[ExI] riots again

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 23/09/2012 22:34, Jeff Davis ha scritto:
> I've a slightly different take on this business.

I read your post as the US puritanical vision:
1) it allowed to burn witches doing nothing wrong.
2) it allowed the enslavement of Africans and to keep their descendants 
in bondages for centuries
3) it allowed / needed the stratification of society first with the 
Segregation policy and then with the Great Society, just to keep the 
blacks in the plantation/ghetto.

A self-righteus vision fed by selective ignorance.

> The last ten years of the West vs Islam has left the West with a
> default anti-Muslim bias.

The last millenium and half left the world with a default anti-Muslims bias.
Maybe the massacres they did as their religion commanded them and 
excused them have something to do with this view. Not only for Western, 
but for anyone experiencing the joy to live under the power of Muslims 
or near them.

Just ask the Thai, the Burmese, the Hindus, the Africans enslaved, 
castrated and sold from Muslims slave raiders and merchants. Ask the 
Slav (just think about the genesis of the name).

>  Muslim = bad has thus become the uncritical
> "neutral" view, and disparaging Muslims equivalent to just the
> enumeration of "neutral" data.  Now why oh why do you suppose the
> Muslims are less than pleased with being branded as the new evil, to
> be enshrined and employed as the West's new global whipping boy
> (replacing the now-retired "commies")?

The poor sods are pissed off from the disparaging of others.
And then you justify killing, burning, rioting, censoring and whatever.

Do you justify the same for Catholics or other generic Christians when 
they are disparaged? when Jesus is moked?

> But that's not the whole of the offense.  You have to fill out the
> indictment with the record of the West's actual treatment of Muslim
> countries for say, the last hundred years.

Just what about the Armenian Genocide?
Ops. It never existed, it would make Muslims feel bad to ask them why 
they did it.
And just a few decades before, the massacres of Serbians by the Turks.
But they are brown people, so they MUST be saints. Whatever they did is 
justified.

It is the puritanical vision: use the brown people to brown beat your 
adversaries.

> I won't list the details,
> but suffice it to say the treatment has been very abusive.  So in
> addition to making Muslims the West's new "niggers", they have also
> been looted and brutalized.  Yet the citizens of the Western nations
> hardly notice this historical context, because the MSM has effectively
> erased the truth and replaced it with the strategically,
> ideologically, and commercially more exploitable "Muslim = bad"
> mythology.

In my view, the MSM did his best to protect the Muslims.
It doesn't matter if it is true, whatever Muslims do is near always 
covered or minimized by the press. Because they don't want give 
ammunition to their ideological enemies.

Just ask yourself why the BBC need to call Pakistanis "Asians" or "youths"

> Then some clown insults their most sacred cultural symbol, and some
> folk -- I won't name names -- say "Look at these uncivilized people!
> How backward and savage they are!  How intolerant.  They have no
> experience in our superior cultural values of democracy and freedom of
> speech."

Our values are superior. It is just so.
My right to free speech is more important than the life of one Muslim, 
of One Million of Muslims or of all Muslims living today and tomorrow.
My right to free speech is more important of the lives of anyone willing 
to take it from me (Muslim or not).

> Give me a break.

Why would we do it?


> If someone invaded your home, killed your father and grandparents
> before your eyes, raped your mother and sister, threw the living and
> the corpses into the street, took over your home with the help of the
> police, covered their crimes with the help of the media, and declared
> your anger to be a genetic and cultural predisposition to terroristic
> savagery, and kept up this crap for generations, how pissy would you
> be?  And if they added insult to all this injury by celebrating their
> freedom to violate you, by insulting that which is most sacred to you
> -- let's say in this case, your mother -- when does it become
> reasonable for you to indulge in a little rioting?

This remember me "the marocchinate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

There is a famous movie about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Women


No. It is just stupid. It is not reasonable.
And it is not "little rioting". It is killing and mayhem for anyone not 
falling in line with the rioters. Whatever be their race, religion, 
sexual orientation, gender, etc.


> I'm sorry.  The West is engaged in a religious/cultural war against
> Muslims, and the West has been the bad guy for quite  a while now.

The Muslims started the war long ago. Just around the time of Mohammad 
(Their Pedo Prophet). The others received the memo when the Muslims 
showed up with a sword.

> It's the same ***ATTITUDE*** as in the Athenians vs the Melosians: the
> primacy of naked power.

> "... the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

This is the sum of Islam. Islam can be translated as "submission".
Just like the movie made by Theo van Gogh. Do you remember the filmmaker 
a Muslims used to pin a message on his chest with a knife?
He said he didn't hate him, just he needed to be punished for his blasphemy.


> There are a billion and a half Muslims.  The US is in decline.
 > Payback is coming.

The Muslims have nothing. No science, no technology, no industrial base, 
no resources they are able to exploit by themselves.

> "...short of genocide, it is not possible to attain a final military
> victory over a justified sense of grievance."
>                              Michael Breen

There is no need to genocide them.
Just let them feed themselves without external help.

Mirco