bullshit filter on 11:
MIAMI (AP) - The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others this week came from something increasingly common on this city's streets: a high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members and violent criminals.
Read it.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Some thoughts on Glenn Beck's 'Perfect Day'
If you haven't heard about this, he's been covering two points. First, that various terrorist groups are planning on making a series of big attacks in the U.S., with schools being preferred targets, and urging lots of muslims to, when the attacks happen, make their own attacks: cab drivers running over infidels, and so on. Second, he figures they hope for people here to react by burning mosques, attacking muslims, calls for internment, etc., so they can use that as propaganda to say "See! It's a war on Islam by the unbelievers!".
I don't doubt the first. On the second, I see two problems with how 'we must act with great restraint to avoid giving them a propaganda victory'. First, it really doesn't matter what we do, it'll be painted by the things as 'war on Islam'. If a bunch of terrorists attacked a school and fled into a mosque, and burned it down while fighting the police, it'd be painted as "See! The crusaders burn our holy places!" If the police caught them, they got a fair trial and received a proper islamic punishment(say, beheading the public square*), they'd still scream that our killing the terrorists means "We are victims of the war on Islam! Death to the infidels!"
Second is the mindset of the things and the muslims around the world who support them, and there's a lot of them. Let's say the things attack our schools, and we act with great restraint. They'll paint it as a demonstration of weakness on our part, and lots of muslims will believe it. "See, we rape and kill their children and the crusaders still do not have th courage to deal with us!"
So this may well be a 'lose-lose' scenario so far as many of the muslims around the world. Doesn't matter what we do or how we act, they'll still claim victimhood and justification for horrible acts.
And by the way: there are a lot of mosques in this country that are actively working with and for the terrorists. They gather money for them, preach in support of them, actively aid them: that makes the people in those mosques the enemy. That's putting it bluntly, and will undoubtedly cause various amounts of pants-wetting and hysteria, but there it is. If you actively work to assist the enemy, you ARE the enemy. And the fact that we don't act decisively against those doing this, is seen as another sign of weakness on our part. And they're right.
*I would add 'and buried in pig crap' to the sentance.
I don't doubt the first. On the second, I see two problems with how 'we must act with great restraint to avoid giving them a propaganda victory'. First, it really doesn't matter what we do, it'll be painted by the things as 'war on Islam'. If a bunch of terrorists attacked a school and fled into a mosque, and burned it down while fighting the police, it'd be painted as "See! The crusaders burn our holy places!" If the police caught them, they got a fair trial and received a proper islamic punishment(say, beheading the public square*), they'd still scream that our killing the terrorists means "We are victims of the war on Islam! Death to the infidels!"
Second is the mindset of the things and the muslims around the world who support them, and there's a lot of them. Let's say the things attack our schools, and we act with great restraint. They'll paint it as a demonstration of weakness on our part, and lots of muslims will believe it. "See, we rape and kill their children and the crusaders still do not have th courage to deal with us!"
So this may well be a 'lose-lose' scenario so far as many of the muslims around the world. Doesn't matter what we do or how we act, they'll still claim victimhood and justification for horrible acts.
And by the way: there are a lot of mosques in this country that are actively working with and for the terrorists. They gather money for them, preach in support of them, actively aid them: that makes the people in those mosques the enemy. That's putting it bluntly, and will undoubtedly cause various amounts of pants-wetting and hysteria, but there it is. If you actively work to assist the enemy, you ARE the enemy. And the fact that we don't act decisively against those doing this, is seen as another sign of weakness on our part. And they're right.
*I would add 'and buried in pig crap' to the sentance.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Here's a response for the truthers:
When I hear conspiracists talk about 4,000 Jews staying home from work on 9/11, I like to tell them "And they know where you live."
And some other good thoughts.
And some other good thoughts.
I know I tend to head articles in Britain with 'swirling down the toilet'
a lot, but when you read things like this, it's hard not to.
So, I became exasperated and said ‘Is there no-one working here who speaks English? This is Paddington - this is still a London neighbourhood.’
A well-dressed man came over and said ‘I speak English.’ I thought he was going to intervene on my behalf but instead came out with this astonishing observation:
‘You are a racist! You are a racist ape! Look at you-- you are an ape!’
I was dumbfounded. I came to London thirty-two years ago to soak up the culture of Dr Johnson and Chaucer and Milton, and in the autumn of my life am called an ape by a man from, well, perhaps Egypt, perhaps Palestine, perhaps Saudi Arabia..
Shocked, I glared at him, but he had to finish things off : ‘You want them to speak Hebrew, don’t you?’
And at the end:
I wandered over to the flower shop and found myself commiserating with what seemed to be two Englishwomen who lived in a permanent state of fear in a neighbourhood they had called their own for generations. They told me I must have been mad going into that shop, as ‘all the establishments in Edgware Road are off-limits to us now.’ They told me there was one small café that was safe for a western woman.
"...safe for a western woman." In London.
So, I became exasperated and said ‘Is there no-one working here who speaks English? This is Paddington - this is still a London neighbourhood.’
A well-dressed man came over and said ‘I speak English.’ I thought he was going to intervene on my behalf but instead came out with this astonishing observation:
‘You are a racist! You are a racist ape! Look at you-- you are an ape!’
I was dumbfounded. I came to London thirty-two years ago to soak up the culture of Dr Johnson and Chaucer and Milton, and in the autumn of my life am called an ape by a man from, well, perhaps Egypt, perhaps Palestine, perhaps Saudi Arabia..
Shocked, I glared at him, but he had to finish things off : ‘You want them to speak Hebrew, don’t you?’
And at the end:
I wandered over to the flower shop and found myself commiserating with what seemed to be two Englishwomen who lived in a permanent state of fear in a neighbourhood they had called their own for generations. They told me I must have been mad going into that shop, as ‘all the establishments in Edgware Road are off-limits to us now.’ They told me there was one small café that was safe for a western woman.
"...safe for a western woman." In London.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
As I recall, it's pretty much the same here today
as six years ago, fair skies and cool. Maybe I'll write something else on that day later. Not now.
Monday, September 10, 2007
At least in some cases, the UN is being told to take their blue hats
and shove them where the sun don't shine.
With the United Nations continuing its efforts to enact draconian, transnational gun control laws in countries around the world, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which included an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that seeks to address the U.N.’s ongoing international gun ban efforts.
By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.
Found thanks to Sebastian
What happens if the terrorists do attack our schools?
Was listening to Glenn Beck earlier today, hearing things I didn't like and reflecting- again- on the long-term consequences if it does indeed happen.
Specifically, he was talking about the plans of some of the nutcase islamic groups- plans hell, the burning desire- to pull a Beslan-style attack in the U.S. Preferably in multiple schools on the same day. Had information I'd not heard before. That there were training tapes found in Afghanistan on making attacks on businesses or offices or schools I knew: that they found, in Iraq, building plans for a half-dozen American elementary schools I did not. Elementary because they want to hit a place where the boys(girls don't count, of course) aren't old enough/big enough to be a threat. He's going to do a show, several episodes during the week, on CNN talking about this, including naming the schools the plans were for.
I have no doubt of this. I'm certain there are a bunch of nutcase islamists out there- who'd get lots of support from millions of 'moderate' muslims- who desperately want, and plan, to do this. They want to get into one of our schools and torture and rape, and in the end kill, every child they can. These- I'll use 'things', as my command of language isn't quite good enough to truly demonstrate what I think of these beings- things would happily die doing this, seeing it as a wonderful demonstration of devotion to their god. As to what will follow if they make such an attack-a serious attempt, let alone a successful attack, they either don't believe what we will do, or they don't care.
A lot of people have written about this before, that these things just don't understand what this country is capable of if pushed to it. Fact is, if the God-cursed lawyers and politicians weren't in the way so much, the situation in Iraq would have been a lot more settled two years ago; among other things, there would have been patrols, ground and air, killing every Iranian who came across the border, followed by press conferences showing the stuff they were smuggling in. I think it was Armed Liberal at Winds of Change who wrote that 'he feared what we would do if struck by such an act'. You know something? I don't fear it. It'll be messy and nasty as hell, but I don't fear it. What I fear is that the likelihood of this happening has been greatly increased by the 'fight when/how will make the critics happy' bullshit. Every time the enemy found they could hide in a mosque and shoot at our troops and get away with it, every time the news announced a lawyer wouldn't let an air strike take out a bunch of the enemy because they were at a friggin' funeral... every time something like this happens, the enemy takes it as proof that we will give up. That we don't have the balls to do what's needed. It encourages them, it makes them believe that they can beat us.
In this country, several things will happen. One- regrettably- is that every mosque that has put out "Yes, terrorism is terrible, but-" statements is liable to go up in flames. In a way I have to admit that wouldn't bother me too much, but other mosques will be attacked, also. Accompanied by other attacks on moslems. Probably not a lot, but in the rage following such an attack, all bets are off. Another is that almost any politician, except those in the most moonbat-infested districts, who says "We must show restraint", or in public says "We're gonna get 'em!" but in private acts to prevent it, is going to pay the price. Preferably only in recalls/losing elections/etc., but I seriously fear some of them might be killed. I think some of these people truly do not understand the level of rage that will come in after such an attack, or else think 'the masses can be controlled'. These 'things' attack a school and kill a bunch of kids, even without the flourishes, and there will be demands for blood. For telling the troops "The gloves are off: find the bastards and kill them, wherever they are." 'Demands' as in "You do this, or we'll drag your ass out of that chair and put somebody in it who will."
As to specifics to various moslem nations, I don't know. That's going to vary. I can see Iran, if their prints are found on it, being- if not having their nuclear program smashed- being cut off: no refined oil products, no anything that can be turned back. Pakistan, Musharraf being told, whether in public or not, "You take out a lot of these people in the tribal areas, or we will. You'll like it better if you do it." Syria, Hamas, Hizballah: can you say 'stomped on'?
I think there are those among the things who don't want this attack to happen: not because of any unwillingness to kill our children, but because they do know what will happen after. And they don't like the idea of being converted to mulch. But they've got an uphill fight against the things who want to spill blood. Preferably on camera to demonstrate their faith.
Somthing else I think will happen in the aftermath of such an attack, is some European countries will cut loose. We'll hear the usual socialists and communists and America-haters basically saying we 'deserved it', but I think it would be the last straw for a lot of people, and it would give some governments the opening they need to stomp on their problems. Of course, it's possible the things would try to include some European schools in the day of terror, in which case... let's just say that a lot of moslems will find out how a lot of these people's ancestors got the reputations they did.
As a side note, I remember when he was putting together a 'man-caused global warming is bs' show, he talked about the huge amount of crap, the lies and roadblocks thrown up by CNN officials and employees to try and prevent it. If not for the crap we've seen out of the major media over the last couple of decades in particular, I wouldn't have believed such a mess would be done. As he put it today, 'if the facts weren't there, if the sources weren't there, if EVERYTHING weren't there, there's not a chance you could get this show through the PC attitudes at CNN'. Need to see if a friend can tape it for me.
Specifically, he was talking about the plans of some of the nutcase islamic groups- plans hell, the burning desire- to pull a Beslan-style attack in the U.S. Preferably in multiple schools on the same day. Had information I'd not heard before. That there were training tapes found in Afghanistan on making attacks on businesses or offices or schools I knew: that they found, in Iraq, building plans for a half-dozen American elementary schools I did not. Elementary because they want to hit a place where the boys(girls don't count, of course) aren't old enough/big enough to be a threat. He's going to do a show, several episodes during the week, on CNN talking about this, including naming the schools the plans were for.
I have no doubt of this. I'm certain there are a bunch of nutcase islamists out there- who'd get lots of support from millions of 'moderate' muslims- who desperately want, and plan, to do this. They want to get into one of our schools and torture and rape, and in the end kill, every child they can. These- I'll use 'things', as my command of language isn't quite good enough to truly demonstrate what I think of these beings- things would happily die doing this, seeing it as a wonderful demonstration of devotion to their god. As to what will follow if they make such an attack-a serious attempt, let alone a successful attack, they either don't believe what we will do, or they don't care.
A lot of people have written about this before, that these things just don't understand what this country is capable of if pushed to it. Fact is, if the God-cursed lawyers and politicians weren't in the way so much, the situation in Iraq would have been a lot more settled two years ago; among other things, there would have been patrols, ground and air, killing every Iranian who came across the border, followed by press conferences showing the stuff they were smuggling in. I think it was Armed Liberal at Winds of Change who wrote that 'he feared what we would do if struck by such an act'. You know something? I don't fear it. It'll be messy and nasty as hell, but I don't fear it. What I fear is that the likelihood of this happening has been greatly increased by the 'fight when/how will make the critics happy' bullshit. Every time the enemy found they could hide in a mosque and shoot at our troops and get away with it, every time the news announced a lawyer wouldn't let an air strike take out a bunch of the enemy because they were at a friggin' funeral... every time something like this happens, the enemy takes it as proof that we will give up. That we don't have the balls to do what's needed. It encourages them, it makes them believe that they can beat us.
In this country, several things will happen. One- regrettably- is that every mosque that has put out "Yes, terrorism is terrible, but-" statements is liable to go up in flames. In a way I have to admit that wouldn't bother me too much, but other mosques will be attacked, also. Accompanied by other attacks on moslems. Probably not a lot, but in the rage following such an attack, all bets are off. Another is that almost any politician, except those in the most moonbat-infested districts, who says "We must show restraint", or in public says "We're gonna get 'em!" but in private acts to prevent it, is going to pay the price. Preferably only in recalls/losing elections/etc., but I seriously fear some of them might be killed. I think some of these people truly do not understand the level of rage that will come in after such an attack, or else think 'the masses can be controlled'. These 'things' attack a school and kill a bunch of kids, even without the flourishes, and there will be demands for blood. For telling the troops "The gloves are off: find the bastards and kill them, wherever they are." 'Demands' as in "You do this, or we'll drag your ass out of that chair and put somebody in it who will."
As to specifics to various moslem nations, I don't know. That's going to vary. I can see Iran, if their prints are found on it, being- if not having their nuclear program smashed- being cut off: no refined oil products, no anything that can be turned back. Pakistan, Musharraf being told, whether in public or not, "You take out a lot of these people in the tribal areas, or we will. You'll like it better if you do it." Syria, Hamas, Hizballah: can you say 'stomped on'?
I think there are those among the things who don't want this attack to happen: not because of any unwillingness to kill our children, but because they do know what will happen after. And they don't like the idea of being converted to mulch. But they've got an uphill fight against the things who want to spill blood. Preferably on camera to demonstrate their faith.
Somthing else I think will happen in the aftermath of such an attack, is some European countries will cut loose. We'll hear the usual socialists and communists and America-haters basically saying we 'deserved it', but I think it would be the last straw for a lot of people, and it would give some governments the opening they need to stomp on their problems. Of course, it's possible the things would try to include some European schools in the day of terror, in which case... let's just say that a lot of moslems will find out how a lot of these people's ancestors got the reputations they did.
As a side note, I remember when he was putting together a 'man-caused global warming is bs' show, he talked about the huge amount of crap, the lies and roadblocks thrown up by CNN officials and employees to try and prevent it. If not for the crap we've seen out of the major media over the last couple of decades in particular, I wouldn't have believed such a mess would be done. As he put it today, 'if the facts weren't there, if the sources weren't there, if EVERYTHING weren't there, there's not a chance you could get this show through the PC attitudes at CNN'. Need to see if a friend can tape it for me.
I forgot to mention Charles Schumer
in my earlier post. Which actually works out ok because that little turd- to borrow Kim's spot-on description- deserves his own mention. Especially after this:
Newsbusters noticed that the speech posted on his website is not the same disgusting speech that Schumer gave to the US Senate. It has been changed.
Which is about par for the course for that vile, lying, cowardly, disgusting little camera-chasing excuse for a man.
Let's not forget hypocrite, too; after all, this little GFW has never seen a firearms ban, tax, licensing scheme, taxing scheme or other restriction that he didn't latch onto while we found out a while back that the chickenshit has a gun license there in NYFC. The kind of license that actually allows him to carry concealed. You know, the kind of thing he says should be banned? Except for him and his little friends, of course.
Newsbusters noticed that the speech posted on his website is not the same disgusting speech that Schumer gave to the US Senate. It has been changed.
Which is about par for the course for that vile, lying, cowardly, disgusting little camera-chasing excuse for a man.
Let's not forget hypocrite, too; after all, this little GFW has never seen a firearms ban, tax, licensing scheme, taxing scheme or other restriction that he didn't latch onto while we found out a while back that the chickenshit has a gun license there in NYFC. The kind of license that actually allows him to carry concealed. You know, the kind of thing he says should be banned? Except for him and his little friends, of course.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
A nice article in the Times of London:
Wouldn't you feel safer with a gun?
...
The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Article well worth reading. And, of course, you have one of the standard replies, included in the first comment:
If the present restrictions prevent another such tragedy then they are worthwhile.
Let's say you grant that: that somehow the 'ban almost everything and license & restrict everything else' laws prevent another such horrible crime. The followup question is, How many people have been robbed/raped/tortured/crippled/murdered because they had no means of self-defense that the bad guys are afraid of?
Because every time someone pops out with that "If it saves only one life, it's worth it" line, they're in essence saying "I do not care how many people get hurt because they don't have a gun; that does not concern me." And it's too bad it doesn't bother them, because the list of victims is long and growing longer by the day.
...
The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Article well worth reading. And, of course, you have one of the standard replies, included in the first comment:
If the present restrictions prevent another such tragedy then they are worthwhile.
Let's say you grant that: that somehow the 'ban almost everything and license & restrict everything else' laws prevent another such horrible crime. The followup question is, How many people have been robbed/raped/tortured/crippled/murdered because they had no means of self-defense that the bad guys are afraid of?
Because every time someone pops out with that "If it saves only one life, it's worth it" line, they're in essence saying "I do not care how many people get hurt because they don't have a gun; that does not concern me." And it's too bad it doesn't bother them, because the list of victims is long and growing longer by the day.
Just to cover matters: Harry Reid, Dick(Turban) Durbin
Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Kucinich are vile, slandering, disgusting pieces of work.
That is all.
For now.
That is all.
For now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)