Free Republic

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Clinton is interested only in helping himself...he would behead his own mother if it kept him in Power!! Seriously, I do not believe fer one second that Alan Simpson said this, maybe O.J. Simpson, but not Alan!! This is self-serving bullkrap!!

And how do you know Simpson never said this? If it's a lie, I would think Simpson would speak up and say so, and I haven't heard a peep from him yet.

Like I said, you'd haveta be extremely naive to believe this krap, but I guess what makes SlickWillie tolerable to the masses of the DemonRAT victim class is their Willfull Ignorance, 'cuz nobody could be THAT STOOOOOPID without doing it on purpose, imho!!

So your response to Simpson's analysis is, basically, "That's stupid!" Why is it so stupid, exactly? Because Clinton, your personal anti-Christ, said it?

Oh, Mud, Mud, Mud. We've still got a lot of work to do with you to help you see the light. I'm going to have to cut back your medication soon. =)

Wahhabism is the dominant sect of the Islamic religion, which most closely follows the teachings of the "Prophet" Muhhamad.

Not true. Wahhabism is far from the dominant sect of Islam, and it cherry-picks information from Muhammad's teachings to further its own agenda.

Hmm. I still owe you a response from the last thread...there's a lot to respond to, but I'll try to get to it soon.

Looks like, for the first time since Vietnam, the majority of Americans think a U.S. troop deployment is a mistake. 54% of Americans feel this way about Iraq. link.

So, how're you going to blame this one on Clinton?

http://potus.blogspot.com/

Yeah, yeah. I've read all of the reviews trashing the book. But I'm not going to be reading it for style; I'm going to read it to see what he says about what went down in his presidency.

Besides, I can't be too hard on him, since I write the same way myself: sloppy and scattershot. It's like author's ADD. =)

And I almost fell for your Monica quote there. I got about three sentences in before the light bulb came on over my head. Then it just came to me, and I got the thrust of what you were saying. =)

Yeah, what you said. Especially the part about Arafat being an idiot. Clinton's final offer to him in 2001 was more than he deserved, and the best deal he was going to get. Now he's got a much more hard-line Israeli PM in Ariel Sharon, and much less credibility in the eyes of the UN and the world.

I don't favor the Israelis or the Palestinians in this conflict anymore. The whole situation is just too complex. Every time I think I understand one side's point of view, there's another layer to the onion to consider. It's too much to expect both sides to agree, it's too much to expect both sides to compromise what they'll need to compromise, and it's too much to expect them to forget about. But I hope we get a president who actually shows an interest in negotiating with them soon and starting this peace process again. It's not safe being an Israeli or a Palestinian, and the world won't be safe until they're safe.

Well, we're still waiting to see the extent of the injury before we take any action. So far, they've been very unhelpful to us. They won't cover my wife going to see a doctor, and made it known that if we put it on our insurance, we could be liable for the costs when it comes time to settle. I have a good attorney though, so I'm not too worried about it.

My father in law is doing OK -- understandably, still a little weak, but he's promised to cut the pork chops and Ding-Dongs out of his diet, so there's progress. =)

BTW, here's a quote I liked from the new Clinton book -- I'm sure you'll enjoy it too. =P

"I was genuinely confused by the mainstream press coverage of Whitewater...One day, after one of our budget meetings in October, I asked Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming to stay a moment to talk. Simpson was a conservative Republican, but we had a pretty good relationship because of the friendship we had in common with his governor, Mike Sullivan. I asked Alan if he thought Hillary and I had done anything wrong in Whitewater. 'Of course not,' he said. 'That's not what this is about. This is about making the public think you did something wrong. Anybody who looked at the evidence would see that you didn't.' Simpson laughed at how willing the 'elitist' press was to swallow anything negative about small, rural places like Wyoming or Arkansas and made an interesting observation: 'You know, before you were elected, we Republicans believed the press was liberal. Now we have a more sophisticated view. They are liberal in a way. Most of them voted for you, but they think more like your right-wing critics do, and that's much more important.' When I asked him to explain, he said, 'Democrats like you and Sullivan get into government to help people. The right-wing extremists don't think government can do much to improve on human nature, but they like power. So does the press. And since you're President, they both get power the same way, by hurting you.' I appreciated Simpson's candor and I thought about what he said for months. For a long time, whenever I was angry about the Whitewater press coverage I would tell people about Simpson's analysis. When I finally just accepted his insight as accurate, it was liberating, and it cleared my head for the fight."

FYI, just wanted to let everyone know that I probably won't be able to post for the next few days or so. My father-in-law just had an angioplasy a couple of days ago, and we stayed at the hospital and helped him at home for a few days, and just as we got back from his place, my wife went into a grocery store, slipped and fell in a wet spot that wasn't cleaned up, and wound up with a hairline fracture in her foot and her lower leg in a cast. Needless to say, it hasn't been a fun couple of days. :-(

So, provided we have no other ailments in my immediate family, I should be back in the next few days. In the meantime, I trust Bush will do enough stupid things to keep me loaded with ammunition for my arguments when I return. See you soon.

Well, if I wasn't going to vote for Kerry already, I'd probably vote for Dave Barry.

DAVE BARRY FOR PRESIDENT IN 200004

"It's Time We Demanded Less"

Every now and then, America produces a great leader -- a person of vision, courage, and integrity. Until that leader shows up, why not elect Dave Barry as our president?

"Why am I running? For the same historic reason that motivated other top-quality U.S. presidential timbers such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill: All the other candidates are goobers." - Dave Barry

Dave Barry agrees with you 100 percent on all the issues. But bear in mind that just because Dave Barry has previously stated a view, that does not automatically mean that he agrees with it.

WHERE DAVE BARRY STANDS ON….

CRIME
You can call me courageous if you want, but I am against crime. I favor the death penalty for everything, including zoning violations. In the case of really, really bad criminals -- especially murderers and whoever is responsible for putting Jerry Springer on television -- I support a massive government project to develop a way to bring them back to life after we execute them, so we can execute them again.

TAXES
A lot of my opponents have been going around spouting harebrained "pie-in-the-sky" tax schemes that promise "something for nothing." Well I say it's time for a "reality check." I favor a practical, fiscally sound, two-pronged "flat-tax" system, as follows:
PRONG ONE -- Everybody would pay less.
PRONG TWO -- You, personally, would pay nothing.

SOCIAL SECURITY
You hear a lot of talk these days about how the government cannot afford to keep giving more and more billions of dollars in Medicare and Social Security benefits to the elderly, especially to the wealthy, golf-playing, boat-owning, Lincoln-driving, mansion-dwelling, servant-lashing elderly. Well, here's what I say: I personally am well on my way to elderlyhood, and if I'm going to suffer from joint pain, gum disease, vision loss, irregularity, bladder malfunction, prostate disorders, hemorrhoidal swelling and an inexplicable fondness for reruns of "Murder, She Wrote," then by gosh I WANT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

DRUGS
I admit that, back in the Sixties when everybody was doing it, I may have stuck a few syringes in my arm. But I never pushed the plunger.

STANDARDIZED NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTS
I believe that American schoolchildren should be given standardized national educational tests, and I will tell you exactly why: Because I am not a schoolchild. I am strongly in favor of things that I, personally, do not have to do. Childbirth is another example.

HEALTH CARE
As an older male American, I believe that our Number One health-care priority, as a nation, must be to make the medical profession find some way to get to the prostate gland other than the way they're getting to it now.

FOREIGN POLICY
I am sick and tired of watching the United States get pushed around by dirtbag nations such as Iraq. If I were president, and Saddam Hussein gave me any trouble, I would unleash the ultimate weapon on him. That's right: I would have a bomber fly right over downtown Baghdad, open the bomb doors, and drop: lawyers. If that didn't paralyze Iraq, I would drop more lawyers; and if THAT didn't work, I would put parachutes on the lawyers.

SEX IN THE OVAL OFFICE
The Oval Office is a sacred shrine of our great republic, and it is just plain wrong for the president to have sex there. He should go out on the lawn.

(FYI, I'll be indisposed for the next week starting tomorrow, so it may be awhile before I respond to your next post.)

I have said REPEATEDLY to you: I don't know that Byrd ever burned a cross or lynched any blacks; whom he called: "...race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." But then again...I don't know that he DIDN'T... Do you???

So you're asking me to prove a negative? You should know that's logically impossible. That would be like me saying "I can't prove that FBD murdered anyone, but he can't prove that he didn't murder anyone, can he?"

So; Robert Byrd needs to answer one simple question to us all: - Were you, Robert K. Byrd, ever involved in a Cross-burning or a Lynching, while in the Ku Klux Klan, or did you have knowledge of aforementioned Klan activities? If Byrd burned even ONE cross on even ONE lawn of even ONE fellow American, he has nothing left to offer. He is discredited, disgraced, and has no other option other than to tender his resignation from the Senate.

As an aside, some Googling on this subject brought me to this NewsMax article, excerpted below:

Conservatives need to force Byrd to answer one simple question: Were you ever involved in a cross-burning or a lynching?

...Until these matters are addressed, what Byrd has to say on other matters is irrelevant. If he burned a cross on the lawn of a fellow American, his opinions should be disregarded. He is discredited, disgraced and has no option other than resignation.

Do you plaigarize other articles in your response to me? Are these your words I'm responding to, or someone else's?

Regardless, I don't see how you can expect an answer to a question that, apparently, has never been asked of him. The article also states that the question was asked of his press secretary, who responded that "his boss had assured him privately that he never participated in terrorizing African-Americans using the Klan's trademark tactics. But then again, Gavin said Byrd also insisted that he wasn't a racist even while wore the hood and sheets of the anti-black hate group." So, is there any reason why his press secretary's answer wasn't good enough, in light of the fact that others apparently don't have the courage to ask the same questions of Senator Byrd himself?

Further, I don't see why he even has the need to respond to lynching allegations, lying allegations, etc. that appears to be baseless. If you had some sort of evidence that Byrd lynched somebody, that Byrd lied about something, etc., and that evidence were presented to him, then sure, I would expect a response just as you would. But you have nothing. As I said before, this is just a smear campaign -- not that I expect anything less from Republicans.

So, tell ya what Sam: Provide us all a link, show us where Robert Byrd has apologized PUBLICLY for being in the Klan, and where he has completely denounced the Klan, OK?

I couldn't find anything, but why should he apologize? He was what he was in the 40's and 60's, and he is who he is today. People's beliefs change as they grow older and wiser -- I know mine have -- and that doesn't mean we should apologize for what we believed before. Actions are far different from beliefs.

You can be outraged and expect some kind of apology from him if you want, but I don't.

RE:Oh, yeth we muth rethpect multi-cultural diverthity: The lisp was my mocking smarmy intellectuals who think they are so much superior than anyone else. Some cultures ARE superior to others, especially in the areas of freedom of thought, and equality for people, regardless of race, sex, or religion. My MAIN critisism of Islam is that it does in fact infringe on every area of these, including race. In Christianity, all races are allowed to pray and speak to God in their native tongue. In Islam all prayers and religious dialogue is done in Arabic. Seems to me that Africans would want to worship God in Swahili, or whatever their own tongue is Of course, the Christian ones in fact DO.

In this, you have to separate the religion itself from the men who govern the religion, and the political ramifications that surround the state-sanctioned religions (which Taheri also fails to do in the excerpt below). I agree that there is huge difference in, say, women's rights in America and women's rights in Pakistan. But this difference isn't imposed by Christianity and Islam itself; it is imposed by readings of each religion, some of which are demonstrably false, used as tools to exert power on states and regions. It's not Islam that suppresses women's rights in Pakistan; it's how the leaders of Pakistan, and the leaders that came before, chose to interpret Islam and apply it to their theocracies that made the difference. You could go even further and say the root cause is that they are theocracies to begin with, rather than true democracies.

But imagine how different America might be if, for instance, it were governed by a long succession of Quakers, a fringe interpretation of Christianity. We'd likely have our own set of social issues with women's rights today, but that wouldn't indicate a flaw with women's rights in Christianity. You can take any "radical" interpretation of any religion you want as an example, but the point is to make the key distinction between beliefs and politics.

RE : Your defense of Islam: Strip away all the B.S. from the differant Islamic and Christian religions, and take a look at the men who founded each: One is a barbaric murderer, who killed hundreds of people, the other, a Man who healed hundreds of people. One Man never harmed a single hair on anyones head; while the other beheaded his enemies. The deeds of both are recorded in their respective books, and in their own words.

Again, you're making the mistake of projection: you're comparing Jesus and Muhammed when you should be comparing Christianity and Islam. Of course, the two religions are different and were borne out of different environments, but there is much, much more overlap between the religions that you fail to recognize.

His position is the same as mine, so stop trying to use the Hitler comparisons on me, ok?

Nah, you're no Hitler. Even if you really believed the racist stuff you've posted, you'd be small potatoes compared to him. But there's similarities between Nazi propaganda and the stuff you've posted, which you failed to recognize or respond to from my response to your first "socialism equals Hitler equals the loony left" post above.

So exactly what were Madonna's intentions?

Maybe she tried to implant those cone things on her breasts, and it didn't work out. =)

Really? But I thought you said you didn't "know me to judge whether or not I was bigoted?

Let's try this again: it is what you've said that is bigoted. I have no idea whether you are a bigot or not. The only thing I can comment on are the posts you made, and they have been rife with bigotry.

Please try to understand the difference between loving the sinner, and hating the sin. You implied you were a Christian, than that concept shouldn't be foreign to you.

No, I said I was a Christian. And that's why I don't hate anyone either, including you. When I have demonstrated any hate for anyone?

Peaceful Muslims are peaceful IN Spite OF what the Qu'ran says, NOT because of it.

And this is where we disagree. The Muslim religion is no more or less peaceful than the Christian religion or any other mainstream religion in the world. Any of these religions have texts written for specific purposes that can be badly misrepresentative of the religious belief if taken in general.

Take what you've written about jihad. You've quoted very specific passages from the Qu'ran that seem to imply the Muslim religion is nothing more than an Al-Qaeda recruiting tool. But here's something that might interest you, directly from Bernard Haykel, a professor of Islamic law.

According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad:

1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can.
2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad.
3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad.
4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practice their religion and proselytize Islam.
5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks, and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma) against bin Laden's actions. This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic.
6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.

A “jihad” in this sense can only be declared by a religious leader. Originally only the Caliphate could declare it. At that time the caliph was the highest religious and political authority in the land.

Today because there are so many religious leaders, an individual cannot make this declaration. They will have to have something in Islam called ijma (consensus). No one person can make this declaration unless that person is truly the supreme religious leader, i.e. like the Pope. And in Islam there is no such person.

But you don't mention that in your posts. You don't mention the fact that Amir Taheri was the editor-in-chief of Iran's leading daily newspaper, and Iran has been an enemy of the United States for a long time. You don't think there might be a teensy bit of political influence in his interpretation of Islam, do you?

I have to wonder how many other things you don't mention in your screeds, how many facts you ignore in your arguments and religious citations. I have to wonder if you even recognize that this is the sort of manipulation leaders like Hitler used to start wars and declare fatwas.

Just to show you the dangers of posting religious texts without the proper context, here's Deuteronomy 13:6-18 (NIV):

"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and never again do any such wickedness as this among you. "If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. None of the devoted things shall cleave to your hand; that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping all his commandments which I command you this day, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God.

Of course, the excerpt above is from the Penteteuch, and is directed towards the specific circumstances of the non-Gentiles at Mount Sinai, and should not be taken as God's final covenant with us. But the Muslim imams and leaders you quote earlier are every bit as blasphemous as anyone who takes the passage from Deuteronomy above and construes it to mean we should kill all non-Christians.

And quite frankly, I don't understand the point of the rest of your post. You show me a picture of your son, apparently to parade the fact that he's black, drop a few more Muslim names, cite a few more of the outrageous claims and practices of Islamic radicals, and then proceed to chide me for being a "multi-culturalist" (whatever that might mean in your eyes) and then projecting me with a homosexual lisp. (Are you trying to suggest that my post was homosexual? I don't think so.) And then there's some random outrage at whatever Madonna's wearing these days.

Whether or not you wish to forgive Robert Byrd for using the n-word is totally up to you. Frankly, I don't care what you decide. But you seem intent at all costs to steer the discussion away from what I asked earlier: when did Robert Byrd lie? When did he participate in or sponsor a lynching? When did he do anything illegal? When did he do anything other than precisely what he said he did? It's the sort of manipulation that's become the hallmark of your posts so far.

A little Friday fun for everyone:

Suppose that you were elected President in November through a inexplicable, massive write-in campaign. Suppose, also, that you meet the age, citizenship, and all other requirements to serve as President. Suppose, also, that a like-minded Congress was elected as the overwhelming majority, and that they have publicly pledged to support any policy you decide to pursue.

What would be the ten most important things you would accomplish in your four years as POTUS?

I'll post my answer after everyone else today. But I'll warn everybody: you probably won't like my answer. =)

You defend Bob Byrd and his rascist past, and my opposing a mysogynistic religion that hates the Jews, democracy,and all things non-Islamic is bigoted. OK...I got it.

I've never defended it. Read my post at the beginning of this discussion.

The difference between you and Robert Byrd is: he recognized the hate and bigotry of what he said and did in the past, and admitted he was mistaken. You've failed to do either of those things.

And before I waste my time reading either of the diatribes you've posted above, do these have anything to do with mainstream Islam? Or is this more cherry-picking from the fringe?

How about those Pistons? If they had held a six point lead with 48 seconds to go in Game 2, they'd be up 3-0 right now. Scary.

They're finding their offense at the right time, but I've seen this movie waaay too many times. The Lakers will come back from the dead and win in 6.

If there are white ni##ersn in Byrds world, one can pretty well guess that there were black ones as well.

That was Senator Byrd's point exactly.

I didn't accuse Byrd of personally lynching any blacks. But Bob Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK, and a member of an organization that supported lynching, cross burning, and terrorizing blacks. You can live in denial of that if you want, but I have NO doubt in my mind that he knew damn good and well what the agenda of the Ku Klux Klan was, as any good recruiter would know the AGENDA of the organization they are recruting for.

I don't doubt that he knew all about the Ku Klux Klan. But you've still shown me no evidence that he supported the lynching of any black man, or that he did anything else illegal at the time. This is nothing more than mudslinging.

Sam, did I call YOU a bigot, or make any other personal slurs or attacks on your character??? NO. I haven't made this personal in any way, to you, but it's clear that that is where you want to go, with your debate.

But neither did I. I said your post was bigoted, but I have no idea who you are as a person, and thus have no basis to make any claims on your prejudices, or lack thereof.

People often believe things that they want to believe, without considering the undertones of those beliefs. In fact, that's how the Third Reich got started.

So, it's now: "bigoted" to criticize Islam, huh?

It's bigoted to take fanatical sects of any religion or organization and apply them to the much larger, moderate tent of the organization. It would be much like someone assuming my Christian beliefs were similar to David Koresh's Christian beliefs.

I've never gotten myself familiar with the names of radical Islam -- too many hyphens and vowels in weird places. =) But I have been to Muslim mosques and spoken with Muslim followers and leaders, and I can assure you that mainstream Muslim thought condemns the 9/11 attacks, condemns Osama Bin Laden, Wahhabi teachings, and everything they stand for, and rejects the movement back toward dhimmitude and the return of the shari'a.

Your screed against radical Islam and using it to condemn the whole religion is not unlike the tapes released by bin Laden that claim the U.S. is on another Christian crusade and intends to destroy or convert all Muslims.

Learn a little bit about this "religion", it's practitioners abuses of women, their hatred of Jews, Christians, intolerance of anything liberal, before YOU call ME a bigot, my FRiend.

Don't project ignorance on me when you know as little about who I am as I do you, especially when you've demonstrated no knowledge of the subject matter except a few cherry-picked quotes and name drops.

By the way, if you're going to call anyone a hypocrite for their supposed racism, I wouldn't turn around and take a quote from Ann Coulter.

I thought you were gone for the summer? Well, welcome back, I guess. I'll get to post #567 in a moment, but I'll answer your post about Byrd now, since it has a much bigger font. =)

Sam, I could show you a picture of President Chirac standing with Saddam Hussein, as well as a couple other world leaders.

You're missing my point. The point wasn't who got pictures taken with whom, the point was that circumstantial evidence by itself isn't good enough to make a broad argument. Just because Byrd was in an organization doesn't mean that he performed any lynchings on anyone, or even that he did anything illegal.

Show me some evidence that the West Virginia wing of the Klan, circa 1942-1944, lynched anyone. Then show me that Byrd was the man responsible behind said lynching. In fact, show me anything tangible that disproves anything he said about his words and actions in the '40's being a mistake. To be exact, his comments from back in 1952 were "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Once you do that, then you might have some basis for calling Byrd a liar, as Mud tried to do about 100 posts ago.

Just two short years ago, on the FOX news channel, Byrd told Tony Snow that there were "WHITE ni##ers" as well. He used the term twice on the show, so it was NO accident. Old habits die hard for old KKK members. But Democrats in Congress have no problem heaping praise on this loathsome creature. Now, THERE...is guilt by association.

No, it was no accident. But "guilt by association" is an oxymoron -- there is no such thing.

The entire quote, in context, was:

"They [race relations] are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white ni##ers. I've seen a lot of white ni##ers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

Clearly, he was talking about black stereotypes and how they can be applied to anyone. I wouldn't have use that word in any context, but I understand the larger point he was making, and I agree with that point. I'm certainly not going to go around hating the man and assuming he must have lynched people sixty years ago because of an offensive word he chose.

But, considering the bigoted tripe you've posted so far here about socialism and Islam, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would.

Here's an interesting Reagan quote for you:

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now. Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

-Ron Reagan Jr., 4/14/03

Well, if you accept that the KKK is a domestic terrorist organization, and we already know "Sheetz" Byrd was a leader of that organization...well, some would call that evidence of involvement in domestic terrorism.

No, no. Evidence is proof, not guilt by association.

Otherwise, I could use the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam Hussein back in 1983, and say it supports an argument that our very own Secretary of Defense supports our stated enemy.