Thursday, November 5, 2009

Another Belgian-American goes berserk

A madman inspired by Vlaams Belang and incited to violence by right-wing extremists . . . Oh, wait. No.


Couldn't have said it better myself, Pamela. A jihadi psychiatrist? Yeah, there's your irony, Dr. Freud.

Excuse the dark sarcasm. Having spent the past week in upstate New York with Ali Akbar -- yes, that's his real name, and he's a Southern Baptist from Texas -- covering a campaign repeatedly maligned as "radical" and "extremist," there is something especially bitter for me in this ugly reminder that there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we're Americans.

The people who want to kill you are not Tea Party protesters or accountants from Saranac Lake, N.Y. They're not Kentucky populists or Belgian radicals.

Anyone who wants to distract you from real dangers by telling you to fear this week's pet bogeyman -- global warming! creationists! Ron Paul! -- is not your friend. They are fools and liars who cannot be trusted. They are objectively evil.


  1. I am so sorry to everyone suffering in Fort Hood. I am also angry with apologists like Charles Johnson who actually make excuses for this behavior.

  2. I think your trying to tell me that Sarah Palin wants to kill me?

  3. Having spent the past week in upstate New York with Ali Akbar -- yes, that's his real name, and he's a Southern Baptist from Texas.

    I'm delighted to know that a fellow Texan is up in the Empire State giving lefties and RINOs headaches. We denizens of the Lone Star State do get around!

    And you just nailed it with that last paragraph, Stacy. I'm damned tired of the left ginning up fake crises like climate change and Christian theocracy when we have a real problem - Islamic extremism - that has killed thousands of Americans during the past quarter century. Today's appeasing leftists are much like the late Nazi historian Sigrid Hunke, who viewed Islam as a necessary ally toward undermining Europe's traditional, Christian institutions.

  4. Yep. They are not even libertarians.

    BTW Ron Paul's Foreign Policy prescriptions are nuts. I do like his domestic agenda.


    Side note Nightline was in KY (Daniel Boone National Forest) covering the drug war. No mention of prohibition and no mention of the vote in Maine.

    It reminded me of your recent visit there. They did cover the death scene of Bill Sparkman.

  5. "[T]here is something especially bitter for me in this ugly reminder that there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we're Americans."

    The word you're looking for isn't "bitter," it's "delusional." Hasan is a Virginia-born American himself. The chances are about 100% that his rampage had to do with the fact that he wanted out of the military and wasn't getting anywhere with that, not that he wants to kill all Americans because they're Americans.

  6. Not that this belongs here, but here is some insight on Sparkman so far. The Associated Press issued some "insight" stating that sources in the Sparkman case are leaning towards suicide. Would like to see if that fits your investigation findings.

    I tend to let my grass grow long so people stay out of my yard.

  7. Oops, this is the post about the Nazi historian Sigrid Hunke that I tried to link to in my previous comment.

  8. "...there are still people who want to kill us all, just because we're Americans."

    No, the jihadis didn't stumble across a copy of the bill of rights and decide to kill us...they want to kill us because our soldiers are in their countries blowing up their women and children and they want us to leave.

  9. Associates of Hasan report he sided with his co-religionists in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even said "maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square."

    So Hasan's murder of 13 US soldiers yesterday was NOT from an out-of-the-blue mental breakdown -- he'd clearly thought about this a long time. That's criminal intent, folks -- intent almost as criminal as a government that continues to import a hostile, alien population into our communities.

  10. Quoted from and Linked to at:

    And he asked him, What [is] thy name? And he answered, saying, My name [is] Legion: for we are many.
    —Mark, 5:9

    And how.
    —Bob, 5:Dime

  11. The Indentured Servant Girl wrote: No, the jihadis didn't stumble across a copy of the bill of rights and decide to kill us...they want to kill us because our soldiers are in their countries blowing up their women and children and they want us to leave.

    Read some history, please. Islam has had it in for The West ever since Mohammad dreamed up his revelations--Ex: May 1543 and all that.

  12. Of course, Dhimmi Servant Girl fails to note that we're there in response to an attack on our shores. 09/11/2001: Never forget.

  13. @M. Simon - No, the foreign policy of W. Bush was nuts.

    Why we would let another Muslim emigrate to this country is beyond me. All Muslim immigration should end today. Actually, all immigration period would be even better.

  14. But The Indentured Servant Girl is right: Muslims didn't invade the US; it was the US that intervened in Muslim countries: propping up pro-DC dictators, overthrowing governments, occupying their lands. So we can't pretend we were just minding our own business the morning of 9/11. As Pat Buchanan had warned years earlier, DC's bloody interventions abroad were a time bomb waiting to go off. And they did.

    DC's insane policy, as Steve Sailer puts it, is "Invade the world/Invite the world." Bullying abroad while opening the doors to whoever or whatever wants to come in is pure lunacy. It's impossible to conceive of an agenda more certain to blow back in our faces.

  15. OK. So give all Muslim lands back to the Turks and everything will back as it once was, yeah?

  16. Old Rebel & The Indentured Servant Girl: You both have missed the point.

    FACT 1: The Koran preaches that there are only two fates for the non-believer in the Islamic view of the world: slavery or death.

    FACT 2: If you read The Koran [and I have--every word of the bloody thing in 1989], it sees Islam as in a perpetual state of war with the rest of the world until such time as every infidel is either dead or converted to it. It is a religion based on an idea that there is one, and only one, way to serve God, and no other ways of worship can be tolerated because it’s version of God is as a bloodthirsty tyrant who shows mercy only when his followers show total submission to his will and power [the word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’].

    Therefore, even if America in the 20th Century had not begun to get involved in foreign affairs, the Muslims would still hate and despise us, and, most importantly, would still actively seek to destroy us. They are commanded to do so by their holy book—every Muslim is charged with performing Jihad.

    Around the middle of the last millennium, we dealt the up-until-then-wildly-successful Muslims such a crushing blow that it took until this past century for them to recover sufficiently psychologically to begin attempts to destroy the infidels again. Despite this recovery of will, they lacked the military power to challenge us, so they turned to terrorism, which small groups and individuals can practice with near-impunity. And, at this they have been quite successful, although our lack of will in The West has contributed greatly to their triumphs.

    Every Sunni or Shia Muslim, must wage Jihad, whether infidels are interfering in their lands or not, or they lose the favor of Allah, which is a fate worse than death for them.

    [Sidenote: Notice how they refer to the One God by a different name; that is because they have a perverted view of Him that is most certainly not the Jewish-based vision of a loving and merciful and forgiving God.]

  17. Old Rebel & The Indentured Servant Girl: Also check out Stacy's posting from this afternoon [Michelle Malkin: 'Political correctness is the handmaiden of terror'] which looks at another aspect of Islamic terrorism in the 20th & 21st Centuries.

  18. Bob Belvedere,

    I think we're having a violent agreement here.

    I'm the opposite of politically correct. Its mortal enemy, even.

    There's no disputing that Islam is a culture that's incompatible with Western values. Click here to see my thoughts on that.

    But to claim the US MUST send occupation forces abroad to protect Americans at home while encouraging Islamic colonies in our backyards is nonsense. Kinda misses the point, dontcha think?

    It would rile you, too, if foreign troops occupied your community and bombed your family, even if the purpose was to bring you the glories of democracy.

  19. Old Rebel: It seems there is indeed more agreement between us than it originally appeared. However, our sending of troops and the subsequent actions by our government, in and of themselves, did not cause the Muslims to take up Jihad. Your original comments seemed to be making that point [a point that has been made by way too many of the Right and serially on the Left]. The worst those actions did was to strengthen the arguments of the recruiters of terrorists, as they could point to events happening now and say 'See! This is a New Crusade against us!'. All Muslims are called by Allah to subjugate or kill all infidels. The Terror Masters would be plotting and carrying-out attacks on us even if we had never gotten involved so directly in Middle Eastern affairs--they are commanded to by their false god.

    SIDENOTE: I believe we were correct in going into Iraq and toppling the Hussein Regime because of the weapons he was developing and was in the process of developing, and to send a message to other countries that we were prepared to take preemptive actions to stop uncivilized counties from having such powers. But I was not in favor of bringing the 'glories of democracy' to Iraq [I know you were not accusing me of advocating that]. First, because I do not believe in democracy [I believe in constitutional republics for people who can handle freedom and its responsibilities] and, second, because I believe that certain ethnic groups [especially Arabs] in the world cannot handle representative government [I think we should have done everything in our power to keep the Shah on the throne]. Over time these certain peoples have developed cultures and societies that make them incapable of handling the responsibility of maintaining such a form of government.

    Russia is a great example of this in that they are Westernized enough [a main factor in being able to sustain a representational government] that they can handle elections to a Duma, but a constitutional monarchy that looks something like Britain's government would have had a better chance of preventing a thug like Putin from ascending to power. Putin, like the American President, is both head-of-state and chief-of-state. What Russia needed was a Tsar as head-of-state, someone who could have rallied the people to the mystical idea of Russia as a thing separate from its chief who would have been unable reduced to a purely political role, like the British PM. Putin has made himself very deftly into a symbol of Russia.

    The only ‘nation building’ we should engage in is to put in place governments that will best serve the interests of the security of the United States, not because we want to immanentize the eschaton.

    PS: I read the piece of your’s you linked to. I agree with a lot of it [I’m not as hard on the neocons] and it is well-put. In answer to your question: ‘Is America an ideological construct that can include whoever wants to pitch a tent here, or is it an historical nation with a distinct, traditional culture?’, I think we are most definitely the latter.