9.12.2007

Belgium: Police Volently Beat Politicians

** Update appended at the end of this post**


Ya'll heered that Belgium is comin' unglued? A civil war.

They's a big story over at www.brusselsjournal.com ya' wanna see.


Yesterday the police publicly beat the tarnation outa...a druggie
with a Che t-shirt? Nope. A neo-nazi in brownshirt drag? Nope.

The police beat the stuffin' outa Luk Van Nieuwenhuysen,.....
the Vice-President of the Flemish Parliament.

Yep, the Flemish folks ain't interested in the marriage no more wif' the Walloons. Who can blame 'em?

Seems the problem is a difference of life philosophy. Not unlike a red state-blue state thang.

Why is it that the "tolerant" folks ain't tolerant of you havin' another idea about what is good in life? AN' the reason they won't let ya' go ain't on account of them lovin' ya--nope, as the Flemish note: "You are now there tax paying prisoner."

That example of the "tolerance" of the Belgian police yesterday occurred when a peaceful protest against the Islamization of Belgium, including elected representatives ended with police brutally beating the stuffin' outa folks whose crime was to disagree wif' the Islamic appeasement of the ruling administration. Others-- an Italian Member of Parliament (MEP) and a French MEP-- were arrested, too. One fella was arrested in the middle of an interview wif' the TV reporter--got that? The video shows he weren't violent, or disrespectful of police, he was the peaceful one--simply talking to a reporter when he was snatched and cuffed. This in the capital of the EU--heerin' this, sweet thangs? Heerin' it?

Even the Belgian Public TV reported that the police acted in "an extremely violent fashion."

So, ter make an analogy, can we have the police beat the dipity-doo outa Nancy and Hilary? (Ah, wouldn't it be lover-ly?)

In one video of the fracas, ya' can hear a policeman tell a reporter that Flemish press are not permitted. Now, that's tolerance fer ya'! Yep, free speech is alive an well in totalitarian Belgium.

More:
" A reporter, Goedele Devroy, told a colleague that she was amazed by the brutality of the police against the peaceful demonstrators 'who just stood there.' She added: 'This is strange because, when I rang the police this morning, they said that they would tolerate the demonstration if the demonstrators would not use violence' ."

It is not unremarked that the vice-mayor of Brussels is a Muslim.

The problem is--this is a vision of the future of the EU...notice I ain't sayin' it is a vision of EUROPE. But Iffin' EUROPEANS doan yank themselves outa the EU, they's toast. The situation in Belgium is jes' the prelude to the "EUSSR" as the free people have dubbed it.

Seriously, Europeans already had a sanguinary century--looks like another will follow. Soon.

When will people learn that it is Okay to live differently...it's just that ya' cain't do it in the same spot. If you wanna yang...go over there, so those who wanna ying can be left in peace.

If ya want a multicultural society, youse a fool. All that happens is that some who ain't buyin' yore multicultural idea WILL use yore laws to take you over--thas' the Islamicization we seein' now in the EU. Other cultures is for visitin' and tradin'... not livin' wif'.

Brief lesson on Multiculturalism: Ya cain't put a square peg in a round hole. The minute ya give up part of yore culture to accommodate another culture, yore culture is eroded.

An the polite rule is this: iffin' ya move ter another nation/culture to study, work, marry-abide by their laws and rules of decency.

Folks love ter visit other cultures. BUT, they wanna live in some sort of UNITY. It's natural.

I ain't so interested in multiculturalism that I gotta give up mah right to teach Western Civ. so another won't be offended. I wanna live whar' mah daughter can marry whomever she chooses, and can have her head uncovered. I wanna live whar' a prayer can be said afore a football game if folks wanna pray. I doan wanna be on guard all the time. So I would choose to live among those wif' similar ideas. Thas' how it is fer some Flemish folks too. And millions of other European folk.

Western Civilization has a right to be. And to defend itself.

Update: from the Brussels Journal website:

Vladimir Palko, MP (Slovakia) wrote a letter to Alain Cools, ambassador of Belgium in Slovakia and publicly protested against un-legitimate use of force against peaceful demonstrators in Brussels, during the demonstration against islamization.

MORE:
http://www.nysun.com/article/62393?page_no=2

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2950330.ece

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

Aunty Belle,
Where do you find these stories? Even the conservative US press has not mentioned this event.

Every time I check this site I am disturbed.

Nice work,
T.McL.

she said...

really. you'll never see it in us media. great post. er...i believe the late great oriana pointed out the same thing only to be dismissed as a "hater" - the short cut to ending any argument you are losing.

kuuuum baaaaa yaaaaaaaaaaaa!
grrrherhahahahaha

Aunty Belle said...

T, hey there...for more check here:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

She-Pup, hi hi....yeah, the media here is still hung up on Brittany's flop. Meanwhile, that ripping sound is ya hears is hair tearin' in august chambers throughout the EU--Now What?? they's askin?

See, either they git meaner still, or try to erase the event from the video files of hundreds of onlookers--some were simple tourists.

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ArtfulSub said...

Brilliant commentary. I will re-read yours and something else about the Walloons/Flemish divide that came across my box later.

So I can discuss it semi-intelligently.

I have an inkling of an idea that some Flemish folks want a relationship with Holland and some want autonomy but practically none want to remain with the nasty Walloons.

But I need to read.

Ardlair said...

On Tolerance


“Throw a punch at the opinion, not the person.”
I remember the wail.
I won’t say who said it.
They know who they are.

And so, I try…………………

But what do you do when the two can’t be unlinked?
A person and an opinion that is?
And they keep on with the same opinions even when the opinion has been punched senseless?

For in this latest essay the author suggests that it is wrong for a group of people (in this case, and somewhat peripheral to the central argument, police, and therefore appointed representatives of the state) to repress the publicly expressed views of another group, in this case politicians, and therefore elected representatives of the people, who are wishing to highlight their own view that a particular form of faith system, in this case Islam, is evil.

OK so far?

If the author’s objection is moral, then they would presumably also object to the repression of any view, publicly expressed by any group, by any other group?

If it is a matter of political principle, a police versus politician thing, the appointed repressing those elected, then presumably they would object to any such similar situation? Whatever particular views the two groups held or represented?

Lots of examples from all over the world - including the USA - to use to make the point.

But concerningly, repetitively, predictably, increasingly, this essay makes the point by casting the same characters in exactly the same roles as they are always cast. One group in the evil role. And another in the role of right. Whatever the storyline – the characters are in the same basic roles. And this, I believe, tells one a lot more about the author than the stories themselves.

The repressors are always Islamic or somehow tainted with pro- Islamism, and the repressed are always anti-Islamic, or “decent ordinary folks”……..which in itself speaks volumes.

So I suggest that the opinion expressed here is neither based on morals nor principles. Taken alone, as a single piece, it could be, but when placed in the context of the other pieces that appear here, its true genesis becomes clear.

Prejudice.
The notion that all people from a specific grouping, be it social or political or ideological or religious or colour of skin-or nationaliy have an associated characteristic.

In this case Islam.
In this case evil.

And self righteousness.
The incontrovertible, unchallengeable, assertion that their own belief system is right.
In this case……………………christianty.

It took me around a dozen repeated questions posted on another recalcitrant’s site last year (the artist formerly known as…………) , to get them to say, to simply say, that all people who follow the faith system we call Islam are not evil.

Lets hear it now for the author.
You’re central stage.
Go on.
Show us that you, if not I, can disentangle the opinion from the person.
Tell us what tolerance really means.

boneman said...

sort'a sounds like Chicago, 1968.
What a mess that was! Especially for us out-of-towners who didn't know which way to run t'get the heck away from them danged, club slinging goons they call cops!

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Ardlair, one more time,

I'se tellin' ya youse jes' too smart for this simpleton's exercise. An' sideways slap on another blogger, the K-9 /She, is a weak sneak attack unless ya's been over theah to call her out straight like a man.

You wanna come at me? Best bring something REAL to say.

Let's go through yore response bit by bit,an 'take a look at how ya got so far off the mark.

You say:
"For in this latest essay the author suggests that it is wrong for a group of people (in this case, and somewhat peripheral to the central argument, police, and therefore appointed representatives of the state) to repress the publicly expressed views of another group, in this case politicians, and therefore elected representatives of the people, who are wishing to highlight their own view that a particular form of faith system, in this case Islam, is evil. OK so far?

.............Ardlair, no, it's not Okay. Youse a dissembler extraordinaire.

In actuality, that is not what the Flemish polly-ticians is saying. What the are saying is they do not want the government to enforce the Belagian (or EU) laws selectively, so selectively that muslims are not held accountable fer law breakin. An' the people's reprentatives do not want any more "multiculturalism" introduced into their land, because the tenets of Islam and those of a free society do not make a good match.

Ardlair wrote:

"If the author’s objection is moral, then they would presumably also object to the repression of any view, publicly expressed by any group, by any other group?"

In this case by "author" you mean Aunty Belle? Then, speaking fer myself, of course. Of course I objects to repression of publicly expressed views by any group. In fact, the preceding month, the Islamic elements has their own "manifestation" ("demonstration" on this side of the Atlantic. ) And when the Muslims had their march and vile threats, not a hair on the haids was harmed.

But take note, sly Ardlair, that you have failed to distinguish that in the case of which Aunty reports, the police brutalized PEACEFUL people and refused access to the Flemish press.

Why did the Police resort to this at the behest of their overlords?

BECAUSE their overlords fear Muslim backlash. That fear is what drives them to treat the muslims with kid gloves and hammer the native people of Belgium.

Ya' see? The officials who unleashed the police on the peaceful crowd think they can intimidate and control the native Belgians , suppress them in hopes of not "offending" the jihadis. Do you get it? These supine officals is hopin' that by mollifyin' the jihadis the jihadis will be quiet and go away--what wicked wimps.

More fools they, an' you wif' em...ain't ya heered of the boy who threw ducks to the alligator in hopes the alligator would not eat him? All that dumb boy did was grow the alligator into a monster of a reptile who then--natcherly --ate the boy.


Ardlair wrote:

"But concerningly, repetitively, predictably, increasingly, this essay makes the point by casting the same characters in exactly the same roles as they are always cast. One group in the evil role. And another in the role of right. ...

The repressors are always Islamic or somehow tainted with pro- Islamism, and the repressed are always anti-Islamic, or “decent ordinary folks”……..which in itself speaks volumes."

............naw Ardlair, youse simplified it into some thin gruel again'....ya really does need ter git out bit more...The point ain't the simple -simon met a pieman-story you lay out.

The story is that *equal treatment* is not afforded all groups--extreme latitude is given to jihadis, BUT extreme repression to those opposed to having their friends and relatives raped and murdered.

An' jes' to deflect yore next simple-simon salvo, lemme make clear, the claim of rape and murder ain't from the poor victims, be they Belgians or French, or Brits..nope, it is from the mouths of the EUROPEAN mullahs who have instructed their minions to go into cultures of the West and wreak such havoc that fear pervades the land and thus conquest is assured.

Ardlair wrote:
"So I suggest that the opinion expressed here is neither based on morals nor principles."

All that is dispatched above--one more time---the equal treatment of dissenting views is moral, but there was no equal treatment in the report given on the post--and ya' know it--more dissembling on yore part.


Ardlair wrote:

"Prejudice.
The notion that all people from a specific grouping, be it social or political or ideological or religious or colour of skin-or nationaliy have an associated characteristic."

........same wimpy tactic again?

Aunty ain't said nuthin' 'bout no color of skin or nationality. Ain't prejudiced on any types of folks as they came outa they mama's womb.

Ah, but youse can bet the last hair on yore haid that I'se prehudiced against ideologies. An in some cases, I'se even prdjudiced against the people who subscribe to them pernicious ideologies.

