“How do we, as people of faith, respond to such relentless evil?”

A man is overcome with emotion at a memorial on the Promenade des Anglais on July 15, 2016, in Nice, France. (Photo: David Ramos, Getty Images)

A man is overcome with emotion at a memorial on the Promenade des Anglais on July 15, 2016, in Nice, France. (Photo: David Ramos, Getty Images)

Tom Zampino answers his own question:

We are engaged in a war, one that has been declared against us long before 9/11 – whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not. We face an enemy that may hide its face but not its ugly motives, that talks with bravado but is nothing short of cowardly.

France seems to have taken the brunt of the most recent attacks, an onslaught that has also hit us hard here in the US and scores of other places around the world.

And France is, again, aggressively responding with military threats and actions.

So righteous anger has risen up. Fire is being fought with fire.

Are theses actions legitimate – that is, moral – for people of faith?

The obvious answer is yes. The preservation of innocent human life must take precedence.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church can help instruct us. And, while we must resist the urge to take things out of context in order to advance a particular agenda or a political point of view, the Church’s teachings are, I believe, clear when the threat to innocent human life is immediate, substantial, real, and on-going:

2265: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility [emphasis added].

2266: The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

So pray, yes. Most definitely pray.

But we can and should urge those who legitimately hold authority over us to use all arms necessary to quickly defeat this global and growing threat.

The stakes have never been higher or more real.

Can Tom get an amen?

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Pence for Vice-President?
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Brett Buck

    God gave us the tools to deal with this, we just have to employ them. It is metaphysically certain that God will not just come down and fix it for us.

    • jim_m

      Indeed. And unfortunately, God has given us tools to deal with this: 0bama, Kerry, Biden…

      • Brett Buck

        God didn’t force us to choose such feckless nitwits to be in charge. We (collectively) made that mistake all on our own.

        A basic presupposition of all major Western religious thought is that we have freedom of action. Otherwise God has predestined the outcome and is just a mean little kid burning ants with a magnifying glass. He certainly isn’t going to prevent us from doing something stupid, even profoundly stupid (with abundant evidence over the millennia).

        • jim_m

          Actually, predestination is the primary belief of Calvinism and was the central tenet of the reform movement that gave us the Presbyterian Church.

  • Paul Hooson

    Despite receiving millions in U.S. aid, the Website of The Palestinian Authority celebrated the cold-blooded knife murder of a 13 year old American-Israeli girl while she was sleeping in bed by a Palestinian teenager who broke into her house. Iran and other antiIsraeli elements pay terrorists up to $9000 per act of murder by knife, vehicle or other means. This is the depraved mindset we battle against of warfare fought with zero ethics. In normal warfare, soldiers are the combatants, but a level of respect for civilians exists because soldiers want a home to go home to someday when the war is over. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da3b2c6de57ad55fc55dda6e638361badb644f3630967aa06774f0c37b1307a7.jpg

    • Brucehenry

      I’ve seen you say before that Iran pays this $9000 bounty. Now, I’m not claiming it’s false, but where did you read this? What evidence do you have for this?

      • jim_m

        It was well known that Saddam Hussein paid such a bounty. Why do you think it so fantastic that other islamic nations should do so?

        Note that Paul is saying “Iran and other anti-Israel elements”. Your denial is every bit as repugnant as denying the holocaust. You’ve been hanging with Chico too long.

        • Brucehenry

          Also note that I’m not denying the claim, only asking what the evidence is for it. I notice that you don’t supply any.

          I heard many times that Saddam paid these bounties, but never saw any evidence for that either. Just because a claim gets repeated over and over and is therefore “well-known” does not mean it’s true. It may be true and it may not be. Where did you hear it? Who says so? What is the evidence for it?

          • jim_m

            OK. SO you are going to demand that we produce material that was delivered to the House an Senate and was used as one of the reasons to pass that Authorization of Use of Force against Iraq.

            What bullshit. This has been in the news for over 20 fucking years and you dispute it.

            Tell me Bruce: Would you believe a holocaust survivor if they told you their story or would you demand proof? I suppose you would allege that they got the serial number tattoos themselves.

          • Brucehenry

            There are films and a massive historical record documenting the Holocaust. It is typical of your dishonest style of “argument” to pretend I am denying the Holocaust. I’m not even denying Paul’s assertion, just asking where he heard it and how he knows it to be so.

            BUT:

            Know what else was in the news in 2003? Colin Powell falsely claiming that he had evidence of Saddam’s WMD program before the UN. He was showing us all pictures and enhanced aerial photography and diagrams — all bullshit. Those claims were manifestly false but were used as justification for the AUMF and for the war.

          • jim_m

            Let’s be clear: You are now denying the truth of ALL of the following claims based on your belief (false belief) that Iraq never possessed chemical weapons:

            Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

            Iraq “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
            biological weapons capability” and “actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability” posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”

            Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”

            Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.

            Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

            Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

            Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

            Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

            The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

            The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

            The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

            Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

            And no backtracking here Bruce. You just claimed that the WMD part was false (it wasn’t completely false, there just wasn’t as big of a program as thought) and because it was false that all other claims were therefore false.

          • Brucehenry

            Your logic eludes me. My claim is that Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN was mostly, manifestly, bullshit. I made no representations about the other claims in the AUMF, except to ask what the evidence is for the claim about Saddam paying bounties.

            You can pretend I said this or that all day long, in fact I’m sure you will. Others can read what I actually said and know what a lying sack of shit — or a delusional, hallucinating lunatic — you really are.

          • jim_m

            You claimed that because the WMD claim was false (which it was not), that associated claims were also false.

            You used the alleged falsity of the WMD claim to subsequently claim that the claim that payments were being made to terrorists to kill Israelis was false.

            Now you are saying that you never said any such thing, while you still dispute the fact that Iraq, Iran and their proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc are paying bounties for Israeli lives.

            You’re a lying sack of Sh*t.

          • Brucehenry

            “You claimed that because the WMD claim was false (which it was not) that associated claims were false.”

            NO, I DID NOT MAKE SUCH A CLAIM. Quote the sentence I did.

            “You used the alleged falsity of the WMD claim to subsequently claim that that payments were being made to terrorists to kill Israelis was false.”

            NO I DID NOT MAKE SUCH A CLAIM. I simply asked what the evidence was for it. Your answer was that “it was well known.”

            NOR AM I DISPUTING PAUL’S CLAIM about Iran paying bounties, but I AM asking what his evidence is. If he has some, or if you do, and I find it credible, I will concede the point. If all he, or you, has is some World Net Daily Alex Jones stuff then maybe not.

          • jim_m

            “You claimed that because the WMD claim was false (which it was not) that associated claims were false.”

            NO, I DID NOT MAKE SUCH A CLAIM. Quote the sentence I did.

            Know what else was in the news in 2003? Colin Powell falsely claiming that he had evidence of Saddam’s WMD program before the UN. He was showing us all pictures and enhanced aerial photography and diagrams — all bullshit. Those claims were manifestly false but were used as justification for the AUMF and for the war.

            I await your apology for lying to me and the rest of the Wizbang community.

          • jim_m

            The only way the AUMF was false is if ALL the claims were false. The WMD justification was only part of it, was not false.

            You claim that the WMD part is false and by assosiation all the other claims are suspect. You deny the proof that has been provided over and over. It’s disgusting.

          • Brucehenry

            No dumbass. What I was establishing there is that Colin Powell’s demonstrably bullshit presentation proves is that the claim about Saddam’s bounties wasn’t NECESSARILY true just because it was included in the AUMF. Nuanced and subtle, I guess but surely within your reading comprehension limits.

            No? Oh well.

          • He (brucehemorrhoid) is perpetuating the the damnd lie favored by the anal orifice from which he depends.

          • jim_m

            You are an antisemitic SOS.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

            One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive
            their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

            A Hamas suicide bomber’s family got $25,000 while the others – relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli
            military operations – all received $10,000 each.

            Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the “blessings of Saddam Hussein” and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

            “Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom,” said one.

            The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

            You are deliberately ignorant of the evil you support. And I do mean support. The only reason to be ignorant of these things is because you want an excuse to support it.

          • Brucehenry

            Well why didn’t you just supply this link right to start with? I accept that these payments were made and concede the point, as I said I would.

          • jim_m

            Deliberately ignorant.

          • Brucehenry

            Hi pot!

          • jim_m

            The point is that you are deliberately ignorant and use that to justify your being an apologist for evil.

            I have told you multiple times that this is the case and today you have admitted to that ignorance.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I admit to being ignorant of the evidence for the claim that Saddam was paying bounties. I had heard it before and did not know whether or not it was true. Now I do, so thanks.

            But at least I don’t pretend, as you usually do, that the history of US relations with the various countries in the Islamic world began with the taking of the hostages by Iran in 1979.

          • jim_m

            First, I don’t pretend that such history does not exist. If you want to talk about historical claims why stop in the 1950’s? Why not go back to the 1800’s? Why not the crusades? The Roman Empire? The Persian? At which point do you want to make territorial claims valid an inviolate?

            and second: Wow. How selective your memory is. You claim that US history pre 1979 is relevant, but you claim that democrat racism pre 1969(and frankly post) is not.

            Seems that to you the only history that is relevant is the history that you find ideologically true.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            At least I see that you are finally admitting to taking the side of our enemies.

          • Paul Hooson

            Sadly, this is the threat that peaceful citizens in Israel face from young radical men being encouraged to kill, induced by large cash bonuses like these. The Palestinian Authority really crossed the lines recently by celebrating that murderer of that 13 year old American-Israeli girl as some sort of hero. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas refuse to sit down with Israel and discuss peace terms, instead both encouraging conflict and violence.

          • Paul Hooson

            Gen. Colin Powell’s intelligence information did not know about the covert transfer of the remaining chemical weapons stock to Syria’s Assad regime by a program by Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada. So, while the second war in Iraq may have been largely based on outdated intelligence about Iraq’s chemical weapons stockpile, General Sada has proved that the supply did once exist and was transferred.

            The stronger arguments why the second Iraq War might not be good policy were the “you break it, you buy it” issue that concerned General Powell. You invade Iraq, then America would be responsible for helping to rebuild the country and other massive aid. Less realized at the time was that the problems of sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shia sects of the Muslim faith would be unleashed or that al Qaeda in Iraq would grow into such a strong force in absence of Saddam Hussein’s oppression. ISIS was not yet envisioned, as being a more dangerous and more radical Sunni extremist threat than even al Qaeda in Iraq.

          • jim_m

            Imagine if we had taken that attitude in WWII. How many Jews would be left alive to say, “I told you so”?

          • Paul Hooson

            Sadly, that is true my friend. Britain’s Neville Chamberlain as well American leadership only looked the other way as Germany built up a dangerous war machine. Only American Communists volunteered to fight against Franco in Spain in 1938 when Hitler helped to back his fascist ally there.- It was also deeply sad that with Britain’s control of Palestine, despite the Balfour Declaration of British support for a Jewish homeland, that Britain sharply curtailed WWII era Jewish flight from Europe to Palestine and arrested and held thousands of Jews in camps in Cyprus internment camps.

          • Paul Hooson

            Iraq had used chemical weapons before, against the Kurds as well as to hold off the larger Iranian ground forces in the Iran-Iraq War.. General Georges Sada, the former Iraqi head of the Iraqi Air Force has offered evidence many times that he authorized the transfer of Iraq’s chemical weapons to Syria before where the seats were removed passenger airliners and 55 gallon drums of chemical weapons were flown to Syria. At one time, Gamel Nasser’s Egypt, the Assad Family’s Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were the three Baathist Party, Arab Socialist states in the Mideast and military and political allies. Arab Socialism, which was founded by Nasser was a reaction to throw off Britain’s control in the region.

          • Commander_Chico

            Remember that Syria was our ally in Desert Storm against Saddam. Both Baathists, but enemies.

      • Paul Hooson

        ISRAEL NEWS NOW has almost weekly presents proof that Iran offers payments up to $9000 for young disaffected radical Muslims to commit acts of terror. For many angry, unemployed and hopeless men, that $9000 is very attractive. In the case they end up dead or in prison, their families benefit. One of the worst aspects of the Obama-Kerry deal with Iran is unfreezing billions in Iranian funds that are often being used to fund terrorism or other evils from this regime.

        • Brucehenry

          OK, what constitutes this proof? Could you link to one of their stories proving this charge? I went to their site and can’t find any.

          • jim_m

            Doubling down on your antisemitic stupid again?

            Tehran, flush with cash
            from sanctions relief, will give slain attackers’ families $7,000, envoy
            says, and $30,000 to terrorists’ families whose homes Israel demolishes

            Technically, since the Iranian money comes from 0bama it is really 0bama paying terrorists to kill Israelis. I am sure you approve and support this without reservation.

          • Paul Hooson

            Israel has proven remarkable restraint with all of this. Probably not Obama, but most other presidents over the years would probably wage war against any nation paying terrorists to kill American citizens. At some point, Israel needs to protect it’s citizens from harm, and needs to react to any state sponsored attacks on her people.

          • jim_m

            Most other Presidents would not have committed treason by releasing money to Iran that they knew would go to fund terrorism an the murder of US civilians.

          • Paul Hooson

            I agree that this is a terrible agreement, where unfreezing any funds from Iran would have been used for bad purposes. But, this is light years beyond evil. – Citizens in Israel were really outraged at that killing of that 13 year old American-Israeli girl. Not only the evil of the act, but that incentives are given to commit murders, and that an American visitor to their land was targeted. If the Obama Administration had any backbone, it should bring fresh sanctions on Iran since we can no longer freeze their assets used to entice murders of this type.

          • jim_m

            What’s wrong with you today Bruce? The Google button broken on your computer again?

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I could have Googled it, and I guess I should have. I don’t see what’s wrong with asking a simple question, though. I repeatedly have said I wasn’t denying Paul’s claim, and now that it has been demonstrated I concede his point.

            Not your crazed and over-the-top characterizations of my question, but the factual accuracy of Paul’s assertion that Iran gives financial aid to those it calls “martyrs” and to their families.

  • Commander_Chico

    Of course you can never point out that there would not be so many Arabs in France if France had not conquered those countries and ruled them with an iron fist for years.. It’s always more relevant that the Ottomans attacked Vienna in 1683 than the French ruled Algeria with torture until 1962. Not to mention bombing Libya and trying to overthrow Assad more recently. Just remember, they are evil, we are saintly.

    http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/ekmps/shops/richben90/images/colonial-french-north-africa.-afrique-du-nord.-politique.-political-1938-map-290553-p.jpg

    • Jwb10001

      And of course ancient history is always reason to commit acts of terror.

      • Commander_Chico

        Bombing Libya and trying to overthrow Assad hardly ancient history.

        • Commander_Chico

          Speaking about evil, never forget that Bush and Cheney hid facts about 9/11 like this from Americans while pimping for war on Iraq. From the 28 pages. Traitors should be hung.

          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cnc5NbWWAAE4fbN.jpg

          • Vagabond661

            Does 14 ignored UN resolutions ring a bell? Do you remember Bill Clinton pointing out he was dangerous in the 90’s?

          • jim_m

            No, no, no. We went to war with Iraq because we wanted to seize their oil resources. Get your meme straight.

            Or was it because GW Bush wanted to avenge the conspiracy against his father?

            Or was it just simply because the US is an evil colonial power intent on suppressing muslims?

            It gets confusing when the left has no rational reason for supporting their position.

          • Commander_Chico

            Increasing Iraqi oil production was part of it.

            This was also a big part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

          • Vagabond661

            When I want the truth, I always depend on wikipedia…and the Onion.

          • Commander_Chico

            Wikipedia links to primary sources. The PNAC paper advocating attack on Iraq 4 Israel is here:

            http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

          • jim_m

            And the AUMF had a whole mess of reasons that were all smoke screen for your conspiracy theory.

            Once again, you don’t even live in the US, stop pretending that you know what we think.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ya. The “weapons of mass destruction.”

          • More like the the damn lie to which he clings.

          • jim_m

            BTW, someone is removing your comments.

          • Scalia

            Not me.

          • Vagabond661

            I deleted the “intent” comment because I didn’t want to confuse the looney left.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush tried to blame Saddam for 9/11 while he hid truth about Saudi support! A God damned criminal!

          • Vagabond661
          • Commander_Chico

            Oh ya said that in 2006. A little late. In 2002-03 saying Saddam worked with hijacker Mo Atta.

          • Vagabond661

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

            Monday morning quarterbacking?

          • Commander_Chico

            Again, months after the invasion.

            In 2002 it was this:

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/mohamed-atta-was-here/article/2826

            http://m.democracynow.org/stories/4532

            Same time Bush covering up Saudi support.

          • Vagabond661

            With all this “evidence”, then surely the Looney Left controlled Senate must have impeached him.

          • jim_m

            He didn’t hide it. Congress did. The report was to the Joint House-Senate committee. Are you claiming that GW Bush infiltrated the committee, and intimidated the dem members of that committee into compliance?

            Of course you are. You are a buffoon. I am shocked that Bruce hasn’t up voted your nonsense yet.

          • Commander_Chico

            Congress does not classify, the Executive does.

        • jim_m

          Note that Chico calls the attempt to depose a fascist dictator “evil”.

          • Commander_Chico

            Which fascist dictator are you talking about? Mubarak? King Salman?

          • jim_m

            Which fascist dictator did you cite above? Or are you so incoherent that you cannot remember what you just posted?

          • Commander_Chico

            I did not say anyone was a fascist dictator.

          • jim_m

            Nope, you are in complete denial that you support fascism, yet you came out and said that it was wrong to oppose Assad.

          • Commander_Chico

            It has been obviously wrong. 200k dead, cities in ruins, ISIS having territory, refugees destabilizing Europe.

            Assad is no worse than our friends Sisi and the King of Bahrain.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because they are known to use chemical weapons against their civilian populations. Oh, wait they don’t, you are once again making a false equivalence in a disgusting attempt to apologize for fascist governments. As I have said, there is not a single fascist government you have not supported or would not support.

          • Commander_Chico

            USG intelligence and UN assessment was that just as likely jihadis made false flag attack w chemical weapins.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Certainly not justification, but unlike referencing the Crusades, this is not “ancient” history.
        I was just in Italy recently and they have been besieged by Libyans of late and certainly do not have the resources to deal with that scenario. Italians, historically, have been known as a very welcoming culture over the last century, but it is dramatically changing the country.
        I took the more upscale bullet train from Bolgna to Rome and it was no different than what it was twenty years ago, but another trip had me on the “not so fast” train and I was amazed at the multicultural population. I am guessing that fewer than 20% would be considered historically Italian.
        I also learned another thing while riding the not so fast train. Not only did I purchase a ticket, I opted for first class as the difference in price was negligible. I quickly learned that no one buys tickets and there are no rules. I ended up standing in the space between railcars with my luggage. I spoke with a few people on the trip and they found it amusing that I would buy a ticket and explained that Italians are not exactly enthusiastic about anything resembling rules.
        Interesting that past colonialism haunts these countries to such a degree. Italy’s late 19th and 20th century colonialism or occupation has had consequences that are more extensive now than at any time in the past. By the way, if you ask any Italian which ethnic group is considered most problematic and the answer will be unanimous, “Albanians.”

        • jim_m

          People using claims of colonialism 100+ years ago or even of what x and such country did in 1950 are full of crap.

          If we take Iran as an exemplar, less than 10% of their population is old enough to have lived prior to 1960 and only about 5% are old enough to remember those times. Yet leftists claim that this is the reason for their hating the west.

          Most jihadis are under 30 (over half the middle east is under the age of 30). They have no experience of colonial rule. Hell, most Iranians can’t remember who the Freaking Shah was! The claim that western colonialism is the cause of this is simply Anti American hate. Nothing else. It is an excuse fabricated by the Hate America First crowd.

          Sure, we can always decide to nurse some BS grudge against another racial or ethnic group, but that is called bigotry. It is not the least it surprising that this is the go to explanation of the left. It comes naturally to them.

        • Commander_Chico

          You need “prenotazione” for seat assignment. Always remember.

          http://www.trenitalia.com/tcom-en

    • Paul Hooson

      There is that historical evidence and facts for certain. In addition, France has too often been some magnet where radicals seem to settle in that country or seek an education there. Ho Chi Minh and the Ayatollah Khomeini are two good examples where radicals who felt themselves to be living in exile planned their overthrow of rule there.

  • Brucehenry

    A Catholic lay worker in my corner of the world writes an op-ed for the local paper relevant to yours:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article89903237.html

    • He makes solid points sadly… fighting this scourge from the air (via drones and warplanes alone) just isn’t going to do it and I confess I don’t know how best to accomplish it… but something is going to have to change.

      • jim_m

        Correct. The only way you win a war is by occupying the land of your adversary and by killing his soldiers. Bush was doing that. He understood that we had a choice between people dying at home (as we have seen in Orlando and San Bernadino an the French have seen in Paris and Nice) and them dying in their homeland.

        We stopped that strategy and things have become much worse. The unfortunate part is that the handwringers who demanded that we stop fighting the WOT are still trying to figure out how to get the islamists to like us.

        • Commander_Chico

          Bush deliberately hid the truth about the real organizers of 9/11, the Saudis. They are the ones who financially support Salafi extremism around the world.

          Bush was a traitor and a fuck up.

          • jim_m

            So you now claim that Bin Laden had nothing to do with it. Interesting.

            Have you been seen by a psychiatrist lately? I suppose not because otherwise you would be in a mental institution.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi connected to royal family, you dolt

          • jim_m

            And you claim he acted on their behalf.

            PROVE IT.

          • Commander_Chico

            Read the 28 pages. Maybe you can understand them.

          • You remain a damn liar.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush lied thousands died.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I think a better theory is that Bin Laden was like a Charles Manson hoping to trigger a war between the Saudi’s and the US. Bin Laden was persona non gratis in Saudi Arabia and I’m sure resented it greatly. He arranged for a bunch of Saudi’s to swallow his propaganda and carry out the 9-11 attack. I’m sure he hoped when we figured out where the attackers came from, we’d be fooled and go after Saudi Arabia.

  • jim_m

    Few people deny the just war concept. It is getting people to agree that a specific instance is a just war.

    In particular, there are many who believe that regardless of justification, the US cannot participate in a just war because the US is itself irredeemably unjust.

    • You’re absolutely right… sadly.

  • Wild_Willie

    This is not a war. It is a Holy War. We ignore the distinction at our own peril. They loath and want dead Jews and Christians. Muslims might say they are not all like that, but what to do? Remove the threat from our shores entirely. The only safe way until the enemy is defeated. On a personal note: If the good Muslims would take care of revealing and or killing the bad Muslims, which they would have a much easier time doing, it would save us all. We can’t play nice with these people. They are vicious and believe God is leading them. ww

  • jim_m

    Slightly off topic, but still somewhat related:

    With Erdogan using the Reichstag fire, er the failed coup as an excuse to purge the military, the judiciary and the government of secular opposition and declaring that the “Old Turkey”, i.e. the secular Turkey we have known for the last century, to be a thing of the past, how long will NATO stand once he remakes Turkey into an islamic fascist state?

    And with reference to Rick’s article: Who will have the courage to stand up to his dictatorship and will anyone in the west have the courage to stand with them?

    • Commander_Chico

      There are many dictatorships in the world, not Americans’ job to overthrow them all. Besides, the hypocrisy is nauseating.

      • jim_m

        Chico responds predictably with the typical left wing fallacy that if you can’t oppose every evil you shouldn’t oppose any evil.

        Chico once again shows himself as an apologist for fascist tyranny.

        • Brucehenry

          Neither Pinochet nor Castro, Mussolini, Stalin, or Mao actually initially GAINED power by being elected. Those dictators won plebiscites after gaining power by force or by outmaneuvering their dictatorial rivals. In other words these dictators only were “elected” when their henchmen were the ones counting the votes! Chavez, like Erdogan, was elected and reelected in free and fair elections and survived coup attempts (in Chavez’s case the coup was fomented by a foreign power). Hitler is the outlier on your list and the only good example of your point.

          That said, I agree that Erdogan’s Islamism is worrisome, the more so since now the restraining influence of the secularist military will be weakened. Too bad that under previous military regimes in Turkey — and there have been several — liberals and democratic socialists were persecuted and imprisoned so that the only outlet for opposition became the clerics. Ataturk’s consensus is falling apart.

          • jim_m

            The point was that elections, of themselves, are not evidence of purity of intentions or absence of evil.

          • Brucehenry

            I can agree with that, but also with Chico’s implied point that the US cannot simply decide to annul elections in another country, or to intervene in another country’s internal affairs when that country’s voters have spoken, at least not without unquestionable justification.

            Under international law, we can’t just force another country to change policies that country has decided on in a democratic fashion.

          • jim_m

            Did I suggest annulling elections? No I did not. I raised the question of what to do. This is more important that internal politics of Turkey. This is the future of NATO and the ME. If Turkey goes islamist then what? Chico’s response is to join them, but you can’t really join them unless you are one of them and that seems to be what he wants.

          • Brucehenry

            I must have missed where Chico says to join them oh wait he never said that what a shocker.

            But you are right to be concerned about the future of NATO under a semi-Islamist regime like Erdogan’s. And like you I don’t know what the answer is. I’m pretty sure it won’t help to NOT keep a cool head. Let’s not escalate the rhetoric and start denouncing the elected government of a NATO ally just yet.

          • jim_m

            Agreed. Nor will it help to bow to their demands to extradite political dissidents so Erdogan can execute them. But I’m going to be very surprised if we do not.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know much about this guy in PA but I would instinctively agree with you that we shouldn’t extradite him, knowing what little I know now. If he was some kind of terrorist I doubt he’d have been granted asylum in the first place.

            BTW your concern over the future of NATO re: Erdogan may be akin to the concern our NATO allies feel re; Trump. I’m sure the possibility is of real concern to NATO’s leaders in a way that the election of Hillary would not be. Have you considered this in your “at least he’s not Hillary” mindset?

          • jim_m

            The concern about Trump is the concern of left wing politicians that someone who disagrees with their ideology might be invited to the club.

            Erdogan actually does represent a threat to NATO as he could directly undermine it by opening a flood of muslim immigrants and by refusing to support actions which would protect against islamic aggression. Trump will do neither. In fact most of the opposition to Trump is base on the fear that he wants to actually address the issue of radical islam while most pols in Europe are either too afraid to or lack the confidence in their own culture needed to stand against it.

            AS to Gulen, here is a backgrounder (from the UK media of course, because you won’t find it here). It says a couple of interesting things: 1) Turkey is looking to bring back the death penalty for Erdogan’s opponents and 2) that Kerry has said he will entertain extradition, but the actual language of his statement is a bit more noncommittal than what the headline says.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            Of course they are. It’s a blog comment. But it also happens to be correct. There are certainly other reasons to object to Trump, but the chief objection in Europe is that he isn’t already a member of the club.

          • Brucehenry

            I think the chief objection to him there, as it is here, is that he is a loose cannon and has demonstrated a propensity for bombast which may lead to trouble.

        • Commander_Chico

          Erdogan was elected in free and fair elections, even with the Kemalist establishment against him.

          Yes I prefer elected governments to military dictatorships. Egypt was much freer under Morsi than Sisi by any standard.

          Is there no neocon line you do not parrot?

          • jim_m

            Is there any fascist you won’t support? I have asked that before and you have not yet answered.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sisi meets the definition of fascist, and you support him.

          • jim_m

            Sisi is at last a secularist. You are defending islamism. You do so with increasing regularity.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I see discussions regarding some vague terms of service rules. Short of obscenity, why ban anyone. Contrary political opinion? Who cares, what could be more American? Name calling? It only reflects on the individual employing the tactic. Off topic? So what? Simply ignore it if you are not interested. This would eliminate any appearance of favoring an individual or political slant.

    • Scalia

      Why are you asking this on an old thread? Banning does not often occur. In my experience, most of those banned are spammers. Spamming is not restricted to advertisements, but it also constitutes repetitive posts. If a person has something to say, that’s fine, but if all a person does is repeat himself over and over—without even bothering to answer the questions of others—there’ll be a warning. If that person persists, s/he’ll be “invited” to do that elsewhere.

      While we encourage open dialog and heated debate, we don’t want spam to fill our threads.

      As to the other issues you raise, name-calling has been part of this blog since its inception. I don’t see that changing any time soon. I believe I’ve told you before that off-topic posts that spring from on-topic ones are tolerated so long as they don’t hijack a thread. Some posts are directly intended to hijack a thread, and that will generally elicit a warning. We have topical discussions for a reason. When a thread is declared open, then by all means introduce any topic that comes to mind.

      • If a person has something to say, that’s fine, but if all a person does is repeat himself over and over—without even bothering to answer the questions of others—there’ll be a warning. If that person persists, s/he’ll be “invited” to do that elsewhere.

        A damnable lie.

        • Scalia

          Then you’re accusing Kevin of the same. He told me that the poster in question was right up against the line and that he did not blame me or say that I was wrong for banning him. Sorry, Rick, but you’re outnumbered on this call.

          • Vagabond661

            It appears the comment I made about Rick and 2 Party being the same person has been deleted.

          • jim_m

            I think we can safely say that it wasn’t Rick.

          • Vagabond661

            It was gone before he resigned.

          • Scalia

            Hi, Vagabond. I don’t know where it went. I have a list of every deleted post, and the one you refer to isn’t there.

          • Scalia

            I found your message. It hasn’t been deleted. You can find it HERE.

          • Vagabond661

            Good job. My bad. I didn’t scroll enuff.

    • Scalia

      I’ll also add that the reason for rules against spamming should be obvious. A blog exists to encourage discussion. When a participant refuses to discuss and instead repeats the same answer over and over (one that corresponds to what he is advertising–in this case, get rid of the two-party system), that defeats the purpose of a blog.

      For example, if my handle is No More Liberals on the SCOTUS, and I show up on Wizbang and say, “No more liberals on the SCOTUS” in response to other posts which insist that the Senate should at least hold an up or down vote on Obama’s nominee. And if members politely and numerous times try to engage me on why the Senate should at least vote on the nominee while I do nothing but say, “No more liberals on the SCOTUS,” I’m not contributing at all to the discussion. I’m merely spamming the board. If we allowed that to continue, you’d have hundreds of posts saying nothing substantive. Moderators cannot allow that to continue.

      • For any rational person…

      • This might be an eye-chart but those of you who are interested can likely download and zoom in on it… it’s all 17 comments posted by the alleged spammer…

        Draw you own conclusions as to Scalia’s allegation that the same thing was being posted time and again… it’s a lie. A damnable one.

      • If we allowed that to continue, you’d have hundreds of posts saying nothing substantive. Moderators cannot allow that to continue.

        Moderators have allowed comments containing nothing substantive on posts time and again… with the exception of you and Rodney, who use your moderating privileges inconsistently, punitively and arbitrarily.

        Many of these posts would have no comments if those that contained nothing substantive were deleted and the commenters banned.

        This is truly pathetic.

        And as an aside, I’ve resigned as a contributor over this travesty. Wizbang, a once respectful conservative blog, has become anything but. Sad and pathetic.

        • Brucehenry

          I don’t think you should have resigned. I’ll miss your posts, you are the only one here not absolutely sure that you yourself are right 100% of the time. I like a writer who includes a silent “I could be wrong, but…” in his writing.

          • Thanks Bruce… I consider that comment a gift…

          • jim_m

            For the record, I thought that Rick’s contributions were improved of late, since he had stopped his constant cheerleading for the pope. Once his articles stopped being 24/7 Francis they improved.

            However, I disagree with the comment that he was willing to say that he was wrong. My experience that even when shown to have erred he would adamantly refuse to admit it.

            It was not my desire to see Rick leave, but given that he reneged on our truce I cannot say that I am sorry that he chooses to do so.

          • Meh.

          • Brucehenry

            How magnanimous of you. What a wonderful human being you are.

          • jim_m

            His leaving is not of my instigation or design an I am genuinely disappointed that he is choosing to leave in such a petty way. Really, if he had been honest (there’s a Christian value for you) and said that this guy was his friend, there might have been a better outcome.

            But it appears that he wanted to impose his will upon others and resorted to threats and bullying (Not listed among the beatitudes).

            I suppose if you compare me to yourself, I would appear to be a wonderful human being. But that is not really my point here.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah sure whatever

          • jim_m

            Honestly. I have very mixed emotions about Rick leaving. I wish it could be otherwise.

            I think the whole event yesterday was unnecessary, but largely the avoidance of it is on him. No one knew that No More was his friend. He only revealed that today. His approach to restore his friend was not collegial, it was confrontational and bullying.

          • How churlish of you.

        • Go whine to Kevin.

        • Scalia

          …with the exception of you and Rodney, who use your moderating privileges inconsistently, punitively and arbitrarily.

          You made some false statements on the other thread, and you continue to do so here. Let’s say for the sake of argument that I’m totally off-base here. Show me evidence of my so-called inconsistent, punitive and arbitrary use of moderator privileges. If you’re going to bring up Jim, then you need to take that up with Kevin. He was and is opposed to banning Jim. I’ve already explained the longstanding policy of allowing insults on Wizbang (predating my participation here by a longshot). If you’ve got an issue with that, take it up with Kevin.

        • Scalia

          And as an aside, I’ve resigned as a contributor over this travesty.

          Travesty?? Exaggerate much??

          • I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you’ll acknowledge that the post was about voting third party and the comments posted by your alleged spammer had everything to do with voting 3rd party… and… it was my post… not yours, not Rodney’s, not David’s, not anybody’s but my own… the dude posting is a Facebook friend of mine and he’s running a page to which he did not link except through his Disqus profile… none of which suggests he’s a spammer… but you continue to harp that he is… and I’ve posted all 17 of his comments and though there’s some repetition, he also had substantive things to say, things related to what my post was about.

            Kevin wrote me to say he had no time to look into it but was going to restrict my moderating privileged based on what he was being told which did not tell the whole story… he has not seen the comments you allege to be spam… he’s too busy to look into it.

            Rather than accept a restriction to my moderating privileges, a restriction unjustifiably imposed (Kevin admitted he had no time to look into it), I resigned my contributor position.

            Yes, this means that much to me.

            You are in a position to fix this. Your past integrity gave me hope that you would. Now, I’m no longer sure.

            In the end, that’s not just my problem but yours. Your credibility is on the line. Any reading of the 17 comments posted, and the circumstances surrounding that comments (being relevant to my post about third parties) tells the tale.

            Walk it back or don’t, your choice. My resignation however is permanent… I can’t associate myself with a blog run (not by Kevin) but by contributors who are acting dishonestly and unjustifiably.

            Simply can’t.

          • Scalia

            Kevin wrote me to say he had no time to look into it but was going to restrict my moderating privileged based on what he was being told which did not tell the whole story… he has not seen the comments you allege to be spam… he’s too busy to look into it.

            Well, at some point Kevin did look at them and sent several of his posts into the spam filter. He examined the person’s profile and found, as I truthfully stated, that he was right up against the line. So, though Kevin feels that he didn’t cross the line, he was right up against it and did not blame me for banning him. Again, if you have an issue with that, you need to take it up with Kevin. I couldn’t care less if his posts advocated third parties or peanut butter cups. He would not reply to his interlocutors except to issue a substantively identical response.

            I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why you flipped your wig, but knowing that he’s a friend of yours lends a tad more sensibility to your actions (though it does not justify them). You’ve got blinders on because, as usual, you’re way too sensitive and take things way too personally. By my count, some six or seven of us, after looking at Mr. Third Party’s posts, believe he was either spamming or extremely close to it. You’re the only one screaming your eyeballs out that he wasn’t. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I think the evidence speaks for itself.

          • So now the shifting story is that it was close to Spam… where as earlier, it was definitely Spam… close to Spam now that I’ve actually posted all 17 comments that prove that it was anything but… did Kevin say he saw what my posts content was about to you? Because he clearly told me that he had not looked into this, that he did not have time.

            But let’s agree in this… the evidence does indeed speak for itself… and your shifting story attempting to justify it does too.

            I hope to one day regain my respect for you Scalia… because at one time, it was strong respect.

          • jim_m

            Technically, I believe that Scalia is saying that he believed it was definitely spam and Kevin believed that it was right against the line.

          • Scalia

            That’s exactly what I’m saying. I have no doubt that the guy was spamming, and Kevin felt that he was extremely close to it. So much so that he sent several of his posts into the spam filter. Rick’s delusional.

          • Scalia

            Shifting story? What are you talking about? My very first post in this context stated clearly that Kevin thought he was right up against the line, not that it was, and he placed several of his posts in the spam filter which is actually a higher level of filter than an outright ban because of the key words that trigger the spam filter. You’ve got so much skin in this, you can’t even be honest. Physician, heal thyself.

          • I can only conclude that you know honesty not.

          • Scalia

            I can only conclude that you are a liar.

          • Scalia

            Show me where I shifted my story, Mr. Christian.

          • jim_m

            Technically he’s a Catholic. The Protestants here want no part of him.

          • jim_m

            In retrospect, perhaps this would have been solved in a more amicable way had you pointed out to Scalia off line that this was a friend of yours and that you also could have spoken with that friend and encouraged him to be more engaged in the debate and not coming off as a spammer.

            I think that being up front about these things would have helped a lot. I don’t think anyone bore any animosity toward No More. I think people just wanted him to engage in a more thorough discussion.

          • Scalia

            I twice invited Rick to take it offline. Instead, he took it personally and made it a turf war.

        • Resigned?

          Polite fiction or damnable lie?

          • Truth… something you might not recognize off hand…

        • jim_m

          Many of these posts would have no comments if those that contained nothing substantive were deleted and the commenters banned.

          Is that why there are no comments on your blog?

          • Scalia

            Bingo, as a Catholic might say.

          • jim_m

            Irony abounds in Rick’s chosen avatar for his own blog. I mean seriously? Christ doing a face palm?

          • My comment hit home eh Jim?

          • Scalia

            Yes, it hit you right where you live. You leeched off of this site because you can’t get a following of your own. Have fun on your barren blog.

          • It’s good in the one sense to see you unmasked Scalia…

          • Scalia

            It’s good that you’re moderator privileges were revoked.

          • jim_m

            LOL. No. I just find the irony that you have exactly what you want at your own blog. You have no commenters. It is a sterile and barren landscape with no one contributing. Taking your own testimony and the history of behavior you have here I must conclude that you have run off all dissenters.

            The question in my mind is what is it that you see as the travesty? Is it the banning of No more? Or is it that you failed to get me banned?

            Also: Were you really trying to get me banned or were you (as your comment last night implied) just threatening me with banning in order to get back at Scalia? Either shows a level of unscrupulous behavior that is not flattering. Both show a level of vindictiveness that is not normally considered consistent with Christianity.

          • I would expect you to do no less… it’s what you do… it’s your identity.

          • Scalia

            Yes. As usual, he exemplifies what he criticizes in others.

          • jim_m

            This just in – Rick is engaged with all the commenters he attracts/allows on his religious blog

          • Target. Fire for effect.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Too bad, you were even-handed and tolerated a significant number of personal attacks.

          • Scalia

            Tolerated? Are you kidding?? He gave as much as he got. From questioning the mental competence of his critics to questioning their religion, he resembled more of a scorched-earther than a tolerant contributor.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    One last thing; has anyone else been experiencing that the Wizbang website loads very slowly over the past month?

    • Scalia

      Mine uploads fine. What browser are you using? I use Chrome with Adblock. I find that ads will generally slow down your browser. Adblock helps tremendously.

      • jim_m

        I use Firefox with adblock plus. No problems. On the rare occasions that I do experience issues it is usually that an update has downloaded and if I close and reopen Firefox it is sorted.

    • Brucehenry

      Yes and it acts up, sometimes becoming unresponsive and very slow, other times behaving normally.