mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

May 06, 2005

Terrorists Issue 72 Hour Ultimatum to Aussies

Douglas Woods is to be murdered unless Australia removes all troops from Iraq in the next 72 hours. If you believe in some sort of higher power, please include Douglas Woods in your prayers. I'd start by praying that Mr. Wood's captors meet the justice they deserve at the end of an Australian soldier's bayonet....

CBC News

Iraqi militants holding an Australian hostage have given his government 72 hours to start pulling its troops out of Iraq, the Arab satellite TV channel Al-Jazeera reported Friday.
The network did not say what the militants were threatening to do to Douglas Wood if their demands were not met.
Many hostages have been killed by militants after their governments refused to withdraw from Iraq, however.
Al-Jazeera also aired new footage of Wood, 63, showing rifles pointed at his shaved head.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

Wait, are we talking about the same Crusades?

Jeff takes the day off of watching All My Children reruns and has an excellent roundup of the utter nonsense being spouted by the MSM about the Crusades.

UPDATE: Matt Hurley has related comments.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:19 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Please. I only do Passions. ABC soaps are so 80s

Posted by: jeff at May 06, 2005 04:36 PM (6VwCg)

2 Never apologize for the Crusades. Those were christian provinces until the jihadist invaders swarmed like locusts out of the Arabian peninsula in 700 AD. And they were still occupying Spain when all this went down in Jerusalem. Fuck you guilt-ridden self-loathing Liberal dhimmis. I despise you.

Posted by: Carlos at May 06, 2005 04:41 PM (tFXpR)

3 The only non-Muslims who aren't power hungry are the humanists, who seem to think goodness and mercy is a human creation, and God is merely a metaphor. Funny. I'll watch the movie for the eye candy. But I know I'll be lied to. As for the rest of you, don't watch it, boycott it. Or wait for video.

Posted by: Carlos at May 06, 2005 04:51 PM (tFXpR)

4 "And they were still occupying Spain when all this went down in Jerusalem." Carlos: Don't you mean "ARE still occupying Spain..."?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 06:27 PM (WwUi7)

5 Now I dont know about occupation on earth but they sure have Muslim Lavatories on Moon.How else could Neil hear some boodooeeyallavoda muslim shit on moon. http://answering-islam dot org dot uk/Hoaxes/neil.html the post doesnt allow .s in the address.

Posted by: Monzter at May 07, 2005 06:18 AM (rA3Xj)

6 I saw Kingdom of Heaven last night, and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't the pro-Islamic love fest I had feared, yet a lot of people won't like it because it showed Crusaders for what many of them were; vicious barbarians. It also showed many of them as brave, noble, and righteous. Saladin (Salah eh Din) was portrayed in a fairly accurate light as far as I could tell. He was the greatest military leader Islam ever had, and probably the most enlightened. The fact that he showed his enemies more mercy than they would have shown him is telling, and is well illustrated in the movie. We have to remember that Christianity was just emerging from the dark ages at the time of the Crusades, and not everyone was a plaster saint. Many men took the cross to find salvation, others took it to satisfy their lust and greed. The movie wasn't really about Christian versus Muslim anyway, it was about good against evil in the hearts of men. I liked it, and I might see it again.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 07, 2005 12:27 PM (0yYS2)

7 Saw the movie last night, and the Europeans were a mixed bag. There were good and bad ones. But predictably, all priests are douchebags, as per formula. True morality can only be found outside the organized church is the message in this movie. Unless you're muslim, in that case religion's fine. For instance, Orlando's character "lost his religion" and was nevertheless the most noble of the Europeans BECAUSE he lost his religion, or so we're to believe. Also, he claims not to hear from God and that God doesn't speak to him. So presumably even God isn't necessary for moral greatness, let alone organized religion. The pep talk he gives his men before the battle purposely robs Jerusalem of any spiritual importance, and instead they fight only for "the people." Predictable. He ends up rousing the troops with shouts of "come on! come on!". Yawn. While the muslims shout "Allahu akbar" as they march on Jerusalem. Yet they, unlike the christians, are portrayed as noble in their religious conviction. Christianity=savage and corrupt Islam=noble Aside from that, the movie was pure amazing eye candy.

Posted by: Carlos at May 07, 2005 02:56 PM (UWO6N)

8 Carlos: "Christianity=savage and corrupt" Just the message I thought the film would have. Sad.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 07, 2005 04:09 PM (WwUi7)

9 This mustard has pass his expiration,.. narrow minded and hater of Muslims awaits his king at the gate of zion- a bad king conditioned to return on the establishmednt of a state survives burglary and blood. any way, the film is bad for Muslims, unfair to Salahaddin , "No Mercy" or threating to kill children and women "within these walls" were never narrated about him. The film blasphemes the great man and the Muslims as blood thursty. Ignorant enough not to dig their wells when the fact is they shigned the christians life with knowledge. The movie showed the ethnic and cultural diversity in the christian side, while it was actually in the Arabs side whom wrongly portraied as all dark skinned. It showed Muslims and jews living with the europeans, while they killed them all along with the Arab christians when they took over Jerusalem the first time..the jews were most hated by the christians that they massacered them inside the christian lands before they even reach the Arab lands. The jews by witness of history knew no better tolerance from other than the muslims and refujed to them. The Orthodux church was very delighted to regain its properties from the catholic church after Salahadeen opened Jerusalem. Some haters mentioned blathered about the great Arab conquests from Arabia into the christian lands- Short concultation for history sources would tell you that they 1-never forced no one on conversion- unlike the christians(untill only60 years ago)- and they were met as liberators 2-NEVER killed civilians - or prisoner of war. 3- they were met as liberators from the corrupt (church abiding) bezuntium empire. (ofcourse I can't claim that the met with flowers as the Americans claim in Iraq) a habit was not known back then.

Posted by: Duraid Mohammed at May 18, 2005 07:55 AM (ExacZ)

10 it is not important wether you have a religion or you don't. What's necessary in life is that you are happy and that you do not hurt any people...

Posted by: teddybear at June 13, 2005 07:57 AM (WOObZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mennonite Group Claims Responsibility for New York Embassy Bombing

Ok, so it wasn't the Mennonites. Would you believe the Amish? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? No? Mormons?

When all else fails I follow South Park's advice and blame it on some Puerto Rican.

Some Puerto Rican claims responsibility for New York City Embassy Bombing.

Still, it just doesn't work.......

Anyway SITE is reporting that an Islamic group is claiming responsibility.

ADNKI Italy offers this:

A little known group known as the Soldiers of Levant (Jund al-Sham) has claimed responsibility for Thursday's explosions outside the British Consulate in New York. In a statement published via the Internet, the group said the attack was "the start of war inside America". No-one was injured in the pre-dawn blasts which shattered windows at the consulate. Soldiers of Levant claimed responsibility for a fire several weeks ago at an oil rig in Texas.
"At dawn today, with the help of Allah, we placed two explosive devices in the heart of the enemy of Islam and of Muslims," the group proclaimed.
"America has already been hit by the Texas operation but despite this it maintains that that was not the work of mujahadeen. Today we announce the start of a war within and outside America and we will not hesitate at attacking festivities and cafes and hotels and churches."
There was also a threat to the United Kingdom - the New York blasts occured as British voters were going to the polls in general elections.
"As for you Great Britain, this was a special operation and a clear messages for you and the American people. None of you will be spared. We have already prepared for you the sword and if Allah wishes we will call on all the cells in America and start the battle."

Chad at In the Bullpen offers the case for why Jund al-Sham is probably not responsible.

Me? I've no idea. If this was an organized terror attack I think it says a little something about the organization. It seems much more like the act of a lone nut, maybe with the help of a buddy or two, inspired by jihad ideology.

On the other hand, Robert Spencer has been all over Jund al-Sham for awhile and has not yet dismissed the notion that the terror group was responsible for the Texas City refinery explosions.

Hat tip to our man on the ground in NYC who read about this over at Rantburg.

UPDATE: Mystery solved. Pinhead McBush's evil minions probably responsible.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Bin Laden in Africa?

UPDATE: You think this might be related? Interrogation of Al Qaeda Leader Yields Captures

Via Editor in Pajamas I find this Reuters article that the Powerline dudes put up:

U.S. Marines landed on Somalia's coast in one of their most visible hunts for militants in the country since they set up a Horn of Africa counter terrorism force in 2002, Somali officials said on Thursday....
It was not clear who the Marines were looking for.
The Marines' arrival coincided with signs of U.S. military activity elsewhere along the coast of Somaliland, a relatively stable region which declared independence in 1991 to escape chaos engulfing the rest of Somalia, but which is not internationally recognized....
Somaliland's interior minister declined to comment. Officers from the U.S. task force based in neighboring Djibouti since December 2002 to hunt down any militants in the region were not immediately contactable for comment.
Washington fears al Qaeda cells may be seeking new havens in the Horn of Africa where weak political institutions and poor policing of deserts and coastlines might provide places for militants to plan attacks on Western targets elsewhere.
In late 2003, some militia bosses and ordinary residents reported that a top al Qaeda suspect -- Fazul Abdullah Mohammed from the Indian Ocean Comoros islands -- had been spotted in the Somali capital Mogadishu.
U.S. officials say he masterminded the bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya in 2002 that took place within minutes of a failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner.
In March 2003, a suspected associate of Fazul, Suleiman Abdalla Salim Hemed, a Yemeni, was captured in Mogadishu with the help of warlord Mohammed Dheere and taken into U.S. custody.

Ok, let me repeat the case for why I think bin Laden, if still alive, is in Africa.

A) Because large swaths of Africa are militantly Islamist.
B) Because bin Laden would be welcome in many of these areas.
C) Because bin Laden believes that he has prophetic powers.
D) Because bin Laden first became aware of these 'powers' when he 'prophesied' that the might of America would be cut down in Somalia.
E) As a mystic it seems like the logical place to go.

That's the basic case. I could be wrong. Heck, I hope I'm wrong and that he's dead somewhere.

Anyway, if you're interested you can check out the 'I told you so' category below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:39 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 4 kb.

Religion of 'Jesus was a Prophet' Update

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Posted by: Rusty at 11:03 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

American Hostage Abn Elias: Missing for One Year

I had never heard of Abn Elias until today and I pride The Jawa Report as a place where no American hostage will be forgotten. I feel a deep sense of shame for overlooking this man. CNN International:

A year has passed since Aban Elias, an American engineer working in Iraq, appeared in a video on Arab television, blindfolded and pleading for his life.
There has been no sign of the married father of three since then, and his kidnapping is believed to be the longest of a U.S. civilian since the Iraq war began.
Elias, who is of Iraqi descent, is among at least five Americans the State Department knows is missing in Iraq. The group that claimed responsibility for his abduction, the Islamic Rage Brigade, has made no public demands for his release.

In related news, Susan Hallums was interviewed by The Australian Broadcasting Comapany's 7:30 Report. The transcript of that interview is here.

Susan is the ex-wife of American hostage Roy Hallums. You can see The Jawa Report's interview with her here [part 1] and here [part 2]. Our interview with Carrie Hallums Cooper, the daughter of Roy Hallums, is here [part 1] and here [part 2].

Posted by: Rusty at 09:44 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

More Bloggers Getting It Done: Yemen, Ethnic Cleansing, and the al Qaeda Connection

What can you say when the government of a country is running scared from a blogger? From a basement somewhere in a blue state, clad in pajamas, Jane Novak is bringing international attention to the ongoing ethnic cleansing of a small sect of Shias in Yemen.

Does she get a fatwa for her efforts? No, but she is being accused of being a freemason. Next, expect to be called a J-O-O. And from there you're only one step from the fatwa.

Oh, but the government of Yemen isn't going to get off with just the 'ethnic cleansing' rap. That would be too easy. Try this one on for size.

Are elements of the Yemeni government tied to al Qaeda and were those elements responsible for the U.S.S. Cole bombing?

1) The article below says the defecting Yemeni Ambassador says that al-qaeda within the yemeni security forces and govt were behind the Cole bombing in 2000
2) The 2003 Freedom House report Yemen says that [President of Yemn] Saleh refused to investigate the Cole bombing until the US threatened miliatary action.
3) The assasination of the Socialists leader in Yemen was tied to one person only, and intl orgs and Yemeni political groups say that this was orchastrated with people within the govt and the leadership of the Islah party together. The other suspects were released giving a green light to targeting other secularists.
3) If there are al-Qaeda within the govt and they are being held back from making jihad on the US, what is the next logical thing they would want to do? Make a jihad on the Shia of course.

You know, I've never taken blogging very seriously. Maybe I should start.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:04 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

May 05, 2005

Jawa Report Nabs Terrorist

I almost never cuss. If you cuss too much it sort of takes away from the times when swearing is really appropriate. This is one of those time.

I know this is a PG-13 blog, but every now and then you have to say what the hell.

FUCKING-A!!

From time to time we like to do something called post the terrorist's e-mail. It's not just great fun to sign up for gay porn using a terrorists e-mail, it also pays off from time to time.

One of our terrorist buddies is now in jail thanks to a dedicated Jawa reader.

I'm not at liberty to give all the details yet. I'll post the rest of the story when the reader gives permission. I've been holding back on this one for a month. I can't anymore, though.

The basic story is we posted a terrorist's e-mail. A reader with an Arabic sounding e-mail address sent off a message to the terrorist. The terrorist responded. The FBI was informed. The FBI didn't do diddly-squat. The reader kept bugging the FBI. The FBI finally investigated, and ...... drumroll please ..... the FBI now has said terrorist locked up in a jail.

The Jawa Report readers get shit done.

Oh. One more piece of information. Some of you are going to love this.

Are you ready?

Wait for it.

Here it comes.....

The terrorist in question was in the U.S. illegally.

Let that sink in for a second.

Alright, I'm going to go celebrate by taking the rest of the day off and going fishing.

I think I fucking deserve it.

UPDATE 5/07/05:

E-mail from the man who helped the FBI nab the bad guy. We'll call him Werewolf.

I would like to make one slight correction which I consider important-- it turns out that the FBI was NOT sitting on its hands "doing diddly squat" as I originally thought.

When Werewolf first e-mailed me he was pretty ticked off. He had alerted the FBI about the suspected terrorist. They had seemed less than interested.

One of the agents told me that I may think nothing was happening during those weeks when I didn't hear from them after I'd alerted them, but in fact a lot was going on behind the scenes. Actually, during that time, apparently the guy was being apprehended. So the last thing I want to do is seem annoyed in any way with the Feds! I think they deserve some enthusiastic thanks and appreciation, they are doing a great job. Especially since in their line of work, they can never get any recognition for what they do. In short, this was NOT a case of someone getting them off their duffs, etc, if you understand me.

Seriously, this makes me feel a whole lot better about the FBI.

Secondly, we have no way of knowing if my emails or my alerting of the FBI actually led to his capture. They may have been watching him for a long time already and just needed an excuse, etc. I have no idea. Just wanted to make it clear that I am not taking credit for that.

Ok, I just wanted to put this out in the open so that the story is clear.

In any event Werewolf deserves a lot of credit for helping nab this guy.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:51 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Goldangit! I already linked to you today. Now my 12 readers will have to get a double dose! SWEET RUSTY! You should for sure get that fatwah, after all.

Posted by: Editor at May 05, 2005 02:55 PM (adpJH)

2 what was he doing?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 02:57 PM (CqheE)

3 We are a force for good. Well, all except Greg Fonda.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 03:06 PM (yBHNA)

4 This is the best use of the 'F' word that I've heard since Cheney belittled Leahy. What other wonderfull things will the Jawa minion achieve? Cold-fusion anybody?

Posted by: Sean the INFDL at May 05, 2005 03:10 PM (pskKC)

5 Editor You've got 12 readers? Damn, you are bigtime, when I double my readership I'll be in your league!

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 05, 2005 03:21 PM (xkIHW)

6 Here here. May your stringer overflow with fish.

Posted by: Howie at May 05, 2005 03:32 PM (D3+20)

7 Cap. Infidel, Yeah, well, I don't like to brag. Actually, you know what, I did at one point have a steady 200+ readership, but I got lazy. I let them down.

Posted by: Editor at May 05, 2005 03:35 PM (adpJH)

8 Dude, you must paint a jihadist on the conning tower.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:40 PM (xauGB)

9 Maybe it was this guy...

http://www.detnews.com/2005/wayne/0505/05/B03-170716.htm

Posted by: Ariya at May 05, 2005 03:40 PM (IXXEm)

10 Editor I built my readership from a couple of relatives to a half dozen or so. I figure I increased my readership 300% so I can retire soon.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 05, 2005 03:45 PM (xkIHW)

11 Maybe this will be worthy of a link from Instapundit, eh? If not, tell him that he is next!

Posted by: Wine-aholic at May 05, 2005 03:55 PM (Wsn+K)

12 These guys never answer me except for that one that tried to tell me he was in Japan. Most recent post of terrorist email I think. I spouted off a bunch of crap and he did reply once to tell me he wasn't in the USA. After that he didn't want top play anymore. I hope it was him that got busted. Gongratulations Rusty and whomever it was that got this creep in a conversation. You have done a great service for the USA. All I did was flame the bastard but some one out there is thinking on their feet. I think this calls for a toast tonight: Heres to Rusty and Mr. Anonymous::

Posted by: Howie at May 05, 2005 04:41 PM (D3+20)

13 Rusty, neither Greyrooster nor Colin have posted in a while. Which one is it??? (Easy on that wine, Howie.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 04:56 PM (iBKJj)

14 Well, aren't you just the evil, warmongering American today? Good on ya mate. Go Rusty, it's ya birthday, go Rusty it's ya birthday...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 05:02 PM (0yYS2)

15 Hip Hip Hooray Good news for a change

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 05:51 PM (F1nba)

16 I know this off subject, but I thought you might this interesting. The link below takes you to the front page the Sunday London Times. One this page you will find the EXACT text of a memo leaked by an MI-6 agent detailing President Bush's intention to Militarily invade Iraq, and use fake threats of WMD's and the Terrorist mantra as tools to achieve this invasion. You'll also notice in this memo the clearly stated facts that at no time in the years Bush has been President Iraq has posed ANY threat to us, or to any other regional power. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html This is exactly what I, and millions of others have been saying from the start. President Bush, the White House and all other agencies involved in this have lied from the beginning and it has now cost us 20,000 us servicemen (killed and permanently disabled), tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, our national security, our economy, and our reputation. If you still support Bush, then you deserve exactly what you get.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 06:52 PM (UCtX/)

17 YBP No lil warrior either Hmmmmm

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:55 PM (F1nba)

18 Rusty, hot damn, you get the job done!

Posted by: Carlos at May 05, 2005 06:57 PM (tFXpR)

19 Congrats, Rusty. I look forward to reading the details when you can post them.

Posted by: The Commissar at May 05, 2005 08:24 PM (qXD9J)

20 On the one hand, I thought hot damn, this is great news, on the other hand, how many others are there out there lurking, reading our comments about them???? It's scarey, in a way, that they could be ascloseasthis. Know what I mean, vern?

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 08:24 PM (L3PPO)

21 I hope the poor bastard that turned the terrorist in didn't get his ISP snatched by one of the terrorist's cohorts...I'd hate to see anybody retaliate. Scarey that these terrorists areascloseasthis.

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 08:29 PM (L3PPO)

22 Rusty: What's my name! What's my name! Terrorist: Dr. Rusty Shackleford! Score one more victory for the good guys.

Posted by: Tim at May 05, 2005 09:00 PM (T3ovD)

23 Pulitzers and Medals of Freedom all 'round! Congratulations, Doc, on a great idea, and kudos to the unnamed cyber bounty hunter. Operation "Spider and the Fly" ROCKS!!

Posted by: D. Carter at May 05, 2005 09:55 PM (xT77+)

24 Damn it, Rusty... this is my one phone call... that was not cool dude, not cool... that's it, when I get out of here, a fresh Adam & Eve subscription to your Mom's house in your name... Get me OUTTA HERE!!! Good work ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 06, 2005 12:20 AM (CO4eV)

25 Hehe, I love the way everyone is ignoring eccles the loser's post. Hey loserdave, maybe ya need to add another layer of foil to yer hat, Rove's mind control ray is getting through! He'll find ya and send the flying monkeys after ya!!!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 06, 2005 12:27 AM (0yYS2)

26 Just as there are times to swear and times to not...there are times to use AWESOME which is overused by my 7 year old...This situation is definitely one of those times as well!! Nice JOB...

Posted by: Crystal Clear at May 06, 2005 01:09 AM (E5Eyf)

27 TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chris

Posted by: Chris at May 06, 2005 06:53 AM (rOTlG)

28 Probulus, Maybe if you ignore the truth long enough, the lie will become the truth. It worked for Bush. I guess it works for Rusty too.

Posted by: deccles at May 06, 2005 08:48 AM (rhFBK)

29 deccles, Please refrain from posting lengthy articles. You're on troll watch. Would hate to ban you.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 06, 2005 09:19 AM (JQjhA)

30 Hey diccless, you don't suppose Dan Rather is over in England handing out memos, do you?

Posted by: Mr. K at May 06, 2005 10:07 AM (X7H5V)

31 "I sincerely hope that the terrorist is brought to court and tried for his or her crimes." (SOMEONE has to say it.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 10:40 AM (x+5JB)

32 Rusty, in all fairness to deccles, he only posted an excerpt from the article. I'd hate to see you do something you'd regret later on.

Posted by: Carlos at May 06, 2005 10:59 AM (tFXpR)

33 Troll watch? Cool!!! Here's a better link. This is the memo in its entirety. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Posted by: deccles at May 06, 2005 12:34 PM (UCtX/)

34 Deccles needs to find another article to post his articles on. We are talking about something completely different. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I will refrain from namecalling. In "FAIRNESS" carlos he is not on the subject at all. That is just IGNORANT. Don't you just love it when you and your friends are talking about something great in your lives and someone comes over and spoils it for you by bringing up something completely different, and off subject so that they can start an argument, or interject themselves into a conversation, or to focus the conversation on themselves?? Yeah we all know people like them. Lets gat back to the most important part of our conversation...... FUCKIN YEE HAWWWWW... The witch is dead... the witch is dead.... the wicked witch is dead!!! Chris

Posted by: Chris at May 06, 2005 12:51 PM (aNrPC)

35 deccles, like all other whining wankers, just hates it when something good happens and one of us get to claim the credit. Well, boo hoo. Here's a kleenex ________ Way to go, Rusty! I wish you could share details, but I will be happy in the knowledge that the terrorist is out of commission. You rock!

Posted by: Bonfire7 at May 06, 2005 08:38 PM (l2XtQ)

36 Well crap. That trackback that my software swears was send still hasn't shown up. Anyway, Right on, Rusty!.

Posted by: Ken Summers at May 07, 2005 10:40 AM (YElNr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Putin=ASSHOLE

Ok, you know our position here at The Jawa, too many right-wingers are overly critical of Vladimir Putin. But this? These comments are beyond the pale. It's not so much that he's wrong about the immorality of the Dresden bombings as he's got a hell of a lot of nerve being critical of the Western Allies and saying the Soviets were, you know, just nice guys.

The last two night The History Channel has been running episodes on the final days of the Eastern front. The Soviets were every bit as bad as the Nazis in the way they handled the war. Millions of German POWs were starved to death or outright murdered by the Soviets. Hat tip Bill Dauterieve.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:28 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Red pot is calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 01:45 PM (x+5JB)

2 But, how can you be hard on him with comments like this? Putin... said the civilian population in Germany had suffered greatly during the war but said it was not the SovietsÂ’ fault. Â“The Soviet Union or the Red Army canÂ’t be blamed for that... it wasnÂ’t the Soviet Union that started the war.Â” See, while there was great suffering, it was a) not the Soviets fault because b) the Soviets didn't instigate war. How such logic would not apply to the UK and the US, I have no idea. Also considering that the Red Army routinely shot its own generals and soldiers without much care, you have to wonder what "special humanity" would logically be in store for German troops and civilians.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at May 05, 2005 01:45 PM (Wsn+K)

3 Like Greg Fonda here, Putin is a dick.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 01:47 PM (yBHNA)

4 I have not seen The History Channel series. Based on past shows about WW II and other wars, THC has a habit of always skewing things to make it look like America is always the angel in the war, while the others parties involved are barbaric heathens. I don't neccessarily agree with a few of the comments Putin made, but he absolutely correct about the Allies indescriminant blanket bombing of German cities. More often than not, it was civilians who suffered in these bombing campaigns. If recall correctly, the blanket bombing of German cities killed well over 100,000 civilians. People who had nothing to do with the war, other than being German. These bombings were done using what were known as Fire-bombs (the predessor to Napalm). The bomb would explode with a jelly-like gasoline substance that would in turn start fire-storms. The fire-storms would spread so quickly, the civilians would be trapped in city streets. In other words, tens of thousands of men, women, and children were burned alive. Sound familiar? There is no doubt Hilter was an evil, stupid man who deserved no less than the same treatment he gave european Jews, Muslims, Gypsies, and others. But to play out the Allies as somehow the avenging angels of mercy is equally dishonest. Our war-crimes were equally brutal and unforgiving. 23 million people died in WW II. Someday someone will take that number and figure out exactly who killed who and how many. Maybe then people won't be so high and mighty, and will accept the truth of war. That truth being: No one wins a war.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 01:50 PM (UCtX/)

5 Let's see - Japan just apologized and Rasputin is crying, "It wasn't our fault. WAH!" I don't know which is worse. Apologizing for something other people did or simply denying the past.

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 01:51 PM (fl6E1)

6 "...it wasn't the Soviet Union that started the war." - Tell that to the Finns. Has Putin forgotten which side his country started out on? Anybody remember the Ribbentrop Pact?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 05, 2005 02:01 PM (RHG+K)

7 Talk to my Polish and East German relatives, Mr. Putin, if you think *Russia* has any grounds for bragging about "special humanity" during WWII. You know, East Germany? The place where you personally worked with your Stasi buddies a little later? Denying that Moscow was to blame for Germany’s post-war division, Putin said Soviet leaders had worked hard “to preserve the integrity and unity of Germany” after the war. “But some of our allies unfortunately took the opposite position.” Yes, I have no doubt that the Soviets wanted to preserve the unity of Germany... under the Red Star, that is.

Posted by: Varenius at May 05, 2005 02:03 PM (pGHMt)

8 deccles: That truth being: No one wins a war. No, we won the war. Dumbass.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 05, 2005 02:08 PM (JQjhA)

9 Uhhhh, we kicked much ass. We won. We continue to win. Only libs can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Posted by: Obsnooks at May 05, 2005 02:09 PM (yBHNA)

10 Rusty, Tell that to the families who suffered through that. Dumbass

Posted by: David Eccles at May 05, 2005 02:15 PM (UCtX/)

11 David, Ok. Hey families that suffered through that: We won the war. There is a difference between a war being just and actions within a war being just. All wars have unjust actions in them. Not all sides, though, are guilty of those unjust actions being systematic. The U.S. made some mistakes in WWII, but the war itself was just. Also, as the actions of the German 6th Army show, German soldiers were willing to risk life fighting the Soviets just so to have the opportunity to surrender to the U.S. That is telling.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 05, 2005 02:26 PM (JQjhA)

12 I've got one word for Mr. Putin: Katyn.

Posted by: D. Carter at May 05, 2005 02:29 PM (Suv/B)

13 I never liked Putin, he's KGB after all. Hardly the type that's likely to cultivate democracy. Don't forget that asinine statement Bush made to the effect that he had looked into Putin's eyes and found a man he could trust. The immorality of Bush's war in Iraq has led us to lay down with this undesirable bedfellow. Essentially the deal is this: You Russians don't arm the Iraqi insugents and we'll let you do whatever you like in Chechnia and at home. One step forward and one step backwards. We're on a treadmill making up no ground.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)

14 Greg Fonda. Puh-lease. What-everrrrrr.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 05, 2005 02:45 PM (yBHNA)

15 David Eccles: Of course the US did commit some atrocities during the war -- the European family members I mentioned previously were also on the receiving end of American bombs, some in fact in Dresden itself. But you don't have to have a "Rah rah, American is always right" mindset to be bothered by Putin's statements. Russia has little grounds for criticizing its other Allies for their wartime conduct, both because of Russia's own list of wrongdoing AND its initial cooperation with Nazi Germany. Putin should at the very least keep his mouth shut. By the way, the death toll you give for Dresden is quite inflated. See this book review for more. Or to put it another way, be careful about learning history from Kurt Vonnegut.

Posted by: Varenius at May 05, 2005 02:45 PM (pGHMt)

16 "Ok. Hey families that suffered through that: We won the war." I guess you'll just never get it Rusty. This is for everyone reading. I been reading blogs for only a few months. Some of it is good, some of it is trash. There is one thing that amazes about people responding to comments I post sometimes. It's that as soon as I say something that doesn't neccessarily agree with the opinion of the author or the other bloggers, or perhaps attempts to give more than one point of view, out come these freaks who immediately assume I'm some kind of evil idiot who doesn't deserve to live. Here's my example for today - "There is a difference between a war being just and actions within a war being just." No where in my original post did I mention the war was just, unjust or anything else. I simply stated fact. "All wars have unjust actions in them. Not all sides, though, are guilty of those unjust actions being systematic. The U.S. made some mistakes in WWII, but the war itself was just." Notice the constant, desperate attempts to defend the position no matter how atrocious the action discussed may have been. I wouldn't call the intentional fire-bombing of tens of thousands a "mistake". A mistake is when you spill your milk on the carpet. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. D-E-N-I-A-L. "Also, as the actions of the German 6th Army show, German soldiers were willing to risk life fighting the Soviets just so to have the opportunity to surrender to the U.S. That is telling." I bet they did. I wouldn't want to be forced to fight and starve to death either. But so what? What does this have to do with my original post? And why is it that when I post dissenting, or alternate veiwpoints I get comdemned as a traitor? Isn't it stated in not so many words in the Constitution and Declaration that speaking out about my government when I believe they are doing wrong is not only my right, but my duty and responsibility? I can't think of anything MORE American than doing just that. That's how America got here in the first place, was people speaking out against their government. I for the life of me cannot understand why some people are against this concept? Nevermind. Rusty, you brought out the best in me today. Thanks.

Posted by: deccles at May 05, 2005 02:55 PM (UCtX/)

17 Both the Germans and the Russians were Soc---ist countries. Hitler and Stalin both thought Marx was the man. So it should be no surprise that they were both vicious.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at May 05, 2005 03:03 PM (Kkge+)

18 BTW This is the man that was the head of the KGB in the USSR

Posted by: Rod Stanton at May 05, 2005 03:07 PM (Kkge+)

19 Actually, the Dresden bombings were done in response to a request by the Soviet Union to support its military operations by attacking key communications routes in Germany with respect to the eastern front. These bombing operations were coordinated with the Soviets and the subject of intense discussion at Yalta. Putin is a liar. Must be related to Greg.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:23 PM (xauGB)

20 While I'm not normally a fan of Wikipedia, this discussion of Dresden is quite good. It references more modern estimates of casualties and addresses the difficult question of what international laws of war applied.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 03:28 PM (xauGB)

21 The Soviets were every bit as bad as the Nazis in the way they handled the war. That's at the very least an understatement. The Soviets were so bad that Hitler feared them: he feared waiting for them to make their move and he feared not being able to defeat them. That Putin is who he is reflects his place in Russian history, and the nature of politics. And David, spare me the "patriot dissent" BS. You accuse others of knee-jerk, pro-America responses, but you are the mirror opposite. You've been pegged in your first post here, where you note an atrocious approach to war employed - the bombing of cities that cost "civilians" their lives. What you deny is that those were not unwitting innocents, they were supporters of the regime whether they wore a uniform or not. They went to work, paid their taxes, kept society going. If they weren't supporters, they should have gotten out of there rather than staying like parasites, or acted as covert counteroperatives, which makes them combatants. It's a perfect example of the bumper-sticker maxim: Evil thrives when good people do nothing. Then you summarize: Our war-crimes were equally brutal and unforgiving. You've just labled every action by Allied forces as a war crime, though you use the term slyly in an effort to disarm people in the wake of Abu Graib - who wants to be in denial about such things? But it's a nonsequitur; war was conducted with the objective of winning with least cost in lives and material. War crimes occur outside the order; the line is blurred by the war crimes the Germans were charged with. But they were the losers, the perpetrators, and they were acting as part of the greater plan. So let's lay down the gauntlet, David. What constitutes appropriate warfare? Killing is obviously out, because it will cause pain and suffering, and some people who we think shouldn't pay the price will, which is totally untenable to you. It appears that outside of submitting to any power that marches the face of the earth, you would allow us all to suffer exactly what you hate.

Posted by: tee bee at May 05, 2005 03:36 PM (q1JHF)

22 Greg, How does it feel to be the Israel on this website. Here and other posts I see, Greg is a devil, he is a traitor, he just sucks. And lot of the time you havenÂ’t even posted anything. It is much like the stupid Arabs saying US sucks for attacking Iraq (in both wars) and Israel sucks also. Well Israel is not attacking anyone, but they still suck and we are going to kill them anyway. Well,good luck routing these Arabs.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 03:44 PM (Gqhi9)

23 Butch, I view this phenomenon from a sociological perspective. A society needs the cohesive properties of external forces to hold it together. Boogeymen have provided this force since the dawn of man. To the readers of the Jawa Report I play the role of boogeyman by proxy.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 04:05 PM (/+dAV)

24 Greg has confused "boogeyman" with "booger". The latter is that thing you find in your nose and are unable to get off your finger.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 04:16 PM (xauGB)

25 Rod: Didn't Hitler hate communism, ergo, Marx?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 04:52 PM (iBKJj)

26 Boogey my *ss, you're a f*cking decoy in the pond, that's what you are

Posted by: Talking head at May 05, 2005 04:55 PM (a9tRx)

27 "It's not so much that he's wrong about the immorality of the Dresden bombings as he's got a hell of a lot of nerve being critical of the Western Allies and saying the Soviets were, you know, just nice guys." Whats what some dead people did 50 years ago got to do with him?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 04:58 PM (CqheE)

28 Hitler and Communism Yes, Hitler disagreed with Communist theory; that the power should be held by the people, but that wasn't Communist practice, just propaganda, a means to an end. Hitler was fascist who put the State before the People, but at least he was honest about it. Lenin and Stalin did the same, but just lied about it. The key difference between the two systems was collectivization. Under the Nazis, German citizens lived very well and had full property rights within the law, but Soviet citizens had no property rights and lived or starved at the pleasure of the State. Hitler's system was the lesser of two evils, mainly because he actually did care about his own people to a certain extent, whereas the Russian leaders enjoyed starving their own people to death just to prove a point.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 05:12 PM (0yYS2)

29 IM: You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 05:54 PM (iBKJj)

30 Putin what in his Ass&%*& Enough of this filthy talk!

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:32 PM (F1nba)

31 "Under the Nazis, German citizens lived very well and had full property rights within the law" WTF are you talking about? What was kristallnacht?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 08:32 PM (CqheE)

32 Actus, What IMax should of said was those people Hitler to be true Germans enjoyed. (Blonde hair and Blue eyes.) Of course this does not extend to the Jews and others.

Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 07:36 AM (Gqhi9)

33 Yes, I think he was referring to Party memebers who supported him.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 08:47 AM (x+5JB)

34 Is anyone really surprised by anything Putin says or does these days?

Posted by: Venom at May 06, 2005 11:31 AM (dbxVM)

35 YEAH I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN I THINK THAT THEIR IS ANOTHER DICTATOR AT THE WHITEHOUSE ,,

Posted by: SANTOS GONZALEZ at May 14, 2005 09:42 PM (9tPxG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Forget Brad Pitt: Angelina Jolie Meets Prime Minister of Pakistan

B-I-Z-A-R-R-E. Ok, you know the U.N. is in trouble when Angelina Jolie has to do their P.R. work for them. Siffy News:

'Tomb Raider' star Angelina Jolie met Pakistan Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad to commend him for the role his country played in hosting Afghan refugees.
Jolie, who is a UN goodwill ambassador, is on a three-day visit to Pakistan, after reports showed that more than three million Afghans were living in Pakistan.

So is THAT my ticket to meeting Angelina Jolie??

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT ALL REFUGEES ARE WELCOME IN MY HOME. FURTHER, I INVITE THE UNHCR TO SEND A 'GOODWILL AMBASSADOR' TO MY HOUSE TO INSPECT THE REFUGEE CAMPS.

UPDATE: Kofie Annan sends Angelina Jolie to my house to inspect my refugee camp on special goodwill mission. Pics below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:37 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 3 kb.

Marine Cleared in Shooting, Kevin Sites Silent

Look, I don't know whether or not this guy should have been charged with anything. What I do know is that the images broadcast by Kevin Sites of the shooting has served as a propaganda tool of our enemies. This Marine may have killed 3 men. Kevin Sites film has inspired many more to take up arms against the U.S. and resulted in many many more deaths.

WATIMES:

The investigation into a controversial shooting of a wounded Iraqi by a U.S. Marine has ended with a determination the Marine acted in self defense.
The Marines announced no charges will be filed in the incident last November in which a Camp Pendleton infantryman shot a wounded Iraqi insurgent following a firefight around a mosque in the city of Fallujah.
The Marine told investigators he had, in fact, killed three wounded Iraqi fighters he feared still posed a threat to his unit.
Natonski reportedly gave serious consideration to intelligence reports that said injured insurgents in Fallujah had feigned surrender and then attacked American troops as they approached.

Hat tip: Howie

Posted by: Rusty at 10:20 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This was a horrible decision. This mosque had been cleared the day before and the dying and the dead were left there overnight. The next day soldiers return, find some still alive and assasinate them. First, it was a poor decision to leave them there overnight. Second, had the wounded not been seriously incapacitated they would have scurried away from the mosque to safety in the dark of the night. That they were still laying there in a mortified state the next day is a clear indication that they were fully subdued and not a threat. I'm not surprised by the verdict. America will never admit to wrong doing unless the evidence against them is so overwhelming that they can't wiggle their way out. Bottom line...this was a war crime.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 11:02 AM (/+dAV)

2 Bottom line, Greg's an idiot.

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 11:29 AM (L3PPO)

3 Greg is also a slandering liar. But you knew that.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 05, 2005 11:34 AM (xauGB)

4 "Greg is also a slandering liar. But you knew that." Robin Roberts Robin, What part of my post is a lie? Please elaborate.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 11:38 AM (/+dAV)

5 If its ok to fire then why is it a problem to tape it?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 11:59 AM (CqheE)

6 Something may not be criminal and yet be a mistake. That is probably the case here. But the mistake of a Marine under extreme circumstances of stress should not be broadcast to the world so that jihadis can recruit more shaheeds for martyrdom. Again, this is a pro-American site. That is the worldview from which I operate.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 05, 2005 12:08 PM (JQjhA)

7 WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 12:15 PM (0yYS2)

8 Sorry, couldn't resist. That last one was me channeling greg, since he isn't articulate, or honest, enough to express himself clearly.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 12:16 PM (0yYS2)

9 Greg, I don't think it was ashame for the soldier to get off. I do believe, and Laura can vouch that I feel this way, is that his action did need to be investigated. Since he was investigate and found innocent, we have to live with it. The same way we live with O.J. walking around free right now. But I do think you did make a good point about the wounded not crawling away. Now about the leaving them there, some time in combat, you don't always get to do the things you want to do or need to do. This could of been the case with these wound Iraqis. The first patrol may of not had a chance to properly (and I mean healing not killing) take care of the prisoner's due to their mission. I will admit that about 80% of your posts I have read are very articulate and very logical. Unfortunately most of the people on this site, are not. You can tell by their one line responses.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 12:42 PM (Gqhi9)

10 Greg the class A Dick with another triumph!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)

11 Charges should not have been considered in the first place. These are not wounded "soldiers"- They are terrorists. Terrorists who give no quarter and yet Greg and his ilk demand we give quarter and hugs. Terrorists who fake surrender and then open up on our guys. Terrorists who fake being dead and then kill our troops. I have no problem with our boys killing the wounded terrorists. Greg, Why don't you write the soldiers a letter and tell them how you feel.

Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 05, 2005 12:51 PM (yBHNA)

12 You always know which side Greg Fonda will be on.

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 05, 2005 01:10 PM (yBHNA)

13 Thanks Butch, I'll try to get that 80% closer to 100% in the future. Greg the class A Dick with another triumph!-Filthy Filthy, you are a class B Dick.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 01:12 PM (/+dAV)

14 "Charges should not have been considered in the first place. " Why are you questioning the decisions of our military?

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 01:13 PM (CqheE)

15 We have the freedom to question you stalinist shit.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 01:27 PM (yBHNA)

16 Soldier shouldnt have left the guys wounded overnight. Should have shot their asses the first day. Then there wouldnt a been a problem.

Posted by: angryblackman_1@hotmail.com at May 05, 2005 01:31 PM (x+5JB)

17 "We have the freedom to question you stalinist shit." Enjoy. After the revolution? Nyet!

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 01:34 PM (CqheE)

18 "Thanks Butch, I'll try to get that 80% closer to 100% in the future." Greg, he wasn't talking about you, you dipstick. Here, let me pick your statement apart, Greg: "This mosque had been cleared the day before and the dying and the dead were left there overnight. The next day soldiers return, find some still alive and assasinate them First, it was a poor decision to leave them there overnight." How do you know whether they even could get in there? And assassinate? You have the gall to say this after knowing that it's entirely probable that other terrorists could have been in there and rigged the bodies with bombs; even those still living. "Second, had the wounded not been seriously incapacitated they would have scurried away from the mosque to safety in the dark of the night. That they were still laying there in a mortified state the next day is a clear indication that they were fully subdued and not a threat." See above rebuttal. "I'm not surprised by the verdict. America will never admit to wrong doing unless the evidence against them is so overwhelming that they can't wiggle their way out. Bottom line...this was a war crime." See above rebuttal again. So exactly how much footage did you see, Greg? About as much as the rest of us did. It was EDITED footage right from the start. You are so blind and so wrongly opinionated it is absolutely insane. While this guy is over there doing the best he can in probably the most stressful situation one can be in, you're condemning him without knowing the facts. What's the most stressful situation you've ever been in, Greg? Huh? The day you ran out of Haagen Daaz?

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 02:03 PM (fl6E1)

19 Rather than shoot the terrorist, the smart play would have been to deny him food and water for a couple of weeks. This would get the liberals on board and show your compassionate side.

Posted by: Judge Greer at May 05, 2005 02:07 PM (aUEhc)

20 Oyster, Your rebuttal is so weak that there is really not enough material for me to respond to. Maybe you could take another stab at it. I'll give you a second chance to try and make some sense.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 02:16 PM (/+dAV)

21 Greg, your statements are so weak; hardly motivation for anything more than what I said. These soldiers have repeatedly been faced with situations where they tried to help someone only to be rewarded with a bomb in the face that the wounded terrorist was concealing. In many instances the wounded or dead have had bombs not only planted on them, but in the case of the dead, inside them. This soldier was faced with that possibility. When the guy made a sudden movement the soldier reacted - and I might add that it was dismissed because it was found that he acted appropriately and without undue malice even though these guys were there the previous day - in a mosque - with every intent of killing them. he acted not only in his own interest, but that of his fellow soldiers. Do you even read the news? Or do you intentionally block out that which you don't want to hear? I don't know why I bother.

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 02:41 PM (fl6E1)

22 Greg is just a mirror - from being a War Photographer and the meme that logs-into that I kinda expected Sites to be more aware of the grit, blood, feces and vomit in war, somewhat more than a ego-driven Performance Artist, even knowing that he could go one way or the other in his editorializing, and photography is nothing if not lens-selective micro-second editorializing - or in his case 30fps. Enemies sneak back into places of relative safety once they've been "cleared" and the wounded pretend to lie dead in order to set off bombs so they can kill more enemies - it's not paintball.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at May 05, 2005 02:50 PM (sE9R7)

23 "When the guy made a sudden movement the soldier reacted"-Oyster Oh really! He made a sudden movement now and before we said he was playing dead. Which is it? Did all 3 insurgents who were assasinated make a sudden movement? That's just a bunch of Bovine Excrement. It sounds like if you don't feign death you get assasinated and if you do feign death you get assasinated. Face it. Just like Hitler's children, you're a Nazi.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 02:56 PM (/+dAV)

24 correct spelling - assassinate. With love, Your favorite Nazi

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 03:08 PM (fl6E1)

25 Greg - you moron. There were no soldiers involved! These warriors were Marines. The fact you do not know the dif shows how little you do know about freedom and its cost. It aint free bonehead. The guy killed 3 ragheads, at least he should get a meritorious mast if not a star.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at May 05, 2005 03:13 PM (Kkge+)

26 Oyster, That's right, wiggle your way out of an argument that you're losing by distracting with irrelevant minutia.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 03:14 PM (/+dAV)

27 "There were no soldiers involved! These warriors were Marines."-R Stanton More distractive irrelevant minutia.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 03:17 PM (/+dAV)

28 You're all a bunch of yellow ribbon sticker pussies. Blog this, blog that...pussies. Drive your SUV's down to the recruitment building nearest you and enlist if you support the marines so much. Don't send your sons and daughters like a bunch of cowards. Oh yeah, and stop blaming free press (duh....freedom?) for Iraqi insurgency. That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard...

Posted by: steven baber at May 05, 2005 04:08 PM (FogDg)

29 Steven, Where's Colin these days? Rumor has it that he and Rooster are yachting together in the Caribbean.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 04:15 PM (/+dAV)

30 Last I heard, they were both forced to look for Osama. Speaking of which, if anyone in here lives in NYC: ever see those stencils around the lower east side that say 'Osama is a Bush'? or the ones on stop signs saying 'Oil'? Damn, those fired people up. The same artist had a really cool one that he put on construction sites that said, 'PAY NO BILLS'....hahaha. Anyway, Greg...see you at the Communist moonbat America-haters support group tomorrow? I might be late if my cell is activated...

Posted by: steven baber at May 05, 2005 04:23 PM (FogDg)

31 Snook, You are wrong. From the footage there was enough of a question for the MarineÂ’s action to investigate. Now once the military has decided he did nothing wrong, that is great, but if one cannot defend their action, maybe that action should not be committed. Also it makes no difference or not if the Iraqis were militia, regular army or terrorist. The U. S. Military should not go around killing incapacitate people. Just because the rag heads go around torturing our wounded, does not mean we have to lower our selves to their level. As for OysterÂ’s comments, I was referring to GregÂ’s comments about the 80%. Also, I do feel in this instant, AngryblackmanÂ’s comment about just killing them all the previous night should hold true. I say this because if their mission was so critical that they did not have time to help the wounded or take prisoners, then maybe they should have been killed out right.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 04:36 PM (Gqhi9)

32 Greg packs heat to a f*cking BBQ and it's ok but when a marine shoots one faking enemy (possibly armed or rigged) he gets all whiny about it, f*cking hyporcite.. Kevin (Scoopy-Doo) Sites knows diddly-squat about combat.

Posted by: Talking head at May 05, 2005 04:47 PM (a9tRx)

33 That marine should be given a medal, and an apology. The terrorist got what he deserved.

Posted by: Carlos at May 05, 2005 07:48 PM (tFXpR)

34 Carlos, are you one of those "Every towelhead is a terrorist!" kinda guy?

Posted by: Solrac at May 05, 2005 10:18 PM (w3zHI)

35 Okay, Butch, you lost me at "Greg's 80% accuracy rate". I suppose if I omit a lot of pertinent data, quote three year old news items to bolster my arguments, call everyone a Nazi and take the other side simply to be contrary even if I contradict myself, I could win the distinction of a high percentage of accuracy too? Man! I've been doin' this all wrong!

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 10:56 PM (YudAC)

36 Carlos, are you one of those "Every towelhead is a terrorist!" kinda guy? Not at all. I'm an "every terrorist is a towelhead" kinda guy.

Posted by: Carlos at May 05, 2005 11:43 PM (iOGzJ)

37 Butch, Greg has cited the looney bin "What Really Happened.com". 80%? More like 99% wrong. Greg's favorite headgear.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 06, 2005 12:41 AM (xauGB)

38 Oyster, The 80% I was referring to was of all of his posts, not just this one only. As far I can see, I don't see any lies with this post. I might of used a different word instead of assassinate, but the main jest is correct.

Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 07:42 AM (Gqhi9)

39 "then maybe they should have been killed out right." Butch: We need more liberals like you.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 08:38 AM (x+5JB)

40 Carlos, "Not at all. I'm an "every terrorist is a towelhead" kinda guy." --Hahaha. There are a lot of them, BUT! What about the Oklahoma bombing? That guy was white as wonderbread.

Posted by: steven baber at May 06, 2005 10:34 AM (w3zHI)

41 steven, not to mention the guy who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Oh wait, I think he WAS muslim!

Posted by: Carlos at May 06, 2005 11:01 AM (tFXpR)

42 I am just trying to be a realist also. Having been in the Army and the Marine Corp, I know that some time, a unit can not take pows. When this is the case, and I do hope they are few, then we should put them out of their misery instead of letting them suffer.

Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 03:10 PM (Gqhi9)

43 Butch: I don't believe in putting people out of their misery, but I do believe in killing enemy combatants.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 03:48 PM (x+5JB)

44 I'm glad the Marine got off...which is not what's gonna happen in the Abu Graib abuse. Too bad. I wish Zarqawi and his cohorts coulda hung underwear around Eugene Armstrong's head, and all the others, instead of sawing them off.

Posted by: Laura at May 06, 2005 03:54 PM (L3PPO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Zarqawi Almost Captured (AGAIN) at Hospital

Via Sworn Enemy this WAPO article. Maybe he was being seen for depression?:

The U.S. military is examining reports that insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi was present last week at a hospital in Anbar province and the possibility that he may be ill or wounded, officials said Wednesday.
U.S. officials gave no details as to why they believe Zarqawi may be sick or injured. But U.S. military authorities were quoted this month as saying that Zarqawi had left medical information about himself on a laptop computer that was seized Feb. 20 in his closest known call with American pursuers. When his car was pulled over at a checkpoint outside Ramadi, Zarqawi fled on foot, leaving behind the laptop, photos of himself and contacts, officials said.
It was not clear whether suspicions about his health were linked to the seizure of the computer or grew directly out of Zarqawi's reported presence last week at a hospital in Ramadi, the capital of restive Anbar province. Zarqawi's group asserted in a written statement posted at two mosques, one of them in Ramadi, that the Jordanian-born militant was at the hospital last Thursday during a raid by U.S. forces but that the Americans missed him.
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, confirmed Wednesday that officials had "received a tip that there were terrorists in and around the hospital in Ramadi."
U.S. and Iraqi forces "did go to the hospital to act upon the information," Boylan said. He did not confirm that Zarqawi was the target of the raid. The forces left without detaining anyone but were reviewing information from the operation, Boylan said.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:05 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Openly Pro-Terrorist Website NOT 'Hate Speech'

So, The Jawa Report is dropped for 'hate speech' but the openly pro-terrorist website Jihad Unspun isn't?

I guess it's who you hate that matters to Google News.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:47 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider Gay!

Apparently I've caught the gay. From the mail-bag:

Hello,

We indexed your site in www.spidergay.com's database. We hope your indexation will provide you with a greater number of GLBT Internet surfers and that you will use Spidergay for your own needs.

I might be gay, but at least I'm not all the way gay.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:44 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Terror Attack in New York: British Consulate Targetted

The British Consulate in New York has been the target of a terrorist attack. The attack comes on the same day that Brittons go to the polls to elect a new governmnet and as the world pauses to remember the terrorism that was the Nazi regime on Holocaust Memorial Day.

This post will be updated throughout the day. Developing.......

Another UPDATE: Our man on the streets is at the scene and reports this:

Walked over to see the "bomb" damage. What a crock. A couple windows
popped. Whoopdidoooooo. All the news pimps are there with Grim faces.
There is a guy from fox news who must be, a midget. He was standing on
a video crate. Ran into Ellis Hennigan from the daily news. Guy looks
like he weighs 50 pounds. What a pussy.

This was no terrorist. This was some idiot slob from the UN.

I would disagree with our crack reporter only on one count. A terrorist does not necessarily have to belong to a terrorist organization. Probably the work of a lone nutjob, but a lone nutjob inspired by jihadi ideology and using terror to attempt to affect the outcome of the British election is a terrorist nontetheless.

UPDATE: If we're looking for suspects I'd suggest starting to look at The Islamic Thinkers Society of New York, which seems to be connected to the global al Muhajiroun movement. Not coincidentally, al Muhajiroun is led by Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad who makes London his home base for calling for global jihad--even against the U.K. The group also is suspected of having loose ties to al Qaeda.

These people have the balls to set up protest in New York and their members have been recorded as saying, "Next time we will get all of New York City."

Their members are just crazy enough to believe the bullshit spouted by their salafist leaders and just dumb enough to think these bombs might send some sort of scary message to the British people.

Ed Moltzen and He Who Will Not Be Named remind us that the IRA are also suspects in this thing. The latter notes that today marks the 20th anniversary of the hunger-strike death of Bobby Sands. Nothing is impossible....but, come on.....has the IRA ever attacked on U.S. soil?? UPDATE within and UPDATE: T.C. Leather Penguin also suspects the Irish. I can't argue with that logic.....

UPDATE: Can I just remind everyone that a bomb is a bomb is a bomb, so the fact that whoever did this used toy grenades for the bomb-casing is sort of irrelevant. It may be relevant that the bombs were small, but not that they were 'toys'.

Reuters:

Two small pre-dawn blasts shattered windows at the British consulate Thursday as voters in Britain went to the polls in a general election, police said. There were no injuries reported.
The explosions occurred shortly before 4 a.m./0800 GMT and were caused by two primitive metal "novelty grenades," one in the shape of a pineapple, the other a lemon, both packed with gunpowder, police on the scene said.
"There were some shattered windows and there are no injuries. We are investigating it," a New York Police Department spokesman said in an interview.
The incident, which briefly upset British financial markets, occurred as polls in Britain were opening but police said it was not known whether the blasts was connected to the consulate. Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking a third term in office after a short campaign where he battled public anger against his support of the war in Iraq.
Detective Noel Waters said the explosion was caused by "two small improvised explosive devices" in or near a large concrete flower box -- typically used in New York to prevent vehicles from driving into buildings.
"It sounded like thunder -- two loud bangs," one witness told WINS radio.
There was minimal damage to the building, with only a door, window and a nearby car damaged, police said.
New York has remained on high alert since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when hijacked planes destroyed the World Trade Center's twin towers.
Asked whether the police had ruled out terrorism in Thursday's incident, Waters said only, "We have not ruled out anything at this point."
Police at the scene said no arrests had been made.
Authorities blocked off the area, just a few blocks from the United Nations. The building is located at 845 Third Avenue, between 51st and 52nd streets.
British voters have been warned that Britain and its interests could be targeted by terrorists during the election campaign.

One reader, who I will not name, just e-mailed me with this.

Dude, those toy grenades went off 3 blocks from my office. Holy Crap!

I love this headline from The Scotsman: No Motive for New York Explosions. Right.

Dr. James Joyner seems to think the amateurish nature of the grenades points away from professionals. I concur.

John Little posts this link to the British Consulate, New York. No official word yet.

Michelle Malkin points us to USS Neverdock who links to this Telegraph article about al Qaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. I would simply point out that this bombing bears none of the classic al Qaeda markers.

Ok, now Michelle Malkin and GOP and the City are putting forth the notion that this might be a 'test run' for something larger. While we can't rule anything out, I hightly doubt it.

Idiotarian quote of the day from U.K. Today (via Scared Monkey's): "How convenient for Tony Blair that there should be a potential bomb explosion on election day."

Others: Interested Participant, Command Post, check out the fatwas issued below for others.....

Posted by: Rusty at 08:13 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 960 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Bet it was Greg. Freakin Hitler

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 08:28 AM (yBHNA)

2 Just to clairify. Thanks to Michelle for the link but my post had nothing to do with the NY bomb. My post was concerned with the Libbi capture and his connection to sleeper cells in the US and UK. I agree this doesn't seem like the work of al Qaeda per se but maybe a like minded group. Here is a report by UTV listing the series of UK diplomatic attacks over the last few years. http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=59882&pt=n Cheers, Marc

Posted by: marc at May 05, 2005 09:04 AM (cEPYb)

3 It' seems odd that the attack was done in New York City. Why not London? I suppose one kills two birds with one stone by attacking British interests in America. Consequence:This attack will likely benefit Blair and his party in the forthcoming election.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 09:12 AM (/+dAV)

4 Yikes! My high school used to be on 51st and Lex.

Posted by: Laura at May 05, 2005 09:14 AM (L3PPO)

5 You tell us Hitler- Why did you do it?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 05, 2005 09:31 AM (yBHNA)

6 Your "Idoitarian Quote" - ""How convenient for Tony Blair that there should be a potential bomb explosion on election day."" falls right in line with the idiot who said Karl Rove got OBL to make a video just in time to help get Bush elected. These guys are like clones. And notice how they said "potential" bomb explosion? WTF?

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 11:23 AM (fl6E1)

7 Sheesh, you folks suffered a total irony failure, or perhaps the subtle nuances of English aren't your forte . Still, if you'd quoted in context it wouldn't have read so idiotarian, would it? For those who can't be bothered to check the post quoted, it said: Here's one for the conspiracy theorists out there. How convenient for Tony Blair that there should be a potential bomb explosion on election day. Enjoy.

Posted by: balders at May 05, 2005 12:19 PM (QOcUX)

8 I'm willing to lay money on it being some spoiled brat fascist/commie ANSWER snot who wants to try to do to the British what Al Qaeda did to Spain. Funny thing about the British though, you bloody their nose, and they split your skull. In the words of the Queen; "Up with this we shall not put..."

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 05, 2005 12:24 PM (0yYS2)

9 obviously the work of the Bushitler cabal.

Posted by: Carlos at May 05, 2005 01:28 PM (tFXpR)

10 These people showing their desperation. We are not Spanish. We are a completely different species. We do not get intimidated by anyone. In fact, I would suggest that what happened in Madrid (Spain) were to happen here in Britain, we would go the opposite way to the Spanish. We are British. We have backbone. We are not cheese eating surrender monkeys, (AKA) French. We do not bow to no terrorist's. We coped with the evil IRA for over 30 years. We did not bow then and we certainly won't now. We are not Europeans. We are British. Rule Britania,God save my Queen. And to our American brother's and sisters. We stand "shoulder to shoulder" We are winning. God bless your amazing country.

Posted by: Pete uk at May 05, 2005 03:45 PM (PM/BC)

11 Local radio is now reporting (your gonna love this) that NYPD has taken into custody a guy who works for the UN.

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at May 05, 2005 04:26 PM (kiH79)

12 Pete uk: I pray that you're right. Blair is a good man--I'm glad people are still backing him. But hey, you guys eat cheese, too. (Had to say that, as I'm part French.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 04:31 PM (iBKJj)

13 Here's the details: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-blast0506.story?page=1

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at May 05, 2005 04:40 PM (kiH79)

14 Kashmir Terrorists are using Maps ,Data and stuff from servey of India's archives.The Same may be for the U.S too.And bio labs in east asian countries are very accisible. *Can you start a thread on this

Posted by: Monzter at May 06, 2005 06:54 AM (rA3Xj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 04, 2005

Jawapalooza in D.C. Update

It looks like Jawapalooza is tentatively scheduled for May 21st in the p.m. E-mail me for location if you're in the D.C. area and want to hang out. If you can't make it for the shindig but are in the area we might be able to hang another night between the 14th and 21st.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

The Life of a Hostage in Iraq

This Australian article is sad, sad, sad. Do not read it if you have loved ones in Iraq who are being held hostage. It attempts to piece together what life is like for Australian hostage Douglas Wood based on what freed hostages have said of their experiences.

Needless to say, this excludes Giuliana Sgrena who's only complaint was that her captors served Sanka.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 873 words, total size 5 kb.

Washingtonienne: The Movie

Ok, I get a lot of e-mail, but this is a new one. I do a post about how butt ugly Jessica 'Washingtonienne' Cutler is and I get a free book! Oh, the power of being a blogger......

Hi,
Your favorite D.C. blogger's book is due out in a few weeks and after coming across this loving article (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/043682.php), I thought I would send you a copy. If you're interested in receiving a copy of THE WASHINGTONIENNE by Jessica Cutler, pass along your mailing address and I'll put it in the mail.
xxxxxxxxxx
Hyperion
212.456.xxxx

77 W. 66th St, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10023

Sorry, I think I'll wait for the movie.............

Posted by: Rusty at 04:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

More Freedom of Speech Loving Liberals

Howie sends along this link about your friendly neighborhood freedom of speech loving liberal college campus. The victim is Jonathan Bean, a history professor at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Cathy Young in the Boston Globe:

On April 11, six of Bean's colleagues published a letter in the college paper, the Daily Egyptian, denouncing him for handing out ''racist propaganda" in his American history course. The offending document, which Bean had distributed as optional reading for a class that dealt with the civil rights movement and racial tensions in that era, was an article from the conservative publication FrontPageMagazine.com about ''the Zebra Killings" -- a series of racially motivated murders of whites in the San Francisco Bay area in 1972-74 by several black extremists linked to the Nation of Islam. The article, by one James Lubinskas, argued that black-on-white hate crimes deserve more recognition.

How does Bean respond? He caves, of course, withdraws the reading assignment, and apologizes.

Wuss.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:03 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He obviously felt his paycheck/prestige was more important. I feel for the guy.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 03:07 PM (x+5JB)

2 Jeez! You guys just don't get it do you? We are not permitted to draw attention to any racism, killing or injustices of any sort committed by a non-white person. However, if they're white, and especially if they're American, it will be immediately approved reading material for K-12 graders and required reading for all college courses including Accounting and Introduction to Basket Weaving. (/sarcasm) I'll shut up now before I completely lose it.

Posted by: Oyster at May 04, 2005 03:29 PM (fl6E1)

3 Who would think that frontpagemag would print inflammatorily racist material. Or that its a suppression of free speech to ask someone to not spread tat junk.

Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 04:13 PM (CqheE)

4 Wow.... Just freaking wow.... I feel so uplifted....

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 04:23 PM (D3+20)

5 Oyster I completely agree, said as much in a recent comment. Makes me angry too. "So therefore I must be a racist" In the words of a missing Rooster, who appears to have flew the coop

Where you at Rooster ?

Posted by: sparky at May 04, 2005 04:28 PM (F1nba)

6 Now we know what actus thinks about true academic freedom.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 04, 2005 04:30 PM (xauGB)

7 I killed him.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 04:31 PM (/+dAV)

8 "have flew" Sparky! Watch them grammar skills!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 04:32 PM (x+5JB)

9 Tat junk? Is that due to the context they've been placed in or extraneous to the heart of the matter, or like a virtual world?

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at May 04, 2005 04:32 PM (sE9R7)

10 Rooster that is.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 04:32 PM (/+dAV)

11 Greg, ItÂ’s ok if you killed him while he was completely helpless. I hope you covered his head with a pillow or just stopped his food and water for 10-14 days. It has been that long since we have heard from him. I encourage you to take this story. ButÂ…If you killed him while he was still what we in Florida call a Â“viable living thingÂ” you being a black man will have to serve the requisite 6 months in prison I await your plea.

Posted by: Judge Greeg at May 04, 2005 04:43 PM (aUEhc)

12 Judge, I'm not a black man, not that there's anything wrong with being black. Knowing Rooster he's probably just on a 2 week drunk. Or maybe he had a heart attack. His heart was so poisoned by hate.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 04:58 PM (/+dAV)

13 Ooops Hey you its the accent! Im typing in Glaswegian! Greg lol I killed him! Wait till he sees this eh? From the other side that is. He may now haunt you for the rest of your life.

Posted by: sparky at May 04, 2005 05:16 PM (F1nba)

14 Greg, I know you and this Rooster fellow are not on the best of terms. I have watched many episodes of CSI Miami and would suggest you not go near the body until the case is closed. LetÂ’s just set Rooster aside for the time being. Plenty of targets in your area. Do me a favor. Go to rest home in your great state of Texas. Find the most feeble, helpless woman in the entire urine smelling joint. Then smother her with a pillow. I can think of no better way to advance the cause of separation of powers and also,StateÂ’s rights

Posted by: Judge Greer at May 04, 2005 05:21 PM (aUEhc)

15 I've known about that book for quiet sometime. I could tell you this much had the perps been klansmen "getting wings" for killing blacks. That book would be made manadatory reading for grades K through up until your PhD diseration

Posted by: Andre at May 04, 2005 06:56 PM (7Xvze)

16 He just needs to learn how to tell some people to fuck off.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 04, 2005 10:40 PM (0yYS2)

17 Oh, I forgot to close with "a good liberal is a dead liberal". That has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 04, 2005 10:43 PM (0yYS2)

18 "Oh, I forgot to close with "a good liberal is a dead liberal". That has a nice ring to it" Well, we aim to be bad.

Posted by: actus at May 05, 2005 06:52 AM (0HUw1)

19 Well Fudge Rear, Clearly you are confused as ever. How can you call one a friend and then insult them by calling them what you yourself truly are? The only sub-human scum I have seen lately on this site is that of you, chicken little brain (grey rooster) (and not much of him lately). You can clearly not see humor, admitted dark humor, when it is in front of you. But just to point out for you conservative mind, the other point I was trying to make, obviously escaped you, was that with everything being politically correct now a days, some words or actions are so stupid and insane, that they are truly oxymorons. (A meating eating violent monster (cannibal) being equated to what most think of a peace loving pacifist.) As for the Â“KillingÂ” of Terry Schiavo, she was not killed. She Â“DIEDÂ”. It would be a lot more humane if she had been killed. But being a higher species, we must allow others of our kind to suffer, while we would grant mercy to any poor animal that was in the same state. Let me ask you these questions. 1. Does not the bible state that God can heal the sick and resurrect the dead? (I believe the answer is yes) 2. Was Terry not returned to her natural state by the court? She was not born with a feeding tube in her stomach was she? (I believe the answer is yes, and no in that order.) 3. Did anyone shoot, stab, electrocute, inject, or smother her? (answer no.) 4. Was not her condition cause by a chemical imbalance that was brought on by an eating disorder? Who is the cause of the eating disorder? (answer yes, Terry.) 5. If Terry had woken up and asked for food and drink, would anyone there deny her sustenance? (answer no.) 6. So if God, who has the power to heal and resurrect, did not intervene on behalf of Terry, who was put back into a truly natural state, then is not God responsible for her death? (answer yes.) 7. Or was her death, brought on by an eating disorder of her own causing, an unplanned and unfortunate suicide. (answer Unplanned and unfortunate yes, suicide no.) So Fudge Rear, when you stay up late at night getting your Fudge packed up your conservative Rear, why donÂ’t you contemplate a more civilize and criticize answer before you go insulting people. Now once you have tried that approach, or if someone attacks you first, then by all means open up. One last thing, just so there is no mistakes, unlike Greg, I am proud to be a Liberal. On a scale of Â–10 (Fanatic Liberal) to 10 (Fanatic Conservative), I would rate myself around a Â–6 or Â–7, depending on the mood of the day.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 09:47 AM (Gqhi9)

20 Opps, Sorry some how this was posted on wrong line. Please forgive the mistake. If you want to comment on it please do so under the Terry awaken thread.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 09:54 AM (Gqhi9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

England's Plea, Case Tossed Out

I'm not sure how to read this, but the judge presiding over the Lynndie England Abu Ghraib trial threw out her guilty plea and entered a not guilty plea in the books.

Via Llama Butchers, WAPO:

A military judge Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying that he was not convinced that she knew that her actions were wrong at the time.
Col. James Pohl entered a plea of not guilty for England to a charge of conspiring with Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. to maltreat detainees at the Baghdad-area prison.

So, the way the WAPO piece reads it sounds as if the judge thinks that maybe England is a little on the Timmy side? You know, like maybe she's a wee-bit touched? A freaking 'tard?

She didn't know her actions were wrong implies that she's less than competent.

Is it standard practice for judges to throw out guilty pleas unless they think the defense lawyer is inadequately representing their clients interests because there is a strong likelihood that the accused will be found not-guilty?

The action came after Graner testified at England's sentencing hearing that pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.
When England pleaded guilty Monday, she told the judge she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards.
Pohl said the two statements could not be reconciled.
"You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury.

Either I'm missing something here or the WAPO story isn't worded quite right.

UPDATE: Check it out, Greg might be right for once. Only the person who ordered England was her boyfriend and not exactly high on the totem pole. CNN:

Graner testified Wednesday that he placed a dog leash around an Iraqi prisoner's neck and asked England to lead him out of his cell -- a legitimate technique for doing so, he said. England, who was photographed holding the leash, was just following orders, Graner said.
After that, Judge Col. James Pohl excused the jury and gave defense attorneys a tongue-lashing. Graner's testimony, he pointed out, contradicted England's guilty plea Monday to seven criminal counts -- each of which was represented by a photograph of her posing next to naked Iraqi prisoners in humiliating positions. In making that plea, she admitted her participation and said she knew it was wrong. If she was just following orders, Pohl said, she should be pleading not guilty.
Following a recess, defense attorneys told Pohl that England wished to enter a plea of not guilty, and Pohl declared a mistrial.

Whoa. Good for you judge. Good for you.

UPDATE: I'm scouring the blogosphere trying to make sense of this.....a few comments, but no real explanation

Others: Blogs of War

Posted by: Rusty at 02:16 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Regardless of how one feels about the war... Ten to eleven years in prison for this? That's not justice, that's just crazy. A person can kill someone in a robbery and end up with less jail time than this.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 02:26 PM (x+5JB)

2 ""You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury." Maybe the judge feels she is innocent because she was following the orders of her superiors.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 02:31 PM (/+dAV)

3 Has anyone ever seen Greg and Lyndie in the same place at the same time?

Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:37 PM (adpJH)

4 "She didn't know her actions were wrong implies that she's less than competent." As competent as the patridiot apologists for her actions.

Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 02:41 PM (CqheE)

5 As I understand there is a couple of counts that she has made previous statements that she did not know that that particilar action was unlawful. Also when pleading guilty you state that you both commited the act and knew the act was a crime at the time you did the deed. After entering this plea her defense argued in sentencing that she did not know it was a crime therefore she should be treated lightly. The judge got miffed at this inconsistancy. The Judge also warned her yesterday that you cannot just please guilty to spare yourself the trial or try and get a light sentence for being so brave and honest about it. I think the judge feels her defense has her pleading guilty to some of the counts just to get it overwith. But what really got him was the argument in sentencing should not be used because that issue was already settled in the plea agreement. He seems to be looking out for the rights of the defendant. He seems to think a couple of counts are lacking in hard evidence.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 02:45 PM (D3+20)

6 Howie, I like your explanation, however, I'm wondering, and I'm not a law student by any means, and I'm sure there is precedent someplace regarding this question, but if a Judge has the authority to throw out a defendant's "guilty" plea do they have the authority to throw out an "innocent" plea?

Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:50 PM (adpJH)

7 I see, so it's not throwing the plea out, it's a mistrial.

Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 02:56 PM (adpJH)

8 No law student either just been listening (maybe some experiences with the legal system as well). I don't think the judge can toss out a not guilty or innocent plea. He seems to think she is shortchanging herself to the right to a fair trial on these two counts. He also seems to think her defense team is lacking in her representation. It seems to me more of a slap in the face to her defense than anything. I feel the judge is doing the right thing because it will be too late for her to come back later and appeal. I think the only basis for appeal after a guilty plea would be crappy defense advice (which may be intentional). The judge wants to make sure when it is done it is over (no appeal) and that she doesn't to plead to crimes that she may have a good chance of being aquitted on. Seems to me like the judge is doing a good job.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:01 PM (D3+20)

9 Yeah, it absolutely sounds like a no-confidence vote on the competency of the defense lawyers. Agree the judge appears to making a fair judgment.

Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 03:04 PM (adpJH)

10 No mistrial trial was waved in plea. plea on two counts was tossed. Back to plead again or trial. I guess it is kind of a mistrial on the sentence phase.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:05 PM (D3+20)

11 Is it just me or all the accounts of this thing really suckily written?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 03:07 PM (JQjhA)

12 The Llama Butchers, one of whom is a lawyer, are covering this.

Posted by: Brian B at May 04, 2005 03:12 PM (CouWh)

13 Yea probably, especially mine. Hope I got it out OK. Just a general rundown of all the reporting I have heard over that last couple of days. Seems like every story gets in a description of the photos but the actual arguments get about 3 seconds. Got to pay attention to figure out what the hell is going on. I've seen the photos like I need another radio description.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:13 PM (D3+20)

14 Howie: Ye of Little Faith. I think Rusty means that the actual news reporting coverage is substandard.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 03:16 PM (x+5JB)

15 No Rust, it's not just you. Brian B, So According to this over at LlB... I knew it was not going well on Monday during hearing on the guilty plea when PFC England stated, in so many words, that she did not think what she did was wrong. Such a statement is inconsistent with acceptance of reponsiblity and the requirement that one plead guilty because one is, in fact, guilty. The defense asked for a recess during which the client was no doubt reminded of what she needed to say. ... is she subject to perjury charges?

Posted by: Editor at May 04, 2005 03:16 PM (adpJH)

16 Are any military lawyers covering this? IIRC, the UCMJ is a morass compared to the "normal" legal system in this country. It might lend some better insight into the motivation/precedent here...

Posted by: caltechgirl at May 04, 2005 03:27 PM (EtZVy)

17 Perjury would be lying under oath, being inconsistent is not the same as lying, so the answer is no.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 03:28 PM (JQjhA)

18 Hey there YBP I have a wino update for ya: Learned two lessons. #1 make the wine in a place where you an siphon not do not set it on the floor. #2 Grandpa said stir it a couple times the first two weeks. He meant that. Yep moved the jug to get a fifth out and stirred it a little. drank half that on Saturday and wan't too impressed. it was cloudy and too sweet. Let bottle sit overnight and it was a lot better on Sunday afternoon. It did bubble again for a day or so after I moved it . This morning the jug was clear about halfway down so by the end of the week it should be good stuff. Yep thars booze in that thar jug. Got a pretty good buzz on a couple glasses Sat. Sunday just enough left to taste. Pretty good stuff for the first try.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:33 PM (D3+20)

19 Howie: How can I convince you to send some of that elixir my way?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 03:37 PM (x+5JB)

20 Is it lawful to send through the mail??? I doubt that it is. I thought you would be there, hell we waited on you about 3 seconds. Pretty fur piece for a just a drink or two. I intend to age the rest just about as long as I waited on you. If you can find out if it's legal and drop me and address I'll send you a quart. It tastes pretty good I'm a proud little bootlegger. If not next time you are in bumfuct Egypt drop me a line and well have a little nip.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2005 03:54 PM (D3+20)

21 Howie: Yes, it's probably not legal. G-men used to shoot people for this in the 30's. You'd be cutting into the state's little, er, profits.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 04, 2005 04:27 PM (x+5JB)

22 I hope she is aquitted - I don't believe she really did anything wrong. And not much with the leash and stuff that many rich freaks in Manhattan and at Neverland Ranch wouldn't pay to have occurr...

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at May 04, 2005 04:37 PM (sE9R7)

23 Well, first of all, I thought ignorance of the law was not a defense. Not knowing the difference between right and wrong is another issue. I think some people are confusing the two. Although, I think the Judge knows what their doing and it would be good to save the taxpayer's money by making sure the first trial is right and fair. Maybe I should pay more attention to what's happening? Naw. I listen to too much news now.

Posted by: Oyster at May 05, 2005 06:03 AM (YudAC)

24 YBP said: "Ten to eleven years in prison for this? That's not justice, that's just crazy. A person can kill someone in a robbery and end up with less jail time than this." Am I understanding you correctly that 10-11 years is too long of a jail term? What would be an appropriate jail term? Are Gander, England et al being scape-goated? i.e. Were they following orders of higher ranking officers? Could the crimes commited at Abu Ghraib be considered War Crimes?

Posted by: puzzled at May 05, 2005 06:24 AM (moq9v)

25 Puzzled: I don't know what punishment would be appropriate. Maybe nothing. Were they following orders? I have no idea. If it's determined that they were, the punishment should reflect this. Regardless, 10-11 years in prison seems instinctually wacky for having posed in a series of lewd photographs perhaps unbecoming of a U.S. soldier. 1/7 of someone's life, though??? We'll see what happens.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 07:19 AM (x+5JB)

26 Sorry, missed your last point. War crimes? I think of physical torture, killing, and execetion when I hear that term. Not, from what I've seen, England's activities.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 07:21 AM (x+5JB)

27 YBP, 10-11 years is truly outrageous. If I was in charge of her case I would simply give her an article 15 (which is a non judical punish, no court marshal). I would probably give her a $200 fine and 1 month extra duties, and 1 month restriction on base. Since it made the news, I might also take a stripe from her. The reason I say this is because I receive an a15 for $25 dollars and 1 week extra duty and 2 restriction days for not shaving while I was off duty. My gunny saw me in town on a weekend while I was off duty, and by Monday afternoon got the above. The rule I broke was in the Marine Corp, you are suppose to clean shaven 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Posted by: Butch at May 05, 2005 12:55 PM (Gqhi9)

28 Butch: That seems more reasonable. Demote her a little for conduct unbecoming an officer, or whatever she's considered. But to fling her in jail for ten years to show the world that we're mad about this? All for show. I just feel bad that anyone serving his or her country got caught up in the mess. Regardless of her actions, she had guts to be in the military and to over there to begin with.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 05, 2005 01:04 PM (x+5JB)

29 You dont even do that amount of time for murder over here! You Americans are tough man! Hope she gets off.

Posted by: sparky at May 05, 2005 06:16 PM (F1nba)

30 YBP said "War crimes? I think of physical torture, killing, and execetion when I hear that term. Not, from what I've seen, England's activities." Not to split hairs but I asked of all of the crimes at Abu Ghraib, not just England's actions. Her photographed actions were borderline at best but she was part of evil things being done in that prison. By not reporting it, the term "accompliance after the fact" comes to mind. There was at least one documented homicide in the Abu Ghraib "scandal". Manadel al-Jamadi was beaten to death, the military ruled his death a homicide. You can find a picture of Garner(England's boyfriend at the time) giving a thumbs up over Manadel's corpse at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/23/wirq23.xml Butch & YBP: If the roles had been reversed; Americans(POWs or civs) being "taunted" by dogs, piled into naked pyramids, car batteries attached to testies, etc at the hands of military prison guards, you would be ok with them just being fined and having an extra month of duties&PT and/or demoted? Anyone reading this thread: Don't the actions in the Abu Ghraib photographs strike you as just plain evil? Something one just plain doesn't do to another human being simply because it is wrong.

Posted by: puzzled at May 06, 2005 04:18 AM (moq9v)

31 Puzzled: I was commenting on England's activity only. I don't know about anyone having been murdered.I agree that the activities did not serve America's interests in the long run (i.e., they did not help support for the U.S. presence in Iraq). "If the roles had been reversed; Americans(POWs or civs) being "taunted" by dogs, piled into naked pyramids, car batteries attached to testies, etc at the hands of military prison guards, you would be ok with them just being fined and having an extra month of duties&PT and/or demoted?" Excellent, thought-provoking question. Regardless of the passions that might well up if the roles were reveresed and these things were done to Americans by Iraqi soldiers, I'd believe that I would still maintain that 10-11 years in prison is unjust for someone guilty of whatever England was doing in the photographs.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 08:18 AM (x+5JB)

32 I agree with YBP. I was commenting on England pointing and leash holding. That does not merit jail time. As far as the dog taunting, and human pryamids, I feel once again that what I stated above would be ok, American or other. But once you start physical torture, (breaking bones, hitting, suppose rapes (I don't know if true or not) then yes jail time should start then. Basically I feel any mental torture is okay when trying to get information out. Physical torture is not okay. The reason I say that is I believe that everyone should have a strenghth of mind and it is a lot harder to weaken. Physical, the toughest man can be made to cry like a baby with enough beatings.

Posted by: Butch at May 06, 2005 03:20 PM (Gqhi9)

33 And I add that SOME physical intimidation would be fine--poking in the chest, grabbing a shirt front, etc.--nothing that would leave marks, cause bleeding, bruises, or disfigurement. But because some people may go over the line, perhaps there HAS to be a policy with no physical contact. Scaring them with dogs? Fine, as long as it is 100% safe, if it will save U.S. lives.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 06, 2005 03:55 PM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

205kb generated in CPU 0.0361, elapsed 0.0538 seconds.
40 queries taking 0.0271 seconds, 354 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 57957
Files: 16
Bytes: 343.8M
CPU Time: 30:46
Queries: 4980024

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

May 06, 2005

May 05, 2005

May 04, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds