I Prefer Shootings to Beheadings Any Day!
Al-Zawahiri: Beheadings are bad P.R.
The battle for Muslims' hearts and minds are at stake in this war on terror. Comforting to know that the the P.C. bug which has paralyzed our culture has bitten and infected the Arab culture too. Phew! I thought we were the only ones who thought about how to strategically soften our rhetoric to placate and pander to the envious. Seems like Al-Qaida's losing battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims is giving an opportunity for a re-think. Ultra Lefties, watch closely, you may another good reason for your support for these freedom fighters.
It's good to know that there is a majority of self-respecting Muslim who prefer shootings to beheadings. Makes me feel like Islam is not the sinister religion that the jihadists have illustrated it to be. I can handle much better an innocent man or woman getting shot on camera than getting his/her head sawn off.
You know, I'm starting to like these people! George Bush definitely needs to pull out of Iraq for sure, eh?
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:02 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
There's no doubt these people are swine. The thing is, are we the world's policemen? I mean, there are swine everywhere, and atrocities aren't isolated to the middle east. Let's say what the PC crowd don't want to say: America is one of the most civilized countries in the world. And, when you look at our crime stats, that should tell you something. We have our own issues to deal with. We've kicked their fannies, now let's go home. If they act up again, we can always go back.
The counter-argument you and I hear, the "world's policeman" argument, doesn't follow considering what happened on 9/11. We are not self-appointed world authorities trying to clean up the world. The issue is one of national interest, our future existance; surely this is an ample reason to do what we do. The question is, does Iraq fit into our national interests?
If you read my previous post, you'll see that there is a concerted effort to spread jihadism throughout the middle east. The intent is to destroy Israel, and the United States and spread its version of Islam. This fits within our national interest. Albeit, there's nothing new under the sun here, only that we are not used to fighting an ideology that is more resilient and tough than our feeble flabby relativism.
The battle that Islam presses upon human civilization now is a 1300 years old threat. Fault the medievalists all you want, they kept the Islamic invasion in check; they never could cancel it out. Islamic jihadism is an assault on all we hold dear, that ought to held dear. This is why it is a moral threat. The proud and arrogant moral relativists need to awaken and see that the civilization they've inherited and have been sponging off of came from Judaism and Christianity. They stupidly attack traditional Western culture like an idiot who is cutting off a branch he's seated on.
The feature that relativists praise in relativism, their so called "freedom," is nothing more than license. There is no moral strength in license; it has no ability to take stands for anything greater than its selfish worldview. They have no moral power or clarity to face that which is an attack on morality. So, in the case of Islam, which claims its moral power from Allah, attacks all who oppose its doctrine with the sword. And all the relativists can do is either appeal to tolerance, "Can't we all get along?", or appeasement, "Yeah, the jihadists hate us 'cuz we are bad. If we weren't so imperialistic, they'd be in a better economic condition. We just suck them dry with our thirst for oil," and stupid remarks like this.
Don't fall for the appeasement rhetoric, Saur, fight it. It may piss people off, but if we don't tell them, the Islamists sure won't!
Post a Comment
<< Home