What kind of a society consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage? Suicide bombers are an escalation of a small-arms war introduced during the first Intifada (1987-1993 Palestinian’s uprising) and championed by Palestinian leaders, even prior to Arafat’s arrival from Tunis in July 1994. Today the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs nurture a blind hatred of Israel. They created a cultural milieu of vengeance, violence and death - preparing their children to be sacrifices in a death cult. Proud parents dress up their toddlers not in clown costumes, but with suicide belts,1 and countless others celebrate their children’s deaths with traditional sweet holiday cakes and candies.No society that truly loves its children would want to turn them into sacrifices for the sake of jihadism. But to say that in Cairo it's different is flawed - if even there, children are raised upon Islamofascism and its brand of socialism, and refuse to recognize how its structure is the very reason they've got problems, then there's no true love there either.
Protecting our children is a universal trait that unites the Family of Man. But in Palestinian society, that standard has been turned on its head
Around the world, children are precious gifts to their parents and keys to the future. The loving care we invest in our own children is a human trait that unites different cultures: rich and poor, traditional and hi-tech. The toughest job parents have is to raise their children while making everyday sacrifices and decisions for them. We hug them, love them and watch them grow up, praying that they will come to no harm, and doing everything we can to ensure that.
From the poorest barrios in South America to the most wretched slums of Cairo, parents strive to make sure there is food for their children and money for their children’s education. Parents everywhere walk a fine line between the need for parental guidance and youthful independence, setting rules for what their children can and cannot do, trying to ensure that their children will not make mistakes that endanger them. Parents raise their children with the hope that they will grow into happy, responsible, caring, and contributing members of society. That is what unites the Family of Man from Caracas to the Caucuses, from Timbuktu to Katmandu.
It is clear that in Palestinian society something has gone dreadfully wrong. Children in Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza are turned into ‘self-destructing human bombs’ capable of carrying out casualty terrorist attacks in the struggle between Palestinians and Israelis - a phenomenon whose seeds can be traced to the first Intifada.
It happened because Arab communities within the civil jurisdiction of self-rule under the Palestinian Authority (which includes 97 percent of the Arab residents in the West Bank and 100 percent of those in Gaza) foster a culture that prepares children for armed conflict, consciously and purposely putting them in harm’s way for political gain and tactical advantage in their war against Israel. The PA buses children to violent flashpoints far from their neighborhoods and Arab snipers often hide among the young during battle, using children as human shields. Teenaged perpetrators of suicide attacks have become the norm.2
Now, look at the following from this NYT article (via The Blaze) about girls in the Hasidic Jewish community who suffered from anorexia. I personally think it's a bit sensationalized, as could be expected from such a crappy paper, and it doesn't take into consideration that if you know where to look, there are Arab girls who could suffere the same problems, but if there's one thing that is correct here:
By the time her rabbi came to visit her, she was emaciated. He told her that she must attend a treatment program that met on Saturday, the Jewish day of rest, even if she had to violate religious rules by riding in a car to get there. She could even eat food that wasn’t kosher.Yes, that's correct. The customs in Judaism are to live by, NOT to die by. The same goes with Christianity. On the other hand, it seems that in Islam, religion is put above ALL else. But is that truly what God wants of Muslims? And how did Muhammed, a man who bore only daughters and never had a son to take up his barbaric reign, know that God would want him to lead the kind of dark stained life he did? In the case of that tyrant Muhammed, one could say he was merely a foul fantasist and know-it-all of the worst kind.
“That’s when I realized it was a matter of life and death,” Ms. Feigenbaum said in an interview. “My rabbi does not take Jewish law lightly. But he told me the Jewish laws are things God wanted us to live by, not die by, and that saving a life takes precedence over all of them.”
And that kind of uppity mindset is just what's destroying societies adhering to Islam.
13 comments:
Was it not also Wafa Sultan who sold her identity, culture and logic for profit?
Either way, that sentiment is correct, it beggars belief that parents even allow thier children to be a part of what is now a permanent hate-political identity.
Wafa Sultan spoke out against anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, and for that, she was threatened with death and lives in hiding, and this Damien the figurative dick sucker is accusing her of "selling out her culture".
Fuck, I wish you were standing in front of me right now. I'd fucking expose your little piss-pants courage for what it is, you stupid motherfucker.
Here's what Damien the figurative dick sucker is calling "selling out her culture", just so everyone knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2fqe4oWsI
Why don't you just get it out in the open, Damien. You hate Jews, don't you?
Don't you?
Damien Charles QC,
Wafa Sultan did not sell out. She's doing what she believes in, not because she wants to make money. Why should she whole heartily support a culture that is so bigoted and sexists? Anyway, if all she cared about was money, than why wouldn't she have stopped by now. There are people who want to kill her for what she's doing, and they may actually attempt to murder her because of it. Also, her standing up, and resisting Islamic imperialism, isn't really that profitable.
I agree with Pastorius on that. He may have been extremely rude, but Wafa Sultan is a hero, not a sell out.
Pastorius, if you want to go ape-sh*t over what someone else says then that is fine by me, your capacity to hold your bowls, act mature or attempt to wonder why someone says something is ultimately your own problem to deal with.
Calling me anti-semitic is both naive and frankly pathetic. The best example of someone who is not anti-semitic is one who basically does not give a rats' arse if one is Jewish or not. Some here, I have noticed, want people to bow down, sing songs, moan and grown when the word Jew or Judaism is mentioned, that I reject. At the same time, as someone who reads and respects history, I "respect" the horrible events but take them as history and judge events of today. For a supposive anti-Semite, it raises the question why I have and have helped Jewish clients including those who seeked just compensation for past abuse by the Spanish State of Andalucia.
Now, the topic of Wafa Sultan. I would have supported her to no-end, I would appreciate the abuse she has suffered and respect her stead-fast determination to be herself. Having said that, I have absolutely no respect for ANYONE who leaves a faith and then uses their "ex-status" to then attack that faith, particularly when it becomes profitable such as selling books. She still calls hereself a Muslim but says she does not support or recognise Islam (there is no difference and she knows it). That she has done.
The topic of her past, death threats has nothing to do with my comment and I am deeply disapointed in you Pastorius if you cannot think further than instant defence regardless of any or all situations or reasons. Which is called a "balanced view".
I also put to question those that because of "an issue" be it severe or whatever, that decide to go the full effort to no longer be what they were. Wafa Sultan is basically now an American and more and more here comments on Syria, the Arab World or Middle-East in general is stereotypical and she has washed herself of her culture.
All these factors, for me, justifies my opinion and comment about her. If you do not like it, that is up to you, if you want to go down the childish insult root, that is your perogative but ultimately reflects on you and your capacity, but certianly not on me.
If you like, I have even a worse opinion of Hirsi who has abondoned two cultures and changes her story to suit her desire for popularity.
Peace, this is called discussing.
Damien,
You write: I have absolutely no respect for ANYONE who leaves a faith and then uses their "ex-status" to then attack that faith
I say: I posit that you would have no problem with a person writing a book about corruption they witnessed when employed in the corporate world, in the military or police forces, or in the government.
Religion, the media, corporations, Military, and government are all powerful institutions which help mediate, or administrate society.
As powerful institutions, the check against their power becoming unbridled is FREE SPEECH.
How a person makes money is none of your business, though I can understand that one might be tempted to think a person is corrupted by a lust for money.
However, considering Wafa Sultan's husband is a Physician, I don't think money is the issue here. Certainly I know that money is not behind Robert Spencer's choice of careers. To say that it is, is preposterous and only proves you know little about the man.
You have to remember, I am, or have been, actually in contact with these people, so I know at least a little bit about their circumstances.
I know of no one who has gotten rich off the anti-Jihad movement. The only person I have had any contact with whose "fee" was offensive was Walid Shoebat, but was contact was his agent Keith, not Shoebat himself. So, I don't claim to know anything about Shoebat.
One thing you do not appear to give proper consideration to is this (and this is one of the reasons I am so angry with your ignorant abuse of Wafa Sultan), these people,
Wafa
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Geert Wilders
Robert Spencer
have had their lives turned upside down by their willingness to speak out. In the case of Hirsi Ali and Wilders, both have had to sleep in prison cells, under heavy police protection, in order to avoid those who are trying kill them.
I am pretty sure Sultan has to travel in the same manner.
There is another one who has to live like this, whom we have not discussed here as yet. That is Father Botros Zakaria. He also lives under constant threat of death.
And then there is that poor idiot cartoonist, Molly Norris:
http://www.seraphicpress.com/molly-norris-no-longer-exists/
While the media were obsessing over the non-burning of the Koran and the perpetually-outraged at-something-liberals were piously beating their collective breast over this clever and revealing non-event, Molly Norris, a young cartoonist from Seattle, was advised by the FBI to go ghost, to cease existing.
You see, because Norris offended Muslim sensibilities—not hard to do, sometimes just breathing is provocation enough, that’s why the Arab Muslim world is Judenrein—she is in the process of scrubbing her identity, hiding underground, and assuming a new identity.
I assume she’s also going to have some plastic surgery.
Norris had the chutzpah to exercise her First Amendment rights with the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.
Thus, a fatwa—Islamic death sentence—was pronounced on Norris and she is now a target for assassination.
For the rest of her life the woman once known as Molly Norris will be like a hunted animal.
Here is the cartoon for which she was threatened:
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/05/molly_norris_draw_mohammed_day.php
So, you go right ahead and hide behind your posture of etiquette. Truth is, you are not that brave.
You are not brave enough to do what these people do, and so you curl yourself into nuance, and bless yourself for the intelligence you believe you are displaying under the rigor of subtlety.
But, your subtlety, your nuance is fear manifest. It is deception. It is the purposeful ignorance of the suffering of those who are brave in your place, those who choose to stand up and fight for people like you, who will not do it for themselves.
And that is why I call you Damien the figurative dick sucker.
Pastorius, when someone sees corruption they report it, if they do not get a proper hearing because of that corruption the make a stand and point out what is wrong. They do not then go and say that justice is incorrect they say that they want justice. You also then ask if they start writing books on it and the story changes, they attack the entire system or rather than an element.
You are also basing your argument that the person is saying is correct. As I pointed out, as soon as one calls themselves a Muslim but does not accept Islam in generalised terms, simply put that is not serious but after a game. Then we go by association, Wafa if she was as she says a real Muslim, would not tolerate Spencer or Wilders who would be thus attacking her faith. By definition, a Muslim believes in Mohammed, thus why does she not condemn Spencer and others who call him a murderer and paedophile, etc, etc?
I see on your part a selectiveness that frankly puts you in the very questionable mark. You will defend Spencer and Wilders because they say things that you agree and support and yet you ignore the ugly, bad and frankly condemnable sides to them. Remember that it is because of the antiquated Duch legal system that Wilders is not in jail and that his non-democratic party does not exist. Any American pushing traditional values and Thomas Jefferson would not tolerate Wilders for that simple reason. Benjamin Franklin spoke to great lengths about association with the questionable poisons one's own argument.
That is exactly why I diassociate myself with anything radical, questonable or immoral and that is why I have to disassociate myself with Sultan, Hirsi and many, many others.
Hirsi not only left her place of birth but decided to abandon her culture. She declared that The Netherlands was her country and the "best place on earth". She joined parliament and as soon as she made her speeches she was actually laughed at and then she left for the US and instantly declared herself as an American and that the United States was "the best place on earth" (sound familiar?). There is not a Dutch pollitician today other than Wilders (note the association) who says even a kind thing about her.
These people do not combat evil, they do not work to free people, they sell books, push an agenda and associate together than in itself condemns them.
