Mark Peterson/Redux, via the Daily BeastAs I blogged a few days ago, Louisiana’s Christianist governor Bobby Jindal has essentially kicked off his campaign for the nation’s Preacher-in-Chief. As part of this campaign, he’s angling for the Neocrusader vote, which is a sizable chunk of the Republican party, and — one assumes — he hopes he can use to win the GOP nomination next year. At least, this is the only explanation for the depths of fact-deprived insanity to which he’s recently stooped.

Caught in a lie about the so-called “no-go zones” in Europe, in which Islamic shari’a law prevails rather than the law of the country, as CNN reports, he not only doubled down on this lie, he added to it by piling on another (WebCite cached article):

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Wednesday stood by his controversial comments about “no go zones” in European cities, insisting that some Muslim immigrants are trying to “colonize” European cities and “overtake the culture.”

And the United States could be next, warned Jindal, a Republican who is considering a 2016 presidential run.

“They may be second, third, fourth generation, they don’t consider themselves part of that country. They’re actually going in there to colonize, to overtake the culture,” Jindal said. “If people don’t want to come here to integrate and assimilate, what they’re really trying to do is … overturn our culture.”

Earlier, Jindal had talked about “no-go zones,” which do not, in fact, exist. That whole notion has been thoroughly debunked. Even the man responsible for this myth, Daniel Pipes, has acknowledged his error and said they don’t exist. The Bobster elaborated on his “invasion” lie, Buzzfeed reports, on a radio show run by his fellow Christianists at Focus on the Family (cached):

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential Republican candidate for president, warned in an interview Monday on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch radio program of the possibility of so-called Muslim “no go zones” coming to America, focusing later on what he called a possible sharia “colonization” and “invasion” of America.

“If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America,” said Jindal singling out those in “academic” and “media elite” who he said “don’t want to proclaim American exceptionalism.”

I’m not going to get into the notion that Muslims have launched an “invasion” of the United States in order to overturn its government and force shari’a law on the country. It’s fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain and one working eyeball that it’s not happening. A mature man with integrity, caught in lies, will admit them and apologize — as Pipes and Fox News have already, where this issue is concerned — and move on already. But not the Bobster. He’s far too childish to make any such admission, and too caught up in his own crazy, disingenuous rhetoric to find something else to talk about so he can finally stop embarrassing himself.

Photo credit: Mark Peterson/Redux, via the Daily Beast.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Happy

    Although the "no-go zones" lie was obviously pulled out of his ass, his doubling down is very much fact. The ultimate goal of Islam (and of the vast majority of Muslims) is to spread the religion to every country impose sharia everywhere.

    You clearly know very little about Islam if you don't know this fact. Muslims say this all the time. And they are not afraid to say it publicly.

    Here's just one example I found in a hurry (@ 11:51) but there are countless more awaiting to be found on the intertubez. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-0_UkJnS8Y#t=711

    • Re: "Although the "no-go zones" lie was obviously pulled out of his ass …"

      Thanks for that concession. I'm sure it hurt you mightily to make it.

      Re: "… his doubling down is very much fact."

      No, it's not. It's a Neocrusaders' fantasy. There is no "invasion" underway, which is the specific claim the Bobster made.

      Re: "The ultimate goal of Islam (and of the vast majority of Muslims) is to spread the religion to every country …"

      OK, but the ultimate goal of Islam (and of the vast majority of Christians) is to spread their religion to every country. So what?

      Re: "… impose sharia everywhere."

      How can they do that if Muslims don't even agree on what "shari'a law" is? Besides, not all of them actually care about "shari'a law." Again, the whole thing about Muslims imposing "shari'a law" on the planet is a paranoid Neocrusade conspiracy theory. Sure, some Muslims want to spread their own version of it … but not all do.

      Re: "Muslims say this all the time."

      Some do, sure. But not all do. Can you demonstrate, with compelling, objective, verifiable evidence, that ALL Muslims want to impose "shari'a law" on the planet? I doubt you could even come close to that. (And no, individual Muslims, or groups of them, saying so would NOT in any way constitute evidence they ALL do.)

      Re: "You clearly know very little about Islam if you don't know this fact."

      Actually I know a lot more about it than most Americans. But you're free to say I don't, if it makes you happy to do so. You'd be wrong, but at least you'd be happily wrong. I'm no friend of Islam but at least I have some objectivity about it … which is more than I can say about a lot of Christians, who seem to view the very existence of Islam as some kind of affront that they cannot and will not tolerate. (For that matter, many of them consider the existence of non-Christians of any sort as a threat. Not that this is rational, but human beings tend not to be very rational to begin with.)

      Re: " And they are not afraid to say it publicly."

      Again: Some do, sure. But do ALL of them do so? Provide your evidence.

      Re: "Here's just one example I found in a hurry (@ 11:51) but there are countless more awaiting to be found on the intertubez."

      Ah. So you just "proved" what you and the Bobster are saying, with a Youtube video? Really?! That's all?

  • Happy

    Well, I'd like to continue this discussion but I'm afraid it will be a waste of my time and yours. It seems that, because you disagree with me, that every syllable I type is bullshit and must be refuted (or converted into a point in your favour.) That's just childish. And it makes a person who is capable of writing a measured – though nonsense – blog post seem a pedant with whom engagement pointless.

    You don't have to be racist not to listen to brown people. I didn't say that or imply that. So there's no need for us to get into a discussion about whether or not you are racist. But when you say stuff like, "Who the fuck cares what they say they want?" it's clear to me that you do not grant people the right to their own views as your views are the only ones that count. While I wouldn't accuse you of racism I will accuse you of being an insensitive and condescending twit with a considerate superiority complex. And I won't hold that against you as it is your right!

    Finally I'll just touch upon that non sequitur again as you seem either too self-absorbed or too obtuse to have perused that link: When you add up all the numbers of Muslims who want to kill apostates or stone women to death for adultery (which is often simply rape) or chop off the hands of thieves, it's irrelevant if they only vote for one or two – or even all of those obscenities – their disagreement on how to implement their barbarism does not absolve them of wanting to implement said barbarism in whatever form.

    • Re: "Well, I'd like to continue this discussion but I'm afraid it will be a waste of my time and yours."

      Yes, because apparently I'm too insolent to just capitulate to you and your Youtube video (which very well could have contained actors scripted to say what they said, in which case it's evidence of nothing whatsoever). More seriously, whining because you didn't get your way and because you weren't able to bully me into submission, is childish. Someone who claims to have wanted a "discussion" ought to have known better.

      Re: "It seems that, because you disagree with me, that every syllable I type is bullshit and must be refuted (or converted into a point in your favour.)"

      You claim to have wanted a "discussion." I engaged in one with you. Was I not supposed to have done so? If you don't like the results, whose fault is that? Mine, for not immediately having given into you? Or yours, for having had bad expectations?

      Re: "And it makes a person who is capable of writing a measured – though nonsense – blog post seem a pedant with whom engagement pointless."

      You ended up conceding that I was correct that the Bobster lied, twice. Precisely how does that make my post "nonsense"?

      Re: "But when you say stuff like, 'Who the fuck cares what they say they want?' it's clear to me that you do not grant people the right to their own views as your views are the only ones that count."

      Once again, you whine childishly that I didn't immediately surrender to you, and fail to get my point. Which is: All your bellyaching about Muslims supposedly wanting to impose "shari'a law" (whatever that might be … you haven't even defined it) on the planet, is useless, if they have no power to make it happen. They may as well "want" the earth to be flat or the moon to be made of green cheese. Their desire for the world to be wholly Islamic is basically pointless and irrelevant. It hasn't happened after centuries of trying. What makes you think it could, now?

      Re: "While I wouldn't accuse you of racism I will accuse you of being an insensitive and condescending twit with a considerate superiority complex."

      When you tell me I disparage "brown people," that very clearly is an implication that I'm a racist. You didn't use that word explicitly but you did imply it. Be honest and own up to what you said. As for my being "insensitive" … I'm sure you could define me that way. You could say I'm every bit as "insensitive" to the wishes of theists, as theists are "insensitive" to non-believers such as myself. But so what? What good is "sensitivity" going to do anyone? I don't care about people's feelings. I care what they DO. Theists of all stripes … Muslims, Christians, and all other faiths … are all capable of extremism and militancy. What point can there be in being "sensitive" to extremists and militants?

      Re: "Finally I'll just touch upon that non sequitur again as you seem either too self-absorbed or too obtuse to have perused that link …"

      Once again, you don't get it. Anyone can stage a video that shows anything they want. Hell, one Neocrusader even filmed a movie about Mohammed under false pretenses and managed to deceive his own cast into thinking it had nothing to do with Islam's prophet. I'm not watching a video unless I know its progeny. You refused to provide it. Ergo, I don't watch. If you don't like it … too bad. You're just going to have to find some way to live with it. But complaining that I've been too stubborn and insolent to watch it, won't help you. It will just keep showing how childish you are.

      Re: "When you add up all the numbers of Muslims who want to kill apostates or stone women to death for adultery (which is often simply rape) or chop off the hands of thieves …"

      You're aware, I hope, of Christians right here in the US who pretty much advocate a similar "eye for an eye" justice system, don't you? They're known generally as Dominionists, and a lot of those adhere to a specific form of that called Christian Reconstructionism. These Christians are very well connected and highly influential. I'm not impressed by either camp. In fact, since one is much closer to me as an American, and has enough power to be able to pull off a government shutdown, I'd say the latter is a much greater danger to me, personally, as a non-believer.

      Re: "… their disagreement on how to implement their barbarism does not absolve them of wanting to implement said barbarism in whatever form."

      I'm not sure why it escapes you, but their inability to agree on what "shari'a law" is (hell, for that matter, you haven't even explained what you think it is) means they can't implement it.

  • Happy

    The video is a BBC Panorama documentary from this year. Your childish refusal to watch even 10 seconds of it shows me that you're not really interested in a discussion but are interested in a whole lot of hand waving. You're not even smart enough to click through and see the title. That you need to so vocally and repeatedly refute that which you have not seen is an attitude I'd expect on the school playground. I did tell you there were countless other sources to be found of Muslims saying the very same but you're obviously not competent enough to find any mostly because they wont fit in with your narrative. You're an idiot.

    But I've also figured out that you're just disingenuous. Your assertion that Sharia can't be implemented because Muslims disagree on the details is something you made up on the toilet. There are hundreds of millions of people ALREADY living under Sharia in some for or another
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_shari

    And, if you look at the what those Muslims from those countries say when you ask them their opinions they will tell you they want MORE Sharia, not less.
    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-mus

    Muslims from these countries are emigrating to your country every day of the week. If there was a Muslim Majority in your country and they had a democratic vote, they would vote for Sharia. There are already "Muslim Patrols" on the streets of London – google it, there are videos and news articles and court cases. There are also Sharia courts in Britain.

    So your assertion is bullshit. Your attitude is worse than childish. And the fact that you need to repeatedly conflate Christianity with Islam as a means to absolve Muslims of being barbarians shows me that you are pretty much incapable of rational thought and that you actually don't have much to make in the way of argument.

    That there is plenty wrong with Christianity is a point everybody should concede. That Christians need to civilise themselves is another. But there will never be a Christian Theocracy that calls from apostasy killings or stoning for adultery or chopping hands of thieves. Not now, not in a million years.

    Yet there are a billion Muslims who are happy with one or more of those on this very planet at this very time. But you say it isn't so because you are right about everything all the time. Every time. Well done. You're some kind of special genius.

    • Re: "The video is a BBC Panorama documentary from this year."

      Gee, thanks for telling me … long after you could have. Why did you hold that back? In any event, does this video support either of Bobby Jindal's lies (i.e. the "no go zones" or that the the US is being "invaded" by Muslims capable of imposing shari'a law on the country)? If not, it'd be useless for me to watch it. And in any event, you ended up conceding both of those were lies, anyway.

      Re: "You're not even smart enough to click through and see the title."

      Says someone who's not even smart enough to have typed, "Here's a BBC video …".

      Re: "Your assertion that Sharia can't be implemented because Muslims disagree on the details is something you made up on the toilet. There are hundreds of millions of people ALREADY living under Sharia in some for or another"

      Yes, they're under localized forms of it. How can an amorphous and undefined form of "law" can be imposed on people from outside if there is no such thing already in place? It can't.

      Re: "And, if you look at the what those Muslims from those countries say when you ask them their opinions they will tell you they want MORE Sharia, not less."

      As I explained to you, people's "wants" are irrelevant so long as they're in no position to implement them.

      Re "Muslims from these countries are emigrating to your country every day of the week."

      So are people from Latin America, and nearly all of them are Roman Catholic. In fact, there are many more of them coming in. Are you now going to suggest they've "invaded" us with the intention of imposing "papal law" on the country?

      Re: "If there was a Muslim Majority in your country and they had a democratic vote, they would vote for Sharia."

      Muslims are, IIRC, less than 1% of the population. Even if that were to escalate to, say, 5%, how would they "vote in" shari'a law? For that matter, how could they do so when the US Constitution expressly forbids rule by religion?

      Re: "So your assertion is bullshit."

      No it's not. Yours is.

      Re: "Your attitude is worse than childish."

      My attitude is not childish at all. What is childish, is to continue defending a wild-eyed crank even after you've admitted the wild-eyed crank has told demonstrable lies, all in the name of not having to admit your wild-eyed crank is a wild-eyed crank who tells lies.

      Re: "And the fact that you need to repeatedly conflate Christianity with Islam …"

      Again, I'm pointing out the standards you use to condemn Islam happen to apply to other religions too.

      Re: "But there will never be a Christian Theocracy that calls from apostasy killings or stoning for adultery or chopping hands of thieves."

      People like Ted Cruz are in Congress right now working to make that happen. I admit it's unlikely they could … however, known dominionists in Congress with power and influence are a greater danger to me than Muslims who are far too small a constituency in the US to carry any political weight.

      Re: "Yet there are a billion Muslims who are happy with one or more of those on this very planet at this very time. "

      Even if that's true, it has NO bearing on the fact that the Bobster lied on two counts … something which you've already acknowledged. Stop the sanctimonious caterwauling about everything else. And grow up and stop getting your panties in a bunch because there's actually a religion out there which is not Christianity.