Saudi Arabia Decapitates Sri Lankan Maid For The Death Of Child Over An International Outcry

article-2259967-16D8B56F000005DC-120_306x291Despite an international outcry and effort to pay traditional “blood money” in the Saudi legal system, the Kingdom has cut the head off a Sri Lankan maid for allegedly smothering an infant child when the nanny was just 17. The maid was decapitated by a swordsman in Riyadh under the country’s Sharia based legal system.


Rizana Nafeek was sentenced to death in 2007 but Sri Lankan government appealed the death penalty and many international groups decried the ludicrous trial and draconian sentence. While under arrest, the maid signed a confession written in Arabic that she did not understand and later retracted. It did not matter.

Saudi Arabia beheaded as many as 76 people last year.

_65185903_38_rizana_s_passport-1
Source: National Post

278 thoughts on “Saudi Arabia Decapitates Sri Lankan Maid For The Death Of Child Over An International Outcry

  1. I am crossing off the days until we get energy independence (the IEA says it will happen in 2030) from these savages.

  2. I am all for a World Court and no country has a choice about joining. You’re in, like it or not. This sort of travesty would be prevented. The World Court would hear every capital punishment case; i.e., there would be no capital punishment.

    The US would not be able to negotiate, pay, bribe, strongarm or blackmail its way out of jurisdiction. Nor would KSA or any other religiously governed country. It would not be like the ICC. It would be real.

  3. Our wonderful ally. We saved them from Sadam. He was so evil. Supporter of terrorists, absolute monarch, guided by Sharia law, yes just the kind of country we should be supporting or as Al Gore would say just the right kind of country (Qatar) to sell a cable channel to. I am so proud, not.

  4. Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia – the country than manned and financed the 9/11 attack?

    Why was that again?

  5. Disturbing, but it shouldn’t be surprising when religion is your government. The death penalty is barbaric for any country, but a swordsman probably has a better aim than a US jail physician with a needle full of poison.

  6. Interesting that folks want to blame this on the religion of the area. If thats at fault how do you explain Texas?

    Although, really, if you actually examine death penalty cases across the US you will find them littered with juveniles, mentally incompetent and innocent people (often all three in one) in numbers that would make a decent human being ashamed.

    There was no outcry when the state executed a 16 YO boy with an IQ under 60 whos lawyer drifted off to sleep during the trial (and the USSC had no problem with this) for a crime the actual evidence indicates he did not commit.

    Perhaps we should follow the actual teachings of this Jesus guy and spend some time removing the plank from our eye & not whining about the mote in our brother’s.

  7. I’m pretty sure that if someone I entrusted my child to chose to murder my completely defenseless infant then I would want the death penalty for that murderer.

  8. It is a Pirate Territory. Note that I did not characterize it as a “country” or “nation”. East of Corfu the Ten Commandments dont apply. Saudia Arabia: dont go there, fly over, flush twice.

  9. Yet the Saudi Kingdom is our close ally and they are honored by the foreign policy establishment in this country. Money and oil breed respectability.

  10. This is yet another example of why religion needs to end.

    And don’t fool yourself, extremist christians in the US see Shawna Forde as a martyr. They’d love to be able to get away with the same things the Saudi dictatorship can do.

    All religions would commit the same atrocities if they had the power to get away with it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and religions claim their absolute power comes from “gods”. When all of Europe was christian in the past, they did commit mass murder (e.g. witch trials, anti-jewish pogroms, crusades, the inquisition, the “reconquista” of Spain, etc.). Israel does the same in Gaza, and ask the Burmese and Thai muslims how the buddhists treated them in the past.

  11. mespo:

    oil and gas production are on the rise, we are building LNG terminals. it will happen quicker than that if the Obama administration doesnt put up any more statist road blocks.

    We already export a good deal of oil.

    We make the Saudi fields look like a wading pool by comparison. Thanks to the technological advances in oil and gas exploration and production

    That is what capitalism does for you, it produces things in abundance. Even with statist controls abounding.

  12. mike spindell:

    they just paid for most of the politicians in this country. Maybe now we can go back to having our politicians bought by Americans for Americans.

  13. Capital Punishment is a demonstration of a State’s Power over the Domestic population.

    It serves the State as an Object Lesson to the People providing Intimidation and Control.

  14. “We make the Saudi fields look like a wading pool by comparison. Thanks to the technological advances in oil and gas exploration and production”

    Bron,

    you miss the point. Our putative “oil independence” won’t diminish Saudi influence on whit. The money they already have has allowed them to buy power here, be it Congress, or media. Their influence will remain long past our dependence on their oil.

  15. mike spindell:

    I am not so sure, American oil companies, flush with money from an expanding production, will spread the wealth to many in congress. I am against this but at least it would be Americans buying Americans rather than foreign governments.

  16. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this is any different from an American State executing someone who may have been innocent.

    I don’t see the shock value here.

  17. If she truely did it I have no greef for her. Is it the decapitation that seems to anger so many?? Dead is dead. Or are they just anti death penalty?? In this country in which are willing to kill the innocent in the woom and protest killing cold blooded murderes. I truely dont get it. I knew it was wrong to kill babies by smothering OR in the woom when I was 17. If she did not do it, its a horrible travesty.

  18. this is not about religion….this is about a corrupted State. Where was her defense? What $$$$”d entity was involved???

    We don’t invade the Sauds because nobody really knows whose head is up whose nether parts….thats why. And it all stinks if you ask me…..

  19. Bron,

    Look at the Saudi stake in some “American” oil companies. I put American in quotes because none of the major oil companies consider themselves American anymore. They are multi-nationals.

  20. @P Smith. Joseph Salin mudered 10s of millions without religion. Chineese communist many other godless regimes have mudered hundreds of million combined. In fact the godless regimes in the 20th century have mudered more people than have been killed in all the wars we have fought.

  21. Folks who are suggesting she had it coming really should read the story. She signed a confession in a language she couldn’t read despite denying the details of the confession before and after signing it. (which is marginally worse than what has happened thousands of times here in the US where someone is browbeaten into confessions that make no sense and often contradict the facts in the case – only to be convicted on the strength of these bogus confessions). It would be wrong to think she did it in absence of any evidence.

  22. I did not read it.Not saying she had it coming. I dont know. I was only questioning the reason behind the outrage,if it was her innocents or the punishment for the crime commited. Hope she wasnt an innocent woman. :-(

  23. Mickey – well you would be right as long as you leave out the casualty totals of WWI & II. Hitler (an upstanding, church going Christian) caused the deaths of 10-12 million civilians in death camps with religion being the cause for at least 5-6 million of them. He also was responsible for the deaths of more people in the Soviet Union than Stalin was. Those are facts you could look up.

    But that is not to let religion or the lack thereof off the hook for the needless slaughter humans seem to take as necessary from time to time. Nobody’s hands are clean on this account.

    I think no group takes as much joy and pleasure out of needless murders as religious zealots but if you are on the point end of the stick joyful or joyless really is not going to matter.

  24. ‘Death of a Prisoner’
    by Laura Poitras

    ” When President Obama pledged to close the Guantánamo Bay prison on his first day in office as president in 2009, I believed the country had shifted direction. I was wrong. Four years later, President Obama has not only institutionalized Guantánamo and all the horrors it symbolizes, but he has initiated new extrajudicial programs, like the president’s secret kill list.

    In September 2012 I read the news that another prisoner at Guantánamo had died, and I knew I had probably met his family. I traveled to Yemen in 2007 with the idea of making a film about a Guantánamo prisoner. I went there with the Guantánamo lawyer David Remes. He met with families and delivered the news of their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands. I had hoped to film the journey of someone being released from Guantánamo and returning home. Five years later, I find myself making that film, but under tragic circumstances.

    Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif recently died in solitary confinement at Guantánamo at age 36, after nearly 11 years of imprisonment there, despite never having been charged with a crime. Last month his body was returned to his family in Yemen, but we are left with many unanswered questions about his imprisonment and death.

    Mr. Latif’s death is under investigation by the United States military, which claims he committed suicide from an overdose of prescription medication complicated by acute pneumonia. But that’s hard to take at face value. Why was he placed in solitary confinement when he was suffering from acute pneumonia? How could he have overdosed on medication, given the strict protocols at Guantánamo? Why did it take three months for the body to be returned to Yemen? And finally, why are his autopsy and toxicology report classified and being withheld from his family?

    These questions are not just about Adnan Latif. They also address the injustices that our government has instituted and normalized in the war on terror.

    Laura Poitras is an Academy Award-nominated documentary filmmaker. She is currently working on a trilogy of films about post-9/11 America. She is the recipient of a 2012 MacArthur Fellowship and is on the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Her previous Op-Doc is “The Program.”

  25. What’s so “draconian” about the death penalty for intentionally killing an infant? That’s certainly a possible punishment in many US states for the same crime.

  26. Frankly.. according to University of Hawaii study at least 133 million, as much as 260 million mudered in the 20th century almost all by godless states. Either far exceeds war dead.

  27. By the way Hitler was not godless, but he wasnt a Christian either. He was a pagon. He believed in the Nordic gods.. kind of. The Nazis actualy built a pegan temple the elites worshiped at.Hitler said “I will pull up the tree of Christianity branches, roots and all” Ofcourse”Christians” HAVE commited atrocities, but not nearly on the scale of the godless states..

  28. Actually, Hitler was a lapsed Catholic. His propaganda mechanism though relied heavily upon both indigenous German and borrowed Roman mythological and magical concepts to sell their message. Many Nazis clung to pseudo-scientific beliefs such as Social Darwinism (as did Hitler) but there was a stronger element of the occult in the SS. However, on a national scale the eventual plan was to replace all traditional sects of Christianity with the National Reich Church which was a blend of Christianity, nationalism and Nazism designed to reconcile what Martin Bormann had described as “irreconcilable”, namely the tenets of National Socialism and Christianity. This ended up being one of the Ministry of Propaganda’s biggest failures in application and Alfred Rosenberg’s plans for the National Reich Church failed.

  29. exactly agreed. Still not a Christianbut a mixture of Darwinism the occult and Christianityafter all he was in Europe and needed to somehow engage the people who consider themselves Christian

  30. Waldo
    1, January 11, 2013 at 12:11 pm
    What’s so “draconian” about the death penalty for intentionally killing an infant? That’s certainly a possible punishment in many US states for the same crime.————–
    where is the proof of intentionally killing an infant? She signed something under duress….

  31. Noo-oooooooooooo. Not agreed. Hitler wasn’t an occultist. He was a Christian. A lapsed Catholic who subscribed to pseudo-science. Many in the SS and some of his cabinet were occultists. He was not.

    Historical revisionism doesn’t help your case and putting words in my mouth even less so.

  32. Saudi households are highly dependent on domestic workers from African and South Asian countries.

    In a statement before the execution, Amnesty International said that it appeared Nafeek had no access to lawyers either during her pre-trial interrogation or at her trial in 2007.

    “It appears that she was herself a child at the time and there are real concerns about the fairness of her trial,” Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa programme director, said the day before the execution.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131107434432906.html

    She had said the infant choked on formula while feeding….where are the autopsy results???

  33. Mickey,

    You need to read the history of The Inquisition, the Witch Trials, anti-Jewish Pogroms and the Crusaders before they even got to the Holy Lands. Also while you’re at it the Albigensian Heresy and some of Martin Luther’s preachings. The Southern Baptists also have an interesting history, as do the Religious beliefs of the KKK.

  34. If you are a lapsed Catholicyou are not Catholic. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness.I am NOT a Jehovah’s Witness that has lapsed. I reject the Jehovah’s Witness religion. Truly all a small point. This came about when P Smith said that religion needed to end because it is cause so many deaths. My only point was the godlessstates have murdered even more people. however I do believe Islam “as interpreted by far too many people” is a threatto civilization

  35. Yes Mike I totally agree however the Sovietand the Chinese Godless communist killed far more as a matter of number than all of those combined

  36. check out the link for the University of Hawaii the I posted withyou also find a link for pre 20th century murders by government witin that link

  37. “Sovietand the Chinese Godless communist killed far more as a matter of number than all of those combined”

    Mickey,

    I’m really not sure that can be quantified. However, you must understand that even though Communists are atheists, Communism as practiced is itself a religion, though one not believing in God. I can’t say that I agree with P Smith’s original statement either. I think that institutionalized religion, fundamentalist religion and atheistic religions are all bad, not because of their teachings per se, but because sociopaths tend to rise to the top of their hierarchies and pervert the original intent of the belief. do you really think that Karl Marx would have approved of Lenin, Stalin and Mao? I seriously doubt it.
    Just as I doubt that Jesus would see what has been done in his name as following his teachings.

