This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Enemy Within

The Enemy Within - Comments

sarith21's Avatar Comment 1 by sarith21

Well that book's going to sell pretty well. I might order one just to be supportive, even if I haven't the time to read it =)

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:16 UTC | #490290

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 2 by MarkOnTheRiver

Another excellent Condell video. Virtually a part two to his last, No Mosque at Ground Zero video, which has attracted a fair few comments here.

Indeed, his opening remarks can be taken as a response to some of the pro islamic, aplogetic whining his previous video attracted.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:08:38 UTC | #490291

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 3 by Adrian Bartholomew

Wait a moment, isn't the book Pat is pimping published by the ultra right wing WorldNetDaily (WND) Books of "911 truth" and "Birthers" fame?

Oh dear Pat. First supporting UKIP now supporting conspiracy theorists....

I do hope he's being ironic.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:12:48 UTC | #490296

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 4 by Long Johns Silver

Comment 3 by Adrian Bartholomew :

Wait a moment, isn't the book Pat is pimping published by the ultra right wing WorldNetDaily (WND) Books of "911 truth" and "Birthers" fame?

Oh dear Pat. First supporting UKIP now supporting conspiracy theorists....

Have you actually read the book, dumdum, or are you smearing it just because of its publishing company? Pat Condell has taken pains to emphasize that he's not a conservative. At any rate, it's worth pointing out that the conservatives (for all their faults) have a much better record on Islam than the "liberal left", which is now virtually synonymous with "Islamophille whiners".

Islam is arguably worse than even Nazism, so it's quite possible that in the West the liberal left is a greater force for evil nowadays than the conservative right.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:30:00 UTC | #490300

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 5 by Adrian Bartholomew

Yup I'm smearing it based on the publisher of classics like:

‘The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists’

‘The Tea Party Manifesto’

and 'Climategate: A veteran Meteorologist exposes the global warming scam'

Edit: I'm not reading any more crap from WND Books put it that way.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:33:47 UTC | #490304

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 6 by Long Johns Silver

Right-wingers responsible for such literature are no less morally or intellectually bankrupt than the Islamophille apologists on the left. So I fail to see your point.

Hate to hamper your plans of turning this thread into yet another brainless liberal group hug, but Islam is much more dangerous, and a much greater cause of suffering, than these marginal clowns who call themselves the "Tea Party".

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:36:55 UTC | #490307

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 7 by Adrian Bartholomew

I prefer to read stuff that ISN'T morally or intellectually bankrupt whether they are far right or far left frankly.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:35:40 UTC | #490311

Logicel's Avatar Comment 8 by Logicel

UKIP?

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:39:17 UTC | #490313

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 9 by Adrian Bartholomew

UKIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party

A little better than the British National Party (BNP) but still pretty xenophobic.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:41:36 UTC | #490314

besleybean's Avatar Comment 10 by besleybean

They supposed to be an example of Far Right? Try the BNP.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:41:58 UTC | #490315

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 11 by Long Johns Silver

Comment 7 by Adrian Bartholomew :

I prefer to read stuff that ISN'T morally or intellectually bankrupt whether they are far right or far left frankly.

Somehow I doubt you'd have reservations if it were the same company that published postmodernist and cultural relativist drivel, or 9-11 by Noam Chomsky.

Comment 9 by Adrian Bartholomew :

A little better than the British National Party (BNP) but still pretty xenophobic.

No, not "a little better". In a different league. There's no evidence that the UKIP is a racist party, whereas the BNP is unequivocally racist. Smearing the UKIP by putting it in the same category as the BNP is a misrepresentation, and is, frankly, disgraceful.

Xenophobia isn't a phobia when your opposition to immigration or the European Union is backed up with arguments. I don't agree with them, but the UKIP seem to be absolutely sincere in their convictions, and I see no reason to suspect chauvinistic ulterior motives.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:52:01 UTC | #490316

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 12 by Adrian Bartholomew

PoMo is up there with Fox News amongst my personal pet peeves. And Chomsky? Actually I probably should read Chomsky just because of his influence...

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:48:25 UTC | #490321

CleverCarbon's Avatar Comment 13 by CleverCarbon

Comment 4 by Long Johns Silver :

Comment 3 by Adrian Bartholomew :

Wait a moment, isn't the book Pat is pimping published by the ultra right wing WorldNetDaily (WND) Books of "911 truth" and "Birthers" fame?

Oh dear Pat. First supporting UKIP now supporting conspiracy theorists....

