At some point, we're going to have to "call the ball": Either our efforts to prevent a new dark age from descending are bearing fruit, or not.
If not, we then have to consider other options, among them, whether the right play is some form of archive and bunkering, to lay the seeds for the next rennaissance.
Rather than drone on with the tired line of the "Hollywood elite" hating America, why don't you write your congressmen and ask him why we are equiping Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars (or is it billions?) in arms. Didn't 15 of the 19 hijackers come from there?
Write your congressmen and ask him/her why a "weak liberal" like Barack Obama is the only one saying we should be in Pakistan right now, rooting out and eliminating a fully reconstituted Al Qaeda, once again capable of striking our homeland? Didn't George Bush say that if you harbor terrorists than you are a terrorist country?
Hmm..let's see here...Pakistan harbors terrorists...Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists....UAE (2 hijackers from there) harbors terrorists and oh, is also the new home of Haliburton...Egypt produced Mohammed Atta (also getting military equipment from us)...Lebanon (1 hijacker from there) harbors terrorists. All are allies...all had Al Qaeda in their respective countries on 9-11-2001 and what did we do? We:
a. Did a half ass job in Afghanistan so we could
b. Do a worse ass job in Iraq, a country that had less Al Qaeda in it than Florida did in 2001.
Until you start looking at the big picture and the real reason why our nation is going to collapse, I think you are going to be frustrated my friend.
Kevin, you are suggesting the torture is ok? Better be carefull, you'll end up supporting my idea (though you've panned it before)
BAN ISLAM IN THE US!
see: http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html (for the complete text)
Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to 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;
paragraphs deleted due to space limitations
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.
Many thanks to Scott for authoring this and submitting to our inbox.
No, but I'm not surprised that you read it that way.
And that's the last time you get to use my comment section to promote your "Amendment" proposal. Next time I delete it. Fair warning. Blogspot is still free. You're welcome to start your own blog and promote any idea you want, but this is my bandwidth. Capisce?
Pollyanna that I am, I like to think of the current Hollywood proclivity to churn out one traitorous movie after another as merely a fad that will soon go the way of the Dodo, as it is replaced by something else. Let's say films that people actually want to see rather than cartoons come to life or the occasional blockbuster staring lil Matty Damon. I cannot of course suspend my disbelief when confronted with lil Matty actually fighting grown men, but the chicks really dig him and he'll get as much work as he can handle. Not having seen the movie...I understand it is replete with poorly done gun-action non-shots...I cannot express an opinion on it other than the fact that I personally would never pay cash money to watch him do much of anything.
"like to think of the current Hollywood proclivity to churn out one traitorous movie after another"
So, fits, what is more traitorous? Making a movie which questions an outdated, narrow minded belief system? Or sending arms to Saudi Arabia, a country that produced 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers?
"I am simply pointing out that if you follow President Bush's logic about the threat of terrorism, then why do the Saudis get a free pass?"
Because we have no legal justification to invade Saudi Arabia, and their Kingdom doesn't murder hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? And no matter what, we still need their oil?
Because at this time, petroleum distillates are the ONLY WAR SUITABLE energy source.
Yes, we have many sources of energy, but there is only one you can use to make war. (Nukes & coal are useful to the navy, in a limited capacity)
In the 19th century, the war suitable energy source was food, men, and horses, which were widely distributed and commonly available. In the 20th century, this is no longer the case.
The simple, brutal truth is this: he who has control of some critical portion of the current war suitable energy source can make war at will against he who does not.
It really is that simple.
The astute student will recognize that the entire history of the 20th century has been one gigantic game of Go over who shall have control over some critical portion of it.
No model or understanding of history can be complete or correct if it does not take into major account who _can_ make war upon whom, and this chart is the key:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8
Top 20 countries 1224.5 (95%)
Rest of world 68.1 (5%)
World total 1,292.6
Everything else, however how true or worthy or noble, is subject to cancellation at cannonpoint.
But Kevin, here's where I just don't get it. Saudi Arabia produced 15 of the 19 hijackers. At this time, they are funding terrorism in the Middle East. We know this. They don't care.
Iraq had no Al Qaeda in their country, did not produce any 9-11 terrorists, and was a secular country. So that invasion is legal and the Saudi one would not be?
I am not saying necessarily that I advocate a full scale invasion of Saudi Arabia but I am just trying to understand, based on what you have posted here, where you are coming from. I don't see Hollywood directors running around holding hands with the Saudi head of state. I see President Bush doing that. I find this revolting and extremly hypocritical.
No Mark, you are saying that we should listen to Obama "the wise" and invade a country that: 1) Has nuclear weapons; 2) A conscriptable population of 39 Million; 3) Is currently being lead by a man who, unpopularly in Pakistan, aids us at times and; 4) Is likely one bullet or bomb away from becoming openly hostile.
Did I mention that we, and the rest of the Afghan peacekeepers, take most of our supplies to Afghanistan on Pakistani roads? Or that the rest fly over Pakistani airspace?
Geek, add our daily consumption of oil to that analysis. Go see http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
The U.S. currently consumes 20.802 million barrels of oil per day. Our total reserve of 21.4 billion barrels would be exhausted in 1,028 days, or only 2.8 years.
Your analysis is spot-on. If the oil exporting countries chose to shut off their exports, they could bring this country to its knees inside of a year and strangle it shortly thereafter. To those who think otherwise, go read your history; the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan and Japan chose war as a remedy, which didn't work.
Hence our efforts at diplomacy with those who have oil. Those who do not remember the past ...
"Iraq had no Al Qaeda in their country, did not produce any 9-11 terrorists, and was a secular country. So that invasion is legal and the Saudi one would not be?"
Iraq was in a state of cease-fire after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq had willingly violated the terms of that cease-fire on multiple occasions. Iraq had countless UN resolutions passed against it for violations of the terms of that cease-fire, many of which had to do with it not living up to its agreements in terms of documenting the dismantling of its WMD programs - you know, the ones Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore complained so bitterly about? The ones that prompted Bill Clinton to fire some cruise missiles at Iraq in 1998?
Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine $25,000. He harbored Abu Abbas, and credible reports tell us that he was running or at least sponsoring terrorist training camps inside Iraq. According to George Tenet in his book, At the Center of the Stormreports:
"in July 2001, an associate of Zarqawi had been detained and, during interrogations, linked (Abu Musab al-)Zarqawi with al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. Tenet also wrote in his book that Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, "assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners," arrived in Baghdad in May 2002 and were engaged in "sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps."
May 2002 predates the invasion. This is direct government involvement in the sponsorship of terrorism. Next up on the plate were Uday and Qusay, arguably nuttier and more vicious than their own father.
You keep using that word, "illegal." I do not believe it means what you think it means.
The Saudis may be sponsoring terror directly out of the King's palace, but they are not as blatant about it as Saddam was. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not in violation of the terms of a cease-fire after a previous war. While money may be pouring from Saudi Arabia into the coffers of Hizbolla, Fatah, etc., insofar as we can prove it's not coming directly out of the government, it's coming from individuals. Saudi Arabia does not appear to be building chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
We had a case for war against Iraq. We do not have one against Saudi Arabia. And we sure as hell don't have one against Pakistan, no matter what Obama might think.
Actually, you are advocating the civil suicide- not your countrymen. You countrymen are trying to keep America alive. You advocate empire, which always leads to the downfall of that country. It also has the side of effect of decreasing liberties at home.
This is what is happening now. Liberties at home are being sacrificed for a unwinninable and worthless war. The decline of the US is occurring because of this war.
You want the US to prosper- end the wars, bring the troops home, and end the federal war on liberty. You know, what the Founders would do. A good start is to support Ron Paul in his candidacy for President.
Empire, Matt? Do we demand tribute from Japan and Germany? Last I noted, we bought their cars and stereos, and they made a profit on them. Do we take the oil from the Middle East, or do we pay for it?
Let me repeat myself: You keep using that word, "Empire." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Kevin, I just figured out why your post resonating with me so much. There was something about it that I couldn't quite put into words but now I think I have two of them that sum up why I disagree with your views on Hollywood.
Pat Tillman
Y'see, Kevin, Pat Tillman was Sgt. John M. Stryker and Lt. Col. Robert 'Dutch' Holland all rolled into one. He walked away from millions of dollars in the NFL to defend his country after the 9-11 attacks. He was a "liberal" who didn't go to church, read Noam Chomsky, and had hippie degenerates for parents. But he still went to fight because he believed, as did I and most Americans, in the war in Afghanistan.
He did not, however, believe in the Iraq War, calling it a "fucking illegal war" and a distraction from the fight against the people who actually attacked us. On April 22, 2004 he was deliberatly murdered by his fellow troops for being a "traitor." On July 27 of this year, documents were released from the Army that plainly state that the doctors that performed the autopsy suspected that Tillman was deliberatly murdered.
It's not Hollywood's fault, Kevin. It's the people who are actively engaged in furthering a warped sense of patriotism wrapped in a sea of lies. Back in Stryker's day, the bad guys were on the other side. Today, they are on ours.
>> On July 27 of this year, documents were released from the Army that plainly state that the doctors that performed the autopsy suspected that Tillman was deliberatly murdered.
And those documents also descibed how that suspicion resulted in a criminal investigation that concluded quite the opposite of Markadelphia's assertions.
Quote:
---------
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
---------
Making statements with confidence doesn't make it true, or hide the conspiracy theory tinfoil hat.
Not that this will dissuade our erstwhile resident troll any mind you, or cause him to re-evaluate his dogged dedication to casting the US as somewhere between "bad guys" and "too morally corrupt to take any action in the world".
He'll be back with another rhetorical grenade for us to diffuse soon enough, I'm sure.
As for me, though, I'm pretty much done with discussing subjects of gravity with the deliberately obtuse.
What I see is a pretty systematic focus on the basest and less noble acts of America - and very little time dedicated to the good aspects.
Most of the time soldiers are depicted as blood-thirsty babykillers or naive victims of oppression. Hollywood, in most cases, likes soldiers only when they "speak truth to power" or "reveal their inner fears and weaknesses" - in any case, when they do not behave much like soldiers.
Yes, I think that what lies at the root of all this is a deep dislike for the Western (and in particular American) civilization. And when our civilization is confronted by another culture, which may be primitive and brutal but has no post-modern malaise - the outcome can be fatal.
First off, I don't consider myself to be a troll. I enjoy debate and respect many of the people that post here. I also don't post on any other blogs as regularly as I do here (or my own)
As far as the Tillman death goes:
1. There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.
2. The three-star general responsible for witholding details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months, told investigators "he had a bad memory, and couldn't recall details of his actions" on more than 70 occasions.
3. Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding criminal investigation as they concluded Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.
4.Army doctors told the investigators that these wounds suggested murder and urged them to launch a criminal investigation.
5. It has been revealed that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the second group that encountered Pat's squad.
Questions remain about the close formation of the shots that were fired into Tillman's body as well as the new revelation that there were snipers there not mentioned in previous reports. The investigation into this is far from over.
Insult me all you want but at the end of the day at least I don't blindly follow what my government tells me to be true.
If Tillman was murdered -- which seems unlikely -- it would have been for a very serious reason. Rangers don't kill their own over something frivolous, and as my ex-ranger husband says, nobody would've cared about Tillman's opinion of the war. The most common reasons for soldiers to kill one of their own are: dangerous behavior through incompetence or being too gung-ho, extremely toxic personality, suspicion of defection or treason, or desertion.
Irrespective of the truth about this, it was not Tillman's job as a soldier to question anything. A soldier is an apolitical creature. His job is to do exactly as the elected people say. (In fact, in my husband's native Finland, you can be court martialed for political talk.) Furthermore, you don't ever sign up for a specific theater, you sign up for the cause. Too bad for Tillman if he didn't agree with the Iraq war.
By the way, what the heck is with this irritatingly persistent "illegal" meme? Illegal according to what authority?
Sarah, the invasion of Iraq was legal in the sense that it was in accord with certain UN resolutions that the gubmint of Iraq had previously accepted and agreed, in writing, to abide by. The loony left will not admit now that this is true nor will they admit that they previously agreed both that it is true and that the invasion was necessary. So, they call the invasion "illegal". They depend on the short memory and the gullibility of the sheeple, and it works.
Sarah, something else to add to what I said above as well as address DJ's comment. I want to clarify that there are those of us--many people--that view the Afghan invasion as just and necessary and the Iraq War as completely not.
These are two separate conflicts that have been tied together with a lie, firmly grounded in a misguided sense of patriotism. So, when we talk about the "war" some of us would define it as the conflict to eliminate terrorism as a tactic (and all support systems at their disposal)-not Iraq which is about something else entirely.
If we had not deposed Saddam, what would he be doing right now with us in Afghanistan? Would the sanctions still be in place, since those sanctions were hurting "the children" in Iraq, but didn't seem to be affecting Saddam's "Oil for Palaces" program? Would Iraq and Iran be in a nuclear arms race? Would he still be sponsoring terrorist training camps and harboring terrorists? Paying the families of suicide bombers in Afghanistan in addition to those in Israel and Gaza? Providing enhanced IEDs like the Iranians are? Slipping Saddam Fedayeen across borders so that they could snipe at our soldiers too?
