5 Awkward Questions About Islam Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You To Ask (Guest Post)

By 35 Comments 3,386 views

islamicstateflag-600x300
 
Against a background of terror attacks committed by Muslims on every continent, Western governments and their propaganda merchants in the mainstream media continue to repeat the mantra that Islam is actually a religion of peace. They insist that jihadists who commit violence in the name of Islam are distorting the faith and are not true Muslims.

It’s a narrative most people in the West are desperate to believe mainly because they’re terminally welded to the ideology of Multiculturalism and its doctrine of equality. They also know that if they ever dare to question the narrative, they will be smeared as hate-filled, Islamophobic racists.

I strongly oppose the Multicultural ideology – more accurately described as cultural Marxism – and I refuse to surrender my powers of critical thinking to gullible, intolerant rainbow disciples wielding their pernicious Orwellian thought-control weapon. I also refuse to abandon rational thinking out of irrational obedience to the multicult ideology. Such a surrender would render myself psychologically ill because it involves ignoring the warning signs reality keeps on flashing, inconveniently at odds with the childish multicultural “we’re all equal” fantasy. Something is clearly wrong, as anyone with a degree of intellect can observe. Comfortable silence is an option for brainwashed zombies who meekly embrace their own demise, something I am simply not prepared to do.

There are a number of awkward questions about Islam that desperately need to be asked and more importantly answered and here I’m going to ask just five of them.

1. Many Muslims claim to be opposed to the barbaric acts of terror committed by jihadists in the name of Islam. Additionally, liberals and leftists will assert that most Muslims are opposed to Islamic State. However, there’s a glaring contradiction, an elephant in the room these apologists are desperate to avoid.

Muhammad, the revered prophet of Islam stated:

“I have been sent with a sword to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah.” Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387.

In Islam Muhammad is regarded as “the ideal man, the perfect model of conduct.” This prophet and his army of devout Muslims waged jihad against infidels and he PERSONALLY spread Islam by the sword. He and his band of brigands did not distort, twist or misunderstand Islam as they waged war against Jewish tribes in the Middle East, beheading their enemies and raping their women. So let’s ask our first uncomfortable question:

To those Muslims who say violence is against Islam: If ISIS truly is “nothing to do with Islam” then is Muhammad also unIslamic and do you condemn and reject his violent “perfect example”?

Liberals and leftists can make as many excuses for jihad as they like but the fact will remain: The mujahideen of ISIS are emulating the “perfect example” set by Muhammad described in the holy texts of Islam, the Sunnah and hadith, and are also obeying the numerous commands in the Quran to wage war on infidels until the world belongs solely to Allah.

How can Muslims who revere the “perfect example” of Muhammad, a warlord who beheaded people, who raped infidel women, who tortured people, who had an old woman torn apart and who claimed: “I have been made victorious by terror” possibly oppose violence in the name of Islam?

History shows Islam has a 1400 year history of non-stop violent jihad against unbelievers. Are we really to believe all of those Muslims who waged jihad over the centuries misunderstood and distorted peaceful Islam INCLUDING the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and his army of mujahideen?

2. The claim that Islamic State is unIslamic doesn’t stand up to further scrutiny at all.

Duplicitous self-serving Western politicians who imported Islam into their nations and their lickspittle lackeys in the mainstream media go to great lengths to focus on ISIS as if they are the only Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam. Not so. In Saudi Arabia, beheadings are a legal punishment and bloggers who are critical of Islam are flogged. Rape victims are criminalized and also flogged. Poets are sentenced to death for blasphemy and apostasy. Unbelievers – the lowest of the low – literally filth in Islam – are forbidden to enter the holiest places in Islam, Mecca and Medina.

All of these harsh punishments are enshrined in the Islamic legal system the Sharia. ISIS implement Sharia in the same way as the Saudis.

This begs a second uncomfortable question:

Do the Saudis twist, distort and misunderstand Islam as Islamic State is accused of doing?

They’re committing the same barbaric horrors as ISIS yet somehow, Saudi Arabia is regarded by the West as an ally and even has a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. But nobody is accusing Saudi Arabia of distorting and perverting Islam. Probably because if they did they’d be regarded as unhinged.

