Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 05/16/2006 View Mon 05/15/2006 View Sun 05/14/2006 View Sat 05/13/2006 View Fri 05/12/2006 View Thu 05/11/2006 View Wed 05/10/2006
1
2006-05-16 Home Front: WoT
CAIR: ‘Islam 100 times more likely to be associated with terrorism’
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-05-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 CAIR isn't peeing on my leg they are pooping on it.

Islam is the only group I worry about more than the Democrats.
Posted by SPoD 2006-05-16 00:13|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-16 00:13|| Front Page Top

#2 Whine. De Nile. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

‘Islam [is] 100 times more likely to be associated with terrorism’.

Got it in one. It's a statement. A perfect statement of the obvious, unintentional though it may be.

I'd put it closer to 1000, but that's just me.

So how're those lawsuits against Anti-CAIR coming along, eh?
Posted by Thrunter Ulaling6166 2006-05-16 00:26||   2006-05-16 00:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Doubt thou that the Sun rises in the East? It also certainly sinks not into a muddy pond.
Posted by Duh! 2006-05-16 05:48||   2006-05-16 05:48|| Front Page Top

#4 99.99 percent of whom will never come near any act of terrorism

near? perhaps not.
cheer? yes.
donate money to? yes.
praise? yes.
in other words, SUPPORT? yes.
Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan  2006-05-16 06:36||   2006-05-16 06:36|| Front Page Top

#5 Time, of course, being a post-colonial construct, ontologically oppressing and imposing a reactionary, antithetical, and deliberately hostile teleology upon the victims of Zionist aggression.

ROFLMAO. That's precious - and accurate, LOL.

REQUEST:
PD's comment hit my curiosity bone... I'm sure that clever wordsmiths can create many such levels of "credibility" - and some just love to live in the gray zone, for whatever reason, but... I hit my tipping point rather recently and I think his post begs the question(s)...

A) How many RBers still believe in "Moderates" and deem them blameless?

B) How many subscribe to the idea that these "Moderates" will "reform" if we deal diplomatically, cooperatively (for lack of a better word), with the "Islamists"?

C) How many subscribe to the idea that these "Moderates" will "reform" if we deal harshly enough with the "Islamists"?

D) How many have, honestly now, given up on the idea that we (or anyone) can coexist with Islam? It's them or us.

Apologies for the OT request, but these stories, and the posted comments I've seen, make me wonder if I'm alone, on the fringe, mainstream or what. Thanks, in advance.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 07:09||   2006-05-16 07:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, I'm not really the deep analyzing, well thought type, but...

A) How many RBers still believe in "Moderates" and deem them blameless?
IMHO, "Moderates" are the minority, and they're way too silent (though the real threat of violence, the islamic scriptures and traditions themselves, and the flow of money to the hardliners are to be taken into account, to be honest).

B) How many subscribe to the idea that these "Moderates" will "reform" if we deal diplomatically, cooperatively (for lack of a better word), with the "Islamists"?
Nope.

C) How many subscribe to the idea that these "Moderates" will "reform" if we deal harshly enough with the "Islamists"?
That might give them breathing space, I dunno.

D) How many have, honestly now, given up on the idea that we (or anyone) can coexist with Islam? It's them or us.
IMHO, it's us or them, and so far, we're (well, at least us Euros, the USA face a different challenge, you're the adversary, we're the prize) screwed, for various long term trends (demography, will & intent, values crisis).
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-05-16 07:21||   2006-05-16 07:21|| Front Page Top

#7 A) How many RBers still believe in "Moderates" and deem them blameless?

Who cares? They're irrelevant. Whether there's many or few doesn't matter. It's the terrs and their supporters who count. And there's enough of them to create mayhem, at least in Europe.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-16 07:33||   2006-05-16 07:33|| Front Page Top

#8 Wow, you're deep, NS.

Think about that response for a long time, did you?

Must be very interesting to be an expert who summarily dismisses precisely the concern that most people have about Islam - separating the "good" from the "bad". Can you point me to the article comment where you demonstrated your deep understanding and expertise regards Islam and Islamists and proved yourself the definitive voice?

Try Preparation H.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 07:49||   2006-05-16 07:49|| Front Page Top

#9 It's the terrs and their supporters who count

I think they're only one sprong of a general offensive, one of the means to further the cause.
Posted by anonymous5089 2006-05-16 07:51||   2006-05-16 07:51|| Front Page Top

#10 IMHO, "Moderates" are the minority, and they're way too silent (though the real threat of violence, the islamic scriptures and traditions themselves, and the flow of money to the hardliners are to be taken into account, to be honest).

The supposed "moderates" fund charities that support jihad. They openly accept "holy" men who preach jihad. They get their tits in a bind when someone suggests looking into any of the above.

The real moderates try to expose all the above. They might be 1% of the Muslim population.
Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford  2006-05-16 08:05|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-05-16 08:05|| Front Page Top

#11 99% islamic, .5% Tamil, .5% Maoist/Marxist and others. And the last 2 don't rally affect Americans or CAIR.
Posted by ed 2006-05-16 08:20||   2006-05-16 08:20|| Front Page Top

#12 Yes Mr. Crawford, that's my understanding; to me, "Moderates" are secular muslims, or at least muslims who reject some of the most offensive tenets of islam incompatible with western democracies (and thus renounces to Jihad(tm), belive in equality between wimmen and men, in freedom of religion, in the interdiction of slavery, etc, etc...).
Problem is, they can easily and rightfully (according to scriptures) be classified as apostates.

The so-called "Moderates" à la CAIR, tarik ramadan, and countless apologists giving taqqya around... you talk about are IMHO the main threat to western civilization, far ahead of terrs (unless they somehow get hold of WMD), since they wage a very successful subversive war, both political, and civilizationnal (having the West "acknowledge" the "superiority of islamic culture", wich is not difficult given the multiculturalism/relativist/sucidalist cultural aids).
Add demography, and you've got a very viable conquest plan. See this.

And then, there is the bulk of muslims, not even obligatory supporters of terror, but who are quite ok with the idea of "striking back" (victimhood ideology), or having islam conquer new territories, especially if this means a revenge against the former colonizers (islam as the banner of antiwestern resentment, Hesperophobia 1 and 2).

Btw, the more likely a victory of islam will be, the more fence sitters will go for the jihadists and the advocates of the conquest of the West; they're now being passive not because they oppose this, but because they simply believe it's not the time, insh'allan.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-05-16 08:34||   2006-05-16 08:34|| Front Page Top

#13 I think yall have got it all wrong. Those aren't acts of terror by Muslims. They are commanded by their Great Book of Lies and Halucinations to kill anyone who is not Muslim by any means possible. How can that be terrorism?
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2006-05-16 08:59||   2006-05-16 08:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Speaking as my own personal 'mainstream'.

a) There are moderates and we should asume they are blameless.

b) Assumes a number of things, not least the moderates whatever their numbers are the ones we should worry about.

C) See b.

d) I think the main way to deal with militant Islam is down the sights of whatever weapon is appropriate for the situation.

The image of the barrel of a rotary machinegun on an aircraft with the words 'peacemaker' on it sums it for me.

regards
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-05-16 09:53|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-16 09:53|| Front Page Top

#15 A5089, That was a pretty good rant. Our resident Rantmeister(.com/PD)is no longer here. Bummer, but it means a vacancy is open.

Step up to the plate my friend.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-05-16 10:03|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-16 10:03|| Front Page Top

#16 Dear CAIR,

STFU, unless you want to be seen as a terrorist group too.

Oh wait...

Lock and load!
Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-16 10:03||   2006-05-16 10:03|| Front Page Top

#17 - RB News Bureau -
This just in: criminals 100 times more likely to be arrested!
Posted by Spot">Spot  2006-05-16 10:23||   2006-05-16 10:23|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm not sure "Moderates" is the right term to use. My take on it is: The overwhelming majority of Muhammadans would quite contentedly view the downfall of the West and have no problem in theory with a universal Caliphate, especially if the Caliph comes from their tribe. On the other hand, the vast majority would much rather that somebody else arranged it for them--it doesn't rise very high on this month's todo list. ("I'll be happy to contribute to the jihad next month, but I'm a bit short this week.") They're formally enemies, but not viscerally enemies. Certain sects (let's lump all the Salafists and Khomeiniites in here for starters) and certain political demagogues have been working hard for years to stir up hatred, and have been quite successful. We've let them get away with this even in our own countries.

