Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood Orders Resurrection of Terrorist Wing

Clearly, "peace" is not on the mind of the Muslim Brotherhood, the would-be state government of Egypt.

They're resurrecting Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, their terrorist wing.

While the Brotherhood claimed it abandoned violence to push for a peaceful takeover of Egypt, the group's new spiritual leader, Muhammad Badi, recently has publicly called for violent jihad, including against the U.S.
So this is a group that, while it has recently been largely nonviolent, has recently re-declared violent intent.

Discover the Networks profile HERE.

  • Egypt-based terrorist organization
  • Claimed responsibility for the shooting and stabbing of 58 tourists in Egypt
  • Was formerly led by Omar Abdul Rahman, who engineered the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
  • In recent years, has reversed its terrorist ideology and tactics, embracing nonviolent conciliation instead. 
Interestingly, this terrorist group once demanded that al-Qaeda stand down for a few months to "give US 'President' Barack Hussein Obama a chance to demonstrate his friendliness to Islam".  Wow- they've got pull with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization!  Scary.... and dangerous folks, eh!

Apparently, they weren't all that satisfied that Obama's policies were sufficiently different from Bush's.  I guess Obama didn't show them well enough his Islamic Supremacist/Dhimmi agenda which is much more obvious to Americans and other Free World nations.

How typical for Muslims... have a politcal, even "humanitarian" wing... and a wing of horrendously evil intimidators and bloodthirsty murderers... 

President Hosni Mubarak, as far as I'm award, didn't have any such wing.

Now look at what the phony "protestors" are bringing to Egypt.

Not "democracy", but the usual Islamic Supremacist hatred and deadly terroristic violence.

Think of it in terms of the Nazi Brownshirts.  Those who are hated, and those who refuse to submit to the regime's agenda, will be terrorized.

The International Community should be condeming the "protests" and the Muslim Brotherhood, NOT respecting either!

Remember, part of the Nazis' early rise to power was the use of ideological, political, partisan "protests", including the use of violent intimidation...

Just like in contemporary Egypt.

And, while Hitler became German Chancellor by way of democratic election, he quickly moved to abolish the no-longer-convenient democracy, and change the Constitution to set himself up as the supreme ruler over all, the dictator.  And History tells the rest of the story, which is horrific.

So... out goes Mubarak, in go the Muslim Nazis.

Above:  Minions of the Muslim Brotherhood as Nazi Schutzstaffels (SS), seig-hieled by Yasser Arafat's uncle Haj Amin al-Husseini, an extremely deranged hater of Jews

Those who fail to learn the lessons of History (like today's international community) are doomed to repeat them.

And repeat them, they will, in the Middle East.  And the theme will again be the attempted eradication of the Jews (via Israel).

And from that point on... the world.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood will fail in its attempt to destroy Israel.  It is written.

Still, the rest of the world needs to worry, because nothing has been written about them...

And today's world leadership is failing to appropriately address the illegal, immoral ouster of President Hosni Mubarak in favor of what is essentially the world's Islamic Nazi Party.

The Free World MUST reject and forcibly thumb down this extremely bloodthirsty organization.

Appeasement does NOT work.  It didn't work with Hitler's Nazis, nor with Arafat's and Mazen/Abbas's PLO.

Make no mistake:  There will NOT be "peace", no matter what we do to asskiss the supremacists.

We are at war now.

Don't believe me?

You will, within years at the most.


joe six-pack said...

The war is comming here. We are on the defensive, both strategically and tactically. The pace has already picked up, although like the first year or so in Iraq, the enemy attmepts are clumsy. Like in Iraq, that will change.

The only way that I know of to change this is to wage offensive warfare. The very opposite of what we are doing.

Balbulican said...

Offensive warfare against whom, Joe?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Funny man, that Balbulican.

"...against whom?"

Yup, Gabrielle Grizzly, that's exactly what we've been talking about... ;)

Balbulican said...

It was an actual question, CS.

If you're proposing an "offensive war", I'm curious about who you're suggesting Canada declare war on.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oh, man... your question shows your staggering ignorance...

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hello, Balbulican.... there's a little something called "The Real World".

Ever heard of it?

It's right in front of you.

Intriguing how you don't see it.

Fascinating. (Cocks eyebrow)

Balbulican said...'re proposing that Canada declare war on - who?

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Is it true that Canada has a very high population of Muslims? Wait..figured it Canada in 2006 783,700 in the states, I believe over 5 million from what I read. Could be wrong..but just going off readings. So, am I understanding this right CS? You guys think you should be gearing up for a war with the Muslims? Just want to clarify here since its the big question.

Balbulican said...

Those are the correct numbers, according our most recent national census. It's about 2.5% of the population.

Thanks for clarifying the question, GG. Sentinel, are you suggesting that Canada should "wage offensive war" against Muslims?

∞ ≠ ø said...


Ms.FreeJustice said...

We all make mistakes..and no biggie, but wanted to get accurate info on here. But then, I am an analyzer and thinker..among other things, but sometimes need clarification just as to ask the RIGHT questions. Thanks CS!

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Ok,,sitting here pondering something and maybe Balbulican you can help me out here..dont know why this came to me, maybe something CS is claiming.Ok, do you believe that there's an offensive war by Islamic Supremacists against non-Muslims going on... or not. I need your opinion since CS went back to work.Thanks GG

∞ ≠ ø said...

Balbulican, exemplifying the questions cast at his character, here attempts to place the ball in the enemy's court from our side. "war....against Muslims" is his phrase.

By choosing Muslims as the enemy Balbulican legitimizes Jihad. This is his goal.

Joe six-pack advocates offense against the enemy and uses the U.S. experience in Iraq as an example. So.... "Who (in this case) is the enemy?"


There are two types:

1: Those who want war and openly practice warfare / terrorism.

2: Those who want war.

I think Joe six-pack would advocate action against category 2.

I believe said action can and should be defensive, but state that my view is that little has been done on this front.

Now if you think long and hard about the ‘whos’ and ‘whomevers’...

The solution is quite stunning. If one does not recognize Islam as a religion, clarity ensues.

And to the peaceful or moderate Muslim I say this. "Sorry. Right God; wrong profit." They, in their hearts, already know this.

Balbulican said...

". "war....against Muslims" is his phrase."

I'm afraid you're misconstruing things a bit, Runy.

Joe advocated waging "an offensive war".

I asked him to clarify who the enemy would be.

La Bella Gabriella then asked "You guys think you should be gearing up for a war with the Muslims?"

Her phrase.

" By choosing Muslims as the enemy Balbulican legitimizes Jihad. This is his goal."

No, I'm afraid you're quite mistaken about that. I don't legitimize terrorism.

Canadian Sentinel said...


Wonder what Balbulican would recommend to deal with the rapidly-growing international problem of Islamic Supremacism, Islamization, Sharia-Law-ization, "Honor Killings", etc., everywhere?

What policies can we in the Free World implement to combat the Nazism of the New Century?

And should we be giving the time of day to the Muslim Brotherhood? Why or why not, keeping in mind the realith that they're a violent supremacist organization indubitably hellbent on world domination?

Should we just merely be politically correct and make sure we go around simplemindedly smiling at as many Muslims as possible just to prove we don't hate Muslims per se (which we don't, as, after all, they deserve a chance to demonstrate that they're actually the enemy of the Islamic Supremacists, not of non-Muslims)?

Or should we openly, unapolegetically talk about Islamic Supremacism as a huge, and rapidly growing, problem and continue to warn the non-supremacist folks who come from a Muslim background that if they aren't going to do anything to stamp out this hateful, deadly, fast-growing and -spreading ideology, then they're not doing themselves any favors at all in not standing up for human rights against those in their community who seek to get rid of such rights?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Kudos, by the way, to Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manjhi for their own anti-supremacist campaigns...

∞ ≠ ø said...

Misconstrued or construed?

You entered the forum with a baited question. You seek the answer which legitimizes Jihad and in doing so you are a willing participant.

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Do you feel I baited him? Or led him on in wrong way? If so,Im sorry.Not wanting to offend anyone here.

∞ ≠ ø said...

No no!
Quite the opposite.
The irritant asked the bait question.

My error for not addressing my comment. I think he is rather fond of himself and his moniker so at times I am loath to repeat it even in a corrupted form.

Be very weary of him.

∞ ≠ ø said...

As a side note, I have schoolyard fun with names. It really is kid stuff and I hope it entertains. Today the "Balbster" has referred to me as Runy, a reference to runes and my little moniker (no runes there). Runes were quite in vogue with the Nazis. A slight not unnoticed.
As a note 'squiggles' was a tolerable diminution... this one, not so much.
Always remember his primary intent is to irritate, not to contribute.
Nothing has changed.

Balbulican said...

Gabriella: I don't think you were baiting me, or anyone, at all. Joe made an odd comment (that "we" should wage an offensive war against an unspecified enemy. I wanted to know who. So did you, and you asked specifically whether Joe was talking about Muslims. Squiggles erroneously accused me of introducing Muslims into the thread. I thing he's figured it out now.

Squiggles: no, I wasn't implying that you're a Nazi. And no, I do not and have never supported terrorism. If that's what you think, you are mistaken.

CS: Thank you for clarifying that you're talking about Islamists, not Muslims. Since both Gabriella and I had the same question, I hope you realize that little outburst of sarcasm was misplaced?

∞ ≠ ø said...

My,... that was civil.

Pinching self......


Pinching self.....


O.K.... I'll play nice.

Noticed 'rune' in the previous thread anyway. I think perhaps rube was intended. I've been called worse. Maybe decorum shall prevail. I might even gain a new pal...


Canadian Sentinel said...

Balbulican, do you believe, while understanding that the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially an Islamic Nazi party that cannot be allowed to be in charge of a nation and its military, that we should be "talking" with them, ie. "diplomatically", or shunning them to prevent their legitimization?

In short... talk with them, or not?

Yes or no please.

Balbulican said...

Squiggle: No, "Rune" was intended, but not as an insult. I associate it with Norsemen, and didn't know what else to call you.

CS: Should what "we" be "talking to them" about what? At this point they are one of several organizations participating in the Egyptian protests; what does Canada have to talk to them about??

Canadian Sentinel said...

Sorry... "yes" or "no", only.

Muslim Brotherhood. Talk to.

Yes or no?

Canadian Sentinel said...

It's a simple question.


Balbulican said...

I'm sorry, CS, but I don't understand. Maybe it's me, but I sincerely don't understand what is it you're asking. I'll be happy to answer your question if you can be a bit clearer.

Are you asking whether the Government of Canada should NOW engage in talks with the Muslim Brotherhood? About what??

glacierman said...

We should most definitely be talking with the Muslims, so as to expose them in public as often and ruthlessly with as much truth as we can muster. The Truth will set them free of their misguided beliefs and evil intentions. We must never give in to their Hegelian dialectic, for to do so we legitimize them. We need to control the language and the questions, that way they cannot squirm into the political correctness which our Western nations have been entrapped by. The war of words will either start or divert the seeds of the whirlwind.

∞ ≠ ø said...

The "Balbster" is playing coy.

Anonymous said...

I smell Warman.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Not Warman. I know who it is.

Balbulican said...

Squiggles, if you can rephrase the question, then please do, and I'll do my best to answer it.

If the question was intended to be: should the Canadian government be engaging in talks with the Muslim Brotherhood regarding their participation in the Egyptian political unrest, the answer is "no". They have no status, do not represent a constituency, and are only one of many stakeholders involved in the demonstrations.

If that was NOT the meaning of the question, please rephrase and I'll try to answer more clearly.

Balbulican said...

And by the way - CS seems to be trying to elevate the tone of his site, in terms of both civility and the level of discussion. I'm taking that in good faith.

joe six-pack said...

"We need to wage offensive warfare". When I say 'We' I am speaking of free nations. We need to wage war against Islamic nationalism. Iraq is a good example of our drawing those who are Islamic nationalists into combat against our military. Of course, others will be involved but ALL wars bring on new enemies.

We had good reasons to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawal from them now is far to early. Our enemies will be able to allocate resources to other areas. In addition to continue to engage our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to move on any other countries who support Islamic nationalism. This is usually in the form of Islamic terrorist groups. Yes, I am speaking of Iran and Syria. We don't have the political excuse yet, but waiting for WMD to be deployed by our enemies is a major mistake.

joe six-pack said...

Syria and Iran are two of the main sponsors of Islamic nationalist organizations. I am certain others exist, but they are the most visible. However, we don't have a good POLITICAL excuse to wage war with them, YET. In the case of Iran, having nuclear weapons is going to make the option available only AFTER a WMD attack(s).

In any case, the governments of both Iran and Syria will have changed before this war is over. I am certain that these will not be the only ones. This war is BIG.

Yea, this scares the hell out of me too. However, it is only a matter of time before WMD enters the picture. It is far better to engage in conventional warfare before that occurs. Picking on the known sponsors of terrorist groups is the best place that I know of to begin.

PS. One of the few good things about war is that it makes people take a stand. Is this not the problem in dealing with terrorists and their supporters? Knowing who they are? Open warfare forces them out into the open.

Just look at what the wars in Iraq and Afhganistan have exposed. Just because we can see many 'new' enemies does not necessarily mean that they were not enemies before. We just see more of them now.

ALL wars create enemies. We need to know who they are.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Balbulican, should, as far as you are concerned, we legitimize the dangerously, hatefully evil MB by talking to them in the context of them being a "legitimate governing alternative"?

Yes or no?

Is it wise to talk with those we KNOW do NOT have good intentions?

Yes or no?

Balbulican said...

As I stated above, Sentinel, no. We should not talk to them as a legitimate governing alternative, because they aren't one. They have no standing at present in Egypt beyond being one of several groups involved in the demonstrations.

Balbulican said...

So Joe - is that a "yes"? You feel the US could, at this point, sustain a war against Syria and Iran, in addition to its current operations?

joe six-pack said...

The United States is NOT at war. We have not geared up. In fact, we are scaling back production of weapons. For the past 20 years, we have deactivated half of our active army divisions. We have no draft.

If we maintain this posture of defense, no way. Our leadership is withdrawing. We would have to reverse this, and begin to gear up.

The answer is NO. And when we did act, we would have to chose only one or the other for starters.

Please note that my statements about taking out the govenments of Syria and Iran are about what needs to be done. No way does the political will exist today.

IF the U.S. started a draft and geared up for war, YES. I suspect that this will not occur until after WMD have been deployed. I consider this to be too late.

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Ok guys, heres a trivia question, and Im sure most will know...How did the Muslim linage come to be? (Thought I would get you guys off this for the moment ;) )

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hmmm... someone told me about the Muslim lineage... wonder who that was? Trying to remember...

Balbulican said...

As I understand it, the Muslim tradition is that the Arab peoples are the descendants of of Abraham's son Ishmael. It that what you mean?

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Balbulican,you are correct! So, who was the mother of that child? And what followed? Meaning, mmm how did the Muslim nation start and why? Maybe thats better put.

Balbulican said...

Well, Hagar was the mother of Ishmael. And he begat Nebaioth, Kedar,Adbeel,Mibsam, Mishma,Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, Kedemah, and Mahalath, most of whom are traditionally credited with starting various population groups in the middle east.

How did the Muslim nation start? I guess with what Muslims believe was the revelation of the Koran. No?

∞ ≠ ø said...

I'll play.. but let's have some fun with it.

Hagar wasn't the wife however, she was the Egyptian (topical today) handmaid of Sarai Abraham's wife who seemed baron. So Sarai offers Hagar as a surrogate. So bang.. call him Ishmael.

Rolls get confused somehow perhaps jealousy by one and presumption by the other... (women...;) any how Sarai and Hagar fight a lot and Sarai casts her & Ishmael out. (Note the wisdom of C.S. in this regard posted 1 thread up)
They were saved by God through a miracle of water in the desert.

12 Arabic tribes / Islam / etc. descend from Ishmael.

Later the older Sarai has a divine visitation becomes Sarah and has a miracle baby herself with Abraham called Isaac and the 12 tribes of Israel descend.

Abraham was wearing his "Bad Idea" jeans when he accepted Sarai's offer... and as a result we all get to pay for it in one way or another.

Lesson: If your wife is feeling bad because she can't conceive, and offers you a shot at the maid... JUST SAY NO! Does this dress make me look fat? NO!
Do you think she is pretty? NO!

Not to mention the stigma of being the cast out child. (Reference how effed up our unpresident is}

Enough already. What God has joined let no man put asunder!

And for shit's pity sake just say no!

Balbulican said...

Final learnings:

1) God was a lot more fun in those days. Oh, He had his bad days (What was that you rotten kids said to Elisha? Yo, Mrs Yogi...sic'em!), but he was a joker (Abe. ABE! Put DOWN that knife. Sheesh, dude, I was just funnin' ya), and He was a lot cooler with adultery, multiple wives, and stuff He gets right grumpy about these days.

2) 86 is too old to have a kid. For heaven's sake, you're gonna be nearly 100 when the kid enters those difficult teen years and starts listening to Assyrian hip-hop.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Yo, Infinity-doesn't-equal-null...

Would you pls contact me via email?

Want to chitchat privately. ;)

Canadian Sentinel said...

thecanadiansentinel AT yahoo dot ca

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Ok guys, see we all can play nicely eh? I must say,you guys ( Blaublican and Infinity) truly impressed me with such...mmm...colorful imaginations. I liked! Now, the rest of how the story went. Yes, he did take the handmaid, and she did have Ishmael. Did you know the Jews were suppose to kill all in the land, including the animal,the Canaanites (main batch), and they didnt. As usual they didnt listen. They kept some animals and some people as slaves. Then next thing you know, Abraham bred with Hagar as Blaublican and I believe Infinity indicated.
So, I want to thank you all for understanding the whole reason why there is Muslims in the nation. The Jews did not listen to God and here we are. But, we also know they did not listen when Moses went up the mountain...but hey thats another issue.
I know you all are wondering why I brought this all up..mmm...soon we will go deeper. Just had to see where we were all standing. Thanks guys. OH,,,PS I LOVED THE SENSE OF HUMOR FROM ALL :)

Balbulican said...

In your view, Gabriella, this is literal, historical truth? Abraham did, in fact, live to be 175, Sarah gave birth to Isaac at the age of 90, and so on?

Balbulican said...

"Ok guys, see we all can play nicely eh?"

We're pretty nice folks, and it's certainly nice to have some new voices in the mix. Welcome again.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I suppose it's impossible to live to 175 and impossible to beget at 90.

Just because we don't have secular-mind-satisfying proof doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Oh, and we also, incidentally, if one can grasp the parallel for reason of recognition of my sarcasm, that gayness hasn't been proven to be something one is born with. Would Mr. Balbulican like to similarly openly ridicule those who believe that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather something genetically predetermined?

Would Mr. Balbulcican like to ridicule everyone equally for their beliefs, or prefer to be politically correct as a hardcore secularist?

Just askin'. ;)

And I predict that Warren Mock-Stock Kinsella will never dare make fun of those who believe in the alleged geneticity of homosexual behavioral tendency.

Leftists never cease to amuse me with their willing hypocrisy with respect to dissing others' beliefs.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Not, of course, to hog the spotlight from the beauteous Gabriella, for whom I've the utmost respect and reverence...

Balbulican said...

Actually, Sentinel, I didn't ridicule anyone. There are many ways of interpreting the Bible: you can believe it as the literal truth, or as a divinely inspired book of spiritual insight, as a common sense guide to decent behaviour, as a collection of the stories of a people...or any combination of the above.

I respect all those interpretations, although I don't share them. However, Gabriella's views about the historicity of the Bible do have some relevance, given her observation on the descendants of Ishmael. Thus my inquiry.

I should note that Gabriella herself is responding to this discussion with civility and humour. You might consider emulating her approach.

"I suppose it's impossible to live to 175 and impossible to beget at 90."

Given that human biology hasn't changed that much since the Bronze Age, I'd say yes, it's impossible.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I'll concede that Gabriella IS quite impressive.

That's why she's here.

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Good Morning! I see I am topic somewhat this am (smiling). Balbulican,you stated the different ways of interpreting the bible. May I ask,how do you, yourself interpret the bible and why? Thank you also for respecting my view point..I think :)Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but Ill move on here.
Let me tell you, no one will ever have to guess what Im thinking because I will certainly let you know. I do not want to misinterpreted and will try to answer the question as I see it.
True, I take the bible as literal and heres why, and again, being raised as a Catholic had made me revamp my thinking and as you know Balbulican, being a Catholic has its own issues as do other religions. However,this is not about a religion,its about faith. Religions are man made, faith is through Christ and the belief of him. Ok,,getting off track as I sometimes do. Why do you think, unless you dont believe in God, that it was out of his(God) realm to let people in biblical times live to be that old? There are people now that live to be over 100+.
When people enter science into the truth of course they can make claims, but as you well know, not true. The linage of Ishmael was not suppose to be. Therefore it was told as I stated before to annihilate the Canaan people etc
But, my thought has been broken for the moment due to a special 3 1/2 yr I shall continue later. Dont you hate when that happens? LOL.
Later everyone. Trust me, I will get onto other subjects..just testing waters. ;)
AHHH,thank you for the compliment CS.

Ms.FreeJustice said...

PS Infinity and Glacierman I left messages for you under my original first post. Thought I'd address the kind comments you both left :)Also you Jen.

Balbulican said...

Hi, Gabriella. I was raised Catholic, and in fact considered the priesthood for a few years; I studied with the Clercs de St. Viateur. However, I am now somewhere between agnosticism and atheism.

My personal view of the Bible is that it's a cornerstone of human culture, philosophy and literature; an interesting oral history and portrait of the Jewish people; and a not entirely consistent ethical framework for human conduct. That's my view. many of the people I love and respect, including my parents and some good friends in the clergy, have or had other views, and I don't mock others for their beliefs (unless they mock mine.)

Ms.FreeJustice said...

I agree..thank you for accepting others thoughts. Can I ask,what happened that you went from almost priesthood, to agnosticism/atheism? Just curious.

Thanks for your input.

Balbulican said...

I'll be happy to tell you, but it's sort of off topic. Are you sure? :)

Canadian Sentinel said...

The Sentinel approves of the question re. why Balbulican lost faith. It's fascinating. Love to hear it again. Couldn't tell it as well myself... not even close.

If Balblican wishes to share, excellent!

And, my pleasure, Grizzly Mama! :)

Balbulican said...

I don't think I ever actually told you, CS, but I could be wrong.

The quick version is that the more I read about the history of religion - Christianity and other faiths - the more it seemed to me that God was a cultural construct, defined by what humanity didn't know at any given time. The array of small-g gods that populated the world before monotheism were explanations for all the phenomena that mankind didn't understand. The monotheistic deities were responses to the time, place and cultures in which they were conceived and worshiped. As humanity developed a sense of its own past through writing systems, and a certain level of stability through agriculture, urbanization and the emergence of states, the philosophical underpinnings of the idea of "God" became more complex, more ornate, and in some ways, more beautiful; but I ended up feeling that was because human knowledge (and, yes, "science") was reducing the actual scope of God's "job description".

Eventually I concluded that "I don't know, but let's keep looking" was a more honest answer to life's mysteries than the creation of another Mystery.

That's where I'm at. I don't deny the consolations of faith, and sometimes I envy them: at my mom's funeral I would really have welcomed the comfort that I saw her friends and community draw from their conviction that she had gone "to a better place".

My views imply no disrespect for others' views; that's just what I think.

∞ ≠ ø said...

This is the type of pure garbage that has ruined many. People pay a fortune to send their kids to to schools and they get this pure effing shet. This is a front conservatives need to line up on. Perhaps BBcan's way was lost reading some of this.:

Balbulican said...

Shrug. Sorry if it's not to your liking. Gabriella asked, I responded.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Sorry, This time, not a rant in your direction. I was referring to the link and that wasn't clear at all. Surprised you are Catholic. I just dropped a link to a front conservatives don't fight on for some reason; it’s sort of in line with Joe's comment on a lack of preparedness against the terrorists and IslamoFacists.

Read it. Ask yourself if Christianity is a construct then what the hell is this.
What makes me rant is not your story. It is the percolated effect stuff like this has had on our society.

Ms.FreeJustice said...

Thanks for sharing Mr. B. Alrighty,I will move on to other things then. Yes, I know I did get away from the objective, but was intrigued.
Be warned,I do that at times. My mind runs in many different directions.:) Sorry in advance.

Balbulican said...

You see, one of the joys of atheism is that I don't have to read that kind of stuff. Just as I don't need to keep up phrenology, phlogiston research, perpetual motion studies, and other arcana.

Balbulican said...

You're most welcome, Gabriella, and I don't mind at all.

∞ ≠ ø said...

Hmmm. How does "High Windows" hit you?

Balbulican said...

Ah, well, there you hit a sadness. Our side does good bleak. Not so good on exaltation. We could stand a few more more Gaudis and few less Sagans.