Muslim fanatics and the GWOT: It isn't all about Israel, or the US in Iraq
WorldNetDaily: Schoolgirl dies after shooting near church:
"One of two 17-year-old schoolgirls shot at close range near a Pentecostal church in Indonesia has died.
"Siti Nuraini, a Muslim, died Wednesday in Poso's Kota general hospital on the island of Sulawesi. Her Christian friend, identified only as Ivon, remains in critical condition after the attack Tuesday, Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports."
For all those who say that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the attacks by Muslims on Christians are all about Western support for Israel, the US/UK-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the support of Western governments for corrupt royalty in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - for all those who peddle the notion that there is a change of policy by which the West can unilaterally end this war without further fighting, I say: "Open your eyes!"
These young girls - gunned down as they walked down the street together - had no part of any Western political agenda. Neither did the three Christian schoolgirls who were previously beheaded in the same part of Indonesia by murderers who promised to kill a hundred Christian girls.
Of course, it is not just an attack on Christians. These folks have lots of enemies, many of them fellow believers. Consider the case of the Saudi religious police who forced dozens of Muslim school girls to burn to death because they were not properly attired as they fled in panic from their burning school dormitory in the middle of the night. Or the committed adherents of the "religion of peace" who bombed a movie theater full of Muslims in Bangladesh because they were watching a decadent Bollywood movie.
Fox news tonight (Friday) had an expert (Salam al-Marawati, I believe the name was) explaining the root causes of the current uprising in France. He blamed it - surprise! - on "institutional racism" in France. Were these people, or their forebearers, ever required to live in a "ghetto"? Ever forbidden to hold certain occupations? Ever made to ride on the back of the bus or sit in the balcony at the movies? Ever made to use segregated waiting rooms and coaches on a railway? Ever forced to drink from separate water fountains and use separate restrooms in public places? No, not in France. Jews and Blacks who have, within living memory, endured such treatment in various parts of the world could give these coddled welfare leaches a lesson in the meaning of institutional racism.
This is not to say that there are not some actions of the French government that deserve criticism. Foremost among these, in my view, has been the policy of leaving mostly Muslim suburban public housing projects as "no go" zones for police - allowing gangs of young Muslim men freedom to extort money from merchants, assault young women, and generally act in a manner that would be considered anti-social in any civilized nation. To those who are now marching for peace and demanding "dialogue," I say: "Dialogue implies a search for compromise; and there is no room for compromise with criminals."
posted by J. Keen Holland @ 11:10 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
This is anecdotal evidence. A pattern
must be found to "prove" a point like
this. Random events can be used to
support any view. My own view is that
the US has no business in Iraq,
regardless. Also, as many have said,
"War On Method" is prima-facie doomed
to fail. George Washington warned us
to avoid needless foreign entanglements and alliances, which
are nothing but trouble. I dont' play
favorites, and care little for either Israel or Islam. If most
religions were wiped from the face
of the earth, a lot of the fighting
would stop (not all though, there's
still racism; People find a way).
The pattern of islamofascist violence on non-islamofascists is already well established. I would be very interested in knowing what your anonymous commenter beieves is still required to "prove" the point.
The terrorists targets are not carefully selected military, cultural or poitical targets; they are random civilians. They are not Jews, or Christians, or agnostics, or athiesists; they are random civilians. They are not religious leaders, or political leaders, or intellectual leaders; they are random civilians. They are people who were trying to live their lives the best way they know.
The terrorists are not interested in killing people to reduce the numbers of their enemies; they kill people randomly to strike terror into the hearts of other people.
So far, they have succeeded in terrifying those in the US who wonder out loud what we have done to offend them; and, what we could do so that they wouldn't be angry with us anymore. The answers to these questions are perhaps simpler and more terrifying than the "lily-livered" among us are willing to contemplate: we offend them by living; we could all die and then they wouldn't be angry with us anymore. They probably would not be happy, in the normal sense of the word; however, they wouldn't be angry with us anymore.
I prefer what appears to be the only effective alternative solution - kill all of them first, or at least enough of them to terrorize the rest for a very long time.
Ed,
Thanks for your comments, unlike "anonymous," you understand what the war is about. There is, however, another way for us to get them to stop. We don't all have to die. We can all convert, enforce Sharia at home and join them in the worldwide killing spree until everyone is just the same kind of fanatic they are. Those like "anonymous" are not willing to contemplate this alternative either. "There are none so blind, as those who will not see."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul4.html
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To the anonymous post of Sun Nov 27, 12:58:53 AM EST: Thank you for your reference to the essay by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX) from October 2001. I imagine your point was that our policies are to blame for our being attacked. I did not say our government's policies vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East were irrelevant to our attackers, only that they are far from sufficient to explain the role we play in their fantasies.
To the anonymous post less than two minutes later - I don't mind disagreement, but merely combining an Anglo-Saxon word for sexual intercourse with a personal pronoun directed at me does not constitute an argument and that comment will be deleted shortly.
Post a Comment
<< Home