Shallow Facility Masquerading as Insight

Charlie Martin has some observations and bloviations about the so-called “War On Terror” (an abysmally stupid term). Some of his observations are moderately interesting in a shallow and jejune way, but this is just stupid:

. ..It could be argued — and has been argued, and will no doubt be argued again — that the unnamed opponent is the religion of Islam itself.

I personally know too many Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people to be comfortable with that; I’ve known too many Christians of whom I couldn’t say the same thing, and know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority. Be that as it may, pragmatically if Islam itself is the enemy, then our military objective would have to be the end of Islam as a world religion.

Leaving the first paragraph aside, his personal acquaintanceship with “Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people” is completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant. “Muslims” who are “good, kind, gentle people” are apostates or deceivers, either directly contradicting the teachings and example of the founder of their hate cult–a founder whose every word and deed are unimpeachable and didactic as far as Islam is concerned, OR they are practicing what The Butcher of Medina instructed his disciples by both word and deed to do whenever they do not have a position from which they can dictate to unbelievers: practice so-called “holy” lies and deceptions.

It’s all there in their infallible and unimpeachable holy writ, and anyone–ANYONE–who denies a single solitary word in it is either an apostate or an unbeliever from the getgo and, according to that very writ, under sentence of death.

Fact. Period. End of story. Muslims who are “good, kind, gentle people” simply do not exist.

As to the second part of his thesis, well, what can you expect from someone who is a biblically illiterate Buddhist? “I. . . know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority.” Oh, and how can he say such a thing? Because people who CLAIM to be Christians have committed horrific, savage, brutal acts that are normative for Islam? Hmm. Martin disregards, or is ignorant of, the simple fact that horrific acts that are normative are both DEMANDED by Mohamed in dealing with unbelievers and apostates and are directly contradictory to the life and teachings of Jesus. Thus, while ANY Muslim (or group of Muslims) can legitimately assert that they are committing horrific acts in the name of their prophet of hate and his hijacked moon god, any person claiming to perform such acts in the name of Christ is a liar.

Let me make that clearer for any dimwits that might find Martin’s words compelling: Any persons, at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Christ (that is, be Christian) when committing horrific acts are NOT Christians; they are liars. Any persons at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Mohamed and his hate cult (that is, to be Muslim, in submission to Mohamed’s teachings) when committing horrific acts is an honest disciple of The Butcher of Medina.

The difference could not be more stark, and anyone who claims differently is a fool and a liar.

Do note that even fools and liars can make cogent observations on matters outside their foolish lies, and Martin does root up an acorn or two, but he’s wrong that Islam is not our enemy, just as he’s limited in his thinking that if it were we’d have to extirpate Islam by means of “genocide”. . . strangely applied to a religious cult with no definitive racial characteristics.

2 Replies to “Shallow Facility Masquerading as Insight”

    1. And so, you’re saying that just as you haven’t bothered to become even vaguely familiar with the Q’uran or the Bible, you haven’t even bothered to actually read this short little post? That you could ask such a question indicates that you

      1. Did not read what I wrote or
      2. Are incapable of comprehending plain English or
      3. Are simply being disingenuous.

      Perhaps for your edification, Mr. Martin, I should be clear about number 3 above. In your post, you assert a straw man “solution” to Islam as the enemy–complete extirpation, “genocide” (however stupid that term is applied strictly to a hate cult). That sort of fake argument is both intellectually and morally repulsive.

      And an accusatory question positing that I am in favor of your straw man solution is also in the same vein. [Edit: your “question” is a good example of a disingenuous attempt to imply a non causa pro causa assertion. Such assertions are reprehensible, as you well know.] Since you have no argument, you resorted to emulation of the Islamic “taqiyya”–except you apparently mistook yourself for “the holy” and decided that deception in your own defense was warranted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *