a well regulated militia

[jaguar]

Christ I type out one post in a hurry and I get the spelling Gestapo on my back. meh, that’s the last time I try and reply in a free period.

I think in most caases of despotic regimes they at least come to power with the backing of the majority, even if only for a short while. Armed rebellion down the track is already too late.

As for armies not turning on their own, look at Tiananmen Square.

When we talk about this we are not just talking about the US you know. I could be flamebaity and say you already have a despotic regime but I’m not in the mood. Actual gun control legislation I think would have little effect in an established despotic regime once the seeds for rebellion had been sown.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Christ I type out one post in a hurry and I get the spelling Gestapo on my back. meh, that’s the last time I try and reply in a free period.

You took delight in nitpicking my posts for occasional dropped vowels when they were still quite legible; with multiple transposition errors per sentence and completely indecipherable words you're just gonna hear about it when your own legibility suffers. Too late for whining about Gestapo now, after playing that game yourself you've lost your innocence.

As for armies not turning on their own, look at Tiananmen Square.

I was speaking specifcally about the US. I don't pretend to understand the national psyche of the Chinese in depth at this point. Still, it does seem that most Chinese are content to struggle along under their current govenment; Tienanmen Square was pretty much Kent State writ large; a student demonstration, not a popular movement by any stretch. If the students in the square had been armed with something more than rocks and bottles, things would have been different. Probably not "better", but certainly different. But that's a counterfactual; the authoritarian regime in China knows better than to allow its people arms. So your example has nothing to do with an armed citizenry.

I could be flamebaity and say you already have a despotic regime but I’m not in the mood.

So you thought you'd say it anyway. Our "regime" still looks pretty good from here, and the result of the next presidential election here is pretty much still up in the air; hardly "despotic", even if <b>you</b> don't like their policies.

All things considered I'm glad Bush rather than Gore was in charge when 9/11 hit the fan. How much longer we're going to let him drive I don't know; we have some domestic issues that need attention.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL All things considered I'm glad Bush rather than Gore was in charge when 9/11 hit the fan. How much longer we're going to let him drive I don't know; we have some domestic issues that need attention.

You didn't give him a driving licence last time, but he's on the road anyway, driving recklessly. (seems to be the mainstream European view)

X.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad

You didn't give him a driving licence last time, but he's on the road anyway, driving recklessly. (seems to be the mainstream European view)

Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done? He would have formed a commision, launched a few Tomahawks at empty targets, and meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days.. It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

I guess you really can't put a price on human life (or civil liberties), then. The view from Europe sees the approximately <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">3000</a> dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done?

Speculation doesn't get you anywhere. Clinton was perfectly content to bomb Iraq whenever necessary, and to send US troops to fight on foreign soil. Since we don't know what Gore would've done (and being politically aware, he would have followed public opinion, which was screaming for blood), any further speculation invalidates conclusions drawn from it.

meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome

I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks. Do you seriously think that the attack on the US was merely the first of many on several other countries? (and if so, if those attacks had taken place in any countries that did not directly ally with the US) Was it a Belgian warship that was nearly blown out of the water and had crewmen killed? Was it an Italian border on which people were arrested, trying to smuggle components for a nuclear device into the country? Was it Belgium that is blamed (perhaps wrongly) for many of the ills of the Arab world? It is Spain who has been financing Israel and propping up the corrupt authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia? Is it Portugal that had its embassy sacked and its personnel held hostage in Iran? Is it Italy that financed the war against Russian occupation in Afghanistan?

Was it a symbol of Jewish-American economic and political strength that was destroyed?

As I said: speculation invalidates your arguments. You are arguing from emotion, suggesting that Europe should be happy the US acted, otherwise it'd have been under attack. Instilling fear is not a valid means of argumentation; certainly not a logical one.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days..

Unfortunately the US government desperately needs European support for any further foreign policy ventures. The European papers this week have reported in-depth on US diplomatic maneuvering, desperately trying to get European backing. (If you feel like reading German, try http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...210499,00.html and http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...210484,00.html )

You may not care what Europe thinks, but unless the US is going to retreat into isolation (again), European opinion remains vitally important to US politics, and policies. This is not my opinion, but what has been demonstrated time and again by diplomatic argumentation from US; its only true ally in Europe is Britain, and even there, public opinion is slowly - but surely - moving the government's position further and further away from unquestioningly backing any US move.

It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

Feel free to direct the insult straight at me, as I'm European. 'Seeming' and 'being' are two different things, as I'm sure you probably know. If you have actual specific problems rather than sweeping, imprecise, (ostensibly insulting) statements, feel free to say what they are, and I'll try to address them, hoping to elaborate on and elucidate the 'European' position. (in itself too sweeping and generalizing)

Anyone?

X.

[Undertoad]

The view from Europe sees the approximately 3000 dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.

The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome
I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.




Look, the notion that "It can't possibly happen here" is one that we isolationist Americans no longer have. The result of not giving a crap was a shitload of death and destruction.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? Didja notice that 15 engineers got blown to smithereens in Pakistan a few months ago, and they were all French? Didja notice that the official explanation for the torching of the Israeli embassy in Paris was utterly lame? Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany? Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know. This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism. See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

The sorry truth is that Europe is desperate for the US to want that support. That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod. The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking. Their military budgets have gone soft over the years.

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own. Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad

Since we don't know what Gore would've done...

Those of us who voted here (yes, I was one of them) have a pretty clear idea; we've seen it before. If the electorate had known that we would have a war of this kind on our hands within a year of the election, it certainly wouldn't have been the incredibly close contest that it actually was.

My own view is that we lucked out. I'm hoping we can arrive at an international situation with more long-term stability in time for the next election; as I said we need to put in somebody with some credibility on domestic issues for the next four years. I'm afraid that isn't Dubya.

I don't have much to add to what Tony said.

[jaguar]

Talking of generalisations...

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-Semitism problem.

Excuse me I'm going back to reality now, aniteuropean lalaland is getting a little scary now.

Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany?

Didja notice that was an Iraqi dissident group and has no connection to whatever point you're trying to draw?

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-Semitism. See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

Well. Yes. Arabs hate Jews, visa versa. Notice the Daniel Perl video? "I am a Jew my mother is a Jew" ? Notice support of Israel is one of the primary was of recruiting people in much of the middle east?

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-Semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

Oh get the fuck over the anti-Semitism line. Its the most hyperbolic attempt to silence people I've ever heard and I'm sure has hell getting sick of it. Europe has every valid reason to be disgusted with Israel, you might want to consider that 1/3 of the US supports Israel because of the role it plays in the second coming of Christ (Source: Time poll).

I'm hoping we can arrive at an international situation with more long-term stability in time for the next election;

We haven't had that since the fall of the soviet union. Pax Americana Cleary doesn't work so don't expect it anytime soon.

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own. Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Erm... Stop watching CNN and maybe start reading quadrant. An area with that much economic, political and military force is never irrelevant.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Erm... Stop watching CNN and maybe start reading quadrant. ...1/3 of the US supports Israel because of the role it plays in the second coming of Christ (Source: Time poll).

Well, if that's what a Time poll said, I guess it must be true. :-)

That's a theory you'll have to explain further; what you're saying is people here beleive if we give aid to the Isaelis we get bonus points when the Rapture hits, is that it?

Here's the pot calling the kettle black again; are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"? Had you noticed that they're the same company?

And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant. Where was all this force while Kosovo was sliding into the toity?

[Xugumad]

Tony, Maggie - I'll address your points separately and answer them in sequence. Apologies if I misattribute anything. I'll try to number my points as well, to make it easier to cross-reference later.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The fact that Europe's body count came largely from the Taliban and is entirely wrong would be part of the problem.

The French also believe no jet hit the Pentagon, and that they don't have an anti-semitism problem.

Mistake No 0: (I am using computer science counting methods here, starting at 0 ) 'The French' don't believe that, it was merely a conspiracy theory that came partly from France, and is generally considered to be somewhat absurd. To claim that this is true is akin to claiming that 'Americans believe that there are UFOs at Area51'. A small hardcore conspiracy-obsessed group may believe it, but that's it. Regarding the 'anti-semitism problem', I'd like further details on how you perceive it, especially regarding the considerable number of French Jews in the French Parliament and French Government. Much was made in US about Joseph Lieberman being the first Jew to potentially be the US VP, with <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Why_Lieberman_not_Kerry_was_the_right_choice_for_Gore+.shtml">some</a> sources <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/wickham/wick134.htm">claiming</a> that the choice was going to be yet another factor that would lose the Democrats virtually every southern state (and possibly some of the black vote). (Quote: "Some Democrats privately expressed concern that there would be a voter backlash against Gore for having a Jew on the Democratic ticket." Quote: "black voters "need to be suspicious" of a Jewish vice presidential candidate because Jews care more about money than anything else.") Anti-semitism is on the rise in France, as well as everywhere else in the world, including the US. Singling out France merely weakens your statements, although sweeping claims such as the one above it invalidate them to a certain extent as well.

We'll talk again when the US has had a Jewish head of state, like France has in the past.

Mistake No 1: That is not 'Europe's' body count, it was done by a professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Mistake No 2: Your link is a 'Letter to the Editor', without any further link to the AP report it indicates. (please provide it; I provided my link to the actual report reference above) It suggests that Taliban doctors exaggerated the civilian body count, as reported by, quote, "Afghan journalists." You do realize that Afghanistan had no free press under Taliban rule, thus any Afghan 'journalists' are going to be inevitably opposing the Taliban? Their reports are unverifiable, their motivation unclear. At best we have third-hand reports from second-hand sources. You can thus not claim that your one source invalidates Dr. Nathanson's report.

Even one of the most conservative sources on the matter, the Project on Defense Alternatives, which specializes in military research, <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html">concludes</a> that there were most likely at least between 1000-1300 civilian casualties, twice the 500-600 'at most' specified in the quoted AP report in the Letter to the Editor linked by you. That data was drawn solely from "Western press sources" and were "disinclined to accept on face value official Taliban reports or accounts from the Pakistani press", qualifying for the criteria mentioned in that letter. That additional report shows the lack of credibility in the source you linked, which in itself was little more than an opinion piece, concluding with a patriotic statement by G.W. Bush.

The NY Post reported earlier this year that al Queda targetted Big Ben and Parliament for destruction on 9/11, but unexpectedly flights out of Heathrow airport were grounded.

I'll give you a few blank lines for that to sink in.




I don't think it's sunk in yet.

Mistake 3: Maggie's original piece referenced London, Belgium, and Rome. In the ad absurdum section of my reply where I held that several countries would not have been attacked, I included Belgium and Rome/Italy, but omitted Britain. In fact, I later stated that Britain was the only US ally in Europe.

This is why the absurdity of her earlier statement is so transparent: the US was under attack, and the only true US ally, the only country in Europe that would provide a take-off point for US bombers for the April 1986 bombing of Libya, the only European state that will unquestioningly fall into line, and thus the only logical enemy for those targeting the US.

What will it take for Europe to collectively pull its head out of the sand? [...] Didja notice the Iraqi embassy that was taken over two days ago was in Germany?

Mistake 4: We've lived with the threat of terrorism for as long as you've been alive, Tony. I have friends who have lost relatives to IRA bombs. I have seen the RAF's effects in Germany first-hand; I've seen a man - in person - who was crippled by a terrorist assassination attempt. Please don't repeat the nonsense about Europe having its head in the sand: I've lived with terror and fear, right next door to me, for as long as I can think, and so have many others of us, in Britain, in Ireland, in Germany, in Spain, in Greece. For many of us, things have improved considerably over the 90s.

The embassy occupation was done by ostensible enemies of Saddam Hussein, wanting to hasten the attack on Iraq. Those are the types of men that Iraq will be liberated for. They didn't particularly resist arrest, by the way, mostly wanting to make a statement.

Didja notice that almost every European nation has a virulent anti-immigrant political movement gaining enormous ground?

Mistake 5: Stop watching CNN, come live in Europe for a few years, then speak again: most of that anti-immigrant rhetoric is quite soft compared to that of the Republican right in the US. Fact. The much-maligned Dutch LPF is so 'virulent', as you put it, because the immigrant Muslims are directly threatening the tolerant and enlightened Dutch society, directly opposing the legalization of drugs, moral liberty, and a variety of other modern approaches. You yourself <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2005">questioned</a> such multiculturalism in a Cellar post recently.

Don't just blankly believe the ever-returning 'Europe is falling to the extreme right' droning overhyping, realize that most supposedly radical right-wing parties that are anywhere near government in Europe are nowhere near as radical as the Republican right. None of them seriously propose adherence to religious values, not even the 'Christian' Democrats in Germany, the party that was in power in Germany for much of the after-WW2 period. What is considered right-wing in much of Europe is at best middle-of-the-road in the US, especially seeing how European right-wingers often promote social responsibility through state-sponsored health insurance, decent unemployment benefits, etc. The only serious 'threat' was Le Pen in France, and for the French, very few seriously wanted him to win the presidential election: it was a protest vote.

The European attitude is one of detente. The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

Mistake 6: Sweeping generalizations about a continent with vastly diverse cultural, social, and political attitudews, when your sole information about it seems to be either from the Internet or the media, without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life, are a mistake. So are run-on sentences, but what the heck.

I myself mentioned in my last post that such generalizations are unwise (as I made them myself), but I tried to restrict myself to general brief observations on a specific subject, namely G.W. Bush's presidential legitimacy and the consequences thereof. As unfair as any generalized European snap judgments on one individual may be (and I am sure that they are), it is comparatively easy to conclude from the general mood in several European countries that common opinion on him is very low.

This is partly because they are MORE dependent on Arabian oil than the US. Europe gets like 2/3rds of its oil from there, the US only gets about 1 third. For all the people who shout that it's all about oil, you're right, and it's more about oil in Europe.

Mistake 7: I mentioned the US propping up of Saudi Arabia, which is much-criticized in Europe, despite Europe's dependency on Arab petrol. Moral rights and wrongs rarely depend on economic circumstances.

Meanwhile, your rant includes the notion that the only reason the US was attacked was anti-Israel or anti-semitism.

Mistake 8: No. My 'rant', as you call it (why the subliminal insult; why the need to be passive-aggressive?), mentioned that the attackers may have seen it as a reason. I did not say that it was right, it was merely seen as one (of many?) motive(s). For the record, I do not believe that it was the only reason, my own Political Science studies indicate that to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.

See, again, this is the rape analogy: the US was "just asking for it" by acting provocatively... being friends with the dirty Jews.

Allegations of anti-semitism are low; I explained one of the causes that made some of those attackers hate; I never specified whether it was right or wrong.

If you believe that makes the attacks "okay", well, fuck you and all the nations that the US defends through NATO. (Or did I miss that fleet of Portuguese aircraft carriers?)

Maybe you wish to shout 'without us you'd all be speaking German' at this point? I appreciate the protection of NATO, although I myself did grow up in the country with the largest standing land army in Western Europe. I never said anything about NATO, or that anything makes the attacks 'ok', you are putting words in my mouth whilst simultaneously insulting me.

I understand that this may be an emotional subject for you, but ultimately rage won't get you anywhere.

If you think it makes you immune because you seem to be gently anti-semitic, my advice to you is... at least, don't walk near the embassies!

This is patently absurd; is there any need to resort to insults because I mentioned that the US-Israel closeness was a factor?

That's why the papers print stories when the State Department gives them a nod.

I assume your German is good enough to have read the articles I specified; they come from one of Europe's most respected news weeklies. The details were quite specific.

The truth is, Europe doesn't have much we need, militarily speaking.

The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil, and the US is currently <a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/18/wiraq18.xml">threatening</a> all Arab countries in the middle east, using 'be with us or against us' rhetoric. The US Ambassador to Germany has repeatedly complained about the German attitude towards the imminent attack on Iraq, repeatedly criticizing the government's refusal to stand with the US. Why all the sound and the fury if there's nothing there?

It really bugs Europe that we could just handle this one on our own.

At this point, the sweeping nature of your statements becomes absurd. As an aside, unfortunately the US <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137298.html">can't</a> handle the Iraqi invasion (for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/21/1029114137295.html">whatever</a> reason)on their own.

Because the worst thing to be, on the world stage, is irrelevant.

Sometimes being wrong is worse.

(As an aside, I would appreciate it if you ceased to directly insult me or put words in my mouth. I've managed without doing so myself, I hope, and I'd like to see the same civility from you. Thanks in advance.)

Originally posted by MaggieL
And no matter how much military force EU may have as individual countries, if it can't marshal it effectively it *is* irrelevant.

Very true, I am in full agreement. The current EU move towards joint armed strike forces, with sovereignty over individual armies being ceased to a joint commanding authority is the first step in that direction. It is of course completely opposed by Britain, unwilling to cede any authority and sovereignty, and with that any pull coming from NATO and Britain's privileged role as America's European ally. So far Europe has relied on NATO, but pretty much all EMU countries are moving rapidly away from relying on NATO. The changeover will be interesting, and the US will lose all military influence in Europe, with NATO being more and more relegated to irrelevance, especially considering how Russia has been given a virtual veto right on NATO missions.

[...]are you actrually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"[...]

CNN has to fight a ruthless ratings war, with Fox News etc. gaining, or winning outright. The audience for CNN and the audience who spends maybe 20 minutes reading a Time Magazine article is somewhat different, attention spans being one factor, and the desire for opinion and editorializing rather than factual information being another factor. I do agree that Time, with its comparatively shallow reporting especially regarding world politics issues (compared to The Economist in the US/UK, or Der Spiegel in Germany) is not all that far away from CNN.

X.

[jaguar]

Thanks Xugumad but there is a larger factor to it. I read time. I also the read The Guardian, The Economist, The Australian, The Age and many other print and online sources of news, opinion and analysis. I treat all with equal amounts of skepticism. The range just amongst the ones I listed includes both left and right leaning publications, there is a good reason for that.

Here's the pot calling the kettle black again; are you actually claiming there's much difference between watching CNN and reading "Time"? Had you noticed that they're the same company?

I'm actually insulted you pointed that out. Not only have you completely missed the huge difference between Print and TV media but you've assumed I don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of the hierarchy of corporate America.

UT you claim I have no view of the 'real' America, you've just proven you have no concept of life here or in Europe. Touché. Thanks once again Xugumad for doing a far more through rebuttal than i did/would have and in a remarkably civilized tone under the circumstances.

That's a theory you'll have to explain further; what you're saying is people here believe if we give aid to the Israelis we get bonus points when the Rapture hits, is that it?

No. Basically without getting bogged down in it the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite for it to happen, which is of course followed closely by the fundie brigade who see everything from S11 to the launch of vanilla coke for the last 500 years as a sign of the second coming. Most of them are in the Republican Party.


I saw an interesting question today. Would guns be so popular if by law they all had to be neon pink and fluffy.

[Undertoad]

Good response X. I won't go point by point because we've both had our say, and it gets old, but I do have some specific notes.

- It's a New Hampshire professor's body count: precisely. How far did one have to go to find the highest body count possible? New Hampshire. Halfway around the world. That alone should set off your bullshit detectors. How far off are the estimates? The "official" number is closer to 800, I think. How can the numbers be that far off? The prof relied on media and internet body counts because he was mad at the media not paying attention to body counts. Gee, I don't smell credibility here, do you?

Who reported his numbers and gave him credibility? The Guardian, the same rag that saw fit to proclaim Jenin was a massacre for its body count of 500 (later revised to 50).

At this point your bullshit detectors should be pinned, if they are not faulty.

- I watch CNN: yes I do, sometimes all day. I have no fantasies about what it is or isn't; I know exactly what it is. People from the right are aghast that I would watch such a leftist broadcast, which makes it funny that you guys want to fault me for paying attention to something mainstream and shallow. I should think I would earn some points just for not watching Fox?

The real reason I watch it is for the same reason some people like background music on all day. It's filler. It's a lifestyle, not a primary information source. But it does have the benefit of providing a lot of raw facts coming directly from sources in live press conferences. And the release of the Al Queda tapes this week has been priceless. That's great raw information.

- <i>The Saudis have already denied US requests to invade Iraq from their soil,</i>

You've picked up the most important word in their recent announcement: <i>soil</i>.

That new base in Qatar is well within range of Baghdad - if one takes the direct route. If one has to fly over the Persian Gulf and enter Iraq through Kuwaiti airspace, it's do-able but a little far. But fly over Saudi airspace - not on their <i>soil</i> - and the fighters can go more directly, without worrying about running out of fuel. Military planners must have been thrilled to hear that one; it's exactly what they needed. (Ground troops could be inserted through Kuwait this time, and it might even be preferable to hoofing it across the desert.)

- <i>...to some of the radical Al-Quaeda leaders, Israel's existence is just another factor, another excuse, yet another notch on the ladder of causality.</i>

The long-range goal is destruction and/or conversion of all the infidels and Islamic world domination under sharia, Islamic government. Step one was to convince all Muslims to declare Jihad on the US, which the Muslims would win by the grace of Allah. Once the US was destroyed, Israel would be a speed bump, and then Europe would be next.

I don't know why you Euros would have such patience for that kind of thing. Being lower on the food chain doesn't make you exempt. But you didn't even want to go into Afghanistan. Come on. I know war has been hard on you all but it works differently this time. Now we have night vision and laser-guided munitions and unmanned recon drones, and the bad guys blow up real good.

Wake up man. They want to kill you and they've proven to have both the will and the way.

- <i>"...without having lived there for extended periods of time during your adult life,"</i> Wow! You have a remarkable ability to remember pertinent personal facts from posts that happened long ago.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

I saw an interesting question today. Would guns be so popular if by law they all had to be neon pink and fluffy.

Nice to see you've been by a-human-right.com.

Oleg is a Pink Pistols member, and has done a lot of wonderful photographic work supporting our cause.

The problem with "neon pink and fluffy" guns is that they would be terribly difficult to conceal or use. For the same reason the flourescent pink fanny packs with the built-in concealment holster are so unpopular that they're being sold off at a deep discount.

This image doesn't do the saturation of the colors on this thing justice, I've seen them in real life:



There actually are handguns with pink grips, but they are indeed not very popular, although members of the Pink Pistols often joke that they're considering buying one.

http://www.cdnninvestments.com is the source, but the gun prohibitionisists have driven their ads for actual firearms offline. You'll have to download their catalog to actually see one.

Failing that, pink replacement handgrips for the venerable Colt Model 1911 are available:



You know, computers wouldn't be so popular if by law they all had to be colored flourescent-puke green and covered with rubber cement, either.

Basically without getting bogged down in it the Jews controlling Israel is a prerequisite for it to happen, which is of course followed closely by the fundie brigade who see everything from S11 to the launch of vanilla coke for the last 500 years as a sign of the second coming. Most of them are in the Republican Party.

Well, I wouldn't expect to find them in the Democratic Party, that's for the Jews, queers, Blacks and Hispanics, right?

I do have to correct your assumpton--many of the true fundiefolk here--the tinfoil-hat squad of the apocalypse-watchers--are neither Republican nor Democrat. When push copmes to shove they're more likely to support a Republican, of course, but they're not happy with either mainstream party...they tend to form splinter parties of their own, much to the relief of the GOP, who finds them embarassing.

The idea that they're 1/3 of the *US population* (as opposed to a third of the participants in whatever survey that was) is beyond ridiculous. Do tell us what the methodology and other choices in that survey were and who the cohort was...certainly if I saw a survey where that was one of the possible respnses I don't think I'd bother to participate.

It certainly seems that your perception of the US is about as accurate as that of AU conveyed by "Crocodile Dundee". We're 280 million people living in 9 million square km.; movies, network TV and Time Magazine can't tell you our real story any more than they can accurately convey what China is about. You're ready to vacation in Cambodia...swing by the Great Satan sometime.

[russotto]

The only pink-gripped handguns I've seen weren't exactly made by reputable companies, which may have SOME contribution to their unpopularity. IIRC, they were made by Lorcin, and came in all sorts of colors. Lorcin is (well, was) well known for making cheap and crappy firearms.

[LordSludge]

Take a break to enjoy some Photochopped spoofs of the self-defense poster:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comm...?IDLink=278533

FWIW, they slam both sides pretty well.