9/11 jihad mass murder defendants delay hearing after pulling silent act on Gitmo judge

I'm with you brother, why not take them out back and pop a cap in the back of their head.

Oh yeah, just to p*ss off the muzzies, leave their bodies to rot for a few days before burial only cause they have to be buried within 24 hrs or some other stupid reason.

P.S.: Many in the Counter Jihad, on reading my final paragraph above, would protest and insist they are not soft on Muslims -- until I raise the question "What are we supposed to do about the problem?", and provide a substantive proposal: Round up all Muslims, quickly process them, and deport them. Then suddenly these no-nonsense Counter-Jihadists undergo an amazing transmogrification: They suddenly become PC MCs before our very eyes, and throw up any number of hurdles and anxious rhetorical questions and assumptions: "But we can't do that! It would be illegal! It goes against the Constitution! Besides, where would you deport them to?" (thus conveniently raising a supposed pragmatic problem when one thought they were concerned about the ethics of the proposal; etc. ad nauseam).

Remember, LL, you can't punish (e.g., deport) someone pursuant to current Constitutional interpretations based on what they believe. You can only punish the act if it violates statutes or the Constitution. One can believe that having sex with children, repulsive as this belief is, is fine (e.g., NAMBLA) and as long as the person doesn't act upon this belief, nothing can be done under the law.

Just being a Muslim in America, especially if an American citizen, is not cause to be deported. Do I sometimes wish it were? Yes I do even though I have a very high regard for the Constitution and can't square this desire of mine to see no more mosques in America with our founding document.

The route to solving America's "Muslim problem" is quite similar to the solution to the "Marxist problem" and "Neo-Nazi problem." Marxism and Nazism are perfectly legal in America but the vast majority of Americans look upon Marxists and Neo-Nazis as losers, as kooks, and thus ridicule and scorn has made Marxism and Nazism in this nation virtually no threat at all. This is what must happen to Islam. It must become overwhelmingly despised and scorned and, if this happens, when this happens, Islam will no more be a threat to America than are Marxism and Nazism and the Constitution will once again triumph over wickedness even though it allows it in our midst.

What the PC MC morons do not realize is to beat Muslims we have to fight just like them otherwise it doesn't make any difference to them. It is only when they have to give in return an eye for an eye then they cool off. It is not that by doing this we will become like them - no, it will take much more to become like them. It is only a fighting tactic if we want to defeat them.

It is well established they have no interest to live peacefully within any non-Muslim country. They just lie low until their population grows to more than 5% or so then their demands suddenly increase and they will adopt any violent means to achieve them. This is all well known but PC MC type leaders, MSM and academia wouldn't want to admit it.

You make some excellent points. However, these scumbags do not have any sense of right or wrong unless their beloved leader blessed it as such (puke be upon him) and we know what a worthy book the KORAN is to follow.

We are dealing with a very warped mind compared to ours that cannot be reasoned with, or co-exist with us.

Did you watch the link posted on JW by another poster of the thugs beating and killing that man? The whole time you hear them yell "Allah Akbar", especially when the one scumbag slammed a cinder brick on his head and then when they put several bullets in his head to ensure he was dead. You will also notice the laughter and what great fun they were having during the ordeal as well.

This is what we are dealing with, pure evil with no sympathy or feeling for the suffering of the person they were torturing and in the end killed.

Makes me want to be the person to push the button that launches a nuke surprise right at Mecca during the Hagi festival, or whatever they call it. Could easily take out a few million in one go.

But we don't want to do that, I just want them gone. I'm sick of the concessions our courts and politicians keep making in some warped way hoping that the muzzies will play nice. That is not going to happen.

If you come in my house and spout the sh*t these clowns do, etc. you can expect to be booted out swiftly and never asked to return. Why can't a country do the same thing to "undesirables"?

To say we can't do that as a country is actually wrong, it's been done before, i.e. The Japanese were rounded up during WWII, because they were perceived to be a security risk and they might sympathize with the "Enemy" at that time.

Was this an extreme move that went against the Constitution, of course and that's because we were at WAR? Based on the risk assessment, that's what was done.

Now jump ahead to 2013, we are at WAR with terrorists of the Islamic faith, not Jews or Buddhists, etc. just Islamism, you know the ones that like to blow themselves up because they are led to believe there are 72 virgins waiting to be raped by them in heaven. Just imagine for a moment how F&%king stupid you have to be to even believe such nonsense?

In fact, the Japanese kamikazes were very similar in that they committed suicide to strike at the enemy, but they attacked military targets and wore a uniform so you could tell who the enemy was. These A**holes all dress the same and have even dressed as women in burka's to carry out attacks.

If I saw the so called moderates out protesting and raising a sh*t storm of noise all over the world calling these clowns a fringe element and in no way part of their Islam, or in no way supporting them, I might have a different opinion. Their silence is deafening.

The more muzzie's we let in, the higher the risk element. Very simple logic. I have no issue sending the whole lot home where they came from, in fact I would offer paid airline passage to a few countries of their choice, Muslim countries that is.

I would not send them to England for example, they would have to pick one of the muzzie countries.

They can all live together in great harmony as the Religion of Peace would ensure that happened. Wait a minute...don't they regularly kill each other??

Face it, this is a very F&%*ed up ideology that will NEVER be compatible with WESTERN ideology.

What else can I say?

What you say about them is absolutely true!! They have been raised from the age of six or seven believing in this barbarian ideology which leaves them without any feeling for any human being and that is why they behave the way as seen in the video and for that matter in any of atrocities they inflict all over the world. They are not compatible with any human values throughout the world.

What else would you expect from a religion that teaches its followers to kill, rape, murder, invade, loot, etc all non-Muslims and kill those who leave this "ROP" - and all this will earn them a ticket to those 72 hoories, no wonder they all eagerly do it. And the PC MC stupids just wave it off saying they misunderstand their ROP. There is no shortage of morons in our country!!!

"Remember, LL, you can't punish (e.g., deport) someone pursuant to current Constitutional interpretations based on what they believe. You can only punish the act if it violates statutes or the Constitution."

What they believe violates the Constitution.

Not only do Islam's precepts, in their spirit and letter, violate the Constitution -- but also in acts plotted and acts perpetrated based upon that spirit and letter. This is not merely a theoretical problem. Muslims took it beyond theory into bloody practice on 911 -- and in a thousand other ways before and since.

As I wrote on my blog last Thanksgiving Day:

Let's see, Islam mandates:

sedition

hatred

supremacism

expansionism

a dismantling of all Western liberties and freedoms

violence in order to pursue the above list;

and, as part and parcel of all of the above:

the goal of destroying the Constitution (and all non-Islamic laws on earth) to replace it with Islamic Sharia -- a goal not only believed ideologically, but also pursued seditiously, with violence planned, and violence already waged against us.

Indeed, specifically, Islam is the embodiment of a violent/stealth project to violate Article 6 of the Constitution (which of course is the cornerstone of the entire document):

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This provision, so to speak, "abrogates" anything else in the Constitution by which some apologist weasel (or PC MC-compomised soul with starry eyes) would seek, or claim, to find protection for Islam in the Constitution.

If we follow Article VI (and we must, according to Article VI itself), the Constitution itself outlaws Islam already. The American brain and its reflexes are just currently lagging behind what its heart and mind long ago solemnly swore to uphold.

In this regard, not my memory so much as my intelligence was jogged, when I listened to the very good question of an audience member (an ordinary citizen named Ron Thompson, a D.C. lawyer) during the Q-&-A segment of a recent colloquium involving Diana West, Stephen Coughlin, Andrew Bostom and Frank Gaffney.

http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=-sRkbkIuJHw&start=4879&end=5024&cid=694557

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Thompson's question is rhetorical: i.e., it already contains the answer. It will just take, apparently (and tragically), several years -- if not bloody decades, literally and figuratively -- before the rest of the West catches up to think it, and then apply it.

And the extent to which my last paragraph holds may be measured by how many even within the Counter Jihad wring their hands, shake their heads, and with benighted sincerity and anxiety, mouth the inanity like parrots that "well, our hands are tied by the Constitution...what can we do...!?"

Pish posh. Read the Constitution. Use your noodle. Apply some gumption.

And pass the gravy.

"Was this [Japanese-American internment] an extreme move that went against the Constitution, of course ..."

No, you're mistaken. Japanese-American internment was not ruled un-Constitutional at the time -- nor has it ever been ruled un-Constitutional. The problem, rather, is that it has been ruled to violate the PC MC Paradigm -- a higher Court than the Supreme Court, apparently.

Thanks for the link. Well, this Ron Thompson was arguing at a very theoretical level. However, even if it were determined that Islam is not a religion by First Amendment standards (and I don't know of a single judge anywhere in America who has taken this position from the bench), it still is a belief system, an ideology, and as long as one doesn't act upon certain elements in the Islamic belief system (e.g., death for apostasy), then it's still going to be protected, just as Marxism and Nazism are here in America, and both of these idelogies advocate the violent overthrow of the US government and the destruction of the Constitution.

Just believing and saying that the Constitution should be replaced with something else is not a violation of the Constitution, otherwise all Marxists, as an example, would have to be jailed. Even those who weren't Marxist or who didn't adhere to some other totalitarian belief system but openly called for a new constitution to replace the existing one could be charged under your interpretation of Article VI. It's belief versus act that's the crux of the matter. Remember, a despicable organization like NAMBLA is legal and only those members of NAMBLA that actually act upon their pederastic beliefs will be prosecuted, as they so deserve to be.

Hilli advocates the use of peer pressure and shaming on Americans to advance muslim and islamic agendas within the US. She is a strong advocate of the OIC agenda (United Nations) to make criticism of Mohamadan and islam illegal. We need be grateful this shameless tout has had but a single need to wear a maternity dress. Do you know what your local Muhamadan is hiding beneath his maternity dress? Max.

LemonLime—as I've said before—I believe all we need to do is act when Muslim act on Jihad, as well as carry out surveillance on Muslim enclaves, because they are a proven risk.

But we need to do it strongly and consistently, and come down on pious Muslims like a ton of bricks when they get out of line.

None of the kind of crap like what we are seeing above, where a waffling judge takes months to decide to enforce military codes on a clear scofflaw, and then—even more insanely—is removed by the dhimmi powers that be for exhibiting "islamophobia".

If we were strong and consistent, and gave Jihad committed here and attempts to impose Shari'ah no quarter, I believe a lot of Muslims would simply leave, not wanting to live in so "un-Islamic" a part of Dar-al-Harb.

But as long as we continue to see the sort of suicidal madness we are seeing in the court—which is high profile but absolutely not any sort of isolated incident—then we will just continue to embolden and enable the Jihad against us.

"if it were determined that Islam is not a religion by First Amendment standards (and I don't know of a single judge anywhere in America who has taken this position from the bench), it still is a belief system, an ideology, and as long as one doesn't act upon..."

Muslims have already acted upon their violently seditious ideology.

They continue to act upon it; they also have plotted to act upon it; they continue to plot to act upon it; and we have evidence (from the Holy Land Foundation trial transcripts) that they have long-range plans for the destruction of our society and its laws which perforce include our Constitutions -- and it is entirely reasonable to assume they will continue to act upon and plot to act upon their violently seditious ideology.

Why, as we move into 2013, do you base your objection on the implied assumption that Muslims have not already acted upon their ideology, and continue to act upon it?

I cannot think of a worse way to demonstrate a failure to digest the horror of 911.

Individual Muslims acting in full Islamic mode still won't disallow Islam in America under present Constitutional interpretations. You know this or should know it.

Let's face it, the vast majority of Muslims in America, confused human beings though they are (on this I know we can agree), do not commit any ACTS which are prosecutable. AND, even if a much larger percentage of Muslims in America committed acts which are against statutes and the Constitution, this still would not lead to what you desire, i.e., deportation of all Muslims out of this country and Islam not provided Constitutional protection.

If you really care to contradict me here, then point to judicial decisions at any level of the judicial branch in America which support your take on things. There are none.

Look, LL, I share your utter distaste with Islam. On this we have no disagreement. I'm only "working" in the legal world of today's America. I still say that the best route to nixing Islam in this country is the way Marxism and Nazism and other fascisms have been nixed----through widespread scorn which results in withering on the vine while all the while the Constitution shows it enormous strength by even allowing those who would destroy the Constitution to function in our midst, as Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address so eloquently conveyed.

I have to somewhat agree with you here. If we all scorned and ridiculed Islam constantly in our media, etc. It would neuter some of the problems through embarrassment.

It would also increase 1000% the waves of berserk Muslim rioters and put all Western (non-Muslim) folks throughout any Muslim country at great risk. The muzzies would take revenge on whoever is closest for any Blasphemy against their beloved Prophet and God (puke be upon them)

I can tell you that none of my family will ever set foot in a Muslim country and notice should be sent out to the world so all "Westerners" can get the hell out of the risk areas before we start to draw new and funnier cartoons, comedy stand-up routines, etc.

Would we ever P*ss them off ;o)

P.S.:

Wellington,

The contradiction becomes clear in your locution "as long as" in the phrase "as long as one doesn't act upon" -- which of course clearly and directly implies that if one does act upon (i.e., act upon what we're talking about: their violently seditious ideology), then the Constitution no longer protects one.

And yet, in the next breath, you say the Constitution does protect one if they act upon (i.e., act upon what we're talking about: their violently seditious ideology).

Your contradiction is also implcit in your protestation that most Muslims in the USA don't act upon their violently seditious ideology, as though that should matter to your argument. Why would it matter, if elsewhere you try to insist that even if they did act upon their violently seditious ideology, the Constitution would still protect them?

You formulated things wrongly, LL. Quite so in fact.

Here's the correct formulation: 1)The Constitution protects the totalitarian ideology which is inimical to the Constitution AND those who believe in that ideology which is inimical to the Constitution but are among those believers who don't act upon those inimical beliefs. 2)The Constitution still protects the inimical belief system du jour even though those who fully act out their beliefs, i.e., do things inimical to the Constitution, will be prosecuted.

Your basic mistake was to maintain that the Constitution protects the person in each instance. Not so. The Constitution protects the belief system and the person in the first instance and only the belief system still in the second. I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, and I respect many of your views, but you continue to wrongly intermix at times horrible belief systems with persons. Again, actions against the Constitution are prosecuatble. Beliefs against the Constitution are not.

Though I disagree with you on some issues, on this I agree fully.

Wellington,

Woops -- scratch the preceding post and read this one please:

Correction:

There is then nothing in the Constitution to prevent the USA from declaring war on all Muslim people and prosecuting all Muslim people -- once we as a Nation agree that we cannot distinguish those Muslims who seem to be not acting against the Constitution from those who are acting against the Constitution. If you try to insist that the Constitution forbids us from doing this, then you would be trying to insist that our war against the Germans and Japanese could have been correctly deemed un-Constitutional.

You can't have it both ways.

"Belief system (Islam) versus nations (Germany and Japan). Pretty damn big difference."

Wrong on two counts;

1) You're twisting my words. I didn't mention Islam. I specified Muslims.

2) Even so, Islam is more than a mere belief system. It is also trans-national Nation. And this trans-national Nation is at war against us.

You're correct that you didn't specifically mention Islam, but c'mon. You don't have Muslims if you don't have Islam. If you go after all Muslims, by default you go after Islam.

Regarding your second point, you could also maintain that many other totalitarian systems, e.g., Marxism, are more than just a belief system, that they seek world domination, all that control-freak, trans-national stuff on a global scale, and are surely a threat to a democratic republic like America. But even assuming Islam alone among totalitarian systems is trans-national, as I already wrote to you you still have a huge up-hill struggle to convince a nation state like America to make war on a trans-national nation, which in the minds of most people, even many who are critical of Islam, is not part of their cognitive formulation (at least not yet).

Finally, let's be coldly realistic here. To date, not a single American judge that I know of has ruled that Islam is not a religion and thus not entitled to First Amendment religious protection. If you don't even have Islam not looked upon as a religion by a single member of the American judiciary, think of all the work you'll have to do to just get this done and even then Islam would still have to be excluded from First Amendment protection, though other secular totalitarian idelogies like Marxism and fascism haven't been. What are the chances? Oh yeah, yours is a lonely task. Good luck though.

If I may butt in...?
May I? Thank you

...then you would be trying to insist that our war against the Germans and Japanese could have been correctly deemed un-Constitutional.

The USA didn't fight a war against Germans and Japanese.
It declared and fought a war against the German and Japanese state. A profound difference - not lessened one iota by the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans and Japanese died as the result of the actions of the USA.

I know very little about the American Constitution, but I am pretty sure the Constitution doesn't even operate with vocabulary and concepts and within principles that would make it possible to as much as formulate a declaration of war against peoples without getting morally and logically incoherent.

I wrote:
"...hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans and Japanese died as the result of the actions of the USA."

Just to make it clear: the actions of the USA were fully justified.

You don't have Muslims if you don't have Islam. If you go after all Muslims, by default you go after Islam.

You got it the other way around. I'd say you don't have Islam if you don't have Muslims. If there were no Muslims on earth, or even just a handful, say in the few hundreds, as opposed to the 1.5 billion that there are, none of us would be sweating over it, and nor would JW exist.

In fact, the reason Islam is protected is this statistical shield. If there were, as I hypothesized, just a few hundred Muslims, they could have received the same treatment as David Koresh's Branch Davidians. Of course, it's another thing that an overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims are non White, but if Islam had been followed only by Whites, and numbered in the hundreds, they would have either been downright outlawed, or been monitored by the feds like any cult is.

Islam is essentially a geopolitical cult - as geopolitical as Communism was during the Cold War, and as Cultish as the Branch Davidians, Heavensgate or any other cults that come to mind. Normally, that would be enough to make them outlawed, but given that there are 1.5 billion of them worldwide, as well as some 50 countries that have it as their official/national religion, it creates a huge problem for the US in outright declaring war. Just like the US could never go to war against the Soviets due to their nuclear arsenal, in this case, the US can't go to war against all OIC members unless they decide that they need to do something like a WWII war on Muslims - once it comes to that. If and when it does, I doubt that Islam won't be outlawed in the US.

Yes, Infidel, theoretically speaking Islam doesn't exist or practically exist if there are no or very few Muslims. But we'd have no Muslims to begin with if Islam had never come into being.

The demographic you mentioned, however, shows that the world unfortunately has a hell of a lot of Muslims and this is, of course, a huge problem, just as the world had a huge problen with Communists during the Cold War who numbered in the hundreds of millions if not well over a billion. Now, we never made war on Marxism per se, though de facto we did, but we sure fought a lot of Marxists in cold war form or hot war form (though we sometimes had "good" Marxists we'd work with---e.g., Tito) and the net result was that Marxism was hugely discredited, in part because it discredited itself, in part because America checked it when it could----but at least Marxism was identified in the minds of free states as something wrong. Not there yet with Islam but I think we're getting there.

In the meantime Islam is in the process of discrediting itself (just think how many millions of people worldwide have a negative view of Islam who didn't twenty years ago). But disallowing Islam as a religion and then outlawing it I hardly think will ever happen, even if it had only a fraction of the followers it has today. No, just as Marxism and Nazism are still legal in America, so Islam almost certainly always will be but I believe it will evenutally be as scorned and treated with contemptuously by the vast majority of Americans just as has happened to other totalitarian ideologies. This is the route to defeating Islam, I believe, rather than attempts to make war on all Muslims and attempting to deprive it of First Amendment protections.

Wellington,

In a certain indefinable (and tediously complicated) way, you keep moving the goalposts.

First you make a distinction between Belief System and Adherents; now you want to say their more or less confluent. And that's just one example of many of this maddening flux of your position which, like the Heraclitian river, never stays the same every time one steps back into it. And part of what aggravates is that for me to remain consistent, I'm forced to dance along with you, and follow you as a Jane Powell unable to follow Fred Astaire effortlessly softshoeing the ceiling.

To tease out just one of your inconsistent insistencies, I would have to point out that the reason Marxism & Marxists, and Nazism & Nazis, have been (relatively) tolerated in America is simply because they have been deemed, by sufficiently reliable data, to be relatively harmless -- and furthermore, increasingly harmless as time has gone along into our present; unlike Islam & Muslims which and who are only getting outrageously and insidiously worse, by the veritable minute.

It is the height of irrationality to insist that all instances of a category must all be exactly equal such that we are forced to treat them the same: and this form of irrationality becomes dangerously reckless when it would needlessly hamstring us and tie our hands from defending our society from an actual and metastasizing threat: Islam -- the transnational Nation whose belief system is literally synonymous with War Against Us being actively pursued by its followers as both a Hot War and a Stealth War in seditious symbiosis, where our ability to tell the difference between the harmless followers and the deadly followers is not only impossible, but becomes part of the danger -- precisely because the Stealth War they wage uses the False Moderates -- against which we have to defend our society in ways that are rationally proportionate to the dimensions of this diverse threat they pose to us.

The following recent essay by Hugh Fitzgerald elucidates why I say all this:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/46020/cat_id/11

Marxists and Nazis are today indeed relatively harmless, but not so much back in the 1930s and 40s and 50s when being a Marxist or Nazi was still legal in America. Moreover, I think your view of me as Heraclitian is incorrect. I have functioned all along on this issue far more in Parmenides-mode, to wit, acts against the Constitution and statutes are punishable; beliefs which are inimical to basic Constitutional principles are not. No change on this basic distinction have I engaged in.

Going for the outlawing of Islam almost certainly ain't gonna' happen---ever. Having it described by a new set of elites as a menace to liberty and other good things has a much greater chance of happening and, when this occurs, accompanied by a general revulsion towards Islam by an overwhelming portion of the body politic, then what will befall Islam is what has befallen Marxism and Nazism, i.e., still legal but looked upon as a belief system for losers or worse.

You want the disallownace of Islam and Muslims in America. You're not going to get it. I want the complete discrediting of Islam and Muslims in America because once this occurs Islam and Muslims will be no more of a menace to liberty, the Constitution, equality under the law, etc., then are other totalitarian ideologies and their adherents. Jefferson put it best in his First Inaugural when he said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let then stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Just so, though I think we as a society need to do better work on the "reason thing."