What you are now reading is yet another blog from the United States that very well may lead to the mass murder of innocents in Norway.
Or so the misguided, simple minded media would have you believe.
Such dangerous, truth-stifling innuendo is demonstrated by THIS New York Times article.
One example from the article is this quote from Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer, and apparent proponent of dhimmitude:
“…it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam ‘is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.’
“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”
Let’s analyze this truth-chilling innuendo and false analogy.
Islam, at its original core, as taught by its founder, Muhammad, who is considered by Muslims as “the most perfect human”, who is to be emulated in all aspects of life, created the infrastructure from which today’s predominant version of Islam has emerged. Forget Salafi. Forget Al Qaeda. Most Islamic leaders today promote Mohammadism, aka Sharia- and Jihadi, terror-promoting Islam. This is Orthodox Islam.
And then the idiotic statement: “Well, they (counterjihad writers) …are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.” Huh? No! Violent, terroristic Islamic jihad is the infrastructure from which Breivk emerged. The methods of counter-jihadists and bloggers is writing, not shooting. The methods of Islamic jihadis is terror and shooting and violence and intimidation and fear. Terror and violence and shooting is what Breivk used in his “counter-jihad.” He didn’t seem concerned with Islam’s methods as much as he was concerned with Islam’s takeover of European culture. Nonetheless, he did use Islam’s methods to attack Islam, which is the vile and evil part of what he did. He did not use the blogger’s and US counter-jihadi methods.
The New York Times article revealed a gross lack of reasoning and logic.
Suppose I am passionate about saving the endangered Florida Panther. So I express in writing my concern about those who are hunting and killing the Panther. On the other side of town, a man is so moved by my writing to save the Panther and the thoughtlessness of the hunters that he meticulously plans and carries out the mass murder of those who associate with and defend the hunters. Does that mean we should remain silent about our concern about over-hunting?
Or suppose I express in writing my concern about liberals who continue to spend money we don’t have on big government programs. On the other side of town is a man so moved by my writing that he meticulously plans the mass killing of members of the democratic party in Broward County. Does this mean we should remain silent about the problems of spending money we don’t have? Of coarse not.
Even the inference that “This rhetoric is not cost-free” is chilling to free speech. The mere innuendo that such speech even remotely led to mass slaughter is stupid reasoning.
I’ll say it again: The method of dissent used by the Norwegian mass murderer was acquired from the example of Islamic jihad in the same manner that today’s Islamic jihad was acquired from 6th century Muhammadan teaching and practice.
US counter-jihadis promote truth and reason, not stifled truth-telling, terror and killing as is promoted by Islamic texts and Islam's’ predominant leadership.