The Victory Swatter

I found this WWII vintage fly swatter digging around in a second hand store today. Compare the simple sentiment expressed on the label to our Attorney General below and the “lawyerese” he is speaking in attempting to answer a simple question put to him regarding radical Islam. The fly swatter names our objective in World War II, which was victory; the enemy, expressed in the unfortunate parlance of the day as being the Empire of Japan; and the way in which the manufacturer and user of the swatter were contributing to this effort for victory by making the handle out of wood rather than metal.

The only reasonable conclusion to be made is that Eric Holder doesn’t have the intelligence of a 65 year old fly swatter. I think this fly swatter would make a fine Secretary of State as well. Clear, bold, concise. This Victory Swatter has an excellent future in politics in my opinion.

Advertisements

5 responses to “The Victory Swatter

  1. Mark,

    Does your mind really work on this simplistic of a level? It’s like the old grade school taunt: “It’s a simple question, when did you stop being gay?”

    Holder is never going to say a simple yes to a meaningless question that is obviously directed to pander to the other side of the coin; equally “radical” Christains back home, in rep. Smith’s district. He (Smith) isn’t hoping to get an answer; he’s just hoping to sound all tough and anti-muslim to his Christain constichents.

    “Radical Islam” is just another made up term like “terrorist” so you can dismiss their greivences (legitamate or not) and call them a simple derogatory name – like your victory Jap swatter. It’s not as simple, and black and white, as simple minded people want it to be. If you want to fight a concept, fight radicalism.

    People that kill innocent people in the name of some made up god, or made up religion, is fucked up and wrong. It’s pretty dang simple.

    What’s not simple is how to demonize a whole population of innocent people, or a tool like terrorism…… But wait, you can’t have a war on a tool, or a group of women and children, ie: regular people. You have to make it real simple, and give it a simple name like “radical Islam” (at least to sell it to simpletons that is) Then you can declare war on it; and wipe out the “yellow menace”.

    This is a totally different kind of “war” than where we are fighting the Japs or the Gerrys. Condem the action, not a whole religion. Again, fight radicalism. Or, just admit that the war is on anyone that’s not Christain. Just be honest about it.

    But just don’t be simple minded. And don’t be a tool.

    Brian

    • Who is being simple minded here Brian? I’ll make a list of terrorist attacks commited in the name of Islam over the last 25 years and you make a list of similar attacks by Christians. Bet mine’s bigger. Much bigger. In nearly every violent cultural conflict throughout the world over the previous quarter century there seems to be one common denominator. Muslim against Christian. Muslim against Jew. Muslim against Hindu. Muslim against Buddhist. Muslim against African Animist. Muslim against Secularists…film makers…cartoonists… Starting to pick up a pattern here?

      Radical Islam is just that. A radical form of Islam that preaches submission or death. Why is it so difficult for the Attorney General, and you apparently, to call it what it is? When Christian radicals, and Jewish radicals, and Buddhist radicals start flying planes into buildings, or call for the wholesale extermination of people who don’t share their religion, give me a call. Until then I will have no problem putting the words “radical” and “Islam” together.

  2. I’d sure like to see the comparison between bad things done in the name of Christian and Muslim religions. If you made it the last 2000 years instead of the last 25, I believe Christians would outnumber Muslims twenty to one.

    • Here you go. A list of mass casualty terrorist attacks since around 1920. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see a single one attributed to any Christian organisations with the exception of a bomb set off by Irish seperatists in 1974. They are almost entirely composed of those killing in the name of Islam with a few various Leftist or Anarchist groups or individuals making up the balance.

      Whatever happened 2,000 years ago is completely irrelevant to what is happening now. By your reasoning, why not try and determine how many deaths would have been attributable to any number of the brutal empires battling for dominance if the monotheistic religions had never taken form. What if the Roman Empire for instance had succeeded in stamping out Christianity and remained dominant in the world to this day. Do you think that would have resulted in more deaths or fewer from biblical times until the present?

      The point being that while Christianity certainly had it’s period of violent conflict with other cultures, it went through its Reformation and is presently a peaceful force for much good in the world. Islam has not undergone this reformation and a large contingent of the religions practitioners seek submission to Islam or death to non believers. This is “radical Islam”. If the radicals succeed in preventing this reformation of Islam into a more benign and tolerant form and are allowed to dominate, then we will certainly have a major clash of civilizations at some future date when they will have access to modern weapons and the religious fervor necessary to use them.

      Imagine if you will that the Neo-Nazi Christian Identity movement was attempting to take over the state of Idaho through immigration of right wing extremists from other states, electing like minded representatives, arming themselves to the teeth and blowing up buildings and killing people in other states with the expressed desire of converting the rest of the country to their beliefs. Would you prefer to just ignore them while they grew stronger, as you seem to advocate regarding radical Islam, stating that this is their culture and who are we to interfere? Or would you do everything in your power to resist them , including forcibly stopping them from achieving their goals. Expand this on a global level and you will understand radical Islamism and why it is necessary to confront and stop them now rather than later. A quarter of the worlds population, subscribing to an apocalyptic religious view and armed with nuclear weapons is to be avoided at all costs in my opinion.

      We ignore them at our peril.

  3. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear, “Radiacal” anything is what I have a problem with – especially when it comes to religion. It’s all too easy for religious fanatics to justify killing innocent people by using the ol’ tried and true “god told me to” line. I’d like to see a comparison between the total number of people killed by religious fanatics (sorry, radicals) and atheists. You would have to include both Hitler and Stalin just to come close.

    And, it seems like throughout history, if you are the one in power, you’re defending yourself against “terrorists” or “insurgents” and if you are on the other side you are a “freedom fighter” or just “the righteous” I’m sure that’s how the Palestinian kid sees it when he murders a bus full of innocent Israelis. And how most Americans see ourselves in Iraq.

    Here is a little list of the mass killings committed in the name of Christianity in just the most recent 1,000 years. Most by the church or Pope itself, some just by “good” Christians doing what they do best. The list would get pretty redundant if we covered the first 1,000 years as well….. Sorry I don’t keep a list above my desk, but here is a quick rundown of a few all-loving Christian faith mass-killings

    A Hippy-dippy list, but a fairly complete one: http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

    As far as the last fifty years or so, the couple that immediately come to mind are:

    The Viet-Minh in South Vietnam,

    Those (christian) Serbians killing off a few hundred thousand Nazi lovin’Muslims: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm

    In Rwanda the Hutu (mostly christain) killing about 800,000 Tutsis (also christian) – in the last conflict alone, not the whole history of the conflicts there. I like this quote from the Vatican: “The Roman Catholic Church affirms that genocide took place, but argues that those who took part in it did so without the permission of the Church”

    How many totally innocent people (not just the “insurgents”) have the US killed in Iraq in the last 20 years; A million? Or, just during our present occupation; A half million? And isn’t being a good Christian a prerequisite to be elected to higher office in this country? So that makes any war we engage in (if the other side is non-christian) a religious war – right? Well, no…. Just a bunch of “good christians” killing people. For whatever reason.

    How about this one from just a few years ago: http://twofortheroad.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/killing-in-the-name-of-god/

    The point is: Religious fanatic = Bad News for everyone else.

    I’m not defending Islam at all; It’s just as wacked out as Christianity (well, maybe a bit worse…) But I really don’t have issues with any religion, as long as it stays out of government, out of the morality business (as they have proven themselves giant hypocrites, time and time again) and out of my bedroom. Other than that they can have at it. Worship away; Muslim, Christian, whatever.

    So what do we do, outlaw all the religions we don’t like, or think are “radical”? Yeah, that should work out well…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s