Islam: "We want to kill you because you said we want to kill you."

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Islam does not apologize, does not assimilate, and does not accept any other law than Muslim law.  Their goal is absolute domination.  Anything or anyone that says otherwise is either lying, or have been fooled into believing lies.

Freedom of Speech, according to Muslims, according to the socialists, and according to the liberal left appeasers, must be curbed.  You are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it fits into the little bubble of allowed speech the rulers and terrorists tell you that you can say.  Everything else is unacceptable, because it might make the aggressors angry.

The Islamic terror attacks in Paris, specifically when Charlie Hebdo was targeted, was about quelling free speech, and after free speech has been horrifically attacked, the response has been, "Be careful what you say.  We don't want to make the peaceful people of the religion of peace angry."

That would be like being in a fist fight because the other guy ran up to you and just started beating on you, and everyone watching the altercation screaming, "That's what you get for making him mad!"

Pope Francis went so far as to say, "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others... there is a limit."

Christians are constantly being bombarded by attacks, insults, and poking by leftist secularists making fun of faith in Jesus Christ. . . but the last time I checked, nobody is worried about Christian terrorists strapping bombs on their bodies, or slaughtering thousands of innocent people, for daring to insult Christianity.

NBC blamed American presence in the Middle East on the recent rash of Muslim terror in Europe.  President Obama blamed Europe, looking down his nose at Europeans, explaining to them that they should learn to better integrate Muslims.

Islam is not interested in integrating, or making peace.  The so-called "Religion of Peace" is interested only in controlling the conversation, and making sure that we, the dhimmis that are destined to become footstools under the iron boots of Islam, say what we are supposed to say according to their dictates.  The Muslims impose their Islamic mandates, and demand obedience, by threatening violence if we don't comply with their wishes.

There is a little bit of truth when it comes to minding our words.  We are told as children that if we don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.  But where are the blurring lines between being considerate, and where freedom of speech is being assaulted?  Are there supposed to be such rigid limits?  Are those limits supposed to be not self-imposed, but forced upon a people by a crying, whining political entity that mixes religion and politics in a farce called Islam?  At what point is what we say offensive, and at what point is it necessary to say what needs to be said in the face of tyranny?  And even if we do say something that some may consider offensive, or "not nice," should others be able to dictate to us our ability to say it?

"But we shouldn't offend them," I am constantly told.  "You wouldn't want to be offended, would you?"

I can't be offended.  People try.  Why would I give others that kind of power over my own emotions?  Should I let what others say influence me to the point that I become angry?  I know who I am, and I know what I believe, and I understand that I live in a world where not everyone is in line with my belief system. . . and that is fine.  I will do what I can to educate people regarding what I believe to be the truth, but if I must force compliance by the end of a sword, is it really a worthwhile endeavor?  Is it really a message of love and peace if I must threaten violence for all those that dare to oppose me?

Apparently, Islam is easily angered by any criticisms of their ideology, and their anger knows no limit, and the Democrats, and many Republicans, have decided it is best to tippy-toe around the easily angered members of the Religion of Peace.  Congress Critter Representative Barbara Lee, a northern California Democrat representing a district in the Bay Area in the U.S. House of Representatives, said of the White House deciding not to use the term in what she believes to be a bit of wisdom regarding Islamic Extremists, "We have to be careful in our language and how we — I don’t want to see any more anger and hostility or violence in the world. Our response to terrorism is a response that makes us safer that begins to dismantle and degrade terrorist organizations, not create more havoc, anger, and hostility in the world."

The terror attack targeting French magazine Charlie Hebdo's office in Paris, a publication that has had no problem publishing political cartoons poking fun at the false prophet Muhammad, has sparked a global conversation about the nature of free speech - and the publication was targeted specifically because they dared to not conform to the Muslim demand that only nice things can be said about Islam, and the false prophet Muhammad.  The attacks in Paris have left leftists in a quandary, because they say they believe in free speech (though the only free speech they support is any speech that does not question their ruling authority).  So, the progressives stood with their media-brothers-in-arms at Charlie Hebdo, using the “Je Suis Charlie” hashtag in support of the executed Charlie Hebdo staff.  Yet, at the same time, the leftists are trying to be careful, because they don't want to make the Muslims mad. . . because they think appeasement is what makes the peace.

They make fine, modern-day, Neville Chamberlains.

Islam fuels that sludge of political correctness, using their influence in the United Nations to put forth proposals attempting to criminalize any derogatory speech against Islam.  The collective voice of the Muslim world is spreading the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith, or the violent cult's false prophet, demands absolute suppression, and progressives around the world are bowing to Islam, being good dhimmis in their attempt to adhere to the “defamation of Islam” proposals.

Islamic leaders have flooded the world with countless resolutions, relentless lobbying of the international community and block voting on resolutions advocating a prohibition on defamation of their religion at the U.N., continuously pushing to silence criticism of Islam.

In response, fearful of angering Islamic leaders and jihadists, the compliant lefties are trying to join the Islamists in breeding contempt for the concept of freedom of religion (if it's not Islam) and the freedom of expression (other than speech that supports Islam).  The liberal media is casting a pall of self-censorship over academia and the arts, doing what they can to appease Muslims, in order to keep from making them angry.

Understanding Islam is as simple as understanding the story about the scorpion.  The scorpion, after swearing he would not sting a companion, stings the fellow traveler, anyway.  When asked, "Hey, why'd you do that after swearing you wouldn't," the scorpion responded, "I'm a scorpion.  It's what I do."

Violence is what Islam does, regardless of if we make them mad, or not.  Muslims see themselves as superior to non-Muslims, therefore violence against all those that dare to oppose Islam is acceptable.  By quelling free speech, by stopping us from having an opinion about the tyranny we see embedded into the very nature of the political/religious totalitarian leviathan called Islam, they are attempting to dominate over an opposition that is not even willing to put up a fight.

Should freedom, liberty, free speech and natural rights go down with a whimper?  Or should the rule of law that opposes the rule of tyranny put up a fight and stop the onslaught of the Muslim nightmare?

Islam is invading Europe, and Muslims are using their numbers (through immigration and a high birth rate) to increase their control over the host countries.  They are using creeping incrementalism to infect and replace the laws of those nations, to swing opinion in their direction, to lull their victims into their trap. . . and a part of that attack is to use our strengths against us, to use our freedoms and rights against us, and criminalize criticism of Islam to silence the enemy and teach them to obey the dictates of the Islamic oppressors without even being willing to stand against the Islamic oppressors.

People are dying, Islamic jihadists are killing those people, and Muslims are accusing the violence on anyone that dares to launch criticism of the violence committed by Muslims.  But in reality, the violence won't stop until free people forces it to stop. . . not just with freedom of speech, but standing up directly against Islamic terror, and the attempt of Muslims to dominate the world with a totalitarian caliphate.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrat Party Congress Critter: Obama Right Not to Call Terrorists ‘Islamic Extremists’ Because It Would Anger Them - Washington Free Beacon

Obama: Europe Should Better Integrate Muslims - The Straits Times

Largest Islamic Body in the World Calls for More Anti-Free Speech Laws in the Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack - PJ Tatler

Journalism After Charlie Hebdo - Yahoo News

Pope Francis: You cannot make fun of the faith of others - U.K. Telegraph

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression - Yahoo News