Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Remember, back in the day, when a foreign country said that they were going to track down and try to kill an American citizen on American soil, we’d all sort of band together regardless of what we thought of that particular individual, link arms, rack back the charging handle and say, with a firm, quiet conviction, “Just try it, asshole.  Go ahead.  Make my day.”

Yeah, good times.  Good times.

Nowadays, it seems, the preferred course of action is to give thoughtful, pensive consideration to the frothing, manical ravings of sword-waving camel humpers, apologize for offending their unwashed sensibilities, and subsequently reformulate and tune our foreign policy to ensure that the Champions of Sharia have more say about how we live our lives that our own laws and Constitution do.

Whodathunkit?

So, apparently, under the Obama Administration, it’s more important to placate xenophobic islamicist temper tantrums than the defend one of the foundational tenets of our political system and way of life known as “free speech.”

Can we impeach him NOW?!?!

Is it just me, or does the political rhetoric and milquetoast responses we seem to be getting out of the current administration in response to current events unfolding in the Middle East seem almost like the responses of a battered spouse?  An angry mob storms our embassy and desecrates our flag, and our embassador apologizes?

I can’t help but picture some drunk, ill-bred mouth breather in a sweat stained t-shirt who rolls in after a particularly bad bender and just lays into his poor wife, beating her and throwing her around.  “WHY do you MAKE me DO this?!” he screams, with blow after blow.  “You JUST. DON’T. LISTEN!!!!”

She cowers in a corner, covering her face, and sobs out, “I know, I know.  I’m sorry. It’s my fault.  I’ll try harder. I promise!  Just…please…don’t hit me again.”

Time and again radical islamic terrorists attack our people, our facilities, our country’s honor, and “we” opt for a “measured response.”  We don’t want to make them angry.  We strike a conciliatory tone, hoping to “defuse” the tension and forestall another confrontation.

Which only ensures that there WILL be another confrontation, because, really, what’s to stop them? Time and again we prove that we won’t fight back, that we won’t respond with the kind of overwhelming, crushing force which would actually serve as a deterrent.

In other words, we act like a victim.  Hoping to placate our attackers so they won’t hurt us.  Or at least, won’t hurt us as often, maybe.  Or, you know, as bad.  If we just make sure to say the right things, to do the right things, to make sure we make his dinner just like he likes it, and don’t dare talk to him during his football game, because we know how angry he gets when we forget our place.

Me, on the other hand, I’m thinking it’s time for a little “Burning Bed” action instead.

The always engaging Sobek has a brilliant post up over at Innocent Bystanders that pretty much says it all.  Highly recommended reading!

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

Terror Group Leader Takes Control of Somalia- Obama Approves

Ask Britain how trying appeasement worked out with Hitler.  Ask the Israelis how appeasement worked out with Hamas, or the Syrians.  Ask the Marines how appeasement worked out in the initial stages of Fallujah.

All appeasement does is give your enemies more time to arm and equip.  Giving the Shariaists of the world what they want only emboldens them to demand more.   Trying to make friends with militant Islamicists does two things:  1) Convinces them that you are an idiot, and 2) Proves them right.

There can be no “dialogue” with these people.  They are not interested in rational discourse.  The are interested only in subjugation, the rule of Sharia, and the expansion of Islam to every corner of the globe, through influence, coercion, deceipt, or force of arms.

And if you haven’t figured this out, you ain’t been listening.  To them.  To their own rhetoric. 

I simply do not understand people who can listen to the fervent, frothing intensity of these virulent, caustic leaders of Islam who freely and unabashedly state that they want nothing less than the deaths of those who refuse to follow Islam, the destruction of countries who refuse to bow to their demands…people who then turn around and propose with naivete’ and incredulity, “Well, they can’t really MEAN that.  It’s just because they don’t understand us.  If we try really hard to be friends, to make nice, well, I’m sure we can make them see the light.”

Folks, the only light that will help Islamic fasicsts “understand” the realities of a 21st century world is the flash just before the boom.  Remember, these are people who profess to hate technology so much that they refuse to develop any themselves…and yet have no compunctions about selling heroin to buy weapons technology from countries they one day hope to destroy.

These….THESE are the people with whom Pres. Obama want’s to “open a dialogue?!”   In this uncertain day and age, with the influence of a barabaric and reactionary islamic fundamentalism gaining increasing sway throughout large swaths of Europe, Asia, the pacific rim, and even the United States, the willful ignorance, the deluded naivete, and the misguided idealism of the current administration towards the threats we, as a country, face from our enemies, gives Barack Obama the potential to be the single most damaging President this country has endured in our history.

Between his fiscal irresponsiblity, his rampant expansion of government powers, his embracing of bellicose antagonists as “respected” world leaders, and his fumbling inability to appoint a cabinet not plagued by controversy and scandal, one has to wonder what else is in store for us?

Hope and Change, eh?

