You've heard of the suburban Paris rioters. Now meet the Danish rioters.
has the story.
* link updated.
1
Giuliani said Moslem terrorism has existed in Europe for the last thirty years and the European's did nothing about it. This allowed the Muslim terrorism movement to grow and flourish in the Middle East with people and funds supplied by European terrorists.
Europe has to confront their Muslim terrorist problem; otherwise there will be no Europe worth saving.
Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 11:35 AM (r/5D/)
2
Oh, it's not the Euros who'll confront the Muslims, rather the other way round. Foolish human nature always mistakes tolerance for weakness. Even the French can exhibit savagery, once they've warmed to the task.
Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 02:00 PM (qBTBH)
3
I hope countries like France drown in the flood of Islamic immigrants they let into their borders without regard to the groups' beliefs or desire to assimilate to Western values. I think that it is ironic and hilarious that the same cultural relativism that leads to wide open borders also leads to a complete inability to respond when these groups react in the manner described in the post. How any country could possible allow mass immigration from Islamic countries is beyond me. Islamic culture has barely evolved over the past thousand years. These people, generally, could not care less about Western values or traditions. Europe (and America) allows Islamic immigration at its own peril. But, of course, no leading Western politician seems to have the courage to "just say no."
I'm also sick of Muslims whining when folks dare criticize their beliefs or mention the fact that nearly all terroists acts committed are by Muslims in the name of Allah. Seriously, fuck 'em. I'm so over their excuses and the "whoa is me...I'm such a victim attitude."
On a lighter note, Princess Mary, whose picture pops up on the side of the web-page discussing the cartoons, is pretty hot. She kinda looks like Jennifer Aniston. Yummy....
Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 02:03 PM (QjCK5)
4
The problem with leaders "just saying no" to Muslim immigrants is that it violates Western principles of democracy and tolerance. If you want to criticize those principles, fine, but then you have to replace them with something else. What do you replace it with? Fundamentalist Christian principles? Orthodox Jewish principles? Atheistic humanist principles? Wiccan principles?
Or do we just take the unprincipled route and say, we tolerate everyone but you? And if today it's Muslim extremists, tomorrow is it people of Middle Eastern descent as a whole?
It's almost kind of an impossible problem. If you take a Just War Theory type of approach, there's no solution because there's no sovereign nation to retaliate against when terrorists act out against the government (and thus no principled reason to ban a particular country's immigrants). I don't know what the answer is but I think closing our borders cheapens the value of Western society -- which is precisely what they want to achieve.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 02:57 PM (XUsiG)
5
Once upon a time, way back when Shelly was an undergrad, there used to be required coursework titled, "Western Civilization". It was a euphemism for the why and wherefore of our Judeo-Christian culture, and had replaced the original faith based underpinnings of most Universitys that predate the 20th Century. Western Civ was replaced with the modern relativism exhibited by Law Fairy's remarks above. Back when we were permitted to be men we understood that tolerance has limits, and importing a passel of sodomites who intend to hold to their satanic faith is probably beyond them. Like the man said in the song, "Do what you like, but don't do it here".
Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 03:41 PM (qBTBH)
6
Law Fairy
Europe must do what they do ((or did) in Austria.
Every foreigner working in Austria must attend night school for classes in German and Austrian history and culture.
They are kicked out of the country if they donÂ’t show progress in those courses or flunk the final exam.
Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 03:45 PM (r/5D/)
7
With all due respect, I would argue that the West's most important principles are the rule of law and the right to private property. To me, those are the bedrocks upon which Western civilization rests. Democracy and tolerance are only by-products. (Tolerance, by the way, must be very carefully defined. Our tradition doesn't simply embrace tolerance of everything no matter how vile.) Frankly, I would think that any person with even a modest knowledge of Western political history would understand this. Comments like those above by The Law Fairy only go to show how badly Western people understand their own history. How fucking depressing.....
Posted by: Blu at November 03, 2005 04:16 PM (QjCK5)
8
Yes, law Fairy, you very much misunderstand what western values are all about. We have NO compulsion upon us to be tolerant of the intolerant. Civil society is a two way street.
Furthermore, any nation at any time has the right to close the door to those who are detroying their culture. (or even for economic reasons,) states have every right and indeed a responsibility to enforce their borders.
Posted by: Kyle N at November 03, 2005 04:54 PM (vt0fT)
9
Blu -- It's not a misunderstanding of history -- and believe me, I have had my share of right-leaning history lessons to understand many of the differing views on our civilization's origins. And regardless of history, the fact is that TODAY we live in a society that leans pluralistic. The "rule of law" has a nice ring to it, but of itself it doesn't carry much more than perhaps a hint of positivism. What should those rules be? I suppose we could go the fascist route, which would be very orderly, but I'm sure you agree with me that this is not the best course of action. And if you want to talk about private property and history, we first need to go way back to when we stole the land from those who were here before us. Call me ignorant or uneducated all you want, but (assuming you're not a loathed relativist) there's a word for taking a position that a moral rule applies to all future actions, but not to past actions one has already taken (applying the moral rule would include accepting the consequences of that rule's application): hypocrisy. (To preemptively counter the obvious ex post facto rule allusion that suggests itself, note I'm speaking to moral, rather than legal, rules).
Jake -- I'm not familiar with that rule, or when it was implemented. Has it or did it make Austria a better country?
Casca -- I've never been permitted to be a man. People make fun of me when I wear my artificial penis under my skirt. So I guess I've never understood that tolerance doesn't apply to, um, all the imported Satanist sodomists who are apparently making the country... less manly?
Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 04:55 PM (XUsiG)
10
Alas LF, the first time you write your name in the snow, the scales fall away and all is revealed. Nice legalistic twist of my words unless you're incapable of identifying the object of my euphemism. As for hypocrisy, if it's hypocisy to seek after perfection when it is unachieveable in this imperfect world, then so be it. YOU have chosen the most hypocritical profession of them all.
Now get thee to a nunnery!
Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:11 PM (qBTBH)
11
Poor Law Fairy,
I will make this simple. Islam is evil. It is not a religion at all. Do not compare it to Christianity, the Jewish Faith, or even Wiccan principles. It is a political movement complete with a set of indecent laws and the expressed goal of taking over the entire world. It is more closely compared to Nazism and Communism. It requires it's adherents to go forth into the world and conquer territory through both what Christians call evangelizing and through what everyone calls military invasion. Once Islam takes control of a territory, it gives the infidels (non-muslims) three choices: conversion to islam, submission into slavery (you will pay a special infidel tax and must submit to the whim of every muslim), or death. While every American is free to become a nazi or communist, we did not allow the importation of large numbers of nazi's or communists during all the years we were at war with these political ideology's. Even though the President can't and won't say it, we are at war with Islam because Islam declared war on us. Islam doesn't have any tolerance. It actually recquires intolerance. I am a Christian. Islam cannot tolerate me. Islam does not tolerate Jews and Islam certainly does not tolerate Wiccans. Western tolerance does not tolerate totalitarians , it does not tolerate murder and it does not tolerate repression. Yes, the lefties will scream and harp about the slavery, the lynchings, the KKK, and the right will point out union thuggery, communist marches, and the loss of individual rights by activists judges swinging hammers and taking our homes. But know this, America fought a war and ended slavery in its own borders, the FBI brought the law crashing down on the KKK, blacks armed themselves against lynchers, a woman member of the NAACP brought down the practice of racially organized seating, the legislatures are anulling Kelo, union thuggery is a sign that they are losing members and are in fact at an all time low.
So sit back and relax and wring your hands and no not what to do. When Islam rears its ugly head, real Americans will stand up and know exactly what to do. We always have and we always will. The cycle of good and evil will rage back and forth and good will always win in the end.
Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 05:39 PM (LzjT8)
Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 05:55 PM (qBTBH)
13
Just to further some of Houston's point on jihad, I
wrote this, it cites some of an interview with the author of new book studying Islam and the concept of jihad. I wouldn't mind a couple visitors clicking through,
, but the relevant quote from the book for those who can't be bothered to click through:
It is the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives — from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are muba’a in the Dar ul Harb. And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being “harbis” during endless razzias or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the institutionalized ideology that we are fighting, i.e., jihad
Posted by: Scof at November 03, 2005 06:20 PM (Gnqv5)
14
Law Fairy;
The Eurotrash has probably outlawed the requirement in Austria by now.
But while the law was in operation:
1. The immigrants to the country had jobs and lead productive lives. They became a part of the Austrian fabric of life rather than be walled up in a enclave as they are in France.
2. They did not go on welfare and take up a life of crime and violence.
3. They have not rioted.
Posted by: Jake at November 03, 2005 07:45 PM (r/5D/)
15
I feel like I'm being ganged-up on...
casca, unfortunately the nunnery kicked me out when I expressed an interest in the World's Oldest Profession (the one that you can report on your tax return, to be clear). I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is
Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore. How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses? There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning. Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way. There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants. How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens.
I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders.
Jake, it sounds like an interesting proposal. I'm not opposed to trying a bit harder to instill patriotic virtues in citizens and new immigrants alike. I think America does get a bad rap outside and inside, and it doesn't help when we do things like outlaw the Pledge of Alleigiance (ha! Bet you all thought I was liberal
) and let media elites play fast and loose with the truth under principles of "journalistic freedom."
Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 08:17 PM (bzLvk)
16
Back to the cartoon...
I know how easy it is to get all excited about a cartoon.
I agree Princess Mary is pretty hot.
Maybe the French could trick the Jihadists into having a Burning Man festival in the French suburbs and then just let the whole place burn to the ground.
Anyone left would have to go back to where they came from.
Posted by: d-rod at November 03, 2005 08:41 PM (Lmjjd)
17
LF, you've just spent two decades having bullshit poured into your brain. If you are intellectually curious, and you seem to be, somewhere in the next five to ten years you may trip over the reason why
"East is East, and West is West,
and neither the tween shall meet".
I loved your comment about being willing to fly with your moslim acquaintances, lol, something very much like that was said about the bus bombers in London.
Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2005 10:14 PM (qBTBH)
18
Houston, I honestly sincerely wish that things were still that black and white for me. They used to be but they're just not anymore.
That's because you went to law school. I went to engineering school. I learned about the beauty and logic of the laws of nature and you learned about the deceit and vile pettiness of the laws of man. You were suppossed to learn from the other lawyers, not listen to them. Everything you really need to know (socially), you learned in Kinder Garten. That stuff they taught you in law school is all lies. How can I be so sure? I was an evacuee during the Great Hurricane Rita exodous. It took 15 hours of being stuck in a car to break through my inborn desire to follow the useless folly of man's laws. Over the next 15 hours still stuck in that car I became an outlaw or rather I finally recognized that I am now and always have been an outlaw. I determined that I no longer needed a government to tell me how to act. I determined that in a society with thousands, perhaps millions of pages of law, I could not possibly be anything but an outlaw. I quickly did away with the laws that I found unnecessary and useless. I am the law. But you need not fear me or others like me. We and I are the law because we and I are guided by 10 simple commandments. These boil down to One Golden Rule.
The golden rule is the measure which places the line between good and evil. Your indoctrination by the other lawyers attempted to blur this line, to create controversy, because lawyers live in the fringes of the grey areas. The grey allows lawyers to make money. Engineers only succeed when the project succeeds. The bridge stands or the bridge falls. If the dam fails, the engineer isn't hired to build another.
How can you know that Islam *itself* is evil, rather than simply its abuses?
Look to the Golden Rule. The Koran itself cannot stand the test of the Golden Rule. The Golden rule does not allow evangilization through murder or enslavement. It does not call for the execution of those that change their faith or deny it. God does not need the death penalty to keep the faithful. The Sharia mandates death for those that would convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism or any other faith. Somebody will surely scream "Spanish Inquisition" at this statement. The Bible did not call for the Inquistion and neither did Jesus. The Inquisition created itself and followed it own ways.
There are numerous different translations of the Koran and I'm skeptical of *any* non-native speaker who purports to know the "real" meaning.
Unlike the Bible, that was written in very ancient times and was translated into Greek and translated into into English, the Koran was written in fairly modern times in the 6th or 7th century (I forget which). It was written then in the same language then as today, Arabic. And don't worry yourself about me trying to translate it for myself. I wanted to find out more about the religion of peace so I went to the web sites of muslims and found one in particular that said what the Koran said and backed it up with line item references to the Koran. Yes, there may be different opinions about many of the verses in the Koran. But many are quite clear and that usually isn't good. I find the Bible often confusing and sometime difficult to understand. The basic message gets through. The basic message of the Koran demands a lot of violence and a lot of utter nonsense.
Christianity (my religion for my whole life) has fallen to such abuses, and I've no reason to believe Islam couldn't have been bastardized the same way.
Good point.
There are a lot of problems with saying, for instance, no more Muslim immigrants.
Indeed there are.
How do you weed out the good from the bad? And, yes, there are good ones; I attended law school with and befriended some very decent Muslim students. I would gladly travel with them and not fear that they would blow the plane to smithereens.
I too have had Muslim friends. The ones that are really your friend and are really good simply aren't really muslims. They may consider themselves muslims but Islam does not consider them muslims. That is why terrorists kill more muslims than infidels. They kill them because they do not follow the Koran and they do not follow the Sharia. Islam means slavery. I read on the muslim site that a muslim cannot have a friend that is Christian. It is hareem. The imam or imam's backed this up with quotes from the Koran. I also read that a Muslim may not even greet a Christian first, but if a Christian greet's a Muslim first, then the Muslim should fall over himself to return a bigger greeting. Somehow, I don't think a simple greeting should be turned into a superiority war. I can't square that with the Golden Rule. That's just a little to sneaky and coniving for me. What I learned from the imam is that the Koran is full of superiority. It divides people into little groups. It labels most of these groups as bad. I can't square racism with the Golden Rule either. If kill the Jews isn't racism, then I don't know what is.
The world of Islam is in a world of hurt. Our world isn't perfect either of course, but the difference is the more our world follows the Golden Rule the better it gets. Following the myriad rules of the Koran will make the world dizzy and violent. At best it will just make the world a little more schitzo; The Koran does not allow musical instruments and the Koran must not be played on tapes in a car that has the speaker down by the feet, lest it be insulted. I am sure someone will say that imam doesn't know what he is talking about, listen to my imam. Sorry, but there are far too many imams that never seem to get it right. There may be disagreement between Christian ministers and Priests but, I never had any of them go total wacko.
The example of Europe is that it is now time to weed out the good from the bad. It is time to find out who is a real friend or not. Ask these friends why did the islamic prophet marry a six year old girl. Ask them why most islamic nations are headed by a dictator. Ask them why it is wrong to invest in a 401(k). Ask them if they believe that Jews were flying the 9/11 airplanes. Ask them if they want to replace the Constitution with the Sharia.
I'm not able to bring myself to a place where I think it's okay for the US to say to people, we won't let you in because of your religion, or your political ideology. I think it goes against everything the First Amendment stands for (disregarding the legal technicalities of whom it's meant to protect -- in my mind it embodies ideals we should all aspire to observe). We can sacrifice freedom for safety -- but in the end wind up with neither. That's why I say, don't close our borders.
I am at the point that I want answers. I demand to know if my neighbors want me dead, enslaved or forced into conversion. I know that my country will be better off without such people. If we have one more attack on our soil, I will be past the point of worrying about limiting first amendment rights to those that would burn the entire Constitution and replace it with the Sharia. Blood can change a nation mighty fast. Ugly things can happen very quickly and we may be suprised at who gets ugly first or ugliest. Sometimes great obscenities have to happen to win in a war. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was an ugliness for sure. But it was a far smaller ugliness than allowing Japan to continue to survive as even a remant of an evil empire or to loose the number of Americans that we would have lost without it. The death toll of Americans in taking the last few islands before the bomb lost was horrible in a war of the greatess horrors seen.
We are at war on all fronts. We are at war with Islam on all fronts. Our ways, our laws, our culture, most of it not all of it, is fundamentally better and will prevail. Muslims will come here and some will come and see the bad parts and develop an even deeper hatred for us and try to kill us. Some will see the good parts and question slavery to the Koran. Those that come and remain faithful to the slavery of the Koran, I am most suspicious of all. If you can't handle freedom, you don't have a moral center of your own, and I definetly don't trust those who lack even a fundemental grasp of self regulation through the Golden Rule. The wars of today are one mighty race. The race is whether the speed of freedom is faster than the speed of oppression. In America, the race is between the speed of individuals trying to preserve the freedoms that they have versus the speed of groups who want to take that freedoms guaranteed in the consitution away through grey law hammer swinging. In China ,the race that will determine the outcome will be whether capitalists will desire freedom faster than the communists can build a super power for war. In the middle east, the race is whether the desire to be free can spread faster than terrorists can plant explosives.
I feel like I'm being ganged-up on...
This is a good thing. It means that we do not believe you are a waste of time. It means that we believe you can be saved from a life of wasted indescision and unclarity in a time where clarity is the key to winning. Your motives are fundamentally good; I feel from your expressed thoughts that you as a person motivated by good are not able to fully understand those that would fundamentally destroy your freedom, your world and your life.
I often feel this about people at church. I don't think they are capable of understanding evil. Then I wonder if the reason I understand evil and expect evil is because I am somehow not as good as they are. Sometimes I wonder what would happen If I was raised in a household with no God. Would I become fundementally evil? Would I be arrogant and require others to follow my laws? Or would the libertarian prevail? No I'm not evil. I'm human to be sure. I struggle. I do my best. I seek clarity. I can't do it alone for it requires constant reexamination. Thank God for Jesus. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The concience that seperates good from evil. The conscience that tells you when your rights stop and others rights begin. The conscience that tells you when you are right to defend yourself and when you have gone beyond defense.
Posted by: Houston's Problem at November 03, 2005 10:45 PM (LzjT8)
19
Actually, Casca, my education was more conservative than probably 95% of Americans'. All the things I've been saying in my comments are my own opinions, formed free of any indoctrination or whatnot. The last five years for me have been quite enlightening, and being the open-minded and intellectually curious person I am, I've been able to see beyond the rhetoric of either side of any debate and understand why *everybody's* wrong
As for London bombers &c, there's no way you could possibly know whether my friends are terrorists. You've never even met them. So the comparison seems to me inapt at best. Further, if as a people we can't trust those we're close to not to kill us for a "greater good" then we have much bigger problems to worry about than a few suicide bombers.
Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 10:46 PM (bzLvk)
20
Houston, I suppose it's a sort of compliment that you think I'm a fundamentally good person, so thank you. I have to disagree with you, though, even on that point
My reading of the Bible is that we're all fundamentally bad and we ALL have to be saved from our sin -- hence the importance of Jesus. I don't believe that any of us IS the law, though I do believe God gave each of us a conscience. I also think, and it sounds like you might agree with me, that the Ten Commandments, while important, are basically just exemplaries. Jesus said it came down to two basic things: love God and love your neighbor. To me, loving our neighbors means loving the good neighbors and the bad neighbors. It even means loving the neighbors who secretly harbor plots to kill us. Jesus never turned anyone away, even the most reviled members of society. If Jesus, being perfect, didn't feel the need to cast them out, then certainly we don't have the right to cast them out. Separating the good from the bad -- the wheat from the chaff, if you will -- is God's job, not ours. I divine from the Bible no imperative or moral authority to take such a task upon ourselves.
And as to the black and white issue, I think that when you're given a set of rules within which you can reliably expect certain results (as in your chosen field of engineering), it absolutely makes sense to view things in black and white terms -- leaving open, of course, the possibility that the premises on which you base your expectations may prove false. The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant.
And I appreciate your concern, but please don't mistake my politeness/civil tone for a weak argument. I don't often toot my own horn, but I'm highly intelligent, extremely well-educated, and I've thought long and hard about everything I bother arguing about. The fact that I'm a woman, or that I'm young, or whatever, doesn't mean I need to be "taught" any more than anyone else. Which isn't to say, of course, that we couldn't *all* use a little teaching now and again
Posted by: The Law Fairy at November 03, 2005 11:02 PM (bzLvk)
21
Wow, what a commment thread.
Regarding those Austrian rules for citizenship, Denmark has recently tightened up its immigration laws similarly.
Regarding Jesus, i think it's interesting that while He sometimes spoke with Samaritans and used them as examples in his parables, Jesus never challenged the orthodoxy that kept Samaritans separate from the mainstream Jews of the time. In my view, it's not so easy to take what Jesus taught us about how to conduct our personal lives, and extend it so that these rules become God's directions to nation-states. i'm not sure that's a correct reading of the New Testament.
Law Fairy, i put you on my blogroll, thanks for visiting.
Posted by: annika at November 04, 2005 07:57 AM (Dztge)
22
Heh, I'd like to go on record that I LIKE the Law Fairy, probably because she doesn't have a dick. It would be hard for me to be pals with a guy who self-applied a sobriquet like that.
And therein lies the argument. Men and women are wired differently. Men are linear. The most linear of women still have an emotional thought override that kicks in at the most surprising times. Most women are full-auto emotionalism all the time. This all connects to the nurturing aspect of women. Men in general, no matter what the women's studies types told you, are useless as caregivers, and as exceptional as some women are as drivers, it isn't sexism that's kept women out of the NASCAR winner's circle.
Men excel at the tasks of guarding hearth and home, and as a rule have the steel to inflict physical pain and destruction as necessary. Women will just ruin your life, by telling everyone that you're a brute.
"The human world isn't as rational or predictable as a lab. People don't always act in predictable or rational ways. It says a LOT to say that you can understand what a complete stranger thinks, or who he IS, based on virtually no knowledge about him. That's something not even our most brilliant social scientists have yet been able to do. Making assumptions about people also runs the risk of stereotyping and discrimination. You're free to disagree with me, but I find such things morally repugnant."
Relativism is morally repugnant. Being able to take the measure of people is one of the few advantages of age. Over time, one sees all the tricks. Thus comes wisdom. People tend to be stereotypical, and we're all discriminated against outside of our own groups. The delight of humanity is that occasionally one meets someone who DOESN'T fit the stereotype.
Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:52 AM (qBTBH)
23
LF - "I would call my "twisting" of your words more literal than legalistic. To be precise, that is
"
Being selectively precise in argument is rhetorical trickeration of the kind most often practised by your gender.
Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 08:59 AM (qBTBH)
24
Law Fairy:
You seem to be a thoughtful person and I hope you return.
To understand the problem in Europe, you should read this article by Theodore Dalrymple "The Suicide Bombers Among Us"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html
Posted by: Jake at November 04, 2005 09:28 AM (r/5D/)
25
You're missing the flaming comments. I shall provide:
KILL 'EM ALL!!! LET ALLAH SORT 'EM OUT!!!
I now return you to your previous discussion.
Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 10:04 AM (L3qPK)
Posted by: d-rod at November 04, 2005 10:28 AM (ooYm7)
27
I had the William Tecumseh Sherman quote in my comments, but didn't want to scare the fairy away. More accurately, "Kill them all. The Lord knows his own".
Posted by: Casca at November 04, 2005 03:47 PM (qBTBH)
28
Casca, I know the original quote. I was making a joke--see? Allah, all caps, cute little framing lines?
You are such a buzzkill.
Posted by: Victor at November 04, 2005 08:31 PM (l+W8Z)
29
This from a guy who jams rats up his ass.
Posted by: Casca at November 05, 2005 09:19 AM (qBTBH)
30
LF, I don't give two hoots for "Western principles of democracy and tolerance." It is my country, not theirs. Immigration is not a right. Come and abide by my laws or stay away.
I've nothing against immigrants - my wife is one - but nobody has the right to come here and violate our laws. You really need to think about that part of the Declaration of Independence about governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I'm not able to agree with Houston. This government exists to ensure our safety - if that means that Muslims cannot immigrate, so be it.
Posted by: MarkD at November 05, 2005 02:13 PM (X9njN)
31
No, Casca, I treat my rats with the same respect I treat my dog...and your dogs, if you have any. Stop being such a cocksucker.
Posted by: Victor at November 07, 2005 05:50 AM (L3qPK)
32
Let us simplify. Houston Condensed. If Islam leaves me alone. I will leave it alone. If Islamists come to hurt me or mine, I will blow their s**t into the weeds and never look back. I don't care about the whys or dialog.
Posted by: Baddog at November 07, 2005 08:34 AM (SMDIw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
