51. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255562 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 11:52 pm

hawt4dawk,

It's okay, I didn't take it at all seriously. I hope you didn't either. I didn't know you were a lady meerkat, you know I sometimes watch the meerkats on the Discovery Channel and if I ever caught anyone laying a hand on any of those little fellas, I'd kick their ass, lol ...

You were expressing frustation, ok, but so was I, on this thread, to some extent at least. I tried to make the point that, as you say, we're just on the internet here, it's not "real" and no one should take anyone making any threatening remarks seriously, I didn't. It's all just "bytes on white" and you shouldn't take any of my remarks seriously either, because that applies to my posts as much as anyone elses. (And in addition to that, the point I was getting at was, saying you're going to kick someone's ass on the internet and reality are worlds apart, that was why I responded as I did, using the words I did.) Someone said that I should not have "escalated" things but sometimes it's only by doing that that people see what they're doing isn't reasonable. Hence my use of insults in this thread. As in: let's go down to the end of this road and see where we'll end up, shall we? So hey, we can all throw insults around, it's easy peasy lemon squeezy. But at the end of the day, as I keep on saying, this is supposed to be an "oasis" of clear thinking. Not the bloody playground! (Or a shipyard!) It'd be nice if more people on this website lived up to that.

The way I look at it is this: It's Richard Dawkins' site, and he's given it that label for a reason. This is his "house" and we're all visitors. If you or I went into a neighbour's house you'd show them the respect they deserved, and you wouldn't call them names or anything. You'd well, you'd behave yourself. If you disagreed with something they said, you'd still be polite to them. Would the people who come on to this website and spend all their time insulting folk and generally being smart alecky go into Prof. Dawkins' house, and instead of asking to go to the bathroom, for example, just whip it out and pee behind the settee? I would hope not. Again: sometimes providing an extreme example is the only way some people are able to "get" what you're driving at.

As for Steve: well he's a patronising kind of person himself, as he admits. So I "took the set of him" as they say up here. As I said to Steve, if he wants people to show him respect, he should "do unto others". On the other hand, if he adopts a hostile tone towards others .. instant karma, dude. (And I hope you criticise Steve the next time he adopts a hostile tone towards either me or Fanusi. Let's be consistent here.)

So there you have it, I've said my piece. And if you ever do make it to Aberdeen, fear not I shall happily buy you a coffee at Starbucks on Union St. :-)

(Or Cafe Nero, it's better.)

ps. Tell me about not sleeping! It's not funny.

52. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255539 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 11:06 pm

And what I've been saying, Laurie, if you had read my posts more carefully, without the limiting constraints of your own blinkered worldview, as you put it, is that if you, or Steve, or anybody really, would care to put forward a decent argument for your point of view, that would be great, that really would be the way to go.

Instead, even now, when you're pretending to yourself that that's what you're doing, you just can't stop yourself .. I'm an "extremist", I'm "blinkered" etc. etc. Well Laurie, you're a big old phallic symbol. How about that? Know how much intellectual effort that took me? Absolutely none. Zero. Which is why I have such little respect for people who employ such debating "tactics". They're not even trying.

(Look at it this way: Trying to swap insults with an ex-welder will do absolutely nothing prevent Islamic terrorism. And you'll lose. Why do it then?)

One reasonable person I would say I've encountered on this website is Titania, who puts forward mature, measured posts, and who shows respect to everyone. She too has tried to build bridges around here. Her I definitely do have respect for.

But on the whole: this site's meant to be an oasis of clear thinking? Jesus, talk about false advertising ..

Diacanu: "Vampire Hunter D" arrived today from the Book Depository. I'll let you know what I think in a day or two after I've read it. If I can be bothered using this site again.

53. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255534 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 10:48 pm

Hey, fuck you.

Easy this, isn't it? Takes absolutely no effort whatsoever.

Ho hum ...

54. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255529 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Sharon,

There's a world of difference between "taking down religion" and acknowledging the sad fact that there have been numerous religiously motivated terrorist attacks in several countries in "the West" and thinking that perhaps we ought to discuss what's happening openly and fearlessly in order to try to prevent it.

When I first started reading this message board I too was struck by Fanusi's arguments, and when you don't actually sit down and go through what he's saying, when you just let yourself have a knee jerk reaction to his posts, you do tend to dismiss it all as a big false alarm. Things can't be that bad, surely?

But you know, I read Bruce Bawer's book. And boy was that a wake up call! I went on to study Islam, and the history of its attempted expansion into the West over the years. I even travelled to Malta, and saw where the Knights of St. John withstood the Islamic forces during the Great Siege of 1565. Heroes, every one of them. And you know what, the more I read about the history of Islam (Check out "White Gold" btw, Goldy's read it too I believe.) the more I began to think of Fanusi's argument that one must put current Islamic actions in their proper historical context, and understand what is happening as part of an old, old attempt to spread the message of the "prophet". (And not through gentle persuasion, either.)

I have tried several times to act as a peacemaker between Steve and Fanusi, if you read my other comments you'll see that I spent a bit of time trying to put together a few decent posts, and spoke about Mill's arguments for freedom of speech, including one where he said that even though someone disagrees with you, by listening to their views with respect, by accepting that collision of two points of view, some small aspects of the larger truth will reveal themselves. Which I thought was an appropriate point to make. (Steve's response to me saying, hey, any chance of hearing your thoughts on that? "No, sorry.")

I then log on and find someone saying they'd like to kick my ass!

You'll understand then why I thought, well ok if that's the game I can play it. And hey, I worked as a welder for years, I can chuck insults about as well as anyone! You'd better believe it, lol ..

In short: I find it quite disapponting, but sadly not too surprising, that so many people on here Just. Won't. Listen. to anyting which involves thinking critically, and fearlessly, about Islam. There's a lot of talk about our values, and how they must be protected, but people generally don't understand what those values are, and if I can put it like this, what makes those values valuable. Perhaps it would be a good idea for anyone wanting to argue about Western values to start by reading "On Liberty" and only then joining the discussion, which I believe we urgently need to have in this country, on Islamic terrorism.

Ok, I'm definitely offski now, it really is late. I mean I know I'm working night shifts, but still, got to catch some sleep sometime, eh ..

55. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255524 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm

A class act to the last. - Diacanu.

And how would you know? Lol..

Hey this chucking insults about, instead of thinking about actual problems, reading political philosophy books and writing essays on John Stuart Mill and Machiavelli, studying Islam, the Knights of St. John, the history of the Mediterranean, and all that stuff, well it's way easier, and fun too. Maybe I'll just take a leaf out of all your books and do that instead of worrying about all that "reality based" stuff ..


gb.

ps I'm awa to my bed, it's late.

pps and Diacanu, if you feel the need to quote a post that's just above your own, new post, if you really think that literate people can't possibly read two posts in a row, then at the very least quote the whole post, that is to say, since you think you're being funny, don't forget the punchline! Later dude ..

56. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255522 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Please, don't stop, the meltdown is hilarious. - Diacanu.

Since I'm only using the same debating "tactics" as you, you will now realise how you are perceived whenever you speak.

But hey, at least I have a life to go back to off this rinky-dink little message board. Do you?

gb.

57. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255520 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Diacanu,

I'm not looking for your sympathy dumbass, I'm pointing out how thick you are. Your pal too. And root, it's you who seems to fail to understand that this is only a message board. Bytes on white, that's all. The point I was making in other words.

You know I've been dropping in and out of message boards like this for a few years now, and it's quite interesting to see the calibre of people who use them, and who like to hear themselves talk. You have people like Steve, who talk the talk about debating, logical thinking, being open to changing their mind, and all the rest of it. But whenever anyone, quoting John Stuart Mill no less, says well hey, you made a bit of an error in your thinking there, the best he can do is say, No, sorry, I'm not going to address any problems with my thinking, no sirree bob. I'm an annoying prick anyway, so there. By the way I have several masters degrees. Aye, right, lol ...

Diacanu, there's way way less to you than meets the eye. root, you're think as mince. But hey, go ahead and lick Steve's arse, you know he likes that just fine ... massage your own egos, go ahead.. stroke ... stroke ...

Have fun why don't you, after all that's the point of all your empty words, isn't it? It's not to address any, you know, actual problems with those harmless little old Islamic fellows ... our glorious leaders have told us that multiculturalism is in, so we must obey, seig heil, seig heil ... meanwhile here in the real world, it's the same old, same old ...

http://news.aol.co.uk/book-link-probed-after-petrol-bomb/article/2008092706324766142765

58. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255514 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Jesus you crowd are really something. Someone else makes a physical threat towards me, I point out that that's easy to do since they're never ever going to have to back it up, and that in any event they're talking to someone who as an ex-welder, weight lifter, & rugby player with a criminal record for "assault to injury" (a uniquely Scottish charge) finds the very idea of anyone threatening them laughable, I mean I'm sorry and I'm sure the person threatening me is scary in their own mind and everything, but ... nope, they just don't make my balls shrivel at all I'm afraid, lol ... - and you lot show your usual level of intellect, and decide that someone throwing threats about is ok, but the person being threatened saying, hey fuck you asshole, is all wrong.

As for "Steve": the best you can do is say hey I'm an annoying prick, so there? Way to go, Mr. Multiple Degrees. Stunning repartee there, you're the new Oscar Wilde, man!

This is indeed an oasis of clear thinking.

Not.

PS Diacanu: why don't you go off and do what you've been thinking of doing, you're so stupid, you're never going to get anywhere in life anyway. You might as well admit that to yourself now. But hey, you already know that, don't you?

59. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255505 by GoatBoy36 on September 27, 2008 at 8:51 pm

hawt4dawk,

"Goatboy -- I guess I'm one of "steve's boyz," 'cause I'd like to kick your ass for being such a patronising jerk to him."

Don't make me fucking laugh. Any time you actually fancy your chances, instead of just trying to sound tough on an internet board, book a flight to Aberdeen and let me know when you're landing, I'll meet you in the car park. I'll even phone and book an ambulance for you beforehand. You wouldn't be the first person I've sent to ARI.

gb.

60. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255065 by GoatBoy36 on September 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Comment #255062

Then be so kind as to extend the same courtesy to others as you expect yourself. And drop the tiresome ad hominem comments.

gb.

61. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255060 by GoatBoy36 on September 26, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Steve, I hate having to state the screamingly obvious, but Shariah is by definition against human rights. Fanusi

No, it isn't. Shariah is a very wide set of practices. To claim that someone wanting Shariah-compatible business funding, for example, is, because of that, against human rights is sheer lunacy. Steve Zara, comment 250659

Of course I acknowledge that Shariah is more than just business practices. What I am saying is that when someone says they want to use Shariah for business practices it does not mean that they also wish to use every last rule of Shariah in every aspect of their lives, or wish to impose all those rules on others. It might mean that for some people, but it is a fallacy to assume that all do. Please try and read things carefully. Steve Zara, comment 250848

62. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254785 by GoatBoy36 on September 26, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #254771 by GoatBoy36



Again: I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.


Sorry no.

Why not?

63. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254780 by GoatBoy36 on September 26, 2008 at 7:47 am

btw Steve,

I'd really appreciate it if you didn't insist on diverting the thread to your favourite topic (whoops, too late!), please don't be resistant to the evidence in those posts (your own words), don't use a "reset button" and don't carry on as if those posts (from myself) had never happened.

Basic logic: if one puts forward an argument that Islam is a threat to the United Kingdom (let's say), and upon reading that argument, another person (let's say, you) repeatedly engages in in fallacious, irrelevant, ad hominem posting, then it's well, the second person, that is to say: YOU, who are diverting each thread to YOUR favourite topic.

This is really, really basic stuff.

I suggest you read Nigel Warburton's "Thinking from A to Z". It's available on Amazon. Pay particular attention to pages 3 and 4.

gb.

64. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254771 by GoatBoy36 on September 26, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #254762 by Steve Zara

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3068,Palin-average-isnt-good-enough,Sam-Harris-Los-Angeles-Times,page60#250848

http://richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=3142&commentID=253627&URLtitle=When-Atheists-Attack&URLauthor=Sam-Harris--NEWSWEEK

Again: I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.

gb.

65. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254387 by GoatBoy36 on September 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Steve Zara,

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3142,When-Atheists-Attack,Sam-Harris--NEWSWEEK,page28#253627

I'd appreciate a reply.

Thank you.

gb.

66. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253724 by GoatBoy36 on September 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Bonzai, I observe once more that on this site, if you want to see religion in general disappear, it's all smiles. If you want one religion in particular to disappear, well, then people look at you funny (no, not you specifically; it just seemed like a good moment to bring it up). Fanusi

67. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253627 by GoatBoy36 on September 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Steve Zara,

Thanks for the response earlier. Can I just say that you appear to be a fairly decent & quite well educated person, and that's why I find it so disappointing when you litter your posts with (fallacious) ad hominem remarks. It's almost as if you can't help yourself. You mentioned in one of your earlier posts, did you not, that you were using a computer from a hotel in order to send in a post, "like an addict".

That's a subject I happen to know something about. So I hope you don't take it the wrong way, if I say to you that you might be going down that road, just a little bit. We can get addicted to all kind of things, it doesn't have to be heroin or vodka. Do you think that perhaps you are responding to Fanusi's posts in a way that's not good for you? That you are compulsive about it? Just be careful, Steve. (If anyone wants a good read on this particular topic, I recommend "Candy" by Luke Davis.)

Can I make a suggestion here? I know that I asked you earlier about John Stuart Mill, and you said that you had not read him. Well, one of Mill's arguments for freedom of speech was that (here's the nutshell version): ".. since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied." (Mill, On Liberty, Penguin, p. 116.) I find it useful to remind myself of Mill's argument, whenever I'm getting into it with someone on an internet board. It really does help to calm the waters.

On another thread on this site, I quoted Melanie Phillips, who has argued in her book Londonistan that "the attempt to take over our culture is even more deadly to this society than terrorism." And Bonzai argued that "we must say no to any suggestion of adopting Sharia of any kind, no matter how innocent it may sound. We have to close the door (to) Islamization by stealth." To which you responded, "You may be right." ( source )

On the same thread, decius wrote that, "I [...] think that by applying the existing laws without favouring any group on the basis of ethnic and religious sensibility, we would easily eradicate the Islamic threat." You responded by saying, "Absolutely. That is the solution." ( source )

I noted that "the UK government has taken steps to address our situation. There is a long term strategy ("CONTEST") in place which, among other things, seeks to tackle the radicalisation of Muslims in the UK. In light of that, it's now a criminal offence to "directly or indirectly to encourage the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism or to disseminate terrorist publications." (Source: Terrorism Act 2006.) There is also a list of "Unacceptable Behaviours" such as fomenting or glorifying violent jihad, or trying to persuade others to commit acts of violent jihad, which can be used to deport people from the UK. (Source: Home Office Press Release. )

We are starting to see people being arrested and convicted of terrorism-related crimes: Mohamed Ajmal Khan, Andrew Rowe, Saajid Badat and Kamel Bourgass have all been jailed, to give just a few examples. Interestingly, three young Muslims, Younes Tsouli, Waseem Mughal and Tariq Al-Daour, were recently prosecuted for using the internet to incite terrorism. A CPS lawyer said, "Behind the apparent normality of their daily lives, these young men firmly believed, supported and set about inciting others to follow an extreme ideology of violent holy war against so-called disbelievers."" (Source: Crown Prosecution Service archives.)

There are also people like Abdullah al-Faisal being deported once they have served a prison sentence. You've said that you're for all of this.

It doesn't seem to be enough for you though, for you've also said, "I am NOT for a gentle approach against those who wish to threaten society. I am deeply disappointed that harsher measures aren't taken against those preaching hate, and inciting violence" and "I would restrict any immigration from those who would not subscribe to the culture of human rights of the UK." ( source ) You have also said: "Enforce hate speech and incitement laws rigorously and with no pandering to cultures and religions." And, "Don't allow any new faith schools." (Steve Zara.)

All right then. What is one to make of this? Well, in the first place you agree with Fanusi that we have a problem with Islam, and you prefer a solution which involves depriving some British citizens of their liberty, and in certain cases, of their right to live in this country. Not only that, you believe that some people shouldn't even be allowed into the UK in the first place. And new faith schools are out.

Given your own stated position then, I remain unimpressed by your attempt to argue with me earlier, on the basis that if we allow our government to start taking away people's liberties, we're on the path to disaster. Slippery slope arguments aren't too impressive at the best of times, and I didn't take yours seriously. It's worth pointing out here though, that if you take what you said seriously, if you actually meant what you said, then you're arguing against your own position. Be sure to send in a post later letting everyone know how you've gotten on, once you're done arguing with yourself.

Remembering Mill's argument for freedom of speech, it appears that there isn't too much distance between what you and Fanusi propose in order to combat Islamic radicalism. Fanusi would take away the citizenship of those who engage in behaviour that is not conducive to the public good (as the legislation which you support puts it), which I assume would involve taking away their passport and kicking them out of the country. You would kick such people out of the country, which would involve either taking away their citizenship, or rendering any rights they have as UK citizens null and void, since they couldn't live in this country any more.

To anyone actually being told, "Fuck off and don't come back," the two policies would, I submit to you, seem remarkably similar.

In light of your stated position, how similar it actually is to Fanusi's, and your cordial response to bonzai's suggestion that there should be no Shariah at all in the UK, I have to say that your continual insults aimed at Fanusi are not only irrelevant, but appear to be quite irrational.

If you have never read Mill's "On Liberty" I recommend you do so, it's probably the classic text on the subject. As Mill said, whenever we argue for something, we ought not to assume we are infallible, because history has shown us that all too often, those who believed they were on the firmest of footing have been shown to be wrong. And when there are some disagreements between two points of view on the same topic, it's only by discussing them that we can move forward. There may be an argument to be made that Sharia ought to be resisted in the UK in all its forms. On the other hand, maybe the Islamic religion cannot be followed without the adoption, on a personal basis, of some of what is termed "Sharia". And this might be thought by some to be acceptable. Although I must say that the more I read of the history of Islamic thought (and deed!) the more I am inclined to agree with Bonzai and Fanusi. But I am no more infallible than the next person. There's plenty that could be said on this subject. No question about it. Surely it's possible to do so in a reasonable, grown up manner, here on this "clear thinking oasis."

68. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251567 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

I wonder if Sarah Palin has nice soft hands ...


Just thinking what a lot of us are thinking, not what some people might think we should be thinking...

69. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251560 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Sargeist,

That's a Finnish band, right?

How about a little bit of Gamma Ray?

Or Stuck Mojo?

One of my big regrets is never seeing Helloween back when Kai Hansen (of Gamma Ray) & Michael Kiske were with them. I was actually in Hamburg when they were going to do a gig one time, back in the 80s, but I ended up drinking a bottle of Russian vodka and woke up the next morning in the hospital. As you do.

gb. (edited to fart about with hyperlinks)

70. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251555 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Brian,

And what would be so worrying is not merely the fact that a group of politicians would have so much power. It's what they would do with it. Which brings me back to my original point/worry: what if our leaders, for whatever reason, continue to remove their breeks, bend over and tell every passing Muslim to have their way with them? And then instruct all of us to do likewise? The more power politicians have (your point) the worse my original problem becomes, surely?

71. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251419 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm

RedfootOkie,

That's the most intelligent thing I've read on this entire website. (Well, one of the funniest anyway!) Good one!

Edit: At least until I read Brian's post, that's a fucking classic!

gb.

72. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251416 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Steve,

So you'll only enter into debate with people you consider your friends?

I wonder what you're doing here then.

gb.

73. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251409 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Diacanu,

That looks pretty good, what would be best to get into the series, trying one of the novels, or one of the DVDs? I had a quick look on Amazon and they've got quite a few different things in stock.

Edit: I bought the first novel from the book depository. I get a lot of stuff from them, & already have an account there.

gb.

74. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251404 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm

"But I won't engage in friendly debate with fanatics." Steve Zara.

Unfriendly debate, then? How admirable.

gb.

75. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251400 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:33 pm

decius,

That's more like a post. If your earlier post had contained any information at all about the actual issues, I would have "known" that it was actually about the issues.

But it wasn't. So I didn't.

btw I don't know if you caught it but I did send in a post after I remembered the name of that Russian gadgie. (The Russian version of John Muir was the best I could do at the time.) Anyway, here's the book, & the boy who wrote it, if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin

76. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251390 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Diacanu,

I've been meaning to ask for ages, what's your avatar? It's pretty cool like.

gb.

77. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251385 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm

decius,

so that wasn't an ad hominem attack just now then ... no, no of course not.

78. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251383 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Sargeist,

what ggab said, lol ...

79. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251376 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Sargeist,

I think that more people will like you if you think what you think instead of what you think other people think you should think. But that's just me. ;-)

gb.

80. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251372 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Titania,

I did look but that PM doesn't appear to have come through (yet). I'll check again later though.

gb.

81. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251363 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:57 am

Steve Zara,

GB layeth the smacketh down.

So far as Obama goes, I bought his biography on CD and tried to listen to it in the car, but found that he was unable to make his own life even a little bit interesting. Inspirational? Hardly. The experience didn't exactly make me want to see Obama in charge of anything at all, let alone the United States of America.

gb.

82. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251359 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:54 am

Sargeist,

Hey that's all right man, don't worry about it. Your girlfriend sounds great btw. We've got a Muslim dr working with us, and he insists on laying out his prayer mat and going for it. While on shift. Sometimes we're quiet, but sometimes there's work to be done (as in: patients to be seen) and still he'll get going with the washing through in the bathroom thing, and the whole ridiculous supersititous charade.

We looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently if something "unclean" occurs between washing & praying one has to go back to the start & do it all over again. So we decided that if we looked at the rota & discovered our little Muslim friend was on that we would have a nice beef curry that night ... and wait until the washing part of the ceremony was over before letting out a nice big juicy fart ..

83. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251347 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:41 am

"It boils down to this. Who do you want defusing a bomb that could kill tens of millions of people in the middle east? A hotheaded aging fighter jock with a poor flying record? A "hockey mom" who thinks she is on a mission from God, and considers "not blinking" the critical executive skill she brings to the table?" Brian.

Beautifully summarised. :-) I was feeling a bit tired after a few shift changes, and was looking forward to having a good night's kip, but I just might be having the odd nightmare now.

gb.

84. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251344 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:36 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466818/Historys-bloodiest-siege-used-human-heads-cannonballs.html

We all support the Knights of Malta & what they did, right? We're all glad they existed, right? If a group exists who are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat your enemy, then what choice do you have, but support them as they try to do so?

gb.

85. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251330 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:20 am

Brian,

My worry would be, in fact my worry is, not that there will be an overwhelming number of Muslims living in the UK any time soon, but that those that do actually live here are somehow making themselves seem so politically significant that our leaders pull down their trousers, bend over, and say take me I'm yours. (On our behalf, naturally.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEAdxqq3ITU&feature=related

(Is is just me or can you hear the PM's tummy rumbling ten seconds into that clip?)

86. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251323 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:11 am

"Never mind the oft stated, when things get worse, "I'll grow a beard and go down to my local mosque." At this point you're probably already visiting the local Sikh temple as well as your local Fundie church to recruit people for your crusade. Strange bed-fellows you have. You can indeed tell a lot about a person from the company they keep." ColdFusionLazarus (to Fanusi)

WTF! Holy Christ, man. I visited Malta recently, and couldn't help admiring the Knights of St. John. I even posted elsewhere on this site about them. That doesn't mean I'm about to become a Catholic any time soon.

But (and it's a big but) it's always worth remembering that they stood against the Muslim forces that sought to overcome Europe. Their resolve, their "code" was what it took to do that.

I believe Fanusi's point would be something like: that IS sometimes what it takes. And you bunch of lily-livered piners don't have it in you.

If you sincerely believe Islam to be a threat, and a nuclear Islam to be a dire threat which absolutely MUST be overcome, and if there is only a Christian group saying that, & they're the only ones willing to do anything about it, then what option do you have but support their efforts, in the short term at least, as they attempt to achieve that particular goal? They're the only game in town.

I believe that would be something like Fanusi's position. So, if you would be so kind as to deal with what's actually been said, instead of what has not ... here on this "clear thinking oasis".

gb.

87. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251316 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 11:01 am

Sargeist,

No I'm not. I've posted on the board for a while now, as you'll see if you click on the link at the bottom of the post. I was just trying to say in a light hearted kind of way that your average male person would kick the logical, reasoning part of their software into action normally upon hearing that a big old fundy Xian was about to get into power in America, but whenever one sees Sarah Palin that program just doesn't run straight away, because there's another program running automatically that kind of overrides it for a while. If you know what I mean.

Brian,

Of course one should focus in on the issues, all I was saying was that your average male would agree with that, but would perhaps say (to themselves), well yes I'm going to think about the issues ... in a moment ...

yours in good humour boys,

gb.

88. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251299 by GoatBoy36 on September 21, 2008 at 10:48 am

Brian,

re: post 230

did you not argue quite a while ago that people of the male gender tended to go a bit gooey round Ayaan Hirsi Ali, well is the same thing not happening here to some extent, after all whenever you see a photo of Sarah Palin the first thing that comes into your mind is not: she's a Christian .. no, no, we all know what the first thing we all think about is ... right now for example, just writing this short post about Sarah Palin and .. well, I'm not exactly thinking about the bible ..

gb.

89. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250848 by GoatBoy36 on September 20, 2008 at 3:58 pm

"Shariah is by definition against human rights." Fanusi. (post 2910.)

"No it isn't. Shariah is a very wide set of practices. To claim that someone wanting Shariah compatible business funding, for example, is, because of that, against human rights is sheer lunacy." Steve Zara. (post 2939.)


Steve,

You have committed an obvious fallacy here. (The fallacy of composition.) One can make an assertion about the attributes of part of a whole. That assertion may be correct. But it does not follow that what is true for the part is also true for the whole.

An example (going back to my engineering days): It may be true to say that I and my apprentice could lift a header tank for a Kelvin marine diesel engine. It does not follow that the two of us could lift the whole engine.

You acknowledge that Shariah is much more than just financing businesses, yet proceed to ignore everything but that one part of it. It's really disappointing to come on to a website like this, which is advertised as "a clear thinking oasis" and find such obviously fallacious reasoning passing for actual debate.

I see that you have accused someone else of using an "infantile debating technique". Really!

90. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250243 by GoatBoy36 on September 19, 2008 at 6:23 am

Laurie,

For the love of fuck man, what's wrong with your powers of comprehension? The "extermination of Muslims" indeed! It's you who nees to get a grip!

gb.

91. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250239 by GoatBoy36 on September 19, 2008 at 6:10 am

"Descending next to the other qualities cited before, I say that each prince should desire to be held merciful and not cruel; nonetheless he should take care not to use this mercy badly. Cesare Borgia was held to be cruel; nonetheless his cruelty restored the Romagna, united it, and reduced it to peace and to faith. If one considers this well, one will see that he was much more merciful than the Florentine people, who so as to escape a name for cruelty, allowed Pistoia to be destroyed. (From 1500 to 1502 Pistoia, a city subject to Florence, was torn by factional disputes and riots.) A prince, therefore, so as to keep his subjects united and faithful, should not care about the infamy of cruelty, because with very few examples he will be much more merciful than those who for the sake of too much mercy allow disorders to continue, from which come killings or robberies; for these customarily hurt a whole community, but the executions that come from the prince hurt one particular person." (Machiavelli, The Prince, University of Chicago Press, trans. by Harvey C. Mansfield, pp. 65-66.)

"Thus, you must know that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. The first is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first is often not enough, one must have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to know well how to use the beast and the man. This role was taught covertly to princes by ancient writers, who wrote that Achilles, and many other ancient princes, were given to Chiron the centaur to be raised, so that he would look after them with his discipline. To have as teacher a half-beast, half-man means nothing other than that a prince needs to know how to use both natures; and the one without the other is not lasting.

Thus, since a prince is compelled of necessity to know well how to use the beast, he should use the fox and the lion, because the lion does not defend itself from snares and the fox does not defend itself from wolves. So one needs to be a fox to recognise snares and a lion to frighten the wolves. Those who stay simply with the lion do not understand this." (ibid., pp. 68-69.)

It is obvious to anyone on this board who is actually prepared to sit down and read, as opposed to those who merely allow words to pass before their eyes, that Fanusi's argument is that the West should take steps now to maintain our own societies, rather than wait until we reach a point where we would have to use measures that are much more costly.

Using Machiavelli's phrase from The Prince, our doing nothing to defend ourselves while our society deteriorates (being guilty of "a sort of lazy fatalism", one might say) would be a bad use of mercy, because in the long run it would end up with even more people being harmed. And Machiavelli's talk of executions doesn't necessarily mean that the UK ought to bring back the death penalty. One can clearly see the logic that is being employed in these passages. Machiavelli says that there are two "modes of fighting" and that the first is "in accordance with the laws". (Machiavelli, The Prince, Penguin, trans. by Peter Bondanella, p. 60.) A prince who only ever uses force, Machiavelli argues, is in error: "those who base their behaviour only on the lion do not understand things." (ibid., p. 60.) And in Chapter 8 of The Prince, Machiavelli says that Agathocles, who did not shy away from using violent means to obtain, or hold on to power, was not a virtuoso prince: "his vicious cruelty and inhumanity, along with numerous wicked deeds, do not permit us to honour him among the most excellent of men." (ibid., p. 32.)

It's now the twenty-first century, and we don't expect Gordon Brown to act like Phil Leotardo from The Sopranos and have people "whacked" just because they don't know the words to the national anthem. But we can reasonably expect our own government to implement laws, and for those laws to be enforced effectively, so that we are protected from an alien ideology which not only inspires believers to commit terrorist acts against us, but also directs them to infiltrate, and to degrade, our culture.

We do have a means of fighting available to us that is, as Machiavelli says, proper for man (as in humankind). And the UK government has taken steps to address our situation. There is a long term strategy ("CONTEST") in place which, among other things, seeks to tackle the radicalisation of Muslims in the UK. In light of that, it's now a criminal offence to "directly or indirectly to encourage the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism or to disseminate terrorist publications." (Source: Terrorism Act 2006.) There is also a list of "Unacceptable Behaviours" such as fomenting or glorifying violent jihad, or trying to persuade others to commit acts of violent jihad, which can be used to deport people from the UK. (Source: Home Office press release.)

And we are starting to see people being arrested and convicted of terrorism-related crimes: Mohamed Ajmal Khan, Andrew Rowe, Saajid Badat and Kamel Bourgass have all been jailed, to give just a few examples. Interestingly, three young Muslims, Younes Tsouli, Waseem Mughal and Tariq Al-Daour, were recently prosecuted for using the internet to incite terrorism. A CPS lawyer said, "Behind the apparent normality of their daily lives, these young men firmly believed, supported and set about inciting others to follow an extreme ideology of violent holy war against so-called disbelievers." (Source: Crown Prosecution Service archives.)

Still, using the law of the land to fight people who have declared the West to be their enemy may not always be enough, and we need to be able to use different means to achieve the same goal. If a terrorist is to be stopped as he (or she) is about to let loose a bomb in a crowded public space, then we need armed police to do just that. Persuasion or negotiation won't work, as we all know. (Or should know by now.) As a last resort then, the state should have the power to kill those who would do its citizens harm. Going back to Machiavelli's argument in Chapter 17 of The Prince: if there is no other option, then the state needs to be able to hurt one particular person, in order to prevent them from hurting a whole community.

Just to clarify: I don't think the death penalty, used by the state in the form of a sentence handed down by a court, is something the UK ought to even consider here, because I don't believe it would be an effective deterrent. Think of the passage in Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower where some of the mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan set up a row of white tents out in the open, so that the Soviet choppers could see them: "We want to die!" they wailed. If the death penalty wouldn't act as a deterrent, then what good is it? All right, giving someone the red card would take them out of the game altogether, but we can also take people out of the game by sending them to jail (and keeping them there). Let's do that then.

Steve Zara's view seems to be that, in accordance with John Stuart Mill's writings on the subject, there is a line that can be crossed when it comes to freedom of speech, and that offenders should be punished by the state using legal means. Apparently Steve does not think that doing this is "unethical" or "politically very dangerous". And as I said earlier on, this is already happening.

Fanusi has argued that citizenship in Western countries should be contingent on one's renouncing Shariah. If Steve disagrees with this, I can only point back at the previous paragraph, and note again that the UK government already has a list of "unacceptable behaviours" which include supporting violent jihad, and if anyone is found to have engaged in such behaviour, they're out the door! What connection is there between Shariah and violent jihad? That's a good question.

Here's another one: Is violent jihad all we need to concern ourselves with? Melanie Phillips has written that, "the attempt to take over our culture is even more deadly to this society than terrorism." (Phillips, Londonistan, Gibson Square, p. vii.)

"Fanusi is clearly very knowledgeable about the subject of Islamism and he is clearly very frightened of what the future may hold. This has led him to contemplate measures that we in free societies (well fairly free) find hard to stomach. How can we avoid the fate Fanusi sees for the West and the world without compromising Western values? Fanusi is very close to giving up hope that this is possible. We need to find the solutions that will avoid the fate that Fanusi fears is close to inevitable, yet preserve our values and our civilization. Let's please discuss these things without anger and name-calling." (Titania, post 2823.)

Amen, sister!

92. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249957 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I don't think the thesaurus in "Word" works with two words at a time. ;-)

I've really got to get off to my bed, it's 3am here ..

gb.

93. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249950 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm

On the use of "plausible". I think I'm right in saying that the word comes from the Latin "plausibilis" meaning worthy of applause, or acceptable. (Which is how Brandy appears to take it; maybe it's an American English thing?) On the other hand, that's not how it is commonly used nowadays (at least not in the UK). If anyone has "Word" on their PC & has the default language set to English (United Kingdom) then try typing "plausible" in, then highlighting it and clicking on the thesaurus button. See what you get.

94. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249921 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Brandy,

That's actually quite an interesting word. I believe it comes originally from Old French, and was used by the French in a derogatory way to refer to the Normans, who used to say "Bi God" quite a lot. It evolved, and was used against Catholic nuns in particular, then a religious person of whatever stripe who would say one thing, but do another, and eventually in the 17th century was used to refer to hypocrites in general (not just religious ones). As I said, quite an interesting word. More interesting than "shim" anyway!

gb.

95. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249916 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm

A general knowledge post here: the word "shim" is a noun, which as any engineer (or reader of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance") will tell you refers to a thin piece of metal which is used as a distance piece, to help one do things like line up an engine, say, before finally heaving up the bolts holding it down.

I believe the term has been used in software engineering as well, when one fills in one or two memory locations, in order to make one's program work properly.

It does seem then, that anyone wanting to use the word for any other purpose is (to say the least) misusing the English language. They also haven't read Robert Pirsig!

96. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249899 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Titania,

Since you asked about books a little while ago, I would have to recommend "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. An interesting guy, and a good writer too. He's got a pretty decent blog/website at:

http://www.brucebawer.com/

Another book that's a right good read is "Empires of the Sea" by Roger Crowley. Also "White Gold" by Giles Milton.

I'm not sure to what degree we should see historical events as part of the context of our current dealings with the Islamic faith. One thing I do know though, is that the assertion that Islam has always been peaceful, and has only brought good things to the West is obviously, shatteringly false!

97. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249639 by GoatBoy36 on September 18, 2008 at 11:42 am

To anyone who argues that the Muslim population is so low in this country and throughout Europe, and will remain low in the years to come ... perhaps you might want to ask yourself why it is that politicians throughout this country and throughout Europe are bending over backwards to kowtow to, what did Nairb say, 2 per cent of the total population? Something's up with your little old argument somewhere, methinks ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEAdxqq3ITU

98. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #248502 by GoatBoy36 on September 16, 2008 at 10:38 am

SPS,

I happened to catch the end of a programme on TV just last night, a documentary on Sky about the merchant seamen who had taken part in "Operation Pedestal" during WWII. Even now, as they told their story, they would tear up, and I'm not ashamed to say that I did too.

I drove a taxi for a little while and got to know some of the elderly people in my area, some of whom became regular passengers. One had fought the Japanese in WWII, apparently had led a bayonet charge against them, which is something! One old dear had lived in Coventry when she was little, and had to dive beneath the kitchen table more than once, and count the "sticks" of bombs dropping, hoping they would miss her house. Absolutely inspirational, I used to like helping them out in my modest little way, driving them about, and wished sometimes I could have done more.

My uncle Jimmy was a "desert rat" and fought in north Africa, his tank was "brewed up" more than once. He had shrapnel and bits of steel still in his body, I always remember him telling me about the Ghurkas - they used to creep about in the dark and feel your helmet as you crouched down in your foxhole. If you had the Brit style helmet they would give it a little pat, and once you had recovered from your MI, they'd whisper in your ear, "Hello Tommy, hee hee ..." If your helmet was the German style, well they had their kukris all ready ..

I also had several relatives in the merchant navy, coming from a seafaring community, and not many of them came back from WWII.

99. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #248488 by GoatBoy36 on September 16, 2008 at 10:09 am

Fanusi,

I just read the spines of the books on my bookshelf when I wrote the post, and I forgot that I had lent one to someone at work. It should be on that list.

Here it is.

gb.

100. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #248388 by GoatBoy36 on September 16, 2008 at 6:38 am

"The Great Siege of Malta was one of the decisive actions in the history of the Mediterranean - indeed, of the Western world." Ernle Bradford.

"If you are going to protect your society when push comes to shove, you need to be sure that there will be many who will fight and die in order to protect your society. You need that basic, visceral loyalty. If your society doesn't have that, be prepared to lose against those who do have that. It's really straightforward: those societies capable of mobilizing large numbers of their own people in a time of war, will win." (Fanusi, post 2489.)

"Rational self interest just isn't enough of a motivational force. You need a code of honor, because it is only a code of honor that can inspire the fanaticism that is necessary. Yes, fanaticism. If your society can't invoke fanaticism when it's necessary, then you are at a deadly disadvantage to those that can." (Fanusi, post 2040.)

"Codes of honour do not come cheap ..." Lee Harris.



On 18th May 1565, Sulieman the Magnificent's naval forces arrived off the shores of Malta. They intended to take both the island and its sister, Gozo. The Knights of St. John, who at that time were led by Jean Parisot de la Valette, were waiting. The islanders themselves sheltered with the Knights in a series of fortresses throughout the island. All foodstuffs left outside had been destroyed, and any wells poisoned, so that the Turkish forces would have no means of supporting themselves when they came ashore.

Sulieman had assembled a massive fleet: One hundred and eighty warships, and another eleven merchant ships carrying supplies. But the Turkish forces failed to take Malta. By 8th September, the invaders had been driven out of St. Paul's Bay, and were in full retreat.

The historian Ernle Bradford wrote, "Malta, and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, had survived. The price of victory was a high one. [...] On every hand they (a relief force) were shown places where Turks had attacked, and where men known to them by name had died. "And here Juan de la Cerda fell .." "And there a band of Maltese swimmers sallied forth .." "And here the nephew of the Grand Master was cut down in front of the great tower .." The ground in front of Birgu still quaked and chasms opened suddenly as the roofs of the old mine-tunnellings fell in. They saw the great crumbled breach where the bastion of Castile had gone up on that fateful morning and, as Vertot tells us, "Their hearts were filled with unspeakable anguish.""

Has anyone here been to Malta, and walked down Republic Street in Valletta? Try to imagine what it must have been like when that city didn't exist (it was built after the siege, and named after the Grand Master of the Knights) and the Turkish forces covered all of Mount Sciberras, as they lay siege to St. Elmo. The Knights stationed there held out against overwhelming odds for 31 days, until finally, the fort fell to the Muslims.

The Knights of St. John did not just have a real set of balls. They had a code of honour. Knights would sail across the Grand Harbour under cover of darkness to a certain fate at St. Elmo. They knew they would never sail back again. Still they went to help their brothers, and to fight their enemy.

When St. Elmo fell, Mustapha Pasha ordered the bodies of the leading Knights beheaded, and their trunks nailed to cross beams in mockery of the crucifixion. (Some commentators say that the sign of the cross was cut into the breasts of the Knights, and their hearts cut out before they were decapitated.) The Muslims launched the mutilated bodies of the Knights into the Grand Harbour, so they would land at the Knights' fort at St. Angelo.

Mustapha Pasha, one of the Turkish commanders, believed that an enemy could be cowed by such acts of cruelty, but if he thought that the Grand Master of the Knights would bend to his will, he was mistaken. La Valette immediately ordered all the Turkish prisoners beheaded, and used cannon to fire the heads back across Grand Harbour to Mount Sciberras. La Valette had fought Muslims all his life, and he understood well the fanaticism of his enemy. With this action, he let them know that the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem would fight them to the death. No quarter would be asked for, and none would be given.

It's worth noting here that not one of the Maltese people defected to the side of the Muslims during the siege. In fact they played an important role in defending the island. This isn't surprising, for they knew their enemy as well as the Grand Master did: the Turkish admiral Dragut, who died on Malta during the siege, had landed on Gozo in 1552 and carried almost everyone there off as slaves. (Yes, the Muslim forces throughout the Mediterranean practiced slavery - big time.)

The Muslims targeted the remaining forts on Senglea and Birgu, and bombarded the hell out of them. The situation was grave, when the Turks suddenly retreated. They believed that a relief force had arrived from Siciliy and taken them in the rear. Actually a force led by the Governor of Mdina had, upon hearing the Muslims' bombardment of Senglea and Birgu, attacked their encampment in the Marsa. Ernle Bradford wrote, "They came down off the slopes above the Marsa like demons of vengeance. In the first charge they overwhelmed the sentries. Then the cavalry were among the tents occupied only by the sick, the wounded, and the few slaves who tended them. The guy-ropes to the tents were cut, and their silk and canvas was set afire. Provisions and stores were destroyed. The grazing horses were killed, hamstrung, or taken back to Mdina. The Turks were slaughtered as they lay defenceless in their ruined camp. It was a massacre." Chevalier Mesquita, the Governor of Mdina, had saved the day.

There is a lot more to the Great Siege than this, and we all know now that the Muslim forces were defeated on Malta. At the time though, it took the iron resolve of the Knights of St. John to successfully defend the island from Sulieman the Magnificent. And at any one of a series of points during the siege, things could have taken a different turn altogether. The consequences would have been staggering.

"It was the Sultan himself who pointed out that Malta was the stepping stone to Sicily, and beyond that, to Italy and southern Europe." The conflict in Malta needs to be understood in context: together with our victories at Tours, Lepanto and Vienna, the Great Siege of 1565 was a crucial moment in the history of Western civilisation. The Muslim forces who wanted to reach out into the Mediterranean, and into mainland Europe, were stopped dead in their tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siege_of_malta_1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siege_of_malta_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Siege_of_malta_3.jpg

The Order was founded by Brother Gerard, who was the head of a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem which was established round about 1080. And it still exists today, as the SMOM, and has over 80 000 volunteers and 13 000 medical personnel which allows it to send help to victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts. In the sixteenth century though, the Knights were engaged in a running battle with the Muslim forces that were trying to expand into, and throughout, Europe. And we should all be glad they were.

Just as we should all be glad that men of the same calibre existed during the second World War. Once again, Malta became a critical site, in a much larger conflict. Under siege from both the Italian and Nazi air forces, Malta was bombed to bits. (To anyone greeting now about our bombing Germany or Japan: what the hell do you think the fucking Germans did to Malta? Greet about that for a while, why don't you?) Many young men fought in the air against vastly superior forces. The crews of the submarines based in Malta during WWII were outstanding. Everyone on the island of Malta deserved a medal, as they say. And in 1942, the island of Malta was awarded the George Cross, "to bear witness to a heroism that will long be famous in history." Quite so.

To anyone who would argue against Lee Harris' view that societies, no matter how "civilised" they may be, need a group of people who are willing to be "not good" towards their enemies, and who have a code of honour which binds them together, and prevents them from turning upon the society which they protect: you're talking absolute bollocks.

If the Knights of St. John hadn't done exactly what they did when they defended Malta, and the rest of Europe, against the Muslim fanatics fighting on behalf of Sulieman the Magnificent; if the young pilots from Britain, the Commonwealth, and America hadn't fought as they did against the Italian and Nazi air forces; if the merchant seamen taking part in Operation Pedestal (Look it up!) had not made it through to Valletta, then we would all have been totally fucked. Twice.

http://www.freewebs.com/bernardhoganmaltaitalyww2/malta2007.htm

I travelled to Malta in February of this year, and I visited the Siege Bell in Valletta, to pay tribute to those who died there in WWII. And in recognition of those who, throughout history, have fought against the true forces of totalitarianism, I am obliged to say here, to all those who would deny that the actions of the Knights of St. John, the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces, and the people of Malta, were necessary, and would criticise anyone who says otherwise: not only are you in denial about the true nature of the world, you are intellectually weak, morally corrupt, and as citizens of the very societies which so many men and women have given their lives for, you are, quite honestly, beneath contempt.

yours sincerely,

gb.

Suggested reading list:

The Great Siege, by Ernle Bradford.
The Shield and The Sword, by Ernle Bradford.
Angels of Iron, by Nicholas Prata.
Fortress Malta, by James Holland.
Lone Survivor, by Marcus Luttrell.

(Edited to add a quote from Ernle Bradford.)