe make us feel better about ourselves)? We should, again this means YOU and ME, focus on how we can alleviate suffering in the world. This has nothing to do about "blaming America" or whatever other hackneyed phrase some are wont to use; it has to do with being serious moral people.

Many of the people of the Byzantine and Persian empires were glad to live under Islamic rule because it allowed them more religious freedom.

Yeah who wouldnt love secon class citizenship, an extra couple of taxes for not being the 'right' religion and the inability to hold any kind of government office