follow curious2 following
follow curious2 2016 Jul 26, 5:41pm
3,827 views 15 comments
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
More from Islam Watch:
"Churchill wrote: "Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness."
Churchill noted the threat of Wahhabism on June 14, 1921 at the House of Commons..."A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars.
The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina."
Churchill had no fear of the truth.
Not the only thing Churchill got right...
LAND MONOPOLY is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.
Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position -- land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.
Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.
They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.
But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture -- a Van Dyke or a Holbein -- may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.
I can't copy and paste all that text from my monile. There's the link
General Patton's opinion of Islam was very similar to Churchill's:
"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing."
Within this territory, there was Jews, Christians (Nestorian as well, not just Orthodox as in Byzantine), Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians.In other words, there was a version of the United States of America, but thousands of years ago where ppl of differing backgrounds could try to live in peace.All it took was for Islam to show up and destroy what was left of civilization and as a result, we have the middle east of today.
It was always easy in the old days for the more violent savage to conquer and slaughter a peaceful opponent. Those who survived were forced to join Islam, and become a violent savage themselves.
Today, the map you present are inhabited by dangerous and violent Islamic wackos. We don't want this sick cult to spread, nor do we want to be their victims. We have no choice but to contain this disease with any means possible.
All this reminds me of some Star Trek episodes where we go to distant planets and come face to face with primitive people. The situation we face with Islam is the same, that of.....Spacemen vs Cavemen. We could wipe out every one of these barbarians in one day, but choose not to because a more civilized approach is to civilize them.
If the barbarians develop warp drive then it's essential to nuke 'em at once.
Let's all make sure we believe in some imaginary God, what could go wrong?
All it took was for Islam to show up and destroy what was left of civilization and as a result, we have the middle east of today.Arabs do not bring peace, all they bring is turmoil and strife.
Rin saysAll it took was for Islam to show up and destroy what was left of civilization and as a result, we have the middle east of today.Arabs do not bring peace, all they bring is turmoil and strife.From what I read, the Persians and the Byzantines were so busy fighting each other and taxing their people to death to fund it, that when the Arabs shows up promising a lower tax rate, the masses went for it and the Persian empire was too weakened to fight.Most of the Greek-speaking areas were also assimilated into Islam: Turkey, the Levant, Egypt.