Featured Post

The Democrats Resurrect Stalin and Beria

Sitting in my hotel room in Manhattan while the Diplowife and the Diplodaughter spend what's left in my bank account, I was reading a gr...

Sunday, March 26, 2017

London Has Fallen?

No. Not yet, but it's getting close.

The March 22 carnage on Westminster Bridge was yet another reminder to the UK and the West of how illusions and delusions can get us killed. The illusion that we can get along with modern Islam has led to the delusional immigration, social, political and security policies that produced the deaths on that bridge. Those people lie dead because our political, security, media and educational institutions refuse to see Islam for the death cult that it is.

Those dead now join the many, many thousands of previous dead in London, Paris, Boston, Madrid, Jakarta, Brussels, Nice, New York, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ft. Hood, Benghazi, Nairobi, Mumbai, Sydney, Nigerian villages by the score, communities all over Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and so many more places around the world.

How much more of this must we endure before we take seriously Islam's declaration of war upon us? I am not going to link to the dozens of posts I have previously written about the threat from Islam. Google "Diplomad Islam" and they will appear. Let me say it one more time: Islam is at war with us.

I said Islam, not ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, or any other of the "radical" Islamist groups out there.

It is Islam that has sworn to destroy us since its very creation. Take that seriously or be ready for more Westminster Bridges.

21 comments:

  1. As long as the Democrats and their counterparts in Europe follow their political policy path of choice (would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven) and we do not resist them, then there will be more of the same. That is certain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's partly Bush's (W's) fault After 911, he called Islam the "religion of peace." I have actually researched and I can find no other reference to Islam as "the religion of peace" before that. Maybe someone somewhere had said that, but it wasn't common enough for me to find any record of it. I think Bush may have actually believed that. (This is the president who after the Iraqi insurgency still insisted on giving the Palestinians the vote. We got Hamas. Did Bush or anyone learn anything from that?)

    Once Bush introduced "the religion of peace," that has become its official description. And I fear half our population believes it.

    But how long can average Americans who think "we are a nation of immigrants" fail to notice these immigrants adhere to an ideology that says their God wants them to kill us and will reward them with eternal life if they die doing so? How long can they fail to notice that we hear NOTHING from the so-called moderates condemning any of the violence; we hear only from CAIR warning about backlashes. I don't watch or read MSM except occasionally CNN. Is it possible that MSM really reports so little that average Americans really know so little?

    They apparently also know nothing about jihad by colonization (i.e., immigration). Why don't they question why neighboring Muslim countries won't take Syrian "refugees?"

    And are pols and media really suicidal? Syrian refugees described as "widows and orphans," when every real picture shows unattached males of military age. Media knows that so they use fake pictures of fleeing Yazidis or some such, and they know a significant percentage are not even Syrian. What is their investment in letting ISIS fighters into the country? They and their families are as much as risk as anyone else. My hypothesis: they know that risk for any given individual or family is miniscule. They will take the risk in their crusade (pun intended) to punish the country for being capitalist and majority white and being founded with slavery.

    And I guess judges now will be deciding how many immigrants from where. I forget the Constitutional provision which gives them that power.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fwiw, non-muslim controlled lands are called, by Islam/muslims, "dar al harb" (house of war), while islam-controlled lands are called, again by Islam/muslims, "dar al islam" (house of Islam) or "dar al salam" (house of peace).
      The religion does portray itself as being peaceful... so long as everybody abides by the rules and strictures of Islam.

      I also have no idea what GWB was thinking, but *maybe* he was trying to *define* Islam, rather than *describe* Islam? Maybe he or his speechwriters felt that the president of the US had such power in edict, that simply declaring something would help the world make that thing true?
      I mean, it would be *nice* if Islam were a peaceful, sacrificial religion.
      My concern is that Bush' declaration came from the same liberal mindset that gets us those stupidly offensive 'coexist' bumperstickers.... you know.. the ones where all the religions are 'the same', and all adherents should just adopt the secular liberal suicide pact of not caring about distinguishing right from wrong.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. I know the distinction between Islam and the Dar-al-harb. But I looked specifically for Western usage of the term "religion of peace" before Bush and I couldn't find it. (Again, maybe someone somewhere used it, but not commonly enough that I could find it.) To the contrary, what had been emphasized was its history of conquest and slave-taking and the savage split between Sunni and Shia. The Moors had invaded Spain in the 7th century and were not finally expelled til 1492. There were the Barbarry Pirates until into the 19th century. Thomas Jefferson was scathing about them and most of Europe spent centuries fighting them. Central Europe was under attack from the Ottomans until stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1632. The Balkans were under attack from the Ottoman Empire basically til its demise. Even the early 20th century British arabists who so romanticized Islam - e.g., T.E. Lawrence, did so because of admiration for the Saudi fighters who appeared out of the desert to fight the Ottomans. In 1979, the West watched the Iranian Revolution and taking of American hostages, then in the 1980's the West watched the war between Iran and Iraq (and provided weapons to both sides).

