So sayeth Mark Steyn, referring to this BBC News story :
Steyn :
Really? Right now the body count stands at:
Non-Muslims 13
Muslims 0Even if you are concerned that it would be terribly unfair if all Muslims were to be tarred by Major Hasan’s brush, it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what’s of most interest about an actual atrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims.
Lawrernce Auster points to some key aspects of the ‘liberal’ political mentality in all this:
[Extract from his essay, ‘The Massacre’ ]-
“But liberal society allows Muslims by the millions to immigrate into its bosom. Liberal society gives Muslims full liberty to practice their religion here. Liberal society trains Muslims in its elite institutions to be doctors and engineers. Liberal society inducts Muslim men and officers into its armed forces. And liberal society prohibits any negative statement about Islam.
“And thus we arrive at the sickening but unquestioned phenomenon—one of the supreme symptoms of liberalism—that in their reactions to this massacre, officials and media uniformly use passive, de-personalized language conveying the idea of a disaster without an agent who caused the disaster, the language of people tying yellow ribbons around trees…”
http://amnation.com/vfr/#014684
When Jihad Seems to be the Hardest Word…
Good blog post Philip.
Thank you Marky.
I haven’t followed the link to Steyn, but his scorecard seems to have omitted a previous attack by a US Army Muslim on his fellows – a 2003 heroic grenade attack on sleeping comrades resulting in 1 death & a score injured.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81898,00.html
I can’t wait for someone to enter the BBC and machine gun the Cocaine addled twats there, hopefully if any beeboids survive they will state that this was all the fault of the BBC and its staff and that the gunman must have sympathy. Somehow i doubt it.
On another matter anyone seen the BBC’s headline about the one eyed jock mong’s plan for a new banking tax? The BBC says’ the response has been “luukewarm”
Er no BBC twats, the yanks have said it’s a non starter, that’s not lukewarm, that’s frozen stiff.
Only the BBC can spin it like that.
More vomit inducing crap from the BBC. regarding the woman burnt alive in her home.
According to the camp male beeboid reporter “she was killed by a firework”
What the firework lept out of the box in the shop and just happened to fall through her letterbox?
How about she was killed by yet another piece of human excrement who probably has no father and a fat idle mother who lives on benefits but just manages to shift her fat arse down to a polling booth every 4 years to put an X in a box for some twat with a red rosette on?
The Telegraph claims a link between thew murderous major and 2 of the 9/11 hijackers – arrwnding the same rabid mosque.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
It really is too bad of the Telgraph to dig this sort of stuff up. What do they think they are doing – journalism ? Not fair to the BBC, which can’t do proper journalism on this huge story, even with 1000 news staff. All the Beb can do is stay houirs behind the news, and come up with ndless excuses for the massacre.
sorry for the misspellings, tapping away on a PDA with tiny keys !
OK, I’m the first to admit the dangers of the growth of Islam in the west. I think it is an existential threat, though not as much as secular liberalism – in fact, those threats are both sides of the same coin.
But please, let’s get some perspective. One swallow does not make a summer, and one crazy Muslim does not make all Muslims crazy. The IRA gunned people down in their dozens, blew them up, put bombs in town centres. They didn’t care who they were killing. But the Irish were not all tarred with that brush.
Yes, the growth of Islam is indisputably a problem, but only, truly, in demographic and cultural terms. I have no doubt Muslims are like the rest of us – they want their beliefs to prevail. But let’s not use one incident to judge all. Please.
One incident. Are you as professional prat or just a part time beeboid?
“The IRA gunned people down in their dozens, blew them up, put bombs in town centres. They didn’t care who they were killing. But the Irish were not all tarred with that brush.”
That was because not all Irish were part of a death cult (or the IRA) and sat around reading from the book of sickness.
That was because not all Irish were part of a death cult (or the IRA) and sat around reading from the book of sickness.
Well said… er.. written
At the risk of failing Goodwin’s Law.
Before 1936 it was just as clear and just as irrelevant that the majority of the German people did not support Adolf Hitler. The National Socialists won 37.2% of the vote in the general elections on 31 July 1932 and dropped to 33.1% in the 6 November 1932 elections. When war came there was no argument that one shouldn’t tar the hard working, cultured, German People with the same brush as the Nazis.
I don’t think either the Sikhs or the IRA are the equivalent of the Jihadists. Neither claimed a religious obligation to conquer the world for their religion and neither attacked third parties that were unrelated to their particular struggle.
I was once given the following figures about Jihad. One per cent of Muslims are willing to become violent Jihadis (out of an estimated 1.57 billion Muslims) 10% are willing to give financial, logistical and other support and 89% are sitting on their hands. An estimate to be sure but one I have never heard contradicted and one they shows how irrelevant the ‘don’t judge the majority by the minority’ argument could become.
‘Guest’:
The problem with your argument is that you presume that those of us critical of Islamism base our positions on ‘one incident’.
Allow me to set the record straight. We base our positions on 1400 years worth of ‘incidents’ – and latterly the 14,344 deadly terror attacks carried out in the name of Allah since 9/11.
We base our position on the thousands upon thousands of examples of Muslims failing catastrophically to integrate within western societies, on the culture of victimhood that seems to come into play every time Muslims come into conflict with those societies – and the telling lack of repudiation or condemnation of the acts and values of the extremists by the ‘mainstream’.
No-one’s saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but the converse argument is almost irresistible – most terrorists are Muslims.
We base our positions on 1400 years worth of ‘incidents’
Then you may as well write off the Christians for the crusades and the inquisition
It’s funny how the same tired cliches get trotted out. How many centuries has it been since the Crusades or Inquisition?
Jihad atrocities aren’t something from the distant past – if they were then they wouldn’t be an issue. They’re happening now on a daily basis all over the world.
The muslim campaign against the west has been unremitting since islam came into existence. Unlike all previous ages, the muslims are actually now within the west and are now present within the institutions of the west. Muslims can easily be dealt with because they are not like us and can be marginalised and repatriated if we awaken in time, but the bastards who let them in and protect them to our detriment are of us and are therefore traitors. The BBC is the mouthpiece of treason: it’s not just simple bias any more.
Barack Obama calls for calm as Muslim community fears backlash over Fort Hood killings – Mail
Here’s another Steyn link – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
“Mark Steyn sums it up”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/23997