Evil Is as Evil Does

I’m once again questioning my FarceBook participation.

Stopping Zuckerberg’s ‘terrorism network’

From the link:

What are the reasons Facebook allowed the “Third Intifada Page” to remain online for so long while people were dying? The truth is simple: Zuckerberg is more concerned with increasing viewership and participation in the Middle East and elsewhere for his personal financial gain by increasing the value of any future public offering of shares than he is concerned with saving peoples’ lives. To Zuckerberg, if saving lives decreases viewership, he will have no part in it. Zuckerberg has become well aware that furthering and allowing terrorist death threats to remain on Facebook increases readership, which boosts the value of his shares. Facebook’s commercial objective has also obviously been to raise its user base to boost Facebook’s profits, and he will stop at nothing to make it happen.

Reminder: Two Kinds of Muslims

1. Dishonest Muslims. These fall into two classes: a.) those who are practicing “holy deception” (taqiyya and kitman) to subvert the dar al harb and b.) those who simply lie about being Muslims for cultural or personal safety reasons.

2. Honest Muslims. These cover a short range from enablers of jihad (supplying money,personnel, matériel, [im]”moral” support, etc.) to those who actually open wage jihad against the dar al harb. (And another reminder: peaceful, “inner jihad” is BS.)

Thatisall.

And do remember:

“. . .the best thing about the inside of a terrorist’s mind was a 185-grain 10mm hollow-point bullet entering at high speed.”–Dink Chavez (Character in Tom Clancy’s “Rainbow Six”)


No, that is not all. How in the world did you think it would be, hmmm? 😉

Muslims and Muslim apologists who use “holy deception” (“taqiyya” or “holy lies” and “kitman” which is one-sided, deliberately deceptive propaganda) to gull stupid “unbelievers” into accepting their statements that Islam is a “religion of peace” (but, of course it is, if one thinks of “peace” as either a garden on the unprotected surface of the Moon or one of the circles of Hell) are, of course, type 1.a. Muslims. One of their fav techniques is to cite verses from the Koran that seem to implor even openly direct!–good intentions toward unbelievers. These verses are all from Mohamed’s early period in Mecca, but once he was kicked out of Mecca, his message, his words as well as his open behavior, underwent a dramatic transformation into a message advocating murder, pillage, rape, torture and slavery for unbelievers. And it is these later proclamations that are the real Islam, for,

2:106 “Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger [Mohamed] as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path.”

Remember that the next time someone quotes the early, Mecca-period,

Sura 2:256 “2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (

A very small snippet that does not really reflect the context, but that’s the way “kitman” works.

)
. . .that later Mohamed said many, many things like this, abrogating his earlier “peaceful” verses:

Sura 9:29-33 “Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah. . . ”

Sura 8.12 “Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them.”

Sura 9.5 “When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Sura 47.4 “When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Until you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives.”

Go ahead, examine all the above in context.

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.” — James Burnham

Re-“printing” this from January 20th, 2010.


It’s interesting to me that simple common sense is so completely forsaken that such things as this can even gain an audience in a Western society:

Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the [British] Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

The plain fact of the matter is that so-called “radical” Muslims are at the dead solid center of Islam. It is those vanishingly few genuine “moderates” who are apostate Muslims, heretics, deniers of Islam and its prophet, the Butcher of Medina, and his diktat of hate, intolerance and jihad against any who refuse to embrace his cult. Those who are genuine followers of Mohamed are either open jihadists or enablers pretending to be “moderates” while practicing al taqiyah and acting as enablers for their openly jihadist brothers in arms.

Anyone who can allow such behavior as that linked above by police officers in a Western society is simply an active participant in societal sabotage, an enemy of the West and of human rights, decency and honesty.

h.t. Atlas Shrugs


Slight update:

Note another practice permitted–yea! encouraged–by the “prophet” that closely resembles the outright lying that characterizes taqiyyah is the Muslim practice of kitman. Kitman is quite similar to the most common lies told us by politicians, academicians and Mass MEdia Podpeople here in the West. It is lying by omission, telling a part of the truth in such a way as to remain “factual” while still committing a lie. Decent people in the West find such behavior reprehensible, but MOhamed taught such behavior as being not just permissible but in many cases desirable. Most such cases with Muslims are, of course, desirable when dealing with non-Muslims (although Mohamed also allowed lying to fellow Muslims in some cases. Try to get a Muslim to admit that).

One place kitman and taqiyyah are most effective in bamboozling stupid people in the West is on the very nature if Islam, “the religion of peace”. Of course, the “peace” of Islam is simply the religious, social, cultural, legal, and behavioral submission of a slave to a master, but Islamic apologists don’t want to (and so do not) go there, and roundly condemn anyone who does (because truth is anathema to these scum). Regularly cited by these liars are the so-called “peaceful verses” of the Koran (yeh, yeh, Islamic apologists have insisted that “Qu’ran” is more respectful. Eat my shorts.). What they do not want you to know is that not only are the so-called “peaceful verses” outnumbered at about 7-3 by the verses advocating violence, but that Mohamed’s own exegetical principle, which scholars call “abrogation,” dictates that any “apparent” conflict between his sayings is to be resolved by a saying uttered later taking precedence, abrogating an earlier, conflicting saying. Interestingly enough, the “peaceful verses” came early in Mohamed’s career as a con man, while the verses advocating violence against unbelievers came later.

That is why I hold the opinion that a more accurate descriptive of Islam is “Islam: Hate Cult.”

Surrender to Islam on any front by the West is stupid, immoral and suicidal.

Have you ever had a Muslim “friend”? If so, only one of two things obtained:

1. The Muslim who was your friend was an apostate or
2. The Muslim who was your “friend” deceived you, because Mohamed was adamant that his followers could not have friends who were unbelievers, and it is universal Islamic doctrine that his words are eternal, unchangeable, inerrant and infallible. (Koran 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118 and many others.)

Hard Questions with Easy Answers

N.B. This is not intended to in any way be some sort of an exhaustive and definitive disquisition on the subject dealt with below. Think of it more as a sort of outline and indicator of where and how to direct your own homework, if you want to do any and find my comments useful.


Often, especially when moral equivalency arguments are regurgitated1 in response to truthful statements about the facts of Islamic dogma, questions are posed about “genocide” in the Old Testament. These questions are, of course, intended to indicate that the scriptures that inform and direct the lives of devout Jews and Christians are morally equivalent to those that direct the lives of devout Muslims. Is this true? No.

First, as to mass violence against others either directly attributed to God or as individuals or groups were commanded by God to commit mass violence, examples of both exist. The first includes the Flood account, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Ninevah and the annihilation of Pharaoh’s army by drowning in the Red (?) Sea.  The latter is pretty much limited to the waging of herem against the Canaanites. It is this that is almost always referred to by the arguers of “moral equivalence” as evidence that the God of the OT commanded genocide and so Jewish and Christian scripture is thus on the same moral plane as foundational Islamic texts.

I’m not going to press theological arguments, because those making the “moral equivalence” argument have proven in my experience to either have no grasp of such things or to simply sneer at the information. Fine. My first objection, then, is that the on-again/off-again obedience by the Israelites to the command to engage in herem was never genocidal, that those who make such an argument are using “genocide” as a facile slur, fully aware that such an accusation is both false and tendentious. The plain text of the OT, not often actually quoted by such persons (often, I have found, because they simply have never actually read the texts but are merely parroting the slur), disproves the “genocide” accusation.

Yes, herem did mean mass slaughter of those indicated in the command, including those we think of as innocents (particularly, children).  Genocide or even the less inclusive “ethnic cleansing”? The texts do not support such an accusation. (Should I cite the relevant texts? Nope. Since the accusers almost never do, I’ll go ahead and leave that as a very easy exercise for any interested parties. Easy-peasy.) Next objection: this kind of mass slaughter was limited in scope by both time and place. It was not commanded to be unending, forever. Today, the genetic inheritors of Canaanite blood (genetic progeny exist because, urm, no genocide, *duh*) are actually welcome in Israel and by the Christian community at large, as long as they do not engage in unlawful conduct harmful to others, in other words, as long as they meet the same minimal standards of civilized behavior demanded by such societies of all participants.

While these avenues allow a great deal of scope for further examination of the false accusation of “genocide” as normative for Jews and Christians, we can go to extrabiblical examples often cited by those who argue “moral equivalence” as a slur. How about the Crusades, hmm? Fine, let’s go there. While political leaders (both church and civil political leaders) made appeals for the Crusades based on tainted theological arguments (some, “just war” arguments and some even more silly ones), all such arguments fail the central test: “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?” [Luke 6:46]

Hello! “Christian” means “like Christ” and so those who have committed acts of mass murder, rape, torture, etc., claiming to do so in the name of the founder of Christianity are simply liars, because their actions contradict the words and deeds of the one they claim to follow. That includes such things as found in the Crusades, the Inquisition(s) and more, even up to contemporary times. Jim Jones, Fred Phelps and legions of “celebrity” faux-christian leaders are all excellent examples of people falsely claiming to be disciples of a religious leader while acting in direct contradiction of that leader’s life and work. “Why do you call me ‘lord, lord’ and do not the things I tell you to do?”

Now a question of my own. How is that contradiction of the life and work of Christ the equivalent of some who faithfully emulate the life and commandments of one who was a mass murderer, rapist, thief, slaver, and torturer, and who commanded his followers to continue to commit mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture on those who would not accept his teachings? On the one hand, those who claim to be Christian who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Christ are clearly, plainly liars. On the other hand, those who say they commit their mass murder, rape, theft, slavery and torture in the name of Mohamed and his god are clearly, plainly, honestly, faithfully following the teachings of Mohamed. How do these two classes indicate that Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent? Hmm?

Those who fail to follow Christ but instead contradict him by word and deed are considered by those who make the moral equivalence argument to be “like Christ”? Yes. Those who faithfully and accurately follow Mohamed’s example and commandments are, on the other hand, usually presented by such persons as atypical of Islam. How can such persons live with their fundamentally dishonest argument? *shrugs* Oh, it’s probably easy, since they apparently simply have no interest in truth anyway.

[N.B. Minor edits for sentence clarity and to reintroduce paragraph breaks that disappeared from the draft version of this post upon publication. *shrugs* Need dreadlock wig and chicken bone rattle, I suppose. . . ]

Continue reading “Hard Questions with Easy Answers”

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.

On NOT Slandering the “Prophet” of Islam

(Just don’t do it. Nope. Don’t.)

During his UN speech when he once again asserted a causative link between a Youtube video and the murder of four Americans, The Zero uttered these infamous words,

 

 

The good thing about this is that one can point out that, according to Islam’s OWN so-called “holy” texts, their (mythical? Some serious scholars say so. *shrugs* Who knows… or cares?) “prophet” was a mass murderer, rapist, pedophile, liar, oath-breaker, torturer, slaver, and thief. And not only was he all those things, but he commanded his followers to emulate those behaviors.

Facts.

So, it’d be really, really hard to slander Mohamed, the Butcher of Medina, unless one were to say he was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow.

(Do notice the subjunctive mood indicating that I did NOT say Mohamed was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow, because the subjunctive mood construction indicates the citation of an event that did not occur–that NON-event being the uttering of a claim that Mohamed was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow–a claim I did not make. Of course, if someone were to bring DNA evidence forward… )

Respect for Islam #2

And you said Muslims were humorless savages.

OK, so you were right, but they’re still easy to mock, even though theirs is a humorless, savage hate cult.