A Philosopher's Blog

Motives for Terror

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics by Michael LaBossiere on May 6, 2013
MQ-1L Predator UAV armed with AGM-114 Hellfire...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After the evil and senseless bombing in Boston, there was considerable speculation about the motives of the bombers. Not surprisingly, some folks blamed their preferred demons: some on the left leaped to conclusions involving right-wingers while those on the right leaped to conclusions involving Islam.  As it turns out, the alleged murderers have a connection to Islam.

While some hold the view that there is a strong causal connection between being a Muslim and being a terrorist, the connection obviously cannot be that strong. After all, the vast majority of Muslims do not engage in terrorism. As such, beginning and ending the discussion of the motive for terror with Islam is not adequate.

When it comes to terrorist attacks against the United States, the stock explanation is that the terrorists are motivated by a hatred of our freedom. A common variation on that is that they hate democracy. Another explanation is that they simply hate the United States and other countries.

The explanation that terrorists are motivated by a hatred of our freedom (or democracy) does two main things. The first is that it casts the terrorists as enemies of freedom and democracy, thus presenting them as having evil motives. The second is that it casts the United States and its allies as being attacked because of their virtues. Crudely put, the bad guys are attacking us because they hate what is good.

The explanation that the terrorists simply hate the United States and its allies also does two main things. The first is that it casts the terrorists as simply being haters without any justification for their hate. The second is that it casts the United States and its allies as innocent targets. Crudely put, the haters are attacking us because they are haters.

In both of these approaches, the United States and its allies are presented as innocent victims who are being attacked for wicked or irrational reasons. What certainly helps support this narrative is that the terrorists engage in acts that are wicked and certainly seem irrational. After all, the people who are killed and injured are usually just random innocents who simply happen to be in the blast area at the time. Because of this, it is correct to condemn such terrorists as morally wicked on the grounds that they engage in indiscriminate violence. However, the fact that the direct victims of the terrorists are generally innocent victims of wicked deeds does not entail that the terrorists are motivated to attack innocent countries because they hate us, our freedom or our democracy.

One significant source of evidence regarding the motivation of terrorists is the statements terrorists make regarding their own reasons. In the case of the alleged Boston bomber, he claims that he was motivated by the United States’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In the case of other terrorists, they have generally claimed they are motivated by the actions of the United States and its allies.

My point here is not to justify the actions of the terrorists. Rather, the point is that the terrorists do not claim to be motivated by the reasons that have been attributed to them. That is, they do not regard themselves as being driven to attack us because they hate our freedom or democracy. They do often claim to hate us, but for rather specific reasons involving our foreign policy. As such, these stock explanations seem to be in error.

It might be countered that the terrorists are lying about their motivations. That is, that they are really driven by a hatred of our freedom or democracy and are just claiming that they are motivated by our foreign policy and associated actions (like invading countries and assassinating people with drones) for some devious reason.

The obvious reply to this is that if terrorists were motivated by a hatred of freedom or democracy, they would presumably attack countries based on their degree of freedom or democracy. Also, a non-stupid terrorist would take into account the ease of attacking a country and what the country could and would do in response. Hitting the United States to strike against freedom or democracy would thus be a poor choice, given our capabilities and how we respond to such attacks (invasions, drone strikes and so on).  To use an analogy, if someone hated athletes, it would not be very sensible to get into a fist fight with a professional mixed martial artist when one could go beat up a marathon runner (who is not also a martial artist).

It might be countered that the United States is the symbol for freedom and democracy, hence the terrorists want to attack the United States even though they know that this will result in retaliation of the sort that many other democratic states cannot or would not engage in.

While this is not impossible, the more plausible explanation is that the terrorists are motivated by their hatred of our foreign policy. After all, invasions, assassinations and such tend to motivate people to engage in violence far more so than some sort of hatred of freedom or democracy.

It might, of course, be wondered why the motivation of terrorists matter. What matters is not why they try to murder people at a marathon but that they try to do such things.

While what they do obviously matters, why they do it also matters. While I obviously believe that terrorism of the sort that took place in Boston is evil, this does not entail that there are no legitimate grievances against the United States and its allies in regards to our foreign policies. To use an analogy, if Bob blows up Sam’s whole family because Sam killed Bob’s son, then Bob has acted wrongly. But this does not prove that Sam acted rightly in killing Bob’s son. In the case of the United States, the fact that we have been attacked by terrorists does not thus make our invasions or drone assassinations right. Now, it might turn out that our actions are right, but we cannot infer that they are just because terrorists do terrible things.

Sorting out what motivates terrorists is also rather useful in trying to prevent terrorism. If we assume they are motivated by their hatred of our freedom or democracy, then we would have to abandon our freedom or democracy to remove their motivation. This is obviously something that should not be done.

However, if some terrorists are motivated by specific aspects of our foreign policy (such as drone strikes that kill civilians), then it seems well worth considering whether we should change these policies. To use an analogy, if someone keeps trying to attack me because I am virtuous, then I obviously should not abandon my virtues just to stop these attacks. But if someone keeps trying to attack me because I keep provoking him, then I should consider whether or not I should be doing those things. It might turn out that I am in the right, but it might turn out that I am in the wrong. If I am in the wrong, then I should change. But if he is in the wrong, then I would be warranted in not changing (but I would need to be honest about why he is attacking me). For example, if he goes after me because I am stealing his newspaper and dumping leaves in his yard, then I should probably stop doing that. As another example, if he is going after me because I run past his house, then he should stop doing that.

The same would seem to apply to terrorists. If we are engaged in unjust actions that provoke people, then we should stop those actions. If, however, we are acting justly and this provokes people, then we should continue to the degree those actions are warranted and necessary. But we should be honest about why they area attacking us.

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

157 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Islam is a supremacist religion that teaches its followers to hate anything non-Islamic. This is why the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan. This is why Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims.

    But, I am glad to see that Mike is slowly coming around to my non-interventionist policy regarding Islamic civilization: just leave them alone and do not attempt to influence them in any way.

    Impressively, the Obama administration is also coming around:

    Mr. Obama’s advisers also raised legal issues. “How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?” another official said, referring to United Nations authorization. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

    • WTP said, on May 6, 2013 at 11:36 am

      But would a non-interventionist policy put Mike in conflict with one of his self-avowed main duties, to preserve humanity? When it comes to action vs. talk, it gets complicated, does it not? As Obambi is finding out in Syria, as elsewhere.

      And to argue the so-called interventionist side, do you argue that we abandon a close ally like Israel? What does this say about our character as a country? Isolationism has been tried at various times in the last 100-120 years or so since the US became a world power. It hasn’t worked out so well for anybody and we end up in worse situations than what we started with. While I agree with the appeal, and in most cases I do think we need to stay out of messes where other nations could step up (like Europe), to not recognize the problem a power vacuum creates in an area where there is real economic power to be exploited, is naive. Someone will move in and control that power. Better a civilized, law respecting nation like the US as opposed to China, USSR/Russia, etc.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 6, 2013 at 11:49 am

      I’m not a scholar of Islam, but I suspect that he version of Islam you at describing is a rather limited version.

      Of course, this is part of a larger general problem: who or what defines the beliefs and principles of a group? If we just pick through the religious texts looking for what seem t be the worst passages, Islam and Christianity would both come off rather bad.

      If we look at the most extreme fundamentalists in a faith, almost any faith will come off rather badly. Think of the God Hates Fags folks-do they make Christianity a religion of hate or can we dismiss them from those who define the faith? If we can dismiss them, can we do the same with the Taliban?

      Some anti-religious thinkers do take the view that Islam is inherently bad. Bu they say the same of Christianity and other religions because they regard them all as being morally defective and in error regarding the facts.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 6, 2013 at 11:52 am

      I generally take a non-interventionist policy in terms of imposing on other countries. But when a ruler starts murdering his people, it is our business as human beings.

      That said, there are the practical concerns, such as whether or not we could effectively intervene. There are also other moral concerns, such as the cost to us in terms of lives and resources.

      • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 3:11 pm

        In theory, I fully agree, but obviously, as you say, there are practical considerations. There are many bad rulers that oppress and murder their subjects. We cannot police the entire world and intervene in all such cases. Exactly what to do and where to draw the line is a legitimate subject for discussion and debate. There will never be complete agreement, and that is not necessarily bad.

        We could set a better example. Guantanamo certainly does not enhance our moral authority, nor did water boarding. As a result, we may seem hypocritical when we criticize other countries for atrocities.

  2. FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    Islam is just as divided as are Christianity and other religions. Also, the Koran is just as subject to interpretation as is the Bible. Just as one can easily find unacceptable passages in the Bible (such as requiring a rape victim to marry her rapist, and how soldiers are to go about kidnapping and raping an attractive women, etc.), one can easily find unacceptable passages in the Koran. One can also find passages in the Koran that require Muslims to respect Christians and Jews as “people of the book.”

    Although our foreign policy should not be dictated exclusively by the attitudes of Muslims, neither should it ignore their attitudes. Before taking military action, we should consider whether it could influence some Muslims to engage in terrorist actions against us, but obviously that should not be the only consideration.

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 3:47 pm

      “Also, the Koran is just as subject to interpretation as is the Bible.”

      That’s just multi-culti nonsense.

      What do you think the life expectancy of a “Koran interpreter” is in an Islamic country?

      This just in:

      37 people were killed and hundreds more injured in Bangladesh today in fierce street fighting between police and Islamic hardliners demanding the death penalty for blasphemy.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319983/Bangladesh-protests-37-dead-hundreds-injured-police-battle-hardline-Islamist-group.html

      How much do you want to bet that most Imams would regard an “interpretation” of the Koan as blasphemous?

      • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        What you say is nonsense.

        Are you unaware that the police are also Muslims, and that Bangladesh has an Islamic government? That very incident proves what I have said, i.e., that the Koran is just as subject to interpretation as is the Bible, and that Muslims are just as divided as Christians. If that were not the case, those 37 people would not have been killed and hundreds more would not have been injured.

        There have been armed conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Those conflicts explain many of the problems in Syria and Iraq. If they all agreed on how the Koran and other Islamic documents should be understood, those conflicts would not exist.

        I lived in Fiji from 1994 to 2004. About 35 percent of the people in Fiji were of Indian ancestry, and many of those were Muslims. I had Muslim friends. They had differing opinions. One Muslim woman told me that she was certain that Mahatma Gandhi would be saved because, even though he was a Hindu, he was such a good man, yet we know that many Muslims would assume that, as an infidel, he would be condemned.

        I knew two couples that had mixed marriages; in both cases, the husband was Muslim and the wife was Christian. In one of the families, the boys attended the mosque and the girls attended the Methodist Church. It didn’t seem to be a problem for either them or their friends, but it would be a problem for many Muslims and Christians as we well know, thereby again proving that there are differences in opinions among Muslims.

        I would be interested in knowing how you know what most Imams would say. Are you aware of a properly done survey to determine that? I am certain that a considerable, though probably unquantifiable, number of Christian authorities would insist that the Bible is not subject to interpretation, even though it has been interpreted in many different ways.

        Consider too the history of Christianity. In 1492, under orders from the bishop of Rome, the king and queen expelled all the Christians and Muslims from Spain. One can easily document the history of oppression perpetuated by some branches of Christianity. Fortunately those Christians who would continue to persecute no longer have the power to do so. Unfortunately, some Muslims who support persecution still do have the power to do so. Obviously that should change.

        • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm

          Error correction:

          The second sentence of the last paragraph in my above long post should read, “In 1492, under orders from the bishop of Rome, the king and queen expelled all the Jews and Muslims from Spain.”

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm

          “that the Koran is just as subject to interpretation as is the Bible, and that Muslims are just as divided as Christians”

          As long as you don’t forget to mention that interpreting the Koran is likely to get you killed, I think we can agree.

          Simply stating some historical facts about Mohammed is even enough to get you killed.

          • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 6:37 pm

            “Simply stating some historical facts about Mohammed is even enough to get you killed.”

            Unfortunately, that is true in some Islamic countries, but definitely not in all of them. Even in Islamic countries where it is true, not all Muslims in those countries agree that it should be. According to many Muslims, there should be no compulsion in religion even though it is a fact that there is compulsion in some Muslim countries, just as at one time there was compulsion in some Christian countries.

            In Turkey, at some universities women are not permitted to wear the scarf; it is seen as a Muslim political statement and Turkey is currently trying to maintain a secular state. On the other hand, some Muslims see the scarf as mandatory in Islam. In Saudi Arabia, women have to be completely covered except for their eyes and hands. I read about what happened to one women when she was shopping in Saudi Arabia. She stood on her toes to see something on a high shelf and, horrors!! That exposed her ankles!! As a result, she was admonished by the religious police for her indecency.

            My sister took a course on Islam to enable her to understand it better; it would be good if more people did that. The teacher, who was a Muslim, asserted that in many places of the world, Islam is centuries behind Christianity in its acceptance of freedom of religion. Obviously she was right. The common intolerance of many groups of Muslims towards Christianity may be partly the result of past intolerance of Christians to Islam.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 8:13 pm

              “Even in Islamic countries where it is true, not all Muslims in those countries agree that it should be. According to many Muslims, there should be no compulsion in religion even though it is a fact that there is compulsion in some Muslim countries, just as at one time there was compulsion in some Christian countries.”

              Here you are mixing up what ordinary Muslims think with Islamic theology. I won’t argue that real, living Muslims have a wide spectrum of opinions. Islamic theology and sharia law, however, has been remarkably constant for centuries.

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 6:08 pm

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 6:32 pm

          Standing against Islam is a simple matter of human rights.

          • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm

            I’m sure that you could find many former Christians who would assert that Christianity is an oppressive religion that embraces a fictional book and superstition and that no thinking person could be a Christian. Those of us who have studied history and know about the inquisitions are well aware of the past injustices of Christianity. We also know that some elements of Christianity also oppose separation of church and state and want the U.S. to be declared to be a Christian country. Just look at how in the recent past some Christians have actually advocated the death sentence for same-sex encounters, even among consenting adults (they still do in Nigeria), and still oppose making same-sex marriage legal.

            The problem is not with any particular religion. The problem is that all too many people see their religion as infallible and think that any deviation from its tenants should be legally punished. And, at the present time, in many Muslim countries, Islam is centuries behind the times.

            Years ago, I read the book “The Veiled Kingdom” by Carmen Bin Ladin. The author relates her experiences with living under Sharia; it was not pleasant. So probably you cannot present me with very much information that I have not already acquired from other sources, including from my reading the Koran. Your assumption that what I write is the result of insufficient information is incorrect. You may wish to read the book yourself.

            I also suggest reading the book “The Spanish Inquisition” by Cecil Roth; I also have that book. Thus, my attitudes and beliefs are the result of thoroughly studying all sides of the matter.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 7:24 pm

              FRE, it’s good you are hard on Christianity. But why are you so soft on Islam? Why not be hard on both?

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 7:31 pm

              Exactly what is it about Islam that you find attractive?

            • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 7:48 pm

              T.J.,

              This system would not permit me to put this post past your last post.

              I am hard on all religious people who advocate using undo influence and try to force their ideas onto others. It is fine to discuss one’s religious beliefs with others, but to advocate using the law or other undo influence is totally, completely, and entirely unacceptable. One must distinguish being hard or soft on a religion and hard or soft on some of the followers of a religion. That is a distinction which you seem to have difficulty understanding.

              Except for stating their positions on social justice, religious leaders should refrain from using religious arguments to influence legislation. The line may be a bit fuzzy, but at least in principal, it should be recognized. And, a religious leader who choses to run for public office should first sever his leadership position with the religious organization with which he is a member.

              Although I do not support syncretism, I recognize that one can find good things in many religions just as one can find bad things in all religions. I am a member of a church that supports freedom to think and does not see itself as totally free from error. In that, it differs from some other churches. Some, as they change positions (and all have changed positions, whether they admit it or not) expect their members to follow along in lock-step. I could never accept that; I insist on thinking for myself.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 6, 2013 at 7:55 pm

              “That is a distinction which you seem to have difficulty understanding.”

              My criticisms of Islam have always been directed at the religion as a system of ideas. You are the one who started talking about Muslim friends in Fiji. I have Muslim friends, too, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 7, 2013 at 6:35 am

              This does connect to the general matter of who and what defines a faith or other system of belief. In the case of Islam, who and what defines the definitive version? Or is that itself begging the question by assuming there is a definitive version?

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 7, 2013 at 7:03 am

              Why are you guys wasting your time talking about a red herring? Muslims aren’t the problem, our government is. There have been ZERO terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the US without the FBI’s help.

              The tests of the Jewish and Christian scriptures have been examined by textual scholars and critics. Scholarly critical analysis is not permitted of Islamic texts, ether in the US or anywhere. Only one scholarly analysis is available that I know of, which is over 100 years olds

              See: Sources of the Quran: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45524162/The-Original-Sources-of-the-Quran

              See: FBI Foreknowledge of Boston Bombings – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2dk

              VIDEO – Triple Cross: Bin Laden’s Spy In America – http://youtu.be/_AgOnrc3j-w

              Rare TV NEWS Dan Rather reports on WTC bombing FBI Foreknowledge – http://youtu.be/hcldy9GT8p4

            • FRE said, on May 6, 2013 at 9:22 pm

              When changes in a religion occur, it is often because of action taken by the rank and file rather than by the leaders. The leaders sometimes have to be dragged forward, kicking and screaming. Also, the interaction between culture and religion is such that it is often difficult to separate one from the other.

              In the Roman Church, at least in modern prosperous countries, the members have a very different attitude from the hierarchy. Thus, although the Roman Church persists in asserting that contraception is a serious sin, educated Roman Catholics in prosperous countries disagree with their church and practice artificial contraception. I think that you will see the same sort of differences between Imams and educated Muslims in prosperous countries. One might assert that Saudi Arabia does not show much difference between the Imams and ordinary educated Muslims, but Saudi Arabia makes little pretense of being a democratic country. The citizens still have relatively little influence, are not readily able to assert themselves, and their exposure to outside ideas is limited.

              Until fairly recently, historically speaking, most Muslim countries were colonies and colonial powers usually didn’t do a good job of preparing their colonies for independence. You can see the results in South and Central America, Cuba, the Philippines, Africa, and most Muslim countries. Even now, in some small villages in South and Central American, people who are not members of the church of Rome face considerable discrimination.

            • WTP said, on May 7, 2013 at 9:13 am

              Even now, in some small villages in South and Central American, people who are not members of the church of Rome face considerable discrimination.

              And this of course, is the colonizers’ fault. Nothing could have been done by the succeeding governments of the last 150-200 years to correct the situation because of what the mean old colonizing powers had done with their original sin. Same goes for the US from Britain, I suppose.

  3. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 6, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    On September 11, 2001 the US government made a drastic policy shift: an act of terror was no longer a crime, it was an act of war. I knew, then, we were in trouble. Up until that time, all terrorists were considered criminal conspirators who would be tracked down, arrested, and “brought to justice.”

    This “bringing criminal conspirators to justice” policy was the correct one: terror is a tactic, not a nation state.

    The Taliban and the nation of Afghanistan offered to deliver up Osama bin Laden after September 11, 2001, but the US government would have none of that, because they also wanted to go after “the nations that harbored terrorists.”

    We can’t wage war against a tactic. We could have properly investigated the attacks of September 11, 2001, and discovered if in fact the “19 Saudi hijackers” were in fact the terrorists, or if they were in fact peoples who had had their identities stolen. But, regardless, there was no just cause for killing thousands of innocent Afghanis because of the attacks, nor was there just cause for invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Google: Operation Cyclone and see what our government has been doing regarding “Islamic jihadis” since 1979.

    The Boston bombers were no doubt threatened by the FBI upon their initial investigation of them years ago: “Cooperate with us or be deported, or be sent to Guantanamo Bay. Cooperate with us and you will have your US citizenship expedited and a “get out of jail free” card for the rest of your life.” Of course the FBI lied, and used them as patsies, to take the fall for the bombing.

    Anyone who believes the FBI paid a visit to them after the Russians informed them they were a threat and walked away saying “We investigated and there was nothing to it” is a fool who knows nothing about the FBI.

    Hillary tells us the ugly truth about “the regime” needing to “provoke” an attack, so that America would be unified and so that “the regime” would be “legitimized”.

    USA! USA! USA!

    VIDEO – Hillary Clinton laughing at the likelihood of the US regime provoking WW3 – http://youtu.be/eY0QAiYvZP8

  4. Terrorism | randomthoughts said, on May 6, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    [...] Motives for Terror (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) [...]

  5. T. J. Babson said, on May 11, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Qur’an:

    “You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews…” — Qur’an 5:82

    “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks…” — Qur’an 47:4

    Boston: 3 Jews had their throats slit on 9/11.

    Mess and two other men were found in a Waltham, Massachusetts residence with their throats slit and their bodies covered with marijuana on September 11, 2011. Tamerlan and Mess were once roommates and practiced boxing and martial arts together.

    http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-murder-boston-bombings-119/

    Mike, do you think the Tsarnaevs killed 3 Jews because of U.S. foreign policy, or could Islam perhaps have something to do with it?

    • WTP said, on May 11, 2013 at 10:12 am

      The Jews put those verses in the Koran in 1979, you know. Ask AJ.

      http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/gun-research/#comment-28196

      The FBI slit those Jews throats. Mike doesn’t need to bother with this question.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm

      I don’t know the motives. However, if I were to engage in some speculation, a person might be killed for being Jewish by a Muslim for any number of reasons. It could be because of Israel’s policies and actions, it could be because of being influenced by antisemitic leaders (such as the fellow you mention), and so on. Or it might be personal in nature.

      Overall, it is a hasty generalization to infer from the motives or claims of one person to the motives and views of the whole.

      In the case of terrorists being motivated by US Foreign policy, I am careful to note that my claim applies only to terrorists for which there is evidence of such motivation. There can be terrorists who have very different motivations.

      I’m no defender of any faith, my goal is to have a rational account of motivations. This is rather important to sorting out strategies for addressing terrorism. If all Muslims just want to kill all non-Muslims because their faith commands it, then that would be a rather different situation than there being a limited number of Muslims who want to attack the US because of their hatred of our foreign policy and related actions.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 11, 2013 at 9:55 pm

        “If all Muslims just want to kill all non-Muslims because their faith commands it, then that would be a rather different situation than there being a limited number of Muslims who want to attack the US because of their hatred of our foreign policy and related actions.”

        No one is claiming that “all Muslims” want to do anything. Some Muslims take their religion at face value and therefore kill non-believers.

        Some people refuse to believe that Islam sanctions violence against non believers, but others read the Qu’ran:

        “So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks…” — Qur’an 47:4

        and slit the throat on non believers.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 11, 2013 at 10:03 pm

        “Overall, it is a hasty generalization to infer from the motives or claims of one person to the motives and views of the whole.”

        You could say the same about Nazis. You could say the same about slave holders.

        Why bother to ever make a moral judgement? This is a cop out.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:37 am

          Your analogy is flawed.

          In the case of Nazis and slave holders, one can make inferences based on the established qualities of Nazis and slave holders. That is, what being a Nazi or slave holder entails. For example, one can infer that a slave holder has slaves and either lacks the moral convictions that slavery is wrong or will to act on such convictions. In the case of Islam, to infer that all Muslims believe X because some Muslims believe X would be a hasty generalization, unless it can be shown that X is a belief that one must hold in order to actually be a Muslim.

          To make inferences about all Muslims from a terrorist or radical cleric would be like drawing inferences about all Germans from a Nazi or all pre-civil war Americans from slave holders.

          I do make moral judgments, but I endeavor to focus the judgement on the right target.

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:46 am

            “To make inferences about all Muslims…”

            For the Nth time I am not making inferences about people (Muslims), but about an idea system, Islam, that sanctions violence against unbelievers.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 4:16 pm

              Sorry, you seemed to be talking about specific Muslims and their claims about Islam rather than the more abstract issue of the true nature of Islam.

              I’ve heard Islamic scholars make cases for the claim that Islam does not sanction violence against non-Muslims (that is, that Muslims do not get carte blanche to attack non-Muslims) and others make the argument that Islam must war on other faiths. I am still not sure which (if any) is the true Islam.

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:50 am

            You seem to accept that one can criticize Nazism without being unfair to Germans, but you don’t seem able to accept that one can criticize Islam without being unfair to Muslims.

  6. T. J. Babson said, on May 11, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Democrats at work:

    WASHINGTON, May 10, 2013—In a shocking affront to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have joined together to mandate that virtually every college and university in the United States establish unconstitutional speech codes that violate the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent.

    “I am appalled by this attack on free speech on campus from our own government,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has been leading the fight against unconstitutional speech codes on America’s college campuses since its founding in 1999. “In 2011, the Department of Education took a hatchet to due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. Now the Department of Education has enlisted the help of the Department of Justice to mandate campus speech codes so broad that virtually every student will regularly violate them. The DOE and DOJ are ignoring decades of legal decisions, the Constitution, and common sense, and it is time for colleges and the public to push back.”

    In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as “a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country,” the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private.

    The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.

    http://thefire.org/article/15767.html

    • WTP said, on May 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

      Doncha just love how stuff like this comes out on a Friday?

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 11, 2013 at 12:54 pm

        Cui bono?

        The US and Israeli governments did 9/11

        “Israel (Mossad) Did 9/11 and the US Military Knows

        “A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

        VIDEO – http://youtu.be/mQk4jOcV8RA

        VIDEO – http://youtu.be/qShoR5sXUJ0

        PAPER – http://www.scribd.com/doc/58318030/US-Military-Knows-Israel-Did-9-11-Alan-Sobrosky-USMC

        VIDEO – 9-11 WTC 7 Demolition – Penthouse Collapse Close Up, Flashes, And Gas Ejections [WCBS2] – http://youtu.be/9VHZf9uyIJk

        See: “Catholics” who did 9/11 – http://wp.me/pPnn7-1GY

        Choose your Muslim Jihadi: Hezbollah or al Qaeda?

        Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, and China versus Al Qaeda, USA, Israel, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others

        “Syria’s conflict is often described as a “civil war,” but that is only true insofar as it has yet to spill over into another country on a large scale or draw in too many different forces. But it is the quintessential proxy war, with the Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) Assad regime backed up by Shia allies Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China.

        “The Sunni rebels are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.”

        Source: ABC News – May 10, 2015 – Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation – http://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-al-qaeda-fighters-edging-closer-confrontation/story?id=19144119#.UY1oOeBiilc

        Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing

        “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria?

        Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

        And you’re also really, really gullible.” ~ Paul Mulshine

        Source: NJ.com – The Star Ledger – March 22, 2013 – Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing – http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/aiding_al_qaida_as_part_of_the.html

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 11, 2013 at 1:01 pm

        I don’t know why these links didn’t post before, so I am trying again. Whether peoples agree with his thesis or not, they need to ask themselves “Why Dr Sabrosky is saying these things, at the War College, at Marine Corps HQ, and at the Pentagon? and “What are the ramifications of his doing so?”

        Paper – http://www.scribd.com/doc/58318030/US-Military-Knows-Israel-Did-9-11-Alan-Sobrosky-USMC

        VIDEO – http://youtu.be/mQk4jOcV8RA

        “A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 11, 2013 at 5:43 pm

      I haven’t gotten that memo yet.

      However, if that is the standard being used, it is an absurd standard. After all, a person who is objectively unreasonable could regard “good morning” as sexual in nature and harassing. Once objectivity and reasonableness are tossed, then it would certainly seem that anything would (by the definitions of “subjectivity” and “unreasonable”) go.

      Having put decades in at the academy, I must say I have seen plenty of stupid stuff. Fortunately, enough folks are still sensible enough to keep civilization going. At least for now.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 12, 2013 at 10:16 am

        You can read the letter to the University of Montana right here:

        http://thefire.org/article/15763.html

        Refusing to read the memo is not the same as not receiving the memo.

        • biomass2 said, on May 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm

          TJ: Page 5 of the document you supply should go a long way (in my opinion) toward alleviating the doubts you express in your 5/11 10:24AM reply. It certainly provides a more specific description of sexual harassment than the fire.org articles paint.

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 12, 2013 at 4:27 pm

            biomass, can you quote the part that makes you feel better?

            This is what FIRE fears:

            The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.

            • biomass2 said, on May 12, 2013 at 9:16 pm

              As I’ve already suggested, go to page 5 in the document (15763.html) you cite.

              First full paragraph, including “. . .harassing conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive—to deny or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program based on sex”. This defines the level of severity. It’s subjective, but what would the alternative be? Ignoring the situation and the rights of the victim?

              2nd full paragraph beginning “In determining whether this denial or limitation has occurred, The United States examines all the relevant circumstanced from an objective and subjective perspective, including: the type of harassment (e.g., whether it was verbal or physical); the frequency and severity of the conduct; the age, sex, and relationship of the individuals involved (e.g., teacher-student or student-student); the setting and context in which the harassment occurred; whether other incidents have occurred at the college or university; and other relevant factors. The more severe the conduct, the less need there is to show a repetitive series of incidents to prove a hostile environment, particularly if the harassment is physical. Indeed, a single instance of rape is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment.” Paragraph continues by explaining what the university should do if the activity reaches the level of “criminal conduct”.Can you provide clearer guidelines than that? What would they be?

              3rd paragraph: “. . .evaluates the appropriateness of the responsive action by assessing whether it was prompt and effective.” As sexual harassment and the construction of a car differ, one might not be surprised that the the appropriate response to harassment as defined by the United States is somewhat more abstract than “has a steering mechanism” and “has headlights”.

              The letter from DOE/DOJ should not be interpreted while omitting the context explained clearly on pages 4-6. To do so makes it seem like the government is doing what it is not doing–that is, gutting its own standards. It’s actually demanding that colleges/universities develop an evaluation that goes considers the broad variety of circumstances in which harassment may occur, the variety of responses of the harassed, the frequency of the harassment, etc. It’s all there on page 5.

              Some alternatives to this approach might be a complete segregation of the sexes , a complete segregation of sexes by individual sexual preference, completely ignoring the rights of the harassed completely. Whicih to you prefer? Any alternatiives?

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 12, 2013 at 11:33 pm

              Page 9 is where they ditch the “objectively reasonable person” requirement for sexual harassment.

              Third, Sexual Harassment Policy 406.5.1 improperly suggests that the conduct does not
              constitute sexual harassment unless it is objectively offensive. This policy provides examples of
              unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature but then states that “[w]hether conduct is sufficiently
              offensive to constitute sexual harassment is determined from the perspective of an objectively
              reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.” Whether conduct is objectively
              offensive is a factor used to determine if a hostile environment has been created, but it is not the
              standard to determine whether conduct was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and
              therefore constitutes “sexual harassment.”

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 8:37 am

              I don’t believe they “ditch” it. In this section (“University Policies Prohibiting Sexual Harassment and Sexua lAssault”) they point out that the “‘objectively reasonable person’ requirement” is insufficient, not that it’s to be ignored. To finish that paragraph (p. 9) you quote:

              “As explained in the Legal Standards section above, the United States considers a variety of factors from both a subjective and objective perspective, to determine if a hostile environment has been created.”

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 9:01 am

              So where are the 1st amendment protections?

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 9:43 am

              The due process rights of the harasser, I’d expect. . . If he/ she wants to go to court to prove he/she is or is not an asshole, that’s all good with me. Then there’s the victim’s second amendment right to defend himself/herself against a perceived attack using his/her weapon of choice.

              Seriously. The concept of harassment is about as difficult to agree on as art or porno or beauty. Seeking objectivity in those areas is a ‘noble’ goal, but ultimately, understandings of the issues remain, in large part, in the eyes of the beholders. I believe the letter is the government’s attempt to reach a solution by providing definitions that limit the beholder’s field of vision—limit his/her routes to misunderstanding.

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:41 am

              NOTE: Ultimately, TJ, don’t forget the 1st Amendment rights you refer to. They should be, and are, as firm and unassailable as Second Amendment rights. If you sexually assault me, verbally or otherwise, you allegedly filthy prick , I can yell “assault”, slap you , blow a personal safety horn in your hairy ear, or take you through the same or similar process outlined in the letter. We can all take a shot at the legal system and see who comes out the winner. If the university system and the federal courts all the way to the top decide that you are, indeed, a filthy prick, well, there you go.

          • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm

            TJ: @ your 5/`11 10:26AM you initiated this little side trip. You couldn’t help getting your Dem hate on :).
            So. Found any 1st Amendment protections in my last two responses yet? What I’m describing is a process that’s already in place. What you’re fearing is a slippery slope where, conveniently, the victim suffers and the harasser continues doing his non-objectively-definable thing.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 3:33 pm

              Maybe this spells it out better for you, biomass:

              In a radical departure from Title IX jurisprudence, the federal government declares that “any” unwelcome sexual speech or other conduct is “sexual harassment,” regardless of whether it would offend a reasonable person, and regardless of whether it is severe, repeated, or pervasive.

              In its findings, it rejected narrower definitions rooted in federal court rulings, declaring that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.’” (The federal government has also effectively mandated “unconstitutional speech codes at colleges and universities nationwide,” notes the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.)

              By contrast, the Supreme Court has ruled that to constitute illegal sexual harassment, sexual advances or other verbal or physical conduct must be severe and pervasive, create a hostile environment, and be “objectively offensive” to a “reasonable person.” See, e.g., Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999). According to the Supreme Court, isolated instances of trivially offensive sexual speech are not illegal, and are not considered “sexual harassment” in even the broadest possible sense: that is, the “harassment” you are entitled to complain about under federal anti-retaliation laws, which allow employees to sue when they are disciplined for reporting what they in good faith believe to be sexual harassment, even if isn’t actually bad enough to be illegal. See Clark County School District v. Breeden (2001). If speech is not offensive to a reasonable person, it cannot even fall into the general category of “sexual harassment.”

              The definition of “sexual harassment” that the federal government demands that the University of Montana adopt is far broader than the sexual harassment policies declared unconstitutionally overbroad by federal appeals courts in DeJohn v. Temple University, Saxe v. State College Area School District, and McCauley v. University of the Virgin Islands, which made clear that there is no “sexual harassment” exception to the First Amendment.

              http://libertyunyielding.com/2013/05/11/obama-administration-demands-unconstitutional-campus-speech-codes-defines-college-dating-and-flirting-as-sexual-harassment/

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm

              So if you ask a girl out who doesn’t want to be asked out, you have sexually harassed her.

              Have you read “The Trial,” biomass?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 4:39 pm

              Not in any sensible account of harassment, at least if the “asking out” is not some sort of crazy, persistent thing, etc.

              While what counts as a “reasonable person” is a bit vague, the supreme court ruling seems to have presented a sensible standard.

              As far as I know, FAMU has not been sent this sort of letter. But, I’m just faculty so I’m out of the admin loop. Perhaps in August we’ll be informed of the new policy.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 4:24 pm

              “You couldn’t help getting your Dem hate on :) .”

              Like shooting fish in a barrel, biomass:

              A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.

              So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 6:16 pm

              As Amazon states in its Kindle Blog edition description, “Liberty Unyielding” is “American politics, news, and commentary from a conservative point of view.” No kidding. Looking at at the actual letter from DOJ/DOE, I’m seeing on pages 5-9 that the lack of clear definitions places the victim in the difficult position of making the decision of whether or not to report the questionable incidents . You may agree that such indecision, potential fear, and possible increased harassment due to lack of action, can have negative repercussions.

              Think about this. A young woman is harassed. She’s very uncomfortable, but, because of the difficulties I’ve just described, she doesn’t report the incidents to the proper authorities as they increase in number and intensity. Meanwhile, her harasser takes her lack of action as a form of consent, and this urges him on. Eventually, this type of scenario can lead to bad consequences. And this is not a slippery slope ‘fallacy’.
              Now consider this. The same girl is harassed. But, because the limitations as stated in the guidelines recommended to the university in the letter are stated as they are, she feels justified in reporting the situation to the proper authorities. They look into it, and discover that she is indeed being harassed as per the description in the SC case. Who benefits?

              Of course, there are other scenarios, but I honestly don’t see where the potential harm to the First could possibly be worse than the harm that may face the victim and many like her. Freedom of speech takes many forms. Surely, one of those forms must be the right to know what your rights may be, express your fears to know authorities, and seek a remedy before it’s too late. It’s not in the Constitution, but perhaps you remember the line “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The first word is ‘life’. The second word is ‘liberty’, and the ‘pursuit of happiness'” follows from the first two.

              As I’ve stated before, the First and Second have been standing on their own for a long time. They’ve got strong,well-funded backers with too-well-known acronyms—ACLU (aseeellyou), NRA (enahray). And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. The girl who gets her butt patted in the workplace, with the pats lingering just a bit longer each day, never knowing where the pats may lead, is an American citizen and deserves some protection from those two amendments—and the protections their representatives provide. If, in your opinion, the First shouldn’t provide any consideration, who or what, in your opinion should? Allow me to answer that for you. . . You think the girl should carry a gun to the work place and take the Old West approach to solving her problems.

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm

              Wrong fish. Wrong barrel. Your foot, most likely.
              Your wording for this IRS ref should be, perhaps, “getting your bureaucracy hate on”.
              “Rubio Calls for IRS Commissioner Who Already Left Department to Resign”
              http://crooksandliars.com/ May 13 3:00PM
              We learn that ” the IRS commissioner when these scandals occurred was a Bush appointee who no longer heads the department:”

              Call me about this one again when all the political crap has settled to the bottom of the barrel, and we can see daylight again.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm

              You don’t like the IRS targeting conservative groups. How about the justice department snooping on the Associated Press?

              WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

              The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.

              In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

              In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

              http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe

            • biomass2 said, on May 13, 2013 at 10:04 pm

              Other sources, llke NYT and WaPo ( not the stature of thebigstory.ap.org, I know) seem to be indicating that the “intrusion” involved a search for the sources of national security leaks—a point that’s omitted from your length bigstory quote.

              My position on national security has been consistent. For those who are fond of the Constitution, read the Founder’s stand on the subject. Funny, isn’t it, that when there are leaks the loyal opposition complains about the party-in-power’s leakiness, and when the party- in- power seeks to find the leaks and seal them, the loyal opposition pisses all over them. The opposition. Can’t live with them. Can’t live without them.

  7. WTP said, on May 12, 2013 at 8:35 am

    Charles Lindbergh in 1940:
    “We are in danger of war today not because European people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of America, but because American people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe.”

    Was he right? Why should we (morally) support Israel at all? Or Europe, for that matter. Full disclosure, I could go either way on this.

  8. T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 7:54 am

    A Saudi court jailed a Lebanese man for six years and sentenced him to 300 lashes after convicting him of encouraging a Saudi woman to convert to Christianity, Saudi dailies reported Sunday.

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/saudi-jails-lebanese-who-helped-woman-convert-christianity

    Nonie Darwish:

    Many critics of Islam agree with Sheikh Qaradawi, that Islam could not have survived after the death of the prophet Mohammed if it were not for the killing, torturing, beheading and burning alive of thousands of people — making examples of them to others who might wish to venture outside Islam. From its inception until today, Islam has never considered this policy inappropriate, let alone immoral. In a recent poll, 84% of Egyptians agree with the death penalty for apostates; and we see no moderate Muslim movement against this law. That 1.2 billion Muslims appear comfortable with such a command sheds light on the nature of Islam.

    Unlike Americans, who understand basic principles of their constitution, most Muslims have no clue about the basic laws of their religion. Most Muslims choose ignorance over knowledge when it comes to Islam, and often refuse to comment negatively out of fear of being accused of apostasy. While in the West it is considered a virtue to try to understand one’s religion, ask questions about it and make choices accordingly, in the Muslim world doing the same thing is the ultimate sin punishable by death. What the West prides itself on, is a crime under Islamic law.

    The main concern of Muslim citizens in any Islamic state is staying safe, alive and away from being accused of doing or saying anything against Islamic teachings. In such an atmosphere of fear and distrust, harm can come not only from the government, but from friends, neighbors and even family members, who are protected from prosecution for killing anyone they regard as an apostate.

    It is not a coincidence that Muslim countries have the highest rate of illiteracy and that they lack education: in an Islamic culture that criminalizes not only apostasy, but also asking questions or doubting, ignorance is a virtue that protects you.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3572/islam-apostasy-death

    It is a no-brainer like being against slavery.

  9. T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 8:14 am

    How can people look the other way? Mike, how can you blind yourself to the obvious truth that Islam is the source and inspiration for this barbarism?

    With Dubai emerging as a major stopover point for long haul journeys, five hundred flights a month will deliver over one million of us to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the next year.

    Dubai is being promoted as a luxury high-class paradise in the desert, but the reality is brutally different, as Australian Alicia Gali discovered. Gali took a job in the UAE with one of the world’s biggest hotel chains, Starwood. What happened next makes this story a must-watch for every Australian planning on travelling through the region.

    Gali was using her laptop in the hotel’s staff bar when her drink was spiked. She awoke to a nightmare beyond belief: she had been savagely raped by three of her colleagues. Alone and frightened, she took herself to hospital. What Alicia didn’t know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/17094076/abandoned/

    • WTP said, on May 13, 2013 at 9:58 am

      Oh, come on. Like this sort of thing has NEVER happened at least once in the last 1000 years of western culture. The Spanish Inquisition behaved similarly, except possibly for the gang rape. I’ll bet that fact comes totally unexpected to you.

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 10:32 am

      What gets me is that Mike argues we are supposed to listen to Islamists when they blame U.S. foreign policy for their anger but not when they speak about their own religion, especially when they are talking to one another?

      • WTP said, on May 13, 2013 at 10:36 am

        Yeah, because you’re confusing his sophistry with what should be a rational examination of the facts to achieve some sort of understanding, if not truth.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:43 am

        I did not make that claim. If the terrorists claim they are motivated by their religion, that is evidence that they believe their faith guides them to said actions. However, the question still remains as to whether or not they define Islam. After all, the folks who defile the services for slain soldiers with their “God hates fags” stuff claim to be motivated by Christianity. But, I would not take them as defining the faith.

        • WTP said, on May 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm

          And whenever WBC shout “God hates fags” at a funeral, thousands of Christians, world-wide, come out of their mosques…I mean churches, and show their solidarity with the cause. Same thing.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:40 am

      I’ve studied the history of religion and the evidence seems to be that religion, like other such beliefs, can inspire both good and evil. Christianity was often charged with great crimes (such as being used to support slavery), but I am reluctant to condemn an entire faith on the basis of the wickedness of some.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 12:37 pm

        “I’ve studied the history of religion and the evidence seems to be that religion, like other such beliefs, can inspire both good and evil. Christianity was often charged with great crimes (such as being used to support slavery), but I am reluctant to condemn an entire faith on the basis of the wickedness of some.”

        This can be re-written:

        I’ve studied the history of political movements and the evidence seems to be that fascism, like other such beliefs, can inspire both good and evil. Naziism was often charged with great crimes (such as being used to support anti-semitism), but I am reluctant to condemn an entire “ism” on the basis of the wickedness of some.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 4:30 pm

          The re-writing would hold if being a Nazi was properly analogous to being a Muslim.

          In the case of Nazism, being a Nazi (and not just being in the party for political reasons, etc.) would seem to entail that a person is morally evil. After all, the person would need to embrace racism, sexism, the final solution and so on to be a proper Nazi.

          In the case of Islam, one can point to quotes in the Koran that can be regarded as advocating morally wicked behavior. However, you have yet to show that being a Muslim entails that a person must be morally wicked (as is the case with being a Nazi).

          Now, I think you could develop a case by comparing the sexism of Nazism with the sexism in Islamic theology and the brutal antisemitism of the Nazis with the antisemitism of some Muslims. Interestingly, the Nazis officially embraced Christianity and regarded their version of it as being fully consistent with their ideology. So, I suppose that if Islam is like Nazism, than Christianity is much more so.

          For these sorts of reasons, anti-religious atheists often argue that Islam and Christianity are both morally wicked and should be eliminated (just as Nazism should be eliminated).

          I’m willing to consider those arguments and the claim that the main monotheistic faiths contain morally wicked principles, rules and such.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 1:04 pm

        So when Saudi Arabia kills an apostate or Iran executes a homosexual or the Taliban hacks off the hand of a shoplifter–all mandated by Sharia–you are unable to respond because you are “reluctant to condemn an entire faith on the basis of the wickedness of some”?

        And you wonder why philosophers are regarded as “armchair moralists”?

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 1:07 pm

          N.B. These people are suffering today. Ending this suffering requires people to take a moral stance. What Christianity did 800 years ago is an irrelevant red herring.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 13, 2013 at 4:34 pm

          Not at all. The fact that I am reluctant to condemn all for the actions of a few does not entail that I will not condemn the wickedness of the wicked.

          So, murdering apostates and homosexuals is wrong and I condemn those murders. Chopping of the hand of a shoplifter is excessive punishment and thus unjust. So too is the stoning of children for being disobedient and owning slaves.

          The mere fact that I don’t engage in sweeping condemnations does not put me in the armchair.

          • WTP said, on May 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm

            Not. At. All.

            heh

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 13, 2013 at 11:00 pm

            “The fact that I am reluctant to condemn all for the actions of a few does not entail that I will not condemn the wickedness of the wicked.”

            Saudi cleric: Homosexuals deserve death

            Mike: that is the wickedness of the wicked

            Saudi cleric: it is mandated by Islam, our religion

            Mike: well then, that’s a different story, for I am reluctant to condemn an entire faith on the basis of the wickedness of some.

            • WTP said, on May 14, 2013 at 6:53 am

              Mike is weaseling on the unstated but implied (by him) basis that such is a belief of an insignificant number of Muslims. See his “Godhates fags” comment above. Never minding that if you went into Islamic societies and spoke with actual Muslims, living in a Muslim culture, such is the norm. Meanwhile you’d be hard pressed to find any Christians outside of WBC that express sympathetic views, even amongst those significantly to the right. Sophistry.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 14, 2013 at 8:10 am

              Jewish Torah: Homosexuals deserve death, adulterers deserve death, rebellious children deserve death…

              See: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 8:40 am

              Christians are not bound by Old Testament Jewish law.

              Isn’t that the whole point of Jesus and the *New* Testament? No more “eye for an eye”?

              The Qu’ran, on the other hand, is regarded as the literal word of God. Furthermore, under the principle of “abrogation,” later verses in the Qu’ran trump earlier ones. Thus, the “Verse of the Sword,” which occurs later in Muhammad’s life, carries more weight than earlier, more peaceful verses:

              9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm

              Well, if the New Testament can supersede the Old, then it would seem that Islam can also change from its roots.

            • WTP said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:54 am

              Jewish Torah: Homosexuals deserve death, adulterers deserve death, rebellious children deserve death…

              Which is, of course, enshrined in the laws of the State of Israel and additionally used in the ex-judicial laws of Jewish communities here in the US and around the world. On the positive side, while Jews are busy killing gays, adulterers, and rebellious children they have no time to grind the bones of non-Jews into flour for their bread.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 11:14 am

              “Mike is weaseling on the unstated but implied (by him) basis that such is a belief of an insignificant number of Muslims.”

              Of course Islam is not monolithic, but it is pretty clear and unambiguous on most things, like wife beating and killing apostates, Jews, and homosexuals.

              There is a raging controversy on whether or not to celebrate Muhammad’s birthday, however.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm

              While I appreciate a good straw man, here is my actual view:

              Wickedness mandated by a religion is still wickedness. However, there is the question of whether or not this wickedness is a necessary part of the faith. I’ve addressed the matter of who or what defines a belief system in another post.

              If Islam is a belief system created by people, then people can presumably change that belief system-as happens with all belief systems. Or do you hold that Islam is unique among belief systems in that any change makes it cease to be Islam?

              If Islam is from God and presents the true nature of reality, then people could not change it (without God allowing it). However, it would then be the true faith.

            • WTP said, on May 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm

              Well, if the New Testament can supersede the Old, then it would seem that Islam can also change from its roots.
              If Islam is a belief system created by people, then people can presumably change that belief system-as happens with all belief systems. Or do you hold that Islam is unique among belief systems in that any change makes it cease to be Islam?

              I started to say that Mike’s sophistry never ceases to amaze me, but by now it pretty much has. Mike can’t be wrong about Islam because it might change one day and then Mike, and Islam, will be right. This is an argument totally unworthy of a person with a PhD, let alone one that teaches on the public’s dime.

              Further down, Mike continues to massage his definition of a strawman to his sophist heart’s content.

  10. T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:28 am

    This one’s for Magus. Like shooting fish in a barrel, biomass.

    At the press conference today the families released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      If this is true, then it is horrible.

      But the Blaze notes that it might not be as it is being presented.

      “Rather than taking aim at the Islamic leader, Coughlin claims that the imam’s intentions, simply based on audio of his words, cannot be known. More dissection and discussion would certainly be warranted and considering that this may be a standard funeral rite, nothing may be amiss.

      “We don’t know what he was thinking. He could have known … and it was a dig to get in,” he posited. “But it’s also possible that he was going through the [typical] motions that an imam would go through at this point.”

      One of the individuals that Coughlin consulted with about the video, a native Egyptian, seemed to believe that the cleric’s words were likely inappropriate, but not intentionally so. The individual, someone well-versed in Islam and Islamic law, called the imam’s comments “standard fare at a funeral rite” and reiterated that a slight may not have been intentional.

      Coughlin said that responsibility should fall on the generals who purportedly did not call for a translator beforehand. “That general should have known what that guy was saying [and what it meant],” he added.”

      • WTP said, on May 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm

        Mike won’t ask the obvious question, so I will. Were any of the Seal Team VI members in this funeral Muslims? Kinda relevant. Kinda obvious question to ask. If you wanna ask it.

        • T.J.B. said, on May 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm

          None of the seal team, but some Afghans were killed as well who were Muslim.

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 8:20 pm

        What about the claim at 4:10 that Joe Biden revealing that Seal Team 6 killed OBL put a target on their backs?

    • biomass2 said, on May 14, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      We know that ‘translations’ are subject to many problems. My ’84 Corolla came with instructions to “Push button to get hot air on foot.” Sometimes words that are common in one language don’t even exist in another. Translators, like reporters, are subject to their own personal biases, try as they might to keep them in check. We can be certain of one thing, however No one needs to interpret Fred Phelps when he and his church are protesting homosexuality.

      Now, this is not to say that the “certified” translation is inaccurate. It’s likely as accurate as a translation can be. But it would be nice to know how the translator was ‘certified’. . . It would also be nice to get a response from you to my 5/13 6:16PM above. . .:)

    • biomass2 said, on May 14, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      TJ: I think magus71 would appreciate this vid more than yours. I recall a lengthy back and forth he and I had over the importance of meat in the diet and a later a discussion involving a Dr. Whatsisname who, on his book tour, said, in so many words—or let’s say by so many omissions— that consuming an unspecified amount of alcohol on a daily basis would not harm pregnant women or teens.

      Here’s someone m71 should get acquainted with just so he can see the other side of the coin —even if he doesn’t agree with it.
      ,

      Maybe Rip Esseltyn is the man magus can aspire to become when he leaves the military. :)

  11. T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:35 am

    All this is easily understandable if one remembers that Islam does not allow a Muslim to have non-Muslim friends.

  12. T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Here’s an example of “moderate” Islam. If you hang the whip in plain sight you wont have to beat your wife as often! How compassionate and progressive!

    The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based mosque posted an English translation of Saudi cleric Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajid’s 1997 work, “The Muslim Home: 40 Recommendations in Light of the Quran and Sunnah,” which the mosque headlined, “40 Recommendations for the Muslim Home.”

    “Hinting at punishment is an effective means of discipline, so the reason for hanging up a whip or stick in the house was explained in another report, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘Hang up the whip where the members of the household can see it, for this is more effective in disciplining them,’” the article states.

    “Seeing the means of punishment hanging up will make those who have bad intentions refrain from indulging in bad behaviour, lest they get a taste of the punishment. It will motivate them to behave themselves and be good mannered,” it says.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/12/boston-bombers-mosque-recommended-men-beat-their-wives/#ixzz2TH62Pqju

  13. WTP said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 am

    I dunno…I suppose that’s no different at all from “The Stick” we had in our (Methodist Christian) house growing up. Spare the rod and spoil the child the OT doth say. Dad never got to use it on Mom, though. It was totally Mom’s tool…though she never used it on Dad. I guess this explains a few things, eh?

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:36 am

      Killing a spider–unacceptable, media firestorm follows.

      Beating your wife in accord with Islam: who are we to judge?

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm

        Wife beating is unacceptable.

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:50 pm

          INTRODUCTION: THE STATUS OF THE WIFE IN ISLAM

          One of the more controversial issues in Islam is the Quran’s authorization for husbands to beat disobedient wives. This is found in chapter 4, verse 34. Additional references on wife beating are found in Muhammad’s traditions (hadith), and biographical material (sira). Many people have criticized Islam because of this harsh sanction and many Muslims have written articles seeking to mollify or defend it.

          In review of the actual teachings of the Quran, hadith, and sira, Islam is rightly criticized. This command is not only a harsh way to treat one’s wife, it portrays the degraded position of married women in Islam. It will be shown from the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and other Islamic writings that this “Islamic” wife beating is physical and painful.

          Before we discuss wife beating, we must review Islam’s viewpoint of women and comprehend the position, or standing, it places her in with respect to her husband. This is fundamental in understanding the command to beat the disobedient wife. Islam views the woman as inferior to the man and as such, places her in a subservient and subordinate position in the marriage relationship. The man is allowed to discipline his wife because he is her superior and responsible for her. He has the authority to beat his wife if he feels she is being disobedient. Wife beating is merely the bad fruit of a bad theological root.

          When I first began to study the topic I did not realize that an Islamic marriage is not equivalent to a Christian marriage. Its rules, roles, and requirements are different. In a Christian marriage the husband is given the role as head of the household and the wife is expected to submit to the husband’s leadership. However, she is his equal in terms of social status; she is not inferior to him. In Islam the husband is also the head of the marriage, additionally he is his wife’s manager. Women are considered to be “in-between a slave and free man”. Slaves are not equal to their masters, rather they are subservient, managed, and controlled. Similarly, Muslim wives are inferior to their husbands and are managed and controlled. I am not saying that the wife is the husband’s slave, do not take this to an extreme.

          Muhammad’s viewpoint of women was that they “lack self-control” and thus for their own good, and societies’ good, they must be subordinate to and managed by their husbands. Wives must obey. In an Islamic marriage when a man gives his bride a dowry he is accredited the right to manage his wife. By accepting his dowry a woman is giving her husband the right to her regulation.

          Muhammad urged his followers to treat their wives well and the Quran’s chapter 4 is full of these sincere admonitions. He did not want to see them beaten without cause and he wanted good marriage relationships. However, his desires for happy marriages and kind treatment do not mitigate the authority he gave men over women or the position he ascribed to women. Wives are to be treated gently and kindly but are still under the man’s authority. If she persists in disobedience to his wishes he has the right, and the responsibility, to beat her to bring her into submission once again, and re-establish a happy marriage.

          http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 9:52 pm

            The beatings will continue until morale improves…

    • biomass2 said, on May 14, 2013 at 11:18 am

      In that relationship perhaps. I suspect you’ll find examples of spousal abuse in households of most Christian denominations. A good excuse is that you got whup’d because you didn’t honor your mother and father.

      Yep. You , and your siblings if you had any, were probably the easiest to beat on. The biggest, strongest, and best -armed will usually win unless the weaker ones have the law on their side. Even then, the law too often doesn’t function as it should. May explain why you’ll occasionally read of a kid killing a parent. . .

  14. T. J. Babson said, on May 14, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    This is too easy, biomass…

    • biomass2 said, on May 15, 2013 at 4:51 pm

      Yes. TJ. It is too easy. Just the way you like it.
      The numbers—75 of 300— and the fact that only relatively recently (after Citizens United –2010–and the appearance of a new, likely influential ‘political’ party on the scene– before the 2010 elections) some in the IRS would be looking for an easy , but admittedly stupid, path to determining eligibility for the 501(c)(4) status, of that and related groups. The question is , which applications for this ‘social’ status, that might make these organizations eligible for beneficial treatment, were legit . See appropriate section in 501(c) in Wikipedia. And consider that the government had already likely vetted many liberal groups as part of its regular program before CU and the TP appeared on the scene.

      Here’s a source that predates this recent flap being made public.:

      http://projects.propublica.org/dark-money/

      Then again, propublica is known to have a liberal inclination, so I doubt anything there would impress you. Liberty Unyielding, being more conservative, pleases your soul.

      What is too easy for me? Copying this request to you from a previous reply of mine.
      ” It would also be nice to get a response from you to my 5/13 6:16PM above. . .:) “

  15. WTP said, on May 15, 2013 at 11:21 am

    According to Mike’s philosophy, there’s nothing more to be concerned about regarding this story than if it involved any other group of people. Just a bunch of foreign nationals out for a stroll.

    Shortly after midnight Tuesday, seven people were caught trespassing at the Quabbin Reservoir.

    State Police say the five men and two women are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore, and “cited their education and career interests” for being in the area. The men told police they were chemical engineers and recent college graduates.

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/14/7-cited-for-trespassing-at-quabbin-reservoir-patrols-stepped-up-across-state/

    Not saying that such might not be the case, but should we bother spending the time and effort to have the FBI is investigate? What difference does it make?

  16. WTP said, on May 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    For an even 100…

    Indonesia backs sharia law, poll shows
    A majority of Indonesians would like to see Sharia law implemented in their country, a new poll shows, although only a minority favour the harsh measures sometimes associated with the system.
    By Thomas Bell, South East Asia Correspondent 9:00PM BST 24 Jun 2008
    The poll of 8,000 people in the world’s most populous Muslim country, home to 200 million Muslims, found that 52 per cent favoured some form of Islamic legal code, such as religious arbitration in family disputes.
    Asked if women should be made to wear a head scarf 45 per cent said yes, while 40 per cent favoured chopping off the hands of thieves.
    “A lot of people think the idea is very good, but when you start talking of every day implications, the number dropped,” said Ira Soekirman of Roy Morgan Research, an Australian company which conducted the survey.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/2187933/Indonesia-backs-sharia-law-poll-shows.html

    Exact same proprtion as Christian extremists.

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 19, 2013 at 4:37 pm

      The denial is almost Oedipal.

      • WTP said, on May 19, 2013 at 5:38 pm

        No, it’s a river in Egypt. A predominantly Muslim country, btw, full of people with no more of a desire to kill Jews than AJ has.

  17. WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 7:39 am

    Perhaps Christians should be more like Muslims. Vigilante patrols to enforce alcohol bans and miniskirt bans. And that’s just a start…

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 22, 2013 at 8:40 am

      Paul Marek on simple lessons from history:

      Op-Ed: Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

      I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

      “Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

      We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

      The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.

      Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians – most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

      History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

      Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996#.UZq-RRzqskI

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 22, 2013 at 8:44 am

        Mike? biomass? Bueller?

        • WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 1:02 pm

          Oh, why waste their time. I can knock this one outta the park…
          So does one man in Germany represent every German from that time period? What gives him such omniscience to state that “So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen”? Where is the objective evidence for this statement? Was a peer-reviewed process for polling put in place? If so, who conducted this poll?

          “the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff” Meaningless fluff? Were not the efforts of Martin Luther King and M. Ghandi initially dismissed as meaningless fluff? Perhaps Islam is simply in the same state that Christianity was 700 years ago. Perhaps it takes time for a religion to “mature”.

          You speak of the murderers of the USSR, Peoples’ Republic of China, and pre-WWII Japan, but did not the white man murder his way across the North American continent? How is this any different?

          Why such great concern about these “fanatics”, as you call them, anyway? Does not drunk driving kill more innocents? Doesn’t the use of illegal drugs kill more people? At least the Muslims in the above video are trying to do something about these latter two problems.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 22, 2013 at 4:24 pm

        Yes, small numbers of very active people can do a lot more than large numbers of people who are relatively inactive.

        • WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 8:17 pm

          C’mon Mike. You can do better than that.

    • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 22, 2013 at 10:53 am

      perhaps muslims and christians should support violent films and video games, abortion on demand, infanticide on demand, pornography, and gun control, like most american jews do? :(

      • WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 1:07 pm

        Well, exactly. Those damn Jews again. We really oughtta do something about them. If it weren’t for the filthy stinkin’ jew (not gonna capitalize it no more) there’d be no violent films and video games, abortion on demand, infanticide on demand, pornography, or attemtps to control guns. It is good that we have a nice, safe place to state these obvious truths without the damn jews and their fellow travellers pointing out bogus “fallacies” in our thinking.

        “Infanticide on demand”…You sure you haven’t read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

  18. WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    Jews do this all the time:
    Two attackers armed with meat cleavers filmed their deadly assault on a man in London, according to Sky sources.

    A man reported to be a serving soldier died and two people have been shot in Woolwich, after what Sky sources understand is being treated as a terrorist attack.

    Senior Whitehall sources said the two attackers asked passers-by to film them, and they shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great).

    In footage that has emerged, one of the attackers wields a bloodied meat cleaver and says: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

    The black man, dressed in a grey hooded jacket and black woolly hat, apologises to members of the public who witnessed the horrific scenes before making a number of political statements.

    In the footage, he is heard to say: “We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

    “I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe.

    “Remove your government, they don’t care about you.”

    Witnesses also described seeing the “crazed” Woolwich attackers “hacking” at their victim and posing for pictures before charging at police wielding meat cleavers.

    Watch the video at the link. It’s all the fault of us westerners and our foreign policies. Which this “victim” was responsible for.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/horror-islamist-talks-to-camera-after-beheading-uk-soldier-on-street-of-woolrich-video/?ModPagespeed=noscript

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 22, 2013 at 8:11 pm

      Do I need to explain why beheading is the preferred method of Islamic violence?

      • WTP said, on May 22, 2013 at 8:16 pm

        Well it certainly puts an end to that annoying screaming the pathetic infidels go on and on with when you’re trying to kill them. Screaming disturbs Allah PBUH.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 23, 2013 at 6:17 am

        Does it involve Bugs Bunny?

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 23, 2013 at 7:58 am

        You’re so ignorant. The SF teaches beheading as a method of terror, which is why USG run jihadis and Los Zetas use this method. You’re so brainwashed it’s pathetic. A mind is a terrible thing to waste! LOL :)

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 9:38 am

          Here is a scholarly paper:

          Beheading in the Name of Islam

          by Timothy R. Furnish
          Middle East Quarterly
          Spring 2005, pp. 51-57

          http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 9:45 am

            From the paper:

            While some Islamists might justify murder of prisoners on Qur’anic prescription, others reinforce their conclusions by drawing analogies to events during the almost 1,400 years of Islamic history. Here beheading of captives is a recurring theme. Both Islamic regimes and their opposition have utilized beheadings as both military and judicial policy.

            The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him.[21] Islamic leaders from Muhammad’s time until today have followed his model. Examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead, in Islamic history are myriad.

            Remember that Muhammad is regarded as the ideal man and should be imitated in all things.

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 23, 2013 at 10:17 am

            The paper presents beheading as a new thing for these terrorists. Is it that they just finally got around to reading the Quran?

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 10:20 am

              ???

              How do you read “The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself” as being something new?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm

              From this part: “The new fad in terrorist brutality has extended to Saudi Arabia where Islamist terrorists murdered American businessman Paul Johnson, whose head was later discovered in a freezer in an Al-Qaeda hideout.”

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 23, 2013 at 4:39 pm

              The Koran source seems to be this: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” This would seem to allow killing on the battlefield, but not the beheading of prisoners. They are to be bound tightly. That would make no sense if they were already beheaded. This line also refers to the battlefield which would seem to limit it to battle between opposing forces. Interpreting it as allowing people to be beheaded anywhere would require just that, interpretation.

              Yes, beheading has a long tradition in all cultures-witness the classic headsman of Europe and the guillotine.

              It is also interesting to note that the author concludes: “Zarqawi and other Islamists who practice decapitation believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Islam is, for this determined minority of Muslims, anything but a “religion of peace.” It is, rather, a religion of the sword with the blade forever at the throat of the unbeliever.”

              The emphasis is mine.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 23, 2013 at 4:40 pm

              And before anyone asks: decapitation of prisoners and innocent people is morally wrong.

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 5:04 pm

              Context, Mike:

              The Pearl murder and video catalyzed the resurgence of this historical Islamic practice.

              Now the word “fad” is consistent with “The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself.”

            • T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 1:00 pm

              ajm, what is the connection between:

              Islamic fanatics wielding meat cleavers butcher and try to behead a British soldier, taking their war on the West to a new level of horror

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329089/Woolwich-attack-Two-men-hack-soldier-wearing-Help-Heroes-T-shirt-death-machetes-suspected-terror-attack.html#ixzz2U3GYiaM4

              and drug cartels in Mexico?

              ???

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 23, 2013 at 1:10 pm

              TJ, you are aware of the fact Los Zetas beheads peoples in Mexico as a technique of terror, are you not? You are aware the US Special Forces trained Los Zetas and trains Islamic Jihadis, too, are you not? This has been occurring for many, many years. How old are you? The US SF has been training Islamic jihadis since 1979, at US taxpayer expense. Perhaps you need to do your homework on this? Or read the news?

              Which Islamic jihadis do you support TJ? Hezbollah or al Qaeda? Shiite or Sunni?

              You have to chose one or the other buddy! LOL :)

              A Senate bill passed committee on Tuesday that authorizes arming the Syrian rebels

              May 21, 2013 – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) railed against his colleagues in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday for voting to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, saying they chose to fund “the allies of al-Qaeda.”

              Rand Paul: My Fellow Senators Voted to Arm Al-Qaeda – http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/21/rand-paul-my-fellow-senators-voted-to-arm-al-qaeda/

              NJ.com – The Star Ledger – March 22, 2013 – Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing

              “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria?

              Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

              And you’re also really, really gullible.” ~ Paul Mulshine

              Source: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/aiding_al_qaida_as_part_of_the.html

              “We know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.” ~ Hillary Clinton (to CBS News February 27, 2012)

              Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57386279/clinton-arming-syrian-rebels-could-help-al-qaeda/

              See: Choose your Islamic Jihadi: Hezbollah or al Qaeda? – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2hv

              Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China versus al Qaeda, USA, Israel, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others…

              Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation

              “Syria’s conflict is often described as a “civil war,” but that is only true insofar as it has yet to spill over into another country on a large scale or draw in too many different forces. But it is the quintessential proxy war, with the Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) Assad regime backed up by Shia allies Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China.

              “The Sunni rebels are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.”

              Source: ABC News – May 10, 2015 – Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation – http://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-al-qaeda-fighters-edging-closer-confrontation/story?id=19144119#.UY1oOeBiilc

  19. T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 9:31 am

    The London terrorist:

    “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

    Forced by the Qur’an.

  20. T. J. Babson said, on May 23, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Stockholm is burning. Why? Is it those militant Swedes, or could it be something else?

  21. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 23, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    BEFORE ISLAM EXISTED – “According to Antiochus Strategos, a 7th-century monk in Palestine, shortly after the Persian army entered Jerusalem in 614, unprecedented looting and sacrilege took place. Church after church was burned down alongside the innumerable Christian artifacts, which were stolen or damaged by the ensuing arson. Given that Khosrau II generally practiced religious tolerance and did deem Christians respectfully, it is not known why Shahrbaraz ordered such a massacre. One reason could simply have been Shahrbaraz’s rage at the resistance that had been offered by Jerusalem’s Christian populace. Accounts from early Christian chroniclers suggest that 26,000 Jewish rebels entered the streets of the city. Some Jerusalem Christians were taken captive, gathered together and murdered in mass by Jews. The Greek historian Antiochus Strategos writes that captive Christians were gathered near Mamilla reservoir and the Jews offered to help them escape death if they “become Jews and deny Christ”. The Christian captives refused, and the Jews in anger had purchased the Christians from Persians and massacred them on spot. Antiochus writes: Then the Jews… as of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep.”

    “Some Jerusalem Christians were taken captive, gathered together and murdered in mass by Jews.”

    “Then the Jews… as of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep.”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_Christians_by_Persians_and_Jews_during_Roman-Persian_Wars

    • WTP said, on May 24, 2013 at 7:38 am

      Damn those dirty stinking jews. They killed Christ too, you know. Did you know that? All evil begins with those bastards. I spit upon them. If only a strong, dynamic leader were too come along with some sort of ultimate solution to this jewish question. One day, one day soon I hope…

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 24, 2013 at 9:02 am

        It is a strange, politically correct world, which is awash with anti-Muslim propaganda, that we live in. It’s okay to be antichrist, but not okay to be antisemitic. It’s okay to bash Muslims, who think violent films, video games, gay marriage, abortion, and pornography are wrong, but it’s not okay to tell the truth: that Jews finance, profit, and push violent films, video games, gay marriage, abortion, and pornography down out formerly Christian throats in a vile, specifically antichrist, form of cultural rape.

  22. WTP said, on May 26, 2013 at 9:51 am

    After 6 days/nights of rioting, Stockholm police finally find some backbone. Yes, the are out in full force to confront the CITIZENS who have formed groups to confront the rioter, a job the cops won’t do. Must be a union thing…

    http://www.friatider.se/swedes-take-to-the-streets-to-defend-their-neighborhoods

    Or possibly a 21st centure upgrade to Stockholm Syndrome.

  23. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 26, 2013 at 11:38 am

    VIDEO – Red Ice Radio – Alex Newman – Hour 1 – Sweden’s Big Government ‘Utopia’ Unmasked – http://youtu.be/2a9nc82QdiU

    VIDEO – CIA Operation CYCLONE, NWO, Afghanistan, Bush Senior, CIA Drug trafficking (1989) – http://youtu.be/O5Lnnn9smmg

    VIDEO – The Secret Government: Bill Moyers (1987) – http://youtu.be/28K2CO-khdY

    The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations

    National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 2
    For more information contact:
    202/994-7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu

    See: The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations – http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

    May 21, 2013 – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) railed against his colleagues in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday for voting to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, saying they chose to fund “the allies of al-Qaeda.”

    Rand Paul: My Fellow Senators Voted to Arm Al-Qaeda – http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/21/rand-paul-my-fellow-senators-voted-to-arm-al-qaeda/

    NJ.com – The Star Ledger – March 22, 2013 – Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing

    “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria?

    Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

    And you’re also really, really gullible.” ~ Paul Mulshine

    Source: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/aiding_al_qaida_as_part_of_the.html

    “We know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.” ~ Hillary Clinton (to CBS News February 27, 2012)

    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57386279/clinton-arming-syrian-rebels-could-help-al-qaeda/

    See: Choose your Islamic Jihadi: Hezbollah or al Qaeda? – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2hv

    Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China versus al Qaeda, USA, Israel, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others…

    Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation

    “Syria’s conflict is often described as a “civil war,” but that is only true insofar as it has yet to spill over into another country on a large scale or draw in too many different forces. But it is the quintessential proxy war, with the Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) Assad regime backed up by Shia allies Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China.

    “The Sunni rebels are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.”

    Source: ABC News – May 10, 2013 – Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation – http://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-al-qaeda-fighters-edging-closer-confrontation/story?id=19144119#.UY1oOeBiilc

    The idea that the uprising against the Syrian government is inspired by a grassroots movement thirsting for a pluralist, democratic state is a fiction. The opposition’s chief elements are Islamists who seek to establish a Sunni-dominated Islamic state in place of a Syrian government they revile for being secular and dominated by Alawi “heretics.” “Al Qaeda-linked groups…dominate rebel ranks,” notes The Wall Street Journal. [1] “There is frustration with the West’s inability to help nurture a secular military or political opposition to replace Mr. Assad,” echoes The New York Times. [2] “Islamic forces seem to be ascendant within the opposition,” observes Gerald F. Seib. [3]

    What the Syrian Constitution says about Assad and the Rebels – http://gowans.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/what-the-syrian-constitution-says-about-assad-and-the-rebels/

    “The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria’s southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.

    “However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra’s core fighters come from Iraq’s post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

    Who Are the Syrian Rebels? A Basic Intelligence Briefing On the Assad Resistance
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/42317/who-are-the-syrian-rebels-a-basic-intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 27, 2013 at 4:15 pm

      I agree that both sides are our enemies in the Syrian civil war. We should just stay out of it.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 27, 2013 at 5:16 pm

        Getting in is risky. Staying out is risky.

        I think the Brits are eager to get some guns in there, but Austria seems worried that the wrong people will get the guns. Perhaps most of the folks fighting are the wrong people.

  24. WTP said, on May 27, 2013 at 8:44 am

    Here’s some motivation

    Last Friday, an Afghan journalist named Mustafa Kazemi posted on Facebook a harrowing story about an eight-year-old girl in the Khashrood district of Nimruz province in Afghanistan, who was sold off into marriage to a mullah in his late 50s, and who bled to death on their wedding night.

    It was one of many such tragedies in a land that little notes nor long remembers such deaths. An eight-year-old girl sold into marriage and dead after a brutal sexual assault that her body could not withstand is no more noteworthy than a pack animal that collapses under a too-heavy weight. It’s time and money wasted, that’s all. Forget about it. Get another one.

    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/05/20/the-silent-tragedy-of-child-marriage/?singlepage=true

  25. T. J. Babson said, on May 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Democrats at work. First amendment? We don’t need no stinkin’ first amendment.

  26. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    VIDEO – How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaeda and Taliban – http://youtu.be/nA7E6EVXl1A

    VIDEO – CIA Operation CYCLONE, NWO, Afghanistan, Bush Senior, CIA Drug trafficking (1989) – http://youtu.be/O5Lnnn9smmg

    See: ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: The Man Who Covertly Created Al-Qaeda, America’s Global Domination Strategist and The Insane Plan to Destroy Russia and China – http://thesantosrepublic.com/2012/09/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-man-who-covertly-created-al-qaeda-americas-global-domination-strategist-and-the-insane-plan-to-destroy-russia-and-china/

    See: Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism” – http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-the-war-on-terrorism/7718

    “During in the 1970s, when the Russia was the biggest threat to America and radical Islam was not as a concern of the USA’s, the USA began funding and training Islamic militants to fight our Russian enemies in Afghanistan.

    “These militants, known as the mujahideen would rebel the Russians out of Afghanistan and later become the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

    See: How The CIA Helped Create Osama Bin Laden – http://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/

    Zbigniew Brzezinski: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen – http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    “Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the Mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

    May 21, 2013 – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) railed against his colleagues in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday for voting to arm elements of the Syrian opposition, saying they chose to fund “the allies of al-Qaeda.”

    Source: Rand Paul: My Fellow Senators Voted to Arm Al-Qaeda – http://news.antiwar.com/2013/05/21/rand-paul-my-fellow-senators-voted-to-arm-al-qaeda/

    May 28, 2013 – “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee met this week to debate a bipartisan bill (S.960) that would authorize President Obama to provide “vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” with lethal aid and military training. While the bill passed the committee with a vote of 15-3, some concerns were raised about exactly who would be receiving weapons paid for by the American people.”

    See: Syria Transition Support Act of 2013 – http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/05-15-13_Syria_Transition_Support_Act_Bill_Text1.pdf

    Source: We Know Who’s in the Syrian Opposition, and It’s Time to Arm Them – http://www.policymic.com/articles/43967/bashar-al-assad-we-know-who-s-in-the-syrian-opposition-and-it-s-time-to-arm-them

    May 27, 2013 – Sen. McCain slips into Syria, meets with rebels

    “Sen. John McCain has quietly slipped into Syria for a meeting with Syrian rebels.”

