Part III: Sorry, Rodney…

Posted in Politics
Mon, Dec 7 - 9:00 am EST | 2 years ago by
Comments: 111
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Lines of Departure - San Bernardino

    But, no, asking, “Why can’t we?” is not, in fact, the answer to its own question. Some questions on that in a bit, though. For now, well, in light of recent events, I don’t think I can say it better than I wrote for a book, about a decade ago:

    But the sense of timing, that inner light that tells
    one the precisely wrong time to take an action—if not
    all Moslems enjoyed it, then certainly the culture was
    pervaded with it, they all received the dubious benefits
    of it . . . and in a sense, all had come to expect it.
    Has a young Federated States just ended a war
    with a great maritime power? Obviously this was the
    best of all possible times to begin piratical attacks on
    FSC shipping. Was an older and much more powerful
    Federated States about to show a little more evenhandedness
    in Zionic-Moslem relations? That was the
    surest sign possible that a planeload of handicapped
    orphans on their way to a once-in-a-lifetime trip to
    Fantasy World was about to be blown from the sky.
    Has Zion’s prime minister announced he is willing
    to trade a modicum of security for some chance at
    peace? Pay that man’s life insurance premium because
    as certain as daylight he’ll be dead at Salafi hands
    before the month is over. Is the Federated States about
    to engage in a great military enterprise to free one
    Moslem state from another oppressing it? Be certain
    that both the Moslem adversary and its friends will do
    everything possible to insure that the timing of their
    predictable defeat is perfect . . . for the Federated
    States. It was as if an entire culture was locked onto
    one of those decision-making diagrams, one where
    every block is labeled, “make serious mistake here,”
    and that culture must always, always, always choose
    the “yes” arrow . . . and at the worst possible time.1

    Here we have Europe adding in millions of “refugees,” and planning on more millions yet, said slices of largely military age male Moslems surely containing enough planted terrorists to make Europe howl, and what does ISIS do? Before they have a fraction of the power in place they could have had, they arrange for or motivate the massacre of a bunch of innocent people, enough innocent people to make a number of countries of the European Union block their borders, which will increase the pressure on the rest to likely intolerable and insupportable levels, which may lead any or all of them to something typically European and most murderous. Then, over here, Obama wants us to take in some thousands ourselves and what happens? San Bernardino happens.

    Why, one would almost think the President wants the Hildabeast, assuming she gets the Democratic nomination, to lose next November. If so, one might: A) even note in the Quran, that, indeed, “Allah is the best plotter of all,”2 while, B) “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”3 Sorta makes one feel a twinge of affection for the late Syed Farook and his porcine wife, no?4

    One wonders, too, if our progressives and Europe’s aren’t following the same playbook as the Islamicists: “Make serious mistake here.” It would be one explanation.

    All that said, the meat of this particular column is not to condemn, per se, but to ask some dozen questions, especially of the progressive left, but also of the audience in general.

    1. Recent events in San Bernadino5 suggest that even if born here, as Syed Farook was, the potential for terrorism cannot be ruled out. Are you willing to allow heightened scrutiny, which is to say, “racial profiling,” for Moslems, to include native born Moslems? For the Nation of Islam?6
    2. Farook obtained his firearms in what may be the most firearms restrictive, anti-gun state in the Union. The right has been pretty candid about, “Cold dead fingers,” and means it, which is to say they’re willing to fight a civil war rather than let you take their guns (as an obvious and predictable prelude to the Gulag of your wet dreams). You may not understand it, but that’s your intellectual failing; it remains true whatever you understand or fail to. In other words, your fantasies of gun confiscation are just that, fantasies; it’s not going to happen. Hence, since you cannot control the bogeyman of your nightmares, those doubleplusungood EBRs,7 nor much in the way of arms, period, are you willing to control the number of Moslems allowed entrance, which can be done?
    3. While there are certainly some of you who consider religion to be inherently child abuse, self-evidently false, and unutterably evil, and while some of you would like to extirpate religion, period, you can’t do that either, because we’ll simply kill you – or, worse for you, kill you in complex and crowd-pleasing ways – if you try. On the other hand, given that Islam is, as the last two columns pointed out, different, most of us probably won’t care if you try to extirpate it. Are you willing to take what you can get?
    4. Although suspected of placing religion over country, in years long past, the threat perceived as coming from American Catholicism never seemed to work out that way. Rather, on the whole, American Catholic immigrants turned out to favor God over country, and that only sometimes, and country over the Vatican, which the Vatican, itself, has generally been content with. Islam, of course, has no Vatican, not anything much like it, but in their guiding rulebook, the Quran, itself, country is a highly suspect concept. Are you willing to support legislation that recognizes that full allegiance to Islam and full allegiance to the United States are not compatible? Are you willing to modify the Oath of Allegiance from:

      I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty—

      to add to it, right after sovereignty, “or any foreign political movement, even if wrapped in the colors of religion, especially meaning Islam or any heretical sects springing from it”?

    5. Given Taqiyya8 and Kitman,9 are you willing to enact laws for the exercise of extreme judicial sanction, ranging from loss of citizenship and deportation to death, against those who, having either claimed citizenship via naturalization or been born to it, put the political philosophy and welfare of Islam ahead of the welfare of the United States and the Constitution?10
    6. Are you willing to remove or heavily reduce the secret service protection for Chiefs of State who feel the threat is non-existent, consisting only of harmless widows and children? Just curious.
    7. Are you willing to take Moslem refugee families into your home, and willing to support them at your expense, with no more vetting than the Reichsicherheitshaupt…oops, I mean Department of Homeland Security, INS, and FBI give to any other refugees?
    8. Are you willing to board a random sample of Syrian “refugees,” to include military age males, in the White House or Camp David, or any place where the National Command Authority may temporarily reside, and to send a reasonable number on Air Force One or any chartered or military aircraft carrying the first family, without subjecting them to any security precautions whatsoever?
    9. Are you willing to refuse enlistment or commissioning in the armed forces, to anyone adhering to Islam, or discharge or imprison those who convert/revert while in service?11
    10. Are you willing to fund schools to which all Moslem immigrants must send their children, which schools will be devoted to undermining the childrens’ faith and instilling in them the greatest possible love for the United States, while turning them into spies against any of their relatives who might act against us?
    11. Are you willing to recognize that multiculturalism, even if it might work for us with certain cultures, doesn’t work nearly so well, or at all, with cultures that are too incompatible, and which hate our guts? Are you willing to legislatively note and deal with the difference?
    12. Are you willing to actually read the goddamned translations and finally admit that Islam is not a “Religion of Peace?”

    Just curious, of course.

    __________

    1 A Desert Called Peace, free download from Amazon here. Note that there is a second edition which is still not for free. The difference is that the second edition of the e-version has tables of organization in the back for various stages of the legion’s growth and various sub organizations. It was a pain in the butt doing those in some legible, replicable format so, no, I don’t feel a bit of guilt for charging for it.

    2 Surah 8:30

    3 José Francisco Correia da Serra

    4 As a matter of fact, no. That said, got to tell you, when I saw Saddam Hussein falling through the trap door it was with very mixed feelings. He had, you see, come through for me not just once but twice, the first time to escape Army Recruiting Command, for the First Gulf War, and the second time for assisting me in escaping the practice of law, in 2003, for the Second Gulf War. I owed him. Big.

    5 http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

    6 I haven’t yet met an Arab Moslem who believes NOI is actually Islamic. So far as I’m aware, however, NOI members have never engaged in terrorism. Crime, yes. Murder, yes. But those appear to simple crime and occasional fund raising, not actual terrorism, and basically during the late civil rights era, and as spin off of the whole societal semi-collapse during the 1960s and 70s. Peruse, with care: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/americanattacks.htm

    7 Evil Black Rifles. It’s a bit like Warhammer 40k Orks, doncha know. Just as “Da red wunz go fastah,” to the fictional Orks, so black “makes it more evil,” to the left. Hmmm…NAACP, have you guys noticed this blatant, color-based racism? Double hmmm; the right has been calling lefties “zombies” for quite a while now, but maybe some of them are actually orcs.

    8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

    9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitman

    10 Note that both Taqiyya and Kitman are perfectly understandable, and their equivalents have been used by non-Moslems. This does not mean, however, that we must accept additional risk to ourselves and our families because of what our ancestors did, or for any other reason.

    11 Yeah, this one especially kind of makes my skin crawl, too, but the logic of teaching potential enemies to shoot, blow things up, train more enemies, and lead same is, shall we say, not altogether airtight and compelling.

    Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    Be sure to read Part I and Part II in this series.

    Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.

    Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

    Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.


    Social Justice

    Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

    Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

    Women in the Military

    Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

    Photo by Getty Images

    The Kurds

    Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

    Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

    Sorry Rodney

    Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

    Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

    Service Guarantees Citizenship

    Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

    Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images

    Immigration

    Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Dear Germany

    Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

    Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

    Sanctuary Cities

    Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Price in Blood

    Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.

    Torture

    Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

    Jade Helm 15

    Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

    Does China Really Want War?

    Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

    Breakup of the United States

    Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

    The Bergdahl Case

    If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

    U.S. Navy

    No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

    Military Chow

    Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

    The Soldier's Load

    Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

    The Left and the Military

    Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

    Defining Terrorism

    Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

    Humanitarian Assistance

    Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

    Why War Games Fail

    It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

    Military Integrity

    Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

    Arab Armies

    Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

    The Purpose of War

    A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • Ming the Merciless

        Recent events in San Bernadino suggest that even if born here, as Syed Farook was, the potential for terrorism cannot be ruled out.

        Not just Farook. There are many others, including the Fort Hood shooter. And you have the same problems with second-generation Muslims born in Britain and France.

        Basically, if we let Muslims immigrate we are leaving vast quantities of aggravation, expense, and bloodshed as a legacy for our children.

        Are you willing to take Moslem refugee families into your home, and willing to support them at your expense, with no more vetting than the Reichsicherheitshaupt…oops, I mean Department of Homeland Security, INS, and FBI give to any other refugees?

        A lot of Lefties really are that suicidal and insane! And they expect us to participate in their elaborate suicide attempt…

        • Tom Kratman

          A few, maybe, not a lot.

        • Lone eagle

          I know of a nice female from a ME country who lives here. She met a divorced American man, they dated, now they have a beautiful baby but still no marriage. She says she’d like to bring her baby back to meet his grandparents, but she scratched this idea because they would kill her and the baby for the dishonor.She’d like to take her boyfriend to her country and show it to him, but since he is Christian she says he would be killed. She says she has decided muslims are crazy and plans on having the baby baptized. Obviously sanity has broken out in her!!

        • James

          Ah but you see now she is apostate. Because in Islam all people are born to Islam and to follow anything else is to convert and that is a death sentence.

        • Cherine Derbala

          That’s true James. So, it brings us back to the million$ question: Can Islam assimilate in the West?
          I think that it depends on how much they believe in the U.S/ Canadian Constitution. If muslims are sworn-in on the Constitution then that should be their first & foremost “book” and identity as Americans or Canadians. The constitution of the US/Canada overrides muslim/islamic sharia interpretations/laws. So, in my view, if the “community” or muslim can’t uphold & abide by the oath s/he has taken, then they cannot be considered American or Canadian Citizens because that in itself is unconstitutional. Drawing comparisons with the Orthodox Jewish community would be enlightening & would demonstrate the difference, for example, in preserving “cultural religious” values as opposed to adhering to “religious laws”.
          So, even Tom’s suggestion that a purely Quranic or Ibadi Islam would be better ….that doesn’t have any legitimization or relevance in the U.S except as “cultural religious” values.
          Interesting is, I just had a discussion/argument with “a leader of the muslim community”, as he describes himself and Director of CAIR-Chicago…and he vehemently disagrees with me. What does that indicate? There’s a problem & it’s too late.
          It’s no wonder that Trump triggered a counter force – it’s a response/reaction & not out of nowhere as many would like to believe.

        • James

          My problem that still remains is that if you are able to “Ban” you set a precedent. From there a hundred groups will starts to ban everything from all religion to other things that we take as a basic right.

          I don’t see it ending in anything but oceans of blood unless we figure out another way.

        • Cherine Derbala

          There’s a new initiative in North America from a group of muslim academics, activists & religious scholars, from the Islamic Forum for Democracy. It claims to reform Islam to the 21st Century. The document came out on December 4th, 2015, http://aifdemocracy.org/declaration-of-the-muslim-reform-movement-signed-by-aifd-december-4-2015/
          I still don’t view it as serving any purpose outside the battle within Islam. In my view, this document and/or initiative belongs in the East, at it’s roots & not in the West ….unless of course, it’s create a new branch/sect in Islam.
          Either way, I also don’t see an end except with oceans of blood – only because it’s been ignored for far too long.

        • Neil

          You need to get out more, Col. Kratman.

        • Tom Kratman

          Talk from lefties is cheap Neil. Look for what they actually do. Note, for example, the virtue signalling combined with complete lack of virtue.

        • Neil

          I’d go with “many but not most”, but that’s still a lot.

          Almost all registered voters in large U.S. cities voted for a President whose stated foreign policy would have the obvious result of inviting terrorist attacks on their places of residence. I pointed this out to the nice, normal ones of my acquaintance, and most of them replied that they understood the consequences, but that was a “risk” they would take.

        • Tom Kratman

          It’s different when it’s personal, though. And their talk is always cheap.

        • Neil

          Jumpers supposedly change their mind at about the 10th floor, too. Doesn’t mean they’re not suicidal.

          It’s not their cheap talk that bother me–they sell their votes cheap, too.

        • Tom Kratman

          Provided there’s something fiscal or emotional in it for them, which doesn’t mean they eager for something negative for themselves and theirs.

        • GOPnoMore

          They aren’t eager for that. They simply don’t really believe it will happen. When it does, it’s too late. Most people “feel” safe here. They don’t see this as a threat that can reach any kind of a tipping point where they have to re-evaluate their easy claims to moral superiority. My fear is that the tipping point will arrive, without warning and without an ability to rectify it. My hope is that Islam’s penchant for doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time will trigger an explosion of the underlying violence that exists in the West. A violence, I would add, that is truly horrific. ISIS are light weights. Wannabes compared to what Westerners will do if they ever really cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

        • Harry_the_Horrible

          Ever noticed that many of the jihadis, here, or skittering off to fight for ISIS abroad are second generation?
          I don’t think the refugees will be nearly as dangerous as their radicalized kids will be.

          In any case, what do these people bring with them that the Republic or its Citizens need or want?

        • Ming the Merciless

          They bring the Many Blessings of Diversity!

          Stupidity… violence… religious zealotry… cousin marriage… rape… dependence on government handouts… hatred of whitey and all his works…

          What’s not to like?

        • Harry_the_Horrible

          “Diversity” are the stress lines along which society will fracture when it is put under pressure.

          I think that, for a certain segment of our ‘elite,’ what illegal aliens, and ‘refugees’ bring are Democrat votes, and poison to use against the West.

      • Steven Schwartz

        Well, since I’m probably the closest thing to a radical leftist who actually reads this, let’s see:

        Recent events in San Bernadino suggest that even if born
        here, as Syed Farook was, the potential for terrorism cannot be ruled
        out. Are you willing to allow heightened scrutiny, which is to say,
        “racial profiling,” for Moslems, to include native born Moslems? For the
        Nation of Islam?

        No. Given that Christian-based terrorism is more common in this country, I see no reason to single out a minority religion for added persecution — since, as we’ve seen in this country’s past, “scrutiny” of minorities often amounts to the same thing — on the basis of a very small number of attacks.

        Farook obtained his firearms in what may be the most firearms
        restrictive, anti-gun state in the Union.

        Thanks to right-wing paranoia, actually, for that one. After all, it was Reagan who started the trend towards gun control in California, for fear of the Black Panthers.

        The right has been pretty candid about, “Cold dead fingers,” and means it, which is to say they’re willing to fight a civil war rather than let you take their guns (as an
        obvious and predictable prelude to the Gulag of your wet dreams).

        As opposed to the massacres of yours, Tom, as we well know. As a side note: it’s pretty clear from lines like this that you don’t honestly mean your questions as questions, but as rhetorical cheap shots. Nonetheless, some answers will follow.

        In other words, your fantasies
        of gun confiscation are just that, fantasies; it’s not going to happen.
        Hence, since you cannot control the bogeyman of your nightmares, those
        doubleplusungood EBRs, nor much in the way of arms, period, are you willing to control the number of Moslems allowed entrance, which can be done?

        No. Not least because I know what happened to many people, who could have been my relatives, the last time the U.S. decided to turn away people on the basis of religion/ethnicity.

        And, again, I’m in much more danger from the homegrown Christians who are terrorists than I am from Muslims. As are the freedoms and rights of people in this country. When a majority of one political party believes that the First Amendment to the Constitution is, well, more of a guideline than a law, *there* is the real threat.

        While there are certainly some of you who consider religion to be
        inherently child abuse, self-evidently false, and unutterably evil, and
        while some of you would like to extirpate religion, period, you can’t do
        that either, because we’ll simply kill you – or, worse for you, kill
        you in complex and crowd-pleasing ways – if you try. On the other hand,
        given that Islam is, as the last two columns pointed out, different,
        most of us probably won’t care if you try to extirpate it. Are you willing to take what you can get?

        I don’t want to “extirpate” religion. I want to drastically reduce its influence over public policy and people who don’t believe in it — and in that regard, most Muslims in this country are my *allies*, not my foes, because they do not want to live in a Christian-law-dominated world either.

        I want to do this by education and by reason.

        I also find quite typical, but highly troubling, your “Hey, we’re too strong for you to do what you want to *us*, so why don’t you support us doing things to *them*!” model of politics and of life. Your “Make my enemies fight while I sit back and chuckle” is rather too blatant. :)

        Although suspected of placing religion over country, in years long
        past, the threat perceived as coming from American Catholicism never
        seemed to work out that way. Rather, on the whole, American Catholic
        immigrants turned out to favor God over country, and that only
        sometimes, and country over the Vatican, which the Vatican, itself, has
        generally been content with.

        Perhaps you should learn something from this; of course, as we’re already seeing, you won’t.

        Islam, of course, has no Vatican, not anything much like it, but in their guiding rulebook, the Quran, itself, country is a highly suspect concept. Are you willing to support legislation that recognizes that full allegiance to Islam and full
        allegiance to the United States are not compatible?

        Only if you’re willing to support legislation that recognizes that full allegiance to the Christian God and full allegiance to the United States are not compatible, and that any service member who claims to put God before Country should be court-martialed and discharged.

        Are you willing to modify the Oath of Allegiance from:

        I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty—

        to add to it, right after sovereignty, “or any foreign political
        movement, even if wrapped in the colors of religion, especially meaning
        Islam or any heretical sects springing from it”?

        No. See above: Perhaps if you remove “foreign” (since, after all, we are a secular country — Islam is no more “foreign” than Catholicism — indeed, since Catholicism *has* a foreign state as its titular head, it is *more* foreign.) and the phrase after “especially”, so that we can, again, include such things as Christian Dominionism (of course, this would mean, say, kicking Rafael Cruz out of the country again.)

        Are you willing to remove or heavily reduce the secret service
        protection for Chiefs of State who feel the threat is non-existent,
        consisting only of harmless widows and children? Just curious.

        No, because while you may fantasize about political assassination as a legitimate and appropriate tool of politics, I do not.

        And, of course, this is also a strawman. “Non-existent” and “Not as serious as my opponents think it is” are not the same thing.

        Are you willing to take Moslem refugee families into your home, and
        willing to support them at your expense, with no more vetting than the
        Reichsicherheitshaupt…oops, I mean Department of Homeland Security, INS,
        and FBI give to any other refugees?

        Well, I don’t really have space for it; am I prepared for some of my tax money to go to it? Yes. And trust me, Tom, right now you are in no position to be calling the Left by Nazi-sounding names, when you’re the one trying to create a legislative and political Other and Underclass within this country based on religion.

        Are you willing to board a random sample of Syrian “refugees,” to
        include military age males, in the White House or Camp David, or any
        place where the National Command Authority may temporarily reside, and
        to send a reasonable number on Air Force One or any chartered or
        military aircraft carrying the first family, without subjecting them to any security precautions whatsoever?

        No, but the same goes for most anything you put after “sample of…”, so this is, yet again, a straw man. I wouldn’t board a random sample of people coming out of Liberty University in those places without a security check, these days.

        Are you willing to refuse enlistment or commissioning in the armed
        forces, to anyone adhering to Islam, or discharge or imprison those who
        convert/revert while in service?

        No — see above. I know too well from history what pacifying a proportion of the population can lead to.

        Are you willing to fund schools to which all Moslem immigrants must
        send their children, which schools will be devoted to undermining the
        childrens’ faith and instilling in them the greatest possible love for
        the United States, while turning them into spies against any of their
        relatives who might act against us?

