As I have explained before, we cannot rely on so-called “moderate Muslims” as most of them are lying, and even those who are not lying at the present can suddenly become “radicals,” i.e. normal Muslims, in a second. We thus have no choice but to treat ALL Muslims as potentially hostile people. Here is a “moderate Muslim,” who has earlier participated in “dialogue” meetings, who brags about how Muslims are conquering Europe. But only in Arabic, of course.
Below the jump is the video Fjordman is referring to:
- - - - - - - - -
20 comments:
I wonder how many more 'moderate' muslims have similar views? It really is chilling isn't it?
This just proves there are no true moderate muslims. They may say they are but when push comes to shove, or to wage jihad or not, the moderate position always evaporates, The true insidious nature of islam will always reveal itself. The islamic apologists are a pathetic bunch. Indeed, very chilling, indeed.
I think we should differ between "moderate muslim elites" and ordinary muslim citizens.
Majority of "intellectuall" muslim elite is quite certainly bunch of hostile scums.But if I am not mistaken at first they have been called "moderate" by our own elites and they have learnt advantages of such stickers for themselves.... "Moderate Islam" was not invented by muslims, but by "ourselves" and muslim elites simply use it for own gains.
Contrary to that, there are certainly many ordinary muslims and "muslims" living in Europe or in a whole Euroatlantic area who either do not care about Islam at all and are muslims just nominally and those who are muslims, but do not care about politics and just want to live their ordinary lifes of ordinary citizens :)
Problem is that such people will be probably in case of escalation almost completely irrelevant....
They could be very useful for us in peace times but constant harrasing by more religious parts of muslim community with at best inability of our own "elites" to do anything for them makes things just worse.....
But if we accept that biggest problem in is always power hungry elite, independently if indigenous or from immigrant ranks, maybe we could learn a lot from the Israeli-Arab conflict in times of Independence war, perhaps there is a chance, that if muslim elites would be forced to flee, majority of muslims would became completely helpless.....:)
Youtube removed the video. Anyone know why?
Any other places to see it?
Still works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSWLLc6uikE
It looks like MEMRI must have complained. That's too bad, because I don't have a link to the original on the MEMRI site.
If anyone finds the MEMRI link, please let me know. That will include at least a partial transcript, too.
Martin --
Thanks -- that's a different post of the same video. I've replaced the previous one with this one.
However, YouTube will eventually take this one down, too, if MEMRI complains.
BTW, I recommend a donation to MEMRI. Their work is absolutely crucial to the Counterjihad.
I agree with the Baron. The work that the people over at MEMRI are doing is invaluable. Give them a donation if you can.
The problem is that while there may be "moderate Muslims", these people overwhelmingly will stand with the fundamentalist types when push comes to shove. Far too many people paraded in front of us gullible Infidels turn out to be Islamists or at least unwilling to stand against the radicals. It doesn't matter if it's because they agree in secret with the Islamists or are afraid of them. The end result is the same. Any Infidel who puts any hope in them is a fool.
Memri is a perfect trainig camp.
If you watch it for 20 hours, you acquire the power to blow a muslim with your mental power at a distance.
Our muslim is a harmless cockroach willing to eat us, the only obstacle to our self-defence is the cultural ballast in our heads.
We read our papers instead of their papers.
The idiotic drunk-by-mama-perfume look of this hadnicapped moon sniffing supremacist - laughing about his penis jihad - is heartening.
We would be total idiots, if we are unable to win. It can be fun and a good healthy exercise.
Read Francois Rabelais to find out what I mean.
Did you notice the "reasoning" on display -- no matter what the Moslems do, it always the fault of the filthy unbelievers for provoking them.
Reasoning - the sheep of the wrong prophet cannot be wrong. It is almost logical.
I have made several donations to MEMRI and go there several times a week. A truly worthwhile site, well worth your time.
there are certainly many ordinary muslims and "muslims" living in Europe or in a whole Euroatlantic area who either do not care about Islam at all and are muslims just nominally
That may be true, but how do you know which ones are susceptible to being recruited into a "more authentic" Islam and which aren't? How many millions of them funnel money to the global jihad through payments of zakat? I submit they're all a dangerous fifth column whether or not they're devout.
There are two important point that have already entered discussion. First is that "moderate" Muslims or MINOs (Muslims In Name Only), still are a danger. The best example of this is SJS (Sudden Jihad Syndrome), where seemingly well-assimilated Muslims go on an abrupt and unpredictable killing rampage. This sort of dramatic realignment is symptomatic of what to expect should matters devolve into an "Us or Them" situation.
Second is how those talking heads on that video recast the normal exercise of Free Speech as "provocation" and attempt to make Europeans culprits with respect to Islamic intolerance. It is as if Islamic intolerance is a pivotal aspect of Muslim culture that is largely responsible for its huge progressive strides. When, in fact, this same intolerance is what has stagnated Islam for the better part of a millennia.
Worst of all is how Western leaders continue to delude themselves as to how there is anything to negotiate about with Islam.
THERE IS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE
What's more, there is no way to constructively negotiate with a group that employs taqiyya and kitman. Once again, I must refer the unacquainted to Yasser Arafat and his various and totally useless "accords" along with his numerous other treaties with the Israelis, all of which meant precisely NOTHING.
It amounts to voluntary betrayal that Western leaders continue pursuing these sundry pacts and alliances with Islam when Muslims have demonstrated repeatedly their eagerness to disregard them the instant they become inconvenient.
When a bishop has to leave the Church of England to stand up for Christians, what hope is left for Britain?
By Melanie Phillips, writing in the Daily Mail
The resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali as Bishop of Rochester is a terrible blow, not just for the Church of England but for Britain.
The bishop says he is resigning so that he can work for endangered or beleaguered Christian minorities both abroad and in the UK.
The resignation of Michael Nazir-Ali
What we are seeing is the Battle if Britain yet again. The big difference this time round, is that the government, which is charged with the defence of Britain, is enabling the invasion and occupation of Britain by Islam - the most retrograde cult in the world, as Churchill put it.
Now wouldnt it be rich if we see Christians start to leave, or being ferried out of Britain - a kind of Dunkirk in reverse.
In some sense the moderate muslims are betraying their people. In the same way as the western governments are betraying their own people.
In a bipolarised world people are taking side - those who do not should maybe be regarded as morally corrupt ?
A person who betrays his people is morally corrupt independent on whether he is a muslim or a christian. Why should we as christians trust people who are betraying their own people / muslims.
Carl Schmidt used to say that politics is about friends and enemies. Ethics is about good and wrong.
There is no implication such that A is your enemy --> A is bad, or A is good --> A is your friend.
By the above comment I do not mean that bipolarisation is a good thing, but maybe it is a fact which we are no more able to do anything about ?
In the modern idiom "ethics" is about "good and bad" within the context of a specific culture. What's good for us is bad for them and so on. Basic cultural relativism. In that sense your argument might hold some water, inasmuch as a man willing to betray one set of ethics for another may be willing to betray that set of ethics in turn. A man willing to do this can't be trusted.
However, beyond ethics there is morality. Morality is universal - that is, there is a moral law over and above any particular set of ethics you might subscribe to. Some ethical schemes are closer to this than others and some are so far away from it that they invert and pervert every aspect of that moral law. If a muslim abandons Islam because he feels that Islam is immoral rather than merely unethical then he can be trusted, I think, because he has made a judgement based on something superior to cultural ethical considerations.
Still, as they say, trust but verify.
"... as a man willing to betray one set of ethics for another may be willing to betray that set of ethics in turn."
For me betraying is about betraying people not about betraying an ideology or a moral.
"Morality is universal - that is, there is a moral law over and above any particular set of ethics you might subscribe to"
We can discuss the issue whether moral is universal or particular for ages without ever to agree.
Islam and Christianity and Humanism agree on the universality of the moral but whose moral?
Post a Comment