“Don’t Blame Islam for the Toulouse killings”
Yeah, that’s the headline of an article in the UK’s Telegraph today. It’s just jam-packed with dhimmitudal goodness;
It’s easy to get it wrong because so many of the world’s varied extremists, whatever their motivation and however much they might hate each other, focus their anger and loathing on similar targets – the state, the city, modernity, capitalism, and the one group who embody all these complicating, unsettling changes in the minds of lonely, failed young men – Jews.
People often make the wrong call because that’s what they want to believe, because it fits into their narrative.
“Our” narrative? It seems to me that the whole article fits into the Left’s “Religion of Peace” narrative.
Googling my ass off here, trying to find the Telegraph’s article begging for restraint in the incident of Koran burnings a few months ago, or the incident last week when a US Army staff sergeant killed 16 Afghans in their sleep. Needless to say, my searches are coming up empty on that.
People should reconsider this idea, but as for the tragedy in France, it does not say anything about Islam, only of human nature and its potential for evil. All that matters ultimately is that three innocent children, a father and three young soldiers are now dead.
I don’t remember reading anything about SSG Bales getting his idea for murdering children in their beds from his religious instruction in Sunday school, but I do read in this Reuters article about Mohamed Merah, the guy who is backed into a corner in Toulouse, radicalized by his Salafist religious instruction. And according to this National Post story, he had been planning to kill again today if he hadn’t been thwarted by the French intelligence services.
Category: Terror War
In solidarity with our French allies: “Cet article – quelle merde!”
They’re like children who only see what they want to see and only hear what they want to hear.
By the way, still waiting for that admission Joe.
Haji needs to go back their sandbox and leave us alone. Islam will neve assimilate into ANY western culture, even the most liberal of sorts. I’m looking forward to the day when we suck the oil dry out of that region, thus making Arabs no longer relevant.
Jum Jum shark finn is delicious. We would like to encourage Y’all to eat more shark finn. Sharks eat people when we go to swim at OUR beaches. We do not even do anything to antagonize them. Sharks are villans. KIll em in action, with a hook through the mouth.
Ya got a gunman who targets members of the military and Jews, and it is we who look at folks who like to target members of the military and Jews as the most likely to be the gunman who are called unreasonable?????
Were it not so deadly serious, that would be hilarious.
To all you who refuse to look at, much less to see, the obvious, enjoy yourselves as you stick your heads in the sand. The rest of us have not only a will but an ability to survive and we will NOT allow you to take us with you to your demise.
So for me to admit I’m in error, you’ve got to show he’s a foreigner who “followed them home”. That has not been proven, yet.
Waiting for a press release from al Qaeda, MB or CAIR, Joe? He already convinced the police that it was him with details of the crime which the police had purposely reported wrong to the press (the number of rounds he had fired). He also admitted that he shot the paratroopers because the unit had just returned from Afghanistan – where he had been in prison for building bombs. You were the one pointing fingers with inaccurate information just yesterday, but you find this hard to believe. That says more about you than it says about us.
And just what the fuck would it take to “prove” it to your satisfaction, numbnuts?
Lol, you can’t prove it to his satisfaction Sparky, his disorder completely precludes him from admitting error.
And Joe? This from you;
“So now it looks like hime grown neo-nazis. So much for the bumper sticker slogan, “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here”.
How is that proved wrong? Well it wasn’t a home grown neo-Nazi, so you were wrong about that, and if he had been successfully engaged, killed, or properly imprisoned in Afghanistan while the opportunity existed, he wouldn’t have been killing people on French soil this past month, so you were wrong to claim the slogan is incorrect as well.
All around wrong Joe, and no admission from you, but none of us honestly expected one anyway, know you too well for that. lol
Let us see Joe, he escaped from an Aghan prison, showed up in France, and began killing people. That should be simple enough for even an ignorant tool like you to understand.
More “workplace violence,” nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the raging jihadist behind the curtain.
Joe: Bull. Not even a “nice try”. Quit trying to change the terms after the fact.
In this comment, you clearly asserted that “now it loos like hime (sic) grown neo-nazis”.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=29179#comment-603537
And in this one you said “I’m wrong I’ll admit it”.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=29179#comment-603550
No mention of anything being contingent on the national origin of the shooter or of the war “following anyone home” in either of those comments, fella. You simply claimed that the shooter was a neo-nazi vice an Islamist, and offered to acknowledge that you were wrong if the shooter wasn’t a neo-nazi.
So now, acknowledge you were wrong – like you agreed you would do if proven wrong about the shooter being a neo-nazi. Or just STFU. But quit lying like a little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar telling his mommie he was just seeing if the jar was empty. We know better.
Joe: and yes, I know it should be “neo-Nazi”. But that misspelling in my comment 12 above was used to emphasize the fact that you apparently didn’t.
I had not read that Jonn. (two minutes later….) OK just read confirmation. I WAS WRONG! Again, I WAS WRONG! He is a French citizen, he left France andcame back, so in some sense he kinda followed them home.
So now as a practical matter, what to do about it. And please, not another invasion.
@6: Um, no, Joe, you have to prove he was a neo-nazi, just like you said he was. However, I won’t wait for you to admit you’re wrong; I already know you are, on a great many things.
One of these days, the marriage of convenience between the left and radical Islam is going to come to an end-one way or the other.
@14: What is it with you progressive, drooling moonbat types that think everything needs to be an invasion? Every time you guys get your hackles up; you posit such over the top bullshit in response as if in order to get any attention, you have to be as outrageous as possible. Kinda like a kid that is being ignored that then stands in the middle of the room and screams those ear piercing notes until someone pays attention to them.
Someone mentions that Iran needs to be monitored for their nuke activities and you chuckleheads start screaming “oh sure, now you’re gonna invade Iran”, or, “you warmongers want to attack Iran” when nothing was even mentioned about that. You always talk in the extreme and say it as though it is a fact, without anything being said anything like that.
News reports come out about civil unrest in Syria and you guys start blubbering about how “the warmongers want to attack Syria”, when, again, nothing like that was ever said.
Someone mentions that government cuts need to be done across the board and right away “you want to kick granny out into the street”, or “you guys want granny to die, because you big poopyheads think she’s worthless and a burden”.
You might get more people to listen to you if you were less Alex Jones and more William F. Buckley.
Well, I still think you’re generally clueless, Joe. But I gotta give you credit for finally admitting you were wrong here. I frankly didn’t think you were ever going to do that.
As for what to do regarding Islamic extremists: the rest of the world has been trying to figure out how to handle violent, expansionist Islamic extremists since around 622 AD. That’s nearly 1400 years now. The only thing that’s been found to work to date is deterrence through strength.
Oh, we poor deluded Christians. Just because EVERY extremist that has committed murders like this in the name of jihad, of Palestine, and for other reasons, or because they scream “Allah hu Ackbar” before or during their murder, does not mean they represent Islam. Saying they represent Islam is just silly, no matter what the Koran says, or the Imam’s say, or the Islamic countries say. They are just crazy people.
It’s the same with the Occutards who commit crimes. They aren’t representing the Occupy movement. They are just crazy people and not associated.
However, if someone who walked by a Tea Party meeting commits a crime, then it is the fault of the Tea Party. Likewise, anything Republican or Christian/Jewish. Because those are the real terrorists…
Yeah, and I’m a Five Star General…
Thank you Joe.
And as Hondo said, “deterrence through strength” is currently the only available option.
I’ll ask you Joe, what do you think should be done about Islamic extremism? Also, please reference any evidence you can provide that your approach would ‘work’.
@Jacobite, Does Joe even acknowledge that islamic extremism exists? Me thinks not.
@WOA, I think he does, but I’ll let his response frame his opinion on the subject for you, you’ll find it….interesting.
I’ve said it before, many times. You’re not fighting people (you better hope not, there are 1.6 billion of them) as much as an idea. We can and have killed thousands of “the enemy” and they still multiply like roaches. Who was it, Panetta? Patreus? McKhrystal? who said it won’t work if for every one we kill we create ten more. That’s what we’ve been doing, and the number and frequency of attacks on western soil support this idea. A common thread motivating jihadis is revenge for all the innocent people killed in (choose one) Afghanistan, the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. I mean the current strategy, which you seem to want to double-down on, obviously isn’t working because we’ve got more enemies and more jihadists than ever despite spending ourselves into bankruptcy.
Get even more “surgical” in our strikes, more special operation-type missions, better intelligence on the ground in muslim countries, kill more bad guys (Al Qaeda) with a lot less “collateral damage”, no more massive, indiscriminate invasions, rebuild ties with moderate leaders, show the world, including muslims sitting on the fence, the good side of America, not the “my way of the highway” side. The bad guys are well hidden and disbursed. It will be hard to ferret them out, isolate them and kill them, something better handled by small but that’s what we have to do in a fashion that doesn’t upend entire countries.
Thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children killed by NATO troops. They don’t have to be jihadis to be pissed – you would be too. You’ve heard the ditty “Insantiy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”.
Anyone here with a military backgruond have any NEW ideas? The old ones ain’t workin’.
“Don’t blame islam, blabla…”
They are repeating the same thing since 633 a.d.
Joe says: “Thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children killed by NATO troops. They don’t have to be jihadis to be pissed – you would be too.” So; that’s your logical defense? In that case, there are a whole lotta Germans, Italians, Japanese, etc. that are just pissed at us, too. BTW, Joe; how many innocent men, women, and children died in WWII? Your logic doesn’t hold up, because your logic is based on a false premise that has been forwarded for decades by the smelly hippy crowd. The fact that you and the rest of the intellectually challenged keep beating that drum shows that you haven’t studied history very much and know little of human nature (as though that is a surprise). You keep believing it, because they play you and the rest of your ilk like a cheap violin. They are smart enough to know that the gullible types like you will lap up every perceived offensive transgression. They know they can win the propaganda war with the weak minded in the West. You and your like minded band prove that over and over again i.e. “we better not burn a koran, because it will inflame the entire muslim world”, “the muslims say that the Marines murdered a bunch of innocent people in Haditha, so it shows that our military are nothing but bloodthirsty killers”. So, when I hear the numbers of innocent men, women, and children killed by us evil doers, by your band of merry marauders, I get a little pissed myself. Yes, innocents die in war, they always do, however, we go to great lengths to avoid collateral damage, even to the point that our own troops are in elevated risk of being killed. But that’s not good enough for you. Nope, anything we say or do isn’t going to measure up to your inflated standard, but you don’t hold the enemy to the same standard and are going to great lengths to rationalize their behavior. So, with that lengthy diatribe out of the way and knowing that it won’t mean shit to… Read more »
Like I said WOA, interesting. See any problems with Joe’s thought processes? I’ll point out a couple. On the subject of winning in Afghanistan – Joe says we aren’t fighting people, well yes, we are fighting people, as well as their ideals. People are people are people, it is definitely possible to overcome their political and religious motivations given enough of the right kind of force. I for one don’t believe we are applying enough. Two, the old ways work, when they are applied the way they are supposed to be. The primary reason we are not winning in Afghanistan is because our military is being prevented from bringing the full might and weight of its ability to bear on the country. How did we beat Germany? Oh ya, by pasting the crap out of them till they surrendered. The Islamists aren’t like Germany so it won’t work? Fine. How did we defeat Japan? Oh ya, by pasting the crap out of them till they surrendered. We didn’t create more fanatics in Japan due to massive collateral damage, no, we forced a population to acquiesce, despite the cultural road blocks, by showing them we were absolutely committed to their complete and utter destruction if they didn’t. It’s not the old ways that are failing, it’s the new ways. It is precisely the idea that surgical, precision warfare tied to soft handed diplomacy can accomplish what total warfare can’t that is flawed. You can’t say that old style total warfare has failed, because it hasn’t even been used in Afghanistan yet!! He says current strategy isn’t working, and he claims the evidence for that is that there are more jihadists than ever. Well, there are not more jihadists than ever, not sure where he got that idea. The current newfangled strategy isn’t working because it’s flawed and slaved to skewed political sensibilities. As for preventing things like what happened in France, the fact is you can’t. Not once, anywhere in history, anywhere, has mankind been able to prevent religious or politically motivated lone wolves from creating havoc. It can’t be done,… Read more »
@ Jacobite – This is no defense of Joe, but I don’t believe that comparisons between Afghanistan and Germany and Japan are apt. In the previous conflicts, we fought completely and utterly against a state apparatus. In Afghanistan, we’re fighting an insurgency while propping up a corrupt regime. Overwhelming kinetic force isn’t going to sustain the two simultaneously.
I was entirely behind removing the Taliban regime and rooting out al Qaeda….but the succeeding mission creep is neither in our interest [versus the cost] nor a forgone victory, given the dynamics of the enemy and the region [compared to WWII].
I find just as much fault with the belief that if we all get behind the effort in a concerted ‘I think can’….as I do with the ‘just give peace a chance’ mindsets.
I get what you’re saying CI, but I stand by my assertion that the absolute application of ‘total war’ would eventually leave Afghanistan as a ‘country’ that we would not have to worry about as a threat via any vehicle you care to mention, at least for generations to come. And I’m not talking about leaving the entire country as a smoking wilderness either.
While our involvement in Afghanistan did not start out as a fight against a ‘state apparatus’, it has certainly devolved into a conflict that resembles one. If we accept our involvement there under that definition, and then proceed accordingly, I believe we would be successful.
Insurgency is certainly a pretty political term, but when an ‘insurgency’ represents the totality of the environment in which you find yourself is it truly an ‘insurgency’ or the defacto ‘state’?
You say you were behind removing the Taliban regime and rooting out al Qaeda, (which in my mind represented a State apparatus btw) how would you have done things differently in Afghanistan then without resorting to total war?
@ Jacobite – ….”how would you have done things differently in Afghanistan then without resorting to total war?”
Fair question. I would have pulled out once we installed the petty warlord of choice, with the caveat that we’ll smoke anything resembling al Qaeda in perpetuity.
I could go on a bit more, but HH6 is calling me for grub and a cold one.
There’s that fuzzy math again. Ya gotta love it, except that it’s getting so old. And tired. And remains stupid to the max.
If by killing 1 “we” create 10 more, wouldn’t ignoring them make them go away? Seems like we tried that for several decades and the result is where we are now.
Killing 1 may make the 10 more visible, but there are only 10 instead of the 11 that would have been there had we not killed the 1.
But like so many blathering coming from feeble minds, they ignore the obvious – it is they, not we, who create the terrorists. We don’t collectively hate them, it is they who hate us. Although there are probably more folks today that hate them (because of what they have done, not who they are)than 15 years ago. Most people then just didn’t give them any thought, which is one reason they hated us all then and still do today.
@29: I like that answer.
I can almost live with that answer CI.
Interesting to say the least…
Joe says, “who said it won’t work if for every one we kill we create ten more. That’s what we’ve been doing, and the number and frequency of attacks on western soil support this idea…”
The western countries you may be referring to are France, Germany and England right? The last time I checked, those socialist countries opended their doors to these people, and are now paying the price for it. As I said before, muslims will NEVER assimilate into western society.
How many attacks have actually been successful here in the US since 9/11? Not nearly as many as in European countries.
“I mean the current strategy, which you seem to want to double-down on, obviously isn’t working because we’ve got more enemies and more jihadists than ever despite spending ourselves into bankruptcy.”
How do you explain the expansion of radical islam before our nation even existed? Better yet, how do you explain the unprovoked attacks on 9/11? (Let me guess, this is the part where you cry about Israel.)
The bottom line is, there is always going to be plenty of enemies and jihadists and radicals. The best thing we can do is keep these groups out of America, yes islam should go, and similar to what Hondo said, deter the rest of the worlds scumbags through strength. Sure, they will probably be another OBL type, but that next asshole will think twice.
Jonn, you know you’ve reached the “big time” when you have trolls (probably paid trolls) on here (Joe) trying to divert the conversation.
Jacobite, one quibble. Afghanistan did indeed start out as a war against a “state apparatus” – the Taliban regime controlled approx 90% of Afghanistan pre-9/11. One of the two primary aims was removing that regime and its al Qaeda “guests”. The second was denying the region use to al Qaeda and/or like minded transnational groups as a safe haven/basing area afterwards. It was only sometime after Tora Bora in mid-December 2001 that the fight there morphed into a counterinsurgency.
Other than that minor point, I find much to agree with in your last 2 or 3 comments above.
And you and WOA are correct, though IMO Plato said it best and most succinctly nearly 2400 years ago: “It is only the dead who have seen the end of war”.
“A common thread motivating jihadis is revenge for all the innocent people killed in (choose one) Afghanistan, the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. I mean the current strategy, which you seem to want to double-down on, obviously isn’t working because we’ve got more enemies and more jihadists than ever despite spending ourselves into bankruptcy.”
Joe,
Do you mean the all the innocent people/Arabs killed PRE-9/11?
Do you mean the “current strategy”, PRE-9/11?
When we (America) weren’t attacking ANYONE, much less Islamic jihadis?
Who attacked who, first? (and don’t give me a history lesson).
I say we pull all the troops and equipment out, then nuke the place to glow-in-the-dark glass.
Who didn’t see this coming? I know I did. The fact is most of the civilian population on continental Europe is cowed, even the Neo-Nazis tend to be passive-aggressive. There is a concerted effort in the press, both here and abroad, to imply that rightwingers and Nazis are intertwined. The media is complicit for either ideological reasons or because they fear possible retribution.
Most of the Antisemitism that has overtly reemerged, has everything to do with Islamic immigration, not the native born. Wanting your country not to be overrun, does not a Nazi make. France is on the demographic path of being an Islamic Republic in the very near furture. Opposing that makes you a Patriotic Frenchman, not a Nazi.
The guy was a Salafi for Allah’s sake, a possible direct affliate of Al Qaeda. What is/was the motivation for the free association of Al Qaeda members and various Salafi group in Europe, North Africa, and, Afghanistan? Oh thats right a certain religion.