Friday, November 14, 2008

Echoes of Bali

Below is a guest-essay by Zenster, who is a regular reader and commenter at Gates of Vienna. It concerns the recent execution of the Bali bombers in Indonesia.


Echoes of Bali
by Zenster


“There’ll probably be retaliation. What is clear is that no drop of Muslim blood is free. It has consequences,” said [Bali Bomber Sympathizer] Ganna, 26, who traveled 90 kilometers (56 miles) from Jakarta to [imam Samudra’s hometown of] Serang to show his support. [emphasis added]

AmroziPerpetrators of the Bali Atrocity have finally been executed in Indonesia. The bodies have been returned to their home villages amid wide spread outrage over the executions. Almost entirely absent in this outpouring is any grief or regret over the almost two hundred non-Muslim lives lost on October the twelfth in 2002. Any of the limited anger and condemnation being directed at these heinous cretins is solely because their horrific mass murder took Muslim lives. The overall lack of embarrassment in there being such an outcry over fewer than twenty Muslim deaths as compared to almost 200 non-Muslims goes largely unnoticed. Even though Indonesia’s own pro-Islamic government imposed the capital punishment of these three murderers, there are still cries for Dire Revenge™ against the West.

There is a chilling message conveyed in the words “… no drop of Muslim blood is free.” It promises exactly what Islam has been delivering over the entirety of its nearly fourteen hundred years of existence, namely, an eternal cycle of violence. There can be no end to Islam’s blood feud with the West. The very first Muslim death at the hands of a kuffar guaranteed the current feeling of smug justification exuded by so many terrorist killers.
- - - - - - - - -
Buried in this obscene equation are some other equally disturbing notions. How is it that so few Westerners seem to feel a similar desire for retribution over the blood spilled in the many modern Islamic atrocities that began in earnest on September eleventh 2001? Is this lack of vendetta a result of Christianity’s taming influence, despite Biblical demands of “an eye for an eye”? Or is there a more significant and neutering social malaise in the form of unwarranted guilt that has been imposed upon Western civilization by Gramscian Marxists and so many other victim cultures?

My own perception is that—if the West is intent upon survival—the 9-11 atrocity should forever be remembered as the death knell of Islam’s eventual and permanent destruction. Once shrouded in mystery and self-imposed seclusion from Western minds, Islam has burst back upon the modern scene with renewed violence against the infidel world. What was once obscure has been made inalterably apparent and there can no longer be any mistaking the triumphalist nature of Koranic doctrine.

It is long past tea for the West to begin extracting its own retribution over Islam’s perpetual predation upon all non-Muslim cultures. Hitler and Stalin combined cannot hold a candle to the untold hundreds of millions that have perished at Muslim hands. Nor can colonial Europe and America’s legacy of slavery remotely challenge the inhuman bondage imposed throughout Islam’s entire history. Both practices — enslavement and mass murder — have remained Islam’s signal trademarks since its very inception. Should Western leaders continue tolerating such hideous rapacity, their collective inaction must eventually be construed as criminal.

15 comments:

MauserMedic said...

The average denizen of the West is far more concerned with the state of personal comfort right now than the potential for cultural and civic decay. One of the great effects of mandated multiculturism is tolerance of lowered standards of behavior by others. Outrage for acts of violence towards one's own culture or ethnic group is essentially forbidden for most of the West, as it's simply payback long-delayed. Afghanistan has been the one outstanding exception to this trend; it seems unlikely that we'll see that kind of response again within the next four to eight years, although I suspect we'll have more incidents worthy of response than the general public anticipates.

Given the choices of doing nothing, punitive raids with rapid withdrawal, or long-term occupation with attempted social engineering in response to terrorism, all of the results are not particularly satisfying: an appearance of fear of retribution, further encouraging more acts of terrorism, as there's little cost to the attackers; increased resentment among the general populace, leading to greater support for terrorism; or in the last option, massive amounts of capital and many lives spent in pursuit of permanent change, which will disappear when the military leaves.

If this is an accurate assessment, I believe we are best off answering violence with violence, consistently and with overwhelming force, although taking care to be precise in targeting. If one is going to be hated regardless of actions, it's better to be hated and feared than hated and held in contempt.

shiva said...

THE family of two Islamist extremists executed this week for the 2002 Bali bombings criticised an Indonesian website for publishing close-up photos of them in funeral shrouds, a report said today.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,24654971-401,00.html?from=public_rss

Pictures of the faces of brothers Amrozi and Mukhlas as well as ringleader Imam Samudra after they were executed by firing squad on November 9 appeared today on the Islamist Ar Rahmah website.

The photos were captioned with text in Arabic and Indonesian praising the murderers as the "martyrs of the battle of Bali".

Amrozi's and Mukhlas's eyes were open but Samudra's were shut.

"The family has been trying to anticipate this as best as we can but in the end the photos were stolen," Mohammad Chozin, the elder brother of Amrozi and Mukhlas, told Detikcom news website.

"The family hasn't had the chance yet to ask Ar Rahman about this," he said.

Lawyer Fahmi Bachmid said the images were published against the will of the dead bombers.

"I haven't been called by the family, but it's true that in the will given to the family it is not permitted to take photos of the bodies," Mr Bachmid was quoted as saying.

WELL SKREW THEM

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2526/arrahmahwillcome081117ge8.jpg

thll said...

Note that, "martyrs at the battle of Bali" - this unprincipled garbage have the gall to call this slaughter of innocents a "battle". Doesn't that just sum up these people?

Kevin Vail said...

A complete lack of supernatural faith is your culprit. People who believe this life is all they will ever have will risk very little and gladly choose slavery and degradation over death.

Shieldwalls said...

I thought Indonesian muslims were muslim lite. So much for that. At least their government delivered on this

babs said...

"How is it that so few Westerners seem to feel a similar desire for retribution over the blood spilled in the many modern Islamic atrocities that began in earnest on September eleventh 2001?"

One little quibble Zenster - I believe the atrocities began in earnest with the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole in Dec. of 00'. I pretty much knew we were in the deep end of the pool when the Cole was bombed.

Being a resident of the NYC area, I can tell you that the vast majority of citizens were absolutely calling for retribution after 9-11. And, our gov't did respond with fury.

The problem is that we have been systematically told to supress these feelings. It is now rude to pay any attention to the Bali bombers, misguided souls that they are... Riiiight.

The terrorists that tried to blow up passenger jets leaving the U.K. as well as the shoe bomber have forever changed the way we may travel; with little baggies of shampoo bottles, etc now required for inspection. I dare say that if you asked 100 passengers waiting in a security line why we are now subject to this insanity only a small minority would place the blame for that on Islamic terrorism. Most people don't know why we do this because the reasons are now "politically inappropriate" and not a subject for polite discussion...

We have gotten to the point of rescending a DOD sticker for a 25 year serving Marine that lost his child on the Cole because he has bumper stickers regarding Islamic terrorists on his truck that some "third parties find offensive." That little story is in the Baron's news feed from yesterday I believe.

I was concerned that placing any repub election sticker on my car this last election cycle would cause someone to vandalize it. Ditto for a lawn sign. About a year ago I was called in print in my local paper a "proto-fascist" (no kidding) for writing a letter to the editor supporting our troops and our foreign policy! Not only did one of my neighbors feel the need to call me that but, the paper saw fit to publish it!!!

I think we all get a bit of a kick out of looking at pro-western propaganda from WWII. Some of it is so over the top that it is hilarious. Well, western society has now swung in the exact opposite direction and those of us that want to fight the Islamism polluting our culture and politics dare do it only in whispers.

islam o' phobe said...

My own perception is that—if the West is intent upon survival—the 9-11 atrocity should forever be remembered as the death knell of Islam’s eventual and permanent destruction.

Death knell? I don't think so. Islam is not going to be destroyed. Lets just hope it can be beaten back this century.

Both practices — enslavement and mass murder — have remained Islam’s signal trademarks since its very inception. Should Western leaders continue tolerating such hideous rapacity, their collective inaction must eventually be construed as criminal.

That is a such a humanitarian conception its sickening. Its not up to Western leaders to end the Islamic slave trade or halt Islamic violence in general.

The only thing that matters is defense of our countries against the Muslim savages. Other than that Western leaders should be encouraging the Muslims to war against each other - to spill each other's blood - as President Carter successfully encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran.

What a pity that President Clinton was such a dummy that he talked the Iranians out of invading Afghanistan in 1999. That might have kept the Mullahs and the Taliban tied up in mutual warfare for a good number of years.

islam o' phobe said...

I think we all get a bit of a kick out of looking at pro-western propaganda from WWII.

Yep. I have Frank Capra's Why We Fight propaganda series on DVD. I'd especially recommend (films 1&4) "Prelude to War" and "Battle of Britain".

Well, western society has now swung in the exact opposite direction and those of us that want to fight the Islamism polluting our culture and politics dare do it only in whispers.

The -ism in Islamism is superfluous.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Or is there a more significant and neutering social malaise in the form of unwarranted guilt that has been imposed upon Western civilization by Gramscian Marxists and so many other victim cultures?"

Pretty much that.

Zenster said...

MauserMedic: If this is an accurate assessment, I believe we are best off answering violence with violence, consistently and with overwhelming force, although taking care to be precise in targeting. If one is going to be hated regardless of actions, it's better to be hated and feared than hated and held in contempt.

I am in overwhelming agreement with the bulk of your comment, save for the issue of how we are to "be precise in targeting".

While I concur that retribution is best directed against those who are directly responsible, Islamic terrorists and their facilitators make the most cynical possible use of Plausible Deniability. Islam itself continues to utilize Plausible Deniability as a cloak for its most heinous crimes.

Key Question: If an Islamic terrorist atrocity presents insubstantial evidence with respect to specific perpetrators or exact links to certain sponsoring entities, should that preclude all possibility of retribution?

This is a vital issue.

Islam, through terrorism, inflicts the very worst sort of Collective Punishment upon Western civilization. Are we to reward their flagrant manipulation of public perception via Plausible Deniability with non-response?

I maintain that the time has come whereby Islam must be made to experience the fruits of such vile and institutionalized deceit. If radical Muslims insist upon imposing Collective Punishment, then Muslims, in general, must begin experiencing the same. It’s not as if the same exact book that all of them read has not made it patently clear how they are everyone obliged to participate in jihad.

What's more, I also predict that it will become necessary to inflict massively disproportionate retaliation upon Islam, if only due to it's palliative fixation upon martyrdom. Accession to paradise is such an incredibly persuasive and propagandistic tool that simple reciprocity may not prove at all sufficient to deter Islamic fanaticism or comprise any sort of adequate response to ongoing terrorism.

It is difficult to foresee how responding with a 10X, 100X or even a 1,000X death toll against Muslim antagonists will not be necessary.

As, albeit, indirect proof of this, I note that many Muslims endure the very worst sort of abuses in the name of their ideology. Their children are sexually abused by the privileged clerical class, while their own charity (i.e., zakat), is routinely diverted into terrorist channels that have already inspired severe Western retribution. Yet few, if any, Muslims have been motivated to retaliate against the radical imams that hasten such doom upon them.

I maintain that it will likely take massively disproportionate retaliation against numerous Muslim communities or urban centers such that they are finally motivated to kill the clerical and scholastic caste that continues to throw all of them beneath the wheel of Islamic jihad. If any objection to such coarse abuse is not forthcoming, then it reveals their participation as voluntary and every Muslim thereby demonstrates that such hostility against the West is their explicit wish.

islam o' phobe said...

Their children are sexually abused by the privileged clerical class, while their own charity (i.e., zakat), is routinely diverted into terrorist channels that have already inspired severe Western retribution.

Wake up, Zenster.

The whole purpose of the zakat is to provide funding for jihad.

What planet are you living on?

Lucille said...

I dare say that if you asked 100 passengers waiting in a security line why we are now subject to this insanity only a small minority would place the blame for that on Islamic terrorism.

And the majority would be right. It's not because of "Islamic terrorism", or at least not directly. Visible airport security/TSA doesn't do much of anything.

Zenster said...

thll: Note that, "martyrs at the battle of Bali" - this unprincipled garbage have the gall to call this slaughter of innocents a "battle". Doesn't that just sum up these people?

Quite succinctly. Just as their definition of a martyr is an utter perversion of the concept.

Zenster said...

babs: One little quibble Zenster - I believe the atrocities began in earnest with the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole in Dec. of 00'.

While many Americans, including myself, might have been able to dismiss the USS Cole attack or Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings as some sort of overseas kerrufle, the 9-11 atrocity was a strike upon American soil.

It left no excuse for further ignorance, save the willful kind. Yes, the earlier attacks were all part of the same pattern. That is precisely why I qualified the 9-11 atrocity as being "in earnest".

Other than that we are, as usual, in violent raucous agreement.

Zenster said...

islam o' phobe: Death knell? I don't think so. Islam is not going to be destroyed. Lets just hope it can be beaten back this century.

If you have not done so already, I suggest that you read Wretchard's superb essay, "The Three Conjectures". A final excerpt:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

Even if Islam killed every non-Muslim on earth they would almost certainly continue to kill each other with their new-found weaponry. Revenge bombings between rival groups and wars between different Islamic factions are the recurring theme of history. Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.
[emphasis added]

With the advent of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Islam's doom is literally guaranteed. By having retarded its own civilization's intellectual growth by several centuries while narrowly having managed to survive into this modern era, Islam now seeks to obtain the unopposable might of nuclear weapons without any moral compass to guide them in their proper use.

Islam will, sooner or later, immolate itself in an orgy of "purification". It does this currently in Pakistan, just on a smaller scale. Given an abudance of nuclear weapons, the urge to exterminate kuffar and takfir alike will assure an irreversible slide into self-destruction.

It is incumbent upon the West to assure Islam's total obliteration before it succeeds in destroying much of modern civilization along with itself.

That is a such a humanitarian conception its sickening. Its not up to Western leaders to end the Islamic slave trade or halt Islamic violence in general.

Perhaps you mistake me. Western leaders are not obliged to intervene in Islam's activites with respect to terrorism and slavery, they are obliged to intervene against Islam itself.

Islam must clean its own house. It had neglected or outrightly refused to do so for many centuries. To retain any hope that this situation will change, not just in the near future but at all, is the height of folly.

The only thing that matters is defense of our countries against the Muslim savages.

As in how the only good defense is a good offense, the only way of defending our countries against Islam is to dismantle it permanently. Please examine arguments as to why a policy of containment will not work in defeating Islamic predation against the West. Then merely extend that same logic into the concepts of "defense" against a suicidal foe.

The -ism in Islamism is superfluous.

I could not agree with you more. The only time I use "Islamism" or "Islamist" is to avoid duplicate word use in a sentence or paragraph.

The whole purpose of the zakat is to provide funding for jihad.

You are preaching to the choir, pal. My point is rhetorical, in that Muslims neither object to their charity funding terrorism nor do those who indeed object take real action against the responsible parties. As is the case with so much of Islam, silence is consent. However, with one slight distinction.

As a Spanish journalist once observed:

After a while, silence is no longer just consent. To remain silent, is to lie.