  38. Mickey,
    I am not sure that you can claim that the Soviets and Chinese have killed more than organized religions. We are talking thousands of years of religions killing so-called infidels or non-believers.
    Mike,
    I agree that JC would be ashamed of how the Catholic Church has morphed from being all about helping the underprivileged to being more concerned about maintaining their control over the people and the money.

  39. @rafflaw yes they have killed more. Check the linkfor university of Hawaii
    Genne H the link yo posted is incomplet. Google (Hitlers faith abc) top of the hits should be a very indepth study of Hitler that clearly showa he was not a practicing christian and dabeled in the occult. therefore not a christian.

  40. And herein is demonstrated why it is pointless to argue who killed more. Mickey, you ignore a lot of religious history to try and make your point. And everyone misses the important point: its humans that are the problem no matter what they believe.

  41. “its humans that are the problem” – Frankly

    True enough, but some of the ridiculous crap they can believe does factor into their bad actions.

  42. Frankly .. I agree with you its humans. humans that lust for power over others that is the problem. I ignore nothing. I was responding to P Smith. Never give up your right to own and bare arms because government has been the greatist source of murder in history.

  43. Seeing that religious people planed for the arresting of Jesus having the servant of the high prieast arrest him and wanted him dead whoever kills or arrests is therefore religious being anti Christ. It is so freaking simple.

  44. Mickey,

    I suspect I know a lot more about Hitler than you do. WWII history is a hobby and I’m currently writing a novel set in part in Nazi Germany so I’ve been collating research. Hitler was a lapsed Catholic, but he never adopted any other tradition (including atheism) which means he’s a Christian if not a practicing Catholic. When dealing with his inner-circle, you get conflicting stories as you’d expect from a politician of his caliber.

    Privately, when he was dealing with his more occult oriented friends like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann (both members of the Thule Society which did play an instrumental part in his rise to power as early supporters of what would become the Nazi Party), he frequently criticised Christianity. This, however, would also comport with him be lapsed from an organized religion and most of his criticism focused on the organization rather than the religion itself. When dealing with other members of his staff who were themselves staunch Christians like General Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, he spoke like a true believer.

    Publicly, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, his belief in an Aryan Christ, and concurrent with the attempt to create the National Reich Church he espoused the twisted form of positive Christianity that institution was to be built upon.

    Like it or not, Hitler was a Christian in the non-denominational sense that he didn’t follow any organized religion’s dogma, but was spiritually a Christian in the theological sense albeit in a form twisted to rationalize his actions as a genocidal maniac. If anything, Hitler saw himself as a religious reformer trying to reshape Christianity in such a way as to make it compatible with the Nazi ethos (which it is inherently not compatible with) and a politician looking to preserve what support he had garnered from traditional organized Christianity and minimize possible discord within the state that flatly banning organized religion (other than the National Reich Church of course) would have caused.

  45. you assume a lot. My family grew up in nazioccupied Europe. it’s my hobby too. really a small point. You can call yourself anything you want is your behavior that is the issue

  46. Mickey,

    The issue at hand is you being wrong and not man enough to admit it. You said I didn’t give a robust enough answer the first time, so I gave you one that was both robust and historically accurate and you didn’t like the answer. That falls into the category of your problem, not mine.

  47. now now you are being an elitist snob. Perhaps this the definition of Christian thatis at issue. if I tell you that I am a Jewish vegetarian while I am eating a double bacon cheeseburger I clearly I’m not a Jewish vegetarian

  48. “I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.” – Marcus Aurelius

  49. Religion, and real Christianity are not related. What you are seeing is anti Christ. What you are seeing is what religious people wanted to do to Jesus. KJV itself. Mark 14:1-9 KJV the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. John 12;10 the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Genesis 19. 9, What you are complaining about is not the character of Jesus. They pervert Gads word, KJV.

  50. There is no Christian in her wanting to condemn whoever. Jesus came to save. Jesus did not come to build jails, and military armies. She fell victim to the very laws she supports.

  51. I love the discussion of who killed more, religious zealots or atheists.
    So let me get this strait, a religious zealot kills because his/her god says that someone has committed an atrocity so heinous that deserves death. And the atheist kills because…hmmm, got to be a reason….hmmm. Perhaps it’s because they just wanted to? Whatever the reason, dead is dead.

  52. No.. that wasnt the discussion. It turned into that. It started as P Smith saying we should get rid of all religion because they have killed so many people.. I just said the non religious have killed hudreds of mlions. Someome else pointed out that communism is a religion. I must agree. It is a godless reigion .

  53. Communism is most certainly not a religion. It’s an extremist political/economic ideology that by in large eschews religion as an exploitive tool used by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat, however, there is such a thing as religious communism where a command economy and social organization is built around religious principles. In fact, such political practice was found in the pilgrims of Plymouth Colony, the Shakers, and the Hutterites in early American history.

    Is it make up your own facts day and I just missed the memo or something? Did they quit teaching history and political science while I slept? Apparently so.

  54. Know this, Jesus is not in killing. How then can Jesus be in what is known as religion? Jesus did not kill nether did he indorse it. See the character of Jesus See Christianity.

  55. What I really ment that as practiced in Eastern Europe it was practiced to the zeal of the most extream religions. Certainly not a religion since it recognizes a god.. other than man

  56. By the way I have been to those websites to and read all about it the different typs of government and ideoligy. Im just having a conversation and not tryin to give a political science class here.

  57. Then you should know better than to say Communism is a religion when it is not, no matter how zealously practiced. Precision is important. Similar to a thing is not a thing proper. A dog is not a cat despite both being quadrupedal placental mammals.

  58. Actually I was paraphrasing (poorly)what someone else said about “the way it has been practiced” its a religion. Not technically of course.

  59. Gene H:

    my brother had a cat just like that, he never touched her. he got the cat from his mom and his wife was the only one who could touch her.

    some cats are just a&&holes.

  60. It was in Hitlers mind to replace, but the same deceptive spirit in the Catholic church that oppressed many that spawning the military spawned another military with Hitler that did the same thing.. Jesus obviously not in either one.

  61. It was in Hitlers mind to replace, but the same deceptive spirit in the Catholic church that oppressed many that spawned the military. Hitler did the same thing spawning another military.. We got one military fighting the other. Both thinking they were right. Jesus obviously is not in either one.

  62. It was in Hitlers mind to replace, but the same deceptive spirit in the Catholic church that oppressed many spawned the military. Hitler did the same thing spawning another military.. We got one military fighting the other. Both thinking they were right. Jesus obviously is not in either one.

  63. Gene,

    Au contraire. Communism is most certainly a religion for those dedicated to it. That it is atheist bears no relationship tp the religious nature of its folloeers. There is a canon (party line) to adhere to and not following that line makes you the focus of a purge. It has its sins and transgressions as with religions. Most importantly it is followed with complete faith in its perfection.

  64. Mike,

    You’re welcome to try that answer in a poli sci or a comparative religion class. Just don’t expect a good grade. Zealotry does not a religion make. Although the word “zealot” has a religious etymology it does not apply solely to religions. OED says:

    zealot /ˈzɛlət/, n.,

    a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

    Communists may be political/ideological zealots (and I know from your stories you’ve known some that certainly qualify as zealots) but that does not make Communism a religion. The only time a political ideal can be fairly described as a religion is in the various forms of theocracy (a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god). Communism by its very definition (post-Marx) is an atheistic state and ergo not a form of theocracy.

  65. Spindell –

    There are two type of ignorant and uneducate people:

    (1) Those who don’t know because they’ve never been exposed to facts

    (2) Those, like “mickey”, who don’t want to know or deal in facts. Addressing them would undermine his claims.

    “mickey” –

    Religion, in the absence of any proof of “gods” (there is no testable scientific proof) is just another extremist ideology with claims of the supernatural. Other than that, it is exactly the same as fascism and communism in every way. Your feeble attempt to insinuate that atheism has anything to do with communism demonstrates your ignorance. Not just that you are poorly educated, but that you’re proud of it.

    All atrocities throughout history were perpetrated by extremist ideologies, some just claim the fictions of “gods”. Contrary to the substandard education you received, atheism is an absence of ideology, an absence of any unprovable claims, and not an ideology unto itself. Atheists only concern ourselves with what exists, not political or religious dogmas.

    As Bertrand Russell once noted, christianity (or any religion) and communism (or any political ideology) oppose each other so strongly because they are so similar. They want the same things – money and power – and use the same methods to achieve them – violence and brainwashing.

  66. Gene:

    When you have published you have mentioned previously in this thread, let us know so I can buy one. :)

  67. Gene,

    I think based upon various readings of Adolph Hitler….. He was instructed, constricted by Erik Hanussen an astrologer in the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Nazi Germany…… He was found to be Jewish and disappeared about 33’…. Was Hitler ino the occult….. There is very good reason and evidence to think so….. Some historians tried to edit any association with the Jews in Germany ….. Just like Stalins original financiers were Jewish….. Then…. They disappeared….. History has a way of being rewritten….

  68. “Saudi Arabia knew Rizana Nafeek was a child [but] they beheaded her anyway” – National Post

    “Saudi Arabia beheaded as many as 76 people last year.”

    “the US does more trade – overwhelmingly in oil and weapons – with Saudi Arabia than any other country in the Middle East”. -Glenn Greenwald

    ———-Glenn Greenwald today on the US relationship with Saudi Arabia

    The US – alongside Saudi Arabia – fights for freedom and democracy in the Middle East

    The ability to persuade people that the US opposes tyranny is a testament to the potency of propaganda

    by Glenn Greenwald
    Saturday 12 January 2013 09.07 EST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/us-saudi-arabia-libya-freedom

    Excerpt:

    “The US is not committed to spreading democracy and freedom in the US. “Freedom” and “democracy” are concepts it exploits to undermine regimes that refuse to serve its interests. Indeed, there is virtually an inverse relationship between how democratic a country is in the Muslim world and how closely allied the US is to it.

    Yes, all of this is obvious and not novel to point out. Still, it needs to be pointed out because of how often the US government succeeds in leading people to believe that these are its goals. It’s just extraordinary that so many people are willing to believe and advocate that the US ever acts in the world with the goal of undermining tyranny when “the US does more trade – overwhelmingly in oil and weapons – with Saudi Arabia than any other country in the Middle East”. That this blatant sham is so widely accepted is a testament to the potency of propaganda, bolstered by the willingness of people to embrace self-flattering claims.”

  69. Darren,

    Will do.

    **************
    AY,

    Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer. Was she an occultist? No. Obviously he was at least curious about it as he associated with members of the Thule Society, but that does not translate to Hitler being an occultist any more than me being curious about Judaism makes me a Jew.

  70. Gene,

    Plausible deniability is an issue people deal with on a daily basis….rewrite history any which way you need..,..

  71. Whatever, AY. Reason and evidence a bit too much for you today? Consulting an astrologer is no more proof of Hitler being an occultist than saying I’m a Muslim because I’ve read the Quran. As for the accusation of historical revisionism? You know exactly what you can do with that. No lube required.

  72. “You’re welcome to try that answer in a poli sci or a comparative religion class. Just don’t expect a good grade.”

    Gene,

    I don’t need no stinkin courses to make my mind up. :).

    “re·li·gion (r-ljn) n.
    1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

    Please note 3 & 4 above. Karl Marx is Communism’s spiritual leader as in 3. Yes I know the definitions of spiritual in the main relate to “other worldly” but I contend that Marx’s theory of history and mankind postulated a trait in the way humanity organizes itself that is little different than the preachings of prophets speaking for a Deity. Number 4 also dovetails with 3. As you alluded to the true Communists (i.e. party members) I have known, were every bit as zealous in the pursuits as “true believers” in a God-shaped Universe and just as averse to reasoning that countered their beliefs. The preservation of Lenin’s and Stalin’s corpses for so many years is indicative of the “religious” fervor of their followers.

  73. Mike,

    The word “supernatural” is where this argument ends.

    supernatural /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l, ˌsjuː-/, adj.,

    (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

    I’m pretty sure (as in “Let’s go to Vegas!” sure) Marx was confined by the laws of physics. Post-Marx Communism may be many things, but it does not endorse supernatural agency.

  74. “Your feeble attempt to insinuate that atheism has anything to do with communism demonstrates your ignorance. Not just that you are poorly educated, but that you’re proud of it.”

    Smith,

    Before taking me on in any topic I think you need to take a remedial reading course, since judging by your snide comment you didn’t understand what I clearly wrote. I didn’t insinuate that atheism has anything to do with communism. However, more to the point your writing discloses the same kind of fanaticism you pretend to decry.

    “Contrary to the substandard education you received, atheism is an absence of ideology,”

    Again you attempt to demolish a “straw man ” version of my thinking by offering a proof that has no relationship to what I wrote. Bravo to your childish attempt to smear me, it shows you at the emotional level of a ten year old going “Nyanhh, Nyanhh, Nyahh” on the schoolyard. Interestingly the same type of tactic used by the religious nuts you decry, who so believe they’ve got the true version of the meaning of life.

  75. No gene you just give no factual basis except your opinion to base your denying…. That’s why I called it as I said…. Plausible deniability…..

  76. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

    Which says pretty much what I said. As does . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

    And this . . .

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

    All of which comports with everything I’ve ever read about him.

    The only people interested in spinning that he wasn’t a Christian are Christians in denial of the facts. So you can double what I said you can do with it earlier, AY. Believe whatever fantasy you like. Hitler was a Christian. Not the kind Jesus would have approved of, but one nonetheless.

  77. hey mickey your so fine you blow my mind hey mickey it says that the church will lie that they will be on the front lines and that MY WORD is law is written that I will not know where two start when writing that I would know the weighs it says that the PROPHET, and JESUS would know war so we could guide you against those who are singing the song of on word christian soldiers marching ass to war with the cross of geeze-us? going on before and why are thee hell are they going to fight against GOD who was to ranger school and MY SON was to ranger and seal school sow don’t tell everybody were so we’re so PHucking nice when my four we’ll drive cat got stuck in neuterall butt it has a kick start so don’t blow a you tube artie when you read this because somebody wrote that you must have carnal knowledge of GOD to get into HEAVEN when the earth was flat sew you better hope that is just a metaph whore ! so guns will be legal to stop tyrants sew you don’t have to think about any government taking over the country and oppressing the helpless people as a maximium when frankly hit it dead nuts on at 307/1112013.
    YES!

  78. mike spindell:

    considering religion is nothing but a proto-philosophy, your remarks are well received and agreed with.

    man has a spirtual nature and will fill it with whatever ideology is handy. One has to be on guard against the resulting dogmatism.

  79. There is no contradiction between the two gene….. A belief in the occult is not inconsistent with the bible…..many people have many different talent…. Some speak in tongue….. Yadda, Yadida, Yadda…….

    To say that they are inconsistent….. Is plausible deniability….

  80. “There is no contradiction between the two gene….. A belief in the occult is not inconsistent with the bible [. . .] To say that they are inconsistent….. Is plausible deniability….”

    This statement in itself is a contradiction. If they (Christianity and an interest in the occult) are not incompatible, then the deniablity is not plausible as it is not a binary choice which ergo comports to the information that Hitler was a Christian even if he consulted an astrologist and associated with actual occultists. Which is what I said and then you accused me of historical revisionism.

    Get your story (or at least your baseless accusations) straight.

    The ones engaging in historical revisionism are the ones claiming Hitler wasn’t a Christian when there is abundant evidence that he was albeit in a way he twisted to make it more compatible with his Nazism.

  81. “The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.”

    Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

    — Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

    “…under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’

    “The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.

    “The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably…the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800…

    “The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

    “The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany…'”

    “On the altars there must be nothing but ‘Mein Kampf’ (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

    “On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.”

    (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, p. 240 in some editions, p. 332 in others. Chapter headed “Triumph and Consolidation”, subsection “The Persecution of the Christian Churches”)

  82. “National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible. The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.

    “The Christian Churches have long been aware that exact scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research…No one would know anything about Christianity if pastors had not crammed it down his throat in his childhood. The so-called loving God by no means reveals the knowledge of His existence to young people, but amazingly enough, and despite His omnipotence, He leaves this to the efforts of a pastor. When in the future our youth no longer hear anything about this Christianity, whose doctrine is far below our own, Christianity will automatically disappear.

    “[…] When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God…[we mean] [t]he force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God. The assertion that this world-force can worry about the fate of every individual, every bacillus on earth, and that it can be influenced by so-called prayer or other astonishing things, is based either on a suitable dose of naivete or on outright commercial effrontery.”

    “Any influence that would impair or damage the leadership of the people exercised by the Fuhrer with the aid of the NSDAP has to be eliminated. To an ever increasing degree the people must be wrested from Churches and their agents, the pastors…Only the Reich leadership, together with the party and the organs and associations connected with it, has a right to lead the people. Just as the harmful influence of astrologists, soothsayers, and other swindlers has been suppressed by the state, so it must be absolutely impossible for the Church to exercise its old influence.”

    (Martin Bormann, Reich Leader, 1942, ‘National Socialist and Christian Concepts are Incompatible’, From Kirchliches Jahrbuch fur die evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, 1933-1944, pp. 470-472, quoted pp. 245-247, George L. Mosse, Nazi Culture: A Documentary History).

    “…I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather, he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence.”

    (Adolf Hitler, in his June 26, 1944 speech to industrialists, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 555, Inside the Third Reich.)

    “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

    (Adolf Hitler, quoted by Albert Speer, p. 96, Inside the Third Reich.)

  83. Gene,

    Some still believe that Elvis Presley is still alive and have sited him many times….. I think he’s dead….. But I don’t know for sure…. I didn’t witness his death and or autopsy….. But I’ve never seen him either….. So the only thing I can rely upon is the various news feeds that I read or saw….. I don’t deny that he’s dead…. I do know for a fact that people write based upon experience and the history they have been taught….. Your argument that he’s not a Christian and occultist at the same time is inconsistent with fact….. You believe your way and ill believe the history that I’ve read….. Makes no real difference because we are just expressing our own opinions based upon the history we believe….you’re entitled to yours…. And just because you disagree does not make you right except in your mind….and that’s all that matters…..

  84. AY,

    “Your argument that he’s not a Christian and occultist at the same time is inconsistent with fact”

    Learn to read. Better yet, learn to understand. Maybe Elvis can teach you to do that if you can get Bigfoot to swing by in the UFO and drop him off.

    My argument is that he was a Christian albeit a twisted one.

    This was to counter the argument that having an interest in the occult (which does not make one a de facto occultist) automatically precluded him being a Christian. Your argument as reflected above is one big ol’ straw man. And you still know what you can do with it.

  85. Gene H:

    if he was a Christian, why was he trying to replace Christianity in Germany instead of just subverting it to the National Socialist agenda?

    Just because he was raised as a Christian and went to a Christian school for a few years of his life doesnt mean he was a Christian.

    Many people reject Christianity in their 20’s. Hitler’s religion was power.

  86. AY,

    You were going to post what exactly? More evidence as to what I said? Speer was also a member of the Thule Society. What Bron did was post more material evidencing that when Hitler spoke “[p]rivately, when he was dealing with his more occult oriented friends like Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann (both members of the Thule Society which did play an instrumental part in his rise to power as early supporters of what would become the Nazi Party), he frequently criticised Christianity. This, however, would also comport with him be lapsed from an organized religion and most of his criticism focused on the organization rather than the religion itself. When dealing with other members of his staff who were themselves staunch Christians like General Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, he spoke like a true believer. [. . .] Publicly, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, his belief in an Aryan Christ, and concurrent with the attempt to create the National Reich Church he espoused the twisted form of positive Christianity that institution was to be built upon.” Which lo and behold is still an accurate statement and not a reflection of your misrepresentation of my statements when you said “Your argument that he’s not a Christian and occultist at the same time is inconsistent with fact” – which was not my argument at all.

    My argument is that he was a Christian albeit a twisted one.

    Did you get that? Need Elvis to assist your in reading comprehension? How about Jack? Don’t know him either, eh?

    I suppose straw men – an amateur night tactic even for you – and baseless accusations of historical revisionism mean nothing to you either.

  87. The occult goes contrary to the teachings of Christ. Jesus tells us to not try to talk to the dead..People end up communicating with evil angels impersonating those that have passed on. There is no truth in them.

  88. Bron,

    I won’t argue Hitler’s true love wasn’t power, but he was a Christian.

    In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity:

    “24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.”

    He proclaimed he was a Christian:

    My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people …. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.” – Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich (April 12, 1922) [emphasis added]

    Hitler quoting the Bible (Revelation 3:16): “In the Bible we find the text, ‘That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.’ This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.” – Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich (April 10, 1923)

    Paraphrasing I Corinthians 13:13: “There are three words which many use without a thought which for us are no catch-phrases: Love, Faith, and Hope…. We are fanatical in our love for our people..” – Adolph Hitler, speech in Munich (May 1, 1923).

    “It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.” – Adolf Hitler, in an article entitled “A New Beginning” (Feb. 26, 1925).

    “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.” – Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau (October 27, 1928 – evidence of both his Christianity and his vision of himself as reformer).

    “The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life…. The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed…. It will be the Government’s care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith. The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.” – Adolf Hitler, speech to the Reichstag (March 23, 1933).

    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler, speech in Berlin (Oct. 24, 1933).

    “While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.” – Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message for 1934 (Jan. 1, 1934).

    “No, it is not we that have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine (Lehre ) of the Confessions or with their religious freedom (Bekenntnisfreiheit ), nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends….

    “National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity…. For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life… These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest [sic] by God.” – Adolf Hitler, speech at Koblenz (Aug. 26, 1934).

    “I say that they can be solved; there is no problem that cannot be, but faith is necessary. Think of the faith I had to have eighteen years ago, a single man on a lonely path. Yet I have come to leadership of the German people….

    Life is hard for many, but it is hardest if you are unhappy and have no faith. Have faith.

    Nothing can make me change my own belief.” – Adolf Hitler, referring to his Catholicism in Nuremberg (Sept. 12, 1936).

    Hitler prays: “In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger…. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty…. If Providence had not guided us I could often never have found these dizzy paths…. Thus it is that we National Socialists, too, have in the depths of our hearts our faith. We cannot do otherwise: no man can fashion world-history or the history of peoples unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence.” – Adolf Hitler, speech at Wurzburg (June 27, 1937).

    More prayer: “As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace.” – Adolf Hitler, speech to the Reichstag (Oct. 6, 1939).

    Doh! He does it again: “May therefore God give us the strength to continue to do our duty and with this prayer we bow in homage before our dead heroes, before those whom they have left behind in bereavement, and before all the other victims of this war.” – Adolf Hitler, ending prayer in the radio address of March 15, 1942.

    Hitler speaking against cults and cultism: “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship…. We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…. Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” – Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg (Sept. 6, 1938).

    God picked him a special!: “God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work….

    Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life’s work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me….

    Therefore, it is all the more necessary on this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power to strengthen the heart more than ever before and to steel ourselves in the holy determination to wield the sword, no-matter where and under what circumstances, until final victory crowns our efforts….

    In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people’s interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance….

    In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing. No people can do more than that everybody who can fight, fights, and that everybody who can work, works, and that they all sacrifice in common, filled with but one thought: to safeguard freedom and national honor and thus the future of life.” – Adolf Hitler, in a radio address of Jan. 30, 1945.

    By his own words (not those of Bormann, an avowed occultist), Hitler was a Christian.

    That he wasn’t a very good Christian – possibly the worst in recorded history – is beside the point.

  89. Religious people wanted jesus, and Lazarus dead. Religion is what the religious people wanted to do to Jesus. Arrest him, and kill him. It should not take much brain power to see that whoever kills or whats to kill or arrest is religious. That means those that do not want to do that are the Christians. Religious people pervert scripture convincing themselves that arresting, and killing is godly. The zoosexual being attacked is a good example of religious militaristic oppressive sodomistic activity..Read Isaiah 1 KJV. You will find that they had religious practices.

  90. AY,

    Tis’ the facts that protest and just the right amount. Hitler himself said he was a Christian. Deal with it. Don’t you have an appointment with a floor somewhere that smells like stale urine and dried vomit, Mr. Straw Man?

  91. Next…. Bet we will hear how there were no gays in the SS because all gays were in concentration camps…

  92. Adolf Hitler Preached:

    Ich bin die Auferstehung und das Leben, sagte der Sohn Gottes. Wer an mich glaubt wird niemals sterben, sondern ewig leben.

    Nun zu den Gaskammern, juden

  93. Bet I can find a post in which one once referenced shrooms….. But that would be out right denial as opposed to plausible deniability….

  94. At least you’ll continue to confuse man with movement and his associates in what can only be construed as another straw man. That there were occultists in the Nazi Party (like Bormann, Speer and Goebbels) is already stipulated in above comments and tangential to Hitler himself and his beliefs. I’d already put out the second link @ 12:47 in support of my comments before the dozen or so direct quotes from Hitler evidencing his self-proclaimed Christianity @ 4:07.

    His own testament to being a Christian effectively renders any assertion to the contrary moot.

