by Atlas Shrugs
The ongoing jihad in Nigeria by the Muslim group Boko Haram (Western Education is Sinful) is escalating as Islamic supremacism spreads across the Middle East, Africa and Europe.
Muslim soldiers used locals as human shields while soldiers set residential quarters on fire. The streets of Baga were strewn with the corpses of dead humans and animals and about 2,000 private houses and several markets were burnt down in fighting, reported local officials when they returned to the town on Sunday.
The jihadists found refuge in a ……. mosque.
Obama sanctions this group as he has refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group despite their savagery and slaughter.
Snip:
The streets of Baga were strewn with the corpses of dead humans and animals and about 2,000 private houses and several markets were burnt down in fighting, reported local officials when they returned to the town on Sunday.
Most bodies were burnt beyond recognition as fire raged through the town. According to Muslim tradition the bodies were buried the same day, AP reports.
This new stage of the conflict started on Friday after Islamic extremists of the ‘Congregation of the People of Tradition for Proselytism’, widely known as Boko Haram (‘Western education is sinful’ in the western African Hausa language), insurgency murdered an army officer. In return government troops blocked a mosque where they believed the militants found refuge, but very soon more militants armed with automatic weapons, heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades became engaged. Heavy gunfire and explosions of the battle sent civilians fleeing into the bushland around the town.
Just so you’re remembering what spawned the movement: a hundred years of savagery and slaughter perpetrated by possibly THE most corrupt government in Africa (and learned from their colonial masters).
I’m not saying Boko Haram don’t have to be fought, but it would be better if the Africans fought it themselves.
And considering the historical situation, you just GOT to can the ideological piety, cause that is a position quite morally bereft … and pisses people off.
Libby what exactly is “ideological piety” and how does it apply to global concerns about murderous, fanatical, tyrannical efforts to convert and/or oppress the world’s population?
Tina, it’s just tacky to rant about Islamic Supremacy, when some peoples’ Christian zeal turned out to be nothing but cover for some really horrific economic exploitation. Did you know that, on Belgian Congolese plantations, if you didn’t make your palm oil quota, you got your hand chopped off?
(I mean, in case you were wondering why the Congolese are still doin’ that sort of thing.)
It’s all a bloody mess, very complicated, and so I would appreciate it if you would quit with any imputations of virtue on the part of Western Civilization, cause we ain’t got claim to a whole hell of a lot.
All we can really do is assess situations as they come up, and try our best to do better.
Libby: “It’s all a bloody mess, very complicated..”
It isn’t “very complicated” at all. There are groups of people that have decided the west must be brought down and put under submission. They are willing to do anything to further their objective…murder, economic disruption, training children to kill, etc. They believe the Qur’an teaches them to fulfill this goal and justifies their activities. they are taught and instructed by elder spiritual leaders.
It isn’t any different than Adolf Hitler convincing Germans and others that the white race is superior and therefore Jews, the mentally deficient, and others had to be eliminated to ensure the race is kept pure.
“…cause we ain’t got claim to a whole hell of a lot.”
Wow! Your hatred/distrust of America/Christians/civilized nations/industry…whatever it is…is pretty lopsided.
“It isn’t any different than Adolf Hitler convincing Germans and others that the white race is superior and therefore ….”
Indeed. The trouble is I got relatives who will tell you, now, that Adolph did’t have it all wrong.
And isn’t that what you are saying about the Jihadis?
It IS much too complicated.
Libby you have relatives that think Hitler had a few things right? Like what?
It’s only complicated if you paint with a broad brush to avoid the sticky issues and the ooky stuff.
It’s the same with the radical terrorists. They are right that Western social morality is bad…we complain about it all the time. We have put too much that should be kept private out there for all to see. We speak in horrible slang riddles with profanity. They are not right that blowing people up is holy and acceptable. They are not right that they can, without push back attempt to oppress the rest of the people in the world.
Turns out western civilization has come up with a very good, not perfect, system: freedom, individual rights, rule of law.
It’s about time you progressives began to appreciate it. Some of you recent remarks give me pause.
Tina: “Turns out western civilization has come up with a very good, not perfect, system: freedom, individual rights, rule of law.
It’s about time you progressives began to appreciate it. Some of you recent remarks give me pause.”
Hypocrite, you’re the one who just argued yesterday that we should take freedom and individual rights away from people who happen to be Muslim. You don’t get to lecture people about not “appreciating” our system when you don’t think it applies to minority groups you don’t like.
Alright Chris, I’ve had it, you’re being mean… please stop it! Tina is not a hypocrite because she disagrees with you!!! That was uncalled for! She has a right to her opinions. That is an attack on her character and she’s a good person who doesn’t deserve to be bullied like that.
NOBODY has said we need to take away freedom from Muslims. Just you. Nor have we said we must compromise their individual rights. Just you said that.
Nobody has a right to represent us in Congress, we use the vote to determine that and if we vote keep them out because of their religious affiliation that holds views inconsistent with our ideals, this is democracy at work. We have that right to be selective who we let in and we darn well better do a better job than we have.
WE THE PEOPLE, do have a right to restrict persons from certain high risk groups, i.e., the communist party, the Nazi party, anarchists, Satanic groups, etc. from holding top secret jobs in government or joining the military because it’s reasonable and prudent for obvious reasons and you know it!!! Nobody is crying over a member of the Communist party losing his or her rights to join the military are they?
I’ve only said there may come a time when we may have to extend that same logic to Muslims because of their track record which is just as bad as the Communists in my opinion, and this is with respect to their unusual politics infused with their religion. Their record speaks for itself.
Quit trying to start a fight by constantly misconstruing what we say or putting words in our mouth that we did not say! -Jack
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Jack, it is extremely hypocritical of someone to lecture “progressives” (as if we all think alike) of not appreciating our system of constitutional rights and freedoms, when you are in the very midst of arguing that those freedoms should be denied to a religious minoritiy. It is not “bullying” of me to point that out.
And your charge of bullying rings quite hollow when you have tolerated and encouraged much worse name-calling and ad hominem attacks against progressive posters from one commenter here, who will remain Pie Guevara.
You were not talking about “using the vote” to keep Muslims out of Congress, you were talking about a blanket ban, hence the comparison to Communists. You also spoke of a ban on Muslims in the military. So I have not misconstrued anything you’ve said; you are simply changing your own argument.
Since Muslims are a religious group, this proposal clearly does amount to a violation of their right to religious freedom. Period. It would never get past the Supreme Court, so let’s say we drop the subject? It’s an irrelevant argument in our system of freedom, individual rights, and rule of law. A system I appreciate a whole hell of a lot, if you must know.
“Tina is not a hypocrite because she disagrees with you!!!”
No, she’s a hypocrite because she disagrees with *herself.*
Chris: “Hypocrite, you’re the one who just argued yesterday that we should take freedom and individual rights away from people who happen to be Muslim”
No, I did not. That interpretation comes from your prejudice.
I argued that the person in question (not people who happen to be Muslim) doesn’t deserve protections under a Constitution and country he does not respect. His terrorist activity makes him a traitor to the country he supposedly adopted as his own.
You can accuse me of having a different opinion, Chris, but that’s about it.
Most of my focus has not been on how he will be tried as much as the way this administration has changed the way we fight terrorism. Much of what he has done has limited our ability to designate the terrorists as a terrorist.
I am still dumbfounded that the accused is charged with using a WMD. As one caller noted on radio today…they must not have pressure cookers, nails or ball-bearings in Iraq.
Tina: “No, I did not. That interpretation comes from your prejudice.”
You did agree with Jack, who said that Muslims should not be allowed into Congress or the military. Just now you called that “one very reasonable position.”
That policy would deny freedom and individual rights to a religious minority. If passed, it would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Because it is.
In light of your support for this clearly unconstitutional policy, your constant Constitution-thumping is absurd and hypocritical. Jack’s proposal is a clear violation of the first amendment.
But maybe the second amendment is the only one you two actually believe in.
Chris we will probably never communicate well with one another because you have a different idea about what constitutes our basic rights. Everything to you should be decided on the basis of rights alone and those rights just keep expanding. Soon they won’t mean anything.
What about responsibilities? What about the responsibility to uphold our laws, remain loyal to our nation and its values, defend and protect our country in times of trouble and war?
What about the rights of others? What about the right to live in peace and safety? When citizens choose to join in an international war against the US he should be treated like the enemy he has chosen to be…he is responsible for making that choice! That is an adult response. When we are under attack from an entity that plans to infiltrate and destroy from within steps should be taken to check that. Jack was making a few suggestions. You don’t have to agree but you don’t have to be rude either.
We were having a discussion; we were not writing law. In that context Jacks position is “very reasonable”. I think it should be on the table.
Discussion is still acceptable, Chris. You are acting, within this discussion format, like a dictator. Dictators don’t really believe in expression or rights. As it turns out they are pretty gutless and off the wall when it comes to fighting an enemy and when it comes to protecting the nation.
You’re just naive enough to think “it” (being put under the thumb of Sharia) couldn’t happen to you. What ignorance!
Hard decisions. Decisions made by strong leaders MUST be made at times like this. All things should at least be considered and once considered look for the parameters that would allow such a decision to work under our Constitution. Progressive lawyers are no the only legal voices in these matters.
“But maybe the second amendment is the only one you two actually believe in.”
And maybe fairy tales and dreams are the only thing you believe in.
Tina: “Chris we will probably never communicate well with one another because you have a different idea about what constitutes our basic rights.”
I am talking about basic rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. If you have a different idea, I’d love to hear what it is.
“Everything to you should be decided on the basis of rights alone”
No, that’s not true. I also factor responsibilities and risks into the equation. That’s why I support expanding background checks. One could easily argue that when it comes to the Second Amendment, you only consider rights, and not the responsibilities.
But you and Jack haven’t made a real case for why the Boston bomber should be tried as an enemy combatant, or why Muslims shouldn’t be allowed into Congress. You haven’t shown evidence that the alternatives are risky enough to justify limiting Constitutional rights. All rights have their limits, but there has to be a very compelling interest in order to make those limits.
You’ve shown no reason why Tsarnaev can’t be tried and appropriately punished under our normal civilian justice system. And you haven’t shown that radical Muslims have infiltrated our government, to the point where we should keep Muslims out as a general rule.
I am not against all restrictions of rights. We can agree that sometimes, it becomes necessary to sacrifice some freedom in the name of security. But these decisions can not be taken lightly. We have to be absolutely sure that the necessity exists first. Otherwise we fall victim to McCarthy-esque paranoia.
Chris: “I am talking about basic rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”
I realize that. I am interested in protecting those rights as well. However, I am also asking you to step out of that safe little PC world and think like an adult by imagining what steps you might have to take if this situation of homegrown bombers gets worse or if it’s discovered that Muslims dedicated to political Sharia rule and defeat of the American republic from within have indeed infiltrated our government.
You call me naive. I think you are both naive and ignorant of the designs of some Muslims. And it doesn’t matter that they are a minority few…they are at war with us and they are determined, driven by their religious zeal, to defeat us make their version of the religion a world wide political/religious/social authority.
this is something they are beginning to confront in Europe already.
Unfortunately you are of narrow mind and unwilling to even consider that we might need to compromise in some ways to protect what we have always assumed would remain.
“One could easily argue that when it comes to the Second Amendment, you only consider rights, and not the responsibilities.”
I would support an expanse of background checks except for one thing. The radical element that owns the Democrat Party is interested in removing guns from the hands of citizens and will use every incremental move as a starting point for the next law they introduce…they won’t stop and I do not trust them.
Besides, there are plenty of laws that are not enforced right now. I don’t think another law would be of much use in stopping murders at schools.
“You haven’t shown evidence that the alternatives are risky enough to justify limiting Constitutional rights.”
There is plenty of evidence as well as legal justification. The radicals in the Democrat Party have demonized the legal minds that have a different opinion and they have lied about the results of interrogation. The media helps them. the people are basically lied to and kept in the dark and not just for security reasons. The basic question is whether we acknowledge we are involved in a war or not. Obama prefers to pretend that radical Muslims are not war on America. Bush saw the enemy for what it was and took every possible step he could (justified by law) to keep us safe. Once a gain, the radicals on the left demonized his efforts and smeared his name every chance they got.
“We can agree that sometimes, it becomes necessary to sacrifice some freedom in the name of security. But these decisions can not be taken lightly.”
I doubt that Jack meant we should take them lightly. We should also not automatically dismiss the ideas either.
“Otherwise we fall victim to McCarthy-esque paranoia.”
You know what’s interesting about that era? The threat was real. The communist left in this country was interested in using the movie industry as a propaganda resource. McCarthy became a zealot. I personally believe he did, in part, because he was demonized for daring to ask questions and expose those who were actually card carrying members of the CPUSA taking orders fro Moscow. McCarthy allowed himself to become a victim of the ugly far left destructo-machine. He should have taken a different approach.
I can’t post an article but wanted to share two stories on the web today that apply to the subject of terrorists threats in America:
Informant: Taliban Living in America
Posted by Tina
Two words: BORDER SECURITY!
Read the story here.
Representative Louie Gohmert weighs in on this subject with the Daily Caller:
The American people are being sheltered in terms of the threat facing us. Anyone that does attempt to inform us is labeled an extremist nut case and dismissed.
Why?