Call me what you like, it only reflects on yourself and what your standard is. What it certainly does not, is work towards the subject matter at hand.
Damien,
What does Mohammed stand for? He stands for murdering apostates and gays, and he stands for raiding villages, taking the land, killing the men, and taking the women as concubines.
Wafa Sultan stands against that, so you say she is "not a real Muslim".
And, I know I agree with you on that, and I think she would too.
Pastorius, when we talk about the actions of Mohammed and the various texts of the Koran there are many interpretations that can come from it. As I mentioned in another thread, I believe in the Bible and thus I read, attempt to understand context but do not go further in judgement on a religous text that I simply neither have faith in or believe.
Nevertheless, discussin that particular issue with academics, some Imams and generally educated Muslims from a number of countries (and regions) I find some points interesting.
The first is, many if not most Muslims take the Koran as three separate entities. An example of the history and times of the period of Mohammed, a set of examples that we are to learn from (including in a sense as parables) and thirdly The Message.
No Muslim will deny that Mohammed was also a tribal leader and a general commanding forces. If we look at the environment and politics of that time, one waged war and one defended oneself and their tribe. It was harsh times. It should not be forgotten, to have context correct, that the Old Testiment is very similar in many aspects including holding no punches in conflict and God's permission to wage war and wiipe certain tribes from the face of this earth - let alone share the spoils.
It is for that reason I find it both unwise if not a touch hypocritical to attempt to go down that track.
As you mentioned (I think), modern day Uganda would execute homosexuals based on it being a perversion of God's creation, and that from an Evengelical stand-point. Sodom and Gomora was, according to Evangelicals, destroyed because of such perversions, was it not?
The question is, did Mohammed in the Koran say kill gays for the future world we live in or did he say it for the sake of keeping tribal harmony which in that era was possibly a factor in keeping the tribe from becoming extinct? We know what hard-liners say.
If there is any issue with Islam, in my mind it is the haddiths, not the Koran, but then are we not biased?
Damien,
You write: The first is, many if not most Muslims take the Koran as three separate entities. An example of the history and times of the period of Mohammed, a set of examples that we are to learn from (including in a sense as parables) and thirdly The Message.
I respond: If that is the way they interpret the Koran, AND they use such an interpretation to weed out violence and injustice (as Christians and Jews do with their scriptures) then that is fine. Wafa Sultan would not stand against that.
Wafa Sultan stands against the kind of Islam which would make her a target for saying the things she said in that video I posted.
You know that is true. I ought not have to explain that to you.
What do you have to say to, for example, the idiot who was arguing with her in that initial video?
You write: It is for that reason I find it both unwise if not a touch hypocritical to attempt to go down that track.
I respond: Unwise? Perhaps, though not when you consider that she is under threat of death for the thing she said in the first video. We need more people in this world who would have the bravery to respond to such abuse with the kind of response she has since acted with.
Hypocritical? Not at all. The woman simply does not believe in those ideas, and she chooses to speak out against them. It would be another thing entirely if she did believe in such ideas and spoke against them. That would be hypocrisy.
You ask: As you mentioned (I think), modern day Uganda would execute homosexuals based on it being a perversion of God's creation, and that from an Evengelical stand-point. Sodom and Gomora was, according to Evangelicals, destroyed because of such perversions, was it not?
I respond: I believe homosexuality is often mentioned as one of the sins of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the only one. In actuality, it is only alluded to as a kind of offensive behavior visited by a crowd upon three men ("angels") the Lord sends to the city to find "just 10 righteous men".
That offensive behavior sounds like a kind of threat of prison rape against the three men, and seems to have been a display of force.
While you are correct in saying many say this passage is evidence that the sin was homosexuality, that is not really what the passage itself specifies.
I'm not trying to split hairs with you, however. There is a verse in the Bible which calls for the murder of homosexuals for their abominable sin.
Of that, there is no doubt.
Post a Comment