January 19, 2006
Appeal To Hostage Takers Reveals Hypocrisy of the Left
The mother, family and friends of American hostage Jill Carroll are appealing to the terrorist scumbags of The Revenge Brigade for her release. If you are a believer in any sort of God who intervenes in the affairs of man, please offer your prayers on Jill's behalf.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
What is so interesting about Jill Carroll's mother's appeal is that it reveals the underlying assumption that even those on the Left have about the terrorists ('freedom fighter' or 'Iraqi Minutemen' to the Left) that we fight. What is that assumption? That the terrorists are murdering, uncivilized, pieces of human garbage.
Wait, you say, I'm on the Left and I don't believe the insurgents are really bad people. They just want the U.S. out of their country and they are driven (read: forced) to take extreme measures to accomplish their goals. You would do the same.
Of course, those making this claim do not really believe it. Let us examine Mary Beth Carroll's words. I am not accusing her of being on the Left, but the same rhetoric comes from organizations such as The Christian Peacemakers team, Giuliana Sgrena's Il Manifesto, and murdered hostage Margaret Hassan's CAIR International--all on the Left. AP:
The mother of abducted American reporter Jill Carroll appealed Thursday for her daughter's release, a day before the deadline captors set for killing her if U.S. authorities don't release all Iraqi women in military custody.Of course, if I were a relative of Jill Carroll I would be doing anything and everything to secure her release, even if that meant taking the "she's not your enemy" tactic (even if that meant paying ransom). So, let me reemphasize that I believe Mrs. Carroll's words are perfectly legitimate under the circumstances."They've picked the wrong person. If they're looking for someone who is an enemy of Iraq, Jill is just the opposite," Mary Beth Carroll told CNN's "American Morning."
She said video images aired by Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday gave her hope that her daughter is alive but also have "shaken us about her fate."
"I, her father and her sister are appealing directly to her captors to release this young woman who has worked so hard to show the sufferings of Iraqis to the world," she said, reading from a written statement....
"We hope that her captors will show Jill the same respect in return," she said. "Taking vengeance on my innocent daughter, who loves Iraq and its people, will not create justice." [emphasis mine]
But here words remind me of similar statements by Islamic clerics, Leftist organizations, and Borders sans frontiers all of whom make the same arguement, yet have no personal stake in the outcome of the hostage crisis. Taking Mrs. Carroll's words as an example of Leftist rhetoric, do you see how the underlying assumption is revealed? The insurgents would not kill Jill Carroll if they understood that she is a journalist on their side. The opposite, then, must be true: if Jill Carroll was a pro-war journalist then the natural course of events would be for the insurgents to kill her.
What kind of people intentionally murder unarmed civilians who are under their control? Even those on the extreme Left must admit that murdering a civilian is a barbarous and uncivillized act, and that those engaged in such psychopathic behavior are subhuman scumbags.
But, there is a state of denial by the extreme Left. They believe that the political orientation of the hostage should have some bearing on whether or not killing them is vile murder, or just the tragic consequences of war. They may not realize that they believe this, but they do, as revealed by their own words.
And the ability to differentiate how worthy hostage victims are of death puts those on the extreme Left who engage in such judgement in a similar category as the murdering terrorists who they are so eager to condemn only when the hostage shares their political persuasion: they too are evil vile scum.
Remember the recently reiterated words of the nation's most popular blogger, Leftist Markos Zuniga of The Daily Kos, when he found out American civilian contractors had been murdered in Fallujah: Screw them.
To those who take and murder hostages in Iraq, I have a different message: do not kill Jill Carroll, because she is a human being who poses no imminent threat to your safety and killing her would make you a murderer. Her political stance is unimportant. Murdering any hostage is wrong.
Murdering anyone, regardless of the victim's politics, is an act of evil which cuts your soul off from humanity. If you do kill her, I hope you are hunted down like the pigs you are, and slaughtered. For you have reealed your own inhumanity and no longer can claim the rights and priveleges of man.
And to those who would appeal to the hostage takers by arguing that Jill Carroll ought not be killed because she is really on their side, please think about what you are saying. Your words reveal what you really think of the insurgents in Iraq. And if you are still comfortable supporting them after this assumption has been clarified, then there is nothing left to say. Your nature has been unmasked for all the world to see.
UPDATE: See the subtitled al Jazeere video of Jill Carroll from MEMRI here (thanks to Tribeca). Notice the reason why al Jazeera supports the release of Jill Carroll? Because she is a journalist and they are obliged to support journalists going unharmed.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:35 AM
| Comments (135)
| Add Comment
Post contains 936 words, total size 6 kb.
1
>>"If they're looking for someone who is an enemy of Iraq, Jill is just the opposite..."
No lady. They're not looking for enemies of Iraq, they looking for enemis of the Caliphate, and any infidel will do-- especially the morally decadent godless Liberal variety. Was she wearing a burka? No? Well there you go. She will do just fine for their purposes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 09:09 AM (8e/V4)
2
Funny how when the terrorists cite the reasons they attack "the great satan" it's often for behaviour the Left is part and parcel to. The left carries the banner for Homosexuals Liberal Arts so and on so forth but somehow they think the terorists are on their side and if they only understood how nice and fair they are it will all work out. Nice and fair have nothing to do with it dumbasses. Of course the Islamists will call for the release for their own reasons and some will fall for that as genuine respect for the Left on the part of the Islamists. But they forget misleading the kufr left for your own purposes is quite OK. Should Jill be released and I hope she is many will forget that she was kidnapped and threatened with death to start wiht and say oh how nice. Played like a fool they will be.
Posted by: Howie at January 19, 2006 09:15 AM (D3+20)
3
You're right Howie, and I can't figure it out either how the libtards are expressly and unconditionally supporting the very people who would slaughter them like sheep. We all know libs are self-loathing, but I think it's suicidal in nature.
Libs are childish in their inability to see reality, and live in some sort of dream world where mean people make them go to work and pay their own way, and it can only be made better by destroying everything. They're idiots and should all be rounded up and done away with.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 19, 2006 09:42 AM (0yYS2)
4
Be nice. The woman may lose her daughter to these monsters. Don't attack her.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 19, 2006 09:50 AM (5E0ex)
5
IM,
Liberalism is essentially suicidal in nature. Liberalism is like a biological WMD. It's just as likely to kill the user as it is to kill the target. A perfect example of this is abortion. Have you ever heard of the "Roe Effect"? They are essentially killing off millions of potential future Liberal voters. Ironic no, that their number one policy (abortion) ensures their own political demise. But Liberalism doesn't only kill Liberals by the millions, it's suicidally bringing down our country, and Western civilization too.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 09:50 AM (8e/V4)
6
Be nice. The woman may lose her daughter to these monsters. Don't attack her.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 19, 2006 09:50 AM (5E0ex)
7
George, we heard you the first time.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:00 AM (rUyw4)
8
"
George, we heard you the first time.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:00 AM "
Then wake up to yourselves. You assholes usually elevate victims of crimes like this to saintly heights. Except now it looks like some transient political agenda (bush-loving) is in jeopardy so you heave the sacred victims over the side. Hypocrites.
Posted by: JRI at January 19, 2006 10:08 AM (EeQUM)
9
JRI,
two things. First, which victims have we raised to "saintly" heights? Name him/her.
Second, I fail to see how this puts the bush-loving agenda in any kind of jeopardy. Care to explain? or are you the hit and run variety of troll.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 10:20 AM (8e/V4)
10
Sorry, I accidentally posted twice. Hasn't that happened to you???
Posted by: George ramos at January 19, 2006 10:28 AM (5E0ex)
11
Rusty is not "attacking" her. He is calling into question the underlying message in pleas that are put forward for the release of many who were unfortunate enough to be their victims. And he's right. The message rarely varies; Don't kill him/her for they are on your side. As if holding a different belief makes them worthy of being killed.
Do not ignore the several statements he made in the defense of those who do not deserve their brand of punishment, death, not due to any political philosophy, but by simple virtue of the fact that they are human beings who do not pose any iminent danger to the life of another. Period.
Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 10:35 AM (osKlJ)
12
Ok, but what about the fact that the Bush Administration is appeasing the terrorists, and has now met the demands of the terrorists by releasing 6 of the 8 Iraqi women held by coalition forces, as per the demands of the terrorists?!?
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 10:47 AM (L8cTI)
13
The Iraqi Interior Ministry made the final decision, not the Bush Administration.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 19, 2006 10:49 AM (Kr6/f)
14
Along with a representative from the US, who takes his walking orders from the Administration. The Administration could easily have said no, or put their foot down. Believe me, the Iraqi government is in our pocket and answers to us.
The US stated there wasn't enough evidence to hold these women any longer. But the cases are reviewed on a bi-weekly basis, and was reviewed just prior to the terrorists demands. There was sufficient evidence to hold them just last wseek, but immediately after the demands are made, there suddenly isn't enough evidence to continue detaining them?
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 10:52 AM (L8cTI)
15
You are right Janie, except that I do not know if the Administration was involved (Coalition representatives claim they were not).
See this post: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/152324.php
Others,
I did not say ANYTHING bad about Mrs. Carroll. In fact, I EXPLICITLY said that if I were in her shoes I would be doing EXACTLY the same thing (and more).
Posted by: Rusty at January 19, 2006 10:57 AM (JQjhA)
16
See, that's what happens. Someone reads part of a "news" item, doesn't read or comprehend all of it or check other sources, makes an assumption and then can't wait to beat you over the head with it.
Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 10:57 AM (osKlJ)
17
The point being missed here is that the Iraqi government is becoming more and more autonomous, Janie. By all appearances it seems the US conceded to the will of the Iraqis. The decision was not made solely by the US. At some point they have to make they're own decisions. They have a constitution and an elected government now. Are we to keep putting our foot down and not let them rule the way they see fit? To use the phrase "the Bush Administration is appeasing the terrorists" is disingenuous. Especially since there has never been an indication that this is true.
Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 11:04 AM (osKlJ)
18
Rusty,
"the US military stressed that decisions over such matters were a detailed process that were unrelated to any other operational activity." - From the BBC
Let's say for a moment that the Administration was not involved (which I highly doubt). From the above quote, the US military WAS involved in the decision-making, and as the Commander-iN-Chief of the military, does he not have a RESPNSIBILITY to the American people to be involved in this sort of decision, which could affect the lives of future American citizens?
This is sending a mixed message to the terrorists, and could lead to an increase in kidnappings, since we are appearing to meet their demands (whether the President was involved or not does not matter to these terrorists). And what happens to those that are kidnapped in the future due to this incompetence? This is a decision, that whether you like the President or not, you know he should be involved in. It affects the future of our men and women in harm's way. So, the choices are either, the President is involved in sanctioning the negotiations, or there is incompetence of the Commander-in-Chief of our Military to allow a decision to be made that puts us in further danger.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 11:04 AM (L8cTI)
19
Oyster,
"By all appearances it seems the US conceded to the will of the Iraqis. The decision was not made solely by the US. At some point they have to make they're own decisions."
So, the US is going to give the Iraqi government the power to put future citizens of America in harm's way, because we need to let them become autonomous, while we still have troops there?
If we are going to maintain such a large troop presence, the US needs to make sure that the decisions which are being made are not going to put them into any further danger, or we need to get out.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 11:09 AM (L8cTI)
20
God, I can't spell today! lol, sorry for all of the typos.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 11:10 AM (L8cTI)
21
Janie illustrates another common Liberal phenomenon which we have noticed and discussed at length on this board. The phenomenon by which two moonbat wings play both moonbat sides against the bushian center.
If Bush doesn't play ball and poor journalist gets headchopped, one moonbat wing gets to say how Bush is a heartless despot.
If Bush does play ball by ceding to the kidnapper's demands and thereby saving poor journalist's life, the other moonbat wings gets to prove how he's a terrorist appeaser.
They can't lose, and the outcome is always assured.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 11:13 AM (8e/V4)
22
I understand your point of view. But it appears you and I are both wrong. These women have not been released and statements today from the White House say that their release is not imminent. They are simply under review. So let's argue about it when that time comes. In the meantime - I offer a truce.
Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 11:16 AM (osKlJ)
23
Jesusland Carlos,
Well, since you don't know me, or exactly how I feel about the situation, why don't you stop lumping me into a group and calling me a hypocrite. I personally do not support negotiating with terrorists. And even though I offer a valid argument, you simply dismiss me without even considering the fact that my arugement is valid and factual?
Oyster,
I agree, truce accepted! 
)
)Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 11:19 AM (L8cTI)
24
This is toxic. I'd be interested in a discussion about liberal beliefs about terrorism and think you make some good points, but to use a distraught mother to illustrates yoru ideas and make points is beyond the pale.
Posted by: pete at January 19, 2006 11:21 AM (6ScZY)
25
Janie,
I didn't call you hypocrite, because I don't think that phenomenon generally happens on a conscious level.
In a month you'll be arguing the opposite position whereby bush is a heartless neocon for letting the hostages get headchopped, and you won't even remember this conversation.
Much of Liberalism is a reaction to what conservatives are doing, so you'll flip and flop accordingly, but you don't even know you're doing it. Liberalism has no core, it's purely reactionary.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 11:32 AM (8e/V4)
26
Jesusland,
How dare you label me in such a way? While I may be a liberal, I do have my own personal values. One of them is not negotiating with terrorists. I agree that I do not believe in a lot of what the President has done, but that was one issue I agreed with him upon.
And no, in a month I won't be arguing the other side of this issue. I didn't argue against how the Nick Berg case was handled, or any of the other hostage situations, so stop making judgments about me, based on what you THINK about libearals. You obviously don't know very much.
Your problem is that you have no tolerance, and listen to what other people tell you. How many liberals do you actually know in the real world? How many liberals do you have meaningful conversations with about politics? I would venture to guess that number is nil.
As for your comments about liberalism being reactionary: tell me, did the liberal movement of the 90's under Clinton fit the definition of reactionary? I think not. It may APPEAR that way today, because Democrats have no real power in the House or Senate. They have to be reactionary at the moment, because all of the branches of government are controlled by one party. When they cannot even submit a bill to get onto the agenda, they must REACT to what IS put on the agenda – only way to get across where they stand on that particular issue. Not even the vote to withdrawal troops back in November was a Democrat-sponsored bill, it was that of Duncun Hunter (R – CA). And if THAT whole charade doesn’t fit the bill of “reactionary”, I don’t know what does.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 12:10 PM (L8cTI)
27
I'll try to put it into terms Market idolators will understand: a trader must understand her client/opponent's goals in his own terms, not hers. Telling the captors that killing this woman doesn't even make sense in their terms is very astute, since appeals that begin with "You're irrational monsters," don't work.
But many (not all) on the Right would rather avoid femmy/"traitorous" abilities like empathy and a-macho rationalism even if they'll work. I'd rather know how my opponents think and use it to my advantage, even if I have to figuratively wash my hands afterward---guess why I'm reading this site?
Posted by: Wesley Mooch-Crusher at January 19, 2006 12:11 PM (3cqm8)
28
I have never posted to a message board before. I always just sat back and watched liberals and conservatives bash each other and laugh. There's not anything here too incendiary, just more hate.
Like this, which is why I come to read these things, just priceless humor: "Liberalism is essentially suicidal in nature. Liberalism is like a biological WMD. It's just as likely to kill the user....", or even better: "They're ('libtards') idiots and should all be rounded up and done away with" - blah blah blah same old tired name calling mindlessness. Does anybody with a healthy political interest NOT template their thoughts to whatever party they ascribe to? Isn't it possible that both liberal and conservative viewpoints can both have validity. Or do you just read your talking points memo before you speak? I guess I'm looking in the wrong place for thoughtfull debate. Don't get me wrong, liberals have become as equally worthless as consertives. It's hard to see when your eyes are filled with so much hatred of Bush. As a matter of fact, I would find it pointless to even post on the leftist blogs I have read, as everybody cheerleads each other. But both sides are idealogically rigid, with no room for compromise. Both parties in Washington could give a shit about any of us. I guess the idea of a third party will never emerge, because there's too many sheep (trolls, as I have seen them called on both political teams' blogs) that don't, who can't, think for themselves. Too many stupid & divisive issues like this article exist solely for the purpose of delivering a blow to your political enemy. It seems the author of this cares more about hating Leftist Rhetoric, than if the hostage is actually released. And again, liberals are the same stupid way, so don't accuse me of a bleeding heart, I hate you both.
Posted by: logicland at January 19, 2006 12:17 PM (fpt7S)
29
Market Idolators? Now that is a new one! Its suppose to imply some kind of insight and wisdom ... instead, I fell out of my chair laughing!
I love this!
Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 12:22 PM (3aakz)
30
>>>"terms Market idolators will understand:
lmao! clever. Kudos for that rare bit of humour and originality.
Unfortunately, when the Left tries to "understand" our enemies it's usually for the purposes of blaming America-- NOT for the purposes of defeating that enemy.
Janie,
I've been a Liberal all my life. You might call me an apostate of sorts. Which means I know you Libs better than you know youselves because I've had both the inside and outside view.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 12:24 PM (8e/V4)
31
I love it! Since Republicans have controlled all three branches of government we have seen very creative ways to blame liberals for just about everything under the sun. keep up the creative work!
Im working on a piece about how the Evol Liberal Elite Hollywood B-Movie Actors Association of America (ELEHBMAA) is working with North Korea to create hyper-strains of Bird Flu to make George look bad. Will be posting on my blog soon!
Posted by: liberul elite hippy commie at January 19, 2006 12:28 PM (YClF7)
32
hippy commie,
not to mention the Film Actor's Guild (F.A.G.)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 12:31 PM (8e/V4)
33
logicland,
cmon, admit it. Lefties are WAY more wacky.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 12:35 PM (8e/V4)
34
Jesusland,
Ah, so you're the anti-David Brock. I know how the Neo-Cons work as well.
You know, I have NO problem with true Conservatives. I would probably vote for John McCain, or someone of the ilk of the 1950's Republicans.. the ones that actually stuck to their values, and didn't follow blindly, going against what the party stands for (you know, smaller government, low defecit, wars only out of necessity, etc.). It's the Neo-cons that I take issue with, as they have hijacked what was once a normal party.
I figured you were a formal liberal, since that's where the Neo-con movement started from. Try reading "Blinded By the Right", might give you even more insight.
But again, keep throwing around labels, when you have NO clue who I am or what I believe.. just proves that the neo-cons are the party of ignornace, since by beliefs are staring you right in the face.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 12:36 PM (L8cTI)
35
JC
Admit it! You were a liberal in your youth for the same reason I was - Jenny Bronstein. Well, did you get any?
Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 12:43 PM (3aakz)
36
>>>You know, I have NO problem with true Conservatives.
Another attempt to play both sides against the bushian center.
When you're not attacking bush, the 50s Republicans were greedy penny-pinchers who hate the poor, as well as warmongering Cold Warriors-- BECAUSE they "stuck to their values", values you've spent the last 50+ years decrying.
But when you are attacking bush, you claim to love those values, and the 50s Republicans magically transform themselves in the "good time of Republicans", not today's neocons.
Whatever. You just proved my exact point.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 12:46 PM (8e/V4)
37
hondo,
that's the ONE thing I miss about my Lib days. Lib chics were so easy! lmao!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
38
Well the U.S has said that detainees won't be released anytime soon. It's the Iraqi government that is bending over to the terrorists. Jill may very well die tomorrow unless the terrorists do like they did with the peacemaker team and just disappear without ever mentioning her fate.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 19, 2006 12:53 PM (5E0ex)
39
Jesusland,
Shows how much you know about the current political arena. Bush has run up the biggest deficit in our nation's history. He has also expanded the role of government, not reduced it. He also began a war on questionable pretenses.
I'm not trying to play the center of ANYTHING. This is what I believe. If you can't handle that someone within the Democratic Party differs from those that run the party, shows that you will follow WHATEVER the Republican Party does, no matter what YOUR personal values are.
And honey, I haven't spent the last 50+ years decrying anything... I'm 24 for Christ's sake.
And the Conservatives from yore were NOT what Bush is in anyway, shape or form. If you read history, you'd know that.
Besides, I said that I have NO problems with true conservatives, and that I'd probably vote for McCain. I didn't say I agree with every single thing they did, or EVERYTHING they believed. I look for what's right about EACH party before making a final decision. But again, you blindly follow, so you wouldn't understand what that's like.
Posted by: janie at January 19, 2006 01:17 PM (L8cTI)
40
Janie,
I know about Bush's deficits, and we conservatives have been quite vocal about our concern. But the complaints just sound hilarious coming from you Libs considering you've always loved deficits, and I have no doubt whatsoever that had Kerry won the deficits would be even higher-- and you'd be loving him for it. Something about "the poor", and the "starving children."
And that's great that you love McCain. I love Joe Lieberman. So what does that prove.
Having said that, I would agree that today's conservatives are not "50's conservatives." They're more like JFK Liberals, if anything. Which is what I am.
Today's Liberals, however, are not like their 50s counterparts either. You're just good ol fashion Leftists now. JFK would be APALLED.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 01:29 PM (8e/V4)
41
Actually
A -> B does not imply that ~A -> ~B
it only implies that ~B -> ~A
Posted by: jomama at January 19, 2006 01:35 PM (pBKzg)
42
It's a dirty shame that you are picking apart the words of a worried and dismayed family and using them to make a point about how you imagine individuals may think about the many different people from different groups who are causing violence in Iraq.
It isn't philosophically sound.
It's barely thought-provoking.
It's sophomoric and naive.
It's unethical.
It's downright unfeeling.
Posted by: Jude at January 19, 2006 01:45 PM (bp7yd)
43
Libs love deficits??? LMAO! Tell that to Clinton who had one of the largest surpluses in history, and was promptly squandered by Bush!!!! Wow, you're priceless! Do you even believe what you're saying???
My first intoduction to a Democratic President was Clinton. His fiscal policy is what I want this current President to do, or the next Democrat President.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 01:57 PM (L8cTI)
44
>>>My first intoduction to a Democratic President was Clinton.
