Discussion:
Useful idiots
(too old to reply)
Bob Cooper
2006-04-24 20:55:16 UTC
Permalink
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts."

===========================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

Useful idiots...
By Diana West
April 21, 2006

How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union
is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to
conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having
double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and
gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing
radicalisation."

Islamic "radicalisation," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's
Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones?" proverb is out, particularly
the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say
words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train." As an EU official explained
non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that
could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of
radicalisation."

As they say Over There, What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe
that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical
blood-lust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic
terrorism," not the other way around. Only not in EU-land. "These words
[Islamic terrorism] cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister
and "advisor"tothe British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just
creates a culture where terrorism actually is identifiedwith Islam," he
continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."

And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and
frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's
where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
Take Flight 93: TheSeptember 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24
times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as
"stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic
terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not
to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, but they
hijacked their religion.

This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe
that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their
behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick
with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane
for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They
go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts.

The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently
reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The
sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms
specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits, or,
specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said,
"Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims
who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western
countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for
this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a
bomb against the West."

The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations,
but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down
the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was
primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather
than recruit bombers." Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these
days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an
apology of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense"-- condemning
this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an
appointment with the United Nations Disarmament Conference -- as
co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two al Qaeda fathers
discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so
fast.

Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a
senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It
actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage
-- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe,"
said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented
a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of
Britain "welcomed the apology" (naturally).

I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the
Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just
wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place. That'll quiet everything.
===========================================================
Warren Hopper
2006-04-24 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in cement
goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie and the Bushheads in
invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of Muslims about to break upon us. Who
knows what would have happened otherwise. ;-)

Keep that gat handy.

"What the Americans do well is cinema: one is always astonished and
attracted by that somewhat animal healthiness, by those brutish characters,
with no sensitivity. I don't say that one should destroy America and the
Americans: they play their role. That of muscle without intelligence."

- Andrei Makine
Post by Bob Cooper
===========================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
Useful idiots...
By Diana West
April 21, 2006
How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union
is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to
conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having
double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and
gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing
radicalisation."
Islamic "radicalisation," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's
Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones?" proverb is out, particularly
the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say
words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train." As an EU official explained
non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that
could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of
radicalisation."
As they say Over There, What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe
that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical
blood-lust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic
terrorism," not the other way around. Only not in EU-land. "These words
[Islamic terrorism] cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister
and "advisor"tothe British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just
creates a culture where terrorism actually is identifiedwith Islam," he
continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."
And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and
frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's
where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
Take Flight 93: TheSeptember 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24
times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as
"stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic
terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not
to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, but they
hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe
that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their
behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick
with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane
for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They
go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts.
The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently
reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The
sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms
specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits, or,
specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said,
"Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims
who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western
countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for
this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a
bomb against the West."
The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations,
but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down
the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was
primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather
than recruit bombers." Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these
days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an
apology of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense"-- condemning
this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an
appointment with the United Nations Disarmament Conference -- as
co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two al Qaeda fathers
discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so
fast.
Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a
senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It
actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage
-- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe,"
said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented
a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of
Britain "welcomed the apology" (naturally).
I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the
Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just
wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place. That'll quiet everything.
===========================================================
Bob Cooper
2006-04-24 23:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in cement
goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie and the Bushheads in
invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of Muslims about to break upon us. Who
knows what would have happened otherwise. ;-)
LOL. Certainly, not you, though I encourage you to speculate. We could use
a good laugh.
Keep that gat handy.
I always pack a roscoe, pal :>)
"What the Americans do well is cinema: one is always astonished and
attracted by that somewhat animal healthiness, by those brutish characters,
with no sensitivity. I don't say that one should destroy America and the
Americans: they play their role. That of muscle without intelligence."
- Andrei Makine
LOL. Just like you to quote a frog, Wabbit. And, not even a real frog, but
a Russian-born froggy wannabe. Bogie would slap him senseless and
push his face into his bowl of snails. And, he'd love it :>)

The French, by and large, love to hate the US, which does everything better
than they do. Except for brief periods every fifty years or so when we save
their butts from their conqueror du jour -- usually the Germans. On those
occasions, they are very glad to see our "muscle" arrive, and they shout
"vive l'Americaines" for a week or so.

I think you should move to Paris.

BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of "muscle
without intelligence."
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-24 23:22:06 UTC
Permalink
the French are the most useless pile of shit on earth. I say useless,
because not even flies will find a purpose in dwelling around those
camembert-eating sons of arrogant Pigalle whores. Look at the them
buried up to their women's hairy stinky armpits in islamic shit.
Another few years and instead of 300 burning french cities rampaged by
mnohammedan islamo-fascist stone worshippers, it will be the whole of
France. Then again, maybe they can pretend to "liberate" France again
after the US bails them out again like they did with their useless
troops in WWII
Gary Rumain
2006-04-25 22:19:21 UTC
Permalink
The cheese-eating surrender monkeys will give into the muzzies real
soon now! LOL!!
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
the French are the most useless pile of shit on earth. I say useless,
because not even flies will find a purpose in dwelling around those
camembert-eating sons of arrogant Pigalle whores. Look at the them
buried up to their women's hairy stinky armpits in islamic shit.
Another few years and instead of 300 burning french cities rampaged by
mnohammedan islamo-fascist stone worshippers, it will be the whole of
France. Then again, maybe they can pretend to "liberate" France again
after the US bails them out again like they did with their useless
troops in WWII
Warren Hopper
2006-04-25 14:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the
anti-infidel
Post by Bob Cooper
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in cement
goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie and the Bushheads in
invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of Muslims about to break upon us.
Who
Post by Bob Cooper
knows what would have happened otherwise. ;-)
LOL. Certainly, not you, though I encourage you to speculate. We could use
a good laugh.
"I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused ... ", at least as amused
as I can be by watching the enitre world unravel.
Post by Bob Cooper
Keep that gat handy.
I always pack a roscoe, pal :>)
Is that a salami in your pocket or just balony as usual ?
Post by Bob Cooper
"What the Americans do well is cinema: one is always astonished and
attracted by that somewhat animal healthiness, by those brutish characters,
with no sensitivity. I don't say that one should destroy America and the
Americans: they play their role. That of muscle without intelligence."
- Andrei Makine
LOL. Just like you to quote a frog, Wabbit. And, not even a real frog, but
a Russian-born froggy wannabe.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Post by Bob Cooper
Bogie would slap him senseless and
push his face into his bowl of snails. And, he'd love it :>)
Zut alor ! You GOP Gangstaz are so sans d'ame, so puissant ... or is it
piss ant ?
Post by Bob Cooper
The French, by and large, love to hate the US, which does everything better
than they do.
Ever had snails American-style ? They're best with sauerkraut and lots of
ketchup ...
Post by Bob Cooper
Except for brief periods every fifty years or so when we save
their butts from their conqueror du jour -- usually the Germans.
Or the Russians ...
Post by Bob Cooper
On those
occasions, they are very glad to see our "muscle" arrive, and they shout
"vive l'Americaines" for a week or so.
I think you should move to Paris.
Ah, but you pondre les imponderable ( like an egg ) ... I could get a
modeling job, live in a garret, finish up "Firewalls of the Mind - A Short
History of Neo-Republicanism in the Early Twentieth Century" and feel
overwhelming ennui watching pigeons defecate in the grass. That and all the
anti-American demonstrations I can get my langue around.

Is this [ France ] a great country or what !
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of "muscle
without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in fact,
as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.

On the other hand, they're mighty impressive to the American public and
that's the sense of enterprise, n'est pas.
Bob Cooper
2006-04-25 16:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in cement
goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie and the
Bushheads in invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of Muslims about to
break upon us. Who knows what would have happened otherwise. ;-)
LOL. Certainly, not you, though I encourage you to speculate. We could
use a good laugh.
"I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused ... ", at least as amused
as I can be by watching the enitre world unravel.
Wabbit, the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens sapiens
arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago. Yet, somehow, we still survive,
thanks to the GOP and the US Marines :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Keep that gat handy.
I always pack a roscoe, pal :>)
Is that a salami in your pocket or just balony as usual ?
============================
Vivian: So you do get up, I was beginning to think you worked in bed like
Marcel Proust.
Marlowe: Who's he?
Vivian: You wouldn't know him, a French writer.
Marlowe: Come into my boudoir.
============================
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
"What the Americans do well is cinema: one is always astonished and
attracted by that somewhat animal healthiness, by those brutish
characters, with no sensitivity. I don't say that one should destroy
America and the Americans: they play their role. That of muscle without
intelligence."
- Andrei Makine
LOL. Just like you to quote a frog, Wabbit. And, not even a real frog,
but a Russian-born froggy wannabe.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Post by Bob Cooper
Bogie would slap him senseless and
push his face into his bowl of snails. And, he'd love it :>)
Zut alor ! You GOP Gangstaz are so sans d'ame, so puissant ... or is it
piss ant ?
I believe "formidable" is the word you're searching for.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
The French, by and large, love to hate the US, which does everything
better than they do.
Ever had snails American-style ? They're best with sauerkraut and lots of
ketchup ...
Snails are quite disgusting enough without condiments, thank you.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Except for brief periods every fifty years or so when we save
their butts from their conqueror du jour -- usually the Germans.
Or the Russians ...
Or, the Muslims...
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
On those occasions, they are very glad to see our "muscle" arrive, and
they shout "vive l'Americaines" for a week or so.
I think you should move to Paris.
Ah, but you pondre les imponderable ( like an egg ) ... I could get a
modeling job, live in a garret, finish up "Firewalls of the Mind - A Short
History of Neo-Republicanism in the Early Twentieth Century"
No, you can ghost-write "Mental Diarrhea: A Short History of Moonbat
Liberalism in the Twenty-First Century" for me. I'll split the profits
with you fifty-fifty.
Post by Warren Hopper
and feel overwhelming ennui watching pigeons defecate in the grass.
Ah, I see. You're going to "go native" and become a *real* Frenchman :>)

I hope they don't burn your car.
Post by Warren Hopper
That and all the anti-American demonstrations I can get my langue around.
Is this [ France ] a great country or what !
LOL. Yeah, right.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of "muscle
without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in fact,
as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.
Your judgment may be premature. The war's not over yet.
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, they're mighty impressive to the American public and
that's the sense of enterprise, n'est pas.
If we ever need to use them, I assure you they will be very impressive to the
rest of the world, as well.
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-25 22:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Homo Sapiens has been around for 156,000 years

;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens sapiens
arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago. Yet, somehow, we still survive,
thanks to the GOP and the US Marines :>)
Warren Hopper
2006-04-25 23:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in cement
goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie and the
Bushheads in invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of Muslims about to
break upon us. Who knows what would have happened otherwise. ;-)
LOL. Certainly, not you, though I encourage you to speculate. We could
use a good laugh.
"I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused ... ", at least as amused
as I can be by watching the enitre world unravel.
Wabbit, the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens sapiens
arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago. Yet, somehow, we still survive,
thanks to the GOP and the US Marines :>)
You must think things are going real good in Iraq these days, they even
reported it on Fox News. And Republican spin managers hear from their
opinion marketing groups that victory is breaking out all over, or at least
the word 'victory' is breaking out all over Bush's speeches. So who says
there's no substitute.

But I think you've misrecognized the ultimate source of the strategic threat
to America.

"Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, and neither do we".

- President George W. Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html


Bush isn't joking, he's proved it a dozen times over. Can America survive
George Bush ?

Of course, people in the 1930's didn't believe that Hitler meant exactly
what he said either.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Keep that gat handy.
I always pack a roscoe, pal :>)
Is that a salami in your pocket or just balony as usual ?
============================
Vivian: So you do get up, I was beginning to think you worked in bed like
Marcel Proust.
Marlowe: Who's he?
Vivian: You wouldn't know him, a French writer.
Marlowe: Come into my boudoir.
============================
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
"What the Americans do well is cinema: one is always astonished and
attracted by that somewhat animal healthiness, by those brutish
characters, with no sensitivity. I don't say that one should destroy
America and the Americans: they play their role. That of muscle without
intelligence."
- Andrei Makine
LOL. Just like you to quote a frog, Wabbit. And, not even a real frog,
but a Russian-born froggy wannabe.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Post by Bob Cooper
Bogie would slap him senseless and
push his face into his bowl of snails. And, he'd love it :>)
Zut alor ! You GOP Gangstaz are so sans d'ame, so puissant ... or is it
piss ant ?
I believe "formidable" is the word you're searching for.
No, actually the word is 'fornicable'.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
The French, by and large, love to hate the US, which does everything
better than they do.
Ever had snails American-style ? They're best with sauerkraut and lots of
ketchup ...
Snails are quite disgusting enough without condiments, thank you.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Except for brief periods every fifty years or so when we save
their butts from their conqueror du jour -- usually the Germans.
Or the Russians ...
Or, the Muslims...
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
On those occasions, they are very glad to see our "muscle" arrive, and
they shout "vive l'Americaines" for a week or so.
I think you should move to Paris.
Ah, but you pondre les imponderable ( like an egg ) ... I could get a
modeling job, live in a garret, finish up "Firewalls of the Mind - A Short
History of Neo-Republicanism in the Early Twentieth Century"
No, you can ghost-write "Mental Diarrhea: A Short History of Moonbat
Liberalism in the Twenty-First Century" for me. I'll split the profits
with you fifty-fifty.
Post by Warren Hopper
and feel overwhelming ennui watching pigeons defecate in the grass.
Ah, I see. You're going to "go native" and become a *real* Frenchman :>)
I hope they don't burn your car.
Post by Warren Hopper
That and all the anti-American demonstrations I can get my langue around.
Is this [ France ] a great country or what !
LOL. Yeah, right.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of "muscle
without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in fact,
as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.
Your judgment may be premature. The war's not over yet.
No, by no means is it over, in fact, it's probably earlier than *you* think.
What are we looking at here as a result of Georgie's enlightened leadership
? Maybe fifty or a hundred years of war against a billion Muslims and two
dozen Islamic countries ? Something like that.

I'm sure you don't see it that way, but if you looked at all the parts of
this thing as a whole - politics, race, religion, the stresses of
globalization, massive federal debt, increasing scarcity of oil and energy,
Israel, biological and nuclear weapons, global pandemics, coastal flooding
and massive draughts straining already limited natural resources - it ain't
good, bubba.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, they're mighty impressive to the American public and
that's the sense of enterprise, n'est pas.
If we ever need to use them, I assure you they will be very impressive to the
rest of the world, as well.
Maybe the DOD geniuses can find a way to mount all those $100 billion
Trident subs on tank treads for the desert ... that should impress the heck
out of insurgents to no end.
Bob Cooper
2006-04-26 02:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the
anti-infidel destination because the jihadist itinerary comes
straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
Gee, Rocky, I guess the Liberals are going for The Big Sleep in
cement goulashes again. Thank god for the wisdom of Georgie
and the Bushheads in invading Iraq to stem the tidal wave of
Muslims about to break upon us. Who knows what would have
happened otherwise. ;-)
LOL. Certainly, not you, though I encourage you to speculate. We
could use a good laugh.
"I used to be disgusted but now I try to be amused ... ", at least as
amused as I can be by watching the enitre world unravel.
Wabbit, the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens sapiens
arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago. Yet, somehow, we still
survive, thanks to the GOP and the US Marines :>)
You must think things are going real good in Iraq these days, they even
reported it on Fox News. And Republican spin managers hear from their
opinion marketing groups that victory is breaking out all over, or at least
the word 'victory' is breaking out all over Bush's speeches. So who says
there's no substitute.
But I think you've misrecognized the ultimate source of the strategic threat
to America.
"Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, and neither do we".
- President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html
Bush isn't joking, he's proved it a dozen times over. Can America survive
George Bush ?
Sure. We survived the Georgia peanut man, so I reckon we can survive
anything :>)

I envy you and the rest of the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd,
in a way. Life must be so simple when all stupidity, venality, incompetence
-- in short, absolute evil -- is embodied and personified in one man. It
eliminates the need to really think about problems and solutions, doesn't
it? There is, after all only one problem: Bush. And, one solution: get rid
of him, and all will be right with the world. Muslim terrorists will suddenly
see the light and stop cutting the throats of flight attendants, incinerating
thousands in skyscrapers, killing little children at school, blowing up subways
and pizza parlors, and lopping off heads on videotape for the ummah's
viewing enjoyment. Because, Bush is, of course, the reason they're doing
all those nasty things. And, never mind the inconvenient fact that they started
doing them long before he became President.

Get rid of Bush, and Islam will truly become the religion of peace. Never mind
the "kill them where you find them" stuff, the bits about not befriending
infidels, jihad, sharia, taqiyya and the worldwide Khalifate. Never mind the fact
that it's not just the crazed jihadists, but the *majority* of Muslims, who -- as Ms.
West says in the column I posted -- "go along for the ride, happy with or
resigned to the anti-infidel destination because the jihadist itinerary comes
straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."

Yes, what a wonderful world it will be when Bush is gone, right?
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, people in the 1930's didn't believe that Hitler meant exactly
what he said either.
A few did, but not many. As early as 1925, in Mein Kampf, he made it quite
clear he planned to annihilate the Jews. Most people, loathe to accept
the idea one of their fellow human beings might actually be capable of
evil on such a monstrous scale, found it incredible. But, of course, it was
true.

Ahmadinejad has been saying similar things in recent months. Do you
believe him?

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of
"muscle without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in
fact, as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.
Your judgment may be premature. The war's not over yet.
No, by no means is it over, in fact, it's probably earlier than *you* think.
What are we looking at here as a result of Georgie's enlightened
leadership? Maybe fifty or a hundred years of war against a billion
Muslims and two dozen Islamic countries ? Something like that.
What would you prefer, Wabbit? Surrender? You really should move to
France :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
I'm sure you don't see it that way, but if you looked at all the parts of
this thing as a whole - politics, race, religion, the stresses of
globalization, massive federal debt, increasing scarcity of oil and energy,
Israel, biological and nuclear weapons, global pandemics, coastal flooding
and massive draughts straining already limited natural resources - it ain't
good, bubba.
And, it's all Bush's fault. Amazing!
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, they're mighty impressive to the American public and
that's the sense of enterprise, n'est pas.
If we ever need to use them, I assure you they will be very impressive to
the rest of the world, as well.
Maybe the DOD geniuses can find a way to mount all those $100 billion
Trident subs on tank treads for the desert ... that should impress the heck
out of insurgents to no end.
I'm thinking they already impress the heck out of Ahmadinejad. Unless he's
dumber than I think. Just *one* of them could pretty much remove his country
from the map without even working up a sweat :>)
Warren Hopper
2006-04-26 17:23:56 UTC
Permalink
[ Disconbobulating snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But I think you've misrecognized the ultimate source of the strategic threat
to America.
"Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and
our people, and neither do we".
- President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html
Bush isn't joking, he's proved it a dozen times over. Can America survive
George Bush ?
Sure. We survived the Georgia peanut man, so I reckon we can survive
anything :>)
I envy you and the rest of the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd,
in a way. Life must be so simple when all stupidity, venality, incompetence
-- in short, absolute evil -- is embodied and personified in one man.
As zee French maid sez, " non non, monsieur, non non".

All the stupidity, venality, incompetence is embodied in conservative
ideology. Truth is, political conservatism is not even an ideology or even
a product of any coherent thought process.

Conservatism is a personal attitude toward people and the world which seeks
to detach itself from the responsibilities and ugly details of adulthood.
It's a way for insecure child with us to feel strong and powerful in a world
of confusing contradictions. Naturally, it is people who feel weak and
powerless ( probably with good reason ) who are most attracted to extreme
conservative attitudes.

The conservative mind set seeks to escape rather than engage. Your comment
that "the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens sapiens
arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago" is very typical of conservatives.
It's saying "life sucks and then you die, so what can you do" and that type
of disengagement is really the essence of the conservative mind set.

It used to be utterly mysterious to me how an otherwise intelligent person
can hold extreme conservative political opinions, at least until I realized
that it's not about society or good government or any of that. It's about
power, especially the ultimate power of life and death over other people.
It's the ultimate expression of how a conservative perceives of his own
personal power and dominance over a confusing and hostile world. It is also
an expression of the fears and anxieties that lead them to conservatism.

I may open an Institute for Deprogramming Mental Conservatives, to help
die-hard Bushheads free themselves from the ideological slavery they've
allowed themselves to slide into. Of course, as the fundamental error of
conservatism becomes more apparent ( and with GW as President it couldn't be
more apparent ), they will at first react by becoming even more hardened in
their attitudes. They'll back up and bang their head against the wall even
harder. Much of the content of this newsgroup demonstrates a strategy of
flight from the world when conservatives are faced with reality.

From that point, the 'trajectory' of their psychological decline will
probably follow a classical pattern of Denial, Anger, Negotiation,
Depression, Acceptance ( DANDA ). At some point, one hopes they will come
to the realization that life in the real world is not simple or easy. They
will come to understand that "nuke'm" is not viable option in the real
world.

Some patients will never recover from their conservatism obsessions, they
continue to listen to conservative talk radio and consider themselves to be
"well-informed", while in fact they are "well-deformed" in their thought
processes, as an even cursory glance at an independent newspaper will tell
them. But the lucky ones will cease being super-powerful Children of the
Right and become mundane, boring adults who seek to solve real-world
problems by slowly and laboriously communicating and working with other
people rather than retreating into a fantasy world of ideological
omnipotence where pulling a trigger is the cure-all for every problem.

You might not consider members of youth gangs to be conservatives, but they
are. Did anyone ever call the Mafia "liberal" ?

However, you may not qualify for the Institute. You do seem to have some
grasp on reality, however tenuous it may be at the moment. You may be what
is called an "Old Time Conservative", which is quite similar to the mental
deranged type of conservative previously described, except for the
relatively rational belief that "I'm paying too much taxes" and all the
dependent beliefs necessary to support that central tenet ( such as Social
Security is welfare, blacks have the same economic opportunities as whites,
etc ).

Note: the dependent beliefs are actually 'anti-beliefs' with no basis in
fact or purpose other to support the central tenet and are therefore
absolutely unassailable. But let's not get pedantic about it.

So you may be an Old Time Conservative rather than a creature of the Rabid
Right, though it's hard to tell at times. The Old Timers are usually easy
to identify. They are not so much crazy as just plain cheap. As I've said
many times, a ( O.T.) conservative is some one who prefers the remote
possibility of dying for the country to the certainty of pay for it.

Freedom may not be free in America, but it's getting mighty cheap with
Georgie and the Bushheads in the saddle ( so long as the Chinese keep
footing the bill ).
Post by Bob Cooper
It
eliminates the need to really think about problems and solutions, doesn't
it? There is, after all only one problem: Bush. And, one solution: get rid
of him, and all will be right with the world. Muslim terrorists will suddenly
see the light and stop cutting the throats of flight attendants, incinerating
thousands in skyscrapers, killing little children at school, blowing up subways
and pizza parlors, and lopping off heads on videotape for the ummah's
viewing enjoyment. Because, Bush is, of course, the reason they're doing
all those nasty things. And, never mind the inconvenient fact that they started
doing them long before he became President.
Get rid of Bush, and Islam will truly become the religion of peace. Never mind
the "kill them where you find them" stuff, the bits about not befriending
infidels, jihad, sharia, taqiyya and the worldwide Khalifate. Never mind the fact
that it's not just the crazed jihadists, but the *majority* of Muslims, who -- as Ms.
West says in the column I posted -- "go along for the ride, happy with or
resigned to the anti-infidel destination because the jihadist itinerary comes
straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
Yes, what a wonderful world it will be when Bush is gone, right?
I would add to the dissertation on conservatism above that very few American
conservatives have ever noted that the Islamists are Islamic
*conservatives*, first last and always.

Like American conservatives, the Islamists severely limit their exposure to
any sources of information which might cause any 'cognitive dissonance' with
their beliefs. They are isolated, self-indoctrinated fanatics far more
comfortable with guns and conflict than the slow, laborious process of
working toward at an understanding of what actually is and what can be done
about it. If they ever arrive at an understanding of what is then they will
also understand what *they* are and the evil of what they are doing, and
that can not be allowed.

I have learned far more about the terrorist mentality from right-winger
Americans in this newsgroup than from the supposed radical Muslims who have
been driven away from it. They are very much the same personalities with
the same mind set.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, people in the 1930's didn't believe that Hitler meant exactly
what he said either.
A few did, but not many. As early as 1925, in Mein Kampf, he made it quite
clear he planned to annihilate the Jews. Most people, loathe to accept
the idea one of their fellow human beings might actually be capable of
evil on such a monstrous scale, found it incredible. But, of course, it was
true.
Ahmadinejad has been saying similar things in recent months. Do you
believe him?
Oh yes. I'm not sure if I remember correctly ( the ravages of old age ),
but we may have had a conversation about it three years ago. Or was it with
Count1 ? In any case, here we are in 2006, embroiled in Iraq with no
possibility of responding strongly to the situation in Iran. Just what this
much maligned Saddam-loving liberal traitor to his country ( not Israel )
said was going to happen way back in 2003. Damn those liberal traitors.

On the other hand, the most recent noises how been about a nuke-free Middle
East, in other words a nuke-free Israel. So who knows what going to happen
next.

It ain't good, dat's fo' sho'.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of
"muscle without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in
fact, as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.
Your judgment may be premature. The war's not over yet.
No, by no means is it over, in fact, it's probably earlier than *you* think.
What are we looking at here as a result of Georgie's enlightened
leadership? Maybe fifty or a hundred years of war against a billion
Muslims and two dozen Islamic countries ? Something like that.
What would you prefer, Wabbit? Surrender? You really should move to
France :>)
Then I could be like a Real Parisian and defecate on the grass with the
pigeons.

At then end of this thing, in fifty years when enough people have died,
somebody is going to be surrendering something. The question is who
surrenders what and how much.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I'm sure you don't see it that way, but if you looked at all the parts of
this thing as a whole - politics, race, religion, the stresses of
globalization, massive federal debt, increasing scarcity of oil and energy,
Israel, biological and nuclear weapons, global pandemics, coastal flooding
and massive draughts straining already limited natural resources - it ain't
good, bubba.
And, it's all Bush's fault. Amazing!
These things would have come to head a some point, but not so soon and not
all at once. That's the worst of it, it's all happening at the same time.
The Bushheads talked about a long war of attrition and then bet everything
on one roll of the dice in Iraq, impressing the heck out of the American
people and sending his approval numbers into the stratosphere for being such
a 'strong leader', but not at all clever in the long run.

Georgie and his Bushheads are largely responsible for that bad timing that's
about to hit us. It is very likely that the federal government will go
bankrupt in the next few years, quite possibly before the 2008 election. Go
head, try to blame that on Clinton. This is by far the worst situation
facing America since the Civil War.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, they're mighty impressive to the American public and
that's the sense of enterprise, n'est pas.
If we ever need to use them, I assure you they will be very impressive to
the rest of the world, as well.
Maybe the DOD geniuses can find a way to mount all those $100 billion
Trident subs on tank treads for the desert ... that should impress the heck
out of insurgents to no end.
I'm thinking they already impress the heck out of Ahmadinejad. Unless he's
dumber than I think. Just *one* of them could pretty much remove his country
from the map without even working up a sweat :>)
Bob Cooper
2006-04-28 14:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
[ Disconbobulating snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But I think you've misrecognized the ultimate source of the strategic
threat to America.
"Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we".
- President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html
Bush isn't joking, he's proved it a dozen times over. Can America
survive George Bush ?
Sure. We survived the Georgia peanut man, so I reckon we can survive
anything :>)
I envy you and the rest of the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd,
in a way. Life must be so simple when all stupidity, venality,
incompetence -- in short, absolute evil -- is embodied and personified in
one man.
As zee French maid sez, " non non, monsieur, non non".
All the stupidity, venality, incompetence is embodied in conservative
ideology. Truth is, political conservatism is not even an ideology or even
a product of any coherent thought process.
Conservatism is a personal attitude toward people and the world which seeks
to detach itself from the responsibilities and ugly details of adulthood.
It's a way for insecure child with us to feel strong and powerful in a world
of confusing contradictions. Naturally, it is people who feel weak and
powerless ( probably with good reason ) who are most attracted to extreme
conservative attitudes.
No offense intended, floppy-ears, but that sounds like psychobabble to
me. I would suggest rather that conservatism is a practical, common-sense
political world-view grounded in an accurate assessment of human
nature, and supportive of the necessity for both individual liberty and
individual responsibility in a free society. Or something like that :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
The conservative mind set seeks to escape rather than engage. Your
comment that "the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens
sapiens arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago" is very typical of
conservatives. It's saying "life sucks and then you die, so what can you
do" and that type of disengagement is really the essence of the
conservative mind set.
That's rather amusing, considering the context of my facetious remark.
I was replying to your comment that, "'I used to be disgusted but now I try
to be amused ... ', at least as amused as I can be by watching the enitre
world unravel." Sounds a lot like, "life sucks and then you die" to me.
You know, the "essence of the conservative mind set."

As a matter of fact, if there's any recurring theme I've noticed in almost
all your posts, it is repeated and emphatic prophecies of gloom and doom.
Are you a closet conservative?
Post by Warren Hopper
It used to be utterly mysterious to me how an otherwise intelligent person
can hold extreme conservative political opinions,
There may be a backhanded compliment there, most likely unintended :>)
If so, thanks, and allow me to reciprocate:

It used to be utterly mysterious to me how an otherwise intelligent person
can hold extreme *liberal* political opinions.

It still is.
Post by Warren Hopper
at least until I realized
that it's not about society or good government or any of that. It's about
power, especially the ultimate power of life and death over other people.
It's the ultimate expression of how a conservative perceives of his own
personal power and dominance over a confusing and hostile world. It is also
an expression of the fears and anxieties that lead them to conservatism.
Again, no offense intended, but that sounds like more psychobabble. I blame
it on difficulties in toilet-training. But, remember what Freud said.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
I may open an Institute for Deprogramming Mental Conservatives, to help
die-hard Bushheads free themselves from the ideological slavery they've
allowed themselves to slide into.
LOL. Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!

That is, of course, reminiscent of the Soviets, who used to declare dissidents
crazy and throw them into "mental hospitals". The Wabbit Archipelago!

Tell me, will this be for all 62,040,606 Americans who voted for Bush,
or only for "die-hards" like me? If the former, better hire a large staff
and rent a lot of space :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, as the fundamental error of
conservatism becomes more apparent ( and with GW as President it
couldn't be more apparent ), they will at first react by becoming even more
hardened in their attitudes.
All 62,040,606 of them? The idiots!
Post by Warren Hopper
They'll back up and bang their head against the wall even harder. Much
of the content of this newsgroup demonstrates a strategy of flight from the
world when conservatives are faced with reality.
Really? How so? And, why is it that liberals go beserk when someone
wants to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of the county courthouse,
but tend to remain strangely silent about Islamic terrorism, oppression
of women, gays and non-muslims in general, censorship and aspirations
to world domination? I'm really curious about that.
Post by Warren Hopper
From that point, the 'trajectory' of their psychological decline will
probably follow a classical pattern of Denial, Anger, Negotiation,
Depression, Acceptance ( DANDA ). At some point, one hopes they will
come to the realization that life in the real world is not simple or easy.
They will come to understand that "nuke'm" is not viable option in the real
world.
Uh huh. And, have you persuaded Mr. Ahmadinijad on that point? It is
a horrible option to contemplate, and I hope it will never be used again.
But, as long as it is viable to Ahmadinejad and his friends, and those
like him, it will have to remain viable to us. Unless, of course, you prefer
surrender to a worldwide thugocracy.
Post by Warren Hopper
Some patients will never recover from their conservatism obsessions, they
continue to listen to conservative talk radio and consider themselves to be
"well-informed", while in fact they are "well-deformed" in their thought
processes, as an even cursory glance at an independent newspaper will tell
them. But the lucky ones will cease being super-powerful Children of the
Right and become mundane, boring adults who seek to solve real-world
problems by slowly and laboriously communicating and working with other
people rather than retreating into a fantasy world of ideological
omnipotence where pulling a trigger is the cure-all for every problem.
Not at all. Pulling the trigger should be a last resort to be used only when
all else fails. But, the hard fact is the world is a dangerous place, full of
those who would harm us and our families, take away our freedoms and
prosperity, and force us to live by their rules. (And, I'm not just talking
about you liberals :>) ) The sad fact, as conservatives realize, is that if
you take the trigger option off the table, they win. Immediately and
unconditionally. Is that what you want?
Post by Warren Hopper
You might not consider members of youth gangs to be conservatives, but
they are. Did anyone ever call the Mafia "liberal" ?
I believe the Mafia tends to be rather pragmatic and non-partisan. When
purchasing politicians, price is a much bigger consideration for them than
ideology. Why buy a conservative if the liberal's cheaper :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
However, you may not qualify for the Institute. You do seem to have some
grasp on reality, however tenuous it may be at the moment.
LOL. Thanks! You, too!
Post by Warren Hopper
You may be what
is called an "Old Time Conservative", which is quite similar to the mental
deranged type of conservative previously described, except for the
relatively rational belief that "I'm paying too much taxes" and all the
dependent beliefs necessary to support that central tenet ( such as Social
Security is welfare, blacks have the same economic opportunities as whites,
etc ).
There is still economic discrimination against blacks based on race, but the
situation is light-years better than it used to be. And, actually, in some
ways blacks in the US have *more* economic opportunities than whites,
thanks to that peculiar form of racial discrimination we laughably refer
to as "Affirmative Action".

By the way, did you know that, percentage-wise, more Republicans in
Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats?
Interesting, huh?

And, no, I don't view Social Security as welfare, at least not as it was
originally envisioned. It was established as a form of social insurance for
the elderly and disabled to be paid for by employee contributions. I have
no problem with that. Unfortunately, due to changing demographics and
poor management, it has increasingly degenerated into a rather
wobbly pyramid scheme doomed to failure unless it is reformed. But,
that is not a partisan issue. Sadly, neither conservatives nor liberals in
Congress can seem to muster the backbone to deal with the problem.
At least President Bush has proposed partial privatization as a
solution. The "liberals" alternative solution seems to be "close your
eyes, and the problem will go away."

But, aren't we straying rather far afield from Ms. West's column, which,
as you'll recall, was the topic of my original post?
Post by Warren Hopper
Note: the dependent beliefs are actually 'anti-beliefs' with no basis in
fact or purpose other to support the central tenet and are therefore
absolutely unassailable. But let's not get pedantic about it.
So you may be an Old Time Conservative rather than a creature of the Rabid
Right, though it's hard to tell at times. The Old Timers are usually easy
to identify. They are not so much crazy as just plain cheap. As I've said
many times, a ( O.T.) conservative is some one who prefers the remote
possibility of dying for the country to the certainty of pay for it.
Freedom may not be free in America, but it's getting mighty cheap with
Georgie and the Bushheads in the saddle ( so long as the Chinese keep
footing the bill ).
Sorry, I don't follow much of the last three paragraphs. But, if you're
criticizing Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, I'm with you 100%.
He should be using that veto.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
It eliminates the need to really think about problems and solutions, doesn't
it? There is, after all only one problem: Bush. And, one solution: get
rid of him, and all will be right with the world. Muslim terrorists will
suddenly see the light and stop cutting the throats of flight attendants,
incinerating thousands in skyscrapers, killing little children at school,
blowing up subways and pizza parlors, and lopping off heads on
videotape for the ummah's viewing enjoyment. Because, Bush is, of
course, the reason they're doing all those nasty things. And, never mind
the inconvenient fact that they started doing them long before he became
President.
Get rid of Bush, and Islam will truly become the religion of peace. Never
mind the "kill them where you find them" stuff, the bits about not
befriending infidels, jihad, sharia, taqiyya and the worldwide Khalifate.
Never mind the fact that it's not just the crazed jihadists, but the
*majority* of Muslims, who -- as Ms. West says in the column I posted
-- "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the
Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
Yes, what a wonderful world it will be when Bush is gone, right?
I would add to the dissertation on conservatism above that very few American
conservatives have ever noted that the Islamists are Islamic *conservatives*,
first last and always.
Islamists? As opposed to "moderate Muslims", who are, presumably,
liberals? Yeah, right.
Post by Warren Hopper
Like American conservatives, the Islamists severely limit their exposure to
any sources of information which might cause any 'cognitive dissonance' with
their beliefs. They are isolated, self-indoctrinated fanatics far more
comfortable with guns and conflict than the slow, laborious process of
working toward at an understanding of what actually is and what can be done
about it. If they ever arrive at an understanding of what is then they will
also understand what *they* are and the evil of what they are doing, and
that can not be allowed.
Islamists? Islamic conservatives? When Ms. West speaks of Muslims
who "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts," she is not talking about "Islamists" or
"Islamic conservatives". She is talking about ordinary, rank-and-file
Muslims, and the Koran and Hadiths they follow. The same "signal
Islamic texts" the "Islamists" follow.
Post by Warren Hopper
I have learned far more about the terrorist mentality from right-winger
Americans in this newsgroup than from the supposed radical Muslims
who have been driven away from it. They are very much the same
personalities with the same mind set.
That's a pretty big generality, Mopsy. But, fair enough. Your view is
noted.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, people in the 1930's didn't believe that Hitler meant exactly
what he said either.
A few did, but not many. As early as 1925, in Mein Kampf, he made
it quite clear he planned to annihilate the Jews. Most people, loathe
to accept the idea one of their fellow human beings might actually be
capable of evil on such a monstrous scale, found it incredible. But,
of course, it was true.
Ahmadinejad has been saying similar things in recent months. Do you
believe him?
Oh yes. I'm not sure if I remember correctly ( the ravages of old age ),
but we may have had a conversation about it three years ago. Or was it with
Count1 ?
I don't recall it, but the ravages of old age apply equally to me.
Post by Warren Hopper
In any case, here we are in 2006, embroiled in Iraq with no possibility of
responding strongly to the situation in Iran.
That remains to be seen. You see, as with all threats to your survival,
eventually a point is reached at which the question is no longer, "can I
respond to this threat?" It becomes, instead, "can i afford *not* to
respond to this threat?"
Post by Warren Hopper
Just what this
much maligned Saddam-loving liberal traitor to his country ( not Israel )
said was going to happen way back in 2003. Damn those liberal traitors.
So, the situation would be much better if, in addition to dealing with Iran,
we were faced with dealing with Saddam Hussein, as well? And, in the
event we must act militarily against Iran, having large bases next door
will work to our disadvantage?

BTW, while I disagree with you, I don't think you're a traitor. Actually,
you seem bright enough, and on rare occasions, I see a glimmer of hope
for you :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, the most recent noises how been about a nuke-free Middle
East, in other words a nuke-free Israel. So who knows what going to happen
next.
It ain't good, dat's fo' sho'.
More pessimism? Isn't that the "essence of the conservative mind set." I
thought you libs were supposed to be optimists :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines are hardly the product of
"muscle without intelligence."
Those things are damned useless in an anti-terrorist war and are, in
fact, as perfect an example of toys for boys as I could think of.
Your judgment may be premature. The war's not over yet.
No, by no means is it over, in fact, it's probably earlier than *you*
think. What are we looking at here as a result of Georgie's enlightened
leadership? Maybe fifty or a hundred years of war against a billion
Muslims and two dozen Islamic countries ? Something like that.
What would you prefer, Wabbit? Surrender? You really should move to
France :>)
Then I could be like a Real Parisian and defecate on the grass with the
pigeons.
At then end of this thing, in fifty years when enough people have died,
somebody is going to be surrendering something. The question is who
surrenders what and how much.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I'm sure you don't see it that way, but if you looked at all the parts
of this thing as a whole - politics, race, religion, the stresses of
globalization, massive federal debt, increasing scarcity of oil and
energy, Israel, biological and nuclear weapons, global pandemics,
coastal flooding and massive draughts straining already limited
natural resources - it ain't good, bubba.
And, it's all Bush's fault. Amazing!
These things would have come to head a some point, but not so soon and not
all at once. That's the worst of it, it's all happening at the same time.
The Bushheads talked about a long war of attrition and then bet everything
on one roll of the dice in Iraq, impressing the heck out of the American
people and sending his approval numbers into the stratosphere for being such
a 'strong leader', but not at all clever in the long run.
Georgie and his Bushheads are largely responsible for that bad timing that's
about to hit us. It is very likely that the federal government will go
bankrupt in the next few years, quite possibly before the 2008 election. Go
head, try to blame that on Clinton. This is by far the worst situation
facing America since the Civil War.
Tsk, tsk. There you go again. "Life sucks and then you die." The "essence
of the conservative mind set." Think of all the things you've left out.
California
earthquakes, more hurricane Katrinas, bird flu pandemics, mad cow disease,
credit crunches. Some of those might be tricky to pin on Bush, but I'm sure
you'll find a way.

But, hang on, Wabbit. Only 2 1/2 years to go till Hilary straightens everything
out :>)

BTW, did you notice the stock market hit yet another 5-year high yesterday?

<snip>
Warren Hopper
2006-04-28 18:34:58 UTC
Permalink
I'm so relieved to see your reply. I thought that I might have made you too
upset to respond. Us tree huggers can't stand the idea of trampling on
other people's sensitivities. :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
[ Disconbobulating snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But I think you've misrecognized the ultimate source of the strategic
threat to America.
"Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we".
- President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040805-3.html
Bush isn't joking, he's proved it a dozen times over. Can America
survive George Bush ?
Sure. We survived the Georgia peanut man, so I reckon we can survive
anything :>)
I envy you and the rest of the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) crowd,
in a way. Life must be so simple when all stupidity, venality,
incompetence -- in short, absolute evil -- is embodied and personified in
one man.
As zee French maid sez, " non non, monsieur, non non".
All the stupidity, venality, incompetence is embodied in conservative
ideology. Truth is, political conservatism is not even an ideology or even
a product of any coherent thought process.
Conservatism is a personal attitude toward people and the world which seeks
to detach itself from the responsibilities and ugly details of adulthood.
It's a way for insecure child with us to feel strong and powerful in a world
of confusing contradictions. Naturally, it is people who feel weak and
powerless ( probably with good reason ) who are most attracted to extreme
conservative attitudes.
No offense intended, floppy-ears, but that sounds like psychobabble to
me. I would suggest rather that conservatism is a practical, common-sense
political world-view grounded in an accurate assessment of human
nature, and supportive of the necessity for both individual liberty and
individual responsibility in a free society. Or something like that :>)
So you think attack with nuclear weapons is a "practical, common-sense
political world-view" ?

And how is a massive covert domestic spying and dirty tricks operation
"supportive of the necessity for ... individual liberty" ?

Tell me how the conservative attack on a woman's right to choose ( you know
what ) supports "individual responsibility in a free society", granting that
you yourself probably take the liberal world-view on this particular issue.

And, above all, how are childishly simplistic and disastrous policies of the
Bushheads an indiction of common-sense ?

The above are mostly rhetorical questions, but take a look at the messages
in this newsgroup from your fellow conservatives. How about the message
"THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM IS A DEAD MUSLIM!". Do you think that demonstrates an
"accurate assessment of human nature" ? Or do you deny that this
character is a "real" conservative ? What about the 'sand nigger' set ? Do
you deny that they are conservatives ?

I'll confess that I have a hidden agenda here. I'm just waiting for you and
former-Bushheads to say that George Bush wasn't a "real" conservative. In
fact, I've been waiting for it for several years. There's nothing else for
you to say, so it's just a matter of time before the right wingers start
howling denials that Georgie and the Boys were "real" conservatives. I've
got a whole new shtick for that one, I'm dung in and ready, with plenty of
ammo.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
The conservative mind set seeks to escape rather than engage. Your
comment that "the entire world has been unraveling since homo sapiens
sapiens arrived on the scene 30,000 odd years ago" is very typical of
conservatives. It's saying "life sucks and then you die, so what can you
do" and that type of disengagement is really the essence of the
conservative mind set.
That's rather amusing, considering the context of my facetious remark.
I was replying to your comment that, "'I used to be disgusted but now I try
to be amused ... ', at least as amused as I can be by watching the enitre
world unravel." Sounds a lot like, "life sucks and then you die" to me.
You know, the "essence of the conservative mind set."
It was just juvenile irony on my part, no one got nuked or even tortured by
it, unless you want me to sing it for you. :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
As a matter of fact, if there's any recurring theme I've noticed in almost
all your posts, it is repeated and emphatic prophecies of gloom and doom.
Are you a closet conservative?
What !!! Are you retreating from you firmly held and oft restated position
that I am a liberal ? Obviously, you can't start calling me a communist
since that's the same thing as a liberal in your vocabulary. Sounds like
you stuck without a label to attach to me. How about "radi-lib", that one
always gets a chuckle. I kind of like the idea of being a
monarcho-anarchist, but certainly I would not want to infringe on your right
to attach labels to me. ( See, I am liberal after all ).

As to the "emphatic prophecies of gloom and doom", you are spot on, no need
to backpedal on that one. Things have gone pretty much as I expected in
Iraq. The situation in Iran has proceeded according to expectations. When
the federal government goes belly up in the next few years, that will lock
America into a more or less inevitable cycle of action-reaction taking us
well into and beyond the year 2020. Talk about 20/20 fore-sight, haw haw.

Fact is, I often skip the news for weeks at a time these days. I've seen
too much, I don't want to know anymore. Except for an occasional flurry
like this, I keep myself incommunicado from the future. America's big and
I'm small, so I'm going to use my knowledge to care of myself and let
America do whatever it is that America's going to do.

Oh no, my conservative 'tude is showing again, curses, I can't escape my
fate after all.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
It used to be utterly mysterious to me how an otherwise intelligent person
can hold extreme conservative political opinions,
There may be a backhanded compliment there, most likely unintended :>)
What compliment ?
Post by Bob Cooper
It used to be utterly mysterious to me how an otherwise intelligent person
can hold extreme *liberal* political opinions.
It still is.
That's only to be expected. :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
at least until I realized
that it's not about society or good government or any of that. It's about
power, especially the ultimate power of life and death over other people.
It's the ultimate expression of how a conservative perceives of his own
personal power and dominance over a confusing and hostile world. It is also
an expression of the fears and anxieties that lead them to conservatism.
Again, no offense intended, but that sounds like more psychobabble. I blame
it on difficulties in toilet-training. But, remember what Freud said.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar :>)
You must have had a very protected childhood, apparently you never saw the
classic "Debbie Does Vienna". You wouldn't believe what that girl can do
with a cigar unless you've seen it. Wonder what Freud would have made of
that.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I may open an Institute for Deprogramming Mental Conservatives, to help
die-hard Bushheads free themselves from the ideological slavery they've
allowed themselves to slide into.
LOL. Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, I'm free at last!
Good to see that you're getting into the spirit of the thing ... it will
make the transition to sanity much easier.
Post by Bob Cooper
That is, of course, reminiscent of the Soviets, who used to declare dissidents
crazy and throw them into "mental hospitals". The Wabbit Archipelago!
So what's your point ?

A Russian who had escaped to the US and would definitely qualify as a
dissident once said that "Stalin was a great man. He made Russia modern".
Explain that one to me.
Post by Bob Cooper
Tell me, will this be for all 62,040,606 Americans who voted for Bush,
or only for "die-hards" like me? If the former, better hire a large staff
and rent a lot of space :>)
It's an enduring testament to the fundamental stupidity of the American
people that 30% or so or Americans *still* believe that Bush is doing a good
job. Maybe it's same phenomenon as the Stalinist refusnik mentioned above.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, as the fundamental error of
conservatism becomes more apparent ( and with GW as President it
couldn't be more apparent ), they will at first react by becoming even more
hardened in their attitudes.
All 62,040,606 of them? The idiots!
Useful idiots, at times, when they can be persuaded to pay some taxes to
support the country the profess to love so dearly. God, the things we do
for money.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
They'll back up and bang their head against the wall even harder. Much
of the content of this newsgroup demonstrates a strategy of flight from the
world when conservatives are faced with reality.
Really? How so? And, why is it that liberals go beserk when someone
wants to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of the county courthouse,
but tend to remain strangely silent about Islamic terrorism, oppression
of women, gays and non-muslims in general, censorship and aspirations
to world domination? I'm really curious about that.
If you think I'm willing to go to war over "oppression of women, gays and
non-muslims", you're quite mistaken.

I'm really curious about why you think that 'liberals' ( whoever they are )
remain silent about the atrocities committed by Islamic conservatives
against America and their own people. Do you think I've remained silent ?

I suspect that the answer lies in the lumping of large number of very
different people under a small set of labels. For instance, the label
"Muslims". You talk about "all 62,040,606 of them", but don't seem to
realize that for every blathering Bushhead in the world there are about 16
Muslims. That's *alodda* Muslims, and they don't all think the same thing.

So when you says that "they" have remined silent, it looks suspiciously like
you are taking the behavior of the few and projecting upon the many. From a
pragmatic standpoint, how many people in Chicago in the 1930s spoke out
against Al Capone ? Very few, because they'd get killed, as hundreds of
journalists have been killed by the Muslim conservatives throughout the
Middle East. Muslim conservatives in their own countries are brutal,
ruthless gangsters; only people with some degree of protection have the
luxury of speaking out against them.

But I'm still curious how you can think that I've remained silent. Do you
think there is some special merit or propagandistic benefit in saying the
same thing over and over again ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
From that point, the 'trajectory' of their psychological decline will
probably follow a classical pattern of Denial, Anger, Negotiation,
Depression, Acceptance ( DANDA ). At some point, one hopes they will
come to the realization that life in the real world is not simple or easy.
They will come to understand that "nuke'm" is not viable option in the real
world.
Uh huh. And, have you persuaded Mr. Ahmadinijad on that point? It is
a horrible option to contemplate, and I hope it will never be used again.
But, as long as it is viable to Ahmadinejad and his friends, and those
like him, it will have to remain viable to us. Unless, of course, you prefer
surrender to a worldwide thugocracy.
Well ... talking *real* now, something doesn't quite work about the whole
political drama unfolding in Iran. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons
to use against Israel, wouldn't it make sense to do it in secret ? They
don't seem to be doing that.

Another question, who's the audience for their polemics ? The Iranian
voter, America and Israel obviously. But I think there may be some play
toward the Shiites in Iraq. "We're strong, we stand up to America". The
traditional boundary of 'Greater Iran' has been the Euphrates and no
expansionist regime in Iran can refuse to acknowledge the historical
precedent.

Certainly, neither I nor any rational person in this world believes the crap
coming out of the America government about Iran. The whole US intelligence
community has exposed themselves for the false lying dogs that they are and
only the most severe and thorough house cleaning with restore their
credibility ( another job "for future Presidents" ). So, not to mince
words, American intelligence is full of crap.

But, having said that, they also have one stalwart ally to validate their
assessments about Iran, that is Ahmadinijad himself. So, what's going on ?
Is it a game to put pressure on Israel to de-nuke ? Fat chance of that.
But even the basic threat doesn't make much sense. Forgetting the certainty
of American retaliation for a moment, do people really think that Iran is
going to nuke the Dome of the Rock and guarantee a holy war with the Sunnis
for the next 100 years ?

The whole Iranian situation as advertised is very questionable. On the
other hand, any question about nuclear weapons is a very big question and if
it got down to going into Iran and killing a bunch of people based on a
'misunderstanding' about nuclear weapons, then that's the way its got to be.

Bush 'normalizing' the nuclear establishment in India didn't help the
situation one bit. Is anybody asking, what about Pakistan ? Not on Fox
News maybe, but it's being asked all the same.

So, it's a hell of a mess, not just a 'send in the Marines' mess, but a
genuine big nasty adult mess that most conservative kiddies aren't able to
get the brains around.

Sorry about the twists and turns, but that's the real world. And, in fact,
I've barely scratched the surface.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Some patients will never recover from their conservatism obsessions, they
continue to listen to conservative talk radio and consider themselves to be
"well-informed", while in fact they are "well-deformed" in their thought
processes, as an even cursory glance at an independent newspaper will tell
them. But the lucky ones will cease being super-powerful Children of the
Right and become mundane, boring adults who seek to solve real-world
problems by slowly and laboriously communicating and working with other
people rather than retreating into a fantasy world of ideological
omnipotence where pulling a trigger is the cure-all for every problem.
Not at all. Pulling the trigger should be a last resort to be used only when
all else fails. But, the hard fact is the world is a dangerous place, full of
those who would harm us and our families, take away our freedoms and
prosperity, and force us to live by their rules. (And, I'm not just talking
about you liberals :>) ) The sad fact, as conservatives realize, is that if
you take the trigger option off the table, they win. Immediately and
unconditionally. Is that what you want?
I'm hearten to see you've moved past Denial and Anger and into Negotiation.
Good work, there's hope for you yet.

But I still detect a hint of paranoia. There's no question about "those who
would harm us and our families", but how are they going to "take away our
freedoms and prosperity, and force us to live by their rules". Our
homegrown conservatives are doing such a good job of that, is there any
need to Islamic conservatives to do essentially the same thing to us ?

How would Muslim conservatives actually accomplish their objectives ? Will
we be seeing Muslim troops marching down 5th Avenue ? Or, do conservatives,
in their "practical, common-sense world-view", see Democrat 5th columnists
doing the job for them ?

Certain, I've heard conservatives say these sorts of things many times.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
You might not consider members of youth gangs to be conservatives, but
they are. Did anyone ever call the Mafia "liberal" ?
I believe the Mafia tends to be rather pragmatic and non-partisan. When
purchasing politicians, price is a much bigger consideration for them than
ideology. Why buy a conservative if the liberal's cheaper :>)
Indeed. The Republicrats do a pretty dance for us, but it's all a dance.

Notice how nothing is getting done about illegal border crossings and
immigration. Two very different bills in Congress, clearly irreconcilable,
the Senate version put together by the Democrats and warmly supported the
Republicans. Gee, you think there might be billions of corporate dollars
behind this ? Are they all doing the K Street Lambatta down there in D.C. ?
You betcha'.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
However, you may not qualify for the Institute. You do seem to have some
grasp on reality, however tenuous it may be at the moment.
LOL. Thanks! You, too!
Post by Warren Hopper
You may be what
is called an "Old Time Conservative", which is quite similar to the mental
deranged type of conservative previously described, except for the
relatively rational belief that "I'm paying too much taxes" and all the
dependent beliefs necessary to support that central tenet ( such as Social
Security is welfare, blacks have the same economic opportunities as whites,
etc ).
There is still economic discrimination against blacks based on race, but the
situation is light-years better than it used to be. And, actually, in some
ways blacks in the US have *more* economic opportunities than whites,
thanks to that peculiar form of racial discrimination we laughably refer
to as "Affirmative Action".
Q.E.D. Beliefs can be revised, but anti-beliefs are forever unalterable.
What people call religious beliefs are largely anti-beliefs.

I've heard Muslim conservatives scream "Allah is Great" as they chop off
some poor bastard's head, but how many times have you heard them cry "Allah
is Good". Never. It's an anti-belief.
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, did you know that, percentage-wise, more Republicans in
Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats?
Interesting, huh?
You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, you know that's against the
rules of the Institute.

You've already mentioned your gray hairs so you've got no excuse for
misunderstanding the situation in the 1960s. Don't pretend to me you've
never heard of the Dixicrats, because I'm only too familiar with the
evasions of recovering conservatives.
Post by Bob Cooper
And, no, I don't view Social Security as welfare, at least not as it was
originally envisioned. It was established as a form of social insurance for
the elderly and disabled to be paid for by employee contributions. I have
no problem with that. Unfortunately, due to changing demographics and
poor management, it has increasingly degenerated into a rather
wobbly pyramid scheme doomed to failure unless it is reformed. But,
that is not a partisan issue. Sadly, neither conservatives nor liberals in
Congress can seem to muster the backbone to deal with the problem.
At least President Bush has proposed partial privatization as a
solution. The "liberals" alternative solution seems to be "close your
eyes, and the problem will go away."
Somebody's closing their eyes if they believe the Democrats say nothing
about Soical Security and hope the problem will go away. Seem to me you're
saying what you are compelled to say or else have to admit that the
Republicans have bollocks it up.

You get a 10 for lawyerly argument but do I smell an anti-belief here ?
Post by Bob Cooper
But, aren't we straying rather far afield from Ms. West's column, which,
as you'll recall, was the topic of my original post?
Insha'allah", which is a feeble nod to the strictly religious purposes of
this newsgroup. Allah despiseth the spammer.

... and may He grant great fecundity to your former wives and camels. Hey,
at least you don't to pay alimony to the camels ... probably have better
personalities to boot. :-(
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Note: the dependent beliefs are actually 'anti-beliefs' with no basis in
fact or purpose other to support the central tenet and are therefore
absolutely unassailable. But let's not get pedantic about it.
So you may be an Old Time Conservative rather than a creature of the Rabid
Right, though it's hard to tell at times. The Old Timers are usually easy
to identify. They are not so much crazy as just plain cheap. As I've said
many times, a ( O.T.) conservative is some one who prefers the remote
possibility of dying for the country to the certainty of pay for it.
Freedom may not be free in America, but it's getting mighty cheap with
Georgie and the Bushheads in the saddle ( so long as the Chinese keep
footing the bill ).
Sorry, I don't follow much of the last three paragraphs. But, if you're
criticizing Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, I'm with you 100%.
He should be using that veto.
So why isn't he ? Oh, wait a second, I think I know, he's caving in to the
liberals, that's the reason. Yeah yeah that must be the reason. Couldn't
be any other reason come to think of it. ;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
It eliminates the need to really think about problems and solutions, doesn't
it? There is, after all only one problem: Bush. And, one solution: get
rid of him, and all will be right with the world. Muslim terrorists will
suddenly see the light and stop cutting the throats of flight attendants,
incinerating thousands in skyscrapers, killing little children at school,
blowing up subways and pizza parlors, and lopping off heads on
videotape for the ummah's viewing enjoyment. Because, Bush is, of
course, the reason they're doing all those nasty things. And, never mind
the inconvenient fact that they started doing them long before he became
President.
Get rid of Bush, and Islam will truly become the religion of peace.
Never
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
mind the "kill them where you find them" stuff, the bits about not
befriending infidels, jihad, sharia, taqiyya and the worldwide Khalifate.
Never mind the fact that it's not just the crazed jihadists, but the
*majority* of Muslims, who -- as Ms. West says in the column I posted
-- "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the
Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
Yes, what a wonderful world it will be when Bush is gone, right?
I would add to the dissertation on conservatism above that very few American
conservatives have ever noted that the Islamists are Islamic
*conservatives*,
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
first last and always.
Islamists? As opposed to "moderate Muslims", who are, presumably,
liberals? Yeah, right.
I'm not sure about the term "moderate" Muslims, maybe "modern" Muslims is
more accurate.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Like American conservatives, the Islamists severely limit their exposure to
any sources of information which might cause any 'cognitive dissonance' with
their beliefs. They are isolated, self-indoctrinated fanatics far more
comfortable with guns and conflict than the slow, laborious process of
working toward at an understanding of what actually is and what can be done
about it. If they ever arrive at an understanding of what is then they will
also understand what *they* are and the evil of what they are doing, and
that can not be allowed.
Islamists? Islamic conservatives? When Ms. West speaks of Muslims
who "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts," she is not talking about "Islamists" or
"Islamic conservatives". She is talking about ordinary, rank-and-file
Muslims, and the Koran and Hadiths they follow. The same "signal
Islamic texts" the "Islamists" follow.
Who says it's what the Koran says ? You know the fatwa shell game.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I have learned far more about the terrorist mentality from right-winger
Americans in this newsgroup than from the supposed radical Muslims
who have been driven away from it. They are very much the same
personalities with the same mind set.
That's a pretty big generality, Mopsy. But, fair enough. Your view is
noted.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Of course, people in the 1930's didn't believe that Hitler meant exactly
what he said either.
A few did, but not many. As early as 1925, in Mein Kampf, he made
it quite clear he planned to annihilate the Jews. Most people, loathe
to accept the idea one of their fellow human beings might actually be
capable of evil on such a monstrous scale, found it incredible. But,
of course, it was true.
Ahmadinejad has been saying similar things in recent months. Do you
believe him?
Oh yes. I'm not sure if I remember correctly ( the ravages of old age ),
but we may have had a conversation about it three years ago. Or was it with
Count1 ?
I don't recall it, but the ravages of old age apply equally to me.
Post by Warren Hopper
In any case, here we are in 2006, embroiled in Iraq with no possibility of
responding strongly to the situation in Iran.
That remains to be seen. You see, as with all threats to your survival,
eventually a point is reached at which the question is no longer, "can I
respond to this threat?" It becomes, instead, "can i afford *not* to
respond to this threat?"
I see that reasoning as a simplistic dichotomy, creating false choices
galore, but no real solutions. Not everything is a simple is/ain't
distinction. Even something as simple as the color wheel has three primary
colors, not two.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Just what this
much maligned Saddam-loving liberal traitor to his country ( not Israel )
said was going to happen way back in 2003. Damn those liberal traitors.
So, the situation would be much better if, in addition to dealing with Iran,
we were faced with dealing with Saddam Hussein, as well? And, in the
event we must act militarily against Iran, having large bases next door
will work to our disadvantage?
Having geographic bases is a moot point ... we can't move out of Iraq
without unleashing a firestorm behind us. So what good are these supposed
bases doing us ? Did Julius Caesar bury himself in "Fortress Rome" the way
we have buried ourselves in "Fortress America" ( the Green Zone ) ?

There's an old business saying that came as a revolution in the early 80s,
"inventory is evil". If it's costing you alot of money, it's not an asset,
it's a liability.
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, while I disagree with you, I don't think you're a traitor. Actually,
you seem bright enough, and on rare occasions, I see a glimmer of hope
for you :>)
No, actually I'm a total traitor. After the burgeoning monarcho-anarchist
movement restores the Capets to the Throne of America, you will all be
saluting the Snails and Stripes.

Vive La France !!!
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
On the other hand, the most recent noises how been about a nuke-free Middle
East, in other words a nuke-free Israel. So who knows what going to happen
next.
It ain't good, dat's fo' sho'.
More pessimism? Isn't that the "essence of the conservative mind set." I
thought you libs were supposed to be optimists :>)
Only the Radi-Libs. I must admit I get sick of hearing them moaning about
the revolution coming any day ... worse that the born-again Christians
really.
[ modest snipping ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Georgie and his Bushheads are largely responsible for that bad timing that's
about to hit us. It is very likely that the federal government will go
bankrupt in the next few years, quite possibly before the 2008 election.
Go
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
head, try to blame that on Clinton. This is by far the worst situation
facing America since the Civil War.
Tsk, tsk. There you go again. "Life sucks and then you die." The "essence
of the conservative mind set." Think of all the things you've left out.
California
earthquakes, more hurricane Katrinas, bird flu pandemics, mad cow disease,
credit crunches. Some of those might be tricky to pin on Bush, but I'm sure
you'll find a way.
But, hang on, Wabbit. Only 2 1/2 years to go till Hilary straightens everything
out :>)
Oh god, as if I weren't depressed enough. Keep it up and you'll drive me
back to the bottle, not that I ever really left the bottle of course.
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, did you notice the stock market hit yet another 5-year high yesterday?
This too will pass ... actually, a few years ago I moved heavily into oil
stocks so I can't complain. All a matter of picking the right horse. No
kidding, I looked at oil shale, but actual yields are iffy, although they
may be getting into pay dirt at $70-80 a barrel.

I took a bit of licking on non-US stocks but I'm holding in there. Standard
financial practices ( sic ) in emerging markets could give Bernie Evers
lessons in creative accounting, but some of the big telecommunications
utilities and such are fairly solid. Cash flow is hard to hide.

I neglected gold which was dumb of me, but I've been burned too many times
by commodities ( people forget that gold is ultimately a commodity ). I get
all these brochures about huge finds of gold, get in on the ground floor
etc., supposedly making the pitch to buy, but sounds to me like a very good
reason to sell.

Real estate is probably the only thing that will track hyper-inflation if
the gub'ment melts down, as it most certainly will. So long as hard-core
conservatives like yourself keep believing ( or anti-believing ) that the
Democrats will raise taxes and close the deficit, my future prosperity is
assured. My guess is that they won't be able to do it, with ensuing
consequences following hard upon.

We shall see.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Bob Cooper
2006-04-30 02:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
I'm so relieved to see your reply. I thought that I might have made you too
upset to respond. Us tree huggers can't stand the idea of trampling on
other people's sensitivities. :-)
Odd you should mention that. I was a little worried about you, too. We
compassionate conservatives are soft-hearted also :>)

Truth is, there was a lot to respond to -- we've ventured far beyond Ms.
West's column -- and I seem to be somewhat slower than you at this.

I've done a *lot* of snipping in this post. It's getting to be too much
for me to handle.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
No offense intended, floppy-ears, but that sounds like psychobabble to
me. I would suggest rather that conservatism is a practical, common-sense
political world-view grounded in an accurate assessment of human
nature, and supportive of the necessity for both individual liberty and
individual responsibility in a free society. Or something like that :>)
So you think attack with nuclear weapons is a "practical, common-sense
political world-view" ?
Attack with nuclear weapons is not a world-view. It's an action that
should be avoided whenever possible, and only used as a last resort.
I've explained my reasoning for that in previous posts.
Post by Warren Hopper
And how is a massive covert domestic spying and dirty tricks operation
"supportive of the necessity for ... individual liberty" ?
I'm not aware that anything like that has happened. If you're talking about
the NSA surveillance program -- which, as I understand it, is neither
massive nor domestic -- it supports our individual liberties by defending
us against those who would take them away.
Post by Warren Hopper
Tell me how the conservative attack on a woman's right to choose ( you know
what ) supports "individual responsibility in a free society", granting that
you yourself probably take the liberal world-view on this particular issue.
I assume the right to choose you refer to is a woman's right to choose to kill
her unborn child? Personally, I believe there are two distinctly separate issues
there: legality and morality. The legality should be decided by our legislatures,
not our judges. The morality should be an issue between each woman and
her God -- or her conscience, as the case may be.
Post by Warren Hopper
And, above all, how are childishly simplistic and disastrous policies of the
Bushheads an indiction of common-sense ?
Some of them aren't. I never said I approved unconditionally of everything
Bush does. Those are words you're attempting to put in my mouth. I
disapprove of his lavish spending, and his immigration and energy policies,
among other things. And, I strongly disapprove of his repeated
false and bizarre statements declaring Islam a "religion of peace" -- childish
simplicity at it's worst. But, I still believe he's a decent man trying to do
his best. And, regarding defending us against terrorists, see below.
Post by Warren Hopper
The above are mostly rhetorical questions, but take a look at the messages
in this newsgroup from your fellow conservatives. How about the message
"THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM IS A DEAD MUSLIM!".
LOL. You know, the funny thing is some of them can't seem to find the Caps
Lock key. That's really odd, because that's the first thing we teach them at
the Rush Limbaugh Academy of Conservative Posting. Go figure :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Do you think that demonstrates an "accurate assessment of human nature" ?
It's not an assessment of human nature. It's an assessment of Muslims,
or perhaps more accurately, Islam :>)

What about the guys who call for the demise of all "Repuglican Rightards?"
Post by Warren Hopper
Or do you deny that this character is a "real" conservative ? What about the
sand nigger' set ? Do you deny that they are conservatives ?
I can neither confirm nor deny it. You may not believe this, but I have no
more idea who they are or what they believe than you do. Some may be
permanently out to lunch, but I think others are simply venting their anger
and frustration with Muslim terrorism -- perhaps in the only way they know
how. And that's something I can certainly empathize with, even if I
might disapprove of their methods.

God knows you've got more than your share of moonbats and wingnuts on
the left. Been to an "anti-war" demonstration lately? Read about
"progressives" who exhort the troops to kill their own officers? Remember
Ward Churchill, who, as I recall, called the WTC victims "little Eichmans"?
Do you deny that they are liberals?
Post by Warren Hopper
I'll confess that I have a hidden agenda here. I'm just waiting for you and
former-Bushheads to say that George Bush wasn't a "real" conservative. In
fact, I've been waiting for it for several years. There's nothing else for
you to say, so it's just a matter of time before the right wingers start
howling denials that Georgie and the Boys were "real" conservatives. I've
got a whole new shtick for that one, I'm dung in and ready, with plenty of
ammo.
As I said above, I certainly don't approve of everything Bush has done,
even though you seem to be intent on painting me with that brush. What
I do approve of is that, after 8 years of Clinton "feeling our pain" instead
of defending us against those who would kill us, Bush is actually shooting
back at the bastards and killing them. In large numbers.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
As to the "emphatic prophecies of gloom and doom", you are spot on, no need
to backpedal on that one. Things have gone pretty much as I expected in
Iraq. The situation in Iran has proceeded according to expectations. When
the federal government goes belly up in the next few years, that will lock
America into a more or less inevitable cycle of action-reaction taking us
well into and beyond the year 2020. Talk about 20/20 fore-sight, haw haw.
OK, that's a pretty good pun, actually :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Fact is, I often skip the news for weeks at a time these days. I've seen
too much, I don't want to know anymore. Except for an occasional flurry
like this, I keep myself incommunicado from the future. America's big and
I'm small, so I'm going to use my knowledge to care of myself and let
America do whatever it is that America's going to do.
I think we all feel like that at times. But, try to focus more on the good
in the world. There's a surprising amount of it out there to be thankful
for if you look for it. The media doesn't give it much coverage :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Oh no, my conservative 'tude is showing again, curses, I can't escape my
fate after all.
Yep. The "essence of the conservative mind set."

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Really? How so? And, why is it that liberals go beserk when someone
wants to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of the county courthouse,
but tend to remain strangely silent about Islamic terrorism, oppression
of women, gays and non-muslims in general, censorship and aspirations
to world domination? I'm really curious about that.
If you think I'm willing to go to war over "oppression of women, gays and
non-muslims", you're quite mistaken.
I'm really curious about why you think that 'liberals' ( whoever they are )
remain silent about the atrocities committed by Islamic conservatives
against America and their own people.
LOL. Islamic conservatives? You love that, don't you? How about
"Reagan Muslims?"

But, to answer your question, I don't know why, though I have a few ideas.
That's why I asked you.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," perhaps? Since liberals despise
"Bu$h" and "Repuglicans" so much, maybe they're inclined to give the
Muslim terrorists, who also despise Bu$h, a break, even though those
same Muslim terrorists would like nothing more than blowing
them up or sawing their heads off. That's illogical, but logic has never
been the left's long suit :>)

But, there's more to it than that.
Post by Warren Hopper
Do you think I've remained silent ?
I can't recall you saying much on the subject, but maybe I missed it.
Post by Warren Hopper
I suspect that the answer lies in the lumping of large number of very
different people under a small set of labels. For instance, the label
"Muslims". You talk about "all 62,040,606 of them", but don't seem to
realize that for every blathering Bushhead in the world there are about 16
Muslims. That's *alodda* Muslims, and they don't all think the same thing.
So when you says that "they" have remined silent, it looks suspiciously like
you are taking the behavior of the few and projecting upon the many.
No. Just the opposite. Muslims who *have* spoken out are the few. Very
few. Those who have not are the many.
Post by Warren Hopper
From a
pragmatic standpoint, how many people in Chicago in the 1930s spoke out
against Al Capone ? Very few, because they'd get killed,
On the contrary, they not only spoke out against him, they put him in jail.
Post by Warren Hopper
as hundreds of journalists have been killed by the Muslim conservatives
throughout the Middle East. Muslim conservatives in their own countries
are brutal, ruthless gangsters; only people with some degree of protection
have the luxury of speaking out against them.
I'm fascinated again by how you have fastened on to your new term,
"Muslim conservatives". Now, it seems that not only are the folks who
want all Muslims dead conservatives, but Muslims they want dead are
conservatives, as well.

But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from the
brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the fact that
the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah on *their* side.
As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in this thread I'm quoting
this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist itinerary comes straight from
the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
Post by Warren Hopper
But I'm still curious how you can think that I've remained silent. Do you
think there is some special merit or propagandistic benefit in saying the
same thing over and over again ?
No.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Uh huh. And, have you persuaded Mr. Ahmadinijad on that point? It is
a horrible option to contemplate, and I hope it will never be used again.
But, as long as it is viable to Ahmadinejad and his friends, and those
like him, it will have to remain viable to us. Unless, of course, you
prefer surrender to a worldwide thugocracy.
Well ... talking *real* now, something doesn't quite work about the whole
political drama unfolding in Iran. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons
to use against Israel, wouldn't it make sense to do it in secret ? They
don't seem to be doing that.
Your question is based on the premise that they are rational actors. Rational
actors do things that "make sense". Ahmedinejad and his gang drop
messages to the Twelfth Imam down a well.
Post by Warren Hopper
Another question, who's the audience for their polemics ? The Iranian
voter, America and Israel obviously. But I think there may be some play
toward the Shiites in Iraq. "We're strong, we stand up to America". The
traditional boundary of 'Greater Iran' has been the Euphrates and no
expansionist regime in Iran can refuse to acknowledge the historical
precedent.
Certainly, neither I nor any rational person in this world believes the crap
coming out of the America government about Iran. The whole US intelligence
community has exposed themselves for the false lying dogs that they are and
only the most severe and thorough house cleaning with restore their
credibility ( another job "for future Presidents" ). So, not to mince
words, American intelligence is full of crap.
But, having said that, they also have one stalwart ally to validate their
assessments about Iran, that is Ahmadinijad himself. So, what's going on ?
Is it a game to put pressure on Israel to de-nuke ? Fat chance of that.
But even the basic threat doesn't make much sense. Forgetting the certainty
of American retaliation for a moment, do people really think that Iran is
going to nuke the Dome of the Rock and guarantee a holy war with the Sunnis
for the next 100 years ?
See my comment about rational actors above.
Post by Warren Hopper
The whole Iranian situation as advertised is very questionable. On the
other hand, any question about nuclear weapons is a very big question and if
it got down to going into Iran and killing a bunch of people based on a
'misunderstanding' about nuclear weapons, then that's the way its got to be.
Bush 'normalizing' the nuclear establishment in India didn't help the
situation one bit. Is anybody asking, what about Pakistan ? Not on Fox
News maybe, but it's being asked all the same.
So, it's a hell of a mess, not just a 'send in the Marines' mess, but a
genuine big nasty adult mess that most conservative kiddies aren't able to
get the brains around.
Sorry about the twists and turns, but that's the real world. And, in fact,
I've barely scratched the surface.
You raise some interesting points. Consider, though, that you and I have
the luxury of debating the what-ifs and maybes and all of the "twists and turns"
you mention without worrying about being held responsible for actual events.
But, imagine you're President, and a report comes in that twelve square
blocks or so of Manhattan has been taken out by a crude nuclear device
traced to Hezbollah terrorists. Half a million dead. Far-fetched? So was
911. Kind of gives those twist and turns a new perspective, I would argue.
If you and I are wrong about them, we have a red face. If the President's
wrong about them, we have half a million dead Americans. For starters.
And, it only gets worse after that.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, did you know that, percentage-wise, more Republicans in
Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats?
Interesting, huh?
You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, you know that's against the
rules of the Institute.
I rarely listen to him, actually. Not a big fan.
Post by Warren Hopper
You've already mentioned your gray hairs so you've got no excuse for
misunderstanding the situation in the 1960s. Don't pretend to me you've
never heard of the Dixicrats, because I'm only too familiar with the
evasions of recovering conservatives.
Sure, I remember them well. They were democrats, as I recall. The
democrats who voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Sorry, I don't follow much of the last three paragraphs. But, if you're
criticizing Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, I'm with you 100%.
He should be using that veto.
So why isn't he ? Oh, wait a second, I think I know, he's caving in to the
liberals, that's the reason. Yeah yeah that must be the reason. Couldn't
be any other reason come to think of it. ;-)
Whatever the reason, I disagree with him. And, I believe he may well be
headed for *deep* trouble on immigration, btw.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Islamists? Islamic conservatives? When Ms. West speaks of Muslims
who "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts," she is not talking about "Islamists" or
"Islamic conservatives". She is talking about ordinary, rank-and-file
Muslims, and the Koran and Hadiths they follow. The same "signal
Islamic texts" the "Islamists" follow.
Who says it's what the Koran says ? You know the fatwa shell game.
1.2 billion Muslims say it's what the Koran says. It is inerrant and immutable.
Every word in it came directly from God to Mohammed's shell-like ear via
the angel Gabriel. *Every* word. It's God's message to mankind; His
instructions about how to live, pray, brush your teeth, and wage jihad.
And, it's his last word on those subjects. Ain't gonna be no more. Don't
believe that? Congratulations, you're not a Muslim.

Fatwas come and go. The Koran is eternal and unchangeable.

<snip<
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
That remains to be seen. You see, as with all threats to your survival,
eventually a point is reached at which the question is no longer, "can I
respond to this threat?" It becomes, instead, "can i afford *not* to
respond to this threat?"
I see that reasoning as a simplistic dichotomy, creating false choices
galore, but no real solutions. Not everything is a simple is/ain't
distinction. Even something as simple as the color wheel has three
primary colors, not two.
Many problems are complex. Survival is simple. You either survive, or
you're dead. Remember those twelve square blocks in Manhattan?

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
But, hang on, Wabbit. Only 2 1/2 years to go till Hilary straightens
everything out :>)
Oh god, as if I weren't depressed enough. Keep it up and you'll drive me
back to the bottle, not that I ever really left the bottle of course.
LOL. I'll join you.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, did you notice the stock market hit yet another 5-year high
yesterday?
This too will pass ... actually, a few years ago I moved heavily into oil
stocks so I can't complain. All a matter of picking the right horse. No
kidding, I looked at oil shale, but actual yields are iffy, although they
may be getting into pay dirt at $70-80 a barrel.
I took a bit of licking on non-US stocks but I'm holding in there. Standard
financial practices ( sic ) in emerging markets could give Bernie Evers
lessons in creative accounting, but some of the big telecommunications
utilities and such are fairly solid. Cash flow is hard to hide.
Do what I do. Buy Con Ed and Puget Sound Power and Light. You won't
get rich, but the dividends are steady and you'll sleep better :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
I neglected gold which was dumb of me, but I've been burned too many times
by commodities ( people forget that gold is ultimately a commodity ). I get
all these brochures about huge finds of gold, get in on the ground floor
etc., supposedly making the pitch to buy, but sounds to me like a very good
reason to sell.
I made a modest investment in gold (stocks, not the metal) a year ago.
It's turned out very well. Of course, now I kick myself for not investing much
more. There may still be some upside left. Who knows? :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Real estate is probably the only thing that will track hyper-inflation if
the gub'ment melts down, as it most certainly will. So long as hard-core
conservatives like yourself keep believing ( or anti-believing ) that the
Democrats will raise taxes and close the deficit, my future prosperity is
assured. My guess is that they won't be able to do it, with ensuing
consequences following hard upon.
We shall see.
Indeed. Que sera, sera.
Warren Hopper
2006-04-30 22:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I'm so relieved to see your reply. I thought that I might have made you too
upset to respond. Us tree huggers can't stand the idea of trampling on
other people's sensitivities. :-)
Odd you should mention that. I was a little worried about you, too. We
compassionate conservatives are soft-hearted also :>)
Truth is, there was a lot to respond to -- we've ventured far beyond Ms.
West's column -- and I seem to be somewhat slower than you at this.
I've done a *lot* of snipping in this post. It's getting to be too much
for me to handle.
I've had some embarassing moments responding to messages long past due ...
snip away with a will.

Take you time responding, clearly I'm a lost cause and wouldn't want to cut
into more fruitful opportunities for far-right propagandizing. There may be
some one out there who hasn't heard The Message yet, though I doubt it
personally.

P.S. I've just spent a couple hours composing this thing. I'm running out
of free time and probably you are too.

So ... one of the more interesting discussions I've had. Not that I'm
giving an inch of course. ;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
No offense intended, floppy-ears, but that sounds like psychobabble to
me. I would suggest rather that conservatism is a practical, common-sense
political world-view grounded in an accurate assessment of human
nature, and supportive of the necessity for both individual liberty and
individual responsibility in a free society. Or something like that :>)
So you think attack with nuclear weapons is a "practical, common-sense
political world-view" ?
Attack with nuclear weapons is not a world-view. It's an action that
should be avoided whenever possible, and only used as a last resort.
I've explained my reasoning for that in previous posts.
OK, granted. But any indication that the US is planning some sort of
'preemptive' nuclear first strike would be a political disaster. The
consequences of actually doing it would be unimaginable, quite without
precedent. Effectively, we would be living in an outlaw nation overnight.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
And how is a massive covert domestic spying and dirty tricks operation
"supportive of the necessity for ... individual liberty" ?
I'm not aware that anything like that has happened. If you're talking about
the NSA surveillance program -- which, as I understand it, is neither
massive nor domestic -- it supports our individual liberties by defending
us against those who would take them away.
How are anti-war protestors and environmentalist groups taking away our
individual liberties ? I think we can assume that activities like that are
just the surface, they talk about thousands but there is little doubt that
the truth is probably hundreds of thousands or millions.

For all my wild and crazy stuff, I'm very careful about what I say in these
newsgroups. I've known about the massive and illegal surveillance campaign
for several years. Starting in 2004, I've caught many attempts to
infiltrate my machine and traced them back to either what claim to be
British Defense servers or shady private 'market research' groups, some of
them in *Texas* ( surprise surprise, follow the money and you'll never go
far wrong ). So it ain't Muslim terrorists taking away our liberties,
bubba, it's the Bushheads. As the man said, "Charlie don't surf".

But I suppose you regard massive surveillance of domestic political enemies
as AOK in defending America from people like myself who would, in the
conservative mind-set, take away our liberties, most importantly one
presumes the liberty to conduct massive surveillance campaigns against
domestic political enemies such as myself.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Tell me how the conservative attack on a woman's right to choose ( you know
what ) supports "individual responsibility in a free society", granting that
you yourself probably take the liberal world-view on this particular issue.
I assume the right to choose you refer to is a woman's right to choose to kill
her unborn child? Personally, I believe there are two distinctly separate issues
there: legality and morality. The legality should be decided by our legislatures,
not our judges. The morality should be an issue between each woman and
her God -- or her conscience, as the case may be.
Yeah right, the rights of the unborn over the born. Gee, I wish I were
among unborn, then I could be treated like an adult and make my own
decisions. The whole thing's been gone over too many times and too crazy to
get into now.

Instead of dealing with the very real ethical issues that will be
confronting us, America is as unprepared for the coming revolution in
bioscience as any country on earth. But one thing I know - when there's
money to be made, all the deep moral concerns that American hold so dear and
are polluting the discussion on bio-ethics today will evaporate like they've
never been. As always, it's a question of 'values'.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
And, above all, how are childishly simplistic and disastrous policies of the
Bushheads an indiction of common-sense ?
Some of them aren't. I never said I approved unconditionally of everything
Bush does. Those are words you're attempting to put in my mouth. I
disapprove of his lavish spending, and his immigration and energy policies,
among other things. And, I strongly disapprove of his repeated
false and bizarre statements declaring Islam a "religion of peace" -- childish
simplicity at it's worst. But, I still believe he's a decent man trying to do
his best.
I didn't believe in the concrete existence of evil until the last few years.
In part it's result of the Allah Akbar Boys, but Bush feeds off of the evil
like a carp off of river poop.

9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to Bush and he's made the most of
it. I haven't looked in detail at your response to the Iran/Ahmadinijad
section, but one gets a strong sense that he and Bush are feeding off of
each other for political gain. Unfortunately, there more at stake than
their political careers.
Post by Bob Cooper
And, regarding defending us against terrorists, see below.
Post by Warren Hopper
The above are mostly rhetorical questions, but take a look at the messages
in this newsgroup from your fellow conservatives. How about the message
"THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM IS A DEAD MUSLIM!".
LOL. You know, the funny thing is some of them can't seem to find the Caps
Lock key. That's really odd, because that's the first thing we teach them at
the Rush Limbaugh Academy of Conservative Posting. Go figure :>)
OK, I admit to propagandizing by selecting the worst case as if it were
typical of conservatives. But much of the content really is conservative
ideology in a nutshell, the world's a bad place so let's kill all of them
before they can kill all of us.

How much of this stuff is driven by God-crazed Zionist loonies, I don't
know for sure. Some of it is the 'end of time / war of the races' type of
loonies, but much of it is God-crazed Zionists, at least in this newsgroup.

I must say that it's hard to blame them, though. How would I feel ? If
America crashes and burns in Iraq, what's the impact going to be on Israel ?
Which, as I said at the time, was yet another excellent reason not to invade
Iraq. But I don't like to think about anymore. Things aren't going well
and the consequences of our folly are too ugly for my overly-vivid
imagination.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Do you think that demonstrates an "accurate assessment of human nature" ?
It's not an assessment of human nature. It's an assessment of Muslims,
or perhaps more accurately, Islam :>)
What about the guys who call for the demise of all "Repuglican Rightards?"
Who would make up such a terrible things to say about people whose only
concern is looting the national treasury. If this keeps up, they'll be
calling you Rapacious Republicans next !

Of course, we already know all about the Democrat Deficits, don't we. ;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Or do you deny that this character is a "real" conservative ? What about the
sand nigger' set ? Do you deny that they are conservatives ?
I can neither confirm nor deny it. You may not believe this, but I have no
more idea who they are or what they believe than you do.
I do believe it. In fact, I've been down that particular road many many
times, I could sort of tell that you hadn't.

There's a story about LBJ in one of those 'full contact' Texas election
campaigns. He had the idea of accusing his opponent of 'carnal knowledge of
barnyard animals'. His advisors asked why and LBJ responded, "I just want
to hear him deny he's a pig-effer" ( without the 'eff' of course ).

So I just wanted to hear you deny it and I feel well-deserved shame about my
underhanded debating tactics. Bad me, bad ... [ spanking self ] ... stop
being so combative about everything.

In fact, I have serious South'ren connections and probably have a far better
idea of what they're about than you do. I may have been called a 'n-lover'
more times than anyone you've ever encountered. After not hearing it for a
decade or so, I got it again as recently as Christmas time ( in that sort of
haw-haw-only-kiddin'-but-not way they have of saying things down in Dixie ).
A trend perhaps ? I think it's very likely.

At the core of it is mortal fear, socially politically economically
spiritually. No matter how downtrodden an ignorant dirt farmer or
booze-sodden piece of trailer trash you may be, at least you can tell
yourself that you have white skin. If you take that away from them, they
have nothing. If you know people like that, it's hard not to pity them.

I think that mortal fear is the cornerstone of the most reactionary ravings
of various colorations we see in this group.
Post by Bob Cooper
Some may be
permanently out to lunch, but I think others are simply venting their anger
and frustration with Muslim terrorism
And fear ...
Post by Bob Cooper
-- perhaps in the only way they know
how. And that's something I can certainly empathize with, even if I
might disapprove of their methods.
God knows you've got more than your share of moonbats and wingnuts on
the left. Been to an "anti-war" demonstration lately? Read about
"progressives" who exhort the troops to kill their own officers? Remember
Ward Churchill, who, as I recall, called the WTC victims "little Eichmans"?
Do you deny that they are liberals?
There seem to be about 10 right-wing moonbats for every left-wing moonbat,
although out in moonbat land, I doubt if the distinctions between left and
right have much meaning.

Long ago, I got on one of my hobby horses about the weird alliance between
the far-right Action Francaise and the far-left French Communists before
WWII. They wanted to bring down the socialist government to cause a final
confrontation between ... etc etc ... you know the drill. If you look at
their ideological 'values' ( if such they can be called ), they really
weren't that far apart in the first place, and probably sensed it in a vague
way. Well, in any case, they got what they bargained for and a lot more.

I hope it isn't happening again. A strange fact, but you don't even need to
look outside the scope of this group of message threads to find an example
of it ( hint hint ).

And, BTW, a real rip-snorting French right-winger makes you guys look like a
bunch of Hillary kissers, as disgusting as that notion may sound.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I'll confess that I have a hidden agenda here. I'm just waiting for you and
former-Bushheads to say that George Bush wasn't a "real" conservative.
In
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
fact, I've been waiting for it for several years. There's nothing else for
you to say, so it's just a matter of time before the right wingers start
howling denials that Georgie and the Boys were "real" conservatives.
I've
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
got a whole new shtick for that one, I'm dung in and ready, with plenty of
ammo.
As I said above, I certainly don't approve of everything Bush has done,
even though you seem to be intent on painting me with that brush. What
I do approve of is that, after 8 years of Clinton "feeling our pain" instead
of defending us against those who would kill us, Bush is actually shooting
back at the bastards and killing them. In large numbers.
What bastards specifically ? I can think of some of the bastards who remain
unshot. In fact, I'd happily do the shooting myself, although I'd still
prefer to dispatch them at leisure with a good stout iron grill and a
hundred gallons of jet fuel. I could have been a very different person
than the one I am.

And for all crap the conservatives talk about Clinton, who was President
when the terrorists were repeatedly stopped in the 90s ? Who was President
when they got through to us in 2001 ? Do you think the 9/11 commission is
the last word on the subject ? Live in hope. In the end, the ax of history
will come down on Georgie's scrawny neck, who was too busy looking for ways
to rape our public lands to think about terrorism, this despite Clinton
warnings.

I better shut up about it or I'm going to start "feeling my own pain" all
over again.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
As to the "emphatic prophecies of gloom and doom", you are spot on, no need
to backpedal on that one. Things have gone pretty much as I expected in
Iraq. The situation in Iran has proceeded according to expectations.
When
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
the federal government goes belly up in the next few years, that will lock
America into a more or less inevitable cycle of action-reaction taking us
well into and beyond the year 2020. Talk about 20/20 fore-sight, haw haw.
OK, that's a pretty good pun, actually :>)
It's a com-pun-ction ... HAW HAW HAW ... oh, my ribs, I can hardly breathe
!
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Fact is, I often skip the news for weeks at a time these days. I've seen
too much, I don't want to know anymore. Except for an occasional flurry
like this, I keep myself incommunicado from the future. America's big and
I'm small, so I'm going to use my knowledge to care of myself and let
America do whatever it is that America's going to do.
I think we all feel like that at times. But, try to focus more on the good
in the world. There's a surprising amount of it out there to be thankful
for if you look for it.
As I said before to Phedrine, you sound like my Depression-Era, WWIIer mama.
I may find the goodness eventually, but it may not be here. I think the
corruption of this country is total, absolute and final. I don't see how we
are going to pull out of this.

A generation ago, America had no history, but it has too much history now,
for me anyway. America is leaving its adolescence and entering the Era of
Consequences.
Post by Bob Cooper
The media doesn't give it much coverage :>)
Guess you aren't watching the Fox ... ;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Oh no, my conservative 'tude is showing again, curses, I can't escape my
fate after all.
Yep. The "essence of the conservative mind set."
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Really? How so? And, why is it that liberals go beserk when someone
wants to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of the county courthouse,
but tend to remain strangely silent about Islamic terrorism, oppression
of women, gays and non-muslims in general, censorship and aspirations
to world domination? I'm really curious about that.
If you think I'm willing to go to war over "oppression of women, gays and
non-muslims", you're quite mistaken.
I'm really curious about why you think that 'liberals' ( whoever they are )
remain silent about the atrocities committed by Islamic conservatives
against America and their own people.
LOL. Islamic conservatives? You love that, don't you? How about
"Reagan Muslims?"
I often call myself an "Environmental Conservative", just to muddy the
waters.

Old Greek saying: if you want clear water, don't tease the squid.

That is, a squid or anything else capable of squirting murky fluids ...
Post by Bob Cooper
But, to answer your question, I don't know why, though I have a few ideas.
That's why I asked you.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend," perhaps? Since liberals despise
"Bu$h" and "Repuglicans" so much, maybe they're inclined to give the
Muslim terrorists, who also despise Bu$h, a break, even though those
same Muslim terrorists would like nothing more than blowing
them up or sawing their heads off. That's illogical, but logic has never
been the left's long suit :>)
No kidding, I'm not just saying this.

Fact: there are *at least* one billion Muslims in the world.

I've known a couple of them pretty well and I can say categorically that,
except for cutting off funding for a dog project or cutting off a
long-winded speech in a meeting, I've never seen a single one of them (
that's never ever ) cut off anything. Well ... maybe including cutting off
their own noses to spite their faces, but that's people, isn't it.

Otherwise, they limit any violence in their nature to the financial sphere
rather than physical ( after they get through with you, you may find
yourself prefering the physical violence to the finanical ).

So I was grimly amused by the Arab Port Scandal. I did a some research and
the longer I looked at these guys, the more familar they seemed.
Eventually, I felt like I could almost see the look of blank incomprehension
on their faces at the reaction to the proposed acquistion. In addition to
being American biz-school grads and on various boards of directors, it's not
unlikely that an Islamic conservative group murdered a friend or cousin or
somebody. Who do Americans think these people are ?

We had an old German lady who taught the language in our high school and all
the young wags would goose-step and sig-heil her uproariously. Her husband
was one of the 100,000s of ethnic Germans the Nazis killed, but that didn't
slow them down one bit. I thought of her during the Arab PR firestorm.

As I said before, there are one heck of alot of Muslims in this world and
not all of them think the same thing. And not only are there one hell of a
lot of Muslims, but some them have one heck of a lot of money, as our
Georgie knows only too well ( op. cit. "the Religion of Peace", maybe ).
Post by Bob Cooper
But, there's more to it than that.
Post by Warren Hopper
Do you think I've remained silent ?
I can't recall you saying much on the subject, but maybe I missed it.
Sometimes the incomprehension encountered in this newsgroup feels
reminiscent of a primitive tribe encountering a proton accelerator dumped in
the middle of the impenetrable rain forest.

Maybe there's a Wabbit Cult out there somewhere in the deep jungle ... a
fertility cult of course. :-)>
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I suspect that the answer lies in the lumping of large number of very
different people under a small set of labels. For instance, the label
"Muslims". You talk about "all 62,040,606 of them", but don't seem to
realize that for every blathering Bushhead in the world there are about 16
Muslims. That's *alodda* Muslims, and they don't all think the same thing.
So when you says that "they" have remined silent, it looks suspiciously like
you are taking the behavior of the few and projecting upon the many.
No. Just the opposite. Muslims who *have* spoken out are the few. Very
few. Those who have not are the many.
You just aren't listening.

The much-despised CAIR is among many Muslim organizations who have
repeatedly condemned conservative terrorism, although I'm sure they did
condemn 'enough' to satisfy your high standards of condemnation.
Presumably, they would also have to condemn Islam itself to satisfy you (
and I'm sure even that wouldn't be 'enough' for ARI denizens ).
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
From a
pragmatic standpoint, how many people in Chicago in the 1930s spoke out
against Al Capone ? Very few, because they'd get killed,
On the contrary, they not only spoke out against him, they put him in jail.
You think Capone didn't kill journalists, politicians, do-gooders and anyone
else who didn't dance to his tune. They killed the Mayor of (?) a city just
south of Chicago. They also killed a Chief-of-Police they couldn't buy.
Are you a 'Roaring Twenties' romanticist ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
as hundreds of journalists have been killed by the Muslim conservatives
throughout the Middle East. Muslim conservatives in their own countries
are brutal, ruthless gangsters; only people with some degree of protection
have the luxury of speaking out against them.
I'm fascinated again by how you have fastened on to your new term,
"Muslim conservatives". Now, it seems that not only are the folks who
want all Muslims dead conservatives, but Muslims they want dead are
conservatives, as well.
Islamic Conservatives want the Muslim world to go back 500 years, the
Caliphate and all that. Some even want to go back 1300 years to the days of
the Righteous Ones. They all want to go back to some distant past, they
resist or oppose modern changes. That's conservative, right ? How could I
call myself an Environmental Conservative otherwise ?
Post by Bob Cooper
But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from the
brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the fact that
the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah on *their* side.
As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in this thread I'm quoting
this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist itinerary comes straight from
the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
That's not really true. In fact, I think it's not at all clear what
Muhammad would have thought of the Conquest.

His primary goal was to unite the Arabs against the cultural incursions of
the 'Romans' and Persians, it was not to conquer the world. While he was
clearly interested in pushing north into historically Arab areas east of
modern Syria and Israel, there is nothing I have ever seen or heard that
clearly demonstrates that he intended the military conquest and subjection
of non-Arab peoples.

One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well, but I
haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But I'm still curious how you can think that I've remained silent. Do you
think there is some special merit or propagandistic benefit in saying the
same thing over and over again ?
No.
Ha, trick question !

That's the essence of propaganda, saying it over and over again, the Big Lie
and all that. The problem is that things said over and over again tend to
become the Big Lie whether they are intended to be lies or not.

That's why I don't say things over and over again ( unless it's old jokes or
football stories, they improve with telling ). Anyway, propaganda is dull
and dulling, like sanctioned sex ( oo la la ).
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Uh huh. And, have you persuaded Mr. Ahmadinijad on that point? It is
a horrible option to contemplate, and I hope it will never be used again.
But, as long as it is viable to Ahmadinejad and his friends, and those
like him, it will have to remain viable to us. Unless, of course, you
prefer surrender to a worldwide thugocracy.
Well ... talking *real* now, something doesn't quite work about the whole
political drama unfolding in Iran. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons
to use against Israel, wouldn't it make sense to do it in secret ? They
don't seem to be doing that.
Your question is based on the premise that they are rational actors.
Rational
Post by Bob Cooper
actors do things that "make sense".
Ideally, one hopes.

But the 'experts' used to say the same thing about big corporate
acquisitions ( "it only makes good financial sense after all" ) until
somebody actually went in and did a rigorous study of the influence of
gigantic, planetary-sized personal egos of the 'rational actors' involved in
these transactions. It was not a pretty picture.
Post by Bob Cooper
Ahmedinejad and his gang drop
messages to the Twelfth Imam down a well.
I wish you were joking, but I don't think you are. Never heard about the
well. The Imam, Occulted but Ever Ready to Spring Out from Nowhere, and not
even born-again, that's impressive. But then the argument of 'serious or
not' could be carried either way based on that bit of data.

To repeat myself ( propagandistically I suppose ), "if it got down to going
into Iran and killing a bunch of people based on a 'misunderstanding' about
nuclear weapons, then that's the way its got to be".

If the source of that misunderstanding is at the bottom of a well, what's
the diff ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Another question, who's the audience for their polemics ? The Iranian
voter, America and Israel obviously. But I think there may be some play
toward the Shiites in Iraq. "We're strong, we stand up to America".
The
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
traditional boundary of 'Greater Iran' has been the Euphrates and no
expansionist regime in Iran can refuse to acknowledge the historical
precedent.
Certainly, neither I nor any rational person in this world believes the crap
coming out of the America government about Iran. The whole US intelligence
community has exposed themselves for the false lying dogs that they are and
only the most severe and thorough house cleaning with restore their
credibility ( another job "for future Presidents" ). So, not to mince
words, American intelligence is full of crap.
But, having said that, they also have one stalwart ally to validate their
assessments about Iran, that is Ahmadinijad himself. So, what's going on ?
Is it a game to put pressure on Israel to de-nuke ? Fat chance of that.
But even the basic threat doesn't make much sense. Forgetting the certainty
of American retaliation for a moment, do people really think that Iran is
going to nuke the Dome of the Rock and guarantee a holy war with the Sunnis
for the next 100 years ?
See my comment about rational actors above.
Post by Warren Hopper
The whole Iranian situation as advertised is very questionable. On the
other hand, any question about nuclear weapons is a very big question and if
it got down to going into Iran and killing a bunch of people based on a
'misunderstanding' about nuclear weapons, then that's the way its got to be.
Bush 'normalizing' the nuclear establishment in India didn't help the
situation one bit. Is anybody asking, what about Pakistan ? Not on Fox
News maybe, but it's being asked all the same.
So, it's a hell of a mess, not just a 'send in the Marines' mess, but a
genuine big nasty adult mess that most conservative kiddies aren't able to
get the brains around.
Sorry about the twists and turns, but that's the real world. And, in fact,
I've barely scratched the surface.
You raise some interesting points. Consider, though, that you and I have
the luxury of debating the what-ifs and maybes and all of the "twists and turns"
you mention without worrying about being held responsible for actual events.
But, imagine you're President, and a report comes in that twelve square
blocks or so of Manhattan has been taken out by a crude nuclear device
traced to Hezbollah terrorists. Half a million dead. Far-fetched? So was
911. Kind of gives those twist and turns a new perspective, I would argue.
If you and I are wrong about them, we have a red face. If the President's
wrong about them, we have half a million dead Americans. For starters.
And, it only gets worse after that.
It's a hell of a mess, far worse than it appears.

The central problem is 'where' ! Where are these hypothetical Hezbollah
terrorists ? And unless these people are very stupid ( which they aren't,
in fact they behave far more intelligently than the Billionaire's Club
running America today ), the clues are probably going to point at someone
else anyway.

The problem of 'where' strikes at the heart of military power itself, as it
is intend to. If you don't know 'where', you've got no military power, your
troops might as well stay in the barracks. Your 'where' get spread around
to 'somewhere', and unless you are willing to conquer 'somewhere', you got
'nowhere' to conquer with your mighty military power.

In this case, 'where' become Iran and all its far flung dominions such as
Shiite areas in Lebenon. I notice you sidesteped the issue of what happens
if the President is wrong in the other direction, he kills 500,000 Iranians
only to find out that Kim Il-Sung has been a naughty boy. What happens then
? And don't make the mistake of thinking that America is the only nuclear
power in the world. It isn't.

As I said earlier, if America committed the atrocity of a preemptive nuclear
strike, it would become an outlaw nation overnight. I know what you guys
with conservative attitudes think of the foreigners and the United Nations
and all that, so I don't really expect you to understand the implications of
that, but let me assure you they would be immediate and sweeping.

GW wouldn't last a week, it wouldn't surprise me if *ever single Republican*
in Congress voted to remove and arrest George Bush immediately, backed up by
the US Army if necessary ( the Army Chiefs understand the realities of this
world even if the Neo-Republican and Neo-Con pols don't ). Hell, it
wouldn't even take the immanent threat of nukes, all the Chinese would need
to do is start selling dollars, that could finish us off literally
overnight.

So America would wind up with a hell of a lot worse than a red face, or even
500,000 dead.

This is the basic plot line of movies "Doctor Stangelove" and "7 Days in
May", along with god-knows-how-many evil professor movies in the last 50
years. It's been a long time coming. As I said, we are entering the era of
consequences, all the old stuff is creeping out from under the rocks, more
or less at the same time, thanks largely to Georgie's stupidity and
mismanagement.

I still can hardly believe that race is becoming an hot issue again in the
America of year 2006, but it is ( thanks to the ineptitude of Fearless
Leader and His Cohorts ).

American power is increasingly illusionary, especially the apparent utility
of American military power. Iraq gave the Bushheads a 'where' to focus
their attentions and make Americans believe that something was being done,
much the same as Israel's retaliatory incursions into Palestinian territory.
Unfortunately, Bush's every action has only served to expose the fundamental
weakness of our position: economically, militarily and politically.

Bush has left us in a hell of a mess, a very big load of work indeed "for
future presidents".
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, did you know that, percentage-wise, more Republicans in
Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats?
Interesting, huh?
You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, you know that's against the
rules of the Institute.
I rarely listen to him, actually. Not a big fan.
I'm disappointed. Loaded up with innuendos and nowhere to go with it, story
of my life.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
You've already mentioned your gray hairs so you've got no excuse for
misunderstanding the situation in the 1960s. Don't pretend to me you've
never heard of the Dixicrats, because I'm only too familiar with the
evasions of recovering conservatives.
Sure, I remember them well. They were democrats, as I recall. The
democrats who voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act.
It was a Democratic Congress, so that's difficult to visualize. Defying LBJ
is also difficult to visualize, for Democrats or Republicans.

But maybe you *should* be listening to Rush Limbaugh. As freaky and
oxycontin-enabled as he gets, his Limboids at least have some kind of
relationship to reality. He's never make such a sloppy statement like
"democrats who voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act", so far
as I know. I can only attribute your lapse to immoderate consumption of
hallucinogenic substances during early adolescence.

In oxycontin veritas ?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

By Party

The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


----------------------------

I didn't get any pleasure out of that. Too easy, tadpoles in a tea cup.
But if you want to mix it up over the 'Dixiecrats' of 1964, we could also
discuss some of the more sorid policies of the 'Dixie-licans' in the year
2006.

Hmmm .... Dix-lickins ... something there but I can't quite figure out what
... :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Sorry, I don't follow much of the last three paragraphs. But, if you're
criticizing Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, I'm with you 100%.
He should be using that veto.
So why isn't he ? Oh, wait a second, I think I know, he's caving in to the
liberals, that's the reason. Yeah yeah that must be the reason.
Couldn't
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
be any other reason come to think of it. ;-)
Whatever the reason, I disagree with him. And, I believe he may well be
headed for *deep* trouble on immigration, btw.
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Islamists? Islamic conservatives? When Ms. West speaks of Muslims
who "go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel
destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran
and other signal Islamic texts," she is not talking about "Islamists" or
"Islamic conservatives". She is talking about ordinary, rank-and-file
Muslims, and the Koran and Hadiths they follow. The same "signal
Islamic texts" the "Islamists" follow.
Who says it's what the Koran says ? You know the fatwa shell game.
1.2 billion Muslims say it's what the Koran says. It is inerrant and immutable.
Every word in it came directly from God to Mohammed's shell-like ear via
the angel Gabriel. *Every* word. It's God's message to mankind; His
instructions about how to live, pray, brush your teeth, and wage jihad.
And, it's his last word on those subjects. Ain't gonna be no more. Don't
believe that? Congratulations, you're not a Muslim.
Fatwas come and go. The Koran is eternal and unchangeable.
So's my mortgage payment ... and I've got to admit it has attained an
eternal, almost holy quality over the years.

Have you ever read Chaucer ? Can you, me or any 'expert' really claim to
know the exact meaning of a certain word in the 14th century AD ? As a very
simple, concrete example, it is said that the color 'blue' is bluer than it
used to be, it's less green, probably based on the use of artificial rather
than natural dies ( as I remember it, maybe from the book "Elizabethan World
View" ? ).

Are the 'experts' trying to tell us that they know the exact meaning of
every word in the Koran, written in a language older and more remote to
modern Arabs than Medieval English to modern English speakers ?

The problem of recovering more than a vague sense of their 'original'
meaning is compounded by the fact that we usually define complex words (
clan, love, war ) with simpler words, and those words with even simpler
words, and so on until we ( usually )reach sensory and experiential
descriptions - colors, shapes, sounds, touch, movement, emotions.

The Koran and all linguist works of any sort are and always will be made of
words, and words are inherently mutable, even simple words.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip<
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
That remains to be seen. You see, as with all threats to your survival,
eventually a point is reached at which the question is no longer, "can I
respond to this threat?" It becomes, instead, "can i afford *not* to
respond to this threat?"
I see that reasoning as a simplistic dichotomy, creating false choices
galore, but no real solutions. Not everything is a simple is/ain't
distinction. Even something as simple as the color wheel has three
primary colors, not two.
Many problems are complex. Survival is simple. You either survive, or
you're dead. Remember those twelve square blocks in Manhattan?
Well precisely, when you view it as either "you" this or "you" that. There
are many 1000s of distinctly different scenarios that would play out under
such the impact of such an event, and certainly we would get an opportunity
to relive each and every one on the evening news, ad nausium.

But whether the territory is one square inch of Manhattan or 100 square
miles, it doesn't matter. The specific content of the nuclear event is
immaterial to the 'game'. That's the satanic beauty of the whole thing, the
logic is so crystaine and symetrically perfect, it's more like chess than
real life.

Is the game real ? At some point, who cares, it's the game we've got to
play. The logic of the game is what's real, not the people who move on the
game board.

I'm sure you don't like it any more than I do, but Uncle Joe was stating the
literal truth when he said "the death of an individual is a tragedy, the
dead of a million, a statistic". He understood something about the nuclear
age. Russians have a way of saying 'statistic' in an flat, official way
that says more than the word itself, that's is even scarier and more true.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
But, hang on, Wabbit. Only 2 1/2 years to go till Hilary straightens
everything out :>)
Oh god, as if I weren't depressed enough. Keep it up and you'll drive me
back to the bottle, not that I ever really left the bottle of course.
LOL. I'll join you.
I'll start shredding up my old sporrans .. :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
BTW, did you notice the stock market hit yet another 5-year high
yesterday?
This too will pass ... actually, a few years ago I moved heavily into oil
stocks so I can't complain. All a matter of picking the right horse.
No
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
kidding, I looked at oil shale, but actual yields are iffy, although they
may be getting into pay dirt at $70-80 a barrel.
I took a bit of licking on non-US stocks but I'm holding in there.
Standard
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
financial practices ( sic ) in emerging markets could give Bernie Evers
lessons in creative accounting, but some of the big telecommunications
utilities and such are fairly solid. Cash flow is hard to hide.
Do what I do. Buy Con Ed and Puget Sound Power and Light. You won't
get rich, but the dividends are steady and you'll sleep better :>)
I'm trying to much the same ( show me the cash flow, baby ), but with
non-US-dollar stocks. Truth is, I know I'm out of my depth trying to
forecast currency fluctuations ( who isn't out of their depth except for
George Zoros, maybe ), but I mostly stick to big utilities, global funds and
known quality. And I have a long term strategy for doing so. It works out
being defensive on the long haul.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I neglected gold which was dumb of me, but I've been burned too many times
by commodities ( people forget that gold is ultimately a commodity ). I get
all these brochures about huge finds of gold, get in on the ground floor
etc., supposedly making the pitch to buy, but sounds to me like a very good
reason to sell.
I made a modest investment in gold (stocks, not the metal) a year ago.
It's turned out very well. Of course, now I kick myself for not investing much
more. There may still be some upside left. Who knows? :>)
Certainly if there's a sudden panic or something of that magnitude. The
tricky part is not *what* but *when*. India and nations of the Far East
consume a lot of gold ( and none of that 18K garbage either ), and consume
even more so in their prosperity. But there may be a large surge in supply
from new mines. Tricky.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Real estate is probably the only thing that will track hyper-inflation if
the gub'ment melts down, as it most certainly will. So long as hard-core
conservatives like yourself keep believing ( or anti-believing ) that the
Democrats will raise taxes and close the deficit, my future prosperity is
assured. My guess is that they won't be able to do it, with ensuing
consequences following hard upon.
We shall see.
Indeed. Que sera, sera.
Bob Cooper
2006-05-14 02:47:39 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Take you time responding, clearly I'm a lost cause and wouldn't want to cut
into more fruitful opportunities for far-right propagandizing. There may be
some one out there who hasn't heard The Message yet, though I doubt it
personally.
P.S. I've just spent a couple hours composing this thing. I'm running out
of free time and probably you are too.
Indeed.
Post by Warren Hopper
So ... one of the more interesting discussions I've had.
Likewise.
Post by Warren Hopper
Not that I'm giving an inch of course. ;-)
Of course not. Nor I :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
So you think attack with nuclear weapons is a "practical, common-sense
political world-view" ?
Attack with nuclear weapons is not a world-view. It's an action that
should be avoided whenever possible, and only used as a last resort.
I've explained my reasoning for that in previous posts.
OK, granted. But any indication that the US is planning some sort of
'preemptive' nuclear first strike would be a political disaster. The
consequences of actually doing it would be unimaginable, quite without
precedent. Effectively, we would be living in an outlaw nation overnight.
I disagree. I think we have to plan for all contingencies, and rejecting
the possibility of a first strike as "unimaginable" cedes an unacceptable
advantage to our opponents. Unless, of course, you can unconditionally
guarantee me that Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il and their ilk have also
rejected it. Not to mention Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
And how is a massive covert domestic spying and dirty tricks operation
"supportive of the necessity for ... individual liberty" ?
I'm not aware that anything like that has happened. If you're talking
about the NSA surveillance program -- which, as I understand it, is neither
massive nor domestic -- it supports our individual liberties by defending
us against those who would take them away.
How are anti-war protestors and environmentalist groups taking away our
individual liberties ?
The NSA surveillance program -- again, as I understand it -- has nothing
to do with anti-war protestors and environmental groups.
Post by Warren Hopper
I think we can assume that activities like that are
just the surface, they talk about thousands but there is little doubt that
the truth is probably hundreds of thousands or millions.
For all my wild and crazy stuff, I'm very careful about what I say in these
newsgroups. I've known about the massive and illegal surveillance campaign
for several years. Starting in 2004, I've caught many attempts to
infiltrate my machine and traced them back to either what claim to be
British Defense servers or shady private 'market research' groups, some of
them in *Texas* ( surprise surprise, follow the money and you'll never go
far wrong ). So it ain't Muslim terrorists taking away our liberties,
bubba, it's the Bushheads. As the man said, "Charlie don't surf".
But I suppose you regard massive surveillance of domestic political enemies
as AOK in defending America from people like myself who would, in the
conservative mind-set, take away our liberties, most importantly one
presumes the liberty to conduct massive surveillance campaigns against
domestic political enemies such as myself.
Actually, you're correct. According to my sources there's a full-time team of
agents at the NSA devoted to keeping tabs on you. They're known, informally,
as the Wabbit Squad :>)

Anything's possible, but, seriously -- and no offense -- I wonder if you might
be exaggerating? Just a bit?
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Tell me how the conservative attack on a woman's right to choose ( you
know what ) supports "individual responsibility in a free society", granting
that you yourself probably take the liberal world-view on this particular
issue.
I assume the right to choose you refer to is a woman's right to choose to
kill her unborn child? Personally, I believe there are two distinctly separate
issues there: legality and morality. The legality should be decided by our
legislatures, not our judges. The morality should be an issue between each
woman and her God -- or her conscience, as the case may be.
Yeah right, the rights of the unborn over the born. Gee, I wish I were
among unborn, then I could be treated like an adult and make my own
decisions. The whole thing's been gone over too many times and too crazy to
get into now.
Okey doke. You bought it up, but let's drop it.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
What about the guys who call for the demise of all "Repuglican Rightards?"
Who would make up such a terrible things to say about people whose only
concern is looting the national treasury. If this keeps up, they'll be
calling you Rapacious Republicans next !
Of course, we already know all about the Democrat Deficits, don't we. ;-)
You know, that's one of the very few accomplishments (balancing the
budget) I have to reluctantly give Clinton some credit for, though the
Republicans in Congress had as much or more to do with it as he did.
Same for welfare reform. In fairness to Bush, however, Clinton did not
have 911, Iraq, Afghanistan or Katrina to pay for.

But, the current deficit is neither exclusively Republican nor Democrat, as
far as I can see. It seems to me both parties are belly up to the public
trough and unable to restrain themselves from buying votes by spending
us into oblivion. I expect that from Democrats, but Bush, and Republicans
in general have been a great disappointment to me in that respect.
Post by Warren Hopper
There's a story about LBJ in one of those 'full contact' Texas election
campaigns. He had the idea of accusing his opponent of 'carnal knowledge of
barnyard animals'. His advisors asked why and LBJ responded, "I just want
to hear him deny he's a pig-effer" ( without the 'eff' of course ).
LOL. What a character. See *my* LBJ quote below.
Post by Warren Hopper
So I just wanted to hear you deny it and I feel well-deserved shame about my
underhanded debating tactics. Bad me, bad ... [ spanking self ] ... stop
being so combative about everything.
In fact, I have serious South'ren connections and probably have a far better
idea of what they're about than you do. I may have been called a 'n-lover'
more times than anyone you've ever encountered. After not hearing it for a
decade or so, I got it again as recently as Christmas time ( in that sort of
haw-haw-only-kiddin'-but-not way they have of saying things down in Dixie ).
A trend perhaps ? I think it's very likely.
Perhaps they do not share your views on race relations.

"Be practical. We've got to give the goddamned niggers *something*."
-- Lyndon Baines Johnson
Post by Warren Hopper
At the core of it is mortal fear, socially politically economically
spiritually. No matter how downtrodden an ignorant dirt farmer or
booze-sodden piece of trailer trash you may be, at least you can tell
yourself that you have white skin. If you take that away from them, they
have nothing. If you know people like that, it's hard not to pity them.
I think that mortal fear is the cornerstone of the most reactionary ravings
of various colorations we see in this group.
Has it occurred to you that they're just pissed off?
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Some may be permanently out to lunch, but I think others are simply
venting their anger and frustration with Muslim terrorism
And fear ...
Post by Bob Cooper
-- perhaps in the only way they know
how. And that's something I can certainly empathize with, even if I
might disapprove of their methods.
God knows you've got more than your share of moonbats and wingnuts on
the left. Been to an "anti-war" demonstration lately? Read about
"progressives" who exhort the troops to kill their own officers? Remember
Ward Churchill, who, as I recall, called the WTC victims "little
Eichmans"? Do you deny that they are liberals?
There seem to be about 10 right-wing moonbats for every left-wing moonbat,
Not by my count, Bugs :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
although out in moonbat land, I doubt if the distinctions between left and
right have much meaning.
Long ago, I got on one of my hobby horses about the weird alliance between
the far-right Action Francaise and the far-left French Communists before
WWII. They wanted to bring down the socialist government to cause a final
confrontation between ... etc etc ... you know the drill. If you look at
their ideological 'values' ( if such they can be called ), they really
weren't that far apart in the first place, and probably sensed it in a vague
way. Well, in any case, they got what they bargained for and a lot more.
You probably know more about that than I do. But, I do recall that all the
commies amazingly discovered overnight on August 23, 1939, that der fuhrer
wasn't such a bad guy after all. And, just as rapidly on June 22, 1941,
discovered that, yes, he really was. Politics can make strange (and
sometimes rapidly changing) bedfellows.
Post by Warren Hopper
I hope it isn't happening again. A strange fact, but you don't even need to
look outside the scope of this group of message threads to find an example
of it ( hint hint ).
And, BTW, a real rip-snorting French right-winger makes you guys look
like a bunch of Hillary kissers, as disgusting as that notion may sound.
There you go again, spoiling my lunch :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
As I said above, I certainly don't approve of everything Bush has done,
even though you seem to be intent on painting me with that brush. What
I do approve of is that, after 8 years of Clinton "feeling our pain"
instead of defending us against those who would kill us, Bush is actually
shooting back at the bastards and killing them. In large numbers.
What bastards specifically ?
Thousands. A few here, a few there. Here's a recent example:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060416_4832.html
Post by Warren Hopper
I can think of some of the bastards who remain
unshot. In fact, I'd happily do the shooting myself, although I'd still
prefer to dispatch them at leisure with a good stout iron grill and a
hundred gallons of jet fuel. I could have been a very different person
than the one I am.
And for all crap the conservatives talk about Clinton, who was President
when the terrorists were repeatedly stopped in the 90s ?
Stopped!! Stopped where? Stopped when? Stopped them from
bombing the WTC in '93? Stopped them from bombing the Khobar
Towers in '96? The US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in '98?
The USS Cole in 2000? Just exactly what did he stop?
Post by Warren Hopper
Who was President when they got through to us in 2001 ?
You mean when they got through to us *again* in 2001? GWB was. He
had been President for 9 months, compared to Clinton's 8 years. Should
he have done more in those 9 months? Yes. Should Clinton have done
more in 8 years? Hell Yes!!
Post by Warren Hopper
Do you think the 9/11 commission is the last word on the subject ? Live
in hope. In the end, the ax of history will come down on Georgie's
scrawny neck, who was too busy looking for ways to rape our public
lands to think about terrorism, this despite Clinton warnings.
Clinton warnings? Yeah. "George, you better take care of them
Al Qaeda boys. I been lettin' em git away with murder for 8 years,
'cause I feel their pain, but, well, somebody really oughtta do sumthin."
Post by Warren Hopper
I better shut up about it or I'm going to start "feeling my own pain" all
over again.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
OK, that's a pretty good pun, actually :>)
It's a com-pun-ction ... HAW HAW HAW ... oh, my ribs, I can hardly breathe
!
Uh....it wasn't *that* good.
Post by Warren Hopper
As I said before to Phedrine, you sound like my Depression-Era, WWIIer mama.
I may find the goodness eventually, but it may not be here. I think the
corruption of this country is total, absolute and final. I don't see how we
are going to pull out of this.
My goodness, Wabbit, get a gwip!
Post by Warren Hopper
A generation ago, America had no history, but it has too much history now,
for me anyway. America is leaving its adolescence and entering the Era of
Consequences.
Fact: there are *at least* one billion Muslims in the world.
I've known a couple of them pretty well and I can say categorically that,
except for cutting off funding for a dog project or cutting off a
long-winded speech in a meeting, I've never seen a single one of them (
that's never ever ) cut off anything. Well ... maybe including cutting off
their own noses to spite their faces, but that's people, isn't it.
Otherwise, they limit any violence in their nature to the financial sphere
rather than physical ( after they get through with you, you may find
yourself prefering the physical violence to the finanical ).
So I was grimly amused by the Arab Port Scandal. I did a some research and
the longer I looked at these guys, the more familar they seemed.
Eventually, I felt like I could almost see the look of blank incomprehension
on their faces at the reaction to the proposed acquistion. In addition to
being American biz-school grads and on various boards of directors, it's not
unlikely that an Islamic conservative group murdered a friend or cousin or
somebody. Who do Americans think these people are ?
We had an old German lady who taught the language in our high school and all
the young wags would goose-step and sig-heil her uproariously. Her husband
was one of the 100,000s of ethnic Germans the Nazis killed, but that didn't
slow them down one bit. I thought of her during the Arab PR firestorm.
As I said before, there are one heck of alot of Muslims in this world and
not all of them think the same thing. And not only are there one hell of a
lot of Muslims, but some them have one heck of a lot of money, as our
Georgie knows only too well ( op. cit. "the Religion of Peace", maybe ).
OK, there are a lot of them, they have a lot of money, they don't all agree
on everything, and I'm sure some of them are fine folks as human beings.
What they have in common though, is a commitment, to a greater or lesser
degree, to a religion which is in many ways as much a dangerous political
ideology, as it is a religion. A political ideology that divides the world into
"us" (Muslims) and "them" (everybody else), and leaves no doubt whatsoever
about which group must be in charge. Complete charge. And, it ain't
"them".

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I suspect that the answer lies in the lumping of large number of very
different people under a small set of labels. For instance, the label
"Muslims". You talk about "all 62,040,606 of them", but don't seem to
realize that for every blathering Bushhead in the world there are about
16 Muslims. That's *alodda* Muslims, and they don't all think the same
thing.
So when you says that "they" have remined silent, it looks suspiciously
like you are taking the behavior of the few and projecting upon the many.
No. Just the opposite. Muslims who *have* spoken out are the few. Very
few. Those who have not are the many.
You just aren't listening.
The much-despised CAIR is among many Muslim organizations who have
repeatedly condemned conservative terrorism, although I'm sure they did
condemn 'enough' to satisfy your high standards of condemnation.
Haven't you heard? CAIR is "not in the business of condemning."

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12872
"CAIR’s spokesman was given the opportunity to condemn Hamas and
Islamic Jihad by the Washington Post in November 2001. His response
was telling: “It’s not our job to go around denouncing.” Asked a similar
question about Hamas and Hezbollah by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in
February 2002, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called such queries a
“game” and explained, “We’re not in the business of condemning.”
Post by Warren Hopper
Presumably, they would also have to condemn Islam itself to satisfy you (
and I'm sure even that wouldn't be 'enough' for ARI denizens ).
You know what they could do that would go a long way to satisfying me?
They could issue a fatwa to all the world's Muslims condemning OBL
-- by name -- as a murderer and apostate, and *demanding* that Muslims
bring him to justice immediately. They had no hesitation in doing that to
Rushdie for writing a book. Why don't they do it to OBL for slaughtering
3,000 innocent people?
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
From a pragmatic standpoint, how many people in Chicago in the
1930s spoke out against Al Capone ? Very few, because they'd get
killed,
On the contrary, they not only spoke out against him, they put him in jail.
You think Capone didn't kill journalists, politicians, do-gooders and anyone
else who didn't dance to his tune. They killed the Mayor of (?) a city just
south of Chicago. They also killed a Chief-of-Police they couldn't buy.
Are you a 'Roaring Twenties' romanticist ?
No. Are you a Jihadist romanticist?

Sure they killed people and did bad things. They were thugs, and that's what
thugs do. But, the decent citizens spoke out against them, and the cops
killed some of them and put the rest of them in jail, eventually. That's what
good citizens do.

Now, when are the "good citizen" Muslims going to get rid of their thugs?
When are they going to stop demonstrating in the streets in favor of them,
and start demonstrating against them? When are they going to turn OBL
in? When are they going to start condemning terrorism without adding the
inevitable, "but.......?" The good citizens of Chicago stood up to Capone
and his gang and got rid of them in spite of intimidation because they
hated what he stood for.

Do Muslims "good citizens" hate Bin Laden and Zarqawi because of what
they stand for? Of course not. They can't, because what they stand for is
based squarely on the Koran. Remember what Ms. West said in the article?
It's worth repeating for a fifth time: "The jihadist itinerary comes straight
from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."

No, as Muslim "good citizens", it is their duty to support them. It's the Great
Satan they must hate. That would be you and me, and what we stand for.

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
I'm fascinated again by how you have fastened on to your new term,
"Muslim conservatives". Now, it seems that not only are the folks who
want all Muslims dead conservatives, but Muslims they want dead are
conservatives, as well.
Islamic Conservatives want the Muslim world to go back 500 years, the
Caliphate and all that. Some even want to go back 1300 years to the days of
the Righteous Ones. They all want to go back to some distant past, they
resist or oppose modern changes. That's conservative, right ?
Wrong. That's reactionary. We conservatives yearn for Reagan, not the
monarchy of George III, or Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire.
Post by Warren Hopper
How could I call myself an Environmental Conservative otherwise ?
Post by Bob Cooper
But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from the
brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the fact that
the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah on *their* side.
As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in this thread I'm
quoting this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist itinerary comes
straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
That's not really true. In fact, I think it's not at all clear what
Muhammad would have thought of the Conquest.
His primary goal was to unite the Arabs against the cultural incursions of
the 'Romans' and Persians, it was not to conquer the world. While he was
clearly interested in pushing north into historically Arab areas east of
modern Syria and Israel, there is nothing I have ever seen or heard that
clearly demonstrates that he intended the military conquest and subjection
of non-Arab peoples.
Good grief! And, you call me a "roaring twenties romanticist?" His whole
life revolved around fighting, conquest and forced conversion. Read the
Koran, man:

[3:85][And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be
accepted from him]

[9:14][Fight against the Jews and Christians! Allah shall punish Them, at
your hands]

[9.29][Fight those who do not believe in Allah]

[9:73][Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with
them]

[9.123][Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find
in you hardness]

[19:40][It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us
will they all be returned]

[58:5][Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as
were those before them]

[66: 9][O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and
be stern with them]

"The jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic
texts."
-- Diana West
Post by Warren Hopper
One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well, but I
haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Read the verses above.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Your question is based on the premise that they are rational actors.
Rational actors do things that "make sense".
Ideally, one hopes.
But the 'experts' used to say the same thing about big corporate
acquisitions ( "it only makes good financial sense after all" ) until
somebody actually went in and did a rigorous study of the influence of
gigantic, planetary-sized personal egos of the 'rational actors' involved in
these transactions. It was not a pretty picture.
Post by Bob Cooper
Ahmedinejad and his gang drop messages to the Twelfth Imam
down a well.
I wish you were joking, but I don't think you are. Never heard about the
well.
=======================================================
http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/prycejones200604211630.asp

(...)

".....Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance
of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi." In the middle of the 10th century, this imam
went into hiding, supposedly in a well in Jamkaran, south of Tehran, but it
is an article of Shiite faith that he will return and herald the End of Days.
Ahmadinejad and his cabinet signed a petition to the hidden imam,
proceeded to Jamkaran, and threw it down the well for his attention."

(...)
=======================================================
Post by Warren Hopper
The Imam, Occulted but Ever Ready to Spring Out from Nowhere, and not
even born-again, that's impressive. But then the argument of 'serious or
not' could be carried either way based on that bit of data.
To repeat myself ( propagandistically I suppose ), "if it got down to going
into Iran and killing a bunch of people based on a 'misunderstanding' about
nuclear weapons, then that's the way its got to be".
What's the misunderstanding? My understanding is that Iran is hell-bent
on acquiring nuclear weapons; that they have repeatedly threatened to
destroy Israel; that they sponsor, finance, arm and support terrorist groups
such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the "insurgents" in Iraq who are
killing our troops; and that Ahmadinejad, at least, is as nutty as a fruitcake.
What am I misunderstanding?
Post by Warren Hopper
If the source of that misunderstanding is at the bottom of a well, what's
the diff ?
Now, that's what I call a "deep" misunderstanding! ("Deep", get it?
HAW HAW HAW ... oh, my ribs, I can hardly breathe!) :>)

<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, did you know that, percentage-wise, more Republicans in
Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats?
Interesting, huh?
You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh again, you know that's against
the rules of the Institute.
I rarely listen to him, actually. Not a big fan.
I'm disappointed. Loaded up with innuendos and nowhere to go with it, story
of my life.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
You've already mentioned your gray hairs so you've got no excuse for
misunderstanding the situation in the 1960s. Don't pretend to me you've
never heard of the Dixicrats, because I'm only too familiar with the
evasions of recovering conservatives.
Sure, I remember them well. They were democrats, as I recall. The
democrats who voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act.
It was a Democratic Congress, so that's difficult to visualize. Defying LBJ
is also difficult to visualize, for Democrats or Republicans.
But maybe you *should* be listening to Rush Limbaugh. As freaky and
oxycontin-enabled as he gets, his Limboids at least have some kind of
relationship to reality. He's never make such a sloppy statement like
"democrats who voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act", so far
as I know.
No, that's not what I said. I said the *Dixiecrats* were the "democrats who
voted, almost to a man, against the Civil Rights Act." Obviously, most of the
*non-Dixiecrat* democrats voted for it. Apparently, you misunderstood me.
Post by Warren Hopper
I can only attribute your lapse to immoderate consumption of
hallucinogenic substances during early adolescence.
In oxycontin veritas ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
By Party
Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
----------------------------
I didn't get any pleasure out of that.
Pleasure out of what? Those figures verify my original comment that,
"percentage-wise, more Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 than Democrats." In fact, that very article in Wikipedia was my
source for that statement, not Rush Limbaugh
Post by Warren Hopper
Too easy, tadpoles in a tea cup.
But if you want to mix it up over the 'Dixiecrats' of 1964, we could also
discuss some of the more sorid policies of the 'Dixie-licans' in the year
2006.
Hmmm .... Dix-lickins ... something there but I can't quite figure out what
... :-)
Wait till Hillary takes over in 2008. Heck, who knows. We might finally
get a black Secretary of State. Maybe even a black, female Secretary
of State :>)



<snip<
thelasian
2006-05-14 14:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Nuclear first-strikes are not only immoral, they are illegal.
Furthermore, are you willing to live by the rules that you apply to
others?


There are many facts that go missing or are de-emphasized in the
mainstreem media's account of Iran's nuclear program. According to the
IAEA, Iran has allowed more inspections that it was legally required,
and there is still no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Here are more FACTS that you won't hear much about:

1- The US encouraged Iran's nuclear program:
See "Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy" Washington
Post Mar 27 2005
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html)

2- Iran has a legitimate case for needing nuclear energy
"Forced to Fuel: Iran's Nuclear Energy Program." by Dr. Muhammad
Sahimi, Harvard International Review,
(http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/)
and
See "The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive" by David Isenberg, Asia
Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html)


3- Iran had not "hidden" its nuclear program until the US prevented
Iran from acquiring its technology openly.
See "Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons" Le Monde diplomatique, Nov
2005
(http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran)


4- Iran has repeatedly made offers of compromises that would resolve
any REAL concern about nuclear proliferation, but Iran WON'T GIVE UP
its rights to have its own nuclear energy:
See "We Don't Need This Quarrel"
www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php
Bob Cooper
2006-05-26 13:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by thelasian
Nuclear first-strikes are not only immoral, they are illegal.
Self-defense is neither immoral nor illegal.
Post by thelasian
Furthermore, are you willing to live by the rules that you apply to
others?
Do I have a choice?
Post by thelasian
There are many facts that go missing or are de-emphasized in the
mainstreem media's account of Iran's nuclear program. According to the
IAEA, Iran has allowed more inspections that it was legally required,
and there is still no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.
See "Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy" Washington
Post Mar 27 2005
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html)
2- Iran has a legitimate case for needing nuclear energy
"Forced to Fuel: Iran's Nuclear Energy Program." by Dr. Muhammad
Sahimi, Harvard International Review,
(http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/)
and
See "The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive" by David Isenberg, Asia
Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html)
3- Iran had not "hidden" its nuclear program until the US prevented
Iran from acquiring its technology openly.
See "Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons" Le Monde diplomatique, Nov
2005
(http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran)
4- Iran has repeatedly made offers of compromises that would resolve
any REAL concern about nuclear proliferation, but Iran WON'T GIVE UP
See "We Don't Need This Quarrel"
www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php
Iran is governed by deranged theocrats who have repeatedly made irrational
threats to "wipe Israel off the map," and who clearly sponsor, support, finance and
arm terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran should not
be permitted to develop nuclear weapons.
thelasian
2006-05-28 07:01:33 UTC
Permalink
If self-defense? It is iran that is being threatened, moron.
Bob Cooper
2006-05-28 14:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by thelasian
If self-defense? It is iran that is being threatened, moron.
Not at all. It is Iran that's doing the threatening:

===========================================================
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051113-114109-6209r.htm

(...)

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected last August, described
openly the other day why Iran needed a nuclear weapon in announcing "Israel
must be wiped off the map." Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke for the Iranian government
when he called for Israel's destruction. In fact, Iranian Foreign Minister
Manoucher Mottaki told the state-run television "the comments expressed by
the president are the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of
Iran."

(...)

In Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad's words "inspired" a parade in downtown Tehran with
signs reading "Death to Israel, death to America," "Every Iranian is an atomic
bomb." The last slogan is reason enough for the deepest concern in Western
chancelleries over Iran's continued search for nuclear weapons and uranium
enrichment.

Demonstrators in the Tehran parade carried a large picture of Mr.
Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map."
They burned Israeli and U.S. flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

(...)
===========================================================

"Israel must be wiped off the map."

"Death to Israel, death to America."

"Every Iranian is an atomic bomb."

If I said, "Death to thelasian," wouldn't you consider it a threat?

Cretin.
thelasian
2006-05-31 23:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by thelasian
If self-defense? It is iran that is being threatened, moron.
===========================================================
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051113-114109-6209r.htm
(...)
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected last August, described
openly the other day why Iran needed a nuclear weapon in announcing "Israel
must be wiped off the map." Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke for the Iranian government
when he called for Israel's destruction. In fact, Iranian Foreign Minister
Manoucher Mottaki told the state-run television "the comments expressed by
the president are the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of
Iran."
(...)
In Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad's words "inspired" a parade in downtown Tehran with
signs reading "Death to Israel, death to America," "Every Iranian is an atomic
bomb." The last slogan is reason enough for the deepest concern in Western
chancelleries over Iran's continued search for nuclear weapons and uranium
enrichment.
Demonstrators in the Tehran parade carried a large picture of Mr.
Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map."
They burned Israeli and U.S. flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
(...)
===========================================================
"Israel must be wiped off the map."
"Death to Israel, death to America."
"Every Iranian is an atomic bomb."
If I said, "Death to thelasian," wouldn't you consider it a threat?
Cretin.
Interesting signature - your name is really cretin? How fitting!
So other than the usual exaggerations and hot air, you still haven't
answered the question -- when the president of the United States has
said that nuking Iran is an "option" and when the US (unlike Iran)
actually has the nukes and has been threatening the entire world with
them since long before Ahmadinejad was elected, who is the real threat
to whom?

You seem to forget that the US was arming, financing and supplying
Saddams WMDs which were used against Iran and caused the deaths of
60,000 Iranians. Perhaps when they say "Death to America" they have a
reason or two? Hmmm?

You're a moron in addition to a cretin.
Bob Cooper
2006-06-01 01:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by thelasian
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by thelasian
If self-defense? It is iran that is being threatened, moron.
===========================================================
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051113-114109-6209r.htm
(...)
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elected last August, described
openly the other day why Iran needed a nuclear weapon in announcing "Israel
must be wiped off the map." Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke for the Iranian government
when he called for Israel's destruction. In fact, Iranian Foreign Minister
Manoucher Mottaki told the state-run television "the comments expressed by
the president are the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of
Iran."
(...)
In Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad's words "inspired" a parade in downtown Tehran with
signs reading "Death to Israel, death to America," "Every Iranian is an atomic
bomb." The last slogan is reason enough for the deepest concern in Western
chancelleries over Iran's continued search for nuclear weapons and uranium
enrichment.
Demonstrators in the Tehran parade carried a large picture of Mr.
Ahmadinejad emblazoned with his quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map."
They burned Israeli and U.S. flags and effigies of President Bush and Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
(...)
===========================================================
"Israel must be wiped off the map."
"Death to Israel, death to America."
"Every Iranian is an atomic bomb."
If I said, "Death to thelasian," wouldn't you consider it a threat?
Cretin.
Interesting signature - your name is really cretin? How fitting!
So other than the usual exaggerations and hot air, you still haven't
answered the question -- when the president of the United States has
said that nuking Iran is an "option" and when the US (unlike Iran)
actually has the nukes and has been threatening the entire world with
them since long before Ahmadinejad was elected, who is the real threat
to whom?
"All options are on the table," is a warning, not a threat.
Post by thelasian
You seem to forget that the US was arming, financing and supplying
Saddams WMDs which were used against Iran and caused the deaths of
60,000 Iranians. Perhaps when they say "Death to America" they have a
reason or two? Hmmm?
I don't see why. Saddam Hussein caused those deaths, and hundreds of
thousands of others. He's on trial now, you know, thanks to the US.

And, oh yes, you're welcome.
Post by thelasian
You're a moron in addition to a cretin.
::yawn:: Yeah, yeah. And, your mother wears combat boots.
Sirknight67_shits_and pisses_all over_the filthy_koran
2006-06-01 05:26:54 UTC
Permalink
the "death to America chant was going on before the war betwene Iran
and Iraq and if being responsible for Iranian deaths was the motivation
behind the death to America chant, then Iraquis should have the
shortest end of the stick in Iranian demonstrations, which is not the
case so obviously you come up empty headed...again
Post by thelasian
You seem to forget that the US was arming, financing and supplying
Saddams WMDs which were used against Iran and caused the deaths of
60,000 Iranians. Perhaps when they say "Death to America" they have a
reason or two? Hmmm?
Warren Hopper
2006-05-25 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Sorry about the ultra-late response, I'm wandering through the Streets of
Laredo these days.

It was a rare harangue on your part, glad I didn't miss it. It's been
turned over to the ACLU hate crimes division for incorporation into a case
study they are doing on radical extremist ideology. It deserves text book
treatment. :-)

I did have one more comment, on Muhammad, see below.
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Take you time responding, clearly I'm a lost cause and wouldn't want to cut
into more fruitful opportunities for far-right propagandizing. There may be
some one out there who hasn't heard The Message yet, though I doubt it
personally.
P.S. I've just spent a couple hours composing this thing. I'm running out
of free time and probably you are too.
Indeed.
Post by Warren Hopper
So ... one of the more interesting discussions I've had.
Likewise.
Post by Warren Hopper
Not that I'm giving an inch of course. ;-)
Of course not. Nor I :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
<snip>
[ huge snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from the
brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the fact that
the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah on *their* side.
As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in this thread I'm
quoting this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist itinerary comes
straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
That's not really true. In fact, I think it's not at all clear what
Muhammad would have thought of the Conquest.
His primary goal was to unite the Arabs against the cultural incursions of
the 'Romans' and Persians, it was not to conquer the world. While he was
clearly interested in pushing north into historically Arab areas east of
modern Syria and Israel, there is nothing I have ever seen or heard that
clearly demonstrates that he intended the military conquest and subjection
of non-Arab peoples.
Good grief! And, you call me a "roaring twenties romanticist?" His whole
life revolved around fighting, conquest and forced conversion. Read the
[3:85][And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be
accepted from him]
[9:14][Fight against the Jews and Christians! Allah shall punish Them, at
your hands]
[9.29][Fight those who do not believe in Allah]
[9:73][Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with
them]
[9.123][Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find
in you hardness]
[19:40][It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us
will they all be returned]
[58:5][Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as
were those before them]
[66: 9][O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and
be stern with them]
"The jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic
texts."
-- Diana West
Post by Warren Hopper
One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well, but I
haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Read the verses above.
I have read the verses above and I don't see it that way, probably because I
don't see Muhammad in the way most people do, even most Muslims.

I think that he was an absolutely pragmatic man, not a wild-eyed Arab
version of Jesus or Moses or whoever, I think he was first and foremost a
political genius of the highest order. If he had intended the conquest of
the Mediterranean world he would have said so, in a single pity no nonsense
verse, not left to be inferred ( with an effort of imagination ) from
half-a-dozen selected verses. His intention was to unify the Arabs, drive
out 'foreign' gods and influence and initiate a revival of Arab civilization
and culture, not to conquer the world.

Note the phrase " ... We Who will inherit the earth ...". Sounds almost
Christian, no surprise to me.

Another interesting feature of this idea is his 'year of diplomacy'
establishing contacts with the Arabs to the north, the Ghassanids (sp. ? )
particularly, who were chaffing under Byzantine domination. He probably had
his eye on Damascus too. But I doubt if his intentions extended further
than that. I am reasonably certain that he would not have been comfortable
with the 'Conquest'.

But who knows for sure ? Historically , it's a moot point and unprovable
one way or the other. But I'm reasonably certain of what I'm saying.
Muhammad himself was no religious imperialist, whatever Islam made of itself
after his death.



[ nuther huge snip ]
Bob Cooper
2006-05-26 14:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Sorry about the ultra-late response, I'm wandering through the Streets of
Laredo these days.
No problem.
Post by Warren Hopper
It was a rare harangue on your part, glad I didn't miss it. It's been
turned over to the ACLU hate crimes division for incorporation into a case
study they are doing on radical extremist ideology. It deserves text book
treatment. :-)
I bet you look forward to the day when the ACLU's jack-booted Storm
Troopers come to frog-march me away to "hate crime camp," don't
you? :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
I did have one more comment, on Muhammad, see below.
[ huge snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from
the brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the
fact that the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah
on *their* side. As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in
this thread I'm quoting this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist
itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
That's not really true. In fact, I think it's not at all clear what
Muhammad would have thought of the Conquest.
His primary goal was to unite the Arabs against the cultural incursions
of the 'Romans' and Persians, it was not to conquer the world. While he
was clearly interested in pushing north into historically Arab areas east of
modern Syria and Israel, there is nothing I have ever seen or heard that
clearly demonstrates that he intended the military conquest and
subjection of non-Arab peoples.
Good grief! And, you call me a "roaring twenties romanticist?" His whole
life revolved around fighting, conquest and forced conversion. Read the
[3:85][And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be
accepted from him]
[9:14][Fight against the Jews and Christians! Allah shall punish Them, at
your hands]
[9.29][Fight those who do not believe in Allah]
[9:73][Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with
them]
[9.123][Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them
find
Post by Bob Cooper
in you hardness]
[19:40][It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us
will they all be returned]
[58:5][Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust,
as
Post by Bob Cooper
were those before them]
[66: 9][O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and
be stern with them]
"The jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal
Islamic texts."
-- Diana West
Post by Warren Hopper
One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well, but I
haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Read the verses above.
I have read the verses above and I don't see it that way, probably because I
don't see Muhammad in the way most people do, even most Muslims.
I think that he was an absolutely pragmatic man, not a wild-eyed Arab
version of Jesus or Moses or whoever, I think he was first and foremost a
political genius of the highest order. If he had intended the conquest of
the Mediterranean world he would have said so, in a single pity no nonsense
verse, not left to be inferred ( with an effort of imagination ) from
half-a-dozen selected verses.
It seems to me it requires much greater "effort of imagination" to construe
them otherwise. Apparently, you're up to the task.
Post by Warren Hopper
His intention was to unify the Arabs, drive
out 'foreign' gods and influence and initiate a revival of Arab civilization
and culture, not to conquer the world.
Note the phrase " ... We Who will inherit the earth ...". Sounds almost
Christian, no surprise to me.
I believe the Christian version mentions something about "the meek."
Post by Warren Hopper
Another interesting feature of this idea is his 'year of diplomacy'
establishing contacts with the Arabs to the north, the Ghassanids (sp. ? )
particularly, who were chaffing under Byzantine domination. He probably had
his eye on Damascus too. But I doubt if his intentions extended further
than that. I am reasonably certain that he would not have been comfortable
with the 'Conquest'.
But who knows for sure ? Historically , it's a moot point and unprovable
one way or the other. But I'm reasonably certain of what I'm saying.
Muhammad himself was no religious imperialist, whatever Islam made of itself
after his death.
[ nuther huge snip ]
Enjoy your fantasies. They should be a great comfort to you when they
come to transport you to the soccer stadium :>)
Warren Hopper
2006-05-29 01:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Sorry about the ultra-late response, I'm wandering through the Streets of
Laredo these days.
No problem.
Post by Warren Hopper
It was a rare harangue on your part, glad I didn't miss it. It's been
turned over to the ACLU hate crimes division for incorporation into a case
study they are doing on radical extremist ideology. It deserves text book
treatment. :-)
I bet you look forward to the day when the ACLU's jack-booted Storm
Troopers come to frog-march me away to "hate crime camp," don't
you? :>)
Hell no. You're way too valuable to society as an example of what not to
do, we'll parade you around the schools to show the kids "this is what
extremist ideology can do to you". Don't worry, we'll keep you well
supplied with Glen Livit, nothing's too good for a celebrity. :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I did have one more comment, on Muhammad, see below.
[ huge snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
But, the fact is the intimidation you speak of arises not only from
the brutal, ruthless gangsters themselves, but, even more, from the
fact that the brutal, ruthless gangsters have the Koran and Sunnah
on *their* side. As Ms. West puts it -- and this is the fourth time in
this thread I'm quoting this sentence from her article -- "the jihadist
itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts."
That's not really true. In fact, I think it's not at all clear what
Muhammad would have thought of the Conquest.
His primary goal was to unite the Arabs against the cultural incursions
of the 'Romans' and Persians, it was not to conquer the world.
While he
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
was clearly interested in pushing north into historically Arab areas east of
modern Syria and Israel, there is nothing I have ever seen or heard that
clearly demonstrates that he intended the military conquest and
subjection of non-Arab peoples.
Good grief! And, you call me a "roaring twenties romanticist?" His whole
life revolved around fighting, conquest and forced conversion. Read the
[3:85][And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be
accepted from him]
Not to beat this thing to death but ... you can collect an equal number of
quotes saying exactly the opposite ... Koranic verses are what you want to
make them.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
[9:14][Fight against the Jews and Christians! Allah shall punish Them, at
your hands]
[9.29][Fight those who do not believe in Allah]
[9:73][Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with
them]
[9.123][Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them
find
Post by Bob Cooper
in you hardness]
[19:40][It is We Who will inherit the earth, and all beings thereon: to Us
will they all be returned]
[58:5][Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust,
as
Post by Bob Cooper
were those before them]
[66: 9][O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and
be stern with them]
"The jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal
Islamic texts."
-- Diana West
Post by Warren Hopper
One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well, but I
haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Read the verses above.
I have read the verses above and I don't see it that way, probably because I
don't see Muhammad in the way most people do, even most Muslims.
I think that he was an absolutely pragmatic man, not a wild-eyed Arab
version of Jesus or Moses or whoever, I think he was first and foremost a
political genius of the highest order. If he had intended the conquest of
the Mediterranean world he would have said so, in a single pity no nonsense
verse, not left to be inferred ( with an effort of imagination ) from
half-a-dozen selected verses.
It seems to me it requires much greater "effort of imagination" to construe
them otherwise. Apparently, you're up to the task.
I think you are spending too much energy on literal readings of the Koran.
Do you think these sorts of verses actually effect peoples behavior one way
or the other ? I don't think so ( very little of Christ's message ever made
it into Christianity ). The vast majority of Muslims excepting Islamists do
pretty much what everyone else does. Some murder people, some beat their
wives, some steal from the cash box, etc. The vast majority do none of
these things, same as everywhere else.

It's as if you ask 'where are all the moderate Muslims' and then simply deny
the existence of the 90% that really are *demonstrably* moderate Muslims.
Whatever other people believe that Muslim's beliefs are supposed to be,
their behavior is largely moderate. They don't all do the things that the
propagandists claim are 'typical' of Muslims. Most Muslims wake up and go
work and then they come home, etc.

But that's really beside the point. I'm not talking about all Muslims over
the course of the next 1300 years after his death. I'm talking about
Muhammad himself, his behavior during his lifetime, how he dealt with
problems of Arab unification without turning Arabia into a bloodbath. In
that, he was considerably less brutal and savage than Alexander the Great or
Julius Caesar or any of the great conquerors of pre-modern history. He
wasn't as savage as Napolean for that matter. Or Lenin or Mao.

Who would you compare him to in history ? I can only think of Julius
Caesar, but only with a bit of a stretch. And remember that Caesar killed
several million Gauls, about 30% of the population, for all his supposed
'clemency'. Did Muhammad ever do anything like chop off both of the hands
of 5,000 (?) warriors and distribute them around the country as an warning
to the others, the way Julius Caesar did in Gaul ? No he did not, and
nothing even remotely like it.

By the standards of his time, he was unique among political leaders for his
vision and cleverness. In fact I can't think of anyone else in the ancient
or pre-modern world who achieved so much of enduring value with so little
bloodshed. He was amazing. Whatever happened *after* his death is not his
responsibilty.

AGAIN, with EMPHASIS, I am ONLY talking about the historical Muhammad during
HIS lifetime. I am NOT talking about the behavior of ALL Muslims at ALL
times since the 7th century AD. ONLY Muhammad, NOT ALL Muslims.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
His intention was to unify the Arabs, drive
out 'foreign' gods and influence and initiate a revival of Arab civilization
and culture, not to conquer the world.
Note the phrase " ... We Who will inherit the earth ...". Sounds almost
Christian, no surprise to me.
I believe the Christian version mentions something about "the meek."
True. The message of the Koran is not for the meek. As I said, Muhammad is
not Jesus, his intention was not the same. It wasn't salvation of the soul,
but the unification, ordering and preservation of Arab and Muslim society.

What's called 'political Islam' is not a side effect of Islam, it was the
intention.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Another interesting feature of this idea is his 'year of diplomacy'
establishing contacts with the Arabs to the north, the Ghassanids (sp. ? )
particularly, who were chaffing under Byzantine domination. He probably had
his eye on Damascus too. But I doubt if his intentions extended further
than that. I am reasonably certain that he would not have been comfortable
with the 'Conquest'.
But who knows for sure ? Historically , it's a moot point and unprovable
one way or the other. But I'm reasonably certain of what I'm saying.
Muhammad himself was no religious imperialist, whatever Islam made of itself
after his death.
[ nuther huge snip ]
Enjoy your fantasies. They should be a great comfort to you when they
come to transport you to the soccer stadium :>)
Are you having visions of Muslim shock troops marching down 5th Avenue
again, with thousands of 'dupes' waving green cresent flags, a al Baghdad in
reverse ? It beats pink elephants.
Bob Cooper
2006-06-02 21:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Sorry about the ultra-late response, I'm wandering through the Streets
of Laredo these days.
No problem.
Post by Warren Hopper
It was a rare harangue on your part, glad I didn't miss it. It's been
turned over to the ACLU hate crimes division for incorporation into a
case study they are doing on radical extremist ideology. It deserves
text book treatment. :-)
I bet you look forward to the day when the ACLU's jack-booted Storm
Troopers come to frog-march me away to "hate crime camp," don't
you? :>)
Hell no. You're way too valuable to society as an example of what not to
do, we'll parade you around the schools to show the kids "this is what
extremist ideology can do to you". Don't worry, we'll keep you well
supplied with Glen Livit, nothing's too good for a celebrity. :-)
What? No Show Trial? I thought your guys *loved* Show Trials.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I did have one more comment, on Muhammad, see below.
[ huge snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Good grief! And, you call me a "roaring twenties romanticist?" His
whole life revolved around fighting, conquest and forced conversion.
[3:85][And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not
be accepted from him]
Not to beat this thing to death but ... you can collect an equal number of
quotes saying exactly the opposite ... Koranic verses are what you want to
make them.
I see. The Koran is meaningless? If you really feel that way, I suppose
there's not much point in continuing this discussion.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
[9:14][Fight against the Jews and Christians! Allah shall punish Them,
at your hands]
[9.29][Fight those who do not believe in Allah]
[9:73][Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh
with them]
[9.123][Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let
them find in you hardness]
to Us will they all be returned]
[58:5][Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to
dust, as were those before them]
[66: 9][O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites,
and be stern with them]
"The jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal
Islamic texts."
-- Diana West
Post by Warren Hopper
One can imply, interpret and 'fatwa' oneself to a fare-thee-well,
but I haven't seen it stated in so many words.
Read the verses above.
I have read the verses above and I don't see it that way, probably
because I don't see Muhammad in the way most people do, even
most Muslims.
I think that he was an absolutely pragmatic man, not a wild-eyed Arab
version of Jesus or Moses or whoever, I think he was first and foremost
a political genius of the highest order. If he had intended the conquest
of the Mediterranean world he would have said so, in a single pity no
nonsense verse, not left to be inferred ( with an effort of imagination ) from
half-a-dozen selected verses.
It seems to me it requires much greater "effort of imagination" to
construe them otherwise. Apparently, you're up to the task.
I think you are spending too much energy on literal readings of the Koran.
Do you think these sorts of verses actually effect peoples behavior one way
or the other ?
LOL. Yes. About a billion people. Unlike you, the verses I posted have
a crystal clear meaning to me. And, them.
Post by Warren Hopper
I don't think so ( very little of Christ's message ever made
it into Christianity ). The vast majority of Muslims excepting Islamists do
pretty much what everyone else does. Some murder people, some beat their
wives, some steal from the cash box, etc. The vast majority do none of
these things, same as everywhere else.
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists. It is also true that
the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims. And, that is
not a cliche, it's a fact readily confirmable by reading the daily newspaper.

The vast majority of Nazis also did pretty much what everyone else did. I
suppose they were "moderate Nazis". Does that mean National Socialism
was a benign ideology?
Post by Warren Hopper
It's as if you ask 'where are all the moderate Muslims' and then simply deny
the existence of the 90% that really are *demonstrably* moderate Muslims.
Whatever other people believe that Muslim's beliefs are supposed to be,
their behavior is largely moderate. They don't all do the things that the
propagandists claim are 'typical' of Muslims. Most Muslims wake up and go
work and then they come home, etc.
As I pointed out above, so did most Nazis. But, it depends on how you define
"moderate", I suppose. If your idea of moderate is simply refraining from
blowing people up or slicing their heads off in the name of Allah, you're correct.

My idea of moderate goes beyond that. It involves unequivocally and
*sincerely* condemning those who do blow people up and slice heads off.
And, stopping them. If 90% of Muslims were "moderate" by my standard,
there would have been massive worldwide street demonstrations by
Muslims against Bin Laden, Omar, and Zarqawi, and those loathsome
thugs would have been killed or arrested long ago by Muslims, themselves.
Of course, if they were moderate by my standards, they would also,
arguably, no longer be Muslims :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
But that's really beside the point. I'm not talking about all Muslims over
the course of the next 1300 years after his death. I'm talking about
Muhammad himself, his behavior during his lifetime, how he dealt with
problems of Arab unification without turning Arabia into a bloodbath. In
that, he was considerably less brutal and savage than Alexander the Great or
Julius Caesar or any of the great conquerors of pre-modern history. He
wasn't as savage as Napolean for that matter. Or Lenin or Mao.
Who would you compare him to in history ? I can only think of Julius
Caesar, but only with a bit of a stretch. And remember that Caesar killed
several million Gauls, about 30% of the population, for all his supposed
'clemency'. Did Muhammad ever do anything like chop off both of the hands
of 5,000 (?) warriors and distribute them around the country as an warning
to the others, the way Julius Caesar did in Gaul ? No he did not, and
nothing even remotely like it.
Really?

=========================================================
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261

"he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were
heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e.
rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them
with water till they died"
=========================================================

Of course, the numbers were smaller. Caesar was head of a long-established
and enormously powerful empire. Mohammed was starting from scratch
with a relatively small number of followers. But, I have faith in him. Given
enough time, I'm pretty confident he would have exceeded JC in both
numbers and sheer barbarity :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
By the standards of his time, he was unique among political leaders for his
vision and cleverness. In fact I can't think of anyone else in the ancient
or pre-modern world who achieved so much of enduring value with so little
bloodshed. He was amazing. Whatever happened *after* his death is not his
responsibilty.
George Bernard Shaw thought Stalin was amazing. In fact, he once
nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize :>)

He also thought Mussolini was pretty neat.

He liked strong men.
Post by Warren Hopper
AGAIN, with EMPHASIS, I am ONLY talking about the historical Muhammad
during HIS lifetime. I am NOT talking about the behavior of ALL Muslims at
ALL times since the 7th century AD. ONLY Muhammad, NOT ALL Muslims.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
His intention was to unify the Arabs, drive
out 'foreign' gods and influence and initiate a revival of Arab
civilization and culture, not to conquer the world.
Note the phrase " ... We Who will inherit the earth ...". Sounds almost
Christian, no surprise to me.
I believe the Christian version mentions something about "the meek."
True. The message of the Koran is not for the meek. As I said, Muhammad is
not Jesus, his intention was not the same. It wasn't salvation of the soul,
but the unification, ordering and preservation of Arab and Muslim society.
What's called 'political Islam' is not a side effect of Islam, it was the
intention.
I couldn't agree with you more. What puzzles me is how you can recognize
that and fail to see the danger in it.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Another interesting feature of this idea is his 'year of diplomacy'
establishing contacts with the Arabs to the north, the Ghassanids (sp.
? ) particularly, who were chaffing under Byzantine domination. He probably
had his eye on Damascus too. But I doubt if his intentions extended further
than that. I am reasonably certain that he would not have been
comfortable with the 'Conquest'.
But who knows for sure ? Historically , it's a moot point and
unprovable one way or the other. But I'm reasonably certain of what I'm
saying. Muhammad himself was no religious imperialist, whatever Islam
made of itself after his death.
[ nuther huge snip ]
Enjoy your fantasies. They should be a great comfort to you when they
come to transport you to the soccer stadium :>)
Are you having visions of Muslim shock troops marching down 5th Avenue
again, with thousands of 'dupes' waving green cresent flags, a al Baghdad in
reverse ? It beats pink elephants.
Nope. My soccer stadium is metaphorical. Muslims have not been noted in
recent centuries for the military prowess of their "shock troops". Heck, little
Israel kicked their butts more or less single-handedly 3 or 4 times in the last
70 years. They are hopelessly backward technologically, and usually far too
absorbed in massacring each other to pose a real military threat to anyone
else.

The real danger to us ourselves. It is the mad, lemming-like stampede
toward the form of cultural suicide known as "multiculturalism" being pushed
by the effete elites, i.e. you and your ilk. As that profound political
philosopher Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Of course, there's still reason to hope we will come to our senses in time
to come to grips with the situation. For the Europeans, however, the
situation is far, far worse, and it seems the game may be over. As bad
as "multicultural" insanity is here, it's far worse there. And, it's compounded
by a demograpic catatastrophe of massive proportions:

======================================================
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22742

(...)

While Europe Slept argues that while Europe is currently only about ten
percent Islamic -- vs. two percent for America -- if present trends continue
it will only take a generation or two for Muslims to become the majority.
The once-noble Continent will become what Bat Ye'or in 2005 called
"Eurabia." The shocking claim by Gary Bawer is that well before 2050,
most of Europe is likely to become an outpost of Islamdom governed
by Sharia.

The second theme is that Europe today is a hellhole of leftist
multiculturalism, far worse than anything in America, and even far worse
than almost anyone in America suspects. American expatriate Bawer
-- who has lived the past ten years in various European countries, mostly
Holland and Norway -- is almost uniformly horrified by every country he
resides in or visits. According to him, political correctness and
multiculturalism are "a habit of thought that in America is an annoyance
but in Europe is a veritable religion."

(...)

Among the nightmare statistics cited by the book are these: 1. 80% of the
women in Oslo's shelter system are Muslims fleeing abusive families,
husbands, and boyfriends; 2. Danish Muslims make up 5% of the
population but 40% of the welfare rolls; 3. refugee-friendly Switzerland is
already 20% Muslim; 4. the world's most wonderful city (in my view)
Amsterdam is now majority Muslim; 5. 70% of all French prisoners are
Muslim; 6. the four London bombers that killed 56 in July of 2005 received
almost a million dollars in welfare benefits.

(...)
========================================================

Switzerland 20% Muslim. Amsterdam majority Muslim.

Pink elephants? I think not.
marika
2006-06-03 01:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Bob Cooper wrote:>
Post by Bob Cooper
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists.
I saw the interview with the CIA op who claims that Bin Laden is
still in Pakistan protected by tribes whose customs say that if one
seeks refuge that it must be provided.
Post by Bob Cooper
It is also true that
the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
He added that Musharaf could go in and get him, but that getting the
wrong house/family/village would cost politically.
Post by Bob Cooper
And, that is
not a cliche, it's a fact readily confirmable by reading the daily newspaper.
better to know the exact spot
Post by Bob Cooper
The vast majority of Nazis also did pretty much what everyone else did. I
suppose they were "moderate Nazis". Does that mean National Socialism
was a benign ideology?
Post by Warren Hopper
It's as if you ask 'where are all the moderate Muslims' and then simply deny
the existence of the 90% that really are *demonstrably* moderate Muslims.
Whatever other people believe that Muslim's beliefs are supposed to be,
their behavior is largely moderate. They don't all do the things that the
propagandists claim are 'typical' of Muslims. Most Muslims wake up and go
work and then they come home, etc.
As I pointed out above, so did most Nazis. But, it depends on how you define
"moderate", I suppose. If your idea of moderate is simply refraining from
blowing people up or slicing their heads off in the name of Allah, you're correct.
For god's sake, you all missed bin laden when he was staying in Monte
Carlo, he's in Rio de Janeiro this year.

i like how the bush administration will "capture" him in september on
9/11 of 2008 with 6 weeks to go the election, to engineer a nother
republican win

mk5000

"She's an angel (She's the girl, I want to share my dreams)
She's an angel (I don't care if she can't fly over things)
She's an angel (I don't care if ya can't see her wings)
Watch her fly)"--pharell williams
lanman
2006-06-03 19:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by marika
Bob Cooper wrote:>
Post by Bob Cooper
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists.
I saw the interview with the CIA op who claims that Bin Laden is
still in Pakistan protected by tribes whose customs say that if one
seeks refuge that it must be provided.
Post by Bob Cooper
It is also true that
the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
He added that Musharaf could go in and get him, but that getting the
wrong house/family/village would cost politically.
I don't think Generalissimo Mushy is too worried about political costs
as would a politician elected in a free, democratic election. He is
worried (and with good justification) about members of his own
military who are sympathetic to Bin Laden putting a bullet in his
head.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Warren Hopper
2006-06-08 19:09:22 UTC
Permalink
[ time-saving snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Not to beat this thing to death but ... you can collect an equal number of
quotes saying exactly the opposite ... Koranic verses are what you want to
make them.
I see. The Koran is meaningless? If you really feel that way, I suppose
there's not much point in continuing this discussion.
Meaningless in what sense ? In the sense of a literary work that is truly
meaningful in-its-self ( such as Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" ) or in
the sense that it has profound meaning to many people ?

If I have a choice, I'll pick Ee-man-uel every time, dull cant though it may
seem to others. ( haw haw, thank god I remembered to put on my Attends this
morning )



[ El Snippo ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I think you are spending too much energy on literal readings of the Koran.
Do you think these sorts of verses actually effect peoples behavior one way
or the other ?
LOL. Yes. About a billion people. Unlike you, the verses I posted have
a crystal clear meaning to me. And, them.
And them too, is it ? Do you really think so ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I don't think so ( very little of Christ's message ever made
it into Christianity ). The vast majority of Muslims excepting Islamists do
pretty much what everyone else does. Some murder people, some beat their
wives, some steal from the cash box, etc. The vast majority do none of
these things, same as everywhere else.
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists. It is also true that
the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
Other people in the world see that very differently. One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter. That's why I concentrate on the deed and not
the politics. Unfortunately, that line of thought leads one to the gates of
places one would rather not enter, like Gitmo. That isn't terrorism ?
Seems like terrorism in its purest form to me. Terror is Gitmo's raison
d'etre.

It's much easier to the kind of person who sees it as "We=Good Guys They =
Terrorists" . It let's you devote all your attention to the business of
killing rather than worrying about who's getting killed or why.
Post by Bob Cooper
And, that is
not a cliche, it's a fact readily confirmable by reading the daily newspaper.
The vast majority of Nazis also did pretty much what everyone else did. I
suppose they were "moderate Nazis". Does that mean National Socialism
was a benign ideology?
Post by Warren Hopper
It's as if you ask 'where are all the moderate Muslims' and then simply deny
the existence of the 90% that really are *demonstrably* moderate Muslims.
Whatever other people believe that Muslim's beliefs are supposed to be,
their behavior is largely moderate. They don't all do the things that the
propagandists claim are 'typical' of Muslims. Most Muslims wake up and go
work and then they come home, etc.
As I pointed out above, so did most Nazis. But, it depends on how you define
"moderate", I suppose. If your idea of moderate is simply refraining from
blowing people up or slicing their heads off in the name of Allah, you're correct.
My idea of moderate goes beyond that. It involves unequivocally and
*sincerely* condemning those who do blow people up and slice heads off.
And, stopping them. If 90% of Muslims were "moderate" by my standard,
there would have been massive worldwide street demonstrations by
Muslims against Bin Laden, Omar, and Zarqawi, and those loathsome
thugs would have been killed or arrested long ago by Muslims, themselves.
Yes.
Post by Bob Cooper
Of course, if they were moderate by my standards, they would also,
arguably, no longer be Muslims :>)
No, they would still be Muslims. If God is Great, why can't He also be
Good.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But that's really beside the point. I'm not talking about all Muslims over
the course of the next 1300 years after his death. I'm talking about
Muhammad himself, his behavior during his lifetime, how he dealt with
problems of Arab unification without turning Arabia into a bloodbath.
In
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
that, he was considerably less brutal and savage than Alexander the Great or
Julius Caesar or any of the great conquerors of pre-modern history. He
wasn't as savage as Napolean for that matter. Or Lenin or Mao.
Who would you compare him to in history ? I can only think of Julius
Caesar, but only with a bit of a stretch. And remember that Caesar killed
several million Gauls, about 30% of the population, for all his supposed
'clemency'. Did Muhammad ever do anything like chop off both of the hands
of 5,000 (?) warriors and distribute them around the country as an warning
to the others, the way Julius Caesar did in Gaul ? No he did not, and
nothing even remotely like it.
Really?
This is fascinating. And thank you thank you thank you for not including a
link for the quote, it made me suspicious and I found some really
interesting Hadith sites as a result. You'll love the first one I cite
because it's very anti-Islamic.

It's also interesting to me because it's exactly the sort of highly
selective vilification of Islam that has helped to create a thousand years
of bad blood between the Muslim and Christian worlds. If you contact the
guy who runs the page, he might even want to re-post some of your own
'Classic Hits' against Islam.

And, BTW, congratulations on an excellent snipping job on the original text.
Among the several versions of the story in the Hadiths, you picked exactly
the version where you could achieve the maximum ( worst ) effect by snipping
the beginning and end of the quote, but not in the middle of it. Well
chosen, on someone's part.

The real story, as you probably know already, is quite a bit different from
the one you presented.

It turns out that then anonymous "they" and "them" of your version were men
who were very ill and came to be cured. Muhammad took in and cured of some
disease, by drinking milk and urine (!) from his camels. Later, the men got
into a dispute about the theft of the camels with Muhammad's camel herder,
Yasar. Here's what happened next:

"Yasar the mawla [ camel herder ] of the Apostle of Allah, with a party
confronted them. He fought with them. They cut his [ Yasar's ] hands and
feet and pricked thorns in his tongue and eyes. Consequently he died."

Then the men were caught and essentially the same was done to them as they
did to unfortunate Yasar.

Enough about that little attempt at deception. Not that it matters to what
I was saying. In retrospect I should have known that my 'wierd' sense of
identification between Muhammad and Julius Caesar would find new, unexpected
parallels. It's almost eerie.

And, BTW, legend has it that the logistics of cutting off 5000 pair of hands
was a staggering operation even for the Romans, teams ( decades ? ) of
soldiers had to relieve each other after each group of 100, from exhaustion
and the sheer cold-blooded horror of it. Legend also has it that Ceasar
stood and watched as every single hand was chopped off, all 10,000 of them,
in 50 groups of 100 men.

Don't conclude that Ceasar was a blood thirsty man, quite the opposite as I
think the legend serves to illustrate. He understood what he was doing.




http://www.ijs.co.nz/islamic-bible.htm


Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:


Narrated Abu Qilaba:

Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its
climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of
(Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine).

So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the
shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the
Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they
were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and
feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of
iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water
was given to them."

Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels
after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle."



http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Muhammad/Enemies/urayna2.html



FROM THE KITAB AL TABAQAT AL KABIR (BOOK OF THE MAJOR CLASSES), Volume 2, BY
IBN SA'D, pages 114, 115 (4)


Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Kurz Ibn Jabir al-Fihri towards al-Uraniyin
in Shawwal of the sixth year from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah.

They (narrators) said: A party of the Uraynah numbering eight came to the
Apostle of Allah and embraced Islam but the climate of al-Medina did not
suit them. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah ordered them to live with his
milch-camels which used to graze at Dhu al-Jadr in the vicinity of Quba
close to Ayr at a distance of six miles from al-Medina. They remained there
till they recuperated and became fat.

One morning they made a raid on the milch camels and drove them away. Yasar
the mawla of the Apostle of Allah, with a party confronted them. He fought
with them. They cut his hands and feet and pricked thorns in his tongue and
eyes. Consequently he died.

The news of his incident reached the Apostle of Allah. He sent twenty
horsemen to pursue them and appointed Kurz Ibn al-Fihri their leader. They
reached there, and surrounded them. They captured them, tied them, and
seating them on their horses they brought them to al-Medina.

The Apostle of Allah, was at al-Ghabah. They set out with them towards him
and met him at al-Zaghabah, the place where flood water came from all
directions. He gave orders and their hands and feet were amputated, their
eyes were extracted. They were crucified. Then the verse was revealed to the
Apostle of Allah:

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and
strive after corruption in the land".
Post by Bob Cooper
=========================================================
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261
"he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were
heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e.
rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them
with water till they died"
=========================================================
Of course, the numbers were smaller. Caesar was head of a
long-established
Post by Bob Cooper
and enormously powerful empire. Mohammed was starting from scratch
with a relatively small number of followers. But, I have faith in him.
Given
Post by Bob Cooper
enough time, I'm pretty confident he would have exceeded JC in both
numbers and sheer barbarity :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
By the standards of his time, he was unique among political leaders for his
vision and cleverness. In fact I can't think of anyone else in the ancient
or pre-modern world who achieved so much of enduring value with so little
bloodshed. He was amazing. Whatever happened *after* his death is not his
responsibilty.
George Bernard Shaw thought Stalin was amazing. In fact, he once
nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize :>)
He also thought Mussolini was pretty neat.
He liked strong men.
One of the more interesting things I've encountered is Mao's early works,
the ones that the Communists suppressed ( or rewrote ) after the revolution,
particularly "On Contradiction". Everyone has an obligation to do what they
think is right rather than what the party thinks is right. Fascinatin'
contrast to the Little Red Book, eh wot.

And probably creatively translated for an English-speaking audience. ;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
AGAIN, with EMPHASIS, I am ONLY talking about the historical Muhammad
during HIS lifetime. I am NOT talking about the behavior of ALL Muslims at
ALL times since the 7th century AD. ONLY Muhammad, NOT ALL Muslims.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
His intention was to unify the Arabs, drive
out 'foreign' gods and influence and initiate a revival of Arab
civilization and culture, not to conquer the world.
Note the phrase " ... We Who will inherit the earth ...". Sounds almost
Christian, no surprise to me.
I believe the Christian version mentions something about "the meek."
True. The message of the Koran is not for the meek. As I said, Muhammad is
not Jesus, his intention was not the same. It wasn't salvation of the soul,
but the unification, ordering and preservation of Arab and Muslim society.
What's called 'political Islam' is not a side effect of Islam, it was the
intention.
I couldn't agree with you more. What puzzles me is how you can recognize
that and fail to see the danger in it.
Why should dietary and hygienic laws bother me, so long as no one gets
arrested for forgetting to wash their hands after visiting the facilities ?

Ahhh ... unless that someone happens to work at the Mc Donald's where I'm
eating and then the full fury of Shariah upon them, I say.

But if a lady changes her mind and gets killed for it, is there justice in
that ? What if someone who 'believes' changes their mind ? Is it a justice
to kill their mind ? Is defending one's mind worth less than defending
one's the body ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Another interesting feature of this idea is his 'year of diplomacy'
establishing contacts with the Arabs to the north, the Ghassanids (sp.
? ) particularly, who were chaffing under Byzantine domination. He probably
had his eye on Damascus too. But I doubt if his intentions extended further
than that. I am reasonably certain that he would not have been
comfortable with the 'Conquest'.
But who knows for sure ? Historically , it's a moot point and
unprovable one way or the other. But I'm reasonably certain of what I'm
saying. Muhammad himself was no religious imperialist, whatever Islam
made of itself after his death.
[ nuther huge snip ]
Enjoy your fantasies. They should be a great comfort to you when they
come to transport you to the soccer stadium :>)
Are you having visions of Muslim shock troops marching down 5th Avenue
again, with thousands of 'dupes' waving green cresent flags, a al Baghdad in
reverse ? It beats pink elephants.
Nope. My soccer stadium is metaphorical. Muslims have not been noted in
recent centuries for the military prowess of their "shock troops". Heck, little
Israel kicked their butts more or less single-handedly 3 or 4 times in the last
70 years. They are hopelessly backward technologically, and usually far too
absorbed in massacring each other to pose a real military threat to anyone
else.
I think even their worst enemies would award them a considerable nuisance
value, especially their worst enemies.
Post by Bob Cooper
The real danger to us ourselves. It is the mad, lemming-like stampede
... toward bankruptcy ? Toward collapse of our federal government ?

I wish to God that Georgie had stuck to spending his political capital and
left some financial capital to preserve ourselves and our Union.

I think you and many people like you know that, without a veneer of
political bullshit, there is a small but non-trivial possibility that when
the federal government goes broke ( which in itself is a worse than 50-50
chance, maybe 75% ), the 'United States of America' as current formulated is
not going to make it into the mid-21st century.

When the federal money spigots are diverted to paying down national debt, do
you think all those ultra-American super patriots of the far-right are going
to open up their well-stuffed wallets for nothing in return ? Not likely,
mate. If this country survives, its going to be because of 'effete elites'
like me who think that America is worth paying for and worth paying for with
more than patriotic vaporings.
Post by Bob Cooper
toward the form of cultural suicide known as "multiculturalism" being pushed
by the effete elites, i.e. you and your ilk. As that profound political
philosopher Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You can say that again.
Post by Bob Cooper
Of course, there's still reason to hope we will come to our senses in time
to come to grips with the situation. For the Europeans, however, the
situation is far, far worse, and it seems the game may be over. As bad
as "multicultural" insanity is here, it's far worse there. And, it's compounded
======================================================
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22742
(...)
While Europe Slept argues that while Europe is currently only about ten
percent Islamic -- vs. two percent for America -- if present trends continue
it will only take a generation or two for Muslims to become the majority.
The once-noble Continent will become what Bat Ye'or in 2005 called
"Eurabia." The shocking claim by Gary Bawer is that well before 2050,
most of Europe is likely to become an outpost of Islamdom governed
by Sharia.
The second theme is that Europe today is a hellhole of leftist
multiculturalism, far worse than anything in America, and even far worse
than almost anyone in America suspects. American expatriate Bawer
-- who has lived the past ten years in various European countries, mostly
Holland and Norway -- is almost uniformly horrified by every country he
resides in or visits. According to him, political correctness and
multiculturalism are "a habit of thought that in America is an annoyance
but in Europe is a veritable religion."
(...)
Among the nightmare statistics cited by the book are these: 1. 80% of the
women in Oslo's shelter system are Muslims fleeing abusive families,
husbands, and boyfriends; 2. Danish Muslims make up 5% of the
population but 40% of the welfare rolls; 3. refugee-friendly Switzerland is
already 20% Muslim; 4. the world's most wonderful city (in my view)
Amsterdam is now majority Muslim; 5. 70% of all French prisoners are
Muslim; 6. the four London bombers that killed 56 in July of 2005 received
almost a million dollars in welfare benefits.
(...)
========================================================
Switzerland 20% Muslim. Amsterdam majority Muslim.
Pink elephants? I think not.
The last bit of conversation is probably the most interesting and, at the
same time, repellent in this thread. I don't know how to answer it.

Casting aside the anti-Islamic stuff ( or anti-Hispanic in dot-republican
groups and anti-whoever ), there is a very real change taking place in the
world. Whatever one may think of the immigration situation in one's
particular piece of territory, the stark fact is that it is a global
phenomenon.

For example ( one of many ), there are hundreds of thousands of illegal
North Korean immigrants in China who have snuck across the border to find
food and work. I don't think anyone would say that China has lax
immigration laws or lax enforcement. This far from an isolated example.

So, first we all need to understand that this is not just a local event,
it's global. Understand that.

On the other hand, another part of me thinks "let all the filthy foreign
filth sit in their filthy hovels and stink rather than pollute *my* America
with their presence". It may surprise you to hear me say that, but (
fortunately or not ) that's not the only thing I'm thinking.

On the third hand, I also think that there may be a brand-new,
first-time-ever, unimaginably prosperous and brilliant global society
emerging which very few out of the 5 billion people alive in this world
today have any notion of. So says my other side.

Wherever the middle of those two thoughts is, that's where I am on the
subject. I can't remember an issue I've ever encountered where I've had
powerfully conflicting feelings.

I also have a vision of a unspoiled, almost-holy America cleansed of *all*
the human filth that pollute it today and where buffalo roam free and
unfenced from sea to shining sea. And unfortunately ( or not ), that vision
of the future seems about as likely to happen as any other.
Bob Cooper
2006-06-09 16:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
[ time-saving snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Not to beat this thing to death but ... you can collect an equal number
of quotes saying exactly the opposite ... Koranic verses are what you
want to make them.
I see. The Koran is meaningless? If you really feel that way, I suppose
there's not much point in continuing this discussion.
Meaningless in what sense ?
Meaningless in the "Koranic verses are what you want to make them"
sense. If they can mean anything, they mean nothing.
Post by Warren Hopper
In the sense of a literary work that is truly
meaningful in-its-self ( such as Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" ) or in
the sense that it has profound meaning to many people ?
If I have a choice, I'll pick Ee-man-uel every time, dull cant though it may
seem to others. ( haw haw, thank god I remembered to put on my Attends this
morning )
Yes, thank god :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
[ El Snippo ]
Post by Bob Cooper
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists. It is also
true that the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
Other people in the world see that very differently. One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter.
In your circles, perhaps. In mine, a terrorist is a terrorist, and a freedom
fighter is a freedom fighter. The distinction is clear.
Post by Warren Hopper
That's why I concentrate on the deed and not
the politics. Unfortunately, that line of thought leads one to the gates of
places one would rather not enter, like Gitmo. That isn't terrorism ?
Seems like terrorism in its purest form to me. Terror is Gitmo's raison
d'etre.
It's much easier to the kind of person who sees it as "We=Good Guys They =
Terrorists" . It let's you devote all your attention to the business of
killing rather than worrying about who's getting killed or why.
Gitmo is a detention facility where no one has died, prisoners are
treated humanely (indeed, by historical POW camp standards, positively
pampered), provided with Korans and prayer rugs and arrows pointing
to Mecca, and diets carefully supervised by professional dieticians
featuring three meals a day of lemon chicken and the like. For God's
sake, man, the guards are issued white gloves for handling Korans!

Those held there are, by and large, vicious thugs -- terrorists or
supporters of terrorists -- many of whom have killed or tried to kill US
soldiers, who are being held to prevent them from continuing their
grisly work.

This, in your view, constitutes "terrorism in its purest form," presumably
worse than the slaughter of 3,000 at the WTC, or hundreds in Bali,
Madrid and London? Worse than Zarqawi beheading people on
videotape? Worse, even, than the massacre of 200 toddlers at their
first day of school by Muslim terrorist thugs at Beslan?

Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of calibration.
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to intense,
soft-headed liberal moral equivalency. Let's face it. I fear that you, sir,
have lost the capacity -- and, perhaps even the desire -- to distinguish
between good and evil and right and wrong.

Except for the special case of "conservatives", who, of course,
personify Absolute Evil :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
And, that is not a cliche, it's a fact readily confirmable by reading
the daily newspaper.
The vast majority of Nazis also did pretty much what everyone else
did. I suppose they were "moderate Nazis". Does that mean
National Socialism was a benign ideology?
Post by Warren Hopper
It's as if you ask 'where are all the moderate Muslims' and then
simply deny the existence of the 90% that really are *demonstrably*
moderate Muslims. Whatever other people believe that Muslim's
beliefs are supposed to be, their behavior is largely moderate.
They don't all do the things that the propagandists claim are
'typical' of Muslims. Most Muslims wake up and go work and then
they come home, etc.
As I pointed out above, so did most Nazis. But, it depends on how you
define "moderate", I suppose. If your idea of moderate is simply
refraining from blowing people up or slicing their heads off in the
name of Allah, you're correct.
My idea of moderate goes beyond that. It involves unequivocally and
*sincerely* condemning those who do blow people up and slice heads off.
And, stopping them. If 90% of Muslims were "moderate" by my standard,
there would have been massive worldwide street demonstrations by
Muslims against Bin Laden, Omar, and Zarqawi, and those loathsome
thugs would have been killed or arrested long ago by Muslims, themselves.
Yes.
Yes? You agree with me? If so, how does that square with your previous
statement about 90% of Muslims being "*demonstrably* moderate."
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Of course, if they were moderate by my standards, they would also,
arguably, no longer be Muslims :>)
No, they would still be Muslims. If God is Great, why can't He also be
Good.
He is. But, Islam has little to do with God.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
But that's really beside the point. I'm not talking about all Muslims
over the course of the next 1300 years after his death. I'm talking
about Muhammad himself, his behavior during his lifetime, how
he dealt with problems of Arab unification without turning Arabia
into a bloodbath. In that, he was considerably less brutal and
savage than Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any of the
great conquerors of pre-modern history. He wasn't as savage
as Napolean for that matter. Or Lenin or Mao.
Who would you compare him to in history ? I can only think of Julius
Caesar, but only with a bit of a stretch. And remember that Caesar
killed several million Gauls, about 30% of the population, for all his
supposed 'clemency'. Did Muhammad ever do anything like chop
off both of the hands of 5,000 (?) warriors and distribute them
around the country as an warning to the others, the way Julius
Caesar did in Gaul ? No he did not, and nothing even remotely like
it.
Really?
This is fascinating. And thank you thank you thank you for not including a
link for the quote, it made me suspicious and I found some really
interesting Hadith sites as a result. You'll love the first one I cite
because it's very anti-Islamic.
It's also interesting to me because it's exactly the sort of highly
selective vilification of Islam that has helped to create a thousand years
of bad blood between the Muslim and Christian worlds. If you contact the
guy who runs the page, he might even want to re-post some of your own
'Classic Hits' against Islam.
And, BTW, congratulations on an excellent snipping job on the original text.
Among the several versions of the story in the Hadiths, you picked exactly
the version where you could achieve the maximum ( worst ) effect by snipping
the beginning and end of the quote, but not in the middle of it. Well
chosen, on someone's part.
You said, "In that, he was considerably less brutal and savage than
Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any of the great conquerors of
pre-modern history." I selected the part of the quote I thought refuted
that. I still do. I'm quite aware of the context of that quote, as I suspect
most old-timers in this group are.
Post by Warren Hopper
The real story, as you probably know already, is quite a bit different from
the one you presented.
It turns out that then anonymous "they" and "them" of your version were men
who were very ill and came to be cured. Muhammad took in and cured of some
disease, by drinking milk and urine (!) from his camels. Later, the men got
into a dispute about the theft of the camels with Muhammad's camel herder,
I know what happened next.
Post by Warren Hopper
"Yasar the mawla [ camel herder ] of the Apostle of Allah, with a party
confronted them. He fought with them. They cut his [ Yasar's ] hands and
feet and pricked thorns in his tongue and eyes. Consequently he died."
Then the men were caught and essentially the same was done to them as they
did to unfortunate Yasar.
Enough about that little attempt at deception. Not that it matters to what
I was saying. In retrospect I should have known that my 'wierd' sense of
identification between Muhammad and Julius Caesar would find new,
unexpected parallels. It's almost eerie.
There is no attempt at deception. The fragment I quoted was not the
whole story, just as your comment about JC was not the whole story.
Taken in the context of the entire Hadith, Mo's actions were arguably
justifiable under lex talionus, at least. That does not change the fact
that they still stand as an example of savagery and brutality that rivals,
"Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or any of the great conquerors of
pre-modern history." And, that was my point.

Hence.........

<big snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
The real danger to us ourselves. It is the mad, lemming-like stampede
... toward bankruptcy ? Toward collapse of our federal government ?
I wish to God that Georgie had stuck to spending his political capital and
left some financial capital to preserve ourselves and our Union.
I think you and many people like you know that, without a veneer of
political bullshit, there is a small but non-trivial possibility that when
the federal government goes broke ( which in itself is a worse than 50-50
chance, maybe 75% ), the 'United States of America' as current formulated is
not going to make it into the mid-21st century.
When the federal money spigots are diverted to paying down national debt, do
you think all those ultra-American super patriots of the far-right are going
to open up their well-stuffed wallets for nothing in return ? Not likely,
mate. If this country survives, its going to be because of 'effete elites'
like me who think that America is worth paying for and worth paying for with
more than patriotic vaporings.
Post by Bob Cooper
toward the form of cultural suicide known as "multiculturalism" being
pushed by the effete elites, i.e. you and your ilk. As that profound political
philosopher Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You can say that again.
Post by Bob Cooper
Of course, there's still reason to hope we will come to our senses in time
to come to grips with the situation. For the Europeans, however, the
situation is far, far worse, and it seems the game may be over. As bad
as "multicultural" insanity is here, it's far worse there. And, it's
======================================================
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22742
(...)
While Europe Slept argues that while Europe is currently only about ten
percent Islamic -- vs. two percent for America -- if present trends
continue it will only take a generation or two for Muslims to become the
majority. The once-noble Continent will become what Bat Ye'or in 2005
called "Eurabia." The shocking claim by Gary Bawer is that well before
2050, most of Europe is likely to become an outpost of Islamdom governed
by Sharia.
The second theme is that Europe today is a hellhole of leftist
multiculturalism, far worse than anything in America, and even far worse
than almost anyone in America suspects. American expatriate Bawer
-- who has lived the past ten years in various European countries, mostly
Holland and Norway -- is almost uniformly horrified by every country he
resides in or visits. According to him, political correctness and
multiculturalism are "a habit of thought that in America is an annoyance
but in Europe is a veritable religion."
(...)
Among the nightmare statistics cited by the book are these: 1. 80% of the
women in Oslo's shelter system are Muslims fleeing abusive families,
husbands, and boyfriends; 2. Danish Muslims make up 5% of the
population but 40% of the welfare rolls; 3. refugee-friendly Switzerland
is already 20% Muslim; 4. the world's most wonderful city (in my view)
Amsterdam is now majority Muslim; 5. 70% of all French prisoners are
Muslim; 6. the four London bombers that killed 56 in July of 2005 received
almost a million dollars in welfare benefits.
(...)
========================================================
Switzerland 20% Muslim. Amsterdam majority Muslim.
Pink elephants? I think not.
The last bit of conversation is probably the most interesting and, at the
same time, repellent in this thread. I don't know how to answer it.
I'm afraid that is becoming painfully obvious. Your observations on
pending financial collapse above and immigration below are
well-written and mildly interesting, but I fail to see how they address my
point about the dangers of multiculturalism. In fact, while I mean no
offense, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are avoiding
addressing that point by resorting to...well..."rambling non sequiturs"
is the phrase that springs to mind :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
Casting aside the anti-Islamic stuff ( or anti-Hispanic in dot-republican
groups and anti-whoever ), there is a very real change taking place in the
world. Whatever one may think of the immigration situation in one's
particular piece of territory, the stark fact is that it is a global
phenomenon.
For example ( one of many ), there are hundreds of thousands of illegal
North Korean immigrants in China who have snuck across the border to find
food and work. I don't think anyone would say that China has lax
immigration laws or lax enforcement. This far from an isolated example.
So, first we all need to understand that this is not just a local event,
it's global. Understand that.
On the other hand, another part of me thinks "let all the filthy foreign
filth sit in their filthy hovels and stink rather than pollute *my* America
with their presence". It may surprise you to hear me say that, but (
fortunately or not ) that's not the only thing I'm thinking.
On the third hand, I also think that there may be a brand-new,
first-time-ever, unimaginably prosperous and brilliant global society
emerging which very few out of the 5 billion people alive in this world
today have any notion of. So says my other side.
Wherever the middle of those two thoughts is, that's where I am on the
subject. I can't remember an issue I've ever encountered where I've had
powerfully conflicting feelings.
I also have a vision of a unspoiled, almost-holy America cleansed of *all*
the human filth that pollute it today and where buffalo roam free and
unfenced from sea to shining sea. And unfortunately ( or not ), that vision
of the future seems about as likely to happen as any other.
Drink a glass of camel urine. You'll feel better :>)
Warren Hopper
2006-06-10 18:36:50 UTC
Permalink
[ snipplet ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
It is true the vast majority of Mulims are not terrorists. It is also
true that the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are Muslims.
Other people in the world see that very differently. One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter.
In your circles, perhaps. In mine, a terrorist is a terrorist, and a freedom
fighter is a freedom fighter. The distinction is clear.
People who travel with circles go in circles. That's why I don't and I
don't.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
That's why I concentrate on the deed and not
the politics. Unfortunately, that line of thought leads one to the gates of
places one would rather not enter, like Gitmo. That isn't terrorism ?
Seems like terrorism in its purest form to me. Terror is Gitmo's raison
d'etre.
It's much easier to the kind of person who sees it as "We=Good Guys They =
Terrorists" . It let's you devote all your attention to the business of
killing rather than worrying about who's getting killed or why.
Gitmo is a detention facility where no one has died, prisoners are
treated humanely (indeed, by historical POW camp standards, positively
pampered), provided with Korans and prayer rugs and arrows pointing
to Mecca, and diets carefully supervised by professional dieticians
featuring three meals a day of lemon chicken and the like. For God's
sake, man, the guards are issued white gloves for handling Korans!
Bob, ( I think I may call you Bob at this point in our relationship,
although I reserve the right to call you Last For Dinner" if I want to piss
you off later ), that is crap.

Do you remember our "it's all lies" conversation just before the tanks
started rolling toward Baghdad ? I still don't know the organizational
structure, but I'm almost at the point where I can identify the stable by
smelling the manure of its 'message'. Spooraganda, one might call it.

As my former-Red Chinese ex-Communist buddy said long ago, "it's ALL lies".
Post by Bob Cooper
Those held there are, by and large, vicious thugs -- terrorists or
supporters of terrorists -- many of whom have killed or tried to kill US
soldiers, who are being held to prevent them from continuing their
grisly work.
I wish I could say that the above is just a bunch of crap, but I'm well
aware it isn't.

I think your use of the word "many" has a bit of stink to it though, the
word "some" describes the reality. You might say "but they've released some
people !", and then I'll ask "why did it take them 2 years to get around to
establishing the identity of total non-combatants ?", and so it will go
round and round. We've been that route.

I doubt if anyone ( enemy, allies or anything in between ) has ever advised
Bush to do anything other than close the damn thing immediately. Maybe it's
buying us some deterrence, but it's deterring our allies far more than our
enemies.
Post by Bob Cooper
This, in your view, constitutes "terrorism in its purest form," presumably
worse than the slaughter of 3,000 at the WTC, or hundreds in Bali,
Madrid and London? Worse than Zarqawi beheading people on
videotape? Worse, even, than the massacre of 200 toddlers at their
first day of school by Muslim terrorist thugs at Beslan?
Late For Dinner, you are far more innocent than I ever imagined. It's
interesting that I've never really been interested in delving deeper than
you web 'image'. I never really got that far, and who cares, I only do it
out of boredom.

But now I'm really wondering, how could you be so innocent ? Is a million
people murdered worse than a thousand, or are you are a moral reductionist
on the subject, sort of "ever life is sacred, so no collection of lives is
numerically more sacred than any other", is it that ?"

Otherwise, that statement surpasses understanding.
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of calibration.
Probably, but the Jim Beam is starting to interact with the Geritol, so I'm
hopeful.
Post by Bob Cooper
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to intense,
soft-headed liberal moral equivalency.
So, you mean like the equivalency between people committing the 9-11
atrocity and holding the alleged purps outside the American legal system for
over 4 years, some of them for no crime other than having lent their cell
phone to someone else, others for mistaken identity or for nothing all.

That's a grand term 'moral equivalency', I hear it used often. I wonder if
you know what it means ?
Post by Bob Cooper
Let's face it. I fear that you, sir,
have lost the capacity -- and, perhaps even the desire -- to distinguish
between good and evil and right and wrong.
Kick the Bushheads out first, then we can discuss the issue. The Bushheads
are far more my immediate enemies than guys with beards and guns on the
other side of the world.

I'll admit that the guys with guns on our side of the world don't have
beards, but they have names like the "Minutemen". It gets kinda creepy, if
you know what I mean.





[ The Real Big Snip ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Hence.........
<big snip>
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
The real danger to us ourselves. It is the mad, lemming-like stampede
... toward bankruptcy ? Toward collapse of our federal government ?
I wish to God that Georgie had stuck to spending his political capital and
left some financial capital to preserve ourselves and our Union.
I think you and many people like you know that, without a veneer of
political bullshit, there is a small but non-trivial possibility that when
the federal government goes broke ( which in itself is a worse than 50-50
chance, maybe 75% ), the 'United States of America' as current formulated is
not going to make it into the mid-21st century.
When the federal money spigots are diverted to paying down national debt, do
you think all those ultra-American super patriots of the far-right are going
to open up their well-stuffed wallets for nothing in return ? Not likely,
mate. If this country survives, its going to be because of 'effete elites'
like me who think that America is worth paying for and worth paying for with
more than patriotic vaporings.
Post by Bob Cooper
toward the form of cultural suicide known as "multiculturalism" being
pushed by the effete elites, i.e. you and your ilk. As that profound political
philosopher Walt Kelly said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
You can say that again.
Post by Bob Cooper
Of course, there's still reason to hope we will come to our senses in time
to come to grips with the situation. For the Europeans, however, the
situation is far, far worse, and it seems the game may be over. As bad
as "multicultural" insanity is here, it's far worse there. And, it's
======================================================
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22742
(...)
While Europe Slept argues that while Europe is currently only about ten
percent Islamic -- vs. two percent for America -- if present trends
continue it will only take a generation or two for Muslims to become the
majority. The once-noble Continent will become what Bat Ye'or in 2005
called "Eurabia." The shocking claim by Gary Bawer is that well before
2050, most of Europe is likely to become an outpost of Islamdom governed
by Sharia.
The second theme is that Europe today is a hellhole of leftist
multiculturalism, far worse than anything in America, and even far worse
than almost anyone in America suspects. American expatriate Bawer
-- who has lived the past ten years in various European countries, mostly
Holland and Norway -- is almost uniformly horrified by every country he
resides in or visits. According to him, political correctness and
multiculturalism are "a habit of thought that in America is an annoyance
but in Europe is a veritable religion."
(...)
Among the nightmare statistics cited by the book are these: 1. 80% of the
women in Oslo's shelter system are Muslims fleeing abusive families,
husbands, and boyfriends; 2. Danish Muslims make up 5% of the
population but 40% of the welfare rolls; 3. refugee-friendly Switzerland
is already 20% Muslim; 4. the world's most wonderful city (in my view)
Amsterdam is now majority Muslim; 5. 70% of all French prisoners are
Muslim; 6. the four London bombers that killed 56 in July of 2005 received
almost a million dollars in welfare benefits.
(...)
========================================================
Switzerland 20% Muslim. Amsterdam majority Muslim.
Pink elephants? I think not.
The last bit of conversation is probably the most interesting and, at the
same time, repellent in this thread. I don't know how to answer it.
I'm afraid that is becoming painfully obvious. Your observations on
pending financial collapse above and immigration below are
well-written and mildly interesting, but I fail to see how they address my
point about the dangers of multiculturalism.
I definition of the world 'multiculturalism' can be take in at least two
ways. Both are to some extent conditioned by the a kind of skew-wise
negation of the other.

- In one sense, a single country hosts a multicultural society which
becomes a mix of distinctly different cultures, distinct not so much in the
details of the ethic identify ( kilt or ), but by its basic outlook. If one
allows for a certain syncretic blending of cultures, it might be called
'liberal'.

- In another sense, it can apply to a multicultural global society where
different national identities retain the essential character of their
cultural foundations without mixing. This defintion might be called
'conservative'.

There seem to be two more definitions lurking in there somewhere, but they
might be tagged with a label of "monoculturalism", either locally or
globally.

Now, the horse I'm betting on in this race is global momculturalism, not
that I want it, but I think that's what's happening and going to continue
happening for the next several hundred years.

But my heart is in local monoculturalism believe it or not, which has got to
deserve the name of "neo-conservatism" .... oh my god, have I been
culturally insensitive even to mention it ... tough shit ...

In any case, as a New Englander, my heart takes my 'country' very seriously
and I am *glad* that the population is going down. I remember Cape Cod and
Martha's Vinyeard before the fences and victory villas. It's my place and
my people, and I want it to stay that way. Call me tribal.

But .... what's actually happening in most areas of the world today ? It's
not local multiculturalism, it's global monoculturalism that I'm seeing,
this routine electronic exchange from god-know-where to god-knows-where is
one of its many manifestations ( the NSA knows, I bet ).

You seem to have the luxury of ignoring that factor, but in my case I can't.
It's a very real 'conflict of interest'.

BTW, you'll never guess what my favorite building is ... was. I had many
birthday dinners up there swaying in the sky, you could dance drunk and no
one even noticed. I know it's crass to say so, but if Coulter can say the
crap she says, then may I can be forgiven for my 'misplaced' priorities.



[ snipplet #2 ]
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
I also have a vision of a unspoiled, almost-holy America cleansed of *all*
the human filth that pollute it today and where buffalo roam free and
unfenced from sea to shining sea. And unfortunately ( or not ), that vision
of the future seems about as likely to happen as any other.
Drink a glass of camel urine. You'll feel better :>)
It's supposed to cure bloated bellies so I should probably go on the Camel
Urine Diet. Line up and give me a hump dumper, boys.
Bob Cooper
2006-06-11 01:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
[ snipplet ]
Post by Bob Cooper
This, in your view, constitutes "terrorism in its purest form," presumably
worse than the slaughter of 3,000 at the WTC, or hundreds in Bali,
Madrid and London? Worse than Zarqawi beheading people on
videotape? Worse, even, than the massacre of 200 toddlers at their
first day of school by Muslim terrorist thugs at Beslan?
Late For Dinner, you are far more innocent than I ever imagined. It's
interesting that I've never really been interested in delving deeper than
you web 'image'. I never really got that far, and who cares, I only do it
out of boredom.
But now I'm really wondering, how could you be so innocent ? Is a million
people murdered worse than a thousand, or are you are a moral reductionist
on the subject, sort of "ever life is sacred, so no collection of lives is
numerically more sacred than any other", is it that ?"
Otherwise, that statement surpasses understanding.
[sigh] Allow me to explain it to you, Floppy Ears. I'll take it slow, step
by step. So try to stay with me. It's not rocket science.

1. The 3,000 murdered by Muslim terrorists at the WTC were INNOCENT
VICTIMS.

2. The hundreds of night-clubbers, commuters and subway patrons
murdered by Muslim terrorists in Bali, Madrid and London were
INNOCENT VICTIMS.

3. The people beheaded on videotape by Zarqawi and his Merry Band
of Muslim terrorists were INNOCENT VICTIMS.

4. The 200 young children blown up and shot by Muslim terrorists at
Beslan were _____ [can you fill in the blank?] I knew you could. Even
you are beginning to discern a pattern, right? :>)

Now, on this one, try to get into the spirit of the thing. Visualize 6 and
7 year-olds screaming in fear and pain and crying for their mommies
as bombs go off. Try to acquire a mental image of little limbs strewn
haphazardly around the gymnasium as the jihadists scream, "Allahu
Akbar!" That means, "God is Great," you know. Does that help?

5. To say that imprisoning those who perpetrate or support the acts
above (and hundreds of others like them) is reprehensible, let alone
"terrorism in its purest form," is not only utterly absurd, but morally
repugnant in the highest degree. In other words, it is -- to use your
term -- pure CRAP.

Now, did I go too fast for you, or is a faint light beginning to glimmer in
your effete-elite noggin? I doubt it.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of
calibration.
Probably, but the Jim Beam is starting to interact with the Geritol, so I'm
hopeful.
Post by Bob Cooper
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to intense,
soft-headed liberal moral equivalency.
So, you mean like the equivalency between people committing the 9-11
atrocity and holding the alleged purps outside the American legal system for
over 4 years, some of them for no crime other than having lent their cell
phone to someone else, others for mistaken identity or for nothing all.
I imagine most of the WTC "jumpers" would have gladly traded 4 years at
Gitmo for a clear stairwell, don't you? It's a long way down. Of course,
I'd gladly support the release of the whole lot of those worthless scum if
I could be assured they'd move in, en masse, right next to you :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
That's a grand term 'moral equivalency', I hear it used often. I wonder if
you know what it means ?
Sure I do. Again, allow me to explain. I'll use examples to make it easy
for you. It refers to the befuddled mind-set that produces statements such
as, "The Bushheads are far more my immediate enemies than guys with
beards and guns on the other side of the world." And, it refers to people
who reflect on the severed limbs of children scattered in the bleachers of
the blood-stained gymnasium at Beslan, while murderous, demented
Muslim thugs shout, "Allahu Akbar!" in the background, and solemnly
proclaim with a straight face, "Guantanamo is terrorism in its purest
form."

Hope that helps.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Let's face it. I fear that you, sir,
have lost the capacity -- and, perhaps even the desire -- to distinguish
between good and evil and right and wrong.
Kick the Bushheads out first, then we can discuss the issue. The Bushheads
are far more my immediate enemies than guys with beards and guns on the
other side of the world.
I'll admit that the guys with guns on our side of the world don't have
beards, but they have names like the "Minutemen". It gets kinda creepy,
if you know what I mean.
LOL. Yeah, be sure to look under your bed for "Minutemen" tonight. Are
you afraid they'll turn you in to the immigration authorities? Don't worry.
If they do, they'll just release you when nobodies looking anyway, amigo.

By the way, the original Minutemen were New Englanders. Just like you,
except their moral compasses functioned a lot better :>)
Post by Warren Hopper
[ The Real Big Snip ]
Warren Hopper
2006-06-12 13:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
[ snipplet ]
Post by Bob Cooper
This, in your view, constitutes "terrorism in its purest form," presumably
worse than the slaughter of 3,000 at the WTC, or hundreds in Bali,
Madrid and London? Worse than Zarqawi beheading people on
videotape? Worse, even, than the massacre of 200 toddlers at their
first day of school by Muslim terrorist thugs at Beslan?
Late For Dinner, you are far more innocent than I ever imagined. It's
interesting that I've never really been interested in delving deeper than
you web 'image'. I never really got that far, and who cares, I only do it
out of boredom.
But now I'm really wondering, how could you be so innocent ? Is a million
people murdered worse than a thousand, or are you are a moral reductionist
on the subject, sort of "ever life is sacred, so no collection of lives is
numerically more sacred than any other", is it that ?"
Otherwise, that statement surpasses understanding.
[sigh] Allow me to explain it to you, Floppy Ears. I'll take it slow, step
by step. So try to stay with me. It's not rocket science.
1. The 3,000 murdered by Muslim terrorists at the WTC were INNOCENT
VICTIMS.
2. The hundreds of night-clubbers, commuters and subway patrons
murdered by Muslim terrorists in Bali, Madrid and London were
INNOCENT VICTIMS.
3. The people beheaded on videotape by Zarqawi and his Merry Band
of Muslim terrorists were INNOCENT VICTIMS.
4. The 200 young children blown up and shot by Muslim terrorists at
Beslan were _____ [can you fill in the blank?] I knew you could.
Even
Post by Bob Cooper
you are beginning to discern a pattern, right? :>)
Now, on this one, try to get into the spirit of the thing. Visualize 6 and
7 year-olds screaming in fear and pain and crying for their mommies
as bombs go off. Try to acquire a mental image of little limbs strewn
haphazardly around the gymnasium as the jihadists scream, "Allahu
Akbar!" That means, "God is Great," you know. Does that help?
5. To say that imprisoning those who perpetrate or support the acts
above (and hundreds of others like them) is reprehensible, let alone
"terrorism in its purest form," is not only utterly absurd, but morally
repugnant in the highest degree. In other words, it is -- to use your
term -- pure CRAP.
Now, did I go too fast for you, or is a faint light beginning to glimmer in
your effete-elite noggin? I doubt it.
In the history of state-sponsored terrorism, the numbers you mention would
be cause for a mirthful grin, amoeba feed compared to the big boys. Start
with hundred of thousands of mass murders, then move up to millions and
then, not to be outdone by the other guy, move up again to tens of millions.

Before the 21thcerntury is out, I'm sure we ( at least the 'wes' who are
living ) will see political mass murders in the hundreds of millions. It's
going to be quite a century by the look of it.

We are all meat to for the murder machine, not just little morsals of it
like the Islamists but great heaping mounds of human hamburger for the
Greater Glory of God, or Manifest Destiny, or Die Folk, or the Dialectic or
the Great Whatever.

Gitmo is an instrument of state terror and nothing more. Terror is what
Gitmo does, it has no other purpose.

State terrorism is far more prevalent and destructive than the onesie
twosies we are seeing. I think you are getting a bit too parochial, not
getting the big picture as it were.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of
calibration.
Probably, but the Jim Beam is starting to interact with the Geritol, so I'm
hopeful.
Post by Bob Cooper
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to intense,
soft-headed liberal moral equivalency.
So, you mean like the equivalency between people committing the 9-11
atrocity and holding the alleged purps outside the American legal system for
over 4 years, some of them for no crime other than having lent their cell
phone to someone else, others for mistaken identity or for nothing all.
I imagine most of the WTC "jumpers" would have gladly traded 4 years at
Gitmo for a clear stairwell, don't you? It's a long way down. Of course,
I'd gladly support the release of the whole lot of those worthless scum if
I could be assured they'd move in, en masse, right next to you :>)
If I lived next door to a legally constituted and sanctioned American
penitentiary I would welcome it.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
That's a grand term 'moral equivalency', I hear it used often. I wonder if
you know what it means ?
Sure I do. Again, allow me to explain. I'll use examples to make it easy
for you. It refers to the befuddled mind-set that produces statements such
as, "The Bushheads are far more my immediate enemies than guys with
beards and guns on the other side of the world."
Obviously I was right about your getting too parochial. That comment makes
me wonder if you are even in the United States. You don't seem to be in
touch with what's happening here.
Post by Bob Cooper
And, it refers to people
who reflect on the severed limbs of children scattered in the bleachers of
the blood-stained gymnasium at Beslan, while murderous, demented
Muslim thugs shout, "Allahu Akbar!" in the background, and solemnly
proclaim with a straight face, "Guantanamo is terrorism in its purest
form."
Hope that helps.
It helps me to understand that you don't get it about nature of political
violence in the modern world.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Let's face it. I fear that you, sir,
have lost the capacity -- and, perhaps even the desire -- to distinguish
between good and evil and right and wrong.
Kick the Bushheads out first, then we can discuss the issue. The Bushheads
are far more my immediate enemies than guys with beards and guns on the
other side of the world.
I'll admit that the guys with guns on our side of the world don't have
beards, but they have names like the "Minutemen". It gets kinda creepy,
if you know what I mean.
LOL. Yeah, be sure to look under your bed for "Minutemen" tonight. Are
you afraid they'll turn you in to the immigration authorities? Don't worry.
If they do, they'll just release you when nobodies looking anyway, amigo.
By the way, the original Minutemen were New Englanders. Just like you,
except their moral compasses functioned a lot better :>)
The Minutemen were the men who stood and died, not Neo-Nazi shit heads
taking pot shots at unarmed people in the dark. The use of the name
Minutemen for a pack of sneaky fascist cowards is an insult to ever
American, particularly New Englanders. But what else can you expect from
Bushheads ?
Bob Cooper
2006-06-13 20:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
[ snipplet ]
[sigh] Allow me to explain it to you, Floppy Ears. I'll take it slow,
step by step. So try to stay with me. It's not rocket science.
1. The 3,000 murdered by Muslim terrorists at the WTC were INNOCENT
VICTIMS.
2. The hundreds of night-clubbers, commuters and subway patrons
murdered by Muslim terrorists in Bali, Madrid and London were
INNOCENT VICTIMS.
3. The people beheaded on videotape by Zarqawi and his Merry Band
of Muslim terrorists were INNOCENT VICTIMS.
4. The 200 young children blown up and shot by Muslim terrorists at
Beslan were _____ [can you fill in the blank?] I knew you could.
Even you are beginning to discern a pattern, right? :>)
Now, on this one, try to get into the spirit of the thing. Visualize
6 and 7 year-olds screaming in fear and pain and crying for their
mommies as bombs go off. Try to acquire a mental image of little
limbs strewn haphazardly around the gymnasium as the jihadists
scream, "Allahu Akbar!" That means, "God is Great," you know.
Does that help?
5. To say that imprisoning those who perpetrate or support the acts
above (and hundreds of others like them) is reprehensible, let alone
"terrorism in its purest form," is not only utterly absurd, but
morally repugnant in the highest degree. In other words, it is -- to
use your term -- pure CRAP.
Now, did I go too fast for you, or is a faint light beginning to glimmer
in your effete-elite noggin? I doubt it.
In the history of state-sponsored terrorism, the numbers you mention would
be cause for a mirthful grin, amoeba feed compared to the big boys. Start
with hundred of thousands of mass murders, then move up to millions and
then, not to be outdone by the other guy, move up again to tens of millions.
Before the 21thcerntury is out, I'm sure we ( at least the 'wes' who are
living ) will see political mass murders in the hundreds of millions. It's
going to be quite a century by the look of it.
Now, there you go again with the gloom and doom. But, you're an amateur
at it. Have a glass of Jim Beam and read what this Limey Admiral has to
say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267,00.html
Post by Warren Hopper
We are all meat to for the murder machine, not just little morsals of it
like the Islamists but great heaping mounds of human hamburger for the
Greater Glory of God, or Manifest Destiny, or Die Folk, or the Dialectic or
the Great Whatever.
That's all very interesting, and you're correct: state-sponsored terrorism
is an ever-present threat, particularly in these times when there are signs
the democrats might take back Congress :>) However, state-sponsored
terrorism is not the topic of this thread.
Post by Warren Hopper
Gitmo is an instrument of state terror and nothing more. Terror is what
Gitmo does, it has no other purpose.
Balderdash. On the contrary, its purpose is to *prevent* terrorism. Its
purpose is to keep terrorists confined so they are unable to continue
shooting people, blowing them up and chopping their heads off. And,
incidentally, to extract information from them useful in catching
other terrorists. All very legitimate, common-sense goals
Post by Warren Hopper
State terrorism is far more prevalent and destructive than the onesie
twosies we are seeing. I think you are getting a bit too parochial, not
getting the big picture as it were.
So, because Stalin killed thirty million or so, we should not concern
ourselves about 3,000 American dead at the WTC, or hundreds dead
at Bali, Madrid, London or a hundred other places, or thousands dead
in Iraq, or 200 kids dead at Beslan. Perhaps you'd like to expound that
theory to the families and friends of the those respective victims. And,
perhaps you'd like to start your own thread on state terrorism in the
appropriate group. This is my thread, and Ms. West and I are talking
about *Muslim* terrorism here, despite your obvious and repeated
attempts to avoid that topic and change the subject.
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of
calibration.
Probably, but the Jim Beam is starting to interact with the Geritol, so
I'm hopeful.
Post by Bob Cooper
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to
intense, soft-headed liberal moral equivalency.
So, you mean like the equivalency between people committing the 9-11
atrocity and holding the alleged purps outside the American legal system
for over 4 years, some of them for no crime other than having lent their
cell phone to someone else, others for mistaken identity or for nothing all.
I imagine most of the WTC "jumpers" would have gladly traded 4 years at
Gitmo for a clear stairwell, don't you? It's a long way down. Of course,
I'd gladly support the release of the whole lot of those worthless scum if
I could be assured they'd move in, en masse, right next to you :>)
If I lived next door to a legally constituted and sanctioned American
penitentiary I would welcome it.
Gitmo is perfectly legal. Ask the Supreme Court (cf. "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld")
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
That's a grand term 'moral equivalency', I hear it used often. I wonder
if you know what it means ?
Sure I do. Again, allow me to explain. I'll use examples to make it easy
for you. It refers to the befuddled mind-set that produces statements
such as, "The Bushheads are far more my immediate enemies than guys
with beards and guns on the other side of the world."
Obviously I was right about your getting too parochial. That comment makes
me wonder if you are even in the United States. You don't seem to be in
touch with what's happening here.
That's funny. I was just thinking the same thing about you :>).
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
And, it refers to people
who reflect on the severed limbs of children scattered in the bleachers of
the blood-stained gymnasium at Beslan, while murderous, demented
Muslim thugs shout, "Allahu Akbar!" in the background, and solemnly
proclaim with a straight face, "Guantanamo is terrorism in its purest
form."
Hope that helps.
It helps me to understand that you don't get it about nature of political
violence in the modern world.
What does that *mean*?
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, the original Minutemen were New Englanders. Just like you,
except their moral compasses functioned a lot better :>)
The Minutemen were the men who stood and died, not Neo-Nazi shit heads
taking pot shots at unarmed people in the dark. The use of the name
Minutemen for a pack of sneaky fascist cowards is an insult to ever
American, particularly New Englanders. But what else can you expect from
Bushheads ?
Slow down, Floppy, and let me get this straight. Are the "Minutemen"
you're talking about the group of citizens who are working for border
enforcement, or some other group of *real* terrorists I've not heard of?
If the former, your suggestion is rather humorous. Those Minutemen
-- and correct me if I'm wrong -- have been acting entirely within the law,
and have never -- to my knowledge -- harmed anyone, let alone taken
"pot shots" at them Why do you feel they are "fascist cowards?"

And, as far as being "Bushheads," on the contrary, they *support*
enforcement of this country's immigration laws -- something Bush has
never shown any real interest in despite flurries of empty rhetoric to
the contrary, usually immediately preceding elections :>)
Warren Hopper
2006-06-15 21:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
[ snipplet ]
[sigh] Allow me to explain it to you, Floppy Ears. I'll take it slow,
step by step. So try to stay with me. It's not rocket science.
1. The 3,000 murdered by Muslim terrorists at the WTC were INNOCENT
VICTIMS.
2. The hundreds of night-clubbers, commuters and subway patrons
murdered by Muslim terrorists in Bali, Madrid and London were
INNOCENT VICTIMS.
3. The people beheaded on videotape by Zarqawi and his Merry Band
of Muslim terrorists were INNOCENT VICTIMS.
4. The 200 young children blown up and shot by Muslim terrorists at
Beslan were _____ [can you fill in the blank?] I knew you could.
Even you are beginning to discern a pattern, right? :>)
Now, on this one, try to get into the spirit of the thing.
Visualize
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
6 and 7 year-olds screaming in fear and pain and crying for their
mommies as bombs go off. Try to acquire a mental image of little
limbs strewn haphazardly around the gymnasium as the jihadists
scream, "Allahu Akbar!" That means, "God is Great," you know.
Does that help?
5. To say that imprisoning those who perpetrate or support the acts
above (and hundreds of others like them) is reprehensible, let alone
"terrorism in its purest form," is not only utterly absurd, but
morally repugnant in the highest degree. In other words, it is -- to
use your term -- pure CRAP.
Now, did I go too fast for you, or is a faint light beginning to glimmer
in your effete-elite noggin? I doubt it.
In the history of state-sponsored terrorism, the numbers you mention would
be cause for a mirthful grin, amoeba feed compared to the big boys.
Start
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
with hundred of thousands of mass murders, then move up to millions and
then, not to be outdone by the other guy, move up again to tens of millions.
Before the 21thcerntury is out, I'm sure we ( at least the 'wes' who are
living ) will see political mass murders in the hundreds of millions.
It's
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
going to be quite a century by the look of it.
Now, there you go again with the gloom and doom. But, you're an amateur
at it. Have a glass of Jim Beam and read what this Limey Admiral has to
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267,00.html
< quote >

Beware: the new goths are coming
Peter Almond

ONE of Britain's most senior military strategists has warned that western
civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that
destroyed the Roman empire.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said
future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals ...

< unquote >

He should know ... :-)
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
We are all meat to for the murder machine, not just little morsals of it
like the Islamists but great heaping mounds of human hamburger for the
Greater Glory of God, or Manifest Destiny, or Die Folk, or the Dialectic or
the Great Whatever.
That's all very interesting, and you're correct: state-sponsored terrorism
is an ever-present threat,
Glad to hear it. I didn't think you were *that* conservative.
Post by Bob Cooper
particularly in these times when there are signs
the democrats might take back Congress :>) However, state-sponsored
terrorism is not the topic of this thread.
Post by Warren Hopper
Gitmo is an instrument of state terror and nothing more. Terror is what
Gitmo does, it has no other purpose.
Balderdash. On the contrary, its purpose is to *prevent* terrorism. Its
purpose is to keep terrorists confined so they are unable to continue
shooting people, blowing them up and chopping their heads off. And,
incidentally, to extract information from them useful in catching
other terrorists. All very legitimate, common-sense goals
There's sense to what you are saying, but there's just not enough sense.
It's costing us far more than its worth because it's deterring our allies.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
State terrorism is far more prevalent and destructive than the onesie
twosies we are seeing. I think you are getting a bit too parochial, not
getting the big picture as it were.
So, because Stalin killed thirty million or so, we should not concern
ourselves about 3,000 American dead at the WTC, or hundreds dead
at Bali, Madrid, London or a hundred other places, or thousands dead
in Iraq, or 200 kids dead at Beslan.
Of course concern ourselves about 3,000 American dead. And all the
Europeans and Russians. And the Thais and Philippinos killed in Iraq. And
the Iraqi people too, close to 100,000 of them.
Post by Bob Cooper
Perhaps you'd like to expound that
theory to the families and friends of the those respective victims. And,
perhaps you'd like to start your own thread on state terrorism in the
appropriate group. This is my thread, and Ms. West and I are talking
about *Muslim* terrorism here, despite your obvious and repeated
attempts to avoid that topic and change the subject.
Shame on me.
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Wabbit, all I can say is your moral compass is badly in need of
calibration.
Probably, but the Jim Beam is starting to interact with the Geritol, so
I'm hopeful.
Post by Bob Cooper
In fact, sadly, it may be irreparable due to years of exposure to
intense, soft-headed liberal moral equivalency.
So, you mean like the equivalency between people committing the 9-11
atrocity and holding the alleged purps outside the American legal system
for over 4 years, some of them for no crime other than having lent their
cell phone to someone else, others for mistaken identity or for nothing all.
I imagine most of the WTC "jumpers" would have gladly traded 4 years at
Gitmo for a clear stairwell, don't you? It's a long way down. Of course,
I'd gladly support the release of the whole lot of those worthless scum if
I could be assured they'd move in, en masse, right next to you :>)
If I lived next door to a legally constituted and sanctioned American
penitentiary I would welcome it.
Gitmo is perfectly legal. Ask the Supreme Court (cf. "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld")
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
That's a grand term 'moral equivalency', I hear it used often. I wonder
if you know what it means ?
Sure I do. Again, allow me to explain. I'll use examples to make it easy
for you. It refers to the befuddled mind-set that produces statements
such as, "The Bushheads are far more my immediate enemies than guys
with beards and guns on the other side of the world."
Obviously I was right about your getting too parochial. That comment makes
me wonder if you are even in the United States. You don't seem to be in
touch with what's happening here.
That's funny. I was just thinking the same thing about you :>).
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
And, it refers to people
who reflect on the severed limbs of children scattered in the bleachers of
the blood-stained gymnasium at Beslan, while murderous, demented
Muslim thugs shout, "Allahu Akbar!" in the background, and solemnly
proclaim with a straight face, "Guantanamo is terrorism in its purest
form."
Hope that helps.
It helps me to understand that you don't get it about nature of political
violence in the modern world.
What does that *mean*?
Post by Warren Hopper
Post by Bob Cooper
By the way, the original Minutemen were New Englanders. Just like you,
except their moral compasses functioned a lot better :>)
The Minutemen were the men who stood and died, not Neo-Nazi shit heads
taking pot shots at unarmed people in the dark. The use of the name
Minutemen for a pack of sneaky fascist cowards is an insult to ever
American, particularly New Englanders. But what else can you expect from
Bushheads ?
Slow down, Floppy, and let me get this straight. Are the "Minutemen"
you're talking about the group of citizens who are working for border
enforcement, or some other group of *real* terrorists I've not heard of?
If the former, your suggestion is rather humorous. Those Minutemen
-- and correct me if I'm wrong -- have been acting entirely within the law,
and have never -- to my knowledge -- harmed anyone, let alone taken
"pot shots" at them Why do you feel they are "fascist cowards?"
And, as far as being "Bushheads," on the contrary, they *support*
enforcement of this country's immigration laws -- something Bush has
never shown any real interest in despite flurries of empty rhetoric to
the contrary, usually immediately preceding elections :>)
Bob Cooper
2006-06-19 00:18:00 UTC
Permalink
"Warren Hopper" <***@CottontailClub.net> wrote in message news:wskkg.29245$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
Post by Bob Cooper
Post by Warren Hopper
The Minutemen were the men who stood and died, not Neo-Nazi shit heads
taking pot shots at unarmed people in the dark. The use of the name
Minutemen for a pack of sneaky fascist cowards is an insult to ever
American, particularly New Englanders. But what else can you expect
from Bushheads ?
Slow down, Floppy, and let me get this straight. Are the "Minutemen"
you're talking about the group of citizens who are working for border
enforcement, or some other group of *real* terrorists I've not heard of?
If the former, your suggestion is rather humorous. Those Minutemen
-- and correct me if I'm wrong -- have been acting entirely within the
law, and have never -- to my knowledge -- harmed anyone, let alone taken
"pot shots" at them Why do you feel they are "fascist cowards?"
And, as far as being "Bushheads," on the contrary, they *support*
enforcement of this country's immigration laws -- something Bush has
never shown any real interest in despite flurries of empty rhetoric to
the contrary, usually immediately preceding elections :>)
Lack of response duly noted.

End of thread. Thanks for playing :<)

SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-26 08:13:59 UTC
Permalink
you made a point about Hitler. We dealt with the same kind of
guilt-ridden lefties then. Trouble is, the UK and France actually WERE
guilty and responsible for Hitler's rise to power. had the western
allies not abused Germany so horribly, and allowed the unification of
Germany, Austria and Sudetenland, as well as not rape Germany's coal
rich lands and former colonies, then the likes of Hitler would hnever
have aroused so much guilt in the likes of Dalladier. Geramyn did have
a right to grievance, but not Hitler, he merely used those grievance,
just like the islamo-fascists are LOOKIng for grievances, anywheere
they can, from palestinian conflict, all the way to the fucking
CRUSADES one thousand years back!!! Goes to show how desperate they are
and the left wing assholes of the self-hating guitl-ridden college
hippies are serving their cause, those fucking marxist fucking
parasites that should ahve been outright shot since the days of senator
Mc Carthy.
History does indeed repeat itself. Fifth columnists then, as now,
responsible for the veil of lies and guilt pulled over the piercing
truth of reality
Gary Rumain
2006-04-27 01:10:58 UTC
Permalink
I have to disagree over part of this, pal. Austria never wanted to be
part of a greater Germany. So what if Hitler was Austrian and not
German. He shouldn't have been allowed to arise to power.

However, I agree that the way Germany was treated after the war was
reprehensible. Its a good thing the Allies didn't repeat the same
mistake after WWII.

Naturally, it was the Serbs who started WWI. Lets not forget that. They
tried the same shit bearly a decade ago. Since they were dominated by
muzzies for so long, their mindset developed in the same direction.
That's why they have funny notions about land and honor. In that sense,
their mentality isn't as Western as the rest of Europe.

As for the muzzies, you are spot on. They bitch and moan about the
Crusades, Spain and Vienna. Completely ignoring the fact that these
were defensive actions against muzzie aggression and imperalism.

Right now the muzzie fifth columnists and their stooges are using
Western liberalism and openess against us. Exploiting lax immigration
laws and bitching about free speach. You and I both know what they say
saying back in their own countries about taking over Denmark, France
and England. Its only a matter of time unless the Europeans act now.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you made a point about Hitler. We dealt with the same kind of
guilt-ridden lefties then. Trouble is, the UK and France actually WERE
guilty and responsible for Hitler's rise to power. had the western
allies not abused Germany so horribly, and allowed the unification of
Germany, Austria and Sudetenland, as well as not rape Germany's coal
rich lands and former colonies, then the likes of Hitler would hnever
have aroused so much guilt in the likes of Dalladier. Geramyn did have
a right to grievance, but not Hitler, he merely used those grievance,
just like the islamo-fascists are LOOKIng for grievances, anywheere
they can, from palestinian conflict, all the way to the fucking
CRUSADES one thousand years back!!! Goes to show how desperate they are
and the left wing assholes of the self-hating guitl-ridden college
hippies are serving their cause, those fucking marxist fucking
parasites that should ahve been outright shot since the days of senator
Mc Carthy.
History does indeed repeat itself. Fifth columnists then, as now,
responsible for the veil of lies and guilt pulled over the piercing
truth of reality
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-27 02:32:52 UTC
Permalink
that's not correct! Austria OPTED to join Germany right in 1918
The British/French parasitic colonial powers however dictated the
treaty of St Germain en Laye on 10 September 1919 to Austria which
insisted on the following points:

1) Austria was prohibited to use the name German-Austria (Deutsche
Ostereich) so as to prevent nationalism and feelings of mutual
Germaness between Germany and Austria
2) In spite of the desire of 90-98% of Austrian Germans to re-united
with Germany, the western allies (excluding the US) FORBID the
unification (Anschluss) OF Germany and Austria. In fact, this
prohibition was to last until the 1980's!

Austria, along wth the Sudetenland had opted to reunify with Germany,
which they had been part of until the expulsion of the Habsburgs by the
House of Hohenzollern (Prussia) following the Austrian defeat at the
battle of Sadowa.

In the 19th century, both Austria and Prussia had challenged each other
for the right to unify Germany and lead the German states towards that
goal, and Austria, with too many non-Germanic lands and subjects and
too staunchly catholic, was disfavored, not to mention militarily
defeated. The capital of Germany could very well have been Vinnea
instead of Berlin, had the Prussians failed.

When Chancellor Schushnig was murdered, the fact remains that well over
90% of Austrians WANTED unification with Germany. Austrians provided
some of the staunchest Nazis for Hitler's legions, such as the 2nd
Waffen-SS "Das Reich" armored division, all the mountain infantry
divisions, Mengelle, Eichmann etc...
The MYTH that Austria had been a "victim" was just a bullshit
politically correct story concocted by post-war Austrian liberals and
socialists to put the entire blame on Germany. Fact remains, since
1918, the goal of Austria had been to re-unite wih their German
brethren in Germany and Sudetenland. If you ever enounter a member of
the older generation that served in the armed forces, they will also
tell you taht is true, without being subjected to revision by the
post-war liberals.

Now the documented historical FACT that Austria did want to join up
with Germany before the treaty of St Germain en Laye has nothing to do
with wether or not Hitler should have risen to power, that is exactly
my point, he shouldn't because those excuses were there, and rightly
so, even though they were just a means to an end in his book.

As for the Serbs starting WWI, you are entirely correct. The type of
terrorism perpetrated against the archduke and his wife would not have
gone unpunished had this taken place outside the romanticist myth of
nationalism and the much advertised western ally (UK and France)
romanticist view that the Slavs wanted self-determination, when the UK
and France were the world's greatest oppressors and suppressors of
national identity and self-determination. In this day and age, ANY
nation that gives assylum to terrorists like the "black Hand", as the
Taliban did with Al Qaeda, would have been paved into a parking lot.
What we have witnessed after world war I in history books, is a great
example of how history can be manipulated and re-written by the
victors.

In fact, the creation of Yugoslavia was the biggest travesty in
southeastern European history, another undoing of the British limie
parasite blood suckers of this world, which was in reality, a fief
given to Serbia, for starting the war and the pretext that the UK was
looking for in order to halt the industrial growth of its greatest
economic competitor in 1914: Germany. The undoing of the limie policies
in the Balkans revealed themselves as a catastrophe, for the reality
was that since the tenth century, Serbs and Croats were mortal enemies
of each other (Catholics and Orthodox Christians still harbor no love
between themselves in countries like Hungary or the Baltic states).

When German, Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian troops invaded Yugoslavia
in 1941, the first to go were Croatia and Bosnia, a true testimony of
just how much solidarity existed among the south slavs, another
pathetic failure of British foreign policy.

Never mind the murders of ethnic Germans, Croats and political
dissidents commited by the Serbs in post-war years (and of course the
reverse was true for Axis troops on the civilian populations of the
Balkans) and the horrible reign of terror against non-serbs during the
communist years, we have all come to watch with a sick stomach I might
add, the result of that Frankenstein monster stamped wth the British
seal of foreign fiasco so typical of the UK's foreign policies: the
disintegration of Yugoslavia.
Post by Gary Rumain
I have to disagree over part of this, pal. Austria never wanted to be
part of a greater Germany. So what if Hitler was Austrian and not
German. He shouldn't have been allowed to arise to power.
However, I agree that the way Germany was treated after the war was
reprehensible. Its a good thing the Allies didn't repeat the same
mistake after WWII.
Naturally, it was the Serbs who started WWI. Lets not forget that. They
tried the same shit bearly a decade ago. Since they were dominated by
muzzies for so long, their mindset developed in the same direction.
That's why they have funny notions about land and honor. In that sense,
their mentality isn't as Western as the rest of Europe.
As for the muzzies, you are spot on. They bitch and moan about the
Crusades, Spain and Vienna. Completely ignoring the fact that these
were defensive actions against muzzie aggression and imperalism.
Right now the muzzie fifth columnists and their stooges are using
Western liberalism and openess against us. Exploiting lax immigration
laws and bitching about free speach. You and I both know what they say
saying back in their own countries about taking over Denmark, France
and England. Its only a matter of time unless the Europeans act now.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you made a point about Hitler. We dealt with the same kind of
guilt-ridden lefties then. Trouble is, the UK and France actually WERE
guilty and responsible for Hitler's rise to power. had the western
allies not abused Germany so horribly, and allowed the unification of
Germany, Austria and Sudetenland, as well as not rape Germany's coal
rich lands and former colonies, then the likes of Hitler would hnever
have aroused so much guilt in the likes of Dalladier. Geramyn did have
a right to grievance, but not Hitler, he merely used those grievance,
just like the islamo-fascists are LOOKIng for grievances, anywheere
they can, from palestinian conflict, all the way to the fucking
CRUSADES one thousand years back!!! Goes to show how desperate they are
and the left wing assholes of the self-hating guitl-ridden college
hippies are serving their cause, those fucking marxist fucking
parasites that should ahve been outright shot since the days of senator
Mc Carthy.
History does indeed repeat itself. Fifth columnists then, as now,
responsible for the veil of lies and guilt pulled over the piercing
truth of reality
Gary Rumain
2006-04-27 06:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Ah, thanks for setting me straight, pal. All I'd ever read was the
liberal Austrian comments you referred to.

Agree with what you wrote about the Balkans. I think the blame however,
show go further than the British. The Turks are the ones solely
responsible for creating the Balkan situtation by forcing Serbs to move
into Croatian territories and forcing people to convert to pislam in
the Balkans.

We now that the situation where the only true European muzzies are the
slavs in the Balkans and the Albanians. And many of them have a muzzie
mindset - least of which is now being reinforced by the muzzie arabs
who moved in during the last Balkan war.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
that's not correct! Austria OPTED to join Germany right in 1918
The British/French parasitic colonial powers however dictated the
treaty of St Germain en Laye on 10 September 1919 to Austria which
1) Austria was prohibited to use the name German-Austria (Deutsche
Ostereich) so as to prevent nationalism and feelings of mutual
Germaness between Germany and Austria
2) In spite of the desire of 90-98% of Austrian Germans to re-united
with Germany, the western allies (excluding the US) FORBID the
unification (Anschluss) OF Germany and Austria. In fact, this
prohibition was to last until the 1980's!
Austria, along wth the Sudetenland had opted to reunify with Germany,
which they had been part of until the expulsion of the Habsburgs by the
House of Hohenzollern (Prussia) following the Austrian defeat at the
battle of Sadowa.
In the 19th century, both Austria and Prussia had challenged each other
for the right to unify Germany and lead the German states towards that
goal, and Austria, with too many non-Germanic lands and subjects and
too staunchly catholic, was disfavored, not to mention militarily
defeated. The capital of Germany could very well have been Vinnea
instead of Berlin, had the Prussians failed.
When Chancellor Schushnig was murdered, the fact remains that well over
90% of Austrians WANTED unification with Germany. Austrians provided
some of the staunchest Nazis for Hitler's legions, such as the 2nd
Waffen-SS "Das Reich" armored division, all the mountain infantry
divisions, Mengelle, Eichmann etc...
The MYTH that Austria had been a "victim" was just a bullshit
politically correct story concocted by post-war Austrian liberals and
socialists to put the entire blame on Germany. Fact remains, since
1918, the goal of Austria had been to re-unite wih their German
brethren in Germany and Sudetenland. If you ever enounter a member of
the older generation that served in the armed forces, they will also
tell you taht is true, without being subjected to revision by the
post-war liberals.
Now the documented historical FACT that Austria did want to join up
with Germany before the treaty of St Germain en Laye has nothing to do
with wether or not Hitler should have risen to power, that is exactly
my point, he shouldn't because those excuses were there, and rightly
so, even though they were just a means to an end in his book.
As for the Serbs starting WWI, you are entirely correct. The type of
terrorism perpetrated against the archduke and his wife would not have
gone unpunished had this taken place outside the romanticist myth of
nationalism and the much advertised western ally (UK and France)
romanticist view that the Slavs wanted self-determination, when the UK
and France were the world's greatest oppressors and suppressors of
national identity and self-determination. In this day and age, ANY
nation that gives assylum to terrorists like the "black Hand", as the
Taliban did with Al Qaeda, would have been paved into a parking lot.
What we have witnessed after world war I in history books, is a great
example of how history can be manipulated and re-written by the
victors.
In fact, the creation of Yugoslavia was the biggest travesty in
southeastern European history, another undoing of the British limie
parasite blood suckers of this world, which was in reality, a fief
given to Serbia, for starting the war and the pretext that the UK was
looking for in order to halt the industrial growth of its greatest
economic competitor in 1914: Germany. The undoing of the limie policies
in the Balkans revealed themselves as a catastrophe, for the reality
was that since the tenth century, Serbs and Croats were mortal enemies
of each other (Catholics and Orthodox Christians still harbor no love
between themselves in countries like Hungary or the Baltic states).
When German, Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian troops invaded Yugoslavia
in 1941, the first to go were Croatia and Bosnia, a true testimony of
just how much solidarity existed among the south slavs, another
pathetic failure of British foreign policy.
Never mind the murders of ethnic Germans, Croats and political
dissidents commited by the Serbs in post-war years (and of course the
reverse was true for Axis troops on the civilian populations of the
Balkans) and the horrible reign of terror against non-serbs during the
communist years, we have all come to watch with a sick stomach I might
add, the result of that Frankenstein monster stamped wth the British
seal of foreign fiasco so typical of the UK's foreign policies: the
disintegration of Yugoslavia.
Post by Gary Rumain
I have to disagree over part of this, pal. Austria never wanted to be
part of a greater Germany. So what if Hitler was Austrian and not
German. He shouldn't have been allowed to arise to power.
However, I agree that the way Germany was treated after the war was
reprehensible. Its a good thing the Allies didn't repeat the same
mistake after WWII.
Naturally, it was the Serbs who started WWI. Lets not forget that. They
tried the same shit bearly a decade ago. Since they were dominated by
muzzies for so long, their mindset developed in the same direction.
That's why they have funny notions about land and honor. In that sense,
their mentality isn't as Western as the rest of Europe.
As for the muzzies, you are spot on. They bitch and moan about the
Crusades, Spain and Vienna. Completely ignoring the fact that these
were defensive actions against muzzie aggression and imperalism.
Right now the muzzie fifth columnists and their stooges are using
Western liberalism and openess against us. Exploiting lax immigration
laws and bitching about free speach. You and I both know what they say
saying back in their own countries about taking over Denmark, France
and England. Its only a matter of time unless the Europeans act now.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you made a point about Hitler. We dealt with the same kind of
guilt-ridden lefties then. Trouble is, the UK and France actually WERE
guilty and responsible for Hitler's rise to power. had the western
allies not abused Germany so horribly, and allowed the unification of
Germany, Austria and Sudetenland, as well as not rape Germany's coal
rich lands and former colonies, then the likes of Hitler would hnever
have aroused so much guilt in the likes of Dalladier. Geramyn did have
a right to grievance, but not Hitler, he merely used those grievance,
just like the islamo-fascists are LOOKIng for grievances, anywheere
they can, from palestinian conflict, all the way to the fucking
CRUSADES one thousand years back!!! Goes to show how desperate they are
and the left wing assholes of the self-hating guitl-ridden college
hippies are serving their cause, those fucking marxist fucking
parasites that should ahve been outright shot since the days of senator
Mc Carthy.
History does indeed repeat itself. Fifth columnists then, as now,
responsible for the veil of lies and guilt pulled over the piercing
truth of reality
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-27 09:17:24 UTC
Permalink
I used to be puzzled about the situation of Bosnian mohammedans, until
recently, when I read a very enlightening book by Paul Kriwaczek
entitled "In search of Zarathushtra" (NY, 2003).
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the region's
history and various cultures.

I didn't know until recently, in spite of having spent a good deal of
time on history, that there is a high probability that the Croats and
some Serbs, might actually be direct descendants of Iranian Sarmatians
(Yazigians and Roksh-Alani) who settled in the Balkans and eastern
regions of the Byzantine Empire when the Bulgars, Pechenegs etc...were
pressing west.

As you may know, the Iranians had for millenia ruled the steppes that
stretched from Europe to China. In fact, many names are derived from
them, such as the Dnieper, Dneister and Danube rivers, which have the
Avestan root of "Danu", meaning water or river. Then there's the
Crimea, derived from the Iranian Cimmerians (formerly thought to be
Thrakian). More interestingly, there's the capital of Moldova called
"Jassy" after the Yazs or Yazigians, a federation of Sarmatian tribes
that settled in eastern Europe, especially Moldova and Bulgaria. The
Altaic-speaking tribes coming out of Mongolia pushed the Iranians and
other Indo-European speakers westwards.

Around the 10th century, Christian clerics began to spar with members
of various "heresies" whose lineage they traced to teh Iranian religion
of Manicheism. Mani was born in the 3rd century CE, and during the
first couple of Sassanian Emperors, preached and spread his religion
far and wide throughout Iranian lands, then to India and the west. He
sought to unite the great world religions of his age: Mandeism,
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity.

While Manicheism became branded with the dubious of "Persian religion"
after Christianity was officialized by Theodosius, it sank undergroud
and while widely practiced, it was severely persecuted by Christians.
It is to be noted that the introduction of Manicheism into the Roman
east also coincides with the entry of various Central Asian tribes who
were a mixture of Iranian Sarmatian and Scythian, various Finno-Ugric
forest dwellers and Altaic speakers from Mongolia, such as the
Pechenegs, who also brought in Zoroastrian and Manichean beliefs into
the areass of eastern europe they settled.

Many of these remnants of Iranian and mixed Iranian tribes settled as
the Geramnic "Foederati" did in the west and assimilated to the rest of
the population but many did not. In fact, in Hungary, in the region of
Yazsbereny (itself derived from the name of the Yazigians), the people
in the villages still spoke an Iranian language akin to Ossetian and
the Sczeklers of Transylvania, though Magyar speakers, derive their
name from "Scythian".

now back to this particular book (the above information comes from
other sources), the ancestors of the people of Bosnia Herzegovina were
not yet Slavicized but were a mix of people including Iranian steppe
dwellers that had migrated to the region in various waves of horsemen.
The Slavs later imposed their language on the entire region and thus
absorbed the remnants of the old Illyrian, Sarmatian/Iranian and
Celto-Romance speakers. The Christians noticed "heresies" of Manichhean
form which they branded as "dualistic" (since ancient Iranian religions
were primarily concerne dwith the struggle between light and dark
principles, to a lesser extent in Zoroastrianism and much more in
Manicheism) and called the the "Bogomils".

In ancient Avestan, a sister language of Sanskrit, the term "Baga"
means God (hence Baga-Dad, or God-given in Avestan which today is
Baghdad!). This is also to be found in the "Bagavad Gita" or "Bog"
(dwelling of the gods, which originally came from Slavs who passed it
on to Germans, themselves having inherited the term from their
Sarmatian predecessors).

At any rate, these "Bogomils" and "Cathars" (as they were called in the
west much later) were essentially practioners of a mixture of
Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, with various local variations which they
often tried to disguise as Christianity for the sake of survival. Over
the centuries and the many holy wars preached against them by both
Orthodox and Catholic Christians (the final crusade or Albigensian
crusade in southern France by Simon de Montfors was actually directed
against the last Manicheans of southern France), the locals began to
feel isolated.

As Zoroastrianism was fast shrinking in its native Iranian land of
Afghanistan/Tajikistan/
Uzbekistan/Iran due to Islamic pressures which made it a minoirty for
the first time in the 11th century, and as Manicheism was dirven
further and further east towards the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang province of
modern China), the people felt no desire to stay isolated and at the
same time, felt no pull towards either branch of Christianity which had
for so long pressured them often brutally. When the Turks came to the
region after the defeat of the Serbs at Kossovo in 1389, they began to
impose Islamo-fascism upon the population by requiring one fifth of the
children of all Christian famillies to be taken into Anatolia to be
turned as Islamic Janissaries and converted.

With the Jyzzya tax imposed, and exacting 20% of the income of
so-called "infidels", the descendants of the Bogomils felt absolutely
no kinship with the rest of the population and thus converted gradualyl
and voluntarily to islamo-fascism, without ever achieving the level of
fanaticism and destructiveness that other islamo-fascist people had in
the rest of the world.

I find this very interesting and the key to understanding Balkan
relations and thus, perhaps, the key to detaching the Bosnians from the
rest of the islamic world, before it's too late and their territory,
already roamed by thousands of illegal islamic fighters from the
arabian world who came to fight as mercenaries against the Serbs,
becomes a stepping stone into the Jihad of this century against
Europe. In fact, this would be the ideal staging zone for the
islamo-fascists to strike into the heart of eurabia, their next "dar al
Harb". As for the Albanians, I am not informed enough on their
conversion and the circumstances that led to their conversion to
comment on the issue, but we both know what this islamic presence in
Europe could mean!
Post by Gary Rumain
Ah, thanks for setting me straight, pal. All I'd ever read was the
liberal Austrian comments you referred to.
Agree with what you wrote about the Balkans. I think the blame however,
show go further than the British. The Turks are the ones solely
responsible for creating the Balkan situtation by forcing Serbs to move
into Croatian territories and forcing people to convert to pislam in
the Balkans.
We now that the situation where the only true European muzzies are the
slavs in the Balkans and the Albanians. And many of them have a muzzie
mindset - least of which is now being reinforced by the muzzie arabs
who moved in during the last Balkan war.
Gary Rumain
2006-04-28 02:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Wow, that's very interesting. I suppose one could do linguistic traces
to work out if they were related or not. I do recall seeing something
once about grave decorations but I think this was Celtic.

There was a BBC news report I saw recently on the web (it may have been
cited in soc.culture.iranian) that reported on the growing Arab
infulence in Bosnia and the introduction of Wahabiism there with a
mosque paid for by the Saudis. So you are right about a stepping stone.
However, Bosnia is landlocked so it requires the Croats and
Montenegrans to watch their borders.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
I used to be puzzled about the situation of Bosnian mohammedans, until
recently, when I read a very enlightening book by Paul Kriwaczek
entitled "In search of Zarathushtra" (NY, 2003).
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the region's
history and various cultures.
I didn't know until recently, in spite of having spent a good deal of
time on history, that there is a high probability that the Croats and
some Serbs, might actually be direct descendants of Iranian Sarmatians
(Yazigians and Roksh-Alani) who settled in the Balkans and eastern
regions of the Byzantine Empire when the Bulgars, Pechenegs etc...were
pressing west.
As you may know, the Iranians had for millenia ruled the steppes that
stretched from Europe to China. In fact, many names are derived from
them, such as the Dnieper, Dneister and Danube rivers, which have the
Avestan root of "Danu", meaning water or river. Then there's the
Crimea, derived from the Iranian Cimmerians (formerly thought to be
Thrakian). More interestingly, there's the capital of Moldova called
"Jassy" after the Yazs or Yazigians, a federation of Sarmatian tribes
that settled in eastern Europe, especially Moldova and Bulgaria. The
Altaic-speaking tribes coming out of Mongolia pushed the Iranians and
other Indo-European speakers westwards.
Around the 10th century, Christian clerics began to spar with members
of various "heresies" whose lineage they traced to teh Iranian religion
of Manicheism. Mani was born in the 3rd century CE, and during the
first couple of Sassanian Emperors, preached and spread his religion
far and wide throughout Iranian lands, then to India and the west. He
sought to unite the great world religions of his age: Mandeism,
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity.
While Manicheism became branded with the dubious of "Persian religion"
after Christianity was officialized by Theodosius, it sank undergroud
and while widely practiced, it was severely persecuted by Christians.
It is to be noted that the introduction of Manicheism into the Roman
east also coincides with the entry of various Central Asian tribes who
were a mixture of Iranian Sarmatian and Scythian, various Finno-Ugric
forest dwellers and Altaic speakers from Mongolia, such as the
Pechenegs, who also brought in Zoroastrian and Manichean beliefs into
the areass of eastern europe they settled.
Many of these remnants of Iranian and mixed Iranian tribes settled as
the Geramnic "Foederati" did in the west and assimilated to the rest of
the population but many did not. In fact, in Hungary, in the region of
Yazsbereny (itself derived from the name of the Yazigians), the people
in the villages still spoke an Iranian language akin to Ossetian and
the Sczeklers of Transylvania, though Magyar speakers, derive their
name from "Scythian".
now back to this particular book (the above information comes from
other sources), the ancestors of the people of Bosnia Herzegovina were
not yet Slavicized but were a mix of people including Iranian steppe
dwellers that had migrated to the region in various waves of horsemen.
The Slavs later imposed their language on the entire region and thus
absorbed the remnants of the old Illyrian, Sarmatian/Iranian and
Celto-Romance speakers. The Christians noticed "heresies" of Manichhean
form which they branded as "dualistic" (since ancient Iranian religions
were primarily concerne dwith the struggle between light and dark
principles, to a lesser extent in Zoroastrianism and much more in
Manicheism) and called the the "Bogomils".
In ancient Avestan, a sister language of Sanskrit, the term "Baga"
means God (hence Baga-Dad, or God-given in Avestan which today is
Baghdad!). This is also to be found in the "Bagavad Gita" or "Bog"
(dwelling of the gods, which originally came from Slavs who passed it
on to Germans, themselves having inherited the term from their
Sarmatian predecessors).
At any rate, these "Bogomils" and "Cathars" (as they were called in the
west much later) were essentially practioners of a mixture of
Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, with various local variations which they
often tried to disguise as Christianity for the sake of survival. Over
the centuries and the many holy wars preached against them by both
Orthodox and Catholic Christians (the final crusade or Albigensian
crusade in southern France by Simon de Montfors was actually directed
against the last Manicheans of southern France), the locals began to
feel isolated.
As Zoroastrianism was fast shrinking in its native Iranian land of
Afghanistan/Tajikistan/
Uzbekistan/Iran due to Islamic pressures which made it a minoirty for
the first time in the 11th century, and as Manicheism was dirven
further and further east towards the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang province of
modern China), the people felt no desire to stay isolated and at the
same time, felt no pull towards either branch of Christianity which had
for so long pressured them often brutally. When the Turks came to the
region after the defeat of the Serbs at Kossovo in 1389, they began to
impose Islamo-fascism upon the population by requiring one fifth of the
children of all Christian famillies to be taken into Anatolia to be
turned as Islamic Janissaries and converted.
With the Jyzzya tax imposed, and exacting 20% of the income of
so-called "infidels", the descendants of the Bogomils felt absolutely
no kinship with the rest of the population and thus converted gradualyl
and voluntarily to islamo-fascism, without ever achieving the level of
fanaticism and destructiveness that other islamo-fascist people had in
the rest of the world.
I find this very interesting and the key to understanding Balkan
relations and thus, perhaps, the key to detaching the Bosnians from the
rest of the islamic world, before it's too late and their territory,
already roamed by thousands of illegal islamic fighters from the
arabian world who came to fight as mercenaries against the Serbs,
becomes a stepping stone into the Jihad of this century against
Europe. In fact, this would be the ideal staging zone for the
islamo-fascists to strike into the heart of eurabia, their next "dar al
Harb". As for the Albanians, I am not informed enough on their
conversion and the circumstances that led to their conversion to
comment on the issue, but we both know what this islamic presence in
Europe could mean!
Post by Gary Rumain
Ah, thanks for setting me straight, pal. All I'd ever read was the
liberal Austrian comments you referred to.
Agree with what you wrote about the Balkans. I think the blame however,
show go further than the British. The Turks are the ones solely
responsible for creating the Balkan situtation by forcing Serbs to move
into Croatian territories and forcing people to convert to pislam in
the Balkans.
We now that the situation where the only true European muzzies are the
slavs in the Balkans and the Albanians. And many of them have a muzzie
mindset - least of which is now being reinforced by the muzzie arabs
who moved in during the last Balkan war.
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-28 16:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Actually linguistic traces do reveal some of the so-called Slavic
tribes of eastern Europe, including the Croats, to have had Sarmatian
Iranian tribial/clan names. I will look for the article I saw on teh
wesb some time ago and get back to you on this as soon as I find it.

as for the Montenegrans and Croats, you're right but trouble is, wtih
teh creation of the EU, the borders have come down and the fitfth
column of mohammedan trash that festers Europe, is full of these
scumbags that will help their "brethren" and give them fake passports
and under the table jobs, while they help settle into their undercover
identity.

I saw a web documentary on this and I wonder if it was the same as the
one you saw? I think it was also BBC news and showed these wahabi arab
islamists and one part showed one of those filthy arab scumbags
practically beg the Bosnians to let him butcher prisonners in cold
blood in the middle of the woods. Was that the same as the one you saw?
Post by Gary Rumain
Wow, that's very interesting. I suppose one could do linguistic traces
to work out if they were related or not. I do recall seeing something
once about grave decorations but I think this was Celtic.
There was a BBC news report I saw recently on the web (it may have been
cited in soc.culture.iranian) that reported on the growing Arab
infulence in Bosnia and the introduction of Wahabiism there with a
mosque paid for by the Saudis. So you are right about a stepping stone.
However, Bosnia is landlocked so it requires the Croats and
Montenegrans to watch their borders.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
I used to be puzzled about the situation of Bosnian mohammedans, until
recently, when I read a very enlightening book by Paul Kriwaczek
entitled "In search of Zarathushtra" (NY, 2003).
I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the region's
history and various cultures.
I didn't know until recently, in spite of having spent a good deal of
time on history, that there is a high probability that the Croats and
some Serbs, might actually be direct descendants of Iranian Sarmatians
(Yazigians and Roksh-Alani) who settled in the Balkans and eastern
regions of the Byzantine Empire when the Bulgars, Pechenegs etc...were
pressing west.
As you may know, the Iranians had for millenia ruled the steppes that
stretched from Europe to China. In fact, many names are derived from
them, such as the Dnieper, Dneister and Danube rivers, which have the
Avestan root of "Danu", meaning water or river. Then there's the
Crimea, derived from the Iranian Cimmerians (formerly thought to be
Thrakian). More interestingly, there's the capital of Moldova called
"Jassy" after the Yazs or Yazigians, a federation of Sarmatian tribes
that settled in eastern Europe, especially Moldova and Bulgaria. The
Altaic-speaking tribes coming out of Mongolia pushed the Iranians and
other Indo-European speakers westwards.
Around the 10th century, Christian clerics began to spar with members
of various "heresies" whose lineage they traced to teh Iranian religion
of Manicheism. Mani was born in the 3rd century CE, and during the
first couple of Sassanian Emperors, preached and spread his religion
far and wide throughout Iranian lands, then to India and the west. He
sought to unite the great world religions of his age: Mandeism,
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity.
While Manicheism became branded with the dubious of "Persian religion"
after Christianity was officialized by Theodosius, it sank undergroud
and while widely practiced, it was severely persecuted by Christians.
It is to be noted that the introduction of Manicheism into the Roman
east also coincides with the entry of various Central Asian tribes who
were a mixture of Iranian Sarmatian and Scythian, various Finno-Ugric
forest dwellers and Altaic speakers from Mongolia, such as the
Pechenegs, who also brought in Zoroastrian and Manichean beliefs into
the areass of eastern europe they settled.
Many of these remnants of Iranian and mixed Iranian tribes settled as
the Geramnic "Foederati" did in the west and assimilated to the rest of
the population but many did not. In fact, in Hungary, in the region of
Yazsbereny (itself derived from the name of the Yazigians), the people
in the villages still spoke an Iranian language akin to Ossetian and
the Sczeklers of Transylvania, though Magyar speakers, derive their
name from "Scythian".
now back to this particular book (the above information comes from
other sources), the ancestors of the people of Bosnia Herzegovina were
not yet Slavicized but were a mix of people including Iranian steppe
dwellers that had migrated to the region in various waves of horsemen.
The Slavs later imposed their language on the entire region and thus
absorbed the remnants of the old Illyrian, Sarmatian/Iranian and
Celto-Romance speakers. The Christians noticed "heresies" of Manichhean
form which they branded as "dualistic" (since ancient Iranian religions
were primarily concerne dwith the struggle between light and dark
principles, to a lesser extent in Zoroastrianism and much more in
Manicheism) and called the the "Bogomils".
In ancient Avestan, a sister language of Sanskrit, the term "Baga"
means God (hence Baga-Dad, or God-given in Avestan which today is
Baghdad!). This is also to be found in the "Bagavad Gita" or "Bog"
(dwelling of the gods, which originally came from Slavs who passed it
on to Germans, themselves having inherited the term from their
Sarmatian predecessors).
At any rate, these "Bogomils" and "Cathars" (as they were called in the
west much later) were essentially practioners of a mixture of
Manicheism and Zoroastrianism, with various local variations which they
often tried to disguise as Christianity for the sake of survival. Over
the centuries and the many holy wars preached against them by both
Orthodox and Catholic Christians (the final crusade or Albigensian
crusade in southern France by Simon de Montfors was actually directed
against the last Manicheans of southern France), the locals began to
feel isolated.
As Zoroastrianism was fast shrinking in its native Iranian land of
Afghanistan/Tajikistan/
Uzbekistan/Iran due to Islamic pressures which made it a minoirty for
the first time in the 11th century, and as Manicheism was dirven
further and further east towards the Tarim Basin (Xinjiang province of
modern China), the people felt no desire to stay isolated and at the
same time, felt no pull towards either branch of Christianity which had
for so long pressured them often brutally. When the Turks came to the
region after the defeat of the Serbs at Kossovo in 1389, they began to
impose Islamo-fascism upon the population by requiring one fifth of the
children of all Christian famillies to be taken into Anatolia to be
turned as Islamic Janissaries and converted.
With the Jyzzya tax imposed, and exacting 20% of the income of
so-called "infidels", the descendants of the Bogomils felt absolutely
no kinship with the rest of the population and thus converted gradualyl
and voluntarily to islamo-fascism, without ever achieving the level of
fanaticism and destructiveness that other islamo-fascist people had in
the rest of the world.
I find this very interesting and the key to understanding Balkan
relations and thus, perhaps, the key to detaching the Bosnians from the
rest of the islamic world, before it's too late and their territory,
already roamed by thousands of illegal islamic fighters from the
arabian world who came to fight as mercenaries against the Serbs,
becomes a stepping stone into the Jihad of this century against
Europe. In fact, this would be the ideal staging zone for the
islamo-fascists to strike into the heart of eurabia, their next "dar al
Harb". As for the Albanians, I am not informed enough on their
conversion and the circumstances that led to their conversion to
comment on the issue, but we both know what this islamic presence in
Europe could mean!
Post by Gary Rumain
Ah, thanks for setting me straight, pal. All I'd ever read was the
liberal Austrian comments you referred to.
Agree with what you wrote about the Balkans. I think the blame however,
show go further than the British. The Turks are the ones solely
responsible for creating the Balkan situtation by forcing Serbs to move
into Croatian territories and forcing people to convert to pislam in
the Balkans.
We now that the situation where the only true European muzzies are the
slavs in the Balkans and the Albanians. And many of them have a muzzie
mindset - least of which is now being reinforced by the muzzie arabs
who moved in during the last Balkan war.
Gary Rumain
2006-04-29 00:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Thanks in advance if you find that info and post it. I think it would
be interesting to read.

I understand what you mean about the EU. The muzzies have already
infested Europe. Bosnia probably isn't that much of a problem in the
larger picture - unless the muzzies use it as a traning ground of some
sort.

Its a good thing parts of eastern Europe haven't joined the EU yet. I'm
sure Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Chek republic etc. are
relatively free of the muzzie pigs. I'm not sure for how long though
but if they were smart, they would probably be better off not joining
just to keep the scumbags out. But more than likely they are desperate
to join for the economic benefits it will give them. I hope they know
how to handle the ensuing problems they'll get.

Yes, I think it was the same documentary. I recall that part about the
filthy muzzie arab kiling the Serbian they'd caught.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
Actually linguistic traces do reveal some of the so-called Slavic
tribes of eastern Europe, including the Croats, to have had Sarmatian
Iranian tribial/clan names. I will look for the article I saw on teh
wesb some time ago and get back to you on this as soon as I find it.
as for the Montenegrans and Croats, you're right but trouble is, wtih
teh creation of the EU, the borders have come down and the fitfth
column of mohammedan trash that festers Europe, is full of these
scumbags that will help their "brethren" and give them fake passports
and under the table jobs, while they help settle into their undercover
identity.
I saw a web documentary on this and I wonder if it was the same as the
one you saw? I think it was also BBC news and showed these wahabi arab
islamists and one part showed one of those filthy arab scumbags
practically beg the Bosnians to let him butcher prisonners in cold
blood in the middle of the woods. Was that the same as the one you saw?
Gary Rumain
2006-04-29 01:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Thanks in advance if you find that info and post it. I think it would
be interesting to read.

I understand what you mean about the EU. The muzzies have already
infested Europe. Bosnia probably isn't that much of a problem in the
larger picture - unless the muzzies use it as a traning ground of some
sort.

Its a good thing parts of eastern Europe haven't joined the EU yet. I'm
sure Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Chek republic etc. are
relatively free of the muzzie pigs. I'm not sure for how long though
but if they were smart, they would probably be better off not joining
just to keep the scumbags out. But more than likely they are desperate
to join for the economic benefits it will give them. I hope they know
how to handle the ensuing problems they'll get.

Yes, I think it was the same documentary. I recall that part about the
filthy muzzie arab kiling the Serbian they'd caught.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
Actually linguistic traces do reveal some of the so-called Slavic
tribes of eastern Europe, including the Croats, to have had Sarmatian
Iranian tribial/clan names. I will look for the article I saw on teh
wesb some time ago and get back to you on this as soon as I find it.
as for the Montenegrans and Croats, you're right but trouble is, wtih
teh creation of the EU, the borders have come down and the fitfth
column of mohammedan trash that festers Europe, is full of these
scumbags that will help their "brethren" and give them fake passports
and under the table jobs, while they help settle into their undercover
identity.
I saw a web documentary on this and I wonder if it was the same as the
one you saw? I think it was also BBC news and showed these wahabi arab
islamists and one part showed one of those filthy arab scumbags
practically beg the Bosnians to let him butcher prisonners in cold
blood in the middle of the woods. Was that the same as the one you saw?
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-29 08:47:31 UTC
Permalink
you know the good thing about eastern Europe is that it is fiercely
nationalistic an dnot at all overcome with the same kind of globalism
that has plagued western Europe.

Two years, when I was visiting Germany, I had a four hour conversation
with the hotel manager who shared many interesting views with me. When
I asked him about the mohammedan trash that infests eastern part of
Berlin and why is Germany opening its borders in such a pathetic way,
he responded that there was very little the people themselves could do.
In fact, the corporate mentality has spread its tentacles over much of
the "free" world and all sense of maintaining borders, culture and
identity are vanishing as remnants of a "fascist" passe view. That is
unfortunate to say the least. Unfortunately, the left wing self-hating
marxist parasites have pointed the "racist" finger one too many times
at any politican that even remotely alludes to safeguarding borders and
national culture...gee, wait a minute, where else have I seen this?
(Hint, hint!)

Though I am far from being a marxist of any kind, I also believe that
the globalism/multi-national corporate approach is one of the greatest
threats not just to western culture but to the world in general. If
anything, tossing in a bunch of different spices that don't go well
together into the same pot will only give it an odd taste instead of
bringing out each individual flavor.

The rift between the western world with its ideas of freedom,
self-determination, free spiritedness, self-expression, critical
thinking, tolerance for different opinions and beliefs etc...and the
islamo-fascist world with its chauvinistic, hateful, racist, intolerant
and dictatorial myopic view is so huge that it can never be bridged, no
matter how those peacenick, college campus white marxist hippie idiots
would like to fantasize in their nightmare of world proletariat
domination and try to blame everything on America and Israel, and of
course, the CRUSADES (!!!).
The "clash of civilizations" is very much a reality, especially
considering that one is bent on the total and unconditional destruction
of the other, which has nothing to do with individuals like Zarqawi or
Bin Laden but on the Satanic Mein Kampf of islamo-fascism and its brain
damaged cultist followers.

Eastern Europeans, if you have ever had the chance to notice, don't
give a flying fuck about "politically correct" or being "globalist".
They couldn't care less about people that trash and pollute their
lands, they flat out kick them out or stab them to death. There's a
certain no nonsense attitude about Slavic countries as well as Hungary
etc...that spells "I won't take any shit from you mohammedan bastard!"

Also I would say another important factor is that the European east has
just come out from communist domination and will not take kindly from
the rhetoric of the left wing ass wipes. It is THEIR time for
nationalism, self-determination and finding their identity, not to
mention the rediscovery of their Christian roots. Anything that halts
that path to self re-discovery is not tolerated, unless bombarded
relentlessly by the same lies propagated by the left-wing dominated US
media.

The west has been rotting for decades thanks to the atheist, utopian
communist sons of bitches who have worked hard at chiseling away the
fiber of the societies they plague witht their presence. In their
views, everytime you distinguish between a black and white instead of
different "perceptions" of grey, or a hot or cold, you're a racist, a
fascist or sexist. They're the same idiots that have manipulated
science to spew that "race doesn't exist (bullshit by every scientific
standard), and yet will call you a "racist" when it suits their agenda
(we see a lot of that right here from these peacenick asshole wanna be
marxists).

Furthermore, the level of debauchery, self-indulgence, death of
religion andnationalism and removement from issues which the western
Europeans view as the cause for past wars and fascist currents have all
contributred to a general apathy. Globalist consumerism has crept in,
people want to make a buck, and liberal minded people seek answers and
reasoning to dealing with the mohammedan barbarians.

All in due time, people will realize as they did in Belgium and Holland
that the only way to deal with a mohamedan is to burn a mosque for each
church, temple or synagogue, beat a mohammedan for each of their beaten
and so forth. In the end, it will not be a matter of "if" but "when"
that final clash will come.
Gary Rumain
2006-04-30 00:05:33 UTC
Permalink
I have to say I agree with your comments. I hope Eastern Europe never
falls sway to the idiots plaguing the rest of Europe. I know they'd had
enough of marxists and ideology. But they still may fall under the
spell of rampant free market capitalists.

I recall seeing something about Poland last year. I think it was a
documentary on the last pope. It seems Poland now has some sort of xian
revival with a large number of men learning to become priests.
Something quite out of step with the rest of the West. So you are
correct about some of your points.

On your last point, I'm not sure how they'll respond to the muzzie rape
gangs. Them muzzies bitches are pig ugly. One look and its instant
impotence. So you can't really do the 'eye for an eye' thing in
response. Probably won't have any effect since muzzie women are
devalued by muzzie men. Their men will kill them anyway if they even so
much a take to other men! Look at the reports from Germany.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you know the good thing about eastern Europe is that it is fiercely
nationalistic an dnot at all overcome with the same kind of globalism
that has plagued western Europe.
Two years, when I was visiting Germany, I had a four hour conversation
with the hotel manager who shared many interesting views with me. When
I asked him about the mohammedan trash that infests eastern part of
Berlin and why is Germany opening its borders in such a pathetic way,
he responded that there was very little the people themselves could do.
In fact, the corporate mentality has spread its tentacles over much of
the "free" world and all sense of maintaining borders, culture and
identity are vanishing as remnants of a "fascist" passe view. That is
unfortunate to say the least. Unfortunately, the left wing self-hating
marxist parasites have pointed the "racist" finger one too many times
at any politican that even remotely alludes to safeguarding borders and
national culture...gee, wait a minute, where else have I seen this?
(Hint, hint!)
Though I am far from being a marxist of any kind, I also believe that
the globalism/multi-national corporate approach is one of the greatest
threats not just to western culture but to the world in general. If
anything, tossing in a bunch of different spices that don't go well
together into the same pot will only give it an odd taste instead of
bringing out each individual flavor.
The rift between the western world with its ideas of freedom,
self-determination, free spiritedness, self-expression, critical
thinking, tolerance for different opinions and beliefs etc...and the
islamo-fascist world with its chauvinistic, hateful, racist, intolerant
and dictatorial myopic view is so huge that it can never be bridged, no
matter how those peacenick, college campus white marxist hippie idiots
would like to fantasize in their nightmare of world proletariat
domination and try to blame everything on America and Israel, and of
course, the CRUSADES (!!!).
The "clash of civilizations" is very much a reality, especially
considering that one is bent on the total and unconditional destruction
of the other, which has nothing to do with individuals like Zarqawi or
Bin Laden but on the Satanic Mein Kampf of islamo-fascism and its brain
damaged cultist followers.
Eastern Europeans, if you have ever had the chance to notice, don't
give a flying fuck about "politically correct" or being "globalist".
They couldn't care less about people that trash and pollute their
lands, they flat out kick them out or stab them to death. There's a
certain no nonsense attitude about Slavic countries as well as Hungary
etc...that spells "I won't take any shit from you mohammedan bastard!"
Also I would say another important factor is that the European east has
just come out from communist domination and will not take kindly from
the rhetoric of the left wing ass wipes. It is THEIR time for
nationalism, self-determination and finding their identity, not to
mention the rediscovery of their Christian roots. Anything that halts
that path to self re-discovery is not tolerated, unless bombarded
relentlessly by the same lies propagated by the left-wing dominated US
media.
The west has been rotting for decades thanks to the atheist, utopian
communist sons of bitches who have worked hard at chiseling away the
fiber of the societies they plague witht their presence. In their
views, everytime you distinguish between a black and white instead of
different "perceptions" of grey, or a hot or cold, you're a racist, a
fascist or sexist. They're the same idiots that have manipulated
science to spew that "race doesn't exist (bullshit by every scientific
standard), and yet will call you a "racist" when it suits their agenda
(we see a lot of that right here from these peacenick asshole wanna be
marxists).
Furthermore, the level of debauchery, self-indulgence, death of
religion andnationalism and removement from issues which the western
Europeans view as the cause for past wars and fascist currents have all
contributred to a general apathy. Globalist consumerism has crept in,
people want to make a buck, and liberal minded people seek answers and
reasoning to dealing with the mohammedan barbarians.
All in due time, people will realize as they did in Belgium and Holland
that the only way to deal with a mohamedan is to burn a mosque for each
church, temple or synagogue, beat a mohammedan for each of their beaten
and so forth. In the end, it will not be a matter of "if" but "when"
that final clash will come.
SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
2006-04-30 02:43:15 UTC
Permalink
I've been following up on the going's on in Russia and the way they
randomly beat the crap out of anyone they perceive as mohammedan. On
the downside, there's a rise in right wing fascism. It seems that is
the counterbalancing force, unfortunately, just like in the days of
post world war I Europe when communism threatened to take over
countries like Hungary, Germany etc...

I have a Bulgarian friend who was telling me about how a few years ago,
the government forced all the ethic Turks of that coutnry, who have
been there for hundreds of years, to take Bulgarian names and drop the
islamo-fascist ones, or leave. They kicked out something like 300,000
of them.

If anything, Russia has the proper attitude towards islamo-fascists.
They are learning fast what they are all about, thanks to Chechnya
Post by Gary Rumain
I have to say I agree with your comments. I hope Eastern Europe never
falls sway to the idiots plaguing the rest of Europe. I know they'd had
enough of marxists and ideology. But they still may fall under the
spell of rampant free market capitalists.
I recall seeing something about Poland last year. I think it was a
documentary on the last pope. It seems Poland now has some sort of xian
revival with a large number of men learning to become priests.
Something quite out of step with the rest of the West. So you are
correct about some of your points.
On your last point, I'm not sure how they'll respond to the muzzie rape
gangs. Them muzzies bitches are pig ugly. One look and its instant
impotence. So you can't really do the 'eye for an eye' thing in
response. Probably won't have any effect since muzzie women are
devalued by muzzie men. Their men will kill them anyway if they even so
much a take to other men! Look at the reports from Germany.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you know the good thing about eastern Europe is that it is fiercely
nationalistic an dnot at all overcome with the same kind of globalism
that has plagued western Europe.
Two years, when I was visiting Germany, I had a four hour conversation
with the hotel manager who shared many interesting views with me. When
I asked him about the mohammedan trash that infests eastern part of
Berlin and why is Germany opening its borders in such a pathetic way,
he responded that there was very little the people themselves could do.
In fact, the corporate mentality has spread its tentacles over much of
the "free" world and all sense of maintaining borders, culture and
identity are vanishing as remnants of a "fascist" passe view. That is
unfortunate to say the least. Unfortunately, the left wing self-hating
marxist parasites have pointed the "racist" finger one too many times
at any politican that even remotely alludes to safeguarding borders and
national culture...gee, wait a minute, where else have I seen this?
(Hint, hint!)
Though I am far from being a marxist of any kind, I also believe that
the globalism/multi-national corporate approach is one of the greatest
threats not just to western culture but to the world in general. If
anything, tossing in a bunch of different spices that don't go well
together into the same pot will only give it an odd taste instead of
bringing out each individual flavor.
The rift between the western world with its ideas of freedom,
self-determination, free spiritedness, self-expression, critical
thinking, tolerance for different opinions and beliefs etc...and the
islamo-fascist world with its chauvinistic, hateful, racist, intolerant
and dictatorial myopic view is so huge that it can never be bridged, no
matter how those peacenick, college campus white marxist hippie idiots
would like to fantasize in their nightmare of world proletariat
domination and try to blame everything on America and Israel, and of
course, the CRUSADES (!!!).
The "clash of civilizations" is very much a reality, especially
considering that one is bent on the total and unconditional destruction
of the other, which has nothing to do with individuals like Zarqawi or
Bin Laden but on the Satanic Mein Kampf of islamo-fascism and its brain
damaged cultist followers.
Eastern Europeans, if you have ever had the chance to notice, don't
give a flying fuck about "politically correct" or being "globalist".
They couldn't care less about people that trash and pollute their
lands, they flat out kick them out or stab them to death. There's a
certain no nonsense attitude about Slavic countries as well as Hungary
etc...that spells "I won't take any shit from you mohammedan bastard!"
Also I would say another important factor is that the European east has
just come out from communist domination and will not take kindly from
the rhetoric of the left wing ass wipes. It is THEIR time for
nationalism, self-determination and finding their identity, not to
mention the rediscovery of their Christian roots. Anything that halts
that path to self re-discovery is not tolerated, unless bombarded
relentlessly by the same lies propagated by the left-wing dominated US
media.
The west has been rotting for decades thanks to the atheist, utopian
communist sons of bitches who have worked hard at chiseling away the
fiber of the societies they plague witht their presence. In their
views, everytime you distinguish between a black and white instead of
different "perceptions" of grey, or a hot or cold, you're a racist, a
fascist or sexist. They're the same idiots that have manipulated
science to spew that "race doesn't exist (bullshit by every scientific
standard), and yet will call you a "racist" when it suits their agenda
(we see a lot of that right here from these peacenick asshole wanna be
marxists).
Furthermore, the level of debauchery, self-indulgence, death of
religion andnationalism and removement from issues which the western
Europeans view as the cause for past wars and fascist currents have all
contributred to a general apathy. Globalist consumerism has crept in,
people want to make a buck, and liberal minded people seek answers and
reasoning to dealing with the mohammedan barbarians.
All in due time, people will realize as they did in Belgium and Holland
that the only way to deal with a mohamedan is to burn a mosque for each
church, temple or synagogue, beat a mohammedan for each of their beaten
and so forth. In the end, it will not be a matter of "if" but "when"
that final clash will come.
Gary Rumain
2006-04-30 23:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Yes, the Russians aren't knowing for dicking about. Go straight for the
jugular is my motto too. They've had a long history with the muzzie
pigs.

The Bulgarian comments reminds me of Indonesia where the muzzie pigs
forced the ethnic Chinese population to adopt idiotic Indo names. Heard
a funny story about this third hand. It seems a family of them came
here to the US for a holiday. They got the third degree from Customs
and Immigration on arrival for 2 hours. Even worse, they crossed the
border to get a better look at Niagara Falls and had a nice chat for 3
hours on the way back! LOL!! No wonder so many of them are leaving
Malaysia and Indonesia.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
I've been following up on the going's on in Russia and the way they
randomly beat the crap out of anyone they perceive as mohammedan. On
the downside, there's a rise in right wing fascism. It seems that is
the counterbalancing force, unfortunately, just like in the days of
post world war I Europe when communism threatened to take over
countries like Hungary, Germany etc...
I have a Bulgarian friend who was telling me about how a few years ago,
the government forced all the ethic Turks of that coutnry, who have
been there for hundreds of years, to take Bulgarian names and drop the
islamo-fascist ones, or leave. They kicked out something like 300,000
of them.
If anything, Russia has the proper attitude towards islamo-fascists.
They are learning fast what they are all about, thanks to Chechnya
Post by Gary Rumain
I have to say I agree with your comments. I hope Eastern Europe never
falls sway to the idiots plaguing the rest of Europe. I know they'd had
enough of marxists and ideology. But they still may fall under the
spell of rampant free market capitalists.
I recall seeing something about Poland last year. I think it was a
documentary on the last pope. It seems Poland now has some sort of xian
revival with a large number of men learning to become priests.
Something quite out of step with the rest of the West. So you are
correct about some of your points.
On your last point, I'm not sure how they'll respond to the muzzie rape
gangs. Them muzzies bitches are pig ugly. One look and its instant
impotence. So you can't really do the 'eye for an eye' thing in
response. Probably won't have any effect since muzzie women are
devalued by muzzie men. Their men will kill them anyway if they even so
much a take to other men! Look at the reports from Germany.
Post by SIRKNIGHT67_shits_on_mo-ham-MAD
you know the good thing about eastern Europe is that it is fiercely
nationalistic an dnot at all overcome with the same kind of globalism
that has plagued western Europe.
Two years, when I was visiting Germany, I had a four hour conversation
with the hotel manager who shared many interesting views with me. When
I asked him about the mohammedan trash that infests eastern part of
Berlin and why is Germany opening its borders in such a pathetic way,
he responded that there was very little the people themselves could do.
In fact, the corporate mentality has spread its tentacles over much of
the "free" world and all sense of maintaining borders, culture and
identity are vanishing as remnants of a "fascist" passe view. That is
unfortunate to say the least. Unfortunately, the left wing self-hating
marxist parasites have pointed the "racist" finger one too many times
at any politican that even remotely alludes to safeguarding borders and
national culture...gee, wait a minute, where else have I seen this?
(Hint, hint!)
Though I am far from being a marxist of any kind, I also believe that
the globalism/multi-national corporate approach is one of the greatest
threats not just to western culture but to the world in general. If
anything, tossing in a bunch of different spices that don't go well
together into the same pot will only give it an odd taste instead of
bringing out each individual flavor.
The rift between the western world with its ideas of freedom,
self-determination, free spiritedness, self-expression, critical
thinking, tolerance for different opinions and beliefs etc...and the
islamo-fascist world with its chauvinistic, hateful, racist, intolerant
and dictatorial myopic view is so huge that it can never be bridged, no
matter how those peacenick, college campus white marxist hippie idiots
would like to fantasize in their nightmare of world proletariat
domination and try to blame everything on America and Israel, and of
course, the CRUSADES (!!!).
The "clash of civilizations" is very much a reality, especially
considering that one is bent on the total and unconditional destruction
of the other, which has nothing to do with individuals like Zarqawi or
Bin Laden but on the Satanic Mein Kampf of islamo-fascism and its brain
damaged cultist followers.
Eastern Europeans, if you have ever had the chance to notice, don't
give a flying fuck about "politically correct" or being "globalist".
They couldn't care less about people that trash and pollute their
lands, they flat out kick them out or stab them to death. There's a
certain no nonsense attitude about Slavic countries as well as Hungary
etc...that spells "I won't take any shit from you mohammedan bastard!"
Also I would say another important factor is that the European east has
just come out from communist domination and will not take kindly from
the rhetoric of the left wing ass wipes. It is THEIR time for
nationalism, self-determination and finding their identity, not to
mention the rediscovery of their Christian roots. Anything that halts
that path to self re-discovery is not tolerated, unless bombarded
relentlessly by the same lies propagated by the left-wing dominated US
media.
The west has been rotting for decades thanks to the atheist, utopian
communist sons of bitches who have worked hard at chiseling away the
fiber of the societies they plague witht their presence. In their
views, everytime you distinguish between a black and white instead of
different "perceptions" of grey, or a hot or cold, you're a racist, a
fascist or sexist. They're the same idiots that have manipulated
science to spew that "race doesn't exist (bullshit by every scientific
standard), and yet will call you a "racist" when it suits their agenda
(we see a lot of that right here from these peacenick asshole wanna be
marxists).
Furthermore, the level of debauchery, self-indulgence, death of
religion andnationalism and removement from issues which the western
Europeans view as the cause for past wars and fascist currents have all
contributred to a general apathy. Globalist consumerism has crept in,
people want to make a buck, and liberal minded people seek answers and
reasoning to dealing with the mohammedan barbarians.
All in due time, people will realize as they did in Belgium and Holland
that the only way to deal with a mohamedan is to burn a mosque for each
church, temple or synagogue, beat a mohammedan for each of their beaten
and so forth. In the end, it will not be a matter of "if" but "when"
that final clash will come.
S***@gmail.com
2006-04-30 02:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts."
===========================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
Useful idiots...
By Diana West
April 21, 2006
How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union
is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to
conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having
double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and
gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing
radicalisation."
Islamic "radicalisation," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's
Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones?" proverb is out, particularly
the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say
words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train."
are you saying that inherently moslems are agaist "public transport"
segregated or not as they case maybe, based on gender or combustibility
ratings?

i hope not.;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
As an EU official explained
non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that
could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of
radicalisation."
As they say Over There, What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe
that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical
blood-lust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic
terrorism," not the other way around. Only not in EU-land. "These words
[Islamic terrorism] cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister
and "advisor"tothe British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just
creates a culture where terrorism actually is identifiedwith Islam," he
continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."
And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and
frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's
where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
Take Flight 93: TheSeptember 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24
times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as
"stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic
terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not
to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, but they
hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe
that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their
behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick
with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane
for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They
go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts.
The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently
reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The
sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms
specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits, or,
specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said,
"Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims
who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western
countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for
this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a
bomb against the West."
The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations,
but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down
the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was
primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather
than recruit bombers." Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these
days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an
apology of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense"-- condemning
this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an
appointment with the United Nations Disarmament Conference -- as
co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two al Qaeda fathers
discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so
fast.
Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a
senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It
actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage
-- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe,"
said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented
a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of
Britain "welcomed the apology" (naturally).
I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the
Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just
wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place. That'll quiet everything.
===========================================================
Gary Rumain
2006-04-30 23:48:55 UTC
Permalink
muzzie alert!
Post by S***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Cooper
"They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts."
===========================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
Useful idiots...
By Diana West
April 21, 2006
How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union
is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to
conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having
double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and
gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing
radicalisation."
Islamic "radicalisation," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's
Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones?" proverb is out, particularly
the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say
words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train."
are you saying that inherently moslems are agaist "public transport"
segregated or not as they case maybe, based on gender or combustibility
ratings?
i hope not.;-)
Post by Bob Cooper
As an EU official explained
non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that
could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of
radicalisation."
As they say Over There, What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe
that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical
blood-lust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic
terrorism," not the other way around. Only not in EU-land. "These words
[Islamic terrorism] cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister
and "advisor"tothe British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just
creates a culture where terrorism actually is identifiedwith Islam," he
continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."
And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and
frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's
where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."
Take Flight 93: TheSeptember 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24
times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as
"stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic
terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not
to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, but they
hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe
that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their
behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick
with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane
for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They
go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination
because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other
signal Islamic texts.
The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently
reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The
sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms
specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits, or,
specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said,
"Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims
who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western
countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for
this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a
bomb against the West."
The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations,
but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down
the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was
primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather
than recruit bombers." Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these
days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an
apology of PA President Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense"-- condemning
this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an
appointment with the United Nations Disarmament Conference -- as
co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two al Qaeda fathers
discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so
fast.
Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a
senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It
actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage
-- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe,"
said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented
a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of
Britain "welcomed the apology" (naturally).
I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the
Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just
wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place. That'll quiet everything.
===========================================================
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...