Muslim misogyny

"In Arab Spring, a Young Man’s Fancy Turns to… sexual assault."

To which a commenter responds:

Ok, I guess I am starting to see the reason why muslim men want their women covered. ... Christianity teaches men to be self-sacrificial and to restrain their animal impulses. Islam teaches men to cover their women.

Rubin: "Obama Administration Promotes Islamist Regimes"

From The Rubin Report:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech justifying Obama Administration Middle East policy changes everything. ... It isn't a reluctant acceptance that Islamists might win elections and take over coutries. It is an enthusiastic endorsement of that idea. ...

Mark Steyn's Best Line Ever: The body count at Kingston is "29 per cent of the Montreal Massacre"

The body count at Kingston is "29 per cent of the Montreal Massacre", but the feminists who happily used Gamil Gharbi/Marc Lepine to indict the massed ranks of Canadian menfolk are disinclined to dip their toes into the waters of the Rideau - even though this mass murder is far more telling about a culture of misogyny. -- Mark Steyn, here.

Where have all the feminists gone?
Gone to boardrooms, everyone
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Religion of peace

Islamic killers behead Christians.

[Via Blazing Cat Fur]

Right wing Christian fundamentalist arrested planning another bomb attack ...

Oops - not so fast. MSNBC is reporting that an AWOL U.S. soldier has been arrested while planning a bomb attack on Fort Hood, Texas:

Killeen, Texas, police arrested Pfc. Naser J. Abdo, 21, of Garland, Texas, on Wednesday at a motel near Fort Hood, police said. The Austin American-Statesman reported that Abdo, an infantryman with the 1st Brigade Combat Team (Rear Provisional) of the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., was arrested at an America's Best Value Inn on South Fort Hood Road.

U.S. officials told NBC News that police went to Abdo's motel room on a tip from a gun dealer who said Abdo was asking suspicious questions about smokeless powder, a component often used in pipe bombs. Explosives were found in the room and in a backpack, the officials said.

A U.S. military official said Abdo was overheard saying he wanted to attack Fort Hood and that he repeated the statement after he was in custody. Authorities said it was not clear whether his alleged intended targets were soldiers in general or specific individuals on the base.

What could his motivation be? Probably reading Mark Steyn and Bruce Bawer:

Abdo was arrested on a child pornography warrant, police said. He had been wanted since he went AWOL earlier this month after he was recommended for a court-martial in a child pornography investigation at Fort Campbell.

...

Abdo sought conscientious objector status last year, arguing that his Muslim beliefs prohibited military service. The Army approved his application in May, then, two days later, it charged him with possession of child pornography, which put his discharge on hold, he said on a Facebook page.

...

Abdo's campaign to leave the Army got considerable coverage beginning in August, when he gave several televised interviews.

"As my time came near to deployment, I started asking the question more seriously whether God would accept what I was doing and whether I was really meant to go to war, as opposed to the peace that Islam preaches," he said in an August interview with Headline News. He made similar comments in interviews with al-Jazeera.
As recently as June, Abdo was pursuing his battle on the Facebook page, where he describes himself as "engaged in a struggle against religious discrimination and for freedom of conscience in the US Army."

Right - got it. Struggling against religious discrimination, Islam preaches peace, blah blah blah.

"A double tragedy for Norway"

Bruce Bawer writes at Pajamas Media that the attack in Norway will have an unwelcome side effect - that of silencing legitimate criticism of immigration policy and Islamic extremism in the country:

During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

...

It is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited by association with this murderous lunatic.

This was evident in an article in the New York Times today by Nicholas Kulish titled Norway attacks shine light on right-wing extremism in Europe. Extremism of any type is dangerous, of course, but the events in Norway are being linked to political issues of great importance in an attempt to stifle perfectly legitimate criticism from conservatives. Kulish writes:

The attacks in Oslo on Friday have riveted new attention on right-wing extremists not just in Norway but across Europe, where opposition to Muslim immigrants, globalization, the power of the European Union and the drive toward multiculturalism has proven a potent political force and, in a few cases, a spur to violence.

The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals.

Mike McNally points out in a post titled Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks? that the events in Norway will inevitably be used to de-legitimize conservatives and stifle legitimate political discourse:

The rush to get Breivik’s profile out there suggests an eagerness to exonerate Muslims by the authorities, and the regularity with which the “right-wing” connection is being repeated by the media suggests both relief and relish: not only do we not have to report bad things about Muslims, we get open season on right-wingers.

Right-wing fundamentalist Christian. It’s a slam-dunk for the liberal-left; the ultimate caricature of conservative extremism; the bogeyman that had until now existed largely in their imaginations made real.

...

As we learn more about Breivik (some scraps of biography are emerging), people on both the left and right will scrutinize his ideology as they did Jared Loughner’s after the Tucson, Arizona shootings. But there’s very little to scrutinize. Breivik and others who think like him are racists, pure and simple, and racism isn’t an ideology; it’s an irrational attitude that manifests itself as anything from unease to hatred, and one that isn’t exclusive to the left or the right.

Pro-gay rights socialists vs pro-gay death Islamists

Australian Ted Lapkin comments on a recent protest outside a Jewish-owned business in Melbourne:

This unruly mob was so stereotypical that could have been supplied direct from central casting. There were 'kafiyeh' Arab-scarf-wearing Leftwing atheists rallying in defence of the theocratic medievalists of Hamas. There were radical feminists protesting on behalf of an Islamic radical regime that would slap them into a burka so fast it would make their head swim. And let's not forget the Rip Van Winkle hippies, that de rigueur cohort of aging radicals who've never outgrown their anti-Vietnam war protest stage.

And all the while, these protestors were chanting the puerile, poetically-challenged slogans we've come to expect at such events: "hey hey, ho ho [FILL IN THE BLANK] has got to go."

But the most notable ditty of the evening told of liberating Palestine "from the river to the sea". For anyone not immersed in the intricacies of Middle Eastern geography, those boundaries include the entire territory of pre-1967 Israel proper.

...

I've already written about the bizarre strange-bedfellows alliance that's developed between pro-gay rights socialists and pro-gay death Islamists.

Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud a-Zahar has described gays as "a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick". And then there's the other perennial favourite cause of the modern feral Left - that surrogate of Teheran known as Lebanese Hezbollah.

Perhaps president Ahmadinejad knew what he was about after all when he declared that homosexuality is unknown in his country. Gay relationships between consenting adults are a capital crime in Iran and many young men have paid the ultimate price for being true to their own sexuality.

But the Trotskyists aren't about to let a little thing like the hanging deaths of Iranian homosexuals get between them and what really matters. There's a much larger principle at stake here. In the eyes of the hard-Left, the task of destroying the Jewish nation-state trumps all other considerations.

This is the same cognitive dissonance that infects Canadian anti-Zionists like Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, who produce an annual flurry of publicity by trying to march in Toronto's Gay Pride Parade. It takes willful ignorance of the facts for gay activists to publicly advocate the dismantling of the only country in the Middle East where gays can live in peace.