World leader, known for reminding the Islamic world that his middle name is Hussein, hosts nuclear summit, presided over by large Islamic-shaped crescent:
Photo by Ron Sachs.
It is hard to believe that the State Department could do this by accident:
An Islamic crescent is a very distinct and completely unnatural geometric shape, combining a circular outer arc with a non-concentric circular inner arc. The unnaturalness is an Islamic religious requirement. A lunar crescent has an elliptical inner arc. Using such a natural shape as a religious symbol would risk idolatry (the worship of any actual thing besides God). Thus Muslims use as their symbol the explicitly unnatural circle-in-circle crescent shape.
Sometimes the inner circle sits entirely inside the outer circle. This arrangement is typically used to symbolize Islamic world domination, as seen in the MAS logo. More often the inner circle extends beyond the outer circle, as seen on the last last Ottoman flags:
Turkish flag. Crescent covers an unnatural 2/3rds of a circle of arc, give or take (in contrast to a lunar crescent, which always covers a half a circle of arc).
Obama’s circle-in-circle NSS logo uses a thin crescent to combine the world encompassing aspect of the MAS logo with the more familiar Ottoman crescent, covering less than a full circle of arc.
Obama has ordered his underlings not to notice Islamic connections
Given that the unnatural circle-in-circle crescent is the only widely recognized graphic symbol of Islam, it must have been recognized as such by at least a significant percentage of the State Department personnel who saw it prior to the summit. Why didn’t anyone object, forcefully and publicly if necessary?
It would seem to be the Fort Hood phenomenon, where witnesses to Nidal Hasan’s murderous ideology were afraid that making an issue of it would be career suicide, thereby enabling Hasan’s mass murder of American soldiers. Obama has now made the career suicide threat official, ordering all members of the executive branch to be as oblivious to Islam as possible. The more disturbing the Islamic connection, the more it is to be avoided, to the point where Muslim terrorists, whose reading of orthodox Islamic interpretation compels them to slaughter infidels, are no longer to be called “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic extremists.” Everyone is just supposed to ignore their Islamic motivation.
Hydrogen atoms and Swastikas
Defenders of Obama’s nuclear crescent (trolls in the comments at Gateway) think that so long as the Islamic-shaped crescent can be interpreted in some non-Islamic way, there is nothing wrong with using an Islamic shaped crescent to represent American hospitality:
Oh please, folks, get a grip. It’s modeled after a hydrogen atom, you know, as in hydrogen bombs?
This issue came up when the Missile Defense Agency’s crescent shaped website logo became a news story in February.
MDA website logo, uses the world-encompassing symbolism of a full circle-in-circle crescent favored by several Islamic terror groups:
Left: Islamic Palestine Block insignia. Center: Hamas insignia. Right: PLFP insignia (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).
MDA spokesman Rich Lehner insists that the world-encompassing circle-in-circle crescent “symbolizes the worldwide protection of our homeland and deployed forces.” But do we get to redefine in this way the only symbol shape that our terror war enemies claim as their own?
By that logic, one could say that the swastika represents a helicopter rotor in motion, making a great logo for our Apache squadrons, but no such interpretation can obviate the established meaning of the symbol shape, and like the swastika, the full circle-in-circle crescent has its own established meaning (a meaning not so different from the swastika). It represents Islamic domination of the planet. For Lehner to protest that this isn’t what the full circle-in-circle crescent means to him is as ludicrous and irrelevant as saying that he sees the swastika as a spinning propeller.
Not that it matters, but the NSS logo fails as hydrogen atom
Most obviously, why the gap in the electron’s orbit? The only purpose of this gap would seem to be to turn the crescent into the familiar Islamic-shaped crescent.
Less obviously, notice that the fattening of the crescent at the lower left indicates visually that the electron is coming closer at that point. That would only be the case if the orbit were being observed somewhat edge-on, but that would make the orbit appear to the observer as an ellipse, not the circle seen in the NSS logo.
By the same token, since the orbit is seen as circular rather than elliptical, that means it is being observed from above (from one of the poles of the axis of rotation), which means the electron is not moving closer to and further from the observer, hence no crescent-like fattening of the arc would be observed.
The only purpose for the unnatural fattening of the circle on one side representation would again seem to be to create the familiar Islamic shaped crescent.
Frank Gaffney was pre-mature in walking back his concerns about the MDA crescent
Kudo’s to Frank Gaffney for forcing our Democrat dominated media to address the crescent shaped MDA logo two months ago. In addition to noting the Islamic shape, Gaffney also noted the likeness to Obama’s permanent campaign logo:
When he discovered that the MDA logo predated the Obama administration, Frank began a walk-back, which he extended to the crescent shape:
It has also been observed that – rather than embracing the symbolic crescent and star, they could be interpreted as the targets of the intercepting swoosh in the MDA’s latest logo. If so, the 2009 design would presumably be offensive to Islamists, rather than evidence of submission to them.
