Search My Blog

September 29, 2006

Ye of little faith?

"We seek military action and democratic reform hand-in-glove to end Islamic rogue states and terrorist enclaves -- not because such audacious measures are our first option (appeasement, neglect, and complicity in the past were preferable), but because they are the last." - Davis Hansen

/hat tip Buck Sargeant

In an effort, yet again, to debunk the idea that appeasement to Islam will bring forth world peace I have to mention a blog entry by a mutual blogger friend of mine who lives in NYC. Andy is permanently chained to the liberal ideology and he and I have had many an argument, albeit respectful and engaging, over the last 3 years or so we’ve known each other.

A comment he made on a recent post, however, has reminded me that that there is a prevailant attitude of appeasement with regard to Islamo facists, jihadists, terrorists, or whatever fashionable word the media is using these days- an attitude that is unrealistic and amounts to nothing more than suicide for the American people and the rest of the world.

Here is an excerpt from Andy’s blog that had me shaking my head, but I would like to preface it with this quote from an outside source that was the main focus of Andy’s post. I will now stop picking on my friend by name because his comments are echoed by people all over the world.

From the Associated Press, filed 30 minutes ago:

PALU, Indonesia (AP) -- Christian mobs torched cars, blockaded roads and looted Muslim-owned shops in violence touched off by Friday's executions of three Roman Catholics convicted of instigating attacks on Muslims.

Now for selected, in context, quotes from the Remarks section:

What happened here to turning the other cheek? What happened to, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you?"

If America would ever get the courage to take the Gospel seriously -- yeah, I'm yelling at you, Red State America -- the threat of Islamic terrorism would simply disappear.

The sad irony of the recent violent protests in response to the Pope's unnecessary and ill-judged comments is not lost on me.

Ill-judged because Muslims had a shit fit over it and thus solidified the Pope’s 700 year old quote?

I have blogged about Islam before and a quick search of my blog will yield more than a handful of articles; forgive my laziness but I look at monitors all day at work and my eyes are already bad enough. I will instead quote a very telling article found on Michelle Malkin’s website.

The author specifically addresses just how great it would be if we do appease the Muslims, just as the French are currently doing, much to their demise. As far as turning the other cheek, I invite you to hop over to Clarity and Resolve to see just how tolerant Islamic extremists are to kindness and appeasement.

I also invite you to cut and past the following excerpt into an email and send it to everyone you know.

Here is what happens to an editor, Pierre Rousselin of Le Figaro, who prints something in the name of freedom of speech when speaking against the tolerance of Islam (Belgium Journal):

"I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement. [...] On the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa. [...] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. [...] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. [...] All costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc.
It's quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty – foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury."
Put on your reading glasses folks. I have decided to print the rather lengthy excerpt instead of linking to it.

Forbidden Op-Eds

What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.

Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe: opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wearing thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.

This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus: the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-righteous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: "Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man."

There is more: "Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour."

And: "After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages ."

A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repented. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.
None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the contrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.

The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is an obsolete superstition- it not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. It’s importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.
This stoning, accompanied each year by the accidental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the free World.


  1. As time goes by, and we listen to more and more debates on 'why are we in this war', 'who are we fighting', and 'the war should be over by now'...It just boggles my mind that people can't see the blatant fact that we are a 'political' country fighting a 'fanatic religion'. Each side is fighting in a different way - we, according to how we've fought all wars previously (Geneva Convention, yada, yada, yada), and they, according to their 'fanatical religious beliefs' (which are to annihilate anyone who isn't 'them'). Sadly, I don't see an end before there's a whole lot more violence, unless we drastically change the way we're fighting this war...

  2. This a long post and I find nothing in it to argue with. Islam has chosen to be and is, a threat.

    In Iraq, however, we are playing into their hands. We have, from the first, done exactly as Osama hoped.