Tagged: Britain

Muslim death cultists are not subhuman

Again with the beheadings.

Two British muslims ran over a British soldier, Lee Rigby, with their car in broad daylight, hopped out, and beheaded him. Then they crowed about it on camera.

I’m not surprised. Hopefully we’ll preserve our collective outrage over this, but I suspect this kind of thing’s already becoming blas&#233 in our jaded and media-saturated culture.

Amid all the outrage expressed in the blogosphere and on social media, I’ve noticed a theme that needs correcting if we’re going to keep the right perspective. My fellow conservatives often express their fury with epithets like “animals” and “subhuman scum” when they refer to the evil men who saw off non-muslim heads in the name of a “merciful Allah.” It’s understandable to use those labels, but it’s not right because it lets these evil muslims off the hook for their actions. We feel anger when we find out about these slaughters precisely because these evil men are more than just animals. They’re people, and that means they know better.

When a cougar mauls a child, we hunt it down and kill it without much passion because it’s a dumb animal with no sense of morality. Young children, dementia sufferers, and certain insane people can’t distinguish between right and wrong, so we don’t hold them to a high moral standard. But when grown men shoot fleeing children in the back or saw off the heads of helpless civilians, they earn our undying enmity because they know they’re committing evil and they do it anyway. Evil acts can’t be waved away with a concerned expression and a sadly-spoken “oh, that’s just sick.” People choose to do evil things, and some choose to do great evil. They aren’t all insane, they haven’t all been browbeaten into it, and they aren’t all merely misguided. People commit evil, for which they deserve punishment.

For you left-leaning readers who feel uncomfortable with arguments based on right and wrong, think of this from a legal perspective. The Model Penal Code (which forms the basis for many states’ criminal codes) breaks down most crimes into four categories, asking whether the perpetrator committed the crime negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully. If a man fires a gun through a flimsy backstop in his backyard and the bullet accidentally kills his neighbor’s child, we’ll likely prosecute him for negligent homicide. But we hold him less culpable than the man who recklessly fires his gun into the air and kills the child playing in her yard two streets over. Worse still is the man who fires his rifle over a crowd of children, knowing he’ll probably kill someone. Worst of all is the man who fires a bullet into a fleeing child’s back for the purpose of killing her. Even our legal system emphasizes degrees of culpability and the importance of the perpetrator’s state of mind. It’s about as close to moral condemnation as our relativistic legal system ever gets.

The moral approach and our inherent sense of right and wrong provides the strongest foundation for holding these evil muslims responsible as people who consciously choose to do evil, but you might find the legal approach more comfortable. Either way, intentions count for a lot.

I continue to try extra hard not to understate the depths that these men have sunk to. I don’t call them animals or subhuman scum; these muslim death cultists are evil, and that’s why I’ll smile when they die violent and painful deaths.

I hope you’ll do the same.

5/24/13 Update: The Brits have become men without chests. We’re headed down the same road, sadly.

British political spammers target Clark County

Arthur Chrenkoff reports on Brits targeting my fellow Ohioans with anti-Bush spam. Who put them up to it and helped them find voters in Clark County? The Guardian newspaper.
Talk about an effort doomed to failure. If it weren’t so pathetic, and if I didn’t live elsewhere in Ohio, I’d be annoyed. Instead, I’m mildly amused at the thought of undecided voters in Clark County deciding to vote for Bush just to annoy the bejabbers out of some stuffy British busybodies.

Clarification: I realize that The Guardian doesn’t explicitly advocate sending anti-Bush messages to Clark County voters. However, when you know that the newspaper’s slant and the biases of its readership tilt way over toward the left, you can bet the ol’ homestead that the vast majority of messages will be anti-Bush.

UPDATE: Take that, you nosy foppish twits.

Iran’s about to get the horns

Nobody ever said the mad mullahs were smart. Today they’re proving their idiocy by confronting Britain:

Iranian state TV showed eight British sailors blindfolded and seated on the ground Tuesday, as Tehran said it would prosecute them for illegally entering Iran’s territorial waters.
The British government said the men were on a “routine mission” in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway that separates Iran and Iraq along their southern border. The Foreign Office summoned Iranian Ambassador Morteza Sarmadi to demand an explanation for the naval officers’ arrest.

Iran’s Arabic language Al-Alam television showed the sailors blindfolded and sitting cross-legged on the ground. Earlier footage showed them sitting silently on chairs and a sofa. Three were in British military uniform; five others wore military trousers and civilian T-shirts.
“They will be prosecuted for illegally entering Iranian territorial waters,” Al-Alam television said.
“The vessels were 1,000 meters inside Iranian territorial waters. The crew have also confessed to having entered Iranian waters,” the broadcast said. The distance is about a half-mile.

This is what’s known as “messing with the bull.”

UPDATE: The morons realized the foolishness of waving a big red sheet in front of a very angry bull. The sailors are free. Iran is returning their boats. I’m sure the rapid backpedaling by the bloodthirsty primitives was due to softspoken diplomatic warm fuzzies delivered by Foreign Ministry spokesmen in striped pants, and not due to the imminent threat of being rapidly converted from walking, talking humans into red smears on the sidewalk.