Tuesday, July 26

If someone is bent on wiping out your civilization, are you morally obligated to let 'em?

Is killing ever justifiable?

For example, suppose you knew with total certainty that someone you knew was planning to [detonate a nuclear weapon/poison the water supply/commit mass murder].  You tell the cops but they don't believe you.  Your only chance to stop the person is to kill them before they can act.  Is it wrong to kill the person?

I note this to raise a totally academic question:  If some group was totally dedicated to destroying your civilization, and won't stop as long as they're alive, are you morally obligated to let them do so?

Specifically, over the last year there have been a slew of deadly attacks by Muslims on unarmed western civilians.  A dozen here, 154 there and so on.  Muslims claim their religion is never responsible, that it does NOT order devout Muslims to kill infidels.

This of course is bullshit:  The Koran commands devout Muslims to kill "infidels."  In case you just arrived on the planet, that would be you (assuming you're not Muzz).

As far as can be determined no Muslim authority has ever said "Oh, that verse of the Koran that says 'kill infidels' doesn't mean what it says."  Because of course any muzz who said that would be killed by his co-"religionists," since disagreeing with anything written in the Koran is apostasy, which devout Muslims believe warrants execution.

So if we assume the Koran means what it clearly says, it poses a problem:  Are you ready to let them kill you in order to let them do what their "religion" demands?

Liberals and Democrats--who think of themselves as far more enlightened than you--refuse to answer this question, simply rejecting the premise:  Unable to see consequences that will happen more than a minute or two in the future, they simply repeat the mantra "Islam is 'the' religion of peace, so it's simply illogical that Muslims would want to kill us.  It's simply un-possible." 

To liberals and Democrats, no more analysis or discussion is needed.  They believe Islam is peaceful because the alternative is scary, and because all their enlightened friends believe it.  And that's all they need.

By contrast, people who observe and reason for themselves see Muslims killing anyone, anywhere who isn't a member of their own sub-set of the cult and ask what drives those murders.  Hmmm, that's a real poser.

Regardless of the answer to that question, the next question can already be asked:  "When will they decide they've killed enough 'infidels'?"

Most rational people decide the answer to that one is "never."

This poses the classic "existential problem":  Let's assume you want to continue to live, without converting to Islam.  By contrast, they're bent on doing what their religion commands them to do.  In the long run it's not possible for both of these outcomes to exist simultaneously.

Now, it could be that the Koranic verse noted above has been countermanded by some later verse.  If so the counter has been very well hidden.  I'd be glad to hear it, but if such a verse existed you'd think so-called "moderate" muzz would have been eagerly pointing it out to us infidels.  They haven't, which should lead you to the logical conclusion that no such verse exists.

Okay, Theory Y:  There's no countermanding *verse* as such, but later parts of the Koran *strongly suggest* that followers are really not supposed to kill infidels.

And as you already guessed, if such a passage exists it's been amazingly well hidden for 1300 years.

Now:  If liberals and Democrats want to submit to Islam--whether by paying the "jizya" (a special tax non-Muslims are to pay to Muzz leaders to not be killed) or by converting to Islam--is that their right?  Of course.  I'd be delighted to see Hillary Clinton in a burqa, setting an example for Democrat women.

The point is that Dems, liberals and "progressives" either don't know what the Koran says, or don't believe Islam means what it says, or are fine with converting or paying the dhimmi tax.  You need to know this. 

Even if they knew the Koran demanded that they choose between submitting or converting to Islam, they'd still support welcoming more muslim "refugees" into the U.S., and changing our laws to accommodate them.  Because in their view that's the only "enlightened" thing to do.  It's what Obama and Hillary strongly and openly advocate, so it must be enlightened.

And for libs, Dems and progs, being seen by their peers as enlightened is the highest honor.  Most would rather die than be thought of as unenlightened. (If you don't believe that ask any lib you know if they regard Islam as a threat, in any way, shape or form.)


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home