is america islamaphobic?

24 Aug
a phobia is an unreasonable fear…     its not an unreasonable fear if its based in reality.
seems to me that average americans are more cognizant of how islam is practiced by many of its followers, and its not good.
in fact its antithetical to our way of life our culture and our society. and its goals are eventually the destruction of our way of life.
maybe thats why so many liberals find common cause with islam… they both want to “change” america into something it has never been.

Check out Geraghty’s pull-quote:

‘The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.’

Not only is this terrorist-symp crap in the first place, but note the odd and chilling presence of that key qualifier “innocent” — The US has taken more Muslim lives than al-Qaeda has taken innocent non-Muslim lives.

Why is he restricting it to “innocent” non-Muslim lives? He didn’t restrict the part about the US killing Muslims to “innocent” Muslims.

Why is he differentiating the “innocent” from the, what?, guilty or deserving victims of Islamic terrorism?

Of the 2,996 victims of 9/11 — how many were “innocent” and how many, would he say, were well-served by justice?


From the Astute Bloggers:

Supposed moderate Iman Rauf repeated this lie – one often used by Bin Laden and the leftist schmucks like Code Pink. And they have the AUDACITY to appeal to the UN as an authority.


Speaking in Australia in 2005, Rauf said these things and more:

“We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. …

THINK ABOUT IT: How could 500,000 children die as a result of sanctions – but not their parents!? They took care of themselves but not their own kids!? Ascribing the toll to infant mortality rates is insane on its face: before sanctions the infant mortality rate in Iraq was SUPPOSEDLY (according to Saddam) about 50/1000, and under sanctions: 100/1000.

To accommodate the 500,000 EXTRA/SANCTION CAUSED infant mortality deaths, then Iraqis had to have been having 1,000,000 births per year during sanctions. NOT LIKELY FOR A POPULATION OF ONLY 20,000,000 – whose population GROWTH rate since 1960 was a pretty steady 2% EXCEPT WHEN IT WENT UP DURING SANCTIONS.

IRAQ’S POPULATION WENT UP STEADILY. THAT’S RIGHT FOLKS: exactly when folks like Imam Rauf and Bin Laden argue children were dying all over Iraq, the population was actually growing at a HIGHER rate than normal for Iraq for the decades before or since.

And, how could Saddam fail to get what THESE CHILDREN needed, but not fail to get banned weapons for his killing machine and terror regime?

All Saddam had to do to get sanctions dropped was allow UNFETTERED inspections – a requirement of the Armistice of the Gulf War.

Here’s what WIKI says:


Estimates of civilian deaths resulting from the sanctions range from 170,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them children, to claims that these deaths resulted from Iraqi government policy (rather than the sactions), to claims that this number is unknown.[10].

[…] In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote:

The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. … The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad’s failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.[7]

Blaming the USA for one single drop of Iraqi blood makes no sense. It’s nonsense. It’s immoral.

It’s as immoral as blaming FDR for ANY deaths in WW2. Hitler and Hirohito were to blame for ALL the death and ALL the destruction. Ditto Saddam for any and all damage as a result of sanctions or the wars.

Pam Geller – in the link above – also reiterates the genocidal nature and history of Islam: the bloodiest of any ideology in all of human history: nearly 300 MILLION killed. More than Stalin and Hitler and Mao and ALL the internecine Christian religious wars COMBINED!

Islam is history’s most genocidal ideology, the most inimical to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Imam Rauf is a skilled diplomat for that genocidal ideology.

And he should be treated accordingly: with contempt.

after reading through this, if you have half a brain you realize instinctively that this is a culture war being waged against america in order to wear it down.

its called stealth jihaad, and it is goal has nothing to do with reconciliation or inclusion, or a emmeliorating wounds.

once the jig was up on this being an effort to heal, that cannard was thrown out the window.

At Park 51 in NYC–the proposed mosque location– a Muslim American supporter of the mosque got into a quarrel with an opponent and said to “get over” 9/11 and that despite Manhattan having over 200 mosques, they need it “right there.”


this gem below, from ace.

After 9/11 I believe most Americans wanted to be fair and were willing to hold any judgment of Muslims in abeyance expecting that they would be the first to condemn and root out the terrorists and the radical interpretations of Islam driving them. But sadly in the 10 years since then the actions of Muslims have been rather underwhelming.

I can think of at most maybe one or two times that I’ve heard an Muslim in the media denounce terrorism without the inevitable ‘but’ appearing somewhere. And while surveys of Muslims show a majority oppose terrorism, the fact that 20%+ are okay with suicide bombing is not exactly reassuring.

got that? 20% of muslims around the globe think exploding suicide terrorists murdering non muslims in the name of allah is a fine idea.

name another religion that has even 1% no, .0001% of  adherants who think suicide mass murder of any one outside its religion is dandy. …yeah thats what I thought, thier isnt one.

and when we allow immigration from muslim countries around the globe how exactly do you weed out the 20% who think murdering infidels is jolly good fun? or the remainder who dont want to condemn the murderers?

more from

From Ace of Spades:

Men such as Rauf continue to indulge in dishonest double-speak, blessed by their religion, they say, by the doctrine of taqiyya. There is no “outreach” to troublesome Muslims being practiced by Rauf — he does not criticize them, or reject their support for terrorism, or demand they reform. For them, he only offers justification for their murderous resentment — the US has killed more Muslims than Al Qaeda; the US is an accessory to the crime — i.e., a legally-chargeable guilty party — of 9/11.

His “outreach” extends in one direction only, to the West, where he asks for tolerance and speaks pretty words about peace and the virtues of Islam. Which is nice, but we have plenty of that already with daily government-approved official pronouncements about Islam being a “religion of peace” and the constant reminder that the “great majority” of Muslims do not support terrorism. (Perhaps true, but I’d like to focus a bit more on the 30-40% who do.)

Where is the outreach in the other direction? He instructs us that we should not blame all Muslims for the terrorist murders committed by some — but where is the pointed statement to terrorist murders that infidels are not to be blamed for the collective grievances of aggressive, insecure Islamists, and, even if were to be blamed, it would be just terrific and super-appreciated if this blame did not come in the form of ball-bearing-studded car bombs?

It’s odd — Rauf will tell us that Muslims are not terrorists, again and again, but when asked if a provably terrorist organization — Hamas — is terrorist, he suddenly loses all interest in discussing “politics.” I would find his reassurances about most Muslims not being terrorists (which is of course true) more satisfying if, confronted with actual Muslim terrorists, he would indulge me in a bit of “politics” and condemn them as the killers they are.

Note that Rauf could considerably help his own cause by delivering an unambiguous condemnation of terrorism, unadorned by all the nasty ornaments of American culpability. He doesn’t do that — and I read quite a bit into that.

Instead, I am only told by Daisy Khan that my saying mean things about Muslims, and agitating in what, at the end of the day, is a zoning dispute, constitutes the most hateful and contemptible actions imaginable.

And yet no one ever says that Muslims should be killed simply for disagreeing with us or taking provocative actions …

read the whole post at ace

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 24, 2010 in Uncategorized


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: