In many lands, Muslims danced in the streets when 3000 innocent Americans were killed. Today, many worldwide take glee witnessing the various beheadings, and bodies drug and hung over the Euphrates river. Tongues click in many ‘peaceful’ households for what passes as spirituality to these miserable people. George Orwell, an expert in ‘groupthink’,  said it correctly: "There are spectacles before which even satire herself stands mute." Islamimaniacs strain and choke on a nat, yet an adult camel easily slides down their throat with no problem whatsoever.

            In many parts of this country, you can hear both Muslims and other non-Christian groups discredit Jesus and the Bible. Muslims and others publicly mock Christians in school halls and communities. They do it  openly, without fear of reprisals. Liberalism (the PC police) allow it, and the ACLU vigorously protect, if not encourage, Christian persecution. But the same groups, champions of individual rights and free speech, openly oppose any who suggest that Mohammed is a poor example of a prophet, or that Islam is the ideology and path of terrorism, calling it hate speech. An opinion on a religion is that, just an opinion, unless it is found to be remotely offensive to the delicate feelings of ‘peaceful’ Muslims. Now anything and everything, regardless if it has foundation in fact and history, can be regulated under Judicial oversight of  ‘hate speech’. When Islam calls Jews ‘pigs’, or non-believers ‘Infidels’, and praises suicide bombers and Jihadists worldwide, …that is simply free speech. Anyone suggesting otherwise is called ‘Islamophobic’ or bigoted’. Apparently in Muslim culture the ‘Pot’ pretty regularly calls the ‘Kettle’ “black”, and no-one takes any notice. Muslims claim no one is allowed to criticize Islam and the Qur’an, essentially claiming principals of free speech are subservient to Islamic hyper-sensitivity to criticism. Pious Muslims tell us that critics of the teachings or person of Muhammad are blasphemers who have lost their right to live. Oh, …and Islam is a religion of  ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’.

            Even our own ‘liberal’ Judicial system seems to agree with such nonsense, letting one group openly discredit and disparage another, yet not allowing the other group the same right and privilege. As the concepts of justice and equality are laid waste by such practices, does the word prejudicial come to mind? The scales of justice held by the blindfolded lady Justice can not help but become badly tipped when the standards are shifted from morality based on the ‘Ten Commandments’ to medieval Sharia concepts of jurisprudence. Does this sort of PC policing constitute state-sponsored bigotry? Are those who point to the realities of 1400 years of violent worldwide Jihad, and news and historical accounts of non-Muslim suffering at the hands of faithful Muslims, themselves bigots? Is all truth remotely connected to Islam and Muslims now to be censored, and regulated? Does this mean the eventual creation of an American Gulag, to be prepared to receive intellectuals, historians, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and Agnostics found to have insulted hyper-sensitive Muslims?

            Were the millions of victims persecuted by devout Muslims following the enshrined tenants of anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racism, themselves bigots deserving of their fates? Were the 3000+ infidels brutally murdered 9/11 deserving of their fate at the hands of Islam? Were they truly worthless and ‘unloved’ by Allah? Are Muslims really superior and entitled to the lands, wealth, and lives of non-believers?

In Iraq, nary a peep is heard as devout brothers kill while using a white flag as a cover, civilians are exploited as shields, or passers-by are blown apart with or without damaging the declared enemy. Add to this the deafening silence connected to hundreds of kidnapping of civilians, UN and NGO workers, and the decapitation of all such “prisoners.” In Muslim minds, condemnation is unthinkable for reasons of faith and a theology which dehumanizes non-Muslims, and with which many western elitists concur. Morally blind, Islamic apologists claim that normal outrage toward such actions are negated by invoking the ever effective liberal weapon of ‘moral relativism’. Undoubtedly, this kind of logic/response was first perfected in elementary school-yards when as children they responded to criticism by covering their ears and chanting “whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!” The absence of outrage is foolish, cowardly, or at least an act of self-deception, if not the unintended revelation of a limited IQ. The desired effect is to water-down Islamic terrorist acts and render them ‘moral’. The only thing those making such lame arguments prove is that their own hearts and souls clearly lack normal human empathy, demonstrating they are in perfect moral harmony with the murderous inhuman monsters they excuse. Over and over they repeat “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter” then sit back smugly oblivious that actually one mans terrorist, ...is another mans terrorist! In fact, any man who worships or thinks like a terrorist justifying terrorist acts, is also a terrorist. Lost are those incapable of seeing and feeling the centuries of pain, suffering, and oppression connected with devout followers of Islam. Having little or insufficient basis in fact, and no moral compass to base any judgment, yet they feel perfectly qualified to viscously lash out with PC name calling and PC judgment. Name calling is, of course, devoid of logic or reason and only serves to prevent rational discussion which might lead to findings based on fact and the subsequent reasonable judgment based on the same. Name callers want everything to be bounced against PC standards with no basis but emotion, and often irrational emotion at that. By adopting the Islamic cause as their own, the Left is siding with a fascist enemy who is working to extinguish values they themselves claim to honor and best represent: women’s rights, gay rights, separation between religion and state, freedom from slavery, etc. etc.

            Muslim spokesmen claim to oppose intolerance, then in the same breath attack anyone who exposes the extremism of any Muslim brother, calling him/her a ‘bigot’ and ‘Islamophobe’. To Muslim intellectuals, anyone critical of Islam is intolerant, yet it remains acceptable to exercise on such individuals extreme forms of intolerance, up to death. Indeed, dare complain about a very real history and culture of intolerance, and be called intolerant for even equating the word intolerance to such facts. Islamists play well the injured party, thereby sweeping all real issues under the carpet in a barrage of name-calling. Such antics are tactical, but meaningless as the poor ‘victim’ escapes having to engage in any real debate to try and defend the indefensible.            

Back    <   1   2   3  >   Next