Muslims Offer $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Demonstate That The Qur’an Promotes Terrorism: Robert Spencer Wins $10,000

Comedy gold – except for the Qur’an promoting terrorism.

Should I use the money to buy a good used car or take an extended vacation?

March 28, 2016 Robert Spencer 56

Dear Omar Alnatour:

Thank you so very much for offering “anyone $10,000 if they can find me a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror.” My 1999 Toyota is on its last legs, and your generous gift will enable me to replace it with a modest but fully operational used midsize sedan. Or maybe (since it has been years since I’ve had a break), if I can keep the jalopy going for awhile, I will use your ten grand take a vacation to Paris and Brussels — before it’s too late, you know?

Anyway, here is my entry, which I am confident will win the $10,000 prize. I’ll make sure of that by giving you even more than you asked for: you wanted just a single Qur’anic verse that “says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror,” I’ll give you more than one of each, just so there is no doubt:

The Qur’an says it’s ok to kill innocent people

“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 9:5)

The verse says to kill the idolaters – mushrikun – those who worship others besides Allah. Now I don’t know, Mr. Alnatour, if you might think “idolaters” are by virtue of being “idolaters” are not innocent and therefore worth killing, but I’m with Thomas Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I don’t think my neighbor to have forfeited his innocence if he prays to gods I don’t recognize, and I hope you don’t, either.

Now I expect that you will say that this Qur’an verse refers not to all idolaters, but only to one very specific group of idolaters, the polytheist Quraysh tribe of Mecca that was making war against Muhammad, and that this verse has no force now that they have been conquered and Islamized, and doesn’t apply to any other idolaters. It would have been nice for Allah to make that clear in the pages of his perfect book, but who am I to question the will of a deity?

What’s more, classic Muslim commentators on this Qur’an verse give no hint that it has long expired. On the contrary, Ibn Juzayy notes that it cancels out peaceful verses; he says that it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an,” and specifically abrogates the Qur’an’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers (47:4). As-Suyuti agrees: “This is an Ayat of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking” — that is, perhaps the overlooking of the pagans’ offenses. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that the Muslims must “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except death or Islam.” He is offering this as instruction for Muslims in his day; he seems to have no idea that this verse doesn’t apply to them.

Neither does Ibn Kathir. He writes that Muslims should “not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” He also doesn’t seem to subscribe to the view that this verse applies only to the pagans of Arabia in Muhammad’s time, and has no further application. He asserts, on the contrary, that “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” means just that: the unbelievers must be killed “on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area” — that is, the sacred mosque in Mecca, in accord with Qur’an 2:191

So there you are, Mr. Alnatour: the Qur’an calling for the murder of those who are innocent, except for the crime of being “idolaters” – a “crime” that requires earthly punishment only in the Qur’an.

And there’s more:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, of the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29

The “People of the Book” are Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. The verse doesn’t provide any reason why they should be fought and made to submit to the Muslims except that they are People of the Book and don’t acknowledge Islam. Here again, you might consider them not innocent on that basis, but I hope you don’t, as I’m sure you would agree that people may differ on key questions in good faith.

Ibn Juzayy, however, does believe that the People of the Book should be fought simply because they are not Muslims. He says that this verse is “a command to fight the People of the Book” and explains that they must be fought because of their “denying their belief in Allah because of the words of the Jews, ‘Ezra is the son of Allah” and the words of the Christians, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah’” (cf. Qur’an 9:30). He adds that Muslims must also fight them “because they consider as lawful carrion, blood, pork, etc.” and because “they do not enter Islam.” 

So the Qur’an says that the People of the Book must be fought because they believe differently from the Muslims. But that is not a crime. These people are innocent.

The Qur’an says it’s ok to commit acts of terror

“We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers.” (Qur’an 3:151)

Now, Mr. Alnatour (may I call you Omar?), I know what you’ll say here: this is Allah saying he will terrorize the unbelievers, not commanding the Muslims to do so. Fair enough, although I can’t help but recall that the Qur’an also says: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands” (9:14). So if Allah is punishing the unbelievers by the hands of the believers, might part of that punishment involve casting terror into the hearts of the unbelievers? And that’s what terrorism is all about, right?

