The Sedition Report (Leftists)

One would think “peace advocates” or “anti-war organizations” would demonstrate their grievances under the First Amendment in a peaceful manner. Let us see, what the definition is of “peace:”

1. The absence of war or other hostilities.

 

2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.

 

3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations: roommates living in peace with each other.

 

4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace.

 

5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind.

- Yahoo Education Dictionary

Presumably the expression “anti-war” means the opposite of war or perhaps it means against war.

Now let us examine the emerging predilection of “peace advocates” and “anti-war organizations.” The predilection is to vandalize military recruitment centers, violent acts up to including bombing and the threat of violence if recruitment does not close their doors.

Hmm … These actions not only sound moronic but are the actions which are oxymoronic to the appellation of “peace advocacy” and “anti-war.”

Here is a Fox News report that proves peace advocates and anti-war organizations act in an oxymoron hypocritical fashion. Such is the case we can label them morons.

JRH (Hat tip to Move America Forward)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Muslim Conquerors in Spain

This is the latest of the comment battle I have been having with Talha, a Mohammedan person who has taken exception to my penchant to reveal the politically incorrect truth about Mohammedanism. The original post was The West Needs to Understand Islamist Paradigm of War.

Talha said:

if u have problem with the very point of people engaging in fighting at all, then WWII, japan, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and iraq again, r gross violations of christianity. then u'll have to abolish the death penalty. then, saddam hussein should have lived, along with the entire hamas leadership. hitler should have lived, too.

Christians have developed a concept of what is a Just War. The theme is self-defense. Contrarily Mohammedans war to convert people to their cult, enslaved to an inferior social and civil right position or death. The death penalty is a point of argument between Christians in America for the very reasons you imply. In Europe, most nations have abolished the death penalty as punishment for heinous murderous crimes.

Yet in Middle Eastern nations and in Western Nations (if a Mohammedan can get away with it) War is still practiced according to the Mohammedan holy writings, also to mention frivolous death penalty executions for honor (whatever a Mohammedan perceives that to be) being violated, adultery, homosexuality and such are death penalty crimes. Most mysteriously to the Westerner who believes in Free Speech and Liberty, Mohammedans will execute individuals who might insult their psycho-prophet Mohammed or insult Islam in general.

To Bible believing Christians (there are actually Christians on the Left that cherry pick Biblical Scripture and morality), practices such as homosexuality and adultery are sins accepted in secularized society. Bible believing Christians believes these sins are something to be repented of or the lifestyle will face judgment in the next life.

Talha said:

but us see, sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to keep / restore peace. islam does not deal in doctrines that r unviable. u cant always turn the other cheek.

so having established the necessity for war, islam seeks to rein it in with proper standing procedures that ensure that cruelty and vengeful measures dont become the norm in war.

So you are saying Mohammedanism has something comparable to a Just War concept. That is good.

On the other hand the Islamist who says they follow the letter of the Mohammedan holy writings is NOT utilizing procedures to prevent cruelty and vengeful acts. Now days Islamists even attack their co-religionists if they fail their interpretation of Mohammedan holy writings.

Talha said:

in simplest terms, as soon as war is necessitated for a christian nation, religions has to be chucked out the window, cuz ur religion doesnt tell u wat to do in such a situation. islam, on the other hand, gives u procedures regarding war and ensures that excesses r not committed even in war.

Again Christians have the Just War concept and again Mohammedan war is brutal and savage even today in the modern world.

Talha said:

as per ur allegation of rape being allowed in islam, let me categorically state that rape is not allowed in Islam, in any circumstance. whether women be in a veil or they walk around threadbare, u cant rape them according to any islamic injunction.

back in the 600s, when women werent considered full citizens in any nation of the world (the US only gave them voting rights in the 1920s).

does rape occur in muslim nations, yes.
is there any country in the world which is completely free of rape? no.
does rape occur in america? yes.
does christianity allow rape? no.

so u see violations occur all around, which is not to say this is right. it is very, very wrong!!! but u also need to see, it is a violation, both of christianity and of islam.

In FACT the rape of fakir women is a part of the practice of humiliating fakir men. (The Fakir is the infidel or unbeliever in Mohammedanism.)

In Western Europe rape is an occurrence perpetrated on fakir women by Mohammedan males are on a scale way beyond the statistics of the rape of women by European males on European women or Mohammedan women. The statistics are so high that (at least at one time) Sweden and Norway refused to publish the statistics of Mohammedans raping European women.

The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” [Emphasis Mine]

Anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer adds: “So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).” [Emphasis Mine]

More from Robert Spencer about words from the lips of Mohammed to the ears of fanatical Islamic soldiers: “After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.” [Emphasis Mine]

Now to some of us who are not up on their Latin, coitus interruptus is defined as: “Coitus interruptus is a Latin term meaning interrupted intercourse. It is the clinical term for the withdrawal method of contraception, which is when a male withdraws his penis from his female partner prior to ejaculating.” [Emphasis Mine]

Talha I have to highly disagree with you that rape is not part of the cultural practice of Mohammedans toward women who are not Mohammedans.

[Source on Mohammedan rape: Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?]

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

This is YouTube video post by JTF.org that everyone should see. I wish to thank Twana’s Blog for alerting me of its existence (well really she wanted me to see something and I stumbled up on it). It is entitled, “The Real Islam Revealed.” Twana has it for friends only at Vox Blog so you may not be able to comment there; I am a bit more public and I am not afraid of the radicals blistering me with Islamofascist rhetoric.

I have to inject a quick note about the video: It is extremely anti-Mohammedan. It is so anti-Mohammedan that I suspect YouTube may pull it, so watch it while you can. JTF.org is very Judaic and Zionist to the point of being arbitrarily crude sometimes; however they are not afraid to point out the bad nature that indeed exists in the Quran and the Hadith – Holy Scriptures to Mohammedans.

I know there is a moderate Mohammedan that will not only be offended by “The Real Islam Revealed” but will disagree with its message. That is because the silent majority of Mohammedans in the West practice their faith in relative peace in a 21^st Century style rather than the retro Medieval Islamism advocated by radical Islamofascist terrorists of both Sunni and Shia persuasion. Nonetheless whether the quiet Mohammedans agree with the video or not, JTF.org is telling the truth about Mohammedan scriptures and practices of extremists that are more and more becoming the voice of Mohammedanism.

So you so-called Moderate Mohammedans that are out there, instead of whining about Islamophobia stand up for your moderation and become vocally condemning of the Islamists that is becoming the representative voice of Mohammedanism to non-Mohammedans.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend