Obama’s Foreign Policy: Enemy Action

US-POLITICS-ECONOMYIt’s often hard to determine whether a series of bad policies results from stupidity or malicious intent. Occam’s razor suggests that the former is the more likely explanation, as conspiracies assume a high degree of intelligence, complex organization, and secrecy among a large number of people, qualities that usually are much less frequent than the simple stupidity, disorganization, and inability to keep a secret more typical of our species. Yet surveying the nearly 6 years of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy blunders, I’m starting to lean towards Goldfinger’s Chicago mob-wisdom: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.”

Obama’s ineptitude started with his general foreign policy philosophy. George Bush, so the narrative went, was a trigger-happy, unilateralist, blundering, “dead or alive” cowboy who rushed into an unnecessary war in Iraq after alienating our allies and insulting the Muslim world. Obama pledged to be different. As a Los Angeles Times editorial advised him in January 2009, “The Bush years, defined by ultimatums and unilateral actions around the world, must be brought to a swift close with a renewed emphasis on diplomacy, consultation and the forging of broad international coalitions.” Obama eagerly took this advice, reaching out not just to our allies, but also to sworn enemies like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran, and serially bowing to various potentates around the globe. He went on the apology tour, in which he confessed America’s “arrogant, dismissive, derisive” behavior and the “darker periods in our history.” And he followed up by initiating America’s retreat from international affairs, “leading from behind,” appeasing our enemies, and using rhetorical bluster as a substitute for coherent, forceful action. Here follow 3 of the many mistakes that suggest something other than inexperience and a lack of knowledge is driving Obama’s policies.

Russia

Remember the “reset” button Obama offered to Russia? In September 2009 he made a down payment on this policy by reversing George Bush’s plan to station a radar facility in the Czech Republic and 10 ground-based missile interceptors in Poland. Russia had complained about these defensive installations, even though they didn’t threaten Russian territory. So to appease the Russians, Obama abandoned Poland and the Czech Republic, who still live in the dark shadow of their more powerful former oppressors, while Russia’s Iranian clients were emboldened by their patron’s ability to make the superpower Americans back down. As George Marshall Fund fellow David J. Kramer prophesized at the time, Obama’s caving “to Russian pressure . . . will encourage leaders in Moscow to engage in more loud complaining and bully tactics (such as threatening Iskander missiles against the Poles and Czechs) because such behavior gets desired results.”

Obama followed up this blunder with the New START arms reduction treaty with Russia signed in 2010. This agreement didn’t include tactical nuclear weapons, leaving the Russians with a 10-1 advantage. Multiple warheads deployed on a missile were counted as one for purposes of the treaty, which meant that the Russians could exceed the 1550 limit. Numerous other problems plague this treaty, but the worst is the dependence on Russian honesty to comply with its terms. Yet as Keith B. Payne and Mark B. Schneider have written recently, for years Russia has serially violated the terms of every arms-control treaty it has signed, for obvious reasons: “These Russian actions demonstrate the importance the Kremlin attaches to its new nuclear-strike capabilities. They also show how little importance the Putin regime attaches to complying with agreements that interfere with those capabilities. Russia not only seems intent on creating new nuclear- and conventional-strike capabilities against U.S. allies and friends. It has made explicit threats against some of them in recent years.” Busy pushing the reset button, Obama has ignored all this cheating. Nor did Obama’s 2012 appeasing pledge to outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev–– that after the election he would “have more flexibility” about the proposed European-based anti-missile defense system angering Russia––could convince Vladimir Putin to play ball with the U.S. on Iran and Syria. Obama’s groveling “reset” outreach has merely emboldened Russia to expand its influence and that of its satellites like Iran and Syria, at the expense of the interests and security of America and its allies.

Syria

Syria is another American enemy Obama thought his charm offensive could win over. To do so he had to ignore Syria’s long history of supporting terrorists outfits like Hezbollah, murdering its sectarian and political rivals, assassinating Lebanon’s anti-Syrian Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, and facilitating the transit of jihadists–– during one period over 90% of foreign fighters–– into Iraq to kill Americans. Yet Obama sent diplomatic officials on 6 trips to Syria in an attempt to make strongman Bashar al Assad play nice. In return, in 2010 Assad hosted a cozy conference with Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and the genocidal Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where they discussed “a Middle East without Zionists and without colonialists.” Despite such rhetoric, even as the uprising against Assad was unfolding in March 2011, Secretary of State Clinton said, “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

In response to the growing resistance against the “reformer” Assad, Obama once again relied on blustering rhetoric rather than timely action to bring down an enemy of the U.S. Sanctions and Executive Orders flew thick and fast, but no military aid was provided to Assad’s opponents, the moderates soon to be marginalized by foreign terrorists armed by Iran. As time passed, more Syrians died and more terrorists filtered into Syria, while Obama responded with toothless tough rhetoric, proclaiming, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Equally ineffective was Obama’s talk in 2012 of a “red line” and “game-changer” if Assad used chemical weapons. Assad, obviously undeterred by threats from the world’s greatest military power, proceeded to use chemical weapons. Obama threatened military action, only to back down on the excuse that he needed the permission of Congress. Instead, partnering with the Russian wolf his own weakness had empowered, he brokered a deal that in effect gave Assad a free hand to bomb cities and kill civilians at the price of promising to surrender his chemical stockpiles. The butcher Assad magically changed from a pariah who had to go, into a legitimate partner of the United States, one whose cooperation we depend on for implementing the agreement. Given such cover, he has continued to slaughter his enemies and provide invaluable battlefield experience to tens of thousands of terrorist fighters.

Of course, without the threat of military punishment for violating the terms of the agreement­­––punishment vetoed by new regional player Russia––the treaty is worthless. Sure enough, this month we learned that Assad is dragging his feet, missing a deadline for turning over his weapons, while surrendering so far just 5% of his stockpiles. And those are just the weapons he has acknowledged possessing. In response, Secretary of State John Kerry has blustered, “Bashar al-Assad is not, in our judgment, fully in compliance because of the timing and the delays that have taken place contrary to the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]’s judgment that this could move faster. So the options are all the options that originally existed. No option has been taken off the table.” You can hear Assad, Rouhani, Nasrallah, and Putin rolling on the ground laughing their you-know-what’s off over that empty threat.

Iran

Now we come to the biggest piece of evidence for divining Obama’s motives, Iran. The Islamic Republic has been an inveterate enemy of this country since the revolution in 1979, with 35 years of American blood on its hands to prove it. Even today Iranian agents are facilitating with training and materiel the killing of Americans in Afghanistan. The regime is the biggest and most lethal state sponsor of terrorism, and proclaims proudly a genocidal, anti-Semitic ideology against Israel, our most loyal ally in the region. And it regularly reminds us that we are its enemy against whom it has repeatedly declared war, most recently in February when demonstrations celebrated the anniversary of the revolution with signs reading, “Hey, America!! Be angry with us and die due to your anger! Down with U.S.A.” At the same time, two Iranian warships crowded our maritime borders in the Atlantic, and state television broadcast a documentary simulating attacks on U.S. aircraft carriers.

Despite that long record of murder and hatred, when he first came into office, Obama made Iran a particular object of his diplomatic “outreach.” He “bent over backwards,” as he put it, “extending his hand” to the mullahs “without preconditions,” going so far as to keep silent in June 2009 as they brutally suppressed protests against the stolen presidential election. But the mullahs contemptuously dismissed all these overtures. In response, Obama issued a series of “deadlines” for Iran to come clean on its weapons programs, more bluster the regime ignored, while Obama assured them that “We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran.” Just as with Russia and Syria, still more big talk about “all options are on the table” for preventing the mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons has been scorned by the regime.

Doubling down on this failed policy, Obama along with the Europeans gambled that sanctions would bring Iran to its knees before it reached breakout capability for producing a weapon. Odds of success were questionable, but just as the sanctions appeared to be pushing the Iranian economy, and perhaps the regime, to collapse, in November of last year Obama entered into negotiations that resulted in a disastrous agreement that trades sanction relief for empty promises. This deal ensures that Iran will become a nuclear power, since the agreement allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium in violation of numerous U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Finally, in an act of criminal incoherence, Obama threatened to veto any Congressional legislation imposing meaningful economic punishment for future Iranian cheating and intransigence.

Given this “abject surrender,” as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton called it, it’s no surprise that the Iranians are trumpeting the agreement as a victory: “In this agreement, the right of Iranian nation to enrich uranium was accepted by world powers,” the “moderate reformer” Iranian president Hassan Rouhani bragged. “With this agreement … the architecture of sanctions will begin to break down.” Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, agreed: “None of the enrichment centers will be closed and Fordow and Natanz will continue their work and the Arak heavy water program will continue in its present form and no material (enriched uranium stockpiles) will be taken out of the country and all the enriched materials will remain inside the country. The current sanctions will move towards decrease, no sanctions will be imposed and Iran’s financial resources will return.” Memo to Mr. Obama: when the adversary loudly brags that the agreement benefits him, you’d better reexamine the terms of the deal.

As it stands today, the sanction regime is unraveling even as we speak, while the Iranians are within months of nuclear breakout capacity. Meanwhile the economic pain that was starting to change Iranian behavior is receding. According to the International Monetary Fund, Iran’s economy is projected to grow 2% in fiscal year 2014-15, compared to a 2% contraction this year. Inflation has dropped over 10 points since last year. Global businesses are flocking to Tehran to cut deals, while Obama blusters that “we will come down on [sanctions violators] like a ton of bricks.” Add that dull cliché to “red line,” “game-changer,” and the other empty threats that comprise the whole of Obama’s foreign policy.

These foreign policy blunders and numerous others––especially the loss of critical ally Egypt–– reflect ideological delusions that go beyond Obama. The notion that aggressors can be tamed and managed with diplomatic engagement has long been a convenient cover for a political unwillingness to take military action with all its dangers and risks. Crypto-pacifist Democrats are particularly fond of the magical thinking that international organizations, summits, “shuttle diplomacy,” conferences, and other photogenic confabs can substitute for force.

But progressive talk of “multilateralism” and “diplomatic engagement” hides something else: the Oliver Stone/Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky/Richard Falk self-loathing narrative that the United States is a force of evil in the world, a neo-colonialist, neo-imperialist, predatory capitalist oppressor responsible for the misery and tyranny afflicting the globe. Given that America’s power is corrupt, we need a foreign policy of withdrawal, retreat, and apologetic humility, with our national sovereignty subjected to transnational institutions like the U.N., the International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights ––exactly the program that Obama has been working on for the last 5 years. Given the damage such policies are serially inflicting on our security and interests, it starts to make sense that inexperience or stupidity is not as cogent an explanation as enemy action.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • truebearing

    Well said, and not a second too soon.

    For many of us there has never been any doubt about Obama’s treachery and ill will toward the United States. His enabling of Islamists has been equally clear. Obama is the most dangerous enemy the United States has ever faced. Even if he was impeached and removed from office tomorrow, the consequences of his actions and inaction will leave the United Staes, and our allies, in grave danger for the forseeable future. He has also paved the way for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and eventually, WWIII.

    • hiernonymous

      “For many of us there has never been any doubt about Obama’s treachery and ill will toward the United States.”

      Well, to be fair, for “many of us” there has never been any doubt that Obama was born in Kenya, or that he is a Muslim, or AA77 never flew into a building, or that Apollo 11 was faked at a New Mexico studio.

      “Obama is the most dangerous enemy the United States has ever faced.”

      Wow. More dangerous than the Confederacy, eh? The Kaiser and the Fuehrer all rolled up in one?

      • truebearing

        There were no nuclear weapons in the hands of the Confederacy, the Kaiser, or Hitler, idiot, but Obama is making sure that the most radical cult on earth will have them. Meanwhile, he’s destroying the US economy, energy sector, military, etc. so that we can no longer effectively stop messianic psychopaths bent on world domination. Obama’s transnationalist script, courtesy of George Soros and the Open Society Institute, is to subordinate the United States to a global government, and your job to discredit anyone who suggests such a thing. You don’t have the credibility to pull it off. Your snide swipes are essentially impotent.

        Obama was born to a Muslim father. That makes him a Muslim. Unless you can show me where he repudiated Islam, making himself an apostate. BTW, that would be considered punishable by death to most Muslims. Of course, you can’t do it.

        Obama was accidentally honest about his “Muslim faith” on ABC…until Stephanopolous helped him remember his phony Christian faith.

        I recall Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, calling Obama “the messiah” and “the hope of the world.” Odd statements coming from a Muslim leader if Obama is a Christian, and even more strange if Obama is a Muslim apostate. How do you explain that, given that Obama and Farrakhan were well acquainted and some say friends in Chicago? They even live on the same street, or at least did when Farrakhan paid Obama these highly unusualcompliments. I’m sure you have a ridiculous, convoluted explanation for all of it.

        And speaking of Christians, and the Muslim Brotherhood thugs who burned their churches, killed them, and even crucified some…Obama never said a word. Nor did he threaten to cancel his billion dollars of military aid to the MB, including M1 tanks and sophisticated fighters. When Morsi was deposed and arrested by the Egyptian military, he cut the same aid summarily. More evidence of Obama’s Muslim loyalties. No evidence of his Christian faith anywhere. Certainly not in his pathological lying. And not in his refusal to demand an end to Christian persecution. And not in his attempts to force Christian organisations to perform abortions against their 1st amendment rights and strong held beliefs.

        It is irrelevant where Obama was born. He is evil and has consistently sided with every enemy this nation has, while alienating our friends, or in the case of Israel, trying to talk them into a suicidal peace settlement with the Palestinians, who have stated ad nauseam that they want Israel destroyed.

        I wouldn’t expect someone with your lack of honesty or moral clarity to understand. You are a supercilious weasel and no doubt just another politically sociopathic leftist…and maybe not just politically.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          But he probably means well. I’m sure that 0′Bama is a great American patriot. It’s just that his “patriotism” is built on radical delusion about a transformed quasi-Utopian future America where social justice scores are on the way to getting settled.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            You describe a delusion that is transparently absurd.

            Obama can see that as well as anyone.

            If you look a little deeper, you will find the true ground for Obama’s inclinations.

            It’s not even political.

            It’s simply malice.

            It’s as simple as that.

          • hiernonymous

            I’d agree, that sounds pretty simple.

          • J. Bargholz

            You protest too loudly. Simple plans are the usually the most effective.

          • hiernonymous

            I didn’t realize there was a volume control on my post.

            And greetings! Did you abandon ziggy zoggy in the fest tents?

          • J. Bargholz

            Fest tents? October is a long way off. We’ll see how long it takes me to get banned under my real name. Maybe the moderators will just moderate me instead of booting me out.

          • hiernonymous

            In Germany, there’s always a fest going on somewhere. (And Oktoberfest is in September, anyway. Go figure.)

          • truebearing

            Is this what you offer as wit?

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no. It’s a greeting to a comrade I haven’t seen in some time.

          • MukeNecca

            “But he probably means well”

            Accept that his “well” is not the “well” of America.
            If he is not aware of that then he is an idiot. If he is (aware of it) then he believes America needs to be replaced by something agreeing with his concept of “well”.
            The persons possessed by that kind of hubris have always been around – there is nothing new about it. The new is that it is the first time in the history of the US a person deeply hostile to America’s past is given the unique opportunity and means to destroy her future. Or to remake her in his image. Hardly “a great American patriot”.

          • J. Bargholz

            Yes. He hates America and its traditions. He holds patriotic Americans in contempt. He has spent his entire adult life comporting with enemies and traitors to this country. He not only betrayed his maternal family, but also the stoners who befriended and protected him in high school. And his hatred for White people is plain for all to see. He’s narcissistic and conceited to the point of delusion. He doesn’t even conceal his autocratic bent any more.

            Three more long years, and he gets worse every day. America is screwed.

          • Omar

            Jimmy Carter was (and still is) a traitor to America. He gave away Iran to the Islamist mullahs and many other countries to the Communists.

          • J. Bargholz

            Don’t you think there is more to it than that? He’s done more to strengthen islam around the world than Muhammad ever did. He’s even helped it infiltrate our government at all levels.

          • uptownsteve

            Total insanity.

          • Omar

            You’re insane, you anti-Western, pro-Islamist NOI lunatic.

          • J. Bargholz

            He helped replace Mubarak with the Brotherhood and Kadaffi with Al Qaeda, he is helping Al Qaeda in Syria, the mullahs in Iran, etc. The Brotherhood is in our military, government and even the White House. It’s undeniable, Uppity.

          • truebearing

            Working on a title for your autobiography? I like it. Short and accurate.

          • nomoretraitors

            It warms my heart to see one Soros troll defending another

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It doesn’t matter if he means well. He’s POTUS. It takes more than meaning well to run a lemonade stand properly.

            And I was being sarcastic about my certainty that he does. It just doesn’t matter.

          • Myrtle Linder

            You are totally snowed! He knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it for a reason. This work is dedicated to his god Alla. He really does mean well “for Alla!” not for the USA He hates us and he hates our ALMIGHTY GOD AND HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. American Patriot, he is not!!!

          • truebearing

            He’s so patriotic that he wants to persecute whites, Jews, Christians, capitalists, or anyone who worked hard and succeeded. He’s so patriotic that he wants to demean, degrade, and diminish the US until it is the equal of all of those dysfunctional thirld World messes.

            The man is a curse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s patriotic to a pink, transformed future version of America that has never existed because he hates the America of the past that never existed either.

            But if that starts to falter I’m sure he’ll settle back in to the routines he was familiar with before his rise in national politics. He’ll probably go out and help build businesses and show people how to create things and live together in harmony. So even if his primary vision fails, we can count on his….

            We’re scrooged. The best we can hope for is for Washington DC to not look like Jakarta by the time he leaves office.

        • hiernonymous

          You’re raving.

          “There were no nuclear weapons in the hands of the Confederacy, the Kaiser, or Hitler, idiot…”

          There sure were in the hands of the Soviets and the Chinese, in numbers actually large enough to matter, and with delivery systems capable of actually harming us. Iran may be about to achieve a fission weapon and has no reliable delivery systems yet. Further, its ideology is no more radical or aggressive than Mao’s was when Mao got the bomb, and guess what – deterrence held for Mao, as it has for every single state that has gone nuclear. And though your rant is long on hysteria and short on specifics, so it’s not clear what you really mean by “most radical cult on earth,” there’s a Muslim state that’s held nuclear weapons for years.

          “….and your job to discredit anyone who suggests such a thing.”

          Well, you do that pretty effectively on your own, but my job at the moment has nothing to do with the internet. That’s just paranoid frothing. As I’ve mentioned before, though, if someone actually shells out filthy lucre for tilting at your windmills, please let me know who it might be, because it sounds like easy money.

          “Obama was born to a Muslim father. That makes him a Muslim. ”

          So you’re under the impression that Islam is an ethnic religion like Judaism, only patrilineal? Where’d you get that notion? One becomes a Muslim by reciting the Shahada and meaning it.

          “Unless you can show me where he repudiated Islam, making himself an apostate.”

          Obama himself has said that he is a Christian. That fills the bill quite nicely.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            I don’t think you believe all the crap you spout, but I do believe you are spreading disinformation. Maybe it will work better at a different venue.

          • hiernonymous

            I believe I’ll go have another cup of coffee.

            My belief has a rational basis, and is about to come true.

          • Stan

            You are assuming that Iran has not figured out how to miniaturise a nuke small enough to fit on a missile or no one has given them the tech.

            China jump starting Iran’s nuclear technology is risky. China giving Iran additional technology to miniaturise nuke once thy have solved the basic problem of bomb building is not so risky. They have deniability

          • hiernonymous

            “You are assuming that Iran has not figured out how to miniaturise a nuke
            small enough to fit on a missile or no one has given them the tech.”

            Yes, I am. That’s consistent with the intelligence that’s been the basis for the entire brouhaha. But even if they had, it would be a fission weapon, which, considering the thermonuclear horrors possessed by Russia, China, ourselves, et al, is pretty small potatoes.

            And let’s assume – though there’s no basis for doing so – that China handed Iran an arsenal of thermonuclear ICBM’s tomorrow. So? How many nuclear ICBM’s have ever been launched? Why do you suppose that is?

            Remember that in the 1960s, Mao was openly and publicly dismissive of MAD. He suggested that China would cheerfully wage atomic war with the United States, noting that given China’s enormous population, China could absorb hundreds of millions of casualties and still come out ahead. It’s pretty hard to find an Iranian official – particularly a currently serving Iranian official – who has said anything remotely as bellicose or inflammatory, and particularly not directed at the U.S. Yet here we are, still un-incinerated, which suggests that nuclear deterrence trumps radical ideology when it comes to state employment of nuclear weapons.

          • Stan

            China directly or China through its’ proxy North Korea, or China looking the other way knowing North Korea will act the way it always does.

            IAEA’s report on Iran

            http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2011/12/03/editorials/iaeas-report-on-iran/

            People have miscalculated before. Germany went to war in 1939 and it had only 16% of the world industrial capacity.

          • Stan

            The 2nd link is to a Village Voice Media publication, but I have used them before. They have good stuff on occasion such as when the black community and Korean community working things out after an activists tried to get people riled up.

            http://38north.org/2013/02/albright021313/

            http://www.ocregister.com/articles/iran-530554-nuclear-program.html

          • gawxxx

            like I said earlier you are trully a moron

          • hiernonymous

            Trully, indeed.

            It’s normally a bit unfair to mock another’s struggles with the language – we all make typographic errors, and so forth – but might I suggest that the post in which you’re insulting another’s intelligence is not the best time to come across as illiterate one’s self?

          • fiddler

            Why don’t you ask Benjamin Netanyahu how he feels about Iran. Heck, with Ahmadinejad’s constant drum beat of eliminating Israel, it seems to be that whether or not they are able to deploy such a weapon need only concern them — all arm-chair quarterbacking aside.

            To quote Paul Hogan “No worries!”

          • hiernonymous

            You’ll note that Ahmadinejad came and went and Iran did not attack Israel.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I also note that Ahmadinejad did not obtain a nuke during the insanity which constituted his presidency of Iran. Personally, when someone says that they will kill me, I take them seriously.

          • Omar

            Israel got lucky, you loon. But, based on the way our administration is handling the situation in the Middle East, it seems that Islamist Iran is now more likely to attack Israel than before. learn from facts, you loon.

          • NAHALKIDES

            So we should welcome living in a world in which any day the mad mullahs, or even just one military commander, decides to launch a nuclear attack on us? I’ve got a better idea – since we have the power to prevent having to live under that threat every day, let’s use it.

          • hiernonymous

            You’ve lived in such a world, probably since your birth, unless you are quite elderly.

          • Drakken

            You seem to be under the impression that MAD will work with the ayatollahs as it has with the Russians/Chinese?

          • hiernonymous

            And the North Koreans and the South Africans (while they had them, anyway) and the Israelis and the Indians and the Pakistanis….

          • Drakken

            The South Africans when it was white run were our allies in case you forgot. The Israeli’s are our allies, and the Paki’s had the generals in charge when they were developing thus self preservation was job one. The NORKs, well anything is possible where they are concerned, it is rather amusing to know that the same individual who negotiated with NK is the same stellar, top choice, affirmative action hire, who is negotiating with Iran, it frankly doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence does it?

          • Drakken

            Your comparing the chins to the shia muslims, in that they believe in the same vein of thought process and beliefs. Good God! I truly hope you are not advising anyone of importance in this naivety and completely wrong conclusions.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your comparing the chins to the shia muslims, in that they believe in the same vein of thought process and beliefs.”

            The extent of the comparison is that both embraced ideologies that placed them in conflict with the United States. In the Chinese case, that conflict was expressed as an existential one, which is actually more extreme. The other point of comparison is willingness to risk casualties and war. You’d have us believe that implicit in the Shi’a belief is an active embracing of death – but Mao actively embraced high casualties, and shrugged off death on a scale that I never heard an Iranian cleric offer.

            Do you have a rational basis for claiming those points of comparison are invalid? I understand that you have an instinctive horror of Islam, but your emotional responses are hardly a basis for evaluating an argument.

            “Good God! I truly hope you are not advising anyone of importance in this naivety and completely wrong conclusions.”

            Well, not anymore.

          • Drakken

            Mao may have accepted high casualties but he wasn’t stupid either. The ayatollahs on the other hand have no compunction about sacrificing the entire country as they so aptly demonstrated in the Iran-Iraq war. The chins have a certain fatalism in their thought process, but they are not suicidal in their beliefs. The Iranians on the other hand will send off every last Iranian to their deaths and sacrifice them on the alter of alllah to save their religious caste is without question. To allow these folks to have nukes is madness.

          • J. Bargholz

            He’s lying. He knows China and Russia want to take America, not destroy it. He also knows his mullahs want to destroy us.

          • Drakken

            The Russians look at Obummer as weak and ignorant and treat him like the class clown that he is. They also look at him as a puzzy to push around at their leisure, which they have done more than a few times.

          • T800

            Iran was caught by the IAEA in possession of nuclear bomb plans from Pakistan. Pakistan has tested and mounted their nukes on missiles. So,it stands to reason that Iran is capable of building a nuke that works and is missile-ready,they already have the plans,from there,it’s just a matter of obtaining the fissionables and precision machining,which they also already have. Further,Iran and NK work together on those things,so it’s possible that Iran benefits from NK’s nuke tests. also,there’s enough Russian and Chinese nuclear scientists that would help Iran for enough money. Iran does NOT have to start at the beginning. China would certainly benefit from Iran using a nuke on the US.

          • logdon

            ‘Obama himself has said that he is a Christian. That fills the bill quite nicely’.

            He also said that Benghazi was the result of an amateur film.

            That filled his bill quite nicely too.

            As for Muslim descendency of faith it is inherited which shows how little you know behind the ignorant bluster.

            His school registration form when he attended a madrassa (clue there) in Indonesia states Muslim as his religion.

            Do you know the rules of apostacy, or is that another yawning gap in your obviously limited education?

          • hiernonymous

            “He also said that Benghazi was the result of an amateur film.

            That filled his bill quite nicely too.”

            You managed to fit two errors into a single point, there.

            First, iti’s highly unlikely that the information available to him on his personal religious life is as sketchy or conflicting as the information on Benghazi. It’s a faulty comparison.

            Second, the attack on Benghazi was motivated by an amateur film. What you are likely having difficulty processing in your brain is that the issue of what motivated the attack, and how (and whether) the attack was planned and unfolded are separate issues. Many people – apparently yourself among them – believe that the attack was either motivated by the video or a terrorist attack, slipping an erroneous step in there that assumes that only a spontaneous mob action was or could have been motivated by the video. As it turns out, the terrorists who carried out the attacks were incensed by that video.

            “His school registration form when he attended a madrassa (clue there)”

            To those who don’t speak Arabic, and are under the misapprehension that one must be Muslim to attend mudaaris- which is simply the word for school.

            At any rate, you’ve reached another logical error. My child attended a catholic high school; my child has never been and is not Catholic.

            “Do you know the rules of apostacy, or is that another yawning gap in your obviously limited education?”

            Yes, I’m pretty familiar with the rules of entering and leaving the religion (the latter of which includes apostasy, not apostacy). What’s the source of your expertise, might I ask?

          • logdon

            Your misinformation amounts to gibberish and so convoluted as to be not worth the time taken in detailed reply.

            However I’ll answer the last sentence and it is books.

            From the sound of your ‘expertise’ I’d say it was the incoherence of Islamic propaganda, swallowed whole with not one jot of analytical thought.

          • hiernonymous

            “…as to be not worth the time taken in detailed reply.”

            You suddenly find yourself pressed for time? I sympathize.

            “From the sound of your ‘expertise’ I’d say it was the incoherence of Islamic propaganda, swallowed whole with not one jot of analytical thought.”

            Well, you might say that, but it’s not clear that you have a sound basis for your judgment.

            The source of my understanding of the religion and the region? An MA focused on the Middle East, to include work on the religion, culture, politics, economics, political violence, etc; two years’ dedicated Arabic study at U.S. and Egyptian schools; a little over a year studying in Egypt and traveling the ME; a decade in which political and military analysis of the Middle East was my primary professional responsibility and during which much of my time was spent in the Middle East; and, of course, my personal reading. Still, I’m sure you read some very good books. Do you still want to play at patronizing, or would you like to stick to the substantive topic?

          • logdon

            ll that education and still an idiot, eh?

          • hiernonymous

            “ll that education and still an idiot, eh?”

            Whatever.

            Judaism evolved as an ethnic religion. Its centerpiece was the Jews’ status as the chosen people of God, and identification as one of those chosen people was the key to their identity. They weren’t out to convince others to become Jews.

            Christianity and Islam are evangelizing religions. Muhammad’s purpose was to spread the word and convert others to belief in the Unity of God. Christianity and Islam are similar in that salvation, and one’s identity as a member of the religious community, is rooted in what one believes, not in one’s birth.

            Of course we tend to follow in our parents’ footsteps. In most Christian households, the children are reared as Christians and are casually referred to as such, but in fact, an individual must make a positive act of will and faith to truly become a member of the congregation. In the Protestant sects I grew up with, this was known as Confirmation, and was not undertaken until a child was old enough to study his religion and make an informed choice.

            Similarly, an individual is not a Muslim through genealogy, but through faith. If one is reared in a Muslim home, it’s likely that one is reared Muslim and will become one himself, but it is not an act of apostasy not to do so. Apostasy occurs only after one has affirmed the Shahada and voluntarily committed oneself to Islam, and then rejected the faith.

            So any talk about Obama being a Muslim unless he can somehow prove that he’s renounced the Diin is twaddle. His own profession that he is a Christian would, in fact, damn him as an apostate if he had spoken the Shahada.

            Unless you’ve got some sort of evidence that he did so, there’s no reason to doubt his word concerning both his upbringing and his religious convictions.

          • J. Bargholz

            You are lying about islam, of course. Taqiya. And Obama may or may not be an islamopithecine, but he’s no Christian. He joined Jeremiah Wrong’s Black liberation church for political appearances. I seriously doubt he has any honest religious convictions, but he definitely identifies with islamopithecines and racist animals like his mentor. No doubt about it.

          • hiernonymous

            “You are lying about islam, of course. Taqiya.”

            You just made me a prophet! Pity I didn’t have time to put some coin on it.

            “I seriously doubt he has any honest religious convictions…”

            And your serious doubts mean what to whom? Did God step out for a few and deputize you as his Judge of Religious Sincerity? Or is this a volunteer gig?

          • Omar

            You are a liar in almost everything regarding politics.

          • hiernonymous

            ‘That word comes too oft and easy from your lips, ‘ said Gandalf.

          • Omar

            Why are you referencing The Hobbit in your post. What does The Hobbit have to do with this discussion?

          • hiernonymous

            It’s not the Hobbit, Omar my lad, it’s The Two Towers.

            There’s an unctuous, deceitful counselor of no accomplishments who lies constantly, and constantly accuses others of lying. The line I quoted was where Gandalf points out to him, in effect, that it’s liars who are constantly seeing others as liars.

            It was a gentle way of suggesting that someone who tosses accusations of lying about as casually as you do probably takes lying very casually himself.

            Put yet another way, resorting to character assassination as a standard fallback position speaks to your character.

          • Omar

            Sometimes, that is the only way to win arguments. You can’t reason with some people, so you have to sometimes use Michael Savage’s rhetoric in order to make your correct point.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re at a point in your life where you should be more concerned about learning than winning arguments. You can’t listen while your gobsmack’s running, and you’re too young to have a lifetime’s worth of experiences to draw on for all your wisdom.

          • Omar

            Why should I listen to you? All you do is troll.

          • hiernonymous

            “Troll,” of course, meaning “say things I disagree with.”

            You need to hear things you disagree with. Right now, you’re careening from one borrowed set of ideas to another. You were a Marxist, then you were a conservative, but in reality, you’re a kid moving from enthusiasm to enthusiasm and mistaking it for thought and ‘patriotism.’

            Don’t listen to me, if you don’t want. Take some time away from yattering at everyone and go back to reading and learning. Spend some time with those professors you so disdain. Stop being so hellbent on being an undergrad trying to tell everyone else how the world is, and spend some time figuring out how it is.

          • Omar

            I am a Horowitzian. I believe in the teachings of David Horowitz. He is a great man.

          • hiernonymous

            So you’re letting someone else do your thinking for you. How patriotic!

          • Omar

            You are jealous of Mr. Horowitz because he has accomplished great things in his life, while you simply troll radical left-wing propaganda. Fact-check.

          • hiernonymous

            If I parade some of my accomplishments here, would you become my mindslave?

            I’m not sure how I’d feel about that.

          • logdon

            What a strange chap?

            Do you have a black trench coat and a stash of guns in your bedroom which also happens to be in your parents house?

          • hiernonymous

            It’s interesting how unerringly you lot reach for the basement at mom’s house. Something about your own environment, or simply a paucity of imagination?

          • logdon

            Not my Mother, you’re obviously mixing her for someone else.

            Easily done when weak retort is all you’ve got.

          • J. Bargholz

            He doesn’t think everybody lies constantly. Just trolls.

          • J. Bargholz

            You know I’m telling the truth. Nobody with true religious conviction could attend a ridiculous, racist, hate club like Trinity United. And you are. An islamopithecine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Christianity and Islam are evangelizing religions. Muhammad’s purpose was to spread the word and convert others to belief in the Unity of God. Christianity and Islam are similar in that salvation, and one’s identity as a member of the religious community, is rooted in what one believes, not in one’s birth.”

            That’s overly simplified. Christianity is non-coercive and Islam is. Muslims are expected to enforce sharia when they are empowered or capable.

            It’s true that people in Christian cultures have tried to use pressure to get people to conform, but the texts don’t support compulsion of belief. That’s why Christianity changed quite a bit as literacy levels increased. Islam only changes according to how much power Muslim sovereigns have.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s overly simplified.”

            No, not in the pertinent sense. You’re discussing how religious law is enforced in the community, whereas the topic under examination is how one becomes or does not become part of that community.

            “It’s true that people in Christian cultures have tried to use pressure
            to get people to conform, but the texts don’t support compulsion of
            belief. ”

            If two different communities with two different sets of sacred texts behave in similar manner, that suggests that the significance attached to the content of the text may be overemphasized. I am unimpressed by arguments that Community A’s behavior is consistent with its texts, and Community B’s similar behavior contravenes its texts. However you view this, it’s a digression.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, not in the pertinent sense. You’re discussing how religious law is enforced in the community, whereas the topic under examination is how one becomes or does not become part of that community.”

            It is overly simplified because you explicitly ruled out the possibility that a specific man is being deceptive merely because he doesn’t fit the general paradigm you’re presenting.

            And it matters how Muslims see him, not just how Westerners see him.

            http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1485/a-muslim-view-of-obama

          • hiernonymous

            “It is overly simplified because you explicitly ruled out the possibility
            that a specific man is being deceptive merely because he doesn’t fit
            the general paradigm you’re presenting.”

            You apparently did not understand the original argument. OP contended that in Islam, if one’s father is a Muslim, then one is a Muslim, too, unless one can prove that one has actively renounced Islam.

            The obvious purpose of this misrepresentation of Muslim doctrine is to then create a burden of proof for Obama. By pointing out the nature of identity in Islam, I’m not “ruling out the possibility” that Obama has been deceptive; I’m ruling out the significance of the existence or lack of existence of any statement by Obama on the matter at all.

            “And it matters how Muslims see him, not just how Westerners see him.”

            Not in the context of establishing the President’s religion. The Gatestone Institute’s an interesting place to be seeking out Objective Facts, but no matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You apparently did not understand the original argument. OP contended that in Islam, if one’s father is a Muslim, then one is a Muslim, too, unless one can prove that one has actively renounced Islam.”

            That is a dominant view. And there are rational reasons for holding that view. Many Muslims will consider such a person to be either Muslim or apostate.

            “The obvious purpose of this misrepresentation of Muslim doctrine is to then create a burden of proof for Obama. By pointing out the nature of identity in Islam, I’m not “ruling out the possibility” that Obama has been deceptive…”

            I can hardly remember any of these conversations getting far enough for people to fully express their points. So many people just get so upset discussing it.

            “I’m ruling out the significance of the existence or lack of existence of any statement by Obama on the matter at all.”

            You can disagree over how significant it should be. But it’s not clear to me that you fully understand the points people try to make when discussing the relevant issues.

            It’s like saying that if someone announces an affinity for “capitalism” that we should just take them at their word, even if their actions seem to favor communist regimes. Now that doesn’t make sense, does it? Especially when you realize that communism doesn’t oppose the use of capital, but it opposes private property rights and private use of capital. Communism is a “cure” for “abuse” of capital in the same way that Islam sees itself as a “cure” for “false” religions like “corrupted” Christianity and “corrupted” Judaism. Islam holds that Christians and Jews were originally “Muslims.”

            Calling oneself Christian does not automatically mean a renunciation of Islam.

            But all I care about is mendacity and loyalty. Not personal belief.

          • David
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course we tend to follow in our parents’ footsteps. In most Christian households, the children are reared as Christians and are casually referred to as such, but in fact, an individual must make a positive act of will and faith to truly become a member of the congregation. In the Protestant sects I grew up with, this was known as Confirmation, and was not undertaken until a child was old enough to study his religion and make an informed choice.”

            That structured framework still comes from Catholicism.

            Just as when we discussed the US constitution and its authors, the authors of the reformation had the idea that the RCC had a lot wrong with it, but working out precisely what the right things were to replace the wrong, that took a lot longer and in some communities those issues are not fully resolved.

            If you want to identify where something is going, you need to understand its location, direction and velocity. You have to distinguish differences in what people understood through time, and where and why the changes occurred to see what changes you can reasonably hope to forecast.

          • hiernonymous

            “If you want to identify where something is going, you need to understand its location, direction and velocity.”

            At the moment, I’m satisfied to distinguish the broad differences and similarities in how one achieves identity in ethnic vs. universalizing religions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “At the moment, I’m satisfied to distinguish the broad differences and similarities in how one achieves identity in ethnic vs. universalizing religions.”

            Those conversations can be interesting and useful. But they can also be deceptive when trying to evaluate risks about what sovereigns might do. Sovereigns end up putting a lot of power in to the hands of a few people. So we have to have more comprehensive conversations if we want to perform more robust and objective about risk analysis.

          • hiernonymous

            The question being addressed here was the accuracy of an allegation that if Obama’s father was Muslim, Obama himself must prove that he has renounced Islam or he is Muslim.

            You’re free to do as you please, of course, but I don’t plan to move beyond that scope at the moment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My point is that it’s presently ambiguous at best, and that there are many various contradictory views about the issue. All of those views are relevant. There is no single objective way to identify who is or is not “Muslim.”

            He’s openly declared his affinity for political Islam many times, and pledged loyalty to them as well. If that harmonizes with his oath of office, that would be just fine but it’s extremely controversial as it turns out in the real world.

          • hiernonymous

            Nonsense. He’s been quite clear about his personal religious beliefs. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.

            As for “affinity for political Islam,” what do you even mean by that? He’s made statements where he’s made it clear that he won’t tolerate abuse of religious minorities; most famously, in the wake of 9/11, he affirmed that he would not see Muslims victimized a la WWII American citizens of Japanese descent – but nothing about that remotely suggests that he is somehow a secretly practicing Muslim. That’s not reason, that’s innuendo, and not the sort of line of reasoning that deserves to be published under a name such as “Objective Facts Matter.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nonsense.”

            You can only testify to your own understanding.

            “He’s been quite clear about his personal religious beliefs. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.”

            I can only scratch my head and wonder how carefully you’re reading along. Does he believe in Isa or Jesus as revealed in the King James Bible? I sure don’t know. Do you?

          • hiernonymous

            “You can only testify to your own understanding.”

            No, I can also characterize your own comments. Trying to claim that there’s anything ambiguous about the President’s religious preference requires an active intent to inject ambiguity where it isn’t there.

            Obama has quite plainly said that he is a Christian.

            “Does he believe in Isa or Jesus as revealed in the King James Bible? I sure don’t know. Do you?”

            If by “Isa,” you mean to imply that Obama is a Muslim who reveres Jesus as a prophet of Islam, and is trying to hide behind weasel words, then, yes, we do know, on two accounts. First, that wouldn’t make him a “Christian,” and he was quite clear in his choice of terms. Second, you’ll note that the same article refers to Obama’s belief that Jesus died for his sins. That runs counter to a fundamental tenet of Muslim belief, which is that Isa did not, in fact, die at all. That alone is sufficient to dispel any ambiguity you may affect to find in Obama’s expressed religious preference.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “First, that wouldn’t make him a “Christian,””

            That’s the entire point.

            “…and he was quite clear in his choice of terms.”

            Right. But what was the intent? How can you be so certain?

            “Second, you’ll note that the same article refers to Obama’s belief that Jesus died for his sins. That runs counter to a fundamental tenet of Muslim belief, which is that Isa did not, in fact, die at all. That alone is sufficient to dispel any ambiguity you may affect to find in Obama’s expressed religious preference.”

            If I believed that people were incapable of deception, that would be enough to satisfy me.

            But as I’ve said elsewhere, I think he’s probably agnostic and trying to straddle the lines so that as many people identify with him as possible. That’s my best guess.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for “affinity for political Islam,” what do you even mean by that?”

            He operates on the same theories that you do, that it all boils down to using Islam as a framework for expressing materialistic political goals as a means for achieving “progress” and parity. There is a complete denial that Islam was ever imperialistic. It would take up enormous space to start quoting what he’s said and done since arriving on the national stage.

            “He’s made statements where he’s made it clear that he won’t tolerate abuse of religious minorities; most famously, in the wake of 9/11, he affirmed that he would not see Muslims victimized a la WWII American citizens of Japanese descent – but nothing about that remotely suggests that he is somehow a secretly practicing Muslim.”

            It seems like you’re not following along. I don’t think he’s a practicing Muslim. If I was to guess I’d say he’s agnostic with respect to his beliefs about God and the afterlife, and that he sees everything through the lens of a Marxist or “red diaper baby.” But that includes experience with various characters and cultures where mendacious anti-colonial narratives are what people rally around when pursuing “social justice.” Basically we (the nonleftist establishment in America and Europe) are the bad guys and everyone else are victims of Western imperial oppression.

            I’m also pointing out that he’s deliberately vague because he wants to be everything to everyone without necessarily being committed to those factions that believe in him. It’s kind of standard for the Machiavellian approach to politics. And those that oppose his policies will be more successful if they describe things as they are so that the opposition understands more clearly what it faces.

            “That’s not reason, that’s innuendo, and not the sort of line of reasoning that deserves to be published under a name such as “Objective Facts Matter.””

            I don’t know what he practices and I don’t really care. Most politicians probably lie to a large degree about their faith.

            I’m pointing out the range of possibilities. You seem to be the one that puts irrational weight on sketchy evidence. I’m saying that I don’t know while you’re saying he’s Christian just because he said so a few times.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m saying that I don’t know while you’re saying he’s Christian just because he said so a few times.”

            How can you say that “you don’t know,” when Obama has told you? The generally accepted means by which we ascertain the religious beliefs of any person is to ask them.

            If you mean “you don’t believe him,” then it’s incumbent on you to prove that he is being deceitful. Innuendo, of course, is generally practiced by the careful expression of uncertainty; it’s no less odious for that.

            Be that as it may, I think we’ve settled the original issue – to wit, that the absence of a documented renunciation of Islam by Obama would somehow demonstrate that he is a Muslim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How can you say that “you don’t know,” when Obama has told you? The generally accepted means by which we ascertain the religious beliefs of any person is to ask them.”

            It’s also generally accepted that people will lie about faith when it serves their interests. The more at stake, the less you can rely on someone’s plain words about faith.

            “If you mean “you don’t believe him,” then it’s incumbent on you to prove that he is being deceitful.”

            I gave my reasons, or at least a general summary. I suppose if I thought you were interested I could put together something comprehensive. I don’t think you’re truly open though.

            “Innuendo, of course, is generally practiced by the careful expression of uncertainty; it’s no less odious for that.”

            The stakes are high enough that I think I’m entitled. This isn’t idle gossip. This is the most controversial modern POTUS following a highly controversial agenda.

            “Be that as it may, I think we’ve settled the original issue – to wit, that the absence of a documented renunciation of Islam by Obama would somehow demonstrate that he is a Muslim.”

            According to some Islamic definitions, yes, he is still a Muslim or an apostate.

          • hiernonymous

            “There is a complete denial that Islam was ever imperialistic.”

            Wait, is this still supposed to be part of the theories that he and I share? What in the world would lead you to attribute such a position to me?

            Again, for someone who calls himself “Objective Facts Matter,” you seem to play a bit fast and loose with those facts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Wait, is this still supposed to be part of the theories that he and I share?”

            Your views are compatible if not identical. You’ll say that they were but that it was circumstantial. You’ll rule it out as significant in a different way than he does.

            “Again, for someone who calls himself “Objective Facts Matter,” you seem to play a bit fast and loose with those facts.”

            It’s an ongoing conversation. One should bring out facts as needed. Some times in complicated narratives it’s more effective to explain the framework and then fill in the facts that are under dispute as you come across them. None of that is a denial that objective facts matter.

          • hiernonymous

            Inventing a narrative for someone else is very much a denial that objective facts matter. One doesn’t attribute positions and statements to others and then hope for supporting facts to show up.

            In this case, you’ve attributed to me a position that runs counter to historical fact, and which I’ve never claimed nor implied. Justifying that sort of sloppiness by claiming that it’s consistent with your impression of how I think about Islam in general is disingenuous at best. As long as you’re putting words and ideas in my mouth, stick to those that have actually been there.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Inventing a narrative for someone else is very much a denial that objective facts matter. One doesn’t attribute positions and statements to others and then hope for supporting facts to show up.”

            Yeah, but that’s not what I indicated.

            “In this case, you’ve attributed to me a position that runs counter to historical fact, and which I’ve never claimed nor implied.”

            Perhaps you misunderstood. You downplay the risks from Islamic regimes as being more or less the same as risks from “any other theocracy” and you think that the USA has more or less the same chance of turning in to a Christian theocracy because, well the Moral Majority once made waves not long ago.

            So in effect you do deny the risks of as I define them. And I do claim to have the objective facts to back up those statements. It’s just not that easy to fit them all in to a single conversation or even a single web site.

            “As long as you’re putting words and ideas in my mouth, stick to those that have actually been there.”

            Instead of objecting to my summaries and paraphrases why don’t you just go on record more explicitly if you think I’m in error.

            You certainly do argue that Iran has no special concerns for you as a soverign nation with nuclear weapons capabilities. I clearly disagree with that assessment based on the regime’s rhetoric, behavior, and based on how they see themselves as playing a role in the unfolding history of Islamic imperialism.

            You and 0′Bama agree that Iran is more or less a victim of colonialism and that they will moderate their postures, policies and rhetoric as they grow in to a stature that makes them feel more…”right sized,” or I don’t know. You tell me where you see this going.

            Because if you do acknowledge Islamic imperialism as a clear and present threat, I missed it.

          • hiernonymous

            “Instead of objecting to my summaries and paraphrases why don’t you just go on record more explicitly if you think I’m in error.”

            Because the responsibility for vetting your statements is yours. You’re suggesting that it’s good practice to just throw the spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

            “Because if you do acknowledge Islamic imperialism as a clear and present threat”

            That wasn’t what you originally posted. I don’t think it’s a clear and present threat; but you suggested that it never had been such, an absurd position for anyone familiar with the original diffusion of Islam to take.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That wasn’t what you originally posted. I don’t think it’s a clear and present threat; but you suggested that it never had been such, an absurd position for anyone familiar with the original diffusion of Islam to take.”

            Wait, what? “… you suggested that it never had been such…”

            As my position?

            I said:

            “He operates on the same theories that you do, that it all boils down to using Islam as a framework for expressing materialistic political goals as a means for achieving “progress” and parity. There is a complete denial that Islam was ever imperialistic. It would take up enormous space to start quoting what he’s said and done since arriving on the national stage.”

            I could have been more careful and expanded the comment even further.

            “He operates on the same theories that you do, that it all boils down to using Islam as a framework for expressing materialistic political goals as a means for achieving “progress” and parity.”

            I could have been more careful when I wrote:

            “There is a complete denial that Islam was ever imperialistic. It would take up enormous space to start quoting what he’s said and done since arriving on the national stage.”

            I didn’t necessarily include you in the latter statement. But it boils down to the same prediction for the future, that you’re reading of Islamic imperialism is that it wasn’t really about ideology. At least that’s how I understood what you wrote in the past.

          • hiernonymous

            “I didn’t necessarily include you in the latter statement.”
            I took the trouble to ask for clarification on just that matter, so that I didn’t take you to task for ambiguous grammar.

            “There is a complete denial that Islam was ever imperialistic” is quite plainly an inaccurate statement when offered as a summary of statements that I have made. I would agree that most of that imperialism was rooted in factors other than ideology.

            Regards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Similarly, an individual is not a Muslim through genealogy, but through faith.”

            That the simplified Western view. Are people killed for apostasy in Islam?

          • hiernonymous

            “That the simplified Western view.”

            That will serve.

            “Are people killed for apostasy in Islam?”

            It’s been known to happen. Of course, I’m surprised you’d use a phrase as vague as “in Islam” when you were just complaining of simplification.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s been known to happen.”

            Is there a textual basis for killing apostates from Islam? Do the Islamic texts support such actions?

          • hiernonymous

            Let’s save us both some time; if you have an argument you wish to make, make it. I’ll not be playing Socratic questions with you tonight.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’ve already made it. I try when I think I can get away with it to allow the reader to put together what has already been discussed in the past.

            Plus I think I already made my point clear in another comment. Right now what I’m trying to point out is that Islam is not Christianity or communism. That the important distinctions are in fact crucial to consider when judging risks of trusting regimes with WMDs.

            We need to realistically look at all of the crucial factors when evaluating risks. Communists want to build Heaven on Earth. If you might blow the earth up in response to their aggression, that blows their plans.

            Many Muslims believe that aggression that starts a big enough war can bring Allah to convert Earth in to Heaven, or bring all pious Muslims to Heaven and so forth. Threatening those people is different than threatening atheists or threatening people with significantly different theologies.

          • truebearing

            Yes.

          • Drakken

            It would seem you went a tad off the rails and went native with a great deal of sympathy for the muslims. Your analysis of the situation in the Mid East could not be more wrong, especially where Iran is concerned. You must be part of that faction that truly believes that we can have peace with the mullahs with nukes? I’ll bet you a cool grand that this ends up a complete clusterfu**. Your arrogance in believing that you know more of what is happening in the ME than people who can obviously connect the dots as to the tragedy that awaits us is stunning. Your oblique support of Obummer and his policies coming from an academy grad who should know better amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. It is people like you who have got us into this mess in the first place. Those many reports you wrote for the Pentagon are nothing more than Islamic propaganda and naivety at its worst.

          • hiernonymous

            “Your arrogance in believing that you know more of what is happening in
            the ME than people who can obviously connect the dots as to the tragedy
            that awaits us is stunning.”

            You call to mind an observation by Isaac Asimov:

            “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

            “Your oblique support of Obummer and his policies…”

            You write schoolboy claptrap like this and then complain of my arrogance? If you write like a buffoon, why should I not treat you as one. “Obummer?” Does that pass for clever, witty, incisive, edgy, cutting in your circles? Are you not able to see that such reflexive banalities paint you as a third-rate mind parroting others’ ideas for the approval of a mouth-breathing peanut gallery? Think that’s harsh? Who else would you be writing for? What sort of intended reading audience do you imagine looks at that sort of inanity and nods in approval? I’m not telling you that such an audience doesn’t exist; I’m simply suggesting that you can’t bark for their approval and then mewl about being treated with ‘arrogance.’

            I don’t care that you disagree with me. I just want you to do it intelligently, with some self respect.

            “…coming from an academy grad who should know better…”

            Well, for starters, how would you know? An academy grad is supposed to think a certain way, embrace a certain policy? You know, one of the great things about the academies is their intellectual rigor. We carried about 20 credit hours at a time, and nobody was off the hook – you had to take the hard sciences, engineering, math, but you also had to take philosophy, law, foreign languages, literature, international relations, etc. It wasn’t designed to mold you to parrot a certain party line, Drakken, it was intended to give you the tools to think. All in all, I think it did a pretty good job, but you’re more foolish than you sound if you think that academy grads hold lockstep political philosophies.

            “It is people like you who have got us into this mess in the first place.”

            It’s not obvious that you have a clear idea of what ‘mess’ we’re actually in, so I’ll invite you to clarify: what mess are we in? How did people “like me” get us here?

            “Those many reports you wrote for the Pentagon are nothing more than Islamic propaganda and naivety at its worst.”

            For pete’s sake, first, if you’re going to repeat a word again and again, learn it! It’s naivete. And are you seriously characterizing reports you never actually saw as ‘Islamic propaganda?’

          • Drakken

            That is your problem right there, complete lack of imagination and an inability to think outside the box that you find yourself in, sorry I didn’t go to an academy but got my education later in life in a nice upper Mid West University and Catholic College. I have traveled and worked in the Mid, Far East and Africa for over 25 years now, and I actually see, taste and touch what is happening on the ground, rather than the academic claptrap that you are advocating. If you think Obummers policies on the ground are working? You clearly are bloody well deluded as circumstances on the ground are quite different than your expert opinion.

          • truebearing

            “You write schoolboy claptrap like this and then complain of my arrogance? If you write like a buffoon, why should I not treat you as one. “Obummer?” Does that pass for clever, witty, incisive, edgy, cutting in your circles? Are you not able to see that such reflexive banalities paint you as a third-rate mind parroting others’ ideas for the approval of a mouth-breathing peanut gallery? Think that’s harsh? Who elsewould you be writing for? What sort of intended reading audience do you imagine looks at that sort of inanity and nods in approval? I’m not telling you that such an audience doesn’t exist; I’m simply suggesting that you can’t bark for their approval and then mewl about being treated with ‘arrogance.’

            I don’t care that you disagree with me. I just want you to do it intelligently, with some self respect.”

            First of all, who gives a damn what you want?

            Despite your ostentatious display of vocabulary, I don’t see much purpose to your maunderings other than self-aggrandizement. Banalities? It seems they can express the truth at least as well as your flourishes of grandiloquence, and so far, much better. You are interested in how you look, not in the plain wrapped truth. Drakken isn’t strutting around with a feather in his cap. He’s experienced enough to know that they just get shot off.

            With all due respect, you come off as the schoolboy.

          • hiernonymous

            “First of all, who gives a damn what you want?”

            Given the effort you put into your response, the obvious answer is “you.”

            “I don’t see much purpose to your maunderings other than self-aggrandizement.”

            To see another purpose, you’d have to actually look for it, in good faith, and be prepared to recognize it.

            “With all due respect, you come off as the schoolboy.”

            I’d be more concerned about this if you hadn’t jumped in to express support for a fellow who’d suggested that I “dink cool aid, and die.” But thanks for your input.

          • Drakken

            Sorry ole chum, but I never said that you dink cool aid or said eff off and die? I do believe you need a cup of joe.

          • hiernonymous

            I didn’t say that you did. It might surprise you to learn that you’re not the only individual I’ve exchanged posts with tonight.

            Here you go, old chum.

            “I do believe you need a cup of joe.”

            That’s always true.

          • truebearing

            The cool aid comment was a joke. Don’t take yourself so seriously.

          • hiernonymous

            “The cool aid comment was a joke.”

            It was indeed, but it wasn’t made in jest.

          • truebearing

            Now you’re omniscient and know when something is in jest?

          • hiernonymous

            Your posts are hardly models of effective communication, but one need not be omniscient to detect their tone and intent. In your case, you’ve tapped out an unending stream of posts desperately attempting to score a point; you clearly would dearly love to put me in my place. Post after dreary post informing me that I’m not as [insert admirable trait here] as I believe that I am, or that I’ve lost this debate or that point, etc, etc. Given this steady stream of spleen, to suddenly insist that yet another of your sad little sallies was meant all in fun, don’t you know, seems the saddest form of squirming. You didn’t have the discipline to resist taking the jab, or the courage to stand behind it. Pathetic.

            And, really, for a group of young fellows who think that they can peer deep into Obama’s soul and know that his profession of Christianity is a sham, it seems more than a bit hypocritical to bat your big, wounded eyes and affect an air of injured dignity when your own assurances are looked at askance. You don’t like living by your own standards?

          • truebearing

            Your glib vacuity is an unending attempt to elevate your pathetic ego over all you look down on. Narcissistic to a fault, ideologically constipated, and suffering from delusions of grandeur, you pretend to be erudite but can’t produce nor endure facts. A curious malady for one who poses as the Learned One. Virtually everything you write is some form of put down. You think it is fine to pop off at anyone you choose, but when you find yourself the target of criticism, you whine and snivel.

            On the rare occasion that you do have the courage to offer one of your theories, it turns out to be an absurd, convoluted mess, eg, your belief that all white people need to “atone” for slavery, even the descendants of the Northern whites who fought and died to free the slaves. To embarrass yourself further, you stated that reparations wouldn’t be fully paid until foreign visitors coming to the US for the first time could no longer detect that blacks were the victims of slavery over 150 years ago. It is that kind of sheer idiocy that compels me to at least attempt to rescue you from the black hole of leftist hubris and stupidity you’ve obviously fallen into. It’s for your own good.

            Since you think the descendants of all whites alive during the Civil War period should pay endless reparations, I guess you will agree that all Marxists, Maoists, Stalinists, Fascists, Progressives, and Socialists should atone for the horror show they were responsible for in the 20th Century, and still today. Only when all alcoholism in Russia and fear throughout the former Soviet Union is a thing of the past, and undetectable by foreign visitors, will this atonement be complete. The same goes for the generational consequences of communism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. in China, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. With over 100,000,000 people murdered by their leftist governments, you and your lefty friends have a lot of atoning to do. It dwarfs the horrors of slavery in North America.

            I’m wondering how you’re planning to get the Muslims to atone for their far greater use of slavery, that is still going on today. They will have to atone for endless acts of barbarism, including kidnapping Americans and enslaving them. Then there are the hundreds of thousands they slaughtered in India. The list is long and bloody. Are you going to tell them about their debt to the descendants of all of those they have raped, enslaved, and murdered?

          • hiernonymous

            Re: my personality defects: one trusts you feel better, having got that off your chest.

            Not sure where you got the curious idea that I support “reparations.” Nothing of the sort. I believe that we have a problem to solve, and that we have no business resting until it is solved, but it has nothing at all to do with reparations.

            Same goes for “atonement.” I’ve tried to draw the distinction between something being one’s fault and something being one’s responsibility. The legacy of slavery isn’t my fault. My great great great grandfather owned slaves; I didn’t. That said, as a citizen of the U.S., I bear responsibility for honestly identifying and correcting its problems, and this is one of those problems.

            That’s why I suggest that we’re not “done” until someone visiting the U.S. couldn’t tell that one group in our society was once oppressed by another. It’s not about punishment, it’s not about atonement, it’s simply about fixing it.

            Hopefully, that clears up some misconceptions that seem to be plaguing you about my take on this issue.

          • J. Bargholz

            You forgot to mention your islamic faith.

          • hiernonymous

            Eh, me a Muslim? Not hardly.

            JB sputters “but…but…TAQIYAH!”

          • Omar

            Oh, really? then why do you troll all the time?

          • J. Bargholz

            Not even rabid lefties lie as often about islam as you do. Tell me why you lie about it and Iran and I’ll consider it.

          • zoomie

            dink the cool aid, and die

          • Just Saying

            You might try being nicer.

            I disagree with on some things also. But he is a veteran like you (if I can trust a screen name). I have looked over 3 years worth of posts (all 2,000 pages) on hiernonymous. If he is a phony, it is a rather long and involved ruse.

          • hiernonymous

            “dink the cool aid, and die”

            I don’t think I’d even know how.

            How does one “dink cool aid?”

          • No RNC

            enema…?

          • hiernonymous

            …of the state?

          • truebearing

            ‘How does one “dink cool aid?”‘

            Like you don’t know, and haven’t done it hundreds of times.

          • hiernonymous

            Not only have I never dinked cool aid, I still can’t even guess what’s involved.

          • J. Bargholz

            Heirno is most likely Iranian.

          • A Z

            Only if he started his DisQus account 3 years ago as a cover and kept is consistent.

          • J. Bargholz

            The video clip was a pretext. The anniversary of 911 was the actual motivation. You know this.

          • A Z

            I agree with that assessment.

          • hiernonymous

            “The video clip was a pretext.”

            Well, at least you’re aware that it was involved; that puts you ahead of a lot of the nutjobs.

          • J. Bargholz

            Pretexts about American foreign policy and the Jewish “occupation” of their own homeland are constantly cited too, and they’re just as fake. The list of fake and imagined islamic grievances are endless. Israel and America could surrender today and the islamopithecines would continue their wrldwide rampage. (1400 years and counting.) It’s not as though theye’re chopping off heads in Asia and Indonesia, for example, becsuause of anything Israel or America has done.

            And hey, funny how the video clip was forgotton by 9/12/12.

          • Stillontheroad

            Listen Stupid – there are camera films on the night of the Benghazi attack that show no soul outside the walls, no demonstrations, no riots – nothing. That so called film did not, in any way, shape, or form cause any riots in any way shape of form.

          • truebearing

            “Second, the attack on Benghazi was motivated by an amateur film. What you are likely having difficulty processing in your brain is that the issue of what motivated the attack, and how (and whether) the attack was planned and unfolded are separate issues. Many people – apparently yourself among them – believe that the attack was either motivated by the video or a terrorist attack, slipping an erroneous step in there that assumes that only a spontaneous mob action was or could have been motivated by the video. As it turns out, the terrorists who carried out the attacks were incensed by that video.”

            Pure toro caca. That lie has had the stuffing pummeled out of it, yet you’re still trying to sell it. Name one reliable source that sticks with the video lie.

          • nomoretraitors

            “Second, the attack on Benghazi was motivated by an amateur film”
            Administration brainwashing at work.
            Did you have to work hard at becoming this stupid? Or did it come naturally?

          • hiernonymous

            “Administration brainwashing at work.”

            You seem to be falling prey to a common, but avoidable, error in your thinking about Benghazi. In a nutshell, some initial reports on Benghazi claimed that the attack developed from a mob incensed by Innocence of Muslims, as was already happening in Cairo.

            This was incorrect. The attack at Benghazi was a planned attack by an organized group or groups. However, some people, you apparently among them, have so firmly associated the idea of the film as motivation with the mob story that you believe they are linked; that if the mob story was proved untrue, so was the understanding of the role of the video.

            However, that’s not the case. One of the armed groups involved in the attack, the Libyan Ansar al Sharia (as opposed to the Yemeni Ansar) was cited – in open reporting as well as by ‘administration brainwashing’ – as having launched the attack in retaliation for the video. That doesn’t imply that this was the only motivation, and Ansar was not the only group involved. There was also the issue of al Zawahiri calling for retaliation for the death of Abu Yahia al Libii, but there’s no indication that Ansar’s stated motivation was incorrect or debunked; and, after all, it wasn’t Zawahiri planning or executing the attack.

            “Did you have to work hard at becoming this stupid? Or did it come naturally?”

            A bit of both, however “this stupid” happens to be.

          • T800

            Comrade Obama is a known and experienced liar.
            muslims have a practice called Taquiyya,lying to infidels to further Islam.

            There’s a reason why,post-college,Comrade Hussein traveled to Pakistan,of all places. it’s not because he was a Christian. There’s a reason why Comrade Hussein was aided in getting into college by Saudi money and influence.

            You and I put together reasoned arguments based on facts in evidence,while hiero and the other guy come back with nothing but blather.

          • zoomie

            and he went to the church of god damn amerika for 20 years

          • gawxxx

            you are trully a moron

          • fiddler

            “Obama himself has said that he is a Christian. That fills the bill quite nicely.” — how nauseatingly naive.

            Just one of many, many convenient statements sufficient for the need of the moment — to quell opposition and stay in power. Really, his original statement about marriage met the popular need of the moment — later only to be amended by “evolving”. One might at first consider him as respecting what the NT says; but later? Are you that gullible or willfully ignorant?

            So how has he sought to avenge the ambassador the the three others? Seems more to be about appeasing the bad guys. Which other president in our history made a specific pledge regarding Islam’s prophet at the UN no less? Would he expect the same of them regarding another faith’s religious leader, and from the podium of the UN?

            How do you resolve such talk considering his claims?

          • hiernonymous

            “….how nauseatingly naive.”

            As a rule, the best course of action on matters of faith is to accept a man at his word unless presented with compelling evidence that he is being dishonest. No such evidence has been presented in the case of the President.

            “One might at first consider him as respecting what the NT says; but later? Are you that gullible or willfully ignorant?”

            I couldn’t care less how his opinions conform to this religion or that. I care how they conform to the law, and I care that his policy intentions are articulated clearly and honestly for public evaluation – and that can include changes of heart.

            “So how has he sought to avenge the ambassador the the three others?”

            This suddenly seems a rather stream-of-consciousness post. I don’t recall the part of the New Testament where Jesus exhorted his followers to spill blood for blood. Is that a new interpretation, or are you hoping that Obama acts outside Christian orthodoxy in those cases where your own impulses aren’t exactly What Jesus Would Do?

            “How do you resolve such talk considering his claims?”

            You haven’t actually identified any contradictions yet. Could you lay out, specifically, what statement he has made that you consider incompatible with his status as a Christian (assuming that this is still what you were talking about ‘resolving’ by the time you got to the end of your post)?

          • J. Bargholz

            Actually, Obama has shown absolutely no evidence of being honest. And spare us the libel about Christians. You islamopithecines don’t convince anybody with your crude lies. Anybody with a functioying brain, anyhow.

          • hiernonymous

            Do you have a functioying brain? Perhaps a trip to the ER is in order?

            “And spare us the libel about Christians.”

            Why, I believe I already have!

          • Omar

            Do YOU have a functioning brain, or are the Castro brothers in Cuba and the Islamist mullahs in Iran controlling you? Quit trolling.

          • hiernonymous

            “…or are the Castro brothers in Cuba and the Islamist mullahs in Iran are controlling you?”

            They’re fighting for control as we speak. Must…try…to……maintain….

          • Omar

            They are allies with each other, you loon. How is that fighting for control?

          • hiernonymous

            Hey, it’s MY brain they’re controlling. You can’t hear them inside my head. “Godless communist infidels!” “Crazy Iranian priests!” “We’re not priests, spawn of satan, we are Ayatullahs!”

            You never hear the bickering, so you assume it’s all an Axis of Evil love fest…

          • Omar

            It is an Axis of Evil alliance. There is an Unholy Alliance between the radical left and Islamist fanatics.

          • hiernonymous

            I can’t tell which thought is more frightening – that you’re developing a sense of humor, or that you’re still dead serious.

          • Omar
          • A Z

            Omar, you are discombobulated.

            - hiernonymous could be playing Devils’ advocate.
            - He could be trying for the radical middle and taking to task people on the extreme right or left to edify or because he is pugnacious.
            -He could be practicing taqiyya.

            Whatever he is doing you have to up your game. Right now you are a screaming wreck. This is not ping pong or tennis, where we need to immediately send a volley back.

            I have seen your posts before hiero was here and they were better. Now they are nothing I want to show around the blogosphere or any forum. I looked forward to your posts, especially the ones on Puerto Rico. Now, … not so much.

            Rush Limbaugh said the purpose of a caller is to make the host look good. Now he might have said that 1/2 in jest. Well translate that to a site like this one. It has a mission. If we want the mission to succeed we can’t come off as a bunch of loons. Some of your posts look like uptownsteve’s posts.

            Part of the reason why hiero is upsetting is not that he is not 100% sympatico. It is that he challenged and when isn’t easy to refute him like others. So it has become more shrill all the way around. I am also guilty of this.

            He’s made claims that he will not be able to back up in relation to the depression of the 1870s.

            So do your homework. “Clip your articles, read them put them in folders and index them (I did say read. i meant it. I myself have the nasty habit of skimming). Over time it will pay dividends.

          • J. Bargholz

            Criticizing typos is weak. Like Obama’s lies.

          • uptownsteve

            He’s freaking insane.

          • hiernonymous

            Who, Drakken? Nah; he’s just another fellow who has mistaken his prejudices for wisdom.

          • Drakken

            Well not everybody can sit around the campfire holding hands, singing kumbaya, wishing upon the stars and putting a COEXIST sticker on a Prius saving the environment. What you call prejudice, I call it survival.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m sure you do. Very few men lack for rationalizations and justifications.

          • Drakken

            Not all things, people, and religions are equal.

          • truebearing

            Yourself included. Of course, some men have the courage to risk their lives for their beliefs, while some like to sit back and pride themselves on their cynicism.

          • hiernonymous

            I’m glad you recognize that. It’s exactly why I have difficulty swallowing lessons in patriotism from internet blowhards. Well done.

          • Drakken

            Well now, that is a first, someone who questions patriotism, will question anything and everything. You have difficulty with anything that doe not fit in that nice linear box that you are in, as for what you think of me, it is immaterial, what does matter in the grand scheme of things is that our way of life survives and thrives. The muslim world wants to drag the rest of us back to the dark ages, I don’t apologize for objecting. You may think that the muslims are equal to us westerners, events are about to prove you dead wrong.

          • hiernonymous

            “Well now, that is a first, someone who questions patriotism, will question anything and everything.”

            What sort of drone doesn’t question anything and everything? But you appear to have managed to misunderstand the post to which you were responding. I value patriotism highly. There are a couple of key points to keep in mind, though. First – and this is what I’m congratulating truebearing for getting right – is that patriotism is something one demonstrates through service and action, not a scout badge one earns by spouting particular political slogans on the internet. Jabbering isn’t patriotism, it’s a hobby.

            Second, patriotism is about loving one’s country and wanting to make it as good as it can be. I don’t hold any truck with the swaggering jingoists who believe that patriotism consists of singing America’s praises, and that criticism of America is “un-American.” On the contrary, as Americans, we’re responsible for what our country is and does, and it’s our obligation as citizens and patriots to identify those things we need to fix, and fix them.

            As I’ve noted before, the woman who nags her alcoholic husband into joining AA is the more loving wife than the one who insists that nothing’s wrong and brings him home a case every evening.

            Again, I didn’t know anyone in the “Muslim world” that wanted to drag us anywhere; what they wanted was a better life for their own kids. They wanted good educations, good jobs, good homes, good government. They wanted a future.

            “…events are about to prove you dead wrong.”

            So now you’re a Prophet? Excellent!

          • truebearing

            Like you have mistaken your intellectualizing for truth?

          • Omar

            No, that would be you.

          • J. Bargholz

            Heirno is a stealth islamopithecine. You’re just a confused moron. But hey, keep trying. There are probably a few people around hertew eh on’t know you’re a White guy pretending to be Black……..you freakshow, you.

          • A Z

            No, he appears to be a retired military, who now teaches college.

            I could time his posts. Still would not be conclusive.

          • J. Bargholz

            No way is Uppity Black. I’ve run into him on other websites. Another reader pulled up his IP address but I forget where he lives. He’s a fraud.

          • A Z

            I can do a tracert and that will tell me where FPM’s server is. It won’t tell me where he is. I have an educated guess. But I really do not care. The point is making sound arguments.

            If did any tracing It would not be from my domicile or with a computer bought with a credit card or otherwise hot.

            I am not that knowledgeable about the internet. I can program in a few languages but I can’t do anything with networks to save my life.

            About 2 or 3 months ago you seemed to drop off the forum. Then I saw you were posting less but also seemed to be in a better place. I assume things must be better for you personally . So why let this guy get you riled up.

          • J. Bargholz

            You’re lying in the service of liars. You want Iran to go nuclear and you know Obama is helping the ayatollah achieve that. Your comparoson to Mao is specious. Mao was a very stupid man and Kruschyev had top him in his place to prevent him from triggering as war with America that would’ve destroyed China and potentially have drawn the Soviet Union in. The mullahs believe They’re revoluionaries that can only benefit by trying to nuke Israel and America. They’re even more deluded than Obama is.

            But you already know all this and support it.

          • hiernonymous

            Good to have you back. You’re as incoherent as ever, but I missed you.

          • J. Bargholz

            Burp!

          • truebearing

            You miss a lot more than you think you do.

          • hiernonymous

            Perhaps, though I’m not sure how well you actually understand what I do and do not think.

          • A Z

            I think of Mao as a pretentious, blowhard from the time before he left home.

            Mao did have some military savvy. He did win the Chinese Civil War. The Communists also did better under his leadership then they had under previous leadership (before The Long March). He also accomplished some of his Foreign policy goals. He did not want a U.S. presence along China’s northeast border. He achieved this when the U.N. did not defeat North Korea. He did not want the U.S. in Vietnam. He also accomplished this. BTW they xferred 24 captured 105 mm howitzers captured in Korea and gave them to the Viet Minh. Those howitzers out ranged the French artillery at Dien Bien Phu

            I had forgotten his atomic war threats. I have to see if they were contemporaneous with the events that the authors, Kenneth Sewell & Clint Richmond, of the book Red Star Rogue allege. I might revise my opinion of Mao.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian#Red_Star_Rogue

            http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/red-star-rogue-kenneth-sewell/1007883276?ean=9781416527336

            Mao was an idiot, when it came to economics. Some people believe he launched the Cultural Revolution after the failed Great Leap forward to silence critics. He was a class act.

            See also MHQ Sep 2007

          • Omar

            Mao won the Chinese civil war because he received support from Stalin’s Soviet Union. Mao relied on Stalin to create a puppet dictatorship in China.

          • hiernonymous

            You might want to read the next chapter in your history book. The one that takes you up to the late ’60s. It’s okay, I’ll wait.

          • Omar

            I know about the Sino-Soviet split. It happened after Stalin’s death, though.

          • hiernonymous

            But not after Mao’s.

          • A Z

            Mao did get all the war material that the Russians seized from the Japanese in Manchuria. But we also gave equipment to Chiang Kai-shek.

          • Omar

            Though not as much as Moscow gave to Mao. If we had actually gotten involved in the fighting, then China would have been a pro-Western country with an eventual democratic system after Chiang’s death. After all, democracy eventually came to Taiwan.

          • A Z

            And after Mao’s death the rule of the 4 Gangsters came to an end shortly thereafter.

            And then China woke up and said we are in deep ____!

          • J. Bargholz

            Didn’t the fat little toad die of terminal gonorrhea? I remember reading that he used to float around in the Yellow river even though he had to share the water with loads of human excrement. Class act is right. I also read that his incompetence likely killed far more Chinese than previously thought.

          • A Z

            I do not remember what he died of. I do know he had many mistresses so he very well could have caught STD numerous times. He was old so he might have died of natural causes. Since they preserved him mostly, there would be tissue to test for pathogens or evidence of pathogens. You never know. Some strains of VD are asymptomatic initially and so it might have progressed far enough before doctors caught it and caused premature death.

            I don’t know how bad the Yellow River was back then. I have limited information on it.

          • J. Bargholz

            Don’t remember if his Red Guard pals ever admitted what killed him but I remember he was sterile early on from gonorrhea and herpes. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

          • A Z

            Something similar happened to Napoleon Bonaparte the 3rd. He had bedded so many women that by the time of the Franco Prussian War it was screaming pain to sit in a saddle. They did not have penicillin back then but on mercury compound.

            ” Among his numerous love affairs …”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Personal_life

            It affected his generalship. It is hard to see what is happening from the fortress at Metz or Sedan because you holed up there partially do to being saddle sore.

          • A Z

            Down vote all you want . It is true. I am backing up my statement. You merely sniped and walked away.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four

          • A Z

            I do not know, who gave more war material. I suspect it was Stalin.

            After WW2 Washington wanted coalition government composed of Mao & Chiang Kai-shek, but IMO that was singing kumbayah.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There is a huge difference between people that think they must build Heaven on Earth, and those who think Heaven comes to Earth when you start a huge enough war.

            How they handle nuclear weapons? Might be something to think carefully about.

          • Stillontheroad

            If thats the case then Sock Puppet became a Muslim in Indonesia and furthermore, once a Muslim, always a Muslim – you cannot renounce that religion on pain of Fatwa.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There sure were in the hands of the Soviets and the Chinese, in numbers actually large enough to matter, and with delivery systems capable of actually harming us. Iran may be about to achieve a fission weapon and has no reliable delivery systems yet. Further, its ideology is no more radical or aggressive than Mao’s was when Mao got the bomb, and guess what – deterrence held for Mao, as it has for every single state that has gone nuclear.”

            Iranian ideology is the most salient distinction. You’re betting an awful lot on the hope that they are rational actors. You have no reason to believe this other than hundreds of delusional publications authored by people that have sincere hopes that they understand human behavior when a lot of other evidence suggests that they don’t understand it well enough to have that much confidence in those hopes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So you’re under the impression that Islam is an ethnic religion like Judaism, only patrilineal? Where’d you get that notion? One becomes a Muslim by reciting the Shahada and meaning it.”

            You’re equivocating here. Yes one can convert but the question is whether Muslims consider children born to Muslim fathers to also be Muslim.

            Mohammed apparently considered that all are born “Muslim” and Muslim fathers are expected to enforce sharia with their offspring and anyone under their charge. The consensus view is that children born under Muslim authority are Muslim and held to account.

            But what we care about most is beleif and expectations. What does the evidence suggest about POTUS’s beliefs, and what do others expect base on his nebulous background?

            0′Bama has cultivated these ambiguities from his early life and used them to his political advantage. He wants to identify with various factions of people as partly a product of this or that faction. And in theory he should be capable of doing that.

            The problem is that when you combine all of the known facts and look at his behaviors and choices, it looks like he’s actually using all of these various background influences and identities to pursue some kind of delusional grand scheme where he “rescues” “the world” from many of the ills of the past. IOW he’s a delusional progressive because he thinks he can govern a better future without actually knowing how to get there and without really caring about building consensus honestly.

            The problems as I see them have nothing to do with his authentic or adopted identities or cultural connections but with his mendacious character. He’s using all of these mysteries as weapons in class warfare.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Obama himself has said that he is a Christian. That fills the bill quite nicely.”

            The Cold War could have been a lot shorter if we’d simply asked everyone if they were Christian. Who would lie about that?

          • truebearing

            You’re a pompous fool, or perhaps just poorly educated… maybe both.

            “There sure were in the hands of the Soviets and the Chinese, in numbers actually large enough to matter, and with delivery systems capable of actually harming us.”

            Oh, now you bring up the Soviets and China, just like you did the last time we debated, and you lost.

            The Soviets knew we had far more accurate delivery systems, for one thing. They still don’t have a decent bomber and they knew their missiles were inaccurate. China had neither during Mao’s reign of terror. Bringing up Mao is adsurd. Even today they are far behind our capabilities. More importantly, both were somewhat rational players. Mao was evil but didn’t believe his self-sacrifice would send him to heaven where he would be rewarded with 72 Iranian tranny virgins. They didn’t belong to a cult of death that wanted world war and mutual assured destruction.

            Maybe you would be less argumentative if you actually knew anything about Islam, and in particular, the Iranian Twelvers. You might want to brush up on your Soviet and Maoist versions of communism, too. I don’t recall anything about instigating a cataclysmic war to trigger the return of messianic spritual being.

            Once again, your argument evinces your trademark: a non-sequitur conclusion. To hear you tell it, because Mao and Stalin had nukes, but didn’t attempt to trigger a world war, the Muslims won’t either. Apparently, all ideologies have the same effect on their respective adherents, at least in your cookie-cutter mind. The problem is that you ignore the teachings in Islam that demand jihad against all other ideologies and religions for the Muslim manifest destiny of world domination. The Twelvers are even worse. They believe that “bathing the world in blood” will trigger the return of the 12th Imam. Just because you don’t believe they really belive that doesn’t mean they don’t.

            Don’t quit your day job until you actually manage to hit my windmill. So far, you’ve missed with every charge. Do better or Dulcinea will laugh in your face.

            Yes, Islam is patrilineal. Where did you get the notion it isn’t?

            Here is my favorite nonsense from this, your latest exercise in sophistry:

            “Obama himself has said that he is a Christian. That fills the bill quite nicely.”

            If you knew anything about Islam, you’d know that lying for the furtherance of Islam is not only acceptable but encouraged in Islam. Obama never openly rejected Islam. If he did, prove it. I can prove that he is friends with powerful Muslims, never goes to church, mocked people “clinging to their guns and Bibles,” has enabled islamists and ignored the murder of thousands of Christians, was born a Muslim. And as we all know, actions speak louder than words. That tears up your bill and feeds it to you quite nicely.

          • Drakken

            You have perfectly summed it up in a very powerfull and superbly articulated manner.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re a pompous fool, or perhaps just poorly educated… maybe both.”

            Can you give me a reason to place any value on that assessment?

            “Oh, now you bring up the Soviets and China, just like you did the last time we debated, and you lost.”

            I missed the result; who determined that, and how?

            Mao wasn’t talking about instigating a cataclysmic war in order to trigger the return of a spiritual being; he was talking about instigating a cataclysmic war in order to destroy the United States and remove China’s primary enemy. It’s not clear how you imagine that it would be more desirable from our point of view to be exterminated for the one reason or the other.

            “To hear you tell it, because Mao and Stalin had nukes, but didn’t
            attempt to trigger a world war, the Muslims won’t either. Apparently,
            all ideologies have the same effect on their respective adherents, at
            least in your cookie-cutter mind.”

            Actually, that’ s a pretty fair summary of structural realism, one of the dominant approaches to thinking about the employment of nuclear weapons. As a point of fact, ideologies have been irrelevant in the use of nuclear weapons. Every state that has acquired nuclear weapons, regardless of political, religious, or economic philosophy, has behaved in a remarkably consistent fashion when it comes to such weapons. This includes Pakistan, an overtly Muslim state that exists along one of the most unstable and dangerous frontiers, facing an implacable enemy with its own nuclear arsenal.

            You claim that bringing up Mao is ‘absurd,’ but the topic at hand is the supposed dangers of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians. China actually had nuclear weapons; their threat to the U.S. was certainly significantly greater than any Iran poses; if your argument is that Mao’s rhetoric should be discounted because he couldn’t really have destroyed us, then follow your logic to its conclusion vis-a-vis Iran. On the other hand, if you insist that a dictator with nukes in his possession who is expressing the willingness and even desire to use them against us should be taken seriously, then Mao fills that bill to a far greater degree than do the Iranians.

            “Maybe you would be less argumentative if you actually knew anything about Islam, and in particular, the Iranian Twelvers.”

            What would it take? A degree in the subject? Professional experience? Extensive personal reading? Personal travel and personal contact in the region? What sort of standard are you setting for me here? What bar are you setting?

            “The Twelvers are even worse. They believe that “bathing the world in blood” will trigger the return of the 12th Imam.”

            In about the same sense that Christians are gearing up for Armageddon. Which is to say, there are a few nutjobs in each religion that believe just that; have you got some evidence that this represents the views and policies of Khamenei, Rouhani, or Larijani?

            “Don’t quit your day job until you actually manage to hit my windmill. So far, you’ve missed with every charge.”

            As I’ve noted before, if you have to tell the other fellow he’s losing a debate, chances are he’s not. Do you think that this sort of comment lends credibility to your posts?

            “Yes, Islam is patrilineal. Where did you get the notion it isn’t?”

            Islam is patrilineal, in the context of inheritance law, etc. But it’s not an ethnic religion with elaborate rules, a la Judaism, for determining whether one is a member of the umma based on one’s birth. Membership in the umma is based on submission, not birth.

            “If you knew anything about Islam, you’d know that lying for the furtherance of Islam is not only acceptable but encouraged in Islam.”

            “If you knew anything about X, you’d agree with me…”

            Presumably you can see how hollow that construction is.

            Taqiyah is primarily a Shi’a doctrine. Second, denial of one’s faith is acceptable when one’s life is in danger, not simply when one is in pursuit of political gain.

            “Obama never openly rejected Islam. If he did, prove it.”

            I’ve already posted tonight Obama’s statement that he is a Christian, and that he accepts Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, who died for his sins. That’s about as explicit as you can get.

            More to the point, there’s no reason that Obama would ever need to have “openly rejected Islam.” You’re trying to invent a reason to shift a burden of proof that doesn’t exist.

            “I can prove that he is friends with powerful Muslims, never goes to church, mocked people “clinging to their guns and Bibles,” has enabled islamists and ignored the murder of thousands of Christians, was born a
            Muslim. And as we all know, actions speak louder than words. That tears up your bill and feeds it to you quite nicely.”

            Not if you’re capable of actually following a chain of logic more than a step. Let’s look at this litany, shall we?

            1. He is friends with powerful Muslims. And? I’m friends with Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Copts, atheists, agnostics, and a couple of Buddhists. Some of them are even powerful. One’s religion is not determined, or even suggested, by having friends of another religion. (You’ll note that Obama is friends with powerful Christians – why did you not argue that this suggests he is a Christian?)

            2. Never goes to church. Well, first, so what? Are you suggesting that one must attend church to follow a particular religion? Not all Christians go to church. Are you trying to determine whether Obama is a Christian, or are you trying to determine whether Obama is a good enough Christian to meet your standards?

            At any rate, bad as your logic is, your supporting facts are worse. The Obamas have attended church at many locations, including 19th Street Baptist Church, the Washington National Cathedral, Allen Chapel A.M.E. Church, Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, Metropolitan A.M.E. Church, Shiloh Baptist Church and multiple services at St. John’s Episcopal Church and Evergreen Chapel at Camp David.”

            That’s an awful lot of churches for “never,” eh?

            3. “Mocked people clinging to their guns and bibles.” And? I know an Episcopalian minister who has done the same. The comment is taken out of context, but let’s assume that it says exactly what you imply: that is, disdain for rural fundamentalists of the ‘heartland’ – that speaks to a political divide in the country, not any indication of religious belief or lack thereof. You should hear the disdain that Young Earth Creationists are held in by the Jesuits I know; I’m pretty sure it’s not proof that the Jesuits are secretly Muslim.

            4. “Has enabled Islamists.” It’s not even clear what you mean by this. Are you talking about continued aid to Egypt during the Morsi administration? Our financial obligations to the PA? Nothing along those lines remotely suggests one’s religious beliefs.

            5. “Ignored the murder of thousands of Christians.” Again, this smacks of a complaint that he, as President, did not take some political action you believe was warranted. That’s an indicator of how he executes his duty as President, not of his personal religious beliefs.

            6. “Was born a Muslim.” Well, one isn’t “born a Muslim.” If you mean he was born of Muslim parents, well, you’re half right; his mother was a Christian.

            If you imagine that any or all of these somehow demonstrate that Obama is lying when he professes his Christianity, your thinking is remarkably sloppy.

            Bottom line: you’re trying to weave a conspiracy theory of a secret Muslim insinuating himself into the heart of our world to destroy us on the basis of innuendo and fantasy.

          • truebearing

            No one took Mao’s threat seriously. We could have nuked China to cinders. Mao had no missiles, no bombers, and crude weapons. They also did not have compact nukes available or a terrorist network to plant bombs in the US. Mao wasn’t supporting a worldwide network of deranged religious fanatics who would gladly die to kill tens of thousands, or more. Your Mao argument is ridiculous. You still haven’t understood the Islamist mindset. Not even close.

            Your false equivalency between Muslims and Christians is another instance of your inability to discern between two religions. Christians may believe in Armageddon, something which you have no standing to judge, but they aren’t threatening genocide against Israel or to destroy nations to trigger Christ’s return. Twelvers are, and if you can’t see the difference you are amazingly obtuse, or dishonest. I’m voting for dishonest. Your tendency to over-intellectualize leaves the possibility that you are relativistic to the point of solipsism.

            Calling oneself a Christian hardly makes that person a Christian. Obama’s pathological lying is a disqualifier from the start. There is no taqiyah in Christianity. No conditional morals, like we see in Islam.

            You judge a religion by what it teaches. You judge an adherent to a religion by how well they follow the teachings of their religion. A good Christian is truthful, peaceful, forgiving, generous, and faithful. A “good” Muslim wages jihad against the infidel, ie. everyone who isn’t Muslim, and is instructed to beat, rape, enslave, and kill all who won’t submit to islam. One religion teaches peace and love. The other teaches hate and murder. Let’s see how well your talent in sophistry can blur those mutually exclusive truths.

          • hiernonymous

            The Communists didn’t have a worldwide network? They didn’t have access to terrorist worldwide? Well, wait a moment – didn’t we have some folks in here over the past couple of days insisting that McCarthy had been vindicated and the Communist threat in the U.S. was very real?

            “You still haven’t understood the Islamist mindset. Not even close.”
            So you keep insisting, but it’s not clear how your ‘understanding’ is superior.

            “Christians may believe in Armageddon, something which you have no standing to judge…”

            What does that even mean? What assumptions are you now making about me, my background, and what ‘standing’ I need to understand Christians?

            “…but they aren’t threatening genocide against Israel or to destroy nations to trigger Christ’s return. ”

            Actually, they’ve been accused of assisting carrying out genocide on behalf of Israel in order to bring about Armageddon. Again, the number of Christians who so believe and who are so involved is vanishingly small compared to the overall population, but then, that’s true of this supposed Twelver lust for the end of the worlds as well. Declaring an ‘equivalency’ (more a point of comparison) false doesn’t make it so.

            “Obama’s pathological lying is a disqualifier from the start.”

            What a man says his religion is is generally a perfect place to start. Your pathological paranoia doesn’t render Obama’s account of himself ‘disqualified.’

            “You judge a religion by what it teaches. You judge an adherent to a
            religion by how well they follow the teachings of their religion.”

            I’d say that you’re missing some pretty key elements if that’s your approach. I judge a religion in very large part by what its adherents believe and do.

            “A good Christian is truthful, peaceful, forgiving, generous, and
            faithful. A “good” Muslim wages jihad against the infidel, ie. everyone
            who isn’t Muslim, and is instructed to beat, rape, enslave, and kill all
            who won’t submit to islam.”

            Nonsense. You’re raving now. You should probably spend some time around Muslims and find out what they’re actually enjoined to do, how they are taught to be ‘good.’

            I’d also suggest that you look at how Christians in communities actually behave, and how Muslims in communities actually behave, as a critical element to understanding the religions.

            “One religion teaches peace and love. The other teaches hate and murder.
            Let’s see how well your talent in sophistry can blur those mutually
            exclusive truths.”

            Just out of curiosity, you’d kept telling me that “if I knew anything about Islam,” I’d agree with this and that point you raised. Where’d you derive your expertise in Islam? How did yhou arrive at these “mutually exclusive truths?”

          • nomoretraitors

            Uh, actually the Iranians DO have a delivery system capable of reaching Israel and possibly Europe. They have already tested intermediate range missiles

          • hiernonymous

            “Uh, actually the Iranians DO have a delivery system capable of reaching Israel…”

            Who said they didn’t? How is that relevant?

        • MukeNecca

          Great rebuttal of a contemptible screed.

        • nomoretraitors

          A couple of interesting facts about “Christian” Obama:
          Told the prime minister of Turkey the US was no longer a Christian nation
          Had the cross covered up behind him at the podium while speaking at a college (I wish I could remember the name)

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Wow. More dangerous than the Confederacy, eh? The Kaiser and the Fuehrer all rolled up in one?”

        Given that we’re in the age of thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs, it seems possibly so.

        It’s not an unreasonable comment at all. The only argument centers over whether he really means well. Probably he does. So did all the other tyrants.

        • hiernonymous

          “Given that we’re in the age of thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs, it seems possibly so.”

          Well, no. China has thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs. Russia has them. Have had for decades. Iran, not so much, nor is there any clear indication that it would be so disastrous if they did have. There’s nothing about the international situation today that wasn’t at least as dangerous and frightening in the mid 1960s.

          “It’s not an unreasonable comment at all. ”

          What, calling the president an ‘enemy’ of the U.S. is not unreasonable at all? Your sense of reasonable seems oddly calibrated.

          • San Pham Nuskin

            Even if he was impeached and removed from office tomorrow, the consequences of his actions and inaction will leave the United Staes, and our allies, in grave danger for the forseeable future.

            _____________________________

            San Pham Nuskin , My Pham Nuskin

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s nothing about the international situation today that wasn’t at least as dangerous and frightening in the mid 1960s.”

            When looking through the lens of leftist analysis where only rational people ever get control of WMDs. Sure. Everything will be fine because we’ve had nukes around the world for decades now so that whole nuclear nonproliferation stuff was apparently a waste of time.

            “What, calling the president an ‘enemy’ of the U.S. is not unreasonable at all? Your sense of reasonable seems oddly calibrated.”

            If we assume that it’s impossible for POTUS to hate the USA, we must then assume he can’t be an enemy because everything he does will be pro-American. POTUS is America. We are simply his subjects.

            Given that the USA is the only superpower, it seems obvious that only by destroying itself can it truly be threatened in the short term.

            China can seriously threaten us at some point, but that will take a lot longer. Although they’re doing a great job preparing for that opportunity. It’s just unclear what future generations will do. I’m not worried about the Chinese cultivation of hatred of modernism. The Chinese simply want to compete with us and against us, but basically they’re worried about their own world rather than dominating the entire globe politically. In theory it could change but it would be a lot easier in my view to detect the increasing risks from China.

            Iran is a lot closer to threatening world peace in truly unprecedented ways. And they’ve more or less told us that is precisely what they want to do. But somehow we look at that risk through the lens of class struggle and the threat goes away by letting them feel good about their increasing prosperity and growing stature.

            Karl would be impressed.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        What do you think of 0′Bama’s foreign policy to date?

        • hiernonymous

          I think it’s a mixed bag. Competent, but not inspiring.

          • MukeNecca

            “Competent, but not inspiring.

            Wrong! VERY inspiring! It has inspired and emboldened mortal enemies of America all over the world. Including America.

          • gawxxx

            you have cemented that thought that you are a moron ,

          • hiernonymous

            For whatever that’s worth.

          • Drakken

            The fact you think Obummer and company is competent is stunning!!!! God help us all if your writing policy.

          • hiernonymous

            “The fact you think Obummer [sic] and company is [sic] competent is stunning!!!! God help us all if your [sic] writing policy.”

            I don’t think we need to worry about the reverse, do we?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think that incompetence is the only good element in his case.

            What do you think about his statement containing the sentence, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”?

            I’d be at least a little angry about this statement anywhere. But I’d understand it if some diplomat said it to try to deceive some idiot somewhere. But POTUS at the UN?

            That was a watershed moment. I don’t see how anyone can square that. I really don’t.

          • hiernonymous

            What do I think about this statement:

            “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
            To be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the
            hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are
            destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement
            against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words
            of Gandhi: ‘Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to
            the growth of a true democratic spirit.’ Together, we must work towards
            a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined
            by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will
            support.”

            I think, first, that your choice of what to include and what not suggests that you are seeking an opportunity to be offended.

            Are you suggesting that the future does and should belong to slanderers?

            “I’d be at least a little angry about this statement anywhere. ”

            You say that as if your emotional response carried some independent significance to it.

            “That was a watershed moment. I don’t see how anyone can square that. I really don’t.”

            That’s okay. Just because you don’t, or won’t, see something, doesn’t mean that it’s not there to be seen. It would be helpful if you didn’t speak in indignant shorthand. Square that with what?

            The right to free speech? I didn’t hear Obama propose punishment for free speech there. Something else?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think, first, that your choice of what to include and what not suggests that you are seeking an opportunity to be offended.”

            It’s not about what offends me. It’s about what it signals to those who would like to change our constitution. I’m well aware of the context and of the signals it sends with or without including context.

            “Are you suggesting that the future does and should belong to slanderers?”

            I’m saying that it’s not the role of the US government executives to weigh in on the distinctions between evangelism and slander. Characterizing poorly executed (in my view) propagandistic evangelism as “slander” is offensive and never appropriate for a government official. But also considering the violent reactions and the narratives of the time, there is no way he should be equivocating about the appropriate response to “slander” or “feelings” of disrespect about an expression of ideas. No matter how it’s characterized. Even if he supposedly evened it out with other statements, this is not an excuse. He KNOWS precisely how the rhetoric will be used. The media favorable to him will be able to “contextualize” it while sharia advocates will see that they scored a big victory in establishing that POTUS is against “slander” of the “prophet of Islam.” And he’s probably aware that when a Muslim hears protections for “all religions” they hear only Islam because the consider Islam the ultimate revelation of all legitimate religion. That’s why they claim Jesus and other prophets as their own. They don’t want to protect Jesus from slander. They want to protect Islamic views. Period.

            There are other problems as well, but making that statement at the UN, the body that wants to eradicate our speech protections, is inexcusable.

            It’s amazing to me that any American or an atheist can think that it was OK.

      • Allen

        The Kaiser was not more dangerous to America than Confederacy.

        During the Somoan Crisis the Kaiser considered invading the United States. The logistics were considered infeasible and Britain sat astride the SLOC. But the Kaiser did consider it based on the relative size of each countries armed forces.

        Germany during WW1 or prior was never a credible threat to the U.S.

        German archive reveals kaiser’s plan to invade America
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Plan_Three

        • hiernonymous

          I agree with you; that’s why I used the “Kaiser and Fuehrer all rolled up in one.”

          And I’ve even entertained the argument that Nazi Germany wasn’t much of a threat to the U.S. The Nazis had no equivalent of Britain at which to marshal their forces, nor did they have the well-developed and well-rounded navy necessary to directly threaten us. Although it’s hard to extrapolate too much from limited data, Germany’s experience with trying to harness the economies of captured territories suggests that, had Germany won the European war, it would not necessarily have been the economic juggernaut required to then mount a cross-Atlantic campaign.

          All very interesting diversions, but hopefully my rhetorical point was clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All very interesting diversions, but hopefully my rhetorical point was clear.”

            It was clear, but that doesn’t mean you’ve won the argument.

      • malachha avet

        Add Hirohito & Emperor of Japan to your list

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Actually that makes more sense. Imperial Japan would be the best analogy.

          Thanks for the reminder.

      • zoomie

        many brave men died so you could live and be free. in your case their sacrifice was worthless, as you are.

      • J. Bargholz

        Obama is deliberately making America’s enemies stronger, epecially islam, and especially theocracies. At the same time he’s weakening America militarily, economically, cuturally and scientifically.

        You know this, which is why you try so hard to mock it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Peace through weakness. Every hippy believes in that. Unfortunately some of these idiots are also having children. And they figured out how to vote too.

      • Stillontheroad

        Yes and why?? He is doing what Americas enemies have never succeeded in doing – destroying The United States. No, a Liar, cheat and thief – not the Kaiser and not the Fuehrer.

      • nomoretraitors

        The Confederacy was defeated a century and half ago, the Kaiser in the early part of the 20th and Hitler almost 70 years ago.
        Time to update your enemies list

        • hiernonymous

          “Time to update your enemies list…”

          Sure. When an existential threat on the scale of the Confederacy or the Nazis rears its ugly head, I’ll be sure to add it to the list.

          Which was rather the point.

    • Myrtle Linder

      Blunders and errors? Ignore them, he knows exactly what he is doing. He is a Muslim and a pro at doing what he is doing “stealing America, right in our eyesight, for the Islamists. He cannot tell the truth and he knows that we know it, and he does not care. He hides nothing that he is doing, he is playing American citizens for fools. He knows he has it all in the bag and we can do nothing about it, because he has bought our political system out, who will do nothing about his shenanigans.

      The WORD OF GOD tells us about the tribulations that will come in the last days. “We are in the last days”

    • Margaret Rocheleau

      Ditto.

  • Gylippus

    Thanks Prof. Thornton for this sober
    assessment. I sometimes fear that it is even worse than you
    describe. There is a deep nihilism at the root of the radical left
    mindset; an anti-human fanaticism, and one can see traces of it all
    throughout Obama’s administration and personal affiliations. My
    worst fear is that they are deliberately working to bring about some
    kind of cataclysm, either at home or in Israel, or both, in order to
    fulfill their longstanding, twisted fantasies. I hope I am wrong.
    Either way, your use of the word “enemy” is entirely accurate.

    • MukeNecca

      My worst fear is that they are deliberately working to bring about some
      kind of cataclysm, either at home or in Israel, or both, in order to
      fulfill their longstanding, twisted fantasies.

      There is a term: “Immanentize the eschaton” describing the idea of deliberate triggering of a cataclysm in order to hasten the materialization of eschatological vision. This what clearly evident in Amadinejads international politics. I, like you, sometimes think Obama is doing exactly the same thing.

      • logdon

        Cloward Piven personified.

        The theory is worked out. He only has to implement it and with the support of a compliant msm, that’s exactly what he’s doing.

        • MukeNecca

          Not being American I’ve never heard of them, so I needed some quick reading. Quite interesting…Luckily for America a very few would back the two then. Had they lived under the current administration their ascent to political stardom would have been assured. Still, their case is not really a perfect example what is meant by Immanentizing the eschaton as the latter is about hastening what is a necessary logical, philosophical or theological consequence of given factors.

  • The Facts

    This article is quite the bluff and outside the area of Mr. Thornton’s degree. It also has the same failing as any article of the Alex Jones and Mike Rivero persuasion, specifically: even by the last paragraph, he does NOT roll out his big description of what is really happening, what is the true motivation, and what is the meat of the conspiracy. Tease!

    • WhiteHunter

      Time for you to change your screen name to “The Fax.” You know, like the one with the daily talking points you get from Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod every morning so you’re sure to be “on message.”

      • The Facts

        I understand that you’re only capable of talking about Obama, but I’m not an Obama fan.

      • T800

        “the Factoids”. rhymes with hemorrhoids.

  • vsraglan

    I wonder if we will ever really know who this man is. I think Breitbart knew, but he died suddenly nine hours before he was able to reveal what he had discovered.

  • De Doc

    I don’t put stock in the ‘Obama as Evil Doer’ conspiracy theory. Gross incompetence often masks itself as something deliberately pernicious, as the article already alludes. We, as a nation, elected a community organizer to become our bumbling, amateur president, obsessed with adopting discredited political and social theories as the new law, and are now surprised at the results?

    • Gylippus

      If you consider the kind of vicious (violent) rhetoric Obama was weaned on (Marshall Davis, Wright…), or, by deliberate choice, the folks he surrounded himself with when he entered politics (Bill Ayers…) you can see a pattern. These are all people who, in one way or another, embraced the idea of a violent overthrow of the American system. I do not find it so easy to dismiss this disturbing fact.

    • El Cid

      This is the essential point. Obama has no executive experience whatsoever. He is a “community organizer” from the famous Chicago School. And, he is known to espouse failed political and economic models. His loyalties to any ideology, country or person does not stand a challenge. A country that was sick of war and economic decline voted him in on a hope and a prayer for change. They voted him in the 2nd time because he is also a big liar and because Mitt Romney, the man with the strong executive resume, failed to call him out. We are a nation in denial that is hopefully waking up.

    • T800

      you don’t wonder how an unknown like Comrade Obama comes out of nowhere and rapidly becomes pResident? a short stint as a do-nothing junior Senator,and BAM,he’s pResident,with no experience and a carefully hidden background that the media curiously fails to investigate.(while digging deeply into VP-candidate Palin -and- her entire family.)

  • 1Indioviejo1

    It is self evident Obama’s hatred of the U.S. that he has shown all of his life, from his associations with Frank Davis Marshall, Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, and the Muslims who contributed to his college bills. He ran for President to “fundamentally transform” our nation. He is a worse enemy than the Muslims who are trying to bring us down, because ultimately he will do more damage than anybody could have done militarily to us. That man is a traitor to our country.

  • tickletik

    For those of you who do not understand why a nuclear armed Iran is a problem for the US, picture the following scenario. One ship off the coast of LA, and another ship off the coast of New York, each fire a single 10mgtn nuke that detonates 80km ABOVE the ground. Sounds groovy right? Wrong. A nuclear detonation at that altitude can cause an EMP shockwave that would fry every electrical system in a 300-600 mile radius. That means, no cars, no sewage, no factories, no trains, no power plants, no computer systems, no refrigerators, no elevators, no nothing. Two nukes, just two, and you can bring the entire US to its knees without directly killing a single human being. Chances are, you’d see roughly half the population dead by starvation in a month.

    Now who do you think is in greater danger? The US or Tel Aviv? Which target do you think looks more appealing to these bastards?

    There is exactly one thing that gives animals like that a moment of pause, the clear knowledge of imminent overwhelming retaliation. The Israeli government has been very weak, we should probably have burned Teheran to ashes for their provocation, but the Iranians know there are still enough actual men here who would burn this world in vengeance if they hit Tel Aviv, to hell with everybody at that point.

    But what do you think the Iranians are thinking when they look at that petty little gay bitch in the Oval Office? What do you think they think about our country, our military for allowing a degenerate lowlife supplicating nancy like that to sit in charge of our military? I’ll tell you what they are thinking, they are thinking they are never going to have a better chance

    • Marcus

      If you take out the U.S., you get Israel for free.

      • tickletik

        Yes, but that might be why some biblical prophecies don’t refer to the US being involved in the end times. Well, for those of us that take stock in such things, anyway. ;)

        • Marcus

          I keep such things in mind, but I prefer that we not rely on them or work to achieve them.

          Ragnarok is not to my liking. I have relatives in many different time zones across the northern hemisphere. But if push comes to shove, let slip the dogs of war.

    • J. Bargholz

      “Never have a better chance.” I agree.

    • T800

      Uh,you want to detonate an EMP nuke a LOT farther up than 80km.(~49 miles.)
      The higher,the wider the coverage. 100-300 miles up is what’s mentioned on WIki’s EMP page. it doesn’t have to be 10 MT,either. a 20kt nuke would work fine.
      Thursday, October 7, 1999, Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to U.S. Military and Civilian Infrastructure
      Congressional testimony by Dr.Wood;

      My colleague Dr. Graham has said that the EMP yield of a warhead is very weakly dependent on its energy yield. That is true, but it is true in spades. Special purpose nuclear warheads, on a kiloton scale, can have much more of EMP effect than ordinary nuclear warheads on the megaton scale. Less than ten kilotons properly employed in the type of warheads which have actually been examined, both in the Soviet Union and in the United States experimentally, warheads of less than 10-kiloton yields can put out very large EMP signals. So it is necessary to understand that it doesn’t take a megaton to do an awful lot of damage. You can do an awful lot of damage in ten kilotons or less.

      • tickletik

        Awesomeness. But next time you correct someone, leave out the “uh”. It’s a style of sarcasm indicating that the other person is a moron. Unless you intended it there as an insult, which would be odd and pointless.

  • JVictor

    Why is anyone surprised by what Obama does regarding foreign or domestic policy? He promised to “fundamentally transform” this country before he was elected President the first time. His formative years were spent in Hawaii, not exactly a state that embraces the notion of American exceptionalism, and Islamic schools in Indonesia where he decided that the horrific calls to Muslim prayer were the most beautiful sounds he ever heard. Down with America, down with American allies, and particularly, down with Israel were the thoughts he had when he talked about this fundamental transformation. With a complicit media and a cowardly Congress, he’s well on his way to achieving his heart’s desire.

  • Petertimber

    “Enemy Action” is not as relevant as prophecy is for all of us.Perhaps a reading http://www.standeyo.com and click on prophecy..you will feel better knowing God is watching.

  • Robert_Fl

    Nobody, no matter how incompetent, makes the “wrong” decision 100% of the time.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I see it as neither. It’s indifference. It’s a non policy policy which is neither incompetent nor evil but simply nothing at all. The only truly mystifying piece is how or why Obama continues to pout that no one takes him seriously after years of abandoning the world outside the US.

  • rebaaron

    Well finally! This could be an emperor has no clothes moment. Maybe people will now see what is plainly before their eyes. The Manchurian president, not in fiction, but in real life. Every Congressman and Senator who supports him is complicit in this perfidy.

  • gawxxx

    hey “genius” it took you five years to figure this out , all you had to do is check his past before the “clueless ” in this country voted for him , you profess to be “educated” , what a fool you are ,

  • Bernie

    Do the following thought experiment. Obama is really on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban. What in his present menu of policies would lead you to believe that this is not true?

  • Omar

    hiernonymous and uptownsteve are clearly trolls who just annoy everyday American patriots. They are both paid by the Shadow Party network to troll on conservative websites. Check this link out for more information on the Shadow Party network: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6706.

  • Lanna

    Obama’s policies don’t originate from being a community organizer, they are deep within his Socialist roots and hatred for America. Weaken America economically, create an immoral society of lawlessness, and drugs, weaken the military and demoralize them, and enable the enemies of American and Irael. especially helping Iran…NOT a pretty picture! The enemies from Within.

    • Omar

      He is a modern-day Neville Chamberlain.

      • CosmotKat

        I don’t believe Chamberlain ever hated his country, he was just inept.

  • prospero

    Thornton is right in his assessment of Obama’s foreign policy–the US has been arrogant, domineering, imperialist, etc., and it (and all its allies, the closer the ally and the more critical to specific conflict zones, the more tainted) must be humbled and given a more limited role in an emerging transnational, post-colonial order. Everything Obama has done fits this model, although the question of whether this makes him an enemy of the US depends upon whether you think the transnational order is intrinsically inimical to the US. Since a large minority, at least, of Americans, seem to share the post colonialists’ angst over American power, perhaps Obama is less an enemy of the US and more an agent of the dissolution of the traditional US. But Obama doesn’t need to be a Muslim for all this to be the case–it’s true of Clinton and Kerry as well. Run-of-the-mill campus leftism accounts for it quite well

  • nopeacenow

    He was a community organizer. What kind of foreign policy were you expecting?

  • T800

    “once is accidental,twice is coincidence,three times is enemy action.”
    It’s all part of his efforts to weaken the US economically,politically,and militarily.
    1.He’s blocked domestic energy production,he’s hindered our economy terribly.
    2.He’s insulted our allies and aided our enemies,like the Muslim Brotherhood.
    3.He’s weakened our military,both through the weak economy and by shutting down needed programs such as missile defense,F-22 program,signing New START,and so on.

    Comrade Obama IS the muslim Manchurian Candidate.

    There’s a reason why,post-college,Comrade Hussein traveled to Pakistan,of all places. it’s not because he was a Christian. There’s a reason why Comrade Hussein was aided in getting into college by Saudi money and influence.

  • pacific_waters

    Occam’s razor says nothing about intent. IT is clear from obama’s speeches alone that his intent is exactly he is achieving, the diminution of the US, it’s transformation into a socialist state and the furtherance of the caliphate.

  • CurmudgyOne

    Too bad we who agree are the onl ones who will take this seriously. When Congress won’t act in the face of Obama’s clear and present violations of the law (re, “Obamacure”), why wold we expect anyone in the DC swamp to do anything, sy anything, or think anything that might upset their personal apple carts?

  • chuckie2u

    One only has to read Obama’s resume to know he does not have the credentials to do all you folks give him credit for accomplishing. The Presidency is only a show case position while more powerful individuals pull the strings of the man on the throne. . Bush was not his own man anymore than Obama. Bush and company did exactly what the Arabs wanted in getting rid of their advesary in Iraq and all the policy changes since his “mistake” has been to attempt to gain support from Islam by being nicer.It is all a part of a movement toward a one world governance where in all will live in a utopia of peace and prosperity.

  • nomoretraitors

    I knew Obama was the enemy when his pick to head NASA stated one of the agency’s missions was to highlight Muslim contributions to math and science

  • Gamal

    I think Obama and Europe are determined not to go to war with Iran. War unfortunately is the only way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and once Iran gets those weapons there will be war whether we like it or not. If history repeats itself Iran will demand that Judea and Samaria become a Palestinian state and the entire world will force Israel to give away those areas. Once the Arabs have Israel’s equivalent of the Sudetenland they will attack the way Hitler attacked. The United States will not intervene when faced with the threat of a nuclear strike from iran and neither will Europe. Once Israel is gone Europe and the United States will be struck by Iranian proxies armed with nuclear weapons.

  • herb benty

    Why have American men and women fought against Communism. One reason is that Communists hate America and are in this struggle “for the long run”. Obama is a Communist. Wright……”god damn America”. It’s enemy action all right.

  • gragor11a

    The part where you said that the Syrians crossed The Red Line by using poisonous gas …. was the place that exposed this editorial for what it is. Propaganda. It has been proven that the rebels misused the poisonous gas with the assistance of Turkey.

  • MukeNecca

    “It has inspired and emboldened mortal enemies of America all over the world.

    Is that not enough of a qualification for you? Should I also have added “including you”, to make it meet your comprehension standard?

  • Omar

    You need to be corrected on almost everything regarding politics, especially foreign policy. Quit repeating leftist propaganda and learn from facts.

  • hiernonymous

    “Should I also have added “including you”, to make it meet your comprehension standard?”

    There’s no slipping anything past you, is there?

  • hiernonymous

    “You need to be corrected on almost everything regarding politics, especially foreign policy.”

    And you’re the guy to do it, eh? Welcome to the party, Omar. We’ll have no more mewling about following, I trust?

  • Omar

    Nope. Whenever you make a bad error, I will correct you.

  • logdon

    I think you’ll be very busy. Are you sure you have the time?

  • hiernonymous

    I welcome correction, when it’s rooted in sound knowledge and supported by a good command of the facts and their implications.

    It’s even conceivable that you could be the source of such a correction. It could happen!

  • Drakken

    Shhhhh kaffir, the adults are talking, besides don’t you have some gang activity to attend to instead of talking to us crackers? Don’t forget to scream RACIST now boy.

  • Omar

    How many times do I have to remind you? Obama is a mixed-race president who is NOT directly related to the historical African diaspora in the Western Hemisphere.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “The facts be damned, eh. Forget about the fact that Obama attends a Christian church and proclaims himself a Christian.”

    Liberation Theology taught be a “Christian” that hates America and furthermore has stated that professing “Christianity” does not necessarily contradict authenticity of Islam. You simply don’t understand.

    “Or the fact that with or without nukes, The Fuehrer exterminated 6 million Jews or that the Confederacy declared war against their own nation over the right to own black slaves.”

    Where does that fit in to the discussion? Social justice? Reparations? What is your point?

    “You racist morons are so upset over the presence of a black President that you, ridiculously, compare him with the worse global criminals of all time with no basis for it all.”

    You’re the one that constantly injects race in to the conversation. Are you calling me a racist because I expect a POTUS to be pro-American and follow his oath of office? Explain that without making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions about me.

  • Omar

    I’m not posting nonsense. I’m posting the truth, you annoying racist motherf**k*r. You simply have hatred towards anyone who is not dark-skinned, Muslim or Communist. Fact-check.

  • J. Bargholz

    Right. Because White people always make things hard on their Black neighbors. What with their drugs and crime and all. Besides, OPama hates White people too much to live in a White area.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If Obama was not President and moved next door to you, you wouldn’t spray paint “mixed race” on his front door.”

    Why would anyone do that in the first place?

  • Daniel Greenfield

    I would spray hipster on his door.

  • hiernonymous

    “…you annoying racist motherf**k*r…”

    Speaking of hatred…

  • Omar

    Quit following me, you loon.

  • uptownsteve

    The irony is incredible, isn’t it?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    I hate hate. How about you?

  • hiernonymous

    Hullo, what? You started posting to me today. Did you get a little confused?

  • Omar

    Why don’t you stop trolling, you f**k**g loser?

  • Omar

    I doubt you even served in the Army. You probably live in the basement of your house trolling on political websites because that seems to be all you do.

  • Omar

    I doubt you served in the Coast Guard. Leftists like to tretend that they are patriots but in reality, many of them hate America and want the other side to win. Hence, the so-called “anti-war” protests from last decade. When I was a kid around ten years ago, I used to be a Marxist. Now I am a conservative and an American patriot. David Horowitz is my role model.

  • hiernonymous

    Well, first, you’re still a kid, and second, when you say that you’re an “American patriot,” what, exactly, do you mean? You reckon “patriotism” consists of thinking all the correct political thoughts? Of posting strident slogans on the internet?

    What have you actually done to make this country a better or safer place?

  • Omar

    I defend its democratic values. I also defend my country from reckless accusations from leftists at home and abroad who could give two hoots about human rights or democracy in their home countries and abroad. I also support admitting a Caribbean island that is U.S. soil as a state of the Union. Anything else, you loon?

  • Omar

    I am a young adult. Why are you living in the basement of a house? Are you middle aged?

  • CosmotKat

    Taunts and anger certainly don’t make you what I’d call a patriot. Did you get a big whiff of some napalm during that democrat war in SoEast Asia?

  • Omar

    Yes, you are. The Democratic Party has been taken over by likeminded New Left Marxists like yourself. And yet, you claim to be an American patriot. uptownsteve, you are no Dwight Eisenhower. Fact-check.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    You’re a collectivist. And a lot of your ideas depend on Critical Race Theory. It’s hard to see how Critical Race Theory could have come along without a solid Marxist foundation.

  • Omar

    And I say bulls**t. The left has become the witch hunters in the modern day. Anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, a bigot, a segregationist, a Christian extremist and/or a Jewish extremist . You lunatics try to silence disagreement almost always.

  • CosmotKat

    You so dumb…..The left are the McCarthyites of the new century. Look at Hollywood where those who don’t play the progressive line don’t work. Look at the IRS, those who are dissenters are hounded by government jack boots. downlowsteve get yourself educated. you are wrong nearly every post and you are quite amusing to boot!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    You’re fighting for Islamic and Marxist causes. What the heck do you expect?

  • hiernonymous

    We don’t have basements down here, son. Yes, I’m middle-aged. I retired from the Army a few years ago, then went and got another MA to embark on a new career, which I began this past year.

    The problem is that you’re trying to think of things you can post that will be zingers; you’re thinking of this as some kind of test of wits or a jousting match. That’s no good. One of the lessons you’ll learn over time is that you can’t hurt someone’s feelings with an insult unless they already value your opinion. If not, every attempt you make at taking a jab only underscores the fact that your opinion is not valued, which makes you angrier, which makes you want to jab even harder, and you trap yourself.

    You want badly to make a Political Statement online, and to be taken seriously for the quality of your thought. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you’re not there yet. You don’t have the depth of education or the depth of experience to make your opinions relevant. Instead of spending so much time on offering your opinions so early, why not spend a few years in a real profession, gathering experiences and withholding judgment on the politics until you have a real basis for making them?

  • Omar

    Shut up, you race-obsessed loon.

  • J. Bargholz

    You earned it, whack job.

  • Omar

    Like I said before, sometime, I have to use Michael Savage’s rhetoric to make my correct points to people who don’t care about facts.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Tom Paine was the original loudmouth. Also considered a patriot.

    Life isn’t all black and white, son. There are lots of shades.

  • hiernonymous

    The latter of which are identified by their disagreement with you? See any flaw in that arrangement?

  • A Z

    Bow out. Sooner or later, we’ll see hiernonymous go after uptownsteve I think unless the whole post about Dupuy was window dressing.

  • hiernonymous

    Why don’t you use some of those tuition dollars and enlarge your vocabulary? Was Roget a Communist? Webster too left-leaning for you? You’ve left yourself with noplace to escalate, unless you’re planning on bringing moms into it again.

    Ew.

  • Omar

    Webster was a Northern senator and an abolitionist during the antebellum period. Unlike you, he believed in American patriotism and justice for all.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    Ah noplace. It’s the one place you can’t find.

  • hiernonymous

    Okay, so we’ll check off Webster as not a f**k**g loon. Got it.

    I notice you were silent about Roget. That doesn’t bode well for him.

  • hiernonymous

    I thought you were next on my dance card. I can’t find anything here with all the cups and pills and remotes and stuff.

  • Omar

    Who is Roget?

  • A Z

    You were talking to a racist, supremacists or someone hung up on genetics, IQ, and culture at National Review site 9 months ago.

    You gave them the example of General Dupuy’ study of German battlefield performance. You the related Dupuys’ study of battlefield performance of ethnic German battalions during the Civil War to make a point about genetics and IQ. You also made a reference to Jared Diamond to make your point (One of my favorite authors. I have 2 of his books, Guns Germs & Steel and Collapse).

    Wanting to be next on the dance card …that was not the purpose of my post.

    Although I come here for 3 reasons information, informed give and take in in discussion and debate and because I am pugnacious.

    I can see from you dance card comment that you cannot betray your DNA. You are pugnacious too. As are most commenters here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Why don’t you go after guys like “steve?” I thought you were the straight shooter guy that goes after extremists and reasons with them?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    He’s suggesting use of a thesaurus.

  • A Z

    If you notice DB1954 is not mixing up here. Neither am I much. There is a reason he is not doing so.

    Have you read my posts to you? Hiernonymous came here with reasoned argument (which don’t always mean they are right) and the crowd through tomatoes. He didn’t quit like it, but he cannot betray his DNA. He is like most everyone here. He is pugnacious. He would have had to be to graduate as he did. He is stating to enjoy this. But the worst of it is that the forum does not look as good as it did IMO.

    Things are starting to turn our way. Be like objectivefactsmatter. He is not as excitable. He is more calm than I.

    71% of Obama Voters Regret Voting for Obama

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/71-of-obama-voters-regret-voting-for-obama/

  • Daniel Greenfield

    “See any flaw in that arrangement?”

    Aside from your eagerness to disprove your own point by accusing Omar of something you are just now guilty of?

  • hiernonymous

    Could you elaborate?

  • Saul

    In this case hiernonymous is going after Omar, because Omar was going after Jeffrey. I think it started in the article linked below.

    “The Lawless Presidency”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/the-lawless-presidency/

    hiernonymous I think may be former JAG so he thinks and writes often like a lawyer. Which people posting in forums are not use to.

    I have been reading his posts on the F22, Dupuy, the Cornerstone Speech and other stuff.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    And Tom Paine wasn’t always Tom Paine.

    It’s the internet. Everyone can be condescending.

  • hiernonymous

    And we’ll call that a no.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    I wouldn’t make the assumption that commenters are who they claim to be. Especially when those commenters appear to be trolling.

  • hiernonymous

    Saul,

    I’ve never been a lawyer. My Army career was spent in intelligence and as a Foreign Area Officer, with the last half of my career focused on the Middle East. I’ve spent a lot of time conducting rigorous analysis, but not for legal purposes. So, yes, I tend to be drawn to conversations about the Middle East, the military, Germany (where I spent 8 years), history, and a couple of other pet topics.

    You’re right about Omar, though in fairness to Daniel, I did get a bit carried away. I’m currently off work for a couple of weeks recovering from a surgery, so I find myself cranky and bored and taking it out on you guys :)

    regards.

  • hiernonymous

    It’s a weak argument that relies on biographical claims, etc, in any case. I try not to fall prey to arguments from authority or other such fallacies.

    As a rule, I provide biographical information when someone makes a reasonable request or otherwise shows it to be germane, and I don’t consider it to be intrusive. If you choose to treat that information skeptically, that’s your prerogative. It would be unreasonable of me to demand that others take my biography at face value as long as I’m posting under a pseudonym.

    As for ‘trolling,’ I suppose that depends on your definition. I’m no troll, in the traditional sense of someone who says outrageous things in order to provoke angry responses. I suppose I might be one, in thee sense that I do spend time on boards devoted to the Middle East, and challenge posters who make what I consider to be questionable assertions. On occasion, I learn things by doing so. It would be nice to believe that I occasionally encourage others to reconsider what they think they believe about some of these issues.

  • Saul

    I’ve seen you apologize. I have done so myself on occasion and just in the last 2 weeks.

    Daniel has called out ObamaYoMoma in the past for going after people. So it is not unusual, but it is uncommon.

    Rigorous analysis is needed. We (not you) tend to shoot from the hip. I will the say it is necessary at times. I will also admit we do it much too often.

    People will come here to the forum intent on tearing things up like uptownsteve and it degenerates very fast. Over the long run cathartic though it might be shooting form the hip will be a loser. So your presence is beneficial.

    Did you know that good ole boy ZiZo is married to an Indonesian? I could not believe he started posting under his name. So I guess the assertion about his marriage could be checked out. Prior to his “name change” I beat around the bush about the Sea-Tac area and he seems legit. My point is that he is basically a good guy although his style is not conducive to good relations.

    Some of the regulars here should read your posts in serial. What a funny and deft way to handle some of those posters.

    You know Saul changed his name,right?

  • hiernonymous

    Thanks for the kind words!

    I actually did have a conversation with Ziggy; he explained how he had had to pretend to be a Muslim to marry his first wife, who was Indonesian, but had some pretty harsh things to say about her. I don’t think he’d said anything to me about his current wife one way or the other.

    Judging by the rate at which my posts are disappearing from this thread, at least one of the regulars does not want to read my posts, in serial or otherwise!

    “You know Saul changed his name,right?”

    Will you be following suit?

    regards.

  • hiernonymous

    Found it! Apparently, it’s where my comments on Thomas Paine’s oeuvre are now located. Go figure.

  • Saul

    I was always confused about how Ziggy met his wife. Did he meet her in Indonesia or America? If he met her in Indonesia was it due to the military, business, mail order or vacation?

    I was not aware he was once divorced. When he posted that he was married to an Indonesian in a discussion on race, he did not say it was past tense.

    They can erase posts all they want and time does erase all (we think). Erasing posts from a forum for the most part is like a dog burying a bone. It usually does not stay buried.

  • hiernonymous

    I don’t remember the specifics of the conversation, but as I recall, he was living in Indonesia while working in the private sector – not military, and not vacation. I don’t think we got any more specific than that.