-
Coal Matters — Even in Manhattan
June 25, 2012 | 14 comments
-
An Unprecedented Two-Track Move
March 14, 2012 | 37 comments
-
He Kept His Eyes on the Prize
January 9, 2012 | 83 comments
-
A 2012 Conservative Case for America’s Future
January 4, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Trust, Don’t Verify
November 17, 2011 | 27 comments
A Further Perspective
A Fatwa on Liam Neeson?
He didn’t know one doesn’t publicly compare Mohammed to an animal.
Liam Neeson is the voice of Aslan the Lion in the new 3-D Narnia film, “Voyage of the Dawn Treader.” He’s got a great voice for the role. Neeson is even from the North of Ireland, the same area from which C.S. Lewis, the beloved Christian author of The Chronicles of Narnia hailed.
But actor Neeson is facing hail of a different kind — a hail of criticism. That’s because of his politically correct comments about Aslan. Neeson told interviewers that Aslan should not be interpreted narrowly and exclusively as an allegory of Jesus Christ. Aslan might also be seen, Neeson said, as representing other religious leaders, such as Mohammed or Buddha.
This is the reason that Hollywood so often is linked to the Looney Left!
C.S. Lewis’s devoted secretary is also a trustee of the Lewis estate. Walter Hooper was shocked by Neeson’s absurd statements. Lewis’ work, he said, “has nothing whatever to do with Islam. The whole story is about Christ. Lewis could not have been clearer.”
William Oddie is the former editor of the Catholic Herald. A lifelong fan of C.S. Lewis, Oddie calls Neeson’s craven effort “a betrayal of Lewis’ intention and a shameful distortion” of Lewis’ whole body of work. Oddie sharpened his criticism: “Aslan is clearly established from the very beginning of the [series] as a Christ figure. I can’t believe that Liam Neeson is so stupid as not to know [this].”
Liam Neeson is certainly not stupid. He is, unfortunately, a dhimmicrat. A dhimmicrat is one who uses his social, cultural, or political position to smooth the path of sharia, the law they have in Saudi Arabia. Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury are prime examples of dhimmicrats. The Prince of Wales has argued publicly for Westerners to embrace Islam’s values in order to save the planet from global warming. The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Britain should permit sharia in ever wider areas to accommodate Islam’s strictures on family life. That means polygamy. That means arranged marriages. That means the legal subordination of women.
In this case, however, Liam Neeson’s fawning attempts may prove dangerous. He did, after all, publicly compare Mohammed to an animal. No matter that it’s an allegory. It can still be taken up by Muslim rioters as “blasphemy.”
Is this far-fetched? Not at all. Time magazine carried the story of a British schoolteacher who was threatened with death in Sudan in 2007. Her crime? She asked her 6- and 7-year-old students in the capital city of Khartoum what name they wanted to give to the classroom mascot, a nice, cuddly Teddy bear. “Mohammed,” cried the muppets in unison. So, with respect for local sensibilities, the 54-year old Gillian Gibbons let the children have their wish. Not so fast. Local mullahs were outraged.
The school’s principal — who presided over a school that had been in Sudan since colonial days — tried to intercede. “Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam. We tried to reason with them [the police] but they were coming under strong pressure from Islamic courts. There were men with big beards asking where she was and saying they wanted to kill her.” Miss Gibbons got a fatwa laid upon her.
So this is the rule of law that Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury want to see more of in Britain? So this is the sentiment that Liam Neeson is trying to appease?
George Weigel, famed American biographer of Pope John Paul II, has called for “no more appeasement of radical Islam.” Weigel points to the recent murders of more than 50 Catholics in a jihadist attack on Our Lady of Salvation cathedral in Baghdad and calls for condemnation from this still silent administration in Washington.
For all the bowing low before despots, for all the “outreach” to what the Obama administration calls “the Muslim world,” what we are seeing is contempt for our faith traditions. Murderous jihadists for years have demanded a West Bank judenrein — that is, a Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews. This administration, for unknown reasons, is collaborating with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to bring about this state. It is even giving the PLO hundreds of millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Now, jihadists are trying to eradicate Christian communities in the Mideast that have existed there since the dawn of the Christian era. This must be resisted.
Liam Neeson may escape the fate of Miss Gibbons who, at last report, had not been beheaded. But he should note what all of us should note: Jihadists cannot be appeased.
Osama bin Laden himself said it: People in Muslim-dominant countries line up behind the “strong horse.” Liam Neeson and the dhimmicrats must stop making us appear to be the weak horse.
America must be that strong horse if we want to survive. (Say, didn’t Osama compare us to an animal?)
About the Author
Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (102) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ken Blackwell
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/17/a-fatwa-on-liam-neeson
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Red Bubba| 12.17.10 @ 7:11AM
All Neesen needs to do to prove his case is present himself to the nearest imam and the nearest priest and repeat the comparison, but not necessarily in that order.
tjsker| 12.17.10 @ 7:35AM
Hollywood = Ignorant. If you ask Liam why the 50 Catholics were murdered in Bagdad he would say the Catholics obviously did something wrong to deserve death. Hollywood refuses to believe what is going on except the politically correct flavor of the day such as Aslan representing Mohammed.
Why are they ignorant? Because they choose to ignore. To them there is no way B.O. would speak so highly of Islam if it was so dangerous. They will not expend any energy trying to find out the truth because they are actors; they pay their agents to think for them.
RHN| 12.20.10 @ 10:41AM
They're not ignorant, more precisely, cowards.
PJ| 12.17.10 @ 7:40AM
I think Liam Neeson is a very good actor. That's all he is! He's not an expert in theology, philosophy, diplomacy, or anything that uses the mind in a very thoughtful manner.
I lose all respect for actors or performers who assume they have been given the right to pontificate to us schmoes on anything.
Beside the obvious let's name a few who jumped out of the closet to share their dopiness w/the rest of us besides Neeson: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Lady Gaga, Prince Charles, .....
Whatever happened to those performers who had the good taste to keep their wacky opinions private?
