Thursday, July 14, 2005

"I can’t feel for you because I think you’re a non-believer.”

Mohammed Bouyeri begins his trial today by telling the mother of Theo van Gogh, "“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.


He went on to say that he killed van Gogh strictly for existing and made sure that the court knew that he wished to do more killing and would if they let him out.

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.


I think that Captain Ed pretty much said what there is to say, as I said before, it amazes me the lefts ability to completely miss the point and to hold on to the belief that if we just give them everything they want and smile and act nice everyone will get along and they will stay in their countries and not try and kill us. People like Boureyi prove this to be a false hope.