Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

If You Will Look, You Will See: It's the Islam

What more can be said in the wake of the horror in Paris?

It's all been said before: we will read in the media how investigators are looking for a "motive"; how this incident puts new pressure on Muslim communities in Europe who fear a "backlash"; and the tiring but tireless debate about whether this is the act of "lone wolves" or part of a master strategy. I have written so much on this subject that I fear becoming a repetitious old bore. I hardly have the heart to get into this yet again, but here goes:

IT. IS. THE. ISLAM. (Ben Affleck, please read this over and over, slowly, so that it can sink into your Hollywood/progressive head)

That's it. It's Islam: not some radical minority version of it, but mainstream, central core Islam that drives people to acts of murder and intolerance. Not hard to understand if you ever have studied Islam, spent time in Muslim countries or with Muslims in the West. It is a creed for the unbalanced, the fearful, the hate-filled. It is no wonder it thrives in prisons. Islam is a psychotic creed, not a religion as we understand religion. Islam is about conquest and, above all, about revenge: endless acts of revenge for endless slights real and imagined throughout history.

As I repeatedly have said, you can be a good person or you can be a good Muslim. The Venn diagram showing an overlap between those two categories does not exist except in the minds of apologist hacks, progressive idiots, and Hollywood--which is to say the same thing. It is with Islam as it is with Communism, Nazism, or KKKism, you can be an honorable and good person, or you can believe in that mind-rot.

Once upon a time that retrograde ideology, Islam, was confined largely to places most of us could not care less about. The Sudan had its Mahdi with his delusions of leading a global conquest for Islam; Jerusalem had its Nazi-loving Grand Mufti, and so on. They were Muslim crazies in lands of Muslim crazies. Thanks, however, to modern technology and Western soft-headedness, those Muslim crazies have set up shop in our countries. We in the West seem to have forgotten something we knew during the Cold War against the Communists, and during the Second World War against the Nazis and the Fascists, to wit, belief in freedom does not mean signing a suicide pact. We are not required to import millions of sworn enemies into our homes.

These Parisien murderers will be caught; I have no doubt that by now the French police--and you do not want to be on the bad side of those guys--have rounded up a bunch of Muslims and have them locked in basements, making them wish they were guests of much more tender-handed US jailers in Guantanamo. Somebody will talk and these killers will be killed or caught.

That, however, is not the end. France has to have a serious look at itself and decide what benefit derives to Gaul from having millions of hostile parasitic Muslims in its midst. In fact, all the West from Australia to the USA and Canada, and over to Scandinavia, UK, Holland, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Germany, must engage in the same exercise.

The targetted satirical French magazine was a lame publication. I never found it particularly funny or clever, and, in general, its targets were safe ones, e.g., Jews, Christians, and conservative politicians. It was a typical smart-ass progressive product. It, however, forgot one rule: progressives must not criticize Islam or treat Mohammed as they treat Jesus Christ or Moses. Here in America, we have no problem exhibiting the "Piss Christ," or ridiculing the Book of Mormon in plays and cartoons, but shun doing the same with the Koran and its psychotic prescriptions for life and death. Muslims, it turns out, love killing in progressive cities as we have seen in New York, Boston, Ottawa, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, London, etc. Progressives, still not having buried their dead, immediately blame themselves for not being sensitive enough to Islam, and begin to worry about preventing a backlash against the people and ideology killing them. Progressives are a very soft target--e.g., they don't believe in an armed citizenry.

We are being murdered by Islam, and the progressive insistence that we have to welcome millions of Islam's followers into our societies and that we have to accommodate them by changing our societies.

It is the Islam.


52 comments:

  1. You speak the truth, but the problem is that the corollary truths (about how to deal with them) are too hard for most people to accept.

    We will continue to dissemble and excuse until an unspeakable act of theirs forces us to act.

    Thworg

    ReplyDelete
  2. For so long as the apologists in government and the media deny the connection to Islam, effectively denying to the terrorists the recognition of their cause, the more the terrorists will up the ante and seek to make plain the connection. It a recipe for more frequent and more extreme attacks. And it is so galling to hear western political leaders mouthing platitudes about free speech while they are busily restricting it in the name of not causing offence to the perpetrators of the awful crimes; it is passing ironic that the idiot David Cameron is spouting the free speech mantra in the same week that the Scottish Police are tweeting that they monitoring Twitter lest anyone say something that someone somewhere might find offensive. We are tolerating ourselves into oblivion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if some apologists in government are simply afraid to offend officials of oil-exporting Muslim countries. Not progressives, who are more or less suicidally deluded.

    I mean the people who tiptoe around "royal" families who control massive amounts of exports from their countries. It's all I can think of to explain the wishful thinking regarding Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No wonder at all. Westerner are busily destroying their societies with mind-numbing regularity. Witness the growth of the abortion industry, now gay "marriage" and all the PC crap regarding the religion of "peace". It's as if the once rational world has completely gone off its rocker. Like they've said for years: This PC crap is going to kill us". Exhibit one: Paris today.

    LibertyGrace'sGrandma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure it's better that our culture has turned to worshipping pornography and the narcissistic-opium of video games as a means to neuter and cull its terminally adolescent male population.

      America as it was? Worth fighting for.

      America as it is? Unclear.

      If Islam's the only culture left fighting to discipline itself, crazy-or-not, it's going to win.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. @Liberty Grace's Grandma and #1482:

      I have similar feelings towards yours, and weep and repent before God about it. Seriously, I know what American once was (I'm a grandpa myself), and now see our national prestige used to bully Uganda over having laws against sodomy.

      I have read the Bible through--Old and New Testaments--more times than I can count. For me, the sentence, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" isn't just high-flown rhetoric. Ever since we not-so-politely told God to keep His nose out of our national life, it seems we've been defining deviancy downward, becoming less effective as a world power, and more somnolent in our intellectual life (other than technology, in which we may be losing our edge, too). I wonder--and tremble--that these might not be a symptom of a sort of God-forsakeness that leaves the formerly Christian West a prey to an Islam that, on its own, never produced anything but slums surrounded by deserts.

      Delete
  5. However, at what point will France (and Europe in general) tear down the ghetto walls, disband the Sharia Courts, and remove from within their borders the very disease they have allowed to fester for decades?
    I see much umbrage, and yes, the French will (did) get their men. And by Saturday this will all be forgotten with the creation of the next Media Fueled Crisis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're not... what's for them to get really angry over? Have these muslims taken anything the french *currently* value away from them? The Islam(ists) killed a bunch of people, but Islam has a *plan* for the world. The west simply doesn't have a *plan*, and would thus lose simply by default. Where's the USA's drive to incorporate the rest of the world into liberal democracy? It's still hanging around back in the 1800's, puffing along too slowly to matter.

      It doesn't matter whether French police capture these guys. Yeah, one turned himself in. The only reason the others wouldn't turn themselves in, would be to put their cause further ahead. France *has no cause*. I don't think jailing or torturing these guys will inhibit the cause they represent one bit.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  6. Your reference to Nazism, Communism, and Fascism are quite accurate but leave out National Shintoism of the Empire of Japan circa 1940. This is where government meets religion for the first time in any of our lifetimes. The problem is not so much Islam as a religion, although a religion that allows for the marriage of prepubescent girls to old geezers is, at best, questionable. It is the cross pollination of religion with politics that should offend even the narrowest of liberal minds.

    One tweet pretty much sums up this nicely about the barbarians :

    "#ISIS account complains why they keep sacrificing men for the lost battle of #Kobane as it has "no oil, gas or water"

    All war is the breakdown of political negotiation. (See von Clausewitz) Religion merely stiles the resolve of the combatants. What the jihadis have done is mask the political nature of their attacks with a thin veil of religion and victimization. Their stated goal is world conquest.

    We have seen this all before. To the Japanese, Hirohito was a deity and they employed suicide bombing to further his political goals. Like today's jihadi, the kamikaze had no fear of death because of the promise of the afterlife. (How's that for some hope & change?)

    In the end, Hirohito's conquest kinda went up in smoke. Vaporized by the resolve from atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and the Bataan Death March. This will end much the same way- in a flash. Islam will continue, but it must be separated from politics.

