Daily Gut: Backlash Against the Backlash

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


The NAZI's weren't a country, they were a movement with a particular set of beliefs, who took over a country, and then a large part of Europe. They were open about their prejudices from the beginning.

The Muslims are no different than the NAZIs, and they are the only organized group that has carried out genocide recently, in Somalia.

Your attempt to paint me as calling for genocide, by pointing out the violent and aggressive actions of a particular group of people, is about as backward a form of logic as there is, and an extremely dangerous form of logic. I am not calling for the death of any group, I am just pointing out the reality of who and what these people are.

Islam is our modern day NAZI movement, and the genocide in Somalia is proof of that.

Appeasement did not work in dealing with the NAZIs, and it will not work with Islam.

edit to correct lack of proof reading


[edit on 16-11-2009 by poet1b]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were originally written in Russia and Goebbels rewrote them to suit the ideology of the National Socialists and published them in German as a need for a 'fall guy' to blame and focus the populace.

History of the Protocols

Germany's use of the Protocals
Zindo



[edit on 11/16/2009 by ZindoDoone]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were originally written in Russia and Goebbels rewrote them to suit the ideology of the National Socialists and published them in German as a need for a 'fall guy' to blame and focus the populace.

Yes indeedy...hence my mention of the Okhrana. And patriots like Henry Ford were fond of beating that drum as well...recall the resultant shame of the SS St Louis. Canada is famous for the phrase "None is too many"

...and it all starts with the demonising of a people.

Which is why I look to the ones who are beating the drums the most loudly, and ask myself why? Cui Bono?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Let me ask you this, do you think it was a good thing that the U.S. joined the Alliles in WW II, defeating the NAZIs and the Japanese?

Do you think people should stand up to an aggressor?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Sigh...and people wonder how Hitler got as far as he did...

Basically. You don't think like us so you have to go, nevermind the millions of Islamic followers that live peaceful and meaningful lives in the US.

reply to post by cenpuppie


It is not what they think, it is what they do.

While most Muslims live without committing violence, it seems that they are either held captive by the radicals in their midst, or are just peaceful co-conspirators in the violent practices of the radicals.

The continuing violence perpetrated by Islam everywhere they goes clearly demonstrates that this beliefs system can not be trusted to live among civilized society.

How dare someone speak up and say, it is time to increase our defenses against these violent aggressors, well, it is time for a backlash against the backlash.

The West is not the aggressor, the Indians are not the aggressors, the Africans are not the aggressors, Islam is the aggressor on all fronts, and we need to increase our defensive efforts.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Sigh...and people wonder how Hitler got as far as he did...

Basically. You don't think like us so you have to go, nevermind the millions of Islamic followers that live peaceful and meaningful lives in the US.

Every 'group' has its defective units...Tim McVeigh can stand for the whitebread American contribution. You can't winnow out the sick and depraved...you can only hope that reason permits the public at large to tell the difference and not paint any group with too broad a brush. I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority of new Muslims in the US thank Allah for the opportunities offered them and want nothing more than to raise their children to a better life than theirs.

A better plan? Embrace the newcomers and make them part of your community. We have a hit TV show called "Little Mosque on the Prairie".

Wiki provides the following as the show's theme:

While the show does derive some of its humour from exploring the interactions of the Muslims with the non-Muslim townspeople of Mercy, and the contrast of conservative Islamic views (held primarily by the characters of Baber and Fatima) with more liberal interpretations of Islam (as represented by Amaar and Rayyan), at its core the show is essentially a traditional sitcom whose most unique trait is the simple fact of being set among an underrepresented and misunderstood cultural community.

Nawaz herself has stated that the show's primary agenda is to be funny, not to be a political platform. She has also stated that she views comedy as one of the most valuable and powerful ways to break down barriers and to encourage dialogue and understanding between cultures.

This is represented by the show's current promotional tagline, "Small town Canada with a little Muslim twist": the religious angle, while always present, is largely tied to and sometimes even secondary to standard and universal sitcom themes such as family, friends and the humour in everyday life. For example, while the show sometimes tackles storylines with a political edge, such as a character being unable to attend a conference in the United States after being wrongly placed on a no-fly list or the mosque being raided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, even these situations are explored as much for their humour as their politics.

The show much more commonly explores purely comedic issues such as whether a Muslim woman still has to cover her hair if the only man who can see her is gay, whether Muslims can curl, whether to haggle with the carpet salesman when buying a prayer rug, or whether a Muslim woman's head scarf is enough to mitigate a bad hair day. Television critics have also credited this very combination of an attention-grabbing premise with conventional and familiar sitcom themes as one of the primary reasons that the show successfully retained an audience after its debut.

Notably, the series also sidesteps issues of stereotyping by having characters in both the Muslim and non-Muslim communities who cross the entire spectrum of political opinion. Baber and Fatima, who represent conservative views within Islam, are balanced by conservative radio host Fred Tupper among the non-Muslims, while Amaar and Rayyan, who represent Islamic liberalism, are balanced by the liberal Anglican Rev. Magee. The more moderate Yasir and Sarah, who try to be good Muslims but aren't particularly strongly defined by their faith, are balanced among the non-Muslims by Mayor Popowicz, who doesn't care what anybody's religious beliefs are as long as they vote for her on election day.

Hewitt's character of Rayyan Hamoudi, in particular, has been singled out in the media as a strong and unique role model for young Muslim women—both for her ability to reconcile a commitment to her Muslim faith with a modern, feminist-inspired Western lifestyle and career,[5] and as a fashion icon who dresses in clothes that are religiously appropriate yet stylish, professional and contemporary.en.wikipedia.org...

www.cbc.ca...

This may all seem quite trite on the face of it, but it sure beats trying to victimize yet another 'enemy du jour'. Mind you...hatred can be so much easier.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


And how long ago was Timothy McVeigh?

Yes, there are the nutcases, but Islam has far too many incidents to call them nutcases. The attacks carried out by Islam are far too often and far too well planned to be a matter of nutcases.

When European women can not walk through their own cities without getting harnessed by Muslim men, if they have to go through a Muslim dominated area of the city, unless they are wearing a head scarf, then something is seriously wrong. This isn't sitcom material, maybe a good Saturday Night Live skit, but not prime time.

reply to post by poet1b


i've often considered the koran to be mohamed's mein kampf. the man was a ruthless killer and an empire builder. as the thinkers in the scottish enlightment concluded, if it turns out that god is a god of cruelty and violence then he is not worthy of worship and i choose not to follow him. allah and mohamed are not worthy of worship. there is something profoundly tainted about them.

reply to post by snusfanatic


i want to add a little more context. i am not equating the average muslim to anything like the grotesque description of jews in nazi germany. it seems there is some confusion on those thread. one side believes the other wants to appease the 'muslims' like the west did hitler. the other believes the large number of peaceful muslims in the united states are being demonized.

i think the problem is this. what is normal for muslims in the united states is not the 'normal' elsewhere in the world. the problem with islam as a world wide force is that its increasingly political. no one can argue that political islam as it first manifested itself in the iranian revolution is compatible with western liberalism. that is to say....

the peaceful and law abiding muslims in europe who favor shariah law are part of a PROBLEM. a profound problem and a threat to the consensus we have built about the rule of law in the western world. westerners who approve islamic zones or the approval of islamic law as evidence in court, etc are part of the problem.

multicultuarlism is a beautiful idea, but when western society attempts to integrate with a culture that wishes to enforce its religious law in the civil courts there IS a threat. i dont' think any reasonable person can deny that what is happening in europe is very different than what is happening in the USA. and its unexceptable.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Excellent post, but a point I would make is that Muslims in the U.S. do not have a large enough population to do what they are currently doing in Europe, but because they have such high birth rates, in a few decades they be as big of a problem in the U.S. and Canada as they are in Europe, and in Europe the problem will be as bad as India or Kashmir.

Their game plan is simple, they have higher birth rates and take over an area. Once they have become the majority in an area, they stop being nice, and start aggressively enforcing their cultural beliefs on everyone. The do this by controlling their women with the head scarves and the burqas, and threats of violence against their women who refuse to follow their requirements. They aggressively harass non-Muslim women into following their cultural demands.

Those who refuse to do anything to protect liberties are in deed appeasing the Muslim radicals and playing into their game plan.