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

March 03, 2006

Robotic Pack Mules vs. Remote Control Sharks

I'll see your remote control sharks, and raise you a robotic pack mule named Big Dog. Remote controlled sharks? That's just science fiction. Robot pack mules...now those are real.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:10 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Lent: Day 3

I've managed to avoid watching any porn featuring Ted Turner taking it up the wazoo from a Jane Fonda strap-on for 3 days now. Pray that I can make it to Easter.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

K.T McFarland to Challenge Hillary

Karol at Alarming News calls her the ultimate security mom. Sweet.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorism at University of North Carolina?

Okay, maybe the headline is a little alarminst. Hey, I just write the stories, not the headlines! Blame my editor. But as Confederate Yankee reminds us, the Daily Tarheel was part of the Muhammed cartoon row. And the guy's name, you know, is Mohammed. The Daily Tarheel:

A University graduate careened his silver Jeep Grand Cherokee through the Pit on Friday about noon, striking nine pedestrians and sending six to UNC Hospitals.
Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, 23, who graduated in 2005, is in custody at the Department of Public Safety after turning himself in after the incident. He was born May 5, 1983, according to University registrar records. He was a psychology and philosophy major. He was published in The Charlotte Observer for dean's list honors in spring 2005.
At about 2 p.m. a bomb threat was called into the University Commons apartments, at 303 Smith Level Road. State Bureau of Investigations officials entered the building at 3:03 p.m.
Capt. Joel Booker, of the Carrboro Police Department, said they are not sure how the threat is related to the campus incident.
Chapel Hill police spokeswoman Jane Cousins said a Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar has a prior arrest. He was arrested June 16, 2003 on one count of resisting arrest and reckless driving.
Six victims were transported to UNC Hospitals, including a 20-year-old female suffering from a head injury and a 42-year-old male suffering from road rash. Five of the victims were students.
Stephanie Crayton, hospitals spokeswoman, said she does not anticipate that any of the victims will be admitted.
Sophomores Tiffany McDole and Jeff Hoffman were among those hit.
"I see everyone kind of part because there's a car coming through Â… and the next thing I know, I'm on his windshield," Hoffman said afterward. His arm was bandaged but he mostly was OK.
According to reports on the scene, the vehicle entered the Pit through the walkway between Greenlaw Hall and Lenoir Dining Hall, going through the Pit and exiting between Lenoir and Davis Library. Skid marks were visible around the corner of Lenoir and Greenlaw.
"He hit one person, I remember, he just hit him and the guy just flew," said junior Michael Highland, who was at the scene. "A few others got hit partially. I and some other people ran after it to get a license plate. But he was too far away. We ran after him to see where he went."....
Capt. George Hare, of DPS, said at a University press conference that it was an ongoing investigation.
"It's in its early stages," he said.
Hare said police will charge Taheriazar with "at least" multiple felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. The car is the weapon in the assault.
"This assault Â… is not a traffic accident. It's an assault."

Mohammed Reza Taheriazar was a Dean's list student at UNC and was a co-author on several pedagogic papers. Could just be some drunk Persian. I hope so. But I also hope that the police and UNC won't try to make a preemptive, "this is not terrorism" statement like OU did with Joel Henry Hinrichs. When such statements are made before ANY investigation, it just looks like a cover up. Especially given the context of the GWOT and threats made over the Muhammed cartoons.

Hat tip: Tim at Opinion Bug for the e-mail.

UPDATE: Looks like Malkin is on it now, too. Check her for updates. Ah, and via Michelle I learn I'm not the only one with a raised eyebrow.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:24 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 599 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Why don't we jump the gun a little bit, folks?

Posted by: Hepstyle at March 03, 2006 03:54 PM (M8Cvj)

2 Prediction as follows: Muslim students will become very afraid these next few days as more, and more large healthy football players give them the evil eye.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 03, 2006 05:08 PM (D2g/j)

3 I'm going with the rogue SUV angle - they are out to destroy the world!

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 05:08 PM (fyKFC)

4 terrorism ?? or mental illness ? it is often difficult to tell the difference

Posted by: john ryan at March 03, 2006 05:38 PM (TcoRJ)

5 Mohammed Reza Taheriazar has admitted that he did it in retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3958312

Posted by: Tim at March 03, 2006 07:06 PM (5rYy9)

6 I bet he just had a bad week. Now, now, don't go blaming this on his religion;after all it does advocate peace. Bonus peace points!: --"[A student tells WRAL that "He was speeding up and swerving to hit people. One person got knocked out of a WHEELCHAIR, and he didn't care."]" (

Posted by: jonathan at March 03, 2006 07:57 PM (rh5AQ)

7 I bet he just had a bad week. Now, now, don't go blaming this on his religion; after all it does advocate peace. Bonus peace points!: --"[A student tells WRAL that "He was speeding up and swerving to hit people. One person got knocked out of a WHEELCHAIR, and he didn't care."]" (Incredulous caps mine)

Posted by: jonathan at March 03, 2006 07:59 PM (rh5AQ)

8 From Tim's link: Sources say Taheriazar told police he was seeking retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world, according to ABC News justice correspondent Pierre Thomas. Taheriazar apparently told police he tried to rent the biggest SUV he could find to use in the attack. Angry about cartoons? -- run people over with a SUV. I think this is my all time favorite Islam "funny" pic. http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/real_islam.jpg "We're a religion of peace, and we'll kill you to prove it!"

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 09:33 PM (CcXvt)

9 As with my comment on another thread; anyone who can present a convinving argument why we shouldn't start rounding up muslims and hanging them, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 11:15 PM (0yYS2)

10 I still can't believe he did this at UNC. He's a UNC grad, and UNC is the most liberal school in the state. There is a lot sympathy for Muslims there. Why not drive 15 minutes away and attack UNC's arch-nemisis at Duke? It would be a bonus for him because Duke is full of those evil rich white men that everyone hates.

Posted by: Laura at March 04, 2006 12:44 AM (igEmp)

11 OK...this is insane. I think that this guy should be locked up and the key should be melted into a bullet to shoot him with. Even if he claimed this attack was on behalf of his religion, what good would it do to his cause? If anything it will worsen tentions between people of middle eastern/ muslim decent and everyone else. I personally have nothing agaist Islam, but horrible people like him don't deserve the air they continue to breathe. How is running over innncoent people in cars any different than what is being done to the "muslims around the world". People like this guy are the reason why I support the death penalty. And yes I AM a minority.

Posted by: Donovan at March 04, 2006 01:54 AM (PX1C0)

12 I just want to say to any Muslim or person of middle eastern decent who may be reading this, I KNOW that this guy may share your same religion but does NOT necessarily share all of your same morals and beliefs. I hope that others at this university will feel the same way, and reconize that your culture is not only unique, and valid in its own right.

Posted by: Donovan at March 04, 2006 01:59 AM (PX1C0)

13 "I think that this guy should be locked up and the key should be melted into a bullet to shoot him with." IM, I believe you've just been one-upped!

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:54 AM (YudAC)

14 >>>I still can't believe he did this at UNC. He's a UNC grad, and UNC is the most liberal school in the state. Liberals will get the heads chopped as surely as we conservatives would if these muslim nutjobs get their way. We keep telling you that and you keep ignoring it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 10:00 AM (8e/V4)

15 Ok... 1.) "I did it cause of the way Americans treat Muslims." My response: Yeah.. I guess cutting off people's heads on TV is pretty humane. That and strapping bombs to yourself and killing anyone around you. Sounds like people in that region of the world are born with mental issues... 2.) UNC Campus? My response: Go to school in your own country if you hate Americans 3.) Let's hit random students My response: Yes.. nothing like hurting innocent people to prove your point (if you have one)... thats the signature of a Muslim who is mad...... 4.) Prior arrests for resisting arrest and reckless driving?? My response: You're so fu*kin going to jail this time, and ACLU cannot do a damn thing :-) Why does immigration even bother letting them IN if this is the sentiment they have for this nation? Let Europeans in here, at least they aren't total loose cannon psychopaths

Posted by: Mikey K at March 04, 2006 01:42 PM (gC0GX)

16 where to begin!? UNC? liberal school. What did americans do to him? Oh...let him into our country and take up a spot at UNC. What is his point? The majority of his own religion does not agree with him... If this guy is so smart he could have used the pit as an theatre to talk about how he felt..and used his philosophy/ psychology degree for some good. it just gives me a great idea...i'll throw applesauce at random people walking in the mall and think to myself "yes! i've proved my point!" when your actions have no connection to your plight...you are just wasting your time and our time. When you rely on your ethnic or religious background alone to speak as your reasoning, you are promoting racial and religious profiling, and misrepresenting millions of people.

Posted by: monkey girl at March 04, 2006 02:37 PM (JW3d2)

17 Hmmm, key made into bullet... yep, that's a good one, to which I shall retort after a few beers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 03:08 PM (0yYS2)

18 Taheriazar! Terrorizer? You do the math!

Posted by: Beavislam at March 05, 2006 04:46 PM (Y2ILH)

19 Uhhhhh Laura.... to even suggest he go somewhere else and attack people at another school, and then drag RACE into it (evil white men) makes you no better than Mr. Taheriazar himself. To even joke around about something like that is totally disgusting. I am a Liberal and even I found that in poor and totally uneducated taste..

Posted by: Mikey K at March 05, 2006 04:55 PM (8tO5m)

20 Yeah... I agree with Mikey on that one... Laura your remark was sickening at best. That's the kind of mindset that is making this nation fall apart more and more each year... when Americans support the dismantling of their own homeland and the dismissal of our own suffering simply to please those who don't like us. Think before you post, cause I already have the impression that you are a far left moron.

Posted by: Bender at March 06, 2006 12:09 PM (8tO5m)

21 Laura = Bitch

Posted by: Carloso at March 11, 2006 11:01 PM (8tO5m)

22 Laura, who the f$ck do you think you are saying something like that? You should be disenrolled for such idiocy. Fat bitch

Posted by: Jonathan at March 24, 2006 08:19 AM (3mpfi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

DU Shouts Down Marine Vet back from Iraq, Calls him Liar

It would be funny, if it wasn't simultaneoudly sad and pathetic. My favorite response to a returning Marine who is telling the DU that they've been fed propaganda?

Because He's Still in the Military He can't talk until he's out, at which point maybe he'll talk about torture, civilian killing, chemical weapons use, looting, corruption, imperialism, bigotry, abuse, intimidation, snipers, urban warfare, propaganda, etc... It ain't going to happen now, he'd be court-martialed. My only question is why'd he join in the 1st place? Was he aware of the illegitamacy of this fake war when he joined? Of course, that can't be answered either.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is typical of the Liberal leftist... As an American and a veteran i am sick of these leftist treasonist bastards... www.jimgoism.blogspot.com

Posted by: jimgoism at March 03, 2006 03:39 PM (jvG2F)

2 SOP for the left. Screw them. I'm not out to change their minds, and I don't give a damn what they believe. But I do care what my nextdoor neighbor believes and others like that - so that's who I and friends talk to - and this is what really pisses off the left!

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 05:14 PM (fyKFC)

3 The Zogby poll company is run by two Arabs, and is paid by a peacenik company to conduct the poll to show Iraq is lost. The truth as the active duty Marine put it, is not what the MSM wants to hear, or print. The MSM has treason in their hearts, and minds, and should be shot for it. Right after a fair trial.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 03, 2006 05:37 PM (D2g/j)

4 Now, now...We all know they don't support the war, but they support the troops!

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:25 PM (CcXvt)

5 funniest article this month, without a doubt. The best part is how many people asked about "atrocities" and "burns by WP Chemical weapons" by contractors/soldiers. Don't you know your "Baby killer" soldiers, are just crazy emotionless killin` machines? I guess we can put a "tombstone" on this whole "we support the troops" nonsense, right about now.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 07:36 PM (CcXvt)

6 Maxie's right, Liberal traitors should be rounded up and deported to North Korea.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:46 PM (8e/V4)

7 Thanks for posting this Rusty. I e-mailed you the story since what I usually read on DUmmie Funnies is hysterical... This was simply tragic. More people must read that thread.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 03, 2006 08:32 PM (t8BiH)

8 We saw the same shit coming from the parents of these functionless targets throughout the VietNam War. We didn't hang'em for treason then and now they've multiplied.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 04, 2006 01:44 AM (Fq6zR)

9 Wow!! That was a fascinating look into the natural habitat of the moonbats. That is one brave Marine!

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 04, 2006 02:53 AM (blNMI)

10 Well I advocate shooting, but deporting would suffice.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:44 AM (0yYS2)

11 DIRTY ROTTEN LIBERAL LEFTIST SCUM THEY DESERVE TO HAVE A ROTTEN TOMATO HIT THEM IN THEIR FACE

Posted by: sandpiper at March 04, 2006 08:43 AM (oN6hw)

12 I certainly don't think people (of any political persuasion) should be quick to flaunt their prejudices... and I think any time someone who has actually been there can offer an unvarnished picture we should pay attention. Having said that, credibility is important. I don't know if the Marine's credibility, judgment, or information is out of whack, but early on he was asked about the readiness of Iraqi battalions. He said I'd say that about half of the Iraqi Battalions are ready to operate independently. That flat out contradicts formal testimony of senior military commanders. Here's what AP reported last week: In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2. Level 1 is defined as fully independent. Level 2 is defined as battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help. Level 3 is defined as battalions fighting alongside U.S. forces but not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions. If the Marine were more precise, then I would have more confidence in his reporting.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 04:41 PM (ordBV)

13 That Jara Sang person on DU is particularly vile. Lord, I hope it's not a teacher. ------------------------ background, he probably answered that question out of turn and offered an opinion he shouldn't have or he simply over-generalized. Frankly, I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about your confidence (or that of his vile detractors at DU) in his reporting any more than I do. Since you seem to have a problem with it, why don't you hop on over there and ask him how he can offer such an opinion? Or did you glaze over the part where he then admitted his "view over there was pretty mypoic[sic]" having only been in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar? All his replies sounded like simple honest answers from a guy just returned. He didn't flavor it with politics and was called names and accused of outright lying. I think he stayed pretty cool in spite of it. He didn't even gently chide a single person as I'm sure he could have. And you are a little too quick to dismiss him. At the risk of getting a little snarky myself, you're beginning to live up to your name. (Rusty: What the hell is a fruitcake error? I'll keep trying to submit until my comment appears.)

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:14 PM (YudAC)

14 Sweetheart.... you will excuse me if I find it ironic that a woman with the handle "oyster" chooses to mock my nick (a sardonic reference to a Rose Garden statement). But to your point about the commentary attributed to a recently returned Marine... I *did* see his comment about the myopic view. That sounded credible. In fact, that is exactly what I would have expected from a grunt on the ground. I don't know enough about the guy to say whether he is legit or a plant, reading from a script, opining about matters he has no knowledge of, or simply regurgitating what he read in Stars and Stripes. That is why I limited my comment to what I did. I also spelled out the different definitions for levels of preparedness because it makes sense that he may have heard the 50% number and either confused Level 1 and 2, or simply not appreciated there were levels. Again, completely reasonable and in no way qualifying him as a liar, shill, or plant. In other words, I'm not questioning his integrity, just whether he is a reliable reporter for anything beyond what he actually personally witnessed. As near as I figure, the site you guys are talking about is a parody of some other blogosphere... and I confess I have no idea where DU is... which surprised me because I know an awful lot of places. The problem I had following the red letter text was they clearly munged up the attributions and got carried away with extra commentary so you lose the thread of the narrative. I would have liked to see the interaction about the 85% comment... as you know Jason over at Gen Why had an awful lot to say about the Zogby poll. Unfortunately, when I asked him about the surprising finding that *more* of the troops polled believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 than even the folks from the WaPo poll a couple years back the best he could do was cite a Hewitt interview with Zogby. I find that polling result intriguing because, as you probably recall when President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were asked if they believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11 they stood shoulder to shoulder in the same room at the same time in the same press conference and gave the same answer ... which was "No." That Zogby poll result is concerning to me because, if true, it means one of the following: Either 1) The majority of troops STILL believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 or 2) The majority of troops believe that retaliating against Iraq was a rational response to 9/11 or 3) Both Let me put some real numbers to this to demonstrate why that is a problem. About 2,986 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11. So far, about 2,310 Americans have been killed in Iraq since we invaded in March 2003. At the present mortality rate, we will pass the 2,986 number shortly before Christmas (somewhere between 12/14 and 12/21). That means that our Christmas gift to ourself this year is going to be the loss of MORE men and women in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. As you know, people don't die just for one or two news cycles. That's a gift that will keep on giving. No one who is sane questions the importance of protecting the US from international terrorists. What people like me have been saying since BEFORE we invaded is that pouring valuable resources into Iraq will NOT do that. If people are making that sacrifice under the mistaken notion that there is some relationship between the two, we have a serious problem. It means we are going to keep making that mistake for a looooong time.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 04, 2006 10:06 PM (gw6yg)

15 I apologize for the snarky remark. What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury. At the rate Saddam was killing people, and if that trend had continued, the 2986 x 2 number you use may easily have been a drop in a bucket. The civilian count in Iraq, as well, doesn't come close nor can it even be compared to the genocidal manner in which they were killed by Saddam's regime. Some argue whether Saddam was adverse to fighting a proxy war or whether he would have gleefully supplied support to those who could have claimed a much larger civilian count even within our own borders. Again, we don't know that, but there was every indication that it was well within the realm of possibility. In the beginning there was a level of confusion as to exactly why certain countries with UN veto power were so opposed to the war. We found out why later. Saddam was using under-the-table Oil For Food contracts to buy support for lifting sanctions, not just to build new palaces. And there was an undeniable trend that showed this was the direction things were going. Just what might have happened once these sanctions were lifted? That's the $64,000 question. I'm not accusing individual governments, but their representatives in the UN were the problem. As far as the Zogby poll goes; you'll never hear me quoting results of polls or putting much stock in them at all unless I see the actual questions asked and I know the specifics of the sample group. The only information they provide is the number of soldiers asked. The rest they say is classified for security purposes and contend that it was random and we'll just have to take their word for it. Locations, yes, should be classified, but what about rank? What about political persuasions? What about security level status? So in that regard I won't comment. Polls are often just a tool of convenience. Both sides use them much too freely to bolster their arguments. Sometimes they're quite scientific, sometimes agenda driven. I will say though that the 85% number may not be problematic at all when one considers things like Salman Pak or what level of the Iraqi government welcomed al Qaeda members (whom we know were in and out of Iraq prior to 9/11) and to what degree. Did Saddam himself have explicit knowledge of and give direct support to the 9/11 plot? Another $64,000 question. If you want to narrow the argument to that fine point, and you firmly belive he didn't play a role then by all means argue away. But the whole picture isn't that simple. You can't narrow this down to a few facts when the whole picture is so complex. And thanks for the "sweetheart". I know you didn't mean it that way, but I really am a sweetheart.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 08:18 AM (YudAC)

16 Ma'am, Let me first say I appreciate and accept the apology. You raise several points, which I will address. However, for the sake of clarity let me focus on one or two now and leave the rest for later when I can give them the detailed response they deserve. To be fair, let me start at the beginning, with your second and third points: What I find difficult about you is that you use select facts more to halt discourse than promote it. Supplying facts is very important in a discussion, but it isn't the whereall and endall. If one sees their argument as just a collection of selected facts and data, they have to also assume that any other direction or course taken previously would have produced better or more favorable results and we just don't have that luxury I do think facts matter. I think there is merit to living in the "reality based" world. Facts, like pain, are important indicators of a problem. Ignoring facts, like ignoring pain, can turn an acute problem into a chronic problem. Sometimes it can destroy you. I do agree with you that facts are much more than rhetorical devices to end debate. I also agree with you that cherry picking facts is intellectually dishonest and calls to mind Twain's comment about lies, damned lies and statistics. I also agree with you that a discussion is more than the facts. There are assumptions, biases, hopes, predictions, empathy, feelings,needs, requests and exploration. So on your first point I think we are basically in agreement and recognize that facts are part of the stone soup we call discourse. On your second point, I think we diverge. If my contention was 20/20 hindsight ... I would have more sympathy for that position in this particular case. I mean anyone can look at a trainwreck after the fact and say how it should have been handled. Lessons learned have value and that sort of commentary is important, to a point. That point being how well you apply those lessons learned to the next train ride. However, my point here -- and I am talking not just about the invasion of Iraq, but also about the radical shift in policy it represents -- is that the critique about the facts, the policy, the assumptions, and the predictions were all stated before we invaded. For now, I will just sum up the basic reasons why I rejected the notion of invading Iraq as a "test case" for the National Security Strategy released in 2002 (aka the "Bush Doctrine"). It discounted the economic impact of protracted war. It disdained diplomatic alliances that are critical in a nuclear age. It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy. It discarded historical lessons learned at a heavy price. and It disrespected the professional opinion of seasoned military professionals with command experience. Instead, the policy was predicated solely on the fanciful notion that might alone would be sufficient to prevail. The resulting "shock and awe" would light up the darkness and change the face of the world. Those who argued otherwise were ignored, dismissed, forced out, resigned, or hunted down and intimidated into silence. We are now left with the bitter fruits of that harvest and have to nourish our future crops with the poisoned waters from that well of deceit. The damage we have done to ourselves in the process is more than anything terrorists could have hoped for. I will stop here merely to say I do not accept, but I am willing to discuss, the position that we had to invade Iraq because "we just don't have the luxury" of waiting for a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud over New York. I realize that is twisting your quote a bit out of context, but I think it fairly reflects the spirit of your comments. I don't say it to put words in your mouth, but to crystallize a basic point of disagreement. I focus on that point because I do not think policy should ever be decided by panic or fear. Thank you for your continued interest and attention.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 05, 2006 11:06 AM (gw6yg)

17 Sure, more people will die in war by Christmas than in 9/11, but 290,000 men made the ultimate sacrifice by 1945 for the deaths of some 2,300 at Pearl Harbor in 1941. One casualty is too many..... but avenging the deaths of those who were needlessly killed is not wrong. That whole region needs to be weeded of terrorists mercilessly, and if you have a problem with that, it's comparible to saying 'Not all Japs and Germans supported the Axis Powers and what they stood for, so lets just target Nazi and Jap leadership.' Ignorant fools.... get with it or face someday living in what USED to be the USA

Posted by: Carloso at March 22, 2006 06:57 PM (3mpfi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jewish Terrorists vs. Muslim Terrorists

Jewish terrorists: throw firecrackers.

Muslim terrorists: bombs.

A lot of nuts in the world. Some are more deadly than others.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Still Looking for Number 100,000

With Dr. Rusty's permission I'm posting this article here because Conservative Thinking's 100,000th visitor came from here.

Conservative Thinking has hit the 100,000 SiteMeter Visits milestone. The problem is I have no idea who the visitor actually is. The information about the visitor can be seen here. I've contacted the visitor's ISP and the referring site's owner in an effort to attempt to track the person down.

But, if you're on Comcast and you're from California and you're visitor information matches this then please drop me a line so you can claim your prize. more...

Posted by: Chris Short at 12:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

VonskiÂ’s Weekly Good News

Yes this week we can all use a shot of good news and The Vonski delivers a boat load for us today and most every Friday. Just a sample for you: Vonski

Ã¢Â€Â¢ Soldiers from 1st Mechanized Brigade, 9th Iraqi Army Division, along with Soldiers from elements of 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment and 4th Support Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, conducted a combined operation to provide much needed medical care to a local Iraqi Sunni community, relieving tensions in the area while simultaneously fostering hope in a unified Iraq.
Approximately 85 local civilians showed up for free medical treatment. They formed a single line and were ushered forward to the waiting medical personnel. Two medical professionals saw the customers with the support of several medics.

Now get your clicker clicking and get over there. ItÂ’s a long post this week just filled with goodies!

Posted by: Howie at 12:02 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Good news from Iraq? next you'll tell us about a Unicorn sighting!

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:05 PM (CcXvt)

2 No but I thought I hit some guys dog the other day. Turned around to go back and tell him. Got there and...it was the fox!!! Actually seen several foxes and coyotes around they are coming back around my neck of the woods. See a few more every year. Parvo really hit em hard a few years back. One fox has a den right across the field from my. She a purty little thing. I'd like a pup can I get you to reach in there and get me one?

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 12:08 PM (D3+20)

3 yeah, but it's "Bush" who's stifling our liberties, bwahaha!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 12:13 PM (8e/V4)

4 I'd like a pup can I get you to reach in there and get me one? What do you think we have Greenpeace / PETA for? They're useful for attempting to protect animals who's sole nature is to kill, or maim them. Like that "Grizzly Adams" guy they made a movie out of, who's remains were fished out of a steaming pile of Bear feces and placed in a ziplock bag. He was "protecting" them.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:26 PM (CcXvt)

5 Thanks for the link, Howie! Dave, your last comment reminded me of a joke I saw. The Pope took a couple of days off to visit Alaska. He was cruising along in the Pope Mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" / "Bush Lied" T-shirt and a tree hugger hat, was screaming while struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the jaws of a 10 foot grizzly. As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Republican loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a 44 magnum into the bear's chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding semiconscious Democrat from the bear's grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat. As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic environmental activists, but now I've seen with my own eyes that this is not true." As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy?" "It was the Pope", another replied, "He's in direct contact with God and has access to all God's wisdom." "Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all God's wisdom but he sure doesn't know anything about bear hunting!" "By the way, is the bait holding up or do we need to go back to town and grab another one?"

Posted by: Vonski at March 03, 2006 12:46 PM (aJDow)

6 No I'm just afraid the little vixen will be in there and eat my arm off.

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 02:07 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Quran, the Old Testament, and the New: Responding to Reader Love Mail

I got this letter from a Muslim urging me to refrain from making fun of his religion (scroll down), so I felt it necessary to respond publicly.

As regular readers know, I'm totally cool with Muslims. It's Islam I don't like. As a non-Muslim, I can't know what true Islam is---just as a non-Catholic and non-Protestant I can't know what true Christianity is. That's an internal debate that you Muslims need to be having (and are having) with yourselves.

And even though I don't consider myself a traditional Christian, I do consider myself a follower of Jesus and I've read the Bible dozens of times. So, while I'm not an expert on true 'Christianity', I do have a fairly in depth knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. I do have an opinion, then, on what the Bible says and means.

I have also read the Quran. All of it. Several times. I've also read many of the hadiths (traditions). So, I'm not an expert about true Islam, but I do believe I have enough information to have an opinion on what the Quran says and means.

So, here are my opinions about them.

Old Testament: Pretty bloody horrifying. Luckily, Judaism does not treat the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Further, as the story of the Old Testament unfolds, Jehovah seems to get a lot nicer. Good on you LORD for growing up. (If you don't think that God can handle criticism, then I'd suggest you don't know too many Jews.)

New Testament: Pretty cool, except for all the pacifism stuff. Jesus seems to clearly be a pacifist in my reading. Which is fine, as long as Christians were in the minority. But once Christians became a majority--in other words, once they controlled the state--pacifism doesn't seem all that great to me. Luckily, theology was able to take care of dangerous pacifism. Further, no theologian I know of treats the New Testament as the literal word of God. Even fundamentalists only claim that it was inspired of God--that the words are those of Paul, not God's.

Quran: Pretty frightening. Not only does it have all of the bad stuff from the Old Testament, but Islam treats the words of the Koran as the literal word of God. These are God's words, not Muhammed's (or Gabriel's). The Quran is not a collection of stories, but, as Reza Aslan says, it is the "Divine monologue."

If these are God's words, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Either I am very wrong about God being a pretty cool dude, or the God described in the Quran is not God at all. In fact, Allah, if we take him at his word (as he himself reveals it in the Quran), is an asshole. He's worse than Hitler.

So, I won't apologize for making fun of the Quran. I do not believe it is the word of God. If I'm wrong, and Allah is God, then he certainly does not deserve to be worshipped or followed. Further, I do not believe that it has any redeeming value whatsoever. I do not believe any of it. None.

Hadiths: Don't teach us much, except that Muhammed is not someone I would like to hang out with. He was a pedophile. He marries a 6 year old, but we are to believe that it's okay, because he really doesn't have sex with Aisha until she's 9. Yeah, that makes everything better. He is a genocidal maniac. He wipes out entire tribes. He's a fascist. He thinks it's cool to kill any one who gives up the faith. So, no I don't believe he was a Prophet.

There is no God named Allah and Muhammed is not a Prophet.

Incidentally, I don't believe Sidhartha actually found enlightenment under the Bodi tree. But I have a great deal of respect for the Buddha. I don't believe that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet. But I do have a great deal of respect for the content of his writings and the Baha'i faith.

Muhammed, I have no respect for. It's not so much that I reject him as a Prophet--there are a lot of people who I don't accept as a Prophet, but whom I respect--as it is that he was a sick S.O.B. who also had a lot of destructive things to say.

If you want to follow Muhammed that's your right. But it is also my right to criticize him. If you want me to refrain from criticizing him, then I'd first suggest that you take away my right to bear arms. Because, you will find that I will give up both of those rights over my cold, dead body.

If you want me to end my criticism, then you'll have to first convince me that Muhammed and the Quran are worth respect. Since I've read a lot of the hadiths, and the entire Quran, I know better.

If it makes you feel better, if your Quran actually doesn't have all the bad stuff in it, and you don't take as authoritative the stuff about Muhammed screwing a child and engaging in genocide, then I'm totaly hip to your Islam. But, then, your Islam is not traditional Islam. In that case, I'm not criticizing Islam as you know it, or the Quran as you know it, or Muhammed as you know him, but I am criticizing some other Islam, some other Quran, and some other Muhammed.

If such is the case, what is the problem?

My response is below. UPDATE: Here is Bluto's response. Here is Howie's response. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1446 words, total size 12 kb.

1 I disagree somewhat that Jesus was a pacifist. He was very active and in order to fulfill his role he followed the Fathers will which was for him to be crucified and battle and conquer death. As I read it Jesus did not want this but submitted to his fathers will which was to be led like a lamb to the slaughter. He is only pacifist becuase that is the fathers will and the time has not yet come.

