The most persecuted group in the world today is Christians. Christians in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria and other nations are murdered, raped, kidnapped, enslaved and persecuted on a daily basis.
The reason for the vast majority of all of this violence is that they are Christian among Muslims.
But their abuse does not stop with the violence. The perpetrators of violence are measured in the thousands, but the greatest abuse is at the hands of those who should demand that the violence stop. The silence in the face this persecution is denial and justification.
The persecutors are few, but the deniers are in the billions.
Christians are enjoined to care for all persecuted people, but in particular, they are to care for their own brothers and sisters. They manage to ignore the persecution by doing good works, such as care for the poor. Christians have compassion but no courage to face the enemy who kills them.
In Nashville, TN (the buckle on the Bible belt) the favorite indoor sport for those who should be dealing with the enemy, Islam, is going to Family of Abraham events and bridge building dialogues where they dance to the tune of Muslims. There is no problem of meeting with Islam, but the rules of engagement are that nothing will be said that offends Islam.GO READ THE WHOLE THING.
AND THEN, THERE'S THIS:
31 comments:
Reading these stories day after day and realizing no one who is able to do anything about this gives a sh*t, I am left feeling like Ezekiel when he said:
"“I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the people of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”"
Christians are the most despised people on earth. Are they? I am not so sure about that. I think Jews still retain that title. Christians are the least protected people in the world at this point, that I can agree with.
Thousands of years of persecution against the Jews has resulted, for the time being, in the fact that if Jews are persecuted anywhere, most (not all) of the Jewish community stands with them. And it is a beautiful thing to see that happen too.
Christians on the other hand not only don't stand with their brethren when they're persecuted, but also make it a point to make excuses for those who are murdering Christians.
Today we are being taught that a hero has died without giving any regard to the fact that that hero was a former terrorist who signed off on bombings against innocent people in churches and malls.
I wouldn't be surprised in 5 or 10 years time, when no Christian is left in that region to speak up for themselves or defend themselves, if Boko Haram and other groups are hailed as hero by all sides and an example to be followed because they were fighting for, what people perceive to be, just cause.
I wouldn't be surprised if our children gave homage to the leaders of these terrorist groups and remembered them as "freedom fighters" and the "most righteous whose examples we should all follow".
With the lies being sold to the world at faster pace than any events take place, I have no hope that these Christians will ever get the help they deserve or that they will even be remembered after they've all been murdered in plain sight.
I do wish sometimes I'd been born some 30-40 years earlier...
Nicoenarg
Good point. It is likely that Jews are still the most despised people on Earth.
I'm not sure the accusations you are leveling at Mandela are true. I don't think they were proven. And, as a leader, certainly, Mandela did not behave like a terrorist.
Mandela in his book "Long Walk to Freedom" admitted to signing off on terrorist attacks. I think I'd take his word rather than those that have interest in whitewashing what he did, just like I take the word of Muslim terrorist when they claim to carry out terrorist attacks in the name of Islam instead of politicians who claim Islam is a religion of peace.
Whether the guy changed later or not is irrelevant to what he did, and never apologized for, in the past (same way that Roman Polanski should be punished for the rape of an underage girl decades ago, regardless of whether he still rapes people or not).
He was the leader of the armed wing of the ANC at the time he was arrested.
Inspired by the armed "revolution" in Cuba by Castro, he tried to fashion his own "revolution" after Castro's since he was a young communist. His best buddies included Arafat and Gaddafi.
Look there is no denying that the apartheid was horrible, but there is also no denying that Mandela's past has been wiped clean of all the murders that were carried out because of him in places like malls and churches.
Its the same as it was with Gandhi, the only difference being that there is no evidence that Gandhi ever ordered the killing of innocent people.
Lastly, whitewashing the past of communists is nothing new. The terrorists during the 70s in Argentina, who were busy killing innocent people, are today the leaders speaking out for "human rights" and against human rights abuses. There was a civil war in Argentina in the 70s started by communist/marxist groups because of which the military had to step in. Yet if you look up anything about Argentina that happened during the 70s, you'll just see that "the military dictatorship mercilessly killed ACTIVISTS who disagreed with the military's point of view...".
Same thing with Mandela. Truth is hard to come by these days even when its in plain sight.
Nicoenarg
Also, Che Guevara is hailed as a selfless hero yet he wrote in his diary that "the smell of cows' excrement is better than the smell of argentine Indians..." or that black people are black for lack of cleanliness.
Can you tell me how many times you've heard that about Guevara?
A newspaper (can't remember which one exactly) recently said that Mandela is the Che Guevara of South Africa, I don't doubt it, Mandela sang ANC's songs about killing the white man after he got out of prison...
Nicoenarg.
Nicoenarg
It sounds like you know more about Mandela than I do.
I have not read books about him. Only articles here and there. I have not seriously studied his life.
Here's a quote from Paul Weston, a leader in the UK's counter-Jihad movement:
Paul Weston says:
March 21, 2013 at 8:43 am
@hktony You are right about Middle England having little stomach for a fight. But without them there is NO chance of electoral success. The middle class would not follow the EDL, but the EDL will (I hope) follow someone who speaks out in defence of their class – which I do. I am going to give this democracy thing a bash up to the 2020 election, but If we only get approx 5% of the vote at that point, then I will cease believing this can be solved democratically and will act accordingly. By which I mean no more middle class Middle England – it will then be dealt with on the streets.
The quote is from this link:
Ed Snyder
http://vladtepesblog.com/2013/03/20/paul-weston-explains-why-he-left-british-freedom-and-formed-liberty-gb/
The point is, Apartheid was wrong. If I were in his position, I probably would have resorted to terrorism earlier than he did, from what you're telling me.
I think you would resort to "terrorism" at a certain point wouldn't you?
I am not a Pacifist. I've never said I was.
At a certain point, we all have to decide whether we want to live with the situation as it is, and as it is coming to be.
At that point, if we don't want to live with it, we may need to start targeting people. Taking out leaders. Provoking responses which can provoke worse responses on their side, so that the larger population will have a reason to fight.
Do you disagree with that?
I think you would resort to "terrorism" at a certain point wouldn't you?
Against a clearly civilian population? Not now, not ever. And that might be the difference between you and me, but targeting civilian population, no matter what the fight, is wrong and has no justification. Period.
Hence I mentioned Mandela and his bandits attacking malls and churches, not courts and parliaments. During apartheid, attacks against the government carrying out injustice (against blacks) would be a justified target. But NEVER civilians.
As for this Paul Weston guy, if by "taking it to the streets" he means, he's going to start attacking random Muslims, then would I support that? No. F*** that. I don't see any difference between such acts and acts of terrorism by Muslims against civilian populations.
American leaders during the war of independence made it a point not to target civilian populations (the King on the other hand attacked civilians left, right and center) yet they won the war and won it decisively defeating Britain, a superpower, for the first time in its history.
What is the answer to Boko Haram's attacks against Christians? Finding random Muslims on the streets and killing them? I don't think so.
Again, like I said, you and I may differ on this but that is my position. Mandela's actions killing of the Apartheid government's agents may be justified but killing civilians is never justified no matter what the cause.
Or do you disagree with me on that?
I would say this though that it would definitely be easy to win a war if you start wiping out innocent civilians. But by doing that you would have lost the values and principles you were fighting to preserve in the first place.
BTW I do understand that during a war collateral damage is a given so when Obama uses drones to kill terrorists in Pakistan, and because of that some civilians die, I don't condemn that because that's part of war (and by the way, that's the only thing I support Obama on) and the civilians are not the target, when they die its a mistake.
Nicoenarg
I used the word "targeting" for a reason. I think targeting people who are a problem would be the way to start. That is a complicated process, however, because the media is ever in love with the idea of martyrs.
As for who Mandela attacked and how he attacked them and why, I am not up on it. So, I can not respond.
Maybe you could write a post on the subject.
By the way, Nico, why are these Muslims here in the US anyway? They don't like the US, do they? Why do they advocate and participate in the burqa and it's apposite enslavement of women.
I don't buy that Muslims are innocent. If they were innocent, they'd separate themselves from the oppression.
You know what proves Muslims in America are not innocent? For six years straight, I didn't see Muslims at Starbucks? You know why? Because a Jew owned it.
Fuck Muslims.
A group of people in which 97% agree that another group ought to be subjugated, that is not an innocent group of people.
I'm kind of changing the subject a bit here. But I don't like this conflation of "targeting people" with "killing innocent Muslims."
1) targeting people is targeting people, and one would think that I would mean TARGETING, in other words, with purpose
2) WHAT innocent Muslims? Where are they?
3) Did I say fuck Muslims enough yet?
Now, back to your point about Mandela. Here's a good post:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-media-fawns-though-marxist-terrorist/
(I'm writing this on my phone so excuse the typos.)
This is getting a little confusing here so let me try and clarify. I was talking about Muslims because of the guy paul Weston whose quote you put up so not necessarily what you were saying about targeting people.
But that's besides the point. The term "targeting people" was not in and of itself clear to me as meaning "only targeting criminals or jihadis or what have you" so I'm sorry but the term doesn't have an inherent meaning other than killing someone. Like I said not knowing who paul weston is it all confused the issue for me (targeting people is done by terrorists all the time, it was done here in the 70s against innocent people too).
Either way, it seems to be a misunderstanding of what you were saying so I apologize about that.
But I'm glad you raised the question of whether Muslims are innocent. Here's my opinion on it. Muslims aren't innocent. They're barbaric scum who should never be put up with in civilized societies just like neo nazis shouldn't be put up with either. Same goes for pro abortionist pieces of shit.
However, killing someone for not standing up against abayas is like killing neo nazis for still holding onto the BS taught them by hitler. Where would you draw the line?
I am not only for killing of terrorists but also publicaly broadcast humiliation and torture. Like I've said before many times, crusaders only won against Islam because of their ruthfulness, not for building bridges. I would broadcast torture of jihadis so no one dares join them. But I would never advocate that those Muslims who've not themselves taken part in, or ordered murders and jihad be mercilessly killed as well.
That's the issue here to me. And my examples of Muslims weren't given in haste. Given my personal experience Muslims are the worst group of people ever to walk on earth, the apartheid pales in comparison to what Muslims do but I would still not randomly kill Muslims hence I don't see justification in mandela's actions who killed people without regard to who they were, he ordered random bombings.
To your point though, would I take up violence if it needed to be done against Muslim jihadis and their leaders. Definitely! But I think that's a different story than mandela's and still don't know for sure what Weston meant by taking the fight to the street.
That's my whole point.
Nicoenarg
And by "ruthfulness" of course my phone meant "ruthlessness"...damn!
Nicoenarg
I don't know that I would agree with Paul Weston's strategy but I do agree with his idea that at a certain point, we may have to stop trying to make political progress against the stacked odds of the Media-Academia Complex, and we may have to take up arms against our oppressors. At that point we will be "terrorists".
Islam is wrong. The notion that there are more and more Muslims in America by the year (a tremendous influx where I live) is sickening and I feel I can not let it happen. There will be no good end to it. There is no evidence in history of Muslims living peacefully with others anywhere on the planet, and I am not willing to risk my country and my family for an experiment in assimilating Islam here in the USA.
Did I say fuck Muslims enough yet?
Anyway, point is, we may have to chose to be terrorists.
APARTHEID WAS WRONG.
IT WAS INTOLERABLE.
IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT MILITANT AND OPPRESSIVE PEOPLE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TAKE UP ARMS, when we have abundant evidence here and throughout history that good people tend to sit on their hands until it is too late.
So if we have to follow some bad people, well, maybe that will be what we have to do.
I'll tell you one thing, you wouldn't want me leading the charge.
There are going to be some things we disagree on.
This is a subject upon which I have no willingness to compromise. I hold out the right to take up arms at the point that I do not believe my government will ever come to it's senses.
It's in the Declaration, baby.
Not sure whether it's me not able to say what I'm trying to say or what it is but I never disagreed with you about taking up arms against legitimate targets.
During apartheid, the government and it's agents would have been legitimate targets, women and children and other civilians within churches? Not so much.
Muslim immigration in the US is legal, again, a legitimate target would be the government here. They WANT more and more Muslims to move to the US and want american culture and principles drowned out.
We seem to be going back and forth so let me try and make my position clear: I have nothing against people being labeled terrorists. When the time comes to fight an oppressive government or people, it is the duty of the people to pick up arms. The bit about the government is in your Declaration of Independence, the one about people, I added it.
The point again is, Mandela had innocent people killed. He should have stuck to legitimate targets. The government. Mandela is a murderer who never regretted killing innocent people. He doesn't care in his book about who he used violence against as long as he got what he wanted.
Apartheid was horrible but so is racism against whites in South Africa today. That's what one achieves if an immoral man is who one follows.
But again apartheid is nothing compared to Islam. Still I wouldn't just murder random Muslims. Let them know that they're nothing special? Of course. Even there your politicians are at fault. Treat them like everyone else and soon they'd act within the bounds of the law or be deported.
Muslims try to create shariah zones (like in London) they automatically become legitimate targets. It's that much of a difference for me.
Nicoenarg
Nico,
You seem like you know more than me, so I have to tread carefully. Maybe you will educate me, or perhaps my questions will cause you to think in a different way.
Here is a list of ANC's terrorist activity (to my knowledge this is complete - maybe you know more)
1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms
1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217)
1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27)
1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125)
1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children)
1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69)
1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24)
1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10)
1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68)
1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10)
1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18)
1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3)
1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3)
1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56)
1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42)
1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37)
Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many)
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela-media-fawns-though-marxist-terrorist/#MRZ6HuLvD6sTMRTt.99
Now, it is a given that I do not know why they bombed those places, because I don't know the lay of the land in 1980's SA.
But I have a feeling those were more than random targets.
Do you have reason to deny that?
My purpose in going through this is this:
It seems to me many people do not give equal weight to the outright disgusting inhumane crimes of the SA when they criticize Mandela and his people's behavior.
We're talking stuff on the level of the American South, or almost on the level of Nazi Germany.
That could not stand.
At a certain point, the people who are going to have to stand against such malevolence are going to have to put the fear of God into their oppressors.
I can see no other way to achieve the ends that are needed.
Once again, as I said, you would never want me in charge of a terror war.
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1998/9809/s980907c.htm
Here's a list of ANC terrorist operations :
http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=2651
Here's an article that is critical of the ANC:
http://crime-of-apartheid.blogspot.com/2011/01/20-may-1983-mandelas-church-st-bomb.html
First off, I don't claim to know more than you. Up until yesterday, I was under the impression that Mandela was arrested and spent 27 years in prison for being a peaceful activist...so I'm updating my own views as I go.
I'm going through Mandela's book again (its over a 1000 pages long) so I can give you exact quotes from him before going to third party sources. Its going to take some time though.
The list is far from complete.
One of the attacks that the list doesn't have is the 1993 bombing of St. James' Church, all civilians, no connection to the military and designed to inflict maximum casualties. The terrorists were let go free under truth and reconciliation of course (this is while the government had already started working with Mandela on having elections in 1994 which Mandela as the leader of ANC would go on to win, negotiations to dismantle the apartheid regime started in 1990).
That's one off the top of my head. You'll get plenty of lists about ANC's attacks, I'm going through Mandela's book to show you why I said the bombings were not military targets but designed to create chaos. Will get back to you when I'm done with that.
HOWEVER, there seems to be a HUGE case of false equivalence here.
You said:
It seems to me many people do not give equal weight to the outright disgusting inhumane crimes of the SA when they criticize Mandela and his people's behavior.
We're talking stuff on the level of the American South, or almost on the level of Nazi Germany.
I'm sorry, what? Are you comparing the apartheid regime to Nazis and the holocaust? It leaves me to wonder what people in America have been taught about the apartheid. On my over dozen trips to South Africa, not even the blacks there would compare the apartheid to the Nazi regime.
On the one hand, we are talking about systematic MURDER of the Jewish people (along with others who were considered inferior) and on the other hand, we are talking about revocation of citizenship and forced segregation...no that comparison doesn't stand. The murders of blacks at the hands of the apartheid government took place as a heavy handed measure against black uprising rather than a state policy to exterminate blacks.
You want to equate what happened during apartheid, there is a better example. The US settling blacks in what is today known as Liberia (ignoring the economic cooperation between the US and Liberia of course).
I'm way too uneducated on the matter of treatment of slaves and segregation in the US to comment on that comparison but the comparison between Nazi Germany and Apartheid is not only not accurate, it is outright wrong.
Nicoenarg
Here's an article that is critical of the ANC:
http://crime-of-apartheid.blogspot.com/2011/01/20-may-1983-mandelas-church-st-bomb.html
This blog seems to be from a pro apartheid point of view so I hope you'd understand if I ignore the view presented within its pages.
Nicoenarg
Once again, as I said, you would never want me in charge of a terror war.
From what I've read so far, you're right. I wouldn't.
;-)
I do think the way leaders of American Independence fought is the right way to fight. I hold the US Constitution (and the Bill of Rights, I'm not sure about the rest of the Amendments just yet) and the Declaration in an awful lot of respect. And I don't think there I would just randomly suspend the Constitution and the principles within it because "my cause demands so".
At the same time, I would grant Muslim enemy combatants no mercy. I reiterate, torture them and humiliate them and you'll have Muslims waving the white flag in no time.
:-P
Nicoenarg
Nico,
Some of the misunderstanding here is from my sloppy language, and some is from personal ways I see the world which I fail to articulate.
1st: sloppy language - me saying "Muslims are so innocent it makes me want to vomit" is a sarcastic statement meaning they are not innocent at all.
2nd - a personal way I see the world - for me totalitarianism and slavery are almost as bad as the Holocaust. I'm sure that would seem obnoxious to others, but here's why I see it that way. If I am a slave, it means I do not make free choice about my life. A totalitarian regime is a machine of enslavement to me, so I equate totalitarianism and slavery. I make a tautological statement there because the two are the same to me.
A live of enslavement means a human being does not get to express his own will which means he might as well have not lived at all.
That's why I ALMOST equate murder with enslavement.
I know the two are not the same, and what's more, I know others would perceive them as being miles apart, but I do not. So that might explain something and help you understand why I hate Muslims and their advancement of Sharia. I see Sharia as enslavement and there is no quarter in my mind for Sharia.
Sharia law is a psychological Holocaust to me.
Some may say, well at least your not dead. Well, if you didn't choose you own life, you might as well be dead.
Does that mean I see almost all governments of human history as perpetrators of Holocaust. Well, yes, in a way. I believe people are responsible for the things they know. We understand freedom now, so to violate freedom is a bigger crime now than it ever was in history.
NOw, as to Apartheid: Maybe I do not understand Apartheid. Here's my understanding. The Whites did what they wanted with South Africa, and whatever they did not want, they gave to the blacks. The blacks were their dogs.
That's my understanding.
The blacks had to live in places where whites did not want to live.
The blacks got the food the whites did not want.
The blacks got the everything the whites did not want.
That's my understanding of Apartheid.
If one group of people gets to determine the way the game is set up for the other group of people, this means, once again, the other group of people do not get to fully enact their wills. That is not the same as slavery. But it is on it's way.
Truth is, this kind of equality exists in all nations and throughout history. It is inevitable and unavoidable, but the justice or injustice of it is a matter of degree. The Apartheid regime, to my mind, was worse, for instance, than what was done to the Jews of Europe during the Middle Ages. It obviously was not as bad as what was done to the Jews during the Holocaust. It was worse, from what I understand, than what was done to the blacks of the American South AFTER the Civil War, and leading up to the end of the Jim Crow era.
Hopefully, this makes what I wrote above a little bit clearer.
Now, maybe I am misunderstanding Apartheid. If so, let me know.
Nico,
You write - Not every single Muslims moves to the West for jihadi purposes. Not every single city where Muslims live has had shariah zones established.
I respond - Yes, but by my estimation well over 90% of Muslims would cooperate with the establishment of Sharia zones were they to live in such an area.
THAT'S what I mean by they think they're innocent, but they're not.
me saying "Muslims are so innocent it makes me want to vomit" is a sarcastic statement meaning they are not innocent at all.
Yeah I understood the sarcasm. I was just saying that the disgust felt for Islam and Muslims, for me, didn't automatically change to me going locked and loaded to "smoke em all". Just like the disgust I feel with Nazism doesn't mean I would go on a killing spree.
But I understand that "innocence" is a relative word. I'm sure if we sat down and dissected the discussion further, I'd agree with you on each and every point on why Muslims are not innocent. But that's a separate discussion.
a personal way I see the world - for me totalitarianism and slavery are almost as bad as the Holocaust...
:) Okay I wasn't aware of your position on that.
This article from Wikipedia should give an idea of what was going on during Apartheid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan
Its almost exactly the same as what the Germans were doing to the Jews by sending them to Jewish only ghettos. And that's the reason I reacted the way I did with the comparison of Apartheid with the holocaust. Because that is where the similarities end.
The Apartheid regime believed HEAVILY in segregation of races. They didn't plan on starving or murdering the blacks. That's evident from the fact that they financially supported the black only regions even though they were supposed to be politically and financially independent countries with their own leaders and police and citizenship.
I don't mean to defend the Apartheid regime because I think it was horrible in every way (there is no justification in governments segregating people based on races).
Either way, I do understand your viewpoint. Not saying I consider Apartheid as equally abhorrent to the Holocaust, just saying that I understand what you were actually trying to say. Thanks for explaining.
NOw, as to Apartheid: Maybe I do not understand Apartheid. Here's my understanding. The Whites did what they wanted with South Africa, and whatever they did not want, they gave to the blacks. The blacks were their dogs.
That's my understanding.
The blacks had to live in places where whites did not want to live.
The blacks got the food the whites did not want.
The blacks got the everything the whites did not want.
That's my understanding of Apartheid.
That they thought blacks were inferior to them, there's no doubt about that fact.
Blacks got the worst deals within South Africa but it is also a fact that instead of exploiting blacks, the whites believed there should be no intermingling of races. They considered themselves to be the most superior. Classic case of supremacist thinking (or assholery, whatever you want to call it). That was, at least, their utopia they sold to the people.
What I'm trying to say is that segregation of races was their ultimate goal and fantasy. Anyway, the link should help explain some of the concepts behind Apartheid.
Again, not trying to justify it, just trying say what it was about (theoretically).
Yes, but by my estimation well over 90% of Muslims would cooperate with the establishment of Sharia zones were they to live in such an area.
THAT'S what I mean by they think they're innocent, but they're not.
I think it might be more than 90% who would support Shariah zones, and then they are ALL legitimate targets. Until they do though, I'd consider them "innocent" enough to not kill them.
And when I say "legitimate targets", I mean people who should be targeted for assassinations, bombings, torture, whatever it takes to send a message. Support for and establishment of Shariah zones is a declaration of war, it doesn't get much clearer than that in Islam.
Nicoenarg
BTW and off topic to what we're saying, while we're talking about races, where's the outrage against ANC government sanctioned murders and rape of whites all over South Africa? Where's the outrage against Apartheid style treatment of whites under the current, so called, democratic regime? Where's outrage against the fact that these murders and rapes are still justified and blacks who commit them hardly ever get caught?
I am sick of hypocrisy on part of the world. Even on part of people who may be well meaning.
Nicoenarg
Post a Comment