Category: Islamic Savages

Posted on

Remembering 9/11

Kipling told us how best to deal with Muslim savages:

The Grave of the Hundred Heads

There’s a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There’s a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there’s Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

A Snider squibbed in the jungle,
Somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris
Picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead
And the back blown out of his head.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Jemadar Hira Lal,
Took command of the party,
Twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river
As the day was beginning to fall.

They buried the boy by the river,
A blanket over his face —
They wept for their dead Lieutenant,
The men of an alien race —
They made a samadh in his honor,
A mark for his resting-place.

For they swore by the Holy Water,
They swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib
Should go to his God in state;
With fifty file of Burman
To open him Heaven’s gate.

The men of the First Shikaris
Marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village,
The village of Pabengmay —
A jingal covered the clearing,
Calthrops hampered the way.

Subadar Prag Tewarri,
Bidding them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles
Under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party
With Jemadar Hira Lal.

The men of the First Shikaris
Shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal
On to the howling crew.
The Jemadar’s flanking-party
Butchered the folk who flew.

Long was the morn of slaughter,
Long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken,
Five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back to their grave again,

Each man bearing a basket
Red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village —
The village of Pabengmay,
And the “drip-drip-drip” from the baskets
Reddened the grass by the way.

They made a pile of their trophies
High as a tall man’s chin,
Head upon head distorted,
Set in a sightless grin,
Anger and pain and terror
Stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.

Subadar Prag Tewarri
Put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph,
The head of his son below,
With the sword and the peacock-banner
That the world might behold and know.

Thus the samadh was perfect,
Thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris —
The price of a white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris
Went back into camp again.

Then a silence came to the river,
A hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed,
And Sniders squibbed no more;
For he Burmans said
That a kullah’s head
Must be paid for with heads five score.

There’s a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There’s a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there’s Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

Idiots who refuse to learn the lessons of history will quail at Kipling’s prescription, but realists know that Islam = hate cult and the only EFFECTIVE argument against Muslim savages is genuine, RATIONAL fear of reprisals more brutal than their own savagery. Ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times the numbers of deaths of Islamic savages for every non-combatant they kill. Escalate the body count until they give up or cease to exist.

Period.

It’s only right. They started it*; we ought to finish it.

Yep. They started it with the first massacre of non-combatants, meeting under a truce, performed by Mohamed and his band of thugs. Policy set (kill “unbelievers” who refuse to submit, whenever and wherever possible; enslave and rape their women and children; pillage their goods). And so it has been from the beginning to this day: genuine Muslims are savage thugs, liars, cheats, rapists, slavers and thieves. Mohamed commanded them to be so. The world would be better off were the US to borrow and spend The Zero’s new “stimulus” (jack off) money sending out SOG teams to gather heads of jihadis. Now, that’s a “stimulus package” I could get behind!

Posted on

Was Pollyanna Stupid or Evil?

It’s a tough question. If you’re unfamiliar with the reference, take some time out. I’ll wait. Meanwhile, I’ll leave this here for interim consderation:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.–Napoleon Bonaparte (ascribed)

There is such a thing as human evil. I’ll allow no argument on that point, because any argument otherwise is simply either stupid* or evil. Period. So, accept as axiomatic that human evil exists. Is it then stupid or evil to look human evil in the face and see good? (I’ll allow a third option: insanity.)

Examples abound:

Idiots who defend Islam as a “religion of peace”. Stupidity or witting enabling of the evil hate cult of Islam?

People who assert that America is an unjust society, because we have people they class as poor? Evil or stupid? Consider this:

Ahhh, I’m tired of this already, and my BP is starting to climb… *sigh*

So, are those who are enablers of the hate cult of the Butcher of Medina evil or stupid (or both–likely, IMO)?

Are those who seem to be actively attempting to destroy our society via such activities as encouraging the kleptocratic “gimme” culture evil or stupid (or both–likely, IMO)?

And when do we stop ascribing destructive behaviors to stupidity alone and start calling it malice?

Yes, I aborted a bunch of stupid/evil material ranging from “pro-choice” (which is really, “Deny ANY choice to the unborn”), “Edumacation”, the Thugs Standing Around program of full employment for goons and petty tyrants, and “feddle gummint” tyrannical meddling in citizens’ lives while actively enabling outlaws to The Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Scare-ism and numerous points in between. One can select any issue dominated by the lies of the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, politicians *gag-spew* and Academia Nut Fruitcakes and plug it right into the “Stupid or Evil” matrix for consideration.

*I include in my use of “stupid” acts of witting, deliberate avoidance of facts. Witting, deliberate distortion of facts is evil–slander against truth.

Posted on

Bin Laden, etc., *yawn*

Haven’t listened to The Zero’s speech, but did read a transcript, and it pretty much followed the pattern I predicted last night:

Modest prediction: tomorrow, I’ll say at some point, “Oh, dear me. Did I ‘miss’ The Zero preening and essentially claiming, ‘Mission Accomplished’ (yet another lie as really he has yet to complete his self-assigned mission of the complete and total destruction of the United States… )?”

So, what was the format? Three paragraphs of 9/11 scene-setting oratory, one paragraph of thinly-disguised “blame Bush,” and then three paragraphs of “I, I, I, me, me, me” preening. One brief paragraph faintly praising the guys whose paychecks he wanted to cut off if there’d been a budget shutdown and a reprise of the first three paragraphs.

And the evidence is buried at sea, “…at my directive…” (The Zero)

Yep, pretty much what I expected, and instead of losing almost ten minutes of my life listening to one if the most boring public speakers in the world drone on, I spent two minutes reading the thing.

But really, *yawn* Bin Laden’s confirmed dead, so? The rest of the Saudis are still wasting oxygen. I’d be willing to give The Zero some credit (from zero up to a score of maybe 20 on a 100 point scale) if he were to do what Bush refused to do: recognize that the Saudis have been the primary funder of worldwide jihadist terrorists and authorize their complete extirpation.

Oh, and just take their oil. Reparations, you know.

Posted on

All You Really Need to Do Is Just Pay Attention

Seriously. Recall The Zero’s blather last week wandering around in search of a justification for his Libyan adventure? The key comment was buried in the toxic fecal matter that issued from his pie hole:

“I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us.”

In order to discern what those “core principles” he refers to are, we need to ask a few questions:

WHO is The Zero saying that “we” share these “core principles” with?

Answer: Islamic savages on one side of a conflict to decide which set of Islamic savages will be in power in Libya.

WHAT are the “core principles guiding the Islamic savages on both sides of the conflict?

Well, let’s see: both sides profess to revere as the perfect man to emulate in all manner of life a man whose life and teachings demonstrate (and teach as proper) the rape and brutalization of women, mass murder, that it is right and proper to steal anything not nailed down (as long as it is the property of “unbelievers”), applaud pedophiles, and believe the “kafir” (which means anyone who’s not an Islamic savage, including almost all those idiots who voted for The Zero) is good only for butcher sport and plunder, etc.

WHO is this “we” The Zero refers to?

Surely not you and I? Do you and I share the “core principles” that guide Muslims? Do you revere a “prophet” whose life and teachings DEMAND that his followers commit mass murder, rape, pillage, abuse of women, slavery, and such like? Well, I can’t be absolutely sure about you, but I’m not a part of any “we” that shares those values. Obviously the “we” The Zero refers to does share those “core principles” with the group of Islamic savages The Zero has aligned himself with, so that “we” must be Muslims.

Then again, since Mohamed also taught–both in word and deed*–that lying to “unbelievers” to advance his cause is not only permissible but required if force alone cannot advance the aims of Islam, then he could also just be blowing smoke up our skirts by asserting the “we” part of the statement. He could be standing alone in his siding with one group of Islamic savages against another group of Islamic savages.

Or he could be using a “royal ‘we'”.

Or maybe he had a mouse in his pocket.

*Remember: The Butcher of Medina earned that sobriquet via his first “great victory”–the massacre of the Jews of what is now Medina after he had drawn them out, unarmed, under a flag of truce. Then, of course, he rewarded his band of thugs by sharing the rape of the women and the plunder with them.

Sweet guy.

h.t. to TF for reminding me of The Zero’s lil slip up.

Posted on

About Those So-Called “Contributions to Civilization”

The Islamic world is credited with slightly more than a few contributions to civilization: algebra, so-called”Arabic” numerals, the sphericity of the Earth, etc.

Let’s take a look at these and then ask a more pertinent question. Algebra–invented by Muslims? Not. Stolen from Hindu mathematicians and used by Islamic “scholars” mostly for asstrology. Heck, not just stolen, crippled by the removal of the concept of negative numbers as being inconsistent with Islam.

“Arabic” numerals? Again, stolen from Hindus.

The sphericity of the Earth? Propounded by Pythagoras in the fifth century B.C. and, quite contrary to the myth passed around today, commonly accepted by scholars throughout the West from his day until now.

And so it goes with Muslim “contributions” to civilization. Heck, Averoes, the single “greatest” Muslim “scientist” had as his magnum opus not anything discovered by him but a commentary on… Aristotle (an “unbeliever”–well, he had to be, since he predated that mass murdering, savage con man, Mohamed, by centuries).

More, what has Islam “contributed” (read for “contributed” “stolen, hoarded and parceled out abstemiously at great price or had hornswaggled from the greedy grasp of barbaric Muslims”) since its first few hundred years of conquest and pillage?

