Skip to comments.Tortured at the asylum center in Norway
Posted on 08/27/2011 7:05:05 AM PDT by bayouranger
At Hå asylmum centre, "Ali" had boiling water poured over him after converting to Christianity and not fasting during Ramadan. Now he and other converts fear for their lives.
"If you do not return to Islam, we kill you," was the message "Ali" got from other Muslims at the Hå asylum centre. He does not wish to have his face or real name published, out of fear of the Muslims at the centre. If Afghan authorities come to know about his conversion, he risks the death penalty by stoning if he is sent back to his home country.
(Excerpt) Read more at dagen.no ...
Happy ramadan, you filthy koranimals.
“Two of the Muslim residents asked why I didn’t fast on Ramadan. When I didn’t want to answer they started discussing. One said that he knew I had been Muslim and converted to Christianity, and that they had to do Jihad.”
Better link here:
Islam is an insane murder cult, ever since Mad Mo crawled out of the bat cave and barked at the moon.
The Norwegians are also rolling over for the muslims, which is also insane. The recent bombing and murder there by a right-wing fanatic shows how some there are getting PO’d about the liberal sentiments and cow-towing that is being done by the Norwegian government. I was rather shocked at how much a welfare state for every foreigner crying “Oppression and Starvation” Norway has become. The fraud is rampant, and (Like here) people are getting very tired of being taken advantage of...
In hindsight Brievik doesn’t seem quite as crazy as he was portrayed at the time.
Let’s see...you threaten my life and my reactions is:
a) cower in fear and hide,
b) send my own message by taking out the threat?
Norway is infested with with jihadis committing violence upon kafir at will, invited in by the political elite, and on the dole courtesy of Norwegian tax payers ... and they said Breivik is crazy!
Crazy for thinking that would help his cause, when what it has done ---predicatably, inevitably ---is drive Norwegians away from the anti-jihad movement in justified disgust for another generation.
But was Breivik really anti-jihad himself? That seems to be the only element of Islamic culture he thought was worth emulating.
Those weren’t just any teenagers... that was the modern equivalent of a Hitler Youth leadership training camp.
Eternal damnation is upon the heads of those who commit such crimes. And shame on those who offer one equivocating syllable of justification for this moral imbecility.
Are you aware what these teens were doing the day before?
You know you are in a wicked, evil religion, when....
You know there is something wrong with your your religion when...
And now tell me more: was it a capital offense? Justifying the death penalty for each and every one of those kids with no positive identification, no formal charges, no presentation of evidence, no cross-examination of witnesses, no substantive or procedural due process, no judge, no jury, and one widely-grinning self-appointed executioner?
It is not the black-and-white attack upon innocents that you seem to have in mind. It was a calculated act of resistance to total demographic warfare that has long been perpetrated by Communists upon the Norweigian people.
No such motives --- not a syllable of this --- could justify the murder of those kids. It is a massacre of unarmed noncombatants and nothing more.
There is a widespread idea that practically pervades our post-Christian, post-Western-Civilization society, Right and Left: the idea that there is no act in the world that can be called inherently and intrinsically evil, but any act can be called just if by it you intend to gain a great enough good. This moral theory is called "Consequentialism." It's a rejection of the whole heritage of the Christian West which Breivik claimed to defend, a wholesale negation fof both Faith and Reason, Grace and Law.
This Consequentialism, this refusal to distinguish between Good and Evil in means as well as in ends, will destroy us --- is destroying us internally --- far more savagely than any external jihad ever could. Its origin is in Hell, and so is its destination.
Succinct and challenging thoughts here.
That is where I will have to disagree with you. These were activated and engaged combatants, the pictures of their activities the very day prior prove it.
Very well stated. It comes from utilitarianism—which is intrinsic to Marxist ideology....the end justifies the means.
People need to understand that this philosophy allows for individuals to be killed, tortured, sterilized, anything-—as long as the “outcome” results in a “better” place. All power corrupts and it is inevitable that the results of any Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler-—will always result in the same atrocities and complete denial of human rights and dignity for whole classes of people.
People become utilities—they become means—which allows anything to happen to them for “progress” as defined by godless, power hungry people.
Whose better? There is no God—no right or wrong—just “progress” as defined by the one in power.
There is no individualism—no Natural Rights—no Absolutes or Objective Truth. It is hell.
They were her, your, and our political opponents (junior division.) They were being taught a bunch of crap about Israel.
The adolescent child and ideological heir of a bitter opponents is not a terrorist. They have as yet only thought bad things, been taught bad things --- and we don't gun people down for that. Not one of them, to my knowledge, had murdered somebody in cold blood for political effect. That's what Breivik did, and it's why he, and not they, can be accurately described as terrorist.
They were advocating for the causes of Islamic murderers. Why else would Norweigians be involved in anti-Israel rallies? Do you need to see a picture (they are available)?
I also read that when Breivik started shooting down the campers, some of them for a few moments thought it was a skit, a piece of make-believe intended to dramatize how the Israelis shoot down unarmed Palestinian civilians. Wrong-o.
So: (1) First these kids are made the victims of lying propaganda
(2) Then comes Breivik, who actually takes the anti-Zionist lies and transforms them into reality. The word made flesh! He literally does shoot down unarmed civilians.
Got that? First their own Norwegian Labour leaders, their parents, the media, the schools, lie to the kids, slander Israel and its supporters; then Breivik turns it 'true' after all, by killing them.
Their parents, the Labourites, victimized them by falsehood; Breivik did far worse and victimized them by murder. So they are twice victimized.
And then a third thing: now even more Norwegians are convinced that the lies are true: that the Muslims are innocent victims and the anti-jihad movement is run by either psychotics or criminals and probably both.
As Talleyrand would say, it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.
Breivik cut the legs out from under his own movement, which has now been smeared with the blood of beardless boys and bluejeaned girls and set back for a generation.
Repulsively evil and useless to boot: it certainly illustrates the maxim, "Sin makes you stupid."
“The recent bombing and murder there by a right-wing fanatic....”
The guy was all over the charts, and was probably least of all, “right wing”.
IMO the fault lies squarely on the parents for training their kids to be soldiers and traitors. They created the circumstances that made the ideal method of striking back at them through their kids. It is illegal in Norway - guilty until proven innocent - to even protest the rapid Islamization of their country. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” In light of the circumstances acts such as these are acts of resistance against tyranny, ugly and unfortunate as they are.
Whether it is a blunder remains to be seen. The widespread reporting of the incident and dissemination of the “manifesto” gave his ideas more publicity than any other method could have - remember, he would have been tried and convicted of hate crimes had he attempted to spread his ideas peacefully. Certainly violence has worked extremely well for Islam in spreading their ideas and influence into the West.
Doesn’t matter so much what he is, but how he is being portrayed. In the Norway press, he’s a right-wing fanatic...
“Doesnt matter so much what he is, but how he is being portrayed. In the Norway press, hes a right-wing fanatic...”
Well, it does matter what he is.
After all, why would we expect the international CommunistPress to portray him as anything BUT a “crazed right winger”?
How else to further their ongoing agenda?
See the gross historical mischaracterization of Nazi Germany, as a bunch of foaming at the mouth, hate-filled RIGHT wingers.
I think we agree about the Norwegian Left ideologically poisoning these kids. But it is not correct to say that the campers' parents were guilty of "training their kids to be soldiers". Quite the contrary: they disarmed them both mentally and literally. I doubt there were any weapons on the whole damn island. Breivik chose it for his crime spree in part because Norwegian Leftists' kids are intellectually and physically defenseless.
Geert Wilders has shown that the best response to PC /multiculti tyranny is disobedience. If it's illegal to write or speak against Islamization, do a camapign of speaking and writing. If conversion from Islam to Christianity is "apostasy" and inspires death-threats, then be sure to get baptized by the Pope
And receive Communion at an Easter Vigil ceremony that's broadcast live on six continents.
You noted that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. That's true. But it's not yet impossible to make peaceful revolution. I repeat: Wilders won. Steyn won. Magdi Allam and Pope B16 won a round, too. I hope I can always say "I'm with them", win or lose --- but I wouldn't waste one whispy breath "understanding" or "contextualizing" a defective loser like Breivik.
BTW, nice talking with you, icanhasbailout. This was a worthwhile discussion.
I have enjoyed our conversation as well, thank you too.
I remain of the opinion that violence can’t be taken off the table. I point to Tibet as an example - totally nonviolent, and it did absolutely nothing for them. Their culture and people have been systematically eradicated and replaced by a foreign culture and people. Somewhere between here and there, a people has a right to violently oppose a program intended to eradicate them. But I can respect your point of view and do agree that peaceful means, where they exist, should be the first choice method of resistance.
To clear up one point, I was not arguing that "all violence" should be taken off the table. That would be pacifism, which is not a sound position in my view. I support the well-defined use of force in a just war against aggressors. The poinbt would be to destroy the enemy's military assets to the point where they are forced to stop aggressing.
The argument I've been making, is that it is essential to focus on military targets, and wrong to kill unarmed noncombatants.
Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.
Let's say you were faced with an enemy who has declared existential war against you, and had pursued that war to the limit of its ability. The enemy's stated ultimate goal is to exterminate you - he believes he has divine right to pursue this course and will not be swayed from it at any time under any circumstances. This enemy also believes that any means are justified if it leads to furtherance of this goal.
What course of action is necessary to survive when faced with such an enemy?
So it's impossible to talk about "civilian immunity" --- I recognize that. But you still have to focus on their military assets. You have to draw a line against simply carrying out civilian massacres, and at the same time use lethal force to stop them from training, arming, transporting, and deploying their thugs.
Anytime you draw a line, there are always going to be borderline cases where, despite the ambiguity about "are these combatants or what?", you've got to strike. I know that.
But anytime you draw a line, there are also cases which fall far to one side, or far to another. (In other wors, very often you CAN distinguish between a military assets and a middle school.) The big error would be failing to draw a line at all: going into intentionally indiscrimiante killing. That --- directly intended, premeditated indiscriminate killing with malice aforethought --- is not an act of war. It's murder. It's what jihadis do.
Here'a another FR thread --- provocatively titled "Why is it so hard to find a suicide bomber these days?" (Link) --- whcih , among other things, suggests that we actually HAVE made progress over the last 10 years in making the jihadis much less able to carry out their terror program.
Give it a look-see and, if you have time, let me know what you think.
Lozowick focuses on Israel's military conduct. They have, he says, done a good job of defending their right to exist, using lethal force with supreme skill when necessary, but --- even in extremely difficult circumstances --- not permitting unrestrained acts against Palestinian/ Muslim populations per se.
Gotta go now. G'night!
Why is there an asylum center in Norway?