Je Suis Charlie

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

JesuisCharlie

Here I was, trying to make this blog less political.

Not because I’m afraid to be political, and I intended to continue to say things that need to be said, but because I have said most of what I want to say. As in, I don’t want to force topics. If a political/social topic presents I will write, but for the rest, I thought, I’ll write about writing, and home and kids, and— And resume the free chapters, and post more about writing and literature, because that is as important to me as politics and my area of expertise, even if I write about writing as it reflects/influences society.

And I woke up in the morning to the news of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.

It wasn’t going to be an easy day. I think I have a touch of the ninja flu. (Think? Well, it could be hormonal.) Anyway, so—

My first thought was grief.

We’re going to be clear here. I thought most of the humor Charlie engaged in juvenile. It was about at the level of college newspapers in the US. Or like the Onion. But they were further up the tree in French culture, because French culture or at least what I get of it, is a lot about cocking a snook at everything that’s respected or revered.

But they stood out. Oh, they made fun of every religion. But they made fun of Islam too. And when Islam threatened them, they weren’t scared. They published this cover:

charliehebdo

You can’t help liking people like that. Oh, I’m fairly sure they would have bothered me or at least bugged me, had they been my friends. I’d eventually have gone “Stop with the itch powder and the fart jokes, guys, and grow up” – and then we’d have gone out for a bottle of red.

I’ll never know how I’d have got along with them, even should I get a chance to meet them, because they paid for their courage and their unbending gallantry with their lives this morning.

This was sad. I felt sad, and very angry at the  cochons sales (an insult to every decent dirty pig) who did this. I wanted to cry

And then…

I went to facebook.

If there is one thing that my “community” – the community of my so called colleagues – can do is take a bad situation and make it worse.

The people who speak truth to power TM  were alternately worrying about the backlash against poor defenseless Muslims and whining that no one was giving the same attention to a victimless bombing of an NAACP office – or the hair salon next to it, of course – in Colorado Springs, for which they said there was a white suspect. (Was there a white suspect? Who knows? If it’s true, none of the sources in town know it. They don’t even know who was supposed to be bombed (the bomb was faulty and mostly achieved a lot of noise.) The fact that no one in the press is running with this makes me suspect it’s a non-event.)

Let’s suppose, however, that this non-event in my home town was everything they think it is. Someone motivated by race hatred decided to bomb one of the most institutionally ossified civil rights organizations. Someone who is lame and tried to bomb the offices after closing. Okay.

Which piece of news do you think deserves more attention? The one that somewhere in the US there might be a racist who wants to scare a lobbying/lawfare organization? (Don’t they always tell us racists are everywhere? So this shouldn’t be news, right?) A racist who didn’t kill anyone? Or the one about nineteen innocents murdered because they insulted the prophet of a barbaric and intolerant religion?

And which one should a bunch of white women who make their living by writing be more interested in?

The one where they’re not scared they’ll get their necks cut, of course.

Which is when I started to see red.

The film of red grew as these asinine cowards, these craven and self-regarding poltroons, started saying things like that the brave men and women who risked their lives for free speech should have been more careful of the feelings of others. These are the same people who routinely, three times a day, post some dig at Christianity, some mockery of Americans, some pseudo-witty comment about Republicans. But see, none of those people threaten to kill them.

The brave social(ist) justice warriors are ever ready to speak truth to the power that will not hurt them. Towards Islam, otoh they adopt the crouching position and kiss the terrorists gangrenous blood-soaked pudenda.

Is this their pathological admiration of anyone who has the cojones to do what they’d like to do and cut the throats of everyone who disagrees with them? After all, these are the idolaters of Che, he who clubbed children and puppies to death. Are they, in their heart, hyenas who dream of being lions? Or perhaps – since the lion is a lazy beast who relies on size and intimidation – they are lions who dream of being hyenas.

But I might give them too much credit. Perhaps just as after nine eleven, they find themselves scared. After all these barbarians they keep trying to dress in the robes of the noble savage, might not know that they are quite willing to betray their countrymen in order to be the ones killed last.

And so they hasten to lave the hand that would behead them, and to denounce their countrymen loudly. Hence, the next batch of screaming, saying that this is all the right wing’s fault – somehow, in another country. That they’re afraid of what the “right wing” will do – no you’re not, you base flees on the scrotum of a traitorous dog. If you were scared of us, you’d also kiss our behinds – and that the right wing is “gloating” over this and being “racist.”

First of all, we are not gloating over this. It takes such a state of moral corruption to gloat over someone killing cartoonists for funny cartoons – even when the someone is a band we consider dangerous – that I don’t think any sane man or woman could try it. Yes, I know, you could feel that way, but you are not sane. Your double think, your fear and your hatred has long ago driven any sanity from your poor Social(ist) Justice Warrior minds. Such as they ever were.

Second calling us racists is an act of idiotic projection that simultaneously reveals your ignorance and your real feelings. I have no idea how you managed to convince yourselves Muslims are a different race. Most Muslims (though there are Muslims of every color) are the same race I am (Hispanic/Latino is a cultural definition, not a race one): White, of Mediterranean sub-race.

Oh, sure, we tan a little better, and some of us have a sort of ‘fro. That does not another race make, unless you’re going by the nineteenth century definition of “every country a race.”

And you probably are, because in your beffudled, endarkened mind culture is hereditary. This is why multiculturalism is necessary and classes in every language under the sun for third generation Americans, because culture can’t be changed and can’t be learned and can’t be unlearned.

You racist pustules on Hitler’s backside!

Humans prove you wrong every day. EVERY single day. Including the Jews Hitler tried to exterminate and who came to the US with no help, no special classes, no help in keeping their culture and their traditions, and adapted and changed and became AMERICANS and successful. You are proven wrong by barely literate Italians, by French, by Germans, by people of every nation who came to this country and became fluent in English and capable, and whose children competed with and intermarried the children of people already here.

You are the racists, you who believe that because someone comes from elsewhere, or has a tan, or speaks with an accent, they are less than human and less than capable. You cling to your imagined superiority and go around shouting at other white people that they have “privilege” trying to be more touchy-feely than they are.

And you believe that if only America – or the west, for whom, in your mind, America is a proxy – withdrew from the world, the little brown peoplez would be happy and peaceful. (And probably sing spirituals on their doorsteps every night, right, you depraved, unthinking racist scum?)

This would be okay if your diseased, craven cowardice didn’t leak out from the holes of our leftist mass media and go out to keep the monsters who keep Islam at war with the world and the world at war with Islam in power in every Islamic country.

It would be forgivable if your inability to reason and logically process facts didn’t mean that the kleptocrats in Arab regimes didn’t wave your words as an excuse in order to send their young men out to kill us, instead of staying at home, challenging the authority of their loathsome satraps.

With your words, your mollycoddling, your excusing of abhorrent deeds, your covering them under the tattered blanket of victims of racism, you prevent a sick, murderous culture from changing. You keep human beings in subjection. And you encourage the murder of innocents for no greater crime than speaking their minds.

The blood of the staff of Charlie Hebdo is on your hands. No matter how much you wipe them on the cloth of self-regard and self excusing, you cannot run from yourself.

I hope in the back of your mind, the horror of what you are doing burns like acid. I hope you wake in the night screaming “mea culpa.”

I hope so, because that would mean you are redeemable.

But I doubt it. You’ll continue, in your smug way, bending knee to every tyrant and kissing the backside of everyone you are afraid of.

Depart from us. Forget you were ever our brothers.

We, the Liberty Tribe, we, the proud, we free men will bend no knee to tyrant or king, to caliph or to prophet.

We will respect those who’ve earned our respect, not those who say “convert or die.”

We free men mourn the staff of Charlie Hebdo. We might not have agreed with them on most things, but they were our brothers and sisters, unafraid in the face of threats or attacks.

Rest in peace and may free men remember them and honor them. And may their example light the path.

ONLY speaking unafraid and confronting the worst movements with unbended knee will we reform the tyranny that holds most Muslims in subjection. Only knowing they’re beyond the pale will bring reform. And only then will there be peace.

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS and thank you to Glenn Reynolds for the link!

467 thoughts on “Je Suis Charlie”

  1. Starting today, I’m sharing at least ONE provocative anti-Islam image a day on my FB account and my G+ account.

    Because, this is war, and I won’t sit out this fight. .

    1. a)

      I mourn them. They were braver than many of those standing around yesterday prattling about “free speech ” but without the balls to publish the cartoons then or now.

      b)

      An image I’ve always wanted

              1. Possibly. But pissing off the Left is an ongoing string of achievements. A great hobby, that is to say, as well as the privilege of every true American.

                1. Some games do have achievements that unlock as you accomplish an ever growing amount of feats.

        4. The problem with that one is the writing is too small. You can’t make it out on a vehicle while driving yourself.

          I know this from personal experience.

        5. I’ve got 2 glocks, 2 beretttas, one S&W and up is a mossberg.

          Not really enthused by Colt, but I’d buy a Python at the right price. Springfield doesn’t many anything I really want and I don’t recognize the I.

  5. Shared on FB. And yeah, I saw the arm-waving BS about the failed bomb attempt in Colorado Springs. When I finally managed to find a picture of the ‘damage’ – to the barber shop next door, btw – it amounted to some scorch marks on the siding. Definitely not worth headline news. I did find it curious this morning that all those people who hopped on the bandwagon decrying the death of that criminal in MO are silent this morning about the bastards who murdered all those people in France. If that wasn’t a hate crime, I don’t know what is.

    1. A lot of people (myself included) looked at that and said someone got rid of the leftover New Year’s Eve fireworks.

      If this little episode runs true to all the other “hate speech” incidents cited in the last five years, we’ll find out that that’s exactly what it was, only placed by someone supporting the NAACP to garner sympathy and money,

    2. I had not heard that about the damage. Got a link to a picture handy, or should I start Googling myself?

      1. Here. The picture doesn’t show any real damage.

        “No one was injured and the building was not damaged beyond some charring on the outside wall of the barbershop.”

        Apparently the bricks and beam were already there.

        2. Thanks; the stories I’d found Googling so far had no photos.

          Looks like a clear case of intended arson, rather than a bombing per se to me.

          1. We had one arson of a pizzeria in Finland, a while back, where at first all the usual suspects – newspapers, television news, several politicians – were all aflutter over the thought that it had been a hate crime by some racist ethnic Finns because the owner and workers of the pizzeria were from over there and Muslims. The pizzeria had been in the street level floor of an apartment building, the fire did spread and a few of the residents – pasty skinned natives – died. Horrible, horrible, see where all this hate can lead…

            Then the police did their investigations. Yep. Arson. By all evidence done by the owner of the pizzeria and some relatives who had been working there. Good old insurance fraud attempt.

            Embarrassed silence.

            Hasn’t stopped them, though. Somebody sneezes at an immigrant and the whole parade is on again. An immigrant does something and it’s either silence or lots of understanding and excuses.

            With this sooner or later we probably will start to get genuine hate crimes done by the natives whose tolerance has been stretched past the breaking point. Nobody likes the teacher’s pets. Especially when at least the impression is that said pets are being spoiled rotten, and can get away with things which will result in detention if anybody else does them (and the self ordained teachers are snotty know it alls themselves).

        3. Looks like mold or a homeless campfire gone bad to me (unless those other brown stains further down along the wall happen to have resulted from previous IED’s).

          It is exceedingly cold out, so I’m going with homeless campfire (with maybe a can of hairspray having gone critical).

    3. I think I heard the explosion, and I’m not that near. I THINK therefore it was rigged for noise and not damage. I.e either false flag or someone trying to scare someone.
      Co. Springs is so white that our “Don’t shoot, hands up” demonstrations were rich white kids. Most of our black population are military. It’d be a REALLY weird place for a racial attack. It’s hard to build resentment when no one sees you.

      1. Well, they’ve got those really loud fireworks – M-80’s?

        And probably whoever set them off was actually farther away from the shops, but they looked at the scorchmarks and decided it was there.

        1. Wouldn’t surprise me if it were false flag. The DNC headquarters in Denver were vandalized a while back by one of their own employees, and blamed on the Tea Party, so they have a history in this state.

      2. I don’t think the reports are being sufficiently clear that the building was half NAACP headquarters and half barber shop, and the burn marks are on the far wall of the barber shop, nowhere near a door or window and as far away from the NAACP office as could be and still be on the same building.

        1. Some bright kid in the neighborhood making something to go boom and that seemed like the safest most out of sight place?

          1. Worse, it looks to me like somebody had a box of junk out front of the barber shop, with some spray cans in it. Some moron set it on fire, and probably wet himself when the fire hit those cans.

            Dangerous if you’re standing next to it, but it didn’t even set the leaves nearby on fire.

        2. Well, yes, but Laura Anne Gilman, among others including my former agent just KNOW the fact this is not a national outrage is a racissss conspiracy.
          I’m so TIRED of this BULLSHIT.

        3. There’s a map here which shows that really well.

          Also, the write up yesterday in the Gazette says it was the owner of the barbershop who found the remains including a gas can which was part of the bomb, which he promptly picked up to discover it was full. So now we have the owner’s fingerprints on the device “explained”.

          It will be no surprise to me if this isn’t an attempt at arson for insurance that failed, so naturally it’s a “balding white guy” who did it.

  7. Well spoken, Sarah. Please consider moving with your family to the center of the Liberty-&-Freedom movement in America, the Free State of New Hampshire (read all about it at freestateproject.org).

    1. She has commentators who come from there and know better. Look at the last election results and ask yourself when the critical Mass happened to the balance of the state. (and if that is unclear, I refer to the People’s Republic of Mass that has occupied a once-free state.)

              1. I follow Steve on Twitter, but apparently nothing I’ve tweeted at him is amusing enough to get followed back. (Then again, he must get tons of that)

                1. Tweet that you’re a Sarah Hoyt fan and you wish to be followed back :-P. It might not get you followed back, but then it might if he sees it. (And yeah. Took him a while to follow ME back.)

                  1. I follow your feed, but it seems it’s just new post announcements.

                    Twitter seems to have taken over for my kitchen Whiteboard in terms of posting funny one-liners as they come to me.

                    2. Well, I just gave it a try, we shall see what happens. Scott Ott followed me back. Bill… well, his is an announce-only feed too.

                      (It’s sad to see what Bill let happen to Eject^3. He left the comments open and unmoderated,and it now has literally tens of thousands of spam comments appended to it.)

                      I still exchange the occasional e-mail with John Cox, but I haven’t talked to Allen Forkum since they shut the site down. Although they DID make a post to it this week, for the first time since 2009.

  8. It’s time for “Hot Chicks and Bacon” to return to The Phantom Soapbox. I always get a ton of hits from the Middle East for that.

    Oh and by the way. All you brave Social Justice Warriors out there implying (or coming right out and saying) that “it’s understandable” that the Mooselimb head choppers went after Charlie Hebdo. Just want to remind y’all that this is the soft racism of low expectations. It’s understandable that the jihadicks would kill people for publishing cartoons because Mooselimbs are a bunch of murderous pukes with room temperature IQs and zero impulse control.

    THAT is what you’re saying. Just thought you ought to know.

    My thing is this: the Charlie Hebdo atrocity is 100% on you, SJWs. You argued to import killer hillbillies from the ME. You argued to give them welfare so they sit around all day and hatch plots. You argued to disarm everybodynand make Europe (and Canada, and Britain) a GunFreeZone.

    This is your doing. You are wearing this one.

    1. Yeah, a number of “Islamic spokesmen” have encouraged Muslims in non-Muslim countries to go on welfare, because it represents the infidels paying the “infidel tax”, or jizya.

      1. My larger point is, they wouldn’t even BE here if it wasn’t for free welfare. France particularly is notorious for this, there’s whole sections of Paris filled with nothing but immigrants on the dole. They can’t get work, they can’t have proper lives as French citizens, but they don’t leave. So they sit around and get pissed at the Frenchies, hatch plots, burn cars and generally fuck the place up.

        Because SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS, is why.

        I will go even further, and say this this situation is -deliberate-. Everybody KNEW this was coming. Everybody knows you can’t have hostile people from a waring land come and live peacefully in your nice orderly socialist Worker’s Paradise. Everybody knows you can’t have religious fanatics living in a secular welfare state that scoffs at religion. They did it anyway.

        The purpose of importing millions of Arabs and Turks and West Africans to France was to DISTRACT ATTENTION from the dire reality that the Worker’s Paradise was not working as advertised. Immigration has been used to jack up socialist voter numbers, for propaganda against non-socialists, and to create a fall-guy for when everything goes south. The Jews all left after 1945, so it was hard to build up a big head of steam against them. Therefore a new fall guy had to be created: Blame the immigrants, its their fault.

        Its not the immigrant’s fault. They’re not the “Root Cause”. Marxism is. Welfare is. Big Brother Government is. SJWs are.

        I don’t care about Mooselimb jihadickbrains. They’re useless wankers. Know why? Pencil necked mental case Adam Lanza, by -himself-, managed a bigger body count than three of these WORTHLESS assholes did with rifles and an RPG. They SUCK at war.

        I care about people like John Scalzi who at last report is still pretending that I, law abiding White guy with a job and a life, am a bigger threat than Islamist killers.

        As a Canadian, I care about the Canadian Human Rights Commission who will sue Mark Steyn for quoting a Mooslimb Imam and Ezra Levant for re-posting the Jyllands Posten Mo cartoons, but have yet to bring a single Mooselimb to court for saying publicly and loudly that all the Joooooos! must die. Every week some new scumbag in Toronto posts that kind of shit, and every week the liberals in the Canadian human rights factory refuse to do a single thing.

        Defeat the liberals. All this will blow away like it never happened.

        There, pressure reduced to functional levels, core breach averted. Here endeth the rant.

          1. Legally, then, those territories are not French, because they admit they are not under their control, and anyone who wanted could go in for some clean up.

        2. I don’t care about Mooselimb jihadickbrains. They’re useless wankers. Know why? Pencil necked mental case Adam Lanza, by -himself-, managed a bigger body count than three of these WORTHLESS assholes did with rifles and an RPG. They SUCK at war.

          Phantom, whatever the points in the rest of this comment, you are making a mistake that none of us can afford: underestimating the enemy.

          Adam Lanza has no relationship to what is happening here. He had one tactical objective, to kill as many as possible while dying himself. He had no operational objective, and he had no strategic objective.

          These attackers, OTOH, had all three:
          Tactical: launch a successful attack on a defined objective and kill particular targets. Outside the defined targets, they had no interest in killing more people, because of their strategic objective.
          Operational: remove well-known enemies of their religion in as public a manner as possible, without the authorities or anyone else being able to stop them beforehand or prevent them from escaping immeddiate capture or neutralization. While they were prepared to die if necessary, not dying would be more effective to their strategy.
          Strategic: demonstrate the overwhelming superiority and inevitability of Islam and those who follow it. They simultaneously sent two messages:
          1. “Anyone who declares themselves our enemy will die. Nothing you or your government may do to try and stop us will succeed.” That is precisely why Charlie Hebdo was the target. The fact that they were known to have official police protection was simply an additional motivation. That is also why they didn’t kill themselves. It was important that they be seen to succeed and escape.
          2. “Anyone who does not declare themselves our enemy may continue to live — for now. Do not attract our attention, infidel. Submit.” That was why they deliberately didn’t go for maximum possible body count, and probably why they went through the building asking “Where is Charlie Hebdo?”, to reinforce the message that those who do not resist are “safe”.

          1. I think you missed his point. Adam Lanza, an unstable nobody, managed to kill more people with a handgun or two than three guys with automatic weapons and an RPG. This is among numerous other stories about how effing LOST these jackholes are when it comes to actual fighting. There was one story where 25 British soldiers were ambushed by 100 jihadicks (Thanks for that term, Phantom!) and took them on with bayonets. Tons of other accounts indicate that most of these mental deficients jump up and start spraying bullets everywhere, hitting hardly anything.

            If they actually had brains and organization, they could bring this country to a standstill inside of six months. They took upwards of 10 YEARS to plan 9/11. Anyone with decent skills could have done it in 10 MONTHS.

            The ONLY reason these worthless piles of camel dung are able to do as much as they are is because of the protection and capitulation of the SJWs and their ilk.

            1. Oh, and a more likely explanation of why they went through the building asking that is because they thought it was someone’s name, not the name of the magazine.

            2. “I think you missed his point. Adam Lanza, an unstable nobody, managed to kill more people with a handgun or two than three guys with automatic weapons and an RPG. ”

              No, I understood his point perfectly. I’m simply saying that there are valid reasons why they didn’t, and we can’t assume that they are just like their predecessors.

            3. These three may have been a little more competent than your example suggests – they apparently took the time to do shot-to-the-head executions rather than spray-&-pray.
              For that reason, I suggest those who choose to be public speech-freedom-warriors use caution, situational awareness, and go armed. Because there is a 3rd way besides Stephane Charbonnier’s “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”: Oh yes, die on your feet if you must, but take at least some of the bastards with you.

              1. “It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier.” R.A.H.

                1. Oh, they did. In France you can get licenses to own and carry firearms. A simple little Mossberg SA 20 would have fixed the problem most quickly (Aim for the head, shot won’t penetrate body armor).

                  But they thought they didn’t need to because they had a *cop*, the *state* would protect them. Go look at that video of the cop that got shot–he didn’t have a gun in his hand and it didn’t look like he *had* one. That state can’t even protect itself.

                  1. The cop had a handgun. He probably had his legally mandated 20 shots per year (or whatever it is in France) training as well. However I bet he wasn’t at all psychologically prepared for the idea that someone would actually attack those he was protecting

                    1. I couldn’t see it in the video. He made nothing that looked like a move to draw it or defend himself.

                    2. All French cops are armed with a handgun. He may have stupidly decided not to wear it. But he should have had one.

                  2. Everything I can find indicates that, unless you are already law enforcement, it’s not really possible. Kind of like the “may issue” places in the US, but without the same “just donate a lot for their re-election fund.”

                    It looks like bolt action is about all the folks with windows over the place would able to have, too:
                    http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

                    1. That particular may-issue policy looks like its going to be dying, though… (the one you cite is well-known with the former Sheriff of Los Angeles County)

            4. I don’t think anyone missed the point. I think that these jihadis came to battle with a list of people they wanted dead and a plan to get away quickly. Killing more people than what they intended would have slowed them down which may have prevented them from getting away.

              I guess the main thing that I’m getting at is that they had the capability to kill more if they wanted to. They just didn’t. They had a focus and an ability to achieve an objective in an efficient manner that hasn’t been shown before on this small a scale.

              1. Apparently one of them was known to have been to Iraq helping to move recruit in. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn he had joined the Iraqi military and gotten modern military training from us.

              1. His point is, I believe, ‘If these screwup were professionals, then you’re better of hiring the psycho amateur.’

                I haven’t had time to do my own analysis so can’t opine one way or the other.

                1. Well, they’re saying these particular guys were more competent than your run-of-the-mill terrorists, since they went in and targeted particular individuals, rather than the normal, “shoot (or blow) everything up and kill anybody in the area they can”. Which, after I went back and reread snelson’s response to Phantom, I understood, though it wasn’t clear the first time.

                  I still don’t think it equates to “underestimating the enemy”, since these three would be FAR outliers in the jihadi spectrum.

                  1. I’m unconvinced that, “able to remember what they came for” translates to highly skilled operators, either. They managed to shoot the cop at least once, by firing what? Thirty+ rounds from two shooters at thirty feet. I think that still would qualify as spray and pray.

            6. Some of the stories I’ve gotten from the front lines:

              “Sir, I am observing 3 tangoes setting an IED by the road to the base…” *boom* “…Uhm. Never mind. IED has gone off.” Apparently, that’s a COMMON thing.

              Another night shift operator watching a group of ‘insurgents’ fire an RPG at a massive base in the Green Zone… and the rocket in question go flying far, far over the base and land in the firing range half a klick behind the base in question.

              1. When I was in Bagdad, the safest place to be was wherever they were aiming, at least for indirect fire. Now some of them were very good at what they did… they tended to aim those at our infantry and special ops boys, not the base that wasn’t moving.

              2. RPG’s are a semi-accurate Soviet designed weapon produced, at best, by the highly motivated, technically excellent stone cold sober Russian technicians. Or, more likely, produced by a Chinese or third world lowest bid manufacturer. In short, having an RPG miss it’s target badly is likely more common than having it hit.

          2. Snelson, did you see the video of them running around in the street? They’re half trained -idiots- and the only thing keeping them alive right then was French gun laws. If they pulled that shit in Phoenix Arizona they’d have died right there in the car like dogs. Half a dozen random bystanders would have fired on them for sure, at the very least pinning them down until the cops showed up with automatic weapons.

            I repeat, Mooselimb jihadi wankers are not the enemy, they are easily disposed of scum. Liberals who create the environment that keeps them alive are the enemy. Defeat the liberals and the jihadis will run and fucking well hide under their beds.

            1. No, they won’t run and hide. They aren’t that well connected to the real world. Defeat the Liberals, and the jihadists will still attack. And more than once. What will, sadly and eventually, stop them is when we conquor the middle east and reduce Mecca,to a radioactive sheet of glass. Even then, there will be stray bands of idiots living well back in the hills, more of a threat to their immediate neighbors than to us.

              1. A buddy of mine spent some time in Iraq running Personal Security Details. Mostly pseudo-Ghurkas (folks from the same area, but they’d not served in the regements). Tough, marginally sociopathic little guys with nothing in their hearts resembling fear. Anyway.

                Yes, they will run and hide–at least some of them. They may not be connected to what we consider the real world, but when faced with soldiers of the caliber they faced in Iraq, *many* of them went and hid in the desert. True, many did not, but contrasting the opposition we faced in Iraq with Vietnam, how many times did they even try to go toe to toe with coalition forces? And yes, I know about Fallujah, both times. They didn’t take it back, we gave it back to them–considerably worse for the wear.

        3. Of course it’s the immigrants’ fault. They didn’t have to take the bribe.

          Blame! It’s not a zero-sum game!

        4. A minor point of correction/amplification regarding La Belle France.

          The French labor laws (and there’s an oxymoronic term) are significantly to blame here. The first generation immigrants (and the children of the early immigrants) had jobs and worked hard. In fact as with many other immigrants all over the world, they did the crappy menial jobs that were below the natives.

          Some time in the late 1970s/early 80s (I think it was the first term of Mitterand) France’s restrictive employment laws got worse such that it became almost impossible to fire an employee no matter how incompetent and the only way you could lay off a bunch was to bribe them to go with a year’s salary or more.

          The result was (as may be expected) an effective hiring freeze and skyrocketing youth unemployment. After all who would take a risk on an unqualified person when you could find one with a proven track record. The melanin deficient French (especially the middle classes) managed to get their children into “stages” (internships) and after a couple of years as a “stagiere” the young person could probably get hired full time by someone.

          Needless to say when given a choice between the son (or daughter) of a fellow Frenchman and an immigrant for a “stage” the potential employer almost invariably chose the native. Hence youth unemployment amongst the immigrants was even higher than amongst the natives (I believe in some immigrant suburbs its in the 90% range).

          Now recall the proverb about the Devil and Idle Hands.

          1. To illustrate your point, when France raised the minimum wage for restaurant workers to $18 an hour, what was the result? Lower employment. 70% of restaurants outsource all or part of their food prep. Who lost jobs? The unskilled children of foreigners you described. Who kept their jobs? Caucasian waiters. French socialism requires no analytical thinking – it’s like a cult.

          2. I wasn’t around when the detrimental changes happened, but I do remember the migrants from Turkey, Iran, and Iraq being very sincere in their work and learning to integrate. A few of the older folk took it to somewhat extreme levels (No swearing around women! EVER! In Germany, women are respected, understand! – the swearing was directed at the ink blots on a math homework page, not me) and from what I’ve read on occasion there’s a split between the immigrants from before / the ones who integrated, and the ones who refused to and instead retreated into ghettoes, often refusing to learn to speak the local language.

            That’s not going to help anyone find work.

            I remember my French language teacher admitting with some asperity that she never expected any of the Chinese students to stay through school, only long enough to get enough French to work in Chinatown and restaurants, and then go off and work. This was better than the (insert long list of countries that pretty much encompassed North Africa and the Mediterranean) ‘migrants’ who would stay in school for the free meals… the Chinese and the Sri Lankans would learn enough to work. The others, not so much.

        5. A commenter at Instapundit says that Scalzi is now apologizing to the Muslim world on behalf of all infidels who suspect that there is something wrong with Islam. Good grief, what a slimy little worm.

    2. “You argued to disarm everybodynand make Europe (and Canada, and Britain) a GunFreeZone.”

      I think I’ve said it before around here…Gun Free Zone’s are nothing more than Victim Assembly Areas.

      2. “Charlie Hebdo”

        A two-word response to the question “Why does anyone need an assault weapon?”

        2. Beslan, Mumbai, Westgate Mall in Nairobi. Those are reasons to want a short barreled, preferably suppressed, magazine fed semi-automatic carbine. Something light and handy that fits in a backpack.

      3. The Taliban in Afghanistan pays destitute villagers $20 to assemble Kalashnikovs. Weaponry flows into Europe through Meditteranean ports. Islamic piracy on US vessels prompted President Thomas Jefferson to start a permanent US Navy. Modern Islamic piracy guarantees that weapons or desired contraband goes wherever they have supporters. Luckily for the pirates, 10% of France’s population qualifies.

    3. It’s understandable that the jihadicks would kill people for publishing cartoons because Mooselimbs are a bunch of murderous pukes with room temperature IQs and zero impulse control.

      THAT is what you’re saying. Just thought you ought to know.

      This. So very much this. It’s the whole idea that certain types of people are special snowflakes that we mustn’t upset them because they can’t handle the real world that just makes my head want to explode.

      And the goat-licking retards who have no impulse control use these ignorant pissants to reinforce their lack of need for said impulse control to their followers and allies, while planning to do away with their types once they get control of the levers of power. Even if I think that instead, they will reach a point where the backlash will get REALLY ugly, instead, those are their plans.

      1. Wayne, you’re righter than you realize. It’s the 21st century, but many ancient tribal practices still exist; one of the worst is forced arranged marriages, particularly between first cousins. Centuries and millenia of first cousin marriages are known to increase the risk of reduced IQ, plus mental illness. Put these children in a cult-like insular community, even in a western country, and watch.

        Unfortunately, many Islamic teenagers, even those living in the west, assent to these marriages, and have four children by the time the bride and groom are 25. With the welfare free to immigrants, this speeds up the growth of such inbred populations.

        The property destruction and lawlessness in the French banlieues are done by a hostile population whose birth rate will likely enable it to achieve voter plurality by the 22nd century.

        1. Depends on what you start with — she says tartly, casting look over Mom’s loop-de-loop family tree — yes, you’ll cast off more morons but also with the right stock, a lot more geniuses. (Speaking for mom and her father, here.)
          OTOH the mental health issues: paranoia, bipolar, schizophrenia, early onset Alzheimers and — not mental but not totally without connection — epilepsy all run on that side. Heck, they gallop.
          OTOH the SOCIETY and CULTURE in most Muslim countries mean geniuses, who tend to be odd and non-conformist, get weeded out.
          And it’s worse than cousin marriage. The polygamous system means that a few older men impregnate a disproportionate number of young women. I read somewhere the MOST popular marriage is uncle-niece. And THAT is sick.

    4. All true, Phantom, but it’s must bigger than that: The progressive surrender of our civilization to barbarism is also on the heads of SJW’s. At the ultimate collapse they’ll all be dead of course, but until then they agitate quite effectively for that which will eventually eliminate them. Ironic, eh?

    5. It is totally understandable that they went after Carlie Hebdo. (Thanks for giving me a short form for the whole rant.)

  9. I actively avoided Facebook yesterday because I was not in the mood to listen to the tyrant-loving, dictator-fellating, terrorist-apologizing jackasses bray. They think that the crocodile will eat them last. Maybe they’re right. But they still wind up eaten. For some reason, that never sinks in. And I’m afraid that it won’t sink in until something really, really bad (on a global scale) happens.

    Someone asked me what I thought should be done. I said that I equate terrorists with bullies. Better armed and murderous, but bullies. You know what appeasement does to bullies? It emboldens them. You know what stops bullies? A punch in the face, or a kick to the groin. If you wanted to stop repeats of Charlie Hebdo, you can do it. You simply have to hurt, main and kill enough terrorists and terrorists supporting states so that the price becomes too high for them to continue. And yes, I realize that this is not a popular opinion. Frankly, I don’t like it myself, because it involves bloodshed and destruction on a massive scale. But sometimes, a bad choice is the best one.

    1. As a former co-worker of mine who was a MSgt in Strategic Air Command looking at planning nuclear war, “In that scenario, there are no good options, just the Least Awful Option.”

      Maybe we need to dust off his playbook.

  10. You simply have to hurt, main and kill enough terrorists and terrorists supporting states so that the price becomes too high for them to continue.

    One of the reasons things are so bad now is that the people behind it all aren’t at risk. It’s not the guys willing to die you have to go out and get, it’s the people in the upper echelons of Hamas / Iran / the ISI who are too busy managing their Swiss bank accounts. As long as they’re not at risk, terrorism will continue. The biggest thing we did right after 9/11 is we put some of them on notice that we’re not just after the easily-manipulated peons anymore.

    I said that I equate terrorists with bullies. Better armed and murderous, but bullies. You know what appeasement does to bullies? It emboldens them. You know what stops bullies? A punch in the face, or a kick to the groin.

    This applies to verbal bullies as well; Every time a Western-based Muslim cleric tells a reporter we need blasphemy laws so Muslims don’t get offended, the reporter needs to ask him his opinion on the divinity of Jesus. Every time the ambassador from an Islamic country goes off in the press about someone mistreating the Koran, the next story needs to be how his country treats the Bible.

    This goes hand-in-hand with the horrible hate speech laws in places like Canada. SJW-types support these laws because they’re sure they’ll dominate the enforcement mechanism and their hate speech won’t be censored, only their opponents, and their complicit fellow travelers in the media make sure this is the case.

    1. SJW types also support hate speech laws because they really can’t believe that speech they agree with might be hate speech.

      2. They have a remarkable lack of awareness that they might become the victims of the hate speech laws. I say “remarkable,” because of the history of radical movements turning on old supporters over the last hundred years. Truly, they have learned nothing, and they have … also learned nothing. Forgetting, they do easy.

    2. Re money and support, a case in point: After the SovUnion fell, look at what happend to the IRA and the PLO: Both basically went dark operationally and had to go negotiate agreements with their enemies. The vicious little outfits like Red Army Faction just vanished.

      The Soviets were funneling just incredibly huge amounts of money to all these groups, both directly and via the “training camps” they paid for in places like Libya. When that all stopped, most of them withered on the vine.

      If we want to kill off the modern terrorist organizations, we have to remove the money stream.

  11. The Charlie Hebdo massacre of funny people “in the name of God” seems to be about as far from Godly as one can get. As a regular practitioner of Sarah’s aforementioned fart jokes (sans itching powder, that’s just mean) this senseless act of brutality hit me particularly hard. I live in an area where people all too often seem to be humorless SJW’s. Self-deprecation is rarely, if ever, found here. This is not a good thing.

    I’ve been reading here for awhile prior to commenting, and I find that each post contains one or two (sometimes seemingly insignificant) elements that particularly resonate with me. In this post, there were two:

    ~social(ist) justice warriors~
    Socialism and Marxism are where you find them. This moniker fits well and should be used at every opportunity. IMO, “Feminist” should also be preceded by “Marxist”, wherever possible. It seems that the more someone identifies with the one, the more they espouse the ideas and practices of the other.

    ~base flees on the scrotum of a traitorous dog~
    Some (colorful) punches should not get pulled.

    Thank you, Sarah. You often make my day.

  12. Beautifully written. I shared this on every social media account I have. I couldn’t have written it any better! Kudos for writing such a brilliant and brave post.

  15. To paraphrase -“kill’em all; maybe allah will sort them out”. Or maybe not; who cares?

      2. Da. I’m thinking a crusade is called for, At least against certain strains of Islam. The Sufis and anyone that President Morsi influences get to keep their religion. Possibly some others. But Wahhabis and Iranian Sunnis get the hurt on them.

        And absolutely declare war on the Madrassahs. Eliminate with extreme prejudice and collateral damage if necessary. We don’t need schools that teach nothing but the Koran and interpretaions of it.

  17. A religion based on the teachings of a warlord could never result in love.

    To believe otherwise is to still believe that the moon is made of green cheese (we’ve been there and have proven otherwise) and that unicorns pee gasoline… or that you work for one of the major “news” outlets where the “three monkey laws” are your editorial policy.

    1. Unfortunately there are enough folks who won’t believe the proof when you lay it out right in front of them, and will go through the most incredible mental contortions to avoid facing the truth (E.g. Moon Landing Hoaxers).

      Including one fellow I realized I’d be wasting my time arguing with who insisted this was a false flag operation designed to stir up anti-muslim hatred. One the basis of one YouTube Video posted that showed the cop on the ground being shot at, and clearly not being hit. (sorry, selective editing of one small snippet of available video).

      Until they invent a USB robot arm attached to the computers of these fools that I can activate to slap them silly, I’m going to have to pick my battles more carefully.

      1. Personally, I just figure that when societies have it too easy, people like that start growing in number and influence. When it hits critical mass, society is ripe for the gene pool being clean. God’s of the Copybook Headings etc. Time to get out of major population centers until St. Darwin is finished.

      2. Including one fellow I realized I’d be wasting my time arguing with who insisted this was a false flag operation designed to stir up anti-muslim hatred.

        When someone tells you to distrust the world, start with them– we know from the splats of Clamps that a single person can give the appearance of being in a lot more places than they actually are, and in many different disguises.

        It would not take many activists to make a tiny, tiny group seem much bigger than it is, and that’s before you add in folks who are just saying stupid things because they think it makes them smarter than those they “fool.” (Hint: if you act like an idiot all the time that you’re around me, I am not mistaken in believing you are an idiot, although I may be mistaken about what specific flavor of idiot you are.)

    2. “A religion based on the teachings of a warlord could never result in love.”

      Not exactly true. A religion based on the teachings of an unrepentant, pedophile warlord could never result in love.”

  18. I agree with the post, but have a minor nit regarding the majority of Muslims being white or Mediterranean. It may only be a plurality or a very large minority. I think it depends on what you consider the ethnicity of the Muslims of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Which might also vary within each of those counties due to historical conversions of various sub-populations.

      1. I thought the ethnic background of India (and Pakistan, to an extend) tended to be rather varied.

      2. Iranians and some of the upper Hindu castes are that. The population settled in two places, Iran and moving into India and setting themselves on top of the caste system. (The Iranian upper caste was wiped out by, IIRC, Tamerlane.)

        1. Point remains that “Muslim” is not a race. And I THINK most Muslim immigrants in France are from France’s former colonies, and therefore Mediterranean by race.

          1. Yup. They tan better than most native Frenchmen. But no better than a Southern Italian or Spaniard.

            Not as hairy as the Greeks though

          2. Yes, that is the case, Morocco and Tunisia especially. Algeria is a special case as it had the status of a “département d’outre-mer” (overseas province) before the French left.

      1. Yes, definitely that. It is amazing how widespread and numerous the followers of a murderous, treacherous, pedophile like Mohammed are. But the SJW’s worry about backlash against Muslims when they aren’t spending their time railing against “microaggressions” and “manspreading”.

  19. You know, when you think about it there’s a fairly clear reason why SJWs love Islam.

    As fellow followers of the Lord of Deception, who delight in lying to enemies and to women(but perhaps I’m being redundant), how can they _not_ recognize each other as spiritual kin?

    1. I think the SJW’s and the Caliphatuous are both channeling Voltaire, but by different avenues.

      “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

      The Muslims use direct, brutal violence to stifle dissent/criticism. The SJW’s use (and desperately seek to expand the authority of) Law Enforcement (i.e. violence by proxy) to stifle dissent/criticism.

      Both are bad, but the SJW’s are already deeply entrenched in our society, harder to directly defend against, and thus (to me), more insidious.

      Depends on what day it is, I guess.

  20. Well at least someone gets it. This is something I’ve been saying for years. My own sister, who converted to Islam close to a decade ago, makes excuses for the 9/11 hijackers. “Well, they shouldn’t have killed people, but Americans build a strip club on THEIR LAND.”

    Good, so let them go picket the place. Two thousand dead people is taking things WAY TOO FAR. Think about it. Muslims have come to the United States and forced American fast food places to stop serving pork, does that mean that I have the right to go kill a bunch of THEM now? No, I don’t. I don’t claim to.

    It is time to for people on both sides of the pond to wake up and realize that WE ARE AT WAR. This is not some random string of isolated incidents. It is a pattern. It is time to reply with a systematic pattern of violence directed toward a political end. Yep, that is the definition of a war.

    And I don’t mean some penny-ante little dust-up in Afghanistan where we’ve lost less troops in a decade than we lost in some weeks during World War Two. It’s not some little skirmish in a place like Iraq where the real fighting is over in a few months and then we pull out and let the place go to hell all over again.

    I’m talking about the kind of war that destroys countries. I’m talking about the kind of war where people die in job-lot quantities and you keep pushing and killing more. I’m talking about the kind of war that will probably be fought partially on American soil against a crop of domestic terrorists that will have to be destroyed root and branch with no denial that’s what we’ve set out to do.

    The body count is going to be huge. There will be more 9/11s. It will take years and maybe decades. If we want to preserve our way of life and protect our people, it’s the only viable option we have.

    1. “Muslims have come to the United States and forced American fast food places to stop serving pork, does that mean that I have the right to go kill a bunch of THEM now? No, I don’t. I don’t claim to. “

      Bacon, Jim, bacon. The utter destruction of a people seems a reasoned response for denying me bacon with my eggs. Or burgers, or steak, or potatoes, or mac & cheese, or pizza, or …

    2. There are certainly a bunch of them, supported by portions of the Koran, that want to be at war with everyone else. Problem is, Islam is very decentralized as to authority and interpretation, so there are also a lot of them who, based on their own reading/local preaching/neighbors’ behavior, honestly believe theirs IS (or has become) a religion of peace.

      A little deeper thought is needed, within and without the Umma, on how to separate the sheep from the goats – before the goats’ atrocities reach the point of triggering the hot war you postulate, which is unlikely to be a respecter of individual variances of belief.

      2. Not a problem at all.

        Simply announce that you have a choice, *reject* violence in all things, or we will visit upon your cities and towns, villages and hamlets a violence that makes “biblical” look like a kindergarten picnic. Tell the Muslim Community that this is their chance to grow the f*k up and take control of their lives, individually and collectively, or we will buy their oil and convert it to fuel-air explosive devices and give it back to them two and four thousands pounds at a time.

          1. Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the ‘Golden Hour’ — the final chance

            It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad recently “told an international conference of young Muslim leaders … (that) … Muslims must acquire skills and technology so they can create modern weapons and strike fear into the hearts of our enemies”. Fecklessness and gunpowder are a lethal combination. The terrible ifs accumulate.

            FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2003

            http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

            I think we’re out of time, the “Golden Hour” has run out

              1. He’s not the first, though one of the few that got away with telling other imams that they need to rethink how islam is managed and not being threatened with death right away.

                Was an imam via MEMRI translation who was sermonizing on the culture of acquiring things, but not valuing BUILDING things. Where are our mercedes plants? etc.

                Also, can’t remember the name, but read a book by the son of the founder of the (IIRC) PLO who had converted to christianity, who stated that for most, Islam was a good thing, but the religion and texts had an inevitable ladder to them that if you kept going deeper, led to terrorism and tyranny.

                Whether in political systems, or computer networks, more than two instances of a problem point to systemic issues.

                Granted, sometimes those issues are “some people are jerks”

                But some people are jerks doesn’t explain riots, mass murders, and revenge murders for cartoons or movies critiquing your belief system.

                1. But some people are jerks doesn’t explain riots, mass murders, and revenge murders for cartoons or movies critiquing your belief system.

                  Consequence of how profoundly insular and closed those societies are, certainly relative to modern civilization.

                  Doesn’t excuse it, you understand, however insular they may be they own their actions and the consequences far as I’m concerned. Might go some distance to explaining it, though. So that we can dismantle it and see the structures burned, see the people pulled out of the mire of a dead-end culture and freed.

                2. Even without going into the later fatwahs (decisions by those educated in the Quran) That is an accurate description. Its like… reading a book where the first few chapters are a very tame utopian fantasy, like… I don’t know, the Short film I wanted to do based off a pastiche on Lennon’s Imagine.

                  No seriously, hear me out. If you read the early part, it is indeed a religion of peace.

                  Then MoHamHead got himself some more followers, and it got worse. A couple cities under his belt, and its more aggressive. Then the hadiths say “Newer hadiths overrule older ones.” Then you get stuff like “Convert at the point of a sword.” and “People of the book pay jizya, everyone else converts or dies.”

                  Yeah, we’d see alot of sudden conversions one way or the other…

                  1. It’s not just the Hadiths. The principle of abrogation — al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Koran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:

                    2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

                    The Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.

                    I read the Koran right after 9/11; I wanted to see if I could figure out what was motivating the religion. Unfortunately, what I found was not encouraging.

                    2. You notice that they claim the Koran is perfect in every way and yet a sutra that came earlier can be inferior. This does not add up.

                    3. That’s because according to that doctrine it is as though that earlier sura never was. Orwell was a piker.

                    4. I read the Koran right after 9/11; I wanted to see if I could figure out what was motivating the religion. Unfortunately, what I found was not encouraging.

                      Is part of why I get so pissed when people respond to the issue being the teachings with variations of “shut up.”

                      If there are folks who identify as Muslem and aren’t hostile, I want to know how they do it.
                      I don’t want to play stupid games where we say that it doesn’t have anything to do with the religion, because shut-up-they’re-popular.

                    5. @Foxfier: Well, the penalty for leaving Christianity is reproving looks and sometimes a Christian says they’ll pray for you.

                      The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Perhaps the “non-hostile” Muslims are those who are too afraid to leave.

                    6. @ Patrick Chester

                      The penalty for leaving Islam is death. Perhaps the “non-hostile” Muslims are those who are too afraid to leave.

                      That would be some, but I know there are groups where the public practice was such that they didn’t kill people. It’s not like the Middle East wasn’t Islamic in the 50s, when folks looked like us in dress and such…..

                    7. THAT was before WE started telling them they had to be “authentic” and being like us was being colonized, and all the other carp. Multiculturalism will be the death of us. Possibly literally.

                    8. It had an Islamic background, but was generally being governed by rulers who were either secular (Shah of Iran) or still afraid of the West after WWII. Now, they’ve returned to their sharia roots.

              3. I’d really like to believe, but I think it is going to take a nuke on Mecca for any meaningful change. There was just now a muslim woman on Fox bemoaning the lack of media coverage the moderates are getting, but I didn’t hear her denounce sharia.

                1. Actually, ISIS has talked about tearing down Mecca themselves. A more extreme version of destroying all the past, even the oldest sites of Islam.

              4. Yes, but note how the obamunist media largely ignored that speech by an actual “moderate Muslim” (since it makes the VJ Puppet Regime look like the arseclowns they are for backing Morsi instead).

            2. I think it’s now almost inevitable that at least one Muslim country will provoke an attack on it that will kill millions, perhaps tens of millions of people, within the next 25 years. The likeliest suicide countries are Iran (death by Israel) or Pakistan (death by India).

        1. You know, it doesn’t help when you use Osama bin Laden’s definition of “true Muslim.”

          There are around 1 billion Muslims worldwide. Globally there are roughly 10,000 deaths from Islamic terrorism. If 1% of Muslims were terrorists, that would mean that every victim of Islamic terrorism required 1000 jihadis.

                    2. And I’d bet that’s not to even mention the ongoing battle against the Jews, plus the millions subjected to FGM, slavery, internal inter-faction butchery, man-boy-love Thursdays, etc. In many countries, it’s just one round of bloodshed and rape after another.

                  2. That website I provided has the year to year death tolls back to 2000. Read a little.

                    1. I did. The website you provided is a perfect case study in lying with Statistics. Provide a wall of data points that fit your hypothesis, leave out all of the ones that don’t, and lesser minds will think you actually have a point.

                    2. You asked for numbers. I provided them where I could get them. They don’t support your contention, so you dismiss them.

                      We’re done.

                    3. The only numbers on that site are in the casualty lists for each attack. I didn’t bother to add them up, but the were pretty consistently in the low single digits for dead with the occasional 20-30 and the very rare hundred-something. The site seems well designed to impress people with volume, not signal.

                    4. Jeff,

                      I took the table for the last 30 days. Copied it into Excel. Summed it up. 2,000 +, 26 countries, 199 attacks.

                      It’s not hard to do, if one is interested at all in the facts. So, either you’re an incompetent who doesn’t know how to do something as simple as the steps above, or you don’t care about the facts.

                    5. So, either you’re an incompetent who doesn’t know how to do something as simple as the steps above, or you don’t care about the facts.

                      He’s usually pretty decent, and I know he’s not totally ignorant, so I’m pretty sure it’s more of an “I have an objection and am not arguing to support it clearly or effectively.”

                2. And that is only Terror attacks reported in the media. It doesn’t get all terror attacks. Nor does it count state-sponsored executions, such as for adultery or homosexuality.

                  1. Nor the various “just vanish” stuff, like entire Christian or Jewish families that disappear before there are some sudden new, young “brides” in the area.

          2. You, of all people, should realize that not every member is going to successfully kill someone, each year– and that they’re not going to be supporting themselves.

            Unless you’re going to use some kind of special definition of “jihadis” where doing all the support work, including putting suicide vests on disabled kids, isn’t “really” being a terrorist.

            1. You make the mistake of assuming I was expecting that number to be anywhere unity. Armies throughout history have usually killed fewer than their number.

              In 2007, the year of the surge buildup, the US averaged around 150,000 troops in Iraq. The numbers for Iraqi Security Forces is harder to get, in no small part because we don’t really know how many of them were really interested in fighting insurgents, but another 150,000 looks like it might be in the ballpark. That same year the number of insurgents killed was either 4500 if you listen to the Iraqis or 6500 if you listen to the US. Split the difference and say 5500 insurgent dead. Some basic math puts you at around 50 coalition troops for every dead insurgent.

              Now look at it from the other direction. The US estimates that there were 70,000 insurgents in Iraw in June 2007. That same year saw 3,500 coalition casualties. That makes for around 20 insurgents for every coalition casualty.

              The specific number isn’t important, just the order of magnitude. Based on this, I would expect (very) roughly one death a year from every 10 terrorists (this includes the theater level supporters, i.e. the bomb-makers and cell leaders but not the organization leaders, smugglers, or big doners). Given the ~10,000 deaths a year from islamic terrorism that leads to something on the order of 100,000 Muslim terrorists. Out of a population of one billion. If you were to grab a random Harlem resident and accuse him of being a drug dealer you would be substantially more likely to be correct than when you call a random Muslim a terrorist.

              1. You make the mistake of assuming I was expecting that number to be anywhere unity.

                No, I point out that comparing number to deaths is a ridiculous way to figure out number.

                It can be useful to check if your numbers are too low, but only if you’re looking at “attempts or events,” not deaths.

          3. On further consideration, it’s worse than that– you do not answer</i. Old Surfer's statement that those following their book are our enemies, you shift it to it not "help"ing to agree with Osama bin Laden, with no question of truth or falsehood.

            Then you shift from the question of if they are our enemy, to the question of if they are terrorists— thus removing the horrors committed by Islamic states and as punishment for violations of Islam. (Like leaving Islam, or being raped.)

            And then you offer a ridiculous assumption like every terrorist will have, every year, a successful kill.

            I get that you object to the statement, possibly on tactical grounds, but that’s really not a cool chain of argument.

            1. At the grossest level there are two factions of Islam that we care about. Call them the bin Laden camp, which claims that violent jihad is necessary to be a good Muslim, and the al Sisi camp, which has no problem peacefully coexisting with infidels. Obviously we want the latter camp to prevail, but every time someone says something like “the Koran requires violence” we give the bin Laden group ammunition. “See, even the cursed infidel knows that Allah calls on true Muslims to fight for Him. Those cowards who preach peace are corrupted.”

              We need moderate Muslims. If they didn’t exist – and I think I’ve shown above that they are the overwhelming majority of Dar al Islam – we would have to create them. With them we only have to convince them to stand up to the violent elements in their midst (“In war everything is simple, but simple things are difficult”). Without them we have to tell a billion people “convert or die.” I know how I would react to such a demand, I can guess your response, why would you expect J. Q. Muhammad to respond any differently? After how many Megadeaths does one lose one’s soul?

              1. I think you’re conflating “moderate Muslim” with “Muslim who lives in a craphole and is too occupied with struggling to keep head down and survive.”

                No, most Muslims are not taking up arms and trying to kill Westerners. But IMHO, a HUGE amount are either uninterested in taking sides, are just fine with other people doing the killing for them, or somewhere in between. Ben Shapiro had an interesting video a few months ago detailing how a majority are OK with things like FGM, honor killings, slavery, attacks on infidels, etc.

                And that’s the point here. It’s not “how many are holding a rifle or giving money.” It’s “how many are simply going to stand back and let bad people do bad things to other humans.” If you define “moderate Muslim” as “reads and understands the Koran, is willing to argue with a Mullah about what the Koran means in a public setting, and will risk the loss of reputation, relationships and income to stand against human rights abuses,” then the number of moderate Muslims crumbles pretty quickly. And THAT is the problem. The Jews and the Christians overall haven’t been terrorists like the ones we’re fighting because they are willing to air their dirty laundry in public. That’s one of the huge reasons there are hundreds of Christian denominations: because Christians can read their own scriptures, and they have very little problem telling others, “Look, Jesus said X, but you’re saying Y. Sayonara. I’ll build my own chapel down the block. But you’re still invited to this weekend’s barbecue.”

                No Muslim equivalent of this exists. In the Muslim world, to dissent is to declare armed conflict in many cases. So in many cases, those willing to kill or commit unspeakable cruelty to get their points across are in power politically, religious discussion is the realm ONLY of the educated, and at a local level in many places, Islam damn well means whatever the Mullah or local religious scholar says (which is often tied unofficially to what the politically strong allow it to be).

                That’s why “moderate” Muslims either exist in numbers so few as to be irrelevant, or don’t exist at all.

                1. Actually, it’s both. If Germany had been chock full of people willing to look the other way during the Holocaust, but not anyone willing to actually do the deed, the Holocaust would never have happened.

                  1. Very true, but I was only addressing the myth of the “moderate” Muslims. I think we’ve had proof enough for a lifetime of the militants, sadly.

              2. We need moderate Muslims. If they didn’t exist – and I think I’ve shown above that they are the overwhelming majority of Dar al Islam – we would have to create them.

                Not only did you not show that was true, you’re claiming you did so in response to it being laid out exactly how you did not, and generally showing that it’s not going to do any good to respond to you on this.

          4. My observation at the end of my combat tour in Afghanistan was that most Afghans were too busy trying to get their families fed through the winter to give two craps about trying to kill Americans.

            That said, I wonder what the analysis would say about Muslims who WEREN’T bordering on starvation if there were a minor meteorological or economical hiccup. Also, all those who have emigrated to Western nations.

            Etc., ad nauseum.

            1. Afghanistan is a hole, a country that exists only because nobody else really wanted it. It isn’t representative of the general Muslim world. In Dubai, for example, there are plenty of Muslims in the “middle class” part of town where people weren’t bordering on starvation. I, obvious American military (we were the only white guys not in suits wearing long pants) was perfectly safe.

              1. True, however the point still stands that in much of the Muslim world, killing people who have a different interpretation of Islam than yourself is still seen as perfectly acceptable, which tends to crush social discourse.

              2. Explain Anjem Choudary who claims right to free speech etc. don’t exist and is quite willing to kill you if you insult his pederast prophet. There seem to be enough of his type running around to render the entire cult dangerous to freedom and humanity as a whole.
                His stated goal is to institute sharia everywhere.

                1. We don’t beat that with bullets. (well, bullets when necessary, but you know what I mean). It’s like arguing with someone who has an entrenched emotional investment in a particular point of view – right or wrong, arguing just deepens their commitment to their idea.
                  We beat that with confidently explaining why our values are better than theirs, and finding ways to get that information in to their communities.

  21. I wrote my own post on Charlie Hebdo, along with some other stuff that popped up here and there.

    http://tlknighton.com/?p=6883

    As for fighting terrorism, the one problem with killing enough of them is that they’re not just willing to die for their cause, but eager. To that end, I recommend we start dipping all of our rounds in bacon grease so that they’ll die “unclean” and thus be denied their virgins. A friend suggested whiskey instead, but agreed it would need to be cheap whiskey since they don’t deserve the very best.

    Basically, we need to remove their eagerness to die for their cause. You do that, then kill enough of them, you will cause them to rethink their position. As long as they think they’ll get something in the afterlife for their deaths? I’m not sure you really can kill enough of them without killing all of them.

    1. Do you think they are more eager to die for their cause than Japanese bushido followers or SS? Killing enough of those two was enough to de-motivate them.

      1. No, but both (mostly) folded when it became obvious that the guys at the top had bailed from the cause. Arafat never strapped on a suicide vest; Saddam was found hiding in a hole; Bin Laden was living it up in Pakistan. I still believe that as long as the people pulling the strings think themselves safe that they’ll keep finding willing stooges they can pay to commit suicide, and when the Mullahs in Iran, spymasters in Pakistan, and rich royals in Saudi palaces find themselves threatened more by the West than the radicals that the support that makes terrorism viable will dry up.

        1. So right: When the man in Denmark (I think) killed something like seventy people training to go to Israel and do Pro-Palestinian protests; the next day the president or whatever of the country made a speech. She replied that the government was going to continue its policy of protests against Israel and bringing immigrants in from the ME. As long as the head of the snake is alive and active the trouble will continue.

          2. Anders Breivik is a piece of murdering shit and a mental case. Nothing he did or said is worth repeating or remaking upon in a positive way, and again as I said above the only reason we even know his name is gun control.

            The only difference between Anders Breivik and the jihadi scum at issue here is that he is crazy. They don’t have that excuse.

            1. I didn’t notice how I upgraded Breivik. To be clear, I don’t remember his name or country. I thought that by not mentioning anyone by name and country that people would think of the lesson learned more than the individuals involved. That lesson being- THAT KILLING THE GROUND FORCES DIDN’T STOP THE BATTLES. ONLY WHEN THE GENERAL GETS IN TROUBLE DOES THE FIGHTING STOP. I guess I must have a broken keyboard or someone has a problem with reading. Or is it scan until offended. I will be more careful of your ‘feelings’ in the future.

      2. Actually, yeah I do.

        The SS, especially, were certainly willing to die for their cause, but actually eager? Not so much.

        Now, the Japanese are far, far closer to what we’re dealing with. They were certainly eager to die for the Emperor. We killed enough Japanese to change his mind, so the rest stopped fighting in service to him.

        With the terrorist bastards we’re talking about, they’re eager to die for someone who is long dead and unable to tell them to stop. That means we have to remove the individual desire to die for their cause.

        Now, don’t get me wrong. I have zero problem with sending them to get their virgins in the meantime. Honestly, in some things, we’re not that far from the terrorists. They want to die for Allah, we’re willing to kill them for Allah, etc.

        I just think we should ramp up the game to make each of those deaths hit them even harder. I also think we need to quit playing nice because of “cultural sensibilities”.

        1. There’s some question about the Emperor. It may have been we killed enough to inspire him to assert his authority past what, in fact, he was legally entitled to do under their constitution.

          “I have zero problem with sending them to get their virgins in the meantime.”

          Nah. Bury the corpse with pigs to preclude that, too.

          1. I’ve heard we permitted the senior Japanese leadership to collude in planning their testimony. That this was so they would take the blame, and avoid implicating the Showa Tenno, because we didn’t want the occupation problems hanging him would cause.

            2. This is actually a more intelligent (albeit much shorter) statement than many people have made on this subject. The usual complaint is that the US did not actually force Japan into an “unconditional surrender” because we allowed them to keep their emperor.

              Those same jackasses, when asked how we were supposed to pacify a people after killing their emperor when it has been demonstrated that allowing him to stay SERVED AMERICAN INTERESTS by holding the country together and keeping it in submission usually respond with blank looks of confusion.

              1. Unconditional surrender describes the terms the loser can demand, not what the victor may grant at their convenience.

                We could have killed the emperor, we could have, as far as the surrender was concerned, killed his entire family. We perhaps could’ve killed the entire people, or at least treated them so that they’d rather suicide.

                I can understand the desire to twist the knife.

                They had the potential to be useful against the communists. That was grounds to consider a course of action that could make allies of them.

                In hindsight, it seems pretty sufficient grounds. We didn’t have to kill them all, we got some use out of them, we’ve had a long peace, and additional revenge doesn’t seem worth that to me.

                We got the Emperor to renounce divinity*, we forced some changes
                Shinto**, we banned Karate for a while, we changed their schools, and a bunch of other stuff.

                *I know about how he went back on that.

                **We didn’t force Shinto back to before the 19th reforms that made it more an instrument of state power, but that would have involved combining it with Buddhism.

              2. I’ve not read much Machiavelli, but didn’t he essentially say in The Prince that it’s best, when conquering a country, to replace as little local infrastructure as possible, both to avoid ticking off the local population, to avoid putting large numbers of them out of work, and because that’s less of your people that have to learn how to be dog catchers, postmen, sewer workers, etc.? According to a few documentaries I’ve seen, many think it was a huge mistake by G.W. Bush to disband large portions of the Republican Guard instead of just doubling their paychecks and putting in American oversight on them.

                1. It’s widely regarded that disbanding the Iraqi Army (not the Republican Guard, that was a bunch of hardcore regime supporters that didn’t much survive the invasion) was the big mistake of the Battle of Iraq.

                  1. It makes sense. Give soldiers something useful to do and assure them a decent income, and most of them will spend their time shamming to get out of duty rather than actively biting the hand that signs their paychecks. Take away those paychecks? Yikes…

          2. Can’t we just feed them to pigs? That would be a two-fer. Pigs get fed, less terrorists.

            1. I am afraid that as appealing as that idea sounds I would seriously have to pass on a side of bacon from those hogs. And I loves me my bacon.

              1. What if we fed the terrorist-fed pig to other pigs? Is two degrees of swine separation sufficient?

          3. We killed enough that both the Emperor AND a significant number of his ministers/generals/admirals agreed that the cause was lost.

            Which is why Nagasaki was key. “You had some days to surrender, you didn’t, so we did it again. Now what are you going to do? You can’t even shoot down a single plane and that’s all we need to destroy an entire city”

            1. Note that Hirohito’s famous “we must bear the unbearable” statement explicitly mentioned that continued atomic warfare would not just mean the end of the Japanese people (it going out in a “blaze of glory” would have been in keeping with bushido) but of humanity itself. This gave him, if you like, an “out” to surrender without loss of face to the Japanese people and himself. (Shame is worse than death to the Japanese.)

        2. The Japanese weren’t especially eager to die for their Emperor. They had to drug the Kamikaze pilots, remember, and only give them enough fuel for a one-way trip.

          And yes, I’m certain the drug stories were true. My dad’s description of the face and posture of the one pilot he saw as he flew past his ship, plus the very fact that turning the ship was enough to make him miss, convince me of this.

          1. Um… well, there were some people (mostly romantic young men, or people who were depressed and wanted a socially desirable way out) who did want to die for the Emperor. Socially acceptable suicide has been built into Japanese society for a long time. Also, if you got sent to kill yourself, you and the whole troop got to get drunk on sake, which was pretty scarce otherwise, and getting drunk or being drugged was pretty powerful if you’d been on short rations.

            OTOH, there were a lot of men and women who really didn’t want to die, and who were forced to drink the Kool-Aid anyway. (Or jump over the cliff, or what have you.)

            It’s a very depressing Japanese manga, and it’s of the school of “let’s make my life story more believable by making my viewpoint character die even though I didn’t.” But Onward Toward Our Noble Deaths is the best explanation I’ve seen of the crappiness of being signed up for a suicide charge.

          2. and only give them enough fuel for a one-way trip

            They didn’t have the spare fuel so why waste it? Especially not by the time of the Okinawa invasion. But that was a perennial problem.

            A big part of Japan’s aggression was that it was being subjected to an oil blockade. In hindsight the battle where Zhukov kicked the IJA in Mongolia in 1938(?) was critical. If the IJA had won they’d have had access to the known Siberian oil fields. With that they’d have never bothered the US because they would have been fully occupied with China and the Russian far east

        3. Kill the Terrorists in what they deem the most humiliating manner possible, treat the corpses with what they deem desecration, and announce this proudly as public policy. If that doesn’t work, respond to suicide bombings by taking away all the other children from the family and rearing them as non-Muslims.

      1. Unfortunately, that’s just an urban legend. For that matter, it appears that Muslims don’t believe being buried that way would prevent them from going to heaven. In addition, the Muslims would consider it a great insult and if Pershing had done that, there would have been a major backlash. While Pershing’s actual methods might be helpful today, this wasn’t one of his methods.

        1. It wasn’t Pershing, it was Colonel Rogers, IIRC. There’s a book called Jungle Patrol, used to be on a website, bakbakan dot something.

      2. my favored method of execution for them is single shot to the head with a lard lubed lead bullet, administered by a jewish lesbian, the carcass creamated, and the ashes fed to pigs, the manure and pigs incinerated and the ashes used to make urinals for Jewish civic senters.

  22. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for the French to ask the Germans or the Russians how to deal with an armed, violent minority with no allegiance to the country they’ve decided to sponge from (NOT saying anything about the Jews; just saying that once the terrorists attack targets in Germany, the Germans will know EXACTLY how to handle this).

    1. Armed minority sponging off the French? I think the French know exactly how to introduce such folks to Madame Guillotine if they so choose.

      Why people think the French are genetically pacifist is beyond me.

      Nous tous sommes Charlie aujourd’hui.

        1. IIRC, 1/4 of the French males of military age were casualties of WW I. They did win in the end with the help of Anglosphere allies (who also brought some new tech to the table — notably tanks, first used in quantity in 1918), but only in the “one more such victory and I am undone” sense.

      2. They aren’t genetically pacifist. Their Soldiers, when allowed/ordered to fight do as well as anyone (well, with their level of training).

        It’s their leadership and their culture.

        That, and most of the ones with backbone moved out.

        1. As the inimitable SSgt Two-Gun Berg put it in “Manxome Foe”:
          “As individual soldiers, they’re fine. It’s their politicians and generals who suck. Oh, boy, do they suck!”

          1. Yeah, well, that’s pretty much true of every country *except* the middle east.

            There the individual soldiers (generally) aren’t much AND their politicians and generals suck.

            This isn’t to say the Kurds or the Persians can’t get their act together, but the entirety of Arab and Palestinian culture makes it hard to field good soldiers.

              1. That has something to do with it, I think, but there’s a raider mentality that Arab culture, and most other low-population density cultures, seem to have.
                High on risk-taking and glory, lousy staying power. Will win if they can maintain hit-and-run tactics, but if they ever commit to a slugfest, they lose.

              2. It’s at least in part a clan thing. If your fellow soldier isn’t part of *your* clan then you owe him nothing (this is even worse when your underlings aren’t part of your clan). If your unit *IS* made up of your clansmen it gets *VERY* sensitive to losses because who will take care of the clan.

                Also there’s a tendency in that part of the world to hoard knowledge because of the belief it makes you irreplaceable. This means that the tank *loader* doesn’t really know how to aim the thing or drive it. The driver can’t load, etc.

                The Machine gunner *might* teach his loader so they can trade off, but then again he might not. He certainly will jealously guard his knowledge from the rest of the platoon.

                These in themselves are very disfunctional, and we haven’t even gotten to the very nature of Insha’Allah and what it does to readiness.

                1. ” If your fellow soldier isn’t part of *your* clan then you owe him nothing”

                  Now move that up the chain of command. If any of your superiors isn’t of your clan, you won’t obey him or trust him; If you’re the commander, you will tend to let troops from other clans do the dying.

              1. But I’ve heard you don’t want to be on a Turkish submarine when the order “Dive, dive!” is given. Stories are the guy who jumps up and closes the hatch has to buy a round for everyone on the next port visit…

                I’d rather everyone had incentive to CLOSE the hatch.

                The North Vietnamese hated encountering Turkish patrols. They didn’t surrender, and didn’t stop fighting.

      3. I guess the question on everyone’s minds is the same some of us have had here for a long time: at what point will [INSERT NAME OF LATEST NATION TO EXPERIENCE ISLAMIC TERROR] wake up and get to the rat-killin’?

        The guillotine is an elegant solution to their problem, but a little hard to lug around from one no-go zone to the next. Can’t they just rock it old school and put a bunch of SKS’s in the hands of The Angry Mob? THAT would clean out the rat’s nests.

        1. Umm.. bro….

          Arming the people? In a Western European nation?

          I mean, I’m not against it at all, but do you really think it could ever happen?

            1. At first glance, I thought you said “…we had to pray for it.”

              Wiki-questionable-ia says the population of France is almost 64,000,000 people. Let’s just pay the Chinese $20 per to spin up carbines for roughly a quarter of that number (to eliminate the elderly, the young and those not physically fit to fight), and start air dropping them with a 500 round can of ammo each for another $20 per from China. Comes out to $640,000,000. And I think it’s a far better use of our tax dollars than, say, bailing out Detroit for twice that.

              1. Their leadership would never allow it.
                You know, once you give the common folk a taste of power there’s no telling where they would stop.
                France in particular does after all have a history of the violent removal of leaders they have grown unhappy with.

                1. It may have to wait, then, until the terrorists successfully wipe Paris off the map so the ACTUAL French can take back the reins of power.

                1. “I wouldn’t want to give them guns that are too nice, so we don’t feel bad when they hang their heads and turn them in to their authorities for destruction… like the darn Brits did with the guns we gifted them with in the 40s:”

                  Yeah, I’m not too inclined to give anybody anything at this point. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve made their beds.

          1. I hadn’t thought of a truck-mounted guillotine. I LOVE IT!
            I’m still down with arming lots of pissed-off Frenchmen with SKS’s and throwing them at their Muslim ghettos, however. If it comes down to it. That would be one VERY ugly fight. The French should simply deport them to their nations of origin en masse, if they can.

              1. True, I suppose. Any law not enforceable at the point of bayonets is no law at all. And it WOULD take bayonets to enforce a mass deportation. Still, if you’ve at least HUMORED rendering kindness her due, it makes it easier to sleep at night after you’ve done the ugly things in life.

            2. Almost all immigrant locations in France are suburbs that are easily distinguishable from non-immigrant locations. Many of them are actually prime defensive terrain if you want to stop small numbers of police entering. They are also easily isolated targets if you want to cut off the water and power and then bomb them using modern jets or even modern artillery.

              With sufficient outrages the French will take advantage of this and kill the relevant 5-10% of the population of France.

            3. And updating the French Revolution-era chant to “Ah ça ira ça ira ça ira/Les islamistes à la lanterne” (Yeah that’ll do, that’ll do just fine/put the islamists’ heads on pikes) 😉

      4. The French experienced massive casualties during both the Napoleonic and First World Wars. Because of the idiocy of the way those wars were fought, especially The Great War, the great majority of those “genetically aggressive” were taken out in the first 2 years.

  23. The Usual Suspects, who can tweet hundreds of times about GamerGate, had very little to say about Charlie Hebdo. Most of what they did say was stuff like this:

    “‏@SofiaSamatar when you live under white supremacy & Islamophobic paranoia, the line between supporting free speech & bolstering hatred is so thin.”

    Good to know that when artists are murdered for expressing their opinions, their peers have the backs of the people who murder them.

    1. Yup. “Feel free to insult everyone except the people who might actually take physical steps to answer your insult. Because if you do, we’ll throw you to the jackals first.” (With apologies to jackals, Cape Hunting Dogs, hyenas, and other useful scavengers and carnivores everywhere.)

    2. And that “white supremacy” bit is just hilarious. America elected an African-American president twice in a row, but the country is still apparently being controlled by the KKK or something. Or maybe it’s Obama’s white half that’s oppressing them.

        1. What about Al Sharpton? Isn’t he doing all he can to keep black people in slums needing his “help”?

            1. Of course not. *mumble*-hundred black-on-black deaths in Chicago every year mean nothing when measured against a hispanic, er, sorry white man gunning down a sweet little boy(just look at his adorable 12-year-old pics!), or a white cop gunning down a gentle giant in the streets.

              Citizen, I think you may be committing hate-thought. Please forward your life savings to Jesse Jackson immediately, so that we know you are appropriately penitent.

              1. “Citizen, I think you may be committing hate-thought. Please forward your life savings to Jesse Jackson immediately, so that we know you are appropriately penitent.”
                mea culpa! ;o}

                1. forward your life savings to Jesse Jackson

                  My initial response to this might have gotten me a visit from the Men In Cheap Dark Suits.

            2. AFAIK, most blacks who die violently are killed by other blacks. Did the nesting screw up, or did I imply something I didn’t mean to?

        2. Evidence? On the principle of cui bono, the evidence that they are is strong.

          Affirmative Action means that upper-class blacks and middle-class ones get benefits from the black underclass’s misery. Since Affirmative Action, black economic progress has slowed. Disaggregate it, and you find the already prosperous blacks kept improving. It was the poor blacks who stopped.

          Furthermore, we see prosperous blacks touting things like “authenticity” and “Ebonics,” the effect of which is mire the poor blacks in their poverty, so we see a mechanism as well.

          On the face of it then, facts indicate that “it certainly is” is more reasonable than “it certainly isn’t”.

          1. If you look at my reply to mobiuswolf, you’ll see that my tongue is slightly more obviously in-cheek in that post.

          2. Read Thomas Sowell’s “Affirmative Action Around the World”, which focuses primarily on implementations outside the US (of Dalit/pariahs and other ‘scheduled castes’ in India, of [generally Muslim] ethnic Malays in Malaysia,…)

            One ever-recurring pattern he identifies is that the main beneficiaries of such policies are already well-to-do and well-connected members of the “affirmed” group.

  24. Ah yes … the standard SJW “Well Christians and Jews have done horrible things too” plaint and its companion “Fear of Backlash against innocent muslims”.
    When? Show us how Every Day Christians and Jews are walking into a school and shooting everyone because they disagree with what is being taught.
    No, Sandy Hook was not a religious thing (did he even have a religion?) I’m damned sure the MSM would have rode that horse into the ground if it was even close.
    Show us where Christians and Jews regularly are raiding villiages and kidnapping the women folk to sell into slavery and for use as sex slaves.
    Get your hashtags ready … I’m sure that’ll fix the problem.
    Show us where they constantly threaten and then ACT to cut the heads off people who are not following their preferred medieval methods of thought (with apologies to actual medieval thinking).

    The reason, other than the fear of becoming a foot or so shorter suddenly, that the leftoids constantly act like this is it allows them another justification for limiting people’s freedoms. More calls for “tolerance” laws , yeah, that’ll work. More gun control is obviously needed . The perps might have gotten their RPG via the nonexistant “Gun Show Loophole”.
    Those limits sure worked well in France … why just think how poorly it could have gone without the laws banning people from having AKs and RPGs!
    I’m sure they’ll have a few carbeques in celebration.
    But hey … chin up .. 0bama just released some guys who love to plan and carry out stuff like this from Gitmo. What could go wrong?

    2. Christians and Jews don’t do that *anymore*. See Old Testament for the Jews, Holy Roman Catholic Empire for the Christians.

      It called the Christian and Jewish religion grew up. They are adult matured religions now, due individuals going “hey… we need to knock this crapp off, this isn’t what we were taught by our God.”

      Islam…. *SPITS!*

      1. Actually, it’s more due to the Romans destroying the temple and kicking the Jews out of their homeland to spend two millennia as a minority in one case, and the Christians practically depopulating Germany in the other. The Japanese took the virtual destruction of every population center and the threat of destroying the rest to change from their violent religion.

        People can be very hard-headed.

        2. An observation by Bernard Lewis that I never tire of repeating (my paraphrase). Christianity from day one had “my kingdom is not of this world”. Islam’s founder was a political and military, as well as religious leader, from day one — and the very concept of separating religion and state is thus alien to Islam.
          Judaism (my own religion) is a special case. “Judaism 2.0” (rabbinical Judaism) developed in an era where Jews were no longer the masters of their own fate.

      2. The inquisition (what a sight!) was the reply I got from some of the maroons after 9/11.
        Yeah? When was the last person (jew, muslim, or “heretic”) that they put through the works again? And with that reasoning they would be fine with ?Israel and the Netherlands attacking Spain and the Holy See on a regular basis then, right?
        Then there is sure to be someone who brings up the “tolerance” of the Sultans who accepted jews from Spain after expulsion.
        Yeah, sorta like the Jim Crow South accepted blacks.
        well past time for islam to “grow up”.

  25. Pingback: Freedom Lives | Cedar Writes

  26. Claire Berlinski wrote a nice piece from the scene. Which reminded me of the dedication to Mr. Kratman’s Caliphate (priced right, go read it if you haven’t yet). I’d say the vision and expression here today and on other days ranks with the more famous featured in that dedication. Maybe someday the writings here will be given broader recognition and maybe not but the intrinsic merit is there.

    I’d have compared CharlieHebdo more to The Realist but that likely dates me without adding anything to the discussion.

    When Gabe Suarez says people are well trained, as he did here, we can take it to the bank. Perhaps useful to revive an old union slogan from the old days – organize. If we can’t match and exceed their training we lose.

  27. Churchill had it right in 1899:

    How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

    Pamela added a great curse to the DBD post-
    “Their souls are forfeit and their houses damned.
    May their seed never find purchase in any womb.
    In the eyes of God, they are rejected for all time.”

    Chris Muir nailed it as usual; http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

    1. …”there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist.”…

      Didn’t this perfectly predict how conditions would evolve in the good, old USSR, as well?
      [√] Fanatic.
      [√] Dogmatic.
      [√] Autocratic
      [√] Corrupt

      [√] Fail

  28. We are ALL in danger of becoming Charlie… You hit the nail on the SJW head with this one! They wouldn’t dare say anything like that in France right now, nor in ANY muslim country because they would be 10 inches shorter shortly thereafter… Personally I hope every French cop and military member has dipped their bullets in pig fat, and proclaim that loudly as they hunt down these murdering bastards.

    1. What “we” White Man?

      Goofballs pull that shit when *I* am around the police won’t need to find them. If the bodies don’t hit the floor right there they blood trails will be pretty evident.

      They might be good enough to get me, but I’m *damn* sure good enough to get them on the way down.

  29. Hell, that cover wasn’t in response to a threat— it was a response to an assault!

    That’s after the Islamo-fascists fire bombed their office.

  30. Pingback: The Paris Massacre | Yard Sale of the Mind

    1. Who were quick to wimp out. Of course we expect them to stay strong on the mock (of others).

  32. Islamic fundamentalists keep attacking the West, but our so-called intellectuals keep trying to make excuses for their barbarism. We have battered civilization syndrome.

  33. I’ve been following this on the ELoE sites, and the Facebook writing group I’m on. I’m trying not to rant at the folk pratting about how xenophobic the French are and that the paper shouldn’t have been so bigoted… then going ‘but that doesn’t justify murder’. When they spent their entire post justifying it. There are other folk arguing more effectively than I, so I’m leaving them to it.

  34. With your words, your mollycoddling, your excusing of abhorrent deeds, your covering them under the tattered blanket of victims of racism, you prevent a sick, murderous culture from changing. You keep human beings in subjection. And you encourage the murder of innocents for no greater crime than speaking their minds.

    Yes. They’re providing cover for tyrants and maniacs, legitimizing murderous thugs. All while de-legitimizing the moderates and the potential reformers like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. They’ve gone a long way to assuring those who might’ve been our allies, those who would see their cultures and religious practices modernized, that they cannot trust us — we are fickle apologists for barbarism and slaughter.

    If the end of this path is reached, if it becomes truly a matter of civilizational survival, the blood and death will be their burdens to bear. Their cowardice can carry the weight of its consequence.

    I will not submit.

  35. Moi aussi, au moins je peux etre aussi? quelgue chose entry fou et degoulas

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Claire Berlinski wrote a nice piece from the scene. Which reminded me of the dedication to Mr. Kratman’s Caliphate (priced right, go read it if you haven’t yet). I’d say the vision and expression here today and on other days ranks with the more famous featured in that dedication. Maybe someday the writings here will be given broader recognition and maybe not but the intrinsic merit is there.

    I’d have compared CharlieHebdo more to The Realist but that likely dates me without adding anything to the discussion.

    When Gabe Suarez says people are well trained, as he did here, we can take it to the bank. Perhaps useful to revive an old union slogan from the old days – organize. If we can’t match and exceed their training we lose.

  37. Noted conservative Catholic Bill Donohue on the killings in Paris:

    “Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, ‘Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.’ Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”

    http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

    I had no idea Bill Donohue was a SJW.

    OTOH, here’s something from the New Yorker:

    “But the murders in Paris were so specific and so brazen as to make their meaning quite clear. The cartoonists died for an idea. The killers are soldiers in a war against freedom of thought and speech, against tolerance, pluralism, and the right to offend—against everything decent in a democratic society. So we must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/blame-for-charlie-hebdo-murders

    Nicely played, New Yorker.

    1. You know, it is forever a source of confusion to me why people from the left come up with what are non sequitors about this matter.
      My favorite on FB is “Do you know they also mocked Christians and Jews?” Or “To support them you must also show their cartoons mocking Christians and Jews!” Yeah — what? So they did. They operated at the level of a college humor paper in the US and like all Frenchmen they were probably at least mildly socialist, and perhaps light-communist and atheist or anti-religious. And? This means people on the right should want them to die for their opinions? Because? Those of us who are libertarians think their opinions might be repulsive, but by their courage they were members of the Liberty Tribe. They not only didn’t want to silence others, they couldn’t be intimidated. We mourn them and honor them even if we disagreed with 99% of what they believed.
      Your first point strikes me as the same as those two non-sequiturs. Really? Why should I care what a “noted Catholic” says? There a strong streak of authoritarianism in the Catholic church and some people fall for it. I am not responsible for what any other “conservative” says — conservative being a broad church, anyway.
      I mention SJWs in my post because that’s what most of my colleagues are. There are a couple noted conservatives — even Catholic — but they’re not encouraging the barbarians and blaming the victim.

      1. Donahue is of the school that goes to the funeral, prays for the dead, and mutters, “I never liked that guy. He was a giant jerk, God be good to him.”

        So basically, just having the cartoonists be in the afterlife doesn’t change his opinion of their work. And he feels like he has to say so, because that’s Donahue. He’s not an SJW; he mouths off the same way in every direction.

        OTOH, he’s been asked to go talk on a lot of talk shows and explain his thoughts on free expression and civic culture, so maybe he’s a little bit cunning about when he goes mouthing off.

        1. Of course, there’s also the ancient tradition of “Start a fight at the wake.” I don’t know if it’s a French thing, but it can certainly be an Irish thing.

      2. Did your sons ever try the “they do it tooooo” defense for one of their actions when they were little?

        Pointing/flailing at others and trying to prove some “point” is a rather tiring habit of the progressive SJW tribe.

    2. Noted conservative Catholic Bill Donohue on the killings in Paris:

      No, noted Catholic activist. See also (though I haven’t read what he’s written on it, because I do not read him) Mark Shea.

      The are “conservative” in so far as “liberals” are actively hostile to Catholicism, and insist on shoving everything into a political spectrum.

      These guys are conservative Catholics.

    3. A not-so-noted, conservative/libertarian, Catholic convert friend of mine commented* that Mr. Donahue should shut his damn piehole and not make an assclown of himself.

      * Well, actually, I won’t reproduce his real comments here. They’re a little strong for the normal tone of this blog. But that gets to the basic gist of them.

  38. Man, this is awesome. Arthur Chu tweeted this:

    “‏@arthur_affect Like I really really hope all the Je Suis Charlie ppl also rallied for the rights of ppl burning American flags at protests”

    And this was one of his replies:

    “@Femitheist
    I know that people were just murdered, but won’t someone think of my edgy Anti-American progressiveness?”

    😀

    1. As I said, they’re making this stupid point everywhere and think it wins something. Other than contempt. When people are murdered for burning American flags, I’ll defend them. Anyone?

      3. Yeah, flag-burners shouldn’t be killed, they should just be given one-way tickets to the country of their choice and not be allowed back for at least 5 years.

        1. Crap. That’s probably a hot-button topic, and i just meant the second part of it as a joke. Please don’t start a war over the proper treatment of flag-burners because of it.

            1. I wanted to propose something like that. I once looked up what it took to renounce one’s citizenship. It’s months of bureaucracy. I wanted to shorten it to “Setting alight, or holding aloft a burning American flag, or stomping on same, in a public place” would be the ritual for renouncing one’s citizenship, subject to immediate deportation. They liked to say that burning a flag was a meaningful gesture (although the meaning is unclear) I figured this proposal would make it all the more meaningful, just that the protesters wouldn’t be the ones defining the meaning.

              1. yep. I see NOTHING wrong with “love it or leave it” — don’t agree with your constitution? That’s fine. You’re not an American. (This is not the same as wanting to amend some small aspect. I mean, it’s saying “it’s outdated” or the like.) “Where would you like to fly? Here’s your ticket. You can’t immigrate in again for your life time. Your children will be treated like any foreigner.”

                1. On another forum I just said “The reason libs call the Constitution a “Living, Breathing Document” is because they want to strangle it to death.

                  1. I might steal that, if I remember it, for a future Earth Revolution book. You know “First they called the Usaian founding documents ‘living’ and then they strangled them to death.”

                  2. Can I Second, Third, Fourth, etc. this comment down to about nine hundred and fifty?

  40. Oh my… okay guys, we all know that things like this topic post are going to bring up a lot of anger (as most of us remember a certain attack on the United States all too well) and we all know we’re going to be rather passionate in some of the statements. That anger is going to make it a bit harder to see humor and give cause to lash out at others we normally are civil with.

    That said, I’m going to suggest several folks take a deep breath.

      2. Olympic champions exercise to the height of fitness so that their resting heart rate is so slow that they can fire the gun between beats.

            1. When I was in the hospital last year, bored out of my skull and waiting on test results, I amused myself by lowering my heartrate (relaxation, deep breathing, and a semi-meditative state) until the monitor started beeping warnings. IIRC, it went off at 50 bpm. I think I got my pulse down to 46 at one point. *shrug* It was something to do.

    2. *chuckle*

      There’s always time for humor, lass. Even at the top step of the gallows. It’s what keeps us human when inhumanity surrounds us. It’s what leashes the black dog when the weight of the world grows heavy. It’s the strong right arm of sobriety, believe it or not.

      Those that laugh, last.

      That said, I’m being quiet today. I’m on of those to whom anger is no stranger, indeed, but I’ve learned to employ another vice in service of leashing that anger: procrastination. *grin*

      So I will sleep on those thoughts I am thinking today. Maybe I will post them tomorrow. I am thinking, as I wind my way to dreams, of what constitutes a Reasonable Man. That, and fear, and justice, and mercy, and the folly of chest-less men. And cats.

      Civilization has been besieged by barbarians before. My thoughts and prayers go first to the victims and their families today. May whatever deity they follow bless and keep them, and a good word to Himself regardless (on the principle blessings are Good Things, therefore it can’t hurt). May justice be swift and sure, for their sake at the very least.

  41. Early one morning a large explosion wipes out most of some troubled American City. Detroit would be my guess, though there are other candidates. Despite an energetic and imaginative shuck-and-jive effort by the Media and their masters, it quickly becomes clear that more than 100,000 Americans have been murdered by a deliberate Islamic Terrorist attack, executed by a group funded out of Saudi Arabia. Within 24 hours the roar of public opinion is so loud that all but the most strident Liberal congress critters are shouting for retribution … and the die-hard Liberals are mostly keeping their heads down. It becomes clear that if the President is not willing to rain death down Mecca, he will be impeached and replaced with someone who will. If he is a Democrat he probably lashes out in rage at being put in this position, because he knows it will lose him the next election pretty much no matter what he does. If he’s a Republican he probably looks a little more carefully at the probable consequences, but Mecca is toast anyway, and so is Medina. France predictably enough, tries to deny the U.S. the use of French airspace, and is bluntly told to sit down and shut up.

    Strikes against Mecca and the Saudi capitol at Riyadh provoke worldwide Islamic riots. Wherever those riots endanger American citizens or interests, there are put down with brutal efficiency. Paris, on the other hand, is burning. Not before time.

    Various international organizations scold the U.S. and are told to piss up a rope and stand under it while it dries. The International Criminal Court in The Hague issues various ukases and pontifications. It is told that if any American citizen is interfered with in any way by or because of its posturing it will be disbanded by the United States Marines. The ICC shuts up.

    Despite overwhelming popular support for the idea of rounding up every Jihadist nitwit and burying him in pig entrails, a small anti-war movement springs up on college campuses and similar nests of stupidity. Protesters are routinely rounded up, thrown into cells so hard they bounce, and told that if they want to see their ACLU lawyers, said lawyers are in the next cell. Persons who have supported terrorist groups like Hamas find themselves being tried for various crime stat previously were winked at. CAIR is arrested in a body.

    America actually BECOMES the Imperial Power that the Chattering Classes always claimed it was; they have ample opportunity to contemplate the difference from inside Federal prisons. The Constitutional protections that might have saved them are, of course, long gone by their own connivance.

    The U. S. wages war in the Middle East with the single minded determination that attended the effort to defeat the Axis in WWII, resulting in an unprecedented amount of seized territory. The U.S. proceeds to pump crude out of the ground in vast quantities, and otherwise comports itself like a Colonial Power, and not one of the nice ones.

    I wish, I really wish I saw another end to this. It won’t bother ME; I’m over 50, overweight, subject to gout and diabetes, male, and white. What time I have will be spent in comparative luxury as the U.S. economy booms, for a while. But I don’t think we have the temperament to be good colonialists, or even just profitable ones. It ain’t gonna end well.

    1. If somebody set off a bomb in Detroit, it wouldn’t be good for King Books’ giant warehouse store, the Greyhound station, the baklava place, or the casino, and a lot of downtown churches would go. But honestly, that’s about it.

      You’d have to set it off in the suburbs or at a stadium if you wanted any kind of concentration of people. And a lot of Muslims live there. Not impossible, there was that one guy, but he only picked the target because he was a jihad doofus.

      1. Seattle has a rather large…what was the euphemism…. “jihadi risk” population, too.

        I’m actually worried that will increase the risk, since the risky populations will group, and only care about their own folks getting hurt, which means their “easy day’s drive” neighbors are at risk.

        How worried? Enough that we turned down several houses because they either had too straight of a shot to what we consider risk areas, or didn’t have big enough routes OUT of the area. (Not “risk areas” like a military base, but things like “easy to get shipping containers into that area.” Too low of a traffic-to-security ratio for bases to be dangerous neighbors.)

    2. Targeting will probably be New York, DC, or Los Angeles. Any of these is a symbol of the power of the Great Satan. New York the economic, DC the political/military, Los Angeles the cultural.
      Unfortunately, I agree with you on the likely turn of events–we turned Japan into ash and rubble for killing 3,000 of us one December morn, and did the same to Germany for joining in with them. What we’d do in the scenario outlined above would tear the soul out of the land, and turn its heart to metal and wheels.

      Going off of that, the SJWs really don’t get it. If we really are as racist as they claim we are, they should be getting the Muslim terrorists to stop for their own sake. We firebombed German–that is to say, pasty, pasty white blond people’s–cities to nothing. If we were as awful as they claim they are, the aftermath of such an attack on the United States would leave the attackers’ homelands in a state resembling Tamerlane’s leavings.

      1. And as a bonus, we’d have a FAR smaller population of SJWs here.

        Can’t fight a real world with a self-declared Fifth Column. Take a look at what happened to the most obnoxious Tories post-Revolutionary War.

    3. Considering how quickly many Americans seemed to forget about 9/11, I don’t see that level of rage happening without at least three cities being destroyed, and/or nuclear weapons being involved. And my guess is that New York would be the prime target; it’s the most population-dense target the US has. Probably followed by Chicago and maybe San Francisco and LA.

      Also, most Americans at that point would probably be calling for elimination of threats, but I don’t see us ever becoming an imperial power, just VERY prone to preemptive defensive attacks. Americans typically just want to be left the hell alone and not deal with foreign powers. They’d vaporize their obvious enemies and tell everyone else to either act civilized or prepare for vaporization themselves.

      Finally, I think that, with the elimination of some very blue-leaning population centers, the population of the US would swing hard right, but would, after maybe 20 years or so, stop lynching illegal border-crossers and liberals on sight, but would probably require every physically capable non-geriatric adult citizen to be trained for weapons handling, etc. and be hyper vigilant for decades afterwards about liberal nuts spouting off at the mouth.

            1. not really, for what he wants to do. And I have friends, and a bunch of huns there. So, I pray really hard, not NYC. Then again, I also have friends in LA and some of ya’ll are from Chicago. Wherever and whenever it comes, it’s gonna hurt.

          2. Could be worse. Our youngest (30) has decided to spend a few years in Tanzania with his girlfriend. Color us very unhappy.

      2. I don’t think the average everyday American has forgotten. The MSM and the politicians don’t ever pontificate about it. Maybe it’s just the people I know, but most of the people I know would be happy with making a lot of glass parking lots in the mid-east. Watching Gazans and west bank Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 made me think we should send in a force to depopulate those two areas and return them to Israel. Depopulate- start moving in and killing everyone who doesn’t have sense enough to flee before you get to them. Everyone, man, woman, and child. Historically, it works. Haven’t had trouble from Carthage for a while.

        2. Hell, no reason we should do it ourselves. Just cable Israel, “Go ahead. Clear the vermin out. We’ll hold your hat.”

          Should have done THAT a while back.

      3. I picked on Detroit for a reason; it’s local society has broken down so thoroughly that a bunch of badly trained butters could build a large explosive device without getting caught. I’m thinking fuel-air, because what I know about the terrorists’ tech persuades me that if they tried Nuclear they would die from radiation and/or get caught for the same reason long before they were done.

        I can’t see it happening in New York.

        We almost went “nuke ’em ’til they glow” after 9/11. Bush went for a limited war by limited means for limited ends, and sold it to the public. The Far Left screwed that up royally; it won’t be an option next time.

        Yes, a large segment of the public has “forgotten” 9/11, in the sense that it doesn’t interest them as much as Kim Kardishan’s rump. The Left worked hard for more than a decade to make that happen. If there is another, larger, terror attack on U.S. soil, they may TRY to deflect public opinion, but if they do I think they will get trampled to goo.

        I think that the terrorists will attacks a city where the social contract has broken down badly, because they won’t be able to operate anywhere else. That make Detroit the immediate go-to, so far as I can see. Yes, it is now irrelevant to the country. Let’s facet, so is New York. The terrorists cannot hit enough of our cities hard enough to do anything other than piss us off. Unfortunately, that will be very bad for us as well as for them.

        3. The “If you see something, say something” campaign exists for a dang good reason, even if I don’t think it’s incredibly effective.

          1. That’s how they found the car bomb in Times Square.

            Notice, BTW, that one of the people who told the police was this harmless but quite mad homeless person. Even lunatics can see how dangerous they are. . . .

      4. Considering how quickly many Americans seemed to forget about 9/11, I don’t see that level of rage happening without at least three cities being destroyed, and/or nuclear weapons being involved.

        A significant portion of the population has, literally, never known a world that didn’t have 9/11.
        It happened the year I graduated high school– figure that folks set their worldview between 12 and 24, and the entire “youth vote” hasn’t forgotten 9/11, they never knew anything else. This is going to change things, although I’m not sure WHAT. It’s kind of like those surveys that “discovered” that the kids who grew up getting prenatal baby pictures, who might have their OWN somewhere, are identifying fetal humans as “babies”– uh, duh? The younger folks believing X or Y doesn’t automatically bring them into line with the adults who think the same thing, but it does plant the seeds, and alters what happens when they’re put to the test.

        The folks who are the sort to remember are getting active– the TEA Party came out of the blue, remember? Those kind of folks just don’t do big public protests like that– are spending their energies on cleaning things up, and it is working. The left-ward activists wouldn’t be so desperate if it weren’t. It may not LOOK like much, but it’s like rust control on a battle ship– if you don’t take care of it, you’re going down, and there are a lot of really big rust holes.

        There wouldn’t be so much “I was liberal, but then 9/11… you guys have a point on _______, but I think you go too far” type arguments going on on the right. The thought-pattern of decades is hard to change, and it sometimes makes it look like the right is moving to the left, when we’re actually fighting out people who got slapped by things we already knew, but don’t have similar think-it-through habits yet, and are bringing different baseline assumptions into the area.

        We have to work harder, but things aren’t as bad as you might think.

    4. Write the story and redshirt me in it. I’m from Detroit. 🙂

      I can see this happening here, at least in the suburbs. We have the largest Arab population in the world outside of the Middle East and the majority (although by no means all) of them are Muslim. We also have an immigrant community from North Africa with a large Muslim component. It only takes one and operating close to home would give him an advantage.

  42. If they’ve been taught all their lives to hate and murder and kill, to see non-Muslims (especially those pesky irreverent comics and westerners) as unworthy of life, then we can hardly be surprised that they hate and murder and kill, etc.
    It’s a very empowering, seductive way of looking at the world.
    We can respond with force of arms, and we should defend ourselves, but it’s the ideas that are the real enemy here. And we don’t defeat those ideas with bullets any more than they defeat ours with things like this atrocity in Paris.

    What will win, in the end, is ideas. Better ideas. Better ideas promoted with courage and skill.

    I almost hate to put it this way, but we need to proselytize USAians. We need to convert people to believing that America and the principles which she was founded upon are good, worthwhile, correct, and more likely to lead one to a happy fulfilled life than the inane mumblings of a self-hating leech like Marx. *Spit*

    And we need to start by converting our *countrymen.

    And some of this will be very up front (not necessarily religious, but some religious proselytizing as well). Some of it will be much more subtle, buried like a land mine, to go off later in someone’s imagination. And some will be in the way we treat others and carry ourselves.

    *(I almost put fellow Americans there, but upon further reflection decided that would have been inappropriate.)

  45. Pingback: SARAH HOYT SHOWS SOME BACKBONE: Je Suis Charlie. “The brave social(ist) justice warriors are ever … | CRAGIN MEDIA

  46. Last night after choir practice, someone asked for prayer for the people of Paris. Instantly someone else said “It isn’t Islam’s fault.” It was almost funny, like they thought they were being watched.

    3. My response would have been: “I will believe that when the vast majority of Muslims condemn such attacks rather than cheering them on, or at most remaining silent!”

      1. I will believe it when the vast majority of Muslims deliver the scum who conduct, plan, fund and support these attacks to us, all trussed up and wrapped in bacon. Dead or alive, matters not to me.

  47. A rather observant friend of mine, made the following sports-themed metaphor a few years ago (don’t know if it’s original to him or he heard it somewhere but still)

    Man, Europe made one of the worst trades ever after World War II. They traded Jews for Muslims!

  49. Goats and sheep. It’s an interesting metaphor. Many claim that most Muslims are non violent, and i think they are right.
    But, the problem is that those who would not follow a violent path do nothing. You don’t hear of organizations of Muslims that fight terrorists.
    Oh, sure, a muslim government will try to stop ISIS or other terrorists, but individuals do nothing.
    If a violent sect of Christian terrorists were to arise in the west, we would put them down quickly. It wouldn’t matter how violent they were, as a culture we would put them down.
    Muslim terrorists arise, and your standard joe on the street in the ME just ducks his head and tries not to draw attention. I can understand the sentiment, but I wouldn’t countenance it.
    The very nature of their culture, (i.e. a dependence on a strong figure/power to take care of things) does not allow them to clean their own houses, as they should.
    I guess my point is that they can’t claim innocence when their inaction allows these evils to propagate in their societies.
    The sheep follow the goats, which is forgivable in sheep; but these are men.
    More is expected of them.

      1. Husband’s computer has it on the back of his laptop’s monitor.

        Put it there while we were stationed in Japan and doing Med tours. Made a good impression in the Philippines.

  52. The Finnish newspapers or other publications haven’t shown any of those cartoons, at least I haven’t found any. They don’t seem to publish comments asking why not, or criticizing them for it either.

    On the other hand those comments which condemn the victims for ‘needlessly’ provoking their murderers seem to go through just fine. Lots of them around, anyway. And complains on those few forums which we have for the contrary opinions by other people who had tried to write there something else how their comments never appeared.

    It is possible the apologists aren’t the majority, just the ones who can get most of the visibility. At least I hope so.

    I am ashamed for my people.

    1. This is what the media does to create the impression that those who are not leftists are “wingnuts.” They used to do the same here. Don’t be ashamed for your people. Be ashamed for your elites and your commie-infested press.

    2. Do not let them make you ashamed of your people. That is how they push you to be unwilling to defend your people.

      Divide and rule.

  53. Any thoughts on the idea that the terrorists are borrowing a page from the Marxist playbook and trying to sharpen the contradictions by inciting the French nationalists into a general attack on all Muslims, and thus force the secularized and cultural Muslims into radicalizing?

    If this is the case, they’re definitely summoning what they cannot dispel, and it’s going to end very badly for everyone.

    1. Joy.

      You notice how that is an argument for lying down and taking it. Or rather, can hardly help but be applied as such as soon as it gets into certain hands.

    3. *cautiously clicks* I try to avoid the websites of folks who write books I like, there’s way too much Joss Syndrome around.
      (Work is “conservative,” artist isn’t.)
      But if you think it’s worth reading, I think I can avoid clicking around more. 😀

  55. Anne Barnhardt as usual – zero bullshit and more guts than most.

    http://www.barnhardt.biz/
    “Cut the Crap: The problem is islam, and it has to be exterminated. Period.
    So, a little review for those of you who may be new.

    1. Islam is a political system, NOT a religion, and unless and until humanity wakes the hell up and STOPS referring to it as a religion, there is no hope. Islam is a hyper-aggressive, militaristic, expansionist, totalitarian political system designed to create a super-rich micro-oligarchical ruling class with a massive, destitute, genetically handicapped underclass below. The paper-thin faux-religious facade was a conscious, specific con from the very beginning – much like Mormonism and Scientology – a pure racket using borrowed and piggy-backed religious motifs to lend credibility to a massive, loosely-knit network of crime syndicate cells.”

    RTWT

    1. Ouch!
      I agree with the sentiment, except I am a Mormon.
      But I agree about Scientology. Does that make me a hypocrite?
      So many mixed messages!

        1. I’ve read a book that said Mohammed never existed. Mind you, it had some stuff that is at least interesting but it was most stunningly credulous of whether its evidence was any good as long as it was against Islam.

          For instance, the root term from which Koran is derived is “lectionary.” It took it as absolute proof that the Koran is in fact a lectionary, a selection of texts used for worship. Never apparently having heard of semantic drift.

        2. Sure we do Sarah. We may not know how ALL religions started, but we know how some have. We know how Mormonism started. We know how Scientology started, we know how the Unification Church and the Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Ba’hai and Rastafaria and Christian Science got started.

          It is, of course, a fair bit fuzzier the further back.

      2. Some of my best and oldest friends are Mormons, really. They’ve never threatened to kill me if i don’t real the Book of Mormon they gave me 30 years ago. Scientology is a cult for sure, but nothing like the goatfuckers’.

        2. I’m going to add something to that. Scientology is a cult for stupid people who think they’re intelligent, who somehow stumbled into fame and fortune. The cult leaders are happy to let them keep their fame, but are carefully trying to separate them from their fortune.

          1. I should add that I read about engrams in Analog way back when, as a science “fact” article. An older issue borrowed from a friends father. I read it as satire- and couldn’t believe anyone took it seriously.

            2. According to a piece by George O. Smith, John W. Campbell was in it up to his eyebrows before there even was a Scientology.

        3. When Stone and Parker came out with the Book of Mormon musical, the LDS church bought ad space in the playbills. I just rolled my eyes as did all the other Mormons I know. Somehow, I don’t see a musical about Islam have the same calm reaction.

          1. Well, maybe if we just invited Islam to compete in some type of sporting event that epitomized goodwill and sportsmanship…

    2. Okay, here’s an answer with zero bullshit: Islam is as much a religion as any; I know lots of Muslims and the ones I know are uniformly appalled at the Salafists and radical Shi’a.

      And if you want to do anything to my friends because they’re Moslem (or Mormon) you can expect me to be between you and them.

      With a shotgun.

      1. I trust you don’t mind if we keep a close eye on them? Because a Muslim who starts practicing his religion as defined by the Koran doesn’t feed the poor or minister to the sick; he straps on a C4 undergarment and finds the nearest crowd of infidels.

        OTOH, if you’re between me and mine and him, I’ll be perfectly happy to let you and yours take the blast. Try to prevent me from keeping that eye on them and I’ll apply that old Arabian saying about the friend of my enemy.

      2. Do I think Islam is the problem?

        Yes and no. Islam is in an interesting place right now. In many countries, the local population can’t even read the koran because it’s not permitted to be published except in Arabic in those countries. Anybody wanting to discuss its tenets has to be educated and part of the ruling class, and to violate that can get you killed, so there’s a lot of people who just know about Islam what their Mullahs or Imams tell them it is.

        In developed nations, there’s debate about Islam, and the various sects kill and destroy each other as much as they’re willing to kill and destroy Christians and Jews.

        Various sects of Christianity went through this. Heck, just look at what “Christians” did to the Mormons in the mid-1800’s. Or what Protestants and Catholics were doing to each other as little as 30 years ago in Ireland. I’m guessing the Jews went through this kind of thing too at some point.

        Things will change when 80% of Muslims worldwide are literate and have internet/tv/radio access and freely debate the content of the Koran, because the radicals will get the rest of Islam pissed enough at it that the people who just want to feed their families and send their kids to school will tell them to shut up or die.

        In the short term, I recommend gunboat diplomacy against rogue nations and against nations who harbor terrorist organizations. Trade does wonders for enlightening people that their neighbors are actually PEOPLE. Plus, we’d have to nuke half the planet to exterminate the Muslims. I’m just not up for that at all.

  56. More Sofia Samatar:

    “@SofiaSamatar
    can we not condemn murder w/o this disgusting posturing about “Western freedom”? in france u can’t even choose whether to cover yr own face.”

    1. Oh, FUCK OFF Sofia. In Arab counties you can’t choose who to marry, whom to kiss, or to work, or to drive a car, or…
      If you don’t see the difference, go and live there.

      1. You would find that if most complainers went and lived there, they would quickly change there tune. Having two family members that have spent extensive time in multiple Muslim nations, I know what their opinions are.
        It involves reducing the region to a glowing bowl of beaded glass.

        1. Most of the ones who go live there DO change their tunes. They either convert or come back with horrific stories of how jacked up it is over there. Britain is even getting a rash of them from those ostensibly recruited as combatants.

          1. Ah yes, the disenfranchised combatants. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
            Then I hear about these western girls that have been talked into marrying these jihadi’s. (Jihadists?) What lies are they believing?
            I feel so bad for their families.

            2. As for the lies they are believing, that they’re buying in to a noble cause, that the exotic (their perspective) foreign guy is going to be like the glamorous bad boys from the movies, and that it’ll be a Hollywood ending. If it weren’t so likely to end so badly I would have little sympathy for them.

      2. Though trying to keep my pressures normalized and my tempers checked I went digging to find out who this (—) was. And I found the beginning of the above referenced twit*:

        @SofiaSamatar

        when you live under white supremacy & Islamophobic paranoia, the line between supporting free speech & bolstering hatred is so thin.

        Twitted* from Ventura, CA.

        Fuck off, indeed. Cowards and imbeciles.

        *deliberate.

        1. To be quite fair, if you’re living in California, you ARE living under a LIBERAL White supremacist regime. They want minorities, but they only want them so they’ll vote Democrat.

  57. Throughout the history of Islam, the religion/culture has been associated with random bands of brigands styling themselves as religious and righteous. When the local governments have, for whatever reason, put them down with some degree of brutality, they have been minor annoyances on the fringes of societies and cultures; bandits who annoyed small villages. When the local governments have, for whatever reason, FAILED to put them down with sufficient brutality, they have become serious problems, often requiring even more brutal campaigns to put down and always causing lots of innocent misery.

    In the 19th Century, under Colonialism, the Western Nations proved again and again that Gunboat Diplomacy worked well against this kind of problem. The local Shah or Potentate was almost certainly as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and probably ostentatiously immoral, but given a choice between fighting his troublesome co-religionists and fighting a Colonial army he almost always chose fighting the Radicals. The Radicals brought him nothing he wanted, and the Colonial powers brought him money he could spend on concubines and toys. It was amoral, it was messy, and it almost always worked.

    The 20th Century saw a revulsion against Colonialism. All of its trappings were self-righteously rejected by prop,me who, for the most part, had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. Under the New Order governments that actually tried to put down the nutters were punished by The International Community (™). Consequently, the barbarians have taken over the middle east and spread into parts of the world we actually care about.

    Furthermore, efforts to begin tactics less destructive than total warfare, but which might actually work, are hamstrung by chattering idiots. The core issues are these;

    1) The Islamic bandits are not going to be appeased. Appeasement has been extensively tried, over many decades, and it doesn’t work. Saying that it will work at some time in the future is prima facie evidence that the speaker is an irrational idiot.

    2) IF the nations of the West are not going to be allowed to use Gunboat Diplomacy, or the modern equivalent, to bring the Islamic nations into line, the alternative is going to be total war, and nobody is going to like the results.

    We need to stop trying to be “Understanding” and Multicultural (™); there is nothing to understand, and their culture is pigshit. We need to start laying down minimum standards of international behavior, enforced by the threat of a really first rate drubbing. Internal behavior is not our problem; you want to keep slaves? Fine. Just don’t raid for them outside of your own borders. You WILL treat Western citizens and Western interests as special cases, because if you don’t we will send violent and very well trained and equipped men to explain why you should.

    We aren’t going to. The Left – the SJWs and their pustulant ilk – will prevent us, right up to the moment when we run amok and end up conquering the Islamic world, Gods help us.

  59. csps –
    in regards to your first paragraph, having spent a great deal of time in the ME (from ’83 to ’05) I can tell you that in Jordan when the palis in Ma’angot restless, King Hussein would send his Bedouins down to get their minds straight. They would proceed to shoot the s**t out of the place and all would be quiet for another few years. This was repeated as necessary.

    1. Two questions:
      1) Are the Bedouins still available?
      2) Can we take up a collection?
      😀

      1. They’re probably trying to keep a lid on the massive refugee population Jordan has right now. The Hashemite Kingdom is not very stable at the moment.

  60. Pingback: Provocation | Something Fishy
  63. Pingback: Je Suis Charlie « The Daily Quixotry
  64. Pingback: Je Suis Sick and Tired of Cant | ACT! for America Houston

Comments are closed.