The Vegas Mass Shooting - Done By "Old Man Psycho" or ISIS Stooge?

A searing question arises once more after the Las Vegas massacre last night: How much longer are our legislators going to allow the rogues in the NRA to keep their balls under lock and key? Preventing them from passing effective laws to halt the string of mass shootings piling up dead bodies?

The same ritualized responses are heard once again to "offer thoughts and prayers" to the victims when this has never worked before. Thoughts and prayers, even offered a million times, don't make a dime's worth of difference until gun laws are changed. What will it take? Will it take a mass shooter armed with automatic weapons going into a nursery and slaughtering 100 infants? According to wifey, not even that will alter the laws because too many people are brainwashed by the NRA and puppet politicos into believing "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The problem as I've written before is that guns (especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons) make it too easy to slaughter, as the 22,000 gathered for a country music festival learned not far from the Mandalay Bay Sunday night.  No guy armed only with ten bags of knives could have killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 using only knives. It would have been too difficult to do and he'd have been brought down long before he could finish the job.

Compare that to the case of  64 year old Steven Paddock  on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel - with the full benefit of altitude, hundreds of feet from the scene- firing at will into a mass of people below and using automatic weapons.   Oh, and doing it from two open windows in his double-room suite (which he had to smash out beforehand).

What set this lunatic off we may never know. But let us first dismiss two fake news stories that have been circulating on Facebook, and social media:

1- The guy was an "Isis soldier" who recently converted to Islam and was trained online by the ISIS website.

This is total horse manure, and has already been discounted by FBI terror specialists.  The guy doesn't fit any profile for ISIS mind slaves - namely being a young, clueless loser and loner, searching for "meaning" and a "cause".  This is merely a ploy by the vermin to claim credit for a slaughter with which they had nothing to do.

2- Paddock was a liberal who "lost it" and sought vengeance on country music -loving Trumpies.

Again, total BS. No "liberal" worth the name would commit such a vile deed, mainly because liberals are not gun nuts. (The guy had a total of 23 weapons he carried in via ten bags in ten separate trips. He also had 19 other weapons found in his Mesquite, NV home.)

My psychologist niece Shayl probably has offered the most logical explanation of what drove Paddock to commit his vile deed. Her summation? He was an "old man psycho".

Granted, at 64 years of age one is generally not considered "old", it is more middle age. After all, to hear some of the ads, "60 is the new 40". But age - as Shayl points out- is not merely measured chronologically.  There are actually tests available - many even online - that give your psychological age. You may therefore be forty years old but your attitudes, outlook on life, translate into making you the equivalent of 70 or 80.  You have less tolerance, less patience, exhibit less resilience at setbacks, and carry grievances and grudges much longer. To the extent you live an isolated life all the preceding are exacerbated.

We know from all accounts given by his neighbors in Mesquite, NV thus far, that Paddock was described as "standoffish" and "keeping to himself" .  This already sends up red flags, according to Shayl, that he has a very limited social group and is almost entirely isolated. These conditions are almost tailor- made to breed an elder psychotic - and that's before even factoring in the genetic aspect that his father (Benjamin Paddock) was on the FBI most wanted list in the 1960s and was diagnosed as "psychotic". (As the authors of 'Nature's Thumbprint' point out, psychological traits are as likely to be inherited as physical ones.)

According to Shayl, the combination of factors made it almost 100 percent certain that Paddock "went psycho".   What about piling up gambling debts, as some have conjectured? (We know the guy loved video poker and described himself as a "professional gambler".)   Shayl agrees it is conceivable but far more likely that Paddock went all out on a gambling binge before doing the shooting, reasoning that whatever video poker or other debts amassed would never be paid off.  Well, it ought to be easy enough to check that hypothesis, given there are hundreds of CCTV cameras at every casino.)

Maybe the sadder aspect, much more than Paddock's psychological issues, is that Vegas is still planning to have a series of gun shows starting on Nov. 25th. Then, nearly one every month thereafter Wouldn't it be better - in the memory of those killed - to call off all these shows at least for a year?

Wouldn't it also be better, in the memory of those 59 murdered Vegas victims, to finally pass gun regulation laws like Australia did a few years ago - after another hideous massacre?

Those behind Sandy Hook Promise are absolutely right, we need rigorous new gun laws not more "thoughts and prayers".  The latter are cheap to offer when the NRA forms a powerful lobby that doesn't hesitate to put a pol's name on its "enemies" list.  It is time to let the NRA know that laws are not hostage to special interests- especially a group that offers a raft of semi-automatic weapons as part of a "sweepstakes" to join.  (See my earlier blog post, last month, on this.)

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/kali-holloway/75503/gop-congress-appears-hell-bent-on-making-mass-shootings-even-deadlier

Cold, Hard Stats Show 'Muricans More Likely To Be Killed By Armed Toddlers Than Jihadis

Statistics can be a real bitch, especially when they destroy fake news claims and even claims issuing from Trump's Twitter account.  Much of the huff and puff over the past few months has been driven by the anti-Muslim hysteria that "radical jihadis" are on the loose and "radicalized" Isis youth and others are slaughtering an unheard of number of patriotic Americans each year.. But the cold, hard numbers tell a different story - though to a reality-challenged person who likely believes in Pizzagate or that Sandy Hook was a "false flag" - they may not mean much. As the recent TIME essay put it (issue on 'Person of the Year') the recent election showed a triumph of "anecdote over analysis" in respect of American brain power.

But looking at the above stats one sees that in fact Islamic immigrant terrorists have killed only 2 per year on average, while ALL Islamic terrorists (including radicalized U.S. citizens) have killed a total of 9 each year on average. Meanwhile, "armed toddlers" (i.e. who got hold of daddy's Glock hidden in a closet drawer) killed an average of 21 per year or more than 10 times that of jihadi immigrants and more than double that of those killed by all Islamic terrorists.

But this should not be surprising because nearly a  year ago I pointed out in several posts that the total number of ordinary citizens killed by Islamic terrorists was hundreds of times less than those killed by fellow citizens who got enraged (as in road rage incidents) and had weapons at the ready. They were ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

The stats to do with armed toddlers are no joke, as I also pointed out. The reasons are inherent in the nature of gun ownership as well as the cavalier attitude too many gun owners take to securing their weapons.   The truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological, terror-based or random acts but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.    This I why we behold the astounding stat of 11,737 on average killed each year by "other Americans".  Is this a manifestation of "freedom"? If so it's the most perverse example of freedom one can imagine - one which depends on the ability to kill another at will -  often out of pique or after an argument. (Which may be tied to the fact 1 in 6 Americans are now using psych meds, as reported in the NY Times.)

Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies'  or Islamic terrorists but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.   In the case of armed toddlers, they became so because they were curious and found out where daddy stored his, retrieved it then - most often - pointed it at someone in the house - or in the backyard.

Anyone who now tells you to focus on terror and Islamic terrorists to the exclusion of gun regulation is trying to mind fuck you. If they present plans to vet terrorists but not to prevent terrorists from buying lethal weapons - like the AR -15- they are talking bollocks, pure and simple.

Don't Be Misled By "ISIS" Jabber - Orlando Was A HATE Crime

Omar Mateen, the sick homophobic nut who butchered 49 in Orlando.

Some of the assault weapons depicted in a WJS piece from December 15, all of which need to be banned.

Another merciless slaughter, this time by a hateful psycho named Omar Mateen taking out 49 lives at an Orlando nightclub called "the Pulse" according to the NY Times. But you can bet your sweet bippy most 'Murican gun lubbers won't do diddly or squat about controlling the proliferation of military assault rifles. Oh no! They will likely  invoke the recycled excuse that "guns don't kill people, radical Muslim extremists do". A neat cop out but even if they expand the "Muslim extremists" to "people" it still doesn't work because they conveniently ignore the corollary:

"People wouldn't kill as many people if killing with high -powered guns wasn't so easy"

 That's the core of it: the ease of killing another with a weapon that doesn't even require you get up close and personal, like using a machete or knife.  If gun sales and distributions were as limited in this country as they are in others, Mateen might not have been able to carry out his foul deed to the extent of 49 dead -  - say if he only had access to a knife. Yes, he'd likely have inflicted damage - maybe killed even a dozen -  but there would at least have been time for others to react - to dodge the knife thrusts and take him down. Especially if people swarmed him en masse. 

We know from Pete Williams' (MSNBC) report yesterday this AMERICAN  thug (American citizen, born in Queens, NY like 'the Donald') modified his AR-15 to enhance his capacity and thereby kill more people. As the WSJ piece  from which the top image was culled observed:

"The AR-15 re-cocks itself immediately after firing. The only thing keeping the gun from firing again on its own is a sear, a piece inserted in the gun that stops the cycle from continuing. By replacing the sear and a few other key components, an AR-15 can be made fully automatic."

 Evidently then, the twisted SOB adjusted his weapon to become a mass slaughter machine.  (We also know from the WSJ piece one of the rifles used by the San Bernardino CA duo had been "changed to more easily accommodate a large capacity magazine". This was according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with ATF quoted in the article.)  Although dedicated gunnies insisted the San Bernardino pair accomplished their foul deed even with "strict" California gun laws, the truth is they aren't that strict. As the WSJ piece continues:

"There are ways to get around the state's background check gun laws. A person can lend another person a gun for as long as 30 days without having to run a background check."

Also:

"Many transfers between family members are also exempt from background checks>

So the laws are not as tough as believed with those loopholes, another of which is that "once a gun is sold it becomes difficult to keep track of it". And let's also bear in mind while the wacko Right screams its collective lungs out over the government "eliminating the right to bear arms", they keep their mouths totally shut over all the freaks on the terror watch lists who are still enabled - by current gun laws- to purchase any weapon they want. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

We also know the hateful AMERICAN shit was in Miami a few weeks ago when he "saw two men kissing'" and immediately vowed retribution "from the ISIS kill book", which punishes such behavior with instant death.  I mean sheesh, gimme a break! While awaiting check-in for our Barbados apartment in April (and while Janice was in the restroom) I sat in the check-in lounge while barely five feet across from two young Brit millennial women deep kissing each other on a couch. Did I freak out and want to blow them away? Of course not! There is such a thing as "live and let live" but don't try to tell that to some of these hateful, religiously-motivated  peckerwoods  - whether the gay-hating Mateens of the world, or the Planned Parenthood hating likes of Robert Lewis Dear. .

So we can conclude it was both an act of terror and act of pure hate, but one suspects much more of hate - with an admixture of "Isis" baloney tossed in for good measure. That's because the PoS realized the very word "ISIS" stirs utmost fear into the hearts of millions of Americans - who are then forced to check for "radical Islamic extremists"  under their beds each night, like many 1950s 'Muricans used to do for wayward commies. . So why not invoke it to make the terrified segment believe it was "ISIS inspired"? Hey, don't disregard it!  The cynical use of this tactic (and bear in mind anyone can say anything, that doesn't prove it) provides an effective cover for the hate crime (directed exclusively at the LGBT community). As other commentators have pointed out, the use of this ideological identification instantly inflates the nut's self-importance. Much as the U.S. inflates ISIS' own self-important by branding them an opponent in a real war. Gimme a fuckin' break already! As former Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has noted ISIS are a band of rogue criminals and should not be inflated to the level of "warriors".  This asshole Mateen is also a criminal- not a fucking warrior- and a nut besides. In effect he's no different from Robert Lewis Dear (who fancied himself a "warrior for babies")  other than the religion professed..

An FBI investigator in Orlando yesterday morning also pointed out that a cell phone call was received from the culprit while inside the Pulse club, claiming allegiance to ISIS. This last minute "claim" - despite the fact the FBI did multiple prior background checks showing no threats - indicated to me the little fuck exploited Islamic terror as the cover to commit a hate crime (and an act of domestic terror). The foul little scumball probably knew he could get away with it because too many Americans will accentuate the "radical Islamic terror" aspect and neglect the hate beneath.  As I noted earlier, the irrational fears (by which I mean disproportionate) are already there. Trump will exploit this evil act to the hilt on that score, but no one else of sound mind ought to.

As President Obama said in his address on TV yesterday "The killer was filled with hatred". And this has been true of all the major mass shooters, whether James Eagen Holmes, Adam Lanza, or Robert Lewis Dear.  Each may have been wacked out to different degrees (especially Dear who was "fightin' for the babies") but we need to bear in mind one can be a fruitcake and still express hate and vitriol.

Underneath all these kinds of violent mass shootings is the easy availability of guns. Semi-automatic killing machines like the AR-15, to be specific.  Now after the most massive slaughter ever, what are we going to do about it as a nation? Are we still going to insist - as the NRA does - that those who wrote the 2nd amendment actually had modern military assault rifles in mind when they wrote it? I can tell you right now this is a damned fable! If one of the authors of the 2nd came forward in time to behold how his writing was twisted he'd likely scream: "You fucking idiots! THAT is NOT what we meant by the right to bear arms!"

In a worthwhile book entitled 'Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right To Bear Arms in America', a professor of constitutional law at UCLA - Adam Winkler- masterfully documented how guns were regulated from the earliest days of our Republic. As an example: laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, in Indiana in 1820 and in Tennessee and Virginia in 1838. Similar laws were later also passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma.

The then governor of Texas in 1893 was heard to proclaim:

"The mission of the concealed weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law abiding man".

WOW! How times have changed!

Meanwhile, Winkler showed that congress passed the first set of laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. Though the law was challenged and wound up in the Supreme Court, in 1939, the crazies lost. FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument correctly to the Court:
"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.

While this sane and sober take prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing (wouldn't you know?) groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on spurious "private gun ownership" interpretations, and successively overturned laws in state legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are doing now.

And let's not forget that Chief Justice Warren Burger once asserted that the alleged right to keep powerful weapons in one's own private possession was  "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Well, it's good Justice Burger didn't live long enough as to see the arrival of automatic weapons and the claim that the 2nd amendment provided for the ownership of those too!

Over twenty years ago Australia also suffered its worst mass shooting ever but opted to take action. There followed new gun laws that included having to get a license to own a gun just as you would a car. Each time a person makes a weapon transaction, even using a 30.06, the license number is taken down and entered in electronic records. The electronic data base for all of Australia then keeps track of a given gun's history and chain of ownership Why isn't that done here? I mean, it's no more an "invasion of privacy" than already occurs with internet use. So why not (certainly) for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15, or Bushmaster .223.

The fact is the only reason the gun lobby and its lackeys protests is that they see ANY incursion or limit on their insane ownership "rights" as an incentive to knock out the entire 2nd amendment. In other words, the classic slippery slope argument expanded and inflated to absurd exaggerative dimensions.

But in the wake of Orlando, it's now time for good men anywhere and everywhere to raise a hue and cry for our so-called reps to do something, and not just continue the status quo that's brought us hundreds of mass shootings since 2011. Worse, until our elected reps get off their asses nothing will change.

We now also know the most likely profile for a loser-hater as given by a psychoanalyst on CBS Early show in the wake of the Orlando massacre. The "cocktail" for lethality includes:

-History of personal failures

- Indications of hatred for others

- Pattern of blaming others

- Use of violence against others

- Fascination with firearms

The last was most important, and as she observed:

"When you add all these things together but you don't have access to lethal weapons you cannot act out as violently as we saw."

In other words, we need to keep the weapons away from these hater-loser psychos!

Follow-up 10:30 p.m. MDT:

New FBI leads have disclosed Mateen (born in Queens, NY NOT Afghanistan) expressed support for both Al Nusra and ISIS, which are diametrically opposed Islamic groups. Again, this discordance shows the guy was a hateful fruitcake as opposed to any kind of 'radical Islamist' - who one would think could keep his Islamic cults straight!

6:45 a.m.

A new Quinnipiac poll presented on MSNBC shows 6 of 10 Americans support a ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic assault weapons and 9 of 10 want background checks.

See also:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e900766a-3149-11e6-bda0-04585c31b153.html#axzz4BPNcN12z

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/67648/a-psychotics-freedom

Brussels Attacks Fear? You're Still More Likely To Be Killed By An NRA -Backing Terrorist With An AR-15

Bwaaaaa! Daddy Reepo pwotekt me fwum dem bad guys! Bwaaaahahah

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Here we go again, another brutal ISIS attack, this time in Brussels - horrific scenes unfolding after one scumball detonated a suitcase bomb at the airport, and another POS blew himself up with his suitcase at a subway station. And what is the response from too many in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"? Well, to summarize a headline from salon.com: "panic, hysteria and Trumpism". 

How manifested? To take an example we beheld Ted Cruz in the hours after the attacks knee-jerk spouting that we "need to empower law enforcement to patrol in Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized". To which NYPD chief Bill Bratton on CBS this a.m. fairly spat: "He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! I have 1,000 Muslim officers on my force and all are dedicated. The last thing we want is alienating law abiding Muslims because once they do become radicalized it's much harder to de-radicalize them."  But Cruz' stupid take was echoed by Trump and the Trumpkin brigade.

Seriously, it is depressing to witness these types of fearful reaction - especially by someone who lived through the Cuban Missile crisis when the entire world was threatened with vaporization and we had only the good sense and judgment of JFK to rely on. Thankfully, he rejected the Joint Chiefs'  demand to bomb and invade Cuba which would certainly have caused Castro to unleash at least 93 Russian made IRBMs on the eastern U.S., followed by a massive U.S. counter strike then a Soviet counter counter strike. Total nuclear exchange within 8 hours? About 690 megatons with 400 million dead and the rest of the world wishing they were. 

THAT was something real to be terrified about because it affected directly the existence of every man, woman and child on Earth. All stood to lose their lives either in the initial exchanges or from radiation sickness later. Today, in the wake of an isolated Brussels terror attack? Not so much. It barely makes the higher alert register - or should. Hence, I was glad to see Obama attending a baseball game in Cuba yesterday instead of rushing home in a panic, reinforcing the panicked portrayals and endless loops of Brussels' bedlam by the sensation-sotted U.S. media.

Well, there are some media exceptions. A Dec. 5, 2015 NY Times editorial in the wake of the San Bernardino killings noted, for example:

"The death toll from jihadist terrorism on American soil since the Sept. 11 attacks -- 45 people -- is about the same as the 48 killed in terrorist attacks motivated by white supremacist and other right-wing extremist ideologies.... And both tolls are tiny compared with the tally of conventional murders, more than 200,000 over the same period.”

Now, any dumbo even with zero math background can surely see that 200,000 >> 45! I mean, how hard can this be? And that greater number was accomplished by high powered weapons and handguns, almost all purchased legally with the benediction of the NRA.  In other words, we're killing each other at a rate more than 4,400 times that which the terrorists are!

So why isn't this being processed? There are two possible reasons: 1) Americans are prevented from knowing the facts, the stats and hence don't process the ridiculous difference in threat, and 2) their reptilian brains over react to isolated terror events - magnifying them as proximate threats when they are distant ones. In such cases, the TV scenes have taken control of their amygdalas and viewers are then ruled by atavistic emotions more than reason.

 The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

These killings were not done by 'crazies'  or Islamic terrorists but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.
In this light, and as the NY Daily News back in December featured on its headline, it is the NRA's Wayne LaPierre who qualifies as the real terrorist because it is HE who has made available the millions of lethal weapons to kill so many Americans (many more than ISIS could) by refusing to implement sane gun laws.

The purpose of all this? To show the relative risk of an American being killed in a terrorist attack here in the States is vanishingly small. Small enough not to lose sleep over, cancel plans for an outing - say to a cinema or ball game, and certainly so small that one would not wish to suspend civil liberties for any demographic in our population. Because to do so would be to play directly into the hands of the ISIS vermin and their zombie lackeys.

Be alert and aware, of course, but in an intelligent as opposed to paranoid and hysterical sense. Note things unusual and report them, but don't go off the rails seeking to expunge the basic principles embodied in the Bill of Rights, especially the fourth amendment. If we give in to fear we cease to be who we are and mutate instead into a fear-governed caricature unworthy of liberty.

As for the Brussels' news, tune in to get the occasional update but don't stay glued to the tube and this kind of news on an endless loop. It just feeds fear, and more panic and hysteria.

And besides, you risk becoming a Trumpkin.

Why Can't Muslim Haters See They're Playing Into ISIS' Hands?

Canadian Premier Justin Trudeau greets Syrian refugees Friday morning in Toronto "to show the world how to open hearts and welcome people.”

The Wall Street Journal's Yaroslav Trofimov hit it squarely on the head when he wrote ('Islamic State Tries To Forge Divide in the West', Dec. 11, p. A9):

"The group's objective is clear: To bait Western societies into an indiscriminate backlash that, if successfully provoked, would disrupt these Muslims' bonds with their countries of citizenship and residence - and as it happened with Iraq's Sunnis- validate Islamic state's claim to be their only protector"

That means every anti-Muslim wag of the tongue from a blithering idiot like Trump, every off the cuff social media insult, and every hurling of the epithet "raghead" on a blog or FB post  is another promotion for ISIS' agenda.  Quoting an expert from the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (ibid.):

"ISIS thrives on polarization. They want people to say they hate Muslims. This is the foundation of their success"

Thus, by stupidly invoking Muslim hatred Trump and his Trumpites are playing directly into ISIS' hands by disrupting the very Muslim bonds with their nations of citizenship  to validate the Islamic State's insidious claim as their only protector. Also, as a recent salon.com article pointed out  - the incessant shaming of political correctness (in trying to contain his anti-Muslim diatribes) is merely fashioning an excuse to spew hate. It isn't really about attacking "PC" at all but trying to justify hate speech.

This take is further reinforced in the Dec. 12-13 WSJ Review article, 'How to Beat This Enemy' (p. C1), noting:

"The theocratic ideology of Islamism thrives on division, polarization and claims of Muslim victimhood.. Islamic State's leaders insist that the U.S. and the rest of the West  are waging a global war against all Islam and Muslims.  This is obvious nonsense but by a combination of provocation and self-fulfilling prophecy  Islamic State is doing everything possible to make it a reality  - helped along, alas, by Donald Trump and his call for complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

That, along with directing hateful epithets at Muslims on social media, or tossing severed pigs' heads on the doorways of Mosques (as recently happened in Texas) propels the very polarization that ISIS wants. By contrast, as shown by Canadian Premier Justin Trudeau - when one welcomes Syrian refugees one shows he transcends being a puppet for the polarizers or ISIS. Trudeau also made clear in The Toronto Star that "We get to show not just a planeload of new Canadians what Canada is all about, but we get to show the world how to open our hearts and welcome people.”

As The Star explained:  "there is much to be said for a nation-state self-consciously showcasing its treatment of stateless refugees. Far from being empty symbolism, it serves as a defiant testament of Canadians coming to the aid of people a world away." Indeed, so why aren't American politicians or more of our people able to show such generosity? I suspect because the 'lizard brains' of too many have been triggered by lizard-brained politicos.

This is why too many Americans - say on seeing the image at the top of this post- will  think Trudeau is "pro-terrorist", unhinged, or simply a gullible dope for his welcome of the first of up to 25,000 refugees - in a nation of barely 12 million. But Trudeau is, in fact,  showing the rational way to respond for any Western nation that really wants to subdue ISIS. The videos showing the Canadians in Toronto welcoming Syrian refugees effectively amounts to an educational video for Americans on how to deal with ISIS.

Another, lesser aspect dealt with by author Maajid Nawaz is that both liberals and Muslim- hating pro- Trump conservatives are making critical errors in the interpretation of ISIS in relation to Islam.

The liberal error is the fear of "calling Islamist ideology by its proper name". Thus, too many liberals fear the Muslim community and religiously intolerant "will hear the word 'Islam'  and simply assume all Muslims are being held responsible for the excesses of the Jihadist few"

In other words, liberals fear the word use will be an example of the fallacy of composition.  But as Nawaz notes:

"It is as disingenuous to argue that Islamic State is entirely divorced from Islam as it is to assert it is synonymous with Islam. Islamic State does have something to do with Islam. That something is the way in which Islamists justify their arguments using Islamic scripture ."

As I pointed out in my December 8 post, while it's true the Qu'ran contains outlandishly extreme passages in terms of  "jihad" and  "infidels",  it is also true that most Muslims today don't literally accept those statements any more than  Christians literally accept the extreme sanctions such as stoning homosexuals or adulterers to death as seen in Deuteronomy or Kings. For instance, 2 Kings 2, 23:24 allows children to be slain by wild animals ("she bears")  if they insult their elders or any authority  (in this case a prophet).  Similarly, by Deut. 22:22 both John Edwards and his former girlfriend (Riele Hunter) would have been stoned to death.

The point is that enlightened followers of a religion do not mindlessly follow its every admonition, phrase injunction or prescription. Even most Catholics I know no longer follow the idiotic anti-birth control dogma. (Which to be fair, is nowhere in the Bible anyway.) I've also met Catholics that no longer believe in papal infallibility but they still remain nominal Catholics.

Why can't the same be true for Muslims? Just because certain sections of their book says "slay the infidels" doesn't mean all Muslims will feel compelled to act like zombies or robots and obey it any more than most Christians will feel the need to follow an injunction from Leviticus to slay homosexuals.

We have to give all religious people- including Muslims -  a modicum of credit for common sense, sound judgment and temperance.  It is baseless then to inveigh against and vilify an entire religion based on what a minor subset of radical fundamentalists (who adhere to every word) do.

Thus, the term "radical Muslims" ought to be used in the same way we might use the term radical right wing Christians - say like Kevin Swanson- who last month convened a National Religious Liberties Conference and invoked Leviticus 20:13  as well as Romans 1, to stone homosexuals to death. (He later said we "didn't have to do this yet" because "there was still time for them to change")

In either case - radical extremist Christian or radical extremist Muslim-  we are looking at an unhinged segment that seeks to justify heinous acts using arguments selectively based on their more primitive textual references - interpreted literally. Since both Bible and Qu' ran contain such passages then it stands to reason not all members of the respective belief system can be guilty. Only that subset that believes in taking the words literally and acting out.

To fail to make that distinction, namely in the case of radicalized Muslims like Tashfeen Malik,  is to commit two gross errors: 1) to fail to name and call out the Islamist extremists who adopt the jihad aspects of the Qu'ran literally ("the Voldemort effect" according to Namaz), and 2) the failure to distinguish rational Muslims who do not take jihadist passages literally from the radical fundamentalists who do.

On a solidly good note, our local Islamic Society here in the Springs is now holding weekly open houses to explain the basis of their faith to locals. This includes the clear separation of passages that today's Muslims do not take literally, according to organizer Arshad Yousufi. As he noted over the weekend:

"There are a lot of misconceptions about Islam which I think harms the American attitude toward Muslims."

The purpose of the open houses and question sessions - which have seen 'full house' attendance, is o clear the air and reduce these hostile attitudes which only serve to feed ISIS propaganda.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/11/donald_trump_is_just_this_destructive_why_his_incendiary_rhetoric_is_making_the_world_a_more_dangerous_place/

Will History Repeat and Syrian Refugees Meet The Same Fate as German Jews 70+ Years Ago?

German Jewish refugees land at Antwerp, Belgium in June, 1939. This was after being denied landing rights in Cuba and the United States. Most ended up in Nazi gas chambers.


Hispanic immigrants display posters with Trump as Hitler.

It was the philosopher George Santayana who once said: "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it".

But today in the U.S., amidst a batshit crazy Republican presidential candidate field - paired with few Americans who recall history (at least in the pro-GOP fold -  we find we may be close to repeating it again.  This time, with the fleeing Syrian refugees being forced back to their shredded homeland to meet the same fate as the desperate Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany 76 years ago - except the Syrians will likely end up slaughtered by ISIS.

In a Denver Post story Saturday, the experience of Sol Messinger was described -only 7 when he stood with his father at the rail of the ocean liner St. Louis and stared into distant darkness to see the lights of Miami glittering off the bow. So near to him and more than 900 fellow Jewish refugees aboard, yet beyond their reach. The port of Miami and the U.S. refused to allow them to disembark to find freedom.

Too many Americans, with the exception of those like Messinger, are aware of the disturbing similarities between the rhetoric of today and the attitudes of the U.S. public and officials during World War II - which ended up sending thousands of Jews to their deaths because of our nation's refusal to accept them.

Like the anti-Muslim hysteria today, that somehow ISIS will plant terrorists among the Syrian refugees (despite it being much easier to enter on a fake passport and tourist visa) American attitudes in the late 1930s-40s were fed by fears the Nazis "would plant agents, spies and saboteurs among the Jewish refugees.   In other words, Americans at the time feared the Nazis would pressure the Jews, particularly those whose families were still in Germany, to act as agents on behalf of the Third Reich,"

This, according to Alan Lichtman, professor of history at American University, adding:

"Those arguments are chillingly similar to the arguments being made against the admission of the Syrian refugees."

To reinforce this, on Monday, an Ohio professor, Peter Shulman of Case Western Reserve University, used Twitter to post results from a 1938 public opinion poll showing Americans overwhelmingly rejected admission of German Jews in the years leading up to the outbreak of war.

The reaction according to Shulman,  "was instantaneous and totally overwhelming. It was like nothing I've ever experienced before,". One of his tweets of the decades-old polling data has been relayed 4,600 times, cited by commentators in The Washington Post, Time and other publications.

According to Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois:

"When we sent Jews back to Germany and when we sent Japanese to internment camps, we regretted it and we will regret this as well,"

Yet according to recent polls, most Americans - especially on the Right (and backing Trump) are literally petrified of this coming true: some one Syrian refugee suddenly setting off a mass killing spree a la ISIS compatriots like  in Paris. They ought to be more worried about thugs like Urich Caine who shot a Tulane medical student in the stomach using a straw-purchased Mac-10 in New Orleans' Lower Garden District. three days ago.

It has even been suggested that, living here in Colorado, I ought to be petrified too and hide under my bed because our Governor John Hickenlooper plans to take in at least 230. But know what? I am not the least bit terrorized at the prospect, or petrified nor do I regard myself as "naïve" or "dumb". I know, in fact, there's a much greater chance of an outbreak of violence if a concealed carry law is passed and especially the current loophole - allowing those on the terror watch list to purchase weapons - isn't closed. Why the fuck would I fear a poor, besieged Syrian family, forced to flee for their lives, when they're also victims of ISIS? Because some asshole politico says I should?

But see, it proves again Americans have zero conception of probabilities and risk assessment. Most aren't aware that 20 of their countrymen are killed every year by cows, but we don't dispatch all the cows from the country. (We need them for food, burgers, milk, etc. so accept the 20 a year death toll - which is more than all the would-be terrorists have killed.)

Don't these douchebags grasp this barring Syrians refugees is just what ISIS wants? To try to get even more Syrians and others to join their ranks because no one in the West will accept them? How fuckin' dumb is that? (As one Denver Post letter writer put it yesterday, "the best way to create a new terrorist is to send a five year old child back to his war torn land with nothing to live on, and no home of his own. ISIS will soon enough take him under its wing and in 10-15 years or so he will emerge as a new threat")

But see, when millions have their brains fermented in an emotional froth and hysteria-  breeding mass paranoia - there is little capacity for reason and logic to enter. The fear centers in the amygdala take over and the reasoning centers in the neocortex are left high and dry. This is also what a pernicious mind virus does.

By contrast, France has set an example for what a true nation valuing freedom looks like. This happened when President Francois Hollande announced that France will still take in the 30,000 refugees it promised under a new EU accord, even in the wake of the Paris attacks.

At the apex of the American anti-refugee reaction has been Donald Trump, who has actually recommended a "National registry" for Muslims, as well as closing down Mosques.  Trump is notable for almost single-handedly making immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. Moreover, with the Paris attacks he - as well as other GOOPs - have hyped up their anti immigrant rhetoric even more.

The SPLC 'Intelligence Report' (Winter, 2015) notes that:

"after the release of Trump's immigration plan, dozens of threads about the candidate appeared on Stormfront, the world's largest hate forum - founded and still run by a former Alabama Klan leader."

A post followed to the effect of "deporting about 25 percent" and another followed suggesting "shooting the rest".

Already, we see the venom of fascism and fascist support creeping in just as it did in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The character of the German people was altered just as our character is being altered now by the fears sown by the demagogues like Trump.


WHO exactly are these people, these would-be voters, who support Trump so splenetically? William Galston writing in The Wall Street Journal ('Trump Rides A Blue Collar Wave') has broken down the pro-Trump demographic nicely.

Galston writes that "55 percent of his supporters are white, working class" and the most likely to back him are men "aged 50-64 with no more than a high school education"

In other words, the same basic demographic that has been shown to be prematurely dying from drug overdoses, suicide and a lot of other maladies, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/why-increased-deaths-for-middle-aged.html

More interesting yet, this is almost exactly the same demographic that helped hurl Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933, according to Robert Payne in his The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, 1973.

Interestingly, according to Galston:

"These voters are least likely to say that government is looking out for the interests of the middle or working class or white men, and the most likely to affirm there is discrimination against these groups."

And yet, incredibly, they'd cast votes for a billionaire blowhard belonging to a pro-billionaire, pro-corporate party which couldn't give a rat's ass about a declining middle or working class because their wealth is based on it!

Barbara Ehrenreich ('This Land is THEIR Land', p. 6-7, ought to be read and re-read by these voters:

"How many 'wake up calls' do we need, people? How many broken levees, drowned cities, depleted food pantries, people dead for lack of ordinary health care? (Waters poisoned by blown deep water oil wells)......Why don't we dare say it? The looting of America has gone on too long, and the average American is too maxed out, overworked, and overspent to have anything left to take. We need a new deal, a new distribution of power and wealth, if we want to restore the beautiful idea that was America".

She goes on to note  "the share of pre-tax income going to the top 1 percent of American households has risen to 16 percent. At the same time, the share of income going to the bottom 80 percent has fallen by 7 percentage points."

But it's worse than that! Those top 1 percent of people and indeed the top 5 %, have made out like bandits since the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001 (extended through 2011). As a result, there has been an average transference of $7,000 every year from lower and middle income earners to the top. According to a New York Times piece cited by Ehrenreich: "It's as if every household in the bottom 80% is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the top 1 percent".

Which begs the question of how any normal person with a normal brain, invested in his or her own interests, can possibly be for a pro-wealth party or pro -wealth guy?  Do they suppose they can also amass a Trump level of wealth? If so they are more deluded than these 30- odd Repuke gubernators who don't grasp they can't refuse refugees because they have NO legal authority to do so!  The laws of the federal gov't trump their paranoid histrionics.

The answer lies in the same basis for this demographic offing themselves (see above link) at above normal rates: they have given up on trusting the system to work in their favor and now opt to act like lemmings - just to vent their IDs. (Google "ID")

It is a sad commentary when a nation succumbs to governance by its collective ID as opposed to reason. But history tells us this has happened numerous times before. Each time that nation was left in ruin and had to rebuild. Let's hope it doesn't happen here.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/64905/right-wing-populism-in-2-minutes-24-seconds

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mason/64885/donald-trump-is-unfit-to-be-president-because-he-is-a-demagogue-and-a-racist-islamophobe

Unhinged Rhetoric Does This Nation No Good - Now James Woolsey Wants to Execute Snowden?

Former CIA head James Woolsey said the 'blood of French citizens is on Edward Snowden's hands'. No,  the blood of those citizens is on ISIS' hands, you fool!

"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America. And we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.” - Sen. Frank Church, referencing the NSA in 1975.

Let us admit in a time of hyped terror, with robed lunatics barking threats on almost every TV screen in a 24/7 medium, it takes courage for a citizen not to become petrified and hide under his or her bed. It also takes courage and character, as well as confidence in one's own positions, not to surrender to hysteria and especially political fear-mongering, to give these slime what they want, which is to change who and what we are as a nation,

So it's been disconcerting to hear the recent insane rhetoric coming out of assorted yapping mouths lately, mostly those who we knew were already detached from reality.

Such as Donald Trump now calling for a database to track all Muslims, and Ben Carson comparing the Syrian refugees (mainly women and children) trying to escape their war torn country to rabid dogs. Then there was former CIA head James Woolsey who actually said "the blood of French citizens is on Edward Snowden's hands" in a debased pop off that rivals those of even Trump and Carson.

What is this lunatic thinking? Where does he pull this from? Is he even remotely aware that the end-to-end encrypted devices and apps (like 'Whats App') used by the ISIS bugs weren't even around when Snowden made his revelations in 2013? (On November 18, 2014, Open Whisper Systems announced a partnership with WhatsApp to provide end-to-end encryption by incorporating the encryption protocol used in their TextSecure application into each WhatsApp client platform. Prior to this there were numerous security holes and issues). Of course, it's all insanity ratcheted up and made to sound rational. It isn't. It's nutso talk. (Especially as it is the Tech companies which are now most adamant about not removing encryption for their apps because they believe it will degrade the devices' usefulness.)

Snowden then was absolutely correct to expose the violations of our 4th amendment rights which even a subsequent   300-page report  by a commission (appointed by Obama himself)  found to be infringing on our civil liberties with dragnet collection of our personal information and data. What are we even worth as a country and a people if we succumb to so much fear that we're prepared to sacrifice our principles and liberties which is precisely what these fucktard terrorists want?

But given that the CIA also believed JFK was guilty of "treason" - and so had him terminated in an executive action- the words out of Woolsey's mouth perhaps aren't surprising.  In JFK's case, he earned the company's wrath by refusing to support their ill-conceived Bay of Pigs invasion with air power, and then fired Allen Dulles as CIA Director in the aftermath. Worse, he commenced a year's long secret rapprochement with Fidel Castro - certainly which would be viewed as a stab in the back, just like Snowden's revelations are now by Woolsey.

Thankfully more of the background details of this will be brought out in David Talbot's new work, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government,”  which extends out from JFK’s murder to investigate the rise of the whole shadowy network that Talbot holds ultimately responsible for the president’s assassination, and which metastasized in its wake. This is a work long since needed, and particularly how Dulles kept his little operations going on sub rosa even after JFK ditched him. (Dulles was later appointed to be on the Warren Commission by LBJ. Two real traitors working in league with each other to cover their foul tracks.)

As for the Reepo presidential candidate clowns popping off with their own whacked out rhetoric on the refugees, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson had this to say on Chris Hayes' All In last night:

"It doesn't surprise me coming from the right wing blather of the Republican Party. It's the kind of talk that surrounded the internment of the Japanese who were loyal to a fault. But we put them in concentration camps. It's the kind of talk that's extremely dangerous. It's the kind of talk that plays right into the hands of Al Baghdadi and Al Zawarahi, Al Musra and so forth.

Because that's what they want...they want us to act to bring about our own suicide".

That suicide, of course, also extends to killing our own constitutional principles in the interest of trying to get absolute security. But as Benjamin Franklin put it: "Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a temporary security deserve neither liberty or security."

He didn't mince words. And why should he have? Liberties once lost, as Woolsey would have wanted us to do, are difficult if not impossible to win back. Once you give them up - say in the midst of combating these asshole terrorists (the latest attack was in Mali last night) you surrender to them, without even firing a shot.

Most citizens, indeed, aren't even aware our liberties (including the right to own guns) hang on a metaphorical knife edge. This concerns Reagan’s Executive Order 12656, issued in 1988, which has remained in effect since and was actually activated after 9/11. The order stated that Continuity of Government procedures were called for in the event of "any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 326; cf. p. 38), "Contingency plans for the continuity of government" were implemented on September 11, 2001.  Later mutations of COG under the Bushites  equated political dissent with treason. In regard to the last, the definition of "terrorist" was expanded to "domestic terrorist" by congress in 2001, to include:

"“…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"

 According to the ACLU, “this definition is broad enough to encompass the activities of…prominent activists, campaigns and organizations.”  That includes past protest movements like Occupy Wall Street and anyone who currently protests the Keystone XL pipeline, chemical toxins in water or fracking. (No surprise this meme is still lurking - ready to spread- as we learned in the Denver Post (Nov. 18) that certain citizens of Thornton, CO had their names and home locations placed in red on a city council map as "opponents to fracking". )

How much did Snowden reveal or confirm that we didn't know or realize before - bordering on coming this [[ close to a totalitarian state? investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham disclosed the extent of the spying :

"The following information seemed to be fair game for collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core database.

There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources note the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.”

Are Americans really ok with all that indiscriminate snooping in a terror war? If so, they merit neither liberty or security. They are prepared instead to surrender their most precious rights to the ISIS or other rats at the drop of a hat. Blaming the French deaths on Snowden also shows Woolsey has his head where the Sun doesn't shine, just like the CIA's earlier mutations (e.g. Allen Dulles) who orchestrated Kennedy's executive action then blamed it on a patsy they set up.)

Former NSA code breaker Bill Binney  delivered the sane view after the Snowden disclosures emerged and those like James Clapper and Keith Alexander were making noises about the need for mass warrant, dragnet searches.

"First of all I don’t understand this being bamboozled into thinking that you have to do this to find bad guys. That’s false. There’s very simple principles you can use to find out who is the bad guy and who isn’t and you can do this without violating anybody’s privacy”.

Americans need to keep things in perspective as this current terror epoch continues and not surrender their brains and balls to the hysterical, unhinged voices spouting off on the tube. Better yet turn the tube off - as well as other media access- and reclaim your gray matter by doing some serious reading.  As author Harold Bloom put it:

"If we fail to read conscientiously and seriously we risk becoming lost in the visual media"

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/walter-brasch/64867/the-republicans-rhetoric-of-hate-and-fear


Excerpt:

"In the history of the United States, just the members of the white-hooded Protestant-professing fire-and-brimstone Klan killed and maimed more Americans than all the murders by non-Christian terrorists—and that includes 9/11. Add in the number of serial killers, the racists who killed children in churches, the zealots who killed health care personnel because they performed legal abortions, and the people like the Oklahoma City bombers and the Unabomber, and the number of pretend-Christians killing Americans rises to hundreds of times greater than any Muslim attack."

GOP Candidates Talk Tough But They Have NO Serious Plan Superior To Obama's On Eradicating ISIS

In his book, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free , political and cultural critic Charles Pierce exposes at multiple levels:  including politics, economics and religion-  how too many Americans have become hostages to stupidity. This is mainly because they were never taught logic or critical thinking in the first place.Mostly, they are only good at regurgitating the insane, idiotic blather of their "heroes" - whether El Rushbo on talk radio, or "The Donna" Trump (aka "little Hitler") out on the hustings.

Evidence is pouring in that current events confirm Pierce's take, including new polls that show 53 percent of Americans want no Syrian refugees entering the country  - even women and children - despite the fact this nation has one of the most rigorous systems in place to screen newcomers. A screening far more intense and all -encompassing than allowed for the nation's gun buyers.

Additionally, 11 percent demand only Christian Syrians be permitted entry. They clearly demand ultra safety in this terror age redux. The question that arises is let's even say their demands are met (again mostly echoed and recycled from the GOP poppet parade) how are they going to protect kith and kin when the next AMERICAN mass shooter opens up on them at a cinema or a church, given the NRA won't even allow the sale of smart guns or universal background checks? 

The key aspect these ninnies don't get is that so long as we have loose gun laws no one is going to be safe from slaughter. Why can't they process that rigorously regulating the guns in this country is more important than regulating the entry of Syrian refugees already subject to intense screening - much more powerful than anything the NRA allows?

As Connecticut governor Dannell  Malloy put it in an "All In" interview Monday night, referring to this nonsense:

"From 2004 through 2014 according to the GAO report, we sold 2,042 guns to people who are on the terrorism watch list. Why? Because the NRA  has refused to allow people who are on the watch list as ineligible to buy guns in the United States. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Got that? The NRA has disallowed those on terror watch lists being ineligible  to purchase high powered weapons. Looks like the real terrorists these 53% and 11% ought to be fretting about are the NRA, because as I observed in yesterday's post:

"I'd just add that the loss of future lives in these United States is much more likely to come from unregulated guns in the hands of the wrong people,  as opposed to Syrian refugee babies strapped with IEDs as the GOOPrs fear."

But the caterwauling hasn't stopped, because like any political opportunists, these shameful assholes - including "The Donna", The Cisco Kid (Rubio) and Canuck Cruz have all been increasing their bombast to try to prove how rough and tough they'd be with ISIS and how they'd solve the problem with "ground forces" (despite no 'Muricans in any poll are for that, given the cost in lives and treasure) or with bombing 'em into oblivion like The Donna wants.

They also haven't held back on the nutso rhetoric including "shutting down all mosques in the country" and yapping:

"Obama was primarily angry at the Republicans rather than the terrorists who did this!" (The Donna)

And he also blabbed:

"We can't take a chance that some of these people coming in are ISIS"

Er, ok, how about a lone wolf American - totally off the watch list and screening grid, but radicalized by ISIS videos - how you gonna protect yourself from him making a soda can bomb (such as depicted on the ISIS rag 'Dabiq') and setting it off in a theater or restaurant? OR - buying a Kalashnikov at a gun show and spraying rounds into a crowd? You can't put cops everywhere!

It shows how stupid this blather is.

Then there's this choice remark from Cruz:

"I would encourage you, Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face".

Really? This from the putz who barely 12 months ago put up a campaign video on a website with him prancing around in women's wear? What, are you going to wave your panties at Obama?

Earlier on the same "All In" Monday night, Charles Pierce skewered all these idiots and showed using statistics and attention to logic and critical thinking that NONE of these dopes would really do anything other than Obama is doing if actually in office.

As Pierce put it, you can say anything you want as a candidate because there's no accountability. You can even claim you will defeat the bad guys with a super weapon or special strategy hitherto untried, and you can bet there will be enough dumb Americans to believe it.

Pierce also put a lot of the blame, as I do, on a corporate media that has failed itself to hold this cavalcade of yahoos to account in asking the tough questions when they pop off.  You see it every time they have a debate, such as the last one on the FOX business channel, and you see it in all the assorted spot interviews. They let each of them, whether Cruz, Trump or Rubio pop off without bounds, but then don't push back with critiques or hard questions - as Cronkite would have done back in the 60s.

Rubio did get one thing  partially right when he said:

"ISIS can only be defeated by a ground force  the bulk of which is made up of Sunnis themselves who reject their (ISIS) ideology and defeat them militarily"

 However, as I already noted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-ground-war-only-way-to-crush-isis-bugs.html

this still wouldn't be enough - an adequate ground force would have to include well trained troops from the two recent victim nations: France and Russia.

Finally, to confirm Ben Carson and his campaign are part of Idiot America check out his erroneous map of the U.S. here as appended to the 'We're Saying No' area - on who is rejecting Syrian refugees:

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2015/11/ben-carson-states-wrong-map/

A Ground War - The Only Way To Crush The ISIS Bugs

John Sawer, in his Weekend Financial Times article  on ISIS and the Paris terror attacks,  put it bluntly and best on what ISIS absolutely does not want (among two things):

"First, ISIS does not want a ground intervention by NATO or Russia, as this would quickly cost the militants their base in eastern Syria and western Iraq".

However, he noted they have probably already calculated there is not stomach for such intervention in the NATO nations, despite 12 months of nonstop bombing having little effect. This 'no ground war' sentiment certainly holds in the U.S., despite Jeb Bush's call to "declare war", forgetting the attack was on France not the U.S.. With $18 trillion in debt  (and counting) already,  there is only a limited amount of further  trillions to support more wars, all Marco Rubio's jingoistic bloviations notwithstanding.

The second thing ISIS fears, according to Sawer, is "a peace deal bringing a new government to Syria"  Especially if the new deal accommodated the Syrian Sunnis (remember ISIS is largely comprised of Iraqi Sunnis who were disallowed in the gov't mutation later formed by the U.S. - comprised largely of Shi'ites).  This would "cause ISIS to lose its appeal"

But the probability of getting to that desirable state is a lot less than orchestrating a limited ground war.

Given the U.S. should stay out of such a ground war, for various reasons including we've already started enough of them with zero success, the question emerges as WHO should undertake it. (Note when I say 'stay out' I only mean only in terms of dispatching tens of thousands of ground pounders, but support and logistics advisors are a different matter, and perhaps small strike teams such as recently rescued ISIS prisoners in Iraq who were about to be slaughtered).

But the main thrust must come from: the Muslim nations in the region. They'd be fortified by two legitimate "outsiders",   Russia and France - the most recent ISIS victims. (Also their peoples would be most likely to support a ground invasion after what happened to their fellow citizens.)  Other NATO members from the EU may also join in support by invoking a NATO clause that "an attack on one is an attack on all". But the U.S., for all the reasons Obama laid out in his press conference this morning, has to leave the provision of sufficient ground troops to others. We've had our turn, now it's theirs.

Again, just as ISIS would most fear a peace settlement that includes Sunnis, so also they would most fear a ground war alliance that includes both the Sunnis (in Saudi Arabia) and the Shia (from Iran).  Such an entity would be seen as a "devil's alliance"  (much as Hitler saw the U.S. and U.S.S.R. joining forces in WWII) because two nations representing the antipodes of Islam (mutual enemies) would be seen to be strong -willed enough to band together to remove a scourge. This would send chills through all of the ISIS vermin.

The question is whether the Saudis and Iranians could put aside their differences long enough to bring down these pests.

As I noted in my post yesterday, on the Dem debates:

"as geopolitical expert Hillary Mann Leavitt noted this morning, the ISIS attacks are not intended to "take away our freedoms", but to change our policy. In other words, their desire is to get the West to go off half cocked and unilaterally launch a full scale war without ANY Muslim allies involved - so they can garner recruits and justify full out jihad. This is why it is essential that taking out the ISIS bugs be a full collaborative effort, not just with NATO and Russia involved, but ALL the Muslim nations in the region too. "

Meanwhile, there is the serious matter of ISIS local extremist recruitment and involvement and we now know that the two renegades who killed 89 innocents at the Paris concert hall were French nationals. How did they get recruited? Evidently, the vermin have been using apps like 'What's App' and also game platforms like Playstation which allows players to make contact with any others around the world and also text on the side while gaming.  Everything's hidden from prying eyes so it's the perfect medium with which to sneak plans by the authorities in whatever country.

These are all encrypted apps which have the following features:

- All messages are protected from surveillance

- Communications are set to delete

- It is difficult to break the encryption

Former CIA assistant director Michael Morrell, on CBS this morning, agreed that all of this is a result of the Edward Snowden debate. But why such encryptions should be stronger for games on PlayStation as well as chat apps is puzzling - say compared to internet sites for which more or less full surveillance still applies.

Morrell did go on to state that now, in the wake of the Paris attacks, a "new debate" will unfold on "whether the government should have access to the keys to open this stuff up and the result may be different".

I definitely agree, but the problem is, once the ISIS bugs are exterminated, can we then return to the non-surveilled state before?  The problem, as before, is fighting these vermin, subduing them - but not sacrificing our civil liberties in the process including those of the 4th amendment and "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

Look For Russian Ground Forces In Syria IF Bombing Is Proven

First, let's get a couple of niggling little items out of the way: 1) The U.S. does not "own" the Middle East, including Syria, 2) The U.S. has no sphere of influence in the Middle East apart from trying to grab as much of its oil as it can to supplement its own fracked oil, 3) The U.S. is not an "exceptional" nation - other than perhaps having a certain middle-aged demographic dying before its time.

I write all this as a preface to what is likely about to unfold, if - as many fear - the diabolical bombing of the Russian Metrojet Airbus - killing all 224 on board -- turns out to be proven by spectrographic analysis of some of the residue on the wreckage.  Right now Vladimir Putin and the Russians are just biding their time, and also waiting for 79,000 still stranded Russian tourists and others to be transported out of harm's way at the Sharm-el-Sheikh airport and the Sinai Peninsula.

But after all that, and proving the bombing was done by an ISIS adjunct, watch out - because Russian ground troops will be dispatched into Syria to wipe these vermin out and I estimate the number to be at least 100,000. Further, Vladimir Putin knows he has to do this to vindicate his nation's honor as well as to exact retribution for the hundreds of lives lost - the most since 9/11. Oh, one more thing, those ground troops will not make any distinction with "moderate rebels" - which Putin and most of the Free world knows is a fantasy - any more than he's doing now with the bombing.

The "moderate rebels" theme is a bunch of horse pockey cooked up by the Obama State Dept.  and U.S. security interests as daft and egregious in its own way as the "Oswald worked for the KGB" fantasies that were spewed out in certain quarters after the assassination of JFK. (And which diligent researchers like Peter Dale Scott, James Di Eugenio and John Newman proved were untrue.. )

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D- Hawaii), appearing on Bill Maher's 'Real Time' two weeks ago, nailed it when she skewered the notion of "moderate Syrian rebels", telling Bill:

"And these groups, all of them, they go by all these different names and they always change their names. But what is at the heart of each of them that same (jihadi) ideology. They're all working towards the same goal but in slightly different manners. And they're projecting it very clearly. What their goal is - it's not like they're trying to hide it. "

This was all in the context of accurately identifying our enemies starting - but not ending - with ISIS. Thus, Gabbard's point is that we can't trust any of those posing as "moderates" to advance any of our interests because they are all working to gain power - to overthrow Assad - like the U.S. and Bushies helped do in Iraq (with Saddam) to later pave the way for al Qaeda and ISIS.

As Bill also pointed out at the end, Americans have to understand it's not "good against bad" but "bad against less bad" - which is why as I noted before, the U.S. needs to cooperate with Russia to go after all these bottom feeders, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/09/obama-ites-need-to-grow-up-and-work.html

Indeed, there may be little or no choice, if as I predict, Putin does send Russian ground troops into Syria to root out the vermin and exterminate them. What? Will the U.S. fight them to preserve its own imagined interests? I seriously doubt it because Obama isn't fool enough to risk WWIII , nor (I hope) is Defense Secretary Ash Carter, now making noises in various venues about "standing up to Russia".  No, dunderhead, you and the Russians have to stand up to ISIS! Stop this foolish meme about "moderate rebels" cooked up in some back rooms at the State Dept. and Pentagon.

Today, Russian inspectors are now at Sharm-el-Sheikh, examining security at the airport as reported this a.m. on CBS. They will be looking especially at how that security may have been breached, i.e. by an Egyptian baggage handler putting the bomb on board in luggage - or attached to luggage put in the cargo hold.

Make no mistake that Putin will not let it go at the point of evacuating all Russian citizens - he will then exact serious vengeance and he knows by now the only way will be to send in enough ground forces to snuff out all the jihadist bugs. According to former CIA Director.Michael Morrell :

"Putin's reaction is to go after ISIS in a very big way. To show them the costs of doing this to his country."

The best thing the U.S. can do? Stay the hell out of the way and let Putin launch the cleanup operations the U.S. wouldn't.

Obama -ites Need to Grow Up And Work With Putin - Not Against Him!

"Jeebus, do I really got to shake this thug's hand! Drat!"

The news in The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal is that the meeting of Obama with Vladimir Putin Monday did not go well. This was regarding what to do about the nest of terrorist vipers (ISIS or ISIL)  breeding in Syria and undermining that nation, creating havoc and causing millions to flee. (As a reality check, let's also bear in mind nearly 60 percent of the fleeing Syrian refugees are Assad supporters.).

According to the WSJ's account (Monday, A1):

"President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin clashed publicly over how to resolve the conflict in Syria, in a showdown in front of the rest of the world's leaders that added uncertainty to the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East"

Then:

"The U.S. and Russian leaders traded barbs in dueling speeches to the United Nations General Assembly then later clinked champagne glasses at a luncheon."

Left unsaid is that Mr. Putin had by far the more powerful "ammo" packed into his speech, compared to Obama. This was in respect to his mention that the Pentagon had admitted $500m in weapons and equipment had been handed over to Al Qaeda by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. See e.g.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/26/us-backed-syrian-rebels-handed-over-equipment-al-qaeda-affiliate-military-admits

This could no doubt also have fallen into the hands of ISIS. The point is, it means the Obama plan to somehow create a Syrian opposition "counter force" to Bashar al Assad is a failure. It can't work and won't work.  Like it or not, Assad's gov't is the one with UN representation and is the legitimate one.

Putin also made it clear to Obama and the U.S. that Russia has a vested interest in fighting ISIS too, given "2,000 Russians have left for Syria to join ISIS" and he told Charlie Rose in a powerful interview on '60 Minutes' that he'd prefer to fight them in Syria.  As one administration official put it regarding the meeting between Obama and Putin:

"This was not a situation where either of them was seeking to score points".

Which is good, because it must be 'all hands on deck' to fight the ISIS vermin. Of course, the WSJ's editorial minions screeched their usual hysteria about Putin seeking to form a coalition against the Islamic State (which is a damned GOOD idea) but which they portray on "Russian and Iranian terms" adding "which means supporting Bashar al Assad's regime against all opponents".

So? What is the alternative? There is none! The real threat (as disclosed in the previous link) is sending lethal weapons to the jihadis in Syria seeking to overthrow Assad- only to have them fall into the hands of ISIS and al Qaeda..  Hence, this misbegotten U.S. mission as Putin notes, must end and all the anti-ISIS forces must get on the same page. ISIS must be eliminated first - THEN we can talk about replacing Assad in the future in an electoral transition.

Meanwhile this morning, the Saudi Prime Minister-  in an interview with Nora O'Donnell on CBS-  was outraged...outraged, that the Russians were entering the Syrian fray. Yet this mealy-mouthed wimp,  presiding over a backward nation that still delivers 1,000 lashes to females who violate their primitive laws,  had no answers himself. Other than to suggest the existing coalition of ten nations had to work harder so why didn't the Russians just join them? Well, mayhap because the Russians also see the need for more than remote air strikes.  In addition, these Saudi rats (from which the 9/11 hijackers hailed) haven't delivered a dime for the refugee camps or taken any of them in - so fuck their 'holier than thou', officious attitude. The only reason the U.S. remains chummy with their lot of regressive slime is because it still needs Saudi light sweet crude to deliver the energy 'bang' the degraded fracked crap (kerogen)  can't.

 Any sober realist will assure you there's not even a semi-legit alternative to take the place of Assad now which could also provide stable governance. (And we saw how it played out in Iraq when a Shia U.S. puppet gov't was put in charge - directly paving the way for the spawning of the Sunni ISIS.)  To believe so, as Obama and his bud David Cameron appear to, is to be drinking the Neolib dreamer kool aid. For more on this please do read the FT article below (sign up for the free limited access if you have to!):

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/margaret-kimberley/64096/putin-trumps-obama-at-the-u-n


Excerpt:

Presidents Obama and Putin both made their respective cases before the United Nations General Assembly at its annual meeting. Obama’s speech was an apologia for imperialism and American aggressions. He repeated the lies which no one except uninformed Americans believe....

The world ought to fear pax Americana, not a Russian military presence in Syria. There cannot be true peace and stability unless nations and peoples are left to their own devices. The helping hand of United States democracy is anything but. It is a recipe for disaster and requires forceful opposition. If Russia can be a reliable counterforce the whole world will benefit, even if Barack Obama frowns before the cameras.

"Monitored by the Feds" For Proposing a Humanitarian Solution? Don't Be Stupid!

"Syrians meet any standard for recognition as refugees with a 'well-founded fear of persecution', under the terms of the UN convention on refugees. Helping Syrians is a clear moral duty.- The Economist, Sept. 12, p. 13.

It appears my conservo blogger pal has his knickers in a twist again over my proposal that the U.S. bear equal responsibility for the current migrant-refugee crisis, by allowing at least 2m refugees into the U.S. - fleeing from wars and destruction the U.S. started. What part of "fair" doesn't this guy grasp? Ok, let's even factor in his obvious Islamic-Muslim paranoia and methinks hostility, but if HIS family were in the same predicament as these Syrians - run from their bombed out homes, chased to primitive camps with no resources WTF would HE do? Sit there and cry?

Of course not, he'd try to seek out a place for safety! Thus, the "krauts", as he calls them,  are doing the right thing by admitting people driven out of their homes by wars the West started! This is a humanitarian response not "stupid" or "lamebrain" as he portrays it.  And if HE and his family were in a similar situation, irrespective of his religious beliefs, he'd want to find succor and safety as well. He'd certainly not be so stupid or ignorant as to think he could find his safe path on his own, by his own steam - given the conditions!

But what really pisses me off is how he actually makes the claim that we who propose an equitable sharing of these refugees - legitimate ones, not just economic migrants - are "ISIS sympathizers" and "ought to be monitored by the Feds". Here I believe his paranoia has gone off the rails into whacko land, especially when he proclaims "even one raghead is too many".  Here's a memo to him and others: If that is so then don't launch wars in their countries and expect not to have to clean up after!

Because one proposes an equitable sharing of responsibility - especially when one's own nation incepted the wars that have driven these people to flee for their lives-  does NOT make him an "ISIS sympathizer". This is hysterical, unreasoned balderdash that has no place in any serious discussion or in any serious blog. It is the stuff of extremist xenophobia. But then, as the Trump -driven madness has shown, this Islamophobic hysteria on the Right is now infecting many nativists (already up in arms against Mexicans) - especially the base of the Repub party which has always stoked "fear of the stranger". (As The Economist observed in its Sept. 12 issue.)  Heck. they've even forgotten Yeshua's own words  "Whatever ye do for these the least of my brethren that ye also do unto me".

Besides,  even the Pope, when he addresses congress in 2 days, will likely call for the U.S.  - as the richest nation on Earth- to do its part in this crisis. He will call for taking in many more Syrians - especially  - given they are the direct victims of our policies in that country, supporting jihadi and other rebels to try to take down Assad.

People are Muslims, or Syrians by accidents of birth - through no fault of their own. Barring them from humanitarian rescues or aid because of an accident of birth is insane. Also, barring them because of ISIS - the very ones destroying their hopes for a life in Syria - is insane. 

My blogger pal can call this "stupid" or "lamebrain" all he wants but it's the right thing to do and he knows it. He can twist it any way he wants by using false reports of "ISIS infiltrators" in Europe - when there is NO evidence for such apart from FAUX News baloney - but that will not change the moral obligation.

One hopes he can soon get out of his xenophobic stupor, but perhaps that is asking too much.


See  also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/63959/the-u-s-has-a-duty-to-the-tempest-tost-syrians