Friday, March 23, 2007

More reasons to separate from Islamic world

A few more reasons to advocate Western-Islamic separationism:

- Last week, the FBI issued a nationwide warning to local police apprising them of a particularly chilling development:
Suspected members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States, counterterror officials said Friday, in a cautionary bulletin to police.
The Bureau emphatically states that there is no need for immediate alarm. But the potential for terrorist activity of this nature is terrifying.

Driving a school bus is as easy as obtaining a commercial driver's license, having a minimal understanding of written English, and being free of a felonious past.

Once infiltrated, a cell could easily carry out a real-life Speed with children as collateral.

The driver arranges to pick up a couple of others with explosives somewhere near the end of the morning route, with the bus full of elementary students and the workday beginning in full-swing. Office buildings, the bustling elementary school parking lot, an overpass, and targets downtown would all be susceptible. Even without someone on the inside, hijacking a school bus presents little challenge. With young hostages on board, the decision to fatally intercept the vehicle before it reaches its target would be excrutiatingly difficult to make, and the threat of effective passenger revolt would be nonexistent.

The greatest deterrent to such an event is probably the negative PR it would receive. Widespread condemnation would ensue even among the staunchest Islamic apologists who would find an American Beslan tough to excuse.

- Going forward in Quebec, women wearing burqas will be allowed to vote in elections. The city's Director General of Elections has also said that a woman will not be required to remove the veil if a family member vouching for her identity is also present, or, unbelievably, if she simply swears that she is who she claims she is. Electoral fraud is but an insignificant egg to be cracked for the multicultural omelet.

- Women's rights in the Occident are a few more eggs. A Frankfurt judge has rejected a woman's application for an immediate divorce from her physically abusive husband, citing a Koranic passage dictating to a man the right to castigate his wife. Presumably he's referring to the 34th verse of the Al Nisa sura ("Women"), which is translated in my Koran thus:
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other... Good women are obedient... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them."
- In a victory for gender equality, however, a Hamas television station recently broadcast a portrayal of the four year-old daughter of suicide bomber Reem Riyashi. The urchin, enamored with the late heroine who was her mother, asks dead mommy to let Muhammad know that she sends her love.

Riyashi is credited as being the first female to take up the chest-strapped bomb suit, opening up an avenue for women that had previously been dominated by men.


JSBolton said...

This is another reductio ad absurdum of those doctrines which would have us value openness to hostiles, anti-discrimination regardless of consequences, and brotherhood and equality with enemies.
None of these are known to be proper ideals; they can't be ideals of the kind which one cannot have too much of.
There can be too much tolerance of faiths which are really military indoctrinations, and which are most uncommonly hostile ones.
There can be too much anti-discrimination, when moslem hostiles are running free here, and being given freedom-for-aggression, even as part of a global terror offensive from Islam.
None of this special tolerance, though, can be called an intellectual mistake on the part of the officials responsible.
As the FBI information makes clear, officials are by no means unaware of the threat.
They must want the consequences of allowing the Islamic terror offensive to immigrate here.
They know that conflict allows for aggrandizement of their power in unrighteous ways, as, in the past, they tried to set off class war.

al fin said...

Islam is a lethal meme, a violent death cult that threatens civilisation itself.

The Shaker religion in the 1800s US was a lethal meme of a more peaceful variety--its members never married or had children.

If we could introduce the prohibition against marriage and procreation into the Islamic meme, many of the world's problems would die away in time.

Perhaps it is time for the late Mohomed to receive another revelation?

Anonymous said...

Interesting. For all the talk of ecumenicism and the inherent decency of mainstream Islam ("like all other Judeo-Christian religions), I rarely find people quoting especially benevolent and enlightened passages in the Koran.

I have read a few chapters but I can hardly remember what they said.

Al Fin, mind posting something about what made the Shaker religion so bad? When you don't you seem like a crazy anti-Shaker quack. Go read this website some more and have some babies in the name of God. Or, if you're feeling scholarly, read a less Christianist document on the anti-Shaker movement. Did your mommy tell you that the Shakers were bad or something?

Yes, Shakers have bizarre beliefs, but they are certainly no more bizarre than the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

crush41 said...


Right. Unfettered tolerance isn't a value, but is simply the absence thereof. Those who advocate a it must be aware of the diminutive consequences it will have on the more established social mores it comes to "share space" with. It is a hostility for them, and a want of the squabbling such an uncomfortable forced marriage is sure to bring, that they pine for. Race is a better impetus than class, since it enjoys much in the way of overlap and is more intensive to boot.


Perhaps it is time for the late Mohomed to receive another revelation?

Heh, love it.


I've read the entire Koran and I don't remember much either--I frequently have to reference my copy and navigate through my notes (I scribble all over the books I read) to find what I hazily recall. The poetic nature is said to be lost in English translation, and I believe it. It was hardly an enthralling read.

The first suras (in terms of ordering although they are the chronologically older Medina ones) provide the most insight.

al fin said...

UG-man: I do not recall stating that the Shaker religion was "bad." Merely that it was a lethal meme--its essential practises caused it to die out.

As an atheist, I try not to judge religions--which causes me to hold Richard Dawkins in disdain for his sophomoric treatment of religion. I find outspoken anti-religionists to be bores.

UG-man, you certainly read more into my comment than was there.

Anonymous said...

Ah, you're right. Jumping to conclusions. Sorry. :p