patrick.net

Not sure when it is going to happen, by far this is the best approach to demystify the terrorist religion.

Remember Salman Rushdie? That is the treatment anyone who depicts an image of or "slanders the prophet" will face.

If we do this, the Islamic world will declare war on the west for real.
Fortunately, we have the better guns.

Quigley says

If we do this, the Islamic world will declare war on the west for real.
Fortunately, we have the better guns.

Europeans are rapidly becoming dumb enough to allow Muslim suckers to make it Muslim continent in few decades. There wont be "we" soon!

HeadSet says

Remember Salman Rushdie? That is the treatment anyone who depicts an image of or "slanders the prophet" will face.

And that is exactly the problem with Islam, and why we have to help Muslims escape Islam.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Who wouldn't thrill to the scene of an oppressed chick tearing off her hijab and strangling an imam to death with it?

Hawt!

Even 'Death of a Princess', a true story, caused the Saudis to go nuts

http://patrick.net/post/1306834/2017-05-30-saudi-arabia-s-death-of-a-princess-needs-its-own-thread

Rin says

I remember hearing about the whole 'Death of a Princess' controversy as a kid so it kinda surprised me to find that almost no one knew anything about it, post 9/11, given the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi.

Think about it, the House of Saud asked for the removal of the ambassador of Britain and tried economic sanctions against the UK to repress a movie about an actual event, which they didn't deny.

Instead, it was turned into another Islamic victimhood story ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/princess/reflect/harvard.html

Excerpt: "Prince Sultan also said that the aim of the film was to insult Islam. Much of Saudi criticism of the film was directed towards what was called its portrayal of Islam as a harsh, insensitive religion, since the princess was depicted as having been summarily executed without a confession or a trial. The severity of punishment and the speed with which the princess was executed put doubts in the minds of viewers as to the fairness of Koranic justice. Summary execution is not the norm in Saudi Arabia."

Well, it's good to know that there was due process involved, where a person was accused of adultery, when she was actually single. How about being more candor like saying that they were pissed that she didn't marry into the low gene pool extended family and thus, was executed for treason against the House of Saud? At least that would be honest.

You see ...

Treason = High Crime and Misdemeanor

Single Woman Dating an (unrelated) Muslim guy = Normal person (who doesn't want a kid with birth defects)

And since Romeo and Juliet were planning on getting married, it wouldn't even be adultery in the future.

Islam should be abolished from the world. Most of us agree on this. We are just uncertain about how.

So Islam has been around for over a thousand years, and no real issues with it in the US until 21st Century. I wonder why that is?

NuttBoxer says

So Islam has been around for over a thousand years, and no real issues with it in the US until 21st Century. I wonder why that is?

Not so. Out first war was with the Barbary Pirates who simply ripped up George Washington's Treaty with them as being a Hudna whose purpose no longer served.

Adams wanted to pay, Jefferson said no way and sent Heavy Frigates to rescue US Ships and impose punishment on the Muslim Pirates.

HonkpilledMaster says

Not so. Out first war was with the Barbary Pirates who simply ripped up George Washington's Treaty with them as being a Hudna whose purpose no longer served.

Adams wanted to pay, Jefferson said no way and sent Heavy Frigates to rescue US Ships and impose punishment on the Muslim Pirates.

So because they were Muslim they attacked, not because they were pirates?

NuttBoxer says

So because they were Muslim they attacked, not because they were pirates?

They were pirates because they didn’t recognize the legitimacy of any government not under Allah. When the world is full of people you may legally kill and rape and rob, piracy as a career makes sense. Just look at modern day Somalia!

The US Navy’s first real mission was to crush Tripoli, then march inland and raze the Moorish cities killing everyone there. We committed an atrocity by today’s standards, and it bought us complete immunity from further Muslim attacks. They were like “we ain’t messing with them infidels, they CRAZY!!”

And the Marines still sing about the “shores of Tripoli.”

Rin says

Even 'Death of a Princess', a true story, caused the Saudis to go nuts

Anything that criticizes openly Islam will reinforce it. Just like democrats criticizing republicans are automatically flagged as the "out group": dumb, perverts, dishonest, crazy, etc...
One's mind automatically rationalizes ones beliefs and the beliefs of one's tribe. Writing off the out group (infidels in this case) is part of that process.

The best tool we would have if we wanted to do this would be Facebook not cinema. With FB you are talking about targeting specific individuals (those whose beliefs are most vulnerable) with information others are not seeing. So no public wave of indignation.

And you can do it incredibly subtly by challenging peripheral beliefs. Progressively nudging them out without triggering any rationalization defense. Modern propaganda techniques are incredibly devious and powerful.

This may be in fact happening. We wouldn't know. For all we know many Muslims don't really believe that strongly and are just pretending, because they still don't have the confidence and numbers to come out publicly.

Patrick says

transmute into ingenious cinematic productions — not propaganda, but truth propagation films

What you are talking about is de facto propaganda, whether you call it that way or not.

Echoing back the actual sick deeds of Mohammed seems quite reasonable and peaceful compared to what Muslims do in the name of Islam every day.

What better propaganda than the truth?

Patrick says

What better propaganda than the truth?

If the truth was good propaganda, everyone would believe in the evolution theory and global warming.

The human mind is incredibly irrational and biased.

You don't go for the prophet because then you're just an blaspheming infidel and nothing you're saying is worth listening to.

f the truth was good propaganda, everyone would believe in the evolution theory and global warming.

The human mind is incredibly irrational and biased.

You just proved the "biased" bit with that shameless plug of AGW.

What about evolution? Also a "shameless plug"?
A large percentage of people in the US still don't believe it is true.

Heraclitusstudent says

What about evolution? Also a "shameless plug"?
A large percentage of people in the US still don't believe it is true.

Evolution has nothing to do with AGW. The theory of evolution is supported by observed details in genetics, similarity among species, details such as leg bones in whales, and is constantly tested with observable facts.

AGW proponents use the "consensus" bit, along with failed models. When the predictions made from 20 years ago did not come true, a real scientist would scrap the theory. A political type just cherry picks the facts to fit the desired outcome.

HeadSet says

The theory of evolution is supported by observed details in genetics, similarity among species, details such as leg bones in whales, and is constantly tested with observable facts.

Heavily supported by a wide range of evidence, yet rejected... justifying my point.

Incidentally AGW is supported by mountains of empirical evidence : Calculation of CO2 rejected by humans, measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, tracing of origin of CO2 by isotopes, in lab measurements of radiation absorption by CO2, direct measurements of radiations outgoing the atmosphere, direct measurements of radiations reflected by the atmosphere, global temperatures, atmospheric temperatures at difference elevations, sea surface temperatures, polar sea ice extent areas, sea ice thickness, glacier extents, sea levels, species range, whether anomalies statistics, etc, etc, etc....
None of these are models, but direct evidence. Yet of course it's all BS because some media reported a faulty prediction 20 yrs ago.
I would say 20 years would be justified to doubt AGW. Now this is just like evolution: wholesale rejection of observable facts.

NuttBoxer says

So because they were Muslim they attacked, not because they were pirates?

Barbary Pirates operated out of what is Tunisia and Algeria, they had the backing of various Muslim Governments. Pirates gotta sell the slaves, ships,and cargo somewhere.

Indeed, most had official Letters of Marque, making their piracy legal under the Barbary States, and those States considered the USA to be a particularly easy target because A) Infidels B) Believed to be too poor and far away (unlike France, UK, Spain) to retaliate and C) Numerous (the US Merchant Marine was massive and should be again - we need Navigation Acts, at least we should replace some lost outsourced jobs by mandating US-only carriers for goods over a certain value/quantity).

Quigley says

They were pirates because they didn’t recognize the legitimacy of any government not under Allah.

Which pirates did recognize the legitimacy of government.. any government?

HonkpilledMaster says

Barbary Pirates operated out of what is Tunisia and Algeria, they had the backing of various Muslim Governments. Pirates gotta sell the slaves, ships,and cargo somewhere.

And this contrasted from Spain, Portugal, France, and England how? But I guess you'll tell me Sir Frances Drake wasn't really a pirate, just a "privateer"..