The latest demonstration of intolerance from the "religion of peace" is in Sudan, where a British teacher at a private school has been jailed for letting her 7-year-old students name a teddy bear "Muhammad," which these barbaric Muslim fanatics say is insulting to Islam.
Here's the latest story.
The thing is, the class chose to name the bear Muhammad after one of the more popular boys in the class, not after the prophet.
Also, the original sentence was to be 40 lashes, which was reduced to imprisonment.
Now, understand this: According to the story, thousands of protesters are rallying in Sudan, calling for the execution of the teacher for insulting Islam!
Are these people absolutely insane? They want to kill someone because she let children give a teddy bear the same name as a religious figure?
This is just another example of how screwed up these Muslims are, and how blind the left is about the danger they pose to the rest of the world.
I hear liberals bitch and moan about every mention of Christianity here in the U.S. -- they want to make sure that no one is even allowed to say the word "God" in public, let alone dictate social policy based on religious beliefs. They want all religious references taken out of schools, courts, government buildings ...
Can you imagine if Christians started executing Hispanics all over the United States because they dare name their children "Jesus"?
How about executing so-called comedian Kathy Griffin for openly mocking Christians and their beliefs? Or killing all atheists?
Liberals happily ignore the fact that these hardline Muslims are completely intolerant, violent, misogynistic barbarians who think that they are allowed to kill everyone they disagree with. I have no idea what part of this is so hard for libs to understand, because the Muslims are not quiet about their desire to kill everyone in the world, each other included, for every perceived slight.
Someone draws a cartoon about Islam? Kill the cartoonist AND the editor of the newspaper that ran the cartoon.
Someone writes a book critical of Islam? Kill the author.
The pope makes a historical reference to the barbaric practices in Islam? Kill him.
What the hell is wrong with these Muslims? And what the hell is wrong with liberals that they can completely disregard example after example after example of the violent, oppressive nature of these fanatics?
These fanatics kill homosexuals, oppress and abuse women, indoctrinate children to be fanatical killers as well ...
I know that there are Muslims that are not crazy and violent and bloodthirsty. But, there are so many that are crazy and bloodthirsty and intolerant that they have to be confronted because they pose a realistic threat to the rest of the free world. Because we let people come into this country pretty freely, we basically have the door open for the whackos to come in and kill us for not following their rules.
Iran jails and kills people because of the clothes they wear, the music they listen to, the way they dance. A woman who gets raped can't go to the police because they'll kill her for having been made unclean!
All the things that liberals espouse here in the United States are things that fanatical Muslims would kill someone for doing. And yet they ignore that, because they are afraid of the confrontation. They try to pass off cowardice as pacifism, and I'm sick of it.
I'm sick of hearing Muslims here in the U.S. bitch about how they get a bum rap or are profiled, because they're "peaceful" and "only the fanatics are dangerous." Well, there are millions of those fanatics, not dozens or hundreds or thousands, millions.
To steal a comparison from Bill O'Reilly: Not every German was a Nazi, but the Nazis posed a threat to the entire world. And if it wasn't for the United States confronting Hitler, the Nazis would have won.
It took warfare to end the threat. But for some reason, liberals cannot come to terms with this. I contend that fanatical Muslims post a bigger threat to the world than even Nazi Germany did, because Nazis weren't allowed to come into the United States freely and set up camp. These crazy Muslims are here in the U.S., they are in Britain.
And if you turn your back, they will cut off your head. Stop kidding yourself. It's not paranoia, it's not a "fear" of a "different culture," as liberals would like to believe.
You should be afraid, because someone has vowed to kill you, and your government is not being allowed to protect you.
How many more examples will it take? How many more videos of beheadings do we have to see? How many more innocent people have to be murdered in the name of the "religion of peace" for liberals to understand that it's not a joke, and that they would be the first to be killed under Muslim sharia law?
Rosie O'Donnell will criticize the U.S. and defend fanatical Islam, and yet the Muslims would kill her not only for being a lesbian, but simply for speaking her mind!
Liberals seem to be so comfortable with the freedoms they enjoy from the blood shed by others that they cannot see that fanatical Islam wants to take those freedoms away. They criticize every effort by the U.S. to protect its people from these barbarians, but they're silent on the real threat, because it's easier to stand outside the White House with a silly little sign than it is to fight the enemy.
When the crazy Muslims start running through the streets of American cities, burning the flag and killing innocent Americans, who are you going to look to to save you and your family -- a sensitive politically correct liberal? Or Dick Cheney and his shotgun?
5 comments:
Agree with you on this one.
oh, come on. Where are your sources on this one? Where are the "liberals" who support the craziness of fundamentalist religions? Where are the liberals who supported the idea of flogging and/or executing this woman with the teddy bear? Don't make broad statements about people who may not vote the same way you do unless you're willing to back it up with cold hard facts and quotes. (and I don't want to hear about Rosie O'Donnell. That's too extreme. Give me regular people, regular "liberals." You might find they agree with you on this one.)
And last I knew, the Iraqis didn't attack us. Al Qaida members (mostly from Saudi Arabia) did. So not supporting the war in Iraq is not a vote for supporting terrorists.
Sources? I go by who says what about what.
Some see crazy Muslims as crazies that have vowed to kill us and need to be dealt with; the far left instead sees "cultural differences" that we're supposed to respect and be sensitive to, and walk on eggshells around so as to not offend.
The far left gets their panties in a know because the government wants to listen to calls between Americans and foreign terrorism suspects, and use their old "liberties being taken away" line. They focus too much on being whiny and completely ignore the big picture, the end result, which would be to catch a terrorist.
The left sees letting a former Taliban member attend Yale as an exciting way to "open dialogue," while others see it as letting a religious fanatic openly walk the streets of America.
The left ignores the Palestinians' refusal to adhere to any cease-fire for more than 5 minutes, and their refusal to coexist with Israel, and instead places all the blame on Israel; others see Israelis live with rockets flying into their towns daily and ask, "What would America do if Mexico kept lobbing mortars into Texas?"
Who are the people that keep visiting Hugo Chavez, sharing lunch and talking about how rotten America is? Conservatives?
Who truly considers using a dog to scare a captured terrorist "torture"? Conservatives or liberals?
Two people watch a video of an American getting his head sawed off by a masked guy babbling about Allah -- one says, "We should find those guys and kill them because they're bloodthirsty animals"; The other says, "If America wasn't in their country they wouldn't do that, so it's America's fault, not the guy doing the sawing." Who do you think says which?
You know, you don't have to put a bumper sticker on a Volvo in order to "support" something -- sometimes ignoring a threat and allowing it to fester and grow is just as bad. And maybe you're right, maybe liberals would agree with this stuff, with taking action against religious fanatics, but they won't do it purely to spite the Bush administration, which is silly.
When Barack Obama said that if he knew a terrorist was in Pakistan, he would go get them regardless of Pakistan's position, I was surprised, and almost a little joyous, but then he got shot down by the far left, and Hillary went on and on about how that was inexperience speaking, and diplomacy should rule the day. But "diplomacy" doesn't mean pretending something doesn't exist, or that the problem will go away on its own. The attacks of 9-11 are a perfect example of this: It's been plainly stated that those attacks were already being formed long before Bush was in office, right under Clinton's nose. But he was busy, and because we didn't talk about the threat, it wasn't in the news, so it wasn't really a threat.
It's like someone who refuses to go for cancer screening, because as long as they don't know that they have cancer, they're technically not sick.
"It's been plainly stated that those attacks were already being formed long before Bush was in office, right under Clinton's nose. But he was busy, and because we didn't talk about the threat, it wasn't in the news, so it wasn't really a threat.
You do know what he was "busy" with, right? The Republicans were busy impeaching him over Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps if the Republicans weren't so hot about sex they would've paid attention, too, to the al Qaida threat (especially since they had the majority in Congress).
And you still haven't given me anything but "the left" as thinking this way. I'm a Democrat and fairly liberal, but I don't think this way, and I don't know many who do. Who is this mysterious left?
So it's always somehow the Republicans' fault? A president is responsible for the country only if he's a Republican? And if it's Congress' fault, then what's Congress up to now? I could have sworn they said they could end the war ...
At any rate, back to the original topic ... Who is the left? Well, for starters, I'd say every single person that voted for Ned Lamont over Lieberman simply because Lieberman supported military action against the radical Muslims threat ... he got trashed for even considering that Iran might require military action. Who else ... ? How about every single person that rallied behind Cindy Sheehan while she called our soldiers rapists and murderers, called Bush Hitler and said that America commits war crimes, and railed against Israel in support of the Palestinians that were bombing them, but didn't say squat about the beheadings, the mistreatment of women, the denial of freedom to the people, the mortar attacks on civilians ...
The "far left" would be the people that automatically blasted Gen. Petraeus because his answer wasn't the answer they wanted; the people that welcomed Ahmadinejad here to the U.S. like he was a celebrity instead of a total f-ing nutcase who's going to build a nuke and then use it to threaten pretty much everyone ...
Did you ever stop and think that maybe you're not as liberal as you think?
That's my main beef -- it's like if you're not REALLY far to the left you're not "true" to the cause ... Nancy Pelosi was adored for some of the wacky social causes she supported in California, but if she even dares to think of agreeing with Bush on anything, she's toast.
I'm a libertarian that was forced to side with the conservatives simply because the far left takes it TOO far.
If you don't think that there is a "far left" driving politics and society (moveon, code pink ...) that makes you look like a conservative, then God bless you, I wish I could get away from it, too. I mean, the very fact that the photos from Abu Ghraib are now commonly referred to as "torture" should demonstrate my point clearly.
You may not be "far left," but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm pretty well over to the right, but believe me, the line goes a lot further right than I would ever want to go.
Post a Comment