UPDATE:

Ooooh.  Looky Looky.  Geert Wilders agrees with me.  I must be, like, famous our smart or something.

I’m sorry, but if you have a burning molotav cocktail in your hand, arm cocked back to throw, you have lost your status as “peaceful protestor” or even “activist” and moved right up into “combatant.”  And I will shoot you dead’r-n-shit.  Twice.

If you charge at me, bandana over your face, screaming unintelligible gibberish about allah akbar and his cousins fatwah and jihad, all the while swinging a club, baseball bat, or tire iron, I will assume that you intend me grievous bodily harm, and will respond accordingly.   In the form of shooting you dead’r-n-shit.

Perhaps someone ought to pass these ideas and concepts along to the many police forces currently getting their collective asses kicked, or at least, being complete marginalized and utterly mocked as rioters run rampant through the streets smashing, looting and burning.  You know, all those tradtionally “peaceful” ways to express your angst.

They are not protestors. They are terrorists and violent thugs, and should be dealt with accordingly.

In a related corollary:  Name me ONE time that Hamas has EVER honored a cease-fire for longer than a week?  Yeah.

Ya know, I was all set to pen some snarky post about how people just need to get over themselves, highlighting all the manner of mental flatulence surrounding peoples’ bizarre and over-compensating back-bending with regards to political correctness and not “offending” anyone with the grim specter of a baby in a manger.

But then I figured, screw it.  Screw them.  They aren’t worth the trouble.

If you are so insecure in your personal beliefs or religious convictions that the sight of someone else celebrating their faith traditions is just THAT unsettling, then you’ve got a lot bigger problems than just being “offended.”  I’m sure extensive counseling and perhaps an aggressive course of psychotropic medication could be helpful in dealing with your “issuses.”

See, me, I don’t understand how the sight of cross around a neck is something to be avoided as being potentially “offensive,” but the sight of a traditional head scarf or a penitent on a prayer rug facing Mecca is just something I’m supposed to embrace as diversity.  Why I can celebrate Earth day in honor of defending Mother Gaia, but a jolly man in a red suit and a bunch of reindeer is of such deep concern because of the clear religious “undertones.”  Heaven forbid we have “undertones.”

Ah heck.  Here I’ve gone and done it.  That snarky post I was trying to avoid.

I just have a hard time taking seriously some twittering, hand-wringing Prog busy-body with nothing better to do with her time than worry about who might be offended by the idea of a Savior sent to earth by a loving God. 

Perhaps it is the overall disregard with which this crowd holds babies in the first place.  I’m sorry, I meant to say “unwanted fetus” there.  Of course, we have to realize that these are people that bring their kids to a pro-abortion rally.  Wrap your head around that one.

Because, you see, I really do understand.  I understand that this is not about preserving anything, it’s not about protecting anyone’s china-glass sensitivies or tender wittle feelings.  It can’t be.  It’s simply too preposterous to lend any credence whatsoever to the idea that someone is “offended” by Christmas. 

I’m offended by human sacrifice, genital mutilation, gassing the Kurds, grown men having sex with pre-teen boys, mass graves, car bombings, biological weapons, concentration camps, dumbass rioters burning cars, human trafficking, child prostitution, drug dealers and gang bangers.

I am NOT, however, offended by Christmas.  I’m not offended by Kwanza; amused perhaps, but certainly not offended.  I am not “offended” by Hanukkah or Eid al-Adha or Ramadan. 

To me, this isn’t about preserving anyone’s views…it’s about quietly, inexorably silencing one.

Let’s keep this in perspective, shall we folks?  And to help you all keep it in perspective, I’m going to engage in a little civil disobedience.  I’m going to wish you a Merry Christmas, and if you get all frothed up and offended, well, I’m just going to let that be your problem, not mine.  I’m going to wear my cross over the top of my green and red Christmas sweater when I go shopping at the “Holiday” sales at the mall.  I’m going to send out Christmas cards with a manger scene and angels and all that other chest-clutchingly disturbing religious imagery, and if it bothers you that much, you can throw the card away.

Cuz you see, my problem is that I expect people to act like grown-ups.  I expect people to learn to get along, and not required that I be censored and discriminated against just so they don’t get a bad case of the vapors when their precious little world view isn’t all coddled and stroked and cooed over.

I’m just wierd that way.  So, please.  Have a Merry Christmas.  Or don’t.  It’s a free country.

UPDATE:

Here’s last years post.  Jeez, I’m predictable. 

Merry Christmas…except for YOU!

Get over yourself.  I don’t require you to celebrate Christmas.  I DO require you to let ME celebrate Christmas.  That’s not called intolerance.  It’s called f-r-e-e-d-o-m.

Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!!

Offended yet?  No?

Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!! Merry Christmas!!

How about now?

I’ve read several blog posts about the whole “War on Christmas” thing.  I especially like the one by Rachel Lucas, ‘cuz you see, I just flat don’t get it.  What, for all that is furry, soft and static-free, exactly is it that is so all-fired “offensive” about the phrase “Merry Christmas?!”  

