Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Reverse-Engineered Taqiyyah

 
Earlier today I wrote and posted a bitter satire which several readers (and at least one spouse) considered somewhat — um — intemperate. Wiser heads prevailed, so I took it down.

Deleting my post left me feeling dissatisfied and stifled. After mulling it over, I decided to revisit the same topic, this time without the irony. This post will be serious. Dead serious.

One of the advantages of a site meter is the ability to monitor visitors’ searches. Presumably most bloggers are familiar with the disgusting and perverted things that people are trying to find on the internet — if a few of the keywords match, sure enough, they show up at your site. We get our share of these visitors, mainly because of Dympha’s concerns regarding the treatment of Muslim women.

However, Gates of Vienna has its own special class of search engine referrals. It started back in July, and for some reason the same search string often recurs verbatim: “how to make a bomb — jihad.” Once we mentioned it in our posts, of course, our search-engine profile on the topic went up, and we got more and more of them. There are variations:
  ·  make a bomb
  ·  how to make bomb
  ·  make bomb islam
  ·  how to make a simple bomb at home
  ·  make bomb kill jews
  ·  etc.
But they all boil down to the same thing.

What gives one pause is this: the certainty that somewhere out in the world, at the other end of those searches, are people who want to do us harm, evil, twisted minds that long to attain paradise by killing as many infidels as possible. Every day more searchers arrive here, a steady drip… drip… drip of rancid malevolence.

And those who appear here are just the searchers in English — what about those in Arabic? Or Pashtun, or Urdu, or Swahili, or Turkish, or Farsi, or Tagalog, or…

Moreover, those who wash up at the Gates of Vienna are but a sample. Instead of this nest of kaffirs in the heart of Dar-al-Harb, the more intelligent and adept jihadis have long since found their way to the real bomb-making instructions. Think of the thousands upon thousands who must be out there searching. Some of them are in the West. Some are in America. And some are right down the road.

After a while, it does weigh a body down.

My fantasy is to draw in these deadly Islamists and prepare an ingenious trap designed solely for the unwary mujahid, and — like a genetically-tailored virus which will infect only one host — cause them to self-destruct.

That’s what I want.

Call it reverse-engineered taqiyyah.

34 comments:

a4g said...

Baron,

While dhimmification is never an option when dealing with Islam, the wise man knows there is always a place for it at home.

I must admit that Mrs. a4g has steered me away from the satirical precipice more than once. (A certain Rosa Parks post comes to mind-- but I swear it was a tribute-- however convoluted.) The Evil Emperor has a special graveyard at Point Five he calls the "Emperor's Private Stock."

Your post may be lost to Gates, but it will live on-- Fahrenheit 451 style-- in the heart and minds of those who read it.

(Let's hope the instructions spread like wildfire through the jihadi ranks-- I'll be watching the news for efficacy.)

Redneck Texan said...

Sorry I missed it, but if it was more extreme than:

like a genetically-tailored virus

I am impressed Baron.

You can't dwell on the cultural war of annihilation for too long without always coming to the only logical conclusion....the ugly one....that we cant both be here at the end of this century.

Technology has advanced too far to allow a billion people on the other side of the planet to harbor dreams of our destruction. If they possessed a "genetically-tailored virus" that targeted infidels they would apply it immediately without remorse.

The tough choices still lie ahead. I would keep a copy of your pulled post handy...someday the truth wont seem as offensive to your readers as it may now.

Baron Bodissey said...

a4g -- uber-LOL! Dymphna and I like to died laughing at your comment.

I'm glad you saw it. I saved a copy, and thought of sending it to you after I removed it. And might have, if you ever read your $#@!&?! email...

Baron Bodissey said...

Redneck, you may be right. And what about if the bird flu mutates, and some of the mujahideen catch it? Don't you think they'll cash in their requent-flyer miles and be on the next flight to JFK, just for the pleasure of breathing on us?

Geez, what a time we live in.

Baron Bodissey said...

Bill -- You were naughty. I had to remove your comment to preserve domestic tranquility, if you catch my drift.

Mussolini said...

But but but... it was a gift...

Heh.

I would have only hoped that some non-terrorist moron did not take me seriously and could see through the wink-wink.

Oh well.

Dymphna said...

bill--

It was the lawyers I was afraid of. They were pacing and neighing outside. That post had to die, as did your comment.

