Call them sheeple. Lemmings. Zombies. New World Order mind control slaves.
Whatever you call them, the drooling dimwits chanting “we are Charlie” are the all-time greatest argument for Rockefeller-style eugenic euthanasia. (Which, incidentally, should start with the Rockefellers.)
And don’t get me started on those “world leaders” who led le défilé des idiots. These scumbag-psychopath “leaders” are the worst terrorists on earth. Take Netanyahu – please! Where are the black ski mask guys with AK-47s when we need them? Somebody call in a drone strike!
But seriously, folks, it isn’t easy being a three-digit-IQ Muslim in a world full of one-digit-IQ infidels. Frankly, I’m getting tired of trying to explain things to people who should know better…a category that includes pretty much everybody who isn’t too stupid to live.
First, this Charlie Hebdo thing (dramatic drum roll) is the most obvious freakin’ false flag imaginable. If inside jobs were hamburgers, this one would come with “the works” – throw-down ID in an abandoned getaway car, Police Commissioner conveniently suicided, intel-cutout patsies murdered, blatantly fake “terrorist kills cop” propaganda video…it doesn’t get any better (or should I say worse) than this.
But just because it was a false flag doesn’t mean that Muslims are always going to put up with obscene, blasphemous attacks on their Prophet. If you publish garbage like Charlie did, you are asking to get hurt…just like if I were to publish an obscene drawing of your mother or daughter or sister, only more so…MUCH more so. If you publish an obscene attack on my mother or sister or wife or daughter (assuming I had a daughter) I am going to be very, very angry with you…and you had best hope that I manage to control my anger…and, more pertinently, choose not to serve you a dish of cold revenge some day, perhaps years from now when you least expect it.
You will be facing the same situation – except a whole lot more grievous – if you obscenely insult my Prophet. A whole lot of us Muslims are just that way.
We’ll struggle all-out to control ourselves. Maybe 99% of us, or even 99.9%, will succeed. But if one day somebody loses it and goes off on you, you shouldn’t pretend to be surprised.
Maybe you don’t hold anything sacred, not even your womenfolk’s honor. Or maybe there are certain “fighting words” that you’d feel compelled to avenge. Maybe I could walk up to you in a bar and start talking trash about your female family members and you’d turn the other cheek. Then again, maybe you wouldn’t. If I tried that, and got my ass kicked, or even got my ass shot, would you organize a million moron march in my memory? The thought of a million morons marching down the Champs Elysées carrying signs reading “Je suis Kevin”…c’est trop délicieux.
So yes, many Muslims will grow very, very angry if you cross the line in obscenely attacking their prophet. That is a well-known fact…background knowledge for the psy-op specialists tasked with staging murderous PR stunts to keep the clash-of-civilizations a-clashing.
And that’s how this false flag was arranged: Find some creep cartoonists who are practically begging for Muslims to come after them…and then dress up your blue-eyed (!) Special Forces guys in ski masks and stage a professional slaughter.
Next, whip out the genocide propagandists and useful idiots.
I have seen more out-and-out lies in the Charlie Hebdo propaganda stories than even I imagined the MSM could be capable of. A few examples from my favorite Mossadnik rag will suffice.
The Huffington Post published a gargantuan genocidal big lie story: These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over. But that’s a lie. This story features only relatively inoffensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons. It leaves the really sick, obscene stuff out. People who read this mendacious Huffington Post piece, and who don’t understand that it was a false flag, are going to think that the Charlie Hebdo creeps were – as so many “house Muslims” disgustingly intone – “innocent.” Bullshit. They were vicious, evil, blasphemous pornographers pumping out genocide propaganda. And rather than being murdered by blue-eyed Special Forces officers dressed up as Wahhabis, they should have been tried, condemned, and hanged, whether for genocide propaganda in a secular courtroom, or for blasphemy in an Islamic one. (The genocide I am referring to, of course, is the 9/11-false-flag-triggered War on Islam, which has killed more than one million Muslims, ruined the lives of tens of millions, and aims at eradicating Islam in part by targeting its sacred symbols for blasphemous, pornographic annihilation.)
HuffPost, a well-known Zionist mouthpiece, also published another Goebbels-style propaganda lie, this time by an author with a Muslim name. I am referring to Fathima Imra Nazeer’s sickening To Prevent Another Charlie Hebdo, Reconsider the Example of Muhammed. This airhead (or Mossad operative using an Islamic pen name) begins by invoking the “good Muslim vs. bad Muslim” dichotomy:
“Many Muslims are rightfully outraged by the attack on Charlie Hebdo way more than they would ever be offended by some caricature of Muhammed. Unfortunately, there are some Muslims who are quick to justify this atrocity as well.”
The “good Muslims” she cites are the pathetic, Guantanamo-terrorized house Muslims who are complicit in their own genocide; while her “bad Muslim” is the illiterate idiot Anjum Chaudary, London’s walking, talking advertisement for Islamophobia. This is a classic false dichotomy, like Bush’s “either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” And like Bush’s line, it was designed by Zionist psy-op specialists as part of the ongoing effort to delegitimize self-defense-while-Muslim.
Nazeer then slanders the Qur’an, saying: “The Quran encourages the killing of ‘those who spread mischief’ against Allah and Muhammed.” That’s a big lie. If you follow her link, you’ll find it goes to a passage that might be roughly translated as:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
“Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
The passage – which was revealed in, and refers to, the context of a desperate defensive war – says nothing about “spreading mischief against Allah and Muhammad.” Instead, it clearly states that to merit capital punishment or exile (and we know from the rest of the Qur’an that mercy is preferred, so it will probably be mere exile) the war criminal must be guilty of all of the following:
*Waging war against God.
*Waging war against God’s messenger.
*Striving to cause corruption. (The Arabic word fasad indicates a very strong, extreme form of corruption; the word mischief, which connotes the naughty tricks of children, is light-years away from the correct meaning. In other words, the war criminal must be working really, really hard to do really, really terrible things.)
Only a very uncharitable mufti would say that Nazeer, by viciously slandering the Qur’an and the Prophet in her lying article, was guilty of all of the three parts of this crime. If I were called for Islamic jury duty, I would vote to let her off with a reprimand. It could be that she has psychological problems, or perhaps her grotesque mistranslation is an innocent mistake.
I’m joking, of course. There is no such thing as Islamic jury duty, and if there were, I would find a way to get out of it.
And of course Nazeer’s article, dumb and offensive as it is, is a (bad) argument, not an act of obscene blasphemy. It’s the kind of free speech everybody agrees we need to protect.
The Qur’anic passage Nazeer mistranslates is revealing. It suggests that in a desperate, defensive war to defend a community founded on the sacred, the worst crimes merit the harshest punishments…but that repentance and mercy are better than punishment.
Which, like everything else in the Qur’an, displays its profound understanding of human nature. Any community founded on the sacred – and all communities are, one way or another – will fight to defend itself and what it holds sacred…and the more desperate the struggle, the more powerful and nastier the enemies, the more harshly will attempts at order-restoring justice be meted out. To take one historical example, when the US was collapsing from the Great Depression, it began executing people in far greater numbers than ever before or since. A decade later, the desperation felt by all the belligerent parties during World War II led to their committing unprecedented atrocities.
The Qur’an acknowledges this reality – that people sometimes have to do terrible things to defend themselves or restore order, as was the case in Medina – but sets strict conditions and limits, and reminds us that mercy is always better. The general Qur’anic outlook might suggest that the ramp-up in executions in 1930s America was reasonable if unfortunate, while the atrocities of World War II (including the Allies firebombings and nuclear bombings of civilians and deliberate starvation of millions of Germans after the war) transgressed all limits and were a complete abomination.
This acknowledgment that desperate people will resort to desperate measures, is applicable to the situation of Muslims today.
Since the Western powers-that-be have forced the ludicrous official story of 9/11 down our throats – a story that 80% of Muslims worldwide know is a lie – we Muslims feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are in desperate straits. Over a million have been murdered for this lie. Tens of thousands have been tortured. Our religion is under genocidal attack.
But we must not fight back by stupidly lashing out…and providing our enemies with the propaganda ammunition they seek.
There is a famous “Muslim anger management” story:
“Caliph Ali was once fighting in a war imposed on Muslims, and the chief of the Unbelievers confronted him. During the fight, the Ali was able to overcome his enemy, who fell on the ground and Ali was about to kill him. The enemy, knowing his fate, had no hope so he spit on the face of Ali. Ali immediately got up and left him alone. The man came running to him and asked, ‘You had a chance to kill me since I am a Polytheist; how come you didn’t use your sword?’ Ali said, ‘I have no personal animosity toward you. I was fighting you on behalf of God. If I had killed you after you spat on my face, then it would have become my personal revenge which I do not wish to take.’ That Unbeliever chief became a Muslim immediately.”
If you insult my Prophet (or female family member) and I strike you out of anger, that is a failure on my part. A natural failure, one that we might hope and pray will not be judged too severely by the only Judge who counts; but a failure nonetheless.
The greater jihad is the struggle for self-control, the struggle to be a better person. The lesser jihad is the struggle to defend the community…whether by force of arms, or by waging “the best jihad…(which) is a word of truth flung in the face of a tyrant.”
Obviously we need a whole lot of both varieties these days.
Posted by Kevin Barrett on January 12, 2015, With 11253 Reads Filed under Investigations, Paris Attacks 2015. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.