Islam and its long war

Here we go again.  The muslims are fighting a war of infinite length, and most people don't seem to understand it.  It's just like the communists.... they're willing to fight for generations and centuries to achieve final victory.  The rest of the world, not understanding fully that there is a war going on; try to make nice, and only see the immediate future.

So lets get some perspective:  According to Hindi tradition, this site is the birthplace of Rama.  Given how long Hinduism has existed in India (at least 2000 years), I'd say this site was holy to the Hindus long before Islam came along, and of course archaelogy confirms this obvious fact.

As always, the Muslims came along, butchering and robbing; and saw a holy site.  "Aha" said they.  "A holy site for us to confiscate."  And they destroyed the temple, and built a mosque.  Later, they lost control of the area.  Eventually, radical Hindus destroyed the mosque, leading to bloodshed.  But the Muslims, of course, contend that the Site is "holy" to them, and therefore it belongs to them.  After all, they've been there for 400 years!

Now the lawyers (this being India, likely trained in the British tradition) have agreed.

Guess what?  THE MUSLIMS WON'T BE SATISFIED WITH THIS DECISION!!!!

They never are.  It's a major part of their tradition of conquest.  Cordoba, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.  Take over an important shrine/site and build a new shrine there, in order to cement your presence and your right to be there. (In the interest of fairness, most conquerors do the same.)  It's just that when the conqueror is anyone but the Muslims, it's considered wrong.  When it's the Muslims.... well, just repeat the mantra:  "religion of peace, religion of peace".

Once again, the strategy seems to be working, and growing increasingly blatant. 

The Ground Zero Mosque sound familiar, anyone?

Good cops and bad cops

A while ago (I sadly don't recall exactly when or where) I read an article that talked about how the British government was trying to cope with some of the terrorist acts they had recently confronted.  Their idea was to meet with "moderate muslims" and try to find out some options for defeating and/or preventing terrorist acts.

The article spoke of what the Brits were told:  If you allow us to handle matters for many questions by means of a sharia court, then we'll go back to our mosques and tell our people that we're being treated equally by the British government.  If you don't... well we don't know who or exactly why, but some unknown people in the muslim community might decide to commit acts of terror.

The author of this piece- probably the Baron over at Gates of Vienna- pointed out the flaws.  Essentially, the Brits were told "give us preferential treatment over any other religion, and then we'll tell people we're being treated fairly".

But of course, that's not true.  If you are treated preferentially, then it's not "fair" by definition.  Thus, they were the proverbial iron fist in the velvet glove:  Give us everything the terrorists demand and they won't commit acts of terrorism.  We assume, because of course we have no idea who these people are, or why they're doing such things.

It's all about advancing the Cause.  If you can get people to kneel before Islam peacefully, great.  If not, then it's the responsibility of all good Muslims to find another way to advance their faith.

One hand washes the other.

All of which came to mind the other day.  Because, lo and behold!  Our friendly neighborhood Ground Zero imam now claims that, if he were to move the mosque to another, less offensive area, then the-evil-terrorists-who-by-the-way-I-don't-know-and-who-don't-really-follow-Islam will take it badly.  So darn, there's nothing we can do about it.

Sound familiar?  Remember:  with Islam, one hand washes the other.  Iron fist, meet velvet glove.