Five Steps to End our Interactions with Barbarians

AP Cairo, Egpyt

It could be argued that yesterday’s attack on a U.S. embassy were not simply a reaction to  a Dutch video criticizing Islam’s prophet, but an Islamic celebration of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.  Obviously, Islam is not a religion that promotes critical thinking, so it’s easy to see why they may have confused Americans for the Dutch.  But I think they attacked our embassy with willful intentions to mark the day.  And didn’t we once consider an attack on an embassy an act of war?  Outrage has been replaced with complacence.

Anybody with a brain will agree that we should cease any interactions with Islamic countries unless we are actively engaging them in battle to eradicate them.  This sounds harsh, but they are clearly not countries that respect tolerance or value critical thinking, and we cannot coexist.  On numerous occasions, the Islamic religion has made clear that they seek world dominance.  For example, Siraj Wahhaj, the Grand Imam chosen for the cancelled Jumah at the DNC, was quoted as saying, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”  It’s fun to think that these are the kind of people our liberal progressives tout as “moderate”.

When “The Da Vinci Code” was released, some Christians and Catholics found it offensive.  I personally didn’t since it was a work of fiction — but did we see Christians storming embassies?  Chopping off the heads of heathens?  Nope.  They’re not barbarians.

The U.S. should cease all foreign aid and otherwise peaceful interactions with Islamic countries.  Here’s how we should go about it:

Cease All Islamic Foreign Aid Immediately

This can occur immediately.  It’s not that difficult.  The U.N. and other countries involved can do whatever they like with their own money, but as a nation we must agree that we can no longer continue to fund evil in the world.

When the U.S. stops giving bread and money, the Islamists will only heighten their vitriol and their attacks.  They will threaten to continue murdering our ambassadors and will possibly threaten any oil business relations we may have with them.

Which leads me to my next two points.

Close All Embassies Immediately

Closing our embassies in Islamic countries will strike fear into these nations, simply because it will appear as though we’re preparing to attack.  Let them think this.  It will only heighten the amount of violence they perpetrate against each other, since they have minimal methods/means of attacking us directly.

Plus we’ll have the added benefit of removing our ambassadors from dangerous countries that don’t even want us their in the first place.  It’s a win/win, both for our level-headed citizens and our liberal buddies who think Islamic countries would be better off without us.  That’s fine.  Let’s experiment with that idea.

End All Business with Islamic Countries

Without the oil trade, they are nothing.  We do lots of business with Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and maybe we should increase our business with them.  Maybe if we do more business with Mexico, their economy will improve and we won’t see so many illegal immigrants flooding our southern border.  Another win/win situation!  Plus, liberals can start dumping their excess money into clean energy and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.  You know they’ll love that.

If we find we don’t have enough crude oil to support our use, then it’s time to increase off-shore drilling and open up the reserves in Alaska.  At least until we can find something more efficient and more effective than crude oil.

Blacklist Immigrants and Visitors from Islamic Countries

This one speaks for itself.  We should not be allowing citizens of enemy countries across our borders.  Period.  Do I even need to go into detail?

One question that may arise:  What to do about the Islamic citizens already in the states?  Nothing, but make it clear that violence will not be tolerated, and Islam will no longer garner preferential treatment for any reason.  “Hate crimes” are ridiculous, but since they’re in place we may as well use them against any Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of their religion.

Declare War on Countries that Attack Us

No longer should we care about “militant groups” or “extremists”.  Any attacks on U.S. citizens in Islamic countries should be considered an act of war, regardless of who committed it, and the country should be conquered.

This may sound extreme, but why should we worry so much about declaring war against these countries when they have already (if unofficially) declared war on us?  We should no longer act as world police, but we should also no longer tolerate attacks against us.  No more Iraq Wars or Afghanistan Wars, no more half-assed occupations.  We go in, we kill, we conquer, and we leave them in ruins.  Period.

“Islamophobia” is alive and real, but not because we “hate” them, but because we hate their actions and their 13th century politics.  Ours is a nation of strength and critical thinking, and we must start acting like it.


6 thoughts on “Five Steps to End our Interactions with Barbarians

  1. Right. Um, no offence, but I think you’re basically painting us all with the same brush here. I’m a Muslim. I live with a Muslim family. I know a whole bunch of Muslims. And not one of those Muslims have ever ‘celebrated’ 9/11. Why would we? We had nothing to do with it and we don’t approve. (I was two years old at the time. Seriously, how could I be responsible?) Neither do any of us have criminal records. So, we’re aren’t barbarians. Hope that’s cleared up. Now, what else? World domination, you say? I don’t know. Muslims make up about a quarter of the world population. If we were so obsessed with taking over the world, we’d have done it by now. (Lots of them are poor, yes, but that’s some manpower! All those millionaires in Saudi Arabia could deal with the funding.) What’s ironic is how Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan also wanted world domination. Except they are hailed as great commanders and admirable leaders! This is what they call double standards. But enough of that. You were saying something about foreign immigrants. Something about not letting them in because they are from countries that America should be at war with. Well, it’s not really their fault. You see, if America starts bombing a country, Iraq, for example, that country becomes dangerous to live in. Obviously. So the people from these countries, Iraqis, in this example, move to somewhere safe. Like America. The American citizens get annoyed. But if the Americans got out of Iraq, (they don’t need to be there any more anyway, because Bin Laden is out of the way) then the Iraqi immigrants would have somewhere to go back to. Logical, right? Still, you’re entitled to your views. I do have one question though. Can you give me an example of ’13th century politics’? Maybe I can clear that up for you. Thanks.

    • Of course I’m painting you all with the same brush. Muslims do it to non-Muslims all the time, so why should you be surprised when the sentiment is reciprocated? Obviously, I did not suggest all Muslims were at fault for 9/11, but Islam itself is directly responsible.

      I won’t even go into the logistics of what it takes to achieve world domination. Being poor has a lot to do with it, but also failing to break away from 13th century thinking is the main culprit.

      When America starts bombing countries, we shouldn’t let their citizens in even if they want to. Period. Let them find refuge elsewhere. Maybe Russia or China will take them (not likely).

      Here are some examples of 13th century politics for you:

      Muslim father murders three daughters in honor killing; says he would do it again

      U.S. embassy attacked; ambassador and three staff murdered

      Muslim girl stoned to death after taking part in beauty contest

      Two men stoned to death for committing adultery

      Muslim preacher says all homosexuals should be stoned to death

      Muslim women disfigured by acid attacks

      And that’s just a start. After poring over these again, maybe you’re right — this is 13th century politics. More like 2nd or 3rd century.

      You’re young. Hopefully you’ll find your way to a good school, get some good public education (where they teach about the Holocaust), and adopt critical thinking skills in lieu of the lies your barbaric religion asserts.

      • The majority of the examples you have given me are not at all pertaining to Islam. Culture is one thing; Islam is another, and these things are culture, basically.
        Anyway, aren’t you missing some things out? The modern world could do with some of the things that Islam teaches. Obligatory charity, for example. Wouldn’t it be nice if rich people gave 2.5% of their wealth to the poor, every year? Would the void between the rich and the poor be so big if this was implemented across the globe? Of course, this would be brilliant. Did people think like this in the “2nd or 3rd century”. If so, I have to applaud them.
        As for the rest of your views on Islam, three words, mate: Read. The. Quran. Many people look at the behaviour of so-called Muslims, rather than Islam itself. A lot of terrorists do suicide bombings and so on for “religious purposes”. What people don’t realize is that murder and suicide are both forbidden in Islam.
        Lastly, just so you know, I don’t go to school. I hope that this does not show in any lack of spelling or general grammar, or any general ignorance on my part on the world’s state of affairs. I am taught at home. I am taking my Math GCSE’s next year. I am taking most of my GCSE’s the following year. Therefore, sadly, I doubt that I will “find my way to a good school, get a good public education ect” (though I have learnt about the Holocaust already). Though I am bitterly disappointed, I will do my best to get over it. Thanks anyway for the advice.

      • Am I speaking to the same person who originally commented?

        “Obligatory charity”? Are you kidding me? Let’s call it for what it really is: Theft. I’m against “obligatory charity” under any means for any reason applied to anybody at any time because it’s THEFT. You cannot force somebody to give away their money and call it “charity”. Charity is giving out of the goodness of your heart, and anything else is simply coercion.

        “Obligatory charity” is already in effect anyway. It’s called taxes. If you don’t go all suicide-bomber by the time you’re 18, you too will have to pay them. When the government is taking 30% of your earnings, you may think twice about “obligatory charity”.

        And yes, governments have attempted this in the past many times. It’s one of the many reasons America broke off from England — taxation without representation and all that.

        What makes you think I haven’t read the Quran? Just because a book condemns murder doesn’t mean they won’t murder. I don’t give a damn if it comes down to religion or culture — regardless, innocent people are dying and while they’re getting shot/bombed/maimed/obliterated, they’re supposed to worry about their murderers’ feelings.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s