From Brussels Journal (with thanks to Najistani):
While the largest political party in Sweden, the Social Democrats, are launching a formal cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood for the mutual benefit of both (Muslims predominantly vote for Leftist parties) Muslims are openly threatening the life of cartoonist Lars Vilks ("Let his destiny be a lesson to others," as one Muslim preacher warned during a free speech seminar in Stockholm organized by humanists and ex-Muslims).
Islamists are pushisg for a boycott of Swedish firms. Websites run by militant Islamists have listed the names of over 100 Swedish companies as possible targets in the ongoing row surrounding the publication in Swedish newspapers of Vilks’ caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Detailing the addresses, maps and logos of Swedish businesses, the websites called for their readers to boycott these firms and "take revenge" on Sweden for the publication of the controversial cartoon.
It should be mentioned here that when Britain, Israel, the United States or any other country gets attacked by Muslims, this is always blamed by the media on past colonial history, occupation, aggressive foreign policy etc. Well, Sweden doesn't have a colonial history, its political establishment is among the most anti-Israeli in Europe and Swedish media have always been critical of US policies. Muslim immigration to the country has created the worst rape wave in Scandinavian history (which was indirectly blamed on global warming by the nation's largest newspaper some weeks ago), and the authorities have more or less abandoned their third largest city, Malmö, to Muslim gangs.
In short: It is hardly humanly possible to appease and grovel for Muslims more than Sweden has done, yet for some strange reason, Muslims don't get less aggressive because of this. On the contrary. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere?
That's a good one. I've always known the Islamists' excuse wasn't right, but I've never read anything that clearly refutes it. Until your post.
ReplyDeleteI'm listening right now to the audiobook, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam, and Robert Spencer was describing the Islamic principle of "pretext," which means if you want to expand Islam by war, it is always best to have a pretext, preferably something that makes it seem that the Muslims are the victim. Then the Islamists are not launching a war, they make it seem like they're merely defending themselves.
Hitler used the same principle. It helps justify violent action to a population that might question overt aggression.
In the West's case, it also gives liberals a reason to side with the Islamists against the warmongering hawks.
Anyway, that was a great example to expose the real situation: The Islamists' excuses must be merely pretext.
Citizen Warrior,
ReplyDeleteDo you have a link for the Jihad Watch post?
Najistani,
ReplyDeleteWell put. Thanks for helping me out with this post.
May allah Destroy you.
ReplyDeleteThe end of the Kufar is near.
The ummah will never forget the 6th crusade, against the muslims, in 615 when dimiat was occupied, the Ayubi Amir was fighting the dogs.
One of the crusaders would come out every day and curse the prophet muhammad. The Leader of the Muslims engraved the face of this Kafir in his memory.
The crusade, like the others before it, failed. 10 years later, the Leader who defeated the kufar at dimiat saw the Kafir and remembered him, and arrested him.
The crusader was taken to Madinah and the Caliph slaughtered him like an animal in front of the grave of Mhammad on the day of Jumuah.
Oh Allah engrave these nations and thes individuals on the memories.
John Hudson,
ReplyDeleteYou don't know your history. The end of the Crusades was the Spanish Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Moors. The complete humiliation of the Prophet, who was proved to be the dog he had always been.
The Muslims at one time ruled much of Europe, but they were thrown out, never to rule again.
What breed of dog is Mohammed? He looks like a Shitzu to me.