Have a great Sunday, Infidels!

Ravo responds: Yeah, remember how they were blowing up people in Thailand and Germany and trade centers all over the world to make their point in that conflict – weren’t they? I heard them screaming of Kill for Jesus all the time. People in EVERY single country in the world were on constant terror alerts. /sarcasm

Ravo, What I remember is an innocent 10 year old girl killed by a bomb placed by these good Irish Christian warriors. She had just returned from the States. It was her welcome back to Britain.

So much for your claim that Christians don’t kill each other. I know they do.

Yes, we have supported and protected jihadis in Serbia, but it wasn’t and isn’t prudent policy. There was a time the Serbian people wanted to emulate the US, but after selling them out to the USSR at the end of WW2, and supporting jihadis on there doorstep today, they don’t want much to do with us anymore.

I guess we have so many allies in the war on terror that it doesn’t really matter if we trample on a few of them.

The Serbs probably wouldn’t be much of an ally anyway would they Eileen? Look at how the Germans handled them in WW2. I guess the Serbs just don’t have enough fighting spirit to be on our team.

The lamentable war undertaken by the United States and NATO against Serbia is distressing and deeply regrettable. Serbia was a staunch ally of the west in both World Wars. Serbian army officers had in fact overthrown a pro-Nazi government in 1941. During the course of the war Serbs fought on the anti-Nazi side while Croats, Bosnians, and Yugoslav Albanians fought for the Germans. In Croatia, fascist leader Ante Pavelic set up a state that became a Nazi puppet state. Likewise, Bosnians and Albanians collaborated with the fascists against the Serbs. Over 700,000 Serbs were exterminated during the Second World War. Between 1941 and 1945, one out of four Bishops, Priests, and monks of the Serbian Orthodox Church were killed.

Finally, there is the alarming prospect of the re-Ottomanization of the Balkans. In 1994, the Clinton administration allowed Turkish, Iranian, and Saudi troops to go to Bosnia. In Albania, Osama Bin Laden has established a base. Saudi newspapers have called for an Islamic Kosovo while Turkey and Albania develop closer relations. Never has the foreign policy establishment in America and its President been so dangerous or destructive.
http://www.greece.org/themis/action_press/serbia.htm

President Bush could do something about this, but has given no indication that he is the least bit concerned with jihadist activity in the Balkans. In fact we still support gifting Kosovo to the jihadist proxies. Of course Eileen, the connection between what is going on in the Balkans and cheerleading have only a tenuous connection. Pay it no mind.

Eileen, If you really had reviewed all my posts you would not need to ask questions about where I am posting from or my nationality. I question the quality of your research methods. For the record (once again) I am a US citizen posting from Britain (Oxford). I am married and in my 50’s. Most of my friends would probably describe me as a conservative, but not necessarily as a Republican. I believe in free-trade and the rule of law.

In my younger days, when everyone told me that communism was monolithic, and that if Vietnam were to fall there would be communist marching down my hometown Main Street, I marched off to one of our nation’s elite service academies. After losing a few friends to that poorly thought out, but at the time popular war, I decided to form my own opinions on matters of war and peace rather than accept them predigested. Eileen, I’d recommend the same course of action to you.

You dismiss Cook by writing: ‘Cook (no doubt a liberal academic terrorist apologist) may serve your purposes, but enough citations have been provided by a number of posters here to present a much better case that jihad is not practiced or pursued by only a tiny fraction of radical Islamists, which is certainly the picture you attempt to paint.’

How convenient for you. No need to think about what he has written, just make an assumption. As to the number of citations posted, I have found them to be of uncertain quality. I am more concerned with finding a solution than proving a point, and I do make an effort to understand other views. How about you?

As to the claim that all Muslims are terrorist. I don’t buy it. I’ve met hundreds of well educated Muslims, and few – if any – are militant. How many Muslims do you know?

With regard to the Serbian question, I plead some special interest. My wife is Serbian. (You already knew that, right?). Our policy against the Serbs has been ill thought out since its inception. And the conduct of our so-called war on terror reveals the hypocricy on the part some of our leadership. If you can’t see the relationship between our Serbian policy and the war on terror, I can’t help you. Should we change the policy? The best you can come up with is ‘maybe’. Do you need someone to do your thinking for you?