Yeah, I can see how all that “Peace on earth, good will towards men” and “Joy To The World” stuff must really just get under your skin.  The gall! The temerity! How DARE you wish me a Merry Christmas!  FASCIST!

Honestly, what really is the difference between getting all huffy and “offended” if someone wishes you Merry Christmas, and getting all huffy and offended if someone names a teddy bear “Muhammed?”  Seriously.  Explain it to me, ‘cuz I’m really struggling with that one.

Oh, but wait, we aren’t even talking about being offended anymore, are we?  According the article referenced in Rachel’s blog, the schreeching little shrew in question considered it the height of impoliteness to wish someone Merry Chrismas. Like there aren’t worse things in this world than occasionally being impolite. 

Okay, lets break this down fer a second.  Apparently we are excluding people by calling it a Christmas tree.  Who, exactly, are we excluding?  Muslims?  Buddhists?  Jews? Hey, newsflash….THEY ALREADY DON’T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS, MORON!  So how is calling it a “Holiday” tree going to suddenly kick the door wide for them to deck the halls?

Who else? Non-christians?  Soooo….you’re telling me that in the roughly 230-ish years this country has been around, it’s only ever been orthodox, fundmentalist, hard-core Bible-thumping Christians what actually had a Christmas tree, and all the other scrooge-nostics out there had to grit their collective teeth with a bitter, seething rage as they bought their tree, secretly feeling all outcast and excluded, wishing deep in their hurting little hearts that they could just buy a Holiday Tree instead?  How does calling it Christmas exclude anyone

If someone wished me Happy Haunukah, or Joyous Kwanza or whatever it is, “Have a Mystical and Magical Winter Solstice,” I can say with utmost certainty I wouldn’t be offended by it.   Okay, no, no, you’re right.  I’d probably file a hate-crimes lawsuit against them for their willful and hateful failure to respect my religious beliefs which, of course, are clearly evident just by looking at me. 

Actually, being a rational individual, I’d likely just smile, wave, and wish them the same thing back, out of POLITENESS.  What. A. Concept.

Every time I hear that someone is “offended'” (yes, I’m going to put that in quotes every damn time) by displays, words, thoughts, graphics or songs with the words Merry Christmas in them, I have to think that we’ve really lost track of what “offended” means.  I am offended by people swearing like stable hands around my kids.  I’m offended when I see my faith mocked and derided in movies and television shows.  I’m offended by a really bad smell coming out of the sewer.  I’m offended by self-righteous blowhards who want to require that I think and act like they do or suffer the consequences.  I’m not “offended” by someone wish my a Happy Saint Patrick’s day even though I’m not Irish.

Hey, wait a minute.  Lessee if I got this straight…we have to remove every hint of anything which might be offensive to someone else?  So…there are only certain acceptable viewpoints, and all others must be supressed as unacceptable?  Isn’t that sort of the Liberals’ textbook definition of intolerance? Refusing to allow any viewpoints but your own?  Limiting access to the public forum only to those who conform to the mandated and “approved” views?

Approved by whom?  Why, the scroogenostics of course.

The modern celebration of Christmas has become so secularized that for a great many people it is a cultural tradition as much as a religious one, celebrated by a broad spectrum of people from a variety of backgrounds, both religious and ethnic.  Calling it Christmas only excludes those who have a vested interest in being offended in order to further their social(ist) agenda.  No one seems to care if I’m offended by Kwaanza or Ramadan.  There don’t seem to be any shrill cries about excluding or silencing them. 

No, that would be intolerant, right? Right?

Nuance.

Why did you take the job at the supermarket if you knew that you’d be asked to handle pork, alcohol and tobacco products?

Why did you decide to become a cab driver if you weren’t going to take fares from people who smoke, or drink, or have dogs, or have a juicy ham sandwich in their greasy little fist?

Now, you may consider it “intolerant” of us wacky westerners to ask you to do otherwise, but it’s not intolerance if you know ahead of time that it’s going to be a requirement of the position! One might begin to suspect that you had some sort of, how you say, an agenda?

Don’t want to get your mitts dirty handling “unclean” foods?  Don’t get a job in the %$&%*#’ing deli!

So, cry me a river, Muslim grocery clerks when we don’t seem too sympathetic to your “plight.”  Your brethren for years seemed to have little problem dishing out the warmed over hot dogs and MadDog 20/20 at 7-11.  Why so squeamish all of a sudden?

I find it interesting that not once in this AP article:

Austrian Man Shoots Colleague, Slices off Penis in ‘Honor Killing’

…are the words “Islamic” or “Muslim” mentioned.  Instead, honor killings are said to be:

an ancient tradition associated with Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran as well as tribal areas in Pakistan and some Arab societies

Hmmm.  Lessee.  What do Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and “some Arab societies” all have in common?

Nope.  No agenda hear, folks.  No media bias.  Move along.  Move along.