Are you aware that the Baathists are an offshoot of the Nazi party? Most people would say that no remnant of the Nazi party should be allowed to remain and that is reason enough to go to war with Iraq.
Saddam would be doing nothing in Afghanistan. As General Zinni has said, when you say that Saddam was an enormous threat, you are basically shitting on all the armed forces who spent ten years patrolling the no fly zone, inspecting cargo, and containing his reach. We would still be doing that. I have faith that our armed forces could have stopped Saddam from heavily influencing Afghanistan. Do you?
It's quite possible that Iraq could have been an ally against Iran, albeit a miserable one. Iran is much more powerful today and it is the direct result of our policy in Iraq.
As far as sponsoring terrorism, there were more Al Qaeda in Florida than in Baghdad in 2001. I think he was much less a threat than our curent leadership have said...the extremists in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE...they were and still are the bigger threat. To answer Sarah's question, these folks are more like Nazis to me, although I'm sure the Bathists are as well.
If we had focused our efforts in Afghanistan, stayed to fully secure the area, and never gone into Iraq, we would not be looking at the problems we have today. Take a look a the latest NIA, pgs 6-7
Everything I have said on here (and my own blog) has come true and we are basically in the same spot we were at on Sept 10. Some would argue worse. We are less safe as result of the Iraq policy.
To be honest, I hope I'm wrong. This is one debate I'd like to lose because if I am right than it will be in the aftermath of a far more devasting attack on our homeland due to the fact that our current administration has higher priorities than protecting the homeland.
>>Illegal according to the UN Charter, I guess, but in the land of US is always right that charter doesn't mean anything.
Classic trollism: bind together a jingo with a truth, trying to get some truth to rub off onto the jingo, while at the same time reframing and explaining the truth.
This isn't the land of "America is always right, of blind, obedient patriots suckered by a lie", and repeatedly saying so isn't going to make it thus. {search posts for "blind" or "patriot" and note a near perfect 1:1 correlation to a certain commenter, another sign of the troll.}
Of course, it could never be admitted that we arrive at our conclusions of supporting certain policies and rejecting others for sound cause, arrived at through a robust process of examination and analysis, because to do so would call into question one's own positions.
As for the UN, it's structure, process and outcome are appropriate for an international debating society, but this structure/process/outcome is fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of legitimate governance of a free people. The rejection of the UN's fitness as a governing body or source of moral authority is well founded, and those who imbue it with moral or ethical primacy (nevermind legitimacy), thus forming the basis of a duty of conscience to obey, are tragically underinformed and/or mislead.
{Sigh. Perhaps one is never really done dealing with the deliberately obtuse}
"Saddam would be doing nothing in Afghanistan. As General Zinni has said, when you say that Saddam was an enormous threat, you are basically shitting on all the armed forces who spent ten years patrolling the no fly zone, inspecting cargo, and containing his reach. We would still be doing that. I have faith that our armed forces could have stopped Saddam from heavily influencing Afghanistan."
Really? The way we're "containing" Iran? Do you honestly expect me to believe that the sanctions against Iraq would still be in place? Please.
We are doing a horrible job of containing Iran. The reason for this is that we have leaders who don't understand the region. They understand a few simple things but for the most part are grossly underqualified to deal with countries like Iran. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing--I don't care which side of the aisle they come from--they need to be qualified.
As far as hypothetical sanctions being in place, who knows? I do know that when it comes right down to it, Saddam didn't have much left in his arsenal when we got in there so something worked.
There is a new film coming out soon called No End In Sight which spotlights many people involved in the first few years of the Iraq War. Richard Armitage, General Jay Garner, and Colonel Paul Hughes are among the many interviewed. I haven't seen it yet but it sounds like it sheds some real light on our Iraq policy. Here is the trailer
Well, Kevin, maybe we should be taking care of Syria, too.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-good-to-know-that-hollywood-has-our.html (37 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
At some point, we're going to have to "call the ball": Either our efforts to prevent a new dark age from descending are bearing fruit, or not.
If not, we then have to consider other options, among them, whether the right play is some form of archive and bunkering, to lay the seeds for the next rennaissance.
Rather than drone on with the tired line of the "Hollywood elite" hating America, why don't you write your congressmen and ask him why we are equiping Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars (or is it billions?) in arms. Didn't 15 of the 19 hijackers come from there?
Write your congressmen and ask him/her why a "weak liberal" like Barack Obama is the only one saying we should be in Pakistan right now, rooting out and eliminating a fully reconstituted Al Qaeda, once again capable of striking our homeland? Didn't George Bush say that if you harbor terrorists than you are a terrorist country?
Hmm..let's see here...Pakistan harbors terrorists...Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists....UAE (2 hijackers from there) harbors terrorists and oh, is also the new home of Haliburton...Egypt produced Mohammed Atta (also getting military equipment from us)...Lebanon (1 hijacker from there) harbors terrorists. All are allies...all had Al Qaeda in their respective countries on 9-11-2001 and what did we do? We:
a. Did a half ass job in Afghanistan so we could
b. Do a worse ass job in Iraq, a country that had less Al Qaeda in it than Florida did in 2001.
Until you start looking at the big picture and the real reason why our nation is going to collapse, I think you are going to be frustrated my friend.
More info on the arms deal
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291405,00.html
I don't think I've ever read previews reviews before. Interesting idea and thanks for sharing.
Kevin, you are suggesting the torture is ok? Better be carefull, you'll end up supporting my idea (though you've panned it before)
BAN ISLAM IN THE US!
see: http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html (for the complete text)
Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to 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;
paragraphs deleted due to space limitations
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.
Many thanks to Scott for authoring this and submitting to our inbox.
Scott, Phx, AZ. robscottwilk@yahoo.com
Kevin, you are suggesting the torture is ok?
No, but I'm not surprised that you read it that way.
And that's the last time you get to use my comment section to promote your "Amendment" proposal. Next time I delete it. Fair warning. Blogspot is still free. You're welcome to start your own blog and promote any idea you want, but this is my bandwidth. Capisce?
Sure Kevin, no problem.
So. I won't be back. At all.
... and somehow, you seem to think this is a bad thing Scott?
Pollyanna that I am, I like to think of the current Hollywood proclivity to churn out one traitorous movie after another as merely a fad that will soon go the way of the Dodo, as it is replaced by something else. Let's say films that people actually want to see rather than cartoons come to life or the occasional blockbuster staring lil Matty Damon. I cannot of course suspend my disbelief when confronted with lil Matty actually fighting grown men, but the chicks really dig him and he'll get as much work as he can handle. Not having seen the movie...I understand it is replete with poorly done gun-action non-shots...I cannot express an opinion on it other than the fact that I personally would never pay cash money to watch him do much of anything.
"like to think of the current Hollywood proclivity to churn out one traitorous movie after another"
So, fits, what is more traitorous? Making a movie which questions an outdated, narrow minded belief system? Or sending arms to Saudi Arabia, a country that produced 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers?
Mark, are you suggesting that the Saudi government trained the 15 hijackers?
No, but they allowed them to prosper in their country in the madrasas that essentially teach their students to hate America.
I am simply pointing out that if you follow President Bush's logic about the threat of terrorism, then why do the Saudis get a free pass?
They hate us because we're free.
Hollywood, I mean.
"I am simply pointing out that if you follow President Bush's logic about the threat of terrorism, then why do the Saudis get a free pass?"
Because we have no legal justification to invade Saudi Arabia, and their Kingdom doesn't murder hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? And no matter what, we still need their oil?
Just askin'.
>>then why do the Saudis get a free pass?
You really want to know?
Because at this time, petroleum distillates are the ONLY WAR SUITABLE energy source.
Yes, we have many sources of energy, but there is only one you can use to make war. (Nukes & coal are useful to the navy, in a limited capacity)
In the 19th century, the war suitable energy source was food, men, and horses, which were widely distributed and commonly available. In the 20th century, this is no longer the case.
The simple, brutal truth is this: he who has control of some critical portion of the current war suitable energy source can make war at will against he who does not.
It really is that simple.
The astute student will recognize that the entire history of the 20th century has been one gigantic game of Go over who shall have control over some critical portion of it.
No model or understanding of history can be complete or correct if it does not take into major account who _can_ make war upon whom, and this chart is the key:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8
Top 20 countries 1224.5 (95%)
Rest of world 68.1 (5%)
World total 1,292.6
Everything else, however how true or worthy or noble, is subject to cancellation at cannonpoint.
But Kevin, here's where I just don't get it. Saudi Arabia produced 15 of the 19 hijackers. At this time, they are funding terrorism in the Middle East. We know this. They don't care.
Iraq had no Al Qaeda in their country, did not produce any 9-11 terrorists, and was a secular country. So that invasion is legal and the Saudi one would not be?
I am not saying necessarily that I advocate a full scale invasion of Saudi Arabia but I am just trying to understand, based on what you have posted here, where you are coming from. I don't see Hollywood directors running around holding hands with the Saudi head of state. I see President Bush doing that. I find this revolting and extremly hypocritical.
We were still in a state of war with Iraq, dating from 1991. We are not in a state of war with Saudiya.
Next!
No Mark, you are saying that we should listen to Obama "the wise" and invade a country that: 1) Has nuclear weapons; 2) A conscriptable population of 39 Million; 3) Is currently being lead by a man who, unpopularly in Pakistan, aids us at times and; 4) Is likely one bullet or bomb away from becoming openly hostile.
Did I mention that we, and the rest of the Afghan peacekeepers, take most of our supplies to Afghanistan on Pakistani roads? Or that the rest fly over Pakistani airspace?
Yup, ol' Obama is sure on the ball. *rolls eyes*
Geek, add our daily consumption of oil to that analysis. Go see http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
The U.S. currently consumes 20.802 million barrels of oil per day. Our total reserve of 21.4 billion barrels would be exhausted in 1,028 days, or only 2.8 years.
Your analysis is spot-on. If the oil exporting countries chose to shut off their exports, they could bring this country to its knees inside of a year and strangle it shortly thereafter. To those who think otherwise, go read your history; the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan and Japan chose war as a remedy, which didn't work.
Hence our efforts at diplomacy with those who have oil. Those who do not remember the past ...
"Iraq had no Al Qaeda in their country, did not produce any 9-11 terrorists, and was a secular country. So that invasion is legal and the Saudi one would not be?"
Iraq was in a state of cease-fire after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq had willingly violated the terms of that cease-fire on multiple occasions. Iraq had countless UN resolutions passed against it for violations of the terms of that cease-fire, many of which had to do with it not living up to its agreements in terms of documenting the dismantling of its WMD programs - you know, the ones Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore complained so bitterly about? The ones that prompted Bill Clinton to fire some cruise missiles at Iraq in 1998?
Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine $25,000. He harbored Abu Abbas, and credible reports tell us that he was running or at least sponsoring terrorist training camps inside Iraq. According to George Tenet in his book, At the Center of the Storm reports:
"in July 2001, an associate of Zarqawi had been detained and, during interrogations, linked (Abu Musab al-)Zarqawi with al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. Tenet also wrote in his book that Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, "assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners," arrived in Baghdad in May 2002 and were engaged in "sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps."
May 2002 predates the invasion. This is direct government involvement in the sponsorship of terrorism. Next up on the plate were Uday and Qusay, arguably nuttier and more vicious than their own father.
And, as I recall, Congress voted in favor of the use of military force against Iraq.
You keep using that word, "illegal." I do not believe it means what you think it means.
The Saudis may be sponsoring terror directly out of the King's palace, but they are not as blatant about it as Saddam was. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not in violation of the terms of a cease-fire after a previous war. While money may be pouring from Saudi Arabia into the coffers of Hizbolla, Fatah, etc., insofar as we can prove it's not coming directly out of the government, it's coming from individuals. Saudi Arabia does not appear to be building chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
We had a case for war against Iraq. We do not have one against Saudi Arabia. And we sure as hell don't have one against Pakistan, no matter what Obama might think.
Actually, you are advocating the civil suicide- not your countrymen. You countrymen are trying to keep America alive. You advocate empire, which always leads to the downfall of that country. It also has the side of effect of decreasing liberties at home.
This is what is happening now. Liberties at home are being sacrificed for a unwinninable and worthless war. The decline of the US is occurring because of this war.
You want the US to prosper- end the wars, bring the troops home, and end the federal war on liberty. You know, what the Founders would do. A good start is to support Ron Paul in his candidacy for President.
Empire, Matt? Do we demand tribute from Japan and Germany? Last I noted, we bought their cars and stereos, and they made a profit on them. Do we take the oil from the Middle East, or do we pay for it?
Let me repeat myself: You keep using that word, "Empire." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Kevin, I just figured out why your post resonating with me so much. There was something about it that I couldn't quite put into words but now I think I have two of them that sum up why I disagree with your views on Hollywood.
Pat Tillman
Y'see, Kevin, Pat Tillman was Sgt. John M. Stryker and Lt. Col. Robert 'Dutch' Holland all rolled into one. He walked away from millions of dollars in the NFL to defend his country after the 9-11 attacks. He was a "liberal" who didn't go to church, read Noam Chomsky, and had hippie degenerates for parents. But he still went to fight because he believed, as did I and most Americans, in the war in Afghanistan.
He did not, however, believe in the Iraq War, calling it a "fucking illegal war" and a distraction from the fight against the people who actually attacked us. On April 22, 2004 he was deliberatly murdered by his fellow troops for being a "traitor." On July 27 of this year, documents were released from the Army that plainly state that the doctors that performed the autopsy suspected that Tillman was deliberatly murdered.
It's not Hollywood's fault, Kevin. It's the people who are actively engaged in furthering a warped sense of patriotism wrapped in a sea of lies. Back in Stryker's day, the bad guys were on the other side. Today, they are on ours.
>> On July 27 of this year, documents were released from the Army that plainly state that the doctors that performed the autopsy suspected that Tillman was deliberatly murdered.
And those documents also descibed how that suspicion resulted in a criminal investigation that concluded quite the opposite of Markadelphia's assertions.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html
Quote:
---------
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
---------
Making statements with confidence doesn't make it true, or hide the conspiracy theory tinfoil hat.
Not that this will dissuade our erstwhile resident troll any mind you, or cause him to re-evaluate his dogged dedication to casting the US as somewhere between "bad guys" and "too morally corrupt to take any action in the world".
He'll be back with another rhetorical grenade for us to diffuse soon enough, I'm sure.
As for me, though, I'm pretty much done with discussing subjects of gravity with the deliberately obtuse.
Maybe treason is a bit too harsh as a word.
What I see is a pretty systematic focus on the basest and less noble acts of America - and very little time dedicated to the good aspects.
Most of the time soldiers are depicted as blood-thirsty babykillers or naive victims of oppression. Hollywood, in most cases, likes soldiers only when they "speak truth to power" or "reveal their inner fears and weaknesses" - in any case, when they do not behave much like soldiers.
Yes, I think that what lies at the root of all this is a deep dislike for the Western (and in particular American) civilization. And when our civilization is confronted by another culture, which may be primitive and brutal but has no post-modern malaise - the outcome can be fatal.
First off, I don't consider myself to be a troll. I enjoy debate and respect many of the people that post here. I also don't post on any other blogs as regularly as I do here (or my own)
As far as the Tillman death goes:
1. There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.
2. The three-star general responsible for witholding details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months, told investigators "he had a bad memory, and couldn't recall details of his actions" on more than 70 occasions.
3. Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding criminal investigation as they concluded Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.
4.Army doctors told the investigators that these wounds suggested murder and urged them to launch a criminal investigation.
5. It has been revealed that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the second group that encountered Pat's squad.
Questions remain about the close formation of the shots that were fired into Tillman's body as well as the new revelation that there were snipers there not mentioned in previous reports. The investigation into this is far from over.
Insult me all you want but at the end of the day at least I don't blindly follow what my government tells me to be true.
If Tillman was murdered -- which seems unlikely -- it would have been for a very serious reason. Rangers don't kill their own over something frivolous, and as my ex-ranger husband says, nobody would've cared about Tillman's opinion of the war. The most common reasons for soldiers to kill one of their own are: dangerous behavior through incompetence or being too gung-ho, extremely toxic personality, suspicion of defection or treason, or desertion.
Irrespective of the truth about this, it was not Tillman's job as a soldier to question anything. A soldier is an apolitical creature. His job is to do exactly as the elected people say. (In fact, in my husband's native Finland, you can be court martialed for political talk.) Furthermore, you don't ever sign up for a specific theater, you sign up for the cause. Too bad for Tillman if he didn't agree with the Iraq war.
By the way, what the heck is with this irritatingly persistent "illegal" meme? Illegal according to what authority?
Illegal according to the UN Charter, I guess, but in the land of US is always right that charter doesn't mean anything.
Sarah, the invasion of Iraq was legal in the sense that it was in accord with certain UN resolutions that the gubmint of Iraq had previously accepted and agreed, in writing, to abide by. The loony left will not admit now that this is true nor will they admit that they previously agreed both that it is true and that the invasion was necessary. So, they call the invasion "illegal". They depend on the short memory and the gullibility of the sheeple, and it works.
Sarah, something else to add to what I said above as well as address DJ's comment. I want to clarify that there are those of us--many people--that view the Afghan invasion as just and necessary and the Iraq War as completely not.
These are two separate conflicts that have been tied together with a lie, firmly grounded in a misguided sense of patriotism. So, when we talk about the "war" some of us would define it as the conflict to eliminate terrorism as a tactic (and all support systems at their disposal)-not Iraq which is about something else entirely.
Questions for you, Mark:
If we had not deposed Saddam, what would he be doing right now with us in Afghanistan? Would the sanctions still be in place, since those sanctions were hurting "the children" in Iraq, but didn't seem to be affecting Saddam's "Oil for Palaces" program? Would Iraq and Iran be in a nuclear arms race? Would he still be sponsoring terrorist training camps and harboring terrorists? Paying the families of suicide bombers in Afghanistan in addition to those in Israel and Gaza? Providing enhanced IEDs like the Iranians are? Slipping Saddam Fedayeen across borders so that they could snipe at our soldiers too?
I really want to know what you think.
Mark,
Are you aware that the Baathists are an offshoot of the Nazi party? Most people would say that no remnant of the Nazi party should be allowed to remain and that is reason enough to go to war with Iraq.
Using that logic, Sarah, would put us in Syria.
Saddam would be doing nothing in Afghanistan. As General Zinni has said, when you say that Saddam was an enormous threat, you are basically shitting on all the armed forces who spent ten years patrolling the no fly zone, inspecting cargo, and containing his reach. We would still be doing that. I have faith that our armed forces could have stopped Saddam from heavily influencing Afghanistan. Do you?
It's quite possible that Iraq could have been an ally against Iran, albeit a miserable one. Iran is much more powerful today and it is the direct result of our policy in Iraq.
As far as sponsoring terrorism, there were more Al Qaeda in Florida than in Baghdad in 2001. I think he was much less a threat than our curent leadership have said...the extremists in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE...they were and still are the bigger threat. To answer Sarah's question, these folks are more like Nazis to me, although I'm sure the Bathists are as well.
If we had focused our efforts in Afghanistan, stayed to fully secure the area, and never gone into Iraq, we would not be looking at the problems we have today. Take a look a the latest NIA, pgs 6-7
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
Everything I have said on here (and my own blog) has come true and we are basically in the same spot we were at on Sept 10. Some would argue worse. We are less safe as result of the Iraq policy.
To be honest, I hope I'm wrong. This is one debate I'd like to lose because if I am right than it will be in the aftermath of a far more devasting attack on our homeland due to the fact that our current administration has higher priorities than protecting the homeland.
>>Illegal according to the UN Charter, I guess, but in the land of US is always right that charter doesn't mean anything.
Classic trollism: bind together a jingo with a truth, trying to get some truth to rub off onto the jingo, while at the same time reframing and explaining the truth.
This isn't the land of "America is always right, of blind, obedient patriots suckered by a lie", and repeatedly saying so isn't going to make it thus. {search posts for "blind" or "patriot" and note a near perfect 1:1 correlation to a certain commenter, another sign of the troll.}
Of course, it could never be admitted that we arrive at our conclusions of supporting certain policies and rejecting others for sound cause, arrived at through a robust process of examination and analysis, because to do so would call into question one's own positions.
As for the UN, it's structure, process and outcome are appropriate for an international debating society, but this structure/process/outcome is fundamentally incompatible with the requirements of legitimate governance of a free people. The rejection of the UN's fitness as a governing body or source of moral authority is well founded, and those who imbue it with moral or ethical primacy (nevermind legitimacy), thus forming the basis of a duty of conscience to obey, are tragically underinformed and/or mislead.
{Sigh. Perhaps one is never really done dealing with the deliberately obtuse}
"Saddam would be doing nothing in Afghanistan. As General Zinni has said, when you say that Saddam was an enormous threat, you are basically shitting on all the armed forces who spent ten years patrolling the no fly zone, inspecting cargo, and containing his reach. We would still be doing that. I have faith that our armed forces could have stopped Saddam from heavily influencing Afghanistan."
Really? The way we're "containing" Iran? Do you honestly expect me to believe that the sanctions against Iraq would still be in place? Please.
We are doing a horrible job of containing Iran. The reason for this is that we have leaders who don't understand the region. They understand a few simple things but for the most part are grossly underqualified to deal with countries like Iran. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing--I don't care which side of the aisle they come from--they need to be qualified.
As far as hypothetical sanctions being in place, who knows? I do know that when it comes right down to it, Saddam didn't have much left in his arsenal when we got in there so something worked.
There is a new film coming out soon called No End In Sight which spotlights many people involved in the first few years of the Iraq War. Richard Armitage, General Jay Garner, and Colonel Paul Hughes are among the many interviewed. I haven't seen it yet but it sounds like it sheds some real light on our Iraq policy. Here is the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGPp-WhgEXE
Well, Kevin, maybe we should be taking care of Syria, too.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>