A twofer Beastie Boys lunch extravaganza!

Llamas with Sabatoge. Chaos with She's On It

Posted by: Rusty at 10:36 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

(Beirut, Lebanon) Good news! Another member of the ousted Saddam Hussein regime is apprehended.

From DailyStar.com:

Police in Lebanon have arrested the son of Saddam Hussein's half-brother on an international arrest warrant issued by Interpol. According to sources close to the security forces, Bashar Sabawi Ibrahim al-Tikriti, identified by the international policing organization as a "dangerous wanted terrorist," was nabbed at the Malibu Bay Hotel in the Jounieh neighborhood of Maameltein.

Tikriti had been planning to board a flight from the Lebanese capital to Brazil later in the day.

Police were tipped off when members of the hotel's staff suspected that Takriti's passport had been tampered with to alter his name.

The sources added that the wanted Iraqi had originally entered Lebanon through Syria after escaping Iraq. An international warrant for Tikriti's arrest on terrorism charges, including leading a group to fight US forces in Iraq, was later discovered once authorities realized who they had in custody.

On a different note, it would be nice to know what connection Basher Sabawi Ibrahim al-Tikriti has with Brazil. Business or pleasure? Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if there were an expatriate group of exiled Baathists in Brazil. After all, the country is comfortably socialist.

From Interested-Participant.

UPDATE: This is a follow up to our earlier report Saddam Nephew Arrested in Beirut.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Part of our ongoing effort to bring you all things porn and Star Wars. Han Solo grabs Leia, Leia likes it. Actual footage from Return of the Jedi.

Leia, you dirty dirty girl.

Hat tip to Ace. I'd call Ace a dirty dirty girl too, but that's just wrong. You know, bad gay and all that.

UPDATE: Is Leia secretly working for the Democratic Underground's live hot chat line?

UPDATE: More evidence that Leia is a dirty, dirty girl. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:34 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

The D.C. snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, are Islamic terrorists. While the MSM plays up the disgruntled father angle, they downplay the fact that both were Muslim converts and that they used the language of jihad to justify their actions. This is not to say that Muhammed was not motivated by the loss of custody of his children, only that there were other motivations as well.

it is clear that the D.C. snipers justified their actions as part of the greater jihad struggle. Below is a drawing made by Malvo while in jail.

Michelle Malkin has more.

UPDATE: Related and disgusting.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:05 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night, Brian Ross led ABC's broadcast with "an ABC News exclusive" report claiming that Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was now a prime target of the Justice Department probe into the dealings of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Citing unidentified sources within the investigation, Brian Ross breathlessly reported that Hastert "is in the mix". ABC news analyst and Clintonista George Stephanopoulos declared that the story, if true, would be "seismic".

But today, ABC reports that the Justice Department has flatly denied Ross' story, and Hastert has angrily called for a retraction. The situation is eerily similar to the early stages of the Dan Rather "fake-but-accurate" scandal involving forged Texas Air National Guard documents.

Some are speculating that ABC concocted the story in an effort to draw attention away from Democratic Representative William Jefferson, who was allegedly videotaped accepting a $100,000 bribe from an undercover FBI operative.

This is not the first time that ABC News has been accused of gross political bias. A 2004 memo by ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin exhorted reporters to slant stories to John Kerry's advantage.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:57 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

It used to be that when I searched "Jawa" on Google News, I'd get a mix of our own posts with financial reports coming out of Indonesia--except, of course, for those 6 months in which we were banished from Google News for "hate speech", that is. Now, it's pretty much about The Jawa Report.

For instance:

Is Left-Leaning Google Censoring Right-Leaning Websites?

Unlike most of the articles coming out about The Jawa Report recently, I actually engaged in an e-mail conversation with the author of the above story, Noel Shephard. You can check out his ongoing investigation into Google News here.

Does Google News systematically discriminate against right-leanig websites? My gut feeling says that does, but this is based on anecdotal evidence so I am willing to change that opinion if a more systematic study was done.

The explanation could be as mundane as Muslims being more prone to calling anything they deem offensive as 'hate speech' and Google being oversensitive.

Of course, the 'South Park Mohammed cartoon' theory might come into play here: Google is just afraid Muslims. But that wouldn't explain why The Jawa Report was dropped from Google News for a time since that happened before the Mohammed cartoon violence.

Then again, it may be that low-level Google employees are making these decisions with some amount of discretion. Whenever discretion is involved, our own biases come into play. What a person on the Left and a person on the Right deem offensive is completely subjective and is framed by our worldviews.

This last explanation is supported by the fact that Google News did eventually reinstate The Jawa Report as a provider. Someone up the chain-of-command eventually took a look at the 'hate speech' allegations and decided they were silly.

Then again, it could be that we just complained louder than whoever it was that was complaining about 'hate speech'. Corporate behavior can often be explained as simply taking the path of least resistance.

Hopefully, The New Media Journal and MichNews will be reinstated after a second review. But I'd start complaining loudly to Google News just to make sure.

UPDATE: A reader who wishes to remain anonymous e-mails this:

Data point for Google News: A couple of months ago I realized the American Spectator Online wasn't on Google News and I wrote off to request they add it. I specifically identified it as having a conservative slant. They reviewed and added it in about a week. No I suppose the AmSpec has more name recognition than do most blogs, but there was one case where a
right-leaning news source was added without any trouble...

And I know the plural of "anecdote" is not really "data".

Posted by: Rusty at 08:41 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

1 But, Doc, You have guys like Grey Rooster that are admitted racists and regularly use hate speech. I don't get the surprise or modesty of it all. I agree that Google, as a HUGE corporation, has to defend its bottom line. If you want to stay on Google, drop the racists and stick to conservative/neocon/libertarian comments. Or, you could start warning and banning. At least then you've got some CYA insurance... I'm just sayin', you can't complain about getting punched in the face when you constantly slap a man's wife on the ass.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 25, 2006 09:02 AM (yFm36)

2 Blue, How can WE be held responsible for what Greyrooster says. Honestly, I didn't even know he was still around.

Posted by: Rusty at May 25, 2006 09:14 AM (JQjhA)

3 I think the basic problem is not that Google News is biased, but that the media is biased -- that there are far more socialist-leaning media outlets than libertarian-leaning ones. That has to change.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at May 25, 2006 09:30 AM (FVbj6)

4 Yes Rusty, Greyrooster is still around. He said his friends from the Bronx were coming to get me !!! I was soooo scared. Honestly when people say things like that I think a reasonable reaction is first laughter, followed by some analysis. The Bronx ? He must have seen from a movie that this was a somehow "bad" part of New York City. What does he think that life is... like in the movies ?

Posted by: john ryan at May 25, 2006 10:05 AM (TcoRJ)

5 I signed up to this RSS when I read about Google's ban

Posted by: magyar at May 25, 2006 10:06 AM (TiJIR)

6 pitty on them.

Posted by: dts at May 25, 2006 01:16 PM (hMOn+)

7 All folk should be able to express their views, however I do agree that making personal threats only puts us on the level of the terrorists. This site has always had people from the left and right arguing their point and why is condemning islam considered hatred? Yet it is ok to condemn the nazis, stalinist Russia or Pol Pot for example. To me the oppression in the name of Islam is no different to these periods in history ...just look at the world situation now and tell me radical Islam is ok.

Posted by: Jester at May 25, 2006 04:19 PM (TuAMG)

8 Any and all organizations and governments with violent creed and doctrine should be put down!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 25, 2006 05:51 PM (FCC6c)

9 Actually, THIS ONE is a great one to talk about. When the story of Rep. Murtha and the accusations of the marines killing innocent civilians broke on the MSN the other night. I went home and started scanning Google News to see how quickly it showed up on the top stories at Google news. On the FIRST night there was only 87 articles related to this issue, and for most of the night it went back and forth (meaning, it kept showing up in the main page, then disappeared for a few hours, then came back. By main page I mean at the bottom of the page, on the "Other Top Stories" section.) Interestingly I notice a pattern: The only sources of the story during that whole night were articles from international press (England, Australia, Middle East, etc) and right wing blog websites. It was there were I found the Jawa Report, which at that moment was in the top 20 of that particular story at that particular time of the night: Very few liberal blogs had reported on it, and almost no main news sources other than MSN and ITB, not even Fox or CNN. Then as the story grew and went up in the Top Stories sections the next day, the right wing blogs slowly faded and eventually disappear and the bulk of the story was now reported by most media outlets. Eventually it also faded as other relevant news took its place. Now here are two interesting observations (Based on the default Google news page, not the main news pages for each country): A) Google places stories in the top of their news page base on a formula that takes into account the following: 1) How many news outlets are reporting it, 2) how many people (traffic) are reading these reports (Which accounts for the order in which they are shown. This is why at night the countries in the Middle East and Europe tend (not always) to pop at the top at night: Their citizens are waking up and reading while ours are asleep), 3) the DATE in which the article was written. 4) Words matching, terms and names used in these articles. So, for example, a smaller blog like this will get top rating at first when it reports something that the main outlets haven't reported first (as it happened the other night), but as the main outlets start reporting, their sites draw much (much, much) more traffic, their DATES are newer and therefore, they take over the ratings as the smaller blogs slowly fade to the back of the list. This is basically what happened in the example given above. B) Here is the kicker: Whenever a political issue becomes offensive to either political group (left-right) , the bloggers/pundits are usually the first ones to talk about it and report on it. However, by doing this the bloggers themselves ARE creating the news that gets listed in Google. This is what happened with the Murtha story: It was the bloggers that put it in the front page of Google and made it news. Granted, it would have been news anyway, but those initials posts got the ball rolling. Consider that a non-partisan observation. I JUST happened to be talking about this with a buddy of mine who is doing a study on the subject for his book.

Posted by: Mojave at May 25, 2006 10:32 PM (3T8kU)

10 Blue drees patriot: Like I said before you are a coward. Cowards call for help and tell the teacher on others. Seeking protection by getting the teacher, or mommy or daddy, or Google to agree with them. You are shit. Personally, I believe this to be the Jawa report. Not a crybaby blog whose purpose is to find fault with anything America does simply because a leftard idiot like you disagrees. You crybaby assholes lost the election. Quit crying. RACIST: Racists are allowed because the truth is that 100% of blacks are racist. Probably 90% of Asians are racists. And I expect 70 to 80% whites are racist. So as a majority, I rule. I don't lie. Idiots like Blue dress and John Ryan are pitiful lonely little pricks. Seeking friendship from the enemy because their own kind wants nothing to do with them. That's why I consider them more the enemy than the terrorists. At lest the terrorist don't aid the enemy.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:44 PM (a7z59)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna has taken a female Iraqi translator hostage. In an announcement released on the internet, the group claimed that it had captured Mayada Salihi, a woman working as a translator for U.S. forces.

Rest of the story and comments here.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Catch it before it gets pulled. Jesse MacBeth, noted traitor, seditionist, and all around loser has a MySpace page.

Here's the only blog entry.

The comments are a laugh riot.

stein hoists: Beth and Allah.

Background on MacBeth, if you haven't heard of him yet.

Posted by: Vinnie at 04:18 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

My buddy Cookie tells this tale of when life on a submarine goes horribly wrong. Don't read it during the dinner hour.

Posted by: Bluto at 03:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna has taken a female Iraqi translator hostage. In an announcement released on the internet, the group claimed that it had captured Mayada Salihi, a woman working as a translator for U.S. forces.

In the statement, the group claimed that Salihi was an "apostate" and among their most wanted targets. The Islamist group also claims that they had shot and wounded Ms. Salahi last year, but that she had escaped.

The group also posted several images to confirm that Mayada Salihi had been captured. Among them are several identification badges, including one for the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Two others identify Salihi as an employee of the Iraqi Ministry of Defense.

A series of other photos appear to show a woman posing with various Iraqi and U.S. forces, but her face is is blurred. The woman does appear to be Salahi.

The Army of Ansar al-Sunna is an active terrorist organization in Iraq. The group routinely murders hostages that it deems "apostates". Under Islamic law, the maximum penalty for apostasy is death. Thus, the Islamist groups justifies its murders as the carrying out of the death penalty under the guise of Islamic law.

The statement released by the group claims that two of its members were shopping in Baghdad when they spotted Salihi. They claim that Salihi was some sort of counter-intelligence officer that was hunting them down. Salihi initially fled the two "mujahidin" when they attacked her. They later found her in her car and kidnapped her, even though some Iraqi policemen saw what was happening and tried to stop them.

The group promised to upload a video to the internet in the near future. Unfortunately, this group has distributed dozens of videos of the murder and beheading of hostages in the past.

Mayada Salihi was featured in an article by Knight-Ridder in May of 2003. The author, S. Thorne Harper, describes Mayada Salihi as an outspoken advocate of women's rights in Iraq.:

She's definitely got the attitude – passionate and outspoken. In a country steeped in patriarchy, with little history of free speech, that's never been a problem for the 31-year-old, married mother of two.

"It is difficult here for some women," said Salihi, who prefers make-up, blouses and slacks to conservative Arab fashion. "For me, it's easy. I can say whatever I want."

Salihi worked at a private school teaching English before the war until a U.S. bombe killed one of her neighbors:

Later, still seething, she approached the first U.S. soldier she saw and asked him a tough question.

"I said to him: `I need to know when you are leaving our country,' " she said, sipping on a Pepsi.

The soldier had no answer. Calming her anger, Salihi realized she had to use her English skills to work with the Americans.

She works long hours as a U.S. military translator. Her husband works as a driver and guide for journalists.

Four days ago, she discovered four unexploded U.S. cluster bombs in her front yard. She said Iraqis who believe she is working with the U.S. government to arrest members of the former regime placed them there.

"I can't even let my children outside to play anymore," she said. "My house is like a prison."

More from Salihi:

She finds a paradox in postwar Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, she said, there was no freedom of speech but there was adequate security. Under U.S. rule, Iraqis are free to express themselves but no one feels safe.

Salihi warned that Iraqis are beginning to consider this paradox. Unless the U.S. turns things around quickly, she said they might start longing for the old ways.

"There is an old Arab saying, `If you want to know the value of something – like a leader, try the value of another one for a while," she said.

We pray that U.S. forces will swiftly find the terrorists who have captured Mayada Salihi and free her before it is too late. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:32 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

The Religion of Peace reports that an important milestone has been reached in umma history: 5,000 terror attacks have now been carried out by jihadis since 9/11.

But I'm sure it's just a few misunderstanderers of the otherwise peaceful and tolerant religion.

Of course, The Religion of Peace keeps its tallies by monitoring English language news sources only. Therefore, the 5,000 figure is probably well below the actual number of terror attacks in the name of Allah and his ever-so-peaceful religion.

Hat tip to Clarity & Resolve who have more, but who incorrectly cite the 5,000 number as the number of deaths. No, it's 5,000 attacks.

This week alone there have been 267 people killed by Islamists who just don't get Muhammed's peaceful example. Last month 826 people were murdered in the name of Allah. That's over 1,000 people killed in the last 6 weeks alone.

Below: Relatives of a victim of the 5,000th terror attack by the Religion of Peace wait to see if their loved one will survive his confrontation with the inner struggle of jihad. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:22 PM | Comments (75) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And the Middle East was such a calm piece of real estate before we were attacked... Occupying a couple of their countries tends to make the Islamists a little cranky. Who knew?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 12:53 PM (7AEHv)

2 Theo, Since the vast majority of these attacks are not related to Iraq in any way, your point is silly. For instance, the photo in the post is from a recent attack in Kashmir.

Posted by: Rusty at May 24, 2006 01:03 PM (JQjhA)

3 Somehow I think if the followers of Jesus get to 2500 or so terrorists attacks during the same period, Theo comes up with something critical to say.

Posted by: Brad at May 24, 2006 01:17 PM (3OPZt)

4 Show me how the vast majority of these attacks are not related to Iraq in any way.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 01:23 PM (FCC6c)

5 I have a few interesting things I have noticed and put together that I want to share. Iran's leader believes he will be the one to facilitate the arrival of the 12th Imam. The Muslim dress code law which is set to be approved by the Supreme Ayatohlah is in preparation for this event. He wants the change over to be complete in 5 years, or just before he believes the 12th Imam will reveal himself to the world and herald in the New world wide caliphate. Add 5 years to 2006 and you come up with the year 2011. So by 2011 he wants to be ready for this event. Now let us travel to the other side of the world and have a look at the Mayan Calendar. When the Mayan calendar was deciphered, they saw that it did not extend beyond the year 2012. The Mayan calendar ends in the year 2012. Thus the Mayans predict the world to end in 2012. Is it just a strange coincidence? Here are my predictions leading up to 2012: Iran will lob a couple of Nukes at Israel, Israel will retaliate, and Southwest Asia will erupt in war beginning the last crusade. Only this crusade will be fought to preserve the Jewish homeland. Europe will descend into civil war with the exception of Britain as disaffected Muslims begin the fight to establish the Global Caliphate. Britain will be isolated and left exposed to a naval blockade by the Russians. Russia will try to re-take much of the territory lost when the Soviet Union collapsed sending northern Asia and Eastern Europe into war. They will also invade Alaska. North Korea launches an invasion into South Korea, and bombs Japan with it's supply of nukes trying to force a surrender, and to also mitigate American armed forces numbers stationed in Japan. Then they will invade Japan. China will not stand by while this happens, China will invade Taiwan, and Eastern Afghanistan and will also assist Pakistan with their invasion of Kashmir. This will escalate into full out war possibly including a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Mexico will become a socialist country after the next elections. They will then align themselves with Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba to create a South American Bloc. Argentina will invade the Falkland Islands again. Chile, Peru, Columbia, Panama, Nicaragua Costa Rica, Belize Uruguay and Ecuador will capitulate and join the bloc. Brazil will stand alone isolated and threatened. Mexico will begin rattling sabers and demanding the return of lands lost to the US over a century ago. The US will be forced to pull out of Afghanistan, and Iraq, in order to secure our borders against an invasion from the south. Russia and China will pump millions in arms and supplies to the South American bloc of countries to keep the US occupied and out of their business. The South American Bloc will invade Brazil, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and the US and British Virgin Isles. The South American bloc will attempt a blockade of southern US ports. Mexico will invade Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Border towns and cities in Texas will fall before the invasion is stopped. Suitcase nukes smuggled into the US will be set off in many major cities across the US and Britain. Australia will be isolated along with India, Brazil, The Philippines, Canada, and South Africa. Northern Africa will complete it's decent into chaos as the Muslim nations of North Africa begin their conquest of the rest of the continent. Indonesia, Java, New Zealand, The Philippines, and many of the island nations in the South Pacific will begin to fall to the crush of the radical Muslim onslaught. Washington DC will stumble along after President Hillary Clinton sits in the Oval Office wimpering to herself saying, "I thought these guys were our friends?" This she does as she signs a full amnesty to all illegal residents of the US, and gives them all free health care on your dime.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 01:25 PM (7teJ9)

6 Yeah, lovely picture, by the way. And you wonder why Google is leery of you. And I'm sorry, but you've got to live in a special kind of dreamworld to believe that American policy regarding Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan have not inflamed things tremendously. As you write in the initial post, "Dr. Rusty", these estimates by this silly website probably underreport how bad things actually are. So your point was..?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:27 PM (7AEHv)

7 Who would have thought that after being attacked America might get a bit cranky and open up a medium sized can of whupass on a couple on the main supporters of terrorism? They didn't and it was a reasonable assumption as from the outside it appears we are overrun with liberal apologists. They had no idea there were still "Red Blooded Americans" to contend with. No they thought America would fall all over itself with self examination to determine just why we "deserved it". Go ahead try again if you think we are divided and will cower to you. We have two pantrys full of even larger sized cans of whupass we haven't even broken out yet.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 01:30 PM (D3+20)

8 Cmunk: Watch the sky man. It could fall any second. You do have your "helmet" on don't you?

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 01:35 PM (D3+20)

9 Theo, Your reasoning is a classic example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. BEFORE Iraq: Islamic violence AFTER Iraq: Islamic violence Of course our policies might be a contributing factor inflaming the violence, but so what? When has not giving into the demands of fascists ever led to peaceful coexistence? They demand that we submit to their vision or face violence, we refuse, they do violence. Exactly how is that OUR doing?

Posted by: Rusty at May 24, 2006 01:39 PM (JQjhA)

10 Howie, since you've been under a rock for the last three years, let me inform you: We're getting our ass kicked in Iraq. We're getting outplanned and outstrategized, despite having superior firepower. Considering the entire enterprise was a foolish gambit in the first place, this would be the inevitable conclusion. Our "cans of whoopass" have to stay in the pantry regarding Iran and North Korea, don't they? Because we're stretched thin by Iraq.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:43 PM (7AEHv)

11 In the name of Islam, turns into how it is our fault. What a bunch of pussies. I suppose you libturds think Carl Row made the 9-11 ROP individuals yell Allah Akbar right before the planes hit the buildings, and several thousand of your fellow Americans died. Why do you hate yourselves so much, and blame this country for everything wrong in the world? You will be no help to anyone when the time comes for the United States to stand firm on what is right, and correct. I forgot, you Libturds, and/or new agers do not believe in right, and wrong. ROPMA

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 24, 2006 01:46 PM (D2g/j)

12 Rusty: "BEFORE Iraq: Islamic violence AFTER Iraq: Islamic violence" Theo: "And the Middle East was such a calm piece of real estate before we were attacked..." Thanks for backing me up, dude. Appreciate it. Iraq became a terrorist haven AFTER we occupied them, not before. Do the yuksters at the Religion of Peace have stats on how much terrorist attacks increased after the occupation? Nah, that would make us look culpable, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:50 PM (7AEHv)

13 >>>Occupying a couple of their countries tends to make the Islamists a little cranky. Who knew? Who knew that islamic terrorists attacking America tends to make us cranky and want to occupy countries and break stuff. I guess they got what they asked for.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:01 PM (8e/V4)

14 Are we really getting our ass kicked in Iraq? Seems to me the best any of the mujahadeen can produce is a few car bombs and ied's. Iraqi's are getting their collective asses kicked by other Iraqi's. and that is because the politicians stopped us from cleaning out the militias. Some people read way too much NY Times and not enough real news.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:04 PM (7teJ9)

15 "Who knew that islamic terrorists attacking America tends to make us cranky and want to occupy countries and break stuff. I guess they got what they asked for." Which supports my earlier assertion that we are responsible for the increase in attacks since 9/11. Wow, you guys are really making this easy for me! Oh, and Iraq didn't attack us. Sorry.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:06 PM (7AEHv)

16 I suppose Iran is no threat to us either.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:14 PM (7teJ9)

17 "Iraqi's are getting their collective asses kicked by other Iraqi's. and that is because the politicians stopped us from cleaning out the militias. Some people read way too much NY Times and not enough real news." That's laughable. There are what, three combat-ready Iraqi battalions? And if you tell new recruits they're headed into Sunni territory, they'll take their uniforms off on the spot and quit. One of the reasons we have an insurgency is because we broke up the Baathists. I may have read that in the NY Times, I'm not sure. It sure as hell wasn't "NewsMax".

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:15 PM (7AEHv)

18 Here is an alternate scenario to counter Cmunk's Sci-Fi novel: The big one goes streaming through the sky, leaving a trail of smoke. minutes later ... lights out! Chattering stops ... peace is restored.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 02:16 PM (FCC6c)

19 >>Show me how the vast majority of these attacks are not related to Iraq in any way. Not a big fan of logic, are we, Larry? Not to be TOO condescending, but that was a really stupid thing to say. If YOU are defending the claim that these are related to attacks in Iraq, YOU need to show how they ARE related. You can't assign a position to another person and then demand that they refute it from the assumption that it's true.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 24, 2006 02:17 PM (gOPcw)

20 It's this word "responsible" which irritates me. Guy puts a knife to a hostages head and says give me 10k or I will kill the hostage. The cops don't give the 10k. Guy kills hostage. Who is "responsible"? Guy says cops responsible for not giving in to demands, cops say guy is repsonsible. I choose to believe the latter. I agree that there are more terrorists in Iraq now then before, but I do not believe we are "responsible" for it. Further, Iraq did attack us. Almmost daily. Unless you don't think shooting missiles at our airplanes count as "attacks"? Or did you forget that we had been at war with them for over a decade prior to us going in and trying to finish the damn job?

Posted by: Rusty at May 24, 2006 02:20 PM (JQjhA)

21 Wow, Theo. What a complete and utter ignoramus you must be in real life. "We are getting our asses kicked in Iraq?". Ok, this tells me that you have no idea what is really going on in Iraq and exposes you as the person who is truly afraid. Also, so what if we attacked Iraq? Murdering innocents in the name of Allah is ok because we attacked Iraq? If you object to the Iraq war on grounds that it wasn't worth one American soldier's life or one Iraqi civilians life to experiment with democracy in a land that may not be ready for it, I can respect that. I may also agree with that. But to basically give a reprieve to the criminal jihadists who are murdering innocent people in cold blood because of Iraq is non-sensical at best and complete psychosis at worst. It also totaly missing the true intentions of these murdering fascist psychopaths. I just don't understand you people.

Posted by: RFN at May 24, 2006 02:22 PM (85JOu)

22 I don't read newsmax either. I am aquaintences with a Marine Commander in Iraq. That is his position. I am going to call him the expert, since he is the one doing the fighting. I am just doing my part to dispell the ignorance that surronds me and is propagated in the press.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:24 PM (7teJ9)

23 Never mind. I went to your site. You're probably just another left wing Christian hater with a severe case of BDS. How sad for you.

Posted by: RFN at May 24, 2006 02:25 PM (85JOu)

24 >>>Which supports my earlier assertion that we are responsible for the increase in attacks since 9/11. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. When we went to war with Imperial Japan there was also a vast increase in attacks on us since Pearl Harbor. It's called war.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:26 PM (8e/V4)

25 Rusty, if you can rationalize that hard to defend the administration Iraq policy, then there's not much point continuing. Funnt, I didn't hear much from the right about "finshing the job" in Somalia. Even after they did "attack us" when that Black Hawk went Down.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:27 PM (7AEHv)

26 There was as much if not more terror in Iraq before we went in. They weren't called terrorists, they were called Baathists. And if the Shiites want their pound of flesh for what they went through, good for them. Have two pounds for that matter. I believe it is time to redeploy to the Iranian and Syrian borders, and let the Iraqis work the rest of this out on their own.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:30 PM (7teJ9)

27 >>>Oh, and Iraq didn't attack us. Sorry. Why don't you tell that to all the foreign jihadists that have shown up in Iraq to fight us. THEY seem to agree that there's more at stake in Iraq than the Leftards would have us belief. In fact it seems almost everybody seems to know what's at stake (even the jihadists!) except the Leftards. Nope, they're absolutely clueless aparently.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 02:33 PM (8e/V4)

28 "If you object to the Iraq war on grounds that it wasn't worth one American soldier's life or one Iraqi civilians life to experiment with democracy in a land that may not be ready for it, I can respect that. I may also agree with that." That would be a correct assumption. "But to basically give a reprieve to the criminal jihadists who are murdering innocent people in cold blood because of Iraq is non-sensical at best and complete psychosis at worst. That would be a ridiculous assumption, and to make it suggests some psychoses of your own. "You're probably just another left wing Christian hater with a severe case of BDS. How sad for you." Another ridiculous assumption. I was raised Catholic. My mother's VERY Catholic. The rest of my family is involved with some church on some level. Wanna make any more ridiculous assumptions about me, or have I shamed you out of your paranoia?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:36 PM (7AEHv)

29 To hell with Somalia. Clinton went way beyond the UN mandate. That is why we were whacked! Then the sniveling coward crawled back under his desk and cried like a baby and wet his pants. Bush put us there for humanitarian reasons, and Clinton came in and wanted to show the little Somali's what a big bad president he was. Then like JFK he got cold feet and pulled out.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:36 PM (7teJ9)

30 "To hell with Somalia. Clinton went way beyond the UN mandate." Like...George W. Bush did with Iraq? Please, guys - I know it's me against the rest of the site, but have a little consistency in your arguments or I'll ignore you. (Hi, Carlos.)

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:40 PM (7AEHv)

31 Ha! I hit him in the Clinton and he got scared and ran away.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:41 PM (7teJ9)

32 Maybe GW is the Forrest Gump of Presidents. I admit I was glad we finally cracked one upside of Saddams head. He was a major trouble maker and really more of a threat to Israel than to us directly. But he harbored people who were known terrorists for years. While their victims lived without closure, Saddam offered them sanctuary. In my opinion, that alone was enough to justify the invasion. Another thing. I mobilized twice in the nineties because Saddam had a problem remembering the outcome of the first Gulf war. He had to go. Now it is time that we go. To the borders that is and end the interference by the Iranians and the Syrians.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:45 PM (7teJ9)

33 Hey Theo man were winning this war you're just holding it.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 02:46 PM (1A2eZ)

34 BTW Theo, There was no UN mandate in the second Iraq war. That was a resolution. We alone held our end of the resolution. Conquering Iraq and the Hussain regime was our mandate. Not the UN's. And we did a nice job of it. Just wish the press saw more of that. But if you have nothing of value to stand for then you must find something to stand against! Don't you think?

Posted by: Cmunk at May 24, 2006 02:51 PM (7teJ9)

35 Right Cmunk, right! Very humanitarian reasons. Jose has got to have petrol so he can drive to work! And Tampax: I would try to decipher your logic but I did not get my Masters degree and I don't have time to go thumbing through a dictionary. sorry!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 02:52 PM (FCC6c)

36 Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention.

Posted by: RepJ at May 24, 2006 03:35 PM (pTcGU)

37 Theo, it's understandable that you think "we're getting our ass kicked in Iraq", but then, you're a chickenshit libturd coward, and think that fighting = losing because you always get your ass kicked if you don't smile when the bully pushes your wimpy ass around.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 03:54 PM (0yYS2)

38 Wow, no death threat. You're slipping, IM.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 03:56 PM (7AEHv)

39 "...but have a little consistency in your arguments or I'll ignore you." Oh please, oh please, oh please. And this was a real gem: "Iraq became a terrorist haven AFTER we occupied them, not before." So what do we call all Uday's and Qusay's 'friend's'? And another thing Theo, claiming you've won and patting yourself on the back does not mean you've won anything but your own self-aggrandizing, self-appointed esteem. There's another group out there that keeps doing that. It's a radical group in the Mid East. Give me a minute and I'll think of it.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:06 PM (YudAC)

40 Awesome, I just got compared to Hamas. Anyone here capable of rational debate? Anybody?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 04:17 PM (7AEHv)

41 Wow, this war on terror that GWB has created sure has taken off since he performed 9/11. I wonder what he does for an encore?

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 04:20 PM (qnt7H)

42 Theo, are you drunk? Or high? You have lost your ability to reason, my friend, so perhaps a long nap will sober you up. Or perhaps a long walk. Anywhere. But here. See ya.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 24, 2006 04:22 PM (rUyw4)

43 Oh great. Now the 9/11 conspiracy gang is here.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:22 PM (YudAC)

44 Oyster, can you tie your own shoe, or does the prez do it for ya? Think for yourself, question authority!

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 04:23 PM (qnt7H)

45 Odd you should pick Hamas.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:24 PM (YudAC)

46 lol, Chip! What's a shoe?

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:27 PM (YudAC)

47 Cole Sear: I see moonbats. Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no] Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake? [Cole nods] Malcolm Crowe: moonbats like peace protesters? or Hippies? Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They're in Starbucks, or giving lessons on weaving baskets from Hemp, They don't know they're moonbats. Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them? Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

Posted by: davec at May 24, 2006 04:28 PM (CcXvt)

48 A moonbat invasion has infested the Jawa. Are you selling french vanilla mulatte, or is it cappachino, Rusty?

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 24, 2006 04:46 PM (rUyw4)

49 Folks are waking up! "Cover up - did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no); 3) the collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media---had respondents been aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% had known about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated); 4) new investigation of official complicity - do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and 5) mass media - how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively)." http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 04:50 PM (qnt7H)

50 Well, there goes the thread. And I was enjoying it. Can't invoke Godwin's law because no one said "Nazi". There must be a law out there I can invoke when the 9/11 conspiracy theorists highjack a thread.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:58 PM (YudAC)

51 Hijack? I did no such thing. Isn't this thread about the pretend "jihadists"? If it is: I'm exactly where information like this should be.

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 05:06 PM (qnt7H)

52 Theo- Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe that we have soldiers who are armed and trained taking the heat off of the entire world by consuming al queda's strength? Better soldiers fighting terrorists in Iraq than in my back yard. You are irrelevent.

Posted by: jamsler at May 24, 2006 05:15 PM (VqA/E)

53 Welcome back, Rusty.

Posted by: jamsler at May 24, 2006 05:18 PM (VqA/E)

54 5000 Islamic terrorist attacks? Who the hell cares? Do you know how HOT it was yesterday? You people just aren't going to do anything about Global Warming until it kills every last child and spotted owl. We should praise the Islamists for their consideration: they ride on buses and subways before blowing them up instead of driving those polluting automobiles. As for the automobiles, they blow those up to. That sends a strong signal that they oppose Global Warming, the real threat! Seriously, besides Global Warming, I thought that the real threat to the survival of Western civilization was CHRISTIANS opposing Da Vinci Code and trying to get Intelligent Design taught in schools. Those wacky Muslims killing and maiming tens of thousands of people is really just a sideshow, right?

Posted by: Thrill at May 24, 2006 06:11 PM (DYb4r)

55 if this theo fellow is trying to be rational why is he using fallacies in his arguments?

Posted by: jjhays at May 24, 2006 06:40 PM (l9idq)

56 Chip, this is between us and the Libturds, not the wackos. Run along now.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 06:46 PM (8e/V4)

57 Speaking of pollution, this thread reaks of stinky blips by some nut chip. Ya think his mamma nicknamed him that becuase of the bag of chips he's holding?

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 06:50 PM (D3+20)

58 My wife just loves that tea cup named Chip in Beauty and the Beast. But, not the Chip posting here. I bet Chip is a chip off the old block. You're family is very proud of you Chip my boy.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 24, 2006 07:08 PM (D2g/j)

59 836 people killed in the name of Allah. Hmmmm. I wonder how many were Non-muslim.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 07:54 PM (8MCDk)

60 If anyone wants to see a picture of chip, just look up 'gullible' in your ol funkenwagnell...

Posted by: jamsler at May 24, 2006 08:30 PM (VqA/E)

61 I think this thread is a perfect example of devolution. But then, I've had three glasses of wine. So who am I to judge?

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 08:47 PM (YudAC)

62 As Rusty reflects upon his return from London, he ponders the wisdom of touting the Jawa Report while in moonbat country ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 08:48 PM (FCC6c)

63 Hahaha! That was good! I love satire! Let me continue for ya! It's not Bush's fault we have to kill all of those innocent women and children! They can move out of Iraq if they think it's so bad! The 1/16 of Iraq that is working properly is a solid foundation for the other 15 parts to follow! Saddam may not have supported Al Qaeda, but he wanted the same thing that Al Qaeda did! To kill innocent American women and children! How dare they! The plan goes like this: first Al Qaeda decided to take advantage of the intelligence they had gathered about NORAD conducting drills concerning "virtual" commercial airliners and flying them into the WTC's. This information is key to the complex workings of men who live in caves. In fact, all cave men are fully aware of what the US military is doing/planning/thinking in their underground bunkers! Then, with the same "intelligence" source they discovered that FEMA would be setting up drills in NY during the week of 9/11 (common caveman knowledge). They also knew that the WTC security services contract with Marvin Bush was up, and that the main Al Qaeda investigator for the FBI agent had taken over the security services for the WTC's! So, while crippling the US economy there was a bittersweet victory for Al Qaeda in the works as well. Besides, they were afraid that Marvin would be able to stop their grand plan! So, after Al Qaeda unbelievably predicted that their amateur airline pilots could scare 25 to 35 people with plastic knives and box cutters, they thought "this is great, not only do we get to cripple the US economy, but we get to kill the FBI agent that knew about our plans and we get to scare full grown American men with tinker toys so bad that they allow us to crash their airplanes into skyscrapers for fear!" They hadn't planned on flight 93! They had no idea that a jet would be able to blow them out of the sky. They were under the impression that NORAD had scrambled all of the jets 200 miles off the coast of Washington D.C.! So 3 out of 4 is not bad! Thankfully, the Al Qaeda pilots were gifted by Allah and could perform maneuvers with airliners that are completely impossible without 72 virgins on their minds! They were very happy that PNAC had written "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" because it was another piece of evidence implicating the US government. Thankfully, people are unaware of all of this evidence because it would just mean that terrorism was working. That would be bad! The plan continues: They had no clue that GWB was so witty as to tap the phone lines all over America in search of them. They also had no clue that GWB was so smart as to attack Saddam! However, GWB will do whatever he has to do to catch these violent evil doer cavemen. GWB has been so successful at locating these evil doers that Al Qaeda has officially declared 6 men 2nd in command because we keep killing, and capturing them. And now that we have attacked Iraq weÂ’ll stir up all of the evil doers and torture and kill them all one by one until either we all die, or they do! There is no reward without sacrifice! So we must be with GWB no matter what! Who cares that Roosevelt said following your president no matter what is treasonous! Who cares that Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither! Times have changed! WeÂ’re at war for Gods sake. Show some backbone! And donÂ’t get me started about Larry Silverstein the Manchurian Candidate. Yes, Al Qaeda kidnaps and brainwashes people after abducting them with UFOÂ’s! God bless America!

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 09:46 PM (Cv2kV)

64 See you guys, now I'm on your side!

Posted by: Chip at May 24, 2006 09:47 PM (Cv2kV)

65 All one has to do is laugh at my jokes

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 24, 2006 10:15 PM (FCC6c)

66 Well. It looks like I don't have to exhort the mass slaughter of lefturds much anymore, because they seem more than willing now to provide limitless evidence against themselves. The ones who aren't in open collusion with the enemy are stupid enough to think that someone is going to buy their idiotic conspiracy theories, but neither kind can be trusted to live among us; they are dangerous in their stupidity and should be purged from the body of our society.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 25, 2006 04:57 AM (0yYS2)

67 Wingnuts are even too stupid to understand satire. In fact, they understand so little about it that they invited Colbert to speak at their White House Correspondents dinner. Haha! Morons! Serves'em right.

Posted by: Chip at May 25, 2006 06:59 AM (Cv2kV)

68 Another sign that repugs are "retarded", er I'm sorry (That's offensive to the folks of the world that are really retarded) I mean intellectually challenged! http://www.defenddelay.com/site/c.fuIWLhMTJrE/b.1084881/k.BE08/Home.htm

Posted by: Chip at May 25, 2006 08:42 AM (Cv2kV)

69 If that wasn't the stupidest move this president has made, having a comedian mock him at the White House Correspondents dinner. The guy did Bush better than Bush! I got a kick out of it, however it did nothing to instill confidence and just gave me all the more reason to view this president as a pathetic clown! A cowboy .. or how about a cowboy clown!? I think they have those at rodeos and parades.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 25, 2006 08:43 AM (FCC6c)

70 >>>If that wasn't the stupidest move this president has made, having a comedian mock him at the White House Correspondents dinner. Yeah, that was "his" move. Bushitler planned it, ordered it, enabled it, funded it, scripted it, etc. etc. Major faux pas by Bushitler. You see, the sun doesn't rise or set without the neocons say so. It's a conspiracy I tells ya! Libtards can't tell the difference between a roast vs malicious mocking? Blame bushitler and the neocons!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 25, 2006 09:23 AM (8e/V4)

71 LOL...Theo, I have no paranoia. Why don't you say what is on your mind? Your original line about "getting our asses kicked in Iraq" exposed your ignorance big time. And people that hate can most definitely hate themselves. The fact that you were raised a Christian or that your mom was a Christian is completely irrelevant. The only assumption I make about you is that you're most likely a self hating guilt ridden little man, who is afraid of his own shadow and of making the jihadists angry. So you agree that the war was a mistake for the reasons that I mentioned. Well, then that is it. Your other slathering dribble is peripheral (and WRONG) to that point. Once again, the "getting our asses kicked" is a complete lie and shows that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. From now on, my advice to you, is to just stop after you say, "this war is wrong because it was not worth one American soldier's life for an experiment in democracy building". That's it. No more.

Posted by: RFN at May 25, 2006 09:49 AM (85JOu)

72 CMUNK: And the US (by far the most advanced in the world) will sit still and not do anything while all this is going on.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:27 PM (pzM6K)

73 CMUCK: What is a Marine Commander? You two must be real close.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:31 PM (pzM6K)

74 So Chip, you equate inviting discourse from an opposing view as stupid? Isn't that what free speech is all about? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you lefturds are always claiming about the "Neocon" agenda to stifle dissent? You're not just an idiot, you're intellectually dishonest too. It will be fun watching guys like you shit yourselves as you kick and squirm while doing the dance of the hemp necktie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 26, 2006 06:06 AM (0yYS2)

75 Hookah!? ... Anyone!?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 26, 2006 08:55 AM (FCC6c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UPDATE: Slashdot picked up the story so I bumped this to the top. The crux of this post is that The Jawa Report is currently a Google News source after initially being dropped for alleged hate speech. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:11 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

1 >>>Also, to be fair to Google, after an appeal from readers The Jawa Report was reinstated as a Google News source. Then I may have to reconsider my own Google policy and lift my boycott of them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:18 AM (8e/V4)

2 That should really make a difference!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (FCC6c)

3 Yeah, seems like at least one person over at Google has a heart.

Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 09:44 AM (JQjhA)

4 Let's assume for a moment that the cries of "liberal bias" at Google are true. Google would be within its rights to limit its content in the same way that say, a private golf club would be allowed to decide who can be a member or not. That's the problem with the whole "liberal bias" argument - it assumes that businesses cares more about their politics than the bottom line. They don't. Rupert Murdoch manages to run a conglomerate that runs a right-wing pro-family news network (which actually IS biased, because it purports to "correct" the assumption of liberal bias), yet gives Paris Hilton a TV show and runs "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" It's not about the red states or the blue states, it's about the green.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 09:50 AM (7AEHv)

5 >>>That's the problem with the whole "liberal bias" argument - it assumes that businesses cares more about their politics than the bottom line. They don't. Hollywood proves you wrong just about every day.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 10:05 AM (8e/V4)

6 Theo, Of course, you are correct, but at the level of deciding which sites are "news" and which sites are not "news" there is a great deal of discretion. Also, one man's 'hate speech' is another man's comedy. Thus, who makes the decision is very important. The people making such decisions are usually not those high on the ladder--those interested in the bottom line. While McDonald's may be about profit, it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that every decision made by the guy who takes your order is about what is in the best interests of the company. This is why Chomsky and Hermann's media bias model is so flawed--because it doesn't take into account many things, including the fact that those charged with implementation and the owners of a company may have different interests and conflicting visions.

Posted by: Rusty at May 23, 2006 10:10 AM (JQjhA)

7 "Hollywood proves you wrong just about every day." No, it doesn't. "The Da Vinci Code" did monstrous business this weekend, while offending a few kooks on the fringe. Hollywood can't cater to every taste, but they pretty much give us exactly what we want (as a whole), or they'd be out of business, too. (All of a sudden, capitalism doesn't apply to the entertainment business?) Occasionally the fringes will squeak through a "Fahrenheit 9/11" or "Passion of the Christ", but that's the exception, not the rule. To paint with the broadest brush, America is liberal socially and conservative economically. You may disagree with that personally, but it's true of the majority.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 10:22 AM (7AEHv)

8 Media appears to be as good as a free market model as any other. Maybe it wasn't when we had only 2 or 3 channels of TV to watch, but Americans have plenty of choices now. Caveat emptor !

Posted by: john Ryan at May 23, 2006 10:30 AM (FBW1e)

9 Google blows: "Search engine giant Google has cut off its news relationship with a number of online news publications that include frank discussions of radical Islam – the New Media Journal becoming the latest termination, as its owner just discovered." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-frie

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:40 AM (8e/V4)

10 >>>America is liberal socially No, LIBERALS are liberal socially, while America is socially conservative. It's why you have to resort to the courts 24/7, and it's why there will never be "gay marriage" unless the Liberal judges force it down our throats. Left to the legislatures it would never pass. The fact is even Liberals have to pretend to be conservatives to get elected in this country (see Hilary), and if Hollywood wasn't injecting their Lib politics into everything they make they'd be making twice as much money.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

11 So, Carlos...your "logic" is that gay marriage is being "pushed down your throat" (pun intended?)? I'd say that you denying people rights that other people enjoy is "pushing your agenda" at us. And please don't tell me what would and wouldn't pass in a Democratic administration. Republicans rode social issues all the way into the White House and Congress, and what have they done about any of them? Not a goddamn thing. Even that Focus on the Family kook Dobson agrees with me on that one.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 01:53 PM (7AEHv)

12 Theo: I offer the following as evidence that the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender agenda is being pushed down our throats: in California, working its way through the legislature is a bill which will require text books for kids to include information about the acceptablility of the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender life style. It has passed the Assembly with all of the California Democrats voting in favor. The content for text books in California sets the content for text books nationwide with few exceptions because the California market is so big and the competition among the publishers is minimal. So this will be an important victory for the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender lobby. What a stupid waste of time and money! Based on the recent exit exam currently in the news, 10% of California high school graduates can't pass an 8th grade Algebra test. More evidence: The Gay/Lesbian/Transgender Lobby has demonized the Boy Scouts and is legally challenging them in many instances. Their selfish demonization jeopardizes the Scout's future availability for boys. THis is not a great time to be a boy apparently - there is pervasive gang influence, boys bring guns to school, many have no father. Boy Scouts is a tremendous positive socializing force for boys but the Gay/Lesbian/transgender lobby does not care. Their agenda always comes first. I personally don't care if someone is Gay/Lesbian/ or Transgender. I do care that special interests of the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender community is being pushed down my throat through nonstop political advocacy, specifically targeting kids.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 03:37 PM (aH6Zf)

13 I love it when foreigners come to this country. Become successful because of our ways and then tell us to change. Screw the candy asses at Google.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 04:42 PM (BEvWK)

14 Here's an idea Carlos: The reason it is, is because the state is legally unable to show any sort of discrimination towards anyone who has not actively committed a crime. Here's a good solution: get government out of schools, and you can concentrate on teaching instead of making sure no one feels discriminated against.

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 04:58 PM (B9sDR)

15 MIB: Amen.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 23, 2006 06:00 PM (BEvWK)

16 Theo, my only point is that this country is NOT socially Liberal-- it's CONSERVATIVE-- and I think my gay marriage example more than proves it. Now you kids can argue amongst yourselves about "gay marriage" if you like.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 10:08 AM (8e/V4)

17 The point was made that we are a socially liberal country but I haven't seen any facts to back that up. It may be liberal where you live but "the country" goes beyond the borders of your hometown. That's the problem with Hollywood and the MSM - they seem to be sheltered from what goes on beyond their circle of friends and can't understand why anyone would vote Republican. Against gay marriage: not liberal anti-ACLU: not liberal If put to a vote, at best abortion gets 50%: equal war on terror: not liberal controlling the borders: not liberal stop illegal immigration: not liberal lowering taxes: not liberal These are just the hot-button issues I could think of off the top of my head and all but one are overwhelmingly issues that conservatives have majority support on. So, I don't see where the 'socially liberal' label comes from. There is a reason why Republicans have been elected president so often. The one recent anomolie was Bill Clinton being elected which never would have happened without Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote. And Carter? Well, we see what happens when someone that far to the left gets elected. Anyone who was actually alive when he was president would never want to see that happen to the country again. A truly conservative Democrat could be elected but the extreme left will never allow that to happen. It's not good for politics when the extreme wing takes over your party. A socially liberal country? Not as clear-cut as you may think.

Posted by: slug at May 24, 2006 11:52 AM (wcNc2)

18 I didn't say ALL if America is liberal, you twits - I said "to paint with the broadest brush". Any national poll will tell you that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, for universal health care, stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, against the Iraq war, on and on. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948 To answer Heroic Dreamer : 1. Californians are more tolerant than the rest of the country, and they want tolerance taught in their schools. It's a state issue - if Californians want it, it'll pass. Can I remind you that Californians were way ahead of the curve on fuel efficiency standards? Or to put it another way, Californians are "funding the terrorists" at a lesser rate than any other state. 2. The Boy Scouts are absolutely discriminatory against gays. You admit as much yourself. The Boy Scouts enjoy benefits from the government, are an official adjunct of the government, and are therefore subject to its laws. I'd like to note that the Girl Scouts have no such policy regarding lesbians. Besides, the gay thing is merely a wedge issue designed to get ignorant people to the polls, and it appears to work. Ever wonder what America would be like today if we held the rights of blacks up to state referendums? The day is coming where it'll be a federal issue - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon. Until then, Mary Cheney and the heathens who raised her will have to wait.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:18 PM (7AEHv)

19 Theo: You referred to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" as 'the fringes squeaking through'. I believe that shows your bias. IMBDB shows that it was quite successful. The topic itself is something that many Americans hold quite dear. Concerning the 'Jesusland' voters, look back at gay marriage and how it fared in 2004. Gay marriage referendums were voted down 11 or 12 states, including Oregon. I don't know if Oregon was the only state voting for Kerry that mixed gay marriage. Here in Massachusetts, gay marriage was forced upon the commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial Court pulled it out of thin air on a tie vote. The chief justice gets two votes in a tie, so it became law. The Massachusetts legislature utterly refuses to put it to a vote because the outcome is not clear. Matters like sweeping social change are far too important to be jepordized by constitutional process.

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:26 PM (UxguT)

20 "Matters like sweeping social change are far too important to be jepordized by constitutional process." Uh, then why are the Republicans trying in vain for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage? Gotcha. Hey, if LBJ hadn't signed the Civil Rights Act, the red states would still be blue. But no, it was a matter of principal, of fairness, and marriage equality will be federal law one day. After which, our children will ask us why we were such douchebags. And like our parents and grandparents regarding blacks, we'll feebly answer, "That's just the way things were then..."

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:36 PM (7AEHv)

21 "...why are the Republicans trying in vain for a constitutional amendment..." That shows the difference between the left and the right. In Massachusetts, the Democrats will not put gay marriage to a binding referendum vote. They don't trust the hoi-polloi, with good reason, to pass gay marriage. The Republicans are willing to put it to a vote. Yes, LBJ signed the Civil Rights act after congress voted on it, not 6 judges. Congress then had to stand for re-election. If you think the Civil Rights act was good, remember to thank the Republican party ;]

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:50 PM (UxguT)

22 Earlier I asked: "Ever wonder what America would be like today if we held the rights of blacks up to state referendums?" An answer, please?

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 01:53 PM (7AEHv)

23 No, I haven't wondered, but I'll give it some thought today.

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 01:59 PM (UxguT)

24 How soon they forget the souther Democrats were the racists

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 02:03 PM (D3+20)

25 Thanks, fluffy. That's all I ask. And Howie, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, all those "Democrats" became Republicans, didn't they? There's a reason red states and old slave states correspond, and it ain't because of fiscal policy.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:09 PM (7AEHv)

26 I only know of one and I think later in life he regretted a lot of stuff he did. LBJ caught hell for signing it too. But he did anyway Becuase LJB was a Real Man Democrat like they used to make. Not a semi communist moonbat.

Posted by: Howie at May 24, 2006 02:14 PM (D3+20)

27 Hey, prompted by a poster on a well known blog, I was wondering what America would be like today had the civil rights of black citizens been left to state referendums. I think that the majority of states would have passed these referendums and that a lot of blacks would have moved from states voting against. It's an interesting question with a wide scope. It could probably be the subject of a very thick book.

Posted by: fluffy the spamhound! at May 24, 2006 02:16 PM (UxguT)

28 "LJB was a Real Man Democrat like they used to make. Not a semi communist moonbat." Awesome McCarthy imitation. I'm sure he called Gen. Eisenhower something similar. Eisenhower, that communist hippie!

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 02:18 PM (7AEHv)

29 Hey Theo: You seem to be mixing apples and oranges when you mix the gays rights issues up with the Civil Rights movement, holding blacks up to referendums etc. Maybe you don't realize this but being Gay/Lesbian/Transgender is not a race issue. It's sexual. Sexual. Being gay means you like to have sex with people of your own gender. It is not a race issue. It is not in any way a Civil Rights issue. It's about sexual preference. Regarding your puzzlement over why the Girl Scouts don't have a lesbian issue. Girls are very different from boys. Have you no common sense? or do you just have no regard for the well-being of young men? Sexual issues have no place in Boy Scouts.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 24, 2006 03:31 PM (aH6Zf)

30 So blacks have the same rights now, but they forfeit them again if they fall in love with someone of their own gender? I agree sexual issues have no place in the Boy Scouts, but the Boy Scouts are making it one, aren't they? You also cannot profess to be an atheist and join the Boy Scouts. Since the Boy Scouts are a public, government-funded arm of the government (not a private club), how is that legal? Being an American and being a Christian don't always line up, I'm sorry. But that's the way the founders, in their wisdom, designed it. Suck it up.

Posted by: Theo at May 24, 2006 04:05 PM (7AEHv)

31 Theo,you say: "Being an American and being a Christian don't always line up, I'm sorry. But that's the way the founders, in their wisdom, designed it." I say: What is your point? You also say: "So blacks have the same rights now, but they forfeit them again if they fall in love with someone of their own gender? I say: Huh? You really like to mix up your issues. Sorry, but this is a waste of time.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 24, 2006 04:39 PM (aH6Zf)

32 Theo, The Boy Scouts have been consistent about sexual issues from the start. They said no girls - thus no sex. Of course Sir Badden-Powell likely didn't think it was necessary to say "and no buggery, too, lads". The problem IS a liberal issue, as that is the force that started the "if it feels good, do it" way of life. The Boy Scouts want to have no sexual content, period. Gender doesn't matter, but NOW they have to explicitly state WHAT kind of sexual content is unwelcome, and no longer rely on a prevailing social standard as a point of reference. BTW, the Boy Scouts have never had any government affiliation. AND they were started in England first, only later came to US. You are just too sloppy with your facts & history. Your implied statement that the founders did not want Christianity to have any place in America is blatantly false. But of course, you are a product of California's educational system, aren't you? You never learned the truth, and were too ??uninspired?? to do some personal research. Go Pound Sand.

Posted by: Chris at May 24, 2006 04:40 PM (o+3dL)

33 Theo, The Boy Scouts have been consistent about sexual issues from the start. They said no girls - thus no sex. Of course Sir Badden-Powell likely didn't think it was necessary to say "and no buggery, too, lads". The problem IS a liberal issue, as that is the force that started the "if it feels good, do it" way of life. The Boy Scouts want to have no sexual content, period. Gender doesn't matter, but NOW they have to explicitly state WHAT kind of sexual content is unwelcome, and no longer rely on a prevailing social standard as a point of reference. BTW, the Boy Scouts have never had any government affiliation. AND they were started in England first, only later came to US. You are just too sloppy with your facts & history. Your implied statement that the founders did not want Christianity to have any place in America is blatantly false. But of course, you are a product of California's educational system, aren't you? You never learned the truth, and were too ??uninspired?? to do some personal research. Go Pound Sand.

Posted by: Chris at May 24, 2006 04:40 PM (o+3dL)

34 And Howie, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, all those "Democrats" became Republicans, didn't they? No. Since the Boy Scouts are a public, government-funded arm of the government (not a private club), how is that legal? Um, no, it's not. It's privately-funded. The hook the loons have on it is that it often makes use of public facilities, like many other private clubs.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at May 24, 2006 04:58 PM (Gn9tM)

35 Any of you guys work for a living? Just an observation but look at the times of postings today. Government workers??

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:02 PM (8MCDk)

36 Government worker?????? ha, ha. I mean government employee.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 24, 2006 08:07 PM (8MCDk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Another day, another bin Laden sighting.

Question: If the Pakistanis know where bin Laden is, then why the hell haven't they nabbed him?

Answer: Because they don't know where bin Laden is you mindless twits! Bin Laden is a greater threat to the Musharraf regime than he is to the U.S. If they Pakis knew where he was, they'd ice him in a heartbeat.

And another thing, if ABC News is so convinced on the reliability of their Pakistani sources, then why are they running this story on one of their blogs and not on the front page?

My money is still on the Horn of Africa. Start with Mogadishu, and start working outward in concentric circles from there.

UPDATE: Bill Roggio notices that whoever wrote the ABC bin Laden specuation can't read a friggin map. And Chad looks into the source of the claim and finds it, shall we say, lacking in credibility.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:37 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Bashar Sabawi al-Tikriti, the nephew of Saddam Hussein, has been arrested in Lebanon. Although Lebanese authorities have not commented on the exact nature of the charges against him, it is likely that Bashar Sabawi was arrested for helping to fund terrorism in Iraq.

In 2005 the U.S. State Department blocked the assets of Bashar Sabawi al-Tikriti and 5 other nephews of Saddam Hussein on suspicion of funding terrorism in Iraq.

Al Jazeera:

The prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, announced on Wednesday that Bashar Sabawi Ibrahim Hassan al-Tikriti was arrested with the assistance of Lebanese police.

However, the announcement did not say when exactly al-Tikriti was arrested or what for.

"Bashar Sabawi al-Tikriti is an important element on the most-wanted list due to his ugly crimes against the Iraqi people after the fall of the former regime," the announcement said.

Bashar Sabawi's father, Sabaawi Ibrahim al-Hussein, was arrested last year on similar charges and testified in Saddam Hussein's trial earlier this week. Bashar's brother Ayman was arrested one year ago during an operation in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism (1945) : In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by [the U.S.] must be in the wrong.

Kos, on news that two Americans had been murdered in Fallujah: Screw them!

Kos supporters on their upcoming annual hate America meeting: The 9/11 Conspiracy: A skeptics view

Posted by: Rusty at 09:32 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Police in Britain have arrested 7 men with connections to terrorist activities in Iraq. The stories coming out of Britain seem to suggest that the men arrested are probably terrorist supporters, rather than those actually involved in acts of violence.

Britain is home to dozens of websites run by Muslim immigrants that support terrorist activities in Iraq (example). Of course, they deny supporting terrorism, but only do so on definitional grounds: i.e., that Islamists in Iraq who routinely take hostages, bomb civilians, and behead people with ties to the elected government of Iraq are really "freedom fighters" and not terrorists at all.

I have personally tracked, literally, hundreds of jihadi supporters and located their countries of origin. The vast majority of Islamists living in Western countries, that I have located, come from Britain.

Reuters:

Police said they arrested seven people in Manchester, one in the area around Liverpool and one in London in early morning raids on 18 addresses. Around 500 officers took part in the operation, which also focused on the West Midlands and the northeastern city of Middlesbrough.

Two of the nine arrested were later released without charge in what police described as a fluid situation.

"This is a major anti-terrorist operation," chief constable Michael Todd of Greater Manchester police told reporters.

"Searching addresses under the terrorism act can often take two, three or more days ... it will take some time to resolve."

Sources told Reuters the operation was designed primarily to crack down on terrorist activities in Iraq, although police officers said they could not confirm this.

One local man, an ethnic Pakistani Muslim, ridiculed the idea that terrorists might be living in the area. "What terrorists?" he said. "This is just a drama they have done to annoy the Muslims. They can't be Muslims and be terrorists."

The Guardian adds that the suspects were all from Libya:

All the people arrested are believed to be of Libyan nationality....

Greater Manchester Police's anti-terrorism unit, which led this morning's raids, said the operation was targeted at individuals suspected of "facilitating terrorism abroad".

There was no suggestion that any were suspected of planning an attack in the UK.

Chief constable Michael Todd said the long-running investigation, led by his force and MI5, was into alleged terrorist activity overseas, including the funding of terrorism.

Mr Todd said there was no threat of an attack on this country. Instead, the operation is believed to be focused on terrorist activity in Iraq.

My gut feeling? Ms. Ali would do well to stay out of that particular neighborhood.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.

Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, denounces Islamic extremism. He warns of the objectives of the "extremists" and of the consequences to all people including Muslims and the West if their vision is allowed to be realized.

Washington Post : All of humanity, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is threatened by the forces of Islamist extremism. It is these extremists, masquerading as traditional Muslims, who angrily call for the death of Abdul Rahman or the beheading of Danish cartoonists. Their objective is raw political power and the eventual radicalization of all 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. Western involvement in this "struggle for the soul of Islam" is a matter of self-preservation for the West and is critical given the violent tactics and strength of radical elements in Muslim societies worldwide.

People of goodwill of every faith and nation must unite to ensure the triumph of religious freedom and of the "right" understanding of Islam, to avert global catastrophe and spare millions of others the fate of Sudan's great religious and political leader, Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, who was executed on a false charge of apostasy. The millions of victims of "jihadist" violence in Sudan -- whose numbers continue to rise every day -- would have been spared if Taha's vision of Islam had triumphed instead of that of the extremistsÂ…

Â…The greatest challenge facing the contemporary Muslim world is to bring our limited, human understanding of Islamic law into harmony with its divine spirit -- in order to reflect God's mercy and compassion, and to bring the blessings of peace, justice and tolerance to a suffering world.

Others : Willisms and Publispundit.

Posted by: Howie at 08:49 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

From the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

Why would an organization purportedly dedicated to protecting civil liberties seek to deny freedom of speech and expression to its own members? The money:

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Why then does the ACLU not recognize the need for the US government to do similar things in order to preserve the lives of American citizens? Is it because the ACLU is more about maintaining the flow of dollars into its members' pockets than it is about any real concern for individual liberties?

For those who came in late, the US Constitution was doing a magnificent job of protecting individual liberty long before the lawyers of the ACLU came on the scene.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 08:42 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Weber grills has been sponsoring a contest amongst the Marines for the best steak grilling Marine in the nation. The top 100 recipes will be in a new cook book on sale for 10 bucks each. The winners will be grilling this week in NYC. Hear that Filthy? Now get down there and get you a steak and few new recipes.

Command of The Gril dot com: In 2005, active duty and reserve Marines at 10 military installations around the country took up their tongs in the ultimate battle of the barbecue. They marinated, seared, and sauced in an all-out battle for top grilling honors. This book showcases the winning recipes from the competition, along with steak recipes from famous former Marines like Lee Trevino and Ed McMahon.

All proceeds from the sale of the book go to charities that support wounded or killed U.S. Marines and their families.

Hat Tip : WTVW more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:12 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

(Kinshasa, Congo) In the run up to the July 30 national elections, the Democratic Republic of Congo has arrested 32 foreigners, including 10 Nigerians, three Americans and 12 South Africans, in a suspected coup plot. No names have been disclosed.

From Reuters.co.uk:

"About 30 people claiming to work for a security company have been arrested. They say they were working for the company but our information suggests they had other intentions," government spokesman Henri Mova Sakanyi told Reuters.

"They wanted to destabilise the institutions of the country, that means a coup attempt."

Sakanyi said the group had been arrested a few days ago but did not give any details other than that they worked for security firm.

From another source, ANDNetwork.com:

According to the South African diplomatic mission in the DRC, 19 of the 32 mercenary suspects arrested in the Democratic Republic of Congo hold South African passports. Sixteen of the suspects work for the Omega Security Company, while three work for a mining company as interpreters.

From WaPo:

The United Nations said it could not confirm Congo's allegations.

"We are not concerned about this, it appears to be a case of political manipulation by Congo's government," said Jean-Tobias Okala, U.N. spokesman in Kinshasa. "We have almost 18,000 troops here to achieve our goal of peaceful and transparent elections."

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.