Monday, July 30, 2007

Bleeding Hearts, Bloody Hands

The Taliban has taken hostage 23 Christian aid activists from South Korea.

They are demanding the release of imprisoned Taliban militants; so far these followers of the "religion of peace" have killed 2 of the hostages, one the group's pastor.

According to news reports, most of the Christian workers are women:

The rebels had also refused a government demand to release the 16 female
captives on the grounds it was against Islamic and Afghan custom to take women
as prisoners and hostages, negotiator Mahmood Gailani said.

This is yet another prime example of the behavior that bleeding-heart liberals are going to continue to ignore in the worldwide fight against Islamic fanatics, being too busy trying to come up with one more way to bitch about the fact that John Kerry lost the election by pretending he didn't.

Here's a note to those people around the world that are still clueless: This is not about religion. This is about control, subjugation, oppression. Free people would not choose to live under the rule of someone who dictates what they can say, think, feel, wear, eat and believe. Rules are one thing, total domination is another.

If people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran were free, they would choose to not be under the thumbs of the militants. That's why I earlier told you to pay attention to Pakistan. The people in Pakistan are not bound by this bizarre "Islamic" law, so the fanatics have no power, so they want to destroy the freedom that allows people to not follow their rules.

Get it yet? All the ultra-libs who want to "understand the culture" and "respect the traditions" are so full of crap -- and themselves -- that they completely ignore the obvious: There is no culture in the fanatics' behavior, there is no tradition in their violence. They are violent just to be violent. They kill because they are animals. They murder women and children without purpose, without cause and without remorse.

They would murder you and your family if you let them get close enough.

How many more executions of innocent people do we have to watch before we do what needs to be done, before we fight the way we are being fought against? I believe the extremists can be beaten, but they have to be killed. Period. A dead extremist is a harmless extremist.

It's no longer a question of whether or not it's right, or whether there is an option. There is no option. It's become plain to me, and to thousands of other people, that there is a danger greater than disease or famine, and it has shown its face.

You must follow the Quaran like the fanatics supposedly do, and kill your enemy where he stands.

If not, you're as good as dead.


Karen Olson said...

First off, Democrats are not pretending that John Kerry lost the election. We know he did. Stupidly.

Second, look back through time and see that most wars began because of religion. Or lack thereof. Religion has been the source of many of history's wars. So to say that religion is not part of what's going on in the Middle East is naive. Saddam Hussein was secular, but his country is not. And we're seeing the result of that now, with the civil war between two different fundamentalist religious groups.

Al said...

That's a tough one -- it's hard to know how much of the sectarian violence is really religious and how much of it is using a very calculated interpretation of religion to justify actions someone wants to take for personal gain.

Really, when I say it's not religious, I'm talking more about terrorist actions against innocent outsiders, like the So. Korean workers - they pose no threat to Islam, one of the reasons the Quaran gives for calling jihad, unless the religion is interpreted in such a way that anything that does not adhere to it is considered a "threat."

Plus, I'm trying to look at it that way because, if I don't, then I have to wonder if Islam itself is just a brutal, violent religion that orders everyone not in compliance to be killed.

As for Dems and Kerry ... Just understand that I know the difference between a Democrat and an ultra-lib ... it's sad that these days Dems are Republicans are automatically assigned to be "liberal" or "conservative," and usually to the extreme. I use the 4 terms as distinctly different items. (I ignore using "moderate" because that's what should be the norm, not something created to mean "not an extremist.") To me, party affiliation is a matter of how many ideals are shared, but should not dictate the ideals -- I'm affiliated with the Republican Party, but I'm something of a conservative libertarian. So, Dems may realize the results of the election, but folks like Cindy Sheehan, the ultra-libs, still think Bush "stole" the election, and make no bones about it.

Al said...

Ugh. No spellcheck on comments, and I can't figure out how to edit comments I've posted! In my previous comment to Karen's comment, there's a line that says "Dems are Republicans are" ... that should say "Dems and Republicans are" ... Sorry!

Karen Olson said...

"Plus, I'm trying to look at it that way because, if I don't, then I have to wonder if Islam itself is just a brutal, violent religion that orders everyone not in compliance to be killed."

Just remember how violent all religions can be. Spanish Inquisition, anyone? Look at Henry VIII and his daughter, Bloody Mary. Not a Catholic? Off with your head! Not a Protestant? Burned at the stake.

Man cannot stop himself from starting wars in the name of religion. We should all be aetheists or Buddhist.