You don't say. And here I thought old stone face was the Ayatollah whisperer. ;)
|Worst case scenario: this kook has a nuke.|
A thousand foreign policy experts are dug out, suited up and marched into studios to explain what specific set of un-Islamic Muslim grievances caused this latest beheading and how the surviving non-Muslims need to appease their future killers. And then another tree falls. And another head rolls.
The appeasement never works. No non-Muslim country has ever reliably made peace with Muslim terrorists inside its own borders. Even the Muslim countries have a shaky track record. Most have settled for either massacring them, like Algeria and Jordan, or secretly allying with them, like just about every Muslim country from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia.
And yet Nigeria is expected to cut a deal with the Boko Haram rapists of its little girls, Israel is expected to negotiate with the mass murderers of its Rabbis, Hindus in India are expected to negotiate with the Jihadists who burn them alive and somehow arrive at a peaceful settlement. And if the peace doesn’t come, then it won’t be the fault of the rapists, the axe-wielders and arsonists, but of their victims.
It is never the Muslim terrorists who are at fault for not being appeased by any compromise and any concession. It is the fault of their victims for not appeasing them hard enough.
Compromise with Muslim terrorists is impossible because the issue is not really about Jerusalem, oil revenues in Nigeria, Kashmir or Syria. It’s always about Islam. The territorial claims are unlimited and uncompromisable because they are backed by Islam. No concession can ever suffice because Islam promises its followers not merely some land in Syria, Israel or India… but the entire world.There's a term for "the desire to dominate the entire world." You'll find it in the above headline.
Typical Beeb. Supine in the face of jihad. Suffused with--and rotted by--Zionhass.In the face of unspeakable depravity, the British respond with impeccable even-handedness. After pious expressions of horror over the carnage in Jerusalem this morning, where four rabbis were slaughtered during morning prayers and several o...thers badly injured by Arabs screaming “Allahu akhbar”, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and his Labour shadow Douglas Alexander called on “both sides” to “de-escalate” tensions.
“Both sides”, eh. How exactly do those who are being targeted for mass murder in a never-ending terror war “de-escalate”? The inescapable suggestion is that the Israelis have escalated these tensions in an equivalent manner to the Arabs.
This morning’s BBC reports of the atrocity went one stage further, blaming it on the “old dispute” over who gets to pray on Temple Mount and the recent tensions arising from the renewed Jewish campaign to do so. So the slaughter of Jews was all the Jews’ fault.
This was a grotesque, indeed obscene distortion. There was never the slightest chance of this forlorn campaign to allow Jews to pray on Temple Mount getting anywhere with the Israeli government. Israel didn’t escalate anything at all. On the contrary, the violence was initiated by the Arabs as they lit the petrol trail of lies and incitement.
This process was kicked off by Mahmoud Abbas when, at the UN a couple of months ago, he promulgated the demonstrable and ludicrous falsehood that Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians. Last month, he fanned the flames of conflagration by claiming entirely falsely that Jewish “settlers” were planning to desecrate the al Aqsa mosque, and calling for them to be prevented.
Falsely he claimed that there were “many attacks on al Aqsa repulsed by religious leaders”. But there were no such Israeli attacks. Instead, Arabs lured the Israeli police into the complex by throwing rocks and shooting fireworks towards police officers stationed near the entrance to the Temple Mount area from the Western Wall plaza. The police chased the rioters who ran inside al Aqsa, which had been turned into an ammunition store. From there, pitched battles were fought with Israeli police, firing small rockets at them and hurling stones and other projectiles.
But the BBC didn’t mention any of this today. Instead, it blamed the victims and thus excused their attackers...
The Qur'an defines churches and synagogues as places of legitimate worship which invoke Allah. These places are to be protected.Maybe so. But since, in the words of David Nirenberg, author of Anti-Judaism, the Qur'an "is extensively structured as a polemic against the Jews," and since the whole point of Islamic theology is to supersede both Judaism and Christianity, the monotheistic faiths that preceded it (and which have long been accused been accused of removing all references to Islam's founder in their holy texts, an act of malice and duplicity claim many Islamic theologians), one can understand why mum's the word for imams. And, given half a chance, no doubt more than a few of them would give thumbs up to these murders, which quite clearly were acts of jihad, and therefore fully in line with Qu'ranic teachings. And given that that's what "moderate" Jordan did—regret the death of the jihadis but not their victims—why wouldn't not-so-moderate imams do the same?
“CBC is now sustained in the trenches by a whole lot of new recruits who are enthusiastic and ambitious and gifted, and who desperately want to get a foothold in media. And desperation and vulnerability will go together, and then if you put that in a place where there is an influence driven by ego, narcissism, a kind of abusive personality, you start moving along a continuum. It starts with just a sort of obnoxious, ‘Run down and get me a coffee.’” Unchecked, he says, “It moves into a sense of entitlement that allows you to make greater demands and be a bigger bully.”
And even through MacIntyre spent decades on TV, he says he never lost the sense he had cultivated during his first 12 years in the business, as a lowly print reporter for a regional paper. “There was no horseshit there, boy,” he says with a chuckle. “Entitlement wouldn’t get you a cup of tea.
“The problem with the culture is that it nurtures that kind of celebrity, and it nurtures that kind of entitlement, because stardom tends to put a rosy glow over the whole institution, and makes the managers who cultivate the stardom look competent, and effective. And it makes them a little bit starry, too,” MacIntyre says. “So the Ghomeshi thing was always a problem. Because Ghomeshi has always been arrogant, he’s always been obnoxious – in the sort of the passive way, where he’s always been so vulnerable: ‘You can’t hurt Jian,’ even though he hurts other people. And his tantrums and his workplace relationships: ‘Well, he’s very rigorous, he’s a perfectionist, you know?’ So he is allowed to bully and abuse people. You know, that’s the way it works, that’s what you put up with, whether it’s Mansbridge, Gzowski, whatever. They were not like shrinking violets, either. So along comes Ghomeshi: ‘Oh, yeah, he’s in the tradition of that. But somewhere along the way, it crosses a line. It does cross a line.”So Mansbridge is a bully too, eh? Oh snap!
|Jian "Unger" and Bill "Madison"--what a pair!|