Sunday, January 11, 2015

Why [some] Liberals are in Denial about the Threat of Islam: The Camel explains it all.

 “Hatred And Stupidity Killed 12 People, Not Religion”

That’s the headline PoliticusUSA  ran last Friday in response to the Muslim terrorist attack in France. They go on to say blaming Islam for the acts of these bastards is unfair. That it is tantamount to blaming Christianity because of Timothy McVeigh’s murderous demolition of the Federal Building in Oklahoma years ago.  To which I respond:  BULLSHIT!

Here’s the whole story, if you can stomach it:

What a silly, unthinking, dishonest and utterly misguided article. McVeigh didn't kill in the name of Christianity, or in the defense of his God or Jesus.  Just invoking McVeigh in some kind of perverted attempt to diminish the role of Islamic religious fervor in the Paris tragedy is the worst kind of grotesque false equivalence.

These Muslim fanatics killed specifically because their interpretation of the Koran demands they defend Muhammad's honor. Pictures or ridicule of Muhammad demand the offenders’ deaths.  Period. Without that religious imperative it never would have happened and seventeen innocent people would be alive today. 

When is Liberal America going to stop pretending that Islam / Muslims and the Koran had no part in this and every other Islamic attack the world over?  Did Islam also have no part in the killing of that journalist cartoonist Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam a few years ago, or the death fatwa still in place against the author Salmon Rushdie for his book "Satanic Verses"?  What drove those acts of violence and incivility if not religion?  When a Muslim apostate is murdered by a Muslim believer; or a “blasphemer” in Saudi is given one-thousand lashes for his “crime” is it because of hate and stupidity, or is it because Islam and the Koran demands it ?

Now, had they suggested that religiosity makes people haters and stupid, then they’d be on the right track. But to deny Islam’s role and responsibility for the acts of these fanatics is either the highest level of stupidity or gross dishonesty - overt denial out of some misguided attempt to placate Muslims and paint a pretty picture of “the religion of peace.”   It fails on both counts. At best it succeeds in putting lipstick on a pig.  It doesn’t fool anyone who possesses eyes, ears, a brain to process fact and reality,  and who is not cowed by Islamic threats of vengeance.

Islam is where Christianity was eight-hundred or so years ago. Anyone who is not a follower of the pedophile Prophet is “the other”, someone to hold in suspicion and a potential convert.  Anyone who opposes Islam, or who leaves Islam, or who offends Islam is the enemy to be dealt with as prescribed by the Koran, a preferred Hadith verse, or by a vengeful and maniacal Imam. How many more times do we need to see it repeated before we call it what it is: religiously instigated psychosis?

The Liberal press’ tendency to deny the truth, to sugar coat it, to cloak it in secular terms in an effort to spare Muslim’s feelings, or to appease those Muslims who stand ready to kill en masse at any hint of disgust and rejection of what Islam stands for, is an act of appeasement at best, or out right dishonesty at its worst. It’s time to wake up and call Islam what it is: a potentially infectious disease steeped in medieval ignorance and vengeance. To deny it will be Western culture’s death knell.  


Anonymous said...

Some clear writing using common sense, a very refreshing change from the candy coated tripe of mainstream media, well said.

Dromedary Hump said...


Carl said...

Good analogy Hump! The New York Times was to much of a chicken shit to post the cartoons but not the Washington post. So I wonder if those media outlets that refuse to publish the cartoons and don't blame Islam for the attacks are liberal? After all isn't being liberal more about freedom of expression? Maybe we need to call out these so called liberals for who they really are a bunch censors who if in control would be just like the religious fanatics they defend.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks, Carl.

The Washington Post is, in my opinion, heroic for reprinting the cartoons.

Rudolf Kellmann said...

I'm not a writer, as you are,but I certainly can appreciate your insightful thoughts. I also appreciate writers like the late Christopher Hitchens who equated religion with poison, or John Lennon who wrote "Imagine no Religion," or Ruth Hurmance Green who said, "There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages." Thank you for your work. Rudolf Kellmann, Highland Mills, N.Y.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks for the kind words.

Indeed, R. H. Green's observation is a warning to all of us.

TommE said...

Good blog!

The opposite point of view as stated by our revered leader, President Obama, when speaking before the United Nations on 25 September 2012 when he said "the future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam". On that occasion he was talking about a Muslim-offending video. I am still baffled why he didn't use that appearance to make the point that while we may not like the story that the video told, this is the United States, and our constitution guarantees free speech - so get over it.

Is it any wonder that a large block of "so called liberals" don't support free speech when the President openly discourages such.

One thing we have to admit, the future does not belong to the brave "8" from Charlie Hebdo who were slaughtered last week. The President was right. I can only hope that his weak-kneed approach has not contributed to the brazen terror, now so common.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks for your input.

I do not share your perspective, vis-a-vis Pres. Obama. I find it unfortunate that the Right some how finds every opportunity to demonize him, even to the point of McCain blaming him for the French massacre last week. I reject this inane crappola as being just more of what the Right established as their priority six years ago... destroying his presidency.

read the idiocy here:

His address to the UN two yrs ago, and his reference to "those who slander" was directly in response to that moronic Southern minister who threatened to burn or did burn the Koran. That maniac's actions were directly responsible for riots and deaths over seas, and tied to the Benghazi attack. To read into Obama's comments that it implies his lack of support for free speech or non-support of satirical publications, including their right to satirize religion and religious icons would be grossly short sighted and unfair.

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

TommE said...

Hump. President Obama's 25 September speech clearly focused on the death of Chris Stevens, and to be fair, in addition to his statement that "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam", he does state the importance of free speech. However, I found no reference in his speech to burning the Koran, threatening to burn the Koran, or goofball minister Terry Jones, but a number of references to the offensive video.

I find it an interesting aside that references to the video were so prominent in the President's speech, even though by the time of the speech, the notion of a spontaneous mob action instigated by the video was largely disproven.

Dromedary Hump said...

Quite was the Steven's video. Not the nutter preacher. My mistake.

However, the only ones who have discounted the impact that video had on initiating or instigating Muslim riots and acts of violence against America in Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan AND Libya
are FOX News and the far right press. All other media sources, including Aljazeera, the NYT, et al...attribute it directly to that video. (see link to AJ below)

Again, this peculiar slanting of the news by the right to imply Obama was making an excuse for some supposed failed policy is patently insipid.

Green Eagle said...

Timothy McVeigh was closely associated with the Christian Identity movement. That was a major part of his motivation in carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing. You are wrong when you ignore this and claim that he was totally secular. This is just one more case where a person's religion told him that he could do whatever he wanted because God was on his side.

Dromedary Hump said...

Please..stop. You're trying to create a religious connection where none exists.

In no court document does his Xtianity come up, nor play a role in his defense or the prosecution.

You're simply coming across as pedantic and desperate.