Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Centuries of Muslim Aggression

“Why did they build their villages way up there on those steep slopes instead of down here?” I asked our guide, Dora. We were touring Greece with my wife’s family and driving the coastal road on the north side of the Gulf of Corinth toward Delphi, site of the famous Oracle.
“To protect themselves from pirate raids,” said Dora.

“What pirates?”
“Muslims,” she said. “Moors, Saracens, Turks. It was easier to fight them off if they had to climb up.” Greeks were Christians and fair game for Muslims to pillage, slaughter, and enslave, which they did for centuries. We had just come from the village of my wife’s grandfather in the Pelopponesus, which had been occupied by Muslim Turks until the mid-1800s.
America’s first war was against Muslim pirates on the Barbary Coast. When John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met in London with the Tripoli ambassador in 1786, Jefferson reported:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet [Muhammed] were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful [Muslims] to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Muslim slave market

Plunder, kill, and enslave is exactly what Muslims did for 1300 years until the Turks were defeated in World War I. All that has resumed, however, over the last forty years — but American and European leaders seem to have forgotten this history if they ever learned it. Leftists like former President Obama refer to the Crusades as an excuse for today’s Radical Muslim terrorism, but Muslims initiated 548 offensive battles against Christians in Asia, Africa, and Europe over 1300 years, while Christians initiated only 13 battles over 160 years against Muslims during the Crusades. Most Europeans and Americans are ignorant of this, but the Greeks aren’t. It’s still fresh in their memory.
Muslims on offense over the centuries
Christians on offense over the centuries
Today’s terrorist attacks in Europe are not perpetrated by Muslim armies or navies, but by Muslim “refugees,” migrants, and their offspring. After last week’s Manchester bombing, The Times of London reported that: “Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers…” Manchester bomber Salman Abedi was one of hundreds allowed back into the UK after fighting for ISIS. Sweden offers them housing, welfare benefits, and “reintegration training,” as if they ever integrated in the first place. Other European countries do the same. Former FBI Director James Comey said ISIS fighters are entitled to come back to America. He knows of about a dozen. Breitbart.com reports many more.
Isn’t treason still a crime? ISIS is the enemy. These former ISIS soldiers are not in uniform and they’re infiltrating western countries. The Geneva Convention doesn’t protect them. Shouldn’t they be lined up and shot?
BBC's Katty Kay: "Get used to it."

“Europeans are getting used to attacks like this [Manchester], Mika, said Katty Kay of the BBC on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “We have to, because we are never going to be able to totally wipe this out. As ISIS gets squeezed in Syria and Iraq, we are going to see more of these attacks taking place in Europe and Europeans are starting to get used to that.” Sadiq Khan, the recently-elected Muslim mayor of London, agrees.
The Prime Minister of Poland, Beata Szydlo, vehemently disagrees: “Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day.” Szydlo refuses to allow Muslim “refugees” into Poland despite pressure to do so from the European Union. “Do we want politicians who say we have to ‘get used to’ terrorist attacks?” she asks. Slovakia and Hungary also refuse to allow Muslim “refugees” into their countries, and guess what? They have no terrorist attacks.
Martha Raddatz warns about "Islamophobia"

American media seemed more concerned about the Manchester bombing causing “Islamophobia” than about the dead girls or the potential for more attacks. The late, leftist writer Christopher Hitchens had it right when he described Islamophobia as: “a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.”
I thought of Hitchens when I learned that Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi himself had reported his high school teacher at Burnage Academy for Boys in South Manchester for Islamophobia because the teacher condemned suicide bombers.
The UK Guardian reports: “Fawzi Haffar, trustee of the Manchester Islamic Centre in Didsbury, where Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber, is understood to have prayed, said: ‘We are concerned about reports we are receiving about anti-Muslim acts. These are terrible anti-Muslim acts ranging from verbal abuse to acts of criminal damage to mosques in the area and outside the area. We do encourage any incidents to be reported as a hate crime.’” 
Media salivating over Fawzi Haffar

British media — which advise us that we have to get used to Radical Muslim terrorism — were all keen to report Fawzi Haffar’s statement. They fawned all over him while flowers and Teddy Bears piled up at the bombing site.
As William Faulkner said: “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”

ADDENDUM June 4th:
During last night's Muslim murder spree in London, the police Tweeted a graphic that exemplifies the west's response to Islamofascism:
That's what the left recommends -- run, hide, and get used to it.


Charles Martel said...

Another spot on quote is: "Tolerance at the expense of truth is total stupidity."