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 12:22 PM (D3+20)

2 The Quran is not a collection of stories, but, as Reza Aslan says, it is the "Divine monologue." Are they so called, because Muhammad spoke them out of his Vagina?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:35 PM (CcXvt)

3 Interesting, some pacifists quote Jesus pretty directly, with his "turn the other cheek" thing. But a slap on the face isn't a knife in the gut, and Jesus didn't seem to think that military service disqualified people from being righteous. On the other side of things, some second-century wag named Marcion actually tried to teach a "Two Gods" thing, with one the Old Testament God of vengeance and bloodshed, and on the New Testament God, the Father that Jesus talked about. But Marcion had to butcher up the Gospels and the Letters of Paul to support his thesis. You see, they're riddled with quotations from the Old Testament. In the end, believers who read the un-edited versions of the Gospels rejected Marcion and his teaching. They also had the writings of Peter, John, James, Jude, and the mystery character who penned Hebrews to work with. Those all spoke to the "old covenant/new covenant" division, but didn't feel a need to separate the Father from the dangerous, jealous God of the Old Testament. Marcion eventually ended up with the Gnostics, who tried to use Jesus as the key to some mystical-secret-knowledge rather than as the Savior long promised to Israel. I think it's an open question whether God "grew up", or the Hebrew conception of God went through a maturation process. For all we know, He needed to tell people about judgement, sin and evil before He needed to tell them about grace, mercy, and forgiveness. But the Psalmists knew, centuries before Jesus, that God's judgement had to be tempered by His Mercy. They knew that if everyone was judged according to their deeds, then everyone was damned. I don't know enough about Islam to agree or disagree with you about it. But the thought that the Written Book itself is Absolute Literal Truth From the Mouth of God, and not a human response to Divine Revelation is pretty hard to deal with. I've also been told that it's missing that element of relationship. Heck, Moses didn't just command obedience to God, he encouraged love towards God. From what I hear, Muhammed never heard anything about people loving God.

Posted by: karrde at March 03, 2006 01:43 PM (65ApY)

4 Jesus was peaceful, but I don't think He was a pacifist. One needs only look at where He ran the moneychangers out of the temple to see that He didn't mind taking matters into his own hands (even slightly violently so) when the situation required it. But He only used the amount of force necessary - overturning tables and brandishing a whip - to accomplish His goal. He didn't hurt or kill anyone in the process. Still, this was an excellent post!

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at March 03, 2006 01:54 PM (Ns5kk)

5 Jesus never says what to do if they slap the other cheek too.

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 02:10 PM (D3+20)

6 "Turn the other cheek" means to stand up to your persecutors, show them the fullness of your humanity, and challenge them to strike you again now that they know you are righteous.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 03, 2006 02:11 PM (+BgKd)

7 All, The point is that someone reading the New Testament, without the temperment of years of theology, would become a pacifist. That is the LITERAL reading of it. Thus, the fundamentalist Christian who rejects Christian tradition and theology, might very well become a pacifist. Certainly there is nothing in the New Testament where Jesus leads his followers to conquer Jerusalem because he's pissed that the Jews rejected him--something that the hadiths say is exaclty what Muhammed did. I don't believe Jesus was a pacifist, either, but that is not based on the Bible.

Posted by: Rusty at March 03, 2006 02:21 PM (JQjhA)

8 And that's the very example you need. Jesus felt that the moneychangers were desecrating the temple and then overturned the tables. He didn't strap Semtex to his belt and run into the crowd while ululating in madness. I have news for you, Hajji... no Muslim that killed innocents stands before God in heaven. The Koran is full of that (women and children of tribes slaughtered mercilessly), presented as exemplary muslims - it is no wonder that your youth blow themselves up in hotel lobbies. Islam is no religion of peace - it wants to subjugate the world. It is barbarism trying to put up an illusion of civility to that end.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 03, 2006 02:24 PM (/lpvu)

9 I may not feel the need to post as often anymore. The most horrific human behavior in the last 10 years or so was the Rwanda tragedy. This occured in an African country that is 90% christian. I think this illustrates that culture/society plays a very substantial role in group behavior. If you were to go back further then you might point to the Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge. They were overwhelmingly buddhist.

Posted by: john ryan at March 03, 2006 03:08 PM (TcoRJ)

10 John is still the apologist. Why don't you become a Muslim, John, or perhaps you already have. Rwanda is not 90% Christian, and the Cambodians of the Pol Pot regime were not overwhelmingly Buddist. Geez, do you believe your own shit, John?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 03, 2006 03:15 PM (rUyw4)

11 Turning the other cheek means you should seek to turn your enemy into a friend. That's what Jesus meant. Paul alluded to the same when he said: "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." It's like when somebody curses you, and you respond with a soft word, it turneth away wrath. That's what "turning the other cheek" means. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself with violence. Jesus himself said: "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was counted among the lawless'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." He replied, "It is enough." Must all be read in context to get full meaning, of course. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword because he (Jesus) was MEANT to go to the cross. But to Luke he warns him to prepare for the coming persecution. It self-defensive though, not offensive like Mohammed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 03:18 PM (8e/V4)

12 John, Agreed, but Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of religion. Islam isn't the only bad ideology out there. Most dangerous book ever: Das Kapital Second: Quran

Posted by: Rusty at March 03, 2006 03:39 PM (JQjhA)

13 I love to argue, but sometimes a picture is just so much clearer. Some might have seen here earlier Derek's lovely portrait of Mohammed. Today, rather than engage in anything beyond my usual, I'd like to turn your attention briefly to how I feel in response to this problem of Islam: http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/ Please be happy in posting this link and graphic as you will.

Posted by: dag at March 03, 2006 04:19 PM (xJEf+)

14 I want to know when Rwanda became 90% Christian and Pol Pot became a Buddist, because this is a pile of bullshit that John has laid.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 03, 2006 05:25 PM (rUyw4)

15 This Hajji guy likely never read a single word of the Bible - from the Bible. What he has likely read is the bastardized version of Bible stories Muhammed put in the Koran. Muhammed had to say the Bible was corrupted so he could change the stories and portray the characters as full of wrath and the first Muslims in order to justify his own actions. I mean, c'mon, Adam was a warrior and had his own calvary? Who was he fighting? And this Hajji guy thinks that the first step to working together is to do as he says and get rid of the page about the Quran. Or what?

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:53 PM (YudAC)

16 I completely agree that Mohammed, if he even existed, was a fake, a pedophile, a terrorist and just a plain ass-hole. Practising Muslims should be expelled from the western world by boat, plane or rope.

Posted by: DT at March 03, 2006 08:20 PM (ntCeu)

17 my god is right, yours is wrong. because you read both books several times... religion is so fucking ridiculous... Religion is a haven for the lazy looking for an excuse for not getting along. Your hate rant is fucking boring and screams "I'm pissed off because a Muslim got promoted before I did at McDonalds" *yawn*

Posted by: THE hadith at March 03, 2006 10:55 PM (QFlYr)

18 But John Ryan isn't trying to "pin" anything on Christians. It only seems that way. John, if you "may not feel the need to post as often anymore", don't let the door hit you in the arse. However, when you have something concrete with plenty of corroborating links and data, let us know. I'm sure you can find something. I'm sure you can find some aberrant behavior in some corner of the earth that can be pinned on Christians thereby allowing you to condemn everyone here for whatever it is you think we're all so guilty of.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 07:54 AM (YudAC)

19 Yikes, only a matter of time before we had Blogiquette. So we have to have links in order to be "real" posters? you and your little clubhouse mentality. But Christianity is riddled with violence and murder. But of course, you'd actually have to OPEN YOUR EYES, instead of hiding in your cocoon of religious self-righteousness. MULTIPLE examples: Most recent - Nigerian christians murdering muslims. But lets review: -Rampant murder during the Crusades "in the name of God" -Indescriminant killing of peasants all through Europe during times of economic stresses by the clergy in the middle ages -Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231. Untold thousands burned at the stake. - The Thirty Years war in the 1600's which left millions slaughtered in Europe. - The Catholic slaughter of the Huguenots of France. Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics." - The witchhunts of the 1700s where thousands were tortured, hanged, or burned alive for heresy - The Taiping rebellion, where millions of Chinese were murdered in the name of the Christian god. - The hatred, terrorism, and murder carried out by the northern Ireland "Intifada". Or perhaps you would like to read through the following books: Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History. James A. Haught, Holy Horrors. J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750. Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. R. Dean Peterson, A Concise History of Christianity.

Posted by: THE Hadith at March 04, 2006 01:01 PM (QFlYr)

20 People, people, people... "turn the other cheek" means that we should not react in anger or seek vengeance, but it should not in any way be taken to mean that we should stand by while murdering animals kill and maim innocent people. Remember that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:20 PM (0yYS2)

21 the animals who commit terrorism are not Muslims, but Islam has no ecclesiastical process to expel heretics. Catholic Clerics who reject Vatican II can be excommunicated (and have been. I went to a heretical Latin mass in the 1970s in France). Pity the Roman Catholics are not so aggressive in exommunicating pedophile priests. Hanabi Islam, as practiced and pushed by the Wahabi heretics, are well funded, but they ignore everything except the Quran and Hadith. They lose the mysticism of the Sufi, which is responsible for most of the conversions to Islam outside of Arabia and Iran. A Christianity limited to the New Testament would lose the Irish Monastics, the Scholastics, the writings of Augustine, the good works of the Franciscans, the Reformation, the logic and theology of the Jesuits, the modern literary criticism of the last century, the charismatic aspects of the Assemblies of G-d, the philosophy of Hegel, Decartes, Kierkegard and the example of Dietrich Bonhoffer and Pastor Niemoller. That would be a poor Christianity indeed. Accordingly, Islam limited to the Hadith and Quran are also poor things. The Romans, though pagan had a well developed system of Virtues, both private virtues appropriate to a citizen, and public virtues appropriate to a community. All religions, as they mature, begin to move away from their scriptures, to an appreciation of virtues as a useful foundation for people living together. If they do not mature, they destroy themselves by refusing to learn. The Hanabi-Wahabi developed their heresy in the 18th century, and since that time had almost succeeded in destroying civilized society, until the discovery of oil on the Arabian penninsula. With that kind of capital influx, the Wahabi were able to overcome their disfunctional society to some extent. Alas, due to the influx of petro dollars, and the ability to distribute their pernicious doctrine to pilgrims during the Haj, the Wahabi has become the public face of Islam, and has not had to reform. It is my hope that the conflict that Wahabi doctrines are forcing will lead to emprisonment of Wahabi Imans, and destruction or significant diminution of their horrible influence. But you have to fight to win, and Europe is not helping much.

Posted by: Don Meaker at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (CCwl2)

22 "the Crusades" lol! These Lefties simply can't avoid the unintentional self-parody.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 11:25 PM (xpnBq)

23 Being curious about the religious makeup of Rwanda I checked the CIA World Factbook (scroll down to People/Religions): http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rw.html Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7% (2001) (Note: I am in no way associating the attempted genocide in Rwanda with religion, just thought the data was interesting.) The comment that was made about the Khmer Rouge being primarily Bhuddist seems off base however. Excerpted from Wikipedia (questionable content error?): "In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "old people" through agricultural labour. It resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation."

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at March 05, 2006 01:54 AM (3smJS)

24 Hey Don, your apologetics and attempts at appeasement and understanding of the murderous scum we call muslims won't change the fact that they will still rape your wife and/or daughter while you are made to watch, and then cut off your head. They are vermin and must be exterminated.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

25 Well done! discount xenical | aura soma | alprazolam online | buy meridia | valium online

Posted by: Pamela at June 30, 2006 07:11 AM (ITTo/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Netherlands Are Lost to the West

This article from the Timesonline (UK) reads like a spy novel from the Cold War.:

We should fear HollandÂ’s silence
Islamists are stifling debate in what was EuropeÂ’s freest country, says Douglas Murray

Â‘Would you write the name youÂ’d like to use here, and your real name there?Â” asked the girl at reception. I had just been driven to a hotel in the Hague. An hour earlier IÂ’d been greeted at Amsterdam airport by a man holding a sign with a pre-agreed cipher. I hadnÂ’t known where I would be staying, or where I would be speaking. The secrecy was necessary: I had come to Holland to talk about Islam.

It's not just a question of a large, easily offended Muslim population either, nor just the danger of homicidally unhinged Muslim radicals like the one who murdered Theo Van Gogh. Islamism is organized and very dangerous in The Netherlands. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 10:36 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Unless something dramatic and quite possibly bloody happens within the next 20 years, Europe will continue its ever decaying orbit around history's drain. The thing is, they have the power to stop it. The people are not violently oppressed by their governments and thus lack the excuse that Iraqis could have once made or that people like Libyans and Zimbaweans could make now to justify living with their current situation. They see the downward spiral, something only they can fix, but choose to do nothing about it. Watching things get worse on a daily basis sends my blood pressure skyward.

Posted by: Graeme at March 03, 2006 11:24 AM (Cj5+P)

2 Oh, but it's "Bush" who threatening our freedoms! bwaaa!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 12:19 PM (8e/V4)

3 European freedoms are not the same as the American counterparts. Their "freedoms" are narrowly defined privileges as prescribed by the state. These privileges are always under-review and modification. Many Americans would be surprised that so much they take for granted is illegal or restricted in Western Europe. There is a lot there that would be unconstitutional here. Its their countries so I usually don't bitch until some here start confusing us with them. Did you all ever wonder why Libs & Leftists here in America as so fascinated and enthralled with much of Western Europe? Did you think it was just fashions and music? Europeans aren't really obsessed with "liberty" because their primary obsessions are actually "libertine". Their comfort, the status quo, and personal pleasure is what's important to them foremost. If they can work out a deal with muslims while maintaining whatÂ’s most important to them - they will. Don't cry for them - they may seem weak - but they are not. They pass themselves off today as progressive, enlightened and peaceful peoples - but they have a long history of ruthless savagery, viciousness and brutality. They have dealt with "minorities" in the past (ethnic, racial, religious, political etc.) - and not that long ago! Its one of the reasons why so many of them fled to here as immigrants - you all don't think it was done on a lark now, do you? The Europeans need the muslims for a number of reasons - primarily because the Europeans aren't breeding. When they decide the risks outweigh the benefits - the muslims are gonna be screwed.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 04:11 PM (fyKFC)

4 >>>but they have a long history of ruthless savagery, viciousness and brutality. Yes, but Liberalism/Leftism specializes in deballing people. These twisted ideologies are country killers. That's what Leftism was designed for-- to kill the very notion of nation state. When I say Leftism is like an AIDS virus, I mean it literally.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 08:07 PM (8e/V4)

5 Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of that story is that the response by the governments in these European countries is to look at enacting new laws prohibiting speech that Muslims might find offensive. That's the first step towards Sharia law. It's also part of the 20 year plan Muslims have to take over America: http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/02/radical-islams-20-year-plan-to.html P.S. Thanks for the linkage. It gave me the opportunity to come over and appreciate the good stuff you are doing.

Posted by: Mike's America at March 03, 2006 08:47 PM (SHL+1)

6 Hondo, I doubt it. Europeans have been brow beaten with if they dare say that they have any value they'll be called nazis, typical statement by leftists. Yes, leftards will get violent but not against muslims, they'll get violent against their own not against murderous thugs of islam. They didn't then Van Gogh was murdered by muslims manaics I now think if the daughter of the cartoonist ends up raped, beaten or killed by muslim maniacs they'll do again what comes best to leftards. They'll "understand it" and see that the victim was really the bad guy and the perps where the "victims of society." leftards are truelly a twisted group of mental cases and the mutcases run the asylum now.

Posted by: Andre at March 04, 2006 08:43 AM (bQ3vG)

7 As I've oft-stated in various ways, we're going to have to kill them in epic numbers very soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:17 PM (0yYS2)

8 Will these islamic fanatics want to destroy the neitherlands famous windmills? becuase they look like crosses?

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:20 PM (stdEd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Overheard at a Gaza Funeral

Being a terrorist is dangerous work. Click image above for more. Soccer Dad (hat tip) and the Elder of Ziyon have the backstory about the misleading news reports which implied that the sploid was killed by the Israelis, when really he was killed in a 'work related accident'.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:11 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

A Visit to Iraq's Real Torture Chambers

No, I don't mean Abu Ghraib. I mean the real torture chambers run as torture chambers. Where, unlike when U.S. soldiers abused prisoners, Saddam's loyal troops were not disciplined for torturing, but encouraged. Truly the Baathist state will go down as one of the most ugly in history.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Jailed Muslim Brotherhood Activists Freed

(Tripoli, Libya) In 1998, Libya arrested 152 members of the Muslim Brotherhood. On Wednesday, 84 were freed. more...

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

Do You Suffer From Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Created by Erik Axelson

If you think you might have Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS, just take this simple self-administered test: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:09 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 810 words, total size 5 kb.

March 02, 2006

Ranting HS Teacher Hires Ward Churchill's ACLU Lawyer

The Colorado high school teacher who was caught on tape by a student while indoctrinating his students with vile, raidcal leftist dogma has hired an attorney from the ACLU. Not just any lawyer either, but the same one who represents Ward Churchill, the man who called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns". more...

Posted by: Bluto at 09:35 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The irony is that next week he had a whole lesson plan lined up where he gets his students to simply accept that a cartoon of mohammed wearing a bomb turban is a celebration of free speech.

Posted by: Mason at March 02, 2006 10:26 PM (T/kas)

2 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point.

Posted by: Natasha at March 02, 2006 10:46 PM (i6py+)

3 What point, Natasha? That it's oppressive for a geography teacher to be expected to teach geography instead of pitching into lunatic rants during class? That's it's not evil for an authority figure who controls his pupils grades to indoctrinate his students? If you got pulled over by a cop and he launched into a rant about liberals would you argue with him or agree with him, hoping to get off with a warning?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 02, 2006 10:51 PM (RHG+K)

4 Fire him for incompetence and be done with it. I've been fired for far less.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 02, 2006 11:04 PM (8e/V4)

5 I guess that's a no brainer, pun no, no pun intended or unintended or was that unattended?

Posted by: the other forest hunter at March 02, 2006 11:52 PM (Fq6zR)

6 I love cases like this! They strengthen the growing push and acceptance of school choice, vouchers, private education, and home schooling. This is a very common practice in parts of the country in public schools. Its been going on for over 30 years - AND - if it was successful Hillary would be president today in an landslide. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL so don't go crazy and lose your cool over this. It has actually been backfiring very slowly over the same time span. This particular case involves a leftist teacher as opposed to a liberal teacher - there is a difference - yeah - I know what everyone here is gonna say - but a lib is sly about it and stradles the line, while a leftist jumps head first across ... use the leftist fuckup to get to the liberal - its easier and more effective. This is not about free speech (though they will try), and it is not about teaching - it is classic attempted specific viewpoint political indoctrination of children in a forced mandatory environment - or as I prefer - intellectual pedophilia.

Posted by: hondo at March 02, 2006 11:56 PM (fyKFC)

7 JC Its not incompetence or anything like that - going that route will always fail - and it gives the libs tons of wiggle room to ease away from this. See it for what it is - insidious politizing of children in a governmental environment requiring forced presence and participation.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 12:13 AM (fyKFC)

8 Interesting, er, Geography they teach these days. No wonder kids can't read maps anymore.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at March 03, 2006 01:59 AM (blNMI)

9 I use sites like this to teach English to my students. It's great because, one it's real. Two, I don't have to think of a thing. They like the perspective of reality versus TV and MSM.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 03, 2006 02:41 AM (Fq6zR)

10 Natasha is a rightwing wackjob. When she's nnot donating time to the RNC, she dreams of licking the lint out of Karl Rove's fat, sweaty belly button. But then. You already knew that.

Posted by: jenni at March 03, 2006 03:44 AM (FXug0)

11 I was taking some courses a the local community college a couple of years ago, and there was one adjunct law teacher -a practicing lawyer, no less- who was prone to go off on rants about various Constitutional issues, and of course, she was always wrong, in which I found great entertainment by pointing out in fine detail, before the whole class, exactly how she was wrong, and kicking her ass in every argument. I was shocked to get an A in the course, because I figured she's retaliate against me, but I think she knew it wasn't the best idea to try.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 05:31 AM (0yYS2)

12 I listened to the whole rant in an audio file and the thing is, most of these kids didn't listen to Bush's speech nor did they listen to what Condi Rice had said, both of which Bennish was purportedly "quoting" from. The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant. The World Trade Center was a "military" target? Tobacco fields in the Carolinas are no different than coca fields in Columbia? Whoah, Nellie!

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:10 AM (YudAC)

13 Did you notice that he kept referring to "co-co" fields rather than "co-ca" fields? While listening to him, I wondered if the 10th graders in the class knew the difference. But then I thought, of course they do after all the consumer drug education they have had by that age!

Posted by: Babs at March 03, 2006 08:42 AM (iZZlp)

14 >>>The problem was that he wasn't quoting. He was twisting what they said, using his own words, and adding his own crap to further his rant. It's pretty funny hearing stuff after it's passed through the BDS filters.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 09:35 AM (8e/V4)

15 Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point. The fact he hired Ward Churchill's lawyer, the guy who claimed those killed on September 11th were "little eichmann's" and that the duty of Soldiers was to "Frag their Officers" pretty much proves a different point, however? I'm guessing you do not have Children, due to the fact you are not upset about this, when a teacher states his opinion, it comes with a lot more weight, due to their normal teaching role of providing facts. It is as much a parents responsibility to provide critical thinking about ones Government, and politics as it is to teach your child about sex and drugs. I would say the same about any teacher providing his political views on a child.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 10:23 AM (CcXvt)

16 Such a teacher who dares be so incredibly POLITICALLY INCORRECT must be silenced! He should not be allowed to teach our children for us! If we allow EVIL LEFTISTS to teach evolutionary "science" and speak their left wing thoughts out loud, to our children in school, who shall be left to expose them to the other side of such arguments? Well certainly not we ourselves. It is the duty of THE STATE to teach our children proper values. That is why we must make absolutely certain that our children hear only politically correct views at school. Or we could teach our children how to use their critical intellect. We could help our children to develop the ability, to think for themselves, rather than merely accept what they are taught to believe. Of course this would take hands on parenting. We would have to actually get involved ourselves instead of leaving our children's education solely the responsibility of state run schools. Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right. Apparently such also believe that education and mental conditioning are one in the same. They are not. Teach your children to 'question everything' tossed at them as fact. Teach them to weigh the evidence, considering all viewpoints, so they may then form a rational and well considered opinion. Teach your children to think for themselves! This is something rarely done by parents, on either the left or the right these days, because both alike are terrified that their children will later not agree with them. Clearly such people, left and right, have no faith in the intelligence of their own offspring. Both alike are devoted to indoctrinating their children rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 11:33 AM (i6py+)

17 So Natasha, if an Earth Science teacher decides to tell his class that AIDS should really be called "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease*" because "...gay people brought this plague upon us by their sins..." you'd be okay with that? I mean, surely the kiddies need to be exposed to all ideologies in order to learn "how to think for themselves"? *From The National Lampoon circa 1988.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 11:49 AM (RHG+K)

18 Natasha: It's not about "left" or "right" I would be equally mad at any teacher that gave his opinion, as a fact. Nowhere during reading the transcript of this recording did I hear him encourage his students to read material that documented his allegations, or to challenge his point of view, nor did he differentiate his opinions from facts. There is a place for encouraging children to be critical of foreign policy, and the Government: it's called "home" You do not need to be "politically correct" if you were teaching Geography as instructed, instead of comparing the sitting U.S president to Hitler, or pushing the opinion that Israel is a terrorist state.

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 11:58 AM (CcXvt)

19 As if such is not being pounded into children's heads already bluto? Could you actually bring yourself to read what I wrote instead of just scanning it and triggering? The answer to your leading question is already in my above post.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:04 PM (i6py+)

20 Dave do you presume that I approve of the actions of this teacher? If so why do you?

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:09 PM (i6py+)

21 Natasha, if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 12:16 PM (8e/V4)

22 I don't know Natasha, could it be: Oh the irony! That he even needs a lawyer for this merely proves his point. Posted by: Natasha at March 2, 2006 10:46 PM Proves his point? Did I misread your intent?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:18 PM (CcXvt)

23 Dave Yes you did Dave.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:36 PM (i6py+)

24 How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:39 PM (CcXvt)

25 jesusland carlos wrote, "if it's not a parent's duty to ensure their children aren't indoctrinated by maggot-infested moonbats, I don't know what is." How far would you be willing to go in rooting out those who try to indoctrinate your children carlos? Would you merely pick and choose which indoctrinators are OK? Would you merely pick and choose where your children can be indoctrinated? Are you sure that you are not really saying that brainwashing, conditioning, indoctrination, what ever you wish to call it, is OK as long it is the of the correct kind? I beleive that much more than the supposed "best way" to protect our children from being indoctrinated, the only way which we really and truly can protect them from brainwasing, is to teach our children to think for themselves.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 12:50 PM (i6py+)

26 Natasha, no, the answer isn't in your post. But if you can document a teacher telling children that AIDS is "God's Just Burning Vengeance Disease" (or something similar) email me with it at dreadpundit@hotmail.com so that I can expose the bastard(s). Methinks your phony outrage is reserved only for ideologues who conflict with your own beliefs, i.e., your are intellectually dishonest. And btw, belated kudos to hondo for creating the term "intellectual pedophilia" - brilliant!

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 12:55 PM (RHG+K)

27 Dave wrote, "How so? his point is that Bush = Hitler. perhaps you can explain what you meant?" Please read my last post before this one, and think about what I may really be saying Dave. Maybe then we discus this. Or we can just argue like a couple of idiots, each presuming we already know the other's position and how wrong they must be. I can tell you right now I don't want to merely argue though. I have work to do right now though, and so I will be away for a while. Please think about this 'with me' Dave. Maybe we can both learn something from each other. : )

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:03 PM (i6py+)

28 "intellectual pedophilia" agreed, brilliant. You better copyright that one asap. Natasha, yes, as a parent I reserve the right to choose what kind of indoctrination my children will receive. Moonbats will raise my children over my dead body.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 01:04 PM (8e/V4)

29 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines your both your position and your credibility.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)

30 Bluto your belligerence prevents us from communicating, and it also undermines both your position and your credibility.

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:07 PM (i6py+)

31 Natasha: It's probably due to the fact this happens a lot here: People post their "true" knee-jerk reaction immediately, then follow up with a sympathizing, patronizing post with thinly veiled messages that attempt to belittle republicans. It's the kind of game you can see everyday in people's *cough* dailykos diaries, where they fake outrage and then post about their "victory" on their echo chamber @ dailykos.com

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 01:08 PM (CcXvt)

32 Yes a lot of baiting goes on, and so does a great deal of mere punditry, rather than honest communication. The tactics you describe, so very well I might add, are employed by so called liberals and so called conservatives alike though. It really is horribly wrong I agree. Such is extremely counterproductive, being founded upon mere partisan bias, coming from both extremes. Of course we buy right into it when we presume such chicanery is the sole domain of "the others" though. I have never posted at dailykos myself. It just does not appeal to me. I have dropped by a couple of times and read though, and so I know they practice political correctness every bit as hypocritically as do some so called conservatives right here jawa. I am not at all pleased with such bullshit, and as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders. I really have to get going. Oh my god now I am late!

Posted by: Natasha at March 03, 2006 01:35 PM (i6py+)

33 "maggot-infested moonbats" Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this. I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true. No doubt he and his high-powered attorney will make a fuss. With luck, maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school. Some good may yet come from this.

Posted by: Rotwang at March 03, 2006 02:22 PM (kQLcs)

34 >>>as a Republican I am extremely offended by the neocons, because they are among the worst offenders. If you're a Republican I'm an astronaut.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:35 PM (8e/V4)

35 >>>maybe they can spearhead legislation to impose content guidelines and uniform performance-testing requirements on parents who home-school. Why? Homeschooled children perform better academically at every level than children at public screwls. Fact.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 02:37 PM (8e/V4)

36 JC Notice the fear some have of home-schooling - include vouchers and other alternatives. To the lib/left, possession of the classroom (elementary & seconday) is as important as possession of the courts. All this is just a very obvious example of using public schools as a mandatory captured audience to proselytize a very specific political view-point. The left is ham-handed at it - the liberals more coy & cute - but neither are truly effective.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 04:29 PM (fyKFC)

37 I see Natasha is at it again. Totally missing the point that this was a geography class. Geography! Not "Mao's Little Red Book 101". These were 10th graders in a public high school where pushing one-sided political viewpoints is not supposed to be going on. The schools say so themselves. Too bad they're only willing to enforce it at whim. Nobody here even remotely implied they would prefer Bennish, or other teachers, adopt a far right-wing agenda and start preaching it through lies and distortions in their high school geography classes. But don't let that stop you, Natasha, from your thinly veiled accusations and belittling. "Too many so called conservative parents, wrongly think that "getting involved" means policing educational facilities, in order to "weed out" teachers who don't think right." Well it certainly seems to be a no brainer for liberal parents. The schools themselves have been careful to keep conservative teachers a distinct minority. What are they afraid of? Now don't you have a conspiracy to promulgate somewhere, Natasha?

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 07:32 PM (YudAC)

38 Looks like it takes one to know one especialy when it come to these reptiles at the ACLU and these leftists teachers

Posted by: sandpiper at March 03, 2006 08:45 PM (oN6hw)

39 "Uh-oh. SOMEONE's a happy ditto-head. That's Rush's pet phrase from today's show. I'm just waiting to hear Sean do his own unique "Chihuahua-with-a-chew-toy" rant on this. I think EVERYBODY in America slept through the SOTU, which was just more canned on-the-stump boilerplate about "evil-doers," so I can't really fault Bennish for paraphrasing. Otherwise, he doesn't seem to have said anything that isn't at least arguable, if not demonstrably true." The term ditto-head when Rush first coined it, heralded the lock step conformity of neocon political correctness, and yet no one has more unfailingly railed against political correctness than he himself. Bush's war on terror has ignited global chaos, and his gift of freedom to Iraq comes with the added bonus of civil war. I can only hope that he is less successful in his efforts to make our homeland safe. A mighty fortress is his skull. - The Colbert Report

Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 02:59 AM (i6py+)

40 "I am not going to rise to the bait being trolled by those who wish to divert the topic of this thread." Oh wait ... who said that?

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 07:18 AM (YudAC)

41 There is no such thing as neocon political correctness. Political correctness is a Leftwing invention. Harriett Myers and Portgate are pretty good evidence of that. Virtually all of Rush's callers disagreed with him on both counts. So much for dittohead "political correctness." Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week. Been doing it for years. Which is why you hate him so much. Your hatred is the sincerest form of flattery. But it's as effective against him as the beat of a mosquito's wing is to a hurricane. All you can do in response is thrash about and gnash your teeth in frustration. Natasha is a good example. He ain't going nowhere.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 10:53 AM (8e/V4)

42 Ha Ha ha ha Thanks Oyster

Posted by: hondo at March 04, 2006 10:54 AM (fyKFC)

43 "Rush Limbaugh hands you Lefties your ass on a plate 5 days a week." I would suggest that those who actually believe that should watch The Colbert Report, but the idiots would probably think Steve is one of them.

