"Is it possible that radical Islam really does hate freedom?..."

Is that a question? Isn't that a fact since 1350 years?

Posted by: Terminator at May 28, 2005 6:43 PM

Since it's clear our President doesn't get it and Condoleza Rice doesn't either, so it seems to me we will have to start a campaign of Arab insults.

The English language is constantly evolving, in a constant state of flux, with new words flooding our culture daily.

In your daily conversations, in your daily correspondence, start calling Bush and Rice Dhimmis.

It's been my observation, that on the whole, politicians are by their very nature, dhimmis in their never ending battle to avoid conflict and gain constituents. How do they get elected? How do they get campaign funds? How do they keep their constituency happy?

The political left loves to insult the political right, and dhimmi sounds suspiciously like dimwit. Start using dhimmi for anything that seems weak and apologetic.

Make it a game, kind of friendly teasing. As an example I refer to the Internal Revenue Service as the Infernal Revenue Service, my broker is Dean Whitter, but I call them Dean Blunder. The big Gas Company in California is Pacific Gas and Electric, but I call them Pathetic Gas and Electric. The power company in Washoe County, Nevada is Sierra Pacific, but I prefer to call them Sierra Pathetic.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea.

For me it's now Dhimmi George Bush or Dhimmi Bush and Dhimmiliza Rice.

Who knows? The left may latch onto it to call names, and in this case, that's a good thing. Eventually, if we are persistent, the word dhimmi will enter main stream jargon. Once the word becomes common, the cat's out of the bag, and no amount of apologetics can put it back where it can't be seen.

Use the word daily and get teens to start using it in their daily dose of slang.

With persistence we'll bring the word forward until everyone knows what it is and most of all, what dhimmi means. Hopefully then, Dhimmiliza Rice will stop apologizing and start taking names.

Posted by: a10billr at May 28, 2005 7:07 PM

Time to buy an Oriana Fallaci book. Even if you already own them buy one and give it to a friend.
She is an old, sick woman who doesn't need or deserve this bother.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 28, 2005 8:29 PM

Thank goodness (or Allahaha?) for the internet otherwise we would be in real trouble.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at May 28, 2005 8:44 PM

How mad can the West get?

Protect the depraved ideology that is out to destroy you.
Prosecute the voice that tries to save you.

Stark
Raving
Mad.

Posted by: skidd at May 28, 2005 9:54 PM

Here's a good example of how little Europe listens to its own voices for freedom:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/hearings/speech/thef_en.htm?redirected=1

This from a guy who felt the attack on freedom of speech, thought and art personally. Four times. In the back.

Posted by: BigSleep at May 28, 2005 10:40 PM

Is it possible that radical Islam really does hate freedom?...

First of all, I wonder about the qualifier "radical". To me, Islam is radical. Period. There is no nice Islam, moderate Islam, modern Islam. Unless you took it and chopped it to pieces, in which case, why bother with it at all? The religion bit to Islam is a facade. It's a political ideology, an Arab supremacy movement which seeks to make everyone live in the Dark Ages. What's nice about that?

And second of all, how come everybody is having such trouble seeing that Islam hates freedom, that Islam is incompatible with modern life, with stability, with normalcy? I can't understand why so many people continually make excuses for the inexcusable. They'll gladly jump all over other religions, but look the other way at Islamic atrocities and stupidities. It's always "the tiny minority" yet they'll blame all of Christianity for Timothy McVeigh, or Catholicism for the IRA or for people in Africa not using condoms. With Islam it's always some excuse - out of context, misunderstood, translation problems, tiny minority, not Islam, yadda yadda yadda.

The problem is this blindness that many in the non-Muslim world is afflicted with.

Posted by: feralee at May 29, 2005 7:04 AM

Why didn't the Arab/Muslim world erupt in flames? Where was the outrage against hindus? Why didn't we see Indian flags getting burned? Why didn't we see pictures of hindu gods getting "desecrated"? Well, you know the rule: the US is guilty even if proven innocent. Add to that the hypocrisy of those who call themselves Islamists. Those who see hindus (as long as they are not American hindus) burning Qurans and do not give a hoot. Those who see Iraqis getting killed by fellow Muslims and they do not give a hoot as well.
http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/2005/05/today-i-saw-demonstration-that-muslim.html

Posted by: hutchrun at May 29, 2005 7:22 AM

Probably because the hindu's in India have their own fanatic club. Anything anti-hindu/anti-india that is big and public enough, is responded to, in kind, by the hindu fanatics. But of course, condemnation is for the hindu fanatics, world over, even though they aren't blowing up planes, buildings and buddhist monks.

For Example

Thailand has 3% muslims(minority). You can see what they are doing.
Malaysia (with it's anti-non-muslim legislation) has 9% Hindus(minority). You can of course see them fighting for equality. No? You cant? Silly me.

Posted by: Absolution at May 29, 2005 8:27 AM

hutchrun: Great link!

Absolution:

The last riots in Malysia were in 68/69. Officially, about 2000 ethnic Indians and Chinese were slaughtered.

The actual numbers were about ten times, around 20.000.

Mahatir, this wonderful example of Islamic tolerance still rants about white-people- hates Jews hates Australia, etc. We just have to love our neighbors and give them more aid...

Everything will be just like flower power...

Posted by: Terminator at May 29, 2005 6:34 PM