More on the "Religion of Peace."

[Ishmael]

I'm just suggesting that you and other Western reactionaries make an appropriate distinction between, and an accurate acknowledgement of, the relative numbers of what you call "sheeple" and "those willing to act" who make up the population within Islam. I fail to see why that should be a "problem" or why treating any person with "proper compassion and dignity" who is NOT a terrorist would be "suicidal."

Is it because, as BusyBody loves to squawk, "we can't tell the innocent from the guilty"? What a bizarre affront to our American legal tradition and mandate of innocent until PROVEN guilty. For all you know you come into contact with criminal elements on a regular basis. For all you know you routinely walk the streets, shake the hands and return normal civil courtesies with non-Islamists who would rob you of your possessions, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep for the $8.64 in the change jar sitting on your dresser. Do you ever give such potential coincidence a moment's thought?

Had you served in the military with Timothy McVey, lived next door to John Wayne Gacey or served a cup of coffee to Ted Bundy, would you have castigated yourself in any way for having failed to discern their criminal proclivities in advance?

If Islam is a religion of hate, is our criminal justice system also lax for having allowed the Ku Klux Klan to exist for decades knowing full well that its members were responsible for all manner of criminal assault and murder throughout the South? What responsibility do we have as a society to repress the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church before one of those nutbags goes offline and actually kills a "fag member of the military in uniform" simply because -- well, you know, he or she was IN uniform?

I fully share your frustration that President Obama and many others fail to identify "radical Islamists" by that appropriate label. But at best, it is a PR irritation. If avoiding the label does nothing to deter the motivations or actions of "those who are willing to act" criminally, where is the evidence that failure to call the enemy by the wholly accurate characterization increases their number? Incorrectly assuming that future criminals who have yet to commit a crime are "hiding under the radar" among a greater population of innocents and that such evasion alone and long before any criminal conspiracy begins formation somehow represents a "moral" failure of government and tactical incompetence of law enforcement is the biggest lie that your own "false equivalency" (i.e. every Muslim is a potential terrorist fully worthy of the most discriminating suspicion) propagates.

That is YOUR "shame" born from YOUR "immoral relativism" which you and far too many others have nonetheless chosen to wear so arrogantly. Such a posture bewilders the minds of normal people who can only attribute such odd beliefs as an inexplicable mutation of biology or sociology which itself is inadequately (but not inaccurately) characterized as "mere ignorance."

You make a strong case except for a few facts.

We know that at least 10% of them do believe that violent acts of terror are condoned by their religion and are willing to act on those beliefs. We know that 50% (+/-) of them are sympathetic to the beliefs and goals of the 10% aforementioned. We are also aware that in spite of assurances from the grand prevaricator that there in NO WAY to properly vet those 'refugees' being foisted on us. It's not as if we have diplomatic relations with Syria and the willing cooperation of that government in the vetting process, do we? Or that we have perfected a "terrorist detector" machine. Not to mention the financial and law enforcement manpower that is going to be consumed 'keeping an eye' on these people. And make no mistake, they ARE being targeted for surveillance.

So while it's nice to sit back and intellectualize the whole "innocent until proven guilty" notion, or the notion of human compassion does that not also apply to your fellow countrymen, friends and neighbors? The very people that would become the victims of these religious fanatics? Fanatics that are in reality not all that fanatical at all when viewed from the context of their own religious teachings and tenets. And as it turns out it is the "peaceful" minority that turn out to be the radicals within the religion.

There being here serves no legitimate national purpose beyond making some few individuals in the halls of power feel better about themselves and to hell with the rest of us.

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

Ever notice after virtually all attacks in teh West


We are told, THEY WERE ON A WATCH LIST!

The so called LONE WOLVES are really KNOWN WOLVES.....so what is the point of WATCH LIST?

NOTHING!

Because we are forced to act vs MUSLIMS like a criminal investigation....we have to wait till AFTER DEATH and MURDER and DESTRUCTION!


ENOUGH!

Its WAR

ACT LIKE IT!

 

[Lancecastor]

Amongst our weaponry are fear, surprise ....and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

 

[Busybody]

Its WAR...its NOT criminal

The Unexpected Snake
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 17 Comments
The Farmer and the Snake

A Farmer walked through his field one cold winter morning. On the ground lay a Snake, stiff and frozen with the cold. The Farmer knew how deadly the Snake could be, and yet he picked it up and put it in his bosom to warm it back to life.

The Snake soon revived, and when it had enough strength, bit the man who had been so kind to it. The bite was deadly and the Farmer felt that he must die. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

The Greatest Kindness Will Not Bind the Ungrateful.

The moral of this Aesopian fable from a mere 2500 years ago is that doing good to evil will only lead to more evil. Aiding those who kill only brings more death, not life. It is human nature to think that people will return good for good and evil for evil. This kind of thinking perversely leads some to assume that if they are being assaulted, then they must have done something to deserve it. This logic is routinely used to argue that Islamic terrorists are simply paying us back in the same coin

Unexpected? NO!

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016...ted-snake.html

 

[Busybody]

Torah forewarns us that 'being kind to the cruel ultimately leads to being 'cruel to the kind'.

Today's liberalism (radicals) with its warped thinking actually believe it's okay even with its obvious consequences (moral relativism = immorality).

Common sense no longer exists.

 

[Beco]

Baghdad chaos throws U.S. plans in Iraq into doubt

The big question for White House officials is what happens if Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi — a critical linchpin in the fight against the Islamic State — does not survive the turmoil that has swept over the Iraqi capital.

By Greg Jaffe

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

This kind of thinking perversely leads some to assume that if they are being assaulted, then they must have done something to deserve it. This logic is routinely used to argue that Islamic terrorists are simply paying us back in the same coin

Who the fuck is doing that? I'm sure you can provide links.

I'll wait.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You make a strong case except for a few facts.

We know that at least 10% of them do believe that violent acts of terror are condoned by their religion and are willing to act on those beliefs. We know that 50% (+/-) of them are sympathetic to the beliefs and goals of the 10% aforementioned. We are also aware that in spite of assurances from the grand prevaricator that there in NO WAY to properly vet those 'refugees' being foisted on us. It's not as if we have diplomatic relations with Syria and the willing cooperation of that government in the vetting process, do we? Or that we have perfected a "terrorist detector" machine. Not to mention the financial and law enforcement manpower that is going to be consumed 'keeping an eye' on these people. And make no mistake, they ARE being targeted for surveillance.

So while it's nice to sit back and intellectualize the whole "innocent until proven guilty" notion, or the notion of human compassion does that not also apply to your fellow countrymen, friends and neighbors? The very people that would become the victims of these religious fanatics? Fanatics that are in reality not all that fanatical at all when viewed from the context of their own religious teachings and tenets. And as it turns out it is the "peaceful" minority that turn out to be the radicals within the religion.

There being here serves no legitimate national purpose beyond making some few individuals in the halls of power feel better about themselves and to hell with the rest of us.

Ishmael

I think your percentages are shit. If 10% of all Muslims were committed to violent jihad we'd be having Paris and San Bernardino slaughters two or three times per month all over the world. Even if your numbers are correct, you wish to discriminate against 50% of Muslims based on nothing more than their "sympathies" with jihadists AS WELL AS the remaining 40% who have no such sympathies at all or another subset of that 40% who McCarthy found willing to repudiate and actually infiltrate or testify against the very poison that has contaminated their religion. By any mathematical calculus that makes your proposed "policy" pretty stupid.

But I don't really give a damn whether we take in Syrian refugees or not. I was just reacting to the OP of this thread by emphasizing Andrew McCarthy's appropriate distinction between the apparent beliefs and behaviors of the vast majority of Muslims (which your own numerical estimates confirm) and the violence which ancient Islamic texts teach.

Rather than continuing your one note ear worm on the danger of a handful of refugees, why don't you attempt to explain the stunning size of the population of Muslims who daily turn a blind eye and deaf ear to this unmistakable vein of militant doctrine running through their religion.

It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. But it apparently doesn't spark your curiosity in the least.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The Unexpected Snake
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 17 Comments
The Farmer and the Snake

A Farmer walked through his field one cold winter morning. On the ground lay a Snake, stiff and frozen with the cold. The Farmer knew how deadly the Snake could be, and yet he picked it up and put it in his bosom to warm it back to life.

The Snake soon revived, and when it had enough strength, bit the man who had been so kind to it. The bite was deadly and the Farmer felt that he must die. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

The Greatest Kindness Will Not Bind the Ungrateful.

The moral of this Aesopian fable from a mere 2500 years ago is that doing good to evil will only lead to more evil. Aiding those who kill only brings more death, not life.

The FABLE only proves Aesop was as ignorant of reptilian behavior as is BizzBooty. Let's review for the benefit of the rest of the class.

1. The vast majority of snakes are not venomous and all snakes present no danger to humans when left alone in their natural habitat.

2. The vast majority of snakes will not bite unless provoked. There is absolutely no evidence of any snake species displaying consistently routine aggression against the much larger and threatening species of homo sapiens absent a perceived provocation. Even snakes aren't that stupid.

3. The reptilian brain has no capability of discerning when it is the beneficiary of benevolent "care" from a larger, potentially threatening species capable of and often predisposed to killing it.

4. Comparing the reflexive behavior of venomous snakes with the "reasoned" behavior of human beings raises grave doubts about the reptilian similarities of the brain of that person making such a patently ridiculous comparison.

 

[Busybody]

Muslims attack with no provocation

 

[Busybody]

Who the fuck is doing that? I'm sure you can provide links.

I'll wait.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mus...ome..69i57.10419j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Busybody]

I think your percentages are shit. If 10% of all Muslims were committed to violent jihad we'd be having Paris and San Bernardino slaughters two or three times per month all over the world. Even if your numbers are correct, you wish to discriminate against 50% of Muslims based on nothing more than their "sympathies" with jihadists AS WELL AS the remaining 40% who have no such sympathies at all or another subset of that 40% who McCarthy found willing to repudiate and actually infiltrate or testify against the very poison that has contaminated their religion. By any mathematical calculus that makes your proposed "policy" pretty stupid.

But I don't really give a damn whether we take in Syrian refugees or not. I was just reacting to the OP of this thread by emphasizing Andrew McCarthy's appropriate distinction between the apparent beliefs and behaviors of the vast majority of Muslims (which your own numerical estimates confirm) and the violence which ancient Islamic texts teach.

Rather than continuing your one note ear worm on the danger of a handful of refugees, why don't you attempt to explain the stunning size of the population of Muslims who daily turn a blind eye and deaf ear to this unmistakable vein of militant doctrine running through their religion.

It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. But it apparently doesn't spark your curiosity in the least.

there are

ALL OVER THE WORLD

 

[Ishmael]

I think your percentages are shit. If 10% of all Muslims were committed to violent jihad we'd be having Paris and San Bernardino slaughters two or three times per month all over the world. Even if your numbers are correct, you wish to discriminate against 50% of Muslims based on nothing more than their "sympathies" with jihadists AS WELL AS the remaining 40% who have no such sympathies at all or another subset of that 40% who McCarthy found willing to repudiate and actually infiltrate or testify against the very poison that has contaminated their religion. By any mathematical calculus that makes your proposed "policy" pretty stupid.

But I don't really give a damn whether we take in Syrian refugees or not. I was just reacting to the OP of this thread by emphasizing Andrew McCarthy's appropriate distinction between the apparent beliefs and behaviors of the vast majority of Muslims (which your own numerical estimates confirm) and the violence which ancient Islamic texts teach.

Rather than continuing your one note ear worm on the danger of a handful of refugees, why don't you attempt to explain the stunning size of the population of Muslims who daily turn a blind eye and deaf ear to this unmistakable vein of militant doctrine running through their religion.

It's really quite remarkable when you think about it. But it apparently doesn't spark your curiosity in the least.

You could look those numbers up yourself. Both the number for the jihadists and the number for the sympathizers. It's all out there as a results of polls conducted IN Muslim nations by reputable polling firms, Pew Research being one of them.

Of course we hear about all of the big events perpetrated by these "peaceful" Muslims, and it is to the credit of International law enforcement community, along with the wholesale paying on the citizenry, spying that we wouldn't have to tolerate or pay for if not for these "peaceful" Muslims, that there are quite a few more monstrous events.

What we don't hear a lot about are the 'little murders' that take place daily, or much about things like the sex slave rings run by these "peaceful" Muslim yuts, the most notable is the ring that is/was being run in Oxford UK.

You are free to believe anything you want, me, I'll stick with the numbers.

And I reiterate, no useful purpose is served by bringing them into this nation, none at all. They are an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and law enforcement while representing a potential grave danger. The purpose of our government is NOT to provide a haven for the rest of the world at the expense of the citizen.

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

there are

ALL OVER THE WORLD

but being the RACIST that HOGAN is

he doesnt count the hundreds or more of DEAD MUSLIMS and BLACKS that are killed by MUSLIMS daily, globally

The RACIST HOGAN only counts WHITE DEATHS

 

[Busybody]

Hogan the Blind


http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-i-tell-ye-hogan-s-r-right-whin-he-says-justice-is-blind-blind-she-is-an-deef-an-dumb-an-has-a-finley-peter-dunne-316952.jpg


take time doing reading

here


daily

educate yourself to what is going on

worldwide

http://www.rantburg.com/

 

[richard_daily]

Ever notice after virtually all attacks in teh West


We are told, THEY WERE ON A WATCH LIST!

The so called LONE WOLVES are really KNOWN WOLVES.....so what is the point of WATCH LIST?

NOTHING!

You're right. I'm sure you're on a watch list, and they're doing nothing about you.

 

[Busybody]

they are MOAR likely to do something about me then a MUSLIM terrorist

 

[Busybody]

this is for EVERYONE but RACIST Hogan

he wouldnt understand

since HE brought up San Bern

remember those 2? they were regular people....ordinary Americans, working at great jobs....having lunch with co workers....their co-workers even threw a baby shower for em

WHAT WAS END RESULT?


how can you tell the TERRORISTS from the NON?

KILL EM ALL

its war, not criminal

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You are free to believe anything you want, me, I'll stick with the numbers.

And I reiterate, no useful purpose is served by bringing them into this nation, none at all. They are an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and law enforcement while representing a potential grave danger. The purpose of our government is NOT to provide a haven for the rest of the world at the expense of the citizen.

Ishmael

As I told you, I don't give a damn about NOT admitting Syrian refugees.

But if you truly believed in YOUR numbers your would believe in the 90% of Muslims who represent NO THREAT to you whatsoever. "No threat whatsoever" includes those who might believe you were "worthy" of a violent infidel's death but, for whatever reasons, will never raise a hand against you. I don't propose you invite these people into your home for a sleep over. But "threat" speaks to their SPECIFIC LIKELIHOOD of hostile action against you. And there is no realistic threat in breathing the same air with these people on a street corner or shopping with them in a grocery store. They are fanatical and twisted in thought, but not violent. If they even had a significant propensity for violence, your 10% figure would be growing rapidly. Why isn't it? YOUR OWN numbers damn your insane paranoia.

If you want to fight a war, shoot BACK at the people shooting at you. Leave the Fifth Column penetration to the intelligence experts. They're better at it than you are.

 

[Busybody]

As I told you, I don't give a damn about NOT admitting Syrian refugees.

But if you truly believed in YOUR numbers your would believe in the 90% of Muslims who represent NO THREAT to you whatsoever. "No threat whatsoever" includes those who might believe you were "worthy" of a violent infidel's death but, for whatever reasons, will never raise a hand against you. I don't propose you invite these people into your home for a sleep over. But "threat" speaks to their SPECIFIC LIKELIHOOD of hostile action against you. And there is no realistic threat in breathing the same air with these people on a street corner or shopping with them in a grocery store. They are fanatical and twisted in thought, but not violent. If they even had a significant propensity for violence, your 10% figure would be growing rapidly. Why isn't it? YOUR OWN numbers damn your insane paranoia.

If you want to fight a war, shoot BACK at the people shooting at you. Leave the Fifth Column penetration to the intelligence experts. They're better at it than you are.

if you had 100 little diamonds in a bowl

and you were TOLD 10 had POISON and you would die instantly if you picked it

40 maybe had a 25% chance of being poisoned

the rest, were clear and you could keep it

HOW MANY WOULD YOU TAKE?

answer the question

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is not the first time that Ishmael has fallen back to "but...but...ten percent radicalz!" as justification for his doctrine of "Preemptive Hate".

He's part of the demographic here that gets a thrill out of fearin' the Monster Under The Bed.

 

[Busybody]

Hogan gets his ideas on Islam from


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChGdQI_UgAAqU24.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hogan the Blind


take time doing reading

here


daily

educate yourself to what is going on

worldwide

http://www.rantburg.com/

but being the RACIST that HOGAN is

he doesnt count the hundreds or more of DEAD MUSLIMS and BLACKS that are killed by MUSLIMS daily, globally

The RACIST HOGAN only counts WHITE DEATHS

In the first place, most of the violence in your stupid RANTburg link is in the combat theaters of the Middle East -- Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. My point is that there is a disparity of the export of the "revolution" outside of these areas given the allegation of the size of the jihadist community internationally.

Secondly, who the fuck do you think your kidding? When were YOU concerned about any deaths at the hands of jihadists other than white deaths? Shia and Sunni Muslims have been slaughtering each other for centuries. When did you ever give a shit?

"Kill 'em all!" is your meme, I believe. ISIS is your dream come true. They are far more concerned with beheading Sunnis than you. If they manage to catch you with the same pooper scooper, all well and good. But if you really believe they have a ghost of a chance of actually realizing their "goal" of having a caliphate ruling over Western Europe and the United States, you are truly dumber than I ever thought you were.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Well fuck me! My original post had been tampered with somehow (but not by me) when I just then looked back at it and re-read it...

It was as if someone had taken my original down and then re-typed it back up from a copy on their desktop.

Fuck me. Talk about turn me into a paranoid conspiracy theorist...

 

[someoneyouknow]

Ever notice after virtually all attacks in teh West


We are told, THEY WERE ON A WATCH LIST!

The so called LONE WOLVES are really KNOWN WOLVES.....so what is the point of WATCH LIST?

NOTHING!

Because we are forced to act vs MUSLIMS like a criminal investigation....we have to wait till AFTER DEATH and MURDER and DESTRUCTION!


ENOUGH!

Its WAR

ACT LIKE IT!

Mohammad Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, was not only a watch list but was in the country in his own name on a student visa. A few of the other hijackers were also on lists and in this country under their own names.

Perhaps Bush should have taken your advice and 3,000 people wouldn't have died in a few hours.