More than one million Armenians perished as the result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment, and physical abuse. A people who lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years [more than double the amount of time the invading Islamic Turks had occupied Anatolia, now known as “Turkey”] lost its homeland and was profoundly decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the twentieth century. At the beginning of 1915 there were some two million Armenians within Turkey; today there are fewer than 60,000…. Despite the vast amount of evidence that points to the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, eyewitness accounts, official archives, photographic evidence, the reports of diplomats, and the testimony of survivors, denial of the Armenian Genocide by successive regimes in Turkey has gone on from 1915 to the present.
Are we to ignore history, both modern and ancient, believing that somehow Islam has changed its spots when all the contemporary evidence is actually affirming history?
See here, here, here, here and here for some previous posts noting that violence is intrinsic to Islam.
We are constantly reassured that Islam, real Islam, is peaceful. Looking back through history we cannot see it though. We see warfare such as the first Great Jihad that broke out of Arabia and within 100 years had conquered and subjugated 2/3 of the entire Christian world.
This is a peaceful religion?
Then again what of the Muslim reformers? Those who wish their religion to be like Christianity or Judaism - a matter of private belief without the political component? Do we ignore them and let them fend for themselves in this hostile environment? If Islam is not reformed this will end very badly for all of us. Shall we help?
And if you're a Muslim who truly believes that your faith is peaceful and has nothing to do with ISIS - what are you doing to stop its Sharia based and ISIS affirmed interpretation spreading among our Mosques and young people?
We have to face up to the doctrine and history of Jihad. Or are we content with the "new normal" being regular terrorist attacks in our cities?
Are Nonstop Muslim Atrocities the “New Norm”?
As hardly a few days pass without some Islamic terror attack in the West—recently and as of this writing an “Allahu Akbar” shouting Muslim man stabbed a Jew in France and an “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim woman ran over two policemen in Canada—the West risks becoming desensitized to and seeing Islamic violence as “just another part of life.”
The words and deeds of Western leaders are not helping. After the Islamic terror attack in Nice, France, where 84 were killed, counterterrorism chief Patrick Calvar said: “Today, France is clearly the most threatened country. The question about the threat is not to know ‘if’ but ‘when’ and ‘where’.” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that “Terrorism … is a threat that weighs heavily on France and will continue doing so for a long time.”
As if such resignation wasn’t bad enough, at the memorial event for the 84 Nice victims, Valls declared, “Times have changed and we should learn to live with terrorism.”
Actually, the main thing to change with time in France is its demography. The largest Muslim population of Europe resides there and, in accordance’s with Islam’s Rule of Numbers, is the real reason why France “should learn to live with terrorism.”
More apathy was in the air during the Munich massacre, where a Muslim gunman killed nine.
While somberly addressing the massacre still in progress—with the usual boilerplate “our hearts go out to [X victim of terror]”—U.S. President Obama managed to crack a joke, grin, chuckle, and draw laughter from his audience.
After all, what is the big deal? Shouldn’t we be used to Muslims rampaging and killing by now? And really, what’s nine dead compared to the many hundreds killed by Islamic terrorists around the world in recent weeks?
As for the leader of the nation where the attack took place, Angela Merkel waited almost 24 hours before she delivered yet another perfunctory speech containing all the usual words, condolences, and platitudes.
Then again, what was the hurry? Muslims abusing, raping, and killing Germans in Germany is old hat. A new poll by ZDF found that a record 75 percent of Germans “expect”—which is not unlike accept—more terror attacks in their nation. Must a statement be made after every single one?!
Needless to say, lesser Islamic terror attacks which once would’ve been extremely newsworthy and received condemnation from the highest echelons of the political wrung now receive perfunctory or no media coverage and little comment.
On July 18 in Germany, another “Allahu Akbar” shouting, axe-waving Muslim attacked train passengers and critically injured five. The next day, on July 19 in France, a Muslim man stabbed a woman and her three daughters—the eight-year-old was left with a punctured lung and in critical condition—for being “scantily dressed.”
No immediate comments from Merkel and Valls. (See here for numerous other examples of “minor” and “everyday” Muslim “disturbances” in Europe—such as vandalizing churches and urinating on St. Mary statues—that get little or no coverage or comment.)
Western people had better wise up: in the field of behavioral psychology, “systematic desensitization” is a well-known and effective form of graduated exposure therapy used “to help effectively overcome phobias and other anxiety disorders.” Consider the following succinct definition with my relevant examples in brackets:
Systematic desensitization is when the client [the West] is exposed to the anxiety-producing stimulus [Islamic violence] at a low level [reports and images of Islamic violence “over there” in the Mideast], and once no anxiety is present a stronger version of the anxiety-producing stimulus is given [reports of violence closer to home, in the West]. This continues until the individual client [the West] no longer feels any anxiety towards the stimulus [Islamic violence].
Is this the plan? Are the “global elite” producing situations, such as the manufactured “migrant crisis,” that cause the West to experience incrementally worse forms of Islamic violence, until it becomes desensitized, loses its “phobia”—in this case, “Islamophobia”—and simply “learns to live with terrorism,” in the words of France’s prime minister?
Indeed, if the attacks were to fall back to, say, just once a month, many might accept that as a “positive step” they can live with—at least in comparison to what they’ve been seeing, including four savage Islamic attacks in one recent week in Germany alone.
“Conspiracy theories” aside, a much better way exists. Acknowledge the truth—Islam is inherently violent and intolerant—and build policies on this truth. A ban on or serious vetting of Muslim immigration—which a majority of Americans support—and close monitoring of already existing mosques and Islamic centers would virtually eliminate Islamic terror from America.
For the fact remains: unlike natural disasters—earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the like—we actually do not need “to live with” Islam.