She can run, but she can't hide.

Why?  So they can shoot any of their fellow Customs and Border Patrol agents who actually try to arrest someone sneaking in?



Seriously, we could run a high quality training program - easily - with 2000 rounds per shooter.  That'd be 200 a day for two weeks and it would wear them out.  Compare this with a lot of police depts. where the requirement is the officer shoots a box (50) per year in training.

So that's 500 agents per million rounds, 12.6 million rounds would do 6000+ agents....somewhat plausible.  Of course likely they are not running a program recertifying or initially training these guys with 2000 rounds per man.

But the numbers are not orders of magnitude off.

Where I'm headed with that is that if I was Muslim I'd consider it a severe insult for extremists to have hijacked what are essentially from that world view, sacred words.

Then again as you mention from within their world speaking Farsi and such they may not even realize that has happened.

It looks to me like the Republican machine smashing through the two iconic pillars of Democrats, Bill and Billary.

Red = Republican
Blue = Democrat

Of course the only reason red and blue are that way is red was too strongly associated with communism and socialism for the democrats to stomach having as their own color....

That's why I said on this general matter of ISIS atrocities "I'm through with the discusion."

In the case of ISIS I think that's the right approach.

Okay, let me restrict the scope of my comment to something like "In america", or "In non-muslim countries" or such.  Obviously if a Muslim heard it he knows what the words mean.

But when a US citizen hears it in the context of foreign words in English, it pretty much refers to something a foaming at the mouth mad dog Islamic Terrorist HAS been reported to have said in the midst of heinous unprovoked acts.

It's doubtful any Westerner non-Islamic is going to go through the social code of the Koran and conclude it's "Wonderful and Perfect."  That's something a True Believer would say.

It looks to me like a bunch of basic rules conceived of in medieval times to force the illiterate and ignorant masses to obey. 

I'm good with that.  That means more Bacon for Me!

Watching you two debate, part of it is watching the wrong ideas BOTH of you come up with.
 And you have as many as he does.  Eisenhower the Mass Murderer is a pretty good bit of crazy talk.

Of course I am right on this, because the only time I was wrong was when I doubted I was right.
See?  I'm totally right.  Zakir is totally right.  Badecker is totally right.

It is rather entertaining to watch Zakir and Badecker debate.

A Muslim fundamentalist against a Christian fundmentalist.

who would ever have thought....

Not that the assertions are even TRUE.

What I've seen personally.

- In reading journal articles a great many have near the front a "Glory be to God" sentence or two, in which the authors affirm the TRUEY TRUTHY of CLIMATE CHANGE.  Then they get down to business and show hypothesis, data, method, results.  Usually this has almost no tangible relation to the "big questions" such as "Is man warming the planet up when he makes pancakes and fries bacon?"

- In talking with real scientists, a very very few are Alarmist but there are those.  Most have zero interest in Global Warming and consider it a political subject, not scientific.  If prodded they will voice an opinion usually only in a narrow field in which they are very much an expert.

Here's a good laugh.

Following is a quote from a REAL SCIENTIST about REAL climate models.

We're about a year and a half away from the start of New Horizons' scientific mission at Pluto. Scientists are preparing for the encounter by developing models that make predictions for what New Horizons might see. Once we have the data from New Horizons in hand, scientists will be able to use that to figure out which models made the right predictions, and which didn't. At least that's how we hope it will work! The real world is always messier than our simulations.

Now, back to your regular scheduled program,

Would you include each and every member of the ISIS armies?

I ask because in the past...for example we handled differently the German average foot soldier than the SS or those in charge of the concentration camps.  Most were simply let go to go home, others were I think for them most part rightfully sentenced to death.

I don't feel that has anything to do with the phrase "Allah Akbar" being hijacked by extemists manipulating the media.

We are in agreement.  I was talking about consideration of the moral, ethical and cultural questions relative to the atrocities - saying "Okay, I figured this out.  Now let's kill the bastards."

Developing a cohesive and systematic plan to do that efficiently would be a matter for nations as well as individuals, and would take possibly years.  The Geneva Convention does not apply to ISIS.

This is only possible if a culture has literacy and a basic level of education for both men and women, say at the high school level.

Actually I find the opposite effect, after a certain number of atrocities the mind snaps shut with a conclusion, "Just kill the bastards."  No discussion of religion or philosophy or cause and effect is further necessary.

My fig tree gives me no fruit.
Squirrels strip all fruit from it.
I eat tasty squirrels.

Adding to the list.

• Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.  
• Not after the hockey stick debacle, where McIntire showed that random data ran through the hockey stick programs would produce....a hockey stick.  
• Not after the email releases.  
• Not after twenty years of no warming.
• Not after the CLOUD experiment series by CERN
• Not after public warnings by groups of astrophysicists studying the sun on the possible consequences of the current period of low solar sunspots
• Not after several "surveys" using bogus methodology have attempted to "prove" that a scientific consensus exists, and after the errors in methodology of these surveys have been exposed
• Not after the IPCC's admission of a lower climate sensitivity in their latest report, unless they are  also Deniers
• Not after the change by the propagandists from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", implicitly acknowledging the collapse of the "Global Warming Alarmist Paradigm."
  
• Not after decades of the propagandists pushing a theory of a "global temperature" which is against the laws of thermodynamics, then implicitly acknowledging their error but going to an equally flawed concept that the heat was going into the ocean. (which was part of which skeptics had been telling them all along)
  

Today there are several important contributions to our understanding of climate from skeptics or Deniers if you will.

The fact that the climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the first four IPCC reports indicated.
The fact that there is a big influence on climate from the sun, and variability in excess of the variance in it's direct wattage impacting the surface
The fact that solar particles and solar wind influence cloud formation
The fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed
The fact that the Little Ice Age existed

There are many other demonstrable cases where Alarmists have attempted to cover up, repress or eliminate facts contrary to their vision.


You do not have a valid argument in "consensus."  

But I would argue that hyping the concept of "scientific consensus" is bunko, because it has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of ideas as established by the scientific method, but instead the opinions of a group.

The scientific method does not have within it's structure of null hypothesis, materials, method, procedure, results, conclusion, and summary a part for asking whether the larger body of experts agrees with the hypothesis, materials, method, procedure, results, conclusion and summary.

ISIS is indeed odd and singular if you look at it against military history.  They seem to be continually outdoing themselves to find the absolute worse most horrible and cruel actions.

I sincerely hope we are headed toward war crimes tribunals for ISIS.