You write: We don’t spell favor favour in the U.S., or rely on Korans provided by Muslims in Oxford.

Who is we? I am just happy you can spell. With regard to the Koran, if you are going to quote from it, why not use an accurate translation? My reference to the version I was quoting from was provided for the sake of clarity. If you know it to be an unreliable translation, point it out. I notice you haven’t provided a citation for the version you refer to. Do you have something to hide?

For the record, I am no apologist for terrorism. I want to see the terror end. Having read most of your posts, I don’t think you have provided much beyond rah, rah, rah. I do not believe that cheerleading will solve the terror problem, but perhaps I am over complicating things.

Eileen: We’ve learned a whole lot more about Islam since a Communist despot attempted to decimate a bunch MORE jihadis. Trust me, the education hasn’t been welcomed.

I do trust that you have not welcomed your education.

Sleep well, Infidels.

Where are you posting from and what is your nationality?

You’ve succeeded in hijacking this thread to talk about Serbia – and play the blame game against the U.S. – when no one is defending Clinton’s sanity, representative of typical moonbat idiocy. That about sums up his efforts regarding the WOT, other than failing to pick up Bin Laden when he could have and bombing an aspirin factory. Bush inherited the prior, internationally sanctioned position taken with regard to Milosevic, prior leader of the Serbian Communist Party, which might have had a little something to do with it, along with his plans for a greater Serbia. [And I'll grant you, efforts at establishment of a base in Islamic territory probably figured in as well.] Should Bush change that position given the current state of affairs with respect to Islamofascism? Maybe. We’ve learned a whole lot more about Islam since a Communist despot attempted to decimate a bunch MORE jihadis. Trust me, the education hasn’t been welcomed. In fact, you might even say it’s been thrust upon us through murder and mayhem, even though we’ve gone to certain lengths to support OR protect jihadis when comparative ‘threats’ or efforts at peace keeping suggested that was the more prudent policy in Serbia, or with respect to Russia/Afghanistan or Palestine (sic)/Israel.

You say: “I’d find it a lot easier to accept Pres. Bush’s integrity (re the war on terror) if he reversed our Balkan’s policy.” OUR? We don’t spell favor favour in the U.S., or rely on Korans provided by Muslims in Oxford.

I’ve noticed that terrorist apologists do their best to divert, deny and distract.

After reviewing all your posts, I’d say you’re doing a very good job of all that.

Relying on Cook (no doubt a liberal academic terrorist apologist) may serve your purposes, but enough citations have been provided by a number of posters here to present a much better case that jihad is not practiced or pursued by only a tiny fraction of radical Islamists, which is certainly the picture you attempt to paint.

You conveniently ignore little facts like Muslims butchering and beheading Christian school girls in – what was it, Thailand or Indonesia that time – most assuredly a ‘peaceful encounter’ and not a ‘combat situation’. Were they, after ‘being brought low’ (i.e., into the hell of submission of Islam) and ‘rigorously bound’ (whatever horrors that might entail), SET FREE or Given The Grand Option of paying the jizya? No, their heads were merely chopped off.

You were very careful to note with regard to that verse, “No doubt there are Islamic terrorists who feel differently [regarding Cook's analysis], but do they represent the majority opinion?”

If Cook were correct, the world would not be listening to the deafening silence of those *moderate Muslims* regarding ISLAMIC FASCISTS who are killing Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., in the name of Islam across the globe daily. That smacks of majority opinion to me. If their ‘reticence’ to reign in their barbaric butchers is due to the constraints (to put it mildly) of Sharia law, then those laws needs to be changed and Islam needs to be reformed. [But not according to those bastions of Moderate Muslims, CAIR and their fellow travelers like the Muslim Council of Britain. All they do is issue thinly veiled threats and provide more taqiyya trash talk.]

We infidels tend to think that Islam really IS about exactly what they loudly proclaim it to be daily; i.e., establishment of a global caliphate, and either killing OR causing the dhimmification of all those who aren’t Muslim. None of those are options we will ever – not even a snowflake’s chance in hell – accept.

I suspect we’ll be helping *moderate Muslims* accomplish some ‘adjustments’ in very short order – as soon as Ahmalittledespot makes good on his stated aims, in combination with whatever other vile deeds the Islamic Fascists are plotting – or activating – as we speak.

If you truly don’t wish to live in a Muslim state, then you might reconsider your lengthy list of apologist arguments.

Ravo, I share your angst.

‘United States policy in the Balkans has been dysfunctional since March 1992 when their Ambassador, Warren Zimmerman, persuaded Izetbegovic the Islamist leader of the Bosnian Muslims to withdraw his signature to the Lisbon Agreement. This decision which led to US acceptance of the results of an illegal referendum and recognition of the first Muslim state in Europe triggered civil war in Bosnia and led directly to the death and destruction that followed. In the following years US decisions have proven to be equally disastrous for the region.

The United States subversion of the Vance-Owen plan and the following Vance-Stoltenberg agreement prolonged the war in Bosnia unnecessarily. The violation of the United Nations arms embargo and the decision to permit several thousand mujihadeen fighters into Bosnia and to provide them with modern military equipment was also a decision bound to have “blow back” implications damaging not only to the region but also to the ongoing US war against terrorism.

The decision of the United States government to support the cause of the terrorist KLA in its armed rebellion to secede from Yugoslavia is another example of US policy making gone wrong. There is evidence that the KLA military incursions into southern Serbia and later in Macedonia were backed by American agents. Their current policy supporting independence for Kosovo is but another chapter in an unfolding series of strategic errors. More seriously it reveals an indifference to the concept of sovereignty and of respect for the rule of law that is not in keeping with the principles laid down by the founding fathers of that great nation.

United States policy in the Balkans has been characterized by cynicism, duplicity and short term tactical gain. By backing Islamist aims in the region and supporting terrorist groups in Kosovo there might be the immediate advantage of establishing a large military base in Kosovo or appeasing further Albanian demands by advocating independence for Kosovo but in the long term it will backfire.

For centuries past Serbia, as one of the largest country in the Balkans and situated on the strategically important crossroads between Europe and the Near-East, was proud of its well earned reputation as the “guardian of the gate.” A democratic Serbia can be a powerful ally to democratic and free countries everywhere. In these perilous days when even the United States with all of its awesome military might can be terribly damaged by a handful of fanatical Islamist terrorists it would seem only prudent and in the national interest of Americans and of Europeans to reverse their ongoing policy of humiliating this key Balkan nation and find a solution to the Kosovo problem that falls short of independence.’

Bin Laden and radical Muslim groups have been deeply involved in the Balkans since the civil wars in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995. Despite a UN arms embargo and with the knowledge and support of the United States, arms, ammunition and thousands of Mujahideen fighters were smuggled into Bosnia to help the Muslims. Many remain in Bosnia today and are recognized as a serious threat to Western forces there. The Bosnian government is said to have presented bin Laden with a Bosnian passport in recognition of his contribution to their cause. He and his al-Qaeda network were also active in Kosovo, and KLA members trained in his camps in Afghanistan and Albania.
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-terrorism.htm

Kat, Ravo and Others,

I’d find it a lot easier to accept Pres. Bush’s integrity (re the war on terror) if he reversed our Balkan’s policy. It looks to me like we fight bin Laden in one region, and comfort him in another. In the near future Kosovo will be turned over to the children of the KLA.

Did the Serbian leadership make mistakes? Yes, they made the same mistakes in Kosovo that Israel is making in Lebanon. If the Serbians are quilty of war crimes, then I’d say the Israelis are as well. Milosevic wasn’t a great guy, but I am not convinced the Israeli leaders are all that much better – nor, are they much worse. Both nations want to guarantee their survival.

Sec Albright, in a BBC interview, acknowledged that the KLA is a terrorist organisation, but she added (I must paraphrase) I was hoping the KLA wouldn’t commit any newsworthy atrocities before I could get the NATO resolution to take action against Serbia.

WHAT?

As I have mentioned in a previous post, NATO did a splendid job of bombing my mother-in-law’s farm. The pigs are dead. But, I promise, we didn’t know the pigs were persecuting Muslim terrorists in Kosovo.

Call me cynical, but I don’t trust Bush, Blair or Clinton.

You think that WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam account for less than 2% of the violence our modern world has seen?

in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” ….

Yup, that’s it! That is the elephant in the room all right; the one the world refuses to acknowledge.

I’m so tired of the damn conflicts and have no desire to sort them out. They are so complicated no one could. If every infidel disappeared tomorrow, the killing would continue as Muslims would just murder one another.

Without Islam and it’s incessant conflicts since the time it began, 98% of the violence in the modern world would cease to be.

If only we could establish an “Islamic Free” zone where the rest of us can live in peace.

offline…

Yeah, remember how they were blowing up people in Thailand and Germany and trade centers all over the world to make their point in that conflict – weren’t they? I heard them screaming of Kill for Jesus all the time. People in EVERY single country in the world were on constant terror alerts. /sarcasm

You can stare at your navel all day long if you like and play “why do they hate us”. (I’ve better things to do then play that stupid meaningless libtard game)

Today it’s because of UK politics. Tomorrow it will be another greviance. Whether it be a train in India, a Jordanian wedding, or a Beslan schoolyard, – there will be an excuse for the inexcusable, while everyone avoids the elephant in the room.

The more DEVOUT the Muslim; the greater the incidence of Jihadism.

If Christians worldwide were randomly blowing up others in wholesale slaughter on buses, in pizza parlors, wedding chapels, trains, workplaces, airplanes and screaming Jesus’s name claiming they were doing it in His name

…….EVERY Christian denomination in the world would be holding catechism classes in Churches worldwide tomorrow to tell them they were ignorant of the New Testament!

Mosques can’t and won’t … because the jihadists are NOT misinformed about Islamic doctrines.

Moderate Islam: A Myth…(you have to scroll down for it)
- if a Muslim is moderate – he or she hasn’t read the Koran.

Quote: “Yet, it appears that those so-called moderate Muslims – who are Muslims just because of their birth in Muslim family and who might not have read the Koran, Sunna and Islam’s history at all or only in insufficient details (if at all) – are the ones overly enthusiastic to give verdicts on these radicals who are unrivalled in their knowledge and understanding of the Islamic faith.

This is a case like an illiterate street vendor giving a verdict on whether “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity” is correct or not.”

THERE WAS A TIME when the most massive and premeditated forms of political violence, exemplified by the Holocaust were associated with the “banality of evil” — a concept introduced by Hannah Arendt. She popularized the idea that the Holocaust was a form of bureaucratized mass murder carried out by “desk murderers” who had no strong feelings about it, perfectly ordinary human beings, such as Eichman and his associates, impersonal and interchangeable cogs in the gigantic killing machine. Anybody could have performed the task; no political passion or ideological conviction was involved or required. It was implied that this type of violence was emblematic of modernity and mass society and their key characteristics: anonymity, standardization, homogenization, impersonality as well as increasing specialization and reliance on technology. Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority further bolstered the notion that people are able and willing to inflict great pain and suffering on total strangers for no reason other than their willingness to obey authority, as the Nazis did, supposedly.

In the wake of these theories it has become widely accepted, with a curious mixture of horror and relish — especially among intellectuals — that potentially all of us are amoral, robotic monsters, but monsters without convictions, distinction or originality. There was something morbidly fascinating about the combination of extraordinary moral outrages (such as the Nazis perpetrated) and the pedestrian, mundane character of the perpetrators. The popularity of these ideas was nurtured by the questioning of modernity which brought us technology, mass production, efficiency, bureaucracy, impersonality, mass culture and the decline of community. These ideas were especially congenial with the protest movements of the 1960s whose stock in trade were impassioned critiques of impersonality, dehumanization and faceless bureaucracy.

The banality of evil, approach also lent itself to a generous extension of the idea of “complicity” and the rejection of American (or any other Western) society. If anybody could readily become a mass murderer, or assist in mass murder, and if beliefs and motivation were largely irrelevant to behavior, then no society was immune to genocidal temptations. Moreover the allegedly homogenized mass societies overly reliant on technology such as the U.S. might have a special affinity to devising new, efficient forms of mass murder, even genocide. Not by accident did “genocide” and “genocidal” become favorite epithets of the social critics and political activists of the 1960s (hardly ever directed at truly genocidal political systems). It may also be recalled here that the 1960s generation of radicals took great pleasure in comparing the United States to Nazi Germany (they spelled America with a “k”) and whenever possible threw at it terms like “fascist,” and “nazi” and compared American institutions to the Gestapo, the storm troopers and Auschwitz.

The Vietnam War further stimulated the inclination to associate mass murder with technology and view the United States as a genocidal country intent on killing good-natured peasants impersonally with sophisticated technology from high altitudes, rather than in manly, authentic, face-to-face combat. American soldiers in this perspective were “professional killers” and their lack of passion was also held against them by many anti-war activists. Repeatedly such critics of the United States contrasted favorably the supposedly poorly armed, deeply committed, simple guerillas, operating in small groups with the mechanized might of the U.S. forces for whom fighting was a “job” to be performed impersonally and efficiently.

The recent waves of political violence committed by Islamic groups and individuals have dealt a heavy blow to the theories and ideas Arendt popularized. A greatly neglected factor of political conflict and violence suddenly and dramatically reemerged, namely, fanatical hatred and the religious-political beliefs generating it. It was these beliefs that legitimated the ruthless violence the hatred inspired. Rarely in history has the relationship between belief and behavior been so clear as in the actions of the Islamic suicide pilots and bombers fortified and reassured as they had been by conceptions and personifications of evil defined with great clarity and held unhesitatingly. There was nothing banal, impersonal, dispassionate or detached about their behavior. A pure, burning hatred of the evil eagerly embraced motivated them as well as certain specific, if peculiar but deeply felt beliefs in other-wordily rewards. (More down to earth motives also played a part as families receive substantial material compensation for their “martyred” sons or daughters in addition to a marked improvement of their social standing in the community which applauds suicide bombings.)

In numerous Arab countries and communities a hate-filled political culture evolved which enshrines violence as a sacred mission directed at the designated objects of hate. In these settings virulent hatred is inculcated from an early age; it is disseminated by the mass media, in schools and places of worship and sanctioned by both religious and political authorities.

It is one thing to kill or harm one’s enemies in a matter-of-fact way in combat or in what is usually perceived as self-defense, and something quite different to publicly rejoice in, celebrate and glorify such killings. It is the hallmark of a political culture drenched in self-righteous hate that it allows and encourages individuals to joyously display their bloody hands to television cameras and bystanders after they committed murder, as was the case last year when two Israeli soldiers were lynched on the West Bank. The same political culture sustains the behavior of people who dance on the streets when hearing about the indiscriminate mass murder of their supposed enemies, as was the case in several Arab cities after September 11. One can also readily associate this political culture with the attitude of parents who express great joy upon hearing of the “martyrdom” their children incurred in the course of blowing to bits innocent civilians.

Whatever the ingredients or sources of such hatred–material deprivation, lack of education, frustration, resentment, sense of inferiority, the scapegoating impulse — it has become the dominant force fuelling political conflict and violence. Its “root cause” is not poverty but relative deprivation or frustrated expectations and the overpowering but comforting belief that others are responsible for one’s misfortune. It is highly relevant here to recall that (as reported in a recent New York Times op-ed piece) opinion polls in the West Bank and Gaza found “that better educated Palestinians were more likely than others to approve of violence.”

There is certainly nothing banal or inauthentic about the violence of the suicide bombers enthusiastically killing themselves in the pursuit of their ideals. Religious beliefs and a climate of public opinion legitimate and nurture such hatreds, which in other cultures most people are embarrassed to display in public, let alone act on.

It is perhaps the authenticity of such violence and the belief that its perpetrators are the virtuous victims of the West (of the United States, and Israel) that impels the hardcore supporters of the adversary culture in this country to take a more charitable view of it and its perpetrators. Even if these warriors have not attracted as much open sympathy as the Vietcong used to, they benefit from the identity of their enemies in the eyes of the radical-left beholders whose better known representatives include Noam Chomsky, Terry Eagelton, Barbara Ehrenreich, Eric Foner, Frederic Jameson, Norman Mailer, Katha Pollit, Edward Said, Susan Sontag and Gore Vidal, among many others. They cannot help being drawn to virtually any group or individual passionately opposed to and willing to take militant action against the United States and Israel since they regard the United States “the great Satan” and the source of all evil and injustice in this world and Israel its ally and lackey.

In the wake of 9/11 these attitudes have taken several forms. One was the search for “root causes” which invariably led to the conclusion that the United States and Israel are in the final analysis responsible for the violence directed against them; if they are so bitterly hated there have to be good reasons for such hate. Another expression of the same attitude was the solicitousness shown toward those accused of or suspected of the terrorist violence against the U.S. and Israel. A great surge of concern about their civil and human rights and welfare swept through left-liberal circles that would be praiseworthy if such concern had also been shown for the corresponding rights and welfare of the victims of the various anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israeli guerillas and movements.

At numerous universities administrators have been anxious to protect the sensitivity of Arab students and adherents of Islamic beliefs by deeming offensive any expression of American patriotism including the display of the American flag; likewise campus critics of the U.S. war on terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere were assured a far more supportive environment than those supporting it.

Another symbolic gesture of support and solidarity was extended by Western “peace activists” who rushed to Arafat’s headquarters in Ramallah and to the besieged terrorists in the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem to keep them company and protect them by their presence.

There have also been many attempts to deny that Islamic religious beliefs could have inspired or legitimated the murderous political impulses and behavior of the suicide bombers. These attempts are reminiscent of the old dispute about the relationship between Marxism and the practices of communist states. The repressive nature of these states cannot be directly blamed on Marx and his theories but there was a connection, at the very least in the sense of entitlement to ruthlessness on behalf of great ideals to be realized. A paradise awaiting the suicide bomber is such an ideal or aspiration, and it is a religious notion not invented by the individuals in question who act on it. None of the other violent enemies of Western societies in recent times (the Weathermen, the Red Brigade in Italy, the Bader-Meinhof gang in Germany, the IRA in Ireland, the Basque terrorists etc) were suicidal. They did not have the kind of religious assurance and encouragement their Islamic counterparts possess at the present time.

The evil of Nazism was not banal, nor is the evil of Islamic suicide bombers. Whatever the social and political circumstances which contribute to their actions they do not provide moral license or the kind of “understanding” that shades into a mitigation of their behavior; these were individuals who, according to all indications, choose their actions freely, with utmost deliberation and under no compulsion other than the prodding of their beliefs and the enthusiastic support of their community.
————————————————————————
Paul Hollander is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His books include Political Pilgrims, Anti-Americanism, Political Will and Personal Belief and most recently Discontents: Postmodern and Postcommunist (Transaction, 2002)

Moderate Islam is a myth. A Muslim is either a jihadist, a potential jihadist or an apostate.

While in the midst of a search at yahoo for what I had read (but can’t find again) I came across this – it’s quite enlightening and a must read.

“Almost all the learned Muslim scholars and Imams, who lead a visibly religious life as per the standard prescription of Islam with conviction, are also known to interpret Islam the same way Osama bin-Laden and other prominent Islamic radicals do.”

http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/IslamWest5.htm

The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an alarming network of home-grown terrorists and their sympathizers. Somehow, London had become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism — so much so that it was mockingly dubbed “Londonistan” by exasperated European security forces. Now, British investigative journalist Melanie Phillips reveals how widespread Muslim immigration into Great Britain, and the country’s paralysis by multiculturalism and fear, has created a fifth column of jihadists plotting against the West from deep inside its bosom.
Londonistan paints a picture of a country so terrified of giving offense to its Muslim minority that it has been cowed by radical clerics. Institutions across British society — the judiciary, security circles, the Church of England, the universities, the media — have all been reduced to silence or appeasement. With the resulting license to incite hatred and terror, London’s mosques have churned out literally thousands of foot soldiers in Islamic terrorism’s war against the West — including shoe-bomber Richard Reid, 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, and the British Muslims who perpetrated last year’s hideous London Underground and bus bombings that killed 52 people.

The result, Phillips shows, is an ugly climate in Britain of fear and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defense of the free world. In the end, she argues, British authorities are walking the same path as those who capitulated to Adolf Hitler — a strategy that is as likely to earn peace as Neville Chamberlain’s.

The Religion of Bombers and Beheaders

It isn’t a far stretch to believe that those who ’support’ the batshit insane aren’t *also* batshit insane. And that’s just those who admitted their support. Now, take an Islamic country like Indonesia, and those numbers of support are much, much higher. Geez, the Koran INSTRUCTS them on how to provide support to the active, batshit insane jihadis!

LT,

I tried to welcome you home and congratulate you on your growing family below, but I’m having trouble posting except via Preview. So, welcome home!!