3. Another narrative deployed to excuse terrorism committed by Muslims in the name of Islam is that violent jihad is a response to acts committed by the West. Acts such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now, bombing ISIS in Syria.

In fact, violent jihad against infidels began in 622 when Muhammad the prophet of Islam started it. Since then, Muslims have continued to spread Islam by the sword. India has faced jihad since 638 and over 80 million Hindus have been killed. Muslims invaded Africa in the seventh century and began raping, killing and enslaving infidel Africans. These savage atrocities are still continuing today, committed by devout jihadists of Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Jihad came to Europe in 710 and Muslim armies conquered Andalucía in 711. It took 800 years of fighting to free Spain from Islamic hegemony. Muslims brought violent jihad to Christian Anatolia in 650 and conquered it into Dar al Islam with the sack of Constantinople in 1453 being particularly brutal. Eastern European countries were also hit by Islamic jihad with Serbia still facing it today having been forced by NATO to surrender its sacred ground of Kosovo to Muslims. The Islamic terror group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) committed the same barbaric acts as ISIS yet Britain, The United States and The European Union all backed the jihadists with catastrophic consequences. Buddhists have been ethnically cleansed from Afghanistan and are fighting against the jihad in Myanmar. Thailand is blighted by jihad as is Israel. Jews have been hit by jihad from 622 to today. The Zoroastrians have almost been wiped out in Iran and Christians are relentlessly persecuted in the Middle East. Thanks to mass immigration from Islamic states, devout Muslim mujahideen are raping and slaughtering infidels in European and North American cities.

It’s odd that a “religion of peace” has such a long, bloody history of warfare against unbelievers from so many faiths. And just why, exactly, are Muslims still slaughtering infidels today as Muhammad and his men did in 622, brutal acts emulated by devout Muslims throughout Islam’s history?

Let’s have our third uncomfortable question:

If the attacks on USA, France, Britain, Spain, Mali are in return for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria what are the excuses for the jihad that began in the Middle East in 622, jihad against India started in 638, the conquest of Spain, the jihad that transformed Christian Anatolia into Islamic Turkey, the jihad against Serbia started in 1389 and the genocide of an estimated 2 million Armenians committed by the Turks between 1915 and 1923?

Let’s be honest here. None of these acts of jihad had anything to do with the acts of the West and nor do the acts of the West have anything to do with the jihad being waged today. Jihad has everything to do with Islam just as it always has.

4. After devout Muslims had slaughtered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and Jewish shoppers in the Paris attacks of January 2015, millions of Muslims around the world took to the streets in protest. Not against the murders of innocent people but against the West’s response to it, in particular, the “Je Suis Charlie” defence of free speech and particularly the right to criticize and mock all ideologies including Islam.

This outraged millions of Muslims around the Islamic world just as the infamous cartoons mocking Muhammad published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in October 2005 did. Indeed, this video of the London protest was the “road to Damascus” moment for your humble author who was once a liberal to his core. Back then I strongly believed all religions were the same but watching that disturbing video shook me out of my slumber.

This leads to our fourth uncomfortable question:

Why don’t millions of outraged Muslims ever take to the streets to protest against acts of violent jihad and the slaughter of “innocent” infidels?

I mean, if the vast majority of Muslims are opposed to violence committed by mujahideen in the name of Islam where the heck are the millions of outraged Muslims protesting against ISIS as they did against cartoons of the murdering, raping, terrorist Muhammad and the Charlie Hebdo defence of the right to free speech?

5. Finally, let me ask: Why is it only Muslims commit terror attacks on civilians in reprisals for offending Islam or for attacks on Islamic states?

Are they the only people who have grievances? Where are terrorist attacks committed by Christians in response to persecution across Africa and the Middle East? Where are the revenge attacks from British, Swedish, Germans and Norwegians for the gang rapes of their women and girls by Muslim males? Where are the Buddhists blowing up Muslim civilians in response to the jihad waged against them? Same applies to Hindus and Sikhs. And what about angry Serbs shooting up restaurants in London or Berlin in response to the criminal bombing of their country by NATO? Where are Greek-Cypriot terrorists slaughtering Turkish citizens because of Turkey’s illegal occupation of Cyprus? They never happen. So why is it only Muslims committing these atrocities year in, year out, month in, month out on every continent?