    Unless, of course, you claim to know his own mind better than he himself did.

  95. No one will ever know for certain gene…. He is dead….I think…. No sightings that I’m aware of….. So you have your opinion of what it means….. And i have my opinion of what it means…..

    Just like the two folks on Wall Street…. One betting that herbal life will be declared illegal….. Another one betting it won’t…… This will be certain in our lifetime…. As the Obama administration has to do something one way or the other….but, you or I will never know what hitlers beliefs were or weren’t….. At least with certainty….. No strawman involved…. We only have what we believe….to Bethesda truth at the moment…. In the end it doesn’t really matter now does it?

    Btw, I’ve never tried shrooms…..

  96. “No one will ever know for certain gene”

    Other than anyone listening to the man himself, in words from his own mouth. The quotes above – historically and accurately attributable to Hitler – indicate that he espoused his own Christianity. If you chose to ignore that evidence in place of supposition and uncertainty because you didn’t know him personally, then the study of history must be a largely futile effort if that is your standard of acceptable evidence.

  97. Your beliefs are exactly that….lt may be your proof…. You profess to be smart enough to know you can’t believe everything you read ….. And with the new world order what you hear…..I agree one thing for certain is futile…. Having a reasonable conversation with you n this topic…..

  98. It’s not my belief, AY. It’s a series of direct quotes from the man himself stating his own belief in Christianity. In court, they call that direct testamentary evidence of a claimant’s contemporaneous state of mind. It is not a bunch of second hand information from people who were themselves occultists like Speer and Bormann which at best is present sense impression and at worst pure hearsay. That you can’t escape the straw man you built by misrepresenting my statement – which again was that Hitler was a Christian (and by his own admission) albeit a twisted one with an interest in the occult and not that “he’s not a Christian and occultist at the same time is inconsistent with fact” aka your straw man – is your problem. Mickey was the one insisting he couldn’t be a Christian and an occultist, not me.

    I have presented evidence he considered himself a Christian. A Christian with an interest in the occult is no more an occultist than a Christian who has read the Lotus Sutra is a Buddhist. I even presented evidence where Hitler spoke against cults.

    You, on the other hand, haven’t presented evidence he considered himself an occultist.

    I’m not sure what your major malfunction is today and I really truly don’t care, but you can believe any fantasy you’d like to tell yourself and conflate an interest in the occult into occultism all you like.

    Me? I’ll go with the evidence of Hitler’s own words proclaiming he was a Christian which was my point all along. Not whatever imaginary point you wanted to make up for me after accusing me of historical revisionism.

  99. I heard from some wise person once, never believe what you hear and check multiple authorities for what you read. Gene, sorry to burst you bubble, but hitler had no use for the Christianity that you say he was. There was a movement to end all religions in Germany except for the state propagandist one authorizes by the party. But of course, you are well versed in theory and dissemination…. Hence, you’re familiar with propaganda and how it works, say it enough times and even you’ll believe it too….

  100. Yeah AY, just gloss over the positive Christian aspect of the National Reich Church and say he “had no use for it” despite the fact positive Christianity being key element in seeking to gain acceptance for that failed project. I presented the evidence he considered himself a Christian in his own words. I’ve presented evidence he had great use for Christianity in promoting nationalism and did so quite frequently. All of it in his own words.

    You’ve presented no evidence at all he considered himself an occultist or not a Christian.

    In short, your counter amounts to “uh uh, was not”.

    The club girls may think that’s cute, but anyone trained in argumentation is chuckling.

    Again, he was a Christian and so by his own proclamation. That he wasn’t a very good one is beside the point. He said he was one and he promoted positive Christianity as a path to a consolidated nationalism. That you apparently think he wasn’t a Christian is immaterial to the evidence he said he was one. Are you the Pope? Are you Jesus? Do you have the ability to excommunicate? Did your “knowledge” he “had no use for it” come from psychic powers? I didn’t think so.

    “[H]e is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.”

    And some people wallow in it.

    There’s a bubble bursting alright. Might I suggest a cranial CAT scan to find it. Or not.

  101. j i same thing. wonder if hitler ever wrote his name with a little smiley face over the i. would be a cute emotocon. :neutral: with a little mustache and hair.

  102. He saw Satan. God was not in his soul. People that kill don’t have God in their soul . it is not a one way road. God is not in war. The devil wants people to think God is in war..

  103. Anonymous –

    There is no “both sides” on Hitler’s christianity. Suggesting so is tantamount to saying there are “two sides” about whether the holocaust happened.

    Even if he wasn’t, so what? Religion was used to motivate and indoctrinate the German populace, to drive them to commit atrocities. Being politically conservative himself didn’t stop Conrad Black from owning and operating socialist newspapers.

    “The means to an end” is using anything, even things you don’t like, to achieve a goal, and *if* Hitler wasn’t a christian, he used christianity and most christian’s animosity towards jews to achieve his goals.

    And to Splindell – You obviously didn’t read carefully. I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking TO you ABOUT Mickey and what you had said in an earlier post about him.

    But given your failure to read in context, maybe it does apply.

  104. Well gene, you say you are right…. No reason to argue there….. You say you encourage free speech….. I’ll let your post speak for themselves….. If you don’t like an ideal, you 1) attack the ideal; 2) call it a strawman argument; 3) attack the person….. The list is endless….

    In my opinion based upon what I’ve read Hitler was a Christian in Name Only…. There was a movement within the party to assimilate and then indoctrinate the party agenda through the guise of religion….. What is religion exactly….. Means many things to many people…. Even the Catholics have an occult aspect….if you’ve a problem with this read some more….. I’ll say again, there is nothing inconsistent with being a Christian and believing in the occult…in this case astrology…..

    There is noting personal in this post…. I suggest you reasses your attacks if you wish to …. It’s not very becoming of a guest blogger and writer to continue personal attacks when reason will work just as well…..I don’t think you are doing this blog any honors….. I may disagree with bron on his philosophy of economics…. See any attacks there?

    To resort to your arguments may be cute…come on gene…. Get a grip…. I am chuckling…..as well as others…..to suggest a CAT scan….hmm…. You might be right….. It’s insane to try and carry on an intelligence exchange of ideals with someone that is not open to others ideals….

  105. Awf,

    If the Christian principles were based upon what Jesus was supposed to have taught it’d be closer to Judaism ….. The Christian philosophy is so far from its origins ….. That in my opinion he’d rebuke it…..

    P Smith,

    There is a certin social click here that if you don’t follow the leader….. You won’t be listened to…. The leader depends on the day….

  106. “This is yet another example of why religion needs to end.” (Smith)

    “@P Smith. Joseph Stalin murdered 10s of millions without religion. Chineese communist many other godless regimes have mudered hundreds of million combined.” (Mickey)

    “Mickey,
    You need to read the history of The Inquisition, the Witch Trials, anti-Jewish Pogroms and the Crusaders before they even got to the Holy Lands.” (Me)

    “Mickey,
    I’m really not sure that can be quantified. However, you must understand that even though Communists are atheists, Communism as practiced is itself a religion, though one not believing in God. I can’t say that I agree with P Smith’s original statement either. I think that institutionalized religion, fundamentalist religion and atheistic religions are all bad, not because of their teachings per se, but because sociopaths tend to rise to the top of their hierarchies and pervert the original intent of the belief. do you really think that Karl Marx would have approved of Lenin, Stalin and Mao? I seriously doubt it.” (Me)

    “Spindell –
    There are two type of ignorant and uneducate people:
    (1) Those who don’t know because they’ve never been exposed to facts
    (2) Those, like “mickey”, who don’t want to know or deal in facts. Addressing them would undermine his claims.
    “mickey” –” (Smith)

    Smith,

    If you are going to address a comment specifically towards Mickey, then perhaps opening it addressing me, offering two noxious alternatives, the second addressing Mickey contextually implies that I’m the object of alternative number one. This is underlined by the fact that I disagreed with both you and with Mickey on your premises.

  107. AY,

    I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion or to express it. I said you were wrong. I proved it by Hitler’s own words. You’re free to be as wrong as you like and I’m free to point it out using evidence. If that presents a problem for you, then you should select your targets better.

    As to reason? When you misrepresent another’s statements to attack the misrepresentation, that is the very definition of a straw man argument. If you don’t like having your statements dismantled for lack of substantive evidence and your use of logical fallacies? Learn to argue better.

    As to the rest of your drivel? You’re the one who made it personal by the accusation of historical revisionism without proof so if you don’t like catching any crap, don’t throw any. Imply I’m a liar at your own peril. You acted and you got the consequences of your actions. Then again some people have a problem connecting actions and consequences. That I’m better at retort than you, you have no evidence and your logic and argumentation was faulty is your problem to deal with. Nothing personal.

    Now where’s your proof? Not your opinion. Your proof Hitler wasn’t a Christian. I listed a dozen plus examples above illustrating he considered himself a Christian and promoted a twisted form of the religion. Show some evidence where Hitler himself renounced Christianity and adopted some other creed.

    Again – my contention was that he was a Christian with an interest in the occult but not an occultist proper like his cohorts Bormann, Speer and Goebbels. There is no evidence Hitler ever attended a Thule Society meeting let alone renounced his Christianity. If there is, the burden is upon you to present it.

    You’re entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. Either your opinion is founded in fact or it is baseless. That is not a false dichotomy but rather the nature of evidentiary based thinking. Hitler’s own words back my contention. Where’s your proof? Don’t have any? Well then that simply indicates that your opinion isn’t based in evidence. And again, you’re entitled to your opinions and to express even the baseless ones. You aren’t entitled to have them go unchallenged.

  108. Gene,

    There is nothing inconsistent with professing to be a Christian and believing in the occult. If you believe Hitler said he was a Christian and he said he was, who am I to argue with. If you believe everything you hear someone say, I can understand that. Deeds of atheist have more meaning to me that talk of being a Christian.

    The rest if your dribble is fodder for fools.

    No one said you were revising history, but you will slant it to your goal … Paranoia can be overcome.

  109. No “if” about it Hitler was not a Christian. Had Jesus be a Christian like Hitler was thought to be all of us would have had it. The Hitler mentality is against public nudity, and sex with other species too.

  110. AY,

    So in other words you have no evidence, merely unfounded opinion.

    Again, belief isn’t a factor, the evidence of his own words is what is salient. My belief is that he was a very bad Christian and this is based upon my knowledge of Christianity and his actions. The evidence is that he was a self-proclaimed Christian and he promoted a very specific brand of Christianity. What I don’t believe is your psychic interpretation over direct testimony that Hitler himself considered himself a Christian. Evidence speaks louder than opinion. As you said, who are you to argue with him when it comes to his professed creed? Foolish is as foolish does.

  111. Go for it Gene,

    Gotcha….. Finish (intransitive verb) it up… Knowing full well…. The following as a noun:

    “Hyperbole …. Hyperbole (pron.: /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, “exaggeration”) is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2]

    Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: “The bag weighed a ton.”[3] Hyperbole makes the point that the bag was very heavy, though it probably doesn’t actually weigh a ton.

    In rhetoric, some opposites of hyperbole are meiosis, litotes, understatement, and bathos (the ‘letdown’ after a hyperbole in a phrase).”

  112. AY/Gene:

    Hitler used Christianity if he did anything. There is no way Hitler was a practicing Christian. He didnt kill the Jews to save their souls, it was purely secular.

    Also the Nazi Party was not an extension of the Thule society. From what I can find there are only a couple of Nazis who were members and some of those dont appear to be actual members but guests.

    “In 1919 Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart formed the German Workers’s Party (GPW) in Munich. The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party’s political ideas were similar to his own. He approved of Drexler’s German nationalism and anti-Semitism but was unimpressed with the way the party was organized. Although there as a spy, Hitler could not restrain himself when a member made a point he disagreed with, and he stood up and made a passionate speech on the subject.

    Anton Drexler was impressed with Hitler’s abilities as an orator and invited him to join the party. At first Hitler was reluctant, but urged on by his commanding officer, Captain Karl Mayr, he eventually agreed. He was only the fifty-fourth person to join the German Workers’s Party. Hitler was immediately asked to join the executive committee and was later appointed the party’s propaganda manager.

    In the next few weeks Hitler brought several members of his army into the party, including one of his commanding officers, Captain Ernst Roehm. The arrival of Roehm was an important development as he had access to the army political fund and was able to transfer some of the money into the GWP.

    The German Workers’s Party used some of this money to advertise their meetings. Adolf Hitler was often the main speaker and it was during this period that he developed the techniques that made him into such a persuasive orator.

    Hitler’s reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him.

    Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

    Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word ‘National’ before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had “German blood”. Jews and other “aliens” would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.”

  113. Gene H:

    The Nazis called themselves socialists, by your line of reasoning they were [and I have said this for years] but you have claimed many times and vociferously they are not socialists. Even though many Nazis claimed they were and the party itself is called National Socialist.

    How can one claim be true and one claim not be true even though they are based on the same line of reasoning: the speaker must be believed?

  114. People have missed the obvious. Don’t be like Jesus don’t be a Christian. Waring, and oppressing thinking that weapons make a person powerful is not being a Christian. It is acting like the people against Jesus posing as being good. Hitler was a poser. He went by the name not following it up with actions proving he a was a christian.

  115. People have missed the obvious. Don’t be like Jesus don’t be a Christian. Warring, and oppressing thinking that weapons make a person powerful is not being a Christian. It is acting like the people against Jesus posing as being good. Hitler was a poser. He went by the name not following it up with actions proving he a was a christian.

  116. Bron/Bruce,

    Firstly:

    “Hitler used Christianity if he did anything. There is no way Hitler was a practicing Christian.”

    That he used it for other ends does not preclude that it was his proclaimed religion of choice.

    “He didnt kill the Jews to save their souls, it was purely secular.”

    Not necessarily. I’m going to go with a little of both because as he saw himself as a reformer much like Martin Luther, some of his anti-Semitism may be rooted in Luther’s own work. Not many people realize that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite, they only know about his work “The Ninety-Five Theses” that kicked off the Protestant Reformation. Luther penned a lesser well known work called “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” (“On the Jews and Their Lies”); a 65,000 word anti-Semitic treatise written in 1543. Hitler was a big fan of Luther. That he needed a scapegoat for secular purposes does not preclude that his anti-Semitism has at least partial roots in his twisted view of Christianity.

    “Also the Nazi Party was not an extension of the Thule society.”

    Straw man. Nobody said it was. The Thule Society was an early backer of what would become the Nazi Party and quite a few of the upper ranks were members (particularly in the SS) but they were their own thing as it were.

    Personal religious beliefs are determined by the individual, not the collective. That is a human right recognized not only in our Constitution’s 1st Amendment but in the U.N.’s UDHR. Everyone gets to decide what they define their beliefs as including Hitler. I stipulated that Hitler was a bad Christian (compared to the majority of practice), but the evidence is that he considered himself Christian and that he went to great lengths to reconcile that with his actions and the actions of his government.

    This is in stark contrast to socialism which Hitler strongly rejected in both his praise of Mussolini, the express adoption of Italian fascism as the model for Germany’s economy (even over the protests of some of his cohorts that it was a “foreign influence”) and in the purge of socialists from the Party during the Night of the Long Knives. It is also facile to compare religious beliefs to economic policy and although you can argue that zealotry can be applied to political ideology as well is religious ideology, they are not the same thing unless you are talking some form of theocracy. While the Reich might have eventually transformed into a government with theocratic features should the plan for the National Reich Church succeeded, it didn’t and when it perished Nazi Germany was just a fascist dictatorship. Hitler never rejected his Christianity.

    The fundamental problem with those who won’t accept Hitler was a Christian despite the evidence he thought he was is that they (rightfully so) don’t want such a monster identified as “playing for their team”. It’s a form of tribalism. It’s basic psychology. It’s also flawed logic, specifically a form of the fallacy of composition. Just because “a” Christian is responsible for the Holocaust does not mean “all” Christians are responsible for the Holocaust. The facts are that Christians as a group didn’t kill those in the concentration camps. Hitler and his henchmen did. That onus is upon them and them alone regardless of whether they believed in Jesus or the Tooth Fairy, but to gyrate wildly to say Hitler wasn’t a Christian – by his own proclamation and as was his right – is simply flying in the face of the facts. It’s classic psychological denial in a very basic form. “He’s a monster so he can’t be ‘one of us’.” Sorry! Monsters come in all shapes, sizes, colors, nationalities, ethnicities and (yes) creeds. No single organized religion has the market cornered on atrocity any more than they have the market corned on benevolence. I know this because history tells me so.

    Hitler was a Christian. A bad one. But that isn’t his most pertinent or even his defining characteristic. He was objectively an evil genocidal madman bent on European (if not global) domination by any reasonable standard. That’s what is important about Hitler. That he was a Christian is a historical footnote.

  117. In reply to your post of January, 11th, Gene, it appears that America inadvertently provided the means by which the attacks were carried out. The rest of the world is aware of this, somehow, the great US with its freedom of speech etc, etc, doesn’t like it’s countrymen to know this. The US amongst others gave financial aid, which Bin Laden benefited from, in the Soviet and Afghani war. I won’t bore you with the rest of the details. It’s convenient to omit such facts. Your knowledge is obviously quite immense, however, somewhat tiresome as it is blatantly bias a reeks of Wikipedia.

  118. I hail from good old Blighty and believe in complete transparency, all countries make mistakes, it’s far more gracious to admit them, learn and move on. None of this fannying around with linguistic wizardry that ‘Gene’ seems to be a merchant in.

  119. Frances,

    I’m going to stand with the statement Saudi Arabia provided the bulk of the manpower and all of the money for 9/11. That American’s dropping the ball contributed – particularly in the intelligence systems failures? Is a straw man argument. I never said that they didn’t and that those failures (like failing to act on FBI reports of suspicious flight training students not interested in landing) were not a contributing factor. Those failures do not mitigate that that it was Saudi manpower and money behind 9/11. I said Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, nothing more, nothing less.

    As to your personal slights? At least I don’t “merchant” in weak ass logical fallacies like straw men. Ask yourself if I care what you think of me personally. Any answer other than “I don’t” is wrong. If you have a problem with my encyclopedic knowledge and my skills with rhetoric, it’s your problem.

  120. “Not many people realize that Martin Luther was an anti-Semite, they only know about his work “The Ninety-Five Theses” that kicked off the Protestant Reformation. Luther penned a lesser well known work called “Von den Juden und ihren Lügen” (“On the Jews and Their Lies”); a 65,000 word anti-Semitic treatise written in 1543.”

    Gene,

    This was so true. Luther didn’t start out hating Jews and actually believed that they would see the light and convert to his version of Christianity:

    “As early as 1516, Luther wrote, “…[M]any people are proud with marvelous stupidity when they call the Jews dogs, evildoers, or whatever they like, while they too, and equally, do not realize who or what they are in the sight of God”. In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, but only with the aim of converting them to Christianity. When his efforts at conversion failed, he grew increasingly bitter toward them.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Anti-Judaism_and_antisemitism

  121. Gene, You make me laugh, which is good, You come across as a very angry person. Perhaps, that energy would be best expelled saving some indigenous tribe in some far off exotic country, where they obviously do not have the power, nor the vast intelligence of the US, which exudes from your prose, and no, I do not mean pores. I do hope you are not an armchair judge, it would shatter my delusions of you, a master of words that doesn’t break a sweat churning out 200 words of pure lyrical excreta.I apologise, profusely, I am jesting with you, but you are such an easy target. Relax, life is too short to be so serious all the time. So…..if you don’t merchant in weak ass logic, you are certainly a judgemental prig.

  122. Mike S,

    You’re pretty reasonable or at least try to be, but if memory serves me correctly Christianity did not start up until the 4th century or about 350/380 AD…. It was considered a sect of Judaism until then. Luther was more tolerant to the Jews than those that were spreading other faiths…..such as the Islam Muslims…..

  123. Frances,

    You mistake indifference to your opinion of me for anger. You could think I’m the anti-Christ and I would still perfectly not give a shit. Your inability to argue without resorting to logical fallacies does not anger me either. It’s your downfall, not mine, and as such your cross to bear. And to think the English have such a fine academic tradition – especially in rhetoric – and it apparently did you no good whatsoever. Tsk, tsk, tsk. If anyone should be angry, it should be you with yourself for being so incredibly lame at argumentation.

  124. You have found me out, I feel such shame. Argumentation is for people who don’t have good sex…….I personally don’t need to argue, neither does it incite feelings to be of superior academic intelligence. If that is what rocks your boat, then tally ho, old chap. I don’t think anything of you, well, that’s not quite true…..I think you have too much times on your hands, time that you probably wish you could fill with something more worthwhile than talking bs. This is tiresome, empty vessels make most noise etc etc.

  125. “Argumentation is for people who don’t have good sex”. Awww. That’s adorable. What do you do for an encore? Tell me I have a small penis? That my feet stink and Jesus doesn’t love me? As bad as your argumentation skills are, your insult skills are even worse. Besides, I heard no complaints from your mother but then again that’s what I expect for a $10 transaction.

    “I personally don’t need to argue”. Really. Then why did you open your pie hole in the first place to take to task someone who clearly likes to argue for sport? You were expecting something different? Thought you were going to “put me in my place” perhaps? That I’d run away under the blistering heat of your criticism? Good luck with that.

    “This is tiresome, empty vessels make most noise etc etc.” You mean like empty vessels who misuse the term et cetera by employing it redundantly and defend their use of one logical fallacy (a straw man argument) by compounding that error with more logical fallacies (ad hominem arguments)?

    Thinking isn’t exactly your strong suit, is it? (Pst! That was what is known as a rhetorical question.) Run along now. I’m sure your mom wants the computer back for her “video chat services” – wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  126. raff,

    Yep. As you yourself well know, the fruit loop contingent is just part of life on the Internet. :mrgreen: It has it’s benefits though. I have made some really good friends from contributing here like the other GB’s, OS, Blouise, W=^..^, Darren, James in LA, Bob, etc. That more than makes up for the rest.

  127. Like I said, you are undoubtly are very angry at the world for whatever reason that only you know. Your infantile remarks to sexual transactions between my mother and you is obviously a man grasping at straws in a futile attempt to make himself feel better. Interestingly enough you brought up the subject of a small penis….perhaps there is something you would like to share with the group. I sense that this is what that is for you…a forum where you can vent your anxieties and frustrations. I sincerely feel for you. You’re probably old enough to be my father, hell, you could be given my mother’s sexual appetite, yet, when disagreed with, your facade drops and the true mental age appears. That of a school yard bully. For all your talk, Gene, you’re an incredibly empty person, resorting to pathetic immature comments. Which no doubt gave you a semi, considering the lack of self control you have shown. I wonder as a child were you chastised for lack of intelligence? Is that why you keep harping on about your assumed lack of mine? Is that why you strive for the last say? Or perhaps the syphillus you contracted from my mother has rotted your brain. I still love you, Dad.

  128. Hey, you’re the one who brought up sex as an insult and started off with the ad hominem, genius, but obviously I’ve struck a nerve in sending that volley back. As to your lack of intelligence, well, you’re the one proving that with your every post, Frances. You don’t need my help to look like an idiot. You’re doing a fine job on your own. It’s not my fault your arguments suck and your insults are feeble. Don’t come unarmed to a battle of wits. Your agreement is not required. Being able to back up your contentions with evidence and cogent non-fallacious logic is though. Good luck with that.

  129. It’s also a funny thing I’ve noticed about actual bullies. When you give them a good stomping they are the first ones to cry about being bullied. Some things never change. Boo hoo. Suck it up, buttercup.

  130. Raff,

    Some just have the innate ability to suck the life out of life….. I saw where fraces said nothing rude or questionable until gene attackd her….maybe I need to read the postings again…. I’ve been busy with meetings this evening…..

    Frances,

    You are welcome to stay and say what you please….. This is a free speech site…..intellectual wizard…… I like that….. Lol…..

  131. AY,

    “Your knowledge is obviously quite immense, however, somewhat tiresome as it is blatantly bias a reeks of Wikipedia.”

    Pure ad hominem directed at me from your buddy Frances’ first post. Like I said to you earlier: learn to read. Not that it would help with your comprehension problem. But hey, good luck to trying to get an ally against me in raff. I hope you have better luck with it than the last 500 times you tried to rally others against a poster you didn’t like. How’d that work out for you again? Yeah.

  132. Seems you have your own issues to deal with gene…. Not trying to get anyone to rally or not…. Paranoia …..ya think?

  133. Really. And I should care what you think of me why exactly, AY? There is a saying about stones and glass houses. You’re the last person who should pick up a stone, sport.

  134. Gene,
    I appreciate being included in such distinguished company. Would it not make a great dinner party!

    raff, since I have had the privilege of spending some quality time with Gene, not to mention great Greek food, I rather enjoy his style. As I have said before, his style of engagement is like a blend of Zen master and chainsaw artist, with a dollop of Monty Python humor for seasoning.

  135. Gene,

    If you’ll read what I’ve said is that there is nothing inconsistent with being a Christian and a belief in the occult…. Get your facts straight….. Albeit your argument style is to twist…. At least leave the facts alone…. Ah yes, the Atwater Rove strategy……. Say it enough, so it must be true…..

    No stones gene…. Only boulder…..heading that way soon…. Then Maui……

    If you’re going to be abusive to new people, maybe you should do the honorable thing….. Zen Master…..

  136. Nah, gene, the be expecting you to take the high road….. Which is incompatible with your basic chi….. No change of chi until chi change within…..

  137. I presented facts. You presented opinion. Nice attempt at a reversal there and by “nice” I mean really sad.

    Again, I should care what you think of me why exactly, AY? The reason we aren’t friends anymore is entirely your doing. You’d do yourself a favor to remember that you’re the one who burned that bridge and you did it all by yourself. As to the rest of your drivel? The Ethic of Reciprocity is a harsh mistress. Some people learn that lesson. Some people don’t. Don’t throw none, you won’t catch none.

  138. If you had ethics that’d be something to be dealt with, since you have proved you will stoop to get what you want, you proved your inner self.

    The rest dribble….. No need to respond….

  139. I reserve the right to defend myself however I see fit, AY. We have many new posters all the time that get treated just as nice as their actions encourage. Most new posters are like our Darren’s and our Malisha’s; very well behaved people who don’t resort to ad hominem. We have far fewer new posters who come in swinging that ad hominem hammer. They too get treated as their actions encourage. Act like a jackass, get treated like a jackass. I’m as nice to people as the let me be. Always have been. Always will be. That’s the nature of the Ethic of Reciprocity. It does not demand that I turn the other cheek. Nor will I.

    If you’ve got a problem with that, it’s your problem.

  140. AY,

    Your start up date for Christianity is incorrect. The Coubcil of Nicea for instance was 320AD. Constantine appropriated Christianity before thay because of its popularity with the troops. The split from Judaism began with Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles and shreds of truth about that split are seen in his writings.

  141. AY,

    Frances gratitously attacked Gene in her first two comments on this thread. Went out of her way to do so. He responded and I would have done the same. We guest nloggers are who we are and while we do feel it’s part of our responsibilty to welcome newcomers, it it not part of our responsibilitiesto not respond to personal attacks.

  142. raff/OS,

    They’ve got it all. Problems counting, diabolical laughter, diabolical acting, the rack and of course, we’d need Cardinal Fang. He’s in charge of the comfy chair . . .

  143. Mike S,

    I concede the year. The point is still the same. It was a Jewish sect until then, than you for the conformation….

  144. Mike S,

    I’ve never met Frances. I read Frances posting, were they really attacks? I think that the style of some invite banter if in fact it was an attack, gene can certainly defend himself or ignore the same. There seems to be the feeling that gene is not wrong, you don’t want to say anything that gene will disagree with, the list is endless.

    Exactly Mike, how is or does not equate to freedom of speech? It’s more like say it and if I disagree I’ll banter you until you agree with me, shut up or go away. Tell me how this furthers free speech?

  145. Rereading the thread again…. Why, does one have to call in loose morals of a parent. This seems to me a little excessive in defending oneself, don’t you agree mike? I read France’s response and laughter at the end… I think it was, I still love you Dad…. Apparently she is up to the debate….

  146. “There seems to be the feeling that gene is not wrong, you don’t want to say anything that gene will disagree with, the list is endless.

    Exactly Mike, how is or does not equate to freedom of speech? It’s more like say it and if I disagree I’ll banter you until you agree with me, shut up or go away. Tell me how this furthers free speech?”

    AY,

    As for my disagreeing with Gene simply look up-thread with our interchange regarding whether or not Communism was a religion. Gene can be a little tart at times and thus an acquired taste, I’ll admit, but he and I have similar outlooks on so much that we have become friends through the years. To a lesser degree you and I have also been friends offline and yet we two don’t always agree. So life goes.

    As far as freedom of speech goes, it simply means the freedom to express oneself in this type of forum. I’m sure Frances is an estimable person, with intelligence and wit, however, she/he (As a Brit “Frances” is a gender neutral name) clearly aimed some darts Gene’s way and he responded. The initial comment by Frances:

    “In reply to your post of January, 11th, Gene, it appears that America inadvertently provided the means by which the attacks were carried out. The rest of the world is aware of this, somehow, the great US with its freedom of speech etc, etc, doesn’t like it’s countrymen to know this. The US amongst others gave financial aid, which Bin Laden benefited from, in the Soviet and Afghani war.”

    Would have been merely a statement of opinion. However, not leaving it there, Frances went on:

    “I won’t bore you with the rest of the details. It’s convenient to omit such facts. Your knowledge is obviously quite immense, however, somewhat tiresome as it is blatantly bias a reeks of Wikipedia.”

    That was an attack on Gene and it was gratuitous to the original statement. Clearly Frances was looking for an argument and got it. My sense from that ad the ensuing exchange is that Frances relishes arguments and got one. Had
    Frances statement been one of merely asserting a point of view about facts, then one can say that attacking Frances for the viewpoint would be hostile and tend to drive someone new away. That wasn’t the case. In any event, this is a far less hostile forum then any I can think of that allows uncensored speech.

    As far as arguments go, I’ve had a few myself, such as with Nick, off and on with Tony and most certainly with Jill. Nobody got driven off and many disagreed with me. So it goes.

    By the way regarding Christian origins they go back to about 120AD when it really stopped being a sect, but to argue it would be splitting hairs. You might notice that for my part when arguments become tangential to the intent of the initial blog post, such as whether Hitler was a Christian I tend to not respond verbosely. I’m not a fan of OT commenting, but I also admit that I am guilty of it at times.

  147. Mike S,

    We agree that Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism…. Not the Christianity that was originally started I’m sure……

    As to Frances beef with gene, I’m not sure where that comes from. I know people can disagree and agree to disagree. But there reaches a point that the point gets missed because if the banter and having to have the last say… Note, I did not say word… Because what’s usually stated is irrevelant to the topic of the post. I think Frances was taking it back to the original posting, not off topic.

    I don’t know Frances but she/he can and should be able to post what ever they see fit without risk of reprisal. So what if she put some verbiage that attacked gene. There was nothing cordial about his response to her. That is shaming as a guest writer for this blog. That’s just my thought, there should be a higher standard but that’d be asking too much.

  148. AY,

    “I don’t know Frances but she/he can and should be able to post what ever they see fit without risk of reprisal.”

    No one has ever asked the GB’s to give up the Right to Self-defense – which is a fundamental human right so basic it comes with the body – nor should they. No one said Frances couldn’t post anything he/she/it wanted. No one’s free speech was impaired, but actions have consequences. That’s a simple fact. It is my Right of Free Speech and my Right to Self-defense to deal with verbal attacks however I choose to verbally. You don’t get to define what I can and cannot say. If you don’t like that? Your objection is noted. I suggest you get over it.

  149. Frances…..

    You are female yes….. Frances is the feminine form of Francis…. I think I’m correct…. But then again, I don’t know nothin……

  150. Gene,

    You just don’t have it within you to take the higher road….. Yes, I do think you as a guest blogger are held to a higher standard…. If its not the blog owners policy it should be….. Just saying…..

  151. AY,

    And you don’t have it in you to realize that I am simply not subject to your control or approval and your displeasure at what I do is meaningless.

    As to blog policy, that’s not your concern either. “Civil” in this context is an adjectival synonym for the words “courteous and polite”. The rule is civility is encouraged. It is not mandatory not could it be in a true free speech forum. Contention happens. It’s simply a cost of operation in the marketplace of ideas that a free speech forum creates. As a utilitarian practical matter, it is a soft rule. Were it a hard rule, there are several posters I can think of who would not have survived their first round of postings here, but we go to great lengths not to ban anyone. Even the obnoxious can have their substantive say. Only when it becomes apparent that a person is not going to learn the futility of ad hominem attacks in any other way that the subject of banning them comes up. There are examples of posters currently on the blog who skated right up to that edge before reforming their ways to become valuable contributors to the forum. There are examples past of a very few who simply could not stop and as a result were banned. Considering the volume of traffic, the number of people banned is shockingly low (less than ten out of hundreds of thousands of unique visitors) and yet – as Mike pointed out – we manage to maintain not only one of the least hostile uncensored environments on the Web, but one that presents a unique example of the power of the marketplace of ideas.

  152. Yes Gene,

    We can all be at times obnoxious and rude… YOU however are the master…… It gets boring don’t you think….

  153. AY,

    Apparently you have a problem understanding that I am simply not subject to your control or approval and your displeasure at what I do is meaningless. You think I’m obnoxious and rude? Ask me if I care. But “master”? It is my mastery of argumentation techniques both valid and invalid that allows me to illustrate both the futility and conversely the effectiveness of various techniques. What you sought as insult is actually a compliment, however, your compliments are as meaningless to me as any of your opinions of me. Some people like me. That’s nice and I appreciate it. It’s good to both have friends and fans. Conversely, some people don’t like me. I really truly don’t care what they think. It’s not going to stop me from being me. That’s just how things work. A lesson that should have been learned in kindergarten.

    If you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call.

  154. I love it, each time you post offensive and meaningless comments don’t really have much impact gene. Your being offensive to new posters may not mean much to you as you have said. But I’m sure the blog owner has a different thought. That’s the issue with you that was eloquently pointed out by Frances. You are self centered. You really don’t care what anyone else has to say unless its glad handing. Your bad manners are a reflection on this blog as a guest writer. You don’t seem to understand the simple ultimate truth.

    Gene, unless you figure out how to get me banned I will stay. You’ve tried and you’ve failed. Think about that before you write that again.

  155. AY,

    Tsk, tsk, tsk, so much rage when you don’t get your way. You’re no threat to me. I suggest you get over that right now.

    JT and I have had a discussion about self-defense. It’s quite simply none of your business. However, that JT has neither asked me nor any GB to give up the right to self-defense should tell you something. Rule #1 is JT makes the rules. The GBs encourage civility each in our own ways, but we are not expected to suffer fools gladly. I would also note there is nothing in the rules about you having a say in how this blog is run whatsoever.

    As to self-centered? I also still don’t give a fly’s fart what you think of me. Why? Because you are neither friend nor family. I care about what family and some friends think of me. They are important to me. Their opinions matter. Detractors, enemies and strangers? Not important a bit. If you choose to base your sense of self worth on the opinions of detractors, enemies and strangers, that is your choice. It is not, however, mine. He who seeks to please everyone pleases no one and is engaged in a futile fruitless effort, subordinating their lives to the opinions of people who don’t really matter. In the end, it is what your family and friends think about you and you think about yourself in relation to them that is important.

    Despite what you may think, I’ve only suggested banning in the past as an option for your behavior to other posters. I’ve even argued against banning you on at least one occasion. However, I have not made a full blown case for banning you. If you should choose to keep up with what is now manifestly a personal vendetta, then I’m willing to reconsider though. It was a personal petty vendetta on your part that almost got you banned before. I suggest that you think about that before you write again.

    Again, if you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

  156. Ah… Such childish behavior… Tsk… Tsk…. Tsk….. May e you should really rethink your reaction to new guests… You’re offensive, really. You think that’s the role you should play… Sickness… I do hope you get it….

  157. Maybe you should realize you have no say over me or this blog, AY.

    None. Nada. Zip.

    Again, if you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

  158. Oh, and if you’re offended by any of this?

    You don’t have a right not to be offended. In fact, the Right to Free Speech pretty much guarantees you’re going to be offended at some point. And you know the old aphorism about heat and kitchens.

  159. ay:

    for what it is worth, Frances did use the comment about wikipedia as an insult. I myself have used it against Gene as an insult in the past. So I dont really think she has a leg to stand on and neither do you in defending her.

    In my opinion Gene has every right to defend himself from unsolicited slander.

    I do agree with you that Gene has a very tough hide and can usually give better than he gets. But that is not a fault nor should he refrain from hurting others feelings if they draw first blood. As he says self-defense is a fundamental right.

  160. Bron,

    I didn’t realize that was an insult. I think gene crosses the line when talking about a persons parent.

    That’s just my opinion though.

  161. On Brennan’s ties to the Saudis:

    Talk About Politicizing Intelligence! Meet John Brennan, CIA Chief Designee
    By Russ Baker on Jan 10, 2013

    http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/10/talk-about-politicizing-intelligence-meet-john-brennan-cia-chief-designee/

    “Brennan, it should be noted, has close ties to the Saudi leadership from his years running the CIA station in Riyadh, 1996 to 1999. (He then returned to Washington and was CIA deputy executive director at the time of the September 11 attacks.)

    There’s a great deal of irony in taking advice from the Saudis on deep-sixing a valuable piece of evidence, given questions about the Saudi leadership’s knowledge of what was afoot with the 9/11 hijackers. For one thing, there’s the well-known rapid departure of Saudi royals from around the United States immediately following the carnage in New York and Washington.

    But there’s a meatier, documented Saudi connection. If you’re not familiar with it, be sure to read our multi-part piece here. As we reported, in the weeks prior to the attacks the alleged hijackers were hanging out at the Florida house owned by a top lieutenant in the Saudi hierarchy. Is Brennan not interested in that? Shouldn’t some Senator ask him about it?”

  162. AY:

    he never, in all the arguments we had, insulted my parents. So I am not sure why he did it. To tell you the truth though, I think Frances has posted here before under a different name. The writing style seems vaguely familiar so maybe there is more to this than we know.

    In any event I have actually never seen Gene insult someone’s parents. And I do love a good insult fest. Gene usually sticks to making fun of a persons logic: I say my good man your red herring and straw man is making for a fetid dish of rank amateurism. That kind of thing with a little more gusto.

    So I am going to posit that I think Gene has been around the may pole with “Frances” before. And doesnt want to say so.

  163. Bron,

    You might be right. But if that is the case he should have stated that. I think it’s rude and insulting to drag someone’s parents into a disagreement unless you have nothing else at your disposal. That reminds me of high school antics. Then again, there maybe more history as you say.

  164. Straw man. I never said I was in charge. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Rule #1 is JT makes the rules. You sure seem to be operating under the delusional belief that you are somehow in control though. To be clear, the GBs have a small say in what goes on around here. You? You have none at all. That you have no control over me personally is simply manifest truth.

    As to your opinion, as I said, noted but irrelevant and about matters beyond your control.

    As for insult? It’s not your call as to what I find insulting or how I choose to handle the matter. It’s mine.

    Once again, if you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

  165. Gene,

    Your posting here is strictly voluntary. Your being a guest writer is a privilege you seem to forget, especially when insulting new posters. Tsk, tsk….. Such childishness…. Get a clue….

  166. It’s okay to insult someone’s sex life but not their parents.

    Paa-leasssse. :roll:

    Again, you don’t have a right not to be offended and you don’t have any control over what I do in self-defense, verbal or otherwise. It’s my call, not yours. That’s part of what the “self” part of “self-defense” means. Duh.

    I’m going to say it until is gets through your thick skull, AY: If you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

  167. I could say the same thing Gene, but that would reek of child like behavior. You are the master in that as well.

  168. AY,

    Others have tried to get rid of me and the other GBs before.

    It was most unproductive.

    I’m going to keep saying it until is gets through your thick skull, AY: If you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

    Grow up?

    How about you grow up and realize your opinions on this matter are simply your opinions and therefore meaningless to anyone but you and that you have no control over me let alone this blog?

    I’m not a suitable target for your need to be a drama queen, AY.

    Sell your bullshit to someone who doesn’t know you.

  169. Gene,

    Now why on earth would one want to get rid of you as a sycophant guest blogger…. No one is quite the drama queen as you…. But then again…. Being a verbal bully is part of being a sycophant…. You have no control over your actions…. I think in my opinion and maybe others you meet all the prongs of McNaughton.

    Quit bullying new posters…. Get a clue…

  170. Just to set the record straight, I have not entered into any banter/slagging match with Gene before. I have only ever posted under my own name. I have nothing to hide. I originally posted to one the first comments on this thread as I believed it was not entirely true. The remark about Wikipedia was in jest because of the bias shown in omitting the US funding of Laden, who was behind the attacks. As for being tiresome, the barrage of ‘facts ‘as though that is going to make your argument any more truthful. . That was all. Gene, obviously takes his place here very seriously and it was wrong of me to mock him as I did. I made a sweeping statement regarding argumentation and good sex and again this was taken quite personally by Gene, to be honest, it was the condescending tone of his text that I found annoying and spurned me on. I guess we all have different styles. But bullying is not certainly not one of mine. I leave that to people like Gene. hopefully this post won’t result in another thesis.

  171. Frances,

    Glad you’re back….. I hope you find this site useful and informative….. There are many good folks here that share good information….. Sometimes, information that is only published in a limited market…. For the most part Gene can be very informative….. In my opinion, I was offended that he took you on as in my opinion as aggressively as he did….. The regulars here are used to it….and accept it as part of Gene…. It does not make it right…. So, keep up the good fight….and come back soon….

  172. I’m going to keep saying it until it gets through your thick skull, AY: If you don’t like what I say? If you simply don’t like me? No one forces you to read my posts. Feel free to ignore my posts or leave any time you should like. Your participation here is strictly voluntary. But trying to tell me how to be is simply futile wasted effort. It’s not your call. Nor is it your call how this blog is run. That’s not my opinion either. Those are the facts.

    Sell your bullshit to someone who doesn’t know you.

    As to your order? I don’t take orders from you, sport. I’ll do what I please and you’re powerless to stop me. My actions this instance are self-defense just like the mauling I’m giving you right now is self-defense. Mike and Bron, neither of whom have a dog in this fight, both agree it was self-defense and essentially agreed your claim is without merit as would any sane and sober individual. However, if you want to escalate the matter? I’ll be glad to make sure that happens.

    You should know though that I still have all the e-mails denying your involvement in harassing other posters by threatening their anonymity and I still have all the IP information proving you were lying – the lie that ended our friendship by the way. I’ll be glad to make the case for your banishment dating from there and add your foolish vendetta of the last two days to it. Petty personal vendettas? That almost got you banished the first time but you wised up just in time to save yourself. You remember that, don’t you? Your online shenanigans that ended with you getting a real life meatspace legal threat? You should also know me well enough to know that I’m the very last person who is going to take any shit from you, AY. And unlike you, I don’t start fights I can’t win. So let’s examine the evidence a bit, shall we?

    Action (Frances): “I won’t bore you with the rest of the details. It’s convenient to omit such facts. Your knowledge is obviously quite immense, however, somewhat tiresome as it is blatantly bias a reeks of Wikipedia.”

    Consequence (me): “As to your personal slights? At least I don’t “merchant” in weak ass logical fallacies like straw men. Ask yourself if I care what you think of me personally. Any answer other than ‘I don’t’ is wrong. If you have a problem with my encyclopedic knowledge and my skills with rhetoric, it’s your problem.”

    Actually pretty tame until your buddy choose to escalate with

    Action (Frances): “Argumentation is for people who don’t have good sex”.

    Consequence: ” Awww. That’s adorable. What do you do for an encore? Tell me I have a small penis? That my feet stink and Jesus doesn’t love me? As bad as your argumentation skills are, your insult skills are even worse. Besides, I heard no complaints from your mother but then again that’s what I expect for a $10 transaction.”

    I’m capable of far worse, however, the person relented and you? You just had to stick your long nose in to stir you up some drama from the pot, didn’t ya queenie? All pissy because you’d just lost an argument using poor evidence and amateur night tactics a 1L would be ashamed of. Boo. Freakin’. Hoo.

    We GBs are not expected to give up the right of self-defense. Period and end of story. Not even against anonymous dunderheads such as yourself.

    If you don’t like how this blog is run? If you don’t like me? Your complaint is duly noted.

    You can stay. All are welcome. Or you can leave. No one is stopping you. Or you should simply accept the fact that you don’t make the rules here and you have no part in their enforcement. Or you can keep up your empty prattling and seemingly endless ad hominem b*tching until consequences are again had. I’m good with it no matter what you choose. But make no mistake. The choice is yours.

    In the meantime, I suggest you find someone else to try to order around.

    You’ll find me most non-compliant.

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

    Frances,

    Your pseudo-apology is pseudo-accepted. I’m sure your mom is a lovely person.

    Here’s a hint though: learn to argue with specificity instead of snide personal comments. It’s bad form in that it is both counterproductive to your case and it creates unnecessary although warranted animus. Even in court, ad hominem arguments are only allowed in a very narrow exception. What I take seriously is evidence and logic in making the case to support an opinion or assertion of fact.

    As to specificity, if you had said you think U.S. black ops in supporting local oppositions to foreign governments was part of the problem? You would have gotten little or no argument as a factual matter. Although it was an unavoidable consequence of the Cold War, it was a stupid often ill-thought out policy that has bitten us as many times as it has bitten the former Soviets and the Chinese.

    However, that still doesn’t mitigate that the 9/11 operation was manned by (mostly) Saudis and paid for with Saudi money. Regardless of the U.S. involvement in Operation Cyclone, our current situation is the result of invading a country that without question had nothing to do with 9/11 and were not even on a particularly aggressive footing after their defeat in the Gulf War. The Saudis are our allies in name only. We didn’t invade them for one simple reason: they are business partners of the Bush family and a big customer for Halliburton.

    As to the governmental claims that bin Laden himself didn’t get any of the money from Operation Cyclone? Who knows. I tend to think that claim is bullshit – a lot of militants from a lot of Muslim countries were paid to piss off countries we didn’t like, but than again, other than our long term persistent policy of meddling in the affairs of other countries being a generally bad idea? Who can say? There isn’t substantive evidence bin Laden did or didn’t directly benefit from Operation Cyclone. If there is I’d sure like to see it.

  173. Go ahead Gene, just one more reason in which I claim you abuse your privilege as a guest blogger. Proof in the pudding… Do not forget about revelation of private information as being a form of slander… Check it out for yourself….

  174. I’m doing my duty as a guest blogger vis a vis the reporting duty part of enforcing the rules, AY. Any final decision would not be mine. If it were, you’d already be long gone for your past shenanigans.

    However, you’re the one hiding behind your anonymity who keeps on calling me names like “neurotic” and such as I post under my real name. You’re the one who took it upon themselves to act badly in the past and the present. Don’t forget you are known to many people here – GB and poster alike – and there is such a thing as common knowledge such as the legal threat you received by tormenting another poster here. However, unlike you, I’ll keep any case for your banishment away from your personal information as it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I’ll strictly focus on your interaction with other posters. It’s more than sufficient and entirely relevant.

    You’re digging your own hole. Keep it up. Like Napoleon, I’m not going to stand in the way of an opponent making a mistake. You’ve been given ample opportunity to stay out of matters that are none of your concern. Now you’ve got my attention. I’ve got my eye on you. If you don’t like that? Action. Consequence. How far the consequences reach is entirely dependent upon your action.

    You can quit trying to provoke me, quit meddling in the policy and management of this blog, and mind your P’s & Q’s with other posters or you can deal with what I assure you are inevitable consequences.

    Your choice.

  175. Look Gene,

    I don’t do threats well. I will not back down especially when I’ve done nothing wrong. I defended a new poster and you used your status as a blogger to blast them…. and me…You then used your status as a guest writer with certain accesd to private information to your advantage. Is that the role you’ve been given?

    You then will claim you don’t make the calls or rules but yet threaten certain banishment for disagreeing with you….. And then claim you don’t make the decision as its not your blog…. Buddy, your drama is excessive….

  176. “Darren Smith

    Pythons at dinner; hopefully it won’t be like the dinner party scene in the movie Brazil. :)

    Darren,
    Probably more like this:

    Now, the question is … who gets Ruprecht’s part?

  177. Keep digging.

    I wasn’t making a threat. I was making a promise. I don’t care what or how you do with it. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. It has been made abundantly clear that agreement here is not required.

    No status was used in dealing with Frances. She was dealt with by other means. As for private information? I haven’t used any private information gained from editorial access against you. Your IP information is logged as a matter of course and when the issue of you threatening other poster’s anonymity was originally made, it was checked then to see if this claim was so. Your e-mail address is logged too, but you yourself gave me your email address rendering the point moot. Other than IP and email? There is nothing personally discoverable about you logged to WordPress. Everything I know about you comes either what you’ve said publicly here, directly from you out of camera or from others who know you, but as I said, that is irrelevant to the hole you are currently digging.

    To be clear, I’m not threatening you. I’m telling you what I’m doing. You are in blatant violation of the rules for the last two days straight, you’re meddling in the policy and enforcement of said rules when it is none of your business, and I’m putting you on notice that as part of my reporting duty, I’ve got my eye on you. You’ll no more be allowed to make endless ad hominem attacks against me or any other poster than anyone else would be or has been without suffering the consequence. We have very few rules here, but we do take them seriously. Any decision to ban you would not be mine. I am, however, willing to make the case for it should you persist in trying to provoke me or others and meddling in the policy and management of this blog. Whether I decide to make that case or not? Is entirely up to you.

    You’re free to say what you like about substantive matters as is everyone, but I suggest you leave your opinions about others person out of it.

    The choice is yours.

  178. You the master of attacks calls another out…. Wow, hypocritical wont you say?

    Now your saying you’ve your eye on me for exactly what, defending another poster…. Now if that’s not funny… I don’t know what is….lol… I said it you are a sycophant…. It fits well… You’re threatening me Gene…. Am I supposed to be fearful…. I’m not…. There is a higher authority here than you… Don’t forget that….

  179. Again, I’m not threatening you, AY. I’m telling you what I’m to willing to do about your continual attempts to slander, provoke and generally resort to ad hominem against me (or any other poster). It’s not a threat. Fear? Amusement? Joy? Incontinence? Flatulence? I don’t care what your reaction is although it is your reaction that determines the eventual consequence.

    Call me some more names like “sycophant” though. It’s cute. JT would probably be one of the first to tell you I’m not one to curry favor through flattery. We’ve butted heads on several occasions. I’m pretty sure every GB has butted heads with him at one point or another and yet we are all still here. A testament to free speech.

    You keep digging that hole though.

    It looks good on you.

    If you don’t want me or another GB to make the case for showing you the door, you certainly have a funny way of showing it.

  180. You do have a way of trying to twist the facts to fit your fancy…. Buddy, I’m in… I will not back down when alls I was doing was defending a new poster from your unwarranted attacks. If you’ve a problem with that then don’t do it again. You seem to want to control what’s said but yet reject when someone questions your meanness. You do know that sycophant in the way that I mean it is not flattery in the least. Try looking it up. As you’ve said to others I’m not doing your work for you….

    I’ve done nothing to warrant your abuse other than and I will repeat it for you, except to defend another poster… Period, nada, zilch…. Get a life….. Quit living vicariously…. You profess to be reasonably intelligent….

    So don’t attack new posters and I won’t feel the need to defend them….. Send this on to JT as I have done…. Thanks and I hope this end your attacks on me at least for tonight…..

  181. The problem with you here didn’t start with Frances. You were lashing out with the ad hominem well before that. It’s all above in black and white.

    And yes, I do know what a sycophant is, however, I don’t think you do. It’s a noun meaning a person who acts obsequiously towards someone important in order to gain advantage. I didn’t get to be a GB through flattery. I got it because I write good content. Anyone who knows me knows I’m not one for idyll flattery or kissing up.

    You have no role in blog management here, AY. That’s simply a fact. You don’t make the rules. For that matter, neither do we GBs. We write content, we can suggest policy, we are to encourage the rules, we do some light troll wrangling on an ad hoc basis, we have the ability to report in detail egregious offenders for consideration of a warning or banning. The final decisions are not ours. They sure as Hell aren’t yours.

    As I said, were it my decision, you’d have been shown the door for skirting the anonymity policy long ago.

    If you want a blog where you have say in what happens? Go make one for yourself. It’s so easy even you could do it.

    http://www.wordpress.com

    And might I say . . . Awwww! Po’ lil’ ol’ victim you. There is a saying about bears and poking them that comes to mind. Or do you want to try to tell me what to do some more? Because it’s going to be just as ineffective as building a house out of butter in the Mojave. If you don’t like that I have the right to defend myself? Tough. Deal with it. And trying to twist it into “you were just defending that poor woman” isn’t going to fly either, sport. You stuck your nose in where it didn’t belong. A lot of people end up with bloody noses that way.

    But you keep digging that hole.

    The only person attacking you is you by your refusal to recognize the fact that you have no say over me, my rights, or how this blog is run.

    I simply informed you what the consequences of your actions could be should you keep up the ad hominem.

  182. You started it all by yourself Gene. You got to be a guest blogger because many pleaded upon your behalf… need a copy of the groupwise? didnt think so…..

    as somes predictions came true you abuae your position…. i stuck my nose in just like mike and bron stuck theres in today….. i thanked them for there position…. never lashing out at them…… can you say you haven’t ?

    Yes I will defend people that are being abused….. Get over it… You don’t like it…. Don’t abuse them…. Then threaten someone with banishment for do it…. Seems like sbuse of privilege to me….. I am forwarding this to JT as well …. I don’t play games gene…. You threatened me again….. between 3 to 5 times on this thread alone…. You’re right I’m going to defend myself….and others…. That’s what I do… You need to get over that…. You are disruptive when people disagree with you…. This needs to change….really it’s most unbecoming….for a guest blogger….

    sy·co·phant
    Pronunciation: \-fənt also -ˌfant\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin sycophanta slanderer, swindler, from Greek sykophantēs slanderer, from sykon fig + phainein to show — more at fancy
    Date: 1575
    : a servile self-seeking flatterer….

    JT has been copied….

  183. And Gene,

    I’m not taking you up on your offer to NOT post here. You’ve made that suggestion many times today. I find it offensive.

    This has been forwarded as well.

  184. ap,

    You see so many of these stories, you have to wonder is the news so sparse in the parts of the world they hire from that the hires just don’t know? I mean money can be a powerful pull to those in abject poverty, but still, the reputation SA has for mistreating foreign workers has got to make that a hard sell at some point.

  185. As anonymously posted and the others commenters have written, it certainly is high time that other countries’ state departments put out travel warnings of the highest order to disuade their citizens from seeking employment in saudi arabia.

  186. Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law? They killed, and burned one of their own because he ripped pages out of the Qur’an. Gays hanged on youtube, 90 kids killed because they thought a hair cut called the Emo hair cut looked demonic. However the USA has to look at themselves with their legal system that is as godless as sharia law with a military equal in godliness.

  187. Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law? They killed, and burned one of their own because he ripped pages out of the Qur’an. Gays hanged on youtube, 90 kids killed because they thought a hair cut called the Emo hair cut looked demonic. However the USA has to look at themselves with their legal system that is as godless as sharia law with a military equal in godlessness.

  188. Jonathan Hughes contributed:
    Why has it taken this long for light to be cast on people that adhere to sharia law?
    ~+~
    You are correct in your observation. I might have one reason as to why.

    It could be that much of this has to do with the availability of informaiton coming out of these Sharia law jurisdictions is more freely available than was in the past. Most of us here in the Western world were not fully aware of the extent of this in the past and the availability of people in these countries to both report these incidents and those horrible people who practice these atrocities did not have the means to announce or advocate it to the rest of the world.

    With the internet, now this is coming into the open often.

    It is a double edged sword. It allows whistleblowers to demand change. But it also empowers evil people to spread their villianry by trying to convince others to promote murder and repression.

  189. Thank you for your positive response. The reason we see what we see is because the character of Christ who does not arrest or war has not been shown to the world. The model of the enemy of Christ has been shown. As a result that model is adopted by humanity. That model is the wide road that leads to destruction.

  190. Brookings’ Bruce Riedel urges intensified US support for Saudi despots

    Every now and then, leading mavens of the Foreign Policy Community have an uncharacteristic outburst of candor

    by Glenn Greenwald
    Saturday 19 January 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/19/riedel-brookings-saudi-tyranny-mali

    Excerpt:

    When it comes to the US “foreign policy community”, few if any people are more representative of it than Bruce Riedel. A 30-year CIA officer and adviser to the last four US presidents, he is now a senior fellow at the wing of the Brookings Institution funded by entertainment mogul Haim Saban (whom the New York Times described as “a tireless cheerleader for Israel” and who described himself this way: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel”). In 2012, Riedel contributed to a book on Iran by Brookings “scholars” which argued that the US could launch a war against Iran by covertly provoking its government into responses that could then falsely be depicted by the US to the world “as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression” – exactly what Brookings’ Ken Pollack proposed be done in 2002 to deceitfully justify the attack on Iraq. According to Brookings, “in January 2009, President Barack Obama asked Riedel to chair a review of American policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, the results of which the president announced in a speech on March 27, 2009.”

    When they speak publicly, the mavens of the Foreign Policy Community – whose primary function is to justify US militarism and aggression – typically disguise their real beliefs and objectives with specialized obfuscating jargon. But every now and then, they have an outburst of uncharacteristic candor that clarifies their actual worldview. Such is the case with a remarkably clear memorandum to President Obama that Riedel just authored and Brooking published regarding the extremely close US alliance with the regime in Saudi Arabia.

    Riedel begins by noting that “Saudi Arabia is the world’s last absolute monarchy” and “like Louis XIV, King Abdallah has complete authority.” Moreover, “the Saudi royal family has shown no interest in sharing power or in an elected legislature.” The Saudi regime not only imposes total repression on its own people but is also vital, he argues, in maintaining tyranny in multiple neighboring states: “they have helped ensure that revolution has not unseated any Arab monarch” and “the other monarchs of Arabia would inevitably be in jeopardy if revolution comes to Saudi Arabia.” Specifically:

    “The Sunni minority in Bahrain could not last without Saudi money and tanks. Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are city-states that would be unable to defend themselves against a Saudi revolutionary regime, despite all their money.”

    So given this extreme human suffering and repression imposed by the Saudi monarchy in multiple countries, what should the US – the Leader of the Free World and the self-proclaimed Deliverer of Freedom and Democracy – do? To Riedel, the answer is obvious: work even harder, do even more, to strengthen the Saudi regime as well as the neighboring tyrannies in order to crush the “Arab Awakenings” and ensure that democratic revolution cannot succeed in those nations.

    Riedel stridently argues that the US must remain steadfastly opposed to any democratic revolutions in the region. That’s because Saudi Arabia is “America’s oldest ally in the Middle East, a partnership that dates back to 1945.” Thus, “since American interests are so intimately tied to the House of Saud, the US does not have the choice of distancing the United States from it in an effort to get on the right side of history.”

    Instead, he insists, while Obama should “encourage” the Saudi King to accelerate the modest reforms he has abstractly embraced, the overarching principle driving US actions should be that “the overthrow of the monarchy would represent a severe setback to America’s position in the region and provide a dramatic strategic windfall for Iran.” And the US should not only prop up the Saudi dictatorship, but also must “be ready to shore up the neighboring kingdoms and sheikhdoms.” As a Bahraini correspondent wrote about this Riedel memo: “Brookings is basically telling Obama to make sure we remain ruled by dictatorial regimes.”

    The only thing unclear about Riedel’s memo is why he perceives any urgency to write it. As he notes, US policy long has been and still is exactly what he advocates: to ensure that the people of Saudi Arabia remain tyrannized by this monarchy:

    “The critical defender of the regime would be the National Guard. King Abdallah has spent his life building this Praetorian elite force. The United States has trained and equipped it with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of helicopters and armored vehicles.”

    Just last week, President Obama emphasized how critical his alliance with the House of Saud is by doing something a US president rarely does: hosting not a fellow head of state but a mere minister (Saudi Minister of Interior, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud) in the Oval Office. Afterward, the White House proclaimed that Obama and the Saudi Prince “affirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia”.

    Indeed, the Obama administration has continuously lavished the Saudi Kingdom with a record amount of arms and other weapons, and has done the same for the Bahraini tyranny. He has done all this while maintaining close-as-ever alliances with the Gulf State despots as they crush their own democratic movements.

    As always, the rationale for this steadfast US support for Arab tyranny is dubious at best. Riedel notes that “while the United States can live without Saudi oil, China, India, Japan and Europe cannot” – but it’s absurd to think that whoever rules Saudi Arabia would refuse to sell its oil on the world market. Riedel also argues that “the CIA war against al-Qaida is heavily dependent on the Kingdom” – that gets closer to the truth, but it just shows how this endless “war” is the author of most of America’s bad acts in the region, and it’s ironic indeed that the only government with valid links to the 9/11 perpetrators has become the closest US ally in the “war on terror”, while governments with no such links – starting with Iran – have become perpetual US enemies.

    Riedel also says that “the Saudis have also been a key player in containing Iran for decades.” But when it comes to repression and tyranny, Iran – as atrocious as its regime is capable of being – is no match for the Saudis. There is zero reason to view Iran as an implacable enemy of the US, and it is certainly no justification for imposing absolute tyranny on millions of people in the Arab world merely because those regimes are similarly hostile to Iran.

    But as I emphasized last week, the point here is not to object to US support for the world’s worst dictators; it is, instead, to urge that this reality be acknowledged. Despite this obvious truth – that the US has no objection whatsoever to tyranny but rather loves and supports it when tyrants are faithful to its interests – hordes of foreign policy “experts” shamelessly pretend that the US and its Nato allies are committed to spreading freedom and democracy and fighting despotism in order to justify every new US and Nato intervention. (…continues)

  191. Wow, ap.

    Riedel has apparently stepped through the looking glass. That’s one of the most insane and clearly delusional things I’ve read recently. No wonder our foreign policy is in such tatters with clowns like that having the ear of policy makers.

  192. AP,

    Riedel confirms a point I’ve been making for years, that the Saudis are Americas chief ally in the mid East and their tail wags us.

Comments are closed.