Michelle Malkin does a nice job cataloging the pop-eyed, slavering hysteria of the Muslim world, illustrating the silliness of trying to avoid giving offense to death-loving cultists. An excerpt and a comment: (Click the pull quote for the full article.)
“In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, “you guessed it, the Arabic script for ‘Allah’. The restaurant chain yanked the product in a panic and prostrated itself before the Muslim world. But the fast-food dessert had already become a handy radical Islamic recruiting tool. Rashad Akhtar, a young British Muslim, told Harper’s Magazine how the ice cream caper had inspired him:
‘Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I’m not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I’m going to bring this country down.'”
My question is this: Why wouldn’t it make sense and be morally justifiable, upon hearing from from the lips of the fanatic this announcement of intent to commit murder and mayhem, to simply blow his brains out on the spot? Or at least throw him out of the country. Most of them are on the public dole anyway. They’re busting the bank in England, just like illegal immigrants are here in the U.S.
If we permit the Enemies of Civilization to immobilize defensive action against them, why don’t we deserve whatever we get?
Apropos is one of the quotes I’ve collected over the years:
“If ten men believe in something so deeply they are willing to die for it, and twenty men believe in something so deeply they are willing to vote for it, the ten will give the law to the twenty.” — J.E. Fround, British Historian
Islamic fanatics worldwide (the “ten”) are busy giving the law to civilization (the “twenty.”)