And yes, there is still more. “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 8:60)

Strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy. Now you no doubt have some explanation for this, Mr. Alnatour, but I wonder how you would explain to a young member of the Islamic State (ISIS) or al-Qaeda that Allah’s command to strike terror into the enemy of Allah doesn’t mean that they should behead, or blow up, or otherwise terrorize unbelievers

So there you have it. Not just one verse, but four, and I have plenty more. You don’t have to pay me $40,000 even though I fulfilled your requirements four times over; I’ll take the $10,000, and thank you very much for your generosity. I must say that I very much enjoyed your article in which you made this offer, “Why Muslims Should Never Have To Apologize for Terrorism,” if it is proper to say that one enjoyed such a lamentable tale as your own. It is lamentable to read about how your wife screams at you and your children hate you for matters beyond your control, and that then on top of that, Infidels have the temerity to want you to do something about Islamic terrorism beyond issuing pro forma condemnations. 

My mind goes back, however, to those who were murdered by Islamic terrorists recently in Brussels, Paris, San Bernardino, and so many other places. I’m sure you would agree that the suffering of their families far exceeds that of Muslims who must suffer Infidels asking them (quite patiently, for over fourteen years now since 9/11) to clean their own house. I do hope that you will think a bit about them, and about your Qur’an. Instead of obfuscating its contents, as you’re writing out my check, you could do us all a favor by starting to ponder some strategies about how to limit the capacity of your holy book to incite murder and bloodshed. In light of my confidence that you will do that, I very much look forward to your next article.

With cordial best wishes from your fellow human being,

Robert Spencer

Advertisements

Brussels Terrorist Attack: “One Man Had Lost Both Legs And There Was A Policeman With A Totally Mangled Leg”

This is sickening and it was totally preventable – three decades ago.

Now, Belgium’s demographic has been irreversibly altered by the influx of Muslims and jihad is not going to go away anytime soon.

Here’s the update:

Victims lay in pools of blood as the smoke cleared to reveal a scene of horror after twin explosions ripped through the main terminal at Brussels Airport, witnesses said.

The blasts smashed the windows of the departure hall and sent ceiling tiles shattering to the floor.

“A man shouted a few words in Arabic and then I heard a huge blast,” airport baggage security officer Alphonse Lyoura, who still had blood on his hands following the explosion, told AFP.

He said there was another explosion about two minutes later.

“I helped at least six or seven wounded people. We took out some bodies that were not moving. It was total panic everywhere,” Mr Lyoura said.

“I saw people lying on the ground covered in blood who were not moving.

“At least six or seven people’s legs were totally crushed. A lot of people lost limbs.

“One man had lost both legs and there was a policeman with a totally mangled leg.”

Witness and Belgian David Crunelle, 36, was at the airport to catch a flight to Japan.

I said hello [to my wife], we took the elevator and in the elevator we heard the first bomb. The second exploded just when we got off. We ran away to an emergency exit.

Witness Jean-Pierre Herman

“An explosion happened in the terminal for the US departures. I think it was American Airlines terminal. Two explosions, [with] like two or three seconds between the two explosions. Everything went dark,” he told 7.30.

“There was a lot of people injured. Instantly, everybody, they started screaming and crying a lot, exiting — the people from the airport and from the airline companies — everybody went out without knowing what to do but it went well.”

Follow the live blog for up to date information on the explosions at Brussels Airport and metro station.

‘I think we are very lucky’

Another witness, Peter Presnell, said his plane landed on the tarmac at Brussels airport just as the explosions went off.

“When we first got here, they advised us that there was an explosion in the terminal and then they subsequently advised that there were two bombs had detonated inside the terminal,” he told the ABC.

“We could see the people being evacuated from the building and plus we could see a little bit of smoke rising above the terminal area as well.”

Another witness, Jean-Pierre Herman, met his wife at the airport, having gone to collect her after her flight arrived from Thailand.

“My wife just arrived,” Mr Herman told AFP.

“I said hello, we took the elevator and in the elevator we heard the first bomb.

“The second exploded just when we got off. We ran away to an emergency exit. I think we are very lucky.”

British journalist Charlotte McDonald-Gibson, who lives in Brussels, said there had been “total confusion” at the airport, where she was having breakfast before a flight.

“Suddenly staff rushed in and said we have to leave,” she said.

“They rushed out and into the main terminal A departures building. Nobody knew what was going on.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/witnesses-describe-moments-after-brussels-airport-explosions/7268392

Islamic Terrorism In Brussels: Muslims Murder 34, Injure 200+, Blow Up Airport, Nobody Surprised Anymore

Just another day in multicultural Europe.

A string of explosions has rocked Brussels Airport and a city metro station, killing at least 13 people and injuring more than 30 others, prompting Belgium to raise its terror threat to the maximum level.
Key points:

Two blasts hit Brussels Airport, followed by explosion at metro station

At least 13 people dead, all public transport shut down

Follow all the latest developments live

Two explosions hit the international departures lounge at the airport’s Zaventem terminal. It is thought one was set off by a suicide bomber near the American Airlines counter.

A short time later a third blast hit the Maelbeek metro station, near the European Union’s main buildings, just as commuters were making their way to work in rush hour.

The explosions occurred four days after the arrest in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, the prime surviving suspect in November’s attacks in Paris that killed 130 people.

Follow our live blog for all the latest developments in Brussels.

Brussels’ public transport network was shut down after the blasts and residents were warned to stay inside.

There were chaotic scenes at the airport as passengers fled in panic, with a thick plume of smoke rising from the main terminal building.

The blasts smashed the windows of the departure hall and sent ceiling tiles shattering to the floor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/brussels-airport-rocked-by-two-explosions/7268106

Islamic Terror In Russian Homes: Muslim Nanny Beheads 4 Year Old Girl Because “Allah Ordered Me”

Lock up your daughters because apparently they aren’t safe from Muslim nannies.

So I hope that this awful event is a wake up call that Islam is no discriminator when it comes to infecting the minds of people of all ages, sexes, and careers (Islam is of course a discriminator against essentially all people).

Now, even your own homes is no longer safe.

In particular, I find it amusing that the nanny declares herlsef to be a terrorist and yet the authorities refuse to treat her beheading a four year old child as terrorism.

Must be some semantics issue or something.

Here’s the story:

‘Allah Ordered Me’ to Behead 4-Year-Old Girl, Muslim Nanny Says

Gulchekhra Bobokulova, a nanny form Uzbekistan, is accused of beheading a child in Moscow on February 29, 2016.

A Muslim nanny from Uzbekistan who earlier this week beheaded a 4-year-old girl in Moscow has said that “Allah ordered” her to commit the murder.

BBC News reported that 38-year-old mother of three Gulchekhra Bobokulova admitted her guilt before reporters on the way to a Moscow court, though she is also being evaluated for mental problems. 

Bobokulova is suspected of waiting until the parents of the little girl left their flat in the Russian capital before she killed and then beheaded the young child. Video footage later depicted the nanny walking around a metro station with the severed head in her hands, before shewas arrested by police.

Footage also showed the woman shouting phrases like “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and “I am a terrorist.” She later told reporters she was “ordered by Allah” to carry out the crime.

Other things she was apparently heard saying included “I hate democracy. I’m a terrorist. I’m your suicide bomber. … I’m going to die in a second” and “The end of the world is coming in a second. … I’m your death,” teleSUR reported.

Police have said that the woman also threatened to blow herself up after they asked her for identity documents.

Russian investigators are searching to see if anyone else was involved in the crime, but so far they are not treating it as a terrorism case.

Prosecutors said they believe Bobokulova had been “incited” to commit the crime, but did not say by who.

The woman had been working for the parents of the little girl for 18 months, and though she had a valid residency permit for Russia, she had no work permit.

Russian journalist Polina Nikolskaya, who witnessed the scene, told Reuters:

“I was on my way to the metro station from home. She was standing near the metro entrance and caught my attention because she was screaming Allahu Akbar. I saw that she had a bloodied head in her arms but I thought it was not real. People in the crowd said it was real.”

Other reports in local media have said that the nanny was under the influence of unidentified drugs when she was walking the streets and yelling with the severed head.

Moscow residents have meanwhile been leaving toys and flowers at the Oktyabrskoye Polye metro station in honor of the girl, as well as outside the flat where she was murdered.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/allah-ordered-me-to-behead-4-year-old-girl-muslim-nanny-russia-158867/

Imagine A World Where Christian Terrorists Murder Muslims In The Name Of The Cross

It sure makes for an amusing fantasy and doubles as a great means of highlighting and underscoring the raging hypocrisy of Islamofacists (both Muslims and leftists):

Writing in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Nadine Al-Budair asks how Muslims would react if western youths acting in the name of Christ blew themselves up in their midst. She also slams Muslim attempts to absolve themselves of guilt by saying that terrorists do not represent Islam, calling such disclaimers “pathetic.”

Taking the largest acts of terror from the last couple of decades, Al-Budair, who today lives in Qatar, wonders what would have happened if they had been perpetrated in the Arab world. Citing terrorist groups like the Islamic states desire to impose 7th century Sharia law, Al-Budair writes:

Imagine a Western youth coming here and carrying out a suicide mission in one of our public squares in the name of the Cross. Imagine that two skyscrapers had collapsed in some Arab capital, and that an extremist Christian group, donning millennium-old garb, had emerged to take responsibility for the event, while stressing its determination to revive Christian teachings or some Christian rulings, according to its understanding, to live like in the time [of Jesus] and his disciples, and to implement certain edicts of Christian scholars.

She asks readers to imagine a world in which Christians call Muslims “infidels” and pray that God will eliminate them all. She continues by conjuring an Arab world that grants foreigners visas, citizenship, jobs, free education, and healthcare, and then asks what would happen if one of those foreigners killed Arabs indiscriminately.

Referencing American engineer Paul Marshall Johnson, who was abducted and beheaded by Al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia in 2004, Al- Budair writes:
“Imagine a Frenchmen or a German in Paris or Berlin leading his Muslim neighbor [somewhere] in order to slaughter him and then freeze his head in an ice box, in a cold and calculating manner … as one terrorist did with the head of an American in Riyadh years ago.”

The liberal writer condemns Muslims for thinking it is within their rights to condemn Trump’s statement rather than “address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and [to] be ashamed” of them.

Regarding Trump, she wrote:

“However, how much longer [will this last]? Today things are different. [Western] anger [at Muslims] is apparent, and they make scary declarations. One who recently championed [these views] is Donald Trump, who demanded to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.

“It is strange that we [Muslims] believe we have the right to condemn such statements rather than address the implications of some of our extremist curricula, our education, and our regimes, and be ashamed [of them]… It is strange that we condemn [the West] instead of addressing what is happening in our midst – the extremist ways in which we interpret the shari’a and our reactionary attitudes towards each other and the world. It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world.”

She takes the Muslim world to task for continuing to condemn the West instead of addressing its own radicalism, which holds that killing Westerners is part of a holy jihad that “leads to virgins of paradise.”

“It is strange that we condemn instead of apologizing to the world,” Al-Budair write. She says that claims made by Muslims that those who commit terrorism do not represent Islam are “farces” and “pathetic” attempts to absolve Muslims of guilt.

http://shoebat.com/2016/03/02/saudi-female-journalist-supports-donald-trump-asks-christian-terrorists-blowing-muslims-streets/

Islamic Terror In Indonesia: As Unexpected As Fish In The Sea

Islamic terrorist attacks happen literally every day in Islamic nations.

In fact, there’s been about 26,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001 and by far the majority of those have been in Islamic countries.

It’s just one more reason why you don’t want Islam comprising a significant portion of the nation you live in.

Here’s the story:

Five attackers, including two suicide bombers, are dead after a terrorist attack in central Jakarta, Indonesian police say.

A foreign national and a police officer were also believed to have died, taking the death toll to seven, Deputy National Police Chief Budi Gunawan said.

Look back over our live coverage on the blasts in Jakarta

Seven explosions rocked the area, including one at a Starbucks cafe in the city centre, near a cluster of embassies and the United Nations offices.

Authorities said the policeman was killed in a suicide attack on a police booth on the median strip of one of Jakarta’s busiest roads, before shots were fired at bystanders.

Jakarta police said a Canadian was killed in the attack.

Two attackers were killed in a shootout with police, while two others were suicide bombers, Mr Gunawan said.

Jakarta police spokesman Muhammad Iqbal said five police personnel, one foreign civilian and four Indonesian civilians were injured.

He said that the situation was now under control.

Police spokesman Iqbal Kabid said a gunfight between the attackers and police took place in a cinema that is in the same building as a Starbucks cafe.

Bodies were seen lying in the streets as security forces moved in, with reports of gunfire and warnings of snipers in the area.

Police earlier said the blasts were caused by grenades, not bombs.

Todd Elliot, a terrorism expert in Jakarta, said his police sources indicated none of the attacks were suicide bombers, contrary to other reports.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo said the blasts were “acts of terror”.

“Our nation and our people should not be afraid, we will not be defeated by these acts of terror, I hope the public stay calm,” he told MetroTV.

“We all are grieving for the fallen victims of this incident, but we also condemn the act that has disturbed the security and peace and spread terror among our people.”

Police said they believed the attack was inspired by Islamic State and that the attackers were connected to a terror cell that was disrupted just before Christmas.

National intelligence agency chief Sutiyoso said there were no indications Islamic State militants were behind the attack but said “this is definitely terrorism”.

One witness filmed the moment one of the blasts took place, in a car park out the front a commercial building.

Indonesian media reported at least one of the explosions was caused by a suicide bomber.

The ABC’s South-East Asia correspondent Samantha Hawley said armoured trucks, the head of intelligence and bomb squad officers had joined police at the scene of the blasts.

Earlier, officers at the scene told AFP news agency reporters to “get back” because there “is a sniper” on the roof of a building.

What we know:

Several initial blasts struck central Jakarta shortly before 3:00pm AEDT

Bombs were thrown at a popular Starbucks cafe, then a suicide bombing at a police checkpoint

Blasts struck outside the Sarinah shopping centre and the UN’s country office

Shots were fired outside Starbucks as security forces moved in

Police say five suspected attackers are dead, including two suicide bombers

A foreign national and a policeman are also believed to have been killed

Police said the attackers were part of the terror cell from Solo and in communication with Syria

Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack
Editor-in-chief of the Jakarta Post, Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, said the targeted area was quite popular.

“It’s less than one-and-a-half kilometres to the palace, it’s basically where the centre of government is,” he said.

“Five hundred metres away is the central bank building, you have multiple government buildings, major, major centre of government area.”

Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said officials in Indonesia were making enquiries to determine whether Australians had been involved in the attacks.

Ms Bishop said the Australian Government condemned the attacks, and that she had spoken to her Indonesian counterpart and offered any support the country may need to respond to the attacks.

Attorney-General George Brandis issued a statement saying the “Government has offered law enforcement and intelligence assistance to Indonesia” following the attacks.

Australia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Grigson, tweeted: “All Australians should stay clear of these areas, limit their movements and follow the instructions of local authorities.”

Prime Ministers Malcolm Turnbull tweeted: “Australians’ thoughts, prayers and resolute solidarity are with the people of Indonesia as they respond to the terrorist attacks.”

United Nations regional representative Jeremy Douglas, speaking to the ABC from the UN office in Jakarta, said the building was in lockdown.

He said he had been in a car when the first blast went off.

“We got out of the car and we heard a second bomb. Then we heard a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth and then gunfire in the street. A lot of gunfire,” he said.

Some other buildings in the area were also evacuated.

Starbucks said all of its stores in Jakarta would remain closed until further notice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/jakarta-bombing-suspected-civilian-terrorists-dead-after-attack/7089218

Hollywood Heroes: Kurt Russell

Every now and then someone in Hollywood (a serious Leftist stronghold) says something worth listening to.

This time it’s Kurt Russell.

In an interview for Hollywood Elsewhere, Russell struck down the grandiose intellectualism of a reporter with simple, blunt facts about the necessity of guns against an enemy bent on killing people.

Here’s the transcript:

 Wells: The Quentin cult, if you will, is, like, 23 years old, starting with Reservoir Dogs…right? Violence as attitude, violence as style, violence as fashion…not dealt with in an earnest, realistic way. The swagger thing.

Russell: Right.

Wells: And I was looking in the N.Y. Times this morning and this guy interviewed several people in the country in the Midwest and West. And with almost everybody out there, he reported, there’s a feeling of anxiety in the culture…when’s the next one

Russell: So how do you connect the dots?

Wells: I think there’s a feeling about shootings and violence right now…I think it’s different in 2015 than it was in the mid ’90s. But Quentin is still playing the same game more or less.

Russell: Well, Quentin does what he does. He’s painting a picture, writing, telling a story…like a filmmaker. But to mix and match reality with fantasy is something I don’t understand but that’s just me. I think we should understand the difference. To mix today’s politics with, in this case, a tale about, uh, a fictional tale about the Civil War…

Wells: I’m not talking about politics. I’m talking about a ground-level, water-table…a feeling in people’s bones. People are genuinely…between Paris and San Bernardino the idea of sudden violence becoming a normal, day-to-day aspect coming from the gun culture and everything else…it’s a different vibe, you know?

Russell: I don’t understand concepts of conversation [about] the gun culture. We’ve lived with guns since, what, the 7th Century or something? I don’t know.

Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.

Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.

Russell: If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we’re having right now to turn it around…you may think you’ve got me worried about you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more. And that‘s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do — I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do…

Wells: I get that.

Russell: To stop him. That‘s when things change. [Tries to steer conversation back to the usual-usual, western genre, what Quentin does, asking the question, themes explored.] So what has that got to do with movies? Nothing! Movies are movies. They’re like a painting, like a song, like a book…he’s doing his Quentin Tarantino world, which I think belongs on film. I don’t think it has anything to do with anything outside of film. The music, the manipulation of the screenplay. So I can’t connect the dots. It really is hard for me to connect the dots.

Wells: Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [there] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions…they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.

Russell: They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?

Wells: They didn’t kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.

Russell: But they’ve killed others that way, haven’t they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn’t the answer.

Wells: Just put some controls…

Russell: Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can’t?

Wells: No, not so you can’t, just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.

Russell: You really believe they’re not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.

Wells: Okay.

Russell: You and I just disagree. I understand that you think you can control the behavior of people that are dead set on taking your way of life away from you. You think you can control that? And there’s only one thing you can do with that. And that’s [to say} ‘No, dude, that’s not gonna happen. That’s just not gonna happen.’

Interestingly, Wells seems to think that because he was calm during the interview, that somehow it translates as a victory for his pompous, postmodernist pop-psychology rhetoric.

Sadly, only someone so sheltered by history’s hard won freedoms could make such an ignorant claim as:

Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

But that’s the Left for you.

They see themselves as the source of all reason and that if only everyone is forced into their ideology, the world will become a peaceful utopia.

These types aren’t out fighting in the mud to keep their country safe from the likes of the Nazis, Communists and Muslims but rather coddled up in the universities and ivory towers impressing themselves with philosophies that teach them it’s okay to murder children in the womb because it makes life more convenient. That and spitting on war veterans while sleeping around and doing drugs because “Peace, man!”

It’s also interesting to note Wells’ racism against white people – the only ethnicity it is okay to make grand, sweeping criticisms of.

An apt comparison here is with the approaches of Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain in the face of an enemy intent on war. Wells, like Chamberlain, can talk the talk for a season and be favoured but in the end, it will be Russell whose words will be proven accurate, much like Churchill.

Wells thinks his “guns are a trope” sounds very clever but in the end, it sounds much like “peace for our time”.

Useless words spoken by people not in touch with the reality of an enemy who will not stop.

We can expect that Muslim and nihilistic atheist terrorists will continue to kill people and tighter gun laws will prevent more and more innocent victims from being able to defend themselves. 

Then people like Wells can pretend it’s all white, gun owner’s faults that terrorists murder people.

And that Obama isn’t the worst president ever.

Islamic Terrorist Weilding Knife Commemorates Charlie Hebdo Massacre Anniversary By Getting Shot By Police

This year is very likely going to be a bad one for Islamic terrorism in the West.

Here it is:

Paris police have shot dead a knife-wielding man who tried to enter a police station shouting “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) and who may have been wearing a suicide belt, officials say.

The incident took place just minutes after President Francois Hollande had given a speech to security forces in an another part of Paris to mark the first anniversary of last year’s deadly militant Islamist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in the French capital.

“The man may have been wearing something that could be a suicide belt,” Interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told BFM TV.

“Whether it was operational or not, it is too early to say.”

A police union source said the belt appeared to be fake.

“The bomb-disposal unit confirmed it was a fake,” the source said.

The man had tried to force entry into the police station in the 18th district of northern Paris, an area that Islamic State had said after even deadlier Paris attacks in November that it had been planning to hit.

“According to our colleagues he wanted to blow himself up,” an official at the Alternative Police union said.

“He shouted Allahu Akbar and had wires protruding from his clothes. That’s why the police officer opened fire.”

Officials said bomb disposal experts were on site.

Journalist Anna Polonyi, who could see the body on the pavement from the window of her flat, posted photos on social media that showed the body with what appeared to be a bomb-disposal robot beside it.

She said that her sister, in the flat with her, saw the incident happen.

She said the police shouted at the man and that he then started running towards them before they shot him.

It’s worth remembering that we in the West are only getting taster-trays of the three course meal that the Middle East eats on a day to day basis.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/paris-police-shoot-dead-knife-wielding-man/7075386

Why Everyone Should Oppose Gun Control 

Throughout history, no single group or organisation has murdered more people than governments.

That’s why!

And that’s really all the argument that’s needed when it comes to this issue but here’s an article that spells it out nicely too:

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, America’s gun control debate is undergoing a metamorphosis.

The case for the Second Amendment has classically been one of protection from a tyrannical government; the Founders knew well the need for such an insurance policy. As the American government became more militarily powerful, however, the arguments shifted to fit the technology. After all, the critics cried, is your rifle going to defend your beloved citizenry from fighter planes and guided missiles?

Now a novel threat has once again shifted the argument, this time in clear favor of the Second Amendment faithful. Rogue agents bent on the death of innocents are striking the West where it hurts—at parties, in cafes, at concerts. These days, we are all targets to some degree.

Would Paris have ended differently if a few fans in the Bataclan had been licensed and allowed to carry? Perhaps. Would the casualty counts in San Bernardino have been lower had someone else at the party been packing? Possibly.

The Crazies Get Guns, But Not Us

Yet in spite of these promising possibilities, and the fact that we are all now prey to some degree to any number of radicalized jihadists in our midst, our government insists that giving up our guns will somehow secure our safety. In fact, the Obama administration is issuing an executive order aimed at restricting the sale of firearms.

Even as there are calls to disarm the police forces we are told will protect us, there are calls to disarm us, as well.

Even as there are calls to disarm the very police forces that we are told will protect us, there are calls to disarm us, as well; just last month the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge on a Chicago suburb’s ban on semiautomatic weapons. The Left has created a fine boogeyman in the National Rifle Association, even though less than 10 percent of gun owners are members. They have created a boogeygun, too: the semiautomatic rifle, despite the fact that these weapons account for less than 2 percent of all gun deaths.

Of course the real reason many Americans “cling” to their guns (to borrow the president’s language) has far more to do with common sense than any single organization. Like the Founding Fathers, they have seen firsthand the selective agenda of an overgrown government.

They know well that the powers that be in Washington DC have no capable method of controlling arms traffic in a nation of 300 million-plus people and more than 350 million guns. The War on Drugs has failed to prevent tidal waves of narcotics from infiltrating every nook and cranny of these United States. Why should a War on Guns prove any different?

Reality Is An Obstacle for the Left

We were assured that ISIS is contained, yet only days after that assurance the dead both here and across the pond were being buried. We have asked that our borders be secured to protect both our autonomy and our economy, yet in return we have received only empty promises and an influx of millions. Obama has failed to control his own Internal Revenue Service, yet assures us with the confidence of a man under constant armed protection that he can control who will be allowed to own a machine that is capable of killing indiscriminately.

Obama assures us that he can control who will be allowed to own a machine that is capable of killing indiscriminately.

Sorry, but we’ve seen this movie before. After all, weren’t we just recently led to believe that if we liked our doctor, we could keep him? As millions of Americans can attest, that promise, too, went unfulfilled.

It wasn’t so long ago that headlines were filled with a federal operation known as “Fast and Furious,” in which the very same administration that proselytizes regulating a particular class of rifle was caught red-handed supplying Mexican gangsters with those very weapons. Got that, America? You can’t have them, but homicidal narco traffickers can, on your dime.

You see, only in Washington, in a world so removed from the reality millions of Americans face every day, could such a concept actually be given credulity. Sorry, Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, and the rest, but you have no right to strip us of our last line of defense from your incompetence.

Prove You Can Protect Us First

Are we to honestly believe that if a certain class of gun is outlawed that it will forever be removed from the commission of a crime? That the millions of high-powered rifles will just disappear from American streets? That we won’t be sitting ducks the next time some deranged lunatic has a bad day or decides his coworkers are infidels?

The proposed regulations will ensure that the criminal will be better armed than the law-abiding citizen.

Despite many of us being publicly educated, we are smarter than that. The only thing the government’s proposed regulations will ensure is that the criminal will be better armed than the law-abiding citizen—surely a crime against the people if there ever was one.

If the definition of insanity is, as Einstein once quipped, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” then we would be certifiable to trust the government to effectively regulate firearms of any type, let alone assault rifles.

After all, at the end of the day gun control is a matter of trust: Americans must trust that their government can protect them in an age of anything goes terrorism, and that trust must be earned. Instead, it has been repeatedly violated.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/the-real-reason-americans-oppose-gun-control/