Once upon a time, there was a post entitled,
Two Stories on House Vote to Honor Ramadan. This happenstance irks the bejeebers out of me on many levels that it will be virtually impossible to detail. But, this issue is not what this post is about. The post is about the
comments to this post. I hope Cyber Pastor doesn't mind and I hope SFBert doesn't mind either. As for the moonbat, I could care less what IT thinks.
This particular moonbat, as all trolls do, changes nics like snakes shed skin and in this particular case, IT is going by Halle Burton...typical, isn't it? Stuck on retarded. Anyway, here we go. This is ITS first comment.
""To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing," he stated."
Using that logic, would he condemn Christianity for Tim McVeigh's terrorist attach in OK? I think not, nor would it be appropriate to smear an entire religion for the actions of a few.
Gee. I wonder what this ignoramus is going. First off, McVeigh was a sworn agnostic right up until an hour before his execution. This troll knows this but keeps rambling on and on about McVeigh being a Christian knowing damn well that he was not at the time of the bombing in OK. So, that argument doesn't hold water.
Second, this idgit troll hasn't figured out yet that Islam Is Not a religion of peace, no matter ITS ignorant rants and spin. Anyone that has studied this "religion' of Islam, comes away with a knot in the pit of their stomachs. Islam is a cult of murder and death.
Several people, in the interim, tried to explain reality to the troll, to no avail as evidenced by ITS replies. Then, comes a special reply from one that I have seen elsewhere and seems to be consistant, removing doubt as to the possibility of being a multi-nic troll. Enter "
Muslims Against Sharia".
Regardless of Jihad and Islamic terrorism, the resolution is a violation of the US Constitution which clearly states that "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".
Absolutely true. Congress has officially given the nod of approval of a body of people which, in the tenets of their credo, want us all dead or convert to Islam. What in the hell is wrong with our morons disguised as educated law makers in CONgress?
Others came along and, as myself, recognized the troll from the MIT site (long story for another day) and began the usual troll trouncing to get IT to spew the usual and it worked. Trolls are so predictable. After this, along comes Dean.
I am sick and tired of lefty/liberals proclaiming that the murderer Timothy McVeigh was Chritian. In reality McVeigh was agnostic his entire life right up until his execution when he asked for last rites to be given by a Catholic priest.
That does not support the notion that McVeigh was Christian.
Apparently halle burton you will believe anything the MSM projects as truth. Years as a professed agnostic doesn't suddenly disappear when a person asks for last rites prior to his execution.
Islam is NOT a religion....certainly NOT a religion of peace. Comparing the two shows how ignorant you are of reality.
Islam is an abomination and pure evil.
Halle burton you are wrong on many levels. Do your research and try, if you can, not using left wing tp's.
Not to be outdone, Halle Burton opines:
Dean, could you expand upon McVeigh's ties to Elohim City and its ties to the Covenant, Sword, and Arm of the Lord and then tell us that no one religion gets used and abused by the its extremists?
Too much, isn't IT? Enter Ben:
Terrorism is not an abuse of 'slime, it is an intrinsic sacrament, as witness 3:151, 8:12, 33:26-27 59:2 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.
Sanctified by Allah, commanded by Allah, practiced & bragged about by Muhammad. Truth trumps, idiot!!!
And this isn't even the "good part"!! The good part comes when SFBert joins the fracas.
Ah Halle, the problem is this: in all those groups you mentioned, they can't come up with 1,500 hard-core supporters (even though they would like everyone to think there are more of them out there) but there are 150 million Jihadists in the Muslim world. And to understand what that means, one has to become a student of violence -- that is, what can a group achieve with it and what means of dispensation of it must be used. Other than the Japanese Kamikazes, no other group ever so willingly gives themselves to death to kill those they consider enemies. Those the Communists and Nazis celebrated for suicidal deaths were as a rule trapped with no way out in no-quarter given fights. General military history will not teach you about this. Studying the actions of individual heroes and of small unit fights will. That's why so few of those who have ever engaged in small unit actions are ever given opportunity to have input into rules of engagement or to treat with codifying the laws of war.
And Halle Burton said, "What?" To hide ITS ignorance, the syrup comes out only to be led to the slaughter.
SFBert, nice to hear from you again. I always respect and appreciate your thoughtful and insightful responses. You have a military background perspective that sheds light into an area I don't have first hand knowledge.
As to small groups, not unlike the 15 Saudis and 4 other hijackers on 9/11, it doesn't take many individuals to have a much larger impact. And, with small groups that can be anywhere, hiding in plain sight, doesn't it call for a different approach than using a unilateral, conventional military approach? To quote from Star Wars:
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Even there, a small band of rebels was able to overcome a militarily superior power.
Too much, really. IT admits not having knowledge yet posts with that air of superiority when IT should merely STFU and STFD. IT goes off into the SciFi realm, to a situation that hasn't happened and more than likely won't...not in our lifetimes. This is a typical distraction technique utilized by lost trolls when they know they have wandered into an area that makes no quarter and has no mercy on purposeful stupidity, theoretically on a mission to change others to their way of thinking. That is pretty close to the very definition of insanity. SFBert continues:
Halle, I think you are on the verge of understanding. For example, both Nazis and Bolsheviks composed about 3% of their respective nations when they took power. They did it by violently killing those who actively opposed them, silencing those who opposed them less aggressively, and as for the rest, they led them into their camp with lies and promises. But the critical mass, the numbers of people needed to achieve change, was never that large. But those few were disciplined, ruthless, patient, and they never got distracted from their goals. In truth, neither the Nazis nor the Bolsheviks were really very strongly opposed though some from each group were thrown into prison and later released to continue to do evil. Neither the Weimar Republic nor Czarist Russia ruthlessly opposed those bent on destroying them.
Many of us believe that the Islamists now have reached the critical mass to win in most of the places they inhabit except that they lack the technical resources of the West to execute their plans. So they engage in asymmetrical warfare (used to be called unconventional warfare) to press their agenda.
If you're with me so far, follow my next post.
IT wasn't and SFBert knew that, having had this SAME conversation MANY times before at the previously mentioned MIT site. SFBert continues:
Part II to Halle:
Now how does one oppose such a group of fanatics? Historically the ones that succeeded were totally and absolutely ruthless and gave no quarter. Alexander the Great is an example. Kenghis Khan is another. In the West with our liberal traditions (liberal not being a bad word here), we respect human life whether it is good or bad and we base our ethics, laws, and expecations of conduct on those mores. But we again face an enemy who has no rules to fetter them in combat and whose definition of combat ranges blends with criminality. In WWII, one correspondent who witnessed the aftermath of a fight between a German company and one platoon of 101st paratroopers was appaled at the efficiency with which a small number of Americans literally wiped out a larger number of enemy. He asked the question," How can those killers in baggy pants ever be allowed to return home? How can they ever be allowed to be around our children and our daughters?" One soldier told him he should have been around during the fight and he would have understood. "Better we go home to your daughters than those dead SOB's over there." And when they went home, most of those soldiers left what the did behind and returned to normal living because that is what was expected of them.
It is not like that now. Society needs killers. (Not murderers. There's a difference.) But our society has evolved to where we don't appreciate those that can act against an enemy. They wish that our enemies could just be taken in custody and that they can later be released as changed persons. Won't happen. And so our laws, our rules of engagement, our policies are determined by what we believe we would do if we were in the enemies' shoes and we ignore the nature of our enemies. And we innoculate our children to loathe the warriors left among us and we count on them keeping the barbarians at bay even as we castigate them for what they and their leaders try to do. If you think I am being pessimistic, I am not. I am being a realist. Did you know that there are over 10,000 lawyers assigned to the Pentagon (JAG's and civilian)? We've ritualized war while the enemy hasn't. Going to the Star Wars mythos -- how would things have turned out if Leia and the rest were killed as soon as they fell in the Imperial troopers hands? The major lesson I brought back from Vietnam was this -- technology only trumps the guys in sandals, boots, or whatever for a while. Will eventually wins over tech.
Halle really gets all excited when IT gets all of this attention but, we all know that and as Spree so often says, stupidity cannot go unanswered. Reenter Ben:
Down to brass tacks, Bert. The conflict is existential; a death match. Us or them. One side gets exterminated. Which one?
Not my side, by God!! The Muslims prefer death over life; they seek it. Give it to them!!!
We will not win without the will and resolve to rid the world of Islam. In the last 1384 years, nobody has found that will and resolve. We'd better God blessed well find it before the Mujahideen match up nuclear weapons with delivery systems.
This is predator vs. prey, and Islam is the predator. Snakes can not convert from eating rabbits to eating grass. Today, at Snooper's I posted about Shrub's latest lie about Islam. I included a hadith wherein Muhammad cursed Muslims who would abandon Jihad and take up agriculture.
Anyone who gives a blessing, who cares about human life & liberty and the success and survival of the excellent experiment our founders began 230 years ago should go read that post and use the links therein contained to read the entire Qur'an & Hadith. Find out what Islam is, what it does and why.
Halle must be doing a Linda Blair at right about that point. Renter SFBert:
Ben, it is a fight to the death. What most folks don't want to accept is that the costs to fight now are low compared to what they are going to be later. They cry," It's too much. Bring them home!" Horsepatuties. The fight is coming our way anyhow and at least for now, we have time to start educating the few that can learn and the fewer that have the courage to understand what will have to be done. If they think that we will be worse than our enemies for fighting like our lives depend on it, they haven't seen the videos of women being shot in soccer stadiums, of them being buried and stoned to death, of men being beheaded because they happened to be teachers who allowed Buddhists in their classes, etc. There's a world of difference between being ruthless against those who wish us harm and being ruthless against those who have no wish to harm us nor have the means to do so. But I am afraid that we lack the institutional courage to be ruthless. The cost to us later will be great.
AMEN. Where did Halle Burton go? There was some more troll trouncing waiting for the usual moonbat freak out and it is soon coming. SFBert adds:
All -- Halle's comments and discussion was very timely. Although the MSM didn't cover the final result, the recent Article 32 hearing at Ft. Bragg is a perfect case to demostrate my point. Two Green Beret snipers shot a master bomb builder. Two investigations of the shooting by the Army call it justified. This was not good enough for Lt.Cdr. Douglas Velvel who is the JAG advisor to Lt.Gen. Francis Kearney,who was commander of special operations for Central Command. Kearney writes a memo to proceed with an Article 32 against Cpt. Dave Staffel and MSG Troy Anderson because no one at Ft. Bragg and Special Operations Command wanted to indict these guys for murder. Velvel knows the charges are wrong so he won't sign the charges himself. Instead he orders an enlisted man to sign the charges. When the hearing convenes, Velvel refuses to appear to explain why the snipers were charge excusing himself as Gen. Kearney's legal advisor. When the hearing concludes the charges are thrown out. This is not generally reported by the media.Gen. Kearney then states that the system worked, that now all know this was a good shoot because they were cleared by an Article 32 hearing. Of course, the guys went into big time debt to get attorneys to defend themselves from these false charges. Both state they will continue soldiering. But their compadres have other thoughts. If they are going to have to go through this every time they are in a shoot, they wonder if it is worth engaging the enemy.
The Marines at Haditha are another example.
The fools in the Democrat Party, other leftists, and the fools in government and the MSM do what they do and then expect that they will be protected in the long run by those they try to personally ruin for doing what we ask them to do??? I had a similiar experience myself many years ago. My reply was that I could ask my men to die for their country but I could not ask them to go to jail for their country. And this is what has seeped into our military as a result of our culture.
As a police officer I have had to go to grand juries for my shootings. I expected to. But I purchased legal insurance for those situations and accepted this as part of my employment.
Can we ask our men and women in the Armed Forces to give up their homes or give up their kids college savings just because they do what neccessity and duty demand that they do? If so, then we are too stupid to continue as a nation and we need to start over.
Does one stupid action by one of our commanders harm us? Kearney is now Deputy Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. That means he now influences not just CENTCOM, but all our Special Operations Forces -- Green Berets, Rangers, Seals, etc.
If you were one of the elite troops, what would be running through your mind next time you were sent out to do a mission? I can tell you it is running through their minds and few $100,000 re-enlistment bonuses for Green Berets offset the possiblity of doing a...(the remainder was truncated and was cut off)
Here IT comes. The head stopped spinning from all of the above factual references from those that know and, right on cue, the troll just has to spew the usual Code Pepto Dismal, ANSWER and other anti-American hooey. Enter mental midget Halle Burton:
Who'd thunk it, that, on a pastor's blog titled 'Do the Right Thing' there would be so much support for what would amount to a policy of genocide. Will the future be us trying to kill as many of 'them' as possible while 'they' are trying to kill as many of us as possible, with neither being able to kill every last one of the other? Is this the best scenario that humanity can create here on earth?
I'd like to hear Pastor Ed's thoughts on Matthew 5, including the "love your enemies," should be understood in this context.
Having been thoroughly trounced, taken to the woodshed and being incapable of refuting anything, it regurgitates the usual vile nonsense and then tries to distract...move the conversation away from ITS own self-dug pit of obscurity. ITS comments are totally irrelevant at this point. SFBert, trying to console the wounded moonbat:
Halle: Who is advocating genocide? I've been reviewing the posts and don't see that. What I see (at least on my posts) is the advocacy for terminal action against those who are actively wanting to destroy us. And what does the future hold? My friends and I have a grim vision of an almost apocalyptic struggle in the future because we, the West, did not do what was neccessary to defend ourselves while the threat was young and immature. We are allowing it to get legs (on top of the 1500 years it has already had to do so) and are allowing it to demonstrate to Muslims that are sitting on the fence that they are winning, that they are the future, and that we are incapable of defending ourselves. One has to be around to strive for the Christian ideal. You can't if you're dead or if you have been forcibly converted to the Muslim ideal. And if you are a moderate Muslim, you aren't going to be to eager to proclaim your tolerance if your neighbors have an OK from God and temporal authorities to cut your head off if you do it. I think you know this. My question to you is why do you ascribe your virtues to Jihadists?
They are neither compassionate, nor tolerant, nor do they seek discussion as a means of ironing out differences. Holy cow! Remember 9/11. Remember how celebrated some hijackers were because they had the "strength" to cut the throats of a couple of stewardesses.
OOPS! There's those damn facts again...reality and "stuff". More facts from SFBeret:
From the book "The Navigation Log" by Martin Corrick 2002 Random House:
"...Around him was a broad grassy airfield, above was an open sky, yet the possession of these simple freedoms required formality and discipline of an inflexible kind..."
It is a story of twin brothers who flew in the Battle of Britain. One who died in the Battle. When pairs of fighters were directed against German formations there was plenty of opportunity between the earth and the sky to avoid the Germans and little criticism would fall to the pilots who were unable to vector in. But each pilot knew his duty and knew that their country, their people, and the better civilization needed them to make contact and train their guns on the Germans and kill them. They did so and they won.
This Halle, is what we are are getting away from. And it is not good.
To serve to fight, but to escape the duty to fight under the guise of legalities and concern about popular opinion, is why the bad guys will advance and those who we need to be our allies will avoid our friendship. We succeed where we show determination. We fail where we show what their culture perceives as weakness. It has been a long fight as far as wars go and it will continue on for much longer, but your side has made it so by the rules it imposes on the warriors who fight it.
Sigh. Alas! IT cannot help but try to recover and in the process, digs ITS hole deeper.
Bert, regarding genocide;
Ben wrote, "The conflict is existential; a death match. Us or them. One side gets exterminated. Which one?
Not my side, by God!! The Muslims prefer death over life; they seek it. Give it to them!!!"
You replied, "Ben, it is a fight to the death."
Roger chimed in with, "Right on Ben! Luvya!"
The sentiment here, unless I'm mistaken, is that the Muslims will kill all non-Muslims that don't convert to Islam; therefore, they need killing first. This smacks of collective punishment; whereby, because of the actions of a small, radicalized segment of a religion numbering in excess of a billion people, the final solution is the elimination of every last one.
Did I misconstrue?
Yes, IT did and IT knows it. IT still will not accept the cold hard facts of Islam. IT digs deeper, emitting the stench of superiority to hide ITS own inferiority:
Bert, you also asked about my ascribing my virtues to the jihadists. Was that what I was doing? Are we able to take on an adversary without descending to their barbarism? If we have to become like our enemy in order to defeat them, then what have we gained? Look at the other posts Pastor Ed added today about more gun violence in schools. Why is our society so violence-obsessed: that the way to deal with things too often ends this way? As a law enforcement professional, you must see this everyday.
On one level, I sure you are right about fighting and how to fight; and, I'm looking at this from a more philosophical perspective. Could this country be defeated from without by Islamic fanatics? I doubt it. Could this country be defeated from within by surrendering our rights, our freedoms and everything that makes us unique in the pursuit of security? Likely, yes.
SFBert explains:
Halle: Those who want us dead must be made dead first. The lesson that I am trying my hardest to teach is that because one fights will all their soul, and all their will, and all their means does not make us like the enemy. I have tried to use examples of the paratroopers and the RAF pilots. They did what they had to when they had to, but when the enemy was crushed and they returned to their normal lives, they were restored to being regular people and didn't absorb the blood lust of battle into their daily lives. Our enemies blood lust IS part of their daily lives. I can't make it any clearer. I have been in battle where it was a close thing as to whether we were going to win or not. I can't describe the horror and the freezing up of people who suddenly realize that there is a real possibility of losing. These were people who smugly believed because they wore U.S. Army on their uniforms that we would always win. It is one reason that the Army in its institutional wisdom placed people like me among their newbies. And I look around and see a world of Americans who don't understand we can lose and won't until the horror of it is only an arms length away. And they'll freeze and be totally useless because they never understood what the fight was about or what it would require. No, I was not a general. I never had more than a battalion. But I know to my bones that any fight is won by a single soldier next to his buddy who does what he has to do not just to stay alive, but to destroy the enemy he faces. I understand a battle not as a company vs. a company. I understand it as 216 guys vs. 216 guys. And it is why my guys always won. But I can't take you into battle to teach you that. But you have to first get it out of your head that we can always win. That is arrogance and good soldiers (no matter what derogatory names they call their enemies) will always credit their enemies for being at least as good as they are and recognize their strenghts. The individual US fighter's strength is belief in what he is protecting. His weakness is the leftist saturation of the media, academe, and government which is always ready to give him up because they have never had harm befall them and believe it never will.
The "chatter" goes on and the conversation turns to another subject but IT is still out of ITS league.
I brought y'all all of this so you can read the original post and see how the opposition, after falling to facts of which they cannot refute, instead of admitting defeat and/or ignorance and expressing an interest to learn more of that which we face, they move onto another subject which they feel more comfortable in.
So, remember this lesson in Leftinistra gorilla tactics and do not let it take away from the topic at hand.