        Are you willing to fund schools to which all Christian Dominionists must send their children, which schools will be (etc., etc.,)

        Are you willing to recognize that multiculturalism, even if it might
        work for us with certain cultures, doesn’t work nearly so well, or at
        all, with cultures that are too incompatible, and which hate our guts?
        Are you willing to legislatively note and deal with the difference?

        I’m really looking forward to hearing how you’d implement a legislative test for “cultures that are too incompatible”. Somehow, I suspect that means “cultures that don’t fit a particular narrow definition of what it means to be American”.

        I mean, really, Mein Kampf was better* in the original German, Tom.

        *Not actually true; Hitler’s prose stylings, even in German, were awful, while your prose is perfectly serviceable — but I could not pass up the Molly Ivins reference.

        • http://themcchuck.blogspot.com McChuck

          Wow, that’s quite a lot of writing. Do you get paid by the word for your treason? Who pays or otherwise encourages you to try to undermine and despoil this beautiful country? Or do you work freelance, hoping to be the last one to be eaten?

          And it’s good to see you accidentally admit that you side with the Muslims against us Christians. A refreshing bit of honesty.

          Oh, and for all these Christian terrorists you keep harping about – please list names, dates, places, and body counts where their horrendous acts of terror took place, in the US, in the name of Christianity, in the last 115 years?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Wow, that’s quite a lot of writing.

          When you’re answering “gotcha” and assumption-laden questions, that’s what you’re going to get.

          Who pays or otherwise encourages you to try to undermine and despoil this beautiful country?

          No one, because that’s not what I’m trying to do. Of course, sticking up for the Constitution is, apparently, for you trying to “despoil” this country.

          And it’s good to see you accidentally admit that you side with the Muslims against us Christians. A refreshing bit of honesty.

          No accident, nor admitting what you think. I stand with anyone who wants to keep this country *secular*, rather than beholden to any specific religious tradition for its laws. Ask me to support Orthodox Jewish men’s ability to take segregated buses? No way. Ask me to support Sharia-based age-of-consent laws? Go jump in a goddamned lake. Ask me to support anti-homosexual laws becase some people believe the Bible tells them to? Not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace.

          Anyone who wants a secular state is my ally — and that includes a fair number of Muslims I have met and known, and a large number of Jews I’ve known, and a large number of Christians I’ve known.

          Oh, and for all these Christian terrorists you keep harping about – please list names, dates, places, and body counts where their horrendous acts of terror took place, in the US, in the name of Christianity, in the last 115 years?

          I’ll list events; you can do the rest of your homework, since, as I pointed out, no one is paying me.

          Planned Parenthood attack, Colorado Springs
          George Tiller’s murder
          Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist ChurchCentennial Olympic Park Bombing (along with other bombings by the same person) — along with many other attacks linked to the so-called “Army of God”.

          Oh — for that matter, we can put down the entire history of the Ku Klux Klan. :)

          And that’s with 5 minutes’ worth of research, and not including right-wing attacks that could not in that 5 minutes be conclusively linked to *Christians* as opposed to extreme conservatives; many white supremacists are Christian, but I did not include them by default.

          And that’s in the last 20 years.

        • http://themcchuck.blogspot.com McChuck

          Strike 1 – Colorado Springs shootout was a bank robbery gone sideways, not an attack on an abortion provider.

          Strike 2 – Tiller – One targeted murder does not a terror spree make.

          Strike 3 – Church shooting was explicitly politically motivated. The shooter was intent on killing liberals, who he believed were ruining our beautiful country. I agree with him on that sentiment, if not necessarily on his method of protest.

          Foul ball – Centennial Olympic Park – Political act aimed at embarrassing the government. Arguably related to Christianity, in that the bomber’s main beef with the government was federally funding abortions.

          Strike 4 – The KKK is the armed wing of the Democrat party. Explicitly political terrorism.

          So, all you’ve really got is attacks (and imagined attacks) on abortion providers and their enablers. While I don’t condone the murder of doctors (or innocent people in general, before you ask), George Tiller specialized in providing late-term abortions – the killing, for money, of children who quite likely would have survived. In other words, he was an assassin who specialized in murdering infants. I can understand why people might become violently upset at him walking around free. You, of course, may disagree that murdering small children is a bad thing.

          America a secular state? You may be confusing the government with the nation – that is to say, the people. America is a Judeo-Christian nation. All attempts to deny and erase this simple truth are some of the root causes of the miseries being inflicted upon us now. The only truly secular governmental organization is Communism – which seems to be your unstated goal. I assume you’ve heard of the gulags, killing fields, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and all the other little programs that have enriched the soil everywhere Communism has been implemented?

          Oh, and there’s no such thing as a secular Muslim. That’s not how Islam works.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Strike 1 – Colorado Springs shootout was a bank robbery gone sideways, not an attack on an abortion provider.

          That view is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence; but, given the way you twist things, I should not be surprised you grab at this.

          Strike 2 – Tiller – One targeted murder does not a terror spree make.

          We can add Barnett Slepian if you like, and all of the other attacks (bombings, assaults, etc.) on abortion clinics, inspired by Christian religious figures (often, in fact, *called for* by Christian religious figures.)

          Strike 3 – Church shooting was explicitly politically motivated. The
          shooter was intent on killing liberals, who he believed were ruining our
          beautiful country. I agree with him on that sentiment, if not
          necessarily on his method of protest.

          Killer was also an extremist Christian, who felt that “lukewarm Christians” were appropriate targets — a specifically religious motive.

          Foul ball – Centennial Olympic Park – Political act aimed at
          embarrassing the government. Arguably related to Christianity, in that
          the bomber’s main beef with the government was federally funding
          abortions.

          Given that the killer was affiliated with the group the Army of God, an explicitly Christian-based terrorist group, I’d say that this counts. But once again — notice the hair-splitting. We’ll get back to this.

          Strike 4 – The KKK is the armed wing of the Democrat party. Explicitly political terrorism.

          Wow. Such a perfect storm of wrong. The KKK from its beginnings has been nativist and racist — it began as anti-Catholic as well, as part of its nativism. The fact that Klansmen transitioned quite quickly away from the Democratic party when the Democrats began supporting civil rights in the South makes it pretty clear where their real allegiance lies; after all, the most prominent Klansman candidate of the last 50 years was a Republican.

          BUt let’s see: if an attack was for a “political” purpose performed by a radical Christian, it’s not Christian terrorism. So, for example, an attack designed with the political purpose of causing a government to overreact would be — political terrorism, not religious terrorism. So, Al Qaeda and, in fact, Daesh no longer qualify, by *your* definition, as “religious terrorism.”

          Indeed, you go further as to say that this is a Judeo-Christian nation* but still disavow that Christian terror around political motives is Christian — what a remarkable double standard you have there.

          Oh, and there’s no such thing as a secular Muslim. That’s not how Islam works.

          Well, I’ve met many self-professed Muslims who support a secular state. That seems to be how *their* Islam works, and I don’t recall you being appointed a judge as to how things Actually Work.

          After all, if we went strictly by the texts and laws, rather than by, you know, actual practice, you’d get the idea that the Pope had authority over all Catholics, and they couldn’t be trusted in government because their allegiance was elsewhere. Observing the world tells us that’s false; perhaps you (and Tom) should look at the entire world, not just the parts that support your case.

          *The “judeo-” part of Judeo-Christianity really only showed up after WWII, when anti-Semitism went out of fashion; before that, people claimed the U.S. was a Christian nation, despite evidence in the Constitution, treaties, and letters of the time.

        • James

          I’m from and live in the South. The KKK was AND IS a wing of the democratic part. They aren’t main stream Dems sure but they are what the dems used to be before they went liberal. I know I have known a former member of the clan. Nice guy (asked him what he thought of MLK-he said he was a great man) actually but from a different era.

          And really again you are missing a point.

          The US and many Western nations are christian because their main founders were and most of there present citizens are or were at one point. This becomes less so every year. However because they all come from nation who were at one time very religious they are culturally influenced by Christian thought and beliefs.

          However, regardless of what some far right guys or politicians looking to score votes from the Christian right think there is a difference between a nation founded by people who believed in a faith and the absolute slavish devotion and rulership of that faith.

          An example?

          In many muslim countries throwing gay people off of a roof is the punishment for being gay. In America its strange looks by many and not much else. We shrug and move on. It’s ILLEGAL to kill gay men or women.

          We could go through the rest but I don’t feel like it.

          And no spouting about the 10 commandments won’t help you either. Of course this would also mean I’d need to know what commandments were so bad.

        • Steven Schwartz

          The KKK was AND IS a wing of the democratic part. They aren’t main
          stream Dems sure but they are what the dems used to be before they went
          liberal.

          As I said — they *were* overlapping in membership, but that is not the same thing as beign “a wing of” the party, and that overlap has, demonstrably, drastically diminished. As I said, the most prominent KKK member on the national scene in the past 40 years ran for office as a Republican, and stayed within that party.

          Essentially, the KKK are racist, nativist Christians. Which puts them firmly on the conservative side of things.

          The US and many Western nations are christian because their main
          founders were and most of there present citizens are or were at one
          point. This becomes less so every year. However because they all come
          from nation who were at one time very religious they are culturally
          influenced by Christian thought and beliefs.

          You’re covering up the dogwhistle here. When someone makes an appeal to the U.S. as a Christian nation, they are arguing for a specific religious viewpoint to be treated as “national”. They are excluding people who don’t fit that religious bill from being part of the “nation”.

          In America its strange looks by many and not much else. We shrug and move on. It’s ILLEGAL to kill gay men or women.

          Well, actually, many states still allow a “Gay Panic” defense to murder charges, where a heterosexual (usually) male can claim he was so overwhelmed by disgust/fear when an advance was made against him that he snapped and killed the person making the advance.

          Furthermore — you’re describing the state of things *now*, after many years of deliberate work *dividing* the secular laws from religious influence.

          I’ve never said “All Christians want X” — my argument from the start has been that, as you put it: “…some far right guys or politicians looking to score votes from the Christian right think”
          There is a strain of Christianity, just as there is a strain of Islam, that wants to put religion before the state, and feels religion should control the state, and that Kratman’s position is not “No one should do it this way” but “We should prevent *those people* from doing it!” even when he declines to do anything about people closer to him doing the same thing, and declines to acknowledge that “those people” are a far broader and more diverse group than he admits.

        • Steven Schwartz

          On your strike 1: We now know that a) Dear asked directions to Planned Parenthood before his rampage, b) He had, according to his ex-wife, put glue in the locks of a Planned Parenthood office before, and c) has, from his internet posting history, demonstrated a clear Christian extremist bent.