Aunty is pretty forgivin' towards those young and impressionable sorts who muddle around in erroneous idiotologies fer a spell-cause some sound real good at first.

What I doan tolerate is folks who knows that their ideology is designed for maximum harm and or control of others...and thas' precisely why that like it.

Ardlair wrote:
"In this case Islam.
In this case evil."

Nope, in this case it was missue of state power against a peaceful group. And iffin' the missue of power had been against muslims protestin', but in a peaceful way--Aunty would be makin' all these same points on behalf of misuse of power against peaceful free speech.


But as to Evil and Islam, yeah, one is the son of the other. Islam is evil, Ardlair.

NOTE WELL THAt I'SE NOT SAYIN' ALL WHO FOLLOW ISLAM IS EVIL.

As a system of synthesized political, military and religious control it is evil.

Arldair wrote:

"The incontrovertible, unchallengeable, assertion that their own belief system is right.
In this case……………………christianty."

...........I'se slappin' mah knee is laughter here--hilrious. Why does ya drag this in when there was nuthin' in the Beglian report on Christianity. Ain't ya' knowed by now that Europe is "post Christian"?

Why cain't ya deal wif' the police brutality against Belgian MPs wif'out tryin' ter muddy the water wif' and Christianity against Islam
characterization?

Ardlair wrote:

"It took me around a dozen repeated questions posted on another recalcitrant’s site last year (the artist formerly known as…………) , to get them to say, to simply say, that all people who follow the faith system we call Islam are not evil."

........youse amusin' fer refusin' ter never make the adult distinctions between what is actually said and how youse takin' it.

That artist Pup of renown sticks in yore craw cause the blogger bunch loves it from the heart. That Pup is loved, Ardlair, because it is genuine, and evokes a genuine response from lib and conservative alike...and like all diehard cynics, ya' loathe freely given affection.

Ya' only revere that false sort of affection that is yours by manipulation of others emotions..or even better, by sly innuendo.

Ardlair wrote:


"Lets hear it now for the author.
You’re central stage.
Go on.
Show us that you, if not I, can disentangle the opinion from the person.
Tell us what tolerance really means."

Oh, with what a flourish you conclude...but save that frilly frumpery for yore manipulees.

Tolerance ain't a hard gig in definition--only in practice.

This is plain enough fer a two year old:

Aunty is tolerant of most folks who mean well, even when they's misguided, whether by an ideology or past wounds. I tries hard to takes them person by person. Sometimes I'se a yard shy of the goal line.

But in the defense of those who are also due tolerance--including Western White Man and his family-- I ain't NEVER...clarification:
N E V E R tolerant of evil systems of government, or the misuse of decent forms of government. An', jes' ter be real deadly clear:
Islam is a system of political control and governance.

Here's your prissy problem, Ardlair:

Youse a true believer in the lie that if ya jes' let folks be folks, we'll all reach nirvana singing Kum-ba-ya.

An' ya' jes' is howlin' mad that reality is burstin' yore bubble.

Ain't no nirvana, shortshanks. Git your posterior up offa the floor and look around.

Git a history book or two or two hundred. Catch up on reality and leave aside yore pet theories of human perfection.

Ya' think Mao or Kim Jong
or Idi Amin is amenable to "cain't we all jes' git along?" love song?

I knows yore trouble. The screamin' terror in the night is that there ain't no social theory, no educational process, no global redistribution of resources, no amount of dope on park benches, no amount of frenetic coupling, no amount of piled up lucre no amount of nuthin' that will hide the truth:

There is a manic evil loose in the world and it takes up residence in the wayward hearts of some men (and women).

That evil cannot be addressed with any of yore pet theories of universal self actualization. That evil is light millennia from any trinkets earthy creatures can throw at it in hopes of taming it. It laughs at yore puny temporal offerings of money, oil, sex, power, fame.....

Ardlair, it feeds on souls.

Ardlair said...

As ever, the response reveals much, much more than any words of mine can ever do.

I particularly like the multiple assaults on my own character, rather than my opinion!

Seems like "throwing a punch at the opinion, not the person" is a bit of a one way street in these parts? A bit like tolerance itself......you don't need to tolerate others, but they need to tolerate you?

Rather than throwing arrows at me, perhaps there should now be a period of reflection and self-examination.

Not what is it about me ( Ardlair) that provokes this vitriolic response, but what is it about you ( Aunty belle) that creates such a particular reply.

Within that , Aunty Belle, you will find much.

I knew, just knew, you would LOVE that I was back in this small quarter of the blogosphere!

Aunty Belle said...

All of yore opinions was answered--you jes' skip over uncomfortable logic.

But, of course, that would not do--ya' had to keep the focus on yoreself, the topic has to be you--it can't be he topic of Belgium's current events and its meaning to Europe and the free world.

Ardlair said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ardlair said...

Sorry about the last deletion... it was me, mixing up my buttons!!!

I need to speak to my surgeon.

My lobotomy was obviously INADEQUATE.

I need more of my brain removed if I am to be accepted around here.

I need to have my criticism centre pared, and my sarcasm centre completely removed.

I need to be BLAND.

Southern Fried Bland!!!!!

And when I am completely and utterly bland, I will return, and astonish you with the blandness of my comments!

Infinitesimal said...

Lawdy Lawdy, I's about ter haf ter jump rait in here and squash this beef best as I can.

YOUS BOFE RIGHT

Ardlair, you have pinpointed a fatal flaw in Christian Dogma.... the human beings that are Muslim are the enemies of the human beings that are Christian. Never mind that the Jews are the favored race of God (and that's "just the way it is") Never mind that Abraham was a Jew, had a rob the cradle affair with Hagar, sent her to the desert with her (JEW) son Ishmael and then got Sarah knocked up with .... oh God, who was it? Moses, Isaac? Who can keep track? Point is, they were both JEWS! OK and who was the the group that refused to accept Christ as the messiah? Uhm.... the Jews. And Christianity sprung from Judaism. And Ishmael begat all the "muslims" And who was the father of Ishmael? Yep, the same father of All Jews, Abraham. Now.... stay with me here.... Jews are God's chosen people.... And so does it not stand to reason that sons of Ishmael are also favored ipso facto?

Well, anyway, on to Auntie Belle, who I think is a right smart cookie. But dearest, you are starting to lump ALL Muslims into the category of EXTREME fundimentalists. And it does not make sense to HATE on someone because they are involved in a faith that is not your own. Hate the Sin, not the Sinner.... that is a favorite mantra in Christianity.

As far as I can untangle it, Satan is the enemy of Christ... that's it. Pretty simple. And all men are brothers under the Lord God. That's as far as I am willing to go in pledging allegiance to dogma.

It won't do, especially in the time of Ramadan, to denounce all things Muslim. One thing that "Muslims" are critical over is the fact that Westerners are very indulgent, and do not have (save for Lent which is a cheap version of Ramadan) ...do not have any time of fasting and giving thanks for the abundance enjoyed daily.

Now I picked Christ as a way to avow my own personal sense of spirit... i investigated many other ways of expressing myself first, and found that Christianity as i understand it to be the the one thing that works for me, and gives me the "shivers" (in a good way). But we all have a personal journey, and I DO get that the Jihad is real and there are a lot of Pissed Off A-Rabs out there with knives in their teeth, sneaking up in black turbans to fillet our children in their western beds as they sleep. BUT not ALL people who are also Muslim are in that group. And therein, lies Ardlair's contention. (I think)

Auntie Puddin' this was jes plain spiteful:

"Ya' only revere that false sort of affection that is yours by manipulation of others emotions..or even better, by sly innuendo."

Wow.

BUT then I have to agree with this:

"There is a manic evil loose in the world and it takes up residence in the wayward hearts of some men (and women).

That evil cannot be addressed with any of yore pet theories of universal self actualization. That evil is light millennia from any trinkets earthy creatures can throw at it in hopes of taming it. It laughs at yore puny temporal offerings of money, oil, sex, power, fame.....

Ardlair, it feeds on souls."


Belle, it is because we agree on this one base point, that we are fast friends. I am so glad that you know. It is true.

Cain't yous two jes kiss and make up? I love BOTH of you big ol' brains. Love to see them in action.

But Aunt, I thought that Muslim march here in America that you mentioned was a group of Muslim Americans who were demonstrating for peaceful co-existence?

What did you hear?

Aunty Belle said...

Infinitessima,
I'se always thrilled when ya c'mon over and git in it wif us!

From the bottom up of yore points:
1) The Muslim march I referrred to was in Blegium--not USA..the USA march were fine--a good thang...the March in Brussels were a hate-spewin' fest.

2) Kiss and make-up? I ain't in no squabble wif Ardlair. I were real gentle fer the thang it were.

I'se disagreein' wif his tactics--not his right to opinions or to express his opinions. Further, puddin', Aunty wants to do Ardlair the honor of taking him as he presents hisself. He ain't presented hisself fer no kissin'. He came loaded, I'se good wif that--BACK porch is fer "spirited" debate.

3) on the part ya' took to be spiteful...ah...would ya hate yore Aunty forever iffin' I suggested we could revisit it a decade? Baby, Aunty is old. Not jes' years, but there's thangs and people I had ter see in mah work...I can read certain types of trail from a fer distance.

But I hear yore heart on this. AN it is very dear--to me. Ya enjoys both of us and would like us to be more cautious. AN' fer yore sake, I'se gonna tone it down...but I'll tell ya' somthin', Ardlair comes fer jes' this sort of fencin'.

Ardlair and Aunty took one another's measure long back---he has his reasons fer seekin' out this spot, and he is welcome. Aunty
expects honesty and no foul language, otherwise, his comments are welcome.

4) Infini, I ain't lumping all muslims in the same category. Aunty is long past lumpin' whole categories of folks--no virtue, jes it ain't reasonable and it is against the Christian command to love even our enemies.

Here is the analogy that is rough, but will illustrate. Nazi's were German, but all Germans who knuckled under to hitler and his goons were not evil too. Some were duped, some were unthinking, some were so programmed and cowed they could not "see" the horror. Some were so fearful they were incapable of right reason. Aunty doan hate "muslims".

Aunty does hate the Islamic teachings as espoused by most of the current crop of mullahs. Aunty thinks that system must be fought to the very bitter end. It is from Satan, it is a cancer, it will grow iffin' we doan defang it.

I likes yore outline of Abraham, Ishmael & Hagar, Sarah and ISsac...yeah--"sins of the father"...ah thas' another post.

Contessa, I could hug ya! Youse got a true heart.

Aunty Belle said...

Ardlair...no lobotomies needed ter visit on the Back Porch..an I ain't lookin' fer bland, thas' fer shure.

I would enjoy a true dissectin' of current events from various viewpoints. I ain't shy of hard nosed discussions of thangs, feel free to serve up whatever is on yore mind.

she said...

smokin hot thread! wow.

i don't have a damn thing to add cept thanks for all the nice stuff you said about me aunty...and that i hope ardlair will stay in it.

well, i do have something to add. it doesnt need to be evil for me to be against it. im against MTV. its not evil. just banal.

cheer up though ardlair, over here the attorney general can torch 80 people (including bonus-pointers women and children) for being weirdo christians...er, that is when the presidents a dem...so it probably all evens out in the end. and there wasnt any big outcry or congressional hearing or nothin! these guys were just weird. they never wrote a manifesto about converting anybody, never threatened to wipe even just a city off the map. they did have guns though. evil bastards! grrherhahaha

i dont see prejudice in this post. but its always like this: anytime somebody points out the behavior of a group as negative then its right to cries of racism or intolerance, and not addressing the content of the post which is about the most intolerant people on earth! and we cant have intolerance of intolerance.*fer rotties sake*

hey vanille.

Infinitesimal said...

yeah, nobody else is gonna speak ter him in Latin, or call his words "Simple Simon Salvo"

You two both love each other sooo much! Cain't ya see it?

So Auntie, if you stick by your assertion that Ardlair manipulates emotions, then you MUST allow yourself to consider the the question he last posed to you:

"Not what is it about me ( Ardlair) that provokes this vitriolic response, but what is it about you ( Aunty belle) that creates such a particular reply."


And I do hope that you will consider that one catches more flies with honey... and if you aims ter draw opinions to your camp, you must explain them logically and lovingly, and not throw out personal remarks.

This here is for you two to duke it out over, but I am just seeing a devils advocate being played out on the part of our beloved Ardlair, he is standing up for people of Muslim faith that may happen to be in his family or circle of friends, people like my schoolmate who lent me her notes so that I could pass Psych of Personality Class. People like my cousin's wife. People who do not see themselves as being of Satan.

So, if you do have that opinion, you owe it to the advocate to explain it in plausible terms. i think that was all he was referring to with the mention of K9... He wants a firm understanding on the base of your feelings (I mean, I think that's what he wants... that's what any point of contention is really about, right?)

If this is a spiritual thing, mayhap you should dish out some scriptural foundations for your assertion that Islam is Evil. I know that whenever I have asked why that assertion is made, I am countered with: "It just is"

Belle you have made this back porch a place to bemoan the evils of Islamic faith and practice (Jihad).

I think it would be good of you to lay down some foundations for why you feel that way... in a one-two-three manner, citing references if you like. That way, even people who don't agree with you, can still begin to see whar your big ol' brain is leading them.

Capisci?

Infinitesimal said...

Wait as econd SHE, you may just be on to something!! Should Ardlair just watch more MTV? Certainly then he would over time achieve his desired bland persona?

(PS Ardlair, you noticed how Belle and She and me all say how we liked you?)

I mean....

*toeing dirt*

I threw in the term "beloved"
....................

So please do keep it up, it is jolly good discourse that I think we all have missed!

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Dawg, youse always good fer a howl! Yeah, Reno's little BBQ din't bring no protests from the tolerance brigade.

Infini, I'se confused, --mayhap 'cause in the combox they ain't no tone of voice, ya' know? But ya's objectin' to "simple simon slavo"? Doan that seem real mild?

As fer catchin' more flies wif honey....I never was partial ter flies, I leave 'em fer Beelzebub.

The burden is on ardlair. He needs to show whar' he has a shred of compassion for the actual victims listed in this post. An he NEVER addressed the topic of this post--which is the misuse of police force and brutality against peaceful people.

The problem is, the people the police abused are people Ardlair ain't in sympathy wif'...see, they doan share his political stripes.

Sugar Pie, I gave an example of how I feel about Muslims in that analogy about Germans. Not all Germans was guilty as NAzis, even though many subscribed to some of the nazi views, just not the nazi tactics ; not all muslims is themself evil, though they believe in the ideas, they may not approve of the tactics of the mullahs and jihadis...but Naziism had to be fought and so does Islam.

As fer yore request:

"Belle you have made this back porch a place to bemoan the evils of Islamic faith and practice (Jihad).

I think it would be good of you to lay down some foundations for why you feel that way... "

Alright, Doll Baby, in a minute...
first, lemme say, the BACK porch ain't jes' fer Islamic discussions--remember the one on genetic manipulation? Or German Sex Education...it is my hope that the BACK Porch is fer what I lay out in the header--serious cogitatin'.

Now, Sweetie, back to yore request:
one-two-three manner, giving references fer evil of Islam, all that a body needs ter do is to:

1) read the Koran and remember the little children in Beslan
2) turn on the TV and listen to the mullahs themselves advocate killin' anybody who dishonors Islam or enslaving anyone who refuses to convert...that oughta do it--I mean, Contessa, the RULE in Islam is to kill anybody who converts away from it--is that a religion of "peace"???

But let's give a rounded out ten reasons:

3) look how they treat their people, especially women
4) remember Theo van Gogh
5) remember the Madrid train bombings
6) remember the London train bombings
7) remember the paris burnings
8 ) remember the death threats on Salman Rushdie
9) remember the embassy attacks after the Dutch cartoons
10) remember the World Trade Towers

and the list goes on...I could fill 200 pages of blog space wif' the evils of Islam as a system--and I'll take some time this week and git some spiritual stuff fer ya to think on, too.

Lastly, on your suggestion:

"So Auntie, if you stick by your assertion that Ardlair manipulates emotions, then you MUST allow yourself to consider the the question he last posed to you:

"Not what is it about me ( Ardlair) that provokes this vitriolic response, but what is it about you ( Aunty belle) that creates such a particular reply."

How good of ya ter ask! I'se right pleased ter have an opening to this point.

First, mah reply was hardly vitriolic, since I done held myself in considerable check.

But, here is what it is in Aunty that raises up to call a "Foul play" when Ardlair (or anybody else) pulls his emotional manipulation game:

I decline ter suffer infantile behavior in adults.

Ardlair is smart enough. Iffin' he wants ter get in a high stakes yak, then get in it. I thinks of it like the fair professor who will grade you wif' an "A" even when he disagrees wif' yore thesis, as long as ya can back up the assertions and ideas ya' make.

Use logic, facts, news, data, stats, analysis ter make yore point, speculate...offer an opinion...but doan emote.

Doan try to lead the discussion based on the emotions another provoked in you...ain't no discussion or argument aided by somebody sayin:

"I refuse to address yore proof, yore data, or yore references, because you hurt my feelin's, and made me feel bad."

Ain't ya ever had someone try this trick on ya: "I doan have ter listen to what you say, even if it is true, because I don't like the tone of voice youse usin' ter say it."

See? They cannot argue against the truth, so they regress to emoting as a means of deflectin' the argument away from what they doan wanna deal with.

So they jes' drag all sorts emotive drama over the ACTUAL topic, hopin' ya won't notice they never dealt wif' the real thang. Usually they cain't cause all they got is emotion, easy sentiment, cheap "compassion" that doan cost 'em a whit. Nope, they got nuthin' concrete, nuthin' solid, nuthin' logical.

Life is short--ain't got time fer that silliness.

Please lemme remind one an' all that this approach is fer the BACK Porch only--back here we take on tough stuff, try to take a realistic look at thangs in the world today...an' so the rules of engagement assumes we's respectin' the effort people make to put forth
serious material for serious thinkin'...an exchange designed to pull us up to a THINKIN' plane. We can still be funny, throw a little jab....but respect the debate--come wif' real thangs, not yore emotive preferences.

Fer some, back heah is sometimes too contentious--and life is about more than serious debate...life is also about lighthearted moments, getting to know each others quirks, teasin', encouragin', and jes' plain sharin', including emotions...and I does hope ter see all of ya'll on the FRONT Porch, whar' we can banter, and laugh, and cry wif each other, and try out ideas and post photos and be a blogville.

I'd like that very much.

she said...

grrrherhahaha! aunty belle youre a bad-ass! nicely played. yes, that bad ole TONE thing swims up to rope a dope me in an endless racetrack of never gittin to tha point....but enough about my married life. grrrrherhahaha!

floatin and stingin! jes like cassius clay. grrrherhaha

Anonymous said...

I do not understand this thred. What of the passions in Europe? There is trouble, and it will come to you Americans too. Do you care?

Infinitesimal said...

Hiya Aunt...

Nononono, 'tis true, tone is everything!

I was referring to your lighthearted use of Simple Simon Salvo, and the way you were writing him love notes in latin over at She's...

You two have BANTER.

Do you recall when Ardlair first started his blog way back in the day? He was complaining about how people always encourage and pat one on the back in the comments section, to an unrealistic extent... and he was asking for people to speak their minds more often, even if it is in disagreement. So I know he must love you, and your porch.

Might do you well to offer him some of that whiskey you made mention of here last year, I do not think he goes for the stogies though.

I think it is important to have readers who disagree with you, it keeps you in the know and finger on the pulse instead of having a disproportionate amount of yesmen. (or m'am)

So, I see your point on how evil is obvious to you, but I think that anon comment was pointing to the Spanish Inquisition and the Christian Crusades who initiated holocausts in the name of Lord God.

It's a similar story to:
(your previous comment)
"2) turn on the TV and listen to the mullahs themselves advocate killin' anybody who dishonors Islam or enslaving anyone who refuses to convert...that oughta do it AUNT!! YOU SPEAK ARABIC?? DO YOU KNOW THE PERSON WHO DOES THE TRANSLATIONS IN CLOSED CAPTIONS THEN? AND BY THE WAY, DO YOU HAVE REGULAR CABLE TV? BECAUSE I AIN'T NEVER SEED A MULLAH ON NO 'MERICAN TV STATION.... EXCEPTIN IF YOU MEAN THE FOX NEWS OR SUMPIN' AND IN THAT CASE, I AGAIN ASK YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHO IS DOING THE CLOSED CAPTIONING TRANSLATIONS?
"--I mean, Contessa, the RULE in Islam is to kill anybody who converts away from it--is that a religion of "peace"???"


And as for your other 9 reasons Aunt... I need to address this, i am 35, I do not like to watch the negative news, I try to avoid stories on killing... so i am not in the know. I am not ancient like you (no tone, just a slight goodhearted jibe) So I was askin you to actually give a background for your thoughts on the matter:

"1) read the Koran and remember the little children in Beslan"
I NEED SOME BACKGROUND TO THIS STORY AUNT, YOU READ IT, LET'S HEAR IT...

"3) look how they treat their people, especially women"
POINT WELL TAKEN... BUT WHO IS "THEY?" WHO ARE "THEIR PEOPLE?"

"4) remember Theo van Gogh"
OK I AM IGNORANT, IS THIS ANY RELATION TO VINCENT? SEE HERE AUNT, I A M ASKING YOU FOR BACKGROUND, NOT JUST A NAME OR CONCEPT

"5) remember the Madrid train bombings"
YEAH, WHO ACTUALLY TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT? I DID NOT HEAR.

"6) remember the London train bombings"
YEAH, I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHO TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE EITHER


"7) remember the paris burnings"
YES. WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT AGAIN?

"8 ) remember the death threats on Salman Rushdie"
NOPE.

"9) remember the embassy attacks after the Dutch cartoons"
WELL, I HAVE NO DEFENSE FOR THIS, I AM NOT AIMING TO DEFEND ANYONE, BUT I WILL AGREE THAT AS A PEOPLE, THESE MUSLIM DEMONSTRATORS SEEM PRETTY PISSED OFF.

"10) remember the World Trade Towers"
AUNT, I REMEMBER WHAT I WAS TOLD ABOUT THE WORLD TRADE TOWERS, I ALSO REMEMBER THINKING IT WAS PRETTY HANDY TO HAVE A CAMERA CAPTURE THE EVENT FOR THE WORLD, I REMEMBER US GOING TO AFGHANISTAN AND BLAMING BIN LADEN, I RECALL HOW BIN LADEN WAS SWAPPED OUT FOR HUSSAIN AND WE SHOWED UP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IRAN IN IRAQ. I REMEMBER US BOMBING THEIR CULTURAL CENTERS ONCE WE GOT THERE, AND CLAIMING IT WAS AN ACCIDENTAL RELEASE SEVERAL TIMES OVER WHILE THEIR MUSEUMS AND SCIENCE LABS AND LIBRARIES WERE SMOLDERING RUBBLE AND AFTERMATH. I RECALL HEARING SCARED ACCOUNTS OF SOLDIERS RETURNING FROM THE "WAR" TELLING OF TOP SECRET MISSIONS TO LAY PIPELINE UNDERGROUND INTO IRAN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. I REMEMBER BUSH SAYING THAT IT WAS A WAR ON TERROR AS HE TOOK AWAY OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. I REMEMBER WATCHING PEOPLE RUN IN TERROR FROM A COLLAPSING BUILDING THAT HAD AN INTERNAL STRUCTURE THAT WAS PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF BEING TAKEN DOWN WITH AN AIRPLANE, IN FACT, WAS CONSTRUCTED SPECIFICALLY TO WITHSTAND SUCH AN EVENT. I REMEMBER THAT THE SUPPORTING BEAMS CONTINUED TO SMOLDER AT A TEMPERATURE FOR DAYS THAT COULD ONLY BE ATTAINED WITH A HIGH FORCE BOMB. I RECALL NOTING THAT SECURITY WOULD NEVER ALLOW SUCH A BOMB TO BE COVERTLY PLANTED BY TERRORISTS EVER SINCE THE 1991 ATTACK ON THE WTC PARKING LOT. I DO HOWEVER NOTE THAT THE ONLY WAY TO PLANT A BOMB IN THE BASEMENT OF THE WTC AS ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE INDICATES, WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR AN EXTREMELY HIGH LEVEL SECURITY CLEARANCE. I RECALL THAT THE ONLY SOLID PROOF THAT A BOMB WAS PLANTED THERE COULD BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE STRUCTURAL BEAMS ONCE THEY STOPPED SMOLDERING (HAVING TO DO WITH THE WAY AND AT WHAT POINT THEY WERE MELTED) I DO RECALL THAT SAID BEAMS WERE SHIPPED OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ON A BARGE THE HOUR THAT THEY STOPPED SMOLDERING AND WERE QUICKLY MELTED DOWN IN CHINA. I REMEMBER FROM WATCHING CRIMESHOWS ON TV THAT THE TERM FOR THIS KIND OF COVERT OPERATION IS CALLED "TAMPERING WITH THE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME SCENE"
I REMEMBER THAT THE BUSH FAMILY STOLE THE ELECTION IN 2000, AND THAT THEY ALSO HAVE TIES TO THE BIN LADIN FAMILY THAT GO BACK FOR GENERATIONS TO PRESCOTT BUSH WHO WAS ALSO A NAZI SYMPATHIZER. I CAN RECALL THAT THE LAST GREAT BASTION OF OIL RESIDES IN IRAN. AND I ALSO HEARD THAT THE BUSH FAMILY IS INVOLVED IN THE OIL BUSINESS. I CAN REMEMBER HOW QUICKLY WE "WENT TO WAR ON TERROR" AFTER SEP 11TH AND HOW SOON AFTER THAT THE WAR SWITCHED FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ.

I DO NOT REMEMBER THIS, BUT I CAN CONTEND THAT THE POLITICAL ACTIONS OF THE USA ARE CONSTRUED AS BEING IMPERIALISTIC BY THE MUSLIM PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING TO REBUILD THEIR COUNTRIES AFTER WE KEEP SHOWING UP TO BOMB THEM.

YES, THERE ARE TERRORISTS, NO THEY ARE NOT SYMPATHETIC FIGURES, BUT NOT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS AND NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL TERRORISTS. MUSLIMS IN MOROCCO FOR EXAMPLE NEVER HURT NOBODY.... EVER.

AND FINALLY, NOT ALL NEWS REPORTED IS FACT.

so, i was not yelling just there, was using caps lock to discern my words from your original ones. I think my point here to you is this: Please give examples that assume that you are teaching your point, and not finding someone who agrees with you. I am showing my ignorance in hopes that you will understand that not everyone in the genpop knows that Rushdie was threatened, or why. Including me.

So, again, i am plainly asking you to teach me why you think Islam is evil. and I do want scripture citations.... I think that would illustrate your point nicely.

Whew!

Can i step on up to the front porch now? I needs me a glass of that southern lemonaid. Any fried chicken left over from Sunday supper Aunt?

ArtfulSub said...

I repeat my mantra to any and all "muslim" apologists.

"READ THE KORAN. NOT A COMMENTARY ON IT. THE KORAN ITSELF. COVER TO COVER. THEN GET BACK TO US."

I find it amusing that people will say to those of us who actually know and reject "islam" things like:

"Yo, you be lumping ALL muslims together, dude, yo".

And then they'll follow that with the inevitable:

" Yo, 99.9% of all muslims are like peaceful and reject Jihad and stuff, yo."


The truth is that Jihad is THE fundamental core of the religion called "islam". Dying in Jihad, according to the Warlord Mohammed, is the ONLY way to ensure you get to paradise. GOT THAT?

Keyword "only". Going to the Hadj? No guarantee. Facing Mecca to pray 5x per day? No guarantee. Want to get to paradise? Die in Jihad.

The Warlord Mohammed also stated that Jihad was the ONLY way that "islam" could grow.

So, are there "peaceful moderate" mullahs who fundamentally REJECT what the Koran says about Jihad?

Nope. A mullah in Michigan might not think a Jihad in Chechyna is his highest priority in life. He might even reject a specific Fatwa authorizing a Jihad in Thailand. But he can't outright reject the idea of Jihad. It's fundamental to the faith.

The only real FUNDAMENTAL debate between the 5-10% of "moderates" and 90-95% "hard-liners" concerns SUICIDE as an act of Jihad.

Perhaps this would be easier to understand if we eliminated the words "terrorism and terrorist" from our vocabulary. And simply said "Jihad and Jihadi".

So what happens the next time a horde of muslims kill Schoolgirls in Thailand?

Can an American mullah "boldly" stand up and say " I reject TERRORISM, but it's mostly Israel's fault and if it wasn't for all those Jews in Thailand, this wouldn't have happened".

What he won't say, can't say, is that he rejects JIHAD.

Aunty Belle said...

Oh InFiniTessima...Lordy MErcy chile??? Thas' a whole book ya done as't Aunty ter lay out fer ya...

But, ya know what? I REALLY needed ter hear all that, cause I have been assumin' that a certain degree of knowledge base was out theah..and youse makin' the important point: Genpop doan know all the backstory.

So, Okay....Ya' give me one whale of an assignment, but I'se gonna do it in a two-tree part thang back here.

Meanwhile, there is a key thang to always check in any comparison of actions by humans. Is the action the systematic teaching or direction or orders of the leadership, or is the action the as hoc invetnion of a few actors, takin' matters into they own hands?

Aunty will show that ISLAM is SYSTEMICALLY violent in its precepts. This is rather distinct from any belief system that teaches one thang but whose adherents --as humans will do--take matters into they own hands.

An ..sigh...looky, on the Twin Towers t hang--the crux of the "THe Bush people did it" conspiracy theory is that it serves the liberal urge to
1)hate Bush
2) avoid their REAL fear--engaging Islam

Fini, even a brief look back 35 years will show how the Islamic jiahd has been active against the WEST --an no US gubmint was secretly doing it. Durin' that time, assualts were made on other nations too---and/or we had libs in office--CLinton fer example, the first time the TOwers were jihadi targets.


Yeah, darlin' git on over ter the Front Porch....ain't got no cold fried chicken right now, but by this evenin', they'll be catfish and sweet tater fries....I'm savin' ya a plate.

Aunty Belle said...

Anon...hello...yes, some do care...I'se assumin' ya' mean that Europe is coming unstuck? That yore laws is changin' due to kow-towin' to muslim violence?

Aunty Belle said...

Artfulsub--thanky!! I'se needin' yore hep back heah! Whew!...gettin' weary...but it's clear to me now that lots of folks really doan know the history of t he tahng.

SO, to ALL of ya'll who wanna comment on iffin' Islam is is unfairly characterized in this post, first check out the basics on what Islam is. Whas' the goal of Islam? Why is they in a violent squabble wif ever' other society?

Artfulsub, any points ya' wanna make in the assignment under contruction would be welcomed.

Anonymous said...

HELLO. YOUR RESPONDENT SHOULD KNOW THAT UK MULLAHS SPEAK ENGLISH. THEY MAKE THREATS WITH NO FEAR FROM THE AUTHORITIES. THE BBC BROADCAST THEIR THREATS OF DEATH AND BEHEADING. THEY GLOAT OVER OUR DEATHS. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SPEAK ARABIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING IN EUROPE. THANK YOU.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
boneman said...

you didn't really write, "I would enjoy a true dissectin' of current events from various viewpoints. " did'ja?

"CURRENT events????"

WHAT current events?
It's been the same danged story since long before you or I and, from what I hear of both sides, it will continue to be the same old story for a lot longer than we'll live t'see.

First off, yer danged tootin' it's a good way to go at things...
y'all give that dude a hissy-fit fer a simple thing?

"Youse a true believer in the lie that if ya jes' let folks be folks, we'll all reach nirvana singing Kum-ba-ya."
Ain't that exactly what we supposed to do, gal?
Oh, not with all the extra that's been put into the words of the good man...

"....forgive your enemies. Love your enemies...."
That's the HARD work. Serving them that hasn't a decent chance for escaping the evil, now, that's a bit different, though I fear we're probably supposed to do the same thing.

Here's how it just might go down...
The evil will feed on itself in the end. And who be caring because that's all that's left (according to the revelations, now, and again, we have to take the whole of the book with a grain (better bring a handful) of salt)
And when that's gone with...and it WILL be gone with...THEN we can see the world for what the CREATOR gave to us.

Now, I ain't so sure about my abilities as a christian. I would like to think that if a man struck me across the cheek, I would turn the other one to him.
I'm supposed to.
I might turn it to him....
Y'all better not swing, though, as I may not be up t'being the upright christian Ma told me t'be.
The other cheek I turn may just be my backsides cheek.

But, back on this here "current affairs" thing....
it's he crusades, and the Palestinians (Muslims) are still festered by the idea that through Brittish rule and might, Jews again won the city of Jeruselum.
Now, it may be a city in Belgium, it may be two towers in New York.

But, it sure ain't LOVE, not bible love not koran love.
Not even atheist love.

dang...
I ain't paintin' a targhet on m'self, am I?
It is true what I just wrote, yes?

Hard part of talking what the koran is or isn't could be I ain't ever read it. Just been going from what folks say the gist is.

Maybe, since I have a few extra dollars, I should go buy it?

Why would I believe a thing just because it was written so many centuries ago?

Infinitesimal said...

I've got a friend named BONEY MARONEY!!!! He's a thin as a stick of macaroni!!

Haha,

Way to go Artful sub! You got the message.

Auntie, yes YES!! Now you got the iea, educate, not pontificate.

Anon, you scare me a little, are you shouting?

And finally, 9-11
Well, we can dicker over that one till the cows come home. I still stand firm. HOWEVER, I will like to point to the school that wasd in lockdown in Russia last year. Weren't no Bush family involved in that. I am not denying that the 9-11 thang was a terrorist act, but I AM speculating as to the names of the terrorists involved. ANd I am feeling pretty lucky that I still CAN publicly speculate on it what with the dissolution of American Freedoms that have occurred as a direct result of 9-11.

Actually, technically speaking, I COULD be locked up in jail without a trial right now for the things I said here. Did you know that AUnt? The patriot act is a terrorist manifesto. It is a shame what They (the Bush admin.) are doing to Their (us) people. Door swings both ways.

Anyway, gots to go to school now, so I'll be by and nigh later on this evenin'.

Toodles

she said...

if you want to live a 12th century lifestlye...fine..but coming up in europe and trying to impose that lifestyle on people with implied threats and ouright violence; seeking to rearrange the host nation's way of life and then calling everybody intolerant racists when they dont roll with with a happy face is insane. and its poor manners as well.

Ardlair said...

Laugh?
I darn near peed!

For we appear to have arrived at the solution.
Aunty Belle is going to write an explanatory account on Islam, that will help us all understand.

The problem?
Well as y’all know, you gotta know where someone is coming from to understand, like really understand, what they are saying, like really saying.

Imagine you went into a bookshop and saw a book called “ Communism”.
Author?
Joseph McCarthy.

Or “George Bush : A man for our times”.
Author?
Barack Obama.

You would kind of know what the perspective was gonna be, yeah? That you might have to broaden your reading somewhat to get a real, across the board, balanced account of the subject matter?

So I’d add a third book to my “read with more than a pinch of salt handy” pile.

“Islam” by Aunty B.

I kinda know already what its gonna say! ‘Cos I kinda know where she is coming from!

In my initial comment here, that started this long string, I suggested that the position from which Aunty Belle was coming was implicitly anti-islamic - to a point that one could define it as prejudiced - and also overburdened with the self-righteousness of personal religious (christian) conviction.
And, that the repetitive nature of her subject matter simply illustrated where she was coming from, rather than casting any true light on the issue at hand.
The articles tell us about her - and also perhaps something about the influence of religious conviction on the capacity for free critical thought in otherwise intelligent individuals - but not much about islam.

I got the predictable, antipathetic, animated and rather personal response.
I am, apparently, amongst many other things, an islamist sympathiser.

But, as many of you know, I am no more pro-Muslim, than I am pro-Christian.
I am anti all forms of organised religion – for the harm they cause through the promotion of blind allegiance without thought, and the way that humans, usually in positions of power, misuse them to manipulate people. And that manipulation applies, historically, as much to christianity as it does to islam.

So I suspect the forthcoming essay will simply make my point ever more sharp and clear. Just like the foregoing “definition” of jihad!

But maybe I’m misjudging Aunty Belle?
Maybe she can pull it off?

Go on AB.
I’ll eat my mouse.
Live on MTV.

Aunty Belle said...

Ardlair--Here is a novel idea fer ya: Comment on the police brutality against peaceful Belgians.

Leave Aunty and Ardlair outa the comment--stick (can ya do it??) to the subject of the post.

Ardlair said...

I think the police brutality against the peaceful belgians is unjustifiable and should be condemned.

Now, lets hear what you think about islam?

Ardlair said...

I think the police brutality against the peaceful belgians is unjustifiable and should be condemned.

Now, lets hear what you think about islam?

Infinitesimal said...

Oh SNAP

a crusher by Belle

followed by a sardonic quip from the Scottsman

WHO

WILL

REIGN

Un DEFEATED???!!!!!

Tune in live

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY

for the the Jihad of the minds

Auntie "Catholic Queen" Belle

takes on

Anti-theistic Ardlair

in the SMACK DOWN Battle -Of- The- CENTURY!!!!

*********************************

Belle, I think you should see Ardlair as a standard. Give EMPIRICAL evidence to support your points and also give the counterpoints expected, and why they may or may not be valid.

Not, because I am taking up for Ardlair... Hoo no M'am

I really really want to see him sup on his mouse.

A cyber white glove slap in the face

M'am, i do believe that you have been challenged to a duel!

Ardlair, how o you take your mouse? Tar-Tar, or in a light lemon butter sauce?

the.red.mantissa said...

police brutality ~ that's new? we are supposed to get excited about this? oh pullleeeease. why d'ya think they're called pigs? sheesh. i wonder why soldier brutality does not get received with the same outrage as this ...

grrrherhereherhaha.

ok. this is what i think about what's been said here.

1. i do want a multicultural society. in fact, i live in one. and i'm PROUD of it. the daughter AND the wife of an immigrant. mr. mantissa made a FINE catch and understands humans and the human condition BECAUSE of his exposure to MANY different cultures. canada has some culture beyond mcdonalds and hollywood because of its multicultural-ness.

2. you wanna live in a nation that thrives on uprooting de-culturing all, that reduces everyone to some incomprehensible paste? go ahead. just don't call me a fool for my choice and my nationality. multiculturalism RULES. and i will scream that as loud as i can from the tallest rooftop.

3. i am sitting here wondering why that young man in gainsville got tazered for asking john kerry a question ... and why y'all don't get to see your dead comin home from the war. maybe if you're gonna do an expose on totalitarianism, you could provide some reasoning behind those strange decisions?

4. i read ardlair's first comment. and, i must agree with him. on the subject of islam, i find you quite intolerant, and yes, downright prejudicial. you simply have, so far, proven yourself incapable of writing about that religion in any tolerant and objective manner. all these stories, do indeed sound like a remake of good vs. evil. its tired, already.

5. this reminds me of an explosive debate i had with k9, a little over a year ago, on the matter of gitmo ... in which k9 essentially rejected the notion that our enemies are entitled to human rights. the intolerance of that stance ~ and the intolerance of my own response to that intolerance ~ rattled me so much, i shut down my velvet blog, and mostly stopped blogging about politics.

5A. the intolerance i still find extremely difficult to swallow. i am, however, aware of one's own role in conflict, and so i am doing my best to express myself diplomatically. it has taken me the better part of 2 hours to compose this comment. i have censored myself ... in an effort to honour respect, something i value still.

6. i have a really hard time reconciling hearing y'all have said so many times you believe in God, blah, blah ... and then seeing y'all treat others this way. even jesus shared a meal with his betrayer. he never incited hatred toward that person, even though he knew full well how things would unfold. perhaps there's a lesson there. TOLERANCE has NO limits.


7. let's be deadly clear ~ all organised religion is a system of political control and governance.

8. based on what you have expressed, regarding misuse of gov't power ... you then must think your own gov't quite evil? i anticipate the answer will be "no" ... and, so, please, do tell me, in 100 words or less, why its different.

9. i recall hearing about and reading about a great man who purportedly said something like "before you take the sliver out of your neighbour's eye, take the plank out of your own." so, how 'bout it AB? how 'bout that? seems to me there's plenty of examples in your own yard to chew on ... and frankly, islam will never succeed in that mythical bid to take over the world, because christianity beat them to it! if you doubt me, then tell me why the stock markets are closed on X-mas and Good Friday.

10. ok. so the cops beat some protesters. big deal. i'm sorry, i just can't get excited about this. there are too many other things going on closer to home to think on ... like why the cops in FLA think they can tazer students for getting animated while asking a politician a question ... like why the cops here think the way to deal with a florridly psychotic manic person is to shoot him dead ... and why yer own leader - who calls himself the leader of the free world - seems to have no problem denying basic rights to those he's holding hostage in gitmo.

11. i honestly don't understand how you can sit there and throw all this mud across the atlantic (and most anywhere else that happens not to be the usa, it seems), when your own government has been so busy spying on you guys, sleeping with the enemy, engaging in much the same 'evil' of which you accuse the EU ... i find it incredulous. *sigh* it makes me think about my point #9, again.

12. i find the rudeness here inexcusable, and frankly, offensive. so, ardlair has a POV that differs from yours. deal with it in some way other than hurdling insults hidden in a whole lot of verbal diarrhea. i am soooo tired of all the islam-bashing. get over it. tolerate it. its a bonifide belief system. perhaps, its you who need a history book or two, and perhaps the koran, and a chat with a group of "ordinary" middle class-type muslims. why are muslims evil? and please spare me the pseudo-political rhetoric ...

13. islam, christianity and judaism are ALL abrahamic religions ... each likes to 'indoctrinate' that theirs is the one true way ... that, i disagree with. ALL belief systems have some validity. perception = truth. not some dusty, musty old book of mystical unknowns. AB said "the RULE in Islam is to kill anybody who converts away from it". ok ~ cite me the references from the koran that say that.

14. AB said "I refuse to address yore proof, yore data, or yore references, because you hurt my feelin's, and made me feel ad." ... there is such a thing as rules of order. heard of 'em? or perhaps you've heard the expression, 'bad form?' ... i'd say your vitriole exemplifies that term.

14A. you can tell me some ground-breaking, earth shattering things all you want, human nature dictates i stop listening if the packaging of your message hurts my ears. so, yeah, form does matter, i'm afraid. bad form, IMHO, strikes me as quite peurile, if you must know.

15. right-on infini; i agree with what you've said here.

16. ardlair, the beloved. still takin' them hits, huh? do you know how i missed you ...? i have many muslim acquaintances at school ~ they all say their culture is quite misunderstood; i agree.

17. how many times have you prayed today, AB? does it come close to five? just wondering. no need to answer. the question was one designed for reflection, that reaction.

Aunty Belle said...

Well well, mah heavens ter Betsy...whas' goin on back heah?

Ardlair, thanky fer the straight answer. As fer yore question, I already answered it real plain in the post.

Infini, oh honey, youse too amusin'!

I'se honored ya's thinkin' highly of this endeavor, but we cain't turn the thang into a college course on Islam, cause I still got Uncle and other folks to worry after, Puddin'...and a' course, they the "real work" of Aunty ...not that cyber thangs ain't real, but ya know how I means it.

As fer the idea of Ardlair as the standard, I doan know what that means--standard of what, honey?

But no matter...he ain't the standard fer a discussion of Islam.

Ya' want "empirical" on Islam?
YA knows that means no "interpretations"?

Shall we agree on this definition of empirical :
"capable of being confirmed, verified, or disproved by observation or experiment"?

Infinitesimal said...

empirical seems synonymous with fact.

there is empirical evidence that the people claiming to be Islamic terrorists in Russia, shut down a school, shot the menfolk in the back and raped the preteen and teen girls with themselves and also their assault rifles.

there is empirical evidence that sikh , hindi, and muslim people in America were beaten and some killed in a backlash of racist anger after Sep. 11th and the fingers that pointed to terrorist action.

there is no empirical evidence that Sep. 11th was masterminded by Islamic Jihadists (there is a trail that leads to them, but there is no empirical evidence)

Yes, your definition is the Webster's version. Empirical evidence is an "almost" fact, very hard to dispute or disprove.

And as far as Ardlair (and now Red "Flaming Hot" Mantissa) being the standard.... that means that you are blogging FOR them, and all those that are either skeptical, or down right pissed off by the words on this heah blog porch of yours.

You see, surrounding yourself with yesmen (yesm'ams) is like preaching to the choir. Don't you think it would be more productive to illustrate your points to the place that the "standard" or skeptic can no longer shake their heads at you and say: "That is one mad mad lady" (mad kooky mad, not the hoppin' kind)

No Belle, write your words to the point that you give these folks something to chew on, something to consider, something that they may not have known about. but doing it in a way that does not seem to be saying, I am absolutely right and you are mush-brains for not seeing it in my perspective.

You have been around children before, you have to first win their respect and trust before you can teach them things, or even get them to listen. Not that our peers here are like children, but I am saying, children are a good example of a standard that you must have in respect and inspiring interest.

Use Ardlair the skeptic and Red the pissed off Canadian as STANDARDS of the people that you are speaking to. Hail woman, use me too! You want to give facts, quotes, dates and historical events.

For example, you could start with this:

Kadija, was a hot chick in the desert, Mohammed has a thing for her, so she chose to allow him to be her man. She wanted to be kept up in fancy lifestyle and so she saw that even though he had an army, he could amass a greater strength.... if only he was just a bit brighter.
Maybe she wanted money, maybe she wanted power, maybe she was just bored, but she whispered in his ear: "Moe baby, tell them all that they must die for the honor of jihad. Tell them Moe, to follow you till the death." She.... was the inceptor of Islam, and the Muslim faith. Muslims is just like Mormons in a way.

Start with that aunt. that is a story few people know.

Aunty Belle said...

Red Lady, hey Sugar!!

Wow...youse doin' me a fine honor to take the time to write out so much of how youse thinkin' on this matter. I 'preciate it very much.

Seems the best way ter reply is to go by yore numbers...ok? An they could be a spot o'two whar' ya git upset, but will ya' read all the way ter the end, please?

But first, you note that police brutality is not new..fair enough. But to keep this specific event of police brutality in its unique context, let me make a semi- true analogy.

The true part is this:

About 600 people protested the war in Iraq outside the Whitehouse recently. No one was muscled by no policemen.

The analogy part is this: Suppose that Hillary Clinton and NAncy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy were at the protest to show solidarity wif' the protesters. And suppose that Hillary and Nancy and Teddy were peaceable, but that them police grabbed Teddy by the gonads and wrestled him ter the ground and roughed up Hill and Nan , cuffin' 'em and bashin' them around...

Does ya think that incident of police abuse would hold additional significance to the meaning of democracy? Not because of who was harmed, but who they represented: the people of the country.

That is what happened in Belgium--
Those arrested included the people's representatives, their MPs.

Fer the police to buffet and arrest these men, and even some Italian and French MPs is to say to the people of Belgium and Italy and France that the Belgian officials who sent the police out to do this deed is sneering at all the people of Belgium, all free Europeans and at the very concept of a representative democracy--in short Red, they acted in the manner of those who hate freedom and embrace totalitarianism, (as long as they is the ones dictatin') Fer this reason, all free people ought to denounce the Brussels administration.

And the French and Italian governments have--I note this because I is growing more and more anxious to have readers of this BACK Porch blog take some intellectual care to separate out their feelings from facts. Especially their feelin's about what Aunty does or does not think.

If a person be on a differ'n wavelength on an issue than Aunty, discussion ought not ter be about our differences, but 'bout the *issue*; in this case, however one feels about what they *think* Aunty thinks, it's more intellectually honest to comment on the event in Brussels, rather than attempt ter refocus the discussion on what they think is "implied" by Aunty's post--nevermind no "implied" stuff, jes' deal wif' the actual stuff...can ya see the drift of
this?

Keeps it clean, ya' know, then we ain't bogged down in ardlair's requirement of o' 50K words on shadows of implications and innuendos and suppositions that beg to be answered before ya can git back to the ACTUAL topic.

I'se excited about the upcomin' exchange--we'uns can work at discoverin' Islam and pursue reality rather than propaganda and impressions. But iffin' we let our personalities become the focus, we all lose, cause we get deflected from the actual topic.

Now, I'se real anxious to respond ter yore points by number .

1) Multiculturalism: I am not opposed to livin' wif, workin' wif' people of ANY race or creed or nationality. (In fact, mah work is precisely this-- I gotta git mah job done amidst folks form every corner of the globe)

Mah point is that I do not wish to live in civic DISunity that rises when certain immigrants chooses to transgress the laws an' mores of the nation they done adopted. When they do that, they show disrespect fer me an' my countrymen, an' I'se not required to permit them ter trample on mah peace.

2) Doan wanna reduce thangs to bland paste; I loves ethnic foods and music and dress...but yes, baby doll, I does not like multitcultural laws--they came here. They must abide by our laws or go live whar' the laws is more ter their likin'. Keep the key principle in mind:Civic peace. Ethnic food and music doan disturb the civic peace, Red Lady, but preachin' hate in yore mosque does. So does blowin' up trains and schools. So does demanding thsat a nations free speech laws be violated cause youse feelin delicate over a few cartoons, so ya' behead a few people to make yore point--that is breakin' civic peace.

3) yep, the G'ville boy needs vindication. Saw the video and am horrified. John Kerry's folks ordered that boy "subdued". Guess we ducked a bullet when he lost the election.

As for viewin' dead soldiers--we see 'em, and to not see 'em is to accord the families respect so that the news does not use yore dead chile fer propaganda.

If ya 'wanna complain of US "totalitarianism" could ya please tell it the millions of Mexicans tryin' ter git into this gulag? Or find a North Korean, a Rwandan or a Chinese person to discuss that wif'. This is what I notice Red, the number ONE country that the most people wanna come to to ESCAPE totalitarianism is the USA.

Here's the thang about that--we haf' ter recall that "The perfect is the enemy of the good". This means that wherever a person or a nation is not perfect, merely pretty good, youse disappointed and hold up the imperfections as warrant to dismiss all that persons goodness. Wif' 300 MILLION folks, some ain't gonna be so good--but this is what the would be immigrants know: The system is the best they is on an earth filled wif' flawed humans, cause the foundational principles is real real good. An' they is more-or less followed, an more than any other place fer shure.




4) Youse right. No mystery there, honey--I AM absolutely intolerant of religious-political-military system called Islam.


I'se equally clear on this: Some Muslim people who follow Islam is good folks. Some are mah friends. (Sugar, Aunty has Islamic friends who know how I feels and who is semi-apostate cause they are horrified at what Islam does when practiced as taught....an' iffin' ya din't know or remember from another post, Aunty is part Lebanese, so I am here to say real plain, I ain't no bigot against Middle Eastern folks)

I ain't needin' ter be capable of writing on it in a tolerant way, cause to do so would be to become a party to it, an' that I refuse ter do. Islam is evil--I really does think that is near bout as clear I'se I can write it. To be tolerant of Islam is to be tolerant to systematic intolerance. To tolerate Islam is to tolerate murder, rape, pillage, oppression, discrimination, and the list is long.


An important disclosure: Aunty ain't even remotely enamored of "tolerance". Tolerance, beyond ignorin' bad taste, causes wars. Now here, I mean tolerance in the sense of allowin' and permitin' people to willfully do thangs that injures others who is innocent and unable to defend theyselves...as in "Are ya' tolerant of rapists? , Hell no." An even iffin' they "religion" teaches it, I ain't tolerant of it.

5) Red Lady, now puddin' this is delicate...and I is MOST appreciative of yore takin' the time ya took to lay all this out--and by now, ya knows it is takin' me the same...so that in tiself is a mark of genuine respect between us.


6) Of course tolerance has limits. Jesus Himself took a whip ter the money lenders in the Temple. Jesus allowed people to choose. The could choose to reject Him. And He spoke sternly to evildooers, hypocrites.

ya' said ya' have a hard time reconciling folks who yak on Jesus then "treat others this way"...Now Red, this is how I mean fer us to be a bit more precise...Aunty ain't *treated* any Muslims in any way youse gonna find objectionable. I done wrote and spake against the Islamic system of religious,
political and military conquest. An this is a discussion I will have, and have had wif Muslims.

But they doan think I''se mistreatin' them...cause they is agreeing that I characterize the system accurately. So we agree on what it is, whar' I parts company wif 'em is on iffin' it is OKAY to support such a system. This is called "dialogue" not mistreatment.

I assume youse read the whole post and the comments--if so you noticed the analogy to NAzi's and Germans? This is mah analogy--that we should not have tolerated Naziism. It needed ter be eradicated. If it pops up again, we better smack it back down. That ain't the same as sayin all Germans or even all Nazi's is to be kilt. (Lower drones of the Nazi party could plausibly be spared.)

This same premise applies to ISlam--smackin' down the ideology of Islam is not the same as killin' muslims.

7) Nope. That little phrase is jes' a an empty jingo made up by atheists. Ya cain't have political control over any people who is free to leave whenever they doan agree wif what is taught.

8) See # 3 and read Solzhenitsyn.

9)Stock markets are closed on Good Friday in Saudi Arabia? Beijing? Moscow? Tokyo? See # 3 again.

10) See top of this post. On Gitmo: Red, terrorists doan have rights no more. But all the same, them dang soft soldiers gave the terrorists korans in plastic wrappers so the terrorists would not be offended by the vile hands of a fella who was considerate enough to honor his request for a koran. So, ah, lemme see...I cannot git a bible in the Dubai Ritz, or even bring one into
the country, but a terrorist murderer in a prison cell gits to have the book that inspired his terrorist murdering orgy?

Red, theys some actual evil people in this world--a few of 'em was at gitmo. Is there any way ya would loose that evil back onto innocent folks the world over? Ya wanna ask the Madrilenos of the Londoners about that?

11) Hmmn...well, first I ain't admirin' ever' thang that the US does and have said so real plainly.

Ya' has a wee tendency to expect perfection from 300 million humans--ain't ever gonna happen...so what ya have then is a matter of proportion. The EU --accordin' ter most of the citizens, is a huge bureaucratic snarl wif' fewer and fewer freedoms.

Now Red, Aunty ain't blowin' smoke on this...in mah other life beyond these cyber shores, I done gave a an address to a Euro nation's parliament. In the past few months I done radio interviews in Europe. Mah work calls fer close observation of their situations. The political mood in the EU is tense an' in danger of eruptin'. The USA ain't perfect, but nuthin' is..it is a matter of degree.An again, Sugar, which way is the net immigration goin'? Into the US not out of the US...tells ya' somethin', doan it?

12) Take a deep breath, honey--wow, no need ter git so riled. It is plain that the BACK Porch is not polite banter. it is "serious cogitatin'" and while no one is treated rudely, unless they first sling attitude, it is not a place for fragile egos. Tell me what words/sentences bothered you as "rude" but before you do, please check the context.

As for the rest of #12, see mah answers 1-11. Red, I reject yore premise--Islam is not worthy of tolerance. The upcomin' posts will go into detail so ya' will see why Aunty arrived at that statement. Mayhap that will upset ya' too much. I hope not, I love havin' ya --I really really does.

13) You bet, Sugar, I will cite the Koran on it fer ya...stand by for the upcomin' posts.

Uh--perception =truth? Impossible. It might be my perception that I'm the queen of England, but it ain't the truth. Thas' another one of those PC bromides that muddies up otherwise fine minds. They stole it from the ad boys on Madison Ave.

14 a) Youse misunderstood--the text
in itlalics is not what AB
said. It is what AB said
Ardlair's attitude is.

14b) Have ya considered that
mayhap yore ears is a wee bit
tender? Red, from yore
viewpoint, there is no nice
packagin' fer what I'se sayin'

I could frilly up mah premise that Islam is not to be tolerated, but ya' still would not "hear" it--no amount of ribbons on that package will make ya happy.

Lemme note again, that it is common fer folks who doan like WHAT yore sayin' to object to the HOW ya' says it as a reason ter reject the what. It's a shortcut to not have to engage the substance.

I ain't feelin' real warm and fuzzy Puddin' about tone youse usin' ...but how I *feel* ain't the point--it jes' ain't. The point is that in respect fer yore efforts laid out heah, an' in the interest of genuine exchange of ideas, I think I'se beholdin' ter deal wif' the substance of yore content, an' not reject ya' on account of how yore tone hits mah ears.

Looky, heah is somethin' I keeps in mind: Not ever' body is willin' to risk gettin' in this sorta nose ter nose thang. They's plenty who would not come over heah and tell me "Yeah, AB, sock it to 'em" because they is worried that iffin' they does, you and Infini and Birdy and others will be upset with em'--so they lay low. They's some that won't come over an' say " Go Red GO!" because they doan wanna have Aunty and those of AB and those of her persuasion get miffed wif' em.

These folks is mayhap wiser than us'uns darlin'.They is takin' care to preserve the cyber relationship.
But ya' took a risk, Red, and waded on in heah...that says somethin' ter me--it says mor'n any prickly tone.

AN' thas' a thang that runs both ways...I'se hopin ya' see that bein' this straight wif' ya is mah risk---in a sense, it is mah trustin' in ya'. I ain't wantin' ter alienate ya'. I thinks ya knows that. On t'otherhand, It excites me to think we can find a bridge over this seemin' gulf...and we will learn how to disagree whar' we is on passionate opposite sides of thangs--but only if we's really honest. In mah mind, emotions can cloud honesty. So I works real hard not to let emotions lead me ter reject truth/ facts jes' cause mah emotions is offended.

15) --for Contessa

16) ah..LOL...LOL! this, Red Lady, is the source of yore fierce tone
--defendin' yore beloved...ah, young'un... Lawdy Mercy.

17) Sweet Red, I'd be in a heap of woe iffin' I only prayed 5 times a day. 1 Thessalonians 5:17

Aunty Belle said...

Contessa!!! Oh NO! Mercy..while I'se writin' that three hour response ter Red, youse leavin' another long set of directions to yore poor Aunty?

Baby Thang, I gotta keep appointments in the mornin--dang, it is near bout time ter git up now! So...this heah is the short of it:

The Standard is Infini. Ardlair ain't configured fer it.

It'll be a few days afore PART I is up...but git'cha a Koran in the meanwhile.

NO time fer an abstract tonight...briefest --an' tentative--outline:
(Will cease iffin'interests wane)

I Islam as a religious -political
-military system (inside what
Islam teaches)

II Islam & the West (History)

III Judiaism, Christianity and
Islam (distinctive beliefs
thereof)

No time table (I has me a non-virtual life too!).

Rules of the Road will precede Part I. Stay tuned, folks.

Infinitesimal said...

HA!

this is cute, because this was the EXACT title of my senior thesis research paper in High School!

"Judiaism, Christianity and
Islam (distinctive beliefs
thereof)"

Infinitesimal said...

Will someone PLEASE grab Nancy Pelosi by the balls and wrestle her to the ground???

Infinitesimal said...

i am reading your long comment this AM, it is waking me up better than the coffee...

So you is like a mamma hen, clucking to her chicks.... don't touch the stove chickens!! It will burn you....

But Mamma!! wail the chicks, Not ALL stoves are hot all the time, looky see, I is touchin it now, an I is fine!

and the Mamma hen thinks: No, not all stoves is hot all the time chicks, but all stoves CAN burn you, iffen you touch them at the wrong time. And ther Mamma hen knows the signs of a hot sotove better than the chickies do because she has seen them roast up her siblings for Sunday supper!!


See Belle, you are like about to warn us all of what you seen in trends past an present, and I is tellin' ya, A young chick like myself needs tender loving guidance. But until I get burned myself, i ain't really ever gonna know the meaning of hot.

So, Ardlair is right, whatever you say can be construed in a light of poor opinion/sour grapes on your part. Hence the need for empirical evidence.

"OK Chicken Little, but, you 'member yore Auntie Biddy? Ain't seen her nigh upon a week now.... and do yous remember that funny smell comin from the stove last Sunday? She did not have any choice of whether she touched the stove or not."

Did that make any sense Aunt? cause it ain't even 8AM here yet!

Infinitesimal said...

Oh my stars and garters!!

i am too groggy to address every point in one comment...

Not showing the dead soldiers is a form of Propaganda, and aunt if you cain't see that... well then you must have never farted in front of Uncle over all your years of marraige.

Not showing the dead, is so totally a form of propaganda, just like the idea that women never fart.

You eat food, you fart, you send boys to war, they die.

And the crux of this issue is:

There is NO GOOD REASON why there is a war in Iraq.

Nope, none.

Bin Ladin does not own a Summer Home there, and Iraqi terror happens on Iraqi soil, Saddam was no love muffin, but he did conform to your rule of: "If you don't like the way we do things here, move on!" Exceptin, we just busted in and excecuted him (by hanging no less) And again, Sadam is no champion of humanity, but I say this to you. What is the PREMISE for the war in Iraq?

That very lack of premise is why no dead soldiers are shown to the public, not out of any kind of respect to the families. In fact them families is the most rabit Bush haters I know, and I been hearing THEM scream that their son's death goes un-reported as part of this war machine.

I know you was tired when you wrote that Aunt, but yore logic is plain flawed on that one!

And you quit picking on Ardlair... He is me and Red's Blog BOYFRIEND! and we adore him. Besides, you don't peck at me for not commenting on the post here, and a confession be known, I ain't even READ the durn thing start to finish!

Infinitesimal said...

Dag Aunt, I ain't even read past point four yet, and it is time to go see the haid doctor.

But I will return, and i leave you with this:

Aunt said:
"The system is the best they is on an earth filled wif' flawed humans, cause the foundational principles is real real good"

If that system is so revered, than why is it that the patriot act erodes away at it's foundations?

You should know by now that I am not one of your hated "Libs" but I do deeply dislike the current administration.

The enacting of the Patriot Act was one of the most detrimental events in the American political system in ...well, since I been alive, it's the worst thing to happen since legal slavery and McCartneyism.

I think it is funny that you can recognize evil in other places, but you do not see it in the face of our president. I think that is real blind of you aunt, and i criticize it openly.

Bye!

Aunty Belle said...

Here's the thang Infini...

Aunty doan care if the body count number is given when they bring our soldiers home. Thas' stuff we need ter know.

BUT, it ain't respectful to show dead soldiers on TV, it is hurtful to the families is only propaganda fer the anti-war crowd. Youse got another opinion--s'ok...there we are. There is no truth in any decision to show-- or not show-- the dead. It is a prudential decision based on opinion.

Settin' some stuff straight:

Ardlair done been rude when he visited here. He accused Aunty of prejudice and self-righteousness, and that she be controlled by religion. He uses all that flack as a dodge---he attacks the messenger so he doan need ter think on the message.

Iffin' he is yore cyber boyfiend, (hee hee) I'se happy fer the three of ya', but it doan pertain heah to the topics.

Time is too precious ter spend hours on a tangle over three persons who spend their time referring back to each other.

With honest respect for yore intentions, I gotta say, you and Red comments whar' ya ain't informed deeply enough. I gotta friend who teaches Constitutional Law at Harvard, and the rule in that class is ya cain't comment until ya's read the Constitution. Makes some sense, doan ya think?

Wif'out a decent grasp of history, how can a body make an informed comment on Islam? All ya'll is makin' is opinions. Opinions is fine, but they ain't in the category wif' reality. Might be, often ain't.

Now I'm talkin' hard heah, doan mean too step on nobody's toes, but
reality is a whole other category than opinion. Opinion works on the matter of cameras on the dead--or not. Opinion doan work on assessin' a threat. Fer that ya need reality.

Most folks form they opinion on what the WANT to believe, not on what is KNOWN to be true. Honest folks adjust their opinions when they see that objective truth does not support their opinion. Some cling to they opinion and then squeal if others doan agree that their opinion is the equal of truth. Thas'Ardlair.

Contessa on WTC/9-11,: ya WANT it to be that the administration did it. That opinion ain't based on known facts, but on assembled bit and pieces, some so, some not and all wif' unsupportable conclusions. Ya ain't dealin' in reality, Sugar. to misjudge reality in this case is
to put millions in danger.

The jihadis said they would do it, had already tried once, then did it. An' the same is so in Spain bombings, Philippines, and England's trains and Russia...why does ya' have such a hard time seein' that it is their modus operandi?

Lemme as't ya to try this thought experiment: Tomorrow the USA is nuked by Iran and ya' survived since you was up wif Red in Canada. Now the jihadi's got what they's been screamin' fer--the death of the USA. When they next nuke London
and Rome, what will yore opinion be of Islam?

The foundational premise of Islam is violent. That is not opinion, it AUnty being prejudiced, it ain't Aunty bein' mean or conservative, it ain't about Aunty a'tall--but reality. It is in the Koran.

The next few posts ain't gonna be a comparison of the USA & Islam. The purpose of the next posts is to examine Islam on its own stated terms.

Ya' say that it be Aunty's blindness to see evil in Islam but not elsewhar'. Ya' know that is silly on the face of it. It is PC talkin' points.

Of course they's evil ever'whar' ...it's one of the proofs fer why nobody is gonna build a "perfect man" . The distinction is in structure and proportion. Is the structure of Islam inherently violent and oppressive, while the structure of democratic republics offer the greatest freedom to the most citizens?

The question is not " is there a perfect system?" , but "what is a really bad system that ought to be eradicated.?"

On proportionality, I laugh at them vegetarians who say they would never eat any animal product because they doan believe in killing animals...but every step they take is a mass homicide against ants and fleas....they doan think of them ants, ya see, cause theys a hierarchy of animals, and ants ain't high enough ter change yore life over. Proportionality.

Its an error in reasoning to lump all evil in one category. It is evil to hep yoreself to some pork when youse a senator, but the rape and torchin' of Beslan's children is an entirely different order of evil.

Contessa, think fer a moment. If all evil were equal, why is ya' upset at any evil at all?

The BIG problem wif this whole thread is that ya'll wish the world would be "fair". The idea of fair is that all thangs is equal--that is a fairy tale. That can never be so. All countries is not equal good ter live in-- thas' why lots of folks is desperate ter git out of some countries...all religions is not equal, nor are political systems--anybody wanna opine that Fascism is equal to a constitutional republic?

Aunty Belle said...

Contessa--'bout yore confession--make amends ASAP--read the whole thang.

she said...

to red: your #5: no i did not say that. our enemies, in uniform and fighting under command of a sovreign nation under geneva convention rules are entitled to due process.

guerillas, hiding as women or civilians, hiding in mosques, doing bullshyt like IED's are not. as it is, at gitmo they get three squares a day, hallal meat, korans, clean clothes and a visits from amnesty international. give me a break.

dont be setting up no straw dogs grrrrrrrrrrrrl.

boneman said...

"The truth is that Jihad is THE fundamental core of the religion called "islam". Dying in Jihad, according to the Warlord Mohammed, is the ONLY way to ensure you get to paradise. GOT THAT?"

Y'know, I hear this a lot.
How come the folks what sez it doesn't go on t'say that this is what christians pray to, also?

"Even so, Lord, come quickly."

Instead of 72 virgins (won't they be surprised if they be 72 virgin boys? HA!) us christians are counting on a big building made of precious stones and streets paved in gold.
Just about as silly, I'de say.
Gold ain't all that useful.

she said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
she said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Infinitesimal said...

Aunt said:

"Lemme as't ya to try this thought experiment: Tomorrow the USA is nuked by Iran and ya' survived since you was up wif Red in Canada. Now the jihadi's got what they's been screamin' fer--the death of the USA. When they next nuke London
and Rome, what will yore opinion be of Islam?"

That was my point.... I would have the opinion that the stove really will burn.

And BTW, Ardlair ain't done declared that he is me n Red's boyfriend, we like two schoolgirls passin' him notes in class on his comment section.


Aunr said:

"Ya' say that it be Aunty's blindness to see evil in Islam but not elsewhar'. Ya' know that is silly on the face of it. It is PC talkin' points."

Huh? when did I say that? I am confused, are you fired up at me Aunt? I am just askin' you fer an education.

she said...

it is fascinating to see red and vanille take up for ardliar, who does not even show them the basic courtesy of replying to their commentary at dark times, instead they defend him, attacking aunty who unlike ardlair, has shown them every grace imaginable from patience to charity. its amusing! she spends the time and effort to address, clearly and without mewling emotionality, one bullshyt point after another with wit, humor and a good nature.

in short, she shows them more RESPECT than ardliar ever has.

it is *my truth* that ardliar is withholding, aloof, bitter and whiny, a representative of free-thinking evolution -free of dogma- a genius. traveling the same rutted road again and again. he has to become "bland" to roll with (or is it tolerate?) the american and/or christian dolts over here.

*wait: i see a poem on the horizon. grrherhahaha*

i could back track and present to this box a archival display of intolerant rants from the very ones in here trashing down aunty ...everybodys got an axe grinding on something....but, but "my prejudice is less heinous than yours!" grherhahaha!

with a hopeful spirit i trust that reason will win the day. want proof? this is the revised version of the deleted comments above. progress! grrherhahaha!

ive got a wide rottie smile for ya aunty.
see you on my sidebar!

Aunty Belle said...

Boney, hidy do...happy ter see ya'...but ya' left me confused--

first, Aunty did not say:

"Dying in Jihad, according to the Warlord Mohammed, is the ONLY way to ensure you get to paradise. GOT THAT?"

I think Artful said it.

Second, unless youse meanin' it as a joke, youse got a holt of the wrong end of Christianity iffin' ya think what ya wrote:

"Y'know, I hear this a lot.
How come the folks what sez it doesn't go on t'say that this is what christians pray to, also?
"Even so, Lord, come quickly."

....WHAT? Boney, what? To pray for the Lord ter come is not the equivalent of jihadi suicide attacks in hopes of gettin' 72 virgins (male or female).

What are ya gettin' at? Hep me out on that.

Aunty Belle said...

Contessa, this is what ya wrote:

"I think it is funny that you can recognize evil in other places, but you do not see it in the face of our president. I think that is real blind of you aunt, and i criticize it openly."

This heah comment of your'n is what prompted the structure an' proportionality of evil response.

Yeah, honey, yeah...the stove will burn...uh huh...I see.


HAs ya' read the whole thang yet...hoo-whee we's turnin' into "As the World Turns"

Aunty Belle said...

She-pup!! Yea!! The Calvary done arrived!!

...funny that ya looked back in heah--I mean, wif a new BACK porch post up, I'se amazed ter see folks lookin' back in this prior post--only ter find they's a whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

So ya had ter delete and reheat? I see that. I done the same last night--I mean, re-wrote to keep mah ire down...to Contessa, I almost wrote,

"Ya want empirical, huh? OK, Fine, Fini, I'll break the piggy bank and send you and Red to Iran fer a year...an' ya'll can come back and gives us the empirical evidence of Islamic life...HOOOWWWL!!!

But I took that out cause wif'out tone of voice it could read mean, ya know? (Doan worry Fini, yore Aunty ain't sendin' ya ter live under the jackboot of the Dinner Jacket)

She-Pup, I 'preciate yore comin' to stick up fer a little ole lady--right considerate of ya'...but this is the worst of it:

I'se seein' that the capacity fer clarity of thought is not developed in this generation's education. That is an alarm , I tells ya, it is. It ain't no wonder that good gals like Red and Fini is thinkin' as they do---It's the Children's Story, noam sayin'?

They's taught not to weigh the actuality of thangs but only the vehicle that made the actuality known to them. If they doan care fer the vehicle, they think that is reason to reject the actualities...no foolin' I'se danged alarmed 'bout this. See, it robs them of being able to distinguish the real from the wishful thinkin'.

Now I 'spect Contessa and Red will read this response to ya' Pup...an' so I need ter let 'em know that I am not criticizing yore intelligence or right to have opinions...I'se worried that ya ain't graspin' the distinction between known that a thang IS actual, but goin' wif it anyway,

vs.

goin' wif' the thang and remakin' it in yore mind so that goin' along feels okay.

Its the Remake that worries me--the rejection of the real in favor of the remix of their creation...and when they's defendin this remix, they are appalled that I "attack" it.

One other admission: The constant carping about the US so wide of the mark that I ain't able ter understand how they apply it...I done said so many times "Look at the direction of the immigration...50 million people from oppressed lands over the last 75 years done chose the USA--not because we's perfect, but because it is SO much better'n the "multiculturalism" these 50 million is leavin' behind.

So, I'se jes' wonderin', does ya think Red and Fini is sayin' them 50 million is fools? and they oughta stayed home or gone ter some free and fair place like Libya or the Sudan or Iran? Do they not see that 50 million choices for the USA has actual meaning, not wishful thinkin' on what a system of gubmint is?

She...ya put yore Aunty Belle on yore bad ass side bar? !! Truly, it is an honor.

she said...

grrrherhahaha "delete and reheat"

Infinitesimal said...

NO WAY JOSE do i want to be carted off to Iran!!!!!!!!

Gee whiz, what is this "me and Red" business? are we partners in crime now?

Oh, I see now, when I said you were blind and criticized you openly.

hmmmm, not much I can say to that is there?

hmmmm, that weren't so nice was it?

OK I think you need another blog Aunt.

"Aunty Belle's Parlor"

You know, where we can have salon style conversations.

You know the salon? Where one must have a base education to be invited to join the discussion.

I really think that is a good idea. Because I can feel your lament over the undereducated minds, and I think that is where your post a la Dr. Seuss came from.

I think this comment thread has turned into a salon discussion as best it can for a comment thread.

Won't you open up the education process with Auntie Belle's Parlor blog?

I am so loving that idea!

Infinitesimal said...

PS

I speed read the post top to bottom, but to me, a long slow read is really "reading" something, and i just could not read it all at the time that i speed read it.

Aunty Belle said...

Tessie!! No no...no...ya' CAN criticize me openly (the best way)...shure, thas' jes' fine as long as it is on the actual topic (s)--and yours was--

it is not the criticism I'se bemoanin', it is comparin' major and lesser evils and lumpin' em' as one that got Aunty ter sputterin'. AN then thas' when I put the proportionality part in.

On the new Habits of the Mind post on the BACK porch I does say how I'se comparin' minds that ain't had a good work out to bodies thas' gone flabby....when ya's flabby it's hard ter make the body do what it oughta...same fer the mind.

real thinkin' is dern hard work. I'se still learnin' it, an mah tutor is teachin' me, and I'se had such a stretchin in the last few years...so I knows the effort it is to work at thinki' in a disciplined manner.

an illustration: when a scientist wants ter investigate somethin', he draws up his hypothesis based on some observations. Then he tests his hypothesis...if the test doan confirm his hypothesis he can pretend it did jes' so he can keep his hypothesis and feel like he did well, or he can say "Huh? the expieriment did not prove what I thought it would prove, but thas' fine--at least I now know that I have to formulate a new hypothesis to explain the observations I've made"...this latter fella is intellectually honest. He ain't ball-chained to his own hypothesis, an' he is willin' ter see what IS true after the experiment.

Baby, now...ya KNOWS Aunty ain't sendin' ya off to Iran....but, I'se stabbin' at a bit of humor, ya know? Fer shure, ya'd come home wif
some "empirical evidence"!!

Paired you and Red since ya'll was the only ones still in this older post....not sayin' ya'll is sharin' each point.

Cain't make no Parlour blog, since I need to let go of some bloggin' not make more! But one thang, on the Front Porch in the side bar they's a list of stuff I'se readin/listening ter...iffin' that's be of any interest. Mayhap i'se goona add one fer the BACK porch too...links and references fer folks who wanna pursue a thread of though on they off-blog time.

No matter what--Aunty loves ya!!

ArtfulSub said...

Judging from his comment on my unassailable post, Boneman understands neither Christianity nor Islam.

There's an excuse for the former. It's a complicated religion that requires considerable study.

The "koran", by contrast, is an easy read.

I repeat my mantra:

"READ THE KORAN. NOT A COMMENTARY ON IT. THE KORAN ITSELF. COVER TO COVER."

Then get back to us when you know of what you speak.

Ardlair said...

I've read the koran.

And.... I beg to disagree.

Infinitesimal said...

Ardlair:

What does the Koran say? I would like to hear your objective commentary on it.

thanks, you're a peach!

the.red.mantissa said...

you thought that was angry? HAHA. there was not a fiber of anger involved in writing that post.

aunty, i appreciate your thoughtful response. i agree to disagree. and i respectfully decline your insinuation that i just do not know any better ... or am somehow under-educated in these topics.

none of you have any idea what i know. and i mean any. got that?

{most of the rest of this comment is really in response to she's comment ...}

i stopped reading the thread when i read she's "...one bullshyt comment after another..." INTOLERANCE. so, its BS because you disagree? nice.

wrt #5, debate the semantics all you want. it ain't no straw dog, sista. we know what was said. i will not go there, because i do not feel like being turned into that pillar of salt.

as for your mention of past comments and intolerance ~ your choice if you choose to fling sh1t from the past. i am not too big to admit that (and i believe i did in my previous comment) in the past, my intolerance to perceived intolerance shocked me. i am aware ... that the urge to react that way ... as opposed to reflecting and then responding ... exists very strongly.

hear that sound? its MANTISSA, stepping out of that pile of steaming brown.

no hard feelings ... just, that level of aggression has exceeded my threshold. name calling's where i, an adult, leave the room.

for the record, i defend no one. and no one defends me. i defend what i value ~ respect and tolerance. and i want promote awareness (in myself as well as others) that the entire universe exists beyond the bounds of our physical skin, not within it.

fool yourselves not, this is cyberspace, not reality. no alliances exist here. only illusions. i read the blogs i want to read, regardless of the reaction i get. and i've recently relinquished the childish notion that i need an audience from any of you (or anyone at all, for that matter) to feel worthy, as a blogger or a human. or that i need to agree with you all and patronize you, in order to gain your audience-ship. (just to be clear.)

i thought this was a discussion, not some sand flinging exercise. if you feel unable to handle ~ without aggression ~ the controversy associated with opposing views you will certainly receive by writing on controversial topics, then stay away from those controversial topics in your blog posts!

not everyone will agree. so what? you think what you want. i am not here to convert anyone to my POV. and i expect you will treat my POV with the same respect. i don't need a team of like-minded thinkers to deem my POV worthy of holding. neither should you. i could really care less how many people hold any particular view-point. that does not weigh into my rationality. intellect isn't a warring, sparring team sport for me in which winners and losers exist. that's not what this is about, for me.

i just want to understand why and how you think that way. i ask myself these questions ~ why and how ~ constantly. i challenge myself ... and all those around me who express views on the world around us. i think its fascinating that all of us sit here, and view the same world events ... and come up with remarkably different takes on the same picture. for me, that's why attracts me to these discussions.

i try ... really try ... to check myself for politeness when expressing opposition ... and i continue to work on having patience and tolerance of those with whom i disagree. in short, i am not intellectual totalitarian ... try very very hard to escape that mindset.

that said, any discussion ceases to be stimulating when we have to come to the discussion table wearing armour, prepared for battle.

so ... that's it. i think i just about flogged a dead horse here. nothing more need be said, on my part. i am not angry ... a teensy bit repelled by the aggression in some of the comments (not necessarily yours, aunty) ... but that's my problem, not any of yours. no hard feelings ~ none taken and hopefully none received.

i prefer to receive any lessons on organized religions from enemy of the republic ... but i will continue to read what you have to say, in future blog posts.

i respect you for speaking your mind. please respect me. please refrain from character assassination. its irrelevant and repugnant.

she said...

to red: er...point by point:

the bullshyt comments i was referring to were the ones directed at aunty as being intolerant. the whole point of my comment was to notice the difference of how "intolerant aunty" treats people versus the "tolerant" which is why i wrote look how graciously she answers even though she was written off as intolerant. it had nothing to do with your point of view on other matter which you should know from commentary at your blog.

i did choose not to fling shit....remember the issue was about censorship not a clash of ideas.

i didnt think my comment was aggressive! i was trying to illustrate how it is that the one everyone calls intolerant really shows amazing generosity...meanwhile nobody ever acknowledges the intolerance displayed by others.

as far as cyberspace who reads you excetera....my point is that people reveal who they are by what they DO not say. for example, i can say i care deeply about the citizens in iraq and thats very safe and distant and i cant really be challenged by that. its treating the people right up on you that is difficult. that was what i was trying to say with regard to the courtesies demonstrated by aunty.

and finally, i hope you are addressing aunty with regard to religious ideas. im not interested at all in evangelizing and i agree enemys site is a great forum for those discussions.

Anonymous said...

Mantissa, you write like a professor

ohhhhhhh She..... you cussed! Lucky Belle din't hear.

it's infini, i am just not signed in.

ArtfulSub said...

Not sure if this is thread is dead or not, but I'm kind of curious what Ardlair "begs to disagree" with concerning the koran versus the Holy Bible.

foam said...

tsk.