***
What is your ISIS threat assessment and who do you believe is closer to the truth? Bearing in mind the Iraq war, which was triggered by the post 9/11 assessment.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
U.K. official: British Muslims fighting for the Islamic State far surpasses those in armed forces
“If you look across the whole of the country (UK), and the various communities involved, 500 going over each year would be a conservative estimate,” Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, told the magazine. Mr. Mahmood believes that there are at least 1,500 British Muslims now fighting in the Middle East on behalf of the terrorist organization. The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense tallies the number of Muslims in the British armed forces at 600, Newsweek reported."
There seems to be a difference of opinion between the White House and the pentagon, as to the severity of the ISIS threat. Contrast the statements by Secretary Hagel: ISIS threat is "beyond anything we've ever seen" and President Obama milder "A group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century".
What is your ISIS threat assessment and who do you believe is closer to the truth? Bearing in mind the Iraq war, which was triggered by the post 9/11 assessment.
What is your ISIS threat assessment and who do you believe is closer to the truth? Bearing in mind the Iraq war, which was triggered by the post 9/11 assessment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
The government is preparing the public. Don't know exactly what for, but get ready.
ISIS threat assessment - Needs killin'.
Solution - Kill 'em all.
Andrew Sullivan was one of the first to get it right, soon after 9/11/2001: The war is between Muslims for control of Islam. Which sect of extreme Islamism is the strong horse? Non-Muslims are merely collateral in an intra-religious war.
Obama's threat assessment is spot on:
"They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior."
Bush tried boots on the ground with a light footprint. It failed and he (barely) managed to pull off the Surge. But Americans became fatigued with war and withdrawal was baked in.
Obama has taken a different approach: drones, special ops, etc. He'll be commander-in-chief for 2+ more years. Let's hope he doesn't fail even though Obama haters would like nothing more.
There is no reason to believe Barack Obama. None. The litany of his lies alone is sufficient reason to disbelieve what he says.
Muslims say that they are at war with America, want to destroy America, and want to impose sharia law on America. I believe that they are telling the truth. I do not believe that Obama is.
"Muslims say that they are at war with America, want to destroy America, and want to impose sharia law on America."
All Muslims say that? Or just the Muslims you believe are telling the truth say that?
Thankfully, polls show the Obama threat will dissipate after the midterms ;)
"I do not believe that Obama is"
How about George W. Bush? Do you believe he was telling the truth?
I thought it was politically incorrect to question peoples professed religion.
The Obamas say they are Christians, they are Christians.
ISIS say they are Muslims, they are Muslims.
I take them at their word.
Sarcasm, Lem? On a topic such as this? You disappoint me.
Sarcasm?
I've pulled that from the headlines.
OH what a surprise! Meade comes by to attempt the same taqiyya enabling that a couple of the locals tried earlier. Yes, yes, moderates and liberal and secular Muslims have so much say in determining what is essentially basic doctrine - NOT!
If they want to change the doctrines at the heart of all this shit, let them select their own clergy, declare a new movement, enlist adherents, and write their own distinct doctrines of faith. Until then, this is all a bunch of bullshit and only Meade's gullible enough to buy it.
I find it really peculiar to hear from defending Muslims and at the same time savaging Christianity.
Could the defense of Muslims really be another way to attack Christianity, disguised as 'generous understanding' and 'open minded'?... unlike despised Christians, who don't want tax payers to pay for contraception?
Wake up people.
Hey Meade.
Shut your worthless mouth. Barack Obama is same man who blame George Bush for Iraq war, blame youtube video for Benghazi attack, dumped Obamacare failure on taxpayers, and released 5 terrorists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzCAPJDAnQA#t=269
I can't think of any good reason for Muslims as credible group? They have proved to be a liars. See Gaza VS Israel as an example.
I find it really peculiar to hear from people defending Muslims... typo
Personal religious perspective - essentially an innovation of Western secular governments (which are themselves, an innovation) - is not an effective way of understanding the issues defining religions that still take what their scholars say seriously.
And the only fatwas (or their equivalents) with any teeth(!) issued against ISIS were the blatantly political ones brought about by the same Saudi royal family who can get their own scholars to go along with whatever they want for political ends.
This faith ain't yet been reformed, but Meade can pretend it's been subjected to the same moderating theological and political forces that Christianity's undergone. That doesn't make it so.