NavyBrat | 12.17.10 @ 8:55AM
I'm with you, PJ. I HATE it when actors that I like open their mouths about politics. Just make the damned movies. I'm not a fan of you b/c of your political leanings.
ShortNSweet| 12.17.10 @ 10:47AM
Amen...we don't like them because they're smart, or honest, or because they believe in this or that...we just like to watch the movies. So keep to what you know best Mr. Neeson. You obviously suck at morality.
PJ| 12.17.10 @ 2:52PM
What I hate more is the hypocrite like Al Gore (green energy), Warren Buffet (taxes), Bill Clinton (sex pig) who tell us how to live our lives but do just the opposite for themselves. They turn my stomach sour! I upchuck like Gollum every time I see there names! ----- like right now!
On the other hand, I respect the progressive, way-out actress, Darryl Hannah not only for her acting skills but also that she practices what she preaches esp on environmental issues.
Vic Bailey| 12.17.10 @ 8:25PM
They don't call it HOLLYWEIRD for nothing!! Semper Fi.
Colin Foy| 12.17.10 @ 7:22PM
As a noted NY boxer of Irish ancestory once said: "What's the point of being Irish if you can't be stupid?"
Can't remember his name, he was around back in the 30's or 40's and he made this qoute right before he stepped into the ring with the mighty Joe Louis, and yes he was creamed. Cheers!
Tom near Boston| 12.17.10 @ 9:21PM
Colin, that was Billy Conn, after coming out trying to land a knockout of Louis even though he was ahead on all the cards.
By the way, don't try to tell that anecdote to guys who have shamrock tatoos, or even old ladies with shamrock shutters. The more generations removed from the auld sod, the more removed is the hibernian sense of self-deprecation. Pretty soon they'll be claiming protected-class minority status. Begorrah!
Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 10:21PM
But just imagine a joke about any other ethnic group and this sight would be closed down, its editors imprisoned and its readers tracked down to face heresy charges. At least the Irish can laugh.
Steve B | 12.18.10 @ 12:44PM
An Irishman once remarked to me in an Irish pub - in Warsaw, "We are a very honest people. We rarely speak well of each other."
Other utterances from this Celtic sage:
"When an Aer Lingus flight lands in Dublin, the pilot announces, 'We are about to land in Shannon Airport, please set your watches back 500 years.'"
An Irishman and a Mexican are discussing the problems of their respective countries.
The Mexican says, "Our greatest problem is the manana philosophy. Everything is better manana, manana. Do you have a word in Irish like this?"
The Irishman replies, "Well, yes we do. But it doesn't convey quite the same sense of terrible urgency."
WGMOW| 12.19.10 @ 8:55AM
Actually Anthony, any joke, no matter how tasteless, is acceptable for any ethnic group that is white, as per the actions of the thought police, dumbocrats, and the protected ethnic groups.
ps: Let me omit Asians from my brief diatribe. I have never heard of an American of Asian descent claiming victim status, though the dumbocrats have tried hard to convince them.
Colin Foy| 12.20.10 @ 3:39PM
Tom: Many thanks and thanks as well for straightening out the story. Self deprecation indeed! Mr. Neeson could use a bit of that after some of the movies he's done over the last 25-30 years.
On the other hand, I bet he's a good bloke and fun to have a drink with. Cheers!
joli| 12.17.10 @ 2:59PM
Was it Julia Roberts' mom who told her to shut up and act? Good advice!
Richard Baker| 12.17.10 @ 8:00AM
The motto of many in Hollywood should be "Don't confuse me with the facts, I know what I know." I guess when you spend your life portraying others cognition is sometimes replaced with the ability to memorize lines in a script. Liam has achieved that capability, it seems.
Stammon| 12.17.10 @ 8:03AM
If you don't believe in God, then all gods are the same.
T1Brit| 12.17.10 @ 8:28AM
It would shock and amaze the average person to see into the mind of the professional actor - especially a Hollywood one.
You would find a mostly empty space like an auditorium - that needs to be filled with public approval and admiration - dominated by a vast central ego, towering up into the clouds.
David W| 12.17.10 @ 8:35AM
It would be humorous to see if a fatwa is really issued against Liam. Would there be any protest from Hollywood or would they throw him under the bus? Want to take any bets?
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.17.10 @ 8:53AM
Hollywood would definitely protest a Liam Neeson fatwa, because contrary to neo-"conservative" mythology, liberals in America don't really give a shit about Islam. They just don't feel its necessary to constantly be in a state of war with it. And while they're wrong about a great many things, they're correct about that.
George True| 12.17.10 @ 9:49AM
While it may not be necessary to be in a constant state of war with islam, one would have to be a fool not to recognize that islam today has declared itself to be in a constant state of war with us.
jawin| 12.17.10 @ 6:45PM
Precisely!
John Navratil| 12.17.10 @ 10:36AM
Mr. O'Keefe,
As Mr. True observes, it doesn't matter what the Hollywood liberals think. It matters what and, to some degree, how the Islamists think. If you believe that they think like we do, I invite you to spend a year or two with them in their country. It will change your mind.
Combining a profound fatalism, expressed in the ubiquitos "inshallah" with a belief that the Quran is the inalterable word of God as dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed which proclaims that infidels should be killed or enslaved and apostates put to death is not a recipe for world peace. This war will continue until the West responds in its characteristic "disproportionate" manner. If we don't, expect the next Istanbul in Europe and eventually here.
Consider that Mohammed died in 632. At that time Egypt was a Christian nation. By 750 the Caliphate had expanded to include almost all of modern Spain, North Africa, what is now the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The battle of Tours in 732 in, what is now, the center of modern France marked the high-point of the Caliphate and ultimately lead to the 200 year Crusades to retore Christian control to the Holy Lands. The last epic battle was fought in Vienna in 1683. That's over one thousand years of Muslim/Christian conflict. It hasn't stopped, and won't until Islam moderates. But that is difficult to forsee when the words in the Quran are believed to be written by God. It's a religious Catch-22.
Brian Mc| 12.17.10 @ 11:07AM
...and if memory serves me, J.N., that battle for Vienna occurred on 9/11? The brutishness of 'submit or die' can only be halted with an equal force. The question, are we up to the challenge or should we stick our heads in the proverbial sand as most liberals have done?
A short answer: one 'Muslim' attack and a mosque disappears from the face of the planet. Fire with fire, so to speak. Would this finally force a pause from the Jihadists?
John Navratil| 12.17.10 @ 11:21AM
Brian Mc,
Your 9/11 comment caused me to do a quick Wikipedia (OK, it was easy) which suggests the attack came at 04:00 on 9/12. So, it was still 9/11 in the U.S. :)
I'm not sure a tit-for-tat will feed the bulldog. Witness the current conflict with Israel which has done so for the last, almost, forty years. Still, removing a mosque has both a symbolic and practical value as it removes the stage from which jihad is preached.
Herb| 12.17.10 @ 6:59PM
So... "there are men with big beards who want to know where [the schoolteacher] is and they want to kill her."
Great big Muslim males who want to kill helpless Kafir women would make for some awfully juicy targets.
curmudgeon| 12.17.10 @ 5:25PM
they are wrong about that too. it isnt the hollymorons that have the choice to be or not be at war with islam. the war was declared by mohammed, and it wont be over until all the infidels or all the muslims have been vanquished. either fight islam, or be murdered or enslaved. those are the choices.
Vern Crisler| 12.20.10 @ 11:32AM
I'm reminded of Lincoln's statement that the nation could either be all free or all slave, but not both. Are we in the same situation with Islam? Must the world be either all Christian or all Muslim, but not both?
Louis Jenkins| 12.17.10 @ 8:54AM
Better to have Liliam thrown under the bus, than the rest of the Hollywood elite. They're like a bunch of rats in a bathtub climbing on top of the bodies until the water gets the last one. Why do we even bother to post on such a article? We are at war with Islam, and for anyone else to consider it otherwise, they are not wise.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.17.10 @ 9:19AM
The proposition that we're in any meaningful conflict with a bunch of illiterate goat herders in rural Pakistan is ludicrous. We're only at war with them because we insist on attacking them. Any cursory examination of the facts of the 9/11 attacks shows they only succeeded because elements in our own government chose to allow them to go forward, to provide a rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Notice how now that we don't need such a rationale (as we already have it), they are unable to touch us? When jetliners go of course, they get escorted by combat air patrols. This happens about twice a week, and always has. But somehow, miraculously, the system broke down on the one day we actually needed it, while it worked perfectly smoothly on every other day for the last 40+ years. Talk about a coincidence!
George True| 12.17.10 @ 10:05AM
Again, islam has declared war on us. By "us" they mean Western civilization. Specifically, any country governed by a secular democracy or republic. The imams who speak for islam have said in no uncertain terms, that they are working to overthrow our governments from the inside and replace them with an islamic state with sharia as the only law.
Historically, whenever muslims get to be a certain percentage of the population (around3-5%) they begin agitating for their "rights" and for their enclaves to be governed by sharia and NOT by the law of their host country. Once they get to be 10% of the population, through a combination of immigration, proselytizing, and high birth rates, their agitations become progressively more extreme. It only gets worse after that. This has historically been the case for centuries in every country that has allowed islam to gain a significant foothold.
In islam, there is only dar al islam (house of islam) and dar al harb (house of war). Any part of the world that is not already under sharia (islamic law) is automatically considered to be dar al harb.
These are the known facts. Anyone who ignores them is a fool.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.17.10 @ 12:01PM
I'm well aware that there are ignorant goat herders in rural Pakistan who would like to kill me. But since they are in rural Pakistan, and I am not, they are out of luck, so I don't worry about it. We just need to keep Muslim immigrants out of the USA, and we'll be fine.
Islamists would like to conquer the world. I suppose Robert Mugabe would like to do so, too. They are both about equally likely to achieve such ambitions.
John Navratil| 12.17.10 @ 12:58PM
I'm not worried about anyone in Pakistan trying to kill me either, unless I go there or they come here, or we meet in Stockholm or on a train in Spain or in the 100th floor of the World Trade Center or even at a tree-lighting ceremony in Portland. We can't keep Mexican yardmen out of this country and you blithely suggest immigration control as a solution? Not realistic!
To compare Mugabe, a tin-pot dictator who has bankrupted his country and his aspirations for world domination to the jihadis with access to buckets of petro-cash and legions of young men seeking martyrdom is also inapt.
Michael D. Brandt| 12.17.10 @ 7:02PM
The reason we can't keep illegal immigrants from Mexico out of this country is because the leaders and clients of the two major political parties of this country do not want to keep them out.
John Navratil| 12.18.10 @ 9:31AM
That border has been porous since before it was a border. Since Nixon, we've been fighting to keep drugs from coming across and drugs have to be carried. Just as demand for drugs keeps them coming, the pitiful economy in Mexico will keep the economic migrants coming as well.
I think you oversimplify.
Michael D. Brandt| 12.18.10 @ 11:54PM
I don't believe that I have over simplified. I don't believe that the leaders of the two major political parties and their sponsors have the will to secure our borders. Both parties would like to create voting blocs from the hispanic population (identity politics), and both desire to use illegal immigration to drive down wages in this country. Elements of the Republican party want lower wages to boost the bottom lines of large corporations, the Democrats want lower wages to legitimize social welfare programs. Tosee what can be accomplished when the will to act exists review Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
John Navratil| 12.19.10 @ 10:42AM
Mr. Brandt,
Obviously the political hot potato which is illegal immigration requires political will as well as support from the electorate. This is quickly getting off topic and we could discuss...
...the cost and benefit of illegal immigration
...the implementation of a truly secure border, not just in Mexico, but in Canada
...the current immigration policy which, for example, denies foreign PhD recipients from remaining in this country.
However, my original point was intended to illustrate the ineffectiveness of border control against terrorists. If we built the "great wall" all the way across the borders, that would still be insufficient to stop a determined terrorist.
