... and is questioned by the federal judge, Miriam Cedarbaum:
"I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times over because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes ... we will be attacking the U.S.," he said. "And I plead guilty to that."...
"Did you look around to see who they were?" Cedarbaum asked him of his potential victims.
"Well, the people select the government," Shahzad said. "We consider them all the same. ..."
"Including the children?" the judge demanded.
"Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody," Shahzad fired back.
"They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims."
"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad told the judge. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
"And it's a war to kill people..."
IN THE COMMENTS: Irene says:
" 'And it's a war to kill people...' "
The bomber broadcasts a reality that many Americans refuse to acknowledge.
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
It's tee time somewhere.
Relax. Everything's under control.
Puts it in perspective, doesn't it? This is what we are fighting.
Of course we can stop bombing them, so they can get back to the important work of blowing up skyscrapers and other important projects.
Don't worry, Pogo. Obama has declared war on Arizona.
This sonofabitch should have been shot weeks ago.
Sure, AllenS and Pogo -- all those American heros in Afganistan and Iraq and Pakistan are just hanging out. We sent them all on Billion dollar per day vacations.
He's not wearing a uniform. The procedure is to shoot him after a military trail.
What the fuck are you talking about, danielle?
But we must remember that he was motivated by angst over the fate of ObamaCare. Nothing else to see here, folks, and certainly not jihad or anything having a religious origin. Just a near miss of a 'man-caused disaster' having no other name and no explanation that our Attorney General can think of. So move on.
Danielle obviously doesn't mind a few thousand Americans getting killed. They obviously deserved death.
danielle, you should take up golf.
I understand it's very relaxing.
I don't know what Danielle is talking about.
Perhaps it's the way that people supposedly on our own side emphasize collateral damage no matter how carefully we try to avoid it or how hamstrung our forces are by ROE or how many of our soldiers die because we *don't* target children, which makes it possible for a piece of shit like this to act as if it's all the same thing when children are targeted purposefully and civilians are targeted purposefully.
Same damn thing.
"I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times over because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes ... we will be attacking the U.S.," he said.
I suppose if anyone is paying attention to these nimrods, it won't matter whether we pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq. We weren't in either place on 9/11 and the Islamofascists still found an excuse to kill Americans. They attached us in 1993, then the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, our embassys in Kenya and Tanzania.
Funny how its always something with these guys isn't it?
Yet Holder et. al. refuse to clarify Islamic terror as terror, much less war. Jihad is just another "tenet" of Islam, the religion of peace. Is there any doubt that this President and administraion have no allegiance to this country? It all boils down to a Non Natural Born Citizen (father never a citizen), that has been installed in office to put the final touches of the destruction of the Constitution, and the sovereignty of American citizens. Has he been on the right side of any issue regarding the security of the US? But we the people that question his allegiance and his authority are the wingnuts?
The sky is green and the world is flat....
On a lighter note: La Cage Al Qaeda!
http://www.therightscoop.com/hilarous-glenn-beck-mocks-adam-gadahn
" 'And it's a war to kill people...' "
The bomber broadcasts a reality that many Americans refuse to acknowledge.
Hossier wrote: "it won't matter whether we pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq." Indeed. They will either line up to die while trying to kill our soldiers over there or our civilians over here.
I like the first option. Our soldiers will give them the ticket to the afterlife they so richly deserve. God bless and keep the men and women who protect us, but I would rather have them fighting over there than over here.
The fight is inescapable, the location is open to influence if you understand the situation and do not put some arbitrary timetable on the was as if it were another committee meeting.
Trey
Given Shazad's comments at sentencing, when do we bring treason charges against him?
He is clearly an American citizen making war on the United States.
Never-ending revenge. *sigh*
Grow up, Cassie. The thing is to keep killing them until they get their minds right. It worked with the Japanese.
What stopped the Japanese, were two nucular bombs.
"The more we kill today, the fewer we have to kill tomorrow".
- William Tecumseh Sherman, on how to win the Indian Wars.
The problem is that, unlike the days when Cump and Little Phil were calling the shots, the crazies doubt the severity of our purpose and, with The Zero in DC, who can blame them? As I said in an earlier post, Zero is trying all the things his master of gravitas, Halo Joe Biden, and the rest of the Elect wanted to do in Iraq and it's getting a lot of our guys killed in A-Stan. The Limeys had a similar problem in the Sepoy Mutiny and made quite sure the mutineers understood the severity of the Widow of Windsor's purpose.
James said...
Danielle obviously doesn't mind a few thousand Americans getting killed. They obviously deserved death.
danielle is Robert Cook in drag, although Cook isn't quite as much a homer for the administration.
"I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
A US citizen who voluntarily becomes a "soldier" of a foreign enemy to make war on the US of A is guilty of treason. Holder should now add that charge so that the sentence can be increased to self-fulfill Shahzad's wish:"it's a war to kill people".
Guys,
We can't charge him with treason--then Muslims wouldn't like us any more.
I think there is a confusion between acts of terrorism and war. Obviously bombing New Jersey will not stop the terrorist in Florida, any more than fighting in Afghanistan has stopped the terrorist in Pakistan these last eight years. Clearly what we need are more T-Shirt vendors as just killing "them" doesn't seem to work.
It's too bad he was given a platform from which to speak.
What stopped the Japanese, were two nucular bombs.
What stopped the Japanese was thier belief that we had more than two when in reality we shot the wad with Fat Man and Little Boy. As far as the Emperor and the Imperial High Command were concerned, we had no plans to stop and were facing the prospect of societal annihilation.
The problem is that few people truly understand how brutal both theaters in WW2 were and the number of people that were killed from strategic bombing alone. Most acknowledge the evil of the Axis powers but don't appreciate the level of destruction that finally put an end to that evil. I'm quite sure had we limited our efforts to 'surgical strikes' and minimizing civilian casualties we wouldn't have been victorious.
Paul Fussell, "Thank God For Atom The Bomb"; First published as "Hiroshima: A Soldier's View," New Republic (August 1981)
I'm still tickled that a Jewish woman, Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, is the one giving the Muslim terrorist his just desserts. That's got to rankle!
r-v said, "I think there is a confusion between acts of terrorism and war."
The terrorists strategically operate in a way that exploitsthat confusion.
In the Middle Ages, naval states commissioned captains to engage in acts of piracy, blurring the lines between "war" and "terror." It's an old device that consistently confounds the enemy.
Today it's a little trickier because the "state" that is the enemy is one that we've not encountered before or that one that we can identify readily.
Sure sounds like treason to me. But I have no hope that this DOJ will treat it as such.
roesch-voltaire said...
I think there is a confusion between acts of terrorism and war. Obviously bombing New Jersey will not stop the terrorist in Florida, any more than fighting in Afghanistan has stopped the terrorist in Pakistan these last eight years.
What's killing our guys is The Zero's announced withdrawl date and brain-dead ROE. Like wage and price controls, this is another Leftist bad idea that, having been tried, should never be tried again.
When the crazies understand that we will hunt them down and kill them, regardless of where they are, they find someone else to bother or just go home. Worked dandily in Iraq.
Hoosier Daddy said...
What stopped the Japanese, were two nucular bombs.
What stopped the Japanese was their belief that we had more than two when in reality we shot the wad with Fat Man and Little Boy. As far as the Emperor and the Imperial High Command were concerned, we had no plans to stop and were facing the prospect of societal annihilation.
Not to mention the entry of the Russians into the war and our readiness to invade Japan. In the end, they realized that to continue would mean the total destruction of Japanese civilization.
Clearly what we need are more T-Shirt vendors as just killing "them" doesn't seem to work.
Actually a combination of good intelligence and killing them work splendidly.
Maybe less t-shirt vendors and more realization that the 'religion of peace' doesn't live up to the marketing.
I'm still wondering why the Middle East still has any Muslims left in it. I thought there was supposed to be a war, or something...
The "solution" to the problem of Islamic Terrorism is a carefully-planned program of genocide, followed by an operation to replace Muslims with a geneticially-engineered slime that eats sand and craps crude.
Since that is impractical (and makes liberals -- small 'L' intentional) queasy, we'll have to settle for the next, best thing -- making Muslims suffer horribly until they their mindset becomes pre-occupied with "How do I make it stop?" instead of "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!".
We're fighting the Huns all over again. The people who make the mistake of believing that "inside every Afghan/Iraqi/Iranian is an American dying to get out" knows nothing, and worse, knows even less about their OWN Western culture and what makes us who we are.
Democracy is not a piece of software that you can just install on any computer; it's a uniquely Western cultural phenomenon with a 4,000 year old pedigree of trial-and-error. The ME, especially places under the sway of Radical Islam, do not have the institutions, mindset or intelligence to make the great leap out of the 7th century into secular democracy, and is a centuries-long process.
Muslims are fighting to keep the Modern World at arm's length, not because they want iPads, universal suffrage or ESPN. They'd rather die of malnutrition and dysentary, if it means they can keep worshiping a phoney-baloney god who tells him what hand to wipe his ass with, and he can continue to beat and kill his wives and daughters with impunity, and have intercourse with the livestock when the fancy strikes.
Not to mention the entry of the Russians into the war and our readiness to invade Japan.
Forget the inconvenient fact that strategic bombing killed far more people than the two nukes. If we had been forced to invade, which we most certainly did NOT want to do (and were thankful for afterward and the entirety of "Ketsu-Go" was understood), far more people would have died from starvation and disease alone. Prior to any invasion, plans called for a comprehensive naval blockade (including denying Japanese fishing vessels from operating) and destruction of Japanese rail lines. This alone would have produced far more death and suffering than the two nukes.
Most people don't want to think about that though. They're too weighed down by the then-non-existent baggage that comes along with any nuclear weapon.
@Scott M
The rationale behind the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the question of whether the US Navy could maintain a) a blockade of Japan, and b) the supply lines required for an invasion and conquest of Japan, in the face of the Kamikaze tactic.
The answer was "NO".
Incidentally, it is a myth that Japan surrendered because of the bombings; Japan surrendered because the Russians overran Manchuria, depriving Japan of it's last sources of supply, making continued resistance pointless.
The Japanese government (which had already been trying to surrender since 1944, with the loss of Saipan), finally accepted the Allied request for "Unconditional Surrender" the day after Manchuria fell...and 6 days after the second atomic bomb...with an attempted coup d'tat in the intervening days to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from hitting the airwaves.
@Matthew
The answer was "NO".
This is not supported by all of my personal study on the subject. It's been a hobby for about five years now. I will do some research this evening, but nothing I can recall reading, mostly from the journals of the leadership in question, relates a fear that the Navy could not successfully blockade Japan.
Any way you slice it, the loss of life on both sides would have been horrific even by WWII standards. You cannot discount the effect the two bombs had, although they were not the only reason the Japanese finally folded.
I will do some research this evening, but nothing I can recall reading, mostly from the journals of the leadership in question, relates a fear that the Navy could not successfully blockade Japan.
I recall some anecdotal accounts of US sub commanders lamenting that by late 1944-45 they were relegated to machine gunning sampans and junks.
irene
here's the difference between a soldier and a terrorist.
When a soldier hits a civilian, he hangs his head in regret.
When a terrorist hits a civilians, he is patted on the back and told "nice shot."
Grow up.
Both Shazad and Irene make the same mistake, along with probably anyone else who hasn't served in the army.
The US Army places soldiers in positions of danger, and asks them pretty please to survive. Cooperation on the part of the troops is pretty good.
AQI didn't have to engage our soldiers in Iraq, nor does the Taliban have to engage in Afghanistan. They want to engage our soldiers, and if the only way to get them to disengage is to kill them, well, that's their choice and not ours.
These wars will continue so long as the West tiptoes along wondering "Why are Muslims doing this? What have we done? Do they hate us?" This will only end is when it's the Muslims thinking those thoughts.
A.W., I agree with your characterization of the difference.
But that's the distinction from the soldier's/terrorist's perspective.
The problem is, *the target* can't tell whether someone will hang his head in regret or wait for a pat on the back.
@Scott M and Hoosier Daddy
During the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese launched just over 5,000 Kamikazes (of all sorts -- rockets, boats, kaiten and aircraft). They sank 100 Allied warships, and damaged another 369, with a loss of over 15,000 allied troops and soldiers, plus nearly the same number wounded (mostly burned).
The US Navy estimated that a true blockade of Japan would not begin to take effect until mid-late 1946with greater casualties to be suffered from both Kamikazes and submarines.
Truman was already hearing -- with the end of the war in Europe -- the cries to "bring the boys back home". There was no popular or political will for another bloody camapaign against Japan, and no prospect of being able to maintain an offense for much longer, hence, the atomic bombings.
The fall of Manchria put the exclamation mark on the whole thing.
I would recommend "The Penguin History of the Second World War", by Calvocoresi, Wint, and Pritchard.
Sorry for hijacking the thread!
I work as an engineer. You cannot fix a problem (at it's root) until you can clearly define it. Faisal Shazad clearly defined what a large number of his fellow believers feel is their religious duty. Until the folks in charge can get the cojones to stand up and say this - that either there is a serious theological issue that is driving people like him - or that his co-believers have to step up and stamp this out - we are just spinning wheels.
I wonder what Eric Holder will make of Faisal's statement too. Maybe he can suggest that Faisal share a cell with Major Hassan (who seems to have dropped off the radar lately too)
Then declare war.
Will you all support a declaration of war? The real deal. WWIII.
Why not? None of this war powers act nonsense. just total war. curfews, rationing, the entire enchilada.
Then declare war.
Will you all support a declaration of war? The real deal. WWIII.
Why not? None of this war powers act nonsense. just total war. curfews, rationing, the entire enchilada.
Works for me.
Why not? None of this war powers act nonsense. just total war. curfews, rationing, the entire enchilada.
Why not? Oh, I don't know...because you're an idiot with a flaccid snark organ?
Matthew said...
"I would recommend "The Penguin History of the Second World War", by Calvocoresi, Wint, and Pritchard."
Manchuria also fell and the USSR joined the war and Japan was loosing 100,000 people a day to one bomb they couldn't defend against. After 1/2 a million dead and several million injured the country had rightfully about had enough - people do get tired of war and death you know...
What is your applicable point to this thread? I don't get what you driving at - and by the way, there are some better sources for comprehensive histories of WWII.
The Japanese nation existed to protect the honor of the Japanese military, not the other way around. There was an air raid on Tokyo that killed upwards of 100,000 people. The next day, during a meeting of the war cabinet, this raid and its horrendous casualties were not mentioned. If the barbarity of our bombing raids speaks poorly of us, what does it say of the Japanese military....The Taliban and AQ are killing Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan at a brisk rate. The majority of them are guilty of no greater crime than belonging to the wrong sect or of trying to make a living. Militant Islam doesn't existo to bring people to God so much as to send them there.
ohhh Scott Scoot Scott...there you go again....hahaha.
ohhh Scott Scoot Scott...there you go again....hahaha.
Quoting Reagan now? Will you have to give up your Commiepinkolibtard Card if your comrades find out? :)
HDHOUSE, you make the assumption that Total War would be more painful for us (curfews, rationing, etc) than it would be for them (death, destruction of culture, etc).
Unlike Goering's Germany, the United States can have both Guns and Butter, and still allow fundamental freedoms and human rights. It always has done so (although not always perfectly, I agree)
The problem with the "Longest Warin American History" is that no one in charge has made a serious effort to destroy the enemy and then come home. The Military which "leanrned thelessons of Vietnam" continues to make the same mistakes, the "political leadership" continues to talk about this war in abstracts, and refuses to see stupidity of their see-saw policies.
Certainly,neither politician nor soldier wants to unleash "Total War" - even as a means to victory over Islamofascism -- because the Media would show the public just what that truly meant...and take the enemy's side, while they do it.
So, we'll get this nebulous state: at war, but not really fighting, the subject of "The War" being a political pivot around which candidates maneuver.
Had anyone actually remembered that Wars are won by killing people and breaking things in the furtherance of one's political system and worldview -- rather than building schools for morons who only consider an education worthy if it allows you to read the Koran -- we might have won already, and saved alot of lives, limbs and money.
Now, we're trapped in a dilemma: if we actually start fighting, it's an admission that a decade of previous policy was a failure, and a sign of our frustration.
Consequently, this is a victory for Islamonazis everywhere.
These are people who have developed an Islamically-approved etiquette for disposing of their quadrapedal sexual partners. What makes anyone think that any amount of "Nation Building" was ever going to civilize them?
OMG! He spoke the truth! Faisal Shazad is an attempted mass murder and "terrorist"-- whatever that word means-- but at least he spoke the truth, and that's more than almost all of the elected govbots of our corrupt country do.
"Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody," Shahzad fired back.
"They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims."
So is that how Muslims see things?
And is that how things are? Is America in this War to kill Muslims?
If so, maybe our President ought to get off the golf course and pull a Shazad and say, "Yeah. That's right. We wanna kill Muslims. Men, women, children, don't matter. If they be raghead, they be dead."
Or, if that's not the case, then maybe the American Establishment ought to do a better job of explaining what, exactly, the point of this war is; the world doesn't seem to know. And perhaps they ought to do a better job of coming clean about our intentions, any mistakes we make, and our poltical arrangements with other countries, instead of burying evidence of the truth and then spinning like mad when Julian Assange gets his hands on it.
HD, the applicable point was several replies above where I advocated Muslim genocide as the Solution to Islamofascism, but then admitted this was (probably) impractical.
That second part was a minor quibble with Scot over a detail -- hence apologies for having hijacked the thread.
But, I'll humor you: even with two atomic bombings, the loss of Manchuria, the firebombings, the losses of the Merchant Marine and Navy, and the starving of Japanese industry of raw materials -- nearly 2/3 of the Japanese Army remained in the field (in China and SE Asia)totally unengaged by any Allied force of consequence. Most had passed the war without even hearing a shot fired in anger.
They had ammunition, and they had a will to die in service to their Emperor/God. They still would have lost, but the point was to go down fighting as a sacred duty, anyway. Victory or defeat was no longer a consideration.
There were Japanese Officers, some at the highest levels of government, who would have continued the war, ordering those soldiers to fight and die where they stood -- and they would have done it, too -- had events not conspired to force a Japanese surrender (i.e. had the Emperor -- God -- himself not ordered a surrender).
These Islamonazis are cut from the same cloth. Short of a direct message from God, they will not surrender. So long as they stay in the field -- alive -- they represent a danger. So long as they are under the illusion that they are still performing a sacred duty, the longer we'll have to be chasing them from sewer to sewer, and themore they will continue to lob truck bombers, hijackers and perhaps worse at us.
Sonny, you lost me at Islamonazis and lobing trucks.
Never pays to get so heated up that you loose sight of the words you are using...unless of course, you are lobing tanks....
No wonder you didn't get it, HD!
It was "lob truck bombers..." not "lobing (sic) trucks"...
Poor reading comprehension skills will get you every time.
HDHouse said...
Then declare war.
Will you all support a declaration of war? The real deal. WWIII.
Why not? None of this war powers act nonsense. just total war. curfews, rationing, the entire enchilada.
Notice he doesn't say against whom.
"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad told the judge. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
"And it's a war to kill people..."
Enemy within. Right now Shazad and the Islamoids are the ones killing, but we also have some serious problems with other "Americans" that because of religious or cultural ties to other nations or groups (driven by ethnicity)....
Are also disloyal.
And a danger within.
Massive Chinese and Israeli-run espionage rings, staffed by Chinese and Jews who hold their first loyalty is to "the leaders" of the Chinese and Jewish people in foreign lands.
Mexicans and anchor baby spawn who see the American SW as theirs.
The Founders were extremely concerned with dual loyalties or "adherence" to foreign peoples or religions. Until the Pope gave up the RCC's claim that it was the final word for all Catholic's loyalties in temporal matters in the mid-19th century...the Founder's fear of Papists was legit.
In later decades, we had to visit serious repercussions on Americans who were loyal to the Communist International MOvement 1st, then to those German Americans loyal to the Nazi cause, Japs loyal to the Emperor.
We may be heading for a time where we once again have to require loyalty oaths, abandon MultiCulti as dysfunctional. And treat as traitors the future Pollards, Shahzads, Aztlan Leaders, Wen Ho Lees....if they take oaths and betray America First.
Those who don't take oaths get stripped of citizenship or residency status and deported.
Taking oaths is rather Nazi-like,
and is usually the first indication that you live in a dictatorship.
What is required to ensure, or at least to hold out more promise of loyalty, Cedarford,is a vigorous defense and promotion of Western culture and values, and a return to the principle of assimiliation, which those who espouse multi-culturalism have attempted to destroy for political advantage.
Loyalty oaths ultimately lead to people being burnt at the stake, or marched into ovens.
"Clyde said...
I'm still tickled that a Jewish woman, Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, is the one giving the Muslim terrorist his just desserts. That's got to rankle!"
NOt really. Muslims don't recognize the legitimacy of who the cabal of lawyers places in robes in infidel courts.
Nor did the fact that some woman was pushing a button to drop a bomb on Taliban from perfect safety at 30,000 feet particularly impress any Afghans. Contrary to our way of thinking. IN fact, the Afghan way was to have the warriors send their women out to slowly dispatch wounded enemy with knives and rocks. Having craven women killing from perfect safety was thought to be especially humiliating to fallen enemy...
Swings both ways. Like we are supposed to be impressed that a duly constituted Sharia Council of Elders issues a finding that Bush and Netanyahu are guilty of war crimes...??
=======================
A.W. said...
irene
here's the difference between a soldier and a terrorist.
When a soldier hits a civilian, he hangs his head in regret.
When a terrorist hits a civilians, he is patted on the back and told "nice shot."
Grow up.
Speaking of growing up, your having a nursery school understanding of warfare stands out.
Soldiers kill civilians. Sometimes out of necessity, sometimes deliberately.
If that is the ROE, and civilian deaths are part and parcel of the mission - no soldier will "hang his head in shame".
We incinerated whole cities and the US and UK aircrews that did so were proud of their "unavoidable job" to help end the war. US sub crews dispatched 20,000 civilian ship crews mostly to watery death.
Rolling Thunder in Vietnam wiped out thousands of civilians in N Vietnam on raids.
In Iraq and Afghanistan today, we will happily whack a "high value target's family, 'innocent bystanders' ", in order to whack the true target.
Only someone with a nursery school level understanding of warfare thinks even Americans "hang their heads with shame" watching 3 Hellfires savage a Talibani motorcade full of Jihadis, Jihadi wives, little Jihadi babies..
Terrorists target civilians to accomplish no military mission but spread terror. But both terrorists and US soldiers also operate in a gray area...where civilians and soldiers are targeted off the main battlefield.
Our definition of terrorism is overly broad at times - like "any who resist us or our Special Friend Israel by any means is a terrorist". And the Islamoid catch-all excuse that any cruel btchery is sanctioned by Islamic Law as JIhad is also overly broad.
Taking oaths is rather Nazi-like,
and is usually the first indication that you live in a dictatorship.
Seriously? Think about that carefully. There have been oaths around for a lot longer than Nazis. In fact, there have been oaths around a lot longer than Germans.
Officer-holders, including President Obama, take oaths. I was required do one when I joined the military. I don't believe any of those instances indicate dictatorships.
There is nothing inherently Nazi, or even fascist in pledging one's loyalty to something.
Taking oaths is rather Nazi-like,and is usually the first indication that you live in a dictatorship.
That explains marriage vows....;-)
Matthew - "Loyalty oaths ultimately lead to people being burnt at the stake, or marched into ovens."
No, every American soldier and civilian worker in WWII employed by Gov't or working in the War Effort had to take a loyalty oath. And were told that if you violate that oath or falsely swear it, treason charges were possible.
All interned or relocated Germans or Japs were binned by relative danger by forcing them to say Yeah or nay to loyalty to America. About 12% of interned or relocated Japs remained "at the Emperor's command" - and were assigned to the most secure camps for Japs. Others were in camps with no real restrictions - free to work, travel, go to school outside the camps. The Germans (and Italians), who were by and large economic or plotical refugees from Fascism had even lower disloyalty rates. 5% or so.
Even today, minimum loyalty oaths are unavoidable in classified government work. I did work in the late 90s requiring me to take the "Pollard Oath" - named after the Jewish traitor that gave top secrets to Israel and the Soviet Union who claimed as a defense that he always had 1st loyalty to Israel and Jews in the USSR wanting to go to Israel....and no one made him formally state his loyalty was to America. Or he would have demurred.
They convicted Pollard anyways.
But the loyalty oaths were generated in consequence to his case. Necessity reaffirmed by Chinese-American and Cuban-American spies since Pollard.
Henry VIII,the Inquisition, Stalin, Mussolini, amongst others required "loyalty oaths" of their followers/citizens, and they were all very quick to dismiss the binding nature of those if it suited their purposes.
Where I disgree with Cedarford on the subject of oaths is that I don't particularly care if someone would like to celebrate Cinco De Mayo, Columbus Day or Chinese New Year, so long as the celebration and experience of their cultural norms does not put them at odds with the greater tenets of Western(not just American) culture.
Because those ideals are what bind us together, along with a shared cultural history and identity.
And as for people taking oaths every day, taking one didn't stop Pollard, Aldridge Ames,the Walkers, Richard Nixon (I could name more) from betraying their country and (supposed-) principles therefore, the oath itself must have been pretty useless.
Matthew misses the point. His argument is that any law or oath is pointless because certain people will violate them.
The point is oaths and laws pin people down - they clearly understand the consequences if the oath or law is violated and it makes it easier to punish perps that are caught.
As for Jonathan Pollard, he didn't violate the loyalty oath requirement for those doing classified work. His case of loyalty to Jewish causes over America's vital interests CREATED the "Pollard" Loyalty Oath that applicants for national security clearances now have to sign.
I'm not certain the person convicted of treason (punishible by death or life imprisonment) was even momentarily deterred by the ability to be "pinned down" by his oath.
In this case, violation of the oath was just one more charge in the indictment and a few extra years added to the Life Sentence, nothing more.
If, as you say, the Pollard case is a stellar example, then what I make of it is that the government basically added a secondary oath --just in case you decide to break the primary one. Yeah, that'll keep you from breaking the law!
I don't disagree with you, Cedarford, on the perceived value of an oath -- I object to the idea that citizenship and the rights attendant to it should depend upon one, especially oaths to a particular individual, and which may entail acts which run counter to the conscience of any decent person.
Funny how its always something with these guys isn't it?
That's why going to war in A-stan was the right thing to do. It was the nation-building part that was a mistake. Bush took a perfectly good instance of gunboat diplomacy and turned it into a big mess by pretending these people want the same things out of life that we do.
We should have bombed the place flat for a month and then dropped leaflets promising to return unless they ejected Al Queda.
What a gem. This comment gets elevated to update status:
" 'And it's a war to kill people...' "
The bomber broadcasts a reality that many Americans refuse to acknowledge.
Jonestown and Heaven's Gate also involved dysfunctional cults that dabbled in the business of killing people. Why don't we elevate them to War of Civilizations status, I wonder?
I guess doing so just wouldn't be glamorous enough for today's glitzy Grand Old Party-goers.
Bingo.
It's a war to kill people who will kill Americans if not killed first.
Old senile ladies play bingo. People with a clue and a functional neocortex recognize the difference between acknowledging a point and discerning its, er, relevance.
Ahem.
Yep, BM. Every Muslim's bent on finding a way to kill Americans if not killed first.
Maybe you disagree with that characterization, though. Perhaps it sounds overly broad to your, no doubt, finely attuned social senses.
If so, define the army and characterize what motivates its "recruits".
Jonestown and Heaven's Gate also involved dysfunctional cults that dabbled in the business of killing people. Why don't we elevate them to War of Civilizations status, I wonder?
For the same reason we wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan if the government there had handed over Osama bin Laden. Any more dumb questions?
You see, Eric - because I'm so dumb, I like to ask questions. Like, was the war in Afghanistan a war on a civilization? You seem to imply as much so I figured I'd ask the dumb question and see how you answer it.
No, Ritmo, it wasn't a war on a civilization. It was a war on a country.
There are responsibilities that come with sovereignty. As a sovereign nation Afghanistan has a responsibility to keep its citizens and also other nationals in its territory from attacking other countries. We even gave them a chance to avoid a war by turning over OBL, and they didn't take it. At that point it would have been stupid not to go to war.
Jonestown and Heaven's Gate also involved dysfunctional cults that dabbled in the business of killing people. Why don't we elevate them to War of Civilizations status, I wonder?
Let me help you out there sparky. Those two dysfunctional cults ended because they committed collective suicide instead of sending their moronic followers out to kill the infidel. Nice try but you have anything else?
Now if the Islamofascists would be as accomodating this whole shebang would be over.
Yep, BM. Every Muslim's bent on finding a way to kill Americans if not killed first.
Well for me sparky, until I see something remotely resembling a Reformation within the religion of pieces, lets just say I don't think they want to play nice with the Western world.
Then again I don't expect you to appreciate that since the only generalization/sterotype that fires your synapese is the evil GoPer.
If you shoot at an American soldier or an American aircraft, you are going to die.
Is that too hard for everybody?
Poncho Villa is the closest historical analog I can think of. We invaded Mexico in an unsuccessful attempt to capture him after he attacked and burned the town of Columbus, New Mexico.
Now now, Hoosier Daddy, you need to remember for people on the left brown skin is a magical talisman that removes any obligation to act in a civilized fashion. Ritmo can't help being what he is.
Eh, Pancho Villa.
Well for me sparky, until I see something remotely resembling a Reformation within the religion of pieces, lets just say I don't think they want to play nice with the Western world.
I'm sure you're intrigued by the proposition that demonizing an entire religion as a participant in a civilizational battle that pits them against you will do the trick now, aren't you?
Then again I don't expect you to appreciate that since the only generalization/sterotype that fires your synapese is the evil GoPer.
I'm intrigued by the generalization/stereotype that posits the GOP as incapable of understanding what it will take to change (i.e. "reform") a culture - either foreign or domestic.
I'm sure you're intrigued by the proposition that demonizing an entire religion as a participant in a civilizational battle that pits them against you will do the trick now, aren't you?
I'm sorry I'm supposed to care about demonizing a religion that sees me as an infidel that either needs to be killed or converted? Then again last time I checked they seemed to be the ones who started the whole clash of civilization rhetoric. But yes Ritmo, you're right we should not demonize a religion that subjugates women as second class citizens, murders gays and refers to Jews as monkeys and parasites that need to be removed from the Earth. We really need to be more polite.
I'm intrigued by the generalization/stereotype that posits the GOP as incapable of understanding what it will take to change (i.e. "reform") a culture - either foreign or domestic.
Well considering that Islam is about 600 years behind Christianity in terms of evolution as a 'religion', and considering that the Islamic culture has regressed from its pinnacle (15th century) of intellectual, military and economic power you're correct in saying I have no fucking idea what it would take to change the culture. Maybe another prophet sitting in a cave who has a vision that says: You know what, blowing innocent poeple up in the name of Allah is really fucking dumb. Stop it.
But I could be wrong.
Now now, Hoosier Daddy, you need to remember for people on the left brown skin is a magical talisman that removes any obligation to act in a civilized fashion.
Now that is just silly. I am sure that if it were white Christian evangelicals committing acts of terrorism in the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, the left would be just as accomodating and apologetic.
I don't know where you people get these kind of ideas. Sheesh.
I'm sorry I'm supposed to care about demonizing a religion that sees me as an infidel that either needs to be killed or converted?
Thankfully, you aren't. But that is why you are a mere keyboard jockey instead of someone with the responsibility invested in people in positions of power. Again, thankfully so.
Then again last time I checked they seemed to be the ones who started the whole clash of civilization rhetoric.
This is a rather strange and fascinating proposition. Muslims in 2010 traveled back in time to create the theology of the 14th century that was handed down to them. Interesting, and fascinating idea you've hit upon, Hoosier!
Well considering that Islam is about 600 years behind Christianity in terms of evolution as a 'religion', and considering that the Islamic culture has regressed from its pinnacle (15th century) of intellectual, military and economic power you're correct in saying I have no fucking idea what it would take to change the culture. Maybe another prophet sitting in a cave who has a vision that says: You know what, blowing innocent poeple up in the name of Allah is really fucking dumb. Stop it.
But I could be wrong.
I say there must be more concrete and realistic alternatives to look to and rely upon.
But I could be wrong.
See, cause unlike some, I'm not sure I've got 600 years to wait around for certain things to happen.
But I could be wrong.
But that is why you are a mere keyboard jockey instead of someone with the responsibility invested in people in positions of power. Again, thankfully so.
Well sparky the ones in power are still insisting we call it the religion of peace. Fat lot of good that's been doing. Again, they have little care that they see me as an infidel so reciprocity seems appropriate.
This is a rather strange and fascinating proposition. Muslims in 2010 traveled back in time to create the theology of the 14th century that was handed down to them. Interesting, and fascinating idea you've hit upon, Hoosier!
Actually Islam was founded around 600 AD give or take a few years. They hit their peak in the late 15th century when they failed to take Vienna (thanks to the Poles) and pretty much been in a downward spiral since then. Not sure what your comment above had to do with anything but I've gotten used to you talking out of your half moons before.
I say there must be more concrete and realistic alternatives to look to and rely upon.
That's nice but religious fanatics don't tend to think in terms of concete and realistic.
But I could be wrong.
You frequently are what else is new?
See, cause unlike some, I'm not sure I've got 600 years to wait around for certain things to happen.
Life is a bitch that way.
I don't think you're being serious Hoosier. You throw out little swipes about me being wrong or whatever, rush up the timeline on when Muslim opinion on the U.S. or hostility to it is supposed to change without so much as a citation or a link to a site for current and previous polls, and confuse "fanatics" with the Muslim society at large that can nevertheless influence them - if they saw a reason to.
I say you are doing a swell job. For someone who has probably never spent any significant time in a region of the world where people believe and see the world differently than you do. But that's ok.
You stay comfortable in your armchair, behind your screen, typing madly away, in the comfort of the awesome diversity that is the state of Indiana. There are surely many people you must be used to having to convince and whose trust you had to work hard to gain only after breaking these barriers.
Or maybe you just said "fuck it" and took the attitude of obliterating anybody who disagrees with you. Which rather makes you more like the people on the other side of the globe (whom you wouldn't mind destroying) than you know.
Tell me, are there other ways in which the attitudes of the people of Indiana resemble those of the Middle East? You say you're 600 years ahead, so maybe that's the extent of your resemblance to them.
But yes Ritmo, you're right we should not demonize a religion that subjugates women as second class citizens, murders gays and refers to Jews as monkeys and parasites that need to be removed from the Earth. We really need to be more polite.
Maybe we should invite them for tea. I've always found a good Earl Grey from, say, Fortnum & Mason really relaxes people who've come to saw off my head.
Well, Eric. Not getting tea is what set off those pesky colonials now, isn't it?
I don't think you're being serious Hoosier. You throw out little swipes about me being wrong or whatever, rush up the timeline on when Muslim opinion on the U.S. or hostility to it is supposed to change without so much as a citation or a link to a site for current and previous polls, and confuse "fanatics" with the Muslim society at large that can nevertheless influence them - if they saw a reason to.
Serious as a heart attack. Hey you make a good point about Muslim society at large. You know if it’s such a teeny tiny minority of fanatics besmirching the religion of peace, I’d say the whopping majority could nip that problem in the bud, if they saw a reason to as you say. But they apparently don’t which furthers my point.
I say you are doing a swell job. For someone who has probably never spent any significant time in a region of the world where people believe and see the world differently than you do. But that's ok.
Well thanks for the compliment. See Ritmo, it’s not me that has to spend any significant time there, it’s those Muslims who spend a significant time here and then decide we’d make awesome bomb targets. Maybe you failed to notice that the 9/11 hijackers, London Tube bombers, Madrid, Fort Hood shooter, the NY Times incompetent were all assimilated or foreigners who spent ‘significant’ time in the West and thought we all deserved to die.
You stay comfortable in your armchair, behind your screen, typing madly away, in the comfort of the awesome diversity that is the state of Indiana. There are surely many people you must be used to having to convince and whose trust you had to work hard to gain only after breaking these barriers.
Ah and here comes the ‘diversity’ card as if somehow my life is so much more enriched if I live in a Benneton ad.
Or maybe you just said "fuck it" and took the attitude of obliterating anybody who disagrees with you. Which rather makes you more like the people on the other side of the globe (whom you wouldn't mind destroying) than you know.
Maybe you can point out where I want to obliterate anyone who disagrees with me or are you just doing your usual Ritmo Strawman Construction strategy when you can’t actually counter a point?
Tell me, are there other ways in which the attitudes of the people of Indiana resemble those of the Middle East? You say you're 600 years ahead, so maybe that's the extent of your resemblance to them.
Well let’s compare and contrast shall we? Well looking around we Hoosiers frown on burkas as we prefer our women scantily clad and a little bit mad (like a preacher’s daughter). We let them drive without chaperones, don’t hang homosexuals, don’t have the morality police checking for marriage licenses. Not into the whole beheading thing for blasphemy or adultery. We do test the tornado sirens every Friday at 11 so you might confuse that with a call to prayer but its more duck and cover. Hmmm what else…oh we can’t buy booze on Sunday so I guess that’s as close as it gets.
Well, Eric. Not getting tea is what set off those pesky colonials now, isn't it?
Um, no. Try again sparky.
Matthew
I have heard some dumb things in my 50 years but yours certainly takes the blue ribbon.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा