Coddling Islamic Radicals Who Murder Innocents

If you need further proof of the aburd alliance between progressive social policy and radical Islam, here it is. Nutty Florida Pastor Terry Jones made good on his plan to burn the Koran. Mullahs in Afghanistan fired up their followers over the incident, prompting an attack in which twelve United nations workers were murdered. The consensus among progressives is the murders are the fault of Jones, not the Muslims who committed them. Because no one who is offended based on race, gender or any religion other than Christianity has to take has to take responsibility for his actions.

I do not support Jones’ burning of the Koran, but lay blame where the blame should be laid. If one is so screwed up by radical Islamic culture that the burning of the Koran by strangers on another continent leads one to murder a dozen people who are there to help, then the Koran burning is not the issue we need to be worrying about. It is the cultural rot that creates the mindset. It does not help that our own progressive cultural rot makes it politically incorrect to note this.

It sounds astoundingly logical to me: it is far worse to murder a dozen people because some marginal people who do not believe in your holy book in the first place burn it in protest. There cannot be a sensible debate over the issue. Murdering people is worse than burning books. The mindset that allows one to kill over perceived blasphemy is worse than burning a book to condemn its ideas. The unfortunately ironic part is that Jones has inadvertently--and tragically--confirmed the problem he has with radical Islam.

We could debate the merits of Islam, scant though they may be, but that is not the real issue here. This incident should be a wake up call to what progressive apologists are willing to excuse in the name of their social agenda. The death threats that came after the Mohammed cartoon’s publication should have proven to the world the insane rage of radical Islamists. Progressive Van Jones leading cheers for the 9/11 attackers the day after should have proven the left is ready, willing, and able to excuse any Muslim behavior perceived to be a lashing out over their ’oppression.” The murder of the Un workers over an obscure pastor’s unwise actions and the subsequent excusing of said murders because of the pastor’s actions ought to be enough to prove we are not being reasonable in placing responsibility for evil acts or even weighing them correctly when determining their morality.

Coddling Islamic Radicals Who Murder Innocents

If you need further proof of the aburd alliance between progressive social policy and radical Islam, here it is. Nutty Florida Pastor Terry Jones made good on his plan to burn the Koran. Mullahs in Afghanistan fired up their followers over the incident, prompting an attack in which twelve United nations workers were murdered. The consensus among progressives is the murders are the fault of Jones, not the Muslims who committed them. Because no one who is offended based on race, gender or any religion other than Christianity has to take has to take responsibility for his actions.

I do not support Jones’ burning of the Koran, but lay blame where the blame should be laid. If one is so screwed up by radical Islamic culture that the burning of the Koran by strangers on another continent leads one to murder a dozen people who are there to help, then the Koran burning is not the issue we need to be worrying about. It is the cultural rot that creates the mindset. It does not help that our own progressive cultural rot makes it politically incorrect to note this.

It sounds astoundingly logical to me: it is far worse to murder a dozen people because some marginal people who do not believe in your holy book in the first place burn it in protest. There cannot be a sensible debate over the issue. Murdering people is worse than burning books. The mindset that allows one to kill over perceived blasphemy is worse than burning a book to condemn its ideas. The unfortunately ironic part is that Jones has inadvertently--and tragically--confirmed the problem he has with radical Islam.

We could debate the merits of Islam, scant though they may be, but that is not the real issue here. This incident should be a wake up call to what progressive apologists are willing to excuse in the name of their social agenda. The death threats that came after the Mohammed cartoon’s publication should have proven to the world the insane rage of radical Islamists. Progressive Van Jones leading cheers for the 9/11 attackers the day after should have proven the left is ready, willing, and able to excuse any Muslim behavior perceived to be a lashing out over their ’oppression.” The murder of the Un workers over an obscure pastor’s unwise actions and the subsequent excusing of said murders because of the pastor’s actions ought to be enough to prove we are not being reasonable in placing responsibility for evil acts or even weighing them correctly when determining their morality.

Formspring Question # 76--Pyramid Schemes Edition

Are you going to comment on Egypt at all?

I do not think I have anything of particular value to say about Egypt. I have made some snaky comments about the alleged revolution on Twitter, but those are not meant to be taken seriously. As much as I arrogantly shoot my mouth off here, I keep quiet when I know I am ignorant on a subject.

Here is the problem--I am not idealistic when it comes to foreign policy. There is a romantic notion that democracy is a fantastic concept that ought to spread across the planet. To that, I say poppycock. If the Arab street--the ones who think the united states is secretly ruled from Tel Aviv--is going to vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power, then let them stew under an undemocratic stooge who is at least somewhat responsive to the United States because he needs the foreign aid.

Something like that is the most likely scenario to happen, anyway. The Egyptian army, lead by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, has so far refused to use violence against the anti-Hosni Mubarak protestors because Enan wants to be the next president. The next president will have to have the backing of the military and the acceptance of the masses currently marching in order to hold onto power. Does anyone really think if he wins election in September--assuming Mubarak does not renege on his promise to step aside for elections--he will not fall into the same role Mubarak has enjoyed for decades?

For people who have been oppressed for so long, freedom is just as paralyzing as dictatorship. They make bad choices and are still susceptible to brutal rule.

I am calling this a no win scenario. Either Mubarak stays in people, crushing the will of the people, or Enan comes into people, in which case it is meet the new boos same as the old, or the Egyptian people really get their way and the country becomes a near fundamentalist theocracy. Which of those three outcomes do you prefer? Yeah, I have no idea who to root for, either.

If anyone cares to weigh in on how I am wrong here, feel free. Like I said, I do not know enough to intelligently take a position.

Formspring Question # 76--Pyramid Schemes Edition

Are you going to comment on Egypt at all?

I do not think I have anything of particular value to say about Egypt. I have made some snaky comments about the alleged revolution on Twitter, but those are not meant to be taken seriously. As much as I arrogantly shoot my mouth off here, I keep quiet when I know I am ignorant on a subject.

Here is the problem--I am not idealistic when it comes to foreign policy. There is a romantic notion that democracy is a fantastic concept that ought to spread across the planet. To that, I say poppycock. If the Arab street--the ones who think the united states is secretly ruled from Tel Aviv--is going to vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power, then let them stew under an undemocratic stooge who is at least somewhat responsive to the United States because he needs the foreign aid.

Something like that is the most likely scenario to happen, anyway. The Egyptian army, lead by Lt. Gen. Sami Enan, has so far refused to use violence against the anti-Hosni Mubarak protestors because Enan wants to be the next president. The next president will have to have the backing of the military and the acceptance of the masses currently marching in order to hold onto power. Does anyone really think if he wins election in September--assuming Mubarak does not renege on his promise to step aside for elections--he will not fall into the same role Mubarak has enjoyed for decades?

For people who have been oppressed for so long, freedom is just as paralyzing as dictatorship. They make bad choices and are still susceptible to brutal rule.

I am calling this a no win scenario. Either Mubarak stays in people, crushing the will of the people, or Enan comes into people, in which case it is meet the new boos same as the old, or the Egyptian people really get their way and the country becomes a near fundamentalist theocracy. Which of those three outcomes do you prefer? Yeah, I have no idea who to root for, either.

If anyone cares to weigh in on how I am wrong here, feel free. Like I said, I do not know enough to intelligently take a position.