    USA Today – May 27, 2013 – Sen. McCain slips into Syria, meets with rebels – http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/27/mccain-syria/2363911/

    John McCain Visits Syrian Rebels, Or Was It Al-Qaeda?

    “Senator John McCain (R-AZ) slipped off quietly to go and meet with Syrian rebels, which we have reported prior to now are the forces of Al-Qaeda, who are supposed to be our enemy. Yeah, I’m feeling a little Orwellian right now. Ben Swann gives us a quick recap of just who the Syrian rebels are. They are foreign professional terrorists tied to Al-Qaeda.”

    See: John McCain Visits Syrian Rebels, Or Was It Al-Qaeda? – http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/john-mccain-visits-syrian-rebels-or-was-it-al-qaeda/#ixzz2Ub2vMNzn

    The Star Ledger – March 22, 2013 – Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing

    “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria?

    Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.

    And you’re also really, really gullible.” ~ Paul Mulshine

    Source: Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing – http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/03/aiding_al_qaida_as_part_of_the.html

    “We know al Qaeda [leader Ayman al-] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.” ~ Hillary Clinton (to CBS News February 27, 2012)

    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57386279/clinton-arming-syrian-rebels-could-help-al-qaeda/

    See: Bashar al-Assad: Israel supports Al Qaeda terrorists – http://www.panorama.am/en/interviews/2013/05/25/assad-interview/

    See: Israel warns of action over Russian plan to give missiles to Syria’s Assad – http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18557392-israel-warns-of-action-over-russian-plan-to-give-missiles-to-syrias-assad?lite

    See: Choose your Islamic Jihadi: Hezbollah or al Qaeda? – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2hv

    Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China versus al Qaeda, USA, Israel, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and others…

    Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation

    “Syria’s conflict is often described as a “civil war,” but that is only true insofar as it has yet to spill over into another country on a large scale or draw in too many different forces. But it is the quintessential proxy war, with the Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) Assad regime backed up by Shia allies Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Russia and China.

    “The Sunni rebels are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.”

    Source: ABC News – May 10, 2013 – Hezbollah and Al Qaeda Fighters Edging Closer to Full Scale Confrontation – http://abcnews.go.com/International/hezbollah-al-qaeda-fighters-edging-closer-confrontation/story?id=19144119#.UY1oOeBiilc

  27. […] Motives for Terror (aphilosopher.wordpress.com) […]

  28. WTP said, on June 2, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    Same reaction if a Muslim bakery, I’m sure:

    In February, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon-based bakery, found themselves at the center of a media firestorm after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple’s ceremony. Nearly four months later, the small business continues to receive threatening and harassing phone calls and e-mails, as they grapple with the ongoing fall-out from their controversial decision. This week, they spoke with TheBlaze about the ongoing drama.

    It was Jan. 17 when a mother and her daughter showed up at the shop and chatted with Aaron about purchasing a cake; their meeting was short-lived, though. Upon learning that the wedding was for two women, the baker purportedly politely declined service to the women, citing his Christian faith. Aaron apologized, but stayed true to his values.

    “February 1st or 2nd, I got a letter from the Oregon DOJ, saying I was under investigation for a possible discrimination complaint,” he said, noting that the grievance has still, months late, not materialized, as it was apparently improperly filed (it is unclear whether an official investigation will continue or whether a new inquiry will be launched).

    While Aaron and Melissa told TheBlaze that the community initially rallied around them — a collective action that helped spark additional business — that support has since waned. In place of the extra business, the Kleins regularly receive (especially in light of renewed media coverage) virulent e-mails and phone calls.

    From claims that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness. Aaron and Melissa shared a number of the e-mails with TheBlaze.

    “You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b**ch. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,” reads one e-mail.

    “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,” reads another.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/31/economic-terrorism-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-gets-threats-could-close-down/

  29. ajmacdonaldjr said, on June 3, 2013 at 2:43 am

    Hillary Clinton: “We Created Al Qaeda”. The Protagonists of the “Global War on Terrorism” are the Terrorists

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

    The following video features Hillary Clinton candidly acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

    VIDEO – Hillary Clinton We created Al Qaeda – http://youtu.be/xd0fLAbV1cA

    What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 30 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries.

    The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    Quite the opposite: The “Global War on Terrorism” uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    “Political Islam” and the imposition of an “Islamic State” (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy.

    America is the Terror State.

    The GWOT is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest.

    It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing “regime change”.

    Clinton’s successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a “Terror Suspect”.

    New Normal? Al Nusra is on the State Department blacklist of terrorist organizations and the US Secretary of State is channeling money and weapons to Al Nusra.

    Support to Al Qaeda operatives in different countries by the US government is known and documented.

    In this upside down World, the Lie prevails: The Protagonists of the “Global War on Terrorism” and the “Responsibility to Protect” are the Terrorists.

    Its a circular relationship, a vicious circle: Those who lead the “Global War on Terrorism” in the name of “Democracy” are those who are supporting and financing terrorist organizations, which they themselves created.

    Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-we-created-al-qaeda/5337222

    The Star Ledger – March 22, 2013 – Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing

    “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria?

    Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.
    And you’re also really, really gullible.” ~ Paul Mulshine

    Source: Aiding Al Qaida as part of the War on Terror? That’s what McCain and Graham are doing – http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu

    VIDEO – Steve Pieczenik – BENGHAZI ATTACK – What Really Happened – http://youtu.be/i7lDEzTibC4

    USG funds, trains, and arms Islamic jihadists: 1979 – Present

    “Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[1] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[2] Funding continued after 1989 as the Mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]”

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O

    VIDEO – CIA Operation CYCLONE, NWO, Afghanistan, Bush Senior, CIA Drug trafficking (1989) – http://youtu.be/O5Lnnn9smmg

    VIDEO – How Zbigniew Brzezinski created Al-Qaeda and Taliban – http://youtu.be/nA7E6EVXl1A

  30. WTP said, on June 3, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Damn right-wing radical ideologue Tony Blair says:

    Mr Blair urges governments to ‘be honest’ and admit that the problem is more widespread.
    ‘There is a problem within Islam – from the adherents of an ideology which is a strain within Islam,’ he writes.
    ‘We have to put it on the table and be honest about it. Of course there are Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu ones. But I am afraid this strain is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view about religion and about the interaction between religion and politics that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334451/Tony-Blair-says-murder-Lee-Rigby-PROVES-problem-Islam.html#ixzz2VALW4YLq
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  31. ajmacdonaldjr said, on June 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    WTP – Where were you in July 1979? See: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Kerry, and Barack Obama fund, arm, and train al Qaeda and its associates in Syria – http://wp.me/pPnn7-2kD

    • WTP said, on June 4, 2013 at 11:24 pm

      Reading the news and studying history, thus I know what was going on at the time. I take it you were burning your brain with Panama Red, as you repeatedly demonstrate an inability to comprehend reality. Per our previous discussions re 9/11 and the jooooos, it is quite apparent you have difficulty differentiating between nihilist fantasy and reality. Thus your buying into Mike’s nonsense while being totally ignorant of what his real perceptions of you are. Ask him about your theories on the joooos. This could be fun. Of course I fully expect that either you or he ( or both) will cop out.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on June 5, 2013 at 7:39 am

        It’s interesting that WTP believes the US government’s funding, training, and arming of radical Islamic jihadists was “a good idea.” So, al Qaeda and its associates are “a good idea” WTP? LOL This indicates your priorities, which are those of the US government, since 1979. Use Sunni Islamic jihadist mercenaries to destabilize regimes allied with the old Soviet bloc, especially Shia Muslim regimes unfriendly to the US and the Jewish state, use NATO to back up these Sunni jihadists, lie about Muslims being the real danger, in order to rally the American peoples into supporting this destabilization Muslim nations unfriendly to the interests of the US and the Jewish state, use false flag terror when necessary in order to accomplish this, including terror attacks, to be blamed on our team member al Qaeda Sunni jihadists, who are friendly with the Jewish state and the US, with the final goal being to, eventually, bring Russia and China to their knees, which will allow the US to have a militaristic and corporatist hegemony over the entire world. Who are you working for? Satan? LOL

        • WTP said, on June 5, 2013 at 10:07 am

          LOL…you’re cute, AJ….um, are you seeing anyone?

          • ajmacdonaldjr said, on June 5, 2013 at 11:18 am

            am i seeing anyone? do read my emails and my text messages for the government, too? lol you certainly seem like a government agent, what with your devotion to the government propaganda party line, including the muslim bashing… i think only a government employee could be a “willfully ignorant” as you are, not to mention your support of al qeada whilst fear-monggering the islamic jihadi issue lol :) you;re quite pathetic

            • WTP said, on June 5, 2013 at 11:42 am

              I meant romantically…(sigh)…never mind.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on June 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm

              i know what you meant, which is why i said what i said. no i’m not romantically involved with anyone, btw… and talk about fallacies…. what sort of red herring, or changing of the subject is that, anyways? lol sorry, but i think you’re quite hopeless. if ur not working for the government you’re really taken-in by its propaganda machine. working for the government is at least a reason for what you espouse (islamic jihadists created by the cia is “a good idea” and “islamic jihadists are the greatest evil to ever plague the earth. talk about talking out of both sides of one’s mouth….. you should run for political office bud! lol :)

            • WTP said, on June 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm

              Now you’re just being coy. Before we go any further, I need to know what your intentions are.

  32. T. J. Babson said, on June 5, 2013 at 1:05 am

    In hindsight the U.S. should not have backed the “freedom fighters” against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

    Remind me. Why did the USSR invade Afghanistan?

  33. WTP said, on June 5, 2013 at 6:36 am

    To support the communist government that overthrew (and murdered members of) the prior regime a year or so earlier. If you think that commie regime was totally independent of the USSR, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

    It was a good idea. It bogged down the soviets for 10 years and likely accelerated the downfall of communism ( 20th century style anyway), a far more dangerous threat than radical Islam. That is assuming we don’t cave in to the soft headed sophists.

  34. WTP said, on June 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Look at what our foriegn policy is driving them to do (from right-wing, racist Reuters News):

    Taliban fighters beheaded two boys aged 10 and 16 as a warning to villagers not to cooperate with the Afghan government, local officials said.

    The boys, named Khan and Hameedullah, had travelled to Afghan army and police checkpoints near their home in the southern province of Kandahar, scrounging for leftover food to bring to their families, the officials said.

    In July last year in the same district, a 16-year-old boy accused by the Taliban of spying for the government was beheaded and skinned. The next month, a girl aged six and a boy of 12 were kidnapped and beheaded in separate incidents in Kandahar and the east of the country.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-afghanistan-beheadings-idUSBRE9590PA20130610

    Oh, woe be us. The shame, the shame!

    Of course AJ will be quick to inform us that those supposed “Taliban fighters” were really agents of Mosad and the Taliban won’t admit it because to do so would stop the flow of money from the folks in the black helecoptors who killed JFK…and Julius Ceasar. But that’s all ancient history.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,051 other followers

%d bloggers like this: