A reminder that we're still at war with barbarism

Peter Cresswell's picture
Submitted by Peter Cresswell on Sun, 2006-04-09 20:44

Death to Marxism! Death to Fascism! Death to Islam! Death to all forms of tyranny over the minds of men! And shame on those who would appease or apologise for the evils these disgusting and barbarous ideas represent.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for cowards to appease it - and Islam is the locus of evil in the contemporary world." If that statement from The Free Radical's Lindsay Perigo is not true, then the death and destruction of September 11 did not happen; then Theo van Gogh was not murdered; then the Danish cartoonists are not in hiding in fear of their lives; then hordes of stone-age barbarians did not take to the streets in reaction against those cartoons to say "Europe, you will have your own Holocaust soon," "Behead those who would insult Islam" and "God Bless Hitler"; then Bali, Madrid and London were not bombed by maggots who show those threats need to be taken very seriously indeed.

It's still not clear to some people that war was declared in the name of Islam some five years ago by representatives from the dark ages who hate the West for its wealth, for its happiness and for its material success. This post is yet another reminder for those people. Since that time and in the name of Islam, murderous morons have reaped destruction across the globe -- and make no mistake, they mean to continue until another curtain of darkness has been brought down over the West. THEY MEAN IT! If you still don't understand that, then either you have a mind incapable of learning from events happening right in front of your eyes, or perhaps it's time you did some serious reflection. Let me help you in that task by reminding you that these barbarians want you enslaved and destroyed, and the world of the West returned to the darkness from which it once came. THEY DO MEAN IT!

Said the scum who murdered Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh at his trial for the killing, he "acted out of religious conviction and would do it again if given the chance." He really does mean it.

I don't feel your pain," he told Van Gogh's mother, Anneke. "I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever... I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction... If I ever get free I would do it again.

Said Abu Musab A- Zarqawi, Al-Qaeda frontman in Iraq and perpetrator there of bombings, butchering and beheadings, "Islam permits the killing of "infidel" civilians.":

In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels," said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a 25-million-dollar price on his head.

"The Muslim's blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy.

Make no mistake, these are voices from the dark ages; representatives of ideas as intolerant and cruel as they are unfortunately widespread. The barbaric ideas these men represent are as evil as the murders committed in their name. The stone-age representatives of those ideas are not going away-- indeed, if left unopposed they plan to bring sharia and dhimmitude and death to all those unbelievers and infidels they can reach. THAT MEANS YOU! If that's something some of you still don't understand, then perhaps you should refrain from criticising those who do. For until you do you're like a child in an adults' world, and your brainless chattering just distracts adults when they're talking.

Fortunately, there are adults who do understand. As Tony Blair said just days ago, "the struggle facing the world today was not just about security. It was also 'a struggle about values and modernity, whether to be at ease with it or enraged at it'." As Dr Wafa Sultan bravely said on Al-Jazeera television just one month ago:

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete...

And as Lindsay Perigo said in that Free Radical editorial criticised as "reminiscent of the rhetoric which led to the Holocaust" by an infantile fool who smears Perigo as a Nazi (and who is linked to by a hand-wringing David Farrar) :

Human beings worthy of the title must rise up and shout in irresistible unison: “Enough of this primordial primitivism! We who are civilised are revolted by it and shall rebuff it at every turn!” Muslims must discover rationality and decency; Westerners must rediscover them, and, as a matter of urgency, speak up for them!

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for cowards to appease it—and Islam is the locus of evil in the contemporary world.

There’s been far too much appeasement of it...

It [freedom] cannot be defended—indeed, it can only be betrayed—by apologetic weasel-worders appeasing militant, murderous morons whose savage pseudo-sensibilities have been stirred, not by sticks and stones, but by words.

May men of righteous rationality reignite the flame of reason and fight an unapologetic philosophical jihad in its holy name, that it may illumine the globe and save the world from another Dark Ages.

Bravo! Death to Marxism! Death to Nazism! Death to the barbarities of the Dark Ages! And as Perigo concludes himself, "Death to Islam -- and all forms of tyranny over the minds of men!"

LINKS: Death to Islam - Lindsay Perigo
Muslim radical confesses to Van Gogh killing in court tirade - Times Online
Intolerance in the Quran - Skeptics Annotated Quran
Cruelty in the Quran - Skeptics Annotated Quran
Death to hate speech - Ruth - Chaos Theory
Anti-Islam speech - David Farrar, Kiwiblog
"A battle of values..." - Not PC
'Clash of civilisations' rubbished by Arab-American woman - Not PC

TAGS: War, Multiculturalism, Religion


I'm all ears

Rick Giles's picture

Your strategy is to switch meanings so that when you speak to the nominal Muslim you can say Islamist, they get the impression that Islamist is a perversion of the faith.

Wouldn't my frequent efforts to declair that all Muslims are evil cast doubt as to that being my strategy?

Islamism is as much a rotten bough of the tree of Islam as The Inquisition was a part of Christianity. Neither faith is a monolith.

You agreed that we can objectively define what a Muslim is. So, either a Muslim is this peace loving person that you've already written about; or a Muslim is an "Islamist".

False dikotothinie.
They're both Muslims! Why can't you allow that?

Michelangelo thought he was a Christian. Wasn't he?

Wasn't Ronald Regan?

The people of The United Arab Emirates think they're Muslims. Aren't they?

What conception of life, what religion or philosophy, is reponsible for the civilising influence you admit?

I mean to say! You're going to explain to me that these people are mistaken about the name and identity of their own belief systems? Why don't you march up to the Pope while you're at it and explain to him that he's not a Catholic? If you only had to do that it would be easier!

I'm all ears.

I've made it clear that the person calling themselves a Muslim isn't really a Muslim.

Jenny Shipley as NZ Prime Minister: "One thing I am personally clear about is that I don't think we can leave the ownership of major assets in Auckland in anything other than a certain state."

Decode yourself for me and, while you're at it, work on that one too. We've been asking ourselves that for years.

Spoon Feeding, Rick Giles

Wayne Simmons's picture

"How can they when they know Islamists are a subset of Muslims? If they don't know this then I'm not the one letting them think otherwise."

Oh yes you are. Your strategy is to switch meanings so that when you speak to the nominal Muslim you can say Islamist, they get the impression that Islamist is a perversion of the faith.

You want to have it both ways, and reality will not accept your contradictions. You agreed that we can objectively define what a Muslim is. So, either a Muslim is this peace loving person that you've already written about; or a Muslim is an "Islamist".

"Can we get a show of hands over here who says "I separate Muslim from 'Muslim'" isn't more confusing? Give me a break pal."

But, I've made it clear that the person calling themselves a Muslim isn't really a Muslim. I'm not the one causing the confusion, they are.

Muslims from your "Muslims"

Rick Giles's picture

You explicitly reject the idea that the Muslim totalitarian movement is of Muslim origin

Explicitly enough for you to quote me explicitly your Explicitlyness?

Islamist. This is a perfect word to cause confusion

Can we get a show of hands over here who says "I separate Muslim from 'Muslim'" isn't more confusing? Give me a break pal.

Someone that's Muslim can now say:

"Islamists are those that pervert the Islamic faith. A Muslim is a consistent peace loving follower of Islam ".

How can they when they know Islamists are a subset of Muslims? If they don't know this then I'm not the one letting them think otherwise.

We hear this all the time.

Don't thank me for that. Shit, I don't even let Duncan's Mom off the hook! Bane's the one you want.

Horror isn't a matter of numbers. True enough.
The fact that you fail to distinguish between levels of horror is truly amazing.

Thanks, I worked hard at it.

Rick Giles, Kicking Himself In The Ass!

Wayne Simmons's picture

Gee, Rick, don't be such a sore loser. Kicking yourself in the ass is not the solution. Smiling

Are you actually implying that you've given an objective definition? C'mon, stop joking around. You're a mealy mouthed contributor to the current conceptual confusion. You explicitly reject the idea that the Muslim totalitarian movement is of Muslim origin - and that they're Muslims. It's here for all to see. You've adapted - and advocate that others use - the weasel word: Islamist. This is a perfect word to cause confusion. Someone that's Muslim can now say:

"Islamists are those that pervert the Islamic faith. A Muslim is a consistent peace loving follower of Islam ".

We hear this all the time. Thanks, Rick, for your own mealy mouthed appeasement of our enemies.

And thanks for all the fish

Rick Giles's picture

That people can compromise their views does not give truth to your lie that a Muslim cannot be objectively defined.

They can be, they have been defined. And I seem to be doing a better job of it than you with your Muslim/"Muslim" jazz. Get back to me when you figure out what a Muslim is.

A consistent Muslim is evil, and you know it.

Yes. And how you know I know it is because I've said it half a dozen times in as many days. : )

--
And that's kicking your ass!- Drew Barrymore

Rick Giles Knows He's Wrong. I Rest My Case.

Wayne Simmons's picture

There are so-called Environmentalists that drive SUVs while they lament against the use of SUVs. There are hardcore leftists, like Noam Chomsky, who tax shelter their money in income trusts for the benefit of their family (hey, even Chomsky has his own hierarchy of values). The Confusion comes from those who claim to be Environmentalists, Socialists, and, yes, Muslims. Many people compromise their professed beliefs. They realize - at least on some level - that their ideas are not compatible with the real world. That people can compromise their views does not give truth to your lie that a Muslim cannot be objectively defined. A consistent Muslim is evil, and you know it.

I rest my case

Rick Giles's picture

I separate Muslim from "Muslim".

Well, Wayne, if that's what's going on here you can understand how that might lead to confusion can't you? How is anybody supposed to know if you're talking about Muslims or Muslims at any given time? And which of these is guilty of 'paracitical adaptation?'

"The Dancing Rick Giles" *means* Muslims. And how you can tell he means Muslims is that (and this is the clue) he *says* Muslims. Let's both be frank.

there's a large percentage of nominal Muslims that, when push comes to shove, will remain loyal to modernity

Well then, assuming no further appeals, I rest my case.

Let me begin with your last

Wayne Simmons's picture

Let me begin with your last point. I separate Muslim from "Muslim". I don't deny that there's a large percentage of nominal Muslims that, when push comes to shove, will remain loyal to modernity. But, they must suffer from an inner contradiction: their professed beliefs in Islam stand in opposition to living in the modern world. To deny this is to divorce thought from the ideology that created it. Objectivists are inclined to support Objectivist ideas. This isn't rocket science, Rick.

Horror isn't a matter of numbers. True enough. But, Rick, if I were Gay, I wouldn't be concerned about a few murders. I would, on the other hand, be fearful of millions of murders. Consider B&Es in a small community. If you lived in the ideal "Leave It To Beaver" community you'd be upset - to a degree - about the occasional break in. But, you wouldn't over-react. Perhaps, you'd even leave your front door unlocked on short trips betting against the idea that someone will break in. The fact that you fail to distinguish between levels of horror is truly amazing.

Your attitude

Rick Giles's picture

Fundamentalist Christians haven't organized to murder infidels
the Ku Klux Klan was only 70yrs ago
News flash, century trekker, we're in the 21st century

Let me check that figure...1930s + 70years....you're right! No foolin' you is there?

Now, you were saying our organised murderers are,or were, morally superior to their organised murderers?? What point are you making about organised murder exactly?

heterosexuals are forming gangs by the millions

What do you want to talk that down for. Need it be millions to warrant your concern? Wouldn't hundreds be bad enough. Dozens? Pairs? Ones?

I hardly think our culture de jure can be absolved of marking "infidels" for organised murder. Not in the bloody past, and not even in the present. Horror is not a matter of numbers.

Their society is totally unfree; ours is a mixture of freedom and tyranny. You've actively evaded defining by essentials

But their society is not as 'totally unfree' as Osama would have it

Why do you suppose those 1.2 billion live so well?

Because Islam works "so well."

they must parasitically adapt some form of market-based economics.

Parasitical adaptation? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

This shows that they're contradicting their own premises.

Or it shows that the premises you attribute them contradict their own culture de jure?

The Muslim worldview, however, can be understood in terms of fundamentals.

As can all worldviews.

In light of our present context, it's pointless to measure "totally unfree".

Then why did you introduce the notion?

Rick, you're under-estimating the threat we face.

Your attitude is the threat we face.

you should look at reality.

Reality: Muslims live in my city and in my street, belong to this library and university. I share trains and conversations with them, usually without realising it.

Reality: Muslims trade with the best of us and are making a large pile of money. They do oil and they spend their American dollars on
American things and American producers and their dependencies are very cool with that. They have an international airline. They saved our bacon in the Dark Ages. They gave us our mathematical notation and rather a fair chunk of our science. They're fluffing about with sand and making a man-made archipelago in the image of The World.

I do not believe that Osama Bin Laden's world-view is the one I see brightening the faces of the Muslim undergrads or underpinning these great works. He speaks for Islamists, not Islam, and deserves what Cresswell is dishing out whereas Muslims simply do not.

The Dancing Rick Giles

Wayne Simmons's picture

Apparently, Rick has forgotten the year. News flash, century trekker, we're in the 21st century. We're not even in the early 20th century.

Yes, I must say, heterosexuals are forming gangs by the millions to murder homosexuals. Is Richard Simmons running in fear? Please, lets get serious.

Why do you suppose those 1.2 billion live so well? The answer is obvious: they must parasitically adapt some form of market-based economics. This shows that they're contradicting their own premises. The Muslim worldview, however, can be understood in terms of fundamentals. Have you studied Arab and Muslim history? In light of our present context, it's pointless to measure "totally unfree". Rick, you're under-estimating the threat we face. Instead of dancing around with your mental gymnastics you should look at reality.

Stay on topic

Rick Giles's picture

Fundamentalist Christians haven't organized to murder infidels

When our society was about as young as Islam is now, yes we did. The Crusades. And the Ku Klux Klan was only 70yrs ago. Keeping up with Fundamentalist Christians isn't my forte but I wouldn't be surprised at more recent cases.

But why limit yourself to Christians. Fundamentalist hetrosexuals have organised to murder gays, right? Fundamentalist gangs have organised to "hit" rivals, right?

You've actively evaded defining by essentials

On the contrary, I consider the elements in my list to be essentials. Elaborated essentials of course, as per request.

Their society is totally unfree; ours is a mixture of freedom and tyranny.

But their society is not as 'totally unfree' as Osama would have it- and that is the point under discussion.

A culture of death? 1.2billion souls are alive and grow and thrive, you admit, at the very least. Maori stone-age culture, in their 700 years, didn't do as much as this. Australian Aborigionals have been in action even longer than that and achieved far less progress for themselves and many continue to be shackled by it right this minuite! In the history of the world, in the full context of a what a functional and successful culture is, Islam rates very high.

Yet, our way is better- I never suggest otherwise.

Blurring Distinctions

Wayne Simmons's picture

Rick, you're blurring distinctions. No educated Objectivist would deny the parallels between our present culture and Islamic culture. But, the differences matter a helluva lot. Fundamentalist Christians haven't organized to murder infidels. Their society is totally unfree; ours is a mixture of freedom and tyranny. You've actively evaded defining by essentials, and instead have opted for non-essentials and this has lead you to your present conclusions.

Sure thing

Rick Giles's picture

Rick, would you mind elaborating?

Hell, why not? Already arguing on two fronts- let's go for three...

The complex richness of human life needs a guiding culture.
Childhood, birthing, mating, courting, ruling, the elderly,
art, mothering, warfare, pair-bonding, shelter, food,
clothing, hunting, gathering, building, justice, industry,
work ethic, entertainment, technology, adolecence, death,
old-age, money, music, transport, computers, teaching,....
Islam is doing the job, it is doing it for 1.2 billion
people, it has been doing it for 16 hundred years. They
trade with the best of us and are making a large pile of
money. They do oil and they spend their American dollars on
American things and American producers and their
dependencies are very cool with that. They have an
international airline. They saved our bacon in the Dark
Ages. They gave us our mathematical notation and rather a
fair chunk of our science. They're fluffing about with sand
and making a man-made archipelago in the image of The World.

This is a culture of death? Okay then, but so is ours. We have any number of seriously fucked up things in our own culture that handles very poorly those elements in my list above.

Of course that's not news to anybody here. We are here at SOLOpassion, after all, to explicity make war on this fucked up culture of our own world. That's the credo. This too is a a culture of anti-life, of death, too and we seek to right it.

This has been an elaboration of a point. My point is that the doctrine of the worst fundamentalist-Muslim most-wanted nutbar-at-large you can point to, Osama Binlid, does not represent the distilation of all that is good and all that is evil in the culture of Islam.

My take on the matter is

Duncan Bayne's picture

My take on the matter is here.

Explain?

JoeM's picture

Rick, would you mind elaborating?

Not quite right

Rick Giles's picture

Osama Bin Liner: “We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.”

It sure is. Indeed, it fundamentally is.

What the first half-dozen comments of this thread said, I think, shed a bit of light on why this argument is a straw man.

What the enemy stands for

Chris Cathcart's picture

Suicide bombings, beheadings, executions of gays, denial of rights to half the population (women). Death to Salman Rushdie. Death to Israel. 9/11. Safe haven for Osama bin Laden.

I'd like to know how, if we could just "see it from their perspective," we can get to "understand" the propriety of the beheadings.

Maybe we could "understand" how Osama bin Laden remains uncaptured to this day, with the complicity of Islamic-ruled governments.

Fundamentally

Peter Cresswell's picture

Osama Bin Liner: “We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.”

It sure is. Indeed, it fundamentally is.

The basic problem

Rick Pasotto's picture

...representatives from the dark ages who hate the West for its wealth, for its happiness and for its material success.

I do not believe that this hatred is the basic problem. Muslims hate the west because the west is not Muslim. They envy the west for its wealth, happiness, and success and are utterly at a loss to explain that difference since Islam (which they won't give up) is "obviously" the "correct" way to live.

Muslims are confused. Muslims are evading reality. In addition to Islam's essential goal of conquering the world, they are acting like cornered rats — lashing out wherever and whenever they can.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.