The horrendous massacre perpetrated by an extremely misguided individual in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, has now been made the responsibility and liability of the anti-Jihadi bloggers by the news media.
This was the predicable response to such a rampage. Even if the mass murderer hadn't left behind a 1500 page manifesto in which people like Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) were extensively quoted, just the fact he was anti-Islam would have been enough. Making the bad situation worse (if true) and providing even more ammunition for use by the soft-heads, it's being reported that Breivik is claiming he had support from two "cells" in the attacks.
This was the predicable response to such a rampage. Even if the mass murderer hadn't left behind a 1500 page manifesto in which people like Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) were extensively quoted, just the fact he was anti-Islam would have been enough. Making the bad situation worse (if true) and providing even more ammunition for use by the soft-heads, it's being reported that Breivik is claiming he had support from two "cells" in the attacks.
The incident was horrifying and has destroyed many lives. It is a natural tendency to want to assign blame, but any statements laying the blame at the feet of people telling the truth about Islam, like this idiocy from some soft-headed former CIA agent, are completely irresponsible on all levels.
Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”[source]
Preemptive violence at the hands of civilians will not be successful at stopping the Jihad in the West. People will just get arrested and go to prison. I'm fairly certain all the bloggers I read regularly are keenly aware of that fact and I know for sure they do not call for violence on their blogs. Islam preaches death and destruction, because it's written in the Qur'an. It is nothing but nonsense to compare the writings of anti-Jihadists to the murderous ramblings which form the basis of Islamic terrorism (Muhammad's commands).
Qur'an (9:5) And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
In the past, I have personally been accused of calling for violence, but in reality, since I believe there is absolutely no merit in violent tactics when it comes to dealing with Jihad in the West, I do not support violence as a means of redressing our current plight. Sinking to the level of Muslims, inflicting terror, killing political opponents, or anything else along those lines in Western countries, only does damage to the counter-Jihad and hinders the effort to eradicate the threat posed by Islam.
(Muslims have been known to come looking for their virgins, that type of defensive violence is a whole different subject and I support it 100%. Send them to allah, that's where they want to go. Also, dealing with the Jihad in Islamic countries is something entirely different and requires both military force and ideological might to come out victorious. I'm speaking strictly to "the peoples'" actions in America and the West.)
In the case of Breivik's, carrying out the mass murder of young people, under the guise of fighting Islam (the barbaric cult of the child raping Prophet) and mutli-culturalism, has only made the Jihad stronger. It has given credence to the Jihadist's Islamaphobia nonsense and reinforced the arguments of the blabbering morons on the left. Those insufferable loud-mouths, who are too stupid and drunk on "tolerance" to recognize they are in danger, will forever call this example to any argument about Islam and the Muslim terrorists will never let this one go. It will become a permanent fixture within the "Islamaphobia" PR-Jihad and we are not ever going to hear the end of it.
For the record, I believe that the real battle to end the Jihad of the West is almost entirely about "waking up" the masses to the threat of Islam. I believe blowing up the leftists or shooting at Muslims (except in the case of being attacked) is extremely harmful to successfully accomplishing that most critical aspect of defeating Islam.
The counter-Jihad is primarily an ideological battle wrapped in an information war and must be fought in accordance with that reality.
As with any ideological fight, taking out the Jihad is fundamentally about establishing the moral high-ground and getting enough people "on our side". In any civilized nation, in direct contrast to Muslim nations, it is entirely impossible to establish and maintain "moral superiority" while engaging in political killings. In this particular fight, violence is counter-productive, especially given the fact most people are completely ignorant of Islam and have no idea what level of danger they are in.
I simply do not believe that Islam can be defeated in America, or anywhere in the West for that matter, by adopting the tactics of Muslims. I do not support or suggest violence given the current variables that are at play, and none of the well-known bloggers being blamed by various news outlets are calling for violence either. They are calling for mass education and activism for the expressed or implied purpose of bringing about political change.
(In my case, the political change desired is the banning of all forms of Islam and the deportation of every Muslim.)
