atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#2241: Stuff about islam.

There is actually one tiny peaceful islamic sect. How the hell do you like that?

There is one!

Just one, and it's not considered "true islam" by the other sects, all of whom wish to destroy it.
In many Islamic countries today Ahmadis have been marginalised by the majority religious community; severe persecution and often systematic oppression have led many Ahmadis to emigrate and settle elsewhere.
Of course. Because nothing says "religion of peace" like trying to wipe out the one sect of your religion which, y'know, actually advocates peace and understanding.

I learned of Amadiyya via this NY Post article.

* * *

John Quincy Adams in 1830:
Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.

Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.

He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men.
Via Alan Caruba.

* * *

The GROUND ZERO MOSQUE was to be opened on 9/11/11. Yeah, it's all about "peaceful outreach", isn't it? Have a big opening day celebration ON THE DATE OF THE MOST POISONOUSLY TREACHEROUS ISLAMIC ATTACK IN HISTORY.

...but then I'm redundant when I say "poisonously treacherous" and "islamic attack" in the same sentence....

Sure thing. "It's not a celebration of the event itself, oh no!"

I don't believe that for a second.

* * *

You know, that thing by Caruba is the second time in as many days that someone in my blogroll has referred to the 1400-year history of islam's war on civilization.

I'm used to thinking only in terms of how things have been since 1979. Well, prior to that, muslims didn't dare screw with America, because we used to deal harshly with people and groups which did.

General Pershing may or may not have actually done this, but reportedly he had muslims executed and buried with pigs in order to stop islamic attacks on American troops in the Philippines. (The snopes.com entry, sadly, takes the islamic side. Well, it's fashionable among the liberal elite to do so.)

Of course, since Vietnam and the wussification of America we're no longer allowed to pound people for being bastards. Just as an example, we're not allowed to shoot people just for illegally crossing the border, even when they're bringing all kinds of crime and violence with them.

The tyrants and despots of the world understand only one language, and we've gotten out of the habit of speaking it; now things are more dangerous for us than ever. While Obama's stretching his anus and bowing to all kinds of tyrants, and trying to get them to like us, they're arming themselves. Meanwhile the Democrat Regime is cutting our military budget in the name of "deficit reduction" at a time when the combined welfare and transfer payment budgets literally spend $3 million per minute.

*sigh*

Look: in the 1980s, Libya sponsored terrorist attacks, and one of those attacks was bombing a nightclub in Germany which was frequented by American servicemen. In early 1986, Reagan had Tripoli bombed, and that was the last we heard from Moammar Khaddafi for a long, long time.

...in 2003, when Bush sent the army into Iraq, Khaddafi said, "Hey, guys, just so you know I DON'T HAVE ANY WMDS HERE! NONE AT ALL! So you don't need to do anything to me, right? Right??"

Reagan was vilified for that attack. I remember the news stories. I remember the idiot students at Northwestern University being interviewed for the local news, and some anus saying, "Now if I want to take a trip outside the country, I have to worry about terrorism!"

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE WAS TRUE.

Even Bill Clinton's half-assed "I don't really care about foreign policy" administration took an occasional look around at things and made attempts at some half-hearted retaliation for terror attacks. Even so the islamic world finally realized it could get away with more stuff around the end of Clinton's second term, which is why we saw the upswing in terror leading to 9/11/01.

Clinton's reaction to the first WTC bombing was just lackluster enough that it encouraged them. Clinton reacted more strenuously to the Oklahoma City bombing than to WTC, but used the same methods for catching and punishing the culprits. (Though he ignored the involvement of islam in the case of WTC, he blamed Oklahoma City on Rush Limbaugh and the GOP. "Root causes" only matter when Democrats want them to.)

(The bombing of the USS Cole should have sparked some massive retaliation. It didn't.)

I think the account of Pershing's solution continues to circulate because a lot of people understand, in their guts, that it would work. Standing up to cretins who only understand violence, showing them that if they continue to be a problem we will deal with them harshly, and making it stick--it's just not fashionable to do things that way. The elites in the ruling class don't like it; they don't think it's necessary because after all violence is never justified, not even when someone is randomly murdering innocent people because he doesn't like how they pray.

Jerry Pournelle periodically cites something that happened in India, back when: the British governor announced that the Hindu practice of burning a dead man's living wife with him on the funeral pyre was no longer allowed. The Hindu protested, saying it was their religion; the governor replied that they could continue to do it if they wanted to, but the people who did it would be tried for murder.

That's how we have to be, here: "You folks can believe whatever the hell you want. The instant you break the law in service to those beliefs, though, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks."

"Freedom of religion" does not extend to honor killings or genital mutilation or any of the other bullshit that islam contains. Not in America, it doesn't.
Subscribe

  • #7558: Yeah, I thought that sounded kind of strange.

    What if they held an insurrection and nobody came? Wednesday night Mrs. Fungus was telling me all about how the news said there was going to be a…

  • #7557: Whose fault, exactly?

    Kid is ranked 62 out of 120 with a GPA of 0.13. What's his mother have to say? He didn't fail, the school failed him. The school failed at their…

  • #7556: Yakisoba night!

    I don't get to make it very often, but I saw a really nice piece of round steak at the store the other day, so I bought it. 1-1.5 lbs beef (round…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments