If you want to know what this blog is about, read this FIRST:
or LISTEN: JoeKodayPodcast
The Cult Of Mohammed created this conundrum:"If a man is a bad Moslem, he is a good Moslem."This has two meanings, (a) If the Moslem man is a horrible terrorist in the eyes of we infidels, then that man is "a very good Moslem worthy of praise" by other fervent Moslems since he is following all of Mohammed's teachings and the explicit directions in the Koran,or (b) if the man is a very lackadaisical Moslem and does not strictly follow the Islamic ways on how to treat infidels or lives a secular Western lifestyle, in other Moslems' eyes he is a very irreligious or bad Moslem, a Moslem worthy of much scorn, but one of whom we infidels think must be a "good Moslem".
Unquestionable parallels. Socialists resort to mass graves as soon as they get the chance. Just have to collect enough goons first.
Trenchant, Cogent and Timely. Thank you!
I have noticed that even while discussing theoretical situations with FeMarxist-Collectivists, that when they are logically trapped they often resort to the suggestion that you solve the puzzle by killing yourself (but, the problem of Marxism not working with humans is a failure of their theory, not my life!). Eliminating fundamental disagreement (disagreers) always works for them on the collectivist road to a new-man utopia. pdxr13
Thank you for your great comments.I am so weary of the deliberate deflections about true Islam and its doctrine and the continual repackaging of it so it is palatable to the classically liberal mind.Our military FAO/ROAs (Foreign Area Officers) who have extensive training in language, culture and what Islamic doctrine actually is labor under no such delusions.I understand “Godwin’s Rule” WRT making comparisons to Nazis and their brand of socialist doctrine. However, when examining Islam, the comparison is not only valid but necessary. Hitler had an alliance with the Grand Mufti of Jerusaleum, who was given office space and staff in Berlin. Hitler often expressed his admiration for the Islamists, stating in a public speech:“The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France”.In biographical info published about Hitler by his closest advisors, they explain that Hitler admired the ruthlessness of which Islamists spread their doctrine, and was quite happy to exploit that, as he felt that in the very end the triumphant ethnically pure Germans, once they had control over all of Europe, would then deal with the Islamists and take control of their terrorities as well. The modern day Progressives hew to the same belief. They are in admiration with the ruthlessness with which Islamists gain power and control, and even provide aid, cover and comfort, because in the end, they feel that they will also be able to take over and control the Islamists in the final battle for the establishment of the perfect collectivist state.So, when people discuss Islam, Yes, I, ALWAYS, in my mind substitute “Nazi” too see how I would feel about the statement if it wasn't sanitized. For example, the premise, “not all Muslims (Nazis) are bad. There are some very nice Muslims (Nazis).” You begin to see how ridiculous it all is. I refuse to sign up for my own genocide. Islam is not a "Great Religion" deserving of all kinds of state protections and carve-outs, it is a complete top down Totalarian system managed through terror and group force. The very nature of Islam is antithetical to the historical tradition of egalitarian democracy established by the modern West. The two can NOT co-exist.
http://shoebat.com/2015/12/03/88800/Tashfeen Malik (King) is a nom de guerre for a Muslim Jihadist from the annals of Muslim history. As he is known to Muslims “تاشفين ملك الموحدين” Tashfeen Malik Al-Muahideen, in English: Tafhseen King of the Unitarians (Muslims) and the conquerer of the west. The history stems from when Yusuf ibn Tashfin led the Muslim forces in the Battle of Zallaqa/Sagrajas. He came to Andalusia from Morocco to help the Muslims fight against Alfonso VI, eventually achieving victory and allowing the Muslims to remain in Spain for centuries. The battle has been symbolic for Muslim victory against the Christians.
The issue of vetting as bleated by the talking heads and Dept of State types..The details of what the vetting consists of will be illuminating, if they ever make it public knowledge.I hope that the average American will consider that there is NO WAY for American investigators to go to and interview contacts of “refugees” in Syria without getting the ISIS treatment… unless, of course, ISIS gives them a pass. There are some implications in that paragraph that I’ll just let the reader cogitate upon.A real life example from Iraq regarding “paperwork”… all Iraqis were supposed to carry what is called a “Gencia” card… sort of like an official Iraqi citizen ID card. They looked like small passports. The only place they could get them was in Baghdad, but to go TO Baghdad, it was too dangerous. So, locals just made up their own versions and carried those. Same for lic. plates on cars. No matter, because there was no way to query any central database of the Iraqi civil government to check on details. Is Syria better equipped in this regard despite years of catastrophic, internecine warfare? The vetter propagandists would insist they are. Common sense and experience say, “no”.If large portions of Syria are as chaotic as Iraq was/is, how do the people claiming that vetting is taking place propose it will happen? Will they detail platoon size Infantry units as personal escorts to investigators? Will investigators get paid hazardous duty pay? Who, exactly IS doing the vetting? Will they or have they contracted it to locals? If so, who vets THEM? Have they unwittingly or wittingly hired ISIS guys who have cleaned up (shaved, put on a sport coat) to pencil whip this? “Oh, Muhammed bin Muhammed? Nice guy, pro western, not radical, last read “The Feminine Mystique”, would not hurt a fly….One must understand that a vetting process depends entirely upon the VETTERS. Consider the OPM “hack” by “China”…. we are the most advanced nation in the world, spend untold billions on this sort of thing and we get pwned? O.K…. if we were pwned, why at this time? It is bad enough that America has had Jonathan Pollards, Aldritch Ameses and Robert Hansens, but they all PASSED vetting of the highest order. Americans need to keep a healthy skepticism of this and frankly anything emanating from Mordor on the Potomac. Humans are imperfect, got it. But this far down the road to perdition, it went from happenstance, to coincidence, to enemy action.Yours in liberty! Partyzanski
The reason liberals cling to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace while there is great evidence to the contrary - is a s direct offshoot from their moral equivalence philosophy. According to this philosophy you should not say one idea is better than another - they are just different. The goal is to muddle the lines between clear statements of right and wrong, good and bad. Americans must be clear in confirming that our freedoms are clearly better than sharia principles.I thought the correct response to the cartoon fiasco would have been for every cartoonist in a free country publishing a cartoon of mohammed - a clear and unanimous statement of protest. Liberals think we should not offend by publishing cartoons of mohammed and in that acquiesence have decided to live under sharia.
Post a Comment