    A telegram sent from Secretary of State James F. Byrnes in 1945, transmitting the radio remarks of John Carter Vincent, head of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, to General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the Allied Powers in Japan:

    "Shintoism, insofar as it is a religion of individual Japanese, is not to be interfered with. Shintoism, however insofar as it is directed by the Japanese Government, and is a measure enforced from above by the government, is to be done away with. People will not be taxed to support National Shinto and there will be no place for Shintoism in the schools. Shintoism as a state religion -- National Shinto, that is -- will go. Our policy on this goes beyond Shinto. The dissemination of Japanese militaristic and ultra-nationalistic ideology in any form will be completely suppressed. And the Japanese Government will be required to cease financial and other support of Shinto establishments"

    Similarly, Islam is going to have to be forced out of the political realm and migration will need to end until that happens. It will be very difficult to defeat the enemy when he is in your own cities. Europe may already be vanquished.

    ~M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was Shinto'ism (approximately as practiced by National Shinto) a viable pre-existing religion? Or was the whole thing more of a sham like the Nazis and their vague pagan-christian hybrid 'religion' (ie, Bergmann)?
      I think my question is, is it reasonable to compare a religion which has survived 1400 years on a particular ideology, to what amount to a 'stub religion' used as part of a nationalism campaign?

      In this analogy, it would have to have been Shintoism driving nationalism back in the runup to WWII, not nationalism driving Shintoism. ie, Islam is driving the expansion of Islam, it's not just being coopted into a nationalist effort.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. I think you're missing the point that you CANNOT seperate Islam from politics. That is the common misperception. Islam is not JUST a religion, it is a total way of life that seeks to incorporate every aspect of human society under its umbrella. Non-political Islam is not true Islam, and therein lies the root of the problem. The word Islam means submission, and that submission is intended to be absolute.

      Time to go re-read Caliphate...

      Delete
    3. Spot on, Keith. Because we in the west have a tradition of separating the secular and religious (arguably going back to "render unto Caesar), there are still those who do not get that Islam is not just a religion--it's also a socio-political blueprint for life.

      The idea of a Reformation or secularization of Islam is, with few exceptions, something that does not even compute for many, if not most, in the Islamic world.

      Ditto on Caliphate!

      Delete
    4. According to Wiki, Shinto was founded in 660 BC, thus a bit older than Islam. Be that as it may, the argument on whether it is first a religion or first a political ideology is much like arguing which came first the chicken or the egg- it doesn't matter. Right now the religion is intertwined with the political and that must end.

      As for not being able to separate the two, that will be our struggle. Or our submission. A society cannot survive without recognizing that.

      As for the Caliphate, it could be argued that their land-grab in Syria/Iraq is an attempt at nationalization.

      ~M.

      Delete
    5. http://archbishopcranmer.com/archbishop-of-mosul-your-liberal-and-democratic-principles-are-worth-nothing-here/

      Arkie

      Delete
    6. Tom Kratman's novel "Caliphate" was what I referred to. A sobering read.

      http://www.amazon.com/Caliphate-Tom-Kratman/dp/1439133425

      Delete
    7. Also available for free from Baen Ebooks.

      http://www.baenebooks.com/p-748-caliphate.aspx

      Delete
  7. More than anything else, it reminds us that this is a war beween civilisation and barbarity.

    Civilization looks soft on the outside with its respect for the rule of law, and the rights of all be they gay straight, christian jew muslim hindu, handicapped black yellow red whatever. We mustn't lose thesevalues that make us civilized, otherwise it really will be pointless fighting.

    However what our fathers and grandfathers had also was an iron core - it too often looks as if decades of the comforts their efforts won us have softened that core.

    We must find that steel so that those who would threaten our civilization by their acts of barbarity must know that they cannot do so with impunity.

    As you rightly say, we fought and won against mad clerics all over Europe, against feudalism, slavery, Nazism, communism. We will win this fight as well. But to do so we must hold on to our values.

    Unfortunately looking at the political class who will lead this vital fight for survival I am not filled with confidence. As ever it will be the little men, the footsoldiers, the Tommy Atkins, which is us as individuals and free men who will have to do the job.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I will add to what Thworg said above: Given the nature of Islam (founded by the sword, spread by the sword, and maintained by the sword) and the continued appeasement of the so called culturally elite among us, the time will come where the efforts of the above will give us no other option than to use the "one size fits all" cultural response, the bomb and annihilation.
    To me the greatest conceit of our "betters" is that these Islamacists actually care about what they say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ironically, our lack of real action makes extreme measures all the mroe likely. If we blunted the Islamists now, they might be cowed. But, in failing to act, we ensure that they grow bolder and more destructive, thus ensuring that when the West finally does wake up, we will strike with incredible violence.