No, the crescent cannot be interpreted as the target of the intercepting missile, because the target of the intercepting missile is explicit. It is shooting down another missile. The missile shot in the logo can be interpreted as defending the crescent, but it cannot be interpreted as attacking the crescent because the crescent is not a missile.
Ignorant coincidence, or stealth jihad?
The unanswered question is whether the Islamic-looking logos are the product of ignorant coincidence or Islamic supremacism. There are stealth jihadists who work in the field of Islamic symbolism, like the Los Angeles architect who designed the giant Mecca-oriented crescent that is now being built atop the Flight 93 crash site. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shaped, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.) The planned memorial will be the world’s largest mosque.
Like Gaffney (sorry Frank, but you really wimped out on this one), the defenders of the crescent mosque are willing to embrace untenable excuses for their Islamic symbol shape. Asked how he could abide the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent, Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93, argued that the almost-exact Mecca-orientation cannot be intended as a tribute to Islam because the in-exactness of it (within 2° of Mecca) would be “disrespectful” to Islam.
After the cartoon jihad, Gaffney and White might be excused for thinking that Muslims will take offense at just about anything, but the fact is, orthodox Islam cares very little about how exactly anyone faces Mecca for prayer. For most of Islam’s 1400 year history, far flung Muslims had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca. Thus it developed as a matter of religious principle that what matters is intent to face Mecca (and God).
So where did Patrick White get the idea that orientation on Mecca must be exact? From a Muslim scholar commissioned by the Park Service to answer just this question. His name is Nasser Rabbat, and he told the Park Service a flat out lie. Why? Rabbat is presumably a stealth jihadist, though he could have also been doing a personal favor for ex-classmate Paul Murdoch, the Los Angeles architect who designed the Crescent of Embrace.
This is why these possibly coincidental Islamic symbol shapes need to be properly investigated: because where there is smoke, there is sometimes fire.
Gaffney was also premature in dismissing the Obama-like character of the MDA logo
Just because the Obama-like logo was not a product of the Obama administration does not mean it was not the work of a freelance Obamaton, or even an Obama-connected logo designer.
Obama started using his logo in early 2007, when it made a huge splash in the logo-design community. The contract for the MDA logo was not let until September 2007 and the logo itself did not appear until October 2008. Thus the MDA logo was designed while Obama’s logo was all the rage, and given Obama’s connections in the advertising industry, his people could even have exercised some direct influence over the MDA logo.
The strong Obama likeness makes it almost certain that the MDA logo was created by an Obama partisan as a tribute to Obama. From that strong prior, the likelihood that the Islamic-shaped crescent was also intentional goes up dramatically. Our president does not emphasize the “Hussein” in “Barack Hussein Obama” for nothing.
To join our blogburst-effort to stop the crescent mosque, just send your blog’s url.
#43:
Aye, I may not see Todd the same as you do.
I’m at a loss for the part of Todd’s post where he is categorized on both sides of this discussion. If this is meant to refer his party shift, how is that an unreasonable or unbelievable event? If you think he’s pretending, your sense detectors must be a lot better than mine.
All in all, and setting his specific party alignment aside, I see his post as a consistent argument, and generally speaking, logically sound (again, all politics aside). The viewpoint he describes fits a real-world view for individuals. I fail to see any flaws for a person who might fit the category and hold these opinions.
In any case, I think the original troll description for Todd was just too simplistic.
As to me; perhaps “a lot” was too strong. In retrospect I would modify that to “some” (that’s the same “some” that Fox News uses all the time: “Some people say . . .”). I also see confusion with my reference to “here” that led to the “finding fault” reply. My comments were referring only to this thread, not the site.
That said, I do indeed find fault with what is written here; that is why I posted in the first place. My comments speak for themselves, so I won’t go down that rabbit hole here.
As for the question of my (control/concern?) troll nature; let me be clear. IMO, reverting to this characterization due to disagreements over positions (or especially evidence) made by any poster is disingenuous and intended as a simplistic put-down, when it’s not possible to offer a reasonable counterpoint. The example quotes for Concern Troll #3 (which you omitted) sound very different than anything I said.
I also guess my exaggerated attempt at humor might have influenced my trollness ranking. Whatever; you’ve got and explained a reason that supports your opinion of me, and opinions are up to you not me. I only offer my side so you can hopefully understand intent.
#48: Don,
I’d love to get your perspective on any actual irony you claim exists. You know, substance. BTW, I wasn’t railing about free speech in the way you describe. As I further clarified in #44 (that’s real close to #40 where you jumped in; were you able to count that far and read more than one post?).
How nice it is for you to be designated as one who discredits others. Unless and until you step off the opinion only platform to make serious comments that are even eligible for being used to attempt to discredit anything, I’ll give them and you appropriate deference.
As far as any “Decision Making 101″ course, I guess you’re just more sophisticated than me. I’ll just have to remain woefully lost in the void until I’ve gotten the benefit of your matriculation.
BTW, having 32 successful years in business, I’m not too concerned with being taking seriously. Especially because, as the need arises, I provide substance and capability as part of my day-to-day activities. I know you understand what I’m talking about; I’m surprised your handle isn’t MrSubstance.
#49 – ilovebeeswarzone,
Well, I think i did what you asked in my 1st posts (#39/#40). I further clarified my thoughts on trolls in #44/#50. Other posts provide additional thoughts of mine backed by substance.
Do you have any specific questions?
@FactYouAll
Your #40 post re-inforced your claim:
So far you’ve been yammering on about substance when it appears you are more interested in process and the pretension of the process. If you ever get around to something worth debating rather than the process of debating… let me know.
FACTYOUALL: i think i figured what you are missing here;you probably are used to comment somewhere as a response to another following the chain all the way to the end;it happen here too, and also it is broken by a diffrent comment that also could be picked up and follow until another will bring the commenters back to the POST :MIKE AMERICA is an expert on doing that,we are kind of freely express and get away with it:it is not as strick as you might be used to,;bye
FACTYOUALL:by theway i also click on your red[sometimes,]and got the info about FLIGHT93,i should have check that before: i sure hope the designer completly get the circle out,because it obviously sway the visitors thoughts, to what the crescent represent ,that is “on that site”the criminals who are responible for the destruction of so many valuables AMERICANS,
Fract You All wrote:
If the fractious one were really in the evidence camp, I think he would have noticed that my original post was quite thorough in formally stating the shape of an Islamic crescent (it covers more than a half circle of arc and has a circular inner arc), and in explaining the theory behind the shape (Islam’s hyper-sensitive antipathy to any appearance of idolatry forces it to use this stylized representation of a crescent moon, instead of the actual shape of a crescent moon (half a circle of arc, with an elliptical inner arc).
Islam’s pro-forma hypersensitivity to idolatry is ironic, given that Islam is the most thoroughly idolatrous religion in existance, worshiping Muhammad as a God, even as they erase his face from historic art in supposed fear of idolatry. What is the particular form of Islam’s real idolatry? The Koran is supposed to be the word of God, transmitted to Muhammed the man by the archangel Gabriel. Thus the Koran is supposed to reign superior to anything said or done by Muhammad the man. But under the established methods of Islamic jurisprudence, every verse of the Koran is interpretted by looking to the sayings and biography of Muhammad the man to see what interpretation is consistent with the actions of Muhammad the man. That is, the man is the measure of the book. Pure 100% unadulturated Idolatry, making a man the measure of God (unlike Christianity, which worships, not a prophet, but God in the form of a man).
What is this about Fact having info on Flight 93? Post the link and I’ll take a look.
@Bees
You might have hit the nail on the head…. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s posterior about trolls, the definition of a troll, or the shape of various iconic symbols. In the grand scheme of things, its a whole lot of wasted keystrokes either way. Perhaps on a different thread, with subject matter of more import than this one, we’ll find out if Mr FactYou can truly hold his own.
Now… where the hell did that dog go that ‘et my stick?
ALEC it’son number39 click onthe “red”SOMETIMES; bye DONALD:i will find it for you soon,bye
Google Flight 93 memorial and check out the wikipedia link then check out the design.
DONALD:[dog ett my stik] last mention on number 200 post GARY KUKIS, named’IS OBAMA INTENTIONALY….” bye
#57 – Don,
Thanks for affirming that this thread is all mental masturbation.
FACTYOUALL:you just said a big lyenow,DONALD never said that:i am sorry for you.
The term masturbation is a bit droll, it brings to mind parental warnings of failing eyesight, palm hair and on a more recent note… frigid x-wives.
@Bees… in a round about way… in reference to some of the recent posts… i kinda did infer that it was as FactYouAll describes.
#53 – Don,
Please retain context when quoting others, lest you demonstrate dishonesty. I never said, as a stand-alone sentence what you quoted. For the record:
You are either dishonest or stupid (or both?) to write like this. An apology will help clarify where you fall.
As the first to mention “substance, I established a certain meaning. You replied to me with “substance” as well. Common convention would have you continuing the same usage as the original mention. Unless you were unable to ascertain that meaning, or really don’t care about consistency.
Despite repeated attempts to get you to offer substance, you avoided engaging. In looking back at your posts, I guess you may see substance differently.
Now, that’s lot of substance!. In contrast, in each post I made, I referred to the exact earlier post and offered actual debating points each and every time. This post included. Now, if you’re unable to recognize substance when you see it, that’s your problem. Just don’t transfer your shortcomings to the rest of us, and impose your problems on others.
Hey FrakYou…. I guess you missed my other Reader submitted articles, that were legitimate and serious discussions. This is about where we started this commentary, coming full circle; you take issue with my posting your “taking me seriously” comment out of context and then you proceed to post some of my “ligher side” comments, neglecting to mention my serious “reader submitted” articles, presenting my lighter side out of context in the overall scheme of my activity on this forum… exactly as you did with the troll post… you took issue with the free speech aspect of the post and then railed about other’s use of free speech in labeling the individual a troll .. so excuse me if I’m not overly impressed given your hypocrisy, “Process” oriented posts and your own over-inflated opinion of your idea of “substance”… when you’ve been around here for awhile and you’ve contributed something of worth to the discussion, I might then take you a bit more seriously. Until then… take a flying leap!
#66 – Don,
You expect someone to research your published work before they can comment on what you say here and now? And that’s reasonable? My advice: If you are a serious person, be a serious person.
You want to show your light-side? OK. Is it too much to ask that your light-sided persona travel with the serious you; post serious stuff, and let your light-side out along side. Although, there is something about your light-side that might have a problem with being nasty (and perhaps ugly).
And yes, I did clip portions of your posts, only showing the “lite-side”. I did so for the sake of brevity; there was no deliberate effort to separate serious from lite. Sorry for the side effect. AFAIK, I didn’t, however, clip any sentences. Now, wasn’t there a mention about “You are either dishonest or stupid (or both?) to write like this.”? What became of that I wonder?
I was reading this and appreciating your serious side here; what you say above has merit. And then you fool-me with your somewhat nasty, likely ugly, final comment:
Oh my, so close, yet; so . . . IDK.
Until next we cross; keep it real.
p.s. – I don’t know you well enough to put your shuffling my post handle into context. If it’s to annoy me, it didn’t & won’t happen. If it’s to show superiority, that’s not up to me. If it’s inadvertent, OK. Otherwise; thanks for the additional data point on your character.
@FrakYou
As you stated before… this commentary is a form of mental masturbation; it appears that you’ve not had enough. Don’t forget to shave your palms when you’re finished and get your eyes examined regularly!
I find it much more rewarding to be multi-dimensional. I’ve found that stuffed shirts tend to be a bit stifling. Their words eventually evlove into a never ending blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah… We have a poster here called B-Rob, whom I like to call B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time, (I just thought I’d let you in on that so you’d know that there was no mistake in my morphing of your moniker. I am also certain your choice of username was meant to convey a certain attitude to all the posters here at FA), he’s pretty full of himself too and takes himself way more seriously than is warranted. He can expend a 1,000 keystrokes and never say anything credible or worthwhile but he’s definitely serious in the exercise. You remind me of him in abbreviated format.
When your hypocrisy and self-importance abates and your contribution begins to add value to the discourse I might consider ending my missives in more cordial terms.
DONALD:hi i was checking comments and you had 9 on him,he had 12 on four of us;and i read AYE comment, and he was right all along just like you: did you check my 200 comments at UNENTENDED? we went pass 200 there,bye
Yeah Bees…I saw you hit 200 over there… have you seen the dingo that et my stick… maybe he’s over on the slope where the guy’s crapping turds that roll down hill!
Looks like we totally hijacked this thread….
And we didn’t even get around to discussing Islamic rock worship, tawafs, the 5 pillars of islam, the kaaba, the black stone or the haji. Damn… wasted opportunity. Although auto-copulation never came up we got close with masturbation!
Here’s smilin at ya!
Remember during the cold war how red became a color synonymous with our Soviet enemies? Kind of strange then that the color used to represent Republicans is also red.
Hmmm…. Could it be said then that Republicans are a secret society of Communists?
You can find whatever you need to proove a point if you wear blinders over your eyes.
Just saying.
@Calliope:
Idiot! Whatever you were looking for to “proove” your point, you didn’t find
Republican President Reagan–red….communism/cold war dead. Might want to go “find” out about Democrat–blue Teddy Kennedy’s Russian escapades while Reagan was working on taking apart communism in the USSR. So much for your Republican secret society as the repubs have a long history of fighting/destroying communism….democrats, not so much, maybe not at all.
MISSY;good to have you back,missed you,on my back too. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Been busy in my gardens, another couple of weeks to go before they are the way they should be. Then my neighbor and I started another one, we are nuts, but it keeps us out of trouble.
did you see on”obama proclaim arizona…POST”,some actions there,. bye,i also planted some seeds of giant dark blue sweet peas,and others outside,and some inside are showing up1 inch;diffrents one.