Zip. Nothing that could not be found elsewhere first and better for not having passed through Muslim hands.

Of course, this is why Muslims feel the need to make exorbitant and unwarranted claims about Muslim “contributions” to civilization. They ave essentially made none, and deep, deep down justly feel inferior. Their entire world view is to blame, of course. Any world view that can revere the sayings of a mass murdering piece of dog vomit like Mohamed is a world view of savages.

But all this begs the question asked by Stanislaw Lec,

“Is it progress if a cannibal uses a knife and fork?”

Or, more applicable to today,

“Is it progress if a follower of the mass murderer, rapist, slaver, torturer and serial liar, Mohammed, steals the technology to build his own atomic bomb?”

Posted on

Moderate Muslims? Pull the Other One

I was recently taken to task by a disingenuous arguer for stating that there simply are no “moderate Muslims”–that by Islam’s definition of “Muslim” such creatures simply cannot exist.

So, what, to a dim-witted, uninformed, Westerner who’s been lobotomized by years of drinking the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind KoolAid, is a “Moderate Muslim”? Well, the “Muslims Against Sharia” blog pretty much details the features of this mythical creature:

(CLICK to embiggen)

Strange that these folks call themselves “Muslims” since every single one of the characteristics they claim for so-called “Moderate Muslims” would cause their heads to be severed from their bodies were Mohamed to be alive and catch them. “Muslim” means “submitted”. Submitted to what? To the word of Mohamed. NONE of those characteristics cited for “moderate Muslims” are compatible with Islam as “revealed” by Mohamed. Any even semi-literate dumbass from the left side of the bell curve can discern as much from a simple read-through of any translation of the Koran. Sure, there are some “peaceful” verses (basically just plagiarized from Christian and Jewish writings) from Mohamed’s early, “Mecca”, days that soi disant “moderate Muslims” refer to in order to claim their religion is peaceful. But Mohamed is the final arbiter of truth in Islam–it’s black letter law to Islam, essential, fundamental doctrine. And Mohamed himself said, unequivocally, that any time two sayings of his conflicted, the latter saying was–not just preferred!–supersedes, indeed abrogates, the former. Period. And what sayings of Mohamed supersede the “peaceful” Meccan verses? Well, of course it is the violent Medinan verses that require the subjugation, torture and/or death of “unbelievers” at the hands of Muslims whenever and wherever possible. And if it is not possible to subjugate or kill unbelievers, Mohamed provided a special little dispensation for the Muslim: lie to the unbelievers.

So, as far as I can tell, from reading translations of the Koran and more from the Hadith and Sunna, there are no “moderate Muslims”. But there may be one or more classes of people who claim to be “moderate Muslims” and profess to believe the things in the graphic above.

1. Heretics against Islam. There may actually be some of these apostates who nevertheless falsely claim to be Muslims. Could be.
2. Genuine Muslims lying to foolish non-Muslims in order to deceive them and take advantage of foolish non-Muslims’ ignorance and stupidity.
3. Subliterate morons who have no idea what the Koran actually says and claim to be Muslims out of their ignorance.

Those are the ONLY classes of so-called “Moderate Muslims”. Period. Full stop. Placing any credence in the professions of any of these people is beyond foolish. It is foolishly dangerous. More, allowing people who, by the mandates of their own central, essential, fundamental religious doctrine, as clearly and unequivocally stated by their own “perfect” prophet, are required to be our enemies, required to subjugate or kill us, to frame the debate is tantamount to assisting them in our own suicide.

I could only hope for some self-proclaimed “moderate Muslim” to attempt debate on this issue (probably citing some Meccan verses in support of their lies). Only the most idiotic would attempt to do so, though, so tearing them a new one wouldn’t be all that much fun. *sigh*

BTW, before the lil piggie raises its head, the ONLY substantive difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims is the question of who should have inherited Mohamed’s authority. On questions of doctrine, there’s no real differences at all. It’s all political. But they’ll kill each other over the political differences and each claim (legitimate!) justification for doing so directly from Mohamed’s mouth.

Posted on

Old News from Afghanistan?

Well, maybe time-lagged information, another confirmation, but scarcely “news” for those of us who’ve been paying attention to Dhimmicrappic treatment of Islamic savages. From this article,

“One video, captured recently by the thermal-imagery technology housed in a sniper rifle, shows two Talibs in southern Afghanistan engaged in intimate relations with a donkey.”

I didn’t know the Democratic Leadership had taken a tour of Afghanistan, until now…

Of course, the following sentence confirmed that one leading Dhimmicrap–Nancy Pelosi, from the sound of it–was there:

“Similar videos abound, including ground-surveillance footage that records a Talib fighter gratifying himself with a cow.”