Then you're too young to know the difference. Dems have been running deficits since FDR. But it was for "the poor" and the "starving children" so it's all good.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:02 PM (8e/V4)
45
moreover, Bush spends like a Liberal, so what are you complaining about. I can complain because conservatives have always objected to this kind of spending, but it's a joke from you Libs. Overspending is how you've bought your votes all these years.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:08 PM (8e/V4)
46
why am I asking you? I've already stated the reason: playing both sides against the middle.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:10 PM (8e/V4)
47
What's the deal here? This is someone's daughter, remember? That's just mad-dog disgusting that you'd go after her mom for appealing to terrorists at that time, liberal or otherwise. Let her make her appeal for her duaghter's life, for God's sake. She isn't some hard-assed army colonel. Enough of this posturing. It makes you look like a major a-hole and does nothing for the cause.
The terrorists would gladly have taken a southern baptist missionary hostage over one more liberal journalist anyway. They think we're all equally immoral, moreso perhaps if you're a good Christian. Can't blame the liberals for dividing the USA anymore...
Posted by: greedo at January 19, 2006 02:16 PM (fDsCh)
48
1. Yes, I'm too young to remember the other's spending habits. But I am a history major, so what's your point? Just because I wasn't alive doesn't mean I don't know what happened before me. That's completely ignorant.
2. Bush spends like a liberal? Yeah, on tax cuts for the wealthy that are being financed by the Chinese. If there had to be that much money spent, yes, I would prefer it to be spent on a proper Medicare fund, unlike the one he put into place that's currently bankrupting the states.
Posted by: Janie at January 19, 2006 02:17 PM (L8cTI)
49
You make some interesting points about an extreme side of liberalism - believing that reason will work with someone, even if they may be a danger to us and will never change.
I would like to point out an extreme side of conservatism - believing that everyone who agrees with your worldview is good, and that everyone disagrees with your worldview is at best damaged and at worst evil.
It is this worldview which I believe Bush and his administration have taken advantage of, and which has allowed him to continue to have some support, even in the face of persistent failure, deceit, and corruption.
I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that if Clinton had gotten the exact same results as Bush from his efforts, you would find Clinton's actions absolutely unacceptable. And you would be right to.
Let's all clear our eyes. I'll try to keep the beam out of mine, as a liberal; I ask you all to do the same as conservatives. Stop making excuses for Bush. He's a grown-up man.
Posted by: jim at January 19, 2006 02:27 PM (l+abj)
50
This tread was about jill, right? When I get confused I just watch.
Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 02:34 PM (3aakz)
51
Tax cuts for the wealthy? You mean the "wealthy"-- cause I got a tax cut and I ain't wealthy. The tax cuts took some 2 million low-income taxpayers off the tax roles entirely, so itÂ’s hard to argue that working families didnÂ’t get a financial benefit. But you Lefties continue to work as best aw you can around these facts. If you look at the CBO report yourself, you will indeed see that the total tax share by the richest 1 percent did declined modestly from 2001 to 2004. But that wasnÂ’t because of the tax cut. It was because of the recession. When the economy contracts and incomes fall as they did in 2001 and 2002, tax payments by the wealthy fall the fastest. This is because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax. In other words, if everyoneÂ’s income falls by 10 percent, the overall percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy falls fastest, because they pay a higher marginal tax rate. But why am I telling you this. I'm working with facts, while you're operating from platitudes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 02:37 PM (8e/V4)
52
I love all of the liberals here who think I am attacking them. You will notice I used the term "extreme Left" to describe those I am talking about and never "liberal". The two are in no ways interchangeable. If you are a liberal and have taken offense I would suggest that you reread the post--in which case you should take no offense--or are misinformed as to your own values and are not a "liberal". If you are an "extreme Leftist", as I wrote, then go to hell.
And to all the new readers who do not know the history of this website, please understand that this website is the foremost advocate for hostages on the web. We have HUNDREDS of posts about hostages being captured by terrorists in Iraq. So, we speak with some bit of authority on the subject rather than those who suddenly become concerned about hostages only when the MSM tells them to be. I trust you are concerned with Jill Carroll, as much as we are, but it would have been nice to hear from you as these people were murdering 12 Nepalese civilians (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/043601.php) or beheading Turks and Iraqis (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/044009.php).
So, please excuse us if it is difficult for us to take your protests seriously. The media and the extreme Left only seem to care when these hostages are their political allies. We have been advocating on their behalf regardless of their nationality or political affiliations for much, much longer.
Posted by: Rusty at January 19, 2006 02:54 PM (JQjhA)
53
Exactly, where were you when Ronald Schulz and Jeffrey Ake's lifes were at stake? Ronald is dead and Jeffrey is still missing and presumed dead by the media.
Posted by: George Ramos at January 19, 2006 03:16 PM (5E0ex)
54
Jesusland carlos,
You're a hoot. The line about Bush spends like a liberal is one of the best I've seen on the blogs in years.
Hey everybody, JC thinks Bush is spending money hand over fist to help the poor and needy!!
Crack up.
And leave Janie alone. She already said she's not Ronald Reagan (doesn't negotiate with terrorists).
Posted by: Robert at January 19, 2006 03:24 PM (ByaZN)
55
No Jesusloon, I will not admit it. Can you possibly understand that it's not about labels and political parties and separating left and right, Liberals and Conservatives, which are one in the same corrupt, money loving government. You're proving my point that you're not worth a quality debate. You aren't able to see past red and blue. You obviously cannot imagine beyond your own reality. It's like dealing with a child. Honestly, what's your proof that any group is more 'wacky'? Your hard years of experience as great american liberal? How pathetic. Since you have supposedly been a Liberal all your life, and you constantly assail them, that means you hate yourself (if you were stating that as a joke, that you have the liberal 'inside' info, then your sense of humor is just not funny).
But I know what you're doing. You want me to defend an argument that plays into your hateful little hands, one that you argue every single day. I can see you goading people, and I fell into it. People like you exist to piss everyone else off. Anybody who classifies themselves as one thing or another is a fool. Toe the line politics is brainwashing. And when you state that a Liberal is this or that, you're playing that brainless game. How about this? Next time, instead of calling all liberals idiots, name particular bi-partisan idiots (there's plenty from all walks), and you might just gain some credibility.
God would be pissed that such a hateful person goes around sporting a jesus moniker.
Posted by: logicland at January 19, 2006 03:26 PM (fpt7S)
56
>>>Hey everybody, JC thinks Bush is spending money hand over fist to help the poor and needy!!
Robert,
Bush's prescription drug program is the biggest social spending plan in 40 years. Hey everybody! What a hoot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 03:33 PM (8e/V4)
57
>>>Since you have supposedly been a Liberal all your life, and you constantly assail them, that means you hate yourself
logicland,
you need to change your name to moronland, seeing as logic doesn't appear to be your forte, to say the least. I'm no longer a Liberal-- but a conservative-- thus "hating" Liberals would actually mean I love myself.
All you've done in that extended rant is prove that you don't have to be a Liberal to be a total moron.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 03:40 PM (8e/V4)
58
Jesusland,
if you think that the wealthiest 1%'s share of taxes decreased due to recession, you don't know what you are talking about. I don't mind conservatives, I just mind liars, and you are one. Further, the prescription drug benefit is not the biggest social spending plan in 40 years, not by a long shot. And more important, that spending goes to drug companies with only the slightest of help to the elderly. Again, Bush spends a lot, but it is handouts to defense contractors and drug companies. It is not traditinal social spending on porgrams that benefit the public, unless you argue trickle down. That is a huge distinction. pillaging medicare and welfare programs and burdening states while giving away money to drug and bomb makers can hardly be considered social spending. Why don't you get your highschool degree before you post like you have some education.
Posted by: jomama at January 19, 2006 03:41 PM (pBKzg)
59
This is truly disgusting and your attempts to cloak yourself in prior advocacy is pathetic.
What you have done in this post can be judged on it's own merit and it has none.
You have taken the statements of a mother (whom you acknowledge has a right to try anything to try to secure the release of her daughter), and create a strawman of "extreme left" to argue against.
Well guess what you ass, she is a mom, not a senate minority whip or a repesentative of the "extreme left", and all the views you posit to argue against are unsupported by a citation to the holder. In other words, why should I take your view of what extreme left wing people think. In fact, why should I accept your view of anything, since you are just making it up as you go along. You dolt.
Posted by: Joe Chicago at January 19, 2006 03:41 PM (9+hGc)
60
Jesusland doesn't know what he's talking about.
SHOCKER!!
Posted by: Robert at January 19, 2006 03:48 PM (ByaZN)
61
It seems unreasonable and exploitive to seize upon an appeal by a woman who is just trying to figure out how to say something, anything, that will carry some weight with her daughter's potential murderers--and then hold it up as some kind of exemplar of "Leftist rhetoric" to make a political point.
Posted by: trrll at January 19, 2006 03:50 PM (6ORla)
62
Oh, boy, here come the moonbat trolls. Go back to Kos and see if he says 'screw em' when he talks about Jill Carroll. That is his view on others who were captured and beheaded in Iraq. When you can give me a link or comment where you showed your concern for other hostages other than the Lefty variety, then come back. Otherwise all you trolls need to begone!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 03:54 PM (rUyw4)
63
Jommama,
Platitudes. That's all we get from you Lefties. Statements of "fact" that aren't fact, no examples, no evidence, nothing. Oh, and accusations of "ignorance" and of being "liars". This isn't Kos.
If you know of a bigger social spending program in the last 40 years than Bush's prescription drug program, I'd be happy to hear about it. Otherwise SHUT YOUR YAPPERS.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 03:56 PM (8e/V4)
64
"prescription drug program"
Which just goes to show Bush is wasting his time (and money) if he thinks spending like a liberal is going to get him any liberal votes.
Posted by: dcb at January 19, 2006 04:27 PM (8e/V4)
65
crickets
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 04:29 PM (8e/V4)
66
Jesusland, you read two lines and called me moronland. Brilliant. Just like a little kid.
You're no longer a liberal, right, you've changed brains. Did you just put the 'conservative chip' in? Even your language - moonbat trolls - is so unoriginal, every political hack calls everyone else that.
You're clearly incapable of having an adult discussion. I'm beginning to think 'all your life' isn't all that long. Or your losing it - ....Must...stick...to....conservative....idealogies...
I guess we could sit around a call each other morons all day, but that's not worth it to me. So have a good ignorant life. The gene pool is shallow my friend, and you are flapping in the wind.
And you clearly you need to change the Jesusland title with all that hateful bile dribbling out of you.
Posted by: logicland at January 19, 2006 04:38 PM (fpt7S)
67
moronland,
all I asked you if us conservatives were less wacky, and then you flamed me. So please don't talk to me about "adult discussions" and "hateful bile." It's clear I'm dealing with an idiot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 04:49 PM (8e/V4)
68
jesusland,
Social security, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest payments on public debt all swarf the prescription drug program. Or did you mean NEW spending program. You might have had to finish highschool to understand how leaving out a single word can change the truth value of any statement. Now you may go back to being poor, uneducated and fearful.
Posted by: jomama at January 19, 2006 04:55 PM (pBKzg)
69
But taking Mrs. Carroll's words as an example of Leftist rhetoric, do you see how the underlying assumption is revealed? The insurgents would not kill Jill Carroll if they understood that she is a journalist on their side. The opposite, then, must be true: if Jill Carroll was a pro-war journalist then the natural course of events would be for the insurgents to kill her.
Argghhh!!! Jawa Report, you cannot take the modus tollens and then simply reverse the implication. For fuck's sake, learn some basic logic! Arrgghhh!
Posted by: elendil at January 19, 2006 05:01 PM (QrbjA)
70
Jommoma,
maybe you were playing hookie the day they taught us math because I said "the last 40 years", and Social Security goes back to the days of FDR. Do I need to count backwards for you?
Also, Medicaid was created just OVER 40 years ago in July of 1965, and the same goes for Medicare.
Like I said, bro, this isn't Kos. Thanks for playing though.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 05:03 PM (8e/V4)
71
"Social security, Medicare, Medicaid"
hey Winger, does it hurt to be that ignorant?
Posted by: dcb at January 19, 2006 05:09 PM (8e/V4)
72
We can't?
Posted by: Howie at January 19, 2006 05:15 PM (D3+20)
73
Perhaps you should learn to read instead of playing 'gotcha' and 'take quotes out of context'.
I am not accusing her of being on the Left, but the same rhetoric comes from organizations such as The Christian Peacemakers team, Giuliana Sgrena's Il Manifesto, and murdered hostage Margaret Hassan's CAIR International--all on the Left....
Of course, if I were a relative of Jill Carroll I would be doing anything and everything to secure her release, even if that meant taking the "she's not your enemy" tactic (even if that meant paying ransom).
Posted by: Rusty at January 19, 2006 05:27 PM (JQjhA)
74
Jesusland,
Go read your post. You should have said "new" or "created." Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are all programs that have been active in the last 40 years, regardless of when they were created. You see the distinction? Probably not. Maybe you should finish highschool. And that says nothing of the fact that the precription drug plan benefits drug companies far more than the public. Why I even bother with poor, uneducated hicks like you from the heartland, I'll never know. Your religion and fear have damaged your brain.
Posted by: jomama at January 19, 2006 05:28 PM (pBKzg)
75
I have updated the post to reflect the fact that I did not intend to attack Mrs. Carroll. I apologize if my words could have been read that way because of some amount of clumsiness.
Posted by: Rusty at January 19, 2006 05:37 PM (JQjhA)
76
So some of the people on the left are hypocratic - this is your headline? Mind blowing stuff really.
Rightos (the millions of them) never show an ounce of hypocrisy about anything, especially death.
So what did you teach us that we didn't already know? Oh right, you didn't give a shit about that, just pointing to the evil "other side". Everbody is capable of hypocrisy. This particular brand you describe is detestable, I agree, but instead of naming people who actually said these things, you intend on offending as many people as possible. So what's the point? With divisive people like this, there's no hope for any of us.
Posted by: floyd at January 19, 2006 06:19 PM (6KkLz)
77
jommoma,
Congrats. You win on a grammatical typo. Enjoy your thin gruel.
And yet, my statement that Bush spends like a Liberal still stands. hahaha!
dcb,
Bush can spend twice as much and it won't buy a single Liberal vote. It just brings out the Libs and their newfound concern for deficit spending.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 06:29 PM (8e/V4)
78
jesusland - you're only care is winning. your life must be sad.
Posted by: taoland at January 19, 2006 06:33 PM (6KkLz)
79
taoland,
you sound like another moronic troll.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 06:35 PM (8e/V4)
80
and you sound like a lost little boy, who's scared and strikes back at all who comes near. have a nice life in your hole.
Posted by: taoland at January 19, 2006 06:41 PM (6KkLz)
81
I'm cut to the quick.
do you want a cookie?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 06:42 PM (8e/V4)
82
Jesusland,
Do you have another insult than troll, for christ's sake? I can see basically you're the only common post here throughout. What a loser.
Posted by: kundt at January 19, 2006 06:45 PM (6KkLz)
83
>>>"Do you have another insult than troll,"
how bout "you stupid cocksucker".
haha!
boy, you people are dopes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 06:49 PM (8e/V4)
84
good job jesusland, that's totally original.
man, you're great. You take the bait every time.
Posted by: kundt at January 19, 2006 06:54 PM (6KkLz)
85
>>>man, you're great. You take the bait every time.
I bet that's what you'd tell someone if he clocked you one and you were lying on the ground seeing stars. You MEANT for him to do that!!!
hahaha!
what a dope.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 06:59 PM (8e/V4)
86
I'm sorry, how does that logic work? Oh that's right you're a jesus freak and don't follow logic. Ever heard of irony? Oh that's right you'll just follow the next post with an insult and hahaha, unable to realize what a fucking tool you are.
Posted by: kundt at January 19, 2006 07:06 PM (6KkLz)
87
>>>Ever heard of irony?
is THAT what it was? Oh, you Libs and your "irony." You see, I just thought it was plain ol fashion stupidity. I guess I got too much jaaaaaysus in my head!
And this one's for you: hahaha!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 07:16 PM (8e/V4)
88
man, you never quit. this is much fun. i could do this all night. your a great preparation for all the assholes in this world that i have to deal with on a daily basis. i gotta rack my brain as to how fucking stupid a person has to be to come up with the responses you have. i bet your proud of yourself that as everyone else gets on with their life, like i'll be doing now, all you get is the last word on a message board. loser.
Posted by: kundt at January 19, 2006 07:47 PM (6KkLz)
89
omg, you sound like such a whiny little bitch. Trying to act all brave when it's obvious you're on the verge of tears. I bet you went home crying to mama. What a loser.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 08:12 PM (8e/V4)
90
"The insurgents would not kill her if they knew that she was a journalist on their side."
Why are you putting your own thoughts into Jill Carroll's mother's mouth? You're rephrasing the administration's now-abandoned mantra: "you're either with us or against us". Karen Hughes and her predecessors miserable ongoing "make-kissy-face" tour is all about trying to convince former allies and supporters around the world we never really meant that.
Jill Carroll reported on the reality in Iraq: our commanders wanting more troops, contrary to what Rummy tells us; the huge majority of Iraqis believing we don't care about their security and safety and wanting us to leave; Rumsfeld's ineptitude that has resulted in Iran calling the shots instead of us -- and you have to paint her as being "on [the insurgents'] side". The same spin the president has been selling for two years. But she HAS gotten on Rummy's "enemies" list. So, if her family did want to try and appeal to the insurgents on the basis of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend", you ought to just keep your pie hole closed.
You're a tough guy to talk trash about the family of a girl threatened with death. I admire you for your unflinching willingness to face her demise.
Posted by: Svejk at January 19, 2006 08:33 PM (m/Lj/)
91
Hey Svejk,
Thanks for the insight, one question? where were you as Rusty stated earlier on the hundreds of posts about people from Nepal/Iraq/Morocco/Sudan/Jordan/etc were kidnapped threatened with death from insurgents?
Nice of you to finally make an appearance, I think most of you are proving his point.
Posted by: dave at January 19, 2006 08:49 PM (CcXvt)
92
"Karen Hughes and her predecessors miserable ongoing "make-kissy-face" tour is all about trying to convince former allies and supporters around the world we never really meant that."
Now who's putting words in other people's mouth.
Posted by: dcb at January 19, 2006 08:53 PM (8e/V4)
93
Rusty you're an idiot. The woman is appealing for the release of her daughter and I imagine she'd say anything she thinks would work. The idea that her appeal reveals something about "the left" is just stupid.
Posted by: mike at January 19, 2006 09:01 PM (1tVHw)
94
Why don't you dumb asses read what Rusty said? Every bit of it. Damn, you're stupid. Just read what Rusty said. He is not criticizing the family at all, and sympathizes with their plight. He even says he would do the same thing, as any of us would if it were our family member that was a hostage of these animals.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:25 PM (rUyw4)
95
Jill is a journalist; neutral. She doesn't deserve to be harmed in any way.
Prayers going out for her.
This blog by the "Dr" makes me ill.
Terrorists are losing this battle. They will be crushed in the long run. And, if anything bad happens to Jill, let the Coalition send a wave of pain over the terrorist cowards.
Posted by: Jackie at January 20, 2006 12:08 AM (0o9Js)
96
As a friend of Jill Carroll, and someone who just stumbled across this piece of crap blog trying to find information, I have to say this: fuck you.
To turn this into a political football demeans not only the situation but what her family and friends are going through. This is an amazing woman, someone whose strength and intelligence you couldn't even imagine. And to sit here and talk the absolute bullshit that you are... well, karma's gonna be a bitch. I can only hope.
You hide behind your stupid fucking stage names and make jokes and remove yourself from the situation. You hold Jill's mother as an example of the left or the "extreme left" or whatever and it disgusts me. These terrorists are a bunch of cowards, hiding in anonymity and taking advantage of a female journalist, putting her family through hell. But you guys aren't like that, no. That sounds nothing like your modus operandi. Do not hold the Carroll family up as some metaphor for your imaginary enemies. And I'm not misunderstanding you: you'd do the same thing if you were in Mrs. Carroll's shoes. But then you'd be robbed of the golden opportunity to bitch about the media and liberals and homosexuals and whatever retarded tangent your mind takes you to.
I can't believe I have to answer back to a bunch of unthinking idealogues spouting bullshit on a page based around Star Wars. (Good luck at the Dungeons and Dragons tournament.) But it's just too much. You're all a bunch of heroes. Really. Honestly, I can't understand these terrorists for the life of me. I can't understand you any more. And I vote in the same elections as you.
I appreciate everyone who's stood up for Jill and what her family is going through. To the rest of you, I wish you'd say it to my face instead of starting pissing matches online.
Posted by: Michael at January 20, 2006 12:16 AM (byT59)
97
You'd think from the hysterical rant above that Rusty had said "fuck em" or something. But unlike the Leftwing scumbag Marcos Zuniga, who actually cheered when American contractors were dismembered and burned, Rusty actually is quite clear about how unfortunate this entire situation is. And Rusty's point is valid, even if you're emotional proximity renders you unable to see it. This woman's appeal is a reflection of a larger issue. Care to address it? If not, we'll understand.
Posted by: dcb at January 20, 2006 12:47 AM (8e/V4)
98
As a liberal, naturally I have a lot of sympathy for terrorists. The best way to solve problems is through violence and force, not through vigorous negotiation and politics. Because I'm a vegetarian, I fully understand their willingness to burn American mercenar...excuse me, contractors and behead captors. Because I'm a believer in separation of church and state, I fully sympathize with al Qaeda's goal to "restore" the caliphate, institute Sharia and drive Islamic infidels like Saddam from power.
I'm glad to see that the rightwing fully understands the situation in the Middle East and is capable of recognizing that bin Ladenism equals support for gay marriage, affirmative action, privacy, and a United States so weakened it actually feels honor bound to abide by agreements it signed.
Posted by: tristero at January 20, 2006 08:16 AM (Ea1SS)
99
You commie liberal morons are alot of the reason this propblem has not been solved .... it should have been dealt with when the first US hostages were murdered by these animals.
I will say it again ... in hopes that Mr Bush is reading. Pull our civilians out of there and DEAL with the situation. Deal with these fanatical idiots ... HARSHLY once and for all.
We are fighting enemies we cannot see. They will not stand up and fight us like men. These cowards deserve no sympathy from us, and they certainly do not deserve any respect.
Wake up!!!
Posted by: Dee at January 20, 2006 08:39 AM (HUims)
100
Jill Carroll is a foreign correspondent, trying with a great deal of courage to cover the news. She has put herself into a dangerous place to write for one of the most respected publications in the United States so that people can gain some insight into what is going on in Iraq. She is not an ideological football. She may well be doomed. That is sad. I have spent more years than I would like to think about myself as staff correspondent for international publications in a lot of countries in Asia. There are very few among us whom I have met who are seeking to advance an agenda. We are in the countries we work in because we are seeking to understand, sometimes in great danger, what drives them, and to relate what we have learned to the world. Bloggers seem content to sit in their undershirts, drinking Pepsi through straws, trolling the internet to confirm their prejudices. Jill Carroll does not appear to be that kind of person. She is a journalist in the best sense of the word. I hope she is not dead.
Posted by: John Berthelsen at January 20, 2006 08:47 AM (hOPt7)
101
John,
that sounded almost like a eulogy. Very touching. But I don't see any comments on this blog that might suggest Ms. Carroll isn't/wasn't possibly the finest human being that ever lived.
But the issue is not Jill Carroll, but her mom's comments. Care to address the substance of the post? That was a rhetorical question obviously. Rusty's post nails you people to the wall, so instead we get all the faux outrage and touching eulogies.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 09:13 AM (8e/V4)
102
"Enemy of Iraq" could mean so many things that it's essentially an empty phrase. Does it mean one who is against the insurgency? Or one who is against the average Iraqis who strive to live in a peaceful democracy?
Rusty's post seems to assume the former; I'm not sure the mother wasn't talking about the latter w/r/t her daughter. She says that her daughter loves the Iraqi people (whom we are trying to secure and liberate); Rusty interprets that to mean that her mother is telling the insurgents that her daughter is somehow "on their side." And even if that weren't the case, the phrase "enemy of Iraq" is still so vague as to make it impossible to infer subtext from the mother's statement and draw a corollary from it.
Personally, I think when the mother said that Jill was not an "enemy of Iraq," she meant exactly what Rusty said: "she is a human being who poses no immediate threat to [the insurgents'] safety." It does not necessarily mean she was telling the insurgents that Jill is on their side.
Posted by: Ryan at January 20, 2006 09:54 AM (2TKeV)
103
Another fine example of conservatives conflating insurgents and terrorists for the purpose of ridding the world of refined thinking.
Also a disservice to Jawas everywhere.
Posted by: Necromancer at January 20, 2006 09:59 AM (fcGkj)
104
Fine, here it goes. Mrs. Carroll's comments reveal nothing about the left or right. It reveals a woman who is trying to do everything she can to get her child back. She's not going to say how she's going to kill them all.
To make a leap from her cry for mercy to supposed blindness on the left is as disconnected, illogical, and insensitive as me trying to compare your navel-gazing, arrogant writing to the reason why conservatives haven't cured cancer yet. The substance of the post is ridiculous and it nails no one to a wall.
Posted by: Michael at January 20, 2006 10:00 AM (cQv/5)
105
>>>Personally, I think when the mother said that Jill was not an "enemy of Iraq," she meant exactly what Rusty said: "she is a human being who poses no immediate threat to [the insurgents'] safety." It does not necessarily mean she was telling the insurgents that Jill is on their side.
Finally one single solitary courageous Lefty takes up the challenge! Hat's off to you, Ryan.
And yet even assuming that what you say is true, and given the wording of her appeal, then Mrs. Carroll would also have to be implying that the terrorist kidnappers themselves aren't enemies of Iraq. Feel me so far? And by logical extension, therefore, she's implying that our troops and the elected government of Iraq IS the enemy of Iraq.
Her only out (and yours) is to argue that everybody killing each other over there is a friend of Iraq-- just in their own different ways. But that pretty much puts you back in the terror symp camp all over again. It's a conundrum.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 10:05 AM (8e/V4)
106
J.C. - I'm having trouble highlighting text, so I'll just respond without quoting what you wrote.
I see what you're saying... without delving into the thick forest that is trying to determine the meaning of the phrase "enemy of Iraq," I would say that logically speaking, you are correct - in saying that her daughter is not an enemy to Iraq, the mom is implying that the insurgents are also not enemies of Iraq.
My response to that takes us out of the realm of cold logic to a much more basic place - it appears she's telling the insurgents what they want to hear. Or not necessarily what they want to hear, but something which might appeal to whatever humanity still lies within them. Since she's speaking to the insurgents, it really doesn't matter what you or I think "enemy of Iraq" means - it's about what the insurgents think it means, and whether or not it's enough to free her daughter.
Like Rusty said, I think any of us would say *anything* in order to free one of our children from such a situation. It does not necessarily mean she truly believes that the insurgents are friends to Iraq, and/or that our troops are its true enemies. Accordingly, it really doesn't make the phrase "enemy of Iraq" any less empty, at least for the purposes of inferring and deriving the respective philosophies of the left or right w/r/t the GWOT and/or Iraq.
Posted by: Ryan at January 20, 2006 10:21 AM (2TKeV)
107
Ryan,
I too would say whatever it took to get my daughter released. And that's why Rusty isn't really jumping down the lady's throat about it. He's using her comments as metaphor, and he explains how far better than I could. I don't think that means we're using their plight as a "political football." But this is happenning in a larger context, and I think it's ok to talk about that.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 10:43 AM (8e/V4)
108
>>>Another fine example of conservatives conflating insurgents and terrorists
From the look of it, Jill Carrol and her mom are pretty terrorized.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 11:02 AM (8e/V4)
109
Jesusland,
You people are so rabidly right-wing that you see conspiracy everywhere.
The woman was just trying to appeal to whatever humanity the kidnappers have left.
She certainly did not say that her daughter was on the side of the insurgents/terrorists.
For you to read that in her words indicates how sick and depraved your mind really is.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 20, 2006 11:21 AM (jNXzj)
110
Devil,
maybe you should look up the word "conspiracy", and go back to high school and touch up on your reading comprehension skills.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 11:39 AM (8e/V4)
111
jesusland
The "metaphor" dodge is pretty lame. If his argument really had any validity at all, he shouldn't have had any difficulty finding an example that would make his point without exploiting the plight of a woman desperately trying to find some kind--any kind--of argument that might save her daughter's life.
Posted by: trrll at January 20, 2006 03:25 PM (6ORla)
112
Negotiate with Terrorists? That sounds familiar.
Reminds my of those days in the 80's when the famous leftist Ronald Reagan negotiated with terrorists on several occasions.
That list of terrorists would include Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin, amongst many others in the middle east.
Remember the Iranian Hostages? Terry Waite? All of them returned with Ronnie Reagan negotiation$.
"You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy." -Saddam Hussein (translated from Arabic to Republican)
bok bok Chicken Hawks
(nice post by Michael - I second it)
Posted by: Lars Gruber at January 20, 2006 05:43 PM (NXi5I)
113
Lars,
you're an idiot. You don't can't even tell the difference between a terrorist and a dictator. No matter, as long as you can make your idiotic point.
See, as despicable as Saddam is, he isn't a terrorist. He's a dictator. Ditto the Iranians.
Regarding your Osama crack, he's Jimmy Carter's creating. Learn your history.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 06:17 PM (8e/V4)
114
40 years a military dependent-former Republican
Dad was a nuke spook/former spouse Special Warfare-
May I suggest that any and all progressive, thinking Americans (OK, liberal to you facist types) who are wasting time on these type of blogs and NOT getting up OFF THE COUCH to really change things, please do so now.
This whole blogging thing is wonderful if we the living, who know change is critical for America's health and the declaration of victory in Iraq, are also OUT IN PERSON, Kay?
Please spend time away from your keyboards to share your rational observations and solutions beyond the privacy of your own home office or wherever.
If the thugs in DC don't see us in person, we don't really exist. Remember how easily the 2004 Election was hijacked by Diebold Corporation. What was said in the blogosphere changed nothing...
Posted by: ANNE GABRIEL at January 20, 2006 07:00 PM (eg8Dg)
115
"If the thugs in DC don't see us in person, we don't really exist."
Even when they see you in person they don't really care. They know you aren't going to vote for them no matter what, plus they like the occassional freak shows you put on display for regular folks. It only makes them stronger.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 08:11 PM (8e/V4)
116
"Remember how the 2004 elections were hijacked by Diebold Corporation"
And some of you libs accused us of being conspiracy prone. Now that's a good one, just as I heard today where more Demothugs PLEAD GUILTY TO VOTING FRAUD.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 08:39 PM (rUyw4)
117
You do know that all countries who say they don't negociate with terrorists actually do negociate, right? Even Israel.
Posted by: Sirkowski at January 21, 2006 05:39 AM (KKR9m)
118
Jesusland is a moronic, ignorant, and bigoted fundie. He is also clinically paranoid like all extreme right-wingers. Let's ignore him. There is no point responding to the lurid muck he spews on a regular basis.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 21, 2006 08:29 AM (ImpfT)
119
Anyone who criticizes the parents of this poor young woman is sick. The family is doing anything and everything they can to secure the safety of their child. You, I, and anyone else would do the same. Any normal parent would walk on hot coals for their children.
I would imagine both parents had some help on what might be helpful to say from US and perhaps Iraqi officials as well, as the wrong response could likely inflame these fanatics rather than soften them.
I believe one Jawa poster is correct on the point that releasing Ms Carroll has to benefit them in some way, otherwise it is not likely to happen. If she is harmed, I still call for Mr Bush to unleash our full potential on these people.
We are sick of being held powerless by the aclu and other liberal morons. If anyone doesn't agree, they need to be prepared for kidnap and torture right here in our own neighbourhoods, because it WILL happen.
All liberals - Sit down and shut up!
Posted by: Dee at January 21, 2006 08:45 AM (HUims)
120
Dee,
Did you mistake this blog for a liberal blog?
Read the main piece: it's a rightnut, paranoid, rant, implying somehow that Mrs Carroll's words show sympathy for the kidnappers.
As for you, poor extreme right-wing victims of the ACLU and the "Left" (whatever that term means), I do not feel your pain.
It is us, true conservatives (you know, the ones who believe in fiscal responsibility and in keeping the government out of our homes and lives) who are hostages of the right-wing radicals who are running this country into a ditch.
So, sit down, Dee, and shut the fuck up!
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 21, 2006 09:31 AM (NvhA8)
121
Dee,
you're a bigger moron than even Devils advocate. Nobody has criticized the parents of this woman. Can't you people READ? Is it really possible you're really this stupid? Or is it just hippie laziness. No wonder you hippies all end up working at Tower records.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)
122
Jesus-ass is stuck in a time warp. Hippies went out of fashion a long time ago.
And yes, his dumb head is firmly stuck up his ugly ass.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at January 21, 2006 09:47 AM (NvhA8)
123
The ones that aren't stupid hippies are hippie wannabes. That's why you spend your time protesting and blocking traffic and lying in the street pretending to be "dead" while the rest of us are being productive citizens, and actually WORKING. Get a job, loser.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 09:57 AM (8e/V4)
124
Jesus-kook, I bet you are a NASCAR fan, and that you have never read a book in your entire pathetic life.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have better than a job, I actually have a career. And I do not lie on the streets: the ground is too dirty. I would not want to ruin my expensive clothes.
Again, hippies went out of fashion thirty some years ago. Join the 21st century!
Got your head out of your pimply butt, yet?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at January 21, 2006 10:34 AM (h2HXW)
125
I forgot to tell you, Jesus-six-pack-Joe that I am one of these elitist intellectual, who lives in Manhattan (New York not Kansas), frequents the opera, loves art movies, drinks good wines, and speaks fluent French.
Now, I picture you as a beer-bellied slob, who speaks in tongues in front of hysterical audiences in some backward church somewhere in the heartland where people are so dumb that they do not believe in science (not that they would recognize it if it bit them in the ass). I bet you watch nothing but Faux News and that you listen to fat druggie Limbaugh. I bet that you have never been outside of the U.S. and that you are totally ignorant of the ways of the world.
In other words, like most of the morons who believe in Bush, you are just white trash.
Have a nice weekend.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at January 21, 2006 10:44 AM (h2HXW)
126
Evil,
never seen NASCAR, but I don't have a problem with it. Do you? Why? Is being a self-superior elitist snot a requirement for you Libs? As far as my edumacation, I could tell you, but that would only make me as big an elitist snot as you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 10:47 AM (8e/V4)
127
>>>I bet that you have never been outside of the U.S.
hahaha! that's the best one yet. I've travelled on four continents and lived on three. I grew up overseas, you fucking idiot. You can't even CONCEIVE of a life like mine. That's my one concession to your Liberal elitist contest-- which you would LOSE hands down if I deigned to keep playing it with you. You, on the other hand, think yourself a world beater because of your one semester abroad to Costa Rica. Wow! impressive! Shocking!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 11:14 AM (8e/V4)
128
"edumacation"?
"A semester in Costa Rica"? Where did I write this? Are you on drugs in addition to being stupid, or have you missed your daily dose of anti-psychotic medication?
Again, have a nice weekend in your backward, unsophisticated, stultifying, mediocre, world.
I am off to pursue some elitist interests with my elitist friends in my elitist city.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at January 21, 2006 11:41 AM (NvhA8)
129
>>>"edumacation"? "A semester in Costa Rica"? Where did I write this?
Oh, I don't know. Where did I write Rush Limbaugh and NASCAR?
Boy, you people are dopes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 11:48 AM (8e/V4)
130
>>>unsophisticated
Most Libs only play at being "sophisticated." I've hung around Libs all my life, so I know. And I can assure you--also having hung around with sophisticated people all my life in my years overseas-- that they don't go around trying to prove how sophisticated they are. The more you try to prove it, the more of a wannabe you are. You're little more than a nameless, faceless, wage slave apartment-dweller in some disease-infested blue city who blames "the Man" for your sorry plight, and who pays so much just to live in that city that you've got nothing left with which to pursue your "elitist interests." Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 21, 2006 12:03 PM (8e/V4)
131
Evil Progressive,
You are truly one of the most disgusting people I have ever seen post on a blog. Do you think anyone here cares whether you go to the opera, love artsy-fartsy movies, drinks whatever wine, speaks French(the better to surrender with, I suppose), and lives in NYC? You just make us sorry that you weren't in the WTC on 9/11.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 21, 2006 02:28 PM (rUyw4)
132
Jesus-white-trash, you are soooo easy to bait!
Are you apoplectic yet?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at January 22, 2006 09:39 AM (nlWFp)
133
White trash from you I accept as a compliment. You should be at the opera, or perhaps fellating a Islamist. You are nothing but a whore, anyway.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 22, 2006 02:44 PM (rUyw4)
134
Be careful what you write here people. If you string together too many words like "terrorist", "roadside bomb", "Al-Qaeda", "insurgent training camp" or "jihad" you'll trip some code at the NSA and might receive an unwelcome visit.
Posted by: PetDragon at January 23, 2006 03:26 PM (rxBPn)
135
Why would I be scared of a visit from NSA or the FBI? Are you scared of one?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 23, 2006 04:25 PM (rUyw4)
109kb generated in CPU 0.0497, elapsed 0.1624 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1427 seconds, 384 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1427 seconds, 384 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
