Green Energy
By Bosch Fawstin
Who would you want on your side if gang members from the religion of peace surrounded you in a dead end alleyway?
A ‘Moderate’ Muslim?
The same people who tell us that Islam is a religion of peace tell us that Muslims are ‘our greatest allies’ against jihad. That there exists a world of evidence proving both of these assumptions to be empirically false hasn’t yet mattered to those in Washington P.C.
To call Washington’s refusal to know what makes the enemy tick a dereliction of duty is an understatement.
In a sane world, after suffering through George ‘Islam means peace’ Bush’s quarter-assed response to jihad, the current crop of candidates would be publicly quizzed about their knowledge of Islam and the Enemy as being a clear prerequisite to becoming commander in chief.
As to ‘our greatest allies’: Muslims has proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves. While we never hear a peep from Muslims when Infidels are murdered by one of their own, they get jolted from their moral coma only when Islam is slighted by a non-Muslim. And they run to Islam’s rescue as if it were adamsel in distress Muslim brother in distress. They have shown themselves to be not only irrelevant against Jihad, but also sympathetic towards it. It’s something we’re going to have to come to grips with and that they’re going to have to answer for. Muslims as a group are not on our side and, according to Islam, shouldn’t be on our side in any context. I’m speaking mainly about the Muslim Collective, the submitted Muslims who aren't quite jihadists, but sure as hell are not rooting against Jihad either. Which brings me to a great quote from George Orwell that is relevant here, even though it’s about pacifism in wartime, 1942:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
[The next two paragraphs are a continuation of Orwell’s line of thought, published 9/26/01 and written by Michael Kelly, the first journalist to be killed in Iraq in April 2003]
“England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.”
To further make this important point: Muslim’s haven’t done anything against Jihad and they sure as hell don’t want us to do anything against their 'sacred' Jihad, objectively making them on the side of Jihadists. If Muslims aren’t for the defeat of Jihad, then they’re objectively for its victory and will not lift a finger to challenge it. They need not necessarily act against us to be against us, since some Muslims simply aren’t built to be jihadists, but instead are meant to stand by passively as the Jihad has its way with the world.
The only way we can fully defend ourselves and give Muslims an incentive to proactively reject Jihad is to ruthlessly crush it and bury it once and for all, whatever it takes. In doing so, 'moderate' Muslims will magically pop up all over the world, glad to be alive and having avoided the fate of the jihadists. It’s a start.
Only when the enemy is crushed will the non-Mohammed Muslims be able to take the stage of Islam that the jihadists owned for a thousand years. Then Muslims will be given a chance to join the civilized world and begin making the case for a pacified Islam, or scrap the whole mess entirely. Islam’s fate will be up to them at that point, unless they pull a jihad revival, and then it’ll up to us, because we cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of an enemy for whom Nukes are the answer.
© 2008 Bosch Fawstin
- Calling Islam “islam”
Conducting Jihad From Bosch Fawstin: I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology...
- Calling Islam "islam"
-Bosch Fawstin Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as: "Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical...
- The Unavenged
From my intro to ProPiganda: "Though I was born into a Muslim family, I became interested in Islam only after 9/11/01, when 19 Muslims murdered 2,996 human beings in the name of Islam. Those who always gave a damn for the truth did their homework and...
- 'moderate' Makeover...
...of an Extreme religion. Islam is teaching us every day about what it actually is through the behavior of its most devout followers. One problem for ‘Moderate Muslims' is that they're referred to as 'Moderate Muslims', so as to distance...
- Connecting The Dots
Diana West wrote an interesting article for Townhall.com. When talking about how to fight Muslim terrorism she starts by quoting Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer: "Of course, from the infidels' standpoint all anti-terror measures must be undertaken....
Green Energy
MUSLIMS vs JIHAD?
By Bosch Fawstin
Who would you want on your side if gang members from the religion of peace surrounded you in a dead end alleyway?
A ‘Moderate’ Muslim?
The same people who tell us that Islam is a religion of peace tell us that Muslims are ‘our greatest allies’ against jihad. That there exists a world of evidence proving both of these assumptions to be empirically false hasn’t yet mattered to those in Washington P.C.
To call Washington’s refusal to know what makes the enemy tick a dereliction of duty is an understatement.
In a sane world, after suffering through George ‘Islam means peace’ Bush’s quarter-assed response to jihad, the current crop of candidates would be publicly quizzed about their knowledge of Islam and the Enemy as being a clear prerequisite to becoming commander in chief.
As to ‘our greatest allies’: Muslims has proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves. While we never hear a peep from Muslims when Infidels are murdered by one of their own, they get jolted from their moral coma only when Islam is slighted by a non-Muslim. And they run to Islam’s rescue as if it were a
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
[The next two paragraphs are a continuation of Orwell’s line of thought, published 9/26/01 and written by Michael Kelly, the first journalist to be killed in Iraq in April 2003]
“England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.”
To further make this important point: Muslim’s haven’t done anything against Jihad and they sure as hell don’t want us to do anything against their 'sacred' Jihad, objectively making them on the side of Jihadists. If Muslims aren’t for the defeat of Jihad, then they’re objectively for its victory and will not lift a finger to challenge it. They need not necessarily act against us to be against us, since some Muslims simply aren’t built to be jihadists, but instead are meant to stand by passively as the Jihad has its way with the world.
The only way we can fully defend ourselves and give Muslims an incentive to proactively reject Jihad is to ruthlessly crush it and bury it once and for all, whatever it takes. In doing so, 'moderate' Muslims will magically pop up all over the world, glad to be alive and having avoided the fate of the jihadists. It’s a start.
Only when the enemy is crushed will the non-Mohammed Muslims be able to take the stage of Islam that the jihadists owned for a thousand years. Then Muslims will be given a chance to join the civilized world and begin making the case for a pacified Islam, or scrap the whole mess entirely. Islam’s fate will be up to them at that point, unless they pull a jihad revival, and then it’ll up to us, because we cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of an enemy for whom Nukes are the answer.
© 2008 Bosch Fawstin
- Calling Islam “islam”
Conducting Jihad From Bosch Fawstin: I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology...
- Calling Islam "islam"
-Bosch Fawstin Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy's ideology as: "Islamic Fundamentalism", "Islamic Extremism", "Totalitarian Islam", "Islamofascism", "Political Islam", "Militant Islam", "Bin Ladenism", "Islamonazism", "Radical...
- The Unavenged
From my intro to ProPiganda: "Though I was born into a Muslim family, I became interested in Islam only after 9/11/01, when 19 Muslims murdered 2,996 human beings in the name of Islam. Those who always gave a damn for the truth did their homework and...
- 'moderate' Makeover...
...of an Extreme religion. Islam is teaching us every day about what it actually is through the behavior of its most devout followers. One problem for ‘Moderate Muslims' is that they're referred to as 'Moderate Muslims', so as to distance...
- Connecting The Dots
Diana West wrote an interesting article for Townhall.com. When talking about how to fight Muslim terrorism she starts by quoting Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer: "Of course, from the infidels' standpoint all anti-terror measures must be undertaken....