Monday, September 24, 2012

Opinion: Obama is wrong to apologize for our freedoms

Our President Barack Hussein Obama finds himself in the uncomfortable position of trying to quell Muslim violence through apology, rationalization, and denial.

Long after the Libyan terrorist attack in which our ambassador was sodomized and murdered he still calls it a spontaneous and random act, and not a coordinated act of terrorism. He still maintains that the mass murder at Ft. Hood wasn't an act of terrorism, but rather is an example of workplace violence.

Obama's first response to this brutal and inhuman attack in Libya, was to blame it on some film made by an American, which Muslims find offensive. The film maker was even taken in for questioning, and he will be very fortunate if he isn't eventually charged with some hate crime.

But this film didn't just happen. It has been floating around since July.

The terrorists used this film as an excuse to whip up a crowd, and make it seem like the attack was just part of the outrage over the film. And Obama took the bait. The simple truth was that there were demonstrations in 23 different Muslim cities over that film, but it was only in Libya that the demonstrators brought mortars and RPGs with them, and actually took hostages then brutally murdered them.

Also, it was no coincidence that this attack came on the anniversary of 911. Everyone understood this except President Obama, who still believes it was a spontaneous attack, caused by this film. Obama's response was to blame the film for inciting the violence, rather than blaming the terrorists. He effectively apologized for our freedom of speech, saying it had been abused.

Whenever there is some horrific act of Islamic terrorism committed, the people on the radical left fringe in America (i.e. the Democrats) are quick to remind us that every group has terrorists.

And they tell us that Christians are no exception.  Then they quickly mention Eric Rudolph or Tim McVie as proof that Christians are "just as bad."  Because those are the only ones they can find. This is supposed to somehow justify or excuse Islamic terrorism.

All reasonable people can agree that there are criminals in every culture and ethnic group on earth. And those criminals who are motivated by religious beliefs are often called terrorists.

Citing examples of a handful of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist terrorist DOES NOT negate the fact that intolerance and hostility towards others is a widespread belief among Radical Muslims, and a rare exception for everyone else.

Like everyone else, all Muslims are not the same. There are religious Muslims, and fundamentalist Muslims, and fanatical Muslims and some who just aren't that religious. Muslim clerics tell us that "not more than 15% of all Muslims are Jihadists."

Now think about this number. 15% of 1.5 billion means 225 million people!

And it only took 19 of them to kill 3,000 people on 911.

This also means that 85% aren't Jihadists. So their point is valid. they really are a minority. But this is a distinction without a difference when the entire civilized world has to worry about, and actively plan for, and devote extensive resources to defending themselves from this minority.

I should make this point clearer. In every case, terrorism is rare. Even for Muslims. However, only one culture actively approves, encourages, supports, and glorifies this behavior, while all the others condemn it.

I don't think you can deny that Islam encourages this behavior if you read their Qu'ron. There are many passages in it that extol the reader to behead infidels and beat their wives.

All religions have had things like this happen in their past, but every religion except Islam has undergone some sort of reformation. Islam still dwells in the seventh century... in fact Islam 100 years ago was much more tolerant of others than it is today. Islam has regressed, while other religions have moved forward.

Here is the critical differences between Islamic terrorism and terrorist acts committed by other groups:
  • Radical Islamic terrorism is inspired and led by their clerics, not by their secular criminals. This is terrorism sanctioned and encouraged by a religion.
  • Radical Islamic terrorism is much more common than terrorism done by other groups. So common that even their overall large population can't explain it.
  • Radical Islamic terrorism is celebrated, supported and encouraged by a LARGE minority of their people. Not the small fringe like other religions, but a LARGE minority.Polls taken in Islamic nations following 911 showed that large minorities, if not outright majorities of the people thought "America got what it deserved."
  • Just look at how each culture regards their terrorists. We hunted down Tim McVie. We tried him and convicted him of murder, then we executed him, and no one complained. Meanwhile, the most popular name for newborn males in Saudi Arabia following the 911 terror attack was "Osama." 
  • Compare how tolerant each group is. We can say anything we please, and Obama won't send a drone to kill us. At least not yet. We can own a Koran or a Torah and not get sent to prison. Our wives can drive cars, and wear sleeveless shirts... The Islamic culture of intolerance breeds an acceptance of terrorism by a large percentage of their people.
  • It probably should be noted that Radical Islam is at perpetual war with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheists, Agnostics, and even OTHER Muslims who aren't sufficiently devout. Their normal conversational tone is outrage. They truly believe that everyone else must conform to their ways.
  • In general, Muslims believe that their religion MUST be respected by all, while they give absolutely no respect to anyone else's religion. This is so arrogant, that it should make you sick.
  • Absolutely no one gets offended as easily as a Muslim can, and no one else thinks that being offended gives you the right to riot, burn, maim and murder. There were no Christians rioting when the liberals put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art. We didn't even riot when they demanded that the art be publicly funded. All we did is write angry letters to the editor. Quite a difference there.
Citing a few random acts of Christian terrorism is NOT a proper defense for the tens of thousands of violent acts committed by Radical Muslims in defense of their beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, defending these people is a crime against humanity.

No comments:

Post a Comment