September 10, 2010

And Here We Have…

…the same tired blackmail, which of course is working, as always.

Without exception, every time anything happens anywhere that is “offensive to Islam”, Muslims everywhere immediately riot, burn property and murder innocent people, yet Islam promotes itself as a peaceful religion.

It seems to me that any religion whose believers respond to every insult or perceived gesture or act of disrespect with extreme violence is anything but peaceful, anything but capable of intelligent or semi-adult discourse (hell, their now predictable responses are not any different from the tantrums thrown by spoiled pre-adolescent children, except in the sense that people who have nothing to do with the matter at hand are killed or crippled, when they don’t get their way), anything but fit to exist among civilized human beings.

If a non-Muslim citizen threatens to indulge in criminal activity as a response to an insult or other slight, he or she is forcefully reminded that such behavior will result in prosecution and sentencing to prison. This does not apply, apparently, to “the faithful”.

The Cordoba House imam threatens, without threatening directly (the “penalty” is, of course, understood, as violence is an established standard of global Islamic response), that if his project does not go ahead as planned, in its close proximity to Ground Zero, murder and mayhem by peaceful Muslims worldwide.

General Petraeus, President O and others fear the same sort of backlash if that pastor in Florida burns Korans tomorrow.

Of course, it’s a violation of Muslims’ religious rights to prevent them from opening mosques here in America that preach death to infidels.

Meanwhile, possession of a Judeo-Christian Bible in Saudi Arabia is a crime punishable by imprisonment or worse, and woe be to anyone who dares try and build a church or synagogue there.

Burning American flags is also a popular pass-time in some Islamic countries, as is loudly and joyously celebrating the aftermath of successful terrorist attacks in western countries.

The way things are going, Islamofascists won’t have to use actual violence to deprive us of our right to worship as we believe or of our most basic liberties; They’ll only have to bully our politicians with threats of Muslim riots and other violence to obtain unconditional surrender.

As Erick Erickson of Red State fame puts it, you cannot win with these people.

by @ 12:27 pm. Filed under Applied Islam, Dhimmitude, Islamofascism
Trackback URL for this post:

12 Responses to “And Here We Have…”

  1. Tom Says:

    Shameful behavior on the parts of our leaders and of the apologists defending the intolerant & violent behavior of the “faithful.”

  2. Always On Watch Says:

    They’re doing a damn good job of bullying our so-called leaders.

    The whitewash of Islam is increasing in pace and intensity. I can’t believe just how far down into dhimmitude we have already slid.

  3. Seth Says:

    Tom –

    The idiots never fail to kow-tow to Islam’s demands at the first hint of a threat.

    The only way to deal with a bully and make him cease and desist is to stand up to him.


    AOW –

    I wonder how easily our elite “progressives” will be able to adjust, eventually, to the advent of Sharia law in America after being instrumental in its happening.

    Incarceration replaced by amputation, lethal injection replaced by stoning or decapitation? Toture as a standard police interrogation tactic?

    Feminists watching American women “put in their places” ala Islamic tradition?

    Infidels having no right to legal recourse against Muslims? Imagine a John Edwards liberal attempting to make millions suing Muslim owned hospitals on behalf of infidel clients, LOL.

  4. BB-Idaho Says:

    “They’ll only have to bully our politicians with threats of Muslim riots and other violence…”
    Seems to work:
    “Ramadan and the upcoming holiday seasons are a good time to remember the common values that bind us together. Our society is enriched by our Muslim citizens whose commitment to faith reminds us of the gift of religious freedom in our country.” -
    -President George W. Bush, Oct. 17, 2005

  5. Seth Says:

    BB –

    Unfortunately, Bush, being a present-day politician, was as PC as the rest of that ilk. While I was completely behind the conservative basis of most of his policies, his tax cuts and the War on Terror, including the overthrow of Saddam and the termination of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan, I never could accept his attempts to “reach across the aisle” to appease the far left, nor his attempts to soft-coat our defense against the war declared on us by Islamofascism.

    While you’re fighting off the schoolyard bully, you don’t keep a running dialogue going about how he’s actually a pretty nice guy and an asset to the student body that spends its recesses in the schoolyard. You smite him root and branch, and make it plain that he’s not welcome there until he changes his wicked ways.

    Bush should have sent Muslims the message that as long as they allow the violent members of their religion to represent them on the world stage and don’t take up arms, clubs or whatever is needed to demonstrate their ultimately peaceful resolve by cleaning their own house, they hold no sway with the American, or any other peace and freedom loving people.

    Speaking for myself, I’ll begin to trust Muslims’ protestations that their violent brethren don’t speak for them when they do more than talk about it, and actually take personal risks to shut down the violence.

    So far, all we’ve seen is the same bloody violence and destruction whenever anyone “offends” Islam. We don’t seem to catch any video clips of “peaceful” Muslims clashing in the streets with the violent ones, compelling them to cease and desist from their brutal demonstrations of “applied Islam”.

    Notice that Muslims who don’t riot and kill at the drop of a hat are called “moderate Muslims”; When’s the last time anyone had to refer to others as “moderate Jews”, “moderate Christians” or “moderate Buddhists” because they were the only followers of their religions that didn’t do what Muslims are fully expected to do when they are “offended”?

  6. BB-Idaho Says:

    15 of the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, one of the more
    Sharia-type places around. What was the inside deal that we attack
    Iraq instead? IMO a “moderate muslim” would be one that interfaces with the modern world with little interest in politics. Of course
    a Sharia-dominated fundamental religious muslim fanatic would be a
    “conservative muslim”…:)

  7. Seth Says:

    BB –

    If it had been up to me, Saudi Arabia would have become a glass parking lot on 12-September-2001, and we’d be drilling our own oil, of which there is plenty. If we wanted to buy more, we could purchase it from our friends and neighbors in Alberta, who have lots and lots of wonderful black gold among their tar sands.

    Saddam had to go. His time was up.

    A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who waits and bides his time, smirking, grinning and practicing his takkiya while he waits to reap the fruits of cowardice he expects after the Sharia-dominated fundamental religious Muslim fanatic conservatives have finished applying the Islamic directives of beating down their women and killing off all infidels who will not submit to lives of dhimmitude. :-)

  8. BB-Idaho Says:

    Yep “Saddam had to go. His time was up.”
    No question: he knew too much

  9. The Gray Monk Says:

    If history is anything to go by, our friends and leaders of the left are already preparing to switch and become faithful Muslims when the moment is right.

    Read the Prophets in the Bible folks - the Torah if you prefer - the leaders of Israel were no different to the mob we suffer under. New “power” on the block? Quick, adopt their gods and practices and show them how friendly we are, how receptive to their ideas and maybe they’ll let us stay in power. Its been the same right down the ages.

  10. Seth Says:

    BB –

    Reported by The New York Times, no less. Oh, well, it could as easily have been reported by Pravda, I suppose, or the Daily Worker.

    The linked article in the Gray Lady really doesn’t give definitive support for their allegations. They state facts we know, that the Reagan Administration did supply Saddam with chemical weapons, but those weapons were earmarked for use against Iran which was, at the time, a common enemy of both the U.S. and Iraq.

    By suggesting Reagan knew that some of the WMD was going to be used on the Kurds, those laugh-a-minute, fun loving progressives over at the Times are making an unsupported-by-evidence leap, essentially putting thoughts into a late, great President’s head without so much as producing some sort of seer to contact the spirit world to tell the undisputed sooth about what Reagan was thinking. :-)


    Gray Monk –

    Its been the same right down the ages.

    This is true, and the usual suspects are those who consider themselves the intellectual elite. These people and the influence they inevitably project are more often than not the cause of copious misery for everyone else, including those who know and warn them of the consequences.

  11. BB-Idaho Says:

    You likely do not agree with General Petreaus’ COIN policy-the one in which we separate the bad guys from the good (they’re all bad, right), but considerable thought went into AR 3-24. The theory being it’s remarkably easy to create more terrorists, but difficult to win them over. I’m thinking Petreaus, being a bright soldier, was no doubt familiar with the history of Stilicho and Alaric.
    (early 400s AD) Alaric’s mob of Goths ran amuck in both eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire. Stilicho, left with the dregs of the Roman Legions, recruited other Goths and their allies for the Roman military. He proceeded to beat the crap out of Alaric twice and his Goth soldiers idolized him. Honorius (the dim) did not, thinking Stilicho had designs on his inherited position as emperor. So, he had his thugs capture and decapitate the general.
    This left yet another opening for the barbarian Alaric, and he
    invaded Italy. The good Roman citizens showed their distain for Alaric’s Goths by rounding up the women and children of the Goth
    soldiers serving Rome. And proceeded to kill them all in a good
    time massacre. Not illogically, all the friendly Goths left the Roman army and joined Alaric. Alaric sacked and burned the city of Rome in that summer of 410. Rome had not been invaded in over 800 years. No doubt St. Augustine and General Petreaus would draw dissimilar conclusions, but IMO, the good citizens of Rome (well, what was left of them) rather than help, hindered their military. The moral of the story might be ‘don’t piss off the moderate Goths’. Just sayin, and Goth, that was long. :)

  12. Seth Says:

    BB –

    Actually, I don’t believe that the COIN policy (unless there are elements being well concealed from the media for OPSEC purposes) encompasses all the issues that are involved there.

    For one thing, the “good guys” collection apparently contains a number of “bad guys” who pass on strategies and other secrets to their true kinsmen and in some cases even sabotage the efforts of the “good guys” where possible.

    These folks are motivated either by “bad guy” ideologies and amount to nothing less than (take your pick) infiltrators — spies, that is — or traitors, or, for that matter, perhaps they’re simply entrepreneurs earning money or perks from one or both sides.

    Remember when that Aussie was running his expose (x poe zay, can’t get a tilda on this contraption) site and disclosed documents that exposed much of the above, how quickly they shut him down? One has to ask: Did they pile on the mutt because he was exposing ineptitude in the ranks of our counterintelligence and OPSEC apparatus, did they do so for diplomatic reasons or did they do so because they were already on it and watching the entrenched “bad guys” to see what they could see (contacts, means and methods, etc)?

    My pernt being, it seems that when you’re dealing with Muslims in their own habitat, you can’t trust anyone.

    IMO, the good citizens of Rome (well, what was left of them) rather than help, hindered their military.

    Sounds an awful lot like our very own “progressives”, don’t you think?

    Not illogically, all the friendly Goths left the Roman army and joined Alaric.

    Actually, many Goths also migrated to Haight Ashbury, where they remain to this day. :-)