Thanks for the post. It's always a good comeback to those people who (a) think that rights are granted by the government or (b) think that they are terribly witty if they ask, "But do you need a gun?"

I just finished teaching my section of freshman composition today. They were writing about Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson. And I will consider my job done if I get them to really have a gut-level understanding of what "inalienable rights" actually means.

Osama bin Laden hated our freedom to station our troops in Saudi Arabia.

Osama also cited Andalus. 3 points to Monkyboy if he can tell us what Osama was talking about without using google or reference texts, and when it happened.

Alas, I had to look it up. No soup for me.

A long memory seems to be the hallmark of the warlike...a long memory for losses, that is.

Notice how the Confederacy is still an important undercurrent in neocon politics. Vietnam, too. And neocons talk about Carter and Clinton like they were still running things from the White House.

Letting go of the past is an important part of successful, modern societies.

Letting go of the past is an important part of successful, modern societies.

Unless it is Vietnam, Watergate, or Iran-contra. Those 3 historical examples are apparently all encompassing.

Al-Andlus is very much to the point. It is a grievance to be redressed in infidel blood. (One of an infinite list of such grievances.)

The Reconquista was not about the right to own a gun. It was about defeating and expelling Muslim forces in the Iberian Peninsular.

The power structure that replaced Muslim domination included the Spanish Inquisition, so it was not about freedom.

As our enemies (such as the late Abu Musab Al Zarqawi) see it, democracy is an evil to be destroyed, but it doesn't really matter if we refuse to submit to them because we uphold our freedoms or because we uphold something else. What is decisive is that we remain legitimate targets of jihad, holy war, unless we totally submit to Allah and his requirements as defined by his legitimate interpreters, that is them.

The gunpoint conversions of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig illustrate what is wanted. (So are Muslim videos such as the decapitation of Nick Berg. Our enemies want our blood; they love death.)

Guns in the hands of men and women who reject that demand to submit are a good illustration of the proper spirit in which to reply to Islam's demands. They are not, at root, the cause of the war.

It seems strange to be arguing against Jeff Cooper directly after his death. But from what I have read of him, he would have accepted this: if you think something is a mistake, you can say so.

I respect that. So here's to you, Jeff Cooper.

If it's really about what you say, why don't the terrorists try anything against China, a country where freedom is rapidly expanding?

Why bother with America, where freedoms are disappearing daily?

Maybe all this "clash of civilizations" b.s. is just an excuse so "capitalists" can use U.S. troops to stand guard while they loot Muslim oil stocks.

China is hardly a paragon of freedom right now. Just ask the Tibetians, the openly religious, just about any internet-based company or website that does business in China, etc. etc. etc. Jihadis prefer soft targets. The PRC has a history of responding to percieved internal threats with overwhelming force. It's not that they take the gloves off, but they never had gloves in the first place.

And exactly what freedoms are disappearing in the US? If you cite the 2nd Amendment, yeah you might have a point there.

Notice how the Confederacy is still an important undercurrent in neocon politics.

I nominate this as the stupidest thing monkyboy has ever said.

Before you jump all over me with your favorite monkyboy quotes, hear me out. Any fool can repeat the dunderheaded formulas of the cretin-proletariat left, but this is an example of original stupidity.

And it goes to show that I'm right to say that your average left-liberal can't get through a discussion of anything without using the word "neocon", and yet there is not one single person in the entire Democratic Party who knows what a neocon is - except for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is dead.

Glen,
I hesitate to commit myself, but you are likely correct.

"why don't the terrorists try anything against China"

Well, I have read reports of terror attacks in China's Muslim provinces.

Back in the 1800's travellers to the Middle East were reporting KKK-style violence against infidels who did not display the proper subservience. We oppress Islam by not licking its boots. That is the fundamental objection.

"If it's really about what you say, why don't the terrorists try anything against China, a country where freedom is rapidly expanding?"

There are rumors that Al Queda did some bus bombings in China in retaliation for China's program against its Uigar population. The Chinese government effectively squelched all coverage of the event. Without a media outlet, terrorism just whithers and dies. That, and China can respond by imprisoning a few thousand Uigar's without trial and it doesn't make a blip on anyone's radar. Terrorism is a disasterous strategy to employ against a strong and ruthless authority. Just ask the Zealots about thier experience fighting Rome.

Ask another easy one.

"Why bother with America, where freedoms are disappearing daily?"

The question answers itself, or would, if the person asking the question had any intellectual honesty, couriousity, or integrity. But you didn't expect an answer when you asked the question, and didn't think you needed one. Hense, you'll always be ignorant.