So Iran, the great moderate Islam country that it is, is holding a holocaust conference.
No, I'm sure the choice of people visiting hasn't been stacked, and I'm sure it will be nice and civil and devoid of a political agenda...
...and while I'm dreaming, I want a pony.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Poor kids?
I feel more sorry for these poor mall Santas. Almost none of them look happy. A few look downright murderous...
Check it out!
Check it out!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Some more interesting thoughts...
Here are some discussions I had over at Billy's blog.
I thought I'd repost them for your enjoyment...
When looking at the middle east, what results of having a fully muslim country is atrocious.
Looking at David Koresh, Pat Robertson, etc. when a Christian screws up, we are quick to say, “he’s a nutball, and we don’t associate with them.”
In most of the Islamic contact I’ve had in college and otherwise, they tend to try to justify (poorly) acts of barbarism and inhumanity:
Suicide bombings in Israel? “It’s ours! They should be pushed out into the sea!”
Killing of Theo Van Gogh? “He was speaking blasphemy!”
In fact, I find it interesting that they never distance themselves from the act, they justify the reasoning.
The people in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt who were dancing in the streets, handing out free candy, etc., after 9/11 tend to make me doubt the peaceful nature of Islam.
As a Christian Counter-example, When Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell make their usual crack-pot denouncements, there is a quick slam from the formal church, both distancing and making it clear that there is no connection with them.
I see very little of that happening in the 10/40 window.
Where were the Christian Riots when Jeff MacDonald made his cartoon of Jesus giving oral sex to Piglet? (Note: link doesn’t actually show the image)
There weren’t. The matter was handled without deaths or destruction.
I guess the distinction I am making is in dealing with Islam as a culture or on a personal basis. I forget where I heard it, but I think this rings true: “A person is smart; people, are dumb, panicky animals”.
As for them growing so fast, I remember in the 1990s, the fear was that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormans were going to take over. “The mainstream church will be eclipsed by 20xx!”
And yet, here we are.
I do think that it is fruitless for us to sit here in our Christian-advantaged surroundings and postulate about “reaching out” to Muslim people when there is no threat of reprisal.
Living inside the 10/40 window, such an invitation would have to be kept in secret, and invites the possibility of death or permanent ban from the country.
My only fear is that the Muslim community will become a “squeeky wheel” to badger people into submission. People will voluntarily self-censor themselves out of fear.
I like Piglet. I like people questioning my religon. I like freedom to question any religon. Having a “dialogue” with another religon is kinda limiting if it means you can’t question any of their precepts or perceptions.
The recent “Cartoon riots” show, in my mind, a willingness to resort to violence when something is critical of their religious perception. Yet, I don’t think anyone of us would feel any hesitancy to field questions about priest and altar boys.
And this behavior is the point I am trying to make: Having a “dialogue” with an American Muslim is not as you would have with a 10/40 Muslim.
I guess what I am looking at is the fruit of a mostly-muslim nation. When Muslims are allowed to run the entire show (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.), human rights go out the window. We are dealing with a conquering enemy, something our generation has not had to contend with.
In my mind, this is not Britain and Brussels getting together to talk over a border dispute. Imagine, as Alexander was approaching India, the leaders of the Kambojas asked him to “dialogue”.
As you stated, correctly, I think, “in Islam she[christianity] has her only rival for the conquest of the world.” You are right there. They are attempting to take over the world. And as I was saying before, I suspect that their attempts in the US will not be successful due to existing laws and attitudes that will make things difficult. If anything, they will have to dillute the anti-Jewish/Christian/infidel retoric here.
The American Muslims here might be nice, pleasant, what have you. However, the 10/40 muslims show nowhere near the same amount of tolerance.
But what happens if they decide not to tone it down? How do we respond? If they gain sufficient numbers that the more radical Mullahs/Imams/whatever come over, what do we do at that point? What if, while attempting to hold them on hate-crime charges, we encounter riots? It’s a scenario I see happening all too easily.
I am a WWII warfare buff. I think it was fascinating how the world came together to combat a true evil, and (barely) came out victorious.
Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, we see much of the same.
No, the vast majority of muslims will not attempt to suicide Israeli malls. However, when it happens, they will not think it a tragedy. When Iran calls for Israel to be “pushed into the sea”, they may not march in support, but they don't consider it a disgrace.
That is where I find the most difference. Any Christian who firebombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christ will find himself shunned and decried by all but the most extreme of screwballs. Heck, a Secret Serviceman who made anti-Muslim slurs is being charged.
If it happened in Iran, and it were anti-Israeli slurs, how much of an investigation do you think there would have been?
My fear is not the Muslims actively committing acts of violence. It’s the many many more Muslims supporting these acts of violence passively.
And sure, there are the few who are willing to stand up against them, but they are in the minority.
Billy, you mentioned about the people talking about the active cheering on the part of Christians inside the church. My response is that their impulses were that of Americans, not as Christians. This makes them not acting right as Christians.
With Muslims, well, the ones I have come into contact with anyway, are very emphatic that their anti-west, anti-Israel attitudes are part of their religious fervor, not out of any nationalistic pride. Indeed, it is amazing how Imans are the firebrands that tend to whip up a country, whereas over here, it’s more the politicians that have to motivate people to action.
I have no problems with reaching out to Muslims over here in the US. The governing laws and its enforcement make it next to impossible for them to use religious excuses to exact Sharia law.
A discussion amongst some of my friends overseas sparked an interesting point:
The key to unravelling the Muslim thread could lie in their women.
Inside the 10/40 window, especially in the lesser rich areas, women are almost property. After one of my friends (who is a red-cross nurse in Qatar), witnessed how they are treated, she said they are pretty much “brood bitches” I.E. they are there to make a nest, and crank out more soldiers for the fight against Israel and the west. (There is even a phrase: "Women are for children, men are for fun" Yes, closeted homosexuality is rampant there)
She suggested exposure to the freedoms that are available to women at a younger age could cause many of them to not wish to tow the religious line, resulting in a more moderate female population.
Interesting thought…
I thought I'd repost them for your enjoyment...
When looking at the middle east, what results of having a fully muslim country is atrocious.
Looking at David Koresh, Pat Robertson, etc. when a Christian screws up, we are quick to say, “he’s a nutball, and we don’t associate with them.”
In most of the Islamic contact I’ve had in college and otherwise, they tend to try to justify (poorly) acts of barbarism and inhumanity:
Suicide bombings in Israel? “It’s ours! They should be pushed out into the sea!”
Killing of Theo Van Gogh? “He was speaking blasphemy!”
In fact, I find it interesting that they never distance themselves from the act, they justify the reasoning.
The people in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt who were dancing in the streets, handing out free candy, etc., after 9/11 tend to make me doubt the peaceful nature of Islam.
As a Christian Counter-example, When Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell make their usual crack-pot denouncements, there is a quick slam from the formal church, both distancing and making it clear that there is no connection with them.
I see very little of that happening in the 10/40 window.
Where were the Christian Riots when Jeff MacDonald made his cartoon of Jesus giving oral sex to Piglet? (Note: link doesn’t actually show the image)
There weren’t. The matter was handled without deaths or destruction.
I guess the distinction I am making is in dealing with Islam as a culture or on a personal basis. I forget where I heard it, but I think this rings true: “A person is smart; people, are dumb, panicky animals”.
As for them growing so fast, I remember in the 1990s, the fear was that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormans were going to take over. “The mainstream church will be eclipsed by 20xx!”
And yet, here we are.
I do think that it is fruitless for us to sit here in our Christian-advantaged surroundings and postulate about “reaching out” to Muslim people when there is no threat of reprisal.
Living inside the 10/40 window, such an invitation would have to be kept in secret, and invites the possibility of death or permanent ban from the country.
My only fear is that the Muslim community will become a “squeeky wheel” to badger people into submission. People will voluntarily self-censor themselves out of fear.
I like Piglet. I like people questioning my religon. I like freedom to question any religon. Having a “dialogue” with another religon is kinda limiting if it means you can’t question any of their precepts or perceptions.
The recent “Cartoon riots” show, in my mind, a willingness to resort to violence when something is critical of their religious perception. Yet, I don’t think anyone of us would feel any hesitancy to field questions about priest and altar boys.
And this behavior is the point I am trying to make: Having a “dialogue” with an American Muslim is not as you would have with a 10/40 Muslim.
I guess what I am looking at is the fruit of a mostly-muslim nation. When Muslims are allowed to run the entire show (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.), human rights go out the window. We are dealing with a conquering enemy, something our generation has not had to contend with.
In my mind, this is not Britain and Brussels getting together to talk over a border dispute. Imagine, as Alexander was approaching India, the leaders of the Kambojas asked him to “dialogue”.
As you stated, correctly, I think, “in Islam she[christianity] has her only rival for the conquest of the world.” You are right there. They are attempting to take over the world. And as I was saying before, I suspect that their attempts in the US will not be successful due to existing laws and attitudes that will make things difficult. If anything, they will have to dillute the anti-Jewish/Christian/infidel retoric here.
The American Muslims here might be nice, pleasant, what have you. However, the 10/40 muslims show nowhere near the same amount of tolerance.
But what happens if they decide not to tone it down? How do we respond? If they gain sufficient numbers that the more radical Mullahs/Imams/whatever come over, what do we do at that point? What if, while attempting to hold them on hate-crime charges, we encounter riots? It’s a scenario I see happening all too easily.
I am a WWII warfare buff. I think it was fascinating how the world came together to combat a true evil, and (barely) came out victorious.
Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, we see much of the same.
No, the vast majority of muslims will not attempt to suicide Israeli malls. However, when it happens, they will not think it a tragedy. When Iran calls for Israel to be “pushed into the sea”, they may not march in support, but they don't consider it a disgrace.
That is where I find the most difference. Any Christian who firebombs an abortion clinic in the name of Christ will find himself shunned and decried by all but the most extreme of screwballs. Heck, a Secret Serviceman who made anti-Muslim slurs is being charged.
If it happened in Iran, and it were anti-Israeli slurs, how much of an investigation do you think there would have been?
My fear is not the Muslims actively committing acts of violence. It’s the many many more Muslims supporting these acts of violence passively.
And sure, there are the few who are willing to stand up against them, but they are in the minority.
Billy, you mentioned about the people talking about the active cheering on the part of Christians inside the church. My response is that their impulses were that of Americans, not as Christians. This makes them not acting right as Christians.
With Muslims, well, the ones I have come into contact with anyway, are very emphatic that their anti-west, anti-Israel attitudes are part of their religious fervor, not out of any nationalistic pride. Indeed, it is amazing how Imans are the firebrands that tend to whip up a country, whereas over here, it’s more the politicians that have to motivate people to action.
I have no problems with reaching out to Muslims over here in the US. The governing laws and its enforcement make it next to impossible for them to use religious excuses to exact Sharia law.
A discussion amongst some of my friends overseas sparked an interesting point:
The key to unravelling the Muslim thread could lie in their women.
Inside the 10/40 window, especially in the lesser rich areas, women are almost property. After one of my friends (who is a red-cross nurse in Qatar), witnessed how they are treated, she said they are pretty much “brood bitches” I.E. they are there to make a nest, and crank out more soldiers for the fight against Israel and the west. (There is even a phrase: "Women are for children, men are for fun" Yes, closeted homosexuality is rampant there)
She suggested exposure to the freedoms that are available to women at a younger age could cause many of them to not wish to tow the religious line, resulting in a more moderate female population.
Interesting thought…
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Revenge of the Religon of Peace...
So, let me get this straight...as part of our appeasal of the Muslim faith, we can't:
Transport Booze in a Taxi
Transport Dogs in a taxi (Seeing eye dogs included)
Or Have a building shaped like a cube
Might I suggest something for the Muslim faith:
To be fair, Christianity has its share of recent homicidal tendancies...for instance, when Andres Serrano dunked a crucifix in a tank of his own urine, the rioting was severe....oh...wait...
Transport Booze in a Taxi
Transport Dogs in a taxi (Seeing eye dogs included)
Or Have a building shaped like a cube
Might I suggest something for the Muslim faith:
To be fair, Christianity has its share of recent homicidal tendancies...for instance, when Andres Serrano dunked a crucifix in a tank of his own urine, the rioting was severe....oh...wait...
Monday, October 02, 2006
Grab Bag of stuff:
Well, another terrorist raid was conducted in Iraq.
It would appear that an 18 year old conducting the raid left a memento courtesy of Kevin Smith.
A little background for those of you who don't get it.
Also, a collection of REALLY good quotes came across my desk:
"Fighters are Fun, but Bombers make policy"
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
It would appear that an 18 year old conducting the raid left a memento courtesy of Kevin Smith.
A little background for those of you who don't get it.
Also, a collection of REALLY good quotes came across my desk:
"Fighters are Fun, but Bombers make policy"
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
Friday, September 22, 2006
You women are gonna hate me...
Ok, here's a little story about Joe:
Joe, after quitting T-ball in 3/4th grade, didn't really get a lot of exercise.
About 7th grade, Joe starts finding out he needs Large shirts.
There was a basketball league in high school.
Some Karate in 10th grade for a couple of years.
Then, he joined a gym about the 2nd year of jr. college.
Finally, some definition appeared on his body. Things were looking good.
Joe finds out he needs XL shirts.
Then Joe met Carrie. Joe was in love, and (foolishly) thought she was too.
While Joe and Carrie went to the gym together, they didn't spend as much time there, because they were too busy hanging out with each other.
So Joe goes to University, and cancels his gym membership.
Being an engineer, he can't spend as much time at the free on-school gym as he'd like.
While Joe is swelling down in muscle size, he's noticing that there is some flab appearing on the body. Not a good thing.
Joe graduates college, and, after a year of unemployment, finally works for NAVSEA.
A year later, having paid off his car a year early, he decides to re-join the gym he was at in Jr. College (Yes, he was living at home again at this point).
Having been a flabby-body, it is hard to work it off, especially with all of mom's good cookin' available to him.
So, early this year, Joe moves out. He gets a place in Santa Barbara.
He's still buying XL shirts because, hey...he's still XL, right?
After living on Yogurt and Vegatables for about six months, and rigorous workouts, Joe accidently made a discovery today when trying on some old clothes:
Joe can fit in MEDIUM shirts now.
Joe, after quitting T-ball in 3/4th grade, didn't really get a lot of exercise.
About 7th grade, Joe starts finding out he needs Large shirts.
There was a basketball league in high school.
Some Karate in 10th grade for a couple of years.
Then, he joined a gym about the 2nd year of jr. college.
Finally, some definition appeared on his body. Things were looking good.
Joe finds out he needs XL shirts.
Then Joe met Carrie. Joe was in love, and (foolishly) thought she was too.
While Joe and Carrie went to the gym together, they didn't spend as much time there, because they were too busy hanging out with each other.
So Joe goes to University, and cancels his gym membership.
Being an engineer, he can't spend as much time at the free on-school gym as he'd like.
While Joe is swelling down in muscle size, he's noticing that there is some flab appearing on the body. Not a good thing.
Joe graduates college, and, after a year of unemployment, finally works for NAVSEA.
A year later, having paid off his car a year early, he decides to re-join the gym he was at in Jr. College (Yes, he was living at home again at this point).
Having been a flabby-body, it is hard to work it off, especially with all of mom's good cookin' available to him.
So, early this year, Joe moves out. He gets a place in Santa Barbara.
He's still buying XL shirts because, hey...he's still XL, right?
After living on Yogurt and Vegatables for about six months, and rigorous workouts, Joe accidently made a discovery today when trying on some old clothes:
Joe can fit in MEDIUM shirts now.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
New freedom in the Chinese marketplace...
You have the freedom to be monitored by students. That's right...the government is paying students to monitor forums and report people who aren't towing the party (pardon the pun) line.
Sweet jebus on a stick...it's 1984, but in China. These people are reporting the "Spies of Goldstein" in forums.
And if that wasn't bad enough, now the Chinese media is telling foreign press what they can and can't report.
In unrelated news, China has become a haven for fuzzy bunnies and rainbows. Tiananmen Square never happened. And Taiwan is part of the mainland China. And Tibet too.
Nope, everything is perfect in China. As long as you belong to $Official_State_Religon, you'll be ok, I guess.
Sweet jebus on a stick...it's 1984, but in China. These people are reporting the "Spies of Goldstein" in forums.
And if that wasn't bad enough, now the Chinese media is telling foreign press what they can and can't report.
In unrelated news, China has become a haven for fuzzy bunnies and rainbows. Tiananmen Square never happened. And Taiwan is part of the mainland China. And Tibet too.
Nope, everything is perfect in China. As long as you belong to $Official_State_Religon, you'll be ok, I guess.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Welcome to the US...
Here's the breakdown: using a series of laws that you and I will NEVER have to learn, the visiting Iranian ex-president has been sued by a group of Iranian Jews who allege that his policies were the cause of their relatives' dissapearence and torture.
The article goes on to say that they had the suit all ready to go, and had to wait until he was physically in the US to serve it. It also says it was personally served to him.
I would pay big money to see that on youtube/video google.
Folks, Abu Gharab was a frat prank.
If you want to see real torturers in action, watch American trial lawyers.
Give them an opportunity and a profit motive, and I'll bet Saddam would curl up into a fetal position and ask for death by piano wire.
Personally, I'm inclined to let them have their way with this waste of oxygen.
You think the Bush Administration is going to do anything?
I hope not.
Ok, I'm out.
The article goes on to say that they had the suit all ready to go, and had to wait until he was physically in the US to serve it. It also says it was personally served to him.
I would pay big money to see that on youtube/video google.
Folks, Abu Gharab was a frat prank.
If you want to see real torturers in action, watch American trial lawyers.
Give them an opportunity and a profit motive, and I'll bet Saddam would curl up into a fetal position and ask for death by piano wire.
Personally, I'm inclined to let them have their way with this waste of oxygen.
You think the Bush Administration is going to do anything?
I hope not.
Ok, I'm out.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Interesting stuff...
Well, Al Zahawri and his Californian buddy have invited all Americans to join Islam. You know, I'd like to see what would happen if the DoD just wrote them and said, "ok". How could they justify bombing us then? Mind you, I'm not talking about actually converting. Just give them a momentary bit of confusion. Kind of like when you used to play tug of war, and the other team would just let go. Threw you off balance, didn't it?
In other news, here's a very sad story, and can help explain why I am anti-union:
*ahem* Canadian Soldier dies.
Town Canadian soldier was in finds out on a Saturday
Town Canadian soldier was in wants to lower the flags half mast.
None of the unionized workers were in, as by union rules, they had the day off.
So, a Councillor comes in on his off hours to do it himself.
Union files a grievance, as raising and lowering the flag is a union job
Asshats...
In other news, here's a very sad story, and can help explain why I am anti-union:
*ahem* Canadian Soldier dies.
Town Canadian soldier was in finds out on a Saturday
Town Canadian soldier was in wants to lower the flags half mast.
None of the unionized workers were in, as by union rules, they had the day off.
So, a Councillor comes in on his off hours to do it himself.
Union files a grievance, as raising and lowering the flag is a union job
Asshats...
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Shoe Bomber...
Hey...the shoe bomber was sentanced....a long time ago...
And the judge basically bitch-slapped him, his point of view, his religous justification for murder, and his questionable motives.
I nominate this for the new speech that should recieve "Gettysburg Address" noteriety.
Any takers?
And the judge basically bitch-slapped him, his point of view, his religous justification for murder, and his questionable motives.
I nominate this for the new speech that should recieve "Gettysburg Address" noteriety.
Any takers?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Interesting point...
on fark.com forums:
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
"How do they determine who is a civilian and who is hezbullah?
I mean 300 of the 450 Lebanese civilians killed could be Hezbullah...they all wear civilian clothes and operate out of apartment buildings, schools, hospitals etc.
All they need to do is remove the AK47 from dead bodies hands and all of a sudden they are a 'civilian'..."
Interesting tactic...like arming your 12 and 14-year olds, sending them out to fight, then lamenting Israel for "killing innocent children" when they are forced to defend themselves.
And now I repeat my mantra: "There are precious few problems in this world that greater firepower cannot solve".
Interesting language...
"Disproportionate"
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
I always thought that term was suspect...Does that mean that Israel has the right to send suicide bombers into Palestinian? Should they have simply sat back and launched rockets back into Lebanon? This would have been akin to England not invading Germany, but instead firing rockets back into Germany.
War is not a proportionate affair. You overtake and destroy your enemy. That's how wars are won. If a small guy does not have the firepower necessary to destroy an enemy's army, he should either ally with a larger army, or sue for peace. This idea of "fairness" does not equate to the battlefield, nor will it ever.
I also love how the talk is now focuses on civilian casualties. What they fail to focus on is Hezbollah using civilians as shields
Israel has warned all those not affiliated with Hezbollah to evacuate. Those staying behind know the risks. As I outlined earlier, the UN tower that was attacked was being used as a Hezbollah firing position.
This is necessary to demonize Israel for "killing innocents". It's evil at its worst, and needs to be rooted out.
Friday, July 28, 2006
North korea is pissing everyone off..
Even China is getting upset with them.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
See, China is in an interesting place right now. They can't attack the U.S., much as I'm sure they would like to. This is because we are investing a lot of money in/with them, and they require the financial capital in order to grow.
China is attempting to play on the public market, and requires some clean-up in order to do so. For instance, with the Bejing olympics only two years away, they are attempting to teach their populace to wash their hands and not spit in public.
How does this fit in with North Korea? Well, as China can't attack us directly, they have to use intermediaries. And right now, they have us in a bind.
North Korea, has enough conventional arms pointed at Seoul to wipe it out on first strike if a war should break out.
So we have to protect our ally carefully.
On the other side, we have to protect our heavy investments in Taiwan. China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, but Taiwan isn't having any.
So how are these related?
Simple. China will use the threat of one to counter-act the other. If we protect South Korea in a war against North (again), our protection of Taiwan falters. And, if China makes a push to retain Taiwan, it simply has their North Korea puppet get hot over in South Korea in order to spread our forces out.
Bush is playing a diplomatic tightrope right now, and playing it well. The only reason we aren't in a mad rush to go in hot and heavy into North Korea is that Kim Jong Il isn't paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in South Korea. He is only starving his own people, and not really attacking outside his borders, except for the occasional saber-rattling (I.E. missile tests). We can take our time and see how far a diplomatic approach takes.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The religon of peace...
It is times like this that I am grateful for people like Jack Hayford, who provide a moment of clarity in the chaos.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
To stand with Israel is not to oppose Arab peoples as an entity or to oppose the rights of Arabs living in Israel to a peaceful, politically secure, and prosperous life.
God has no disposition against any human being, certainly not Arabs who are the
offspring of Ishmael, the other son of His chosen leader Abraham. Standing for Israel doesn’t require an anti-Arab stance and doesn’t require us to be loveless toward other peoples.
The relentless animosities of sectors of the Arab world are not merely political causes but are driven by spiritual powers that will not be satisfied until Israel ceases to exist.
The forces opposed to Israel are not simply those of people who don’t like Jews. We are caught in the stream of spiritual forces greater than humanity, forces that cannot be overthrown politically or by the power of persuasion. These forces can only be broken by intercessory prayer where principalities and powers are cast down.
The same spirit driving these animosities is equally opposed to Christians as to Jews and in time will eventually bring persecution to both.
Just as Scripture states there are two witnesses that will be put to death in Jerusalem at the very end of time (Revelation 11), there have been two witnesses that have stood for God throughout history – the Jews and the Christians. The hostilities and animosities are just as leveled at believers as they are at Israel, because there is a spirit in the world that is against all that is called God and everything about Him.
• God as Creator – to Whom we owe our worship.
• God as Judge – to Whom we owe our accountability.
• God as Redeemer – Who has shown Himself through His Son, Jesus.
• God as the moral Lawgiver of all humanity – to Whom we owe a responsibility in terms of our behavior.
I have no problems with any Muslim who wishes to live in peace. However, it is the passive/agressive nature of the people of Muslim faith that has me concerned. Those not performing acts of violence are very often supporting it passively, or justifying it.
As I commented in another blog, to take a lesson from another Jewish-hating culture, and, at the risk of Godwin-ing this blog:
"Reading Steven Ambrose’s books (Citizen Soldier, Band Of Brothers, etc.), which are biographical accounts of WWII’s european campaigns, the soldiers were amazed how they travelled up and down Germany, but never found a nazi. (Imagine that).
Yet, the culture is what allowed for Auschwitz, Chełmno, etc. It wasn’t that the whole of the population was active in the Extermination camps, but because they were hardened via propaganda/culture, even if it didn’t lead to ACTIVE agression towards jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., the culture they contributed to allowed these atrocities to occur.
In Islam, I see much of the same."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Simply amazing...
Sooo....I'm visiting out here in San Fernando Valley with some friends (LA for those of you who don't know around where that is... )
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
It seems that I've met up with a bunch of my former classmates...It was cathartic to hear about all of the "in-crowd"'s "after-high-school" lives. (Hint to all you High Schoolers...once High School is over, popularity means nothing..)
I was amazed at how many times someone would say, "so-and-so turned into a complete [Rhymes-like-witch]", or, "She was so stuck up...". Meanwhile, I, having been on the outside of the whole social scene, simply went, "umm...duh?"
I'm also glad I skipped out on the whole "oh, she met this guy, got pregnant, married the guy, cheated on him, divorced him and re-married after she became pregnant with his kids, etc." drama scene. Turns out that many of my former classmates didn't have it together nearly as much as they let on.
All those Friday nights alone with my computer seems like time well spent...
Sunday, July 02, 2006
In the twinkle of a Liberal eye...
I was thinking of something while driving home...Those of the left-leaning ilk have set themselves up for quite a conundrum:
They make the insinuation that life under Bush is a facist government.
Yet they support Gun Control.
Let me tell you why that is a contradictory point of view to take:
"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
--Federalist Paper #29.
The purpose behind the second amendment is to assure that, should the government become too abusive of power, the people could take it back.
The typical liberal slant on the US today is that the present state is the end-times for the US, and all is lost.
If that were the case, you would think they would be all for unrestricting Gun-control laws to take back the govnerment.
But, they aren't.
Why?
Because it is simply more political posturing.
Please, make no mistake. I am NOT advocating the overthrow the US by force by any means.
I think the measures that the liberals decry so much are being done because of the times that we live in.
We can't go back to being isolationist.
And we've done this sort of thing before.
FDR had six Nazi terrorists shot without a trial.
Lincoln arrested southern politicians, thereby denying southern governments the chance to get together to vote for secession. And denied due process for their trial.
Go read up on the the stuff we did during the cold war...it'll raise your neckhairs...
The point is: the purpose of our military and intelligence services is to protect democracy, not practice it.
And as far as I am concerned, if you are in the US or another country, and you are attacking us without wearing a uniform, you have no rights to geneva convention protection.
We play by the rules. You should too.
With that, I'm out
They make the insinuation that life under Bush is a facist government.
Yet they support Gun Control.
Let me tell you why that is a contradictory point of view to take:
"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''
--Federalist Paper #29.
The purpose behind the second amendment is to assure that, should the government become too abusive of power, the people could take it back.
The typical liberal slant on the US today is that the present state is the end-times for the US, and all is lost.
If that were the case, you would think they would be all for unrestricting Gun-control laws to take back the govnerment.
But, they aren't.
Why?
Because it is simply more political posturing.
Please, make no mistake. I am NOT advocating the overthrow the US by force by any means.
I think the measures that the liberals decry so much are being done because of the times that we live in.
We can't go back to being isolationist.
And we've done this sort of thing before.
FDR had six Nazi terrorists shot without a trial.
Lincoln arrested southern politicians, thereby denying southern governments the chance to get together to vote for secession. And denied due process for their trial.
Go read up on the the stuff we did during the cold war...it'll raise your neckhairs...
The point is: the purpose of our military and intelligence services is to protect democracy, not practice it.
And as far as I am concerned, if you are in the US or another country, and you are attacking us without wearing a uniform, you have no rights to geneva convention protection.
We play by the rules. You should too.
With that, I'm out
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Interesting question...
Ignoring the "Christian answer", on a strictly instinctual basis, which one of these two statements leads you to believe the speaker is simply ignorant, and which one leads you to believe the speaker is hateful?
"The Catholic church is composed of nothing but pedophilic priests"
"The Muslim religon is composed of nothing but mindless terrorists"
Now, why did you answer the way you did?
"The Catholic church is composed of nothing but pedophilic priests"
"The Muslim religon is composed of nothing but mindless terrorists"
Now, why did you answer the way you did?
Would you pay to be a member?
It seems that somebody in Finland has created a website to assist people in resigning from the church.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Evidently, in order to become a member of the church (formal member) in Finland, you have to pay a yearly tax.
People are leaving the church, most often not because of religious issues, but because they don't want to pay.
It's silly to think that you could have a tithe and a cost of membership when the supposed purpose of a church is to facilitate people's growth in Christ.
I think this is an indicator that Finland is fallow ground for those offering to show them a personal relationship with God.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Shouldn't be laughing...
You ever surf the 'net, and find something that you are laughing at that you shouldn't be?
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Here's another..
A mix of music and events I would have never put together myself...
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Interesting turn of events...
Them some crazy peoples there.
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
It would appear that the less-violent faction/pro-Abbas (the Palestinian president) Fatah faction have started attacking the Hamas-led Palestinian rest-of-the-government.
Their main gripe is that Hamas has been opposed to Abbas, since Abbas took steps to limit the Hamas' ability to curb militant islamic factions.
So, let me get this straight: A man who wants to end the violence is being represented by people who are violently ravaging the other side to drive home the point that they want less violence?
My head hurts...
Saturday, June 10, 2006
France and Iraq...
I just found the following interesting...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Being a young'n, I had no idea that the Jaques Chirac sold Iraq a Nuclear Reactor...
Israel took it out in a mission that shocked the world.
Interesting quote from the leader of the Israeli Mission: (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak)
"Deterrence was not attained by other countries – France and Italy – and even the United States. It was attained by the State of Israel and its Prime Minster who decided, acted and created a fact that no one in the world today – with the exception of our enemies – regrets." -- Yitzhak Shamir
Here is a 45 minute documentary on it.
Very interesting, I think...
Al Zarqawi's last words...
A reported, right before he died, Al Zarqawi mumbled something.
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
They have determined what his last words were:
"Shma Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad"
Friday, June 09, 2006
Another one bites the dust..
So...in case you haven't noticed, we've killed Al-Zarqawi.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
The Father of Nick Berg, the journalist decapitated on live TV, claims that only violence will emerge from this attack. A confirmed Pacifist, he makes some rather astounding claims, dealt with further down:
People like this frustrate me. They claim "forgiveness and peace". Which is admirable, except for two things:
1) This is a people dedicated to wiping out people on the basis of religious grounds. When dealing with a spiritual "call" like that, there is no turning back, except for a change in relgion, which, in that environment, is highly unlikely.
2) Pacifism does not work against terrorism. Pacifism entails going against an existing system to show that you will withstand any punishment in order to see your way through. Pacifism against terrorism only provides them with easy targets to destroy. Remember, the victims of terrorism are not the same as the casualties. Victims are those that live in fear when the casualties are killed. Pacifists are actually working FOR the terrorist ideal by de-arming and encouraging the availability of open targets.
Further, I think Bush and Co. have done an excellent job of not making this out to be a political "so there!" speech. They have downplayed the effects in order to take pressure off of our fighting men and women.
The other things that the bombing does is really discourage anyone from taking over his role. All the press releases I have make mention of the fact that "we are looking at so-and-so as the next one to look for". Who really wants to attract that level of scrutiny?
Another thing that I found somewhat humorous is the fact that he was so over the top, that even Al Qaeda asked him to tone it down.
Mr. Berg's comments go as follows:
"Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.
Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.
Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?"
In any time in history, whenever there is a removal of a corrupt power, a power vacuum exists. In this vacuum, others rush in to fill it.
I suspect that one of the primary reasons we got involved in Iraq was that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers up to $25,000 per attack. In response, the Israeli army were evacuating, then razing the houses of suicide bombers so that it was a net zero transaction.
As you can imagine, this added lots of tension in the middle of an already tense peace process.
I strongly suspect that this was one of our factors for invading Iraq. However, those in the Arab culture that would rather see Israel "Pushed into the sea" have flooded into the area, determined to bring back the Good 'ole days. So in response, I would say that the removal of Saddam saw less killings in Israel. The killing of Al-Zarqawi is a step towards the removal of Al Qaeda as a factor in Iraqi politics.
Yes, there are more deaths in the short term. It is a turbulent time. Would he have preferred that the rape rooms and the arbitrary executions continue? Somehow I think not. You are taking 14th century culture and bringing it kicking and screaming to the 21st century. Look how even today, the MPAA and the RIAA are resisting new technologies that have been introduced only in the last decade.
Change is difficult. Change is strenuous. But it has to happen. Otherwise, we become attached to the past in was that cannot be reconciled with the modern world. Kinda like a 60s peacenik in a post 9/11 world...
Ok, that's it. I'm done ranting...Carry on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)