Thoughts on the Islamic Terrorist Attack in France

I’m sick of this.

There was yet another Islamic terrorist attack, this time against a satirical magazine in France. Twelve people dead because they believed in free speech.

First off, let’s keep the people of France in our prayers. I know a lot of French people now. They’re good people. They don’t deserve this. Nobody deserves this.

Second, to the moral equivalence crowd, and their inevitable cries about how everybody is all equally the same, and Christians and Jews have done bad things too, and their fears about the inevitable backlash against Muslims that never materializes because the west aren’t barbarians… To you people, to the smug, self-righteous leftists, go to hell.

Just like everybody else, I got up this morning and checked the internet. I read the reports. Those pissed me off, but they aren’t shocking at this point. Islamic terrorists saw people’s heads off, blow up buildings, busses, trains, marathons, shoot up hospitals, shoot up schools, kidnap hundreds of girls to rape them and sell them as sex slaves, on and on and on. They do this often in countries where they can operate with impunity, and they do it occasionally in the west when they can get away with it.

This particular attack hit the west, and it was galling because it struck directly at one of our sacred values, free speech, the ability to speak out against whatever we are feel compelled to speak against. So of course, the apologist cowards in western media started blurring out pictures of the offending cartoons.

It is asinine. Islamic terrorists recently massacred a school. A whole school. Hundreds of kids. Hell, hundreds of Muslim kids, but that didn’t get hardly any attention in the western media. Instead, a fabricated story about some woman in a head scarf getting shamed by racist Australians got more coverage. A lie about how the west might be surly in the wake of hostages being murdered got more coverage than actual evil.

Because of my job I follow a lot of authors, artists, and creative types, so I noticed something this morning. Many of them were compelled to say something about the events in France, but most of them wouldn’t say anything about who did this horrible thing. They talked about tragedy, and violence, and shootings, and terror, but very few would come out and say anything about the actual bad guys. Anybody who did mention the actual bad guys had to put in the obligatory Most Muslims are Peaceful disclaimer and then walk on eggshells to avoid being slandered as hatemongers by their followers who are members of the Goodthink Police.

I felt like writing something here. But then I felt this momentary pang of dread. What if my words make somebody angry? What if I upset them? And that’s when it hit me, every single public figure, every person with an audience, felt that same doubt. That same little bit of fear that evil Islamic lunatics would take offense and kill them. No matter how unlikely or irrational, they felt it.

And that is exactly what evil wants.

I saw a cartoonist friend of mine post about this, and it struck me that he said this made him doubt humanity, it made him doubt his species. He’s a good man. He was emotional because these were his peers murdered this time. I told him that it wasn’t most humans. It was one particular group of humans. And that group’s goal is to make people like him afraid to speak. They want authors, artists, speakers, preachers, politicians, journalists, everyone afraid to name them, afraid to talk about them, afraid to question them, afraid to point out the obvious.

One of the fundamental tenet of western civilization is our ability to speak freely. Anything that stops free speech is evil, but with these evil men, throw that complaint on the pile. It is just another atrocity among many. But this post isn’t about them. The only way to deal with terrorists is to destroy them. For most of us, that is out of our hands. For that reason I sincerely hope GIGN spends the next few days fruitfully tracking down and shooting everybody involved.

This post is about us, the regular people. The people they want to scare. Every time one of us doesn’t write or say what we want, we give in. When newspapers blur out the “offensive” cartoons while simultaneously running self-righteous op-eds about free speech, we give them exactly what they want.

Public figures are worried about men in balaclavas blowing up their house for talking. Regular folks are worried about the social justice crowd slandering them as racist hatemongering bigots for talking. Either way, people aren’t talking, and that’s stupid. The “religion of peace” needs to get its house in order. Do you really believe that is going to happen while the only people who can speak freely are militant imams and everybody else is cowed?

Nite Owl Firearms
This is awesome. The Making of Detroit Christmas audio drama

259 thoughts on “Thoughts on the Islamic Terrorist Attack in France”

  1. I suggest reprisals.

    As far as I am concerned a declaration of war against Yemen is in order, for failing to keep their animals in line.

    Followed by nukes. Screw them. They want to allow acts of war to emenate from their citizens, then make them pay for it.

    1. Bad idea. Evidently you’ve never seen real war. It sucks.

      I have a counter proposal: stop paying welfare to immigrants and stop banning the private ownership of firearms.

      Job done, total cost of implementation is negative, we -save- money.

      Ask yourself why this isn’t Priority 1 in the West.

      1. What we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was not a real war. It was another damned police action.

        Do not occupy Yemen. Just wreck the damned place. Leave it in flames. Thirty minutes, and the war is over.

        Yes, war should be horrible … for the enemy, if you are doing it right. Dar al Islam declared war on the West on 9-11. We are already at war, Phantom. It is about time we started fighting to win.

      2. Other than 1990 and 2001-3 that wasn’t a real war. Hell, by the time we left, it was barely harsh language.

        If we ever decided to have a REAL war, it would be noticeable. Cities in flames and rubble. And surviving Islamics will have learned the lesson to NOT mess with us. But we haven’t fought Total War since 1945, and I’m sad to say, are unlikely to do so until after the day we lose a city or three to a terrorist nuke.

      3. Dar al Islam declared war on the West many centuries before 9-11. They’d just been impotent at it for a century. (And still remain mostly so. We just have vocal cowards who want to appease them.)

      4. MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. It worked because:
        1. We had the ability to “destroy” the Soviet Union if they tried anything.
        2. They believed we really would destroy them if they tried anything.

        For the last ~50 years, extreme islam have…cowed the west. We have tried to accommodate them, we’ve tried to appease them, we’ve held Israel back, we haven’t done anything, in their minds, but bluster and show weakness. They have no fear of reprisal, because they have never seen/experienced anything but the velvet glove.

        It is time, past time, that we remove the velvet glove.

      5. 1. Remove most gun control.
        2. Put Larry in charge of self-defense courses to be mandatory for all adults (taking the course is mandatory, gun ownership is optional).
        3. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws rammed into effect.
        4. Begin mass deportations of all non-citizen Muslims.

        THIS is the model to follow. Then, if the attacks happen, they’ll be happening because they’re either funded by a specific state, which can then be reduced to rubble, or they’ll be funded by criminal organizations that are tolerated by a specific state, which can, again, be reduced to rubble.

      6. And now it is looking like France has a casus beli against the US:

        Thanx, President Obama, for siccing the .gov on TEA Party folks, and telling us we are awful for thinking moslems in the US are dangerous.

        The French government should demand that all of this terrorist’s co-conspirators, and his US Imam, should be arrested, and sent to France for trial. I’d like to see what Obambam does.

  2. Well said.

    My observation is that if all the people taking pictures with their iPhones had a pistol on them, the death toll would have been three dead terrorists. Gun control works, just not the way Lefties tell you its supposed to.

    I foresee gun control and Liberalism becoming a lot less popular in France in the near future.

    Cue the #I’llRideWithYou morons trying to defend their brand in 3… 2…1…

    Oh by the way, if any of y’all don’t want to get really angry and start throwing stuff at your monitor, don’t watch the videos from this thing. Do yourselves a favor and skip it. They’re nasty.

    1. Funny, I had the same idea when I saw the footage. Distance was a little rangy for a pistol, but nice line-of-sight, stationary target unaware of my presence, little risk of over-penetration. At the least it might have saved the life of the wounded gendarme those animals executed on the sidewalk.

      1. Yeah, you know, at least we could have made them DUCK, right? Given them something with teeth in it to worry about.

        It just enrages me to see these mutts running around completely unafraid, shooting whoever they want, because they know they’re the only armed men in a two mile radius of their location.

        They should try this shit in Arizona, see how they make out there. Or Tel Aviv. They would have got capped by some old grandma down there.

    2. How about we start a new hashtag campaign directed at France? Does anyone know how to say #I’llshootwithyou in French? [EVIL GRIN]

  3. I guess the French nation is going to have to make a choice as to which it wants more: multiculturalism, or freedom. Here’s hoping they choose the right one.

    1. The French nation has never particularly wanted freedom. This is the country that invented dirigisme, both the word and the actual thing. Liberté is a pretty word over the courthouse doors, but it has no more to do with the real ideology of France than its yoke-fellow, fraternité.

      The real question is whether they prefer multiculturalism or survival.

  4. I follow a # of Sci fi & comics writers on Twitter. During the Boston Bombings & the ensuing manhunt I was quite busy at work, never got a chance to creep online. When I did, all of the lefties posted pics of the suspects, the very white suspects. They were over joyed that they were apparently not muslims, when the truth came out….crickets…its a worldview, they cannot help themselves.

    1. Remember the weeks of angst over the Beltway sniper in the early 00’s?

      Every tired clinton-era trope was dragged out. MUST be a white supremacist/racist/antigovt militia kook.


      Over and over again in the last decade we’ve had shootings, and haranguing and wailing over how it had nothing to do with islam.

      Every once in a looooooooong while, they were actually right.

      But generally?

      1. As Mark Steyn would say, now we get to play the exciting game “Crazy or Muslim”, where we figure out why the killers did this. Are they insane, or were they acting out of religious motivations.

        Rule one: the correct answer is always ‘Crazy,’ and never ‘Muslim.’

  5. Every time they get up in arms over a portrayal of Mohammed I’m reminded of the disgusting “Piss Christ” “art” exhibit, and all the artists murdered by Christians after it.

    Except only the first part of that happened.

    Maybe they need thirty something years of comedians snarking out “edgy” jokes at their expense to toughen them up like us. After all, Christian terrorists are about as rare as honest politicians and Lord knows we get mocked.

    Too bad the mainstream doesn’t have the stones.

  6. I’m not prepared to paint anyone with the broad brush group-think ideology, for good of bad. At the end of the day, regardless of the group in question or their size, you have two extremes on either end and then every flavor in between, ad infinitum. For this very reason I’m also not prepared to say that “Most Muslims are peaceful”, because that too is a broad brush. And how the fuck would I really know anyway?

    I will say this though… FUCK the people who did this, fuck the people who put them up to it, and while we’re at it, fuck the people who agree with it. May the universe grant them all the curb-stomping they deserve. If the majority of those people happen to be Muslim, then so be it.

    And if _I’ve_ offended anyone, be it because you perceive my view as extreme, or as is often the case, not extreme enough, I won’t say fuck you, but I will tell you to fuck off. *shrug*

    1. I disagree. Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. It has it’s own set of laws (sharia), it’s own polity (caliphate), has announced war against the rest of the world (Dar al Harb, or house of war). See:

      Islam considers itself my enemy. Why should I not consider myself the enemy of Islam?

      1. As Larry points out above, the most recent big attack before this was an attack on a school full of Muslim kids in Pakistan. In a speech at an Islamic university (surprisingly (sarcasm) ignored by the MSM) the president of Egypt called for major reforms of Islam. I’d rather have to fight as few people as possible at the same time. Right now, a subset of Militant Islamism is actively at war with the West. Many of the rest have a lot to answer for, and are definitely not on our side, but treating them all the same is a recipe for a longer, harder, more expensive struggle.

        Heck, we can hold many in the West as being a contributor to the madness. Between the tacit approval of domestic terrorism for ‘good’ (ie Progressive) causes, the actively opposing free speech and other liberties, and the unwillingness to call out certain parties when they do wrong, there’s a lot that’s been done to contribute to this issue.

      2. No, Islam makes no distinction between “religion” and “politics”. It’s a religion and a political ideology. (“It’s a floor wax AND a desert topping.”)

    2. Fair enough. There were those who said similar things about National Socialism and that sure turned out well.

    3. Nazism wasn’t a few bad apples, it was Nazism. There are sociopaths, and then there are entire cultures taught to be sociopaths. One is a criminal, the other a criminal ideology. You don’t have to paint anyone with anything, the ideology and actions people take in its name will do that for you. These were not bad apples or bank robbers, but people radicalized by an ideology.

      1. Islam requires war against Dar al Harb … you know, everyone who is not islamic?

        There are Islamics who are crazy enough to pick up a rifle, and then there are Islamics who merely contribute Zakat and let others pick up the rifle. And then there are lapsed Islamics, who just keep a low profile.

        There are no good Islamics.

        1. So, you’ve met all the Muslims, and not found a good one in the bunch? Wow, glad to hear from such an authority. I’d certainly never assume that you’ve demonized an entire religion based on the behavior of a few murderous thugs claiming to adhere to it. Following the same “logic” are you holding all gun owners responsible for these animals because they chose to use guns in their murderous rampage? Or do you actually know something about gun owners…enough to know that *that* generalization is bullshit?

          Islam hasn’t declared war on the west, radicals within Islam have. Generalizing and directing your rage towards all Muslims isn’t helping (unless your goal is to alienate more Muslims and drive them towards jihad).

          I’m not excusing these assholes. They need to be hunted down and caught, or killed “resisting arrest”. But carpet bombing the Middle East won’t make things better, no matter how much your simplistic interpretation of the situation tells you it will.

          1. I haven’t read the entire Quran (nor have most of the readers and posters here, I’d wager). But among the things I’ve found are:

            “And spend of your wealth in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.” (2:195 Quran)

            And let not those among you who are blessed with graces and wealth swear not to give (any sort of help) to their kinsmen, Al-Masakin (the poor), and those who left their homes for Allah’s Cause. Let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [An’Nur24:22]

            Whether you (mankind) disclose (by good words of thanks) a good deed (done to you in the form of a favour by someone), or conceal it, or pardon an evil, … verily, Allah is Ever Oft-Pardoning, All-Powerful. [Al’Nisa 4:149]

            And that was without much effort. There’s also a lot of nasty, fire and brimstone stuff too (western Muslim-bashers tend to gravitate towards those). But have you read Leviticus? You can do the same cherry-picking from the Old Testament (not so much the New) and demonize Christianity.

            FWIW, I’m agnostic. I think it’s all bullshit. But I’m not so insecure that I’ve got to blast other religions, ostracize or attempt to convert their practitioners. When somebody starts committing crimes (whether in the name of God or not), that’s where I draw the line. Believe what you want, so long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. Islam as practiced by the majority doesn’t do that (histrionics from Western xenophobes notwithstanding).

          2. Ah, I see you read the early Suras. Most people are unaware of a critically important principle of Koranic interpretation known as “abrogation.” The principle of abrogation — al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Koran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:

            2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

            The Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.

            I read the Koran right after 9/11; I wanted to see if I could figure out what was motivating the religion. Unfortunately, what I found was not encouraging.

      2. Blotogg asks of Mr May: “So, you’ve met all the Muslims, and not found a good one in the bunch?”

        Imagine this was WWII, one day after Pearl Harbor, with the bodies still unburied, and hearing creatures like Blotogg lecturing us sarcastically on how not all Japs are bad.

        The moderate Mohammedans have as much effect on history as the moderate Communists in Russia under Stalin, which is to say, none at all.

        Why even discuss them? Why mention them?

        No one cares whether some nice but silent Muslim somewhere is hesitant about supporting Jihad.

        Why the hell are you talking about them? No one cared during World War Two that some Japanese, Italians or Germans had private reservations about the war.

        So you think there are quite a number of nonviolent Muslims somewhere quietly doing exactly jack zip to stop their violent brethren. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo and bully for you. Who cares? Who gives a Tinker’s damn?

