Groundhog Day in the Middle East

For those unfamiliar with the term Groundhog Day, watch this first:


---

British MP Daniel Hannan made a point today on the Sean Hannity show. During the Cold War, the US supported dictators who opposed communism. Hannan explained that the argument during the Cold War was "He's may be a son of a b*tch, but he's our son of a b*tch. But now the cold war is over, so we can say 'he may be our son of a b*tch, but he's a son of a b*tch."

The first thought is basically why we were supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak's dictatorship provided some degree of stability, especially for US ally Israel. Mubarak's Egypt provided security for the Suez Canal, through which some 8% of the world's shipping flows.

The old logic was that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, provided he's not worse than your actual enemy. Ultimately compromising and supporting a very bad guy against an evil evil empire supported one's good principles. Makes sense. The new logic is that since the evil empire is gone, it's time to drop support for the very bad guy. Sorta makes sense.

The only failing is that without a transitional structure, there isn't just a smooth handoff from "very bad guy" to "good new guy". The people who almost invariably takeover in these situations are those that are prepared for it and have been working towards it. Very bad guy is replaced with different evil guy. If you don't want a son of a b*tch, you replace him on your terms to make sure you get a better guy, or you apply pressure to reform him. You don't go along with a mob that is at least in part incited by the evil guys - because that mob and those evil guys are often only kept in check because your guy is a son of a b*tch.

In the past, there are several examples of the people who take over after a nation collapses. The Leninist victory in Russia was a result of a fractured nation in a period of transition. The interim government of Kerensky may have promised a republic, but it lasted just long enough for Lenin to take over - which was his goal - Lenin was a professional revolutionary. The breakdown of China during WWII led to the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek - a US ally, though with many faults - ultimately losing control of China to Mao, who was ready and working towards seizing power. Recently, this is the entire Beckian argument with regards to George Soros and his shadow government.

But it's Groundhog Day in the very easy, and very apt, comparison of the Shah of Iran to Mubarak. The Iranian Islamic Revolution was the result of a lot of factors, but not the least of which was Jimmy Carter not doing much of anything to shore up US interests in Iran by supporting the Shah.

Probably not the best leader in Iran's history, but far from the worst.

The loss of the Shah brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and a nuclear Iran that seeks out the ability to obliterate its neighbors. The loss of Mubarak is most likely going to bring us the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, as they are the most powerful opposition group, and stand the most to gain. The Muslim Brotherhood has been referred to as "Al Qaeda before Al Qaeda was cool". They've also got a bit of history, going back to some other evil guys.

From the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/egypt/does-muslim-brotherhood-have-ties-terrorism/p9248

One reason the Brotherhood’s commitment to nonviolence is unclear: The original Egyptian organization has spawned branches in 70 countries. These organizations bear the Brotherhood name, but their connections to the founding group vary and some of them may provide financial, logistical, or other support to terrorist organizations. Some terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zawahiri went more hardcore after Sayyid Qutb was hanged by Egyptian authorities. Who was Qutb? Just the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. And what is Qutbism? Just good old-fashioned infidel-killing Jihad.

From a story on the Muslim Brotherhood in CanadaFreePress, 2006:

Here's how the story began. In the 1920s there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s, al-Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.

The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.

More on Al Banna here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/hassan_al-banna.htm
And from Horowitz here:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1368
Even CNN can't spin them into a good thing, though they try:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/02/01/exp.am.intv.cruickshank.brother.cnn.html

Considering Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood liked each other, making Mubarak into Hitler really makes no sense, other than to support Orwell's claim that "fascist" just means "anything bad".

Weak, naiive democrat president with no foreign policy experience or understanding in charge of the US. An islamist group seizing power from a US ally. The US ally is a strongarm leader that the democrat's touchy-feely side rejects, rather than figure out why we'd ever support the guy - and what the repercussions of not supporting him will be... Yup. It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

But this time when we drive off the cliff, it'll be different!

No Mosque at Ground Zero

The Jawa Report links to Brit Pat Condell when he puts up really good videos like this one, and I feel that their statement that "more folks should see it" is quite correct. Thus:



It's also a quick primer in case you're not up to speed on the story - basically, an Islamic group wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero in NYC. Pat Condell points out that Cordoba is also the location of the major mosque built in Spain when the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain. They built the mosque because they conquered. Here in the US, they plan on doing the same.

Now, if they wanted to build it at the Trinity Ground Zero, I wouldn't have a problem.

Free Speech on Draw Mo Day - 5/20

There's an issue that a lot of folks aren't willing to tackle. Many folks are willing to bury their heads in sand. A lot of folks want to address it.

It started over on Facebook, apparently, with the idea of a "Draw Mohammed Day" to stand up for free speech. Since I'm a dinosaur and not adept at Facespace or Mybook, I've mostly been kept abreast of it by The Jawa Report. (I highly recommend visiting the site - they have much more info and several links.)

Apparently, though, there's been some typical muslim intolerance of free speech.

Call them the religion of peace. Or they'll kill you.
(Also big thanks to Jawa Report.)

So insulting Mohammed = Death? Again?


Y'know what, islamic community? You don't want to be portrayed like your prophet, who spread his religion by the sword, forced conversions, and murder?

Y'know, like Mohammed, pictured here in my artist's rendering:

Free speech & the 1st Amendment. Got a problem with it? Tough.
Want to change my mind? That's up to your behavior.

(For those of you paying attention, Mohammed was portrayed as a kind superhero on South Park. The above image is my creation, using a South Park character generator.)

Then stop threatening people with death for joking about your religion, or your founder (who raped a 9-year old girl). Jews can take a joke about Moses, Christians can sure take a joke about Jesus, Buddhists can take a joke about buddha, animists can take a joke about anything. Hell, even snotty atheists can take a joke... about nothing.

While you're at it, stop murdering gay people for being gay, and stop punishing rape victims for being victims of rape.

Now, in the unlikely event that actual moderate muslims like Irshad Manji, Wafa Sultan, Ozma, Marwan or his sisters, or Tony (our 'terp) ever read the site, no true disrespect is intended towards you, and I'm sure you can stomach the insult to the prophet you believe in in order to have the barbarians in your midst shown for who they are by their foaming-at-the-mouth response, and for those who do have some capacity for tolerance to be able to develop it. You may scowl in distaste, but no harm is done, and a positive reaction from you enhances your image and character, and ultimately simple mockery of Mohammed without any depth to the discussion will go away. We'll all be able to recognize you as civilized people capable of reasoned discourse - again, it's testament to your character as individuals.

Those who would be offended are free to make pictures of whatever religious or secular figure they like. Enjoy. Be advised, we've already had our tax dollars pay for a crucifix in urine and a Virgin Mary made of elephant shit, so you'll probably be unable to offend us any moreso than our own domestic iconoclasts. BTW, they're cowards who wouldn't dare put Mohammed in the same "art".

Those who would make death threats or worse yet, commit acts of violence based on PICTURES or WORDS are dangerous psychotics. A scathing criticism of Theo van Gogh or Trey Parker & Matt Stone would be a lot more effective critique than proving their mockery entirely justified. Note that every act of violence solidifies islam as a religion that is by its very nature violent, no matter how much anyone says "religion of peace." 15312 terrorist acts in the name of islam since 9/11/2001 (as of this writing) already has made it pretty solid.

Multiculturalism! Diversity! Tolerance!

Oh, and for those cowards who won't stand for free speech, like Comedy Central, and the numerous newspapers who refused to reprint the Mohammed cartoons out of fear - either stand up for your rights or get used to kneeling. Every acquiescence you make to terrorists validates terrorism as a tool to force your compliance. You have no standing as a critic of any religion or anything if you bow to islam's threats. You fucking cowards.

Also, to those muslims without tolerance and who wish to make threats and terrorist attacks, perhaps you need to be reminded of what backs up the 1st Amendment in the United States.

2nd Amendment. Protecting its loudmouth little brother the 1st Amendment since 1791.

The Overton Window

I didn't know there was a name for this political tactic beyond being a shameless asshole of unparalleled magnitude, but it's called The Overton Window.

---
Let's say you're a loud spoiled brat, and you want a $10/week allowance. Right now you get $5. So you scream and cry and rant and rave and throw a tantrum while demanding $100/week allowance. Your dad starts to entertain your tantrum and tells you you'll have to do more chores if you want $100/week.

You scream and rant some more and your mom tells your dad to be reasonable, and finally they give you a $20/week allowance, even though you do no more chores. They compromise their principles in order to be moderate and civil and compromise with you. You, as the shamelessly aggressive greedy brat, get what you want by pushing things to a ludicrous extreme, and you take advantage of their natural human desire to want to get along and avoid conflict.

---
Let's say you're a wacky insane radical, and you want $1000. So you scream and rant like a lunatic and push for $1,000,000,000. You've pushed so far past the fringe that you've reset the location of the fringe. The other side compromises based on where the edge of rational discourse now exists.

When you get $1,000,000, you've received a thousand times what you initially asked for; but the other side sees the compromise and thinks they've beaten you by only giving you 1/1000th of what you really wanted.

But now next time, when you push for $5,000,000,000, and they compromise again, you get another $5,000,000. Which is five thousand times what you initially wanted. You just keep pushing so hard that the new voice of "moderation" is one that's past the fringe.
---

Now, if you're reading The Patriot Perspective, you're probably not a wacky insane radical. Unless we've hit the big time, in which case you're reading through our past articles looking for discrepancies, and if so, feel free to call me or JBH when we're on Mark Levin's show just so we can hear him yell "get off the phone, you big dope!" But I digress.

Let's say some wacky radicals want to push for total government control of health care. And it's rejected. So they push harder. And they push harder.

So eventually the other side gives in and gives the ranting, screaming-child irrational radical a little bit of what it wants.

---
This is also apparent in a more immediately lethal extreme throughout Islamic nations, where killing gays, abusing women, and calling for the extermination of the Jews, the murder of apostates, and execution of missionaries or those who even question Mohammed is considered normal discourse and action, not some insane fringe. In fact, it's the accepted policy and laws of many nations that are represented at the UN. The discussion isn't how to save or convert groups they dislike, as in other religions, or even how to coerce, as in the more extreme, but to destroy.

The result of the use of the Overton Window as a tactic is that this:


results in death, rather than discussion. Murder, riots, and violence are viewed as a normal consequence, rather than as a lunatic aberration. Rejection of free speech is viewed as a good, moderate response, rather than a contemptible assault on individual rights.

---
The huge new taxes linked above proposed for US govt control of health care are the new extreme, and the simple US govt control and big new taxes are viewed as the good, moderate response, rather than a contemptible assault on individual rights.

Radicals force their extremism further and further through force and intimidation, and they gradually get what they want every time principles are compromised, no matter the type of radical. The tactic of The Overton Window is used by those with no reason to their argument, but who use coercion against the civility of those they wish to force.

Bullying, screaming, and violence beat reason in their world. Threatening a greater extreme doesn't lessen their initial exteme goal.

All we have to do to stop it is refuse to acknowledge any argument but reason.

---

Disclaimer: If you're offended by Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, reason away with your argument. The cartoonist's argument of Islam as violent stands. If you accept reason and fact, you have to acknowledge that. Though we detest jihadis as a general rule here at TPP; consider it noted that not all Muslims are violent. I've known several over the years who were really nice folks who I'd like to have as neighbors. But a comparison of the murderously intolerant side of Islam in contrast to the benevolent side is another discussion.

ACOGs for Jesus

Looks like the Satanists are getting revenge for the secret messages on heavy metal albums being exposed.

US Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret "Jesus" Codes

We train young men to drop fire on people... but we won't let
them write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene!
- Col Kurtz, Apocalypse Now

Note that it's not even the morality of killing human beings that's being discussed here. It's that someone being killed might be offended. It's okay to kill people, you just can't hurt their feelings.

Google Is...

Christianity is bullshit.
Judaism is false.
Buddhism is wrong.
Hinduism is not a religion.

Islam is ________.

From "Blameitonthevoices".
Also posted at Jawa Report.

Check their links - they found it & disseminated it.

Then try it yourself. Just typed them in as of about 2130 CST 1/7/2010. These are screenshots I took just a few minutes before posting.





Islam is false, not a religion, and bullshit. See if you can find that, Google. Islam is good, peaceful, benevolent, and is not supportive of terrorism. Still nothing?

For a corporate motto that goes "Don't be evil," Google sure was okay with suppressing info about the Tiennamen Square Massacre, Climategate, and now Islam. Not just criticisms of Islam - stuff like: Islam is the cause for a huge amount of the world's terrorism, Islam is Bullshit, but also that Islam is Submission (factually correct), Islam is one of the world's major religions, or even that Islam is not Bullshit or Islam is a Religion of Peace or even Islam is Good. Positive sites about Islam are left out of the suggestions, too.

Nope, no suggestions whatsoever - except for the glaring contrast of other major religions.

Although, to be fair, typing in "Mohammed is" comes back with suggestions "a false prophet" and "the antichrist". The worst responses for "Jesus is", by contrast, come back with "my homeboy" and "just alright".
"Buddha is" comes back with a suggestion that seems like a koan.
Edited to add:
A commenter on Jawa noted that "the koran is" prompts some interesting responses. So before that's sanitized:
No "religionist Xs are" comes up with a response. "Christians are", "muslims are" come up with no suggestions. The reason for this is because "jews are" used to come up with some decidedly negative suggestions. Note that Google has had a problem with anti-semitic search results in the past.

It's War, not a Crime Spree

It's War, not a Crime Spree

Read it, folks.

Jihad is war, jihad is real.

Sand isn't there for you to stick your head in it. It's there for you to draw a line in it.

A Quick Note On Airline Safety

The Terrorists' Secret Weapon
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-30/the-terrorists-secret-weapon/full/

The article mostly laments the TSA's inability to deploy some magical supertechnology that searches for airborne particles that indicate the presence of the explose compound PETN.

The article discusses the tech solution and at one point hints at the simple solution, but doesn't ask why it isn't used.

Let me make this as simple as possible:

From the article, where the writer doesn't seem to see what he just wrote:

Bomb-sniffing dogs can also detect PETN. Well-trained dogs can also sniff out particles left on a bomber’s clothing or body from having handled the powder.

Dogs and handlers work. Searches on people in the US are forbidden by the Supreme Court as government intruding into an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

The same does not hold true for people entering the United States. Nor do the airlines, who are allowing people access to their services, have to abide by the same rules as govt. If an individual voluntarily enters a service contract with the airline where the airline states "we reserve the right to sniff you with a dog", the problem is solved. Why? It's not the government (the dog and handler as extensions thereof) doing the sniffing. It's the private entity and the private individual entering the contract.

TSA, as a government institution, is by its very nature incapable of using dogs inside the US in such a fashion. TSA also doesn't check passengers and planes coming from Nigeria, Holland, or anywhere else outside the US.

The problem with this is that airlines will face the same nonsense that they did with the Flying Imams, a bunch of islamic agitators out to test airline security and sue anyone who said "yeah, those guys shouting "Allahu akbar!" are kinda suspicious". They were terrorists attacking us with legal means as well as physical means. They hoped to terrify us by accusing us of prejudice.

They hoped to make us feel shame for singling them out when they attack us. I'll liken it to having a toddler steal a cookie, and when the parent corrects the child (time-out, spanking, etc.), the child then accuses the parent of being mean. Any parent worth their salt will be an authority figure and not put up with that. A parent completely devoid of self-assurance will bend to their child's opinion of them and the child will have run of the house while the parent is devoid of will.

Note that these aren't statesmen, diplomats, negotiators, businessmen, or anything other civilized men (I'd say "and women", but Islam demeans and subjugates women). These aren't representatives of a state or a people asking for redress of greivances. These are fucking terrorists who want to kill people who've done them no harm. They're the toddler lashing out at their younger sibling because they know that hurts the parent.

But seeing as how dogs, like dancing, music, women, beer, short-sleeved shirts, men without beards, gays, lesbians, bacon, images of people (especially the rapist of Aisha), and pretty much everything offends muslims, there'll be some kind of outcry, and maybe a lawsuit terrorist (like the libel tourists) who come to sue with their multi-bazillions stolen from their people by being hereditary sheiks and princes.

If we ditch the "what will the terrorists think of us?" whimpering and just do what works, this problem would be dealt with.

Dogs are superb at detecting explosives, and especially with good handlers, provide for a very dynamic response to terrorism.

Even with all the other failures of the system - despite Janet Napolitano saying "it worked" when a terrorist failed to detonate his explosives because he was jumped by a Dutch guy - the addition of another line of defense would help to make it work - a dog would've found this. If everyone's so afraid of making a judgement call that they won't say "this dude's a terrorist" - even when the terrorist's father says "my son's a terrorist", then we need another line of defense.

Dogs work. Dogs aren't bigoted, dogs don't mistake a peaceful Sikh for a terrorist Muslim, dogs don't discriminate between humans - they won't overlook a white British convert to Islam and they won't harass any little old ladies. Their nose works just the same if it's Irshad Manji or Wafa Sultan they're walking past or if it's John Walker Lindh or David Hicks. They discriminate based on who's a terrorist carrying bombs and who's not.