Have you actually read the book, dumdum, or are you smearing it just because of its publishing company? Pat Condell has taken pains to emphasize that he's not a conservative. At any rate, it's worth pointing out that the conservatives (for all their faults) have a much better record on Islam than the "liberal left", which is now virtually synonymous with "Islamophille whiners".

Yes Pat Condell HAS taken pains to emphasize that he's not a conservative. But then again, Nick Griffin of the BNP has taken pains to emphasize that he's not a racist.

Amazingly "How I'd rather be labelled" doesn't trump "How I behave, the Views I hold, the people I support" in terms of what category people fall into. Nick Griffin is a Racist because he supports racists and holds racist views, Pat Condell is a Conservative because he supports far right conservatives and holds conservative views like they're going out of fashion.

And yes, the publishing company (in this case) quite clearly indicates what kind of content is in the book. WND is an openly biased organisation (a right-wing conservative Christian bias) So it's not going to publish anything it doesn't feel melds into its world view. Therefore we can conclude that the content in this book fits quite happily into the world-view of Right-wing Christians. A world view that usually falls quite happily on the side of wrong, and when it falls on the side of right it's usually for the wrong reasons.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:51:16 UTC | #490324

TexasStargazer's Avatar Comment 14 by TexasStargazer

@Adrian Bartholomew

Reading your comments Adrian, you appear to be the conspiracy theorist.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:58:49 UTC | #490328

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 15 by Adrian Bartholomew

The shame about Pat is that I agree with him about 75% of the time and I even still find him funny but he keeps going that one step too far. I gave him the benefit of a doubt for a long time thinking that extra step was for comedic purposes but I think he genuinely is a little too out there for me. I’ll carry on enjoying his videos of course and support him when he is correct. After all I’m sure I have all sorts of beliefs that are just as silly as Pat’s that just haven’t been pointed out to me (yet).

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:58:58 UTC | #490329

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 16 by Long Johns Silver

It's not easy to get an anti-Islam book published, and if you applied a modicum of charity you would realize that ultimately you have to actually read the book before you write up your review.

Otherwise, carry on being an unctuous apologist for evil who slanders those of us with a backbone.

Comment 15 by Adrian Bartholomew :

The shame about Pat is that I agree with him about 75% of the time and I even still find him funny but he keeps going that one step too far.

What, exactly, is this step?

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:11:16 UTC | #490330

Wuht2Ask's Avatar Comment 17 by Wuht2Ask

Comment Removed by Author

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:05:23 UTC | #490332

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 18 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 16 by Long Johns Silver : Otherwise, carry on being an unctuous apologist for evil who slanders those of us with a backbone.

Ok I'm going to leave it there. I can't have a conversation with someone that can't be civil. It's a waste of both of our time to try.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:11:07 UTC | #490335

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 19 by Long Johns Silver

Comment 18 by Adrian Bartholomew :

Ok I'm going to leave it there. I can't have a conversation with someone that can't be civil. It's a waste of both of our time to try.

Ah, yes...the common Islamophille tactic. First, post utterly arbitrary and unargued implications of bigotry. Then when people start to get intemperate, play the "civilized conservation" card.

Notice that for all your whining, you don't indicate what exactly you're talking about when you refer to a "step too far". How is one to argue against you if you don't say what you think is wrong about Condell's position?

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:24:02 UTC | #490339

Cestriana's Avatar Comment 20 by Cestriana

Long Johns Silver: I have to say that there are times when you are exceedingly rude to other posters on this forum.

Some of your comments are insufferable.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:46:05 UTC | #490352

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 21 by MarkOnTheRiver

Comment 5 by Adrian Bartholomew :

Yup I'm smearing it based on the publisher of classics like:

Adrian, I've heard of judging a book by its cover, but judging it by its printer is a first.

(Ok, the publisher probably doesn't actually supply the ink, but you can see what I mean, I hope. And as LongJohnsSilver says, getting an book critical of islam published in these days of suffocating political correctness, isn't easy.)

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:53:50 UTC | #490360

Mr-discovery's Avatar Comment 22 by Mr-discovery

Comment 15 by Adrian Bartholomew :

The shame about Pat is that I agree with him about 75% of the time and I even still find him funny but he keeps going that one step too far. I gave him the benefit of a doubt for a long time thinking that extra step was for comedic purposes but I think he genuinely is a little too out there for me. I’ll carry on enjoying his videos of course and support him when he is correct. After all I’m sure I have all sorts of beliefs that are just as silly as Pat’s that just haven’t been pointed out to me (yet).

it shouldnt matter who does the book its the reasoning in it that matters

and also you say you aggree with 75% of what pat says but dont tell us the 25%

that means there cant be a conversation about it...

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:04:25 UTC | #490368

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 23 by Long Johns Silver

Comment 20 by Cestriana :

Long Johns Silver: I have to say that there are times when you are exceedingly rude to other posters on this forum.

Some of your comments are insufferable.

I'm sorry, to some extent, and admit that my manners could be better. You have to understand, though, that I see apologists for Islam as being on about the same moral and intellectual footing as apologists for Nazism.

Also I can't help but suspect there's double standards implicit in your suggestion that I'm "insufferable". Whenever defenders of Christianity show up here (less so now, but especially a few years back), they're flamed and villified in quite extreme terms. And yet, if a watered down version of that treatment is extended to the legion of Islamophilles, all of a sudden it's "insufferable".

Anyhow, this isn't a social club. Arguments come first.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:12:31 UTC | #490370

The Plc's Avatar Comment 24 by The Plc

Liberal leftist Islamophiles are a bit like the feminists who ally themselves with the Religious Right in their opposition to various forms of exploitation of women, such as porn and prostitution. They're siding with their very worst enemies. Muslims, by definition, don't believe in pluralism and liberal values. The Religious Right don't believe in equality and fair treatment of women. Both groups, the ostentatious liberals and the feminists, should be standing up for their real values and opposing all, and I mean all, of those who would oppose them.

This should be especially necessary in the case of the liberal Islamophilles, as Liberalism is an elementary moral principle that demands all people adhere to it, so the illiberal adherents of Islam are not to be tolerated in the name of Liberalism.

Besides, the rights of Muslims are very, very well protected in the secular liberal democracies of the West. Same goes for minority groups such as the BNP. The Islamophiles don't appear to apply the same "liberal" standards that they do to ignominious racist groups. Muslims don't come under even a tenth of the opprobrium that racists do, so why don't the BNP receive support and sympathy to hold their what are, legitimate political views and thought in a free society?

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:09:14 UTC | #490371

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 25 by Steve Zara

Comment 22 by Mr-discovery

it shouldnt matter who does the book its the reasoning in it that matters

What Pat is involved in (I guess what we are all involved in by being visible atheists in our societies) is politics. In politics, just about everything matters. Who you associate with matters, because that sends a message about what compromises you are prepared to make, what your priorities are. That is why so many (it seems) were disappointed with Pat's endorsement of UKIP, no matter what labels he uses for himself.

Of course, effective politics always does involve compromise. But the degree of compromise is a reasonable matter of concern.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:09:31 UTC | #490372

Cestriana's Avatar Comment 26 by Cestriana

'Otherwise, carry on being an unctuous apologist for evil who slanders those of us with a backbone.'

That comment, in my estimation, is insufferable.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:11:24 UTC | #490374

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 27 by hungarianelephant

After we've all finished throwing eggs at the Pope in September, perhaps we could donate the empty boxes to Pat Condell? He could stick them on his walls so that his videos might sound slightly better.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:16:27 UTC | #490375

Mr-discovery's Avatar Comment 28 by Mr-discovery

Comment 25 by Steve Zara :

Comment 22 by Mr-discovery

it shouldnt matter who does the book its the reasoning in it that matters

What Pat is involved in (I guess what we are all involved in by being visible atheists in our societies) is politics. In politics, just about everything matters. Who you associate with matters, because that sends a message about what compromises you are prepared to make, what your priorities are. That is why so many (it seems) were disappointed with Pat's endorsement of UKIP, no matter what labels he uses for himself.

Of course, effective politics always does involve compromise. But the degree of compromise is a reasonable matter of concern.

no matter what it still doesnt change the reasoning in the book....

i dont care if the reasoning comes from a donkeys fart...

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:18:41 UTC | #490376

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 29 by Long Johns Silver

Comment 25 by Steve Zara :

What Pat is involved in (I guess what we are all involved in by being visible atheists in our societies) is politics. In politics, just about everything matters. Who you associate with matters, because that sends a message about what compromises you are prepared to make, what your priorities are. That is why so many (it seems) were disappointed with Pat's endorsement of UKIP, no matter what labels he uses for himself.

Yes, and have you considered that associating with Islam's cultural defenders might also be a bad idea? Not a happy thought, but perhaps, in the long run, even worse than rubbing shoulders with the Tea Party. (Try to say that without cringing.) Also, maybe WND Books was a last but necessary resort.

Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:19:55 UTC | #490378

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 30 by Nunbeliever

Well... I miss the old Pat who made funny satirical videos that were spot on.

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:42:28 UTC | #490387