          I have to say, that’s a *lot* of work into creating a false impression in order to rob a bank, especially since, due to the actions of anti-choice forces in the past, he’s at risk for *more* legal trouble due to his attack this way than if he had robbed a bank, IIRC.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And more on your strike 1: To quote Richard Dear:“I am guilty there will be no trial. I
          am a warrior for the babies,” he said in an outburst in El Paso County
          Court overheard by CBS4 reporter Rick Sallinger.”

          Radical Christian terrorism.

        • Tom Kratman

          Are you that mathematically deficient, Steven? Never mind, of course you are.

          We lost about 3000 to Moslem terrorism _in_this_country_ 14 years ago? What’s the Christian body count since then? Idiot.

          If 200 million Christians kill 100 people for terroristic reasons, and 2 million Moslems kill 99 people, or terroristic reasons, which is the bigger problem per capita suggesting that we ought not let more of that group in? Idiot

        • Steven Schwartz

          By your argument, Tom, we should have obliterated the Militia movement after the Murrah Building; just rounded them all up.

          By that same argument, a relatively huge number of deaths have been caused by radical anti-abortion activists. Shall we hunt down and assassinate the leaders of Operation Rescue, let alone the Army of God?

          What I am arguing, and have argued, and will continue to argue, is that your response is disproportionate in the extreme, and only helps the people you claim to object to.

          Heck: We have roughly enough accidental gun deaths every two years to equal one 9/11 death toll in this country. By your logic, since you’re willing to throw out parts of the First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution due to that threat, clearly you should be willing to throw out the 2nd Amendment, for the same reasons — the cost in blood is much, much higher, after all.

          Daesh can’t destroy the U.S. Constitution. Only we can do that out of fear, and you’re playing into their hands in that regard.

        • Tom Kratman

          I’ve just asked questions, Steven. To the extent you might have answered those, you have my thanks. To the extent you provided fraudulent answers, i have shat upon you and your wretched math skills and worse logic, as you deserved.

        • Steven Schwartz

          “I’ve just asked questions” — the whine of the troll and the stochastic terrorist.

          You made one claim, based on a misunderstanding of my point, and I provided rebuttal. That you run away from the consequences of your own reasoning is your own problem.

        • Tom Kratman

          You didn’t make a point, Steven, you just made mathematical and logical errors.

      • Steven Johnson

        It makes your skin crawl to deny Moslems membership in the armed forces? Wouldn’t it be similar to allowing Communists or Nazis in the armed forces?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Not really, especially since a) Muslims are a broad religious group, rather than subscribers to a specific political party, and b) at the moment, we *don’t*, as far as I know, supply specific political tests to people before membership; so we would be singling out a religious group for treatment we don’t give to any political group.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, and if you had been paying attention you might have gotten it through your skull that it is not just a religious group, but also a political group, with a complete political philosophy handed down from the Divinity, hence not subject for negotiation or overrule by mere mortals, forming a political community that extends across the globe, without any regard for national borders.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I keep dropping in to Tom’s threads; because if you don’t fight him every step of the way, he starts blithering on about things that he claims to be true, that simply aren’t.

          It is possible to read Islam as an all-encompassing political system. It is also possible to read Judaism that way. It is also possible to read Christianity that way (e.g. Christian Dominionism, or the lengthy history of laws being based on Christian principles — said principles varying, as all religious interpretations do, over time.)

          What you’ve identified is that, yes, there are radical Muslims. Congratulations. The West has successfully driven the most radical Christians out to the fringes, but the tools that did that are the very selfsame tools you want to tear down in order to get at the radical Muslims — tolerance, the rule of law, and equality under that same law.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, Steven, for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, anyone who’s read the Quran, or anyone who’s lived over there, it is impossible to not see it as an all encompassing political system. You simply mistake your fantasies for contrary fact

        • Steven Schwartz

          Tom, let’s try this one more time.

          ANyone who read the Talmud would know it was an all-encompassing system of How to Live.

          How many Jews come anywhere near to that now? Hint: Not many.

          Christianity is prevented from being all-encompassing by being so *fragmented* — but there are certainly parts of it that are just as all-encompassing as any lock, stock & barrel Koran-believing sect of Islam.
          That a particular sect and structure has taken hold in the Middle East is, as I pointed out above, not at all unexpected, given the way the West (and I include the Soviet Union in that ) treated the attempts to secularize the Middle East. But the way to fight radicalization, as anyone who has looked at history can see, is not with counter-radicalization; that way lies only further bloodshed and trauma. It is only when people *stop* demonizing the other that any real progress can be made, short of complete genocidal obliteration — and that is something we have, as a culture, I would certainly fucking *hope*, moved beyond.

        • Tom Kratman

          Let’s see, Steven, 10 Divine laws which Man twisted into another 613 and which Man could undo as well, versus a complete guide to everything which Man lacks the authority to change. When you make comparisons like this, all it demonstrates is that you know nothing, NOTHING, of Islam.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ooh! Tom gets to add anti-Semitism to his roster today! How *wonderful*. “Which man twisted…” Is it time to start talking about that looney heretic and his attempt to pervert the laws of God by claiming he’d fulfilled them? It shows just as much respect and understanding, after all.

          You clearly don’t understand the Talmud if you think that “Man can undo” those laws; not according to the Orthodox. Find interesting ways around, like Sabbath elevators? Sure. Undo? Nompe, not and remain (according to the Orthodox) a good Jew.

          I also call to your attention R.J. Rushdoony and the Institutes of Biblical Law; a good example of a Christian all-encompassing system, which some Christians do accept.

          As usual, you seem intent on going “No, only those people I don’t like do X!” when, in fact, most religions do it, to some degree or another, and the adherents of said religions pay attention to it, to one degree or another.

        • Tom Kratman

          Anti-Semitic? Steven, every time I think you couldn’t be dumber you surprise me. Steven, what Man made, and man made those, Man can unmake. What you cannot unmake are the Commandments, because God issued those. Well, effectively the entire Quran is God-made, not man made.

          But you know, even if it were true that what Man made was equal to what God made – sacrilege, of course, but let’s go with it – it still wouldn’t mean a thing. How many Jews in the World, Steven? How many Moslems? Yes, I know God _knows_ I know – that you’re logically and mathematically beneath contempt, but are you really that unbefuckingglaublich stupid (and racist) that you consider equal in potential under 20 million Jews to a billion and a half Moslems? For shame.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Steven, what Man made, and man made those, Man can unmake

          Go and do your research, Tom; the Talmudic tradition holds that more things were handed down than the 10 commandments as laws at Sinai (indeed, where do you think the rest of the laws came from?)

          That’s basic Orthodox Jewish theology and law, and now you’re the one showing your ignorance.

          Oh, and while we’re at it — by the standard you’re espousing; the entire New Testament? Man-made, so we can change it at will, and ignore the bits we don’t like. Talk about a religion for epikorim!

          Having demonstrated your ignorance, you then go on to try and change the subject, by arguing “Oh, no, there are so many of them, so that’s what really matters!”

          Well, in the world, there are still more Christians. And in the U.S., there are roughly 70x as many Christians as Muslims. So, if it’s percentages we’re talking about, or raw numbers, in this country I’d have much more reason to be afraid of Christian terrorism than Muslim terrorism.

          (And *vastly* more reason, as we’ve established, to be worried about an accidental shooting than either one.)

          You use mathematics like a drunkard uses a lamppost — more for support than illumination.

        • Tom Kratman

          That’s fundamentally fraudulent, Steven, on a couple of levels. In the first place, what Orthodox Jews – a minority, be it noted – believe but which other forms of Judaism do not believe would seem to lack a degree of power. No Moslem who can call himself a Moslem believes other than that the Quran is, pretty much in toto (there are a few iffy passages) the Word of God Almighty Himself. I am sure it will escape you, but the fact that a majority of Jews are not Orthodox and do not accept Oral Torah tends to make it not the same as the Quran which is accepted by all Moslems who can be called Moslems.

          In other words, you’re not just ignorant (not least, as mentioned, ignorant of logic) but you’re also a fraud, trying to pass off a minority opinion as equal to an uncontested article of faith.

        • Steven Schwartz

          In the first place, what Orthodox Jews – a minority, be it noted

          For the vast majority of Jewish history, they were the *majority* — the Conservative movement starting in the 19th Century.

          Ironically, just a little bit before the current wave of Biblical inerrantism in Christianity got fired up again.

          You, Tom, are the fraud, trying to paint an extremist interpretation — because the Quran is subject to *interpretation*, just as all holy texts are — that’s what, in part, the Hadith are, after all — as the sole interpretation we should judge one religion on, while sweeping very, very similar interpretations of other religions under the rug as to be ignored.

          If you’re willing to apply the same standards to Orthodox Jews and Biblical inerrantist Christians as you are to Muslims, then you can start talking from a position of consistency. Otherwise, we can add theology to mathematics in your drunkard’s collection.

        • Tom Kratman

          Which matters not a bit to us, here and now. Why do you insist on bringing up irrelevancies, Steven? You lie about Judaism and I’d say you lie about Islam except that you’re too ignorant about it to be sure you’re actually lying.

          Consistency? You mean like being consistently wrong, as you are? In any case, Orthodox Jews don’t fly airplanes into buildings. The last time they shot up a Christmas party was when? Christians are not a threat to me and mine; what idiocy compels us to treat them as if they were? Oh, _your_ brand of idiocy. We’ll pass on that.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You lie about Judaism

          Do, please, point to a lie; otherwise, as we usually get back to, it’s clear *you* are the one without a shred of honesty when it gets in the way of your political objectives.

          Christians are not a threat to me and mine

          Ah, well, then, everybody else can feel safe because Tom Kratman feels safe, and that’s the gold standard for the nation!

          Here’s a hint, Tom: sure, you feel safe from *inside* the right-wing Christian bubble, but that’s not the only part of the country.

        • Tom Kratman

          The lie, Steven, is in attributing to a minority, today, the power of an absolute and huge majority.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Then, Tom, there was no lie; I accurately described Orthodox Jewish positions, and never said “All Jews X” or even “A majority of Jews X”. I took exception to your viewpoint about “man-made” laws which could be altered, given that it was simply *wrong* when it came to Judaism.

          I do find it interesting, as I pointed out, that you are quite willing to go with “What people actually do” when it comes to Judaism, for example, but when it comes to Islam, it’s “We must go back and look at the text, as it is authoritative.” You seem intent on *supporting* the strictest and most retrograde interpretations of Islam.

          I wonder — does arguing that radical Islam is theologically correct, and therefore all Muslims should be treated as you would treat the most radical, when that helps their cause, count as “aid and comfort”?

        • Tom Kratman

          Stop compounding your other flaws with being a weasel, too. You compared them directly to Muslims, as if they were Judaism. That’s a fucking lie, Steven.

          And that’s because the text IS authoritative, you posturing ignoramus.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And that’s because the text IS authoritative, you posturing ignoramus.

          So, you’ll be applying the same standards to Biblically-inerrant Christians and Orthodox Jews, then? Since they have the same “The text is inerrant and divine”? (Heck, the Orthodox Jews at least have a decent hermeneutic and set of legal interpretive principles.)

          Heck — different Islamic sects have different collections of Hadith, some don’t believe in them at all, and much of what we consider “Islam” comes not from the Quran, but from the Hadith — which are *interpretations*, not the Word of God.

          So, no lie, and you continue to display your ignorance. Go back to writing about military issues, Tom; there at least you have a workable interpretive framework.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, you posturing fool; they are _different_ texts and different kinds of texts. Just because you’re too brain dead to see important differences doesn’t mean there are no important differences.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Then cite the differences, Tom — put up or shut up. Just going “They’re different! They’re different!” won’t cut it.

          (And to be clear, since you don’t seem to get it: I am aware that the three groups I’m describing (inerrantist Christians, mainstream Muslims, and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews) believe different texts are inerrant and the Word of God.

          However, they do *all* believe that certain texts are inerrant, and believe (see my cite of Rushdoony earlier for an example) that their texts can be treated as (or are) the basis for a system of law.

          Furthermore, both Orthodox Judaism and Islam have a distinction between “Word of God” texts, and “Extremely Authoritative Commentaries” — and often differ, internally, as to what the nature of the latter are.

          So, the parallels are actually quite close. Just because you are twisting reality in order to define people you don’t like as “wrong” in this regard doesn’t mean those parallels don’t exist. Your lack of interpretive honesty doesn’t mean there are no crucial similarities.

        • Tom Kratman

          If you’ve bothered reading trhe rest of the series, Steven, I _have_. Now go read the Quran twice. A decent translation would do for these purposes.

          The Quran IS the word of God text, Steven, the _entire_ Quran (minus possibly a few bits of Mohammad, (PBUH). The Hadiths and Sunna are the lesser things.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I did read the rest of the series. Not going to read the Quran again in order to refute you now.

          You go into length about “This thing we don’t like? Unchangeable!” Well, guess what? The same is true for Orthodox Jews. They might be able to work out ways *around* the proclamations — like the ways that capital crimes are tried — but the same is true for Muslim clerics. The details still are down to humans. (As, indeed, you pointed out with the Iranian approval of transsexuality, since that isn’t strictly prohibited.)

          You *still* haven’t drawn a distinction between inerrant texts, with human interpretations around them, that exist in the view of sects of the three different Abrahamic religions.

          But do keep trying. All it does is make clearer that you’ve picked out one to declare evil and unacceptable in this country, while giving the others passes — because you’re part of one, and feel more affinity towards the other, even though the believers of that religion consider you…well, not even heretical, probably; I don’t know if you qualify as Jewish under Orthodox law, so, simply deluded by a 2000-year-old heretic.

        • Tom Kratman

          Sorry, your ignorance and idiocy have defeated me. Never in my life have I ever met someone as stupid and ignorant as you. My apologies for my failings; clearly God meant you to be the perfect fool as that fool exists in God’s mind.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Your failure to demonstrate my error does not demonstrate my foolishness, but rather your own incompetence.

          Really, Tom; trying to declare victory and get out doesn’t work when your opponent can call you on it.

          But I’ll let you admit defeat and get out, since defeated, in fact, you are.

        • Tom Kratman

          As I said, Steven, I admit defeat with you. I cannot demonstrate your error to you because it is impossible for you to see your error.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Oh, I’ve seen errors that I’ve made; indeed, in our discussions in the past I’ve even admitted to them when I made them.

          But you don’t even *try* to “demonstrate” error; you go straight to invective and then point back at what you’ve already said, when it has clearly already failed to persuade.

        • Tom Kratman

          Of course I did, Steven, my first answer to you herein was, IIRC, to show where you are mathematically and logically deficient.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ah — right; you tried once, failed, and then descended rapidly into insult and ignoring things you couldn’t cope with; my apologies. You tried, and failed, once.

          Out of how many posts on here? I think anyone looking back will be able to tell quite readily which one of us has been trying to bring facts and reason to this discussion and which one has been tossing invective and dismissals. But that’s par for the course, really.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, succeeded instantly. if you’re to stupid to see it, well, no surprise there.

        • Tom Kratman

          Yes, of _course_ you did. And you are also a veteran of the armed forces, even though you had no obvious clue that uniform regulations exist.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
          ha.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ah: Ladies and gentlemen, the argument ad hominem, a noted logical fallacy.

          Made all the worse by the fact that Mr. Kratman can’t tell the difference between “Didn’t know a specific regulation” and “Doesn’t know about the idea of regulations” — I fully cop to the former, while laugh at the latter idea.

          I remember once you threatening that you couldn’t be held responsible for violent reactions if someone insulted your integrity in person. I thought that was a threat; now I realize it’s nothing to be worried about. After all, insulting your integrity is like insulting the King of America or the Pope of Islam.

        • Tom Kratman

          Sorry, Steven, but you’re logically deficient there, too. It’s not an ad hominem; it’s impeaching a witness and you, bubba, stand impeached.

          And, as mentioned previously, you’re welcome to come to where I am and try, any time you like. Coward.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Sorry, Steven, but you’re logically deficient there, too. It’s not an
          ad hominem; it’s impeaching a witness and you, bubba, stand impeached.

          Lying in your attempt to “impeach a witness” — where, it is worth noting, you manage not to engage with said witness on any actual *points* — is hardly credible, either.

          And, as mentioned previously, you’re welcome to come to where I am and try, any time you like. Coward.

          Why bother? Like I said, insulting your integrity is impossible; you don’t have any to insult.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, Steven. My very first answer to you here pointed at your fraud. You;ve done little or nothing but engage in lies and fraud since you dragged your putrescent presence into everyjoe. You are, bubba, as impeached as Nixon.

        • Steven Schwartz

          My very first answer to you here pointed at your fraud.

          Your very first answer demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension, accused me of saying something I didn’t say, and ignored everything else.

          You;ve done little or nothing but engage in lies and fraud since you dragged your putrescent presence into everyjoe.

          Rarely has such a perfect example of projection been presented. ;)

          You are, bubba, as impeached as Nixon.

          Of course, technically speaking, Nixon was never impeached by the House of Representatives; he resigned first.

          So, if by that you mean “Not at all”, I heartily agree.

        • Tom Kratman

          Hmmm…why did I write Nixon when it should have been Clinton? Premature senility, perhaps.

          And what service was it you served in that didn’t have uniform regulations, Steven? Yawn.

        • Evil Malc

          Tom-the-dumb-deceiver is demonstrating his ignorance. Ultra orthodox terrorism is very real; recent terrorist murders include an arson attack in July of this year.

        • Tom Kratman

          Indeed? Where? If it’s not in the United States, i point you to the words,” Which matters not a bit to us, here and now.” Not that you have the requisite brain cells to understand the difference, nor the discernment to understand the difference between offensive terror and reprisal. You’re a lefty, after all.

        • Evil Malc

          Silly liar Tommy is being silly again!

          Go on, Tommy, try to find where you wrote those words. We’ll wait.

          Got it? See how it’s not in the same fucking post, moron?

          So: contrary to the claim of the faux-attorney, Orthodox Jews *DO* perform terrorist acts.

          Of course, little Tommy may think that terrorism outside the USA doesn’t matter, but that’s because little Tommy is dumb as box of bricks. For grown-ups, overseas terrorism matters because they have a habit of coming here, too.

          Meanwhile, in his continuing habit of spewing gibberish, Tommy-the-deciever manages to demonstrate his lack of grasp of the facts: the events mentioned were declared as terrorism by that well known lefty, Benjamin Netanyahu.

          Which leaves Tommy-boy in his typical posture, head up his ass and dining on his shit.

        • Tom Kratman

          My, you really _are_ a stupid and childish little troll, aren’t you, boy?

        • James

          One of the points he has made over and over is that Islam is not a religion. Or rather it is a religion that is also a culture and a political tool.

          Christianity or any of the others out there has a specific set. The Soul is the place of god. The world the law of man unless it impacts the soul.

          Islam has a rule for damn near everything. It is a complete overhaul of the culture. Its own legal system (unchangeable by pain of death even if you want it to). Its own financial system and tax system.

          Add to this it advances racism, sexism, slavery, and generally everything the left, progressives, and well everyone else but idiots basically hates.

          But you The little things.

          So yes saying Islam is a religion like Christianity or Judaism makes sense if either of those came with a fanatical inquisition, religious tax, enslavement of all those not of the religion etc.

          So no on that note they are again nothing alike.

        • Steven Schwartz

          One of the points he has made over and over is that Islam is not a
          religion. Or rather it is a religion that is also a culture and a
          political tool.

          And he can repeat it until the end of time. To which I say, what makes this different from most other religions? Mostly that it has hegemony in an area that hasn’t been secularized — in part because when it *was* secularizing, outside powers decided they didn’t like the fashion in which it was doing so, came in and tore down the secular institutions, leaving nothing left *but* the religious ones.

          Christianity or any of the others out there has a specific set. The Soul
          is the place of god. The world the law of man unless it impacts the
          soul.

          And we see how far that’s actually *honored* by looking at all the cases in the courts recently demanding that if someone believes God is telling them to disobey the law, they should be allowed to. Heck, we have *presidential candidates* saying that if secular law conflicts with God’s law, the secular law is not settled. (And that from one of the allegedly more moderate ones.)

          So “unless it impacts the soul” is a pretty meaningless distinction in a lot of people’s eyes — which is why I strive for a secular state, as I said below, against *any* religious group that wishes to change that.

          So yes saying Islam is a religion like Christianity or Judaism makes
          sense if either of those came with a fanatical inquisition, religious
          tax, enslavement of all those not of the religion etc.

          And in their time, Christianity certainly had several of those, along with a “Kill them all, God will know his own” towards both non-religionists and “heretics” — and there are ultra-Orthodox Jews who certainly believe in evicting everyone not Jewish from the Holy Land, for example.

          Religious extremism happens in almost every major religion — I have never met a violent Baha’i religious nut, but I would not bet against it — and the way to combat it is not to launch some purge or crusade, but to demonstrate that a secular worldview is *better*. All that Mr. Kratman’s suggestions would do is further the radicalization, and increase the likelihood of bloodshed. Of course, that’s what he seems to *want*, since all his predictions tend that way, and all his advice tends in that way too, so…

        • Tom Kratman

          What bugs me is that there are some already in who are bad Moslems, but good and loyal soldiers.

        • Steven Johnson

          That’s a problem, I agree. Would they be willing to renounce Islam? Maybe not … could they be placed in a segregated unit like the 442nd, where they still contribute to national goals, but can’t shoot their fellow servicemen? Seems like a penal battalion, which yes, okay, makes my skin crawl too.

          Would just enforcing the UCMJ and jailing/executing traitors again be enough of a solution?

        • Tom Kratman

          No, it really wouldn’t be enough. Even if they renounced, Taqiyya and Kitman would make the renunciations worthless. Contemplate how long it took Spain to really get rid of Islam and the body count from that. An organized segregated unit might also turn out to be the school where we teach larval stage terrorists to become really good at it, too.

      • Jack Withrow

        As much as I applaud your putting these questions in print, I fear you are tilting at windmills. The left can never admit to any wrong thought or their whole fantasyland will collapse. So even if they are on their knees about to have their heads cut off, they will never admit their guilt in causing their own demise. All the while, they will expect those they have regularly and vehemently insulted and marginalized to save them.

        I don’t know how many times I have heard that drivel that Islam is a “religion of peace.” No one on the left bothers to actually read the Koran to actually understand the motivation behind Islam. The only peace Islam will ever concede to the West is the “peace of the dead.”

        And I see our resident 2 YO is back screaming for attention.

        • Tom Kratman

          Ummm…Jack…I’ve been tilting at windmills a very, very long time.

      • Evil Malc

        It’s extremely bothersome that this screed is couched in terms of a not-very-specific religion, which means that acting on it would clearly violate the First Amendment. The only way out of that would be to somehow categorize “Moslem” as something other than a religion, which seems odd, but not impossible (a tomato is after all, botanically a fruit but legally a vegetable). And of course the McCarthy-ist view of communism shows that the US has done something like this in the past, but not, I think, with any great success or credit.

        But once you get past that issue, how do you handle would-be terrorist infiltrators who use a cunning tactic called “lying”? How do you identify _real_ Moslems as opposed to former Moslems who claim to have converted to Zoroastrianism or Hinduism or Dogmatism? I mean, you could require all potential immigrants to enjoy a bacon sandwich and a beer, but that would exclude vegetarians and recovering alcoholics, which seems a bit silly. And even then, it’s not hard to imagine some religious whackjob granting absolution for a spot of pork-n-booze in return for some “glorious” sacrifice such as shooting up a suburban Walmart.

        Fundamentally (hah!) the issue with “immigrants” is irrelevant, for exactly the same sort of reason that 2nd Amendment fans advance as a rationale why gun control programs won’t work: it’s too late, the ship has sailed. There are many, many proto-terrorists already inside the USA for any effort to seal the borders against others to be anything more than theater. Likewise guns: even if you outlaw certain types of weapons, that doesn’t make the existing inventory evaporate, and a budding terrorist would still be able to get his hands on one, albeit illegally, which will no doubt weigh heavily on the conscience of someone planning a murder.

        However, this is America, and while there are limits on what the government can do, there are very much fewer restrictions on what individuals and industry can do. So I expect to see the firearms manufacturers and retailers voluntarily organizing themselves (perhaps with the assistance of an organization like the NRA) to restrict the ability of people to buy weapons and ammunition unless that person has passed a background check conducted by the industry itself. No government involvement required, just a diligent “best effort” attempt by the sellers to ensure that they only do business with regular, decent people. The SCUBA diving industry has done this: dive shops won’t fill your air tank without evidence that you’ve passed some sort of test; no one has compelled them to do this, it came about as a mechanism to prevent government intervention, and it seems to have worked.

        Of course, there might have to be something like an anti-trust exemption so that the industry can cooperate among all the players without being hammered by the Sherman Anti-Trust act, but I suspect that would go through Congress and the President’s desk in record time!

        (By the way, some of the hyperbole in Kratman’s monolog is a bit silly: why would Moslems be exempted from background checks before being allowed on Air Force One, given that no-one is allowed on without scrutiny? And other parts of it are factually innacurate — Syrian refugees, in Europe and elsewhere, are majority female, which should be predictable to the simplest military mind and is borne out by actual data).

        • Evil Malc

          I see that well-known pinko leftist Dick Cheney reckons that the Idiot Trump’s latest wheeze (ban all Muslims from entering the USA, even if they happen to be US servicemen returning from a posting abroad) is anti-American lunacy.

        • Tom Kratman

          It’s not too late; it’s too late to do it the easy way. We still have options ranging from internment, to execution of familiy members, to, frankly, enslavement or Auschwitz. No, nobody wants any of those.

          Why allowed on? Because we are assured, on the very highest authority, that they are just harmless widows and orphans and it would be both silly and cowardly to keep them out…or off AF 1.

          No, they’re not.

        • http://SalaryNet30.com Ludie Dawson

          Like Antonio responded I am taken by
          surprise that a stay at home mom able to make $5849 in a few weeks on the
          internet. have a peek at this website on my profIle

          -==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-=-=–=

          &77777

        • Evil Malc

          There is always the problem of that pesky Constitution: how, precisely, were you planning on getting internment, execution of family members, enslavement or Auschwitz past the 14th Amendment?

          Or, if you manage to cast this as “treason” (as one of the intelligentsia suggested in another comment), Article III Section 3, which says you can’t punish family members for the treason of an individual.

          The core problem is that if you’re going to ride roughshod over the Constitution, do you have any shadow of a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is directly in the line of the hooves? Of course not!

          So if we’re in agreement that the Constitution is important, then the 2nd Amendment stands with the 1st, and the 14th, ad Article III… and your proposals fail as unconstitutional measures.

          The Tree of Liberty being refreshed in blood doesn’t only mean that people must fight to preserve it, but also that innocent people must die, because even if we could prevent their deaths, the price of that protection includes discarding Liberty.

          A topical point: does anyone seriously believe that the TSA “security theater” at the airports would prevent a determined attacker? Of course not. It’s there to reassure the public, with the more serious work happening elsewhere.

        • Tom Kratman

          I suppose you were unaware that Korematsu was never overruled, right?

          That said, I’m not proposing anything. Rather, I am predicting what is very likely to happen – hence, yes, predicting that the Constitution will be kicked to the curb – if we do not find a better way, and illustrating part the problem with questions as exercises for the student. No, I do not define multiculturalism or surrender as better ways.

        • Evil Malc

          Well, you’re not entirely correct: the conviction of Koretmatsu was quashed in 1983, and in 2011(!) the DOJ filed notice that the decision was in error, making it impossible for the government to use the decision to justify future internment.

          So while your assertion is technically correct, it’s misleading to imply that Korematsu can still be used (by the government).

          Of course, anyone who understands the Constitutional judicial process would understand that, absent a new case involving internment, the Court has no mechanism for “overruling” an earlier mechanism. So naturally the Korematsu decision has not been “overruled”.

          It is, however, odd to me that you suddenly have decided that “multiculturalism” is not a better way. It is, of course, the current way (and has been, like it or not, for decades if not a couple of centuries).

          And that, in my view, is why your “predictions” are fundamentally nonsense: you’ve created a fictional baseline and then built a set of hypothetical scenarios on top of that. I appreciate that it can make for an interesting thought experiment, but as an indicator or serious proposal it belongs in a parallel universe where your assumptions are, in fact, valid.

          Incidentally, if you truly worry about refugees being a significant threat to the USA, I’d suggest that you do, in fact, offer refugees space in your home. Because then you can watch and monitor them and ensure that they are incapable of damaging the country. That would be useful!

          Anyway, I think the notion that the Constitution might be “kicked to the curb” is ridiculous. What will, inevitably, happen is that the Court will (continue to) carve out specific exemptions and patterns where the plain reading of the document has to be interpreted in the light of years of jurisprudence, such as the very dodgy idea that the Constitution only protects citizens (except when it includes non-citizens, and good luck finding clues in the text as to which situation applies).

          Getting back to the boat having sailed: by design, the USA has no ethnic or cultural norm, and hasn’t ever had one (hence the need for the Bill of Rights, as what suited some states did not suit others, etc, and indeed the references to Indians and slaves). So we have never had, since 1776, a non–multicultural society. Yes, it would be easier if (like much of Japan) we had a single socio-ethnic society, and therefore making it easier to detect infiltrators.

          But we don’t. So, yeah, the boat sailed. In about 1700!

        • Tom Kratman

          No, it has not been quashed. DoJ filed notice conceding error. That, however, doesn’t equal overturning or quashing. Why not? Largely because the DoJ doesn’t outrank the Supreme Court, while it’s official notices do not really have precedential value in relation to previous court cases. Moreover, though the government conceded that its facts in Korematsu were erroneous, this also does not mean that a different case, but with true facts as originally alleged, should turn out differently. Indeed, it should turn out the same.

          Indeed? So massa on the plantation and dem darkies out in de fields, dey be multiculti? Please don’t be an idiot. The presence of some minor and disadvantaged minorities, or large numbers of slaves, does not compare with the force feeding of privileges to minorities, linguistic matricide of our mother tongue, disadvantaging of majorities, malicious murder of the minorities communities to feed liberal wet dreams, or any of the symptoms of modern multiculturalism. Neither did I suddenly decide anything of the kind. So send your crystal ball back to the factory to have it recalibrated; it is giving you some false answers.

        • Evil Malc

          Oh, dear god, where do you get your “facts”? Conservative talk radio is not, you know, terribly reliable!

          (A) Korematsu’s conviction _was_ quashed in 1983. This does not mean the precedent in the Supreme Court decision was invalidated, but…
          (B) As the DOJ _has_ filed notice that the decision was in error, they (i.e. the US Government) cannot use the decision to justify a hypothetical future internment case, so…
          (C) that hypothetical future case would, therefore, reach the hypothetical future Court “de novo”, because none of the lower courts would have heard argument based on 323 U.S. 214 (‘cos of point B).
          (D) Would that hypothetical future Court decide a similar case “the same” as you imagine? Almost certainly not: as that well-known leftie Antonin Scalia observed that the Jackson dissent was the opinion he most admired.

          As to your efforts to try to pretend the USA has not always been a multicultural society (despite there being ample evidence *in* the Constitution and elsewhere), I would simply point out that your argument has been reduced to trying to claim that *those* types of multicultural societies are somehow different from *these* types, which rapidly descends into the predictable isolationist myopia.

          And moving to your paranoia: last I checked “English” is “the mother tongue” of a place called “England”, which is great for those parts of the USA that seceded from England, but not so much for, say, the Native Americans (aka “Indians Tribes” in the Constitution) or the huge areas that arrived as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Nor, to be frank, am I seeing the “disadvantage of the majority”, except in the context of lessening the advantage of the majority, but reducing advantage is only “disadvantage” in the most venal minds.

          However, all in all, I think you manage to support my core thesis, namely that you are not actually arguing about reality, but a fictional universe. I suspect this is a occupational hazard of science fiction writers: once you start rejecting the actual universe as-it-is, it becomes easy to overlook pesky facts, because they spoil the story line.

        • Tom Kratman

          Sadly for your case, I don’t listen to talk radio. Even worse, while in law school I learned the difference between a “motion to quash” and actual quashing. Isn’t that odd? Did yor law school fail to point of the difference between the two?

          So, where do you get your facts? Liberal talk radio? It sounded like you were projecting.

          Care to ask any of the folks who follow such things how regularly I get it eerily right, and well in advance? No, I am not indulging the occupational hazard; I am looking at probabilities.

          And, sad for you, no, English is the mother tongue of the United States of America. It is not the mother tongue of certain minorities, but so what?

        • Evil Malc

          Oh, dear…. reading isn’t your strong point, is it?

          Nor, evidently, are facts. Fred Korematsu’s conviction was quashed on November 10, 1983 by Judge Patel of the Northern District of California, based on a petition of Coram Nobis.

          As noted before, while that doesn’t impact the SCOTUS decision, 323 U.S. 214, the official statement by the Solicitor General of the United States that the casework that lead to that decision was flawed renders it functionally impossible to use that decision to justify a future internment program.

          Now, perhaps you were dreaming of an alternate reality that day in law school, but over in the real world, the Solicitor General would find it impossible to use a case that a previous Solicitor General had declared flawed as part of a brief.

          I’m also amused that you believe a country *has* a “mother tongue”. Obviously, since countries don’t actually talk (at least, not in the real world; who knows what you put in your fiction!), countries can’t have “mother tongues”. What they can have is official languages (and English is indeed the official language of the USA), but people in the USA have been speaking other languages for as long as the country has existed. That has been the strength of the (actually multicultural) society: whether it’s the German speakers of Pennsylvania, or the Scandinavians of Minnesota, the various Indian languages or dialects… people arrived (not the Indians, obviously), set down roots, and built their own societies, whether they were creative (like the Route 128 corridor, Silicon Valley, NYC & upstate New York, RTP, Los Angeles) or (small-c) conservative, like the agricultural communities.

          We get it that you *want* to be isolationist, xenophobic, greedy, hostile to (certain types of) newcomers. There have been people like you since the beginning of time. Fortunately, people like you tend not to be the types of people who create much value in the world — they tend to be the adventurers, the folks who embrace the differences and make them something new. And it is absolutely certain that documents like the Declaration were not conceived of by men who were afraid of change!

          Incidentally, those who claim past performance is an indicator of future success usually have faulty, or at least selective, memories…

        • Tom Kratman

          I could read before I was three, actually. Only kid under three with an adult library card in South Boston, at least up to 1959.

          Understanding the law isn’t your strongsuit, is it? NB: A lower court does not have plenary power over a higher court. Vacating or quashing a sentence at the level of a lower court does not equal quashing it at the higher court. You may note, or, at least, you could if you were not so brain bustingly stupid, that the Solicitor General agreed with this, which is why he tried to get the Surpreme Court to quash it too, which, you may note, they did not.

          You’re too stupid to even begin to understand what I want.

          Except that I keep repeating it.

        • Evil Malc

          Oh. My. God. I had to read this several times before I could believe what I was seeing!

          I’ve not seen a more profound destruction of an individual’s credibility in a single post than you have managed in that one.

          You see, you’ve clearly demonstrated in one fell swoop that (a) you are ignorant of the facts of things you cite to try to support your position/predictions/stupidity, (b) you are ignorant of the law even when the key words are in front of you, and (c) you are ignorant of the most basic levels of critical thinking.

          It would seem apparent that if you did indeed know how to read before you were three (actually), you haven’t advanced much since.

          So, because I’m enjoying shooting hole in your efforts, here’s where you made your mistakes:

          1. It is true that a lower court cannot contradict the findings of law made by an appellate court. But it also true that an appellate court can only rule on matters that are in the trial court record, So IF the trial court determines that the original trial record is in error, the trial court can reopen the case and reach a new verdict unrelated to the previous appeal process. In short, the trial court controls the findings of fact, while the appellate courts hold sway over findings of law.

          Therefore, WHEN a trial court determines that facts not in the record should have been in the record, and that there is no legal reason why they cannot subsequently be introduced, the trial court can effectively re-hear the case, and rule according to the prevailing body of legislative and judicial opinion (including, of course, any Supreme Court rulings that may have occurred between the first trial and the retrial.

          So Tom, your assertion is categorically wrong, dumb and ignorant: a trial court can (and do) acquit people whose convictions had been appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

          You must have been a truly lousy lawyer. Probably a good thing that you quit!

          2. Golly gosh! Turns out that Fred Komaretsu did indeed succeed in getting information not previously in the trial record considered by the trial court! How he did this is a matter of judicial record, 584 F.Supp. 1406. He petitioned the trial court (United States District Court for the Northern District of California) for a writ of Coram Nobis. That citation is the decision GRANTING the writ. With that grant, the trial court reopened the case, and quashed Fred Korematsu’s conviction, as it is empowered to do.

          Any competent lawyer who has paid any attention to this case knows this, because successful Coram Nobis petitions are rare, and therefore memorable. If you know how to use a search engine, try searching for the term…

          3. So your claims that Korematsu’s conviction was not quashed are simply junk, wrong, dumb, ignorant, and not true.

          [ I had wrongly assumed you were smarter than a poxed pigeon, and that you were try to argue a narrow, and legally accurate, point that the 323 U.S. 214 decision remains on the books, which is true but not relevant to anything that could happen today, for reasons explained above. Imagine my amusement to learn that you evidently believed that Fred Komaretsu's conviction stood because of your unbelievably misinformed ideas of how the legal system works! ]

          4. Not only did you make dumb claims, but what kind of spavined twat-moron attempts to argue a point without understanding what the point is? Obviously, I understand that “coram nobis” is not English (not the “mother tongue”, snort, snort), but really, if one wants to maintain even the thinnest veneer of making *informed* predictions, one should at least try to understand the words.

          5. Given your evident incompetence in matters of law, I opine that by “recovering attorney” what you actually mean is “incompetent attorney”, possibly even “disbarred attorney” and/or “failed attorney”. And given the deception underlying your claim to be an attorney, one has to wonder whether, in fact, *anything* you say can be assumed to be true. Another random example is your trivially easily disproved claim about millions of refugees being largely military aged males (hint: no, they are majority women, because the “military aged males” are most likely to have been involved in that civil war that competent people — i.e. people unlike you, Tom — have heard something about).

          For example, of what were you a Lieutenant Colonel of? Some random pile of idjits calling themselves the “Kratman Militia” or something equally pretentious and pointless? When you said you learned to read before you were three, were you using dog years?

          Face it, Tom, you’re an idiot. Or dishonest. Or both! And that’s not a partisan claim, it’s a simple analysis based on the accuracy of what you say, and how you (try to) reason.

          Buh-bye, now.

        • Tom Kratman

          Right. Got it. You’re too ignorant to bother talking with. Run along, little boy.

        • Evil Malc

          Oh, poor widdle Tommy sad that someone pointed out his dumbness?

          Fascinatingly, your response when your errors and stupidity are highlighted speaks volumes about your character, or lack thereof.

          Fact is you are demonstrably and provably wrong.

          Buh-bye, now, Lance Corporal Kratman.

        • Tom Kratman

          As I said, you’re just too stupid, etc., to waste any more time on. Have a nice rest of your life, little boy.

        • Stephen Brian

          Whichever way we think of Islam, there are a lot of people who self-identify as Muslims with no ill-will towards Western civilization nor any of its principles and who have no ingrained norms antithetical to our societies’ continued existence. Whether or not they abide by the dictates of the Koran, they are of the Islamic community. If the violent movement within that community can be targeted without catching the entire community in the process, it seems that would be better.

          That movement depends upon local institutions and, typically, support from within the old borders of the Caliphates (modified by wave-migration) to maintain itself within any community. There is, however, division even on this within post-Caliphate territory today. That division doesn’t mean much right now because the violent jihadists tend to be a whole lot better organized and armed, but it means there may be something to work with to undermine the movement at its source.

          Does that look like a handle on the problem which could be used to produce a better way?

        • Tom Kratman

          The unfortunately operative word there is “if.” Think of the line, “I dream of things that never were and ask, “Why not?” and note that, the question having been asked, it is never answered. (Note, too, that the original quote, borrowed by Bobby Kennedy, is from a play where the Serpent speaks to Eve. Doesn’t say much too good about Bobby Kennedy, does it?)

          Myself, personally, I’d like to see us throw support (official but clandestine) behind both Quranist Islam and Ibadi Islam. Oddly, those are both the most old fashioned and the most tolerant forms of it.

          However, even given those, there are still problems that do not derive from the core of Islamic territory, past or present, but from the Quran itself. Once again, it is God speaking every or nearly every word in it, not Mohammad, not a witness, not a scribe, not an acolyte, but God. A Moslem cannot argue with it. He may sin by ignoring it, but it is sin when he does and he knows it’s a sin. He may not fight for it even if he has good prospects for some degree of success, but it is a failing in his religious duty when he doesn’t. That means that Islam probably cannot indefinitely remain at peace within a society that is non-Islamic, whether democratic or otherwise, if it begins to acquire numbers. The book itself will always call them back, or call their sons and even daughters back.

          Per the above, we have to consider numbers, too. There’s a fair chance that if we have very small numbers, and coddle them not a bit, nor allow them to form geographically cohesive communities, they will remain quiet (perhaps largely out of fear) and that their sons and daughters may leave Islam for either secularism or Christianity. That, however, is a coin toss. As I’ve mentioned, faced with the prospect of their sisters turning harlot, and reinforced by the Quran, some, at least, will fight back even if it’s hopeless.

          There is also a chance that, in truly tiny numbers, and even allowing them to form very cohesive communities, they may remain peaceable. The Finnish Tatars are a pretty good example of this. But note, not only are those numbers truly tiny, about 1000 in a population of about five and a half million, but one suspects they’re even tinier than they used to be, likely with many Finnish Tatars abandoning Islam over the years. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens with the Finnish Tatars now that they’re only about 2% or less of the Moslems in Finland. (They, themselves, have erected cultural defenses against both Finns and other Moslems. Will those defenses hold?)

          I suspect it’s our nearsightedness if we assign such people as you mention to the Islamic Community. Certainly there are those within the community, probably better qualified to say than we are, who would insist they are not, but are mere heretics.

        • Stephen Brian

          That’s the trouble with deciding who is a heretic and who isn’t: Every text is open to interpretation. I know quite a few Muslims who consider the Koran to be a message to pre-Islamic Arabs showing a set of principles to be followed, and believe those principles to have pushed norms towards something like what we have in the West today. With the difference in norms between pre-Islamic Arabs and modern society, they see what was a step forward for the Koran’s original audience, even as large a step forward as anyone was likely to accept, as a step backwards 1400 years later.

          I think you may have done your homework on how comic-book-level bad pre-Islamic Arabs were, but just to put it in here, their traditional raiding-wars always ended in genocide and scored #1 on this: http://www.cracked.com/article_23248_6-foreign-words-so-dark-there-are-no-english-equivalents_p2.html

          They see themselves as religiously obliged to

        • Tom Kratman

          Interestingly, it’s usually the guys willing to saw heads off, crucify those who do not share their religion and refuse to abide by the Dhimma, and sell the women and girls as slaves who get to say who is and who is not a heretic. Frankly, those Moslems who think that strike even me as heretics. Heretics we might enjoy talking to? Check. Heretics we wish all Moslems would emulate? Check. Heretics that, in themselves, we’d be reasonably willing to let settle? Check. But still heretics. Moreover, even with them, there are still some problems because the Quran, which is, at the very least, an intensely powerful piece of literature, will tend to call back the sons and daughters of even highly progressive Moslems. Think here of France, where Moslems of several generations ago were much more moderate, and much more assimilated, than are their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren today. There may be, even likely are, some other factors in that, but to discount the power of the Quran in bringing that about strikes me as simply wrong.

          I am fairly sure that the atheists and agnostics among us would have a very hard time understanding this, but if you are a believer and will read the Quran _twice_ (not less than twice, yes) you will get a much better feel for the emotional pull of the thing. I think without that feel someone is hard put to understand the thing or the problems.

          I covered that female testimony issue in an earlier column in this series. What I suspect (neither Allah nor Muhammad have confided in me, so suspicion it must remain) was going on their was that there was a presumption that women could never win in court, so rules were laid down by which, if they prepared carefully in advance, they could win. By the same token, though, in matters of adultery, which is to say, life and death for the female, in effect her testimony outweighs that of men massively.

        • Stephen Brian

          Yup, swords speak louder than words when it comes to who gets called a heretic. However, in terms of our actions, that is beside the point: Our responses would lump heretics and the faithful together as they all self-identify the same way. We’re also not talking about a small minority caught in the crossfire. I live a twenty-minute drive from the only site ever identified as a major (on a global-scale) “former” al Qaeda recruitment-center in North America. I get the impression I’m not in the least radical town around here, but I see the “heresy” I described fairly often among Southeast Asian Muslims and, when I was in Michigan, saw it among other groups as well. If they are reflective of their homelands, we’re talking about roughly 30% of people who self-identify as Muslims globally being such heretics, not counting those in the Middle East. That’s why I consider it a separate mainstream movement within Islam: Although they’re less willing or able to get violent about it, countries like Indonesia (mostly non-radical outside of Aceh which had a wave-migration from the Caliphate way back), Malaysia and Bangladesh should not be entirely forgotten.

          The situation in France is a bit weird. They had communities transplanted form the Middle East and North Africa in the post-WWII Migrant Workers program, coming as a wave large enough to establish culture-sustaining institutions and shelter large parts of their communities from outside influence. I am familiar with a bit of the pull of the Koran, at least the idea that if the reader signs on, the whole world would one day reflect his values, live in a clearly ordered way with laws handed down to cleanly resolve all conflicts. I’m also familiar with the tribal pull that calls to much of human nature and the glorious narrative. It’s a real first-order pull, fit to compete easily with transnational progressive literature or any other top-pulling movement. Perhaps, like you recommended, I should read through it again.

          Anyways, going back to my question before, do you think that hitting the movement in the Middle East and targeting major transplanted institutions that came with wave-migration could be a starting point for a sufficient plan? The pull of Islamic radicalism through the Koran is strong, but I still get the impression hindering that message from getting out, until the concentration of the ready-for-radicalization demographic drops to the levels you described earlier might do something. I just don’t know if action based on that targeting would hinder the access of that pull so much.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, not entirely beside the point where we’re concerned. Swords are fungible. “The man in the dark with the knife (or the AK)” crosses borders and neighborhoods. So who we let in, and how we control or, in some cases, exterminate them, will have considerable effect on both moderate, which is to say, “heretical, bad, and thus reasonably welcome” Moslems within our borders.

          The reason I say “twice” is that the first read gets us used to a style and kind of imagery that are alien to us, which the second read, once we’re used to those, can penetrate.

          If you mean hitting ISIS/ISIL/DAESH probably not in quite the way one might think. They’re about as vulnerable to us as they want to be, and not a lot more vulnerable. What’s useful in hitting them isn’t damaging them physically, and not entirely undermining their economy, nor even in isolating them, but in making them cease to look like a strong horse, and humiliating them publicly. How much good it would do in keeping the message from getting out…that’s barn doors and horses; it;s already out and has been for a very long time. It can;t hurt, in itself, I suppose, but I wouldn’t bet a lot on it doing much good. However, taking the strong horse metaphor a bit further, there’s a lot to be said for carefully targeted but absolutely vicious action within our borders. “You gave a sermon about killing us and ours, eh? Well, boyo, we’re going to demolish your mosque and then we’re going to Christianize you, the old fashioned way…”

          Even that though…well, not enough. These people are not cowards, by and large. If they fail in heads up battle with us, and they invariably do, its – ah, hell, just look here for an earlier column; I already explained it. There are two things of ultimate importance if we wish to get their attention and dissuade them. One is their faith, which is hard to get at. The other is their blood; families, clans, and tribes. They’re often not so hard to get at. We might prefer not to, of course, indeed we should prefer not to, but if that’s all that’s left to us…

        • Stephen Brian

          If I understand what you wrote correctly, it looks like you’re suggesting that non-Muslims start drawing swords and dictating who the heretics are in Islam by engaging at least as brutally as the enemy. Looking at the history of attempts to externally dictate such things, it looks almost hopeless. I can think of a few ways to get at their faith (mostly driving people into acts which, under their theology, damn their souls), but it looks like the minimum necessary brutality would end in genocide before bringing peace. (I’m thinking of what would have happened in Canada’s Residential Schools program, which actually semi-accomplished something like such external control, if native communities had a jihadist-like movement.)

          Could a less brutal approach allow us to co-opt the heretics and get them to dictate effectively from within the community? The more radical ones may not consider them Muslims, but they are still of the same community and may be able to eliminate enemies’ recruitment-pools with much less bloodshed. I’m thinking in terms of playing with Islamic communities’ internal dynamics.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, i meant that a sword in their hands here is not especially different from a sword in their hands, over there, meaning that they can terrorize Moslems living in Oshkosh about as easily as they can terrorize Moslems living in Gaza.

          Could is such a loaded word. Almost anything “could” do x or y or z. Will it? What are the odds? And for how long will it work. Wath Islam, that latter question is particularly key because while we might get a result we like, for now, the book always calls them back to a more pure, and for us a far less tolerable and much more dangerous interpretation. As for brutality, itself, it seems to work with them, for so long as we are obviously willing to be brutal. (Which, be it noted, usually means we don’t have to be.)

        • GOPnoMore

          One problem is that the further we go, the more difficult our options become. And this easy moral superiority of the left will lead to forcing us into actions we shrink from. It would be easy NOW to stop the flow and turn things back. I doubt it will be a year from now. Five years from now it will be impossible. Horrific violence will be the only answer. I weep for freedom. I’m not saying it lightly. I love my country and I served in the Army for 5 years in Armor and Cavalry. What is happening here is vile and so saddening that I struggle to see anything positive.

      • Sean Smock

        I think that encouraging concealed carry among civilians and requiring all Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to be armed at all times would be the best, and most American solution.
        I think that some of the questions would be entirely too easy for them to turn on other groups that they dislike. In particular question 10 is far too reminiscent of the Soviets.

        • Tom Kratman

          It’s actually us, of about fifty years ago and more. I discussed this in the column, some time back, on why immigration doesn’t, in general, work like it used to.

          Probably would be easier, yes, the precedent being set. Now contemplate what it means if even those harsh measures cannot be used or would fail.

      • Ciarog

        Can something be done about all the trolls down here? Reading through all this jahiliyyah makes me wonder if a few years of worldwide Sharia would really be so bad.

        • Ciarog

          Y’know, the Serbians used the foreskin test when they tried to Remove Kebab. Suspect individuals were made to drop their pants and if they didn’t have it then *pow* *pow* *pow*

          …that wouldn’t work here, not only because it would Remove Merchant too, but because apparently a lot of American Christians circumcise their kids. Damned if I know why; I figure if God didn’t want us to have them then why were they left on?

          I do have to wonder, though, if we really need to take our legal framework in some new direction (which might just as easily be used against “Christian extremists” as Religionofpeace-ists, which makes me wonder if the liberals are only importing Muslims as a means to bait-and-switch us) when it seems to me that there are more traditional methods for removing unwanted populations. Ever hear of Liburn Boggs? He lived under the same Constitution that we do, and yet he was somehow able to get rid of a problem religion with fairly little legal hassle.

      • Emilio Desalvo

        And so it begins…

        “Germany shocked by Cologne New Year gang assaults on women”

        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046

        • Emilio Desalvo

          How’s the German translation of Caliphate going, Colonel?

          And the French? The Italian?

      • GOPnoMore

        I’ll tell you what: no one is signing up for those challenges. They’d treat the challenge itself as an affront to human dignity and sic the PC police on you.

      • Benschachar

        ”Are you willing to actually read the goddamned translations and finally admit that Islam is not a ‘Religion of Peace?’”
        This!
        So much!

      Be Sociable, Share!