One of my Facebook friends gave me a link to an article by Dan Gardner . The article, entitled The not so great Islamist menace and published on an Ottawa Citizen web site, is interesting because of the author's attitude. Subsequent to reading the article, I became involved in the reader discussion. While there are several interesting replies, I singled this one out because it deserves a thorough rebuttal which will not fit in the small space allocated by the web site's comment system.
Ozy3
10:03 PM on January 5, 2011
People on this board have actually attacked Gardner for relying on hard facts, rather than promoting warped perceptions that they enjoy. They are angry because Gardner is undermining the luxurious and uncomplicated hatred they feel towards a group linked only by a religious belief. They don't want to question that hatred or see the targets of their anger as human beings. One poster is even implying that Muslims don't deserve sympathy because no matter what he or she may be like as an individual, the religious affiliation renders them unworthy of compassion.
This is the definition of dehumanizing. When Ann Coulter calls for carpet bombing Muslim countries and forcibly converting survivors to Christianity, she gets a standing ovation. But 65 years ago, that idea was called "The Final Solution". How did we forget so quickly when we swore "Never Again"? And these views being aired in Canada, of all places? What have we become? Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/great+Islamist+menace/4058778/story.html#ixzz1AFu2Spcj hard facts
The opening paragraphs are full of attitude & perception, not hard facts. The last two sentences of the second paragraph stands out.
It’s Muslims. Or if you’re a little more careful with your language, it’s radical Muslims, or “Islamists.”
Sorry, Mr. Gardner, responsibility for Islamic terrorism is not the property of any of the three listed entities. Muslims are people who have recited the Shehada three times in Arabic and subsequently obey Allah and his Messenger or whose fathers did. The other two entities are fallacies whose mention is a token of political correctness and factual error.
Responsibility for Islamic terrorism is the province of Islamic doctrine and the texts & clerics who propagate it. The Qur'an sanctifies & mandates terrorism. The hadith & Sira exemplify it for Muslims to emulate.
One subsequent sentence stands out as an exemplar of arrogance in the guise of 'hard facts'.
"So the danger is big and growing, and Islamists are the source. Right?"
When you cite one botched suicide bombing and a Mumbai style attack that was thwarted by good police work, and use them to stake a case that Islamic terror does not pose a real proximate and persistent threat of death and injury, you are not being serious, you are being flippant and arrogant. How many deaths and serious injuries would have resulted if the bomb had not detonated prematurely? Fortunately, we will never know, that blood was not splattered. To assert that the toll would be insignificant to the victims and their families is the height of inhumane indifference.
The perpetrator and frustrated perpetrators had something in common: Islam, which commands them to participate in genocidal world conquest using terrorism as a battle tactic of asymmetrical warfare. Islam, not 'Islamists' is the 'source'.
'Islamists' implies that normative Islam is apolitical, a personal religion. It is not. Islam is a continuing criminal enterprise founded for the personal emolument of its founder through the professional practice of piracy and extortion.
The founder of Islam became a warlord when he emigrated to Yathrib, which he took over and renamed Medina. He seized both 'spiritual' and temporal power. He made all the decisions in his theocracy. Let doubters & dissenters observe what he said in Allah's name in
33:26.
Next we come to the abuse of statistics.
"The European Union’s Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2010 states that in 2009 there were “294 failed, foiled, or successfully executed attacks” in six European countries. This was down almost one-third from the total in 2008 and down by almost one-half from the total in 2007."
Two hundred ninety-four attacks were failed, foiled or executed, in a declining trend. What was the planned scale of those attacks? How many others were in the planning stages but not carried out? Failed and foiled attacks render the threat negligible and of course the trend is irreversible. Tell that to those injured in the most recent failed attack. Tell it to one of the victims seriously injured in Madrid or London. Chortle about it to a father whose wife and child were killed at the school in Beslan. Thank you very much for your vacuum headed assurances.
