Newt Gingrich: Merely Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony

from the say-what-now? dept

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is making some news today for some silly remarks he made on Fox News last night in response to the attack last night in Nice, France. It comes right at the beginning of this video:

All of the press — for good reason — is focusing on the first part of what he said, about deporting anyone “of Muslim background” (whatever that means) who “believes in Sharia.” We’ll skip over why this is totally clueless and unconstitutional, because plenty of other news sites are handling that.

Instead, we’ll move on to the second craziest thing he said, right after that first statement, which is something that fits much more with Techdirt’s usual themes: Gingrich then claims two ridiculous things, each only slightly less ridiculous than his first statement:

Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony and they should go to jail. Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon. It should be closed down immediately. Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet based source…

He then goes on to note that if we can’t take them off the internet, we should just kill them all. Which, you know, I’m sure won’t anger any more people against us.

Either way, this is idiotic. Merely visiting a website should put you in jail? What if you’re a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony? That’s not how it works. This also assumes, idiotically, that merely reading a website about ISIS will make people side with ISIS. It’s also not, at all, how the law works. Same with the second part about it being a felony to host such content. We’re already seeing lawsuits against social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for hosting accounts from ISIS, and many are voluntarily taking down lots of those accounts. But making it a felony to keep them up? That’s also not how the law works.

Reacting to a very real problem with stupid unconstitutional solutions suggests someone who has no clue what he’s doing.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Newt Gingrich: Merely Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
109 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony and they should go to jail.

Well, I guess if you want to increase the prison population exponentially, it sounds like a good idea.

Perhaps being part of the “party of fiscal responsibility” he should outline the estimated costs of implementing such a ridiculous policy up front, including:

– how much it’ll cost to feed & water all these felons
– estimated welfare costs, since their job prospects after getting out of jail would be close to or equal to zero

Seems like someone didn’t learn from “3 strikes” “mandatory minimum sentences” or the “Rockefeller drug laws”

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Incompatible?

Add on to that, sometime in the last month or so he apparently came out in favor of reinstating the House Un-American Activities Committee, only this time against terrorism (et cetera) rather than against communism.

This was so close to the point at which he started being considered as a candidate for Donald Trump’s VP slot that I honestly don’t recall which event I heard about first, much less which actually happened first.

John85851 (profile) says:

Perfect example of American politics

This right here is a beautiful example of American politics.
Newt has been a law maker for years and year and knows that what he’s saying is unconstitutional and impossible to implement. But that’s not the point.
American politics (as proved by Trump) is all about who can make the most outrageous statement that will be picked up by the media talked-about the next day. See, look- this site is even doing it!
Then next week, Newt might walk back his comment and say things like he didn’t mean it or what he meant was something else. This will then get him more press coverage and attention.

Anonymous Coward says:

> Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon.

Don’t they mean “engaged to a felon”? And how binding are marriage rights between an incarcerated “natural person” and someone who is only a “legal person”?

Oh, you think they meant “felony”? Then let me whip out my pen and start marking the other changes to make that sentence grammatically – and legalistically – correct.

DannyB (profile) says:

Help, I've felon and I can't get up!

Here’s an idea. On some web site that congress critters all visit, place a link to an ISIS web site. Be sure to use phishing and social engineering techniques to ensure that a significant number of congress critters will click on it.

Overnight a large number of congress critters become felons. Hey, they all visited an ISIS web site. They should all go to jail.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

One hundred years ago...

The entirety of Western culture (not just Germany) was having this conversation about a slightly different religious minority. While we didn’t have daily news of Jewish terrorism, they were still allegedly responsible for baby-eating and blood libel and deicide and conspiracy to undermine the Weimar Republic and anything else we could pin on them.

(As an amateur historian, I am still unclear as to why Jews were so clearly hated, but they were reviled internationally. One would think somewhere there was some legitimate dog-kicking that pissed everyone off.)

But yeah, this kind of kill anyone who looks like or sympathizes with them rhetoric was pretty rampant. One would think even old Neocons like Gingrich would have gotten the memo that you don’t advocate for social cleansing unless you’re willing to be the first one socially cleansed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: One hundred years ago...

Someone has to be the bitch. If there is not one, create one.

The Jews were selected, perhaps for reasons history does not show, but they were selected.

You need look no further than a class room full of children. You leave them for a few hours and someone will draw lines over something and viola… hate!

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: 80 die in Nice France to truck rampage

So, you are saying that if it was a Jew rather than a Muslim who rampaged through Nice, France killing a bunch of people, and Jews, not Muslims who hit Paris and Brussels and, heck even hijacked the planes on 9/11/01, that you’d be the first one to volunteer to pack the trains for Auschwitz?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: 80 die in Nice France to truck rampage

Well if the truck driver was a good white Christian holding a grudge against a Christian based society then he/she would only be described as deranged/unhinged/etc & it wouldn’t be called a terrorist attack despite having all the same results as a terrorist attack.

But hey, if they look different/sound strange/have a foreign name/come from foreign place who ain’t one of us, then they are automatically a terrorist. So far it is looking like a disgruntled man with a grudge against society as no group of mass murdering terrorists have claimed it as their handiwork. I also base this on the lack of reports of the old standby of “Allah Akbar” not being shouted out as the killing spree went on.

I do wish that moviemakers wouldn’t give bad ideas to bad people to copycat just to titillate viewers. I’m sure Hollywood won’t have any barbs pointed at themselves for encouraging people to copy their onscreen antics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: One hundred years ago...

As an amateur historian, I am still unclear as to why Jews were so clearly hated, but they were reviled internationally. One would think somewhere there was some legitimate dog-kicking that pissed everyone off

The Palestinians might be able to enlighten you there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: One hundred years ago...

Jews were hated partly because they didn’t assimilate (the gypsies being the other main persistent minority which neither assimilated nor took over), partly because they were the only ones allowed to lend money at interest (because of a prohibition in the Old Testament which forbade usury except when lending to Gentiles), partly because of beliefs persisting from Roman times (some of which seem to have come from misunderstanding Christianity anyway), and partly because the Jews took responsibility for Jesus’s death in one of the gospels.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 One hundred years ago...

Here’s a rough introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Restrictions_on_occupations_and_professions

There is a huge amount of information available about this, so my recommendation would be to talk to a historian that covers this topic, or talk to almost any Rabbi. Google can also help: a reasonable search term would be “jews prohibited from business medieval”

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 One hundred years ago...

I remember the position of Jews as moneylenders and traders in the middle ages in response to their ostracization from common trades. There just seems to be a time-gap between the era the Jewish moneylender and modern antisemitism, especially since the Swiss and Italian banking systems had been established throughout Europe since the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 One hundred years ago...

One theory for Jews being so prevalent in the moneylending and “middle-man” (traders, brokers, etc.) occupations throughout history is the fact that every Jewish man was (and is) required to read from the Torah at their Bar Mitzvah (usually age 13). This dates back before Christianity began. As a group, Jews were simply more educated than anyone else throughout most of our history.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: "You are hereby found guilty of doing exactly what I wanted you to do."

… and partly because the Jews took responsibility for Jesus’s death in one of the gospels.

That one has never made sense to me. If, as the story goes, someone is specifically ‘sent’ with the deliberate intent that they be killed/’sacrificed’ for some reason, getting mad at those involved is ridiculous. If you’re going to get mad at anyone in a situation like that, it seems the best/most logical target of anger would be the one who sent the person to die and/or required their death in the first place.

It would would be kinda like me setting out a plate of food, knowing that someone would eat it and in fact desiring that to happen, and then getting mad at the person/people who did so.

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: One hundred years ago...

The Jew-baiting thing began as a response to Jewish refugees fleeing the Islamic empires; treated as outsiders and denied the opportunity to engage in the usual trades (now where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, that’s how we treat refugees in the UK now), they took to moneylending and trade. The trouble is, waging war on your neighbours to enlarge your territory is expensive, and you can’t not do it in a culture that demands that you fight or be destroyed. There was no option to peacefully mind your own business back in the day. So basically, the potentates who borrowed money from Jewish traders and bankers owed them a lot of moolah, and rather than pay it back, began the practice of blood libel and anti-semitic slander that continues to this day.

You will see this played out anywhere a numerous minority group exists that has found a way to leverage power in any given district; I wouldn’t like to be a Mexican in Arizona, for example. They suffer all kinds of indignities in the game of “Hunt the illegals.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Gingrich knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s playing on anti-muslim/anti-zealot/muslim-extremist fears to promote a similar agenda to Trump’s. He knows content based restrictions on speech won’t pass Constitutional muster. He’s scoring political points because he also knows most of the constituents he’s preaching to are ignorant on how the First Amendment works and, potentially, don’t care what a slippery slope it would be to make a ban on fanatic rantings stick.

It’s just more fear mongering and playing to the ignorant masses. Same thing politicians have been doing for thousands of years.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He knows content based restrictions on speech won’t pass Constitutional muster.

Are you sure of that?

There are laws that, based on the plain reading of the constitution, are unconstitutional, but have been implemented and survived constitutional challenges. Usually by the Supreme Court declaring some special state interest, or introducing new legal principles that don’t previously exist to make an exception of something.

TestPilotDummy says:

Freedom

You’ve a right to practice freedom of religion, not a death cult.

Newt is spot on Sharia Law being that of a DEATH CULT, which is FATAL to the rule of law, and our Constitutional Republic where ever it goes.

The problem is you want to focus on how he doesn’t understand how the web works–you are right he don’t get it, he just wants the crap shut down. Your logic is flawed cause you haven’t thought this out, there’s no way to ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT it.. SO his words are fucking meaningless, your so focused on this PC horse shit, You apparently don’t care about your country or LIFE.

There is TREASON and NO RULE OF LAW

Wake the Fuck up or take a long Sharia Law dirt nap.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Freedom

So the Koran & Sharia Law are based on writings that are completely alien to Christians then.

Maybe you should talk to a Christian Theologian for some solid facts.

Let’s start with the Old Testament that the Christians love to refer to when poofter bashing & other social things that they don’t like. The Old Testament is so bloody good that Islam uses it too. Whoops!!

Here in Australia we now have an ignorant immigrant who once again became a politician, this time a Senator, who demands a Royal Commission into Islam to prove that it is an ideology & not a religion. As all religions are based on an ideology this will be a slippery slope when the same rulings are then used against other religions.

Watch out for those religions that are constantly fighting to retain their tax free religion status (Scientologists for example) ramp up their attack against their gravy trains.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Re: Freedom

You can believe in anything you want.

You are free to practice any element of a religion as long as that element doesn’t break a law.

You are freee to believe in a death cult, say a cult that as part of it requires sacrificing 1 human every week.

You can follow that religion, as long as you don’t perform the illegal act of murdering someone. You can WANT it to happen, and complain about the fact that if you do do it you’ll be arrested for murder. But as long as you don’t actually do that (or any other) illegal act, you are free to believe in, worship and perform the rituals of that religion.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Religions featuring Sacrifice

Some kinds of Satanism involve sacrifice in effigy, often the pope of the RCC, though there are some that like virgin women. (Or they’ll do a non-killing pageant of a virgin sacrifice. It’s considered a place of honor to be the one sacrificed.)

Santeria features the sacrifice of small animals, typically chickens. Several counties actually have special dispensation rules for the unregulated slaughter of chickens or game in municipal areas when done for religious purposes. And they’ll cook and eat the hapless bird afterwords.

The neat thing about a sacrifice is that it creates an event. In ancient times, a sacrifice could be very powerful by which executions were commuted, debtors were forgiven and shunned were welcomed back into the community, their misdeeds passed on to the offering.

Without these events, our modern religions have had to create alternative rights…or, as in post-reformation western society, they have forgotten what they were about.

I’m also not saying things were better in the good old days, but that some good ideas were disrupted and never recovered.

Eldakka (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Religions featuring Sacrifice

Some kinds of Satanism involve sacrifice in effigy, often the pope of the RCC, though there are some that like virgin women.

They may have been a successful cult/religion in pre-modern times with that requirement. But these days? Good luck in finding said virgin. Probably have more luck finding a unicorn 😉

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Possessing a bible is a crime"

In the United States?

Our freedom of speech and press is enshrined in the same amendment to the Constitution as the freedom of religion.

Granted there are plenty of industrialized nations that do not have the same freedom of press that the US does.

But are there any nations that outlaw the Holy Bible that have or practice freedom of religion?

Anonymous Coward says:

IF you are a reseacher, you just use a VPN where your activities cannot be traced.

Then you use a program like KillDisk, to erase any evidence from your computer that you went there. If there is no evidence, there is no case. And unlike with Evidence Eliminator, KillDisk makes the disk as blank as the day it was manufactured, making its use all impossible to detect, once you have reinstalled the operating system.

Anonymous Coward says:

If there was a pen with 100 dogs in it and you knew that some of them had rabies but weren’t yet showing symptoms, would you leave them all together? Would you let your kids go in and play with them? If the dogs were treated the way politicians deal with muslims, you would FORCE your kids in to the pen to play with the dogs, and then open the gate and allow them to vanish into the world unchecked.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases...

…and that we should deny the individual person (the children) the agency to decide for themselves which ones are dangerous or not?

Creating a society on the basis that we need to be overseen by shepards is only palatable when I am the shepard and you are one of the flock. You would expect to forsake any religion or ideology you might hold dear in favor of those your masters dictate. Or you and your family would suffer.

If it doesn’t appeal to you that someone else is controlling what you see, read or learn, then we need to develop a system in which people govern themselves, even if despite themselves.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases...

No, I think the pen in this case is some random prejudice that groups people together, not necessarily religion.. and the rabies are some people that commit crimes that happen to meet that prejudice.. blacks, muslims, or whatever.. and the children are.. umm… citizens who can’t think for themselves, and are being forced to play with the black people (or was it mexican? Russian? I think the specific prejudice is left unstated).. and then are not killed afterwards but allowed to live

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases...

Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases…

Pretty much.

>…and that we should deny the individual person (the children) the agency to decide for themselves which ones are dangerous or not?

So you would let your children decide for themselves if they wanted to go into a pen full of dogs where they might get bitten and contract rabies? Would you also let them decide for themselves if they wanted to play Russian Roulette? Actually, a better question is would YOU be willing to play Russian Roulette? No? How about if there were 100 guns and only one of them was loaded? How about if I pay you $100 for each gun that you try? After all, only 1% of the guns are “bad”. How many of them would you put to your head before you decided that the reward wasn’t worth the risk? 10? 20?

Everyone loves to say that not all muslims are terrorists, that the majority of them are peaceful, tolerant people. Why don’t you test that theory by walking through a supposedly peaceful Islmaic country wearing a T-shirt with one of the Dutch Mohammad cartoons on it and see how the peaceful muslims react. In fact, why don’t you try burning a koran outside an American mosque and see how peaceful those muslims really are? After all, burning a koran is protected speech and violence is illegal, so all the peaceful muslims will just calmly explain to you why they feel offended by what you’re doing, right? Surely none of them will bash your skull in with a brick, right?

Are all these attacks that are being carried out in places like France caused by terrorists who somehow snuck into the country? Or are they carried out by muslims who grew up in those countries and who everyone assumed were nice peaceful muslims right up until they started killing people? I suppose the fact that Islam teaches that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death didn’t influence Omar Mateen in the slightest? He just came to the conclusion that gays needed to die all on his own?

This cartoon perfectly sums up the problem.

https://s31.postimg.org/a2eyvnia3/Islam_SJW_truth_650.jpg

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases...

You would let your children decide for themselves if they wanted to go into a pen full of dogs where they might get bitten and contract rabies?

In this case, I was talking about people. Adults, which I thought were the metaphoric children in your example. Regarding the dog pit, any dog park full of dogs presents risk of bites and infections. Here in California, the risk is low enough that I can let a toddler hang out with dogs in a dog park with little worry.

But your metaphors are not really analogous and compare poorly to actual circumstances. So I’m not going to meddle with them.

One of the axioms of our society is that each person has their own agency (with, perhaps, the uncommon exception that a person is mentally disabled, and even then we have a lot of safeguards to prevent people from losing their rights through involuntary committal). That is to say a person can study whatever they want, including ideologies that might be considered dangerous by others such as Islam or Marxism. Would I let my child study either of these? Of course I would. If he was mature enough to digest and comprehend the ideas behind these ideologies, he’d also be mature enough to sort out what is logically valid, and what isn’t. In the case of such a student, more ideas, not fewer, would serve, and would train him to consider ideologies critically, whether religious or secular. Whether sectarian, or pluralist.

Children under seven tend not to be very good with critical thought or fact-checking, so I probably wouldn’t let people lie to him before nine without debriefing.

Prohibition of speech (or publication, or religious practice) of any sort based on the notion that someone could be radicalized by it presumes that people do not control themselves and their destinies, which renders the notion of crime and punishment inert. If a common person can be transformed into a malicious agent against his or her will just by passing information, how can we later declare that he had responsibility for his actions and therefore should be punished? And then, why would we allow for advertising at all, since people are so susceptible to it?

As for offending people, there are lots of groups that can get offended, and it’s easy to offend almost anyone. I’m not going to burn a Koran any more than I’m going to wear Nazi paraphernalia to a synagogue. But Muslims are not the only ones prone to violence. There are some towns in Kentucky in which wearing a sigil indicating I was atheist or neopagan would get me assaulted (at very least refused service at the local markets) It’s the same in Georgia, or Alabama, or Mississippi, or South Carolina, or even Florida. So it’s not particularly special that some Muslims would take offense to my deliberately trying to offend them. More importantly, there are plenty of Muslims would would not respond aggressively, who would just suffer my bigotry, or would tell me that what I’m wearing hurts their feelings.

You know, the way civilized people behave.

Regarding Mateen, we don’t know what he was thinking. He wasn’t close to anyone. His neighbors suggested his hatred focused on gays, not the enemies of Islam. His father suggested Mateen wasn’t very Muslim if at all, so we don’t know if he had some spiritual revelation, or he was just paying lip service to the Islamic State (the periodicals of which helped him plan his attack). In fact, plenty of people dislike gays, often while suppressing gay feelings themselves. Considering how much Mateen dwelled on gay people and gayness, my first guess would be that he was dealing with some inner conflict, whether it was that he felt attracted to other men, and couldn’t process that along with his judgement of gays, or if gays provided a perfect scapegoat for all his woes. But again plenty of others experience those conflicts all the time and are Muslim, and still don’t feel the need to shoot up gay dance clubs.

Every country suffers from people who go amuck. These days, we have rampage shooters, but in the 80s and 90s it was family annihilators. Regardless, they’re super rare, and they aren’t conspicuously Muslim. Our press in the US just likes to focus on the Muslimness of those who are, but not on the Christianness of those who are Christian. I suspect often rampage killers are not concerned with political or religious matters. They’re just so angry and so miserable that they want to lash out.

As for the cartoon, it’s not representative of any SJW that I know of. I, for one, expect people to have agency, to take responsibility in informing themselves, to consider even sacred ideas critically and to respect everyone in their community even when they are advised by their church to not. Granted some people (exempi gratia, Kim Davis) appear to be incapable regarding others in their society reciprocally. She feels judged when SJWs like me find her actions bigoted and inappropriate, but cannot see how that compares to her judging gays, refusing them service as a state clerk and considering how that might make those gays feel. She is (it appears) incapable of regarding gays as part of her (large, pluralist) society. Still it doesn’t hurt just gays, but the society at large by setting the example that some people can be disregarded. People have to get over their provincial ideals in order to favor ones that serve to make a larger, more reciprocal, more equitable nation. In Davis’ case she needs to exercise responsibility or step down so that someone else can do the job.

The thing is, no religious idea (wearing non-blended clothing, regarding women as chattel, authority of Church tradition, etc.) is that sacred. Just as Christians can acknowledge that women are people too so can Muslims. Some do. Just as Christians can decide they don’t require absolution from a priest for salvation, Muslims can decide they don’t need to wage war against the Infidel. Intolerance mandated by religion is still intolerance. So from here, the cartoon looks like a straw-man, arguing against a position easier to contradict than is actually considered by SJWs. (Or at least by this SJW.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Are you saying that religions and ideas are like infectious diseases...

In this case, I was talking about people. Adults, which I thought were the metaphoric children in your example.

Yes. Except that while you interpreted NOT letting anyone go into the dog pen as being a nanny state, you didn’t consider the reverse. You said that it would be taking away the people’s right to choose. However that’s what’s already happening. People don’t have the choice to not go into the metaphoric dog pen or not to have the dogs released into the wild. Under the banner of multiculturalism, governments force their citizens to accent people from other countries that they may not want. They accept huge numbers of migrants and immigrants even when doing so has been shown to be detrimental to the wellbeing of the country and its people.

>Regarding the dog pit, any dog park full of dogs presents risk of bites and infections. Here in California, the risk is low enough that I can let a toddler hang out with dogs in a dog park with little worry.

And if there was about a 90% chance that at least one of the dogs had rabies? Would you still let the toddler hang out with them?

>That is to say a person can study whatever they want, including ideologies that might be considered dangerous by others such as Islam or Marxism.

