I love that they asked for “Public Defenders”, I guess they now know that there was an undercover FBI agent.The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point. These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now that their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing, they are crying again. They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones that are armed and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around in the parks playing commando, the majority understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn Beck. So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches.
Well, let's be fair. Mark is capable of stringing together words and sentences into something that is at least grammatically and syntactically accurate enough to lead himself to believe that it's also therefore implicitly coherent.
Our above case even managed to choose a font that exemplifies a general contempt for legibility. Whatever you want to say about Mark's nonsensical bullshit, it at least reads well (usually that means: reads well for a good laugh, but that's a different matter altogether).
"Sarah Bailin"? Yikes. Such soggy wit almost makes me pine for the frenzy of the Bush years -- at least some of the infinite variations on "Chimpy McHitlerburton" were good for a laugh.
I only know a couple people who are "active Tea Party" types, but I get the impression that they represent what the majority of Tea Party people are like. They aren't wackos. They are normal everyday people who are afraid for the future of this country. They are patriotic and love America. They aren't militia, in fact, they don't own firearms.
In any group, there is always that 10% who can't play nice or get with the program. If these militia members are even affiliated with the Tea Party people (and that is still not certian), they are most assuredly part of that 10%.
One thing that strikes me is the contrast between the reaction to these arrests and the reaction to various Muslim terrorism arrests. Here they deman every detail of the evidence made public and assume that the government is arresting innocent people for the purposes of political grandstanding. There the government possess an infalliable ability to detect evildoers that should never require explanation.
It's funny how Repulbican go from "hang them all" law and order types to ACLU members the second their Frankenstein's monster turns on them.
Well, as Tam once remarked (I'm paraphrasing), when members of the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary start strapping on Semtex Underoos and blowing up the Mall of America I'll be more inclined to jump to the conclusion that Christian Militias are more dangerous than young men named Mohammed. Sometimes prejudice is educated, not knee-jerk.
Actually, I was always pretty unimpressed with the arrests and grandstanding under the last Administration, so you shouldn't be surprised that I am again, unimpressed.
The more the govt ballyhoos the threat they have subverted, the less realistic the threat was. I would venture that the real threats don't get revealed because that just might "scare the white people".
Yup, it sure looks like Kevin has been added to the Counter-Revolutionary Enemies of the People List. His comment stream is showing more "diversity" all of a sudden.
"I only know a couple people who are "active Tea Party" types...They aren't militia, in fact, they don't own firearms."
What I can say about the Tea Party folks (the half-dozen I know who actually go to rallies), this observation is perfectly accurate. They are part of a previously mute and usually non-active political bunch who've started to see EXACTLY what the typical politics in D.C. is all about, and are simply horrified, and I think right so, by the Communists who are currently in power.
I read that one of the suspects had 46 guns and 13,000 rounds taken from his home. That works out to 282rds per gun. Oh the horror. Most gun people I know have more than 13k in .22 alone...
From the reading that I have done, and I have looked for viewpoints on both sides of the argument, I can only conclude that at the very LEAST both Waco and Ruby Ridge were masively mis-handled by the government agencies involved (probably resulting in unwaranted loss of life). Were there valid reasons for investigation? Probably (although an argument could be made either way), but there were definately less violent means to further those investigations than what was done.
I would agree that they were mishandled and did have unwaranted loss of life but I would be curious if you would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorists cel.
Then you ask if I would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorist cell. The answer to that is quite simple. Anytime that a Federal policing agency (FBI, ATF, IRS, etc) goes in guns blazing, killing innocents it is unwaranted and they need to find a better way of dealing with the issue.
It's not always the fault of innocent followers who get caught up in a situation that whirs out of control. Koresh and the other leaders in the group put many of these people in harm's way unncessarily and the federal agents made matters worse by making a series of mistakes. One of the biggest was making the Branch Dividians out to be martyrs much in the same way hirabis are martyred. If the government had treated them as common thugs or criminals and not over reacted, as they should with many (but not all) hirabis, I suspect things would have turned out better.
I may have missed it, but I am not seeing a large number of cases (or hardly any) of the Feds bashing in doors and killing Muslims here in America. Do you have examples of this so that I can bettter understand you point? Cause if you don't, I will have to suspect that your argument is a straw man.
I was speaking of the world at large in regards to the martyring of hirabis. Criminals come in all shapes and sizes...both foreign and domestic. While I would agree that there hasn't been much killing in regards to hirabis here at home, there has been plenty of bashing in of doors, imprisonment without charges, loads of uncovered plots etc.
I think you will agree that if it was discovered that an Islamic group was accused, through eyewitness and victim testimony, that underage girls were being molestsed as well as guns/ammo/explosives were being horded that our government might want to look into that. Of course, that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made.
So you admit to the straw man argument. Mark Mark... what will we do with you. Yes, if an Islamic group is accused of crimes they will be investigated, but we are just not seeing the massive violation of the civil rights of Muslims that you are claiming. In fact, as has been often pointed out here and elsewhere, it seems to many of us that the DHS has been going out of it's way to blindly NOT violate civil rights of Muslims even in instances where it would be warranted.
It's not a straw man argument. I'm pointing out some obvious hypocrisies by many here. Thus far, from what you have written, that would not be you. For example, Unix appears to believe that all of the testimony regarding child molestation is false or has been disproven. I say "appears" because I'm not quite sure what he thinks as he is doing the "let Mark make points so I can shoot him down for shits and giggles" rag that he always does rather than state his full view on all of this.
Shooting you down for shits and giggles is all it amounts to for just about any of us. Quality entertainment is hard to come by in a society so debased that it lets you teach schoolchildren, so this'll do until something better comes along.
Gotta weigh in on this one... I live in Waco, and have heard in person former sheriff Jack Harwell speak on this. He was on 1st name terms w/ Koresh, who went into town to shop about once a week. Jack could have picked him up anytime. He stated Koresh would have gone with him without a fight. The Feds turned him down. THEY WANTED A BIG CHARLEY FOXTROT. They had NO intention of letting this be a small deal. Somehow the local media jerks found out about the Feds setting up to raid, and sent their van in 30 mins before the raid started. I last saw the footage of the van progressing alone down the road towards the compound that morning. I have not been able to find it since. I have also not been able to find the local media footage in infra-red, shot from their helocopter, of the 15-20 Federal gunmen firing INTO the burning compound on the last day. Without electricity the Davidians were burning propane and white gas to cook and heat their facility. The Feds waited until they had a good 30-40 mph wind blowing to start knocking down the house. WTF did they THINK was gonna happen? Oh yeah- Lon Horiuchi was there as well...
Kevin, do you honestly think that Waco and Ruby Ridge were government witch hunts and murder?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! FRESH FROM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE... DEFENDING HIS UNDEFEATED TITLE IN OBTUSENESS.....IN THIS CORNER... WEARING A TINFOIL HAT, BLINDERS, AND A CHE T-SHIRT... MARRRRRRRRRRRRRKADEEEEEEELLLLLPHHIIIIAAAAAAAAAA.
They were criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most. Based on what I have read on here, if either of these groups were Muslim, no one would have a problem with what happened. It will be interesting to see Kevin's answer but based on this comment
when members of the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary start strapping on Semtex Underoos and blowing up the Mall of America I'll be more inclined to jump to the conclusion that Christian Militias are more dangerous than young men named Mohammed. Sometimes prejudice is educated, not knee-jerk.
I suspect a severe case of myopia has set in quite deeply. If we had Mohammed McVeigh, Akbar Rudolph, Shamir Nichols, and Abu Roeder we'd have a whole different situation, wouldn't we? As it stands, the previous four were lone nuts, misunderstood, or vicitms of a statist regime.
Oh, they were criminals. Does that make it all better for you Mark? Does that make it all better when Fed snipers shot and killed Randy Weaver's unarmed wife while she was holding her baby? Does that make it ok that they shot up his house indiscriminately while his children were inside? All for not showing up to a court case where he was accused of selling a shotgun that had a barrel that was like 1/4 inch too short? Yea, whoo buddy, that 1/4 inch really makes that shotgun so dangerous that we could have all been killed or worse!
I see, you have shown your stripes (again).
"I would agree that they were mishandled and did have unwaranted loss of life but I would be curious if you would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorists cel. "
An unwaranted loss of life. And what exactly does a "domestic Muslim terrorists cel." have to do with any of it?
Quite frankly, I think the disconnect here might be as simple as you not getting the fact that Randy Weaver hadn't been convicted of anything, and by saying "domestic Muslim terrorists cel." you words are implying that they are terrorists. A person isn't a terrorist until they do a terrorist act, or can be reasonably proven to be planning to do said attack. Certianly we can be forgiven for being a little harder on someone who has committed a terrorist act or is planning to do so than a guy who may or may not have (possiblyl accidently) cut a barrel 1/4 inch too short. Who here hasn't screwed up a mesurement at some point in their life?
Finally, no. I don't think that if the government cracked down hard on a Muslim family (possibly killing an innocent family member, you know, to bring it up to the level of the argument) and it was found out that the case against said Muslim was shakey at best and less violent means of apprehending were not tried, that the people here would be like "Oh yea, smoke that rag head!" I think we would be just as unhappy about it. The prejudice that Kevin spoke of was not one of "kill that Muslim fucker, I don't care", it was one of "hey, the airport exploded! I think it was more likely the Muslim dude reading the Koran than the old white christian lady showing pictures of her grandkids". I have to agree with him.
s
ps Kevin, If I have mis-represented your opinion, let me know. I will retract my statement (and agreement).
Stuart's missed a few points, and Stuart, I was trying to get _Mark_ to at least do the cut and paste on Weaver's _accused crime_.
But even you missed something.
Where was Weaver _terrorizing_ anyone? Where was Koresh _terrorizing_ anyone? Where did they claim to want to?
And that's where Mark's bullshit "Hirabi bullshit" really falls apart.
His "counter" examples of "Terrorists" are - at best - people who'd retreated from the world and weren't trying to influence anybody, much less terrorize them into changing their behavior.
Now, Mark, given that I just answered you - while you're playing your F- student games with me - hows about you nut up and answer the questions that you raised.
AH! No, I didn't really miss Mark's OMGTHEYRETERRORISTS remarks. I was (I guess maybe too subtly) refuting them by showing just how insugnificat the charge against Randy Weaver was compared to OMGDOMESTICTERRORISTAS!
I also called him on said "Hirabi bullshit" elsewhere, but I'm not going to hold my breath that he is actually going to answer me on that one. People like Mark tend to abandon their Straw Men when they are no longer useful.
I am sorry if I stepped on your line of argument as far as Weaver's supposed crimes goes. I don't think you would have ever gotten that answer from Mark anyway though since it didn't help his argument in any way.
If I remember right, Koresh jogged past their listening post every damn day for four weeks or something like that. Coulda picked him up quiet like anytime they wanted....
Nope, that's it. Similarly, when I hear that the Feds have raided a "Christian Militia" ready to commit acts of terrorism, my finely-tuned nose starts sniffing for BS - in the form of "agents" or "informants" who were likely the instigators of such acts.
Hey, at least this time nobody got pre-emptorily shot, on either side. There's no siege going on, and no mother carrying an infant will be shot through the head.
Maybe they've learned something from their raids on domestic Muslim terror groups? Or Ruby Ridge and Waco left a bad taste in their mouths?
Still, it's possible that the Fibbies or BATFU could manage to infiltrate a Muslim group and do the same kind of agitating they've done in the past to Christian and secular "militia" groups before - I wouldn't put it past them. Then it's just a question of who would respond to the prodding faster. Since at least one major branch of Islam embraces Jihad, and the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary does not, I'd tend to err on the side of the boys named Mohammed. But entrapment is still entrapment, no matter who they do it to.
I remember a couple of years ago reading a right-wing blog (I can't remember who or find a link, but I think it might have been Kim du Toit) that was complaining about the handling of a domesting muslim "terrorist" case because it looked sort of like it might have been encouraged/caused by the FBI informant in their group, so I naturally just assume that it's simply a dislike of poorly conducted government investigations when bloggers complain about these sort of things. (Though perhaps people are a little more vocal about the problems when it's affecting someone they find a bit more simpathetic.)
I'd suggest to you, Mark, that you're going to get your intellectual ass handed to you if you want to discuss Waco or Ruby Ridge.
But I know that 1) you like it, you don't come here for the hunting. 2) It would be a waste of breath.
Many of us here have studied those. You haven't. So, you're back to being hypocritical, which isn't anything new for you - just yesterday you were saying that whoever has studied more should have more authority and be listened to.
Wow, Unix. Three quick posts. Nervous, are we? Insecure much? Well, I see you have already tapped into your inner Rove and are attacking me with your greatest weakness. Nice try, but don't you always "hand my intellectual ass" to me? How would this time be any different?
Oh, that's right. Your massively hypocritcal ass is going to try to convince me that it's not ______ when the Cult does it.
Do you understand that companies which sell health insurance are prohibited from selling it across state lines?
Do you understand that selling health insurance within a state is not interstate commerce?
Or is your sack a bit tight today?
-----
What we have here, yet again, is your Standard Response #11, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close, and so you tucked your tail between your legs and scurried away, only to reappear here with your typical drive-by tossing of red meat, all as if ain't nuthin' happened.
Still cannot admit error, can you?
Still cannot admit that someone else is right, can you?
I believe I stated my position quiet cleary in the other thread, DJ. When you are ready to engage in critical thinking regarding the United States Constitution, I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion. As it stands, I see no such evidence...seeeing only more hubris, ego, and Constitutional chest thumping.
We see, yet again, your Standard Response #2, the "What's the point" response, your Standard Response #4, the "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response, your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response, your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, and your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
If memory serves me correctly, that is a record: seven of your eleven Standard Responses in one little fart.
I think Kevin is making a mistake by permitting you to spew your drivel here. One of his reasons for doing so has merit, viz., that it fosters good writings by others, but the notion that you perform a service as an example of what's under the rock you crawled out from is wrong.
Y'know why? Usually, leftist gubmint-be-good moonbats swarm to the defense of their own, but no one comes to your defense here. Even they want no part of your stupidity. Thus, you are not representative of anything except a little boy who will not grow up and behave like an adult.
I think Kevin is making a mistake by permitting you to spew your drivel here. One of his reasons for doing so has merit, viz., that it fosters good writings by others, but the notion that you perform a service as an example of what's under the rock you crawled out from is wrong.
Well, I'm not going to engage in Reasoned Discourse™ and ban him, I'm just going to be very selective about what I personally respond to. You guys have honed your skill at beating the Markaphasia Weeble ("Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down!") to a fine art, and I'll leave you to it. As far as his being a sterling example of type, he most certainly is. The thing that makes him unique is that he keeps coming back.
It's obvious that he's "not here for the hunting."
I understand, Kevin. Your response makes perfect sense from your point of view, and I can't dispute it.
But, having said that, I disagree in two ways:
1) He is, in my unhumble opinion, not representative of his type, specifically because of his uniqueness. His beliefs are stereotypical, but his behavior is not. He is an outlier, way far removed, not just from the mean, but from the other outliers.
2) His behavior is so predictable and so stereotyped that only eleven short catch-phrases describe it marvelously well. Thus, we have honed our clue-batting to a "fine art" in the same manner and to the same degree that stepping on the same cockroach day after day is a "fine art". Very little skill is required; it is a game of wits, and he is defenseless.
Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses. #2 is a more accurate description of yourself. Attack your opponent with YOUR greatness weakness. Nice try, Karl ;)
I may keep coming back, Kevin (and there is a reason for it, mos def) but don't you find it interesting that VOLUMES of responses have been written by many here (especially DJ and Unix) who claim to have already "beaten" me?
"Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses."
We all keep trying to get you to respond to anything with other than your Standard Responses. You won't do it.
What we see here, day after day after day, is you exhibiting the same behavior, over and over and over again. You cannot admit error, thus you continue to re-spout the same blather, no matter how many times and no matter how thoroughly you are shown to be wrong by evidence that you can verify yourself.
So, yes, you are quite predictable. You exhibit the same behavior, day after day after day, over and over and over again. You cannot learn to do otherwise; your fragile little ego won't let you.
I've told you many times before, cult boy, that the only thing I find interesting about you, and thus worth responding to, is your pathological personality, of which the list of your Standard Responses is a fair synopsis.
As to "fine art," I suggest you read once again what I stated about it. Words have meaning, teacher boy, as do sentences. Try the dictionary if you don't know what the words mean.
They were criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most.
Weaver was wanted in court, that's true. But they didn't tell him the correct court date, and THEN initiated a multi-million dollar surveillance of his property.
What was he convicted of, Mark?
And what were the "crimes" of the Branch Davidians? Be specific in your accusation, we'll be back to this point after you enumerate them.
Explain how either were "terrorists" - and you might have to define what you mean by "terror" and "terrorist" because, as is your wont, you've apparently picked one of your own.
Hey, I'll start. Koresh didn't kill or even threaten to kill those who didn't follow his belief system, nor did he attempt to force his neighbors to worship as he dictated.
How's that for a start you lame dumbass? You really aren't here for the hunting.
A Muslim in the Michigan Militia? And it was his tip that helped authorities? And "The Traitor Times" telling a positive story about distinguishing domestic terrorism and militias? Wow...what now, Kevin?
Nope.
I just know what I'm talking about, and I know you're talking out your ass. Again.
And you're going to do exactly here what you did in the last thread. Handwave, be vague, refuse to back up your libels and slanders, and then run away claiming that it's somehow our failure that you don't know jack or shit.
You didn't answer DJ, you didn't even try. You're lying, just like you did when he asked you the mortgage system questions and you claimed you'd answered them - when you never even tried.
Well, I see you have already tapped into your inner Rove and are attacking me with your greatest weakness.
I'll take an inner rove over a outer Moore any day of the week. My greatest weakness? Knowledge? Facts? Integrity? Honesty? ... I'll take those as my own personal idiom.
Nice try, but don't you always "hand my intellectual ass" to me? How would this time be any different? The odds are rather strongly against it, unless you learn to read, learn vocabulary and what words mean.
But I'm an optimist. I believe in people, I believe people can change. Oh, that's right. Your massively hypocritcal ass is going to try to convince me that it's not ______ when the Cult does it.
It's only hypocrisy because you've made up a definition for it. You've set up a fantasy world, only barely in touch with reality, and it's like Law and Order - in fact, I think you're quoting the L&O stories they "based" on Waco and Ruby Ridge, not the actual events - and according to all of your made-up world, I'm not living up to my own standards.
Hell, Mark, you've never admitted error on the definition of Verbatim, and that was plain on it's face.
In just the last week, you've laid whopper after whopper that you've run away from - including the powers of the President, the entire concept of Federalism, the meaning of "scholarship"...
In. Just. The. Last. Week.
Now, what, even in the last year have I been "hypocritical" about, and you don't get to make up a situation?
And furthermore, you didn't state what Weaver was convicted of. Don't forget you've named BOTH Weaver and the Branch Davidians as criminals in your description.
If the government had treated them as common thugs or criminals and not over reacted, as they should with many (but not all) hirabis, I suspect things would have turned out better.
You've yet to define what crimes they (and who "they" were) were alleged to have committed.
And you've missed the biggest issue of all, about how it "turned out".
You really don't know anything about Waco, do you?
I remember (I think) John Ross in Unintended Consequences saying something on the order of "You can always tell which militia member is an undercover Fed. He's the one agitating for violent action," or words to that effect.
I believe that was P.J. O'Rourke.
As Tam pointed out in one the comments to one of her posts on the subject, the trick behind proving entrapment is proving that, not only did the Feeb rat show them how to make the bombs or set an ambush, whatever, they had no intent, interest, or inclination to do such a thing until he showed up.
As Tam pointed out in one the comments to one of her posts on the subject, the trick behind proving entrapment is proving that, not only did the Feeb rat show them how to make the bombs or set an ambush, whatever, they had no intent, interest, or inclination to do such a thing until he showed up.
I haven't read about it lately, but my memory is that Randy Weaver had a short-barrelled shotgun only because, after several YEARS of effort, a federal agent finally talked him into a bit of hacksaw surgery.
It's amazing. I can always tell. When a post here at TSM goes from 18 comments in the morning to 54 comments in the afternoon, it's 9:1 odds that Mark has been here.
I'll give much higher odds than that, and I'm not a betting person.
I'll also give high odds that those comments by the resident troll rarely have anthing to do with the subject of the post of Kevin's to which the comments are appended.
Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses.
Why should he?
Your responses are easily described. At no point you'll note, do you actually CRITICALLY ADDRESS ARGUMENTS.
You haven't here.
You called the Davidians and Weavers "Criminals" and have yet to back up ANY proof that they were, in fact, criminal.
You called them terrorists, and have yet to back up that they were "terrorizing" anyone.
The closest you came was the allegations (investigated many times, and never any action was taken.) of child abuse.
Mark, since when does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms enforce state child abuse laws?
There's some critical thinking there.
You're not able to apply it. #2 is a more accurate description of yourself. Attack your opponent with YOUR greatness weakness. Nice try, Karl ;) *sigh* I'm not sure where you are cutting and pasting that from, but it makes as little sense as the rest of the things you say. I may keep coming back, Kevin (and there is a reason for it, mos def) but don't you find it interesting that VOLUMES of responses have been written by many here (especially DJ and Unix) who claim to have already "beaten" me?
I've explained myself.
You're not destroying this resource with your shit-flinging and idiocy. It's more interesting you can't comprehend the simple words.
I believe I stated my position quiet cleary in the other thread, DJ.
Like that. Nothing more than a bald-faced lie.
It's not a straw man argument.
You don't know anything else.
I'm pointing out some obvious hypocrisies by many here.
Except they're not. You're just further demonstrating your lack of critical thinking.
For example, Unix appears to believe that all of the testimony regarding child molestation is false or has been disproven.
Pretty much. Texas DPS investigated several complaints, made no actions.
But more importantly, I CAN DO THE BASIC CRITICAL THINKING TO REALIZE THAT ATF DOESN'T INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE.
So that "testimony" (Which isn't _testimony_, but accusations, and ass-covering after the assault went south), doesn't matter.
That's why I wanted you to specify what "crimes" you're talking about.
he is doing the "let Mark make points so I can shoot him down for shits and giggles" rag that he always does rather than state his full view on all of this.
No, you drooling moron.
It's that MARK MADE A "POINT", and I'm insisting he back it up.
Which.. he never can. Like with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms being judge, jury, and executioner for Texas "child molestation". You'll believe anything accused, if you want to. And deny anything with proof. When you want to.
I'm a bit late to the party, here - exactly what is the definition of this/these "hirabis" of which Marky-Mook writes?
That's not a term I encounter anywhere else, in print or in the Blogosphere - is this, perhaps, simply one more manifestation of his clearly-evident mental dysfunction?
Clearly, the bozo's an easy chew-toy to bat around - the "logic" he attempts to deploy in his "argumentation" never seems to rise above a) "when I write it, that makes it fact...so, there!", and b) "if I simply ignore what YOU write, and make the response I WANT TO MAKE, that automatically defeats/disproves what you wrote".
Maybe someone should ask his Mommy to stop letting him drool on her keyboard, save everyone a lot of time and mostly-pointless effort...just sayin'...
Of course you would look to the New York Slimes for that definition. That opinion piece downplays it, but here's the key point:
"“Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder."
The key word here is "unlawful". Of course, terrorism is unlawful to us. The question is, "Is it unlawful to Islam?", which is all that matters to them. The answer to that question is No.
For example, Surah 9:5 says:
"Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
And Surah 8:39 says this:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."
Now if the terrorists were acting contrary to how Mohammad acted, calling them hirabis might be accurate. The problem is that they're doing exactly the kinds of things Mohammad himself did. For example, this is from Hadith (non-Koran writings about what Mohammad did, and considered authoritative by Muslims) volume 8, book 82, number 795:
"The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died."
There are numerous instances of Mohammad ordering the murder of his opponents. For example, Mohammad speaks first here:
"Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allâh and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allâh's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).” The Prophet said, "You may say it.""
Muhammah bin Maslama then proceeded to take another man with him and went and murdered Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, a well known poet whose only "crime" was composing a poem celebrating Medina's victory over Mohammad in a recent battle.
"In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed. As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians.
The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”"
So you see, those who are engaged in terrorism are accurately following Mohammad's own example. Therefore, terrorism is NOT Hirabah, it IS Jihad. The teachings of Islam command it.
For more, see here and here. (BTW, Amazon lets you see samples from that book. Be sure to check out the story behind the cover art. Just search for "cover art" and you'll be able to read it.)
While I would agree that there hasn't been much killing in regards to hirabis here at home, there has been plenty of bashing in of doors, imprisonment without charges, loads of uncovered plots etc.
Give some examples. Show me some links. And in the interest of making an apples to apples comparison, show me some links to where the "bashing in of doors and imprisonment without charges" was based on charges that had already been checked out by local authorities and found to be groundless (as in Waco) or was the result of years of enticement by a Federal agent that finally, barely rose to the level of being worth investigating (as in Ruby Ridge).
I think you will agree that if it was discovered that an Islamic group was accused, through eyewitness and victim testimony, that underage girls were being molestsed as well as guns/ammo/explosives were being horded that our government might want to look into that. Of course, that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made.
After studying this bit thoroughly, I see where the problem lies. You used the phrase "I think" where you should have used "I assume".
The charge of "underage girls being molested" had already been "looked into", but apparently that wasn't good enough. The large numbers of weapons... I think you're on pretty shaky ground asserting that anyone here would have a problem with someone having large quantities of weapons and ammo, regardless of his religion. In fact I think I can safely say that if the "armed white racist" (remember him?) at the Arizona town hall meeting had been an obviously Middle Eastern male (instead of ablack man) who called himself Muhammad al-Amriki (to pick out a name from the air)... yes, it would have made people nervous at first, as you'd expect.... and the news media would have wanted to ask him questions, just as they did... and if he'd responded as the black man did, that he brough his weapons because this is America, and he still has that right here, and he's proud of that and will defend that... I suspect that by the end of the town hall meeting they'd probably have been even more proud of him than they were of the black guy.
You seem pantingly anxious to accuse people of hypocrisy, but I can't help wondering... if based on such thin evidence, the FBI had decided they'd found the person/people setting bombs and committing arson on the UC Berkeley campus a while back, and had in response raided his home, killed his wife and child and burned down his home....
...you'd have no more to say than "that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made", huh? You wouldn't be making any noises about "conspiracy to commit murder"?
How 'bout if it had happened when Bush was still President? How 'bout if it had been Bill Ayers back in the day?
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless? Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about Waco. Really sad, sir.
As to the rest, seriously...have you been living under a rock, GOF? I find it hard to believe that someone of your intellect has missed the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government. Since it was alright for DJ, try Google-ing it and let me know what you come with in your search.
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless?
So you're saying that any of them were based in fact? What evidence of that do you have, beyond the testimony of people who were engaged in trying to cover their asses for burning those self-same children alive? Testimony that, as has been detailed in several comments here already, contradicts testimony and investigation by the local authorities actually charged with making such investigations, as opposed to a completely unrelated federal agency charged with collecting taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms? You made the accusation here. You are responsible for backing it up. Cite your evidence. Be specific.
You little fucking pipsqueak. What EVIDENCE do YOU HAVE of child abuse amongst the Davidians? You BETTER have some to make that statement. Otherwise YOU have no basis for a critical discussion - just that when the govt wants to make an omelette, some eggs are gonna get broken.
the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government
Whoa, bring those goalposts back over here. You SAID that Weaver and the Davidians were CRIMINALS and implied pretty clearly that they were TERRORISTS. On WHAT fucking evidence oh sackless-one?
And I assume you are condemning the ongoing illegal imprisonment of Muslims by the CURRENT U.S. govt - i.e. the Obama Administration.
Just as a correction for all, Weaver was NOT convicted on the gun charge, it was for failing to appear (which is what precipitated the siege). He was found not guilty of all other charges including murdering a law enforcement officer.
I have no love for Weaver's political/social views, or Koresh's religious whack-nuttery, but even conceding that they aren't people I would want as neighbors, the govt had NO CAUSE to do what it did in either case. That was not a "mistakes were made" (and corrective actions followed) set up. It was gross deriliction of duty and all of those responsible, right up the chain of command, should have had to answer. They have not, and it is only a matter of time before this happens again.
I would also point to James Tabor's book Why Waco? which includes discussion of a videotape that Koresh himself sent out stating that he had fathered several of the children in the compound with women that were 12 or 13. DNA testing of the bodies did confirm that some of the children were his. Koresh himself admitted it in communications during the stand off.
There are also the statements by Kiri Jewell as well as the 21 children that were released from the compound who were examined extensively by mental health professionals who concluded that their environment at Mt. Caramel was psychologically destructive.
You are taking stupid to a whole new level. I will only quote TWO WORDS off the title page of the U.S. Government's WHITEWASH report that you linked to:
Redacted Version
I swear, you pull this shit and I really want to find out what school district is imposing you on those poor innoncent children. You are barely competent to sweep the halls of a school, you have no business in the actual instruction of young minds.
You want a book to read, and I doubt you've actually read Tabor's - most likely you got a reference and maybe a quote from it out of Yglesias or such. The book to read is "This is not an Assault" by David Hardy, or if reading is too much trouble there is the video "Waco: Rules of Engagement". That you can actually quote a federal source when you have heaped so much praise on Zinn and his paranoiac view about the U.S. govt should cause your head to explode.
However, leaving ALL of that aside, and even for argument's sake STIPULATING that the allegations of child abuse had an ounce of validity - what business was it of the U.S Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation? That child abuse is the FIGLEAF that those agencies use to cover up their motives and methods (and lack of accountability for both) ought to tell you SOMETHING. But, no fact has EVER been able to penetrate the titanium ball that is your skull.
Juris, what's going on with you? I don't mind a rip here or there but these comments about me were way over the top and terribly disappointing coming from you. Clearly, there is something about this case that touches a nerve with you and I'm not sure why. If the video does indeed show that Koresh admitted to having sex with 12 year old girls, isn't that a bad thing? Combine that with the suspicion of illegal arms and I think you have a recipe for some serious problems.
I have no issue stating that the whole situation was FUBAR but it seems to me that you don't have much objectivity when it comes to this incident. This is actually true of many here. You don't like the government and immediately move to the "It's all their fault" side of the equation. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it not grounded in critical thought.
It's quite apparent to me that Koresh was a danger to the people around him. It's also obvious to me that the government made a series of errors which resulted in innocents being killed. I have stated many times on here that the US government does this all the time. Why is it, though, that in certain circumstances (and you know what ones I am talking about) when I make this statement that it is treason? In this case, though, it's just fine. Why?
Let me put this in the simplest terms possible - then you might just grasp the point.
Koresh was not a nice guy. However, contrary to your assertion, there is no credible evidence I've seen that he was a threat to the local community, let alone the country as a whole. The local authorities clearly did not see a problem there. Hell, even the Feds could've dealt with him differently - except that conflicted with their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies). Each fed the other - the difference being, the govt was wrong at every point in the affair.
Now, I hardly expect the govt to be perfect (even with the "right people" in charge). The most appalling aspect, after the terrible motives of the BATF in this, was the absolute and total lack of accountability on the part of the govt. And what infuriates me with you is that you play right along with that, saying Koresh was a criminal and a terrorist and utterly absolving the Feds from all of their wrongdoing.
Yes, you pissed me off, and I laid into your personally. But if you're going to say the stupidest possible things, expect to be treated as nothing but a knave. For someone spouting off continually about "the cult", you EPITOMIZE the mentality of the cargo cult - aping gestures that you don't understand and expecting the gods to deliver the goods.
Your emotion betrays you. If you re-read what I have written above, you will see that I have not absolved the government of anything.
their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies).
Juris, statements like this are where you lose me. And betray your lack of impartial judgement and bias. Statements like this are why you (and others here) can't engage in any sort of critical thinking regarding Waco or Ruby Ridge. The conclusion of discussions on either of these topics will always lead to the same place: Government Agendas. If they stray anywhere else...away from that destination...then it's wrong/stupid/I'm a pipsqueak/saying the stupidest things/barely competent to sweep the halls of you school.
So, I say again, if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you regarding these topics (you could start by putting away your blinding rage and see that the children in his Cult ARE part of the community), I'd be happy to continue.
If you re-read what I have written above, you will see that I have not absolved the government of anything.
Yes, you have.
It's bad when we can read what you said and understand it better than you said.
Again, this gets back to the fact that you've never learned to follow a logical path to a conclusion. It continually stymies you in understanding the world, and in what we're saying to you.
When you accept allegations as unchallengeable fact, despite many warning signs that those allegations are questionable and not relevant, it demonstrates that yes, you've absolved the government. When you can't follow the path - that both of those situations were the mark of out-of-control government bureaucracies, (with whom you have no problem with giving (more) power to), and not a single person was even fired for those situations, then that is the very definition of "absolving".
Again, if you learned what words mean, it would be less laughable. You have absolved the government, it's what you're doing.
And betray your lack of impartial judgement and bias.
You're cargo-culting.
We've demonstrated to you why that's our viewpoint, you have yet to substantiate a counterpoint. The best you've done is to suggest "child abuse" - but that doesn't explain why the BATF was mounting an armed assault.
Juris's statement doesn't "betray" anything other than a understanding of the situation.
Juris said: "their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies)"
Which is exactly what the BATF WAS TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE. They invited NEWS CREWS. They specifically did NOT involve the local law enforcement agencies, would could have easily walked into the compound and served a search warrent. They were TRYING to have a big PR stunt, and it backfired horrifically.
Congress was specifically talking about defunding the ATF. So they wanted a big PR stunt to show off why they needed all their tax money.
Ruby Ridge is a different, but similar problem.
But you don't know any of that. You have a childish understanding, you've bought into the many - demonstrable - lies, and many of the - at best, questionable - other rationalizations.
You could have learned a lot in this thread. You could certainly check any of us with the other facts of the situation. Check on the fact that there was a US Army helicopter on the raid, because they'd told the Army it was a drug raid. And that the Army, not amused, because their guys were not exposed to criminal prosecution, demanded - and got - immediate total repayment of their expenses from BATF for the helicopter.
And you ask, Why would ATF be investigating "drugs"? Well, I ask that. You're incapable of understanding jurisdictions, boundaries, systems.
if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you
We've been having one with a irrational fool. There's not a way to have a rational discussion with you. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not the fault of anyone here, but one.
Have you checked out the Texas Ranger report yet? (I know, you haven't.) Because if you did, you wouldn't be accusing us of "bias".
I really can't help that you are too stupid to realize what the ATF was doing, and why they didn't choose to peacefully arrest Koresh (as they had ample opportunity to do). Their "SWAT" team needed to exercise all of their training and equipment - that is why they chose to do what they did. ATF was also engulfed in a raging sexual harrasment scandal and was desperate for some good press. That was the MOTIVE I was talking about. I know everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, else understood exactly what I was getting at. That you did NOT is not my problem. That you choose to believe that this was some unfortinuate chain of events, and not a deliberate set of actions is also not my problem. You are not well enough informed to make a contribution to a discussion, so by all means - excuse yourself from it. But don't try to bullshit your way out by claiming that I'm the one closing this off - it is your refusal to examine/accept the evidence.
I am not bullshitting my way out of anything. I have accpeted the evidence of government error. It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him. You bemoan government conspiriacies when it comes to some stories yet fully accept them as fact when it comes to stories like this one simply because of your emotional bias.
What, did the government do wrong, Mark? SPECIFICALLY WHAT?
Not a vague hand-waving. Give me a list of WHAT went wrong, and what that epitomizes.
For extra-credit, you can detail what, if anything, has been done as a result of those errors.
But lay out what they did wrong, if you accept it and understand it.
It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him.
It is you who has failed to demonstrate that. The local LEOs didn't see it. The local ATF agents didn't see it. You've given no proof of this conclusion. Nor have you explained why you accept the BATF being the agency going in guns blazing.
If, if, you understand that, detail what threat he posed to the community. You also called him a "Terrorist", and have yet to explain who he and the other Davidians were terrorizing.
You can not do those things.
Thus, you're bullshitting trying to obfuscate that.
You bemoan government conspiriacies when it comes to some stories yet fully accept them as fact when it comes to stories like this one simply because of your emotional bias.
Like what? Who here actually knew the facts of the case?
It's more bullshitting from you trying to avoid that you've been caught out. Again.
No, you haven't.
Allow me to demonstrate why. What, did the government do wrong, Mark? SPECIFICALLY WHAT?
Not a vague hand-waving. Give me a list of WHAT went wrong, and what that epitomizes.
If Mark were telling the truth, he could have replied to that. But he didn't. Because he can't.
The hell you aren't bullshiting. I can smell it from here.
It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him.
Because YOU have not posted one shred of evidence that he was, after you said he and his followers were both CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS. All you have is your pathetic opinion that he MIGHT have been involved in some form of child abuse - despite the fact that Texas authorities (the appropriate ones BTW) did not reach that conclusion. Seriously, if you would just shut up I'd let it go, but the more you go on, the less I believe that children should be subjected to you in the front of a classroom. Obviously your father failed to teach you that when you are in a hole - STOP DIGGING.
"... if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you ..."
You have demonstrated for three years that you do not understand the concept of "rational discussion".
You do not need an excuse to save face and go away, little boy. The only person such an approach affects is you, and you can believe anything you want. So go ahead, make your excuse, and go away. But don't keep repeating that you won't continue to blather even as you continue to blather, because then it doesn't work. You can't even shut up and get it right, can you?
Alright, for the sake of argument, let's say that all the various things the Feds said about the BDs were absolutely 100 percent true. They said there was a crazy cult made up of men, women and children who were participating in various illegal activities.
They said they were running a meth lab. Meth production, from what I understand, involves large amounts of hydrogen gas. Clearly we should be shooting into a building that contains hyrdogen gas and children.
They said children were being abused. Clearly we should be laying siege to the building, shooting at the building, and finally burning it down with the children inside it. Better dead then molested.
They said they had automatic weapons. Which means they owe a 200 dollar tax per automatic weapon. Thus, we call in helicopter gunships, tanks, and what amounts to a poorly trained light infantry battalion to deal with it. For a tax offense.
Yeah, most liberals I know don't talk about Waco, if they even know about it. I've noticed with the Left that they have three modes:
1. Policy or event is popular then laud its popularity, argumentum ad populum. For examples see Medicare, Social Security.
2. If policy or event is unpopular and has led to bad results, but mediaspace domination allows the waters to be muddied enough with things like playing the race card or the use of various mascots. For examples see welfare, affirmative action.
3. If policy or event is clearly indefensible to the majority of the population, then just shove it down the memory hole. Waco is an example of this, along with Clinton's fecklessness against Al-Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11.
I'm a bit late to the party, here - exactly what is the definition of this/these "hirabis" of which Marky-Mook writes?
You *are* late if you don't know that well, we don't know.
Mark started using that word, and when asked, he wouldn't define it, tell us where he'd based it off of. Ed, I think, or GOF, went looking and found an article where the concept of Islamic Terrorism was found using "hirabi" as someone who violated Islamic law.
They pointed out to Mark that terrorism is enshrined in Islamic law, and cited various authorities and learned scholars.
Mark, while not ever acknowledging that the "hirabi" concept is a best arguable, and more likely, laughable, promptly ignored all of that and based his worldview around it being fact, and accused us of not being able to understand anything.
So that's our best guess - because Mark can't define anything he uses. But once he's set it out, it's ironclad and not subject to discussion, even when he's trying to demonstrated how reasonable and how strong his critical thinking skills.
That's not a term I encounter anywhere else, in print or in the Blogosphere
I forget where Mark started pasting it from - like you can see his current one is "Attack me with your biggest weakness!" which is "bounces off me and sticks to you with glue" and just as logical. I hope Mark doesn't ever have heart problems. Because he's so loaded with Irony, he'll never be able to be scanned with an MRI.
Clearly, the bozo's an easy chew-toy to bat around - the "logic" he attempts to deploy in his "argumentation" never seems to rise above a) "when I write it, that makes it fact...so, there!", and b) "if I simply ignore what YOU write, and make the response I WANT TO MAKE, that automatically defeats/disproves what you wrote".
Welcome to "The Base" aka "The Cult" and recently "The Cocoon", my friend! You see, we're a Christian cult made up largely of Atheists, who know nothing of the Educational system, while working in it, around it, and through it to various levels of degrees. We're all white male racists, about 1/4 female, and of several ethnic backgrounds. We're unable to explain ourselves, while using both big and small words, and citing authorities whom we don't trust, but most importantly, we, unlike Mark, make up a world around us based solely on our feelings, even though we don't need to redefine words and can easily explain our views without reduction to logical fallacies.
We'll send you the meeting info via your rovian brain implant, and we'll have punch and pie. Always great to have new people who don't exist!
Allow several days for delivery. Why, just last week my staff sent me an internets and I didn't get it until a few days later. It's a series of tubes, not a truck!
Several ethinic backgrounds? Which ones would those be, Unix? I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response. Seeing as how "multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated on here all the time, I remain genuinely curious at the width of ethnic backgrounds on this blog.
"Multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated here. "Ethnic background" is totally orthoganal to that, however. That's because culture is not lockstepped to ethnicity. Wonderful thing about America, it's possible for your ancestors to be from anywhere in the world at all, and still be an American.
As for mine, I live in New Mexico and my daddy's name is Manuel. Draw your own conclusions.
I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response.
What fucking difference does that make to the arguments made? Oh, I see, you only let certain people say certain things - if you are a white male, you must only say the things white males are allowed to say; subdivided by conservative white males and liberal white males. Which of course shows the complete logical fail in ethnicity being tied to political viewpoint. Not that you can understand that concept - it doesn't accord with your beliefs.
Is there a metaphysical state BEYOND mere predictability? Cause Markadaffya certainly must be there.
I want to know what sort of medical procedure removes the subject's reading comprehension but still allows the subject to utilize modern technology.
"Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses."
Or in other words "If I'm so predictable why to do keep predicting my behavior? And besides, you're predictable in accurately describing my responses!"
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless? Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about Waco. Really sad, sir.
No, we can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
I've asked you a very simple "critical thinking" question, and you're dodging it.
It started, when you said:criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most.
Yet you have yet to back any of that up. Some vague allegations (which had never been justified with any investigation). Nor explain who or how they were "terrorizing".
And now you sneer at us for having doubts, despite the fact that ATF is NOT THE RELEVENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE, much less lead a raid, FOR CHILD ABUSE.
That would require some critical thinking skills.
No, we can't have a discussion, because you cannot and will not define your terms, back up your arguments, and do basic research, rather, sticking to innuendo and emotional assertions as fact.
That's what I was trying to bring out, and you've demonstrated that beautifully for us.
Several ethinic backgrounds?
It's amazing that for all I've said here, you jump on that. Amazing. Almost like, you've got a script and the only thing that matters is what victim class you, or we, are in. Amazing. Really. (No, it's not, I suspected you'd do as much.)
Which ones would those be, Unix?
WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME? You "know the questions to ask" of yourself to discover these things.
Why are you asking me? Why not predict and profile me? (Nevermind you're almost always 100% wrong.)
I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response.
Because you want those for logical fallacies, and we know that. Besides, if you knew our demographics, and our victim groups, it wouldn't matter, you'd ignore us, as you ignore "primary sources" when they refute you.
The questions and issues here have nothing to do with our "diversity", they have nothing to do with our "culture" or "demographics" (Which you misuse).
The issues here are "do you know what you're talking about" and "can you back up what your opinion is". When you ask factual questions, they're color-blind, sex-neutral, sexual-orientation-indifferent, and religiously uncaring.
For some reason, you want to know our groups to determine the worth of our logic. In order to "think critically."
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless?
No. I said the Texas Dept. of Public Safety (state police) had checked them out several times and found nothing they considered actionable. *I* don't know whether they were groundless, I wasn't one of the investigators. As to whether or not there were grounds, we'll never know, will we? The BATF chose to commence firing and ultimately burn the place to the ground rather than find out, did they not?
But okay, let's assume there was child abuse going on. I find it interesting that you consider "just kill em" to be an unacceptable response to foreign nationals killing American citizens, yet apparently think it's "a mistake", but an acceptable one, to respond that way to alleged child abuse among white conservative Christians who are American citizens.
I find it hard to believe that someone of your intellect has missed the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government.
I'm not going to play that bullshit game with you, Mark. So far as I can tell, you think that intel agents and soldiers should act under the same rules and limitations as police, and that foreign nationals on foreign soil, even in a war zone, committing acts of war against the US, should have the same rights as US citizens. And now you'll try to "prove me wrong" by assuming I agree with this stack of flawed premises.
"yet apparently think it's "a mistake", but an acceptable one, to respond that way to alleged child abuse among white conservative Christians who are American citizens."
My memory is a little foggy on this (and I've already taken WAY too much time away from work to do any more research), but didn't the children also die in the fire? Wouldn't that make it "acceptable" to kill the victims of alleged child abuse along with the "alleged" perpetrators? Is it just me, or does that bear an uncomfortable similarity to Muslims stoning women for the "crime" of being raped?
Technically, no. Most of the children were dead due to the tear gas poisoning by the time the fire reached their bodies.
But it's exactly the same as all those Muslim children that the US has rounded up, gassed and killed. EXACTLY. Exactly the same because they were criminals and terrorists. Exactly. You hypocrite.
Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about this. Really sad, sir.
I just realized you were partially quoting Marxaphasia. I guess that means he's the one channelling Olberdork.
Marxy, putting on fake "extreme moral outrage" the way the rest of us put on a shirt—especially when you say morally outrageous things in the process—is blindingly obvious to anyone who actually has a decent grasp of morals. It's obviously fake in the same way that "all your base are belong to us" was obviously "translated into English" by someone who actually doesn't really understand English.
At least now we know who Keith Olberdork's one actual viewer is.
The original reason for the raid was "illegal firearms," at least as reported then in the local media. Keresh had purchased (through FFL and gun shows) a few AR platforms and a BAR among others (if I remember rightly.) Jack Harwell went to the compound, was let in, shown the weaps in question, and then told the Feds there were no violations that HE could see. Oh yeah, Mark, they found the charred remains of the weaps, but no aftermarket full auto stuff. Who'd a thunk it. The CPS charges were never justified. THE FEDS WANTED A CLUSTER FUCK. See my post above.
YOUR TINFOIL HAT!
Weep and gnash your teeth! For.. wait.
Or is it humor? THAT'S IT. YOUR ACHILLES HEEL IS HUMOR!
Wait, that's a rather.. uh, non-Achilles Heel Achilles Heel.
Maybe it was the links? The http:// ? Doesn't seem like much of a weapon there... Uh... Well, shucks, I'm not sure what the hell Mark's going on about, which makes a bunch of us, including Mark....
"Rove again...attack your opponent with you greatest weakness"
Since I know almost nothing about Rove, I Googled "Rove attack greatest weakness", waded past the garbage, and finally found something that fits:
"Take you greatest weakness and label your opponent with it"
Well, there it is, right down to the same misspelled word. Damn, but that copy-and-paste stuff is good shit, ain't it?
So, is this gonna be a new Standard Response for you, even if you can't spell it correctly?
Nah, it can't be. It's not new, y'see. It's just the flip side of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply accuse the other side of your Standard Response #9, and thus it is, itself, a "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. It, too, is what one usually finds on a playground during third grade recess.
Yet again, you avoided the substance of what someone else wrote and just behaved like a child. See why I call you a little boy?
Y'know, the irony of this just hit me. It must be a slow day.
Your Standard Responses are nothing more than running away and/or hiding from the meat of any comment directed at you. This is Your Greatest Weakness. Thus, for you to accuse someone else of taking his greatest weakness and labeling you with itis itself an instance of you taking your greatest weakness and labeling your opponent with it. Yup, yet again, it's your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.
Hypocrisy is your most noticable character trait, and this is just another instance of it.
Al-Ghazali (1058-1111). Born at Tus in Khurasan, near modern Meshed, and became a renowned theologian, jurist, and mystic. Al-Ghazali's early training was as a jurist, and he continued to have an interest in jurisprudence throughout his career, writing a work the Wadjiz, data 1101, in the last decade of his life. W. M. Watt wrote of Al-Ghazali, “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…”
Here's what Al-Ghazali had to say about jihad:
… [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year … one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them … If a person of the ahl al-kitab [People of the Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked … One may cut down their trees … One must destroy their useless books, Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide … they may steal as much food as they need …
[On the dhimmis subjected by jihad]
… [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle … Jews, Christians, and Majians must by the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] … on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] … They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells … their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths … [dhimmis] must hold their tongue …
Notice that these raids are exactly what Mohammed was doing in the last 10 years of his life.
Thanks, I got InSight™ for free when I had the Right Wing Mind Control Implant™ installed. It really helps to March in Lockstep with The Cult, wrapped in my own private Cocoon.