"As for who’s responsible, forget Islamists. The overwhelming majority of the attacks— 237 of 294 — were carried out by separatist groups, such as the Basque ETA. A further 40 terrorists schemes were pinned on leftist and/or anarchist terrorists. Rightists were responsible for four attacks. Single-issue groups were behind two attacks, while responsibility for a further 10 was not clear."
How many people do the ETA and other splinter groups kill? How does that statistic compare to the number of victims maimed and killed by Muslim terrorists? Its as if the attacks on London, Madrid and Beslan never happened because there were more, smaller attacks by others that failed or were thwarted.
They did it once, they promise to do it again. That is the stuff of terror, of induced paranoia that will eventually make civil society impossible. And it is all reduced to insignificance and dismissed by an irrelevant and reversible statistical trend.
warped perceptions
Here we have a thinly veiled ad hominem attack, totally devoid of substance; a prime exemplar of innuendo.
luxurious hatred
Critics of Islam are accused of bigotry because we object to the unholy consequences of damnable doctrines which impel men to the most barbarian acts of mass murder in the name of their demon who demands blood sacrifice: "great slaughter".
religious belief
They believe that they have a divine mandate to conquer and subjugate the entire world; a divine license to kill us, rape our widows, enslave our children and seize our real and personal property for their own profit. We are supposed to respect & tolerate that belief and allow them to implement it. Yeah, right.
- 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
- 33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
- "My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.'' [The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah]
- Relevant Islamic law
- Reliance of the Traveller
- o9.0 jihad defined
- o9.1 religious obligation thereof & Islamic initiative
- o9.8 perpetual war on Jews & Christians
- o9.13 captive women and children enslaved
- Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
targets of their anger
Here we have an exemplar of the victim card. Muslims are victims because we react with anger to their attacks upon us. Resistance is evil, we should surrender, submit and suffer enslavement instead. Yeah, right.
religious affiliation renders them unworthy of compassion
The innuendo continues. LibTards can't comprehend the intrinsic evil of Islam. The fact that most Muslims are victims of Islam changes nothing. They impose it on new victims. There are two possible ways to break the cycle: emancipate them from slavery to Allah or kill them.
dehumanizing
Moe dehumanized his companions by enslaving them to Allah, for whom they fight, kill and are killed. LibTards can not comprehend the meaning of believers. The infliction of Islam is similar to a vampire bite, it dehumanizes its victims.
Ann Coulter
Ann's excellent suggestion, expressed in hyperbole, has the ring of truth which LibTards can't hear. Because Allah promises victory and makes the Muslim's eternal destiny dependent on participation in jihad, When you believe that you will go to Hell if you don't go to war, you go to war. Because of that doctrine, Islam can not be defeated, it must be eradicated, a fatal fact which LibTards can not comprehend.
"The Final Solution"
The innuendo continues with linkage to Hitler. Were Jews conspiring to dominate the world? Were they genetically inferior, carriers of disease and spreaders of insurrection? Were Jews behind every problem suffered by Germany? The fact is that Jews were scapegoated, used as convenient targets to focus undeserved anger and hatred.
"Never Again"
Why should there be a pogrom against Jews? What Hitler did was a horrific crime against humanity: genocide against innocent people. The arrogant LibTard calumniates those of us who criticize and condemn Islam by suggesting that we want to emulate Hitler's genocide. In reality, we want to preserve ourselves and innocent humanity from intra-species predation by Muslims motivated by Islam which promises them eternity in Allah's celestial bordello if they wage war against us and threatens them with eternal Hellfire if they refuse. We very much prefer to emancipate Muslims from Allah's yoke of slavery by fighting the war on the ideological front. Unfortunately, our governments lack the intelligence and courage to wage the intellectual war. If they do not wise up soon we will eventually be forced to resort to nukes.
We can have life, liberty and prosperity or we can have Islam, we can not have both. Which do you chose? How do you chose to defeat Islam?
Will you sign these petitions, cross post them and propagate them by email or are you part of the problem?
