Politics

https://www.facebook.com/share/1HKDhKw3m2/

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐊𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬.

One sentence appears so often in online debates that it has become a slogan:

"Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but almost every terrorist is Muslim."

The purpose of the statement is obvious. It invites the reader to conclude that terrorism is uniquely or overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon, and from there to associate two billion people with the crimes of a tiny minority.

The argument sounds persuasive because it is accompanied by a long list of attacks: 9/11, Paris, London, Madrid, Bali, Nice, Boston, Charlie Hebdo, the USS Cole, and dozens of others. Every attack listed was real. Every victim deserves remembrance. Every perpetrator deserves condemnation.

But there is something more important than the list itself.

It is what the list leaves out.

History can be manipulated without inventing a single fact. One simply selects one category of violence, ignores all the others, and presents the result as if it represents reality.

Suppose we applied exactly the same method elsewhere.

Instead of listing attacks by Muslim extremists, imagine listing only the largest acts of organized violence committed by states over the last two centuries.

The First World War.

The Second World War.

The Holocaust.

The atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

The Belgian atrocities in the Congo.

The genocide of Indigenous peoples throughout North America.

The destruction of Indigenous civilizations across South America.

The colonization of Australia and the near destruction of its Aboriginal peoples.

The Bengal Famine.

French repression in Algeria.

Italian campaigns in Libya and Ethiopia.

The Vietnam War.

Cambodia.

Laos.

Afghanistan.

Iraq.

Libya.

The countless coups, disappearances, torture centres, and death squads that scarred Latin America during the Cold War.

Apartheid South Africa.

The Atlantic slave trade.

European colonial expansion across Africa and Asia.

The list would continue for pages.

The death toll would not be measured in thousands.

It would be measured in hundreds of millions.

Would anyone then conclude that Christianity is inherently violent? Or that democracy is inherently genocidal? Or that Europeans are uniquely murderous?

Of course not.

Because we instinctively understand that civilizations cannot be judged solely by the crimes committed by some of their members.

Curiously, that principle disappears when the subject becomes Muslims.

The greatest killers in modern history have not been terrorist organizations.

They have been governments.

Governments possess armies.

Governments possess air forces.

Governments possess navies.

Governments possess intelligence agencies.

Governments possess nuclear weapons.

Governments can destroy entire cities in a single night.

The child killed by a missile is no less dead than the child killed by a suicide bomber.

The widow whose husband dies beneath an air strike does not mourn less because the pilot wore a uniform instead of carrying an explosive vest.

The moral difference between terrorism and unlawful state violence certainly exists in law.

The human consequence often does not.

None of this excuses terrorism committed by Muslims.

Every deliberate attack upon civilians is a crime regardless of who commits it.

The point is exactly the opposite.

If we genuinely oppose terrorism because innocent life is sacred, then that principle must remain sacred regardless of who kills the innocent.

A suicide bomb cannot become evil while a missile striking civilians becomes acceptable merely because one carries the flag of a recognized state.

Nor should the religion of a criminal become evidence against billions who share nothing with him except a label.

The selective use of violence has become one of the most effective propaganda tools of our age.

When violence is committed by Muslims, it becomes evidence about Islam.

When violence is committed by governments, it becomes geopolitics.

When violence is committed by allies, it becomes security.

When violence is committed by enemies, it becomes barbarism.

The standard changes.

The victims do not.

Justice cannot survive selective memory.

If we are going to count the victims of terrorism, we must also count the victims of invasion, occupation, colonialism, famine imposed by policy, strategic bombing, sanctions that devastate civilians, and every other form of organized violence.

Otherwise we are not defending truth.

We are defending a narrative.

History deserves better.

And so do its victims.

WhatsApp

Feminists manipulate society solely for their own benefit. UN Women constantly claims that patriarchy rules women, even though in all democratic countries around the world, women have an advantage in political elections, making up over 50% of the adult population.
Moreover, as mentioned in the article, men lag behind women in many areas without support and action to address these disadvantages.
From a practical perspective, feminists always pursue what brings them power, money, and status, but their selective equality never translates into equal treatment for all victims, the same responsibility for women as men in defending their homeland, equal rights for parents to care for their children, and so on.
The very fact that the UN has only one body representing women exclusively, such as UN Women, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars annually, confirms that women rule the world, not men. Feminists want women to automatically receive at least 50% of political power, despite democratic elections, and they want women to automatically receive 50% of parliamentary seats and government positions. This will lead to the creation of a system of feminist authoritarian power, escaping any control, as voters will be deprived of real control over power in favor of authoritarian quotas.
We should firmly oppose this, because, as we know, feminists will then have even more power to destroy men without restraint than they do now.
"Scarcely a day passes that UN Women fails to issue a report, speech, or social media post that decries the existence of “patriarchy.” But exactly what is patriarchy, and is it little more than feminist myth-making?
The origins of patriarchy theory can be traced to Kate Millett’s 1970 book, Sexual Politics, which defines patriarchy as “the institution whereby that half of the populace which is female is controlled by that half which is male.”
Feminists often counter by noting that women hold only about one-fourth of national political offices worldwide. However, extensive research documents a persistent ambition gap. In It Takes More Than a Candidate, Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox show that men are twice as likely as women to have “seriously considered” running for office (13)."

more @ https://endtodv.org/pr/patriarchy-is-a-harmful-feminist-fantasy/

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da304Q1MA0g/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
So simple yet it had to be explained

Today in London…
🇮🇷 🫶🏻

https://youtu.be/gr_SOeBrCc4?si=TEwT7k2YqTqgVnLy

It is a shock and a shame on 2 billion Muslims to witness this what Our Sistar Aafia Siddiqui has been put threw. O Allah destroy the weak leaders of the Ummah who can’t bring Our strength together to stop Our oppressors Amin 🤲🏾

https://x.com/i/status/2078331682420351388

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rmjk0740o

Does this defend or go against claims of Messi being a Zionist? I do wonder. Hmmm...let me ask Harry Kane. One sec...

Any words for them?