ACLU Sues Gun Range for Ejecting Muslim Shooter

Raja'ee Fatihah (courtesy nydailynews.com)

“A U.S. Army reservist from Tulsa (was) asked to leave a gun range in eastern Oklahoma,” abcnews.go.com reports, “after identifying himself as a Muslim sued the owners Wednesday, the latest in a series of cases across the nation alleging anti-Islamic discrimination.” To be clear, I think the Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range are a bunch of bozos for banning Muslims. If nothing else, as our resident war hero Jon Wayne Taylor will tell you, Muslims have fought beside American troops. And this particular one is an American-born U.S. soldier. All that said . . .

Twenty-nine-year-old Raja’ee Fatihah [above], an employee with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, went into the range with the intention of tweaking the owners. Maybe.

Fatihah, who is a board member with the Muslim advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter, said he went to the gun range after learning about the sign. He said the owners of the store were pleasant and welcoming until he told them he was Muslim.

“At that point, they started treating me with suspicion,” Fatiha said . . .

Robert Muise, with the American Freedom Law Center, represented the Florida gun shop owner and now is working for Chad Neal, the owner of the Oklahoma gun range.

Muise said Fatihah was denied service because he was belligerent, not because of his religion, and that the sign declaring the shop a “Muslim-free” business is protected free speech.

“The only thing the law prohibits is if somebody denies services strictly on the basis of religion, and that didn’t happen here,” Muise said.

Fatihah denies that he acted belligerently.

Fatihah has a slightly different story at (where else?) huffingtonpost.com.

When I went to the Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range last October, I wasn’t looking for any trouble. As an active Army reservist, I shoot regularly to maintain my proficiency in marksmanship. Like the proud Oklahomans of various faiths, I also enjoy it as a hobby that has nothing to do with my religion. When I got to the counter, I signed the waiver and was preparing to pay my fee as part of standard procedure. But the transaction was never completed because as soon as I identified myself as Muslim, things took a frightening turn.

"Muslim Free" sign at OK's Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range (courtesy (nydailynews.com)

The owners of the range grabbed their handguns and demanded to know whether I was there to “commit an act of violence” or as part of a “jihad.” I was nervous about what would happen next, being outnumbered two to one, but I didn’t return the animosity.

Regardless, of Fatihah’s intent or actions for going, or upon learning the range wanted him gone, there’s no reason to discriminate against Muslims at a gun range — unless the owner suspects them of nefarious intent. At which point he or she should drop a dime on them with the local constabulary.

The ACLU has taken up Fatiha’s case. As for whether or not a private business has the right to discriminate against any particular type of customer — for reasons or race, color, creed, religion or sexual orientation, that’s a different matter. Isn’t it?

comments

  1. avatar Gunsplain says:

    Here’s what you do.

    1) Find out about a business like this
    2) Open a competing business with “not an asshole” policies
    3) Focus your advertising on the fact that you’re not an asshole
    4) Profit

    1. avatar JAlan says:

      That and also don’t frequent businesses like this if you don’t agree with their policies. I would never go to a gun range that banned someone for something like their religion. I run a business and I would never refuse anyone service for things like that. Hell, I get a lot of service from people that barely speak English. My solution was to just learn Spanish instead. The simple fact is that money is money, be it from a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist. It’s unfortunate that these range owners don’t like money.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Gee, if only certain flight schools had the same policy. Lower Manhattan might not be short a few buildings. #YesAllMuslims

        1. avatar Ty King says:

          If only we didn’t sell fertilizer to Christians then a bunch of kids would be alive in Oklahoma City right?

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          Ty,

          McVeigh was an atheist. He considered science his religion.

        3. avatar JAlan says:

          Yes, because there certainly are no Muslim pilots now, nor any good Muslims anywhere. But let’s take your logic to it’s conclusion. We should ban blacks from firearm ownership, since that population is overrepresented in crime statistics. We should ban militias, since Timothy McVeigh was a member of one. We should ban men from interacting with women, since most women are raped by men. We should ban those of German descent from office, since Germans are historically more likely to be Nazis.

          We should do all these things to individuals for the actions of others, individuality and western values be damned.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The difference is that McVeigh didn’t belong to a group with hundreds of millions of followers sworn to destroy western civilization.

        5. avatar JAlan says:

          Funny, none of the Muslims I ever talked to mentioned that the purpose of Islam was to destroy western civilization. Seemed to me they’d be working a lot harder toward that goal, what with there being a billion or so of them and all.

        6. avatar alexander says:

          I suggest that you read the Koran and you will know yourself what the goal of Islam is; and you will also learn why none of the Muslims that you talk to will tell you that.

        7. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Sorry bro, but the myth of the moderate Muslim majority is exactly that, a myth. Go look at Ben Shapiro take apart the Pew Research numbers that show a majority supporting radicals.

        8. avatar Excedrine says:

          @JAlan — Except that McVeigh wasn’t a member of any militia, either. You’d know this had you actually done any research on the matter. You haven’t. In fact, every militia McVeigh turned to told him to GTFO. They wouldn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole once he had explained his ideology and intentions, and rightly so.

        9. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          Shame on you. I served over seas next to muslims. Shame on you.

        10. avatar Alexander says:

          Yes, and there were American troops that fought alongside Soviet troops in WWII. That, however, did not stop either from killing each other in Korea and Vietnam. So, what is your point?

        11. avatar Pwrserge says:

          So did I. What’s your point? The majority are still scum that I want nowhere near my country. Muslims can be broken down into four categories.

          1. Delusional idiots in denial over their hateful cult.
          2. Bigoted scum that think that they can do whatever they want.
          3. Bigoted scum that try to turn our own society against us by subversion.
          4. Violent psychopaths that do exactly as their cult commands and murder innocents.

          The first deserve to be mocked.
          The second deserve to be beaten.
          The last two deserve to be exterminated.

          CAIR is mostly made up of #2&#3

        12. avatar Russell says:

          “The majority are still scum”

          Too much starch in your white hood and robe?

        13. avatar alexander says:

          Do you ever hear nice, peaceful Muslims denouncing their jihad brothers, no matter what atrocity they’ve committed? Too much wax in your ears to hear the crickets?

        14. avatar int19h says:

          >> Do you ever hear nice, peaceful Muslims denouncing their jihad brothers, no matter what atrocity they’ve committed? Too much wax in your ears to hear the crickets?

          Too much wax in your ears to hear anything? Or did you even bother trying to listen, and just assumed?

          https://www.google.com/search?q=muslims+denounce+terrorists

          And now, queue whining about taqiyya in 3, 2, 1…

        15. avatar alexander says:

          After years of brewing and an out cry for an out cry, apologists like the HP are showing a few Muslims with signs against terrorism. Long overdue and hardly enough, considering that there are 1.6B Muslims and a few minor “demonstrations” against the jihadis. In fact, conversions of Westerners, especially young women, into Islam have tremendously multiplied since 9/11, and many of the converts are very militant. You have to be willfully blind not to see the resurgence of Islam in the US after 9/11. And much of the Islamic world celebrated not only 9/11, but most major terrorist acts. Doesn’t that say something?

        16. avatar jlp says:

          Typical Right Winger. An aversion and paranoia when it comes to watching foreign news channels so you can find out what is really going on in the world. Muslims in Europe have been on the news and have posted on social media by the thousands “Not in My Name”.

        17. avatar alexander says:

          Well, I sure have missed that out cry in America. And I do recall Palestinian Moslems celebrating on the rooftops on 9/11…

        18. avatar jlp says:

          Looks like you do not even watch American News either as you just made a fool of yourself as they have been on U.S. news many times and condemned violence many times. And they donated over 100,000 dollars to the victims of San Bernardino. Of course the racist ignores all of this. How much did you contribute?

        19. avatar alexander says:

          Touching… they brought flowers to the graves… Ever heard the tapes of what they preach in the American mosques? Try a high school “history” books that are used in American mosques to teach children on what to do with you and I. Try it.

        20. avatar jlp says:

          More Nazi propaganda. American Muslims contributed 100,000 to the victims of San Bernardino. Now what racist twist can you put on that one? I am waiting.

        21. avatar alexander says:

          Perhaps if their Imam did not help them along and their faithful brothers and sisters did not provide the support group in hating others and their Koran was tempered a bit (I know, that’s a death sentence on me), then perhaps 100,000 silver would not have been needed? Was that racist? So sorry… But, of course, I’m wrong. This was all a religion of peace and those two freaks just picked up guns that started to shoot by themselves. After all, that’s why they’re called “assault weapons.”

        22. avatar jlp says:

          You really are a twisted right wing fanatic. When a white right wing nut case sprays down an abortion clinic you call it either the act of a crusader saving babies or if you have half a brain admit it was the action of a mentally deranged person. You in no case claim all Christians are cut of the same cloth. You give no such leeway to people who are mentally disturbed if they came from the Middle East and you cannot see that both cases are exactly the same because of your sickening racism. You automatically then condemn an entire religion.

        23. avatar alexander says:

          So my reference to documented hate speech in Mosques and hateful teachings for school kids published as history books by Islamic centers in America you are considering as “Nazi propaganda”? You are willfully shutting your eyes and ears to the point that there is no point of discussing it.

        24. avatar jlp says:

          You are a cheer leader for Racist Right wing Web sites that are now even claiming Obama had Scalia murdered. And I expect you will have us believe that Nazi propaganda as well. Sorry sane people are not buying it.

        25. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Go ahead and pretend that being a follower of a hate group sworn to the destruction of the western world is the same as being black.

          You can choose not to be Muslim (and be in fear for your life from your former compatriots) you can’t choose to not be black.

        26. avatar On the can says:

          You know, I’ve been discriminated against for being a gun owner. It didn’t feel very good.

      2. avatar JAlan says:

        Yes, clearly every Muslim is out to trick you. If they say that they don’t believe in destroying the west, it’s obviously a conspiracy by all Muslims. As for Ben Shapiro, the man seems to have a lack of journalistic integrity.

        Further, I saw that video, and it’s ridiculous once you actually look at the numbers. Here’s an okay breakdown of that.

        http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

        But of course, that’s what’s to be expected from a man that once suggested that the forced expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank was justified by the expulsion of Germans from Poland. One might think that this man has an ideology to push.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          Except that the majority of Muslims polled do in fact support, in some way, the crimes ISIS commits.

          http://www.clarionproject.org/

          Try actually examining the numbers for yourself. You’ll be quite shocked.

        2. avatar RickP says:

          Muslims can not lie unless it it to fool the infidels…….

          Radical Muslim: wants to cut your head off.
          Moderate Muslim: wants a Radical Muslim to cut your head off.

        3. avatar Joe3 says:

          So you think the Germans who invaded Poland shouldn’t have been forced out after THEY LOST?

          More lunacy from some jihadistinian-loving jew-hater.

      3. avatar Joe3 says:

        “I would never go to a gun range that banned someone for something like their religion.”

        How about if that “religion” demanded you convert or submit to THEIR religion, or die?

        THATS ISLAM.

        Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…
        but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran)

        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

    2. avatar On the can says:

      That and advertise that the range actually allows you to train. The bigger problem the gun world faces is the overwhelming amount of FUDD ranges that don’t allow you to do anything worth going for. I’m seriously working towards buying a decent chunk of land to start a range that actually allows people to train for an affordable membership fee. On that point alone I’m confident I’ll put the surrounding competition out of business within a year or two.

      1. avatar JAlan says:

        In Texas the only solution is to join a good private range or have a friend with land. I personally prefer to shoot in private land. Cheaper and you can set things up as you like.

    3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      In free countries, this is a lot easier than in ones where you need all manners of permits, licenses and insurances to open almost any business; most certainly one involving firearms.

    4. avatar Oblamo binLyen says:

      Ok, let’s see, the guy was a Muslim, he’s a representative of CAIR…a terrorist organization. I’d be a bit suspicious of him too. Don’t care if he’s in the reserves, the two don’t add up to anything good. Anybody with a lick of knowledge about Islam would be suspicious. Allah FUBAR

      1. avatar ron cassano says:

        islam is not a religion its an idealogy.the cair group is a front for the muslum brotherhood terrorists.add the multiple muslum terrorists training camps in dearborn michigan maine upstate ny near hancock,and in dallas where the 4 lying muslum terrorists lied and said they where lawyers,to bring in there muslum tribunal and in irving where clock boy lives,the one ovomit/satan the ineligible treasonous war crimes racist muslum traitor in the wh invited to the wh.irving where the muslum terrorists tryed to intimidate the city council,so they could bring in there muslum sharia garbage.ask each so called peacefull legal american muslum if they reject sharia.and do they pledge alligence to the flag of the usa and see what each one says.all non muslums the unbelievers or the infidels or to be killed/beheaded read the books the muslum mafia and heretic.god bless all legal american veterans/citizens

  2. avatar MyPrettyAr15 says:

    Calling them bozos is being nice, they’re idiots.

    1. avatar Stray Dogg says:

      You are weak and sound exactly like a leftist liberal.
      Muslims are not your friend and this guy is a typical aggrieved negro on top of being a Muslim.
      I would kick his ass out too. Screw him. Why is it that negros and Muslims insist on going where they are not wanted? He should just move on.
      In a free society, we would have the right to associate with whomever we like and bar those that we see as enemies. You are free to not patronize any business that hurts your politically correct feelings.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        George Wallace said much the same thing i.e. Blacks are not entitled to go to a private or public school, or drink at a fountain in a business that does not want them too or eat at a business that does not want to serve them or sit in the front of a public or private bus. According to you “those were the good old days”.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          FWIW, he didn’t say whether it private segregation was good or bad. Only whether it was constitutional or not for the federal government to ban it.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        >> Why is it that negros and Muslims insist on going where they are not wanted?

        Are you saying that “negros” in the South were “going where they are not wanted” (which was most everywhere)?

        You know that they actually lived there, right? And they didn’t come there out of their own free will, either.

      3. avatar Xopher says:

        Racist idiots are one of the biggest stumbling blocks to getting more people interested in gun rights and shooting. This kind of bull crap hurts all of us no matter what color our skin or what church we go to because it discourages people from getting into guns. And it is far too common in the gun community.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          Well said. I could not agree with you more. Stray Dog, 16v, Perserg and others like them only reinforce the image of the average gun owner as an ignorant back country hick with no teeth and a bottle of moonshine in his hand.

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Racism is surely a cancer, but willful ignorance of the specific danger that Islam poses to the west is surely worse. Go ahead and keep sticking your head into the sand. Keep defending the indefensible, it only makes their (islamists) goals that much more attainable.
          Btw your obvious disdain for traditional “good old boys” speaks to your elitism and snobbery. If you think good old boys are worse of a threat than Islam than I can only say look at the casualty figures across the world for the last 30 years. The good old boys have killed maybe 300, the Islamists have killed, raped, and pillaged tens of thousands if not millions.

        3. avatar jlp says:

          Yep “The Good Old Boy’s” slaughtered 5 million Vietnamese in America’s war on Vietnam (depending on who’s survey you believe take or give a million but you get the picture). The Islamist still have a way to go to catch up to those figures. Again point the finger at someone and you have 3 fingers pointed right back at yourself.

        4. avatar Joe3 says:

          JLP another bag sucker for Marxist and jihad.

          THE NVA and VC killed more than we did, and they kept Vietnam a slve state FOR DECADES, you illiterate fool.

          And the muslims killed EIGHTY MILLION HINDUS aside from invading Europe DOZENS OF TIMES.

          Smart people would ban morons like you from a range as well as any Muslims.

  3. avatar Steve says:

    So… you can prohibit people from coming on personal property if they have a firearm and a license and it’s A-ok, but if you try to ban for religion or sexual orientation, that’s where it crosses the line?

    How about none of the above or all of the above? Consistency.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      How about posting a sign “No Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Socialists”? Since they seem to treat their political affiliation as if it were a religion. Where would the ACLU stand on that?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Protected classes are specifically defined by statute. On federal level, as of this writing, they are:

        – race
        – color
        – religion
        – national origin
        – citizenship (with limits)
        – age (with limits – basically cannot discriminate on the basis of “too old”)
        – sex
        – pregnancy
        – married/non-married
        – disability
        – being a veteran
        – genes

        Note that this does not include political beliefs. So, yes, a private business can discriminate against you on that basis. So ACLU will probably not like it, and I would agree with them, but they wouldn’t sue.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I would argue that Islam is a political belief.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          I would argue that Dominionism is a political belief. And probably a good half of Christians in US are moderate to extreme Dominionists. I mean, look at the poll numbers for Ted Cruz, who is a blatant, hardline Dominionist.

        3. avatar Bill W says:

          I would argue the US government discriminates on age daily with its policy of older people not being able to join the military and younger with having to be 35 to be president. Fact

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Like I said, the prohibition for discrimination wrt age is limited. You can read all about what exactly is prohibited here:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act

          In particular:

          “An age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a “bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business” (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers).”

        5. avatar 16V says:

          If you even vaguely know, or follow the Quran, Islam is entirely encompassing of your entire life.

          Your government is to be Islamic without reservation or hesitation. Interestingly enough, there’s not one single majority Muslim nation that is not a theocracy. Because the Quran calls for it, and they do what the entire religion demands – submit.

        6. avatar Russell says:

          Right off the top of my head, Turkey is a majority Muslim nation that is not a theocracy.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          And yet, 25% of turks think that terrorist attacks on civilians are justified and the majority believe apostates should be killed…

        8. avatar int19h says:

          Sure, and 25% of Americans (probably more, actually) believe that torture is a good thing that should be used more. And?

        9. avatar jlp says:

          Wow, int19h your batting 100 per cent today. Pwrserg is going to get himself laughed right off the forum.

        10. avatar 16V says:

          Here’s a primer on Turkey as a sponsor of Islamic terrorism. This is just a tiny slice, if you actually read the world news, it’s much, much worse.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Turkey

          As to Turkey as a non-theocracy, you’ve apparently missed the last 10+ years…

          http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/06/10/turkey-continues-its-irrevocable-slide-to-an-islamic-theocracy/#

          https://www.quora.com/How-big-a-risk-do-Erdogan-and-his-party-pose-to-secularism-and-pluralism-in-Turkey

          Islam is a cancer and has killed every single society that it has infected, from day one until right this second. There is nothing in that book that is compatible with Western Civilization – or even civilization as witnessed by the dozens of countries with Muslim majority and rule.

          They can be assimilated in tiny numbers and learn to cherry pick the Quran and Hadith, like Christians and Jews do. But let any number of them in, and it is disaster. France, Germany, the UK will face a nasty choice in the near future, and I don’t like the way that choice has played out historically.

        11. avatar int19h says:

          Turkey has, unfortunately, went downhill a lot in the last decade in that regard. In my earlier list, they are really on the last spot. If you want to see what Turkey looked like before the recent wave of Islamization, look at Azerbaijan today.

          And, once again, it’s Saudis paying the bills for preachers and madrasa to peddle their Salafi crap, with tacit approval of the neo-Ottomans running the government (because they think that when the Caliphate is restored, they will be a natural choice for its ruling elite).

        12. avatar alexander says:

          Yes, and the Saudi’s are our best friends… right…

        13. avatar 16V says:

          int19h, I agree completely that the Saudis are among the absolute worst, and the best part is we give them our money for oil. Were it not for petrodollars, they’d be living in tents, screwing little boys and goats, and fighting feuds of the last millenia. The Qataris are a close second.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    My rights are violated every day in CA and not a peep from the aclu……

  5. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    So is THIS the 1st time ever the ACLU has supported any kind of “gun rights”??? Maybe the range owners didn’t enjoy the “angry black man ” act much either…aloha snackbar to you too.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      No, this is not the first time ACLU has “ever supported any kind of gun rights”. Seriously, have you tried googling it first? These are literally from the first page of results for “aclu defends gun rights”.

      https://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights

      http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/04/aclu-to-reid-not-so-fast-on-that-gun-control-bill/

      Or even right here on TTAG:

      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/04/robert-farago/aclu-defends-missouri-gun-rights-guy/

      That said, if your main source of information on ACLU is Fox News and/or FreeRepublic, I’m not surprised. If you want to actually know something about someone, start by looking up what they say about themselves, and what impartial observers say about them.

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        I guess my sarcasm went over your troll head. Ted Cruz for president. And JESUS CHRIST for ruling and reigning over the universe…DUH. BTW int-FOX pretty much hate Ted CRUZ…

        1. avatar int19h says:

          The problem with you guys is that you often say such insane things in serious way and actually believe them, that it kinda becomes hard to tell when you’re aiming for “sarcasm” – there’s just no difference.

          I mean, you probably seriously believe that Obama is a Muslim, for example.

        2. avatar alexander says:

          You can find the video of Obama being interviewed in Saudi Arabia some years back. He said that the most beautiful music to his ear was the Imam’s call for prayer. Now, only a Muslim could possibly say that. Think about it. Of course, I would not call him a “practicing” or a “devout” Muslim, but a Muslim in his heart for sure. It is a fact that he grew us as a Muslim and few people, given that background, breakaway from the faith.

        3. avatar jlp says:

          Church records coupled with thousands of witness show what an ignorant red neck you are.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> He said that the most beautiful music to his ear was the Imam’s call for prayer. Now, only a Muslim could possibly say that.

          No, of course not. Any spineless boot-licking politician would say that, to the right audience.

          The rest of it is just conspiracy theory drivel.

        5. avatar tsbhoA.P.jr says:

          so, he really does wrap jack salmon with the copy of “the final call” i throw on his porch daily?

  6. avatar pwrserge says:

    Sorry but CAIR is a terrorist front group. Zero pity for this traitor who decided to cozy up to the very same scumbags who swore to destroy our country and our way of life.

    1. avatar jlp says:

      You have History in reverse as it was the U.S. that attacked them first and then it was so shocked that after we bombed their people and invaded their land that they retaliated. What did you expect them to do, just ignore it? When you invade other peoples country’s to exploit them economically to control their natural resources for the profit of the greedy rich you end up in a long, long, costly guerrilla war which in the end you simply go broke trying to win. The French found that out in Indo-China in their war and we were dumb enough to try the same thing after they left. Strange neither the French or the Americans learned a lesson from the prior war. History repeats itself as man lives only for the next war and peace is only a brief interlude between wars as they are mans natural state of being. The evolutionary history of the hunter killer apes. No nation has ever proved more righteous than any of the others.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        Because clearly there was no Muslim terrorism before the Iraq war… The Marines in Beirut might have something to say about that.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          When an armed combatant member of an occupying military force on hostile foreign territory is attacked and killed, it’s not terrorism. It’s just warfare. At worst, it’s a war crime (if the attackers weren’t wearing identifying uniforms, or used a false flag).

          Here’s what the guy who was the commander of the unit deployed to Beirut and attacked on that day had to say on this:

          “It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support—which I strongly opposed for a week—to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.”

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that the foreign territory was not hostile. The government of Lebanon had no problem with the air strikes or naval gunfire support. Do you even logic bro?

        3. avatar int19h says:

          The government of Lebanon was not the only party to that conflict, and you don’t need to be an official government of the state to be a recognized party in a war.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        It is very easy to get history in reverse if you have never in fact studied history.

        Muslims (Barbary pirates) attacked us first, if you want to use the “Wayback” machine.

        More recently, the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993. Between that attack, by Muslims who were convicted of the crime, there were numerous U.S. embassy bombings around the world and a direct assault against the USS Cole in harbor in Yemen in 2000.

        Explain again how we attacked them first?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Muslims (Barbary pirates) attacked us first, if you want to use the “Wayback” machine.”

          The Barbary pirates were simply doing what their holy book stated as doctrine.

          Convert to Islam, pay the tax, or submit.

          If you reject those perfectly valid choices (according to the Koran), you get the sword.

          By their standards, *we* started it when we refused to continue to pay the tax, convert or submit. We ‘dissed them first…

      3. avatar On the can says:

        Radical Islam has been at war with the west long before we ever even knew we were at war. This current war started in the 70s. When it’s all said and done, it will likley be looked back upon like the 100 years war or Napoleonic wars, as a series of wars over relatively the same issues with relatively the same opponents. I see this war not ending until roughly the 2070s, and it being referred too as the “great middle eastern wars” or the “wars of Arab solidarity”. The only way I see it ending sooner is if Nukes are used.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          It was the Morons of the French and British Military who contrary to the advice of T.E. Lawrence simply drew lines on the map after the end of WWI dividing up territory in North Africa without any regards to the differences in the Arab Tribes and Religions. Everything T.E. Lawrence predicted came true and warfare escalated over the decades to what we are experiencing now in the Middle East. After the war every invasion of the Middle East (WWII) the Suez crisis, America’s invasions etc. etc. only escalated and complicated the situation there. The West has no one at all except themselves to blame for the current mess in the Middle East and the very real threats against the West.

          And advocating Nuclear War is a subject so asinine I will not even discuss it, only depraved maniacs would even consider such a thing.

        2. avatar On the can says:

          Actually, nuclear war is quite a sensible option given the current position. It’s really just so sensible, it seems asinine. Luckily, Putin may do it before we do, if Daesh launches a major attack on Russian soil. He knows a mired ground war won’t win, and air campaigns are nearly meaningless. And fruthermore, no one will nuke Russia for doing it. Everyone will complain publicly but praise him privately.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Another Hollywierd historian. The history of the Mideast and the attempts of the Mohammadans to destroy Western did not begin 16yrs ago, 100yrs ago or 200yrs ago

          Note: T.E. Lawrence was a degenerate buffoon.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          His military accomplishments negate your rabid homophobia.

        5. avatar Cliff H says:

          Aside from the unfortunate effects of fallout in down-wind countries such as Pakistan and India I cannot see a huge downside in making the majority of Afghanistan radioactive. Better perhaps to use low yield “dirty” bombs or just sprinkle plutonium powder from B-52s. (/semisarc)

      4. avatar bob H says:

        1. CAIR is a named co-conspirator in the holy land terrorist trial. The Army probably would promote this guy like Nadal Hassan once they find out he’s a board member.
        2. Wikipedia “The Barbary Wars”. The first war post revolution for the United States was with The Islamic Barbary states. The USMC owes its birth to this conflict, and thusly the Marine Corp hymn includes “the shores of Tripoli”. learn history. When people say stupid stuff like islamic terrorism is Americas fault, you show your ignorance and lack of classical education.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          Your reference to the Barbary Coast Wars shows how little you know about history. It was about money, not religion or racial hatred at all. The Barbary Pirates robbed and kidnaped anyone with money, Muslims included. So therefore your analogy is false.

        2. avatar alexander says:

          Not quite. Although there were Christian nations that openly took part in piracy, that was in the long ago past. Islamic nations, even today, practice piracy, slavery, horrific public executions – basically, to call them animals is being unfair to the animals.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          Ahh jlp, back to your completely uninformed blather, which anyone with an actual education can debunk? Yup, let’s go again, I’ll bring facts. Something you never have…

          So this was as much about religion as money, or perhaps the ambassador is just making this up?

          http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/victory-in-tripoli-lessons-for-the-war-on-terrorism

          (easily verified a dozen sources that are actually, you know, verified) The ambassador said without hesitation or reservation that we aren’t Muslims, and it says in the Quran to make war on us. Pretty plain statement that you know not of what you speak. As usual. Still.

          As to the reality of the Barbary (Tripolitan Wars) feel free to read actual history, not jlp’s delusions…

          https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-war

        4. avatar jlp says:

          Your rabid racism and islamophobia slant and distort not only your perception of reality but it prevents you from even exercising any reading comprehension as well. Its laughable. Your second link is a dry historical quote of what transpired in regards to the U.S. response to the pirates activity. It does nothing to prove your racism. The first link makes claims (like 1 million people being captured) proving that the author was quoting the absurd. Never the less the link does show that there was a struggle for power in that region of the world between the North African states and the U.S. for economic and military power in that part of the world (sound familiar it should). North African States have practiced piracy there up to this very day. And again it was about power and money. Even a fool could understand the basics which of course as usual went way over your twisted racist mind.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          Ahh jlp. still the same, you have nothing, so you distort the fact s and then scream “raciss!” at the top of your lungs.

          Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but “Islam” isn’t a race. Trying to deflect your utter historical ignorance with cries of racism really falls flat. Especially where more than a few of us actually took logic and history classes.

          Swing and a miss as always. But, you didn’t mention Hitler, so I guess you’re making progress. Or something.

  7. avatar Jaffas says:

    What does one really say about this that would ring with truth and not be prejudice?
    I have acquaintances that are Muslim but I still eye anyone that I don’t understand differently. Racisist? Ignorant? Cautious? All of the above???
    The bottom line is DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSION BASED ON ANYTHING BUT ACTIONS INCLUDING ATTITUDE COMBINATIONS.

    1. avatar Alexander says:

      So, when this person prays 5 times every day for your death and destruction and belongs to Muslin action group associated with CAIR, which is a proven Islamic terrorist front group, are those not sufficient actions for other people not to feel safe near that person when he is armed with an assault weapon? These are all reasons that the Democrats should easily understand and support.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Prejudice is a survival trait and has been much maligned. Yutes in gang colors covered with tattoos? Filthy homeless panhandlers? Slimy politicians? A Siberian tiger walking free down your neighborhood street? Sometimes prejudice is your friend. The very concept of situational awareness is a form of prejudice.

      Bigotry, on the other hand, is intellectual laziness that colors every member of a group/class/species as a sworn enemy no matter their actual actions or intentions.

      I have known and worked with good and honest Muslims, yet I treat each Muslim I meet with caution until I know personally their attitude and intentions.

      Just because you are paranoid does NOT mean that they are not out to get you. Distrust, but verify.

  8. avatar Bruce L. says:

    I’ve been going to a range for many years. I don’t ever remember my religion coming up. I sure didn’t walk in and shout “I’m a Christian”. I don’t agree with the range, but if he would have kept him mouth closed, he could have shot there for years.

    Perhaps if he had shot there for several years, he could have admitted he was Muslim and being such a good guy, would have shown the range the error of the policy.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Do the ranges you visit have a sign out front that says “No Christians Allowed”?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Do Christians regularly strap themselves with explosives and deliberately target and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians every year?

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Serge your gift for misdirection is matched only by your penchant for hyperbole. Answer real questions with real facts.
          Your ridiculous fear of the ever present Muslim apocalypse is as delusional as when you said the Oregon standoff was going to be the flame of revolution.

        2. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          They have in the past. Ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? How about the Nazi’s, they were “christian”. Most KKK members claimed to be christian. And lets not forget about the crusades, all of them.

          No one people or religion has a monopoly on evil.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Whatever Taylor. How many bits of civilian did you pick out of the street when you were in country?

          Oh and as for “Christians” doing things. Tell me all about how that’s going on right now and how those groups were supported by the majority of an entire religious group.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          He who points the finger at someone has 3 fingers pointed right back at himself. How soon you forgot all the Christian terrorists that within just the last few years that have gunned down people at two churches, and at abortion clinics. Of course you didn’t mention any of this. Remember where your 3 fingers are pointing.

        5. avatar Cliff H says:

          Mr. Taylor commented, “Your ridiculous fear of the ever present Muslim apocalypse…”

          I should like to point out that the Koran specifically demands that Islam should cause all others to submit (the actual meaning of the word islam in Arabic) and explains how this submission is to be achieved.

          Further, there are at best count approximately 340 million Americans, not all of whom believe that Islam is a threat the their/our way of life. Worldwide there are an estimated 1.5 BILLION Muslims. Best case that means that Muslims outnumber us by @ 4:1. This argues heavily against the concept of “ridiculous fear”.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey JIP… Tell me all about the people that “Christian Terrorists” beheaded and burned alive on camera. The difference is that Islam encourages this behavior. No major sect of Christianity even comes close.

        7. avatar jlp says:

          Your statement is illogical as you are saying its ok for Christian terrorists to kill people because they are less dead than when Islam terrorist extremists kill people. When it comes to the far right of any country or any religion they quote each other verbatim. Ever notice that. Ever notice on Face Book how many nut ball Christians advocate Nuking anyone who does not agree with them? How is this different from right wing Islamic fanatics. According to your philosophy we should say all Christians are terrorist because of the few nut cases that kill people and all Muslims (1,6 billion) are all terrorists as well. When you count up the numbers of those that do cause murder and mayhem it is very small compared to the people who live in peace and wish no harm to anyone. Rather the people who do commit harm are people posing as religious to gain political power and more wealth. They are not religious in any sense of the word whether they are Muslims or Christians.

          And there have been thousands of posts on Social Media by Muslims declaring “Not in My Name”. You ignore the majority of good people in the world and dwell through prejudice on the small numbers of nut cases which you then use to condemn an entire race and or religion which is the exact mentality that Hitler used in his reign of terror. And Hitler by the way was white and Christian so again when you point the finger at one race or religion you have 3 fingers pointing right back at yourself. That’s in triplicate.

        8. avatar alexander says:

          “Rather the people who do commit harm are people posing as religious to gain political power and more wealth.” — I wonder how much political power and wealth did the suicide bombers gained?

        9. avatar jlp says:

          They were brainwashed by the people of whom I spoke about.

        10. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Serge, on how many pieces of civilians I picked up “in country”, can you be more specific? I’ve done my job all over the world, and a lot of the pieces I was picking up were in the counties of Central America and the Caribbean. Don’t remember any Muslims around there though.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          I had a call to assist a Navy EOD unit that was sweeping the site of a recent bombing for secondary devices. They had half my unit police cleared portions of the area looking for pieces of the original device. Most of what I found were pieces of the victims. Come talk to me when you’ve done that and tell me again how people following the “religion of peace” can deliberately target a marketplace full of their own people.

          I am the third consecutive generation of my family to have fought these animals. Unfortunately, my grandfather and uncle had much more appropriate rules of engagement.

        12. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “Come talk to me when you’ve done that”
          I was the medic you idiot. I’ve don’t that before and after they were still screaming. Little pieces of dead are easy. Pieces of dying is a lot harder. I’ve done both.
          And still, as ever, all you do is misdirection because you can’t use facts and reason.

        13. avatar int19h says:

          >> I am the third consecutive generation of my family to have fought these animals.

          Have any of them fought “these animals” on US soil, or do you guys keep coming to their countries to kill them there?

          If the latter, have you wondered why is that?

        14. avatar alexander says:

          Perhaps because we have “leadership” that can’t keep their pants up or their pockets zippered?

        15. avatar neiowa says:

          Taylor

          Vienna – August 1683 Thank the Poles

          The Jihadis haven’t forgotten their warped history even if you’re clueless.

        16. avatar 16V says:

          Please, all the Muslim apologists, name one, just one Muslim-run country or even Muslim-majority country with that…

          Doesn’t execute homosexuals
          Allows a free press
          Allows cartoons of the prophet Mohammed
          Allows condemnation of Islam
          Gives women equal rights
          Doesn’t feature buggering young boys as acceptable sexual outlet
          Doesn’t favor killing apostates

          The answer is the set is null. The supposed “moderate” Muslims are never in charge, and in following their ‘book’ they never will be. “Not in my name” means nothing, because the guys who actually follow the Quran and Hadith will always ensure that it gets done anyway. They really believe that there are virgins waiting on the other side if they blow themselves up for Allah.

          That Western Civilization is not perfect is not an argument. We have goals, and they aren’t about returning us to the reality of a horny 7th century warlord, who spouted a lot of nonsense just to get laid. The “moderates” are about as religious as most Christians – which is to say they aren’t at all, and have little to no idea what is in their ‘good book’.

        17. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          jlp hey dude you need to stop reading Howard Zinn and listening to NPR and get out of your leftist New York Times bubble.. Your knowledge of history is completely filled with the leftist BS currently taught in our government schools.

        18. avatar alexander says:

          And the interesting thing about jlp is that he is totally unwilling to listen to any other source or to check any references, but the NYT. A good product of public education.

        19. avatar jlp says:

          NYT, NPR run by educated people v/s your gods Rush Limbhead (just barely graduated from high school), Glen Deckhead etc. They are real beauties.

        20. avatar 16V says:

          As always jlp, attempting to mischaracterize your opponent (who is always winning). Actually the people that have/do say the same “stupid” things as myself and others are those ‘illiterates’ like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins. Guys who went to Oxford, or Stanford. You know, places that people who aren’t as smart as you attend.

          Sad ad hominem as usual. Still no signs of logic.

      2. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

        Private businesses should be free to discriminate for whatever reason, against whomever they wish. If my local range had a sign that read ‘no agnostics allowed,’ guess what? I’d just go elsewhere. Sure, I’d be annoyed at first, but my next reaction would be ‘hey, thanks for letting me know you don’t like my kind so I won’t leave any of my money here.’ Nobody owes you (or me) sh!t. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to serve you. And why would you insist that they be forced to while handing over your money to people who don’t like you?

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          My first reaction would be to let them know they are ignorant, unamerican trash. My second reaction would be to take my business elsewhere. Don’t hide who you are.

        2. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          Un-American trash for refusing service? But suing and forcing them to admit that guy (or bake a cake) is American? It’s their business, they can (should be able to anyway) do whatever they want with it. You could post a negative review online and possibly discourage other people from going there, thus forcing them to change their policy that way. This whole litigation nonsense is what’s un-American.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Mr. Pierogie, I never said forcing a private business to serve someone was American, or anything about cake baking. If you want to have an argument with yourself, go ahead, but it looks silly.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          Hitler said much the same thing until he assumed absolute power and look what happened next after that. The people let him get away with it because over time they had been led to believe that everything he said was true and the way he acted was for their good until he got around to coming after them too and by then it was too late for everyone.

        5. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          Well then what’s your problem? I don’t care what the reason is for refusing service. And that’s the bottom line, refusal of service. What difference does it make that the range said because they are Muslim? What if they said no service because the guy wore blue sneakers? Doesn’t matter. They can do whatever they want, they are not causing any harm. Sure, people may think they’re wrong, but that’s it. Any lawsuit against a private party like that should be tossed pronto. Just admit you got nothing. Where does TTAG find you guys?

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Mr. Pierogie, I have a problem with biggots. That’s why I had a different reaction to a sign banning Christians, or Muslims. You stated that you would go along your way. I explained I would let them know what trash they are first. Welcome to the First Amendment.
          But I never said anything about the governments right to get involved in a private business. That was your illogical jump.
          To answer your final question, TTAG typically recruits writers from commenters.

      3. avatar Big B says:

        If a gun range (or any business) has a sign reading “no Christians”, so be it. So be it also if one says “no F##king muslims”.

        1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          That’s easy for you to say, as you are not a minority dealing with racists.

          I suppose you’d be okay with re-segregating the south?

        2. avatar alexander says:

          Just last week, this site was full of anti-Semitic comments (re: Ted Nugent’s post). They were vile, distasteful and whatever else one may think of them. Should they have been barred? Is a website not a business? Somehow, I did not read a single comment that this website must fight against discrimination. Did you read the comments? Did you leave your flaming opinion that anti-Semitism is illegal, un-Constitutional and the anti-Semites should be burned to the ground? I must have missed it.

        3. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Actually Jerremy, the only legal problem with segregation was the government aspect of it. A private business has the 1st amendment right to be as bigoted as they want.

          Oh and tell me more about how Muslims are a “persecuted minority” I’m sure Syrian and Egyptian Christians would love to hear all about it.

  9. avatar Don says:

    You can’t decline to bake cakes, provide flowers, or actually perform a gay wedding, so I suppose you have to let everybody shoot stuff too… now if this guy wanted some airplane simulator time to learn how to take off and fly airliners but don’t worry about the landing part, THEN would it be okay to say no? Just checkin’…

    1. avatar On the can says:

      Unfortunately, private property really stopped existing in the US in the 1930s. I forgot the case, and I’m sure someone else can point it out, and explain it better, but the one where the SCOTUS said you pretty much can’t grow a certain amount of food on your land, or do what you want with it.

    2. avatar Jeremy B. says:

      Denying services to a terrorist is legal. (in fact, please deny them vascular integrity)

      Denying services based on race or religion is not legal. Simple enough?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Muslim == terrorist. As I said, there are only four types of muslims. Three are various flavors of terrorists, the fourth are terrorist apologists.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Serge, that’s just disgusting.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes it is. Doesn’t change it being the truth. My family has been fighting the turks since before this nation existed. I think I have a slightly better perspective on it that some johnny-come-lately.

          https://youtu.be/j8P7qitB_6s

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Here’s an explanation of a position I can 100% get behind.
          https://youtu.be/9jUvvzhMFC0

  10. avatar Barry says:

    This is why all religions are bad.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      You are discriminating with a broad brush, sir.

    2. avatar On the can says:

      Yeah but in the absence of religion people will worship the state instead, either willingly or by force.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        You are completely joking, no? There’s me and millions of other atheists (like the Founding Fathers) who have precisely ZERO love of the State….

        1. avatar On the can all day says:

          Revisionist history. Half thr founding fathers were pastors. Also, the millions of your atheist brothers are hardcore leftists. Just because you and a couple of your friends are limited government atheists doesn’t mean the rest of ya’ll aren’t. And furthermore, I wasn’t so much defending religion, as I was attacking the state, so calm your uneducated out bursts.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Revisionist history? Been at the Creationist Museum all day I take it…

          Save for John Jay who actually did believe in a Christian deity, the rest were, at most generous, theists, as required by the court of public opinion. They believed in a god, when science didn’t have an explanation, or it didn’t have the political punch to say “human rights”. The rest of the time they were educated and well-read men. Seldom leads to a belief in magical sky-daddies.

          You might want actually, you know, read the FFs. Not listen to nonsense spouted by your pastor.

        3. avatar hellofromillinois says:

          Some of the Founding Father were not Christian but I doubt any were truly atheist. Deists is more logical.

          Anyways, most of the die hard Libertarians I know are atheist, but that is still just a biased observation. I’ve been atheist since Middle School and can tell you I certainly have no love of the government overreach and domination. I dislike much of our government’s actions because of unjust persecution and violence. Just as I dislike religion for spreading unfounded ideas and often using them to persecute others. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, pagans,… etc. People have been fighting over their superstitious beliefs for millennia, but most religious people are certainly not terrorists and do not wish to harm others. Peace and love are central to most faiths.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          16 v you stick your foot in your mouth every time you open it. George Washington refused to help Thomas Pain when he was imprisoned in France precisely because George was religious. Pain had written a book poking fun at the Christian religion and many of the Founding Fathers from that point on ostracized Pain and even his contributions to that war. The Founding Fathers may have often sounded like they were Atheists but if you have any knowledge of history they were actually trying to preserve religious freedom for everyone and avoid religious Wars. If the Founding Fathers would have been Atheists they would have outlawed religion all together just like the Communists did in Russia when they took over.

          16v if you had made that statement even to a group of Freshmen in any History College Class they would have laughed you out of the room.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          …sez the man who cannot even get Thomas Paine‘s name right even once in two tries.

        6. avatar 16V says:

          16v if you had made that statement even to a group of Freshmen in any History College Class they would have laughed you out of the room.

          Which speaks volumes to the pathetic state of education in this nation. I was educated in the history of the FFs as a freshman in Catholic high school, but we were a *bit* more advanced than other schools. My mother’s side has been here since 1542, my father’s since 1670 something. Slap a whole bunch of “greats” in front of grandfather and you get to an attorney who corresponded with, and was a friend of Jefferson. You may have been here two generations, you don’t have the vaguest clue.

          Seriously, you possess what used to be 5th grade civics when-I-was-a-kid knowledge, and I guess today, you might be a HS senior. But you just look like a sad uninformed puppet, who has never researched history. At all.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Not necessarily. Not everyone has a need to worship something bigger than himself.