      Delete
  9. " ... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them ... "

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are too many dunderheads who cannot tell the difference between immigration and colonization.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, of course Mormons are safe to mock. Mockery may be annoying, but it also opens up an avenue of dialog for a pair of nice, young, painfully earnest men or women to exploit.

    And once the missionaries are talking to someone, who knows what can happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. paul_vincent_zecchinoJanuary 9, 2015 at 8:54 AM

      Exactly so, sir. And as of yet, there exist no published credible reports to the effect that Donny and Marie Osmond go around shooting up the offices of newspapers that say bad things about Utah.

      Delete
  12. There is far too much BS about the "Golden Age of Islam." The "Translation Era" was done by Greeks who had "converted" and did the work. Paper came from the Chinese, no doubt a conquered outpost. The "Arabic numbers" came from India. Medicine came from the Jews. The only thing that Arabs have been good at is killing. The Turks even had to bring in Christian children as slaves to have functional army.

    ReplyDelete
  13. All this killing and terrorism is troubling. But killing by ones and tens can be accepted after a while. When the jihadists figure out how to make a biological destructive device (can be as simple as having a few infected true believers ride the subways in New York and San Francisco for a few days) or decide to park a few really large truck bombs near the State Department and U.S. Congress, perhaps the government will decide it really is time to stop with the gentle lies and call out the Islamists for what they are -- crazed fanatics. And I have little doubt that such acts will eventually come to pass and will hit the institutions of the left more than those of the right. I mean, what are the chances the crazies will go after the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City or Daytona? Will we then have the resolve to do something? Would we have been better off taking action in small increments or waiting until we are really mad? This will not end well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will escalate until they have pissed off the US to the point that the whining Wilsonians are over-ridden by the Jacksonians.
      Once that happens we will see body counts that will make the 20th century seem a peaceful era.

      Delete
  14. I have been wondering about the immigration issue also and my question is this - when is the first prominent politician of either party going to suggest that it is time to have a national debate on the wisdom of allowing more Muslims into the United States? I think many people just assume that we have enough common sense to do that anyway, but call me clueless, I don't think that is the case. I would like to be shown to be wrong. Am I?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't have enough common sense to do that. Want to guess how many MS-13-ilk and drug cartel murderers have likely been flowing across our southern border in the last year? But, no, we can't enforce our border because that would be "xenophobic." We not only let in our enemies, we take from productive citizens to provide our enemies' families with free health care, food, education, and housing. Wouldn't want them to be distracted from their lives of crime with mundane concerns like supporting themselves and their families, now would we?

      Delete
  15. I once asked my driver in West Africa what he thought about Islam. He was a Christian and had the best description I've ever heard. He said it was a "poor mans" religion because it had simple rules. Islam demands external piety as compliance with these rules. There are plenty of imams and Mahdis who will be sure you know the nasty rules out of the Koran etc. There is no room other than civil war between muslims if you disagree on these rules. The fact that lots of Moroccans, Tunisians and Turks have decided to be "less than pious" does not change the facts about Islam and it's dark roots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the best description of Islam simply put.
      Reader129

      Delete
  16. Robert Spencer's _Jihad Watch_ reported on threats to _Charlie Hebdo_ long ago, I believe, and now it seems the threats were carried out.

    From what I heard about _Charlie Hebdo_, it seems like the sort of publication on which I wouldn't spend a broken wooden sou. Mr. Dip rings true in his descriptions of the publication. Still, this Christian fanatic will leave the judgment on its writers and editors to God, and mourns with the families of the murder victims. Telling sixty-fourth-truths in a rude manner is not a capital offense.

    Granted, I freely admit to being a Christian fanatic. But as a religion, Islam is very unappealing to me. It thinks it's honoring Jesus when it denies that he died on the cross--when Christians understand it as the atonement made for our sins, and a prelude to the Messiah's triumphant resurrection. Muhammad's claim to continue the prophetic tradition strikes me as someone with no more than a third grader's Sunday School education weaving together strands of Jewish and Christian folklore, a few shreds of heresies that may have found refuge in the Arabian Peninsula (an odd mix of Ebionitism, which denied the deity of the Messiah; and Docetism, which held he only seemed to be man), and a very generous dose of Arab tribal tradition. Other aspects of it strike me as Unitarianism joined with the original Thugs.

    However, I will admit that I have received kindly treatment at Muslim hands, albeit on the far eastern fringe of the Dar-ul-Islam (in Thailand and Sinitic Asia). Part of it may have been the average heir of the Hua-Xia culture (including Chinese-speaking Muslims) feeling very pleased that some barbarian respects his culture enough to learn its language passably; part of it may also have been the attitude Here's -Another-Monotheist in the midst of the worshipers of wood and stone (which are sometimes on sale in a shop on the corner). In Guangzhou, Uyghur migrants were also nice to us (maybe it was a Mrs. from Taiwan and kids who looked a lot like their own little brothers or nephews back in Sharki Turkistan coupled with someone known to be from a country that was, on occasion, critical of Big Brother). But it also struck me that while the unregistered Han Christians in Henan, Zhejiang, Fujian, and even Guangdong were often treated roughly by the authorities for doing nothing more than meeting for prayer and preaching without a license of failure to register Bible ownership with the police, the Muslim Hui out in Qinghai could be treated with kid gloves after torching Party and police headquarters--which all goes to show that Communists can be cowardly bullies, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few points:

      The Koran was not written down until at least 100 years after Mohammed's death. Like many organized religions, Islam doesn't truthfully represent its founder's teachings. Much of what exists now is a toxic shell.
      Mohammed's spiritual power connects more to the inner Sufi stream or an inner path. (The word Sufi has many distorted connotations.). Like most mystics, the idea of there being a continuous stream of transmission of a higher divine impulse independent of space and time is essential.
      As one should separate the teacher from the religious crust left behind, also distinguish the "container from the content.". Mohammed was a man of his day (illiterate) from a certain culture, but that doesn't negate his central spiritual mission.

      Delete
    2. That's mighty generous of you you say those things.

      However, the reality is that Mo was a dissolute sand pirate who cottoned onto the idea that if he constructed a "Pirate Code" around his activities, and rounded up a few enthusiastic followers, he could expand his "business" by several orders of magnitude.

      His screed is a mish-mash of "borrowings" from many local "faiths, Judaism among them.

      However, as Mo was himself illiterate, he had to get others to transcribe his "revelations". I suspect that these scribes mysteriously "retired" shortly thereafter, perhaps to the "here-after...

      Delete
    3. And what do you think his "central spiritual mission" might be or have been? Does it matter when his followers are a murderous bunch and have been for many centuries?

      Do you see as much disconnect in today's Roman Catholicism?

      Delete
    4. The fact is that Mohammed's "central mission" changed. He began his career preaching peace and unity among the "people of the Book", but was rejected. At the low point of his career he had an opportunity to take worldly power in Medina and he grasped it enthusiastically.

      He returned to Mecca as a conqueror, showing mercy to those who submitted to his power and putting those who continued to reject him to the sword (see: Jews of the tribe of Banu Qurayza).

      Islam has a teaching of abrogation which is embodied in the Sura in which Allah says effect " so what if I give you a teaching one day and replace it later with a better one". All later verses overrule the earlier ones (Meccan vs Medinan) and the later verses are far from peaceful - they are tribalism metastasized.

      Thworg

      Delete
    5. Look, I can be appreciative of Muslims as people even if I think the religion itself is a horror. And, yes, while I've noted that the better the Jew or Christian, the better the man and the better the Muslim the worse the man, I'll allow that there are Muslims a lot better than their religion. And, Thworg, I also find the Islamic doctrine of abrogation tailor-made for a capricious bandit-cum-warlord.

      But in honor of at least some of the victims of the Paris rampage, I siqn myself

      Je suis juive (even if I think the Messiah has come)

      Je ne suis pas Charlie--I'll shoot back.

      Kepha

      Delete
    6. I agree as to the form of the religion, and that of others.

      As to separating a figure's spiritual knowledge from his worldly role, see "The Sufis.". That the book has been burned in various Muslim countries is a good recommendation.

      Delete
  17. Possibly pertinent Quotations:

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    that FRENCH chap, Voltaire



    ”Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

    Ayatollah Khomeini.



    "If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

    Sir George Bernard Shaw ; 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936



    “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

    the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would seem that quotation of Bernard Shaw has been fabricated by Muslim apologists.

      For some reason, when I try to publish the link, it hits a paywall. Here is an extract of what The Australian wrote on July 9, 2013 :

      Anti-"Islamophobia" advertisements due to screen on major free-to-air channels from today rely on a fabricated quote from Irish playwright and avowed atheist George Bernard Shaw, from a book that does not exist, according to the International Shaw Society.

      The 30-second ads have been funded by the Sydney-based Mypeace organisation, which says it hopes to "build bridges" between Muslims and other Australians.

      The advertisements quote Shaw proclaiming the prophet Mohammed was "the saviour of humanity" in a book he is supposed to have written entitled The Genuine Islam.

      But International Shaw Society treasurer Richard F Dietrich said he had compiled a complete list of Shaw's works, which did not include the book.

      The suggestion that Shaw may have written a book entitled The Genuine Islam has its origins in an interview between Shaw and Muslim propagandist Maulana Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddiqui published in a Muslim periodical in January 1936.

      It contains a quotation which describes Mohammed as the "saviour of humanity" and Islam as having "wonderful vitality" and "the chance to rule of Britain, nay Europe, in the next hundred years", but these are not recorded as the words of Shaw.


      Try googling genuine+islam+george+bernard+shaw. It's the second link.

      Delete
  18. It might be useful to review Wrechard the cat's (Richard Fernandez, proprietor of the Belmont Club) three conjectures. In brief:

    Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold
    The obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear threshold,

    Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
    This fixity of malice was recognized in President Bush's West Point address in the summer of 2002, when he concluded that "deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend." The enemy was equally indifferent to inducement or threat.

    Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance
    It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat.

    See the whole thing here: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

    Bush did not win the whole thing and Obama looks to be trying to undo what was won so who knows what will happen if the Muslim terrorists do get WMDs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far a WMDs are concerned one needs to be aware of the advances that are being made in genetic engineering. Google "CRSPR".

      Whether the technique is CRSPR or something else, the technology is advancing and will soon be available to millions of people with only moderate technical ability. The odds that we can keep it out of the hands of jihadis are not good.

      Islam gives rise to jihadis in the same way that Christianity gives rise to Amish, Mennonites, and other pietist sects. As long as Mohammed is considered the man to emulate there will be jihadis and there will be aspirants to the title of Mahdi.

      Thworg

      Delete
  19. Question---Did Charlie Hebdo break any French law in publishing his cartoon(s)? Does France have a "blasphemy" law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no blasphemy law as such, but plenty of laws against "racism", "discriminating against people because of their religion", "stirring religious hatred", and even against libel directed at groups of people (not just individuals), including specifically on religious grounds, which means that any judge can frame anybody about pretty much anything unpleasant they say about "protected" classes of people.

      On top of that, libel laws are used liberally by politicians to sue opponents who criticise their politics.

      Of course Charlie-Hebdo broke laws all the time, and was prosecuted accordingly.

      Delete
  20. :Islam gives rise to jihadis in the same way that Christianity gives rise to Amish, Mennonites, and other pietist sects."

    The Christian sects are peaceful and law abiding. Islam creates lunatics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my intended point. The difference is in the path the founders took when tempted by worldly power - and that logic applies whether one takes the Bible as true or not, what matters is the rule that followers are taught to follow.

      Thworg

      Delete
  21. Me temo que nadie, tengo mi Dios, mi mujer y mis dos .38 Super Colts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. All talk. The reality is that they are winning. Slow but sure.

    ReplyDelete
  23. More members of the Tribe refuse to be victims.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/robert-farago/unarmed-jews-leaving-france-islamic-attacks-increase/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you for saying it in such a straight and simple way.

    Also, you were right about the French police. Not about the torture thing -- it was quicker and cleaner. The black guy ended with 40 bullets inside him.

    In order to cheer up, here is a reminder of how French elite police managed 100 % success in the 1994 assault, in Marseille, of an Air France plane hijacked by Algerian Muslims : all the terrorists were killed, and there were zero dead among the passengers, crew members and police. And all that happened inside a plane full of people. (Three hostages were killed by the terrorists, but that happened in Algiers, before the French police had control of the situation.)

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/marignane

    It's in French, but there's a nice step-by-step animation explaining the gunfight inside the plane which needs no words.

    This prevented a French 9/11, since the terrorists had aimed to crash the plane onto the Eiffel Tower.

    Unfortunately, we'll need more than superb police SWAT teams to win this war. It will take political will.

    ReplyDelete