Further to my recent post about Bill Clinton’s support for the Mosque de Triomphe, Srdja Trifkovic reminds us that Bill Clinton’s M.O. and Jihad’s M.O. are strikingly similar. Please see original source for internal text links, which were too numerous to reproduce for this excerpt:

Bill Clinton and the Ground Zero Mosque: A Perfect Fit by Srdja Trifkovic (Sep. 23, 2010)

Former President Bill Clinton declared his strong support for the Ground Zero mosque in an interview broadcast on September 12. He also suggested a clever new spin to the promoters of the project. Much or even most of the controversy, he said, “could have been avoided, and perhaps still can be, if the people who want to build the center were to simply say, We are dedicating this center to all the Muslims who were killed on 9/11.” Dedicating the mosque to the Muslim victims, he claims, would show that not all Muslims are terrorists: “We’ve all forgotten: There were a lot of Muslims killed on 9/11.”

First a trivial point: according to the Islamic activist sources, which are certain not to offer an underestimate, the number of Muslims killed on 9-11 in all three locations was 31, or about one percent of the total…Thirty one innocent lives is inherently “a lot,” but it is significantly less than three percent, which Islamic activists routinely claim is the share of their coreligionists in the overall population of the United States…The gap is even more striking if we consider that the Muslim population of the Tri-State Region is at least twice the national average.

The substantive point concerns a key theological consideration regarding Muslim victims of Jihadist attacks, which Bill Clinton decided to omit from his pitch…According to Muhammad, any Muslims killed in the course of indiscriminate attacks on “infidel” settlements are to be viewed strictly as collateral damage:

It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against the infidels that there may chance to be among them a Muslim … because the shooting of arrows and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim … is only a particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted… [I]t seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of Muslims … and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of these Muslims, war would be obstructed. If the infidels in time of battle should make shields of Muslim children, or of Muslims, who are prisoners in their hands, yet there is no need on that account to refrain from the use of missile weapons, for the reason already mentioned … There is also neither fine nor expiation upon the warriors on account of such of their arrows or other missiles as happen to hit the children or the Muslims, because the war is in observance of a divine ordinance, and atonement is not due for anything which may happen in the fulfillment of a divine ordinance, for otherwise men would neglect the fulfillment of the ordinance …

So why did Clinton decide not to mention Muhammad’s significant views on the subject? The answer seems clear: it would have destroyed his claim that dedicating the Ground Zero Mosque to the Muslim victims would “show that not all Muslims are terrorists.” Muhammad’s opinion proves that such dedication would show nothing of the kind: if those 31 victims of 9-11 were true Muslims, they necessarily accepted the Traditions of the Prophet as inviolable and supremely authoritative guidance in their personal lives. As any orthodox qadi may confirm, they would have been obliged to accept willingly their own status as collateral damage in the attacks of 9-11—just as they would have been obliged to risk the lives of other Muslims in a Jihadist attack carried out by themselves.

…Muhammad condoned the use of the weapons of mass destruction, specifically the catapult, during the siege of the city of Ta’if. Civilians were killed and maimed by these machines that hurled heavy rocks at the fortified city, just as hundreds of Serb civilians were killed during Clinton’s air war against Serbia in 1999.

Both Bill Clinton and the followers of Muhammad subscribe to a moral philosophy and a legal code that in principle allows terrorist acts, including mass murder of innocent women and children. A good Muslim knows that a thing is right simply because Allah says so, or because the prophet of Islam has thus said or done. Bill Clinton knows a thing is right because it serves his ends, whatever they may be. There is no “spirit of the law” in Clinton’s or Muhammad’s world, no rationality behind it for human reason to discover. Neither of them needs any other standard of good and evil, least of all a notion of “natural” justice such as that assumed by the founding fathers of the United States.

It is right and proper for Bill Clinton to be a supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque.

******
Note from Julia:

Indeed, I’ve often wondered whether for this modern, reactivated jihad, Muslims might have gotten some of their methods from the example set by the Clintons. The shamelessness — and the ability to act like what was happening WASN’T happening (thereby making every day feel like the movie “Groundhog Day,” in which yesterday didn’t happen) often seems like something out of the Clinton playbook.

Think about it:

The proclaimed victimology while assaulting others, portraying the aggressor as victim and the victim as aggressor.

The excusing of one crime after another, so that the transgressions got more and more numerous and intense until the public was numb to the badness. We let the Clintons get away with more and more, so much so that it infected the next administration, which took over the cover-ups even as Clinton crimes continued (see Sandy Berger’s capers at the National Archives).

Could our experience with the Clintons have built up our tolerance for what Islam is doing, and the tricks it’s using to do it?

Maybe the Muslims didn’t need to learn from the Clintons how to always change the story; maybe the Clintons learned from the Muslims, since they’ve been at it longer. But in terms of why the public is letting Muslims get away with so much, I believe we may have been conditioned by the Clintons. We became so used to the assault that we forgave and shrugged off each new Clinton crime — almost before it even happened.

Then there’s the constant, shameless lying. Also very much like the Clintons, the Muslims themselves often have a hard time sorting out their own lies, and no longer know what’s true and what isn’t — much like the Clintons and their defenders.

Another similarity is the way the Clintons or Muslims react when you challenge them. They go nuts; after all, you’re supposed to be their dupe, so this kind of insolence is unheard of! Indeed, to the defenders of Muslims and Clintons, you can only be a hater.

The Clintons pioneered the intimidating, shaming and silencing of dissenters, then going on the attack against them just the way CAIR does. Back when Newsmax was still Newsmax, it caught this very phenomenon:

For Some Muslims, Osama Video Prompts Clintonesque Reaction (Dec. 14, 2001)

Devotees of Osama bin Laden around the world borrowed a page from ex-President Clinton’s damage control handbook on Thursday, when they dismissed as “doctored” a smoking gun videotape featuring the al-Qaeda leader bragging about the 9/11 attacks.

“This is shameful,” said Abdul Latif Arabiat, head of Jordan’s mainstream Islamist party the Islamic Action Front, in an interview with Reuters. “Do the Americans really think the world is that stupid to think that they would believe that this tape is evidence?”

“In my view this tape has been fabricated by Washington to condemn bin Laden and conceal America’s ugly crimes in Afghanistan. I don’t see it as an indictment or proof against bin Laden,” said Yousef Abdul Hamid, an Amman taxi driver.

In Egypt, terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta’s father dismissed the tape as a “forgery.”

While there may be no comparison between the crimes committed by bin Laden and the disgraced former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., clearly fans of the terrorist mastermind have learned a thing or two from Clinton spinmeisters.

Ten years ago next month, when Gennifer Flowers released audiotapes proving that she and the then-Democratic presidential candidate had been romantically involved, Clinton operatives George Stephanopoulos and James Carville insisted to reporters her tapes had been doctored.

Hardened reporters who now scoff at Arab skepticism over the bin Laden video took to referring to Flowers’ evidence as “the alleged tapes.”

Six years later, when another set of audiotapes emerged featuring Monica Lewinsky discussing her Clinton affair with Linda Tripp, his defenders sounded like the disgruntled Arabs quoted above.

Rather than admit what she and everybody else knew, Hillary Clinton used “The Today Show” to charge that a vast right wing conspiracy had fabricated the story, much the same way some in the Mideast now blame 9/11 on a global Zionist cabal.

Stephanopoulos popped up again, this time as a “journalist,” and actually became the first to mention impeachment from his then-new perch on ABC’s “This Week.” But like extremists who can’t accept the bin Laden smoking gun, the former Clinton operative was still in denial over Flowers, so much so that he repeated during one radio interview the old canard that her tapes had been doctored.

At least Mideast disbelievers can hang their hats on the bin Laden video’s extremely muddy audio and the possibility that his Arabic may have been mistranslated.

Bin Laden tape skeptics can also take comfort in the words of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Ak., who reportedly told prosecutors during Clinton’s impeachment trial, “I don’t care if you’ve got video of him raping a woman then shooting her dead, we’re not going to vote to convict.”

In both Islam and Clintonism, one relies upon the stupidity of the world and the easy manipulation of people, who don’t have much of a stomach for a fight anyway. (Mind you, it’s not that Clintons or Muslims are so smart, clever, or “tricky,” but they simply rely on the willingness of the masses to be stupid for their benefit. So far, most of the public has complied.)

As well, whether you’re a Muslim or a Clinton, notice how when the media aren’t actively pursuing your talking points and campaigning more openly for your cause than they already are, the media are biased against you.

It was the Clintons who laid the foundations for what we are allowing to happen to our world. They made us immune, built up our tolerance, conditioned us to this frog-in-the-boiling-pot scenario.

To reiterate Trifkovic’s closing point: Like Islam with its own goals, Clinton ambition and its power-hunger mania are single-minded in their determination, a highly focused machine. (Which reminds us of another similarity between Muslims and Clintons — the common aspiration of world domination.)

Other similarities between Islam and Clintonism is the way the feminists abandoned their own principles, seeing a possible ally in bringing down the real enemy — Republicans, and America as we know it. Some even found ways to twist Clinton or Islam into something consistent with feminist principles.

Another phenomenon: With both Muslims and Clintons, the more crimes they commit, the less OK it became to bash them or even have a joke at their expense.

Finally, in both cases there were many points along the path of their ascendance when they could have been stopped. But they weren’t. And so it became that the only palatable place to be was on their side, with the masses mostly just supporting their continued ascendance.