We can live with people who are formally enemies but who aren't that interested in attacking us. In that sense we can think of them as "Moderates."

So if we can find some way of distinguishing between the "Moderate" group and the jihadist groups--a way that "Moderates" can accept--we reduce the pool of enemies we have to fight. Maybe we'll have to fight them later--maybe the jihadists will succeed in enflaming the whole Muhammadan world. But if we're clever, maybe not.

Posted by James">James  2006-05-16 11:31|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2006-05-16 11:31|| Front Page Top

#19 "Must be very interesting to be an expert who summarily dismisses precisely the concern that most people have about Islam - separating the "good" from the "bad"."

The "good" what? The "good" people? The "good" aspects?

There are likely good people. They must separate, or at least delineate, themselves from the mass.

The good aspects may be there, but those aspects are most certainly subsumed by the bad.

If that is the only concern of "most people", then either they do not understand what is going on, or they are much naive.
Posted by Fordesque 2006-05-16 11:37||   2006-05-16 11:37|| Front Page Top

#20 CAIR: ‘Islam 100 times more likely to be associated with terrorism’

Jeez. Think there might be a reason for that?
Posted by tu3031 2006-05-16 11:52||   2006-05-16 11:52|| Front Page Top

#21 Fordesque - A couple of points. You know what I meant by "good" and "bad", but you just can't help being argumentative, I guess. I'm impressed. Wow.

People are naive and clueless. Sheesh. Apparently you presume far more people are reading blogs like Rantburg than is the case. Most people get their news from the MSM - by far. So what would they think? Pretty much what the MSM has told them. They do want the US to stake the high moral ground - and differentiate between those who are confirmed terrorists and those who, from outward appearance, are uninvolved and presumed innocent. Even well-informed RBers have stated this position. By far most still believe the Law Enforcement approach fits the WoT, because that is the only model they really understand. Most do not know about many things, the dancing in the streets at the news of 9/11, the handing out of sweets in celebration, the flush of aspiring jihadis that 9/11 generated, the donations Muslims make to "charities" with full knowledge that some or all will end up supporting jihadis, etc. They do not know because they do not have the access you do, they do not seek out alternative news sources. Some because they're Moonbats, some because they're lazy, and most because they don't have a broadband net connection and / or haven't run across sites like RB. What you take for granted about the WoT would be a huge paradigm shift for them.

I posed a simple question to the well-informed RBers which was relevant and honest. That's all. It was pissed on for reasons unknown and now you're cherry-picking something you can play with and striking a pontificating pose. Great. Thanks, so much.

Thank you, A5089, RC, phil_b, and James - I appreciate your feedback.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 12:12||   2006-05-16 12:12|| Front Page Top

#22 "A couple of points. You know what I meant by "good" and "bad", but you just can't help being argumentative, I guess. I'm impressed. Wow"

Argumentative was not my intent. I did not understand what you meant by "good" and "bad". Do not take for granted that I speak the same "language" as you.

"People are naive and clueless. Sheesh."

Not necessarily. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is stupidity. Ask any policeman.

"They do want the US to stake the high moral ground - and differentiate between those who are confirmed terrorists and those who, from outward appearance, are uninvolved and presumed innocent."

The argument then becomes how does a nation differentiate. There lies the problem.

If my neighbourhood was being repeatedly harassed by a gang of unknown one-armed blond-haired men, unknown one-armed blonde-haired men going in to that neighbourhood would have some explaining to do. If my neighbourhood was being harassed by a gang of persons unknown, then strangers would get a very hard look and perhaps an interview with the police.

Thus it becomes incumbent upon the one-armed, blond-haired man or the stranger to explain that they are not in my neighborhood to harass.

Moderates in Islam must do the same. They must delineate themselves.

"Most do not know about many things, the dancing in the streets at the news of 9/11, the handing out of sweets in celebration, the flush of aspiring jihadis that 9/11 generated, the donations Muslims make to "charities" with full knowledge that some or all will end up supporting jihadis, etc. They do not know because they do not have the access you do, they do not seek out alternative news sources."

I do not understand. What is your point?

"What you take for granted about the WoT would be a huge paradigm shift for them."

It is not what I take for granted. It is what I have seen and what I have experienced. Some of us have not always been chair-bound warriors.

"I posed a simple question to the well-informed RBers which was relevant and honest. That's all."

Relevancy and honesty are in the eyes of the reader.

"It was pissed on for reasons unknown and now you're cherry-picking something you can play with and striking a pontificating pose."

How does one cherry-pick: "Must be very interesting to be an expert who summarily dismisses precisely the concern that most people have about Islam - separating the "good" from the "bad""?

"Great. Thanks, so much."

You are quite welcome. Next time, bring pastries. They make lectures much more endurable.
Posted by Fordesque 2006-05-16 13:11||   2006-05-16 13:11|| Front Page Top

#23 LOL. Not arugumentative? LOL. Check.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 13:17||   2006-05-16 13:17|| Front Page Top

#24 It would be amusing to discover how many actual western newspapers (and which ones) carried this CAIR whining.

Also, the humor blogs should carry an article that has CAIR complaining that most Islamic terrorism is associated with Islam.
Posted by mhw 2006-05-16 13:25||   2006-05-16 13:25|| Front Page Top

#25 "Most do not know about many things, the dancing in the streets at the news of 9/11, the handing out of sweets in celebration, the flush of aspiring jihadis that 9/11 generated, the donations Muslims make to "charities" with full knowledge that some or all will end up supporting jihadis, etc. They do not know because they do not have the access you do, they do not seek out alternative news sources.

That is a flatly wrong assumption or set of assunptions on almost all counts.
They know about dancing in the streets, who and why. Don't kid yourself.
They know perfectly well that neighbors friends and relatives are militant or radical and they know kids and losers joining up and traveling to Theaters of Jihad.
Those that give to charities ( A big deal in Muslim society) get to hear the come-on. They know what they are paying for.
AND, They largely all have computers, cell phones, western Union, Letters, radio and TV stations that you don't watch or listen to etc./
So your assertion that 'moderate muslims ' are unaware of the nature of jihad is sdead wrong.
Lot's of thewm turn their heads away and just keep plugging because if you are really a muslim (nut) that worldwide CAliphate sounds good even if you, yourself are not a head chopper.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 13:29||   2006-05-16 13:29|| Front Page Top

#26 jim#6 - That was referring to the American public.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 13:38||   2006-05-16 13:38|| Front Page Top

#27 jim#6 - That was referring to the American public - the naive and clueless American public which gets most or all of its news from the MSM.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 13:39||   2006-05-16 13:39|| Front Page Top

#28 Fordesque - What the fuck, LOL, I'll play along. We don't seem to speak the same language. So much of what I wrote you declare as unclear. Interesting... Obviously I disagree with your assessment and why I considered your response argumentative and disingenuous.

You said "If that is the only concern of "most people", then either they do not understand what is going on, or they are much naive."

I did not say "only", but apparently you inferred it since I didn't elaborate. Pesky English, huh? Or did you need a strawman?

From that "naive" bit came the second paragraph. I spent quite a bit of time in there since I think it is the nub of the problem. I covered some of the obvious reasons (the Moonbats, laziness, access) - but I left out stupidity. I know some cops - I'm sure they'd agree to stupidity. I was, rather, addressing why they are stupid (i.e. uninformed, naive, clueless). I believe that paragraph more or less addressed your "Not necessarily..." bits.

The point at which you say "I do not understand. What is your point?" was part of that same "naive and clueless response", the why behind it thing. It was all in the same paragraph, you see, a collection of thoughts relating to the same sub-topic. I've written this response as a collection of mish-mashed bits, in the AP / BBC style. Probably more readable after all the conditioning we had from reading articles on RB. Let's see how it works out.