      I think Bush was trying to stop a massive backlash against Muslims and assure Muslim nations that were supposedly allies, most notably Saudi Arabia, were we not at war with them - only gov'ts that "harbored terrorists." (I guess Saudi Arabia financing them and to this day sending Wahhabi clerics to the West to radicalize Muslim youth doesn't count.) But that he chose to come up with that particular phrase is extremely unfortunate.

      Delete
    3. You're right Msher. I also think that Bush and his people at the time were also trying to drive a wedge between the orthodox Islamicists and the more westernized "peaceful" muslims. It didn't work.

      Delete
    4. The idiot Bush also said, among other praising things about Islam, "Islam is love, not hate".

      Delete
    5. But ... but ... but ... they kill many more of their own Muslims than they do of us! Doesn't that make it all OK?

      Delete
    6. >--they kill many more of their own--> March 27, 2017 at 9:45 PM

      Methinks the savage bastages are sharpening their swords on their progs Mr. Potts -- whilst we 'guardians of the gate' diddle over democratic niceties and Democrat manure with ours -- asleep we remain, per chance to awaken in time...

      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
  3. London has a Muslim mayor. How come ? The city must be populated by naive liberals and Muslims to make such a choice.I guess the liberals elected him to appease the Muslims, they obviously believe there is such a thing as "moderate Muslims". The Muslims elected him to take over the city.And as soon as the "critical balance" is tipping, they will. Islam is certainly not a "religion of peace", it is really aggressive and a great possibility, a tool, for any power hungry groups. Today I read in my daily paper about the "only glimmer of hope" in war-torn Syria, and guess what ? It was the nuns in a still working Christian community.
    Swedish reader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. London is majority non-British. You didn't know that?

      Delete
  4. Can we please stop with the "radical / radicalize" thing?

    The vermin that slaughter civilians and lay waste to art treasures are NOT, I repeat, NOT radicals.

    THEY ARE ULTRA-ORTHODOX.

    They are doing PRECISELY what their toxic text tells them to do in MANY verses of its contents.

    The muslims who do not STRICTLY cleave to this interpretation are the actual radicals, and many pay for this "heresy" with their lives, on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sadly, it's hardly ever taught that the reason the U.S. abandoned the original Articles of Confederation for its Constitution was to better confront radical Muslim regimes: specifically, the Barbary Pirates, who demanded ransom payments in exchange for kidnapped Americans. There was no money for it under the AoC. (Congress first paid ransoms, then Jefferson sent frigates to suppress them.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have some events a bit jumbled together. Jefferson's administration began at least 12 years after the Constitution went into effect.

      Delete
    2. The U.S. paid ransoms for fifteen years: Jefferson was one of the negotiators under the AoC. After the Constitution went into effect the U.S. rebuilt its navy. When Jefferson became president he refused to pay tribute, the Pasha declared war, and Jefferson sent his new navy to fight.

      Delete
    3. Except it wasn't Jefferson's new navy. It had largely been built by his predecessor, John Adams, to deal with the French problem. Jefferson's contributions to the the growth of the US fleet largely consisted of a fleet of near-useless gunboats.

      Delete
    4. Quite true, Sean. Jefferson explicitly saw the defense industry as a plum for supporters, hence the useless gunboats.

      Delete
  6. >>>"It is Islam that has sworn to destroy us since its very creation. Take that seriously or be ready for more Westminster Bridges." -WLA<<<
    On Watch~~~
    "LET'S ROLL"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bernard Lewis, who I used to run into at the supermarket, famously predicted in 2004, "Europe will be Islamic before the end of the century."

    If anything, he was too conservative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Europe will be Islamic before the end of the century."
      Sure thing Bernie... and the Ottoman-Turks didn't commit genocide against the Armenians either, or did they?! It does seem probable tho, that the old orientalist flip-flopper may live long enough to see the muslim hoards have their way with the EuroPeons! Happy 100th Bernard!
      OW~~~

      Delete
  8. John Quincy Adams: "He [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion {Islam} , against all the rest of mankind."

    ReplyDelete