MASSACRE

We had our own little massacre in the 'stan when a moslem policeman opened up on our soldiers while they were off guard. Five dead and even more wounded.

*Before reading, bear in mind that what an American conservative calls 'liberal', we call Marxist, or Lefty, or Righteous, or Politically Correct, or do-gooders.. Well, in short, the LabLibCon party and supporters.

Now America has this:

The massacre  

What shall we call the event, this mass murder of 12 and wounding of 31 other military personnel by a Muslim major and medical doctor at the nation’s largest military base? The Fort Hood Massacre? The Muslim Massacre? Hell, why not get right to the root of the issue and call it the Liberal Massacre? Because it’s liberalism that tells us that we must not exclude or discriminate against any groups or any religions, including the religion that commands its followers to destroy us; that we must be equally open to all cultures, religions, and peoples, including the people who are obligated by their god to subjugate or kill us; and that everyone must be equally honored and respected, no matter how alien and incompatible they may be.

Here’s a simple, commonsense test to help us grasp the difference between liberalism and non-liberalism. Would Charles Martel have commissioned Muslim officers in his army? Would King Jan Sobieski have allowed Muslim doctors to enter his headquarters and move about at liberty among his men on the eve of deployment for battle against Muslims? Of course not. Because Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski were not liberals. They knew that Muslims were the enemy who intended the conquest and Islamization of Europe. They knew that there was a difference between us and them.



Nidal Malik Hasan—
Army major, medical doctor,
mass murderer, Muslim  But liberal society allows Muslims by the millions to immigrate into its bosom. Liberal society gives Muslims full liberty to practice their religion here. Liberal society trains Muslims in its elite institutions to be doctors and engineers. Liberal society inducts Muslim men and officers into its military. And liberal society prohibits any negative statement about Islam. And thus we arrive at the sickening but unquestioned phenomenon—one of the supreme symptoms of liberalism—that in their reactions to this massacre, officials and media uniformly use passive, de-personalized language conveying the idea of a disaster without an agent who caused the disaster:
“tragedy” (McCaffrey); “a horrific outburst of violence (Obama); “shocked and saddened … today’s outburst of violence … My heart goes out to their loved ones” (Kay Bailey Hutchison).

But how could they use other than passive, de-personalized language to describe a mass murder by an Army major and medical doctor named Malik Nadal Hasan? What are they supposed to say? That we have an enemy within, this enemy is Islam, and that we will not be safe or free until this enemy is removed from us? Since they can’t say that, being liberals, the only available language to them is the liberal language of meaningless, causeless catastrophe, and of our own helplessness to do anything about it.

And what is the alternative to such weakness, cowardice, dishonesty, and dishonor, and the suicidal danger into which they are leading us?

Truth.
I wrote in August 2006:

This is the unchangeable reality.… We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers.… The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well. This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.

View From The Right

America has had events like that which happened to our young men in the 'stan several times in Iraq. If you recall from the first Gulf war, the Americans had one of their (moslem) soldiers fragging a tent with several other soldiers in - and that was before the fighting started.

How can our young men and women be ordered to serve alongside armed moslems? It's fine for the politicians and generals to issue these orders - they are not the ones with an itch running right up their backs when there armed, ostensibly allied, moslems around.

I think it's about time all moslems were discharged from our armed forces. They cannot be trusted, and why should our young men be forced to take an unnecessary risk. Seems they can't even trust their doctors if they are moslem (and wasn't it moslem doctors who attacked Glasgow airport?) Their life is risky enough as it is.

Never forget: moslems have only one loyalty, and it is not to us, our country or our monarch. The liblabcon call some of them 'moderate' and some extremist. But they all read the same Book, so none can be trusted. None. Ever.

Morg
.