I’ll try to be brief, but this subject is really larger than any blogpost. Nevertheless, here’s a look into what is right with civilized behavior and wrong with Islamofascist apologists… just bend your ear a bit.
Justice is essential for a civilized society to survive. Absent a demonstable committment to valuing and protecting the rights of its citizens, a society cannot be considered civilization as Western Civilization has come to understand the term. Of course, “justice” has nothing to do with protection of life and liberty or even with fairness in the minds and deeds of multi-cultural relativists. And “justice” that recognizes the basic human rights of others has no place in conservative Islamic thought, let alone the “thought” of Islamic jihadist savages.
In order to protect the basic human rights of others, Judeo-Christian philosophy of civil government cedes “the sword” to civil authority that those who would seek to steal and kill and destroy might fear dreadful punishment.
Islam, recognizing no basic human rights for half of their own (women), recognizes only the right of infidels to either convert or die, if they serve no other purpose (slavery, objects of deceit in business, politics, diplomacy, etc.).
Multi-cultural relativists assert that the Islamic way is as good as (or better than) the Judeo-Christian tradition that asserts basic human rights for all and civil government’s primary responsibility to protect the life, limb and property of its citizens.
Multi-cultural relativists are disingenuous traitors to their own societies, useful tools for the destruction of Justice.
So, my multiple assertions that every Islamic person, for example, who does not act to do everything within their power to stop those they claim are hijacking Islam is guilty of aiding and abetting in the monstrous acts committed by the Islamofascist monsters that are their sons and brothers and cousins and friends is simply a matter of pointing out that absent a cultural support for their evil, the Islamofascist monsters would find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to commit their monstrous acts.
In Britain, the Muslims are disingenuously crying “Wolf, wolf” about a possible backlash against the Muslim “community,” all the while failing to clean out the hate speech regularly spewed forth in their mosques, exhorting the “faithful” to join jihad, kill Westerners, etc.
Justice (and the protective function of civil government) would demand that if they fail to clean such filth out of their own midst, then they, too, should be treated as an integral part of the problem. Hence my slightly over-the-top call for Europe (and the U.S.) to expel all Muslims and let thenm fight out any differences they may have someplace safely away from our shores…
But the sticking point for some is that justice demands, demands death for the savages who commit such acts as the London bombings. And not just the ones who set the bombs. The ones who in any way aided, funded, kept silent, turned a blind eye to the planning and execution of those acts.
Death for them as an affirmation of the value of the lives taken by them.
Death for them—brutal, public and sure—as a demonstration to those with similar ideas (and as a reminder to a civilized society of how horrible the death penalty is, and how it MUST be reserved for monsters such as these, as a reminder to exercise the death penalty humbly, remembering that these monsters are almost human).
Death for them to cleanse the world of what filth we can.
Death for each and every person directly involved and who can be demonstrated to have aided them in any way as a demonstration of society’s resolve to simply not allow this sort of behavior.
But.
Mercy.
As I noted in a comment to a post below, mercy is undeserved forgiveness. And we ought all to make every effort to forgive those who have wronged us. But.
“…in order for mercy to be recieved, genuine remorse and a willingness to make recompense must be expressed by the offending party. Otherwise, mercy is just wasting compassion on a subject who has _no desire_ to deserve it, or to return compassion toward those he has victimized.Mercy when justice is observed can only be extended to those who recognize their wrong, feel and express genuine remorse and are willing to accept just punishment for their wrong.Absent any one of those elements, mercy is not merciful at all, simply wasted ‘feelgoodyness’…”#
To repeat: Forgiveness is possible for anything, but justice demands that mercy not be extended to those who have no remorse for their acts. As I said elsewhere, if or when an Islamofascist savage sees the light, realizes how monstrous his actions have been and feels (and seeks to demonstrate) genuine remorse, I’d have little difficulty forgiving them. Of course, once such a person realized just how monstrous they had been, it might just be the greatest of mercies to pull the switch on them. What moral person would want to live, having wrongfully killed and maimed and destroyed…
Humility? Our hands, individually and as a society are not clean. No, I’m not asserting that the U.S. or Britain or the West as a whole is responsible for inciting Islamofascist atrocities. That’s simply bushwah. No, who among us has not wronged others? Who among us have not rationalized petty (or major) theft, hatred or undue acts of anger? And how often has our society had to right wrongs we as a society, a nation, a culture have committed?
Of course, one difference between us and the Islamofascist monsters of 9/11 and 7/7 (and hundreds of other acts of brutal muder in between) is that we do ask such questions; we do generally seek to be better people in our relations with others and as a society. All Islam can see—according to their “holy writ”—is “the faithful” and the “infidel.” And that is enough to have me press to seek protection and preservation of our society as better than theirs via steadfast exercise of justice, tempered by mercy for those who demonstrate* genuine remorse and seek to make what amends thay can, while looking honestly at our own failures; not with the jaundiced eye of multi-culturalist realtivism which sees only fault (when often there is none) or the rosy-colored glasses of the rabid chauvinist who refuses to see any wrong in himself or his country whatsoever.
Illustrative of this huge difference between the West and Islam as a whole is what our military was already doing to prosecute the tame abuse at Abu Ghraib—long before the Mass Media Podpeople began their jihad against the U.S. military’s behavior there—and the yawning acceptance (or even celebration!) of the “Arab street” every time some non-combatant Westerner has his head sawn off by an Islamofascist butcher.
We are better than they are. (But true humility—seeing ourselves as we truly are—would compel any of us to admit that being “better” than they are is damning with faint praise.) Still, unless we show unremitting resolve to prosecute the war they have pressed on us; unless we seek to mete out justice with an iron fist (careful to allow for mercy; humbly examining both our motives and methods) then we will reap what wusses always reap when backing down from bullies: ever more and more abuse.
*demonstrate genuine remorse? A good starting point would be public admissions of guilt and remorse; public apologies and private sharing of ALL information possible in order to bring down fellow Islamofascist savages. That would be a start. Enough to demonstrate genuine remorse? Maybe. But probably not…
Let me ask you: what would be enough to convince you that an Islamofascist butcher were genuinely, truly convinced of their guilt, truly remorseful and repentant?
It’d be kinda difficult to demonstrate convincingly, would it not?