"This faith ain't yet been reformed"
The question is: how best to enable reformation?
Suppose, hypothetically, during the Radical Reformation of the 16thC, some non-Christian power had decided to use military force to solve its perceived threat.
What would you have advised them — kill all Christian sects — Catholics, Protestants and Anabaptist groups alike?
Meade, did you see the video?
Good thing our borders are open to all.
Most Muslims secretly cheer when bad stuff happens.
Andrew Sullivan talking points- yawn and wrong.
Notice how leftists have to go back hundreds of years in order to make an incorrect assumption and a tortured leap to circa now.
Andrew Sullivan does that a lot.
"Meade, did you see the video?"
I did. Here is what he said:
"ISIL is as sophisticated and well funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology with the sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They're tremendously well funded. Oh this is beyond anything that would that we've seen so we must prepare for for everything and the way you do that is you take -- cold steely hard look at it. And and and get ready so we have to look at this from the reality of what's out there. But also what could be out there and what could be coming. And is this is a long term threat? Sure it's a long term threat. The defeat of ISIL is not only going to come at the hands of airstrikes..."
You don't understand video I showed? Those people in video are average muslims.
ISIS isn't only kind group that is imposing Islamic State? I can't fucking believe that there is a pathetic people such as yourself hasn't acknowledge the fact that Islamic State supporters' behavior isn't new. That kind behaviors have been going on for long times.
There is this
Iran: USA embassy crisis; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it.
Pakistan: Osama Bin Laden; Daniel Pearl; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it
Palestine: Calling for Islamic State; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it
Afghanistan: Tablians; stoning; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it
Sudan: British Teacher named Teddy Bear Muhammad Ali, get a death threats by Local and Sudan government; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it
Somalia: Black Hawk down; killing people for being nonbelievers then get away with it
Also, Barrack Obama is well-known liar. He will say anything to face-saving and placating for the fundraising! You dumbfuck!
Meade said...
Andrew Sullivan was one of the first to get it right, soon after 9/11/2001: The war is between Muslims for control of Islam. Which sect of extreme Islamism is the strong horse? Non-Muslims are merely collateral in an intra-religious war.
He did have it right for a while but he veered off by 2004 onto a personal vendetta against so-called "Christianists" for opposing his own vision of marriage equality. Those targets included President Bush and many of his policies. He continued his vendetta right through 2008 with his vicious and very personal campaign against Sarah Palin. At least that is how a majority of observers see it. I'm surprised your memory is so selective, Meade.
He continued his vendetta right through 2008 with his vicious and very personal campaign against Sarah Palin.
In retrospect, that utterly divisive period could only have been hormone-fueled. Nothing else makes much sense.
Poor, underemployed, Chic. Still obsessing about Sullivan and Palin.
Hey Titus, Meade brought him up. But I've noticed over the years that you are always first to jump on my criticisms of Sullivan. Why is that always so? It's like you guys share a blood bond or something.
@Titus: It is good that we connect from time to time on these comment boards about that issue -- just to see where we stand on it. I think that it is probably an irreconcilable difference for us -- a permanent dipole. From my point of view it (the Palin episode) was a rude exercise on his part -- something he probably wishes people would forget.
I didn't "bring him up;" I brought up what he got right. I won't argue about which way he later "veered". That seems to be your proclivity for arguing ad hominem. I will say this desire to attack Islam and all Muslims (along with Titus's "blood") that I see in these threads is disturbing. Be careful, chickelit — that way lies Father Coughlin's tortured soul.
I'd rather stick to the serious issue: How do we best continue to wage our campaign against true evil and defeat those who are determined to represent terror, war, intolerance — the lovers of death, sowers of bigotry, hatred, oppression, racism, and authoritarianism.
Whatever Meade.
Sullivan's attack on Palin and the concomitant attack on all things Bush are history. And Titus' whole shtick from the get go has always been ad hominem. But those "irrelevant" episodes distracted us during a time when events you now wish to discuss were sown.
I'd rather stick to the serious issue: How do we best continue to wage our campaign against true evil and defeat those who are determined to represent terror, war, intolerance — the lovers of death, sowers of bigotry, hatred, oppression, racism, and authoritarianism.
We could start by condemning a certain stupid fuck who promotes the career of a lunatic black racist.
Well, so much for this place not morphing into a copy of Mealticket's shithole.
At least there are fewer demands for reparations here.
But while we're on the topic of "the control of a religion" ...what was the excuse for fomenting division within an established religion again? -- for example, by branding adherents as "Christianists"? Just how many "Christianist" beheadings have occurred since 2001?
Meade, you really need to shut the fuck up.
Subtlety is lost on a moron like you, so I won't bother
Anybody who is kissing the ass of a deranged black racist fuck like Crack has no business delivering the sanctimonious sermons you enjoy so much.
You are a fucking morally depraved idiot, Meade. Shut up, go away. Go back to bilking your old lady.
We could start by condemning a certain stupid fuck who promotes the career of a lunatic black racist.
I will second that. It can only be collusion or cowardice on their part.
Whatever chickelit.
Lem's Levity should be renamed Lem's Neo-Truthers.
To get back on topic, I think it's worth asking why there don't see to be as many Americans "going Jihad" as British and Europeans. Besides geography and perhaps numbers of Muslim immigrants, is there a good reason?
We actually have remained on topic.
Our interloper is another of those moral equivalence morons who's labored to prove that a society based on Judeo-Christian ethics, tradition and law is no different than a society based on Islamism.
This is gross nihilism and stupidity. It's also suicidal.
His mommy has taught him well.
Lost Weekend or Days or Wine and Roses?
'Suppose Christians...' blah blah blah...
It would be nice if the argument about Muslims didn't have to include the irrelevant distraction of "what if Christians, centuries ago, behaved in such a way that...."
Andrew Sully exhausted that neat trick along time ago.
Has anyone ever read about the Mongol conquest of the Near East and Afghanistan. They weren't bogged down in a quagmire.
Truthers are 9/11 deniers.
Truthers and Bush haters were/are primarily leftists.
Now progressives and neo-liberals are in bed with neo-fascists. Not all of them understand it because of the distractions and shiny objects. In any case, tis a much more sinister marriage.
I wouldn't expect all that many Muslims to enlist in the British Army anyway. But I would expect them to join their crusade.
Just as I would expect American Christians to enlist in large numbers and to contribute large sums to support an outright American crusade, were it called such. If this conflict were made a Christian against Islam thing, I would expect great enthusiasm to crush the living shit out of that miserable retarded death-loving religion.
I kept reading this (on other sites) as there being more Muslim soldiers joining jihad than there are British soldiers, I realize that's wrong, and that is only mildly alarming. More Muslims joining jihad than joining British military even less so.
Bring on the Crusade, a real religious Crusade, and you'd see the wealth of America poured into it. All that money that goes to all those churches, imagine if just a portion were directed to crushing evil.
Churches everywhere you look.
Churches everywhere you don't look.
People actually tithe to their churches.
That blows my mind.
That whole turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, and love conquers all is meant for personal salvation. Christianity is fundamentally a personal religion. It has nothing to do with national affairs, save for Christianity guiding the hearts of individual national leaders. Christian values speak to the person, not to national affairs. Nations do what they must. Pull off that veil of personal Christian values and underneath lurks monstrous murderous anger snarling and tearing to get out, perfectly fine with sending their enemies off to meet their maker. Publicly tut-tutting war porn such as hosted on Ace presently, privately high-fiving seeing jihadists blown the fuck up POW via green screen silently evaporated driving our trucks, the explosion unheard. They didn't even see that one coming. Cheers all around.
Today a funeral reception was held at the dead person's home hosted by his sister. The whole house, the whole front and back and side yard was filled.
The guy designed gardens, and man, is that place ever filled with plants.
The minister wore a black kilt.
Blah.
Knife in sock the whole thing (except no bagpipe).
He started by referring to his priestly collar and cross on a necklace, "I guess you can tell by the way I am dressed that I am...
[Scottish! I thought.]
a minister. I'd like to start out with a poem."
Maya Angeleau.
Blah.
She was a favorite of the dead guy and of the minister.
The thing is, The poem was waaaaaaaaay too long. And the prayer that followed was waaaaaaaaaaay too long.
Too many "I," and "me," and "we," and "us" too much emphasis on himself. He was delivering a eulogy, not a sermon, for Christ's sake. There was waaaaaaaay too much of himself in it. He was an attention hog. We weren't there to listen to him carry on.
The whole time I was thinking, "you know who does funerals well? Military, that's who." Man, are they ever snappy.
It's a bit Klingon.
Duty, authority, honor, answer the call, defend the country and such. The religious portions are short and sweet, appropriate for any sect. Appropriate Bible verses then on to the next thing. Gun shots. Honor guards and so forth. This and that in snappy... oh what's the word, it's on the tip of my tongue... militaristic fashion. That's it, militaristic fashion. No mucking about. No attention drawn to the speaker's self at all. It goes very quickly and at the end of it you think, "Well done." Well done all around. A funeral performed well. A life lived well. You feel good about the whole thing.
A cold November morning. Geese honking at a lake in the near distance behind the pavilion. Right at very end, at the moment when the military minister says that Dad goes to his reward, the geese become noisy and take flight.
The women wept mostly at the astonishing eerily weird coincidence. Everyone was deeply moved.
I've not seen anything top it.
I mentioned that much later to a woman and her 13 year old son in a restaurant, we three having lunch. The boy said, "Somebody probably threw a rock in the lake." Then he giggled mischievously, unmoved by my touching recounting.
Bastard.
What we all stood for today was a bucket of muck compared to that.
There is one quote that is relevant to Barack Obama's views on the threat of radical Islam:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam."
People who believe that are the ones who are cutting off heads.
There will always be fools and knaves who will make excuses and try to obfuscate the issue. But it is clear what must be done.
Chip,
I always liked the Navy's burial at sea and this prayer:
We therefore commit the earthly remains of [Full Name] to the deep, looking for the general Resurrection in the last day, and the life of the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ; at whose second coming in glorious majesty to judge the world, the sea shall give up her dead; and the corruptible bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his glorious body; according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. Amen."
Lem's Neo-Truthers
I don't believe it was Lem who wrote: Andrew Sullivan was one of the first to get it right, soon after 9/11/2001: The war is between Muslims for control of Islam.
Really? So that whole WTC, Pentagon, 4 planes lost, and thousand of Americans dead was just a misunderstanding between Muslims? And the lawn guy calls Lem a Truther?
One good thing about the reception was a few open bars. Hot day. Melting ice.
"Ready? I've nominated you for the ALS ice bucket challenge."
Good for a laugh. Or three.
The question is: how best to enable reformation?
Endless rhetorical confrontation by Westerners who have the advantage of foregoing the horrible taqiyyah, lesser jihad and Dar al Harb doctrines.
Suppose, hypothetically, during the Radical Reformation of the 16thC, some non-Christian power had decided to use military force to solve its perceived threat.
What would you have advised them — kill all Christian sects — Catholics, Protestants and Anabaptist groups alike?
The supposition is an interesting one, because:
1. Muslims are immigrating here in numbers that Christians never did to them.
2. Mass communication allows for an exchange of ideas among adherents to unprecedented extent - certainly greater than in the 16th century.
3. Muslim countries, including the one at the strongest religious center of Islam (Saudi Arabia), routinely call on us for military support.
4. Military conflict on the part of the Muslim East against the Christian West was still ongoing through not only the 16th century, but even the 17th. (1683 Battle of Vienna. The facade of pacifist relations between them and us following the Crusades is just that. A facade).
There is too much exchange - religious, political, and cultural - between Muslims and Christians for the possibility of emulating a mutual isolation of the sort that existed in the 16th century to even exist nowadays.
How do we best continue to wage our campaign against true evil and defeat those who are determined to represent terror, war, intolerance — the lovers of death, sowers of bigotry, hatred, oppression, racism, and authoritarianism.
Um, I'd say a love of death is different from (much worse than) those things by several orders of magnitude.
There will always be bigotry, hatred and racism. Bias is an unavoidable human experience and the only remedy is through legal means and openness to human-to-human experiences.
Authoritarianism is the only other mentionable that even ranks close. It's horrible, but love of death is the worst challenge of those. It's also a way of using our own morals against us. (If we let it).
And good luck with the War on Hatred. It makes as much sense as a War on Love. They're basic emotions, just intensified. But if you want to know where more irrational hatred is causing the most problems these days, I'd say it's the region of the world that has translated less books into its language since the 9th century than Spain does every year.
I'd say it's the region of the world that demands more time and attention from the U.N. agenda than any other.
Read this.
General John R. Allen, USMC (Ret) wrote this very strong article calling for the destruction of ISIS now.
Hazman, the link doesn't work over here.
Sixty - Let's try it again.
Link.
Good link - R&B.
I think it's important that Islam learn to deal with "hurt feelings". Perhaps Obama and the Andrew Sullivan left should stop their appeasement of radical Islam. The left have no idea how to handle religious fanaticism because their only prism is Christian scapegoating.
Tired old whining that Christianity as "even worse"
is a steaming pile of horseshit, and they know it. But it feels good because - waaaa gay marriage, or something. Again - horseshit.
No word from same leftists on Islam's total destruction of homosexuals.
Meanwhile, Obama golfs while Christians, Jews and hostages are slaughtered.
Which is precisely what Obama has always wanted.
I am getting the sense that Foley was a useful idiot who outlived his usefulness to IS. Too bad all he took to a knife fight was his neck.
Aridog - your neighbors fear the newly-arrived radicals in the neighborhood.
I will admit I have not read every word of every post here on this thread, but I will do so later today. First I have personal matters to attend that are distracting. Trust me, it is a topic very close to me and I am paying attention. So far I find I am in agreement with most of what Rhythm & Balls has said, as well as Trooper York (who does have experience similar to mine), Chip Ahoy, Michael Haz (totally think USMC GEN Amos has a point), and more of you all whom I apologize to for not mentioning. I will later. Some few whom I know are clueless I will not mention, no point in it.
That said, other than for those among you who have served a tour in the Middle East, I suspect (maybe not?) I have spent more time in a densely packed Arab Muslim community...about 90% or so in my neighborhood area. Make that 30+ years doing so, where 7+ people out any 10 that I converse with and socialize with are Arab Muslims. That's the background.
What I am witnessing happen now, over the months since roughly March 2014 (this year) is a sea change here...with elements arriving not seen with an frequency here before, from Yemen, Pakistan, and other Muslim groups of various sects. Full face Veils are not about 10 times more prevalent, where a year ago they were rare. No women over age 12 outside without an adult male minder. I have noticed that there are now twice as many Sunni Mosques than a year ago, albeit smallish, when Shiite Mosques were the most prevalent (still are) in a area that still had a ratio of Christian churches to Muslim mosques of 8+ to 1. This may be changing as I speak. I attend two churches, one in the Arab neighborhood, and more frequently a parish in the Mexican community about a mile east of me...partially because far more children attend there with their parents, and I find that a joy...odd for an old curmudgeon like me, eh?
Anyway I've mentioned this before. I have said I do not run because it is the "runners" who helped wreck Detroit. For the first time in my life, ever, anywhere, I an at least considering moving a bit away from here. It has to do with my volatile temper and disposition under some circumstances. At my age I do not need another fight....nor would the jeopardy be fair to Judi. I am now experiencing distinct and clear avoidance discrimination as an infidel....the hordes of children who populated our yard last summer are absent...on their parents instruction...and these are parents who had no issues last year, were casual freinds in fact, but this year they fear something....other than me. Some of the more innocent kids have told me they were sorry for the change, and yesterday a 5 year old boy I adore rode up on his little bike and asked me why the change? I had to tell the truth...ask his parents, and in particular his uncle...cordial enough guy, but sullen in many ways. I provided a graft of our grapes for his grapes, helped him manage it, and yet none of the kids he oversees from two families are allowed to talk to me unattended.
I can sense it too...and I have a pretty good background in sensing a temperament in a community from a time it was lethal not to do so. I've seen this "look" in the eyes of men (and some women) long ago, where you had to be extremely careful with whom you let yourself be alone with, in places like Vietnam or the with strangers in the Han Estuary of ROK. The ROK Marines in the Estuary (beginning of the northern limit line)were the only people I trusted implicitly.
Today, there are only a few Lebanese friends here I trust that much, and they've been here 30+ years or more as well. Watched their kids grow up, attended their weddings, etc...normal things friends do. Most of the original Iraqi refugees (mid-2000's) I knew have moved away. I miss some of them, because they were almost childlike and laughed a lot.
Okay, so much for my opinion on this....just know I am gratified so many of you here at Lem's are making a serious discussion of it. It's on my mind daily now.
Haz...yes, I think you are right. Deja Vu "terrorism" in a flash that is not pleasant. Terrorism is always aimed at the indigenous population before others....something most excuse makers don't get. So, yes, they are instilling fear in their own. Now the issue to to identify who the radicals are...not that I think I can make any changes.
My understanding of the Muslim view of living in Dar al Harb is that they're instructed to obey the laws of the land of the infidel, until such time as they feel they make up a majority or effective plurality sufficiently capable of, well, "changing things". At that point there is a duty/obligation to incorporate it into Dar al Islam. Y'all can figure out how this is supposed to take place. Or maybe Islamic Scholar Sheikh Taqiyya-Time Meade, Commander of the Faithful, Amir al Mu'mineen, can fill in the details.
In high school an Arab family (I believe Muslim) moved into the house with a backyard facing ours. As standard practice, we always used to cross through a row of hedges between the yards and over the lawn to get to the other street. When an old (probably technically prematurely aged mid-life) lady saw me doing that she loudly shrieked all sorts of abuse in a barely intelligible English/Arab-pidgin. I was so taken aback by the uncharacteristically un-Midwestern un-neighborliness, and the harshness of it all, that I yelled back a short insult of my own and flashed a finger.
Now, this might have happened anywhere. But what I found intriguing was her response next week to the episode, which consisted of a huge plate of baked sweets of every Arabian variety one could think of. Why would someone respond to such sudden mutual abuse like that with kindness? I didn't think much of it all, but looking back on it years later it did make me wonder about cultural rules for being confrontational versus being conciliatory in her mindset that might have differed from what we were used to growing up in America.
R & B .... I am not surprised at your long ago neighbor's response. She was likely Lebanese, (just a guess) who generally have a cosmopolitan demeanor...e.g., if they lose their temper they will apologize with a physical gesture. I have a family that I've been close to for years that moved a few blocks away (more than I care to walk) and if I've been negligent in visiting them, particularly the mother (just like Italians, you respect the moms), I always take a platter or so of sweets and flat bread pies. Zenib always goes a flutter, then fixes me a dinner for 3 that I can barely finish. Faisal, just sits back amused by our "diplomacy." He can do that because once when he was in a fight I stepped in and joined him....we have that kind of a bond. No words needed.
I am over due, once again for a visit, after several from her sons at my place, so I again will load up at the sweet & bakery shop (Shatilla...also in Beirut) and traipse on over. With what I've said above, I need to sustain the dear relationship I have now with those I trust.
I also need their advice. I am concerned about the welfare, literally, of a 14 year old girl who I've known for a few years, and her family as well. Now an uncle is in the picture and everything has changed, as I said above, and my instinct (not always the smartest) is to go and find how how she is and if she's been abused. That will not be easy and will be seen as insulting....but I've seen her outside once, in a month now, in raged clothes (usually she dresses very neatly and well even with the hi-jab) unloading groceries under supervision. I've not seen her 10 year old sister at all....extremely odd since Sarah is one of the most bubbly vibrant girls anyone could meet. And...they were all best buddies with my dog "Dera" who still sits at the fence staring at their house wondering where they are.
R & B...I think you can see where this might head and it isn't good. I have a tipping point. I think I an going f'ing nuts. So I need my steady Lebanese friends' advice...may be even the twin sons' help, both about 6'4" and 250# who work out regularly. Long ago wanted to be boxers, but found real estate less punishing and more profitable.
Nothing will happen "fast" but if I do not see Leleah (the 14 year old)joining the other kids for school shortly, something will happen.
For the record, most of the Arabs I've known here had no issues with assimilation, and some modification of the Dar al Harb vs Islam matter....they were refugees for the most part and and no more supported violence than modern Jews do what Joshua did at Jericho....or Catholics did pre-reformation. Among my dearest friends are in Israel and thus I am perpetually in a quandary. No one to blame but me I guess.
Meade said...
Sarcasm, Lem? On a topic such as this? You disappoint me.
August 23, 2014 at 4:53
I am just a lurker, but I have read enough of your comments here, Meade to realize that you are not commenting in good faith. I actually agree that we should not judge all Muslims by the actions of the Islamists, but your points are rejected because of many of your past manipulative and destructive comments on this blog and the lordly, superior manner in which you often express yourself.
"You disappoint me."
What smarmy, holier-than-thou condescension directed towards a decent, authentic guy like Lem.
She says, in what - GOOD faith?
Commenting, "I am just a lurker," is a lie on its face.
Also, "vza",
having known Lem for nearly 10 years, as some of us have, I think I can safely say he is no more or less decent and authentic than I am.
Post a Comment