It was funny, but Muslims aren't and Mohammed wasn't known for his sense of humor.

Come to think of it, he didn't like poetry either.

Uriah said...

I'm pretty confident that there are such "honey pots" out there already....most can only be reached from certain locations, for our protection. I still don't go looking for them. I'm betting my gubmint files are already thick enough.

Jesse Clark said...

Baron: I had the pleasure of catching your post before you removed it, and I loved every satirical bit of it. The text may be gone but the spirit of it is not, and that's why I keep coming back here. Good show!

Dymphna: Boys will be boys, huh?

Cato said...

I must say the most radical expressions of mass hatred sometimes go unremarked on this blog (and others). "Redneck Texan" says we
"can't allow" a billion people to harbor dreams of our destruction and rather directly implies that we must ultimately find a way to exterminate them (after all, they'd do it to us).

Do you really think all billion muslims hate the west that implacably? Do you think there is any practical program that will lead to the elimination (or forcible conversion) of all the planet's muslims?

I often wonder where the logic of "all Islam is out to get us so we had better do something about it" leads. At least RT has spelled it out for us.

Personally I think it behooves us to find a way to disarm the actively violent and find a way to live peacably with the remainder. Fantasies of "final solutions" are just that.

Islam aside, maybe "technology has advanced too far" for us to allow any persons to harbor thoughts of discord or violence - after all, they may have powerful means of acting on those thoughts. Now, how can we get to that happy state where all people are peaceful and good? Hmm.. better think about that one for awhile.

Mussolini said...

Oh, I understand attorneys... I put my tongue firmly in cheek and posted two very deadly formulas for any muslim stupid enough to believe my set-up only as a way to show we don't necessarily need a killer virus... I have no problems with you removing it at all.

As I said, ignorant kids might have gotten a hold of that....

Cato.... what the hell is this idiocy that having an opinioned response to murder and intent to wage war is "mass-hatred?" YOU might think it is politically correct to bleat platitudes as your head is being sawed off... but WE don't.

Disarming doesn't work - it never has. Taking a gun away from a muslim suddenly does not remove his hatred and make him sing KUMBAYA with you.

Are you constantly high on pot? Can you see through the pot smoke at what you're typing?

This silly PC idea that muslims are all peace-loving and cuddly and that only .0000000000000001% of them really want to kill us is nothing more than head-up-rectum syndrome.

Try HERE for some of the latest figures on how many of the BILLION muslims really want to blow YOUR head off. The number isn't that same magical rhetoric/demagogic fraction used by morons to show who benefits from tax cuts... the number is fairly consistent. More than the THIRD of all muslims support the violence of blowing YOU up or beheading YOU.

Can you do any math? A third of a billion is about the entire population of the US.

You know, no matter how many facts I throw at you - I just don't think you're getting this - not after reading the text of your response.

Cato said...

Thanks for the facts, Bill. After your reasoned response I can certainly see where I went wrong. Must be all this pot smoke.

I guess you're right - we are in a deadly duel with a billion muslims and we must kill every one of them before they get us. Thanks for the enlightenment.

a4g said...

Baron,

I was thinking about your insidious reverse-engineered taqiyyah.

I believe it is called Liberty.

Cato said...

a4g:

Amen to that - People who are really free to choose will choose to live in peace and freedom.

JoeC said...

Cato said...
a4g:

Amen to that - People who are really free to choose will choose to live in peace and freedom.

Prior to that, Cato said...
Thanks for the facts, Bill. After your reasoned response I can certainly see where I went wrong. Must be all this pot smoke.

I guess you're right - we are in a deadly duel with a billion muslims and we must kill every one of them before they get us. Thanks for the enlightenment.


It is really very simple, Cato.
Muslims are killing people all around the globe, including the United States.
The facts and figures are everywhere, in MSM, in blogs, in gov't statistics, in other countries media statements and Islamic countries sermons.
A person would have to be willfully ignoring facts to deny this.

I do not know a single person that wishes for war and destruction.

On the other hand, how many Muslims can say that same thing?

The people who willingly ignore islam and muslims are called "dhimmi's" for a reason.

And you exemplify that reason.

Cato said...

Thanks again for the correction, I'd sure be anxious to see where I have denied that Muslims are killing people or asserted that there is no serious threat. I must have been stoned when I wrote that, because I sure don't remember it, or believe it wither.

There most certainly is a very serious threat - I support the war on terror 100% and the war in Iraq, which I beleive is an essential part of the war on terror, as well. I don't feel sorry for bloody-handed terrorists in Gitmo who are "tortured" by not having their air conditioners set low enough.

What I actually meant to convey was that calls for total war against "all" Islam and "all" muslims are morally wrong and practically self-defeating. Seems that to some deep thinkers, "(not all) = none". People jump to the most amazing conclusions.


Maybe I'll go over to the Daily Kos, where commenters are more calm and reasonable (NOTE TO DEEP THINKERS - I'M JUST KIDDING!)

Back to my bong hits (I wish)

Mussolini said...

Cato - I'll have to applaud you for the wry humor at fielding my hits. My respect to you.

To make a serious point about your contention that some of us view this as a war against all Islam, I'm going to be your punching bag.

I AM one of those that believes we are. I AM one of those that believes we are at war with religion.

Before I vomit my copious links at you, I would like to hear why you think we are NOT at war with Islam.

I am always willing to listen, and strive to admit I'm wrong. Unfortunately for some, it means due to past experience, I ususally come prepared to arguments. That's not a bully-threat, I'm just telling you that one hell of a discussion is being born.

Sensei said...

While I am sure others will find your idea appauling, I applaud you. My Father had a similar idea back in the 60s/70s. He was a Federal Special Agent working Narcotics. He was attending a big meeting in DC on how to tackle the growing drug problem.

At this meeting he made the following suggestion...Take the drugs we sieze, lace them with either a toxic chemical or a marker chemical and put them back on the street. Do this after announcing the move to the public, this way the casual users will probably stop and we will net in the hard core users/pushers. When they show up at the hospital of treatment they are arrested...

Obviously the administrative types were horrified at his suggestion. I still think it is a good suggestion when you look at the fall out of the drug problem in this and other countries. Like any criminal activity it applies the principle, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If they had done this then no one would have known if the drugs they bought were "safe" or not. Same principle as your faulty bomb instruction idea...Bravo.

American Crusader said...

That's actually an excellent idea. Maybe conferring with a geneticist or a biologist would well be worth the time.the

Cato said...

You can bury me with links, but it's not really necessary. I read the Gates and LGF fairly frequently.

Let me stipulate a few points.

I am fully aware that there are many explicit strictures in Islam which make it inherently a dangerous and intolerant religion. In fact I am even more appalled at their attitude toward Buddhists, Hindus and other non-"People of the book” than at their attitude toward Christians and Jews.

However, all that being said, I think there are reasons for objecting to an all-out war against "Islam" on moral, what I might call "cultural" and on practical grounds.

In the first place, since it is the easiest, consider the practical grounds. What is the desired outcome for those who would go to war with 1/4 of the globe's population and how we achieve that outcome? When will you have won? When you have exterminated all unbelievers or forcibly converted them? Sounds kinda like the Prophet (on him be peace) himself. What less than that outcome will make you safe? You don't have to be Sun Tzu to know not to enter a war you can't win.

Culturally - the Islamic world has no pope, no center. UBL may think he is the new Caliph, but he is not. Islam is peopled by disparate swarms of people, many in appalling political climates, cut off from any meaningful knowledge pf the world outside. It is NOT monolithic in actions or attitudes. The much-touted poll which shows that x% of Muslims in this Country or that approve of suicide bombings may actually indicate less than it seems. Like all polls it is affected by who is asked and who is asking, and what the respondent thought he was being asked about. Many of these people when asked about suicide bombing will think about their Palestinian "brothers" - of course they approve after all the propaganda they have been fed. Doesn’t mean they are ready to strap on the belt, much less nuke Manhattan. So here's a question - if a person, an individual person in a far-away land, who has no power even in his own society, is imbued with attitudes and propaganda every day which makes him believe that you are his enemy, does that make him your enemy? I'm not talking "potential" enemies here.

In fact the vast, vast majority of Islamic persons go to Mosque once a week and the rest of their week live like ordinary people occupied with ordinary concerns. If that makes them non-pure Muslims, then great - may they prosper and multiply. It's more likely that peace will come from these people falling away from the jihadists voluntarily, than by their being forcibly repressed.

Morally - this one can go on forever, but the most basic level is that treating people as simply examples of a group is usually wrong. Attitudes and policies born out of fear and anger rarely prove prudent or wise.

You can't be at war with a "religion" because the religion has no tangible attributes. It's just a meme. A big one, but a meme nonetheless. You must be at war with the people who hold that meme. That's a bridge I can't cross. I will go to war against people who tangibly threaten me, with nations that harbor terrorists, but not with people whose beliefs make it likely that they might be a threat to me. I believe, in fact I know, that not all Muslims are Islamicists. Even many of those who are sympathetic, or think they are, would stop short of any violent action. If that makes me a naif, so be it. Revel in your superior knowledge and wisdom.

So what is the alternative? I actually believe in the approach President Bush and Condoleezza Rice are following. It may not satisfy the red hots, but I think it is the only strategy that has a chance of actually succeeding. And if it requires us to talk about the "religion of peace" through gritted teeth, then let's do it.

The Pres’s strategy:

1. Defend the homeland
2. Go after the terrorists where they operate (not carpet bomb Aceh)
3. Spread freedom and democracy.

Sure they’re not doing it perfectly – whoever implemented a strategy perfectly? But at least they have a strategy. And it’s not “war on Islam”.


Flame away, folks. It don't bother me none.

American Crusader said...

I am not sure if it's easier to side with Bill or Cato in this discussion. I believe most Muslims would rather live in peace but I'm not going to start checking numbers or percentages, the truth is that those Muslims who would rather live in peace need to start speaking out. Their leaders need to start denouncing violence against all peoples. They need to stop giving double meaning to such words as "innocent". They need to stop using deceit as a legitimate means of advancing Islamic causes. They need to start "doing" instead of talking. Until then, I'm going to keep my guard up. I'm going to keep trusting what I see instead of what I hear.

Mussolini said...

Cato - well reasoned, but a few points.

"You don't have to be Sun Tzu to know not to enter a war you can't win."

Do you not believe we are already in it, and not by our own choice?

I see from your knowledge of the muslim atrocities against the Hindus over the centuries that you are fully aware of the scope of the problem. So, no, I won't bury you with links. Thank you for saving a lot of copy-pasting.

Your correct contention that Islam has no united cultural basis is correct. No caliph or recognized unifying leader. In fact, if left alone, muslims generally start slaughtering each other. But note, before dismissing that as a given point, the disposition to violence.

You imply that us "hots" tend to view that every single muslim should be exterminated. While many of us burn with thoughts of revenge, I don't see anywhere, anyone calling for total genocide of Islam (if we can accept those two terms as compatible for the moment). As much as I think a nuclear bomb could one day be used to wipe Teheran off the map in response to some Iranian attack, I do not envision physically exterminating every single Iranian that breathes. Many Iranians no longer want the sharia law and the theocratic rule. Many desire better relations with the US.

I think that is a good thing, and I think it should be encouraged if we have to spend a trillion more dollars to do it.

But in the event of an attack, a nuclear bomb remains an option, in my mind. One thing muslims respect is force. They detest compromise and forgiveness as signs of weakness. According to the 9/11 report, Osama saw Carter's cut-and-run tactic as detestable and a magnet for his hatred. Reagan confirmed our weakness in Beirut.

You say it is not possible to be at war with religion. I say otherwise. We've been at war with religion since 630AD. Since the only binding tie that links an Iranian (who is not Arabic) to a Saud to a Paki is religion, the only target we have is religion.

How do we fight a religion? You can fight a religion with bullets, but you can't win by bullets unless you kill every single one. Like you said, killing a billion people is not only impratical, but immoral as well since I will agree that not all muslims are islamo-fascists.

You can only win a fight with religion from within (if you aren't going to kill 'em all). That requires exactly what you say is the proper way to tackle it:

"1. Defend the homeland
2. Go after the terrorists where they operate (not carpet bomb Aceh)
3. Spread freedom and democracy."


By holding the course in Iraq, we provide a place where imams can feel somewhat safe in attempting the Islamic practice of Abrogation. We're attacking their disease with a virus of our own.

However, that's only half the battle. Their disease is being fed with Saudi money. The madrassahs are almost exclusively supported with Saudi oil money that WE feed them.

There are a couple options about their supply. 1: Militarily kick the snot out of Saudi Arabia and set up a colony. (Cheapest option) 2: Drill our own oil elsewhere and choke off the funding that drives these towel-heads. (Lefties don't like this option) 3: Get the oil comapnies to cough up those inventions from the 70s of alternative fuels and devices that don't use oil and get 70+ miles to the gallon. (The best option, if it isn't a myth)

If we can cut off their money, the schools will dry up. We can also "remove" the schools where we find them (bang bang).

Why do I think a Saudi colony is the cheapest option? Free oil, and then the money doesn't fund towel-heads to kill us. Plus, we would bring freedom to one of the worst of the oppressive countries in the region. Democracy would spread from the colony, as well.

See, no flames. But, to repeat, this is a war against Islam. I don't know what else you would call this. Yes, I know, not all of Islam, but I mean the Qu'ran itself, which is the basis of Islam. Until Abrogation sets in, it's a war against religion.

JoeC said...

Cato, I take back my comment about you and dhimmi's. You obviously are not a dhimmi. I mis-understood your point.

I apologize.

Bill and Cato, nice going.
Even and logical debate. As nice an exchange as I have seen in some time.

Cato said...

joiec: No problem, I realize you were reacting to what you thought I meant, not what I actually meant. As for the rest, we can "agree to disagree". (I have to do that a lot - it's the only thing I can agree on with most people)

Rick Darby said...

Cato,

Can we put it this way?

Virtually all Muslims throughout the world believe their religion to be the absolute truth.

A significant number of those believe, as a corollary, that any means including terrorism and outbreeding the infidels are acceptable to bring about the worldwide triumph of Islam. Don't ask me how many is a significant number; it may be a half million or a million or 10 million.

But everything we have learned since 9/11 (and some people understood it before that, while others of us are slow learners) tells us, beyond serious dispute, that what we face is not a handful of terrorists acting alone. That in itself would be dangerous enough, given the staggering disruption that one or two well-placed chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons could cause to society.

But more than the terrorist groups or networks themselves, there is a much larger pool of active or passive supporters, from governments (probably) to radical Imams to Saudi billionaires. That, too, seems to me unquestionable, regardless of how you or anyone proposes to respond.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that Islam -- not just declared jihadists -- is part of the problem. And that all Muslims have to be considered potential threats.

No, it doesn't mean we must declare war on the religion. It doesn't mean, for God's sake, putting all Muslims to the sword in some latter-day crusade. It does mean, though, that we have to err (if an error it is) on the side of caution when dealing with Muslims. We should end all Muslim immigration starting last week. Question anyone with an Arabic name or appearance down to the ground before allowing them into the country or on an airliner. Et cetera.

"Racism"? "Discrimination"? I don't give a toss what anyone wants to call it. We have all the evidence we need that large numbers of people who fall into a certain category are at war with us. It is a sensible inference that many of the others in that category are helping them behind the scenes.

No, we shouldn't react hysterically or persecute anyone (in the real meaning of the term -- not allowing them into the country doesn't count) purely on the basis of their religion. But equally, we will fail ourselves, our ancestors, and our descendants, and Western civilization to boot, if we pretend that feel-good brotherhood slogans and symbolic security screenings can counteract the danger from Islam.

Shellback said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heloise said...

A careful analysis of islam, via its foundational doctrinal texts, (the koran, the exact words of allah, the Hadiths, or what mohammed said and did, and to fill in any blanks, the sira, the biography of mohammed by ibn ishaq) reveals a political and solcial ideology coated with a thin layer of religious practice.

As the muslims believe that allah is the only god and mohammed is his final and last prophet, that islam is the best of all religions and all humanity must eventually accept these tenets, whether or not force is used, given this totalitarian world view with its complete way of life that nurtures an evil seed of violence that can always bloom under the right circumstances, the only way to undermine its existence without killing millions of believers (and even then, the seeds of ignorance and duality that mohammed sowed can be revived) is to obliterate its icons in mecca, the black stone of the kaaba and the well of zamzam. Then, the infallibility of allah and two of the five pillars are destroyed.

Shellback said...

Heloise,
It has been conjectured that the reason there have been no subsequent attacks on U.S. soil is that the word went out that the U.S. would nuke the sacred black meteorite in reprisal. While I find this scenario highly unlikely, it does ring true as an authentic solution to the basic issue involved - the ascendancy of Islam as the "true" religion, at least in the minds of Middle Eastern primitives.

Now, as 21st century people, we tend view the 7th century Moslem with contempt for his backwardness, his barbaric social skills and retrograde whole-world view. But maybe he's on to something there, and we can go him one better by reaching back yet further into time, say, to about the 2nd millenium B.C.

Elijah provides the model. Mocking Baal while building his own altar, he put it all to the test, and the Living God threw in His lot with Elijah and that was that.

While many may snigger that that was an embellished myth, allegory, or sweet tale to make the Hebrews feel good about themselves, I believe it to be a historical event consistent with a Holy God.

Which brings us back to nuking that black meteorite, or holding it hostage to maintain a balance of power.

It is their altar to Baal, and its destruction by the infidel would generate an unfathomable depth of cognitive dissonance. Especially since there would be little chance of a meaningful response from Allah or his prophet (may disgrace be upon him in his eternal torment).

It was said that the Japanese recognized that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the God of the Americans was proven to be greater than their god, the Emperor. A great opportunity was missed when America failed to send missionaries at the behest of McArthur, who recognized the enormous spiritual vacuum created by the de-throning of the Emperor by a superior Deity.

Just a little food for thought.

Mussolini said...

Actually there have been a few attacks on American soil - the media does not report them as such for fear of fanning anti-muslim sentiment.

Better that we don't know about them than to have an irate America ready to assert it's patriotic vengeance.

The beltway snipers were islamic terrorists.

The LAX shooter who shot up Jews at the El Al counter was an Islamic terrorist.

Granted, these are small peanuts compared to the twin towers, but they are nevertheless terrorist acts against the American populace.

Dymphna said...

Actually, the Wahibbi sect, which controls Saudi Arabi, is busy dismantling all those shrines because they're idolatrous. There will not be any Medina or or Mecca to destroy...at least that's what the Religious Policeman wrote last month.

Now that he's safely in London I guess he can say things like that.

Shellback said...

Dymphna,
I wouldn't lay any money down on those shrines disappearing any time soon. They're too much of the Moslem psyche...

Interestingly, the Gospels and Epistles remind the Christian that he or she is not bound to shrines, religious relics, or ritual. The relationship with the Living God transcends those things, although humans have traditionally taken comfort in external trappings. But when push comes to shove, they can, and will, be shed quite easily. They do NOT define the Christian's identity, nor do they serve as a touch-stone of proof of His sovereignty. Historically, this is not so of the Moslem.

Bill, yes I agree about those mini-strikes. But you wait and see, when we have the next "Big One" (and I fear it will, by necessity, be very big), there will be an unstoppable outpouring of what will be euphimistically called "patriotic fervor".

And I dread the thought.

Heloise said...

I agree, shellback,about the shrines, especially the black rock,
it's too much a part of the primitive religious psyche of arabia
AND
mohammed gave it his seal of approval so it must remain a part of the believer's package.

Some have told me that the collective psyche of mohammedans would go beserk and reek havock all over the world if the kaaba were to be destroyed but I think the shock would be paralyzing at first and that's when you need strong leaders with moral courage to step up and lead the way. Unfortunately, those seem to be in short supply.

And I agree about the big one. In my land, we have a saying about how you get the attention of a mule. . . with a 2X4.

Dymphna said...

Umm...I'm going to run this old "news" in the comments one more time, in hopes that whatever version of "nuke Mecca" is currently extant will have the opportunity to catch up with reality.

The Wahhabis are not nuking Mecca, they are dismantling the place. No need for nukes when the Saudis will do it for you. And the rest of the Muslim world? Yawn...

Here is the Religious Policeman's snip and link. He has the original news story:

often come across the suggestion, in the more neoconservative crevices of the Internet, that someone should "nuke Mecca". Well, according to London's "Independent", they don't need to bother. It is already being destroyed by the neoconservative wing of the Islam faith, the Wahabbis.

The Destruction of Mecca

Those Wahhabis are some fun dudes. They are the ones who fund the destruction here...

If you absolutely must hit someone over there with a 2x4 at least ascertain that his name is Saud.

Shellback said...

Ok.

No nuke.

A Daisy Cutter will do just as well.

For what it's worth, do you recall that time-lapse picture in an old issue of National Geographic that showed the mob circling that black rock as a sort of "blend"?

Harkens back to the finale in the (now) politically incorrect poem "Little Black Sambo".