Exposing Michel and propaganda

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Feb 4, 2007 at 06:06

I'll address this to the rest of you, because Michel dares not pick up the gauntlet I publicly slapped across his face and provide us with a detailed and working solution. He refuses to engage with those who know more than he does. So we can discuss it with him in the third person, where he belongs...on the sidelines.

Michel once again broadcasts his ignorance when he claimed this about me:

"Now – turn this around and I must absolutely accept, that any person who had personal experiences of the negative kind ( Like Noah) will argue from that mindset."

What Michel refuses to acknowledge is that I have posted here admitting that there were Muslims who were kind to me. A Muslim family that lived down the street and treated me like royalty. However, during the first Gulf War, they told me that if it came down to serving in the military, I would find them as my enemy. In other words, they said they would not fight for America in that war (or any other, despite being 2nd generation American Muslims) and that they would shoot at me, a non-Muslim they had previously been kind to, merely for being on the "wrong side" of a war with Islam, as they saw it. Prime example.

He also does not acknowledge that I am basing my views mainly on evidence from around the world and intense study on the matter, not merely my own personal experience. He cannot admit that because it undermines his argument, so like a child he must ignore me.

Furthermore, Michel once again twists his words in order to wiggle out of his original intent. He previously had called on Dr. Pipes to censor my posts and those of Susan, Dhimmi No More, and others, simply because he personally found our well-reasoned arguments too harsh for his delicate dhimmi mindset. I quote him from this blog entry:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/74869

"Dr. Pipes - if you are the moderator here, maybe it's time to close the session or apply some form of censorship, as so often sadly fact, well-intended food for thought brings out the worst and , in this case, the dumbest."Emphasis mine. He was writing this (along with other infantile insults - ie "ouright moronic responses") about me, Susan, and Dhimmi No More.

Now he's claiming that he only endorses censorship against fanticism that condones terror attacks. Michel cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he means. And he's quite arrogant as well. He just recently (supposedly) became an American citizen, and already he's writing:

"In the same context I see the "tightening" of our freedoms as a lesser evil to protect the greater good."

Which of course would make the founding fathers turn in their graves.

Michel lies yet again in his latest post, saying:

"All I wanted was to hear from the average john doe. No matter, if he was Muslim or anything else."

And yet prior to that, he said:

"We seem to argue with children here, Plato and I just realized, after reading the other outright moronic responses, that we absolutely waste our time here. I have way better things to do than to argue with people who see our world as a video game."

He also said that he was only interested in hearing from his mythological moderate Muslims which he claims exist all over America. In fact, that's all he did at first was whine, beg, and plead for his imaginary moderate Muslim friends to come to his aid. Many of us called him out on that.

Next, Michel engages in bizarre and inexplicable numbers mangling by claiming:

"I think, Jaladhi, that the majority here does that. According to one estimate I read, we are looking currently at around 30 M Muslims here in the USA. That would be a significant amount of people."

Despite the most accurate assessments numbering them around 2 million, and even CAIR claiming only about 6 million, Michel suffers under the delusion of there being 30 million Muslims in the USA. He's claiming between 5 and 15 times more Muslims than any other reputable source agrees on.

Once again, Michel is not only playing in denial of reality, he's obviously not playing with a full deck. And he wonders why no one here respects him?

Michel also engages in dishonest argument by claiming:

" percentage wise, hence the incidents to the above are about on the same level, as other religious organizations try to sneak in the church again through the backdoor."

He clearly wants us to equate Christianity with Islam, but he cowers from the truth. And that truth is that Christianity is not trying to establish Old Testament law in America, nor is it trying to become the only religion in America, nor is it trying to force the government to give it special treatment, nor is it trying to sue its critics into silence, etc.

All of those things are true of Islam in America. As usual, Michel ignores the facts and will run and cower when confronted with my exposure of his tactics, since he is not man enough to face the truth.

Finally, Michel once again evades reality when he says:

"We do not need lowering ourselves down to entertaining banning and deportation. All we need is to repair our own broken system and the threat, as far as our direct own domestic minorites are concerned, would become irrelevant. That is within our powers and realm of control."

He is obviously blind to the fact that even if we fixed our broken immigration system (which I do agree with him on), we would still have 2 million (not 30 million!) Muslims who are already here to deal with. And even if only half of the absurd claim that only 10% of them are violent is true, that still amounts to 100,000 jihadists in America hell-bent on destroying us, and integrated deeply and inextricably with the mythological moderates. A literal, subversive, standing army. And we have more proof of the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster than we do of moderate, reform-minded Muslims in America.

So once again Michel's false accusations, lack of ackowledgement of reality, wildly erroneous facts and refusal to answer criticism is highlighted for all to see.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".