Radical Muslim males only have the emotional maturity of a 5 or 6 year-old boy.

If you’re a boy raised in a society where women have neither the power nor the authority to discipline their male offspring, then those male offspring grow up to become immature, self-centered narcissists who take no responsability for their acts, and for whom everything and anything can become an ‘unfair’ provocation.

Those who ordain that women should be covered from head to toe imply that men have no control over their sexual drive. Isn’t that the type of behaviour you’d expect to find in an animal, as opposed to a civilised, grown man?

It surprises me that these men who demand women to cover up don’t see it as a sign of male inferiority?

He was scheduled to give mutiple lectures in front of 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of people in total.

The one hate preacher is gone, but the 1000s who’d have attended his lectures are still there, their hatreds unchallenged and never condemned

Saudi Arabia is certainly behind these two sickos as well as many others, and so when will we get down to brass tacks and subject Saudi Arabia and its citizens to some vigorous checks, controles and travel restrictions?

We need a set of special laws/exemptions for these monsters.

Pierre Vogel is a very sick, dangerous sociopath who will (and not could) inevitably harm innocent people. He has to be removed from ciruculation and placed in a strict quarantine, the way the Americans did with Charles Manson…another convert to Islam.

This man preaches murder, and so how can we allow such a sick mindset to continue to spout hatred under the guise of religious tolerance?

Islamists don’t play by the rules, they don’t respect our laws, but only use them to overturn our way of life, and so when dealing with them we needn’t play by the rules either.

The authorities and others need to recognise that these people are in nothing less than a total state of war with us.

I watched the video. The quote is provided out of the context in which it was said. If you simply say “Michael Savage said kill 100m Muslims” then its bad.

If you place it in the context then its a different statement. He was referring to reports that Muslim fanatics were looking to kill Westerners to destroy the West. He said we had to fight back. He then said that someone commented “But Michael, there are over a billion of them”. He said, “So kill 100 million. Would you rather that YOU die or they die”.

Didn’t Patton say that in a speech to a military academy on his retirement? That the idea of a war is to kill your enemy and you’d better kill them good or they will come back and kill you?”

His statement “So kill 100m Muslims” was entirely rhetorical and was NOT a call to kill anyone. It wasn’t an incitement to kill anyone. It was a formulaic statement that echoes the aim of a military. Someone says “But Michael, there are X Muslims”. Savage did not say, “So kill X Muslims”. What he was referring-to was the Dresden and Hiroshima formula whereby the allies and USA decided to make massive attacks that would kill civilians to make a point that they would prevail. Someone before Hiroshima would have know that hundreds of thousand Japanese would be killed but reasoned that such an action would halt the war and defeat Japan.

Absolutely no-one, me included, supports any call to kill one person. But this statement was not an incitement to kill anyone. It was a rhetorical, formulaic response to the point being argued.

I am not agreeing with Savage and wish he had never said it. My position is that of a defence lawyer has to put a case for the defence whether he agrees or not with the actions. I happen to believe that the full context changes the meaning.

The word “So” in his point means you have to understand what he’s responding to and why.

(I thought long and hard before pressing Submit. Please don’t say I support what Savage said as a statment stripped of its context)

Bilal gives himself away at a certain point when he says that the Prophet ordained that boys have to sleep in separate beds. This implies that the temptation to play sexual games would have been irresistible. Deep down in Bilal, I think, there is the boy whom the prophet saved from sleeping in the same bed as another boy.

This is also why women in strict Islam have to cover their bodies completely, to restrain men from irresistible lust. If another man sees so much as a toe of your wife, she is practically a lost woman. But they leave the eyes exposed, because a woman has to be able to see where she’s going and what could be more dangerous than eye-contact?

About the ‘naturlness’, if there is anything unnatural – for better and worse – it is the rigidly enforced instituion of marriage – as opposed to people who voluntarily want to share their lives and continue to enjoy doing so. The happy examples of this are few, most people live under duress, in a prison, in what Shelley called ‘the longest journey’ – and escape from this is entirely natural, is nature’s protest.

Talk of sleeping in the same bed; when I was at boarding school, all the boys were hopping into one another’s beds. I was then a little puritain, so I refused. Well, all those boys have grown up into ‘healthy’ heteros and I have remained on the other happy shore.

Would you, by any chance, be referring to the Harry’s Place that has just published two articles on Wilders entitled, respectively,

“Wilders: Enemy of Liberalism”

and

“Geert Wilders: a dangerous step backward for Europe”

Or are you just a dribbling idiot?

Goodbye.

Remeber folks when you say it about Muslims its freedom of speech; when Muslims say it its hate speech