If people just studied such things in an isolated, logical manner, that wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening in the world. Ideologies such as Islam are being taught by people who have their own warped view of what it means and how it should be interpreted. It’s not so much studying as being indoctrinated. Are you honestly going to tell me that a muslim, living in a predominantly muslim community, going to a muslim school, hanging out with muslim friends, having the warped ideals of Islam drilling into them on a daily basis, is going to look at Islam objectively and compare it to other religions?

>Prohibition of speech (or publication, or religious practice) of any sort based on the notion that someone could be radicalized by it presumes that people do not control themselves and their destinies, which renders the notion of crime and punishment inert.

So you’re saying that being raised from birth to believe that you’re one of the chosen people, that everyone who doesn’t follow your religion is an infidel, that women shouldn’t have rights and that homosexuals deserve to die, is the same as Jimmy Whitebread hearing about how great Islam is?

>But Muslims are not the only ones prone to violence.

Have you seen the video of muslims practically rioting after Lars Vilks showed them a video that they found offensive? How about the videos of the large-scale muslim protests over the Innocence of Muslims video on YouTube? Or the videos of muslims throwing rocks at christians, both in the US and other countries? How about the muslim who attacked people on a train in Germany with an axe? Or the muslim who stabbed three young girls and their mother in France for being “scantily” dressed? Or the muslim rapist in Britain who got off because his muslim lawyer successfully argued that he came from a different culture and didn’t realize that rape wasn’t appropriate behavior and also that no permanent harm was done to the victim? He went on to rape and beat two more women. Or the muslim stabbings in Canada?

Would you like me to post links to videos of muslim gangs beating people in Eruope? Muslims proclaiming that the native populations of those countries better get ready to accept Islam because it’s coming whether they like it or not? How about a video of muslims lighting a public Christmas tree on fire? Burning cars? Assaulting the police? Screaming “Death to America!”? Muslim patrols in Britain hassling people for things like drinking or wearing sexy clothes? Maybe a video of news crews being assaulted by muslims for just filming in the area?

>More importantly, there are plenty of Muslims would would not respond aggressively, who would just suffer my bigotry, or would tell me that what I’m wearing hurts their feelings.

Why don’t you ask the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists about the peaceful muslim response to their work? Oh wait, you can’t because they’re dead.

Maybe 99% of the muslims wouldn’t hurt you for burning a koran (even though I think that figure is overly optimistic), but the remaining 1% would happily slit your throat the moment your back was turned. That’s a problem.

>Regardless, they’re super rare, and they aren’t conspicuously Muslim.

Like the huge crowd of men/boys in the middle east cheering on a song about Bin Laden? Like a cleric conducting a survey of 200+ (peaceful) muslim men and every single one of them raising their hand to the question of how many of them think that the punishments listed in the koran, like stoning and the chopping off of hands, should be favored over any other law? Like the women interviewed on middle eastern TV saying how proud they are of their sons for having “martyred” themselves in suicide bombings? Let me know if you want links for any of these videos.

>Just as Christians can decide they don’t require absolution from a priest for salvation, Muslims can decide they don’t need to wage war against the Infidel.

And for the ones who DO decide that they need to wage war against the infidels?

Islam as a whole is a violent, intolerant ideology. I know it’s not politically correct to say that, but it’s the truth. Maybe some muslims living in Beverly Hills and going to a fancy college are happy integrating into American society and accepting our values, but that’s not what’s happening in the world at large. Muslim immigrants in countries like Britain and Denmark are forming ghettos where the Islamic way of life can be enforced and promoted. They don’t assimilate, they don’t integrate, they occupy.

And do you think that muslims in Islamic countries are being taught tolerance and peace? Because if that’s case, how do you explain things like honor killings, rape victims being stoned to death by mobs, gays being publicly executed, women being treated like property, riots breaking out over cartoons or videos that they find offensive, and the increase in violent attacks and sexual assaults being committed by muslim immigrants?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If there was a pen with 100 dogs in it and you knew that some of them had rabies but weren’t yet showing symptoms, would you leave them all together? Would you let your kids go in and play with them?

If there was a country with 300M people in it and you knew that some of them were radical but weren’t yet showing symptoms, would you leave them all together? Would you let your kids go out and be with them? Or would you just start killing and let God sort them out?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you consider the Christian faith to be so fragile that your children could be easily converted to another faith then yep, keep them segregated, however we are all told how wonderful & strong the Christian faith is, so then there is nothing to worry about. You may even convert some of your “infidels” to your way of thinking instead & then you start to “Win” the eternal fight against your enemy.

But then in your eyes Muslims “eat babies”, now where have I heard that line before?

How on God’s Earth can you say someone’s radicalized without showing symptoms of radicalization?

Gods have had thousands of years to “Sort them out” & we’re still waiting for the conclusion. Which God will win their fight & why use us pathetic humans to fight with, as Gods have far more power than any mere mortals on Earth? Especially when Gods are fighting over the whole Universe, what point is there for it to be centered on little old Earth stuck on a spiral arm of a distant Galaxy far from the center of the Universe?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Matthew 13:24-30

Ick! From the perspective of an outsider, that parable smacks of advocating of genocide.

weeds are simply plants you don’t want growing in your garden. Most of the time, they’re regarded as weeds because they choke out product plants (though numerous kinds are symbiotic or provide produce of their own).

Generally one doesn’t need an enemy to have their fields weeded. Flora tends to migrate and conquer territory on its own.

Anonymous Coward says:

Newton Leroy Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Merely Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony

And in a perfect world influence peddling and selling out your constituency as a member of congress Should Be A Felony too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freddie-mac-paid-newt-gingrichs-firm-165-million-for-consulting-not-lobbying/2012/01/24/gIQArYS9OQ_story.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/gingrich-congressional-ethics-scandal-explained-newt-inc

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/abramoff-accuses-newt-gingrich-of-corruption-really-068547

Newton Leroy Gingrich is a blubbering fraction of American turd stain in search of a balcony.

Jaap van der Velde (user link) says:

No news here

Just a talking head, a pundit on a network that can’t be considered a news network by any stretch of the imagination. Abject opinions, faulty logic, fearmongering – it’s horrible, but news it is not.

Just make sure you don’t elect this kind of monster. Losing your freedom and ending up in a totalitarian society is just a single vote away. Deporting people for their beliefs? Locking them up for reading certain websites? Who’s the enemy here?

paul says:

So the pot calls the kettle black

He and his cronies from Bush era would have to be hanged, drawn and quartered for publicly fraternising with leaders of above mentioned groups. Remember the photos of all of them hugging and shaking hands with leader of these terrorist groups? Especially Ashcroft and McCain? Not? They are publicly accessible with Google searches! So, the pot calls the kettle black……..

Tortured for my faith in God says:

Paranoid a little?

There used to be a quote of wisdom used by warriors in the days of yor. “Know thy enemies.” That wisdom has gone by the wayside with people who usurp governments out from under honest hard working people. The paranoia must be horrendous for them. They perceive the whole world to be their enemy now. They deserve that for certain.

Janet Klien says:

Newt Internet

I asked Trump about doing something similar to what Newt was suggesting, Trump said “absolutely”. I wish I recorded it. Trump also told me he favored SOPA after I explained to him what SOPA was and that it was in TPP. Trump told me that if that’s what is in TPP it’s not that bad and his friend Carl Icann who owns Lion’s Gate would be thrilled and fair use should be only for those who can afford it. Truth be told, Trump is wrong on SOPA but right to put people visiting terrorist websites should be put in jail. I hope one day we can do the same to the NRA website. When I said to Trump about millions of people may be thrown in jail because of making it illegal to visit terrorist websites, Trump told me we either have a country or we don’t and a way to solve that problem is putting the website visitors into Guantonimo bay Cuba. All I can tell you is that Trump told me this and a few parts I agree with Trump on.

Bero (profile) says:

A GREAT plan...

I’m not a supporter of ISIS at all, but merely looking at what they’re writing to get a better understanding of we’re up against sounds like a good idea, not a crime, to me.

Just like having read “Mein Kampf” doesn’t make someone a Nazi.

And of course nothing a computer can do by itself should be a crime. Let’s write a little virus that opens the browser and points it at an ISIS website, then spread it to Gingrich and watch him get locked up on his own request.

Agent Maximise says:

funding of ISIS

One thing I am curious about is why hasn’t homeland security done a thorough investigation of funding for ISIS as there are many claims that high up officials in the USA have been involved in selling their oil via Israel, they have been doing it in plain site of everyone it’s like those individuals have been giving the USA defence forces the birdie.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...