SevenRivers Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I agree with this chap in the Telegraph. Spot on. It was refreshing to read such a plain and unequivocal line in today’s editorial column: “The simple fact is that Islamic fundamentalists are irreconcilable. To them the US will remain the Great Satan.” This was, of course, a comment on the murder of the US ambassador to Libya. I wonder if, in the midst of all this horror, we might begin to see signs of hope? I mean, might we at last be beginning to escape the mealy-mouthed world of all that has for long remained unsayable. Perhaps there are, after all, limits to political correctness. I dare to breathe the hope that maybe western societies will not die the death of a thousand euphemisms. I thought I detected signs of this dawning sanity just after 9/11. We were shocked into reality then. And we were geared for war. People expected it. There was a creepy silence in the streets of the City of London. Weekday attendances at our lunchtime Eucharists doubled and tripled. There were reassuring signs of seriousness. Then, within a few weeks, under a barrage of media propaganda telling us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, euphemistic orthodoxy and the fatal disease of appeasement returned. It has been with us ever since. The Ministry of Truth operated by the Guardianistas and the BBC have delighted in what they call “The Arab Spring,” as if this heralded the advent of “democracy” all across North Africa and the Middle East. As we now learn from events in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, the Sinai – and most recently in Libya – this was always a delusion, a perversion of reality flying in the face of the facts. The fact is that a resurgent, militant anti-western Islamic fundamentalism is the gravest threat to civilisation. This is bad news of course. But the good news – as evinced in today’s editorial column – is that finally we are being allowed to name this peril for what it is. Militant fanaticism wherever and whenever it arises has to be resisted and put down. It was defeated at the Battle of Tours in AD 732. At the siege of Malta in 1565. At Lepanto in 1571. It is not so many centuries since the barbarians were at the gates of Vienna. And without our resistance they will soon be there again. Don’t take my word for all this. As long ago as the 1820s, Samuel Taylor Coleridge described the scene as: That erection of a temporal monarch under the pretence of a spiritual authority, which was not possible in Christendom but by the extinction or entrancement of the spirit of Christianity: this was effected in full by Mahomet, to the establishment of the most extensive and complete despotism that ever warred against civilisation and the interests of humanity. Do I learn from this morning’s editorial that we are at last being allowed to recognise and state this truth? If so, then however dark the hour, there are grounds for hope. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100180868/islamist-terrorism-is-beginning-to-demolish-political-correctness/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 This is all a little silly really,and any one caught with a placard inciting beheading,needs dealing with appropriately.Here! Here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I've been watching the video. It's pretty crap, but not worth killing over. What I have noticed though, is that the name Mohammed seems to be dubbed in someone else's voice every time it is mentioned. As though it didn't originally say Mohammed. It's really rather poorly done. I think the worst voice-match is dubbed just after 2:48 (I haven't linked to the vid in case one of the mods removes my post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 All religions are fragile, including Islam, so the answer is yes to the first part. It's also yes to the second part, because they would have to be immature to be lead so easily into violence by the firebrands. Thirdly, society is also responsible, in part, for practically encouraging their violent behaviour by giving in like a bunch of cowards. We ought not tolerate it at all, and they should be left in no doubt that it is unacceptable, and unrewarding! And if Muslims don't bow to your feet for the actions of fundamentalists? What you going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 This is all a little silly really,and any one caught with a placard inciting beheading,needs dealing with appropriately. But how do you deal with someone in another country not under our laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost rider Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 How come the other threads on this subject have been pulled.As much as religious people try to defend religion all ive ever seen since i was a child is people being killed all the time due to religious hatred between various religions.Absolute madness,these people need to get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 But how do you deal with someone in another country not under our laws?Drones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I've been watching the video. It's pretty crap, but not worth killing over. What I have noticed though, is that the name Mohammed seems to be dubbed in someone else's voice every time it is mentioned. As though it didn't originally say Mohammed. It's really rather poorly done. I think the worst voice-match is dubbed just after 2:48 (I haven't linked to the vid in case one of the mods removes my post) *UPDATE* There appears to be huge chunks of the story missing. The film makes no sense at all, scenes seem to be badly spliced and skip about, ie one minute people are sat talking, the next they are holding blood stained weapons and the voices have been dubbed to say Mohammed's name again. I'm not sure which bit has managed to stir up so much anger, I can't make enough sense out of it to see any offence, apart from the obvious and deliberate introduction of Mohammed's name, post production by overdubbing the voices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I've been watching the video. It's pretty crap, but not worth killing over. What I have noticed though, is that the name Mohammed seems to be dubbed in someone else's voice every time it is mentioned. As though it didn't originally say Mohammed. It's really rather poorly done. I think the worst voice-match is dubbed just after 2:48 (I haven't linked to the vid in case one of the mods removes my post) Maybe it could get an award still....a Golden Raspberry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Maybe it could get an award still....a Golden Raspberry. Benny Hill chase scene at 12:58 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.