'I Can't Feel For You Because You're An Unbeliever'
By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters
A Muslim terrorist on trial for the brutal murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands gave the world a glimpse of the reasons that Islamists have gone to war against the West for more than a decade. Mohammed Bouyeri, who almost decapitated Van Gogh before using his body as a pincushion to display Bouyeri's manifesto, told the victim's mother that killing her son meant nothing to him because Van Gogh wasn't a Muslim:
<<<
Turning his chair towards Anneke van Gogh as she watched from the public gallery, Mohammed Bouyeri said: “I don’t feel your pain. I don’t have any sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you’re a non-believer.”
The Islamic radical admitted killing Mr van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, saying that he had been driven by his religious beliefs and would do the same again.
Bouyeri, the son of Moroccan immigrants to the Netherlands, is accused of shooting and stabbing Mr van Gogh to death in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam last November, before nearly decapitating him and impaling his corpse with a knife, which secured a five-page note declaring a holy war.
>>>
After initially insisting on remaining silent, the terrorist decided to use the trial as a stage for his Islamist beliefs. Grasing the Qu'ran in one hand and dressed in traditional robes, Bouyeri proclaimed that he had killed Van Gogh strictly for existing. In fact, he made sure that the Dutch court understood that he wanted to do more killing, and if released would commit more crimes:
When people on the Left attempt to argue that we need to understand the Islamist impulse to blunt their anger, they fail to comprehend that anger isn't the problem. Islamists hate non-Islamists, even those Muslims who don't measure up to their standards of belief. Infidels have two choices in their view: to submit to Islamists and become dhimmis, or to die.
Van Gogh, with his documentary work exposing spousal abuse among Islamists, obviously chose against dhimmitude, and Bouyeri made sure he paid for it.
People like Bouyeri do not need excuses in order to kill, however. Bouyeri might find a momentary provocation that rationalizes his hatred and violence, but that hardly means that their actions can be described as rational reactions. Van Gogh's film might provide the kind of motive that make Leftists feel secure in assigning to his murder; after all, they say, if we refrain from talking about the oppressive nature of Islamist culture, we can avoid becoming its victim.
The exact same rationalization occurs when the Left talks about opposing terrorism in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. They fret that fighting back against the Islamists create more terrorists, and that if we just left them alone, their vile cult would simply cease to exist, as they would have no provocation to kill. But that really isn't the price for survival, as the Islamists have demonstrated for a dozen years or more. They will not quit killing infidels until the nonbelievers accept Islamist supremacy, at first in the Middle East and eventually across the globe.
The Left argues for dhimmitude. They want to make nice with the lunatics who would kill us with as much feeling as Bouyeri had for the grieving mother of his victim in court. They excuse and rationalize the Islamists' behavior while blaming the West for somehow provoking them to anger through defending liberty and religious freedom. They rally to demand a surrender to people like Bouyeri, hoping that the Bouyeris of the world will kill someone else other than them first.
In the end, the Left has no more feeling toward Van Gogh and his right to freedom of speech than does Bouyeri towards Van Gogh's mother. They have just as little regard for those Western nations which protect those rights and want to ensure that others have them as well. They've already accepted their dhimmitude.
captainsquartersblog.com
timesonline.co.uk |
