Which is worse, those who incite violence, those who practice violence or those
who practice violence while lecturing their victims?
Why do nations, that profit most from the sale of weapons for war, death and
destruction, shout loudest in claiming to be proponents of peace?
How can the Christian-West bully others with charges of anti-Semitism, when
they are the ones who built the gas chambers, implemented the inquisition, and
carried out routine pogroms against the Jews for centuries?
In any legal system, the testimony of a proven liar has little merit if any
at all, but why then do we have to accept and abide by the words of those who
openly lied about Iraq's WMDs, or is this a virtue of a capitalist-democracy!
Now we have mass murderers that have slaughtered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq,
preaching about non-violence and the sanctity of innocent civilians, or is that
UK civilians only? Words of hypocrites and liars are always exposed by their
inconsistent deeds, and the following examples from recent events will further
An American Judge recently ruled that it was the notion of free speech dictated
by the first amendment, which gave the right to the newspaper  in Arizona
to publish letters calling for the killing of any Muslim civilians, in retaliation
for the deaths of any US soldiers in Iraq. So, here "free" speech
takes precedence over the incitement to murder innocent Muslims.
For sure, if any Muslim did anything remotely close to that, they would be
automatically locked up in Camp-X-Ray for inciting violence. In fact, just on
mere suspicion the Muslims get locked up in accordance to the doctrine of pre-emptive
strike. This behaviour in the language of the cowboys from the Wild West or
a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) member is: kill the Sand-Niggers and if they say anything
we lynch them and even if we think they are gone say something we lynch them,
like a per-emptive strike.
This week, the abusive xenophobic preacher, Pat Robertson, called for US Special
Forces to take out, (assassinate) President Hugo Chavez, the democratically
elected head of Venezuela. Chavez has not waged a military campaign against
the US, on the contrary the US have funded coup attempts against him, underlining
their status as democracy hypocrites. Despite calling for the assassination
of the head of a democracy, on national TV, he has not been accused of inciting
terrorism or murder or hate! Imagine the hysteria it would have caused, if a
similar incitement was made by any Muslim on national TV, calling for the assassination
of President Bush or Blair. NB: these two cases mentioned are not equivalent,
as Bush and Blair are mass-murdering war criminals, for whom the Hague or Nuremburg
equivalence are required, with an appropriate sentence for their crimes, whereas
President Chavez is a new born baby compared to them!
This incident is even more ironic when you consider that Pat Robertson is a
Bible-bashing fanatic, those people are constantly lecturing the non-Christian
world and especially the Muslims, that they should turn the other cheek like
Jesus. Of course we know why they preach such a message from history, both recent
and distant, Africans, Native Americans and others will testify that they got
the Bible shoved down their throats, were told to turn the other cheek to invasion,
murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide in return for the loss of their lands,
languages and way of life.
Chavez's real crime is like Saddam, possessing lots of oil while showing disobedience
to the US corporate interests. Pat Robertson himself stated the oil factor:
a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt
us very badly. How can a relatively poor and militarily weak country like Venezuela
hurt a superpower? Again Pat Robertson stated they could hurt us, meaning it
is time for another pre-emptive strike. Far from turning the other cheek, Pat
Robertson believes in pre-emptive slaps! These preachers are not followers of
Jesus but of Judas.
Then the other crusader, Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church, lectured Muslims
to tackle the cruel fanaticism of terrorism, as if ˜terrorism" is
the sole reserve of the Muslims. He obviously thinks that, the Western-Christian
forces invading Muslim countries, killing innocent women, children and men by
the tens of thousands, delivering State Terrorism are in line with Biblical
teachings and Catholic doctrine. Or is this again the noble savage being told
to turn the other cheek and not resist, lie back and enjoy it! Does anyone remember
the Vatican calling the Serbs and Croats fanatics, murderers, terrorists or
any such like? 200,000 Muslims bludgeoned, battered, raped, mutilated, shot,
knifed, crucified (oh yes) in the centre of Christian Europe by the Christian
Serbs and Croats and not a whisper. Had it been the Muslims slaughtering 200,000
Christians, no doubt it would then have been the cruel fanaticism of terrorism.
Enough with the Christian-Fanatics let us now look at what the secular fanatics
have been up to. The shadow education secretary, David Cameron of the Conservative
party compared Islamic extremist, meaning those who adhere to Islamic teachings,
to the Nazis. I did not realise Muslims adhered to such European traditions
as Nazism, was it not invented and practiced in Europe. Why the constant cry
about the Muslims not integrating then?
Nazis killed millions and for the last 50 years it is Muslims who have also
been killed in their millions, yet to Mr Cameron, we are the aggressors like
the Nazis, what a twisted little mind he and his ilk have. The Nazis created
unjust laws to victimise and alienate minorities, similar to what the British
government has started to do. Like the Nazis, Mr Cameron, it is your government
that have bombed, imprisoned, killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
Nazi ideology is exclusively based on the supremacy of one race, while Islam
is the exact opposite, all races being equal, yet Mr Cameron claims Islam/Muslims
are similar to the Nazis. He called Muslims violent for resisting aggression
in their own lands, but he thinks that invading a country which did not attack
his and murdering over 100,000 civilians is not violent. I thought we no longer
live in the age of racist white-Imperialism, Mr Cameron have you heard the one
about people who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.
I would not call Mr Cameron or Blair or Bush Nazis, as the Nazis were more
civilised in some respects. The Nazis did not for instance imprison, rape and
torture children  as the "liberators" has been doing in Iraq. It
was not the Nazis who started to bomb civilians en masse. German and Japanese
cities were deliberately targeted to cause maximum deaths amongst the civilians,
a favoured tactic of â€˜bomberâ€™ Harris. Their
cities were carpet-bombed and civilians were incinerated and boiled alive, while
their armies were on the retreat. Those bombings served no real military purpose
other than gratuitous acts of violence and terrorism.
Why were the Atomic bombs used against Japan's cities when it was already close
to surrender? It was close to surrendering because the firebombing of Tokyo
had already killed more than the numbers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined;
also Hirohito already sent a message through Stalin to Truman that he wanted
to negotiate surrender. If, the bomb was used to bring the war to an early end,
surely the first one was more than adequate, why the second bomb after three
days, in a war that had already lasted 6 years? Because these are the actions
of inhuman beasts and savages; and these are the people lecturing the world
about terrorism. However, I do agree with many of the Americans who claimed
the bombs ended the war early and saved lives, because the back-up plan was
the mass-production of chemical weapons to be used against Japanese cities that
envisaged killing as many as 5 million people. So, you see, the most violent
people on earth are lecturing the Muslims, and it would take the action of millions
of Islamic "terrorists" to attempt to equal their horrific record.
Now Blair wants to crack down on anyone glorifying or justifying ˜terrorism"
But who will crack down on those who justify, glorify and actually practice
terrorism, State Terrorism? If ˜terrorism" is the problem then why
not define it, and more importantly apply the definition consistently. Obviously
neither the US nor the British government can define it, as they will themselves
be incriminated by those definitions. They are too embarrassed to say what those
terms really mean: Terrorism is retaliatory strikes against the US and UK aggression;
incitement to hateâ€ is expressing political opposition to
the Anglo-US war crimes; incitement to violence is calling for armed resistance
to US-UK aggression.
Not surprising, Blair is off to join the Carlyle group after he leaves the
post of Prime Minister and he has been rewarded handsomely for generating the
business of war. Naturally, he joins the war industry as the Carlyle group has
very strong links to the White House and defence industry. Blair, you will be
drinking the blood of the Iraqi children and consuming the flesh of their parents,
I wonder even Hell can accept or accommodate people like you.
Another glaring hypocrisy missed by many is the issue of women's rights. Post
9/11 and 7/11, majority or significant proportion of the attacks were directed
against Muslim women in the US and the UK. They are easily identified by their
Islamic clothing of Khimar (Head Scarf) and Jilbab (long loose dress). After,
lecturing about how sacred women's rights are in the West and especially how
oppressed Muslim women are, the society did not even think twice to attack the
so-called "oppressed" One would have expected these flag bearers of
womens rights, to show at least some level of remorse for attacking Muslim women,
after the event. All those infamous and anti-Islamic newspaper columnists, journalists
and politicians found their tongues and brain cells paralysed, suffering from
a disease called hypocritus!
You see, the acid test works, hypocrites and liars cannot hide, as sooner or
later they will be exposed by their own deeds.
Whilst Bush and Blair try to legislate against people thinking, disagreeing
and resisting; they are dependent on the masses not seeing past their spin.
Sooner or later people will ask about their inconsistencies, their hypocrisy
and their lies, and they will have a great fall, when that happens, all of the
presidents men wont be able to put Grumpy and Lumpy back together again!