We're referring, of course, to Britain's Prince Charles, the man who is still waiting for his mother to surrender the throne, and allow him to assume the monarchy. In the interim, he keeps making idiotic pronouncements on such topics as architecture, organic farming, international relations, and (most famously) his desire to be a feminine hygiene item for then-mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Given Charles's recently-reported statements on his "fondness" for Islam, it's no wonder that Queen Elizabeth apparently plans to retain the crown until she draws her final breath. The U.K. Telegraph recently outlined the Prince's plans to discuss Islam's "strengths" during a meeting with President Bush later this week. According to the paper, the Prince was concerned about the U.S.'s "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries, and failure to appreciate its strengths. More disturbingly, Prince Charles first voiced these sentiments in November 2001, just two months after the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Apparently, he was concerned that the actions of the 19 hijackers would tarnish the reputations of millions of law-abiding Muslims around the world.
Given his penchant for moronic statements and checkered personal life, it's easy to dismiss Charles as little more than a royal twit, and be thankful that our forefathers incited a revolution back in 1776. But perhaps unknowingly, Charles has also become the poster-boy for European elitism that underscores how that continent's effete snobs get in wrong almost every time. Why those brutish colonials--they can't understand the peaceful nature of Islam! They can't appreciate its underlying culture or rich history. And they propose to solve the problem by declaring war on the entire religion. Tsk, tsk.
Five months after the London transit attacks, it looks like Prince Charles got it wrong. The religion and culture he so admires continues to produce fanatics who willingly kill and main in the name of Allah, despite decades of acceptance and tolerance. In fact, the same attitude Charles champions paved the way for the London attacks, allowing Islamic terrorists to set up shop in Europe, and execute attacks against the very countries that provide refuge and even welfare assistance. Perhaps a little more confrontation and a little less tolerance would have prevented the attacks that killed 50 British commuters back in July.
Besides, even Prince Charles should understand that The War on Terrorism was never a war on Islam--it was a war against against those who perverted their religion to support Islamofacist ideals. By refusing to recognize the pure evil that is Islamofacisim, Charles clings to decades-old European idealism that suggests we can all somehow get along, despite our differences. It was the same type of thinking that advocated appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, and tolerating Soviet communism in the 1970s.
Fortunately for Britain, Churchill rallied the nation against fascism in World War II, and Margaret Thatcher swept away the idea of accommodating the USSR in the 1980s. More recently, Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized the dangers of Islamofacism, and placed his nation squarely on the confrontational course. History will record that Churchill, Thatcher and Blair made the right decisions, while Charles's mutterings will be forgotten after a few news cycles. As a serious observer of the international scene, Charles and his views on Islam are both dangerous and absurd, a reminder of the bad old days when princes and kings actually mattered.
spook86, even the "tampon prince" has his use, just like the feminine hygiene item he wishes to be reincarnated into.
I'm just not sure what his use is, once he gets his head out of Camilla's private parts.
Meanwhile there's a post on LGF where Iranian President Ahmadinejad suggested yesterday that the Tehran stock market's woes (capital flight of 20% in the last four months) can be solved by hanging two or three stock speculators - only a few days after he publicly stated Iran's intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Memo to Euroweenies and the MSM: give that man his nukes. He'll use them for peace.
And there's always al-Queda, the Paleostinians, and Dear Leader Kim.
If it were up to me, I'd egg Kim and Ahmadinejad into using nukes on the following bases: for Kim, that he's nothing more than a dear effeminate p*ssy who runs his country like a mob outfit; and for Ahmadinejad, by reminding him that nuclear fission, and nuclear weapons, were invented mainly by Jewish people - proving, once again, that Islamofascism is nothing more than a parasite that needs the West to do anything at all.
Bring it on...
Post a Comment