        The only reason to mention one’s solidarity with the mythical moderate Muslims is to spread the peacock tail of one’s own moral self regard.

      3. Blottog doesn’t understand the difference between a sociopathic criminal who is an individual and a sociopathic ideology under which otherwise decent people live. He is comparing the two things. An individual who says no Christian can be the president of Egypt is different from a law. A law is a reflection of culture. These killings are not individuals but a reflection of culture and ideology. Whether individual Muslims are nice people or not is not the point. The point is what cultural value system they share and laws they make. We once bombed Germans as collective punishment because they supported a sociopathic ideology. We did not maintain Germans were bad or sociopaths but that they had allowed their culture to be overrun with sociopathic institutions.

        Having violated curfew to spend 9 of the 15 days of the illegal occupation of Tahrir Square during the Egyptian Revolution in crowds ranging from 300,000 to half a million, including the moment the square erupted when Mubarak stepped down, I guess I know more about Muslims than Blottog and other social justice pricks do.

        No one is demonizing anything but observing that compared to all other groups in the world, Islam regularly produces serial killers that target civilians for no reason other than their insane supremacist ideas. Who in their right mind murders over cartoons? 3 lone wolves who just happened to hate insulting cartoons of the products of a hateful supremacist ideology that teaches this to their kids from day one? Even the damned president of Egypt can see that. Is he demonizing Islam or telling them to get their shit together or lose the right to walk among nations and cultures?

        Gun owners are not ideologues with a shared belief system on what to do with those guns, and they sure as hell don’t share a belief in murdering kids or flying planes into buildings like a bunch of lone wolves did. The Koran is a de facto declaration of war against non-Muslims. Wake up.

        1. James, your positions confuse me. On the one hand, you (correctly, in my opinion) slam the SJW’s for lumping everyone together in GamerGate with a “if you’re not with us, you’re with them” mentality, then you turn around and do the *exact* same thing to all of Islam. How do you resolve that cognative dissonance? By telling yourself that video games aren’t an ideology, so it’s wrong, but Islam is an ideology, so the 5 million displaced Syrians are all damned for the actions of the Kouachi brothers? That strikes me as special pleading. What’s the magic ratio of good to bad before you just condemn them all? There are bad players who say they’re defending the prophet (or whatever else their extremist rationalization of the moment might be), and there are big chunks of Middle East cultures that are misogynistic, brutal and racist. We actively support at least some of them for political reasons (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.). I’d like to have all of them governed by accountable democracies, if for no other reason than because the people would (at least nominally) be responsible for the actions of their governments. But as you saw in Egypt, democracy just isn’t likely to happen in the region. Three years after Mubarak, they’ve got el-Sissi, essentially “second verse, same as the first”.

          That Islam produces jihadists does not make all Muslims jihadists. Telling them to “just say ‘no'” is delusionally over-simplifying the problem, and holding people responsible who have no ability to do what you want. Or do you think that most Egyptians, Syrians, Bahrainis, Saudis etc. *want* to live in authoritarian regimes? I’m having a hard time holding the refugees, or just the average Muslim responsible for the acts of the jihadists. You apparently don’t have that problem. Hell, Hezbollah denounced the Kouachi brothers. I’ll repeat that to let it sink in…Hezbollah denounced the the attack on Charlie Hebdo. I’m not defending Hezbollah. They’re a brutal Islamic terrorist organization (though now that they’ve become the establishment in Lebanon, they’re apparently feeling some semblance of responsibility to make such a statement, or at least making a political move for survival by betting on the winning side of this conflict). But what else do you need to see before you’ll understand that Islam is not monolithic, nor are all Muslims culpable to jihadist violence?

      4. I’ve read the suras and the hadiths, blottogg. The “peaceful” moslem is a myth. Learn the difference between the Medina and the Mecca texts, and the principle of Abrogation.

        Some moslems are just not willing to be personally violent. I can live with those. But proper Islamic orthodoxy requires the violence of Sharia be imposed if the Islamic community has the strength to do so.

        Islamics are still living in the witchburning times. Try violating sharia in an islamic country, and see how quickly you get stoned or jailed.

        1. I schooled him on the Koran and abrogation yesterday about this time; apparently the cluebat wasn’t big enough.

          Larry, can I borrow the tetsubo?

        2. Then these guys down the road from me:

          Are just what, lazy? Biding their time? “If he runs, he’s VC. If he doesn’t run, then he’s disciplined VC”. Are you telling me I should just cut to the chase and fight them before they get around to fighting me? Sharia law is something I oppose, but then again I don’t live in a country ruled by Sharia. It must be nice to know with such certainty what goes on in the thoughts of 1.4B people. I don’t have that confidence, or arrogance.

          Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending jihadists. I want to pound every last one of these fuckers into the ground. I’m just not willing to level a mosque, refugee camp or neighborhood on the assumption that the occupants are either jihadist or on their way to jihadism. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice.

          1. Well that’s a new one from our Blott.

            I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a nicely done concern trolling (some of my best friends are conservatives) coupled to a false dichotomy.

            Take notes class.

          2. blottogg, there’s a couple more points of mainstream Islamic doctrine you are ignoring.

            Taqqiya: A Muslim is encouraged to lie about his religion and its’ practices in order to lull the unbeliever into leaving him alone while the Muslim is in a weaker position. Much like the Suras from Mecca are much more innocuous, because they were revealed when Mohammed had no power, than the Medina Suras, when he had an army and was in a position to conquer and rule.

            Hudna: A Muslim is not bound by any treaty or contract he makes with an infidel. Rather, he should only abide by its’ terms as long as it is to Islam’s advantage he do so.

            Again, these are basic doctrine. Until you know what you are talking about, you might want to go away and concentrate on educating yourself.

      5. On a different note. but there’s a phrase that we all know – “Three times is enemy action” that applies to many different types of systems.

        In general, the principle is that even a very small number of problems is symptomatic of a systemic issue. A computer bug, a design flaw, or simply an engineering or social compromise that cannot be avoided and has bad consequences under edge cases.

        So yes, paedophile catholic priests was a systemic problem (note, this does not mean the system was designed that way). Ditto the parishes that simply tried to make the problem go away.

        That said, those catholic priests were opposed by not only the clergy, but by the lay folk as well, when discovered.

        So the system could not avoid certain problems (people are people, and will screw up. Some are broken. Criminals who rely on trust gravitate to positions where that trust it is readily tendered. See also politicians)

        But the same system also worked to contain and stop the problem.

        Christians who thought abortion was wrong condemned, and were part of the arm of the justice system that hunted down, abortion clinic bombers.

        Tim McVeigh was roundly condemned across the board, and the militia types who he tried to recruit not only tossed him out as too extreme, but actually tried to report him. The same militia that was the favorite 90’s bogeyman for liberals.

        So yes, there will always be criminals and sociopaths. Nevertheless, we look at the system we have, and it goes out of its way to teach kindness, love, consideration.

        So what makes Islam different?

        A turk I know would say that there are no limits to islam.

        No, not to muslims, to islam. The further down the rabbit hole you go, the more radical you become. Anything is permissible in its name. Lying to ones not of the faith, or slaughtering them (or apostates) without mercy. It is literally a totalitarian political and ethic system. There is no “render unto Caesar” This, and the rise of the religious zealots, are why he left Turkey.

        Where the new testament introduced a gentler look at the old commandment, the later Koranic scriptures became more aggressive.

        The son of the founder of the PLO described islam as fundamentally good at the village imam level, if you had a good hearted and wise man. And again, that it was like a ladder leading deeper and deeper into radicalism until anything was permissible.

        This is coupled to a culture that does not have anything like a protestant work ethic, or sense of noblesse oblige.

        While it rarely happens – especially where visible to the west, this is recognized in everything from the occasional IMam’s sermon on how the islamic world no longer PRODUCES anything, to the egyptian president telling the imams that the beliefs and memetic structure rooted in islam have become toxic and dangerous to muslims and how they and the world interact.

        So yes, there are plenty of “moderate” muslims who wouldn’t kill anyone themselves, but would be glad to stand by and laugh as a gay person was hung, or dance in the streets when the twin towers fell.

        There are plenty who will blatantly fake injuries to be shown on TV as atrocities by jews/etc.

        They will say “he had it coming for drawing Allah” – but be outraged when offense is taken of them.

        Whether we think we are at war with them, they believe they are at war with us.

        Their extremists repeatedly and regularly slaughter not only non-muslims, but their own kind who are insufficiently pious, for explicitly stated religious reasons.

        They will hijack planes, slaughter thousands, demand recognition for their religious beliefs while spitting on others. They will tear down anyone else’s past in government after government, in country after country.

        They will issue death threats to anyone who mocks or ridicules them, or tells them they are wrong. Salman Rushdie was not an exception.

        And they will follow through when they can. Just go talk to Theo Van Gogh.

        The murder over “Submission” (btw, Islam is not the religion of peace, it is the religion of SUBMISSION, thus the movie title), riots and the Benghazi murders over a stupid film , are the equivalent of christians murdering the cast and crew of “Dogma”.

        And ISIS is hardly an organization without support. Boko Haram has the logistics and supply to keep their hold on power.

        Even the attackers at Charlie Hedbo told the woman that they don’t kill women, but the woman must repent and convert.

      6. My position is not confusing; Islam is a supremacist ideology. Muslims do not believe in freedom of speech, a Bill of Rights or equal protection. The Koran permits slavery. Their jurists have anti-blasphemy laws and the people accept this. They do not permit interest loans. Islam is an ideology with recognizable rules they obey. It cannot co-exist within the West or even with each other and this is on a religious basis. The Muslim Brotherhood agitated from a strictly religious viewpoint, so did the Hebdo shooters, so does ISIS, so does Al-Qaeda, so does Hizbollah, Iran, Hamas, Erdogan of Turkey, the Bali Bombers, Madrid, 9/11, Boko Haram, a thousand more. What about that do you not understand? It is a consensus of in and out-fighting that is entirely religious. The fact they fight each other at the same time they fight us on this basis means nothing to me. It is death of a thousand cuts. No bacon here, no cartoons there, get the Zionists, they never shut up, not for one minute. They’re like radical feminists. They reconcile their own failures by blaming everyone else and then have an overweening and arrogant supremacist ideology on to of that. There is no live and let live when Muslims congregate in groups. The Islamic summer festival in Dearborn, Michigan was stopped and sued for only one reason: religious intolerance. That’s America, pal. That was a no-go zone for cameras or Christian preaching. Security roamed the festival intimidating Americans and telling Americans to get out. It’s all on youtube, including a mass stoning. Take American law out of that and those men would’ve been dead. Wake up. Hebdo was no outlier but a military arm of Islamic ideology, and one which they use freely in their own countries on each other and on non-Muslims to keep them in line. That’s not hard to do when the religion has been telling you to keep in line as soon as you can read. Why do women in Islam wear headscarves? Is that a fashion choice or culture? Does that culture travel on a plane? Of course it does, and so does the entirety of the Koran.

      1. I read quite fine. In principle you said Catholics and Muslims share extremes in their ideology. I recall no Catholics murdering Jack Kirby, Jim Steranko and Barry Smith. Yes I am discounting the Spanish Armada, cuz calendars.

        1. The Catholic church has it’s own list of sins (complicity in the Holocaust, pedophilia, money laundering, graft, corruption, a certain Middle Ages Pope trying to start his own papal dynasty…). If you’re limiting the metric to body count, you’re validating the gun control lobby who does the exact same thing.

          Evil is evil. I’d be nice if it concentrated it under one convenient label such as “Islam” but it just isn’t that simple. Unless you behave like it *is* that simple for long enough, at which time the prophesy becomes self-fulfilling.

      2. You clearly know nothing about Pope Pius XII if you think Catholics were complicit during the Holocaust.

        Isn’t it strange that after every Islamist terrorist attack there is some guy always running around screaming that Christians have done worse?

        Tell them who actually started the crusades and their heads might explode.

      3. Worse, tell them about the ghiza, the Janissaries, and how the two related to each other.

        Not that they’ll listen. Arguing against all evidence that Pius XII was somehow complicit in the Holocaust pretty much proves that reality isn’t the metric they use.

        1. >Arguing against all evidence that Pius XII was somehow complicit in the Holocaust pretty much proves that reality isn’t the metric they use.

          Really? Have some evidence to that effect? Please share. And no, I’m not Catholic.

  7. ID these tangoes, find out which mosque they were operating from. Close that mosque down by declaring it is a haven for terrorists. The ‘goog’ muslims will be offended, but this gets the message across: don’t support terrorists. Maybe next time around somebody will drop a dime whenever these idiots show up and start flapping their gums.

  8. Well, this is going to wake France up. Anti-semitism was rampant in that country for far, far less. This? This is going to turn the heads of the citizens of the country that once conquered half of Europe and fight the rest to a standstill.

    1. Worth noting that the vast majority of the anti-semitism in France is by the same group who committed the attack. Hollande and his bunch are perfectly happy with this, since they vote Socialist.

      The reality is attacks like this simply strengthen the FN and make it more likely that Le Pen will be elected in 2017.

      And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Which scares me.

      1. UKIP won an election. Golden Dawn is a major party. Germany has rapidly-growing anti-Islamic marches. I expect that we see the return of hyper-nationalism in my lifetime, and probably WW3. It’s terrifying to contemplate.

      2. A buddy of mine who worked extensively with the German army once said to me, “There’s nothing more dangerous than an unemployed German.” I’m hoping we don’t have to find out that we have to amend that statement someday to say, “…except a pissed-off German whose homeland is threatened, and who has lost family and/or friends to a hostile invading force.”

    2. I doubt it’ll wake them up. Sure it’ll make some people mad, but is it going to cause a change? Nope, not in the least.

      1. Keep in mind that the number of Muslims in France is massive relative to the United States or most European countries… The French are now seeing the world they’ve invited into their country. This isn’t a 9/11-type of incident, but it is significant in the level of violence and direct correlation to militant Islam.

        Maybe you’re right. It will be hard to tell for a while.

    3. “Well, this is going to wake France up.”

      With all due respect, no. France is Leftist. Leftists never wake up. Never. They are not asleep. They do not reject reality because they like reality but are innocently groping to find it, and merely have not found it yet. They are not looking for it.

      The Left reject reality because they hate reality, and hate it with a deep, nay, with an all-consuming passion. Rejecting reality is the core of their doctrine. Leftism is not a mental disease, not a political philosophy, not even a religion. Leftism is the rebellion against reality, and that is all that it is.

      1. I’ve had a few discussions with people about how, much like blue states tend to be very conservative except for the few metropolitan areas that dominate state politics via raw population numbers, France is very likely pretty conservative, but its politics are dominated by Parisians. Perhaps if the terrorists destroy Paris?

      2. France is very likely pretty conservative, but its politics are dominated by Parisians.

        Nice theory, but not supported by the facts. In the first place, Paris has only about one sixth of the population of France. In the second place, Frenchmen don’t divide politically along regional or cultural lines, on the whole, but strictly along class lines: the poor vote Socialist to soak the rich, the rich vote UMP to keep from getting soaked. It is one of the characteristic vices of a pure head-counting political system. And in the third place, the thing that Americans mean by ‘conservatism’ does not exist in French politics. A few continental Europeans believe in the principles of classical liberalism; and for this, the rest of the continent regards them as lunatics.

      3. I must agree with the poster who noted that the problem is not the French people generally… it is the Parisians. Having interacted with both types, that has also been my general impression. The friends I have or have had in the past who visited France said the same thing.

        Frankly, I do not believe France is nearly so left as all that… or, rather, I do not believe that they are so firmly embedded in their leftism as our own American left. The French have not forgotten the World Wars. If the Algerian experiment fails, I expect quite a lot of bloodshed. Perhaps even more quickly than in other countries, as a mild temperament is not a French forte.

  9. The West is not willing to be brutal enough to stop these sorts of attacks. As a people, we have lost our collective spine. This has been shown repeatedly in our dealings with the Middle East over the past 40 years.

    One solution is to not only track down the terrorists and kill them, but also decimate any village that has been sheltering them. That’s right, just like the Romans did. Brutal, harsh & vicious, but it works. Worrying about “feelings” or trying to project our mindset on them will not work.

    As a side note, where are the SJWs when homosexuals are being executed in the Middle East? They are protesting and trying to shut down wedding cake businesses in the US.

    1. How about right now:

      “Charlie Stross retweeted Molly Crabapple @mollycrabapple · 4h 4 hours ago Also fuck anyone asking All Muslims ™ to apologize for the swine who murdered Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists. Fuck racist collective blame”

      “Charlie Stross retweeted Frankie Boyle @frankieboyle · 4h 4 hours ago Actually just had some cunt from Belfast telling me Christians don’t get involved in terrorism”

      “Aliette de Bodard retweeted darrylayo @darrylayo · 2h 2 hours ago Islam didn’t commit murder. Criminals committed murder. Keep your mind in perspective.”

      “Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF · 12m 12 minutes ago @jlgarts Yes, a specific group of religious extremists. But not all Muslims implicated, & it’s a problem when people act as if they are”

      It’s amazing how these Social Justice Warriors can pull principle and equal protection out of their asses when they’re not smearing white straight men with demonization propaganda like “rape culture” and “white privilege” and Kameron Hurley today Tweeting “There’s no voice more damaging than that of a middle-aged white male who’s well-off and denies your existence” and Saladin Ahmed today Tweeting “More white supremacist bullshit” because Scarlett Johannson was cast to play a Japanese cartoon character.

      Suddenly SJWs know what hate speech is when it’s someone they’ve consciously and collectively decided not to use hate speech against. The truth is these assholes have blood on their hands, because hate speech kills.

      Oh, and by the way – fuck every one of you social justice pricks and your last few years of non-stop daily hate speech on the web.

      1. That’s the first I’ve heard of the live-action Ghost in the Shell movie. Cool, though sad that I had to hear about it in this context. I never cease to be amazed at the things SJW’s with too much time on their hands choose to get indignant about. Scarlett should do well in the role, cries of “racism” notwithstanding.

      2. I’m not surprised; our SJWs are a wrong-way KKK in all but name – just different targets. By the definition of the Southern Poverty Law Center, they are a hate group.

  10. “Tenet,” Larry, not “Tenant.” We know what you mean, but some lefticle will invalidate your article because they “guy who thinks he’s a writer,” “Can’t even spell.”

    I know a lot of Pakistanis. They noticed the attack on the school. They were rightfully horrified and angered.

    I say we need another “Everyone draw Mohammed Day.”

    1. I just reread a thread (might have been Sad Puppies I) where Larry said Toni deserves the Best Editor award for making sure none of his errors of this sort make it into print.

      ’Sides, this way we get to a complete Checklist that much sooner.

      1. Most of these cocksuckers were prattling on about how brave those bastards were to murder so many…. I weep that I didn’t give in to my base urges and put those shits in a mass grave before they could vote for Obama!

  11. I’m waiting. I’m patiently waiting for the first “The French deserved this” post. When it comes (and we all know it’s coming) I am going to LOSE. MY. SHIT.

    This is what comes from banning “hatespeech.” This is what happens when you tell your enemies that its alright to hate you. This is not just the result of a lack of will to fight back. THIS IS A RESULT OF TELLING THE ENEMY THAT THEY WERE RIGHT FOR KILLING YOUR OWN!!

    Fuck these terrorists. Fuck their supporters. Fuck their sympathizers. Fuck anyone who refuses to speak out on this.

    Do not take the murder of twelve innocents as a declaration of war by radical Islam. They declared war long ago. This is just another volley that they’ve fired.

    That being said, I don’t think the West has a pair of testicles left. The perpetrators of this crime will be pursued. If they do not kill themselves they will be arrested. They may even be tried. But the French, being a bunch of Eurotrash pussies, will change nothing about their society. This will continue to happen.

    1. The blaming of the French posts are already there. There are people talking about how this magazine provoked them. There are posts about how this magazine was right wing (it isn’t) and hate speech, so this shouldn’t be a surprise. Typical self loathing BS.

      As for the having the balls, on the contrary, there are plenty of Europeans who have courage. They’ve got the same exact problem we do here, with leftist apologists in positions of power and media & entertainment dominated by leftists. The more Europeans I’ve got to know over the last few years, the more I’ve come to respect them. Sadly their intelligent folks are saddled with even more leftists than we are.

      1. The French have a rather mixed history when it comes to dealing with… inconveniences.

        On the one hand, they have a history of paying Danegeld to keep themselves out of the attention of radical Islamic groups before. They were one of the countries actively arming a number of otherwise repulsive third world dictators and profiting thereby, and certainly had no problem with allowing blood shed for oil (so long as it wasn’t French blood).

        On the other hand, their language laws and laws against headscarves are remnants of a nationalist streak that would be considered outright fascist from an American conservative by a Progressive. If my understanding of recent history is correct, they’ve also been rather more forceful in their foreign interventions than the US, at least as it comes to their former colonies, though this somehow tends to get swept under the rug by the media. Finally, there’s the matter of the little act of war they committed in New Zealand…

      2. You should see Canadian TV, Larry.

        Charlie H. was asking for it, according to CBC, CTV, Global. Also, they were “gunmen”, not “terrorists”.

        These are not the fringie elements, this is the National Broadcaster we’re talking here.

      3. Yeah…Blame the victim, again.
        That French magazine is like a cross of “The Onion” meets “Mad Magazine”.

        The scary part is the trend these islamist scum are making in their targeting. There is an actual method to their madness. We all know it is the U.S. that they want to attack, but that would be like me trying to take out Larry with a plastic spork while he was open carrying his Tetsubo and surrounded by like minded peoples like John Ringo, Mike Kupari and general minions, all standing at the indoor range at the H.Q. of the Evil League of Evil. Not gonna happen.

        Unlike myself, these idiots think they have a chance if they can just get Larry alone…. Note the IDIOT part. So, intimidate Mr. Ringo away with attacks on his Canadian war memorial. Next, make Mike Kupari quiver in fear by holding hostages at his Australian coffee cafe, so on and so forth until all of Larry’s friends and allies leave him, then I can shiv him real good with my spork.
        Well, thats the plan anyways.

        An oh so original tactic of “Death by a thousand cuts”. It won’t work, but it will be painful and there will be blood, lots of it.

  12. Anyone have a link to these cartoons? I would like to put them on my Facebook page to show these scumbags I am not afraid. The proper response to this attack is to post these images EVERYWHERE, to sell T shirts and bumper stickers with them, to overwhelm these bastards with the very thing they despise.

      1. I’d suggest you’ve got your demographics wrong. There’s a pretty high correlation between the groups ‘young people’ and ‘gamers’ – and Gawker is radioactive to most gamers after their… *cof* measured response to GamerGate.

        The people on Gawker now are the ones whose minds have been steadily mulched by years or decades of one-sided views being presented as “balanced”.

  13. How is this any different from the SJW’s, other than so far they simply want your job, your professional associations, maybe your kids taken away? They just haven’t developed the gall to actually attack directly; instead, they’ll send the SWAT team to your house on a fake “gun nut with hostages” call.

  14. In response to the people who wail about “backlash” against Muslims, I would like to point out the obvious.

    If this backlash happened to the extent you think it did or could, Islam would be a dead religion with no known practitioners. They exist in the civilized world because we allow it to.

    1. Backlash in Canada to Cpl. Nathan Cirrilo being killed at the National War Memorial: 100,000 people showed up to his funeral in Hamilton Ontario. Death toll so far, despite Mooselimbs having pissed off Scots Canadians, the most dire bastards on Earth… zero.

      Backlash in France so far, tens of thousands showed up in Paris tonight in a spontaneous Je Suis Charlie/Fuck You Islamists! vigil. Death toll so far, zero.

      Oh, and fuck the SJWs for their knee-jerk defense of a group that doesn’t need any defense, because they live in a CIVILIZED COUNTRY where we don’t round up random strangers and kill them over a fucking cartoon, or something that somebody else did in another country.

      This thing has been pissing me off all day. Here endeth this evenings ventings.

    2. Nothing shows you better how Social Justice Warriors lie than Charlie Hebdo and the cases of Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Two anomalous black deaths at the hands of white cops were treated as cold-blooded murders. Worse than that, not only all white American cops but all white Americans were treated exactly as if they were a supremacist ideology in which all whites were recruited into against their will by SJWs. Did we really need that after hearing their endless fucking bleats about white privilege?

      Now we come to Charlie Hebdo. Cold blooded murders that have been part of a global spree of serial killing for years by an comprehensive ideology are treated like anomalous lone wolves somehow separated from that ideology by endless excuses from SJWs. Not only that, every last goddam SJW is lying and treating this as a case of racist cartoons, which they weren’t. Even if they had been, the issue of the defamation of Mohammed has been clearly stated by every Muslim who objects to the cartoons. Only non-Arabs and non-Muslims have been making a case for racism. That’s because SJWs are an excuse factory for all things female, gay, non-white and non-Western and attack dogs for all things male, straight, white and Western. It doesn’t matter there are actual videos of Muslims shooting bound men in the head one after the other and pitching them into a river or cutting the heads off of Western journalists, instead you should worry about a non-existent ideology of “rape culture” and racist whites putting other racist whites in movies and books.

      SJWs couldn’t be more transparent liars if they set out to be. In the SFF community they not only set out to provide cover for the bald-faced racists and supremacist insane feminists among them, they have also adopted rules in which their precious women, people of color and gays can never ever be bigots based on privilege/punching up theory. Even worse than that, they actually shower their identity-supremacists with awards and set up workshops so us hapless whites can write stories without violating their supremacist rules. I have to listen to some daffy Parisian like Aliette de Bodard lecture me on how to properly write Asians without cultural appropriation while that moron, according to her own belief system, appropriates my genre and then has the gall to tell me how to act within that genre. De Bodard’s exact same rhetoric gets a white man thrown out of the SFWA and her award nominations because SJWs are stupid Gunga Din’s carrying water for their racist and feminist handlers using a system of racial rules and double standards.

      Why be surprised a racist bigoted supremacist ideology like Third Wave Intersectional gender feminism is providing cover for another supremacist movement whose colonialist Western enemies largely coincides with intersectionalism’s own? For now SJWs will just wave away the fact their allies are actively misogynist and homophobic in terms of actual laws and cultural institutions in a way far worse than the human rights West. They’ll wave away an active Muslim slave trade of Africans that lasted more than 3 times as long as the Atlantic Slave Trade not to mention a minimum of about 5 million white Europeans that were sent into Islamic slave pens which we never moan about. SJWs will actively lie about the short-lived colonialism of the West into Islam that in no case amounts to 1/10 the time Islam colonized and invaded the West from the 7th to 17th centuries. Entire Irish towns were carried away as slaves but don’t let Tolkien have “Easterlings” cuz racism.

  15. I was in Iraq, as a contractor, in 2004 when Beslan occurred, The group I was working with all agreed that school attacks were going to be a trend. I am sorry to see that it is happening.
    Hope I can meet up with you someday, traveling out west a lot this year to teach. Be safe.

    Still would like to make contact about guest speaker for the National Police Shooting Championship.
    J. Long

  16. I’ve done a lot of research in Muslims countries. I know a lot of Muslims. Good people, most of them, mostly moderate and they want what everyone else wants, safety, prosperity and freedom to live their religion as they see fit. But they are hunkered down in survivor mode, much like everyone was in the days of the Soviet bloc, because they live in countries that are run by monsters, or rather they are in countries that are run by dictators that play the monsters off each other to keep them and the people in line. They hate it, but it is what it is. Every time these post-colonialists in our press and academia come out and make excuses for these Islamicist monsters, they think they are helping the cause of Islam, when what they are doing is stabbing the moderates in the back. They look at the press coverage and think, eff this. No one is going to stand up to these monsters even in their own countries, so I guess I better figure out how to get along with them here as best we can. They go dark, and who can blame them? We won’t stand up for them. Hell, we won’t even stand up for ourselves.

    If we showed courage against these people, the reformers in Islamic countries would take courage and we might see a preference cascade. But that will never happen as long as we keep validating the whack jobs.

    Post-colonialism is death. It justifies endless victimhood and prevents Islam from reforming, which many Muslims want.

    1. There were good Germans in Dresden as well. And good Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

      People get the government they are willing to tolerate.

      1. Sometime “people” as in singular individuals can’t choose their goverments, when they see everyone around them is really happy to have such goverment. And even if what they see are smiling masks of terrified friends who live in fear of even a rumour going into wrong ears even if they’d be willing to speak up, what can they achieve? Let me illustrate with example from my own country (or let have two of them, shall we) Munich in 1938 and Prague in 1968. First is absolute despair and loneliness in the face of the strongest nation in the Europe at the time and cynical calculation by your so called allies. Second is rising up, trying to have goverment that does something for the people and not for the socialist elites and some sort of freedom from Sovet Union. And what they get? Tanks from the east. Did they get something from the West? Nope again.
        Sometime you are living in utter hopelessness and you have really little things you cherish. And those you will protect with your silence. And towing the line. My family learned that the hard way. (having married German Jew before WW2 was bad for sister of my grandmother; being one of those speaking loudly against previous regime in 1968 send my grandad (other side of the family) to the prison for some years, cause being annoying didn’t really paid off for the Party)
        To be honest, if your family is living in USA for last 100 years you didn’t really got it bad. Tho, if your family was Japanese during WW2 I apologise. But you just can’t grasp what it is to live in absolute terror not from foreigners, but from the people living all around you, because if you say something that is “bad” you will be imprisonned or maybe even killed. And your family with you.

      2. Blaine:

        If you try hard enough, you can immigrate, as your family proved.

        It’s called voting with your feet. It is 100% effective vs. bad governments, if exercised early enough.

      3. Blaine,

        Being a scalawag was no bed of roses in certain places.

        In fairness to your point, a lot of the time they killed individuals for being uppity, rather than entire families. Of course, there were also things like the Tulsa and Saint Louis riots.

      4. We did not immigrate, we are Czechs. They stayed here, because it was too dangerous for rest of the family (we have quite a big family, our holiday season is spent travelling between all the branches, so we can meet and spent time with each other), so if for example my grandad immigrate it was possible his brother or someone else would have to pay for it. And during normalisation – as it’s called, because everyone was supposed to be the same, people were afraid. It wasn’t because of showtrials and denounciations, as it was during the fifties, it was because of the all pervasive depression. Everything was grey back then, at least that’s the feeling I get from stories from my parents and grandparents. I was too young when Velvet Revolution happened (only 3 years old), so I don’t remember anything about that time. But my family remembers that extremists from both sides of political spectrum are evil. Or rather – extremism is evil.
        I’ve grown in liberal democracy, one of the most liberal countries in the world, that doesn’t care if you are atheist, christian of any denomination or any other religion. To be honest, I don’t even know what religion if any people I know worship. We don’t have many muslims here in Czech Republic, because we are not really the prime country for immigrants from muslim countries. But we already have people who are afraid of them… Washington Post even wrote about one of our politicians (Tomio Okamura, member of our Lower Chamber), populistic guy who wants to use internet outrage and fear against islam as a whole to get more votes in any elections he and his party participiate in, who recently said “walk pigs and dogs around mosques” and “every kebab you eat is one more step toward burkas”.
        I just don’t get it. Evil people will be evil no matter what ideology they use to be evil. But Larry is correct in calling out muslims to get their jihadist-extremists to stop doing stuff as this. I love this quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” because my family seen that happened over and over and over again. And that’s exactly what is happening with extremists using Islam as their weapon. And with crazy people on twitter (I can’t call them lefties, cause I’d be like super extreme left, almost some kind of marxist, if I’d said what my ideas for goverment are, but that’s just how political spectrum is here in Czech republic, our right is far towards the left in the eyes of Americans) it’s happening as well…

      5. Up to a point it’s true that people get the government they are willing to tolerate… unless they’re living at the level of survival concerns, which people are in a lot of these places. I mean, otherwise we’d have to posit that a dictatorship can not exist, when obviously it can.

      6. People will tolerate dictatorships at times.

        This is not a function of poverty, it is of values.

        One cannot control the values of other people, one cannot force them them love freedom more than life, more than the welfare of their families, more than whatever cause compels them to build governments to a design other than minimizing the harm they do when they become evil.

        One might be able to slaughter the population under a tyrant whenever said tyrant becomes too annoying to other powers. This might inform the decision of future people when deciding whether to go against the wall, or to keep one’s head down, keep quiet, and not make waves.

  17. Honestly, I don’t care what religious views the gunmen have. It strikes me as “argument by distraction” much like damning all Mormons for the past practice of polygamy, or assaults against gays as “hate crimes”. Shooting people dead in cold blood is murder, no need to consult religious beliefs (as are polygamy and assault & battery).

    Having said that, they killed these people because they didn’t follow the religious practices of the gunmen. Countering this generalization with the counter-generalization that “all Muslims are evil” is just as prejudicial, and just as ignorant. When I say most Muslims are not violent jihadists I say so from the observation that there are 1.4 BILLION Muslims worldwide, so if they’re all bent on world domination then they’re either jihadist and lazy or jihadist and incompetent. I don’t think either is the case. A moderate Paris imam put out a statement shortly after the attack condemning it in no uncertain terms as un-Islamic. He needs 24 hour police protection against the same jihadists who carried out this attack, which if nothing else tells me that the Islamic community is at least as Balkanized as any other large religious group. I’m not quite sure what more non-Muslims are looking for from the moderate Muslim crowd. They’re just as disgusted by this as non-Muslims. The answer is most certainly NOT to lump all Muslims together and punish the Muslims you can find easily in lieu of the actual perpetrators. Heckling women in niqabs doesn’t do anything towards catching these assholes. It just makes you a bully. Good police work means working with the community to find CI’s familiar with it to lead you to the bad guys hiding within it. Concentration camps, mass round-ups, mass deportations, nukes don’t get that job done. They’re also inhumane in this context. Don’t let motive (in this case an extreme interpretation of Islam) distract you from the goal; catching the perps and making sure this shit doesn’t happen in the future. Don’t you hate everyone who generalizes?

    I agree with Larry that the MSM’s blurring of the cartoons in question is at best hypocritical, and cowardly. If I were a TV news producer, I’d be running these cartoons constantly on a screen-crawl. I understand the Islamic “logic” behind the prohibition of images of Mohammed (preventing idolatry…Christianity and Judaism went a different route in the Old Testament with the golden calf). I wonder how many of them realize that the effort has backfired though, and that effectively they now idolize the *absence* of an image? In any case, these jihadist fucks need to realize that if the only way their beliefs can survive is by the violent elimination of all other beliefs, then they need to find a stronger faith. Theirs is too fragile to survive.

    Now, anyone know where I can sign up for a subscription to Charlie Hebdo? Their website just has the banner “Je Suis Charlie” for the time being. Normally I wouldn’t give their humor the time of day (they lean very left, and often skewer conservatives…I’m not going to shoot them for it, but wouldn’t normally pay for the privilege, either) but given recent events I think a subscription might be a more constructive act of support than some stupid hashtag campaign. Operation Pouty Face hasn’t exactly cowed Boko Haram, has it?

    1. Terrorists are funded by Zakat, the religious contribution a Moslem is required to make each year.

      When you are war, you bomb the source of logistics and recruits.

      1. “If he runs, he’s VC. If he doesn’t run, then he’s disciplined VC.” Nice circular “logic”, that.

        So when they militantly generalize, they’re criminals, but when you do it, you’re just stating the “truth”? I’m sure there were those in the Soviet Union and Nazi party who thought the same way.

        Again, I’m not trying to give these criminals a pass. I want them hunted down with extreme prejudice. What I am pointing out is that generalizing and demonizing every member of a religion these assholes have commandeered is every bit as evil as they themselves are.

        Moderate Muslims have condemned this attack as un-Islamic. But by your reasoning they’re just providing cover for their fellow jihadists, right? And the 24 hour police protection to keep the zealots from killing the moderates is just more “window dressing”, right?

        “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.” – Mary Shelley

        “As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” – Andrew Carnegie

      2. Blottog, the entirety of ISIS, the entirety of the Muslim Brotherhood, the entirety of Saudi Wahhabism and its export Salafi Taliban ideology declares the world’s Muslims “un-Islamic.” Which ones are the real Muslims? If the president of Egypt is calling on the global jurists for Sunni orthodoxy at Al-Ahzar in Cairo to try and figure out the difference between takfirists who declare other Muslims apostates, isn’t that an indication there’s just a slight monkey in the wrench? Was El-Sisi condemning the West or Islam. When you have a guy like that giving speeches is he demonizing Islam?

      3. So when do these moderate moslems prevent these atrocities? Why don’t they? Perhaps for the same reason moderate Germans did not prevent the Holocaust?

        If your home country continues to allow acts of war against another, maybe you should get the hell out, if you cannot successfully revolt?

        If nothing else, you shouldn’t be at all surprised when the city you live in gets carpet bombed, if the government you live under tolerates or sponsers acts of war.

    2. A strange statement since without the religion they wouldn’t have been gunmen in the first place. Please list all contemporary religions under whose flag this is happening globally and then get a dictionary and look up the word “which.”

      The Brownshirts of Nazi Germany had 400,000 members even by 1932 and the Nazi Party had 8 million members at its peak. How many of them delivered Jews to camps? How many people were at the Wansee Conference? I’m not impressed by how many people in an ideology have no blood on their hands. I’m impressed by them not being members of that ideology. Exactly how many terrorist attacks would your religion have to be involved in before you gave it up? Presumably there is some theoretical number. 20,000?

      One generalizes about a race or sex. One does not generalize about a supremacist ideology. Is your argument this is not a supremacist us vs. them ideology?

      1. We didn’t attack first and the Jews didn’t attack first. Islamics started it by trying to slaughter Zionists who purchased their settlement lands from willing sellers in 1948.

        As for the crusades, there were far more attacks on Christians than Moslems by a factor of ten. Islam was raiding Europe and US ships for slaves until they finally got stepped on very late in the game.

        Take your culteral equivalence crap and shove it.

        Islam started this fight, and we’ll finish it.

      2. By your reasoning, all Germans should be forever damned because of the Nazi atrocities. Or Catholics for the Crusades, or Russians for the Gulags, or Chinese for the Cultural Revolution. Do you see the hypocrisy of demanding that not all gun owners be held responsible for gun crime, but demanding that all Muslims be held accountable for jihadist zealots?

        Are you so lazy that you’d rather pick a fight with the majority of Muslims not advocating jihad, instead of picking out the sociopaths from the lineup? Good luck with that, let me know how bitch-slapping every woman in a niqab works out for you. Or carpet-bombing the Middle East.

        I’m in no way trying to deny these jihadists exist, nor the fact that they are animals. But responding to their ignorant zealotry with more of the same isn’t the way to go, unless you’re trying to prove that your prejudice is stronger than theirs.

      3. No, Germans need only have been damned and bombed until they abandoned their Hitlerian ideology. That is what we did and what happened. We still actively oppose whatever remains of Soviet gulags. We do not oppose Russians. There is no need to oppose the Crusades since the cultural current which produced them no longer exists.

        The topic at hand is whether Islam currently contains institutionally sanctioned currents that produce sociopathy, or in other words, defaults to an ideologically promoted sociopathy compared to the rest of the world. I am picking no fight with anyone. I am not going to Tunisia and threatening to kill TV producers for making fun of Jesus. There is nothing in Western society that produces that. No airline or sporting event in the world has increased security because of Christianity or the Western citizens.

        Islam has no separation of church and state and they are exporting that into the West and demanding compliance from innocent people by way of murder in magazine offices, chocolate shops, skyscrapers, marathons, shopping malls, random street crowds. Even walking down the street in the U.K. can be as much as worth your life.

        I have not mentioned slapping or bombing anyone – you have. I am merely talking about people demonstrably radicalized by an ideology that never shuts up or stops killing civilians compared to the rest of the world’s societies. The question is whether this is an acceptable ideology to walk among the nations of the world. When South Park is self-censoring and media outlets pixilating images out of fear for their very lives it is time to have “the talk.”

      4. Sparks: no, islamists did not start crusades. Crusades were started by overpopulation of Europe, greed of religious leaders and hunger for power of kings of the time.
        They picked the best enemy they could – something far away and something that whole christiandom can fight and not diminish their own resources. It was quite brilliant if you look at it from the Rome. You can send all those useless third and fourth and fifth and so on noble sons to war far away from lands that are populated by people who create money for you. Far away from peasant women they rape and kill (thus wasting important resource), far away from other noble sons they would pick a long-lasting grudge that will produce lot of bloodshed and wasting of resources.
        Instead we’d send those fools to fight and die in a deserts, they’d have to pay us (not directly maybe) for the passage to the battlefield and if they won, we get lot of loot from their conquests. ’cause you know… all those indulgences for sins during the fight against heathens….

        1. Though it says that it’s “controversial” if the Crusades were offensive or defensive, even Wikipedia admits:

          The First Crusade was part of the Christian response to the Muslim conquests, and was followed by the Second to the Ninth Crusades, but the gains made lasted for less than 200 years. It was also the first major step towards reopening international trade in the West since the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

          Seriously – look at the dates. Italy, France, and Spain were both invaded long before the first Crusade. Charles “The Hammer” Martel was famous for the battle of Tours.

          While some historians argue that Muslims were not interested in continuing on to Northern France, and I can at least see an argument that they no longer considered it worth the price after losing at Tours, they certainly were expanding territory still until that battle.

          So sorry. I know what is being taught these days, and what it is fashionable to believe (hell, much of it was already being taught in the 80’s) – while humans are humans, and those in power (who’s in power now?) always want more, and systems are imperfect, this is arguably NOT a case of the crusades merely being “started by overpopulation of Europe, greed of religious leaders and hunger for power of kings of the time.”

      5. Blaine,

        Please tell that to the Spanish, to Charles Martel and the French, and to the Byzantines, all who had fought Muslim expansion into Christendom during the years and centuries prior to the Crusades.

      6. 60guilders: Sorry, can’t speak about that, don’t know really much about Indian history to be honest. But thanks for some the name, I will look it up. Our local library is quite well stocked in history department, I hope I will be able to find something more about that.
        Nathan: To be honest I don’t think that main reason to wage war against Saracens was anything else than gaining power for the Vatican and Papacy as an institution. I agree with you in that Crusades were against non-catholics and were used to spread catholic christianity. Or to save catholic christians from rule of heathens. Mainly. You cannot call looting of Byzatine lands war against muslims. Not really, they were political move aimed against rivals and for clearly secular gain. As were crusades against waldesians, aragonesse and hussites. They were clouded in protecting christianity, but in truth they were just reconquest of lands fallen from the catholic rule.
        And I’d agree with Reconquista was a “good” war, until they just destroyed Granada. It would be much better now in Europe, if Granada survived. At least in form it existed then it was shining beacon of tolerance and knowledge. Yes, their state religion was Islam, but life for non-muslims was really better than life for non-catholics or even non-hidalgos in Castille (and later Spain).
        I agree with you that stopping Saracens at Tours by Karl Martell was extremely fortunate, I don’t dispute that. As was stopping of Ottomans on Balkan (eventho we can argue, that Ottomans were more civilized than some of the European nations of the time). Or that Mongols didn’t continue their conquest to more western nations. I even go as far as saying that Crusades brought more good for Europe (if they weren’t destroying possible reformation of christian belief by killing of any heretical movement that gained any ground) than wrong. Spread of knowledge, communication between rules, nobles and traders of different lands were essential to breaking “The Dark Ages” and spread of Renaisance.
        I just don’t think we can say that crusades were started by islamists. Because they were result of many factors that culminated in several decades worth of bloodshed in the name of God that says “Thou shalt not kill.” in the most important document. Against the Allah that basically says the same (cause you know, Old Testament is holy text in Islam as well). I haven’t read as much of Qoran to be able to cite from it so I just can’t find the passage. Fighting in the name of the such gods smells of hypocrisy. I understand, that people have the right to defend their faith, but to spread religion of peace with fire and sword (look at Wendian Crusades or any of the punitive Crusades in Europe) I just can’t grasp. Just can’t.
        Disclaimer: I am an atheist, my parents are atheists, half of my grandparents and relatives (from mother side) are atheists. Father’s side has some christians of two denominations. Only person I call a friend who is religious is my brother’s girlfriend. So I don’t really have an opportunity to discuss religion with other people in real life not only on internet. So maybe some religious folks could have studied crusades more and have better informed opinion from some other angle.

      7. @James May

        When South Park is self-censoring and media outlets pixilating images out of fear for their very lives it is time to have “the talk.”

        Did South Park self-censor? My understanding was that Comedy Central censored them. I hope I’m not mistaken, because I still have them mentally categorized as among the good guys, and I’d hate to have to change that…

      8. Quick note, by the by, on the Crusades:
        1st Crusade happens at the turn of the 11th century, in response to call for help from Europe by Alexius Comnenus, due to encroachment on Byzantine lands by Seljuq Turks. Further casus belli provided by Seljuq harassment of Christians. Succeeds wildly.
        2nd Crusade fizzled out, and will not be further spoken of.
        3rd Crusade happens around 1190 in response to Saladin’s victory at the Horns of Hattin. Would have come off, except for the fact that Phillip of France and Richard Lion-heart of England had egos the size of their destriers, and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, who could have balanced them, fell in a river and drowned on the way.
        The 4th Crusade, which contained the infamous sacking of Byzantium, did not happen until over a century after the Crusades began. The thing was basically hijacked by Venice, and the Pope did little more than issue quickly-rescinded excommunication orders after they took and sacked a rebellious town.
        Also, quick thing: The original Hebrew for the sixth commandment is “thou shalt not murder.” “Kill” is a mistranslation.

    3. I’ll stand up for the rights of “the peaceful majority” of Muslims when that majority brings war to the minority who commit violence in the name of Islam.

      1. Right. These are countries that have laws against women and Christians being president, laws against insulting Islam, and put gays in jail for existing and I’m supposed to separate them from that? How about they separate themselves from that? Those gunman aren’t un-Islamic. The gunmen say moderate Muslims are un-Islamic. Sayyid Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood say that, ISIS says that, Wahhabis say that. If you want to be un-Islamic them un-Islamicize and step away. This isn’t some he-said, she-said of some neutral world citizenry. After the first several thousand terrorist attacks it might be time to say there is cause and effect. How many terrorist attacks do you see on the entire continent of S. America? Is that some weird coincidence no one can account for? I can account for it: they don’t have any Muslims. Tons of Catholics, no Muslims.

      2. So when a criminal uses a gun, you’d also demand that all “moderate” gun owners actively oppose them?

        All Catholics are complicit in child sexual abuse because they didn’t hunt down all the pedophiles within the clergy?

        I’m getting the distinct impression that Generalization is like Rebellion; always justified in the first person (“Our Generalization”) but never in the third person (“Their Generalization”).

        Good luck, guys.

        1. Some nice handwavium and obfuscation you’ve got going on there.

          Actually. YES.

          We expect gun owners to be law abiding, and to condemn criminal activity. Not necessarily actively hunt them down, but still to condemn, and when faced with criminals, do something about it.

          We expect catholics to condemn pedophiles, and if faced with one, to oppose them and see justice done.

          And while “not all muslims are like that” there is certainly something in the combination of Muslim culture and the culture’s its overlaid that results in extreme violence when offended, from the religion of Submission (no, not peace).

          Or did I simply brain dump all the riots and dead bodies when Dogma came out, with a female god, a descendant of jesus who works in an abortion clinic, and chris rock as the 13th disciple?

          1. Some nice handwavium of your own. Where was your call to carpet bomb the Vatican when the pedophilia scandal started breaking? Are you offering gang-bangers up to the cops when they commit drive-bys? Or is guilt-by-association also only applicable in the third person? Show me the Venn diagram where the circle of Islam is completely within the circle of sociopaths.

            That Catholics don’t declare jihad doesn’t mean that Muslims act oppositely as a block.

            There seems to be consensus in this forum that all Muslims are damned by the actions of a few sociopaths who claim to be acting in their name. So be it. Good luck with the counter-jihad. I’m sure prejudice will work fine in the other direction. Don’t bother bringing the guilty members to justice. Just kill them all. No hypocrisy in that view at all. Of course, there’ll be some Sikhs caught in the crossfire by dumb-fucks too ignorant to separate the targets of counter-jihad by learning the difference between Hindis and Muslims.
            The West has violent, intolerant, hate-mongering assholes too (cough, Anders Behring Breivik, cough). That doesn’t damn all of the West though.

          2. The difference is that the West reacts by putting the bad individuals in jail or killing them without the rest of the world holding a gun to our head. Islam and Muslims have no such track record. And you, sir, are simply a liar to ay otherwise.

          3. The French Gendarmes are giving these guys a pass? The Islamic State should be bringing them to justice? IS is a group of thugs who have cherry-picked the parts of the Quran, Hadith and tribal traditions that support their violent xenophobic misogynistic beliefs, and run with it. They are not the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican, nor have I gotten *any* indication that the majority of the Muslim world abides by or condones their violence. Muslim Kurds, Sunni militias and Shiite Iranians are all fighting these assholes.

            These perps will be caught and brought to justice, as they should (or again, just shot while “resisting arrest”).

            I’m still waiting to hear why generalization from us is good, but from them it’s evil. Jihadists follow a violent twisted version of Islam. That does *not* make all Muslims Jihadists.

      3. “All Catholics are complicit in child sexual abuse because they didn’t hunt down all the pedophiles within the clergy?”

        More moral equivalence idiocy. Might want to actually look this up.

        Here’s a clue: they did. Gasp shock that someone who would make this argument doesn’t know this.

        1. Some of them did. Others just shuffled them from parish to parish, and covered their asses when the investigation finally got around to them.

          The point isn’t one of moral equivalence. The point is any group has its bad actors. Others here have pointed out that Islamic terrorism is practically unknown in Central and South America, leaving the reader to assume that those places are somehow peaceful utopias due solely to the absence of the evil wicked violent Muslims. Of course that’s not the case…Brazil and Venezuela are horrifically violent places, Guatemala and Honduras are vying for the world’s highest murder rate, and Mexico is practically a failed state. That doesn’t mean that Brazilians, Venezuelans, Guatemalans, Hondurans or Mexicans are universally evil (or Catholics, Hispanics or whatever group you’re trying to demonize). Nor does it mean that their failure to establish and maintain the rule of law is simply a moral failing of the majority.

      4. Blott – your arguments are dishonest sophistry, conflating the unlike, and full of bullshit.

        There are qualitative differences, quantitative differences, statistical differences, and differences in maxima that you ignore and conflate. You slip and slide across these boundaries with emotional language, picking extreme and emotionally laden language (“Carpet bombing the vatican”??)

        You – as demonstrated by your repeated choices – have either no ability, or no desire, to debate honestly.


        1. Ad hominem followed by departure. That certainly put me in my place. If you’ve actually got “qualitative differences, quantitative differences, statistical differences, and differences in maxima” by all means bring them, otherwise good riddance.

          1. OK class – please observe.

            Blott said –

            Ad hominem followed by departure. That certainly put me in my place. If you’ve actually got “qualitative differences, quantitative differences, statistical differences, and differences in maxima” by all means bring them, otherwise good riddance

            First – we have someone here who has heard of these things called logical fallacies. The problem is, he doesn’t know how to apply the terms even as he’s a sterling example of obfuscation, scope shift, and other sophistries.

            So yes, I called him names. Specifically, a bullshitter and a sophist. i.e. – a type of liar.

            But, the logical fallacy is to discredit the point a person is making by attacking that person’s character.

            No. I wasn’t asking you to ignore his arguments because he’s a meanie and kicks sad puppies.

            I was simply telling him he argued in bad faith, using weasel words and phrasing, and that I would not deal with his arguments because he wasn’t even attempting honest debate, but making an emotional rant that only had the appearance of logic.

            Thus the term sophistry.

            Or perhaps we should borrow “rhetors” from Anathem.

            Point the second – I need not provide the evidence of this because his behavior on this page, when you follow the logic, changes in argument, conflation of scopes, false equivalences, etc., are all that is needed to demonstrate whether I correctly assessed his behavior.

            I leave this judgement to the audience.

            Also note he couldn’t even tell that I wasn’t talking about MY having being able to point out qualititative and quantitative differences, but his ignoring those when brought up, as if they didn’t matter.

            Again, either profoundly ignorant, or arguing in bad faith.

            That said – I will address the audience, or those who argue in good faith. I also welcome an analysis of his posts using the internet argument checklist.

            Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!

      5. Blottog we are talking about the difference between crime and ideology that manufactures crime. We acknowledge this difference in hate crime laws. We acknowledged crimes of ideology at Nuremberg. Nazism and its expressions are outlawed in various ways and various places in Europe. Confusing Muslims and Sikhs is not one of them.

        And our SJW opponents have offered much slimmer standards for that via “rape culture” and “white privilege.” Radical feminists have successfully lobbied laws in colleges that target men for being men.

        Gun owners are not an ideology. Child abuse is not Catholic canon. Men and heterosexuality are not ideologies and yet we are said to be exactly that merely by collecting in a room or Table of Contents.

        Be honest: security at airports since 9/11 is 100% because of Islam. Even entering a baseball game is different and 100% of Islam. It is you who are waving a hand at reality. Virtually 100% of global terrorism is Islamic. The most oppressive laws aimed at Christians, women and gays are Islamic. Where are Jewish-Egyptian citizens? Where did they go and why? Were they confused with Sikhs? That is Islam’s own benchmark for guilt by association, and one which they themselves fail more than those ousted Jews.

        Are there moderate Nazis and KKK? The question is not whether these are a few sociopaths but whether the ideology itself is sociopathic. Are we to really believe Islam by coincidence produces thousands of times more violent sociopaths who are at the same time divorced from that ideology? There is an observable cause and effect here. Calling that “prejudice” is lunatic since that is no different than calling these dead cartoonists and Egyptian president El-Sisi and millions of Egyptian protesters “Islamophobes.”

        Breivik was not produced by an institutionally sanctioned current of Western or Christian ideology and nor was McVeigh. And there is no institutionally recognized ideology that consists of confusing Sikhs and Muslims so save the idea of “micro aggressions” for the PC and practice what you preach. That lone act cannot be smeared onto anyone else.

        I don’t know what the solution is but it is not in pretending Islam is not a Murder, Inc. compared to the rest of civilization.

      6. “So when a criminal uses a gun, you’d also demand that all “moderate” gun owners actively oppose them?”

        …dude, you actually came out in public and SAID that. That’s so dumb the whole Internet just dropped an IQ point. Congrats, little relativist; you’re officially too dense to bother with.

        1. You’re right there, I misspoke. What I should have said is that all Muslims shouldn’t be held responsible for the crimes others do using Islam for their own purposes any more than law-abiding gun owners should be held responsible for crimes committed by criminals with guns. Law-abiding gun owners and law-abiding Muslims should oppose those committing crimes with guns and a criminal interpretation of Islam. The gun-control crowd adheres to the belief that guns=evil, which I find as false as the argument currently making headway here that Islam=evil. Guns aren’t an ideology, and Islam isn’t hardware, but the techniques of false association and generalization are the same.

      7. @blottog: Funny you should mention Breivik. Vox Day weighed in on the Charlie Hedbo massacre today with this astute observation:

        “And that is the terrible point to which multiculturalism and diversity and tolerance has brought the West: the choice between Breivik and Hebdo. Many have embraced the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie, but as Iowahawk wisely noted, never bring a candlelight vigil to a gunfight.”

        Vox frequently pisses me off…but when he’s right, he’s right. In this case, I really wish to God he weren’t, because there are going to be some very grim days ahead for Western Civilization.

      8. Blottog, I’ve spent 2 years of my life in Brazil, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. Once again you are wrong. You are confusing criminals with an entrenched and institutionalized ideology that rules the cultures of those nations. Shanty towns do not rule Brazil like a Koran nor is there a shanty mentality that is taught in schools and on TV by preachers. The gang mentality of Guatemala is not taught by gov’t nor is it entrenched in Mayan lore. It is in fact derived from black American gang culture, as is that of Mexico. They are Mafias, and children are not taught to admire them.

        Like all literalists and identity addicts, you are incapable of making simple comparisons. Though you constantly reach for analogies and metaphors they are unavailable to you. This is a fault in your education. Cultural relativism is your go-to thinking and it doesn’t work. You are arguing all NFL teams are actually play-off teams. They’re not.

        I have not argued S. America is a utopia. I have properly employed the phrase “compared to what?” S. Americans are not killing each other over who the first 4 saints were or cartoons. That is crime piled on top of the normal human penchant for crime.

        The point is you will have burglars wherever you go. You will not have nutty religionists gunning down kids and cartoonists wherever you go. Blottog cannot stop from imagining all groups are equal in some manner, although the existence of the Third World itself is adequate proof that value systems matter.

      9. Blottog doesn’t understand the difference between a failure to establish rule of law in a nation of laws and having that failure baked into one’s laws in the first place. Comparing Brazil to S. Arabia is idiotic. You can have mosques in Brazil. You can’t have churches in S. Arabia. People who don’t like Muslims in Brazil are individuals with no institutional backing. People who don’t like Christians in S. Arabia have the backing of the state. There is no comparison between those failures since one is self-limiting and the other Jim Crow.

        1. James, is your problem with non-state jihadis or with nations that follow Sharia? They both suck, but they’re different threats, and require different countermeasures. Sharia sucks, without doubt. It’s brutal, oppressive, restrictive and lends itself very nicely to totalitarianism. We tolerate it for the political reasons that 1) Saudi has a big chunk of the world’s oil, that runs the world’s economy, and 2) they’re also one of our few nominal “allies” in a part of the world that we can’t usually make that claim. They’re brutal, repressive xenophobic sociopaths, but they’re *our* brutal, repressive xenophobic sociopaths. I don’t like it, but sometimes the only choices on the menu are a shitty choice and a shittier choice. If you’re waiting for us to carpet bomb Riyadh, you’ve got a long wait. But Saudi Sharia didn’t cause the Charlie Hebdo shooting, as far as I know. If the money trail leads back to them, maybe you’ll get that carpet-bombing.

          The Sharia nation-state mechanism is different than the brutality of the Rio slums, but brutal is brutal. The similarity is that the majority of slum dwellers don’t have any ability to “throw out” or “offer up” the gang members in their midst. It’s not a majority rule decision to support violent crime. You could argue that it’s their complicity that allows it, but that’s pretty easy to say when you’re not trying to face down a gang, or an armed jihadist. It’s tougher when the organization that you belong to that’s supposed to help protect you (the government) either can’t or won’t provide that help. Taking on a violent minority is tough for an individual or disorganized group. That’s how gangs and autocracies stay in power.

          The non-state jihadists don’t have a territory to carpet-bomb, or to deport them to. Carpet bombing Mosul would kill a lot more innocent Iraqis (most/all of them Muslim) than jihadists, and it’s not like IS has a passport stamp, let alone a visa program. They’ve got to be treated like criminals (though I’d prefer something more specific to their non-state status…anything would be better than the current “kick the can” non-decision). So again, you can’t round up a neighborhood, mosque, or ethnic group because you think some of them might be jihadis (even when you tell yourself that the rest of them are just jihadis in the making). We did that crap with the Japanese in WWII and got away with it, but it wasn’t one of our shining moments. And as far as I know, it wasn’t effective in preventing “fifth column” action, as that threat was overwhelmingly imaginary. German spies landed on East Coast shores were an extant threat, and they stuck out badly enough that they were caught quickly.

  18. Funny how smug lefty loudmouths like #NewsFail are always going on and on about Evil Israel and how Those Evil Jews are Murdering Palestinian Babies left and right, supposedly.

    But the moment the radical Islam fanatics commit an atrocity, they’re suddenly silent as a tomb.

    Because deep down, they -know- Israel isn’t a bunch of craven, child-murdering monsters.

    These guys? Not so much.

    Nobody should be persecuted for their religion.

    Likewise, nobody should political correctness to excuse a religion of murder.

  19. Use the words “Jihadist” and “Jihadism”.

    1) Accurate.
    2) Self-identifying. (Proudly in most cases.)
    3) Short-circuits leftists.

    As always, the second something “unexpected” happens, there’s the handwringing over accusing “Islam” or “muslims”, as if we (=everyone not on the far-Left) can’t be trusted to accurately use or mean the adjectives ‘militant’ or ‘radical’. And then the entire discussion sits here in the hand-wringing stage. The press is down to ‘gunmen’ currently.

    Just go around it. Not because “Jihadist” is more politically correct, but because a user thereof will always be able to say “I didn’t bring up religion you ()((*&, -you- did!”.

    Actually, there’s a point four.

    4) Exposes jihadist thinkers.

    The line of defense/disagreement that starts “I am a muslim and…” or “I know a lot of muslims and …” That same defense can’t be offered for jihadists. Or … it -can-, but it’s pretty much an admission that the speaker is “at war with” us.

    1. I’d just like to point out that I approve of this message. Described this way, “Jihadist” seems like a very useful term. It accurately identifies the cause of the problem as a widespread ideology, but doesn’t unfairly accuse those Muslims who interpret the Koran differently of the crimes of that different (but related) ideology.

      The one I’ve been using most often lately is “Islamist,” which is better than nothing, but isn’t the most useful term ever, because 1) it’s easy for people who don’t know what I mean by it to read and think I mean Islam, and 2) because it refers to an ideology that thinks Islam should officially rule over governments, and due to the lack of a concept of separation of church and state in Islam, all Muslims are Islamist to SOME extent or another, so when we use the term we’re really just talking about degrees, which doesn’t always make for clear communication.

      “Jihadist” doesn’t have that lack of clarity, and as such is a much more useful term. I think I’ll try using it more often. Thanks!

      1. The one semi-valid complaint against “Jihadist” is that you’re granting the enemy the term they -want-. It’s an accolade in their interpretation.

        I frankly don’t care about that aspect. Moving off of the rock we’ve linguistically been aground upon is worth that. Plus, the key blindness of political correctness can then be applied: Anything can be intended perjoratively, so all you need is -a- word that’s nominally acceptable -now-.

        But making this one shift allows us to act as if “Jihadism” and “Islam” are two completely distinct belief systems. And actively persecute one of them while mocking opposition to the persecution.

  20. Reblogged this on The Worlds of Tarien Cole and commented:
    Maybe it’s because I don’t have as much to lose as some. But I’d like to think it’s because as I see it: If a man doesn’t stand and defend truth, he isn’t really a man. And anyone who gives the moral equivalency crap of ‘all fundamentalists are the same’ is a liar. They all may make you uncomfortable. But there’s no Crazy Lutheran pointing guns at you for thinking that.

  21. Having been “Over There…”

    These idiot leftist apologists have no frigging clue as to what they’re dealing with. Yeah, great, totally the majority of the people over there are decent. I get that. I saw it with my own two eyes. But I also saw things that should be getting play here that the leftards would be terrified to stand against:

    I saw a pregnant woman, in hundred-degree heat, head to toe in black, little girl in tow behind her plowing a field, while her husband and son sat under the only shade for a good mile, watching her.

    I saw a cab of a pickup, filled entirely with goats…and three women in the bed, getting whipped by the dust and wind of the truck driving through the desert.

    I had BOYS offer me MONEY for one of my fellow Soldiers…and when I told them to get lost, they tried to TAKE her.

    And I know I haven’t seen the worst that culture can offer in person…only on the news. As they murder innocents, as they kidnap children, as they rape and pillage, as they force their barbarism upon the world…and the constant crowing of the cowards, “Oh, dear me, we mustn’t upset them, we need to be submissive, for our horrible, evil inferior rapine culture has robbed them of their dignity, and must be respectful of others because equality. Oh, do not say that, they MIGHT GET ANGRY AND HURT ME!”

    Cowards! They are terrified of standing up, they’d rather roll over and hope this blows over, but it won’t! It NEVER does. They’re dealing with a culture where showing restraint, showing mercy, showing acceptance is a sign of weakness and therefore freedom to be dominated. They’re dealing with a culture that only understands one thing: Force. The boot on their neck.

    What we did to them in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, while pretty darn awful and barbaric, was how you deal with this sort of extremism. It kept them quiet for years…and now they do what they want, because they know we don’t have the balls anymore to do that to them.

    I am sick and tired of being told to submit to them. We keep doing that, and this will continue. The only way to stop it is to return fire, vigorously and intensely.
    Preferably smeared in pork fat.

    1. “I had BOYS offer me MONEY for one of my fellow Soldiers…and when I told them to get lost, they tried to TAKE her.”

      I hope she didn’t hurt the little dears too bad. Hearts and minds, y’know…

    2. I saw a video made by a US Army company that was part of the occupation of Iraq after 03, on the military channel. The troops had no use for Iraq and had no problem showing why they had no respect for Islam or Iraq. After you saw they way they treated their females, and the rest of their stuff, a viewer had no respect either

  22. Larry, the reason we do not go to war to stop this evil, an evil that is an existential threat to our very civilization is that we have been infiltrated to the very top. The Saudi royals are close friends with everyone In high office. Remember that this radical Islam is fomented in Mecca. The Director of CIA is a Muslim for Christ’s sake. And our President? The mass media? The AP announced the news and in the same article whined that “Islam is a religion of Peace” and how ” This was going to be difficult for Muslims in France’s” Heinlein stated very well what to do to save our way of life.

  23. I would recommend a one-for-one trade. For every person these scum kill, we kill one militant Imam who has supported them. How many do you think we will have to exterminate before their preachers get the message? I’m hoping a lot…

    1. You do realize the hypocrisy of defending our freedom of speech by attacking their freedom of speech, right?

      Freedom of speech does have limits. No yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie house, and no inciting violence, so there’s room for locking these hate-mongering firebrands up. But realize that that particular blade cuts both ways…

      1. Freedom of speech only applies internally. As a constitutional protection it has no bearing on those outside of the scope of the constitution.

        For example, when we defeated the Germans and established our rules over them, we restricted their speech by making membership in the NSDAP illegal.

        1. So, because it was a French magazine, we shouldn’t be concerned or involved? You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a right or it’s not. Special pleaders need not apply.

      2. Freedom of speech has to be a two way street. They aren’t willing to grant it to me. I’m not the one who went over and started slaughtering people for mocking things I hold dear. When you take the path of violence to suppress ideas and thoughts you do not like you give up your own right just like if you attack a person and threaten their right to life you give up your own and are subject to lethal self defense.

        1. I agree if you’re willing to distinguish between jihadist criminals and the general law-abiding Muslim population. Otherwise, your purpose is served by killing occupants in the nearest Mosque (or carpet bombing the Middle East, deporting all Muslims, or several other extremist “solutions” suggested here). I’d like to oppose the jihadists while keeping the collateral damage to a minimum. Of course, you can do that by declaring all of them jihadists. Then none of the damage is collateral, by definition.

          1. When we had abortion clinic bombings in the name of one person’s take on “Christianity” other Christians* investigated the crime. Other Christians captured the criminals. Other Christians prosecuted them. Other Christians declared their guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And other Christians carried out the sentence of the court.

            When nominally Christian Timothy McVeigh committed his act of terrorism other Christians* investigated the crime. Other Christians captured McVeigh. Other Christians prosecuted him. Other Christians declared his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And other Christians carried out the sentence of the court. (Ditto Terry Nichols.)

            And so on.

            Mouthing a few platitudes about “condemning the atrocity”, not backed up by action within the Islamic community doesn’t cut it, particularly when the Quran expressly endorses, not just condones but endorses, lying to infidels for the advantage of Islam.

            Now, when I point this out, that’s usually the time for the moral relativism crew to claim that the “moderates” are too afraid of the violent component to act against them for fear of reprisal.

            The supposed vast majority is afraid of the tiny minority? How does that work? Were people not afraid of reprisals from the abortion clinic bomber? By the, at the time unknown, OKC bomber? Are muslims just more cowardly than we are or, perhaps their thinking is actually rational as in, maybe this supposed “tiny minority” is far more numerous than claimed. The alternate explanation is that the supposed “moderates” are not perhaps all that motivated to stop the “radicals” as they claim.

            For that matter, can you point to anyone making the argument back in the day that bombing Dresden, firebombing Tokyo (of the paper walls–goes up like a Roman candle), or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would “simply create more radicals”? If moderates are really turned to radicals that way in significant numbers we should have been awash in Nazi and Japanese terrorism after World War II. (Going to claim that the ideological Nazis and the Japanese militarists were less dedicated to the point of fanaticism than the Islamic “radicals”? Go ahead, I can use the laugh.)

          2. Given that the majority of the U.S. population is Christian, painting the Christians as policing their own is at best disingenuous. You’re presenting statistical likelihood as some sort of deliberate moral decision. There wasn’t a grassroots groundswell of support from the Christian community to bring McVeigh (or Breivik), but rather action by the law enforcement agencies already in place. It wasn’t that the Christian community was any less brave than any other community. It’s just human behavior not to stick your neck out, whatever your religion. Challenging armed sociopaths in your community is not evolutionarily sound, otherwise there would be a lot more sheepdogs and a lot fewer sheep. Or did you hound the Norwegian Christians for not gathering their torches and pitchforks to capture Breivik? Of course not, because you knew he didn’t represent mainstream Lutherans. So why are you expecting (nay, demanding) that Muslims rise up as one to expel these bad seeds who supposedly share their religion? Because you’re not familiar with Islam, or you just believe they’re fundamentally evil? Whether intentionally or not, you’re giving an awful lot of power to the terrorists. By your reasoning, they can damn any cause they choose (as long as it’s not one you ascribe to) by merely invoking it during an attack, and the folks who actually belong to that cause are powerless to deny that, at least in your eyes. No amount of denial (to date) has satisfied you.

            Not that it should matter, but one of the dead Gendarmes was Muslim.

          3. I schooled you on Islam last night. And you have no clue of how anyone responded. What’s certain is that your attempts at false equivalence are ridiculous.

          4. You’re presenting statistical likelihood as some sort of deliberate moral decision.

            And that “whooshing” sound is the point sailing right over your head. Yes, most people in the US are Christian. And. they. police. their. own. They don’t make excuses and say “well, it’s understandable that he would be upset about the murder of babies.” They don’t engage in “code of silence” when people try to ferret out the bad guys.

            They fully and actively cooperate and assist in the capture and punishment of the “terrorist” extremists in who call themselves Christian.

            What do we get from “moderate Muslims”? We get, from people whose “holy book” tells them that it’s not just permissible, but a positive good to lie to unbelievers to further the cause of Islam, mouthing of platitudes about “real Islam isn’t like that”. Words. Words from people who are encouraged to lie to you.

          5. Someone seems to have missed my point, too. Okay, again you need to explain the rules to me. Pointing out Christianity’s faults is “moral equivalence” and demonized, but it’s okay to present police forces in America as being specifically “Christian” when they do what they’re supposed to, like they’re doing it for religious and not secular reasons? WTF? You can’t have the good while hand-waving the parts that don’t agree with your beliefs. Well, you can, but it’s dishonest.

            You’re telling me that words from moderate Muslims aren’t going to satisfy you, and that in America, Christians rise up en masse to offer up our criminals to authorities. What world are you living in? The vast majority of Americans, like the vast majority of Muslims (or the vast majority of *people*) don’t stick their necks out. They are Dave Grossman’s sheep. Muslims are condemning the Kouachi brothers, and have been doing similar for long enough to require police protection in France. *Hezbollah* condemned their murderous rampage. How badly do you have to fuck up before Hezbollah turns their back on you? Let’s quit playing “get me a rock”. What the fuck are you waiting for the Muslim community to do before you admit that there are bad players manipulating claiming to be within the group, manipulating it for their own purposes instead of speaking for the group as a whole? If you’re just a believer who in this case believes that Islam is evil, let me know and I’ll listen to Ayn Rand and stop wasting my time.

            “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” – Ayn Rand

          6. Pointing out Christianity’s faults is “moral equivalence” and demonized, but it’s okay to present police forces in America as being specifically “Christian” when they do what they’re supposed to, like they’re doing it for religious and not secular reasons?

            It’s attempted moral equivalence when you present it as a response to actions like the murders at Charlie Hedbo. Want to have a satirical cartoon contest? You get Islam. I get any other religion on the face of the Earth. Want to bet how far we each can go before someone reacts with actual violence?

            A friend of mine posted a cartoon on Facebook. Moses, Jesus, Ganesh, and Buddha having a gay orgy. Absolutely nobody was killed over that picture.

            Islam? We’ve got Theo van Gogh. We’ve got he credible threats against Salman Rushdie. We’ve got Lars Vilks. Kurt Westergaard. And on and on and on.

            As for religious vs. secular regions. The point is still way over your head. I don’t care _why_ they do it. Their reasons don’t matter. The fact is that they do it. And with very very few exceptions Muslims don’t.

            Case in point: the 9/11 attack. Pakistan was our vocal “ally” in going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Of course, the Taliban originated in Pakistan. And do you recall where Osama bin Laden was found? In Pakistan. It was no great secret among the Muslims in Pakistan where he was. And yet no one “dropped a dime” on him.

            An WWII, Americans rounded up Japanese Americans and put them in “relocation camps.” Nevertheless, a bunch of them volunteered to go fight the axis. They were assigned to Europe (the 442, the “Go for Broke”, most decorated unit in the war) but they didn’t know that when they volunteered. This despite their friends and families being locked up in internment camps. They recognized “exigencies of war” and recognized who the real enemy was.

            I’m not seeing the enthusiasm to actually act against Islamic terrorists. Some lip service to “we’re not all like that; those are just a tiny minority” from folk of a religion that not only permits but encourages adherents to lie to unbelievers if it benefits Islam.

            Their actions (or lack thereof) shout so loudly that I cannot hear their words.

      3. A declaration of war is speech.
        It also has consequences.

        Speech being free does not mean speech free of consequences.
        These Islamofascists proclaim their “holy” mission to subjugate the world.
        Taking them at their word is not an issue of free speech.
        It is instead, locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy.

      4. Sir,

        You suggested that killing high ranking clerics who endorse terrorism, in reprisal for acts of terrorism, is a freedom of speech issue. This would only be the case if said clerics were inside the borders of, and subjects of, the power killing them.

        Any power has ample choice of reprisal targets outside of their borders, if they are able to accomplish the killings.

        The French have in the past asked that we not act on their behalf in this matter.

      5. You consider Hizbollah your moral guide? Haven’t you been listening? Of course Hizbollah condemns them; they’re Shi’ites. They’re declaring them heretics, not murderers based on Western principles. Hizbollah will go murder someone tomorrow based on principles I can’t figure out.

  24. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of the SJWs’ insistence that we gather all the world’s vipers to our collective bosom, while at the very same time demanding that we not punish the entire nest for the bites of a few.

    If Islam truly is a “religion of peace,” then it’s up to Muslims to prove it. Because that’s no longer something the rest of us can take on faith….and in truth, it hasn’t been that way since 9/11.

    1. Wes, you need to bear in mind that the “religion of peace” BS is just that–Deliberate BS, promulgated by apologists and fellow travelers. What that term in the original Arabic would better translate into English as would be more along the lines of “submission” or “slavery”.

      Good luck finding anyone honest enough to tell you that, however.

      1. @Kirk: I’m quite well aware of that, actually. My rant’ was actually a response to those same fellow-travelers, who seem to themselves see radical Islam as “fellow travelers” in their grand crusade to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with Utopia.

        Of course, the Left never seems to consider how they’re going to deal with Islam in turn, once Western Civ has been laid low. They sort of gloss over that part.

        Either they seem to think that radical Islamics will magically go all kumbaya once Utopia has been achieved; or they’re thinking that they’ll ship the Islamics to the re-education camps along with the rest of us.

        The possibility that they might *lose* to the Islamics without the rest of us to run interference never seems to cross their minds. Nor does the very real possibility that they might suffer the same fate as Ceaucescu and Mussolini, at the hands of the very society they despise. Or that their revolution will end up eating its own, much as Robespierre and Saint-Just ended up going to the guillotine themselves in the death throes of the French Revolution, kicking and screaming all the way…

        There’s a great line from a recent online essay by Matt Bracken, the “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” guy. He pointed out – I’m paraphrasing only slightly – that the Judeo-Christian prophets like Moses and Jesus climbed mountaintops to hear the word of God in the sunlight, while the “gospel” of Islam, on the other hand, was whispered into Mohammed’s ear by something in the darkness of a cave.

        That pretty much sums it up, no?

    2. “Because that’s no longer something the rest of us can take on faith….and in truth, it hasn’t been that way since 911 AD, when the Fatamid dynasty was founded in North Africa; the Hamdanid took over Egyptian cities; and the fall of Fall of Taormina crowned the Muslim conquest of Sicily.”

      Unless you mean the year 911, the bloodstained history of Islam as a religion of war is far older than you mention. It has been a heretical and satanic mockery of Christianity from the first, a religion of war, a religion of submission and slavery, since its founding.

      1. People blather about the moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam regarding persecution of unbelievers and heretics.
        My response is “As a military history freak, I can track the spread of Islam for the first hundred years of its history. Following the spread of Christianity for its first hundred years requires me to move out of that field.”

      2. Maybe so.

        But that is outside of the scope of the oral history some of us grew up on. For US populations, there being few Muslims living here or in neighboring countries, 2001 was the first really conclusive evidence that the problems apparently caused by Islam were separable from the Soviet problem. Prior to that, it was not obvious to a layman that Islamic terrorism was not simply a small part of the terrorism that the Soviets were directing and funding.

        The Democrats have killed more Americans and committed more acts of terror in the US than the Muslims. The Democratic Party is of far greater significance as an unnameable bogeyman in our oral and written history.

      3. BobtheRegistredFool:
        … Am I mistaken to think that Taliban was basically funded and armed by USA to fight against CCCP in Afghanistan? I thought, that’s how it went.
        I know it can be said that any group operating against Izrael could have been funded b Soviets, but why would they arm resistance to their own rule?

      4. In the context of what has a emotional impact on Americans, there are essentially two categories. International terrorism, and domestic terrorism sourced in America.

        (The latter is essentially the Democratic Party. Yes, the Soviets may have been funding them for part of it, but not during the period which had the most psychological impact on the nation.)

        Acts of international terrorism are more complicated than domestic terrorism. They require both an organization to carry them out, and a jurisdiction, not the target jurisdiction, which will turn a blind eye to all the intensive organizational activities. The soviets funded some of the first, and put a lot of capital into second sort, building training camp(terrorist schools) in countries friendly to them, including in various mid east countries. These training camps and other organizations got enough of a return that they were able to do some maintenance, even without Islamic oil money, once the soviet pipeline shut off.

        Al Quada is the international terrorist organization, the Taliban were the host government that most openly did not care what AQ were doing. I’d note that in addition to their domestic terrorism in Afghanistan, the Taliban was/is an ethnic faction, which forms fairly naturally in that culture. a) It was ten, and is now twenty five years since the eighties. One of the cold war proxy wars is going to be more significant than heroin? b) Many communists have argued that Islamic terrorism is a result of fighting communists. As part of these claims, they have had so little discipline that they’d said things easily shown to be false.

        Also, it wasn’t ‘arming groups against Israel’ for the Soviets. They had this theory where anything unpleasant that could be made to happen would make leftist revolutions more certain. Any terrorism, whatever the cause, would supposedly increase the number of Soviet proxies. This was stupid, and not true, but the Soviet bureaucracy’s culture would not let them stop, or even argue against it.

  25. I had been on hiatus with my Rivrdog blog. No more. Today, I fired it back up and have set forth a plan to end muslim hegemony: legally remove their status as a RELIGION. They are a theocratic cult, not a religion. The USA must take the lead on denying them the protected status of religious freedom.

    Support this idea wherever you find it.

    1. Nyet. The SJWs and their leaders think me and mine as bad as Islam, perhaps worse (because feels). They control the media organs that most voters get their info from, and have their hooks throughout the government.
      I will not give them anything in this regard.

  26. Seen on Twitter:

    ‏@AceofSpadesHQ The American media, @AP, @CNN, @ABCNews, and @NBCNews, announce they will honor the dead by obeying the demands of their murderers”


    “David Burge
    ‏@iowahawkblog Media: we’re not cowards, we’re just totally super respectful of the feelings of the beheading community.”

  27. Very good analysis of the reality of the situation and how people in general have been socialized to be politically correct even when the actors of atrocity are truly evil and their larger peer group tacitly agrees with their acts with overwhelming silence. Simply things must get very much worse before the majority of people realize and act upon the fact our civilization is at risk.

  28. I am not afraid.

    I have words and I will speak. I am not afraid.

    I have weapons and I will defend myself and others. I am not afraid.

    I will use my words as weapons, and my weapons when the words will not work. I am not afraid.

    I will not let criminals, monsters or governments take my words or my weapons. I am not afraid.

    Some of them will try. At least a few will die in the attempt. Because I am not afraid.

    If they succeed, my words and my weapons will pass to another… and they will not be afraid.

  29. According to Social Justice Warriors, the president of Egypt is a profiling Islamophobe. According to SJWs, you must leave gamergate now because of threats or be lumped in with those making the threats. And gamergate isn’t even an ideology. As usual, SJWs have declared themselves to be more anti-Islamic than anyone. They’re just too unprincipled and stupid to follow their own reasoning. But what need does a supremacism by proxy have for reason? The target never changes, no matter actual events.

  30. Travis wrote:
    “Every time these post-colonialists in our press and academia come out and make excuses for these Islamicist monsters, they think they are helping the cause of Islam, when what they are doing is stabbing the moderates in the back.”

    They are helping the cause of Islam. Islam seeks to conquer the world, and they help it do so. They are our enemies, and far more of a threat than the jihadi scum.

  31. thewriterinblack wrote:
    “For that matter, can you point to anyone making the argument back in the day that bombing Dresden, firebombing Tokyo (of the paper walls–goes up like a Roman candle), or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would “simply create more radicals”? If moderates are really turned to radicals that way in significant numbers we should have been awash in Nazi and Japanese terrorism after World War II. (Going to claim that the ideological Nazis and the Japanese militarists were less dedicated to the point of fanaticism than the Islamic “radicals”? Go ahead, I can use the laugh.)”

    Good post, sir.

    1. Well, weren’t there the Wherwolf diehards? Okay, a lot of them were sorted out by giving them back to their parents. I think they don’t count because they were the residue of the original fanatics that had been collected, and because there weren’t that many of them.

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked. We knew before then that they were hoping for a conditional peace, that would let them come back. We would have ended up fighting them again, perhaps in the sixties or seventies. Boom, surrender, and we could go in and make it harder for them to start another fight with us. We’ve had near seventy years of peace with them, without the need to kill all of them. That is maybe about as long as they’d been setting up the dictatorial apparatus they used to set up the war.

      1. Correct, Bob. Lots of people say the treaty of Versailles caused WWII in Europe, and they were right. That treaty was far too lenient.

        In WWII we made the enemy surrender unconditionally, and hanged out their leadership. We occupied their countries and made them change their culture. It looks like that’s what we’ll have to do with Islam.

      2. I think it was more the USSR. The USSR could not help but behave in a way that let the Germans know they were next on the chopping block, and it would not be nice. (There were Germans living in the Ukraine. Being aliens they would have likely been treated worse.) Note the Bavarians, who for a short time were ruled by a SSR, have been the most resistant to the left. This could have well had an influence in whether the Germans were desperate enough to follow Hitler.

        As for the Pacific Front, the Soviets didn’t up a gun to Hirohito’s head and force him, but their meddling caused things to escalate to where we were dragged in.

  32. Hey, no argument “Religion of Peace” is a translational smokescreen, and IIRC all those quotes of the kinder gentler Koran in the beginning of the discussion mostly recommended that behavior within the confines of fellow believers (I’ll have to pull out my copy to be sure). But as was pointed out earlier, there are approx. 1.4 billion currently practicing Islam. Works out to about 19% of the world population. I’ve seen different numbers, but they are all in the 1/5 to 1/4 range. Carpet bombing the Middle East, no matter how emotionally satisfying, won’t solve the problem.

    I don’t have an answer – wish I did. But I’m pretty sure the “Law of Unintended Consequences” is all set to play out with the more simplistic ones.

  33. It’s offensive to not publish these cartoons for fear of offending Muslims. It’s acting as though normal reasonable muslims are so offended they’d blow someone up over it. It treats the offense taken by these extremist assholes as a reasonable response by otherwise respectable people.

    Terrorist assholes are terrorist assholes. These ones are Muslim. I’m not going to pretend that they represent all Muslims, but I’m not going to pretend that they aren’t Muslims, either.

  34. “M J Locke retweeted Lynne M Thomas @lynnemthomas · Jan 7 Horrified by events in Paris and Colorado. Doubly so by the difference in reporting upon the two.”

    Remember that dipshit Thomas from the women-hating word which is all vulgar gendered slang? A big firecracker that someone may have done on purpose to gain sympathy and dead people and this moron compares the two. The SJWs are out in force doing this about the phony NAACP “bombing.”

    “M J Locke retweeted John Scalzi @scalzi · 22h 22 hours ago As a non-Muslim, I’d like to apologize to Muslims for the non-Muslims demanding that all Muslims should apologize for the attacks today.”

    Remember Scalzi as the moron who told all gamergaters to get out or they’d be tarred as harassers? And that’s not even an ideology. SJW pricks just made it one out of whole cloth.

    “Face it, dudes: ‘GamerGate’ is a toxic thing. You can’t say you support WITHOUT explicitly standing with those who hate and harass women.” – John Scalzi

    “Excellent post about GamerGate. ‘If you don’t step away… then you *are* part of a hate movement.'” – N. K. Jemisin

    “M J Locke retweeted ginger @gingerest · 15h 15 hours ago FYI: it is possible to, with equal ardor, condemn the Charlie Hebdo murders, believe in a free press, and find some of the cartoons racist”

    Can you believe that bit of idiocy? “Equal ardor”? Even with dead people these SJWs don’t back off even one little bit. They are obsessive fanatics with the principles of a pig. Need any further proof they decide right and wrong by identity? By their own standards they are telling Muslims to step away but oh, wait a minute…

    “Steven Gould retweeted Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF · 19h 19 hours ago Important point about how we frame what is & what isn’t an ‘honor killing’ RT @Izz145:”

    Yeah, that’s really important, because crazy American men who murder women are an ideology just like Islam according to dipshit radical feminists. Thanks for making our point.

    1. Sometimes they need it screamed at them: SJWs, Islam is -not- a race!

      It’s a religion! The majority of Muslims living in Europe are those white and/or Mediterranean types that you disdain and bash so much because “privilege”!

      This was not racist!

      And the NAACP non-bombing that hurt no one and caused almost imperceptible damage -WAS REPORTED ON-.

      *puff puff pant gasp*

      The real toxic group? Them. -_-

    2. And this is why I’ve been saying since 9/12/2001 that Bush’s greatest mistake wasn’t in first dealing with the Fifth Column here so that we could actually fight a war anywhere else.

      Hopefully, Americans won’t make that mistake again.

      1. Alas, snelson, the “Fifth Columnists” won’t be dealt with because they are, effectively, the majority. The United States is a liberal country. Those of us who are non-liberals need to secede and set up the kind of society we wish.

        1. You might want to rethink that in light of actual American history. The Revolutionary War wasn’t fought by the Patriot majority; it was fought by the 10-20% of the population that were Patriots against the 10-20% of the Tories, and that figure counts the active supporters; only about 3% actually carried weapons. The bulk of the population wanted to be left alone, and was.

          The committed Leftists are no more a majority now than the Tories were then.

          1. Civil War Two ‘This time, with nukes!’ is what I’d like to avoid. The liberals are a majority at the ballot box. Creating a country where they can’t vote is NOT the way to the kind of country I want to live in.

  35. Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!

    O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil’s kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can’t slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil excretes, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we’ve no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother.

    You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig’s snout, mare’s arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother!

    So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won’t even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we’ll conclude, for we don’t know the date and don’t own a calendar; the moon’s in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day’s the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!

    Koshovyi Otaman Ivan Sirko, with the whole Zaporozhian Host.

  36. “@arthur_affect
    God I wouldn’t want to be a Muslim in this country. This ritual of “Yes! Yes! Mock me! Shit on me!” to prove you’re not a terrorist”

    1. I wouldn’t want to be a Christian in a Muslim country either. Seeing as, y’know, my life would be kind of at risk every single day.
      Even assuming that this idiot was at all correct.

      1. As usual a social justice warrior is incapable of seeing “compared to what.” China, Egypt, Nigeria? Who?

  37. Has anyone noticed how the America social justice drones are bringing up the racism of Charlie Hebdo although that has played no part in the attacks? Defaming the prophet has nothing to do with stuff like that in Muslim countries, not did it in this instance. The caricatures Hebdo used are classic caricatures indistinguishable from the same caricatures used in the Muslim press when they tackle the issue in a more oblique generic terrorism manner.

    SJWs in one shot show how they grasp at straws to keep their hate afloat and also project their provincial cave-like views onto a culture in a manner that is neither here nor there. This is 100% an issue of religious defamation, not race.

    1. It isn’t my favorite style of drawing. A lot of the ones I like better are not suited as suited for the purpose.

      Cartoons necessarily simplify. They have to come up with design features that communicate things about who the characters actually are.

      A magazine targeted at a general audience, drawn by a variety of illustrators, and using the whole spectrum of public figures cannot afford to get too fancy with its visual language.

  38. Has anyone here heard of Dr. Bill Warner? He runs a website called Political Islam. He posted an interesting analysis of the long standing, if undeclared, war between Islam and The West. You can find it at if you’re interested. He looks a little wild-eyed in that video but his more recent ones, posted on his YouTube channel, look a bit calmer. I think someone had a talk with him about “optics”. It’s an interesting video, takes about an hour to watch.

  39. I lived in France long time and unfortunately I had to live with the majority of French racists, only a few did not care about my nationality, nobody deserves to die.

    One question that arises me, Who are we Westerners to judge them, to say that their ideology is not correct?, Muslims have been victims of invasions since time immemorial, Westerners have invaded their territories to teach, what is right and what is wrong.

    Respect is shown and win, we Westerners have never respected them enough, we believe ourselves with the right to judge them, invade their countries, all these things have generated consequences, “attacks on the West at the slightest provocation”.

    They are fed up that we want to dictate a regulation of conduct to them that is suitable according with our eyes, all these attacks should serve as a lesson to change human relations, to respect them without wanting to change them, to stop invading their countries, we must stop thinking that they are not autonomous to leave their religion if they so wish it.

    1. Wow…

      “One question that arises me, Who are we Westerners to judge them,” Seriously? Man, it has got to be really sad to go through life such a weak, pathetic shell of a man that you can’t get up the moral fortitude to condemn evil.

      ” to say that their ideology is not correct?” – Well, I’d say it is pretty fucking obvious, but then again, I’m not a liberal.

      “Muslims have been victims of invasions since time immemorial,” – Uh, no. The invasions worked both ways. During those days it was two super powers attacking each other. I really wish people had a clue about history.

      “Westerners have invaded their territories to teach, what is right and what is wrong.” That is an incredibly naive statement. Earlier western nations invaded Muslim nations to colonize them, because we were the side with the money, weapons, and tech to do so. Just like when they were the ones with the money, weapons, and tech, they took over Spain and invaded France. In more recent times we’ve had small wars that we then rebuilt everything for them, and then went out of our way to have RoEs to not offend their delicate tender sensibilities.

      “Respect is shown and win, we Westerners have never respected them enough” Perhaps if we’re nice enough they’ll go away?

      “we believe ourselves with the right to judge them,” well, derp. For example, stoning rape victims? How dare I judge their culture? That would be judgmental or something! Women as property. Raping children. Child brides. Suicide bombs. Massacring children. Mass graves. Beheadings. How DARE anyone judge them!

      “They are fed up that we want to dictate a regulation of conduct to them that is suitable according with our eyes, all these attacks should serve as a lesson to change human relations, to respect them without wanting to change them, to stop invading their countries, we must stop thinking that they are not autonomous to leave their religion if they so wish it.”

      Fuck off.

    2. Wait a minute. Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you serious?

      You call the French racist, and you fail to differentiate among Westerners. You lay at the feet of every Western nation all atrocities ever committed against Muslims.

      Racist. Or culturist.

      This is patently ridiculous, first, because the Muslim world is full of factions and divisions itself, who are constantly committing atrocities against each other. Islam itself is not united. But it’s apparently full enough of ignorant barbarians that it won’t police itself. The West has been making overtones of peace for decades, and the followers of Islam continue to kill, maim and butcher women and children.

      Muslims have been victims of invasions since time immemorial? Join the club, dickhead. You can’t name a culture on any continent that has been pacifist throughout history, because they’ve all been WIPED OUT. EVERY race has been invaded. EVERY race has been enslaved. EVERY civilization has had to fight or cease to exist. And you’re acting like Muslims have some corner on suffering. Up yours. Diplomacy and international cooperation and commerce have been developed for millennia, both in the Western world and the Muslim world. But some Muslims think they got a patent on being the victim, and that gives them the right to blow up women and kids. And for some reason, they think the Jews are behind it all. News flash: look at territories controlled by Jews and those controlled by Muslims, either by square kilometers or by population. The Jews have gone through far worse as a group than the followers of Islam.

      Either police yourselves and join the civilized world, and stamp out the barbarians from among you, or die. Because Western civilization is getting tired of you using thousand-year-old slights as an excuse to murder, and we’re going to kill you once we’re REALLY fed up.

    3. “One question that arises me, Who are we Westerners to judge them, to say that their ideology is not correct?, Muslims have been victims of invasions since time immemorial, Westerners have invaded their territories to teach, what is right and what is wrong.”


      Vienna. Tours. Al Andalus. Byzantium. Greece. Romania. The first two are locations where Islamic invasions of Europe were turned back. The fourth used to be the center of Orthodox Christianity until the Turks overran it. The remaining three are regions that used to have Islamic warlords ruling over Christian populations (that third item is a term for Spain that’s used by Al Qaeda, among others).

      Claims that Islam has been subjected to constant invasion by Christian Europeans requires willful blindness regarding who has been invading whom. Yes, there have been lots of invasions. But the vast majority of them have not been directed by the Christian nations.

      1. It’s a war of ideologies. I believe that Western society is ideollogically superior and I want it to succeed. Western society has made a great deal of progress over the last few hundred years and I want it to continue. I do not want to see a collapse into barbarism.

  40. As expected, the core SFF community has spoken with one voice about Charlie Hebdo and it is exactly as one might’ve predicted and completely consistent with their apartheid rules of race and gender. There is not a single one that has not toed the line.

    And they laughingly tell us core fandom at the Hugos has no political or social ideology and agenda. When you swim in an ocean with only one species that is not going to seem like a supremacy, but a natural act. You give me any issue near and dear to the heart of a social justice warrior and I’ll show you how they are liars, racists and hypocrites. Core fandom is an ideology or race and gender supremacy and a KKK in all but name.

    They are a perfect example of the mechanism of by which hate speech is mainstreamed into useful idiots. They themselves are those “moderates” we speak of who are #NotAllMuslims who act as shock troops and helpers for the worst among them. As such they are also the perfect example of how there are no innocents within an ideology. You’re either a member, or you’re not.

    Remember, that’s what they said about GamerGate. The problem for SJWs is that GamerGaters aren’t an ideology that speak with one voice and SJWs are. Their rhetoric is so interchangeable one can’t tell the author by the quotes, but one can tell the ideology and its racist and supremacist sociopathic origins that hysterically calls movie casting a white supremacy and segregated awards, rooms and political offices nothing – nothing at all.

  41. Madrid bombings 2004, London subway bombings 2005 and riots 2011, also there have been few beheadings in UK, Lars Vilks almost lost his life because of a cartoon, Jyllands posten attack in Denmark, riots in Stockhom 2013… They do have one denominator. And once you start looking for these sort of news from Europe you’ll be appaled, …some are just plain insane (good example of this is Sweden).

    Google Pat Condell.

    We are here in deep ideological shit. This is like some Orwellian-nightmare. And as usual it seems it’s getting worse before it gets better.

  42. I just heard a reporter on tv (British, I believe) say they weren’t sure if the kosher market was chosen for its “religious connotations.” Maybe they just got bad service…

  43. Hope this isn’t obnoxious link-dropping, but I see some people here struggling to articulate what I was struggling with, which is that tolerance is obviously very important to me but I also believe in kicking ass. I just really fucking hate bullies and it starts to drive me goddamn crazy when I get presented with this false dichotomy of “Kick Ass” or “Be Tolerant” as if you can’t do both or get told anger is never appropriate because someone is trying to force me onto their agenda.

    PS I know I’m not lined up exactly with everyone on the blog, politically. I don’t comment much either. I read the blog because I keep waiting for the e-ARCS of Larry’s new books to come out.

    1. Just another social justice warrior lying about this being about racism when in fact it was about anti-blasphemy rules in Islam. In fact those dead were exactly like Salmon Rushdie. Rely on stupidity from every word from Chu, who is an anti-white racist anyway.

      And what’s “Taunting the tauntable”? Is that meant to piss people off? What about racist demonization theories under that banner? Is Chu arguing SF writers are asking for it if someone thinks their humor is off-key or their writing racist? What a moron. More proof SJWs are high-functioning retards. They can be an encyclopedia and not make simple comparisons, which is why they contradict themselves every time they open their mouths.

    2. “You see, I’m from the internet. Things move pretty fast here.”

      Spoken like somebody who spends 99% of their time screaming at huffy tweets while demonizing murdered actual flesh and blood people.

      Step away from your computer once in a while, Arthur.

      1. I’ve gone around with Arthur Chu on Twitter. He is one dumb son of a bitch. I mean, shockingly stupid. I honestly expected somebody that good at trivia to be at least semi decent at internet arguing, but he was pathetically slow witted. I almost felt bad as I beat him like a pinata until candy fell out.

      2. Lots of people are taking whacks at him now.

        “John Brown @humidpress
        · 9h 9 hours ago
        @Popehat @arthur_affect @seemorebuttsman Arthur gives intellectual cover to those who slaughter innocent people. That’s all you need to know”

      3. More Chu:

        For ppl who want me to keep #CharlieHebdo in perspective the perspective is every time a terrorist kills 12 the military kills thousands”

  44. Thank you, Larry Correia. Thank you for saying so eloquently what so many need to hear, and so many others wish they could express.

  45. Oh how quickly people have forgotten the Cold War and former President Reagan not being afraid call the USSR the Evil Empire it was in a highly publicized speech and calling Gorbachev out to tear down the Wall. It doesn’t take long once you shine the bright lights on evil and quit pretending it isn’t in the room to clean it up. The longer it takes to call it out however, the bigger it gets and the harder it’s gonna be to remove from where we live. We need a CIC who has the cojones of former President Reagan to stand up for the citizens of this again and name it as the evil it is without apology and then hunt the psycho jihadist bastards and send them all to meet muhammad, I’m sure the weather is much warmer there.

    1. Too many of the libs don’t believe that Reagan brought down the USSR. They believe that it “just happened” to come down on his watch.

  46. A couple of years ago I wrote an open letter to the SFWA warning them about hate speech. In that case it was about two Nebula nominees: Aliette de Bodard in Paris and Saladin Ahmed, the anti-white Muslim. How prophetic and symbolic: Paris and a Muslim.

    I didn’t warn them because of some academic interest in hate speech but because I was confident hate speech ends in violence. I was laughed at by the former and current presidents of the SFWA and called a racist, though I never indulge in group defamation based on race, sex and gender expression. I don’t believe in that, they do.

    I don’t write essays asking if an Octavia Butler novel is too black or boxing too black or blues music too black, they do. I don’t write articles saying a black actor in an originally black role leaves a “bad taste” in my mouth or talk about casting a white actor as being a “white supremacy,” they do. I don’t accuse 200 million Arabs or blacks of anything, I use names of individuals. SJWs don’t usually name names, they indulge in group libel and defamation almost 100% of the time; about whites, men, and heterosexuals. I don’t Tweet gays should come with trigger warnings for arrogance, they do. They say I killed Martin Luther King, made Jim Crow and colonized the world.

    Every one of our social justice warriors has blood on their hands. Even now they’re on Twitter talking about Islamophobes and racism. Fuck ’em. Fuck every last goddam one of them. The are a disgrace to themselves, their families, their genre and their country.

    Let’s talk about “moderates.” Moderates are the rank and file, the citizenry, grass roots. They embolden and give credibility to people who actually are supremacists. SJWs do that by giving them awards and apologizing for their murdering ways.

    Laws come from culture, from the citizenry, from “moderates.” If I can’t build a church in S. Arabia that’s not a radical doing that it’s the citizenry. If a Christian or woman can’t be the president of Egypt that’s not radicals but the rank and file who decide that by tacit cultural agreement. It is not radicals who sexually mutilate their children but mothers and fathers. It is not radicals who have anti-blasphemy laws but most countries in the Middle East. This is from where radicals not only get their supremacist ideas but from who they draw their support. Their families support them, their local laws support them, and their religion support them.

    I am not moved by Muslims killing Muslims; they create these beasts by tolerating them and teaching them the supremacist Koran and then are murdered by them when the monsters they create decide some Muslims aren’t actually Muslims based on takfirist Muslim ideology that is the fundament of Saudi Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, Kwajerite ISIS and Taliban Salafis. It is nothing new, but Muslim doctrines they have been killing each other over since Karbala by declaring each other heretics and apostates. We don’t do that. Don’t tell me about the fucking 16th century – get a calendar.

    There are no “moderates” in Islam in the true sense of the term, nor do these people shed their culture when they get on an airplane and come to France or America. Concentrate them and all the above come to life, because of “moderates,” not radicals. It is their religion. Their religion itself is radical compared to everyone else. Concentrate Americans and then you’ll see a “moderate,” because we’re not fucking nuts. We didn’t shoot R. Crumb in the head but he would’ve spent his life in prison in the Middle East. That bullshit travels with Muslims. The idea they leave that behind or I’m an Islamophobe is moronic

    Islam is a religion of peace? Just in recent weeks: Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Turkey, Australia, America, France, Nigeria, Yemen. No problem. But have some fat guy die in an accident and suddenly these morons are chanting “I can’t breathe.” Fuck that, fuck them.

  47. OT: Larry, you should give a shout out to Chuck Dixon’s new Bad Times book, because it is the best one yet!

    (I only know about them because you recommended the first one.)

  48. Watching that rally today reminded me of something and then a few hours ago it hit me. The President had his ‘Selma’ moment in Paris today and he missed it completely.

  49. I think the Moral Equivalence crowd has outdone themselves. According to a BBC reporter Tim Wilcox, Jewish people of French nationality are responsible for “Palestinians suffering at the hands of Israel.” Because Jews, they’re ALL alike. And all evil, don’cha know!

    ….good frickin’ GRIEF.

    1. Also:

      Fact, most of Israel’s population self-identifies as atheist.

      Fact, the conflict with Palestine is a conflict of property, not of religious belief.

      Fact, blaming all Jews worldwide for the actions of the country of Israel, then pretending that Israel’s actions are determined by religion is the biggest load of you-know-what ever.

  50. YOU yourself refer to this as gun violence. Kind of stupid to look at things that way when it is the murderous insane madmen hiding behind some religion they refer to as peaceful isnt it. The firearm is a machine that has no capacity to act on its own — Stop referencing “gun violence” because I will bet you all your earthly possessions against mine that I can load and then place a firearm on safe position in the center of a table with me on one side and you on the other. When that firearm goes off and commits “violence” on its own, then you can have all I possess. But knowing that will never happen means I will own all that you have — You can keep you blog – what is it themed after Jack of all topics Master of none? Thanks

      1. Curious, I checked to see what the hell 1LTLos was talking about. I never used the term “gun violence” in this post. In fact, the first person to use the term was 1LTLos in this post, and then it was used again by people also thinking he was full of shit in response. Curious, I then plugged “gun violence” into the search engine for the entire blog. Out of thousands of posts, and a few dozen related to guns, that term has only been used twice in posts by me, but both times were me quoting the opposition that I was fisking.

        So I’m not really sure who 1LTLos is trying to bet about setting a gun on a table, or if it is my blog which should be Jack of all topics Master of none, but I’d be more than happy to compare my gun related resume to his. I mean, I was only a machinegun dealing, CCW instructing, gun rights advocate, competition shooter, who has gone on national news programs to argue in favor of gun rights. I can’t expect 1LTLos to know who I am, but Massad Ayoob, Ted Nugent, and Wayne LaPierre know who I am.

        As for the proposed bet. Derp. In fact, that is so much derp, that it is like 1LTLos threatened to commit public derpicide. I can only assume he’s drunk posting, or posting on the wrong blog, and who somehow inexplicably thinks I’m some anti-gun clown. Because of course an inanimate object is going to sit there safely… A gun is an inanimate object. Though if he was dumb enough to make a bet like that with money on the line, I’d cheat and set a fire under the table until the round in the chamber cooked off. 🙂

    1. I did a quick search of “gun violence” through this article and the comments. It shows up twice in the entire thread.

      Both times in your comment.

      Now it will show up a third time in mine.


      1. Calling 20 year old gang bangers children is racist when the gang banger is of a certain demographic.

        Part of the practice of segregation was that males of a certain demographic were always boys and never men. Even when the men in question were sixty years old and skilled in trades.

        This supports the contention that gun control is inherently white supremacist.

  51. If it’s any consolation, a famous anti-Semitic Egyptian feminist named Mona Eltahawy had both her forearms broken in Tahrir Square by the Egyptian police. She left that vibrancy of non-Western gender-fluidity for America, where she now lives. The desire of Social Justice Warriors to defend Islam is only matched by their desire to make sure they never actually live within Islam. But like Rick and Elsa always had Paris, we’ll always have Mona and Cairo. Now if only we could convince Amanda Marcotte and SFF’s Islamophile feminists to move there I’m sure there’d be many happy memories and selfies. They’ll promote Arab SF to the exact extent they’ll make sure they’re never in an Arab nation. If there are any bigger liars in America today than SFF’s wunderkids please tell me who that would be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *