moonbattery.gif


« Chairman Zero to Begin Purging Republicans from Civil Service Jobs | Main | Obamamania Open Thread »


November 13, 2009

Muslim Hate Crimes

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at November 13, 2009 2:04 PM

The Progressive and the Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself) got all worried that after an Islamist killed 14 human beings at Fort Hood, that Christians would go mad with rage and an epidemic of anti-Muslims hate crimes would follow. Because, to left-wing logic, Jesus Christ's most devout followers will show their faith by behaving in exactly the opposite way Jesus Christ taught them to.

Well, there have been some incidents of violence since the Fort Hood terror attack.

In Hayward, California, a Christian employee at a mall kiosk attacked a shopper for wearing a hijab... Oops, no, wait, it was a Muslim employee who attacked a Christian shopper for wearing a crucifix.

Police arrested 22-year-old Abdul Walid Hamid of Hayward on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 4, after he reportedly tore a crucifix from a person's neck and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center. According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head.

And in Rochester, New York, a man tried to run down pedestrians in his car while shouting "Jesus Loves You." No, not really. Though the crime seems to be more about bad taste in "women" than about jihad, there are some interesting details.

According to court documents, when he was arrested, Munir Muthana was yelling remarks such as “F*** the police,” "Ben Franklin was stupid," “The Muslims will fix this country,” and “I was trying to fight that f***** shemale.” .... While he was also heard muttering words like "jihad" and "hating Americans," he also reportedly said he didn't hate Americans, just police.

I wonder if Munir Muthana will be on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's jury. He is Obama has entitled him to a jury of his peers.


Comments

According to reports, Hamid was yelling "Allah is power" and "Islam is great" while holding a pen in a fist over his head.

That Muslim aggressor is lucky his assault was committed in California - a state full of unarmed sheep.

That situation might have ended differently if he chose to flip out, start assaulting people, and scream Allahu Akbar in the middle of a crowded mall in a Red State.


And in Rochester, New York, a man tried to run down pedestrians

He too is lucky his assault was committed in a Blue State.

The Israelis have a long history of dealing with jihadists. After the Israelis began arming themselves through a great expansion of concealed carry, the jihad attacks greatly diminished.

Meanwhile, thanks to BJ Clinton, our armed forces can't carry civilian weapons concealed on base, like they could in public. Apparently, this policy was supposed to reduce violence.

Victim disarmament happened at Fort Hood, and 14 people died because of it. The shooter had no problem arming himself illegally, but the law-abiding victims were disarmed for no reason other than there adherence to the law. Who would have ever thought that the disarmed victims would turn out to be American soldiers.

Thanks, Clinton, for not trusting our soldiers to carry pistols around the base.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when soldiers die on a military base because the law prevents them from being armed.

Unarmed soldiers? Only in the land of hopey change.

Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at November 13, 2009 2:28 PM


Don't forget the Marine in Tampa who beat a Greek Orthodox Priest with a tire iron because he thought he was a terrorist.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2009 2:49 PM


The Progressive and the Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself) got all worried that after an Islamist killed 14 human beings at Fort Hood, that Christians would go mad with rage and an epidemic of anti-Muslims hate crimes would follow.

The first time Christians did anything of the sort, it was called the First Crusade. It was lead mostly by feuding but able Frankish and Norman Princes and in-spite of the logistical nightmare, the hostile terrain and the sheer bulk of the enemies forces, the ragged Crusading armies swept away Muslim army after Muslim army, until the Muslim's came to the conclusion that the Franks were simply undefeatable. And for that campaign, Jerusalem fell to Christendom.

I believe that Christians need to re-adopt this warrior ethos which is somewhat lost today. Muslim's are nothing but emboldend by this lack of response to their aggression. They interpret it as a sign of dhimmitude, acceptance of the superiority of Islam. If you think these guy's were merely unhinged, and not representative of the wider Ummah in America, you are much mistaken! This is the status quo for Copts in Egypt. Syraic Christians in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Im not saying we should disembowel msulim's with Zweihander's at the slightest provocation, but I am saying we do have a duty to protect our fellow Christians, for an attack upon them, is an attack upon the nature of Christianity and therefore an attack upon us all.

Posted by: Arch Conservative at November 13, 2009 3:09 PM


I tell you, we're going to end up with either fascism or barbarianism. How does a liberal democracy deal with a situation like this, after the toothpaste is out of the tube?

Posted by: Rob Banks at November 13, 2009 3:16 PM


How does a liberal democracy deal with a situation like this, after the toothpaste is out of the tube?
Posted by: Rob Banks

By staying calm and being controlled, not by kicking ass and taking names, which will only lead to further Muslim unrest, leading to more violence.
This sounds like an overly simplified solution, but we know that passive resistance works when people stick to it.

