Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Rod Kaufman said:

Henry? Phillip? Charles?
No, we have to go backwards a few centuries:
Mohammed
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/28/uk.mohammed/index.html?hpt=T2

PS
There are now no less than 11, yes 11, different spellings of Mohammed officially recorded in England:
Muhammad
Mohammad
Mohammod
Mahamed
etc etc with others reportedly reportedly out there (way out there)from the "old country"
Perhaps something along the lines of:
Manyhammeds
Muchohameds
Mnymorehommads
Perhaps we can add to the cultural diversity by creating our own literary vision of the unique and different spellings available for our personal enrichment. I await your creative responses...

Henry? Phillip? Charles?
No, we have to go backwards a few centuries:
Mohammed
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/28/uk.mohammed/index.html?hpt=T2

Launching a new line of clothiers can never be better than with a change of seasons.
Introducing the new fall fashions for "Infidel" clothiers!
In our unique collection, your misses will find everything she'll need to maintain her modesty while conveying her inner beauty in global proportions.
Our featured fall selection offers the finest in new apparel. First on our hit list is our new premium down filled burqa filled with the finest industry standard of 770 goose down and, best of all, it's pre-wired! No more fumbling around with last minute stitches and alterations with our "Yeti version" which is guaranteed to warm her heart with sizes to fit up to four kilos of c4. Plus it comes fully accessorized with hair pin triggers! Rest assured, it's been fully field tested in the hilltops of Tora Bora.
Is your honey thinking about going out for the evening alone and is she worried about being spotted by undesirable men? Our gore-tex covered head scarves are specially treated with radiant dyes and radar absorbing polymers that are guaranteed to keep her evening predator-free.
For that sassy, stealthy look, our full length burqas are available in quality scent-free materials and are guaranteed undetectable by man and beast. All of these burqas have been fully field tested in the mountainous regions of the Pakistani-Afghan border and in your local airline terminal! Available in your choice of the following colorsspecify)
a) black
b) blacker
c) more black
See illustration for product guide:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Yemeni-students-seen-University-Sana-female-computer-engineering-student-Hanan/photo//101031/481/urn_publicid_ap_org1cfcac9f8c8642e3bdb28759846caf28//s:/ap/20101031/ap_on_bi_ge/hmail_bombs
Is your bride to be afraid of being butchered by her parents in an honor killing for failing to marry their first choice of her first cousin for her husband? No problem! All of our burqas look exactly the same and remember, there's nothing to conceal when you blend in with our camo-class winter-wear!
PS Group discounts available. Ships faster than an Ioptron eq45 mount...

A cleric has put a price on a head to have it chopped off in an expeditious manner.
Here's the hard question: can you guess the name of the religion represented by the cleric. I know, I know, its a tough one but do your best.
Give up?
Here ya go:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/05/pakistani-cleric-puts-price-on-condemned-christians-head/?hpt=T2
Any odds on how long the head will remain in place?

I see CNN is advertising its upcoming special on the life of the Taliban. I've seen the snippets showing the Taliban doing what they do best: shooting unrelentingly at their enemies, presumably our guys or NATO or both, and pausing to look at the Quran. I say looking rather than reading it because aren't most Taliban illiterate? I know many of the women in Afghanistan are illiterate and deliberately so but what about these peasants with the AKs? One of 'em appeared to be looking at a pocket book edition of the Quran, definitely dwarf size, and perhaps it was an illustrated version with something akin to cartoons: a comic book Quran if you will. And I'm wondering what might be in it. Hmmm, sawing?, the home guide to female genital mutilation?, what's under the veil of the 72 virgins you're going to get when you blow yourself up? How about it?

As noted on today's(2-5-11)online website of the Los Angeles Times, eleven Irvine Muslim students of the Muslim student union at UC Irvine be charged by the Orange County DA for unlawfully disrupting a speech given on campus by an Israeli diplomat. The eleven have already been disciplined by UC Irvine for various offensives related to the incident. If you look at the LA Times picture of some of the students in their hijabs, you'll note they've placed tape over their own mouths as if they were the ones who were being denied freedom of speech. Of course, they, in fact, were the ones who denied the latter to the Israeli diplomat. As the district attorney of Orange County notes, you either have a lawful assembly at an approved speech or you don't in which case you have anarchy. And that was pretty much the case at the speech in question.
The aforementioned incident kind of reminds me, at a micro level, of the situation in Egypt. The demonstrators have had their say and a significant change will occur as a result but at what point do you stop the anarchy?

Today, the prime minister of Britain has joined the consensus of opinion with his German and Singapore colleagues that multiculturalism is a failure. David Cameron noted non-violent organizations that present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community but are ambiguous on western values should no longer receive state funding and should be banned from from university campuses.
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Multiculturalism-a-failure-Cameron-20110205
The prime minister of Germany has also stated multiculturalism has failed:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/17/germany.merkel.multiculturalism/index.html?hpt=T2
The prime minister of Singapore stated we can't integrate Islam:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/singapores_lee_we_cant_integrate_muslims/
For all of them to reach essentially the same conclusion is shocking and disturbing and they really had to be pissed off to do it...

"Islamic freedom is the recognition of the essential relationship between God the master and his human slaves."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8622/pub_detail.asp
There you have it...

[QUOTE]Greg Shaffer said:

Every now and then I run across what I would describe as profound logic, the letter below in my opinion fits the phrase "profound logic" to a T

"The Gun Is Civilization"


By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception; Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People, who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where actors take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
"When I carry a gun, you can not deal with me with force."
Of course, we can cite numerous instances wherein that statement is utterly false. Like the tragic case, among others, that I posted about last year wherein three or four armed and trained deputies were shot and killed by a solo gun man in a coffee shop. I hear and read all too often that if only someone had been armed, a tragedy could have been prevented.
"The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 lb mugger, a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with with 19 year old gang banger..."
Of course, I can cite numerous instances wherein that has not been the case. For instance, just last week an old grandmother beat the daylights out of several bikers with her handbag. The perps had just robbed a jewelry store, when granny got pissed and knocked one of them off his bike causing the others to collide with him. All perps were arrested at the scene.
Of course, other retirees can't hold a handbag, let alone a gun. Or accurately point it. Or suffer the recoil of anything of consequence with any significant degree of stopping power. They can, however, dial 911, and get help from something called law enforcement.
Of course, when law enforcement isn't readily available, like in the case of the AZ shootings, an unarmed citizen can and did disarm a shooter, although he paid a price for it by being mistakenly pummeled by a gun toting "equalized" citizen who charged into a situation he knew nothing about.
I think many of these gun toting guys are, in fact, afraid and conjure up situations to justify their fears. That's not to say that these fears can't have a basis in fact or that there have been situations where an armed citizen acted as intended, but does that justify the above fictitious story?

Rod Kaufman said:

Is this another case of sudden Jihad syndrome?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_us_airport_shooting

Update:
Evidently it was:
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/03/02/gunman-yells-allah-akbar-and-kills-two-us-airmen-germany