Your point about profiling is a good one, at least I presume that was your point in "the one-armed, blond-haired man" and "stranger" references, but that runs counter to the notion of fairness held by most Americans. I presume you know this, but we haven't connected on much else, so I'm not sure. RB is the first place I ever saw people actually take profiling as a rational response - and I applauded. The breakdown of the PC monolith here continues apace to my great appreciation. I wish more Americans could, with an open mind, read Rantburg. Breaking down PCism is key to our survival, I believe.

The uninvolved / innocent Muslims should, indeed, do the "delineating" themselves, from a Western POV. But they aren't Western. They have been indoctrinated or taught to think rather differently, wouldn't you agree? Isn't it naive of you (us) to presume they would share your opinion to delineate themselves? That is the main complaint I would have about many comments I disagree with on RB - that they do not take into account that we do not have much in common with Muslims raised outside the West - and a fair number who were educated in the West. I lived in the Middle East for almost a decade. I suggest they will not do the delineating. Ever. They will continue to support the jihadis at whatever level is demanded of them by their imams and peers.

What I meant about taking things for granted is that what you have determined as "truth" for yourself from experience and, I presume, research, is something you do take for granted. Do you not take your own opinions for granted as the truth? You are remarkable if you do not. I asserted that the "naive and clueless" did not share the level of knowledge or experience of RBers and, thus, occupy a very different paradigm of understanding. Is that better? Sigh.

As for being a chair-bound warrior, does serving in Vietnam count? I did. I toted an M-14. Fired it quite a bit, too. Hated the M-16 they forced me to take. That chair-bound warrior bit was a presumptuous and patronizing slur meant to lessen the value of my opinion. Tsk, tsk. If I was feeling uncharitable, I'd say you're an arrogant self-aggrandizing asshole. You don't have to be a combat vet to see what's going on - if you have access to the info. I do not denigrate people for their lives taking a different course than my own. I recommend this more charitable approach to you. I do jump them if they ignore and deny the truth when it is presented and proven.

Your "Relevancy and honesty are in the eyes of the reader." is either specious and disingenuous or that language barrier thing, again. Or both. I wrote a declarative statement. It served no purpose to argue it was merely my opinion by stating what is merely your opinion.

I'm on a diet, so I'm afraid you'll have to buy your own pastries.

BTW, you never addressed the original comment, which was a simple request that others had no trouble understanding. Go figure.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 14:34||   2006-05-16 14:34|| Front Page Top

#29 Unomorong Whereck6576, my darling mother-in-law saw Muslim children dancing in the streets on 9/11. She lives in Lackawanna, NY (home of the Lackawanna 6, who were turned in by their community elders). My mother-in-law (blue collar, Christian, former French-Canadian who got her citizenship and her GED less than a decade ago) gets her news from the 700 Club (I think that's Pat Robertson's show?) and listening to the police radar. What she knows about Muslims she learned from her neighbors. We have lovely long discussions on the topic. My mother (Jewish, PhD, white collar, got her citizenship as soon as they let her after she arrived fom Europe in 1946) gets her news from PBS, NPR, 60 Minutes... and from me. And after she talks to me, she doesn't believe them anymore. What she knows about Arabs she learned from my father, who fought against them with the Haganah in Israel in the 1930s and '40s.

At one point Rantburg peaked at almost 10,000 hits a day -- during the Iraqi invasion, I think. And while Rantburg is special, lots of centrist and right wing blogs and radio talk shows take similar positions about the War on Terror being a war against Islamofascism, or expansionist Islam, if you will. And as many hear tales from friends/relatives who are Over There, either in or out of uniform. There are plenty of Americans, and others around the world, who, while not needing the level of detail we seek at Rantburg, nonetheless understand the essential point that we are at war, and that we must win.

They probably differentiate between the Muslims who are doing, and aiding those doing the bad stuff, and the rest, who are jest folks. Without, perhaps, noticing the largish group in the middle that enjoys the emotional hit of the rhetoric, gives money they know probably aids terror groups far away, and offers excuses for the local lads going off to look for adventure. Much like those who put a few dollars in the jar at the end of the bar for the IRA when band was playing the olde tunes.