Posted by: Aquatarkus at November 13, 2009 3:34 PM


Wasn't "passive resistance" the strategy of European Jews, 1933-1945?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2009 3:39 PM


Staying calm and being controlled, eh? And who is doing the controlling, since Libs just KNOW we can't control ourselves. I guess Obama and the Moslems will set that agenda.

Aquatarkus, you are either SERIOUSLY in denial or in league with the bad guys.

Passive resistance? This isn't India, you aren't Mahatma Gandhi and MOSLEMS DON'T CARE. Daniel Pearl "passively resisted" until his head hit the linoleum.

Pacifists have cost more lives than anyone can calculate. "Wait. Be passive. Don't preempt evil. Stand by. Appease." And then brave men and women have to die to clean up a mess that could have been nipped in the bud.

Moslems hate us. They want to destroy us and our culture. They will never stop. They will never give in. They will lie about their intentions (because saying an untruth to an infidel ISN'T lying according to their book). They are the enemy...and now the enemy within.

Where is Charlemagne when you need him?

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 13, 2009 3:44 PM


Aqua is (not so) stright from Britainistan. He's been programmed to be a Dhimmi from birth.

Posted by: SK at November 13, 2009 3:50 PM


The first time Christians did anything of the sort, it was called the First Crusade.

Which really had nothing to do with Christianity as much as it did turning back a Muslim invation into Europe. The "liberate the Holy Lands" and "find the Holy Grail" was what European Nobles told the serfs to get them fired up for war.

So, whenever a muslim gripes about the crusades, remind them that *they* invaded Europe *first*.

... and had failed to take land held by a certain Wallachian Prince.... Vlad Tepes... aka Dracula.

Posted by: Naqamel at November 13, 2009 3:54 PM


Wyatt's Torch & Naqamel said:

Where are Charlemagne & Vlad the Impaler when you need them?

FIFY

:)

Posted by: SK at November 13, 2009 4:03 PM


Posted by: Aquatarkus at November 13, 2009 3:34 PM

Once again you are a complete dumb ass. You can pander and appease all you want you big sissy but the Muslim man would rather see your Jesus worshipping infidel ass DEAD. Are you so stupid as to not understand what these crusaders are up to? I always thought you Brits had ball but it turns out you are just a bunch of whiney ass kissing' socialist afraid to take on real problems and issues. You would rather stick you head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

If I ever encounter this kind of harassment buy a crazy MOOOOOOOOSLIM there would be a swift and violent reaction. BELIEVE THAT! You kiss ass and appease because you are a chicken shit little boy from ass kissing Great Britain, a socialist stink hole. The only way to deal with these MOOOOOOSLIM extremists is simple Aquasissy: CLICK CLICK! Understand?

Socialist in denial are the dumbest people in the world.

Posted by: Dave at November 13, 2009 4:37 PM


Precisolutely why all clear-thinking individuals should always carry the complimentary slice of bacon on their persons to hurl at the aggressor if need be. As a Christian I have no problem doing just that. Hell, doesn't everyone carry a flask of these for JUST this type of occasion?

Posted by: nancz at November 13, 2009 4:50 PM


I wonder if Munir Muthana is a pseudonym of John Murtha?

And as for how a liberal democracy...toothpaste out of the tube...

They usually take money from a conservative and develop a committee and do feasibility studies, and environmental impact analysis, and eminent domain legislation, and secondary market analysis to determine value added potential before letting the toothpaste sit there and dry up before the rains wash it away in a hurricane sourced flood (caused by BOOOOsh of course).

Posted by: Frank W. at November 13, 2009 5:02 PM


One other thing:

Say what you will about the Crusades, Europe didn't start turning Moslem for about a thousand years, so I'd say they didn't do too bad!

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 13, 2009 5:20 PM


amen wyatt's torch

they stood and fought and even carried the fight to the enemy in spite of all their human imperfections, because they knew that surrender to the holy moonbat jerks was unimaginable and dishonorable.

Posted by: starkness at November 13, 2009 6:58 PM


This sounds like an overly simplified solution, but we know that passive resistance works when people stick to it.

No. Passive resistance only works when the opponent is a fundamentally decent culture. Gandhi's resistance worked because he was up against the British, a nation that had grown increasingly uncomfortable with its status as an imperial power and had a long tradition of enlightenment values. Martin Luther King's resistance only worked because much of the US was disgusted with segregationist south and even southerners had limits as to how far they would go to enforce segregation. If the goal of the enemy is conversion, conquest, or murder, then no amount of passive resistance will make a difference. In fact, it makes things far easier for evil to triumph.

Had Gandhi or King been passively resisting Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, they would have simply been murdered and dumped in a mass grave, and never have been known to history.

Muslim culture has never respected pacifism... it "respects" strength. Your "passive resistance" would only mean that the violent Muslims could do what they liked to you.

Posted by: Evil Otto at November 13, 2009 7:35 PM


Martin Luther King's resistance only worked because much of the US was disgusted with the Democrat run segregationist south and even southerners had limits as to how far they would go to enforce segregation.

There, Evil. I fixed your post.

Posted by: Old Jimbo at November 13, 2009 7:58 PM


By staying calm and being controlled, not by kicking ass and taking names, which will only lead to further Muslim unrest, leading to more violence.

Depends entirely on how many people we kill. How much Mayan, Aztec, Inca, Cherokee, Comanche, Apache, Japanese, or Nazi unrest do we encounter today? Hmmm?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 13, 2009 8:06 PM


Like I said in another post about Muslims and their jihad against the West:

The problem is that we are not killing enough of them in the GWOT and making painful examples of the homegrown jihadis.

Instead, their enabling liberals want to hand hold and coddle these animals which simply shows the Muslim hordes our soft white underbelly.

In other words, sets us (the US) for more of the same.

Posted by: SK at November 13, 2009 8:25 PM


Posted by: Aquatarkus manwife of Iqbal at November 13, 2009 3:34 PM- "By staying calm and being controlled..."

Staying "calm", while you're being controlled is definitely the best way to avoid upsetting your muslim masters. Dhimmies get fewer smacks across the chops, than uppity infidels.

Posted by: Aquatarkus manwife of Iqbal at November 13, 2009 3:34 PM- "not by kicking ass"

But by taking it up the ass? Wait, that's not a fair question. You'd take the buttsex option in any given situation.

Posted by: Aquatarkus manwife of Iqbal at November 13, 2009 3:34 PM- "...which will only lead to further Muslim unrest, leading to more violence."

You have the life expectancy of a housefly.

Posted by: chairman soetoro's oprichniki at November 13, 2009 8:34 PM


"Because, to left-wing logic, Jesus Christ's most devout followers will show their faith by behaving in exactly the opposite way Jesus Christ taught them to."

Funny thing about that is lets see:

Liberals/Communists take over the Russian Empire result 60 million dead

Liberals/socialist's AKA NAZI'S take over Germany result 9 million dead

Liberals/Communist's take over China result 100 million dead and counting

Not counting Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and the beat goes on soooo which is worse? Well liberal/socialist/communist of course.

Posted by: Oldcrow at November 13, 2009 8:53 PM


Thom Hartmann on his radio show on Air-Head America, is using the Fort Hood massacre as a way to argue for more gun control.

Even though Fort Hood is a "gun free" area.

Regardless of how dangerous it is for people to walk around unarmed, liberals will continue to advocate for further disarmament of the public in violation of the 2nd amendment, spreading disinformation about the efficacy of gun control.

Democide is murder of a group by government.

It is defined in part as:
"Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

Gun control meets this definition.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 13, 2009 9:02 PM


Of course they will continue to advocate gun control, and taking guns away from the common man. A nation of mostly weaponless people is so much easier to control and rule over than a nation of people who both have and can use weapons. Just look at Europe; generally in any western European nation the common man either is not allowed to or it is made nearly impossible to own guns, and look how easy it is to bend them.

Posted by: browncoat at November 13, 2009 10:13 PM


Dave at November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
"Once again you are a complete dumb ass. You can pander and appease all you want you big sissy but the Muslim man would rather see your Jesus worshipping infidel ass DEAD. Are you so stupid as to not understand what these crusaders are up to? I always thought you Brits had ball but it turns out you are just a bunch of whiney ass kissing' socialist afraid to take on real problems and issues. You would rather stick you head in the sand and hope the problem goes away.

If I ever encounter this kind of harassment buy a crazy MOOOOOOOOSLIM there would be a swift and violent reaction. BELIEVE THAT! You kiss ass and appease because you are a chicken shit little boy from ass kissing Great Britain, a socialist stink hole. The only way to deal with these MOOOOOOSLIM extremists is simple Aquasissy: CLICK CLICK! Understand?"

I agree, but don't think for a second that or cousins in GB can't fight. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ They are badass. Politically...they are a bunch of wankers.

Posted by: Wagtube at November 13, 2009 10:22 PM


Posted by: TED at November 14, 2009 1:01 AM


Aqua, please name one instance where Muslims aggressors have ever been turned back by passive resistance.

Posted by: Judith M. at November 14, 2009 5:34 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)