Political Rant: Syrian Refugees

Welcome. If you are reading this, you almost certainly linked over from FB.

Political Rant: ON

Syrian refugees: the American thing to do is to take in as many as we can, assimilate them to our culture, and move forward. I don't know what the Syrians use for cuisine, but I'd like some a few years from now.

I would prefer that Syrian men of military age be offered the opportunity to fight for their country, which is a poster child for hosed. At minimum we should offer them a rusty SKS and a hundred rounds and our prayers. Better if we refer them to the Kurds or the French Foreign Legion, which specializes in sending people to where they can die. (Don't believe me, it's their motto!) Best if we actually get the American Foreign Legion (not the socialites) off the ground and offer them citizenship in exchange for five years combat service, saving their own country to boot.

I make no secret of my disdain and disgust for the Muslim faith, particularly as practiced by fundamentalists who believe they are compelled to take over the government of whatever land they find themselves in. The fundamentalist Muslim faith is neither religion nor government nor social system - it is all of these, and there is no difference between blasphemy and treason. These fundamentalist Muslims are an inherent threat, and as such should be carefully watched.

To suggest that we should not permit Muslim refugees to come to America is to admit that our time-honored ability to assimilate other peoples is inferior - that their beliefs will prevail should we let them come here. Nothing could be more absurd. In fact, there are several strategic reasons we should allow this:

1) mercy

2) a cadre of people who speak the languages of the area

3) immigrant gratitude, economic growth

4) a return to classic American values

5) lessen the strain on our allies around the world, for whom assimilation vs. disintegration is more a threat

I have no quarrel with Muslims who agree to follow the laws of the land in which they find themselves. They pose no special threat, and I find their religion no more (or less) ridiculous than many others whose adherents I am able to admire.

Nonetheless, the very idea of requiring Muslims - or those of any faith - to wear identifying badges is outrageous. In my eyes, Donald Trump has disqualified himself from seeking the Presidency, and his candidacy should go down to a rousing and very expensive defeat. Were such an insane idea to become law, I would be among the first to proudly wear a "Muslim Badge" ... although in fairness I would also wear the labels "Pagan" and "Infidel," just so we are clear who should be shot at.

Terrorism in Paris. I have two domains of remarks on this: one strategic and one geopolitical.

Strategic: "Terrorists cannot hurt you as long as you keep your nerve." The world is full of soft targets. I have suggestions for how to harden them (it is sort of my day job), but no matter how much harm terrorists do, they cannot create any lasting benefit for themselves and their factions so long as 1) their violence is repudiated, 2) no one negotiates with them, and 3) people pick up the pieces and carry on, preferably in grand style.

Geopolitical: if there is any truth to the rumor that certain US and UK factions back ISIL (preferably referred to as Daesh), and that ISIL sought and obtained permission prior to the Paris terrorist attacks, we have a desperately dangerous situation, to wit: a US faction backed a terrorist attack on the capital city of a non-aligned NUCLEAR ARMED POWER, i.e. France, and holy shit you don't do that!

If world geopolitics take a weird turn, blow up suddenly and everyone ends up shooting at everyone in a glory of world genocidal tragedy, this is how that shit starts.

Gun control: I believe it is axiomatic that the private ownership of firearms, not just in America but around the world, is a human right, and that denying that human right lays a stepping-stone to genocide. Would private firearms have made a difference in Paris? Perhaps - but that does not mean the victims are to blame for their own demise, nor does it mean that a suggestion of this is welcome during tense times. Would private firearms have made a difference in Rwanda? Oh hell yes - most of the killing was done by mobs, and some retreated before UN observers with pistols. Will private firearms make a difference in preventing genocide in America? One hopes not, but given the stakes, it's an insurance precaution we'd better not neglect.

That's all I have time for right now. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.