Posted by: Natasha at March 04, 2006 03:47 PM (i6py+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Muslim Manifesto

Via NRO.

All I want to say about this now is what I said on my blog about the word "manifesto." It just sounds so....Marx. Kaczynski, even.

Anyway, read it for yourself. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:55 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

1 While I'm encouraged to hear the voice of the "moderates" I am also familiar with the concepts of Taqiyya and kitman. I think I will wait for the action parts, the anti-terrorism/violence demonstrations, the call to dispel or incarcerate radical imam's, and informing authorities of calls for terrorism from local mosques.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 07:19 PM (CcXvt)

2 Seriously, since when was it the obligation of moderate/liberal/secular/whatever Muslims to "speak" out"?...To justify themselves whenever bad behavior is committed by others who happen to be Muslim? As a contemporary Catholic, I'm not going to justify my identity because of the multiple crimes done to humanity by the COLLECTIVE Church since the age of the Inquisitions, and I shouldnÂ’t have to. As a contemporary Christian, I'm not expected to justify my faith because of the Ku Klux KlanÂ—America's own historic (and ongoing!) concoction of religious fundamentalism and terrorismÂ—and its legacy of committing and getting away with the vilest crimes on the basis of biblical scripture. I won't even have to offer an explanation in light of the resurgence of the new "Christian-Right," a la ol' schoolers Robertson and Falwell, and their silly "fatwa" death prayers on Supreme court justices that aren't conservative enough, or South American presidents that are too left-wing for their liking. Congratulations, now we got Western Muslims feeding into the silliest with the unspoken obligatory insistence that they're moderate, liberal or secular which is sad and isn't necessary. It's not like this post 9/11 haze, where non-Muslims self-proclaim an "instant Islam expertise" (just add water and stir), wasn't already lame for 5 years running now. Let it go already.

Posted by: Mason at March 02, 2006 10:04 PM (T/kas)

3 As a Catholic, you're probably aware of the reputation of Catholic priests being involved in pederasty , due to the vast amounts of convictions, TV coverage, etc. I would hope that if someone likened a Catholic church as "sodomy school" you'd say something to the effect of "that's only a small amount of Catholic Priests when you look at the big picture, Father Mike is a nice guy, and he keeps his hands out of young Timmy's shorts" that isn't justification, that's your thought that in your experience your religion isn't a homosexual precursor. How about if one of those priests comes on TV and says "Jesus said love the little Children, and that is what I'm doing" would you defend the true interpretation? speak out against him? See, when four thousand terrorist acts [and counting] have occurred since 9/11 and the people committing these act says their religion commands it, then when hundreds of influential Imam's say that terrorism is OK, perhaps I want to hear the people who oppose their views. call me crazy, like that.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 10:45 PM (CcXvt)

4 What is this? Muslim Obedience School? We rub their noses in some mess. They react violently. We say, "Oh, we didn't like the way you reacted. Let's try it again. We're going to show you the cartoons again. But this time you're going to be nice about it. Be nice, now." This is like those scenes in the movies when the psychopath is finally cornered by the cop, and he laughs in his face, telling him all the juicy details of the rape, then telling the cop, "And you can't touch me!" Be honest, dear reader. Don't you just love it when the cop blows him away? I think we're just provoking the same visceral reaction with the Muslim Obedience School approach, no matter how high and mighty you make it sound. To my ear, it sounds phony, hypocritical, arrogantly smug, and sadistically unbending. One of our 10 Commandments is Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of The Lord Thy God in Vain. Just because we assure ourselves that it is perfectly legal to do exactly what this commandment forbids does not mean that Muslims are going to relish our taking the same liberties with their Prophet. I realize that under the rules of your Muslim Obedience School every time this happens all Muslims should not only remain obedient and well-mannered but also vociferously denounce any Muslim who does not remain obedient, but I think this is unrealistic. Think smart. If you really want dialogue, this is not the starting point. To go around preaching that it is -- is sheer hypocrisy.

Posted by: john at March 03, 2006 02:58 AM (Uotmn)

5 Well well, it looks like we've got another snivelling muslim apologist bitchboy. Welcome, mason, and prepare for an ass-ripping when I get home from work you faithless, treasonous piece of shit.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 05:56 AM (0yYS2)

6 John, the problem with your argument is that Muslims didn't become outraged nor did they react violently until they were deliberately stirred to action by their own Imams. Can't you see the Pavlovian aspect to this? We didn't press their button. Their own "leaders" did. The violence started before the cartoons were even reprinted. Quit trying to justify it. When was the last time your nose got rubbed in something and you burned down an embassy or made explicit death threats? Should we have been "understanding" if you had? No one is saying they had no right to be offended. We're saying they had no right to get violent. Your obedience school analogy is way off base. You're twisting the issue. Like too many these days, you're deflecting blame away from those who willfully became violent and those who truly provoked them.

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:31 AM (YudAC)

7 John, I will be direct.I don't think I have EVER hated anyone for their ABSOLUTE ignorance and stupidity as I do people who gag up the vile,half-digested,bile-drenched feces such as your above post.You are a complete dumb-ass,and the temptation to treat you the same way that the extremist Muslims treat the infidels is SOOOOO strong.ONLY WE DON'T DO IT.I would explain it further--I just don't have time for this.

Posted by: David Bosworth at March 03, 2006 08:56 AM (o/AqI)

8 Thank you, David, as John Ryan is one of the apologists for the radical Muslims. Let me give you a clue, John. The cartoons were drawn for a news story. That story was about the self-censorship being practiced in Denmark due to the FEAR people had of offending Muslims. Fear as in the possiblity of being MURDERED if you happened to offend one or more of these people. The real problem is that no one can possibly know from day-to-day as to what offends these people, as they constantly expand the list of offenses. When your very life offends them, John, is that when you wish to stand up and say stop? Not me, buddy, I've had enough already.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 03, 2006 10:16 AM (rUyw4)

9 John, you want to quote scripture? What about Thou Shalt Not Kill? Or turn the other cheek? Or how about love thy neighbor as thyself? Any of these ring a bell? When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the people worshipping the "gods" they had fashioned from their gold, did he burn all their possessions and kill them? No, his anger was directed at that which had offended God -- the graven idols. And in his anger, he offended God further - by smashing the Ten Commandments. As punishment for this act, was Moses killed? No. Moses' punishment was that he was never allowed to set foot in the promised land. And the people who had offended God with their blaspemy? Were they killed by God? No. They were made to wander for months in search of the promised land. Yet, even in this punishment, they were provided for. They could always find just enough food and water for sustenence. They were being taught a lesson. Tell me, John, what lesson exactly are the radical Muslims teaching?

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 03, 2006 10:33 AM (UADHi)

10 as for this manifesto... blah, blah, blah Islam is a religion of peace, blah blah blah, terrorists are not true muslims, blah blah blah, the Koran condemns violence, blah blah blah, Mohammad was a ompassionate human being, blah PUKE!!!!

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 03, 2006 11:00 AM (+BgKd)

11 "Ass-rippings"? Internet "ass-rippings." Oooooooh. I fear you. Really. Suck a liberal Muslim's hairy, sweaty left nut, ya slackjawed momo. Mason "Well well, it looks like we've got another snivelling muslim apologist bitchboy. Welcome, mason, and prepare for an ass-ripping when I get home from work you faithless, treasonous piece of shit."

Posted by: Mason at March 03, 2006 04:21 PM (T/kas)

12 Catch Osama Bin Laden and all the rest of them. Put 'em away. I lost people in 9-11, too. But until we catch these guys, why do stupid things like republish cartoons? You know this only helps the very people you hate recruit more terrorists. So why do it when you don't have Osama? The Danes did it and got royally spanked. And there ain't nothin' they can do about it except whine about how people shouldn't be violent. Hey I get it - nobody should be violent for any reason. They have to turn the other cheek. But guess what, people don't do that. They smack you and so far you haven't dodged their blows. You don't have Osama. You don't have the criminal offenders who torched the embassies. You hate the imams. But then you're not stopping them from recruiting more terrorists. But you're republishing cartoons giving the imams exactly what they need -- does that sound bright to you? Get a grip. You have not had much success in smoking out these terrorists and we're all in the trenches together here and all you want to do is jump out of the trench and moon the mosque. You're stuck on stupid and putting other Americans in harm's way. Keep out of my line of vision.

Posted by: john at March 03, 2006 05:47 PM (Uotmn)

13 I'll treat you in full later on mason, but suffice to say for now, were anyone inclined to suck balls, they'd have to take a miss on you, as you have none.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:43 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ebony And Ivory

See? I've always known there was something out there to unite Star Wars geeks and Tolkien Geeks in perfect harmony.

stein hoist to steve-o via email.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Muhammed Cartoonist's Daughter Targetted by Muslims

Agora, the place to follow the Muhammed cartoon controversy:

Rohde says that the 12 cartoonists have had their lives overturned and are now living in hiding, after receiving several death threats.
"And a daugter of one of cartoonist the was sought out by 12 Moslem males - they were looking to get to her. Fortunately she wasnÂ’t at school," Jens Rohde said.

more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:43 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If they harm or kill a child then every mosque should burn and everyplace where they reside should burn too. All lampposts should have muslim corpses hanging disembowled with pigs heads stuffed in them.

Posted by: Andre at March 02, 2006 04:49 PM (bQ3vG)

2 And a daughter of one of cartoonist the was sought out by 12 Moslem males Probably so they could explain to her how hurtful the cartoons her father drew were, because Muhammad is the prophet of Peace.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 04:52 PM (CcXvt)

3 Sounds to me like they need a Second Amendment in Denmark. And concealed carry laws. And someone to pull the trigger on the first Muslim who tries to harm anyone for exercising freedom of speech.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 02, 2006 05:07 PM (rUyw4)

4 Targeting kids like that is just too disgusting to even contemplate. I think we're headed for the days when people will be carrying guns in holsters a la the wild west. Of course libtards will fight that idea tooth and nail. I just hope liberal supporters of islamofascism here in the US will have enough sense to at least stay out of the line of fire. Wouldn't want them to get hurt!

Posted by: Richard at March 02, 2006 05:21 PM (7KF8r)

5 Richard, if liberal nitwits ended up being killed in the crossfire it would have a beneficial effect. That is to say, if they died the collective IQ of this country would be raised and I for one would not shed one tear if that happened.

Posted by: Andre at March 02, 2006 05:33 PM (bQ3vG)

6 do you guys ever get tired of calling for the execution of your fellow countrymen who's ideology you disagree with? don't like dissent? move to Cuba.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 05:38 PM (CcXvt)

7 Leave it to a liberal to turn tongue and cheek talk like "ended up being in the crossfire" into "calling for the execution of your fellow countrymen". C'mon!!! Wake UP!!! Are you a man? Are you really that sensitive? Dave?

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 05:46 PM (bpQk3)

8 Nick, he's just an idiot, ignore him.

Posted by: Andre at March 02, 2006 05:48 PM (bQ3vG)

9 A liberal eh? you base that comment on what? You've been here about 5 minutes. The calling for killing Muslims / Liberals is already covered by Improbulus Maximus that's really his gig. As you were not even addressed in my comment nick, feel free to eat a dick.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 06:19 PM (CcXvt)

10 Actually, I've seen dave post here many times (if it's the same one) and his views are the same as the majority of us here. I question whether or not you're just trolling by attacking him because his response was spot on. I work with a lot of liberals and I don't want to see any of them dead just because I don't care for their politics. If you're looking for a lot of others here to support your view, you're in the wrong place. Suggesting that it is a good thing for liberals to die in the crossfire is just as bad as the rhetoric they spew over at Kos. Questioning someone's manhood and intelligence is typical of that bunch.

Posted by: slug at March 02, 2006 06:21 PM (vQoK9)

11 I base it on your abitlity to spin and attack...see above cased closed! f.y.i. In a comment section located in the world wide web, when you post a comment, it's directed to EVERYONE. I happened to disagree with your comment. I'm sure someone MAY agree with whom YOU did not address. This is what happens when you make comments in the comment section, they are read, and then responded to. By the way, you never answered my question. However, you gave me an idea about yourself when you told me what to eat.

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 06:29 PM (bpQk3)

12 Where are the 12 Muslims now? Maybe they caught a Jew, and keep him for a month until he dies. Oh never mine, that already happened in France.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 02, 2006 06:32 PM (D2g/j)

13 good, because I base it on your ability to cherrypick what portions of text you selectively quote: Leave it to a liberal to turn tongue and cheek talk like "ended up being in the crossfire" from: I just hope liberal supporters of islamofascism here in the US will have enough sense to at least stay out of the line of fire. Wouldn't want them to get hurt! Which is obviously sarcasm, in case it didn't sink in.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 06:36 PM (CcXvt)

14 C'mon Slug! The comment "ended up being in the crossfire" is CLEARLY a tongue and cheek comment. It's no secret that the FAR-Left dislike the FAR-right and vice versa. When a side has a chance to take a shot, they pounce on it! That's like me taking dave's comment toward me (eat a d) , which is obviously a shot, and retorting by saying "your calling for the execution of fellow americans". YOU'RE RIGHT!!! IT MAKES NO SENSE TO MAKE THAT COMMENT!

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 06:43 PM (bpQk3)

15 you make your own point dave, it's SARCASM, IT'S A JOKE! That's why you're sensitive, you can't take a joke. That's why your case for being a liberal is building, b/c you can't take a joke!

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 06:49 PM (bpQk3)

16 There is nothing "sensitive" or funny, about being repulsed by people who discuss the murder of those who's opinion you disagree with. If it makes you feel better to paint me as a "liberal" so be it, I've already painted you a moron.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 06:58 PM (CcXvt)

17 Back to the topic at hand. Label Islam However you want, bottom line is that it's EVIL!!! Read the following passages from the koran [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! Islam is a scattered Nazi Germany. How the WHOLE SANE WORLD doesn't see this and stand up to it just boggles my mind!!!

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 06:59 PM (bpQk3)

18 Hey Dave, does the passage above repulse you? It should if you have any consistanty in what you say.

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 07:03 PM (bpQk3)

19 Don't feel bad, Dave, I've painted him as a target for comment editing.

Posted by: Vinnie at March 02, 2006 07:03 PM (f289O)

20 Strawman spotted, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.

Posted by: dave at March 02, 2006 07:04 PM (CcXvt)

21 Dave, you and I obviously don't see eye to eye. I have a life to get back to, don't sit in fron of the computer too long, it'll make you go blind. Go forth and do Grat things!

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 07:14 PM (bpQk3)

22 Dave, you and I obviously don't see eye to eye. I have a life to get back to, don't sit in fron of the computer too long, it'll make you go blind. Go forth and do Great things!

Posted by: nick at March 02, 2006 07:14 PM (bpQk3)

23 Meanwhile the children of US Minuteman volunteers are being stalked at their schools. Yet we ignore this?

Posted by: USCitizen at March 02, 2006 08:11 PM (ZpAjQ)

24 LOL.. I wasn't calling for the killing of liberals or muslims. I was commenting that, for self-protection, we may have to start carrying weapons.. concealed or otherwise. I was being a little facetious about libs getting caught in the crossfire.. hehe. If these scumbags are going to target kids, they need to be killed just for thinking about it.

Posted by: Richard at March 02, 2006 08:34 PM (7KF8r)

25 Dave, Mo (spit) was for peace? Are you on PCP? What about the beheadings, the slavery, the rapes, the slaughter of the Jews? You're kidding, right? If not, Dr. Savage would state you have a mental disorder.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 02, 2006 09:08 PM (D2g/j)

26 I'm going to make one last comment and then I'm on to other posts because as bad as the content of the original post is that sparked all of this discussion, the topic is just more of the same. That doesn't mean it should be ignored because I agree that we are fighting evil. I also am not naive enough to think that we don't have citizens here in our own country who are working against us. By this, I'm referring to the ACLU and the many other organizations that are partly funded by communist countries. These people do need to be dealt with but the last thing I would ever do is to wish a 'mainstream' liberal - the guy who thinks Bush=Hitler but isn't generally a danger to anyone but his own political party that he keeps pushing further to the left and out of the realm of sanity - to be killed by being 'caught in the crossfire'. I also think it's important to have a two party system because, otherwise, it leads to too much power and corruption. Both sides need the other to keep them 'honest' no matter how disgusted I may be by the antics of Hillary, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, etc. But none of this has anything to do with my post on this thread. My post was strictly about defending someone who is most definitely not the liberal he was portrayed to be. Nor was there any reason to call him an idiot and ask if he was a man. dave has a history on this site and his views are in line with the majority here. Spending any amount of time here would tell anyone that few advocate the death of an American citizen and Rusty has reminded us many times to pray/hope/whatever for the safe return of the captured liberals in Iraq. If dave hasn't received an apology, he should have been.

Posted by: slug at March 02, 2006 09:42 PM (vQoK9)

27 This is as primitive as it can get!!! Going after kids?! Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan has some good points. Â“It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. Watch the video and se her statements http://sugiero.blogspot.com/2006/03/caricatures-cartoons-and-muhammed.html One must admire her gutsÂ… It cannot be easy saying what she says on live TV, and being a womanÂ… "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." --Albert Einstein

Posted by: Sugiero at March 02, 2006 10:28 PM (2MyR+)

28 I'm going to buy a Koran and video tape me burning it, yes I can make a video file of it (have been editing video on a computer since 1995) and distribute it. I'll get those muslim morons really worked up.

Posted by: Andre at March 02, 2006 10:59 PM (bQ3vG)

29 Dave I read what you said - n' I for the life of me can't figure out what ticked some people. Maybe its a visual thing or something.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 12:24 AM (fyKFC)

30 Of course, we've seen this sort of bravery from the fruits of Islam before. Anyone remember Beslan? For that matter, the day after Bob Woodruff was injured by a car bomb, one of the talking heads on "Good Morning, America" mentioned that the big bwave jihadis had car bombed a candy store that morning. It was just a flip comment in passing, a chance to hammer the point that BushCo had made such a mess of the occupation or some such. No indignation or anger at the terrorists who so bravely attacked a place likely to be full of kids instead of folks who could, you know, shoot back...

Posted by: Cybrludite at March 03, 2006 02:17 AM (XFoEH)

31 Let them, and see what happens.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 05:54 AM (0yYS2)

32 These are the odds that muslims like twelve against a child,and i expect that they were so brave that they wore the usual rags around thier heads , hiding thier faces,MEN do not behave in such a fashion,only islamotards.

Posted by: BOB at March 03, 2006 12:58 PM (RdHMF)

33 Muslims are gutless, cowardly scum who should, no, must be made extinct for the future of humanity, and anyone who takes their side, (Are you paying attention, dave?) will have to share their fate, though they are assured not to share their spoils should they succeed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:28 PM (0yYS2)

34 The problem with people who share the opinion that genocide is the solution for Muslim extremism is that they're a fringe, within a fringe (the first being those who see Islam as a threat to the West --the category I belong to) so the scenario of a crusade on U.S soil is as likely as the Democratic coup.

Posted by: dave at March 04, 2006 08:42 PM (CcXvt)

35 The thing about unlikely scenarios, is that the sheep never cease to be surprised when events actually unfold as the "fringe" said they would. Don't let it bother you though, as burying one's head in the sand is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 10:23 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The AP Goes Dan Rather

Kevin Aylward reports that the author of the AP report which alleges that President Bush was warned about the possibility of a levy breach used to work at CBS's 60 Minutes II.

Now, Rob at Say Anything notices that the video was selectively edited to exclude footage of Dan Brown being asked whether more resources would be needed by Michael Chertoff. The transcripts show that Brown said no.

So, a major story breaks claiming Bush was warned but fails to mention the fact that the person warning Bush declined additional resources?

Dan Rather, eat your heart out. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 2 kb.

The Rise and Fall of an Internet Jihadi

For those of you interested in the private fight against public terrorists, these articles are for you. This is a follow up to our earlier report on the arrest of the internet's #1 cyber-jihadi, Irhabi 007. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

184kb generated in CPU 0.0869, elapsed 0.228 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.1626 seconds, 504 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 135165
Files: 20
Bytes: 730.7M
CPU Time: 70:04
Queries: 12169607

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76631

Feeds

March 03, 2006

March 02, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds