Muslims Attack Indian Schoolchildren in India for Singing Indian National Anthem
More peace from the Religion of Peace (tm).
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/17/children-attacked-for-singing-vande-mataram-in-akhilesh-ruled-uttar-pradesh-119924.html
The singing of Vande Mataram by school children has made hate mongers in Uttar Pradesh very unhappy. So unhappy in fact that they have now taken to attacking unarmed and helpless children with sharp weapons.
Well sure, wouldn't anyone? Oh no, wait, that's evil. At least it would be evil if it were people attacking American children for singing the US National Anthem. Do Indians have the same rights in their own country as Americans do in theirs? Normally I'd say "yes," but maybe that would be politically incorrect. Or are the Muslims here politically-incorrect for (literally, in all sense of the phrase) attacking little brown people?
I can't figure this out on political correctness grounds. Maybe we should just go with good-evil instead, under which physically-attacking children with deadly weapons for the sin of expressing love for their own country would normally be considered extremely evil.
All kidding aside, this incident is characteristic of Islamists in several ways. It shows that
(1) - Islamists hate non-Muslim children. Little kids don't get a pass for being children: if they are non-Muslim, they are fair game. Those of you who are thinking that we should be tolerant of the Islamists should keep in mind: this could easily be your children the next time something like this happens.
In fact, islamists seem to preferentially go after children. This is because if one kills, cripples or terrorizes a child, one is eliminating or reducing the contribution that child could make for the rest of his life, including genetic contribution. Note the Beslan massacre in 2004 and the Ma'alot massacre of 1974, as especially egregious examples of a common Muslim practice.
This is very common behavior in the animal kingdom -- killing the children of a rival. Higher human groups try to avoid this sort of thing, but the Islamists are of course culturally one of the lowest and most animalistic, and their purported religious motives in many cases seem to be excuses for the gratification of bestial passions.
(2) - Islamism is transnational and anti-patriotic. Note that the creatures who attacked the Indian schoolchildren were themselves Indian (technically-speaking): this did not change their hatred of their own country. Their loyalty is to a transnational Islam, not to the country in which they happen to have been born.
This applies to First World countries too. Australia has recently run into this attitude when Muslims there complained about being questioned and asked to inform on their "own community" about terrorist plots, meaning that these Muslims felt that any loyalty to Australia or concern for the well-being of innocent Australians was purely secondary to loyalty to the umma (Muslim community). Numerous European countries have huge blocs of immigrants who do not consider themselves in any way loyal to the countries whose citizens in their view should act alternately as cash cows and punching bags (and they'll riot if anyone dares resist either role).
This problem is not purely Islamist, it is generally Muslim. Imagine if all Roman Catholics, all over the world, were politically-loyal to the Pope over their own countries. This is precisely the situation in Islam, save that there is no "Pope" -- the entity to which all Muslims are theoretically loyal is an ill-defined umma which may be embodied in whichever lunatic to whom a Muslim is currently taking seriously. This is a problem not only for Muslims in non-Muslims countries (though it's worse there because loyalty to non-Muslims is outright forbidden in shari'a law) but also for Muslims in Muslim countries (because since there is currently no Caliph, there is currently in theory no legitimate political authority anywhere). This is why Islam, everywhere, is attended by tremendous random political violence.
(3) - Islamists can't be appeased. India, certainly, has done more to appease Islamists than any country in the world aside from Israel. Yet, aside from America, India and Israel are the main targets of the Islamists.
Islamists can't be appeased, so they must be fought unto death, until the remaining Muslims are too terrified of the consequences to attempt Islamist actions.
India was founded to be an Indian homeland. If Indians are not safe being Hindus and expressing loyalty to their own nation and culture in India, they are safe nowhere. India needs to stop wasting its time, and risking the lives of its honest and loyal citizens, trying to appease the Muslims, and needs to start cracking down on the Islamist scum.
And if the bulk of the Muslim community rises, let that rising be crushed. Bloodily, and with contempt for Muslim sentiments in the matter.
After all, India: they want to kill your children.
I can't think of any better motive for fighting back. Can you?
http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/17/children-attacked-for-singing-vande-mataram-in-akhilesh-ruled-uttar-pradesh-119924.html
The singing of Vande Mataram by school children has made hate mongers in Uttar Pradesh very unhappy. So unhappy in fact that they have now taken to attacking unarmed and helpless children with sharp weapons.
Well sure, wouldn't anyone? Oh no, wait, that's evil. At least it would be evil if it were people attacking American children for singing the US National Anthem. Do Indians have the same rights in their own country as Americans do in theirs? Normally I'd say "yes," but maybe that would be politically incorrect. Or are the Muslims here politically-incorrect for (literally, in all sense of the phrase) attacking little brown people?
I can't figure this out on political correctness grounds. Maybe we should just go with good-evil instead, under which physically-attacking children with deadly weapons for the sin of expressing love for their own country would normally be considered extremely evil.
All kidding aside, this incident is characteristic of Islamists in several ways. It shows that
(1) - Islamists hate non-Muslim children. Little kids don't get a pass for being children: if they are non-Muslim, they are fair game. Those of you who are thinking that we should be tolerant of the Islamists should keep in mind: this could easily be your children the next time something like this happens.
In fact, islamists seem to preferentially go after children. This is because if one kills, cripples or terrorizes a child, one is eliminating or reducing the contribution that child could make for the rest of his life, including genetic contribution. Note the Beslan massacre in 2004 and the Ma'alot massacre of 1974, as especially egregious examples of a common Muslim practice.
This is very common behavior in the animal kingdom -- killing the children of a rival. Higher human groups try to avoid this sort of thing, but the Islamists are of course culturally one of the lowest and most animalistic, and their purported religious motives in many cases seem to be excuses for the gratification of bestial passions.
(2) - Islamism is transnational and anti-patriotic. Note that the creatures who attacked the Indian schoolchildren were themselves Indian (technically-speaking): this did not change their hatred of their own country. Their loyalty is to a transnational Islam, not to the country in which they happen to have been born.
This applies to First World countries too. Australia has recently run into this attitude when Muslims there complained about being questioned and asked to inform on their "own community" about terrorist plots, meaning that these Muslims felt that any loyalty to Australia or concern for the well-being of innocent Australians was purely secondary to loyalty to the umma (Muslim community). Numerous European countries have huge blocs of immigrants who do not consider themselves in any way loyal to the countries whose citizens in their view should act alternately as cash cows and punching bags (and they'll riot if anyone dares resist either role).
This problem is not purely Islamist, it is generally Muslim. Imagine if all Roman Catholics, all over the world, were politically-loyal to the Pope over their own countries. This is precisely the situation in Islam, save that there is no "Pope" -- the entity to which all Muslims are theoretically loyal is an ill-defined umma which may be embodied in whichever lunatic to whom a Muslim is currently taking seriously. This is a problem not only for Muslims in non-Muslims countries (though it's worse there because loyalty to non-Muslims is outright forbidden in shari'a law) but also for Muslims in Muslim countries (because since there is currently no Caliph, there is currently in theory no legitimate political authority anywhere). This is why Islam, everywhere, is attended by tremendous random political violence.
(3) - Islamists can't be appeased. India, certainly, has done more to appease Islamists than any country in the world aside from Israel. Yet, aside from America, India and Israel are the main targets of the Islamists.
Islamists can't be appeased, so they must be fought unto death, until the remaining Muslims are too terrified of the consequences to attempt Islamist actions.
India was founded to be an Indian homeland. If Indians are not safe being Hindus and expressing loyalty to their own nation and culture in India, they are safe nowhere. India needs to stop wasting its time, and risking the lives of its honest and loyal citizens, trying to appease the Muslims, and needs to start cracking down on the Islamist scum.
And if the bulk of the Muslim community rises, let that rising be crushed. Bloodily, and with contempt for Muslim sentiments in the matter.
After all, India: they want to kill your children.
I can't think of any better motive for fighting back. Can you?