Umm guys...the government is being naughty

[Paddy]

And remember, Euclidean, we're Americans, and if we don't like our 'leaders', our elected 'officials', or if they get out of line, we have not only the right, but the duty, to kill them.

We've done it before, and we'll do it again.

[Ex-MA Hole]

Riley, that's now two of your posts that I've had to edit for inappropriate language.

You know the rules, cut it out, or go somewhere else.

[Len Budney]

You didn't even read anything I just wrote, did you.

Riley replied to it very well. It's the same wild hysteria with which you apparently handle every subject, from Ron Paul to the price of unleaded.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

JERUSALEM, Nov. 12  Several Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded in Gaza today when a mass rally to mark the third anniversary of the death of Yasir Arafat, the longtime Palestinian leader, ended in armed clashes.

The official Palestine Authority television reported that seven people had been killed and more than 150 wounded. An official at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, reached by telephone soon after the clashes, said there was still no clear information about the number of people killed, but that it appeared to be less than seven.

The extremists can't even have an anniversary celebration of anything without it turning into wild, animalistic bloodshed.

And they want to bring their roadshow worldwide, to a neighborhood near you. It's already happening in the UK, where factional violence is just around the corner and 40% of those polled want sharia law in predominately Muslim areas...and "apostates" already fear for their very lives.

We ignore the threat at our own peril.

[Len Budney]

The extremists can't even have an anniversary celebration of anything without it turning into wild, animalistic bloodshed.

You use the word "extremist" the way many Muslims use the word "Zionist." It's hard to tell whether any Jew manages not to be a "Zionist," and it's like pulling teeth to get you to specifically identify any Muslim as other than "extremist."

You'll find your world a lot more rational if you discount hypothetical threats over actual ones, and distant threats over present ones. Say what you want about a riot in Gaza, but one thing is certain: it never put your sorry butt at risk, unless your butt sticks out about 5,000 miles. So using it as evidence of a clear and present danger calling for immediate slaughter is insane.

When some gangsta raps about killin' whitey, do you lobby for an invasion of the inner cities and a general slaughter of blacks everywhere?

--Len.

[Bogie]

Answer this for me - what is more important to you?

That you perceive that our government is committing an injustice toward American people.

or...

That there is a group of people who see killing you and I as their life's mission.
 

[Manedwolf]

Len,

I'll make it easier for you.

Normal Muslim, when offered a ham sandwich:

"No thank you...might you have anything else? Chicken, or roast beef?"

Extremist Muslim, when they HEAR about someone being made to handle a package of bacon in their job:

"SUE! Death to America! Death to the great satan! Islam shall conquer all!"


Normal Muslim, upon seeing a cartoon vaguely insulting to Mohammed:

*turns page, ignores it*

Extremist Muslim, upon seeing the same:




There, does that make sense, now? Simple enough?

[Len Budney]

Maned, by your standard the "good" Muslims are almost all of them. 99+% of the world's billion Muslims weren't at those ridiculous rallies, etc.

On the other hand, saying mean, even bloodthirsty things is neither a crime nor punishable by death. If it were, then right-wingers who advocate arresting all anti-war Americans for treason, say, should also be disappeared to a Gitmo of their own. By your own standard, an awful lot of "conservatives" would be taken off the streets. I've personally heard a great many of them wish out loud that they had some "liberals" in their sights. One gun club to which I belong used 4'x8' Kerry/Edwards signs to hang targets on. On at least one occasion, I took down a riddled picture of Kerry to put up my own target.

--Len.

[Bogie]

Len, you're educated, right?
 
You _do_ realize then that that fact makes you one of the first folks who they'd like to kill?
 
Besides, you wish to negotiate with them, and appease them. That means you are weak. That means you should be killed.
 
Guy, it's a matter of numbers...

If 10% of the folks are "a little over the top" (the Muslim equivalent of raving pentecostal snake handlin' babblers), that's 120 million.

If 1% of THOSE folks are "a little over the top" for that, you've got 1,200,000.

If 1% of THOSE folks don't play well with others to the point that they're REALLY fanatical religious nutjobs, you've got 12,000.

And if 1% of those folks are in the US, that's 120 committed fanatical religious nutjobs who view sawing one's head off with a rusty knife as being a totally normal, and desirable, activity.
 
And don't forget that they're patient. Americans still go through life in Condition White - we're easy targets. And culturally, we've got the attention span of an 8 year old boy on the first nice day in the spring... After he's been fed four cans of Red Bull in 15 minutes... Whereas your average "Islamic Freedom Fighter" is fighting a war that his great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather thought was old...

