Nice to see that the Religion of Peace lives up to its name. Because a pastor in Florida burned copies of their holy book, Afghans murder uninvolved people at the UN compound in Mazar-i-Sharif. They have demonstrated just why those of us who dislike their particular brand of superstition regard it as primitive, psychopathic and barbaric – it is primitive, psychopathic and barbaric. While book burning turns my stomach – no matter what the book – to murder innocent people who are entirely uninvolved with the original offence is psychotic.
Tolerance is fine and dandy. I am a tolerant person and take the view that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they please, providing they harm no one else. However, there is no reason why we should tolerate the intolerant, the barbaric, the plain evil and there is no reason why we should defer to this savage cult and confer upon it any status other than that of pariah. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Any hatred or fear of this cult is entirely rational. Islamophobia is no more than an artificial construct designed to stifle dissent from those of us who dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Islam is a nasty, barbaric, medieval cult that has no place in a liberal society. The scenes in Afghanistan show us all too clearly the naked truth of this belief system. It demands respect from us. It demands tolerance from us. This violent, intolerant creed of ignorance and superstition deserves none. When we defer to it, we place the viper to our bosom. Dhimmitude is nothing more than self destructive behaviour. I do not respect Islam; I despise it with every fibre of my being.
So, fine, I won’t stop people attending mosques. But do not expect me to respect your religion and do not expect me to believe you when you tell me that it is a religion of peace.
————————————
Update: QM in the comments mentions another reason behind this behaviour. He also points to the Guardian where there is an attempt to somehow justify it. Below the line in the repugnant piece of attempted appeasement, we get this cockwaffle .
All very well, but isn’t this precisely analogous to the free speech exemption that prohibits shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room: that is, it is done knowingly involving reckless endangerment, and quite possibly wishing for this kind of bad result.
Ah, yes, the old “fire in a crowded room” canard. Every time free speech crops up, some cretin rolls this out as if it is some sort of killer argument. It is not, never was and never will be. It is cack.
They didn’t commit the atrocities because of the book burning, it was about US troops committing atrocities against the Taliban. The Koran burning is just a media sop being used to try and excuse their beheading of innocents.
QM,
I saw your post saying this. I wouldn’t say the current MSM version gives an excuse for this act. I think rather the opposite. If the murders were a response to the murders of civilians by US troops, that would make more sense – not that much more, seeing as these people who have been killed were nothing to do with it, but burning a book is nothing compared to killing someone.
Whatever the case, I think we need to get he hell out. There is nothing that we can do for the good in Afghanistan. If NATO wasn’t there, the Taliban would be fighting the Northern Alliance, or other war lords, or failing that each other. The only thing keeping us there is the political establishment can’t deal with the loss of face and prestige, and fear the consequences of seeming to be defeated, so they prefer the status quo, no matter how futile. It’s like keeping on taking lines of coke, because someone doesn’t want to deal with the crash.
Ultimately, the excuse isn’t relevant – the actions themselves are.
I wonder how many of that 47.9% voting in the Guardian poll would accept the excuse of a rapist that he attacked these women because some other woman, thousands of miles away, worexa too short and revealing skirt..?
why didn’t they just burn a bible? Who would give a shit?
Islam is not the religion of peace and never has been. It translates as submission, not peace.
Unlike most other religions, their holy book was written, at the time, by one person from the words of their prophet. It is therefore in a different league to the stories gathered together over many years or decades which make up the bible, torah, baghavad gita, etc. Also, it is clearly stated that, if there is a conflict in the verses, later ones override earlier ones. It so happens the earlier ones are about peace and the later ones are about jihad, condoning the use of violence to overthrow non-muslims and lying if necessary to achieve these ends.
We are being usurped by stealth as well as violence.