patrick.net

curious2 says

They've done for Islam what Edward Bernays did for bacon, except this time we're what's for breakfast.

Great Post, and double plus good for Bernays reference. Another Bernays classic:

Liberated, Modern women can smoke their "Torches of Freedom". Female smoking skyrocketed after his PR Campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom

So fuckin' woke that more and more people know who Bernays was.

Freud told him to stop using his family connections with him to promote himself, being an old school Victorian holding no tolerance for propaganda and manipulation, but firm middle class self-discipline.

So, looks like we got an Obama type with a Upper Middle Class Hippie Mom with immigrant father, grew up in a 300k Pound house, parents divorced, never saw his dad, and the Kid grew up hating the world, committed a shitload of crimes including stabbings and "Grievous Bodily Harm", and eventually converted to the Religion of Peace.

That's when he really started getting violent.

socal2 says

The Media, academia and pop-culture were at best reluctantly in support of the Iraq war and turned on the war on a fucking dime to hurt Bush and Republicans a few months later. I don't recall the Media or either political party banging the war drums for troops in Syria either.

Regarding Iraq war endorsements, thanks, I've corrected my comment: editorials divided about equally into three camps (support, opposition, ambivalence), but the NY Times and others were promoting it based on little or no evidence. Regarding Syria, I remember the exaggeration campaign about the "red line", saying we must go to war there, probably at the behest of Turkey and KSA and the MIC.

socal2 says

I'm confused.

You are indeed confused, because you start with partisan loyalty and then see only what you want to see within that frame.

socal2 says

You seem to agree that - Yes, radical Islam is an expansionist ideology which is violent and a total blight on humanity. But are you also arguing that the US is somehow in cahoots and only wants to beat up on A-Rabs because they want profits for the military/medical industrial complex?

Ever since Nixon's secret deals with Saudi Arabia, disclosed by the Obama administration, the USA has fallen increasingly under the influence of KSA. The purpose of NIxon's deals was to continue financing the American war in Viet Nam, which enabled him to increase his own power by spending a lot of money, and yes the only beneficiaries were the medical/military industrial complex including associated political patronage networks. As the influence of KSA has grown, it has distorted American policy: we are simultaneously fighting for and against Islam, financing the Saudis and Sunni militias while fighting expensively other Sunni forces including the Islamic State that agree with more than 90% of what the Saudis and Sunni militias believe. Our policy is incoherent except for the role of Petrodollars and the MIC, and backfires by every measure except for producing huge power (including in the form of revenue) for the corporate and Saudi sponsors of the Bush and Clinton campaigns. It is a bipartisan problem, which confuses you because you insist on looking only through a partisan frame.

socal2 says

And if that is what you are saying about America's motivations, isn't that the same [ISIL/Daesh] propaganda...that radical Imams ape in their mosques recruiting [ISIL/Daesh] members?

No, it isn't the same, but there is overlap. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don't see that because you use a partisan frame, insisting that your side is always right and the enemy is therefore always wrong. As for the troofers, I've posted enough comments disagreeing with them, and I'm not interested in returning to the issue.

If Nixon hadn't bowed to Saudi Pressure and worked with them to have all the Arab States (and sadly, also pressured the Shah) send fighter planes with trained pilots to Pakistan in 1971, whereas the Indian Army, on the verge of victory, would have set up several tiny puppet states (including a Free Balochistan) instead of a dangerous Nuclear Power with an increasingly Islamist population nearing control of them.

Likely the Taliban and Pashtu fanatics would have never been such a major problem in Afghanistan. If the USSR invaded, we would have worked more with the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Instead we basically let Pakistan's ISI give all the arms and training to their radical Pashtu fellow ethnics.

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

curious2 says

As the influence of KSA has grown, it has distorted American policy:

I dunno - have you seen the price of gas lately? The miracle of American fracking has nearly broken the back of OPEC and limited Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia's influence. Now which party has done everything it can to limit fracking and America's domestic energy production? Which President said we "couldn't drill our way to lower gas prices?" I didn't vote for Trump, but I am seeing the wisdom of appointing and oil man like Tillerson to run the State Department when we have these other petro economies over a barrel.

curious2 says

No, it isn't the same, but there is overlap. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You don't see that because you use a partisan frame, insisting that your side is always right and the enemy is therefore always wrong.

Uh yeah - "my side" which is America and Western Civilization is on the right side.

Pray tell how is ISIS and radical Islam not "wrong"? Do you really believe they have any legitimate grievances to justify their barbarity around the globe?

socal2, if you want to sloganeer and say pointless things, then kindly leave me out of it. If you want to read more about pipeline deals and rat lines, follow the links. Anybody looking at America's record of war on behalf of KSA and the MIC would expect some pushback. That doesn't explain the madness of Islam, which America has actually exacerbated in recent decades, but you can't hope to understand the chronic warfare without considering that every story has at least two sides.

Rashomon says

I think it's reasonable that the West takes in a number of refugees from the Syrian crisis on a temporary basis because hey, that is the decent thing to do.

More reasonable for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar and UAE to do it, and yet they really aren't

Rashomon says

I'm attempting to offer another perspective, one from someone who actually lives in the ME, who knows Muslims, and who has more than a passing knowledge of the history of the region, of the political machinations and grievances that underpin many of the regional disputes

That's nice, my uncle lived in Dammam and Jubail KSA between 1980-1990, he said they were animals and came to the US 8 years after my parents became citizens and sponsored him from immigration.

Made good money in Saudi but much much better in the US and better quality of life. He did not bring his wife and children to live with him there

He referred to them(Saudis) as 'animals'. He is probably 'less educated' than you but far more financially successful.... Prior to that he spent several years in Hyderabad, India.

Most of my relatives who grew up in Hyderabad have a strong disdain for muslims and their whiny victim status.

After all, these poor people just have to have 8 kids and live in ghettoes. Not like their religion doesn't tell them to do this ....oh wait, actually they do.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

So, looks like we got an Obama type with a Upper Middle Class Hippie Mom with immigrant father, grew up in a 300k Pound house, parents divorced, never saw his dad, and the Kid grew up hating the world, committed a shitload of crimes including stabbings and "Grievous Bodily Harm", and eventually converted to the Religion of Peace.

That's when he really started getting violent.

The UK needs a tougher immigration policy.
That clearly would have stopped an idiot from believing bullshit on the internet.

rando says

I could not believe how "Islamophobic" the guy was being, though the word did not exist yet. He went on to say that Indians have known for many centuries exactly how the Muslims are, and what Islam teaches, and maybe it was a good thing that the West finally learned this truth as well. I cut it short because the conversation was not suitable for work.

But he was totally right.

True. Every Indian guy I know, and being in IT half the people I know are Indian (other half Chinese), say the same thing and make politically incorrect jokes of Muslims. The Indian women don't, but they do laugh at the jokes.

So, who in here thinks we should still have freedom of religion?

Dan8267 says

So, who in here thinks we should still have freedom of religion?

Religion is OK as long as it does not hurt anyone. It's the pedophile loving cults that need to be banned.

Strategist says

Religion is OK as long as it does not hurt anyone

Religions do hurt people. Every single child brainwashed into one is harmed.

Dan8267 says

So, who in here thinks we should still have freedom of religion?

We should, as long as secular law remains above religious law.

The problem with Islam is that it demands to replace secular law with sharia. This makes it a seditious political movement more than a religion.

Strategist says

Religion is OK as long as it does not hurt anyone. It's the pedophile loving cults that need to be banned.

Dan8267 says

Religions do hurt people. Every single child brainwashed into one is harmed.

Yep, The only way things like Pedophilia, Talking Donkeys, etc. will be defended by people is due to religious belief.

Dan8267 says

Religions do hurt people

Said the Soviet Union.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Religion is OK as long as it does not hurt anyone

Religions do hurt people. Every single child brainwashed into one is harmed.

I do agree. Teaching children mythology as facts can do no good. However, society is not ready to ban religion, yet. Banning religion now would make us a dictatorship. Lets stick with banning religious practices that directly hurt other people.
Lets also concentrate on Islam, the fucking religion that does the most harm to us.

MMR says

That's nice, my uncle lived in Dammam and Jubail KSA between 1980-1990, he said they were animals and came to the US 8 years after my parents became citizens and sponsored him from immigration.

I've met several people who lived and worked in the Gulf. An oil guy, a construction guy, and a stewardess. All of them had negative experiences.

rando says

Dan8267 says

So, who in here thinks we should still have freedom of religion?

We should, as long as secular law remains above religious law.

And religions should not get subsidies and automatic tax exemption as they do now. Religions are inherently divisive, as anyone can see from comments on this board. Believers are convinced that their religion is true and all contrary beliefs are false, regardless of evidence and reason. It stokes division, divide&rule, and prevents people from reasoning together based on observable evidence. Currently, religions get tax exemption and exemption from the Obamneycare penalty. Picture two identically situated people who object to insurance and refuse to buy it, but one refuses because of a religion that the IRS considers "bona fide" while the other refuses for secular reasons. The secular objector gets penalized, for not adhering to a religion that the IRS considers bona fide. The IRS should not be certifying some religions as bona fide, and should not be enforcing adherence to any religion, but the law as written requires the IRS to do both. JK Rowling pays taxes on Harry Potter profits regardless of whether people believe in Harry Potter, and religious organizations should pay taxes on their profits too. If they do something genuinely charitable, like feeding the hungry without regard to religion, then that's a legitimate deduction, but the religion itself shouldn't be.

In recent years, American taxpayers have been paying more than $100k per "refugee" to subsidize the spread Islam. NATO pays to bomb Muslim countries and drive Muslims out of their homes, then pays again to import Muslims, and then pays again when Muslims kill disbelievers as Islam commands. It is an obviously self-defeating policy, but voters are divided and hypnotized by media campaigns and politicians.

"Police searched two properties where Masood and his family are thought most recently to have lived, in the Winson Green and Hagley Road areas of Birmingham. Eight of the 11 arrests made as of Friday afternoon in connection with the investigation were in Birmingham.
***
"They just seemed a normal family, a normal Muslim family. We never suspect anything. It's just a shock."

Masood wore "Islamic clothes" most of the time, Gajecka said. A woman she presumed to be Masood's wife wore a veil with just her face uncovered. She also saw the young girl wearing a headscarf. Masood and his family would not have stood out in this multicultural, diverse neighborhood."

If more people read what Islam commands believers to do, e.g. "strike terror into the enemies of Allah...kill the disbelievers wherever you find them," then fewer people would be shocked when Muslims do what the Koran says.

As this is related, here's my piece on the Orlando shooter, being a closet gay guy ...

https://patrick.net/1296234/2016-09-27-rin-s-truth-orlando-shooter-was-a-closet-gay-guy

The Orlando gunman was a repressed, Islamic closet gay guy.

If his father had died, when he was a boy and he'd been raised by me, we would have gotten drunk, attended Metallica concerts together, and f.ucked hoes around the world.

And then one day ... he realizes that instead of poking the likes of a Selma Hayek look-a-like, he'd rather do a male Chippendale's model; well, at that point, we'd part ways at the hotel, so that I go into my private quarters with a busty lingerie model, whereas he goes back to his suite with an Adonis type. I don't need anymore details than that. Really ... I don't want to know.

In the morning, we meet up for breakfast. He's happy and then realizes, he doesn't need to go on a killing spree to be content in life.

He can f.uck man hoes and I can f.uck, female hoes. All is well in the world.

50 lives were saved, in that parallel universe.

Blurtman says

And don't forget Road Warrior, Lord Humungus.

The Lord Humungus was a highly civilized Warlord. Listen to the eloquence of his speech ...

www.youtube.com/embed/ZfL4xKQeSfo

Rin says

If his father had died, when he was a boy and he'd been raised by me, we would have gotten drunk, attended Metallica concerts together, and f.ucked hoes around the world.

Lucky kid. I was abused by my father. He made me do homework.

Strategist says

Rin says

If his father had died, when he was a boy and he'd been raised by me, we would have gotten drunk, attended Metallica concerts together, and f.ucked hoes around the world.

Lucky kid. I was abused by my father. He made me do homework.

Sorry, I'm a strict dad, no boink before getting one's homework done.

The idea is the use the 'A' grade as motivation for the poke which is to follow.

After a while ... a 4.0 GPA is like being in brothel heaven.

rando says

Dan8267 says

So, who in here thinks we should still have freedom of religion?

We should, as long as secular law remains above religious law.

Yet, it does not in our society. Remember that kid arrested for sacrilege? Yes, sacrilege. Show disrespect to a statue of the Christian god by posting a crude, and hilarious, picture of you with it on Facebook, and you get arrested.

Religion corrupts courts and government. Christianity has corrupted the American courts.

WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch says

Yep, The only way things like Pedophilia, Talking Donkeys, etc. will be defended by people is due to religious belief.

That brings up another point. America has never had religious freedom, just privileges for specific state-approved religions. Whenever the power of the state comes into conflict with a religious "right", the power of the state wins. The religious beliefs of many Christians prohibit letting someone you are not married to put his or her hand up your ass. Yet, police forcibly violate the right to uphold that belief every time they body cavity search. There is no real religious freedom in our country. Only privileges for a few select religions.

Like clockwork.

A radical Islamic terrorist targets and kills innocent civilians, and within 48 hours, the debate in the West (mainly on the political Left) is how bad "religion" and Christianity is.

Meanwhile, the dopes in Canada just passed an "anti-Islamophobia" law.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/canada-passes-103-motion-islamophobia-170324074557381.html

Keep giving Islam a pass boys!

socal2 says

Like clockwork.

A radical Islamic terrorist targets and kills innocent civilians, and within 48 hours, the debate in the West (mainly on the political Left) is how bad "religion" and Christianity is.

Meanwhile, the dopes in Canada just passed an "anti-Islamophobia" law.

We are our worst enemy. We deserve what we get.

Dan8267 says

Yet, it does not in our society. Remember that kid arrested for sacrilege? Yes, sacrilege. Show disrespect to a statue of the Christian god by posting a crude, and hilarious, picture of you with it on Facebook, and you get arrested.

Religion corrupts courts and government. Christianity has corrupted the American courts.

I hear Spring is nice in Saudi Arabia. They would love you to visit and tell them what you think of religion.

socal2 says

Canada just passed an "anti-Islamophobia" law.

It's a motion not a law, and I'm surprised you read Al Jazeera, but the motion looks bad anyway:

"Opponents argued the private members’ motion, which calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, will limit free speech in the country and single out Islam for special treatment.
***
The motion explicitly called on the government to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”.

On this issue the Canadian parliament’s guide to private members’ motions reads: “The first difference to keep in mind is in their effect. Since in agreeing to a motion expressing a resolution, the House is only stating an opinion, the government will not be bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action."

The lopsided vote suggests the Canadian Parliament must be suffering a terrible case of Para-Muslim Syndrome (PMS). Muslims can quote the Koran saying you are "the worst beast" and that they must "strike terror into" you, and kill you, but if the government acts on this motion then you won't be allowed to object or talk back, because that would be blasphemy "Islamophobic."

Strategist says

I hear Spring is nice in Saudi Arabia. They would love you to visit and tell them what you think of religion.

You demonstrate my point and the importance of removing religion from America so that it does not deteriorate into Saudi Arabia.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I hear Spring is nice in Saudi Arabia. They would love you to visit and tell them what you think of religion.

You demonstrate my point and the importance of removing religion from America so that it does not deteriorate into Saudi Arabia.

You got that backwards. The importance is to remove religion from Saudi Arabia so that it does not deteriorate into America.