Article

2007-07-03

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 Seafarious 2007-07-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11146 views ] Top

#1 "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Winston Churchill

Islamic terrorism has a long way to go, and in my opinion will get a lot worse, before it gets better (assuming it does). Someone yesterday referred to the 19th century anarchists bringing the house down around them in the form of WW1. We may yet get to such an outcome, but it's still a long way off and there are several stages we need to go through first.

The IRA created a terrorist organization capable of high-tempo terrorist operations for years if not decades. What most people don't appreciate is how small the population they worked in was.

There were about 100,000 male Catholics between 18 and 45 in Northern Ireland. Police, army, counter terrorism and various agencies employed very roughly the same number (100,000 people). Now, bear in mind the number of active IRA members was only a few hundred.

It's clear that counter terrorism, as practiced in the West, simply doesn't scale. Relatively small numbers of terrorists will rapidly overwhelm much larger counter-terrorist organizations.

Were I running AQ, I would be focusing on scaling up. BTW, I don't see any indication they are. Because past a certain frequency of attacks, the current counter-terrorism strategy will have to be abandoned and something more draconian implemented, such as detention without trial, and this is what they need to solidify the Muslim community behind them.

Posted by phil_b 2007-07-03 00:59|| 2007-07-03 00:59|| Front Page Top

#2 You are right, of course, we must hang together, remind each other of the dangers, and arrive at where we need to be. Let's remember, however, these bad guys are not as tough as Commanches and they are not nearly as smart as they think they are. They appear to be mean little men who never had a whop on their bottoms from their mommies, which in their culture is forbidden, and whose wives know their place. Let's stay alert, stay cool, and get these guys one at a time.

Posted by whatadeal 2007-07-03 01:04|| 2007-07-03 01:04|| Front Page Top

#3 Bi-partisanship is great, but both sides seem to be falling over themselves in white-washing the jihad out of Islam. I don't expect wild rhetoric about horned Muslims, but we should accept nothing less than total honesty concerning the implications of co-existence with an exclusivist and predatory blob of demographic hate.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 03:12|| 2007-07-03 03:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Our Enemies are more than willing to supply us with atrocities, horrors, and unthinkables.

I still wonder if our success relies upon being able to return the favor in spades.

So what's next? What can we do as a civilization and a website?

We can continue to exchange "civil, well-reasoned discourse" that proposes, analyses and refines the arguments needed to persuade those of us who remain unsure as to exactly why fighting Islam to the death is such a smart idea.

I worry that I spend too much time behind a keyboard and not enough time convincing my friends, their friends, and their friends' friends.

Which is why I try to get out and use the precious tools I've gathered here to convince other people about why America's experiment in democracy is the finest political incubator this world has ever seen. It is also why I do my damnedest to avoid participating in the pissing contests that others around here so cheerfully start. Name-calling, bullying and personalities have no place in the honest exchange of considered ideas.

Today, while walking my wolf-hybrid I chanced to encounter one of our servicemen in uniform. I stopped, saluted him, shook his hand and took a few minutes to let him know that his efforts were both appreciated and of the greatest importance. More than once he emphasized how his work was for "the security of our country". More than once I gave him my deepest heartfelt thanks.

This is the very least any of us can do. Wherever you are, wherever you go, wherever you may be, whenever you encouter one of America's soldiers, make damn sure to stop and take the time to give them your personal thanks, support and a brief explanation why what they're doing is so critical to our future.

Then, take those same principles and walk them down the sidewalk to your doubting friend, neighbor or stranger on the street and reapply them in the same fashion.

I cannot thank Rantburg enough for lifting the miasma of media induced gloom and doom from my shoulders. At every opportunity I carry forward the useful knowledge gathered here and scatter it to the winds of change in my daily life. There is no way that I can adequately thank Fred and Rantburg's moderators for this.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 03:14|| 2007-07-03 03:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Ash I wash shaying yeshterday...

I had become intimately aquainted with a bottle of 12 yr old single malt - it was a special occasion - a stag weekend.

I apologize unreservedly for starting off the name calling yesterday. The fact that I think Snowmans views to be idiotic does not entitle me to call him an idiot. (I dont think you are an idiot A.S.)

You have to see it in context as well. Recall a few days post 9/11 when the episode of Panorama (al-Beeb pol chat show) featured an endless queue of hand wringers fighting over who could denounce US policies the loudest, for being the prime motivation. I was furious at my countrymen at the time and I am not proud to say that in the light of the most recent attacks, when people all around view it as yet another tit-for-tat, ignoring the fact that they were sanctioned at a high level by religious and political leaders of Islamic countries, merely weeks prior, that I reacted with the same emotion. Fury.

I went home half way through that thread and when I came back, I saw that the prescribed solution seemed to be going along the lines of abolish the Church of England and dont criticize Islam too much, you big prejudiced waaycist, in case you upset the unwashed masses. My fury has now given way to a paranoid fear that you are all minions of Baal, agents of Molech, servants of Satan.

But then again, that could still just be the the Scotch...

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 05:34|| 2007-07-03 05:34|| Front Page Top

#6 ...ahhhhhh thats better, fury's kicking back in now.

Yes I am absolutely furious about the Marxist ramblings of yesterday. Who the heck do you think you are to tell us what to do with our cherished institutions? As I mentioned in my previous post, Re the Panorama episode, there is no shortage of Dialectical materialists over here, ready to blame US foreign policy for the truly abominable acts of random carnage of 9/11. I expect better from the 'Burg.

I recall after the Virginia Tech shootings wishing desperately to post comments about your gun laws. I recall watching with horror how people were effectively vehemently protesting any attempt to infringe Mr Cho's right to bear arms. I remember wishing to post articles detailing the number of gun deaths in the UK (about 50 last year) compared to the US. I wanted to point out how disrespectful it was to the kids that died to prance around on their memories as a political hobby horse and how before you even think about controlling guns you should learn to control your mouths.

And the reason I didnt? Because it's your country & you can run it any way you seem fit. Charlton Heston for Prez, whatever you like. So you can take your snarks about "Separation of Church & State" & F** Off

Hows that for "Civil Well Reasoned Discourse"?

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 06:05|| 2007-07-03 06:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Hows that for "Civil Well Reasoned Discourse"?

It's a start, but it could be refined - and I hope you will, over the coming weeks.

Cherished institutions in Britain are indeed under attack and it may well be the case that the US way of doing things is not a solution for y'all. What is?

For instance, what do you think are both the pros and the cons of the current UK stance on self defense (whether with guns or knives)?

What do you suggest the UK take as policy with regard it's large and increasingly unassimilated immigrant population? What risks would that policy likely entail? What would be the upside - and the likely downside - in your opinion?

How do you feel about the surveillance apparatus that was put in place in Britain over the last few years? Is your government getting the balance between civil liberties and vigilance more or less right in your opinion? What would you propose be done differently, and what would the risks/upside/downside likely be?

Given the current state of the Anglican communion and the religious diversity in Britain, what do you think will happen (or should happen) with regard to the establishment of the church there?

Please don't assume you know from these questions what policies I support. In many cases I'm still working that out for myself. And in other cases I've said very little that would indicate my stance on most policy issues. I'd like to understand your point of view.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 06:19|| 2007-07-03 06:19|| Front Page Top

#8 And, of course, similar questions about the US as you see it to be, from the outside.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 06:20|| 2007-07-03 06:20|| Front Page Top

#9 Yeah, yeah, "Civil Well Reasoned Discourse" is all well and good... but like I asked yesterday, will the admiral and Abdominal Snowman duke it out in a no-hold-barred, rough-and-tumble cage fight?
I mean, I'd really like to see Johnny Knoxville rassle Bigfoot, and if that's the only way to get this on pay-per-view and make my dream come true, then, by all means let them fight, I say!

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-07-03 07:21|| 2007-07-03 07:21|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm clearly too busy, because I've missed what has some so worried. But I have read some thoughtful threads in the last few days that present multiple sides of an argument well. I can tell because I find all sides persuasive and have difficulty deciding where we ought to be falling on some questions. The difficulty is that we're discussing what to do about the future and no one really knows what the future will bring. At least we can all agree to keep up a rambunctious debate while maintaining respect for eachother. Thanks to Fred and the Mods for providing such a homey place in which to do it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-07-03 07:22|| 2007-07-03 07:22|| Front Page Top

#11 I've been coming to Rantburg for a while now because of the intelligent discussion, the rapid appearance of interesting and useful articles gleaned by the denizens from more places on the web than I could possible visit myself. I have tried to contribute appropriate articles and commentary - with the more-than-just-occassional snark thrown in.
Lately I have found the 'burg tending in the direction of LGF, with too much long-winded or repetitive commentary and pointless demands for violent reprisals (the 'nuke 'em all' school of thought). Those are the exact reasons I left LGF.
The way we will defeat the Islamofascists is with thoughtful communication (with a little snark for sanity); think of this site as the interface between a whole lot of parallel processors. We each pick up a little packet of thought from the data stream, process it through our own experience, and put it back for the next processor; from time to time actual answers will emerge, and just maybe they'll find their way to someone who can act on them. Who knows who scans the 'burg - DARPA?, CIA? - perhaps some ideas are already being implemented (it does appear so sometimes.)

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-07-03 07:22|| 2007-07-03 07:22|| Front Page Top

#12 A preview of that upcoming fight between the admiral and AS, from an amateur video taken by a 70's hiker.

Posted by anonymous5089 2007-07-03 07:24|| 2007-07-03 07:24|| Front Page Top

#13 Screw separating church and state, let's wrap a few in pig day instead. Then our soldiers can come home in new time.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 07:29|| 2007-07-03 07:29|| Front Page Top

#14 Maybe the "Tense Times" post or by some other name should be a daily runnning post like "Good Morning" as a vehicle to work out some of the issues and positions outlined above. Well, maybe not exactly like "Good Morning."

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-03 08:13|| 2007-07-03 08:13|| Front Page Top

#15 I approve of both the Internment- and Hiroshima-Solutions that we used against militarist Japan and the local Niseii during WWII. What worked before, will work now.

Partnerships with Muslims, a policy that the President re-iterated last week at the Islamic Center of DC, won't work because ALL Muslims are jihadis at heart.

Once we come to our collective senses, we will move against the external and internal Muslim threat. There is no scenario in which 7-7-7 passes without a major terror attack. After 9-11 we chose to liberate Afghanis and Iraqis with no benefit to ourselves. Nation-building is a type of creation; maybe wholesale destruction is our forced choice.

Exactly how did nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki harm American values?

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 08:19|| 2007-07-03 08:19|| Front Page Top

#16 But then again, that could still just be the the Scotch...

And it could be you're just not drinkin enough.

Posted by badanov 2007-07-03 08:25|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-07-03 08:25|| Front Page Top

#17 Admiral, don't fall off that high horse you"re riding around on the deck of your ship. Remember, it's SHARK WEEK!.

On a serious note, don't mistake our lack of constant calls to rain death down on these people to mean we don't want them dead.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 08:28|| 2007-07-03 08:28|| Front Page Top

#18 McZoid, avoiding nuking someone is not about harming American values. Hell, the first country the US nuked was the US.

The issue is that it most likely will not work. The war against Japan was an entirely different war. We could go ahead and nuke Qom and Mecca before breakfast, but the war will not end.

I don't know if you're an American or not, but if you are, ask yourself if we would have accomplished much by nuking the indians.

The turf is too vast for a few nukes to get it done.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 08:35|| 2007-07-03 08:35|| Front Page Top

#19 I approve of both the Internment- and Hiroshima-Solutions that we used against militarist Japan and the local Niseii during WWII. What worked before, will work now.

There is a part of me also that wants to destroy the problem. Terrorism tends to be stateless and more ideologically centered in islam. This makes nuclear weapons difficult to use. Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are at the nucleus of the islamic wet dream of world domination. Home grown islamic terrorism can be rooted out and controlled if the rules we live by in a democracy are changed as in a war time setting. I don't think the majority of the population believes we are at war. This results because of a blind adherence to political correctness--the desire not to hurt anyone's feelings. Our governments have not prepared our countries to get people to thinking we are at war.

Partnerships with Muslims, a policy that the President re-iterated last week at the Islamic Center of DC, won't work because ALL Muslims are jihadis at heart.

More PC!

Once we come to our collective senses, we will move against the external and internal Muslim threat. There is no scenario in which 7-7-7 passes without a major terror attack. After 9-11 we chose to liberate Afghanis and Iraqis with no benefit to ourselves. Nation-building is a type of creation; maybe wholesale destruction is our forced choice.

Nation building after we win. Let's worry about winning first.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-03 08:44|| 2007-07-03 08:44|| Front Page Top

#20 ALL Muslims are Jihadis at heart? Including this guy?

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 08:53|| 2007-07-03 08:53|| Front Page Top

#21 Are all mooselimbs jihadis at heart? I don't know. We have muslims fighting in the U.S. military.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-03 08:57|| 2007-07-03 08:57|| Front Page Top

#22 For the more refined among us (in the UK) I can most highly recommend a wee dram of the Celtic Uisghe Beatha by the name of Glen Marnoch. That was the one responsible for my weekend of frivolity. It is currently selling in Aldi (a Guerrman supermarkt) for about twelve quid, which for a 12 yr old single malt is outstanding value. It has a quite a honeyed, very smooth taste. I normally prefer a peatier number, but this offer is too good to miss. I nearly passed it by, as Aldi usually specialise in cheapo blended brands.

Anyway, my opinion on the gun debate is that arguments that lives would be saved by everybody having guns, on the basis that mass killers would be shot earlier, mid-spree are fatuous and ignore the massive number of individual gun deaths.

I recognize that an un-armed populace is more susceptible to terror, whether it be from unorganised individuals, organised crime, unorganised terrorists or ordered cells. I also believe, however, that a largely armed populace is liable to paranoia.

With regards the "increasingly unassimilated" bit, I must insist on a bit of semantic nitpicking. If you mean that unassimilation is increasing, then yes, in part. I disagree that the populations are largely unassimilated, however. I regularly have heated discussions with friends of all faiths, esp Muslims, with no problems. I feel I must point out that many of the most prominent critics of the Jihadist-Islamist ideology were either born in or studied in the UK. There is a long tradition of deconstructing the Koran, starting with Muir - presently being reclaimed from the likes of Watt by great zandaqa like Ibn Warraq (now regrettably in the US, I hear). I do worry that this, most important battle, of "root causes", will be lost and our universities will become Saudi sponsored hotbeds of fundamentalism like yours did. I have faith in our ability to root out truth from all the moral relativistic froth and divide & rule militaristic bluff, because I have faith in my own.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 08:57|| 2007-07-03 08:57|| Front Page Top

#23 Good stuff - thanks. And keep contributing your take on things please.

I've been having similar discussions with a couple UK MOD guys recently. Two countries separated by a common language and all that ...

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 08:59|| 2007-07-03 08:59|| Front Page Top

#24 That guy in #20 is clearly practicing taqqiya.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 09:04|| 2007-07-03 09:04|| Front Page Top

#25 With regards the "increasingly unassimilated" bit, I must insist on a bit of semantic nitpicking. If you mean that unassimilation is increasing, then yes, in part. I disagree that the populations are largely unassimilated, however. I regularly have heated discussions with friends of all faiths, esp Muslims, with no problems. I feel I must point out that many of the most prominent critics of the Jihadist-Islamist ideology were either born in or studied in the UK. There is a long tradition of deconstructing the Koran, starting with Muir - presently being reclaimed from the likes of Watt by great zandaqa like Ibn Warraq (now regrettably in the US, I hear). I do worry that this, most important battle, of "root causes", will be lost and our universities will become Saudi sponsored hotbeds of fundamentalism like yours did. I have faith in our ability to root out truth from all the moral relativistic froth and divide & rule militaristic bluff, because I have faith in my own.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 09:08|| 2007-07-03 09:08|| Front Page Top

#26 How much do I worry about the security apparatus? ONly to the point that I can do anything about it. Moreover I will never be silenced by fear and know that deep down many of my countrymen feel the same. I see the problem as not one of preventing the technology and infrastructure of surveillance, but preventing the spread of the "aqd ul-amman" appeasement policies. I worry when I see predominantly bearded security guards.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 09:10|| 2007-07-03 09:10|| Front Page Top

#27 Mike I think you left off the [sarcasm] tag in #24. yes?

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 09:17|| 2007-07-03 09:17|| Front Page Top

#28 lotp:

The Koran dictates: "jihad is prescribed to you." You posted a Muslim who attacks Muslims for not condemning terror. In another author he attacks Israel's strategic occupation and treats Rachel Corrie as a saint. Taqiyah? This dude is applying for go-to status, whenever the Beeb needs a benign-Muslim toy.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 09:28|| 2007-07-03 09:28|| Front Page Top

#29 Maybe. You may be right.

On the other hand, he may be trying to think and feel his way through a tough set of tradeoffs. If so, he's not alone. I know others doing the same thing.

The situation WRT Israel is not totally onesided IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of that state. But you don't have to be a Muslim practicing taqqia to have moral concerns about the situation there or about some of the actions the Israelis have taken over the years.

Back in 86-87, when I was involved in mil tech development for the Israeli forces, I heard the same qualms from some of my Israeli counterparts. I still remember clearly a long conversation with one, a Conservative jew, Sephardic, who had commanded armor in Lebanon.

He was convinced that that invasion would corrode Israel from within, morally and politically.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 09:55|| 2007-07-03 09:55|| Front Page Top

#30 I left out the sarc quotes because it wasn't Jihadis that I was ridiculing.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 10:05|| 2007-07-03 10:05|| Front Page Top

#31 re comment 20: How many Asim Siddiquis are there vs the 40% of muslims who want the UK to be ruled by sharia?

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 10:21|| 2007-07-03 10:21|| Front Page Top

#32 Admiral Allan Ackbar

Before you rant about the small number of Gun Deaths in the UK, you must tally the number of Knifing, clubbing's and murders by automobile, then realize it's not the choice of weapon, it's the mindset of the assailant.

Guns are tools, when you get that concept, you realize that the gun is not to fault (As you so eloquently accuse) It's a long distant hole punch, much like an electric drill with a very long drill bit attached, not some intelligent entity.

I'm a machinist, I can make a gun if so desired
(It would be much easier to make a sword, or machete, Or anything else I wish, such as a bomb, I do NOT because I have no need of either) the difference is that I DO NOT PLAN TO MURDER.
Muslims DO PLAN TO MURDER and there's the whole difference.

Enjoy your Malt,

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-07-03 10:36|| 2007-07-03 10:36|| Front Page Top

#33 ed, that's not clear. Nor is is clear how many can emerge if some take the lead, as he and a few others are doing.

There's a struggle going on within Islam over this. It's been underground, mostly, but it's been there. Let's see if it emerges into the open after these last attacks and the mess in Gaza.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 10:44|| 2007-07-03 10:44|| Front Page Top

#34 That's a very good question. The answer is very telling. The author is clearly in the minority. Muslims speaking out against barbarism is all too rare.

My stance is that this question misses completely the more salient point. We all want Islam to mend its ways, in order for that to happen, Muslims with views on Jihad that are similar to said author, author need to have their views empowered, not ridiculed.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 10:45|| 2007-07-03 10:45|| Front Page Top

#35 To put numbers in some perspective, that same poll with 40% wanting sharia also showed only 3% of UK muslims held classical liberal views.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 10:49|| 2007-07-03 10:49|| Front Page Top

#36 So looking at those numbers, wouldn't it make sense to put a microphone in front of members of that 3% wishing to speak out?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 10:55|| 2007-07-03 10:55|| Front Page Top

#37 The problem is those 3%, while they may convince us, have no valid points to argue from an islamic perspective. They are really speaking heresies to a muslim audience.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 11:20|| 2007-07-03 11:20|| Front Page Top

#38 I don't believe the problem of a muslim fifth column embedded within western societies can be solved by reform within islam. It will be solved by reform away from islam.

Posted by ed 2007-07-03 11:22|| 2007-07-03 11:22|| Front Page Top

#39 I agree with that to some extent. At this point, the fare more effective startegy for dealing with western fifth column muslims is to ban immigration from the ME, stop renewing visas and start giving them the boot for lighter and lighter reasons until the filth is gone.

That said, the only way Islam will be reformed in the west is from within. The best way to do that is to have western Muslims (the real ones, not the ones that just live in the west) call out these clowns for what they are. That combined with taking out the trash will be a very good start at keeping westerners secure from their terror.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 11:33|| 2007-07-03 11:33|| Front Page Top

#40 I think our war fighting has been too conventional and too main stream!

Not enough out of the box thinking. Its not army A fighting army B. It's armies A - N fighting nutcases infinite with a bunch of failed states and narcotics thrown in with the oil.

Our best weapon would be a Satanicly devious Hollyweed if they would quit fighting civilization for a bit and join the fight.

If you stand back and look at it from Islam's perspective there are two reasons the are fighting... the first is right from Pinky and The Brain. They want to conquer the world! ,,, the second is they HAVE TO conquer the other cultures in the world, esp. the US one because ISLAMS CULTURE IS LOSING BIG TIME! Really! Note how they scream about McDonnalds and Levis and Movies and ....

One attack I have not seen the cowards in Washington consider is to drown them in all the world's cultures. (not just the US one but it is glitzy enough for fixating the maniacs.)... What about simple ideas like direct to TV set Sat broadcasts of every streamed channel on the planet. Hindu stuff, US stuff, Chinese, EU boring stuff, movies, X-Rated, Sports, adventure --- everything ...
Drown their culture in all the others...
Nat Geo and History 24x7.....

-=== many other ideas but I just don't think we have considered alternate ways to wage war enough!
(they can be concurrent with real war too.)

Posted by 3dc 2007-07-03 11:34|| 2007-07-03 11:34|| Front Page Top

#41 Another thing, ed. You are right to expect those 3% to leave Islam instead of reforming it. It's certainly far easier.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 11:35|| 2007-07-03 11:35|| Front Page Top

#42 3dc nails it. Culture war em, 24/7. Non-stop Paris Hilton, Bay Watch, Rolling Stones and Gwen Stefanie. The Magic Kingsome exists because we allow it too...we could easily change that

Posted by Rex Mundi 2007-07-03 12:18|| 2007-07-03 12:18|| Front Page Top

#43 ima think SHARK WEEK haz a nice ring to it.

Posted by RD 2007-07-03 12:22|| 2007-07-03 12:22|| Front Page Top

#44 grrrrrrrr 'Kingdom' PIMF

Posted by Rex Mundi 2007-07-03 12:30|| 2007-07-03 12:30|| Front Page Top

#45 Syria, Iran, and Pakistan are at the nucleus of the islamic wet dream of world domination.

You left out Saudi Arabia, JohnQC. Other than that, great post. Nation building can wait. Regime change cannot, as in Iran. In the short term, theocratic Islam is our biggest enemy and needs to be clearly identified as such. Sadly, too many world leaders either lack the spine of simply do not comprehend its danger. Each and every Islamic theocracy needs to be taken apart at the seams. It is through state sponsorship that most terrorism gains impetus. Once we have eliminated these sponsoring regimes, we can more easily go about choking off private support.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 12:31|| 2007-07-03 12:31|| Front Page Top

#46 RJ, just did a check on those stats:

Total homicides:
US = 5.6 per 100,000
UK = 1.3 per 100,000

Thats a 430% increase. Like I say, your country, do what you like. I can see the benefits of gun ownership, as mentioned in my post, its just that lower deaths isnt one of them.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 13:04|| 2007-07-03 13:04|| Front Page Top

#47 Mike N. W regards your comments on ME immigration, it is regrettable, but the Pakistani ministers warlike comments inciting terrorist acts in this country effectively force us to stop immigration from his country. No weasel wording or backpedalling should be accepted.

Were this to be suggested prior to him opening his stupid fat mouth, accusations of "racism" & "discrimination" would quite rightly have gone out. As it stands, I cant see he leaves us any choice.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 13:14|| 2007-07-03 13:14|| Front Page Top

#48 lotp: with regards #7:

Reports of the death of the Anglican communion have been vastly exaggerated... There is a huge resurgent post-modern congregation targeted at young moneyed professionals aged 20-40. Google some of the antipodean churches (Hillsong, etc) & the Alpha course. All that remains to be seen is whether these can be brought into the fold vis-a-vis Israel & non-sandal wearing solutions to global problems.

Yes, it does make me laugh up my sleeve that our future figurehead is a secretly practicing muslim, our Archbishop a druid and our last leader a closet Catholic, but even Habermas had to admit that basically we draw on these faiths & institutions for moral guidance.

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 13:19|| 2007-07-03 13:19|| Front Page Top

#49 I don't think it matters whether it's 3% or 10% or 50%. The 10% with nuclear weapons will render the other 90% irrelevant, if the West intends to survive. I'm not sure the West wants to survive because it no longer believes its culture is superior to that of the head-choppers in the Muslim world.

Why do we insist on ignoring the historical perspective? Islam has been conquering since its beginning - the Koran or the sword. The Koran commands Muslims to fight for Allah, and this is the 'orthodox' view. The jihadis are not outside of the Muslim mainstream. I have seen many calls for a Muslim reformation, but I believe that this is the Muslim reformation.

After Lepanto and Vienna, Islam was too weak to take on Europe, and the British had the brass to use Gatling guns on the Mahdis in Sudan. Now Islam has oil and the money and power it provides. They think they are strong enough to take on the West again, and the West lacks cultural confidence. They are empowered by the Russians and the Chinese. The USA faces a perfect storm. Forget about nation building, and win the war. This will require violence because the Muslims must feel defeated. Waiting will only raise the butcher's bill higher.

Posted by SR-71 2007-07-03 13:20|| 2007-07-03 13:20|| Front Page Top

#50 Thanks for the tip on the malt Admiral. No Surrender.

Posted by Howard UK 2007-07-03 13:22|| 2007-07-03 13:22|| Front Page Top

#51 Jusht Boughtt Three more bottlessh )8-P""

(£12.99, not twelve quid. Fooled again...)

Posted by Admiral Allan Ackbar 2007-07-03 13:29|| 2007-07-03 13:29|| Front Page Top

#52 SR71, I just want to be clear that I am in no way saying that we ahould sit back and wait. And not allowing them to have nuclear weapons is a no brainer. My point is that there are more Muslims trying to fix Islams problems than it often seems with the follow up point of those Muslims are more useable for us empowered than dead.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 14:23|| 2007-07-03 14:23|| Front Page Top

#53 Trying to get the best 3-dimensional view of the issue we can, which pretty much always entails multiple points of view.

Going back several years, most of these "multiple points of view" ended up in the sinktrap, or were vociferously flamed by rantburg regulars. So my question is, why start now, after you've alienated a substantial portion of your allies?

Posted by 8872 2007-07-03 14:54|| 2007-07-03 14:54|| Front Page Top

#54 The only people being sinktrapped where here to do nothing but get themselves sinktrapped.

TROLL!

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 14:58|| 2007-07-03 14:58|| Front Page Top

#55 " I don't expect wild rhetoric about horned Muslims, but we should accept nothing less than total honesty concerning the implications of co-existence with an exclusivist and predatory blob of demographic hate . . "

Well, that is some MIGHTY fine wordsmithing, McZoid! Well put.

Don't know what's going on about the recent "fighting" on the Burg, but I say you're ALL fucking idiots. Every last one of you.

On a serious note: For crying out loud--when there's no trolls to munch on a daily basis (anyone 'member those critters?), what do we expect? People are going to go off now and then. Take it in stride and don't post on the Burg if you're (too) drunk.

A reality check: I think it's really frustrating to keep reading about all these Mohammedan fanatics essentially trying to work out their inner rage and (true) victimhood over their early sexual abuse by attacking our society--and we all know there is no cure for the kind of rampant societal dysfunction that fuels the "jihad" except to eliminate them, which bothers us in a certain sense because of the useless and pointless waste of life it is.

A solution: maybe we should all have a good workout at the gym before we share opinions here--might take the steam down a bit and make us all more reasoned and civil--and if any of us do run across a real, live, bomb-planting jihadi, we can pummel their lights out.

Posted by ex-lib 2007-07-03 15:15|| 2007-07-03 15:15|| Front Page Top

#56 Since we're all idiots, maybe the only enlightened one amongst us can teach all of us little people.

Whaddasayta that, o' self annointed one?

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-03 15:24|| 2007-07-03 15:24|| Front Page Top

#57 One comment in regards to gun ownership in the U.S. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers considered gun ownership in light of personal defense as well as keeping the government from running amuck.

Jamaica passed draconian laws some years ago. Despite guns being illegal, they have experienced increasing violent crime.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-03 15:37|| 2007-07-03 15:37|| Front Page Top

#58 re: #48, yes I've heard good things about some of the quiet resurgence in the UK.

I was thinking about the Anglican communion at the international level, where the orthodox African churches are now providing provincial oversight to some Episcopalian dioceses in response to the increasingly unorthodox stances of The Episcopal Church (as it as recently restyled itself).

My lord the Archbishop of Canterbury will be presiding over a meeting shortly to which a number of provinces are refusing to attend, not only several from Africa but the Australians are going with a very pointed message to the enablers there.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 15:52|| 2007-07-03 15:52|| Front Page Top

#59 BTW, here is the letter sent by the bishops of Rwanda to the Most Reverend etc. Rowan Williams. Excerpt:

Therefore, in view of the above, in good conscience, the bishops of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda have resolved not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008 unless the previously stipulated requirement of repentance on the part of the The Episcopal Church (TEC) and other like-minded Provinces is met, and invitations are extended to our entire House of Bishops.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 16:04|| 2007-07-03 16:04|| Front Page Top

#60 I don't think it matters whether it's 3% or 10% or 50%. The 10% with nuclear weapons will render the other 90% irrelevant, if the West intends to survive.

SR-71, your excellent point goes well beyond survival of the West. Muslim survival depends utterly upon their collective will to eliminate the 10% you mention. As Wretchard summarizes in his superb analysis, "The Three Conjectures":

The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, even America's downfall would not avert Islam's self-destruction. Wretchrd covers this as well:

Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column.

Islam does not have the military resources to prosecute its quest for global domination. Even without any intervention they will not have them for decades to come. The hastiness with which Muslims are pursuing global jihad absolutely guarantees that they will earn the wrath of a nuclear power who will not flinch at incinerating every single Muslim majority country on earth.

This is the elephant in the room that nearly all Muslims steadfastly ignore. In their secret or even overt admiration for Islamic jihadists, they march towards the precipice of nuclear doom.

The Koran commands Muslims to fight for Allah, and this is the 'orthodox' view. The jihadis are not outside of the Muslim mainstream. I have seen many calls for a Muslim reformation, but I believe that this is the Muslim reformation.

Outstanding observation! Islam is reforming. It is evolving to a more "pure" form of fundamentalism whose literal translation of the Koran impells them to global jihad. Witness the constant bloodshed between Muslims over Islamic purity. There is no other form of modification happening. The West is beyond stupid not to recognize this and act accordingly.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 16:13|| 2007-07-03 16:13|| Front Page Top

#61 The only people being sinktrapped where here to do nothing but get themselves sinktrapped.

A brief perusal of the sinktrap will prove you wrong. Not everything in there deserves to be there, it's just that some egos couldn't handle it.

Posted by 8872 2007-07-03 16:53|| 2007-07-03 16:53|| Front Page Top

#62 We (the U.S.) has been dealing with islamic terrorism for about 30-40 years. It has been contained for the most part. There are times we should have acted firmly, harshly, and aggressively. It was a mistake to not do so. I'm thinking of the takeover our embassy in Iran and the taking of hostages. This should have brought a harsh, swift and overwhelming response. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon should have brought the same kind of harsh response. By not acting we have encouraged an enemy. This enemy is driven by fanaticism and religion. The enemy has no rules. The recent bombing attempts in London and Glasgow show that the privileged also take up jihad for some perceived wrongs. We also see that thugs such as Zarqawi take up jihad. The commonality of the privileged and not privileged is their religion. Bin Laden was privileged and he ran 20,000 or more through his jihadi training camps. He unleased a cancer upon the world. A law and order model may not be sufficient to deal with this scourge upon mankind. We will not be able to build enough prisons to hold all of these would be jihadis. Moreover, a society cannot long endure the costs of housing and feeding incarcerated prisoners. Democratic countries are going to have to come up with other strategies for dealing with jihadists. We cannot continue to arrest and incarcerate prisoners. The upshot is that someday the jihadists are going to get lucky and we will see something that overshadows 911. We need to work with each other and not against each other to overcome the islamic problem. We can't be fighting a hostile press and a carping opposition party that is trying to make points and get elected. We don't have that luxury. The jihadists are at war with us and it is a world wide war. The war takes place in far away places and it takes place within our countries. This is WWIII.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-07-03 16:59|| 2007-07-03 16:59|| Front Page Top

#63 "Tense times"

I read the title and thought it was a command to watch my grammar.

Posted by Mark E. 2007-07-03 17:08|| 2007-07-03 17:08|| Front Page Top

#64 I suspect that much of the wind has been taken out of the sails of radical Islam, and that things are actually winding down.

My reasons are that first, radical Islam and Mahdi uprisings have happened before, and that for all sorts of reasons, they peter out.

First and foremost, they offer nothing equal to or better than the existing nation-states of the world. They have no better organization that can be offered to people, so what they promise is like what anarchists promise: chaos. At best, they have a single charismatic leader who promises dictatorship.

This leads to their second problem, that in truth, this is not a religious conflict, it is a fight between civilization and barbarity. What they want is to force people, especially their own people, to abandon modernity and embrace primitivism. To forget that airplanes and cars and school and even electricity exist.

The reason they want to fight at all is that they and their people can no longer ignore or pretend away civilization and technology all around them. And they know that even their own people are more than glad to give up the old ways for something better. They will vote with their feet.

From this, the question becomes, what threat, really, do such barbarians pose to civilization?

We are at greatest risk by those that dwell among us, this is obvious. But the vast majority that do are not in conflict with us--they like it here, because it is not miserable and primitive like the land they left. And the longer they live here, the harder it will be for them even imagine going back to the way things were.

So the dangerous ones, the real vipers in our midst, are recent arrivals, nourished on hatred and the desire to destroy elsewhere, who have come to our shores prepared to attack us and reject all that they see as evil.

Our modern nations are well equipped to police up such people once they arrive, if their numbers are small enough. So our concern has been to prevent so many equipped terrorists arriving that our police are overwhelmed.

But it is terribly hard to track such people down in their home nations prior to their arrival here. Which is where Iraq and Afghanistan come into play. If we can convince their most violent, capable and effective killers to go *there* instead, to fight and be killed by our soldiers, instead of them coming here to kill our civilians, then the advantage is ours.

And there is a finite supply of their capable fighters. Most of them just don't have the chutzpah to do what it takes to travel to a distant nation to commit acts of terror.

And we have been terribly attriting such people. Perhaps two generations of the top barbarians have already met their fate, never to return and spread chaos to their home countries, or to us.

As was the case in the earlier uprisings. When a sufficient number of radicals and true believers was eliminated, the movement fell apart and died out. The stragglers and remnants will still be policed up for years, along with many who will give up their radicalism and embrace the system, but it will be a police matter, much less a military one.

Were al-Qaeda not supported by a few governments, it is probable that they would have already faded from view. But while they can extend its life, they cannot easily resurrect it.

Militarily, we too will have other things to think about. Other challenges and conflicts. Such is the way of things.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-07-03 17:12|| 2007-07-03 17:12|| Front Page Top

#65 I think my neck hurt from the whiplash comment-to-comment in this thread. At the end, can anyone complete this statement: "to summarize..." in less than a thousand words? Zen - you're already DQ'd :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-07-03 19:31|| 2007-07-03 19:31|| Front Page Top

#66 FWIW:

SR-71 hits it close to my view on them as well. Imho, Islam will only have a reform when they start changing or modifying the edicts actually written in their holy book - & if any of them are brave or wise enough to do that then it's obviously apostacy by their own laws - you see the paradox. No other way for them to reform other then to say much of the koran is b.s. *or* that it's no longer relevant to this day and age of nuclear weapons and mass transit. Kind of like how many christians feel today about the O.T. and stoning homos. Until the majority of them realize that the sep of church and state is a great thing *And* they actually stand firm on that principle, they will be hurting. In the mean time I would be planting more seeds of hate, discontent, subterfuge and anything else my twisted little crocodilian mind can think up to mess w/their religious leaders and terro networks. Saudi, Iran, & Syria would be getting wetworked like it was all u-can-eat sunday brunch at the golden corral.

AAA - I like your ideas on the muslims in the UK however I vehemently disagree w/your assertionns wrt guns. As you well know, the RKBA is our constitutional 2nd Amendment. The UK and the rest of the euros need to realize there is no dicussion on this pont from an American standpoint (at least those of us who actually understand our constitution and our founder's intents). It's my right as an American to own a firearm - case closed. (as the second amendment always ensures the first amendment - see how many libz miss that lil' correlation) Now, as a parent I have a God given onus to protect my family to the best of my ability - beyond the gov't - who derives their power from the consent of the American citizen. If the gov't prohibits me or any other American the *realistic means* to ensure our family's personal safety they prolly will have another revolution on their hands. Too bad idiots like Pelosi, Clinton, and those brady bill lovin' dorks in NYC don't get it.

Now, if my fellow countrymen are too f*ck'n stupid to respect their guns or teach their family the same, why should I lose my right to own one? Thus compromising the security of my wife, son & daughter. In an open society criminals will always find a way to obtain guns illegally - hence them being criminals. If your gov't doesn't trust law abiding Brits to own firearms then that's your business. I think it's insane but that's just me. No one has a right to break into my property or threaten my family. I don't need to wait for them to make their intentions known, you break into my home w/a knife, club, whatever, - the U.S. taxpayer paid a lot of money in training me how to shoot fairly well - so break into my home, die in my home. BTW - Mike Moore lied through his teeth in bowling for columbine. The NRA is one of the best orgs in my country *and* the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding folks who respect what a firearm can do - not the gun nutz portrayed. News flash for our across the pond brethren - 95% of U.S. gun owners actually have all their own teeth and are not paranoid rambo wannabees.

If we use your comparison on guns & saving lives, heck, we might as well go back to prohibition & ban all beer or your beloved "water of life" (a wee bit Mick here as well) - how many more people have been killed on the roads of America because of anheuser/busch & miller? Or better yet, maybe all Americans should have to take public transit to work because we can't trust them to drive a car. Smoking would be next on the list. Then trans fats and simple carbohydrates because there are prolly more fat asses dying and clogging health care then careless gun owners.

8872 - I concur - you do have a point. I remember Aris. Personally I thought he was a clown but he did have his points. That's when he wasn't doing his old *grab, twist & pull*. Grab something out of one of your posts, Twist it to mean something entirely different, and the Pull some bullsh*t personal attack out of it. Also, he answered a lot of legit questions w/questions or he was too arrogant & young to cede the point that he really had no clue what he was talking about it other than google. I'll never forget his Greekness trying to lecture many of us who lived in the south about the real causes of the U.S. civil war - too ironic for words. Personally, I try to stay away from calling legit folks or any regs *stupid* or what not. I also actually got along with Not Mike Moore who a lot of people here despised. Sure, he had some whacky notions but I usually attacked his arguments vice his intellect. Now, if someone called me out, sure, I'm gonna give it back but I'm not gonna ask for the ban. The no kidding kos trolls are free game however.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-07-03 19:43|| 2007-07-03 19:43|| Front Page Top

#67 Heck Frank, after my last rant I'm tapping out on the mat as well :)

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-07-03 19:44|| 2007-07-03 19:44|| Front Page Top

#68 broadhead6, from a favorite song of mine, by the Celtic folk rock group Lenahan:

If the day ever comes when I should have to fire a gun,
Well it won't be done for money and it won't be done for fun.
Though I pray every day that it should never come to pass,
If you tamper with my liberty, well buddy that's your ass.
See, a gun's just an instrument like any other tool,
And to be afraid to use it is to be a bloody fool.
So before you come to visit me, remember where I'm from,
For I'll help you get to Heaven if that day should come.

Except I like shooting. ;-)

Tom Lenahan grew up in an Irish immigrant family on the South Side of Chicago, btw. (For those who don't know, a tough neighborhood.) He played drums for some of the best old bluesmen in Chicago before striking out on his own.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 19:55|| 2007-07-03 19:55|| Front Page Top

#69 By not acting we have encouraged an enemy. This enemy is driven by fanaticism and religion. The enemy has no rules.

This remains the central problem, JohnQC. What rules are appropriate in fighting an enemy that has none? One of the few axioms that come to mind is fighting fire with fire. This is why my own suggestions often seem so extreme. I still believe that repaying Islam in its own coin will yield far more progress than weve seen to date. If Islam is so enamored of terrorism, then they must become terrified of its consequences.

A law and order model may not be sufficient to deal with this scourge upon mankind. We will not be able to build enough prisons to hold all of these would be jihadis. Moreover, a society cannot long endure the costs of housing and feeding incarcerated prisoners.

Police action against this sort of borderless, asymmetrical warfare is ludicrous.

Democratic countries are going to have to come up with other strategies for dealing with jihadists. We cannot continue to arrest and incarcerate prisoners.

Britain is already out of prison space, yet the attacks continue. It is folly to think that America will not encounter the same limitations. This is why I continue to advocate such unpopular measures as mass deportation.

The upshot is that someday the jihadists are going to get lucky and we will see something that overshadows 911.

This is what I would prefer to avoid, both for our sake and that of this worlds Muslim population. The repercussions from another atrocity of even greater magnitude could tip the scales in a devastating fashion. To date, Muslims simply have not done nearly enough to avert the threat that radical Islam presents to their own ranks, let alone the West. Muslims eliminating their jihadist scum represents a critical litmus test, their bona fides in demonstrating true sincerity with respect to genuinely fighting terrorism.

I suspect that much of the wind has been taken out of the sails of radical Islam, and that things are actually winding down.

I disagree, moose. Such optimism or wishful thinking is perilous when there have been no concessions from even the slightest fraction of our enemy.

First and foremost, they offer nothing equal to or better than the existing nation-states of the world. They have no better organization that can be offered to people, so what they promise is like what anarchists promise: chaos. At best, they have a single charismatic leader who promises dictatorship.

Agreed, but please consider how much of their high context culture centers upon the charismatic leadership of dictatorial authoritarians. This is almost genetically inbred and cannot be dismissed as a mitigating factor against any hope for peaceful coexistence.

This leads to their second problem, that in truth, this is not a religious conflict, it is a fight between civilization and barbarity. What they want is to force people, especially their own people, to abandon modernity and embrace primitivism. To forget that airplanes and cars and school and even electricity exist.

No truer words have been spoken. It is why I refuse to stop considering even the most brutal forms of retaliation and attack for the sake of deteating Islam.

The reason they want to fight at all is that they and their people can no longer ignore or pretend away civilization and technology all around them. And they know that even their own people are more than glad to give up the old ways for something better. They will vote with their feet.

The pedestrian electoral method you suggest is far too sluggish to prevent something that overshadows 911, as JohnQC correctly predicts.

From this, the question becomes, what threat, really, do such barbarians pose to civilization?

Enough whereby we cannot afford to ignore or merely police it.

We are at greatest risk by those that dwell among us, this is obvious. But the vast majority that do are not in conflict with us--they like it here, because it is not miserable and primitive like the land they left. And the longer they live here, the harder it will be for them even imagine going back to the way things were.

None of this prevents them from feelings of obligation that ease any pangs of conscience as they pour further millions upon millions of zakat into the treasuries of terrorism. This is simply unacceptable. The presence of those who overtly or tacitly sponsor terrorism is not an option.

As I mentioned before, it is up to the worlds Muslims to police their fanatical co-religionists. This is their demonstration of resolve, their proof of sincerity. Expecting the West to clean house for them at our immense expense is simply too high a price for us to bear. Verily, the potential toll upon humanity is disturbing at least. Some billion or more people may perish for the misdeeds of fanatics who have dauntingly been granted free passage amongst them.

We must not let this be our primary concern. Islam and its following continues to makes its own bed. If Muslims deny the coverlet of nettles that they draw to their breast then so be it. Let them feel the pain they have earned with such generous contributions to our suffering.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 19:56|| 2007-07-03 19:56|| Front Page Top

#70 That said, it saddens and infuriates me when idiots don't keep guns away from kids or teach them gun safety and respect.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 19:57|| 2007-07-03 19:57|| Front Page Top

#71 Thanks lotp - that's a bad ass verse. I'll have to check that Lenahan guy out. Was he Willie Dixon era Chicago Blues?

I like marksmanship training to - also like to do skeet, shoot trap, and hunt when possible. My question to the usual anti-gun wimp - if guns are so dangerous, why are there less injuries on gun ranges then just about any other out door recreation?

I agree w/your respect the gun issue. As you no doubt were in the mil or dealt w/them, they do a great job of teaching correct and safe firearms handling. For me it began at a young age; my father (the proverbial blowhard mick who ate and drank too much) - owned several beautiful antique firearms that he shot occasionally. I earned a healthy respect from a good spanking he gave me *once* for not heeding his rules wrt his weapons. (of course the gov't would prolly call that child abuse nowadays) I also earned a good respect when I saw him decap a watermelon w/a .51 cal muzzleloader.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-07-03 20:19|| 2007-07-03 20:19|| Front Page Top

#72 broadhead, women in the military (except as WACs) was a little after my time.

I am honored to have generations of military relatives, however. Accepting that the situation was a bit different in Russia then than in the US now, my family on my father's side had one or more professional military members in every generation except one since the early 1600s. Several in my generation and more in our kids' generation.

Husband is retired military and yes, I've worked with military orgs on and off throughout my career, including as a civilian employee since 9/11. Have some close friends deployed now and some who've been there and back several times.

Some of it's not work tho ... last Saturday my husband and I treated a good friend to dinner as she faced the first weekend since her relatively new husband deployed to the Gulf. We laughed, talked, and cried a little together ... and we'll do that a lot over the coming year.

I learned the basics of shooting and a lot of gun safety and respect from my dad and uncles. Dad was a hunting/fishing guide for a while and they all hunted every year. I ate a lot of venison, rabbit, pheasant, shad, trout, bass ... as a kid.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-03 20:34|| 2007-07-03 20:34|| Front Page Top

#73 Good thread. The consensus that I could discern is that most posters: identity themselves with Western Civilization; are becoming progressively harsher with Muslims.

Perhaps Zenster is ahead of the rest of us, in taking the leap to a total Clash orientation. Maybe in 6 months, he can tell the rest of us: you are now where I was, ideologically, half a year ago. Whatever happens on 7-7-7, I want West Muslims placed on a short leash, with a choke hold, at least.

Posted by McZoid 2007-07-03 21:16|| 2007-07-03 21:16|| Front Page Top

#74 Perhaps Zenster is ahead of the rest of us, in taking the leap to a total Clash orientation. Maybe in 6 months, he can tell the rest of us: you are now where I was, ideologically, half a year ago.

While I often have managed to anticipate a lot of historical events, this is one I'd rather not. More than one person here has accused me of just hanging around to taunt everyone when things fall through. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I could never bring myself to be such an ingrate.

That said, my predictions stand. I feel we need to be in a "total Clash orientation" because that will best suit the West's collective ability to survive long term. That is what I want more than anything and Islam had best begin seeing to its own survival damn soon. That we have done so much to lift Islam out of the cesspit of its own making has become something of a farce of late. Soon enough it will probably be necessary to jettison such humane efforts in the pursuit of our own survival.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-03 23:22|| 2007-07-03 23:22|| Front Page Top

#75 A toast to the 4th. Tomorrow - parades, fireworks and fun.

Posted by 3dc 2007-07-03 23:53|| 2007-07-03 23:53|| Front Page Top

23:53 3dc
23:52 Super Hose
23:50 Eric Jablow
23:49 Barbara Skolaut
23:49 Super Hose
23:47 Zenster
23:45 Ulavise Scourge of the Antelope7037
23:41 Pappy
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 Pappy
23:36 Super Hose
23:35 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:29 Zenster
23:22 Zenster
23:12 JohnQC
23:08 Zenster
22:56 Mike N.
22:50 trailing wife
22:38 Broadhead6
22:37 wxjames
22:34 JohnQC
22:33 Mike N.
22:28 Broadhead6