Uh, no. We've started. The other day, when you threw out a statement and ran away from it.
The race has lapped you several times.
Perhaps you mean, "I'll start here," which is closer to being true.
If it leads to where I suspect it will, I'm done.
You've yet to predict anything correctly yet, but I bet you'll be "done" anyway, since it's about time for you to run away. There are more than 10 threads you've left hanging, you've asked questions and run away from the answers, you've made statements and logical fallacies you're now ignoring... You're actually past due. http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacotocpg.htm#toc
That's an interesting document. I've got it in paper. Along with some other documentation.
But the worth of that document - and it's a damned instructive one in many ways - has been viciously undermined by the later discoveries of perjury to Congress in the preparation of that report and others. For instance, there is no mention of the Army Helicopter (ATF told the Army this was a drug bust, otherwise the Army wouldn't have been permitted to assist, with gunfire from the ATF agents in the Helicopter, nor the presence of Lon Horuichi and that the FBI HRT fired on the compound after the fire started. (Texas Rangers collected spent 7.62x51mm shell casing from the HRT firing point afterward.) That's specifically denied in that report.
(Due to Echo's incorrect character count, part 2 follows)
I would also point to James Tabor's book Why Waco?
Vaguely hand-waving isn't proof. What about the book?
which includes discussion of a videotape that Koresh himself sent out stating that he had fathered several of the children in the compound with women that were 12 or 13.
That's called an "allegation", and had been researched and investigated. When did ATF get involved with statutory rape? Stop evading this, because it's central to you learning something.
DNA testing of the bodies did confirm that some of the children were his. Koresh himself admitted it in communications during the stand off.
This does not prove there was a crime. Fathering a child is not criminal, in and of itself. You're trying to conflate the two issues, and you've failed.
There are also the statements by Kiri Jewell as well as the 21 children that were released from the compound who were examined extensively by mental health professionals who concluded that their environment at Mt. Caramel was psychologically destructive.
Let's let them examine your students as a control population.
That's allegations. Not proof. And it's also from a massive cover-the-asses mentality that involved multiple lies and distortions. I'm not siding with the Branch Davidians, but of course they were "psychologically destructive" by the mental health professionals. That's not, by itself, criminal. Which was your clear and unambiguous claim.
Furthermore, if you want to compare "apples and apples' with the BD and Islam, let's start examining the kids - in America - who are put into the Islamic schools, including ones paid for with public money. Including one next to you:
And you have yet to explain why the ATF was raiding based on that. It's not their jurisdiction. It doesn't explain the raid. It's the sort of hunting around for excuses when something goes - horribly - wrong that happens.
It's a far better effort from you than normal - at least you linked to some allegations that are arguable, if you failed to actually draw conclusions or prove your point.
But yes, we knew of those.
What undermines your case, is the fact that the children were shot at trying to escape, and teargassed and bulldozed. Not exactly what you do when you suspect "child abuse". I'll await a similar raid on a Muslim compound for some proof.
"The last thing we needed right now was for the Obama administration to turn the paranoid delusions of the extreme right-wing crazies into reality."
Just heard that only one of the people that were arrested was a registered voter. Can you guess the party they were registered to? If you said Democrat, you win the prize.
From what I have read about Weaver, there are many questions and disputed facts on all sides in that case. Here is how this discussion would go.
1. Mark makes points about Ruby Ridge that don't fit into "Gubmint Bad" meme.
2. Mark agrees with some points in said meme.
3. TSM commenters disregard #2 and focus solely on #1.
4. Hyper abrasive and personally insulting vitriol begins.
5. Mark wastes time researching counter points knowing full well that all information that does not fit with the UNDISPUTED (set in stone forever and ever, amen) RESOLTION will result in more hyper vitriol and insults.
So, unless I see some evidence that minds will be open, there will be no discussion regarding Ruby Ridge.
1. Mark talks out his ass about a subject he doesn't know about.
You really don't have to go past that. At least not until you are prepared to admit you were wrong in calling Weaver a criminal and a terrorist. Absent that, you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion about Ruby Ridge.
Go read that Mark. You should adore Gerry Spence (for his politics) and he represented Randy Weaver (who's politics couldn't have been more different than his lawyer's). Read it, think about, and then shit up until you can demonstrate some sense.
So unless I see some evidence that minds will be open,
Pot? Meet kettle.
Wow. That's military-grade obtuseness, right there.
Remember the words of the Anarchangel: "There can be no useful debate between two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves."
"So, unless I see some evidence that minds will be open, there will be no discussion regarding Ruby Ridge."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. It has become your favorite of late, hasn't it, little boy?
And, yet again, we see your hypocrisy rear its ugly head, as we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of. How was recess yesterday?
Finally, do you presume to tell other commenters what they will or will not discuss? In charge, are you?
Do you still not understand why you are so universally loathed here, sack boy?
"Several ethinic backgrounds? Which ones would those be, Unix? I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response. Seeing as how "multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated on here all the time, I remain genuinely curious at the width of ethnic backgrounds on this blog"
Late Generation Irish/Swedish on one side, somewhat earlier generation English/Irish on the other. I did grow up on an Indian Reservation in Montana. Of course, obviously Immigrant Irish Catholics of low descent are every bit the cultural equal of WASP Landed Gentry, right? Since we are all WMAs?
Juris, what's going on with you? I don't mind a rip here or there but these comments about me were way over the top and terribly disappointing coming from you.
Why? Because you're hopeless? Because even when it's clearly laid out, you'll do anything but learn? Because your "thought process" is so far from "Critically thought out" as possible? Because you make accusations, statements without any basis, or a tenuous proof at best, and then go forward and make sweeping judgements and condemnations of other people who've actually thought it out more?
That that's your entire MO, and has been for years? I'd catalog it - but I've done before, and you ignored it. DJ does it, you ignore it, or miss the entire point.
Clearly, there is something about this case that touches a nerve with you and I'm not sure why.
Possibly. Or he's sick of you making statements and conclusions, then trying to insist you somehow got there via "logic" and "critical thought". I am, anyway.
If the video does indeed show that Koresh admitted to having sex with 12 year old girls, isn't that a bad thing?
IF that is the case, yes. It's a "bad thing". But a "bad thing" IS NOT (necesarily) A CRIME. But that's a big damn if. And it's interesting that Texas didn't respond to that. (Which you KEEP DODGING.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE ATF INVESTIGATE CHILD SEX?
It's a "bad thing" that you're (putatively) in front of a classroom. It OUGHT to be a crime. But it's not. (As far as I know.) Those claims were made many times against the Branch Davidians during custody battles - none were substantiated.
Yet you've PRESUMED that those charges are true, unarguably, and have then based your entire laughable worldview upon it. That's not even getting into your "terrorist" claim, which you're NOT BACKING UP. You made the comparison. Explain yourself.
(Echo is the biggest piece of shit in commenting software available.)
Combine that with the suspicion of illegal arms and I think you have a recipe for some serious problems.
So, your ass kicked, instead of admitting error, you'll say "I think.. it could be.. problematic". Suspicion of what, exactly? Yes, YOU MADE THIS CLAIM. Detail what you're talking about.
I have no issue stating that the whole situation was FUBAR but it seems to me that you don't have much objectivity when it comes to this incident.
You have NO IDEA WHAT THE SITUATION WAS. None. You're scrambling back to get some semblance of knowledge, because it's very obvious which of us here were the "scholars" of the situation. What crimes were being investigated, and how were they "Terrorists"?
Objectivity? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I'm very objective about it. This is what happens when you get big-ass bureaucracies with guns, and let them try and gin up PR stunts to increase funding.
FUBAR, Eh? So surely you can tell us who was disciplined and dismissed as a result of the incident. Right? Or do you have a childish view of the situation and aren't able to discuss even that?
This is actually true of many here. You don't like the government and immediately move to the "It's all their fault" side of the equation. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it not grounded in critical thought.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true the first time you made up your own reality.
(echo: when you absolutely need a shitty comment system.)
It's quite apparent to me that Koresh was a danger to the people around him.
THAT's what's not objective, or based in any way on reality. Most of the people around him - including many minors - CHOSE to be there. No matter how crazy he was, that was their choice. You've not proven this. You can believe it - that's your problem. But you HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED THAT. And you've demonstrated utter ignorance of the rest of the context which argues against it.
And you've got no problem killing them "in their own good". Yes. I can't wait til you're cheering on health care.
It's also obvious to me that the government made a series of errors which resulted in innocents being killed.
No, it's not obvious to you. Or that it wasn't a "series of errors" but a systemic failure. One that you don't understand and we do.
Not a single person was fired for all those "errors", Mark. 2 were "disciplined" for a short time.
In this case, though, it's just fine. Why?
For you to understand this, you're going to have to learn. You're going to have to shut up, and listen to those who know how to think critically, stop jumping to conclusions that are unsupported, and learn HOW TO LOGICALLY THINK.
I'm always optimistic, but I won't put money on you getting the humility to make that step.
See what happens when you don't understand something, Mark, and try and build a system? Send them a resume. You're a natural for JS-Kit. They won't admit to errors either. (Seriously, not even a bug database.)
The essence of psychological denial is a refusal to look at, or acknowledge, reality.
Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth. ... You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world, to a place more comfortable and unchallenging--i.e., to their inner reality. ... The left decries the "paranoid style" of the the right when any question arises about the seemliness and unbelievable haste with which President Obama has attempted to consolidate vast amounts of power in the Presidency (see here for a breakdown of the more than 30 czars who function outside the normal checks and balances of government and have been called Obama's "shadow government")--something they daily insisted Bush was doing on an unprecedented level.
Turns out Bush was a piker compared to The One when it comes to accumulating power unto one's self.
Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated into their mainstream thinking, specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial and often completely break with reality.
It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished. ... This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position, the goalposts are then changed to ensure their denial remains untouched.
When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.
Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't. ... As I have written before, at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't. ... Don't dare question their patriotism, they screamed when they were not in power. But if you looked at their behavior and the consequences of that behavior, that was exactly what you had to question. Of course, now that they are in power, questioning them is completely out of bounds. ... One of the most important psychological challenges for every human is dealing with reality and the real world--particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid.
Today we are witness to the left's vivid (and psychotic) imagination, feverishly working overtime to reverse all those unwelcome facts and painful truths so they can remain in an endless childhood.
I have stated the following (not quite verbatim) many times in Kevin's Parlor:
"Reality is what it is, regardless of what you think about it, and regardless of whether or not you like it. Thus, whether or not you like it is irrelevant to any analysis you make of it."
Teacher boy has NEVER responded to this statement in any way except to totally ignore it.
You haven't been alone in that either. I know I've made similar statements, and I'm pretty sure that most of the other regulars have routinely said much the same. In fact, I seem to remember Kevin talking about people dying when engineers try to ignore reality.
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/2010/03/when-does-wookie-suit-become-evening.html (153 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I love that they asked for “Public Defenders”, I guess they now know that there was an undercover FBI agent. The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point. These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now that their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing, they are crying again. They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones that are armed and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around in the parks playing commando, the majority understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn Beck. So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches.
An interesting example of the "WTF, over?" type of comment I was talking about. ;)
Are your readership numbers up? You sure seem to be collecting more left-leaning commenters.
Maybe you got tagged as an enemy of the state and got put on the lists to harrass.
Good, God. Does someone actually consider this post an example of the English language? If commas indicate pauses you must be wheezing.
Wow. It's like Mark, but less coherent and with childish mispellings of people's names.
Well, let's be fair. Mark is capable of stringing together words and sentences into something that is at least grammatically and syntactically accurate enough to lead himself to believe that it's also therefore implicitly coherent.
Our above case even managed to choose a font that exemplifies a general contempt for legibility. Whatever you want to say about Mark's nonsensical bullshit, it at least reads well (usually that means: reads well for a good laugh, but that's a different matter altogether).
"Sarah Bailin"? Yikes. Such soggy wit almost makes me pine for the frenzy of the Bush years -- at least some of the infinite variations on "Chimpy McHitlerburton" were good for a laugh.
Yeah, but who's afraid of the "ex-military" equivalent of Water Boy, or Desk Commando?
I only know a couple people who are "active Tea Party" types, but I get the impression that they represent what the majority of Tea Party people are like. They aren't wackos. They are normal everyday people who are afraid for the future of this country. They are patriotic and love America. They aren't militia, in fact, they don't own firearms.
In any group, there is always that 10% who can't play nice or get with the program. If these militia members are even affiliated with the Tea Party people (and that is still not certian), they are most assuredly part of that 10%.
s
One thing that strikes me is the contrast between the reaction to these arrests and the reaction to various Muslim terrorism arrests. Here they deman every detail of the evidence made public and assume that the government is arresting innocent people for the purposes of political grandstanding. There the government possess an infalliable ability to detect evildoers that should never require explanation.
It's funny how Repulbican go from "hang them all" law and order types to ACLU members the second their Frankenstein's monster turns on them.
Well, as Tam once remarked (I'm paraphrasing), when members of the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary start strapping on Semtex Underoos and blowing up the Mall of America I'll be more inclined to jump to the conclusion that Christian Militias are more dangerous than young men named Mohammed. Sometimes prejudice is educated, not knee-jerk.
Actually, I was always pretty unimpressed with the arrests and grandstanding under the last Administration, so you shouldn't be surprised that I am again, unimpressed.
The more the govt ballyhoos the threat they have subverted, the less realistic the threat was. I would venture that the real threats don't get revealed because that just might "scare the white people".
Yup, it sure looks like Kevin has been added to the Counter-Revolutionary Enemies of the People List. His comment stream is showing more "diversity" all of a sudden.
Hail Chairman Obama!
If I may cut and copy from Stuart;
"I only know a couple people who are "active Tea Party" types...They aren't militia, in fact, they don't own firearms."
What I can say about the Tea Party folks (the half-dozen I know who actually go to rallies), this observation is perfectly accurate. They are part of a previously mute and usually non-active political bunch who've started to see EXACTLY what the typical politics in D.C. is all about, and are simply horrified, and I think right so, by the Communists who are currently in power.
I read that one of the suspects had 46 guns and 13,000 rounds taken from his home. That works out to 282rds per gun. Oh the horror. Most gun people I know have more than 13k in .22 alone...
For some reason, I was reminded of Tam's comment:
smallestminority.blogspot…quote-of-day-heavily-armed-edition.html
It's interesting to see that the first thing they come up with is an attempt equivocation, and project a reponse not in evidence.
Kevin, do you honestly think that Waco and Ruby Ridge were government witch hunts and murder?
Mark,
From the reading that I have done, and I have looked for viewpoints on both sides of the argument, I can only conclude that at the very LEAST both Waco and Ruby Ridge were masively mis-handled by the government agencies involved (probably resulting in unwaranted loss of life). Were there valid reasons for investigation? Probably (although an argument could be made either way), but there were definately less violent means to further those investigations than what was done.
s
I would agree that they were mishandled and did have unwaranted loss of life but I would be curious if you would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorists cel.
So, you agree with me.
Then you ask if I would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorist cell. The answer to that is quite simple. Anytime that a Federal policing agency (FBI, ATF, IRS, etc) goes in guns blazing, killing innocents it is unwaranted and they need to find a better way of dealing with the issue.
s
Cool. Well said, Stuart.
It's not always the fault of innocent followers who get caught up in a situation that whirs out of control. Koresh and the other leaders in the group put many of these people in harm's way unncessarily and the federal agents made matters worse by making a series of mistakes. One of the biggest was making the Branch Dividians out to be martyrs much in the same way hirabis are martyred. If the government had treated them as common thugs or criminals and not over reacted, as they should with many (but not all) hirabis, I suspect things would have turned out better.
Mark,
I may have missed it, but I am not seeing a large number of cases (or hardly any) of the Feds bashing in doors and killing Muslims here in America. Do you have examples of this so that I can bettter understand you point? Cause if you don't, I will have to suspect that your argument is a straw man.
s
Suspect?
Argument?
I was speaking of the world at large in regards to the martyring of hirabis. Criminals come in all shapes and sizes...both foreign and domestic. While I would agree that there hasn't been much killing in regards to hirabis here at home, there has been plenty of bashing in of doors, imprisonment without charges, loads of uncovered plots etc.
I think you will agree that if it was discovered that an Islamic group was accused, through eyewitness and victim testimony, that underage girls were being molestsed as well as guns/ammo/explosives were being horded that our government might want to look into that. Of course, that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made.
So you admit to the straw man argument. Mark Mark... what will we do with you. Yes, if an Islamic group is accused of crimes they will be investigated, but we are just not seeing the massive violation of the civil rights of Muslims that you are claiming. In fact, as has been often pointed out here and elsewhere, it seems to many of us that the DHS has been going out of it's way to blindly NOT violate civil rights of Muslims even in instances where it would be warranted.
s
It's not a straw man argument. I'm pointing out some obvious hypocrisies by many here. Thus far, from what you have written, that would not be you. For example, Unix appears to believe that all of the testimony regarding child molestation is false or has been disproven. I say "appears" because I'm not quite sure what he thinks as he is doing the "let Mark make points so I can shoot him down for shits and giggles" rag that he always does rather than state his full view on all of this.
Shooting you down for shits and giggles is all it amounts to for just about any of us. Quality entertainment is hard to come by in a society so debased that it lets you teach schoolchildren, so this'll do until something better comes along.
Gotta weigh in on this one... I live in Waco, and have heard in person former sheriff Jack Harwell speak on this. He was on 1st name terms w/ Koresh, who went into town to shop about once a week. Jack could have picked him up anytime. He stated Koresh would have gone with him without a fight. The Feds turned him down. THEY WANTED A BIG CHARLEY FOXTROT. They had NO intention of letting this be a small deal. Somehow the local media jerks found out about the Feds setting up to raid, and sent their van in 30 mins before the raid started. I last saw the footage of the van progressing alone down the road towards the compound that morning. I have not been able to find it since. I have also not been able to find the local media footage in infra-red, shot from their helocopter, of the 15-20 Federal gunmen firing INTO the burning compound on the last day. Without electricity the Davidians were burning propane and white gas to cook and heat their facility. The Feds waited until they had a good 30-40 mph wind blowing to start knocking down the house. WTF did they THINK was gonna happen? Oh yeah- Lon Horiuchi was there as well...
Kevin, do you honestly think that Waco and Ruby Ridge were government witch hunts and murder?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! FRESH FROM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE... DEFENDING HIS UNDEFEATED TITLE IN OBTUSENESS.....IN THIS CORNER... WEARING A TINFOIL HAT, BLINDERS, AND A CHE T-SHIRT... MARRRRRRRRRRRRRKADEEEEEEELLLLLPHHIIIIAAAAAAAAAA.
Just out of curiosity Mark, what would you describe them as?
They weren't "witch hunts". But don't try and confuse Mark with definitions, he's got facts to ignore.
They were criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most. Based on what I have read on here, if either of these groups were Muslim, no one would have a problem with what happened. It will be interesting to see Kevin's answer but based on this comment
when members of the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary start strapping on Semtex Underoos and blowing up the Mall of America I'll be more inclined to jump to the conclusion that Christian Militias are more dangerous than young men named Mohammed. Sometimes prejudice is educated, not knee-jerk.
I suspect a severe case of myopia has set in quite deeply. If we had Mohammed McVeigh, Akbar Rudolph, Shamir Nichols, and Abu Roeder we'd have a whole different situation, wouldn't we? As it stands, the previous four were lone nuts, misunderstood, or vicitms of a statist regime.
Oh, they were criminals. Does that make it all better for you Mark? Does that make it all better when Fed snipers shot and killed Randy Weaver's unarmed wife while she was holding her baby? Does that make it ok that they shot up his house indiscriminately while his children were inside? All for not showing up to a court case where he was accused of selling a shotgun that had a barrel that was like 1/4 inch too short? Yea, whoo buddy, that 1/4 inch really makes that shotgun so dangerous that we could have all been killed or worse!
I see, you have shown your stripes (again).
"I would agree that they were mishandled and did have unwaranted loss of life but I would be curious if you would think the same thing if it were a domestic Muslim terrorists cel. "
An unwaranted loss of life. And what exactly does a "domestic Muslim terrorists cel." have to do with any of it?
Quite frankly, I think the disconnect here might be as simple as you not getting the fact that Randy Weaver hadn't been convicted of anything, and by saying "domestic Muslim terrorists cel." you words are implying that they are terrorists. A person isn't a terrorist until they do a terrorist act, or can be reasonably proven to be planning to do said attack. Certianly we can be forgiven for being a little harder on someone who has committed a terrorist act or is planning to do so than a guy who may or may not have (possiblyl accidently) cut a barrel 1/4 inch too short. Who here hasn't screwed up a mesurement at some point in their life?
Finally, no. I don't think that if the government cracked down hard on a Muslim family (possibly killing an innocent family member, you know, to bring it up to the level of the argument) and it was found out that the case against said Muslim was shakey at best and less violent means of apprehending were not tried, that the people here would be like "Oh yea, smoke that rag head!" I think we would be just as unhappy about it. The prejudice that Kevin spoke of was not one of "kill that Muslim fucker, I don't care", it was one of "hey, the airport exploded! I think it was more likely the Muslim dude reading the Koran than the old white christian lady showing pictures of her grandkids". I have to agree with him.
s
ps Kevin, If I have mis-represented your opinion, let me know. I will retract my statement (and agreement).
Stuart's missed a few points, and Stuart, I was trying to get _Mark_ to at least do the cut and paste on Weaver's _accused crime_.
But even you missed something.
Where was Weaver _terrorizing_ anyone? Where was Koresh _terrorizing_ anyone? Where did they claim to want to?
And that's where Mark's bullshit "Hirabi bullshit" really falls apart.
His "counter" examples of "Terrorists" are - at best - people who'd retreated from the world and weren't trying to influence anybody, much less terrorize them into changing their behavior.
Now, Mark, given that I just answered you - while you're playing your F- student games with me - hows about you nut up and answer the questions that you raised.
AH! No, I didn't really miss Mark's OMGTHEYRETERRORISTS remarks. I was (I guess maybe too subtly) refuting them by showing just how insugnificat the charge against Randy Weaver was compared to OMGDOMESTICTERRORISTAS!
I also called him on said "Hirabi bullshit" elsewhere, but I'm not going to hold my breath that he is actually going to answer me on that one. People like Mark tend to abandon their Straw Men when they are no longer useful.
I am sorry if I stepped on your line of argument as far as Weaver's supposed crimes goes. I don't think you would have ever gotten that answer from Mark anyway though since it didn't help his argument in any way.
s
If I remember right, Koresh jogged past their listening post every damn day for four weeks or something like that. Coulda picked him up quiet like anytime they wanted....
Nope, that's it. Similarly, when I hear that the Feds have raided a "Christian Militia" ready to commit acts of terrorism, my finely-tuned nose starts sniffing for BS - in the form of "agents" or "informants" who were likely the instigators of such acts.
Hey, at least this time nobody got pre-emptorily shot, on either side. There's no siege going on, and no mother carrying an infant will be shot through the head.
Maybe they've learned something from their raids on domestic Muslim terror groups? Or Ruby Ridge and Waco left a bad taste in their mouths?
Still, it's possible that the Fibbies or BATFU could manage to infiltrate a Muslim group and do the same kind of agitating they've done in the past to Christian and secular "militia" groups before - I wouldn't put it past them. Then it's just a question of who would respond to the prodding faster. Since at least one major branch of Islam embraces Jihad, and the Lutheran Ladies' Auxiliary does not, I'd tend to err on the side of the boys named Mohammed. But entrapment is still entrapment, no matter who they do it to.
I remember a couple of years ago reading a right-wing blog (I can't remember who or find a link, but I think it might have been Kim du Toit) that was complaining about the handling of a domesting muslim "terrorist" case because it looked sort of like it might have been encouraged/caused by the FBI informant in their group, so I naturally just assume that it's simply a dislike of poorly conducted government investigations when bloggers complain about these sort of things. (Though perhaps people are a little more vocal about the problems when it's affecting someone they find a bit more simpathetic.)
I'd suggest to you, Mark, that you're going to get your intellectual ass handed to you if you want to discuss Waco or Ruby Ridge.
But I know that 1) you like it, you don't come here for the hunting. 2) It would be a waste of breath.
Many of us here have studied those. You haven't. So, you're back to being hypocritical, which isn't anything new for you - just yesterday you were saying that whoever has studied more should have more authority and be listened to.
Wow, Unix. Three quick posts. Nervous, are we? Insecure much? Well, I see you have already tapped into your inner Rove and are attacking me with your greatest weakness. Nice try, but don't you always "hand my intellectual ass" to me? How would this time be any different?
Oh, that's right. Your massively hypocritcal ass is going to try to convince me that it's not ______ when the Cult does it.
Still won't define "cult", will you, hypocrisy boy?
And, you whining of hypcrisy in someone else is the ultimate form of hypcrisy. Proud of yourself, are you?
You fool no one, little boy.
Mark, when are you going to stop being such a predictable idiot?
Copied from a recently-abandoned ass-whuppin':
-----
Yo, teacher boy.
Yeah, you.
Do you get it now?
Do you understand that companies which sell health insurance are prohibited from selling it across state lines?
Do you understand that selling health insurance within a state is not interstate commerce?
Or is your sack a bit tight today?
-----
What we have here, yet again, is your Standard Response #11, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close, and so you tucked your tail between your legs and scurried away, only to reappear here with your typical drive-by tossing of red meat, all as if ain't nuthin' happened.
Still cannot admit error, can you?
Still cannot admit that someone else is right, can you?
I believe I stated my position quiet cleary in the other thread, DJ. When you are ready to engage in critical thinking regarding the United States Constitution, I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion. As it stands, I see no such evidence...seeeing only more hubris, ego, and Constitutional chest thumping.
**yawn**
Yup, same old shit, different day.
We see, yet again, your Standard Response #2, the "What's the point" response, your Standard Response #4, the "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response, your Standard Response #5, the "I'm drowning in stupidity" response, your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response, your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, and your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
If memory serves me correctly, that is a record: seven of your eleven Standard Responses in one little fart.
I think Kevin is making a mistake by permitting you to spew your drivel here. One of his reasons for doing so has merit, viz., that it fosters good writings by others, but the notion that you perform a service as an example of what's under the rock you crawled out from is wrong.
Y'know why? Usually, leftist gubmint-be-good moonbats swarm to the defense of their own, but no one comes to your defense here. Even they want no part of your stupidity. Thus, you are not representative of anything except a little boy who will not grow up and behave like an adult.
You fool no one.
I think Kevin is making a mistake by permitting you to spew your drivel here. One of his reasons for doing so has merit, viz., that it fosters good writings by others, but the notion that you perform a service as an example of what's under the rock you crawled out from is wrong.
Well, I'm not going to engage in Reasoned Discourse™ and ban him, I'm just going to be very selective about what I personally respond to. You guys have honed your skill at beating the Markaphasia Weeble ("Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down!") to a fine art, and I'll leave you to it. As far as his being a sterling example of type, he most certainly is. The thing that makes him unique is that he keeps coming back.
It's obvious that he's "not here for the hunting."
I understand, Kevin. Your response makes perfect sense from your point of view, and I can't dispute it.
But, having said that, I disagree in two ways:
1) He is, in my unhumble opinion, not representative of his type, specifically because of his uniqueness. His beliefs are stereotypical, but his behavior is not. He is an outlier, way far removed, not just from the mean, but from the other outliers.
2) His behavior is so predictable and so stereotyped that only eleven short catch-phrases describe it marvelously well. Thus, we have honed our clue-batting to a "fine art" in the same manner and to the same degree that stepping on the same cockroach day after day is a "fine art". Very little skill is required; it is a game of wits, and he is defenseless.
Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses. #2 is a more accurate description of yourself. Attack your opponent with YOUR greatness weakness. Nice try, Karl ;)
I may keep coming back, Kevin (and there is a reason for it, mos def) but don't you find it interesting that VOLUMES of responses have been written by many here (especially DJ and Unix) who claim to have already "beaten" me?
"Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses."
We all keep trying to get you to respond to anything with other than your Standard Responses. You won't do it.
What we see here, day after day after day, is you exhibiting the same behavior, over and over and over again. You cannot admit error, thus you continue to re-spout the same blather, no matter how many times and no matter how thoroughly you are shown to be wrong by evidence that you can verify yourself.
So, yes, you are quite predictable. You exhibit the same behavior, day after day after day, over and over and over again. You cannot learn to do otherwise; your fragile little ego won't let you.
I've told you many times before, cult boy, that the only thing I find interesting about you, and thus worth responding to, is your pathological personality, of which the list of your Standard Responses is a fair synopsis.
As to "fine art," I suggest you read once again what I stated about it. Words have meaning, teacher boy, as do sentences. Try the dictionary if you don't know what the words mean.
Nope, Mark's gotta double-down on stupid.
They were criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most.
Weaver was wanted in court, that's true. But they didn't tell him the correct court date, and THEN initiated a multi-million dollar surveillance of his property.
What was he convicted of, Mark?
And what were the "crimes" of the Branch Davidians? Be specific in your accusation, we'll be back to this point after you enumerate them.
Explain how either were "terrorists" - and you might have to define what you mean by "terror" and "terrorist" because, as is your wont, you've apparently picked one of your own.
**Sigh**, I love Spring Break...
No, Unix. It's your job to show me the difference between David Koresh and the hirabis. That's where the discussion begins. Good luck!
Hey, I'll start. Koresh didn't kill or even threaten to kill those who didn't follow his belief system, nor did he attempt to force his neighbors to worship as he dictated.
How's that for a start you lame dumbass? You really aren't here for the hunting.
Hoo boy, this case just gets more and more interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01michigan.html?ref=us
A Muslim in the Michigan Militia? And it was his tip that helped authorities? And "The Traitor Times" telling a positive story about distinguishing domestic terrorism and militias? Wow...what now, Kevin?
Wow, Unix. Three quick posts.
You're easily scripted.
Nervous, are we? Insecure much?
Nope.
I just know what I'm talking about, and I know you're talking out your ass. Again.
And you're going to do exactly here what you did in the last thread. Handwave, be vague, refuse to back up your libels and slanders, and then run away claiming that it's somehow our failure that you don't know jack or shit.
You didn't answer DJ, you didn't even try. You're lying, just like you did when he asked you the mortgage system questions and you claimed you'd answered them - when you never even tried.
Well, I see you have already tapped into your inner Rove and are attacking me with your greatest weakness.
I'll take an inner rove over a outer Moore any day of the week. My greatest weakness? Knowledge? Facts? Integrity? Honesty? ... I'll take those as my own personal idiom.
Nice try, but don't you always "hand my intellectual ass" to me? How would this time be any different?
The odds are rather strongly against it, unless you learn to read, learn vocabulary and what words mean.
But I'm an optimist. I believe in people, I believe people can change.
Oh, that's right. Your massively hypocritcal ass is going to try to convince me that it's not ______ when the Cult does it.
It's only hypocrisy because you've made up a definition for it. You've set up a fantasy world, only barely in touch with reality, and it's like Law and Order - in fact, I think you're quoting the L&O stories they "based" on Waco and Ruby Ridge, not the actual events - and according to all of your made-up world, I'm not living up to my own standards.
Hell, Mark, you've never admitted error on the definition of Verbatim, and that was plain on it's face.
In just the last week, you've laid whopper after whopper that you've run away from - including the powers of the President, the entire concept of Federalism, the meaning of "scholarship"...
In. Just. The. Last. Week.
Now, what, even in the last year have I been "hypocritical" about, and you don't get to make up a situation?
No, Unix. It's your job to show me the difference between David Koresh and the hirabis. That's where the discussion begins. Good luck!
You made the claim they were criminals.
It's your job to back that up. Your claim, it's been questioned.
And you say *I* don't know critical thinking?
It's a fallacy to insist that *I* disprove *your* fallacies.
But this is par for the course with you, you don't know what you're talking about.
And furthermore, you didn't state what Weaver was convicted of. Don't forget you've named BOTH Weaver and the Branch Davidians as criminals in your description.
If the government had treated them as common thugs or criminals and not over reacted, as they should with many (but not all) hirabis, I suspect things would have turned out better.
You've yet to define what crimes they (and who "they" were) were alleged to have committed.
And you've missed the biggest issue of all, about how it "turned out".
You really don't know anything about Waco, do you?
I remember (I think) John Ross in Unintended Consequences saying something on the order of "You can always tell which militia member is an undercover Fed. He's the one agitating for violent action," or words to that effect.
I believe that was P.J. O'Rourke.
As Tam pointed out in one the comments to one of her posts on the subject, the trick behind proving entrapment is proving that, not only did the Feeb rat show them how to make the bombs or set an ambush, whatever, they had no intent, interest, or inclination to do such a thing until he showed up.
I believe that was P.J. O'Rourke.
I doubt the idea is exclusive to any one person.
As Tam pointed out in one the comments to one of her posts on the subject, the trick behind proving entrapment is proving that, not only did the Feeb rat show them how to make the bombs or set an ambush, whatever, they had no intent, interest, or inclination to do such a thing until he showed up.
Otherwise known as "proving a negative."
I haven't read about it lately, but my memory is that Randy Weaver had a short-barrelled shotgun only because, after several YEARS of effort, a federal agent finally talked him into a bit of hacksaw surgery.
After a lot of effort, and Weaver specifically telling the agent that it was a bad idea. 1/4 inch too short.
For which, he was convicted, though Mark doesn't know it.
2 misdemeanors. Fined $500.
So, yes, Mark actually would be right if he stuck to Randy Weaver. He was convicted. And fined $500. The rest of the people up there?
Well, apparently they terrorize Mark. So he's good with shooting them in the face.
Well, apparently they terrorize Mark. So he's good with someone else shooting them in the face.
FIFY. ;)
DJ,
No, the Fed is the one who SOLD Randy Weaver the shotgun, already to short, by about 1/2"...of wood.
The OVERALL length was too short, not the barrel...and guess what kind of shotgun?
H&R single shot, I believe.
Trumped up bullshit.
All of it.
Well, it appears my memory isn't perfect, is it? Thanks for the correction.
Here's something I thought was very well put:
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/03/31/conflict_or_cooperation
It's amazing. I can always tell. When a post here at TSM goes from 18 comments in the morning to 54 comments in the afternoon, it's 9:1 odds that Mark has been here.
I'll give much higher odds than that, and I'm not a betting person.
I'll also give high odds that those comments by the resident troll rarely have anthing to do with the subject of the post of Kevin's to which the comments are appended.
Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses.
Why should he?
Your responses are easily described. At no point you'll note, do you actually CRITICALLY ADDRESS ARGUMENTS.
You haven't here.
You called the Davidians and Weavers "Criminals" and have yet to back up ANY proof that they were, in fact, criminal.
You called them terrorists, and have yet to back up that they were "terrorizing" anyone.
The closest you came was the allegations (investigated many times, and never any action was taken.) of child abuse.
Mark, since when does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms enforce state child abuse laws?
There's some critical thinking there.
You're not able to apply it.
#2 is a more accurate description of yourself. Attack your opponent with YOUR greatness weakness. Nice try, Karl ;)
*sigh* I'm not sure where you are cutting and pasting that from, but it makes as little sense as the rest of the things you say.
I may keep coming back, Kevin (and there is a reason for it, mos def) but don't you find it interesting that VOLUMES of responses have been written by many here (especially DJ and Unix) who claim to have already "beaten" me?
I've explained myself.
You're not destroying this resource with your shit-flinging and idiocy. It's more interesting you can't comprehend the simple words.
I believe I stated my position quiet cleary in the other thread, DJ.
Like that. Nothing more than a bald-faced lie.
It's not a straw man argument.
You don't know anything else.
I'm pointing out some obvious hypocrisies by many here.
Except they're not. You're just further demonstrating your lack of critical thinking.
For example, Unix appears to believe that all of the testimony regarding child molestation is false or has been disproven.
Pretty much. Texas DPS investigated several complaints, made no actions.
But more importantly, I CAN DO THE BASIC CRITICAL THINKING TO REALIZE THAT ATF DOESN'T INVESTIGATE CHILD ABUSE.
So that "testimony" (Which isn't _testimony_, but accusations, and ass-covering after the assault went south), doesn't matter.
That's why I wanted you to specify what "crimes" you're talking about.
he is doing the "let Mark make points so I can shoot him down for shits and giggles" rag that he always does rather than state his full view on all of this.
No, you drooling moron.
It's that MARK MADE A "POINT", and I'm insisting he back it up.
Which.. he never can. Like with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms being judge, jury, and executioner for Texas "child molestation". You'll believe anything accused, if you want to. And deny anything with proof. When you want to.
That's what I'm doing. Pointing that out.
That Montana post is a cut and paste:
http://commanderzero.com/?p=1491&cpage=1#comment-10975
I'm a bit late to the party, here - exactly what is the definition of this/these "hirabis" of which Marky-Mook writes?
That's not a term I encounter anywhere else, in print or in the Blogosphere - is this, perhaps, simply one more manifestation of his clearly-evident mental dysfunction?
Clearly, the bozo's an easy chew-toy to bat around - the "logic" he attempts to deploy in his "argumentation" never seems to rise above a) "when I write it, that makes it fact...so, there!", and b) "if I simply ignore what YOU write, and make the response I WANT TO MAKE, that automatically defeats/disproves what you wrote".
Maybe someone should ask his Mommy to stop letting him drool on her keyboard, save everyone a lot of time and mostly-pointless effort...just sayin'...
To answer your question, J.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02singer.html?_r=1
Of course you would look to the New York Slimes for that definition. That opinion piece downplays it, but here's the key point:
"“Hirabah,” the base word, is a term for barbarism or piracy. Unlike “jihad,” which grants honor, “hirabah” brings condemnation; it involves unlawful violence and disorder."
The key word here is "unlawful". Of course, terrorism is unlawful to us. The question is, "Is it unlawful to Islam?", which is all that matters to them. The answer to that question is No.
For example, Surah 9:5 says:
"Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
And Surah 8:39 says this:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do."
Now if the terrorists were acting contrary to how Mohammad acted, calling them hirabis might be accurate. The problem is that they're doing exactly the kinds of things Mohammad himself did. For example, this is from Hadith (non-Koran writings about what Mohammad did, and considered authoritative by Muslims) volume 8, book 82, number 795:
"The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died."
There are numerous instances of Mohammad ordering the murder of his opponents. For example, Mohammad speaks first here:
"Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allâh and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allâh's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).” The Prophet said, "You may say it.""
Muhammah bin Maslama then proceeded to take another man with him and went and murdered Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, a well known poet whose only "crime" was composing a poem celebrating Medina's victory over Mohammad in a recent battle.
(…continued after Echo's "4116 > 5000" break…)
(… and WHY does Echo turn a simple parenthesis into a smiley face??? )
He also regularly engaged in terrorism:
"In the last ten years of his life, after Muhammad migrated to Medina , he launched no less than 78 raids called qazwa (raid, ambush, sudden attack). Some of these qazwas involved the assassination of one opponent by one or a group of volunteers, and others were carried out by hundreds or thousands of warriors. Nonetheless a common characteristic of all Muhammad’s incursions was that they were done without notice. The enemy was caught off guard without being given the chance to prepare himself or be armed. As such all Muhammad’s victims were civilians.
The historian Abul Husain Muslim Nisapuri writes:
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”"
So you see, those who are engaged in terrorism are accurately following Mohammad's own example. Therefore, terrorism is NOT Hirabah, it IS Jihad. The teachings of Islam command it.
For more, see here and here. (BTW, Amazon lets you see samples from that book. Be sure to check out the story behind the cover art. Just search for "cover art" and you'll be able to read it.)
While I would agree that there hasn't been much killing in regards to hirabis here at home, there has been plenty of bashing in of doors, imprisonment without charges, loads of uncovered plots etc.
Give some examples. Show me some links. And in the interest of making an apples to apples comparison, show me some links to where the "bashing in of doors and imprisonment without charges" was based on charges that had already been checked out by local authorities and found to be groundless (as in Waco) or was the result of years of enticement by a Federal agent that finally, barely rose to the level of being worth investigating (as in Ruby Ridge).
I think you will agree that if it was discovered that an Islamic group was accused, through eyewitness and victim testimony, that underage girls were being molestsed as well as guns/ammo/explosives were being horded that our government might want to look into that. Of course, that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made.
After studying this bit thoroughly, I see where the problem lies. You used the phrase "I think" where you should have used "I assume".
The charge of "underage girls being molested" had already been "looked into", but apparently that wasn't good enough. The large numbers of weapons... I think you're on pretty shaky ground asserting that anyone here would have a problem with someone having large quantities of weapons and ammo, regardless of his religion. In fact I think I can safely say that if the "armed white racist" (remember him?) at the Arizona town hall meeting had been an obviously Middle Eastern male (instead of a black man) who called himself Muhammad al-Amriki (to pick out a name from the air)... yes, it would have made people nervous at first, as you'd expect.... and the news media would have wanted to ask him questions, just as they did... and if he'd responded as the black man did, that he brough his weapons because this is America, and he still has that right here, and he's proud of that and will defend that... I suspect that by the end of the town hall meeting they'd probably have been even more proud of him than they were of the black guy.
You seem pantingly anxious to accuse people of hypocrisy, but I can't help wondering... if based on such thin evidence, the FBI had decided they'd found the person/people setting bombs and committing arson on the UC Berkeley campus a while back, and had in response raided his home, killed his wife and child and burned down his home....
...you'd have no more to say than "that doesn't excuse the mistakes they made", huh? You wouldn't be making any noises about "conspiracy to commit murder"?
How 'bout if it had happened when Bush was still President? How 'bout if it had been Bill Ayers back in the day?
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless? Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about Waco. Really sad, sir.
As to the rest, seriously...have you been living under a rock, GOF? I find it hard to believe that someone of your intellect has missed the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government. Since it was alright for DJ, try Google-ing it and let me know what you come with in your search.
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless?
So you're saying that any of them were based in fact? What evidence of that do you have, beyond the testimony of people who were engaged in trying to cover their asses for burning those self-same children alive? Testimony that, as has been detailed in several comments here already, contradicts testimony and investigation by the local authorities actually charged with making such investigations, as opposed to a completely unrelated federal agency charged with collecting taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms? You made the accusation here. You are responsible for backing it up. Cite your evidence. Be specific.
You little fucking pipsqueak. What EVIDENCE do YOU HAVE of child abuse amongst the Davidians? You BETTER have some to make that statement. Otherwise YOU have no basis for a critical discussion - just that when the govt wants to make an omelette, some eggs are gonna get broken.
the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government
Whoa, bring those goalposts back over here. You SAID that Weaver and the Davidians were CRIMINALS and implied pretty clearly that they were TERRORISTS. On WHAT fucking evidence oh sackless-one?
And I assume you are condemning the ongoing illegal imprisonment of Muslims by the CURRENT U.S. govt - i.e. the Obama Administration.
Just as a correction for all, Weaver was NOT convicted on the gun charge, it was for failing to appear (which is what precipitated the siege). He was found not guilty of all other charges including murdering a law enforcement officer.
I have no love for Weaver's political/social views, or Koresh's religious whack-nuttery, but even conceding that they aren't people I would want as neighbors, the govt had NO CAUSE to do what it did in either case. That was not a "mistakes were made" (and corrective actions followed) set up. It was gross deriliction of duty and all of those responsible, right up the chain of command, should have had to answer. They have not, and it is only a matter of time before this happens again.
Well, let's start here and see where it goes. If it leads to where I suspect it will, I'm done.
http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacotocpg.htm#toc
I would also point to James Tabor's book Why Waco? which includes discussion of a videotape that Koresh himself sent out stating that he had fathered several of the children in the compound with women that were 12 or 13. DNA testing of the bodies did confirm that some of the children were his. Koresh himself admitted it in communications during the stand off.
There are also the statements by Kiri Jewell as well as the 21 children that were released from the compound who were examined extensively by mental health professionals who concluded that their environment at Mt. Caramel was psychologically destructive.
You are taking stupid to a whole new level. I will only quote TWO WORDS off the title page of the U.S. Government's WHITEWASH report that you linked to:
Redacted Version
I swear, you pull this shit and I really want to find out what school district is imposing you on those poor innoncent children. You are barely competent to sweep the halls of a school, you have no business in the actual instruction of young minds.
You want a book to read, and I doubt you've actually read Tabor's - most likely you got a reference and maybe a quote from it out of Yglesias or such. The book to read is "This is not an Assault" by David Hardy, or if reading is too much trouble there is the video "Waco: Rules of Engagement". That you can actually quote a federal source when you have heaped so much praise on Zinn and his paranoiac view about the U.S. govt should cause your head to explode.
However, leaving ALL of that aside, and even for argument's sake STIPULATING that the allegations of child abuse had an ounce of validity - what business was it of the U.S Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation? That child abuse is the FIGLEAF that those agencies use to cover up their motives and methods (and lack of accountability for both) ought to tell you SOMETHING. But, no fact has EVER been able to penetrate the titanium ball that is your skull.
Juris, what's going on with you? I don't mind a rip here or there but these comments about me were way over the top and terribly disappointing coming from you. Clearly, there is something about this case that touches a nerve with you and I'm not sure why. If the video does indeed show that Koresh admitted to having sex with 12 year old girls, isn't that a bad thing? Combine that with the suspicion of illegal arms and I think you have a recipe for some serious problems.
I have no issue stating that the whole situation was FUBAR but it seems to me that you don't have much objectivity when it comes to this incident. This is actually true of many here. You don't like the government and immediately move to the "It's all their fault" side of the equation. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it not grounded in critical thought.
It's quite apparent to me that Koresh was a danger to the people around him. It's also obvious to me that the government made a series of errors which resulted in innocents being killed. I have stated many times on here that the US government does this all the time. Why is it, though, that in certain circumstances (and you know what ones I am talking about) when I make this statement that it is treason? In this case, though, it's just fine. Why?
Oops...that was me up above. At a different terminal.
Let me put this in the simplest terms possible - then you might just grasp the point.
Koresh was not a nice guy. However, contrary to your assertion, there is no credible evidence I've seen that he was a threat to the local community, let alone the country as a whole. The local authorities clearly did not see a problem there. Hell, even the Feds could've dealt with him differently - except that conflicted with their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies). Each fed the other - the difference being, the govt was wrong at every point in the affair.
Now, I hardly expect the govt to be perfect (even with the "right people" in charge). The most appalling aspect, after the terrible motives of the BATF in this, was the absolute and total lack of accountability on the part of the govt. And what infuriates me with you is that you play right along with that, saying Koresh was a criminal and a terrorist and utterly absolving the Feds from all of their wrongdoing.
Yes, you pissed me off, and I laid into your personally. But if you're going to say the stupidest possible things, expect to be treated as nothing but a knave. For someone spouting off continually about "the cult", you EPITOMIZE the mentality of the cargo cult - aping gestures that you don't understand and expecting the gods to deliver the goods.
Your emotion betrays you. If you re-read what I have written above, you will see that I have not absolved the government of anything.
their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies).
Juris, statements like this are where you lose me. And betray your lack of impartial judgement and bias. Statements like this are why you (and others here) can't engage in any sort of critical thinking regarding Waco or Ruby Ridge. The conclusion of discussions on either of these topics will always lead to the same place: Government Agendas. If they stray anywhere else...away from that destination...then it's wrong/stupid/I'm a pipsqueak/saying the stupidest things/barely competent to sweep the halls of you school.
So, I say again, if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you regarding these topics (you could start by putting away your blinding rage and see that the children in his Cult ARE part of the community), I'd be happy to continue.
If you re-read what I have written above, you will see that I have not absolved the government of anything.
Yes, you have.
It's bad when we can read what you said and understand it better than you said.
Again, this gets back to the fact that you've never learned to follow a logical path to a conclusion. It continually stymies you in understanding the world, and in what we're saying to you.
When you accept allegations as unchallengeable fact, despite many warning signs that those allegations are questionable and not relevant, it demonstrates that yes, you've absolved the government. When you can't follow the path - that both of those situations were the mark of out-of-control government bureaucracies, (with whom you have no problem with giving (more) power to), and not a single person was even fired for those situations, then that is the very definition of "absolving".
Again, if you learned what words mean, it would be less laughable. You have absolved the government, it's what you're doing.
And betray your lack of impartial judgement and bias.
You're cargo-culting.
We've demonstrated to you why that's our viewpoint, you have yet to substantiate a counterpoint. The best you've done is to suggest "child abuse" - but that doesn't explain why the BATF was mounting an armed assault.
Juris's statement doesn't "betray" anything other than a understanding of the situation.
Juris said: "their agenda (which was to prove that they needed their jack-booted tactics and tools to deal with crazies)"
Which is exactly what the BATF WAS TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE. They invited NEWS CREWS. They specifically did NOT involve the local law enforcement agencies, would could have easily walked into the compound and served a search warrent. They were TRYING to have a big PR stunt, and it backfired horrifically.
Congress was specifically talking about defunding the ATF. So they wanted a big PR stunt to show off why they needed all their tax money.
Ruby Ridge is a different, but similar problem.
But you don't know any of that. You have a childish understanding, you've bought into the many - demonstrable - lies, and many of the - at best, questionable - other rationalizations.
You could have learned a lot in this thread. You could certainly check any of us with the other facts of the situation. Check on the fact that there was a US Army helicopter on the raid, because they'd told the Army it was a drug raid. And that the Army, not amused, because their guys were not exposed to criminal prosecution, demanded - and got - immediate total repayment of their expenses from BATF for the helicopter.
And you ask, Why would ATF be investigating "drugs"? Well, I ask that. You're incapable of understanding jurisdictions, boundaries, systems.
if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you
We've been having one with a irrational fool. There's not a way to have a rational discussion with you. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
That's not the fault of anyone here, but one.
Have you checked out the Texas Ranger report yet? (I know, you haven't.) Because if you did, you wouldn't be accusing us of "bias".
I'm going to quote DJ here.
"You fool no one, little boy."
statements like this are where you lose me.
I really can't help that you are too stupid to realize what the ATF was doing, and why they didn't choose to peacefully arrest Koresh (as they had ample opportunity to do). Their "SWAT" team needed to exercise all of their training and equipment - that is why they chose to do what they did. ATF was also engulfed in a raging sexual harrasment scandal and was desperate for some good press. That was the MOTIVE I was talking about. I know everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, else understood exactly what I was getting at. That you did NOT is not my problem. That you choose to believe that this was some unfortinuate chain of events, and not a deliberate set of actions is also not my problem. You are not well enough informed to make a contribution to a discussion, so by all means - excuse yourself from it. But don't try to bullshit your way out by claiming that I'm the one closing this off - it is your refusal to examine/accept the evidence.
I am not bullshitting my way out of anything. I have accpeted the evidence of government error. It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him. You bemoan government conspiriacies when it comes to some stories yet fully accept them as fact when it comes to stories like this one simply because of your emotional bias.
I am not bullshitting my way out of anything.
Yes, you are. It's your MO.
I have accpeted the evidence of government error.
No, you haven't.
Allow me to demonstrate why.
What, did the government do wrong, Mark? SPECIFICALLY WHAT?
Not a vague hand-waving. Give me a list of WHAT went wrong, and what that epitomizes.
For extra-credit, you can detail what, if anything, has been done as a result of those errors.
But lay out what they did wrong, if you accept it and understand it.
It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him.
It is you who has failed to demonstrate that. The local LEOs didn't see it. The local ATF agents didn't see it. You've given no proof of this conclusion. Nor have you explained why you accept the BATF being the agency going in guns blazing.
If, if, you understand that, detail what threat he posed to the community. You also called him a "Terrorist", and have yet to explain who he and the other Davidians were terrorizing.
You can not do those things.
Thus, you're bullshitting trying to obfuscate that.
You bemoan government conspiriacies when it comes to some stories yet fully accept them as fact when it comes to stories like this one simply because of your emotional bias.
Like what? Who here actually knew the facts of the case?
It's more bullshitting from you trying to avoid that you've been caught out. Again.
As I said:
No, you haven't.
Allow me to demonstrate why.
What, did the government do wrong, Mark? SPECIFICALLY WHAT?
Not a vague hand-waving. Give me a list of WHAT went wrong, and what that epitomizes.
If Mark were telling the truth, he could have replied to that. But he didn't. Because he can't.
Some critical thinker.
The hell you aren't bullshiting. I can smell it from here.
It is you that has not accepted the danger that Koresh posed to the community around him.
Because YOU have not posted one shred of evidence that he was, after you said he and his followers were both CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS. All you have is your pathetic opinion that he MIGHT have been involved in some form of child abuse - despite the fact that Texas authorities (the appropriate ones BTW) did not reach that conclusion. Seriously, if you would just shut up I'd let it go, but the more you go on, the less I believe that children should be subjected to you in the front of a classroom. Obviously your father failed to teach you that when you are in a hole - STOP DIGGING.
"... if you can demonstrate to me that there is a way to have a rational discussion with you ..."
You have demonstrated for three years that you do not understand the concept of "rational discussion".
You do not need an excuse to save face and go away, little boy. The only person such an approach affects is you, and you can believe anything you want. So go ahead, make your excuse, and go away. But don't keep repeating that you won't continue to blather even as you continue to blather, because then it doesn't work. You can't even shut up and get it right, can you?
Alright, for the sake of argument, let's say that all the various things the Feds said about the BDs were absolutely 100 percent true. They said there was a crazy cult made up of men, women and children who were participating in various illegal activities.
They said they were running a meth lab. Meth production, from what I understand, involves large amounts of hydrogen gas. Clearly we should be shooting into a building that contains hyrdogen gas and children.
They said children were being abused. Clearly we should be laying siege to the building, shooting at the building, and finally burning it down with the children inside it. Better dead then molested.
They said they had automatic weapons. Which means they owe a 200 dollar tax per automatic weapon. Thus, we call in helicopter gunships, tanks, and what amounts to a poorly trained light infantry battalion to deal with it. For a tax offense.
Yeah, most liberals I know don't talk about Waco, if they even know about it. I've noticed with the Left that they have three modes:
1. Policy or event is popular then laud its popularity, argumentum ad populum. For examples see Medicare, Social Security.
2. If policy or event is unpopular and has led to bad results, but mediaspace domination allows the waters to be muddied enough with things like playing the race card or the use of various mascots. For examples see welfare, affirmative action.
3. If policy or event is clearly indefensible to the majority of the population, then just shove it down the memory hole. Waco is an example of this, along with Clinton's fecklessness against Al-Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11.
J.S.:
I'm a bit late to the party, here - exactly what is the definition of this/these "hirabis" of which Marky-Mook writes?
You *are* late if you don't know that well, we don't know.
Mark started using that word, and when asked, he wouldn't define it, tell us where he'd based it off of. Ed, I think, or GOF, went looking and found an article where the concept of Islamic Terrorism was found using "hirabi" as someone who violated Islamic law.
They pointed out to Mark that terrorism is enshrined in Islamic law, and cited various authorities and learned scholars.
Mark, while not ever acknowledging that the "hirabi" concept is a best arguable, and more likely, laughable, promptly ignored all of that and based his worldview around it being fact, and accused us of not being able to understand anything.
So that's our best guess - because Mark can't define anything he uses. But once he's set it out, it's ironclad and not subject to discussion, even when he's trying to demonstrated how reasonable and how strong his critical thinking skills.
That's not a term I encounter anywhere else, in print or in the Blogosphere
I forget where Mark started pasting it from - like you can see his current one is "Attack me with your biggest weakness!" which is "bounces off me and sticks to you with glue" and just as logical. I hope Mark doesn't ever have heart problems. Because he's so loaded with Irony, he'll never be able to be scanned with an MRI.
Clearly, the bozo's an easy chew-toy to bat around - the "logic" he attempts to deploy in his "argumentation" never seems to rise above a) "when I write it, that makes it fact...so, there!", and b) "if I simply ignore what YOU write, and make the response I WANT TO MAKE, that automatically defeats/disproves what you wrote".
Welcome to "The Base" aka "The Cult" and recently "The Cocoon", my friend! You see, we're a Christian cult made up largely of Atheists, who know nothing of the Educational system, while working in it, around it, and through it to various levels of degrees. We're all white male racists, about 1/4 female, and of several ethnic backgrounds. We're unable to explain ourselves, while using both big and small words, and citing authorities whom we don't trust, but most importantly, we, unlike Mark, make up a world around us based solely on our feelings, even though we don't need to redefine words and can easily explain our views without reduction to logical fallacies.
We'll send you the meeting info via your rovian brain implant, and we'll have punch and pie. Always great to have new people who don't exist!
Okay, U-J, where do you want your Internets sent? (exeunt, still laughing)
Allow several days for delivery. Why, just last week my staff sent me an internets and I didn't get it until a few days later. It's a series of tubes, not a truck!
Several ethinic backgrounds? Which ones would those be, Unix? I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response. Seeing as how "multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated on here all the time, I remain genuinely curious at the width of ethnic backgrounds on this blog.
"I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response."
No, you got some responses, but not from everyone. Your reading comprehension skills were as good as your honesty skills were bad, weren't they?
"Multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated here. "Ethnic background" is totally orthoganal to that, however. That's because culture is not lockstepped to ethnicity. Wonderful thing about America, it's possible for your ancestors to be from anywhere in the world at all, and still be an American.
As for mine, I live in New Mexico and my daddy's name is Manuel. Draw your own conclusions.
I live in New Mexico and my daddy's name is Manuel. Draw your own conclusions.
When your father was born, your grandmother was in Manuel Labor?
I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response.
What fucking difference does that make to the arguments made? Oh, I see, you only let certain people say certain things - if you are a white male, you must only say the things white males are allowed to say; subdivided by conservative white males and liberal white males. Which of course shows the complete logical fail in ethnicity being tied to political viewpoint. Not that you can understand that concept - it doesn't accord with your beliefs.
Is there a metaphysical state BEYOND mere predictability? Cause Markadaffya certainly must be there.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I think I figured out my last question. It would be the inverse of Heisenberg.
Is there a metaphysical state BEYOND mere predictability?
Igneous.
I'm a Viking... Duh!
s
he's so loaded with Irony, he'll never be able to be scanned with an MRI.
Coffee - nose - pain
Thanks!
I want to know what sort of medical procedure removes the subject's reading comprehension but still allows the subject to utilize modern technology.
"Predictable? Me? Fine Art? DJ, I'd like to see how long you can go in any sort of discourse with me and not bring up my "Standard" Responses."
Or in other words "If I'm so predictable why to do keep predicting my behavior? And besides, you're predictable in accurately describing my responses!"
Nice tu quoque
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless? Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about Waco. Really sad, sir.
No, we can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
I've asked you a very simple "critical thinking" question, and you're dodging it.
It started, when you said: criminals at the very least and domestic terrorists at the very most.
Yet you have yet to back any of that up. Some vague allegations (which had never been justified with any investigation). Nor explain who or how they were "terrorizing".
And now you sneer at us for having doubts, despite the fact that ATF is NOT THE RELEVENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE, much less lead a raid, FOR CHILD ABUSE.
That would require some critical thinking skills.
No, we can't have a discussion, because you cannot and will not define your terms, back up your arguments, and do basic research, rather, sticking to innuendo and emotional assertions as fact.
That's what I was trying to bring out, and you've demonstrated that beautifully for us.
Several ethinic backgrounds?
It's amazing that for all I've said here, you jump on that. Amazing. Almost like, you've got a script and the only thing that matters is what victim class you, or we, are in. Amazing. Really. (No, it's not, I suspected you'd do as much.)
Which ones would those be, Unix?
WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME? You "know the questions to ask" of yourself to discover these things.
Why are you asking me? Why not predict and profile me? (Nevermind you're almost always 100% wrong.)
I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response.
Because you want those for logical fallacies, and we know that. Besides, if you knew our demographics, and our victim groups, it wouldn't matter, you'd ignore us, as you ignore "primary sources" when they refute you.
The questions and issues here have nothing to do with our "diversity", they have nothing to do with our "culture" or "demographics" (Which you misuse).
The issues here are "do you know what you're talking about" and "can you back up what your opinion is". When you ask factual questions, they're color-blind, sex-neutral, sexual-orientation-indifferent, and religiously uncaring.
For some reason, you want to know our groups to determine the worth of our logic. In order to "think critically."
Which means, you fail.
So, you're saying that ALL of the child abuse charges were groundless?
No. I said the Texas Dept. of Public Safety (state police) had checked them out several times and found nothing they considered actionable. *I* don't know whether they were groundless, I wasn't one of the investigators. As to whether or not there were grounds, we'll never know, will we? The BATF chose to commence firing and ultimately burn the place to the ground rather than find out, did they not?
But okay, let's assume there was child abuse going on. I find it interesting that you consider "just kill em" to be an unacceptable response to foreign nationals killing American citizens, yet apparently think it's "a mistake", but an acceptable one, to respond that way to alleged child abuse among white conservative Christians who are American citizens.
I find it hard to believe that someone of your intellect has missed the illegal imprisonment of Muslims around the world by our government.
I'm not going to play that bullshit game with you, Mark. So far as I can tell, you think that intel agents and soldiers should act under the same rules and limitations as police, and that foreign nationals on foreign soil, even in a war zone, committing acts of war against the US, should have the same rights as US citizens. And now you'll try to "prove me wrong" by assuming I agree with this stack of flawed premises.
Sorry. No sale.
"yet apparently think it's "a mistake", but an acceptable one, to respond that way to alleged child abuse among white conservative Christians who are American citizens."
My memory is a little foggy on this (and I've already taken WAY too much time away from work to do any more research), but didn't the children also die in the fire? Wouldn't that make it "acceptable" to kill the victims of alleged child abuse along with the "alleged" perpetrators? Is it just me, or does that bear an uncomfortable similarity to Muslims stoning women for the "crime" of being raped?
but didn't the children also die in the fire?
Technically, no. Most of the children were dead due to the tear gas poisoning by the time the fire reached their bodies.
But it's exactly the same as all those Muslim children that the US has rounded up, gassed and killed. EXACTLY. Exactly the same because they were criminals and terrorists. Exactly. You hypocrite.
Wow. I'm not certain we can have a critical discussion about this. Really sad, sir.
Dang, U-J! You're getting way too good at channelling Marxaphasia through Oberdork. I think you need some range time! ;)
Correction: Olberdork
I just realized you were partially quoting Marxaphasia. I guess that means he's the one channelling Olberdork.
Marxy, putting on fake "extreme moral outrage" the way the rest of us put on a shirt—especially when you say morally outrageous things in the process—is blindingly obvious to anyone who actually has a decent grasp of morals. It's obviously fake in the same way that "all your base are belong to us" was obviously "translated into English" by someone who actually doesn't really understand English.
At least now we know who Keith Olberdork's one actual viewer is.
The original reason for the raid was "illegal firearms," at least as reported then in the local media. Keresh had purchased (through FFL and gun shows) a few AR platforms and a BAR among others (if I remember rightly.) Jack Harwell went to the compound, was let in, shown the weaps in question, and then told the Feds there were no violations that HE could see. Oh yeah, Mark, they found the charred remains of the weaps, but no aftermarket full auto stuff. Who'd a thunk it. The CPS charges were never justified. THE FEDS WANTED A CLUSTER FUCK. See my post above.
"They were criminals at the very least..."
Another astounding piece of obtuseness on Marky's part.
Tell me, Marky, do you know anything about the setup, yes, I said setup, of Randy Weaver?
That is, do you know anything other than what you've been told about that situation by your stupid fucking lapdog MSM sons-a-bitches?
Do you also know what happened to the supposed "criminal" Randy Weaver, after all was said and done, Marxifuckia?
Clue, he's been spotted walking amongst free men for a number of years.
Stupid fuck.
Hmmmmm…
I wonder if Marxadelphia's tin foil hat includes magnets?
Tin foil hat...hmm...Rove again...attack your opponent with you greatest weakness.
Oh, NO ED.
He's discovered your Achilles Heel!
YOUR TINFOIL HAT!
Weep and gnash your teeth! For.. wait.
Or is it humor? THAT'S IT. YOUR ACHILLES HEEL IS HUMOR!
Wait, that's a rather.. uh, non-Achilles Heel Achilles Heel.
Maybe it was the links? The http:// ? Doesn't seem like much of a weapon there... Uh... Well, shucks, I'm not sure what the hell Mark's going on about, which makes a bunch of us, including Mark....
"Rove again...attack your opponent with you greatest weakness"
Since I know almost nothing about Rove, I Googled "Rove attack greatest weakness", waded past the garbage, and finally found something that fits:
"Take you greatest weakness and label your opponent with it"
Well, there it is, right down to the same misspelled word. Damn, but that copy-and-paste stuff is good shit, ain't it?
So, is this gonna be a new Standard Response for you, even if you can't spell it correctly?
Nah, it can't be. It's not new, y'see. It's just the flip side of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply accuse the other side of your Standard Response #9, and thus it is, itself, a "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. It, too, is what one usually finds on a playground during third grade recess.
Yet again, you avoided the substance of what someone else wrote and just behaved like a child. See why I call you a little boy?
Y'know, the irony of this just hit me. It must be a slow day.
Your Standard Responses are nothing more than running away and/or hiding from the meat of any comment directed at you. This is Your Greatest Weakness. Thus, for you to accuse someone else of taking his greatest weakness and labeling you with it is itself an instance of you taking your greatest weakness and labeling your opponent with it. Yup, yet again, it's your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.
Hypocrisy is your most noticable character trait, and this is just another instance of it.
From the book The Legacy of Jihad:
Al-Ghazali (1058-1111). Born at Tus in Khurasan, near modern Meshed, and became a renowned theologian, jurist, and mystic. Al-Ghazali's early training was as a jurist, and he continued to have an interest in jurisprudence throughout his career, writing a work the Wadjiz, data 1101, in the last decade of his life. W. M. Watt wrote of Al-Ghazali, “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity…”
Here's what Al-Ghazali had to say about jihad:
… [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year … one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them … If a person of the ahl al-kitab [People of the Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked … One may cut down their trees … One must destroy their useless books, Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide … they may steal as much food as they need …
[On the dhimmis subjected by jihad]
… [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle … Jews, Christians, and Majians must by the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] … on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] … They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells … their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths … [dhimmis] must hold their tongue …
Notice that these raids are exactly what Mohammed was doing in the last 10 years of his life.
Pretty sad when the "greatest weakness" constantly buries Marxy.
Sir, I bow to your insight.
Thanks, I got InSight™ for free when I had the Right Wing Mind Control Implant™ installed. It really helps to March in Lockstep with The Cult, wrapped in my own private Cocoon.
Well, let's start here and see where it goes.
Uh, no. We've started. The other day, when you threw out a statement and ran away from it.
The race has lapped you several times.
Perhaps you mean, "I'll start here," which is closer to being true.
If it leads to where I suspect it will, I'm done.
You've yet to predict anything correctly yet, but I bet you'll be "done" anyway, since it's about time for you to run away. There are more than 10 threads you've left hanging, you've asked questions and run away from the answers, you've made statements and logical fallacies you're now ignoring... You're actually past due.
http://www.usdoj.gov/05publications/waco/wacotocpg.htm#toc
That's an interesting document. I've got it in paper. Along with some other documentation.
But the worth of that document - and it's a damned instructive one in many ways - has been viciously undermined by the later discoveries of perjury to Congress in the preparation of that report and others. For instance, there is no mention of the Army Helicopter (ATF told the Army this was a drug bust, otherwise the Army wouldn't have been permitted to assist, with gunfire from the ATF agents in the Helicopter, nor the presence of Lon Horuichi and that the FBI HRT fired on the compound after the fire started. (Texas Rangers collected spent 7.62x51mm shell casing from the HRT firing point afterward.) That's specifically denied in that report.
(Due to Echo's incorrect character count, part 2 follows)
I would also point to James Tabor's book Why Waco?
Vaguely hand-waving isn't proof. What about the book?
which includes discussion of a videotape that Koresh himself sent out stating that he had fathered several of the children in the compound with women that were 12 or 13.
That's called an "allegation", and had been researched and investigated. When did ATF get involved with statutory rape? Stop evading this, because it's central to you learning something.
DNA testing of the bodies did confirm that some of the children were his. Koresh himself admitted it in communications during the stand off.
This does not prove there was a crime. Fathering a child is not criminal, in and of itself. You're trying to conflate the two issues, and you've failed.
There are also the statements by Kiri Jewell as well as the 21 children that were released from the compound who were examined extensively by mental health professionals who concluded that their environment at Mt. Caramel was psychologically destructive.
Let's let them examine your students as a control population.
That's allegations. Not proof. And it's also from a massive cover-the-asses mentality that involved multiple lies and distortions. I'm not siding with the Branch Davidians, but of course they were "psychologically destructive" by the mental health professionals. That's not, by itself, criminal. Which was your clear and unambiguous claim.
Furthermore, if you want to compare "apples and apples' with the BD and Islam, let's start examining the kids - in America - who are put into the Islamic schools, including ones paid for with public money. Including one next to you:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/03/019990.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025728.php
And you have yet to explain why the ATF was raiding based on that. It's not their jurisdiction. It doesn't explain the raid. It's the sort of hunting around for excuses when something goes - horribly - wrong that happens.
It's a far better effort from you than normal - at least you linked to some allegations that are arguable, if you failed to actually draw conclusions or prove your point.
But yes, we knew of those.
What undermines your case, is the fact that the children were shot at trying to escape, and teargassed and bulldozed. Not exactly what you do when you suspect "child abuse". I'll await a similar raid on a Muslim compound for some proof.
Stop evading this, because it's central to you learning something.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Thanks, I needed a good laugh after the Sackless-one got me riled up.
Mark:
You might want to examine (if you're going to actually educate yourself on the details of what you already made your mind up about):
Texas Rangers Investigative Report Branch Davidian Evidence September 1999
Note the date, and note how many things they detail weren't brought out in the report you've mentioned.
especially:
letter from Assistant United States Attorney Bill Johnston to United States Attorney General Janet Reno
Oh and Silly Me.
Even if - and it's a big if - you're correct about the "child abuse", and you explain why BATF agents were raiding as a result of that.
Who were they "Terrorizing?"
*And* breaking news... Speaking of accepting allegations as proof... well, see who's changing their story?
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/04/black-dem-rep-who-was-reportedly-spit-on-by-tea-party-protester-i-never-claimed-to-have-been-spit-on.html
Well. That's interesting. I'm sure the lack of evidence on video had nothing to do with that retraction.
"The last thing we needed right now was for the Obama administration to turn the paranoid delusions of the extreme right-wing crazies into reality."
Just heard that only one of the people that were arrested was a registered voter. Can you guess the party they were registered to? If you said Democrat, you win the prize.
Well, Marxy, you gonna man up on the Weaver bit?
Nah, that'd be too difficult.
(Marxy does his standard responses #1, #10 and #11, simultaneously, to no one's surprise)
He has bailed on Weaver and is going to wrap himself in "for the children" and Waco. That's if he hasn't just flat out deserted.
From what I have read about Weaver, there are many questions and disputed facts on all sides in that case. Here is how this discussion would go.
1. Mark makes points about Ruby Ridge that don't fit into "Gubmint Bad" meme.
2. Mark agrees with some points in said meme.
3. TSM commenters disregard #2 and focus solely on #1.
4. Hyper abrasive and personally insulting vitriol begins.
5. Mark wastes time researching counter points knowing full well that all information that does not fit with the UNDISPUTED (set in stone forever and ever, amen) RESOLTION will result in more hyper vitriol and insults.
So, unless I see some evidence that minds will be open, there will be no discussion regarding Ruby Ridge.
From what I have read about Weaver, there are many questions and disputed facts on all sides in that case. Here is how this discussion would go.
Incorrect.
There are 2 conclusions in question here.
Was Weaver a:
1) criminal
2) terrorist
You have advanced those positions, and you're trying to run away now.
5. Mark wastes time researching counter points
You might waste time, but it wouldn't be "researching". We're pretty well versed in Ruby Ridge. You might say - we're scholars.
Remember when just 3 days ago, you said you wouldn't "Dare" to dispute us in areas where we were scholars and you didn't know anything?
Yeah, I figured that was bullshit when you said it. Which of us was actually correct how that "would go?"
1. Mark talks out his ass about a subject he doesn't know about.
You really don't have to go past that. At least not until you are prepared to admit you were wrong in calling Weaver a criminal and a terrorist. Absent that, you don't have anything to contribute to a discussion about Ruby Ridge.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/spenceletter.html
Go read that Mark. You should adore Gerry Spence (for his politics) and he represented Randy Weaver (who's politics couldn't have been more different than his lawyer's). Read it, think about, and then shit up until you can demonstrate some sense.
So unless I see some evidence that minds will be open,
Pot? Meet kettle.
Wow. That's military-grade obtuseness, right there.
Remember the words of the Anarchangel: "There can be no useful debate between two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves."
Kevin I disagree. Mark's obtuseness outstrips anything the military has. If they ever get clued in to it, they may declare him a national resource.
"So, unless I see some evidence that minds will be open, there will be no discussion regarding Ruby Ridge."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. It has become your favorite of late, hasn't it, little boy?
And, yet again, we see your hypocrisy rear its ugly head, as we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like being accused of. How was recess yesterday?
Finally, do you presume to tell other commenters what they will or will not discuss? In charge, are you?
Do you still not understand why you are so universally loathed here, sack boy?
"Several ethinic backgrounds? Which ones would those be, Unix? I have asked several times on here for some demographics and have gotten no response. Seeing as how "multi-culti bullshit" is denigrated on here all the time, I remain genuinely curious at the width of ethnic backgrounds on this blog"
Native American.
Fuck you, asshole!
Let's see....
Gaelic
German
Italian
Mescalero
Greek
Mongol
Some kind of North African, Berber as best I can tell.
Plus who knows what all else as of course none of the above is pure.
Late Generation Irish/Swedish on one side, somewhat earlier generation English/Irish on the other. I did grow up on an Indian Reservation in Montana. Of course, obviously Immigrant Irish Catholics of low descent are every bit the cultural equal of WASP Landed Gentry, right? Since we are all WMAs?
Juris, what's going on with you? I don't mind a rip here or there but these comments about me were way over the top and terribly disappointing coming from you.
Why? Because you're hopeless? Because even when it's clearly laid out, you'll do anything but learn? Because your "thought process" is so far from "Critically thought out" as possible? Because you make accusations, statements without any basis, or a tenuous proof at best, and then go forward and make sweeping judgements and condemnations of other people who've actually thought it out more?
That that's your entire MO, and has been for years? I'd catalog it - but I've done before, and you ignored it. DJ does it, you ignore it, or miss the entire point.
Clearly, there is something about this case that touches a nerve with you and I'm not sure why.
Possibly. Or he's sick of you making statements and conclusions, then trying to insist you somehow got there via "logic" and "critical thought". I am, anyway.
If the video does indeed show that Koresh admitted to having sex with 12 year old girls, isn't that a bad thing?
IF that is the case, yes. It's a "bad thing". But a "bad thing" IS NOT (necesarily) A CRIME. But that's a big damn if. And it's interesting that Texas didn't respond to that. (Which you KEEP DODGING.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE ATF INVESTIGATE CHILD SEX?
It's a "bad thing" that you're (putatively) in front of a classroom. It OUGHT to be a crime. But it's not. (As far as I know.) Those claims were made many times against the Branch Davidians during custody battles - none were substantiated.
Yet you've PRESUMED that those charges are true, unarguably, and have then based your entire laughable worldview upon it. That's not even getting into your "terrorist" claim, which you're NOT BACKING UP. You made the comparison. Explain yourself.
(Echo is the biggest piece of shit in commenting software available.)
(part 2)
Combine that with the suspicion of illegal arms and I think you have a recipe for some serious problems.
So, your ass kicked, instead of admitting error, you'll say "I think.. it could be.. problematic". Suspicion of what, exactly? Yes, YOU MADE THIS CLAIM. Detail what you're talking about.
I have no issue stating that the whole situation was FUBAR but it seems to me that you don't have much objectivity when it comes to this incident.
You have NO IDEA WHAT THE SITUATION WAS. None. You're scrambling back to get some semblance of knowledge, because it's very obvious which of us here were the "scholars" of the situation. What crimes were being investigated, and how were they "Terrorists"?
Objectivity? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I'm very objective about it. This is what happens when you get big-ass bureaucracies with guns, and let them try and gin up PR stunts to increase funding.
FUBAR, Eh? So surely you can tell us who was disciplined and dismissed as a result of the incident. Right? Or do you have a childish view of the situation and aren't able to discuss even that?
This is actually true of many here. You don't like the government and immediately move to the "It's all their fault" side of the equation. Certainly, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it not grounded in critical thought.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true the first time you made up your own reality.
(echo: when you absolutely need a shitty comment system.)
(Part 3)
It's quite apparent to me that Koresh was a danger to the people around him.
THAT's what's not objective, or based in any way on reality. Most of the people around him - including many minors - CHOSE to be there. No matter how crazy he was, that was their choice. You've not proven this. You can believe it - that's your problem. But you HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED THAT. And you've demonstrated utter ignorance of the rest of the context which argues against it.
And you've got no problem killing them "in their own good". Yes. I can't wait til you're cheering on health care.
It's also obvious to me that the government made a series of errors which resulted in innocents being killed.
No, it's not obvious to you. Or that it wasn't a "series of errors" but a systemic failure. One that you don't understand and we do.
Not a single person was fired for all those "errors", Mark. 2 were "disciplined" for a short time.
In this case, though, it's just fine. Why?
For you to understand this, you're going to have to learn. You're going to have to shut up, and listen to those who know how to think critically, stop jumping to conclusions that are unsupported, and learn HOW TO LOGICALLY THINK.
I'm always optimistic, but I won't put money on you getting the humility to make that step.
And it deleted all the codes it was overcounting.
See what happens when you don't understand something, Mark, and try and build a system? Send them a resume. You're a natural for JS-Kit. They won't admit to errors either. (Seriously, not even a bug database.)
Let's recap:
Mark opens mouth about stuff he doesn't know nor understand.
Mark gets soundly stomped, each and every time he attempts to recast his "thoughts" on what has been proven to be the typical non-sense he spouts.
Mark runs away.
Is this a pattern?
I'm guessing Mark is banking heavily on that "past performance is not an indicator of future results" premise.
TIA:
Check out Dr. Sanity.
The essence of psychological denial is a refusal to look at, or acknowledge, reality.
Fortunately, reality exists outside of one's head and is objective and verifiable. It is not altered by whim, desire, lies or myth.
...
You would think it would be a simple matter to be "in touch" with reality. But it isn't. It requires a great deal of cognitive effort--i.e., thinking--and often that effort must assert itself over powerful emotions that draw the person away from the real world, to a place more comfortable and unchallenging--i.e., to their inner reality.
...
The left decries the "paranoid style" of the the right when any question arises about the seemliness and unbelievable haste with which President Obama has attempted to consolidate vast amounts of power in the Presidency (see here for a breakdown of the more than 30 czars who function outside the normal checks and balances of government and have been called Obama's "shadow government")--something they daily insisted Bush was doing on an unprecedented level.
Turns out Bush was a piker compared to The One when it comes to accumulating power unto one's self.
Psychological denial and the avoidance of an unpleasant reality are certainly not confined to one side of the political spectrum or the other. But what I find endlessly fascinating is how the political left has created and fully integrated into their mainstream thinking, specific ideological tools that facilitate ongoing psychological denial and often completely break with reality.
It reminds me of all the paranoid patients I have observed over the years, who effortlessly are able to dismiss or explain away those facts that don't fit in with their carefully constructed conspiracy theories. If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory. For the paranoid, the case is closed and the argument is finished.
...
This is what makes it so frustrating to debate or argue with today's typical postmodern leftist. Some are willing to engage in discussion, but you can always count on their complete dismissal of any fact that does not conform to their ideological perspective. No matter how many times you debunk their position, the goalposts are then changed to ensure their denial remains untouched.
When it suits their purposes (i.e., when they are losing the argument), they will resort to the claim that reality and truth are merely subjective constructs anyway, and that any evidence you present is only someone's "opinion" and that their opinions are as good as anyone else's.
Such a position should logically disqualify their position to begin with, but of course, it doesn't.
...
As I have written before, at the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.
...
Don't dare question their patriotism, they screamed when they were not in power. But if you looked at their behavior and the consequences of that behavior, that was exactly what you had to question. Of course, now that they are in power, questioning them is completely out of bounds.
...
One of the most important psychological challenges for every human is dealing with reality and the real world--particularly when the consequences of confronting truth are personally unpleasant and painful. That is exactly what psychological denial seeks to avoid.
Today we are witness to the left's vivid (and psychotic) imagination, feverishly working overtime to reverse all those unwelcome facts and painful truths so they can remain in an endless childhood.
"If you get too assertive in pointing out those uncomfortable facts, you find yourself in no time fully integrated into the theory."
Damn, that is Mark to the fucking comma.
I have stated the following (not quite verbatim) many times in Kevin's Parlor:
"Reality is what it is, regardless of what you think about it, and regardless of whether or not you like it. Thus, whether or not you like it is irrelevant to any analysis you make of it."
Teacher boy has NEVER responded to this statement in any way except to totally ignore it.
You haven't been alone in that either. I know I've made similar statements, and I'm pretty sure that most of the other regulars have routinely said much the same. In fact, I seem to remember Kevin talking about people dying when engineers try to ignore reality.
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>