The Awl Pierces Breivik, Skewering Geller, Spencer and Others
Abe Sauer , posted at the Awl, what he obviously thinks is a sharp attack upon authors, speakers & bloggers who expose the core doctrines of Islam to public scrutiny. Lets take a closer look.
After years of ratcheted-up rhetoric, it was only a matter of time before some right-winger deduced to take what he saw as the natural next step.
In 1995, President Clinton tried to blame McVeigh's OKC bombing on Rush Limbaugh. But Rush never suggested that anyone should blow up a federal office building or otherwise engage in militant rebellion. The accusation was a completely unwarranted by facts and logic. Six years later, LibTards employ the same tired tactic against Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and others who expose Islam. "Only a matter of time": a cause--effect relationship is postulated where none exists. The rational critics of Islam are neither ordering nor inciting bombings & shooting sprees. They are publishing relevant facts and logical observations on those facts. If Geller or Spencer had suggested or demanded vigilantism, Sauer would be dancing around the may pole chortling with glee about it. He ain't because they didn't. "Some right winger": In 1964 it was all about cries of "right wing" & "extremism". No logical or factual argument was levied against Goldwater because none was possible. No logical or factual argument is possible against Geller & Spencer; instead, the LibTards resort to argumentum ad hominem. Loaded words don't cut the mustard. There is often a difference between the apparent target and the real objective. The present case is exemplary. Eventually, Sauer gets down to his real target.
Bachmann has long cozied to anti-Muslim activists, understanding that the passion behind their single-issue support makes noise for candidates. As a presidential candidate, she signed the anti-Sharia pledge, which won her praise with the likes of bloggers like Robert Spencer, author of Jihad Watch, a blog cited numerous times by Breivik as inspirational.
Presidential politics is not incidental to the matter, it is central; this is a direct smear aimed at one of the leading contenders for the '12 Republican nomination. How does one grapple with loaded phrases such as "cozied to" ? "Anti-Muslim activists" are assumed to be the focus of evil in the modern world, without factual or logical basis for the assumption. First Sauer smears Geller & spencer, next he associates a presidential aspirent with them to smear her. "Cited numerous times by Breivik as inspirational": Breivik obtained information from Spencer's writings, not inspiration. Inspiration comes from exemplars, not teachers. It is obvious that Breivik's inspiration comes from McVeigh's bomb technology and Muslim terrorists' numerous shooting attacks.
In his manifesto, Breivik recommended both Geller and Spencer for guidance.
If he was guided by Geller & Spencer, Breivik would have confined his activities to education & lobbying, avoiding violence. He obtained factual information from them, but not guidance. Observe the flow of loaded words in this excerpt.
Even more mainstream writers are tied to the populist vilification of Islam. The National Review now regularly partners with the topic, as its reader base longs for more information on the impending threat of America's Islamification. National Review writer Andrew McCarthy put his name on a book called "Shariah: The Threat to America."
"Populist vilification": the pot calls the kettle black. As more people become informed of Islam's core doctrines & practices, the movement grows. It is popular, not populist. This is not about a contest between the elite and uninformed mobs, it is a contest between the self-anointed elite deceivers and an increasingly informed segment of the electorate, a segment of which the elite are becoming increasingly afraid. "Mainstream" is not a term LibTards use to describe The National Review, instead, they would label it "right wing extremist". Andrew McCarthy was a federal prosecutor who built the case against the Sheikh behind the first WTC attack. He found it necessary to study the Qur'an & hadith in building his case. Because he learned what Shari'ah really is, from the original sources, he is smeared as a populist engaged in vilification of Islam. Observe how the language is perverted in the next excerpt.
In Tennessee, the law even defines Sharia as "a legal-political-military doctrinal system." Lawmakers said the bill was necessary to prevent "homegrown terror," which would be funny today if it were not tragic.
Terrorism is a doctrine and practice of Islam, enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Moe's sunnah. Home grown or imported, terrorism is terrorism. As used by the proponents of anti-Shari'ah legislation, terrorism refers to Islamic terrorism. Breivik is home grown, and a terrorist inspired by his enemy's example. Terrorism is a battle tactic: a means of weakening their victims; rendering them incapable of mounting an effective defense. "Casting terror into the hearts" of disbelievers is sanctified in the Qur'an, particularly in 3:151 & 8:12. Moe and Allah said that they would cast terror. Then, in 33:26 & 59:2, they said that they cast terror and described the results: death, enslavement and dispossession of disbelievers. Moe said that he was made victorious with terror, in Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. Shari'ah is an all encompassing set of rules for the guidance of all Muslims at all times, in all places. It codifies Allah's imperatives and Moe's exemplary conduct. Shari'ah tells Muslims how to purify themselves and pray. it tells them how to bury their dead. Big deal; that harms nobody except the deluded Muslims. It also governs marriage and divorce. it gives the father of a pre-pubescent virgin the right to marry her off without her consent. Doubters & dissenters should dig into Book M of Reliance of the Traveller and read M3.13. Shari'ah is supposed to be about family matters, totally innocuous. Is marriage a family matter? Is divorce a family matter? Reliance of the Traveller, Book N. treats of divorce. In the previous paragraph, I linked to a provision of Shari'ah which permits a father to compel his minor virgin daughter to marry the man of his choice at the time of his choice. Should pre-pubescent girls be married and divorced? Knowing that I will not be believed, I present objective evidence.
A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.
Intercourse means copulation (def: n7.7). If the husband was alone with her but did not copulate with her, and then divorced her, there is no waiting period.
Is there any end to loaded language?
The anti-Muslim sentiment that in its extreme bred Norway's shooter has only manifested so far in the U.S. in individual assaults and community "incidents"—such as the one in February in Yorba Linda, California, where a Muslim relief organization with perceived ties to terrorism was protested by attendees waving American flags and yelling "terrorist go home" to women and children.
"Anti-Muslim sentiment" "bred Norway's shooter". None but his progenitors bred Breivik; actions are not dictated by sentiments. Knowing that Islam is a predatory institution which poses a clear, proximate and persistent existential threat is not a license to kill. "Perceived ties to terrorism"; " 1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. " "I have been made victorious with terror ". Who tied Islam to terrorism?
Yes, it gets worse, much worse. Observe the egregious hypocrisy exemplified in the final excerpt.
Lost on nobody, in condemning the acts, right wing radicals in the U.S. and Norway sounded exactly like the Muslim community they so suspect—"We never advocate violence" is parroted by many, who then blame violent acts on lone, misled members of their ideology. (Familiar story.)
Violence: genocidal global conquest using terror as a battle tactic is an intrinsic part of the core of Islam, exemplified by its founder. LibTards and other ignorant fools have not read the Noble Qur'an, specifically Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which contain the jihad imperatives. The exemplification is contained in the Jihad & Expedition books of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud & Malik's Muwatta. According to Allah, believers sell their lives & wealth to him, fight in his cause, killing others and being killed; in return for which he admits them to Paradise. Allah threatens those who refuse to join the jihad with painful torment. Allah promises victory to those who fight, along with admission to Paradise. Allah promises a reward for any step taken to injure or enrage disbelievers. Kindly find the New Testament functional equivalents of 3:151, 8:12, 57, 60, 65, 67, 9:5, 29, 30, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 47:4, 49:15 59:2, 15 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. I mean explicit commands, threats, promises & boasts, not parables. Show me or quit trying to deflect criticism of Islam with argumentum Tu-Quoque.
|