Battle Ship

Welcome to  my new page, Battle Ship. If you are intrepid, you might end up here, as one of my test cases on Free Speech. This is an experiment. Are you ready?
Okay, that sounds pretty cool!


I'm going to introduce you to some people I meet on a daily basis, who like me, believe in their right to freedom of speech, and personal expression, etc.
Unfortunately, these people don't always believe in the right of others to Freedom Of Speech, or personal expression. That's why I'm here.


This page is for all those who can't get their voices heard, you can do battle here, and like the game Battle Ship, if your strategy is correct, YOU WIN..However, if it's not good enough YOU LOSE!

Good Winning, or Sore Losing!

This month - Opening Discussions on Free Speech.

(My response to “I agree with Terry Jones…” with additions)

The Bigger Picture:

“I think you’re missing the big picture; if the Muslims in question are from planet Xartog; they still have the right to free speech. Unlike you, I’m more interested in the big picture. How you manage your blog is not the issue; as I’ve already said, you have the right to delete, or manage comments. I never said otherwise.”(Revision; shorter)

“Your name calling is immature and not getting you anywhere, I can laugh last, if I want to. I can ignore you and you can continue to cry about it; I don’t have to respond to you anymore, in public or otherwise. I said I’d respond with a blog post when I have time and not on your blog because you already showed by deleting my comment that you are not willing to allow comments which contradict you. You sent another email, again calling me names, accusing me of cowardice (ya, right). My advice to you now is to “move on”. “

Your last email was just more of the same nonsense; and while you believe you are very smart, your attempt to interrogate is inadequately spoken. I will gladly post a specimen exactly as you wrote it (following the rest of my comment here) with my response to each point in brackets. (Revision; newer)

“After my posts I can see why you might be angry because of the way I said some things. But that’s what writers call “artistic license” If you don’t like it, you can choose to not visit this blog again.” My first comment on your blog was to be an argument for freedom of speech. (I actually made only a short comment about some of her remarks, which will follow and her first email response)You need to revise your thinking if you want to join the camp for free speech proponents. (Revision; last idea is an addition)

My position:

“I’m all for free speech and freedom to demonstrate, whether one is living in the north or the south. But I’m not for throwing over a stable government, without stopping to pause. I’m not for taking the law into one’s own hands, or anything illegal. I’m not for vigilantism. “(Part of an email I sent)

Also, I’m totally against burning, destroying, or defiling religious books; the Qur’an, the Bible, or any other religious books. I don’t consider that a form of “free speech”, but “hate speech”. If Terry Jones, or you (Hannah Jose), or any other individual person considers this free speech, I argue that it’s not. It is only trying to inflame hatred of Muslims and by Muslims by/for your kind, and to “promote” hatred between Christians, or the West and Muslims. (Revision; addition)

Free Speech?

An Indian national can complain about there being no building for his church in Bahrain, that’s free speech, although misdirected. But to demand a church be built in a sovereign country, especially the Holy cities of Mecca or Medina, is ridiculous. Would Muslims demand a masjid in the Vatican City? None has. No sovereign country is obliged to give land for the construction of another faith’s buildings, or centers, even for worship.

Many of the Christian expats living in the Gulf States do have a church to attend, which is a done deal. This is a mere courtesy by some of the rulers of those Islamic countries. But King Abdullah or the Saudi ruler is not obliged to follow suit.  By the mere fact of there being masajid in North America, doesn’t mean there has to be a church for every congregation in Bahrain, nor even one symbolic  Church in Mecca, a holy city for Muslims, not Christians. Muslims would be horrified to find such a thing, and it is never going to happen; consider a promise from Allah, that no army will be able to enter Mecca, but it will be destroyed. Likewise, I believe no church will ever be built in the Holy city. According to Islamic Shariah, non-Muslims are not welcome in Mecca, period.

Muslims and the Holy Cities:

Logically, with the large number of followers, and people applying for Umrah (lesser pilgrimage) the number of visas each month is not unrestricted. Likewise, during the Hajj high season, and about three months before, new visas for other activities to the Holy city are not issued (to Muslims, not members of the Gulf States). As for members of the Gulf States, they enjoy the privilege of going to the Holy cities, Mecca and Medina, if they like for pilgrimages, year round. (There is a second pilgrimage, permitted to the Prophet Muhammad’s city, Medina, allowing Muslims to visit the Prophet’s home and to see his grave, and the graves of his companions who are buried near him (but not for purposes of Idol worship, which is strictly forbidden in Islam). It is similar in nature, to visiting the graves of dead relatives, so Muslims are allowed to visit such, and this is not worshipping the graves, unless one actually intends to pray at the grave, also a forbidden act, and a part of Idolatry. Believing that saints will answer the prayers is also a part of Idolatry, as is hanging pictures of people, or animals, which is forbidden in Islam.

While many Muslims would love to visit the holy city of Jerusalem, and pray at the Masjid al Aqsa and visit the Dome of the Rock, there are visa requirements for this as well. Muslims were dismayed a few years ago, when the famous Muslim Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) was not permitted with his son, ten years old at the time, to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem because of some “supposed” fears of terrorist threat.

Concluding, this blog, I will relate what Hannah Jose, who calls herself, Infidel, asked me, and how I would have responded to her. Included is my first email to her.

The following is my first reaction: (some additions in brackets)

“I didn't expect you “to add anything new to this discussion” because after you "moderate" my comment it's obvious you don't want to learn anything from the experience.  (Added later: You even imply in one of your replies to me, that I use swear words, so you deleted my comment, ( “unless that wasn’t [me] ...”)  I don’t stoop to swears and vulgarities the way many ppl in comments do). Since you have responded I've responded back at least 4 times by email...Then you say I haven't responded? When I go to my blog, I will respond there when I am able to find the time. Therefore, I won't be answering another of your comments today”, sent from my Gmail account.

Infidel’s response to this (my additions in red)

1. My comment about 40,000 protestors was not related to Indonesia, it was

> related to Pakistan. Please brush up on your current affairs. (Regardless of what you say, you were abusive to all Muslims, which is why I posted a comment)

>

> 2. No comments from my blog are ever removed. Comments are moderated by me,

> so if a particular comment is overly abusive, it is not added to the post at

> all. Which makes me wonder how you know anything (she confuses her arguments; I am abusive, or the other person is abusive; which is it?)  about any 'christian' who

> may have commented in the first place (His comment was reasonable; which is probably why you removed it)

He had mentioned his admiration of the fact that Muslims can get “emotional” (or a similar word) about their religion, unlike Christians for the most part, (this is his opinion not mine) who don’t hold protests; Can you find them gathering in large numbers for the sake of strong religious beliefs?  

(…but... you remove any religious person’s comments? It appears that way). Also, she implies that my comment was “abusive” so it was not posted at all; on the other hand she is herself abusive in some of her comment/ emails.

> 3. You did miss it the first couple of times. (Big deal) Nothing was added in this

> particular post. The analogy I made about the rape victims has obviously

> gone over your head. (How tall are you, because the main issue was freedom of speech?  Anything about rape, in fact, is (still) completely irrelevant).  It was not a comment about anything that actually

> happened in this instance, it was simply a comparison. (It’s a comparison between what??)Again she confuses her arguments; if Hannah is writing about her support of T.J. why does she go off on these little tantrums about a Muslims protest or women’s clothing? Is she deliberately trying to confuse, OR IS SHE CONFUSED?

>

> I notice you've made no real argument defending your position. (But I will in good time, and my first comment was not intended to argue freedom of speech so much as express my disbelief at your attitude towards Child Sexual Abuse but you “moderated/deleted” it for no good reason, except (fear? or) your own ability to do so.) All you've

> said is your opinion of me, of my writing, and a misinterpretation of my

> references. (She’s allowed an opinion of me and my writing i.e. “retarded add hominems” but not vice-versa?)

>

> What 'intelligent argument' were you hoping to gain from this? (Nothing… YOU don’t have an “intelligent argument’ to give; sarcasm); you are just not capable of an honest disagreement; you think Muslims are all the same. You said as much. Another comment agrees with my opinion of you/your public stand, saying that you were painting all Muslims with the same brush. Is her comment still there?)

(I think when she is bringing up rape as a comparison, she is referring to the right to “free speech”, and women’s “right” to show their bodies to anyone, in public.) I still disagree that this has anything to do with Indonesians (Pakistanis) having a protest (which is a form of “free speech”. What they protest, whether it’s for a blasphemy law, about Qur’an burning, or about women’s clothing, doesn’t affect the protesters’ rights, (whatever country) as long as it doesn’t lead to violence, which might cause their government to stop them.)

I also mentioned in that brief comment that it was either Indonesia, or a similar country; at that point I was more interested in her apology to the Children who have suffered sexual abuse, because she implied that that crime was lesser than the terrorist’s crimes. She totally ignores this part of my comment, and instead focuses all her attention on if it was Pakistan, or Indonesia (“you should keep up with current affairs”) and her lame comparison about women’s clothing and rape being related to “freedom of speech” vs. Muslims protests?

This is an exercise in trying to see the other’s point of view. If anyone has a comment you can post below, and I’ll gladly consider not “moderating” any attempts at “free speech” on my blog, except if it is unnecessarily abusive, or has too many swear words. So, consider this when you are composing your comment.

Notes:

 I mentioned the protest by a 40,000 crowd “in Indonesia, or someplace” in my comment below Hanna Jose’s blog post merely as a reference; she says it was in Pakistan, which I don’t argue, Pakistan is “someplace” like Indonesia, in other words, a Muslim majority country where large protests are often held. Then I continue that we don’t have large protests for Shariah law in Bahrain. My meaning is obvious, that not everywhere do you have such a protest or large number of Muslim protesters, that’s all. It wasn’t an argument, merely a statement; but she took it as my opposition to what she said about Pakistanis (I don’t know what she said about the Pakistanis except their number and what the protest was for).

 Was there subsequent violence in Pakistan? I don’t argue this point at all. If I overlooked the fact she was talking about Pakistan, the real reason I wanted to comment was initially going to be her support of Terry Jones. (When I read her statements about Child Sexual Abuse, I nearly flipped!)

In her blog Hannah Jose is in support of Terry Jones burning the “Koran”. Therefore, I assume the majority of arguments would be for or against Terry Jones’ actions, or about “freedom” or “free speech” (but she threw that idiotic curveball)

In some statements she considers the beheadings or other crimes by Pakistanis/Muslims (?) more abhorrent to the crimes by (some in) the Catholic Church against innocent children because of the scale (more victims = a worse crime)

There was no mention of women’s clothing, or rape, except by Hannah, or it was an addition she made later (I said, I might have missed it the first couple of times ([or forgot it] because I was skimming)) It was not a major part of the discussion, but she emphasizes it in her forthcoming email.

No other comments by others were about rape and clothing either.

She insults me by saying that the issue of rape and clothing is over my head. Did she think (because she was responding to an anonymous comment, or comment without a female avatar) that I was a man, when she said that?

She insults me by implying that I can’t read English. Did she think that because I’m Muslim that I don’t understand English? My emails evidenced that I do know English, so why does she pronounce this insult? Just because she is upset? Angry? Is she a racist/xenophobic? Maybe she thought I was Pakistani? Is she an Indian living in Australia, or is she atheist? Plainly, she wants to be insulting and enjoys it (for some reason unknown by me).

She prejudges me and others.

She calls herself, Infidel (which is somewhat bizarre), and says she’s a feminist.  I didn’t say anything in opposition of her political or religious views; but obviously she has something against Muslims.

 She refuses to use capitals “any christian’s comment” and is insulting of him in her tone.

She accuses some comments of being overly abusive, or having too many swear words, yet she constantly uses swears and vulgar language in her blogs and comments.

She gives her opinion of me, but I’m not supposed to respond with an opinion of her.

She gives her opinion of my writing, but I’m not supposed to respond with an opinion of hers.

She thinks because she’s an “Infidel”, feminist, and perhaps atheist she has the right to free speech, but she doesn’t want others to voice an opinion against hers.

She can’t see the bigger picture, but gets bogged down in less important details.

She had nothing to add about Muslims right to free speech, or public protest.  She insisted on exaggerating the fact that she made the comment about Pakistanis, and wouldn’t even discuss the fact that insulting an entire religion is wrong.

She infers that Muslims are “ignorant”, etc.

Her statements about Muslims was “hate speech”, pure and simple. (She doesn’t distinguish between “some Muslims” and “all Muslims”).

She doesn’t reference anything about the number of victims, who was beheaded, how many were beheaded, or indeed any details about the Muslims’ actions subsequent to the protest.

She mourns the fact that Muslims can protest for a Shariah law, in their own country.

She had nothing to add about her comments about the Catholic Church, the fact that she lightly dismisses the act of sexual abuse of minors by the Catholic Church (she doesn’t mention sexual abuse by members of other churches or religious communities)

I don’t expect a “bigger” apology from her. But I told her she should apologize to the victims of Child Sexual Abuse.

She is an ignoramus.

Finally, here follows my original comment (I save some of my comments in a folder), which was too difficult for Hanna Jose to leave on her blog. As well, an email (“first thoughts) and additional notes I made previous to this final draft.

“A huge 40,000 Muslims (maybe in Indonesia, or someplace like that), It hasn't happened where I live; calling for the beheading of blasphemers,

yes it has happened in Indonesia. But did they actually behead anyone, if so, how many? What was the grand scale of it? You could apologize

to all those (Meaningless numbers??) of children, and adult survivors, of sexual abuse, who (not a large enough number for you?) lived through

hell on earth, at the hands of their attackers, abusers, the different churches (only the Catholics?). Please r.s.v.p.”

 (Later, she posted a comment on my blog, expressing her right NOT TO show my comment, this is still visible.)