Of course, Mr. O'Keefe merely suggest keeping Muslim immigrants out of the U.S. engaging, perhaps unintentionally, in the sort of profiling would might actually do some good in both the security and economic arenas.
Occam's Tool| 12.17.10 @ 3:57PM
Well, then, Kevin, you are a blithering nincompoop, because those goatherders can be here in a matter of hours after simple instructions and with sufficient money.
Rob Maloni| 12.19.10 @ 9:33PM
"We just need to keep Muslim immigrants out of the USA, and we'll be fine."
Really, Mr. O'Keefe? Just like we keep illegal Mexican immigrants out, right? I'm all for securing our borders, but when not only liberal Hollywood but liberal Washington WANTS them here for votes and cause for more social programs, it's kinda tough for me to imagine anyone "officially" wanting to keep any other group out. Especially when Barry proclaims his love for them. As far as not worrying about goat herders, I would imagine that you would not have been concerned about so many Muslims wanting to learn to fly but skipping the landing instructions as well. Just sayin'
John Navratil| 12.17.10 @ 10:58AM
Mr. O'Keefe,
In your previous post you seemed rational, if misguided. Here you are delusional. Read each of your sentences. Do any of them actually make sense?
"The proposition that we're in any meaningful conflict with a bunch of illiterate goat herders in rural Pakistan is ludicrous."
What is ludicrous? Is it that the conflict isn't meaningful or that the combatants are illiterate goat herders? I really don't care if they can read or write as long as the can figure out the manual to an RPG or detonate suicide belts.
"We're only at war with them because we insist on attacking them."
Is this a tautology or what?
"Any cursory examination of the facts of the 9/11 attacks shows they only succeeded because elements in our own government chose to allow them to go forward, to provide a rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq."
Yee-hah! It was an inside job! You and Van Jones spend too much time together. And please don't try to suggest a conspiracy theory can be disproved.
"Notice how now that we don't need such a rationale (as we already have it), they are unable to touch us? When jetliners go of course, they get escorted by combat air patrols."
They are not receiving an escort, they are being targetted as a potential attacker. The "escort" is there to shoot them down, if necessary.
"This happens about twice a week, and always has."
I'd really like a source for this. Being "off course" means not being where you are expected to be. Aircraft deviate for many reasons. Commercial aircraft are always operated in constant contact with controllers. The alert is raised when the aircraft is not flying according to plan and in conflict with the controller.
"But somehow, miraculously, the system broke down on the one day we actually needed it, while it worked perfectly smoothly on every other day for the last 40+ years."
The system broke down because the operating rules for hijacking was always to comply. Here, for the first time, the hijackers killed the pilots and took control of the aircraft. The system didn't break down as there was to system to handle this. Now there is.
"Talk about a coincidence!"
Indeed!
John Navratil| 12.17.10 @ 11:02AM
I gave my editor the day off. I should have typed:
The system didn't break down as there was NO system to handle this.
curmudgeon| 12.17.10 @ 5:38PM
ok, kevin. you are right. us evil infidels caused peaceful goatherders in "pakistan" to "fight back" by pampering 3000 evil infidels in nyc on 9-11. so explain what our punishment will be for slick willie murdering evil serbs to enhance the genocide being conducted on the evil christians by the peaceful muslims of bosnia? i would also like to know what it was that the evil americans did to cause the peaceful muslim barbary pirates to peacefully steal american ships, and peacefully enslave their infidel crews? what horrible crimes did us evil americans commit to get the peaceful muslims to attack the city of constantinople, and murder or rape and murder all of its citizens in 1543? those poor peaceful muslims, everyone keeps on inciting them to murder and rape.
Martin Koschuttnig| 12.18.10 @ 9:44AM
Of course it was the evil US Politicians and the State of Israel that caused Tunisian Muslim to reject any contact with the progeny of the "Jewish pigs/apes" as a Representative of the then very young American Republic in Tunis! A Politician was only rejected because of his Religion, and this hundreds of years prior to the forming of Israel!
curmudgeon| 12.17.10 @ 5:58PM
" When jetliners go of course, they get escorted by combat air patrols. This happens about twice a week, and always has."----insane raving by kevin
what can you possibly be prattling about here? people would never know how stupid you are if you would keep your fingers off the keyboard.
Colin Foy| 12.20.10 @ 4:33PM
KRO: I've felt much the same for the last 9 years. I've never understood how Jamie S. Gorelick could be allowed to serve on the 9/11 commision, which was a joke. Unless, of course, she was there to cover for the Clintons? (Sic)
Nahhh, Hilly and Billy are true patriots. (sic)
As Deputy Attorney General of the United States she put in the "firewall" forbiding the CIA, FBI and military intelligence to communicate or share domestic intelligence data with one another under FISA and the Church commision.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has also refered to project "able danger" a program run by military intelligence starting in 1999 as directed by SOCOM, which may have identified as many as 19 of the 21 hijackers including Atta-boom Atta -bing himself.
I've always felt that the reason the left never actually pinned this on the clown G.W. is because all roads from 9/11 lead directly back to Hilly & Billy and that insipid administration.
Why Sandy Berger was allowed to skate after stealing classified documents is also beyond me? (Nudge, Nudge - Wink, Wink)
With a 16 year old son who's seriously contemplating going into the armed forces, and who would eventually like to serve in special forces, it sickens me that he'll be serving and taking orders from frauds, subversives and traitors. (I mean the Pol's of course)
Even though I'm a retired veteran myself I'm starting to get the nagging feeling that most people in this country don't deserve to be free, they don't derserve to have my son spill his blood for them when the country is being governed by despots, thugs, traitors and loons put there by an electorate of entitlement cowards, race based cry babies, junkies and fools. Cheers!
Kachonka| 12.17.10 @ 9:24AM
We are at war with more than islam. Our own congress declared a freedon and financial war on American citizens.
Eric Cartman| 12.17.10 @ 9:55AM
I beg to differ a smidge - Obama is trading recipes with Islamists on Facebook while our own congress declared a freedom and financial war on American citizens. Just a little different.
Occam's Tool| 12.17.10 @ 3:45PM
Dear Eric,
I am surprised that anyone is surprised about anything insane Neeson says about Islam. His former mother-in-law (is former correct since his wife died in an accident, and they were happily married) is Vanessa Redgrave.
LarryK| 12.17.10 @ 9:40AM
He's not a dhimmicrat,
He's a dimwit!
Toynbee| 12.17.10 @ 9:48AM
We have been at war with Islamo-Fascism for decades. With 911 we finally noticed it.
By the war, read "Innocents Abroad " by Mark Twain. The section on Morocco describes Moslem reaaction to Christians 130 years ago.
Mark Shepler- Jupiter, FL| 12.17.10 @ 9:55AM
I was disappointed in Neeson's comments because I am a fan of his acting. After all, what red blooded American cannot applaud his role in Taken, the most politically incorrect film depicting muslims and necessary methods of dirty war in our time? I might have missed it but heretofore had not heard of him abusing his popularity to discourse on politics, social issues or matters of importance as too many of his more air headed celebrity acquaintances are wont to do. Neeson impresses me as the kind of throwback to past stars who understood the public's adulation was a sort of trust conditioned on a mutual respect and not to be tried or abused by the incessant inflicting of their personal opinions on everything under the sun. That a little aloofness went a long way towards obviating its converse- contempt borne of familiarity. For such a deliberate and self-conscious age of "irony", it's the chief one fewer and fewer "celebrities" fail to learn these days.
Aside from the obvious slip of comparing mohammed to an animal there is also the faux pas (or is that fatuax pas?) of comparing mohammed to Jesus, a mere lesser prophet in islam and to buddha, a mortal man and venerated by some of the lowest of the low in islam- unbelievers. Believe it or don't, but Jews and Christians are at least supposed to get a little break under islam in that, as "people of the book", once subdued they are permitted an opportunity to convert or live as dhimmis before death by sword is pronounced. But all the rest, unbelievers, atheists and polytheists especially deserve only merciless death. Ask a Hindu friend from that part of the world what they think of the gathering islamic storm.
Then too is the affront of an unbeliever even making such an assertion. Who is Neeson to say who or what is representative of mohammed? Does he not by now know that under islam there is no one or nothing that compares? Has he not learned that mohammed is so perfect, so holy, so supreme, just below only God Himself, that even a loving, accurate portrait cannot be rendered of him because it's inevitable imperfections will defile and profane the prophet? That is a common mistake made by our best and brightest when they assure us that islam is a "religion of peace", mohammed was this and muslims that. The savvier islamists in our midst whose mission is precisely to engender such supine muddleheadedness nod cheerfully at our useful idiots and laugh up their sleeves at how easily they are duped into both confusing and condemning themselves while the fire-eaters back home make the condemnations and point to the unholy presumption as worse than the blasphemy itself in their exhortations to jihad.
I hope Neeson gets a pass but will not be surprised at his surprise should he not. He will be but the latest in an endless string of well intentioned westerners who just don't get that islam's mission is to rule the world by sword and fire if necessary. And it always seems to be because as it the encroaching darkness draws near those in it's path finally awaken to the dangers about to befall them and so resist. At least, that appears to be the rule in a 1,400 year history of conquest and subjugation. Should the fatwa and it's attendent dangers come, probably for the rest of his life, he will then know what he didn't know just a short time ago. That under islam he is worse than nothing. He is an unbeliever who presumed to speak on islam and the prophet and the very act, yet alone the content or intent, deserves only death, all of his liberal western good intentions notwithstanding. He will live under the threat I've been relating to liberals for years and years now, "Hey liberal, they'll cut your throat first."
Drew| 12.17.10 @ 10:58AM
Neeson and other actors tempted to air what's in their air heads should heed the adage: "Better to be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt".
jack diamond| 12.17.10 @ 10:04AM
(Re: Kevin) In no way is an American government that forbids even suggesting that Islamic terror and Shari'a supremacism have anything whatsoever to do with Islam and does nothing but try to appease the Muslim world into liking us, "at war" with Islam. Nor would most citizens "give a shit" about Islam if Islam were not at war with them. When members of the Religion of Peace are constantly attempting to kill you in the name of their religion, it gets your attention. When their stated goal is to establish Islamic law everywhere and you realize Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with free societies or human rights as we know them, it gets your attention. When this is also the goal of the 56-nation Muslim bloc at the United Nations, the OIC, which claims to be the voice of the Muslim world (not just the illiterate goat-herders) and has been supported by a vast treasure of oil-wealth from the Gulf, it best get your attention.
Drew| 12.17.10 @ 11:02AM
All this hasn't gotten Kevin's attention. Someone forced to jump from the WTC towers on 9/11 and falling on him wouldn't get the attention of libs like Kevin or the NYC mayor Bloominidiotberg.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.17.10 @ 10:27AM
George,
Mark,
jack,
Guys,
Well spoken round-outs.
We do NEED the Kevins of the world to hold up the stupid pictures .....to remind us what stupid truly is.
Pelligrino| 12.17.10 @ 10:59AM
In my life, I've known that the war with Islam's all- too-prevalent (and unrelenting) extremists began at the Summer Olympic Games in Munich in 1972.
That was not happenstance.
Where have the rest of you been these last 4 decades? (the above is a wake up message to Kevin)
Drew| 12.17.10 @ 11:03AM
Kevin's in the vegetative state called liberalism. No waking him up out of that coma with mere facts.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.17.10 @ 11:55AM
On the contrary, I'm a paleo-conservative Republican who's substantially farther to the right than you ignorant, neo-"conservative" war-mongering fools. I prefer the foreign policy of George Washington to that of Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
Occam's Tool| 12.17.10 @ 3:55PM
No, Kevin, you're the type of treasonous fool who believes in letting enemies of the USA draw breath. I don't.
Tim*| 12.17.10 @ 6:37PM
"Ben-ami Kadish was employed as a mechanical engineer by the United States Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey from October 1963 to January 1990. Kadish conspired to disclose national defense-related documents to Israel and worked as agent of the Israeli government from 1979 to 1985. Kadish took classified documents to his handler's home in Riverdale, Bronx several times (including information about nuclear weapons, a modified F-15 fighter, and the Patriot missiles) and let an unnamed Israeli government worker take photographs of them.[5]
Yosef Yagur, Kadish's Israeli handler,[6] along with his Israeli Embassy counterpart Ilan Ravid, were recalled by Israel in November 1985. Neither returned to the United States. Civilian intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard was also charged and convicted on espionage charges associated with Yagur.
Kadish was charged with four counts: one count of conspiring to disclose documents related to the national defense of the United States to the Government of Israel; one count of conspiring to act as an agent of the Government of Israel; one count of conspiring to hinder a communication to a law enforcement officer; and one count of conspiring to make a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer."
Martin Koschuttnig| 12.18.10 @ 10:00AM
@Tim And your point is?
Honestly I'd rather see "secret" knowledge fall into the hands of the Partner/Friends of the USA/West then Muslim states who would love to use it against us, or even just threaten us with it. But I'm sure you can bring any evidence that Israel would want to use this knowledge against the US or any other western country.
Tim*| 12.19.10 @ 10:50AM
Do Your Homework.
Then you can comment on The Illegal Israeli Sales of U.S. Weapons Technology to The Red Chinese, jeopardizing our allies japan & Taiwan.
Occam's Tool| 12.18.10 @ 9:18PM
Everybody spies on everyone else, Tim*. And Pollard deserves to rot in jail. But I don't seem to recall Jewish kids from Tel-Aviv hijacking the 9/11 planes. Those were your butt buddies from Saudi.
Tim*| 12.19.10 @ 10:42AM
Apparently, Israel Firster Tool Job is An Apologist AgendaBoy For The Foreign Nation of Israel.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 12.17.10 @ 11:57AM
Last time I checked, killing Israeli Olympic athletes was an act of war (so to speak; really just a criminal conspiracy) targeted at Israel, not the USA.
Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 10:29PM
The murder of civillian athletes is an attack on all civilized people. Whatever you may think of Israelis, they are great friends and trusted allies of the USA. I don't think Americans have to fear a planeload of rabbinical students from Israel, but how about a planeload of Muslim students from Saudi Arabia?
Andy| 12.17.10 @ 1:32PM
Sorry Pelligrino.
Islam has been at war with the US since it became independent. The mere fact that Americans are infidels or kafurs is enough for jihadists.
The United States of America and the Barbary States of North Africa fought two wars in the early 19th century. This was as a reaction to the attacks on American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea.
In 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman.
Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
"It was written in their Qu'ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
Clear enough Kevin?
Andy| 12.17.10 @ 1:56PM
The following quote springs to mind....
"those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana
1863-1952
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.17.10 @ 12:13PM
Kevin,
Sorry. We smelled another brand of kool-aid on your breath.
Paleos are nothing but half-assed isolationists.
(head in the sand cowards really)
You guys had your theories shoved up your hineys in 1941.
Preach all you want. You people are simply a spinter in our finger; annoying but of no great importance.
Go hide while we grown ups watch after you.
Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 10:34PM
Paleos are not cowards, they are merely misguided. They long for an America that can no longer exist. The world has become too small for us to hide from our enemies and I think, in the end, most paleos, who at heart love America, realize that we must destroy our enemies if we are to remain free.
Bill| 12.17.10 @ 1:05PM
Maybe one day someone will list the ways that moderate Muslims differ in their beliefs from radical Muslims.
I await that day with eagerness.
Martin Koschuttnig| 12.18.10 @ 10:15AM
"The difference between an extremist and a moderate is that the extremist is the one with the death threat and the moderate is the one who explains what you've done to deserve it."
Picked it up from some other site, don't recall who write it...
@ Kevin and others
As the Suicide-Bomber in Sweden has proved (as if I needed any more) it is not first and foremost the "uneducated goat-herders" who will embrace the violent jihad, but rather the learned. One needs to know the Kooran, the Hadits and other Islamic writings to be able to venture out on a path of "jihad". One that could lead one pick up arms. Many of Muslims who are only by name/tradition (born into it) do not even know their own religion well enough, most of them are surprised just as we are, how the "few militants" can "hijack" a "peaceful" religion.
George True| 12.17.10 @ 1:23PM
Kevin: You said wee need to keep muslim immigrants out of the USA, and I emphatically agree with you about that.
As for whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we now have an expansionist-minded islam that can now reach out and touch us from a very great distance. And they can justify, in their own minds, any amount or any kind of mass murder and mayhem committed in the name of their so-called religion. That is why a strict isolationist policy will no longer work. With Iran about to get the A-bomb, and Pock-ee-stahn already in possession of 70 nukes, it is no longer advisable to simply ignore them because they are just ignorant goat herders half a world away.
All it would really take is a nuke aboard a privately owned Gulfstream IV on a standard descent and approach to LaGuardia or Reagan National to illustrate that we can no longer afford to just leave them alone. I wish it were not so.
John II| 12.17.10 @ 2:03PM
One addendum to your response to Kevin, George. Kevin's deeply unserious paleo notion that the fortunes of Israel have nothing to do with the United States.
Like it or not, Israel has become the West's geopolitical canary in the mineshaft. If the jihadists succeed in destroying Israel, the West is finished.
Occam's Tool| 12.17.10 @ 3:50PM
Too right, John II. In addition, I've never heard it said that throwing away an effective ally in a war is a good strategy.
And Kevin, the murder of Israeli athletes was an act of terrorism in 1972. And if you don't think, given the PLO's ties with the Soviets at the time, that that was not an act direct3ed against the USA, you're a fool. We are the Big Satan, they are the Little Satan. Al Quaida's major anger at the US is related to our putting our infidel troops on the holy soil of Saudi Arabia, and has nothingto do with Israel.
Washington was the President of a small, weak country, not a strong one. He was also a philo-semite. Unlike you.
Occam's Tool| 12.17.10 @ 3:54PM
"Unlike you" in the comments above refers to Kevin.
I've always felt that Paleoconservatives were just antisemitic Conservatives. I don't see much other difference, and, since I voted in my first election for Reagan and have NEVER voted for a Dhimmicrat in my life for National Office (I liked Seigelman for Governor of Alabama), I don't see where I'm neo anything. I think the USA should blow up annoying little countries that bother us, like Iran. Jimmy's response to the Iranian embassy situation should have been nuclear annihilation of Iran.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.17.10 @ 4:44PM
Occam's Tool
The true irony is that we went to Saudi Arabia to stop the aggression of the Bathists in Iraq.
Occam's Tool| 12.18.10 @ 9:14PM
Butofcourse, Ken. A "no good deed goes unpunished" teachable moment.
Paevo| 12.17.10 @ 3:13PM
But MAHOUND was indeed most certainly an ANIMAL...
Stuart Koehl| 12.17.10 @ 7:41PM
In the Narnia stories, Islam is represented by the Calormenes (who are, for all intents and purposes, Saracens right out of the Arabian Nights). Most of the time they are evil aggressors against the Christian kingdom of Narnia, but in the Horse and His Boy, there are noble Calormenes, and we meet yet another noble Calormene in The Last Battle.
Calormenes worship a demon god called Tasch (who may or may not be real). The Calormene prince comes face to face with Aslan (who Calormene legend says eats Calormenes alive). He confesses to Aslan that he has always worshiped Tasch, and that if Aslan thinks that wrong, he is willing to face punishment. But Aslan tells the prince that every good deed done in the name of Tasch redounds to the praise of Aslan, while every evil deed belongs to the person who committed it. So, Aslan says, to the extent that the prince has been a good and noble man, and loyal to Tasch, he has, without realizing, been loyal to Aslan.
Lewis thus deals with the problem of invincible ignorance and the problem of the righteous heathen by an appeal to the natural law which is engraved on all men's hearts, and, to a lesser extent, the concept of baptism of desire.
The Catholic Church teaches something similar these days: salvation comes through membership in the Church alone; and thus anyone who is saved (and who knows whether or not hell is populated, even though free will and divine revelation demand that it must exist?) is saved by membership in the Church, even though there may be no visible bonds such as baptism; i.e., such people are mystically enrolled in the Church of God, regardless of their external affiliation.
Liam Neeson probably knows none of this, but Lewis would probably be among the first to say that righteous Muslims could be saved. Otherwise, why would Lewis have included righteous Muslims in his story?
John II| 12.18.10 @ 2:07AM
Nice post, Stuart. Except that the Calormenes always struck me as Saracens right out of the anonymously composed French mini-epic "Song of Roland," which Lewis doubtless knew intimately. The Calormene worship of Tasch, for example, is redolent of the worship of the deity Termagant, an imagined pagan practice attributed to the Saracens in the Song of Roland--and attributed generally to Muslims in medieval Christian mystery plays.
My guess is that, for Lewis as he was writing the Narnia stories in the 1950s, the whole Islamic thing was a relatively abstract business confined to literary recollection--although Lewis was doubtless familiar with Belloc's anticipation back in the 1930s of an Islamic resurgence in the late 20th century.
I'd be fascinated to know Lewis's take on Islam today. At the very least, he would surely recognize that, contrary to the insouciant western secularist take on the issue, Allah is NOT the "same God" as worshipped by the Christians.
Osamas Pajamas| 12.18.10 @ 1:54AM
If I recall correctly, it was Calif Democrat Alan Cranston who in his youth caused the American publication of a verbatim copy of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Hitler's "sanitized" version had already reached American shores but the widespread dissemination of a precise translation impeded the further growth of America's domestic Nazi gangs.
I've neither money nor talent nor much time left in my life, but it would be good to have published a verbatim translation of the Koran, the Muslim sharia laws, and any related or support documents. In paperback --- so everyone can get well acquainted with this totalitarian rubbish. This is a matter of "knowing thy enemy."
John II| 12.18.10 @ 2:04PM
My favorite translation of the Qur'an (Koran, whatever), is the recent work of the Egyptian scholar Abdel Haleem, published in paperback and modestly priced by Oxford (in their "World's Classics" series). The numerous linguistic aids include parenthetical addenda to the text to resolve passages that might otherwise be hopelessly ambiguous, and the suras are helpfully identified, one by one, as being either Medinan or Meccan--thus providing some historical signposts to the erratic tone running through the whole text.
What is also useful, if inadvertent, is the utter scholarly silence on the part of Haleem on the purported "Biblical" stories that occur intermittently in the Qur'an, as for example in Sura 5, when Jesus is quoted as explicitly denying any claim to divinity. Throughout Haleem's translation there is not a single reference made to any portion of the Judaeo-Christian scripture which Muslims claim to accept as an incomplete portion of God's revelation.
It seems transparent that Haleem himself, a scrupulous scholar on matters Arabic, is--like all ordinary Muslims--simply unfamiliar with Scripture. Furthermore, the screwball nature of the Qur'an's intermittent nods to Scripture (the weird nativity story, for example, or rather, the passing reference to a very strange version of that story: there is no real narrative in the Qur'an--it's all rather a tedious declamation, which explains why most Muslims are not themselves very intimately familiar with their own Holy Book) is evidence that Mohammed himself was probably never personally acquainted with orthodox Christians, but rather with one or another of the contemporary oddball heretical sects (principally one or another version of Arianism) that dotted the caravan routes on the Arabian peninsula.
Anyhow, your dream-work has already been done for you, Sammy, in ways far more revealing than any "literal" translation of the Qur'an could effect. You may instead wish to spend your declining years writing a dystopian novel about a future in which a flabby, half-educated West is finally overrun and subdued by the Islamic renegade. For the protection of your family, of course, you'll have to write under a pseudonym.
Occam's Tool| 12.18.10 @ 9:16PM
John II,
the dystopian novel you mentioned, which has Europe overrun and three US cities nuked, has been written. It is the brilliant Caliphate, by Thomas Kratman. Published 2008. Available on Amazon. I think you'd like it. A lot.
Merry Christmas.
John II| 12.19.10 @ 1:58AM
Hey Occie. Thanks. Yes, I knew about the Kratman, from a review a year or so ago. In fact, there seems to be a fair sprinkling of such novels already. Reminds me of the spate of after-the-bomb novels flooding the bookstalls back in the fifties and sixties--most of them forgettable ("On the Beach") but a few of genuine quality and lasting appeal ("Canticle for Leibowitz").
Kratman has the right personal background to pull off a future-as-nightmare stunt like "Caliphate." As I get older, though, my own taste leans in the opposite direction, toward historical fiction. But I had Kratman and others in mind when I offered Sammy my unsolicited advice.
There's supposed to be at least one good novel in all of us. The backdrop for my own would probably be the Second Punic War, or maybe half a millennium later during the reign of
Constantine, or, a tad later, the era of Augustine. It's all been done, of course, but so what? In that department (writing the one novel that's in all of us), you have to follow your passions. Which is why I could never write an academic novel: my feelings toward that universe have pretty much turned to ice.
albert constantine jr.| 12.19.10 @ 9:38PM
Perhaps "On the Beach" was quite forgettable, but I seem to recall being told that Rolf Harris' break into the American Pop Top Forty, "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" was originally in that film. If that is accurate, while politically correct sensibilities may prohibit its airing today, it was a fine intro to the land Down Under pre-Paul Hogan, despite the whining anti-nuclear pro-surrender vehicle from which it derived.
John II| 12.19.10 @ 10:20PM
Oh. I was thinking of the Nevil Shute novel (1957), not the Stanley Kramer movie (1959) based on the former. I recall seeing that movie only once, at a drive-in theatre in 1960, late in my high school years. I DO remember some scattered images: a calendar with the future year 1964 imprinted on it; the rolling coke bottle causing the erratic telegraphed gibberish that sent the submarine on a wild goose chase; Gregory Peck mugging and looking concerned; Ava Gardner just looking concerned; and a rather aging Fred Astaire climbing into a sports car to commit suicide.
But the only featured song I remember is the Aussie bush ballad "Waltzing Matilda." I'll have to check my Junior Woodchucks Guidebook of Universal Knowledge on the Harris song, unless I can find time to order "On the Beach" from Netflix--which, come to think of it, now sounds like an interesting thing to do.
So watch for my take on that flick in one of my next disgruntled postings.
Underestimated Goat herder| 12.19.10 @ 1:37AM
Kevin is Custer before his last stand.
GavInTucson| 12.19.10 @ 3:00AM
Neeson is great actor to be sure, but why get your undies in a bunch over what he thinks about religion???
I personally don't care what he thinks. To me, he has only one job from my perspective -- to entertain me. Whether it be an actor or musician, I'm not necessarily buying into their politics, I'm only interested in their talent.
I do my best to separate my politics from theirs, although Clooney and Damon make it difficult at times, and try to focus on why I'm really watching them -- their ability to entertain me.
To each his own, I say -- no matter how messed up I personally think someone else is.
Flatulus Ancien II| 12.19.10 @ 9:59AM
We are at war. It is not a war of our choosing, but is brought to us by the Islamist of the world. Not just the radical islamists, but all islamists.
Islam is a cult, based on the maniacal ravings of a false prophet, followed by an unthinking mass of ignorant inbreds.
The growing strength of their cult in America is due, in large part, to our culture of political correctness, and a muslim sympathizer in the White House.
Bloody conflict will come to our streets, as in the Middle East.
All gun owners should be well armed with guns loaded with hollow point bullets, with the hollow points filled with pig fat. This should be well publicized, to lessen their zeal for battle.
Even a minor wound would preclude entry into paradise, and deprive him of his 72 virgins.
Flatulus Ancien II| 12.19.10 @ 10:12AM
Good read:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....terrorists
Harrison | 12.19.10 @ 2:39PM
How many Christians did American-backed Saddam Hussein eliminate? From what a friend from Iraq who barely escaped that country with his life when he was young has told me, quite a lot (his family is Christian).
Dan Carr| 12.19.10 @ 2:45PM
Seriously, isn't Price Charles the dumbest man on the planet? He must be in the top three anyway!
NurseZac| 12.19.10 @ 8:13PM
Odd that Liam Neeson is still a liberal as socialism cost him his own wife via socialized medicine. Had she injured her head near any city or country/large or small hospital in the USA, she would have had immediate access to needed equipment and specialists and very very VERY likely would be alive today. That Neeson is still a screaming liberal is odd indeed.
RRA| 12.20.10 @ 12:39AM
Not much to say about this topic except I tried to read NARNIA as a read and I wasn't impressed. Rather boring really, and now grown up I get why they treated Aslan so badly. He should've eaten those kids.
LORD OF THE RINGS though? The bee's knees, yo! Movies weren't as good, but the books were cooler. And they read just as good as an adult now as they did back in the day.
REB| 12.21.10 @ 12:16AM
God gave us the answer to islam.......warheads and freedom,can I help it if their lousy god locked them in 4th century slavery ?
mwinkey.com | 12.21.10 @ 7:44AM
Our Store mainly engaged in sales of Windows and Office product key. All products are fully authorized by Microsoft directly. Mwinkey'Store will provide the full range of products. Buy our products you will enjoy the cheap prices and professional service.you can find our store with follow keywords.
E O Anthropus| 12.21.10 @ 9:39AM
What Liam Neeson or any other Hollywood gob has to say about anything is of no more relevance than what the man on the Clapham, Hollywood or Tehran omnibus has to say about anything. I wonder how long Hollywood gobs would last without petroleum?
Keith Greene| 12.21.10 @ 1:10PM
Hey muslims, go suck a pigs arse ans STFU. You too Liam.