Christian-Terrorists and Secular-Fanatics: Licensed to Kill

Wednesday, August 31, 2005
By Mike LaSalle

by Yamin Zakaria

Editor’s Note: Yamin Zakaria is a London-based political Islamist. Though MND does not subscribe to the view of Mr. Zakaria, we nevertheless will publish his work as a public service to those who wish to understand the ‘idea-gap’ between us and them…

Which is worse, those who incite violence, those who practice violence or those who practice violence while lecturing their victims? Why do nations, that profit most from the sale of weapons for war, death and destruction, shout loudest in claiming to be proponents of “peace”? How can the Christian-West bully others with charges of anti-Semitism, when they are the ones who built the gas chambers, implemented the inquisition, and carried out routine pogroms against the Jews for centuries?

In any legal system, the testimony of a proven liar has little merit if any at all, but why then do we have to accept and abide by the words of those who openly lied about Iraq’s WMD’s, or is this a virtue of a capitalist-democracy! Now we have mass murderers that have slaughtered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, preaching about non-violence and the sanctity of innocent civilians, or is that UK civilians only? Words of hypocrites and liars are always exposed by their inconsistent deeds, and the following examples from recent events will further illustrate.

An American Judge recently ruled that it was the notion of free speech dictated by the first amendment, which gave the right to the newspaper [1] in Arizona to publish letters calling for the killing of any Muslim civilians, in retaliation for the deaths of any US soldiers in Iraq. So, here ‘free’ speech takes precedence over the incitement to murder innocent Muslims.

For sure, if any Muslim did anything remotely close to that, they would be automatically locked up in Camp-X-Ray for inciting violence. In fact, just on mere suspicion the Muslims get locked up in accordance to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. This behaviour in the language of the cowboys from the Wild West or a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) member is: kill the Sand-Niggers and if they say anything we lynch them and even if we think they are gone say something we lynch them, like a per-emptive strike.

This week, the abusive xenophobic preacher, Pat Robertson, called for US Special Forces to “take out,” (assassinate) President Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected head of Venezuela. Chavez has not waged a military campaign against the US, on the contrary the US have funded coup attempts against him, underlining their status as democracy hypocrites. Despite calling for the assassination of the head of a democracy, on national TV, he has not been accused of inciting terrorism or murder or hate! Imagine the hysteria it would have caused, if a similar incitement was made by any Muslim on national TV, calling for the assassination of President Bush or Blair. NB: these two cases mentioned are not equivalent, as Bush and Blair are mass-murdering war criminals, for whom the Hague or Nuremburg equivalence are required, with an appropriate sentence for their crimes, whereas President Chavez is a new born baby compared to them!

This incident is even more ironic when you consider that Pat Robertson is a Bible-bashing fanatic, those people are constantly lecturing the non-Christian world and especially the Muslims, that they should turn the other cheek like Jesus. Of course we know why they preach such a message from history, both recent and distant, Africans, Native Americans and others will testify that they got the Bible shoved down their throats, were told to turn the other cheek to invasion, murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide in return for the loss of their lands, languages and “way of life”.

Chavez’s real crime is like Saddam, possessing lots of oil while showing disobedience to the US corporate interests. Pat Robertson himself stated the oil factor: “a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly”. How can a relatively poor and militarily weak country like Venezuela hurt a superpower? Again Pat Robertson stated they “could” hurt us, meaning it is time for another pre-emptive strike. Far from turning the other cheek, Pat Robertson believes in pre-emptive slaps! These preachers are not followers of Jesus but of Judas.

Then the other crusader, Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church, lectured Muslims to tackle the “cruel fanaticism of terrorism”, as if ‘terrorism’ is the sole reserve of the Muslims. He obviously thinks that, the Western-Christian forces invading Muslim countries, killing innocent women, children and men by the tens of thousands, delivering State Terrorism are in line with Biblical teachings and Catholic doctrine. Or is this again the “noble savage” being told to turn the other cheek and not resist, lie back and enjoy it! Does anyone remember the Vatican calling the Serbs and Croats fanatics, murderers, terrorists or any such like? 200,000 Muslims bludgeoned, battered, raped, mutilated, shot, knifed, crucified (oh yes) in the centre of Christian Europe by the Christian Serbs and Croats and not a whisper. Had it been the Muslims slaughtering 200,000 Christians, no doubt it would then have been the “cruel fanaticism of terrorism”.

Enough with the Christian-Fanatics let us now look at what the secular fanatics have been up to. The shadow education secretary, David Cameron of the Conservative party compared Islamic extremist, meaning those who adhere to Islamic teachings, to the Nazis. I did not realise Muslims adhered to such European traditions as Nazism, was it not invented and practiced in Europe. Why the constant cry about the Muslims not integrating then?

Nazis killed millions and for the last 50 years it is Muslims who have also been killed in their millions, yet to Mr Cameron, we are the aggressors like the Nazis, what a twisted little mind he and his ilk have. The Nazi’s created unjust laws to victimise and alienate minorities, similar to what the British government has started to do. Like the Nazi’s, Mr Cameron, it is your government that have bombed, imprisoned, killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Nazi ideology is exclusively based on the supremacy of one race, while Islam is the exact opposite, all races being equal, yet Mr Cameron claims Islam/Muslims are similar to the Nazis. He called Muslims violent for resisting aggression in their own lands, but he thinks that invading a country which did not attack his and murdering over 100,000 civilians is not violent. I thought we no longer live in the age of racist white-Imperialism, Mr Cameron have you heard the one about “people who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.”

I would not call Mr Cameron or Blair or Bush Nazis, as the Nazis were more civilised in some respects. The Nazis did not for instance imprison, rape and torture children [2] as the ‘liberators’ has been doing in Iraq. It was not the Nazis who started to bomb civilians en masse. German and Japanese cities were deliberately targeted to cause maximum deaths amongst the civilians, a favoured tactic of ‘bomber’ Harris. Their cities were carpet-bombed and civilians were incinerated and boiled alive, while their armies were on the retreat. Those bombings served no real military purpose other than gratuitous acts of violence and terrorism.

Why were the Atomic bombs used against Japan’s cities when it was already close to surrender? It was close to surrendering because the firebombing of Tokyo had already killed more than the numbers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; also Hirohito already sent a message through Stalin to Truman that he wanted to negotiate surrender. If, the bomb was used to bring the war to an early end, surely the first one was more than adequate, why the second bomb after three days, in a war that had already lasted 6 years? Because these are the actions of inhuman beasts and savages; and these are the people lecturing the world about terrorism. However, I do agree with many of the Americans who claimed the bombs ended the war early and saved lives, because the back-up plan was the mass-production of chemical weapons to be used against Japanese cities that envisaged killing as many as 5 million people. So, you see, the most violent people on earth are lecturing the Muslims, and it would take the action of millions of Islamic ‘terrorists’ to attempt to equal their horrific record.

Now Blair wants to crack down on anyone glorifying or justifying ‘terrorism’. But who will crack down on those who justify, glorify and actually practice terrorism, State Terrorism? If ‘terrorism’ is the problem then why not define it, and more importantly apply the definition consistently. Obviously neither the US nor the British government can define it, as they will themselves be incriminated by those definitions. They are too embarrassed to say what those terms really mean: “Terrorism” is retaliatory strikes against the US and UK aggression; “incitement to hate” is expressing political opposition to the Anglo-US war crimes; “incitement to violence” is calling for armed resistance to US-UK aggression.

Not surprising, Blair is off to join the Carlyle group after he leaves the post of Prime Minister and he has been rewarded handsomely for generating the business of war. Naturally, he joins the war industry as the Carlyle group has very strong links to the White House and defence industry. Blair, you will be drinking the blood of the Iraqi children and consuming the flesh of their parents, I wonder even Hell can accept or accommodate people like you.

Another glaring hypocrisy missed by many is the issue of women’s rights. Post 9/11 and 7/11, majority or significant proportion of the attacks were directed against Muslim women in the US and the UK. They are easily identified by their Islamic clothing of Khimar (Head Scarf) and Jilbab (long loose dress). After, lecturing about how sacred women’s rights are in the West and especially how oppressed Muslim women are, the society did not even think twice to attack the so-called ‘oppressed.’ One would have expected these flag bearers of women’s rights, to show at least some level of remorse for attacking Muslim women, after the event. All those infamous and anti-Islamic newspaper columnists, journalists and politicians found their tongues and brain cells paralysed, suffering from a disease called hypocritus!

You see, the acid test works, hypocrites and liars cannot hide, as sooner or later they will be exposed by their own deeds. Whilst Bush and Blair try to legislate against people thinking, disagreeing and resisting; they are dependent on the masses not seeing past their ‘spin.’ Sooner or later people will ask about their inconsistencies, their hypocrisy and their lies, and they will have a great fall, when that happens, all of the presidents men wont be able to put Grumpy and Lumpy back together again!

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Copyright © 2005 by Yamin Zakaria. Published by permission of the author.

[1] http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/02/business/news/18_59_447_1_05.txt

[2] http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

email: editor -@- mensnews daily.com | More from Mike LaSalle

Stumble It!

Share/Save/Bookmark

How to survive the coming food shortage.

5 Responses to “Christian-Terrorists and Secular-Fanatics: Licensed to Kill”

  1. 1
    Anonymous Says:

    Ann Coulter was right, and this moron proves it. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, (and propagandists), and convert them to Christianity. I say this as an atheist, by the way.

  2. 2
    sic Says:

    what a load of doo doo! oh yeah, were the fanatics.Maybe this jawa should move back home instead of living in the UK.

  3. 3
    Anonymous Says:

    Now we have mass murderers that have slaughtered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, preaching about non-violence and the sanctity of innocent civilians, or is that UK civilians only? Words of hypocrites and liars are always exposed by their inconsistent deeds, and the following examples from recent events will further illustrate.
    I didn’t know that the Sunni’s and terrorists were preaching about non-violence?

    I regret (no I don’t) that I’m not up to reading the Islamic propaganda machine today, but it doesn’t look like anything more than another attempt to justify the Muslim position of conquereing and converting the world because someone else was bad. We see things about what one man said and how the courts defended his right to free speech. Too bad the man didn’t tell everyone that they would get 72 virgins in the after life if they did it.

    On the other side, we don’t see comments about how a man lost his job for saying that Islam won’t take back it’s religion from the terrorists. I’ll plagerize a quote from another article here:

    From James Atticus Bowden http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/bowden/2005/bowden090105.htm
    Right after 9-11 Moslems insisted on being called Muslims. Woe unto the American who used the former name. Recently, the Mohammedans won a coup getting a conservative talk show host, Michael Graham, fired from WMAL-AM, an ABC Radio affiliate. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), otherwise known as the ‘Corrupting America for Islamic Rule’, will expand bias bullying to censor the truth on other stations and generally throughout public speech.

    Graham said, “Because of the mix of Islamic theology that—rightly or wrongly—is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam’s name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn’t have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don’t support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion.”

    He added, “If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout Handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said ‘Could be’ – the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.”

    That cost Graham his job. Over 15,000 protest calls to support him didn’t help. The Muslims got Graham for telling the truth. It’s going to get a lot worse. More Americans must speak in public with a lot more of the painful truth of Islam. This historical truth is so politically incorrect it shouts down the public pandering from the President down to not dare offend oh-so-sensitive Muslims.

    I liked the real definition of CAIR. Thanks James.

    So, the Muslims apparently aren’t in favor of free speech. Maybe that is what has Yamin Zakaria in an uproar. That people are permitted to speak openly and shine the light of truth on Islam.

    Tell us Yamin Zakaria, why was their a $6,000,000 reward for the death of Salmon Rushdi because of what he said? BUT, there is no reward for Osama bin Laden who has alledgedly hijaaked Islam? Why is their no reward or fatwa on the actions of al Zarkawi(sp?) in Iraq for the deaths of Muslims?

    Is it that Salmon Rusdi exposed Islam? It appears so, because Islam has not offered any such edict concerning terrorists.

    You continue to justify Islams savagery by pointing the blame elsewhere. Remember, you have the option. You can fix the problem, or you can fix the blame.

    Lurk.

  4. 4
    Anonymous Says:

    To Lurk,

    I will be addressing the issue of ‘free’ speech in another article comming out soon. Your points about Rushdie will get addressed. Although my example of free speech in this article was in the context of “incitement to violence” – So I was not adressing the issue of ‘free’ speech directly.

    It would also help if you calm down a bit and instead of ranting, focus on what has been said. In that way you can generate a response that is much more intelligent and relavent to what the article stated.

    That will help you and the wider audience.

    Also look at my article “Deporting Blair” which answers your point about me going back to my country of origin.

    Yamin

  5. 5
    Anonymous Says:

    Also look at my article “Deporting Blair” which answers your point about me going back to my country of origin.
    And exactly where was that point made?

    I am calm. I find it disturbing that you continue to attempt to mislead and rationalize the actions of a large number of Clerics by citing a single individual. The person in question made a comment, and I don’t believe you will find any promises from him to the “true believers” of rewards for killing. But, one does not need to listen very long to the preachings of the Clerics to understand that they incite to kill, and lay claim to afterlife rewards for those that do. Justifying such a large group’s hatred by comparing it to a lone voice on the fringe is dishonest.

    Either Islam condones the violence against the West and non-Muslims, or it endorses it by silence. Either you condone the violence (as you present claims of similarity to lone individuals), or you condemn it.

    So far, you only speak of rationalizations; of percieved hipocracies; of slights you feel toward Muslims. You do not speak out against the deaths of people at the hands of the terrorists. You do not speak out against the silence of Islam in the face of the terrorists.

    And worse yet, you have now twice attributed to me remarks that I have not made. Do you think to fool people into thinking that I am asa big a racist as you appear to be?

    Lurk

Leave a Reply

Search MND

Introducing MRm: A New Men's Rights Magazine in PDF format

Download PDF Here

Support Our Sponsors!

Please support MND

Subscribe today:

SUSTAINER: $5/mo.


CONTRIBUTOR: $20/mo.


SUPPORTER: $50/mo.


Or Donate Any Amount

Archives

privacy policy | terms of service


Site Meter

MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!