From my electronic friend Cheryl, who flies pretty frequently between the United States and Honduras:
Airlines: New rules keep passengers in seats
By JOAN LOWY
Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON — Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing
The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.
Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won’t be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.
Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn’t have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.
After all, we can’t have terrorists trying to destroy an airliner as it’s getting ready to land; it is only permissible to try and blow up the plane in mid-flight. After all, it’s not safe to try and destroy an 767 near the landing field; it’s much more practical to do so at 30,000 feet.
The last time I flew was in April, going to and from Fort Jackson. Those flights were only about an hour each, so I guess that no one could have used the head the whole flight.
What would have helped in this situation would have been for the TSA to have not let the terrorist Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab board the plane in the first place: though not on a specific +no fly” list, he was already known for having some ties to al Qaeda. He is not an American citizen; any connection, even a suspected connection, to al Qaeda ought to be sufficient to bar any non-citizen from any flight to the United States. The man, a Nigerian, was coming to the United States from Amsterdam; someone had to pass on his name to allow him to come to the United States in he first place.
There will never be 100% complete security, unless we get to the point of no luggage and all passengers fly naked. But it just seems obvious that there was a ball dropped here: a man with suspected al Qaeda ties was not on the no-fly list. You’d think that a government which claims sufficient wisdom and expertise to run our entire health care system could have done a bit better on a simple thing like this.
Bush dropped the ball. Thank Obama some Ohioan jumped the person trying to cause a man-made disaster or we would’ve had to have EPA clean up the jet fuel over a large swath of land. Oh, and some unimportant people might have maybe died, too.
John Hitchcock:
Bush dropped the ball. Thank Obama some Ohioan jumped the person trying to cause a man-made disaster or we would’ve had to have EPA clean up the jet fuel over a large swath of land. Oh, and some unimportant people might have maybe died, too.
A knee to the lower back while falling would have helped this freedom fighter to never walk again. And his father was trying to warn people he woas up to something no good.
The problem with this is we lose again. To be safe, we must give up so much now. 99.9999999999999+% will do no harm. It’s all that 0.00000000000000000000001% that screws everything up for all of us.
By the way, noting that Cheryl divides her time between the US and Honduras, I took another look at La Gringa’s Blogicito. It seems that, despite the election, and despite the fact that the current presidential term ends in a month, former President Manuel Zelaya isn’t going peacefully, and doesn’t seem to know what he’s going to do from one minute to the next. There are stories of political amnesty, then no amnesty, of safe conduct to a nation which offers him a haven, then reports that none of te other Latin American nations are interested, of a passage to the Dominican Republic and a meeting with President-elect Pepe Lobo, then the Dominican Republic’s president never requesting that Honduras let Mr Zelaya out.
Gee what happened to not searching little old ladies and searching the one who might be planning something?
Harrison:
Gee what happened to not searching little old ladies and searching the one who might be planning something?
That would have been racial profiling.
This get bizarre now. Read this, or at least the first five paragraphs:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wealthy-quiet-unassuming-the-christmas-day-bomb-suspect-1851090.html
Amazing how the Israelis never have this, or any kind of problem on any El Al flights. OF course another way to consider the issue is this:
The wages of diversity: full body scans, FOREVER
Apparently there were no security devices in place to detect the kind of explosive that Abdul Mutallab brought on board the Northwest flight, sewn into his underpants.
[Richard] Clarke said full body scans were needed, “but they’re expensive and they’re intrusive. They invade people’s privacy.”
It may be intrusive, humiliating, violative of our privacy, and damned expensive, but if it’s the only way to prevent terrorist explosions on airliners, then that’s where it’s heading. A full body scan every time you fly anywhere in the Western world, with ticket prices (or taxes) going up considerably to cover the cost of these expensive procedures.
And all because, all because …
… all because we have Muslims in the West. The facts are that a significant portion of Muslims are sharia supporters, and that a significant portion of sharia supporters are potential or active jihadists, and that it’s not possible for us to disentangle the “non-dangerous” Muslims from the dangerous ones, because they are all part of one Islamic community, bound by sacred ties and obligated to defend each other from the infidel. Therefore, as long as a significant number of Muslims remain in the West, and are free to travel in the West, the threat and reality of Islamic domestic terrorism will remain, and we will have to live under these onerous security regimes, undergoing a full body scan every time we take a flight, FOREVER.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We’re not trapped. We have a choice. Sixty years ago, there were no Muslims in the West. All we have to do, then, is … TURN BACK THE CLOCK.
Impossible, you say? It’s not impossible. We just stop letting Muslims into the West, and we tell the ones who are already here that they’re not welcome. And if they don’t leave voluntarily, through a combination of carrots and sticks, then we make them leave. Not because we hate them as individuals, but because, given that their religion commands them to subvert, subjugate, and kill us, the ONLY way that we can be safe and free is if they’re not here.
The liberals and “conservatives” will shriek that to exclude Muslims will make us racist and evil, it will make us “as immoral as the terrorists,” as the editor of a conservative magazine once said to me.
Not so. To quote Bob Dylan:
You will not die
It’s not poison.
…right Horatio?
[This comment edited to repair a broken HTML tag; no changes in content were made. -- DRP]
Yorkshire, his own father blew the whistle on him and we were still dense enough to let him fly on the plane? Makes me wonder exactly what the point of all this newfangled DHS stuff is if we still have the same intelligence-sharing issues that we had before 9/11…
Jeff, I kind of wonder whether it was really his father who blew the whistle on him, but, regardless of that, he was on a notification list, yet that never extended to a no-fly list. There is no automatic right for non-citizens to enter the United States, and entry from most countries requires a visa. It would seem to me that we ought to err on the side of caution, and when someone makes a suspected terrorism list, that’s it, if he is not a citizen with an automatic right to return, he should always be on any no-entry list as far as the US is concerned.
Looks like cbmc slid a little quote from either Hitler or one of his henchmen in to ridicule Horatio’s opinion. Perhaps trying to draw a similarity between what Horatio said about Moslems to what the Nazi’s said about Jews. That could work to intimidate us into suicidal diversity except for one difference. WE are the desease, the carrier, the bacillus to the Moslems. THEY are the ones who think we should be eradicated. It is they who believe we should be murdered, enslaved or converted. They have been showing us that quite vividly since the 70′s. But in the name of political correctness and diversity, let us not over react. I’m not sure who the more serious enemy to our nation and way of life is any more, the leftists among us who perach this diversity nonsense or the actual Moslems who want to murder us and our families.
Well, but the thing is, what Horatio’s saying is pretty much identical to the way nazis talked about Jews: “we should cleanse our land of this scourge”-type stuff. It’s not “trying to ridicule”: it’s pointing out that you xenophobe types really are nazis, from an ideological standpoint. You think the same way as they do: “this entire group of people thinks the same, are degenerate and dangerous,” etc – that’s nazi talk. Sorry that you don’t like sounding like a nazi, JohnC – you’re free to change your beliefs if you don’t like the company they make you keep!
(thanks for the html fix D)
First off, what I posted was a statement by an individual who has written extensively on the subject – see the link.
Now you may think it’s “Nazi” speak, but that rationalization is what has us in the situation we find ourselves in. You don’t want to deal with the reality that there is a rather large group of individuals who, as John noted, think we’re vermin.
Don’t even get me started on the relationship between the Muslim world and Hitler:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
If you can name one other group on an international level that promotes the same hatred of the West as Muslims, please let the rest of us know. That you denigrate the value of Western Civilization in favor of “tolerance” and “diversity” will, as Europe is discovering, result in the end of that which many of us value.
I (and the gentleman I quoted) don’t advocate the extermination of Muslims, or a rounding up of Muslims in concentration camps. We simply want them quarantined from the West. I’m sorry if you find this offensive, but it is apparent that you have suicidal values.
Passengers who smelled smoke, saw where it was coming from, and left their seats is what prevented this jihadi from continuing his efforts to detonate his explosives. Adherence to the new rules would have allowed Mutallab more time to accomplish his terrorist mission.
Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, was on TV today claiming that “the system works” because even though Mutallab was allowed to board the airplane, individual passangers (not air marshals) reacted to prevent an explosion. This is obviously stupid beyond belief, but that’s how Napolitano explains the failure of her agency to protect the homeland.
Next, she compounds the problem. Her response? She initiates new rules which would inhibit passangers from protecting themselves in the future, all the while she does nothing to stop terrorists from flying into the USA. This woman is fool and a disgrace. Osama bin Ladin should be sending her a paycheck.
Horatio wrote:
So, what do you do about Ameriucan citizens who happen to be Muslims? The First Amendment makes it rather difficult for us to ban Islam as a religion.
I saw, in the bottom of a screen-crawl, that Mr Abdulmutallab held a multi-entry visa, and thus had the proper documents to enter and leave the US multiple times, which he apparently did. He traveled all over Europe, and perhaps to Yemen as well. This visa was issued “last year,” according to the screen crawl.
You raise a rather difficult problem for which an initial proposition was offered by this individual. Harsh? Yes. Practical? Probably not.
Amendment 28
Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;
Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;
Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;
Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;
Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;
Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;
Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;
Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;
Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;
Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Let me add one thing I stated above re: the practicality of passing such an Amendment. Had the plane exploded, or if another act of terrorism is committed on American soil or to American interest, i.e. an airplane, then all bets are off.
Jeff:
Yorkshire, his own father blew the whistle on him and we were still dense enough to let him fly on the plane? Makes me wonder exactly what the point of all this newfangled DHS stuff is if we still have the same intelligence-sharing issues that we had before 9/11…
I think I posted that on another thread here. But how knucklehead can we be to have the info gift wrapped and handed to us. I guess they thought it was another Nigerian Banking scam????
Cbmc, I think you missed my point. It is they who are the Nazi’s, not us. We do not advocate murdering, enslaving or converting any one. You used a Nazi quote which is EXACTLY how they see us and instead of applying it to them you inferred it upon Horatio. Furtermore, when they afford equal rights to Christians and Jews (etc) as we do to them, when they permit churches and temples to be built in their countries, when they allow non-moslems to vote (or for that matter anyone), when they respect freedom and democracy in their domain, when they stop bombing us and everyone else, then we should afford them the same here. Until such time they should be treated the same way we would have treated Nazi’s here in 1945.
All German’s weren’t Nazi’s and all Moslems aren’t jihadists. But most German’s allowed the Nazi’s to rule Germany any subsequently burn Europe and most Moslems turn a blind eye to jihad and allow sedition in their mosques.
BTW, according to the liberals the Constitution is a “living document” so it says about Moslems whatever we say it does. If it can’t stop bail-outs, corporate takeovers, Obamacare and cash for clunkers, it can’t stop throwing out Moslems.
Another incident with another Nigerian on the same flight from AMS to DET today.
Cool. Can we exile Christians because of abortion clinic bombers, too? Will co-sign on your plan if you co-sign on mine
(comment above is to Horatio, btw)
Supposedly this Nigerian locked himself in the bathroom for an hour with an “illness”. My paranoia radar says “what kind of illness” especially with no luggage.
cmbc. if we’d simply outlaw abortion, we wouldn’t have to worry about abortion clinic bombers.
you realize that if anybody came with logic like that about other kinds of terrorism, you’d flip your wig, right? for shame.
The Thick Plottens In Detroit Terrorism Act:
Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport (MLive.co.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html
Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport
A Michigan man who was aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 says he witnessed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab trying to board the plane in Amsterdam without a passport.
Kurt Haskell of Newport, Mich., who posted an earlier comment about his experience, talked exclusively with MLive.com and confirmed he was on the flight by sending a picture of his boarding pass. He and his wife, Lori, were returning from a safari in Uganda when they boarded the NWA flight
Read the rest at the link. Interesting. And BO sits and enjoys Hawai’i. The incompetent Napolitano has everything under controlled chaos.
“Discriminate or Die!”
What Next? Body Cavity Searches at Airports?
Look: I’m no military strategist or historian. I have spent no time in any standing army or paramilitary organization. But, as a citizen civilian I have some questions.
First, what next?
Are we all going to be subjected to underwear checks before boarding our flights? If so, Al-Qaeda will soon secrete explosives in body cavities. Will we all be searched there as well? Will the time it takes to travel coast to coast or continent to continent soon approximate medieval travel times?
Is there another, easier way to deal with global terrorism in airports, on trains, and on ships? Might that way involve “profiling?” If so, is it still more important in terms of western values and law that we continue to seriously inconvenience or endanger the majority in order not to collectively punish the presumably innocent-until-proven-guilty minority?
What minority? Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion in the world and currently comprises 1.2-1.3 billion people. I guess I’m talking about the Muslim minority in the West most of whom are not actively involved with terrorism or with known terrorist groups. Or are they? Does anybody really know?
C’mon: The minute I heard that someone had attempted to blow up a plane over Michigan on Christmas Day I did not think: “Oh, the Buddhists (or the neo-Nazi right-wingers) are at it again. We all knew that it was, without doubt, a Muslim terrorist.
So, here are some questions.
Why are we still allowing Muslims from non-western foreign countries to fly into Western countries? Please note: I am not talking about “race” but about a highly politicized “faith.” And, what shall we do about the West’s own homegrown Islamist terrorists? Ground them all? Why not?
Why are we trying Muslim Islamist terrorists who have been captured in battle against us as if they were American citizens, fully entitled to the protection of the American constitution? Why do we want the American taxpayer to fund the care and feeding, not to mention the expensive legal talent for all the obviously guilty Gitmo graduates?
Why does Israel imprison rather than execute Muslim Islamist terrorists who have serious blood on their hands? These men and women live more grandly in an Israeli prison than they do among their own—and then they are ultimately freed at the ratio of 1000:1 when an Israeli (like Gilad Shalit) has been captured and held for ransom. A hundred or a thousand terrorists are swapped for one Israeli soldier or civilian. Why does Israel give such terrorists this kind of incentive?
Why doesn’t the Church rescue or stand up for the Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims (who are not necessarily terrorists) all over the Islamic world? What kind of fear, apathy, defeatist diplomacy is going on here?
But how can the West economically and ideologically afford to take on an Islamist cult of death that is trans-national, which operates from caves and in shadow—and in the hearts and minds of one lone individual after another? It is important to note that many jihadic martyrs come from educated and wealthy families; they are not all the sexually repressed sons of poverty.
How can the West not afford to do so?
Why are the mullahs who rule Amadinejad still alive?
P.S. Carl in Jerurusalem just wrote to tell me that earlier this morning he suggested doing body cavity searches on male Muslims between the ages of 18-50. He describes the kind of security that Israel has and recommends it to all. In his view, based on who has actually hijacked planes, this is the likely target group. He ends his blog by writing: “Discriminate or die.”
Flight 253 passenger: Sharp-dressed man aided terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab onto plane without passport
Contrary to popular belief, women do not go crazy for a sharp-dressed terrorist.
Q – What does every hijacker since 1970 have in common? What does every person who has blown up a commercial airliner have in common?
A – Male Muslim between the ages of 18-50.
After a full day of making a fool of herself claiming, “the system worked,” Nutty Napolitano has now conceded the obvious. She admits the security system that permitted Mutallab to board the aircraft with explosives “failed miserably.”
But, she can’t quite bring herself to acknowledge that it was her agency which failed. On the Today Show and in other interviews this morning, Napolitano blamed the Bush administration.
Rather than confront the issue directly, Napolatino dragged a red herring across the trail. She repeatedly stated the screening procedures currently in use were formulated under the Bush administration.
Napolitano did not however offer any explanation why her agency declined to either follow the Bush procedures or to put new procedures in place. And, of course, none of the professional journalists interviewing Napolatino were so insolent as to ask her such an impertinent question.
This is the way it will be until we get the adults back in charge.
A bit late on this subject, but from my reading, the father did indeed warn more than one embassy about his son. And the watch list is, if I remember right 500,000 people but the no-fly list is less than 10,000.
any non-Christian abortion clinic bombers since 1970? that’d seem to settle the question, Horatio, according to your hilarious style of parsing stats: for the good of the Republic, we need to cavity search Christians before they enter a building.
cbmc, I would suggest all abortion mill bombers were non-Christian by definition.
Come on cbmc, bombing abortion mills is a criminal act not condoned by Christian teachings. Bombing infidels is a Moslem tenant propagated by the Koran and by Moslem “clerics”. Big difference.
The Christian Influence of Revvum Wright:
No Churchgoing Christmas for the First FamilyBy Amy Sullivan / Washington
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1949879,00.html
But I think BO broke silence on the terror attack. Not yet! Maybe 3pm EST
John H: A bit late on this subject, but from my reading, the father did indeed warn more than one embassy about his son. And the watch list is, if I remember right 500,000 people but the no-fly list is less than 10,000.
Anyone know what criteria DHS uses to create the latter list from the former? Is this event proof that we need to re-evaluate those criteria?
JohnC: Bombing infidels is a Moslem tenant propagated by the Koran and by Moslem “clerics”.
You mean clerics like these? You know just enough about the Koran to be dangerous, it seems.
Ok settled it is, then.
I got the special search treatment (which wasn’t complete enough to catch this weapon) twice in my previous travels. And I have a “heads-up” for those who don’t want the special search treatment, those of you who don’t have surgical implants. If you got surgical implants, like my mother’s 2 hip replacements and her card saying so, you get the special search treatment anyway. Otherwise… One search was because I changed departure times when I arrived at the airport to an earlier departure. That’s an automatic search. The other may have had to do with my beard, which wasn’t neatly trimmed, and my hat, which says CHEMICAL in big letters across the top and Ft Leonard Wood, MO in smaller letters across the bottom.
And, no, I was not at all offended by the special treatment. Just one, where I bumped up my flight, I was worried I’d miss it as they were boarding at the time.
One ought to ask, “dangerous to whom?”
Oh, but it’s a “lovely” little book; and there is ample evidence in its pages and jihadist proclamations as to why modern liberals – i.e., political and social totalitarians – find it so simpatico.
The image of masses lined up ass to nose in serried ranks; in a room with no exit. Is that Stalinism, liberalism or Islam?
“… kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them….”
” … The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned …”
” O Prophet! urge the believers to war … Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful …”
“And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise”
Thank you DNW. I was just about to get out my Koran and quote these suras myself and a few more. Seems Jeff knows so little about the Koran and his Moslem friends to be real dangerous.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
Deuteronomy 7:1-2
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
…wait, don’t tell me: for these, you’ll be cool with historical context, right?
So, cbmc, you’re cool with pointing out a Jewish law and the form of law to follow (which you reject in its entirety) as an example of how someone can act outside the law?
First of all cmbc, these are Old Testament therefore, Jewish not Christian texts. Secondly, we are not a dictatorial theocracy, Moslem society is. Their Koran has the force of law, our bible can’t even be read in schools.
Also cmbc, if everyone on earth lived a Christian, or Christ-like life, we would need neither airport security nor police at all.
I’m sure every time you hear of a bombing the first thing you think of is: those crazy suicide Christians are at it again. Right?
I believe the Old Testament is as valuable as the New Testament for Christians. I liken the Old Testament to a mirror and the New Testament to a brush or comb, whichever you’re more comfortable using. But the Old Testament is most definitely Jewish (which is why Christians have such an affinity for the Jewish people).
Sorry John Hitchcock, I did not intend to lessen the value of the OT. I was merely pointing out that the OT is Jewish law and that pointing out Jewish law and applying it to Christians is bad logic.
This from the UK, The Sun:
FAILED plane bomber Umar Abdulmutallab has bragged to FBI agents that there are more young men plotting to launch attacks on the West.
The 23-year-old Nigerian has told security chiefs of a sinister network in Yemen who are ready and waiting to strike.
The reports come after The Sun revealed that cops fear that 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners.
The fanatics, in five groups, are now training at secret terror camps in Yemen.
It was there London-educated Abdulmutallab prepared for his Christmas Day bid to blow up a US jet.
The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London.
They are due to return to the UK early in 2010 and will then await internet instructions from al-Qaeda on when to strike.
A Scotland Yard source said: “The great fear is Abdulmutallab is the first of many ready to attack planes and kill tens of thousands.
“We know there are four or five radicalised British Muslim cells in the Yemen.
“They are due back within months when they will be under constant surveillance.”
The 25 suspects, of Pakistani and Somali descent, were radicalised in UK mosques.
Some had been to university and studied engineering or computer sciences.
Others were former street gang members.
You will notice cmbc, they were radicalized at mosques. They were educated at British universities. While we teach or kids political correctnes and give them diversity training, they are teaching theirs to murder us and our families. You can moan all you want about how bad Christians are but when I was in Sunday school I learned “Jesus Want’s Me For A Sunbeam”, not how to chant “Death To America”.
Although, arguably our universities do teach students to chant “Death To America”.
Oh no! All these terrorist attacks against the US for many years have had ties to Mohammedanism. We need to protect those who worship Mohammedanism from the rest of our citizens while we refuse to “profile” anyone. We don’t need to bother determining which forms of Mohammedanism are presenting these terrorists and start watching them more closely because that would be intolerant of us. We need, rather, to watch Fundamentalist Christians, NRA members and Veterans because they are the most dangerous.
I love it John Hitchcock. I believe the term “Mohammedism” is an insult to Moslems. Now I may start using it.
First of all cmbc, these are Old Testament therefore, Jewish not Christian texts. Secondly, we are not a dictatorial theocracy, Moslem society is. Their Koran has the force of law, our bible can’t even be read in schools.
like clockwork. examples of insane Christians, insane Christian teachings, insane things done by Christians in the name of their religion (which includes the Old and New Testament, if you please; check Matthew 5:18; trying to beg off the Old Testament is a cowardly move) — oh, those aren’t real Christians. The real ones, they’re swell guys. Fine enough! But if you have a grain of integrity in your brain, you have to do the same for Islam – there’s no shortage of Islamic clerics who condemn terrorism, can give as many nonsense explanations of how insane stuff in their scriptures “doesn’t count” as part of their religion as you can for your insane Bible. but as long as you’re championing the one and attacking the other, you’re throwing stones from a glass house.
That’s pretty much it: to try and hoist you on “your own” petard, even it it’s not quite your own and not quite as they represent it.
‘Course, on the other hand, and as we have repeatedly seen; point out to a lefty that his view of the nature of human-being and humanity itself, pretty much cancels any natural kinds based, or even rationally binding (non-idealist) claim he might have on the moral fellowship of others, or even on any consideration of theirs for his own continued existence, and he’ll freak out. And, then start babbling incoherently and in non-sequiturs about “sentience” and alluding to all it supposedly, but actually doesn’t, entail.
Yeah so, rat, dog, boy, mankind, it’s all the same to them when it comes to evaluating moral and ontological categories, especially when they are feeling in a debunking kind of mood.
But now, please take note that when the lefty itself feels pain, and anxiety (which is the leftist version of consciousness) that supercedes everything. And that, is therefore, to be the standard by which sentient desires are measured when it comes to his own “right” to stake claims on the attention and life energies of other men. And isn’t that just special.
Well, they certainly seem to think so.
Oh, …
Judges:
[...] of Homeland Security will doubtlessly come up with some new security measures concerning this. We’ve already seen the first one, and it’s pure idiocy. Whether DHS comes up with something that makes a bit more sense still [...]
Okay cbmc, first of all please don’t start pulling a Pho by calling me cowardly, or insane or without integrity because I disagree with you. Name calling isn’t making your point.
Secondly, if the bible stated that it is okay to kill anyone with the initials cbmc, it wouldn’t matter. The bible isn’t law. But if the Koran stated it’s okay to kill anyone with the initials cbmc I wouldn’t take bets on your continued existance if you lived in Yeman. The Koran has the force of law. That’s my only point.
Finally, there are crazies and insane wack-o’s in all groups. Hell, look at ACORN. My point is that murder and brutality are codefied in Moslem law. Christians have done crappy things through history. We also grew out of it. Moslems are still back living in 1200 AD.
JohnC, cmbc’s right, the Old Testament is used as a justification for slaughter. The only reason there aren’t more Baruch Goldsteins is because there are only 12 million of us and 1.2 billion Muslims. And it’s generally not a good idea to try to convince a Jew that Christianity can’t be used to justify mass murder. Yeah, that’s never happened. Up until the 19th century the Muslims were far nicer to us than y’all were.
Anyway, let me wander over to my bookshelf for a second… finding a random page…
“To spend of your substance out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity, to fulfill the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient in pain or suffering and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic; such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.” (2:177)
flip flip flip
“Repel evil with that which is best: We are well-acquainted with the things they say.” (23:96 – essentially, the Muslim equivalent of the Christian “judge not lest ye be judged”)
“Verily Man is in loss, except such as have faith, and do righteous deeds, and join together in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.” (102:2-3)
“Say: O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your way, and to me mine.” (109:1-6)
“But if any reject faith, let not his rejection grieve thee.” (31:23)
Another little note: The first line JohnC quotes is prefaced by this: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.” And it ends not with “such is the recompense of unbelievers” but “such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” (2:190-1) So JohnC cited, as proof of the Koran’s supposed violence, a verse which actually forbids fighting unless someone’s trying to fight you!