That’s five awkward questions about the religion of peace. I challenge anyone on the left, any Muslim, any liberal defender of Multiculturalism to answer them. Without resorting to abuse, name calling, insults or violence.

About Christopher J. Green

View all posts by Christopher J. Green

Christopher J. Green is an investigative journalist and historian specializing in the decline of America and Western civilization. He is the author of the new book: Death of the Family – True Stories of the Charlatans Who Deceived the World and Broke the Backbone of Our Society.

35 Responses to “5 Awkward Questions About Islam Barack Obama Doesn’t Want You To Ask (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Meremortal

    6. Why is it that the only group who could easily infiltrate radical Islamic terror cells never does so? That group would be the “moderate Muslims” who worship at the same mosques and could easily join the radical groups and expose them before they do harm.

    It would take a very small number of moles or double agents to take away the safe spaces that jihadists use to indoctrinate radicalize members and prepare for attacks.

    But, out of a billion and a half Muslims no such group exists. This is why I reject the idea of “moderate” Muslims. So-called moderates are the blanket of protection for the army of jihad.

  2. 2

    john

    Why doesn’t the author take up arms against Islam? He is blaming Obama for not doing something he will not do himself.
    All these people shouting about the great danger that we are in and then not doing anything ?? maybe just maybe they don’t really think it is as important as they would like us to believe.
    ISIS attracts 10s of thousands of foreigners to fly to Iraq/Syria where are the Christians willing to put it all on the line?
    D J?
    Nanny?
    Anyone?

  3. 3

    retire05

    Yesterday a number of Congressmen visited the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in northern Virginia to show solidarity with the Muslim community there. The visitors included Don Beyer (D-VA), Keith Ellison (D-MN and Muslim), Joe Crowley (D-NY) and Eleanor Norton Holmes of D.C.

    So just two days after 14 people were slaughtered in California by Islamic terrorists, we see Democrats not offering sympathy for the Americans they are tasked with protecting, but giving credence to Muslims.

    In case you are not familiar with the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, I suggest you research not only what hijrah means in Arabic, but the connections it has to Islamic terror. The Dar Al-Hijrah mosque was the same mosque where a number of the 9-11-2001 hijackers worshipped, its former Imam was Anwar al-Awlaki, known terrorist, it was the former mosque of Nidal Hassan who also killed 14 at Fort Hood, was the mosque of the Muslim who plotted to assassinate President George W. Bush and its current Imam, Shaker Elsayed, has justified the 1990 killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane by a Muslim and has called for his followers to follow jihad against Americans. This mosque is a KNOWN hotbed for terrorists.

    Frankly, considering the terrorist attack against Americans by radical Islamic sympathizers, the Congress critters attending that mosque to “pray for peace” in no different than it would be it Congressmen had attended the Nazi bund in 1941.

  4. 4

    Enchanted

    @john: I believe that people are getting armed; they are getting ready. I also believe there are people that believe these murders only happen to other people and would rather pay attention to the kardashians than real life. I also believe there are people that think they can change these people, and their attitudes. These people will not change. Their koran states that those who will not assimilate to their religion are to be exterminated and that is what they are doing. obama is instrumental in these actions as the ill winds are blowing and he is certainly standing with muslims as he stated in his autobiography.

    The administration also thwarts any action toward muslims. loretta lynch wants to file charges against any one who speaking anti-muslim. obama just appointed a muslim as his ISIS czar that is a hamas supporter.

  5. 5

    Greg

    I strongly oppose the Multicultural ideology – more accurately described as cultural Marxism – and I refuse to surrender my powers of critical thinking to gullible, intolerant rainbow disciples wielding their pernicious Orwellian thought-control weapon.

    Say what? Cultural Marxism? What the hell is this lunatic babbling about?

    I looked up the definition, and found the following:

    Cultural Marxism is an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities. Critics have seen cultural Marxism and its influence as an important cause of political correctness and as an important cause of a perceived decline of humanities, social sciences, culture, and civilization in the Western world.

    That is also total gobbledygook. Maybe we should look up the definition of gobbledygook, just to make sure we’re clear on the point:

    gobbledygook – language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.

    Personally, I prefer the phrase pseudo-intellectual bull crap. The term “cultural Marxism” is pseudo-intellectual bull crap. I challenge anyone to precisely define what the term means.

    For the record, many Marxist theories are themselves built on pseudo-intellectual bull crap. I think this is a result of social theorists attempting to turn their academic area of interest into an actual science. Forget about it. It can’t be done. Social science is not really science, and never will be.

  6. 6

    Steve J.

    islam is a dangerous ideology.

    F islam.

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

    The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

    Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green | 1899

  7. 7

    retire05

    @Greg:

    The term “cultural Marxism” is pseudo-intellectual bull crap. I challenge anyone to precisely define what the term means.

    Definitions
    •‘Political correctness is an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated’, Browne (2006), p. 4.
    •‘Political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue.’, Browne (2006), p. 7.

    Cultural Marxism, commonly known as political correctness is a theory that works for the left. It was designed at the Frankfurt School of Marxism, and the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci took it even further. It was designed to implement Marxism not economically, as Marxist had planned, but culturally, by dividing a society into groups that would essentially pit one group (the proletariat) against another (the politburo) socially, not economically, bring about a social change that would accept Marxism.

    I knew you were an idiot. I am surprised you showed it in such fashion.

    Read Gramsci and Lukas, dimwit, and then you will be able to comprehend (maybe) how evil politically correctness really is.

  8. 8

    Greg

    @retire05, #7:

    Cultural Marxism, commonly known as political correctness, is a theory that works for the left.

    Cultural Marxism, commonly known as political correctness? That’s totally ridiculous.

    Political correctness is a term describing a disinclination to offend or insult those who are, through no fault of their own, socially marginalized or at an obvious disadvantage. Donald Trump focusing his mockery on the most obvious indications of a handicapped person’s disability, for example, was “politically incorrect.” He was being grossly insensitive to the problems of an entire class of persons, not just to an individual. Anyone having a child with a similar handicap would likely have been deeply offended. The man is a jackass.

    Concerns about political correctness can, of course, be taken to absurd extremes. That doesn’t make it “cultural Marxism,” however—a bullshit term which you still haven’t precisely defined. Cultural Marxism is political correctness, and political correctness is cultural Marxism? I’m afraid that doesn’t quite get it. Gramsci and Lukacs can take a hike together, and take their convoluted social theories and abstract definitions with them. They’ve got nothing to teach me that has any real world application, and their writings are far too tedious to have much entertainment value.

  9. 9

    Bill

    Another great question would be,

    Liberals, why do you side with the people killing women, killing children, killing Christians and killing Americans instead of siding with Americans?

  10. 10

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Cultural Marxism, commonly known as political correctness? That’s totally ridiculous.

    That comment alone shows what an idiot you are.

    Political correctness is a term describing a disinclination to offend or insult those who are, through no fault of their own, socially marginalized or at an obvious disadvantage.

    A “disinclination”? Are you attempting to wordsmith? Don’t. You’re lousy at it.

    Some people are “socially Marginalized” or at a “obvious disadvantage”. Native Americans, for one and poor whites for another. It clearly isn’t off limits for the left to rail against Native Americans and the left damn sure doesn’t seem to have any trouble slandering whites, for any reason. A favorite word of the left, “cracker” has been used more times than I can count. Where is the outrage coming from the left on that term?

    Donald Trump focusing his mockery on the most obvious indications of a handicapped person’s disability, for example, was “politically incorrect.

    I am not responsible for what Trump says. Perhaps you should spend more time concentrating on the lies told by Hillary. Dodging bullets in a foreign nation? Give me a break. Or perhaps you would like to disavow Obama’s comments about people who “cling to the guns and God” statement. And yes, The man (Obama) is a jackass.

    Concerns about political correctness can, of course, be taken to absurd extremes. That doesn’t make it “cultural Marxism,” however—a bullshit term

    Where do you think the term originated, dimwit?

    which you still haven’t precisely defined. Cultural Marxism is political correctness, and political correctness is cultural Marxism? I’m afraid that doesn’t quite get it. Gramsci and Lukacs can take a hike together, and take their convoluted social theories and abstract definitions with them. They’ve got nothing to teach me that has any real world application, and their writings are far too tedious to have much entertainment value.

    If you’re too lazy to do your own research, I can only guess it is because you know that you would be proven wrong on your opinion that cultural Marxism and political correctness are NOT one and the same.

    You’re an idiot. Hell, you don’t even know why your side does the things it does or where it political philosophy comes from. Saul Alinsky, hero of the left, and the man who Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis on and whose tactics Obama adopted, used cultural Marxism to create dissention where he could.

    Good God, Greggie Goebbels, stop showing what a clown you are. It’s embarrassing.

  11. 11

    Greg

    You’re blathering. Look up the definition of that word. You can do so while you’re looking for a succinct definition of “cultural Marxism,” which is actually nothing more than a bullshit term having currency among right wing conspiracy theorists, who use it to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

    “Multicultural ideology” means what? I know what multicultural means. That’s a perfectly good word. So is ideology. When you put them together, though, you’ve got what? Would you care to define that one?

    If it means advocacy of the coexistence of multiple cultures under one national roof, it would be the exact opposite of what seems to be meant by “cultural Marxism,” which I presume to be the calculated erosion of all dissimilar cultures so that they can be replaced by a one-size-fits-all Marxist system. Those two objectives would be completely at odds with one another. Suggesting them to be the same as the author has done is nonsense.

    Define your terms, or stop throwing them around as if they actually meant something. Democrats are not Marxists or Communists. Everything to the left of Ronald Reagan is not Marxist or Communist. Capitalism is not without it’s faults, and does not produce the best results for the greatest number without thoughtful, moderating regulation.

  12. 12

    Nanny G

    5. Finally, let me ask: Why is it only Muslims commit terror attacks on civilians in reprisals for offending Islam or for attacks on Islamic states?

    Part of your comment on this included:

    Where are the revenge attacks from British, Swedish, Germans and Norwegians for the gang rapes of their women and girls by Muslim males?

    I have an answer for that one.
    A professor from a Seattle university at an assembled Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS), crowd asked me if I knew how many Palestinians have been raped by IDF forces.
    I answered that as far as I knew, none.
    She triumphantly responded that I was right, because, she said, “Your IDF soldiers don’t rape Palestinians because Israelis are so racist and disgusted by them that you won’t touch them.”

    So, it’s ”damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” with these haters.
    Tal Nitzan a graduate student, claimed that the absence of any history of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers proves that the Jews are racists and oppressors, people who do not even regard Arab women as sexually desirable!!! You can read what passed for her feminist masters paper logic here:http://www.wordsandwar.com/2008/01/03/complete-story-of-no-rape-racism-essay/

  13. 13

    Nanny G

    @Meremortal: Good question and it has happened.
    Remember the ”underwear bomber?”
    His dad warned authorities about him.

    Officials in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity, told news agencies that Mr Abdulmutallab’s name had been added to a security watch-list of more than half a million individuals, known as Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (Tide).
    But there was apparently not enough information to include his name on the smaller Terrorist Screening Data Base, which includes a no-fly list.

    Other passengers kept him under control.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8431470.stm
    Obama’s Admin KNEW!

  14. 14

    retire05

    @Greg:

    You’re blathering. Look up the definition of that word.

    Find you a new word, did you? Sorry, I knew the meaning of “thatword” long before you thought about looking it up.

    You can do so while you’re looking for a succinct definition of “cultural Marxism,” which is actually nothing more than a bullshit term having currency among right wing conspiracy theorists, who use it to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

    The term was coined by the Frankfurt Marxists, who, after fleeing Germany because they were Communists and feared Hitler, came to the U.S. teaching in our universities and polluting the minds of young Americans. Damn, Greggie, do you know anything?

    If it means advocacy of the coexistence of multiple cultures under one national roof, it would be the exact opposite of what seems to be meant by “cultural Marxism,” which I presume to be the calculated erosion of all dissimilar cultures so that they can be replaced by a one-size-fits-all Marxist system. Those two objectives would be completely at odds with one another

    Cultural seems to be the word you can’t comprehend. There are ethnic cultures, but there are also social cultures. If you were smart, which you’re not, you would understand the difference. Italy, Spain, France and England all have ethnic cultures. Europe has a social culture. Cultural Marxism deals with social culture, not ethnic. Damn, you’re stupid.

    Then we have Democrat idiots that say things like this when trying to show how “sensitive” he is toward Muslims:

    “We are a diverse nation of immigrants whose shared cultural heritage is one of openness and inclusion. We must celebrate this diverse thread of our cultural cloth, not tear it apart.”

    What shared “cultural” heritage do you, or I, share with Muslims? Absolutely none. Muslims subscribe to neither openness or inclusion. What the hell is that idiot blathering about?

    Cultural Marxism is Socialism, Greggie. Now toddle on off to another thread because you’ve already shown what an idiot you are on this one.

  15. 15

    Greg

    Find you a new word, did you? Sorry, I knew the meaning of “thatword” long before you thought about looking it up.

    No doubt you’ve heard it on previous occasions.

  16. 16

    retire05

    @Greg:

    No doubt you’ve heard it on previous occasions.

    I believe I have applied that word to you, Greggie Goebbels, as you parrot the left wing talking points.

  17. 17

    Songbird

    @Steve J.: That shocking that Churchill described it so concisely so long ago. But then the truth is always the truth. It’s too bad the fools in charge would not know the truth if it hit them in the head.

  18. 18

    Greg

    Sir Winston also said the following:

    “In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new.

    From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

    It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

  19. 19

    retire05

    Greggie, here is an example of the left wing radicalism you seem to subscribe to since you quote this rag:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/san-bernardino-bloodbath-born-bigots-article-1.2456491

    That’s right; a leftist rag bashing one of the victims of the terrorist attack and equating him with the terrorist themselves. Not to mention blaming the victim for the rest of the victims instead of blaming the terrorists.

    Your side of the aisle are a disgusting bunch.

  20. 20

    Songbird

    @Greg: Do you have a favorite book by Winston Churchill? I have thought a great deal about him as things have gone downhill around the world the past few years and more so the past year. I have read about him and saw many documentaries. Recently I decided I wanted to read some of his writings. There are none at the local library and I thought I would check the internet. I don’t know where to start. I have adopted one of his quotes, “Stay calm and carry on.” That is good advice for many areas of life. Thank you for the additional quotes too!

  21. 21

    Nanny G

    @Greg: But look what Churchill concluded….and apply it to all UN-ASSIMILATED people living in the USA today:

    It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.

    White Lefties could take a lesson from Churchill, as could Jewish Lefties, Latino Lefties, Black Lefties as well as Muslims.
    We would NEVER have had the Occupy Wall Street movement without the Bolshevik conspiracy inserting itself in our Leftists.
    Without the Bolshevik conspiracy we would never have had the La Raza movement, with its Azatlan theory of a legendary ancestral home of the Latino peoples.
    Without the Bolshevik conspiracy we would never have had a lie-based BLM movement.

    Take a look at who (commie) directed this anti war march, note it is NOT the cute black girl in the first photo.
    http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/
    Poke around Zombie’s site.
    She has photographic proof of the Bolshevik influence Churchill said needed to be stopped.

  22. 23

    Greg

    @retire05, #19:

    That’s right; a leftist rag bashing one of the victims of the terrorist attack and equating him with the terrorist themselves. Not to mention blaming the victim for the rest of the victims instead of blaming the terrorists.

    It appears that Nicholas Thalasinos had been an outspoken critic of Islam for a long time and had an angry confrontation with Syed Farook at the party both attended, which may have become a precipitating event. That’s factual information that most news sources have been too “politically correct” to mention. You can look back through past years of Nicholas Thalasinos’ Facebook entries and find much there that might have punched Farook’s anger buttons. Little has been said about their relations at work, but in an interview with a CNN reporter Thalasinos’s wife alluded to the fact that there had been earlier heated exchanges between the two men over the matter of Farook’s religion.

    Nor did the author of the Daily News article in any way rationalize or excuse the killers’ actions. What we have instead are unambiguous expressions of total condemnation. Which, of course, the right will totally ignore, because they don’t like what else she said.

    Facts are facts, whether you or I happen to like them or not. Nicholas Thalasinos does, in fact, appear to have been a right-wing, anti-Islamic, pro-NRA, anti-Obama, anti-liberal American Jew, who appears to have been on the low end of the tolerance scale and on the high end of the in-your-face-about-it scale. Those facts are part of the story.

  23. 24

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Nor did the author of the Daily News article in any way rationalize or excuse the killers’ actions.

    The Daily News said that 13 innocent people had been killed. Now, I know you’re not real bright, but that is an indication the author thought the killing of Thalasinos was justified since there were 14 people slaughtered by radical Islamic jihadist.

    You can’t even admit when your side acts disgustingly. Perhaps it’s because you’re an idiot.

  24. 25

    Bill

    @Nanny G:

    the absence of any history of rapes of Arab women by Israeli Jewish soldiers proves that the Jews are racists and oppressors, people who do not even regard Arab women as sexually desirable!!!

    We are assured that Muslims are equal opportunity rapists.

    @Nanny G: #13 The only reason we have had so few terror attacks under Obama is simply because so many of them failed to succeed. Not Obama’s diligence.

    @Greg:

    It appears that Nicholas Thalasinos had been an outspoken critic of Islam for a long time and had an angry confrontation with Syed Farook at the party both attended, which may have become a precipitating event.

    So, posting opinions, even inflammatory ones, is a reason for slaughter? And what did the other 13 do? Or, the 31 that were wounded? Did Thalasinos insult Mrs. terrorist while she still lived in Pakistan? Because, it appears she was radicalized there and then radicalized hubby-terrorist after they hooked up. You and the agenda-driven journalist fail to entertain the possibility that Farook, whom many stated had become “more devout” might not have provoked Thalasinos. I don’t think mean words instigates a slaughter on this scale and I don’t think Thalasinos’ views caused Mr. and Mrs. Muslim Terrorist to stockpile weapons and ammunition and fill their home with home-made IED’s. Thanks for playing, though.

  25. 26

    Greg

    @retire05, #13:

    The Daily News said that 13 innocent people had been killed. Now, I know you’re not real bright, but that is an indication the author thought the killing of Thalasinos was justified since there were 14 people slaughtered by radical Islamic jihadist.

    The following is a very common definition of “innocent,” when the word is used outside of the context of a courtroom:

    innocent – not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.

    Does that apply to Nicholas Thalasinos to the same degree that it applies to the other 13 victims? There were 13 people who had no issues with Farook, and one who evidently did, and made a point of it. The author of the article was making a distinction. That distinction was the subject of her story.

  26. 27

    retire05

    @Greg:

    innocent – not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences.

    Does that apply to Nicholas Thalasinos to the same degree that it applies to the other 13 victims?

    YES.

    I am sick to death of you liberals excusing the bad actions of others just because they got their widdle feelings hurt. My 1st Amendment right guarantees I have freedom of speech. It doesn’t guarantee some butthurt liberal can act aggressively if I do.

    What a disgusting little man you are, Greggie. A man was slaughtered by radical Muslim jihadis and you defend the hateful rhetoric of the Daily News and it’s despicable reporter.

  27. 28

    Nanny G

    @Greg: @retire05:
    Interesting back&forth.
    There is a scripture which I’ll paraphrase:
    By iron a sword is made sharper. Iron on iron is good for sharpening. People should also discuss with those who disagree with them as it sharpens the rational ability of both people.

    Now, Muslims claim that Jews and Christians ”worship the same god as we do,” and that their holy book (the Bible) should be considered as from god as much as their koran.
    So, why would a good Muslim kill a good Jew over a healthy conversation that could have made each man a more rational debater?
    No.
    Islam’s books, the koran, hadiths and sura, require an excuse for violence. Therefore they are always looking for offence so as to justify their violence.
    A discussion, even a debate, is no justification for mass murder or even the murder of one person.

  28. 29

    Greg

    You have a right to say any stupid thing you wish. Mr. Thalasinos had a right to speak his mind, however offensive his thoughts might be to someone like Farook. Likewise, the Daily News writer has the freedom to report the pertinent facts about what happened. Nobody excused anyone’s bad actions, least of all those of Syed Farook and his bat-shit crazy wife. Can you not read and understand what anyone is actually saying?

  29. 31

    Rich Wheeler

    @Nanny G: “a good Jew” hardly Thalasinos was a loud, foul mouthed bigot—Which he had every right to be. We see em on the internet and F.B. all the time—Ist Amendment rights. Same goes for Stasi.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *