Friday, 11 July 2008
I cant dance, so don’t ask me.
"Hey! Cool it! Can't we get a little maturity and sophistication here?! Sheesh! There's enough dead Islamist psychopath for everybody!"
At the Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral and May Clearance Sale, a "minority" of millions of Muslims tried to attach themselves to the old pervert for er, "legitimacy!"
Longmans Contemporary English Dictionary defines ‘cant’ thus: “Cant. 1 [kaent] N. Insincere talk about moral or religious principles by someone who is pretending to be better than they really are. A politician’s cant about family values. 2. Special words used by a particular group of people, especially in order to keep things secret: thieves cant. 3. A sloping surface or angle”.
For some folks there are no yes or no answers to anything, unless they’re aimed in mindless hyperbole at George Bush. This is a list of questions that have only yes answers when in the right "context". Meaning they are happening to you now, or these profoundly criminal acts have already been committed. That's unless of course, you’re the kind of person for whom the “context” can er, change.
“Is this a bomb blast? Are you cutting off my head? Am I being lashed for being raped? Are these dead children? Are you screaming Allah Akbar? Are you murdering the flight and cabin crew? Are you running over that child’s arm to punish un-Islamic behaviour? Are you beating that woman to death? Are you hanging that 14 year old boy for being gay?
Are you screaming death to Israel and all Jews? Are you repeatedly stating you want a global Islamic Caliphate by any means? Is it true that what happens to Israel will eventually happen to the West? Was the World Trade Centre destroyed by 19 Muslim loons? Etcetera”.
Dear sports, a guy who is not me and not called Roger Kaputnik, sent some questions to Waleed Aly. Aly is our local man from Mecca, and Australia’s seemingly smooth operator number one in the post modern art of auto-moral relativism. Ah, drifting on a sea of forgotten teardrops.
“Cry me a river and weep and moan for me, guitar”.
Not sure about reality? Reality is a punch to the head. Here's a formidable contender in the deeply empirical Dr Sanity.
So anyway, my baby wrote me a letter. The questions and points were regarding Wal’s mediocre op-ed for Wednesday July 09 in The Age newspaper. Sure it is! It was, dear reader, a standard Waleed piece where Wal just can’t seem to recognise, name or see Islamic terrorists for what they are. No, really. In fact it was so bog standard and stupid that only Philip Adams or similar could take it seriously. Not Roger Kaputnic asked what is Wal’s problem with relating Jihadists with terrorism? I think it may start with the letter M. That’s right. Macrame!
“Hey, what’s the thing with airline peanuts?”
This is in spite of the fact that an Islamic terrorist nearly always looks like a duck, er, Jihadist Muslim, and talks like a duck, acts, lives and plans like a duck, and usually lives in long established Islamic duck ponds with millions of other ducks. Go figure.
Roger asks that if all these millions of long-term Muslims call this violence Jihad, are they um, wrong? And do ya think a terrorist likes to kill civilians?
Do chimps like bananas? Here's the great nose on your face for a little insight and a few laughs.
And are J.I, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the IRA and ETA and the rest of the worlds destructive and unproductive geeks etc, gee, terrorists?
Pick the odd two out. Here’s a clue. They’re the two that are still insane, but are curiously not dreaming of a global Irish or Basque Caliphate.
And how asks Rodge, do ya describe the nineteen 9/11 hijackers? Is it just as people or Muslims? And does the threat of worldwide terrorism come from er, gosh, extremist Muslims? Lastly, do you think terrorists are ever justified in attacking people say at a supermarket, a pet market or a crèche?
So it was yours tediously, Not Roger Kaputnik”.
Mr Mojo Risin’ replies with er, my cute and fun lovin’ interjections...
Wal: “Hi [not Roger Kaputnik]”,
Hey, how ya doin’? How about those Redsox? Tell me Wal, are many Muslims worried about the backlash from tomorrows bombing?
Wal: “Thanks for your email. I'm flattered by your interest in my piece, and the topic”.
Yes, emails are pretty exciting events. Yes, a “piece” of something.
And do you mean flattered on behalf of the topic of Islamist serial killers? Er, a pro-typical op-ed in the peoples glorious broadsheet, AKA‘The Age’, is hard to miss, with the strange masked insult tone of it all, "...on the dodgy subject of are there UFO’s or indeed space people..." Oh, sorry, Jihadists. Check. Er, not “interest”, as much as a kind of voiceless sub nausea
“Ever get the feeling you’re being had?!” Johnny Rotten.
“Ever get the feeling you’re being Jihad?!” Colonel Neville.
Wal: “Regarding the question of "Jihadism", my objections to the term are two:”
Ah, any “objections” to the act or just the term? For me, Jihadism is not a question, as much as an answer by Islam to everything. Everything that is not Islamic and that’s just about anything that won’t fit on the back of a postage stamp, like everything that makes up the normal, healthy and successful free world.
I only have one objection to Jihadism: the relentless murder part.
Sure, I find the invariably ugly minds and matching faces objectionable too, but it’s really the blood and screaming that focus my mind. Yes, the blood and the screaming...
Wal: “1)...that, as a matter of theory,”
Er, Jihad is not a theory as yet unproven. It’s a continuous and daily series of acts all documented, that have no limits on their beyond belief depravity.
A tiny sample: The planting of bombs in a children’s pet market; the blowing up of 27 children getting candy and toys from marines; the multiple car bombing of hundreds of school girls having lunch; the beating to death of school girls; the hanging of retarded thirteen year olds and the use of the mentally deficient as human bombs.
Or the mass murder of gays minors; the indoctrination of toddlers in the pathological hatred of Jews and of homicide/suicide bombing as a career path; the licking up of blood after an assassination; the endless beheadings; gang rape as the official policy of theocratic nightmare states; eight year old child brides and genital mutilation; the beheading of Christian school girls in Northern Thailand among the 150,000 murdered by Muslims over twenty years, and all part of over 11,000 reported major Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 and so on into the awful night.
Wal: "Jihad" is a very poor description of terrorism. I've explained this in a fair bit of detail in my book if you're interested in reading further on it”.
Not really. Funny, terrorism is a very good description of Jihad, mate. Of course, the inverted brackets and matching inverted morality of post modern theorising and apology, just adds that something extra, as only true gibberish can. Yeah, ya book. Ali’s Adventures in Wahabistland. For many a boob, it can seem that the Devil is never in any of their alleged details.
Another good description of Jihad would be as a fantastically terrifying memeplex and endlessly clever tactic of deception. Oops, Taqiyaa again. But do Taqiyaa on. I have a great description of Jihad I’ve been workin’ on.
I define Jihad as something that wants me dead and clearly plans to destroy everything I value and care about. But try this humble and incomplete list anyway.
Er, this may ring a few bells. Start with agonised screaming and vast swathes of blood, incredible noise, explosions, intimidation, heartache, oceans of tears and sorrow, extortion, kidnapping, beheading and add organised crime to raise funds. That’s usually a queue for subject change to whatever. Anything but stay on topic, eh? Um, but I can. Hey, has Islamic Jihad been done to death? Then it’s working!
Jihad is a globally recognised brand name for the major Muslim modus operandi of spreading Islam by any means as clearly stated and acted upon by the example of Mohammad/The Koran. They are one, you see. Ya can’t argue with the free market of death, destruction and dhimmitude, can ya?
Funny, in fact it’s a riot, how old Islamic terror has “definition” problems but not detonation problems. Odd how Jihad always involves three guys name Mohammad. Curious how the cheery global Jihad thang, is not um, really equated with Taoist, Buddhist, Animist, Anglican, Hindu, Seventh Day Adventist or um, anyone else really.
How come when Muslims commit crimes that are easily defined by the criminal code, there’s always some fault on behalf of the victims? Why is it that I can define every kind of violence such as assault, rape, murder, kidnapping, beheading and bomb blasts, unless a Muslim does it?
Why can I define say Kamikaze, as the deliberate smashing of explosive laden planes by proudly deluded, suicidal and homicidal pilots of Imperial Japan into Allied targets? Or Blitzkrieg as a mechanised, fast moving, total war strategy utilised to great effect by Adolf Hitler, using maximum force against military targets and civilian populations. But some people just can’t allegedly seem to be able to define Jihad and terrorism? Gee, why is that?
Jihad my friends, is a series of clear acts that can all be empirically defined.
Here is a definition of terrorism for the morally, intellectually and tactically useless.
The deliberate and indiscriminate targeting and murder of civilians and military personnel including, children, women and men, using extortion, arson, shooting, kidnapping, torture, bombing, mutilation and beheading etc, for political and or religious aims.
Yep, even here is a suitable launching pad for a million University and Mosque designed bogus deconstructs and diversion tactics. The key is that Islamist killers backed by Saudi money, Iran and many others, are attacking the free West of the USA, Britain, Australia, Europe, Israel, the Mediterranean, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Asia, India and just about everywhere. Much like Hitler, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy did.
We are under attack by a continuation of a 1300 year old cancer, simply with renewed resources. Islam is a doctrine of asymmetrical and continuous warfare by stealth and frontal assault.
And here’s the thing. This kind of endlessly complex philosophising Leftard wank is like the ever spreading branches of a tree. There’s no end to the detours and side tracks of obfuscation and deception. The problem is that such minds are actually useless, in that they are incapable of seeing anything decisively, clearly or effectively. Oh, except when feverishly imagining the West and Israel etc, as the root of all evil. Blah, blah, woof, woof.
The error is that they’re going the wrong way up the tree. As Bruce Lee said, strip away all the layers and go down to the simple root.
There you will see the shocking cause of Islamic terror is and always has been dah, dah! Islam itself. It’s a self perpetuating hatred if one cares to look. It is my friends, a complete system for a state of endless warfare, [Jihad!] by the realm of Dar Al Islam, [Muslim] against the realm of Dar Al Harb, [Infidel and the place to wage continuous war!] for the singular goal of total Islam.
But then my intelligence is no match for your wilful ignorance.
After 1940, no one had any problem defining Blitzkrieg as a method and what its effect and purpose was. After Pearl Harbour, no one had any problem defining aerial attacks in the same way. It is a lie and a common Islamist tactic to obfuscate and distract the Infidel with bogus hair splitting of the er, "true meaning" and allegedly ah, the “correct definitions”. And always with the outrageous posit that those being destroyed and threatened by Islam are simply somehow "misunderstanding" why they were murdered.
But then the goal of any Islamic apologist and deceiver, is to make it impossible to define their behaviour at all, so that it can't be dealt with effectively. This is shown clearly when the same people have no problem in defining every action and indeed inaction by Democracies, as wrong. Thus the current totalitarians at heart of the Left, have joined comfortably with many Muslims, to destroy free speech.
It’s not true at all that Jihad means a kind of inner struggle, in the way Western people may see that as inferring a purely philosophical one. The only inner struggle in Islam is how to be a true Muslim and serve Islam by literally any act. All is permissable in the sevice of Islam.
The only inner struggle of Jihad is how to destroy the non-believer. The true face and purpose of Jihad is understood exactly by many Muslims, but quite a few do so love to blatantly lie and fool the naïve Kafir. Amazingly, it usually works.
The concept of a culture built on lies and deception, with the ultimate goal of a global Caliphate by vile means and over vast periods of time, is beyond the thinking of the average person, living as they do in an open and normalised society. The West functions entirely in the end on trust, whether one admits and understands this, or not. The fundamentals are essentially voluntary
Wal: “2) that, as a matter of strategy, it is self-defeating to use any derivative of "Jihad" to describe terrorism because it actually gives an air of legitimacy to it”.
It’s not self defeating to call Jihad what it is, which is the prime modus operandi of the Islamist for spreading Islam. This is how Islam was created, founded, established and spread, baby. By the sword of the Jihadist warrior. The only “self defeating” act is to be such a PC Leftard that you can’t even recognise or name a clear and mortal enemy. Now THAT'S the problem, innit?
Legitimacy, schmitacy. I thought that was your job.
The old baloney that Islamic violence is all rather isolated and committed by a small proportion of Muslims doesn't match the numerical facts. It's balls. 52 Islamic states are not a minority.
Over 91 million Muslims worldwide have been conservatively estimated as supporting Jihadist terror and its goals of changing Western democracies into Islamic states with Sharia law. This by definition, is not a minority. 35% of Muslim males 15 to 35 in Britain, all pining for the coming Islamic wonderland, are not a minority again, by definition. People who have amorphous views on the oh so gauche thinking skills of being able to define anything, are surprisingly prone to defining say, white Western Christians as an unlimited evil.
But here’s more standard semantics overload.
Wal: “Regarding the definition of terrorism, I'm afraid it's a little more complex than simply saying the term applies to people who target civilians”.
Yes, it would be. Complex. Yes, of course. Er, not if you’re the civilian being targeted, then it’s elemental and immediate, with zero grey area. Sure it may be harder to do for a slim customer, living in a free democratic state like Australia, all while writing sub par bunk for a dull broadsheet. Great work if you can get it.
Wal: “I do not deny that terrorist’s describe their conduct as Jihad. Clearly they do. And they do so for a reason, because then they can buy into something legitimate. I see no reason why we should capitulate to their terminology. It seems odd to allow them to establish the semantic
You hang on to that if it makes you happy, "...just like ya Momma did for me, ee, ee, ee!"
I see no reason we should “capitulate” militarily, politically or culturally to their terminal atrocity. Capitulate, eh? What that says to me is “...don’t listen to what they say, just cos’ they mean it, folks!”
It's kind of the creepiest paragraph and reveals something pivotal. Some people just can’t speak straight for sustained periods of time. So “terrorists” and not actual Muslims, and only “describe”, and not authentically Islamic? No one is being beheaded by a description are they? Why would Muslims have to buy into Islam? Because it’s er, legitimate? Give me a break.
No, they don’t describe as you say, for any other reason that they are in fact Muslims, following the teachings of Mohammad/Koran/Islam. All for one an’ all for one.
Let’s call Jihad tap dancing then. That’ll stop it. Er, you seem pretty successful at and eager to “establish the semantic field” yourself there. I thought that was the whole gist? No? Mostly convoluted balls though, innit?
Oddly, Islamists actually do have deconstruction fests, but it’s about how to successfully and easily manipulate the Western media, and how many thousands they have on their side. Of course tthey never neglect the non-theoretical attack. Good grief.
Wal: “Firstly, what is the definition of "civilian" or "non-combatant?”
Er, that’s the person who was a moment ago buying some cheese and is now screaming in a pool of their own blood. It can be an Israeli Ambassador who is having his blood licked in the lobby of a hotel up by Muslim killer. Secondly, if you honestly don’t know what a civilian is, stay the fuck away from my children.
Wal: “Does it include soldiers who are not on duty at the time? Does it include the defence infrastructure of a country? So for example, was the September 11th attack on the Pentagon, not a terrorist attack? Was Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole a terrorist attack?”
While I’d love to linger on every one of the disgusting faux questions above, that maybe only some kind of bastard could seriously proffer and be paid for writing, I’ll sum them all up so to speak. Yes, yes, and yes it was a terrorist attack, [get glasses or help] and er, yes.
Especially if the people under attack are the citizens of free, open, prosperous and democratic countries, and the people attacking us are Islamist freaks whose sole purpose is the spread of Islam. That’s as per the world’s greatest asymmetrical warfare handbook, the Koran, and its main maniac, Mohammad. So er, yes. Oddly, I can feel via what is not said, that Muslim terrorists maybe have some kind of sub-reasonable beef after all. But we in the free West apparently don’t and never really can.
“Can you feel it? Can you feel it? Can you feel it?”
Wal: “Secondly, there is considerable disagreement about whether or not it is necessary to target civilians, or indeed people at all, for an act to be deemed terrorism”.
Hey, that’s great! So ya talkin’ about it then? Toppo! To kill women and children or not, and with whom exactly? That’s nuance, right? And who is disagreeing with who? Maybe Mother Theresa with Bin Laden?
Mother Theresa: “We should not kill anybody!”
Bin Laden: “For Islam, there isn’t anybody we shouldn’t kill! But not me of course, that goes without saying!”
Ah, there’s always disagreement among those with no moral compass and limited to zero rational thought processes. Academics: your guarantee of nothing but bad grooming and total ineffectiveness.
Wal: “As I mentioned in the piece, the US, Britain and
Australia all define terrorism to include violence against property. Many academics do the same”.
Yes they do. The same. And that’s the problem with academics entirely. But please, drone on.
Wal: “In fact, one academic study concluded that a surprisingly small minority of academic definitions of terrorism required the attack to be aimed at civilians or non-combatants. So it's a complex area that academics haven't yet resolved, and won't any time soon”.
Big ‘effing surprise. Ten academic studies can be worth less than one.
Many academics only seem capable of resolving anything up to the point of either the vague, fashionable or Leftard dogma. What about some field studies by serving military men and women and law enforcement agencies? Like the studies that show most funding for terror comes from Middle-East states via oil revenue and Muslim immigrants via crime and front companies? From the Saudis, it’s to the incredible tune of over 70 billion bucks pumped worldwide over the last decade. Add Communist states and ditto your Uncle.
Wal: “In response to your specific questions: I would consider all the groups you mentioned to be terrorist groups”.
Er, isn’t that a little judgemental and thus so un-PC?
Wal: “How I would describe the 9/11 hijackers would depend entirely on the context in which I was describing them”.
Ah bet it wud! I’d describe them as Muslims and killers. I knew the clarity couldn’t last and it didn’t! So it’s straight back into the house of bullshit, and with all the solid judgement of a rat in a burning crack house. Great eh? I got that from ‘Two and a Half Men’. That’s the sitcom, not the aftermath of a car bombing by the religion of peace.
Er, what context can the 9/11 hijackers, the Muslim 9/11 hijackers be described in, except by the facts of their behaviour and their intended and achieved result? They had like, another intent, other than what we witnessed? Er, no.
So they acted other than deceptively, all to commit mass murder for Islam? Nope again. Maybe they served party pies and wore festive hats! Hey, while slashing the throats of air hostess’s and stabbing the pilots in the eyes over several minutes! Fill me in, bub. I’m all fucking ears.
Wal: “What do you mean by "world wide terrorism"? I'd certainly say that Muslims are the biggest participants in what I call "global terrorism", but they would not constitute most, or perhaps even a majority of terrorists worldwide”.
Let me say that anyone who asks such a spooky and fraudulent question, perhaps has no real interest in the answer. Er, what do I mean? Let’s stay with Charades!
World and wide means all over the bleeding world I believe. For terrorism, re-read the previous. So they’re “the biggest” but not “most” or a “majority?” What the Hell does that mean? Here’s a fact. Most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim and that takes a lot of in-house support. That’s unless of course they’re maybe operating from a space station orbiting the earth.
All Jihadist scumbags believe in Jihad as proscribed by the Koran and the Hadiths, which are Mohammad and Mohammad is them, as we are all together.
Wal: “I cannot imagine circumstances that justify the targeting of civilians”.
I’m sure you can. And all in the imagination, I'll wager.
Wal: “...but then most of the Western world felt comfortable with Churchill's deliberate bombing of German civilians during WWII”.
See, I knew you could imagine it and you did! So Winston Churchill was ah, a terrorist or just another bad Western leader?!
“Sure thing! Brides maid! Optical promise! It’s the only solution! Isn’t it amazing?” Shaman’s Blues. The Doors.
Wal: “Hope that helps, Waleed”.
Actually it does. It says so much while saying absolutely nothing of worth.
That last part on Churchill, how can I put this? It’s an enormous steaming pile of Logical Fallacy. Subject change to a straw man, with a false argument etc, etcetera. Sure, it’s also glib, fatuous, juvenile and disingenuous. Or is that a stupidly ignorant reading of WWll, to the point of monstrous absurdity, regards the empirical reality of the harsh facts of a fight for survival?
Whenever I read stuff like this, I’m not sure where the demarcation point is from the phony to the plain dumb. Read enough of what laughably passes for intellect and analysis in the mostly mediocre Age and our dull and fake media, and you can feel like you’re in a Hall of Mirrors, going mad or both.
“I’m a tea pot! I’m a tea-pot!”
The first sign of madness is not talking to your self, its hearing logically, evidential and morally disembodied voices from the netherworld, the heart of darkness, that is Islamism. Then embracing it.
Oh, and that reminds me. The group that gets murdered the most due to Islamic terror, oppression, disorder, dysfunction, corruption, blame shifting, lies, absurdity and paranoia, are called Muslims. That’s men, women and children. How does baloney help them exactly?
Let’s deconstruct and discuss!