This is over a year old; I wonder why I haven't seen it linked until now.
YouTube - Killing of Non-Muslims is Legitimate (British Mullah)Note how Westernized in speech and manners this British Mullah is, yet note also how absolutely foreign to Western values, beyond those of gangsters, this man is. Anyone who wants to keep apologizing for the "religion of peace" when orthodox, Sharia-backed, guys like this are so sure of themselves and their support among their brothers here in the Western heartland, that they have the nerve to say on a globally-televised BBC World program that all non-Muslims are not innocent but are rather legitimate targets of coercion, extortion, and violence, is living in a dream world, unable to come to terms with real human conflicts.
It's clear that the conversation freedom lovers should be having is which Muslims do we deport, or send to an island in the Arctic if no other country will have them, and how many Muslims behave in ways likely leading to assimilation into Western society, hopefully by making a very public commitment to reform of Islam, in the manner of Muslims Against Sharia? Unless and until we make Muslims like this Mullah Chaudri pay seriously for uttering such orthodox filth, unless and until we make Muslims face real and hard choices by which they can display their allegiance to Western values, or become our enemies by actively or tacitly supporting guys like Chaudri, it should be clear that we are not keeping the peace by appeasing the orthodox hate mongers, or providing an arena or debate in which moderates can be liberated/liberate themselves from violent orthodoxy, but likely only increasing the death toll in any forthcoming wars, a death toll that will become unimaginable if the orthodox Muslims win the wars and try to feed six or seven billion humans under Sharia economic rules and Islamic science. And yet, as I understand it, over a year later this man still walks freely in Britain. The Labour government in Britain is the enemy of a free humanity, both Muslim and infidel. I believe in free speech, as far as it can go, but this guy is calling for the violent overthrow of the British constitution and death or quasi enslavement of all non-Muslims. I think that's crossing the line, pretty much anywhere but in the appeasing nowhere land of moral and cultural relativism. Do you live somewhere, or nowhere?
YouTube - Killing of Non-Muslims is Legitimate (British Mullah)Note how Westernized in speech and manners this British Mullah is, yet note also how absolutely foreign to Western values, beyond those of gangsters, this man is. Anyone who wants to keep apologizing for the "religion of peace" when orthodox, Sharia-backed, guys like this are so sure of themselves and their support among their brothers here in the Western heartland, that they have the nerve to say on a globally-televised BBC World program that all non-Muslims are not innocent but are rather legitimate targets of coercion, extortion, and violence, is living in a dream world, unable to come to terms with real human conflicts.
It's clear that the conversation freedom lovers should be having is which Muslims do we deport, or send to an island in the Arctic if no other country will have them, and how many Muslims behave in ways likely leading to assimilation into Western society, hopefully by making a very public commitment to reform of Islam, in the manner of Muslims Against Sharia? Unless and until we make Muslims like this Mullah Chaudri pay seriously for uttering such orthodox filth, unless and until we make Muslims face real and hard choices by which they can display their allegiance to Western values, or become our enemies by actively or tacitly supporting guys like Chaudri, it should be clear that we are not keeping the peace by appeasing the orthodox hate mongers, or providing an arena or debate in which moderates can be liberated/liberate themselves from violent orthodoxy, but likely only increasing the death toll in any forthcoming wars, a death toll that will become unimaginable if the orthodox Muslims win the wars and try to feed six or seven billion humans under Sharia economic rules and Islamic science. And yet, as I understand it, over a year later this man still walks freely in Britain. The Labour government in Britain is the enemy of a free humanity, both Muslim and infidel. I believe in free speech, as far as it can go, but this guy is calling for the violent overthrow of the British constitution and death or quasi enslavement of all non-Muslims. I think that's crossing the line, pretty much anywhere but in the appeasing nowhere land of moral and cultural relativism. Do you live somewhere, or nowhere?
6 comments:
What happened to the France's Kindergarten Horrors post:
I don't know Vince, but Charles is an exceedingly polite man and maybe when he noticed I had just posted, he decided to postpone his post. or maybe he wants to work on it some more. I assume and hope it'll be back up shortly.
Much of my personal life revolves around my attempts to make sense of crime and punishment. Some life!
I feel that if a man punches another in the face, the man who hits another should end up in jail for it, regardless of the 'reason'. It's wrong to punch a guy in the face, and it's criminal. A man who hits someone should suffer for it, and he should be known to the pubic as a man who has acted like a thug.
I also believe that if a man doesn't punch another man in the face for being a scum-bag, that man who doesn't punch is a bad person who should suffer for his inaction, he should feel shame and deep guilt. To use Vince momentarily, if he were harassed in public and I stood by doing nothing because it's wrong to punch Vince's tormentor, I would have to hide my lovely face from Humanity forever. I couldn't live with myself for doing nothing.
It would be wrong to punch a tormentor in the face, illegal too, and I would expect to sit in jail for doing it. I would nearly enough demand to go to jail for it. Why? Because it's not about me and Vince and the other guy, it's about all of us living in a civilized society where we follow the laws, even if they are wrong and stupid. If I scoff at the laws, then I scoff at everyone, including Vince and myself. doing wrong doesn't make it good just because the cause is just. I'd do wrong and take the punishment because that too is right, intention be damned. That's not a valid issue. Wrong is wrong regardless. Paying for it is good. It is worthy of a man to pay for his crimes.
If we have bad laws, we also have a flexible and adaptable legal system that grows into the better incrementally by trial and error. I don't expect justice, I only expect fair application of the laws and correction as time goes on. If I suffer under an obviously unjust law, then so be it. I can sit in the full expectation that because I was unjustly treated the system will change in light of it. That is my reward for suffering injustice willingly.
Sharia? I cannot have any expectation that there will ever be any hope of justice in Sharia. My actions, right or wrong in struggle against Sharia, will come to justice and I will gladly suffer that in the knowledge that if our universal common law prevails I will in time be exonerated. Or not. I'm not to decide the law alone. I can only act in a state of personal justice and then suffer the consequences of our collectively agreed upon laws accordingly.
I have no right to attack someone hurting another: the police are to do that. If the police refuse, then I will act and be damned. But it's not a trivial or impulsive decision. It has to be worth the price.
A few years back four of us sharing a room laid in the dark while a mob outside hacked a man to death on the street below us. We did not a thing. Why? Because it wasn't our concern. Had it been our concern we would have acted, if not against the mob, then later against the individuals comprising the mob. Am I sure? Yes. Practice tells.
No pointless and crazy heroics for no gain. And punishment? There is law and there is guilt. The last case above involved neither. Why? Because it was not our concern. There, and they-- forget the sentimentalities of "We are the World, We are the Children"-- there was not our home, and they were not ours. Here, even in a foreign nation, I obey the laws because this is a family nation, related to my own by blood and history. If I were to attack even an obvious outsider for attacking an obvious insider, I would still expect to suffer for it. I would be attacking our communion. I wold be breaking our covenant. I have no good right to do so of my own accord. And if I did, if it were better to do so than not, then the consequences come and I would smile.
As I read Peer's piece above I was suddenly flooded with memories from , say, 45 years ago? I was a child in school when the teacher read a story about a boy who stole another's lunch. The boy was caught, a big farm lad catching him in the act, and the boy turned in the thief. The punishment in front of the classroom of kids was a whipping. The boy had his shirt taken off, and there he stood, bony and starving. The boy who turned in the thief said, to the effect, Someone has to pay for this crime, and though it's my lunch this boy stole, I'll talk the whipping for him because it's not right to punish a starving boy for eating. but someone has to pay."
Obviously that one stuck. I haven't thought of it consciously in all these years till this evening, but I would guess it laid in wait for me every time I had occasion to need that lesson to act anyway.
No one should ever expect any sympathy from me if they get captured for committing crimes against jihadis in our lands. We have police to deal with them. Those who break our laws must suffer our agreed upon punishments for it. And they should suffer willingly or earn our contempt.
"I have no right to attack someone hurting another: the police are to do that. If the police refuse, then I will act and be damned. But it's not a trivial or impulsive decision. It has to be worth the price."
You not only have the right, you have the responsibility to help.
You're a coward in society who should be punished. That's me doing my job but I suspect you already know it.
Granted, I don't know the circumstance or if there was anything you could have done, but it does seem to have scarred you.
I appreciate the fact that you shared this, it must be very painful for you to bear.
Be true to yourself in your search for the truth and you will be rewarded.
Thanks Dag,
I think we've all been in situations where we couldn't do what was right because we didn't have any power, in that place, to do anything about it.
Yes, our civil disobedience, when necessary, should be non-violent. That's how the morality of our cause can trump an ill-conceived law.
I don't know the law on the subject, but I doubt any court here would convict you for engaging in legitimate defense of a person being violently attacked. It is, I think, a question of when your violence exceeds the bounds of legitimate defense. You can't punch a guy for verbal harassment but you can verbally harass him back, and if he throws a punch you have a right to measured self-defense.
Sorry Vince,
I should have it back up soon.
Charles
Post a Comment