The War on Terrorism

Who likes terrorism?  No sane person.  Flag explains it (not to say he defends or portrays it positively) as being the natural order of a small opponent fighting a much bigger one. Ex.“This is today the modus operandi in the Arab world. The weaker you are, the stronger you are. If you don’t have weapons and exposed hands, you are the most powerful. The ones who shoot are illegitimate and are weaker than you. ”(1)  I think peaceful protests can be a game changer, but don’t think it’s an end all.  Israel has borders they defend against invasion.  That is not limited to armed invaders.  But the armed attackers seem more prevalent.  And what about us?  The USA is taking a more active role in defending our borders.

Sept 11th, 2001

When a smaller opponent wants to attack a larger opponent, surprise can have a tremendous effect on achieving success.  Have you ever been sucker punched?  Hit without warning, a fist to the stomach, robbing you of breath and the ability to defend yourself?  How did Bush do after 9/11?  An unprecedented attack  on primarily civilian targets, which we never thought to defend against.  But we were not brought to our knees.  We are  the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  He had the ability to turn any third world real estate into glass parking lots.  But he acted with some restraint.  He declared a war on terror.  He avoided muddling the issue with the religious implications.  Muslims worldwide were in the streets celebrating, cheering, laughing while people in the towers were still dying.  There are things Bush did where I think he failed us and himself.  But his reaction to 9/11 is defining.  I think history will show his actions, his presidency, was one of those rare moments of the right person at the right time, when they rise above the crisis and act with courage and integrity.

Sept 11th, 2001

George Bush should and will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.    (Charlie, this is where you need to take a chill pill, hit the gym, whatever.  I did not write this to make your head spin.  I think this is true, and am about to provide the reasons)

First the slow, boring process of building a case.  Terrorism is not new, could even be the, what fifth or sixth oldest profession?  You can probably find examples of it in nearly every conflict, ancient or modern.  The knights had a code of honor, maybe to show they were not like the more common opponent, who would go after your wife or kids instead of mano-e-mano?  Humans either could not or would not figure out a way to get along without conflict, so they agreed to a code of honor, or a code of conflict.  And it helped some.

9/11, like Pearl Harbor, was a violation of the acceptable, honorable way to wage war.  So why did we declare war on Afghanistan, who had not attacked us?  Wait!  First I want to blame this all on Bill Clinton.  Or at least his security adviser, Anthony Lake.

The term rogue state is indicative of a new security strategy in the United States. Following the end of the Cold War, U.S.  foreign policy was no longer concerned with the containment of another
superpower through “Mutual Assured Destruction”, but with the emerging threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in developing countries.  The new security strategy was mainly developed and presented under the authority of Clinton’s former security Adviser Anthony Lake.(2)

So Anthony Lake coined the phrase “Rouge State”.  Could that term ever be used to describe a country that allows a large, armed group to recruit, train, plan and even attack other countries from their soil?  But Bush did not declare war on Afghanistan.  He asked for and received congressional approval to conduct military operation there, but the war was on terrorism.  And now OBL was found in Pakistan.  Where would we be if he had only sought a war on Afghanistan and then Iraq?  Might be a better world, but with where OBL was hiding and operating, I think Bush had a better ideal of what was going on, and how to fight it.  Regan dealt with Libya and their terrorist training camps by bombing.  A strong message, but the camps were not closed then.  As I recall, they didn’t close until Bush II  took a hard stand on terrorism and it’s supporters, and then announced targets.  Shortly afterward, no more training camps or nuclear program in  peace-loving Libya, come visit, see all the sights, nothing to hide.  Walk softly and carry a big stick is useless if you are unwilling to ever use it!

Iraq was a mistake in that it was framed around the WMD issue.  I think if China, France and Russia had not blocked us in the UN, most likely because of their corrupt involvement in the food-for-oil program that war could have been avoided.  Saddam also could have dodged the bullet if he had allowed UN inspectors.  Much of the  world has an image of the USA as being unwilling to commit ourselves to a long, drawn out struggle.  Our open condemnation of death and killing is foreign to many people who have a different measure of the value of human life.  Terrorists in Iraq were happy to blow up dozens of their own people in a market, if it hurt or killed one American or our ally.  Bush challenged that perception and has shown the world again that America still has the will to see a fight thru til the end.  So was Iraq a mistake?  NO!

Bush made plenty of mistakes, but on Iraq, he was right.  We had already invaded Afghanistan, but they were/are a poor country without the resources that compare to other terrorism sponsors.  Taking on a hostile, defiant opponent of enough stature was also a message to the rest of the world, sponsor terrorist attacks on the USA and we will destroy you.  Iran, N. Korea,  “Axis of Evil” was not an idle comment.   The United States became the world’s leader in the fight against terrorism.  Although many did not join us or agree with our invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, they too are in the same fight.

We pay attention to bombings in Spain and the UK.  They are “Western” countries being attacked by extremist Muslim Immigrants.  Russia has some very violent terrorist attacks, Domodedovo airport left at least 35 dead,   March 29, 2010, two suicide bomber women blew themselves up at two stations of the Moscow Metro(Lubyanka and Park Kultury). At least 40 people were killed, and more than 100 injured.(3)(4)  Some of the attacks in Russia may be from people seeking to overthrow an oppressive rule that shows little change from the old USSR.   The Beslan school tragedy saw 331 people die, including 186 children.  The terrorists sought to force Russia to withdraw troops from the Chechen Republic.  Russia has five predominantly Muslim republics within one district.  They are separated by armed borders, different ethnic groups, and even different languages.  Add to that mix, different views of Islam.   Is all their unrest really just people seeking better living conditions than they experience under Moscow’s thumb?  Maybe.  But how many Arab nations are seeing unrest and bloodshed today?  Russia and the USA seem an unlikely common denominator.

Any way you look at it, Muslim extremists are the one thing that stands out.  Some are people seeking escape from a Muslim extremists government.  Some are Muslim extremists seeking to overthrow a government.  Why isn’t there an Arab Martin Luther King?  If there was in Saudi Arabia, he was arrested.  In Iran and Syria, he was shot, along with his family.  According to Islam, Allah’s word is law, and it shall be the law of the land.  When they kill protesters, it is legal, moral, and something to be praised for, for defending the way…..  Very hard for we Westerners to grasp, killing someone who disagrees is cause for celebration.

So how goes the “War on Terror?”  There seem to be daily attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on both the US and whatever passes for government.  Bombings at marketplaces and other purely civilian attacks are still frequent.  And then there’s Libya, where some wonder just who the rebels are other than they oppose Gaddafi.  Does that make them our “friends?”

Al-Qaida Confirms Involvement in Libya

Jack Cashill

The American media are reluctant to report what the French media have made clear: al-Qaeda has established a beachhead in Libya and fully intends to install Sharia law once government forces are overcome.

An April 19th article in the prominent French daily, Le Figaro, does not shy from chronicling the obvious.  It highlights an interview that Al Qaeda spokesman Saleh Abi Mohammad gave to the Saudi journal Al-Hayyat, which is published in London.  According to Abi Mohammad, Al Qaeda is fighting alongside the Libyan rebels in numerous cities and, in the town of Dernah, has already formed with its allies an Islamic Council, “pour gouverner la ville en vertu de la sharia.“(5)
We have yet to hear any explanation from Obama why the US needed to attack Libya for humanitarian reasons, but largely ignore the bloodshed in Syria.  And haven’t there been close to two million deaths in Sudan’s fighting in the last 20 years?  And there is a threat of  ethnic cleansing action in Libya by the rebels waged against Black Libyans.(6)  Does not sound like the people we want for “friends”.   Where will he want to take us next?  There is unrest in Iran, Algeria, Yemen, Morocco and
Egypt.  Iran and Saudi Arabia are at odds, seeking dominance.  Turkey seems to be shifting from a moderate western supporter to a hard Muslim country.
Anyone who believes they can negotiate or force “peace” in the Mid East is denying reality.  They have fought each other for thousands of years.  We will never change that, but we can make it less likely they will involve us and our allies.  Continue the “War on Terror”.  Destroy terrorists and their supporters.  Make the cost of harboring or aiding terrorists too much for any sane nation to consider.  The insane will have to be fought.  We should first destroy their military and call for a change of government.  If attacks continue, destroy their infrastructure, their roads, bridges, power plants, dams, etc…  Then call for them to form another government.  As long as their government supports terrorism, the people who allow that government to exist  will pay the price.
About one fifth of the world’s population is Muslim.  I think it’s about one percent of them that are radical enough to use violence in the name of their cause.  They court a religious war.  Bush denied them that and gave both sides a path to peace.  Support terrorism and you will be making war on the world, not just Israel or the USA.
In closing, I’d like to share the thoughts of a Marine Sergeant:
You have declared us your greatest enemy, but you are not ours.  In fact, you are an unworthy adversary.  America’s greatest enemy is itself.  America’s greatest enemy is the complacency that we tend to have because we have it so good here.  But you woke this sleeping giant on 9/11 and reinvigorated generations of Americans to answer the call in any and every way they could.  Thanks to you, an increased percentage of my generation has voluntarily served in the greatest military to ever exist.  Meanwhile in your countries, young boys are forced to fight, impressed into service after being snatched from their villages.  The young women whom you deny education and personal freedoms through Islamic Sharia law throughout most of the Middle East continue to serve America honorably and excellently throughout the ranks of our military.  The same women you would cover from head to toe before they step out of the prisons they call their homes, proudly tan on our wonderful beaches wearing bikinis and patriotic tattoos, a symbol of their love and dedication to this wonderful country and their brothers and sisters who protect it.  Those such as I who have served honorably in our military, are now pursuing college degrees or personal goals with the same tenacity they displayed on the battlefields of your God-forsaken land.  We often hold more life experience than our bosses in the boardroom, and with our knowledge and life skills we are more prepared and determined than ever to enter our capitalist system and further America’s economic dominance, and your economic inferiority.
And there is still more I would like to thank you for, Islamic extremists.  You cannot break the will of this country, or that of its people, and while you won’t stop trying, you will only succeed in making us stronger.  With every sand-lot plot of yours we foil, every amateur video you shoot with our thrown-away camcorders spouting your anti-American propaganda, millions of Americans are taking it personally, and doing something about it.  You have given us something to fight for together.  You’ve taken selfish, lazy youth like me and turned them into great Americans, great people who are physically and mentally equipped to deal with anything you throw at us.  With the constant threat of your cowardly attacks the people of my country are ever diligent to protect each other and the morals that bind us together.  Without you and your actions in the past, present, and future, I promise you our focus would not be so clear as we set our sights on you.
Though you’ve had success in breaking the hearts of families across this country whose loved ones have died as a result of your terrorist attacks, or in protecting the innocent from you, it only hardens the souls of those who surround them.  Your small victories provide far more powerful motivation to the caring communities of the American people.  Their loss is a nation’s collective gain, and that loss will not be in vain.  In time, even the families of our fallen heroes will be stronger because of your actions, and they, too, will unite against you.  You have provided an example, for all of mankind, of what not to do, of how not to live.  The natural will of all men is to be free, to be free to interact with whomever they want, think what they want, and say what they may.  Your suppression of free thought and expression has largely kept your side of the world in the dark ages, and shown the rest of the world how important it is to educate and encourage individualism.
I thank you for showing me your disgusting, degenerate, and devolutionary hate for us.  It has made me realize how beautiful, gratifying, and important is love for thy fellow man.  Everything you stand for is wicked, and everything you fight against is true.  The very principles you dedicate every waking hour to destroy are made 1,000 times stronger for each attempted pass you make at them.  Your closed-mindedness has opened the minds of all mankind, and long after you are gone, dwelling in my God’s basement for eternity, good men such as I will prosper.  Through your weakness, you have made The United States of America stronger, and I will be forever thankful.(7)
-Andrew Kirkland, Sergeant, United States Marine Corps, October 2003 – October 2007
(1)http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/clarices_pieces_obama_and_the.html
(2)http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=188
(3)http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110124/162281092.html
(4)http://www.globalincidentmap.com/
(5)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/alqaida_confirms_involvement_i.html
(6)http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME.XEF33384.h
other sources not used
Advertisements

Comments

  1. Nice LOI……there is more you could have listed but I will sit back and watch the usual replies of American Hegemony and Israeli puppet regime and the usual fanfare of the blame game today. I will watch with amusement at how the US is the pariah and that the ME problems are the direct result of United States foreign policy and how the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas are all products of the United States involvement. Of course, all of this will be bullet and talking points and they will be clueless of the actual reality but it will be entertaining. Terrorism is a catch all word like A.D.D. is the catch all phrase for hyperactive children or Fibromyalgia is the catch all term for what doctors cannot diagnose.

    Terrorism has been around since dinosaurs have been pooping on the ground. There is only one way to handle terrorism and it is not by sitting around in a group session and looking to the cosmos for answers.

    • Thanks D,

      I’m struggling with writing on this because there is so much that needs to be covered. At first is was going to be a single article, now I’m not sure where it will end. Next one will be on Israel. I’m also looking forward to your articles. Comparing your “boots on the ground” viewpoint with my chickenhawk perspective ought to be interesting.

      • You have a toughie on your hands and glad to see it. It is interesting on the definitions of terrorism. Having seen it first hand..having conducted a form of it ( by that, I mean role reversal)…and having had the opportunity to see how a real training camp works….the definitions in the books…..don’t fit. I am beginning to think, and experience is teaching me, the word terrorism is actually a politically correct word.,,but a word designed to also tweak the brain to urgency. A buzz word….so to speak. There are many forms of “terrorism” and not all of them are militant. There is economic terrorism. There is educational terrorism. There is political terrorism……..hell, if you voted against Obama, you were considered a terrorist/racist/anarchist…whatever. I will add as the day goes on. Nice article and it should stimulate some interesting conversation. Got your back, my friend. (And DPM is readying the rail gun).

    • d13

      Good morning Colonel.

      It seems to me we can never eliminate terrorism. Only reduce it.

      There will always be the individual or small group of people with some axe to grind who think this their best means of action.

      On the broader issue, that being the roles of Afghanistan, Irag, Taliban, Al Quieda, etc, etc, think we suffer from a terrible conundrum.

      We have caught our Govt and the media in so many lies there comes a point when we can’t tell when we are hearing the truth. There is much evidence of the “Muslim Threat”. But how do we confirm its truth when there is evidence the other way as well.

      Those who wished to muddle our minds for other reasons have, in my view, created a terrible situation for us with respect to this issue.

      Hope your day goes well.

      • Gooood Mooooorning, Viet naaammmm…ooops. Good morning to you, friend JAC.

        War is war…..terrorism is a weapon. It is not a way of life nor a political structure….it is merely a weapon in an arsenal.

        It just happens to be a word assigned to the threat we face today and it is a real threat. The truth is out there to see in the areas not making the news. Look at Africa closely….very closely. Look at the South China Sea very closely. It is out there in plain view….but until it comes to our back yard…(picture Ostrich with head in sand). You can tell by the comments here that until it is in our back door……it does not exist.

        HOw are you sir…..FINALLY…gonna be 100 today….bout time.

        • d13

          Congratulations. Oh wait, you mean the temperature?

          🙂

          Re Terrorism: I use the simple definition/meaning as developed for the purposes of deciding what is “ethical” in war. I know that is the ultimate oxymoron but that is what humans have created so I’ll go with it.

          Namely, the targeting of civilians for the purpose of political change. We could go farther and say “non military” targets I suppose.

          So in this sense, using a suicide bomber to attack a military installation is NOT terrorism in my view. But flying planes into the towers, or bombing public transportation IS terrorism.

          Then comes the WHO that uses it. The word is most often used to describe terrorism conducted by Muslims. The Islamic Jihadist if you will. But we have lost the courage to call it what it is.

          I do not see “terrorism” as THE threat myself. That falls to the WHAT and WHY of those who are using it as their strategy or tactic.

          As for the Risk, I think there are only a few here who truly believe it does not exist at all. A large number of us see a risk but can’t accurately identify its source. I for one think there are multiple players involved. The question is whether they are working together or random acts with similar goals simply increase the corrosive effect.

          I am also believe that to many of those who see the risk are fomenting a global holy war that will destroy us. It is one thing to target and call out the Islamic Jihadist and another to condemn an entire religion and ALL people associated with it.

          Raining here, AGAIN. Mixed rain and snow in the high country. I feel for those downriver in the Mississippi. All of Montana is flooding. And much of that water will wind up surging down the Big Muddy.

          • JAC says: “It is one thing to target and call out the Islamic Jihadist and another to condemn an entire religion and ALL people associated with it.”

            D13: Exactly. You do not condemn the religion of Islam and ALL…that is crazy. Just shut up…take em out (the extremists)….do not publicize it….do not create a boiling pot. Just be like Nike….Just do it and be quiet.

            • d13

              I think perhaps you and I are on the same page here.

              Although it raises one very serious question.

              Will it stop the problem. Or simply reduce it or cause it to spread?

              Seems to me something else is required if we want to see it STOP.

              • Will it stop the problem? No, there will always be an extremist…will it cause it to spread? No, I do not believe that either. Keep taking them out and the leadership infrastructure gets fractured……but one thing that has not been addressed by you or I is the “state” that sponsors it. It does have an innocent population and it does have an infrastructure. How do you go after the state that actually sponsors this type of activity? I have my answers but it is probably not in the purview of LOI’s discussion today. Or maybe it is.

              • d13

                Re State sponsors.

                Yes, I have avoided it for now as well.

                I think there are many players. Some are State others are powerful folks within a State but not the State itself.

                I look forward to your ideas, today or some other. I think we often nibble around the edges on this issue and would enjoy exploring a much more comprehensive strategy.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Good artlcle LOI 🙂 I can see you taking a beating today though, Charlie is walking in circles mumbled Oy-Vey while the blood pressure lowers. What a way to treat a guy the day after his birthday 🙂 Should prove to be an interesting conversation.

    • Gman knows me too well … forget Bush (as history will, no doubt, except as one of the worst ever and make no mistake, I thought he had the “potential” of being one of the best– but he dropped the ball and then his pants and we all saw how the emperor had NO clothes in the end) … but I digress …

      I think you’re calling for war forever here, LOI … I’m reading a fascinating account of the author Albert Camus and his role in WWII’s resistance (France) and his absolute rejection of all forms of violence (whether terrorism itself or fighting it). He was concened with Algeria (and its attempt to free itself from France’s grip) … anyway, explain to me again how Bush going into Iraq has done anything more than waste lives and treasure and to what purpose? Here I’m with the anarchist in the crowd (Stella and Colbert agree with BF on this point). We are responsible (to some degree–albeit significant) for Hamas, et al … and to think otherwise is to wear blinders. Think back to our own revolution … you just don’t get to interfere with people’s lives the way we do without it coming back to bite you on the ass. More later, busy day.

      But here’s the doc in the meantime:
      http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/06/doc-says.html

  3. Here is another story on al Quieda, with respect to its changing recruiting methods, changing demographic, and the connection to Libya.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01/al-qaeda-young-extremist-jihadist_n_869883.html

  4. The Five Stages of Islamic take over.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_five_stages_of_islam.html

    Can’t wait to hear the comments on this one.

    Also consider this article in light of the recent riots in I believe it was England over the arrest of some bad folks, who happened to be Muslims.

  5. LOI

    Interesting choice and approach. At least I have tried to stay within your topic today. 🙂

    Hope you and yours are doing well.
    JAC

    • We are doing pretty well, a slow leak in one tire is my biggest problem today. There’s a song verse (Sammy Hagar)
      “if you want peace
      sometimes you gotta fight”

      How many times have Muslim extremists sought to provoke the US? The Beirut barracks bombing, the Cole, could compile quite a list.

      “It seems to me we can never eliminate terrorism. Only reduce it.” My thoughts as well.

      • LOI

        I hate slow leaks.

        Do you have any thoughts on how to reduce terrorism or to counter act the “Muslim Expansion”?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I wonder if removing the CIA from the picture might help?

        • JAC….there is only one way to reduce terrorism as a weapon…. quit worrying about what the world thinks.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @D13 – so if we’ve always fought terrorism with bullets – we’ve not had a semblance of a conclusion to terrorism. So adding more bullets is the answer? Or not? Or too prominent of an answer?

            I care less about what the world thinks than I do adhering to our own principles.

            • our own principles of continually getting sucker punched?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Anita – getting sucker punched is not a principle.

                Your position, in many cases rightfully so, has often been to question why we continue to do things that do not work or are ineffective (perhaps why you homeschool no?). I am asking the same question.

            • Good morning Ray….and a special good morning to your son (may his days be filled with running around, climbing curtains, pulling the cats tail, and knocking things over) …

              You fight extremists with bullets….you do not fight extremists by taking out infrastructures or invading countries in the name of extremists. You fight them the way we just did with Bin “dead now”. You fight it covertly. You cannot fight it by installing puppet governments. YOu will NEVER….repeat….NEVER EVER win the hearts and minds by throwing money. You create the same entitlement issues we have here. So this “winning the hearts and minds” of anyone is bull – dooooookie. The days of invasion are over and have been since storming the beaches at Normandy.

              We simply and quietly identify, without fanfare, the extremist or “ists”…do not go for headlines…do not confer with governments…do not confer with the United Nations…do not confer with NATO….do not confer with anybody except intelligence agencies…..and simply take em out. Headlines is the recruitment tool….not hegemony. We conducted in our area of Vietnam a very successful counter terrorist method of simply taking out the leaders of said organization or cell and taking out the individuals very quietly. We made it dangerous to even become a figure in the Viet Cong cells in our area. It worked quite well…they moved out and we had no VC activity at all. We did not do it with cruise missiles…B 52 carpet bombing…Napalm obliteration….we did it covertly. IT was not a good occupation to be in.

              I believe that will work today. But that takes a change in policy and direction. But to deal with this type of war…and it is war….is role reversal. No political correctness.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @D13 – good decomposition of the issue – but go further…..how do preempt the development of extremism? Or can we?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @D13 – and as you know we live in a far different world than 1968-ish – the wrong kill can you put you on the cover of the next Rolling Stone and turn you into a monster before you’ve even set foot back in the U.S. Soldiers waging battle / ugly-dirty-combat end up on film and photos like a slick Hollywood (often those soldiers are taping themselves) production. The public will offer little tolerance of raids gone bad – everything must be done with pinpoint accuracy and no Americans coming home in body bags. I know our Special Forces are up to that task – but it’ll never happen.

              • Wow….sir…can we actually stop it. Prevent it. I do not think so….the entire world for generations and eons has not stopped nor prevented it. I do believe that with the changing times and the technology…we can make it to where it is a nuisance. But THAT will also take a change in policy and idealism. Are we ready for that, I think, is the bigger question.

        • Just A Citizen Says:
          June 2, 2011 at 9:24 am edit

          LOI

          Do you have any thoughts on how to reduce terrorism or to counter act the “Muslim Expansion”?
          Yes, economic warfare. Drill our domestic oil and eliminate ME imports. Then become an exporter. Make oil cheap worldwide. Our economy won the cold war, use it to make the Middle East poor. Then they will not be able to afford supporting terrorism, needing most of their resources to survive. The rest of the world will thrive.

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

          Economic warfare and slant drilling

          According to George Piro, the FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam Hussein after his capture (in 2003), Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC’s oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy.[10] This was seen by many in Iraq as an act of aggression, further distancing the countries. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, “every US$1 drop in the price of a barrel of oil caused a US$1 billion drop in Iraq’s annual revenues triggering an acute financial crisis in Baghdad.”[9] It was estimated that Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait’s oil price strategy

        • TexasChem says:

          Educate the Muslims.

          Anyone that is convinced they will recieve 72 virgins by blowing themselves up has to be brainwashed. Agree?
          Brainwashing is a false education to achieve a purpose.

          Bottom line: The threat is not from the extremists as such but, from the very core principles Islam teaches. Anyone that has studied Islam extensively can percieve this.

      • How many times have Muslim extremists sought to provoke the US? The Beirut barracks bombing, the Cole, could compile quite a list.

        What if you consider that instead of trying to provoke the US these attacks were a response to what they consider state sponsored terrorism?

        If the US can use such a justification against a country – Afghanistan for example – why can’t these groups use the stance against the US?

        Does that then change how the attacker should be viewed/classified?

        • USWeapon says:

          An excellent point PS. I think it is deeper than that in some ways. For example, I don’t think the Beirut bombing was meant to provoke us. It was a response to US actions they didn’t like. But I don’t think acts these days are direct responses. They are instead responses several steps down the line. We have taken enough actions at this point in that region that they no longer respond to our actions, they are responding to our presence and our overall stances. As I wrote a few months ago, we continually support leadership that oppresses the people but serves us. That is a powerful recruitment tool, far more powerful than a single act we may take.

          Does that make sense? I don’t feel I articulated what I was trying to say very well.

          • Yes, I believe I understand what you’re trying to convey.

            I would agree that they’re not responding to specific actions, but the continued support of the actions they see as oppression and acts of terror against them.

            Their thinking can easily be as convoluted and diverse as ours. It’s always best to keep in mind that our way of seeing them and their actions is quite possibly reciprocated towards us.

  6. Ray Hawkins says:

    LOI – a few thoughts….

    (1) This “War on Terrorism” will be like the War on Drugs/Poverty/Obesity/…… terrorism has always been around and those in power get to define how terrorism is defined and how to respond either preemptive or reactive.

    (2) Bush II as a “great President” – I think it is quite premature to offer such a conclusion. Tis’ usually better to allow some time to pass and fog to lift to objectively assess a President no? And btw – I’m not sure what evidence was offered or case built that he was great. Are you being critical of the term “rogue state” but crediting Bush II with what he did with it? I’m not sure.

    (3) “Iraq was a mistake in that it was framed around the WMD issue.”……………………………………”So was Iraq a mistake? NO!”

    Huh?

    (4) Ask this question – was there more terrorism before or after we invaded Iraq? Did our War on Terror result in a net increase in terrorism? If it did (I think it did) – then how the hell was it successful or the right thing to do?

    (5) “The knights had a code of honor, maybe to show they were not like the more common opponent, who would go after your wife or kids instead of mano-e-mano? ” – this is an interesting chest-thumping type statement I see from time to time. Where I diverge from you on this is that in places like Iraq we often attack infrastructure as a way of crippling the enemy. When you destroy utilities, transportation networks, water supplies, etc – you certainly do cripple the hostile opponent – but you also directly affect the civilian population. I’m not so sure that fits a mano-e-mano approach now does it?

    Anyway……good read this a.m. – got some wheels turning.

    Look forward to your responses.

    • Ray,

      Good points and questions.
      (1)This “War on Terrorism” will be used by both of our political parties to use/confuse the masses.
      ( I think this is true, but it doesn’t change that we are under attack. 9/11, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber. In this kind of war, it doesn’t matter how many times they strike out, just how many hits they get, and pray they never hit another home run.)

      (2) Bush II as a “great President” – I think it is quite premature to offer such a conclusion.
      (agree, but that also argues it’s too early to judge him as a failure)
      what evidence was offered or case built that he was great.
      (declaring the war to be against terrorism, where ever it is waged from, not a country)
      Are you being critical of the term “rogue state” but crediting Bush II with what he did with it? I’m not sure.
      (Just pointing out how things have changed/evolved since world war/cold war)

      (4) Ask this question – was there more terrorism before or after we invaded Iraq? Did our War on Terror result in a net increase in terrorism? If it did (I think it did) – then how the hell was it successful or the right thing to do?
      (I think our response surprised the terrorists and the world. Had we acted with too much restraint, we would have faced more major attacks. They were a large, powerful organization bent on doing as much damage to the US as they could. Most of their leaders are now dead or in custody. They are not as large or powerful now. I consider that to be successful, so far.)

      (5) When you destroy utilities, transportation networks, water supplies, etc – you certainly do cripple the hostile opponent – but you also directly affect the civilian population. I’m not so sure that fits a mano-e-mano approach now does it?
      (No, but then I think Bush took the wrong approach. We have failed to set up a popular government in Iraq that is friendly to the USA and acceptable to their people. We should have made it their problem to overthrow their government and set up one not hostile to the USA , not tried to do it for them.)

  7. Mathius™ says:

    Who likes terrorism? No sane person. Objection! Biased. (sustained)..

    Terrorism, by another name and when not used against us, is generally called guerrilla total warfare. It is a tactic and nothing more, and it is highly effective.

    So who likes “terrorism”? People who use it to defend themselves from an invasive superior force like, oh say, the United States and/or Israel.

    Doesn’t make them “right” or “moral.” But it doesn’t make them (all) insane either.

    Ok, we’re off to a bad start. Let’s keep going…

    He declared a war on terror. How does one declare war on a tactic? It’s nonsense. Like declaring war on bullying. It can’t be won because it can’t be fought. This declaration of war (like the declaration of war on drugs and war on poverty) is nonsensical propoganda and nothing more.

    He avoided muddling the issue with the religious implications. Ooooooooh boy.. no he didn’t. Hell, at one point, he called it a “Crusade.” Do you really think that was an accident? He was trying to make it a holy war without calling it a holy war.

    But you are right, to the extent that he did not blame all Muslims for the activities of a few extremists. Which leads me to your next sentence…

    Muslims worldwide were in the streets celebrating, cheering, laughing while people in the towers were still dying. Yes. SOME Muslims around the world were doing this. Many in countries we’ve abused ruthlessly for decades via our foreign policy. This isn’t a Muslim thing, it’s a cultural thing. They hate us (justly so, in many cases), and they knew we had been given a good sucker-punch (as you put it) and they celebrated that. They didn’t celebrate this because Muslims are some kind of blood-thirsty savages who get off on mass-murder (it’s not like they’re Canadians.. talk about blood-thirsty savages who get off on mass-murder..).

    [Bush was] the right person at the right time, when they rise above the crisis and act with courage and integrity. And the right person at the right time responded by.. creating a police state, trampling the Constitution, and bullying Congress into passing the Patriot Act and declaring war on flimsy (at best) intelligence on a country which has historically been hostile to the people who attacked us and who did not attack us themselves while ignoring the (major oil producing) countries known to sponsor terrorism.

    Yup.. thank god Clinton wasn’t still in office… Or Gore.. Or Hillary.. Or a Pet Rock.

    • And the right person at the right time responded by.. MAINTAINING a police state, trampling the Constitution, and bullying Congress into CONTINUING the Patriot Act and ATTACKING a country (LIBYA)which has DONE NOTHING TO US IN MANY YEARS.
      Bush may be considered great because only Obama could make him look good.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Don’t get me wrong.. I absolutely hold Obama responsible for his failure to reverse (or at least sincerely try to reverse) Bush’s policies.

        But why is he worse than the guy who set them up in the first place? Why is he worse than the guy who started two wars?

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Hey! I’m right here!
      Canadians aren’t blood-thirsty unless it’s game 7 of the Stanley Cup (or a GSP fight).

      Now, beer?…who different game, we’ll kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out!

      • Mathius™ says:

        Don’t try to deny it, snowback.

        • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

          That’s it I’m filing a claim with the ACLU for this vulgar display of pure racist hatred…..Oh!…..wait..I’m Canadian!

          That’s it I’m writing a VERY sternly worded letter to the editor of my local paper!

          • Mathius™ says:

            I think what you meant to say was:

            “wait..I’m Canadian, eh!”

            • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

              There you go with the %$#^ing stereotypes again.
              What else can you expect from a liberal New Yorker 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                What? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the glacier this morning?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Canada Post is going on strike…where’s my cheque going to come from…how will I survive!…the horror.

              • USWeapon says:

                There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                @USW…..

                I am blatantly going to plagiarize that statement.

                ROTFLMAO

  8. Mathius™ says:

    George Bush should and will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

    ::Mathius is temporarily speechless::

    *pop*
    (the sound of the vein in Mathius’ head as the aneurysm ruptures)

    *thud*

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I merely passed out – temp loss of consciousness. Sorry you had a stroke on this one. I’ll inject some red bull and you’ll be just fine.

    • Matt,

      I think that proves this article a success! Thanks and I will pray for a speedy, full recovery.(you should lay off the RedBull until your better)

    • ::plainlyspoken dials 911::

      “Yes, I need an ambulance – better make that two ambulances, my friend has fallen as well and can’t get up.”

      ::plainlyspoken hangs up::

  9. Mathius™ says:

    The knights had a code of honor, maybe to show they were not like the more common opponent, who would go after your wife or kids instead of mano-e-mano That’s nice when you’re (roughly) evenly matched. Going mano-a-mano with the US when you’re fighting from camel back is called something else: suicidal.

    You think our enemies should commit de facto suicide trying to resist us, or that they should just capitulate.

    I think, if you were on the other side of this conflict, you might see the absurdity of this stance.

    • If they were to limit their attacks to the military and politicians
      I would consider it somewhat honorable, legitimate. They choose to target innocents. Horror is their weapon.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Their weapon is the goal of robbing us of our will to fight.

        How many people would they have to kill before we backed down? 3k? Nope. What about 10k? Nope. 50k? You bet your a$$ that we’d start reevaluating our foreign policy at that point.

        You want them to attack military (well armed, well equipped, well trained, hardened targets). That’s generally equivilent to suicide. Though they do this with IEDs, and remember the Cole.

        You want them to attack politicians. But there are lots of politicians. Should a small town mayor be a fair target? After all, he had nothing to do with the problems. I think you’d say no. So what about the President? Too guarded, too secure, too difficult. Senators perhaps? Frankly, I don’t know why they don’t – do they have any serious protection?

        They’re going after our backbone – not the power and utilities, but the WILL OF THE PEOPLE TO FIGHT.

        • Mathius

          What makes you so sure that is their objective?

          • Mathius™ says:

            You think it’s… what? To kill or convert us all, perhaps?

            I suppose that’s possible, but they sure have a funny way of going about it.

            And, just for fun, let’s open our Qurans and read aloud together:

            109:001 Yusufali Say: O ye that reject Faith!
            109:001 Say: O disbelievers,
            109:002 I serve not that which you serve,
            109:003 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve,
            109:004 Nor shall I serve that which ye serve,
            109:005 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve.

            Now, it’s a little wishy-washy since there’s no “official” English translation, but here are a few versions of 109:006..

            109:006 Khan “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).”
            109:006 Maulana For you is your recompense and for me my recompense. (FYI, this is the version I was referencing above)
            109:006 Pickthal Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
            109:006 Rashad “To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.”
            109:006 Sarwar You follow your religion and I follow mine.
            109:006 Shakir You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
            109:006 Sherali `For you your religion, and for me my religion.
            109:006 Yusufali To you be your Way, and to me mine.

            Alright, books down, everyone. I suggest a 15 minute recess while we all go to our corners and meditate on what we just read.

            • Terry Evans says:

              Sorry, but my dog ate my Quran so I have nothing to open…

              • Canine Weapon says:

                Why does everyone blame the dogs?

                We don’t like eating paper! You owe him an apology.

                Now, if you said your dog ate your couch…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                BS, Canine, pure BS – my dog loves eating paper.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’m with Buck.. Latke will destroy any paper she can get her grubby little paws on.

  10. Mathius™ says:

    9/11, like Pearl Harbor, was a violation of the acceptable, honorable way to wage war. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base of a country with whom war was imminent. They attacked us while they thought they had the best chance.

    Why is this unacceptable? Why is this dishonorable?

    Why is it that everyone thinks that people attacking us should do it according to the rules we want?

    It’s like being in an intelligence competition with a chess master. You might be better at math, science, literature, art, history, English, Spanish, French, sociology, psychology, trivia, phys ed, checkers, and a host of other topics. But the chess master insists that the only “honorable” way of settling the competition is via a chess match.

    Why should they have to play to our strengths? In any fight/competition/battle, you have to play to your strengths while negating (as best you can) your opponent’s strengths.

    It’s why, whenever I play my brother in chess, I make damn sure to take out his bishops as early as I can.

    • was a violation of the acceptable, honorable way to wage war.

      Sorry, folks, there is no honorable way to wage and fight a war even if you are convinced that “right” is on your side. There is no honor in killing…and those that have had to…live with the ghosts. I have never bought into the theory (like England) that war is fought by rules and gentlemen. It is not…never was and will never be. In the front lines, eye ball to eye ball, it is simply survival. To kill or be killed. Waging war is a terrible thing regardless of the reason or correctness of it. My point is…..if war is decided to be wages, please do not think that there is a correct way to do it. There is only one way to do it…win…and at all costs…or do not fight it.

    • The Japanese, according to accepted historical facts, had no intention of making a “sneak” attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack was meant to come after the final communique from Japan was presented to the US Government. They failed at ensuring the proper timing of the whole situation.

      One must remember that a code of honor was very central to the Japanese lifestyle (not that war is honorable at all).

      I would not classify that attack in the same category as 9/11.

  11. @ Ray…. very good point about the psychological way that policy and war is fought. We can do this very effectively but it takes a policy change. Bush was right and he was wrong. LOI was quite correct in that any type of invasion should NOT have been WMD based in Iraq but even though it was, terrorist activity has not increased…. it is about the same. In short, do not even invade. We knew back then, who the culprits were. Instead of a stupid war…..just take out those responsible.

    Now, I do see a problem with any State that is sponsoring this type of activity and I know how I would deal with it….but this will also require a non politically correct policy change and I do not think very many here would be acceptable of it but it will save lives and money.

  12. I think peaceful protests can be a game changer, but don’t think it’s an end all. Israel has borders they defend against invasion. That is not limited to armed invaders. But the armed attackers seem more prevalent. And what about us? The USA is taking a more active role in defending our borders.

    Terrorism, by tactics, is immune to border defense – and that is the problem with the typical State response.

    The State is the massive accumulation and centralization of violence, who is best prepared to face another massive accumulation and centralization of violence.

    It’s response to any violence within its geography is almost always massive accumulation and centralization of violence.

    Terrorism is a tactic that is diffuse, decentralized and focused violence – exactly what the State is wholly unprepared to confront.

    Increasing the guards on the borders imposes hugely upon the citizens but does nothing to the terrorists.

    George Bush should and will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

    No, history will condemn him and his entire administration severely as war criminals.

    This opinion is not biased – never in the history of the US has the image of the US been so tarnished by his war crimes.

    His war of aggression against both Iraq and Afghanistan not only damaged international law and order, it has given an open hand to other adversaries – China and Russia – to wage their wars of aggression.

    As all such immoral war, it has bankrupted the nation, corrupted the morals of its society, fractured its social order and will be the crack that causes the collapse of the nation.

    That is what Bush will be remembered for – a war criminal.

    The knights had a code of honor, maybe to show they were not like the more common opponent, who would go after your wife or kids instead of mano-e-mano?

    This is a fairy tale.

    The truth, the knights were rogues, literally raping and pillaging with impunity.

    Sir Guillaume – a French knight who had a shade more “honor” – became sickened by the depravity of his fellow knights and in response wrote the Chivalry code – which was entirely ignored.

    The parish priests, witnessing the slaughter of their church goers – and hence a serious drop in the collection plate – pleaded to the Pope to somehow stop the pillaging. The Pope decreed that knights needed to be witnessed to God, and threatening excommunication (yes, a myth’s threat of not going to a mythical place held real threat…go figure…) the knights – slightly – reduced their pillaging.

    It was not until the advent of the long bow that knights retreated – and when they became irrelevant on the battle field, turned the depravity of their action into an “honor” and a title, claiming that they had all essentially followed Sir Guillaume’s code.

    …..

    Back on post, you have fallen head first into the very trap set by 4th Generation warfare.

    Your response to criminal acts are acts of war – an asymmetrical response so out of line with the nefarious deed the State’s response becomes the great evil – so great it destroys the State.

    The destruction of the State is precisely the goal of the 4th Generation warrior – it is NOT seizure of the State – and your support of exactly the asymmetrical response to Terrorism aids in that very goal of the terrorists

    • BF has just pretty much summarized what the book on Camus states. The book is a defense of Camus when both the colonizers (French) and the terrorist group fighting for Algerian indendence (the FLN) both condemned the author for not aligning with either front. Camus theory is BF’s; basically, war/terror can only escalate; when independence comes about (if it does), the new guard becomes the old guard, etc.

      Bush is a war criminal. So is Obama for staying the course.

      • 🙂 Computer broke-can’t play much on this one but getting lots of work done without mine-wonder why that is 🙂

    • “That is what Bush will be remembered for – a war criminal.”
      How many US presidents do you consider war criminals?

      “This is a fairy tale. The truth, the knights were rogues, literally raping and pillaging with impunity.”
      But I like fairy tales and happy endings. The historic perception is that they were honorable. I do not believe that, especially when looking at the Crusades. But I think the modern view of honorable conduct even in warfare, is better than the alternative.

      “The destruction of the State is precisely the goal of the 4th Generation warrior – it is NOT seizure of the State – and your support of exactly the asymmetrical response to Terrorism aids in that very goal of the terrorists”

      I think we will have to disagree on this, the goal of Muslim extremists is to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Allah.

      • LOI

        “That is what Bush will be remembered for – a war criminal.”
        How many US presidents do you consider war criminals?

        By international law since 1945, all of them.

        I think we will have to disagree on this, the goal of Muslim extremists is to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Allah.

        No more than Christians want to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Jesus.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I never thought I’d be so happy to see you sail into port.

          Can you take care of this madman? He’s wearing me down.

          I think we will have to disagree on this, the goal of Muslim extremists is to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Allah.

          No more than Christians want to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Jesus.

          I’ve been making this exact case (or trying to, at least) all day and don’t seem be getting anywhere..

          • Matt,

            There are extremists in every religion and every group of men.
            How many are aggressively attacking others today? But lets put that aside. If/when Italy or any Christian nation starts terrorist attacks on the US, I say we bomb them back into a stone age.

            You fail to make your case because the lessons of the New Testament calls for us to live peacefully. While we may fail in our day to day lives, it’s a scant few that seek to wage any war in God’s name.

          • Mathius,

            You are getting somewhere – but remember much of the parroting of their positions has been pounded into them relentlessly from every avenue of communication possible.

            Everywhere a common American turns, he hears the same evil message – and eventually his reasoning comes to : :I hear this so much, therefore it must be true”

            It is hard to penetrate the cranked-up of volume of lies with the solemn truth.

        • “No more than Christians want to conquer or destroy everyone who does not submit to Jesus.”

          What church do you frequent? I suggest finding another that tries to follow the lessons of Christ. I have had several conversations with preachers, and yet to have one call for any violence. I do not excuse the deaths throughout history, but to portray modern Christians as you do here is a complete lie.

          • Mathius™ says:

            “In Assam, the Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), an extremist group from the Hmar tribe, are accused of forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint.”

            ….

            Maybe you’re confusing “modern Christianity” with “modern Christianity in the US”?

            How many Muslim Clerics have you spoken to in the US? How many of them advocated for violence?

            • “In Assam, the Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), an extremist group from the Hmar tribe, are accused of forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint.”

              And if the Hindus shoot them down like rabid dogs, I don’t think I will be upset at “Christians” being killed. I do not consider them to be Christians, no matter what they call themselves, nor is a terrorist a “freedom fighter”.

              “How many Muslim Clerics have you spoken to in the US? How many of them advocated for violence?”

              You got me with that one, zero spoken to, just not many around here. How about you? Same question? Remember D13 went and did exactly that several months ago. My memory says the cleric would not denounce those who used violence to promote Islam.

              I think the real question is how many terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslim extremists, and how many by Christian extremists, if you want to switch this to a full blown religious war. I recommend you follow Bush’s lead, and stay with denouncing terrorists.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I have been to one – and only one – Mosque. The cleric there denounced violence loud and clear. He took me on a tour of the (very large) building, the religious school, the prayer room, etc.

                He asked that I remove my shoes in the prayer room, but beyond that made no demands of me. There were many women and they were treated with no disrespect that I could see (and they were not veiled).

                The cafeteria was Halal (Muslim version of Kosher), and a little exotic by my standards.

                Everyone was friendly and open and well spoken.

                This was in Pennsylvania, and it was a very enlightening experience. Except for a few very minor differences, I could have been in my old synagogue back in LA.

                … then again, there was that one locked steel reinforced door with the armed guards in front … they didn’t let me open that one .. but I’m sure it was nothing …

    • BF

      Curious how YOU distinguish between “criminal acts” and “acts of war”?

      They (al Quieda/jihadists) told us they declared war on us. So why should their actions be considered criminal instead of war?

      • JAC,

        a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation

        Terrorists -the type inferred by this post- indulge in criminal act upon citizens. They are no more or less anyone else who would walk into a crowded room and open fire.

        War is violence between soldiers of nation states, or between soldiers within the state.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Mr. Flag,

          What, in your view, constitutes a “civilian”?

          Al Qaeda views anyone who supports their enemy to be an enemy (in much the way that we would consider an industrial center to be a fair target since it is a part of the war-machine, thus the bombing of Dresden/Nagasaki).

          Given this view, you and I are part of the enemy military because we pay taxes and thus fund their war-machine. They may also claim that voting lends credibility to the government which support the attacks. Therefore we are, in a sense, combatants, and thus fair targets.

          In our view, we are not as we are not in uniform and do not have a say in what those in uniform do.

          How would you square this circle?

          • Terry Evans says:

            My 2 cents…that circle cannot be squared. They believe as they do, as do you. There is no way to change either mind unless you and they would walk a mile in each others shoes, so to speak…and that is not likely to happen.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I generally agree, Terry. And you know how much I hate to agree with you.

              Mr. Flag, care to weigh in?

          • Mathius,

            I do not adhere to the “total war” philosophy.

            Soldiers battle on battle fields – strategic warfare on civilians is worse form of war possible and is barbaric beyond words.

            The theory that destroy the civilian capacity to do war is a valid war target fails the test of war theory at its roots.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I personally agree that it’s ineffective and barbaric, but I’m having a hard time with this concept that it fails “fails the test of war theory at its roots.”

              Can you elaborate.

              • Mathius,

                War is a method of forcing one’s politics upon another group.

                The civilians do not care – they either pay taxes to Bush or to Blair… bid deal.

                Soldiers – hired hit-men – determine the outcome.

                Making war on those that neither want war, neither indulge or train for war, nor determine the outcome of war is evil.

  13. Bush is a war criminal. So is Obama for staying the course.

    I concur.

  14. Mathius™ says:

    Much of the world has an image of the USA as being unwilling to commit ourselves to a long, drawn out struggle.

    Maybe this is because we are generally unwilling to commit ourselves to a long, drawn out struggle?

  15. @ BF….maybe this will help a little. I am trying to find the story ( a video ) again but I did make notes for my other article. It centered around the delivery of the missiles and the fact that Pakistan and China have provided a material called uranium deuteride and the technology (I assume plans) to develop a trigger using this material. It was said that it was delivered 8 months ago.

  16. Mathius™ says:

    According to Islam, Allah’s word is law, and it shall be the law of the land.

    According to Judaism, Yahweh’s word is law, and it shall be the law of the land.

    According to Catholicism, God’s the Pope’s word is law, and it shall be the law of the land.

    Remember, the Maccabees killed more Jews than non-Jews for failing to follow their (very strict) interpretation of the Torah. Catholics wrought wholesale slaughter and mayhem across all of Europe and the Middle East trying to enforce their view of the bible as the law of the land.

    “No one suspects.. the Spanish Inquisition!”

    Yet, for some reason, we persist on forgetting the sins of Christianity and Judaism (or writing them off as the distant past) while holding Islam responsible for the sins of its practitioners.. sigh..

    • Mathius

      I don’t think anyone here ignores or forgets about the past sins of Christianity or Judaism. Between you and BF there is no way for anyone to forget.

      The difference is that it seems there are many “influential” folks of Islam that are using the violent tenants of that religion to push for Global expansion and violence against the infidel.

      In short, Islam is behind on the learning curve. While the other two seem to have grown out of their desire for violent world domination, Islam has not. As I posted before. It seems to me this is partly a reflection of the religions age compared to the other two. But it is also a reflection of the tribes that adopted this religion.

      • Mathius™ says:

        It seems that there are quite a few Muslim authorities who have “outgrown their desire for violent world domination”

        http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

        • Mathius

          There also seem to be quite a few who have not.

          Please notice the difference in global riots and violence when a supposedly “wing nut” cleric calls for violence against Christians or some “cartoonist” as compared to the reaction when some “wingnut” priest or preacher calls for violence against Muslims.

          Do you think maybe this is not as benign as you keep trying to make it sound?

          • Mathius™ says:

            There are 1.1 BILLION Muslim.

            If 1% of them were bent on global domination by Islam, you’d have WWIII on your hands.

            Nobody in the media ever covers the peaceful Muslims. It never shows them crying over 9/11. It never shows them begging for peace.

            Why? Because it’s not a juicy story the other way.

      • Mathius™ says:

        It seems that there are quite a few Christian authorities who have NOT “outgrown their desire for violent world domination.”

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/09/14/246546/-HR-2679,-The-Christian-Supremacy-Act,-To-Hit-House-Floor

        • Mathius

          This shows just how absurd you have to reach to make comparisons.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Just throwing an example out there..

            The KKK were white supremacists, sure, but they were also Christian supremacists.

            Nazism was bent on spreading Christianity right alongside the Aryan race. (remember, you could be tall/blond/blue/etc, but if you were Jewish, you still got the gas).

            Maybe this is more to your taste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

            The goals of the KKK included, from an early time on, an intent to, “reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible,” and believe that “Jesus was the first Klansman.”[45] Their cross-burnings were conducted not only to intimidate targets, but to demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the lighting ritual was steeped in Christian symbolism, including the saying of prayers and singing of Christian hymns. [46] Many modern Klan organizations, such as the Knights Party, USA, continue to focus on the Christian supremacist message, asserting that there is a “war” on to destroy “western Christian civilization.”[47]”

            I could keep going for days, but you’ll never accept that Muslim lunatics are non-representative of their group in the same way that Christian lunatics are non-representative of their group, nor will you accept that Christianity is still violent and terroristic in many place, just like Islam.

            One more: In Assam, the Manmasi National Christian Army (MNCA), an extremist group from the Hmar tribe, are accused of forcing Hindus to convert at gunpoint.[15] […] It is believed that up to 5,000 tribal villagers were converted to Christianity by the NLFT in two years.[18] (link: “http:// www. assamtimes. org/social/3112. html” – de-linkified to avoid getting stuck in the approval queue).

            Oh, and that was in 2001. Does it have to be last week before you accept my examples?

            • Terry Evans says:

              Most all of them were Democrats as well…

            • Mathius

              I do not deny your examples. I reject the notion that they are comparable given the nature of the discussion at hand.

              For example, show me where thousands rioted in the streets when the KKK called for killing the jews over some cartoons in the NY TIMES?

              Show me the global demonstrations when the Cleric of the MNCA called for action in the streets of Europe.

              Where were the riots in the streets when the neo-Nazis were arrested and then found guilty in north Idaho?

              Get it? It is not that bad people don’t use all religions or other excuses.

              The issue is that those doing it in the Name of Islam have some historical context within the religion itself to justify their calls to action. It is that these same folks have very Grand Ambition based on their religious views. It is that they are trying to carry their Jihad to a large part of the world. It is that they are more numerous than you seem to want to admit. It is that they have thousands if not millions of followers who react to their calls for action.

              And quite frankly, I don’t think it would stop even if Israel suddenly ceased to exist.

              It seems to me your need to maintain equal comparison is blinding you to what is going on in the world. Please review the links I provided above at the beginning of the day.

              Sorry, but there comes a time when evidence of actual actions instead of the rhetoric becomes relevant to making a judgment. I do not know who is behind it all. I suspect different players for differing reasons.

              But the fact remains that there is a game afoot among more than just a “few” “kooky” clerics. And they are either using Islam or Islam is the basis of their game. Either way it is a growing danger.

            • Mathius™ says:

              It is that they have thousands if not millions of followers who react to their calls for action. Millions? Let’s go with, randomly, 5 million, shall we?

              5 million lunatic fanatical Muslims bent on global domination!

              5,000,000 / 1,100,000,000 = 0.45%, roughly 1 in 200.

              I wonder what this would look like if you adjusted for the fact that many countries in the Muslim world tend to be poor and have little-to-no education.

              And, again, the million dollar question: Is this percentage very different from the percentage among Christians / Jews?

        • Mathius

          Countries with major Alqaeda terror networks identified.

          Look familiar to any historical maps you can think of?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Oh my god! You mean that a Muslim terrorist organization is located predominantly in Muslim countries?!

            GASP!

            And what about terrorist attacks by non-Muslims? Like, say abortion clinic bombings? Or the execution of abortion doctors? Or a Jew who kills 25 Muslims at prayer and wounds another 125 in the Cave of the Patriarchs?

            How about the KKK? Or was that too long ago for you to accept the example?

            • Mathius

              Some of those countries, Africa and eastern Europe, were NOT predominantly Muslim Countries.

              I have a friend from Ethiopia. It WAS a Christian nation. In fact it was he who reminded me one day that Christianity’s oldest presence was in the North and East African nations, not Greece or Europe.

              Now please explain why Alqeda networks are located within “predominantly” Muslim nations if Islam is all about Peace and this is just a few rogue lunatics?

              By the way, the Nazi’s were not trying to spread Christianity. The Party was steeped on the earth worship of the Progressives of the era. They used Christianity when convenient for fear of alienating their own population.

  17. Mathius™ says:

    So how goes the “War on Terror?” There seem to be daily attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq on both the US and whatever passes for government.

    Why is it “terrorism” when people attack an invading force and the puppet government they installed using the only viable means at their disposal?

    If England invaded the US and declared us colonies again, then installed a Royal Government of each colony, would you call it terrorist for us to attack it? Even people we did so by strapping bombs to our chests and walking into a Royal Checkpoint? Even if that meant improvising roadside bombs?

    No. You’d call it resistance.

    And you’d praise it.

    And you’d mourn incidental casualties, but you wouldn’t worry too much about them. It’s a cost of war.

    And you’d celebrate in the street every time a Red Coat got blown to bits.

    Yet when the roles are reversed…

  18. Mathius™ says:

    I posted this above, but I wanted to post it again down here so everyone gets a good look at it…

    Just for fun, let’s open our Qurans and read aloud together:

    109:001 Say: O disbelievers,
    109:002 I serve not that which you serve,
    109:003 Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve,
    109:004 Nor shall I serve that which ye serve,
    109:005 Nor shall you serve Him Whom I serve.

    Now, it’s a little wishy-washy since there’s no “official” English translation, but here are a few versions of 109:006..

    109:006 Khan “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).”
    109:006 Maulana For you is your recompense and for me my recompense. (FYI, this is the version I was referencing above)
    109:006 Pickthal Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
    109:006 Rashad “To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.”
    109:006 Sarwar You follow your religion and I follow mine.
    109:006 Shakir You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
    109:006 Sherali `For you your religion, and for me my religion.
    109:006 Yusufali To you be your Way, and to me mine.

    Alright, books down, everyone. I suggest a 15 minute recess while we all go to our corners and meditate on what we just read.

  19. Canine Weapon says:

    A French guest who was staying in a hotel in Edmonton phoned room service for some pepper. “Black pepper, or white pepper?” asked the concierge.
    “Toilette pepper!”

    ——————————

    A Canadian bloke is walking down the street with a case of beer under his arm.

    His friend Randy stops him and asks, “Hey Dave! Whatcha got that case of beer for?”

    “Well, I got it for my wife, you see?” answers Dave.

    “Wow,” exclaims Randy, “Great trade.”

    ——————————

    An American, a Scot and a Canuk were in a terrible car accident. They were all brought to the same emergency room, but all three of them died before they arrived. Just as they were about to put the toe tag on the American, he stirred and opened his eyes. Astonished, the doctors and nurses present asked him what happened.

    “Well,” said the American, “I remember the crash, and then there was a beautiful light, and then the Canadian and the Scot and I were standing at the gates of heaven. St. Peter approached us and said that we were all too young to die, and that for a donation of $100, we could return to the earth.”

    He continued, ” So of course, I pulled out my wallet and gave him the $100, and the next thing I knew I was back here.”

    “That’s amazing!” said one of the doctors, “But what happened to the other two?”

    “Last I saw them,” replied the American, “the Scot was haggling over the price and the Canadian was waiting for the his government to pay.”

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      So true…So true 🙂

      • Canine Weapon says:

        A guy from Quebec and a guy from Toronto are walking down the
        beach. They come across a magic lamp, out comes a genie and
        says, “I will grant each of you one wish.” So the guy from
        Quebec says, “I wish for a wall 500 feet high around Quebec so
        nobody can bug us again.”

        GRANTED!

        The guy from Toronto says, “Fill it with water.”

        GRANTED!

    • Canine Weapon says:

      True Meaning of the Flag

      A Canadian couple was strolling through a park in London and sat down on a bench next to an elderly Briton.

      The Brit noticed their lapel pins sporting the Canadian flag and, to make conversation, said “Judging by your pins, you must be Canadians”.

      “Indeed we are”, replied the Canadian gentleman.

      “I hope you won’t mind my asking,” said the Brit, “but what do the two red bars on your flag represent?”

      “Well,” replied the Canadian gentlman, “one of the bars stands for the courage and hardiness of our people in settling the cold expanses and broad prairies of our country. The other is for the honesty and integrity for which Canadians are known.”

      The Brit mulled this over and nodded. Having poor eyesight at his advanced age, and not being familiar with maple leaves, he then asked, “And what’s that six-pointed item in the middle of your flag?”

      “Oh, that’s to remind us of the six words of our national motto,” the Canadian lady piped up.

      The Brit asked, “And what are those six words?”

      The Canadian smiled and replied, “They are ‘Don’t blame us, we’re not Americans.’”

      —————————

      U2 is performing a concert in Halifax, Nova Scotia, when Bono asks the audience for some quiet. Then, in the silence, he starts to slowly clap his hands.

      He says into the microphone, in a deep solemn voice: “Just for a moment, think outside yourself…Outside this arena. Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies.”

      A loud Newfie voice from near the front pierces the moment: “Well, Lard tunderin Jasus, ya stupid arse, stop yer fockin’ clappin’, den!”

    • Canine Weapon says:

      On a train there was a Canadian, an American, a beautiful
      woman, and a very ugly woman. As they went under a tunnel, the
      American was smacked in the face. The ugly woman thought to
      herself, ‘That American must have touched that beautiful woman,
      and she smacked him…’ The beautiful woman thought to herself,
      ‘Obviously the American touched the ugly woman thinking it was
      me, and she hit him…’ The Canadian thought, ‘I can’t wait to
      go through another tunnel, so I can smack this stupid American
      again…”

      ————————–

      On the sixth day God turned to Archangel Gabriel and said: “Today I am going to create a land called Canada, it will be a land of outstanding natural beauty. It shall have tall majestic mountains full of mountain goats and eagles, beautiful sparkling lakes bountiful with bass and trout, forests full of elk and moose, high cliffs over-looking sandy beaches with an abundance of sea life, and rivers stocked with salmon.”

      God continued, “I shall make the land rich in oil so as to make the inhabitants prosper, I shall call these inhabitants Canadians, and they shall be known as the most friendly people on the earth.”

      “But Lord,” asked Gabriel, “don’t you think you are being too generous to these Canadians?”

      “Not really,” replied God, “just wait and see the neighbors I am going to give them.”

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        How Canada got it’s name:

        At the time of Confederation all of the founding fathers gathered at Old Fort York.
        “We will give this great nation a new name.” They exclaimed!
        They wrote the letters of the alphabet on individual pieces of paper and threw them into a hat. They began to pull the papers out of the hat to create the new name.

        “C, eh, N, eh, D eh”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        1. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHO TO MARRY? (written by kids)
        > You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.
        > — Alan, age 10
        >
        > -No person really decides before they grow up who they’re going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you’re stuck with.
        > — Kristen, age 10
        >
        >
        > 2. WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
        > Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then.
        > — Camille, age 10
        >
        >
        > 3. HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
        > You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.
        > — Derrick, age 8
        >
        >
        > 4. WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
        > Both don’t want any more kids.
        > — Lori, age 8
        >
        >
        > 5. WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
        > -Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
        > — Lynnette, age 8 (isn’t she a treasure)
        >
        > -On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
        > — Martin, age 10
        >
        >
        > 6. WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
        > -When they’re rich.
        > — Pam, age 7
        >
        > -The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn’t want to mess with that.
        > – – Curt, age 7
        >
        > -The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have
        > kids with them. It’s the right thing to do.
        > – – Howard, age 8
        >
        >
        > 7. IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
        > It’s better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to clean up after them.
        > — Anita, age 9 (bless you child )
        >
        >
        > 8. HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN’T GET MARRIED?
        > There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn’t there?
        > — Kelvin, age 8
        >
        > And the #1 Favorite is …….
        >
        >
        > 9. HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?
        > Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump truck.
        > — Ricky, age 10
        >
        >

        • gmanfortruth says:

          If you want someone always willing to go out, at any hour, for as long
          and wherever you want …
          then adopt a dog.

          If you want someone who will never touch the remote, doesn’t care about
          football, and can sit next to you as you watch romantic movies
          ….then adopt a dog.

          If you want someone who is content to get on your bed just to warm your
          feet and whom you can push off if he snores
          ….then adopt a dog !

          If you want someone who never criticizes what you do, doesn’t care if
          you are pretty or ugly, fat or thin, young or old, who acts as if every
          word you say is especially worthy of listening to, and loves you
          unconditionally, perpetually ..
          ..then adopt a dog.

          BUT, on the other hand, if you want someone who will never come when you
          call, ignores you totally when you come home, leaves hair all over the
          place, walks all over you, runs around all night and only comes home to
          eat and sleep, and acts as if your entire existence is solely to ensure
          his happiness …. …then adopt a cat!

          You thought I was gonna say… marry a man, didn’t you?

  20. Mathius™ says:

    Just A Citizen Says:
    June 2, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Mathius

    Some of those countries, Africa and eastern Europe, were NOT predominantly Muslim Countries.

    I have a friend from Ethiopia. It WAS a Christian nation. In fact it was he who reminded me one day that Christianity’s oldest presence was in the North and East African nations, not Greece or Europe.

    Now please explain why Alqeda networks are located within “predominantly” Muslim nations if Islam is all about Peace and this is just a few rogue lunatics?

    By the way, the Nazi’s were not trying to spread Christianity. The Party was steeped on the earth worship of the Progressives of the era. They used Christianity when convenient for fear of alienating their own population.

    Now please explain why Alqeda networks are located within “predominantly” Muslim nations if Islam is all about Peace and this is just a few rogue lunatics? Where would you expect them to be located?

    You have a sampling bias here.

    Please explain why so many planes are crashed by pilots, if pilots are all about safety and this training and this is just a few rogues?

    Follow? I had a hard time coming up with an example.

    You’re asking why a SUBSET of Muslims are located primarily within Muslim countries. Of course that’s where they’re going to be located.

    If you take a near-subset of pilots (people who crash planes), you’re going going to find that it fits nicely within the parent group of pilots. Shocker!

    Does this make sense to you?

    Ask a different question. Don’t isolate a subset and then wonder why it’s contained within the parent group.

    “Are the majority of ‘terrorist’ attacks perpetrated by Muslims in disproportion to the total number of Muslims?”

    It’s a far harder question, but I think if you can find the answer, it would be far more educational.

    They [the Nazis] used Christianity when convenient for fear of alienating their own population. So do the terrorist groups. They couch it in Islam, but it’s really about culture and power.

  21. JAC,

    Major terrorist nation identified….
    …look familiar?

    http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/unitedstates.html

  22. LOI,
    The closing thoughts from the Marine Sergeant are very inspiring. But they did raise a question in my mind – are we living up to the standard he set?

    While you lavish praise on Bush, you dump blame on Clinton and Obama. Is that living up to the standard in Sergeant Kirkland’s thoughts?

    Some examples:

    You have given us something to fight for together.

    The people of my country are ever diligent to protect each other and the morals that bind us together.

    It has made me realize how beautiful, gratifying, and important is love for thy fellow man.

    Does any of this include supporting Obama, even though you disagree with his policies?

    Or does “fighting together,” “to protect each other and the morals that bind us together”, with “love for thy fellow man”, mean fighting against Obama?

    • Todd,

      I’m glad you liked the Sarge’s words, and no, I think we all fall short. Comes with being human. I think I try to be a better person. Ex, I did not celebrate OBL’s death. I am glad he was put down, just as any rabid dog.

      “While you lavish praise on Bush, you dump blame on Clinton and Obama.”

      Maybe I’ve done a poor job expressing myself, on Bush I find fault and exceptional actions both. I think his framing the coming conflict was near genius. Moving us away from a war against Muslims was both proper and crucial.

      “you dump blame on Clinton”
      Humor Todd, sorry it wasn’t funny to you. Review please.

      “So Anthony Lake coined the phrase “Rouge State”. Could that term ever be used to describe a country that allows a large, armed group to recruit, train, plan and even attack other countries from their soil?”

      I blame Clinton for???? Anthony Lake made up a new name for some of the changes in world relations. Bush and everyone else have followed this line of thinking. If anything, this would give credit to Clinton for recognizing and responding to a changing world.(of course, Regan would have just bombed them and let the tombstone maker worry about names…)

      “you dump blame on Obama.” well YES, I do.
      I recall you attacking Bush for starting two wars, but ignoring he went to congress and got overwhelming support for those wars, meaning they were/are LEGAL.
      I have also stated the WMD pitch he made was wrong, even though it was not the reason for the Iraq war. He did use it as a selling point, and was wrong to do so.

      I dump on Obama for attacking Libya without congressional approval. It is questionable if this is even legal now, after 60 days. I could/should really dump on a expert in constitutional law, considering how many times he seems to brazenly violate said law.

      But I’m much happier dumping on him over what he’s done to the economy. He released a budget in Feb. that increased spending and promised it would reduce the deficit? Then the Ryan proposal came out and he made a speech about his soon to be released, new budget. So far, what he has proposed is to vague to be scored by the CBO.
      Maybe he should take a little time off the campaign tour and skip a couple rounds of golf and put pencil to paper, and show us these magic numbers?????

  23. Good Morning Mathius and I hope that you and yours are doing well….

    I could not help but notice your comparison of the KKK (as a Christian Organization) to the Muslim or Islam extremist side and the treatment of same. I really wish everyone would go back and revisit history and see the different religions and regions that tried to control the world in the past. Christian, Muslim, Mongols, Buddhists (yes, even them)…all have had a shot at it…so singling out either religion is an act of futility…….HOWEVER…..(you knew something was coming, right?) Now, remember that I grew up in the KKK “hey days” and Texas had a Klan chapter in what is known as the “Golden Triangle” (Beaumont, Vidor, Port Arthur)…What I saw in the 60’s and 70’s was that every major Christian Organization was outspoken and denied involvement and publicly took a stand against the KKK and worked openly and clandestinely to help rid the country of them and called their bluff at every major turn. Every Governor (except one) disavowed them and every law enforcement organization went after them.

    I do not see the major public condemnation of the extremists by the major heads of their religion, disavowing the use of violence or terrorism. The biggest head of state right now is Ajad and he supports and funds all or most of the organizations. Ayotollah Khomeini (sp)…one of the foremost and powerful Imams is silent on it. The Mosques are silent on it. The Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is refusing to speak out and eliminate the threat and is banning future raids on known hideouts. The list is endless on the major heads of state and religious leaders that WILL NOT CONDEMN it and do something to stop it.

    In the USA, we all but eradicated the KKK and drove them so far underground they are ineffective.

    My conclusion….refusal to publicly denounce it, refusal to actively pursue and destroy it, refusal to state that violence is not acceptable in the Quran, refusal to publish in newspapers and denounce it from the pulpit or whatever it is that they have……is acceptance and that acceptance….the failure to condemn it taints the entire religion. If they truly believe it and live it….then do something about it and they can….just like we did the KKK.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The mosques are silent on it [terrorism].

      Putting aside the fact that the mosque I personally visited was severely against it, I think you should click this link:

      http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

      Read the links if you like, but just scroll down to see how many there are.

      They are not silent in their opposition.. it’s only that they don’t seem to get reported on equally.

      —————

      I remember seeing videos all over TV of Muslims celebrating in the streets after 9/11.

      I really had to search hard to find reports of Muslims holding prayer vigils for the innocent victims.

      But I would, absent any facts, bet that the number of Muslims mourning 9/11 was at least 1000x the number of celebrants.

      ——

      At the very, very least, since there’s no evidence that Muslims are intellectually inferior, the vast majority should have been able to put two and two together and realize that this was very bad for their whole religion in terms of PR.

      • Matt,

        I may have to accuse you of treason. President George Bush has stated this conflict is a “War against Terrorism”. You keep trying to re-frame it into Christian/Muslim. Do I need to report you to Homeland Security? (BTW, it strike me as near science fiction that we actually have a Dept. of HomeLand Security)

        • Mathius™ says:

          W can call it anything he wants. You cannot have a war against a tactic. It’s nonsensical. Why don’t we just declare war against “bad” and just roll it all up into one war?

          He declared war on something, so what was it?

          BTW, it strike me as near science fiction that we actually have a Dept. of HomeLand Security Me too.. adding, wasn’t it originally going to be called something else when Bush announced it? I can’t remember what and couldn’t find a link.. can you?

          • The war was declared on TERRORISTS..is that better?

            Sorry if you don’t like the fact that most happen to be MUSLIM.

            • Mathius™ says:

              There’s over a billion of them.

              Most people who eat rice every day happen to be Chinese. Why? Because there are 1.5 BILLION of them.

              ::sigh::

              • That has nothing to do with the price of apples.

                Muslim..Allah Akbar..Boom! There’s no other way around it.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Christian.. Allah [hu] akbar Jesus/God is mighty!..Boom! There’s no other way around it.

              • Mathius

                More Bull Shit use of statistics.

                If “terrorists” was a random occurrence then they would be evenly distributed among the various demographic groups.

                But alas they are not.

                Just as the “networks” are centered in not just those few Muslim nations where US or Israel issues are direct, but virtually ALL Muslim nations.

                Your use of numbers is as equally silly today as it was yesterday.

                But your ostrich feathers do look nice sticking up there in the sun.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Are you adjusting for socioeconomic factors such as lack of education and poverty? Are you accounting for the fact that the US foreign policy has been messing with them and supporting dictators in their countries for decades?

                Add that into the mix and see what your correlations look like.

                “Terrorism” is a tactical way to fight asymmetric warfar with a greater power. Without the ability to fight fair (as other groups have), they have to fall back on their only remaining options.

  24. JAC,

    There are so many examples of bizarre Christian behavior and evil – it is a waste of a post to example them.

    You merely complain others DIFFERENT bizarre behavior is more bizarre than your own bizarre behavior-which to you, makes them worse!!

    Believe me, they look at you the same way.

    Mathius is right, you suffer selection bias.

    And quite frankly, I don’t think it would stop even if Israel suddenly ceased to exist.

    And it wouldn’t

    This is the problem with understanding the issue – it is not about one country or another country existing or not –

    it is about self-determination of a people within their own nation

    Whether or not a country is invaded by the US, Israel, Germany or Russia, it is the intrusion of another nation upon another that is the reason.

    Israeli withdrawal and real peace would achieve the goal but only if the US does the same.

    • BF

      Bull Shit!!

      I do not suffer from “selection bias”. You will find nothing in my complete comments to support that claim.

      As usual you have to grasp a single word or small set of words from an entire story to justify an assertion you want to make for everyone elses’ benefit.

      I am talking about A. Not B or C or D.

      I say look at what A is doing.
      You and Matt say, but look at what B and C and D did.

      Guess what? It is irrelevant what they did unless it can be directly linked to the behavior of A. Because A is the topic.

      Quite frankly, the USA could pull completely out of the region and I do not think the jihad would stop. Those who are “pushing” this will find another convenient excuse.

      It certainly might make recruiting harder, but it will not stop their efforts. Their goal is not self determination. It is conquest.

      You say its not about one country or another but self determination within a nation. That is about the most circular argument I have seen from you yet.

      • JAC,

        My opinion stands.
        You paint a entire religion with the fanatical brush, but refuse to see the same color of paint on your own religion.

        You are saying because they are Muslim they are acting in the way they are.

        Mathius is saying any group of people would act the same way in the same circumstance and uses historical fact to demonstrate this

        • BF

          I do no such thing and expressly stated that to do such a thing would be disastrous, let alone wrong.

          Spend a little more time trying to understand what others are saying instead of making assumptions to fit your preconceptions.

          “You are saying because they are Muslim they are acting in the way they are.”

          Yes, I am saying that they are acting the way they do because they are Muslim….to that I agree. However, I am NOT saying that ALL MUSLIMS are violent or terrorists or would act in the same way.

          So if Mathius’ premise is correct then we should see Christians around the world rioting in the streets over cartoons about Christ whenever a few preachers scream.

          Once again, since you seem to have missed the point, Islam is being used as the binder for a broader movement by some nefarious people. Those people have visions of conquest. I do not know if their ambitions are driven totally by their religion or some other reason or a combination. But the fact remains that in this day and age, it appears they are able to use that religion in this manner.

          Just as my ancestors used Christianity thousands of years ago to unite their tribes and invade Europe and North America.

          A key point is that the other major religions are no longer conducive to this type of manipulation. Despite efforts by some groups to do so. Yet Islam seems to still be susceptible to this. And as I have said before, I think it is partly due to the fact it is a younger religion and partly due to the fact that it has remained essentially within the region of the middle east until recent times. Thus it carries with it the characteristics of tribal feudalism and isolationism.

          In a nutshell I see the game board as very cluttered and complex and have tried to explain it in this way. You and Mathius seem to think it is all about nothing but USA hegemony or behavior. I think your explanations are lacking in recognition of global events and grossly over simplistic.

          That does not mean that your observations about events or relationships within certain countries is not valid. Only that I believe it is NOT ALL that is going on.

  25. LOI,

    Re: Clinton

    Is a war criminal and the man most responsible for setting the chain of consequences that we suffer today.

    His attack on Yugoslavia/Serbia was a complete violation of international law. He arm twisted NATO to be culpable. This use of military force was a criminal act – but the world had no capacity to resist.

    Bush merely carried the same evil rational on his attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc…

    • As ye sew,

      Yes, I agree on Clinton. Obama’s Libya attack strikes me as being similar. How do you judge Regan’s bombing of Libya?

      You have to give Clinton credit, bombing, missile attacks kept US interest at a low level. No American deaths means no popular interest. As a whole, we don’t seem to care who we attack or kill until an American is killed.

      • Reagan’s bombing was illegal and war crime.

        That is true of the American psyche – those are known as “good little wars” when few Americans die, but lots of the “other guys” do.

    • Mathius™ says:

      People give me funny looks when I giggle at my desk at work.

      • “People give me funny looks when I giggle at my desk at work.”

        MATT! LOOK AWAY!!!!! Do not read the following!

        Dear Mary,
        Just admit that you slept with someone else. This is getting out of hand.
        Sincerely,
        Joseph

        Dear Noah,
        We could have sworn you said the ark wasn’t leaving till 5:00.
        Sincerely,
        Unicorns

        Dear Twilight fans,
        Please realize that because vampires are dead and have no blood pumping
        through them, they can never get an erection.
        Enjoy fantasizing about that.
        Sincerely,
        Logic

        Dear Icebergs,
        Sorry to hear about the global warming. Karma’s a bitch.
        Sincerely,
        The Titanic

        Dear J.K. Rowling,
        Your books are entirely unrealistic…I mean, a red-headed kid with two
        friends? C’mon…
        Sincerely,
        Anonymous

        Dear America ,
        You produced Miley Cyrus. Bieber is your punishment.
        Sincerely,
        Canada

        Dear Yahoo,
        I’ve never heard anyone say, “I don’t know, let’s Yahoo! it…” just
        saying…
        Sincerely,
        Google

        Dear 2010,
        So I hear the best rapper is white and the president is black? WTF
        happened?!
        Sincerely,
        1985

        Dear Windshield Wipers,
        Can’t touch this.
        Sincerely,
        That Little Triangle

        Dear Rose,
        There was definitely room on that door for the both of us.
        Sincerely,
        Jack
        P.S. You let go.

        Dear White People,
        Don’t you just hate immigrants?
        Sincerely,
        Native Americans

        Dear iPhone,
        Please stop spellchecking all of my rude words into nice words. You piece of
        shut.
        Sincerely,
        Every iPhone User

        Dear Giant Spider on the Wall,
        Please die. Please die. Please die. Please die. CRAP! Where did you go?
        Sincerely,
        Terrified

        Dear girls who have been dumped,
        There are plenty of fish in the sea… Just kidding! They’re all dead.
        Sincerely,
        BP

        Dear Saturn,
        I liked it, so I put a ring on it.
        Sincerely,
        God

        Dear Fox News,
        So far, no news about foxes.
        Sincerely,
        Unimpressed

        Dear Michael Jackson,
        You really should have became a Catholic Priest. The pay isn’t great, but
        the benefits….
        Sincerely,
        The Pope

        Dear jf;ldsfa/kvsmmklnn,
        Please lknvfdmv.xvn.
        Sincerely,
        Stevie Wonder

        Dear Nickleback,
        That’s enough.
        Sincerely,
        The World

        Dear Skin-Colored Band Aids,
        Please make one for every skin color.
        Sincerely,
        Black people

        Dear Scissors,
        I feel your pain…..no one wants to run with me either.
        Sincerely,
        Sarah Palin

        Dear Osama Bin Laden,
        Marco….
        Sincerely,
        United States

        Dear World of Warcraft,
        Thank you for ensuring my son’s virginity.
        Sincerely,
        Parents Everywhere

        Dear Anne Frank,
        Two can play this game….
        Sincerely,
        Waldo

        Dear Batman,
        What was your power again?
        Sincerely,
        Superman

        Dear Customers,
        Yes, we ARE making fun of you in Vietnamese.
        Sincerely,
        Nail Salon Ladies

        Dear Global Warming,
        You’re the best imaginary friend ever!
        Sincerely,
        Al Gore

        Dear Ugly People,
        You’re welcome.
        Sincerely,
        Alcohol

        Dear Mr. Gump,
        WTF are you talking about? There’s a little diagram on the lid that tells
        you EXACTLY what you’re gonna get….
        Sincerely,
        Jenny

        Dear Katy Perry,
        I liked the kiss too.
        Sincerely,
        Justin Beiber

        Dear Haiti ,
        Is it too early to ask what’s shakin’?
        Sincerely,
        Seriously Going To Hell

        Dear Martin Luther King, Jr.
        I have a dream within a dream within a dream within another dream…. What
        now?
        Sincerely,
        Leonardo Di Caprio

        Dear World,
        Please stop freaking out about 2012. Our calendars ends there because some
        Spanish douche bags invaded our country and we got a little busy ok?
        Sincerely,
        The Mayans

        Dear Snooki,
        GET BACK TO WORK!
        Sincerely,
        Willy Wonka

        Dear Trash,
        At least you get picked up…
        Sincerely,
        The Girls of Jersey Shore

        Dear Man,
        It’s cute, but can you pick up peanuts with it?
        Sincerely,
        Elephant

        Dear Dr. Phil,
        Look man, there’s only room for one fake doctor in this world and I was here
        first.
        Sincerely,
        Dr. Pepper

    • Mathius™ says:
  26. Democratic naysayers are rife with general notions of how to deal with entitlement reform, but all of these consist of reflexive opposition to any steps Republicans want to take.

    For example, Ryan has quite reasonably proposed reducing Medicare benefits for wealthy retirees—who need them less, if at all—to save money.

    But leftists like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders oppose even cutting benefits for the wealthy: “The strength of Social Security and Medicare is that everybody is in. Once you start breaking that universality and you say that if you’re above a certain income [you’re out], two years later that income goes down and 10 years later it becomes a welfare program.”

    Would that Social Security and Medicare were only welfare programs! They’d sure cost a lot less. They’d also restore a lot more freedom to the middle class in deciding how to invest their money and plan for retirement.

    But for liberals, it’s all about control. Their message to the wealthy is: We’ll tax the bejesus out of you, but then we’ll deign to give you benefits you don’t need, and then exercise complete control over when and how you receive them. Aren’t you grateful?

    For conservatives, it’s all about liberty. Their message to the wealthy is: We won’t bother you with government-run insurance you don’t need, and we also won’t harass you with exorbitant taxes for the sin of being productive. Go do your thing!

    http://www.scottspiegel.com/

  27. Off topic but I dont know if anyone has been following Houston….another police officer has been gunned down…the last 6 consecutive police officer deaths in Houston have been by illegal immigrants from Mexico.

    Zero tolerance and profiling is going to happen…and correctly so. But I am glad that we have no problem in Texas……. Napolitano says so.

    • from John Lott, not the same as a rash of cop killers….

      6/03/2011
      A proxy for the number of Illegal Aliens?
      With Illegals using others Social Security numbers, it would be interesting to know what percent of these cases involve illegal aliens. They might all use the ever popular 000-00-0000, but some might get other numbers.

      Imagine filing your tax return and learning that someone else got your refund. With your name and Social Security number, no less.
      The IRS is grappling with a nearly five-fold increase in taxpayer identity theft between 2008 and 2010, a Government Accountability Office official plans to tell a House hearing Thursday. There were 248,357 incidents in 2010, compared to 51,702 in 2008.
      The GAO findings, obtained by The Associated Press, don’t begin to describe the pain for a first-time victim, who must wait for a refund while the IRS sorts out which return is real and which is a fraud.
      Many identity thieves don’t get prosecuted, according James White, director of strategic issues for the GAO..
      “IRS officials told us that IRS pursues criminal investigations of suspected identity thieves in only a small number of cases,” White says in testimony prepared for a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee. . . .
      “We want to know why this problem is apparently getting much worse,” said Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., chairman of the subcommittee. “By bringing these issues to the public as quickly as possible, the committee hopes to give citizens the necessary information so they can protect themselves from such identity theft.” . . .

  28. Look. I am far from an expert in war. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there is no glory, no valiant Sir Gallahads in a war.

    The reason we will never win a war against terrorism is because we are too honorable and too decent to get down in the mud and the bllod and slug with them.

    What I mean by that is that we have to be just as cruel, just as mean as they are. If they hide behind the civilians fire anyway. If they hide in cities, bomb them anyway. If they perform an act of terroism upon ths Nation, and we can prove ANY Nation was behind it, turn them into a Parking Lot.

    Now. I am not advocating doing this, nor am I a big fan of it. It is a Barbaric way to wage a war. But whoever said that war was a civilized action? Whoever it was, was a fool.

    I heard a report yesterday of the Afgans raising hell because a few of their civilians were killed. What the hell? War is an ugly, brutal business. Civilians die in war. That is just a plain fact. If we had a war here, civilians would die. They did by the thousands in the last war we had in the U.S..

    If we aren’t going to fight a War and be in it to win, we should pack up and go home. Damn another Vietnam, which is exactly what we are getting mired into. The Politicians and too afraid we might hurt some innocent to let the troops fight the damn thing.

    If that is the way it is, bring the troops home.

  29. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled House on Friday adopted a resolution rebuking President Barack Obama for dispatching U.S. military forces against Libya without congressional approval.

    The vote was 268-145, over White House objections.

    The resolution by Speaker John Boehner said the president has failed to provide a “compelling rationale” for the nearly 3-month old operation to aid rebels battling Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. During Friday’s debate, Democrats and Republicans complained that Obama ignored Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.

    The nonbinding measure insists that Obama provide Congress with details on the scope of the mission and its costs within 14 days. It also bars U.S. ground forces except to rescue an American service member.

    Shortly after adopting the resolution, the House rejected a considerably tougher measure advanced by Rep. Dennis Kucinch that demanded an end to U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation in Libya. The vote was 265-148.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/03/house-adopts-resolution-on-us-role-in-libya/#ixzz1OEuUwd57

  30. JAC,

    but virtually ALL Muslim nations

    Again, you are biased.

    As Mathius pointed out, because your country envies other countries oil and resources – your country attacks these countries.

    But it will not attack Russia – too strong
    But it will not attack China – too strong

    It will attack those too weak enough to not resist “too much” – and it happens these countries have a large Muslim population

    Because your country makes war on Muslim countries, you find yourself fighting Muslim terrorists.

    If Buddhist nations had the oil, you’d be fighting Buddha terrorists…..

    • This entry is the total oil produced in barrels per day (bbl/day). The discrepancy between the amount of oil produced and/or imported and the amount consumed and/or exported is due to the omission of stock changes, refinery gains, and other complicating factors.
      Country Comparison to the World
      Country
      Oil – production(bbl/day)
      Afghanistan 0 bbl/day (2009 est.)

      Just saying, it’s not all about oil. Nor had we attacked Afghanistan. Just the opposite, we supplied them weapons to resist the USSR’s invasion. Big mistake on our part. Providing a base for terrorists to attack the USA, big mistake on their part.

      • LOI,

        You forget the oil pipeline that is being laid across Afghanistan that the Taliban did not allow – but now is going forward.

        Further, you forget the recent news stories on the massive resource field in Afghanistan.

    • BF: Your comments about Russia and China don’t make sense as even you have admitted that the USA has the strongest military on the planet.

      • Anita,

        You can have the strongest military, and still lose.

        A conflict with Russia and/or China would risk the very survival of the human race.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Even if you can eek out a “win,” why would we risk starting with someone who, at the very least, is going to give us a run for our money?

        Yes, we’ll “win” but with victories like that, who needs defeats?

        We’d lose whole cities, tens or hundreds of lives, maybe millions, and it would cost in the tens of trillions.

        We may be a bully, but we’re not stupid.

        • Mathius™ says:

          wow.. that was garbled.. that’s what Saki on Friday afternoons will do to you…

          We’d lose whole cities, tens or hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions, and it would cost in the tens of trillions.

          We may be a bully, but we’re not a bully, but we’re not stupid.

    • BF

      Further proof that you do not read for comprehension and your accusation towards me is BS.

      It was Mathius who used the phrase “virtually ALL Mulsim nations”.

      I then used it against him with differing information.

      Your own commentary violates your argument above:

      “Because your country makes war on Muslim countries, you find yourself fighting Muslim terrorists.”

      So my country makes war in two Muslim nations and we get Muslim terror networks plotting against us is many other Muslim nations, yet you claim this is really about self determination within a COUNTRY.

      Oh and of course lets ignore the fact that we “invaded” these two countries AFTER we were attacked at various locations in the world, including at home. I know. It was our fault for just being present. For doing business with their evil leaders. Ignoring the fact that to do otherwise would of course meant doing business with someone else.

      Who of course we could be held to account for later as they became the “unfavored” by the next seeker of power.

    • BF states: because your country envies other countries oil and resources – your country attacks these countries.

      Interesting choice of words…interesting.

  31. Bottom Line says:

    The war on terrorism is a great big bullshit lie and excuse for imperialism.

    • I don’t agree. American imperialism is the cause of many problems but did not create terrorism. It is likely terrorism is driving an expansion of American imperialism. Consider Iraq, we/Bush/Obama want to withdraw all our troops as quickly as possible. We would have left years ago, but Iran supported terrorists would ramp up the violence to keep us engaged.
      There was a six month or so period they could have laid low, gathered strength, and we would have been gone. They do not want to allow us to leave. They want to make this a war of Christians vs Muslims.

      • LOI,

        Mathius pointed this out to you already, but it appears you still do not understand.

        Terrorism is a tactic.

        • terror, terrorist, terrorism…same thing.

          You guys sure seem to be defending the concept. Maybe defending is not the right word. How about..justify-ing

          • Anita,

            You seem to not understand what a tactic means.

            Tactics:
            -a method of employing forces in combat.
            -a means for accomplishing an end.

            Please note the lack of a moral judgement in the definitions.

          • Anita,

            It’s my fault. You know how Flag gets when I employ my version of Southern logic. Makes him irritable, he lashes out and talks down to people who disagree with him. Maybe to promote world peace, I should skip my next article on Israel.
            But Matt recovered from his stroke pretty quickly, I’m sure Flag will be as resilient.

            • I’m not stressin about the Flagster! But if you still want it to be your fault…… 🙂

        • Understand and agree are different words, with different meanings. When Al Qaeda takes credit for killing women and children in a marketplace, that is terrorism. Call it a tactic. And expand that to include fleeing across the border of a friendly country, to hide behind an imaginary line. Our response is to follow them across that line, and make them very dead. Declaring a war on terrorism and it’s sponsors was a policy statement. A shift in who and how we would fight a war. And it is a war, with thousands of opponents on both sides.

          Must really irk you to be in agreement with Matt. BP OK? Not breaking out with hives or itching???And the way he’s tried to horn in on you’re pirate thing….

      • LOI

        Consider Iraq, we/Bush/Obama want to withdraw all our troops as quickly as possible.

        You jest, sir!

        The US military has built dozens of military bases and air bases all through the country. Do you really believe that means the US wants to leave “as quickly as possible”???

        No, it means they are staying for as long as possible.

        You confuse the administrations desire that the locals “give in and give up” … but it will not happen.

        You blame Iran for Iraq’s mess????? You jest.

        Iran did not attack and obliterate the country, USA did.

      • Bottom Line says:

        The terror on terrorism is premised upon the “new pearl harbor”.

        When you can give me a reasonable explanation as to how Mc Qaueda snuck into building seven and rigged it with explosives without getting caught, you might persuade me to believe it has some legitimacy.

        Otherwise, it is a big bunch of horse shit.

    • Bottom line

      I also disagree.

      The USA has never needed an excuse for its version of imperialism. And in fact, it existed before the “war on terror”.

      I do not agree the USA is Imperialistic in the traditional sense. But we certainly project our power around the world just like the old empires.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Okay, so lemme get this straight….

        You disagree that the US’s version of imperialism is imperialist in the traditional sense, but certainly projects it’s power around the world just like the old empires?

        It’s just like the old empires, but not in the traditional sense?

        I’m confused.

        • BL

          Imperialism in its original form involved taking over countries. Actually holding land or control in the hands of the Empire.

          I said the USA projects its POWER. The old Empires also projected POWER.

          But the means of that projection is different. The USA does it via partnerships, manipulations, coercion, negotiation, etc, etc. The Spanish, Dutch, French, British, Mongols, and Vikings did it by invasion and conquest.

          The accusation that the USA is “IMPERIALISTIC” was developed by some “left wing” academics and activists in their attempts to tear down our national pride and replace it with a more “global” perspective. You know I always rant about how the meaning of words is manipulated in a protracted war of propaganda. That is why I challenge the notion that the USA is Imperialistic in terms of original meaning.

          Is the USA a hegemonic power? Yes. Is it an imperialistic nation? No.

          I suggest you watch closely to see who tries to use this term most often to describe the USA. Then think about their objectives. I think you will see what I mean.

          Now, there was a time when the USA became Imperialistic in the traditional sense. Ironically it was the PROGRESSIVES who supported that concept and acted upon it.

          So does that help clear up the confusion?

          • Bottom Line says:

            JAC – Imperialism in its original form involved taking over countries. Actually holding land or control in the hands of the Empire.

            I said the USA projects its POWER. The old Empires also projected POWER.

            But the means of that projection is different. The USA does it via partnerships, manipulations, coercion, negotiation, etc, etc. The Spanish, Dutch, French, British, Mongols, and Vikings did it by invasion and conquest.

            BL – What do you call invading oil/mineral rich nations, dropping bombs on their people, building bases, patrolling their streets, and manipulating/controlling their economies and resources for decades?

            JAC – The accusation that the USA is “IMPERIALISTIC” was developed by some “left wing” academics and activists in their attempts to tear down our national pride and replace it with a more “global” perspective. You know I always rant about how the meaning of words is manipulated in a protracted war of propaganda. That is why I challenge the notion that the USA is Imperialistic in terms of original meaning.

            BL – Yeah, whatever….they were spot on.

            JAC – Is the USA a hegemonic power? Yes. Is it an imperialistic nation? No.

            BL – Yes and yes.

