Should police treat all equally?

Quote, from Pew Research:

Amid continuing tensions over the police shooting of an unarmed teen [Michael Brown] in Ferguson, Mo., most Americans give relatively low marks to police departments around the country for holding officers accountable for misconduct, using the appropriate amount of force, and treating racial and ethnic groups equally. 

But should they be treated equally? 

For interesting and educated discussion of the issues around this, see here.

/Clip:

That 2% [15-24 year old black males, as % of the US population] is responsible for almost all of 52% of U.S. homicides. Or, to put it differently, by these figures a young black or “mixed” male is roughly 26 times more likely to be a homicidal threat than a random person outside that category – older or younger blacks, whites, hispanics, females, whatever. If the young male is unambiguously black that figure goes up, about doubling.
26 times more likely. That’s a lot. It means that even given very forgiving assumptions about differential rates of conviction and other factors we probably still have a difference in propensity to homicide (and other violent crimes for which its rates are an index, including rape, armed robbery, and hot burglary) of around 20:1. That’s being very generous, assuming that cumulative errors have thrown my calculations are off by up to a factor of 6 in the direction unfavorable to my argument.
Now suppose you’re a cop. Your job rubs your nose in the reality behind crime statistics. What you’re going to see on the streets every day is that random black male youths are roughly 20 times more likely to be dangerous to you – and to other civilians – than anyone who isn’t a random black male youth.
Any cop who treated members of a group with a factor 20 greater threat level than population baseline “equally” would be crazy. He wouldn’t be doing his job; he’d be jeopardizing the civil peace by inaction.

Related: why Michael Brown was not holding his hands up, when he was shot.

Many religions heavily concentrated in one or two countries

Interesting.

Islam Justifies Beheading of James Foley: Muslim cleric

Following the example of the "perfect man", their prophet Muhammad

Choudary, a sleazy fellow, a Muslim cleric (perhaps I repeat myself...) is nonetheless useful to we counter-jihadis since he speaks the truth about Islam.
He's not at all shy about telling we infidels of the pleasures we will share under a sharia law in the west.
In the article linked below, he usefully reminds us of the slaughter of 700 Jews overseen by Muhammad himself, in the Battle of the Trench. By analogy, he says the beheading of James Foley is permissible under Islam.
Hence also, and by the way, the deep roots of Islamic anti-semitism and the permission, from the "perfect man" himself, to kill innocents: as are ISIS, currently rampaging in the ancient Fertile Crescent.
If a non -Muslim were to point out that decapitating Foley was Islamic, he'd be labelled an Islamophobe.
But this is Choudary. A rather well-known, if notorious, convert to Islam and now dignified as a "Muslim cleric", in the article.
Listen up, ye infidels! Listen up and tremble!

"Choudary justified the beheading and attacks on civilians by pointing to the "Battle of the Trench" in Islamic history. He said that Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, targeted an entire Jewish tribe due to the actions of a few leaders. All 700 mature men of the tribe were executed."

WOW! So that's ok, then!  Just kill them all.  So ISIS are just following the example of Muhammad, "the perfect man", in their continuing murderous spree, on the example of their main man. (we've seen, for example, that they've kept their murdering to the men only.  The women are simply raped and sold off -- for that's the example of their "prophet"...).

And all the while Obama does nothing.  Nothing to excise the cancer he talked about.

By the way: Anti-semitism only started with the establishment of the state of Israel? Peace between Israel and Palestine will mean peace for the region? In your dreams. The dreams of pious Muslims are for far more than that tiny piece of land...  The video in the link below makes that clear, clear.  Nothing less than the world.

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/uks-anjem-choudary-justifies-beheading-james-foley

Sent from my iPhone

EVERYTHING to do with Islam. The Islam kiddie killing kamps of ISIS

How can there be any doubt but that this (below link) has *everything* to do with religion? With Islam, to be precise.
We can now call it for what it is -- a cancer. For that's what Obama called ISIS. And Obama has been just about the most Islam-friendly president the US has ever had. A positive booster for the "Religion of Peace". So when he calls an Islamic outfit a "cancer", we better sit up and take notice. And spread the message.
It's a message that's been in the blogosphere for a long time. Now it has some "progressive" credence via Islamophile-in-Chief Obama, maybe even the Left will get it: that the problem is not with "misunderstanders" of the "true" Islam, or with "hijackers" of the "Religion of Peace".
The problem -- the cancer -- is at the root of Islam itself.
The video in the article linked below shows this clearly: that the cancer is driven by core ideology of Islam.
The virgins awaiting suicide murderers; killing infidels; doing jihad; whipping unveiled women. All there in the Koran, Hadith and Sharia law. All normative Islam.
In short, it's Islam, stupid.

http://m.clarionproject.org/news/teaching-kill-islamic-states-jihad-camps-kids

Sent from my iPhone

Nothing to Do with Islam

The worldwide western left says that none of the mayhem in the world today -- the murderous Islamic State, Boko Haram's child kidnapping, the world's myriad Islamic terrorist groups -- 93% are Islamic -- the ubiquitous Islamist groups -- none of this has anything to do with the Islam, the "true" Islam, the Religion of Peace. (BBC, Daily Beast, Huffington Post).
This is total and complete nonsense, of course. As this article shows...  None of those Islamopologists provides any evidence for its view that putative peaceful Islam has been "hijacked" or "warped".  It merely states, states and states again ("religion of peace", "hijacked", "warped"...) with increasing frequency, and also with increasing desperation: for the emperor's clothes are well and truly down around his ankles.
Later: I'm just listening to a BBC World Service Radio report of Halal tourism, which is reporting sympathetically on places where there is gender segregation, no pork, no alcohol....
What on earth is wrong with the BBC??

Allies in Islam: Not...

Two countries that we should ditch as putative "allies":

• Qatar.  The financier and supporter of terrorists.  Yet given the FIFA World Cup.... "Club Med for Terrorists", by Ron Prosor, New York Times, 26th August.
• Saudi Arabia: "Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism", by Ed Husain, New York Times, 22nd August.

Ed Husain nails the blindness of the West to Saudi's Salafism/Wahabbism, which supports extremism and terrorism worldwide, while its political leaders hold hands with Western leaders.
But Husain has his own blindness.

In the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, the religious police beat women with sticks if they stray into male-only areas, or if their dress is considered immodest by Salafi standards. This is not an Islam that the Prophet Muhammad would recognise. [my emphasis]

But this is simply not true.  The Koran -- authored by Muhammad and later men (men) -- is down on women.  They must be beaten if they are disobedient...
On a BBC current affairs item, an imam whose name I didn't get, said that Muhammad would not have supported the murder by beheading of the American James Foley.  But again, that's not true, is it? Muhammad had the poetess Asma bint Marwan murdered for the "crime" of poking fun at him.  And he had many others murdered for the least of disturbances to his tender ego.
Can we possibly imagine he would have spoken out against the murder of a representative of the US< the "Great Satan" which seeks to stop the advance of Islam? (At least in their eyes...).
Any reform of Islam -- tough enough --will be impossible if the key tenets of Islam and the fundamental teachings of its "prophet" -- the warlord Muhammad --  are not faced squarely, with a fierce and basilisk eye.  Husain, for all the he's more honest that most Islamists, is not the man to do that.

UK Islamists Join With Neo-Nazis, Marxists in Anti-Semitism

Islamists in the UK are joined by the Social Workers Party, neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers,
Marxists and more in protests against Israel that devolved into blatant anti-Semitism.
None of these groups has protested the daily slaughter of Christians or
Muslims at the hands of Islamists across the Middle East.(Photo: © Reuters)

The left and right join hands in hating jews.

Sent from my iPhone

Islamic antisemitism well predates Gaza

This article places it all on Israel's Gaza actions, themselves a defensive action.
Andrew Bostom shows that Islamic antisemitism goes back to the beginning of Islam.
Muhammad was upset that the jews laughed at him; that they demanded proof of his claim to be the latest prophet. These were the early jewish stand-ups.
And, like all demagogues, Muhammad couldn't take a joke...

Islam in action: Saudi Arabia Beheads 19 in 17 Days...

... including for sorcery, which is warned about in the Koran.
Disgusting.
This from a key "ally" of the US....

Who's responsible for these anti-Semitic attacks? Give me one guess... (shhh....it's Islam)

Rod Liddle in the Speccie, in top form again... "It's ok to mention anti-semitic attacks, but not who commits them".
Interesting that the Owen Jones Guardian article to which Rod refers has 3,000+ comments, but it was only some way down the comments that someone mentioned Islam was the reason for the bulk of anti-semitism in the UK and Europe....
Owen Jones himself, as Rod notes, doesn't even mention Islamic antisemitism.  Ironic, given that the title of the post is "Anti-Jewish hatred is rising -- we must see it for what it is".  Except that Jones doesn't see the single most important cause....
Many of his commenters call his article "brave".  What's "brave" precisely, in noting a clear and rising phenomenon.  It would have been brave, perhaps, if Jones had indeed seen anti-jewish hatred for what it is.... a manifestation of increasing Islamisation of the UK and Europe and the latest in long-standing anti-semitism in Islam. For which read Bostom's carefully researched and referenced "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism".
Later: I'm just listening to BBC Worldservice radio: they note the increasing antisemitic phenomenon.  They say it comes as much from the "far right" as from "certain sectors in the Muslim community".  Actually, no.  It's Islamic, stupid....

Pat Condell Takes on Hamas vs Jews in Gaza

Click above for the video

And yet, people continue to call on Israel to restart a "peace process".  Condell mentions in passing that Hamas have no interest in peace.  He's quite right.  Here's the Charter of Hamas (aka "The Islamic Resistance Movement"):
Article 13:

Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

And Hamas also calls on Jews to be killed. Not just those in Israel, but all Jews, anywhere, any time.  So, as Condell says, how can you negotiate with someone who only wants you dead and has no interest in peace or compromise.

Article Seven:

.... the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Robin Williams on Islam Jihad

"Celebrating diversity means imposing misogyny"

(Photo: Getty)

People talk about their commitment to equality and diversity so readily they must assume there is no conflict between the two. The phrase falls off the tongue as if it were an all-in-one package, and people can ‘celebrate diversity’ and support equal rights without a smidgeon of self-doubt. Until, that is, they have to make a principled choice. Then, whether they admit it or not, they find that they can believe in equality or they can believe in diversity, but they cannot believe in both.
If this sounds like the start of a patient exploration of a delicate philosophical distinction, don’t be deceived. There is nothing difficult to understand, and my patience with the double standards of multi-culturalism snapped long ago. If you need me to rehearse the argument again after all these years, here it is, one more time. In a free society you are or should be free to believe what you want. But your freedom to ‘celebrate your diversity’ does not extend to the freedom to force your beliefs on others, unless you can secure a democratic change in the law compatible with the rights of minorities. 
[Related: Islamist extremists preach hate at UK universities]
Read on...

Use existing two runways more efficiently. Photo: David Wong

The South China Morning Post ran my letter on Saturday, 2nd Aug:

Explanation required for third runway

As usual, Jake van der Kamp nails it in his column ("Let spoiled airlines fund third runway, not the public purse", July 22).

Those speaking up for a third runway at Chek Lap Kok demand that taxpayers stump up at least HK$200 billion to pay for it. That's HK$30,000 for every man, woman and child in Hong Kong. Or nearly HK$200,000 per taxpayer.

Surely the proponents of the third runway owe us an explanation. Why don't they increase the efficiency of the airport, before demanding that we spend vast sums on more concrete?

We are told by various sources that efficiency of the airport has dropped dramatically in recent years, as more narrow-bodied aircraft flying to secondary airports are allowed landing slots.

These should be weeded out, to focus on wide-bodied jets servicing key cities.

Why not address that issue first? Can the Airport Authority come clean on this issue?

Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay

Another correspondent makes similar points, in somewhat more detail:

The latest in BBC's asinine "Nothing to do with Islam"

My letter to them:

I refer to the BBC World Service radio program seeking answers to why so many converts to Islam in the UK perpetrate violent acts.

At one point, your presenter says “nowhere does the Koran promote violence”.

That statement is palpably and demonstrably False.  

The Koran is chock-full of calls to kill infidels (109 verses by one count).  Had your presenter had actually read the Koran (for surely, she can not have), she could not have made such an asinine statement.

Elsewhere she says that “There is nothing Islamic in their behaviour”, (talking of those who have perpetrated violence against non-Musilms).  Again, there facts are the opposite.  There is plenty in Islam’s Trinity — the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirah of Muhammad — that normalises such violent behaviour.  The core of Islam calls for it.

Her main line that any violence has “nothing to do with Islam” — Islam is “a religion of peace”, no less! —  is belied by her own evidence: in the very fact that there is so much “violent extremism”, which is always “Islamic” violent extremism — not Jainist, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Mormon violent extremism.  Even her guests belie her stance that violence is “nothing to do with Islam”: for it’s always Islamic, by their own testimony.  

Even if — as your presenter maintains —  Islamic “extremism” has “nothing to do with Islam”, that the converts who break bad have “misunderstood” Islam, has it not occurred to her that there seem to be an awful lot of these people, an awful lot of “misunderstanders”?  And not just in the UK.  Both Boko Haram and ISIS are led by men who are deep scholars of Islam. What is it that such men have “misunderstood”?  How is it that what they promote has “nothing to do with Islam”, when they know so much more of Islam than your presenter and are living their lives to advance Islam?

Why, oh why, does the BBC think it’s its job to excuse, to exculpate Islam??

Unless and until the violence at the heart of Islam is faced squarely, then the likes of your presenter — and the BBC -- are going to continue to be “puzzled” as to why converts to Islam think it their duty to attack we infidels.

Shame on the BBC….

Peter Forsythe

Islam fashion:10 Great Things About the Burqa.

Brilliant!
I've banged on about the burka before. And now here's ten more reasons.... (to "like" it... Hah!)

http://takimag.com/article/10_great_things_about_the_burqa_gavin_mcinnes/print#disqus_thread


Sent from my iPad

Islam in action

This is a really shocking video.  But please don't tell me that "it's not Islam", or that "just some extremists that have hijacked the religion of peace".  No, no. This is mainstream Islam and mandated in the Koran and Hadith, by that "perfect man", Muhammad...
Killing of infidels, beheading them, including Muslims that are not sufficiently pious, is standard doctrine.


Source: The Clarion Project

"I live the drug war every day"

The war on drugs impacts real human beings...
Law enforcement officers against prohibition.... here

Hamas Seen as More to Blame Than Israel for Current Violence

And so they should be.
Even as Israel's attacks on Gaza kill innocents, shocking, horrible... and give pause to staunch Israeli supporters and philo-semites such as me.