Day: September 11, 2013

Posted on

Shallow Facility Masquerading as Insight

Charlie Martin has some observations and bloviations about the so-called “War On Terror” (an abysmally stupid term). Some of his observations are moderately interesting in a shallow and jejune way, but this is just stupid:

. ..It could be argued — and has been argued, and will no doubt be argued again — that the unnamed opponent is the religion of Islam itself.

I personally know too many Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people to be comfortable with that; I’ve known too many Christians of whom I couldn’t say the same thing, and know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority. Be that as it may, pragmatically if Islam itself is the enemy, then our military objective would have to be the end of Islam as a world religion.

Leaving the first paragraph aside, his personal acquaintanceship with “Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people” is completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant. “Muslims” who are “good, kind, gentle people” are apostates or deceivers, either directly contradicting the teachings and example of the founder of their hate cult–a founder whose every word and deed are unimpeachable and didactic as far as Islam is concerned, OR they are practicing what The Butcher of Medina instructed his disciples by both word and deed to do whenever they do not have a position from which they can dictate to unbelievers: practice so-called “holy” lies and deceptions.

It’s all there in their infallible and unimpeachable holy writ, and anyone–ANYONE–who denies a single solitary word in it is either an apostate or an unbeliever from the getgo and, according to that very writ, under sentence of death.

Fact. Period. End of story. Muslims who are “good, kind, gentle people” simply do not exist.

As to the second part of his thesis, well, what can you expect from someone who is a biblically illiterate Buddhist? “I. . . know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority.” Oh, and how can he say such a thing? Because people who CLAIM to be Christians have committed horrific, savage, brutal acts that are normative for Islam? Hmm. Martin disregards, or is ignorant of, the simple fact that horrific acts that are normative are both DEMANDED by Mohamed in dealing with unbelievers and apostates and are directly contradictory to the life and teachings of Jesus. Thus, while ANY Muslim (or group of Muslims) can legitimately assert that they are committing horrific acts in the name of their prophet of hate and his hijacked moon god, any person claiming to perform such acts in the name of Christ is a liar.

Let me make that clearer for any dimwits that might find Martin’s words compelling: Any persons, at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Christ (that is, be Christian) when committing horrific acts are NOT Christians; they are liars. Any persons at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Mohamed and his hate cult (that is, to be Muslim, in submission to Mohamed’s teachings) when committing horrific acts is an honest disciple of The Butcher of Medina.

The difference could not be more stark, and anyone who claims differently is a fool and a liar.

Do note that even fools and liars can make cogent observations on matters outside their foolish lies, and Martin does root up an acorn or two, but he’s wrong that Islam is not our enemy, just as he’s limited in his thinking that if it were we’d have to extirpate Islam by means of “genocide”. . . strangely applied to a religious cult with no definitive racial characteristics.

Posted on

Give That Writer a Dope Slap

. . . and an enrollment in a remedial English class.

Yeh, yeh, I know it’s six of one and all that, but, in my experience, writers who write the rather awkward, “had woken me up” instead of “had awakened me” also tend to write such abortions as “backseat” (adj) to refer to a “back [SPACE] seat” –a seat (n.) in the back of something–or “backyard” (again, adj.) to refer to a yard (n.) in the back or “back [SPACE] yard”. These aren’t horrendous bobbles, but they are annoying in that they indicate a sloppiness of craft.

The worse annoyance is that by degrading the language–using adjectives in forms readily recognized as adjectives as nouns, replacing an adjective [SPACE] noun they contribute to the destruction of useful distinctions in words. What? Would a writer of “backseat” (used to refer to a back seat) write driverseat or passengerseat? Maybe so. . . *shudder* “Backyard” used as a noun writers: will you also be consistent enough to use “frontyard” and “sideyard” as nouns? Hmm? Yeh, when one puts it in those colors, such usages look as stupid as they are.

Oh, other abortions often flow like Exlax-induced sharts from the hands of such writers, things like first-person narratives recounting past events in a breathless present tense to, I imagine, induce a sense of urgency in thoughtless readers in much the same way newsreaders attempt to convey a freshness and urgency to their banal lies with the same device. *sigh* Of course, given the temporal deficiencies of readers (or watchers) of such drivel, the device may well work, for values of “work” that include giving an idiot a spoon to use in scooping out more of their own prefrontal cortex.

And indeed, it seems to work pretty much that way. But it does get worse. Really. I recently read about 1/4 of the way through a book wherein the author used just about every dumb device, awkward phrase, and misused word he could cram into the thing in his attempt to. . . write a typical “Dan Brown” pseudo-thriller.

Oh, *gagamaggot*

(That said, the writer was failing to be quite as bad as Dan Brown when I bailed, even with his violent assaults on the English language. But that says more about how execrably bad Dan Brown’s writing is than anything else. . . )

But seriously, “had woken him up” for “had awakened him”? How hard is it to write (and think) just a wee tad less awkwardly?

(OK, OK, apparently pretty darned hard if my own writing’s any example, but take note: I’ve not asked you to PAY to read my scribbles, have I? Hmm?)

Yeh, yeh, I know that BECAUSE of illiterate uses by dumbass writers “backyard,” “backseat” and other such words used as nouns is becoming more acceptable to those who just DGARA about useful distinctions in words, the ability of the written word to inculcate rational thought or any number of other positive values. I despise such rotten, destructive persons and their destructive effects on society anyway. So there. *heh*

Posted on

I Had a Dream. . .

. . . wherein, on the anniversary of 9-11, a movie was released celebrating the death of The Butcher of Medina. In the movie, he was hunted down, fed alive to hogs, the hogs butchered and fed to dogs, the dogs’ excrement was gathered and the toxic end product of Mohamed, filtered through the alimentary canals of both hogs and dogs, was used to kill kudzu.

Hey! It was just a dream, ya know?

Never forget: true disciples of The Butcher of Medina brought down the twin towers and two more airplanes–one into the Puzzle Palace, one (thanks to courageous passengers) in a field where their memories are now being desecrated with a monument to Islam, cult of Hate.