Jan 31 2007
Fighting Back Against Islamization
(HT: Moonbattery)
Hats off to the citizens of tiny Herouxville, Quebec for taking a stand against encroaching dhimmitude and the disease known as multiculturalism that enables its advance.
The town welcomes immigrants, but insists they make themselves aware of a declaration of “norms” adopted by the town council. These include:
- At Christmas, children sing Christmas songs.
- No stoning women.
- No burning women with acid.
- No ceremonial daggers in school even if you’re a Sikh.
- Boys and girls can swim in the same pool whether Muslims like it or not.
- Men can drink alcohol whether Muslims like it or not.
- No walking around with your face hidden except on Halloween.
- Female police can arrest male suspects even if it troubles their egos.
- Women are allowed to dance.
- Women are allowed to drive.
- Women are even allowed to make decisions on their own.
Needless to say, ethnic grievance groups like B’nai Brith Quebec and the Muslim Council of Montreal are outraged. Too bad. As Herouxville’s town council has figured out, the farther we bend over backwards obsequiously pandering to arrogant and sometimes hostile foreigners who refuse to assimilate, the less social cohesion we’re going to have.
February 2nd, 2007 at 07:40 am
Purposed revision to the Constitution of the United States of America. Amendments 1 and 2
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity, or allowing the free exercise of anything else; or abridging the freedom of speech except for muslims who must remain silent, or of the press except all muslim publications - the Koran is thus banned and will be burned; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to ridicule and hurl insults at all not Christians - all non Christians are barred from leaving their specified Ghettos, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances - especially when muslim woman ware head scarfs - but under no circumstances will any muslim be allowd to speak in court or at trial.
Amendment I
Christians will be allowed to bare arms to fight in the holy crusade against all forces of evil.
You really need to go to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and learn from history and see the results of nationalism and intollerance. Then you might want to take a trip to Auschwitz.
“let he who is without sin cast the first atomic bomb”
February 2nd, 2007 at 08:22 am
So you’re saying that all the items the council passed should be disallowed? You’re probably right, women shouldn’t be allowed to drive or to dance, and men should have the right to burn them with acid or stone them as necessary. Not.
What is so attractive about a “civilization” that never came out of the 10th century? This isn’t about “imposing christianity” but rather on protecting the rights that have been granted to you - and to everyone, not just Christians.
And while you’re at it, take a look the “Religion of Peace” post and follow the links to LindaSoG’s Ashura pics. That’s what you’re defending?
February 2nd, 2007 at 09:07 am
By the way I do enjoy the debate.
I will try to summarize as best I can from my blog and ranting.
1. I am a conservative, pro-life Reagan Republican, who believes in the right to life, liberty (smaller less intrusive government) and the pursuit of happiness.
2. Islam radical or otherwise did not fall out of the sky on September 12th, 2001.
3. Yes 19 guys killed 3000 of my fellow citizens, Justice means that they should and in many cases have paid the ultimate price of justice.
4. We let them get on the planes. Our “intelligent” men knew who Attah was, followed him, tracked him, knew he was Al Qaeda, lost him, let him get on the plane. Should have put a bullet in his head in Prague.
5. Jesus said I have not come to bring peace but a sword. That is a spiritual sword against the powers of darkness which are hate and ignorance. God is Love and Knowledge.
6. He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.
7. Islamists are fighting an asymmetrical war, they have been fighting that same war for 14 centuries against infidels, crusaders and each other - I am sorry but you are simply out of touch with reality if you think we can impose democracy on that culture with a “sword”
8. The British lost the Revolutionary war because they were considered invaders, we Americans won because of asymmetrical tactics, gorilla warfare, and we were fighting for what we believed in, in own land. In the great military doctrine of Sun Tzu - He notes aptly that
9. It is vastly more important that we consider the larger STRATEGIC issues of our time, namely the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Instead we drummed up demons and scary threats about Saddam that did not exist - and have let North Korea build a bomb, and Iran is on it’s way. We squandered and then discarded our good offices of diplomacy, the strength of our values and ideals, our principles and the good will of many people around the world. Now the real problems are that much more difficult.
10. If you extrapolate - as you seem to agree with many NEOCONS - the total number of islamists, from the 1.4 BILLION Muslims on planet earth, the number of jihadists and/or sympathizers in the Muslim world is between 140 Million and 300 Million. Other that GENOCIDE you do not have the necessary means to pacify that human population, set up a thousand years of peace under the democratic banner of western civilization, and save mankind from the culture of death as you have noted. So now what are you going to do????
11. The 11th commandment of Republicanism as envisioned by Ronald Reagan did not, I repeat, did not - mean that we should remain silent in the face of Demagoguery and political ambition driven by FEAR.
This is not a personal assault and I apologize for a bit of trolling. However, I find it critical to the debate that we engage NOT in platitudes but in facts. I admit that I do not have all of the answers, but the beginning of wisdom is allowing for questioning your own assumptions - if you do not - you are a slave to ideology that may in fact one day lead to Tyranny. Then our enemies will have truly won.
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Great response and I think we are in violent agreement on most aspects of this issue. I would challenge your assumption that we are seeking to impose either Christianity or democracy on Iraq. Neither can be imposed but must be chosen. In both cases the ground must be prepared first - anything else will lead to failure.
Instead we drummed up demons and scary threats about Saddam that did not exist - and have let North Korea build a bomb, and Iran is on it’s way. We squandered and then discarded our good offices of diplomacy, the strength of our values and ideals, our principles and the good will of many people around the world. Now the real problems are that much more difficult.
Saddam was a tyrant and did indeed have WMDs and needed to be removed. I was in eastern Turkey in 1988 when he gassed Kurdish villages, and saw the chemical burns on the faces and bodies of those who fled over the border. The fact that we gave him 11 years to hide/remove evidence was somehow missed in the calculus. Again, both Repubs and Dems bit on that one.
Just because this is an asymmetic war does not mean that it doesn’t need to be fought. It simply means we must adapt. Diplomacy certainly has its place, and is but one of many tools in our kit. At what point do we stop going to the UN for yet another pointless resolution. How many were issued condeming Iraq, Saddam and his WMDs? Dozens? Sometimes moderately stern language isn’t enough.
Nobody seems to talk about Afghanistan anymore. Why not? Because it was a success story. Is it a model demoscracy? Certainly not, but it has a functioning post-Taliban government. There’s still work to be done — I’d love to see us go in and wipe out the poppy production, but that’s not going to happen until we can present the people and the government with a viable alternative. I would suggest that Afghanistan is a success story because we prepared the ground first (after taking out the immediate threats).
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
violent agreement - I like that!
I fully agree about Saddam. Really bad guy. I am sorry you had to see his brutality up close.
In absence of any better information about the WMD’s we took it on faith. AND the authorization by Congress was very clear about the goals.
Mission accomplished.
The civil war in Iraq is not our fight. We may have unleashed it by removing Saddam, but it is the Iraqis who have made the bad choices - they must live or die with the consequences. I am not a humanitarian, bleeding heart who believes we can fix all of the evils mankind inflicts upon himself.
I think we need a VAST fleet of UAV’s patrolling the skies along the IRAN border armed with hellfire missiles to obliterate any IED shipments. We need checkpoints and solid force protection from the skies there and on the Syrian border. Interdiction and border control are essential to our Strategic positioning in the region.
I know we have to fight and engage terrorists with acts of war, but I am in favor of keeping the battles symmetrical. If they send 19 guys our way - we have 19 covert ops with sniper scopes and crosshairs on their foreheads, and we drop them before they even get in our country.
indeed violent agreement.
I have been shouting at NEOCONS for distracting us from the real STRATEGIC challenges. IRAN, North Korea, China. I do not see these challenges as insurmountable, any more than the cold war, or staring down the barrel of 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us from the Soviet Union.
But the reason we never fought WWIII against the Soviets was because no matter how much we shouted at each other - we always did it face to face. There is simply no substitute for looking your opponent directly in the eye, standing your ground, and drawing the line -you shall go no further. Quietly, consistently, confidently. Where in the heck is Condi and what is she doing? My god… if Nixon could go to China, and Presidents could meet with Soviet Premiers, why can’t we engage Iran and Syria.
You may know something about the culture having been there, that it is an insult to disrespect the tribal elders. You don’t sit in front of them, put your feet up, throw your arms over your head, and tell them what to do. From the time they are out of camel hair diapers they are thought, honor, loyalty and the CODE. Family and tribe mean everything.
I didn’t even go to Yale and I know these things.
And they will respect you for the strength you do not show them, with quiet confidence, far more than shouting insults and rhetoric across the sea.
I remember after Tiananmen Square - GHW Bush sent Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker to sit down with the Chinese and I recall the images of the toast. I am sure what was not said, instructed the Chinese with respect to our position, even when the glasses were raised.
Anyway this is getting long. Point is that in the absence of dialog and human interaction other than war - then all their is, all that will be, is war. It is impossible for that culture to back down, loose honor and face, and submit to the infidels. But - if you look them in the eye without blinking, listen instead of talk, understand the culture of respect without supplicating -then … just then… you may be very surprised by what you hear.
Perhaps in the end this culture, and these people may choose annihilation. I do not know. Of this I am sure, unless we find a way to work through this with them the ultimate end will be their Genocide. I have no doubt that if they hit us with even one nuclear weapon, they will go the way of the Native Americans, and we will all be standing there cheering and toasting our marshmallows under their mushroom clouds, congratulating each other on another triumph of freedom.
Who will cry for the children?
Thanks for reading.