It should, but those who are blinded by PC dogma and their own sense of moral superiority are more concerned with winning political fights here than they are with the survival of western civilization. They believe that they are safe, because there are people who protect them, despite the insults that Wei and KS and the like heap upon us, despite being compared to Nazis by smug little tools like Arroyo, despite having our hands tied by PC idiocies and being judged by standards that they would never think of applying to our enemies. And, they believe that while it might be happening in Europe, it will never happen here, because the Muslims who came here, unlike the Muslims who went to Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia and the rest of the west would never, ever think to impose their ideology upon America, despite the fact that they keep saying otherwise. And, that the Muslims in the west today, unlike the Muslims who conquered and colonized India, Thailand, the Philippines, Spain, Southeastern Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, won't impose their will upon those countries as soon as they get the chance, that they won't bring the most barbaric practices with them, establish them as the norm and then demand that they be respected and encouraged. Nope, never happen. Not now, not tomorrow, not a century from now.
Originally Posted by CueSi
It's not just laziness. Some people genuinely want us to lose this war, because it weakens their domestic political opponents. Wei would love to see the armed forces lose some of our public approval, since we stand in the way of his Marxist utopia. Arroyo is using the issue to demonstrate how morally superior he is to the rest of us.
Originally Posted by Gingersnap
Nope, but far enough to hide behind the safety of his monitor.
Originally Posted by txradioguy
Calling a Jew a Nazi is fighting words. If Arroyo were an honorable man, he'd apologize, or come down to Hood and let his hands pay for what his mouth rang up. If you had a spine and a conscience, you'd understand that, but everyone here has long since given up on your moral or intellectual standards of conduct.
Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei
I'm sticking with Wei. It's gotten a worse meaning here than anything that I can come up with.
Originally Posted by Zathras
From the leftist dictionary:
Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble
Bigot: Someone who is winning an argument with a leftist. See "civility"
Bigotry: Any argument that cannot be refuted factually. See "Ad Hominem"
I suppose that it is bigotry to point out uncomfortable facts about Islam, but let's see what he said that really set you off:
The Time Traveler nodded. “That’s more true than you know,” he said. “I come from a place and time where your grandchildren and hundreds of millions of other dhimmi are compelled to write ‘pbuh’ after the Prophet’s name. They wear gold crosses and gold Stars of David sewn onto their clothing. The Nazis didn’t invent the wearing of the Star of David . . . the marking and setting apart of the Jews in society. Muslims did that centuries ago in they lands they conquered, European and otherwise. They will refine it and update it, not toward the more merciful, in the lands they occupy through the decades ahead of you.”
You didn't know that the Muslims were the ones who came up with the yellow Star of David patch for Jews? Or that the caliphs often imposed even more degrading visual cues on dhimmis, such as specialized clothing? Or that Christians and Jews were forbidden to ride any animals in the presence of a Muslim on foot? Is it racist to point out that these laws remain in effect in many Arab countries, and would be in force if there were any Jews or Christians left to enforce them against?
“Have you read the Qur’an and learned your Sunnah?” asked the Time Traveler. “It would behoove you to do so. Dhimmi means ‘protection.’ And your children and grandchildren will be protected . . . like cattle.”Dhimmi does mean protection. The terms of dhimmitude are specified in the Qur'an, Sunnahs and Hadiths, and when you read them, you'll see that cattle had it better, comparatively. Muslims didn't feel the need to publicly humiliate cattle, after all, but a major aspect of the dhimma is that those under the protection of the Muslims must be made to feel humiliated and under submission. The jizya, for example, had to be paid in person, and involved a ritual in which the tax collector would strike the dhimmi on the back of the neck as he bowed with the payment.
“Your dhimmi poll tax will be called jizya,” said the Time Traveler. His voice suddenly sounded very weary.“Your land tax for being an infidel, even for fellow People of the Book – Christians and Jews – will be called kharaz. Both of these taxes will be in addition to your mandatory alms – the zakat. The punishment for failure to pay, or for paying late, a punishment meted out by your local qadi, religious judge, is death by stoning or beheading.”
I mentioned the jizya above. The kharaz was imposed throughout Islamic countries. Much of the poverty of India is the result of centuries of kharaz against the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, who were reduced to begging after they paid everything that they had and were faced with starvation.
“Under sharia – which will be the universal law of Eurabia,” persisted the Time Traveler, “the value of a dhimmi’s life, the value of your grandchildren, is one half the value of a Muslim’s life. Jews and Christians are worth one-third of a Muslim. Indian Parsees are worth one-fifteenth. In a court of the Eurabian Caliphate or the Global Khalifate, if a Muslim murders a dhimmi, any infidel, he must pay a blood money fine not to exceed one thousand euros. No Muslim will ever be jailed or sentenced to death for the murder of any dhimmi or any number of dhimmis. If the murders were done under the auspices of Universal Compulsive Jihad, which will be sanctioned by sharia as of 2019 Common Era, all blood money fines are waived.”
That's explicitly stated in Sharia law. It's applied today in most Arab countries. The kidnapping of a Jewish child in Yemen a few months ago was meant to get the family of a murder victim to agree to a blood money payment. But, I suppose that pointing this out makes me a bigot, too.
Maybe you objected to this part:
“These religious officials were on the Islamic Tribunal that sentenced two dhimmis to death by stoning and beheading,” said the Time Traveler. “The dhimmis were your two grandsons, Thomas and Daniel.”
“What was . . . will be . . . their crime?” I was able to ask after a long minute. My tongue felt like a strip of rough cotton.
“They dated two Muslim women – Thomas while he was in London on business, Daniel while visiting his aging mother, your daughter, in Canada – without first converting to Islam. That part of sharia, Islamic law, is called hudud, and we know quite a bit about it in my time. Your grandsons didn’t know the young women were Muslim since they both were dressed in modern garb - -thus violating their own society’s ironclad rule of Hijab — modesty. The girls, I hear, also died, but those were not sharia sentences. Not hudud. Their brothers and fathers murdered them. Honor killings . . . I think you’ve already heard the phrase by 2006.”
What would you find wrong with that? A non-Muslim man cannot be with a Muslim woman unless it is rape. That's in Sharia. And a woman who allows herself to be raped is, of course, a slut who must be killed to restore the honor of her family. Certainly, you don't deny that this is a practice that Muslims have brought to Europe and America? Shall I link to all of the articles about honor killings in the US and Europe in the last few years? Is it bigotry to acknowledge the truth? Ah, yes, I forgot, it is.