Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Storm Track Disinformation: Oh, Please! Enough Already!

Like most bloggers, I skim the news everyday looking for content ideas for my daily posts. In the process, one can get pretty frustrated reading the almost daily bleating of the appeasers and apologists trying to explain the whys and wherefores of Islam like jihad does not mean ‘Holy War’, the myth of Muslim support for terror, and how the great majority of Muslims are moderate and do not support the Islamist agenda.

One article explains that the word ‘Jihad’ doesn’t mean Holy War but ‘striving’, while another article claims that Muslims do not support terror (74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent – if true that means 26 percent of Muslims in Indonesia, 14 percent in Pakistan, and 19 percent in Bangladesh do support terror. If you take the hundreds of millions of Muslims in those areas, those percentages are pretty damn scary), and another article tries to show how the majority of Muslims are moderate yet is blind to the fact that they receive indirect support form the moderates.

Add the bellyaching of the left useful idiots who constantly try and misdirect the argument away for the ideology and claim ‘if only they weren’t so exploited by the decadent West we would have peace.’

Enough is enough!

First almost any religion including Christianity has had its period of violent proselytizing. Pointing to verses in the Bible as proof that Christianity teaches the love of your fellow man while Christians were slaughtering each other and anyone who disagreed with the ‘Word of God’ during the Middle Ages, was small comfort to those who live through the Thirty Years War and the Inquisition.

The problem is this. Though religions may be made by infallible holy men from heaven, they have to be lived out by average fallible human beings here in earth. Every Western religion teaches peace but their history shows that they will kill those who do not believe as they do to attain it. It’s not WHAT is written by the religion that’s important, but HOW the religion is practiced. So let’s stop talking of how Islam is this or Islam is that and look at how it is being practiced.

Today, the 21st century, Christians and Jews preach peace. The mouthpieces for Muslims preach war. It’s quite simple to see. Almost 95 percent of all conflict in the world today involve Muslims.


Main religious groups involved


Extreme, radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslims


Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic), Muslims

Côte d'Ivoire

Muslims, Indigenous, Christian


Christians & Muslims

East Timor

Christians & Muslims


Animists, Hindus, Muslims & Sikhs

Indonesia, province of Ambon

Christians & Muslims

Indonesia, province of Halmahera

Christians & Muslims


Kurds, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims, western armed forces


Hindus & Muslims


Serbian Orthodox Christians & Muslims


Christians, Muslims


Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims

Middle East

Jews, Muslims, & Christians


Christians, Animists, & Muslims

Northern Ireland

Protestants, Catholics


Suni & Shi'ite Muslims


Christians & Muslims


Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims

South Africa

Animists & "Witches"

Sri Lanka

Buddhists & Hindus


Animists, Christians & Muslims


Buddhists & Muslims


Buddhists & Communists


Animists, Christians, & Muslims

Get the picture.

Then we have the apologists who see the conflict not as the ideology of freedom against the ideology of Islamism but between the planet’s rich and poor.

The prime minister of Malasia, Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi, says attributing problems between the west and the Muslim world to a clash of civilizations diverts attention away from the real source of discontent. The key to stabilizing the Muslim world is to improve economic conditions and reduce the high levels of "poverty, illiteracy and unemployment"

If so, then answer me this. Why are the many other poverty stricken countries in the Caribbean, South and Central America, Africa. Etc. etc. not blowing themselves up for their God? Poverty isn’t driving those people to suicide bombings. How come Mr. Prime Minister? Because your argument doesn’t hold water.

So enough already. Its time the apologists and useful idiots cease trotting out the same old horse and get them to address the real problem.

It’s the ideology, stupid! The ideology that drives the Islamo-fascist agenda of Islamism. Find it, confront it and destroy it – wherever and whenever it is found.

Read THE GATHERING STORM eBook (with an Introduction by ex-terrorist Walid Shoebat) that contains 300 pages of hyperlinked information, pictures, cartoons and videos that details the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics Islamists are using to advance their goal of the Islamic rule of the world.


  • 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are “never justified”; [... That leaves 26 percent]

    You note that 74% isn't 100% -- and miss the point of the survey. Only 46 percent of Americans agreed that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified.”

    46+24 isn't 100% either, so some are undecided or whatever. Take account of that category when totally up how many Indonesians support terror. And don't forget the important point: Americans are MORE supportive of attacks upon civilians than Indonesians, Pakistanis, etc.

    At least understand the article before you disagree with it. Christian Science Monitor, btw, not my blog.

    By Anonymous misterlister, at 10:21 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Larry, at 3:36 AM  

  • Only 46 percent of Americans agreed that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,"

    Without using the term "terrorism" which requires the attacks be on random victims and generally of a political aim, it makes it easy for large numbers of respondents to think that the question refers to military strikes in which civilians are certain to be killed - like shooting a missile at OBL while he is in a crowded market place. That is what I would have taken that question to mean. By comparing that stat with the question on terrorism you are confusing the two issues - even though that was not your main point (though it was Kenneth Ballen of the CSM's point).

    Personally, I do not care how many Muslims are "undecided" on whether terrorism is ever justified. If someone can not make a decision on something like that I feel very comfortable discussing them in the same group as those who approve of terrorism.

    By Blogger Snake Oil Baron, at 7:06 PM  

  • Thanks Snake Oil

    I was waiting for some one to respond to misterlister's false analysis.


    By Blogger WC, at 9:52 PM  

  • the question refers to military strikes in which civilians are certain to be killed - like shooting a missile at OBL while he is in a crowded market place

    No it does not. It does not say "attacks intentionally aimed at combatants near to civilians" it says "attacks intentionally aimed at civilians". It is very specific, very clear.

    By Anonymous Lister, at 2:25 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home