No amount of appeasement is ever enough


Never satisfied with life in the Dar al-Harb

Never satisfied with life in the Dar al-Harb

Islamic leaders have praised Tony Abbott’s efforts to deal with extremists, and have condemned the actions of the Islamic State. They have vowed to work together with Australian authorities, in a spirit of mutual cooperation, to ensure the security of our borders and our country…

LOL! Only kidding!

It would be nice though, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, however, it really doesn’t matter how much grovelling the filthy kafir undertake before the Islamic supremacists, it is never, ever enough.

You will recall the earlier post on ASIO head David Irvine, who recently said:

We are not fighting Islam, we are fighting terrorism

Irvine today spoke at the National Press Club and reiterated this sentiment:

Mr Irvine said the security agency recognised “that the tiny number of violent extremists, who nevertheless can make a rather big bang [unfortunate choice of metaphor there], does not represent the Islamic communities of Australia’’.

“We’re talking about a few hundred aberrant souls in the community of half a million Muslims and it is grossly unfair to blame Australian Muslims who see themselves as a committed component of Australia’s multicultural society.’’

Mr Irvine stressed that it was “wrong to be blaming them for the sins of a tiny minority’’.

“And has the government has said increasingly in recent times, our fight is with terrorism. It is not with Islam and it is not with our Muslim community.’’

I think that’s pretty generous, given Islam’s well-known and oft-stated aims of world domination and subjugation or conversion (or worse) of non-Muslims.

But it’s not enough for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has issued a press release criticising Irvine’s speech:

“This is classical fearmongering, which Irvine and Abbott are taking turns at employing. Any threat can be trumped up by consistent focus and hyperbolic commentary. We keep hearing about 150 Muslims who’ve gone to Syria and what might happen when they might come back. We haven’t heard anything about the numerous Jews who travel to train and fight with the IDF annually and the threat they pose on return. Indeed, where is the debate about returning IDF trainees potentially killing little boys as they play on the beaches of Sydney and Melbourne?

Wow! Can you believe it? There doesn’t need to be a debate because we know, with 100% certainty, that returning IDF trainees have no wish to murder innocent children, because they are not beholden to the violent exhortations of Islam. It is Islam and only Islam that poses such risks in Australia.

[UPDATE: HuT spokesperson Uthman Badar was given plenty of time on ABC 7.30 Report to repeat this utterly baseless claim, as was Rebecca Kay, Aussie Muslim convert agitprop mouthpiece]

“David Irvine and Tony Abbott can repeat that “our fight is against terrorism, not Islam” as much as they like, but actions speak louder than words. The Muslim community, which has witnessed over a decade of action, is well aware that the target is Islam and Muslims. It is no longer a community that will simply roll over and provide the rubber-stamp sought by the government for its unjust policies.

Is that some kind of threat? You can see why HuT is a proscribed organisation in many countries, and it should be in Australia.

Its presence on our shores does nothing to improve the situation we are facing, but merely inflames and divides. And no amount of appeasement, special treatment and concessions will ever be enough.

Only when Islam is given free rein to spread freely throughout the dar al-harb, including Australia (by the use of force if necessary, and without the annoying obstacles of anti-terror legislation), and the kafir obliged to live in abject dhimmitude under sharia will groups such as HuT be satisfied.

Comments

  1. Old Ranga says:

    Observers who have commented on today’s similarity to the 1930s are right on the ball. Appeasement of the Nazis under Hitler was British PM Neville Chamberlain’s approach in the years leading up to WW2 (1939-45). Other well-meaning people chose to ignore what was happening, or simply looked the other way because it was too uncomfortable to contemplate the reality.

    Quite eerie.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Honeybadger says:

    Muslims are not backward in spelling it out. David Irvine is useless in facing the truth. A Labor appointee who will thankfully be replaced by an Abbott appointee. Hopefully the Government will appoint a guardian of Australia who ‘gets it’.

    Like

  3. Jihadists created by the muslim community should be encouraged to leave Australia. They should also not be allowed to return. All the ‘good’ muslims should support this. If they don’t support this thinking, then perhaps they are not good muslims. There are no shades of grey in this. Legislation should be written to stop them coming back. I am being politically correct with my wording. My real feelings are ‘shoot them on sight’. If a few imams get caught in the cross-fire………no tears

    Like

  4. “Rhetoric” must be the word of the week. Both Uthman and Rebecca used it!

    Like

  5. @ “There doesn’t need to be a debate because we know, with 100% certainty, that returning IDF trainees have no wish to murder innocent children, because they are not beholden to the violent exhortations of Islam”.
    For the sake of clarity and accuracy, perhaps, Simon, after “murder innocent children” you could have added the words “in Australia”. The recent activities of the IDF in Gaza have contributed towards the deaths of many, many innocent children.

    Like

    • Your casual equivalence of these two situations is abhorrent. I realise that with rusted-on pro-Palestinian anti-Semites like yourself, no amount of logic will ever be sufficient to persuade you. Nothing I say or write will ever convince you of the difference between (a) on the one hand, the tragic death of children arising out of the actions of a democratic state, attempting to protect its population in the face of a guerrilla terrorist organisation by destroying (with as little collateral damage as possible) launch sites which have been used to fire thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israel, and which have been purposely located close to civilians to make that task as difficult as possible, and then to take cynical advantage of such collateral damage when it occurs for propaganda purposes, and (b) on the other, the actions of that guerrilla terrorist organisation (Hamas), which seeks nothing less than the total destruction of the state of Israel, and has no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties (either Israel’s or their own). I look forward to your detailed justification for your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: