January 27, 2006
ACLU Hearts Terrorists
Steve Emerson of the
Counterterrorism Blog:
The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a letter (Acrobat) to Department of Justice calling for the dismissal of the remaining charges against former University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian. Citing Al-Arian’s acquittal on 8 of the 17 charges against him, the ACLU claims that since “the two most serious charges” were thrown out, that al-Arian should be set free, and that such a move would demonstrate that the United States “welcomes religious and ethnic diversity.”
But there's more:
PIJ is not the only Palestinian terrorist group to find its way onto the ACLUÂ’s docket.
Earlier this month, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Abdelhaleem Ashqar, an alleged Hamas operative indicted on racketeering charges along with Hamas’ deputy political chief, Musa Abu Marzook. The ACLU is attempting to suppress evidence by claiming that the FBI conducted an “illegal” search of Ashqar’s home in December 1993.
Stop the ACLU:
The ACLU have opposed every effort our government has tried to fight terrorism, and has defended the enemy at every chance they get. The ACLU carefully walk the line of treason. Many of us think they have crossed that line, and we are sick and tired of nothing being done about it.
Indeed. Via
Hyscience.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:05 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Is the ACLU a public organization? Can a list of its supporters be published or is it already public information? Perhaps the companies and organizations who support the ACLU should be contacted in an effort to get them to quit supporting the ACLU.
Another aspect of its revenue are laws passed by Congress to reward the ACLU for winning cases filed against the government. Perhaps the Congress can change these laws so that the ACLU will not benefit from the public largesse.
I don't have the answers, but perhaps someone out there knows the answer to these questions?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 27, 2006 10:36 AM (rUyw4)
2
I know one thing for sure, the lawyers who work for or are affiliated with the ACLU can be easily identified.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:07 PM (0yYS2)
3
Should we expect more from an organization which was founded by communists and socialists? Yes we should. The ACLU was needed at the time, regardless of their political ideology, but the organization matured. However, somewhere along the line they reverted to their origins, but no longer have the horrible injustices to fight; so they have had to invent them. I would today call the organization of the 1930Â’s patriots with a misguided ideology; today, a 5th column.
Posted by: AMR at January 27, 2006 08:35 PM (trr9q)
4
Why should the US have to show that it ".. welcomes religious and ethnic diversity"?? We don't owe anybody anything.. especially muslims who want to invade our culture and borders. If the social atmosphere is a little uncomfortable for muslims, so much the better. They need to get the fck out.
Posted by: Richard at January 27, 2006 08:57 PM (W8EsU)
5
SMASH THE ACLU its time to revoke the ACLUs tax exmepted status this is truly a socialists leftist organization
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 09:54 AM (A2P9P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Taliban Attacks Afghan Girls' School
(Kabul) The Taliban has been intensifying its campaign against girls' schools.
From Xinhuanet.com:
Suspected Taliban militants set fire on a girls school Thursday night in Afghan eastern province of Laghman, a local police said.
"Last night at about 12 p.m. (8:30 p.m. GMT) some suspected Taliban militants blazed a girls school in Haidar area, but there is no casualty of school staff," Hizbullah, the spokesperson of the governor told Xinhua.
The spokesperson blamed Taliban to carry out this kind of attack, and said the investigation is still going on.
According to some reliable resources, four school staff have been kidnapped by the militants, but the spokesperson denied.
There are no details about the four hostages.
In the southern Kandahar Province where the Taliban previously had a stronghold, attempts to intimidate teachers and students at girls' schools have been ongoing. With these attacks against women, I wonder how in the world the feminists can consistently come out against the global war on terror. Logic would indicate that women's rights advocates should be first in line to support the Bush administration and its efforts to defeat the Taliban and other terror groups.
Companion at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:51 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You really want an answer on that one?
All politics is domestic - Feminists position on the Taliban is as follows - abortions on demand now & tommarrow! Bush and Supreme Court - Hands off our bodies! ....
What does that have to do with the Taliban? Absolutely nothing - and so what!
I understand them perfectly!
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 03:01 AM (3aakz)
2
Well That taliban are like
this.
Posted by: Afghanistan at January 27, 2006 04:01 AM (tjz9Z)
3
Damn. Hondo used his evil, psychic, mind reading military espionage training to steal my comment. He's right. The only issue feminists, especially those in the US, care about is the right to an abortion. Mistreat women all you want, just let them have abortions. As for the feminists in the rest of the world, it's okay to mistreat women as long as the mistreatment is part of a long established cultural practice.....oh and the person perpetrating the act isn't a whitey.
Posted by: Graeme at January 27, 2006 05:52 AM (/fbJO)
4
Feminists have consistently opposed the Taliban. I don't recall any specifically feminist opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
Do you have any evidence to back up the counterintuitive assertion that most feminists opposed the war in Afghanistan? Thanks.
Posted by: jpe at January 27, 2006 06:15 AM (+hqDO)
5
Well, jpe, most of us would like to see the feminists condemn radical Islam, and Islam in general, for its Middle Ages view of women and women's rights. The feminists don't seem to be shy about condemning Christians for views much less radical by thousands of degrees than what most Muslims, and particularly the radical Muslims have.
What's up with that?
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 27, 2006 10:17 AM (rUyw4)
6
There are lots of feminist condemnations of noxious groups like the Taliban, though.
Posted by: jpe at January 27, 2006 10:46 AM (5ceWd)
7
I guess none of these Taliban boys joined an all male club in college so they get a pass.
I think they get support from the left for their belief in a fathers right to choose (to kill his daughters) if necessary. We canÂ’t have government telling us how many girls we want to have around. Especially if the eldest gal brings dishonor to the family. I think this is known as Real Late Term Abortion. Pelosi and Boxer support it.
I love the left, “Keep your laws off my knife”
Posted by: Brad at January 27, 2006 11:48 AM (Ffvoi)
8
Apparently the Taliban, like oh, say, the other billion or so muslims in the world, didn't get the "religion of peace" memo.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:08 PM (0yYS2)
9
jpe
You are - correct. My apologies. Just having some fun with this and made an over-reaching analogy. I'll clarify this to feminists groups directly associated with a far-reaching leftist social agenda, where their agenda is more important that specific cases as this.
jpe - wiil that suffice?
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:35 PM (3aakz)
10
please excuse my spelling mistakes - cooking - rushing this with no preview.
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:38 PM (3aakz)
11
Feminists ARE Taliban. They treat others just like the Taliban do. They want the world to work only one way - their way. They are intolerant of anything else.
Posted by: Dave at January 27, 2006 05:14 PM (/x2u5)
12
wow the taliban is really bad.
Posted by: jivee jonees at February 09, 2006 07:37 PM (0pSwJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jimmy Carter Advocating Criminal Acts?
From
The Jerusalem Post:
"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.
Carter, who has long supported the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, voiced the hope that the Islamic terror group would act "responsibly" now that it had won the elections.
Isn't President Peanut just the soul of kindness, at least when it comes to coddling terrorists? Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier
here, it's
illegal for Americans to provide "material support or resources" to designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. And Hamas is so designated by the State Department.
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
12:01 AM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
1
He has marginalized himself so much (Clinton's trying too) that the only play he get is on foreign stages. Sad actually.
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 12:26 AM (3aakz)
2
I have to start using the preview! Its "can get", less some eager lil' liberal snicker at my "ignorance".
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 12:28 AM (3aakz)
3
jimmy carter is the only president ever to have reported seeing a ufo. and remember his killer rabbit episode?
ufo's are a fraud. and jimmy claimed he wourld never lie to the voters.
i think it was columnist george will reported jimmy is still eating his heart out how PRES. RONALD REAGAN beat him in 1980. and as geo. will said your notes to prepare you for the debates in 1980 wasn't of any value.
Posted by: red state voter living in a blue state at January 27, 2006 12:55 AM (BZHuI)
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 01:04 AM (3aakz)
5
It's easy for him to say these things at a press conference. If he really believes in his cause, he'll stand in an Israeli pizzaria and say them.
For the US Navy: I know it's bad luck to change a ship's name but in this case it's worth taking the risk. C'mon guys, drop the name USS Jimmy Carter for something better. The poor sub probably gets laughed at by all the other subs when it's in port, while they yell "Look! A swimming rabbit!" just to see the Jimmy Carter crash dive and hit it's bow on the sea floor. It's not worth it.
Posted by: Graeme at January 27, 2006 03:51 AM (/fbJO)
6
in the case of jimmy carter we have two reasons to be thankful to big fat slob socialist ted kennedy. when kennedy ran against jimmy in one of the primaries in 1980, jimmy tried to claim he was on the verge of solving the iranina hostage crisis, and did beat fat slob kennedy, and after the primary the hostage situation was still unsolved. and jimmy tried to make the same claim in the fall before the november 1980 elections and the voters did remember this claim used against kennedy and went on to elect PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.
the second thing we have to thank fat slob kennedy for was after jimmy won the nomination at the dem convention, the television cameras showed jimmy chasing fat slob kennedy around the podium hoping fat slob kennedy would stop ignoring him.
Posted by: red state voter living in a blue state at January 27, 2006 05:30 AM (BZHuI)
7
There is no room for a good man anymore. Warrior traits are more important.
Posted by: Dale at January 27, 2006 05:31 AM (6qCfg)
8
well... i may as well close out this thread with a
gut check and a complementary pic of
JIMMUAH.
Posted by: Rubin at January 27, 2006 06:43 AM (TMQIX)
9
Don't ever do that again, Rubin, without warning. That pic of Teddy shot orange juice through my nose. In both instances, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is truer than ever. Funny!
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 27, 2006 10:25 AM (rUyw4)
10
Red state, I don't think it's fair to use the UFO thing against Carter, because there are many sane, reasonable people who have seen things that can't be easily explained. I myself, along with others with me, have seen on two seperate occasions lights in the night sky which did not behave in a manner typical of any mundane light-emitting object such as an aircraft, planet, meterorite, satellite, etc.. While I'm not wrapping my house in tinfoil just yet, I'm also not ready to dismiss anything I can't explain as the reflection of Venus' light on some swamp gas.
The rabbit incident, however, is just too much. I remember seeing the pictures in the paper of how it kept trying to get in the boat with him and he was trying to fight it off with his fishing pole. All I could think of at the time was that it must have been a Soviet plant. These days of course it would be a Rovian minion.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:14 PM (0yYS2)
11
carter was americas worse president ever until BILL CLONTON came along he did everything wrong and bumbled it all to then he ends up with the hostage crisis unemployment and what ever now wonder the idiot only lasted one term and rememebr the AMY DEBATES? this nit wit was asking his grade scool duaghter about important things and yes indeed there was the incedent with the rabbit and i,ll bet carter was afraid of bugs bunny from that moment on
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:01 AM (A2P9P)
12
Actually, the USS Jimmy Carter is one of the most up to date Sea Wolf class subs. It was recently updated with a 'dry room' to splice into underwater cables that are going fiber optic, and harder to do than in the old soviet days with SEALS. (Sucks to be outside a sub in 33 degree water -- I hear).
As to Carter's patriotism, when you volunteer to wade into a flooded reactor compartment, in a sub currently at depth, to save the lives of 100+ other crew members, then you can talk more about patriotism.
There's a reason a Sea Wolf Attack sub was named after Jimmy Carter. You may not like his politics, but to not respect the man for his deeds is to show your own ignorance. To do this is not conservative; itÂ’s just red necks trying to boast when they have nothing to show for themselves.
Posted by: True Conservative at January 30, 2006 02:45 PM (pUkop)
13
Now here's some news. If you criticise Jimmy Carter, then you are just a boasting redneck who has never done anything. Well, Mr. True Conservative, so much for your support of freedom of speech. If I don't like your speech, then I label you a redneck, and your freedom of speech is null and void.
You're no true conservative, but a stupid liberal trying to pass himself off as a conservative. You can never fool conservatives when you pose as one, as no conservative would say what you did. Liberal shit is liberal shit, no matter who says it, and you reek of it, sir.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 30, 2006 03:28 PM (rUyw4)
14
Former President Jimmy Carter showed his true colors at the King funeral. He is a reverse racist, hypocrite, man without a legacy, and frustrated that he only "SINNED IN HIS HEART"!!What a disappointed old man he has turned into! He lost his dignity years ago, so I don't think anyone expects much dignity from him anyway. Unlike Pres. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter did know you put your cigars in a cigar box!!
Posted by: Roalhv at February 11, 2006 10:20 AM (Ffvoi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 26, 2006
Palestinian Elections: A Haiku
Hamas, won have we
Exterminate Jews we will
Allahu...
...
...
...
Hey? Is that a Hellfire miss
Posted by: Vinnie at
08:22 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.
Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.
Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official."
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r
Posted by: In-sturgeon at January 27, 2006 07:47 AM (GCMGs)
2
Israel doesn't use Hellfires on those hits any more. They developed a specialized weapon, which is why the number of bystanders killed dropped so sharply a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Otter at January 27, 2006 09:22 AM (aDWqE)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ayup, He's Certifiable
Time to send Iranian president Maquaalude Ahmagonnadieforallah to the 72 Virgins Special Needs Center For Delusional Theocrats:
Iran has asked the United States to allow direct flights between the two countries after a break of more than two decades, a senior civil aviation official said on Thursday.
d00d, look, we know you haven't invented anything worthwile in hundreds of years, but really, if you want to nuke us, make yer own frigging ICBM.
Stop trying to use ours against us, you worthless sissy.
stein hoist to the blog grandfather
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:59 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
No No No No!
Besides the possible future danger (albeit slight I believe) - the real risk is this being the new govt's verion of the Murial boatlift!
There is a big purge shaping up inside that country - and this will give them a chance to get rid of portions of the secular opposition - who will flee given the right incentive and a place they would want to go to.
No No No No! Iranians! Deal with your own future in your own country! This would only take some of the pressure off the mullahs and the govt!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 07:11 PM (3aakz)
2
I was kind of thinking they want to put a nuke in the baggage area myself.
Or rip out the seats and put a couple-three in there.
Then again, I
am in the middle of the 24 season two DVD set, so maybe I'm just having delusions based on fiction.
But, Islamotards like Ahmagonnameetallah aren't known for their inventiveness. Otherwise, Osama would have made his own guided missiles to take down the Twin Towers and he could have saved the manpower for The Great Battle.
Posted by: Vinnie at January 26, 2006 07:45 PM (f289O)
3
Nah Vinnie, I'd say you're pretty much dead on.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:39 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Meet The New Imeat.
Wow sounds scrumptious especially after sitting on a shelf fermenting. Yum Yum. I thought I told
Rusty not to eat this.
Hat Tip: Punk2.
more...
Posted by: Howie at
03:20 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Tampering by a former employee? C'mon. We all know that this is yet another attack against the American people masterminded by Karl Rove and engineered at the secret Halliburton lab in Antartica.
Posted by: Graeme at January 26, 2006 04:46 PM (esk0L)
2
Yeah and I bet it doesn't come with an AC adapter either just like the other iPod. Probably won't be able to find a decent case for it for six months either.
Posted by: memphis761 at January 26, 2006 04:57 PM (D3+20)
3
Just imagine downloading and dancing to the latest strains of botulism, e coli, or salmonella.
Posted by: Brian B at January 26, 2006 05:25 PM (rGfpg)
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:33 PM (YudAC)
5
Ready in less then 40 seconds!
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:26 PM (D3+20)
6
GRAEME!
Who told you about the lab in Antartica? GET OUT - NOW!
They are on to you!
Go to you nearest Public library - Reference Section - see Plato's Defense of Socra**** - in it you will find an envelope with 17.45 inside (sorry all I can spare) and Maxie's High School ID Card - use them wisely and RUN! NOW!
You can contact us by posting on the DailyKOS - change your handle to .... greg ... we will know it is you by the correct spelling.
GOOD LUCK OLD FRIEND!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 10:18 PM (3aakz)
7
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: Socra***
IMPUT WOULDN'T ACCEPT SOCS NAME!!!!
OH SHIT! THEIR ON TO ME TOO NOW!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 10:21 PM (3aakz)
8
I'm waiting for the waterproof iFISH to come out, so I can take it canoeing.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:41 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
40 Seconds? But I want it now!
No, I'm not ignoring you, I've been sick. For the past 48 hours I haven't been able to keep any food down. Then suddenly, my appetite came back. So much so that I think I could eat an entire flash fried buffalo. And no, I can't wait 40 seconds.
I should be back to normal tomorrow.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:50 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You'll be interested to know that when your children grow up and move out, you won't get sick very often at all. Little petrie dishes, they are.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 02:29 PM (osKlJ)
2
Now Rusty, did you go and eat at Uncle Moe's Family Feedbag again?
Posted by: Venom at January 26, 2006 02:46 PM (dbxVM)
3
"Normal," of course, being a relative term.
But glad to have you back among the food consuming.
Posted by: James Joyner at January 26, 2006 03:57 PM (UjbiU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On post-Weimar Hamas
Abbas [singing]: Oh Hamas! You repaid my abuse with raw hatred. But I need you today. Oh Hamas! When you blew up some Jews and you framed me. So they locked me away...
Maybe it's my recent re-reading of Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich talking, but someone stop me if I am crazy in seeing a few hard and fast similarities between Hamas and the late-1920s/early-1930s Nazi Party:
- both elected during times of minimal government control of the territory and in an area with a "poor" economic prospects, at best
- both groups gained fame as organizations for street thugs through open and unabashed violence
- both love a good outdoor ralley with pretty flags, weapons, and nationalistic chanting
- both love artistic posters in public places
- both appealed to the population with the promotion of territorial unification and seeking retribution against the Jews
- both were hoped to be "toned down" through elections and elevation within democratic offices, as world leaders rationalized that previous thuggish activities could never play well from a ruling government
Then again, there is one dissimilarity that really hits me. In November 1932, the last election before Hitler became Chancellor and the Nazis truly solidified power, the NSDAP only had 33.6% of parlimentary seats (down from the previous July, in which the Nazi held their greatest Weimar-era seat percentage at 37.8%). It seems that Hamas picked up about 57.5% of seats, with 76 out of 132.
I'm just sayin', is all.
Posted by: wineaholic at
01:30 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
1
There's one big difference this time, though: the Jews are armed.
Heavily armed.
Posted by: Damian P. at January 26, 2006 02:04 PM (AVn2f)
2
Hey there you are! Welcome back Wine-0-Holic
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 02:38 PM (D3+20)
3
I'd like to say regarding Damian's remark, I really would like to see another attempt by the assorted islamic scum of the ME to invade Israel again.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:08 PM (0yYS2)
4
One more similarity...they both elected HITLER...
a Hamas member who goes by the nickname Hitler was elected yesterday.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 26, 2006 03:24 PM (Hj2fX)
5
This whole situation in the so-called Gaza strip and West Bank is a creation of the UN. After Israel was born out of the disaster that was WWII, the Arabs who were displaced should have been absorbed by the Arab nations all around them, but they were herded into refuge camps where they have stayed to this day. Of course, rather than assimalate with the Arab states all around them, they have been encouraged to sit around and do nothing while being taken care of cradle to grave by the UN.
They have been allowed to do nothing. This breeds hate and gives hate the time to turn into genocide. Had these people carried on with their lives, they would be too busy to hate. But now, we see with our own eyes the situation that continues to unfold. We will be lucky if this area is not engulfed in a conflagration that could turn global.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 03:48 PM (rUyw4)
6
Another similarity between the two: Both were given a free pass for not being as corrupt as the government they replaced (se Jimmy Carter's comments today). At least the trains run on time....
Posted by: Brian B at January 26, 2006 03:51 PM (rGfpg)
7
The big difference is that the Nazis were Germans, a people renowned for having their act together. The Palestinians are Arabs...
I'm sure they must be good at something aside from making noisy displays and long speeches, but I'm drawing a blank here.
The Germans applied their orderly mindset to asswhuppage and the problem of ethnic diversity with famously extreme results. Their tall bodycount has less to do with the extent of their hatred than with their talent for killing people and the serious, methodical, German way they tackled the project. They pioneered mass murder as an industrial process.
Arabs are not Germans or anything like them. Seriously, picture a concentration camp run by Arabs. Here's a hint if you're having trouble: They wouldn't manage it any better than anything else. Half the Jews would escape in weeks through holes in the fences because the guy hired to repair them is the commandant's son-in-law and never comes to work; or maybe they'd just climb out because the only thing the guards can hit with their AKs is the sky when they fire them at weddings. Not many Jews would die inside because the gas chamber would fall into disrepair, start leaking and kill people standing near it, so the guards would be afraid to use it.
However ill-suited to running Auchwitz the Palestinians would be, they are even less able to arrange the situation in the first place. This would require a victory on the battlefield. Not only do they lack the talent for this, but they show no interest in acquiring it. Their idea of armed struggle against Israel involves showy but pointless things like sporadic suicide attacks on discos and firing one 81mm mortar round per day in the general direction of Tel Aviv. A German (or an American) would save up that ammo for a proper bombardment, bring it down on an identifiable target, and follow up with an assault.
I don't see Hamas turning this around. The worst they could do is raise the meyhem level some.
Posted by: ShannonKW at January 26, 2006 04:17 PM (dT1MB)
8
If I might, since we're bringing up Germans here, relay a brief story that happened recently. I opened my big fat mouth the other day and had my foot halfway to my tonsils before I realized what I was saying. We were discussing a new local German restaurant with our bartender who is also German. She said the food was authentic and very good, great weiner schnitzel, etc., but that the restaurant used to be a pizzeria with a large brick oven so they still carried pizza on the menu to utilize it. Then me - in my infinite curiosity - I asked her,
"Well isn't there something that Germans do with big ovens?"
I thought everyone in the bar was going to choke to death before I realized what I'd said. Thankfully the bartender thought it was as funny as everyone else. I was a little embarassed to say the least.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:11 PM (YudAC)
9
Heh, good one Oyster. D'Oh!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:46 PM (0yYS2)
10
I don't see the similarity.
The Nazis were snappy dressers - if anything - they did know how to make a fashion statement without being ostentatious. Can't see arabs coming even close with towels and sheets.
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 12:58 AM (3aakz)
11
The attraction that Nazism holds for muslims is predicated mainly on hatred for the Jews, but secondarily, it combines ethnic nationalism, xenophobia, aggressive military and cultural expansionism, and socialism, all of which appeal to persons of low intellect, and especially those from a backward culture. Ironically, Nazism is finding fertile ground among various and diverse groups around the globe, and it's not unusual to go over to Stormfront and find Nazi white supremacists and communists taking sides with muslims and liberals against their own countrymen. The Stormfront message board in places looks as if the comments were lifted from Kos or DU verbatim.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:29 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Reactions to Hamas' Win From Middle Eastern Press
While most Middle Eastern news outlets still have stories posted projecting a Fatah victory based on exit polling, a few have reacted to the real story. These two, from opposite sides of the Israeli-Palestinian fence, offer similar Pollyanna takes:
al Jazeera sees a tiny ray of sunshine:
And in a first sign of pragmatism, Mahmoud Zahar, a top Hamas official, said the group would extend its year-old truce if Israel reciprocates. "If not, then I think we will have no option but to protect our people and our land," he said.
The
Jerusalem Post looks on the bright side:
"Now that they are in power, Hamas will have to take responsibility for the future. They will have to become more moderate. Now they are part of the democratic game and they will have to play by the democratic rules," Siniora said.
Siniora, a 69-year-old east Jerusalemite Christian, is publisher of The Jerusalem Times and a co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information. An early proponent of negotiations with Israel, he has long been involved in pro-peace activities. He was one of seven candidates contending for one of the two seats reserved for Christians in the Jerusalem district, but is unlikely to win the seat.
Unfortunately, the reality will probably be much grimmer, at least in the short run. For years, it's been obvious that Palestinian society has been undergoing a forced evolution. The smart Palestinians have found ways to escape their role as tools of Pan-Arabism, and gotten out.
What's left are the dregs, mentally damaged barbarians who have bred a sick, twisted culture based on celebrating terrorist acts. What else can you say about a society that deifies degenerates who deliberately seek out children to murder?
Are there enough intelligent, mentally healthy Palestinians left to build a civilized society? I don't think so, but I'd be very glad to be proved wrong.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto .
Posted by: Bluto at
12:34 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Now if they can only have a state of their own, we can invade them properly and exterminate them like the vermin they are.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM (0yYS2)
2
Maxie
You are a far too violent and ham-handed in your appoach to such problems! Get creative! Explore some alternative possiblities!
Say, a small size asteroid - a nice secret lil' challenge for NASA - diverted and redirected for a global impact - in the immediate region. Putting those Space and High Tech Defense dollars to work! Keeping our hands clean and options open.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:28 PM (3aakz)
3
Quick! Call Al Gore! Call John Kerry and Jimmy Carter! Call Keith Olberman and Jim Lampley! The exit polls don't match the outcome! The outcome must be fraudulent. The exit polls are never wrong! Quick, somebody file a lawsuit!
Posted by: geobandy at January 26, 2006 01:50 PM (T1l1O)
4
HAMAS WINS: NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE
Before the election, Israel had no partner for a negotiated settlement, and it still doesn't have one.
Arafat said he recognized israel and then secretly ran a terror campaign to destroy Israel.
Abbas was either ineffective, or willingly allowed the terrorists REMAIN ARMED and to attack Israel however and whenever they wanted.
Now - through elections - Hamas gets control of the so called "Palestinian's" so called "government" and I predict that - effectively speaking - they will do the same things as Arafat and Abbas: claim they have reformed and claim they are willing to negotiate, but continue to attempt to destroy Israel and to continue to commit genocidal terror against Israelis.
Israel has only one way forward (KADIMA is hebrew for "forward"):
To continue to do what it has been doing for the last few years: to unilaterally disengage according to parameters which are solely in its own interest and to build a wall keeping Palistinians out, and to monitor all transport and communications into and out of Arab Palestine. And to retaliate with extreme force to any attack or any provocation of any attack.
NOTE: Hamas may claim to reform (as Arafat did) - in order to get funding from the USA and the EU and the UN, but their members - and the members of the other jihadoterrorist groups - won't suddenly become believers in (or practioners of) peaceful co-existence. The children these Arabs have raised to proudly become "human-guided/genocidal missiles" will not suddenly become doves or lambs. The war will go on.
FURTHER NOTE: I predict that Israel will IMMEDIATELY, AND WITH ALL DUE HASTE, move toward total and final separation by closing down the less defendable West Bank settlements and finishing and fortifying the "wall of separation." This will be along a line of Israel's choosing and it will include all of Jerusalem.WHY?! So that they will be in the BEST POSSIBLE militarily defensive position to withstand the "firestorm" which will be ignited when they and/or the US demolish Iran's nuke program and destroy Iran's offensive military capability. The pre-emptive attack against Iran will occur as soon as this is completed.
UPDATE: There's an UPSIDE to this election result: after the next jihadoterrorist attack, Hamas biggies will be much easier for the IDF to assassinate - unless they intend to rule from a bunker!
Posted by: reliapundit at January 26, 2006 02:19 PM (+z3qw)
5
Maybe Bush could point his hurricane/tsunami generator at the paleostinians?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:09 PM (0yYS2)
6
I guess it's now safe to say that the terrorists are no longer a tiny minority of Palestinians, but the vast majority of Palestinians.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 05:12 PM (rUyw4)
7
Nah! I want a celestial impact - its got a certain quality to it. Of course portions of Israel might be toasted - but its not personal - just good business.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:22 PM (3aakz)
8
I personally don't give a good flying damn about Israel really, and whether it continues to exist is of no concern to me whatsoever one way or another, but the paleostinians, along with all other arabs and muslim scum, need to be exterminated for the good of humanity.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:45 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Congratulations Hamas
I’ve been reading all morning about the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections. One thought has been with me all morning. While it may seem bad it’s actually a good thing. No longer can the PA hide behind the “It was Hamas” defense after bombings. No longer can Hamas play the relatively easy role of “opposition”. No the buck stops here, congratulations here you go!
(thump!!). That’s the sound of total responsibility landing on your desk. Whatever happens, peace, war or prosperity the time for blaming the Israel or claiming oppression and corruption is over. Now a Hamas sponsored bombing can’t be dismissed as, “not our fault”, it’s an act of war by a state worthy of a real response. Hamas/PA is responsible to the entire Palestinian electorate and subject to all the blame, criticism, and general cynicism they have promoted for so long. Ask us Republicans/Conservatives we’ll tell you, with greater power comes greater responsibility. Watch what you wish for you just might get it.
BBC : The Hamas victory presents both the Palestinian political class and the international community with a huge dilemma. Washington and the EU, which have pressured the Palestinians to hold democratic elections, cannot now object to the outcome of the elections without laying themselves open to charges of hypocrisy. Crucially, the result has landed Hamas itself in a very difficult situation. It cannot be part of the Palestinian Authority and at the same time remain committed to what it calls the armed struggle.
Captain Ed Says :
And if Hamas and the Palestinians still want to wage war after that, then let the IDF roll across the West Bank and Gaza Strip and push the whole lot of them right into the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. That's what total war means, and as soon as the world stops preventing the Palestinians from the risks of their own choices, the sooner they will conclude that war is the worst possible choice for them.
True the choices now have very real consequences.
Also this Quote Via Seattle Times:
Hamas' role was greatly respected and embraced because it was a resistance movement," Sami Moubayed, a Syrian analyst, told The Associated Press.
"Now, they will naturally be prone to fail like any other movement that entered the political arena, because they will have a very hard time to deliver on their promises," he said.
Dean Esmay also get's his two cents inThe greatest stumbling block to peace in the Middle East is the refusal of Palestinians to accept the existence of the state of Israel. A Hamas lead government might be just the thing to realize that coexistence with Israel isn't so bad after all.
That's my hope anyway. As noted anti-Semite HL Mencken once remarked, "People get the government they deserve - and they deserve to get it good and hard."
The Filthy Report says :
So they say, "Habib, I vote for the guy who teach my kid instead of crook who steal all my money".. The thing is, the teacher is also the terrorist.
Ace Too.
Will it not be sweet to see Hamas have to deal? One thing for sure the plate is full, now dig in Hamas. I hope you are as hungry as you thought you were.
Posted by: Howie at
12:30 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.
1
As they say, be careful what you wish for. Now that the official terrorist organization is the official government, we can effect a regime change.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:14 PM (0yYS2)
2
The Hamas win destroys the left wing in Israel. The left has been yammering for years that all the Palestinians want is peace and now their precious Palestinians elected a terrorist group to rule them.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at January 26, 2006 01:16 PM (5ceWd)
3
If they stay true to form, they will turn a good portion of their terror and repression inward.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:30 PM (3aakz)
4
Does this mean that nukes can finally be used to respond to a kassam launching? After all, now that Hamas is the legitimate government, it becomes an act of war.
Posted by: Graeme at January 26, 2006 01:31 PM (esk0L)
5
HAMAS WINS: NOTHING WILL REALLY CHANGE
Before the election, Israel had no partner for a negotiated settlement, and it still doesn't have one.
Arafat said he recognized israel and then secretly ran a terror campaign to destroy Israel.
Abbas was either ineffective, or willingly allowed the terrorists REMAIN ARMED and to attack Israel however and whenever they wanted.
Now - through elections - Hamas gets control of the so called "Palestinian's" so called "government" and I predict that - effectively speaking - they will do the same things as Arafat and Abbas: claim they have reformed and claim they are willing to negotiate, but continue to attempt to destroy Israel and to continue to commit genocidal terror against Israelis.
Israel has only one way forward (KADIMA is hebrew for "forward"):
To continue to do what it has been doing for the last few years: to unilaterally disengage according to parameters which are solely in its own interest and to build a wall keeping Palistinians out, and to monitor all transport and communications into and out of Arab Palestine. And to retaliate with extreme force to any attack or any provocation of any attack.
NOTE: Hamas may claim to reform (as Arafat did) - in order to get funding from the USA and the EU and the UN, but their members - and the members of the other jihadoterrorist groups - won't suddenly become believers in (or practioners of) peaceful co-existence. The children these Arabs have raised to proudly become "human-guided/genocidal missiles" will not suddenly become doves or lambs. The war will go on.
FURTHER NOTE: I predict that Israel will IMMEDIATELY, AND WITH ALL DUE HASTE, move toward total and final separation by closing down the less defendable West Bank settlements and finishing and fortifying the "wall of separation." This will be along a line of Israel's choosing and it will include all of Jerusalem.WHY?! So that they will be in the BEST POSSIBLE militarily defensive position to withstand the "firestorm" which will be ignited when they and/or the US demolish Iran's nuke program and destroy Iran's offensive military capability. The pre-emptive attack against Iran will occur as soon as this is completed.
UPDATE: There's an UPSIDE to this election result: after the next jihadoterrorist attack, Hamas biggies will be much easier for the IDF to assassinate - unless they intend to rule from a bunker!
Posted by: reliapundit at January 26, 2006 02:19 PM (+z3qw)
6
I hope so Graeme, I'd really like to see Israel turn on a good old fashioned month-long artillery bombardment on them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:12 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Iraq WMDs Unanswered Questions
I ran into this post at Rightwingnuthouse and I can tell you itÂ’s not nutty at all. Damn good post, damn good questions.
Rightwingnuthouse : For almost three years, the conventional wisdom regarding Iraq WMDÂ’s prior to our invasion was that Saddam never had them, we knew it, Bush lied, and we invaded anyway because we wanted their oil, or to establish military bases, or because George Bush is a meany, or because the Jews told us to, orÂ…just because America is eeeevilÂ… Â…But something always bothered me about this conclusion, a nagging itch at the back of my mind. And that is the overwhelmingly belief by the worldÂ’s best intelligence agencies that Saddam did indeed have stockpiles of WMD in the six months leading up to the war. The French, the British, the Germans, The IsraeliÂ’s, the United Nations (UNSCOM and IAEA), not to mention the CIA, DIA, and most politicians here in this country... Â…ThatÂ’s quite a number of people to be dead wrong about such a huge issue.
more...
Posted by: Howie at
12:08 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Let's also not forget, immediately after Baghdad fell, the Russian "diplomat" envoy that came under fire AFTER they said they had evacuated all their people. What were they still doing there? Helping to get rid of evidence right up to the last second? I think they were shocked to find the military had reached Baghdad so quickly.
What leaves me befuddled is why Saddam had his Russian MiG-25s buried in the sand rather than deploy them in defense. Anyone have an answer for that? If he had the time to bury such large pieces of equipment, he had the time to do a whole lot more.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 02:27 PM (osKlJ)
2
Oyster, that's pretty much exactly what they were doing.
Give it up George, they did have them, and now Syria has them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:11 PM (0yYS2)
3
WMD can be as simple as a mustard gas shell. As far as I know we have found one Sarin Shell in an IED. However it was used incorrectly and the chemicals did not mix properly before detonation. So it's quite possible that some chemical shells did exist and if so Sadam would have been anxious to be rid of them. Syria already has Chem weapons. Still it just does not quite all add up. Hiding stuff they were. What they hid and why is still up in the air and may never be solved. It seems reasonable at least some chemical agents may have been involved. The assertion we are absolutly sure they had no chem biological agents is equally unprovable.
See I didn't curse one time and I don't care about left right stuff. In fact I was speaking with a Black man who is a hard woking Democrat today who says he thinks the President should be spying on our enemies warrant or no and thinks he does have the power. Not all lefties are dhimmis.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 04:05 PM (D3+20)
4
George, why are you so sure? What intelligence do you have that proves WMD's were not sent to Syria? We know that Saddam had chemical weapons, hell, he used them, so what happened to his chemical weapons? He also had an active nuclear program in the 1990's, so what happened to it?
I'm not saying I know, but I doubt whether Saddam gave up his WMD programs. That would be atypical of his previous behavior. I'm just saying that I don't discount questions about Iraq's WMD, and there are some angles that need to be pursued.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:11 PM (rUyw4)
5
What sort of WMD are we so sure that Syria now has in its possesion ? WMD are usually divided into 3 groups: chemical,biological and nuclear. Nuclear weapons require a huge infrastructure to produce. Biological are the easiest to produce. We certainly can remembr Dr. Germ and Mrs Anthrax (who appeared as the 5 of hearts on the deck of "most wanted". Both of those women were released last December after 2 years the coalition apparently had no doubts that there were no functioning weapons programs. This was the first story when I googled it. ooops linj woas not accepted due to "questionable content" So you will have to google it yourself. As for chemical weapons Saddam dd use them mostly to breakup the human wave attacks of Iran in 83 and 84. I do not recall there being much of an uproar about this by the white house or by either party in congress at that time.
Posted by: john ryan at January 26, 2006 04:35 PM (TcoRJ)
6
Syria was the USSR's main player during the cold war. I remember many time there were confrontations about Syria's capabilities. It was The USSR's main asset in the region. I believe Syria's Chemical capabilties at that time were even the subject of a 20/20 investigation. Missiles were also an issue as part of the balance of power at the time. Syria was as important a player for the USSR as East Germany, Cuba and other clients and were given similar capabilities under Soviet supervision. The soviet missles are gone but in my opinion it's higly likey that Syria retains at least some basic chemical capability since most of that is WWI WWII type tech. Not saying Syria would ever use it as we would respond in kind but basic checmical capability is not that technical. Oh never mind here.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Chemical/3048_3072.html
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:42 PM (D3+20)
7
Your google search string is
"Syrian Military capability chemical"
or 545,000 results
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:45 PM (D3+20)
8
Uh take yer time with that.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:47 PM (D3+20)
9
George, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and I gave you a break, but you are obviously just another fucking moonbat moron of the kind who sneaks on here every now and then and despite their best efforts, exposes themselves for what they are. If you really believe that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD's then you're as stupid as I originally thought. Grow a brain and grow up you idiot kid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:43 PM (0yYS2)
10
You deserve the same fate as Nick Berg
wow, where's your head at
George Ramos
Posted by: Yer Daddy at January 27, 2006 06:57 AM (TMQIX)
11
No one deserves the same fate as Nick Berg. Now IM always says stuff wild and Rusty warned him and he has been better.
George that's enough of that. Make a point or GTFO.
Posted by: Howie at January 27, 2006 08:06 AM (D3+20)
12
Hehe, I knew I'd bring the little moron out into the light. He pretended as long as he could, but he just couldn't help himself.
Georgie, you've been busted you little leftard. Now go deliver some pizzas so you can pay your mom rent on the basement you've been taking up since you dropped out of high school.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 01:31 PM (0yYS2)
Posted by: Oyster at January 27, 2006 04:40 PM (YudAC)
14
Whoa Whoa!
George & Maxie! Chill out! If you two want to go at it - maybe be we can set up a cage match on PPV - make some money off this - Rusty can set up a live cam-cast or something.
I don't feel at lotta love here! Your both gonna make me cry!
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:50 PM (3aakz)
15
Oh no, I'm being threatened by a little punk that doesn't even shave yet! Whatever shall I do? I know, I could hunt him down, gut him like a fish, and violate his corpse, but if I started doing that to every whiney little nerd that threatened me on the internet, I wouldn't have time for anything else.
Chill out kid, you'll live longer. Or maybe you won't. Either way, threatening me won't get you anywhere but on the back of a milk carton, and you'll never get to hear what your voice sounds like when it changes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 27, 2006 10:54 PM (0yYS2)
16
*
Improbulus Maximus, I'll keep checkin my kids milk cartons and counting the lucky
charms stars..another unique WOT perspective in the house.
Boy with his own room!
/lucky little guppy ;-)
Posted by: Rubin at January 27, 2006 11:57 PM (7oD73)
17
By George. Now see what you have done now your platform that you were exercising your free speech no longer supports you. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you hate IM well that just shows you are a sucker. Yes a big old 18 year old sucker. He talks you get all upset. Suckered in I'd say you were.
Second you already show you have no idea what Syria is and it's history. I can forgive a bit becuase you are a pup. Syria is not a backwater typical middle east shithole. It;s long been a cultural and political power in the middle east. So go educate yourself and then come back. Next time you tell me to GFY I will despam you myself for now I have deferred your banning and submitted a request to Rusty's judgement. I you can do no more that curse and call for beheading it's not worth the space on my theads.
One thing for sure you have shown you have no idea WTF you are talking about anyway.
Posted by: Howie at January 29, 2006 12:03 PM (D3+20)
Posted by: Howie at January 29, 2006 12:04 PM (D3+20)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carter calls for funding Palestinians
The unabashed naivete of this man never ceases to amaze me. He does have one redeeming value.....as a negative barometer. Do the opposite of what he recommends and chances are it will prove to be the right move.
A day after Hamas swept to an upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, former US President Jimmy Carter on Thursday said that Wednesday's voting had been orderly and fair.
"The elections were completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence," the former president said.
Carter, who led an 85-member international observer team from around the world organized by the 'National Democratic Institute' in partnership with 'The Carter Center,' urged the international community to directly or indirectly fund the new Palestinian Government even though it will be led by an internationally-declared foreign terror organization.
"The Palestinian Government is destitute, and in desperate financial straits. I hope that support for the new government will be forthcoming," Carter said at a Jerusalem press conference.
Funding families of suicide bombers and diverting 100s of millions into Arafats private accounts tend to have that effect.
Companion OpiniPundit
Posted by: Traderrob at
11:50 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oh, so all those pre-election political assasinations an dgeneral harrassment in the Gaza strip were just Hamas 'getting out the vote'?....what a dumbass.
Posted by: Grim at January 26, 2006 11:56 AM (y6n8O)
2
Naiive? Is he really just a useful idiot? Seems more like his eyes are open and he prefers our enemies....
Posted by: pst314 at January 26, 2006 12:02 PM (OA547)
3
We shouldn't give them a damn thing. Let the Arabs take care of them if they want to. Anything we give these people is likely to be used to purchase weapons or free up other funds to purchase weapons.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:18 PM (rUyw4)
4
If Jimmah Critter wants hamas to have $$$, let him give them his. Hopefully, the US State Department remembers we don't support terrorist groups.
Posted by: bubbe at January 26, 2006 06:00 PM (vZBQO)
5
Great opportunity for the Libs/left to personally open their wallets!
Conservatives do it all time - without any fanfare of PR for their/our causes.
You could have something like a LiveAid concert in GAZA! Carter can MC - think of all the bands and celebrites available! and don't forget to flaunt all those leftist social values (and skin) to a hugh audience of traditional and extremist muslims! Now I would pay good money to get PPV to see this live!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:33 PM (3aakz)
6
You knwo I could have sworn Jimmah was on morning edition saying if Hamas held executive branch offices it would in fact be unlawful to support them backing Bluto's post above. As I understand theis process they will get to pick the new Prime Minister and other ministers all executive positions. So even if the top executive is still fatah it seems to me that would be enough. I expect he will resign as these types of Democratic arrangements also allow "No Confidence Votes". If they can I would expect Hamas to go after Abbas if he stays.
Posted by: Howie at January 26, 2006 08:31 PM (D3+20)
7
I hope Carter soon meets the assassin he so richly deserved while in office, but fate was not kind enough to supply. I would die a happy man if I could just see his head explode on live TV.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:48 PM (0yYS2)
8
Maxie
Advocating the assasination or welcoming it of a former (or current) President of the United States is "poor form" - even if the guy your referring to is a pompous dick. Its also questionable content for a public blog which can lead to "misunderstandings".
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 11:56 PM (3aakz)
9
Frankly carter should step down and return to his origional job with HABITAT FOR HUMANITY he was better off building home for the homeless then he ever was running this nation
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:06 AM (A2P9P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CSM, Letters in Support of Jill Carroll.

It is now seven days from the deadline set by the terrorists who kidnapped her. Today the Christian Science Monitor has published some of the letters they have received in support for Jill.
Among the letters is one from Susan Hallums, the daughter of
Roy Hallums, who was held for many months before his rescue.
Susan Hallums VIA CSM : I am praying for the safe release of Jill Carroll in Iraq. She was there to help the people of Iraq. She is a good, kind, giving person who put herself there to give to and to teach Iraqis. My family suffered for 311 days while our loved one Roy, a contractor in Iraq, was being held hostage. It was so difficult to keep going before his release. If we can help Jill's family in any way, we are here for them. Stay strong and keep the faith. We have a website: hostagefamilymatters.com.
Susan Hallums
Corona, Calif.
Patrick Kerr Via CSM : I was a public affairs officer with the Marines in Iraq last year and had the privilege of working with Jill on several occasions. Her professionalism and objectivity were unparalleled within the media community. I saw her in Husaybah, on the Syrian border, in early December shortly before I returned to the States. Aside from being very personable and down-to-earth, what really struck me was Jill's bravery. She seemed to fit right in with the Marines and Iraqi security forces. It is this attribute, I believe, that will see her through her current ordeal. My family and I will continue to keep Jill in our prayers. I am hopeful for her eventual release.
Patrick Kerr
New Orleans
To convey your support for Jill and join the chorus of voices calling for her immediate release, follow this link.
Our prayers go out to Jill that she will be released unharmed.
See the Jill Carroll Acrhive for background.
Posted by: Howie at
09:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Thanks for the link to help Jill-she sounds like a truly amazing person!
Posted by: Music Maniac at January 26, 2006 11:33 AM (rjg51)
2
Did you see the the Americans released the 5 female Iraqi prisioners that the kidnappers wanted?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182843,00.html
That's a little scary.
Posted by: Mark at January 26, 2006 11:52 AM (ga+7P)
Posted by: George Ramos at January 26, 2006 03:50 PM (5E0ex)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Playboy Is Porn, Sellers Should be Arrested
(Jakarta, Indonesia) The planned publication and sale of
Playboy magazine in majority-Muslim Indonesia has prompted angry protest (
pic) from several groups. It's believed the magazine will destroy the morality of young people and the nation.
From Antara News:
The Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI) Chairman Tarman Azzam has said every effort should be taken to prevent the publication of the Indonesian version of playboy magazine or the sellers should be arrested should the pornographic magazine reaches the children.
"If the magazine publication comes into being and their circulation reaches the children, the producers as well as the sellers should be arrested, and bring them to the court to make them afraid," Tarman said after inaugurating the temporary board members of the PWI here on Tuesday.
Several rejections to the planned publication of the Playboy magazine among other things came from Youth Affairs Minister Adhyaksa Dault, and the country's two largest Muslim organizations respectively Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama (NU).
Opposition groups are calling for arrest and prosecution under pornography and child protection laws. Pretty extreme,
I think. According to Ahmad Rofiq of the Association of Muhammadiyah Students (IMM), assertions by the publisher that the magazine would contain only lifestyle, conventional issues, culture and politics and no nude pictures are
not believed.
Interestingly, the Indonesian public protest and debate of a free press issue is in stark contrast to the way the Chinese communists deal with free speech. In Indonesia, a democratic (albeit Muslim) country, the controversy is open to public discourse and, presumably, a decision will be made in a democratic manner. Conversely, China, a police-state dictatorship, yesterday specified the manner which Google would censor information on Internet searches. No debate and no discussion allowed. It makes no difference what the public wants in China.
The Indonesian version of Playboy was licensed in November 2005 and is planned to hit the news stands starting in March for 40,000 rupiah (about $4.30).
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
08:36 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hugh Hefner should be hanged with his bunny
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:04 AM (U+eLg)
2
They're concerned about "protecting" children from seeing flesh, but not about protecting their heads from being separated from their bodies.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 10:25 AM (osKlJ)
3
In a part of the world where prostitution, including child prostitution is rampant, it seems a bit ironic that what gets everyone upset are pictures of boobies and hoohahs.
Posted by: Graeme at January 26, 2006 10:45 AM (esk0L)
4
ol' Hugh's head being sawed off with a dull knife, now that would make front page al jazeera for a month!
Posted by: goesh at January 26, 2006 11:32 AM (1w6Ud)
5
Well this all follows the logic that even married people shouldn't see one another naked, as a recent fatwah stated. It's okay to have sex with children in islam, just don't look at them naked.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:19 PM (0yYS2)
6
Good point, Maxi. One wonders how these people can continue to exist in the confusing and archaeic societies they have created. It's as if they never left the Middle Ages.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:21 PM (rUyw4)
7
Also, there's porn in Playboy? I always thought it was one of those trade magazines just for advertising expensive cigars and crap like that.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:49 PM (0yYS2)
8
A centerfold with a babe in a burka? Well - it does leave a lot to the imagination! It does!
Posted by: hondo at January 27, 2006 04:54 PM (3aakz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Tale of Two Lawsuits
Jay at
Stop the ACLU sends word of two separate, and disgraceful, lawsuits.
First, ACLU lawyers are suing the government for barring Tariq Ramadan, a "scholar" from Switzerland, from entering the US. It might have something to do with Ramadan's ties to Islamist groups...and the fact that he was banned from entering France on suspicion of ties to Algerian terrorists. Read about this one here.
That's right. Not only does the ACLU not want the government intercepting terrorist communications to agents within the United States, now they want us to let the terrorists' recruiters in, too. ROTC should hire the ACLU.
For your further edification, Jay reports that psycopathic mass-murderer Saddam Hussein's lawyers are helping him file suit against the United States for "destroying Iraq". Read about this pathetic travesty here.
And don't you dare question their patriotism!
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:06 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The ACLU is americas own AL QUEDA this disgracful organization is located in SAN FRANCISCO or beetr known as HANOI ON THE BAY
Posted by: sandpiper at January 26, 2006 09:07 AM (U+eLg)
2
Funny how you put "scholar" in scare quotes to suggest Professor Ramadan is not a legitimate scholar. He just so happens to be teaching at Oxford right now, perhaps the most prestigious univeristy in the world. They don't exactly hand those jobs out to anyone.
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 03:43 PM (NtaV+)
3
"Scholar" is, by definition, a peaceful occupation. And Oxford isn't above "handing out those jobs" on the basis of political correctness.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 24, 2006 04:01 PM (RHG+K)
4
Furthermore, why should "ties to Islamist groups" be grounds for exclusion from the U.S.? What if one had ties to Christian groups or Jewish groups? Would that be improper too?
I suspect the author meant to say "Islamist extremist groups" but I've seen no evidence of a connection between these groups and Ramadan. In fact, Ramadan has been a consistent critic of Islamic terrorism.
Think logically for a second - would Notre Dame (not exactly a leftist school) really want to employ Ramadan is he has ties to terrorist groups?
I'm sure you all will continue to oppose this lawsuit simply because it was filed by the ACLU and you've been indoctrinated to believe that the ACLU is somehow harmful. But the facts suggest otherwise.
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 04:53 PM (NtaV+)
5
There's a difference between "Islamist" and "Islamic".
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 24, 2006 05:03 PM (RHG+K)
6
Fair enough, I stand corrected on that point.
Nonetheless, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Ramadan has connections with these groups, and I've seen a lot to suggest he actually opposes them.
This is government oppression, plain and simple. Ramadan is a critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and the administration doesn't want opposing views expressed in this country. This is nothing new...our government exluded countless numbers of people under similar provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the past, purely for ideological reasons. So, the ACLU has filed suit to protect the rights of Notre Dame and others who want to hear what Ramadan has to say. And consevatives have the gall to label the suit "disgraceful."
Posted by: ACLUFan at February 24, 2006 05:18 PM (NtaV+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 25, 2006
Joel Stein Might Have Gotten Enough But Now It's My Turn
As I'm sure most people who follow the news are aware of by now an LA Times writer, Joel Stein, wrote a controversial piece insulting my career titled,
Warriors and wusses. Mr. Stein is entitled to his opinion and he's been a pretty good sport about the criticism he's received due to his editorial that bashes the troops. However, I think as an American, a blogger and a service member I'm entitled to address Joel Stein directly.
Warriors and wusses is an interesting title. But I don't believe that Joel Stein intended it to be an insult to service members directly. I believe that Mr. Stein thinks that is you support the troops but not the war then you're a wuss with a misguided sense of direction. Joel Stein probably believes that most people that have a yellow ribbon of some sort displayed some where hate the President, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Conservatives but still want to support the troops. I honestly don't think it occurs to Mr. Stein that there are people out there that actually support the troops and our wishes on a grander scale than he imagines (he might now since he's written his editorial).
The fact that Joel Stein says that he thinks he would like the troops and admits he knows not a single US service member doesn't surprise me. Mr. Stein, you should seriously consider meeting some of us before you say you don't support us. We're just like you in almost every way the only thing that separates us from you, sir, is the fact we work for the Department of Defense and have probably been to more countries than you without spending nearly as much money. To help Mr. Stein along in meeting some of us I'd like to extend an open invitation to Joel Stein to come and spend some time with my daughter and me in our home in Colorado. I could invite some friends over and he could meet people from every branch of the Department of Defense if he so wanted.
I honestly don't think there is anyone left out there that supports the troops and not the war. Joel Stein's piece certainly indicates that support for Operation Iraqi Freedom has certainly started to dry up on the left side of the aisle. That dwindling support is even more apparent when you read left-wing blogs and listen to Democrats. However, when you step over to the right side of the aisle and the right-wing blogs support for me and my fellow service members couldn't be stronger. For the moment, we're the majority of America and it will probably stay that way due to articles like Mr. Stein's.
Joel Stein also points out that "people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible" for what the left considers the wrongs of the war. Mr. Stein stops short of saying that we should all be hauled in front of a war crimes tribunal but he certainly implies that we should be. He's more than welcome to think that. However, I'm not sure how his home would look after the world realized that there was no way the United States could defend itself and the Pentagon was now the Penta-gone. Mr. Stein states, "An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying." I think that Joel Stein's lack of knowledge about military service shines through on this one. I go to work every morning because I'm ordered to. I take courses because I'm ordered to. I better myself because it's expected of me. I live by a set of rules that makes the US Code look like a children's book and follow everyone of them to the letter because I made the moral choice to do so. I took my Oath of Enlistment very seriously and I'm very proud to continue to serve my nation and defend Joel Stein's right to write bad things about me and my second family.
All-in-all, I respect Joel Stein's opinion. I think it's a very misguided opinion and I'm more than willing to help him meet a few of his protectors and their families, however, I don't respect Joel Stein the person because of what he's written. Just like how he doesn't respect me even though he's never known or met someone even like me. If Mr. Stein reads this then we'll be on the exact same playing field. He's more than welcome to discuss morals with me at the time of his choosing.
UPDATE: Joel Stein Responds
Technorati Tags: joel stein, LA Times, military, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Department of Defense
Originally Posted at
Posted by: Chris Short at
09:05 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 801 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I think Joel represents a certain segment in America who have never been exposed to anything other than a liberal lifestyle with little or only minimal contact with what I would call normal people. They do not hunt, fish, shoot, or participate in sports or outdoor activities.
They would never dream of joining the armed forces, have minimal contact with our men and women in the armed forces, and are pretty ignorant of military matters. They are not stupid, as a matter of fact most are well educated in the liberal sense of the word, but are lacking in what we would call common sense. They aren't capable of doing routine maintenance on a vehicle, and certainly can't or won't do yard word, home maintenance, or many other things that the average American does on a daily basis.
Posted by: The 'prophet' rapes children at January 25, 2006 09:34 PM (rUyw4)
2
Joel Stein is an idiot. What he said was idiotic.
That said, to claim that most Americans support the illegal war in Iraq is nothing short of delusional.
To think that any soldier in Iraq right now is protecting anything in America - aside from the vested financial interests of oil and defense contractors - is similarly naive.
Hey, I want all the troops to come home, soon, alive and well.
But please...we've done nothing to Iraq and the Iraqi's but spread ruination.
This war has done nothing for our country except drive it deeper into bankruptcy and lower our standing in the eyes of the world - and yes, that does matter, because it has become apparent to all the world that America no longer knows right from wrong.
And lying to ourselves about it is not helping anything.
Posted by: rougy at January 25, 2006 10:34 PM (/JLfh)
3
A good link:
http://www.freedomroad.org/content/view/175/40/
Scroll down to:
"Let me explain something, by way of a war story."
Posted by: rougy at January 25, 2006 10:46 PM (/JLfh)
4
Rougy, I'm not sure what blog you think this is, but you're probably wrong. Now go peddle your chickenshit defeatism somewhere else you spineless little infinitessimal fraction of a man.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:37 AM (0yYS2)
5
Rougy completely forgot the entire theme of Chris's post and the reason and meaning behind it as soon as he imagined something was being said that he didn't agree with. All reason goes out the window and he can't resist the troll urge to jump in and make an idiot of himself spouting his opposition to something Chris DIDN'T EVEN SAY.
With that said - Chris, you're a better person than I in your patience and forgiveness for the "Rougys" and Steins of the world. I would gleefully punch either one in the nose. It's the only way you can extend your hand to them and not pull back a stump.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:49 AM (YudAC)
6
My family subscribed to the LAT from 1954 - 1988. In 1964 (big O)the Communist shot puter from Stanford (Joel's alma mater) took over and vowed to make the paper as antiAmerican as the NYT. By 1970 he was there. They ran thousands of antiAmerican editorials as "news" items from 1960 - 1988. I wrote several letters to the editor complaining about: A.printing out right lies about America as "facts" or "news" and B. publishing opinions or editorials on the front page as "news". I finally got fed up and canceled my subscription 18 years ago.
It is not hard to understand why the LAT has been losing market share the last 35 years and has spent most of that time losing money. Which has resulted in 3 or 4 series of layoffs the last 5 years.
To their credit this year they have added some writers/pundits from the middle. The first time their new hires have not been America haters in 47 years.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 26, 2006 06:42 AM (xcy9v)
7
Great post Chris. I think you got to the heart of it. Joel, because he has never met anyone in the military or apparently anyone who supports the military, doesn't even know what that kind of thinking looks like. He lives in a little bubble.
(Just recently found your blog and am really liking it. Thanks. Great writing!)
Posted by: Terri Goon at January 26, 2006 07:55 AM (WetdX)
8
Roughy's website is theblackflag.org, so I suppose he's some sort of anarchist. Which would explain his persistent delusion of "vested financial interests of oil and defense contractors."
Posted by: pst314 at January 26, 2006 09:13 AM (OA547)
Posted by: Jeff at January 26, 2006 10:12 AM (rf03a)
10
If someone is truly an anarchist, there are plenty of places in the world where the only law comes from the barrel of a gun, so they should be perfectly happy there, and we should all encourage them to leave.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 10:43 AM (0yYS2)
11
Most of the anarchists I have ever seen are raging against the trustfund from Daddy.
Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 11:01 AM (CcXvt)
12
You've gotta say at least one thing to Joel Stein's credit: By openly acknowledging his non-support for both the troops and their mission, he's proven that he's got bigger
cojones than any of his endlessly waffling and equivocating ideologocal brethren who actually hold any political power in Washington.
So I say forget Hilary; the Dems should nominate
Stein for president in 2008! Sure, he'll probably get slaughtered by whomever the Republicans put up, but so would any other Dem including Hilary. At least with Stein as the Dem candidate we can be assured of a campaign that's both honest and entertaining (although after his little conversation with Hugh Hewitt, Stein might want to bone up on his debating skills.)
Posted by: Joshua at January 26, 2006 11:28 AM (2c7xL)
13
That's true Dave, they're mostly a bunch of trustafarians who have never had to do an honest day's work in their lives and exist solely as parasites. Fortunately, when it comes time to round up and exterminate all the degenerates in society, as must be done occasionally if any civilization wants to survive, they'll be easy to identify by their tattoos, piercings, ratty clothes, and body odor.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 01:17 PM (0yYS2)
14
I would die so that Mr. Stein may speak his opinion without fear of retribution.
Would he do the same for me.
Posted by: Sentinel at January 26, 2006 01:52 PM (6OibN)
15
I wouldn't die for any piece of shit like Stein or anyone else who openly commits sedition and offers aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't usually pick up on memes, but as someone said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You're either a loyal citizen, or you're not, there is no third way.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:17 PM (0yYS2)
16
If JOEL STEIN wants to see a wussie he should go look in a mirror
Posted by: sandpiper at January 30, 2006 10:10 AM (A2P9P)
17
Most liberals now-a-days are sliver spoon fed elitists who rebel out of guilt for being raised without a care.
Meanwhile the true heros are the everyday men and women, like yourself, who defend this country. You are the real heros.
Sadly many of my young Jewish counterparts, like Joel Stein, would've appeased Hilter and probably not fought to defeat even him.
Many young Jewish people like Joel Stein have no concept that Islamic facisim is one of the biggest threats in the world. People like Stein think they can appease those who would want to kill them by blaming themselves, like most liberals do.
Oh how they forget that concept didn't work in Hitler's time also.
Posted by: Concerned Jewish Person at January 31, 2006 05:01 AM (IgFdS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
She Missed One
Michelle Malkin has a list of 25 ways to ignore Joel Stein and support our troops.
All of them are worthy, and I wholeheartedly support her effort.
So I'll give you Number 26. If you really, really want to support our troops, and you are of the proper age, then by all means, sign up and join them.
No, I'm not making some sort of "chickenhawk" argument here. I do not look down on people who haven't enlisted. It's none of my business how you plan your life. Not only that, the home front is every bit as important to the success of this war as the fighting fronts.
No big deal, really, just something to consider.
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:31 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The army has raised the age limit to 42. Non citizens are also welcome, about 10% of recent recurits are non citizens. I think the total length of commitment is 8 years.
Posted by: john ryan at January 25, 2006 11:02 PM (TcoRJ)
2
Oh really.
The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for active duty, for each of the services are:
* Army - 34
* Air Force - 27
* Navy - 34
* Marines - 28
* Coast Guard - 27
The maximum age for enlistment in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Reserves is age 35. The maximum age for enlistment in the Army and Navy Reserves is age 39. The maximum enlistment age for the Air and Army National Guard is age 35, although this can sometimes be waived, depending on individual state requirements.
Source
I don't see the age "42" listed there, do you?
Posted by: Vinnie at January 26, 2006 12:10 AM (f289O)
3
If it weren't for my damned RE3 status, I'd have been back in long ago, but even the NG won't return my calls. Oh well, I can still stock up on ammo and rope in preparation for my own festivities when that glorious day comes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 12:35 AM (0yYS2)
4
improbulus maximus,
backup plan: Go Blackwater USA , or other Private Military Company.
good luck/ and after deployment pass along any clues for us 59 year youngsters to get in?.
Posted by: Rubin at January 26, 2006 01:12 AM (LgYqk)
5
Tried it all Rubin, everyone I contacted had people lined up to join.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 02:51 AM (0yYS2)
6
My husband is an Italian citizen and served in the US Army many years ago. He's is more of an American and loves this country more than a large chunk of those who were born to it by accident.
Posted by: Oyster at January 26, 2006 05:58 AM (YudAC)
7
Uhh, for the wife of the Italian. Good work. Really, good work. Conratulations. [pat self on back]. More irrelevance, please....
Posted by: Rob at January 26, 2006 09:05 AM (56rPU)
8
Uhh, for the wife of the Italian: Good work. Really, good work. Conratulations. [pat self on back]. More irrelevance, please....
Posted by: Rob at January 26, 2006 09:05 AM (56rPU)
9
I tried joining back in 1990, when I was a young man, and even then, my medical record disqualified me. At 37 and 250 lbs, I doubt my odds have improved.
My father served. My maternal grandfather served. Both of my mother's maternal uncles served. My brother-in-law served. Countless numbers of my cousins have served or are still servig, some of them career. The fact that unlike them, I will never have the priviledge of wearing the uniform is a regret that will haunt me to my dying day.
Posted by: Brian B at January 26, 2006 09:08 AM (rGfpg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Soldier Answers Joel Stein
The American Thinker has
posted a reply to Joel Stein's
LA Times column written by serving Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell. Stein, has admitted that he has absolutely no military expertise or knowledge, and thus would be completely incapable of performing LTC Russell's duties. Ironically, LTC Russell is a talented writer, and seems more capable than Stein at setting his thoughts down in a powerful way:
more...
Posted by: Bluto at
06:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Outstanding piece, Bluto. I thought about writing a piece about the editorial at CT but decided that Mr. Stein probably got enough of an ear full from others. I might send him an e-mail or give him a call.
Posted by: Chris Short at January 25, 2006 08:04 PM (0OCQY)
2
In point of fact, Stein did a better job of using good grammar than Russel. "Cannot" and "Do not" are not sentences unless the writer is working for an ad agency.
I'm a veteran. I did 10 years in the navy, so while I've got no better idea of what the Army thinks than Stein does, I have some insight into things military.
"Supporting" our troops: I've got no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only support from civilians that I was aware of was financial and involuntary--my paycheck and the $10K repair bill for a new receiver assembly on our CIWS mount, for example. I would have been ticked off if U.S. civilians went out of their way to blame me for our foreign policy, but tying ribbons on trees and waving flags did nothing to encourage me. I joined up knowing my job was to go in harm's way. Catching an exocet was an occupational hazard. A patriotic display by the folks in the states didn't change this.
Officer Babble: Anything written by a presently serving comissioned officer over O-3 for public consumption is B.S. Officers do not get promoted for telling the truth to civilians, nor should they. They aren't even very candid with enlistedmen. I thought the least of our officers when they drew us up in ranks and bloviated while we stood at attention stared into the distance. We ignored the propaganda, but I think they knew that. One of the rare and fine things about the U.S. military is that its people don't *need* to be pumped up with propaganda. They train. None of their adversaries do.
What the troops want: No one I knew in the military wanted a U.S.O. show or praise, least of all from a civilian. We wanted sex, fun, and money. In dangerous places we wanted safety too, but we were inclined to barter off an alarming amount of it for the first 3 things. Our officers were more interested in our safety than we were. My big disappointment in the Med was being prevented at the last minute from taking a tour of the battleground at El Alamein when we pulled into Egypt (too dangerous!) A shipmate got busted in Israel because, rather than party in Haifa, he went to go see the hellhole of south Lebanon.
I don't know what Stein was talking about when he got to morality (the true last refuge of the scoundrel.) Joining the military isn't supposed to be a statement of support for a president or for a given policy. Both could change overnight and you'd still be obliged to serve the successors. If you've got a problem with our foreign policy, the person to blame is the president, not the guys who are hired to enact it.
Posted by: ShannonKW at January 25, 2006 09:48 PM (dT1MB)
3
ShannonKW, you might have noticed that I said Russell was a better
writer than Stein, not grammarian. Grammar is the province of editors, and besides, good writers know when to break the rules.
An example, from Shakespeare's
Hamlet: "...to take arms against a sea of troubles..."
This is a mixed metaphor; it's grammatically incorrect. An editor would probably change "sea" to "host", and by so doing, ruin the tone and flow of the passage.
Russell's writing is better than Stein's because it has what writing teachers call "truth telling" in the piece. "Truth telling" (I know, I hate that phrase, too, but I didn't make it up) adds power and emotional emphasis to writing.
Stein's lacks this power, mainly because he simply didn't know what he was writing about, which he admitted on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Stein's writing also lacks maturity and the wisdom that comes from experience.
It's sad that you wasted ten years of your life. Pretty much all of my friends and family in the military understand and value the support they feel from the folks at home. And they don't appreciate Stein's column. Very much don't.
I've had to work under some true assholes who were ex-officers (and they always seem to have been light colonels). But I've also met and worked for some damned fine former officers, too. I wouldn't even make as absolute a statement as you did about officers about lefties.
Support for the troops is independent of their mission, or the party of the Commander-in-Chief. If you were incapable of being at least somewhat cheered by the thought of average citizens wishing you well and being thankful for your service - going into harm's way, well, you aren't representative of the military people I know, and I have to feel a little sorry for you.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 25, 2006 11:28 PM (RHG+K)
4
I think Joel Stein is making a point about the hypocrisy of most contemporary pacifists and anti-Iraq war critics. He's right you can't both wrap yourself in the flag and criticize the war.
He also makes the point that a soldier makes a choice in going to war. If you don't agree with the soldier, its hypocritical to pretend you think he or she is some sort of moral hero. Face your own convictions.
I think this war is wrong and the people who enlisted for it were duped. Sorry about that, but it doesn't make me immature, like people are suggesting here.
Posted by: John B at January 26, 2006 02:11 PM (Fk6dh)
5
One doesn't have to espouse a position to illustrate it John. What he said was classic sedition, just like the rest of the libs spout constantly, and for which people used to be executed when this nation was still interested in survival.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 26, 2006 03:19 PM (0yYS2)
6
John B., a soldier makes a choice in volunteering for the military, not "going to war". What you, and the uninformed Master Stein seem to forget is that all soldiers take an oath, not only to uphold and defend the Constitution, but to obey the "lawful orders" of their superiors. To suggest that serving member of the armed forces pick and choose which wars they'll participate in is...what's the word I'm looking for?...retarded.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 26, 2006 06:05 PM (RHG+K)
7
When Joel Stein sees first hand the fact that an entire race of people has been subjugated by an immoral dictator for at least 35 years, he will see the fact that human beings, much like himself, have hopes and dreams and desires, however, they may not be realized due to the unfortunate circumstance of the country in which they have been born. Is this their fault, hardly. But if noble men do nothing but stand by and observe this, than they are no better than those who have subjugated those whom they (and the rest of us) pity. -- Joel Stein's point is completely invalid about Soldiers' morality until he sees the suffering of those whom have been oppressed by an immoral government against which he himself admits he is afraid to take arms against himself. In fact, he is a moral coward, and I pity him in his ignorance.
Posted by: John Smith at January 27, 2006 10:22 PM (2Uqwd)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
146kb generated in CPU 0.1524, elapsed 0.2794 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.2437 seconds, 436 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.