    3. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

      Hello Barry, I’ll gladly concede if proven wrong but i can’t think of one other religion that clearly….adamantly…..screams out to the world to hear. (convert or die!)
      And then goes on to describe in great detail how to massacre all non believers and rape six year olds, women,boys ect.
      Take slaves and crush anything else that tries to stop it from happening?
      Any other religion cone to mind?
      Hindu?……Buddhists?……Christian’s?
      Atheism?…..scientology?……flying spaghetti monsters? (look that one up…it’s a hoot!)
      Anyways….let’s ban Assault religion!!!!!!!!!

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Fatihah is a board member of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter. CAIR is nothing more or less than a Hamas front group in the US. Muslims may have fought side by side with John Wayne Taylor, but I doubt that Hamas ever did.

    I’d say that the owners of this range didn’t go far enough.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      How quickly people forget that the same group that is whining about being “discriminated” against has no problem with lobbying for Shariah law in the US.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      I haven’t heard anything positive about CAIR. I see a pattern of Muslims becoming more vocal in our nation and trying to push Sharia law. Hard pass. I’ve also noticed the violence and sexual assaults committed against women in Germany committed by Syrian refugees. Meanwhile ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, El Shabaab and others are running epic mass murders across the world.

      With that being said, I wouldn’t ban a Muslim from my home or from a range. I do however, have lots of bacon, Bibles, and photos of my lovely wife in a bikini and low-cut tops. If a Muslim can tolerate that than I can respect and tolerate him or her. Although it would probably be a him because Islam tends to treat women as second class citizens.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        And there you have it. Don’t expect me to respect your beliefs if you disrespect mine. Sounds fair to me.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          If your beliefs involve following the teachings of a man who raped children and murdered people wholesale, teachings that encourage his followers to do the same on a daily basis, then you’re damned right I won’t respect them. Such beliefs don’t deserve respect, they deserve eradication.

          But please. Tell me what the punishment is for apostasy under Shariah.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Serge, the problem is that you assign those beliefs to a billion people that don’t have them. And as far as the penalty for apostacy, it depends on the country, culture, and timing.
          And, in Afghanistan, I was openly Christian. I wore the cross. I carried a Bible. I prayed openly, and I even went to far as to write the Hail Mary on my wall, where hundreds of Muslim men saw it every day. And largely because of that, I was treated with more respect, not less.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Under ISLAM Taylor. Apostasy, is the leaving of Islam for another religion. Go look up the penalty.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> If your beliefs involve following the teachings of a man who raped children and murdered people wholesale

          What if your believe involve following the teachings of a god who had demanded human sacrifices, and (at least if I am to believe your holy scripture) has murdered not just people, but literally committed genocide by wiping out entire nations, and at some point, pretty much the entire humanity?

        5. avatar 16V says:

          Int19h, You do understand that Islam is a further continuation of the ‘God that demands human sacrifice’, no?

          It’s another twist on the Abrahamic nonsense, which features a pathetic 7th century warlord getting himself a whole lotta cooch. Because god says so. Islam feature Jeebus as a prophet and all of that.

          Seriously, if you’re gonna actually believe this nonsense, you should know what it actually says.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          I’m an atheist. I don’t believe Islam anymore so than I believe Christianity or Zoroastrianism, and I find them all equally ridiculous.

          What I’m objecting to is claiming that Islam is some kind of “death cult”. It’s not. Not anymore so than Christianity, at least. And while it could be argued that Christianity is also a dormant “death cult”, I’m okay with the present arrangement where Christians pretend that their faith is peaceful and non-confrontational with respect to those who don’t share it. Similarly, I’m okay with those Muslims who pretend that their faith is like that- which is most of them.

          The kind that does not – like Salafis – I recognize as enemies.

        7. avatar 16V says:

          int19h, Except it has proved itself a ‘death cult’ thousands of time over, in our lifetimes alone.

          If you actually are an atheist, Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, et. al. would like to have a talk with your acceptance of Islam. It’s a death cult , and has been destroying civilizations since it was founded, until this very second.

        8. avatar int19h says:

          16V, please read my comment below about my grandfather first.

          Yes, I have read the Koran. I don’t really care what it says, because most Muslims don’t, either – in fact, most of them don’t even know what it says. And I know that, because I know them personally and intimately. And that is also how I know that Islam is not inherently a “death cult”, and it only turns into one where people (like Taliban, Boko Haram, Daesh etc) make it such for their own purposes.

        9. avatar jlp says:

          int19h. I would not pay any attention to 16v he is a Moron, a Racist and a Hitlerite. You could not teach him that vinegar is not sweet or that black is not white or that racism is not morally reprehensible. He represents all that is wrong with this world. That is why you have fanatics on both side of the fence starting wars. Its a miracle that nut cases like 16v have not already started a Nuclear war, he would find it glorious and has said as much.

        10. avatar 16V says:

          int19h, I read your comments before I posted. By your own admission your grandfather was someone who called himself a ‘muslim’, but didn’t actually follow the faith in the least. Marrying a non-convert? Are you kidding? The real muslims would kill for that, because the Quran says to do so.

          How is that relevant? He was a guy who called himself “muslim”, but followed none of the tenets. I could claim myself “transgender” save for the fact that I am quite happy being a flaming heterosexual.

        11. avatar int19h says:

          In all my life, I have met exactly one guy who followed all Christian tenets. One. He believed that we should stone gays on the town square, because Jesus said that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished”.

          And I’ve met hundreds of people who called themselves Christian.

          By your logic, should I apply his beliefs to all those other people? I don’t think so. It doesn’t really make any sense. Or should I refuse to consider them Christians? If so, there would probably be a few hundred people who are actually Christian in US, in total. It’s a definition that is valid in a very strict, pedantic way – but also makes all generalizations pointless, because it would mean that most people simply don’t fall under that definition. If you don’t think that Muslims who don’t strictly follow Koran are Muslims, then you cannot talk about “one billion of Muslims worldwide” – most of those guys don’t follow Koran, and don’t have any real intention of doing so.

          Where my grandfather lived, the majority of people are like that. They all consider themselves and each other Muslim. Other Muslim nations also consider them Muslim. Why shouldn’t I consider them Muslim? Because they don’t follow Koran to the tee?

        12. avatar 16V says:

          int19h, Like I said, you can call yourself anything you want. The problem is, when the guys who do actually read and follow the Quran show up, you, and all the others like you, are apostates. You do know their fate, yes? I do not understand the mental gymnastics it takes to say that you neither read nor believe in the Quran or Hadith, the essential documentation of the religion, yet you still claim to be an adherent. Of what exactly? Even cafeteria Christians at least pick something. There’s two or three verses is the Quran that are acceptable in a civilized world. I guess I could “identify” as a black woman.

          Here’s the problem with the false equivocation with Christians – there’s no “Christian Nation” out there, as a State-sponsor of terrorism, no place with Christian religious police, no place where Christians are lopping off heads and killing infidels in the name of god. No place where you can’t draw a cartoon of Jesus without tens of thousands of primitives in the street, or worse.

          So, let’s be honest, nobody cares about Christians because they aren’t out there being terrorists. OTOH, there are many hundreds of millions of Muslims that are in support of terrorism, and that number grows everyday.

        13. avatar int19h says:

          Like I said several times already, I am an atheist, and not a Muslim. I wasn’t even raised in a Muslim family – my grandfather was Muslim, yes, but my father was atheist and my mother was Christian, so I got fed the usual wishy-washy Christianity (Bible for kids, “Jesus loves you etc”) until I grew old enough to understand that it’s all obvious bollocks.

          But assuming that you’re talking about the guys who call themselves Muslim but aren’t actually observant, like my grandpa and most of Tatars… when you say “the guys who do actually read and follow the Quran show up” – those guys constitute a minority worldwide, and definitely a tiny minority in Tatarstan. But yes, when they do show up, they do call other Muslims apostates (it’s called “takfir” – which is why non-radical Sunni Muslims under Daesh yoke in Syria and Iraq call them “takfiri”, and that, by the way, is considered a serious insult). Which is why those other Muslims hate them with a passion, and fight back when they can.

          In Tatarstan, today, openly declaring that you’re a Salafi, or even just doing what they usually do (growing an unkempt beard etc) would make most other Muslims treat you like a pedophile or worse.

          >> Here’s the problem with the false equivocation with Christians – there’s no “Christian Nation” out there, as a State-sponsor of terrorism, no place with Christian religious police, no place where Christians are lopping off heads and killing infidels in the named of god. No place where you can’t draw a cartoon of Jesus without tens of thousands of primitives in the street, or worse.

          Right. Which is not how it used to be, but it changed, thanks to moderates and non-believers in Christian countries working from within to dismantle the system.

          This is also the eventual fate of Muslim countries. Unfortunately, like you say, there are powerful state sponsors of Islamic extremism, that invest huge amounts of money into reversing this trend, and they’re quite successful because little money is spent on counter-propaganda.

          And when you tell moderate Muslims that they “aren’t really Muslims”, and that they should really be with Daesh because that’s what Koran says, you’re effectively aiding and abetting Saudis and other such scum in converting people to become mindless minions for their Caliphate project.

        14. avatar alexander says:

          If we had a Christian sect today that would regularly behead people, burn them alive, kidnap them, rape them, etc…, what do you think all other Christian factions, divisions or flavors of Christianity would have been saying and doing regarding that sect? Would they celebrate an exceptionally gruesome beheading? Or perhaps dance in the street to the news of an especially effective bomb? Would they be joining that sect in droves?

        15. avatar int19h says:

          >> If we had a Christian sect today that would regularly behead people, burn them alive, kidnap them, rape them, etc…, what do you think all other Christian factions, divisions or flavors of Christianity would have been saying and doing regarding that sect?

          I’m glad you asked. We actually have a number of Christian sects today in Africa that regularly burn people alive, for example:
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/centralafricanrepublic/12018588/Christian-militias-in-Central-African-Republic-burnt-witches-at-stake-says-UN-report.html

          I take it you’re a Christian. What are you saying and doing regarding that sect?

          Most likely, you didn’t even know it exists until now. But even if you did, you’d probably just dismiss them as “not really Christians”. I doubt you feel you have a moral obligation to take to the streets and protest it really loudly, do you?

          Or, say, take Sabra and Shatila massacre, perpetrated by Christian militias in Lebanon. What did Christians say and do about it worldwide back then? Most didn’t say or do anything, just dismissing those guys as criminals first and foremost, and their Christian affiliation as irrelevant.

          >> Would they celebrate an exceptionally gruesome beheading? Or perhaps dance in the street to the news of an especially effective bomb?

          I’m actually not so sure about that. Thing is, even here on TTAG, you regularly see people in comments saying things like “let’s turn Middle East into the parking lot”, or suggesting to drop a nuke on Mecca/Raqqa/Tehran/…. I have heard similar sentiments personally, and I know that at least some of them are genuine and are voiced in full seriousness. So we’re talking about some people, who definitely consider themselves Christian, who want to perpetrate a massive genocide of Muslims in the Middle East. I mean, a nuke would take out tens of thousands of people at least, and possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions (Tehran is 8 million). That’s orders of magnitude more than how many people all Islamic terrorists have killed worldwide in the past 10 years.

          Then there’s revenge beheadings done by anti-Daesh militias in Iraq and Syria. One guy who is particularly known for this is Shia, but there have also been rumors of Christian militias doing it. In any case, the interesting part here is not who’s doing it, but the reaction in the West. Have a read, and note the approving language:

          http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/10/51899-graphic-brave-soldiers-behead-isis-fighters-to-avenge-their-loved-ones/

          And check out the comments. Some are critical, but others:

          “No he did not get what he deserved. They should have done the other head first and a few fingers. Beheading is to quick for them.”

          Looks like celebrating a particularly gruesome beheading to me.

          >> Would they be joining that sect in droves?

          Again, given all of the above, I don’t know. Of course, you’d need to define “droves”.

        16. avatar alexander says:

          BTW, I am not a Christian; agnostic more likely. And I disdain all organized religious businesses. But if someone is religious and keeps that religion to themselves, I’m perfectly OK with that; if they start to either convert me or try to kill me on that (or any other basis), then I get nervous…

        17. avatar alexander says:

          “http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/10/51899-graphic-brave-soldiers-behead-isis-fighters-to-avenge-their-loved-ones/” – Well, let’s see… You said that your grandfather was killing Nazis. Do you think that he was particularly saddened by their deaths?

        18. avatar jlp says:

          Alexander when you insult this other fellows Father who was a war hero that is about as low as a scum bag like you can stoop to. Your letting everyone know you hate every one who is not exactly like you. You believe that only nut cases like yourself are true Americans just like Hitler believe that only he was a true German.

        19. avatar int19h says:

          He didn’t insult my grandfather.

        20. avatar int19h says:

          No, not at all. But Nazis came to his country as conquerors, and have already burned many villages and killed many people by then. There weren’t any German innocents at Kursk – they were all invaders on foreign land. So it’s not comparable to “nuke Mecca”.

          The other obvious difference is that they were not torture-killing Germans at Kursk by beheading or burning them to extract revenge. They were killing them as efficiently as they could, with the tools at their disposal, to liberate their homeland.

          So, getting back from the analogy. When a Christian says, “I’d like all of ISIS to be shot or bombed out of existence” – I understand and concur.

          But when a Christian says, “I’d like all Muslims to die” – I find that unacceptable.

          Or when a Christian says, “I’d like this particular ISIS criminal to be slowly tortured to death” – that’s also unacceptable.

          And there are plenty of people in the last two categories.

        21. avatar 16V says:

          int19h, Once again, please name the single place that this “moderate” Muslim myth has actually worked, because as the world stands from prophet Mohammed until right this very second, there are precisely *zero* of them.

          Ever.

          The only place Muslims are “moderate” is when they are forced to assimilate due to being greatly outnumbered. That’s it. Every single time from Mohammed until right this second, if there is anything beyond about 5% Muslims, the extremists (people who actually follow what the books say to do in black and white) are always in charge. Or will be soon. Indonesia, Turkey, wherever. You name the country, it’s always bad, and getting worse with Islam. Has been for 1400 years, and there is no sign of change.

          It’s an open sewer of bad ideas, there’s nothing of any redeeming value in that whole pile of nonsense. A cunning and smooth-tongued horny dude twisted a bunch of illiterates to follow him, by pretending he was a ‘messenger from god’. So he could bang everything he got near. Pedo, rapist, you name it, that sick barbarian put his dick in it, then justified it in the Quran.

        22. avatar int19h says:

          I already gave a few. Can you tell what specifically is bad with Azerbaijan, that has to do with religion (I know they’re mildly authoritarian, but not anymore so than the neighboring Christian Russia, for example).

        23. avatar alexander says:

          Azerbaijan had three generations of Soviet rule, where religion was allowed to exist, but never to take power, as is called for in Islam. So, by necessity, Islam was not practiced in Azerbaijan – only a subset of it. Can you picture a Sharia court under Soviet rule? Hopefully, that has modified Islam in that part of the world sufficiently to withstand current fundamentalists’ infiltration from Saudi Arabia. If not, Azerbaijan will go back to the 7th century.

        24. avatar int19h says:

          >> It’s an open sewer of bad ideas, there’s nothing of any redeeming value in that whole pile of nonsense.

          Oh, the redeeming value is not in the ideas of Islam, of course. The redeeming value in trying to liberalize Islam rather than reject it wholesale, is that the latter would require a massive and bloody conflict, effectively a vast genocide, to implement.

          Basically, in the first approach, you take that 1 billion Muslims, and make them into what Christians are today – mostly harmless believers in some nonsense. In the second approach, you take that 1 billion Muslims, tell them that they can convert or die, and kill the 90% that will naturally refuse.

          So unless you specifically have a penchant for genocide, the first option is obviously preferable.

          Besides, Christians were pacified and not wiped out, so it would be unfair to treat Muslims differently. ~

        25. avatar alexander says:

          Agree, but wouldn’t it make sense to show the so called moderate Muslims that the fundamental interpretation of Islam is wrong, dangerous and leads to jihad (literally, as is written in the Koran), instead of pampering them and their holy books and proclaiming that Islam, as is, is a “religion of peace”? How do you ever expect to alter something unless you first recognize and admit to a problem?

        26. avatar int19h says:

          >> wouldn’t it make sense to show the so called moderate Muslims that the fundamental interpretation of Islam is wrong, dangerous and leads to jihad (literally, as is written in the Koran), instead of pampering them and their holy books and proclaiming that Islam, as is, is a “religion of peace”? How do you ever expect to alter something unless you first recognize and admit to a problem?

          It doesn’t work that way. If you tell them that the holy book of their religion is “fundamentally wrong”, you’ll get immediate heavy pushback. If, instead, you tell them that it’s fundamentally right, but it should e.g be interpreted more allegorically and less literally, and emphasize the good parts (Koran has plenty of those quotes as well – “no compulsion in religion” etc) while glossing over the bad parts and even deliberately downplaying them, it’s a much easier pill to swallow. That’s what we did to Christianity.

          Then, once that is accepted, in a few more generations people will be sufficiently culturally conditioned that they will reject violent trends even if they see them in Koran, and come up with ex post facto explanations as to why they are doing that (as Christians today mostly reject Leviticus etc, even though it’s in the Bible). A few more generations, and they will increasingly become non-religious, again, like Christians today.

        27. avatar alexander says:

          Perhaps something can move Islam in the peaceful direction in a few generations; perhaps it’ll take much longer than a few generations. But, meanwhile, the “soft” approach will likely to have little traction against hardcore teachings from Alexandria and Saudi Arabia – you, an infidel, are telling Moslems to overlook and take allegorically some unpleasant passages, while the Islamic scholars say that the Koran is the literal word of God and must be followed. Guess who wins that argument?

        28. avatar int19h says:

          Of course it shouldn’t be the infidels – that’ll never work. It should be other Muslims, the more moderate ones. Even if they preach some things that we don’t like, the important part is the overall direction relative to current state of affairs. Basically we need to start slowly pulling the center of gravity of Islam as a whole away from fundamentalism and towards more liberal theology. Every generation you affect in this manner will, in turn, produce a few more liberal preachers, who can then pull it further etc. It’s an iterative process – cull the fundies, encourage the reformers, and subtly direct the middle towards the latter and not the former.

          In specific terms, this involves all kinds of things, from direct military action and punitive economic measures against countries and organizations who provide funding for the fundamentalists, to subtle propaganda through popular culture, to funding moderate madrasa.

          Also, directly target the people’s wallet – give economic (trade etc) preferences to Muslim-majority countries, and Muslim communities in our own countries, that are more moderate, over the radicals; maybe even directly invest in their infrastructure, create jobs etc. Basically, we should make it clear, on a subconscious level, that being more moderate about your religion means living better, not in an abstract “more freedom” way, but in “I earn more, live in a better home, my kids get better education and better prospects in life” way.

          Most people really aren’t all that ideological, and religion is background for their day to day life; bread and butter is simply more important, except where their religious (or any ideological) beliefs are threatened immediately and obviously, placed directly on the anvil – and that’s when you suddenly get martyrs and jihadis. So going around telling them how Islam is a “death cult” is counterproductive, even if you believe it to be true.

          The reason why Middle East is such a powder keg wrt religious radicalism is because many people there think that they don’t have all that much to lose – their societies have entrenched oppressive power hierarchies (aristocratic monarchies or nepotic dictatorships) with low social and economic mobility, and so this social and economic discontent of the masses seeks an exit, and fundie preachers are right there, telling them that their lives are so bad because the society is not “sufficiently Islamic”, and because the taguts and munafiqs have appropriated the teachings of the Prophet for their own gain. So if you only go and behead them and establish just and fair Sharia, everything will be peachy. “Make Ummah great again!”

          So we need to take out those preachers, yes, but that is not enough. We need to have our own preachers there as well. And we need what they preach to be more than empty promises – and we can do it! That’s the advantage that we have over the fundies – our society and its approach produces wealth here and now, and makes people’s lives better here and now, if all is done right. Fundies can only hand out so much bread and circuses here and now, because they do not produce; and so they focus on the afterlife, but that’s more remote and abstract, and takes more convincing to swallow. We, on the other hand, have the earthly goods to substantiate our argument: “be more like us today, and eat better tomorrow”. But this needs to be followed very stringently, otherwise it becomes an hollow promise quickly, and will perceived as false and misleading.

        29. avatar alexander says:

          Theoretically, I’m right there with you (except that I’m not too happy about waiting a few generations and having to love all their suicide bombers meanwhile). But here’s the reality – Afghanistan, under Soviet rule, was a relatively modern country where women worked, went to school, wore skirts. Using the idiotic formula that an enemy of my enemy is my friend, we armed the fundamentals, helped them kill a lot of Russians, who in return killed a lot of Afghans, returned the country into the prehistoric times, spent a few billion dollars don’t know on what and gave the new government a Sharia constitution. Peanut brains? It gets better – we did pretty much the same with Iraq – turned a semi-secular, modern country into a nest of fundamentalist jihadis, spent another few billions and gave them a Sharia constitution as well.
          Then we release the billions of Iranian funds that were frozen, so that now they can finish building their nuke, which we gave them an OK to build. Now, who’s America’s best friend in the Middle East – no, not the only democracy, not the only modern country there, not the one that has never attacked a neighbor without provocation, of course not – our best friend and closest ally is Saudi Arabia, who for decades has been and continues to fund extremism throughout the world. Frankly, if only people would look at what our government has been and continues to do, I couldn’t possibly see why would anyone enlist in the military, if only to become cannon fodder.

        30. avatar int19h says:

          >> But here’s the reality – Afghanistan, under Soviet rule, was a relatively modern country where women worked, went to school, wore skirts.

          It’s a bit more complicated than that.

          Afghanistan was actually at its peak under the local Shah, before Soviets waded in. Most of these “Afghani women in miniskirts” photos floating around are from that time period, 1933-1973. For example, this photo of Paghman Gardens in Kabul:

          http://ic2.pbase.com/o6/54/14154/1/83230527.Hehstghw.PaghmanBeforeAfter.jpg

          The photo on the left is from 1967.

          Now, the Shah definitely was friendly with Soviets, but he was largely just skimming them for money in exchange for support in the region (which Soviets needed as a counterpart to US-aligned Pakistan). He wasn’t a socialist, and his reforms were making Afghanistan into something more typical of a Western European country than USSR.

          The other thing to keep in mind is that all these photos show what was essentially educated elite living in large cities. Most of the country, living in small kishlaks, was still conservative, religious, and backwards, with women wearing niqab etc. The Shah was basically doing exactly what I suggested we should do – he was slowly converting society, one social class at a time, but without trying to forcibly suppress religion.

          Now when Soviet-backed revolution happened and the new government went in, they went full retard – they told the peasants living in those kishlaks that now all land is shared in a kolkhoz-style arrangements, and they started to force progressive social mores (e.g. banning niqabs, desegregating schools so that girls and boys studies together etc). The first hurt the peasants economically, while the second offended their morality. The result was the popular uprising, with reactionary anti-modernist religious ideology at its core.

          >> Then we release the billions of Iranian funds that were frozen, so that now they can finish building their nuke, which we gave them an OK to build.

          Don’t worry too much about Iran. They’re often conflated with the likes of the Saudis, but they’re much more pragmatic, and a lot of what they do is posturing. They are nationalists, and don’t like Arabs much (still remembering the original conquest of Persia by the Caliphate), and cherish and respect their own pre-Islamic and non-Islamic cultural heritage – Cyrus the Great, Zoroastrianism etc. And that nationalism runs counter to fundamentalist Islamic notion of one single worldwide Ummah defined only by the shared religion, which considers nationalism – “asabiyyah” – a major sin (http://www.al-islam.org/islam-and-nationalism-dr-ali-mohammed-naqvi/part-seven-islam-and-nationalism).

          They do have a strong religious streak, yes, but it’s more a way to define and separate their national identity (being Shia in a Sunni-dominant world). So their ultimate pragmatic goal is regional dominance – a Greater Iran, surrounded by satellite Shia states – not worldwide Caliphate.

          Consequently, their real enemy #1 is not Israel – it’s Saudi Arabia. And their nuclear program is there largely to counter Saudi’s attempts to acquire nukes from Pakistan (which, at this point, given how Salafi-infiltrated ISI is already, I think is a given – even if Saudis don’t physically have their hands on a nuke, they have enough agents of influence in Pakistan to obtain it if and when they need it).

          In fact, I wouldn’t even be surprised if Israel formed an alliance of convenience with Iran against the Gulf monarchies led by the Saudis eventually. This is especially so if Israel gets a less irredentionist government that will be more willing to peacefully solve the Palestine problem. If Iran gets to act as a mediator in that process, they would get massive positive publicity, which would help them in their propaganda war vs Saudi.

          So in the current configuration, US should really be allying with Iran vs Saudi Arabia (more moderate vs more extreme), and using its leverage on Israel to push it to compromise. Iranian-backed governments could also provide vastly more stability in Iraq and Syria.

        31. avatar alexander says:

          At the moment, Israel is more aligned with Saudi Arabia against Iran. As to the Palestinian issue, it is not in the hands of Israel. As you know, in Oslo, Israel offered to the Palestinians everything short of Israel walking into the sea and drowning. The Palestinians demanded that last part as well. Basically, the Palestinians are not interested in any solutions – their leadership is very comfortable living like royalty on hundreds of millions that they steal, while the surrounding Arab states also find it very convenient to have an external enemy that they call blame all their internal problems on.

        32. avatar int19h says:

          >> At the moment, Israel is more aligned with Saudi Arabia against Iran.

          Yes. It is also why US is so cozy with the Saudis – because Israel demands it.

          I believe their thinking is like this. Right now it’s a 3-way match between Iran, Saudis (+ other Sunni Gulf monarchies) and Israel. And between Iran and Saudis, they see Iran as stronger – it has much better, more diverse economy, strong industry, more people, stronger motivation for those people, better military commanders (because it’s more meritocratic, while Saudis are aristocratic – meaning you become officer because you’re a nephew of a king’s fifth cousin, and not because you’re actually good at it) etc.

          Given dismal performance of Saudi army in Yemen so far, I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.

          And so Israelis support the weaker of their two foes as a counterbalance to the stronger one. They don’t think Saudis can actually win, but even if by some miracle they do, leaving Israel as the next target, Israelis think they can take on them and win with relatively little blood. Not so with Iran. Israel would still win in a sense of holding the line, but it would be very costly for them, and they cannot actually counterattack and defeat Iran to the point where it couldn’t fight back.

          For the same reason, Israel, largely through their US proxy, encourages economic sanctions on Iran, but not on Saudi Arabia, even though the latter is just as much a “terrorist state”, and actually funds more terrorism in Western countries.

          I believe this to be a mistake long-term. The problem is that this is a gamble that only works out if Iran loses, or at least if the balance remains indefinitely. If it does not, and Iran does gain the upper hand over Saudis after all, then that leaves Israel alone in the crosshairs – and worse yet, they have severely antagonized Iranians by then, so there’s that much less room for maneuver to avoid war and reach a diplomatic solution.

          Most certainly, from our (Westerner) perspective, we shouldn’t be encouraging this. The argument here is pretty straightforward – Saudis are more of a threat to us than Iran because of their global rather than regional ideological desire to dominate, and because they are the ones predominantly funding terrorists in our countries. It’s true that Iran also funds terrorists, but that is much more regional in nature – most of their funds go to Shia militias like Hezbollah, which dabble in terrorism as a form of asymmetric warfare. Now, when was the last time Hezbollah carried out a terrorist act on Western soil? On the other hand, 9/11 – Saudis. Beslan – Saudis. London – Saudis. Paris – Saudis. San Bernardino – Saudis. By the way, did you know that Hezbollah denounced the 9/11 attacks?

          Effectively, Israeli are having us play their game for them, and pay for it in our blood. As it is, Israel is not a Western ally – it’s a parasite on the West, distorting the foreign policy of Western states, especially US, in the interests of Israel, and counter to the interests of those Western states. That has to end.

          It doesn’t mean that Israel doesn’t deserve help and assistance. As a functioning Westernized democracy in hostile surrounding, that is closest to us culturally, it does. But that help should come with strings attached, and the question of Iran vs Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest strings. If Israel is not willing to accept it, they can buy Western guns with their own money rather than US monetary assistance, and fight back the Arab and/or Iranian hordes themselves. But I’m sure that, if question is to be put that way, they will accept it. They’re pragmatic and not suicidal. That’s something that we could learn a lot from them.

          >> As to the Palestinian issue, it is not in the hands of Israel. As you know, in Oslo, Israel offered to the Palestinians everything short of Israel walking into the sea and drowning. The Palestinians demanded that last part as well. Basically, the Palestinians are not interested in any solutions – their leadership is very comfortable living like royalty on hundreds of millions that they steal, while the surrounding Arab states also find it very convenient to have an external enemy that they call blame all their internal problems on.

          Palestinians were interested in solutions 30 years ago – the two-state option actually had broad support among them back then – but Israel pushed back. That created fertile ground for radicalization, and the rise of Hamas. Now, Palestinians are also dominated by the hardliners who don’t want to compromise. And so we have this endless cycle of Palestinian hardliners starting violence, Israeli populace electing increasingly more hardline governments in response, who return violence in response several times over, creating more hardliners etc. The only logical endgame for this is complete destruction of either side. As in genocide. Hamas is openly trying to implement one, and Israel is just slowly carrying it out through economic strangulation.

          Israel still could turn this around, though. Remove all settlements, and unilaterally declare Gaza and West Bank to be independent Palestine states, fully withdraw, and hold the border tight. There will be missiles flying over it – resist the temptation to go back in and crush any resistance, and just shoot them down (now that they have reliable anti-missile tech, this is much easier). And let those Palestinian states stew.

          There’ll be a bloody civil war between Fatah and Hamas – do not intervene. Meanwhile, start quietly establishing contacts with the more moderate figures that emerge in the fighting, and lay out a plan whereby they would cease their violence towards Israel, and police their own for the same, in exchange for Israel providing economic and indirect military (guns etc) backing. Back it with massive individual bribes. Basically, do to Palestinian territories what Russia did to Chechnya.

      2. You gotta show those pictures now. You have already teased us.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      And oddly enough, I agree with you there. Kicking him out because he is a Muslim is unAmerican. Kicking him out for being a board member of CAIR is fair game. I’m actually surprised he can remain in the army with such an affiliation.

      1. avatar alexander says:

        The US government threats CAIR members as protected species. CAIR has infiltrated all levels of the government, including DoD. They are regular guests in the White Castle. Their influence is enormous. Look up the case of the Holy Land Foundation and CAIR’s association with the terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          The Far Right has railed not only against CAIR but the NAACP, Anti-Defamation League, Council of Catholic Bishops, Gay and Lesbian Rights Organizations just to name a few. If we followed your philosophy we would have no country called America.

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        I’m surprised too. As the state department has listed hamas as a known terrorist organization, and it is known that Hamas and the muslim brotherhood back cair.
        Then again, the army didn’t do much about that Major down at Fort Hood when he started acting whacky.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Well, that’s “military intelligence” for you.

  12. avatar JP says:

    I don’t believe the story. When was the last time you went to a range and the staff weren’t already armed? And why isn’t he pressing criminal charges if they grabbed guns AFTER he identified himself as Muslim?

  13. avatar Wood says:

    It’s the government that’s not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, orientation, religion etc. Private land and business owners absolutely have that right. Now, I think such a sign invites a terrorist act. And mind you, not all terrorism must have casualties. Creating trouble, unrest, disruption, etc are all part of terrorism. The “justice” system in this case is facilitating it.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      That’s not true. A private business can not discriminate either. That settled law. Not saying it’s right, but it’s the law.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        That may be, but we as a nation are pretty divided upon which laws we actually enforce. Immigration, tax laws on Al Shatpton, Obamacare doesn’t apply to congress, etc.

      2. avatar Wood says:

        Law has little to do with rights, or right vs wrong. The government uses force to extend “rights” which are not found in the Constitution.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          And to curtail those that clearly are. To our detriment.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    It’s not OK for private businesses to ban Muslims – Constitution.

    But, it is OK for the same private businesses to ban guns, because it is not the gov’t banning them – Constitution.

    How does the ACLU count?

    1,3,4,5….

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The aclu doesn’t count. They’ve made themselves irelevent in the civil rights movement.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Indeed.

        Oh, and let us not forget, it is OK for the gov’t to ban guns – Constitu… I mean, scary guns and safety.

    2. avatar alexander says:

      Please show specifically where in the Constitution does it say that “it is not OK to ban Muslims” (or any other religion)? The Constitution guarantees against religious discrimination BY the GOVERNMENT, not private entities. There’s a huge difference.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        If we are going to be absolutists in the interpretation of the wording of the Bill of Rights, and I support that posititon, the First Amendment reads as follows, exactly:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

        I would interpret this to mean that if a church can prohibit members of other religions or denominations from interfering with their meetings or services by excluding them from their facilities then a Christian or Jewish business should be equally able to prohibit those persons from their services/facilities.

        If there were a Muslim owned and operated gun store/gun range in your neighborhood and you were Jewish or Christian would you walk through their doors, announce your religious affiliation (or lack of same) and demand service?

        I fail to find ANYTHING in The Constitution of the United States of America that says I, or anybody, has the right to demand that someone provide them with any service and the government has the right to enforce their demands. (Selective Service is another issue.)

        Whatever hapened to the signs: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody”?

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          Absolutely correct. The only case where discrimination is un-Constitutional is if done by the government.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          I can find a part that specifically prevents you from demanding service. It’s called the 13th amendment.

        3. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          Bingo. Although certain writers around here don’t get it. Whether the range owners are bigots or not is irrelevant. They should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason. As much as you and I may not like it, as much as we both may disagree with the sign they posted, it’s their right. It’s their business, their property, they can do what they please with it. If that means running it into the ground by being jerks, so be it. If you think they are bigots and you dislike them for that, fine. Go write a negative review, tell others to stop going there. You can change their mind that way, by hurting their bottom line. But wtf is this nonsense with suing them and forcing them to serve a Muslim or anybody else? That’s fair how exactly? And if they don’t like you and made it abundantly clear, why would you give them your money anyway?

        4. avatar jlp says:

          Since I am not a lawyer I am not going to say you are technically right or wrong but you ignore reality. Businesses have been sued according to both Federal and State and even Local laws and lost. I think the Gay men that wanted a cake baked is a good example of a business that lost monetarily big time as well as socially as they faced a firestorm from the public as well. The Courts at all levels have many times voted according to public opinion (regardless of the Constitutions at the Federal, State and Local levels as well). Constitutions can be twisted anyway the court wants to twist them and they have done it many times both on the far right and far left. And when it comes to human rights and human decency the public has agreed with the courts time and time again.

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Friendly fire, Alex.

        I was making that point, but ironically.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          I agree.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. Notice the word that isn’t there? It’s Constitution.

      ACLU’s mandate is to protect civil liberties as they understand them. They are not bound, nor claim to be bound, by the Constitution, in defining what those liberties are.

      And, hopefully, it’s kinda obvious that something not being in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it is not a civil liberty. But if you really insist, there’s always the 10th Amendment as a catch-all.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Civil: of or relating to the people who live in a country.

        Liberties (liberty): the state of condition of people who are able to act and speak freely.

        You are correct that Civil Rights are not confined by the Bill of Rights and Constitution. However, the Bill of Rights, to include the 2nd A, are Civil Right by the very definition. If the ACLU only cares about Civil Rights NOT associate with the 2nd Amendment, then they are politically afflicted organization, not a Civil Rights afflicted one.

  15. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Long hours of rolling your ass in the air working that personal salvation, food bits in your beard, washing all the time, remembering to eat with your non ass wipe hand, getting your bed sheet caught in escalators, constantly yappin about democracy being an abomination. Making your woman cover up. When all this stacks up and ya got a gun, never know when the muzzy switch is gonna flip.

  16. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I hope this was audio and video taped.
    “Hello, I’d like to rent a lane, and I’m muslim.
    I thought I’d mention that because of your sign. That and we, cair, already tried to sue another range in Florida, but a judge threw it out because we couldn’t show individual harm. ”
    Aloha snackbar.

  17. avatar Anon says:

    Forget all this hateful language, not all Muslims are terrorists, not all blacks are criminals, every religion has been hijacked at one time or another, people use religion as justification even Christianity which has many denominations which use different rules. All ignorant, racist people need to die

    1. avatar alexander says:

      Please, please, read the Koran, educate yourselves. Islam is not just a religion – it is a theocracy. It is politics, morals, legal structure and religion. And Islamic theology calls for extermination of all that are not Muslim. Again, educate yourself (outside and beyond CNN).

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Yes, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western culture.

        Still, Anon is right. The individual and the group are not the same thing.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Yet you cannot deny that the group an individual chooses to affiliate him/herself with is a strong indicator, as is any group an individual refuses to distance themselves from.

      2. avatar Anon says:

        I have read parts of the koran and alot of it correlates to what the Bible says….just different wordings….they both have passages stating when you have a right to defend yourself and when you don’t. Both advocate protecting innocents….my last boss was Muslim and he didn’t shoot up the job.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and yet you don’t see Christians locking muslims in cages and setting them on fire while praising Jesus. Funny that… Perhaps you should read the Bible a bit more carefully. Perhaps focus on the New Testament?

        2. avatar jlp says:

          The Christian Bible is filled with violence and mayhem. Personally I have always admired the Buddhists at least they specifically spell out that all life is sacred. Since the Christians stole a good part of their philosophy from the various religions of the far east I have always wondered why they left out one of the most important parts that they should have stolen too.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again jlp… The New Testament. Not the appendix.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          You do realize you are denigrating and blaspheming your own religion don’t you? According to your statement you should only be reading and believing in the New Testament and the old testament because (according to your line of thinking) since it is part of Judaism is therefore, less holy and inferior to the new testament. You either believe in all of the bible or none of it, that is logical but your beliefs are illogical.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          >> and yet you don’t see Christians locking muslims in cages and setting them on fire while praising Jesus.

          Christians used to do that sort of thing, too. Then that whole Enlightenment, humanism and secularization thing happened.

          It’s great that we’ve dealt with extremists in our own religious tradition. But it’s not really an achievement that said religious tradition can claim, because, as a whole, it resisted it all along.

          Last time a Christian state, acting in that capacity, specifically burned Muslims at stake for their religion was in 1700s in Spain.

          Last time a Christian state burned anyone alive for religious reasons was in 1800s, also in Spain.

          Last time any Christian burned anyone alive for religious reasons was last year, in Africa (probably more since, actually, since it’s kinda routine there):

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/centralafricanrepublic/12018588/Christian-militias-in-Central-African-Republic-burnt-witches-at-stake-says-UN-report.html

          So, sorry to say, but you don’t get to claim any superiority on this matter on account of your religion. You don’t burn people alive not because you’re Christian rather than Muslim, but because you live in a civilized country rather than uncivilized one.

        6. avatar 16V says:

          jlp doesn’t even understand that his religion is the same Abrahamic nonsense as the Jews and Christians, and says as much.

          Please kid, read the effen Quran. Learn what it actually says.

        7. avatar jlp says:

          Brother your reading comprehension is always laughable. I have been deliberately giving you hints for quite some time now and also in the past told you straight out that I am not a Muslim. What part of this does not your prejudiced brain understand.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually jlp, the Old Testament has been confirmed to be “just a collection of stories” by the current Pope. Try again. The reason the Old Testament is best referred to as an “appendix” is because 90% of the commandments therein were overruled by Jesus’ teachings.

        9. avatar alexander says:

          The current Pope is well on the way of replacing the entire Bible with Karl Marx’s “Capital”.

        10. avatar jlp says:

          Wonderful. I knew if this thread went on long enough you red necks would eventually get around to expressing your hate for Catholics as well as every other religion. You just succeeded in proving my point from the very beginning. You are against everything the Constitution stands for in regards to religious freedom.

        11. avatar alexander says:

          First, I wasn’t aware that the Pope is protected by the US Constitution. Second, I did not attack Catholics, except for by association for their (some, at least) support of a Marxist Pope. Third, it seems that it is you who is against the Constitution in not willing to allow others the right of criticism of religion, any religion, for any reason.

        12. avatar jlp says:

          Give everyone a break if you believe any of that “hate” post is not against the Catholic church and Catholics in general you are a bigger nut case than I thought you were.

        13. avatar jlp says:

          Actually we know nothing about what the profit Jesus said or believe in. He and his Apostles were illiterate. When you quote the Christian bible you quote what people were putting in the bible according to their own beliefs. As a matter of fact if it was not for Mary Magdalene the Christian religion would have been nothing more than a footnote in history. She made her version of the religion appeal to the women and because it is the women who brainwash the children the older religions were doomed. Thank her not Christ for the success of the Christian religion as he had little to do with it or his apostles.

        14. avatar 16V says:

          jlp, If there’s one thing you know less than history, it’s Christian mythology. Is there anything you do actually know?

          There may have been a crazy Jew named Jesus running around, yet nobody thought to write a single word about him until over 70 years after his supposed death…

          http://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/

          Doubtful that “Jesus” ever even existed…

          http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed

          All the miracles, healings, rising from the dead, and yet nobody, nobody wrote a damned thing about him until 70 years after the fact. C’mon, get real.

        15. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Sorry 16V. I’m an atheist, but I’m gonna call bullshit on that one.

          Whoever it was that wrote the book we now title “Mark,” he probably did so in the 60s or 70s AD…which puts him at a lot less than a century afterwards..more like 30 to 50 years, within living memory of the crucifixion. Even “John” was probably no later than 110 AD, eighty years later. Maybe you want to call those dates speculative bullshit, but our earliest extant fragment of John is carbon dated to 120-150 CE, which means it alone might originate from your time frame, IF and only IF this happens to be the original manuscript, as opposed to a copy of a copy of a copy. No one thinks it is original. The other gospels are older.

          Furthermore Paul did write about Jesus in the 40s and 50s. Granted, what Paul wrote wasn’t biographical, but he reported meeting Jesus’ literal brothers shortly after he converted, which was likely in the early 30s. So, was Paul lying? Or where the putative brothers lying? Even if so, they were lying long before you claim this stuff got made up.

          “Matthew” and “Luke” apparently rely on an older source we now refer to as Q. Q is lost…but may have been written.

          The gospels were almost certainly the result of people writing down oral traditions that had come down from around the time of the crucifixion, and show the signs of it…as you read from Mark, through to John (in order of authorship) you see the tales get taller and taller.

          Christianity not true? I’ll agree with that instantly. Made up completely out of whole cloth, with not even a living, breathing historic human as a basis over a hundred years later? Bullshit!

        16. avatar Alexander says:

          The fact of Jesus’ existence is well established by historical evidence. As to him being God or a son of God, I would suggest that much of Jesus’ divinity has been borrowed from Egyptian Ra, including the concept of saints – in Egypt they were the lesser gods. The parallels between them are obvious to a child when the two mythologies are compared.

        17. avatar Alexander says:

          The huge difference between modern Christianity and modern Islam is that modern Christians, for the most part, don’t really care what religion others are and a small part of them tries to convert others using words, when as modern Muslims, for the most part, do care what religion others are and a small part of them tries to convert others using a sword or, failing that, just kill the infidels. Don’t know about some, but I find the difference significant.

      3. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Read the Koran. Lived in Muslim countries. Fought with, and against Muslim men. Killed some. Healed others. Saw a whole lot of respect given to me as a Christian by most. Not by all.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          Good. You read the Koran. Do you find it a “religion of peace”?

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          Alexander – When you understand that the translation of “peace”, as discussed in the Koran, means the peace that comes when your enemies can no longer oppose you, that is the peace that comes from their submission to your control, then yes, Islam is the religion of peace.

          If, like most western countries, you consider peace to be personal freedom and the absence of conflict, then no, Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          I can only wish that that idiot of an uneducated president of ours (no, not the current Terrorist in Chief), by the name of GW Bush, had known a little more about the subject before he had gone to a mosque, took off his shoes and called this vile theocracy “the religion of peace.”

      4. avatar Jeremy B. says:

        Please read the bible and educate yourself. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

        If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          The Judaic and Christian religions have advanced and progressed over the centuries. Islam has not, nor is it allowed to change at all from the original (that is an automatic death sentence, if one tries). There are some fundamental Christian zealots who are as dangerous as the Muslims – I call them the Christian Taliban. Fortunately, there are very few of them. Islam is fundamental and must remain fundamental for all of 1.5 billion of its followers.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          And 1.5 billion Muslims have already proven you wrong which includes 6 million American Muslims. By the way my Dentist and Doctor are Muslims and they do not wear suicide vests either. It would seem to disprove your fanatic right wing Muslim conspiracy theories.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          I am sorry that you insist on being willfully uneducated. If you were to read and study the Koran, you would know that all Muslims undergo several phases of being a Muslim. The majority of the Muslims today act peacefully because they are in the first, peaceful stage. But, by definition, as written and directed by the Koran, they all aspire to reach the jihad stage. Most will never reach it, and will end their natural lives never killing anyone – that is true. But everyone of them holds the jihadis in the highest esteem and would never condemn them. It’s like asking a Catholic to condemn the Pope. Seriously, the time that you’ve spent arguing – just look up the details of the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood. And do look up the schools in Saudi Arabia and Alexandria that teach peaceful Muslims how to evolve to the next stage. And please don’t give the crap that the Koran was written in classical Arabic and that I am wrong in its interpretation because I don’t know classical Arabic and rely on translations – for your knowledge, classical Arabic exists today only among a few scholars; everyone else reads the Koran in translation, including every suicide bomber that was alive.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          This is a Tatar Muslim:

          https://pp.vk.me/c628018/v628018859/176cb/wDqeqvMuwOo.jpg

          He was my grandfather.

          His father was a Muslim preacher. He was send to the camps under Soviets in late 20s for preaching religion, alongside with a bunch of Christian priests.

          Grandpa was a tank driver at the Battle of Kursk. Got wounded with a piece of shrapnel that had stuck in his abdomen for the rest of his life, they couldn’t remove it.

          I don’t know how many Nazi scum like Stray Dogg here (well, not quite – at least they were warriors, and he just posts racist comments on the Internet) he killed on that battlefield, but I hope it was a lot. Either way, between him and the rest, it was enough to drive them out and break them for good.

          if you told him to his face that he “aspired to reach the jihad stage” and “holds the jihadis in the highest esteem”, he’d politely explain you why you’re very wrong. Right after he punched you in the face for being an offensive asshole.

          He married a Russian Orthodox Christian woman. No, she did not convert. She remained Christian to the end of her life.

          His son – my father – is an atheist. In a surprising turn of events, he was not beheaded or even cast out of his home. His son’s wife – my mother – is a Lutheran Christian, and had visited my grandfather’s house many times. In another surprising turn of events, she was not forced to wear a burqa, nor did anyone tell her that she should. FWIW, my grandfather was very impressed by the fact that she has a degree and runs her own business, and always treated her very respectfully because of that, often telling his own son that he should be more like his wife.

          Now, do you have any more ridiculous bullshit about Muslims that is in need of deconstructing?

        5. avatar alexander says:

          Yes, I do. The Tatars were (and are) a very special case (aside from Stalin’s “loving” affection – yes, I’m quite familiar with it). The Tatars are unique in their peacefulness. Perhaps there are other Muslim groups that are close to that, but I’m not aware of them. They might as well be of a different religion, and of a different world, than Arab Muslims (and Iranians and most of Africa’s Muslims). As far as I know, the Tatars were extremely peaceful even before the Soviets took over, but under the Soviet regime there was certainly no such notion as Sharia or jihad. Again, this is a unique and a very small (“thanks” to Stalin) group. I don’t think that you would use the same example with the Chechens. BTW, my wife has that blood too, so I do know what I’m talking about.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          It is not small. There are 2 million Tatars in Tatarstan alone, another million living compactly in Tatar-majority communities in the neighboring Bashkortostan, and 2 million more across the rest of Russia.

          It’s not unique. It’s a traditional Sunni Muslim community, and 100 years ago it looked exactly like any other Sunni Muslim community. They did have Sharia law even, and women mostly wore niqabs etc. This changed rapidly over the last century, and yes, today, they’re probably the most liberal Muslims anywhere in the world (but Bashkirs, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijani, Turkish and Indonesians are not far away).

          And yes, they did have and do have their own jihadis. In fact, right now, today, the Tatar Salafi jihadis are killing the moderate preachers, e.g.:

          http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tatarstan-kazan-moscow-sunni-islam-volga-river-364759

          All this just goes to show that the problem is not Islam, and that you can have a peaceful, civilized culture that is based on Islam as a religion, suitably modernized – and that it can even be done in a very short time frame, historically speaking.

          And whenever you speak of “all Muslims are terrorists”, you are including Tatars, and all those other civilized Muslims in that “all Muslims” thing. Because they do consider themselves Muslims, and most other Muslims in the world also consider them Muslims, if not particularly observant ones.

          So, pick one. Either you keep using your broad brush, and then you’re talking about them, too. Or you put it away, but then you cannot speak of “all Muslims”.

          With respect to Chechens, that is another good example of the fact that it’s the culture, not the religion, that is important. Chechens weren’t even majority Muslim until 17-18th century, and their traditional form of Islam is Sufi, not Salafi. Before then, they were pagans mostly, and some teips were even Christian. But their aggressive lifestyle and customs long predated their adoption of Islam, and it didn’t change them; all that changed is the religious post-facto justification of those very same customs. And those customs were defined by their environment – if I had to describe it in a few words, I’d say that Chechens are basically mountain Vikings. Same traditional culture centered around raiding other people (because you can’t exactly grow much in the mountains; and plains Chechens are noticeably more peaceful). Same hyperinflated attention to personal honor and manliness. Same constant internal feuds between tribes, and blood feuds between families. Same overall militarized lifestyle with little stable hierarchy of authority – the strongest rule.

        7. avatar alexander says:

          Well, I stand corrected: “All” is not an appropriate term. Most would be better justified. But also, with regard to “but Bashkirs, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijani, Turkish and Indonesians are not far away” – recall the Armenian heads that were mounted on spikes and fences in Baku some 30 years ago?

        8. avatar int19h says:

          >> But also, with regard to “but Bashkirs, Crimean Tatars, Azerbaijani, Turkish and Indonesians are not far away” – recall the Armenian heads that were mounted on spikes and fences in Baku some 30 years ago?

          Sure. That wasn’t a religious thing, though, it was an ethnic thing (of which religion was a part only insofar as it was a part of ethnic culture of either, and used as an identifying factor). Armenians did plenty of similarly messed up things to Azeris too, where they could. For example:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_Massacre

          I actually had an Armenian acquaintance back in Russia who fought as a kid in Nagorno-Karabakh for the Armenian militia – he was 15 then. He told me about some of the things they did to Azeri prisoners and civilians, and it was really ugly. He was not apologetic about it in the slightest – to him, it was “them or us”, and “them” deserved all the brutality they’ve got by virtue of being “them” (and, of course, because “they started it”, which for him went several centuries back, basically all the way to Ottoman conquest).

          Similarly, in Bosnians, just as Bosnian Muslims raped, tortured and brutally killed Serbian and Croatian POWs and civilians, so did Serbian and Croatian Christians raped, tortured and killed Bosniaks. In fact, Serbs have racked up the highest body count by far, while Bosniaks’ was the lowest.

          The guys who kill and rape purely in the name of their religion, as opposed to their nation or ethnicity, are relatively rare. And among Muslims, virtually all of them are Salafi. Now that scum is something that should be wiped out from the face of Earth without mercy. Starting with Saudi Arabia, which funds it worldwide, from Indonesia to Tatarstan. But instead, US leaders – all of them, not just Obama, but also e.g. Bush and Reagan – lick Saudi’s boots and sell them weapons; and wage war on Iran (which wants to be a regional superpower, not convert the whole world by the sword like Saudis do) on their behalf. So stupid and short-sighted.

        9. avatar jlp says:

          Conspiracy. Give me a break do you really believe such nonsense. If you do you need to see a psychiatrist. Its Hitler speaking from the dead. The Jews are taking over the world only now you are substituting Muslim for Jew. You were born a generation to late, Hitler could have used you at his concentration camps as one of his loyal followers.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes, and the New Testament made 99% of the Old Testament null and void. Even the most Orthodox Jews don’t follow the Torah literally. The majority of Muslims don’t have this level of sanity.

          But please, tell me what the punishment for Apostasy is in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. That alone should tell you what the difference is.

        11. avatar int19h says:

          >> But please, tell me what the punishment for Apostasy is in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

          It’s death by stoning alive in Judaism, by the way. And beheading in Islam. Which one would you prefer.

          Generally speaking, Judaism mandates death penalty for a lot of stuff, in one of the four ways: decapitation, strangling, stoning, or burning alive. The latter is actually a very specific procedure: “According to rabbinic law, an execution by burning means this: The witnesses secure the convict, then force his mouth open by means of a stout cord (wrapped in soft cloth, to prevent the discoloration of the convict’s neck) being tightly drawn around his neck, when molten lead or, according to another opinion, a mixture of lead and tin, is poured down his throat and burns his vitals.”

          The reason why Jews no longer do that is not because they believe that the punishment no longer applies, but because their requirement for proving guilt are so stringent that it’s nearly impossible to prove guilt, and because there must be a proper Sanhedrin to preside over the proceedings. And for Sanhedrin to be re-established, the Temple must be rebuilt.

          That said, there are some factions among ultra-Orthodox Jews who want to do all that, and revive the punishments mandated by Torah.

        12. avatar alexander says:

          Now you are being intellectually dishonest. You obviously know history well enough that I would find it hard to believe that you would not know that even over 2,000 years ago Judaic scholars were in disagreement whether capital punishments, as you described them, should be limited to no more than one in seven years or one in seventy years, for the entire community. In recent history, there have been none. Unfortunately, these limitations were not copied from Judaism by Mohammed…

        13. avatar int19h says:

          Yes, Jews were smart enough even 2000 years ago to realize that they don’t actually want to do all those things that Torah says they should do, and so they found creative ways around them, like raising the bar for the amount of evidence required. If I remember correctly, for things like apostasy, they eventually said that the bar is that the person must be warned about it repeatedly, acknowledge the warning, and proceed to assert their apostate belief, in the presence of numerous witnesses, before the court.

          Nevertheless, the punishments remain on the books, dormant but in force de jure. They were never repealed. And there are Jews out there – a tiny minority, but they exist – who believe that when Israel is truly recreated, complete with the Temple – all those laws will be in force.

          At the same time, it points at the path that Islam can take. Note that none of those super-stringent rules are actually in Torah – the wise men have devised them on their own, on the grounds that God would really hate them to make a mistake when punishing someone, since murder is clearly forbidden. But guess what, the same prohibition is also in Islam, and thus in theory the same process could be applied there, if so desired. So it is entirely possible to construct a form of Islam that, while acknowledging the theoretical validity of Sharia, would never actually apply it in practice, just like modern Judaism does not apply the punishments defined in Torah in practice, without refuting their validity.

        14. avatar alexander says:

          The big difference is that the Torah and the Bible are claimed to be written by God’s inspiration and, therefore, are open to some interpretation. In any case, the completely fundamentalists in Judaism and Christianity are not the majority and I’ve never heard of any prominent Jew or Christian calling for stoning or burning or beheading. Unfortunately, the Koran is taken as the literal word of God and cannot be changed. It is not open to interpretation or evolution – those acts carry a mandatory death penalty. And there are plenty of current Islamic “scholars” who openly and constantly call for various forms of death and plenty to carry this out every day. Perhaps Islam can evolve into something tolerable, in another millennia or so, with millions of victims slaughtered. Hardly a religion of peace in my lifetime…

        15. avatar 16V says:

          So, once again, there are tiny little groups a million here, a few million there who are peaceful. Who don’t know, or care what’s in the Quran and Hadith. They have made some stuff up, twisted some things, and have quit believing any of the tenets of the religion, yet, supposedly they are the religion.

          In the mean time, there are countries with many hundreds of millions of adherents. They stone rape victims, behead apostates, kill homosexuals, deny women even basic rights, control the media, kill you for even questioning Islam.

          They are Muslims and are actually following the teachings. Please, let me explain which group we’re talking about here…

  18. avatar Don says:

    This is getting pretty amusing. How can you claim to stand for the constitution and then refuse to serve someone based on their religion?

    -D

    1. avatar alexander says:

      Because the Constitution does not bar an individual for discriminating based on religion. Only government is prohibited from religious discrimination. If this was a government range, religious discrimination would have been illegal. But it’s a private range.

      1. avatar Don says:

        No but the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. So it’s against the law. And a person who stands for the ideals in the constitution is definitely a hypocrite for denying someone service based on religion.

        1. avatar Pwrserge says:

          Not when the Civil Rights Act is inherently unconstitutional. Besides, Islam is not just a religion it’s a theocracy.

        2. avatar Alexander says:

          The Constitution does not prohibit it. The point was whether they are hypocrites vs the Constitution. They are not. As for the laws, we have many un-Constitutional laws. Not following them does not make one un-Constitional.

        3. avatar Don says:

          Sure, you can make that argument about the civil rights act being unconstitutional. But it’s the law and it’s been upheld many times. If they kicked him out for being weird then the’d have been fine and there’d be much less of a case against them, but since they couldn’t contain their muslim-hating they screwed themselves.

          Whatever Deity you believe in or don’t believe in is fine, the common thread in all of this is mankind behaving badly in all the same ways. There were previously worse cults than Islam and there probably will be in the future too. Maybe more Muslim-flavored violent cults. Maybe violent Scientologists. Maybe the “quiver of arrows” people will attempt to establish a christian theocracy though violence some day. That’s why we have freedom and guns here.

        4. avatar alexander says:

          So, if you were running a range, or even just using it that day, and a fellow would come in and disclose that he was one of Jonestown organizers (let’s say he survived because he was on travel that day…), would you be OK with giving him a gun and being near by?

        5. avatar Don says:

          You’re right Alexander. No true Scotsman would follow an unconstitutional law. I get so confused trying to sort out the Constitutional Literalists vs the Interpretive Constitutionalists, the Reform Constitionalists vs the Reform Constitutionalists. Then you have those Greek and Russian Orthodox Constititonalists who each have the one true interpretation of the Constitution. Some people even believe the real Constitution is actually Love. It’s all very philosophical, but they’ll probably lose their case.

        6. avatar RickP says:

          I”m guessing that Don will be happy to have some Syrian “refugees” living next to him if given the chance, especially since it’s all just about religion

        7. avatar Pwrserge says:

          What evidence do we have that they kicked him out for that reason other than the word of a terrorist turncoat?

          Oh, and the Constitution certainly prohibits it. They’re called the 1st and10th amendments. Go look it up. You can’t force people to associate with anybody. So sorry.

        8. avatar Don says:

          The evidence the ACLU will present beyond the word of the turncoat bla bla bla is that “no muslims” sign they placed on their own door that a bunch of people took pictures of. It’s not about what’s right and it’s not about what happened, it’s going to come down to the cases made in court, and their “no muslim” policy makes it harder to kick a muslim out of their place and get away with it, not easier. It was dumb, they made themselves a target for this kind of lawsuit.

        9. avatar Don says:

          Pwrserge, regarding the 10th amendment, Oklahoma also has anti-discrimination laws that specifically prohibit the denial of public accommodations based on religion (and sex, race/color, national origin, and age). Okla. Stat. tit. 25, §1402. The 10th amendment reserves a states the right to establish anti-discrimination laws, is that what you are saying? The 1st amendment doesn’t have anything to do with this. The shop owners can say whatever they want. Denying service on the basis of religion, that they’ll get sued for and lose. Denying service for any other reason that isn’t covered in federal or state anti-discrimination laws, that they could have got away with easily if they weren’t dumb about it.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          1st amendment is not just freedom of speech, it’s also freedom of association. If you force association on someone against their will in order to perform a service, you’re violating the 1st AND 13th amendments.

        11. avatar Don says:

          A 3rd wave feminist bank teller cashing a man’s checks is equal to slavery in your mind. Interesting.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          If she is forced to do so by coercion rather than an employment contract she agreed to, yes. A third wave feminist BANK can refuse service to men, a teller is an employee, they still have to do the job they agreed to.

        13. avatar Don says:

          No she can’t.

      2. avatar RickP says:

        Amen, alexander.

    2. avatar Don says:

      After reading their explanation of the events, these folks are amazingly foolish. The guy came in with an uncased rifle slung over his shoulder and mag inserted asking to go shooting in the pouring rain. They probably could have kicked him out and gotten away with it just on the grounds he probably violated their rules for handling firearms while not on the firing line or something. But that dumb “no muslim” sign and making this about religion… they really shot themselves in the foot. Instead of getting everything they wanted they’re getting sued.

      -D

  19. avatar TwinReverb says:

    Good. I hope they burn this range to the ground. You can’t refuse people business without a good reason.

    1. avatar RickP says:

      You’re an idiot. ’nuff said.

  20. avatar BDub says:

    I can’t ever remember the part of the conversation, when signing up for a lane at the local indoor range, where my religion came up. Was he asked? Did he just drop that one out of thin air? This just looks like a jack-hole meets jack-hole scenario, from top to bottom.

  21. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I thought the ACLU believed that the 2A was a collective right and not an individual right which is why they usually do not take 2A cases. So which is it?

  22. avatar Adub says:

    I would discriminate based on ideology. No democrats or liberals at my range. I don’t want to train the enemy, or put a gun in the hands of somebody stupid.

    Would that be constitutional?

    The range should get a pet pig and keep it at the front door. Everyone entering must pet the animal. Much simpler.

    And who cares if he served. Hassan served. So did John Allen Muhammad.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and former Marine Eddie Ray Routh (assassinated Chris Kyle) also served. Would you want to have a lane next to either of them?

      1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

        Wait, weren’t they christians? Better put up a “no christians” sign too!

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          Bergdahl deserted and went over to the Muslim enemy. Other than that, my intention was to counter the argument that just because you served in the U.S. Military in some capacity you are A-OK. Bullshit.

      2. avatar Adub says:

        The problem is Bergdahl would flee and leave his weapon behind, and Routh would pick it up.

        But Bergdahl and Routh wouldn’t get past the “no democrats or liberals” sign. Look at their mug shots. Unless they’re green berets, that scruffy look is a dead giveaway.

    2. avatar Don says:

      I think that would, but it would be much safer to jack your prices up and then give a discount that brings it down to something reasonable for political affiliations you like, NRA memberships, etc.

      -D

      1. avatar alexander says:

        In other words, you’re not allowed any more in America to hold and openly express any beliefs except those in a dollar? No wonder the Muslims despise us.

        1. avatar Don says:

          You can grumble like a baby about how simple and idealistic you wish things were all you want, or you can just go get everything you want by first understanding how people react to things and respond to incentives and then be a bit more clever about it. Complain about the rules of the game and get no where, exploit them, get everything. Frankly, it’s not our free society and incentive-based economics that they (and apparently you) hate us for, it’s that it’s so much better than their simple and idealistic philosophy.

        2. avatar alexander says:

          I think that you have misunderstood my comment. I do not hate us/me/them for having an incentive-based economy and society. I am certainly for that! But I also believe that a person should be able to exercise their beliefs openly and not have it wrapped in lawyerese to go around the PC police. Oh, btw, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, came up with the idea of the Brotherhood after studying in the US and being insulted by our materialism.

        3. avatar Don says:

          Yeah, I don’t understand your comments. They’re not being sued for not being PC, they’re being sued because it’s against federal and OK state laws to deny service to someone solely on the grounds of religion, no matter how much they hate that religion, and no matter how much that religion deserves to be hated. If you have a business open to the public then it’s a public accommodation. You can deny service for almost any reason except religion, race, color, national origin, gender. That means a muslim business owners can’t deny service to christians, black owned businesses can’t deny service to whites, female owned business can’t deny service to men, etc. Of the small handful of things this range can’t legally deny service for, they picked one, advertised it with a dumb sign, and now have incriminated themselves and are getting sued over it. They painted a big bullseye on themselves and then handed this guy the gun to shoot them with, and aimed it for him. Dumb. Most businesses are a lot smarter about it. You can have a rule about not having a cell phone in the store and kick someone out as soon as you see one, you can have a safety rules against having the firearms uncased off of the firing line, they could have kicked him out for that too. There were a million things they could have denied him service over. On top of all of that, their side of the story sounds like he was acting very weird. If they didn’t have that “no muslims” sign up they could have kicked him out and given him no explanation and if he came back at them with a law suit claiming they were discriminating against him for his religion they could have said “prove it. Based on what can you say we discriminate against religion here?” and then they could just say “he was behaving oddly and we thought he could have been ill or intoxicated, creating an unsafe atmosphere for him and for others”. They also could have just pissed him off a bit and if he raised his voice they could have kicked him out for displaying any aggression and probably would have caught it on their video surveillance system. They’d have CYA. As it stands no matter what reason they kicked him out for, that no muslim policy will be all that anyone believes they kicked him out for.

          In our community we are always talking about opsec, situational awareness, strategy, tactics, and being prepared. That should extend past the self-defense and prepping realms into the legal, business, social, and economic realms too.

        4. avatar alexander says:

          Yes, of course I understand all that. I simply made a rhetorical comment that it’s a shame that we have gotten to this state.

    3. avatar jlp says:

      If you had ever bothered to let loose of a few pennies and join the NRA they send you a magazine that in election year shows which Congressmen are pro gun. There you would have seen that there are rabid anti-gun Republicans too as well as pro-gun Liberal Democrats. So therefore your range would have to ban both but that would conflict with your erroneous ideology.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        Pro-gun democrats voted to take away my light bulbs. Screw em. They can find their own damn range.

        And an anti-gun republican would not be coming to my hypothetical range. Unless we had strippers.

  23. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The Muslim Mufti gave a lecture on how to properly beat your wife. Sounds like a fun religion. The gun range does actually have a right to ban the Muslims as it is private property, but our Socialist Government will rule in the Muslim favor. It really is sort of ironic that the Liberal Women’s Rights Feminists promoting Islam; actually are supporting the same religion that would legally treat women worse than animals. The Russian Intel Officer in the 9th Company movie described Islam very accurately.

    1. avatar Stray Dogg says:

      Poetic justice will be when all of these Muslim defenders and the liberals who choose to be unarmed because guns are bad, get their heads cut off by these filthy savages.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Don’t worry. Not all of us liberals are unarmed.

        We may be few, but there’s more than enough of us in this country for the likes of you, should it ever come to that.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          The good news is that there are a lot more Liberals that are pro gun then most people are aware of. As I have stated before at our Gun Club we have 1,000 members and when I first joined many years ago I was astonished at how many of them were liberals and often voted Democrat. Some Liberals even voted Republican depending on who they thought was the best man for the job.

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          So what do you think the ratios are? 10 conservatives armed to the hilt for every liberal?? Please. Every liberal democrat I know who is “armed” owns a baseball bat and maybe a lab.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          Like I said, there are few of us, but there aren’t that many Nazi scum like the guy to whom I responded, either. Most conservatives aren’t like him.

          As for liberals whom you know… well, I suppose you could say you know about me now, since you are responding to my comments. I have already told you that I’m a liberal. I can also tell you that I own over 30 guns by now (I’ll need to go count them to tell the exact number), and of those, several are “assault weapons”. I also have body armor, load bearing vests etc.

          So there… if it comes to that, I can get a small liberal posse up and running 🙂

        4. avatar alexander says:

          Changing the subject here, perhaps you can explain the liberal aversion to guns and self defense in general. Yes, I know that it does not apply to all (you’re obviously that exception), but it is a valid generalization. I think that it would be a good and educational topic for a post. No sarcasm here, I am serious. It would be interesting to hear a perspective of an armed liberal.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          Generally speaking, I believe it has to do with urban/rural politics, and the increasing party polarization.

          Simply put, a lot of political views seem to depend on population density and the associated culture of how people live together. More dense (= urban) areas generally have more relaxed and less puritan attitude towards sexuality and family matters, for example, but less tolerance for offensive free speech and low-key violence (e.g. fist fights). Rural areas are more xenophobic to foreigners and strangers, especially the ones that are more different from the local norm, while urban areas are more accepting of them.

          I may be overgeneralizing here, but I think that overall dense living is basically more conductive to collectivism, and sparse to individualism. It may well be that it is even natural, in a sense that a lot of people confined together in tight space really need to be a lot more cooperative between each other to survive environmental threats (e.g. infectious diseases – stuff like free universal healthcare is much more important when any infection around you will spread like wildfire) and internal group strife, and so individualism gets sacrificed. On the other hand, when population density is low, you need that rugged individualism to survive, because there will simply not be anyone else near you to help (or hinder); and, on the other hand, sharing your resources with others and pooling them becomes less important, if only because of logistics of it. It’s also obvious why sparse environment would encourage strong focus on family and kids, and less tolerance for promiscuity – because family and relatives are the only ones who you can rely on to assist you, and so you need a large but strongly knit family tree. And so natural selection, on both genetic and memetic (cultural) level, will favor these traits over time – memetic selection especially is very fast, and can be observable on human lifetime scale.

          So if that is true, then, basically, all that stuff really operates on a level below conscious thought. People justify it by appeal to “common good” and “individual liberties” etc, but I think for the vast majority it’s really ex post facto rationalization, and the real reason is their upbringing in the local culture differentiated by that low/high density – i.e. urban/rural – distinction.

          It’s fairly obvious how guns fit into this. When you’re more individualist, and when your neighbors are far away, you need a reliable tool for self-defense, obtaining food etc; on the other hand, crime is generally low, because social interaction is low (and when it happens, it’s usually between tightly knit groups – family and close neighbors – which are largely static, and change very slowly; not with strangers), and shooting sprees just don’t make sense because of large concentration of people – if someone goes nuts, the worst they can do is kill their family.

          OTOH, the more communal nature of living in a dense (urban) area makes other people much more of a threat. You interact with many strangers over the course of every day, completely new each time. Even most of the people you know, at work etc, you don’t know all that well. So the trust level for the average interaction is that much lower, and hence the “what if he has a gun? what if he hates me?” risk is that much higher, and becomes dominant. Furthermore, because of concentration of people, a single guy with a gun can bring about a lot more damage. So an armed person in a city is both more powerful (and potentially dangerous) and less trustworthy to his neighbors than an armed person in the country. On the other hand, because others are always close by, people don’t feel “alone” in a sense of needing reliable protection, nor, obviously, do they need to hunt for food. Hence, the desire to limit that power to the select vetted few, to minimize the risk and the potential damage.

          Equally obviously, Democrats are basically the urban party, and Republicans are basically the rural party, at this point. It wasn’t always like that – e.g. Southern Democrats, when they existed, were also rural. But ever since the great wagon circling began – roughly when Democrats swung over to pass the Civil Rights Act, and Republicans made the Southern strategy bet – they were gradually swapping ideas and members until each party’s ideology was distilled to its core.

          So now you get Democrats-urbanites, who hate guns but want strong policing, prefer economy with more equality and redistribution of wealth (= resource sharing and pooling, and avoidance of conflict), desire public healthcare and free social services (again, to reduce conflict potential), have very relaxed sexual mores and little regard for family, and are friendly to immigration and acceptive of other cultures, religions etc.

          And rustic Republicans, who love guns and prefer relatively weak and informal policing, prefer economy with minimal wealth redistribution (and hence more wealth accumulation -> family can preserve and grow wealth over generations, increasing self-reliance), don’t really care much about social services, have very strict sexual mores and strong family values, and are very hostile to immigration, especially of people who are visibly different (skin color etc) or come from a vastly different culture or religion (Muslims, Sikhs, Hindu…).

          This would also explain why libertarians and left anarchists have such low support, and do not seem to be able to grow it by much – they mix together urban and rural values in a way that is incompatible to someone beholding to either, so the only adherents are the “true believers” – those who actually comprehend it ideologically and consciously accept it.

          My acceptance of (some) liberal values is also a conscious ideological choice. I used to be a hardline anarcho-capitalist libertarian (no government, private police and military etc), and gradually evolved into the current state of affairs through concluding that 1) ancap will not result in a society that I would want to live in, and 2) in real world pragmatism beats ideological purity. In my heart, I’m still a libertarian, in a sense that I believe that any law and any restriction on personal freedom are fundamentally bad, and any force (like government) that creates and enforces them is fundamentally dangerous. However, sometimes not restricting things results in more overall suffering, and so I choose the lesser evil – some amount of regulation, laws and government – to get closer to the possible non-zero minimum of suffering overall. And unlike a pure libertarian, I don’t believe that freedom is always more important than reducing suffering anymore; but unlike a pure progressive, I don’t believe that reducing suffering is always more important than freedom.

          Hence, even though e.g. public healthcare is forced wealth redistribution, which I think to be bad in and of itself as infringing on personal freedom, the gains in reduction of suffering that result from public healthcare dwarf the suffering resulting from forced taxation. On the other hand, freedom of speech is extremely important for personal freedom, but any suffering caused from it is minimal and can be easily mitigated by the victim (basically, just learn not to be offended), and so I am a free speech absolutist.

          On guns, I favor a practical balance – I don’t think totally unrestricted gun ownership is a good idea in present society (too many sociopaths and desperates), but I do think that self-defense is a very important personal right. So, background checks – yes. Ban on carry – no. AWB, mag capacity limits, and other such silliness I reject on the grounds of having no meaningful effect (other than the ban itself), which is obvious to anyone sufficiently familiar with guns and how they work.

        6. avatar alexander says:

          Thank you for this perspective; interesting. One thing to note – people in rural areas, although not closely packed, generally know their neighbors and have friendly relations with them, including helping them when necessary; people in a densely packed urban environment seldom know their neighbors, including next door, and will often lock the dock and at most call 911 instead of personally helping someone. Thus, with this type of personal alienation (although physical closeness), wouldn’t having a weapon for self-defense make sense, especially that there is much more crime in the urban environment?

        7. avatar int19h says:

          >> Thank you for this perspective; interesting. One thing to note – people in rural areas, although not closely packed, generally know their neighbors and have friendly relations with them, including helping them when necessary. People in a densely packed urban environment seldom know their neighbors, including next door, and will often lock the dock and at most call 911 instead of personally helping someone.

          Yes. That’s what I meant when I referred to “static” and “closely knit” communities. Your neighbor today is usually the same guy who has been there 10 years ago etc. In a city, people rent and generally move around a lot more, so neighbors are also strangers.

          >> Thus, with this type of personal alienation (although physical closeness), wouldn’t having a weapon for self-defense make sense, especially that there is much more crime in the urban environment?

          If we’re talking about just personally owning a gun, yes. But as a policy decision on whether to liberalize or restrict gun ownership, it applies to everyone, not just you. And then it becomes a balancing act: okay, so if I need to defend myself, I would prefer the best instrument available (=gun); but if all those people around me have guns, they could hurt or kill me very easily if they go nuts, or just decide they hate me for whatever reason; and I don’t really trust them.

          Now, if “have a gun yourself but deny it to others” is an option (as it is for e.g. wealthy political elite), that becomes the clear winner, which is why you see people like Bloomberg stroll around with armed bodyguards while exalting the virtues of gun control. But for the plebs, it’s either guns for all or guns for none, and urban environment predisposes preference for “none”.

          Another way to look at it is from the perspective of power balance. With a dense community with thousands of human-to-human (and stranger-to-stranger) interactions every day, giving more personal physical power to individuals becomes more dangerous because any of those interactions can go haywire and break down into violence. Thus, anything that can potentially give an individual more personal physical power over others – including all sorts of weapons – becomes taboo, and requires a very strong personal justification, or immense political power, to obtain without fear of social ostracism. And even then you don’t really flash it at others.

        8. avatar Alexander says:

          Then why can’t liberals accept as fact that their lifestyle is different (not better or worse, just different), ban guns in their communities, but leave others alone. Why this hysterical crusade against guns everywhere and from everyone? I have no desire to force NYC to accept guns; why do people in NYC go overboard trying to deny me guns in VA?

        9. avatar int19h says:

          >> Then why can’t liberals accept as fact that their lifestyle is different (not better or worse, just different), ban guns in their communities, but leave others alone. Why this hysterical crusade against guns everywhere and from everyone? I have no desire to force NYC to accept guns; why do people in NYC go overboard trying to deny me guns in VA?

          For the same reasons why conservatives, en mass, cannot accept as fact that their lifestyle is different, and keep pushing gay marriage and abortion bans on urban areas.

          Most people aren’t really into “live and let live” all that much, and a sufficiently far deviation from what they consider normal is viewed negatively and doesn’t garner sympathy. So when rural people say they want guns, urbanites dismiss them as ignorant hillbillies that just want to feel more manly; and when urban people say that they want legal abortion and relaxed sexual mores, rural folk dismiss them as decadent degenerates.

          Also, because the country political system is not really set up in a way that respects the urban/rural divide very well today (it did so better when it was originally created). The entire system is centered around the concept of state sovereignty, and there are fewer and fewer states that are purely rural, and so in every state there is a growing political conflict between urban and rural areas within each state, since both have to compete for their ideology in the same state legislature/executive/judiciary.

          If we could re-split the country in a more fine-grained manner, e.g. by counties or districts, and give them more autonomy, that would probably help a lot with partisanship. Though we’d first need to fix the gerrymandering issue, so that we don’t end up with something like this, where Houston is districted into slices such that each urban area is paired with a larger rural area, to drown out the urban vote (and the reverse in other states):

          http://s1131.photobucket.com/user/swolf318/media/Redistricting%20Maps/Texas/TXFairMapHouston2_zpsc83ee1b7.png.html

        10. avatar int19h says:

          BTW, if my theory is correct, it doesn’t bode particularly well for gun rights; and, generally speaking, would imply that politics will continue getting more liberal. Here’s why.

          Up until early 2000s, the dominant trend in American demography had been suburbanization at the expense of urban areas – i.e. people leaving cities and settling around them in “suburban sprawl”. That was kickstarted first by wide adoption of private cars in 1920s, and by an increased rise in the numbers and prosperity of the middle class that could buy all those cars since then. Race relations and “white flight” also played a part in that. Overall, the rate of suburbanization peaked somewhere around 1960-70s, at the “golden age” of that white middle class, where purchasing power adjusted income for an average American family was at the top.

          http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/2012/717/image022.gif

          Now suburbs are somewhere in between rural and urban culturally – they tend to resemble the family patterns of urban living (no vast but tightly knit multi-generational families), translating to more relaxed sexual mores; but they are more stable with respect to neighbors and ties to them, and so more xenophobic and self-segregated than cities. On guns, they are conductive to a middle ground approach – there’s little appeal to hunting for their inhabitants, but they have a more acute need of personal self-defense, and less worry about neighbors, so guns become seen exclusively as individual self-defense tools. Consequently, things like AWB and background checks are not seen as negative, but carry bans are. I suspect the rise of the suburbs contributed a lot to the liberalization of carry laws in US from 80s on, compared to a very restrictive regimen before then (to remind, Texas had both open and concealed carry banned for most of 20th century). It would also explain why most people who are pro-gun today (to any extent), cite self-defense as a primary reason, and not hunting or a safeguard against government tyranny.

          In the past decade, however, the trend had reversed – while suburbs still grow, cities grow faster; and as they do, they often encompass and urbanize adjacent suburbs. I believe this has to do with the decline of the middle class and its wealth due to growing income inequality wrt the “1%”. It’s fairly widely known that, while productivity has increased since the 70s, very little of new wealth resulting from that productivity increase went to the people actually producing it – most of it went to the “1%”, and virtually none went to the bottom 90%:

          http://tcftakingnote.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ffb96988833014e897f2d08970d-500wi

          So fewer people can afford to buy homes, and buy apartments instead, and more yet can’t afford either, and rent. Cars are more expensive, and so is gas, so people live closer to their jobs and increasingly rely on public transit. Education is more expensive, often resulting in massive debt (which again translates to less money to spend on transportation and housing), and job prospects are worse even with a degree (and worse yet still without it). Add to that the deterioration of road infrastructure, for which 60-70s were also the golden age, when federal and state governments heavily invested in maintenance and expansion of the highway system; compare to today, where several dozen major and heavily used bridges over the country are in critical condition for the lack of funds for maintenance:

          http://saveourbridges.com/map.html

          All of this basically pushes people back into urban areas. Here’s a number for you: over 70% of US residents live in urban, rather than suburban or rural, areas, and this is getting close to 80% and shows no signs of slowing down so far. And the vast majority of that urban influx are millennials. That seems to correlate well with the strong liberal shift that millennials also show. So, as more of them grow up and become of voting age, expect a further rapid shift to the left on all political positions; and their kids, by all accounts, would be even more liberal.

          So if you want to reverse that trend, and care about pragmatic solution rather than ideological purity, consider supporting politicians that promote policies that would encourage suburban sprawl. Specifically:

          – increase middle class income and stability – this needs both more jobs (and therefore cheaper, more widely accessible education – pay especial attention to any programs promoting trade schools); but also removing or shifting the tax burden higher up, to people for whom it’s not consequential and will not affect their lifestyle;
          – on foreign policy, whatever it takes to keep oil prices low short-term;
          – inside the country investment into electric cars over public transit (see below for reasons on electric specifically);
          – investment into power generation – nuclear and fusion primarily (we’ll need a lot of juice for those cars, as well as heating/cooling of larger suburban houses);
          – investment into residential solar – if widespread, combined with electric cars, it will make transportation essentially zero cost, and mitigate long-term foreign policy risks wrt price of oil;
          – investment into infrastructure projects that improve the transportation grid in any way – fix what we have that had deteriorated, expand existing highways and build new ones, improve exchanges to increase throughput etc;
          – rejection of anything that results in higher densities of living – for example, instead of building cheap “community housing” beehives for the poor, which result in tightly packed ghettos, build housing for them in the suburbs;

          And a lot more, but I hope you get the idea. As you can see, this isn’t really a 100% liberal or 100% conservative mix.

        11. avatar alexander says:

          I agree with your theory as presented, but I think that there is yet another line running through all of this. The urban centers, as you point out, have been growing, but much of the growth is due to welfare class, which is economically non productive. And as the general production capacity of the country is going down – less people employed vs unemployed, and many of those that are employed are in the service industry or service government regulations, which are both unproductive, as far as the real GNP is concerned. As this becomes unsustainable, a financial and societal crash becomes very realistic and at that point, all bets and predictions will be up in the air. I am not a prophet (really!), but it doesn’t take one to see that the country is sitting on a powder keg.

        12. avatar int19h says:

          >> The urban centers, as you point out, have been growing, but much of the growth is due to welfare class, which is economically non productive.

          It’s an oft-quoted myth, but false. The majority of people on welfare are not actually non-productive – they’re either working hard, but unable to make a living with the current income inequality (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/). In other words, they produce wealth, but all that wealth is pocketed by their employers, leaving the bare minimum for them.

          Or else they’re victims of the system, unable to find a job or caught by circumstances that drain any gains that they get (e.g. like this: http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish-the-poor).

          Here’s a brief summary of all this, with more numbers:

          http://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-myths-debunked/#BC3ckMln1Eqi

          And furthermore, welfare handouts are not actually all that concentrated in urban areas – look at the distribution of government benefits vs collected taxes:

          http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-30-at-5.10.12-PM-1.jpg

          This is state by state, but the same picture exists within states. For example, here’s my own state of Washington:

          http://www.structuralviolence.org/CityLead.jpg

          Observe how urban areas effectively subsidize government handouts (i.e. direct and indirect welfare) for rural areas.

        13. avatar int19h says:

          BTW, why I think this myth is so persistent, is because cursory observation seems to support it. Here’s why.

          In urban areas, there’s more segregation by economic status, and so poverty (and hence welfare) is concentrated – “blue collar” bedroom communities, ghettos etc. So when you go there and see one, or even just read about it, the sheer sight of so many people at once make it feel big and dominating the landscape. Furthermore, all those people are strangers whom you don’t know; the only thing you see is the handouts (and you’re acutely aware of them, because your own taxes pay for them). So you go away thinking, “oh my god, there are so many people there, all receiving handouts on my dime”. And you chalk it down as “cities are chock full welfare queens who don’t work”.

          In rural areas, there’s less segregation by economic status, and poor and rich are more intermixed. So you know a few neighbors who might be on some kind of government assistance, but not that many. And you know them more closely, and so you know that most of them aren’t lazy – they really are trying, and that assistance is helping them in dire straights. So you walk away thinking “there aren’t that many of those guys living on my dime, and anyway, they are good people and trying hard, so they deserve it”. So you get that mental picture of rural areas full of independent, self-reliant people working hard and getting deserved money, with an occasional guy falling on hard times and needing help that cannot be begrudged.

          Whereas if you look at per-capita distribution of taxes and welfare, it turns out that rural areas have more welfare consumers.

          Unfortunately, first perception and “common sense” is too often wrong, and you really need to look at the raw numbers. That’s why we say that “anecdotes aren’t data” – your personal experience is a sample size that is too small, and it’s contaminated by differences in various other factors.

        14. avatar alexander says:

          I do know that it is far easier to receive various kinds of welfare (I dislike calling them “benefits” since they are not earned) in the cities than in the rural areas. Of course, each state has different policies, with places like NJ and NYC being magnets for welfare recipients. You can drive for hours in Baltimore and most of what you will see are welfare slums. Yes, this is anecdotal, but given the fact of how government statistics are twisted and imagined, perhaps my anecdotes are more realistic than government “facts.” Anyway, we will certainly know in the next 10 years or so. Also, the number of people working in non-productive jobs servicing government regulations is rising simply because the number of government regulations and their complexity are rising. Even government data shows that production in America is declining yearly and now with Obamadon’tcare, the number of full time service jobs has also dropped.

        15. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Most people aren’t really into “live and let live” all that much, and a sufficiently far deviation from what they consider normal is viewed negatively and doesn’t garner sympathy.

          An interesting statement. You juxtaposed it with some observations that don’t really go with it (perhaps unintentionally).

          This was in reply to the observation/complaint that urban areas try to force no-gun policies on rural ones, to which you said, essentially, “yes, and the no-same sex marriage thing is the same phenomenon in reverse.”

          But what struck me is that you seemed to regard rural areas trying to force an acceptance of guns onto NYC is a *violation* of live and let live. It’s not. Live and let live as a policy could only make sense between individuals, and forcing NYC to repeal its rules against an individual behavior would in fact actually be an instance of *insisting* on Live and Let Live (as is requiring the acceptance of same sex marriage, in the other direction). NYC forcing us to ban guns does remain precisely the opposite of live and let live (as would a same sex marriage ban).

          You were more than likely onto something with regards to the rest, but I regard this bit as a false equivalency. SOME reach from one area to the other IS live and let live, but MUCH of it indeed isn’t.

        16. avatar int19h says:

          “Live and let live” can apply both to individuals and to communities. With respect to communities, it means that when you’re not a member, you let them police themselves however they see fit, so long as they refrain from pushing their rules on you, or anyone else who is not a member. And if you don’t like their rules, then you either avoid coming to their territory, or still respect them when you do.

          I was talking specifically about communities here, not individuals. Acceptance of individual live-and-let-live is itself a community rule (basically, agreeing to disagree and not fight over it) – and one that very few human societies tolerate to a full extent in practice. For the majority of people who claim adherence to it at some point, it is simply a matter of convenience when operating from a position of weakness (i.e. letting them do something that they want to do without interference here and now), and is changed to “now I tell you what to do” the moment they think they are in a position of strength. For a good example of that, just look at all those supposedly “small government” Tea Party conservatives that are now enthusiastically embracing Trump.

          The only ones who are fully consistent in their embrace of live-and-let-live are anarchists, both on the left and on the right.

        17. avatar Alexander says:

          I would suggest that another way to look at this is that individual gun ownership is a right, as stated in the Second Amendment. Sertainly not all people in NYC want to be disarmed and for their neighbors to be disarmed. Thus, their civil rights are taken away. Doesn’t the country need another Lincoln to free the minority citizens in NYC whose civil rights have been taken away?

        18. avatar SteveInCO says:

          “Live and let live” can apply both to individuals and to communities. With respect to communities, it means that when you’re not a member, you let them police themselves however they see fit, so long as they refrain from pushing their rules on you, or anyone else who is not a member.

          Wrong. Insanely, abhorrently wrong. A “community” does NOT have the right to violate the rights of an individual. Only individuals have rights. This is the SAME LOGIC as was labeled “States’ Rights” used to perpetuate slavery and then Jim Crow.

        19. avatar int19h says:

          This is your own ideological position, that many people do not agree with. I do not want to get into that debate right now, but in any case, the previous discussion was meta-ideological, not ideological (i.e. I do not necessarily endorse any of the opinions I have described – I merely stated that they do exist and work the way they do).

          I also much prefer individual rights to collective rights, but it would be foolish to refuse to acknowledge that many (in fact, most) people believe in the latter and operate within that framework. And in that framework, a community right to “live and let live” is a thing.

        20. avatar alexander says:

          It is the tribal, collective mentality that has kept human civilizations from rapid advancement that humans were and are capable of. The mentality of “not developed here,” therefore we can’t embrace it, the mentality “us” against “them” that fed wars on the basis of religion or nationalism, and many more examples of human stagnation and degradation. The exception that was America was build on the premise of eradicating the above and replacing it with individual rights, wants and needs. And on the concepts of Adam Smith and Voltaire the Framers of the country created a society that outperformed all of the world combined in many respects – the material progress, as well as individual development in human and civil rights. And then we got too fat, too lazy and returned to the herd mentality – the hell with the individual rights – it is so much easier when someone else does the thinking for me…

          This is the end
          beautiful friend
          this is the end
          my only friend
          the end…

        21. avatar int19h says:

          I don’t have a better humanity for you. Homo sapiens sapiens is a social animal, and that is reflected in how it interacts with others like it. It’s all nice to think about what would have been if everyone didn’t have the “herd mentality”, but in practice, it permeates every human society, so whatever system we have, it has to account for that. You do not have to accept it for yourself, but if you want to understand what makes societies tick, you need to acknowledge it for what it is.

          US is not exempt from it, and never really was. While the Founders definitely made a very large philosophical and political step away from it, tribalism still dominated US politics from the very beginning. Federalists vs anti-federalists (remember Alien & Sedition Acts?), slavery, Yankee vs Dixie, relationship with Indians (including punitive military expeditions and just general mass theft of land and genocide), anti-immigrant sentiment against Catholics and Chinese, and so on.

          The truly great thing about the American experiment is not what it used to be at any point in the past – there was never truly a “golden age of liberty” in US for all, but only for some subset (e.g. for whites during slavery). The great thing is the very idealistic goal that it set for itself at the very beginning when it said that “all men are created equal” and went from there.

        22. avatar alexander says:

          “The great thing is the very idealistic goal that it set for itself at the very beginning when it said that “all men are created equal” and went from there.” – I agree with you, and the fact that humans are herd animals. But great progress was made. The question is why did we lose it and, if there ever will be another experiment like this – what safeguards can be added to preserve it?

  24. avatar Vitsaus says:

    Pretty selective. They’ll fight for your right to have limited rights, but not fight to prevent your rights from being limited…

  25. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Well Tom I’ve run into the angry black moose-lim quite often in Chicagoland-including some of my wife’s half-azzed nation of isLAME relatives. The unsophisticated among us ASSume this is just some random act of “discrimination”. It’s NOT. Happy Sharia daze to us all…

  26. avatar Cato DeCarpeti says:

    Yes, many muslims served in the Middle East.
    They served well . . . as targets for good American Soldiers.

    1. avatar troutbum5 says:

      I have a good friend, a Muslim from Sarajevo, a Marine, and a great guy. I would trust him with my back over you any day, Cato. And most likely anyone else on this blog. He hates then worse than anyone here.

      1. avatar Stray Dogg says:

        Well then you can “side with the Muslims when the political winds shift”. Just like the deranged African who is currently occupying our White House, defiling our country and Constitution, said in his book, “Dreams from my father”.
        Disgusting.

        1. avatar Troutbum5 says:

          I’ll just swallow the initial response that came to mind. But your prejudice overtakes your common sense. I never said he was devout, or even a believer. He’s Bosnian, and therefore ethnically a Muslim. Who has tattoos, drinks like a fish, curses like the Marine he is, and has killed a few radicals. The first two are “ok” to deceive infidels, but killing a true believer is not.

          And for the record, I don’t trust your judgement enough to trust you with my back, or even stand next to me at the range.

  27. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Reciprocity is Karma’s bitchier sister. Muslims treat non-Muslims like *(^# when they can get away with it. Treating non-Muslims less than they do fellow Muslims goes to core statements in the Koran and to the Sunnah of Muhammad. Muhammad committed big fat sins but he is called sinless (according to Islam) and his example is supposedly given by God for all mankind to follow. Notice this range did not ban Blacks, Hindus, or Yale grads.

    Obvious publicity stunt by CAIR. This only flies in the west. It is not even attempted in China or Russia. Eventually the tipping point will be reached (we are almost there) and then well God is Great 🙂

  28. avatar car guy says:

    So, these guys at the range may be flaky, but I think this gentleman went looking to mix it up in some form.
    But, can a car repair shop say, we don’t/ won’t work on particular make/ or makes of cars?

  29. avatar troutbum5 says:

    I’m calling bullshit on the guy’s amount of what happened. Unless he walked on with his rifle sling and loaded. I’d be concerned about anyone who walked in like that. And then announced they are Muslim. The sign is stupid, but so is this guy. He went in to get a reaction just so he could sue and make a fuss.

  30. avatar Roy says:

    Muslims have 2nd Amendment rights too. If you argue otherwise, you’re part of the gun rights problem, because that’s the mindset that festers controls. There’s millions of Muslim Americans and we’ve faced attacks with firearms by what, 5 of them over the last 20 years? It’s a real asshole thing to do to hold millions of innocent people accountable for the actions of a few. Isn’t this what we argue any other time a group of government institution tries to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’m going to hold accountable those of those millions who persist in clinging to the barbaric beliefs that these few aced on.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Hitler said that about the Jews too.

        1. avatar Stray Dogg says:

          Jews were in control of the banking and financial system in Germany had hurt the economy in so bad with debt that people were bringing wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread.
          When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he took that power away from them.
          Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 and vowed to crush Germany financially with a boycott on German goods in retaliation.
          Adolf Hitler re-established the financial system and also created over 6 million jobs in less than 3 years. The economy was flourishing, but the wealthy elites were furious.
          This is why the war escalated and Amschell Rothschild coerced America to join in the war. We killed tens of thousands of our European brothers to help establish Israel and destroy Germany.
          Look at the state that Germany is in today under Jewish rule.
          Read about the Balfour declaration. You won’t find it on the History Channel.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          Well, thanks for admitting you are a true 21st Century Nazi. Your view of history is as twisted as Hitler’s was. Germany’s financial problems were complex, way to complex to go into here but to name just a few problems, WWI had bankrupted them, they were forced to pay huge war reparations, and a world wide depression just happened to be going on all at the same time. And Hitler’s Jew baiting was sensationalism that he used to get elected just as Trump is using the exact same tactics today scapegoating immigrants and refugees. Unfortunately with the mentality of the “unwashed” it always works like a charm. Take a bath lately?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that a muslim can stop being muslim. (Something I strongly encourage.) According to Hitler, Jews are always Jews.

          There is nothing discriminatory about judging people according to their beliefs.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          Your too warped to even understand my statement.

        5. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Wow stray dog. Shocked as I am, I am agreeing with jlp. Your a fool and a dupe if you believe what you just wrote. Hitler and the Nazi’s created what you just wrote. It’s called “propaganda.”

    2. avatar Stray Dogg says:

      Muslims are the enemy of all Americans. None of them is innocent. Read the Koran and get back to me.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        That’s exactly what the men that threw cyanided into the gas chambers said about all the Jews, Gypsies, Russian prisoners of war, and dissident Germans that believed in humanity towards their fellow human beings.

        1. avatar Stray Dogg says:

          The gas chambers story has been disproven by actual scientists. Stop repeating the nonsense that the media feeds you.
          Do some research. There is now plenty of evidence to disprove this lie.
          There is no way that German soldiers could have used cyanide without also killing themselves.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          My father fought with Patton’s 3rd army. Ever hear of it you Moron? He saw the Concentration Camps and Eisenhower deliberately made as many people both Germans and U.S. Soldiers alike witness the horrors because he knew that in the future right wing prejudiced Morons like yourself would deny it ever happened. I would believe my father as well as General Patton who threw up when he was there and Eisenhower and the actual news real footage any day over your racist rants. I would suggest you visit the camps, some of which are still there to this day. Its often hard for me to believe that anyone even with a minimal amount of education could make such ignorant statements in the 21st Century.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          The stray dog here is a special case. He only uses hatred and bigotry. He is not a reason to disprove real threats. Thousands of people that have been murdered in the recent years should be a good indication of the threat. The fact that the Islamic holy book justifies the atrocities and the fact that today’s most revered Islamic scholars (from the Alexandria and Saudi Arabia schools) justify the atrocities should be a good indication of this threat. But each can choose to belief as one pleases…

        4. avatar jwm says:

          A holocaust denier? Stray dogg is now a whiny bitch.

        5. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Stray Dog, I can’t even believe your actually writing what you stated. The Holocaust is one of the most documented instances in all of history. And it was evil, in case you didn’t notice. Like jlp I also had a great uncle who served with Patton and freed a number of the western camps. He would never talk about it except for when he was dead drunk (which unfortunately was often.) Please go read something, anything except for Nazi websites. It will do you good..

    3. avatar Stray Dogg says:

      Muslims have a right to GTFO of our country. They are a warrior cult and enablers like you and the other commenters who are defending them are part of the problem in a big way.
      Islam is a warrior cult and weak people who defend them are only helping them. One day, we will be fighting these savages on our own soil.
      Where do think they will stand when the SHTF?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        A warrior cult? So, like the 3%’ers?

      2. avatar jlp says:

        If it did happen would not that be poetic justice. They would have done to us what we have been doing to them by constantly invading their countries and bombing them so that greed monger oil tycoons like Bush and his buddies could keep getting richer. Maybe we need a good lesson so we will stay home and start spending our money on the American people instead of wars of rape, conquest and pillage. Then we would have plenty of money for free education for our children, safer roads and bridges, a high speed rail system, and a true National Health Care plan. The rest of the civilized world has had this for decades. War Mongering carries a heavy price for the people of America.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          “wars of rape, conquest and pillage.” – I may agree with you on the stupidity of the wars we had in the last 30 years or so, but “wars of rape, conquest and pillage”? Aren’t you going too far? When did America, or American soldiers (few extremely rare exceptions of criminals that are found everywhere) ever raped or pillaged? And as to conquest, the US has always (in these wars) given back all the “conquered” territory, after spending billions on rebuilding them. Let’s not get carried away with the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist hatred sh*t, shall we?

        2. avatar jlp says:

          Do you remember the rape and conquest of the Philippian Islands in 1899. We stayed for 100 years and if you read the history of that war it was rape and murder on an everyday basis. We used Caesarian tactics to defeat the Moro warriors. If you kill the women and children the warriors will then realize their race will soon become extinct unless they surrender. We also offered the warrior leaders amnesty if they complied and then we killed them after they did surrender just as we did to Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse in the wars against the Plains Indians only a few decades before. There was plenty of rape and torture in both wars. Even the major American news papers carried horrific stories of U.S. troops committing atrocities during our invasion and occupation of the Philippian Islands.

          One German General who was on his way home from a world wide hunting expedition was curious to review the American troops there. When he did he was appalled at what he saw. He stated that the American troops were unwashed, had holes in their uniforms, had rust on their weapons and were even insubordinate to their superiors. Small wonder with leadership like that they were out of control when they attacked the Moro women and children. The troops themselves wrote letters home describing their atrocities much to the embarrassment of the U.S. Government who at bayonet point forced the letter writers to print retractions that fooled no one. Leading American intellectuals of the day including Mark Twain condemned the war which was again rape, pillage and conquest. One quarter of a million civilians died in that war. We should be proud would you not say?

          We are to this day still in Guantanamo bay the result of the drummed up Spanish American war where we blew up our own ship for an excuse to start the war. Divers long ago found the ship blew up from the inside. There was no military exercise going on. No one was manning any guns and suddenly the ship blows sky high. Come on even a Moron could figure out it was an inside job and it would have been impossible for some one to get into a ship with that many people on board and calmly walk into the powder room and blow the place sky high and even if they could have there was no reason to do so as the Spanish knew they were no match for the military might of the U.S in its own back yard and they were not at war with the U.S. anyway.

          Several years previously we had invaded China which resulted in the Boxer Rebellion. A half million Chinese died. And a half century earlier Commodore Perry invaded the islands of Japan and forced an unfair trade treaty on them that raped their economy as well.

          Fast forward to Vietnam. Shades of the Philippian war. Rape and murder was an everyday occurrence because to enhance the future careers of the Officer class they needed high body counts no matter if they were women and children. The My Lai Massacre shocked the American people when they realized it was only one of many massacre’s as even documented by some helicopter pilots that in one incident threatened to turn his machine guns on his own troops when they were about to massacre a whole village of people. The Helicopter pilot much to his credit was successful in evacuating the people that day.

          Vietnam was also about money. The American Business man was all to eager to fill the shoes of the departing French Businessmen who had raped the economy of Vietnam for over 100 years. That coupled with crooked prostitute Congressmen of both parties investing in the Military Industrial Complex prolonged the war as long as possible until the U.S. economy was on the verge of bankruptcy.

          Even WWII was about money. America could have stayed out of the war altogether but Roosevelt wanted to crush Japan because they were an economic threat to U.S. power in that part of the world as they were invading most of the Asian countries. We attacked Japan first with General Chennault’s flying tigers. We were also sinking German U boats long before Pearl Harbor as well. Its a miracle Hitler held off as long as he did before he did declare war on us. Pearl Harbor was no surprise to the U.S. Government they knew Japan would retaliate it was just a matter of where and when.

          We would have stayed in China after WWII as well if the Communists had lost to Chiang and would probably still be there today.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          At first, I wanted to answer your accusations one by one, as all of them are factually incorrect and twisted. But then I realized that your socialist-inspired hate for America is so deep that I would be wasting words that could not possibly penetrate your calcification. What amazes me is that a person can so much hate his own country that he would fall in love with the enemy. Wow!

        4. avatar jlp says:

          I have no hate for the good people of America at all, only for War mongers and Hate Mongers like yourself. When you take a look at what really happened in history and teach children the truth such obscene wars like Vietnam would never have got off the ground. Its only when you teach children that their country is the “Master Race” which never did anything wrong is where you end up creating a population of goose stepping moronic robots that end up being used as cannon fodder to enrich the pockets of the rich ruling elite. If you knew anything about history at all you would know that when one country invades another its to rape it of its wealth and extend its military power over it. Hitler proved that many times over. America has done much the same in its militaristic history.

        5. avatar alexander says:

          Oy vey, we really have all types coming out of the woodwork here. We have a National Socialist Stray Dog who salutes Hitler, we have a Democratic Socialist JLP who salutes Stalin and who has written off millions of South Vietnamese that fell into communist slavery and hundreds of thousands that were summarily executed. Talking about love while blinded with hate towards one’s own country. I feel sorry for you.

        6. avatar jlp says:

          I have never saluted Stalin those are your words not mine but I am well enough versed in History to be able to differentiate between the evilness of Stalin’s purges and his carrying on of Lennon’s and Karl Marx’s socialistic programs. Programs that in Russia were carried to excess such as the State planned economy but the bulk of its social programs are still in use today by every industrialized nation in the world including the U.S. Ever hear of Social Security, it was introduced in the 1930’s by the American Communist Party, now considered as American as apple pie and millions would stave without it. I could go on but I am sure you would even codemn not only Social Security but Medicare, Medicaid, School lunch programs, aid to education, the list goes on of Socialistic programs all of which you are to cheap to pay taxes to because you care nothing for the well being of the American people only your own greedy, selfish bank account, typical of the average tight wad Conservative. Me first and to hell with everyone else as I will take my money to the grave and many do just that.

          And no North Vietnam did not slaughter its people when it took over the South. One of the main stipulations of the Paris Peace talks was to avoid that otherwise the U.S. said they not only would not sign it but they would bring military action once again against Vietnam. It did not happen. And the South Vietnamese never supported the American Imperialists either, that was why U.S. troops were sent in because they would not fight the North, not in the beginning or during the entire war. Their army collapsed like a house of cards when the U.S. pulled out, they never even made a half hearted attempt at a fight. You could hardly blame the South for not wanting to protect American business interests that is why the U.S. troops were sent in to begin with. If you remember they even assassinated their own South Vietnamese leader Diem. It was at that point that Kennedy decided to pull out and would have if the CIA had not had him assassinated. Jaclyn stated to her dying day she believe Johnson was behind her husbands death.

          The only part of this country I hate are blind to history war mongers and racists like you. The real facts are that is why main stream America rejects clowns like Trump or self anointed demigods like Cruz, hated even by his own party.

        7. avatar alexander says:

          JLP, I’ve finally figured out where you went to school – The Lumumba University. That explains it.

        8. avatar jlp says:

          The lack of response points to a beaten man. Admit it your out of your class.

        9. avatar int19h says:

          Ironically, income inequality in the USSR actually increased under Stalin – he increased the difference in pay between blue collar and white collar workers, reintroduced paid education above a certain minimum etc.

          He was also socially conservative. For example, he re-instituted a law criminalizing homosexuality, for example, which was something that Bolsheviks had repealed right after the Revolution.

          So on the Soviet ideological scale of 1920s-40s, Stalin was actually very right-wing.

        10. avatar alexander says:

          Stalin is properly characterized as a socialist. Because he had unlimited power, he was also a dictator and a tyrant. The last two are natural extensions of the first – when socialism gains full control, the dictatura of the proletariat is a logical result. The flavor could be Stalin’s, or Hitler’s, or Bernie’s or Hillary’s, but always tyrannical. The needs of the State, or more properly, the Ruler of the State, outweigh the needs (if any) of an individual. Look at Obama – he has been acquiring control by leaps and bounds (OK, by phone, pen, executive orders…) – if this monster did in fact had full control, all ye abandon every hope of any benevolence or such unimportant artifacts of democracy as free speech.

        11. avatar int19h says:

          I don’t dispute that Stalin was a socialist. That’s why I said that he was very right-wing on the Soviet scale (on which Lenin was in the middle, and Trotsky was on the left).

        12. avatar alexander says:

          Oh yes, those three would make an interesting comparison. The world is still counting how many tens of millions Stalin murdered, while poor Lenin did his best, but was denied the means during his lifetime to kill as many as he desired, while Trotsky was advocating for killing even more than Stalin did. Then Hitler took the socialist mantra and did his very best… Not Bernie has picked it up and has a good chunk of Amerika saluting him. What a nice family portrait!

        13. avatar jlp says:

          I would like to make a clarification on Chennault. Although the P40’s did not arrive before Pearl Harbor he was training the Chinese and also Mercenaries to fly attacks against the Japanese well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were well aware of all of this.

          Chennault arrived in China in June 1937. He had a three-month contract at a salary of $1,000 per month, charged with making a survey of the Chinese Air Force. Soong Mei-ling, or “Madame Chiang” as she was known to Americans, was in charge of the Aeronautical Commission and thus became Chennault’s immediate supervisor. Upon the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War that August, Chennault became Chiang Kai-shek’s chief air adviser, training Chinese Air Force pilots as well as sometimes flying scouting missions in an export Curtiss H-75 fighter. His duties also included organizing the “International Squadron” of mercenary pilots.

          Also Roosevelt had cut off sales oil and scrap metal to Japan which further escalated the conflict, just as Roosevelt knew it would. Its self evident Roosevelt engineered the war between Japan and the U.S. and the dirty dealing behind locked doors has been sealed up for 100 years under the excuse of National Security. They even kept Ultra a secret for decades until too many people who were still alive spilled the beans about the existence of Ultra. In other words they want no one alive that would be embarrassed if the truth were made public too soon in regards to what really happened in WWII. The book “Day of Deceit” by Admiral Stinnett lays out a very convincing argument that Roosevelt new in advance of the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. When he wrote the book he was refused time after time historical documents by the U.S. Government when doing his research. He was forced to interview people who worked during the war in the intelligence department but this was still not the concrete documentation that he needed to prove his case as the documents are still locked up in Government files. This led to a covert Government attack on the validity of his book which attempted to discredit it. I would say even if Stinnett was wrong on some of his accusations the overall story still has enough valid information to make his case one to ponder with the utmost attention.

          With the revelation of “Ultra” the U.S. then admitted they cracked the Japanese diplomatic code but not the military code to cover their tracks in regards to their prior knowledge of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor. They conveniently danced around the fact that it was the British who gave them a copy of Ultra and the knowledge on how to crack the changing codes. Which brings Britain into the picture as well. It is inconceivable that between the two Nations they were able to crack German codes but not Japanese codes. And if Britain was the more advanced in breaking codes it is again inconceivable they would have allowed an attack that had it succeeded would have wiped out the U.S. Asian fleet because Britain was at war with Japan as well. This points to why the U.S. Aircraft carriers were ordered 200 plus miles away from Pearl Harbor before the attack and only the aging WWI Battleships that had already received orders to be scraped were left as the bait for the Japanese to attack.

          There is many other shocking details in Stinnett’s book such as the recall out of the path of the attacking Japanese Armada of all U.S. spy submarines, the recall of surface spy ships and the cancellation of air patrols that protected Pearl Harbor.

          Before and during WWII Historians have stated their were often more spies operating in Japan than there were official diplomatic personnel representing the countries of the world. Now anyone with any common sense would have known that when an Armada that large left Japan the wireless sets would have lit up before they cleared their berths. And the direction would have been noted as well. Again more proof that an operation that large was known not only to the U.S but to its Allies as well. Countries that were not involved in the conflict such as Switzerland and some South American Countries were also known to have fed spy information to U.S. diplomats.

          The point being made is that the people of all countries are never told the real truth about the nefarious activities of their own countries. Japanese people to this day have kept the “Rape of Nanking” much of secret to the present generation just as America has done in its history books in regards to the sordid history of the Vietnam war. They all play the game of “super patriotism” to breed new generations of goose stepping brain washed militaristic robots. Its easy and it works like a charm. All a government has to do is prey upon peoples natural tribalistic fears and religious prejudices to win the public over in droves.

        14. avatar Stray Dogg says:

          You obviously prefer to defend Muslims and the 1400 years of savagery they used to conquer huge swaths of Europe and the middle east. Now they have their sites on America. Weak minded politically correct people such as yourself are enabling them to continue to overtake our society.
          While you choose to be tolerant, if you live long enough, you will not experience that same tolerance coming from them. Their goal is to bring Sharia to all of the world. The Crusades were a reaction to their brutality.
          Terrorist front groups like CAIR are using our own laws and benevolence against us. This is altruistic suicide on the part of our society.
          America was founded by White Europeans for White Europeans who are more civilized than Muslims will ever be. While our philosophy is based on individual liberty and freedom, theirs is a totalitarian system designed to control the actions and beliefs of each person to serve their faith which is also a political system.
          The Islamic faith is the exact opposite of the Constitution of the United States and therefore no Muslim can ever be loyal to both the Koran and the Constitution. Consequently, no Muslim can be more than an American in name only.
          To justify bringing more Muslims into the United States because most of them haven’t blown people up yet or taken up arms against the American people is hardly a logical rationale.
          We all know that the Democratic party has a stated policy that conflicts with the Second Amendment. This can be found on their own website.
          70% of Muslims in America identify with and vote for Democrats. More Muslims equals more Democrats who aim to severely restrict your right to keep and bear arms. As their numbers increase, it will inevitably lead to more gun control measures.
          People who defend this hostile group and welcome them into America are enabling the loss of our freedoms. This is death by a thousand cuts.
          Here is an article detailing 11 Muslim terror attacks in the United States since Muslim sympathizer Obama has been president. Add to that, the recent attack in a Jewish owned restaurant in Ohio.
          http://patriotupdate.com/islamic-attacks-and-threats-during-obamas-presidency/

        15. avatar jwm says:

          jlp, at the risk of sounding supportive of stray dogg, i’m not, the Tigers did not engage in combat against the japanese until after pearl harbor was bombed.

          As for your comment that alluded to us deserving a war on our soil…….

        16. avatar jlp says:

          I would like to make a clarification on Chennault. Although the P40’s did not arrive before Pearl Harbor he was training the Chinese and also Mercenaries to fly attacks against the Japanese well before Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were well aware of all of this.

          Chennault arrived in China in June 1937. He had a three-month contract at a salary of $1,000 per month, charged with making a survey of the Chinese Air Force. Soong Mei-ling, or “Madame Chiang” as she was known to Americans, was in charge of the Aeronautical Commission and thus became Chennault’s immediate supervisor. Upon the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War that August, Chennault became Chiang Kai-shek’s chief air adviser, training Chinese Air Force pilots as well as sometimes flying scouting missions in an export Curtiss H-75 fighter. His duties also included organizing the “International Squadron” of mercenary pilots.

          Also Roosevelt had cut off sales oil and scrap metal to Japan which further escalated the conflict, just as Roosevelt knew it would. Its self evident Roosevelt engineered the war between Japan and the U.S. and the dirty dealing behind locked doors has been sealed up for 100 years under the excuse of National Security. They even kept Ultra a secret for decades until too many people who were still alive spilled the beans about the existence of Ultra. In other words they want no one alive that would be embarrassed if the truth were made public too soon in regards to what really happened in WWII. The book “Day of Deceit” by Admiral Stinnett lays out a very convincing argument that Roosevelt new in advance of the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. When he wrote the book he was refused time after time historical documents by the U.S. Government when doing his research. He was forced to interview people who worked during the war in the intelligence department but this was still not the concrete documentation that he needed to prove his case as the documents are still locked up in Government files. This led to a covert Government attack on the validity of his book which attempted to discredit it. I would say even if Stinnett was wrong on some of his accusations the overall story still has enough valid information to make his case one to ponder with the utmost attention.

          With the revelation of “Ultra” the U.S. then admitted they cracked the Japanese diplomatic code but not the military code to cover their tracks in regards to their prior knowledge of the coming attack on Pearl Harbor. They conveniently danced around the fact that it was the British who gave them a copy of Ultra and the knowledge on how to crack the changing codes. Which brings Britain into the picture as well. It is inconceivable that between the two Nations they were able to crack German codes but not Japanese codes. And if Britain was the more advanced in breaking codes it is again inconceivable they would have allowed an attack that had it succeeded would have wiped out the U.S. Asian fleet because Britain was at war with Japan as well. This points to why the U.S. Aircraft carriers were ordered 200 plus miles away from Pearl Harbor before the attack and only the aging WWI Battleships that had already received orders to be scraped were left as the bait for the Japanese to attack.

          There is many other shocking details in Stinnett’s book such as the recall out of the path of the attacking Japanese Armada of all U.S. spy submarines, the recall of surface spy ships and the cancellation of air patrols that protected Pearl Harbor.

          Before and during WWII Historians have stated their were often more spies operating in Japan than there were official diplomatic personnel representing the countries of the world. Now anyone with any common sense would have known that when an Armada that large left Japan the wireless sets would have lit up before they cleared their berths. And the direction would have been noted as well. Again more proof that an operation that large was known not only to the U.S but to its Allies as well. Countries that were not involved in the conflict such as Switzerland and some South American Countries were also known to have fed spy information to U.S. diplomats.

          The point being made is that the people of all countries are never told the real truth about the nefarious activities of their own countries. Japanese people to this day have kept the “Rape of Nanking” much of secret to the present generation just as America has done in its history books in regards to the sordid history of the Vietnam war. They all play the game of “super patriotism” to breed new generations of goose stepping brain washed militaristic robots. Its easy and it works like a charm. All a government has to do is prey upon peoples natural tribalistic fears and religious prejudices to win the public over in droves.

        17. avatar alexander says:

          JLP, your hate for America and a penchant for twisting facts is amazing and forces me to chime in now and then. I’m just waiting for you to call Chennault a war criminal! You seem to be forgetting what the Japanese were doing in China before any American involvement (as if that would justify the Japanese atrocities). You conveniently ignore the rape of Nanking (1937) and the murder of millions of Chinese, including skinning them alive. Yet you are quick to remember all American wrongs, or supposed wrongs. Even the My Lai massacre was not so cut and dry – ever paid attention that the village had only old men, women and children? No young men in the entire village. Ever wondered why? – hint – they were Viet Cong and would routinely leave the village when US troops approached and then return to attack the US troops in the rear. The village was their base. No one wants to talk about it; it is politically incorrect – I got it, but those are facts.
          I am not justifying the massacre – I am explaining that it was not a simple, unpremeditated act of barbarism just because some soldiers decided to exercise sadism.

          As to the Pearl Harbor “conspiracy,” why aren’t you claiming that Obama killed Scalia? Or do your conspiracies work only one way?

        18. avatar jlp says:

          Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that was that Roosevelt deliberately got us into WWII with the Japanese.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        jlp or Stray Dogg – cage fight for biggest moron.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          In regards to comparing me to Stray Dog you proved that you are an even bigger moron.

        2. avatar Stray Dogg says:

          You have not refuted one thing I have written, but instead chose to stoop to name calling. A solid argument is based on facts. To call someone a moron or any of the other common words used to respond when someone says something you don’t like is not making a valid point.
          It just shows you have lost the argument.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          jlp never has a factual retort, or anything resembling fact. He is, however, great at calling you a “nazi” for disagreeing with his nonsensical positions, supported by nothing. Then using another ad hominem or two, before declaring his “victory”.

        4. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          jlp seems to believe that Howard Zinn was a historian. Zinn was a fiction writer although he cast himself as a historian. If you are not aware of Zinn google him and be prepared to throw up. His text book is in use at probably 1/3 of the country’s high schools and colleges. The book is utter BS that teaches kids that the USA is worse than the Nazis and is to blame for anything and everything that went wrong in the world since 1776.
          A whole lot of leftists believe that history is open to interpretation from a political perspective. Thus the revisionists who show up on websites and spew there conspiracy theories and utter hatred of the country. It’s always a mystery to me why they believe that if they have the last word their argument wins. They rarely respond to arguments against them and they are utterly sure that anyone who defends American values and history is a drunken wife beating hill billy who wears overalls and shoots stuff. Finally (along with the atheists) they are the most vocal at attacking Christians and love to lump Christians and other faiths into the same boat as crazy jihadists. Thus we see posts of some tiny number of persecuted Christians (by Muslims btw) in Africa killing people in as though they represent American Christians.
          The problem with Muslim jihadists is numbers, there are at minimum 150,000,000 of them. So go ahead and rant away jlp, you’re version of history provides an understanding of the arguments that motivate the left. Have you ever thought about where your education came from? My guess is that it was government schools and leftist universities.

        5. avatar alexander says:

          Yes, that’s what I figured out the other day – jlp was educated at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, also know as People’s Friendship University, with such luminous alumni as Mahmoud Abbas and Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, also known as Carlos the Jackal. But, thanks to the efforts of the Department of Uneducation in Washington, most of their curricula has now been integrated into the American universities.

  31. avatar RCC says:

    Political Correct crazy
    Some public service types just decided this week that one third of all ration packs for the Australian Army have to be halal / vegetarian

    Less than 100 Muslim in the entire service and I meet one vegetarian female the entire time I was in

    Troops very unhappy but their opinion doesn’t count

  32. avatar int19h says:

    Notice how it started with Muslims, and now we’re talking about Jews and “negroes”.

    A good demonstration of how bigotry and racism against anyone is a slippery slope that ends up with the same against everyone but yourself.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      So now Moslem is a race? So which protected class is the CAIR thug?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        That’s why I said “bigotry and racism”. Racism is bigotry, but not all bigotry is racism. If you’re hating people based on their religious label, because of what you think they believe according to that label (as opposed to what they actually believe – which you find out by asking them), you’re a bigot, but not a racist. However, the two are close enough in practice that people start with hating Muslims, then it evolves into hating “sand niggers”, and then goes from there to specimen like Stray Dogg.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          It is inherently not bigotry to judge people on their expressed beliefs. Islam is a set of political beliefs, not a race or religion.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          So Islam is not a religion. I wonder if you realize how ignorant a statement that is. Billions of Muslims and all religious scholars would disagree with you.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          You are incorrect here. Ask any learned Muslim and he will tell you that Islam is a Legal system, a Moral system, a Government/Political system, a Financial system and Faith. In short, Islam is a theocracy. Not just a religion.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          If we would compare the Vatican along those same racist grounds a nut case could claim the same against the Catholic Religion. I am not making that case at all only pointing out what a hate monger you are.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          You are not judging people on their actual beliefs. You’re judging them on what you assume are their beliefs, based on a label.

        6. avatar jlp says:

          Excellent point you made int19h. You nailed pwrserge right between the eyes on that one.

        7. avatar neiowa says:

          So Huns, Visigoths, Thuggees, Moslems, Swedish Bikini team It’s all the same COME ON IN.

        8. avatar 16V says:

          But, but, but, jlp has now acknowledged that Islam is a “religion” and therefore being against it is, by definition, not “racist”.

          Damn kid. Whatcha gonna do now? You just lost over half of your screaming “racist” arguments by your own admission.

  33. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Just a scam for cash and publicity.

  34. avatar Paul says:

    And the. Sign said “Long haired freaky people, need not apply.” So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why…

  35. avatar ANgryaz says:

    All they really needed to do was put a picture of pedohamad on floor at entrance make them walk on the pedophile to enter the place problem solved

  36. avatar Hannibal says:

    This is one of those “don’t read the comments” threads, right?

  37. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Welll, I am impressed again. From international history, to religious doctrine, to political philosophy, to current U.S. law, there is great awareness and knowledge in this comment pile. (Plus plenty of blather, but that’s not remarkable.)

    Why do this, or not? What does it mean, or not? What do we know, or not? Is this what we want?.

    It’s like a bunch of people wrestling with how to govern themselves well. You give me hope for the republic. Not much, but some.

    1. avatar CameronB says:

      the small bit of positivity that kept me from denting the table with my face.

      1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

        +1. Although I could not refrain from putting my 2 cents into the pile. God help the republic!

  38. avatar pres stone says:

    i’m so glad TTAG took the stance they did on this issue. i had to quit going to alot of other gun forums because they are blinded by their hate and bias’.
    Alot of them dont realize when you make a generalization about muslims then you are saying generalizations are correct. then that would make what the anti-gunners generalize us as, crazy trigger happy homicidal maniacs, correct as well.
    Yes generalizations are sometimes appropriate and correct but you can’t really do that with something as loose as religion.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If making generalizations about muslims says that making generalizations is correct, and you concede that sometimes generalizations are correct, except about something as loose as religion, then what generalizations regarding groups of people would you vonsider accurate?

      That is, if religion is too loose a basis to make valid generalizations about people, then what common trait is sufficient to serve as the basis for making generalizations about people?

    2. avatar 16V says:

      There’s hundreds of millions who believe that Western Civilization needs to be destroyed.

      That some don’t take it seriously, doesn’t mean the rest of the religion doesn’t. Glad you’ve gotten beyond your religion, sadly, most haven’t.

      1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

        Spoken like an ungrateful atheist. The framework for western civilization is based on the mix of Greek/Christian morals and law. Those countries that actually follow the teachings of Christ seem to be the countries that are the most moral. Those countries that do not, at least in the twentieth century tended to murder in the neighborhood of a hundred million. (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China) So go ahead and bring up the crusades or the witch burning as though they were even remotely comparable to the atheists. Here is the problem, all of us are human, and all of us are fallen. We make terrible choices against our own self interest just because we can. So go ahead an make fun of religion, while lumping all of them into the same boat. It’s much easier than actually refuting the tenants of the Christian faith.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Based on greek/christian morals? Are you really that completely uninformed? Western Civilization is based on human traits and behaviors that we had to use to get us from the 200K+ years of humanity to the point where some idiots who wanted power, made up a deity.

          Those ‘morals’ existed hundreds of thousands of years prior to the advent of any religion, because we needed them to evolutionarily survive.

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Try and respond to my points instead of bringing your half baked anthropology/sociology as a response.

  39. avatar Ron E says:

    The range owners are jackasses, that said the signage is a free speech issue. There was a similar case in Florida recently and the Judge sided with the range owner. As long as the range owners do not require you to indicate your faith before being allowed you to use their facilities, there is no discrimination. Which they do not. Had this reservist not proclaimed his faith, in an obvious attempt to challenge the posted sign, he would have been allowed to use the range facilities.

  40. avatar Bob313 says:

    I am not sure if this actually happened the way this plaintiff says, but I do not trust him. I have an acquaintance who works for a government agency in Oregon. (I am intentionally keeping that under my hat.) Before he suspected I was not a Democrat, that I wasn’t a true believer, he invited me to a party attended by his coworkers. I learned rather quickly that these folks seek opportunities to entrap anyone they politically disagree with. These are people that will use whatever authority they have to crush their political opponents. These are bad people to their core, and what’s funny, they think that this behavior is perfectly okay. I love studying history, so as you can imagine, it scared the crap out of me. They talked similarly to that of the National-Socialists in the 1930’s. (Ever wonder why “normal people” can end up doing horrible things, look around at where the left is going.) I feel that these are people that would gladly sit in a room (Wannsee Villa?), plan some sort of modern day Final Solution, and somehow justify it as being morally right. So, the point it this: I do not trust this government guy’s story. I believe, however, it is a bad business decision to ban someone based on their religious beliefs. I am pretty sure if this business banned Christians, they would be getting some award at the White House for that, but it still doesn’t make it right. On the business front, membership-only gun clubs have been very selective on who they invite into their clubs for decades for good reason, so perhaps they should have considered making it a membership-only club instead of posting a stupid sign.

  41. avatar JohnF says:

    A few facts to chew on::

    > According to the FBI, between 1980 and 2005, only 7% of terrorist acts committed in the US were by Islamic extremists. A whopping 42% were committed by Latino groups (probably drug related) and 31% were committed by Communist and Left-Wing extremist groups. Perhaps those numbers have changed since 2005, but I’ll bet not by much.

    > Worldwide, most victims of Islamic terror are other Muslims.

    > According Pew Research, an increasing majority of Muslims worldwide do not support violent jihad of any kind.

    > There are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. An estimated 15 to 20% are radicals, which is a lot.

    Opinion: If we make this about terrorism, we have up to 320 million Islamic enemies. If we make it about Islam, we have 1.6 billion enemies. I like the better odds.

    1. avatar alexander says:

      The FBI regards the Oregon “occupier’s” as terrorists; Maj Hassan Nidal – workplace violence. So much for those statistics.
      PEW research: phone call – do you plan on killing anyone this week? Answer – not this week, I’m a moderate, only one killing per month. So much for that research, wouldn’t you agree?
      Let’s pretend that our enemy is smaller than it is. Our odds of winning have improved. Conclusion – winning is guaranteed as long as you keep your head in the sand. You need to be the Press Secretary at the White Castle.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> Opinion: If we make this about terrorism, we have up to 320 million Islamic enemies. If we make it about Islam, we have 1.6 billion enemies. I like the better odds.

      We should understand the ideological underpinning of terrorism, too. It’s not something that can be ignored, if only because you need to run counter-propaganda to defeat the ideology.

      But Islam, by itself, is not the ideological underpinning of Islamic terrorism. Various radical strains of Islam that preach hardcore “return to the roots” (of Muhammad’s own personal conquests) are – Deobandism, Wahhabism, Salafism etc. Targeting those is perfectly legitimate. A particular Salafi may not be a terrorist at any given point, but his belief system is inherently predisposed towards terrorist activity, because he would, in principle, see nothing wrong in going to another country and waging violent jihad there, including against civilians (per “Dar al-Harb” concept), to restore the Caliphate and spread Islam.

      Thus, any organization that officially espouses or promotes any of these ideologies should be considered inherently violent and terrorist. Any state that officially upholds or funds such ideologies should be considered a terrorist state, and destroyed by any means necessary.

      Fortunately, there are very few such organizations and states.

      Unfortunately, those states are the so-called “allies” of US in the Middle East…

    1. avatar jlp says:

      If that is the only lame excuse the gun shop can come up with they will lose in court. His attorney will take them apart on this one from half a dozen different angles especially if the court allows the prior behavior of the gun shop to be admitted as evidence.

  42. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    http://abc11.com/news/valet-captured-on-camera-using-gun-to-stop-stabbing/1207328/

    Those pesky muslims at it again.

    I can’t believe the crap some of you have posted, though I’ll defend your right to. I believe one man asked us to judge another by the content of their character. But then he was a black guy so who cares

    1. avatar GuntotinDem says:

      I nominate this guy for gun hero of the day

  43. avatar Anonymous says:

    Whew. I see a lot of islamophobia here. Not all Muslim people are throat slitting, decapitating fools.

    1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      True, but 1 in 10 (minimum) Muslims in the world seem to believe it’s OK to cut people’s throats because they don’t buy their version of events. (mind you without witnesses)
      That is 150,000,000 people world wide and if that holds in our country something in the neighborhood of 500,000 people. Changes the tune a bit???

  44. Of course, no option is 100% effective for many PC users, and crashes to desktop in Left 4 Dead 2 can be the results of other issues, such as the
    BEX error. Whether you might be a computer professional or ‘technologically inept’,
    this procedure becomes even more complicated when deciding whether to purchase a pre-built computer
    or a custom PC. Computer parts 2015 For your computer to be capable of reading the
    discs you require a specialized program.

    Now you might be ready to produce a first step up selecting
    the correct computer by yourself. During testing, my
    win rate against three random computer opponents was around 90
    percent (and in true Catan tradition, I fully blame my
    losses around the dice outcomes.

  45. Thats a fundamentally wrong step for providing affordable health care or computers.
    This infection is actually the most common curable STD in sexually active young women. Text hmu meaning

    His entire career has been a continuation of that same doctrine.
    The cost of biologics is expensive but the
    cost of being disabled is higher.

  46. This move provided Gucci having a strong base inside the form of market coverage
    and it also got a “prepared” market to produce its watches.
    Sleep problems are one of several top conditions that people
    have problems with. Breitling Super copy The ‘Master Collection’ may be
    the most stylish coming from all, combining functionality and
    class.

    Know what their logo appears like and find out about any distinguishing marks which can be
    features on all in their watches. If you want the posh of owning top quality manufacturers, you could have to be willing to
    pay the money.

  47. This GPS helps it be easy for you to broadcast courses, waypoints, geocaches as well as programs to compatible Garmin users wirelessly merely by pressing send.

    In nevertheless, whether or Tela – Atlas Navteq GPS Maps in your GPS navigation may have a reliable partner
    inside run up towards the desired destination.

    The most typical features that are included of all Garmin devices include:
    . The Garmin Forerunner 110 arrives in a quite simple plastic scenario and plastic band.
    Garmin gps za Garmin GPS suppliers give a wide range of GPS receivers and it is possible to surf on the web and choose one that fits your budget.

  48. The gaming industry could be the starting point for
    many of the advanced systems. Since it lets you do most with
    the work, it’s usually probably the most expensive a part of your notebook.
    Best cheap gaming laptop under 400 All M11x laptops have Nvidia GT 335M graphics, along with the Optimus graphics switching technology is roofed.

    In this sector, businesses should realize what people makes use of the most, just
    like the ever popular i – Phone. There are a few such problems that you just face along with your
    battery.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email