[Len Budney]

You _do_ realize then that that fact makes you one of the first folks who they'd like to kill?

We're going in circles because you're completely paranoid. I realize there are bad guys in the world; you think they're behind every tree and hiding in your sock drawer.

--Len.

[Bogie]

Nope. The .45 is in my sock drawer.
 
I just don't hate the current presidential administration enough to wish to forfeit my country's safety.
 

[CAnnoneer]

"They are not a threat because there are so few of them" is not a good argument. The entire 9/11 plot was limited to less than 100 participants, only a few of which actually crossed into the US.

[Len Budney]

"They are not a threat because there are so few of them" is not a good argument. The entire 9/11 plot was limited to less than 100 participants, only a few of which actually crossed into the US.

Absolutely--but as has been said umpteen times, nothing the administration is doing is in any way stopping another handful from crossing into the US. The borders are still sieves. Domestic targets are as vulnerable as ever. Airport security is worse than ever. In every way, the risk of such an attack is equal or greater to the risk on 9/10/2001. Meanwhile, vast resources are being wasted: slaughtering Iraqis; spying on falafel purchases; patting down little girls in airports; forcing every bank teller to be an informant; etc.--all without making the US one whit safer than it was before.

If those measures did make us safer, Thomas Jefferson would still call you a contemptible, slavish creature for trading freedom away to get security. But at least you'd actually be getting the security. As it stands, you're throwing away your liberties to get no security. That's contemptible, slavish and just plain stupid.

--Len.

[yesitsloaded]

I just don't hate the current presidential administration enough to wish to forfeit my country's safety.

Rubbish. Our country isn't safe at all. The TSA is a joke, any Mexican(or terrorist) that wants to can waltz across the border, and our military can't defend us because they are off playing nation builders. The terrorists on 9/11 didn't use bombs, they used freakin' box cutters. To say that our nation is safe is pure ignorance. If we went to a police state would there be less attacks, maybe, but I'd rather die free than live. Thats why this country is so great. They are willing to die in an attack, but we are willing to die on the altar of freedom defending others. That and we are much better shots and have better tactics. If we start suspecting each other and map each other out as to who wants to bomb who, we give up the very things that they hate us for. It is simple really, find the bad guys, kill them, and leave everyone else alone. We need to send the message not to screw with us. All we have shown Osama so far is that if you attack us, we will invade your base of operations and drive you out, and then go invade a country that has no ties to you whatsoever. I'd rather Saddam still be alive, if we had Osama's head on a pike on the white house lawn.

[Gewehr98]

Who in the know said that?

Absolutely--but as has been said umpteen times, nothing the administration is doing is in any way stopping another handful from crossing into the US.

So you personally haven't witnessed any attempted acts of terrorism being thwarted by government agencies, right?

Wow, that's really silly.  You're essentially saying that just because you haven't seen it happen, it doesn't exist.  Should I petition to get you a TS/SCI access just so you can read on SIPRNET or JWICS what's happened in the counter-terrorism front since 11 Sep 01?

I just retired from a certain 3-letter agency's ISR service.  I'm not going into details, but suffice it to say, it works as best as the system will allow.  People want security from terrorists coming into our porous borders, but don't want to be burdened by the inconveniences thereof.  You can't have your cake and eat it, honestly.

[yesitsloaded]

People want security from terrorists coming into our porous borders, but don't want to be burdened by the inconveniences thereof.

I'm not one of those people. I understand attacks have been thwarted, but the borders are still not secure. There is a very fine line between investigation and civil rights abuse that I believe is being crossed. As I have stated before American citizens have certain rights that cannot be taken away. There is also due process which involves warrants and trials. If the system is so bad that warrants cannot be obtained in a reasonable time, fix the system, don't infringe on civil rights.

[Len Budney]

Absolutely--but as has been said umpteen times, nothing the administration is doing is in any way stopping another handful from crossing into the US.

So you personally haven't witnessed any attempted acts of terrorism being thwarted by government agencies, right? Wow, that's really silly...

Just a tip: when you have to put words into my mouth in order to make me play into your argument, look for another argument.

I just retired from a certain 3-letter agency's ISR service.  I'm not going into details, but suffice it to say, it works as best as the system will allow.

I'm afraid "I have proof but it's a secret" stopped working sometime in kindergarten.

It's a waste of your time anyway: there's no getting around the fact that the borders are as open as ever, domestic targets as open as ever, airport security worse than ever, etc. The lack of security is perfectly plain, and is confessed with every airport recording that butchers the word "or'nge." "As well as the system will allow"? The "system" doesn't "allow" the porous borders to be closed? Just how much kool-aid did they give you at that "certain three-letter agency" of yours?

People want security from terrorists coming into our porous borders, but don't want to be burdened by the inconveniences thereof.  You can't have your cake and eat it, honestly.

I don't recall asking anyone to "protect" me. If it comes right down to it, I'd rather die a free man in a fiery plane crash than live a slave. So I'll just keep my freedom, thanks, and cordially invite you to shove that "security" you're peddling right up your downspout.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

I'm afraid "I have proof but it's a secret" stopped working sometime in kindergarten.

I think it's more that the proof is part of ongoing international investigations, and blabbing to the general public would tip those being investigated off to the fact that they're being investigated, and they'd go to ground and vanish.

[Thor]

Len, in defense of Gewehr, not that he needs any, but once one acquires a clearance, they are subject to some pretty heavy fines and/ or imprisonment or both should they disclose what is deemed to be classified information. My knowledge of certain avionics systems cannot be divulged to anybody not having the need to know. Quite honestly, I'm not willing to suffer the consequences of divulging classified information. I doubt that Gewehr is, either.

Apparently you've never held any kind of a clearance, or if so, perhaps nothing but a confidential ENTNAC.

[Len Budney]

Len, in defense of Gewehr, not that he needs any, but once one acquires a clearance...

He has no choice but to keep his mouth shut when his "proof" is "classified." One of the costs of going into the spook business. I'm obviously not suggesting that he reveal state secrets; rather, when "state secrets" are the only evidence he has, he's stuck with an unproven case. You can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, his "state secrets" aren't worth a darn anyway. None of them will prove that our open borders are closed, because they aren't, or that our vulnerable targets are secure, because they aren't, or that airport security is better than on 9/10, because it isn't.

In addition, we know that credible threats haven't been averted because the government would publicize them the way they publicized the functionally-retarded "Miami Seven" or the hopeless morons known as the "Fort Dix Six." They make a media circus out of arresting non-threatening people whose only links to "terror" are through the agent provocateur assigned to them. Rest assured, if they actually nabbed a cell of competent terrorists, they'd give it wall-to-wall coverage.

--Len.

[Bogie]

Or they're acting on the intel, and the former terrorists are drooling upon themselves in between doses of meds, while we keep them in cold storage in case we need them for something.

I think I'd make a really, really good evil spylord...
 

[De Selby]

This is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and few others Muslims are begging the community as a whole to understand. That unless they, themselves, fight back and root out the radicals, and stop tolerating them, Islam is finished, because the violent radicals will spread, kill peaceful ones who dare dissent, and then themselves be destroyed by the backlash from those whom they attack. And then nothing will be left of the religion at all.

Except that Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't Muslim-she's an ex Muslim from somalia who writes for the American Enterprise Institute, not for scholarly purposes or a even literary ones. 

There most certainly are Muslims out there struggling for human rights and justice, but you don't notice those (I note that Mina, the martyred founder of RAWA, remains nameless in the United States) because they're actually religious Muslims.   Only people who totally reject Islam and call for the countries where most Muslims live to be destroyed (like Hirsi Ali, that is exactly what she says) get any airtime, and we're supposed to buy that this is an effort to "reform Islam"?  Please.

To illustrate my point, what are Muslims supposed to think when everyone is holding up Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a reformer, and she says things like this:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

Reason: Dont you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once its defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. Its very difficult to even talk about peace now. Theyre not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, defeat Islam?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And theres no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and theyre the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, This is a warning. We wont accept this anymore. There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you dont do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

[De Selby]

It really came to life when I read a book called Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It describes her experiences as a Muslim woman, the the interworkings of Islamic countries that facilitate the subjugation of women, foster hatred for the West, etc. She also speaks to how the religion ITSELF, taken literaly, facilitates this. This got me thinking, she had lots of valid points.

One thing to remember is that Hirsi Ali is to Muslims what Jack Chick is to Catholics-bitter ex members of any religion are seldom good sources of information on what that religion teaches.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not Muslim, for the record, and her rejection of Islam and calls for the destruction of Muslim countries (I'm not exaggerating-that is exactly what she proposes will solve the world's problems) has only made her much more famous and wealthy than she ever could have been otherwise.  Yes, she gets hate mail, but so does Rush Limbaugh.  It's the height of irony that someone who complains about how dangerous Islam is actually profits hugely from the criticism, and appears to be sacrificing nothing at all besides the ability to travel to places like Somalia and Saudi Arabia.

Some "courage" that takes.

[jeepmor]

No bigotry here , moving on.

[CAnnoneer]

We know on which team you play, SS. You got negative credibility.