Artificially forcing responsibility to the feet of those merely telling the truth about Islam only drums up undue hatred toward them. That in itself has the potential to "inspire" violence against another group of innocent people and make the whole situation even more tragic. It's unfortunate that does not appear to matter to the leftist lunatics in the media.
The bottom-line is that the heinous acts of Anders Behring Breivik are simply that. His insanity is not the fault of "conservatives" or a small group of anti-Islam bloggers as the media has been trying to make everyone believe. The facts simply do not support any legitimate correlation of cause and effect or intent and outcome.
Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”[source]
Preemptive violence at the hands of civilians will not be successful at stopping the Jihad in the West. People will just get arrested and go to prison. I'm fairly certain all the bloggers I read regularly are keenly aware of that fact and I know for sure they do not call for violence on their blogs. Islam preaches death and destruction, because it's written in the Qur'an. It is nothing but nonsense to compare the writings of anti-Jihadists to the murderous ramblings which form the basis of Islamic terrorism (Muhammad's commands).
Qur'an (9:5) And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
In the past, I have personally been accused of calling for violence, but in reality, since I believe there is absolutely no merit in violent tactics when it comes to dealing with Jihad in the West, I do not support violence as a means of redressing our current plight. Sinking to the level of Muslims, inflicting terror, killing political opponents, or anything else along those lines in Western countries, only does damage to the counter-Jihad and hinders the effort to eradicate the threat posed by Islam.
(Muslims have been known to come looking for their virgins, that type of defensive violence is a whole different subject and I support it 100%. Send them to allah, that's where they want to go. Also, dealing with the Jihad in Islamic countries is something entirely different and requires both military force and ideological might to come out victorious. I'm speaking strictly to "the peoples'" actions in America and the West.)
In the case of Breivik's, carrying out the mass murder of young people, under the guise of fighting Islam (the barbaric cult of the child raping Prophet) and mutli-culturalism, has only made the Jihad stronger. It has given credence to the Jihadist's Islamaphobia nonsense and reinforced the arguments of the blabbering morons on the left. Those insufferable loud-mouths, who are too stupid and drunk on "tolerance" to recognize they are in danger, will forever call this example to any argument about Islam and the Muslim terrorists will never let this one go. It will become a permanent fixture within the "Islamaphobia" PR-Jihad and we are not ever going to hear the end of it.
For the record, I believe that the real battle to end the Jihad of the West is almost entirely about "waking up" the masses to the threat of Islam. I believe blowing up the leftists or shooting at Muslims (except in the case of being attacked) is extremely harmful to successfully accomplishing that most critical aspect of defeating Islam.
The counter-Jihad is primarily an ideological battle wrapped in an information war and must be fought in accordance with that reality.
As with any ideological fight, taking out the Jihad is fundamentally about establishing the moral high-ground and getting enough people "on our side". In any civilized nation, in direct contrast to Muslim nations, it is entirely impossible to establish and maintain "moral superiority" while engaging in political killings. In this particular fight, violence is counter-productive, especially given the fact most people are completely ignorant of Islam and have no idea what level of danger they are in.
I simply do not believe that Islam can be defeated in America, or anywhere in the West for that matter, by adopting the tactics of Muslims. I do not support or suggest violence given the current variables that are at play, and none of the well-known bloggers being blamed by various news outlets are calling for violence either. They are calling for mass education and activism for the expressed or implied purpose of bringing about political change.
(In my case, the political change desired is the banning of all forms of Islam and the deportation of every Muslim.)
Artificially forcing responsibility to the feet of those merely telling the truth about Islam only drums up undue hatred toward them. That in itself has the potential to "inspire" violence against another group of innocent people and make the whole situation even more tragic. It's unfortunate that does not appear to matter to the leftist lunatics in the media.
The bottom-line is that the heinous acts of Anders Behring Breivik are simply that. His insanity is not the fault of "conservatives" or a small group of anti-Islam bloggers as the media has been trying to make everyone believe. The facts simply do not support any legitimate correlation of cause and effect or intent and outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment