Two must read posts

Roci, at Rocinante's Burdens, has an excellent post up with several good insights. He point out some hard truths -

Hard Truth #1: We are not all entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Only those of us who are willing to live in peace with our peaceful neighbors are. The rest can go back to that God-forsaken rat-infested third-world hell hole they came from and stay there till they die of an unnaturally short lifespan or some disease that could have been cured with an office visit in the USA. Home-grown enemies cannot be deported. They have to be executed, after very short prison stays, preferably in some sort of crushing-grinding death machine that hasn't been invented yet.

Hard Truth #2: Our enemies are easily identifiable. They come from a few countries, share a common religion and a common heritage. It is self-defeating to cling sloth-like to the Cold War civil rights era mantra that racial profiling is wrong. (2 of the 5 offered - go check out the rest! -Kat)

And then Roci offers some new rules -

Rule #1: No one has a right to live in the USA as a citizen or a visitor. Moslems need not apply. Moslems already here can be deported for anti-American behavior. Membership in CAIR qualifies. Moslems can visit Europe to let their hair down. We don't want them here.

[...]

Rule #5: Eject the UN from US territory. This was a conduit for communist spies and agents during the Cold War and is doing the same thing for our islamic enemies now, most of them with diplomatic passports. There is no possibility of reforming them. They have never and will never achieve their chartered purpose. Continued USA participation in this organization is counter-productive. We do not need or want any more security council resolutions to back up the self-defense of western civilization.

Read the whole thing - it's truly and excellent post. I hop Roci submits it to the VBC this week.

The second post that I highly recommend is by Grim, over at BlackFive: "On the Virtues of Killing Children." Grim starts out by saying "You're not going to like this."

I don't.

But this is what our honor and scruples have forced us to, when faced with an enemy which has no honor or scruples - and never has.

"Then it is proven," I say. "It is our love of these innocents that endangers them. If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger."

"That cannot be," she replies in anger.

"But it is so," I contest. "If we did not care if our children died, they would not be targets. There would be no reason to target them, because we would not be moved by their deaths.

"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence. If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance."

Truly a chilling necessity - but it may be a chilling necessity similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: it may be that we must ruthlessly kill thousands, so that we may forever eradicate the murderous Islamo-fascist terrorists - and so that millions may finally live in peace and in freedom from oppression, tyranny and terror.

What have we had to come to? And how can we stir up the resolve and hardened "Git 'r' done" attitude which used to be the core - the backbone - of every American citizen?

After we have exterminated these vermin forever, after we have wiped out these vicious thugs that have forced us to do what we hate, after their bodies and their ideology have been reduced to their atomic particles - after all this, we can bind up our wounds, and in triumphant sorrow return home to mourn our methods.

Not before. As Grim says:

"Love should always rise, above war and fear and death. Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts. It should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

"And yet," I say, "It is. I have shown you that it is. That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom. We can no longer know the right. It is beyond us.

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you. "We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven."

Love - true love - is hard. God help us.

Comments

[meatbrain]

I have a few questions about your proposed solution to the terrorist threat, Kat:

1. Which targets, specifically, do you want the US to attack with atomic or thermonuclear weapons?
2. What casualties do you estimate from such an action?
3. What rate of post-bombing cancers and birth defects do you anticipate among the survivors?
4. What do you estimate that the environmental consequences of these attacks may be?
5. What diplomatic consequences do you anticipate, should the US carry out such nuclear attacks?
6. Do you actually believe, as you imply in your post, that such nuclear attacks would be a manifestation of love?

[Kat]

meatbrain, I'm not even going to get into it with you. Your past history of commenting on other Wide Awakes blogs has shown that you are intractable and unreasonable, and have no true interest in an honest discussion and exchange of ideas.

You also have no reading comprehension skills. I said "similar to," and did not call for a glass parking lot in the Middle East. At least, not in this post.

Piss off.

-- Kat

[meatbrain]

Let's see... you invoke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you call for "ruthlessly kill[ing] thousands" and look forward to a time when we have "exterminated these vermin" and "their bodies and their ideology have been reduced to their atomic particles"... but you're not advocating a nuclear attack. Oh, goodness gracious no...

The questions remain valid, no matter who asks them, Kat. Like your "Wide Awake" fellows, you're not willing to answer the hard questions about your views.

[Kat]

And here we have the lack of reading comprehension skills, again.

What part of "piss off" did you not understand?

I've already outlined why I'm not getting into it with you.

-- Kat

[meatbrain]

I already know why you don't want to discuss this, Kat. You've been asked difficult questions about your proposal to somehow eliminate terrorism by dropping nuclear bombs. You want desperately for everyone to forget that you ever suggested such a thing. (How, exactly, do we reduce terrorists to "atomic particles" without a nuclear weapon, Kat? Hmmm?) And serious, open discussion of your fringe ideas and their consequences is the one thing you and your ilk cannot tolerate.

So by all means, run away. It's really the only response you can make to tough questions that raise the frightening prospect of having your ideas examined in the cold light of rationality.

[Kat]

*sigh*

It's like a bad penny: it keeps turning up.

For the record: when I typed "atomic particles," I was actually thinking size not radiation, although I do understand how my phraseology could be confusing. Also for the record, I would be quite happy if the consequences of another terrorist attack were the annihilation of Tehran, Mecca, and Damascus... to start.

The thing is, meatbrain, we don't want to argue with you anymore because you never go anywhere. You stay on your talking points and your non sequiteurs and you never EVER concede that the terrorists and the culture which nurtures them are evil, pathological, and murderous.

I have never seen any sort of common ground between us on which we could attempt to build some sort of consensus. I can tolerate my ideas being challenged, I enjoy learning and discussing things with people with whom I do not agree even if we know we won't change each other's minds.

"Debating" with you, however, is rather like baning my head on the floor, except it doesn't even feel good when I stop. Nothing gets accomplished. There's no fascination with a new thought. There's no originality, there's nothing edifying in the discussion.

Now, I have pancakes to make and bacon to fry for my family. Why don't you go find something worthwhile like that, and just let me enjoy my Sunday instead of playing whack-a-mole?

-- Kat

[meatbrain]

For the record: when I typed "atomic particles," I was actually thinking size not radiation...

Suuuuure you were, Kat. Everyone knows that conventional weapons reduce their targets to "atomic particles".

Have the courage to admit what is obvious to everyone, Kat: You were arguing for nuclear strikes. Nothing less.

And the original questions are still unanswered...

[GM]

Kat, Meatbrain is making the rounds. Long and long ago, he infested my blog with his relentless questioning. If he doesn't like the answer, he restates the question claiming that it wasn't answered. If you quote back to him, he says he didn't say it. If you give examples he'll claim the question remains unanswered. He learned his debate skills by watching Sesame Street and hasn't advanced beyond that since.

Meatbrain is obviously a troll attempting to gain readership of his pathetic little blog by attacking others and all too often some hapless blogger or commenter falls for it and goes to his site to comment, I know, I've done it too, but unlike Meatbrain, I am capable of learning from my mistakes.

The only option when he comes in is to delete his post or erase the comment itself and substitute the following:

The comment by Meatbrain was deleted due to the inordinate stupidity of the commenter and I don't wish to subject my readers to childish ravings.

There, I think I've not only responded well, but I've also followed your Rules for Commenting. Cheers and have a marvelous Sunday.

[Kat]

... And now you're claiming to be a mind-reader. I feel no need to lie to you, meatbrain: you're not worth the effort to make up even a poor lie.

See? You don't go anywhere. You come around - or, to give you the benefit of the doubt - you have a history of coming around and commenting on our blogs simply to pick a fight and drive traffic to your blog. You may, indeed, want a serious discussion about this, but I doubt it.

I tell you what. If... **IF** you can state, for the record, that you agree with me that the actions of the terrorists are the acts of murderous barbarians, and that - per their stated goal - they want to kill us all (but most especially Israel), then I'll start addressing your questions.

However, if you do not have the moral fortitude to agree on that foundational point, then we have nothing upon which to build a discussion, and you are merely a spoiled child, jumping up and down, yelling "Look at me! Look at ME!!!"

-- Kat

[meatbrain]

"...you have a history of coming around and commenting on our blogs simply to pick a fight and drive traffic to your blog."

Excuse me... who's claiming to read minds here?

What is it with you right-wing fringies, that anyone who dares disagree with you can only be doing so to "drive traffic to your blog"? Are you really that incapable of imagining any other reason for someone to disagree with you?

"If... **IF** you can state, for the record, that you agree with me that the actions of the terrorists are the acts of murderous barbarians, and that - per their stated goal - they want to kill us all (but most especially Israel), then I'll start addressing your questions."

Of course terrorists are murderous barbarians bent on killing their targets. Duh. And of course many of them target Israel. Double duh. It's an easy concept, Kat: I can agree with you that we face a threat, yet disagree with you about how to deal with it.

Now we have the obvious out of the way. I await your answers to my questions at the top of this thread.

[meatbrain]

"If he doesn't like the answer, he restates the question claiming that it wasn't answered. If you quote back to him, he says he didn't say it. If you give examples he'll claim the question remains unanswered."

Cite examples of my alleged use of each of those tactics, GM.

[GM]

"Cite examples of my alleged use of each of those tactics, GM."

There, that's one example right there. Go look on your own blog meatbrain and discover the answer... look back to december and january perhaps... do your own research...

[Big Dog]

Kat,
Meatbrain is sure getting around. He makes challenges and demands but whenever one gives him a response he demands more as if he is in charge of something. He is actually a pathetic person who desires attention so much that he is making the rounds through a particular group of blogs. It is just your turn.

He is so obnoxious he is up as a selection in my Jackass of the Month poll. The problem is, he is so insignificant and so unknown that he has yet to get a vote. No one knows who he is. I have gotten emails asking who this is and why he is on the poll. I put it there because he is a jackass and needs to be there but his presence and lack of votes just shows how insignificant he really is.

Ignore him and he will eventually go away. He will fade into the relative obscurity that symbolizes his life.

[Ogre]

Indeed, meatbrain is most certainly a mind reader. Just ask him. When he asks a question, especially one in which he asks for your opinion, he already knows the answer. Don't believe me? Try and answer a question where he wants your opinion and watch him tell you that you're wrong. You see, that is his M.O. -- he reads you mind and then waits for you to type the answer that he has determined. Until you type what he has determined you have thought, he will continue to repeat himself, ad nauseum, until you do or until you ignore him. He is simply not capable of intelligent discussion -- I agree with GM, the only logical thing to do is simply edit his comments or ignore him.

[The Jaded JD]

Do you endorse the entire post at Rocinante's Burdens, or just the excerpted matter? Not that the excerpted matter, "Hard Truth #1" in particular, doesn't do a fine job of revoking the preamblatory language of the Declaration of Independence on its own. There were, once upon a time, self-evident truths that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Roci has managed to make these inalienable rights not only alienable (meaning that they can be voluntarily surrendered by individuals who possess them) but contingent (meaning that they've never really even vested in the individual until certain conditions have been met. And while that may be a valid perspective, it certainly is not the perspective on which the United States is founded.

"Hard Truth #2" doesn't really seem to be true. Roci has joined three elements with a conjunction rather than a disjunction, so our enemies (1) come from a few countries, (2) share a common religion, and (3) share a common heritage. I don't know how many amount to a "few" countries, but I suspect we can easily agree that the "few" we already know about include not only all of the Middle Eastern countries but all of the European countries where disaffected Muslims (since disaffection seems to be the first among several stages of self-conversion from "Muslim" to "Muslim extremist"--but I'm not saying that it's the West's fault that these Muslims who begin this conversion feel disaffected) live. Basically, that circumscribes every European country from the UK to Bosnia, super-Saharan African countries from Morocco to Somalia (just to be conservative), and Southwest and South-central Asian coutries from the Levant to at least Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent. And even that leaves out Indonesia. Some "few" countries there.

Of course, Roci gets it right that all Muslim extremists do indeed have Islam in common. But there's that pesky logical fallacy that "this ball is red, therefore all balls are red." That Osama bin Laden is a Muslim extremist does not make our friend King Abdullah of Jordan a Muslim extremist. And this fallacy is reflected in Roci's new rules, which shift the United States from a rule-of-law country to a "kill them all and God shall know His own" country.

For example, Rule #1 does an excellent job of eliminating the First Amendment freedom of association. And that doesn't even begin to address the religious discrimination of excluding all Muslims from immigrating to or even visiting the United States, simply because they adhere to Islam.

But Rule #2 reflects that Roci is prepared to exclude on a broader base than mere religion, because anyone from an Islamic country, whether the individual is Muslim or not, should be excluded. One wonders what an Islamic country is: a country with a Muslim head of government, a Muslim head of state, or merely a large (or small) Muslim population? Do Maronite Christians from Lebanon become excluded? How about Chaldean Christians from Iraq? The small Jewish population in Iran? These folks don't even get to set foot on an American-owned airline under Rule #2?

I do agree with Rule #3, but I don't always agree that military force is required to convert a state that sponsors terrorism into a state that does not. We did not need to invade Libya, for example, and its been about twenty years since we conducted even large-scale airstrikes there. Roci seems to acknowledge this by saying that we need to prepare to respond militarily only to Iran. That may be accurate.

But Roci's biggest problem is in "Hard Truth #3." Yes, America as we know it is worth saving. Unfortunately, through the implementation of Roci's rules and in the acknowledgement of Roci's "truths," the America that would be created is not the America we know. So the America that survives Muslim extremism through Roci's vision would be an America that ought not to have survived: a paranoid, capricious, and exclusive America. It's often said that the world, and certainly the United States, changed after 9/11, but that doesn't mean we have to kill the United States to save it.

[meatbrain]

"Go look on your own blog..."

In other words, GM can provide no evidence to back up his charges. This, of course, is not a surprise.

"Try and answer a question where he wants your opinion and watch him tell you that you're wrong."

Cite examples of my alleged use of this tactic, Ogre.

[kender]

meathead, the fact that you cannot see that we are goping to be forced to kill millions of peopel to eradicate the threat is par for teh course for you, since you are the most obtuse cretin I have ever know.

The fact that you continue to pester TWA members shows your obsession with your betters, and makes all of us wonder if even therapy at this stage of the game can help you, or if perhaps it might be time to lock you into a small room with a luvme jacket wrapped around your bloated, smelly torso.

And kat never said one think about nuclear war.....you are reading words into the article meathead.....

[meatbrain]

"meathead, the fact that you cannot see that we are goping to be forced to kill millions of peopel to eradicate the threat is par for teh course for you, since you are the most obtuse cretin I have ever know."

The man who wrote this appalling excuse for a sentence is calling someone else an "obtuse cretin".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

[kender]

yes meathead....and you still haven't said anything about Kat not mentioning nucler war.....

So come on a**wipe.......where did Kat SPECIFICALLY say "nuclear war?"

(betcha hate having your favorite tactic turned on you huh?)

You're an a** meathead. Nobody lieks you, everybody hates you, guess you should go eat some worms.

[Kat]

*sigh* JD, you have many valid points, and no... I really don't want to throw out our Constitution or our Bill of Rights, or our Declaration.

And no, taken strictly literally, I probably don't agree absolutely with all of Roci's points. Hyperbole can be very attractive to me, and if you browse through my blog you'll notice that I generally don't do deeply analytical fiskings - it's not my talent as it is yours.

However, we have a worldwide ideology (worldwide in the sense that it touches every part of the world, NOT that the whole world is against us - though it sometimes feels that way [rolling eyes]) with a long history of barbaric violence. It has little or no care for innocents, regarding them instead as pawns to be blown up, manipulated, or sacrificed to kill anyone they can. This ideology's goal is to bring everyone under their religion and their law - and your only choice is to submit or die.

This ideology is closely associated - terrifyingly so - with Islam, and many, many MANY schools and mosques have been educating and encouraging people with this hateful and murderous worldview.

Bhuddism isn't doing that. Paganism aren't doing that. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and so on aren't doing that!

If you pair that with the fanatical devotion to political correctness that America seems to worship, and the refusal of many (most?) to use the information and statistics we have logically and practically so we can root out the bad guys... Well, it's no wonder some of us get frustrated. How stupid is it, when I describe the person who robbed my house at gunpoint as a 200 pound white woman with red hair and green eyes, to randomly search everyone, including a 90 year old 120 pound black man?? Male Islamo-fascists of middle eastern descent and about 20-40 years old is the demographic for the terrorists. Don't waste time on those who are statistically unlikely to do the crime!

Am I for rounding up all Muslims and deporting them? No - but we DO need to be honest and demand that Muslim organizations and groups remove their support from these radical elements and PUBLICALLY, CONSISTANTLY and FREQUENTLY act in favor of real reformation. So far, all I've seen is a little bit of talk, and no real action. To moderate Muslims, I'd say, "Well, OK, you're not a terrorist - fine. But that's the group your hanging out with, so don't be surprised when you get pulled in for questioning, too." Police your own society, and we won't have to.

Our freedoms require responsibility. And when your freedom to speak lets you stand up and try to destroy the culture and society which gives you that freedom to speak, then why the heck are you here? Why should Muslims have the freedom to speak hate, and then turn around and try to silence their critics with death threats? Why should we shelter and protect groups whose stated goal is the destruction of our society? That's not just stupid, that's suicidal!!!

No. Nonononono. There are TWO sides to the coin: freedom, and the responsibility to uphold, defend, and cherish that freedom.

Do I want nuclear war in the Middle East? No. I don't.

But this ideology (and look how PC and careful I'm being, here!) had a long history of blood and terror and lies. Time after time after time AFTER TIME the hand of diplomacy has been offered, "accepted," and betrayed. Financial aid has been given. Humanitarian aid had been given. Diplomatic aid has been given. Concessions have been given. And still these people keep coming back, and killing killing killing.

How can one reason with them? If even "moderate Islam" can't - or won't - bring these people into line, then what choices do we really have? No sane person WANTS nuclear war - but a sane person can be driven to it. If they will not give up their goal of killing as many of us as possible, if they will not live and let live, if they will not peaceably join civilized society, I have no other recourse.

They must be exterminated. Or, we must submit to their rules, their religion, and their murderous ways. Whatever happened to that American vow, emblazoned on so many New Hampshire license plates, "Live free or die!"

Frankly, I want those terrorist bastards to die.

And, if they will not yield, neither will I. If it takes a nuke, God help us, then it takes a nuke. And after the nuke, we will do what we did in Japan: we will go in with aid, and rebuild, and offer friendship if they are ready to renounce war.

I never said I *liked* all this, meathead and JD. But it may be our final option.

-- Kat

[kender]

BTW meathead, if you have any ideas on how to end the threat from islam please feel free to post them.

I suspect however that you have no ideas, plans or solutions, and may in fact be Howard Dean in drag.

In fact, meathead, you have never once (that I have seen) posted any kind of a solution for anything.

Why is that?

Could it be that you have none? COuld it be that the only thing you can do is obsess over the members of TWA? Actually I am kind of honored now that I think about it.

Having you around to pester us is kind of like the retarded tray wipe at McDonalds taking a shine to you and constantly bringing you napkins.....except when dealing with you we get a much lower level of dialogue, but oh well, at least we are being pelted with your spittle we you jabber.

[meatbrain]

"where did Kat SPECIFICALLY say "nuclear war?""

She didn't. Nor did I claim she used that phrase. Read for comprehension, Kender.

What Kat did say was that we may be forced to "a chilling necessity similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki" -- thus suggesting that nuclear weapons be used. What Kat did say was that "it may be that we must ruthlessly kill thousands" -- thus invoking the memory of the thousands who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What Kat did say is that "after their bodies and their ideology have been reduced to their atomic particles", we'll all be safe -- thus suggesting that nuclear strikes are the path to safety.

I merely asked simple, direct questions about her views -- questions which Kat has yet to answer.

"...except when dealing with you we get a much lower level of dialogue..."

Says the creature who posts "we are goping to be forced to kill millions of peopel" and "we are being pelted with your spittle we you jabber" as examples of his own high level of dialog. Thanks for yet another belly-laugh, Kender.

[kender]

BTW, I agree with Rocinante.

Completely.

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless on of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country, by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us: thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."--Thomas Jefferson

Folks that worry more about civil rights, especially for those that hate us and would kill us, are wrong in their thinking and just as much of a danger to this country and our freedom as the muslims, and perhaps should be treated accordingly.

Before you ask, no I don't know how to tell the difference between our enemies among the muslim population, and am completely in favor of taking away the civil rights and citizenship and deporting all of them, regardless of how long they have been here and how peaceful they have been. We don't know which among them are the enemy and which aren't, and should not be willing to wait until they attack us on our soil to find out.

As for American muslims (the nation of islam in particular) we give them the benefit of the dounbt until one of them steps out of line, then we exterminate them also.

This threat is serious, and without extreme measures we are doomed, and may God forgive us for what we are going to be forced to do.

[meatbrain]

"Am I for rounding up all Muslims and deporting them? No - but we DO need to be honest and demand that Muslim organizations and groups remove their support from these radical elements and PUBLICALLY, CONSISTANTLY and FREQUENTLY act in favor of real reformation. So far, all I've seen is a little bit of talk, and no real action. To moderate Muslims, I'd say, "Well, OK, you're not a terrorist - fine. But that's the group your hanging out with, so don't be surprised when you get pulled in for questioning, too." Police your own society, and we won't have to."

How many Muslims and Muslim organizations would have to "PUBLICALLY, CONSISTANTLY and FREQUENTLY act in favor of real reformation" before you would agree that they should not be subjected to special attention from police agencies merely for being Muslim?

What is your standard for Muslims "PUBLICALLY, CONSISTANTLY and FREQUENTLY act[ing] in favor of real reformation"? What does an act in favor of real reformation consist of? How often does a Muslim has to perform this act in order to satisfy you? Twice a month? Six times a month? Once a day?

"Why should Muslims have the freedom to speak hate, and then turn around and try to silence their critics with death threats?"

Those on your side of the debate, such as Kender, do this too. Should he have the freedom to try to (No. You do NOT get to drive traffic to yourself on MY blog. No hyperlinks to your blog, meatbrain, and no trackbacks, either -- Kat)?

Folks, this is the interrogation style that just got this cretin banned. If he were one of the investigators down at Gitmo, all the liberal morons would be claiming, "Unfair! Inhumane!" but the only inhumane thing about mb is that he can only ask questions.

He never offers solutions or suggestions for winning the war, and he never seems to learn when his questions are addressed.

He wanted me to answer all his questions (funny, I saw no subpoena...) and yet refuses to acknowledge that I addressed them (though not in the particulars) in my response to JD, above.

Further down, you'll see I offered him a choice. Well, he chose to be an idiot. That's fine, he can be an idiot all he wants - but not on my blog. He's got his own, I won't link to it, but I'm sure you'll be able to find it if you have a desperate need to do so.

But HE won't be back here with his carpet-bombing attempt at conversation.

-- Kat

[kender]

Yeah meathead, I don't pay attention to my typingf....big whoop....you still wont call into any show (coward), and prove constantly that good typing is more important to you than actual thought.

No surprise teher.

And I'll giove you one better.......we need to kill millions.....not thousands.....MILLIONS....men, women and children.....MILLIONS of them...and if they wont surreender them we must go to tens of millions....we must kill our enemies until they surrender, no matter how many that number is......do you really think they will suddenly become peaceful spontaneously?

They have proven they won't stop and that we are all fair game, including our children....you have kids....do you not fear for their lives? Or are you secure in teh knowlege that you can simply hatch another one?

[The Jaded JD]

Kat,

I don't agree with everything in your comment, but it is more reasonable than the sentiment of your first post. I appreciate the temptation to latch onto someone else's hyperbole and endorse it without critical thinking, and I've done it myself on occasion.

[meatbrain]

What Kender cannot see, of course, is that in his case, the terrorists have won. They have managed to so terrorize Kender that he has abandoned any pretense of having any sort of moral code, and now advocates pure genocide as a 'solution'. Perhaps he even thinks of it as the 'final solution' to the 'Muslim question'.

The terrorists have scored a total victory over Kender. They and their apologists have heaped scorn upon Western values for decades, and Kender is now only to happy to help prove them right by ditching the whole concept of a values system. As long as Kender is safe, no cost in human life is too great.

Nice going, Kender.

[meatbrain]

"You do NOT get to drive traffic to yourself on MY blog..."

You're simply afraid to let anyone see that Kender made a death threat, Kat. Can't have anyone posting the facts here, can we?

Way to hold an honest conversation, Kat. Now we know what your values are.

Kender made a death threat, did he? If he had, and if you had any brains, you'd be running by now.

And don't talk to me about "honest conversation" when you have no familiarity of the concept. Hint: "honest conversation" is NOT interrogation, and DOES involve a dialog that progresses somewhere. I see why everyone told me to just ban you. Well, next time, I'll listen to my buddies sooner. Nevertheless, wisdom acquired late is still wisdom. Sayonara. -- Kat

[Kat]

OK, guys, some of this has descended to sniping. No, I'm not going to get into the "who started it," but that's enough.

meatbrain, if you can address me and my friends in a reasonable and logical and gracious manner like Jaded JD, *and* quit messing around with the goalposts, I'll permit you to continue commenting.

I'm not going to answer your follow up questions, because you are in your rut of only offering questions, with no solutions, and no plans. When I said

...you have a history of coming around and commenting on our blogs simply to pick a fight and drive traffic to your blog.

I was referencing your past, demonstrable behavior, and I see my skepticism regarding your intent here has been validated.

You have a choice, now. You can 1) go away, and forget about coming back until you want to have a productive discussion that actually goes somewhere, or 2) you can outline your plan, point by point, to actually deal with what we both agree are murderous terrorists, and stop asking everyone else to justify themselves.

This is my blog, my house on the web, and your behavior here would have gotten you thrown out of my actual house at gunpoint. You have been rude, argumentative, evasive, distainful and supercilious. You are also NOT my friend, NOT my pal, and NOT even my neighbor - YOU get cut no slack.

Either-or, meatbrain. Put up or shut up.

-- Kat

[meatbrain]

This comment has been removed because the author didn't take my warning. Previous comments will be lightly edited because I'm feeling whimsical, and this cretin has no real purpose, other than to interrogate others. He can't offer his own solutions, he just goes around in circles. Buh-bye. -- Kat

[kender]

Meathead, that wasn't a threat....it was a suggestion...and if you contimnue to support our enemies by refusing to see the danger they pose and supporting your own safety by seeing teh necessity fo protecting your self then you become an enemy as well......

[kender]

and meathead, you still haven't shown us that you have any sort of a plan to remedy the threat posed by muslims.

Why, meathead, do you contimue to refuse to answer our questions?

[Gribbit]

I see that Meat for Brains is continuing his tour of Wide Awakes and Stop The ACLU Blogs leaving his behind his troll droppings in hopes to promote a blog war. Blog wars have been a tool of the lefty bloggers to drum up traffic. Other lefties get an erection over the confrontation. It is like an aphrodisiac to the moonbats. But as of yet, Meat for Brains has been able to get anyone to link to him. Odd isn't it. Not really. He makes about as much sense as wearing rain gear in Saudi Arabia.

He is nothing more than an insignificant one cell (brain cell that is) micro organism that is about as relevant as a cockroach and just as annoying.

[Roci]

Response To Jaded JD,

First, thank you for taking the effort to actually read my post and critically think about it. These are hot button issues that many people respond to viscerally instead of with the thought that your comments evidence.

The point of my post was to address a specific threat to America. This is the greatest threat we have faced since the end of the Cold War. In WW2 and the Cold War, the USA faced not just battlefield defeat, but overthrow of our for of government and our independence as a sovereign state, including all of the institutions and customs that make America what it is today.

To address that I examined the basic assumptions that many of us commonly operate under and found them flawed. You repeated those flawed assumptions in your comment so I will attempt to address them here.

1. The role of the Declaration of Independence (DOI). The DOI does in fact mention the things you quoted about the source of our rights and the role of government in preserving those rights. But the DOI is not law in the USA. Nor does it have any legal foundation in international law. The DOI is an exception in the history of the world, where all other forms of government do not recognize any rights of the people other than those the government grants them. Our own Constitution is a codification of the rights that government grants to the people, not the rights we believe we have from God. As our God-given rights apply somewhat to us, they apply not at all to the rest of the world. And nowhere in the DOI or the constitution does it mention anything about the people of the rest of the world all having an inalienable right to live in the USA.

2. The role of the Constitution. The constitution is the foundation of our government. It establishes the government and places limits on that government. All of the limitations in that document have at this point been ignored with the exception of the prohibition of quartering troops in private homes. But with 50% taxation on income, and unlimited deficit spending, the government can build as many barracks, or rent as many hotels as it needs, at your expense, without resorting to 18th century “quartering.” Still, I cling to the ideal of what the Constitution could be and hope for a return to a more purist implementation of it. Again, nothing in the Constitution grants rights to all the other people of the world. The American government, acting on the behalf of the American people for their mutual benefit, has an absolute sovereign right to discriminate against ANY group of foreign people for any reason, even a capricious reason. No one has a right under our law to cross our boundaries and visit or live in the USA. They all do at our sufferance, and we do not have to suffer them lightly. My post is consistent with this point of view. Immigration law is the very definition of discrimination and capriciousness. We have quotas for every nation of the world, constantly being adjusted for reasons no one understands, and a defacto open borders policy that makes the quotas moot.

3. As for your closing remarks. You are not being paranoid if you can identify groups of people who really are out to get you. You are not being capricious if your take reasonable efforts to thwart those groups. I see no sin in being exclusive. The American government derives its authority from the American people and has the moral and legal obligation to act for their benefit exclusively in all things. Reasonable people can disagree, as they often do, regarding what is most beneficial and how to achieve it. Foreign powers and citizens pay nothing for the maintenance of our government and institutions. What moral authority do they draw upon to expect benefit from the actions of that government? America is a changing nation. The America we have today would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers. Nor can we resurrect them to manage all of our modern affairs. They lived in their time, we live in ours. We do not need to be bound by their limitations, just because they were. Remember, even the founding fathers were not unanimous in crafting our Constitution, and our present Constitution was not their first attempt. Our enemies (the ones who want to kill us and overthrow all of our western institutions, not the ones running for election in November), are not bound by our western moral code, our common law, our constitution, our DOI, our international treaties, or even their own religion. Their code is “all is fair in love and war” and they believe they are at war, even if we do not.

I hope this response has cleared up my position on this, even if you still disagree. As I said, reasonable people can disagree on many things.

[Roci]

OOPS.

Hey Kat, A little help here?

LOL, yeah, dupe comments are a pain! I've got your back, Roci - no problem whatsoever. BTW, have you gone over and checked out this week's Virginia Blog Carnival? Jim did a good job - he made it a podcast! I think you'd enjoy it. --- Kat

[kender]

BTW, meathead lied. Kat never said anything about nuclear war, and meatheads claim that she did simply shows that meathead lied.

Meathead lied, the truth died.

[The Jaded JD]

Roci,

First, I appreciate that the Declaration has been superseded as a legal instrument. From 1776 until the Treaty of Paris concluding the War of Independence, however, it was the organic legal instrument establishing the independent sovereignty of the United States from which the Articles of Confederation could arise. The Treaty of Paris superseded the Declaration because the recognition of our independence from the entity from which we sought it superseded our unilateral declaration of that independence. Since 1783, the Declaration is not a legal instrument but philosophical instrument reflecting the moral foundation of our country--and it that quality, not a legal quality, I referred to in my comment. The Declaration, after all, neither confers nor creates any rights; it quite obviously and expressly recognizes rights that its authors and subscribers describe as endowed by God. Such rights are not legal, or civil, rights, but natural rights. The recognition of these rights as fully vested and inalienable in all men is, as I said in my first comment, the moral perspective on which the United States is founded.

Second, I think that to say that all of the constitutional limitations on government, save one, have been ignored is overbroad. We could sit together and go over every limiting clause in the Constitution and its 27 amendments and tally them to see whether more have been ignored than remain observed, but I suspect that the tally would not come out in your favor. But that's quibbling. The thrust of your second point is that the Constitution doesn't confer rights on all the people of the world. That is generally true, but not universally true. For example, the Fifth Amendment begins "No person" and makes "any person" a beneficiary of the Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, and federal Due Process clauses. Likewise, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection may not be deprived by a state to "any person."

To the extent that you mean the Constitution does not confer a right of access to United States territory on foreign nationals, you are correct. But if that's all you meant in your post, your language did not reflect your intention. In your second prefatory observation, you wrote, "You have to cut off their financing, recruiting, training and safe havens. You have to deprive them of their civil rights. Even if they claim to be citizens of the USA or other Western countries." (emphasis added) In your first rule, you wrote, "No one has a right to live in the USA as a citizen or a visitor. Moslems need not apply. Moslems already here can be deported for anti-American behavior." What you appear to mean by this is that no Muslim, even a Muslim who is already an American citizen, is entitled to constitutional rights. If you mean something other than what you appear to mean, please clarify.

Third, I agree that protecting oneself from entities, organizations, and individuals who intend to do one harm is not paranoia. But your post made no attempt to reflect an understanding of the differences between Muslims on tribal, sectarian, national, or political bases. To say that a Lebanese Druse has the same aspiration as even a Lebanese Sunni or Shiite may over broad, let alone a Lebanese Druse and a Syrian Allawite. After all, as one example, if the Lebanese Druse, Sunnis, and Shiites shared identical aspirations, the Lebanese civil war would not have as long. They would have united against and overwhelmed the Maronite Christians. Likewise, even on a sectarian axis, national differences complicate the analysis: a Lebanese Shiite views the world differently and pursues goals different to those of an Iraqi Shiite or a Iranian Shiite. While Saddam Hussein oppressed Shiites, Hafez Asaad oppressed Sunnis (though both dictators generally oppressed all their people, each had his own pet).

So, rather than say "no Muslim" or "all Muslims," I would rather ask "which Muslims?" because there are differences that can be readily ascertained if one cared to try. Is it more likely than not that a 23 year-old Jordanian man boarding an American plane in Paris is more likely to carry a bomb or harbor malevolent intent than a 68 year-old Caucasian woman from Fargo boarding a British plane in Chicago? Of course it is. Should our national security policy appreciate that difference, and execute screenings differently? Of course it should. But while the differences are more subtle if the pairing is a Jordanian man and a white woman from Fargo, differences remain even if the pairing is a 63 year-old Pakistani and a 17 year-old Palestinian from Tunisia (especially if the Pakistani is our friend President Pervez Musharaff, who celebrated his 63rd birthday Friday). And our national security policy should appreciate that difference as well--though it would seem not to do so under your "truths" and rules.

So, I describe your "truths" and rules as paranoid, capricious, and exclusionary because they are as broad as possible. I describe as reckless the willingness of some liberals to fail to recognize the legitimate difference between our Jordanian guy and our woman from Fargo. There is a middle ground, and I don't think that we have to abandon it for the position you've advocated in your post in order to win the war on terror. Moreover, I believe that if we did abandon the middle ground for that position, America would not be America as we know it--the one worth saving in your "Truth #3": the one founded on the moral principle of inalienable rights fully vested in all men; and the one wherein the Constitution is so generous as to afford some protections to everyone, whether citizens or not; and the one wherein the protections reserved exclusively to citizens are not subject to abrogation on the basis of religion.

[Roci]

"No one has a right to live in the USA as a citizen or a visitor. Moslems need not apply..

You are correct. This is poorly worded. Of course citizens of the USA have a right to live here. I intended this to refer to people to immigrate here in order to become citizens, as opposed to those just visiting.

While the framers of the constitution may have believed rights came from God, our current government does not. Our current government does not officially recognize the existance of God. Many of the citizens of this country do not worship any God. Where do their rights come from? Despite the founding fathers eloquence and legal brilliance, they did not define any rights as "God given" except Life Liberty and the persuit of happiness. They then thoughtfully did not define what those were. There is very little connection between those and the bill of rights. Or do you propose that God really wants us to have freedom of the press? The point is, not every right is God given. Not all of them are inalienable. And they are certainly not universal.

Example: If an alien commits a crime in the USA, he can be deported before serving his jail term or after serving. If he is deported to a God-forsaken rat-infested third world hellhole (like the entire moslem world), he will lose his trial by jury, 5th AND 14th amendment rights, despite anything the supreme court may have said.

I recognize the multiplicity of combinations of tribal affiliations and subnationalities, but since my point was that none of them have a right to come here, there was no additional point to be made regarding "good Moslems" and "bad Moslems". The US government has an obligation to safeguard the interests of US citizens, even at the expense of hurting the feelings of Moslem tourists. Of course if the "good Moslems" ever get tired of being discriminated against and being forced to live in their own countries, they could always clean up their own back yard. I would be willing to give full credit for making good progress in joining the 21st century.

[Roci]

Answers to Meathead (even though he didn't ask)
1. Which targets, specifically, do you want the US to attack with atomic or thermonuclear weapons?
10-15 military targets in Iran. There is no point in specifically listing them here since you have never heard of them. Expand the target list as needed until you achieve the desired effect. The desired effect is total unconditional surrender. After all, we have 6,000 warheads. There is no need to be stingy. If we run out, we can make more or buy some from the Russians.

2. What casualties do you estimate from such an action?
All of them.

3. What rate of post-bombing cancers and birth defects do you anticipate among the survivors?
If done correctly, the rate should be near zero.

4. What do you estimate that the environmental consequences of these attacks may be?
Environmental consequences will be a net positive since there will be fewer people in third world countries adding to lifetime total pollution contamination.

5. What diplomatic consequences do you anticipate, should the US carry out such nuclear attacks?
The world will like us again. Everyone will want to be our friend and make us happy. Alternative: UN security council votes on a resolution to shake their finger at us. We veto it, using our finger.

[Ms. Underestimated]

MeatBrain..... possibly SpamBrain? Same level of intellect.