August 20, 2007

How Can You Argue With Pat Condell? You Just Can't.

Pat Condell is more popular than least on Youtube. Here, he is telling the truth about Islam and Europe again:

Now for something less logical but guaranteed to make you laugh real good....unless you are an uptight Muslim:

Yeah yeah I know, many Christians and Fundy Jews are just as bad when it comes to homosexual bashing.

I'm really getting lazy with this blog. I need more different motivation. Things are pretty good right now in Canada when it comes to us atheist Jews.

Quick Edit. I just thought of a great joke for Leno or Letterman:

Michael Vick is writing a new book. It is called If I Did Kill Dogs.


  1. The cool dude is nearly as good as Pat Condell.

  2. Pat Condell is great, but his bit about the Jews was a bit off. He suggested that the Jews should give Jerusalem back to the Arabs. This is as ridiculous as giving Ottawa back to the Natives. It's in his video 'What about the Jews?'

  3. It was the only video that I actually criticized him for a couple of points.
    I think he's only human and he probably has had some brainwashing from the Limey press and Limey TV.

  4. This pretty much sums up for me what's at stake BEAJ:

  5. Pat Condell is the kind of European Idiot that sits so well with the winger slice of North Americans, along with types like Paul Belien (an ultra-rightwinger and religious nut) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a patented liar). But hey, if you're an Islamophobe, you're welcome in the US of A.

    Pat conflates freedom of speech with imposition of sharia law (there is no such imposition here), freedom of religion with domination by religion and generally makes a tit of himself. Not so to the lovers of one line sound-bites.

    As regards the Brussels thingy, I'd like to see confirmation of this. I bet Condell simply interprets what's really happening to suit his stereotypes. I'll see if I can find some info on this.

    Then there's you're American Democrat (I assume from his arrogant vid) and US supremacist. Well, I'm "not an uptight Muslim" but funny it isn't at all.

    Lemmesee, the US suffered an attack. A horrendous attack. And on its OWN SACRED SOIL! So we invade two countries that haven't fired a single shot at us, cause the deaths of an estimated 50,000 to 655,000 people (mostly Muslims) and threaten to nuke yet another Muslim nation.

    And all that's... applauded! Considered the "moral" thing to do. We're the righteous. They... they're just sandflies.

    When things start going wrong in Iraq, we start blaming the Iraqis and tell them to get on with it or else. We organise some charity to show what a civilised, well meaning bunch we really are. We are true heroes.

    You see, now if we just came clean and declared that Judeo-Christian Whitey wants world domination, I'd applaud that for its candour. It would be honest and of course the actual truth.

    But what to expect from a people that has in the past shown such incredible disregard for Human Rights, human blood or life? That has pre-emptively struck at perceived enemies (many, many times) and has actually proposed to make such behaviour an official policy? That blows its own trumpet regarding Liberal Democracy at a time when democratic participation is at an all time low and where elections are increasingly a circus freak show? Where it's mostly money that will buy you a seat at the top brass table? A culture in which lies, deceit, commercial fraud, corporate baby-speak, secrecy, propaganda, hypocrisy, double standards and more besides that, are engrained?

    "I'm really getting lazy with this blog. I need more different motivation"

    True. By the day you sound more and more like a coach potato-cum-armchair general.

  6. Gert, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied in her application for amnesty to the Netherlands is a separate issue from whether or not her criticism of the way Islam treats women is valid. Or are you arguing that Ayaan Hirsi Ali should not be allowed to speak of such things at all?

  7. I was on my lunch break at work, so I had to cut my response to Gert short.

    First off, I was personally opposed to Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I believed that we would be inheriting our very own West Bank/Gaza Strip times 100. And I can't think of a better recruiting tool for Al-Qaida than an infidel American army not only occupying a Muslim country in the heart of the Arab world, but an occupation that fails to provide the Iraqi people with clean drinking water, electricity, safe streets and competent government.

    There are two parallel things going on here that we need to deal with. There are terrorist organizations like al-Qaida that seek to use violence against civilians to achieve their goals, and then there are Islamic fundamentalist groups that seek to impose their strict version of Islam on people in Muslim countries. The latter are often aided by the fact that the governments in these countries are corrupt and fail to provide basic social services. Organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah owe much of their popularity to the fact that they provide medical and charitable services alongside of their resistance to Israel. You see the same thing in Pakistan. The September issue of National Geographic has a good article on this.

    What needs to be done is to carefully navigate a course between fighting al-Qaida while trying to avoid inflaming anti-American sentiment among Muslims while at the same time trying to craft policies that promote secularism and curb religious fundamentalism in Muslim countries.

    Unfortunately, thanks to the Bush administration's bungling in Iraq, America's reputation in most of the Muslim world is so toxic that to openly support secular or moderate groups in Muslim countries is to paint them as American lackeys trying to destroy Islam. Sometimes I think that it might be better off it the Bush administration came out in vocal support of Hamas and other militant Islamic organizations so as to taint them by association.

  8. Well, actually, you can argue with Pat Condell. If you've ever read a history book, that is. For instance, he claims that "we [Europe] had religious violence, too -- it was called the Inquisition, but then we became more civilized."

    Umm...exactly which part of post-Inquisition Western history was so civilized?

    - The transatlntic slave trade?
    - The mass murder and thievery of worldwide colonialism?
    - The wholsesale slaughter of Native Americans?
    - The Holocaust?
    - The use of nuclear weapons on cities full of civilian?
    - The propping up of vicious dictators that serve western interests?
    - The starvation of 2/3rds of the world so a hanful of people can drive SUVs and listen to ipods?
    - The contamination of much of the world's clean air/water/soil?
    - The career of Paris Hilton?

    Great track record...go Western culture! We're number one! We're number one!

  9. The Western civilization is what civilization is all about.
    99% of the West understand the Holocaust was bad. We are trying to do something about the least we are aware.
    It isn't our responsibility that third world countries plop out kids without regard to finances. They are not civilized.
    Better the West tested nuclear bombs than the Muslim world.
    It was inevitable that we would use it. Hopefully never again.
    I like sex, and Hilton represents sex. Nothing wrong with eye candy, though I'm not very attracted to Paris.

    Sounds like you'd rather live in a cave.

  10. "Cancer of religion?"

    I've heard THAT ONE before, now where was it?


    Now we all remember how Great Britain bravely stood up to those guys:

    By having some just as "enlightened" Eggs Heads handing them over the Atom Bomb secret!

    So Belief Enforcing is like a fart...
    It only smells rotten, when it's NOT YOURS!

  11. "Lemmesee, the US suffered an attack. A horrendous attack. And on its OWN SACRED SOIL! So we invade two countries that haven't fired a single shot at us, cause the deaths of an estimated 50,000 to 655,000 people (mostly Muslims) and threaten to nuke yet another Muslim nation."

    Since Pat Condell doesn't support bush or the war in iraq, I don't understand your point. Is your point that anybody that points out the violence and misogyny done in the name of Islam is a guilty of the imaginary crime of "islamophobia" or of being a "racist"? If I critque The church of scientology, am I a racist? Don't know when Islam became a race instead of a religion!

  12. Chris Mankey:

    "Racist" Definition:

    •based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
    •a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
    •discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

    Are you somewhat illiterate?