If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.
…
Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.
Anwar al-Awlaki
From May Our Souls be Sacrificed for You in the July 11, 2010 issue of Inspire via Fanning the Flames of Jihad
[Someone doesn’t understand the concept of rights or freedom. Trying to explain them with ordinary words doesn’t seem to work very well. If someone attempts to exercise their “rights” in the manner suggested above I suggest you have bullets for back up of your words.—Joe]
He would have been more honest if he had said “…then I have the right to look for deluded young fools to send at you to get killed, while I sit in my comfortable home far away and smile at the carnage I created.”
Good riddance. My only regret is that these congenital liars don’t get buried on pig farms as they should be.
You Muslims do have the right to defend your counterfeit god all you want, as we do the One True God, and His Son. But when you descend to murder, and especially barbaric forms thereof, in revenge of said pedophile god, we have the right to defend ourselves to the death, and your bodies should be taken to the nearest hog farm, and fed to the hogs. And in America, we can do that, because we, too, are armed.
It comes back to the self-defense concept of “reasonableness”.
If/when someone attacks the Muslim “god” with words, Muslims have every right to defend their “god” … with words.
If they choose instead to take the unreasonable action and escalate to physical violence, they should not be surprised when the perfectly reasonable counter-response is also violence. You get what you give.
And if they choose to go past words, then eventually the West will get tired of it, and realize that General Sir Charles James Napier was right, and go with that solution.
And when al-Awlaki got iced by a drone strike from the Resident in Chief, I commented that while I highly disliked the precedent set by Obumbles, it was really hard to think of a more deserving asshole to be the recipient of such.
While there are apparently decent muslims out there, the issue is that this violent religion commands them to enslave or kill me. There can be no compromise or accommodation.
So, I will “slander” their prophet to my hearts content by telling the truth about him and his Satanic religion and I’ll back it up with firepower because they have already decided to murder me.
Who ever said anything about Muhammad? If the jihadists weren’t out causing trouble at every turn, no one would be thinking about them, much less slandering them. All that most Americans, or Westerners, know about them comes through their anger, violence, and oppression.
If they have a beef with Woodrow Wilson or the Brits or the League of Nations over something that happened 100 years ago, then let’s hear it, but that certainly has nothing to do with their stupid prophet or about the things anyone is saying about him. So they got screwed over by Progressives? Well, welcome to the club, Suckers. We’ve all been screwed over by Progressives.
Let’s hear just one little bit of a coherent argument for once. All I’ve ever heard is, “Infidel! We keel you!” or “Zionist! We keel you!” Well that doesn’t fly. It holds no water, as we say. It makes no sense. It’s the worst possible form of public relations. If you should succeed in convincing the Western world that all you want to do is destroy it, well, we’ll have to destroy you, and I don’t believe it will be terribly difficult once we put our minds to it.
Anyway this of course brings up the old saying;
You may not be interested in war, but war is certainly interested in you.