Islam's Rape Of Civilization

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Mar 27, 2006 at 22:17

BS"D

Most religions believe in and insist on at least some degree of modest behavior. They do not see immodesty in others as an excuse to behave that way themselves. They also do not end-run that conviction by acting immorally to "punish" those percieved to be "immoral". They do not, say, believe that an allegedly "immodest" woman should be raped by them in order to punish her for inviting said rape. "She asked for it" is not a defense, at least not in civilized societies.

Islam, however, is a stark exception to that rule. They claim to be acting out the "will of god" when using what they see claim to be the "deviant" behavior of others in order to justify their violent immoral depravity.

In Australia: "After taking an oath on the Qur'an, the man – known only as MSK – told the court he had committed four attacks on girls as young as 13 because they had no right to say "no." They were not covering their face or wearing a headscarf, and therefore, the rapist proclaimed: "I'm not doing anything wrong" ."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=20535&p=1

In Europe: "A Muslim rape epidemic ... [is] ... sweeping over Europe -- and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world. The direct connection between the rapes and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects. The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that their crime..."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502

"The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India. In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that "thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with the whites and blacks"."
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/08/rape-nothing-to-do-with-islam.html

And finally on this topic (or we would be here all week) the French expose the "religion of peace":
"Today (03/23/06) Jyllands-Posten reports that Imam Ahmed Akkari was recorded on a hidden camera by journalist Mohamed Sifaoui of the French TV-Station France 2 [the French also exposed the Al Durah lie] which will show a documentary tonight detailing the doings of the Danish Imams [THAT I would LOVE to see]. The documentary also reveals that the Danish Imams have been using the affair as a lever to go against their political opponents in Denmark.
Ahmed Akkari is quoted as saying:
"If [Naser Khader] becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why don't we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry"?"
http://agora.blogsome.com/2006/03/23/dansih-imam-ahmed-akkari-kill-naser-khader/

They say quite rightly that I am, or at least was, very ignorant of their religion. But, every day I learn a little more, and the more I learn the more I am repulsed by it.
_____________________________________
Weekly Jihad Report
(3/19 - 3/25) Jihad Attacks: 51
Dead Bodies: 221
Critically Injured: 241
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
_____________________________________

Now a couple of observations regarding the ongoing, and distorted, attempts by BS to redirect away from Muslim murder mayhem and debauchery:

As to attempts to use testimony of the questionably credible Hans (see no evil) Blix to prove that Iraq had no WMD:

"...on August 6, 1991, the Washington Post ran a story headlined "Baghdad Surreptitiously Extracted Plutonium; International Monitoring Apparently Failed." The story, and several subsequent reports, revealed that Saddam had put together a massive and sophisticated nuclear-weapons program virtually under the nose of one Hans Blix, who was then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group charged with monitoring compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york100102.asp

The clueless Blix confidently stated that Iraq had no nuclear program then. And now we are to trust him when he assures us that THIS time, he's right? I don't think so.

...and, as to interviews with David Kaye, here's more of the Brokaw interview:

"TB: David, as you know, a lot of the president's political critics are going to say, "This is clear evidence that he lied to the American people."

DK: Well, Tom, if we do that, I think we're really hurting ourselves. Clearly, the intelligence that we went to war on was inaccurate, wrong [stay tuned! that is likely to change!]. We need to understand why that was. I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around

TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat — a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?

DK: I think that's a VERY ACCURATE description. {my emph.}

TB: But an imminent threat to the United States?

DK: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It's not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually BECOMING MORE DANGEROUS in the last two years THAN even WE REALIZED." (my emph.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4066462/

Two points:
1. There was what Kaye said before the war, and what he said after the war, of which only some of the latter was all the media reported. (i alluded to that in my other post)
2. Even though no WMD were found by that time, what Kaye did find was sufficient to make him think Saddam's Iraq to be more of a threat than anyone previously realized.

But none of that, as I have said before, is relevant to how Muslims remorselessly commit all manor or unspeakable acts against each other, then baselessly accuse us of the same.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".