            JAC – I suggest you watch closely to see who tries to use this term most often to describe the USA. Then think about their objectives. I think you will see what I mean.

            BL – I use this term often. My objective is to not bullshit myself or anyone else.

            JAC – Now, there was a time when the USA became Imperialistic in the traditional sense. Ironically it was the PROGRESSIVES who supported that concept and acted upon it.

            BL – So progressives are part of the American empire too.

            JAC – So does that help clear up the confusion?

            BL – Yes. You’re in denial alright.

            😉

  32. June 3, 2011
    Jaw-dropping
    Hugh de Payns

    Imbecility has no known limits. The logic, if one can call it that, that is on display here in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals , is so circular and so deformed, it is jaw dropping.

    President Obama’s solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn’t like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

    What type of a response is that?

    ObamaCare is a can of worms. That much is not only clear, but becoming more difficult to ignore as each day passes. ObamaCare is unrealistic and is built upon a socialist fantasy that ignores the reality of human dynamics and the laws of economics. Thus its defenders are left with little but twisted logic and deliberate ignorance of facts.

    Let’s see if the legacy media bother to report on this.

    “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool.”

    -George Orwell
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/jaw-dropping.html

    • LOI

      Obamacare is not designed to solve any major problems. It was designed to drag the system down to the point that the public screams for a “public option” and/or “single payer”.

      The only real issues addressed were denial due to prior conditions. And even this could have been solved by the States.

      Even this idea of covering kids until they are 26 was junk. Everyone knows they could simply insure their kid under a separate policy and in many cases at less cost.

  33. Here is the other reason Obama will win in 2012 … this dodo:

    • Mathius™ says:

      She hurts my brain.

    • Subject: Data

      1. A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

      Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
      U.S. 65%
      England 46%
      Canada 42%

      Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
      U.S. 93%
      England 15%
      Canada 43%

      Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
      U.S. 90%
      England 15%
      Canada 43%

      Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
      U.S… 77%
      England 40%
      Canada 43%

      Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
      U.S. 71
      England 14
      Canada 18

      Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:
      U..S. 12%
      England 02%
      Canada 06%

      2. The percentage of each past president’s cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.

      Here are the percentages.

      T. Roosevelt…………….. 38%
      Taft…………………………. 40%
      Wilson ………………………. 52%
      Harding……………………. 49%
      Coolidge………………….. 48%
      Hoover ……………………. 42%
      F. Roosevelt……………… 50%
      Truman……………………. 50%
      Johnson…………………… 47%
      Nixon………………………. 53%
      Ford………………………… 42%
      Carter……………………… 32%
      Reagan…………………….. 56%
      GH Bush………………….. 51%
      Clinton ……………………. 39%
      GW Bush…………………. 55%

      And the winner is:

      Obama………………. 08%

      This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in a job not supported by tax money!

      That’s right! Only eight percent—the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents!

      And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

      They know what’s best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?

      How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he’s never worked for one?

      Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it’s the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They’ve spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as “community organizers.” They should have been in an employment line.

      “One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors.” Plato

  34. Bottom Line says:

  35. Bottom Line says:

    Q: How do you free an oil/mineral rich nation of people?

    A: Drop hundreds of thousands of tons of ordinance on them and send people with guns to shoot them.

    Freedom – Yay!

  36. @ JAC: ” You stated, “Islam is being used as the binder for a broader movement by some nefarious people.”

    Very good statement, sir. What you left out (and I addressed it with Mathius) is that Islam is being allowed to be used as well. I asked where the condemnation was and Mathius pointed out some link that I read… but it is NOT public and it is not carried out. I am of the opinion and belief that if all this is as peaceable as some would want us to believe…then where are the heads of state getting up and calling them cowards. Where are the Imams….not the local ones…but the leading ones getting up and denouncing the use of Islam incorrectly IF it is being used that way. I want to see the Kings and Presidents and their respective representatives all standing up and calling it what it is….and they are silent. And I will not fall for the line or lines that public condemnation will result in their deaths. When Mathius used the KKK as an example, this country, from its people to its leaders publicly condemned the KKK and ran them out of towns and countryside….pulled their hoods off….. the whole bit. I see nothing from Iran saying that it is wrong to use Islam in this manner….I see nothing from Pakistan or Egypt or Saudi or Libya or Syria and even Jordan….NOTHING. I see people getting upset with a goddamned cartoon and threaten to kill people and the majority of Islam is silent when an ISLAMIC Imam calls for a death sentence. This is pure bull shit. WHY is that?

    Hell…..I am off the damned soap box….I am still upset at losing policemen, ranchers, kidnappings (another took place on the US side)…etc and all I hear is the poor downtrodden immigrant. More bullshit.

    • Makes me want to chug 44 oz of red bull….

    • d13

      You know as well as I do that they remain silent or at least present weak responses because “it suits them”.

      And by others in the mix I include the Russians and Chinese.

      Kind of like a bunch of kids playing with matches, gas and gun powder. Each thinks they control the situation but it could explode at any moment.

      Stay away from the red bull crap. It will kill you.

      Go target practice instead. Or better yet, take the missus to a honkey tonk and work out your frustrations on the dance floor.

      • Yeah….target practice worked. Nothing like shooting a case of skeet and then running the combat range with two different pistols. I was seeing how accurate I could be with a .380 Walther at 75 feet….head shots were almost non existent at that range with that weapon…..put 35 of 40 in the torso on Hogans Alley at that range… the Glock was much better. 8 of ten in the head…the other two were in the neck….still would have ruined his day, tho. 39/49 for the torso at 75 feet. Sigh…..but it worked…I do feel better. HAve a great evening, sir…BTW..the missus is a great shot. This is Texas after all.

    • d13

      Hey Colonel. Here is one for your hit, er I mean bucket list.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/adam-gadahn-urges-muslims-kill-americans_n_871190.html

      How curious the similarity in the comments at HuffPo and those from BF and Mathius.

      Don’t worry, this guy is just a jerk. Harmless.

      Its all about self determination within a country. Religion has not part in this, don’t worry.

      I see a field of ostrich feathers, sticking up in the air.

      • You know JAC, what is funny in all of this is the perception of religion. I a nowhere near a religious person, yet, if I do not like nor trust the Muslim or Islamic faith,,,,,then I MUST be a Christian. Sheesh……

        Roger that on the field of feathers….

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good evening Colonel 🙂

          I have found that not trusting anyone, without that trust being earned, to be a good way to go. Religion is just an excuse, in my book. Good people, regardless of religion, will be good people and say so. Bad people, well, just need shot in the torso several times, 👿

  37. LOI

    Here is a fella that doesn’t quite share your view of Bush on the Iraq issue. I do think he lays to much on Bush but it was Bush who made those speeches.

    He forgets Bush ran on a “no nation building” platform that was immensely popular at the time. 9/ll allowed the Neo Cons to get hold of Bush’s policy making machine. In my humble opinion.

    Anyway, here is the article for everyone’s consideration.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_usa_last_stop_in_western_civilization.html

    • America has made spreading the ballot box to distant lands and less fortunate peoples its raison d’être, often with disastrous results and in every case damaging America’s ability to project military and economic power when vital to our own national security.

      It can even be argued that our efforts to advance democracy have had the exact opposite effect, as demonstrated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt. That worked so well that we’re now “helping” Libya and Syria.

      At the heart of this new presumption of global responsibility is a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes democracy or republican government possible.

      Americans have replaced democratic values with the worship of the democratic process. It is within this paradigm that policy wonks think that imposition of our democratic system on ancient civilizations with a long history of attitudes contrary to democratic culture, will result in democratic values analogous to our own.

      This widely shared view is flawed, for this one simple reason: It is the underlying values that make democracy work, not the process itself, e.g. the Palestinian election of Hamas. The success of the American democratic republic is rooted in the peculiar nature of its founding, conditions particular to America, such as an Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, common culture, religious beliefs, and the moral fortitude of the framers.

      JAC, some good points there. I remember some foreign election the US was sponsoring, some agency spent millions of dollars running gay rights ad’s. We are totally blind to other cultures values, what they see as moral. I’ve been told in Nam’, they thought Americans were strange for eating so much pork, since a pig ate garbage.
      The natives shocked us eating dogs, inhumane! But dogs eat meat, healthier and much more selective than pigs…

      I guess I just see self reliance as being a national, as well as a personal issue. The people of every country are responsible for the actions of their government.

      I answered a question above, would like your thoughts.
      Just A Citizen Says:
      June 2, 2011 at 9:24 am edit

      LOI

      Do you have any thoughts on how to reduce terrorism or to counter act the “Muslim Expansion”?

      Yes, economic warfare. Drill our domestic oil and eliminate ME imports. Then become an exporter. Make oil cheap worldwide. Our economy won the cold war, use it to make the Middle East poor. Then they will not be able to afford supporting terrorism, needing most of their resources to survive. The rest of the world will thrive.

      Economic warfare and slant drilling

      According to George Piro, the FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam Hussein after his capture (in 2003), Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC’s oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy.[10] This was seen by many in Iraq as an act of aggression, further distancing the countries. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, “every US$1 drop in the price of a barrel of oil caused a US$1 billion drop in Iraq’s annual revenues triggering an acute financial crisis in Baghdad.”[9] It was estimated that Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait’s oil price strategy

  38. More non violence in a non violent country…:

    “The dissident daughter of a another famous Iranian dissident died of a heart attack after being beaten by security forces at her father’s funeral procession, according to those who were there.”

  39. One more reason Obama will win in 2012 … the GOP/Tea Party has NO FRIGGIN’ CLUE how to eat PIZZA.

  40. TexasChem says:

    I’d like to reiterate a thought once again for those that are anti-religious and anti-spiritual, and also pose a question.

    All human knowledge is learned. Lets try that once more…all human knowledge is learned.

    What method during the course of history has worked to teach and instill integrity, honor, goodness, mercy, courage, trust, happiness, love and most importantly HOPE into mankinds social culture?

    I would truly be petrified to see a world without a single human believing in some higher power.

  41. TexChem

    Anyone that is convinced they will recieve 72 virgins by blowing themselves up has to be brainwashed

    Anyone that is convinced a man who claims a guy in the sky is his dad and came down from a house in heaven and died on a cross to absolve them of sin of a bunch of other people has to be brainwashed.

    • Anyone who thinks 6.9 billion people can live together without government is brainwashed …

      • Charlie,

        Yet, 99.9% of the time they do!

        I would suggest that those that ignore such reality must be brainwashed!

        • Mathius™ says:

          And one wonders how much damage that other .1% does when they “don’t get along”…

          • Mathius,

            They do a lot, which is why everyone is so worried all the time about them.

            But they are in the very minor minority – which is why civilization exists.

            If they were even a significant minority civilization could not stand.

  42. Black Flag® Says:
    June 6, 2011 at 10:59 am

    LOI,

    Carryover from previous post:

    Understand and agree are different words, with different meanings. When Al Qaeda takes credit for killing women and children in a marketplace, that is terrorism. Call it a tactic. And expand that to include fleeing across the border of a friendly country, to hide behind an imaginary line. Our response is to follow them across that line, and make them very dead

    .

    No, that is NOT at all what “your” guys do.

    They go over an imaginary line and kill their innocent women and children.

    The US tactic “shock and awe” is a terrorist tactic.

    The use of evil to attack evil ensures a victory for evil.

    Must really irk you to be in agreement with Matt.

    Actually, not at all. Most of the time on most things we agree.

    He is merely stubborn on the remainder.

    “No, that is NOT at all what “your” guys do.”
    (are you a US citizen? If so it’s our guys and you can denounce what is being done in you name as an American)

    “They go over an imaginary line and kill their innocent women and children.The US tactic “shock and awe” is a terrorist tactic.”

    You were a AF pilot? I think this may be a strong issue for you and also grant you have experience I do not, and I do respect that. I also think a “reformed” smoker is the most rabid on anti-smoking. D13 said something about there being no rules in war. I hope there is some. When the US announces what town they are about to attack, that gives the defenders information to better combat US forces. But we are more worried about the innocents, so warn them to flee even though it may cost us higher casualties.

    Those who choose to stay, including innocent women and children, have some responsibility in their fate. I do not like that they die, but think they bear some responsibility for what befalls them. It is not only the attacker. If the women and children support terrorists, be it a father or husband, I regret their choice and the consequences.

    (Matt)”He is merely stubborn on the remainder.”
    (I think he’ll say the same about you)

  43. LOI,

    “No, that is NOT at all what “your” guys do.”
    (are you a US citizen? If so it’s our guys and you can denounce what is being done in you name as an American)

    I do not align myself with anyone who advocates or rationalizes the killing of innocents, regardless of what “flag” they wish to wrap themselves inside.

    “They go over an imaginary line and kill their innocent women and children.The US tactic “shock and awe” is a terrorist tactic.”

    You were a AF pilot? I think this may be a strong issue for you and also grant you have experience I do not, and I do respect that.

    It matters not if I be a criminal or a fighter pilot – killing innocent people is the deepest human evil possible.

    Those who choose to stay, including innocent women and children, have some responsibility in their fate.

    Such evil rationalization!

    “The innocent people, who have done nothing, are responsible for having themselves killed!!”

    (Matt)”He is merely stubborn on the remainder.”
    (I think he’ll say the same about you)

    He is stubborn that way, isn’t he?

%d bloggers like this: