jump to navigation
America in
Chains

SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT FORT HOOD November 7, 2009

Almost from the instant the American people learned that a United
States Army Major — and psychiatrist — one Nidal Malik Hasan, had
murdered a dozen unarmed individuals at Fort Hood, Texas, and wounded
around two and a half dozen more before being taken out of action by a
courageous young police officer, my Inbox began filling with bigoted
garbage.

“Muslims are all murderous fanatics!” “Islam isn’t even a real
religion!” “Muslims want to kill your grand — ” Sorry, that’s Nancy
Pelosi.

It is ironic — but hardy surprising — that a military base, just
like the nation’s public schools and airports, should become another
of those zones of enforced helplessness that attract mass murderers.
The Army does everything it can to keep weapons and ammunition out of
the hands of soldiers until the very moment they become necessary aids
to imposing its will on others, and it always has, so this is no new
phenomenon.

Much — almost everything, to be precise — has been made of the
fact that Hasan had an Arabic name, was the son of immigrants from the
middle east (for all that they were living the American Drean and he
was American born and raised) and was a practicing Muslim. Even worse
(or possibly better), he objected out loud to this government’s wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq. All this became proof positive (to those with
holes in their heads, from radio talk show hosts with audiences in the
tens of millions to the lowliest xenophobic scrapings at the bottom of
the Internet) that he was a jihadist, a conspirator, and that the
entire Muslim world exists only to kill, cook, and eat Christian
babies.

“Onward Muslim soldiers, marching as to war — ”

Oops, that’s a _Christian_ hymn, isn’t it?

I’d be equally justified saying that Hasan’s crimes simply confirm
certain suspicions that I’ve had about psychiatrists for more than 40
years.

For a long time, I have wanted to say, clearly and unmistakably,
that all human institutions are born, develop, grow, evolve, and die.
This is the year 1430 in the Muslim calendar, duly commemorating the
beginning of their religion in Mohammed’s _Hejira_, his pilgrimage
from Medina to Mecca, a sacred event to all Muslims everywhere, and a
journey each and every one of them aspires — and is required — to
emulate.

Did you get that date? It’s important: 1430 A.D., or C.E., as
those afflicted with political correctness have it. Some 579 years
ago.

So what was our civilization — western European civilization —
doing in the 1430th year since its main religion, Christianity, was
founded?

To begin with, the Holy Inquisition was a going concern and had
been for about 200 years. Individuals who happened to disagree with a
nasty, Europe-wide, theocratic dictatorship over something as trivial
as interpretation of the Bible or the punctuation in the Common Book
of Prayer, were burned with coals, poked with various sharp objects,
some heated to a yellow glow, got put into various kinds of machinery
that crushed their extremities or stretched their bodies until they
were hopelessly crippled or dead. Sometimes they were burned at the
stake.

At about the same time in northern France, a completely untrained
and entirely self-appointed — but charismatic — young warrior heard
voices that were attributed to one Catholic saint or another, gathered
a huge, armed gang together, and went on a deadly rampage against the
legitimate local authorities, sacking towns and murdering tens of
thousands on behalf of those whose wish was to become the _new_ local
authorities.

The only reason Joan of Arc isn’t recalled in the annals of
history as a terrorist is that she didn’t have pipe bombs. Eventually
she was sold out to the enemy by her own side, and burned at the
stake.

_Sic transit gloria mundi_.

All of that was in our year 1430. Today, in the Muslim year 1430,
there can be little doubt that Islam could benefit from an additional
579 years in which to mature. The Muslim world, comprising some 1.6
billion individuals, a little more than a quarter of the population of
the Earth, many of them under the thumbs of tyrants and fanatics we
helped put in power, needs to develop a healthy and dynamic secular
culture, or to stop trying to suppress the one it already has, and
hold religion to its proper station, as America’s First Amendment has
done.

It only took us 1787 years.

All of that to one side, I seriously doubt that Hasan’s religious
views or opinions about foreign policy had very much to do with his
religion. (Although my wife asks, what would the Taliban or Al Qaeda
have done to Hasan, an American Muslim, if they’d captured him?) That
guy in Cleveland with all the bodies — Anthony Sowell — did anybody
ask him what religion he practices? How about Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold?

Put another way, would you like it if the west were judged by the
actions and attitudes of a Jerry Falwell, a Cotton Mather, or a
Savarola?

The problem with Hasan was Hasan. If he’d been Irish, he’d have
shouted “Erin go bragh!” as he shot his victims. If he were Hispanic,
it would have been “Viva la Raza!” And none of that would have been
important — nor would it have reflected on the Irish or the Hispanic
– because the whole point was just to kill and kill, no matter the
excuse.

Hasan was so miserable he wanted to die, and misery loves company.

When Columbine happened, I said don’t ask why it happened. There
wasn’t any reason that would make sense to a rational human being. I
say the same thing now about Fort Hood. But more than that, don’t let
politicians get away with “dancing in the blood” of Hasan’s innocent
victims.

Comments

1. L. Reichard White - November 7, 2009

Was Hasan on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, or other “anti-depressants” – - – which cause suicidal thoughts in many and only un-depress about 1/3rd of users?

And also are intimately associated with the majority of school shootings – - – including those at Columbine, Red Lake, etc. http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle313-20050403-05.html

2. L. Neil Smith - November 7, 2009

Excellent question, Rick.

3. Kent McManigal - November 7, 2009

If the military can’t trust its “own” people with weapons, should we trust them in public without keepers? Why does it surprise anyone when those who have been trained to suppress their ethical prohibition against killing people, kill people? Do they really think you can teach people that killing people “over there” is OK, while here it is not? The irony that he is a psychiatrist, deemed fit to decide if you and I are mentally stable enough to own guns, was not lost on me, either.
It’s a tragedy, but not a surprising one. What is surprising is that it happens as rarely as it does. I guess that shows that most people want to get along without harming others.

4. al perez - November 7, 2009

That people would make bigoted statements about Dr. Hasan’s faith does not surprise me. For all that we Americans brag of our right to freedom there is a nasty fascistic streak in our culture.
As racial bigotry becomes less acceptable religious hatred becomes the substitute.

Certain wannabe tyrants who happen to be Muslim have recruited the more fanatical and disenfranchised people of the Islamic world to be their “muscle” in establishing a new Caliphate. They establish their legitimacy by making war against the agents of World Wide Zionism, the US and Israel. Meanwhile we support the El Saud dynasty (look up how they got control of Riyadh.), the old Pahlavi dynasty and at one time actually supported Saddam in Iraq (keep that oil pumping). Not a good plan to prove our love of liberty to people who are being told we are oppressive enemies.

Neither American liberals or conservatives are prepared to understand all this. So we substitute buying into anti Muslim bigotry because we don’t have to think so hard.

All that said, unless the Bosses and their media whores are BSing us, Hasan’s jacket should have had more red flags than a Soviet Mayday Parade. One must ask why he wasn’t getting the right help, including being correctly identified as someone we needed to get back on civvy street.

We seem to be creating a society almost deliberately designed to create such monsters. Whether this is simply an acceptable price of repression to those who misrule our world or “A Deliberate Conspiracy To Strip The American People Of Their Guns And Other Freedoms” i do not know or care. Either is a result of the attempt to deny people their individual freedom and dignity.

the enemies of liberty claim that this proves people must be disarmed. I say that arming the people is an incentive to create a society aimed at creating free, sane individual, not damaged enslaved interchangeable parts for the collective.

And stop blaming people losing it and committing atrocities on faith, or wrong faith, or lack of faith, or melanin or handedness or whatever.

5. Montana - November 7, 2009

My heart and prayers go out to all the victims, their families and friends.

From all the news reports it appears this Major is a career military man and that in his current position for less than a year and was not going well. He did not want to be deployed and in fact wanted out of the Army, so he paid back his military student loans and hired an attorney.

The reason may have been that he was being harassed and called names like “camel jockey ”. I guess all that sensitivity training for those with bigotry tendencies are all for not. (Can training real change the way you were brought up?)

Another reason is called PTSD by proxy, the stress of treating PTSD in other soldiers make you go a little crazy yourself. Its even more stressful because most of the higher ranks don’t even believe in such thing as PTSD. Their denial prompts them to tell suffering soldiers to “drink it off.” Some civilians in the defense dept feel the same way no doubt IMO, it’s why hardly anything is mentioned of PTSD until one of these violent episodes occurs. These people see PTSD as a cop-out or an excuse. First we need to have an understanding that PTSD actually is real before we can ever hope to help treat it (does anyone believe that being shot at or killing your fellow man is not going to affect you in some way either then or in the future?). I guess with the high soldier suicide rate before and after deployment kinda takes care of the complaints from coming in (so those who said he should have just killed himself, well that’s already happening ). What real ticked me off when I heard that the military was trying to say that some soldiers coming back from this war with PTSD or other psychological disorders had “Pre-Existing Conditions” and that the military would not pay to treat them, I think it has been corrected but what a bunch of asses they break you and don’t want to pay.

The final issue is why does the military want to keep people in their ranks that no longer want to be there is it just sheer number? I mean is it ten percent, twenty percent. Is it that it is the only contract in the US that you can’t get out of unless to kill yourself or kill your fellow soldiers? It does not make any sense to me.

I guess the Major could just be another wacko like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholas, of course McVeigh was executed and apparently because Nicholas became a Christian he received a life sentenced. I real think if he gets that far the Major will get the former and not in a million years the latter.

This is so messed up, hopefully they will make some changes that make sense.

6. Jim Davidson - November 7, 2009

Might you have meant this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonarola

You might also like to include some of the early voyages of explorers sent forth by Henry the Navigator in your collection of things to note about the Christian culture of AD 1430. Check it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_Navigator#Early_results_of_Henry.27s_explorers

7. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 7, 2009

I sure as hell don’t claim to know the answer, but I sure do find it convenient as hell that these shootings ALWAYS occur when a Democrat wants to either shove something down our throats (Universal socialized healthcare), or there is a guncantrol bill sitting in Congress waiting for a vote. THAT pisses me off. I find it hard to consider it all just a “coincidence”.

8. onepahoo - November 7, 2009

The muslim religion has been subverted into a real estate grab on the part of Arabs, and only fools, at their own peril, ignore the fact that intolerant, bigoted, crazed, and murderous Musslemen, ripe with the passions of a religious war, run rampant throughout our country and the world.

While L. Neil may despair that the age of enlightenment for Islam is five hundred some years hence in the future, my calendar reads 2009 AD, and I do not live under Sharia law. The fact that Muslims live under plutocratic rule is not my problem, and is no excuse for their attacks on Western society. That they want to import their form of rule to the US and the rest of the world, IS a problem because I won’t wear the yoke of subservience, either to their gods or their archaic rules.

When an individual joins the military, they surrender their right to make decisions for themselves; they become a part of the military machine, “an asset” is what they are called. The man who turns on his comrades after swearing an oath to defend the constitution of the United States and to obey lawful orders is both a traitor and a coward and deserves death.

Thanks to political correctness, the seeds of internal destruction are sown, and the end of Western civilization is nigh. Visit some of the video on “You Tube” shot of Islam’s takeover of towns in Sweden to see what’s in store, where Jews are beaten in public, and gangs of Islamics regularly threaten and terrorize the residents as did German brownshirts decades earlier.

The military “post” (only the air force and navy calls them a “base”), does not allow “hot” carry of weapons for the same reason that gun ranges do not allow loaded weapons until the shooter is on the firing line. Military men may be familiar with firearms and use them regularly, but they are no more competent with them or careful in handling them then the average policeman, thus the order to “lock and load” does not come until the soldiers are ready to be deployed into combat situations.

There is no CCW on a military base, and while L. Neil may lament “victim disarmament”, no one expects a military doctor, a soldier with high rank, to bushwack his fellow soldiers.

No, the Muslim Major was NOT a Timothy McVeigh, and this was NOT similar to a school shooting resulting from brutalized and traumatized children. This murderer was a high rank military and medical professional who was secretly a religious jihadist who shouted “Allah Akbar” as he shot and killed his fellow soldiers at point blank range. He obviously intended to die after his murderous ambush.

You may be filled with contrition and whine over the poor misunderstood son of a bitch, an unfortunate Muslim entrusted as a physician with rank and trust, who had to endure ribbings and pejorative insults, but for my part, I would just as soon blow his head off — and all his friends.

Go and join L. Neil Smith in extending the olive branch like Neville Chamberlain to Hitler, and try appeasing those who would cut your children’s throat. For my part, I won’t be able to join you, I’ll be busy loading my guns.

- One Pahoo

9. Chris C. - November 7, 2009

To One Pahoo – you have failed to understand much of what El Neil wrote. I, for one, do not judge people by a group that I arbitrarily put them into. Given some of what is known about Major Hasan, it looks just as likely that he was a loser, depressed about getting a bad evaluation, unmarried, stuck in the Army, and so forth, and lost it. His religion may have provided an excuse in his own mind for what he did, but may not have been the driving factor. I have several friends who follow Islam, and none of them would support what this ding-dong did.

On the other hand, I know quite a few Christians that I would never turn my back on, and would be quite fearful if they obtained political power. Do I thereby lump all Christians in with a few nutjobs? NO. El Neil is suggesting that we can find ways to work with those Muslims (a majority, IMHO) that are reasonable people that just want to be left alone to live their lives. Just like me. I have no desire to rule others, and ask that courtesy from them. You, Pahoo, sound like a man who might be willing to group people who have something in common with someone you don’t like, and kill them. Arbeit Macht Frei, nicht wahr?

10. BIll Tuttle - November 7, 2009

Neale hit my question. Why does the timing always seem to be so convenient to deflect the news from or refocus the news on what those in power are trying to slam through? Does anyone doubt that any of that group wouldn’t do this? What’s a few military folk (which they despise anyway) compared to their grand plan for the US?

11. Eric Oppen - November 7, 2009

Ever since 9-11 (or 1948), there have been people in the West who’ve screamed that all Muslims are evil ragheaded primitives who want to Take Over The World. I notice that a lot of the loudest screamers about “Sharia law” couldn’t likely pass a basic test in what Sharia law actually _mandates_ if it meant the firing squad.

That said, and while I’m sure that was part of what flipped this guy out—I do think that psychiatrists, as a group, tend to run a little crazier than average anyway.

12. onepahoo - November 7, 2009

Chris C:

Thank you for choosing to act as Smith’s interpreter; I’m sure he is gratified that someone is defining “in simple language” what he attempted to express.

You choose to be an apologist for Muslim atrocities and that is your business. Thanks too for the ad hominem attack; I would expect that Muslims would be mounting a disinformation campaign and with my remarks I’m a likely target.

When someone abandons the “zero aggression principle” by attacking others they forfeit their right to be free “to be left alone to live their lives”. You are quick to dismiss the actions of the murderous military Muslim as being that of a “loser, unmarried, stuck in the army” and so forth. That is complete nonsense; he could have provided numerous reasons to leave the service and he would have been quickly and honorably discharged. The man was a qualified psychiatrist and would have been able to hang out his shingle anywhere he wanted.

Instead, this man, acting in a religious frenzy, chose to perform his jihad against America where it would do the most damage, mimicking other murderous traitors that backshoot American soldiers.

What many don’t understand is that Islam is a “state religion” providing support and power in a way similar to what the Catholic church provided European kingdoms in the Middle Ages. The Church worked in collusion with the titular heads of the “kingdoms” in maintaining absolute control and power over individuals from birth to death by threat of excommunication or roasting in perdition. In Islam the threats are more immediate and decisive with public stoning or beheading, but the result is the same; a cowed, fearful, and angry robotic population that is maintained using Orwell’s, “five minutes of hate” against the West and their prime enemy, Israel.

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare benefits the middle east autocrats, as it provides much needed work (with constant turnover) for unemployed men, and keeps the entire society in a garrison siege mindset and able to be easily manipulated.

If Muslim titular and religious heads decided it was expedient to end attacks against the US and Europe, it would stop instantly, but they choose purposely to continue the war of attrition against the West. The symbiotic relationship buying energy from the oil barons keeps the process going, while enabling the oil barons to purchase more and more of European and United States real estate and corporations with inflated oil profits. It is a vicious cycle.

Islam is training its fighters similarly to the Japanese Bushido warrior code under Emperor Hirohito, promising an afterlife in paradise in return for bravery and death. Islam’s terrorist techniques directly mimic kamikaze soldiers, and the concept of personal sacrifice to the state and the religion is the exact formula used by the Japanese with great success.

Islamic apologists are leading America into the next level of fascist slavery under the banner of Islam. To ignore the obvious is like Ptolemy claiming in a priori exuberance that the Earth is the center of the universe because it fit his mental model rather than reality.

- One pahoo

13. al perez - November 7, 2009

Dear One Pahoo
since you feel a need to make war on Islam rent a boat, find some friends and sail off on your Jihad.

For me, and I hope my friends, we’ll save our ammo for those who feel they have the right to use force to impose their will on us, whether it be the minority of Muslims in the Taliban, El Qaeida, Hamas, and Hezbollah (that is a big minority), homegrown fascists of a variety of religious opinions, or people who don’t realize when they are advocating genocide.

And yes I am quite aware of how the El Saud used the Wahabi to gain power and that crooked Muslim politicians are using other fanatics to gain and maintain power.
These facts do not restore our innocence in the Middle East or excuse those who, given a chance, will use the very real War on Terror to make war on freedom.

14. L. Neil Smith - November 8, 2009

Gents, I wrote 3000 words today on _Sweeter Than Wine_ for NaNoWriMo, I’m up through Chapter 11 in seven days, and I’m more than a little tired. One Pahoo may be my oldest friend on the Internet. He and his wife have been welcome guests at my house. I disagree with him on this group of subjects, and will answer his messages point for point, reasonably and calmly, as he deserves, as soon as I can find the time and energy.

He knows who and what I am, and that I do not write apologetics for acts of evil. But I do understand them, and Ihave lived long enough to know that the way this country is trying to deal with them is all wrong.

It’s up to us, the libertarians, to find a better way.

15. Perry NEAL (spelled the other way) Way - November 8, 2009

I’ve been around a lot of muslims, and have had a number of muslim friends, some close, some closer and I’ve had two best buddies who were or are muslim. My best buddy coworker is muslim. Muslims and Islam are two different things. Islam, radical Islam is something that needs to be stopped. Just like radical Christianity or any other radical religion with a penchant for inflicting others with forced will opposite to their own. Anyway, long story short, I believe we are witnessing the seeds of destruction as we continue to allow fanatics to hold positions of high places. I am suspecting that Major Hasan is but the tip of the iceberg and we will see more of this to come. I do believe we need to watch out for this radical Islam and we need to stamp it out like as we do to wildfires when they get too close to home. However, I do think there’s definitely an angle here as to Major Hasan’s profession as a head shrinker. All of the psychiatrists and psychologists I’ve ever known or been introduced to seem to me to be borderline personalities themselves. Quirky at the least, dangerous at the most. It could be that Major Hasan was mentally deranged and that is the end of it in his case as to motivation. However, I do believe that this would not have happened had the soldiers been expected to carry weapons with them at all times. In other words I’m turning this around to be a sales pitch for personal defense and the right to keep and bear arms.

16. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 8, 2009

Well, Perry, there’s NEVER a bad time to pitch the whole Personal Defense line to anyone who will open their minds and listen to the truth. BTW- if you want, I can loan you an extra “E” to help you get the name right. I know several psychiatrists and psychologists, including my sister. There ain’t a one of them playin’ with a full deck. Let’s face it, anyone who thinks a gun is a penis hasn’t got that good a grasp on reality.

17. al perez - November 8, 2009

As has been pointed out, everyone who uses the gun as penis analogy has been a supporter of gun control.

This displays a neurotic (if not psychotic) need to emasculate others. Strange how those who speak of empowerment and regard for the dignity of others seem bent on weakening and mutilating.

Isn’t there some kind of psychobabble technical term for this? Regardless, these are the type of people who create a world designed to push people into going ajuramentado.

the question in my mind is if they are too stupid or crazy to see what they are doing or if they are so bent on profit and power by theft instead of honest trade they just don’t get it.

18. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 8, 2009

Al, I am not sure if the Psych field attracts nutjobs, or if being exposed to psychiatric studies makes one become a loon. In answer to your final question, though, does it really matter? If the results are to take away our rights to self defense, I really don’t give a damn if they have good intentions or evil plans. They are initiating force to take our rights, and that makes them targets, whether for political assault, or, in the extreme, in the sight picture.
I do prefer to fight gun-grabbers with my rapier sharp wits. Sometimes, though, I tire of the perpetual battle of wits with the un-armed. It is at times like this that I wish an armed robber would just show up, beat the shit out of whichever idiot I am arguing with, and turn him/her from gungrabber to gunowner in one fell swoop.
I do know this, if women everywhere would just realize that EVERY SINGLE VOTE FOR A GUN CONTROL LAW IS A VOTE PERMITTING HER RAPE, there would be no more gun laws.

19. al perez - November 8, 2009

Couldn’t agree more.
Unfortunately statism is based on not facing consequences and thinking out probable outcomes, at least by the peasantry (thee and me, by the bosses’ reckoning).

They want us to think gun control is about disarming robbers and rapists, They don’t want us to think it’s about leaving us disarmed in the face of robbers and rapists who are stronger than us and attacking at a time and place of their choosing.

Gun control is about people not understanding why one of the nicknames given Colt revolvers is Equalizers.

Meanwhile we are crowded together and young males are denied appropriate ways to establish territory, appropriate dominance, and mating rights.

So they go nuts, commit murder, and sometimes blame it on ideology, religion, or listening to the wrong music.

And all gun control advocates can offer us is less of a chance to fight back.

20. R.D. Bartucci - November 9, 2009

Dr. Hasan has been a slurper at the public trough since entering the Army straight out of high school in 1988. He leveraged service benefits to get himself into college courses both part-time and on active duty, graduating from Virginia Tech with a degree in biochemistry in 1995. From what I’ve been able to learn, he got himself a commission in 1997, and then (either in 1997 or 1999) wangled a free ride into the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU), the government-run medical school that provides the armed forces with something like 80% of all their “lifer” medical officers.

In the course of this exploitation, he accumulated some considerable obligation in terms of service time, and with postgraduate training leading to board eligibility in psychiatry as of 2007 (and subsequent postgraduate training in Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry leading to the award of an M.P.H. degree), there was NO way the Army was going to let him resign his commission. Psychiatrists with Dr. Hasan’s training are in short supply in the military, and the need is acute.

Now, every step of the way, Dr. Hasan made calculated decisions that put him precisely where he found himself this past summer, detached from Walter Reed to Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood for the primary purpose of preparing him for what appears to have been his very first overseas tour of duty, in a special psychiatric unit working in Afghanistan.

The guy had been in the Army since 1988, and from what I’ve been able to determine, he hadn’t pulled anything resembling a hardship tour in all that time. No apparent history of combat arms training or service, and no chance to develop PTSD except by “contagion” in the purposeful study of this disorder and clinical training in the management thereof.

Keep this in mind. He CHOSE to go to medical school. He CHOSE to specialize in psychiatry. He CHOSE to take further clinical training in the management of stress disorders associated with disasters and suchlike. In May of this year, he even attended the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and served as co-chair in a workshop on “Medical Issues for Psychiatrists in Disasters.”

All of this on the taxpayers’ dime, of course.

And now we’re supposed to buy the line that this guy was somehow “conflicted” and harassed and mentally pressured so badly of late that he deliberately goes out to a gun shop in Kileen to buy himself an FN Five-SeveN with a bunch of extra magazines and hundreds of 5.7x28mm cartridges (a firearm with which he apparently has no prior experience; he’s a Medical Corps clown who is only required to show that he’s capable of operating an M9 P.O.S. without blowing his toes off) and somehow gets his hands on a .357 Magnum revolver in the bargain, and carries these into a big cubicle-partitioned room crammed full of soldiers in Condition White to begin blowing people away.

And the role of his fervent Islamic religious belief in this act of ultraviolence is not supposed to be considered?

As opposed to the previous Kileen killer (who yelled “This is what Central Texas did to me!” before opening up on the cafeteria patrons in Luby’s), Dr. Hasan’s reported leitmotif was “Allahu Akbar!”

Moreover, all the elements in his recent past history which are now being discussed as “red flags” that might’ve served as predictors that he wasn’t suited to his rank and responsibilities (much less being trusted with his issue M9) are religious in character, and their onset preceded his residency years’ participation in the clinical management of soldiers with traumatic stress disorders and thereby the development of any kind of “PTSD by proxy.”

No, I can’t buy the “Islam had nothing to do with this” argument. To the extent that a psychiatric autopsy is possible on Dr. Hasan (yeah, I know he’s not dead yet), every bit of information developed has clearly implicated his religious faith as the primary pathology.

Consider that if he’d been shipping out for a year’s duty with 7th MEDCOM in Heidelberg instead of into a theater of active conflict against fellow Muslims in Afghanistan, it’s doubtful in the extreme that the battue in the Soldier Readiness Center would’ve ever happened.

All religious beliefs are averse to mental stability in that they impose – to a greater or lesser extent – a dysfunctional aversion to rational thought and intellectual honesty. To whatever degree anyone sincerely takes anything on faith, he has forsworn the examination and valuation of that aspect of existence with the tools of reasoned analysis.

It seems obvious that Dr. Hasan had come progressively to fixate upon the tenets of Islam to the obliteration of his freely-accepted (indeed, avidly sought) commitment to the military service he’d spent his entire adult life milking.

Ceteris paribus, to the extent that we can say Dr. Hasan had snapped, Islam was at the root of it.

So while the events at Fort Hood on 5 November do not of themselves alone provide support for a blanket indictment of Islam and its adherents, they’re sure as hell a manifest of what belief in that “Religion of Peace” does to the mind of the Faithful individual and his ability to function safely and reliably in the society of unbelievers.

All religions are nuts, but Islam (and let’s remember that the term “juramentado” refers specifically to those Muslim stalwarts among the Moros whose kris-wielding attacks occasioned the U.S. Army’s adoption of the M1911 and it’s big, knockdown .45 ACP round) has reigned as the single most thoroughly screwed-up religious belief system since the Aztecs were forcibly obliged to quit performing public cardiectomies atop the pyramids in Tenochtitlan.

21. Popgun - November 9, 2009

When I walk in the woods, if I see a snake, I alert on it- at least until I have ascertained that it is not a threat.

Almost every major terrorist attack in the last 20 years (I can think of only one exception) has been caused by Muslim terrorists.

Most of these terrorists have been Muslims. This does not mean that most Muslims are terrorists.

It makes sense to be cautious around Muslims who are strangers to you – until you know they are not a risk. That’s one aspect of situational awareness – like with snakes.

-Popgun

22. al perez - November 9, 2009

Re comments on Jeanette D’Arc:

Nowadays someone like Joan would be declared schizophrenic, slapped in a padded cell, shot up with thorazine and kept on massive doses of Prozacfor the rest of her natural life. The English were much more humane.

The name in the opening is not an accident, but refers to comment I read that the only known signature of the Maid of Orleans was “Jeanette.”

I have two problems with with putting more blame than necessary on Islam for Dr. Hassan’s actions. The first is that it legitimizes his actions as acts of war during a Jihad and extends him rights under various conventions.

The second gets down to me wearing a crucifix. How far would i go to defend my right to wear a crucifix? Just as important, how far would I go to resist someone who tried to force me to not wear a crucifix? How far would he go to stop me from wearing a crucifix?

If I kill him, does this mean my Christian faith drove me murderously insane or was I defending my right to free exercise of religion and freedom of expression against someone who was willing to escalate the situation to a level of deadly force trying to stop me from wearing a crucifix?

The FN Five SeveN’s 5.7 mm ammo is supposed to be ballisticly equivalent to a .22 magnum as far as bullet weight and velocity go. While actual bullet design might make it more efficient, this means reduced recoil and thus somewhat shortened learning period to master and faster time between aimed shots.

One cylinder of .357 Magnum, two magazine changes of 20 round magazines for the Five SeveN, and yeah, what he did is feasible, even with extremely limited training.

So was Hasan a Jihadist “sleeper” who chose his weapons wisely? Or was he a nut case ready to go off under the wrong circumstances, of which his take on his religion was just one?

And does either of these justify outlawing a particular faith and killing all its adherents who refuse to give up their beliefs?

23. al perez - November 9, 2009

Re “alerting on snakes”: How do you tell Muslims from non Muslims? In my part of the world most non Muslims show visible Native American ancestry.

Does that mean alert on everyone who is not brown enough ( That includes me by the way, I even look Lebanese or Palestinian according to many acquaintances)?

If someone proclaims himself my enemy by threatning to kill me for being (take your choice of reasons) I will drop him on the spot, but until someone runs off at the mouth with such a threat to my face and in my presence I really don’t care whether they pray “Sh’ma Yishroel, Adanoi Elohim, Adanoi Ahat,” “La illah la a’ Allah, Mohammed Rasul Allah,” or “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son…..” (last one gets a little long).

24. thebastidge - November 9, 2009

Who’s talking about outlawing the faith? I am criticizing the faith, and its adherents.

25. Al Perez - November 9, 2009

Can’t have it both ways, if you claim particular religion causative factor in criminal acts you are arguing for outlawing faith and adherents.

If you are arguing to bust the chops of political leaders who use faith to incite acts of violence I won’t argue.

But you better be sure to clarify what you mean.

26. Kneel (spelled another way) - November 9, 2009

I understand Major Hasan had a CCW that he got in Virginia in the late 1990s. That could account for his choice of guns.

27. Ann Morgan - November 9, 2009

El Neil, you wrote:

>> When Columbine happened, I said don’t ask why it happened. There wasn’t any reason that would make sense to a rational human being.

Okay, I’ve got a very big issue with this, Neil. When I was attending public so-called ‘schools’, I was physically tortured and sexually molested literally THOUSANDS of times (several times a day, every day, 180 days a year, for six years. You do the math).

If you have better words than ‘torture’ and ‘molestation’ to describe treatment that includes being burned with cigarettes, having your hand deliberately slammed in a solid metal door, being pelted with objects and spit, having your body groped, having objects stuck in your crotch, and being knocked onto the locker room floor and having obscenities written on your naked body with magic marker, I’ll be happy to hear your particular terminology to describe it.

This was both actively supported and tacitly consented to by my so-called ‘teachers’ and ‘guidance counselor’, who told my parents that my increasingly bizaare behavior was due to my being ‘neurotic’ (carefully never mentioning the numerous reasons WHY I was nuerotic), and who punished me the few times I attempted to defend myself.

I am not saying for certain whether or not Klebold and Harris were given this sort of treatment, but in light of the fact that at least SOME people (I am not the only victim of this sort of shit by far) have been treated this way, to claim that there is ‘no reason that would make sense to a rational human being’ for someone to go on a shooting rampage in our schools strikes me as an attempt to whitewash our schools and make them look like fairyland or Mr. Roger’s neighborhood, when in fact, they more closely resemble something designed by Heironymous Bosch or Totquemada.

Who are you and what did you do with the REAL El Neil, anyways?

28. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 9, 2009

All right, Kneel, Perry Neal, and any other variations of the truly correct spelling (Niall), I am the only one entitled to claim (Spelled the right way) damnit!!! I earned it, sitting in Neil’s house, listening to a 2 yr old girl call me “Osborn” because “Daddy is the only Neil I know”. Go find tyour OWN way to nitpick. Okay, the venting is over, time to get back to serious things.
Personally, I have read the Koran 3 times. I have also read the KJ version of the Bible at least that many times. I read 3 translations of the Koran, and I found some very admirable things in there. As a “for instance”, it is the only religion I have studied at all that specifically prohibits racism. Of course, it also specifically REQUIRES the whole world to submit to the will of Allah (rather difficult to obtain if you hate someone based on skin color), so maybe that prohibition makes sense. But I digress. In the Old Testament, awful things are done inthe name of GOD. In the New Testament, Jesus tries to lighten the mood, talking of love and peace, rather than fear and retribution. Various sects have tried to (and succeeded in) using the Bible to justify some absolutely horrific things. Even today, some people still do. But when it happens, most of the Christians out there stand up and say “That’s not the way I think Christians should act. Christian leaders denounce, quite loudly, the perpetrators. The rank and file Christians run screaming away from these violent whackos. Now, take Islam. Most Islamics I have met have been nice people. They seem to love this country, hold to their faith, and follow our rules. BUT when an Islamic Fundamentalist goes apeshit, screams “Allahu Ahkbar” and kills a bunch of infidels, or runs over his daughter for being too “Westernized”, or flies an airplane ito a building for Allah, you hear very close to NOTHING from the Islamic community. Oh sure, a few will say how horrible it was. But they nearly always add a qualifier to it. You almost never hear a Mullah denounce the act, saying that the perpetrator will wind up in the Muslim equivalent of Hell for their actions. Instead, they just re-iterate that “Islam is a religion of peace”. This is true, it strives for peace. And there will be. When we are all Muslim, and there are no more infidels left to behead. The problem, as I see it, is that I DON’T WANT to convert, peacably or otherwise. Most of us don’t. We like the faith (or lack thereof) that we already have. But we all must SUBMIT to the will of Allah. It says so, in black and white, in the Koran. And that is why I can’t believe that Islam is truly a peaceful religion. It promises peace, but requires conversion by reason or the sword, but you will convert.
Shit, there I go, rambling again. Well, I ain’t a gonna delet it after I typed my fingers to the bone, so I might as well hit the send button.

29. R.D. Bartucci - November 9, 2009

Kneel, I did some fact-checking. According to Roanoke County Circuit court records, Nidal Malik Hasan was issued a Virginia CCW permit in 1996.

Apparently he’s been a shooter for some time, and between USUHS medical schooling (in which the students get more than the average amount of training on firearms wounding), his months of work in the Soldier Readiness Center at Ft. Hood (knowing that nobody on his target list would have anything in the way of either ballistic protection or personal weapons), and his expertise with things that go bang, he picked his venue, selected his firearm months in advance, jammed his pockets full of extra magazines, and went in there on Thursday afternoon to whack a whole bunch of infidels and earn his 72 virgins and a car stereo.

So ya think his attorney is gonna try for a diminished capacity “insanity” defense?

30. donald - November 9, 2009

Hey does anyone remember that standing armies are forbidden by the founding documents?

No standing army = no Ft. Hood massacre.

I think Ft. Hood is very likely an Individual act without a group motivation, but it could have been incited.

To address the concept of ZAP and how it relates to group actions, threats, and the incitement of actions against a group.

Threats of violence, injury, or death are Aggression in my opinion and should be defended against in the same way as someone shooting at you would be dealt with under the ZAP.

In regard to the individual and or group that threatens or incites violence or hiding behind religion declares Jihad against my family or me (Even my country since I am stuck within it) … If it is an individual deal with the individual, if it is a group it should be dealt with as a gang, or group.

IE either they disavow the threatened action, sue for peace, and disband, or we defend ourselves until the group is no longer a threat.

That said I think we should only take the actions the Politically Correct Army fails to take.

In Jihad the Generals are all Imams and other religious leaders, as in the Civil war “kill the Generals”.

If we kill the Generals the people that derive authority to urge on the remaining followers will have to use more than threats, they may even find that threats will not encourage self-sacrifice. (suicide bomb, etc)

And before someone says I want to kill anyone, NO DO NOT KILL ANYONE, I mean when a specific individual speaks of killing someone, and incites to kill those people, If they are serious the things they say are a threat the equivalent of threatening death to someone, not a religion.

All threats carry the equivalent of force, and should never be tolerated.

I think we should not let the generals hide behind a religion.

31. al perez - November 10, 2009

Using the Moros as examples of Moslem murderousness is not wise. We betrayed the Filipino people (including the Moros) when we promised to help them gain freedom from Spain in exchange for a military alliance against the Spaniards and instead of letting them have their justly earned independence made the Philippines an how.American colony (or tried to anyhow).

You pull crap like that on me you’d need a 10 gauge semiauto and a friend with a Barrett backing you up. and I’m a wimp.

32. Lloyd - November 10, 2009

Montana wrote: “The final issue is why does the military want to keep people in their ranks that no longer want to be there is it just sheer number? I mean is it ten percent, twenty percent. Is it that it is the only contract in the US that you can’t get out of unless to kill yourself or kill your fellow soldiers? It does not make any sense to me.”

The answer is in human personality. If all it takes is a sincere declaration that they don’t want to serve anymore in order to be released from the service – no matter how close to deployment they are – then no one would go. This is especially true of folks who have served a tour before. The Army considers and usually grants requests to resign a commission or to retire after you’ve been there; before you serve, not. To do otherwise is to empty your ranks. Doubt that? I served in Vietnam as a battalion legal clerk among other things. For about a year, the Army had a policy that allowed men to be returned to the U.S. and discharged with an honorable discharge if they admitted to being gay in an affidavit. It was, as you might think, a bit more complicated than that, but not much. The battalion CO was the approving authority and as the legal clerk I did the paperwork. We had over 100 soldiers who applied and until we had a change in command over 60 were granted. None of those guys was in fact gay; they just wanted out of Vietnam. (Nothing wrong with that; if I had had good sense, I wouldn’t have served three plus years myself.) Similar deal would be to allow folks to opt out simply by saying “I don’t wanna.” Bear in mind, being deployed isn’t surprised; that’s what armies do, you know.

For those who are – to be polite – less than agreeable with the notion of standing armies and indeed of any formal established military more organized than one of L. Neil’s militia, I would point out that despite the victories and successful defenses of his fictional militia, in the real world, panzer divisions are not defeated by brave men and women armed with pistols. A functional navy, for instance, requires many years of preparation and training. Not to mention shipbuilding and the construction of naval bases and all the other infrastructure required. Admiral Heinlein could no more have defeated the Tsar’s forces with a militia navy than could the Laporte Militia have defeated the S.S. Panzer Division Das Reich. Whether we like it or not, modern war requires more organization, more training, more equipment and more resources than a militia could possibly deploy. Despite both our and the Founders’ dislike and distrust of a standing army, there is no Constitutional prohibition against one. All through the history of America, there has been a standing army, albeit usually a tiny one. That sufficed to defend us from foreign invaders, etc, since we enjoyed both peaceful neighbors and vast ocean barriers to those who weren’t peaceful. The oceans are no longer a barrier. Our neighbors are still peaceful, mostly, but others in the world are able to attack us here in our homes. Europeans and Asians have lived with that reality for quite a long time. We haven’t.

Of all the social institutions we have created in the U.S., the military remains the most faithful to the Constitution: subordination of the military to the civilian authority, a greater recognition of soldiers’ rights as people, and much much more restraint as an instrument of national policy than other nations. Perfect? No. Especially in that last area, we’ve been rather a bully, but that hasn’t been at the instigation of our military. All of you who complain about how the military does bad things ought to first recall that the civilian politicians order those things. Then go out and do something about the politicians, instead of making disparaging remarks about soldiers.

One last bit: if you believe that Major Hasan couldn’t have been driven mad by his fear of being deployed, fueled by his knowledge derived from returning soldiers he counseled and by his own recognition that he was a coward, then you have never been in combat, up close and personal. Muslim? Certainly. His problem: how to die? He obviously lacked the guts to kill himself and that may have been a ticket to the Islamic version of damnation anway. He lacked the guts to deploy. Dillemma. Solution: “suicide by cop”. Of course he yelled, “Allahu Akbar!”. A Christian, between the same rock and a hard place might well have yelled, “Comin’ home to ya, Jesus!”. Neither is evidence of some Islamist conspiracy, only a man so terrified by his impending deployment to a combat zone that the mere thought of it liquified his bowel contents. Pitiful, yes. Deserving of the death penalty? No, but not because he doesn’t deserve it; that’s another discussion. A murderer? Oh, indeed! Not to consider yet the pain and suffering of the survivors and the families and friends.

33. Al Perez - November 10, 2009

It is to be noted that Hasan was in communication with an Imam who advocates Jihad against the US. It is also to be noted that about two years ago Hasan presented a power point arguing that Muslims about to be deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan/ any place the US appeared to be at war with Muslims as Muslims should be granted Conscientious Objector status lest they shoot up a base, pull a suicide bombing etc., etc..

It is very clear that this man was considering going to war with the US because of his religious beliefs. It is also clear that there was at least two years worth of information indicating this inclination.

the question that arises is whether Federal and Military law enforcement will be given the appropriate instructions on working together, both requirement to do so and a bureaucratic procedure that actually works (such things do exist), or if this failure to work together will be used as an excuse to violate people’s rights under the 4th Amendment and other acts of repression. Any bets which way things will go?

34. R.D. Bartucci - November 10, 2009

al, mention of the Moros was made both to keep mindful of previous encounters with the adherents of Islam –

Please note that the Filipinos are themselves to this day continuing to have violent encounters with their southern countrymen “instead of letting them have their justly earned [?] independence.”

- and the history of the venerable M1911 and the .45ACP cartridge, neither of which might have come into existence were it not for the Army’s encounters with charging, screaming, Allah-besotted tribesmen in that corner of the planet.

The political “big picture” notwithstanding, the practical realities faced by American _and_ Filipino soldiers attempting to police pirate-plagued Mindanao and islands thereabouts over the past century and more do bear consideration.

I should think that the Filipino people would be very thankful, al, to know that you’re not a Moro.

Those piratical folk would certainly put up far more effective resistance (and do much more damage to the local police) were they fortunate enough to have you among ‘em.

35. Lloyd - November 10, 2009

There is no evidence that Major Hasan was “in communication” with the since-deported imam of the Virginia mosque any more than any of the rest of those who worshipped there were. There is considerable media speculation that he was one of that imam’s intimates; no evidence, only speculation. Arguing for conscientious objector status for Moslems instead of deploying them to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan is quite different from considering going to war with the U.S. and is not evidence for such a state of mind. It might be evidence that he was trying to get special treatment or consideration for Moslems under those situations. Whether it was proper for him to so attempt or not, that isn’t evidence that he was going to declare war on the U.S. based upon his religion. The Army’s “knowledge” consisted of hearsay reports of Major Hasan’s religious practice combined with speculation about his possible contacts with imams and others with equally speculative connection to terrorist organizations. Reports which were read by the appropriate officers, filed away and ignored. Much of what passes for “raw” intelligence data these days is much the same quality as the DHS’s “intelligence summary” on domestic terrorism of which so much adverse publicity about a year ago. It’s junk and not probative of anything; not even sufficient to justify further and more detailed investigation. There simply is, as yet, nothing that resembles admissible evidence of any such intention on his part.

Why am I so picky about this? Simple. Remember the internment of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans shortly after Pearl Harbor? That was prompted in large part by just such multiple-hearsay and speculation, combined with racism and a large dollop of greed for the properties owned by the targets of that internment. Not one single act of espionage nor of sabotage was ever connected with any Japanese resident of the U.S. whether Japanese citizen or American citizen. We need to avoid making our previous mistakes repeatedly as a nation. We do so by taking notice of the prior flaws of reason and law and avoiding making them yet another time. Recall the lines from “A Man For All Seasons”?

“ROPER: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws . . . and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

Much more eloquent that I could ever be.

36. al perez - November 10, 2009

Sorry, that did come across boastful.

That said, the first part of our fight against the Moros was not merely part of our effort to suppress their piratical proclivities but as our effort to put down the general rebellion by the filipino people both muslim and christian after we betrayed them.

Undoubtedly we would have had to fight the Moros in our efforts to suppress their piracy once rule of the Philippines made it our problem, but the circumstances would have been different. Oh wait, if we’d kept our word t’would never have been our problem.

Unless he cops a plea, Hasan’s trial will establish who he was and wasn’t talking to and how much his attack was a result of his religious beliefs and thoughts he shared with whom.

I will admit some Muslims have made direct threats to kill Americans and make war against us as an expression of their faith. Treat them as honorable enemies or war criminals as circumstances require.

The vast majority of Muslims are peacefully going about their business and respecting the rights of their neighbors, We deserve to respect their rights, before someone starts explaining why this that or the other xian sect “deserves” to have its rights violated.

37. Mike - November 11, 2009

BULL. SHIT.

Islam supposedly “builds from” Christianity and Judaism. What do they do instead? They burn culture. They reject wisdom. It’s thanks to Muslims that we have almost nothing left of Persian culture. It’s thanks to Muslims that the Bamiyan Buddhas, and much of Afghani buddhist cultural writings, are gone forever. It’s thanks to Muslims that the cultures of northern Africa have become the crapfests that they are.

What was the first major crisis the US faced in international shipping? Oh yeah – MUSLIM pirates who would raid ships and give their captives a choice: either convert or drown.

Given ~1400 years to “build on” the start of an enlightened society – one in which Mohammed’s wealthy first wife, who owned her own business as a respected businesswoman following the death of her first husband, happily took him on as a trophy husband – Muslims should have integrated well into modern society. Instead, what are they? Yeah, the most backwards, tribalistic, racist group on the planet.

I call it as I see it and you’re an idiot.

38. al perez - November 11, 2009

So Mike, what is your solution?

39. L. Neil Smith - November 11, 2009

Let’s stop this bigoted crap right now. Mike — whoever the hell you are — please tell me what the ancient Aztec books said, will you? You can’t? Why is that? Because the Catholic fanatic dogwhistle monks who helped to murder and enslave the Aztec people _burned_ those books, that’s why.

Or we could talk about Savonarola, the Florentine priest who damn near slammed the whole Renaissance into reverse, singlehandedly, once again by burning books he didn’t like, not to mention smashing statues and destroying paintings. But he wasn’t a Muslim, so I guess that’s okay, is it?

All any of this proves is that anybody who believes the gods are on his side can become a dangerous neighbor, no matter what his religion is, whether he’s a Hindu or a Buddhist, or a worshipper of the Great Rock Gaeia.

And we have also proven something else here: as long as there’s someone being dangled in front of us for the Five Minute Hate, we’ll never feel it when someone like Nancy Pelosi slips a stiff one up our asses.

Get real. Get some sense of proportion, or get ready to live in chains.

Me, I’m going back to work. _Sweeter Than Wine_, Chapter 14.

40. Mike - November 11, 2009

Let’s stop this bigoted crap right now

I agree. You should shut the hell up.

Blah blah blah random hatred-laden christian-bashing…

Problems with your hate-spewing vitriol are easy to spot. The Christians saved far more than they preserved. They were the ones to write down the oral histories of many cultures that otherwise would be completely lost to this day, even if they did add their own slant (see any literary/historical analysis of Beowulf for a classic example).

anybody who believes the gods are on his side can become a dangerous neighbor

No kidding. And the most dangerous neighbors to have today, for ANY culture, are the uncultured, mysogynistic, backwards, racist, tribal Mohammedians.

as long as there’s someone being dangled in front of us for the Five Minute Hate, we’ll never feel it when someone like Nancy Pelosi slips a stiff one up our asses

Funny. I figured Pelosi was one of the ones distracting us from the massive movement that sticks entire groups of people into “refugee camps” to turn them into a nation of suicide bombers. One look at what the Arabs have done to the Palestinians, and then tried to blame on the “evil Joos”, ought to be enough to give you a sane perspective. Start by considering the fact that in 1948, the “1967 borders” of Israel were all owned by Arab countries, and for some reason the “Palestinians” were all put into “refugee camps” by their fellow Mohammedians rather than being allowed to return to their homes.

41. Al Perez - November 11, 2009

Dear Mike,

I have seen examples of why my fellow Christians do not have clean hands, if you will, have not lived up to the teachings of Jesus. I have not seen any Christian bashing per se that matches the hatred and contempt you have displayed for Islam and its adherents.

What is your solution to the Muslim problem, Mike?
You’ve made some valid criticisms of where the political leaders of the Islamic world have taken their followers, but what do you propose to do about it?

Until you are prepared to tell your suggestions and opinions how Muslims and non Muslims can leave in peace together you are simply coming across as an angry, hate spewing bigot.

42. R.D. Bartucci - November 12, 2009

Hey, I’m perfectly ecumenical in my regard of religious whackjobs.

I begin to perceive that one of the key differences between the traditionalist social pseudoconservatives and what the Republican are recently calling us libertarians – fiscal free market conservatives – is that libertarians, despite the majority of ‘em being religious believers, don’t talk about religion much.

If at all. Libertarian religionists seem to think that religion is something like masturbation. You do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards.

The social pseudoconservatives, on the other hand (a great many of them being what used to be called Christian socialists a century ago; look into the history of the brothers Bellamy to find the origin of the spectacularly fascist Pledge of Allegiance and the wonderful Bellamy Salute) maunder on about God’s will and what God wants us to do and how everything’s in the scriptures, and yadda-yadda-yadda.

Seems as if they’ve got no intellectual grounding for a defense of limited government (when they do defend it), but their consensus delusion is that the Founders were all Good Christian Men, the Founders handed down the U.S. Constitution from a nosebleed height somewhere over Philadelphia, and us contemporary Americans have to support and defend that Constitution because God Himself ordained it.

And God knows how the commerce clause gets interpreted.

Everything with these clowns is an article of faith, and if you don’t agree with their religious beliefs, you’re a Very Bad Person, all kinds of immoral and ugly and you’ll come to a sordid end when your syphilis catches up to you.

And then you’ll die, whereupon your problems will REALLY begin.

Libertarians who profess any kind of religious belief tend to do their professing with quiet restraint. They seem to get the notion that religious belief – which has only the most threadbare and flimsy relation to objective reality – is a lousy way of seeking common ground.

C;mon. Fess up. If you’ve let Jesus into your heart, or found Nirvana in the Dharma, or discovered the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s secret sauce, how the hell d’you PROVE it to anybody?

How can you even be sure that your seemingly closest co-religionist – faithfully chanting from the sacred 1927 Pimlico racing form that makes up your sect’s holy text and rubbing blue mud into his navel with the rest of the congregation – isn’t actually a fiendish fellow who sneaks off into darkened places to convene with his coven in Wiccan ceremonies of debauch and “skyclad” display?

Or, worse, that he harbors a heretical belief that the 1929 Pimlico racing form ought to be incorporated in the liturgy, and it’d be perfectly fine to mix a little brown mud in there just for contrast.

Lordy, no wonder these religious nutcases always look so pinched and anxious and Crohn’s disease-ish. Probably living on Lomotil and chugging Maalox like Pepsi-Cola. Got some deep-seated insecurities on account of they’ve built their Weltanschauung on a foundation precisely as solid as a fog bank.

The libertarian – who might clutch his gun but hardly remembers where he put his family Bible after entering the information on his most recent grandkid five years ago – sets a higher priority on the importance of things which can be known (like the M3 and the gadarene growth therein, no longer reported by the Fed since 2005 ’cause – like child molesters – they really don’t want to advertise what they’re doing) than on matters ineffable.

Whether those with the religious whim-whams are Catholic or Protestant, Buddhist or Hindu, Muslim or Bahá’í, their “faith-based” approach to politics is bound to make ‘em obdurate about ghostlinesses over which reasoned argument is impossible, and while bringing religion blatantly into thei political lives a la William Jennings Bryan gets ‘em a warm glow of fellowship in marching along with their brother Ku-Kluxers, robed and hooded like a perambulating white sale, they reliably tend to alienate non-believers, leading to a degradation of civic comity and good public order.

If the episode of 5 November 2009 tells us anything about religion and its impact upon human behavior, it seems to be that the botched and the incompetent (which certainly seems to include Army “lifers” like Dr. Hasan) are peculiarly susceptible to strange and terrible delusions, and that religion’s impact upon such persons slides them into thought disorders whereby their quality of life is much degraded and eventually we start discovering corpses in their crawlspaces.

And it looks as if our drive-by media is trying to sell the message that firearms ownership must be restricted and “regulated’ when in fact a better argument can be made for strict permitting (with regular proof of sound mental function) before anyone can enter a place of worship or profess a creed.

I’d be happy to see all of my grandchildren getting their first fully automatic weapon (more and more I’m drawn to the FN P90 chambering the same 5.7x28mm round employed by Dr. Hasan in his moment of apotheosis) instead of First Holy Communion.

Think of fifty rounds aimed fire as the libertarian’s equivalent of reciting the holy rosary.

“Anarch’s legions now surround us
Strike – and do not count the blow!”

43. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 12, 2009

Rich- Evahbody say HALLELUIAH EVAHBODY SAY OPEN FAHR!!! Where do I sign the range rules of the Church of Samuel Colt. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. My only question is “Is re-loading a religious sacrament, or is it an act of contrition?”

44. Mike - November 12, 2009

“Until you are prepared to tell your suggestions and opinions how Muslims and non Muslims can leave in peace together ”

The first step, alas, would be for Muslims to want to live in peace with non-Muslims. The historical record, and the doctrines of Islam (especially Taqiyya and Kitman, the doctrines of “holy deception”), clearly show that this is not the case.

Hell, they misquote their own scriptures all the time on this basis, especially when trying to claim that Islam “respects” other religions. Islam, scripturally, doesn’t even allow for the existence of anything but itself, Christianity, and Judaism, and in that only if the Christians and Jews agree to submit themselves to Shari’a law. Among the dictates that they have to agree to are (a) extra taxes, (b) seeing their kids raised Muslim, (c) never discussing their religion with anyone, (d) wearing “identifying marks” to brand them as subclass citizens (Ever wonder where Hitler got his idea for the yellow stars of david from, hmm? Now you know!), and (e) exist in a permanent state of decline, because they are not allowed to expand their places of worship or even rebuild them should a “natural (storm/flood/etc)” or manmade disaster occur (a favorite trick of the Mohammedians in supposedly “tolerant” nations like Lebanon and Egypt is to commit arson upon the supposed “people of the book”, such as the Christian Copts, and then invoke this clause to justify preventing them from rebuilding).

And also remember that the the Arabic translation of “Mein Kampf” has been a consistent top-seller in the “Arab world” (Lebanon through Egypt through Iran/Pakistan/etc) since its revival by a Lebanese publisher in the early ’90s.

The unfortunate reality is that the religion of Islam needs something akin to a Martin Luther – someone who will push for needed reforms that will be adopted by a levelheaded majority (much like, except for certain ecumenical beliefs such as a disagreement on the number of sacraments, most of Luther’s theses were eventually adopted by the Catholics as being good reforms). Unfortunately, the structure of Muslim religious brainwashing/training and Muslim hierarchy preludes any such change.

And of course, the first thing that needs to go IS the brainwashing-devised routines of the Muslim faith, which if you are “devout” (or merely training someone to be) involve the same brainwashing crap that goes on in any major cult – sleep deprivation, food deprivation, rote chanting and memorization without allowing question or debate, etc.

45. Al Perez - November 12, 2009

I didn’t ask what Muslims should do. I asked what Mike and people who agree with him should do about Muslims

46. R.D. Bartucci - November 12, 2009

Mike, regarding the need for a Muslim equivalent of the Protestant Reformation, I kinda/sorta made the same point in a post I’d appended to Neil’s previous “A Little Gun Note” before I’d realized that he’d started this thread.

Link here (if my HTML works).

Though you’ll see I’ve not your rosy impression of Martin Luther. He was not what you’d precisely call any sort of advocate of either individual autonomy or what atheist writer George H. Smith has called “the habit of reasonableness,” which Luther correctly identified as the enemy of faith.

In his native Kultur, the Muslim appears to have a galloping mass inferiority complex when it comes to other religions (and even variations on the theme of Islam; look at the bloodshed within as the result of contumacy between Shia and Sunni, and between the Wahhabi sect and bloody everybody).

Were the Muslims each not conscious of the likelihood of their precious uniformity of adherence to his particular orthodoxy going bye-bye if his co-religionists were permitted access to thoughts divergent from his dogma (meaning if you don’t viciously quash the proselytizings of competing sky pilots, your own precious religious community will come to pieces like the proverbial Pakistani hand grenade), rather than truly confident of the superiority of his Way Unto Paradise, I suspect that they would be a helluva lot easier to live with.

As it is, they’re still very much in the “witch burning” stage of their group psychosocial development, and to get them out of it might well require some sort of massive uproar akin to the Black Death that so thoroughly jostled Christian Europe out of its subordination to Holy Mother Church.

Not at all likely to happen, especially in light of the Muslim world’s extensive economic intercourse with the hated (but technologically more adept) infidel West.

They can parasitically batten upon the goodies created by the Nazrany dogs and drag themselves along, kicking and screaming, to a surety of survival and even a quality of life their mass thought pathology (masquerading as a religious faith) would otherwise forfend.

47. Mike - November 12, 2009

Al Perez –

What should be done about Islam? What people should do whenever bullies show up. Fight back.

Does this have to be military? Not at all. But saying “No” when they make unreasonable demands, and informing them that the civilized world will not put up with their barbarism, misogyny, and general poor behavior, is a good starting point. And when they get violent, then yes, it’s time to fight back.

“Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute.” Boy, have we forgotten that that actually works. Neville Chamberlain, Jimmy Carter, and their devotee Obama do not understand how well such a simple method works. And look at how well the policies of the appeasers never work.

48. al perez - November 12, 2009

so I take that unless you are overage or physically halt you have (re)enlisted to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia (where we are in fact carrying out covert military ops if you pay attention.) . There are in fact persons who claim to be Muslims who use war against the US as a tool to gain tyrannical power over the billion or so peaceful and decent people who practice is Islam.

If you are in fact in the Service and actively at war with this terroristic wannabe tyrants as an old fat American I thank you. I’m pretty sure that if you ask them in private most honest decent Muslims will say the same.

Meanwhile, spouting anger and hatred that will spill over onto innocents and is so easily turned onto fellow Americans who do not charge off to the nearest gun store, then help you rent or buy transport to go to the Middle East and massacre a few million rag heads (and yes Mike, that is how your first posts come across.) is not exactly rhe way to make things better.

I admit that certain persons who happen to be Muslims have expressed a desire to kill Americans. If I run into such a person and they express or display a desire to kill me or persons under my protection I will endeavor to kill them first. However I will not spend the time until then working myself into a state of adrenal exhaustion experiencing fear, hatred and anger towards these sons of Satan.

Doesn’t let me enjoy kittens, puppy doggies, hummingbirds and pretty girls, not to mention making my hand shake enough to mess up my aim.

Spend more time enjoying kittens, puppydogss, butterflies and pretty girls and target shooting and less time being so pissed.

49. Ann Morgan - November 12, 2009

Well, I have a couple things to say. First of all, there are very few actual ‘Christians’ who exist today, or who have existed for the past 1700 years or so. The reason I say this, is that the vast majority of those who call themselves ‘Christians’ are not following the teachings of Christ, but rather, a combination of the teachings of St. Paul and St. Augustine.

An example of the crap spouted by St. Augustine would be his belief that ‘an erect penis is a symbol of man’s defiance of God’, and that if human beings had not ‘fallen’ in the Garden of Eden, they would have sex without a man’s penis becoming erect, and without any passion or feelings. Never mind that this manner of sex is physically pretty much impossible, is not one engaged in by any other species of mammal on the planet (which supposedly are not ‘fallen’), would make continuation of the human species not very likely, and is (if you think about it) a good working definition of *hell*.

Regarding Islam, their problem as I see it, (and other religions have had this problem in the past) is that their religious beliefs require them to make themselves, and everybody else around them, absolutely miserable. This sort of activity almost always leads to arrogant and violent fanatacism.

If your religious beliefs are relatively harmless, be it putting out food for fairies, or running around the woods naked, or having orgies, and someone else says: “I think your religious beliefs are false, and your prophets were full of crap”, you can always respond to them: “Well la-ti-dah, my religious practices are amusing to me, and not hurting you, so why don’t you just go run along and pick out the dust from between your toes? And I’ll just keep doing what I want to do.”

On the other hand, if your religious beliefs lead you to harm yourself and others, you HAVE to believe that those beliefs are absolutely true, that they absolutely, no questioned allowed, come from GOD. You cannot allow any question to this, because the only alternative, is then that you have been wasting your life and harming others, at the behest of your own evil nature, or that of long-dead madmen, or of the devil himself. Nor can you co-exist with any other religions that do not inflict the same misery on themselves and others. Other religions MUST be false, otherwise the same principal applies, that you have been doing evil to yourself and others for no good reason.

50. Ann Morgan - November 12, 2009

As for what I would do about it… well here’s one thought. How about killing them with kindness? Capture as many of them as possible, and tie them to a bed for a few months, at the tender mercies of some very well trained prostitutes. They will then likely be forced to choose between believing that their religion is at least partly false, or that they are damned.

51. al perez - November 12, 2009

Mike said the way to deal with (presumably) Islamic bullies is to fight them in (again presumably) defense of the group he belongs to, presumably the citizenry of the USA. Unless he is physically incapable or all talk and no action, this leaves him no option but to (re)enlist in the military and ask to go wage war against Moslems who are at war with the US.

Bob, since you deny that practicing Muslims are capable of being peaceful or decent and feel they are all at war with non Muslims I assume you intend to wage a war of genocide against them until there are no Muslims left who can do you harm.

Or did you fail to realize this is where your statements were going?

If a person comes ay me with murderous intent I w ill follow the advice of the Talmud and Malcolm Reynolds. I will not twist my innards into a knot hating Muslims, skinheads, communists, devotees of chicanismo who feel I’m too Americanized, Luther Jones (even thiought the sumbitch outlawed me back when) or any of my potential or real enemies.

Like I said all it leads to is adrenal exhaustion and a shaky gunhand.

52. Ann Morgan - November 12, 2009

Neil, anyway, I think there is an error in your logic. The fact that one group of people in the past committed a particular sort of immoral action, cannot be used to either condemn that group in the present, if that group is no longer engaged in that particular action, nor can it be used to excuse a DIFFERENT group of people, who ARE engaged in the same immoral action in the present. You are trying to use the immoral actions of Christians from 600 years ago, to both condemn people who are Christians today (but do not engage in these immoral actions) and to excuse the Muslims of today who ARE engaged in such immoral actions.

By that logic, we would have to beleive both of the following:

1. The Germans in the 1930′s engaged in genocide of the Jews: Therefore, all people of German ancestry are evil, regardless of whether they were alive and present in 1930′s Germany or not

2. The Germans disarmed their people and engaged in genocidal acts 70 years ago. Therefore, it is acceptable for other countries to disarm their people and commit genocide today.

Who are you anyways, and what did you do with the real L. Neil Smith?

53. Mike - November 13, 2009

L. Neil Smith,

as it turns out, the murdering jihadist terrorist had the initials “SoA(SWT)” on his business card.

If you didn’t know, that either stands for “Solder of Allah” or “Slave of Allah.” The “SWT” is one of those honorifics devout Muslims stick behind the name of their pagan moon god, similar to how they stick “PBUH” behind the name of their rapist pedophile “prophet.”

So it would indeed appear that he is a “devout Muslim” and that this has quite everything to do with religion.

But don’t mind me. After all, why let the facts get in the way of your insane rant?

54. R.D. Bartucci - November 13, 2009

All (including the Neil himself, Ann, Mike, Bob [do we need the insults?} and my fellow old fat American,” al), I’ve been thinking a about the Muslim concept of fitna.

In case my link above fails to work (I am HTML-challenged), “fitna” is an Arabic word, and like a lot of short Arabic words it conveys conceptual content that us English-speakers (with our language’s Germanic roots) would normally express using either compound words (“flamethrower”) or portmanteau terms (“Republicrat”).

“Fitna” is used among the Faithful to signify a lot of stuff. Sedition, anarchy, disbelief, heresy, persecution (of the Faithful, not us infidels), upheaval, fragmentation, dissent, anarchy, that sort of stuff.

All of it, by their lights, horribly bad.

Appreciating “fitna” (and the fact that every Muslim, including the “moderates” we keep hearing about) may be the key to an understanding of why it’s been impossible to make a dent on these people insofar as the concept of “live and let live” goes.

We’ve got “laissez-faire,” they’ve got “fitna.”

One of the characteristics of Christianity (whether one is, as Ann observes, practicing what the Christ preached or merely rubbing blue mud into one’s navel and behaving otherwise as one predatorialy pleases) is the notion that the Christian’s relationship with the Almighty is PERSONAL.

The Christian, when you get right down to it, is “saved” or “damned” on the basis of his one-to-one dickerings with the Higher Power, aided by the mediation of Jesus of Nazareth in both teachings and His active intercession on behalf of each single Christian who petitions Him for salvation.

This is what got the Christians in trouble with the Romans, who took seriously the “fitna” factor in that, though you could worship other gods (Mithra, Isis, whatever) as you pleased, you HAD to offer sacrifice and go through the forms of worshiping the gods of the Roman pantheon, too.

It was a social and political “harmonizing” factor. As with the Islamic world, the Romans of that era took seriously the notion that their civilization was an integral whole, and despite interest in and toleration (to one degree or another) of barbarians, civilized and uncivilized, those who were “Roman” had to conform to certain standards, including the overt expressions of belief.

The Christians not only worshiped their One God but they insisted that said deity was the only TRUE deity. Their belief system denied the validity of all other supernatural powers – except, for some strange reason, Satan – and up with that the Roman civil authorities couldn’t put.

Try to think of the Muslims as having something of that mindset. To them, there’s no dividing line between “church” and “state,” no “render unto Caesar,” nothing that is really secular.

Sure, they’ve fragmented in spite of this intrinsic loathing of “fitna.” The Shia/Sunni split is only the most conspicuous; there are a lot of lesser sects that have arisen, disappeared, or persisted. The Islamic population is huge (biggest religion on the planet), and it’d be nuts to expect that there wouldn’t be some fragmentation of though on the True Path to follow.

But Islam differs from Christianity and Judaism in that throughout the Islamic world they have The One Book, and it’s in Arabic. In fact, there’s more than a whiff of heresy in translating the Qur’an into any language other than Arabic.

When Barry Soetoro was a good little Indonesian schoolboy (before he went back to being Barack Hussein Obama), he learned Arabic to study Qur’an, and was an enthusiastic, focused, pray-five-times-a-day-to-Mecca little fellah.

In Indonesia – the most populous Muslim country – who the hell really knows Arabic? Who thinks in Arabic? Bloody few. But like us mackerel-snappers before Vatican II, their religious liturgy is in a language they can’t really understand, and – worse! – their equivalent of the Bible is in Arabic, too.

You religious guys understand why for so many years the Curia insisted on keeping the Catholic liturgy in Latin? And it wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that you started to see either liturgy or scripture translated into the local vernacular.

The Curia wanted to enforce “fitna,” too.

Moreover, the Muslims have the hajj, the required pilgrimage to Mecca, a perilous and expensive task that is REQUIRED of Islamic true believers, meaning that whatever bunch of Sand Nazis controls the holy city pretty much dictates orthodoxy – and defines “fitna” – for all other Muslims.

Now consider the concept of “jihad,” which is more than just wogs going bugnuts with airliners, truck bombs, and online videos of infidels getting their heads chopped off.

The expression “jihad” signifies “striving in the way of Allah,” the general struggle of the believing Muslim to conform with what his deity wants of him.

In this life of “jihad,” the Muslim is guided by the legal (remember, in Islam, there’s no distinction between secular an canon law) pronunciations uttered by Islamic scholar, the “fatw?s” we’ve all been hearing about.

In a “fatw?” it is possible for any Islamic scholar to call for “jihad” of any kind. Not just “kill the minions of the Great Satan” but also “wash your hands with soap and water, for the love of Allah.”

So why haven’t any of these Muslim “moderates” we’ve been hearing about issued “fatw?s” calling for the murdering bugnuts (and murderer-wannabee types like Dr. Hasan up to 1:30 PM local time on 5 November 2009) among their co-religionists to slack to hellangone off?

There may be the key to understanding why the Muslims impress people like Mike as worthy of nothing but forcible and violent extirpation, root and branch.

If “live and let live” were in Islam at all, the religious scholars of Islam would be falling over themselves to go on record – in loud and emphatic fatw? after fatw? – to declare jihad against the hatred and killing of infidels.

“Fitna” would drive the lesser fellahin to conformity, and this bullshit would end.

But to the best of my ability to determine NONE of the Islamic scholars with enough stature in the Islamic world have taken the necessary actions to shut this violence down.

None of ‘em.

And these guys interpret and define Islam to millions of potential murdering Mujahideen all over the world.

Neil, there is definitely something rotten – root and branch – about Islam, and, ceteris paribus, that rot is in every Muslim, no matter how mild and inoffensive he may seem.

Hell, up until he started to go “devout” after his parents’ deaths in 1998 and 2001, Nidal Malik Hasan was just another Army “lifer,” slurping up every benefit he could wangle out of Uncle Sugar – a free ride through college AND medical school, a commission, pay and perqs, and not so much as a single hardship tour anywhere at any time.

What drove this guy up to the edge and then over?

Nothing but Islam.

He didn’t plan and execute what he did on 5 November because he was a psychiatrist (intrinsically strange and screwy as psychiatrists robustly tend to be).

He did it because he was a Muslim.

55. R.D. Bartucci - November 13, 2009

Oh, damn.

“Appreciating ‘fitna’ (and the fact that every Muslim, including the ‘moderates’ we keep hearing about) ABHORS ‘FITNA’ may be the key to an understanding of why it’s been impossible to make a dent on these people insofar as the concept of ‘live and let live’ goes.”

Proofreading in these little message boxes….

Probably made even more mistakes, but that one needed correction. Sorry.

56. al perez - November 13, 2009

Containment worked so well that Cuba, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Angola, Rhodesia/Zimbawe, and Nicaragua had become Soviet allies and satrapies by 1980.
If it had worked any less we’d be singing The International instead of The Star Spangled Banner by now.

So basically your solution is leave them (Moslems, to review the bidding) alone as long as they leave us alone? If so, why invest so much spleen into it?

So one particular Muslim made war against the US because that’s where his faith took him. This is a reason to hate all Muslims?

If you say that the US should wage war against Al Qaeida and other terrorist groups who use Islam as an excuse to commit crimes I will agree. If you say that we should forcibly deal with certain clerics and politicians in the Muslim World who incite terrorism against America as part of their plan to gain and/or exercise tyrannical power in Saudi Arabia I will agree. If you tell me that Hasan should be executed for murder, treason and mutiny because of crimes he committed in the name of Islam I will agree.

I think it’s a good way to put knots in your stomach and mess up your aim with the shakes and therefor a foolish idea, but if you wish to let hate for Islam consume your heart, go for it.

Just don’t think you have the right to require me to share your hatred. Nor should you confuse my willingness to live in peace with Muslims who live peaceably with a reluctance or hesitation
to shoot (or stab, beat, bomb ) dead any who attempt to violate my rights.

How this attitude makes me a fool I do not know. How asking if someone who expresses a need to make war against Islamic terrorists has joined the military to honorably and legally do so makes me a leftist loony I do not know.

57. R.D. Bartucci - November 13, 2009

al, it’s not that “[you] let hate for Islam consume your heart” but rather that it seems necessary to cold-bloodedly acknowledge that there’s much in the essence of Islam that’s genuinely pathological, just as the essence of Hitler’s National Socialism (which, it has been observed above, seems in the past half-century to have been embraced by those Muslims in the Sandbox who have been scooping up Arabic translations of *Mein Kampf*) is utterly rotten and flamingly evil.

Hm. I recall that in May 1940, Gandhi wrote that the Germans of the future “will honour Herr Hitler as a genius, a brave man, matchless organiser and much more.”

Hasn’t happened yet, but who knows? Look at how present-day statists foster the worship Lincoln, “The American Lenin.”

Funny what will appeal to the Asian who considers himself in conflict with the infidel West, isn’t it?

Economically disengaging from the Islamic world is neither a viable option (if for no other reason than that they’re squatting atop a vast pool of oil, the presence of which was proven and the extraction of which has been undertaken entirely by those of us in the infidel West) nor a desideratum.

But engaging them socially, culturally, and politically is insane. Going beyond the minimum necessary to maintain government-to-government communications (diplomatic recognition, suitably fortified embassies and consulates, etc.), there’s no reason whatsoever to cede the Muslim world more legitimacy than one accords wild animals in the woods.

Just as I’m not advocating the pre-emptive extermination of all lions in the wildernesses of Africa (or securely behind bars in various zoological gardens), I’m not in favor of obliging people to accept the presence of lions in their schools and workplaces and government, be those particular lions ever-so-mild in their outward demeanor.

Remember, if Barney the Dinosaur were not a human-sized puppet and therefore true to his theropod nature, he’d lose it in front of the camera and start EATING all those annoying little kids.

And, of course, I’d buy the DVD on that show. Wouldn’t you?

You want to be simultaneously a good, professing Muslim and not only batten upon the American taxpayer but also serve in the armed forces of the republic?

Well, you can’t get into the Army or suck your way into a civil service job if you’ve got a track record of membership in the Aryan Brotherhood, can you?

Why should Islam be treated any differently?

I’m foursquare in favor of religious freedom, including neither the “establishment of religion” nor government policies debilitating the members of any religion in particular.

But is Islam really a religion?

In the American post-Enlightenment “render unto Caesar” separation-of-church-and-state sense, it’s not. Never was, isn’t now, and with the Qur’an and Islamic scholarship and “fitna” likely to continue as status quo, it never will be.

Islam may very well be – like the Nazi Party – a criminal conspiracy. It merely takes the guise of a religion, the way the National Socialist German Workers’ Party took the guise of a political movement.

The tender, politically correct attitude toward Islam – including Dubbya’s prevaricative “War on Terrorism” nonsense when it’s not possible to evade the fact that it’s really Islam’s jihad against the infidel West in which we find ourselves – seems incontrovertably wrong-headed and without justification.

Getting Muslims out of the military – as Dr. Hasan himself suggested in his misspelled and half-assed PowerPoint presentation a few months ago – may be a start on the best possible way of handling Islam.

And the treatment of all American Muslims as if they were resident enemy aliens may be wholly justified until we get from Islamic scholars in these United States and elsewhere some distinct and explicit fatwas declaring Holy War – jihad – against “radical Islam” and the violent hatred of us “Great Satan” folks.

Either “fitna” works to the advantage of the public peace and respect for the rule of secular law under the Bill of Rights, or “fitna” has got to be acknowledged as tarring all Muslims with the mark of Cain.

58. al perez - November 13, 2009

I knew this was coming, Rick. My comments in posting # 58 was being written while you sent in comments #56 & 57. They were aimed at the rather vitriolic tenor in other people’s comments.

No pantera leo in my area, but we have the occassional issue w/felis concolor wandering in from the mountains even though I’m in ahighly urbanized area. Also rattlers and black widows.

I’m on Janet II’s watch list as a potential terrorist (anti big government progun member of an anti abortion religion) so if If Muslims belong there too and higher up the list, not a problem.

And when someone combines an intolerant faith (which Islam undeniably is) with the classic loser symptoms Hasan displayed he deserves his own special page.

May whatever God that truly exists inspire Muslim clerics to issue fatwas calling for a more peaceful existence with their neighbors (and not the peace of the grave or forced conversion).

Until then, how to protect ourselves from Muslims who feel a need to act violently without denying all Muslims freedom of religion is a pretty problem. Please keep in mind that If we deny Muslims freedom of religion we create the precedent for doingt he same to Catholics and other churches opposed to abortion because of terrorist acts against abortion clinics. Banning the followers of Mohammed opens the door to banning the followers of Falwell.

there is a difference between reasonable caution and bigotry and I wish everyone well in trying to find that balance.

59. R.D. Bartucci - November 13, 2009

al, as has been observed, the difference between Christianity and Islam in terms of violent acts undertaken in the name of religious piety is that such practices have been substantially whipped out of the former while the latter goes on and on without any sort of emphatic condemnation of murderous attacks on the part of the Faithful.

It may be that such is impossible.

No matter how bloodthirsty is the JudeoChristian bible in its various versions, or how horrible the words and actions (characterized so vividly above) of the early Fathers of the Church or the Holy Inquisition, the prevailing moral authority (in terms of religious orthodoxy) in all Jewish and Christian sects moves the acknowledged leadership to vigorous condemnation of believers who try violently to execute what they conceive to be “God’s will” upon the bodies of other people.

When a godstruck Christian fundamentalist blows away an abortionist or bombs a clinic, the parsons and priests and bishops stand up loudly and decry it, not uncommonly (especially among those of the Protestant heresies) pointing in scripture to all sorts of bases upon which such restraint is required of the believer.

Pious “progressive” mouthings aside, is there really anything in the Qur’an or in the hadith to provide a doctrinal basis for a “tolerance and peace” jihad that matches the many more (and more puissant) calls for dominance and slaughter?

It may be that Allah the Ineffable will not “inspire Muslim clerics to issue fatwas calling for a more peaceful existence with their neighbors” because there’s nothing in the Prophet’s message or in the work of subsequent Islamic scholars to support such fatwas.

The deeper I look into Islam, the more I become convinced that intolerance – forget Dhimmitude – and frothing xenophobia are inextricably part of what Islam is, and what it MUST be.

Unlike any figure of significance in current Christian religious doctrine, you’ve got to remember that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdull?h was himself a leader in combat. He and his followers in the time after the Hijra survived by raiding and plundering nonbelievers’ caravans.

Can you think of a single religious authority to whom present-day Christians turn for guidance who have the sort of “Bloody Bill Anderson” history that Muhammad does?

With that kind of germ in the very seed of Islam, there may not be any way to temper the excesses to which the Muslim seems intrinsically heir.

60. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 13, 2009

What a challenge it is to maintain my hard earned political beliefs when confronted by this “Faith”. I have read the Koran. It REQUIRES all the world to submit to Allah. You can be a Christian or Jew, but you must allow your kids to be brought up Muslim. You can keep your Churches and synagogues, but if they get damaged, you can’t rebuild or repair them. You can’t try to convert others to your faith, or even discuss faith with others, with the exception of the Islamic faith. Islam REQUIRES the conversion by word or sword of ALL inidels. Now, I know several Muslims, and needless to say, none of them have (yet) beheaded me as an infidel. But, and this is important, each and every one of them has admitted the truth of the pre-ceeding statements. They add that they have never practised Jihad, and consider it rather extreme, but they admit to it’s truth.
They have acknowledged that animists, pagans, Hindu, Buddhists, Wiccan, atheists and EVERY other faith but Chriatians or Jews MUST submit and convert or be put to death, without exception. Christians and Jews MUST submit, and adhere to the afore-mentioned rules, or likewise be put to death.
So this leads me to the following conclusions. According to these statements, I have two choices in life. I can return to my roots, become a practising Christian (Episcopalian, in my case), raise my kids as Muslims, Veil my wife, pray 5 times a day, yadda yaddda yadda. Or I can die in order to get along with Islam. So, after coming to these conclusions, I asked one of these Muslim acquaintances if they truly support this interpretation of mine. Not only did he not disagree, he offered to help me convert. This attitude is from a man born in this country to Arab parents here 40 years. They moved here at the time of the 6 Day War. He served 2 hitches in the army, been out 8-9 years. ANd yet, he agrees with this crap. I asked him how, if he believed in this, he could live here, raise his kids as Americans, allow his daughters to dress western, and have infidels for friends. His answer told me all I needed to know. “It is not yet time to force the issue. Eventually, you all WILL submit to Allah as foretold. And when the time comes, we will go back to following the ways of our fathers. But for now, to fit in, we live like this. But at home, they know the right way to live, dress, and act.”
So I have to say, live and let live sounds swell, and I am willing to try, but I must admit, I watch him like a hawk. If he ever comes to my door in a Kheffiyah, my .45 will be in my hand quicker than he can yell “Allahu Ahkbar!”

61. R.D. Bartucci - November 13, 2009

Neale, limited though personal (empirical) evidence might be, your interview with your Muslim acquaintance – who’d “served 2 hitches in the army” – gives credence to the Q-ship type of false front presented to us infidels even by Muslims born and raised here in the U.S.A.

And what does this say about our current Usurper-in-Chief? He had been raised to be an enthusiastically practicing Muslim in his Indonesian childhood, and had to be dragged by his wife to the United Church of Christ to put an acceptable “Christian” gloss on his political resume and get this Whiter-than-sour-cream scion of the Dunham household familiar with that American Black idiom and comportment by which he might distinguish himself from the slew of Honky politicians in the National Socialist Party.

If this human-shaped pile of shit is in any way committed to any religion whatsoever, what gives anyone reason to credit his protestations of Christianity when he’s let slip so many admissions of fondness for (and perhaps covert devotion to) the practices of Islam?

Islam explicitly directs good Muslims to disguise themselves and dissemble – to LIE – when dealing with infidels.

It’s not only not a sin for a Muslim to “bear false witness” to those not of the True Faith for the purpose of disarming them and preparing them for conquest, forcible conversion, or murder, but – pardon the Hebrew, but I don’t know the Arabic word for the concept – to the Muslim it’s a mitzvah.

What the hell do you DO when confronted by such people? How do you presume innocence – or, at any rate, harmlessness – when you know that each and every one of them, as a matter of deeply conditioning “moral” teachings, looks at you the way your dog looks at a squirrel that’s inconveniently just out of his reach?

How do you think about and react to any Muslim when you’re aware of the fact that he sincerely believes that (for the glory of Allah and that short battalion of virgins in Paradise) he’s on the proverbial “Mission from God” to cut you down and slaughter you in front of your family the moment he thinks he can get away with it?

How the hell can there be a “trust, but verify” attitude when matters of faith CAN’T be objectively verified and the code of ethics imposed by an organized religion’s doctrines explicitly foster the practices of deception and treachery?

Neil, you want to kick in with some help here?

62. al perez - November 14, 2009

When Muslims strike at me I will strike back at them. Yes i realize that many are biding their time until they are strong enough to defeat us in Holy War. Which of your freedoms are you willing to give up to block or delay that day? Please don’t suggest I give up mine, that makes you as much my enemy as any Jihadist Muslim.

Are you suggesting that we kill or exile all Muslims living in the United States and ban any from ever immigrating here ever again?

Don’t waste my time calling me a fool, idiot , nitwit or otherwise suggesting i am mentally defective. Please don’t waste my time suggesting I am full of crap. Do not accuse me of being a practitioner of fuzzy logic.

I am asking for a yes or no answer, are you asking for a war of extermination against all Muslims living in the US. No alternatives, no explanations of your reasoning, no hemming and hawing, no comments on the evils of Islam or the personal and cultural failings of its practitioners. Just a simple yes or no answer to a blunt question, are you calling on your fellow Americans to carry out genocide against the Muslims in America.

Just a yes or no answer please.

and yes I am a total dick for putting you on the spot like this.

63. R.D. Bartucci - November 14, 2009

al, I don’t know as the solution set is so binary – “a war of extermination against all Muslims living in the US” or Dhimmitude.

Don’t you yourself distrust “No alternatives” propositions? The fallacy of the loaded question, it seems.

I dunno what Bob might say, but my paternal grandparents (having not petitioned for citizenship prior to December 1941) were classified as resident enemy aliens until Italy surrendered in 1943 and came over to the Allies as a co-belligerent.

These two inoffensive, illiterate old folks were treated as a species of “status offenders.” Unlike the Nisei, they weren’t required to move into any kind of secure facility, but they were monitored (though admittedly not very rigorously).

Why should it not be possible to treat with professing Muslims in these United States as my grandparents were treated in the early years of War Two?

If nothing else, requirements to register and submit to monitoring – nothing more onerous than for, say, a low-risk sexual offender – would serve to keep them mindful that the infidels had their eyes upon these Beloved of Allah while at the same time keeping the Polizei mindful of the presence and condition of the Muslims in their communities.

Certainly, any number of real sleepers could and would sneak in, or – like Barry Soetoro – claim conversion to Christianity. But some way to keep them on the “potential jihadi” list would be reasonable.

Meaning, of course, that our Mombasa Messiah would be in for lifetime “permanent probation” similar to that suffered by rapists and similar folk.

Not inappropriate in his case, nu?

As for the Muslims’ constitutional rights under the “no bll of attainder” clause in Article 1, Section 9, the same loophole as the “Megan’s Law” statutes – that it’s not a punishment (in the sex offenders’ cases, tacked onto their criminal punishment ex post facto) but rather a measure to improve public health and safety – works to excuse what would otherwise be condemned as religious persecution.

Remember the doubts I’d voiced above about Islam NOT really being a religion? It’s more like openly professed loyalty to a hostile foreign power.

I dunno if Allah don’t like us here in the Great Satan, but those who would attain slavish obedience to the Will of Allah sure as hell are hostile.

As a matter of what passes in Islam for religious doctrine.

Think about it. Such a measure would be nothing, more or less, than what Muslims in countries under Sharia do to Jews and Christians resident therein.

Let’s treat the Muslims as American “Dhimmi.”

Turnabout is fair play, right?

64. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 14, 2009

Al, I agree with the idea of if, then that you espouse. I just wonder if the fact that they will admit to the deception is tantmount to an initiation of force or not. As to Bob’s attacks on a couple of my friends, I do not know whether he is another of Neil’s who gets a free ride as a “Friendly antagonist”, but in my opinion, unless vouched for under the “Harmless idiot” clause, I’ll just ignore him. Blind bigotry is better ignored, until/unless it is acted on.

65. Al Perez - November 14, 2009

Actually I’m just asking if Bob is willing to push his rhetoric to its logical conclusion.

And that’s only because he puts so much anger a and hatred into his comments. He sounds like he wants a war of genocide. Is he just running off at the mouth or psyching himself up for such a war.

We frequently have to treat probable enemies like friends, that doesn’t mean they’re really our friends. the american propensity
to forget this is amazing, Jimmy Carter’s naive style of dealing wth the USSR comes to mind.

I prefer to follow Heinlein’s advice available in “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long”.

Just remember, restrictions placed on Muslims set a precedent for similar restrictions on other faiths.
Observant caution against potential threats is one thing. hatred and demanding that people share your hatred are other things.

The first is common sense. The second is a normal human action. However, it is not a good way to avoid unnecessary fights or get people to support you.

66. R.D. Bartucci - November 14, 2009

Neale, in my experience “blind bigotry” is a low-incidence phenomenon among libertarians, prevalent though it certainly is in the statist population.

This means that we’re not likely to get specimens representative of the blind bigot in any exchange of this nature on a thread being operated by a libertarian Prominent like L. Neil Smith. Bob (and Mike), each in his way seems to represent a resource to be exploited.

My own attitude toward Islam as a social, political, and even philosophical system (again, I’m not sure that it really can be considered a “religion” in our separation-of-church-and-state sense of how religion interfaces with civil government in this country) hardens more and more as I consider the origins, doctrines, and especially the track record over the past century of Islam in general and of Muslim-dominated nation states in particular.

To draw a parallel in pathology, the tissue specimens showing up under the microscope show such evidence of malignancy that a diagnosis of benignity seems impossible to support.

Let’s say that Bob and Mike, rough-edged as they are, give us a valid idea of sentiments prevailing in the general population.

Frankly, I think both of ‘em rather moderate their expressions of rage. What’s been going up on the few other blog sites I’ve tracked since 5 November have been much more along the lines of “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”

(“Kill ‘em all. God will know His own.”)

While things aren’t quite as bad now as they were for folk who were both obviously non-Christian and of Central Asian origin after 9/11 –

(at that time I was most often patronizing a gas station run by an extended family of Sikhs, a sect which has been more or less continuously at war with Islam since its inception, and they were subjected to vicious harassment in those September and October days of hatred, lacking fluency in English to explain that the al-Qaeda attacks had merely dragged America onto the side of the Sikhs, and welcome to a true appreciation of Muslim viciousness)

- the anger expressed by Mike and Bob is out there in force. The opportunity to read and react to their snarls and growls isn’t without its value.

Hell, I’m Sicilian enough to echo their emotions. The concept of blood feud runs so deeply through my marrow that it’s a temptation I’ve got to consciously resist.

“Turn the other cheek” is not really a libertarian precept, is it?

As you yourself have written, once the predisposition of an individual to violent aggression (as in the case of your Muslim ex-soldier acquaintance) has been identified, the proper response is “watch him like a hawk” and be prepared with stopping power in the expectation that he might well go _juramentado_ and act gaudily upon his peculiarly vicious belief system.

Now, if that guy is representative of all Muslims (and there’s every indication that he is), then they’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing simply waiting for the opportunity to turn infidels like you and me into mutton.

Good heavens. And we’re supposed to be “the Great Satan.”

67. R.D. Bartucci - November 14, 2009

Bob, that Bastidge page put up the hairs at the nape of my neck.

I’d thought that my consideration that Islam might not truly be a religion in our American language’s sense of the term “religion” was original (I’d certainly not consciously derived it elsewhere), and here you link to a writer who even speaks to the lack of a “render unto Caesar” sentiment in Islamic sociopolitical doctrine.

Seems less a matter of “great minds think alike” (as if…) but rather “when it’s time to railroad, people start railroading.”

If we admit that the point is correct – that there is such an irreconcilable Kulturkampf between Islam and the infidel West, and that every average, harmless-seeming Muslim is really a “Dopey Joe” waiting for the chance to become a stobor – what’s to be done about it?

The point that “persecuting” people who can only be identified by virtue of their profession of faith sets precedent for our “Malevolent Jobholders” of civil government to debilitate or even criminalize members of less-than-popular religious sects (think “Mormons” in the 19th Century, “Wiccans” today) is certainly valid.

Politicians have proven that they can’t be trusted to exercise such an authority with anything remotely resembling discretion, much less respect for individual rights.

68. Al Perez - November 14, 2009

Bob

Dear Bob

So your answer is no. I didn’t ask for your instead. I asked you to answer the question without vituperation or explanation. Stripped of insults and explanations of why you hate Muslims your answer is no, you do not advocate genocide. Since you were polite enough to say what you would do instead i won’t bother to ask.

Please tell me what bars you frequent so I can avoid your company. If you are as loud mouthed, obnoxious, and gratuitously insultative in person as you are on the web you probably make those places unpleasant to frequent.

Sometimes life does get to yes or no choices and not facing this usually leads to the wrong choice. For all your brag you seem to lack the courage to face this.

On the other hand, I consider that since November of 1979 a state of undeclared war exists between the United States and Iran and their proxy Hezbollah. I also feel we should have faced up to t fact that we are at war with Al Qaeida back about the time they first surfaced. I run into an armed member of one of these groups or one actively engaged in operations against the US I will kill him dead on the spot as he is by his own admission trying to kill me (no I will not submit to forced conversion or allow either of my daughters to raped. By the way, do you have daughters or sons to protect, or are you just regurgitating rhetoric?).

This is totally different from spewing hatred that matches their rhetoric as evidence of homicidal disconnect from reality, both at the religion that they belong to and at people whose opinions are not in 100% in line with yours, Ayatollah Bob.

By the way, living next door to a town that is the center of a war between competing drug cartels and a government trying to reassert its sovereignty so bad that bringing in UN peace keepers is being discussed and waiting for it to spill over into my neighborhood and work place kinda uses up my worry circuits.

69. L. Neil Smith - November 14, 2009

All right, all right, enough is enough. As most of you know, I am preoccupied at the moment writing a novel in a month as part of the NANoWriMo project. I have just passed the halfway mark, and am more than a little satisfied with _Sweeter Than Wine_.

And I’m sure that’s why sneaky, sleazy little bigots, pisswits, and warmongers think it’s safe to insult me and those who agree with me on my own blog, a blog that was created to discuss the work I’m doing elsewhere on this website and in other aspects of my career. It was not meant to promote the Five Minute Hate — they can get enough of that crap on talk radio just now, I’m extremely sorry to say.

But I guess I’m going to have to take the time to deny to those who love the idea of dropping bombs on pregnant widows and ten year old goatherds — especially if they can find someone else to take the risk involved in doing it — a forum in which they can spew head-sewage just as poisonous and stupid as that of the Fort Hood shooter. The fact that it purports to be Christian head-sewage certainly doesn’t make it smell any better.

One of these insects has suggested that if I knew more about Islam I would happily hop onto his genocide wagon, and that my problem is that I’m ignorant.

Since I have made it clear that I have read the Koran twice, in two different translations (along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc.), and have known many Muslims personally, he will not be permitted to post freely here again — I will delete his messages — until he can demonstrate to everybody’s satisfaction that he has read Rose Wilder Lane’s great book _The Discovery of Freedom_ and found out exactly how ignorant he is, himself.

At that point his apologies will be graciously accepted.

P.S. Ann, not to single you out, but I don’t know where you got the things you have accused me of having said. I can’t correct you now, but I will undertake it after the end of the month.

70. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 14, 2009

Neil, please don’t let morons distract you from your work. I, for one, was expressing legitimate concerns over Islam, and I am sure you realixe that. As to Bob, dump his useless ass unless he at the least stops his nasty attitude. Many people here have disagreed with you, or one of the rest of us, and as long as the conversation remains polite, argument is welcome. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem to get it. My wife can attest to anyone that disagreement and discourse (A new book title???) is one of your favorite hobbies. However, viciousness and vituperation (take 2???) is never welcome. I know how much you detest the abrogation of free speech rights, but I, for one, think it is time to do a little abrogating. When man (and I use the term loosely, as a “man” would never act like this) enters your house, and then proceeds to abuse both you and other guests, THAT is the initiation of force. OPEN FIRE, Mr. Smith, and do not bother to take prisoners. But cut Mike a little slack, he does seem to be trying to listen.

71. Al Perez - November 14, 2009

Bob,

It was pleasant to read a comment by you in which you refrained from personal insult and which had a reasonable tone not drowning in fear, anger and hate.

We’ll stave of the proponents of Muslim (and other flavored) tyranny) between us yet if we can ave our ammo(literal and virtual) for the real enemies of freedom. And this does include reminding those trying to be subtle that der tag isn’t coming any time this millennium so that they can keep walking small.

72. Al Perez - November 14, 2009

“you refrained from personal insult”

Relatively speaking, of course.

Keep working on it and the style of your message will stop distracting people from the content. People will listen to what you have to say instead of being angry and feeling challenged to fight by your style.

73. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 14, 2009

Al- there is no challenge, just offense at schoolyard behaviour. “Come on. I dare you to be honest for a minute, if you are even capable of such a feat” That is yet another personal attack against a friend of mine, and yours. I have read many of your posts, and you do not always agree with Neil, but you are mature enought to argue like an adult. Unless Bob grows up enough to have a rational discussion, I suggest, at the very least, ignoring him. Should he become a rational human being, disagreeing all he wants, but with common courtesy, THEN we can pay attention to him. The sad part, (or maybe the good part in the long run) is that I agree with much of what he says, I simply refuse to approve a war against an entire religion just because it SEEMS to advocate religicide and atheisticide. However, should they get any more carried away, I, for one, will be happy to send them to Allah, who will surely know his own. An entirely appropriate sentiment, since the original is from a Muslim general during the Crusades.

74. Ann Morgan - November 14, 2009

Neil: Regaring the things you say that you have no idea where I got the idea that you said them, these are the two things which I referred to you as having saying:

1. >> When Columbine happened, I said don’t ask why it happened. There wasn’t any reason that would make sense to a rational human being. – Last paragraph of your original post

2. Regarding your attempts to condemn Christianity based on the way it behaved 600 years ago, or excuse the current behavior of Islam today, BECAUSE of the way Christians behaved 600 years ago, this is also in your original post, in which you talk about what Christians (including Joan of Arc) did or didn’t do 579 years ago, and said that Islam would benefit from another 579 years to mature. I don’t think this is valid reasoning, people should be judged on what they are doing NOW, not on what their ancestors did in the past, or others ancestors did in the past, or what their descendants might do 579 years in the future.

I’ve no idea whether or not all Muslims are ‘stobors in dopey joe’ clothing. From my conversations with a Muslim friend of mine in Egypt, they do have a lot of religious problems (I gave my thoughts as to WHY in one of my posts), but I think a lot of the problem is that words and concepts in Arabic often do not translate well into English, because they include extra, or omit integral concepts that exist in the nearest equivalent English word.

Case in point is a long discussion I had with this woman regarding the definition of the word ‘playful’. The Arabic word which is translated as ‘playful’ includes the concept that an individual refered to as ‘playful’ is ALSO automatically extremely irresponsible. It is not possible, in the definition of this Arabic word for an individual to be ‘playful’ without ALSO being irresponsible, such that they spend all their time playing, and come in to work late, or otherwise neglect things they should be doing.

I suspect a similiar problem may be going on regarding the definition of ‘religion’. The word ‘religion’ in English means, at least at the present time, an individual’s own practices and relationship regarding their own personal dieties. In Arabic, ‘religion’ also necessarily includes a lot of other things, an entire system of living and politics, and what to do about the rest of the world, Things that we have specifically *excluded* from our definition of the word ‘religion’. The trouble here, is as if we refered to ‘hydrogen’ as being the element hydrogen, but the Muslims thought of ‘hydrogen’ as being a rather complex molecule, say, plastic, that happened to INCLUDE the element hydrogen as one of it’s component molecules, but also included a lot of other things which to us, should not be present in ‘hydrogen’.

Anyway, semiotics aside, I’m not really interested in excusing a terrorist because he would ‘benefit from another 579 years to mature’. If someone tries to kill me, I am going to try to kill him first, regardless of his personal or cultural lack of maturity. If someone’s culture or religion dictates that at some point he should kill me, and he doesn’t want me to kill him, he had better refrain from ACTING on that culture or religion, or else get another culture or religion, fast.

75. R.D. Bartucci - November 14, 2009

Ann, regarding semiotics (though it’s better to cone in on the pertinent branch of semiotics, semantics) and the differences between the various languages of the infidel West and of Arabic, with its quicksand character, and the patterns of thought imposed thereby, it may be that the formaldehyde nature of Arabic as it is preserved in (and by) the Qur’an and the hadith is a big part of the problem the Islamic world has had in its interface with all non-Islamic peoples.

I’d venture reliably to guess that those participating in this exchange who had read the Qur’an had *NOT* learned Arabic to read it in its original form, but rather had relied upon translations (as Thomas Jefferson did during his term in office as Secretary of State, and again during his Presidency, in an effort to get a handle on the mindset among the Barbary pirates).

Arabic being what it is, a symbol set locked into what can only be described as a medieval world-view, far from congruent with modern English, lacking a great many of the semiotic “signs and symbols” of the American language, of German or French or Russian, and incorporating in short words (like “fitna”) varieties of meanings that someone who thinks in English must necessarily find maddeningly imprecise, any translations of the Qur’an from the Arabic obliterate tones and significances.

If it weren’t enough that such translations are intrinsically subject to misapprehension, there’s the strong probability that the translator involved in each such effort had deliberately chosen from the multiple and shifting various meanings of Arabic terms in that scripture such infidel-language equivalents as to substantially mitigate the nastier aspects of Islamic belief and its moral code.

Or simply Bowdlerized the damned thing to avoid panicking the Kuffar.

In a nation where the officers of civil government – with the enthusiastic connivance of the hoplophobic “Libreral” MSM root-weevils – conspire to forcibly impose upon all American citizens a state that can never rise above an unarmed Condition Yellow, simply being alert to the “Dopey Joe”-become-stobor character of the devout Muslim is certainly wise, but if you’re forbidden by statute and regulations to go about with a life-preserver ready in your possession, you’re still not much more than another target in the Mujahid’s “target-rich environment.”

I think that Barry Soetoro and all his little ACORN elves can have “tolerance” for Muslims in America, but he can’t have that and his precious “gun control” (read: “victim disarmament”) at the same time.

If the Nazrany dogs are going to survive contact with the Religion of Peace, we do need to be able to bare real and killing-capable fangs.

76. one pahoo - November 14, 2009

al perez wrote:

“Dear One Pahoo:
since you feel a need to make war on Islam rent a boat, find some friends and sail off on your Jihad.”

One Pahoo replies:
Thank you for the kind suggestion Mr. Perez, but I don’t have to risk sea-sickness or go anywhere, dude, they have come here to the U.S. where I live. If they were overseas this entire issue would be strictly academic.

This entry in L. Neil’s blog has garnered a lot of impassioned debate. Many of those responding may enjoy reading about the background and psychology of earlier Islamic power grabs, such as the Madhi (Muhammad Ahmed Al Mahdi) self-proclaimed deliverer of Islam in the Sudan, and the well written accounts of the British war in the Sudan against the Madhi uprising (“The River War”) written by Winston Churchill when a young war correspondent. The book is available from “Gutenberg.org” as a download.

Another good review is the well known “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, by T. E. Lawrence, whose writings detail in depth the behavior, disposition, and dynamic energy of the Islamic fighter, and despite the book describing the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire of almost a hundred years ago, it paints a clear image of the same type of internecine blood feuds among Lawrence’s compatriots that is today seen between “Ba’athist’s” and “Sunni” Muslims. Lawrence’s book is also found as a free download on Gutenberg.org (Oh, the joy of out of copyright books!)

To really get a grip on the mannerisms and countenance of the Muslim, find a copy of the 1888, “Travels in Arabian Deserta” by Charles Doughty, a man of such intense personal conviction and integrity he became legendary throughout Arabia, and was saved a thousand times over from having his throat cut as a “non-believer” by Moslems who wanted to kill him on the spot for openly admitting to his Christian faith. Other Europeans, (notably the writer and adventurer, Sir Richard Burton), had traveled in Arabia, and Burton had even traveled to Mecca, but these Europeans were disguised as Muslims. Thanks to the long term impact of Charles Doughty, when Lawrence of Arabia appeared, they didn’t cut his ears off.

—-

There is no reason to import unassimilable cultures into our communities, especially while there is some question about the intent of those emigrating to the U.S.

Those that threaten to harm or kill others due to the vagaries of religion, ethnicity, or race, have no place in American society.

In Great Britain, “Islamaphobia” has reached such heights of fear that the authorities are afraid to prosecute the practice of FGM – female genital mutilation, where Muslim girls are physically mutilated as part of their transition to womanhood.

Perhaps there’s an ulterior motive, a reason for forcing a foreign, antagonistic, barbaric, and alien culture into the United States. Ever heard of the old Roman tactic of, “divide et impera” (“divide and conquer”)?

77. R.D. Bartucci - November 14, 2009

Bob, in all fairness regarding #3, it was Neale – not me – who recounted his encounter with the self-revealing born-in-America Muslim who told him:

“It is not yet time to force the issue. Eventually, you all WILL submit to Allah as foretold. And when the time comes, we will go back to following the ways of our fathers. But for now, to fit in, we live like this. But at home, they [his own children] know the right way to live, dress, and act.”

I don’t believe I’d mentioned any “proselytizing Muslim” inasmuch as I have no personal recollection of ever having met such a person.

I coulda been plastered and had a “black out” episode, of course, but that hasn’t happened since I was in college, and how many Muslims do you encounter at beer-soaked Jesuit college mixers?

78. al perez - November 14, 2009

If I wasn’t a Spic living in a border town “There is no reason to import unassimilable cultures into our communities, especially while there is some question about the intent of those emigrating to the U.S.” would be less offensive.

And yup, you’re right about fifth columnist types coming into the States in hiding along with peaceful people who happen to be Muslims. Fortunately I managed to score an extra box of 9mm+p recently.

Quick history lesson. In 1492 the Spaniards finally drove the Muslims out of Spain after nearly 800 years of war. It taught the Spanish how to be tough, cruel, brave and treacherous, qualities they used well to dominate Europe for a generation and conquer the Azteca and Inca.

After Bombadil (Boabdil) surrendered the Spanish expelled all the Muslims (called Moros ). For good measure they expelled all the Jews. Many Moros and Jews were allowed to stay, if they became Catholics. Other persons had converted over the eight hundred year occupation.

Treacherous people lack trust. The Spaniards considered that
many “converts’” were in fact practicing their old faith in secret. Thus began the Spanish inquisition.

I’ve always wondered if I’m a Son of Peter (Spanish) Perez or Descendant of He Who Burst forth (Jewish/Hebrew) Perez. In either case it shows in my face that I have Arab and or Moorish ancestors. A lot of converts and their descendants moved to Mexico to get beyond the Inquisitions reach.

It strikes me as curious that we keep seeing stories about law enforcement not acting appropriately even though a terrorist does all but send a registered letter describing what he is planning to do and when. Perhaps the Bosses are trying to get their own version of the Inquisition going.

Just let enough Terrorists through, just let enough nutters do their thing, and maybe we can stampede the American people into surrendering their rights.

Then again, sometimes I use the name Crazy Al. Maybe I’m just being paranoid.

79. al perez - November 14, 2009

Comments #72 and # 73 were written as responses to comment #78 and somehow got inverted. Comment # 79 was not up when I sent in #72 and 73. That one Kinda obviates #72

Bob, you have some good points to make, when you can refrain from throwing in gratuitous personal insults. Apparently you have difficulty in engaging in polite debate. Please do not tell me that your opponents do not deserve your courtesy. I attempt to speak to your courteously because i deserve that luxury, not because you deserve it.

However, there are certain courtesies people owe eachother. Bob, you will do me the courtesy of addressing me as Mr. Perez.
If you tell me your surname and preferred honorific I will address you in that manner.

I am asking that we maintain formal address because you are not a person i wish to be addressed by in any other way. This is because the tone of your rhetoric and habit of using “fighting language” shows me that you do not understand that a man must from time to time back his words by force and you have exceeded that limit. Formal address is a way of avoiding trouble and allowing people to restart their discourse more cordially.

Perhaps you are a member of a culture group that does not feel words must sometimes be defended by force. Perhaps you are too young to have learned this lesson. Perhaps you’re such a BAMF that no one dares require you to defend your words. There is a vanishingly small possibility that your friends and kin think so lowly of you that they don’t feel it’s worth their effort to teach you better courtesy. I will assume that you are not a coward who runs off at the keyboard because he will not be required to use his fists to defend his words by people who don’t know where he lives.

You are not someone who has permission to call me Al.

80. al perez - November 14, 2009

Comments keep crossing

I think the Reconquista was a good thing. I’ll even concede that given Muslim religious intolerance (when they can get away with it) their expulsion was necessary.

the point is that it led to the Inquisition which has become a standard of tyranny.

The Tripolitans would have been pirates regardless what religion they practiced. Islam was a pretext. Then again Islamic Doctrine of Holy War was comes across as a pretext for brigandage, rapine and piracy.

My point is that tyranny and terrorism beget each other in an incestuous cycle and that how we discourage Muslim efforts to force the rest of us to join their faith must plan for a way to break this cycle.

81. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 14, 2009

You go Mr. Perez!!!

82. al perez - November 14, 2009

Dear whatever you choose to call yourself,

Let me make myself perfectly clear.

By your words and refusal to accept my efforts to put our communication on a more formal basis until we can achieve a more cordial relationship you have declared yourself a personal enemy. It’s not about your opinions on Islam, the best music, what freedom means or any such minor detail. It means i don’t like you because you’re you.

By refusing my request to show me proper courtesy you are attempting to tyrannically impose your will on me,

To me you are no different than the Muslims you profess to despise.

I have the right to be treated as I ask, just as you have the right to be so treated. Your answer to my request shows that you are incapable of understanding this concept, or the concept of civilized discourse.

If you wish to continue this discussion any further please arrange for some mutual acquaintance to forward me an address to email you directly as this has become a personal quarrel and a waste of all other readers of this blogs’ time,

83. al perez - November 14, 2009

Neale (spelled the right way),

you can cal me al, or anything else you please, (accept late to lunch as the saying goes.),
I’ll call you a new found friend.

84. one pahoo - November 14, 2009

al perez writes:

“If I wasn’t a Spic living in a border town “There is no reason to import unassimilable cultures into our communities, especially while there is some question about the intent of those emigrating to the U.S.” would be less offensive.”

—-

Mr. Perez:
Since you are referring to my comments (one pahoo), I should point out that I have not questioned, nor do I really care about your ethnicity or your pedigree.

However, since you choose to offer gratuitous information and personify your remarks by using disparaging terms describing yourself as a victim, then by all means you can feel offended and I am more than pleased I was able to help you in this regard.

Being this is an open forum, if you would like to share a little more information perhaps we could all work together to examine your angst at being “a spic in a border town” and your identification with “unassimilable cultures”.

Do you live in a Barrio where English is not spoken, where every sign is in Spanish and those that do speak English are attacked on sight? Are you perhaps a member of a South American gang from Nicaragua, or El Salvador, the equivalent of the Japanese yakuza? Are you an illegal alien, in the US on the sly? Mayhap you belong to “La Reconquista” and with your fellow Hispanics want to “reconquer” the Southwestern states for Spain?

If you are a Muslim planning attacks against American citizens then you have every right to the feel pangs of conscience.

Most likely you have good reason for your contrition and I applaud your attempt at rapprochement through open discussion and self-awareness. Good luck and I hope you someday remove the stigmata you apparently wear, it must weigh heavily on your shoulders – what a burden.

For my part I was referring to another “unassimilable culture” than the one you proposed, but since you have indicated through your remarks that you feel Hispanics might also qualify as an “unassimilable culture” then I must defer to your knowledge and experience in this area.

And for the record, I fully respect and defend your right to be offended as much as your little heart desires! Good for you! I’m delighted that you are willing to invest so much emotion and interest in what I write, I’m quite flattered that I have such a salubrious effect.

Yours cordially,
One Pahoo

85. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 14, 2009

Al- Please do me the honor of allowing me this one. Bob- SHUT THE FUCK UP, GO AWAY, AND DO NOT RETURN. You, sir, are not a welcome addition to this forum. Anyone else may respond to you, but I won’t waste anymore time on you. Disagreement is part of life, but the death of common courtesy is one of the signs of the impending death of a society, and I choose not to be part of a further decline. Should you wish to return to notice, I suggest a change of screen moniker, extend a courteous word to Mr. Perez, and start a civil discourse. Otherwise, we can continue this through our seconds. Is that clear enough to get through???

86. al perez - November 14, 2009

To answer a serious question,

Because my wife’s deceased step father told me that his parents joined the Ku Klux Klan to oppose the Roman Catholic Church back in the 1920′s. Because Al Smith lost the 1928 election for being Catholic/ Because a cartoon of John Kennedy getting calls from the Pope in a Confessional on how to run the US was used to get votes for Nixon in 1960.

But also because the Catholic Church used to require that people entering a mixed marriage sign an oath to raise any kids Catholic and if we could have gotten away with it we would have made it a law in as many states as possible. because the Pope made cutting off foreign aid to support artificial birth Control a condition of using the Church to funnel aid to Solidarity to break his and America’s mutual enemy the USSR;s hold on Poland, the first step in destroying communist tyranny in Europe.

Because of every rotten thing ever done to and by my co-religionists in this country and how much worse it would be without the First Amendment.

Because I think what was done to the Saints is wrong and must be corrected, because I know that given a chance they would have played just as rough. Because the only way to prevent or bust criminal activities by so called religious groups is to so nicely (17th and 18th Century meaning) demonstrate respect for people’s freedom of religion that there is no doubt that we are prosecuting crime not persecuting faith.

Because there is no way in hell we can expect Muslims to ever learn the concept of freedom of religion if we junk the concept.

And I’m just talking the First Amendment.

Because keeping guns away from Jihadists will be used as a pretext to junk the Second Amendment. I’d rather keep my weapons so I can disillusion those Muslims who think we’ve reached critical mass.

I don’t want to be held without right of habeas corpus because some self important guy with a badge thinks I look Muslim because my face shows Mediterranean ancestry.

Because I don’t want cops claiming the right to search my house without a warrant for evidence that I’m harboring Muslim renegades.

Because Evans, Rahm, Clinton, and Napolitano would be very happy to commit every atrocity we fear from a Muslim conquest
and use “suppressing Radical Islam” as a pretext.

Because I don’t ever intend to have to choose between being a slave of members of one faith or another, I intend to live free.

And if that means granting the same rights Abdul Abulbul Ameer that I want to enjoy for myself, so be it.

Of course that doesn’t mean I’m silly enough not to watch my back. It’s just that I know I’m facing more than one enemy and i refuse to surrender to one as the price of escaping the other.

87. Ann Morgan - November 14, 2009

>> #1 – Is the Cult of Scientology something you consider a “religion” – including doctrines that they have actually raised as defenses of “religious freedom” to justify murder and fraudulently framing people for crimes they did not commit – or not? If so, what do you suppose should be done with them?

#2 – Are you aware that, in order to be accepted into the US, the Mormon religion in fact had to make serious changes to their doctrines which conflicted in an irreconcilable way with US law?

These are actually two different issues, one of which (IMHO) should NOT have turned out the way it should have.

I think the problem with a lot of people is that they think of their religion as their ‘road’ or ‘path’, and therefore, everyone else of a different religion is either on the wrong road, or driving in the wrong direction, and thereby obstructing traffic and needs to be converted. I think the truth is more that your religion is NOT your road, but your VEHICLE. The first lesson to learn from this, is that you have to share the road with OTHER vehicles, some of which are very different from yours.

The second lesson is that the best vehicle in the world won’t help you if you choose to drive on the road to hell, or mow down pedestrians, or plow other vehicles off the road. Nor will the worst vehicle necessarily prevent you from driving on the road to heaven, if you’re able to navigate a schlep car well enough. In fact, NO vehicle still won’t prevent you from driving on the road to heaven. Pedestrians can walk equally well beside any road, and there are plenty of athiests I think will go to heaven.

You have a right to drive your vehicle of choice on the road to hell. Or Heaven. Or Valhalla. Or Annwyn. Or wherever. Your right to drive ANY vehicle on ANY road ends where other vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians begin.

Now to deal with the above statements, the right of Scientologists to practice Scientology ends, when they start framing other people for crimes. Their ‘right’ to be Scientologists does not and cannot include the right to commit crimes, any more than my right to drive a car includes the right to cause accidents or phone in false accident reports to the police.

Regarding the Mormons, they should NOT have been required to abandon such practices as polygamy, in order to co-exist in the US. Polygamy is the business only of those who choose to join into a polygamous marriage. It is NOT anyone else’s business, any more than it is their business whether I choose to transport 2 people or 8 in a van. Not the government’s business, not ANYONE’S business. Should the Mormons choose to FORCE people to engage in polygamous marriage, then it becomes the business of others. Not before.

88. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

Al- nice one.
Ann- right on target with Mormons, although I find all religions fairly ridiculous.ind

89. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Neale: Only “fairly” ridiculous?

Ann: What d’you think of “community notification” (along the line taken to tag sex offenders) for all who are or who have ever been professing Muslims?

I mean, as a “public safety” measure, not because – Allah forfend! – we’re PERSECUTING them.

That would be “fitna.”

Wouldn’tcha like to see Barry Soetoro photographed and fingerprinted at the nearest D.C. police station once a year for the rest of his infestation of the White House?

Shabash!

90. al perez - November 15, 2009

Actually over several generations my family has worked its way out of the barrio to the suburbs and been quite assimilated. In fact there is a predictable three or four generation cycle of going from being a Mexican living in the US, an American who is still culturally Mexican, maybe a repeat of this step, and an American whose ancestors happen to be Mexican. The reason i say its a cycle is because as the third (or fourth) generation (my kids. my wife and me) are establishing ourselves as “real” Americans another wave comes in legally.

So then I get to hear garbage that that Mexicans are unassimilable when what’s really happening is that a new bunch came in.

I really don’t support the return the “stolen lands” theory, my families had extremely good reasons to get the hell out of Mexico. the current lash up in Ciudad Juarez only makes it really really clear to me that I have no desire for Mexican rule.

Every immigrant group was at one time called unassimilable
and hearing (reading) that phrase offends me. It’s like every xenophobe has the same speech that was written back in South Carolina about the Scotch Irish Presbyterians by the Anglican old families and just cuts out one group;s name and pastes in the next bunch’s.

So, let’s see how assimilated fourth and fifth generation Muslims are (But Grandpa, I don’t have time to start the Jihad. I need to finish my Algebra 2 homework or I’m off the football team.)

91. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

al, on the “unassimilable” character of Mexicans, the best damned refutation I can think of is Cheech Marin’s 1987 comedy *Born in East L.A.*

I don’t have to recount the whole story. But what I find remarkable is that the protagonist has about as much colloquial familiarity with Spanish as the average third- or fourth-generation Italian-American has with his great-grandparents’ dialect. In fact, owing to previous military service with the Army in Europe, the guy is fluent in German – but not Spanish.

Assimilated? How the hell much more assimilated can a guy in southern California possibly get?

American Blacks I’ve known who have “gone back to Africa” return to these United States denouncing every damned thing about those sinkholes of disease and despotism, concluding with “I was never so glad of anything in my life as I was to get home.”

To America.

Given your story and mine and that of most Americans, its the central experience of us all. While my extended family (and the culture in which I grew up) snerk at “l’Amerigani” – the Italian-Americans who assimilated so thoroughly that some of ‘em have even changed their names – we’ve been fiercely American since at least World War I.

Yet another movie for you as an example of art reflecting reality: *A Walk in the Sun* (1945) made about a detached platoon moving from the beach at Salerno to an objective inland Several of the soldiers are first-generation Italian-Americans, and do speak the language.

The platoon comes across a pair of bedraggled, disarmed Italian soldiers trying to get away from i Tedeschi, and these are interrogated by one of the Americans from an Italian family, exchanging all sorts of stereotype “Ay, paisn’!” noise.

But when the platoon pushes off and the Italian soldati are told to make their way to the beach for succor, they try to follow instead. The American interpreter tells them in no uncertain terms to go the other way, and he walks back to follow up the departing platoon, head down and muttering about “…the most slap-happy people on earth….”

And it’s the truth. Uncle Pete was an Ordnance Corps NCO in the Italian theater, and I don’t recall a complimentary word about the indigenes from him in any conversation we’d ever had about the war.

All of us hyphenated Americans tend so thoroughly to be alienated from our families’ roots in “the old country” that it’s the norm. It’s what we expect. In the most profound, most fundamental ways, we’ve long since severed our ties with our national and ethnic roots, and we’re damned glad of it.

But because of this, the Kultur of these Muslims is jarring.

Not only don’t they want to be Americans, but they’re preaching in their places of public worship doctrines that amount to a criminal conspiracy against the public peace.

All the paranoid fantasies of the Protestant fundamentalists over how Kennedy would be a puppet of the Vatican (like you can imagine any Italian ever getting through to a thick-headed Irishman?) when he spent his time in office listening far less to the Holy Father than to Marilyn Monroe’s breathy squeals of delight as he was schtupping her – well, that seem even more ridiculous now than it did back in 1960.

Religious bigotry is even sillier than religion in general.

But a heightened sense of threat about Islam seems justified on a much, much more valid basis than whatever sorts of religious chauvinism any of us individually might feel.

These guys seem deliberately to advertise that “clear and present danger” of which the statutes speak.

92. al perez - November 15, 2009

It is true that right now we’re dealing with grandpa than the wannabe football star of the closing parenthetical remark.

In case like that the principle is “trust but verify.” Extend them there rights but don’t disregard waning signs.

I still say that I get nervous that “certain elements in the government” have let terrorist acts occur that could have been prevented for the purpose of scaring the American people into throwing away their freedom.

93. Ann Morgan - November 15, 2009

Bartucci wrote to me:

>> Ann: What d’you think of “community notification” (along the line taken to tag sex offenders) for all who are or who have ever been professing Muslims?

I mean, as a “public safety” measure, not because – Allah forfend! – we’re PERSECUTING them.<<

Well, first of all, I disagree with a lot of the registration of ‘sex offenders’ mainly because that registration is now being extended from ‘just a few of the worst’ rapists and child molesters, to such individuals as 18 year old boys who have consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends, streakers, and nudists. Poof, instant gun control for a whole new assortment of people.

Secondly, in a country with a first amendment, you have the right as an individual to publicize any TRUE information about any individuals you wish. If you wish to let it be known that your neighbor on the right is a Muslim and your neighbor on the left is a nudist, you can certainly do so. Just don’t be surprised when your neighbor across the street publicizes the fact that YOU smoke pot, or whatever currently odd thing you personally might be doing.

I think rather than publicizing whether or not people were Muslims, you would do far better publicizing AND prosecuting them for such things as making threats, which is illegal, and female genital mutilation. And btw, MALE genital mutilation, as practiced in THIS country, should ALSO be illegal. Until it is, our criticizing female genital mutilation is pretty much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I myself am opposed to male genital mutilation, so I have the right to object to the other sort as well. Most Americans don’t.

At any rate, the sheeple in America have made their choice in favor of killing 10 year old goatherds, and I will explain why. There are two quite proper ways to deal with terrorists:

1. People should be armed, even on airplanes. If the good sheeple in America weren’t unable to handle the thought or sight of their neighbors with a gun without a good dose of Prozac, the halflife of terrorists would be rather short, and it would become a rather unpopular occupational choice.

2. In a proper system of justice, failing their having been killed by their armed victims, or witnesses, murderers and attempted murderers would become the property of either their attempted victim, or their victim’s heirs. Property means, exactly that. You are property. You have NO human rights. If I want to sell you to as slave labor to a 2 mile deep copper mine in China, or auction off your organs a peice at a time, or sell pay-per-view rights to your weeks-long-demise by slow torture, or cut out your eyes and eardrums and then put you in a hospital where you will live in comfort for as long as I can possibly arrange, I can do exactly that.

Americans, unfortunately, don’t have the stomach either to defend themselves, or let other people defend themselves (under #1) , or treat terrorists in the manner they deserve (under #2). Unfortunately the reality they are dealing with, is individuals who are NOT frightened either by the thought of their PAINLESS demise, nor by the years-long slow grinding of the so-called American ‘justice’ system, which might or might not arrange for their painless demise in 10-15 years time, after millions of dollars and dozens of plea bargains and excuses have been exhausted. These individuals ARE, unfortunately, to some extent, frightened of their own children being killed, and/or are rendered unable to attack us by bombing them back into the stone age.

Since Americans lack the stomach to deal with options 1 or 2, they are going to ALWAYS choose option 3: Mass bombing to kill 10 year old goatherds by default, because they don’t care to have the consequences of their own rejection of options 1 & 2 paid either by themselves or THEIR children. They prefer to have it paid by other people, and other people’s children whom they don’t know, in countries where they don’t have to look at it or think about it, or go running for their daily prozac and call the police, because (gasp) Ann Morgan is in the lumberyard buying a peice of masonite to repair a table, and she has a toy gun in her pocket that she found whilst dumpster diving the previous night.

As for you, Bob, first of all, please stop swearing. Secondly, what it says in the Koran may or may not be relevent to the behavior of Muslims. Not all people follow all things that their particular ‘holy book’ says in them. The Christian bible, for instance, requires women to marry their own rapists, but I do not see very many ‘Christian’ families doing that.

94. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

Bob- You are forgetting one simple fact- this forum is Neil’s.YOU have forced him to a point I never thought I’d see- censoring. In the interest of fairness, as far as I can see, he is deleting crap spawned by YOU. If you stop being an asshole, and start being polite to those you disagree with, he’d be very happy to return to the old days. The only reason your last two are still here is time zones.

95. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

In the time it took me to post the last, Neil proved me right. Thank you, Neil.

96. al perez - November 15, 2009

Common courtesy requires that post # 87 was made to fair and honest questions asked by the person known as Bob.

He deserves an honest answer to fair and honest questions. He also deserves credit for asking these questions and the well thought out points he made setting up and raising these questions. He even deserves credit for avoiding gratuitous personal insults while doing so.

This does not excuse his taste for being personally offensive, and hopefully he will become better at raising intelligent points and asking good questions ( Thus forcing opinionated old knowitalls like me to rethink what we’re saying and/or prove that we actually know what we’re talking about)and realize that there is a difference between intellectual debate (including correcting people when they misinterpret what you say) and picking a fight.

97. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

al. the job of the government is never (and has never been) prevention, but RETALIATION.

Remember that bit about “when seconds count, the police are just minutes away”?

The theory says that if the goons of government are effective in delivering retaliation (most commonly, catching malefactors and locking them up, or reducing aggressor foreign nation-states to rubble), this will serve a deterrent function sufficient to reduce the incidence of domestic crime and foreign aggression.

Prevention is the responsibility of the individual target. You. Me. Even young kids, each as he or she develops the ability to keep head’s-up and wield a weapon.

This is one of the reasons why the Second Amendment exists, and why the right to keep and bear arms is implicit in the general negative rights to life, liberty, and property.

If anything, the incident at Ft. Hood on 5 November is the most powerful recent proof of the failure of “gun control,” and a powerful support for the contention that the RTKBA should not only not be infringed but that the carriage of a firearm should be as commonplace as the carriage of cell phones has become.

98. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

The US “police state” is here and operating right now thanks to political correctness and flawed political policies that perpetuates the need for police state spying on US citizens.

There could be thousands of jihadists in the US and more are potentially on the way as seen in the headline and first paragraph of the following Reuters news article from last year. Perhaps you didn’t see this news item, but I think it is cause for concern:

——–

Tens of thousands of Iraqis could come to U.S. in ’09

By Susan Cornwell

9/12/2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has surpassed its goal of admitting 12,000 Iraqi refugees this year and expects more, perhaps tens of thousands, next year, the State Department said on Friday.

(…. “Fair Use” cited for posting the above …..)

In my opinion, if there _is_ a diffuse political and religious enemy working to attack Americans, then Moslems should not be allowed into the US until either Islam is “secularized” similar to Christianity in the US, or there is some successful termination to the so called, “war on terror” and attacks against Western institutions and individuals cease.

Either the US _is_ “at war” with a hidden terrorist guerrilla movement based on (or, if you prefer, “conveniently using”) the Muslim religion as its rallying cry, or else this is all a shadow play of smoke and mirrors to strip everyone of their rights and bring about the instant police state.

Which is it? Keep in mind that innocent people (potentially your family or mine), are being murdered by terrorists. Forget the atrocity at Fort Hood, as bad as that was, that incident was a single religious maniac, the recent attack in Mumbai is more in keeping with what is likely in store.

Is the US “responsible” for the terrorism attacks by playing the game of supporting dictators to offset similar Soviet activities in the Middle East? Is it Israel’s fault that the US is entrenched in lengthy military operations in the Middle East? Is it the CIA’s fault for training and subsidizing the Mujaheddin to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and thus jump starting the guerrilla movements now attacking the West?

Despite placing blame in a rhetorical discussion, can you or I as individuals bring about a cessation of terrorist attacks?

How is it that you and I – here I’m assuming “you” live in the US – are potential targets of people we do not know and have had nothing to do with? How is it that you or I are held responsible for the behavior of our political leaders or military policies that we may not support? Are we also responsible for religious crusades that took place millennia ago?

The answer is “no”, a thousand times, “no”; we are individuals but we are not being treated as individuals, rather we are being targeted as a member of a “group”. The moral quandary that many seem unable to deal with is that we can treat individuals we meet as individuals, but on another level we, and they, are being treated not as individuals but as a representative member of a group, and subject to the same perils and potential death as that larger targeted classification. And keep in mind this has nothing to do with ethical questions about “right” or “fair”, you have been lumped into a group and will pay the price of belonging.

The above remarks all speak to the issue of being a member in a social arrangement subject to conditions and political actions that we may or may not approve of; and here the matter becomes strictly practical. Do you want to continually fear that some religious nutcase may want to blow you and your family up, or do you want to keep the M-F’er’s out of the country and preempt the entire matter.

Since I’ve already lost my individuality thanks to terrorists who have conveniently lumped me into a group as a target, they must similarly be treated as a group. Can this be any simpler?

Since I’ve already lost my fourth amendment right to privacy thanks to those same terrorists who are operating on US soil. Since the terrorists have already impacted both my family’s safety and my rights, I say restrict Muslim immigration until the threat of terrorism is over. That’s the practical solution.

I’m for restricting immigration proactively, and now you know why.

99. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Bob: With regard to Neil’s expression on “the idea of dropping bombs on pregnant widows and ten year old goatherds” as being implicit in your position on the way to respond to the fellahin gone juramentado, just what the hell d’you think has to happen when the goons of government are unleashed?

We’re not exactly talking about the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree here. Nor (by any stretch of the imagination) the most morally scrupulous. “We’re after power and we mean it.”

No matter what might be your own intentions, setting loose these hounds has been (and will always be) just making things worse. They’ve proven themselves indifferent to the restraints imposed by the concept of individual rights, and like all hammer-wielders, every damned problem they’re allowed, encouraged, or sneak criminally to address gets treated like the proverbial nail.

As for Neil’s “shibboleth,” I suspect that what he’s asking of you is some honest of balance in your consideration of the subject currently under discussion. I personally wouldn’t have selected *The Discovery of Freedom* as a sample representative of adequate fund-of-knowledge in the literature extant on the proper response to such creatures as the mujahideen of Islam, but Neil’s entitled to his preferences.

This forum is, after all, his responsibility – his ballpark, as it were – and therefore we play here by his rules. Doesn’t bother me that much, and I’m a prickly sonofabitch.

Why should it bother you?

100. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci writes:

al. the job of the government is never (and has never been) prevention, but RETALIATION.

——

No, Mr. Bartucci, that is only partially correct. Government cannot work proactively (legally, that is, otherwise it is entrapment like vice-cops soliciting prostitutes) to prevent a legal infraction from occurring, they can only respond when it does occur.

Once a criminal action has happened, the process invoked by government is “to penalize” not bring about “retaliation” – there’s a difference. “Retaliation” presupposes a desire for revenge or retribution, when typically government responses are tightly limited by statute and the legal requirements for enforcement.

Of course if you are referring to a situation like Randy Weaver’s wife, son, and dog being killed by federal agents, that could likely be called, “retribution” and it would be remiss to not include the death of some dozens of people in a Waco Church at the hands of the state. That too might be called “retribution”, but I’m sure those involved would just say they were “just doin’ their job”.

Government cannot reward, it can only penalize or sanction; it is supposed to function like “Gort” in “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and stand in abeyance until a legal infraction takes place, at which time the Earth is destroyed by “superior beings” who are enacting “retribution”. Glad I could clear this matter up.

101. al perez - November 15, 2009

Please mote that thousands of the refugees coming out of Iraq are either Christians or Muslims who got on someones crud list for fighting for working with the US to put down the Insurrections that followed our invasion of Iraq.

I assume you have no issues with the first group. Are you in favor of telling members of the second group, “thank you very much, enjoy spending the rest of your life running around Iraq with a target painted on your chest.”?

The Founding Fathers were opposed to getting into entangling alliances. We pull this leave your allies behind to die garbage enough times (and we have already done it over the years ) and we won’t have to worry about getting into entangling alliances. No one will be stupid enough to get into an alliance with us.

102. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

>>at which time the Earth is destroyed by “superior beings” who are enacting “retribution”. Glad I could clear this matter up.

Oops… I meant to write “retaliation” rather than “retribution”. So in fact it is “retaliation” that motivates the “superior beings” to destroy the Earth, in the same way the Church at Waco was burned to the ground, just on a larger scale.

“Klatoo Baradus Obama” – remember that phrase, it has something to do with aliens taking over the planet.

103. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Ann, on the registration of professing Muslims (and those who claim to have converted from Islam to another religion) much as the various “Megan’s Law” statutes require the registration of sex offenders, as well as on “publicizing whether or not people were Muslims” as a matter of private snoopery, you make good points.

Methodical studies of the sex offender registration statutes and their effects have proven that they do NOT reduce the incidences of those offenses for which the registered individuals are condemned to this silly stigmatization. Not rape, not child molesting, not nudity (or even drunken urination) in public, nothing.

What they my do – and this is a subject worthy of study, but I haven’t seen anything in available literature on it – is make the “sheeple” conscious of the fact that such sex offenders exist, and are distributed widely in their communities.

Much of the difficulty in getting people out of “Condition White” is the hard pounding need to get into their heads the certainty that they really ARE under threat, and need to dump the “fat, dumb, and happy” bit.

Other positive and beneficial effects of such Muslim registration statutes include the fact that each and every believing follower of the Prophet would be continuously reminded (as he is reminded by his imam in the mosque when he comes on Friday to prayer) that he is alien to the infidel society all around him, and that now the infidels are just as sensitized to that fact as he is.

So watch it, Abdullah.

Not that I bear much brief for the donut-seeking uniformed tax consumers we use in lieu of legitimate police, it would also raise situational awareness among the Blue Schmoos, making them conscious of the presence and prevalence of the fellahin in their areas of responsibility.

Given that the Muslim is, by religious doctrine and indoctrination, proving with every passing year to be even more of a potential danger to public safety than is the average registered convicted sex offender, why should this ritual of fingerprinting, photographing, proof-of-residence checking, etc. be considered either onerous or without value?

And besides – of course – it gives us the vision of Barry Soetoro sitting in a sordid D.C. police station once or twice a year, trying to get all that ink off his fingers….

104. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

one pahoo writes:

“Once a criminal action has happened, the process invoked by government is ‘to penalize’ not bring about ‘retaliation’ – there’s a difference. ‘Retaliation’ presupposes a desire for revenge or retribution, when typically government responses are tightly limited by statute and the legal requirements for enforcement.”

Hm. I think you’re mincing words. The purpose of a penalty is to make known (among those serving to exercise the police power as well as those living and operating within the jurisdiction of that power) that certain actions will invoke punishment.

Think “hockey” and “high-sticking” and “two-minute penalty.”

The players, the coaches, the referees, and the spectators all understand that there are actions which are prohibited – for whatever reason – and the concept of “retaliation” exercised by the referees (as oppose to “retribution” on the part of the opposing team’s designated “enforcer”) is understood and accepted.

Punishment is “retaliation” no matter how vigorously you leaf through your thesaurus, and its purpose is deterrence.

That there may be a bit of emotional color – “revenge” – to the imposition of the prescribed penalty is not to be denied. Like you expect people not to have human emotional responses?

Retribution” is actually something a bit more when it comes to the operations of civil and criminal law. Retribution speaks to the construction of the penalty in each individual case with an eye toward achieving some sort of subjective and ill-defined psychological satisfaction of victims, survivors of victims, society in general, etc.

A sort of “pain and suffering” kind of thing, y’know? And as we see in tort law, the mensuration of “pain and suffering” even to get a monetary figure for setting compensation is a helluva hard row to plow, and almost invariably unsatisfactory in its results.

Any penalty, once defined, must be executed upon the malefactor who invokes it.

So “retaliation” really is the job of civil government. Indeed, it’s the foundation upon which the teetering unconstitutionality of our present government really depends.

105. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

al perez writes:

“Please mote that thousands of the refugees coming out of Iraq are either Christians or Muslims who got on someones crud list for fighting for working with the US to put down the Insurrections that followed our invasion of Iraq.”

“I assume you have no issues with the first group. Are you in favor of telling members of the second group, “thank you very much, enjoy spending the rest of your life running around Iraq with a target painted on your chest.”?….”

——

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that these Iraqi’s are being brought to the US because it is no longer safe for them to live in Iraq due to them having supported the coalition forces attack to remove Saddam Hussein from dictatorial control?

In other words these folks are now social pariahs for having helped “the winning side” and will likely be killed by their peers for their efforts?

You are saying that the enormous efforts at removing the plutocratic regime, while providing a pluralistic, representative government, has failed? And that people who are now free from the yoke of autocratic fear, thanks to American soldier’s lives and billions of American dollars, are in fact likely to be killed?

Come now, you can’t tell me that Iraq is now in a worse condition than when the dictators ruled the roost? That fractious religious groups constantly vie for power while killing their opponents in a total chaotic power grab?

How can that be? Everything should be better now. Individuals should be able to walk tall and swagger down the streets of Baghdad without any concern or worry, after all, they are now “free”.

Now if what you are saying that the “fall of Saigon” is at hand all over again, and the US is trying like crazy to get out the Iraqi generals and their families to relocate them where they are safe from “retaliation”, before the US military turns and runs like Hell, then perhaps you are right.

The problem with an authoritarian culture is that those brought up in this type of society cannot readily adapt to American life – there’s too much culture shock that chases them into the Barrio where they never become assimilated into the society and remain outsiders, and potentially become hostile and angry.

Last week there was a news story about a man who killed his teenage daughter for becoming “too westernized”. Look for more of that as Muslims are relocated to the US.

106. al perez - November 15, 2009

Regardless of how you characterize the situation, these people put their lives on the line for the US. I think they deserve the right to come live here. should we screen for Aj Qaeida in Iraq sleepers among those we admit? Of course.

as soon as we ended Hussein’s tyranny the majority Muslims fell on the Christians and ran them out. There is no guarantee that a freely elected government in Iraq will be our friend after we remove our occupying troops. there is no guarantee that our employees in Iraq will not face persecution and murder. Do we cut out on them?

Iraqi democracy can be trusted to pursue Iraqi goals, some of which aren’t what we expect. If it turns out these goals are blatantly anti-American, and anti pro American Iraqi, don’t we owe refuge to our friends fleeing persecution?

Or do we treat them as we did the Rhade, Binar, Hmong, and other tribal allies of ours in southeast Asia?

107. al perez - November 15, 2009

To Bob,
Do you keep the courts in your home town tied up much with the assault charges and lawsuits you file against people you provoke into beating the crap out of you?

You raise some intelligent points that are worthy of being addressed and answered, if only by admitting that we didn’t hear (read) you correctly.

Then you go out of the way to use language and write your letters in a tone that makes people feel like you are calling them out to throw down. Not rationally discuss issues, engage in physical violence.

Go pick a few brawls with people who can actually get in a swing and get it out of your system. Until then leave us grown ups alone.

108. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Writes one pahoo:

“You are saying that the enormous efforts at removing the plutocratic [i.e., Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq] regime, while providing a pluralistic, representative government, has failed?”

Hm? Why is (and how could) that be al’s responsibility? Insofar as I’m aware, al perez has never in these fora praised Dubbya’s decision to go in and rout out the Tikriti Mafia to effect “regime change” in Mesopotamia.

That such a “regime change” should result in refugees, and that those put in particular peril by virtue of their support of American efforts should be granted asylum in this country should not be surprising. If anything, it should have been anticipated, and plans laid for facilitating such measures.

And you might observe that those South Vietnamese who were lucky enough to escape massacre and found refuge in America following the North Vietnamese conquest of their homeland have not imposed any egregious burden on Americans. The ones who are living here now seem to be fitting in about as well as immigrants of their generations usually do.

Iraqi Christians – like Sikhs and Hindus – show no intrinsic tendency to the sorts of violence demonstrated by “devout Muslim” Dr. Hasan on 5 November. Those Muslims who are imported from the Sandbox might require some proctoring (as I’d discussed above), but how are they significantly worse than the Muslim converts that pepper our urban centers?

What’s the real downside?

—–

Ann, on the matter of *male* “genital mutilation,” I’ve been having a decades-long argument myself with the medical advocates of “routine infant circumcision,” but to no effect.

I consider the “routine” extirpation of the prepuce to be both hazardous and wasteful, in the latter sense that it removes a bit of tissue that many reconstructive surgeons consider supremely suited for use in autologous transplantation. There is, for example, literally nothing better suited for the reconstruction of eyelids in facial burn cases. Snipping it off and throwing it away strikes me as bloody stupid.

But in the argument FOR “male genital mutilation” there are findings in clinical studies that the incidence of HIV-1 infection appears to be lower in males who have been circumcised than in those of similar demographic (including behavioral) character who have not.

In other words, “male genital mutilation” may actually provide a health benefit, whereas female genital mutilation imposes increased risk of morbidity and mortality, with no “upside.”

109. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci writes:

one pahoo writes: “Once a criminal action has happened, the process invoked by government is ‘to penalize’ not bring about ‘retaliation’ – there’s a difference. ‘Retaliation’ presupposes a desire for revenge or retribution, when typically government responses are tightly limited by statute and the legal requirements for enforcement.”

Hm. I think you’re mincing words. The purpose of a penalty is to make known (among those serving to exercise the police power as well as those living and operating within the jurisdiction of that power) that certain actions will invoke punishment.

———–

Nope, not mincing words at all.

The first definition for “retaliation” in the New Oxford American Dictionary is:

retaliate
verb [ intrans. ]
make an attack or assault in return for a similar attack

—-

Government functions as a bureaucratic machine within tightly proscribed limits, and those who work the machine are also closely controlled by strict civil service regulations. A “machine” by its nature cannot “retaliate”; you are ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to a function of the state whereas government response is always impersonal, not “retaliatory”.

“Punishment” is a term used typically in the punitive phase of a criminal trial, not in common parlance in government offices responsible for enforcing aspects of municipal or state law. The state does not “punish” it seeks “abatement of nuisance”, “remedy in conformity with existing statute”, and so forth.

There’s a difference between the state and Gort, the world-destroying robot. One can destroy the planet, while the state can only destroy…. the planet. Maybe there is no difference after all.

110. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci says:

Writes one pahoo: “You are saying that the enormous efforts at removing the plutocratic [i.e., Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq] regime, while providing a pluralistic, representative government, has failed?”

Hm? Why is (and how could) that be al’s responsibility? Insofar as I’m aware, al perez has never in these fora praised Dubbya’s decision to go in and rout out the Tikriti Mafia to effect “regime change” in Mesopotamia.

That such a “regime change” should result in refugees, and that those put in particular peril by virtue of their support of American efforts should be granted asylum in this country should not be surprising. If anything, it should have been anticipated, and plans laid for facilitating such measures.

———-

Not Al’s responsibility at all; he was simply commenting that the tens of thousands of Iraqi’s being imported into to the US were likely American assets, people who would be killed if left in Iraq – “collaborators” as the French called them.

The IRONY of my message was completely lost, that being that ONLY THE LOSERS in a war have to abdicate, get out of Dodge, relocate, find a new home, grow a mustache, and open up a corner newsstand selling newspapers and prophylactics.

The WINNERS in a war enjoy the fruits of their acquisition in keeping with the old Japanese saying, “steal money you are a thief; steal a country, you are a king!”

No WINNERS in this Iraq conflict are leaving Iraq, only the LOSERS.

BTW, I don’t understand the reference to “male genital mutilation” in your remarks, as far as I’m aware men are not subject to infibulation as a Muslim ritual during childhood – only girls.

111. Ann Morgan - November 15, 2009

Bob wrote: >> The very idea of a Muslim NOT following the Koran, save for the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman, is antithetical to the concept of being a Muslim.<<

So, would you say that the very idea of a Christian NOT following the bible, save for certain select parts, is antithetical to the concept of being a Christian? If so, can you show me how many Christians in the past 10 years have married their daughter to the man who raped her?

112. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci scribes:

Writes one pahoo: “You are saying that the enormous efforts at removing the plutocratic [i.e., Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq] regime, while providing a pluralistic, representative government, has failed?”

———

Mr. R.D. Bartucci:

Interesting how you appended the parenthetical, “[i.e., Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party of Iraq]” into my sentence amplifying and qualifying the phrase “plutocratic regime” as if someone might misinterpret what I had written and incorrectly think that some other agency was installed as a “plutocratic regime” rather than that of Saddam Hussein since it wasn’t mentioned by name.

Did you really think this needed further explanation? Or did you make this insertion simply to add some drama to the text?

If you were just being helpful, (though likely a bit overly pedantic), then thank you.

See, I am reading what you write!

113. Ann Morgan - November 15, 2009

one pahoo wrote: <>

Male Genital Mutilation is practiced commonly in Muslim countries, Jewish countries, and the USA. We call it ‘circumcision’, and it is not possible to reconcile the forcible amputation of a normal healthy body part, such as a foreskin, from an infant incapable of giving consent, to the principle of the non-initiation of force.

114. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

one pahoo argues “that ONLY THE LOSERS in a war have to abdicate, get out of Dodge, relocate, find a new home, grow a mustache, and open up a corner newsstand selling newspapers and prophylactics.”

Not “ONLY THE LOSERS,” but anyone caught in a sociopolitical situation in which the hazard situation in Dodge City has become greater *and* there is a way to “find a new home” that wasn’t there before.

Whether Iraq is governed by the Sunni Arab Tikriti Mafia (the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party of Iraq) or a majoritarian tyranny (i.e., a “democratic regime”) dominated by Shia Muslim Arabs, most individuals belonging to ethnic and religious minorities are going to find their threat situations changed. Some will inevitably be for the worse.

These people are “losers” in the sense that they may be worse off in the present and anticipated Iraqi political situation than they had been under the proprietorship of Saddam & Sons, but that doesn’t mean that this non-war “war” had been (or will be) lost.

That the population of no Muslim majority nation will ever countenance rule by any but Muslims (this is a fact of both Islamic doctrine and evidenced in Iraqi history) is something that everyone in the West must accept.

The written constitution under which the present “democratic regime” rules in Iraq explicitly describes Islam as the state religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws, and prohibits statutes which might contradict the established provisions of Islam.

Just as America was deliberately NOT founded as a Christian nation, the Arabs and Kurds of Iraq (no matter what brand of Islam they profess) are dead set on having their country in NOT be a properly secular state in the sense we Westerners characterize such an arrangement for living.

So things are going to be rough for dhimmi no matter which bunch of Muslim whackjobs are in power. Now, however, they CAN “get out of Dodge.”

So they’re doing that little thing. More no doubt will follow. And those Muslim citizens who can convince the U.S. State Department of a “clear and present danger” from their fellow fellahin as the result of their work in aid of U.S. government DIME (diplomatic, intelligence, military, economic) operations in the Sandbox have certainly good cause to “vote with their feet.”

If their feet can carry them and their families completely out of the Old Country, why the hell shouldn’t they try? My grandparents did.

In addition, we have of one pahoo:

“Government functions as a bureaucratic machine within tightly proscribed limits, and those who work the machine are also closely controlled by strict civil service regulations.”

Tsk. And can we presume that you’re a science fiction fan? Forget *The Discovery of Freedom*. Consider *The Moon is a Harsh Mistress*, in which we find Professor de la Paz characterizes the foundation of his political philosophy as follows:

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as ‘state’ and ‘society” and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and NOWHERE else.”

(Emphasis in the original.)

And the expression you want to use for the operations of the officers of civil government isn’t “tightly proscribed limits” but rather “tightly PREscribed limits.”

See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution for prescriptions, Article 1, Section 9 for PROscriptions

115. al perez - November 15, 2009

The only possible winners in Iraq are the Iraqi people. Whether our extended presence there helped or hindered this end can’t be intelligently discussed while we are still occupying that country.

Either way, It will not particularly surprise me if the Iraqi bear no love for is or any of their countrymen whom they view as collaborators.

Right or wrong. we stuck our nose in their business with our “regime change” and “nation building” and even if those people we want to see win do so, they will not truly be our friends.

Even if we “win”, many of our friends lose unless we give them refuge.

We have achieved a whole new level of fucking up.

116. Ann Morgan - November 15, 2009

Bartucci, you wrote:

>>But in the argument FOR “male genital mutilation” there are findings in clinical studies that the incidence of HIV-1 infection appears to be lower in males who have been circumcised than in those of similar demographic (including behavioral) character who have not.

Umm, Bartucci, I have heard of these studies, and they are HIGHLY questionable. The data in question comes from a comparison of circumcised vs. non-circumcised men in Africa, and their ‘demographic groups’ are not really ‘similiar’. The men who are circumcised tend to be somewhat wealthier, relatively speaking, and among other differences, have access to better nutrition and hygeine, which definitely would make a difference in their infection rates.

You are also ignoring the fact that there is a very large DETRIMENT to having your foreskin cut off, which is that a LOT of nerves for sexual sensation are actually found in the foreskin. Circumcision was originally introduced into the US specifically BECAUSE it drastically reduces sexual pleasure in men, and was forced on boys to help prevent them from masturbating. It was only AFTER parents got over the idiotic belief that masturbation caused blindness and insanity, that doctors came up with rather specious ‘health’ reasons why it should be done. It is ALSO why this is done to infants, extremely few adult men who have actually had sex with a foreskin, and knows what it feels like, would EVER consent to give it up.

At any rate, you could probably come up with a supposed ‘benefit’ to having almost ANY body part amputated, if you looked hard enough. If you got your feet amputated, you’d never have to worry about getting athlete’s foot, for instance. It’s crap, and doesn’t justify it under the non-aggression principal.

117. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

I am the only one here (to the best of my knowledge) who has benefitted from an EXTREMELY cheap bastard (Thanks, Grandpa) who prohibited my circumcision on the grounds that “If I’m paying for the little shits birth, you can get him cut when YOU have the money. My parents had never actually considered it, pro or con, so they went along with him. My boys aren’t either.
So, as to the pros- increased sensation, well there’s no way to tell. I won’t be circumcized unless it should become medically necessary. I can walk naked in the woods with more confidence than the circumcized. Without the constant irritation, it tends to be far more self-storing than the mutilated version.
Downsides- You actually have to work on cleanliness. Just a shower ain’t good enough. Your partner runs a slightly higher chance of cervical cancer, according to certain studies, if you aren’t the cleanest guy out there.
But enough of this crap. As the only one here who is willing to admit it (so far), I will say this- You better have a fucking good reason to go near it with a knife if you want to remain breathing. This goes for you, too, Deity of choice who requires circumcision.

118. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

al perez wrote:

Regardless of how you characterize the situation, these people put their lives on the line for the US. I think they deserve the right to come live here. should we screen for Aj Qaeida in Iraq sleepers among those we admit? Of course.

as soon as we ended Hussein’s tyranny the majority Muslims fell on the Christians and ran them out. There is no guarantee that a freely elected government in Iraq will be our friend after we remove our occupying troops. there is no guarantee that our employees in Iraq will not face persecution and murder. Do we cut out on them?

Iraqi democracy can be trusted to pursue Iraqi goals, some of which aren’t what we expect. If it turns out these goals are blatantly anti-American, and anti pro American Iraqi, don’t we owe refuge to our friends fleeing persecution?

Or do we treat them as we did the Rhade, Binar, Hmong, and other tribal allies of ours in southeast Asia?

===========
===========

Al Perez wants my opinion?

My opinion is there should not have been a war and had the US planners done some investigation of prior conflicts with the Islamic borg even the “military industrialists” might have thought twice before smacking this wasp nest.

The Soviets were in Afghanistan, and they were not able to prevail, despite the fact that Russians are strong and capable fighters, and the Soviet Army at the time was still a viable powerful fighting force.

Once the folly was done, the US did not act like an “occupying” army, probably due to the necessity of placating the Saudi’s. Instead, the US military allowed American soldiers to die.

In my opinion, no American soldiers should have been attacked after the country was occupied, and as soon as one was attacked martial law should have been enacted. Authoritarian societies will respect force, and the US Army is nothing but force.

The Iraqi’s should not be coming here, they should be running their own damn country and the US military should have killed or exiled anyone that promotes regional, sectarian, or religious violence, within the country, and all of the Mullahs should have been brought in line with the American plan or they should have been told to “hit the road”. That’s what an “occupying” army does, it reorganizes the landscape and the people on the landscape to suit political goals – in this case, US goals, not Iraqi goals, or Saudi goals.

I think the war was a mistake, but once committed you do not compound your folly by letting your troops be killed. Anyone who attacks American soldiers must die. You asked, and that’s my opinion.

119. al perez - November 15, 2009

There is a major social difference between male circumcision as practiced by Jew and Muslims (and perhaps others) and female circumcision. the first is an admitting of a boy child into his society, an establishment of his claim to rights within the group (Not a dhimmi, see?). The second has always been a way to make women the subjects of men.

While the physical affects are major (I believe in making the occasional understatement) the cultural and sociological
significance of the different meanings of circumcision depending on gender are profound beyond measure.

120. al perez - November 15, 2009

Can’t argue with you.

Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq we mismanaged the filibuster in Iraq (Congress did not declare war so by me it isn’t a war. It’s become a military adventure carried out for profit) after achieving the overthrow of Sadam.

Thing is, at least in theory we are not in Iraq to stay.

Do we leave our friends behind if and when we leave like we’ve promised to do?

121. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Ann observes (correctly):

“Circumcision was originally introduced into the US specifically BECAUSE it drastically reduces sexual pleasure in men, and was forced on boys to help prevent them from masturbating. It was only AFTER parents got over the idiotic belief that masturbation caused blindness and insanity, that doctors came up with rather specious ‘health’ reasons why it should be done. It is ALSO why this is done to infants, extremely few adult men who have actually had sex with a foreskin, and knows what it feels like, would EVER consent to give it up.”

Bear in mind that in spite of those clinical studies (which go a bit beyond the level you’re stipulating) showing findings indicative of a reduced probability of contracting HIV-1 (and it appears also HIV-2 and SIV) infection, I still do NOT advocate routine infant or adult circumcision.

I consider it a violation of the Hippocratic Oath to consider ANY elective surgery as “routine.” There is definite morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure, and I’ve despised it since I was a med student.

I strongly suspect that the only reason why the obstetricians – not the pediatrics guys or the urologists – perform “routine” infant circs is because third-party payors cough up the cash for it, and it’s another revenue source for them.

If the insurance carriers were as surly and cheap as Neale’s grandfather, and parents had to pay the full freight for little Bouncy Boy’s prepuce-trimming, the number of “uncut” versus “cut” kids in the school gymnasium’s locker room would go up like a flash.

With regard to sexually transmitted diseases of ALL kinds, in my opinion, risk behavior modification is still far more important than circumcision, and I really don’t want circumcision to foster that “fat, dumb, and happy” equivalent of Condition White in males who refuse to exercise discretion, pleasure be damned.

Hell, most of the people with HIV-1 infection I’ve diagnosed and treated over the past several decades were intravenous drug users (IVDUs), and circumcision has not a helluva lot to do with how they’d contracted their pathogens.

Did you know that during World War Two, the Navy Department REQUIRED that recruits be circumcised before entering boot camp? Adult circumcision was a common experience among young men volunteering for the Marine Corps and enlisting in the Navy at that time.

But I’ve read Marine Corp and Navy veterans mentioning the onus of a pre-enlistment circumcision as no more remarkable than undergoing a tonsillectomy. I think Robert Leckie mentioned in *Helmet for my Pillow* (1979) the discomfort he experienced in boot camp because he’d unwisely deferred his circumcision until only a couple of days before reporting in. Its all over the literature.

I’m not sure about the Army, or when that requirement was dropped by the Navy Department, but somewhere in the history of urology in this country, there ought to be data on the Greatest Generation’s truly massive experience with “before-and-after” valuation of circumcision and its impact upon the quality of their sexual experiences.

As for the risk of cervical cancer – one of the few malignancies which is almost wholly attributable to viral infection – the reason why the uncircumcised individual is more vulnerable to colonization and/or infection with HPV may be bacterial microbiota prevalences among uncircumcised males, particularly “pro-inflammatory anaerobic bacterial species.”

Lotsa neat stuff discussed at CROI every year.

But having only circumcised male partners is no reason for women to allow themselves to slump into Condition White on cervical cancer, either.

Regarding “a supposed ‘benefit’ to having almost ANY body part amputated,” did you know that as World War II wore on, the Navy Department considered requiring that everybody in the Submarine Service be required to undergo a pre-emptive appendectomy after a couple occasions on which cases of acute appendicitis cropped up in crew members during war patrols?

Submarines at that time did not carry more than a Hospital Corpsman aboard, and these guys were neither trained nor equipped to perform such surgeries. Instead of making preventive appendectomies a requirement, the Navy bureaucrats were instead persuaded that it was better to expand the corpsman’s training and fit out the submarines’ sick bays with the necessary instruments to safely undertake the sort of limited laparotomy required for emergently getting a hot appendix out of a belly.

122. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Drifting back to the subject of the Fort Hood shootings, I would ask you true handgun mavens (myself never having been more than a “plinker” in my youth) what you think of a contention voiced online by blogger Bob Owens, titled “Thank Goodness for ‘Cop Killer’ Weapons” (9 November 2009), in which he wrote:

“No rational person would ever wish for our soldiers to be attacked, but the simple fact of the matter is that Hasan’s reliance on a gun the uneducated media told him was a powerful ‘cop killer’ quite possibly saved lives at Fort Hood. If the same victims had been hit with 155-180 grain .40 S&W or 185-230 grain .45ACP hollow points, their wounds would likely have been far more severe than the wounds they suffered from even a fragmenting 40 grain VMAX bullet in the most commonly available 5.7 cartridge.”

Mr. Owens qualifies himself to speak on this subject as follows:

“I’ve been hunting and shooting since I was 15, sold firearms a major sporting goods retailer, hold a concealed carry permit valid in 30 states, and have written about firearms and military affairs for Pajamas Media for two years, my personal blog for five years, and have been used [as] a weapons identification resource by the Israeli Foreign Ministry (yesterday) and Michael Yon, among others. I have graduated two formal shooting courses (thus far). Ruger, Remington, and Smith & Wesson all have me approved for writer’s consignments (for the testing and evaluation of firearms).

“I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any military of law enforcement agency, nor am I a trained ballistics expert, nor a medical examiner, nor do I claim to be any of those things.”

Now, Neil (busy as he is with his nose-to-the-hard-drive novel writing task) has waxed eloquent on his affection for the .40 Liberty in a version that “drives a 155-grain bullet at 1205 feet per second, delivering 500 foot pounds even, for an Efficacy of 63.”

Were he to insert himself with his choice of handgun into a “target-rich environment” (against aggressors, not innocent unarmed people as Dr. Hasan had done), I take it as probable that Neil would bring a .40 Liberty semiautomatic.

But is this sort of opinion prevalent among other pistol-packing contributors to this discussion? Do the big, round-nosed, lower velocity projectiles powered out of non-Magnum pistols in calibers like .40 and .45 really have more stopping power (and likelihood of fatal wounding) than do the smaller high-velocity bullets of the commercially available 5.7x28mm cartridges chambered by the FN Five-seveN used by the alleged perpetrator of the Fort Hood battue?

123. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci screeds:

In addition, we have of one pahoo:

“Government functions as a bureaucratic machine within tightly proscribed limits, and those who work the machine are also closely controlled by strict civil service regulations.”

Tsk. And can we presume that you’re a science fiction fan? Forget *The Discovery of Freedom*. Consider *The Moon is a Harsh Mistress*, in which we find Professor de la Paz characterizes the foundation of his political philosophy as follows:

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts, such as ’state’ and ’society” and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and NOWHERE else.”

(Emphasis in the original.)

And the expression you want to use for the operations of the officers of civil government isn’t “tightly proscribed limits” but rather “tightly PREscribed limits.”

========

One pahoo responds:

Right you are, dude; “prescribed” it is, but your prescript manner brings your grade down to an A-, actually not a bad mark at all, congratulations.

I am not a science fiction fan, though I do like L. Neils’ work.

This thread is getting a bit far afield from discussion about Islamic terrorism, and I certainly don’t want to impugn your apparent fascination with Heinlein’s premise of “rational anarchism”. Heinlein apparently embraced Solipsism (or, perhaps better phrased as a “Shibboleth of Solipsism”; that has much better alliteration.)

From the description I’m not a candidate as a “rational anarchist” though I do like the expression “ethical anarchist” when used by Fred Woodworth in his magazine, “The Match” wherein he defines “Ethical Anarchism” as: “Our philosophy and practice: Criticism of, and resistance to, all statist laws and authoritarianism. We believe that governments and religions rest on threats or outright violence, and do more harm than good.”

I’ve never met Fred, but he’s been publishing “The Match” since 1969, and it is a very cool ‘zine.

Of course holding that everything exists inside oneself must be very tiring and demanding. It reminds me of the story about the Buddhist monk talking with the Roshi who asks, “That boulder over there, does it exist in and of itself, or does it only exist in your mind?”

The monk replied, “It exists in my mind!”

“Then your head must be very heavy!” responded the Zen master.

124. al perez - November 15, 2009

The goal of Islamic terrorism is to impose Islamic tyranny.
First they wish to impose their particular form of Islam on their fellow Muslims. Then they wish to impose it on the rest of us. By depicting the US and Israel as the enemies of Islam they legitimize themselves in the eyes of their fellow Muslims, gaining the recruits they need to subdue everyone else.

Evil people in the US would be happy to use our legitimate
concerns about Islamic terrorism to bamboozle us into submitting to their secular tyranny.

Question, how do we prevent Muslim terrorists from committing acts of terror against Americans without submitting to Muslim or secular tyranny?

Now we’re back on task.

125. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Well, one pahoo, in this hyar forum, admitting to a lack of familiarity with Heinlein’s work (including, it seems, *The Moon is a Harsh Mistress*) and then writing that “Heinlein apparently embraced Solipsism” is definitely gonna put you in a hole insofar as general opinion goes.

Certainly does the job for me. It’s as good as inadvertently advertising illiteracy.

While Heinlein’s “World as Myth” novels toward the close of his life definitely play with a species of pantheistic solipsism, and a retrospective examination of writings unpublished during his lifetime reveal his interest in this subject dating back to the years before his first fiction ever saw print, this is by no means either universal or central to the main corpus of his work.

Your opinion of Heinlein “holding that everything exists inside oneself” is deliciously damning, though. You want to keep on undercutting yourself in front of God and man and the household pets?

Fine by me.

126. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Darn. There’s so much of one pahoo in need of response.

On the parenthetical insertion of “Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party of Iraq” to describe the pre-2003 regime in that country, it might be considered that if there were any one word chosen to describe the reign of Saddam Hussein, it sure as hell WOULDN”T be “plutocratic.”

Keptocratic,” certainly. But plutocratic? Nah.

So, yeah, it was really quite appropriate for me to clarify one pahoo’s statement with that insertion within the scope of the quotation I’d drawn from his post.

As for Heinlein’s point that “’state’ and ’society” and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals,” I note of one pahoo that there’s a nice little evasion of the fact that his earlier consideration of government functioning “as a bureaucratic machine” in which the human officers thereof have neither discretion nor real culpability is given the old heave-ho in the correct observation voiced by the character of Professor de la Paz.

Though the system of prescribed duties and proscribed actions enumerated in Article 1 of (and in the Amendments to) the U.S. Constitution – as an example of the construction of a civil government – does provide clear definitions of what is and is not lawful for the officers of government in this nation to do, those officers are not “micromanaged” by that charter, and have – as we all know – exploited all the wiggle room they could find in that document. And then some.

I don’t think that Kissinger was joking AT ALL when he said that “The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.”

It stinks of the fallacy of reification to treat with an organization – which has as its component parts self-directing and (at least nominally) sapient individuals – as if it were a mechanism.

Much as one pahoo seems desirous of dismissing my “prescript manner” and “screeds” without substantive address, I am disinclined to let him get away with it.

“Which the same I would rise to explain.”

127. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Secondary question (for all).

Anybody know the efficacy (calculated by multiplying the bullet area times the muzzle energy imparted by a particular cartridge fired from a pistol barrel of known length) of the commercially available 5.7x28mm cartridges (almost certainly the SS197SR type) chambered by the FN Five-seveN used in the Fort Hood massacre?

I’m finding a calculated muzzle energy of 216 foot-pounds for the SS197SR when fired from the 4.82-inch barrel of the FN Five-seveN (20% less than the 340 foot-pounds imparted to the same round’s projectile when fired from the 10.35-inch barrel of the P90 PDW we’ve all seen on *Stargate SG-1*), but I’m coming up dry on the “bullet area” side of the calculation in order to determine an efficacy rating.

Thanks.

128. al perez - November 15, 2009

Pictures I’ve seen show a long skinny bullet. Article claim ballistic energy equal to .22 rimfire magnum but…. (dramatic pause)

If tumbles after penetration could inflict damage that would seem disproportionate to energy level as tumbling slug hit blood vessels.

Sorta like how a fatal knife wound may lack stunning power,

The Five Seven is a straight blowback instead of recoil or gas operated gun. This indicates relatively low recoil which would seem to indicate a low energy round.

It also means you can get off a lot of shots quicker.

Then again I’ve never shot any guns chambered for5.7x 28 mm. so what the hell do I know?

Sounds like you got an excuse to visit your friendly neighborhood gun shop (my hand to God the shop nearest my house specializes in black guns and is staffed by cute girls)
see if they let you examine some samples of 5.7 ammo, maybe buy a couple of boxes to shoot up at a range that has FiveSevens or P90s to rent.

Charge it to journalistic research.

129. al perez - November 15, 2009

Dear Ms Bananafana Fofob,
Your deliberate rudeness gives away the fact that you are a young American woman of the approximate age of 17 to 19 of upper middle class background. Probably from the West Coast
from an area inundated with pacifistic political correctness.

I say this because i have observed that no other group of people on the planet have so rarely had to back up their words with their fists and thus feel they can run off at the potty mouth the way you do.

Go away little girl

130. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

Al- I have to admit to being an old-fashioned guy. It’s basically a souped up .22. It is better in your pocket than a used rubber, but it ain’t the gun I’d carry for self-defense. I’d go for a gun capables of reliable one shot, one kill with a hefty knockdown power thrown in. .40 Liberty (S&W), 10mm, .45acp in Auto-pistols, .357, .41, .44 magnums in revolvers. Neil as a formula for figuring out probable kill power that I can never remember, but once he finishes this new novel, I’m sure he’ll be happy to go over it with you. My personal choice is now, and has been for years, a Colt Officer’s ACP. a 6 shot compact .45 if going for summer concealed carry, and a full-sized 1911 style .45 for winter carry under a jacket. But I confess, at 6’3 and 230 lbs, I have a lot of spaces to hide even the full size version. If I knew I was going to get involved in “serious social work” as Jeff Cooper used to say, and there was no way to stay home, then I’d go with my old Para-Ordinance frame, which jacks the capacity to 13+1. But of course, if I knew it was gonna be a gunfight, I’d have more than a pistol. BTW- all this is theoretical, because I have never actually used any of my guns on the street.

131. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 15, 2009

Miss fofob- By chance are you sleeping with a man named BOB? If so, I would suggest that you cease copying his style, it has gotten him kicked out of here once, and it will get you ignored here, effective NOW! BTW- Neil let me know it was an accident when he deleted my post, and apologized. Unlike some, he has manners, and a conscience.

132. Bob, Not L. Neil Shithead - November 15, 2009

“But I guess I’m going to have to take the time to deny to those who love the idea of

dropping bombs on pregnant widows and ten year old goatherds”

Where. The Fuck. Did I Ever Say That?

Come on. I dare you to be honest for a minute, if you are even capable of such a feat.

“The fact that it purports to be Christian head-sewage certainly doesn’t make it smell any

better.”

I believe I was quite clear in multiple points: I am not a Xtian, Jew, or Muslim.

Congratulations on proving you’re not even honest enough to read my posts.

“until he can demonstrate to everybody’s satisfaction that he has read Rose Wilder Lane’s

great book _The Discovery of Freedom_ and found out exactly how ignorant he is”

And what if I am no fan of Ms. Lane, have already read the book (such as it is) and find much

of her drivel (much like your drivel) to be completely ignorant nonsense? We’re talking about

someone who claimed she “stopped writing” in order to protest the creation of the Income Tax, for

instance.

I also find it odd that you idolize someone who was a staunch opponent of communism, yet you

yourself are unwilling to admit that the construction of Islamic jurisprudence and the political

setup demanded by Shari’a law is quite close to totalitarian communism itself.

If she were here today, watching you say the things you say, she’d probably slap you. First

for being an ignorant bastard, second for taking her book as your own personal fucking Koran.

Tell me the answer to the following questions then. Try being honest for a moment:

#1 – Do you, or do you not, acknowledge the accuracy of RD’s analysis of Muslim

sociopolitical structure and the base concept of “fitna” as valid?

#2 – Do you, or do you not, acknowledge RD and Bastige’s analysis of Islamic sociopolitical

structure as lacking the basic tenet necessary for modern societies in which religions coexist,

to wit, the “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (aka “separation of church and state”)

idea that laws and religion can exist separately?

#3 – What do you have to say to the relation of the proselytizing Muslim Neale has met, and

the so many I have met over the years, both high ranking and not, who will cheerfully admit to

precisely the same thing?

#4 – how versed are you, not simply in the Koran (and “hey I read it twice” doesn’t count),

but in the various Hadith collections, including the six used as primary sources by the Sunni,

the additional 3-4 preferred by various Shi’a groups, the _al-Jami’i al-Sahih_ preferred

primarily by the Ibadi (though they accept some of the Sunni collections as well)? In particular,

how well versed are you in the _Bukhari_ collection?

#5 – Have you studied in detail not simply the wording of the Koran, but the doctrines of the

nasikh and mansukh verses, the abrogated and abrogating? Are you aware of the number of the

supposedly “peaceful” verses that are in fact abrogated, since the most violent chapter (Sura 9)

is in fact the second to last in chronological order (which is what in fact counts for

nasikh/mansukh jurisprudence)?

Well?

–PS – since you feel you can be the sort of censorious, dishonest, fascist dickweed who would

rather delete comments than answer simple questions that would require even one iota of honesty

on your part, you may go to whichever religious concept of “hell”, however renamed, you believe

in.

============================

Ann,

regarding the Koran, I suggest you read up on what “fitna” means. Also remember that the

Koran is not quite the “final” book any more; there are also the various collections of Hadith,

or “sayings” attributed to the Rapist Pedophile Mohammed (piss be upon him) that are to be

followed.

The very idea of a Muslim NOT following the Koran, save for the doctrines of taqiyya and

kitman, is antithetical to the concept of being a Muslim. That is what Neale’s relation of the

Muslim who said “it is not yet time to force the issue” is about.

As for the swearing, I’ll continue to speak my mind as long as L. Neil Fascist is playing his

little game. I will not have him lie about what I have said, and I will not put up with his

little “now go prove you’re brainwashed” bullshit. I’ve already read his hero’s book, his own

little personal Koran by Ms. Lane. I am unimpressed by it. His assumption – that anyone who reads

the book will be struck by how “powerful” or “moving” or whatever other adjective he wants to

use, and thus instantly conform to the groupthink he wants to enforce – is, like most every other

assumption he starts his pathetic arguments with, Just Plain Wrong.

=============================

Ahh, how interesting. L. Neil Shithead has even deleted Neale’s post about his former Muslim

acquaintance.

I wonder why that is? Trying to rewrite history, L. Neil Shithead?

============================

Oh, and Neale?

Take a look above. YOUR post about the Muslim you knew, who told you “it is not yet time to

force the issue” – THAT POST has also mysteriously vanished.

L. Neil Shithead is not merely censoring, which is bad enough. Oh no: he’s trying to rewrite

history entirely. The true mark of a fascist shithead.

============================

By the way Neale:

1 – L. Neil Shithead is the one insisting on a shibboleth, in other words, insisting I mouth some

platitude to “prove” that I am now brainwashed into his shitty little groupthink.

2 – L. Neil Shithead is the one who has yet to honestly answer a single question I posed to him.

3 – L. Neil Shithead is the one who decided to LIE about what people have said previously, and

has deleted not just my posts but yours in a vain, fascist effort to rewrite history and cast

himself in a better light.

So you’ll excuse me if I say that a “return to the old days” needs to start with him cutting out

his fascist shithead behavior.

=============================

Ann,

“So, would you say that the very idea of a Christian NOT following the bible, save for

certain select parts, is antithetical to the concept of being a Christian?”

Not at all. But Christianity and Judaism, unlike Islam, have a long history of questioning

what is in their scripture and whether or not it belongs. In Christianity and Judaism, the

following question is encouraged: whether (for example) the use of stoning as a punishment is a

call to forever use that form of punishment for similar crimes, or rather an example of what was

done at the time because that was the culture in which the books were written (and allowing thus

for the change in punishment, ranging from more leniency to a slide to another form of the death

penalty such as the “more humane” guillotine, firing squad, or lethal injection).

In Islam, on the other hand, questioning the Quran is fitna. Questioning that book itself is

heresy. Questioning the Hadith is allowed, but rarely, and only if you are a “learned Imam.”

Question the word of a “learned Imam”, and you’re likely as not to have a fatwa calling you an

apostate before the sun goes down.

In Islam, questioning the Quran is simply disallowed. In Christianity and Judaism, for all

but the most fundamentalist nutjob sects, it is instead encouraged. That is a major difference

and one of the reasons that Christianity and Judaism successfully reached the point where they

can separate church and state, while despite having the “springboard” of “descending from” those

two, Islam remains mired firmly in its 7th-century “religion and state as one for all time”

mindset.

==============================

“Al”

“go away” yourself. Rarely have I had the misfortune to meet an individual with more teeth than

functional brain cells and both still in single digits, but it appears to my great misfortune

that you qualify.

=============================

How intriguingly interesting.

L. Neil Shithead is not deleting just my posts, it appears another two from Neale and at least one from Ann have now vanished.

“He who controls history, controls the future.” Words spoken by a true fascist shithead just like L. Neil… how’s it feel, being exposed for the hypocritical bastard you are?

133. one pahoo - November 15, 2009

R.D. Bartucci inveighs:

Well, one pahoo, in this hyar forum, admitting to a lack of familiarity with Heinlein’s work (including, it seems, *The Moon is a Harsh Mistress*) and then writing that “Heinlein apparently embraced Solipsism” is definitely gonna put you in a hole insofar as general opinion goes.

>> Believe it or not, there’s actually a lot of stuff I’m not familiar with, and I try to amend that as I can, but I’m quite certain that “general opinion” is one thing I’ll never worry about.

Certainly does the job for me. It’s as good as inadvertently advertising illiteracy.

>> Decrying my “illiteracy” certainly doesn’t help your A minus grade, now does it. Appears I was a mite too generous in ascribing points…

>>If it pleases you to lord it over someone as to your empowering literacy, then you can certainly call me “illiterate” if you like; again it defaults back to that “general opinion” clause, now doesn’t it?

While Heinlein’s “World as Myth” novels toward the close of his life definitely play with a species of pantheistic solipsism, and a retrospective examination of writings unpublished during his lifetime reveal his interest in this subject dating back to the years before his first fiction ever saw print, this is by no means either universal or central to the main corpus of his work.

Your opinion of Heinlein “holding that everything exists inside oneself” is deliciously damning, though. You want to keep on undercutting yourself in front of God and man and the household pets?

Fine by me.

>> That was the extract you chose to wave around, but as I mentioned before, I have no opinion about Heinlein, I’m not familiar with Heinlein’s writing, Heinlein’s philosophy, Heinlein’s mistress or anything else about the fellow. Finally, I have no household pets worried about my social standing on an I-net blog – they’ve told as much; thank you for understanding this in a purely solipsistic fashion or through any other philosophical system, science fiction fantasy, or text, graphics, or sound. You can even put it into a quote from “Professor de la Paz” if you want.

>>If Heinlein’s fiction is something you enjoy discussing, you’ll have to approach someone “more literate” that want’s to compete with you and is similarly infatuated with hero worship, ersatz fictional characters, and science fiction philosophy. Not only will you enjoy yourself more but you’ll have a lot more fun.

>>You should understand that I’m not in “competition” with anyone here; I write strictly for my own amusement (now that IS REALLY solipsistic). If I wasn’t a bit under the weather I wouldn’t be wasting my time sitting in front of a computer typing in a blog forum, even if it is L. Neil Smith’s, a fellow I really do admire.

134. al perez - November 15, 2009

Dear Ms. Bananafana Fofob,
Please, better insults, at least be entertaining in your discourtesy.

I have challenged your reproductive success, suggested that you are either an immature child who has never had to back his words by force, implied that you are a bully who is used to using overwhelming badassness to overawe people into submitting to your will even when they think you are wrong, offered the alternative explanation that you are such a spavined shilpit that no one thinks your worth the trouble to correct.

I’ve even impugned your manhood and suggested that you live down to a negative stereotype of young women of a certain class (by the way, most upper middle class young women are better bred than this stereotype).

While I gave you the benefit of the doubt for having personal courage I am now convinced you are the type of coward who hides behind the net to utter fighting words you know you’ll never have to back up.

And all you can come back with is to compare my dentition to my neuron count?

Surely a person worthy of the opinion you have of yourself can do better. (yeah, I just called you a conceited twerp)

By the way, how does all of this address the question of how (not why) we can protect our nation state, families, and selves from those who would use terrorism to impose Islamic terrorism without imposing an equally vile secular tyranny on ourselves?

Or maybe your an agent of those (Muslim or not) who would impose tyranny on america tasked with suckering us into wasting our energy on bickering among ourselves instead of preparing to defend our freedom.

135. Dave Swenson - November 15, 2009

I realize I’ve come late to this party, following a link from a blog I read about once every two weeks or so.

I’d like to point out something. It seems from what I can see, trying to read between the lines to figure out where Bob’s posts went and taking guesses, that his responses are a direct reaction to those here. The more discourteous you, collectively, act towards him, the more he retaliates in kind. I am gathering that his current response is in fact a collection of his previous responses, preserved for posterity. I do not know if they are all of them or not, but it seems unlikely someone accusing L. Neil Smith of such ill-advised censoring would be negligent in presenting the entirety of his previous responses.

I wish to see a discussion. Even before the arrival of Bob, it does not appear that “discussion” is what happens in this blog’s comment page. Instead it looks like this is a “circle jerk”, to use the common phrasing, of like-minded individuals who feel able to insult anyone of differing opinion with a deliberate intent to provoke, and then claiming insult in return when challenged. A rather pedantic and childish tactic, but one seen often in society.

I would think someone who claims to be a libertarian would be able to foster a better environment than this. I personally would find it better for you to answer the questions posed. Assuming there is truth to his accusations that you have deleted not just his posts but the related posts of others, you are severely breaching the bounds of what constitutes any sense of good faith and quickly reaching the point where I will probably walk out the door and never bother with your blog, or your books, ever again.

Now as to the rest, I believe the fundamental argument breaking out comes down to the following phrase, a phrase of which I join many other posters in questioning its validity.

The phrase is this: “El Neil is suggesting that we can find ways to work with those Muslims (a majority, IMHO) that are reasonable people that just want to be left alone to live their lives.”

The question of the day is whether or not the conjunction of “reasonable people” and “Muslims” is, in fact, a majority of the Muslim world. A secondary but related question is whether or not said “reasonable people”, whether a majority or not, can convince enough of their co-religionists change their ways such that Islam might cease to be antithetical to the rest of the world’s continued existence.

After studying the evidence, I cannot believe that either premise is valid. Something, much like Denmark, is quite rotten in core of the State of Islam.

136. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

al, on the “long skinny bullet” of the 5.7x28mm cartridge, it’s a Spitzer projectile. Essentially, when faced with the choice between up-scaling a pistol round for their proposed P90 “cooks-and-bakers rifle,” and down-scaling a rifle round, FN elected the latter option.

To get aerodynamic stability sufficient to convey adequate KE to the targets specified by the NATO requirements (Warsaw Pact ground-pounders wearing the ballistic protection prevalent in the years before the Evil Empire’s sudden collapse), they had to go with a rifle-type Spitzer bullet.

In fact, the SS197SR incorporates a Hornady “V-max” bullet – a “varmint hunting” projectile typical of those developed for the small-caliber rifles used in the esoteric art of blowing the heads off woodchucks poking themselves up from burrows in the next ZIP code over.

As anyone who has ever studied or dealt with wound ballistics in a clinical context knows, all Spitzer projectiles tend to precess (“yaw” and/or “tumble”) upon impact with tissue. Can’t be helped. Most of such a bullet’s mass is in the base, not the point.

So insofar as my own fund of knowledge takes me, even if these bullets do not fragment (though most tend to do so, commonly at the cannelure at the very least), tissue disruption – temporary and permanent wound cavity – tends to be greater with any such projectile when you compare it against the effect to be gotten when a blunt-nosed bullet strikes with a comparable KE upon impact.

But it seems to me that a pistol like the very pricey Five-seveN, chambering even a cartridge like the SS197SR with its 40-grain projectile, isn’t going to land as much KE on its target as would a handgun firing any of the .40 Liberty ammunition favored by Neil or .45 ACP rounds Neale swears by.

In Mr. Owens’ article cited above, he compares the 5.7x28mm round to an “ice pick” as against the “sledgehammer” of the larger-caliber cartridges advocated by Neil and Neale.

Hm. Sound like a law firm, don’t it?


“I’ve never shot anyone. Nor has my gun. I try to do good every day.
I don’t understand why I have to be punished by taking my firearms away.
Am I some kind of Rabid Unspeakable Beast ’cause my favorite relaxing trick
Is punching small holes in pieces of paper; me and my .30-06?”

- W.J. Bethancourt III (1995)

137. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

al, it would seem to me that Dave Swenson has a valid point. In dealing with people like Bob (who, though he seems to be well-informed, descends paroxysmally and distractedly into vituperation for its own sake) and one pahoo (who uses false umbrage to distract from his persistent failures to respond substantively – for example, evading acknowledgement that his “Government functions as a bureaucratic machine” analogy is a logical fallacy as well as a false representation of how civil government actually does function, or has been designed to function in this nation) it’s best not to descend into reciprocal insult.

Much as I enjoy the art of contumely for its own sake, and am sore tempted to take the flensing life to one pahoo, I hope to exercise restraint, standing back and letting him keep on catching his frenulum in the zipper of his fly.

I might ask him now and then “Doesn’t it hurt like hell to walk around with your prepuce in the mousetrap like that?” but I’m gonna be calm about it.

You and Neale might try the same. When you get right down to it, boogers like these rather resemble carcinomata.

Better to handle them with “no-touch” technique insofar as is possible, so as to minimize the chances of excoriation facilitative of worsening pathology.

138. R.D. Bartucci - November 15, 2009

Concludes Dave Swenson:

“The question of the day is whether or not the conjunction of ‘reasonable people’ and ‘Muslims’ is, in fact, a majority of the Muslim world. A secondary but related question is whether or not said ‘reasonable people’, whether a majority or not, can convince enough of their co-religionists change their ways such that Islam might cease to be antithetical to the rest of the world’s continued existence.

“After studying the evidence, I cannot believe that either premise is valid. Something, much like Denmark, is quite rotten in core of the State of Islam.”


Aye, there’s the rub. If you’ve taken the considerable trouble to read some of my own earlier posts on this lengthy thread, I’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion.

Inasmuch as Islamic scripture and exegetical works are all in Arabic, and much of the Islamic world is NOT fluent in Arabic (indeed, the single most populous Islamic nation is Indonesia, and the languages prevalent in most of Central Asia are tongues like Farsi, Urdu, Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, and Shaitan knows what the hell else), it’s pretty safe to conclude that the average Muslim has about as much chance of interpreting unaided the suras of the Qur’an or the various hadith as had the average Roman Catholic of divining for himself the meanings of the liturgy back when the Mass was in Latin.

And even Arabs whose milk-tongue is the language of the Prophet are for the most part not really literate enough to do so, in the sense that their educations equip them to assess for themselves the very complex and weasel-worded teachings found in the One Book.

So the majority of Muslims rely upon islamic scholars for the nuts-and-bolts “do-and-don’t” impacts of Islam upon literally EVERYTHING they think or do.

These scholars, these authorities in Islamic law, therefore have immense power in their influence over Muslims everywhere, and there’s damn-all genuinely “moderate” about any of these people.

Compound that with the fact that the House of Saud is not only dedicated to the precepts of the Wahhabi sect (which comprises possibly the most purposefully frozen-in-medieval-fanaticism bunch of Muslims on the planet), but has also been using tons of oil money to spread Wahhabi clerics and doctrine all throughout Dar al-Harb for decades, and we’ve got ourselves a real nasty situation here.

Anybody care to bet that the clerics playing imam at the mosques frequented by Dr. Hasan (and with whom he’s been in communication otherwise) are all of the Wahhabi sect?

We’ll probably never get confirmation on that, as the interest of Barry Soetoro’s administration is to get Dr. Hasan extinguished and forgotten with as little exposition as possible, but the inference is sure as hell reasonable.

The Islamic scholars who stand between “those Muslims (a majority, IMHO) that are reasonable people” and their all-consuming religious dogma – and who feed it to the seemingly “reasonable people” so that it’s never EVER going to be “reasonable” in any way at all – are the ones who really ought to be closely monitored, subjected to the same kinds of surveillance reputedly accorded Mafia kingpins, with active intelligence gathering.

But NO kinds of “dirty tricks department” stuff.

The temptation among government clowns to do that kind of stuff – domestically or overseas – results far too damned often in catastrophes like Ruby Ridge.

The impatient civil servant’s proclivity towards a “Do something, even if its wrong” attitude is such that they’ve got to be kept on a strong choke-chain if they’re going to take the more rabid of the Islamic scholars under close scrutiny.

Even if the clerics of Islam can’t be convinced to tone it down, they can be tracked so as to keep a realistic threat estimate running on the members of their congregations, and as they’re mostly foreign-born, it’d facilitate getting ‘em deported back to the Sandbox.

Better they do their incendiary yammering there than here.

139. Ann Morgan - November 16, 2009

Neale Osborne wrote: >> So, as to the pros- increased sensation, well there’s no way to tell.

Neale, unless we are willing to toss out EVERYTHING we know about the way the human body works, plus call a lot of people LIARS, we can indeed tell that having a foreskin increases the amount of pleasure a man feels during sex for 3 reasons:

1. There are a LOT of nerves in the foreskin, which can be seen with a microscope. When the foreskin is amputated, these nerves are GONE. Less nerves equals less feeling, unless we are willing to toss out everything we think we know about how the human body works.

2. There have been some cases of men who have been circumcised as adults, and they report a drastic loss of sensation after the fact. Unless you think all these men are liars.

3. The glans of the penis is NOT supposed to be dry. It is actually mucus membrane, and is SUPPOSED to be protected and moist, like a woman’s clitoris (which it is actually analogous to). When you remove the foreskin, the glans dries out, and becomes covered in thicker skin (a process called Keratinization). So not only does a man lose whatever nerves he had in his foreskin, when circumcised, his glans also becomes less sensitive than it previously had been.

IMHO, you are probably LUCKY your grandfather was a cheap bastard in that matter.

140. Ann Morgan - November 16, 2009

First of all, who the heck is this ‘bananna-fana-fofob’ everyone is referring to? I don’t see any such person on this board.

Secondly, Bob said that L. Neil erased one of my posts. Neil, I don’t know if that is the case or not. If it is, I would appreciate knowing which post, and why?

Thirdly, Al wrote:
>> There is a major social difference between male circumcision as practiced by Jew and Muslims (and perhaps others) and female circumcision. the first is an admitting of a boy child into his society, an establishment of his claim to rights within the group (Not a dhimmi, see?). The second has always been a way to make women the subjects of men.
While the physical affects are major (I believe in making the occasional understatement) the cultural and sociological
significance of the different meanings of circumcision depending on gender are profound beyond measure.

Al, the fact that mutilating men may be done to ‘increase’ their social status, in some particular culture, while mutilation of women is done do ‘decrease’ their social status in some particular culture, CANNOT be used to justify the mutilation of infant males who are NOT able to give their consent to the mutilation. When a man is old enough to understand how his penis works (which would NOT be until AFTER he has had sex at least several times) and then wants to agree to have his foreskin amputated, or his entire penis cut off with a guillotine, then more power to him, I would not dream of stopping him. In fact, if he is a masochist, and voluntarily wants to agree to some sort of mutilation that would DECREASE his social status, I still wouldn’t dream of stopping him, so long as he agrees to the matter, and isn’t having it forced on him as an infant.

141. al perez - November 16, 2009

Dear R.D.,
you are so right!
Even though trading insults with whatever he chooses to call himself is fun it does little to forward debate on how to deal with Muslims without offering our throats to their knives or throwing away the liberties this nation was created to protect.

I pledge not to trade insults with whatsisface on this website anymore. If he wants to keep the trashtalk going he can create his own Cheap Shots R Us blog site and let me know where to contact him. If he wants to add intelligently and politely to the debate on this page I will be glad to support, refute, ask questions, or otherwise comment politely on his remarks.
Thank you for calling me on this issue and I apologize to any of Neil’s fans and readers of this page for detracting from their enjoyment and enlightenment,
(But I was having so much fun!!!)

142. R.D. Bartucci - November 16, 2009

Ann, sorry but you’re wrong about the epithelium of the glans penis. It’s by no mans a “mucus membrane,” but actually squamous epithelium, even in the uncircumcised male infant. That doesn’t change as the individual matures.

What’s seen in the circumcised boy and man is an increased degree of cornification, resulting in more epithelial stratification than is seen in the same area of skin when the subject has not been circumcised.

While it’s not precisely right to draw an analogy with the calluses which commonly develop on hands and feet with types of continual usage or friction, there’s something of that in it. The exposed skin responds to the stimulus of contact with clothing (and the dryness imparted by removal of the prepuce) by growing more robust.

In turn, this dryness changes the microbial environment of the glans and the coronal sulcus in significant ways, changing these areas propensities for microbial colonization and infection.

In almost all of the literature with which I’m familiar, balanitis and balanoposthitis, for example, are much less frequently diagnosed among circumcised males of any age than among those who have not undergone circumcision, either as infants or adults.

I’m not inclined to play devil’s advocate on behalf of the “pro-circumcision” crowd, but you’ve got to be aware of their arguments in favor of this “prophylactic” surgical procedure if you want to make your case for doing away with routine infant circumcision.

Consider, for example, the value of leaving the diaper-wearing little boy uncircumcised to reduce his proclivity for developing that ammoniacal dermatitis which is thought to be the cause of most cases of distal meatal stenosis, a decidedly non-trivial pathology which seems almost never to manifest among uncircumcised male infants.

143. R.D. Bartucci - November 16, 2009

Aw, hell, al.

i was having fun reading your insult-swapping. You don’t need to apologize (and who the hell expects courtesies of that kind from Bob?)

But it’s even more fun reading (and digging up) solid information and reasoned argument on the subjects thus far addressed. The aggregate IQ score permeating fora like this one is itself a perfect justification for hanging around such virtual loci on the Web.

144. thebastidge - November 16, 2009

I appreciate what seemed like interest in what I had to say earlier, tho I am not entirely sure whether it was agreement or not.

Sinc eI see some references people are recommending here, I would toss out a couplemore:

The Arab Mind, by Raphael Patai is very enlightening.

A history of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani. Tough goimg dense and scholarly.

145. al perez - November 16, 2009

This is El Neil’s page or I’d ask the readers for a vote on whether or not to let me off the hook.
If he accepts my invite to set up an insult blog I hope Bob has the kindness to share its address with all his “fans” so we can all enjoy the show.

If and when I set up a blog or personal web page I have better things to do with it, including a fair amount of blatant commercialism.

It’s probably going to take ordering the 2010 tacgirls calendar
to cheer me up for stopping my part of this exchange.

Ann,
Bananafanafofob is the surname Bob gave us for himself.

146. thebastidge - November 16, 2009

Oh, and as to my willingness to engage, I spent 2.5 yeas in Iraq from 2006 to 2009. I volunteered multiple times for Gulf War !, but I was still in training status for the USAF. In 2003 I was medically discharged from the military (Guard).

As a military contractor, I was paid better than when I was in uniform, but it’s all one team, and I took my chances just like anyone else.

I was asked earlier if I was willing to start a progrom. I said no, but that I am critical of Islam. A straw man was then offered that I am stepping on that path.

I nearly replied with invective and insults to that individual. I see later on, a more reasonable view of that individual. But I still do not appreciate the straw man, and I would say to you, Mr. Perez, that you need to be more careful.

I’m not sure what happened to my first post, opining that L Neil’s opinion as expressed in this article was crap and linking to my reasons, which I posted on my own blog in order not to be too wordy in his house.

147. Ann Morgan - November 16, 2009

Al, you wrote:
>> Even though trading insults with whatever he chooses to call himself is fun it does little to forward debate on how to deal with Muslims without offering our throats to their knives or throwing away the liberties this nation was created to protect.

Well, Al, I already addressed that question. There are, in fact, 2 ways to accomplish this, which I will now reiterate:

1. Let people carry guns, concealed or openly, on land, or in airplanes. Any would-be terrorist will probably not survive for long under those circumstances.

2. Any terrorists who survive #1 will become the property either of their victims (if the victim survives their attempt at murder) or the victim’s heirs. By *property* I mean exactly that, they no longer have human rights, they are an OBJECT, and like any other object, may be disposed of in any way their new owner wishes, including selling the rights to their slow demise by torture to Pay Per View television.

However, most Americans don’t have the stomach for either of those, so we are left with mass bombing of countries far away, where Americans and their delicate stomachs do not have to look at the deaths of the proverbial 10 year old goatherds.

148. Mike - November 16, 2009

This was highly enlightening to me. I think it should be shared. Neale, I believe this explains the attitude of your “friend” the Muslim sleeper cell agent.

It was written by Dr. Peter Hammond, who has done immmensely powerful work exposing the modern and ongoing Islamic slave trade.

**
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.” Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

149. Al Perez - November 16, 2009

Why we need to keep an eye on Muslims to prevent tyrants using their religion as a pretext to deny other folks their rights is established.

How we do so without trashing our own rights in the process is the question.

150. R.D. Bartucci - November 16, 2009

Mike derives from Dr. Hammond’s work:

“Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

“Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.”

This is the conclusion to which my own recent half-witted analyses had drawn me (see above). In the sense that our post-Enlightenment republic was devised to regard religion, explicitly incorporating the “Render-unto-Caesar” teaching of Christianity, Islam was established and is tenaciously fixed in a mode of thought which can only be regarded as “tyrannical.”

There is simply no proper intellectual foundation in Islam upon which the concept of individual rights can be predicated, and in fact the dogma of Islam seems (to me) to undercut the observations of factual reality by virtue of which, in Western cultures, the life of the individual human being is accorded any intrinsic value whatsoever.

Islam appears to share with all religions the characteristic of a “disconnect” with the real world – sordid and “lost in sin” as that real world is commonly condemned to be – but it retains those qualities of the most rabidly world-abjuring medieval Christian movements (and their political influences) which had been largely hammered out of Christianity by the Black Death and subsequent sociopolitical, technological, and economic developments.

Simplistically, I’m inclined to think most pointedly of the Thirty Years’ War and especially First Breitenfeld.

(( “Two centuries later, long after the concrete set and the truth was obvious to all, a monument would be erected on that field. The passing years, through the bickering and the debates, had settled the meaning of Breitenfeld. The phrase on the monument simply read: FREEDOM OF BELIEF FOR ALL THE WORLD.” — Eric Flint, *1632* [2000] ))

I deeply appreciate Mike’s detailed presentation on the “break points” at which the pathologies of Muslim infiltration can be expected to manifest in victim polities.

One question, though, on the contention that “To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then [after achieving 'Dar-es-Salaam,' more properly 'Dar al-Islam'] start killing each other for a variety of reasons.”

Is this really a universal Muslim characteristic, or is it based upon the long-observed (even pre-Islamic) cultural traits of the Arab peoples?

I’m not familiar with the history of the Indonesians and the Muslims of the surrounding regions, but what I know of that area doesn’t seem to indicate that organized Muslim-on-Muslim violence in modern times is especially prevalent there.

They certainly show the sorts of Muslim-on-infidel hostility discussed above (in the southern Philippines, toward the Christians of Timor and the Buddhists of Bali), but internicine warfare where there is Dar al-Islam doesn’t seem to be the case in that region.

As for the hill clans and tribes of Central Asia….

Well, peoples in such areas tend to have a helluva lot of “blood feud” and murderous xenophobia no matter where you go, or what religious beliefs they profess. Look at animist tribes of the New Guinea uplands, and especially the Highlands of Scotland for some spectacular episodes of “cork-screwing, back-stabbing, and dirty dealing.”

And then there’s our own Ozark and Appalachian “Hatfield/McCoy” types of clan contumacy here in the enlightened U.S.A.

151. Mike - November 16, 2009

Al Perez,

why not simply admit that Islam is not a “religion” any more than many other cults and entities are, and treat them the same as any other group.

Think about it. If we had a large group of people who publicly admitted they were immigrating to the US to have their “Supreme Glorious Leader” rewrite our government, would we allow it?

Infiltration has already begun. The examples of what’s happened in Dearbornistan, MI to “outsiders” or “infidels” should be a good warning to start with.

152. Al Perez - November 16, 2009

Because people have said the same about Catholics, Mormons, Jews and Masons. Admit you can restrict one group, you concede you can restrict all.

A long time ago I stated that the solution would be for enough non Muslims to immigrate and/or have enough kids to prevent the
Muslims from becoming a majority or even a large enough minority to threaten other people’s rights.

Since you’re already in America go beget some kids. More fun than worrying about Muslims begetting kids.

153. R.D. Bartucci - November 16, 2009

Al, could you please offer a consideration of how a Mexican-American population might receive (and respond to) the influx of Muslims Mike discusses, and the activities of these infiltrators when they hit their various “action break points” as their proportional share of the population base increases?

My own insufficiently informed surmise would be something among the Latinos consisting of a “shoot, shovel, and shut up” mode of relationship expressed with bloodthirsty vigor overmatching anything the inbound fellahin might manage.

154. Al Perez - November 16, 2009

Damn, that was supposed to be a secret.

Actually, we’ve been living with Christian Arabs for quite a while and they are ichiban people (great so now he’s dragging in Japanese immigrants) and misspelling Japanese words!).

That said, Muslims living in peace have been welcomed, those who push will get pushed back hard. So far in my little corner of the world they haven’t pushed, yet.

If and when they push this particular chicano promises not to ask his non Latino neighbors to give up their civil liberties while he is pushing back against the Muslims.

155. Mike - November 16, 2009

Ah, but in the case of Muslims it is provable, with the others, not.

What is with your “all or nothing” mentality, anyways? Islam is not a religion, simple as that. If we accept the fact that certain groups put up a false “religion” front, identify them, and deal with them accordingly, we actually do great service to freedom of religion.

We’re in more danger of eroding rights by allowing every crackpot, shyster, fraudster, and fascist to claim they are “following their religion” than we are by identifying the frauds and dealing with them as such.

156. R.D. Bartucci - November 16, 2009

Mike, the problem is that it may be possible to portray most Christians – particularly the politically active “social conservative” clowns – as playing the “following their religion” card to impose their bigotries at government gunpoint upon their neighbors.

Recall the Scopes trial?

157. Mike - November 16, 2009

The Scopes monkey trial you mean? Yes, I do recall it.

The difference there is that Christianity’s laws are relatively easily separable (save for the laws which are nearly universal except for Islam, such as the prohibition against murder) from our society.

With Islam, there is no such luck. There is no way to have a majority-Muslim state and have an even partially secular government. Even when Muslims are a minority, when they feel lucky they will push, such as the push to allow for a parallel “Shari’a-based Arbitration” system to exist “alongside” the current Canadian legal system to decide things like Muslim divorce status and spousal abuse, which would kick in automatically any time the Canadian courts discovered both parties to any such proceeding were Muslim.

The weaker our societies look, the more they’ll push. The solution is to stand firm and say, quite clearly, that their political structure masquerading in the trappings of “religion” is unwanted.

158. Al Perez - November 16, 2009

The US went to war against the Mormons in 1857-1858.
Type in anti Catholic riots in the US in any decent search engine. As mentioned earlier, the 20th Century Ku Klux Klan was formed among other reasons to “Protect” the US from catholic. Also to “protect” the US from Jews. The current Republican Party was formed from a coalition of earlier parties that included the Anti-Masonic Party and the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party.

Either every individual is free to enjoy the same rights as everyone else or everyone’s rights depend on the rulers’ whim.
Not groups, individuals. This Muslim is waging Jihad against the US, that one isn’t. Shoot the one who is, don’t shoot the one who isn’t.

I do not deny certain Muslims are already at war with the US, some over here, some within our borders.In The way to deal with the second group is to forcibly stop them. in many cases that means shooting them dead.

Which is why I go for all or nothing. To deny someone a right is to apply force against them. Whether or not you are correct in doing so isn’t the point yet. Sooner or later that means using lethal force,

Are you willing to kill Muslims to stop them from immigrating to the US? If not, what lesser degree of force are you willing to use to stop them?

You have to answer the first question before you can move on to the second.

Sorry, it does get down to the binary decision.

The reason I react so negatively to people spelling out the evils of Islam is because to me it comes across as people psyching themselves up to kill and trying to convince me to help them.
Yet when I ask if that is there intent they go all mealy mouth.
This scares me because I worry they’ll kill people they “didn’t mean to,” start wars “they didn’t mean to,” harm innocent bystanders “they didn’t mean to.”

Face the decision of when and under what circumstances you are willing to Kill a Muslim, then if you don’t want to kill Muslims avoid those circumstances and /or create circumstances which make killing Muslims unnecessary (my personal choice by the way).

Just stop talking yourself up to doing something you “don’t mean to” and expect me not to point out the way you’re going.

159. Al Perez - November 16, 2009

In my last posting “over here ” in paragraph 3 should have been overseas.

Sorry about that.

160. Mike - November 16, 2009

Sorry, it does get down to the binary decision.

No. It comes to a simple choice: do we treat Muslims as they treat others, with necessary protections to stop them from waging bloodthirsty and genocidal war on the rest of the world, or do we fall over backwards making completely weak pussies of ourselves (like the French and the Spanish) and defend ourselves only too late?

Are you willing to kill Muslims to stop them from immigrating to the US? If not, what lesser degree of force are you willing to use to stop them?

Cut the immigration amounts of those who are allowed to come. SEVERELY scrutinize and monitor those we do allow.

For the rest:
Step 1, Turn them back. Deny them entry if they come via airplane, boat, land, etc.
Step 2, If they insist on sneaking in illegally, arrest and deport.
Step 3, If they are violently trying to force their way into the country, especially with killing force, why would you not authorize killing force in return?

In the lands of the Muslim, no other religion is allowed. “Pagans” (anyone but Jews and Christians) are pretty much Kill On Sight. Jews and Christians are virtual slaves anyways under enforced diminishment, and the Shari’a penalties for their murder are less than for killing a Muslim anyways, enough so that it might as well be a joke. Even telling someone “I am a Jew” or “I am a Catholic” in Muslim lands is enough to get you tossed into jail, or even executed, for “proselytizing.”

This is not different from what would happen to you in Soviet Russia were you to declare yourself a Capitalist or agitate for the concept of property rights.

If they can’t respect the right of people to keep their own counsel and faith in their own lands, they’re unwelcome in mine, period.

I’m finding the quote from Neale quite appropriate. “It is not yet time to force the issue. Eventually, you all WILL submit to Allah as foretold.”

If we allow it to get to the point of “time to force the issue”, it is already too late. The difference between paranoia and healthy fear is that during paranoia – which is what happened to the Jews, Masons, Catholics and so on – nobody is out to get you. With healthy fear, you have proof that someone IS out and planning war upon you. In the case of Islam, we have not just a little proof, we have bodybag-loads of it, as well as statement after statement after statement from the highest levels of ranking Islamic clerics that they believe in, and plan for, such a war.

161. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 16, 2009

Al- I think I agree with you. If I get you right, we need to not permit the “It’s my religious right to beat my property (wife) with a stick” crap, and kill them when they yell “Allahu Ahkbar” while wearing dupont made clothing or carrying weapons. Add in Ann’s “Carry weapons every where, and accept the occasional bad with a lot of dead bad guys” Amendment (which, by the way, is the ONLY way to drastically cut crime and increase public safety). And otherwise, treat them as humans, and hope they behave. My only problem is the Muslim admitted tendency towards Holy Deception. I don’t really know if they are going to do it, but if they are, I would rather stamp it out small, rather than face a Holy War with American citizens who happen to pray 5 times a day in a mosque. And no, I don’t know the right answer, other than “take the other guy’s word and keep your pistol loaded.” which happens to be the primary way I have always lived.
As to Bob, I, too, was having fun having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. I’ll forego MY pleasure if you forego yours.
Ann- I was referring to personal experience as to cut vs uncut sensation. Being uncut, I cannot DIRECTLY testify as to sensation loss. I just know I sure as hell ain’t a gonna cut part of it off just to see if it does reduce sensation. Personally, I am vey happy with my sexlife, and I won’t risk screwing it up at 45 yrs old. Pun intended.
Bob- no more of my posts have been deleted, and as I have already said, Neil apologized for the accidental deletion of the one. As one gentleman to another, that is good enough for me. I take him at his proveably excellent word. My only regret in this is that your vituperation has caused him to, for the first time in all my years of knowing Neil, actually resort to banning someone. I do wish you would man up, admit that you over-reacted to his post, and began with the foulmouthed namecalling. If you were to even ATTEMPT to play a slightly polite game, we all would welcome you. Notice, while most of us disagree with onepahoo, and the dialogue gets a little intense at times, no one resorts to the vile level you have made into an art form. Please give it a try. At the very least, if it doesn’t work, you can say “I tried, and it was a waste of time!” But I think you will see a different result.

162. thebastidge - November 16, 2009

“Just stop talking yourself up to doing something you “don’t mean to” and expect me not to point out the way you’re going.”

I will absolutely defend myself with deadly force if necessary. I will defend my neighbours and my country, supporting the Constitution with deadly force if necessary. I don’t need to psych myself up, I made my decisions and my committment many years ago.

That doesn’t mean that my criticism of ideology necessarily comes to a binary decision about force or submission. There is a HUGE range of negotiation and talking space between the two.

Hopefully, my criticism and that of people who are likewise freedom-minded will be enough to convince a sizable porportion of Muslims that freedom is amuch better deal than being at war with us. If it’s not, there is time for shooting later. That decision has some trigger points that are not even close to being reached in this country yet. The occasional Muslim terrorist does the entire Muslim movement much harm, and in a cold-blooded evaluation, does our country very little harm. Despite the incalculable harm to some individuals, there are plenty of other things that are devastating to individuals, and giving up our freedoms would accomplish an end just as bad.

It’s the same as tolerating some crime in order to have freedom. De-centralize the authority and the responsibility. Accept that some harm is unavoidable, and do your best to mitigate the rest through personal responsibility, as Ann says above. In one point I disagree with her: execute the ones who aren’t killed in the act. Slavery will never be justified, and will always be twisted by economic incentive. Besides, you can’t keep a slave who has murderous and suicicdal intent. The only way to keep slaves is to cow them into submission before they conceive of their own power. With religious ecstasy as their motivation, you’d have a hard time breaking a jihadi suicide bomber, and it would be dehumanizing on the part of the captor. Far better to just expend a bullet.

So no. I’m not advocating a progrom in America. My solution? Talk about it. Put social pressure on them. Put social pressure on other to oppose Islamization more vocally and with their votes and dollars. Prosecute the war against identitifed terrorist organizations and their sponsoring countries as effectively as possible, because the false bravado of Muslim cultures cannot take defeat. Rhetoric about Allah being on your side goes all hollow when you’re consistently whipped into the ground by infidels. A little cognitive dissonance and a 500lb bomb up the ass are good for jihadis and would-be shaheen.

Nibble away at the edges of Islam in the non-Arab countries by letting them know how much they’re giving up to become Muslims, and how much the Arabs actually look down on them. Keep our word around the world- let there be no better friend and no worse enemy. Mean what we say and say what we mean. I think a lot of Diplomacy would benefit from less diplomacy.

163. al perez - November 16, 2009

“Cut it thick or thin, it’s still baloney.”

You are willing to kill to keep Muslims out of the US. This is not your preference. You will allow a very few Muslims in under careful scrutiny.

The above paragraph is made up of four binary choices (kill/ no kill; prefer to kill/don’t prefer to kill; No Muslim immigrants/ a few Muslim immigrants; under scrutiny/ free run).

You also stated why the French and Spanish screwed up these choices and gave reasons for the choices you advocate.

Please don’t tell me you are not making binary choices. Now, should the few Muslims you allow in be allowed to have children? All Muslims or only some? How many per nuclear family ( this one is nonbinary)? Should they be allowed to raise their children to be Muslims? Some or all?

You’ve already stated your reasons, I may or may not agree with them. What choices are you willing to make here.

American birth rates are declining, that is why more fecund ethnic groups can suddenly become such a large part of the population.

Obviously it is up to us nonMuslims to have more infidel kids.
Fuck our way to protecting liberty, it’s a dirty Job but we have to do our share.

The last short paragraph, while stated facetiously is dead serious. If we’re not going to have kids to leave this country to, who cares if the Muslims get it?

Conversely if we do have kids, we must make sure that in the process of keeping the Muslims out we don’t inadvertently create such a nasty little police state that even being a dhimmi isn’t a better choice.

164. al perez - November 16, 2009

Last should be “even becoming a dhimmi is a better choice.”
sorry about that.
And yes, I do realize that means making sure that all those kids are not victims of Jihadist conquerors of the US.

So how do we balance keeping out the monsters without becoming our own monsters?

Those who would reduce America to one more punk tyranny have filled their share of bodybags too.

165. al perez - November 16, 2009

BTW,
While we’re talking about outbreeding the followers of the Prophet:

“May you have a strong foundation when the winds of changes shift…”
“Forever Young”
-Bob Dylan

Did you hear about Johnny Walker, the American Taliban. His parents decided that he should figure out what he believed in without their interference. Left him so desperate for a moral compass he turned to Islam, and radical anti-American Islam at that.

recently a teenage girl hung herself to get away from abusive parents. I kept thinking she would have been better off running away from home even if she ended up becoming a crack whore.
There are more rehab programs for bring a crack whore than for being dead. Or maybe she could have met a nice Muslim boy and converted. Perhaps he wouldn’t have been as abusive as her mom.

Disenfranchised young Americans turn to Islam. What are we doing to enfranchise them before they do so?

What are we doing to make American society better than Islamic? How are we showing that what we libertarians have to offer is better than the Five Pillars of the Faith?

What are we doing, not to guard against terrorist attacks by American convert to radical Islam, but to make sure that American freedom is more attractive than Islamic slavery?

what is the point of guarding borders and monitoring for infiltrators if to be honest Islam offers most Americans a better deal than our current culture?

Maybe it’s time to put a little effort into building those etrong foundations.

166. Bob, Not L. Neil Shithead - November 16, 2009

“I do wish you would man up, admit that you over-reacted to his post, and began with the foulmouthed namecalling. If you were to even ATTEMPT to play a slightly polite game, we all would welcome you.”

Suuuuuuuuuuuure.

That’s why L. Neil Shithead felt free to engage in bald-faced lying about what I said. That’s why “Al” feels he is justified in twisting words and completely misrepresenting what I said.

That’s why L. Neil Shithead is more interested in extracting some shibboleth and giant prostration from me, when he in fact is the ignorant one.

“Please give it a try. At the very least, if it doesn’t work, you can say “I tried, and it was a waste of time!” But I think you will see a different result.”

He was given a choice. Either he could act like a dishonest fascist shithead, or he could answer the questions and engage in the first minute of honesty he’ll probably have engaged in for the course of his entire life.

He chose. If he decides to choose differently, then he can expect a different result from me.

167. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 16, 2009

Forget it, Bob. You just don’t get it. Go away. This ain’t your house, and you aren’t welcome here.

168. al perez - November 16, 2009

My name really is Al. Actually that’s a contraction for Albert or Alberto, depending if you prefer the English or Spanish version of my name. A German speaking friend used to call me Albrecht.

In post #83 (originally # 87) I stated that you had asked an honest and fair question and that I was trying to give you an honest and fair answer. Please do not accuse me of not trying to deal with you honestly.

You say I put words in your mouth. There is a saying that goes back to the mid 1970′s that roughly goes” I know you think you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure that you realize that what you heard is what I meant to say.”

The first thing you said to me is “You fool.” ‘scuse me if this did inclined me to read the rest of your objections to getting brought under Islamic law not as a statement of reasonable
fears and concerns but as a xenophobic rant.

You proceeded to slang me about when I tried to answer in a polite manner to your comments. This turned our discourse personal. You have convinced me that you are an unlikable person, however I am also convinced that if you choose to g to turn your rhetoric down what you are trying to say might be worth listening to objectively rather than through dislike tinted lenses.

If you try to tell me that there are Muslims out there who are enemies of the US I will not argue, I can make a list of many of these enemies.If you want to tell me Americans and others must vigilantly guard against these enemies attacks by making sure that Muslims in the US are not fifth columnists for these groups I will not argue. If you feel that all Muslims are just waiting for a chance to jump America and force us under their rule so we must be careful not to give them that chance I will not argue.

If you try to convince me to let fear and hatred of Muslims become a major part of my emotional landscape, there I’m going to argue. If you try to tell me that I must allow the two by twice wannabe tyrants in the Obama government to establish precedents resisting Islamic Invasion that can and in my opinion will lead to a permanent abrogation of all Americans’ rights I am going to disagree.

And if you respond to these disagreements by resorting to personal insult I’ll give you back some of your own. If by some chance I my answer reflects misunderstanding on my part and I respond to what I think you said rather than what you meant to say it does not mean I am putting words in your mouth. It means I heard you wrong. Calling my friends and me such charming terms as “fool,” “twat,” “dickweed,” and “L.Neil Shjthead” will not incline us to listen to you as a person expressing honest concern but to hear you as a young hothead full of spleen who needs to be taught good manners by means of field expedient rhinoplasty and perhaps some impact removal of teeth.

Anger and vulgarity do not communicate sincerity or prove you are right, they communicate that you are an angry vulgar person.

So if you want me to hear what you said correctly, say it in a manner that does not make me feel that you expect me to completely agree with you or else we have a problem to resolve
in a back alley.

169. Bob, Not L. Neil Shithead - November 17, 2009

“If you try to tell me that there are Muslims out there who are enemies of the US I will not argue, I can make a list of many of these enemies.”

Point 1.

“If you want to tell me Americans and others must vigilantly guard against these enemies attacks by making sure that Muslims in the US are not fifth columnists for these groups I will not argue.”

Since you continually twist my words and try to make it sound as if I were advocating genocide or random killings tell me. What would YOU do to ensure that the fifth columnists are kept out , or else found and removed?

“If you feel that all Muslims are just waiting for a chance to jump America and force us under their rule so we must be careful not to give them that chance I will not argue.”

And again then, what would you do about it? I want to know. You continually twist my words and try to make it out like I’m some genocidal psychopath.

“If you try to tell me that I must allow the two by twice wannabe tyrants in the Obama government to establish precedents resisting Islamic Invasion that can and in my opinion will lead to a permanent abrogation of all Americans’ rights I am going to disagree.”

Again: What. The Fuck. Do you propose to do? All you’ve responded with so far is completely vague, pointless, foolish naysaying.

If I hang a shingle outside my house declaring it the “Church of the Holy Abolition of Government”, and start holding meetings of kooks with guns and plotting to shoot people and try to overthrow the government, the US government would (quite rightly I might add) likely drag me off and try me for treason. My protestations of being a so-called “religion” would mean precisely two things: Jack and Shit.

Why, then, should outfits like Scientology and Islam be treated any differently? What’s your cutoff point, does it have to do with how many adherents they will fraudulently claim? Does it have to do with how violent they will be if you tell them they’re not a religion? Come on. I want to know. What does it take to justify calling it a “religion”?

One is a criminal pyramid scheme designed to defraud people of money, dressed up as a religion because L. Ron Hubbard figured out that claiming to be a “religion” was a way to dodge both tax law, and truth in advertising laws. Remember, he originally tried to market Dianetech and the E-Meter with phoney-baloney medical claims, which is part of the reason Scamintologists have such a pathological hatred towards the fields of psychiatry and psychology.

The other is a criminal scheme cooked up by a stinky old perverted Arab rapist with delusions of Sultanhood, who went around setting up his tribe’s patron Moon God as “the one god” and then enshrined the most backwards, tribal, genocidal, misogynistic behaviors into his “holy law.” The goal of this “religion” is to take over the governance of the entire world, which means it’s not a religion at all, but a psychopathic, genocidal political movement. And the world’s seen enough of those before.

Why should either of them be given the protections of a “religion” when they are clearly not religions in any sense that our law normally recognizes?

170. al perez - November 17, 2009

When was Scientology dragged into this? But to answer the question Scientology’s true nature has been known for decades, If people are foolish enough to go along with it
those who join deserve wha they get, If people can show they have been involuntarily victimized by the Scientologists they should seek appropriate legal remedies either by filing criminal charges or filing law suits. The trick is to hire better lawyers.

Way back when they used to shoot people up with arsenic to cure syphilis. Too little and the spirocheta bacilli tore up your brains and other organs, leading to madness and death. Too much and you died of arsenic poisoning.

I prefer to err on the side of caution and avoid going too far in dealing with Moslems. Maybe f they were not the only potential enemies I saw coming at me (up to and including a shooting war less than ten miles from my home and place of employment so bad that people are actually considering involving UN peacekeepers) I would feel as militant. Unfortunately I do have drug lords fighting a drug war among themselves and also withthe Mexican government that has spilled over into my hometown and I have to worry about getting caught in their crossfire, I meet Janet II’s definition of a potential right wing terrorist, I do belong to an ethnic minority that in some places in this country is being treated with violence, I have to worry about the local Chicano power radicals coming after me for being too Americanized, By the way, Iam not unique or special in having this list of people to deal with. So, you will excuse me if I and other people in the same situation are nt as worried about the Islamic threat as you feel we should be.

I really do have to worry that if we go too far in dealing with the Moslem threat Iwe will be empowering people who wish to violate my rights to do so. And again I am not the only person in that situation.

You have made it clear that you belong to a non traditional faith. Tell me, what degree of monitoring and government regulation of yourself, your coreligionists, tour efforts to freely cross in and out of the US and to seek and/or accept converts are you willing to accept? That is the degree of regulation that you have the right to be be imposed on Muslims as a group when they are in their “dopey joe ” phase and to keep them in their phase.

Kill the ones who go into “stobor” phase. Ban them from immigrating into the US. Treat them as criminals and enemies in war as appropriate. Tear them up so bad that their remaining coreligionists see that the time to try to take over our society by force is not now.

Non Muslims should have more kids and be aallowed to immigrate into this nation in greater numbers. Flaws in American society that make Islam attractive should be corrected so that the Muslims are able to attract fewer voluntary converts.

Again, I get a feeling you and I are not arguing about what t do, but how far to go.

171. Bob, Not L. Neil Shithead - November 17, 2009

Tell me, what degree of monitoring and government regulation of yourself, your coreligionists, tour efforts to freely cross in and out of the US and to seek and/or accept converts are you willing to accept?

First of all, for my faith, it is not an easy matter to convert. Nor do we proselytize; indeed, one tenet of our faith is that we should NOT attempt to impose our religion on another. We’re rather like the Jews that way – Jews are required to refuse someone three times before allowing them even to begin the process of converting.

Second of all, IF someone in my faith were to do something severe such as Muslims do, over and over again, I’d be glad to have the government watching us, especially if one of our leaders were implicated in what happened similar to Hasan’s Imam who is boldly proclaiming him a “hero” and talking about how wonderful his terrorist butchery was. If it went on year after year, and they began talking about killing “unbelievers” or forcing conversions, you had better damn well believe I’d welcome one hell of a crackdown.

IF something like that were to happen, you can also be damn sure I’d be wondering what the fuck was up in my faith and looking to get out.

172. Al Perez - November 17, 2009

Fair answer. You do what you have to do to protect yourself and persons under your protection in a manner that is within your conscience and I’ll do what I have to do.

That said, while I think current immigration policy needs to loosen up in some areas I think The following signed oath should be required of all persons immigrating into this country, including people just passing through:

1. I am not entering for the purpose of making war against the United States or its citizens or legal residents, This includes forcibly spreading any religion,

2. I am not entering the United States to provide “muscle” for persons engaged in criminal enterprise.

3. I agree to not initiate force against any person residing in the United States. This does not mean I am giving up my right to defend my self from people initiating force against me.

4. I agree to respect the rights guaranteed other persons under the American Bill of Rights and the bill of rights of the State I am residing in.

5. I understand and agree that I am under the death penalty for violating this oath if I do so. I forswear my right to lesser punishment or to claim that I am being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment if I break this oath. I forswear all claims to civil damages, blood vengeance, diplomatic immunity
protection by my government or clan or claims to martyrdom if I am killed by persons who resist if I violate this oath or executed by the United States government for violating this oath.

6. Having signed this oath once I am bound to it each and every time I enter the United States

All persons not citizens of The United States should be required to sign this oath every time they first enter this country in both their native language and English.

Hasan’s Imam should be tracked down and whacked as should every Imam and political leader calling for Muslim Jihad against the United States or supporting acts of terror against the US.

Please note that I am only talking about going after persons who make war against the US or offer spiritual support to those warriors. Muslims (and anyone else) not making war against the US or proclaiming their intent to do so should not have their natural rights restricted. However, once they proclaim their enmity to the US they should be taken at their word. Their enmity, not their neighbors.

Again. I don’t think we are arguing about what to to, only about how far to take things.

173. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 17, 2009

Bob, while I would prefer to see the pejorative removed from your pen name and something different added (perhaps “Not as big a dick as you thought” might work [that was humor, not intended as insult]), it is pleasant to hear honest answers to honest questions. I will admit that I lean far more towards Al’s take on this than yours, but I respect a man’s opinions even when I disagree with them. I doubt that a desire for my respect was a huge part of the change in tone, but I thank you for it.

174. R.D. Bartucci - November 17, 2009

Well, this exchange between Bob and Mr. Perez is interesting.

Although Bob insists on practices which effectively invite the removal of his posts (Bob, you can’t expect that entering a privately owned and privately operated forum such as this one and engaging in behavior such as you’ve displayed will not get you censored; if for no other reason than that the proprietor of this site has a responsibility to maintain a minimum level of courtesy no matter how controversial the subject matter or where the exchanges may go), he makes some substantive and – in my opinion – useful contributions to the discussion.

The consideration of Scientology, for example, seems applicable in light of the “not a real religion” theory of how Islam should be considered.

I’ve found that this is not a particularly new idea. Trying to dig up information on Sura 9:2 of the Qur’an, I came across a 1927 doctoral dissertation by one Adolph L. Wismer entitled *A Study in Tolerance as Practiced by Muhammad and his Immediate Successors*.

Dry stuff, but the Introduction seems to me worth reading, if for nothing else than an appreciation of how a Ph.D. (Philosophy) seems to have appositely nailed down the prevailing Western notion of church/state relations over eighty years ago. The first few sentences of the first paragraph of his introduction reads:

“In dealing with religion a state best consults its own interests, as well as those of its citizens and others dwelling within its borders, by granting complete religious liberty. This means that the state realizes that freedom of worship is part and parcel of inalienable human rights. Accepting this truth and acting according to it the state consistently refuses to give preference to one religion over another. It considers all dwelling under its jurisdiction not as adherents of a certain religious cult, but merely as citizens, as individuals entitled to its protection. In other words, the state minds its own peculiar business, which is to attend to civil matters. What a man chooses to believe or not to believe is a matter between him and his Creator and does not disqualify him in any civic rights.”

He then goes on to an analysis of the earliest generations of Islam and the implications of that history – preserved (better to say “pickled in formaldehyde”) by the peculiar characteristics of its dogma, exegetics, xenophobia, arrogance, and the cancerous inferiority complex behind that arrogance.

They certainly don’t write doctoral dissertations like this nowadays.

175. al perez - November 17, 2009

Please note that I have also claimed that non Muslim
America must make itself stronger by slightly raising birthrate and fixing a lot of flaws in our culture, If these things are not fixed America will fail and Muslims, or Chinese colonists or a really nasty fascist government will pick up our mess and take over.

Otherwise everything we do to keep out Jihadists is a waste of time.

176. R.D. Bartucci - November 17, 2009

Al, how about a “2a”?

“I am not coming in to function as an underage prostitute [pardon me; 'sex worker'] in a house of ill repute financed and operated with the aid of ACORN.”

Let’s take notice of Mr. Soetoro’s fellow “community organizers” and their many good works.

177. al perez - November 17, 2009

My only problem with that is that the whore in question may be coming over as essentially a sex slave belonging to someone who is in a position to massacre her family.
Immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) held in involuntary servitude is a real problem.

How about 2a amended ” I am not coming in to function as a pimp for underage prostitutes [pardon me; 'sex workers'] in a house of ill repute financed and operated with the aid of ACORN.”

178. R.D. Bartucci - November 17, 2009

Hm. Al, given that it is impossible to define ACORN as anything other than “persons engaged in criminal enterprise,” wouldn’t 2a as you’ve recast it become redundant?

179. al perez - November 17, 2009

Nah, just a clarification 2 to apply to a special case.

In a post by Mike it was mentioned that Muslims in Canada are asking that legal matters between Muslims be settled by Shari’a instead of Canadian Law. This wouldn’t work in the US as would cross into establishment of religion.

However if a Muslim convicted of a crime under American law asked to be tried again under Shari’a and face additional punishment under Shari’a who am I to argue?

180. al perez - November 17, 2009

I wonder if Jihadists would be so quick to commit acts of terror if they knew they would be punished not by the standards of EuroAmerican justice but by the harshest standards of Shari’a and Arab custom.

BTW the reason I work so hard at being kind and gentle is because I Know the heart of cruelty that lies within me. Maybe I overreacted to some people’s postings because my demons heard an invitation to come out and play.

may they have better success controlling theirs.

181. R.D. Bartucci - November 17, 2009

Al, were the mujahideen to selectively “be punished not by the standards of EuroAmerican justice but by the harshest standards of Shari’a and Arab custom,” that would violate the provisions implicit in the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment.

So that emotionally satisfying measure is (for good reason) a “no-go.”

As for your reasons to “work so hard at being kind and gentle,” don’t think yourself unusual. I suspect that every morally conscious person (as opposed to those who are merely rote-obedient sheeple) at one time or another came to his own personal appreciation of his “killer ape” capacities, and took himself consequently in hand to get and keep control of his temper so as to mitigate the “danger to self and others” aspect of his human nature.

Even though I am not a “gun culture” guy, I am personally convinced that Heinlein was 100% write when he had one of his characters in *Beyond This Horizon* say: that “An armed society is a polite society.”

The training to properly and safely use a firearm – particularly a handgun, which is specifically created for constant carriage and personal defense (if I’m going into a real firefight with knowledge aforehand, I want a battle rifle or a repeating shotgun of substantial magazine capacity) – necessarily imparts to the individual such rules of safety as must make him consciously and continually aware of his responsibility with regard to the rights of others.

In my experience, firearms owners who are frequent and effective shooters tend almost invariably to be more restrained and – if you will, thoughtful – in their dealings with the people around them.

This does not, of course, include policemen and other officers of civil government whose carriage of firearms is required, and not an exercise of personal autonomy.

These guys – sorry, Neil – tend robustly in my experience to be some pretty sick puppies down underneath all that “To Serve and Protect” public relations crap.

182. Ann Morgan - November 18, 2009

Well, here are some more thoughts of mine. L. Neil Smith wrote in a letter a while back that the basis for all religions was ‘guilt’. I believe this to be mistaken, there are SOME religions, not large ones it is true, but religions nonetheless, which are NOT guilt based. Which is also why they are not large, selling expiation to guilt is highly profitable and thereby lets you build bigger churches, armies, etc, then, say, my own rather eccentric belief that after I die, I will get to work for a diety who functions something like a postmaster.

Islam is also not so much ‘guilt based’ in some ways, as it is *FEAR* based, which is in some ways, far worse. The difference is a bit hard to explain, but I will try.

If any of you have ever read the comic book ‘Watchmen’, there is a story line in it which features a psychotic who trains his dogs to help him kill and eat little girls. A guilt based religion, unpleasant though it might be, at least offers the hope that in the end, the ‘bad’ things you have done will be forgiven, and washed away, and you won’t want to do bad things any more. In other words, it offers goodness as a desirable, and EVENTUALLY (albeit after death) possibly attainable value.

Islam, on the other hand, puts human beings in the same position as the dogs belonging to the psychotic in the comic book. They are specifically told things such as to NOT let compassion dissuade them from floggings and stoning and other such punishments of people who have committed various sexual ‘crimes’. In the end, rather than thinking they will get their sins washed away, like guilt based religions advertise, what they are basically offered, under these terms, is the chance to skulk into heaven, like an attack dog owned by a cannibalistic psychopath, with blood on it’s face and shit on it’s fur, given heaven like the dog is given a treat for ripping out the throats of various people that it’s insane own has set it on.

Even if Islam WERE true, heaven would be a rather bitter drink under those circumstances. I’d hope that I’d have the courage to walk into hell with my head held high, knowing that I treated people decently during my life, than to skulk into a heaven run by a monster, with my own soul covered with blood and filth, and my 72 virgins (or whatever they think they will get in heaven) paid for with the suffering of all the people my master, or God, set me on during my life. If I lacked the courage for THAT, I’d hope that I’d find a way in heaven to kill such a psychopath, and free everyone else still alive from him.

Stephen King (a rather brilliant person, actually when he isn’t writing too fast) put a similiar matter this way:

“If you have given up your heart for the Tower, Roland, you have already lost. A heartless creature is a loveless creature, and a loveless creature is a beast. To be a beast is perhaps bearable, although the man who has become one will surely pay hell’s own price in the end, but if you should gain your object? What if you should, heartless, storm the Dark Tower and win it? What could you do except degenerate from beast to monster? To gain one’s object as a beast would only be bitterly comic, like giving a magnifying glass to an elephaunt. But to gain one’s object as a monster…To pay hell is one thing. But do you want to own it?”

183. R.D. Bartucci - November 18, 2009

Ann, it’s not just “people who have committed various sexual ‘crimes’’ whom the mullahs and mujahideen of Islam explicitly and by doctrine target, but animists and Hindus and Buddhists and the adherents of Shinto (when they can get at ‘em, and – I suspect – when their targets aren’t carrying big, razor-sharp katana).

I don’t know in any detail how Medieval Christianity came to Amalric’s “Caedite eos” (‘Kill them all”) at Beziers in 1209, but there’s nothing as explicit in Christian scripture as Sura 9:2-5 in the Qur’an to call for the political suppression of nonbelievers and indeed the extermination of people not of “the book.”

Unlike any other religion of which I’m aware, Islam (especially as it is interpreted to the fellahin by the “scholars” and other authorities on Islamic law) REQUIRES of the faithful attitudes and actions which are explicitly prohibited by other theistic systems of belief.

As I’d observed earlier on this thread, Islam is the nastiest damned excuse for a religion since the Aztec were forced at gunpoint to quit the propitiation of Tlaloc by burning little kids alive.

184. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 18, 2009

All I know is the following- If a religion requires or allows murder, it should be immediately abandoned by all with brains, and the remaining followers shunned by decent human beings everywhere. And, should the followers of such a religion attempt to PRACTICE the murders required or allowed by said religion, unless it is upon the members of their own flock of fools, those practitioners deserve nothing more or less than death at the hands of their intended victims or witnesses.

Personally, I find the concept of a deity offensive. I acknowledge that there are people better than me at certain things, whether due to training, talent, or my own lack of desire to do certain things. However, the concept that there is a “Being” that is deserving of my blind adoration, obedience, and subserviance is so totally offensive to me that I do not understand ANYONE voluntarily submitting to that being. Anything powerful enough to demand that, and egotistical enough to require it, is a being that needs a thorough killing, posthaste.

Oh SHIT!!! I got to rambling again, sorry. But I stand by it, nonetheless.

185. Ann Morgan - November 18, 2009

Neale: As defined by you, I too, would find the concept of a diety to be offensive. My own concept of a diety is that there are beings which are ‘better than human beings’ at certain things. (They are older, smarter, etc). To think that Homo Sapiens is the most evolved thing in the universe is rather arrogant.

That said, these beings are NOT necessarily due obedience and subservience. Particularly since in thousands of years, the souls of a lot of people are destined to be gods (in terms of knowledge and ability), themselves. Indeed, many of them should be specifically DIS-obeyed, and avoided whenever possible, since a lot of them are not benign in nature. That is to say, they have rather unpleasant plans for those who follow them which involve any number of unpleasant things, and in particular do NOT involve allowing the souls of those who follow them to ever evolve into godhood themselves.

‘Gods’ that promise rewards for evil behavior come to mind. Those who follow such ‘gods’ will most likely find them in the end, only to find out that there is either no reward, or if the reward does exist, it is extremely temporary in nature, and simply serves the purpose of fattening them up to be fed on.

186. al perez - November 18, 2009

Being subject to attacks of religious ecstacy my opinion on the existence of a benevolent deity are suspect, A gift of God or the msfiring of sunstricken neurons? I don’t know nor can I disallow that allowing my sunstroke affected neurons to misfire the exact way the dois how this benificent God granted me ths gift.

That said, I also know that trusting “direct revelation ” from God to someone else is a dangerous thing to do. Is he suffering from stroke, unintentional or even intentional ingestion to psychedelics and misinterpretation of the experience, or flat out lying?

and when the other guys’ ramblings violate known standards of recent respect for the rights of others one should be particular distrusting.

God told me so.

187. R.D. Bartucci - November 18, 2009

The eternal problem about other people’s “divine revelation” is that no matter how deeply said people claim to have delved the psyche or how vigorously they’ve unscrewed the inscrutable, there’s never any PROOF for what they assert.

Sure, now and then there’s a claim to prophesy, but such evidence can be purely coincidental. Much is made of those that “come true” while nothing seems ever to be said about the larger number of seer-ings which go the way of Arthur Clarke’s *2001* (jeez, that first year of the new millenium sure SEEMED a helluva long ways away, didn’t it?).

Knowing my own susceptibility to the temptation to gull the gullible, I put no reliance whatsoever in the claims of those who set themselves up as anointed by some ineffable entity, whether it’s Ann’s version of the One God or Muhammad’s.

They are – sorry, Ann – not trustworthy.

Ann is apparently demonstrating due restraint in her characterization of her “concept of a deity” in that she neither insists that her concept is the ONLY such, nor that anyone must regard her personal interpretation of that concept’s nature as a criterion upon which all human beings should predicate their behaviors.

Would that other God-shoutin’ types maintained such restraint, but they don’t.

Sincere as they may seem, I know how easy it is to fake sincerity.

Hell, it’s all that’s kept my marriage going all these years, isn’t it?

188. Ann Morgan - November 18, 2009

Al and Bartucci: Oh, I agree completely with what you say. My own ‘divine revelation’ basically consisted of meditating one evening and asking to be given a dream that night telling me who my patron diety was, and then that night being given information in a dream, which although not really of very great importance, was something which I had not known previously, and which turned out to be correct, when I looked it up subsequently at the library.

Admittedly, I have no way of proving this. I can’t really open up my skull and show you my dreams, or what information I was or was not aware of at what particular point in time.

Anyways, any religion that demands or even punishes those who doubt or ask questions is either false (bad) or worse yet, is actually inspired by some sort of non human entity, but one with malevolent motives (worse). I saw a funny cartoon about this once, which in my opinion ought to be printed up on leaflets and scattered around those parts of the world who confuse modesty with morality. The cartoon had a picture of several nudists gathered around the table for a business meeting, along with one rather confused fellow wearing a suit. The naked CEO was looking at the fellow in the suit and saying: “What are we doing? I’d say the real question here is, what are you trying to hide?!”

Anyway from my point of view, it doesn’t really matter what god, gods, goddesses, or none of the above someone does or does not believe in. Your personal official religion position has about as much effect on what happens to your soul after you die, as your personal opinion on Isaac Newton’s love life has to do with what happens if you step off a cliff. If you behave violently, you will (in my opinion) end up in the hands of violent dieties, no matter if you behaved violently in the name of Jesus, Allah, Moloch, or just because you were a twisted psychotic like Jeffrey Dahmer.

Or possibly, I am mistaken (though how a dream can convey accurate information by mistake, I am not sure) and all of us will end up nowhere at all, like athiests believe. In which case, your personal religious opinion STILL does not affect your afterlife destination.

In the meantime, people would do well to keep in mind something said once by Buddha: “Believe nothing, no matter where you have read it or who has said it. Not even if *I* have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

Simply because someone is a prophet does NOT necessarily mean you should beleive all or anything of what they say. There are a number of reasons for this. I *suspect* that very few people are able to communicate with any diety on a regular basis, they are rather like an unusual radio that can pick up stations no other radio can get. So a diety trying to communicate with mankind might have to use what they can get, and that leaves the distinct possibility that the prophet might not be necessarily ‘holy’. They might, in fact, be an asshole, and use their particular gift in order to convince people they are ‘holy’, and as often as not, lie about what the ‘diety’ has told them, for their own benefit. Or worse yet, they might knowingly or unknowingly be a prophet for something very malevolent.

189. Al Perez - November 18, 2009

Re: Dearbornistan
Did the rise to domination of Dearborn Michigan, or at least parts of it precede or follow the city’s economic decline and decline in population due to the decline of the American automobile industry?
I do not ask this question to to support xenophobia or to bust xenophobia. I mention it to reinforce my point that in the end the only way to prevent the takeover of areas of the US by culture groups Americans object to is to keep American culture healthy and vigorous. We need economic and population growth by people who share “American Values” and to make these values so attractive that rather than lose people to conversion we attract other people to American culture. this is not meant as a call for foreigner bashing, in fact it meant to be interpreted that “furriner” bashing is exactly the way to corner people into anti Americanism, that failure to develop more positively is a great way to get “Old Family AAmericans” to switch to another culture.

Okay, now someone come and say this better for me.

190. Ann Morgan - November 18, 2009

Al: Yeats already said it better in one of his poems:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. ”
————————————

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

191. al perez - November 19, 2009

Those people who wish to try “The 9/11 Mastermind” And company by militarty tribunal don’t get it. Military tribunal reinforces the appearance that these guys are engaged in honorable war and are martyrs. Trying them in civilian court sends the message that tey are scumbags who have committed crimes and disgraced Islam.

Remember our goal is to not destroy our enemies it is to convince people that our enermies are evil, doomed to and deserving of failure.

When these guys are executed, even diehard Jihadists should say”They are scum who had it coming,” not “They are martyrs who must be avenged.”

this is best accomplished by a civilian trial.

192. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 19, 2009

Unfortunately, they CAN”T be covicted in a civilian trial, it would violate nearly every civil law we have! Never Mirandized, jailed without even being denied a bail hearing, no Habeus Corpus, co-erced confessions (in-admissible evidence in a court of law), and far too much else to mention. If they are convicted, it sets horrible precedents to be used against AMERICANS in teh future, and if freed, it proves America has no balls or backbone, and EITHER way, terrorist win by fundamentally changing the structure of our country to “fight” terrorism.

193. al perez - November 20, 2009

Earlier in this thread I wrote”the only way to prevent or bust criminal activities by so called religious groups is to so nicely (17th and 18th Century meaning) demonstrate respect for people’s freedom of religion that there is no doubt that we are prosecuting crime not persecuting faith.”

Dick Cheney and company should have known that sooner or later these men would haveto go before a court and that either we would have to give them a a fair teial according to our Bill of Rights or else we would give them an excuse to say they were Martyrs being persecuted for their faith in Allah (Interesting word faith,it means you are loyal to someone or something, not simply of rhe correctness of an opinion in spite of lack of objective evidence.).

Cheney and Company convinced themselves that preventing terrorists from making an attack within the US was worth any price. That price may very well be letting known terrorists walk because the evidence against them is inadmissable in American courts.

Was it worth it? I don’t think so. Please don’t waste my time saying you didn’t see it coming either Mr. Cheney.

194. R.D. Bartucci - November 20, 2009

al, why object to “letting known terrorists walk”?

I should think that after a final thorough physical (during which they each get a couple of nice RFID tags implanted in places they know nothing about), they could be set comfortably at large in any polity that’d take ‘em.

Think they’ll show up again?

Or, rather, that they’ll show up some interesting information while they’re being tracked like Lojack-equipped automobiles?

195. al perez - November 21, 2009

Do we anchor the implants to their right or left testicle?

More seriously, one weapon in the fight against terrorism is the certainty that you will receive inevitable and just punishment if you criminally attack the US. Failure to meet both these criteria allows terrorist leaders to recruit more followers.

In fact knowing that we will deal with them justly and that we have the strength to protect our friends are qualities we need to demonstrate to convince people to back us instead of our enemies.

196. R.D. Bartucci - November 21, 2009

al, “inevitable and just punishment” is all well and good, but from the military perspective, the purpose of taking prisoners is not justice but information.

The majority of the prisoners at Gitmo fall into a sort of gray zone. While the civilian tends to think of them as criminal malefactors, the military treats with them as enemy combatants with no legitimate controlling authority to stand responsible for them.

The fact that many of them are still incarcerated is that they were “bagged and tagged” with the expectation that they could be squeezed for actionable intelligence, and now each in some way “knows too much” about the ways in which he was spotted and captured.

Each now has information that the jihadis would value as actionable intelligence about methodology, tendencies, and especially “human assets” – people living in the area who had cooperated with the U.S. forces.

The military is reluctant to allow that information to get into the hands of an active and still dangerous enemy. It’d definitely get people killed. Not only is that bad in and of itself, but it makes future operations relying on locals for similar cooperation far more difficult.

The process of discovery guaranteed a defendant under rules of proper procedure in a criminal court of law simply cannot be allowed in these cases, as this amounts to intelligence gathering on behalf of an enemy still capable of torturing and killing your own troops and the local people who have helped you.

Better just to dismiss whatever cases might be made against them, and let them go.

Then there’s the problem that with no controlling authority responsible for them, where could they go? The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan sure as hell don’t want them.

Libya?

197. al perez - November 21, 2009

We can get useful data by seeing who takes them in.
As for the rest, if we can not get justice under law I guess we have to “settle” for blood vengeance. Of course, there is the minor detail that we thus create some slight evidence supporting the claim that these men are martyrs.

Wish there was some way to collect our revenge while showing that what these men did was a sin by the standards of Islam.

Revenge and propaganda victory

198. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 21, 2009

Simple solution, Al, if you have the guts. I don’t, but a fatal fire, sweeping through the prison at Gitmo and killing all those “poor” jihadists. Otherwise, we need to either have military tribunals, or face the facts that they will go free if we follow the rules of law. I personally think that asshole Holder made this choice in the first place in order to establish certain precedents to allow him to use Gitmo interrogations and a suspension of Habeus Corpus against those of us with the audacity to hope for Obama’s downfall. Boy, do I hope that I’m wrong, but I do not think, no matter the defense schemes, that they will go free, and therefore these precedents are a guaranteed fact.

199. al perez - November 21, 2009

Hopefully if that is the case Cheney and company will go down first. they’re the ones who started the idea of acting outside the rule of law and in fact did so not with regret and reluctance but with outright relish,

The reason I say Cheney and Co. instead of Dubya and Co. is that Cheney complained that Baby Bush forgot he was Cheney’s bitch and didn’t let him have his way. that put’s Baby Bush in the “and Co.” category.

If you tell me that circumstances are such that you have to act outside the law I will not waste my breathe arguing once I see you’ve made up your mind. However, be aware that you’ve stepped outside the law’s protection. For better or worse, driven by bitter necessity or unbridled lust for power, Chen ey and company have chosen the outlaw trail. They have no beef if their successors do the same and/or treat them as outlaws.

200. terrymac - November 21, 2009

I agree with the major thesis of this article: it is foolish to go off on another anti-Muslim rant. Dr. Hasan had his reasons, such as they were, for going postal on us.

What I find interesting is that hardly any mention is made of the fact that military bases, since 1990-something, have been official defense-free zones; no soldier is permitted to carry weapons for self-defense. Weapons are locked up. Ammo is issued at the range. One is not permitted even to have weapons in one’s home, if it is on the base.

Under these conditions, Dr. Hasan was able to shoot at will for somewhere between 4 and 10 minutes ( depending on account ) until a courageous police officer stopped him.

What if some of those young men and women had been armed? They surely have the training; it would have taken 30 seconds to stop Dr. Hasan.

201. R.D. Bartucci - November 21, 2009

terrymac, on this interminably long thread the mention of “if Fort Hood had not been a gun-free zone” has, indeed, been made.

The most active participants in these exchanges (including our host) number among them people who warmly embrace the concept of armed self-protection and not only own but make believable claims to expertise with handguns suitable to this purpose.

Indeed, suitable to knocking down bears. All of this .45-vs-.40 stuff is getting monotonous.

Hm. Let’s give something a try.

Hey, Neale?

“Certs is a BREATH mint!”

202. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 21, 2009

It is not- It is a candy, you idiot!!!! (Is that what you were looking for?) Just because they make your breath stink nice doesn’t make them a Breath Mint! (???) But I will always carry the gun I have rather than wait for the best. Fortunately, a .45 IS the best for me (Big hands, big body to conceal it on, and a life-long love of the 1911-A1), so further debate not necessary. Of course, being broke and already owning one makes the choice easier for me!

203. al perez - November 21, 2009

H. Clay is a breath mint.

Two of El Paso’s ten / maybe 11 murders this year involved soldiers at Fort Bliss. One was a murder suicide by a husband upset by his wife being if the Service and shot her dead at the PX. The other was by a “gentleman” who shot at the person who went to see why he was missing formation. He wounded but did not kill his intended victim. He also shot and killed a kid riding by on his bike to school. Don’t recall if this was on base housing or off base.

Hell, Hasan could have torn into his victims with bottles filled with gasoline and a machete or axe and killed as many.

His reasons were a peculiar mixture of his own failings as a man and his understanding of the demands of his faith. The only real question is if he gets permanently locked up as criminally insane or if he gets executed for murder, mutiny and treason.

Being a kind and gentle guy (or is it kind of gentile goy?) after years of working at it, I lean towards execution.

I get H.Clay mints at a cigar shop. It is meant for cigar and pipe smokers. They are more addictive than nicotine. I can go up to three months without a smoke, i need a mint fix every couple of hours or so.

204. R.D. Bartucci - November 22, 2009

Neale, got the response required. Thanks.

Al, I’m afraid I’m not much of a candy buff at all. I’m not even much of a coffee snob, having had my taste buds burnt out by decades of hospital jamoke.

(It’s best in the Emergency Department, ’cause they suck down so much there that they’re always making fresh pots. Avoid the stuff on the nursing units. In Radiology…. Jeez, who knows WHAT goes on among guys who spend all their time in the dark?)

Barry Soetoro is pushing the army to get Maj. Hasan safely dead ASAP. No insanity defense will be suffered. Our Fraudulence-in-Chief wants his fellow fellah kacked and forgotten FAST.

Could be Barry wants to make good and goddam sure that his co-religionist Nidal Malik Hasan doesn’t become his Willie Horton.

205. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 22, 2009

RD- so true as to Hasan, “Dead men tell no tales” still rings true. As to coffee- there is no such thing as “GOOD” coffee. It all tastes like hot, burned mud. And as a guy who has spent far too much time in crawlspaces under houses with broken steam lines throwing mud everywhere, I know that taste. Every year, my wife tries to make me a “Cup of coffee you WILL like”, that I have to at least taste. It NEVER tastes good, but she keeps trying, so I (the loving guineapig, I mean husband) keep tasting.

206. Al Perez - November 22, 2009

Re executing Hasan quick: Hey Gotta back that one. Otherwise years of Muslim extremists taking hostages to trade for him in tradition of IRA and PLO.

Tell her to try Luzianne or French Market. Stick to American light and medium roast if she insists on “gourmet” stuff. do not hesitate to use sugar, cinnamon, and cream to get coffee to taste how you want it.

And if that doesn’t do it for ya, stick to Jasmine tea and Earl Grey brewed extra strong.

207. R.D. Bartucci - November 22, 2009

Neale and al, remember that theobromine is a methylxanthine, too

Add chocolate to your coffee/java/jamoke/joe/carbon remover (pace Heinlein) and you’ll be surprised how it improves.

Would you believe I’ve been drinking mostly black tea for the past couple of years? I worked with some Brits a few years ago, and they confided in me the One Great Secret of Tea Brewing.

Water best suited for drip coffee makers is at a lousy temperature for getting decent flavor out of tea (and they don’t really care whether it’s loose or bagged; they just like to snot about how Americans can’t stand getting gagged by tea leaves). The water has to be boiling…

Not “boiled” but “BOILING”

…when you put it over the tea. The heat is critical to the extraction process.

You’d think with all those years in chem and biology lab courses I would’ve picked up on something like that. Comes of seeing if Heinlein was right in “Let There Be Light” and you really can make coffee in a Soxhlet extractor.

(Yeah, you can. Gotta be careful about it, but once you’ve managed the technique, fuhgeddabout expresso makers!)

This “heat is essential” business is one of the reasons why Brits get cranky about warming a ceramic teapot before they throw in the tea and pour in the boiling water. Given their traditional lack of central heating, those thick stoneware everyday-use teapots are hellacious heat sinks year-round (the Brits consider a 70-degree summer day sweltering, and two days of peak-over-80 is a heat wave), so unless you warm them with a bit of boiling water (which you chuck out) before you start the brewing process, the critical brew-time heat gets screwed.

I just brew by the mugful (in one of my ancient “Ludwig von Mises Institute” gimme mugs), so the heat loss is insignificant.

Getting back to Dr. Hasan, it seems that maybe in 2001 or 2002, the guy got some kind of occupational exposure (by way of a needle stick or something like that) to HIV-1, and had been placed on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) involving Combivir.

A prescription bottle for the stuff was found in his apartment and photographs have been published. PEP for that bug involves about a month’s worth of some very nasty drugs (Combivir is two “nukes” – NRTIs – and a of the IDSA guys recommend throwing a protease inhibitor into the mix at the same time).

Count on a med school experience like that to weigh heavily on the decision to go into a “no patient contact” specialty like the pshrinkage.

I expect that the reason our Mullah-in-Chief wants Hasan quickly exterminated is not that he fears his good buddies in jihadiland will take hostages to “rescue” the miserable putz but rather because with every breath Hasan takes, there’s risk that he’ll talk, and the more Hasan talks the greater the likelihood that what he says is going to prove “difficult” for our Mombasa Messiah.

Barry not only wants him buried, but buried and FORGOTTEN.

208. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 22, 2009

RD- NOTHING makes coffee taste good. But I do love a spot o’ tea. Irish Breakfast, Earl Gray, or Lapsang Suchong, any of these brewed with the water bubbling vigorously, a 1/2 teaspoon of sugar in a custom made 16 oz teacup (Annette is a potter, as well as an RN) sometimes a splash of milk. I brew it for 5-6 minutes, so it is strong. In the summer, I brew my own ice tea, but I do use more sugar in iced tea than in hot teas.

As to Malik Hasan, I would arm his victims families, and deliver them the not-yet-a-corpse, complete with a pardon, and say “Call me when you want the body removed. Death penalty, NO. Pay the penalty with your life, ABSOLUTELY. I, too, have read the hanging scene in “Starship Troopers”, and Jonny pretty much echoed my thoughts on the Death penalty. And despite my definite anti-authority bent, I would much rather live in the Federation of “S T”, then in most parts of this country these days. But I digress. Candy, definitely. But I prefer a Hershey bar with almonds to any mint except for York’s Peppermint Pattys, but only the small ones.

209. R.D. Bartucci - November 22, 2009

On Dr. Hasan, my personal preference is to keep him alive and incarcerated and subject him to endless interviews.

If he’s not more than paraplegic, give him access to PowerPoint. Have him make presentations. Let him on the Internet so he can e-mail to and Webchat with all his friends out there in jihadiland. He’s got a Facebook page, hasn’t he? He should be induced to keep it up.

Hey, maybe he can even get married in prison. Some nice burkha babe who wouldn’t mind putting off doing the deed until they get together in paradise.

I really do want him alive. Permanently immured, but alive. I want him talking. Reaching out. Making contact.

While America watches. Think of Dr. Hasan as a sort of psychological biopsy specimen, a born-in-America guy who self-identifies as a Palestinian (meaning that Austin Bay is right, and he really most definitely is a traitor) who’s been riding on taxpayer cash ever since he got out of high school.

I want the U.S. military to have this guy rubbed in their “submit to political correctness” kissers for a long, long time. I want the Obamaphiles to have this fellah shoved in their grill every time they turn around. I want him to be in there pitching a good long game, just pissing off people in this country left, right, and center.

I want Dr. Hasan to “Live long and fester.”

You get my drift?

210. al perez - November 22, 2009

You are an evil man. I’m sure god will forgive you and I’m sure you don’t care.We need more like you
can I buy you a drink if we ever cross paths?

211. R.D. Bartucci - November 22, 2009

al, you can buy me the first. I’ve got the second round.

Going (as usual) off topic, given the asteroid hunting aspect of our host’s novel *Ceres*, is there anybody reading this who knows whether the kerogen in carbonaceous chondrite found in planetesimals is reflective of the inorganic fossil fuels precursors in the terrestrial crust?

That methane (natural gas) and petroleum are not necessarily the residua of biological processes – decay products of fresh water and marine bacteria and protista mucked down millions of years ago – is something that’s being proven with every passing year, and I suspect that somewhere beyond this gravity well there are gigatons of petrochemical feedstock floating out there to be exploited.

This fixation of the foolish upon “carbon” is driving me into a boiling rage, particularly when I consider (from the perspective of an ex-Biology major) that carbon-fixing is something that photosynthetic plant life has been doing since not long after amino acids first started hooking up in solutions to form peptide chains on this planet.

Shouldn’t people get tax credits for letting their lawns grow ankle-high, and for raking their leaves into mulch piles?

212. al perez - November 22, 2009

How is this off topic? The US has two interests in the Middle East, israel and oil. If petroleum and other fossil fuels are the result of abiotic processes that are continuing to this day and occuring round the world we are down to one interest. The Arabs, Turkomen and Aryans of southwest and central Asia can continue their fratricidal games without us or US.

213. al perez - November 23, 2009

off, off topic, is Sweeter Than Wine going to come out as dead tree, graphic novel on bighead site, or serial ala Ceres

214. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 23, 2009

HEY!!! WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING HERSHEY BARS???? Just re-re-re-changing the topic. Rich, I like your idea, but I do not want the bill for the incarceration. Nor do I want to continue the practice of jails. I prefer restitution, or “payback, per a prison planet novel I read several times. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the title or the author. Tomorrow, I’ll hunt the stacks, find it, and pass on the info. I loved it, even though I totally dis-agreed with some of the premises contained there-in. Later, Gators.

215. al perez - November 23, 2009

So, regardless of where we’re coming from we all agree:

1. Nobody wants to deny the Muslims their rights, however, no one wants to play Tyr to the Jihadists’ Fenris Wolf. The question is how much trust we can extend.

2. Never go Condition white or unarmed.

3. Hasan deserves a living hell rather than death for his punishment.

4. Somebody get Neale (spelled the right way) his fucking Hershey bars.

5. Did I miss anything important.

216. R.D. Bartucci - November 23, 2009

al, it’s not so much what Dr. Hasan deserves, but rather what Barry deserves.

He obviously wants his brother in Allah to not be there anymore, and soon.

Therefore, I want him hanging around for a long time.

When life gives you a homegrown Islamic nutcase gone juramentado, might as well use him to make people take a long, hard look at that nutcase’s equally Islamic commander-in-chief.

Whatever Barry wants real bad, I simply want him not to get.

Putting Dr. Hasan down like a neglected pet wouldn’t bother me more than just a little, and that only because I don’t want the Malevolent Jobholder to be allowed the exercise of such a function, ’cause I don’t trust government goons with any such power.

But anything that gives Barry the fidgets or makes it less likely that he can keep on shoving his tongue in the collective ear of America and get away with it suits me just fine.

Hasan alive might could do that a little.

217. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 23, 2009

Thank you, Al. Somebody listens to me! (Laughing). But, I agree with ALL your points. Make sure the Hershey bar has almonds, though, or I’ll get cranky!

218. R.D. Bartucci - November 24, 2009

Too bad that Neil is busy with *Sweeter Than Wine*. I would delight in reading his current take on ClimateGate, the pantsing of the “global warming” fraud by way of a hacked information dump from the oh-so-incriminating computer archives of the CRU.

The leftists’ damage control efforts are almost as delightful as the crowing of the heretics who have been observing the “Emperor’s New Clothes” character of what has long been passing for sound scientific methodology in the Algorean camp.

219. al perez - November 24, 2009

If you have a copy or the ability to obtain one, (re) read alternative view article in November Analog re comments on how data supporting climate change was and is gathered.

Also please note that total temp change roughly equals difference between optimum clime of Middle Ages (which created agricultural wealth able to support transition to Renaissance) and climate at beginning of Green Revolution, which is what Global Warming scaremongers are using as their base line.

220. R.D. Bartucci - November 24, 2009

al, Jeffery D. Kooistra’s The Alternate View article from that issue of *Analog* is available online at:

http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml

He concludes with:

“I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be ‘sited next to a lamp.’ What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.”

Not only screwed-to-death methodology (the changes in the paint used on the National Weather Service’s surface temperature reporting stations’ Stevenson screens, which Watts reported could reasonably have in itself accounted for the “increase of about 1.2º F over the entire twentieth century” to which the AGW fanatics point with so much frenetic noise) but also – we now learn – falsified and selectively incorporated data throughout the IPCC literature in order to support conclusions that bear no more relationship to reality than they do to moral and intellectual integrity.

Ain’t we got fun?

221. al perez - November 24, 2009

Have dead tree copy of article.

Please note additional comment that even if data is correct it means temperature is going up to that of Medieval optimum when wine grapes grew in England and olive trees in northern France.
Two three good volcanic eruptions could wipe out these changes for a couple of years like the one that triggered the freeze that wiped out Teddy Roosevelt’s ranch and got him back into politics.
TR was more fun than most tyrants, he still qualifies as one and he set the precedents that enabled less pleasant people that followed.
Back to original point, even if really happening, who said global warming within in predicted ranges is a bad thing? In fact, haven’t interviewers shut up scientists who talked about benefits of GW?
Hope El Neil doesn’t mind us changing topic on him.

222. R.D. Bartucci - November 24, 2009

I got an e-mail from Neil a few hours ago, stating that he’s thinking about putting together an article tentatively titled “Global Warming: Hoax or Fraud?”

I don’t think he minds “changing the topic on him” at all.

223. al perez - November 24, 2009

Has it ever occurred to anyone that human caused global warming is all that stands between us and an ice age that would wipe out the majority of the human race, including those whose skill oud unesteemed leaders depend on to maintain their power and lifestyles?

Me, I’m good between freezing and 112 or so farenheit, depending on wind, sunshine and humidity. I understand people who have not spend a few decades living in a desert are a mite more sensitive.

I’ve noticed people usually complain more bitterly about cold than heat but will whine enthusiastically about both.

224. R.D. Bartucci - November 24, 2009

al, that premise (that anthropogenic “throw another log on the fire” global warming was the only thing fending off another ice age) was voiced by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn in their 2000 novel *Fallen Angels*

See Chapter Seven (the whole thing is free online, courtesy of Baen Books) at http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052X___7.htm and use the search function on your Web browser to find the phrase “Thirty-Sixth Ice Age”

Good discussion of solar fusion and its role in “global climate change.” And for the time (pre-2000), a good consideration of the possible effect of human action – in the production of pollution, not carbon dioxide – as a factor preserving global warmth in the face of an oncoming ice age.

225. al perez - November 24, 2009

Read Fallen Angels. Meant idiots in halls of power. The ones who don’t get it that they are creating the world of Atlas Shrugged, that the tax raise they talk about on the rich won’t hit the rich but will serve as a barrier to those who are trying to get rich, most of whom are the small businessmen (and women) that creat the jobs that will allow people to buy their own insurance instead of going on public option.

The same bunch who thought that electricity from nuclear power plants was radioactive and who let Proxmire slow down robotics research thirty years ago. The same bunch of deliberately ignorant morons who don’t get it that taking only pictures and leaving only footprints means perpetuating the evidence and not much else.

The guys who want to deny the fact that humans are supposed to be wild animals or we die.

226. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 25, 2009

Guys- As a man who was, for the first 43 years, the idiot in shorts and bare feet walking the dog in 6″ of snow, and who now, as a result of a stroke, is a cold weather pussy, I could use a temperature rise here in upstate NY. As to it being a “Man Caused Event” BULLSHIT, dipwad Gore. Not only do the hacked e-mails prove it, common sense does too. Climate change is normal, natural, and we, as mankind, are capable of altering our environment by choice (building protection) to keep going at need if these natural changes should become oppressive. As to the science fearing liberal nitwits, they are the sand in the gears of progress, and as natural lubricants, we need to remove their influence and get the wheels turning again. drill oil, produce energy HERE and use it now, while investing in research that looks promising for other forms of energy production, transportation, and, OF COURSE, space travel (preferrably without any “Help” from the government)>

227. R.D. Bartucci - November 25, 2009

I feel kinda funny saying “I knew it all the time,” but the plain fact of the matter is that I did.

The whole notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) failed my personal sniff test from the beginning, chiefly because there were no explanations of how industrial greenhouse gases output (or any other human action from the time of the discovery of fire) could have caused global climactic changes of the claimed scope and severity when the putative cause was multiple orders of magnitude less puissant than natural phenomena (emphasis on vulcanism) seen repeatedly throughout the course of human history with no such warming impact.

At the same time (beginning in the 1980s) it became evident that neutrino flux density – a product of the solar fusion process – was in DECLINE, indicating that the Bethe reactions in the sun were cycling through a low phase, resulting in conditions that should logically result in global COOLING, as had been feared in the ’60s.

Though I’m not even a physicist (much less a climatologist), I could tell that what was been passed off as the ‘science of global warming” absolutely reeked.

But, hey, errors happen. In medicine, we’ve got a saying to the effect that “For any genuinely new concept to become established, an entire generation of doctors must die.”

Of course, when I first heard that, I started looking around me at meetings selecting the colleagues to add to my personal “Better Off Dead” list.

The climatology guys could have simply been caught up in a massive, seductive error. They were married to it, stuck in it, and couldn’t see their way out of it. That kind of thing happens. Gawd, look at academic economics. Intellectually and morally brain-dead since my father was in college right after World War II.

But, no, that wasn’t so. Thanks to ClimateGate we now know that the AGW farce was a planned and deliberate fraud, carried forward with utter malice and criminal intention.

This doesn’t happen often in the sciences. Sure, there’s honest error, and a lot of cement-headed, stone-assed reluctance to accept corrections.

But these guys did what they did not out of conservatism or anything so benign. They did it for political power, personal advancement, and the imposition of an agenda they KNEW would be not only useless but massively destructive of millions, billions of lives all over the planet.

Forget the tar and feathers, guys. We need a number of stakes, each sharpened on both ends, and a look into Vlad Tepes’ playbook.

Make that LONG stakes. Let’s give ‘em extra height, so people can see ‘em from a distance.

228. al perez - November 26, 2009

I’m from near where the Apache used to roam.

Vlad was way too generous.

Please note by the way that the only realistic solution to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide without knocking most people into third world poverty and/or killing off a major part of the human race (Interestingly, many of them in the Muslim countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia) due to energy shortages is to go to breeder reactors.

229. R.D. Bartucci - November 26, 2009

al, don’t think for a minute that the objective WASN’T to knock “most people into third world poverty and/or killing off a major part of the human race.”

I’m becoming convinced that the progressives/National Socialists/”Liberals”/fascisti hate the living hell out of the human race in general, and want most of us who aren’t “their type of people” either slave-collared for their use or sent to the protein recyclers.

It’s a wonder they’re not serving the canapes at their conferences and dinner parties on Soylent Green.

Quit the presumption of benign intent on the part of the ‘viros. It’s no longer a supportable proposition.


Evil: “Show me… fast breeder reactors.”

(screenplay, *Time Bandits*, 1981)

230. al perez - November 26, 2009

You know it, I know it, the trick is to get some poor soccer mom who thinks Oprah and algore “are the shut” to twig to it.

231. al perez - November 26, 2009

That was “Are the shit”.
Damn liberal treehugging typo gremlins!

232. R.D. Bartucci - November 26, 2009

One neat thing. I’ve been reviewing an interview of Algore conducted by Charlie Rose on 4 November 2009 as part of the propaganda run-up to December’s Copenhagen conference. It’s toward the end of the two-man smarming match:

AL GORE: There`s no serious disagreement on the basic science and the range of reductions that are needed. The International Group of Scientists, the IPCC in its last report said the evidence is, quote, “unequivocal.”

But we have a strange new reality in American politics with passionate groups that are disputing well-established facts. I use one example in the book. It`s an arcane example, but the birther movement.

Here you have a birth certificate examined and certified by the governor of the state even though she`s of the other political party, two contemporaneous newspaper announcements in different newspapers in Honolulu the day of President Obama`s birth. Those are facts that are established.

In spite of that, there is this elaborate ongoing dispute, and, shamefully, a few media outlets, perhaps because they`re confused about the distinction between news and entertainment, continue to feed that controversy.

I bring it up because it’s a perfect analogy to the established facts about global warming. And even though it has gone through this exhaustive 20-year peer review process with the 3,000 best scientists in the world unanimously endorsing it, every national academy of sciences in a developed country on this planet endorsing it, still, based on some radio talk show host or some odd orthogonal argument…

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me rephrase the question, then. Is there anybody that you know who you respect who comes to a different conclusion than you do?

AL GORE: Not on the basics of global warming science, no. Science magazine did a review of every peer review article for the previous ten years, a large sample of more than 10 percent. None of them disagreed with this consensus.

So let’s see…. If the “settled science” of the IPCC on anthropogenic global warming is now revealed to be a concerted and malevolent fraud, what does that say about the “birther” contentions now?

Hm. Gotta get more of those “Where’s the Birth Certificate, Barry?” postcards into the mail, don’t we?

233. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 26, 2009

He didn’t have one before, but after 10 months, you can bet your ass that he does now. It will be “DISCOVERED” and “Verified” sometime in the next 3-4 months, just to shut up all of us Birthers. I will bet cash. Some CIA or FBI sycophant has ginned up a perfectly legitimate, fully backed up set of papers that will either be “DISCOVERED” or else Obama will “reluctantly give in to this ridiculous harrassment” and release the “True Documents” in order to “Stop having to waste time denying this obvious smear campaign”. Anybody here dumb enough to bet I’m wrong???? On another subject, WHERE’S MY FUCKING HERSHEY BAR WITH ALMONDS!!!!!!!

234. R.D. Bartucci - November 26, 2009

Neale, I can’t get it for you, damnit. I’m not only a diabetic but my wife has got my pictures posted at every newsstand, supermarket, convenience store and gas station in a thirty-mile radius, with big bold letters reading: “DO NOT SELL THIS MAN CANDY.”

Front view and side view. It’s humiliating. I’ve had to pay little kids to go in and get me a box of Mike & Ikes every now and then.

If I send ‘em in after anything like a Hershey bar (even without almonds), little bastards just scarper out the back door with ‘em.

235. al perez - November 26, 2009

Get Neale’s home address.
go to hersheys.com.
order bars send to Neale (spelled the right way).
Easy peasy.

236. R.D. Bartucci - November 26, 2009

al, it won’t work. I’ve got Neale’s home address, but I tried having some of those massive, brick-sized, wonderful Hershey bars sent to a mail drop a few years ago, and now I’m locked out of that Web site.

Can’t even get access to it from one of the computers down at the public library.

Why don’t you do it? I’m not the one who started on this insidiously confectionary line, y’know.

237. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - November 26, 2009

I don’t care how it is done, damnit, I just want my candy bar. You guys started this, now finish it!!! I notice that neither of you responded to my little wager. I assume that means you think me correct, HUH?? Welllll, HUH????

238. al perez - November 27, 2009

You mean there was doubt?

Assuming Obama was not born in the US and/or was declared a Kenyan citizen by his Luo dad the paper work proving he is a native born citizen was in place before the bosses picked him to run for President.

He’s better than Hillary or Pelosi, so it would be a good thing to keep him healthy and avoid his impeachment and conviction at least until he gets voted out.

Rick started it by saying certs is a breath mint.

Given the rush by the lemmings to jump over the reduce carbon output cliff, why should Muslim extremists bother to wage Jihad when we are saving them the trouble by committing cultural suicide.

239. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 2, 2009

HELLOOOO!!!! Where’s my Hershey Bar????? I’m waiting!

240. al perez - December 2, 2009

somebody email me Neale (spelled the right way)’s address or send him the candy already.

serious comment: only through my email address if you know it,
no need to tell anyone he doesn’t want to know where he lives

241. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 2, 2009

Okay, that’s far enough. I was just bored with no new comments for a couple of days. I knew if the comment was serious, people might not answer, but if I screwed around I’d get an answer. DO NOT MAIL ONE! But if anyone wants or needs my personal e-mail or snail mail address, RD and Neil both have it and are free to give it to anyone on here that is a normal (for us wierdos) human being (or at least can pass for one in low light situations). So, who actually sat through the Supreme Leader’s propaganda piece last night? I tried, but I kept seeing john “FlipFlop” Kerry’s face while Sotero was nattering away to the poor kaydets. It was sad watching them try like hell to stay awake. While no fan of Bush, they loved him. Watching them trying to follow off-screen cues to applaud, and listening to the lame-ass polite clapping was funny, but it got boring fast. I think I made it 5 minutes.
Al, seriously, if you ever want to contact, call, or e-mail me, RD or Neil is free to give you the method you desire at anytime.

242. al perez - December 2, 2009

Good deal on contact.

Obama making right noises, but…

Many former students of mine been to iraq and afghanistan, So far as I know all have come back not much crazier than when they left (some put on growth after they left).

Have no use for politicians who waste young men and women’s sacrifice.

Ultimately afghan and iraqi people are the ones who will win wars, how they feel about our nose in that will be lied about in the history books for centuries both by america and her allies and her enemies.

I still honor gordon and shugert, just as I despise the man who wasted their deaths, both by the foolish strategic goals he had
them die to carry out and by the headlong withdrawal he made from somalia afterwards instead of building on what they gave their lives to accomplish.

243. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 6, 2009

Knock Knock! Is anybody home? I’m bored. Hey, here’s an article I wrote on NEWSVINE, it’s relevant to the conversation here.

Yesterday, I went to the County Seat of Steuben County, New York, the county in which I currently reside. I left my pocket knife (1.75″ blade) in the car. I was forced to empty my pockets into a tray. Put my cellphone in the tray. Put the envelope of paperwork in the tray. And walk through a metal detector. With my normal good grace, I complained about the violation of my rights against unlawful search, to which I received the following reply. “Shut up and go through the detector again, you missed something.” After 2 more passes, they made me remove the belt from my pants, they wanded my zipper and the American flag hatpin in my hat, and finally gave me permission to replace my personal belongings.

I told the Blackshirt (County Sheriff) that this was a ridiculous waste of time, and that there were many better ways to protect human life than harassing American citizens. He said “Oh yeah, wise guy? Well, why don’t you enlighten me?” I said that if they stopped violating the 2nd Amendment and allowed American citizens to be armed and protect themselves, none of this would be necessary. I went on to say that 9-11 would have turned out differently if the passengers on those 4 planes had been allowed to carry guns with the new frangible bullets (safe to use in pressurized environments). He sneered at me, and called me “Ignorant and un-informed” I called him a “Jackbooted Nazi Thug” and went on my way.

After completing my business there, While leaving the building, he flagged me down, and told me not to come back into the building unless I could keep “A civil tongue in my head” I must admit, I told him to shove it, and that I would enter any building I so desired that my taxes paid for, and if he didn’t like it, he could lump it. I added that I also have a Constitutional right to speak my opinion, and he had no power to prevent it..

So, to my point. Are you happy surrendering your rights in the name of safety? Do you feel safer walking through metal detectors an public buildings, rather than being allowed to protect yourself? Or am I a lone whack-job, railing futilely at the “Will of the People”, refusing to accept this brave new world? I do not accept that, but I am interested in YOUR opinions.

There were a couple of polls included, but you get the gist. Hope I open up a new can of worms!

244. al perez - December 6, 2009

back in the day the cute female airport guard made me measure all three blades for a Gerber Exchange Blade Bolt Lock before letting me take it in to the “security area.”

I usually carry a 2.5 “folding knife (double bladed) and a couple of
Swiss Army pen knives. As long as I keep away from airports and federal buildings no issues.

The rules aren’t to protect you and me (unless you’re a bureaucrat), they[re there to protect the federales. Wonder if they feel secure.

245. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 7, 2009

I sure hope not! They should be uneasy in their positions as self-appointed lords and masters. The peasants are feeling restless.

246. al perez - December 8, 2009

Have had good fortune to deal mostly with civil servants who were both civil and who knew they wee servants.

Have mentioned that besides guns and cutlery, big g scared of lighters. Mastery of fire and knife two inventions that stimulated evolution of homo from australopithecus (know misspelled, one day must study social/tech interaction as part of environment that selected ancestors yo become us).

We only threatened to bomb enemies into stone age. Bureaurats (not misspelling!) want to legislate and regulate us back to prehuman!

247. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 8, 2009

If you possess anything that you can use to either protect yourself from the gov’t or advance you beyond the gov’t's reach, IT MUST BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY!!! The serfs can never be allowed to realize that the masters are targets, NOT inviolate. We must vote them out, or, someday, our kids will be stuck with the simple choice, civil war or slavery. Knowing their father, mine will not choose slavery.

248. al perez - December 11, 2009

As much as threats of disarmament by bgi g worries me, keeplooking at the failure to rebuild New Orleans since 2005 while Galveston has been rebuilt twice since then (first time wasn’t so bad but still).

if the fed gov’t manages disarmament, or anthropomorpic climate change, protecting us fromm terrorists, public health care or whatever the way The feds state, parish and city gov’ts have handled the rebuilding of new orleans we are safe where they could do harm and fubar where we need them to do good.

Let us rely on free enterprie to solve problems and deny the big gpower to repress.

249. R.D. Bartucci - December 11, 2009

Before we leave the subject of the Ft. Hood shooting altogether, allow me to offer the participants and other readers a couple of links associated with the guys at StrategyPage.com.

Neither Jim Dunnigan nor Austin Bay are libertarians, but I’ve known the former for about thirty years and the latter is a fairly nice guy for a statist military type. Look to a podcast mp3 discussion at:

http://www.strategypage.com/StrategyTalk/recordings/fort-hood-shooting.mp3

…which is worth a listen if not a download. Also there’s a more recent take at:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Major-Hasan-Embraces-Tradition-12-3-2009.asp

…written by Dunnigan.

Jim Dunnigan is one of the finest, most prolific, and most remarkable conflict simulations games (wargames) designers I’ve ever encountered. He’s exceptional in that no matter how hellacious his reputation has always been, he retains adaptability and the willingness to admit mistakes and to learn from them.

250. al perez - December 12, 2009

Would someone besides Neale (spelled the right way) or me post something already? Before the spammers start messing this up.

251. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 12, 2009

They forgot how!!!

252. Ken Whittet - December 14, 2009

I just can’t resist saying this……. Sarah Palin = Niehmiah Scudder with Tits

253. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 14, 2009

Not True, Ken. Nehemiah was a scrawny, ugly bastard. Sarah is kind of cute. Still a nut, but a cute nut.

254. al perez - December 14, 2009

‘sides Scudder was a preacher. ain’t heard her preach any.

255. Ken Whittet - December 14, 2009

Just trying to get some conversation going. Was the only thing I could think of at the time. Saw reports about how Palin has ties to a pentacostal church that advocates literal witch hunts and is pals with a pastor from Nigeria who has in fact fomented witch hunts there.

256. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 14, 2009

Well, it may be working! But, I have to say that I have ties to a truly nutjob pentecostal religious group. It doesn’t mean I support them, but the ties are there nonetheless. On December 8, 2004, my daughter was born, at 25 weeks, and 1lb 13oz. She spent the next 3mo, 14days in NICUs at Arnot-Ogden and Strong Memorial. So, 2 days after my wife nearly died fro pre-eclampsia, and having no clue that Marie would eventually emerge as a vibrant and vivacious child, healthy and normal, a pair of acquaintances showed up at my wife’s bedside. They asked for permission to pray for my daughter’s recovery. Now, I am not a Christian, in fact, I am not a deist of any sort. But my thoughts were “Hey, if they want to sacrifice a goat in the lobby and pray to Satan, every little bit might help!”, so we agreed. After a rather ridiculous (but well meant and rather long) prayer, their pastor left, and we sat down to talk with these people.

I was shocked to discover that my wife raising herbs was a major part of the cause of our baby’s problems. It seems that raising herbs is very close to performing witchcraft, and it allows Satan to enter the fetus, causing miscarriages and premature births. Also, witches and warlocks (apparently quite prevalent in our area) cast spells to cause these things, in the hope that the depression caused by such problems drive you to pagan practices. Now, before you assume these people are ignorant, the husband is a State Police Lieutenant, and the wife a former school teacher. Scary, HUH? Hey Ken, guess what? It worked! ( the topic refreshment, NOT the prayer session).

257. Ken Whittet - December 14, 2009

Good! this blog was getting kind of stagnant for a while. I still don’t trust Palin as far as I can spit though. Now if some troll starts calling me Ken Shithead Whittet or even Ken Shittet my day would be complete. lol Be better than not seeing any posts at all for days on end here.

258. Ken Whittet - December 14, 2009

I’ve got a scarier story about a State cop than that. Back in 1988, in the village of Marlow, NH, The state cops excavated th bones of the Marlow town cop’s wife’s first husband. The town cop had just finished a LE course and had been hired to report for duty as a NH state cop. He was arrested but the grand jury refused to indict him. As far as I know he’s still walking around today.

259. al perez - December 14, 2009

Palin is a lightweight.
However, both branches of the Replicat party have grown moribund making her look better than she should.
Let’s see if jindal of La. or Hutchinson of Tx can come up w/ something meatier by 2012.

260. Ken Whittet - December 14, 2009

I do have to give credit to the town of Marlow and the state of NH for having the good sense to subsequently pass on this individuals services as an LEO.

261. R.D. Bartucci - December 15, 2009

Ken, they really should’ve hired him. And then put him on the homicide squad.

You know, the old “to catch a thief” principle.

Who better to sniff out murderers than somebody who’s gotten away with it?

262. R.D. Bartucci - December 15, 2009

Neale, how does a woman nearly die of pre-eclampsia? Eclampsia, yeah, but pre-eclampsia is a constellation of proteinuria, suddenly elevated blood pressure, and a few other secondary features. The morbidity and mortality risks are increased for both mother and fetus, and only delivery – or other purposeful termination of the pregnancy – will definitively address the condition.

If your Christian acquaintances can get some kind of definitive proof about herb-assisted Satanic possession of your daughter (and I can credit that, having raised one daughter and being in the process of raising two granddaughters), they’ve got a Nobel Prize coming their way.

The most recent theory I’ve been reading about claims that a maternal immune reaction to her partner’s semen (which, being proteinaceous, is certainly capable of potential allergenicity) might be at the root of pre-eclampsia.

Damned interesting if YOU”RE the culprit, no?

You old devil, you….

263. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 15, 2009

I am probably the culprit, I’m positive, she’s negative!
As to “Dying from pre-eclampsia”, when a doctor says to us “We need to do an emergency C-section to save your wife’s life. This Blood Pressure increase is deadly.” I assume him to be right. Remember, I’m a plumber not a doctor, Doc. She was having kidney problems, BP of 220/150 for over a week. And she is not possessed by Satan, but she definitely channels a Whirling Dervish some days!

264. al perez - December 15, 2009

Please note that mnay herbs can induce miscarriages/premature births. Are Satanists capable of slipping some in among stuff your wife would be handling at the time?

Is the last bear the pope?

265. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 15, 2009

UMMM, the “She” I referred to as channeling a Whirling Dervish is my daughter, not my wife! BUUUT the point of my original post was that I have ties to a pentecostal nut-job church, and that is not necessarily a bad reflection on MY character. These “nut-jobs” delivered home-made meals to me while my wife was in the hospital for a week, then continued twice a week the whole time we were running back and forth between Elmira (30 miles away) and later to Rochester (100 miles away), for three months. Later, I made a $500 donation to their church, as the entire congregation took turns making and delivering these meals. Therefore, I could be said to have financial ties to this church. Now, IF I were to run for president, would these “ties” be used to discredit me? PLEASE PLEASE do ont misconstrue this as support for Sarah beyond a mild case of “She’s cute”, just pointing out how “ties to …..” MAY be misconstrued or even deliberately exaggerated, depending on the agenda of the reporting agency.

Ken- this is just to make your day- Ken Shittet- you suck, I hate you, why the hell are you still here???

Okay, that felt bad, but HE ASKED ME TO MAKE HIS DAY!!! You all read it! He did, He really really did! (no offense intended, Ken. I hope you know that!)

266. Ken Whittet - December 15, 2009

Back when I was a teenager, my folks had a housekeeper named Gloria. Gloria was a Jehovah’s Witness and oneday she told me that the Asian antiques in my household were occupied by “demons”. I mentioned this to my dad,(who was something of a “closet atheist”). He replied,” the only thing around that has demons in it around here is that idiot housekeeper!”

267. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 15, 2009

I love JWs. Some of my happiest moments come when one knocks on the door. I always invite them in, offer them something to drink, and then I offer praises to the Horned One, then I ask them the purpose of their visit. Usually, I wind up speaking to the south end of a northbound JW. The funny part is that I’m not even a pagan. I’m agnostic at the most. Think Hugh Farnham (“Farnham’s Freehold”) or Jake Burroughs (“Number of the Beast”). I just love to watch them turn purple and run like hell!

268. al perez - December 15, 2009

totally a pachyderm;s auditory organ to this discussion, but can someone figure out a way to get Al Mar to bring back their 4×4 multitool? the dykes on their #4 Clipit are the best multitool dykes I’ve ever gotten my hands on and to be honest for what I need a multitool for I think the Al Mar would be the best.

Of course there is the issue of Al Mar prices, but it would still be a good idea. besides, there is a loot of sharp and pointy stuff out there that costs as much and isn’t half as good.

269. R.D. Bartucci - December 16, 2009

al, you really ought to put in some kind of paragraphical definition, like “…dykes (diagonal cutters) on their #4 Clipit….”

Elsewise, you’re likely to get some sort of queer reaction from the LGBT folks. I was getting strange pictures of Lesbians performing circumcisions until my perceptual apparatus settled down and steadied.

The notion of “multitool” Lesbians, however, is a concept I am not abandoning. There’s got to be a porno story in this somewhere….

270. al perez - December 16, 2009

many years ago there was a mock presidential debate by students in which it was argued that the Supreme Court decision throwing out laws against homosexual behavior as violating people’s rights under the 9th Amendment would lead to lesbian polygamy.
This led to visul images I don’t want to get into, i’m sure you can create your own. BTW, polygamy, straight or gay, should be protected by the 9th Amendment. Bigamy should only apply to cases where fraud is involved.
Meanwhile, it’s nice having a good visual imagination.

271. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 16, 2009

I have been arguing that point for years, guys. As far as I am concerned, marriage is any grouping of adults who band together for purposes of making a home. As long as no one molests children, and all partners agree as to the handling of medical decisions, and financial care of all partners after a dissolution of marriage, NO MARRIAGE GROUPING is to be banned! The absolute MAXIMUM interference tolerated would be a storage point of the marriage contract (Made by the individuals, NOT the government) for the purposes of protecting spouses from being prevented contact with their kids or fellow spouses during medical emergencies, deaths, or divorces.
My question for ALL of you is this- Can any of you explain to me why the very first time a burocrap said “Did you buy a marrige license?” the fucker wasn’t hung immediately from a lightpost! Same for the Sheriff who first put that “All guns must be checked at the City Limits. Carrying guns is punishable by law”. How I wish I could find the first person who said “Duuh, OK. That sounds reasonable to me!” and paid the stupid fee, or surrendered their gun. I guarantee it wouldn’t have been me. At the very least, I would have told every business in town why I was not spending one red cent in their town, but rather spending it at the next town down the line.

272. al perez - December 16, 2009

the right name for the Al Mar Knife mentioned in post #256 is Quicksilver Quickclip IV. sorry about that.

AL Mar 4X4 had more functions of course. Little knife incredibly efficient wire cutter and didn’t pinch!!

Maybe we can convince company to bring both back, sufficiently modified not to step on collectors’ toes.

273. R.D. Bartucci - December 16, 2009

Neale, insofar as my store of Dodge City lore goes (and I used to visit Dodge for a taste of “big city life”:back when I was stuck in southern Kansas for a while covering the Emergency Department and playing house officer at a little hospital not far from Great Bend), most of those “check your guns at the city limits” laws did NOT pertain to the local citizens’ firearms (which they retained and carried, both concealed and openly) but to the handguns of visiting cowboys who had to swap their firearms with the bartender before they could purchase their first drink of the evening.

Given the proclivity of these guys to get all firecracker-y with their revolvers after putting down a few, this was a sensible precaution, and a municipal ordinance everybody could live with. The visitors got their pistols back again when they could convince the bartender (usually a sound judge of sobriety) that they were no longer significantly under the influence of John Barleycorn.

When’s the last time you saw anybody pull out a hip flask or pop a cold brewski along any pistol range’s firing line, hm?

274. al perez - December 16, 2009

All right, all right/ Al Mar Knives needs to bring back the 4×4 Multitool to sell to lesbians ( and straight women, and straight or gay men or anyone else who wants one).
.
So somebody else post a comment already.

275. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 16, 2009

Never, but then, I don’t hardly ever drink. However, it MUST be the rule of the business owner, not the law, or ole Neale will oppose it. Laws are meant for opposing!

276. R.D. Bartucci - December 17, 2009

Neale, returning to the “put down your pistol before you pick up the booze” rules enforced by cattle towns like Dodge City, given that the check-in functions (and the returns) were handled by the bartenders ought to give you some idea about how these measures tended reliably to be “the rule of the business owner.”

Making it a matter of law made it possible for the business owner to call in the town’s official armed goons to enforce the policy.

Didja know that the extra-long-barreled (10 or 12 or 16 inches, f’ghodsake) “Buntline Special” was carried by lawmen – though probably not Wyatt Earp – NOT for use in any sort of gunfighting role? It was carried, nevertheless, because it gave the “peace officer” something very effective with which to knock a drunken cowboy insensible with one well-placed concussive blow. Think “pistol-whip.” The practice was supposedly called “buffalo-ing.”

Given the truly awful reputation of government goons when it comes to accuracy with firearms (you think it’s just today’s cops who “fire promiscuously and rend the earth”?), I don’t think the sheriff’s deputies and marshals of the late 1800s much cared about knocking their sights out of alignment.

Like tail fins on those big Detroit boats of the 1950s, they must’ve considered the front sights of their handguns nothing more than decorative features anyway.

277. al perez - December 17, 2009

Coming from the land of Stoudenmire, Selman, Threepersons, Askins and Jordan I am used to cops who shoot straight. Some have even been known rto take out opponents after being mortally wounded.

Please note that Greenriver laws (and the same kind of law that led to the Gunfigt at the OK Corral) reflect extremely specal circumstances, where people were being encouraged to get drunk and act stupid,

One of the prices of freedom is refraining from deliberate stupidity. This explains why the Democrats’ leaaders don’t trust their supprters with guns.

278. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 17, 2009

I still oppose the rule being given the status of law. Any business owner may ban whatever behaviour he so desires (or likewise encourage it), but once the law is passed, it violates the rights of both business owner and customer. An excellent example are these ridiculous “Smoke Free Restaurant” laws, all the rage these days. It is not the right or the duty of government to regulate a lawful activity in a private building, period. (please do not take that as support for making smoking illegal, I don’t smoke anymore, but I don’t support a ban on it, either) As a restaurant owner, it should be my choice if I wanted a Smoke Free Restaurant, a smokey restaurant, or segregated smoking sections. And the argument that it is to “Protect the employees from second hand smoke.” is total bullshit. If you don’t want exposure, don’t work there! Same thing for eating. Personally, as an ex-smoker, I don’t particularly care, but since my wife never has, we always chose the non-smoking section (unless it meant a significantly longer wait for seating!). Well, rambling again, huh, Osborn?

RD- As to the Buntline, I prefer a hickory club when thunkin’ skulls, (wouldn’t want to bend me front sight, ya know!) but it doesn’t lessen the crime committed by the towns and cities when they chose to violate the 2nd Amendment, nor the stupidity of those who originally followed these laws. Same for marriage laws, ddrivers licenses, and vehicle registrations, just to name a few! They always seem to come in reslonse to the demands of the “Mrs. Grumby” types, demanding laws to protect people from themselves, or protect the Mrs.Gs from having their own prejudices violated. As Manuel Garcia O’Kelly-Davis said, People always want a law to prevent OTHERS from doing something bad to themself, they never say “Pass this law to keep ME from doing something bad to MYSELF!” (“The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” as if most of you don’t recognize him!)

279. al perez - December 19, 2009

I find complaints by restaurant owners about smoke free laws a bit hypocritical. Depending on the company people can linger up to a half hour smoking and visiting and not ordering anything except free coffee refills.

Restauranteurs who want repeat business don’t want to hustle these folk. Nor do they want to hang up the no smoking signs that would get them to move on.

But let the government ban smoking in restaurants and complain loudly enough in public and you get the speeded up turnover of a no smoking rule, public sympathy, and no loss of trade.

‘taint honest, and I’ll bet most restaurant owners don’t think about it consciously, but that’s exactly what’s going on, it’s the moral equivalent of Congressmen who want gun control, don’t want to take the blame for it, so they let ATF pass regs, then just never get around to passing laws overturning these regs but public denounce the ATF and these rules.

It’s time we let these clowns know we’re on to them.

280. al perez - December 22, 2009

To quote our esteemed Administrator, Happy Zagmut.

281. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 22, 2009

Merry Gravmas, to all, and to all, a newton night!
Hey Al, why are we the only ones keeping this mess going? When do you think Neil the wrong way will write another article, so the other kids will come back to play? I’m BORED!

282. al perez - December 22, 2009

Bartucntici, you want a mint? I’ll give you a mint. try H.Clay mints (for stogie smokers). Just don’t inhale if you bite down.

work better’n certs.

283. Ken Whittet - December 23, 2009

Last we heard from Neil was that he was working on “Sweeter Than Wine” a vampire novel he’s been contemplating for a while. Such novels are popular these days, and I for one hope that it’s a smash hit and that Neil finally gets the recognition from the public at large for being the great author that he has been all along.

284. al perez - December 23, 2009

R.D.,
Misspelling of patronym not deliberate but result of fingers not working right. Eyes not doing too good either as didn’t catch error sooner, Brain turning to mush and only publication of STW can save me;

285. al perez - December 23, 2009

Is it just me or did the recently concluded series on SciFi Channel Battle Star Galactica show influence from David Weber’s Honor Harrington series? Not plagiarism, just a little memetic influence
that went a long way to causing the new version ti be better than the original.

If so, what tv programming and movies show Neil’s influence? and if not Neil’s influence, just a spread of libertarian thought.

286. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 23, 2009

Al- I tend to avoid TV, lately. All they seem to do is take mediocre shows, and remake them. So I didn’t watch BG. As to Honor, I liked it at first, and never stooped reading the ones actually about Honor, herself, but the “Honorverse” stories left me cold. And to be honest about Honor, Royalists annoy me, so the entire Grand Duchess of Poobah crap makes it hard to keep up with exactly WHO outranks WHOM. So, unless David comes out with another HH novel featuring HH, I won’t waste my time. Libertarianism does peep out of a few shows, occasionally, but usually it is so well hidden, you realize it days later! And I can’t even recall the last time I said “Wow, that was a truly libertarian Idea!”

Ken- Neil completed STW, and is now attempting to DO something with it. Until he has a firm idea of how it will go, he probably won’t serialize it here. I want it, I want it NOW, and I’ll buy it in Hardcover, even. I won’t wait for Paperback, if a publisher will just get it out there. HEEEEERRRRRE Publisher publisher publisher, c’mere boy. Buy the nice book, boy. Print it, print it now. Pay the author nice money and print it now!

287. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 25, 2009

A wonderful season to all, whatever the one you prefer. In an effort to piss off SOMEBODY (either by including one they hate, or forgetting the one they prefer), and in no particular order;
Happy Channukah
Joyous Ramadan
Festive Winter Solstice
Merry Christmas
Merry Gravmas
It is Just another fucking money vaccuum
Or whatever else, best of the season to all.

288. Ken Whittet - December 25, 2009

Getting back to the topic of religion,etc….. Has anybody here read John Whiteside Parson’s essay “Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword”? It can be read on this site- www,greylodge.org/occultreview_001/freedomsword.htm- Jack Parsons was a rocket scientist, libertarian,witch. Parsons was the co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, He invented the modern solid fueled rocket, which is still used on the space shuttle. He was head of the US chapter of the Ordo Templi Orientis, an occult lodge. Robert A. Heinlein hung out with Parsons when RAH lived in the LA area. Heinlein’s MC in “The Door Into Summer”, D.B. Davis, is loosely based on Parsons. There’s also some speculation that Parsons and his lodge was somewhat the inspiration for “Stranger in a Strange Land.

289. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 27, 2009

Well, since Neil (the wrong way) insists on failing to do his duty to this blog, and waste his time writing FOR PAY (the nerve of him), I am forced to comment on this INCREDIBLY UNDERREPORTED pants-burning incident over Detroit. Now, the details seem notably sketchy in the MSM, but a few things seem clear. Another radical asshole of the Islamic stripe (as opposed to the Christian or politician stripes) tried to meet his maker and take infidels with him. The only bad thing is , he survived his FAILED attempt. Now, if we can only convince the entire Congress to get on one of those new Super-size Boeings, and fly it into the North Pole, in order to protest the refusal of American Sheeple to continue to bow down on the altar of big government. AAAAHHHH, a truly magnificent thought! So, tell me, how would YOU like to see them do themselves in? How about going to ACORN Headquarters, and doing a massive light-off of the methane gas they all expell, every time they speak? As you can tell, I’m bored, here. Help me out, PLEASE!!!!!

290. al perez - December 27, 2009

please note that while bomber showed execrable bomb making skills (thank god) chose good day to strike and has disrupted airtravel by creating new security reg.

we need same skills at pushing al qaida and other wahhabi derived groups buttons.

291. L. Neil Smith - December 27, 2009

Al said: ” … we need same skills at pushing al qaida and other wahhabi derived groups buttons.”

I have been trying to communicate for years the absolute necessity of generating a secular culture inthe Middle East. To an extent it already exists in places like Cairo — and at least did at one tome in Beirut — but we need to communicate with it more and encourage it to poke its head up.

Groups like Al Quaeda hate, loathe and despise secularism (just as religious fanatics do in America) because it shifts people’s attention from some supposedly Greater Cause to where it belongs, in themselves. They see western culture as a tremendous danger because people might become interested in acquiring a nice car, a big TV, or a hot tub instead of focusing on the Imaginary Playmate and what they say He wants them to do.

So look for your buttons there, Al.

292. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 27, 2009

That sounds good to me, stranger! (LOL) I’m all for pushing their buttons. And if they try to push MINE, I’m all for pushing them in front of a speeding bullet. I do wish I could maintain as detached an outlook as you, Neil. It never works for me, though. Fortunately, now we get even more regulations to help usa love big brother a little more. A question, Neil. did you read that article I re-posted here? (comment 232). It pertains to the topic of idiotic rules, and the NAC solution to hi-jacking presented in “The Probability Broach” (A novel by an excellent author you might have heard of).

293. L. Neil Smith - December 27, 2009

> I do wish I could maintain as detached an outlook as you, Neil.

It isn’t hard. I’ve known many Muslims in my life, quite a few now, and understand that they and their religion are not the problem. The problem is sick sons of bitches (and daughters, too) on both sides who feel they have to run other peoples’ lives in order to get their rocks off. That’s a disease, and we need to find a cure for it.

Aside from the obvious ballistic one.

I get plenty pissed off sometimes, ask Cathy. But I eventually come back to an understanding I’ve had since the 1960s that we have only two tasks ahead of us: find a cure for the disease, try to make living without authority attractive to others.

What’s in it for them?

Which was the original point of my Maidenform Bra speech.

294. al perez - December 27, 2009

True confession time. My preference for being able to get into my enemies’ heads comes from two distinct places. the first is the desire to make as many of them friends as possible. I believe this is consistent with the ZAP and the Second Greatest Commandment. The second reason is so I can mindfuck the ones who insist on keeping the war going. That keeps me alive longer so I can make more friends and more easily kill or evade enemies.
I’m left handed and sneaky and I’ll take advantage of every edge I can get.

295. al perez - December 28, 2009

I cannot make up my mind which is more pathetic:

The rush to claim credit for siccing the Inspector Clousseau/Wiley Coyote of Roasted Nuts Nigerian Terrorists on the US by Al Qaida

or

The rush to make new rules regulating people’s activities in the US even though it is obvious that the security failure was in Nigeria and Amsterdam.

Congratulations to the heroic young man who tried to make sure the Flaming Self Pantser didn’t get time to try to do something more effective.

296. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - December 29, 2009

Anyone for an order of Nigerian Mountain Oysters?

297. al perez - December 30, 2009

The saga of the Flaming self Pantser just keeps getting better. African Union troops acting as security guards caught a guy with a similar device in Mogadishu.
so a guy could beat Nigerian and Dutch security but someone armed with similar stuff got stopped in the Mog (as where terrorism has become a way of life ) by African Union troops (who have for courage, spirit and inadequate training).

Sheesh!! Sheesh, I tell you!

298. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 2, 2010

I’ll try it again. HELLLOOOOOO!!!! a new rant by Neale the right way. I wrote this for the newsvine, but you might like it.

There is NO middle ground. There is only right and wrong. It is wrong to deny homosexuals basic human rights. It is wrong to deny immigrants the ability to improve their lives. It is wrong to deny Americans their Constitutional rights, no matter the excuse. This includes, but is not limited to, the 1st,2nd,4th, &5th Amendments. Not even in an attempt to provide “Security”. It is wrong for the government to deny people the right engage in ANY sexual activity that does not harm others (Meaning rape and child molesting, ONLY may be punishable by law). See, no middle ground. It is merely taking what is right, and applying it across the FALSE lines defined by the 2 party system. One of Rush Limbaugh’s favorite sayings is that moderates cannot make up their minds, and that IS true. But he also says that no one who is not either Republican or Democrat can stand FOR anything. Totally wrong. I have a very specific series of positions, and NONE of them are mutually exclusive to each other. But I am NOT a moderate. Some are on the traditional “Right” side of the spectrum, and some on the “Left” side. This DOES NOT mean I can’t decide what to do, it means I go strictly by right and wrong, Constitutional or un-Constitutional, and finally, if both fail me, then by my personal compass. God does not decide for me, as I doubt he exists. I will not even force my views on topics not covered by the Constitution on others. I WILL make them known, defend them vigorously, and make my reasons for it known, but I will NEVER try to set them down in laws, as I oppose 90+% of the laws on the books, and hate the thought of making even more! An example of each is as follows:
Abortion- I oppose it because I can’t PROVE to myself that it isn’t murder. While a woman owns her body, the baby owns IT’S body, even if that body is still in the mother’s body. So, except to save the mother’s life, and IMMEDIATELY following an incident of rape or incest, I oppose abortion. Prove the existence of a soul, or that the baby will re-incarnate, and my objections will go away. BUT, I oppose laws against it, because it is only my belief, not a fact. And, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so my personal compass is the only thing I have to use.
Gun control, on the other hand, is a total violation of the 2nd Amendment. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has upheld that the phrase “The People” means each and every individual person. And the 2nd Amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That ends it.
Now, as everybody with intellectual honesty will admit that no matter which party they belong to, there is SOMETHING they don’t agree with, unless they wrote the platform themselves. I am a registered Libertarian, and have been since 1988 or 89. I disagree with only ONE plank. As I said, I oppose abortion, but my party doesn’t. It is my only break with it. I could not be a Republican OR Democrat, they each support far too many things things I can’t accept for me to be able to go along with them. IF all parties other than these two were to be eliminated, then I would join the Republicans, and work very hard to change the platform to my standards. And I would never vote a party line with either of them, as I would always vote for the candidate that supported the Constitution the best. So to all you idiots who keep insisting that to oppose your side in EVERYTHING automatically makes someone a member of the other major party, SHUT UP AND THINK IT OUT NEXT TIME!!! Now, for all my fellow viners, do you identify yourself as one of the two major parties, one of the main third parties, or a truly “independent” party? Answer the accompanying poll, and comment, please.

So, do you like it, or am I just being wierd again. (probably the latter)

299. al perez - January 5, 2010

on 28 december 2009 i called the flaming self pantser the wiley coyote of the terrorist world. on 5 january 2010 dave letterman commented that he used exploding under pants,”didn;t you used to order them from acme by the crate?” or words to that effect.

this particular act of terrorism has been reduced to a joke (actually it did a friggin’ great job of reducing itself). the stricter security measures it will lead to are no joke, nor is the relish with which some will use this as an excuse to exceed the need for better security and flat out trash everyones’ rights.

meanwhile, ta ra ra ta ta ta, ta ra ta ta, ta ra ta ta, ta ra ra ta ta ta ta, ta ra ta TA TA

300. al perez - January 6, 2010

most hated song in terrorists training camps
Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire

301. L. Neil Smith - January 6, 2010

” … tiny tots being hung by the fire will find it hard to sleep tonight.”

302. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 6, 2010

The panty bomber will, fortunately, never reproduce! As for hated songs, how about the following;
Jingle bells
Howitzer shells
Napalm bombs and more!
Oh what fun
is an overheated gun
In a jumped up brushfire waaaarrrrr!
(From Mr Rambo’s Neighborhood, Imus in the Morning, ca. 1986)

As an aside, no comments regarding my latest rants? Are all of you becoming old fogies, or did it just suck that bad?

303. al perez - January 6, 2010

Is it true the Flaming Self Pantser (aka the Underwear Bomber) suffered nadsty burns?

304. Al Perez - January 8, 2010

Maybe the Underwear Bomber was looking for a job as a boy soprano?

305. Al Perez - January 8, 2010

Since the Flaming Self Pantser actually survived he is not a martyr and won’t get his 99 ( or however many) virgins. Considering his injuries, he won’t need them

306. Al Perez - January 8, 2010

He was testing a new adult circumcision method?

I’m going to keep posting these until some american politician does something stupider, or anther hour, whichever comes second.

307. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 8, 2010

Obama just spoke. A South Carolina anti-gun senator shot an intruder. Congress is in session. Is that enough?

308. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 8, 2010

OOOHH! Fruit of the Boom.

309. Al Perez - January 8, 2010

Godness gracious, great balls of fire! (got from friend)

310. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - January 8, 2010

Pardon me, Sir, but would you like that terrorist, oh pardon me, Sir, I meant to say lone extremist, medium rare or extra crispy? And Might I suggest the 1982 Ripple Blanc with that?
(I stole the last part of that, slightly paraphrased, from one of my all time favorite funny movies. If you guess the correct movie, in three or fewer guesses, you win a lovely prize. {Legal disclaimer- all taxes associated with the winning of this prize are the sole responsibility of the winner. No cash substitutions permitted. All prizes must be redeemed in person.})

311. al perez - January 9, 2010

In spite of making a fool of himself and the butt of many horrid jokes the Flaming Self Pantser did in fact cause fear and consternation to his enemies. Even in demonstrating that he is a putz the man succeeded. one could tell him “Well done!”

312. A Review of Negligence and Intentional Torts - The Blog Planet - January 20, 2010

[...] L. Neil Smith at Random » SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT FORT HOOD [...]

313. Kylie Batt - May 4, 2010

? ?????????, ??, ??-?????, ?? ?? ?????….

around two and a half dozen more before being taken out of action by a
courageous young police officer, my Inbox […….

314. Kylie Batt - May 18, 2010

? ??? ???????????,?????????….

around two and a half dozen more before being taken out of action by a
courageous young police officer, my Inbox […….

315. Percocet. - February 28, 2011

Percocet….

Percocet….

316. florida auto insurance - April 7, 2011

florida car insurance

317. florida car insurance - April 7, 2011

Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for info about this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I’ve came upon till now. However, what about the bottom line? Are you positive about the source?auto insurance florida

318. aaron wall - May 12, 2012

… [Trackback] …

[...] Find More Informations here: bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=328 [...] …