Joking apart, it looks like the Left really has finally mustered a response to the Mad Mullah of Sydney’s defence of gang rape. Leading off is Aussie Lefty Suzanne Bassette, with a nice attempt at deflection.
Of course, this line of argument doesn’t even stand up on its own merits. People who don’t have 5-lever deadlocks and window locks are more likely to get burgled than people who do, but that doesn’t mean they made the burglars rob them. But even to engage with that argument is to let the Islamopaths off the hook.
Liberals have tried to blur the issue by claiming that the Mad Mullah was talking about immodest dress and the like. Hardly – let’s hear from the alleged man himself:
I’ll take this slow, just in case any Liberals are reading. This guy isn’t analogues to some geriatric judge explaining that women who wear short skirts are ‘asking for it’. He’s not stating that it would be imprudent or dangerous for a woman to dress immodestly, he’s claiming that it’s OK to rape all Infidel women. Come to think of it, things aren’t looking too good for those ‘moderate Muslims’ who Liberals claim are so thick on the ground (not that that doesn’t mean that the choice to wear the veil isn’t entirely voluntary).
All of which neatly debunks the Left’s other angle of attack, namely the claim that Islamopaths are the real victims here. Hey, if members of a death cult believing they have the right to rape non-members doesn’t strike Liberals as being something worth criticising, just what are they waiting for ?
Of course, this line of argument doesn’t even stand up on its own merits. People who don’t have 5-lever deadlocks and window locks are more likely to get burgled than people who do, but that doesn’t mean they made the burglars rob them. But even to engage with that argument is to let the Islamopaths off the hook.
Liberals have tried to blur the issue by claiming that the Mad Mullah was talking about immodest dress and the like. Hardly – let’s hear from the alleged man himself:
If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?That's my emphasis by the way. No room for misquote there – and no generalised references to skimpy clothing either. Women who fail to wear a specifically Islamic piece of regalia deserve to be raped. A woman can –literally – dress like a nun, but she’s still a valid target to an Islamopath.
The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.
If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened.
I’ll take this slow, just in case any Liberals are reading. This guy isn’t analogues to some geriatric judge explaining that women who wear short skirts are ‘asking for it’. He’s not stating that it would be imprudent or dangerous for a woman to dress immodestly, he’s claiming that it’s OK to rape all Infidel women. Come to think of it, things aren’t looking too good for those ‘moderate Muslims’ who Liberals claim are so thick on the ground (not that that doesn’t mean that the choice to wear the veil isn’t entirely voluntary).
All of which neatly debunks the Left’s other angle of attack, namely the claim that Islamopaths are the real victims here. Hey, if members of a death cult believing they have the right to rape non-members doesn’t strike Liberals as being something worth criticising, just what are they waiting for ?
No comments:
Post a Comment