The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Sunday, 27 March 2011

How Can a Religion of Huge Empires, Mass Forced Conversions, Terrorism and a 1,300 Year-Long Jihad, Claim Victim Status?

[Left: a Muslim demo, in the UK, against the Satanic Verses. That is, a Muslim demo to install Islamic (sharia) blasphemy law here in the UK. This was one of the first times that Muslims realised they could blackmail the Government and often be quite successful at it. Thus, since then, Muslims are 'offended' or 'insulted' on a daily basis. Above: 9/11 - the ultimate act of Muslim blackmail: Do what we want, otherwise we will march, riot, kill or carry out another 9/11. Or, as one Muslim banner read: 'Europe - your 9/11 is on its way.']



Many Muslims have been adept at portraying themselves as victims of this or that for a very long time. They have done this on both the small and the large scale. For example, on the small scale we have the victims of ‘Islamophobia’, ‘insult’, offence’, etc. Almost every day some Muslims are offended or insulted by something – or, more precisely, their religion, or the Koran, or Mohammed, or one of its leaders, or one of its communities, is.

On the large scale, Muslims-as-a-whole have been seen as victim, or all Muslims in particular countries or communities, such as Palestine or Afghanistan or Luton.

This is all very strange. Muslims have conquered nearly half the world in their time. They have destroyed more than a handful of ancient civilisations. They have killed millions in the multitude of jihads which have occurred during and since the death of Mohammed. And, on a daily scale and on this very today, probably more than a hundred people have died at the hands of the Global Jihad, somewhere and by some Muslim or Islamist group or other.

Is there a connection to be made here? Yes. The obvious one. Claiming victim-status, or claiming to be oppressed, etc., gives Muslims both the vital propaganda and political means to attack. That is: claiming defence is the best form of attack. Or: claiming defence, or oppression, or victim status, is the best rationale for attack. And that’s what Muslims have done again and again and again, whether in Sparkbrook, London, Palestine or Afghanistan.

As with Islamoterrorism, claiming to be a victim, or to have been 'insulted' or 'offended', works. It works practically in both ideological and political terms. That’s why it’s a Muslim favourite.

Alongside all that, there is the Islamic skill of taqiyya which makes victim-status a perfect weapon; especially since the taqiyya skills of Muslims find their most perfect use when Muslims claim to be victims – of America, of 'Zionist-Crusaders', of 'Islamophobes', of the EDL, etc.

But let’s take one of the biggest victim-status stunts so far pulled off (or that which was attempted) by Muslims. We begin with the 3,000 innocent civilians (if there is such a thing as an innocent kuffar in Islam) who were killed in the Twin Towers on the 11th of September 2001. We will end with the ‘mass killing’ and ‘oppression’ of ‘innocent Muslims’ in Afghanistan.

Islamists Wanted Afghani Muslims to be the Victims of the Infidel Zionist-Crusaders

[Above: 'Shami' remorsely carries out her revolution-through-rights-activism work in which only the Brown Exotic can be a true victim. Below: Moazzam 'Muslims can only ever be Victims' Begg, Shami's baby, seen piously supporting Islamist torture, slaughter and expansionism - only the Westerner or White Man can't do these things.]

That act of 9/11 was not ‘an act of desperation against the oppression of Muslims throughout the world’. It wasn’t ‘the last cry of those whom had no other voice’. It was an act of desperation which was felt exclusively by the Islamists who carried out the atrocity. They were desperate because the rise of Islam, and its eventual control of most of the planet, wasn’t really going according to plan in 2001. Even regimes which had, or had had, Islamist regimes were facing hard times and both inner and outer conflict. Not only that. The Islamists (some terrorists, and some only defenders of terrorism) were also loosing the support of many Muslims - even in, of all places, Afghanistan where the Taliban and other Islamists weren’t having it all their own way either. To put all this another way. The Islamists had come to be seen as the vicious murdering fanatics that they are - even by many of their fellow Muslims. They, quite simply, came to be seen as the real aggressors or attackers; not the infidel. So what to do? The Islamists decided that in that climate it would be a good move to portray, if not themselves as passive victims, then their fellow Muslims. The victims, or the Oppressed, always get a good hearing, not only amongst Muslims but, perhaps more importantly, in the West as well. I mean; think of what that well-known killer-group, Hamas, has done on this front in Palestine! Firstly, the Islamists asked each other: How best to achieve this massive task? The answer was: Well, why not with a massive event? A massive act of terrorism? That event was 9/11 – and in many ways it worked for the Islamists. It worked? But the US invaded Afghanistan and carpet bombed civilians? Exactly. Let me explain some more. Let’s put it simply. The 9/11 bombers wanted the US to invade Afghanistan. They knew, before the actual bombing, that such an Islamoterrorist biggie, which was known, or would become to be known, to have been carried out by al-Qaeda and therefore to have had Afghan connections, would almost of necessity force the US Government to ‘invade’ Afghanistan and destroy al-Qaeda, etc. In other words, the terrorist attackers or aggressors turned, if not themselves, then ‘their people’, Muslims, into passive victims: almost within two or three months of 9/11/2001. Of course, the flip side of this is that the victim (the US) then became the aggressor or attacker (in Afghanistan). There was still a problem for both the original planners of the attack, and al-Qaeda generally. What if the US did ‘invade’ Afghanistan and, terror upon terror, successfully identified all its targets, destroyed them and thus limited ‘collateral damage’. That is, what if, contrary to the wishes of the Islamists and the Islamoterrorists, not many Afghani Muslim civilians actually died as a result of the US attacks on Afghanistan? The Islamists could of course use the native Afghans as human shields, as they had already done and Hamas still does (as do many Islamic regimes – something Colonel Gaddafi seems to have picked up on recently). Using human shields certainly works and has worked very well for Hamas because many rather brainless, or Leftist, commentators simply look at what’s in front of them without analysing why what’s in front of them is in front of them. (Some other related examples and comment. The fact that the civilians were deliberately placed in dangerous places by Hamas precisely because they knew that gullible Western journalists would interpret events in the way they wished and hoped they would interpret them. In addition, the compulsory crying Palestinian mother, never camera shy, who, a couple a days before, had encouraged her son to blow up an Israeli café or even an Israeli infant school.) The problem was that not even the humans - in the human shields - were guaranteed to be slaughtered by the American planes (or, I should say, by the Islamists). The Islamist and Leftist propaganda has of course been, since 9/11, that the Americans have slaughtered Afghans en masse. But, as everyone else knows, this has not happened. Yes, many Afghan civilians have been killed (not all because they were parts of Taliban human shields). And there have even been a few rogue elements within the US army. Of course there have been! This is a war. No war is ever fought with the choreographed precision of a Sadler’s Wells ballet. Civilians have indeed been killed. Some US soldiers have gone mad and probably even killed Afghani old-aged pensioners and perhaps they might have raped civilian – Muslim! - women. (Many Muslim men in the West are the master rapers of kuffar women, in their Grooming Gangs of relations and friends, say, in the North West of the UK, and do so because they partly see it as the justifiable punishment of transgressing infidel women and/or as legitimate Islamic ‘booty’ – as in the Koran itself.) If Muslims and Leftists want to know about genuine mass slaughter and the mass abuse of civilians, endorsed by the state itself (which is the important point!), then look at what the Islamist Sudanese Government did to the Christians and the animists - and even to non-Arabic Muslims! - in the south of the Sudan. Look what Somalian Islamists did and still do to everyone who is not an Islamist – even too ‘conservative Muslims’. Indeed look at what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban and the Islamists didn’t need their own Guantanamo Bays because they killed all their enemies straight off. They didn’t have their own versions of Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty because such ‘man-created’ institutions and 'atheistic' individuals are not allowed to exist in the first place in that country - and in nearly all other Islamic countries. So for every Moazzam Begg here and in the US, there are a hundred dead versions of him lying in unmarked graves in the wildernesses of Afghanistan – all killed by Islamists and Muslims of some persuasion. Get to work on that Shami! Or is the Brown Exotic always without guilt and always a Victim?

No comments:

Post a Comment