Leave the Sikhs alone, you bastards

ignorant redneck scum:

A billboard designed to educate drivers on Interstate 78 about Sikhism, an Indian religion that Americans often confuse with Islam, has been removed after it was marred by profanity aimed at Muslims.

"Arabs go to hell," someone wrote across the billboard in black, along with "Jesus Saves," "Hell Yeah USA" and a four-letter expletive directed at "Alah." Muslims pray to Allah, which is Arabic for God.

The vandalism in Berks County came as midstate police were investigating threatening letters and e-mails sent to Muslims in the Harrisburg and York areas. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission said Friday there have been "at least seven" such messages in the past two months.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." -- Yoda

UPDATE: Incidents like these are why I have defended and continue to support CAIR, even though I believe that the national leadership are fools. No one else will fight for muslims in the face of increasing Islamophobia. It should be noted though that there is plenty of disagreement about CAIR within the american muslim community.


tvoh said...

See, this is why I only want Muslim or Mexican or Asian Ph.D. candidates or scientists to immigrate here. We have a sizable underclass as it is and we don't need anyone else's goofballs.

Also, our headcases have to be a little more circumspect about it. No church burnings for them, just furtive grafitti in the dark of night. Being part of a group yelling epithets at the mosque or synagogue gets you called in by the boss for a little talk and some sensitivity training.

Lest you think I'm a snob, I am a jumped up descendant of the most benighted Euro-peasantry that ever existed. I do have sympathy for my class, but I don't romanticize it.

Harry Eagar said...

'fighting FOR the Muslims' is not actually an issue.

'fighting BY the Muslims' is the problem.

Or, from your perspective, the problem is that there's no way to tell the violent, crazy Muslims from the peaceful, tolerant ones.

CAIR sure doesn't make it any easier, does it?

Anyhow, you'll excuse me while I yawn at the seriousness of somebody dissing Muslims. Like it never happens the other way.

Harry Eagar said...

This is really funny. Last week, when the disgusting and unAmerican behavior of the Muslim hacks in Minnesota was exposed, CAIR and Aziz Poonawalla were conspicuously silent.

Where was the call for the Somalis to understand that their behavior is unacceptable by American standards?

Nowhere, that's where.

Meantime, the Islamophobes predicted that next, the Muslim hacks would start refusing blind passengers because their guide dogs are 'unclean.'

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

CAIR is an antiAmerican, anti civilized group. But keep pushing. Maybe the Muslim belief that there are no limits to our tolerance is correct.

Then again, maybe not.

21st Century Kashmiri Nomad said...

Stories such as this one show the true face of popular western attitudes to Islam.

They have hated Islam in the past, they do hate Islam in the present and they will probably continue to hate Islam in the future.

Arcane said...

Since when were yankees "rednecks"?

Anyways, sort of funny, especially since many Sikhs harbor anti-Islamic attitudes.

tvoh said...

Mr. Eagar,

I have my problems with Islam, but give Aziz some credit. His post "up yours, Abu Ayyub al-Masri" is at least evidence that he is not some mindless fanatic, unlike yourself.

Unfortunately, his use of vernacular English tells me has assimilated a bit too much.

tvoh said...

21st Century Kashmiri Nomad,

And that murdered num is evidence of what precisely?

Harry Eagar said...

Objecting to racist fanatics who refuse to provide public services to blind people makes ME a mindless fanatic?

Objecting to Masri is a pretty low hurdle, by the way. I'm still waiting for Poonawalla to do two things:

1. Object to the daily indecencies that Muslims demand we accept in order to accommodate their savagery.

2. Explain how we are to understand that the statements made by, eg, the leaders of CAIR are not, somehow, reflective of, you know, the people CAIR says it speaks for. You know, Muslims.

tvoh said...

That is all fair enough. Your questions are valid. CAIR is not my favorite group. Aziz made his position clear:

"I do not hide the fact that I am pro-CAIR and that my assessment of the organization is that while there are several fools at the top at the national level, the state-level branches do essential and good work."

Is that the right position. Not as far as I'm concerned, but unless I wish to exhaustively investigate local chapters, I don't necessarily irrational.

Should Aziz answering all our kaffir questions. That would be nice, especially if he is going to scream about "our" rednecks. However, I suspect that was not the purpose for which he started this blog.

It is a heck of a burden to be called on to defend all the billion or so Moslems in this world. Do you want the burden of defending the West. Actually, I am okay with it. Just don't ask me to defend the actions of every Christian or western government. For example, Freedom of speeh and press is absolute for me and a glory of the West, and that Moslems, other than pointing out the ungentlemanly aspects of portraying their prophet with a bomb turban, riot and kill, well that is barbaric and they deserve to be called on it. When they turn around and mention the denial of that freedom and the incarceration of David Irving, I am embarassed. You want Aziz to explain things, how do you explain this?

So let me turn this around on you, Harry, you're great for the attack. Are you, or are you not defending the graffiti that Aziz finds disgusting?

Harry Eagar said...

1. I have a sawbuck that says if they ever catch the perp, it'll turn out to be a Muslim provocateur. (The careful misspelling of Allah is the tipoff.)

2. The offense is vandalism. That's all. If somebody wants to say something unpleasant about Muslims, fire away. It's still a free country, although it won't be if CAIR gets its way.

3. Irving was tried in a court of law, not in the street. Whether the law is a reasonable one or not is something that could be debated. That one approach is civilized and the other not is undebatable.

4. I have a proposal for Muslims who claim to want to live harmoniously with infidels. How about calling for a 'hate-free day'?

Start small. Build confidence, as the diplomats like to say.

Choose, say, a Friday. Friendly-to-infidels-Muslims would strenuously lobby their imams around the world to have just one Friday where no Muslim prays to have the satisfaction of murdering Jews, where no Muslim screams for the death of homosexuals. When no church is bombed for being a church, no Baha`i is hanged for believing in God.

Who knows? Muslims might even find that behaving like ordinary, decent people is fun.

Then they could build more and more, and someday maybe 21st century Muslims could become famous for becoming the first of their creed to treat their own daughters as well as infidels treat stray dogs.

tvoh said...

1. Maybe
2. The implication is you are okay with the sentiment if it is real.
3.von Stauffenberg was tried in a court of law too. Any court that tries speech is a kangaroo court.
4.All that would be desired. Do you think Moslems have no case at all? Certainly, I hardly think Palestine will be Switerland under a Palestinian administration, but they have a point about occupation. Are you surprised that the natives resist us in Iraq unless we are beating up their old enemies(Kurds vs. Sunnis)?

I think we should separate from almost all Muslims because the multi cultural agenda is foolish. Still, one should make some effort to see the other guys point.

Arcane said...

Dude, it's insane for you to go out calling for all Muslims to come out in mass protest whenever some other Muslim decides to go apeshit, and then, when they don't do what you want them to do, accuse them of supporting radicals.

When white neo-Nazis burn down churches populated by blacks, do you expect masses of white people to come out and protest the neo-Nazis? No, of course not.

What the heck is with this "Muslims must come out in mass protest whenever another Muslim goes apeshit" meme? It's nuts!

Harry Eagar said...

That was a really horrible example for two reasons:

1. Neo-Nazis didn't burn black churches.
(Most of the black churches that did burn were torched by blacks, in at least two cases by their preachers.)

2. When it was thought, incorrectly, that Nazis had burned a church in Alabama (instead, it was drunken college students), there was a storm of protest, it was the lede story in every newspaper in the country. Community sentiment was clear and unmistakable.

It is not clear that Muslim community sentiment is clearly and unmistakably disgusted by the indecent behavior of the Minneapolis drivers, is it? In fact, such evidence as has so far come out shows that Muslims think their co-religionists are in the right.

Well, at some point, Muslims are going to have to choose between their spiritual beliefs and common decency.

Should every single Muslim be required to demonstrate against every single outrage? That would keep them busy, all right. However, their imams are pretty much obliged to do so. In defense of their own conception of a Religion of Peace, and without reference to anything infidels might wish. Or so one would think.

Arcane said...

I was using neo-Nazis as an example... insert another crime then. Neo-Nazis murder people every year, so it shouldn't be hard. My point stands.

tvoh said...

Not wishing to defend Harry, indeed I am not at all eagar to do so, I doubt that the amount of murders committed by neo nazis is statisticallysignificant.

This may not be by intent. I suspect that neos realize that the murders they perpetrate will be subject to far more resources than others.

Harry Eagar said...

Even more to the point, neo-Nazis have no friends. There isn't a CANR -- Council on American-Neo-Nazi Relations -- demanding 'sensitivity training' so that Americans can learn to put up with Neo-Nazi outrages.

Arcane said...


You missed my point. Point is that it is ridiculous to call for Muslims to conduct mass protests and denunciations whenever one Muslim goes apeshit.

Should white people have come out in mass protest to the bombings conducted by Timothy McVeigh?

Harry Eagar said...

Well, could they at least stop coming out to support those Muslims who 'go apeshit'? (And, could they 'go apeshit' a little less often, maybe?)

When the Neo-nazis prepared to march in Skokie, it was front page news for months. Hundreds, maybe thousands of organizations representing just about every variety of Americans except the couple dozen Neo-nazis agitated endlessly about the march and fought among each other whether the big issue was anguish to insulted Jews or free speech.

If you'll recall, free speech won, in law and generally in the court of public opinion.

Now, compare that with reaction to the cartoons.

Muslims -- the ones who expect to be taken as participants in a world community -- might start asking themselves, 'why are we always out of step? Is there something at bottom wrong about the position we have staked out for ourselves among the unbelievers?'

If they did ask themselves that and the answer was 'No' (as I expect it might be), then that changes the terms of the collision profoundly, does it not?

Arcane said...

Well, could they at least stop coming out to support those Muslims who 'go apeshit'?

Well, you're talking about Muslims in Europe here, in particular in places like Britain, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, and Denmark. But here in the US, which is what this entire thread is about, it's a completely different matter.

Anonymous said...

"Leave the Sikhs alone, you bastards"

This title is to laugh as it is employed against suspected "rednecks" who defaced a Sikh billboard but would never, ever be employed by the islamic supremacist Aziz against Muslims who discriminate against and kill Sikhs in Muslim countries

Harry Eagar said...

It isn't 'a completely different matter.' You have not been reading our host.

He supports CAIR's 'defense' of Muslims. This amounts, often, to defense of the indefensible -- like exiling blind people to stand in the cold because they are infidels.

That Muslims in America don't riot very often is probably more a testament to our trigger-happy policing traditions than to Muslim restraint. You don't have to make many visits to Little Green Footballs to find pictures of provocative demonstrations by Muslims in American streets -- or at Columbia University, to take one recent example. Some of them violent enough, as it is.