Great column. Now you need to get the Press Herald and the Bangor Daily News to print it.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you write this same column a few weeks ago? And then a few weeks before that? In fact, haven't you run basically this same Muslim boogeyman column about 20 times in the last few years? Everybody has their little obsessions I guess, and this one seems to be bumping your fascination with homosexuality out of the top position.

Hey, how about a column on gay Muslims!!

Anonymous said...

David Duke couldn't stop yabbering on about blacks either.

Tom McLaughlin said...

The homoharpies are back I see.

Warning: If you don't put a name on your turd droppings, from now on I'll remove them and block your URL.

Charles Martel said...

As Dr. Bill Warner would say, Anonymous "wouldn't know the Sunna from tuna".

Q: Why is it that people who know nothing about Islamic doctrine, Islamic history, the Qur'an, Muhammad, the hijra, and so on are so quick to defend Muslims?

A: They're Leftists. Facts don't matter; only emotional opinions do.

Socrates once said (paraphrasing) that they know they've lost an argument when they start insulting you.

CJ Johnson said...

I'm surprised to not see Brian in this. Your very well written and attributed column has plenty of fodder for his blathering, nonsensical, assaults.
Hey Brian, did you take the day off?

Anonymous said...

93% of Muslims are moderates. 7% are Wahabbi extremists. It is this latter group that is almost exclusively responsible for most terrorist acts done in the name of Islam. And where do they come from? Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that Trump just visited and made a $110 billion arms deal with.

Mr. McLoughlin I would like to hear you complain more loudly about Saudi Arabia (and not Iran).

Confident in your religious and ethnic superiority, you also seem to have forgotten that Europeans engaged in plenty of war, fighting, pillaging, and conquest. Plenty. These seem to be universal human activities throughout history.

Charles Martel said...

In reference to Anonymous's 93% to 7% comment, Raheel Raza is a MUSLIM. If the apologist and enabler for sharia would watch this 14 minute video with @ 4.3m views maybe he'd change his mind? But, I doubt that he has a single, objective, rational bone in his body.

Tom McLaughlin said...

"93% of Muslims are moderates. 7% are Wahabbi extremists," says Anonymous. Why be anonymous? Don't you believe what you write?

Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum puts the percentage higher. He says 15-20% are radicals, but even if we take your 7% figure, that's about 100 million radical Muslims out of 1.5 billion.


Hi Tom, thanks for the history update and the views. what ever label is used for the fear of Islam Extremists, or your blog being a boogey man the problem remains.

it is important that all people have the right to worship in any way they choose, however to insist we must take on a certain faith because their religious book says the infidels must take on the religion is plain wrong.

we rely on governments to protect and serve the PEOPLE as the highest order of business, the PM of Poland, Slovakia and Hungary have got it right, and the USA must also take the same stand.

when he current President of the USA states America First, I support this stand! lets take care of our service personnel in medical and welfare services FIRST, lets work on reducing the homeless population FIRST, lets stop pouring funds into other country's coffers and see what we can do to protect and support Americans FIRST, and error on the side of caution when it comes to immigration (which in my definition is coming through the borders to stay not just visit) FIRST.

lets take care of our illegal immigrants FIRST, outline a program/s that will bring them into the fold and make them productive future citizens, pay taxes and follow the laws.

having lived overseas in ASEAN for the last 26 years, I can see what works in a multi-cultural and ethnic societies of these 10 nations of ASEAN. the model Singapore has for immigration works and works well. their social security system has a sense to it and the amount of social welfare here is minimal.

the tax structure is supportive of all persons and has a maximum tax rate for individuals of 22% and corporates of 17%.

the USA has so much potential but government is not in the hands of the people but in the hands of politicians who are not looking after our interests in the manner they should be.

apologies it seems like I am rambling but this does have a focus - Patrick Hogan (On the Other Side)

Montedoro said...

Re: "93% of Muslims are moderates. 7% are Wahabbi extremists."

Even if this statistic had meaningful referents, just imagine if your doctor tells you "You're in great shape -- only 7% of your body has cancer." Or "You're okay -- we were able to save 93% of your leg."

Brian said...

Trying to minimize the Crusades in a lame attempt to make Christianity look "Good" while painting Islam as "Bad" is pathetic. The crusaders and their scorched-earth piety was horrific. Here were Christian armies who heedlessly slaughtered entire populations, not in spite of their religion but because of it, going as far as to roast babies on spits.

And let's not forget about the Inquisition, slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Timithy Mcveigh type nut jobs, church shooters, etc.

Face it, neither religion is innocent. Both are responsible for horrible attrocities committed under the name of their respective religions. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The world would be a much more peaceful place if people figured out how to look inward and be good for the sake of being good, and not depending on massive organized religions to tell them how to live...and who to kill.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Brian writes: "The world would be a much more peaceful place if people figured out how to look inward and be good for the sake of being good, and not depending on massive organized religions to tell them how to live...and who to kill."

That's exactly what Lenin and Stalin did. The result? 40-60 million dead before the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed.

Brian said...

I stand by my belief that the world would be a better and more peaceful place if there was never any concept or organized religion. What do Lenin and Stalin have to do with "being good for the sake of being good"? They were not good people. Trying to impose "atheism" is pretty much the same as trying to impose a religion, which is part of my point. The world would be better if people were left to figure out how to believe for themselves.

Religious apologists are big fans of trying to attack atheism to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of “you too”, along with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies.

The fact that Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country.

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort.

Do you really feel that you could not be a good and decent person if it were not for Christianity and the fear of hell fire?

Tom McLaughlin said...

"Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism."

Seems a contradiction in terms.

You're trying to say he did it for strictly political reasons, do gain power. Yes, that was likely a motivation. He tried to substitute the state for religion. That's what atheist liberals do. Government is good. Government is God.

"They were not good people."

Socialism/communism would work if only we put in the right people to run it. That's what atheist liberals cling to. A hundred years of failed experiments in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and a dozen other countries isn't enough. They still cling.

Brian said...

There you go trying in vain to define what you think other people think. Neither I, nor any atheist liberal I know think that government is God. That is just a plain goofy statement. As for government being good, well that all depends. There are good governments and bad governments. What happened in communist countries has nothing to do with the ideas I expressed - that the world would be better off without any organized religions. Socialism/communism is a complete separate notion than religion/atheism. Personally, I am fine with regulated capitalism, but that is a whole other tangent you are going off in.

And you didn't answer - Do you really feel that you could not be a good and decent person if it were not for Christianity? My guess is that religion, in yours and many other cases, make people less good, less tolerant, and more narrow minded.

Ray Ballesteros said...

Show Low Yaqui
An awesome history lesson, Mr. Tom! Thank you for educating me on the specifics of this sordid history. My M.ED. and B.S.B.A. courses and profs (little on-line, mostly classroom) never touched on these vital history lessons.

And, spot on rebuttals. Keep on truckin', hermano!

Montedoro said...

Brian, your argument appears to equalize the evil history and potential of all religions, i.e., it is a longer variant of "all religions are bad", and so it is unfair to single out Islam. That is not a discerning approach. All ideas, under Western civilizational principles, are/ought to be open to scrutiny and criticism, but when Islam is the scrutinized entity, the Leftist belief system dismisses anyone as a bigot who does does so, and the Islamic belief system authorizes punishment unto death for it. You go so far as to try to change the subject so as to side-track and prevent informed analysis. Your mild response appreciated, but you're still aiding and abetting a major belief system that stands out from others as most lethally dangerous to non-adherents. Just calling Islam a religion, when it stands out as both religion and complete system for life -- that includes legal and social requirements, everything -- is beginning with unsound semantics.

Brian said...

I am not trying to count up bodies to see which religion was responsible for the most deaths, I am simply stating my opinion that the world would be a better place without them. It was Tom who changed the subject to political systems. I am in now way aiding and abetting Islam - I wish it did not exist. If I said rape was evil like murder, I would not be aiding and abetting rape. I would be condoning both, as I am with religion.

Tom ignores any christian attrocities. For example, he seems to have no problem with what happened with Native Americans. There was no Christians in the North and South American continents, 600 years ago. Now both these continents are 95% plus Christian. The US itself was built upon the corpses of millions of Native Americans who were systematically eradicated. But Tom only rambles on about Islam, without looking in the mirror or his own backyard.

And it was Tom recently complaining about unfair press coverage. How about unfair coverage in his own one-sided columns?

Charles Martel said...

For Brian: According to the Center for the Study of Political Islam, there is a total number of deaths by the Islamic sword. It's 270 million and is known as the "Tears of Jihad".

Also, the Prophet himself participated in a third of the 65 battles he ordered. He had 11 wives, 2 concubines, numerous sex slaves, kept 20% of the stolen booty and had crucified and beheaded numerous Jews and Christians. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabab the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. are emulating Muhammad since he is the perfect man (Qur'an 68:4, 33:21). Doesn't sound like a religion of peace to me.

Christ, on the other hand, was the world's most famous hippie and did none of those things and was crucified himself. Where there were atrocities committed by Christians in history, it would never have been sanction by Jesus. Jihad is prescriptive in Islamic doctrine at 4 different levels: tithing, speaking, writing and, of course, the violent version.

Brian should also compare the 300 year old colonial Atlantic slave trade with the 1400 year old Islamic Trans-Saharan one. The latter was infinitely more brutal and still exists today. See Ch. 20 at at I.Q. al-Rassooli's Koran Blogspot.

The native American atrocities have been discussed ad nauseam. They, too, were immigrants 12,000 years ago. Plus, each tribe treated each other brutally when captured and many participated in human sacrifice.

Montedoro said...

I understand what you are saying, Brian. But you are still running interference for people like Tom, who are trying to stand up to the onslaught of Islam. That is the world's most aggressive enemy at this time. If we had had this conversation in the 1930s would you say that Tom rambles on about the Third Reich, that he ought to be fair and look at the mirror in his own backyard? Or suppose you are a doctor and a patient comes in with a heart attack and a broken leg. Do you give these facts "fair" treatment? It looks like you don't see the ascension of Islam as serious and immediate a problem as Tom et al., do. I don't know why. Body-counting is only one measure of the present danger to Western civilization from Muslims who act on the ideology of Islam, and ought to be considered, but you appear to be disinterested. Your center of interest is: the world would be a better place without all religions. Tom's center of interest is: the greatest present threat to Western civilization is Islam. Why don't you support that? Let's work together to survive the heart attack, and then we can set the broken leg.

Brian said...

Charles, the "Center for the Study of Political Islam" sounds fancy, but it really just the ramblings of one man, Bill Warner, who who's area of expertise is not politics or theology. He is one of those wackos insisting Obama is Muslim. Sources I have seen indicate Warner's number is baseless, and that Christianity is responsible for many many more deaths, but again, my point has nothing to do with body counts. My point is that if NEITHER existed, the world would be a better place. And I am very cool with Jesus, he sounds awesome. It is his followers who have screwed things up.

Montedoro, I am fine with people standing up to the onslaught of radical Islamic terrorism. If it were the 1930's I would only speak up if people like Tom were stating how evil Germans were, not the radical portion of them that joined the Third Reich. That would be like saying all southerners were evil because of slavery. But I am not even defending Islam in any way - I would like it gone! I think Islam is VERY dangerous. I would be very supportive of columns that spoke out about the dangers in a thoughtful, non-incendiary, factual, non-hysterical, rational, honest way. But that seems to be the opposite of Tom's way of writing columns. I think he is turning off people that might otherwise be open to some of the few good points that he makes.

Montedoro said...

Brian, I get the impression that your knowledge is limited to, or at least filtered by the Leftist worldview. Best get information from the horse's mouth -- original sources, statements from respected Muslim leaders, sages of the past and present. You will find them saying a lot of what you might now associate with critics that you call hysterical,irrational, dishonest, etc. What did Tom write that can be so described? I don't see anything like that in this article. Where's the beef? And nowhere did Tom say anything about "all Muslims". The "not all Muslims" argument is one of those Leftist/apologist non-arguments that mark the speaker thereof as low on substance, out to demonize, out to stop intelligent discussion. Sorry, straw-man fallacy, that's all. You sure you want to target yourself like that?

Check out Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Syed Qtub ("Milestones" is good -- free pdf download), Abul A'la Maududi, for examples of respected Islamic thinking. Read Stephen Kirby's book, "Letting Islam be Islam" -- yes, he is a critic, but his book is a collection of quotations from the Koran, each quote followed by opinions by the sages who wrote the tafsirs. This is the kind of criticism that you say you would support.

Regarding your assessment of Tom's writing, look what you wrote: "I am not even defending Islam in any way - I would like it gone! I think Islam is VERY dangerous." What??? You would eliminate the belief system of 1.6 billion believers? That's more than enough wild writing to get your head removed, and that by the standard laws of shariah, nothing radical about it.

Brian said...

Montedoro, I get the impression that you may be just as pompous as Tom. If you have read through his many, many diatribes against Islam and have not seen the shrill, irrational dishonesty, then you have your head in the sand. But that is all a completely separate issue than the simple notion I stated:

The world would be a better place if neither Christianity or Islam existed. (or Scientology, etc)

And on that point, nobody has argued with me, they have just switched topics.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I don't wish to argue with you on that point, Brian. I have a different view on Christianity, but then I'm a Christian. I do not wish to discuss religion with you. I'm not an evangelist. If you're atheist, fine with me. I won't try to change you.

It appears no one else here wants to argue with you about that either. Isn't that nice? You can cherish your non-belief in peace, but I suspect you'd rather proselytize for atheism.

Tom McLaughlin said...

An editor at The Conway Sun emailed me yesterday, saying: "We decided not to run your column [this week] because we believe it is inciting people to violence against Muslims."

I emailed back, saying:

I read my column over again after getting your email. I’m guessing the part where I suggest returning ISIS fighters could be shot is what you think might constitute incitement to violence.

That was common practice during World Wars I and II for both British and American authorities against German spies and saboteurs who were executed by firing squad. The Nazis landed German nationals in the United States via submarine for dirty work. They selected Germans who had lived in the United States for several years. Several were landed on Long Island, Florida, and Maine. They were captured by the FBI and executed. Others got through and carried out their sabotage.

The suicide bomber who murdered all those girls in Manchester recently was a returning ISIS fighter. We have at least a dozen in the USA according to James Comey, who are being monitored. FBI monitoring didn’t help much with the Tsarnaev brothers in Massachusetts, or with Omar Mateen in Florida. Comey said he was monitoring suspected ISIS supporters in all fifty states.

At least two Muslims who lived for a time in Maine went to Syria and fought for ISIS. Both died there. Perhaps you would not have been as disturbed if I instead suggested returning ISIS fighters should be imprisoned in Guantanamo.

The column is a history lesson and yes, it’s disturbing. The threat from Muslim fundamentalists is disturbing and too many Americans don’t want to look at it squarely. As John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, said last week: “I was telling [Fox host] Steve [Doocy] on the way in here, if he knew what I knew about terrorism, he’d never leave the house in the morning.”

Anonymous said...

Good going Daily Sun, not only rejecting rubbish, but the letter yesterday by Bill Harrison, and the one today by Michael Kerins both absolutely mocked and destroyed Tom's column about Trump! What a dismantling!!

Anonymous said...

Gosh, I thought Mr. Harrison's (among others) letter-to-the-editor that The Daily Sun decided to publish made the case for continuing education.

Anonymous said...

After avoiding Tom McLaughlin’s fiction column for quite some time, I decide to give it a perusal today. What I read was both laughable and sad. I found much of the content quite amusing, but the fact that you publish this fiction as a column distressing.

So your local basher of all things not far enough to the right knew he was voting for an ass and did it anyway. He then states he would do it again! Brilliance on display! According to the column, when the boy president governs, he is OK? When may I ask is that going to happen? He does not have the intellect to govern a small town in Maine.

Donald Trump has delivered nothing to his rabid crowd demanding immigrants be banned, a wall be built,and Obamacare replaced.

This columnist then turns, as he does in nearly every column, to pointing the finger at “the left.”

Yes, indeed, they are obstructing the boy when he tries to govern. All this time I was under the impression that it is his very own party controlling the House and the Senate. It certainly was not Democrats that came up with the joke of a bill repealing Obamacare, the bill that was dead on arrival at the Senate.

It was Trump and his very own party that showed they cannot even accomplish what they have been promising for six straight years. Oh, and then we turn to the nasty “leftist” media.

Eighty percent of poor Trump’s coverage has been negative? Well, as an avid news watcher, I am amazed that they could find 20 percent positive.

Then we have the old reliable “fair and balanced” Fox News letting him down. Well, if you are a Republican and cannot win over all the Fox folks, you must be doing a lot more than simply acting like an ass. Of course disgraced Bill O’Reilly and desperate Sean Hannity tried.

As always, the columnist cannot close without the usual fact-free bashing of his imaginary enemies. “Democrats relying on their media army” and “no evidence of Russian interference in the election” are a couple fantasies.

I would suggest that before making such statements, the author watch something other than Fox, read something other than Breibart and the Washington Times, and open a very closed mind.

There is no media army, sir. Ted Turner sold CNN decades ago, and large corporations own nearly all media outlets. We all know how corporate America is so far left. Even MSNBC starts its morning programming with a former Republican congressman’s show.

On the no evidence front, I would have suggested you wait on making that claim. If you fire the first three investigators you may expect a delay, but it is coming, it is coming for sure.

Bill Harrison

Anonymous said...

Wikileaks, Jurno-list
That is all.