I quoted from earlier bits of Surah 2 above. Later on in that surah: “Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error; whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.” (2:256)
Jeff, a lot of people claim to be Christians but are not. They can stand in the garage all day long and still not become a car. Not even if they go “Vroom VROOOOOOOOM!!” They still will not become a car. Claiming to be a Christian and actually being one are two different things. And that’s where cbmc strays. He attributes to a faith people who are not of that faith. And I didn’t know (or forgot) you are Jewish. You prolly don’t want to read an article I wrote a while back (which I won’t link) cause it might make you a bit mad and stuff.
It’s all logic based on “religion” anyway.
Well Jeff and cbmc, I could be wrong but when a bomb goes off just about anywhere in the world, Episcopalians, Catholics and Baptists don’t jump all over each other trying to take credit. I’m just sayin’.
John H: You mean the one about the Jews and the anti-Christ? I read that article on your site some time ago, actually. I’m not offended by it at all. It’s a statement originally made by Rev. Falwell some time ago, and while I was no fan of Falwell’s I’m willing to admit that he got a bum rap in that instance. (I lampooned Falwell at the time, but I was also 17 or so when he said that originally and I knew very little about – and actually had an active antipathy towards – Christianity in general.)
But back to the topic at hand, I think there’s a bit of “no true Scotsman” in your statement. Like it or not, the people who committed the massacres of Jews during the Crusades and the Black Plague (among others) professed Christianity. They were bad Christians but they were Christians. Just like I won’t deny that Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein were Jews – they were just really bad Jews. Same goes for the Muslims that commit acts of terror today. They’re Muslims – just rotten ones, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most respected Muslim clerics.
We can state the religious proclivities that drive people to violence without prejudice, in my opinion. It’s when we use those people to dismiss the entire religion as evil when we run into trouble. That’s the same whether the religion in question is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or whatever.
Well Jeff and cbmc, I could be wrong but when a bomb goes off just about anywhere in the world, Episcopalians, Catholics and Baptists don’t jump all over each other trying to take credit. I’m just sayin’.
Neither do 99% of Muslims. What’s your point?
(Oh, and have you not been paying attention to Northern Ireland in recent decades?)
My point is that 1% of Moslems is about 12 million people. That’s a shit load of an army that wants to kill you because you are a Jew. And they’re all over the place, perhaps even your neighbor or mine. Now you can reach back to 1000AD and the Crusades or to 1350 and the plague, but I’m talking here and now. Not history, current events. We’ve had ten or twelve separate incidents of terrorism or attempted terrorism in the US this year. From the guy trying to blow up a building in Seattle to the Ft. Hood killings to this underwear bomber. ALL (100%) were Moslems. So please don’t tell me about 99% of anything. That 1% is trying to kill us and they represent 100% of the terrorists.
John C.:
From the guy trying to blow up a building in Seattle to the Ft. Hood killings to this underwear bomber. ALL (100%) were Moslems. So please don’t tell me about 99% of anything. That 1% is trying to kill us and they represent 100% of the terrorists.
How many muslim leaders have come out and condemned violence?
York,
No Muslim leaders are going to condemn jihadi violence, to do so would not only violate the Koran, it would signal an immediate death warrant. While kindness and compassion are present within Islam, such sentiments are reserved exclusively for interaction among Muslims. Murder or forced conversion and slavery are the only fates Islam allows for infidels.
Jihad is a core religious duty for Muslims. Idiots in the West, especially in colleges and universities, have tried to conceal Jihad’s true nature by claiming it’s an inner struggle for virtue, like some sort of a Middle Eastern self-improvement program. But that’s pure gibberish, and Muslims know it full well, even if gullible professors and their ignorent followers have swallowed the deadly fiction.
Jihad is exactly what Allah and Muhammad have explained: Jihad is the violent death or subjugation of non-believers.
Fools here who opine on the topic should actually inform themselves about Islam before they spread lies attempting to equate it with Christianity or Judaism, neither one of which commands its adherents to murder and enslave non-believers. The call to jihad for Muslims differs greatly from the call to observe the Golden Rule.
How many muslim leaders have come out and condemned violence?
Lots.
So, some people do evil, but no set of metaphysical doctrines taken as a system, ever leads to it by virtue of its logical content and an adherence to its principles?
Emphasis added.
One obvious point would be that you have pulled your statistics out of the same fantasy hole you have pulled much of your history.
If you have a reputable cite for that 99% figure, maybe you would like to post it.
In one study, when asked explicitly about attacks on American civilians in the United States, the percentage among those Muslims in the surveyed countries who were willing to announce their opinions, and either strongly or mildly approved of such attacks, were found to range from about 8 to 20 or more percent.
“
In every instance, some part of the interviewed population from 3 percent in Egypt to 14 or so percent in Indonesia or Pakistan, “didn’t know” or did not respond to the question.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
Another obvious point, taking the first quote as a basis, would be that some religions are in fact evil; unless of course, you are convinced that Satanism or Thuggee are simply misunderstood fraternal or criminal organizations. “Welcome to the Golden Dawn Benevolent Society”
You then might even be able to make out a case for suttee, as … say, “a mere cultural practice” rather than a religious belief.
Or take Aztec and Maya blood sacrifices. Religion or mere cultural practice? I think the consensus among students of these poeple is “religion”. Concerning which, one particularly imbecilic Maya scholar was shown on television emoting to the effect that “… it’s not so different in concept from Christianity really, sacrificing some people for the benefit of others, and the harvest and rains”. She continued, witlessly “quoting” scripture: “for no greater love hath any man than that he would lay down his life …”
So, these activities: mere cultural practices and behavioral aberrations; or, impelled by religious convictions?
If religion, and if no religion is evil, then you had better rethink any condemnatory position you might hold on the ideology of Naziism. The case can be made that it was after all – and as a number of non-occultic writers have observed – a kind of religion too, having historically developed in part from the ideological impetus received from a number of cultic belief systems promoted in Germany and dating to the period before World War 1.
Of course not all Nazis had been Ariosophists or anti-semitic sun worshipping nudists, but you wouldn’t call those beliefs in themselves evil, would you?
“You see after three generations of living in the same place, a mystical connection is established between the blood and the soil and …”
John C observed:
That’s a potato too hot for them to handle, even though it was baked in their own ideological oven.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/poll_a_quarter_.html
DNW: Your USA Today link points to Sarah Palin’s vindictiveness to her former son-in-law, Levi Johnston. Did you really want us to read that?
Now back to responding to your post:
I wonder about the poll results if the same questions were asked of American Christians. My guess is that most professing Christians would put Christ first, America second. So what is the big deal about Muslims in the UK responding in like manner as Christians?
And talk about suicide bombings, how about extremist activities at abortion clinics, to the point of killing the doctors who run them? Don’t forget, abortion, within certain restrictions, is legal!
My point, religious extremists are extremists, independent of the religion to which they happen to belong. Religious leaders teach absolutism, which is an anathema to any working democratic government, because there is no compromising allowed. It’s a problem that we may never overcome internally, because of the influence of our religious extremists, of whom we have a few on this very blog!
Yorkshire:“The problem with this is we lose again. To be safe, we must give up so much now. 99.9999999999999+% will do no harm. It’s all that 0.00000000000000000000001% that screws everything up for all of us.”
Yorkshire, you didn’t get your zero count in synch with your nines. But that’s OK, I get your point!
My point is that Obama’s instinct to extend his hand to our enemies, may add a couple of more nines to the right of the decimal point, a good thing!
OH BS. Why then have Jews settled in Europe for hundreds of years vs settling in the Middle East? Could it be that they recognized that Christian Europe, as a whole, was much more enlightened and “Tolerant” than the Islamic world?
Eric, check your history. Jews have lived in the Middle East for the past 4000 years, including during the times it was ruled by Muslims. Jews were given far more freedom in Muslim Spain and the Ottoman Empire than anywhere in Europe, and in most cases this applies to the rest of the Muslim world as well.
Not to mention, big difference in the numbers attacked. “Victims” of abortion attacks = maybe half a dozen. Victims of Islamic terror = thousands. It’s pretty obvious which is the greater threat.
Well, DUH, I’m talking about since Islam came along, and forced both Jews and Christians to live as subservient subjects in their own lands that the Muslims had invaded. It’s interesting that almost all the world’s notable Jews came from Europe, where they got educations and opportunities not available in the Muslim Middle East. Where were the Middle Eastern Jewish equivalents to Einstein and Freud, for example?
Spain, which had been invaded by Islamic hordes going back to the 7th century or so, and which spent centuries fighting to get its freedom back. True, once that occurred, they expelled the Jews, but that’s probably because they saw them as collaborators with the enemy, and thus not to be trusted.
Well, the Crusades, despite all the efforts to paint them in politically correct tones (I.e., evil white male Christian imperialists oppressing a peaceful indigenous people) were in fact a reaction to Islamic aggression. Indeed, from the very start, Islam has been a religion of aggression, spreading the “Faith” primarily by means of the sword. Muslims today still whine about the Crusades, but think their wars of conquest from the Middle East across North Africa and into Spain were just groovy. Hypocrisy, anyone?
“Peace in our time”, right?
Perry wrote: “DNW: Your USA Today link points to Sarah Palin’s vindictiveness to her former son-in-law, Levi Johnston. Did you really want us to read that?”
It apparently points to Levi’s “fears” that she may be vindictive.
And while I don’t care if you read it, it was not my intention to send you there. And you can see that the http address and date doesn’t match up with the content actually presented now.
Try this link for essentially the same content:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2244293620070522?pageNumber=1
So, you missed all of the figures I linked to rebutting the claim that 99% of Muslims rejected violence …
It’s interesting that almost all the world’s notable Jews came from Europe, where they got educations and opportunities not available in the Muslim Middle East. Where were the Middle Eastern Jewish equivalents to Einstein and Freud, for example?
Maimonides, Nachmanides, Saadia Gaon, Judah Ha-Levi… seriously, Eric, don’t talk about things you clearly don’t know much about.
So, you missed all of the figures I linked to rebutting the claim that 99% of Muslims rejected violence …
…by citing figures saying that vast majorities of Muslims reject violence. Congratulations, you made by citing facts the argument that I made by hyperbole.
Jeff
Ah, what’s 20 percent here or there when Jeff is trying to make a point, eh?
So, “hyperbolic” is what you call making numbers up? LOL You’re full of shit Jeff, and you were caught out spouting it.
Ok, I have a party to go to.
Have fun folks.
Except almost no one knows anything about those guys. I have barely heard of the first, and not any of the rest.
In contrast, the people I named are world famous. And I could just as easily come up with a dozen more.
Jeff:
How many muslim leaders have come out and condemned violence?
Lots.
Thanks. I figured there were some out there willing to speak up. But until countries like Yemen and Somalia keep a safe place for Al-Q, we will get the same.
DNW:“So, you missed all of the figures I linked to rebutting the claim that 99% of Muslims rejected violence …”
No, but you have no concept, DNW, of how outright biased and one sided you are. Too many hours in the courtroom prosecuting or defending someone? — That’ll do it to the weak kneed!
How do you think Muslims interpreted our unprovoked aggression against Iraq? Against Afghanistan? Arming and supporting Israel against all her neighbors? Listening to our Christian extremists attempts to make all Muslims out to be fanatics?
You need to step back, DNW, with your thinking cap in place, with your mouth taped shut and your hands clothed in mittens, for at least a week, while you give some thought to your own extremism, which is quite obvious!
Except almost no one knows anything about those guys. I have barely heard of the first, and not any of the rest.
You’re arguing that your own conspicious ignorance should set the standard for the rest of us?
The Dunning-Kruger effect strikes again.
Except almost no one knows anything about those guys. I have barely heard of the first, and not any of the rest.
Really? You’ve barely heard of Maimonides? Your knowledge of Jewish thought has a huge gap between Jesus and, like, 1850… perhaps you might want to do some reading up before you make sweeping claims about Jewish intellectual life, eh?
But until countries like Yemen and Somalia keep a safe place for Al-Q, we will get the same.
True. Those “countries” have one thing in common – a complete lack of an effective central state. Yemen has a government, and it’s actively trying to help us, but it’s completely ineffective in the vast tribal areas. Somalia doesn’t even have a government to speak of. Perhaps an effective anti-terror strategy would be thinking of ways to bring central government power to areas currently devoid of it?
DNW: Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.
Man, my sarcastic 99% quip was pretty darn close, I guess…
There goes Perry spreading his lies and trying to silence someone again.
“You need to step back, DNW, with your thinking cap in place, with your mouth taped shut and your hands clothed in mittens, for at least a week, while you give some thought to your own extremism, which is quite obvious!”
Perry, it does not help the liberal view if you guys keep saying those who disagree should be silenced or re-educated. Not cool. Just argue your point and leave the taping of mouths to the extremists.
Scratch a Liberal, find a Fascist.
Perry wrote:
Well, let’s see, the September 11th attacks took place in 2001, before the war in Iraq and before the war in Afghanistan. So, what had we done before that?
Well, President Clinton had labored long and hard to fashion a Middle East peace agreement, only to have Yassir Arafat throw it back in his face after Ehud Barak had agreed to it. President Bush, having seen the failures of President Clinton in working at the top levels, was trying a more incremental approach, but, other than having sent General Zinni on a research mission to the region, hadn’t really done anything in Middle East foreign policy at the time. In Afghanistan, we supplied weapons to the mujahadin, to help them fight off the Soviets; in Bosnia, we had defended Muslims against supposedly Ortyhodox Christians.
Do I need to repost the YouTube of the Palestinians celebrating in the streets on news of the September 11th attacks?
All of the things you decry came after September 11th, came after the bombing of the USS Cole, came after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. If post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, then pro hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical impossibility.
[...] the comments on this thread, we have a rather lively discussion on the attitudes in the Muslim world. Some have said that it is [...]
All of the things you decry came after September 11th, came after the bombing of the USS Cole, came after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
Uh-huh. But you forget the crusades, where the Pope and various European monarchs attacked Arabs. Surely this justifies the September 11th attacks in retaliation.
No, wait – that doesn’t make sense. It’s almost as stupid as attempting to justify an aggressive war against Iraqis based on a terrorist attack by Saudi Arabians…
All wogs are the same to you, aren’t they, Dana?
Yes, and I’ll wager 90% of non-Jews would answer the same way. Apparently his influence was mainly with Jews, and few others. But that wasn’t really my point, which was that, for all the supposed “Oppression”, far more famous and influential Jews came out of Europe than the Middle East. I daresay 99% of the world has heard of Einstein, and at least 90% for Freud. That’s because they had world-wide influence, and came out of countries where learning and achievement were valued. They didn’t come out of Middle Eastern mud holes, where the “Civilization” peaked about a thousand years ago.