Translate

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Pat Condell Discusses Islamophobia

Hat tip Monkey in the Middle


Irish commentator Pat Condell has put out another video on Islam. In this piece, he discusses the term, "Islamophobia".



As I did the last time I posted a Condell video, I invite my Muslim readers to comment and tell us why Condell is wrong. Last time, no Muslims took me up on my offer, and that was unfortunate. (I know that several Muslims read this blog.) So c'mon, folks. Let us discuss this piece. If you can weigh in in a civil manner, I will treat you with respect.

8 comments:

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I'm not Muslim, but I did comment last time. Condell is a raving motor-mouth who treats nobody with respect, and offers no factual evidence to support his bald opinions and insinuations. No person of intelligence and integrity would waste time trying to have a serious discussion about Pat Condell. There is no substance to discuss.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,

Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you debate his words?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Gary, I refer you to my lengthier analysis last time you posted Condell. I listened to his words then. It is not an experience I would willingly subject myself to again.

I don't have time to offer you the same analysis at the same length every time you offer the same tripe, expostulating about how nobody responded. I must have explained Chicago 1960 to you four times, with increasingly detailed citations each time, and I'm still not sure you have come to terms with the well documented truth.

On this occasion, I was merely reiterating that your Muslim readers might have better reasons for not bothering to respond to this guy, than unwillingness to be civil. There is nothing civil about Pat Condell.

How much time would you devote to respectfully considering the speeches of George Lincoln Rockwell? I know you're old enough to remember who he is.

elwood p suggins said...

Another well-documented truth about Chicago 1960 (I believe it is the presidential election at issue) is that the Mafia was heavily involved in JFK vote-buying to the extent that one high-ranking Mafiosi complained that too much money was spent by buying more votes than were actually needed to win.

This documentation comes from none other than Bill Bonanno, a Mafia guy himself.

Squid said...

Pat Condell is a brave person who is willing to point out the truth about Islam and its' many disturbing beliefs raising from the Koran, Hadith and Sura. The notion that Islam is a religion of peace, is dispelled on a daily basis as atrocities are conducted in the Middle East and Africa, such as the killing of Christians, women and non-believers.
The use of Islamopobia is merely a cloak over the many doctrines that expunge democracy.

Squid

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Elwood, the difficulty is knowing when Bonano was lying, and when he was telling the truth. You swallow that a Mafia capo is an honest man with amazing credulity. The Mafia are prone to boasting about their influence -- and the Bonanos were primarily based in New York. If guilty, they would have kept their mouths shut.

The truth is, the RNC did ask for a recount, and quit paying for it once it became obvious not many votes were shifting their way.

The real Mafia power in the Daley machine was the First Ward organization. Daley suggested they put forward a bright young banker for alderman, to clean up the ward's reputation. But he resigned, saying that being first war alderman was ruining his reputation.

elwood p suggins said...

Siarlys--one difficulty with anyone is knowing when they are lying and when they are telling the truth. Mafia guys may be prone to boasting about their influence, and for that matter embellishing it, among themselves, but very, very few do it in public that I know of.

I swallow some of what Bonanno wrote because in most courts, statements/admissions against self-interest are the most persuasive kind of evidence that exists. A lot of his stuff just, forgive me, has the ring of truth to it, and a fair bit of it is known to be accurate from sources other than Bonanno..

Anyway, depending on who is counting, recounts might, or for that matter might not, uncover voter fraud in areas such as live people voting multiply, dead people voting at all, phony ID’s, cheating on residency requirements and citizenship, etc. I see no way that a recount could determine that votes were bought. That would have to come from someone snitching someone else off about the practice, and that did not occur in this instance until much much later. Surely you are not suggesting or claiming that a significant number of Democratic votes were not bought in Chicago during the 1960 election??

Siarlys Jenkins said...

A significant amount of votes were STOLEN OUTRIGHT in Chicago in 1960, but not for the presidential race. The race Daley worried about was Cook County State's Attorney. How do I know? I've repeated this at Fousesquawk at least FOUR TIMES: the Republican National Committee PAID for a RECOUNT! They dropped it when they saw a shift of 700 votes for Nixon, and 25,000 for Benjamin Adamowski (not your kind of Republican).

When you say a statment has "the ring of truth," it reminds me of George W. Bush saying that "My instincts" told him going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Get your nose out of your navel if you expect to be taken seriously.