The Journalism Guild would like to believe that most Americans get their news from the official sources, even if their own surveys say the main source of news in this country is the evening talk shows: Jay Leno, whatshisname on CBS, and Jon Stewart. I suspect, however, that if they were to look at blogs, talk radio and cable television, most people get their news from alternative sources. Remember, while President Bush's ratings are now in the high 20s, Congress is about 18, the mainstream/traditional media are in the single digits, and the U.S. military is above the 50th percentile. I imagine the American public isn't nearly as naive and clueless as you fear.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-16 14:49||   2006-05-16 14:49|| Front Page Top

#30 Such lopsided portrayal is indicative of deep-seated misunderstandings about Islam

On whose part, CAIR? Yours or ours? The Koran seems fairly clearly stated when it comes to violence against the nonbeliever [in Mohammedism].
Posted by eLarson 2006-05-16 14:58|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-05-16 14:58|| Front Page Top

#31 trailing wife - I'm glad you're helping to spread the word. Trusted sources are always the most persuasive. Keep it up! I email links out regularly.

It wasn't until 2001 that over 50% of US adults had "access" to the internet - and that was work and home combined. When you consider that many of those work machines have firewalls that prevent access to many sites that aren't work-related, it's not really that rosy. You can bet that, if general info non-work site access is allowed, the MSM sites are available far more than the non-MSM variety.

Yes, there are many good sites out there, but note that the really big hitters are the wacko sites. Check the BlogAds.com site for specifics as if you were considering placing an online ad. I think you'll find that Daily Kos still gets more daily hits that the top 5 or 6 conservative sites combined. The numbers are staggeringly pro-Moonbat.

When you finally filter down to how many people are getting unvarnished info, and I consider the conservative sites to be the cleanest and most honest of the lot, the numbers who are getting past the MSM and the Moonbats is a quite bit smaller than you think. It's getting better as more of the flyover America people get connected and look for something other than the online edition of the broadcast TV news or local newspaper, but it's still a small percentage of the total.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 15:20||   2006-05-16 15:20|| Front Page Top

#32 jim#6 - That was referring to the American public.

Sorry.
Isn't that our job ? To button hole our friends and neighbors and scare them to death about sharia law in Sweden ?
Because not one public official is out there making the case.

I don't EVER watch MSM for news (cept locals). I do read the papers, then I yell at them.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 15:29||   2006-05-16 15:29|| Front Page Top

#33 "I do read the papers, then I yell at them."

LOL. I know exactly what you mean. I live alone and yell at the TV regularly. It's a good thing I don't live in an apartment, else the neighbors would call the cops on me, LOL!

And you're right - so few people are calling it as we know it - except on the blogs and a few radio shows. Kudos on button-holing everyone who'll listen. It's actually very effective - when we have the goods on the idiots to make the points. RB presents more in one go on more topics than any other site I've ever seen.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 15:37||   2006-05-16 15:37|| Front Page Top

#34 Unomorong Whereck6576, how many people listen to Rush Limbaugh, or to [that retired chemist whose name I can't remember] and others of their ilk while driving to and from work? I can't stand them -- they shout too much for my delicate ears ;-) -- but their ratings are considerably higher than the liberal, and failed, Air America or the NPR stations. And everybody knows about the Cartoonifada riots, even if they haven't seen the things themselves.

Those who desperately refuse to believe showed themselves to be in at least a slight minority last election, even if they are much noisier. And I've started to wonder if the sudden revolt against the multi-decade long flow of illegals across the Mexican border is tied to the realisic fear that Muslim terrorists could quietly come across with them. Otherwise, why the objections this year -- even before the stupid May Day festivities -- when the situation is not significantly different than a year ago, or two, or three? Then, most of the country appreciated those who struggled to come here and work toward the American dream.

*shrug* November will be an interesting election. After which, I most sincerely hope, the Iran problem will be fixed decisively -- no, I don't think better negotiating positions will get us there. And after that, the Muslim world will be forced to consider the possibility that Allah doesn't like them all that much.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-16 15:54||   2006-05-16 15:54|| Front Page Top

#35  Rush Limbaugh,

You will not hear "his corpulence" make any lectures about "worldwide Caliphates" to his benumbed audience.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 16:02||   2006-05-16 16:02|| Front Page Top

#36 Jim #6: I listen to him occasionally and he doesn't cut Islamofacists slack....so if I catch it, it must be talked about even more..
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-05-16 16:20||   2006-05-16 16:20|| Front Page Top

#37  I prefer the "ex-Chemist"

I listened to Rush when he first went on in NY.
At the time he tried "logic experiments", to guage his audience.
Quotes:
"everyone who ate carrots in 1868 is dead therefore carrots must kill you."
" Trees make more air pollution than anything else.."
False logic and solipsistic demagoguery are all he offers.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 16:27||   2006-05-16 16:27|| Front Page Top

#38 UW6576 - your German neighbors?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-05-16 18:51||   2006-05-16 18:51|| Front Page Top

#39 Crickets???? What it's got quiet? I can't hear you
Unomorong Whereck6576? How is Germany today?
Posted by SPoD 2006-05-16 19:38|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-16 19:38|| Front Page Top

#40 "What the fuck, LOL, I'll play along. We don't seem to speak the same language. So much of what I wrote you declare as unclear. Interesting... Obviously I disagree with your assessment and why I considered your response argumentative and disingenuous."

Satisfactory for an opening salvo. The profanity keeps it from being "good".

"You said "If that is the only concern of "most people", then either they do not understand what is going on, or they are much naive. I did not say "only", but apparently you inferred it since I didn't elaborate. Pesky English, huh? Or did you need a strawman?"

Pesky English, indeed. A versatile language, but pesky.

"Your point about profiling is a good one, at least I presume that was your point in "the one-armed, blond-haired man" and "stranger" references, but that runs counter to the notion of fairness held by most Americans."

True. Regrettably, in my considered opinion and limited experience, that fairness may be a liability. It is during war.

It may also become an anachronism once there are more several thousands dead.

"Breaking down PCism is key to our survival, I believe."

Agreed.

"The uninvolved / innocent Muslims should, indeed, do the "delineating" themselves, from a Western POV. But they aren't Western. They have been indoctrinated or taught to think rather differently, wouldn't you agree? Isn't it naive of you (us) to presume they would share your opinion to delineate themselves?"

True, they are not Western. And they likely do not share my opinion. I do not care. If I am in a land far from my home, I cannot claim my citizenship as an immunisation to law-breaking or suspicion. When in Rome, et cetera. If moderates decide they should not delineate themselves, they should expect what follows.

"That is the main complaint I would have about many comments I disagree with on RB - that they do not take into account that we do not have much in common with Muslims raised outside the West - and a fair number who were educated in the West. I lived in the Middle East for almost a decade. I suggest they will not do the delineating. Ever. They will continue to support the jihadis at whatever level is demanded of them by their imams and peers."

So the conclusion is that, when the cheque is presented, the islamic moderates will stand with the jihadis. Perhaps. But it is a Western trait to look for moderates, to dig through the stable dung-heap to find a pony.

"What I meant about taking things for granted is that what you have determined as "truth" for yourself from experience and, I presume, research, is something you do take for granted. Do you not take your own opinions for granted as the truth? You are remarkable if you do not."

Then I am "remarkable", I suppose. I take the sun rising for granted, or a truth. Much of the rest I take as a matter of educated opinion, experience, faith, or my own biases and prejudices. I do not consider them as truth. Just an "operating system", if you will.

"I asserted that the "naive and clueless" did not share the level of knowledge or experience of RBers and, thus, occupy a very different paradigm of understanding. Is that better? Sigh."

Yes, thank you.

"As for being a chair-bound warrior, does serving in Vietnam count? I did. I toted an M-14. Fired it quite a bit, too. Hated the M-16 they forced me to take. That chair-bound warrior bit was a presumptuous and patronizing slur meant to lessen the value of my opinion."

No. The "chair-bound warrior" remark was an au contraire comment on the much-held perception that blog-posters and commenters have no experience in war, terrorism, or foreign affairs.

Then again, there are some of us who are indeed chair-bound. But that is more a matter of age or infirmity.

"Tsk, tsk. If I was feeling uncharitable, I'd say you're an arrogant self-aggrandizing asshole."

You left out "pompous". At least, that is what at least one of my former girlfriends would say.

"You don't have to be a combat vet to see what's going on - if you have access to the info. I do not denigrate people for their lives taking a different course than my own. I recommend this more charitable approach to you."

Then you and I are essentially reading from the same sheet of music.

"I do jump them if they ignore and deny the truth when it is presented and proven."

As is your privilege. But do keep in mind the Western versus non-Western. Or American versus non-American.

"I'm on a diet, so I'm afraid you'll have to buy your own pastries."

Pity. And here I sit through another lecture on an empty stomach and a missed tea-time.

"BTW, you never addressed the original comment, which was a simple request that others had no trouble understanding. Go figure."

It is simple. I never addressed it, because I chose not to address it.
Posted by Fordesque 2006-05-16 19:44||   2006-05-16 19:44|| Front Page Top

#41 Well, if they want to say that the terrorists are not them and that they don't identify with it or support it fine--but they're not exactly saying that, are they?
Posted by ex-lib 2006-05-16 19:59||   2006-05-16 19:59|| Front Page Top

#42 Jim #6...obviously your ear for satire is tin. :)
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-05-16 20:07||   2006-05-16 20:07|| Front Page Top

#43 Fordesque - Apologies for my presumption you're American. How provincial of me, LOL. Fuck is just a word. Any individual's reaction is his or her personal issue. Sorry for asking such an evil question. I had no idea it would cause a brain fart and seed a giant snowball of nothingness. I'll be far more circumspect in the future. Maybe get approval from the regulars, first.

jim#6, tw - Actually, I was thinking of Tony Snow's radio show when I posted that tiny little tidbit. I'm going to miss him, I think. Sean Hannity is palatable on occasion, just strident ALL the time. I've never listened to Limbaugh, despite all the noise about him. Seeing him interviewed rather put me off on his style.

FrankG / SPoD - Germany's fine, why do you ask? LOL.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 20:20||   2006-05-16 20:20|| Front Page Top

#44 your remarks are as substantial as the leaves I sweep off my porch - get an American IP?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-05-16 20:52||   2006-05-16 20:52|| Front Page Top

#45 Look waaay back at #5. It was a simple request.

Am I supposed to be afraid of you for some reason? Does your comment contain some deep dark meaning? Are they, like, scary leaves? Sheesh. What a load of bullshit and wagon-circling.

Are you regulars so afraid that the tiniest little challenge to a nasty pointless comment is threatening? Wow. Buddy shit can be cool and fun, but this is absurd.
Posted by Unomorong Whereck6576 2006-05-16 21:27||   2006-05-16 21:27|| Front Page Top

#46 It is not labeled as "satire" it is labeled "political commentary".
Being funny is really only a personality trait.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 21:44||   2006-05-16 21:44|| Front Page Top

#47 Sean HAnnity on ABC :
" I hate rent control. I can't find a decent apartment in the city. If these people can't afford to pay full price then they should sleep in their cars".
What a f&&kin' Prince.
He makes sure to describe the vilest things in gory detail at dinner hour which earned him a :"no play ".
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 21:47||   2006-05-16 21:47|| Front Page Top

23:56 Matt K.
23:55 Seafarious
23:54 Snavise Uleatch2308
23:50 Captain America
23:49 Captain America
23:47 MacNails
23:47 Old Patriot
23:47 Captain America
23:43 Captain America
23:42 twobyfour
23:37 2b
23:36 3dc
23:31 Old Patriot
23:29 3dc
23:27 3dc
23:20 Snavise Uleatch2308
23:18 Old Patriot
23:17 Captain America
23:16 SteveS
23:16 DMFD
23:00 Snavise Uleatch2308
22:57 Ulogum Gluth2284
22:57 Snavise Uleatch2308
22:48 DMFD









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com