A War - or a Dialogue?

Submitted by Thomas Justin Kaze (Australia), Oct 31, 2006 at 22:58

War on Terror – or endless dialogues?

Let us get real: we are not really fighting Islam; we are being fooled by our governments instead. Muslims are constantly advancing their own interests by applying pressure on our spineless political leaders and endlessly increase their unreasonable, if not downright outrageous, demands. They are pushing us deeper and deeper into dhimmitude and now have the cheek to claim the right to define how others should perceive and talk about them and their "religious" values – and, as expected, it has a very damaging effect on our right to speak freely.

Their right to throw curses at the "infidel" world during their Friday prayers goes on unquestioned, uncensored and unlimited; their right to plot our demise behind our backs and their incitement to spread the "religion of peace" through bombings and beheadings does not render them to prosecution, but one word of our criticism, and we are branded racists, intolerant bigots and Islamophobes. Through the imposition of such nonsensical "anti-discrimination" laws by our semi-conscious powers-that-be, our right to resist the Islamic domination is being eroded, while the hordes of invaders and terrorists (sorry – refugees) are being aided and abetted by our democratically elected politicians who charm us with their "War on Terror" slogan and all sort of assurances of national security, at the same time throwing us to our knees, by the scruffs of our necks, in the name of the fictitious multicultural harmony – in their lousy attempt to appease Muslims, as if that could save us from Islamization, slavery or death. And "Dubya" does it again – praising "Muslim contribution to the progress of the humanity".

Sure, "progress"… If you say so, Mr. President; by that "progress" you obviously mean 9/11, two Bali bombings, Madrid, London and Bombay, and all those numerous beheadings… The West is not willing to convert to Islam or to accept the domination of darkness over light, so Muslims are helping us to make up our minds faster and use all the sanctioned and justified methods of persuasion – if in doubt, just ask CAIR. There is no religion of peace but Islam, and Osama bin Laden is its prophet – or maybe even the long-awaited Twelfth Caliph (Oops – I forgot that words "nuke" and "Caliph" are now politically incorrect; maybe even racist); bombings and beheadings are mere acts of love, mercy, tolerance and religious devotion, only that we infidels are blind, misguided, intolerant, ungrateful and what not. "Fight terror, but do not harass Muslims" – ah, that sounds about right.

The French police (again) step out in great force, shaking their fists threateningly and issuing the ninety-ninth warning, while Muslim thugs yell "Allah'u akbar!" and burn, pillage and terrorize. Excuse me – what bloody War on Terror? Crazed imported jihad-preachers and homegrown irhabis march through the streets of English cities, demanding blood of those who criticize or resist Islam – and the local police protect them from the frightened, innocent public, but a man who has had enough plus a few beers under his belt expresses his objection to Islamic invasion – and gets three months in the slammer for… inciting racial hatred and intolerance. War on Terror – yeah, right.

There are no historical examples of any nation successfully fighting terrorism by a civil libertarian approach – exactly because terrorists regard such libertarianism as a sign of weakness and lack of will to fight for survival. We are forced to constantly apologize for their disadvantages, their disenchantments, their alienation – soon we will be apologizing for their fury, their violence and for our resistance to Islamization; NATO has only just apologized for shooting at Taliban's human shield and causing unavoidable collateral damages – and this sounds like (another) déjŕ vu; we are practically ready to apologize to them on demand, because that is what a good dhimmi is expected to do. Muslims have never apologized for spilling our blood, because all acts of violence against infidels benefit Islam, and we cannot expect them to condemn terrorists – that would be an insult to the religion of peace, and a Muslim must never condemn another Muslim in the face of an infidel. Also, Muslims have a different opinion on who is, or is not, a terrorist – and we have to respect the cultural differences, so demanding apology for Islamic war against us is not on as it would be cruel, insensitive and racist; and we will certainly not design toilets large enough to flush down the sacred Killing Manual, either.

And that "dialogue" thing: His Royal Highness, a "good dhimmi" Charlie now visits "Puckistan" with a promise of yet another "multi-faith dialogue" – sure, "multi". I am surprised – we have had Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist minorities living among us for decades, if not centuries, and no such "dialogues" were ever conducted or needed; why on earth do we need them now? Is there anything that our governments are not telling us about?

And how "multi-faith" are these dialogues going to be, if Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism are never praised, promoted or even mentioned – we all know that only Islam will be preached, promoted and literally pushed down our throats, until we puke. It is obvious, to me for one, that the sole aim of such "dialogues" is to make us more passive and less resistant to the ever more aggressive and arrogant Religion of Peace. It is clear that we suddenly need these "dialogues" now, because there is a minority here that considers itself better than any other; even better than the overwhelming majority.

These "dialogues" will really be monologues conducted by Muslims telling us that, if we want to avoid terrorist attacks, we will listen to their conditions of our surrender; in the meantime, we will make all concessions in their favor, as demanded by them – and never even think of expecting them to concede in our favor (that would be preposterous). Everything against the common sense and contrary to the logic: respect for "peaceful" Muslims, promotion of "moderate" Islam as a Religion of Peace, gradual Islamization under the guise of multiculturalism, discouragement of anti-Islamic activities and turning a blind eye to the Muslim world's nuclear plans – in the name of Allah, the benevolent and the most merciful. I wonder whether the West has surrendered already, while the governments keep their citizens in the dark for the time being, so as not to cause global panic – our stubborn refusal to surrender is very offensive to Islam, and what is offensive to Islam, is offensive to its furious, impotent deity.

Only, what War on Terror is this: a war on Islam or a war on the stubborn, infidel West? Is it a war on the homicidal bearded maniacs, or just another effort to multi-culturalize us down to the level of the Seventh Century barbarians? For Heaven's sake, dear leaders; stop pretending being so tough on terrorism, while meekly appeasing Muslims and facilitating Islamization of the free; stop forcing this "reconciliation" and "dialogue" garbage upon us, just give us free hand and we will show you how to win this war for freedom.

Democracy means "the rule of the people", so there is nothing wrong with people taking the law into their own hands. So far, too many of the "anti-terror laws" appear to protect terrorists from their victims; we have not seen one Muslim terrorist sentenced to death or executed, not one Muslim protester calling for jihad on the American soil charged with incitement to murder; instead we saw people jailed for demanding expulsion of Muslims and a Secret Service agent suspended from his job for scribbling on an Islamic calendar the plain truth that "Islam is evil" – I admit that this last reminder is very personal.

Sure, Mr. President; September 11 was indeed a great contribution to the "inter-faith dialogue" and to the humanity at large: it has opened people's eyes to the peaceful nature of Islam. Yes, I do wish to sound sarcastic: I would not be very surprised to see one day the Congress disbanded and replaced by CAIR-style Council of Imams and the Sharia law imposed on the Land of the (once) Free, from Rio Bravo to Yukon. Paraphrasing the great Peter Ustinov, I dare say that super-potential for nightmares compensates for the abundance of dreams – and I will drink a pint of the forbidden sharab to that, while I can. Bottoms up, Muslims!

Thomas Justin Kaze

---

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".