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

May 31, 2005

Al Qaeda Lawyer: "My client was set up."

He must have been set up. There is no way in the world that a Muslim, a doctor, a family man, or a jazz musician could ever be a terrorist sympathizer.

Newsweek:

A lawyer for a jazz bassist from the Bronx who was charged in a terror case today claimed his client and a co-defendant arrested in Florida had been ensnared in a trap set by government investigators.
"It's a sting operation," Anthony Ricco, a lawyer for Tarik Shah, 42, told reporters after Shah appeared before a federal magistrate in Manhattan and was ordered held without bail.

Wow, this guy better get a new lawyer fast-like. Yes, Anthony, this was a sting operation. I think the word your looking for was entrapment. A sting operation is when the good guys set up the bad guys so that they're caught doing something bad. Entrapment is when the good guys put another good guy into the position that they have no choice but to do something bad. The former is a legitimate police tactic, the latter is not. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:43 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

1 See???....this is a supposed "Muslim-American" who should be loyal to the country that adopted him to give him more freedoms than he ever enjoyed in the country of his birth and here he is wanting to destroy thre USA and as many of its citizens as he can and yet these idiot apologists actually want us to be respectfull ot their Muslim sensitivities....pleaseeeeeeeee...he sure as heck wasnt planning to be respectfull of mine or any other person in the US....he wasnt planning a pary thats for sure, with ballons and clowns and presents for us all....he wanted to MURDER American citizens and the FBI has the proof on that tape and yet somehow, idiot lawyers and fellow Muslims will say he is innocent and that Muslims are being persecuted...same old sick song they all sing and im tired of it...were are the so called moderate Muslims to back up the US goverment on this one and to say that this Muslim is wrong in what he is doing???....silence is all i hear from Muslims in this country....i dont even feel that they should even be considered American till they can prove themselves loyal to the US and productive and trusted American citizens...this is alot of bullshit....myself, my family ,and millions of other real American citizens have to worry about wacked out Muslims in the US trying to build guns,bombs and terrorist cells right in our own backyards now???...when does it stop???...when will President Bush and his people wake the hell up and do the number one job they have which is to keep the USA and its citizens safe???...i want and demand an answer and so do us ALL....enuff is enuff already

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 31, 2005 05:20 PM (b7uP2)

2 If they were white and did this in Arkansas, they would be a militia! because they're Muslims in an Urban area they're labeled as terrorists? I am not sure how much of a stretch this is? I do not see anything in there about conspiracy to kill or terrorize citizens? Sounds like a task for the thought police.

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 05:21 PM (/r9Xb)

3 How is conspiracy to aid al Qaeda terrorists not a crime?

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 31, 2005 05:22 PM (JQjhA)

4 Sir, I see the words "alleged" in front of the "pledged their allegiance to Al-Qaida" unlike the solid evidence of the Video, and undercover FBI agents testimony this sounds like conjecture, possibly from a different (perhaps paid informant) source ? I did not see any mention by the FBI/State that they were engaged in a plot to terrorize or kill which would change that status, no?

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 05:35 PM (/r9Xb)

5 uhhh, dave???....you gotta be kidding me,wtf do you mean that he wasnt gonna terrorize anyone???...he was looking to build bombs and guns for his fellow Muslims terrorists in an empty unused warehouse...wtf do you think he was gonna do with those guns and bombs???....are you another friggin blind as sin Muslim terrorist apologist???....you gotta be cause only someone such as that would say something so friggin STUPID as youre comment....and if memory serves me correct, Timothy McVeigh was considered a terrorist, just a homegrown one is all....the militia is nothing but a bunch of knuckleheads running around in the woods pretending to be soldiers....once they cross that line, like McVeigh did, and actually commit mass murder and say that they want to bring down the US government, they become terrorists....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 31, 2005 05:36 PM (b7uP2)

6 Well Thanos, I have to say you appear to come to a conclusion before proving the equation, in your statement : "build bombs and guns for his fellow Muslim TERRORISTS", as I said what makes these people different from a militia that claims to be preparing for the downfall of society? you also made the distinction between "running around the woods pretending to be soldier" and then saying they wish to "bring down the government" that is my only point, I am not a Muslim apologist -- my point is other than the fact they are men of middle eastern decent and are Muslims what makes this different? because of a statement of dubious veracity that they pledged allegiance to Al-Quada. Where is the distinction that they have crossed the line from gun nuts, to Terrorists?

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 05:56 PM (/r9Xb)

7 Hmmmmmm?

Posted by: sparky at May 31, 2005 06:09 PM (F1nba)

8 Dave In your opinion what qualifies as a terrorist?

Posted by: sparky at May 31, 2005 06:27 PM (F1nba)

9 Sir, While I see your summary of "more likely than not" that is not the standard on which they will be prosecuted, which is a much higher standard. Your statement relies on the fact that "someone" alleged that the group pledged their allegement to Al-Qaeda - that neither appears to be made on Video tape, nor does it seem to be a quote from a Federal agent involved in the case (hence the words "alleged" in front of the statement) may I remind you that in any statement to the Police I can likewise allege you are involved in an Al-Qaeda cell. It does not make that statement truthful.

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 06:36 PM (/r9Xb)

10 >>>"If they were white and did this in Arkansas, they would be a militia!" If they were white guys from Arkansas, Libs would want them jailed for life.

Posted by: Carlos at May 31, 2005 06:36 PM (8e/V4)

11 see, youre wrong there Dave....the FBI has tape with these men on it saying the things they did to support the facts that they were planning something illegal....where by you just saying, oh yea, officer, that man is a terrorist....thats just hearsay....do you have tape of me doing something illegal,do you have pictures of me doing something illegal, did an FBI agent actaully hear me say something that i was planning to do that is illegal????...no.....how much more proof do you need,SIR???...would you rather have them actaully blow something/someone up or shoot an entire store up with all the shoppers inside before you have enough proof SIR, of their intent???...if you say yes to that, than as far as im concerned, youre as sick in the head as these Muslims who wish with all their hearts to kill everone single American.....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 31, 2005 06:54 PM (b7uP2)

12 let me first start out by saying that I agree with most of the statements here about the dangers of the spread of radical Islam. What I am questioning however, is the difference under the 1st Amendment which makes the difference between "thought" and "true threats" this is what I was questioning when I asked about a specific plot to injure, or kill citizens which would move it from a "milita" to a cell. Preparing for Urban warfare is evidently not a crime, due to the amount of American militias that go unchecked, they must have not acquired the Firearms they were wishing to obtain, otherwise I believe the AFT would have been involved. The idealism of a Muslim only Karate club isn't illegal either. So it appears that the whole case hinges on INTENT to obtain weapons, and train for combat, and is then coupled with the questionable statement they swore allegence to Al-Qaeda, as you have stated about hearsay, without a reliable source to that statement, this likewise is hearsay, only supported by the facts that the men are of Middle eastern descent and are Muslims. Do I say wait till they commit violence until we arrest them? no. however I would like to know they specifically had a plan in mind to do harm, that would move it from a "thought" to an "action".

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 07:12 PM (/r9Xb)

13 Rusty, You might want to change your link at the top from Newsweek to "Newsday". Dave, The Feds apparently feel they have enough to go ahead with and talking about setting up a machine shop to supply weapons sure sounds like a "plan" to me.

Posted by: Oyster at May 31, 2005 08:19 PM (YudAC)

14 Hi Oyster, The FBI also smeared Dr. Hafill, and Richard Jewell during their investigations without apology.

Posted by: dave at May 31, 2005 08:35 PM (/r9Xb)

15 Dave, our system isn't perfect, but it's the best. There have been many instances whereby a person was dragged through the courts, found guilty and served time before their innocence was proven. I won't speak for these cases you mention because I don't know enough about them, but in other cases, due dilligence was followed and even though they were innocent they were found guilty. So many times there was no malice, just a desire to get to the truth and if no laws were broken in the process then an apology is really kind of empty rhetoric. Somehow I don't think an apology will satisfy them. If they find that laws were broken in order to prosecute then they have recourse to go to trial and counter-sue to get whatever reparations they think they deserve. Our courts work both ways.

Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 07:17 AM (YudAC)

16 these guys aren't arabic or of middle-eastern descent. These are black muslims- african americans- like Malcom X. Check the bow tie on the lawyer- I bet he is a member of NOI- Nation of Islam. There is a wide, national network of millions of american muslims that are growing closer and closer to signing up with AQ as the blatant war on islam abroad continues, and the war against blacks and browns at home continues. OBL already knows he can recruit and tap into these disenfranchised communities in the us- blacks, latinos, asians, even whites like Johnny Walker. The prison population in the us is one of the highest in the world- filled with people embittered by this system, many converting to islam- this is ground zero for recruiting. Once these folk hit the streets it's on. In urban areas of the east coast, where I live, it is common in my neighborhood to see black muslim women wearing a burkha like garment- everything covered except the eyes. You can best believe there is something going on, simmering beneath the surface waiting to reveal itself. There is a big difference between people who talk and those who actually are doing. It seems that the homeland security is busy with talkers, while the doers continue to do their thing. I don't think this will be the last we hear of this kind of thing. There will be more to come and before long homeland security be coming after you for your thought crimes.

Posted by: incarcerated scarface at June 01, 2005 09:04 AM (h0FT+)

17 Scarface: The best weapon we have is knowledge. I think the media does us a favor in many regards as they do tend to lean left and are suspicious of everything our government does. I get a little upset when they don't balance it out with more "truth", but believe you me, I listen and wait. Suspicion is good, but let's use that knowledge given us and learn what is BS and what is cause for alarm. I'm suspicious of those who buy into every single conspiracy regarding "thought police". Conspiracy works both ways. Some would have us all believe that our government is conspiring against us and others would have us believe that our government is being conspired against. I think it's a little of both. We'll know where to draw the line when we come to it, item by item.

Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2005 09:47 AM (fl6E1)

18 scarface, the dude is the son of a Malcolm X protege. He boasted that being a musician is "great cover", and that he could smile at someone and then slit their throats with no problem: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/47475.htm Libs defend this guy.

Posted by: Carlos at June 01, 2005 10:43 AM (8e/V4)

19 Odd about him being a jazz musician, with that genre of music at one time being regarded as so decadent and sexually-motivated. Not something one usually associated with the straight-laced image Islam likes to portray.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 02, 2005 07:33 AM (x+5JB)

20 I personally know brother Tarik Shah. He's like a Muslim Steven Segal. He's very dangerous in hand to hand combat and edged weapons but calling him a terrorist is a big stretch. The guy is in his 40s. If he was going to committ a terrorist act, he would've done so by now. While he has the potential to be a terrorist, I know personally he's more talk than action. What the FBI did to him was entrapment. Ten more years could go by and he'd still be saying he trains brothers for Jihad with nothing ever coming of it. Trust me.

Posted by: ne0aes0p at June 07, 2005 02:41 PM (NZ502)

21 Have any of you ever been involved in a police investigation? Ok, now have any of you ever been involved in an FBI investigation. If history and experience is any indicator we can assume that a good 75% of what is said before and indictment is bullshit. "Jazz musician as just a cover"?? BULLSHIT. Becoming a jazz musician isn't a matter of picking up an instrument and learning the notes, it's a life long evolution and it's incredibly fucking difficult. To get to the point where you're doing session work as a bassist(as Shah was) you've generally got 20 years of playing behind you, 4 to 8 years of university study, and a wealth of musical knowledge that most symphony musicians don't even have. This entire thing, to me, reeeeeeks of BS. The fact that they spun the jazz musician thing that way should have you all questioning everything else they stated. Another relevant fact not mentioned above is that the undercover agent was NOT an FBI agent, but a criminal working on a plea agreement. They have also tried to paint him as a 'deadbeat dad'(this is from the FBI report) even though a recent interview with his wife has her praising him as a good father and provider. Hell, they even cast his entrepreneurial enthusiasm in a bad light(yeah uhm, did anybody actually read the FBI documents? They're public...no pictures though so maybe you can find it in audiobook format if you look around). He wanted to teach hand-to-hand combat to Muslims. So. Fucking. What. I think it's sad and incredibly scary that you guys are just going to sit back and nod your heads while your government charges people with "WILLINGNESS" to do anything. His doctor friend, by the way, is being charged with WILLINGNESS to treat insurgents in S.A. Is a doctor not morally bound to treat anyone who is in need of medical attention? Entrapment is when you're led to do a crime that you wouldn't have otherwise commited. These guys didn't even do that.. they simply stated their WILLINGNESS to do something that clashes with blindly two-faced american ideals. How many of you have never said "I'd like to kick the shit out of that guy" who stole your girl or dented your car. Well, you had better accept the possibility of going to jail for WILLINGNESS to commit an act of violence if you're going to accept what the FBI is dealing to this poor dude.

Posted by: Anthony at July 10, 2005 12:18 PM (vf7Ks)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 28, 2005

Some people will be offended no matter what you do

According to the AP, another group of veterans has managed to become offended. This time over the unveiling of a statue. It seems that in Ft. Edward, NY, a statue of Maj. Robert Rogers is being unveiled this Memorial Day weekend. For those of you not "in the know", Maj. Rogers wrote a field manual that became the basis for modern Army Ranger fighting tactics. So why would this statue offend anyone? Well, it's not the statue so much as the timing.

But some veterans believe unveiling the monument on Memorial Day is insensitive because Rogers was loyal to England during the Revolutionary War.

"I think it's a travesty that we would think about honoring a person, especially someone who fought against us, on that day," said Bob Bearor, who served in the Army's 101st Airborne Division in the 1960s. "It's a sacred day. ... Let's honor our dead who died for our country."

OK, being a vet myself, I'm as sensitive to veterans' causes as anyone. But come on, let's get real here. No one is trying to offend anyone by unveiling this statue on Memorial Day. The thought process is easy to see. Maj. Rogers was a military man, and Memorial Day is the day to honor the military. If you're getting offended because of this, you're looking too hard for something to offend you. Seriously. Lighten up a bit.

With the number of stories like this appearing, I really have to wonder if media editors don't send their reporters out looking for them.

Cross posted at Consevative Friends

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Of course they send them out looking. And they keep looking until they get the results they want. Kind of like the dems counting and recounting votes.

Posted by: Oyster at May 28, 2005 08:07 AM (YudAC)

2 Absolutely, Oyster. The media hates us military types and wants to expose every single issue as if it's the end of an era or something. The fact that the commander-in-chief is the man most handed by the MSM isn't helping either. I wonder what would happen if a Democrat were elected President? Would these stories fall to the way side? Would the MSM be content for at least four years?

Posted by: Chris Short at May 28, 2005 08:16 AM (IJb3W)

3 The way I see it, some people only see things in black and white; they are absolutists. Those are often the best people to have on your side when things go wrong. Relativists, on the other hand, while better at theoretical conversation, are generally of little use when it's time to bust heads.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2005 10:03 AM (0yYS2)

4 Well, now I''m totally confused. My experience on the Jawa Report is that readers are sensitive about patriotism. Minor disagreements with US policy are looked at suspiciously and deemed to be unpatriotic. Rogers is a man who was loyal to the enemy. Isn't that an unpatriotic act to the degree that the man is undeserving of being honored? Personally, I don't care if the man gets a statue or not. I'm just remarking about the apparent inconsistancy on the issue of patriotism that is being displayed by Jawa readers.

Posted by: greg at May 28, 2005 10:20 AM (/+dAV)

5 His choice to remain loyal to England was a choice many made. There wer good arguments on both sides. They either stayed here or went back to the mother country, which I believe is what Rogers did. He was an asset during the French and Ind-i-an War, no? We have no problem honoring Cofederate soldiers on Civil War battlefields who directly fought against the Union. Again, they had some darn good reasons. These complainers need a life.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 28, 2005 10:24 AM (2IJRr)

6 Ok, so Rogers was loyal to England during the revolutionary war. So why is it "insenitive" for Memorial Day? Seems like it would be ALOT more "insensitive" to unveil his statue on Independance Day.

Posted by: KurtP at May 28, 2005 10:52 AM (Bw1bW)

7 against us, on that day Respect due for a vet, but NEWSFLASH: almost half the colonists sided with England. Tough titties.

Posted by: Poosh at May 28, 2005 10:58 AM (l8gSf)

8 Yes. The man made his choice. It doesn't detract for what he did during the F&I War. He decided to not side with what was not even a country then. Perhaps he was more of a pratriot then the Masonic, Leftist elitists who started the revolution. Heh Heh. Awaiting the deluge...

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 28, 2005 11:26 AM (pBi9/)

9 So, it's a privately funded statue that's set up on a privately funded site paid for by a private group. For all I care, the outraged retired Rangers can parachute in at night and cut the head off the goddamn statue, holding it for ransom, or, as an alternate solution, fund a statue of George Washington dropping trou, have it cast, and place it near Maj. Roberts.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 28, 2005 03:59 PM (SSwaR)

10 It seams that you cant do anything these days without offending some whinning bunch of little cry babies why dont they just put a sock in it and give it a rest

Posted by: sandpiper at May 30, 2005 01:41 PM (uPdgJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 27, 2005

Banned in the UK: Abu Hamza al-Masri Quotes from Terror Tracker

Neil Doyle is the author of Terror Tracker and runs his own website here. I've been aware of Neil's work for some time. Much of what he publishes on his website mirrors my own anti-terrorism posts.

A new and updated paperback version of Terror Tracker is soon to be available in both the U.S. and U.K. In the U.S. you can order it at Amazon here. One important aspect of the book is that it reveals statements from a former imam at London's Finsburry Park Mosque, the radical hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri. Abu Hamza was arrested one year ago today in London on charges that he conspired to build a terrorist network in Oregon. He is currently rotting--literally, his body is covered in sores because he refuses to shower--in a Belmarsh prison.

However, UK readers may not know much of Abu Hamza's statements. UK newspapers are barred from reporting this at the moment, as the case is subject to censorship pending extradition hearings. So, no mention of Terror Tracker in the UK because enquiring Britons may just want to read what Abu Hamza has been thinking all these many years. The book is also a tad embarrassing for the police, as their key evidence was out in print before they even charged the guy, yet the public is not allowed to know this.

Free speech indeed.

In the spirit of free speech and wishing the British people to know what kind of filth has been living amongst them and taking advantage of their good will these past decades, all the while plotting the destruction of their liberty and democratic institutions, The Jawa Report presents quotes from Neil Doyle's Terror Tracker. Warning: If you're a UK blogger do not reprint as that might get you thrown in jail. Or, you know, reprint them, in an act of civil disobedience.

According to Abu Hamza, Jewish people were subhuman and no further up the evolutionary scale than monkeys. It was Allah's will that they should be exterminated. He even seemed to suggest that Adolf Hitler had been sent to earth by Allah to carry out the task. 'Not only did they become monkeys, but Allah put a law on Earth that wherever always Allah will send in people to humiliate them, to kill them, and to punish them. And Hitler is not far from us,' said Hamza....
"All the Israelis are fighters. They all fight. That's why anybody over 15
he is a warrior and he should be killed!"

More quotes later....

Posted by: Rusty at 10:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Since when do Moslems believe in evolution???

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 10:45 AM (x+5JB)

2 When it suits their purposes.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 27, 2005 12:59 PM (JQjhA)

3 Haha! Hitler was inbred. His dad was his moms uncle. That must've been the reason why he was chosen to be Allahs punishment on infidel world.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 04:09 PM (lGolT)

4 Screwy part of the country. Doctors there are trying to ban long kitchen knives because ... uh, er, ah ... people stab people with them. Do believe this krap? They don't give a fig about terrorism in their own backyards but they can bitch about long kitchen knives. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005

Posted by: Bubbe at May 27, 2005 05:33 PM (A+aFH)

5 It's case of a soft british government when it comes to terrorist groups being based in the uk.they don't seem to mind rants!of hate from hamza and other british cleric's. who are the modern hitler's from the islamic world.as long as it's not them having planes flown into british buildings or nucler power plants.but there's something the british police and government have forgotten? they are next!

Posted by: glen jenvey at May 29, 2005 10:14 AM (F1nba)

6 Have I not said all this before about the British Gov. they only let you know what they want god forbid its true there are baaaaaaad muslims./ off

Posted by: sparky at May 30, 2005 03:20 AM (F1nba)

7 Dear Glen, The United States and the IRA After the troubles began anew in 1969, the IRA set up fundraising in the United States. The money went generally to the cause, not necessarily to the fighters. The US didn't do much to suppress this fundraising in the 1970s. Eventually the US housed an IRA arms network. Supporters shipped ArmaLite rifles by the dozen. This small amount went a long way in the relatively unarmed Northern Ireland. The IRA also had a relocation program of sorts here, for people who had to avoid capture across the pond.

Posted by: gg at May 31, 2005 11:08 PM (oYxme)

8 For what it's worth, I'm mentioned in Chapter 3 of the "Terror Tracker" book. (It's a true story). Glen Jenvey (two posts ago) is also in the book. "gg" RE: "The United States and the IRA" -- have you considered that the major source of Islamist recruitment, propaganda, funding, etc. has been the from the USA? I'm not saying that the US Govt. financed it, but I am saying that you can physically trace the sites to USA servers. I'm also saying that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other three letter acronyms are not investigating the problem -- they appear to be actively covering the problem up.

Posted by: JohnathanRGalt at June 01, 2005 02:28 AM (cdFJm)

9 http://www.abuhamza.us/JewsAreMonkeysEnemiesofIslam09TheJews.ram

Posted by: glen jenvey at June 01, 2005 04:19 PM (F1nba)

10 0:00 My dear brothers we still continue to identify the second enemy of Islam which are Jews. Allah identified them as the enemies of him. [?] They lie about Allah, as we said, last time. The enemies of his angels, as we have said Â“we donÂ’t like Gabriel, because he is the angel of warÂ” 0:33 Allah sent his [?] messenger and they killed him as they said Â“we have killed Jesus, the messenger of Allah and the son of MaryÂ” knowing that he is the messenger of Allah [?] and his mother. Alah said that they are the enemies of his books. They change the books, they twist the books. They believe in some of the books and disbelieve in some of the books. Allah said for them that you know that is it is haram, and forbidden to you to take a ransom for some of you and you fight some of you and you take them out of the positions and out of their houses. ItÂ’s haram for you. 1:13 and yet, when it comes, and when it comes that you take them as captives, you pay the ransom for you. So you do some of the book and you disbelieve some of the book. You do some actions which Allah said them as command. And you do some actions which Allah forbid for you, and you say this is your religion. Then Allah says: this means you believe in some of the book, and you disbelieve in some of, in the other, in the other some of the book and this is the biggest disbelief. 1:40 And this is to answer the people, the [?] of our time, who are saying that actions cannot take a peron out of Islam. No. Some actions takes a person out of Islam, even if he doesnÂ’t believe it will take him out of Islam or out of his religion, because Allah identified them as believing in some of the book and not believing in some of the book through their actions, not through their hearts, 2:04 and he promised them the fire hell, eternity in fire hell, because of their actions. He does not mention what is in their hearts, so be aware of those things, of their actions, you could be some of them. You could be believing in some of the book, and disbelieving in the other some of the book. Allah identified them as eating the money of people with [?] with [?]. 2:30 Allah said that some of them you attract him with very large amount and he will give it to you back. Others: you will attract him with only one dinar, and you will never have it, because they have made the statement, and they have made the law amongst themselves, that we have got no responsibility, and no oath whatsoever towards the illiterate, which is other than themsleves, 3:00 so they made it halal for them to lie to other people, to kill other people, to take the money of other people, as long as they are not from their descendants, or from their family. Allah also described them in very important issues which we need to know, in order to deal with them. When we talk, we should know how to talk with them. When we fight, we should know how to fight with them. 3:30 What is their mentality. What is their pscyhe. All this we get from the Quran. Not from the evening standard. Not from the Sun. Not from the documentary, even though it looks very real. It is not real. Allah has said this people, Â“I have imposed humiliation upon them because they disbelive in me.Â” So why now they are not very humiliated. Why now we are the humiliated people and they are not? 4:00 Certainly because we have left jihad according to the hadith. We have been very interested just for money and for positions, and [?] said that if you do so, and you get involved with [ribis/interest?] wealth and usury, then Allah will impose on you, Muslims, the humiliation, which will never be taken from amongst you, and if you go back to your religionÂ—means jihad, 4:30 because if you left jihad, Allah [?], the humiliation will not be lifted until you go back to your religionÂ—means jihad in the cause of Allah, fighting the enemies. So, now youÂ’ve got a bit of courage, and Muslims got a bit of this courageÂ—or a lot of this courageÂ—and this is why they give us the humiliation, and they take the mastership from Muslims. Now: But Allah has said something very important to show how negelected we have in our religion for these sons of monkeys to rule upon us, above his Quran, as sons of monkeys. 5:01 The story of the evolution, not all of it is wrong, you know, because Darwin, he was so [?] by Jews, he wanted to establish a link between human beings and the monkeys. Why. Because he was so afraid to find his own grandfather is the Jew. The first monkey. The first ape. So he wanted to prove it to the people from the other way around. 5:30 The first of man is the monkey. No! The source of monkey is a man. And heÂ’s a Jew. That is what Allah said in the Quran. [Arabic.] Allah said this in Surah 15, We have created mankind in the best form, then we have descended into this death. 6:03 Death form. [?]. [Arabic] And you know those who have [?] in the Sabbath, we have [?] them to become monkeys. Dirty monkeys. So Allah described them as monkeys. And those monkeys: your president bows down to them. And they coming back to have a bite of you. 6:33 Allah described them as monkeys and we deal with them as masters. Allah show us that you have cowards. He said: and if they fight you, certainly they will run. No doubt they will run; I will make them run. In Surah [?], but yet, we donÂ’t have chance to fight them. The [?] to [?] to protect them , not to protect us. So how can we reach them? To whom weÂ’re gonna get our backs? 7:00 Allah said they are very cowards. They have said to Moses when Allah have said Â“go and take this holy land,Â” they said to him Â“No way.Â” There is very strong people inside. If they go out, we will go in, otherwise never. And when they were [?] by Moses and some of the believers, they said Â“No way, absolutely never. Go on, fight with your G-d, we are here staying. If it comes to the matter that we either fight, or we leave the religion: We leave the religion! This is the mentality. 7:35 This is why, after 5,000 years or more, they remember the promise, but they found the fools who would pay the price for them. They will find the fools like [?] who is going to defend them, and come in, and heÂ’s upset because heÂ’s working for Jews, and he stays in the land of Jews. HeÂ’s very upset to stand to defend the Jews, who make him the monkey of the Jews, even though they are monkeys of the believers [?] for the second time: 8:03 Go to you Jews, and pray in the synagogue, and leave us alone. My dear brothers, it is not a joke. You are [?] of Europe. You are taking from the charity of the prostitute. And you are giving charity to the prostitute. So it is not a joke. DonÂ’t come here and ask me to give you a quick [?], so you donÂ’t have a parking meter ticket. No! If you want [?] there is hundreds of mosques there who are gonna tell you that you are the sons of Omar al-Khattab, just put five pounds in the box. 8:36 My responsibility is to tell you the truth. YouÂ’ve wasted yourself. YouÂ’ve wasted your religion, and your families and your children. What else you gonna waste? Allah has identified them the most cowards of all, and yet, their women: they jump from helicopters, and they go under the tunnel, and they go to the Himalayas, and they shoot our men like a video games, 9:00 and we have large big people are now afraid from dark. They donÂ’t know the difference from a potato and a hand grenade. And they call themselves the son of the sahaba [companions of the prophet]. What is that logic? What is that logic? Where are you gonna go next after you go to the [?]? In the stomach of the fish? Or in the fire-hell. Allah identified these people as the most enemies of him and the believers. WeÂ’ve got to deal with them that way. 9:31 And not because we are weak, we should leave the truth behind us. Let us know the truth. [Arabic: the prophet may peace be upon him] when he was very weak in Mecca, when he had no followers in Mecca, he stand firm, and he said to Qurayish, Â“By Allah, Qurayish, I came to you with a massacre; with a slaughtering. [Arabic.] Those who are saying you are afraid, [?] weak now, and they are liars. Even if though we are oppressed and weak, we are still have to deliver the truth, even if we cannot to deliver it. 10:07 We have to send, even if we cannot amake it through. For our children to grow in the truth. Enough promises from those thieverous scholars who are eating with [Arabic affirmation of one god]. Let us know the truth. And if we are disbled to do it, let us ask others to do it. Let us be fair with ourselves. InshÂ’allah we shall continue next time [closes with prayer request for mujahideen leader in Kashmir]

Posted by: glen jenvey at June 01, 2005 05:21 PM (F1nba)

11 The above statement is taken from a audio tape recording of abu hamza preaching in london in-side a british mosque.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 03, 2005 05:06 AM (F1nba)

12 "... establishing an Islamic State in Britain will be 'a means to dominate earth'." - Britain's Muslim Sheikh Abu Hamza al-masri, Terror Tracker.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 03, 2005 12:38 PM (F1nba)

13 "So let us open our eyes, let us not go for jihad which is far away from other countries, although it's good, but it's not as good as you do in your own door. You don't have to travel thousands and thousands of miles to become a shaheed (martyr), you can be shaheed right on your own doorstep." - Britain's Muslim Sheikh Abu Hamza al-masri, Terror Tracker.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 03, 2005 12:39 PM (F1nba)

14 "Allahis happy when a Kaffir gets killed" - Britain's Muslim Sheikh Abu Hamza al-masri, Terror Tracker.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 03, 2005 12:43 PM (F1nba)

15 Jeremy Reynalds P O Box 27693 Alb., NM 87125-7693 Tel: (505) 400-7145 www.joyjunction.org RADICAL ISLAMIC CLERIC CALLS JEWS "MONKEYS" AND "ENEMIES OF ISLAM" In a preaching tape of jailed radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza obtained by British citizen and freelance investigator Glen Jenvey, Hamza makes frequent references to Jews as monkeys and enemies of Islam. Hamza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3752517.stm) has been in prison in the UK since May 2004, when he was held at the request of American authorities, who want him extradited to face charges of trying to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Since then, Britain's Lifestyle Extra reported (www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=NL712421F&news_headline=abu_hamza_covered_in_scabs), Hamza has been charged in the UK with 16 offences including racial hatred and soliciting others to murder non-believers. Hamza will face charges in the UK in July before any decision is made about his case here. British authorities are also trying to revoke his UK citizenship. One blog ( http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/084320.php) reported that British readers may be unaware of Hamza's statements, as the country's newspapers are currently banned from reporting on the case due to "censorship pending extradition hearings." CITIZEN SPY Jenvey made a major contribution to Hamza's incarceration. He set up a false Islamic extremist Web site using a pseudonym. His intention was for his site to entrap terrorists. It worked. Hamza landed onto Jenvey's site and began e-mailing him. Hamza's trust of Jenvey increased to the point where Hamza ended up providing Jenvey with both audio and video tapes of private meetings. As CBS News pointed out in a 2004 profile on Jenvey (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/eveningnews/main636344.shtml), while Hamza had often verbally supported the committing of terrorist acts abroad in his sermons, he had protected himself from British anti-terror laws by never publicly calling for violent action within the U.K. But the tapes obtained by Jenvey told a different tale -- one of incitement to acts of terror in the U.K. and the U.S. Hamza privately encouraged his British and American followers to violence, saying "A land for jihad is in Afghanistan. If you are more courageous, you should do another Afghanistan in your own country." It was statements like this, CBS reported, that provided enough evidence of apparent incitement for both British and American law enforcement to pounce on Hamza. In an e-mail interview Jenvey said when he first heard Hamza's words he felt as if he was listening to "pure evil." He reported his findings to the British police, "and a number of military attaches in London." He added, "I feel that a place of worship being used as a place of terror whatever the faith is an evil act against God. We must (work) hard, so that people like Abu Hamza who are hiding behind their faith to spread evil mixed with racist speeches and political rubbish, get no mercy in the courts and are stopped from spreading terror around the globe." HAMZA ON THE JEWS In another one of the tapes Hamza says, "So Allah described (the Jews) as monkeys. And those monkeys, (you) bow down to them. And they (are) coming back to have a bite of you. Allah described them as monkeys and we deal with them as masters." Hamza even defends Darwin's theory of evolution, saying it wasn't all wrong. "Darwin ... wanted to establish a link between human beings and the monkeys. Why? Because he was so afraid to find his own grandfather is the Jew. The first monkey. The first ape." Allah called the Jews "cowards," Hamza says. "They have said to Moses when Allah said, Â‘go and take this holy land,' ... Â‘No way. There is very strong people inside. If they go out, we will go in, otherwise never.'" Hamza says the Jewish response when told to take the promised land was, "If it comes to the matter that we either fight, or we leave the religion: We leave the religion! This is the mentality." Hamza says Allah calls the Jews "the enemies of his books. They change the books, they twist the books. They believe in some of the books and disbelieve in some of the books." That attitude, says Hamza, has resulted in their "humiliation." "Allah has said, Â‘this people," Hamza says, Â‘I have imposed humiliation upon them because they disbelieve in me.' So why now they are not very humiliated? Why now we are the humiliated people and they are not?" Because Muslims have neglected their obligation for jihad, or holy war, Hamza says. "We have been very interested just for money and for positions, and (Allah) said that if you do so, and you get involved with ... wealth and usury, then Allah will impose on you Muslims the humiliation which will ... not be lifted until you go back to ... jihad in the cause of Allah, fighting the enemies." Hamza says that Muslims have really neglected their religion to allow the Jews, "these sons of monkeys to rule upon us, above his Quran." Hamza says that some Muslims even defend the Jews because they work for them and live in their land. To those Muslims who do that, Hamza says "Go to your Jews, and pray in the synagogue, and leave us alone. My dear brothers, it is not a joke ... You are taking from the charity of the prostitute and you are giving charity to the prostitute." Hamza scolds his listeners and says he is responsible to tell them the truth. "You've wasted yourself. You've wasted your religion, and your families and your children. What else you gonna waste? ... And we have ... people (who) are now afraid from dark. They don't know the difference from a potato and a hand grenade." However, Hamza continues, just because some Muslims are weak doesn't mean they should neglect the truth. He says, "When (the prophet) was very weak in Mecca, when he had no followers in Mecca, he stood firm, and he said to Qurayish (www.defendamerica.mil/articles/a111601a.html), Â‘By Allah, Qurayish, I came to you with a massacre; with a slaughtering ... Those who are saying you are afraid ... (and) weak ... they are liars. Even if we are oppressed and weak, we still have to deliver the truth.'" Hamza says it is essential for his listeners to take action if their children are to grow up in the truth. "Enough promises from those (thieving) scholars ... Let us know the truth," Hamza says. "And if we are disabled to do it, let us ask others to do it. Let us be fair with ourselves. (If Allah permits) we shall continue next time." Hamza closes with a prayer request for the mujahidin leader in the Kashmir (www.kashmir-information.com). The tapes also served another purpose. They showed that American James Ujaama, a well-known Islamic activist in the Seattle-area who had denied knowing Hamza, did indeed know him. Ujaama was charged with conspiring to set up an al Qaeda terrorist training camp in rural Oregon in an attempt to further promote "violent jihad" against the United States. However, in the end Ujaama pleaded guilty on the lesser charges of bringing money, computer equipment, and a recruit to the Taliban (www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2005/0316courtterror.htm). His plea was entered in exchange for his cooperation in terrorism investigations.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 03, 2005 12:48 PM (F1nba)

16 abu hamza the outspoken terrorist cleric based in london has been given more protection in the lead up to his trail by red faced british home office and police officials the british media are now banned from reporting even his name in the press in a soviet union style blanket ban. the ban goes so far as to ban newspapers in the UK reporting on the book TERROR TRACKER By neil doyle. which was a major force that led to hamza arrest the book gives quotes from video's and audio tapes which abu hamza gave to british spy glen jenvey.. several writers feel the government and police ban on the press is uncalled for as hamza before his arrest made public insulting speeches in the streets of london and inside the finsbury park terror mosque open for all to hear. an insider on the case say's it's just a soviet style attack on free press we hope the press will be allowed to report the trail.abu hamza threats and racist remarks and membership to al-qaeda are well known it's now time to stop hiding behind red faces said mr jenvey in an interview and except fact's the UK was used and is being used as a base by terrorist's. and the press and book writers should be allowed to record history and given their pens back.

Posted by: www.islamic-news.co.uk at June 04, 2005 06:38 AM (F1nba)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 25, 2005

Fallaci Charged With Defaming Islam

Sue me. I dare you. Fascists. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Do you have any idea how many idiots have offended me just today? I am WELL on my way to riches!

Posted by: Drew at May 25, 2005 02:12 PM (Ml8z/)

2 This site offends my temporary religion in so many ways I must sue you for absolutely everything ever written to this site. I'll settle the case for a cat-hunting article.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 02:40 PM (lGolT)

3 Deal!!! But only if you throw in some Finnish porn.....

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 25, 2005 02:41 PM (JQjhA)

4 Ok... hmmm.... there some good ones at xmeup.com, but surely you've gone through all the highquality clips already?

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 03:23 PM (lGolT)

5 figures, leave it up to the most abusive, violent,racist, backwards people to be pushing their agenda on everyone else...yea, i just might have some respect for a Muslim when they can show the other religions of the world some respect...until then, the Muslims world deserves every disease, tidal wave, earthquake and typhoon that hits them right where it hurts....Too Bad, So Sad

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 25, 2005 03:37 PM (6Xt4D)

6 There be plenty non-eeeeeevil Muslims in the world, it's just the ones that matter that are disrespectful to people they feel threatened by.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 03:44 PM (lGolT)

7 if thats true, Finn, than you tell me why the hell the so called"moderate" Muslims of the world refuse to step up to the plate and either go after the "tiny minority" of evil Muslims and elimanate them, or stand up as one and publicy denounce the Islamicnazis...they havent as of yet said a friggin peep....not a sound...NADDA!!!....sure they denounce the American and coalition troops when they kill an armed terrorist or the Israelies when they kill a Palistinian terrorist who was about to detonate a bomb or launch an attack of some sort....but denounce the same terrorists who have said themselves that they will kill fellow Mulims in the name of Jihad....some friends, huh???...with friends like that who needs enemys...untill the "moderate" Muslims stand up and denounce the others, they ALL deserve what happens to them....guilty by assocation i say...Too Bad, So Sad

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 25, 2005 03:56 PM (6Xt4D)

8 And they're using the Italian courts to further that agenda. How pathetic. And the Italians are letting them! This kind of appeasement will be the death of all of us. Are they going to sue Dan Brown for the Davinci Code? What's that? No? Of course not. The Catholics are certainly offended though. And there's a lot more of them in Italy than Muslims.

Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2005 03:56 PM (fl6E1)

9 The Muslim majority is what we in Finland call "hiljainen enemmistÃƒÂ¶", people who don't think they can influence anything and don't want to go through trouble for nothing. They need to be shown a path to get power, or else they will just continue shutting up about everything and avoiding problems and issues as much as they can.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:11 PM (lGolT)

10 Rusty, A reader from Italy sent me the judge's contact info. How about helping to make sure that the judge hears from the world that supporting Islam against free speech, and being a dhimmi, is something that the world will not let him live down - he's going to be famous for being a Muslim supporting dhimmi and being anti-free speech. He needs thousands of emails. You can contact the public prosecutor Armando Grasso at this mail address: Armando Grasso, tribunale.bergamo@giustizia.it

Posted by: Richard at May 26, 2005 12:29 PM (xFeJi)

11 reading about mdm. fallaci and her treatment by the islamic right has me inspired me to be as un-PC as possible at this moment. intolerant islamists = pig-sons

Posted by: dariusz at May 30, 2005 10:36 PM (gFyBB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 24, 2005

Mexico Uber Alles

Overheard at a rally at the Baldwin Park, CA, Metrolink station,

"Too bad Osama Bin Laden didn't have a hydrogen bomb
to drop on that Jewish shit hole called Manhattan..."

"Osama Bin Laden Rules!

"Zarqawi the Gringo killer, yes!, yes"

I've been out of the loop for awhile so maybe you've already seen this. They've got video. It's pretty freaking disgusting.

Hat tip: Pixy Misa

Parenthetically I used to live about 3 or 4 miles down the road from the Baldwin Park Metrolink station and had been there dozens of times. I never once noticed the anti-American slogans until I saw this story explode on the blogosphere several weeks ago.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:29 AM | Comments (151) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, I guess even 200 years later some people still feel like they were exterminated or taken over...which, mind you is what really happened. BUT, that does not justify clocking old ladies or extreme hate. Seems like a mosquito trying to bite an elephant's ass. Off the subject...a different point of view on the News"weak" thing: http://villagevoice.com/news/0521,tomorrow,64227,9.html

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 11:48 AM (XXCz1)

2 sick f*cks. If I was thet old lady I'd sue the crap out of anyone and everyone who was responsible for the rally, and especially whoever supplied the bottles. Even if it was just Ralph's.

Posted by: caltechgirl at May 24, 2005 11:58 AM (Yf8BQ)

3 Idiots like these are going to keep on until white people are forced to start killing anyone with brown skin in this country, and I think that's what they want, to start a war. Idiots. It shouldn't be long now. I figure 10,000 rounds of ammo should last me a while, but no need to take chances, I'll feel much better when I have about ten times that stashed away.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 12:26 PM (0yYS2)

4 These seditious pigs should be stripped of citizenship and deported to the further reaches of Guatemala never to be seen from again. Aztlanism wants to turn the American Southwest into the shithole that is Meso America. And if they succeed, in another 50 years, that shithole will still be an economic basketcase, only this time it will include the American Southwest. And its refugees will still be flooding across the border looking to whitey for relief.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:47 PM (8e/V4)

5 Improbulous, they'll be plenty of us with brown skin joining you when times comes to plug these seditious pigs. I got myself 2,000 rounds ready to go.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)

6 Notice in the clips that the Aztlanists are joined by the islamists and communists. Hey Lefties, nice job.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 12:56 PM (8e/V4)

7 Leftism is bound together with one, and only one, common thread: HATRED OF AMERICA.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 24, 2005 01:15 PM (JQjhA)

8 Poor Whitey. He thinks he's stronger than the brown and black man. But the brown man and the black man are outbreeding Whitey, so they are actually "fitter" in a Darwinian sense. How ironic. The browning of America is inevitable. Quick, kill them all and don't trust Carlos, he's one of them.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:25 PM (/+dAV)

9 Quick, kill them all and don't trust Carlos, he's one of them. greg, the Aztlanists are doing their best to start a race war, just like the islamists are tying to make it a religious war. It's neither. I know which side I'll be fighting on when I gleefully plug these seditious indians full of 762 x 39 armor piercing.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 01:33 PM (8e/V4)

10 I want to be the evil evil kenevil. I'll try to jump over 50 or so pregnant illegal border hoppers in a steam roller.

Posted by: Andre at May 24, 2005 01:44 PM (mfvPa)

11 That's mighty white of you Carlos. Kill all those dirty Meskins! I nominate Carlos/David as an inductee into Whitey's Hall of Fame with the status of "Honorary Gringo".

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:48 PM (/+dAV)

12 greg, I won't be the only honorary inductee when the hunt begins, and we won't only be huntin' after indians and meskins, but Lefties and traitors too.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 01:55 PM (8e/V4)

13 Oh good, a civil war! That's just what this country needs. A Blue Country and a Red Country.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 01:58 PM (/+dAV)

14 "Oh good, a civil war! That's just what this country needs." I know! That's exactly what I said when I saw those video clips! Let's rock!

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:01 PM (8e/V4)

15 Funny isnt it how the friggin Mexicans dont even know their own bloody history of "stealing" land from the native Indians in Mexico and the southwestern USA before the "gringos" came...The Spaniards wiped out entire ancient Indian civilizations in South, Central and parts of the southern areas of North America...they {The mexicans" are just as uneducatd and ignorant of their past as the Islamics are....as far as im concerned they are the same people....backwards and ignorant , all of them....they took it from the native Indians and we{gringos} took it from them{Mexicans} and they cant stand it...Fuckem all i say...go back to youre dirty and filthy Mexico and stop ruining America....So Sad, Too Bad

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:04 PM (h53Dl)

16 THANOS, those mexicans/"Latinos" fancy themselves the ancestors of the indians slaughtered by the spanish. They miss their pathetic bloodthirsty child-sacrificing indian civilization. It's no wonder the Spaniards were so revolted by it and decided to erase its memory from the earth.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:08 PM (8e/V4)

17 oh, and greg, youre a filthy, snake in the grass, ignorant commie pinko traitor to the USA...why dont you get the fuck out and go live in Mexico or Iran where you can fuck sheep, camels and goats to youre hearts content you fucking bastard...i hate, no, DESPISE "people" like you...you deserve every bad thing that comes youre way......you and youre sick, degenerate kind, the traitors, the illegals, the islamicnazis and whoever else tries to bring down the USA are all gonna wind up face down in a pool of youre own blood if you keep up youre stupid shit...angry am i???...daym friggin straight i am and i got a right to be after watching the total ignorance you display...crude am i???....i can be, since its the only thing fuckheads like you seem to understand....but im also stronger and smarter than you and 1000 others like you combined will ever be in youre wettest fantasies...crawl back under youre rock boy, before you get stomped on....nuff said

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:14 PM (h53Dl)

18 Ayayayayay caramba! Long live Mexico. Give 'em back Texas and California, and they'll like you again. (fine, you don't need them to like you, you just need to stop them from sneaking across the border) Mexico has biochemical weapons, right? Invade 'em and make New Mexico the whole Mexico.

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:16 PM (lGolT)

19 Hahaha...I love the world according to Carlos: -If there is ever a problem, or anything that is wrong or blameful: IT"S THE LEFT'S FAULT! BLAME THE LEFT!! Pblththt. I'm sure it's Kerry's fault that this lady got clocked in the head, eh? Those dirty gay hippies are helping the terrorists win the Iraqi war, huh? Shiiiiiiit. Last time I checked it was Bushy, Inc. that was greasing the palms of Islam...

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 02:16 PM (+Wvep)

20 fine, you don't need them to like you, you just need to stop them from sneaking across the border) Finn, if we give them the Southwest and move the border farther north, those wetbacks will be sneaking across that border too because the Aztlanists will make a shithole out of whatever patch of land they manage to control.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:18 PM (8e/V4)

21 "They miss their pathetic bloodthirsty child-sacrificing indian civilization. It's no wonder the Spaniards were so revolted by it and decided to erase its memory from the earth.-Carlos the Honorary Whiteman, shoot he's half Spanish. I don't suppose greed and disease had anything to do with it. No no, the Spaniards did them a favor by killing them all.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:19 PM (/+dAV)

22 I'm sure it's Kerry's fault that this lady got clocked in the head, eh? osama, It's par for the course that wherever there is a wiff of anti-Americanism there you will find Leftist enablers and symps. Was I surprised to see Lefty commies chanting right alongside those pathetic aztlanist scum? Of course not. par for the course. We know what side you Lefties will be on when the shooting starts. I can't wait to plug a few of you.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:22 PM (8e/V4)

23 greg, greed had plenty to do with it, but yes, did those savages a big favor when they shut down the human sacrifice mills.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:23 PM (8e/V4)

24 I dont totally agree or disagree with you carlos....yes, some of the Indian civilizations in the Americas that the Spaniards wiped out were blodthirsty and violent, but they were wiped out by sneaky backstabbing Spaniards looking for gold that the Indians mistook for returning gods and the Spaniards took advantage of that,as far as i have seen, the Spaniards where just as bloodthirsty as the Indians they came across....its the same thing that the Mexicans are doing today...taking advantage of Americans to get our money....look at what the Mexican goverment is still doing to what native Indians are still left in Mexico...look at the Zaptistas...they are being persecuted still and being denied any dignity and rights whatsoever and the illegal Mexicans in America have the nerve to ask for it here???....send em all back, all the illegals, man woman and child...no more anchor babies, no more sneaking across the border...mine it, barb wire, trenches, pill boxes with machine guns, i dont care, but keep out the illegals...want to come in, go threw the paper work like lots if immigrants do...youre nothing special just because you think you can sneak across the border....my ancestors had to go threw Ellis Island and lots of paperwork and problems, but they endured it all and became PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS of the USA....dont like it, dont come here...stay in youre pigshit strewn villages and try and do something to improve youre oppresive Mexican government...these people come from some of the worst countries because their own governments ruin the countries and give the people nothing but poverty,disease and civil war, and the USA is supposed to take anyone who wants to sneak in???....i dont think so....So Sad, Too Bad

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 24, 2005 02:28 PM (h53Dl)

25 "crawl back under youre rock boy, before you get stomped on"-Thanos Thanos doesn't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. Poor uneducated bastard.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:29 PM (/+dAV)

26 A question has come to my mind... How many of you are actually over 12-years old and a citizen of US? And also, why can't I go to www.goarmy.com without using a US IP-address?

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:34 PM (lGolT)

27 Yeah, if only he had a Ph.D. found in a box of Cracker Jack like you, greg. No surprise of course that you are sympathetic to these anti-semitic slime.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 02:35 PM (xauGB)

28 THANO, I'm not defending the spaniards. They made a mess wherever they went (except California. They had a pretty good thing going there). I'm just saying that even the greed of spaniards had a silver lining-- the obliteration of a barbaric Aztec civilization.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 02:35 PM (8e/V4)

29 Let's see....California was Spanish for 52 years. It was a province of Mexico for 27 years. It has been American for 157 years. I think this argument is over. The only people who want it to be part of Mexico again are the Mechistas, who no one listens to anyway. Very glamourous, very revolutionary, and very, very, irrelevant.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 24, 2005 02:40 PM (9gsbH)

30 Carlos is a fool if he thinks the Spaniards were less barbaric than the Aztecs

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)

31 Oh yeah, now that there is a conversation about Indians, syphilis: Was it from the Vikings, who spread it around Europe and gave it to Indians? or Was it from the Indians, who gave it to Vikings, who then spread it around Europe? or Was it from the Indians, and the Vikings didn't go to Vinland and their syphilis wasn't the syphilis?

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 02:46 PM (lGolT)

32 Greg, If you're going be the self-appointed grammarian of The Jawa Report, you really should learn proper punctuation. It should be "Poor, uneducated bastard." Imbecile.

Posted by: Vonski at May 24, 2005 02:47 PM (AHaCg)

33 Vonski, Whatever you say, bitch meat.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:49 PM (/+dAV)

34 Well done! Now THAT is proper punctuation. I knew you'd learn something here eventually. Congratulations and kind regards.

Posted by: Vonski at May 24, 2005 02:53 PM (AHaCg)

35 Fuck off!

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 02:54 PM (/+dAV)

36 Oh, come on, Carlos...we all know you're suffering from Spanish guilt *chuckle*... Don't worry though, my ancestors had slaves in Virginia & the other side was forced to serve as Nazi soldiers! Anyway, the only thing I agree with you about is that Cali is a good thing...fuck, just for inventing the burrito. Not many people know that it's origin is northern CA and not Mexico. If you went to Mexico 100 years ago and asked for a burrito, they'd give you a small donkey. EEEeeeeaaaaaaw...

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 02:55 PM (kd6rm)

37 Oh, come on, Carlos...we all know you're suffering from Spanish guilt *chuckle*... osama, I used to back in my Lib days. Now I say fuck all you Lib guilt mongers and the burro you rode in on.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:00 PM (8e/V4)

38 Carlos is a fool if he thinks the Spaniards were less barbaric than the Aztecs greg, one word: humansacrifice.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)

39 Hahaha, you think I subscribe to that guilt bullshit? You are responsible for your own actions...not other's actions. You are only guilty of being a scumbag lawyer in my eyes, C!

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 03:03 PM (kd6rm)

40 Another word: multiple genocide

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:03 PM (lGolT)

41 Another word: Guero

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 24, 2005 03:06 PM (kd6rm)

42 one word: humansacrifice. That's two words. And the Spanish didn't? I'm thinking Inquisition here. The Aztecs survived for 20,000 years despite human sacrifices. The Spaniards killed more Aztecs in 100 years than the Aztecs did in 20,000 years. one word: idiot!

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:06 PM (/+dAV)

43 >>>"And the Spanish didn't? I'm thinking Inquisition here." case closed. You lose.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:08 PM (8e/V4)

44 You are only guilty of being a scumbag lawyer in my eyes, C! Steve, then we're agreed, I'm only guilty of the things I've done, not for whitey, not for Cortez, not for the Crusades, blah blah blah.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:10 PM (8e/V4)

45 That one loud mouthed Mexican female who said "go back to Europe." I'd have to say if it wasn't for Europeans, she'd be on a cot with her legs spread to get a bite to eat for herself and her brood. Wait, she'd have welfare and charity coming from Europeans, errrr, well, maybe not. I can't help but contradict this "work ethic" that people claim Mexicans have over Europeans. I work mowing lawns to keep my FAFSAs coming for my Bachelors degree. I work 9 hours a day somedays and only 6 other days. Even when I work 9 hours I am still ready for more but my boss isn't. Today when I was walking back to my place as the roads are all torn up fromo construction work being done on them. I saw a mexican in a bobcat taking a nap on the job. WORK ETHIC I TELL YA! I bust my ass working and I never take a nap on the job. Cheap labor I guess, you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Andre at May 24, 2005 03:14 PM (mfvPa)

46 Let's see... Indians: Few occasional sacrifices for 20'000 years... ~1'000'000 people perhaps Spaniards: Wipeing out dozens of Indian tribes/nations while systematically killing all non-Christians and heretics in Europe... about the same numbers Hitler had with Jews Conclusion: Yup, Spain was definitely more murderous and brutal. Even in ritual religious killings, if counted per year.

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:15 PM (lGolT)

47 "Zarqawi the Gringo killer, yes!, yes" I guess it would be useless to point out to the Aztlan a**holes that some of the troops that Zarqawi has killed are hispanic. And might I add that they have a damn good kill to loss ratio against Zarqawi. greg: The Aztecs were only in existence for a few hundred years, not 20,000 nor 2,000.

Posted by: Don Miguel at May 24, 2005 03:22 PM (+KixN)

48 Oh, and if there were no Europeans in Americas, then there wouldn't be that woman, or anything at all in it's current form, due to large parts of history changing. (well, maybe some forests in Siperia that no one has even touched after 1490s) Religion might've stayed strong for longer and the Dark Ages would've stretched far beyong 1600s, if Americas were never invaded.

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:23 PM (lGolT)

49 "The Aztecs were only in existence for a few hundred years, not 20,000 nor 2,000."-Signor Don Miguel The Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait some 20,000 years ago.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:27 PM (/+dAV)

50 "The Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait some 20,000 years ago." --greg Native americans, Aztecs, whatever. All the little brown people look the same to greg.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:36 PM (8e/V4)

51 Not really native Americans back then, more like Mongols exploring their northern areas. Indians and eskimos still look quite like Mongols, their genetic mapping was only slightly changed by the need to adjust to different environments. (Jungle indians grew skinnier, eskimos smaller and stronger-boned, prairie indians got browner when the intense sunshine eliminated the paler shaded ones, and ,excluding eskimos, facial features softened because they no longer lived in such harsh conditions)

Posted by: A Finn at May 24, 2005 03:38 PM (lGolT)

52 Is this a neonazi site ?

Posted by: Michel Meyer at May 24, 2005 03:39 PM (Hj/G2)

53 Poor Carlos. He is a "little brown" person who hates himself, his mother and his brothers. So, so sad! So sad!

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:40 PM (/+dAV)

54 "Is this a neonazi site ?"-Michel Meyer Pretty close. Very perceptive of you. It's a Zionazi site.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 03:44 PM (/+dAV)

55 To compare the Spanish inquisition to the ritual slaughter of the Aztecs is Liberal MORONITY. Shows how dumbed down Libs are. "....the Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts." --Inquisition by Edward Peters (The Free Press/Macmillan, 1988 [Univ of CA Press, 1989]) the numbers were even fewer in the rest of Europe. But the Aztecs? Behold: "In 1487 Aztec priests sacrificed more than 80,000 prisoners of war at the dedication of the reconstructed temple of the sun god in TenochtitlÃƒÂ¡n." http://encarta.msn.com/text_761593151__1/Aztec_Empire.html Like I said, case closed, you lose.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 03:59 PM (8e/V4)

56 Oh, well for heaven's sakes, they did deserve to be exterminated!

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:06 PM (/+dAV)

57 Carlos was being a bit deceitful. The actual quote was, "In 1487, ACCORDING TO LEGEND, Aztec priests sacrificed more than 80,000 prisoners of war at the dedication of the reconstructed temple of the sun god in TenochtitlÃƒÂ¡n. IT'S JUST A LEGEND.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:21 PM (/+dAV)

58 Carlos will be telling us fairy tales next. Shame on you Carlos! You thought you could pull one over on the My Pet Jawa crowd.

Posted by: greg at May 24, 2005 04:43 PM (/+dAV)

59 greg, legend according to Liberal brown people apologists. How about this: One sixteenth-century account states that 20,000 were sacrificed yearly in the capital city alone, another reports this as 20,000 infants, and a third claims the same number as being slaughtered throughout the Aztec empire on a single particular day. The most famous specific sacrifice took place in 1487 at the dedication of the main pyramid in TenochtitlÃƒÂ¡n. Here, too, figures vary: one source states 20,000, another 72,344, and several give 80,400. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year, equivalent to one percent of the total population. According to Borah, this figure is consistent with the sacrifice of an estimated 1,000 to 3,000 persons yearly at the largest of the thousands of temples scattered throughout the Aztec Triple Alliance. The numbers, of course, were fewer at the lesser temples, and may have shaded down to zero at the smallest. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/sacrifice.htm

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:18 PM (8e/V4)

60 Aztecs Cooked, Skinned, Ate Humans http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/aztec.html they were savages, and the Lord God himself erased that civilization from the memory of men.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:20 PM (8e/V4)

61 "Is this a neonazi site?" It's a pro-sanity site.

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 05:22 PM (8e/V4)

62 I lived in Baldwin Park for a while when I was nineteen. It is a god forsaken shit-hole. Let them have it. Let them declare it a leftist sanctuary where every penny goes to the new city-state of Baldwin Park. Pehaps they can issue state-sanctioned toothbrushes to the dude with the fist-wide gaps in his jew-chewing grill. Or perhaps a bra and nair for the Leftist former-hotties. Look on the bright side, we would finally have a city in the USA where a man can go to have some good clean fun like a Donkey-show.

Posted by: Sean the INFDL at May 24, 2005 05:29 PM (ptLBd)

63 Greg, once again, you manage to show your ignorance. Do you relish the though of being a minority? Of course if after the transition, more girls look like this, it won't bother me much: http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001727.html Carlos, you won't be alone in standing with us on the right, because those who truly love liberty only see Red, White, and Blue. I have no doubt that a lot of Mexicans and other Latinos will choose the right side. To everyone else, www.cheaperthandirt.com has great deals on ammo.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 05:59 PM (0yYS2)

64 "Leftism is bound together with one, and only one, common thread: HATRED OF AMERICA." Boy Rusty, that's the pot calling the kettle black. By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist? http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2005/mayo/mart24/22congre.html

Posted by: deccles at May 24, 2005 06:41 PM (UCtX/)

65 Oh, in case you thought the link in my previous post was nothing more than propaganda (not that you would ever do the same thing), here's a link to the Miami Herlad detailing the crimes of the terrorist the Bush Administration is harboring. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/11705859.htm

Posted by: deccles at May 24, 2005 06:46 PM (UCtX/)

66 "By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist?" deccles, because this known terrorist doesn't have a hatred of America-- as per Rusty's comment-- but rather of Castro. So how does an anti-Castro terrorist make the kettle black when it's completely unrelated to the Left's hatred of America. I don't get it. Where you just looking for any thread on any blog to copy and paste that?

Posted by: Carlos at May 24, 2005 07:30 PM (8e/V4)

67 I already saw that one, it was called the Democractic National Convention.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 24, 2005 08:42 PM (HoSBk)

68 IM, I'm looking for cheap CETME magazines. Seen any?

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 24, 2005 10:36 PM (xauGB)

69 Oh wait, if 250'000 was 1% of the population, does it mean the conquistadors killed 25'000'000 people, and that's just the Aztec numbers?! Damn... I thought Hitler was bad...

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)

70 Finn, the spaniards did not eradicate the indian population to the extent that the english did in north america. They simply toppled the indigenous aristocracies and then intermarried with the population over the centuries. Your average mexican today is a spanish/aztec mix.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 08:20 AM (8e/V4)

71 "the spaniards did not eradicate the indian population to the extent that the english did in north america."-Carlos Oh, heaven's no. The 25,000,000 Aztecs became very shy and are just hiding.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 08:32 AM (/+dAV)

72 greg, the only Aztecs in hiding are the ones here illegally.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:09 AM (8e/V4)

73 And how many million Maya are in "hiding" too?

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 09:24 AM (/+dAV)

74 greg, the Maya are further south than Mexico, in Guatemala. And my understanding is that the Mexican government is very strict about any of them trying to cross north into Mexico. Nice double standard.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:27 AM (8e/V4)

75 I meant to say further south than the Aztecs, mostly in Guatemala and the southern end of Mexico.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 09:29 AM (8e/V4)

76 Wow!!! Not sure what to do with this. Good post. Hmmm......

Posted by: Howie at May 25, 2005 09:34 AM (D3+20)

77 So everything south of Mexico is Portugals fault and has nothing to do with conquistadors?

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:44 AM (lGolT)

78 "I meant to say further south than the Aztecs, mostly in Guatemala and the southern end of Mexico."-Carlos I've been to, arguably, two of the finest examples of Mayan architecture and both were in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico - Tulum and Chichen Itza. Are the Mayans hiding too?

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 09:47 AM (/+dAV)

79 Oh I know, the Aztecs and the Maya are just taking a long, long siesta, as is the custom is Mexico.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 10:01 AM (/+dAV)

80 greg, Are you just feigning ignorance out of boredom? Modern mexicans and guatemalans are the descendants of Aztecs and Mayans, with some spanish blood sprinkled in. They're called 'mestizos'. And FYI-- because it isn't common knowledge-- the Maya civilization collapsed hundreds of years before the spaniards even arrived. Nobody knows why, but you can probably blame the Aztecs for that.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 10:08 AM (8e/V4)

81 So, are you half mestizo Carlos?

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 10:14 AM (/+dAV)

82 "By the way, can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration is harboring a known terrorist?" deccles, because this known terrorist doesn't have a hatred of America-- as per Rusty's comment-- but rather of Castro. So how does an anti-Castro terrorist make the kettle black when it's completely unrelated to the Left's hatred of America. I don't get it. Where you just looking for any thread on any blog to copy and paste that? Posted by Carlos at May 24, 2005 07:30 PM Actually Carlos, my comment to Rusty has nothing to do with my terrorist post. I was referring to another post he made. I added the link regarding the terrorist because this original article seemed to at least refer to the subject of terrorism. I only do this because Rusty will never post anything that might show Bush's true colors.

Posted by: deccles at May 25, 2005 10:47 AM (UCtX/)

83 greg, I'm not really sure. She looks spanish, not indian.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

84 Well Carlos, It seems like you have a touch of self-hatred. What a shame that you can't embrace your Mexican culture. There's plenty to embrace.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)

85 Hey deccles, I suppose the fact that the man has been acquited of the crime Castro accuses him of means nothing eh? In fact, he has been acquitted twice. Is it your intention to keep trying him until you get the 'correct' verdict? To hell with the concept of double jeopardy. Keep drinking the tyrant approved Kool-aid there buddy.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 11:31 AM (jPCiN)

86 Carlos, IÂ’m reminded of a psychological study that was done some 25 years ago. In the study, 5 year old American black boys and girls were asked to draw Â“a pretty girlÂ”. Invariably they drew a white girl with blond hair. Such is the insidious nature of WhiteyÂ’s program that by the age of 5 one has already been indooctrinated. You have been indoctrinated by this same program to the extent that you have become a self-hatter. ItÂ’s ugly and I feel for you.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)

87 oops, "hater".

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:36 AM (/+dAV)

88 greg, I would have to be an Aztec indian to be a self-hater. To the extent I am mestizo, I don't hate mexicans, therefore no self-hate. My sister-in-law is mexican and we get along wondrously. Also, even if I WAS an Aztec indian, then I am as self-hating for condemning the barbarity of that satanic culture as you are for condemning the barbarity of the Crusaders. Are you a self-hater? What's the diff?

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 11:41 AM (8e/V4)

89 and ps., I often visit mexico on vacation and enjoy it tremendously, so you are hardly the one to lecture me on how much of Mexico there is to appreciate. And no, I don't do the gringo resorts, I stay with friends and family. But I enjoy Mexico precisely because that nasty satanic Aztec culture was wiped out.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)

90 Actually I wasn't calling anyone names, but I will now. Oyster is a CUNT. Oyster, don't you have some fries that need cooking in your resaurant?

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:57 AM (/+dAV)

91 oops, "restaurant"

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 11:59 AM (/+dAV)

92 I agree with Carlos--a culture that sacrifices its young for whatever purposes is a barbaric one. But what does that say about America, with its abortion rate in the thousands per day?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 12:40 PM (x+5JB)

93 Its long past time Greg was banned for his filthy mouth.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 25, 2005 01:11 PM (xauGB)

94 Oyster, Two more large orders of fries please.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)

95 nah, don't ban greg. He amuses me.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 01:21 PM (8e/V4)

96 But hold the secret sauce!

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:22 PM (/+dAV)

97 If Oyster had a second brain he'd be a half-wit. That makes him either a nit-wit or a dim-wit. Where are those fries damn it?! Hold the sauce!

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 01:42 PM (/+dAV)

98 YBP, Sorry, but there is a big different between sacrificing youths, (aka a living breathing person) and abortion (the removing of a parasitic growth that has the "potential" of becoming a living breathing person.)

Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 02:17 PM (Gqhi9)

99 You guys need to do a little more homework. Mexicans are not Aztecs and never were. First of all, a mestizo is a person of mixed European and native American ancestry (not just Aztec) -- the mestizo Mexicans of today are the descendents of Europeans (primarily Spaniards) and multitudes of indigenous peoples from Mexico (Tetzcocans, Zapotecans, Matlatzincans, Mixtecans, Mayans, Tlaxcalans, Totonacans, Huaxtecans, Tarascans, etc., etc. and Aztecs). Second, the Aztecs were ALWAYS a minority in Mexico. They occupied a relatively small area of central Mexico and commanded an empire that lasted less than three hundred years. Their empire was large but it was mostly populated by the native people who generally governed themselves. Only the peoples geographically close to the Aztecs even spoke the same language (Nahuatl). In the end, a large portion of the Aztecs were killed by the Spaniards by starvation, disease or in battle. So to sum up for the Aztlan and Mecha losers, modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none.

Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 02:21 PM (+KixN)

100 "modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none."-Signor Don Miguel Yes, because the Aztecs and Maya were exterminated.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 02:28 PM (/+dAV)

101 gregcito: Thanks for proving that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Neither the Aztecs nor the Maya were exterminated. Their civilizations are gone, but not the descendents. And please tell me, great fountain of knowledge, how the Mayans were "exterminated?" BTW, I'm not Italian.

Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 02:38 PM (+KixN)

102 Butch: You consider unborn children to be "parasitic growths"?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 02:48 PM (x+5JB)

103 So, Butch. When does "it" become a person? When it can debate its very existence with you on a blog? That was an incredibly amoral statement.

Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2005 03:00 PM (fl6E1)

104 "modern Mexicans are not Aztecs and the chances that they have a drop of Aztec blood are slim to none.-Don M Well, if they weren't exterminated then modern day Mexicans are likely to have more than just a drop of Aztec and Mayan blood. No?

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:05 PM (/+dAV)

105 Butch must use that language so that he can justify an abhorant act. If he were to say it will most likely become a person unless someone kills it, it would be too close to the truth for comfort.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 03:08 PM (jPCiN)

106 I know, I know, every Mexican wants to think he is pure Spanish. I remember when I was growing up there was a Mexican I knew from a prominent family who claimed he was Italian. Poor fuckers.

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:08 PM (/+dAV)

107 I don't know why they would. The spanish have proven themselves to be terrorist appeasing pussies.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 03:19 PM (jPCiN)

108 Don Miguel, my basic point was that the Aztecs weren't exterminated. They were removed from power and their descendants live today. I failed to consider there were also other tribes living under the Aztec empire. So, greg, I'm more way more right than you are, you self-loathing christian.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 03:23 PM (8e/V4)

109 There, there, Carlos, of course you are, of course you are!

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:30 PM (/+dAV)

110 Carlos, You are, as you say, way more right than the pendejocito.

Posted by: Don Miguel at May 25, 2005 03:33 PM (+KixN)

111 Hey hold on just one gosh darn second pendejos! Pinche puta!

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:43 PM (/+dAV)

112 A viente abadesa!

Posted by: greg at May 25, 2005 03:50 PM (/+dAV)

113 Killing young people was the Aztec way of birth control. Brutal? Yes, but they didn't have the food or the space for them in big Aztec cities. If they had had condoms or known the week in the period circle sex is childless they wouldn't have had to slaughter them. So they had to, but for starvation, not a career or body figures that can be easily fixed (well, the body everywhere, career pretty difficult in most countries) after the 1,5 years the child needs it's mother most of the time.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:02 PM (lGolT)

114 An embryo is just what I described it. As for when do I consider it to be human, DUH, when it is born and breathing. As in LIVING AND BREATHING. And yes it is a parasite. Until it is born, it is feeding off it's host, weaking it's host. It is much like a tumor. The only difference is that the embryo has much more "potential". If we are going to say that getting rid of a potential life is a sin, then any woman who has had a menstrual cycle or any man who spanked his monkey is committing sin. They are wasting the potential of life. Actually any man who unloads for any other reason then to create a child is committing sin. (Using condoms, his partner is on the pill, sponge ect.) The problem is that the majority of people in this world are so egotistical, that they truly believe that they do not consider themselves animals which is what they really are. Do you think that if a starving lion sees any one of us is going to stop and think, woah, I'm hungry, but they guy has a soul so I can't eat him. I don't think so. Or what if some ET(outworlder) visit our planet. I am sure they are going to think we are another class of guinea pigs to study just like the rest of the animals in the world. Don't get me wrong, I still think Humans are the top of the animal kingdom, but we are animals none the less. Soul or souless, just look at the actions of every animal on the planet and you can see a lot of things in common.

Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 04:46 PM (Gqhi9)

115 Hmmm... not having sex and letting the cells go with the flow or die in the testicles would be a sin as well by that logic. So let's get horny and have unprotected sex at least once a week for men and once a month for women, so that we are not offending the will of Butches religious interpretation. Ok, good night, almost 1 am already and I got to be up at... 7:30 sumthin'

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:53 PM (lGolT)

116 Butch: "...it is feeding off it's host, weaking it's host. It is much like a tumor." Babies and children are dependent on parental nourishmnet, too. Are they tumors? "The problem is that the majority of people in this world are so egotistical, that they truly believe that they do not consider themselves animals which is what they really are." Butch, I'm going to make your day and concede that you are an animal.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 25, 2005 07:04 PM (q2lQK)

117 Butch, I appreciate your honesty. If you live in a universe where there is no God, then it is as you say and we are nothing but animals. Logically, abortion would therefore be no more disturbing to you than slaughtering a chicken or swatting a mosquito, and logically it would also justify all the crimes committed by godless atheists in the 20th century. And horrible as those crimes seem, in a Godless universe, no big deal. That's what made the 20th century such a bloody one.

Posted by: Carlos at May 25, 2005 07:28 PM (8e/V4)

118 sighhhhh.....im just too friggin tired and disgusted to say anything at the moment....goodnite

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 25, 2005 09:00 PM (6Xt4D)

119 Been gone most of the day. Whuh? Ancient Mexico debate into abortion? What a tangent.

Posted by: osamabeenthere at May 25, 2005 11:54 PM (XXCz1)

120 YBP: "Babies and children are dependant on parental nourishment, too. Are they tumors?" Nah, from 0-12 they're more like very, very difficult and timetaking pets, and leeches after they turn 13.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 04:04 AM (cWMi4)

121 Finn, It is not my religion to have unprotected sex. I am trying to point out (to the extreme) what the Conservative Right wants us to believe. That life begins at conception, and I am saying only the potential for life begins at conception. Life does not begin until one is born ( as in ,once again, Living Breathing.) YBP, Merrian - Webster (MW) defines a parasite as "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism" and parasitism as "an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures". An embryo meets this definition. It is obtaining benifits (nourishment) while it injures (fatigue, pain to name a few things) the host. Babys do not fit the term because they are no longer causing harm to the mother. And there was no need for you to conceed the point, I already state I was an animal. The point you need to conceed is that everyone else in the world is also. As Carlos state (with a slight modification), "horrible as those crimes", "what made the 20th century such a bloody one" Carlos, first off, It is not the atheists that are causing most of the horrible acts, but "religious people" (Muslims, Protestants (IRA), Catholics (child abuse). The reason abortions do not bother me and it should not bother you or YBP, because we will never have to have one, unless either of you two are doctors asked to perform one. To me that is the whole point about abortion. It is a choice between a woman, her doctor, and her Beliefs. But the CR (Conservative Right) want to make the Government part of that choice. The CR wants to force their belief onto these women. YBP once stated in a different post that it is a sin for Christians to force their faith on to anyone. Well there been a lot of sinning up on Capital Hill.(But of course there is always a lot of sinning up on Captial Hill.) One more for Finn, you are wrong, children are leaches up to 18, and with todays economy, even longer.

Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 08:36 AM (Gqhi9)

122 IRA is a protestant faction?! Why do they fight for joining Catholic Ireland then...

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:23 AM (lGolT)

123 Oh, I guess you just had to come up with something to blame on Protestants, so wouldn't have just blamed Catholics and Muslims for everything...

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:30 AM (lGolT)

124 I think Hitler was some sort of Christian at some point of his life, blame him on Protestants. Stalin must've been Orthodox as kid, so blame them for him. Also, Anglicans are Protestants, so blame what ever the British Empire did around the world to poor defenceless idiots on Protestants too.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:44 AM (lGolT)

125 Oh wait, was Stalin from Khazar? He could've been a Jew then.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 09:58 AM (lGolT)

126 I argue that babies can and do cause fatigue to parents,m who have to wake in the night to see to their needs, and can cause "harm" as well. (Breastfeeding, emotional upset, etc.) Let's kill all kids, as long as it's our "choice"! Many things in life cause "harm." Like relationships. The "harm" of bearing children must be a blessing. Ask the many women who go to incredible means of becoming pregnant. Weird that if abortion is such a great thing we only just realized it thirty years ago. We need to tell these women who have had them that are now speaking out against the practice. Unenlightened dolts.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 10:45 AM (x+5JB)

127 Yeah, that was why I referred to kids are difficult and timetaking pets. You don't kill pets for that, you give them away if you can't handle it and provide the pet what it needs.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 11:02 AM (lGolT)

128 Finn, Even though Hitler's family was catholic, he himself was not a christian. He believed in "Providence" (not a christian concept), and he attempted to create a state religion based on race and ancient teutonic mythology.

Posted by: Carlos at May 26, 2005 11:18 AM (8e/V4)

129 The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html This is the question the President's flunkies cannot answer about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001: With an unknown number of planes flying over the nation and crashing into buildings, with the President's presence at Booker Elementary announced in the media three days in advance, and with an airport just 4 miles away, how did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that President Bush was safe as he sat there reading about goats? How did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that they did not need to move President Bush into his bullet proof limo and drive away to foil a possible inbound? How did the United States Secret Service Protective Detail know for a fact that by keeping the children in the same room with the President that they were not risking their lives as well?

Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 11:34 AM (/+dAV)

130 Well said, Finn.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 12:16 PM (x+5JB)

131 Yeah, I make a good point once every 200 posts =)

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 01:12 PM (lGolT)

132 Finn, last I knew, the IRA was fighting not to join the Northern Catholics, but to have them join the rest of Ireland as one united country. They is why they kept attacking the English. Also Finn, you cannot say there has not been any violent conflicts caused by "religious" people. Some big ones that come to mind at least to me might be the CRUSADES. As for pets being given away, yes we give them to animal shelters, who after a certain amount of time, kill the pets for you. Try again, Finn. See YBP, that is the difference between me and you. I am not judging if abortions are bad or good. I am saying it should be a choice between the woman, her doctor and her god. But you and the rest of the CR want to tell everyone it is evil. YOU ARE FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ONTO THE REST OF SOCIETY when there is no reason to do so. If a woman in Texas gets an abortion, is it going to have any impact on your life, NOOOOO. So why are you trying to force the woman to carry it to term? The problem is that the CR can not defined anything. Life begins at conception, no birth. A child is an adult at 18 years of age, no make that 21, no make that 15. Pick a definition and stick to it. For me life begins at the baby's first breath. Everything before that, it is just extra tissue that can be discarde or not, depending on the woman's choice.

Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 01:29 PM (Gqhi9)

133 Greg, your post lost me. Is it just about Bush supposebly putting children at risk?

Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 01:34 PM (Gqhi9)

134 Butch, Sorry to confuse you. Let me try again. It was public knowledge that Bush would be at Booker Elementary School on September 11, 2001. This had been announced on Sept. 9th. There is an airport just 4 miles from Booker Elementary School. Given these two facts, why didn't the Secret Service Protective Detail wisk Bush away from the school when it became apparent that America was under attack? How did they know Bush was safe at the school? The answer is that they were privy to the attack plans, i.e. the Bush administration orchestrated 9-11 with the help of the Israeli Mossad. I have a mountain of evidence to this effect but I don't want to overwhelm you. Let me start you out with a single item. Here is a report from Briit Hume of Fox News which describes a huge Israeli spying involving 200 spies here in the US just prior to and after Sept. 11, 2001. This story was spiked (destroyed) by Fox the day after it was reported. It's an incredibly important story. Fortunately copies have been archived and are available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

Posted by: greg at May 26, 2005 01:51 PM (/+dAV)

135 Butch: "YOU ARE FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ONTO THE REST OF SOCIETY" And the Left hasn't, for legalizing a practice that people have reviled for thousands of years?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 26, 2005 02:01 PM (x+5JB)

136 Bitch: "Finn, last I knew, the IRA was fighting not to join the Northern Catholics, but to have them join the rest of Ireland as one united country." That's what I friggin' said, don't think there are terrorist organizations named "Catholic Ireland", jackass. "As for pets being given away, yes we give them to animal shelters, who after a certain amount of time, kill the pets for you." That's not giving pets away, that's just abandoning them. Giving pets away is when you find someone who wants to take care of the pet for you, not dumping them in the nearest butcher facility.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:26 PM (lGolT)

137 Oh, and: "Also Finn, you cannot say there has not been any violent conflicts caused by "religious" people." I implied that all religion-related conflicts are because of Catholics and Muslims, I didn't deny the bloody history of Christianity and Islam.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:31 PM (lGolT)

138 Oh, an important correction: Catholic church acted exactly like modern terrorism when it was spreading like a virus with crusades and "convert or die" -policy, but since it is a majority organization now they can't be called terrorists. More like the biggest influence in US foreign politics. So technically Catholic Ireland as a country is a part of an ancient terrorist organization, but you can't say they are that today.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 02:40 PM (lGolT)

139 Good name for the motherfucker Butch-----Bitch. Liberal bitch needs to slapped upside his dumbass head. Bet Bitch is glad his mother didn't abort his ass. Dumbass motherfucker.

Posted by: angryblackman at May 26, 2005 02:47 PM (x+5JB)

140 Bitch? Oops, those two are too close on the keyboard. (Yeah, I noticed it, but eventually decided not to switch to U... seemed like a subconcious decision)

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:04 PM (lGolT)

141 Finn, your post stated that the Protestants want to join the Catholic (which was part of the UK.) There is a big difference between them join the UK, and the Catholic breaking away and joining the rest of Ireland. Also you are wrong again. There have been different wars fought over religion besides the Catholics and the Muslims. The civil wars in England where the Protestants and Catholics were butchering each others comes to mind. Ever hear of Bloody Mary, and I'm not talking about the drink. Now I do not disagree that the Catholics and early Christians were not brutal. I know most of Norway was covert to Christianity by the sword. But we have strayed from my point, which was addressings Carlos remark of the atheists doing all the killing and evil things in the world. I tried to point out this was not true. Now if you want to rant and rave about the evils of the Catholics, you can go ahead. I do not care one way or the other. Now YBP might. As for the supposedly accidental mispelling and deliberate not correcting of my name, I did have more respect for you because I thought you were one of the few who could carry on a debate with out childish name calling. I guess I was wrong. So if want to start digressing into name calling, just let me know. I can think of all kinds of names especially since I have a lot more years on you. And just to show you, here is one for anusbitchman. Gee, Bitch works for your sorry ass name also. If you don't have anything to say besides profanities and violences, maybe you be just keep your fat ass dick sucking lips shut. Now if you wish to comment on why my views are wrong in a friendly debate, by all means I will be glad to hear your view. If you just want to show how stupid you are go play with yourself, because I know you cannot get any woman to be with you. YBP, how is it forcing people to your beliefs by allowing other people to do something you personally don't believe in. There was a time when some people believed that drinking booze was wrong. There are some people who still believe this way. By allowing you or me to drink, does this force them to go against their belief. No. Also you stated "Weird that if abortion is such a great thing we only just realized it thirty years ago." but then you turn around and state "for legalizing a practice that people have reviled for thousands of years?" So how old is abortion, 30 years or thousands? One more thing, I would like to comment you on how to hold a debate. I can see this is a touchy subject for you, but you have presented yourself far above, and not in just this post but different ones, most people on this blog.

Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 04:33 PM (Gqhi9)

142 That is commend and should not be comment.

Posted by: Butch at May 26, 2005 04:54 PM (Gqhi9)

143 Hmm... Some other Protestant related wars: The 30-year northern war Lutherans vs. Catholics and Orthodox. Scandinavia, Russia and Germany+neighbours involved. "Uskonpuhdistus", cleansing of the faith, looting all Catholic churches in all of Scandinavia and North-Germany and switching to less extravagant Lutheran faith. "Ristiretkisodat", pagan peoples of the north and east teaming up with Mongols to fight off Crusades to the north. (more like a protesting war) How was it... "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but touch my heart and I'll crush yours"? That's the Finnish version at least... If someone insults you, you should retaliate with ten times the insult, not start saying "let's not start doing this, I'd win anyway", since you never know what kind of insult skill the person might have unless you try. Besides, I enjoy a bit of insults comment wrestling, played a bit too many Monkey Island games to not love it.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:05 AM (cWMi4)

144 To return to the original subject of this article(well, at least to comment something on it), why did they think Manhattan is a Jewish shithole? I'd say it's more like a paved, polluted boil in Americas belly button (if Florida is the winkie, Northpole is the head and brains, Canada being the upper body) sucking life out the not-so-overpopulated waist-areas below it. (Mexicans are pushing in from the backside...=P)

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 03:36 AM (cWMi4)

145 And I do hope you meant it's just YBP whos presenting himself as "far above most people on this blog" I try not to do that, since that sort of behaviour is selfabsorbed and makes the ego fragile against attacks.

Posted by: A Finn at May 27, 2005 06:26 AM (cWMi4)

146 Butch: Good morning and thank you for your kind words. I'll try to avoid religious arguments here! It ain't easy! Abortions have probably been around since mankind started, but have always been considered reprehensible and a crime against humanity until recently. Calling abortion a "right" is a new trend. Prtoecting human life is not a radical new thing, but fundamental to the the sanity of any civilized society. I'm positive the Founding Fathers, who discuss the God-given rights of those created by parents (and indirectly, through Him), would be aghast. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism. Thus, killing a fetus is killing a potential baby. Killing a child is killing a potential man or woman. It's killing innocent life, and that's what those who oppose abortion are against. No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's." Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. Regarding Development: Some imply that a fetus is not a thinking, feeling, conscious human being. Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being. According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed. Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester." The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being. I believe that laws should support this fundamental belief. Another set of arguments against abortion would be philosophical arguments. A key philosophical question is where do you draw the line? Put another way, when does a human being become a person? The Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade separated personhood from humanity. In other words, the judges argued that a developing fetus was a human (i.e., a member of the species Homo sapiens) but not a person. Since only persons are given 14th Amendment protection under the Constitution, the Court argued that abortion could be legal at certain times. This left to doctors, parents, or even other judges the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding when personhood should be awarded to human beings. The Supreme Court's cleavage of personhood and humanity made the ethical slide down society's slippery slope inevitable. Once the Court allowed people to start drawing lines, some drew them in unexpected ways and effectively opened the door for infanticide and euthanasia. Look at the situation of the poor woman in Florida, starved to death. Reagrdless of her thinking capabilities, SHE WAS STILL A WOMAN. The Court, in the tradition of previous line-drawers, opted for biological criteria in their definition of a "person" in Roe v. Wade. In the past, such criteria as implantation or quickening had been suggested. The Court chose the idea of viability and allowed for the possibility that states could outlaw abortions performed after a child was viable. But viability was an arbitrary criterion, and there was no biological reason why the line had to be drawn near the early stages of development. The line, for example, could be drawn much later. Ethicist Paul Ramsey frequently warned that any argument for abortion could logically be also used as an argument for infanticide. As if to illustrate this, Dr. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, demonstrated that he was less concerned about the ethics of such logical extensions and proposed a more radical definition of personhood. He suggested in the British journal Nature that if "a child were considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an 'acceptable member of human society." Obviously this is not only an argument for abortion; it's an argument for infanticide. Other line-drawers have suggested a cultural criterion for personhood. Ashley Montagu, for example, stated, "A newborn baby is not truly human until he or she is molded by cultural influences later." Again, this is more than just an argument for abortion. It is also an argument for infanticide. More recently some line-drawers have focused on a mental criterion for personhood. Dr. Joseph Fletcher argues in his book Humanhood that "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." This is not only an argument for abortion and infanticide; it's adequate justification for euthanasia and the potential elimination of those who do not possess a certain IQ. In other writings, Joseph Fletcher suggested that an "individual" was not truly a "person" unless he has an IQ of at least 40. There are a number of biblical arguments against abortion. But there are also medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 08:15 AM (x+5JB)

147 YBP, Very well argued. I'm in agreement with you. That said, I'm going to play devil's advocate (just figuratively I hope). There is a controversial "theory" in Biological thought that states that, "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny". This was put forward by Ernst Haeckel in the 1800s. Dr. Spock was one of the most famous pediatricians in the world. He is also the author of many best selling books. Read the following quote from his book "Baby and Child Care" and notice just how much HaeckelÂ’s "theory" influenced the world. "Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish..." Quote is from Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care. (Forget the nutty reference to spirituality). The statement means that the human embryo during early development goes through stages, first appearing fish like, then frog like, then chicken like, then pig like, and so on, until it comes to look human. Those who hold this belief might argue that the early embryo, while technically human, is more like an "animal" developmentally. Of course this is only during early development. Those who disagree with the theory call it, Â“HaekelÂ’s LieÂ”.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 08:54 AM (/+dAV)

148 Greg: Thanks. I remember reading about the theory, too, in college. Some evolutionists may assume that because of the similarities in the appearance of the these embryos, humans are "harkening back" to the species from which they derived rather than believe that the animal fetuses or feti are themselves harkening back to the developmental stages of of the higher creature: mankind. I love the line from "Annie Hall," where Woody Allen tells Diana Keaton that (paraphrasing) "All the things our parents told us were GOOD for us are BAD for us: Red meat, sunshine, college." How's Texas, amigo?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 09:28 AM (x+5JB)

149 Texas is great as usual. I'm going on vacation in Italy for 3 weeks beginning June 29th. I canÂ’t wait to get away from this stupid war for a few weeks and to be around some laid back people for a while. I'm going to start in the North and then eat and drink my way down South.

Posted by: greg at May 27, 2005 09:56 AM (/+dAV)

150 Drive safely and watch your top knot.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at May 27, 2005 10:18 AM (x+5JB)

151 YBP, I do agree that there has been some type of abortion procedures around for long time. I believe usually it was some type of potion that often as not hurt both mother and fetus. But if abortion is so Â“reprehensible and a crime against humanityÂ” why is it still around in force. Cannibalism and Human sacrifices are Â“reprehensible and a crime against humanityÂ” and they are for the most part extinct. I am not arguing that protecting human life is not a fundamental need of sane societies. What I am arguing is the definition of what constitutes a human life. Just because 100% of ones genetics are determined at time of conception (and I am taking your word on this, I have not looked into it), does not necessary make that a person. One can gather all the materials needed to make a house in a yard and have the blue prints for the house. Once you have everything there that is needed to make the house, it does not mean you actually have a house. I agree 1000% that killing an embryo or fetus is killing a Â“potential babyÂ”. But it is not a baby yet. As such, societies should not make laws based on potentials. If a society does, then we could make a law declaring Finn to be a potential terrorist, and he should be arrested and turner over to the US authorities. He did say he was glad about 9/11. Now the instant a baby is born, then they should be given 100% equal rights as any other human on earth. As for Terri in Florida, we both know we disagree on this point. I believe it was a mercy that she was allow to die, (once again I did not like the method. I believe it could have been done quicker and less painful.) Now, to give you some information to use against my own arguments, I am going to contradict myself. When I said a baby who is born should gain 100% rights as any other, I believe there is one exception to that. That is if the baby was born with no real brain activity, (ie brain stem only, poor delivery resulted in a brain damage child in the same state as Terri, ect.) If a body can only produce brain waves to a maximum of just keeping up body functions, then maybe it is not a human. If a body can not experience any type of emotions, then does this not take away at what makes us human. As for your last statement about biblical, medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion, I will be happy to listen to the medical, legal and to some extent the philosophical. The biblical issues should not be consider due to our Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution. If we start allowing Christian views into our laws, (and I know there are some already), then we should start allowing other religions also. How would you feel if we passed a law that no more cows can be killed. I think I would go crazy if I could never have another cheese burger or T-bone. As for you Faggot Finn, I was trying to be nice, but since your dumb ass wants to get into a pissing match, well lets go. First off, where in the hell in my Â“earlierÂ” post did I off you an insult. The only thing I can think of was that maybe I insulted your intelligence, but if I did it was not intentional. I thought you were smarted then it now appears you are. So why don't you go back to humping your sheep, and leave people who know how to debate, debate. As for me commending YBP on how he handles himself on these posts, I can assure you I handle myself much better then you, you Finnish pond scum. Any one know why women hate have sex with men from Finland? Because they are always Finnish before they even drop their pants. Why did the Russian Cabinet hate Stalin? Because he kept destroying the Finnish. Why did Finn fall off the cliff? He did not see the ewe turn. Why did Finn want to join the German Navy? He heard they had ewe boats. Why does Finn like making love on cliff sides? The ewe pushes back harder. Why does Anus bitch man wear Button Fly? Sheep can hear a zipper at 30 yards. Why does Finn where Button Fly? Cause Anus Bitch man can hear a zipper at 50 yards.

Posted by: Butch at May 31, 2005 11:02 AM (Gqhi9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 19, 2005

The Silver-Lined Gitmo Commode

By Demosophist, (while Rusty is living it up in Adams-Morgan and forgetting to tell me where to meet him.)

Well, I'm frankly puzzled by this whole Koran-flushing thing. I understand how a people steeped in a vengeful literature for a thousand years might get upset when a few red infidels use laser-guided bombs to blow up their neighborhoods while we're liberating them from tyranny. And I grasp the idea of the shame of a proud people when inferior mongrel troops are sent into a place like Fallujah or Ramadi to uncover baby Auschwitz slaughterhouses with shaky plaintive notes from the victims scrawled on the walls in their own blood, or when we bomb Baghdad in "Shock and Awe" while they stand on their rooftops so as not to miss anything, or when a group of our miscreants discomfit captives guilty of far worse, with the cultural indignities of plebe hazing. I understand that, and it sorta makes sense. But why do they wait until they think we might have flushed a [holy] book down the crapper before instigating an Ummah-wide lethal street uprising? Why now, and not then?

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:33 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 1185 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Aside from your last sentence (namely because I still see Bolton as more of a liability for U.S. interests), I thought you made some pretty insightful points.

Posted by: Venom at May 19, 2005 02:41 PM (dbxVM)

2 It won't take a massive attack on one of our cities to set us off into total war with Islam. If we see the start of suicide bombings in our cities, malls, or other public places, I would expect to see outrage so massive that it could result in Congressional action to not only ban Muslim immigration, but possibly the deportation of Muslim non-citizens as well. And I'm NOT paranoid. A radiological or chemical attack against one or more of our cities would result in such a terrible lust for revenge that it could not be stopped. Anyone who tried to negotiate would be ignored. I read recently that Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because Iran knows that there are Israeli submarines with multiple nukes, and that Iran would cease to exist as a nation if Israel struck back. I would hope the Iranians (or the North Koreans) know that any weapons used against us will be traced by to their money, scientists, technology, spies, or whatever. The revenge would be horrific.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 19, 2005 02:47 PM (cf+K6)

3 "I read recently that Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because..."-Scott CA ...BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NUKES, IDIOT!

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 02:58 PM (/+dAV)

4 Venom, Bolton is just what the Dr. ordered. He reminds me of Theodore Roosevelt, and a good Big Stick treatment is just what the UN needs.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 19, 2005 02:59 PM (0yYS2)

5 The one adjective that best describes Muslim characteristics is childishness. They do the most unbelievable shit and stand ready to justify it by making up whatever lies are needed on the spot, then when they see an offense to them, whether real or perceived, they throw a tantrum. My grandmother showed me the best remedy for a kid who misbehaves, and I think that most Muslims could use a dose of it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 19, 2005 03:03 PM (0yYS2)

6 Greg, i think what Scott was saying that if{meaning sometime in the near future}Iran had a nuclear device, they wouldnt use it on Israel because they know that there would be massive retalation that would wipe out millions of Iranians....and no one knows for a fact if Iran does/doesnt already have at least one nuclear device on hand as of now....wether or not they do/dont they sure like to mouth off about starting up their nuclear program....and i for one do nor trust the Iranian Mullahs in charge.....

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 03:04 PM (mZYh2)

7 you got that right Maximus....a good spanking and sent to youre room....now, can we send the Mullahs to their room and let some pigs loose in there with em???

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 03:07 PM (mZYh2)

8 Greg, get a grip. Read the newspaper. The Iranians are working as fast as they can to get a nuke and everybody (except you, I guess)knows it. They will probably prevail, unless Israel or the US stops them first. They have publically stated that their intention is to "destroy Israel" with a nuke. Like so many Islamic regimes, they are delusional to the point of psychosis. They know Israel will destroy them if they hit her first. The fact that YOU don't keep it is not my problem, comrade.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 19, 2005 03:17 PM (cf+K6)

9 The fact that YOU don't keep up (with the news) is not my problem, comrade. (correction).

Posted by: scott in CA at May 19, 2005 03:19 PM (cf+K6)

10 Scott, I can't blame Iran for wanting a nuke. Israel has 200-500 nukes. As a result, everyone of her neighbors lusts for the bomb. It makes good sense. What's goood for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: greg at May 19, 2005 03:42 PM (/+dAV)

11 I think the logic of deterrence still holds with respect to Iran, but it's now more of a constrain than a barrier, because there are lots of loose cannons around now. How could a people willing to violate the sanctuary of mercy, not to mention other time-honored sanctuaries, be relied upon to honor the logic of deterrence? Short answer: they can't. If through through misadventure or design they were to get their hands on a device, you can kiss the Middle Eastern heritage and civilization, both the Persian and the Arab versions, goodbye. They'll survive only in museums. Besides that, why would we even consider giving that sort of leverage to a totalitarian regime, if there were the slightest possibility of denying it to them? You Leftists out there (Venom, etc.) get with the program. Just because we win this doesn't mean you lose. That's another story, and your prescriptions will be judged on entirely different grounds. Grow the heck up.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 19, 2005 03:50 PM (d0CtA)

12 oh sure greg, wouldnt you just love to see a bunch of psycotic bunch of Iranians with pudding for brains, armed with one of mankinds most powerfull and destructive weapons???.....dude, you gotta leave them magic mushrooms alone....what are you a kid???....oh come on mom thats not fair!!!!....if Abdualla has a nuke to play with, i want one tooooooo!!!!.....see, the Israilis have enormous restraint to not use their nuclear arsenal unless its absolutley needed...they could have wiped out every single freaking camel jockey by now what with all the murders caused by suicide bombers and all the rocket and mortar attcaks they suffer almost every day on their towns and settlements...but have they, NO...now you take those wild and crazy guys in Tehran...well, all they need is for some Israeli to even sneeze in their direction and they would be screaming to launch the missles and you know it....just who i would love as a neighbor, sheesh...there goes the neighborhood, sweety, pack up the kids and the dog, we are moving to some desert island in the South Pacific!!!

Posted by: THANOS35 at May 19, 2005 06:02 PM (mZYh2)

13 "every single freaking camel jockey" --Thanos35 Racist speech belittles you and reduces the value of your comments.

Posted by: puzzled at May 20, 2005 04:37 AM (moq9v)

14 greg, Israel SHOULD have nukes because she isn't trying to wipe out her Arab neighbors, while her Arab neighbors DO want to wipe out Israel. So what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 08:26 AM (8e/V4)

15 Demosophist, I know it's convenient to label me a leftist, but you're the one whose "left" on that one (as in "out in left field). I'm a true conservative, not a neocon like yourself. There's a difference. Frankly, you should "get with the program" and learn that difference.

Posted by: Venom at May 20, 2005 08:45 AM (dbxVM)

16 greg, not to mention Israel is our ally and Iran is our enemy. No equivalency whatsoever.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 08:49 AM (8e/V4)

17 I can't wait until the Arabs get a nuke. A state of mutually assured destruction is just what the region needs. And Israel is no ally.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 08:58 AM (/+dAV)

18 Greg, I'll just go ahead and say it. Israel is GOOD. Iran is EVIL. There, go ahead and rant. No one cares. The point is that there are good contries who are democratic and do not threaten others, and there are evil countries, who are undemocratic and do threaten others. I am in favor of arming the former to the teeth with anything it takes to intimidate and, if necessary, destroy the latter. It's a simple as that.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 20, 2005 09:59 AM (cf+K6)

19 Iran isn't my enemy. Iran is Israel's enemy. Fuck um. Why should our kids fight Israel's wars for them. They play the "let's you and him fight" game. They exert too much control over our country. Let them fight their own wars. We give them 4 billion dollars a year.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 10:27 AM (/+dAV)

20 What gets me is why is everyone so worry about nukes. I have to admit that Saddem was a lot smarter then the idiots in Iran. Dollar for Dollar, chems are a lot better then nukes. They are a lot cheaper to make, easier to research, easier to clean up after. Usually leave the area alone for 3 or 4 days, and you good to go. You may still have to deconaminate the area, but it is a lot easier then to de radiate an area. Not only that, you can get loot once the area is clear, with the mushroom you get slag. So if you ask me, screw nukes, lets ensure no one uses chemical weapons.

Posted by: Butch at May 20, 2005 12:04 PM (Gqhi9)

21 Greg, the current Iranian government is your enemy. Their stated agenda is to destroy the West and institute Islam over the earth. They have said it many times. It's all part of the Jihadi psychosis that is a key element of radical Islam. You ignore it at your peril.

Posted by: Scott in CA at May 20, 2005 01:03 PM (N8E1H)

22 Listen bitch, I'll choose my own battles. I don't need you fucking Zionazis telling me when I should sacrifice my progeny. If you want war, I suggest that you and YOUR kids grab a few rifles and hop on the next plane.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 01:38 PM (/+dAV)

23 Israel isn't our ally. Iran isn't our enemy. greg says so.

Posted by: Carlos at May 20, 2005 02:12 PM (tFXpR)

24 Iran is our enemy. Israel says so. Sacrifice your children for Israel. Sacrifice your children for Carlos.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:34 PM (/+dAV)

25 Carlos: I just don't know how to talk to the Left, or for that matter their allies the Paleocons, any more. The fact that the latter are their allies might have clued them in at some point, but I think I've finally come to the same conclusion as Bill Whittle, that for some people deep in the womb of sanctuary "reality has left the building." I don't know how to reach such people, though I see they can probably reach themselves if they've the right incentive. And I don't believe, any more, that there's even a decent reason to try to reach them. We can pretty much do this without them. When they decide it's time to join the jihadists, and they start throwing bombs themselves, we'll cross that bridge too. What can one expect of a people who equate the equivalent of plebe or fraternity hazing with real torture? Not very much, I'm afraid. On a more constructive note, did you know it's possble to use store-bought tortillas and Trader Joe's Pizza Sauce with pre-grated Italian gourmet cheeses and farm-fresh produce, to make personal-sized homemade pizzas that are just wonderful enjoyed with a beer and NASCAR on the Speed Channel, or the Tour de France or the Giro on OLN if you prefer? What a delicious place is America! No wonder the lamenters don't actually leave for a European or Middle Eastern paradise!

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 02:37 PM (d0CtA)

26 Demosophist, Carlos, and Oyster; I have a simple question. Are your children fighting in this war?

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 02:44 PM (/+dAV)

27 "When they decide it's time to join the jihadists, and they start throwing bombs themselves, we'll cross that bridge too." lol...ahh, I haven't laughed like that in a long time...c'mon, how can you make such a constructive commentary like your original post, and then follow it up with melodramatic nonsense like this?

Posted by: Venom at May 20, 2005 02:48 PM (dbxVM)

28 greg: Demosophist, Carlos, and Oyster; I have a simple question. Are your children fighting in this war? I don't have children of that age, but my nephew helped retake the oil facilities at Um Qasr and lived in the appalling conditions there for six months defending from sabotage, and going on regular patrols in the gulf to interdict shipments of supplies and ammo from terrorist-supporting states, and to disarm mines, etc. He's now back home in the states, but willing to go back any time he's asked to do so. Venom: Eh?

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 03:01 PM (d0CtA)

29 Demo If you did have children of that age you might reconsider your position.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:05 PM (/+dAV)

30 Demo, I understood Venom perfectly. Why don't you read his comment again.

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:09 PM (/+dAV)

31 Oyster? Carlos? YouuuuuuWhooooo

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:22 PM (/+dAV)

32 AIPAC campaigns for Iran sanctions http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116037299455&p=1078113566627 The Israeli spies hope you'll send your kids off to die attacking Israel's enemies. BTW, that "nuclear site" sure does get around. Photos of that same site have been claimed to be in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001189.htm They must have a really big truck to haul that sucker around like that! LIES LIES LIES!

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:32 PM (/+dAV)

33 greg: If you did have children of that age you might reconsider your position. If it's essential, it's essential. I believe it's essential, and unless I were willing to be a free-rider, of course I'd support my children going, just as people like Marc Danziger already have done. I'm preparing to go myself, as soon as I get up to speed on the language. What I can't fathom is what you think the alternative to be. Read the above fisk again. Stir in the insight that Islam has been made vulnerable to this by three trends: 1. a thousand year trend in literature that mocks all other cultures on earth as the equivalent of a canine brawl; 2. the open door given the Nazis by the Allied pullout from the Middle East in the 1940s to sew the seeds of malignant ideology; and 3. the fruition to both trends by merging with "liberation philosophy" in the writings of radical Islamists by people like Sayyid Qutb... all stirred by decades of autocratic and tyrannical oppression of Muslims and their media. We. Have. No. Choice. I understood Venom perfectly. Why don't you read his comment again. Perhaps I wasn't as clear and concise as I might have been. To clarify: Eh.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 03:33 PM (d0CtA)

34 "I'm preparing to go myself, as soon as I get up to speed on the language."-Demo In what capacity?

Posted by: greg at May 20, 2005 03:37 PM (/+dAV)

35 Greg continues to demonstrate his utter ignorance. Iran isn't a neighbor of Israel. And Iran is not an arab country. In fact, Israel worked to aid Iran during the Iran-Iraq war because Iraq had actually field armies against Israel and Iran had not. Iran's hatred of Israel is based solely on the same thing that greg's mental illnesses are based upon - anti-semitism.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 20, 2005 04:30 PM (xauGB)

36 In what capacity? Maximum.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 20, 2005 10:52 PM (d0CtA)

37 Maximum? Means nothing to me. Sounds like you're bullshitting. If you don't want to answer the question, that's OK.

Posted by: greg at May 21, 2005 09:03 AM (/+dAV)

38 Robin:"because Iraq had actually field armies against Israel and Iran had not." RobinÂ’s comment is unintelligible as usual.

Posted by: greg at May 21, 2005 09:07 AM (/+dAV)

39 Maximum? Means nothing to me. Sounds like you're bullshitting. Why would I go there and give anything less than my maximum capacity? And why the deuce would you ask me what I'd be doing specifically ON A PUBLIC FORUM, you imbecile? Has someone taken a blender to your brains? But that actually is your working level of reality, isn't it? This is all one big living room to you. What this may ultimately come down to in the end, with those of you willing to undermine civilization for the sake of that living room of perfect commity in your head, is that we may have to simply boot you out of this sanctuary so you can come to your own terms with the enemy. Not your country mind you, but you personally. Think of all the advantages. All the falafel and tabouli you could eat, and they'd even make you your own personal video, and arrange to show it to your family back home. You lucky dog. What freakin' capacity, he sez... Jesus! Yeah, our last level of defense against this enemy is to wish you on them.

Posted by: Demosophist at May 21, 2005 09:26 AM (d0CtA)

40 Greg, only incomprehensible to you because of the continual ignorance you display here. In the '67 and '73 Arab-Israeli wars, Iraqi ground units participated on the arab side despite the fact that Iraq does not share a border with Israel. That was why Israel was interested in supporting Iran against Iraq during their long war in the '80's.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 21, 2005 11:06 AM (xauGB)

41 greg, my children didn't fight in WW2 either, yet I fail to see how this invalidates that war, or this war, or any war. For arguments sake let's pretent you've proved I'm a coward for not fighting in this war and also proved that I'm the lowest form of human scum that ever walked the face of the earth. Answer me this, what in tarnation does that prove about the current war? Nothing. ergo, I see straight through your rhetorical slights of hand. Whether or not I'm scum or what you think of me is entirely irrelevant to the righteousness of this cause or any other cause. That's why I don't see to personalize blogging, because it's irrelevant what I think of you personally, or you of me.

Posted by: Carlos at May 21, 2005 11:30 AM (UWO6N)

42 Let's turn Greg's arguing style against him. Greg, have you stopped beating your wife yet? If not, why?

Posted by: Cybrludite at May 21, 2005 09:48 PM (XuH1j)

43 Now, to actually respond to the post at hand, instead of that (non-PG-13 & genetically improbable comments about Greg's ancestry deleted)troll's blather... This brings to mind an editorial cartoon just after 9/11. A bunch of stereotypical jihadis hi-5ing & whooping it up except for one really scared looking guy in front holding a book titled something like "Japan In WWII". The dialog at the bottom was, "Um, guys, have you read how this thing ends?" The Arab Street(tm) has nothing on the US Street if we get ticked off. I've heard it asked if there's anything more deadly than a fanatic willing to die. The answer is yes: An engineer who wants his family to live. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima & Nagasaki...

Posted by: Cybrludite at May 21, 2005 09:51 PM (XuH1j)

44 I do have a son in Iraq and Greg is one sick shit. Nothing more, just a little pathetic sick shit. Why anyone bothers to continue conversing with the idiot is beyond me. Ignore him. Those talking to him on this blog are probably the only attention he gets. Think about it. Could this prick have a friend?

Posted by: greyrooster at May 22, 2005 09:54 AM (CBNGy)

45 rooster, the hell have you been??? We're also missing Collin, and the speculation has been rampant about a secret love affair.

Posted by: Carlos at May 22, 2005 10:43 AM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 16, 2005

Newsweak II--The Undiscovered Irony

Actually this is being hinted at in a few different places, but let's make it explicit:

Newsweek ran a story based on mistaken information about flushing a Koran. As a result of their mistake, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.

George Bush invaded Iraq based (in part) on mistaken information about WMD's. As a result of his invasion, people died and America's reputation suffered abroad.

Of course, Iraq did have WMD production capabilities, they did sponsor terrorism, they did violate UN resolutions and international law, they did prosecute a genocide against the Kurds and killed thousands upon thousands in a nightmarish totalitarian state. And Iraq now has a fledgling democracy. And America clearly demonstrated its resolve to avenge the attacks of 9/11. But all that's not important right now.

What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well?

Posted by: seedubya at 01:21 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You pawn. The fact is that every US home (almost) has a flushable toilet. The production capability was there, and right-wing US bloggers regularly sponsor extremist right-wing behaviour - noting Blog-ads to left; "Victor Davis Hanson at his best", "Politically Incorrect - The Coolest Right Wing Shirts", "Military News and Discussion" (echo chamber) glorification of dark side etc. Newsweek pre-emptively broke a headline that was waiting to happen. Newsweek are committed in their foresight and commited in alerting their audience to risk. Anyway, if you still think "the left" read Newsweek you probably need re-educative instruction. The left read and write everything. Including rightwing spoofs like this sit...woops, cat got out of bag again.

Posted by: Republican at May 16, 2005 07:29 AM (zPCEz)

2 Newsweak lied, people died.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 08:55 AM (8e/V4)

3 "What is important: Newsweek did exactly what the left accuses Bush of doing. Can the left defend Newsweek without implicitly defending Bush as well" And can the right attack newsweek without implicitly attacking bush as well? Paralyzed we are.

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 09:14 AM (Ygl+x)

4 actus, a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. In other words, Bush would have made a better journalist than Michael Izikoff.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 09:18 AM (8e/V4)

5 "a valid point if Bush had relied only on a single unnamed source. " Then rusty's analogy also fails. I'm assuming it doesn't.

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:01 AM (Ygl+x)

6 actus, relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 10:49 AM (8e/V4)

7 "relying on a single solitary anonymous source is a lot closer to lying than relying on multiple foreign and domestic intelligence sources." and going to war and killing lots of people and using billions of dollars is a lot different than printing words on paper. but we can still use analogies.

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Ygl+x)

8 actus, but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 11:26 AM (8e/V4)

9 "but causing deaths in order to further U.S. interests is a lot different than causing deaths just to hurt Bush." The analogies rise and fall together, as they are mirrors of each other. Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable?

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 11:30 AM (Ygl+x)

10 Do you really hold newsweek morally culpable for those deaths? if a koran had actually been desecrated, would you hold that desecrator as culpable? actus, I would consider Newsweek morally culpable for reporting it even if it were true, because they reported it based on either A) malice against Bush, regardless of the consequences, or B) without malice, but with reckless ignorance of the consequences. That kind of ignorance is culpable. Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences. And anybody that ignorant should not be reporting world news. I find it hard to believe Izikoff is that naive. But given that the accusations aren't true, Newsweeak is double and triple culpable. The interrogator, on the other hand, is not morally culpable because A) flushing Koran pages down a toilet isn't immoral, anymore than some Liberal atheist flushing pages of the Bible is immoral. It was merely an interrogation technique not consisting of torture, and not meant for publication by ignorant malicious journalists. Or the interrogator not culpable because B) he never did flush Koran pages down a toilet.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 12:14 PM (8e/V4)

11 "Newsweek was motivated either by malice or extreme ignorance of the consequences." What if they knew the consequences? How do you get malice? how can this be pinned on bush?

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 12:22 PM (Ygl+x)

12 This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 16, 2005 01:48 PM (xauGB)

13 "This is part and parcel of the MSM actions to abuse their role in our society to attempt to not merely inform, not merely debate but to undermine our government with false stories." Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 06:21 PM (Ygl+x)

14 "Do you really think that desecration of the koran does not happen?" I couldn't care less if it does happen. Bibles and buddhist statues are desecrated 24/7 by these muslim sub-humans, and we don't fucking riot and kill people over it. If someone riots because of a desecrated Koran he should be shot like a mad dog.

Posted by: Carlos at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (8e/V4)

15 Actus- Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. I think anyone who did so would face severe discipline. For very good reasons, as the recent riots have demonstrated. I expect that, in line with the "fake menstrual blood" incident, it would be within the rules of engagement to desecrate a fake Koran. I have no knowledge of that, of course, and whether it would be effective I am quite doubtful.

Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 07:04 PM (KO8iS)

16 "Yes, I really think desecration of the Koran does NOT happen at the hands of our civilian interrogators or soldiers. " Woah.

Posted by: actus at May 16, 2005 10:35 PM (Ygl+x)

17 Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?

Posted by: See-Dubya at May 16, 2005 11:19 PM (qf8md)

18 "Actus, do you know something I don't, or do you just have a much lower opinion of our troops than I do?" I'm assuming our troops act a lot like prison guards -- which aren't nice people. I don't think that mishandling a Koran is that big of a deal -- in the humane treatement sense -- and I'm assuming that our troops don't either. Not the kind of thing I would do, but I've never had to run a prison/ detention system. I'm also going by the fact that before this there have been other reports of desecrations, and other religious offenses being used. Are you really surprised to find out that, in a prison, jailers act like prison guards?

Posted by: actus at May 17, 2005 01:47 AM (Ygl+x)

19 "by these muslim sub-humans"--Carlos Carlos shows us his true colors. He believes one fifth of the world is comprised of sub-humans. He probably thinks the same of Africans and Orientals. Carlos is a racist. This is a racist war.

Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)

20 greg, it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism. And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians. (and I don't care if you're not a Leftist-- given your views, you might as well be.)

Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:15 PM (8e/V4)

21 and ps., greg, YOU are the racist for holding Arabs to such low expectations of their behaviour. You think it's fine when they act like savages because after all they're only Arabs-- the little brown people (said with an Irish brogue). YOU are the racist for always giving the little savages a pass, while holding christians, Israelis, Americans, westerners to unrealistic standards of perfection.

Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 12:32 PM (8e/V4)

22 "it's true, I do believe they're sub-humans. But it's not racism, it's religionism."-Carlos It is racism and furthermore you insult God by saying so. These are the sons and daughters of Abraham. "And it's no different that how you Leftists see us christians."-Carlos I am a Christian. You're talking out your ass.

Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 01:27 PM (/+dAV)

23 greg, do you believe in the divinity of Christ, and his claim that there is no way to the Father but through him (Jesus)?

Posted by: Carlos at May 17, 2005 02:27 PM (8e/V4)

24 Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

Posted by: greg at May 17, 2005 02:42 PM (/+dAV)

25 well good for you greg. You've just risen a few notches in my estimattion of you. But your Leftist buddies can still suck eggs.

Posted by: Carlos at May 18, 2005 12:53 AM (8e/V4)

26 Carlos, You insult God by calling His creations sub-human. I don't think you can receive salvation unless you rid yourself of this sickness.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 08:33 AM (/+dAV)

27 Greg I am serioulsy getting fed up with all the crap about religion. It is not a Religious war The terrorist may like to think it s a religious war but its not. The Coalition forces are not fighting a religion they are fighting idiotic brainwashed fools who ought to know better. thats all folks........

Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 01:27 PM (F1nba)

28 Sparky, Take a deep breath, now exhale. That's it, inhale, exhale.

Posted by: greg at May 18, 2005 01:30 PM (/+dAV)

29 PHeeeewwwwww Thats better

PMT!

Posted by: sparky at May 18, 2005 07:50 PM (F1nba)

30 Very useful comments - good to read

casinos in linea

Posted by: casinos in linea at July 01, 2005 09:41 PM (MHDX6)

31 all of u dumb ass u cant blame bush for all of this he just did what he that was right and could help and protect our country. If Keery would have done somthing like this u would have been for him so shut up. But hey Kerry Isnt president so u cant say ne thing.

Posted by: adam at November 03, 2005 08:27 PM (xBEg9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 09, 2005

Tin-Foil Brigades in Congress

Break out the tinfoil, 88 members of Congress have signed a letter to the President requesting an investigation into a 'secret meeting' in which Tony Blair and G.W. Bush plan to invade Iraq and come up with justifications for it later.

Have Congressional Democrats gone completely moon-barking batty??

Here is the letter as published by Raw Story. (Hat tip to Rob at Say Anything) more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:53 AM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hard to dismiss 88 members, that's a nice chunk of change. Was justification for the war manufactured? Is the pope German? George Bush's legacy will be that of a liar.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 09:26 AM (/+dAV)

2 But it's so much fun watching the donks implode! It seems that the dems strategy is to become more anti-American. Is this how they are going to get those "value voters" into their camp? This is just like a car accident, you want to look away but you just can't.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 09:39 AM (xkIHW)

3 One thing is for sure. Greg is still a boobie.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 10:02 AM (yBHNA)

4 That there is a list of blithering idiots.

Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (yBHNA)

5 There are so many things fundamentally wrong with that letter I don't know where to start. I'll let someone else tackle it point by point. It kills me that they're STILL saying that justification for the war had to be "created". We would first have to say that 12 years of defying sanctions and non-compliance with resolutions wasn't enough. Openly administrating payments by cheque to families of terrorist "martyrs" wasn't enough. Repression, imprisonment, torture, assassination, and execution of his own people wasn't enough. Everyone was content to let the US foot the bill for years in the containment of Saddam's forces while being accused of starving Iraqi children. In that case you'd have to deny the OFF scandal existed too. His regime was, by Iraq's own constitution, illegitimate. And John Kerry didn't sign it? What? Is he going soft? Clinton didn't sign it? Nor did Biden, Byrd, Pelosi, Boxer, Ted [hiccup] Kennedy, etc? Greg's legacy will be, "At least he was consistent."

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 10:03 AM (fl6E1)

6 Saddam was either faking a WMD program, or he was fooled by his own scientists into thinkin he had one. In either case, that's how he was behaving. So serves him right.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 10:19 AM (8e/V4)

7 Saddam said he had no WMD. Saddam let the inspectors look wherever they wanted. The inspectors looked high and low and found no WMD. The WMD story was a LIE. Can you say, "Bush is a liar"? Bush lied, people died.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:25 AM (/+dAV)

8 I agree with Oyster on some stuff. The only thing we really needed for justification to invade Iraq was the continual breaking of the UN resolutions. All of the U.N. should of joined us on that. But I also say that Bush, should have impeachment proceedings brought against him because he did "lie" about WMD. Shoot, they try to impeach Clinton for a B.J., which really only effected 3 people, (Hilary, Bill, and Monica), when George's lie effect millions of people and Billions of Dollars?

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 10:36 AM (Gqhi9)

9 Moonbats are out in full force. Greg, you are such an ass. I think you are full of shit and there is no way in hell you are as educated as you claim. Put down the weeeeed, stop beating off to Nick Jr. Magazine and go get a job you degenerate hippy.

Posted by: Earl Dittman at May 09, 2005 10:38 AM (yBHNA)

10 Better impeach Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Biden and the rest of the degenerate lib scum for "lying" about WMD as well you f-ing piece of shit.

Posted by: Ob Snooks at May 09, 2005 10:40 AM (yBHNA)

11 Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden relied on "intelligence" reports provided by the Bush administration. They were lied to just like the rest of us. Bush started a war based on lies. He knew they were lies. He twisted the arms of his intelligence providers to paint the story he desired. He manipulated the evidence to start WWIV. Bush should be impeached.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (/+dAV)

12 Well, the London Times went to press with it, so it must be true. And relevant, rather than the possibility of poor wording. Not like the British Press has an agenda or has pulled out "fake but accurate" documents or photos before. Am I surprised that local rep Tammy Baldwin signed on? Not at all. Note that Russ Feingold didn't. He's got a career based on integrity to uphold. She's got to use whatever comes out of the dem playbook.

Posted by: tee bee at May 09, 2005 10:49 AM (q1JHF)

13 Greg you douchbag. CLinton Intel said the same thing. So did French and german and russian intel. So, f- off gregg.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 11:12 AM (yBHNA)

14 Actively demonstrating that they weren't serious about terrorism helped marginalize the Dems. To keep revisiting this over and over confirms their near-Freudian desire to fail. Guys, it's nearly over. You may never get your wish to stick your "Vietnam" label on this.

Posted by: Gordon at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (SN0Ew)

15 Clinton, the French, the Germans and the Russians were not confident of the intelligence assessment. They felt it prudent to exhaust the weapons inspection process. Saddam let the innspectors have a free hand in looking for WMD. There were none. But Bush had to have his war anyway 'cause he doesn't give a shit about America only his corporate buddies at Halliburton etc. Filthy Blood Lusting Nazis.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:26 AM (/+dAV)

16 Greg, you are not even worth the energy.

Posted by: ob snooks at May 09, 2005 11:48 AM (yBHNA)

17 Obsnooks, go back to sleep precious.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 11:51 AM (/+dAV)

18 This is for greg who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the a** "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others "Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating AmericaÂ’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002 "Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "SaddamÂ’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against IraqÂ’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 "Whether one agrees or disagrees with the AdministrationÂ’s policy towards Iraq, I donÂ’t think there can be any question about SaddamÂ’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 09, 2005 12:35 PM (xkIHW)

19 OH MY! ALL those filthy Libs lied and people Died! Ohhhh the Humanity! Hey Greg, grow up.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 12:40 PM (yBHNA)

20 "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of m@ss destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of m@ss destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of m@ss destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of m@ss destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of m@ss destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan" "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of m@ss destruction and palaces for his cronies.." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of m@ss destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of m@ss destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should @ssume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of m@ss destruction! ." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of m@ss destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of m@ss destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, ! 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of m@ss destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of m@ss destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of m@ss destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 What could this mean? Greg?

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 12:45 PM (yBHNA)

21 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Ohhhhhhh She Lied and People Died!! OhhHhHhh I just blotted my panties!

Posted by: MOONBAT GREG at May 09, 2005 12:47 PM (yBHNA)

22 "...they try to impeach Clinton for a B.J.,..." This is factually wrong. They went ahead with impeachment procedings against Clinton for "obstructing justice". He was eventually only dis-barred for the same reason. Apparently the bar association thought it was serious enough to kick him out. Greg, Saddam did NOT give the inspectors free reign. The IAEA even went so far as to allow him to "self-declare" what his arsenal inventory was at one point. And inspectors were thrown out entirely for years. You know what? As far as the Bush and Blair "alleged conspiracy" goes, a little critical thinking might be in order; do you really think it would have been smart to say, "Hey, we're going to invade you if you don't comply by oh, say, March next year, is that okay?" This 'new and revealing' information means nothing. In the event Saddam did-not-finally-comply after more than a dozen years, plans for an invasion had to be in place. You don't tell someone you're coming after them and then sit around and plan afterwards. This talk of a "rush to go to war" is BS. As it was, we waited too long. Saddam had many years to comply. Too many.

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 12:49 PM (fl6E1)

23 Greg, you're giving Bush too much credit for assuming he could twist his policy advisors to lie. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows dubya had false info fed to him by Cheney et. al, and tried to pass that off as the truth.

Posted by: Venom at May 09, 2005 12:54 PM (dbxVM)

24 Well, I suck (aka Ob snook), the reason we don't impeach Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, and Biden, is because they are not the ones in power. They are not the one who initiated a war and lied to the America Populace. What I am saying is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Clinton lied, impeach him, Bush lied, lets impeach him. As I stated earlier, I believe there were two reasons to go to war, 1, help the Iraqis escape the tyrant Saddam, 2, Saddam ignored the U.N. resolution repeatedly. Now I do support the war, and I do support our troops, what I don't support is two lying, cheating, stealing thieves who happens to occupy our nations top two executive positions, Bush and Cheney. The Bush adminstration makes Grant's adminstrations looks like choir boys. That is really sad due to the fact that I, as a Texan, will not support a fellow Texan.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:03 PM (Gqhi9)

25 Fancy Pants and Cap. Infidel, Impressive collections of quotes.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (Gqhi9)

26 Butch, you are an idiot. You must be one of those inbred texans the libs always talk about.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at May 09, 2005 01:11 PM (yBHNA)

27 Neither will this Texan. And so what if a bunch of Democrats bought into the lie. It was still a lie. The Democrats are as gutless as the Republicans are liars.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)

28 Whaaaoo unto any Democrat that doesn't embrace Bush's Nazi Movement. The Libertarian Party is where it's at.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:26 PM (/+dAV)

29 Whats the difference between Filthy Allah and a camels? Camels have humps, Filthy humps camels. You are right about two things, I am a Texan and a Liberal. Much better then being a right wing slaver.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 01:44 PM (Gqhi9)

30 Butch, you are nothing but a dick. I have a tin foil hat for you. Loonie whacko-

Posted by: Harold T. Fancypants at May 09, 2005 01:48 PM (yBHNA)

31 WoW Butchie! Did you make that one up yerself? Your trailer has a flat boy-

Posted by: obsnooks at May 09, 2005 01:50 PM (yBHNA)

32 "Filthy humps camels."-Butch LMFAO I can see Filthy now on top of a stepping stool, and yet still straining on his tippie toes to get his stumpy little dick lined up with Ms. Camel's ''gina.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 01:59 PM (/+dAV)

33 Okay, Harry Gaypants, tried to pay you and Cap Infidel a compliment, what do I get, abuse. I really thought you and Infidel did a good job of looking those up. But since, you can not take compliments, I will be sure not to insult you in the future with compliments. And you are wrong again, I am not a dick, I am a pussy. And you know what they say, "You are what you eat, DICK."

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:07 PM (Gqhi9)

34 You know Greg, I could be wrong. I am assuming that Filthy is the dominate one. It might just be that the camels are humping Filthy. I am sure they are humping Harry Gaypants.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:13 PM (Gqhi9)

35 Greg remains a slanderer and a liar. There have been several investigations of the intelligence pre-war in both the US and Britain and none have found any evidence that President Bush or Tony Blair lied about the intel involved. But we have a lot of evidence that greg is a liar. QED. Meanwhile, this bag of nutbags and their letter are demonstrating their need for an aluminum foil deflector beanie prescription. None of the list of allegations is actually anything wrongful. And none of the allegations are actually within Congress' power to investigate.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 02:24 PM (xauGB)

36 Butch, Filthy can play offense or defense in a pinch. I'm quite certain you're correct about Gaypants and would add Obsnooks and Earl Dittman to that list.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:28 PM (/+dAV)

37 Oyster, you are correct. Technically I do believe is was for either obstructing justice or perjury, since he lied under oath. But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by denying a b.j. That question should of never have been asked. Don't get me wrong. If they would of found anything improper with white water or true misuse of his powers as Gov or Pres, string him up. It just goes to show that the Texan has the right idea about government. Let them meet as little as possible, that way they can only screw you so much.

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 02:34 PM (Gqhi9)

38 Camel pussy doesn't sound so bad when Robin Roberts' Ga-gina is in the house.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 02:38 PM (/+dAV)

39 Mission Accomplished. I declare victory and don't I look cute strutting around in my cod piece.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 03:35 PM (/+dAV)

40 Once again, Greg takes advantage of the fact that there are no consequences for his foul little mouth and cowardice.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 03:46 PM (xauGB)

41 "But what I want to know is what justice was he obstructing by denying a b.j." You didn't pay too much attention to what was happening, did you? Butch, don't get me started on Whitewater. Both Clintons were guilty of what they were "suspected" of. The idea that he was not found guilty simply doesn't hold water with all the evidence. The fact that the Rose law firm conveniently "lost" (read that - shredded) paperwork and Madison Bank & Trust Co. neglected to fill out the proper paperwork at all is the only thing that saved them. Very little paper trail. All they had to go on was hearsay evidence and whatever minor corroboration they could dig up. That shredded paperwork has probably since been recycled and we've all used it as toilet paper. You can't defend a guy who isn't sure what "is" means.

Posted by: Oyster at May 09, 2005 03:59 PM (fl6E1)

42 I guess a blow job is out of the question then.

Posted by: greg at May 09, 2005 04:01 PM (/+dAV)

43 MAybe not Greg, Ask Butch.

Posted by: filthy allah at May 09, 2005 04:28 PM (yBHNA)

44 Oyster, I am not saying Bill is not guilty in whitewater. (Although, my personal opinion, Hilary is more so then Bill.) What I read was that they (the GOP) were able to bring about and impeachment due to Clinton lying about the B.J. under oath. I agree, I think slick Willie, was probably to slick, and as able to make a lot of the stuff disappear. But just to clearify my points, they are: 1. I believe he was impeached due to perjury. 2. Clinton perjured himself only on the B.J. (The only lie we know 100% to be a lie.) 3. If this was the only thing the G.O.P. could get on Clinton, where is the justice in this for getting a B.J. Once again, if there was other perjured statements Clinton made, I did not see them. I do not love the Clinton's adminstration any more than Bush's. I do hate Bush's admistration more then Clinton's. (I love no adminstration, I tolerate some more then others.)

Posted by: Butch at May 09, 2005 04:38 PM (Gqhi9)

45 Butch, you are grossly misrepresenting what Clinton lied about. In a deposition for a civil action involving Clinton's alleged sexual harrassment of an Arkansas state employee, Clinton was asked about other sexual relationships with his employees. He denied having any relationships with employees in a series of questions. Those denials were the lies - lies he perpetuated in order to win a court case and deny justice to a woman who had sued him. That was an impeachable offense and one that would have gotten him removed from office had the Democrats any integrity.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 09, 2005 04:55 PM (xauGB)

46 Whats moonbatty about this. Do you think those UK memo's aren't real?

Posted by: actus at May 09, 2005 07:00 PM (0HUw1)

47 I guess that pesky memo is going to come out after all, eh?

Posted by: carla at May 09, 2005 07:20 PM (kuXYV)

48 I think the far left has gone so far left, that they will do anything to make Bush look bad. They've fallen so under Soros' spell and Moore's stupidity that they'll forget that they took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign. Just this week, we've heard that Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons and will use them on us. They have already test fired ICBM's and have already stated that they'll use them to fire Electro-magnetic pulse weapons that will shut down all the electronics in the northern Hemisphere. That means that they'll shut down every computer, TV, Radio, and Cardiac pacemaker in our sphere. Now, do you think the democrat lefties will actually allow us to conduct a first strike against the terror leaders? Of course not, in fact, I'd wager that the left loonies would be standing in the dark screaming in victory that someone had finally shut us down, and in the process killed millions of people in hospices and hospitals. And they call Islam a religion of peace. right.....

Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:21 AM (LtbPK)

49 Damn this greg guy really is a nut case. You know 10 years ago all these conspiracy case people would have been laughed out of their own towns, I mean the stuff they preach is harder to believe than a Science Fiction movie. As far as WMD...none was found. Does it prove there wasn't any as everyone says, NO it doesn't. I been to Iraq. Let me tell you is someone wanted to hide something in that country they could. I could take 2 football statdiums, bleachers and all, and you wouldn't find it after giving me 1 month to do whatever I wanted. It'd still be in the country, you just would never find it.

Posted by: Daniel at May 10, 2005 02:53 AM (kYw+W)

50 Hah! I knew it. You did just invade Iraq because you hated Saddam and wanted the oil. Only WoMD was Husseins ass gas...

Posted by: A Finn at May 10, 2005 05:15 AM (cWMi4)

51 Robin, I am not trying to misrepresent anything. I am just saying that I thought, and I could be wrong, Clinton was impeached for lying about his sexual relationships during his deposition for the Whitewater hearings. I am certain he lied else where, but I thought the impeachment was for his perjury during that hearing only. If this is true, and they only thing Clinton lied about (that the GOP caught him on) was this one issue, then the GOP should of just walked away. Now if you are saying that Clinton needed to be impeached because he did lie, no matter when or on what he lied, then the same should hold true for Bush and Cheney. Once again I want to point out,I am not a loyal fanatic of Clinton or Bush. My political philosophy is politicians = Liars, Cheaters, Thieves and Evil. Governments = unfortunately a necessary of life. The less a govenment meets = less they can still, lie, cheat the people out of the peoples stuff.

Posted by: Butch at May 10, 2005 04:44 PM (Gqhi9)

52 Butch, and you are wrong. The deposition was related to a civil suit for sexual harrassment - where the questions were plainly relevant and within the scope of discovery. As the judge ruled at the very moment they were asked. And no, I'm not saying that Clinton should be impeached for lying - which is sometimes necessary to run a government ( and I don't agree that Bush or Cheney have themselves lied ) - but he should be impeached for the obstruction of justice he engaged in. Something you seem to continue to wilfully not understand.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 10, 2005 07:12 PM (xauGB)

53 Robin, I admit, and I said before, Â“IÂ” was only aware of his lying under oath. I have just gone back and looked up the point you are trying to make, and I now see that his impeachment process came about in this order: Gov. Clinton had and encounter with Paula Jones in hotel. Clinton elected President. Paula sues Kenneth Starr appointed Independent Counsel to investigate a real estate deal called Whitewater. Clinton and Lewinsky fool around. Lewinsky subpoenaed by Jones lawyers. Starr is now authorized to investigate Lewinsky. Starr reports on the Lewinsky matter to Congress. Congress votes to hold impeachment hearings on two accounts, Obstruction of justice and perjury charges. Senate votes, 45 to 55 in ClintonÂ’s favor on perjury charges, 50 to 50 on obstruction charges. Clinton Cleared. Now my questions is why was Starr, who was suppose to investigate Whitewater, now has been given permission to investigate a totally unrelated event. (Sex and real estate, yes I can now see the connection, NOT.) Once again, I do not, and did not care if Clinton was found guilty or not. What I am saying is that although Clinton did some very shady deals, Bush and Cheney are a lot worse and should be brought under the microscope also. And if Bush is as good as Clinton, then he can get his Republican Senate to let him off also.

Posted by: Butch at May 11, 2005 08:50 AM (Gqhi9)

54 Butch, everything that Ken Starr investigated was referred to him by the Clinton Attorney General. The Clinton administration decided early on to keep refering most but not all of the new scandals that arose to Starr because they didn't want to have new independant counsels appointed - after all they'd done to discredit Starr. For that reason, Starr ended up investigating a lot of stuff outside of Whitewater because the Clinton administration wanted him to be the investigator. The Clinton white house preferred Starr because the reality was that he had ethics that prevented him from fighting back against the Clinton's smear PR campaign against him as much as he should have. Each time, the new matter had to also be approved by the 3 judge DC circuit panel that supervised Starr under the old now-expired independant counsel statute. That is how for instance Starr investigated the crooked billing of Webb Hubbell and the apparent suicide of Hillary's former law partner and White House counsel Vincent Foster. The White House travel office scandal, etc. etc. In each and every case, Janet Reno referred the matter to Starr. And every time, as Starr's office spent more money investigating ever more Clinton admin scandals, he was attacked by the very White House that had referred the scandal to him. The Lewinsky matter was a little different. When Linda Tripp learned from Monica Lewinsky that there were phone calls from Clinton to Monica regarding what she should say to the Jones' lawyers, this was reported to Starr's office. Starr's office immediately reported this to the Clinton Dept of Justice who decided that Starr should investigate it. Starr then did investigate the matter and turned over what he found to the House of Reps for their consideration. Starr's successor also reached a plea bargin with Bill Clinton regarding the obstruction of justice charge. The Clinton partisans liked to claim that Starr went looking for this stuff on his own - and usually coupled that false claim with a swipe at Starr's religious principles. Those were blatant Clinton admin lies. Starr didn't work that way and they knew it. As a contrast, the independant counsel who investigated Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration spent about as much money investigating that one matter ( with a very cooperative White House ) as Starr spent investigating many different Clinton admin scandals against a non-cooperative, even obstructing White House.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 11, 2005 01:51 PM (xauGB)

55 Yap Yap Yap

Posted by: greg at May 11, 2005 02:45 PM (/+dAV)

56 There I go pissing off greg again by using words of more than one syllable.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at May 12, 2005 03:53 PM (xauGB)

57 I'm afraid to leave a message because I'll be torn to bloody shreds (this is a very nasty, kick em in the crotch discussion) I'm actually quite conservative and have supported the Bush Administration the entire time. I have said dozens of times that Saddam was a tyrant, Saddam defied sanctions, It's a reality of our economy to protect oil interests etc. (I'm not claiming that I have an educated opinion - so please don't humiliate me if I've said something asinine)...BUT 1 year ago my little brother joined the army as a infantryman. On some level I still hold to the political beliefs mentioned above, but when I think of giving my precious little brother's life to the cause it suddenly takes on a different light. Not saying that we should never go to war...ever - that's not realistic. But it does make me re-evaluate my ideals. If my little brother dies for this war and Bush really did lie and misrepresent the facts to manipulate or motivate the nation to war(even if Saddam deserved it), I don't know if I'll ever get over it or forgive Mr. Bush.

Posted by: Whitelock at June 10, 2005 05:48 PM (tiPh2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Maggie Gyllenhaal

Congrats on being named Jackass of the week.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:02 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Liberals are brilliant morons. Brilliant because most PhDs are Liberals, and morons because they're so fucking stupid.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 09:33 AM (8e/V4)

2 So why was MG being named jackass of the week? I read what she said and it sounded more like she's making sure everyone thinks about why 9/11 happened and why America is so hated. It's pretty dumb to assume terrorists are 'jealous' of freedom. There are many other issues that motivate them... Either way, worldwide polls don't lie, most of the world hates our ass, justified or not. Carlos: are you maybe 'jealous' of intelligent people? I know plenty of PhD's who are quite liberal and they aren't 'fucking stupid'. They are kick ass, motivated people with balls who do what they say and don't take shit from people who say 'fucking stupid' things like you just did.

Posted by: steven baber at May 09, 2005 07:03 PM (ruF1Q)

3 I know plenty of PhD's who are quite liberal and they aren't 'fucking stupid'. steven, I know you do, that's what I just said. And by the way, being "motivated" doesn't impress me if you're motivated to do jackass things, like be a more effective Liberal, or a more ignorant Hollywood actor. Hitler and Stalin were motivated. "Motivated" is therefore a neutral thing. It can be good, or bad. In your case, probably bad. And I'm a fucking lawyer starting my own practice so don't talk to me about balls and motivated, idiot.

Posted by: Carlos at May 09, 2005 09:30 PM (8e/V4)

4 Terrorists aren't jealous of our Freedom, they are afraid of it. If everybody in the middle east were free of tin pot dictators and religious fanatics, the middle east would be as rich as we are, both culturally and financially. Women would be free to walk the streets, wearing whatever they wanted, and there would be tourism through the sacred thoroughfares. If people were free in the middle east, they could follow their dreams, and might even stop praying 5 times a day. Hopefully someday, the people of the middle east will rise up and tell the mullah's to vamoose and go back to their caves.

Posted by: A Texan at May 10, 2005 01:28 AM (LtbPK)

5 Hahaha! Carlos, you're a LAWYER? You're trying to impress me with THAT? Oh, man. You must not win many cases because I don't find your posts very convincing. Starting a practice doesn't have anything to do with having balls or being motivated: Congrats, you are trying to do what a million other dishonest people have done to line their pockets. Oh yeah, and if 'motivated' is neutral, why do a million lawyers use the word LIBERALLY on their resumes? Why do you brag about your silly little practice using the word?

Posted by: steven baber at May 10, 2005 04:41 PM (NT+s0)

6 Texan: "If everybody in the middle east were free of tin pot dictators and religious fanatics, the middle east would be as rich as we are, both culturally and financially." --So our culture is richer than theirs because you say so? They aren't RICH? Who do you think rips us off for oil? Don't be ignorant too long or they'll finally get a nuke and turn Texas into a parking lot. I do agree with you about hoping they stop all that praying...I think everyone should stop talking to imaginary friends in the sky and wake the fuck up. That goes for any religion with fuckwad extremists...here and everywhere.

Posted by: steven baber at May 10, 2005 04:47 PM (NT+s0)

7 Oh yeah, and if 'motivated' is neutral, why do a million lawyers use the word LIBERALLY on their resumes? hahaha! what a maroon. If anybody puts 'motivated' on his resume he's either a high school kid, a college drop out, or a PhD without any real world work experience. No wonder you hippies can't find real jobs, no wonder all you do is bitch and moan about how bad capitalism is-- you put 'motivated' on your resumes and nobody hires you. And of course everybody knows you aren't motivated, you're mooches, whiners and losers. I'd rather hire a my blind, 3-legged dog than some Lib PhD who puts 'motivated' on his resume.

Posted by: Carlos at May 10, 2005 08:01 PM (8e/V4)

8 Carlos, I've never needed a resume since I'm my own boss. I'll never be a rank-and-file corporate whore, or defending one like you might be. IÃ‚Â don't bitch and moan about capitalism, just greedy fools like yourself who only care about....YOURSELF! Your greed fits the punishment of being rammed up the ass by Hilary Clinton with a gigantic unlubricated strap-on! *sound of gavel dropping*

Posted by: steven baber at May 11, 2005 06:00 PM (UcHGM)

9 What a joke being called selfish by a Lib, when it's a proven fact that Red staters-- CONSERVATIVES-- give more to charity even though they make less money. NJ-- a Blue state-- is tops in salaries but 47th in charitable donations. So now you know where to put selfish, right up your ass.

Posted by: Carlos at May 12, 2005 12:13 AM (8e/V4)

10 Carlos, I'm not a fucking 'lib' or a conservative, so your labels fail to define me. If the red states stopped giving money to the Christian insanity TV drive, then your charity numbers would fall flat on their former slave owning asses. Also, who the fuck are you calling 'conservative' when Bushie spends our future out of existence? How many 'conservatives' really conserve anything? (natural resources for example) How many 'red staters' drive economy cars instead of huge SUVs/Trucks that compensate for their tiny puds? What's up with all the flyovers buying trucks and not hauling anything but their obese McDonalds ass around? If the West and East coast kicked the midwest out of the USA, you'd be Mexico's bitch in no time. The midwest is a joke...a joke that you don't get because your brother is your father too!

Posted by: steven baber at May 12, 2005 11:15 AM (WfZ6a)

11 steven, if you kicked the red states out you'd starve to death. What are you going to eat, your stocks and bonds? That's all you've got now anyway. You don't even have industry anymore. China and Mexico got all that. And for thr record, I believe the elites of BOTH parties have sold us down the road. I don't give a shit about George Bush. I'm a conservative, not a Republican.

Posted by: Carlos at May 12, 2005 12:56 PM (8e/V4)

12 Nah, Carlos: California would keep us alive with it's agriculture, fishing, wine and the boatloads of money to be made if pot was legalized! Not to mention the TV and movie industry...I agree with you that both parties have fucked over the USA. What defines a conservative to you?

Posted by: steven baber at May 12, 2005 05:44 PM (WfZ6a)

13 Steven, Well Texas aint so bad either. We got it all here. Conservatives in my book are anybody who opposes the atheist soci alists, the culture destroyers, the moral relativists-- today known as Liberals. Heck, even religious muslims are cool in my book compared to you people.

Posted by: Carlos at May 12, 2005 06:14 PM (8e/V4)

14 I hope in 'you people' you aren't lumping my ass in with any of that that crap. I've only been through Northern Texas and all I remember was the smell of cow shit!

Posted by: steven baber at May 12, 2005 08:58 PM (WfZ6a)

15 steven, you're a Liberal, and assume you're fully on board with their agenda for overturning the established order, and with it the traditions and values that the regular folks you claim to care about hold dearest. But you don't care for them. You hold them in contempt-- that's why you try to socially engineer them. But as long as you feel it's your duty to socially engineer them, they'll never be your ally against the economic elites. Regular folks hate you more than they fear the economic elites. They hate social engineering far more than they hate economic engineering. Northern Texas does blow because it's cattle country. East and central Texas is good for forests and hills, and West Texas is good for dessert. Southern Texas blows too though.

Posted by: Carlos at May 13, 2005 09:40 AM (8e/V4)

16 Overturning the established order? Last time I checked, it is our American duty to make sure that 'order' isn't abused like it is now. My thoughts that our government and corporations are corrupt does not make me a liberal, it makes me a patriot who cares how this country is run. As far as 'regular folks'...if you're referring to rural Americans: They are often under educated, underpaid and easily manipulated by our media/govt./corp. I grew up in rural America and I'm a city dweller now...I notice these differences like night and day. I don't feel threatened by traditions and values as long as they aren't racist, suppressive or harmful to others. I am harsh and pointed with my insults, but I don't really hold 'regular folks' in contempt. I think most people are lazy and ignorant, but I don't blame them...it's human nature! As long as everyone's water runs, food is on the table and the TV buzzes away, everyone is comfortable. That's why 9/11 was such a spank. People usually don't take action unless their way of life is threatened. Yes, our nation's poorest elect our nations' richest...and those leaders say one thing, do another and the poor keep getting poorer. What do you think is a solution? Maybe I'll venture into other parts of Texas someday. Maybe my next road trip?

Posted by: steven baber at May 13, 2005 01:41 PM (WfZ6a)

17 Steven, not easily manipulated, as your failure to make any inroads amongst them bespeaks. They just happen to know what they believe, and they aren't going to change in order to please the very Libs who obviously hold them in such contempt. And where the hell is Collin these days? Miss the little guy.

Posted by: Carlos at May 13, 2005 03:19 PM (8e/V4)

18 I don't think it's about me trying to make inroads, I'm talking about 'regular folks' who believe everything they hear/see on TV, which we all know is a bit removed from reality and always biased. I know you don't care about Bushie, but according to the polls, 'regular folks' aren't too pleased with him. Collin? I dunno...I'm sure he's lurking around somewhere. Maybe him and Gayrooster are out having a Zell Miller style duel?

Posted by: steven baber at May 13, 2005 05:24 PM (WfZ6a)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 06, 2005

Wait, are we talking about the same Crusades?

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

UPDATE: Matt Hurley has related comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mennonite Group Claims Responsibility for New York Embassy Bombing

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

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

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

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

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

ADNKI Italy offers this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 04, 2005

Marla Marla Ruzicka: A Peace Activist's Journey From Leftist Activist to Leftist Martyr

David Horowitz has an excellent article in Front Page magazine about the life and times of murdered peace activist Marla Ruzicka. It seems that in her life she went from radical anti-American leftist activist to moderate leftist peacenick. But in her death she has become another martyr for Left's anti-American sentiments once again. Karma, I guess. Hat tip to Chuck Johnson.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:40 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, they don't call them useful idiots for nothing...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 04, 2005 08:42 AM (0yYS2)

2 You celebrate the death of an honorable woman. I have no doubt she's in heaven. Horowitz on the other hand betray's America for his beloved Israel. He should be deported.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 08:51 AM (/+dAV)

3 Where to Greg? Maybe you think Aushwitz......???

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 08:53 AM (JQjhA)

4 Israel. His every action is for the benefit of Israel and the detriment of the US. Let him "go home".

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 08:58 AM (/+dAV)

5 wow. in the eyes of some you can't really do any good.

Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 09:47 AM (CqheE)

6 FYI- Criticism of America does not equal anti-Amercianism.

Posted by: Max at May 04, 2005 09:58 AM (HFKAk)

7 Of course it does, by definition. Criticism of a particular policy, on the other hand, does not.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at May 04, 2005 10:54 AM (JQjhA)

8 Therefore Marla Ruzica was not anti-American. Far from it. She embodied all that is good about America.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 11:22 AM (/+dAV)

9 Marla Ruzicka died because she took foolish risks and refused advice to the contrary. She was neither demon nor saint, simply a confused young person with very jejune political beliefs who thought she was immortal. One thing, however, is unquestionable. Her beliefs included a large streak of anti-Americanism.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 04, 2005 11:57 AM (RHG+K)

10 Bluto, You're a fat, bald blowhard. There was nothing anti-American about Ms. Ruzicka.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 12:01 PM (/+dAV)

11 "One thing, however, is unquestionable. Her beliefs included a large streak of anti-Americanism." is there question that she was saintly in her ability to help people?

Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 12:03 PM (CqheE)

12 The fact that she was a compassionate person who cared about the poor doesn't change the fact that she only cared about those who could be used for propaganda purposes against the US. I read a lot about her yesterday, but unfortunately didn't save the links. She was a child of Republican parents who instilled in her the love and compassion she felt, but she allowed herself to become a "useful idiot" of leftist traitors, dictator worshippers, and terrorist sympathizers. It's a shame that she died, regardless of the circumstances, but it's bigger shame that she turned against her country, because in the end she was nothing more than a propaganda tool of the enemy. That's life though, you choose which side you want to play on, and don't expect any sympathy from your enemies.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 04, 2005 12:33 PM (0yYS2)

13 "The fact that she was a compassionate person who cared about the poor doesn't change the fact that she only cared about those who could be used for propaganda purposes against the US." Well, only the US pays compensation.

Posted by: actus at May 04, 2005 12:43 PM (CqheE)

14 greg, There was everything anti-American about Ruzicka, from Code Pink right through her last blame-US-troops-for-everything organization. Your emotional response is a clear indication that you realize this, but are simply too pigheaded to admit it. For your information, I'm not bald. I shave my head. I also fight in full contact Tae Kwon Do tournaments, just so you know, in case you ever feel like repeating your cowardly spew to my face. Very truly yours, The Dread Pundit Bluto

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 04, 2005 01:52 PM (RHG+K)

15 "There was everything anti-American about Ruzicka, from Code Pink right through her last blame-US-troops-for-everything organization."-Bluto Apparently your definition of what is pro-American is narrowly defined. It's all about the silly war as far as you're concerned. America is much greater than that as Ruzicka understood. She tried to show the world America's best face. Finer Americans than Ms. Rusicka and Rachel Corrie are few and far between. That you figuratively spit on Ms. Ruzicka grave by calling her anti-American is reprehensible and cowardly and shows your lack of understanding of true American and Christian values. Now go shave your head and walk backwards to confuse people.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 02:13 PM (/+dAV)

16 It's an easy definition, greg (though I believe you misspoke, in your rage, and meant to say "broadly defined"). If you support Fidel Castro and revile the US while in high school, if you volunteer to serve as a "human shield" to protect the monster Saddam, if you twist incidents and deliberately leave out inconvenient facts in how you write about a war hoping to make your own country look evil; you are anti-American. Now I realize you don't like things like facts entering your own little emotional fantasy world, greg, as evidenced by the snit you've flown into, but maybe if someone had done the same for Marla she'd still be alive today. You and your friends killed her greg, by encouraging the foolish and self-destructive anti-American activities for which she received so much attention.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 04, 2005 04:16 PM (RHG+K)

17 "(though I believe you misspoke, in your rage, and meant to say "broadly defined")."-Bluto No, I meant what I said and I'm not in a rage. I laugh my ass off all day long fucking with you mooks. You define PRO-American narrowly, excluding everyone who isn't "down" with this war. But being pro-American hasn't a thing to do with ones stance on the war in my humble opinion. "You and your friends killed her greg"-Bluto That's fallacious. But we shall keep her memory alive for an eternity. That's more than you or I can hope for.

Posted by: greg at May 04, 2005 04:49 PM (/+dAV)

18 Just like a fighter who smiles when he gets tagged in a vain effort to shrug it off, the evidence of your emotional breakdown here is all to obvious, greg. And it's easy to understand. Anyone who tries to win arguments without any facts whatsoever at their disposal is destined to suffer humiliation. Quite rightly. While you were floundering for a face-saving response I was researching and posting a roundup of successful anti-terrorist activity in Iraq. And greg, you and your friends DID kill her.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 04, 2005 05:08 PM (RHG+K)

19 Bluto, Whatever. Go celebrate her death if it makes you happy.

Posted by: greg at May 05, 2005 08:42 AM (/+dAV)

20 I am a Mom of a social worker/activist about to graduate from college. She is not unlike Marla in both her beauty and her desire to help others devistated by war/policy/social injustice. To know that she died as she attempted to make the world aware of the "casualty of war" should sadden us all. While some of you view her work as "Anti-American"...we cannot dispute that it was pro-life. It is this message she worked so hard to show the world. To debate and discuss her reasons is futile...for it is not her reasons that made the difference....but the lives she has rebuilt. Whether these are Americans, Afghans, or Iraq civilians...they are human lives...who are victims of war. To those that mourn the troops of America and our Allies...my prayers are with you. To those families that mourn the loss of their loved ones killed in conflict everywhere...war is not the answer to find peace, for any of us. This beautiful "child" knew this....and in her death she has given her loudest statement of all. Even the most well intentioned get caught in the crossfire...Now her family will have to learn to rebuild after giving up a loved one to war...just as she helped so many others rebuild. Marla, the candle of your life was seen by so many. And it has made a difference. And it this world so few of us do.

Posted by: Rebecca at May 09, 2005 09:42 AM (hdqg2)

21 It is sad that this country and you assholes are so brainwashed. You let a complete idiot make you believe that there is a terrorist around the corner when the real terrorist lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Marla Ruzicka at least had the courage to do what she believed AND risk her life. You fucking faggots just sit around and talk shit. This country will not last because of cowards like you. When the day comes for you to have to fight, you will turn tail and run like that cocksucker in the White House did during the Vietnam war. I went to war and fought already. What have you assholes done for your country? That's what I thought. You don't know what courage is. Well, Marla didn't tell you, she showed you. Until you pick up a weapon and put on a uniform, shut the fuck up and be thankful men like me and people like Marla exist to save your sorry ass! Eat shit and die assholes!

Posted by: john at June 22, 2005 08:21 PM (RPuxb)

22 Oh, and to that sissy The Dread Pundit Bluto, are you fucking kidding me??? You do tae kwon do tournaments and that makes you tough? You my friend obviously live in a fucking movie. You think the world is like Karate Kid or something. The reality of death hasn't knocked at your door. Trust me, you'll need more than tae kwon do to save your ass.

Posted by: John at June 22, 2005 08:30 PM (RPuxb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

299kb generated in CPU 0.1199, elapsed 0.2856 seconds.
128 queries taking 0.2223 seconds, 652 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 38345
Files: 167
Bytes: 801.3M
CPU Time: 64:29
Queries: 4455809

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

May 31, 2005

May 28, 2005

May 27, 2005

May 25, 2005

May 24, 2005

May 19, 2005

May 16, 2005

May 09, 2005

May 06, 2005

May 04, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds