well, i'll go out on a limb and suggest to you that henry porter does not give a shit about your safety, or the public safety of the american populace. i'll even go so far out on a limb as to suggest that henry porter doesn't have a very high estimation of you and i, and may even have quite a bit of contempt for our values.
why is he not campaigning for "machete control" in rhwanda? or gasoline control in kenya? and, i have seen him wringing his hankies over the fate of christians in the middle east, and especially in egypt.
nope. henry porter doesn't give a shit about you. or your life. or, whether you are killed tomorrow by flood, tornado, car wreck or gun shots. or any other sort of calamity or natural disaster, or act of the mentally deranged or malevolent.
nope, what henry porter cares about is that the united states is the last great democracy & super power that has not disarmed its citizens. in that regard, henry porter has not been heard to campaign for the disarmament of the swiss citizenry, nor called for armed intervention by the denizens of world government to enter that country and intercede in its affairs. they have almost universal gun ownership in possession of those able bodied males from 18 to 45 or so, as part of the swiss militia.
nope, the fact is, that the united states is the last great beacon of citizen democracy, and it has not yet slipped officially over into a communist and socialist state, despite the best efforts of american leftists to push us there.
we remain armed. we remain free.
and, this henry porter cannot abide.
john jay @ 09.30.2013
p.s. let me simply ask. has henry porter called for disarming the jihad? and, using the "might" of an "international army" to effect the same? i don't really know, one way or the other. i truly don't. but, i suspect that he hasn't.
no, henry porter doesn't care about those who die at the hands of islam. islam walks hand in hand w/ the euro and brit left. what henry porter cares about is that the united states is the last great goal of the left, as of yet, not subjugated.
p.s.s. one thing henry porter neglects to tell his readers, is that if you take the cities of new york, new york; chicago, illinois, washington, district of columbia, and detroit, michigan out of the stats, then the united states has one of the lower murder rates in the world, and a very low crime rate.
in short, if you take the demographic of black teenage and young adult males out of the equation, then the rest of america simply doesn't commit much gun crime. it's fact. look it up.
or, better yet, refute the assertion. let's see you do it, other than by counter assertion. laughing.
i don't think that you can.
what you are left with is henry porter wanting to disarm the law abiding white gun owners of america. you know, the ones who will slaughter any foreign contingents who come to this continent to try and disarm us.
henry porter is an idiot, not to put too fine a point on it.
he advocates european and u.n. intervention upon american soil to stop the "civil war" that goes on between americans in the form of "gun violence."
nope, i do not make this up. "american gun use is out of control. shouldn't the world intervene?" 21 sept 2013, the uk guardian/the observor, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter .
his is a relatively straight forward argument.
1.)american gun violence justifies foreign intervention. he adds up american war casualties since 1775, compares them to gun deaths, and says that the deaths we have inflicted upon ourselves exceed the casualties we have suffered in all the wars since 1775. satisfied with his statistical proof, he says this is civil war, and the world should step in and do something about it.
he says:
"but what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for america and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? as citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as america does in every new civil conflict around the globe." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter .
2.)he also says that we are lunatics in that we cling to ancient precepts of gun ownership which we should discard, and become, well, enlightened on the subject as he is, and as he posits most europeans to be. he says those of us who hold to the second amendment do so on the same basis as slave owners held to the institution of slavery, prior to our own civil war. (does he say that war shouldn't have been fought?) he says the following, in case you think that i am miscasting his remarks:
"half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from english common law and our 1689 bill of rights. we dispensed with these rights long ago, but american gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery. astonishingly, when owning a gun is not about ludicrous macho fantasy, it is mostly seen as a matter of personal safety, like the airbag in the new ford pick-up or avoiding secondary smoke, despite conclusive evidence that people become less safe as gun ownership rises. [live link edited: jjj.]" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter
well, as you might imagine, this has sparked some reaction among american commentators. i won't go into that here, or link it, ... , it should be easy enough for you to google, and the live links below should get your reading started.
nope, that's not what i am about.
the thrust of his argument is that gun ownership begets violence, and preserves nothing of value in terms of heritage, historical, or intellectual value. he says we simply are not as enlightened as europeans, have made a muck of things, and that we ought to "dispense" with those rights previously held by englishmen in the magna carta, the english common law, and the bill of rights of 1689, ... , just as have the contemporary english.
he is enlightened. we are ignorant, churlish, and lunatic. in a word, backward.
well, simple and straightforward has some virtue. but, only when one is right, only when one is correct.
when one is butt wipe stupid, and woefully ignorant of european and english history, then there is no virtue whatsoever in being simple and straightforward. it simply becomes simple-minded. you know, leftist pap.
let's look at history. let's look at the history of 20th century war in european history, in that glorious search for the collective that european leftists and intellectuals like henry porter have foisted upon europeans. let us look at the costs of the "intellectual path" followed by those who have dispensed with individual right (such as encompasses the right to weapons for self protection and political expression.)
"list of conflicts in europe" is a summary of european wars, with a chapter specific to european wars of the 20th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#19th_century .
now, just how did international intervention in these conflicts work out? you ever hear of the league of nations, and how successful it was.
i would remind mr. henry porter, that in the midst of american glee at killing one another via the use of historical right we should have "dispensed" with years ago, as he has so cheerfully done, the united states intervened in two world wars to pull western europe from the cauldron of chaos and carnage that it, with its enlightenment, plunged itself into all by itself, and without any help from we ignorant, backwards and lunatic americans.
look at the above list, if you will, and examine the periods preceding world war 1, and world war ii. those wars did not spring forth in full bloom absent historical context, and that "context" was a series of wars between european nation states preceding general conflagration. prior to world war 1, there were wars in the balkans, between greece, italy and turkey, and after world war 1 there were further wars between the combatants to consolidate their gains in lands, property, wealth and influence to be spread around with the break up of the ottoman empire, and the austrio-hungarian empire, not to mention civil war in russia as the bolsheviks consolidated the deposing of the czars.
what in the hell did this have to do with americans clinging to ancient liberties.
look at the above list, if you will, and look at the years preceding world war ii. it shows civil war in austria, civil war in spain, and war between slovakia and hungary. there was war beginning in 1939 when russia invaded finland, and war between the finns and the russians continued during world war ii over lands contiguous to st. petersburg/leningrad. prior to the war, the greeks, italians and turks waged an armed conflict. it doesn't mention it, but the italians invade ethiopia, and had a rough go of it. it doesn't mention it, but the italians also waged war in the balkans. after world war ii, there was civil war in greece.
the list is also quite silent as to the war between england and argentina over the falkland islands. although it was not a very large war, it cost lives, and consumed wealth and material. ships were sunk, planes were shot down, and pilots and crew died.
now, the conceptual point of all of this is quite simple.
how did the "dispensing" of civil right and liberty by english and european people, how did the embracing of this notion of collectivism and suppression of individual right which has been a hallmark of european and english history in the 20th century, ... , how did all of this glorious self subjugation as championed by henry porter in his leftist zeal, ... , how did all of this prevent world wars i & ii, and the death and destruction suffered by millions in violent conflict.
well, the surrender of individual right and liberty, those things which we "lunatics cleave to," the giving up of guns held by individuals, did nothing to prevent wars by armed collectives, did it?
the death total suffered by americans throughout history because of gun deaths inflicted by citizen upon citizen pales in comparison to the wars fought by european collectives, shed of their individual liberties and rights, and shed of any manner by which to influence the course of a collectivist history which killed them in droves, as wheat stalks before the scythe of henry porter's enlightenment.
i have provided a link to a listing of all wars since 1900, at the polynational war memorial. http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp .
the wars, and the casualties suffered in them, are listed in chronological order.
world war i is said to have consumed 10,670,868 persons, a rather precise number given the general nature of death and destruction on the battlefield, and in cities and villages.
mostly english and european, with a smattering of colonial troops and americans thrown into the mixture for, ... , what, ... , metaphors fail, ... , leavening?
world war ii is simply described as having 50,000,000 people killed.
again, i remind the dolt who is henry porter, "journalist & essayist," that the tolls would have been much greater if not for the intervention of we gun-toting & lunatic americans, with our antiquated values of right, liberty and freedom.
this list is sobering. if you are a leftist who holds to the shibboleth of american violence and a mentality that embraces war, i suggest you look at this list and its accompanying death tolls. you will see, simply, that war is not solely our provenance, and that a gigantic military is not necessary to inflict untold suffering and death.
finally, i leave you with this link, entitle "europe," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe .
in the contents bar, click paragraph 3.7, "20th century to the present," where you will find these paragraphs.--
"In 1933, Hitler became the leader of Germany and began to work towards his goal of building Greater Germany. Germany re-expanded and took back the Saarland and Rhineland in 1935 and 1936. In 1938, Austria became a part of Germany following the Anschluss. Later that year, following the Munich Agreement, Germany annexed the Sudetenland, which was a part of Czechoslovakia inhabited by ethnic Germans. At the time, Britain and France preferred a policy ofappeasement.
Shortly afterwards, Poland and Hungary started to press for the annexation of parts of Czechoslovakia with Polish and Hungarian majorities. Hitler encouraged the Slovaks to do the same and in early 1939, the remainder of Czechoslovakia was split into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, controlled by Germany, and the Slovak Republic, while other smaller regions went to Poland and Hungary. With tensions mounting between Germany and Poland over the future ofDanzig, the Germans turned to the Soviets, and signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, prompting France and the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany on 3 September, opening theEuropean Theatre of World War II.[134][135] The Soviet invasion of Poland started on 17 September and Poland fell soon thereafter.
On 24 September, the Soviet Union attacked the Baltic countries and later, Finland. The British hoped to land at Narvik and send troops to aid Finland, but their primary objective in the landing was to encircle Germany and cut the Germans off from Scandinavian resources. Nevertheless, the Germans knew of Britain's plans and got to Narvik first, repulsing the attack. Around the same time, Germany moved troops into Denmark, which left no room for a front except for where the last war had been fought or by landing at sea. The Phoney War continued.
In May 1940, Germany attacked France through the Low Countries. France capitulated in June 1940. However, the British refused to negotiate peace terms with the Germans and the war continued. By August Germany began a bombing offensive on Britain, but failed to convince the Britons to give up.[136] In 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the ultimately unsuccessful Operation Barbarossa.[137] On 7 December 1941 Japan'sattack on Pearl Harbor drew the United States into the conflict as allies of the British Empire and other allied forces.[138][139]
After the staggering Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, the German offensive in the Soviet Union turned into a continual fallback. In 1944, British and American forces invaded France in the D-Day landings, opening a new front against Germany. Berlin finally fell in 1945, ending World War II in Europe. The war was the largest and most destructive in human history, with 60 million dead across the world.[140] More than 40 million people in Europe had died as a result of the war by the time World War II ended,[141] including between 11 and 17 million people who perished during the Holocaust.[142] The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, about half of all World War II casualties.[143] By the end of World War II, Europe had more than 40 million refugees.[144] Several post-war expulsionsin Central and Eastern Europe displaced a total of about 20 million people.[145]
World War I and especially World War II diminished the eminence of Western Europe in world affairs. After World War II the map of Europe was redrawn at the Yalta Conference and divided into two blocs, the Western countries and the communist Eastern bloc, separated by what was later called by Winston Churchill an "Iron Curtain". The United States and Western Europe established the NATO alliance and later the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe established the Warsaw Pact.[146]"
so, were i to meet mr. henry porter, "journalist & essayist," i would ask him, just who are you, you smug arrogant enlightened euro son of a bitch, to lecture americans on violence? i would simply point out to him, that all of the americans who have ever died at the hand of other americans, pale in comparison to the europeans who have died at the hands of other europeans, thorough going collectivists and lovers of "humanity" that they are.
i doubt mr. henry porter has the capacity to see the relationship, ... , but i think the fact that americans hold the ultimate power of their politics, even as against the collectivists liberals and the oligarchical money barons, because of their gun ownership is the reason that we have not suffered the ravages of europe and england in the 20th century.
we have helf the power to prevent our politicians from leading us into this sort of carnage. if we have to, we hold the means to rise up against our ruling classes and displace them, to prevent the kind of things the europeans and british have suffered.
and, our "leaders" know it. they understand that power flows from our tacit approval of their actions, and when we disprove, we will simply unseat and replace them.
or, perhaps mr. henry porter understands full well the implication of the above historical fact about european and british warfare, and the death and destruction it has visited. perhaps he fully understands the importance of our gun ownership, and for that very reason wishes to see it destroyed.
not here. not on my shift. over my dead body. gun clutched in my warm dead hands.
i don't link to very many articles, for the reason that larger blogs simply do not get much additional readership via my endorsements. hey, reality is reality.
but sean linnane has a wonderful post at "stormbringer," which i think you should read.
a "journalist" by the name of henry porter has authored an attack on gun ownership using a statistical attack, which while spurious, has a certain superficial appeal. for instance, mr. porter opines that "gun violence" has killed more americans than america has suffered fatal casualties in all her wars. hey, powerful stuff, eh?
well, no. it isn't. it is simple confabulation.
sean linnane has gone to the trouble to analyze the "lies, damn lies and statistics" lying behind mr. porter's attack (pun intended, and, quite true, btw), and absolutely devastates it. i suggest you read, "an open letter to the uk guardian/observer newspaper," by sean linnance at stormbringer, 22 september 2013. http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/ .
(if the link is not hot, simply copy it, put it in the command bar, and it will get you there.)
sean linnane obviously warmed to his task in writing the refutation of mr. porter's idiocy, and he has done a wonderful job of completely destroying the lies and fabrications behind mr. porter's article. but, i will let you draw your own conclusions after you have read sean's article.
very funny update: at sipsey street irregulars, dutchman6 informs mr. porter that should he and his ilk decide to intervene in our little "civil war" of domestic gun violence, as mr. porter suggests is only appropriate given the level of "gun violence" here, then mr. porter will find out just how easy it is to hit a blue helmet. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/09/uk-columnist-asks-if-world-should.html . what a dip shit this mr. porter is. ask any cop how dangerous it is to step into someone else's domestic beef. if we are so violent, what makes him think he and his kind would be immune from it, should they stick their noses in? laughing. end update, 09.23.2013.
my observation: sean linnane has destroyed the porter argument. the sipsey street irregulars have reminded mr. porter to mind his own fucking business, in their own sweet way. bring body bags, indeed.
back to the essay.
to which task i suggest you attend immediately. quit these pages, go to stormbringer, and be informed, elucidated and armed to refute such nonsense in the future should you be confronted with it. i suggest you print a copy of the article, and carry it with you at all times. idiots abound these days, and this helps to deal with them.
caption: what's the matter w/ this picture. go to stormbringer, and read sean linnane to find out. he explains. http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/ .
john jay @ 09.23.2013
p.s. the below "blurb" links to the article at the guardian, in case you want to look at it. the shooter in the picture is described as shooting at an indoor range. sean points out that the gun does not have a magazine in place, and is likely unloaded; that the gun has a tag on it, consistent with being purveyed at a mercantile establishment, and that the shooter is not wearing "ears," a very curious way for a shooter to shoot an ar-15 indoors, which the person holds. (note: he is not a shooter. he is a holder. simple as that, except to the guardian.)
sean destroys the use of the picture by the guardian.
in similar step by careful step analysis, he also destroys the statistical lies behind mr. porter's argument.
oh, there is the little matter of the first amendment i suppose, but i don't think it is much of an impediment to a tyrant seeking to squash me like a bug for saying nasty things about him. say, for instance, a tyrant would get real mad at me for calling him a limp noodled girly man, a sissy. and, he would seek ways to punish me for it.
but, not obama. he will not. it's not that he doesn't have federal prosecutors who have never read the first amendment, ... , for instance, some dip shit of a u.s. attorney in atlanta promised to prosecute people for saying nasty things about muslims. as if. the point is, he's got people working for him now who are stupid enough to try garbage like that. and, willing, and, eager.
but, there are two real constraints working against obama in any effort to muzzle me, or someone like me.
the first is the matter of obama's background. i don't mean that he lived w/ his granny, and his mommy, and that he is a sissy who cannot throw a baseball. i don't know that joe stalin could throw a baseball.
but, joe stalin came up in a rough and tumble world full of revolutionary acts and czarist retaliation, ... , revolutionaries bombed people, and secret police hunted them down and killed them. stalin survived that, and he rose through the ranks of bolshevik internal politics to control the entire apparatus, including party, state and military.
he was the law. and, a genuinely tough and hard man. hard enough to have a rival hunted down in exile in mexico, and an ice pick put through his eye. a very thorough animosity, and a very thorough lesson for others who might have considered taking a run at him. (leon trotsky, btw.)
obama is a sissy, because he is a golden boy who was hand picked to front the operation for others. obama is nothing more than an image foisted upon us by our managers. you might consider obama the steven tyler of politicians, if you wish, he just grabs the microphone and flaps his lips, while others do the work.
he has no substance. he has no toughness. he has no will to dominate. i suspect that alec baldwin is tougher, and he is nothing more than a gone-to-seed suit and an expensive pair of shoes.
the second matter is that i have nothing.
oh, i've got a few material possessions, nothing to get too excited about, and not worth a warm bucket of spit on the scale that obama and his pampered minions would consider relevant. they could strip me bare, and not have much to show for it.
which is not to say that if someone did that, to include obama and his minions, i would not be pissed beyond your comprehension. i would be very angry. and, not inclined to suffer such indignity either intellectually, or physically.
i grew up in a rough world, and not one damned thing was ever given to me. i would not suffer having those things i have retained being taken from me. i earned them. they are mine. woe betide the dip shit that messed with my possessions. simply to mess with me.
and, i have my intellectual convictions. i would know that i was wronged for expressing my opinion. my conviction that this sort of thing impinged upon my liberties would course through my veins. i know in my bones that not to resist such impious tyranny, such arrogance as the big display when they act because they think that the little cannot resist them, is morally despicable. to be afraid is to be culpable in the acts of others who seek to harm you, and it is wrong not to resist.
in short, a man, or a group of men, who have neither wealth nor grandeur to loose by standing up for themselves, their rights and liberties, their heritage, their families and their sacred honor, ... , why those sorts are very dangerous to a person, and persons, like obama and his minions.
i, we, have nothing to loose lose by resisting the impositions of the haughty & arrogant upon what we hold dear in life, and interfering with why we hold those things dear.
obama will not mess with us.
not because he respects the first amendment, or free speech. he does not. he detests it. he sees no place for it in a society run by a government composed of the vanguard of the proletariat and the oligarchy.
obama will not mess with us.--
1.)because he is not tough enough to take me, and others like me, on. and,
2.)even though moral, ethical and political considerations do not constrain him, he still lives in a universe in which cost vs. benefit analysis still exists. and, he will not bother me, or interfere with me, because it simply will not pay him to do so.
always, obama learns, much to his consternation, there is the ledger.
he gains nothing by messing with me. the visible and probable costs of doing so are simply too great.
he stands the risk of loosing everything if he even trifles with me. i am a person w/ a combination of personal attributes, psychological structure, and intellectual conviction coupled with a skill set and friends with interesting skill sets who could harm obama in very fundamental and profound ways.
we could touch him in manners which he fears.
by contrast, i have nothing to loose lose by comparison in a physical and material sense, and to my mind, even a very limited victory in the physical realm would be tantamount to sweet sweet triumph, and the fulfillment and validation of deeply held convictions.
obama does not understand me, as he has led a pampered and favored life, ... , in my opinion, he has lived the life of the golden & chosen boy, whose place in the world have been nurtured and secured by others. he has won nothing by dint of his own effort, nor of his own intellect, and indeed, has left traces of neither in his wake his whole entire life.
he does not respect me, but he fears me in his gut, and he fears me to his marrow. he know that i, and my friends, who have nothing, can take everything from him. everything. all his "attainments." all of his status. everything. he will not risk that.
his whole life is legend, contrived and fabricated. by others.
he quite literally has simply delivered the lines via the intelligence of the teleprompter, which is the only real intelligence he has. but, he is smart enough to know the truth of what i say above.
he fears to loose lose that with every breath.
don't understand me. i fear much, like any man. but, in this context, i fear nothing. i especially have absolutely no fear of obama and his minions. i went to school with them. i worked professionally with them. i know that they are nothing special.
that they are not superior.
because of these factors they fear me, and what i am capable of, if messed with.
this is the reason that they will not mess with me. they hope that i am obscure enough, and small enough, and unnoticed enough that i will make no difference in the expression of my opinions. that my thoughts and words will sway no one.
what they don't understand, and it is a fatal mistake on their part, is that i am simply one of very many identically situated, and identically predisposed to act, and fully capable of acting. at the drop of a hat.
and that we have swayed the multitudes.
think of the contrast between the obama of today, and the obama who took office upon his initial victory. the emperor, the pretender, has been absolutely disrobed, and he stands before us naked, with a limp dick, narrow and stooped shoulders, and skinny, spindly, knobby and pathetically weird legs. we know about his "beard."
and, a stupid grin, and jug ears. an object of ridicule & contempt the world over.
i, and my friends, made him that. with our words. and, he fears us. for, we are legion.
very bad news at badbadjuju, a blog i have always enjoyed. http://badbadjuju.com/2013/09/living-and-dying/ . please drop by and lend him some support. and, don't forget the juju woman.
a little bit of love and support never hurt anyone. this holds true for good times, and for when the news is not so good.
am i the only person on the entire damned planet with a memory, or who gives a shit about historical accuracy?
i speak of saddam's long forgotten "weapons of mass destruction," regarding which george bush has long been tarred and feathered with the phrase "bush lied, people died." in case you've forgotten, when bush ramped up the second invasion of iraq it was promoted to the international community, at least in part, that it would be an effort to rid the world of saddam's access to a considerable stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
remember?
the historical "consensus," since they were never "found," was that the "w.m.d." rational for invasion was a false pretext, one used knowingly and purposefully to establish a false narrative for invasion.
well, things have come and gone, and things are forgotten, and here we are again, worried about, and all in a dither, over biological and chemical weapons, this time the sobriquet of "weapons of mass destruction" seemingly consigned to the proverbial dust bins of history.
i will remind you of something which you have forgotten. all of you. including the intellectual big wigs of the right wing blogosphere.
prior to the launch of american forces into iraq the united states attempted to secure access to launch points in south eastern turkey, from which to put forces into norther iraq and place iraq into a giant pincer. it was, in effect, to mount a three flank war on saddam's forces, and ease the task of invading up through southern iraq.
a good plan, really, from a strategic and tactical point of view. we had the forces to pursue such an invasion, and saddam really didn't have the resources to defend adequately.
the turks refused such access through turkey, even though they are a n.a.t.o. "ally."
while the negotiations went on between the u.s. and turkey, (and this is central to the part of history that has been conveniently forgotten in terms of "historical truth"), a massive stream of truck traffic transferred some sort of commodity or another from iraq into syria.
i have ever maintained that while saddam gained a respite from invasion due to the stalled negotiations between the u.s. & turkey he was transporting & transferring his chemical and biological weapons from iraq and into syria.
why would he do that? and, why would syria accept such goods.
well, it is quite simple, and this adverts to another long forgotten historical truth, ... , and that is that both saddam and assad were baathists, of the same trans national arabic political party that ruled syria and iraq. the political power of the baathists in iraq has been whittled back a bit, but, it still flourishes in syria, and seeks to maintain itself at any costs.
including the use of chemical and biological weapons, it might appear, and including running the risk of internationally backed invasion designed to destroy its rule, because of its use of chemical and biological weapons.
one of the things that i have never understood was the left's successful slander of bush, "bush lied people died," considering that saddam had used chemical weapons against his own people a couple of times, well publicized, i might mention. against the kurds, and against the indigenous people of the southern marshes and deltas.
long forgotten. the historical "consensus" decided that such chemical weapons never existed in iraq, so their actual use has been intellectually suppressed from the common memory, and the circumstances of their transfer to syria from iraq prior to invasion has been similarly denied.
but, here we are.
in syria, where the baathist party (of baathist iraq under saddam), is now in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and the international community is all agog over the syrian regime's use of them.
it will be interesting to watch how all of this plays out, and whether the "intellect" of the left ends up embracing the reality of biological and chemical weapons actually being held in syria, or enforcing the "reality" in "public discourse" that they've never existed, and were never used. as in iraq. and, enforcing an "intellectual truth," as the left did in reference to iraq.
to the left, "truth" is malleable, and serves "socialist truth." it has no connection to fact. and, as it matter of fact, it suppresses fact.
john jay @ 09.14.2013
p.s. just for the record, and intellectual clarity, i do not support united states intervention into syria.
not at this juncture.
so long as it is arabic muslim killing each other i take the position, ... , let 'em. let hezbollah kill syrian baathists. and, i most certainly object to the u.s. arming and supporting al queda in syrian while actively pursuing al queda every other place in the world. it is illogical to the point of raging hypocrisy.
it also makes no sense geo-politically to interfere in a fight which harms and weakens our enemies.
and, in the last and most dispositive reality, it makes no sense to interfere in a fight in which both sides are loathsome contemptible savages, and in which there are, absolutely, no "good guys." it is not in our interests to do so, and we should not.
now, the question arises.-- what if someone prevails in this civil war, baathists or al queda, traditional thugs or the muslim brotherhood (e.g., nontraditional thugs), and those thugs threaten us or threaten israel with the use of those "weapons of mass destruction," those chemical and biological weapons to which they may succeed as spoils of victorious war?
then, i say, attack them with all the resources that we have, and wipe them and wipe the weapons that threaten us and our friends from the face of the earth. period. but, not until then.
pre-publishing "update." typepad has this little feature of providing links to related articles as one composes. when i looked at this feature, it seems that not everyone has forgotten the "weapons of mass destruction" "not found" in iraq, and some have suggested that syria now possesses those weapons held by saddam. i've provided those links. no apologies, no revision in my text. we are few, those of us who mention these things. we need more voices, and good on the people that beat me to the issue. end pre-publishing "update."
to the range. set a target standard up at 600 yards.
to the bench. 3 shots from a cold bore. though i've filled the holes in w/ silicon putty, it was a group in the form of an equilateral triangle, roughly 5" center to center of the two farthest apart holes. just in the middle of the target, about 3" below the "heart."
update, 10.14.2013. to the range, target at 600 yards. "sorta" cold bore.
shooting up old loads to make brass, specifically a load chronographed at 2520 using imr-4895. shot the 300 yard gong, to make sure the bds dial hadn't been left in the wrong position, put two additional clicks in to make up for the fact that the bds dial is calibrated on a 2600 fps muzzle velocity. whack, whack, whack, ... , dead on.
go visit. chat with the friends.
sit down to shoot at the 600 yard target, and dial up 600 yards on the scope, and add some clicks just like before. only now, i am shooting "store bought" black hills ammo w/ 168 grain sierra bthp, and forget all about the velocity differential, the black hills stuff being a bit "hotter."
shoot. down to the target, expecting to see holes in the target at appropriate points of aim. no holes. damn. an onlooker says, "too high." well, yes, he's right, it occurs to me, as i remember/realize i've added in the clicks, somewhat sheepishly: it's not as though i did it four days earlier.
take four clicks out, about 6" at that distance, maybe a bit more.
shoot three shots. a very satisfying group of 4.512" at 600 yards. ordinarily, i would be quite happy with that group. but, it points out a cold hard reality of "cold bore" shooting. at long range, you want to be on at the first shot. your quarry, if sentient, will not share your frustration at having missed him/it, and will in fact be quite happy as he/she/it scampers for safety, and a place to hide and/or shoot back.
you must be on, on the first shot, out of a cold bore. errors in dialing in the range at not forgiven.
live and learn. or, maybe don't live long enough to learn after an error this fundamental. end update.
caption: the "target" is right at 22" in height, and about 8.5" wide. 1/2 of a "person," as it were. it makes for a good aiming exercise, to have a scaled target like this, in my estimation.
well pleased. back to the bench, to see if i can repeat it.
3 more shots, w/ no particular preparation. sit down, aim and shoot. pretty quickly, no agonizing over the shots.
this time an 8" group, still not too bad at 600 yards. two shots are 2" apart, and right smack dab in the middle of the little cardboard "heart" on the silhouette. the third shot spread the group another 6" in dimension, and was low, and slightly left.
caption: reference the tape, provided for scale, and you will see that the "heart" shots are very close together. the "hip shot" is a bit errant, and i cannot tell you why?
does this mean that i could hit a man-sized target with ease at 1200 yards? nope, it doesn't. it means that aiming at one at that distance would present little problem, but "guiding" the bullet to twice the distance is quite another matter, entirely.
there are the little problems of trajectory and wind drift to account for, and hitting such a long distance target is a quantum leap in difficulty with the .308 winchester. as a practical (and practicable) matter, the .308 winchester is a dependable 800 yard rifle in skilled hands, more so in extremely skilled hands. the american military has decided that if you want to go out farther, it is best to have a .300 winchester magnum shooting 220 grain sierra's to do it.
that's a big quantum jump, in shooter skills, and in ballistic requirements.
as harry callahan is noted for saying, "a man's gotta know his limitations." and, respect them. i am about at the end of my reach, as the observation goes. another 100 yards or so, and that will do it for me, (and my equipment), i am thinking.
what happened? i don't know. when i can tell you why something happens, and i know while it happens, then i will be well on my way to some real competency in this long range shooting stuff. right now, that is a bit out of my league, beyond my reach. but, i am working on it.
john jay @ 09.12.2013
p.s. update. for some perspective on the size of the target i was shooting, the following picture.
caption: in the first picture, the "silhouette" target is shown with the tape open to about 22." in this picture above, the tape is again open as in the first picture, and you can see that the 22" spans the distance between my chin to just below my belt buckle. i am in the neighborhood of 5'8" tall, ... , not very tall, and not very short. sort of average.
thus, it will be seen that my little silhouette target is about as deep as an average man's chest and abdomen, though not so wide. my little target is about 8.5" wide, while i am right at 15" armpit to armpit.
this gives you some idea of the size of the area which may be reliably targeted by a .308 winchester rifle wielded by a relatively competent shot. well, then, why do soldiers miss adversaries shot at over these sorts of distances, or even less? i suppose it has something to do with the fact, if we consider my shooting today, that no one was shooting at me, and that my "exposure" at the shooting bench did not comprehend the risk of anyone shooting at me. that could have something to do with it, eh? end update.
the middle east monitor alleges that obama told members of congress that the united states has trained syrian opposition troops in jordan, and that they have recently deployed to syria. the article claims that jordan denies these assertions.
the article containing these allegations is here, http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/7253-obama-confirms-the-us-trained-syrian-opposition-troops-in-jordan .
well, this ratchets up the old proxy war a notch or two, i would say, if it can be substantiated. and, regarding substantiation, please click the first little box below the signature line, which links to a post at "kfwbam.com", which reported september 5, 2013 that "u.s. officials" confirmed that the cia was "considering" training syrian troops to fight assad's regime, and "... to increase their capabilities." it also confirmed that "limited" training was already being undertaken in jordan. the article is by lolita c. baldor, of the associated press.
i'd say that the middle east monitor report is substantiated pretty well, if not absolutely.
i don't think this very wise. to say the least. how is this really different from "u.s. boots" in syria, if we are training "syrian boots?"
you can learn my views by clicking the below links to two previous articles on this topic. hint: i think obama an idiot for getting the u.s. involved in this. simply put.
an article in the egyptian press claims that obama is a member of the muslim brotherhood, having joined as a youth in indonesia. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/03/egyptian-newspapers-explosive-allegation-president-obama-is-a-secret-muslim-brotherhood-member/ .
the post at "the blaze" also explains the newspaper article asserts that obama's half brother, malik, is also an al queda operative.
the "commentary" in "the blaze" post simply attempts to explain all of this away, by noting the egyptian press as being angry at obama, and publishing this to defame him, as it were. there is no discussion as to whether the newspaper article contains factual assertions lending any of this plausible.
it would be nice, in such matters, were the publishers of such stories to publish the article fully in english, and then let us follow the story were it goes, instead of telling us what it means. i can find no link to the original article, but, there is a picture of the article as it appears in the egyptian paper "al wafd", crediting the image source to the middle east monitor.
update: link to al wafd, http://www.alwafd.org/ good luck. i am a stranger in a strange land, and cannot make head nor tails of the whole thing. end update.
anyone read arabic? the full story is not pictured.
my attempts to go to the "middle east monitor" via a link at the blaze were blocked by my computer.
let them kill each other, with the energy and creativity that only the muslims can muster. guns, bombs, tanks, helicopter gunships, just let them kill each other. (hint: there is no "good guy" in all of this, no interest to be advanced that favors democracy and/or freedom: it is a fight between fanatical islamic rivals, nothing more, and nothing less.)
the geo-politics of it.--
it does not advance the interests of the russians to see their client state under perpetual threat of being attacked. the russians want to have a "presence" in the mediterranean, well then, let that presence be tied to the person of assad. would the russians risk bringing their "air craft carrier" into port, while the assad opponents have the capacity to damage or even cripple it?
this point could be easily elaborated upon, at some length. but what is the point? it is simply beyond peradventure that the russians do not advance their interests in the region by backing a barbarous savage who kills to prolong his office. can you advance any observations how this is not so? please, elucidate the matter, then, by all means.
what about the iranians? the push of hezbollah into prominence and dominance in lebanon is most certainly threatened by assad's troubles, which is the reason that iran has the hezbollah in syrian killing their coreligionists with devout fervor. what could be better than to see hezbollah taking casualties in this fracas?
from a geo-political standpoint i can see nothing wrong with this situation, insofar as applied to russia and iran.
on the other hand, does it do us any good to see muslim fundamentalism advance in syria, as it has in libya and egypt with the toppling of established regimes there, no matter how brutal and backward they were?
i don't think so.
and, it strikes me as fundamentally insane for us to arm and back al queda and the muslim brotherhood in syria, when the war on terror since 9/11 has been in the main pursued against al queda, and we have sought the world over to destroy that organization, ... , need anyone be reminded that we fight them still in afghanistan and pakistan.
i can think of no other term to describe backing and arming al queda in syria that describes the situation any better, than the word "insane." rationality simply cannot be sufficiently stretched to make sense out of fighting al queda in one place, and to arm and back them in another, especially given the debacle and tragedy of benghazi. it cannot.
so, to my mind, the only diplomatic and geo-political that can be made to make sense, to encompass rationality, is to simply let the damned muslims kill each other. with fervor. with zeal. with religious and political fanaticism.
if obama puts american troops on syrian soil after bombing assad's minions, he should be summarily driven from office. if he bombs assad, and helps assad's foes, he should be summarily driven from office.
to fight al queda in afghanistan, and to aid and arm it in syria, is insanity. it is not rational. it is not politic. it is not geo-politic.
any idiot who would pursue such a course w/ american diplomatic and military resources at stake is insane, and does not belong in office. (not unless it is to serve as president of the muslim brotherhood, which would suit obama just fine, and is about the only suitable office for him to hold.)
john jay @ 09.11.2013
p.s. and, it does "euro union" diplomacy no good to see this fight continue, and rather hampers the french dream of controlling the muslim mediterranean via "euro diplomacy." furthermore, it does nothing to advance euro dreams of controlling the region's energy sources.
all by itself, this would be adequate reason to keep the hell out of things. but, it is just about compelling, when you consider how this entire situation harms russian and iran. and, will continue to harm both of them, as long as the fight continues.
