Category: “Religion of peace” (MHWA)

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

New Year’s Resolution

My New Year’s resolutions are simple: respond to any idiot who asserts to me that Islam is a “religion of peace” with, “Are you naturally stupid or do you have to work at it?” Apologists for the hate cult that is Islam seem to reason much like Othar Tryggvassen,

“Remember – just because someone is shooting at you, it doesn’t mean they don’t like you. Some habits are just hard to break.”

Yeh, like a 1,400-year-old “habit” of of emulating Mohamed’s mass murder, torture, rape, and pillaging of anyone deemed to be an “unbeliever” in the hate cult that is Islam.

Next up? A resolution to respond much in the same vein to any idiot who believes the “feddle gummint” can solve any problem by any means other than getting out of the way.

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.”

Posted on

No Surprises at All

I doubt that readers here will be surprised by anything in the video below, but I’d encourage you to spread it… and to do as the video suggests and expand your knowledge of The Cult of Hate that is Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

“Know your enemy” is a wise saying indeed… And Islam is, by its own definitive “holy books” YOUR enemy, unless you submit to it.

And further…

[audio:Islamnot4me.mp3]
Posted on

Another “Authority” Weighs In on AGW

Add to the weight of opinion expressed by the Lemming Herd composed of Anthropogenic Climate Change Fanboiz calling themselves scientists, Vacuum-Headed Celebrities and politicians *spit* who are crying “The ski is falling! The sky is falling!” the views now expressed by…

Osama bin Laden.

Now, don’t take me wrong, but I actually have more respect for bin Laden’s point of view than for any from the other groups I cited above. That’s not to say I respect his views at all, only to indicate what sort of respect I give the views of the aforementioned groups of cretinous workers of iniquity.

Posted on

Quick Comment on Argument

Just saw it again in a forum where I have come to expect such things (which is why I don’t frequent the place but just drop by maybe once a month or so): some idiot making a false accusation of “ad hominem attack”. *sigh* I commented there and am cutting/pasting here, with redactions to obscure the original comments.

Saying, “You are a monster, therefore you believe such and so” is an ad hominem attack, because it falsely argues that the cause of a line of argument lies in the character of the arguer. While that may be the case, argument must be made against what a person asserts and not who the person is.

OTOH, saying, “You have done monstrous things, therefore you are a monster” is an arguable assertion and not an ad hominem attack.

And again, simply stating an opinion, based on observation of what someone has said and done that someone–based on the evidence in hand–is a dumbass, idiot, cretin, politician *spit* or some other derogatory appellation, is name-calling that does not fall under the rubric of “ad hominem fallacy” UNLESS it is presented as an argument attempting to refute another’s assertion. Such name-calling may be simply accurate labeling.

Since Mohamed, for example, did monstrous things and commanded that his followers do likewise, we can accurately label him as a monster, but any argument against his teachings must be based on what he said. Now, it may be possible to make the “monster Mohamed” argument against Islam, because Muslims are enjoined to look to Mohamed as the perfect man and to emulate his life. That being the case, we could, I suppose, legitimately argue that Islam is a monstrous hate cult based simply on the life of its founder, since ALL Muslim are to emulate him (Muslim females are to simply be the properly submissive property of some man, as taught and demonstrated by Mohamed), and his life and teachings are examples of monstrous, evil behavior.

Accuracy in labeling doesn’t have to equal ad hominem attacks.