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

May 26, 2006

Haditha, Jack Murtha, & The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Have you ever seen Murtha & MacBeth in the Same Room? Think about it......

Let me just add that abuses happen in war. In all wars. U.S. soldiers participated in massacres in WWII. The fact that soldiers do bad things in war says nothing about the morality of that war.

The proper response to misconduct in war is court martial, not condemnation of the war. Those wishing to condemn the war in Iraq because of the misconduct of soldiers are engaging in deceptive propaganda. They will still oppose the war, even if it turns out soldiers are innocent of the charges.

The morality of the U.S. is demonstrated over and over again each time someone is charged with abuse or other war related crimes. The fact that we actually prosecute such criminals is quite revealing.

Contrast this to our enemies who praise the very same behavior they condem us for. Hostage taking, the execution of prisoners, and the targetting of civilians are all things the so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq boast of. Not only are 'martyrs' praised for targetting civilians, to add insult to injury, their 'glorious deeds' are video taped and then distributed on the internet to much fanfare.

We at The Jawa Report unequivocally condemn any actions by U.S. soldiers which violate the customary rules of war. If any U.S. soldier participated in the massacre of civilians, they ought to receive the harshest of punishments.

But unlike extreme Leftist who want to believe the worst things about our soldiers, we reserve judgement. We do not believe any and all accusations of 'war crimes' against U.S. soldiers because we are very aware that most of these accusations are unfounded and made by people with a political agenda.

If we were to believe, prima facie, all of the accusations levelled against our troops by Islamists and Leftists, then we would be forced to believe that the U.S. nuked the Baghdad airport, that our soldiers rape and pillage, and that they kill infants while mocking crying mothers. So excuse us if we are sometimes dismissive of accusations of war crimes when each and every time a U.S. soldier kills a terrorist cries of Geneva Convention violations are raised.

As Aesop's fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf teaches us, though, sometimes there really is a wolf.

Was there a massacre in Haditha last year? We do not and cannot know the answer to that based on the information at hand. We should let the investigation continue. If military investigators substantiate the claim, then those soldiers involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But there is another moral to Aesop's fable. One that is often overlooked. That moral is that any person that would believe the boy who cried wolf after so many false alarms are naive. In the end, no one in the village believed the boy because of his long track record of deception.

In Aesop's time, wolves really were a constant threat to a flock. They were not uncommon, so the plausibility of a wolf stalking the village flock was very believable. The fact that wolves were a real and common danger made the boy's initial lies seem all the more likely.

But what if wolves were a threat, but a very an uncommon occurence? What if the boy had cried lion or tiger instead of wolf? Do you think the villagers would have been fooled more than once?

Those that prima facie accept the Haditha massacre allegations are actually worse than the villagers described by Aesop. They want to believe that U.S. soldiers are the big bad wolf. They want to believe the very worst about those that risk their lives on their behalf.

There is no other explanation. Either the U.S. routinely massacres civilians or it does not. If it does not, then why condemn soldiers before a full and complete investigation has been carried out?

There are wolves out there, but since they are so rare these days, to believe the boy before sending out independent investigators to verify his less than stellar track record would be stupid, naive, or worse.

Previous: Censure Jack Murtha

UPDATE: Could the accusations be true? Like I said, yes. One of the moral of the boy who cried wolf story is that even liars sometimes tell the truth. If the NY Times story is correct that charges are forthcoming, then whoever is found guilty ought to be strung up.

UPDATE: Allah and The Commissar have additional comments. I agree. Except, what do you do with a messenger who has an agenda?

As Orwell noted, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

Update: Bithead, who I haven't heard from in ages, agrees.

UPDATE: Let me clarify something: When I began writing this post, I only knew of Murtha's conveying the allegations. That's what started the post. After writing the post, I've learned that there is strong evidence against at least two Marines.

I still do not want to believe the allegations are true. But that's just me, I want to believe the best things about my country. But, those allegations may turn out to be true. Even so, my point remains valid: there were those on the Left who have been screaming about this from the beginning, from the very day it happened--they wanted it to be true. They have been beating on the "war crimes" drum for a long time now. They may be right, in this instance, but with such a track record, can you blame me for being dismissive?

In any event, I personally volunteer to pull the trigger at the execution of any Marine who intentionally killed women and children.

UPDATE: Captain Ed, "This makes me physically ill." Me too, buddy, me too. In fact, I have been in a foul mood all day over this.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:14 AM | Comments (116) | Add Comment
Post contains 994 words, total size 7 kb.

1 How DARE Murtha tell uncomfortable truths?!?!? Quite telling that there is 10 times more wingnut outrage at Murtha for telling the truth about this episode than there is at the actual atrocity.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 10:12 AM (iBcDZ)

2 Quite telling that there is so much willingness on the Left to believe accusations that some of our troops are war criminals before any charges are brought... But I would never question your patriotism.....

Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:23 AM (JQjhA)

3 It's the PENTAGON, you know, the UNITED STATES MILITARY, that's saying there were war crimes committed. But I would never question your patriotism.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 10:28 AM (iBcDZ)

4 The only "uncomfortable truth" here is the eager willingness on the Left to use the bad apples to tarnish the entire military and even their country. Contrary to what they'd have us believe, it doesn't solve the problem and it won't win them any elections. All it does is stoke our enemies and gets our boys killed. You think Abu Graib on the front of the NYTimes helped one single person? On the contrary, it probable got people killed. You Lefties fucking suck.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 10:30 AM (8e/V4)

5 No, it's the NYT saying that there might be forthcoming charges. If they are guilty, charge them then hang them.

Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:36 AM (JQjhA)

6 Other congressmen are saying worse things about what happned there. Rep. John Kline (R-MN) is a retired Marine colonel. Past duties include flying Marine One the president's helicopter. After being briefed by the Commandant of the Corps he is quoted as saying " this was not an accident. This was direct fire by Marines at civilians". He added "This was not an immediate response to an attack, This would be an atrocity." When congressmen say things like this after being briefed by the Commandant, I think we better listen. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012552.php The second is a link tobio info about Rep Kline. I tried to post a link to the quotes by Kline but got the dread "questionable content" So look on the NYT or CT wbsites for these.

Posted by: john ryan at May 26, 2006 10:39 AM (TcoRJ)

7 I don't see anywhere the Pentagon calling them "cold-blooded murderers" while the matter is still under investigation. That's all Murtha.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)

8 John, And Benedict Arnold was a General. So what? I think you'll find that in the updates I have more.

Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:52 AM (JQjhA)

9 Haditha. Boy, you warbloggers sure got what you wanted, didn't you?

Posted by: mrs ibrahim al-jaafari at May 26, 2006 11:35 AM (B6GxD)

10 Well, when the USMC brings them up on charges of capital murder, it will be doing exactly that--accusing them of being cold-blooded murderers. Again, this is the US military's report that condemns them. Not the eeevil MSM or whatever other bogeymen you like to throw out there.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 11:45 AM (iBcDZ)

11 >>>Well, when the USMC brings them up on charges of capital murder, it will be doing exactly that--accusing them of being cold-blooded murderers. That's a PROSECUTOR'S job. Perhaps you're not aware that the USMC also provides them with defense attorneys, and also considers them innocent until proven guilty. Murtha has forsaken his role of investigator and assumed the role of prosecutor. It's all just disgusting Lib politics. Like Orwell said, "the quickest way to end a war is to lose it" (hat tip: Rusty).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 12:23 PM (8e/V4)

12 IF these guys are guilty, I'll volunteer to pull the trigger at their firing squads. But the Lefty media--not the MSM, I'm talking the "indymedia" crowd--had these guys convicted with the very first accusation and film which was nothing more than footage of wounded which could have been anything. Since that same crowd has routinely cried "war crimes" hundreds of times in the past, it's only natural that I, or any other sensible person, would dismiss another accusation. This accusation may be true, but I pray that it is not.

Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 01:16 PM (JQjhA)

13 I've linked this commentary, and quoted it heavily. As I told my own readers; This is really a top notch write-up, and puts to words much of my own thinking, and addresses some of the discussions I've had in email with various people.

Posted by: Bithead at May 26, 2006 01:26 PM (+w3w9)

14 How funny. Reading past posts on this issue, you right wingers have reason to feel uncomfortable. Your defense of State is almost holy, like the USSR or something...CENSURE MURTHA...because he told the truth and upset your sunday school training. Rusty brings up a good fact about "innocent until proven guilty", but really, you folks never defend that...i.e. sadamms with bin laden! saddams got nukes! all muslims should be jailed and deported! The only case for innocent until guilty is the military? interesting, what an objective concept for rule of law! But ya, you folks can backtrack and rationalize all you want (you are good at that, just like liar BUSH), but really, read your past comments and you will see why we find you folks jokers. commie

Posted by: commie at May 26, 2006 01:47 PM (1esPS)

15 And Benedict Arnold was a traitor ? Rusty I am not quite sure what to make of that ? That is like tarring ALL who have honorably served ? Look Murtha was the first to speak about Haditha. Now Rep Kline is also saying the same thing. These are 2 Marine colonels who are saying this after being briefed by the Commandant of the Corps.Is this the new definition of a leftist ? Anyone who questions Iraq ? And Rusty what about death threats ? Will you publish the IP address and track down those who put death threats on YOUR blog ?

Posted by: john ryan at May 26, 2006 01:53 PM (TcoRJ)

16 Innocent until proven guilty applies ONLY to those directly involved in the judicial process. Members of Congress and other political figures ROUTINELY comment on matters that have not yet been judged. Murtha has access to information that you don't. He looked at the evidence, and came to the same conclusion as that Republican congressman. He may be proven wrong. But he is calling it as he sees it. It would be institutionally problematic and a big mistake for the head of the Marine Corps to say what Murtha said. But Murtha didn't just ASSUME that the marines were guilty. He looked at the best evidence available, stuff you haven't seen. I don't think one can entirely separate a war from the way it is conducted. A just act can become unjust depending on the way it is done. Ends do not justify all means. The level of incompetence in the conduct of this war (leaving aside smoking questions about the manner in which it began, and the untruths told to the public) raises fundamental questions about its morality. These troops, if guilty, deserve punishment. But those who never planned for resistance, those idiots/liars who said "the insurgency is in its last throes" when it manifestly was not, and armored and provisioned our troops accordingly, are morally culpable as well. The fury of those trapped into doing an occupation on the cheap, with no strategy for victory, can be easily imagined. They were told they'd be greeted as liberators...they were told "mission accomplished" "last throes" "WMD".... Wilsonian dreams have bitter wakeups. And bloody ones.

Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 02:00 PM (aqTJB)

17 No, it's not tarring all that served--at least, that's not how I intended to use it--it's only putting military service in its proper context IRRELEVANT. And the more I read on the story, the more it sounds like there is evidence against at least two Marines. Still not ready to convict them, even in the court of public opinion, but I am willing to do so once a verdict is handed down.

Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 02:04 PM (JQjhA)

18 Rusty Your last paragraph said it all for me - I agree and would join you - nothing else to say or discuss.

Posted by: hondo at May 26, 2006 02:55 PM (k/PLS)

19 >>>i.e. sadamms with bin laden! saddams got nukes! all muslims should be jailed and deported! lmao! Now look who's being the joker. Murtha isn't just some dude shooting the shit at happy hour, he's a friggin congressman speaking in public to the world. But if you believe we blow as much or more hot air than Murtha and the Left do, the hot air we blow doesn't cut against our country 24/7. The Left's hot air universally cuts against our country, so no wonder people want you strung up as traitors from the nearest light pole. And that doesn't even address your inability to segregate Constitutional standards (like the one where people who are charged with a crime are presumed innocent) from mere opinion about world events (i.e., Saddam's got nukes). Two different animals. It's amazing how people so self-congratulatory about their "nuance" can be so thick.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 03:04 PM (8e/V4)

20 As far as the death penalty--I don't think it would be justified in most cases of wartime atrocities. There are so many mitigating circumstances--if you are constantly under threat of being killed, you see your buddy blown to bits, you are filled with rage at all the people in that country, who you momentarily think are all terrorists... I'm not justifying what may have happened, but I'm saying that I would never want some 19 year old sent to death for what they did in a moment like that. 30 years, maybe. Death? no. If I believed in the death penalty (as I once did), I could see giving it to an officer at My Lai. But even the ones who shot the toddlers at My Lai...under orders. That seems to be an extenuating circumstance that precludes the ultimate punishment. Those who gave the orders for the civilians to be herded into trenches and shot...yeah. From what little we know about the Haditha case, it doesn't seem to be a plan that was ordered from above by anyone. More like pent up rage finding expression after a fellow Marine was killed. Incidentally--while I do think our military is composed of some of the finest people in this country, and certainly stacks up well against any other military in terms of integrity and honor--there are many cases of illegal murders that go unpunished. Read a history of our occupation of the Phillippines. Or the new book out on the unit in Vietnam that was exposed two years ago in the Toledo Blade. My Lai was exceptional, and the left used it to tar all servicemembers and that was wrong. But it was not the only exception, and if this book is true, it may not even have been the worst. It was just the time that the story got out. War is hell. Which is why there is a special place in hell reserved for those who lead a nation into an unnecessary and poorly planned war.

Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 03:38 PM (aqTJB)

21 I still think Murtha should be drawn and quartered. If he'd been a true patriotic American he would have never passed on this story of these allegations. All this story does is give aid and comfort to the enemy. It would have been better if it had never happened, or at the very least, never have surfaced to the lgiht of day. I appreicate what you have to say Rusty. I agree, we should always believe in what is Best about our country, not look for ways to criticize it. The only way for this nation to remain strong is if we think positively and optimistically.

Posted by: stockressy at May 26, 2006 03:39 PM (cg8tr)

22 The best response to your passionate views, Stockressy, was said by one of the greatest Republican senators of the 20th Century: Robert Taft, Dec 19, 12 days after Pearl Harbor Â“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur." What Murtha did in alerting the nation to excesses in the occupation is in that noble tradition.

Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 04:28 PM (aqTJB)

23 Incidentally, one of the principled causes that Taft later became famous for was his defense of several Nazis who he believed had been treated terribly by our forces, and were about to be executed unjustly. This was at a time when we had uncovered the crimes of the Nazis, and they were universally hated. Taft believed that we would be judged by how we treated our enemies. He was right to seek justice even for those who had allied with a cause that was evil and inimical to justice. The same is true today.

Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 04:33 PM (aqTJB)

24 Buahahahahaha.... Little visit to my geek buddies on the ultra-right. How are you loosers holding up? How's The American Facist Front doing today? So Murtha was right. But you are still all pissy like a sissy. They will hang these three or four dickweed marines for killing women and children, and yet these faggety righties will still go on bitching and moaning about conspirancies. Never admit you fucked up. It's the RIGHT way. See you later wipeasses. Don't stroke each other's cocks too hard. Remember, they are small and they are the only ones you got. Y tu tambien pendejito. Buahahahahaha.....

Posted by: citizen #2338866547990 at May 26, 2006 04:41 PM (jZ6cC)

25 Well, that brought the level of discourse up appreciably.

Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 05:52 PM (aqTJB)

26 >>>So Murtha was right. That may be so, and justice should and will be done. But the difference between you Lefties and us is that we aren't celebrating and drooling at the mouth about it. We see the prosecution of human rights abusers as a sign that our country is a nation of laws and that when people commit crimes they should pay the price. While you use these instances for the opposite purpose-- to parade the abusers before the world as your trophies in order to prove what an evil country we are. It's so obvious in the way you handle these situations. That's why you people suck and are so often confused for traitors. But I won't question your patriotism. I wouldn't dream of it!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 06:35 PM (8e/V4)

27 I bet Murtha did it! /sarc And when the families of the inoccent dead come after our soldiers, are we going to call them terrorists? Hearts and minds...

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 06:46 PM (dVXgZ)

28 You stupid liberals/leftists make me sick. Do you think that these type of things do not happen in all wars? For example, I had a friend who was in Patton's 3rd Army who routinely, along with his friends, raped German women and looted everything they could get their hands on. And WWII was the so-called Good War. It wasn't. There is no "good" war. And our soldiers in Iraq should not be held to a standard of perfection. That is not possible. The military reflects society at large. Do people in our society murder and steal? Of course they do, and so do some people in the military. You shitheads who try to hold our military to perfection are nothing but hypocrits, because you are the first ones to take up for criminals and their rights. So go on to one of your circle jerks and leave us the hell alone. I'm sick of your shit!

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 26, 2006 07:27 PM (rUyw4)

29 >>>you are the first ones to take up for criminals and their rights. Yes, that's because criminals are "victims" of society, whereas these soldiers are agents of "the Man." lol! Lefties are funny.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 07:45 PM (8e/V4)

30 jesusland joe... So, umm, should our men and women rape people or something? I'm sure some Ba'athists raised points similar to yours when they gassed the Kurds. There is no good war, just do it. Cheers.

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 08:42 PM (dVXgZ)

31 It is sickening to me that the anti-war-aging-hyppy crowd are GLOATING that some Marines are up on charges like this. GLOATING. What is wrong with people like that - who would gloat and point out to the whole world that someone might have done something they shouldn't have?? If they were harboring terrorists - they were guilty of harboring terrorists. In past wars, any other war, the whole town would have been carpet bombed. But the unholy left is determined to get as many of our guys killed as posible so they can count bodies. So they are fighting with one arm tied behind their collective backs. Why does the left WANT our country to lose the war on terror? Why does the left WANT our soldiers to be guilty of atrocities and are willing to exagerate them to make them look as bad as they can. Don't EVER say 'I support the troops BUT I don't support the war'. You have no idea what that means. What's criminal is that these soldiers are being tried in the media and by liver-lillied liberals who have probably never held a gun - much less had one shot in their direction.

Posted by: Salvadore at May 26, 2006 08:45 PM (X6tm3)

32 Rusty; I think you make a grave mistake when you limit your complaints about people who want to believe the worst in our troops, to the left. I have been personally witnessed to much in the way of the same attitude , from people who call themselves libertarians. Of the two, I find the latter more disturbing. I also have some questions as regards the release of the information, and the timing thereof. It does seem a little odd, that this investigation could have preceded for months, and just now we're seeing it in the news ... on the leading edge of an hotly contested election cycle... I have little in the way of evidence to back that point, but I submit that it makes no sense not to at least raise the question given we've seen this kind of thing before.

Posted by: Bithead at May 26, 2006 08:46 PM (XFcTY)

33 It makes me ill, too. As does Murtha, but not for mentioning it. Rather, for making the bizzare claim that the soldiers killed people in cold blood while also claiming they did it because of the pressure put on them. He's mixing contrary mental states -- and implicitly excusing troops of what what he believes to be cold-blooded murder -- to make a partisan attack. And couldn't even wait for charges to be filed to make that attack. Granted, that doesn't make me as sick as the underlying offense, should the charges be proved. But Murtha's crass opportunism remains nauseating.

Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2006 09:07 PM (+HaUc)

34 I expect the traitor Murtha to announce he will be testifying for Saddam's defense. Mrs Ibrahim al-piggy above. Go cover your ugly face. Why do muslims cover their womens heads and not their camels. Because the camels are better looking.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 26, 2006 09:12 PM (pfOwp)

35 greyrooster, It's nice to see some good ole' honest, open sumpremacy. Noce of that "they hate are values" crap. Just real, honest HATE. Thanks. PS I mean, they were only jawas, right?

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 09:18 PM (dVXgZ)

36 So on Memorial Day Lefties release unproven allegations against Marines. Based on hearsay evidence from Iraqis. Yeah civilians get killed in wars. During WWII in the Pacific, my Grandfather was a Marine Flamethrower man (he survived, most didn't, you had a bomb on your back and were the target of every Japanese soldier). Each cave he'd rappell down to could hold soldiers waiting to kill Marines or civilians. The only way to survive was to hose the cave down with flamethrowers. Sometimes they'd kill Soldiers waiting to kill them. Sometimes kids and women. Did that make him a War Criminal? I think not. If the Marines simply killed civilians in a free fire effort, well, that sucks. But you do what you have to do to stay alive. I'm not going to judge. It hardly sounds like My Lai (which was BTW stopped by fellow Army officers). To the Lefties out there: Tawana Brawley, The Duke Lacrosse "Rape" case, etc. Sometimes people just LIE and guilty of being a White Male is (not yet Lefties) not a capital crime. So far NCIS has not made a finding, and those guys love to get scalps. It's how they make their career. THAT should speak volumes. At WORST from what I've read the Marines violated regs to go shoot at people shooting at them to stay alive. I won't judge people in combat doing what they need to stay alive. Regs favor civilians to the point of losing our troops lives.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at May 26, 2006 09:28 PM (4878o)

37 So how come the only time the US military actually prosecutes anybody for all the attrocities which are reported to them is when a video tape or photograph awkwardly shows up to prove the attrocities irrefutably to be true? Do some research and see how many blatantly illegal and immoral acts have been reported to have been committed by US troops. How aggressively do you really think the top brass investigate these claims? The report being published next week will point to two attempts to cover up the massacre at Haditha. The number of stories I have read which make similar allegations must run to the hundreds, and like I say, many sounded very credible to me. Too bad most of the survivors of these attrocities weren't quick witted enough to grab a Sony Handycam or Canon Powershot in order to record the merry games their liberators occasionally like to play. Kapishe? P.S. The points I make above are obviously incorrect since they contradict the way Americans like to view themselves. QED.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 27, 2006 01:37 AM (YBYf6)

38 IÂ’ve been reading John PooleÂ’s book Militant Tricks. Creating an incident where Marines or Soldiers violate the laws of war is the preferred means to fighting. This incident took ten marines out of action, not by IED but by lawfare. It will get more media time than an IED of the same magnitude. More Marines will guard the accused instead of fighting. Marine Officers will prosecute, defend and judge, instead of leading. And twelve Marines and Sailors will be a jury instead if frightening. This is better than attrition warfare. The Militants must have an overreaction. Any civilians or militants that die in the cause will go to paradise. The US overreacts with firepower, sudden and overwhelming. If I understand correctly Marines and Soldiers are to assault an ambush. The Militants would have figured this out by now. Bring in civilians, create an ambush but one with a second trap. A Lawfare trap. And you only need it to work one time in ten. The Militants will use the fact that we enforce laws, rules and discipline. A strength used against us is masterful strategy. I pray this is whatÂ’s going on and that the Marines are innocent.

Posted by: James Bortmas at May 27, 2006 05:50 AM (5SDtF)

39 Regardless of what the Marines may or may not have done, what is at issue here is how the lefturds react with glee to any news that will further their cause, i.e., the defeat of America in this war. The Marines, if guilty, should pay for their crimes, but the lefturds should all be hanged for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by propagandizing for them. Liberals hate America, our military, and our way of life, (though not enough to leave - shame), and demonstrate daily that they want nothing more than for the terrorists to win. I look forward to the day when there's war in the streets here, and they side with the muslims; then it's open season.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2006 06:50 AM (0yYS2)

40 It's nice to see some good ole' honest, open sumpremacy. Noce of that "they hate are values" crap. Just real, honest HATE. Thanks. hahaha! Behold how the irony sails clear over the heads of Lefty's who so self-righteously defend the honor of muslims despite the supposedly bad apple muslim terrorists, and yet have no problem impugning the entire U.S. military and their country for the alleged bad apples such as at Haditha. The irony is so stark that you have to wonder how Libs can possibly miss it and yet still tie their shoes in the morning. That kind of stupidity can't be faked. That's why we call it Leftardism. It's a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:29 AM (8e/V4)

41 The points I make above are obviously incorrect since they contradict the way Americans like to view themselves. QED. You don't make "points", you make allegations. Unfounded ones. It doesn't matter that they are unfounded, unproven, etc., YOU believe they are true, and that's goood enough for you. I guess you'll have to excuse me if it just isn't good enough for me. I don't know how aggressively the top brass investigates every single claim that comes their way. Neither do you! America haters have been crying wolf for so long only a FOOL would still take them at their word. It's kind of like how you call everybody you don't like "nazi" and "fascist", etc. Well, after a while when a REAL nazi comes along nobody's listening anymore. So this ONE time at Haditha is supposed to prove all your prior lies true? Hardly. Abu Graib, you say? Was being investigated by the MILITARY ITSELF long before you Lefties got your greedy little hands on it. So I guess I don't have any reason to believe your unfounded allegations after all. You believe the worst about our troops until proven untrue, while I believe the best about our military until proven untrue. That's the difference between you and us on this Memorial Day.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:35 AM (8e/V4)

42 >>>"This makes me physically ill." Me too, buddy, me too. While the Leftards can't contain their glee. America hating traitors.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:55 AM (8e/V4)

43 If they're guilty, take them out. The first thing that came to mind were stories my uncles told me about Nam of children running up to GIs (whether at a helo or anywhere with grenades on them... I just wish... as a Marine, Murtha would've spoken as much about the good things we've done there. We've had officers at pressers ask him why no letter, no welcome back, do you know what you're doing to the troops? ... nada. True as someone who served (and I can't get into months vs. decades of reserve duty, one day in war is rough enough), but he knows what they're going through and what this is going to do to morale... that's the twist of the knife. But the left would do well to stay away from the Vietnam references... this is no Nam; You will not demoralize our troops like you did then. My life on that one.

Posted by: Ali at May 27, 2006 08:38 AM (hDlfX)

44 "I look forward to the day when there's war in the streets here, and they side with the muslims; then it's open season." Craaaaazzzzy... BTW, do you just get lost everytime you try to sign up down at the recruitment office, or are you just a xenophobic coward? Why do I get the feeling that at least half of the posters here are just obese gun nuts who've never met a Muslim in REAL life? "You just hate 'Murica" accusations in 5, 4, 3.... The louder you say it the more you'll believe it!

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 27, 2006 08:48 AM (dVXgZ)

45 "You just hate 'Murica" accusations in 5, 4, 3.... What can I say, you keep proving us right.

Posted by: dcb at May 27, 2006 09:14 AM (8e/V4)

46 Right wing robotic fool, IM has served in the military and fought in the Gulf War. Most of the time it is better for a fool like you to shut up, and perhaps the rest of the World will not find out. Too late in this particular case, but perhaps prudence will serve you well in the future.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 27, 2006 10:58 AM (rUyw4)

47 hey Robot, most people serving in the military are pretty rightwing.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 11:08 AM (8e/V4)

48 I don't think serving in the military at one time excuses IM's racist and violent views. I'm still amazed that people here defend him. I'm not saying he should be banned. I just think we should start a collection for his therapy. Medication might help. Murtha's comments were angry and outraged. That's the appropriate response to the conduct in question. And for those of you who want him to show that he supports the troops--the man has been visiting almost every week at Walter Reed hospital, with wounded vets. That's what eventually caused him to question the president's strategy. The vast majority of Americans are doing so, even without that insight. When it comes to Bush's war, a pungent Southern saying comes to mind. No matter how hard you try, you cannot polish a turd. No matter how hard Bush tries to spin this, America sees the truth, finally.

Posted by: jd at May 27, 2006 03:16 PM (w8VZ1)

49 So, jd, you fucktard moron, is islam now a race? No, it isn't, idiot. I love how you assholes come out of the woodwork to strut and crow any time there's bad news, but hopefully it won't be long before you start seeing your kind hanging from overpasses, and then we'll see how much crowing you do. You're all gutless cowards who'd rather be a muslim's bitch than fight for your country. Fuck you; you all deserve to die.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2006 03:39 PM (0yYS2)

50 "but hopefully it won't be long before you start seeing your kind hanging from overpasses" Ohhh... So scared. Lemme guess, you drink too much and have anger management problems? 50 years ago you would have been talking about the coming war with the blacks. Loser.

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 27, 2006 03:57 PM (dVXgZ)

51 jd, it's not "Bush's war" that you people have such a huge problem with, it's "Bush" himself what is driving you up the wall. That's been the case ever since Florida 2000. The rest is just silly tantrums by sore losers, who honestly wouldn't be making such a fuss if it was Clinton who was doing it instead of Bush. That's the plain truth and if you did some soul searching you'd have to admit it to yourself. That's why we just weather your little rants the way a mother does when her spoiled brat rolls on the floor in a fit of rage and holds his breath. The 2008 elections won't be long in coming and then you'll move onto the next GOP incarnation of evil to give your lives purpose.

Posted by: dcb at May 27, 2006 04:54 PM (8e/V4)

52 "a pungent Southern saying comes to mind. No matter how hard you try, you cannot polish a turd." Two things come to mind here, I am a Southerner and I have never heard that saying. The other is I think the saying to be true, and I think that jd is one dull dude. No shine on you, my friend.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 27, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)

53 Right wing robot: Right. They are only Jawas and this is the Jawa report. Those that harbour terrorists, make excuses for terrorists, financially support terrorists, cheer for terrorists, comfort terrorists need you to stand up for them. Friggin dingbat. My good ole fashion hate comes from their actions.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 27, 2006 10:07 PM (Vc+ll)

54 greyrooster, Gimme a call when you actually interact with a Muslim. But that would require that you put down the beer and step outside instead of getting your worldview secondhand from semiliterates. GASP

Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 28, 2006 12:31 AM (dVXgZ)

55 Such stinging wit, especially since it's apparently coming from an 8th grader.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)

56 Robot, I used to hang out with international students back in my college days and I had 5-6 muslim friends from different parts of the middle east, including a paleostinian and a Paki. Swell guys all of them. But when Salman Rushdie was fatwad for writing that book, every single one of my muslim friends supported the fatwa and said he deserved to die. Does that qualify as "moderate" to you? It sure doesn't to me. And yet these guys were what we consider the "moderate" muslims. So if these well-educated, well to do elite muslims have views alien to us, how much worse the muslim rabble in the streets.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 28, 2006 07:54 AM (8e/V4)

57 Yeah Carlos, it's like the Paki I know who is just the nicest guy in the world, until you bring up the JOOOOOOOOOoooooooz.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 08:14 AM (0yYS2)

58 I see the Right-wing robotic turd has left his circle jerk and rejoined us. Don't worry, little man, it might get longer than two inches. And I hear you can order stuff to help, although I doubt it works for anything more than making money off little jerks like you.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 08:54 AM (rUyw4)

59 OK, IM--I type corrected--you are a religious bigot, not a racist. You also seem to have something against the mentally handicapped, since you repeatedly use them as an epithet against those with whom you disagree. But overall, I just think you need to get help. If you set up a website asking for donations so you can afford therapy, put me down for at least a fiver. Better to do something now, before you shoot up a mosque or an Islamic school.

Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 10:24 AM (vjCuu)

60 From what I have seen and heard about the mosques in the US, most of them are teaching hate and jihadism and should be shut down before someone from one of these mosques either kills hundreds or perhaps thousands in a terrorist attack. I read report after report in even the liberal rags about the hate and the tenets of sharia being taught in these mosques and Islamic schools. I'd be willing to make you a bet Mr. jd that someone with a connection to one of these mosques kills a bunch of people before a mosque is ever attacked. And if you think diffently, then you apparently fall under the category of useful idiot. Most liberals do.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 11:54 AM (rUyw4)

61 Actually, I'll take that bet. If you read most terrorism analysts, they have an interesting puzzle: why have many terrorists been linked to mosques and Islamic centers in Europe, and so few to American ones? Why are so many islamo-fascists growing up in Europe, and so few here? It is not because we lack Muslims. Many think it is because Europe does such a poor job of integrating them into its social system and economy, and we do it much better. I think that's certainly true. Why do you think it is so? I agree, incidentally, that what is taught in some mosques and schools and madrassas is odious. Do you really think it is "most"? What source are you using for that judgment? However, even if it is "most", how could the government shut down these, as you advise, and remain faithful to the First Amendment (either free exercise or free speech or freedom of association). As I read the key cases of First Amendment law, I see no right of the government to shut down a church for teaching hatred. Do you?

Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 01:40 PM (w8VZ1)

62 The First Amendment is not a recipe for the nation to commit suicide, jd. If these mosques are teaching hate, and most of them are, they should be shut down, period. That is my view of the First Amendment. It does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theatre, either. That some would disagree with my position is hardly surprising, jd, as many in the US support terrorists who would kill us all if given the chance. Just my 2 cents. As for shutting down churches that teach hate, most of the Christian Identity churches were either forced out of business by lawsuits or threat of arrest. I think these mosques should be forced out with the same technique, but if that were not successful, then arrests of these imams teaching hate should be comtemplated. Whether it can be done I don't know, but I tell you that what is being taught in these mosques is to overthrow the government and institute sharia law. Perhaps not today, but soon, these people will act. Remember what I said today when you hear it happen, and give me credit. I'm sorry to say that I have already predicted many of the things that have already happened. I hope I am wrong about this, but I fear I am right. We shall see.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 02:44 PM (rUyw4)

63 Justice Jackson: the constitution is not a suicide pact. We are in agreement. But in quoting clear and present danger (schenk v US), you have to be aware of how that standard has been used by our government (Brandenburg v Ohio is the case most relevant to what you are describing, in which a Klan leader was arrested for preaching violence and hate at a rally--case thrown out because of first amendment). We defeated the right wing nazi sympathizers of the 30s and 40s without sacrificing on the 1st amendment. We defeated the left wing domestic commies without breaking the 1st amendment (with a few sad exceptions). I believe our country is strong enough to continue in that proud tradition. We will beat these bastards, have no doubt, and we can do it without closing mosques. If a mosque is directly linked to a specific plot or act, yeah, do what we did to Rahman. But not just for what they preach. The mind is forever free, even to go down dangerous paths of evil. And I still don't know where you are getting the idea that "most" mosques in this country preach the hatred and violence you refer to. Where are you getting this concept?

Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 03:51 PM (w8VZ1)

64 I'm not saying you are wrong about "most" mosques--I'm just wondering how you know it to be true.

Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 03:53 PM (w8VZ1)

65 Well, jd, I'm kinda lazy today, but I'll give you a couple of sites for your "enjoyment". But go to www.freedom house.org or The New York Sun on October 5, 2005, or perhaps a Senate investigation into hate literature found in many mosques in the US. The American Taliban came out of the mosque in Orange County(where there has been a Jewish/Zionist/American hatefest going on in the past week or two, or hell, just google up hate literature in mosques and see what you find. They ain't teaching respect for the First Amendment, but jihad and using the American system to destroy us. I,for one, am not going to sit around and watch them destroy me, my family, or my country.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 04:10 PM (rUyw4)

66 And I'm not saying that most Muslims are reading or subcribing to this hate literature, but if only 10% of them are, we are in one hell of a mess.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 04:17 PM (rUyw4)

67 Most muslims are fine and decent people, but they are fine and decent DESPITE islam, not because of it. My muslim friends from college wanted Salman Rushdie lynched not because they were evil killers, but because of their religious and social indoctrination. Blashphemers are to be lynched, naturally. They saw nothing untoward about it, and it was I who was being insensitive to them for telling them they were wack. Islam is incompatible with Western values, so if muslims choose migrate to the West they should leave their islam behind, thank you very much. And don't call me a "racist" you fucking retarded Leftards. I don't hate islam nearly as much as you DESPISE christianity.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 28, 2006 05:34 PM (8e/V4)

68 "I think certain versions of Islam are incompatible with Islam." What version of Islam condemns sharia law, or jihad? Give me your proof, jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 04:17 AM (rUyw4)

69 So being anti-islam is "racist", but being anti-christian is just regular ol Liberal. That's the logic of the "reality-based" community.

Posted by: dcb@dcb at May 29, 2006 06:40 AM (8e/V4)

70 JD, if I'm a religious bigot it's because the followers of said religion are psychopathic murderers, and you are a piece of shit apologist for them. A good lefturd is a dead lefturd. Now go cry to Rusty to ban me you little bitch.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 29, 2006 06:41 AM (0yYS2)

71 I wish you would answer my question, jd. What versions of Islam don't teach jihad and sharia law? And there is no version of Christianity that teaches its followers to blow up abortion clinics. Quite the contrary. That is nothing but a straw man you set up to knock down and claim moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 07:18 AM (rUyw4)

72 IM, you should know by now that whatever epiteths you use on me, I'm not calling for your banning. In fact, I consider that the more you post here, the less likely you will be to shoot up a mosque, so I see this as steam venting. I don't find that these sources you cite can be used to back up the "most" comment. Moreover, I don't think that any of the evidence offered so far would support violating the First Amendment. We can beat these guys without giving up on what our fathers fought so hard for: freedom. Uh, I don't despise Christianity. Why would you say that? What have I ever said about Christianity that would give you that idea? I think certain versions of Islam are incompatible with Islam, as is true also of christianity and Judaism. The American Taliban wasn't convinced to kill Americans in his American mosque, but in Pakistan. There are radical mosques here that preach hate, but I don't want them shut down for that preaching, any more than I want a right wing church that teaches the killing of abortion doctors is moral. When that church or mosque gets directly involved in murder--bring the full force of law down upon them. This does raise the risks to you, to me, to children, whatever. That's the risk that we accept as our birthright as Americans. Freedom comes with responsibilities and risks. I prefer it to the alternative.

Posted by: jd at May 29, 2006 07:46 AM (5/DFH)

73 Uh, I don't despise Christianity. Why would you say that? What have I ever said about Christianity that would give you that idea? jd, would you deny with a straight face that that the Left despises christianity? raaaaaaaacists!!! Or maybe they just think they have legitimate reasons to hate christianity, just as lots of conservatives have a lot of reasons to fear islam. Except the Leftards happen to be wrong. Christianity has always been part of the American fabric, while islam hasn't (nor Leftardism for that matter). Both are alien ideologies.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 29, 2006 07:53 AM (8e/V4)

74 Hmm...jd, there are several questions here for you to answer. We're waiting. And I, for one, am not willing to wait until some jihadist pops off a nuclear bomb before I decide to do something about it. That is not one of the risks of freedom. You just set up another straw man and knocked him down, jd. Don't you ever get tired of that?

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 09:05 AM (rUyw4)

75 JD, I'm not "likely" to shoot up a mosque, I'm just waiting until they start shooting first ;it's a basic military principle of self-defense, which gives moral and legal justification to retaliation. It's called war. Muslims are the enemies of civilization and are going to start their shit here sooner or later, as they always do everywhere they go, and the lefturds who stand with them will fall with them. It's a good time to decide whether you'd rather live under the US Constitution or sharia law.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 29, 2006 12:57 PM (0yYS2)

76 jd, any word on that revolution you Lefties keep threatening? As you can see, armed to the teethe conservatives like IM are getting mighty fidgety.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 29, 2006 02:11 PM (8e/V4)

77 No sharia law for me, IM. I would prefer death to living under the yoke of islam, or communism and fascism for that matter. The prophet mohammed(piss be upon him) can kiss my grits!

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 02:43 PM (rUyw4)

78 The testimony of a 10 year old child who survived the attack on her family's house in Haditha is below. Happy memorial day. As Iman tells it, US marines burst into her house 15 minutes after the bomb destroyed the Humvee, apparently looking for insurgents. They shouted at her father. Then a grenade was thrown into her grandparents' room. She saw her mother hit by shrapnel. Her aunt grabbed a baby and ran from the house. Soldiers opened fire inside the living room, where most of the family were gathered. Her uncle Rashid came downstairs, saw what was happening, then fled outside, where he was pursued by Marines and shot. "Everybody who was in the house was killed by the Americans except my brother Abdul-Rahman and me," Iman said. "We were too scared to move and tried to hide under a pillow. I was hit by shrapnel in my leg. For two hours we didn't dare to move. My family didn't die immediately. We could hear them groaning." Iman's grandfather Abdul al-Hamid Hassan, her grandmother Khamisa, her father Walid, uncle Mujahid, her mother, uncle Rashid and cousin Abdullah, 4, had all been fatally wounded.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 02:08 AM (YBYf6)

79 And you too, rocket whatever. I just got through reading about some of the atrocities the British committed against American colonists in the Southern stategy campaign in the Revolutionary War. This kind of shit happens in war, and what makes one superior to the other is how one procecutes the people who carry out these illegal attacks on civilians. I don't recall reading about any British being prosecuted for their cowardly acts. And I would appreciate it if you would publish the accounts of the murders, beheadings, throat slashings, beatings, torture and other atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by your friends in the insurgency. And you might want to keep score, if you had any sense. FOAD, turd!

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 07:39 AM (rUyw4)

80 Hey rocketScientist, what happened to that Iraqi girl makes you feel all good inside doesn't it? You don't care that she'd suffered, only that Americans are involved. Like JJ, pointed out, what about the Iraqis who go un-named, who die EVERYDAY because "freedom fighters" planted a bomb in a market or beheaded a truck driver or fired mortars at elementary schools or shot teachers in classrooms or booby trapped an ice cream truck or buried mines in the road or blew up a mosque during prayers or shot people for wearing the wrong clothes, all as standard operating procedure? How many schools have the insurgents built? How many miles of water and power distribution systems have they installed? How many hospitals and clinics have they built and stocked? I guess all that's not really important is it?

Posted by: Graeme at May 30, 2006 08:53 AM (CNRPz)

81 rocket, the difference between you and us is that atrocities like this fill your heart with joy. You posititively drool with glee. Who really cares about that little child right? I can almost see you wringing your hands from the anticipation of being able to smear your country. That's all that matters to you. We know it, and you know it. And ps., Memorial Days aren't intended to be "happy". It's a day or remembrance, you Leftwing fucktard.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 09:34 AM (8e/V4)

82 Sorry, I meant to say certain versions of Islam are incompatible with democracy and western values. What version of Islam rejects the Koran and Sharia law? Well, that's like saying "what version of christianity rejects the bible?" What they DO differ on is interpretation. Many Sufis, for example, adopt a far more mystical version of Islam. Many Sunnis, in countries like Morocco and Tunisia, and indeed throughout the Muslim world, adopt a far more moderate interpretation of the hadiths and the Koran. They don't live under Sharia law as we think of it here. There used to be strong forces of secularism in the Arab world (the baath party was one, cofounded by a Christian Arab--things went fascist pretty quickly, in both Syria and Iraq, but the initial idea was and remained secular for many years). And yes, I deny with a straight face that the "left" hates Christianity. I can prove it with simple logic. Liberals make up between 15-25% of America, depending on how you define it. Christians make up between 75-89% of America. Studies show that a majority of liberals are, in fact, Christians. How could it be otherwise, in a country that is so strongly Christian? Q.E.D. Oh, and someone wanted a Church that defended abortionist killing? Operation Rescue has been supported by a number of Right wing Christian churches, and its leadership supported Michael Bray, who wrote the book A Time To Kill, advocating the murder of abortion doctors. Several other fringe Christian groups do it as well. I'm not saying that this is as widespread as Muslim groups advocating violent jihad against jews etc. Far from it. Just saying that those churches that preach hate should be allowed to keep doing it, just a Mosque that preached that Jews were dogs should be allowed to do it. Or that bunch of wackos in Kansas who preach that homosexuality is why our troops are dying in Iraq. Or that idiot Pat Robertson who said that feminists and gays and the ACLU caused 9-11 because of God's wrath. All of them get a 1st amendment. At least, in my America.

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 10:15 AM (5/DFH)

83 If you are defining "left" to mean a small minority atop the Democratic Party who are devoted secularists and are fooling the Christian liberals and moderates, you might be able to make your case....except... Hillary Clinton--church going Methodist (in fact, went to church almost every week in the WH, something Bush hasn't done, nor did Reagan) John Kerry church going Catholic Al Gore: Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter--most religious president we ever had in the 20th century, except perhaps Wilson. Really incompetent in many ways, but man, nobody ever took prayer as seriously as this guy. Every day, constantly. Maybe we should try MORE secularism? And don't make me get down with the civil rights-christian connection! "the left hates Christianity". uh...right.

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 10:21 AM (5/DFH)

84 >>>>If you are defining "left" to mean a small minority atop the Democratic Party who are devoted secularists and are fooling the Christian liberals and moderates, you might be able to make your case....except... If just for argument's sake I accept your premise that Leftards don't hate christianity (your Hilary and Jimmah examples), but instead focus on the "mean small minority atop the Dem party", do you call this minority "racist" every time they say something vile about christianity? I doubt it. More likely you just tsk tsk them and maybe, MAYBE try to correct them. IF that. I'm willing to bet you just ignore it. Now do you see why getting called "racists" by you Leftards is such a joke to us?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 10:37 AM (8e/V4)

85 Nope, wrong again, jd. You did not quote any version of Christianity that advocates or encorages abortion clinic bombings. You say right wing churches(whatever that is) supported Operation Rescue, and they supported murder and clinic bombings. Now what version of Christianity is that? Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Pentecostal? You won't answer my question about what version of Islam rejects jihad and sharia law because they all teach it. I'm not saying there are not moderate Muslims, but that there is not a moderate Islam. All the schools(madhahib) of Islamic jurisprudence(fiqh) teach violent jihad and sharia supremacism. The problem I have is with Islam, because violent jihad was part and parcel of Islam from the very first, and if someone tells me that jihad and sharia are just things that are misunderstood by some Muslims, I know them to be deceivers, but if they say that jihad and sharia are wrong and should be eliminated from Islam I recognize them as reformers. There are few reformers. Meanwhile the jihadists get all the justification they need straight from the Koran.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 12:12 PM (rUyw4)

86 JJ, Robert Spencer has taught you well, young padawan!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 12:40 PM (8e/V4)

87 Thanks, Carlos. A great teacher and a man of vision, but probably too late to save us. For the sake of my children, I pray not. Time will tell.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 01:07 PM (rUyw4)

88 Most of the people here (including the blog author) denouncing Murtha are the ones who are too chickenshit to put their money where their mouth is and go fight for their country. How typical of most of you, don't have any problem denouncing men in uniform who don't agree with your worldview. Shame on most of you.

Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 01:59 PM (07Xhv)

89 Who in the hell rang your bell, DJ? Go to the mushroom heads over at Kos and join the circle jerk over there. All you dopeheads need to pool your brain cells in the hope of coming up with one functional brain.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 02:26 PM (rUyw4)

90 "Who in the hell rang your bell, DJ? Go to the mushroom heads over at Kos and join the circle jerk over there. All you dopeheads need to pool your brain cells in the hope of coming up with one functional brain." Shouldn't you use the time from posting on this blog towards finding a job instead peabrain? It seems like you like to jerk off to this blog every moment you access it. Fuckhead, you're nothing but a failed abortion.

Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 02:49 PM (07Xhv)

91 To the commentators above who scream that the insurgents have commited untold attrocities over the last 3 years it should be pointed out that there was no insurgency in Iraq before Bush/Cheney's blundering invasion. Saddam was a grade-A asshole but he was an unusually stable ruler, Iraqis were not dying at the rate of 10 - 30,000 deaths per year (depending on whether you go with the official estimates or the ones by independent organizations). Its also important to note that Iraq was a secular society where women could work (there were many female doctors in Iraq) and people could enjoy things like electricity and running water for more than 3 hours a day. In actuality, the United States is responsible for the insurgency. You don't aggree? Ask yourself who disbanded the Iraqi army and police? Who is responsible for not maintaining border security in Iraq? Who is responsible for going into Iraq with 'just enough troops to lose the war'? Who launched an invasion which was illegal under international law, not supported by the international community, unneccessary and antithical to America's laws and values? What will it take for you partisan boneheads to sit back and realize that, dang, this was a screw-up. Patriotism is not defined as defending the insane and immoral policies of a nation's leaders. Read up on what the founding fathers had to say on this very subject, you might start with Jefferson. Also, I can't help but notice the repeated allegations that I am 'gloating' over these instances. You attack my personal motivations without knowing a damn thing about me. I understnad why you do this, you cannot answer the substance of the points I raise so you resort to the classic junior-high debate team trick of going after the character of your opponent. Hell, why not, it worked great when you smeared shit all over Kerry's war record, right? Creeps.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 03:11 PM (YBYf6)

92 OK, here's a Christian religious sect that supports murder: http://www.armyofgod.com/ You're right, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that supports murdering doctors. I have consistently said that Christianity has experienced a reformation, and that Islam needs to do the same. There are moderate interpreters of the Sharia law and the hadiths who do not interpret Jihad the way you do. Here's one example among many: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1257426,00.html Indeed, the president himself evidently hopes that men like Allawi and Maliki are moderate Muslims in Iraq, as is Karzai in Afghanistan. If there are no moderate muslim groups...then has the president been lying to us? He'd never do something like that!

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:18 PM (5/DFH)

93 Let's not forget Muqtedar A. Khan's Ijtihad either, jd. http://www.ijtihad.org/

Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 03:27 PM (07Xhv)

94 Khan is great, thanks for the address, I hadn't caught up on what he was doing lately.

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:33 PM (5/DFH)

95 An example from the al-Guardian! Surely you jest. And if you will read my comment, I never said that there are not moderate Muslims, but that Islam itself is violent and radical. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you have not provided me with any version of Islam that does not support jihad and sharia. Because there are none. And the Army of God is all you could come up with for a Christian sect supporting clinic bombings and murder. On what verses in the New Testament do they base their murder and maimings. All Christians I know condemned abortion bombings in Alabama, and the murder of one doctor in NY. Hardly an international terror group, jd. And you might mention Eric Rudolph, but 2 or 3 do not a terrorist group make. The Earth Liberation Army is the most active US terror group, according to the FBI. Try again, jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:34 PM (rUyw4)

96 One more comment. Yes, Khan was moderate, but where is his influence? What version of Islam is under the jurisprudence(fiqh) of Khan? Even the "moderate" Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand support sharia and jihad. Did I not see the leader of Malaysia giving aid and comfort to Hamas? Or maybe I dreamed it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:42 PM (rUyw4)

97 Well, if you don't like the Guardian, how about the Khan website? He links to many writings, his own and others, which show that there are MANY moderate interpreters of Islam, many GROUPS and many SCHOOLS which teach moderate Islam. One of the problems here is that Islam differs fundamentally in its organization from Christianity. Christianity is organized in a top-down fashion around denominational lines. Islam has one major division--shi'ite/sunni (there are a few other sects of very small nature, like Alawites, Ismailis, Druze to some extent, and then Sufism, which is more of a practice or mystical discourse than a denomination--one can be a Sunni and practice Sufi rituals, etc). Take Iraq--there is NO one authority who could say "Jihad does not mean violence against infidels" or "Jihad means violence against infidels". Even the marja, the collection of top clerics, isn't universally recognized as controlling, as Sadr has made clear. Islamic institutions lack clear lines of authority for a multitude of historical reasons some going back centuries, others to the recent temporal/religious splits in countries like Syria and Egypt. So, when I give you people like Khan and this guy from the Guardian, you say--but they're not a denomination! They're not an organization! But there are very few such organizations. It's not the way it is organized. It is organized around various holy interpreters of the Koran, and some are Wahhabis/Salafis, some are really liberal, and the vast majority occupy a shifting gray area between these extremes. It is to that majority that we must appeal.

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:44 PM (5/DFH)

98 Also--Joe, your question about the Army of God illustrates that you didn't even go to the linked website. Every few inches on the page, they have a bible verse to defend their violence. You don't want to say they are an organized Christian group, okay, now we are playing semantic games. What are they, then? American Christian attitudes on violence against abortion providers are on a spectrum. some would kill abortion doctors. Very few. Some larger group would actively or indirectly support such actions. Some larger group would see those acts as the regrettable outcome of abortion's violence. Many more are pro-life but reject murder. And then many Christians (most, in fact) are pro-choice, and reject the murders as well. My point was that no church or mosque should be shut down for what it preaches, even if it preaches violence or hate. In having that stance, I stand with Jefferson, Madison, Washington--who are YOU standing with?

Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:48 PM (5/DFH)

99 Army of God is not a version of Christianity. So what was the point of looking it up. And it has no influence, and I know of no attacks committed by the Army of God in recent years. And I'm standing with Lincoln, who arrested the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from voting for secession. And imprisoned 15,000 non-combatants, and suspended the right of habeus corpus. That's who. To save the nation. That's why. Any other questions?

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:54 PM (rUyw4)

100 Whoops, I meant "writ of habeus corpus".

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:59 PM (rUyw4)

101 Most of the people here (including the blog author) denouncing Murtha are the ones who are too chickenshit to put their money where their mouth is and go fight for their country. what yawner that was. You thought that one up all on your own? You Lefties must really be hurting for some new material. Tell you what, as long as we're a democracy (a Republic actually), I'll continue to speak my mind on any topic I choose regardless of having served in the military or not. Comprende? You don't like it, move to China.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:06 PM (8e/V4)

102 >>>Who launched an invasion which was illegal under international law, blah blah blah. Like we haven't heard those same Leftwing talking points about a billion times in the last 3 years. And you'd have to have been on Mars not to have heard our talking points back about a billion times too. If you're going to troll rightwing websites how bout you come up with some new material, something worth responding too. You don't want to be accused of gloating when our GIs screw up or when something bad happens to our country? then DON'T gloat, you effing morons.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)

103 >>>And you'd have to have been on Mars not to have heard our talking points back about a billion times too. Your comment is very telling. Many of the partisan supporters of the war i come accross on these blogs seem to regard this as some form of debate to be reduced to 'talking points', flame wars and other pointless rhetorical tricks. This isn't the yankees versus the red sox you assholes. A war being illegal and immoral is not a talking point. Up to 100,000 people are dead, the better part of a trillion dollars has been squandered, a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil and de-facto clerical, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe. But go ahead and yawn if you will. I guess your Fox News sized flickering attention span can't deal with the fact that moral standards don't flip-flop with the latest 'talking points'.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 04:26 PM (YBYf6)

104 correction: a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil WAR and de-facto clerical RULE, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 04:29 PM (YBYf6)

105 >>>A war being illegal and immoral is not a talking point. Uh, yeah. That's definitely a talking point. >>>Up to 100,000 people are dead, Another talking point. Lefties were claiming 100,000 dead 2 years ago, so now those numbers must be up to about two billion dead, no? Most of them killed by the insurgents (your buddies). >>>I guess your Fox News The whole "Fox news" isn't a talking point? lol! You're one big walking, talking cliche. Honestly, you should take your cues from jd, above. He's wrong on just about everything, but his material is original. He's not here spouting the talking points. Move along now back to Kos. They just released another memo for you to read.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:51 PM (8e/V4)

106 >>>Lefties were claiming 100,000 dead 2 years ago, so now those numbers must be up to about two billion dead, no? Most of them killed by the insurgents (your buddies). So peer-reviewed researchers at Johns Hopkins University and medical experts from The Lancet can be conveniently boiled down to the catch-all term of "lefties", huh? Who's dealing in cliches? Yes, some of the points I raise have been raised before, does that make them invalid? Check out the original argument I made in my first post regarding the fact that the military only ever prosecutes when there is photographic or viddeo evidence of an attrocity. Is that a cliche? For your information, cliche is a stylistic weakness in artistic endeavor, it is not a counter argument to rational debate. If anything cliche is often seen to be based upon broadly observed truth. In any case the single biggest cliche spouter in this fine land is your hero, George W. Bush with his endless meaningless sound bites a la "I believe in democracy". My point about Fox News was in regard to its effects on your attention span. That observation isn't particularly cliched either. The fact that you can't seem to parse an argument only demonstrates its veracity - ie, your attention span is shot to shit. You should definitely stick to Fox and shouting back at The Daily Show. By the way I have no idea what this 'Kos' site you keep nattering about is. I don't spend my time trolling web forums, however this issue (Haditha) relates to some research I'm working on and I thought I'd check in to see how the wackos in rightwing blogland are spinning it. It is YOUR responses which are drearily predictable.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 05:14 PM (YBYf6)

107 One more thing, you said that most of the dead in Iraq have been killed by insurgents (who you moronically categorize as 'my buddies'). Did you miss my point in the previous post that since the US is responsible for creating the security vacuum in Iraq the US is also responsible for those deaths? Guess your not up to speaking to that point. Rumsfeld ignored all military advice. He wanted a cheap war to prove his theories that America's technological superiority would allow it to swoop into any zone in the world and remould any nation the neocons chose to focus on in the image of american corporate democracy. The dumbass should have been indicted in 2004. Well, what can you expect from a jackoff whose main achievement in this world has been to loby the FDA to approve Nutrasweet - a carcinogen.

Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 05:22 PM (YBYf6)

108 rocket, you should go back and reread your comments. You would see that you are guilty of the same behavior you accuse others of participating in. Dumb ass!

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)

109 "however this issue (Haditha) relates to some research I'm working on..." lol

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 06:24 PM (rUyw4)

110 >>>"....research I'm working on..." lmao! hooo boy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 06:48 PM (8e/V4)

111 I volunteer to pull the trigger on anyone who would pull the trigger on any U.S. Marine.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM (a7z59)

112 Right wing robot: I have no desire to interact with any member of a religion dedicated to the distruction of every other religion. I leave that to the sissy leftards. They believe interaction with them will protect their cowards asses. I don't.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 02:03 PM (a7z59)

113 Rocket Scientist, I'm not going to waste bandwidth or server space arguing the why's and wherefore's of this war. I will however take you to task on one small but very significant point. Question...if as "some" have said the Marines in question committed these murders as a result of "stress" can we really hold them accountable for there actions? The reason I ask this question is quite simple. You seem to neatly deflect responsiblity for acts committed by insurgents quite easily, ie; had the U.S. not started the war the insurgents wouldn't be committing attrocities. Now I'm not arguing whether the war itself is just/unjust but I will ask you point blank, are you saying insurgents are not responsible for the acts they commit? I guess using your paradigm the death of 3000+ people in New York on 911 cannot be blamed on the terrorists that piloted the planes nor on the masterminds of the operation. Certainly, someone here in the U.S. government must be responsible? Lets put this same paradigm to use in everyday life. If I lose my job because my company decides to downsize and lay me off after 20 years of faithful service and lets say 1 week before I'm due to retire, can I be held responsible for walking into my boss's office and blowing his head off with a shotgun? I mean hey...he fired me...I'm angry...ergo I'm not responsible for my actions, am I? Now remember we're not arguing whether my boss/company was justified in laying me off. I'm trying to determine I'm responsible for my actions. Now Rocket, I am a former Marine, and if the alledged allegations are proven true then the Marines involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. It's called accepting responsiblity for ones behaviour. It's also called accepting the consequences for said behaviour. Now since we ask our military personnel to be responsible for their actions should the insurgents be held to lesser standards? I sincerely look forward to your response. Respectfully, Jack Chalker

Posted by: Jack Chalker at June 01, 2006 09:42 AM (wAYpN)

114 Mr. Chalker, Your examples above don't hold, they are classic though frankly obvious logical fallacies. We are responsible for the insurgency for the simple fact that we deliberately destroyed Iraq's security structure during and after the invasion. If you don't see why this is relevant, let me explain. There is a principle in law whereby a person is held responsible for the negative effects of their actions if a reasonable person could reasonably expect those negative effects to result from their actions. This is why, for instance, a car manufacturer would be held responsible if they knowingly sold a vehicle with faulty brakes. They would even be held responsible if they sold a vehicle which they did not test carefully enough to check that the brakes work properly (since good brakes are so important to the safe running of a vehicle it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to ensure they are of top quality). It has been exhaustively documented that Rumsfeld/Bush etc. entered Iraq with virtually no plan for the occupation. Famously, Paul Bremner disbanded the Iraqi police and security forces and we all remember the scenes of open looting and general chaos on the streets of Baghdad. The fact that Rumsfeld sent in roughly one third the number of troops the military top brass estimated neccessary to keep the country stable resulted in the situation we have become horribly familiar with - a nation out of control where the rule of law does not apply. These things were both predictable and predicted before the invasion. An excellent link summarizing just SOME of the pre-invasion warnings of an iraqi quagmire This is not such a complex idea to understand, in fact it is nothing more than Colin Powell's famous 'If we break it, we own it' formulation (the so-called Pottery Barn rule of foreign diplomacy). Bremner's mistake has been grudgingly admitted by members of the White House staff and the fact that such a huge blunder was allowed to occur shows that Bush was asleep at the wheel and did not take the neccessary care to plan for the post-invasion. Thus we are morally responsible for the insurgency. Its very important to understand that we altered the status quo in iraq when we invaded and subsequently disbanded its police force and army. It is this that makes us morally responsible. Imagine what the streets of America would look like if every cop and national guardsman were suddenly taken out of service and the only people left with weapons were a lot of disenfranchised ex-army/police malcontents who had a serious grudge with the new sheriff in town. Starting to understand? For completion's sake - if my boss fires me it is not reasonable for him to expect me to appear in the office the next day with the intent to murder him. However, if I was a night watchman guarding a bank vault and one day my boss - the bank manager - fired me without replacing me, he would surely have some answering to do to his own superiors when that same night the vault was broken into and the bank's treasure was stolen. On a side note, please do not use half-baked comparisons to 9/11 in order to compose a reducto ad absurdum argument. It really pisses me off when people use 9/11 as a cheap prop for their arguments. I'm a New Yorker and ex-worker at World Trade Center Tower 2 (Aon Corporaton - 99th floor) and I don't use this fact to prove my points because to do so would be extremely distasteful and disrespecful to the dead, you shouldn't do it either. And finally, not to sound pompous, but the language you use in your post indicates you have some degree of intelligence (unlike most people on these boards). Why wasn't this clear to you before you posted? You could have saved us both some trouble. Could it be you are letting your partisan prejudices cloud you thinking?

Posted by: rocketScientist at June 02, 2006 05:00 AM (YBYf6)

115 If you are going to believe every accusation made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct... while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to be shot in the face with sh__ and sued by the government for stinking.

Posted by: viet vet at June 13, 2006 04:37 PM (K2U10)

116 If you are going to believe every accusation made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct... while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to be shot in the face with sh_t and sued by the government for stinking.

Posted by: viet vet at June 13, 2006 04:39 PM (K2U10)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 24, 2006

I Coulda Been A Contendah!

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

Here's the only blog entry.

The comments are a laugh riot.

stein hoists: Beth and Allah.

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

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

1 Evidently something they don't emphasise in Imaginary Ranger school is to always proofread your writing.

Posted by: Graeme at May 24, 2006 04:39 PM (/8W6w)

2 What a tard. But, the comments made me spew with laughter, and coke, on the screen.

Posted by: dick at May 24, 2006 05:37 PM (XlQVK)

3 My favorite quote comes from the commie lefttard "fake, but accurate" Blue Bunny: Wow. I dont know if this is really you or someone saying it is... but the comments people left you are pretty outrageous and hard to read. Military people are wishing you would die and people are screaming at you like you are some type of traitor. I for one am not going to write you off just yet. I know that there are alot of people out there who dont want to hear the things you said and just because the army says you were never enlisted means nothing. They are professional liars and have an image to uphold, and arent going to be happy to admit if what you said is true, is true! I have no idea why people are screaming you are a liar anyways, even Jim Murtha just admitted to the very thing you are talking about - Soldiers killing 24 innocent civilians in retaliation to a comrades death, one while praying. Its on the news, its all been said before so why are people shocked by your comments??? Even if you turn out to not have been a real ex ranger, I know the things that you said were truths, even if under a false identity. If you were actually discharged, then you have the proof and should be showing it. To all you military people reading this, dont bother emailing me it will go unread. If you want to be respected, act respectful. Wishing death on someone (Anyone!) does not do your cause any good. You cant cry foul and scream murder. Stop and think how you are portraying yourself, because every horrible word out of your mouths is only being shifted in favor of our fight against the war. You are our enemy, fucktard.

Posted by: davec at May 24, 2006 05:54 PM (CcXvt)

4 I come off as a little less crazy every day, don't I? Lefturds are our enemies, and give aid and comfort to our enemies. They want innocent people to die, and America to lose. They. Should. All. Be. Hanged. Until. They. Stop. Kicking.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 06:07 PM (0yYS2)

5 Why do you lefturds want innocent people to die, and why do you give aid and comfort to our enemies? Why do you want America to lose the war on terror?

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 24, 2006 06:12 PM (rUyw4)

6 Yes when I read this story I was amazed that any one would take this guy as the real thing including the "far left" of these wild and sadistic tales.

Posted by: jjhays at May 24, 2006 06:44 PM (l9idq)

7 Blue Bunny is completely and irretrievably clueless; or a hopelessly immature 16 year old. A sharp slap in the face might work .... eh, maybe not.

Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 08:56 PM (YudAC)

8 If you want to scare this kid, try him for war crimes...

Posted by: Agent Meatball at May 24, 2006 09:37 PM (30FRH)

9 I'm lovin' it!Â™ Damn! I wish the net was around in '71 - ala Winter Soldier! Hey Kerry! How's your good ol' buddy Captain Al?

Posted by: hondo at May 24, 2006 10:30 PM (DaNq1)

10 Hondo, I think the Â™ gives you away as nothing more than a paid shill for the Evil Global Dominating Earth Destroying Animal Mutilating Greedy Capitalist Hegemonic Corporate entity best known by its scary clown spokespersonÂ™. If you're going to do that, please change your nickname to "Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With CheeseÂ™." Or, for those on a budget, "The Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With Cheese Extra Value MealÂ™."

Posted by: Vinnie at May 24, 2006 11:20 PM (/qy9A)

11 You know, Jesusland Joe asks a question I wonder about constantly... Why DO these guys want to see the country they live in defeated? Is it self-loathing? Is hatred of the current Administration enough to overpower what should be a basic desire for self-preservation? Honestly, a majority of these acts - fake soldiers, fake news, etc. Seem like treason to me. I do not use the word lightly. I saw a bumper sticker last weekend that said "Dissent is Patriotic". No it isn't, you asshat. Supporting your country is patriotic. You can disagree with government policies and still want to see the country continue to flourish and thrive, but to be in such a state where you wish ill-will on America... to actually believe maligning this great country we are so fortunate to live in is important enough to make up stories about attrocities... That is too much for me to comprehend. I've followed Improbulus Maximus's comments and, while I absolutely respect his opinion, tend to think there are some extreme over-generalizations there. I can absolutely feel the same frustrations. I don't know if I'd want to go so far as starting to string eveybody up, by my G*d, people HAVE been executed for doing far less in a time of war. To answer your question, IM, I still read you as extreme, but yes, coming off a little less crazy every day.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at May 25, 2006 03:32 AM (maXzk)

12 Liberals side with terrorists and other enemies of America, who have all publicly stated that they want to kill us, yet I'm the extremist. Wake the hell up people. It's later than you think, and your soft, spoiled suburban McDisney life is about to come crashing down around you. Apathy is not a survival plan.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 25, 2006 04:51 AM (0yYS2)

13 Agent Meatball: 'Zactly. He should get 60 to life just for his grammar.

Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2006 05:06 AM (YudAC)

14 >>Why DO these guys want to see the country they live in defeated? I'm guessing it is some twisted sense of guilt that overrides even selfpreservation. They see the BS on CBS/CNN et al and feel they have to do SOMETHING. If they can bask in the warm, soft embrace of Cindy Sheehan while they are at, all the better. ...just a guess though. I don't get it.

Posted by: tuffbeingright at May 25, 2006 08:08 AM (6pAmW)

15 Actually 'Blue Bunny' is a super moonbat, not your regular kind: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=7993410 I had a hard time figuring if it was real, or a parody like the 'blue flypaper' blog.

Posted by: davec at May 25, 2006 08:23 AM (CcXvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Kosfest--"We Hate America!"

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

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

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

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

May 22, 2006

Not In My Name

From this point forward, comments on my posts (read: Vinnie's posts) exhorting the faithful to kill everyone but themselves (do it! oh, please!) will be deleted.

You know who I'm referring to. Or maybe not, since your comment in response has been deleted.

I'm still reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and frankly (Charles Martel!) speaking, you have a lot in common with 7th century Mohammedism.

Methinks we have some (as they say on 24) moles.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:49 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sounds like you're starting to get an inkling as to why Google has to filter you out. They've got their brand to protect, and don't want to be associated with threatening content. I've been on left-wing and right-wing discussion boards, and the left-wing boards police their objectionable content (death threats and the like) much better than the right-wing boards do. Lefties are also a lot less likely to make the threats in the first place. I'm sure someone here could quote some instances of that sort of thing on left-wing boards, but they're generally removed when pointed out. Here, as on other right-wing boards, they tend to be left alone or even encouraged. I commend you for taking a step in the right direction, Vin.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:17 PM (7AEHv)

2 Case in point. (Although changehappens gets points for originality - killing people to use them for chum. Nice.) I should add that it isn't just the boards that Google is taking umbrage with - it's the content, as well. You're completely within your rights to taunt Muslims, post Muhammad cartoons, and the like - just don't expect a corporation like Google to go along with it (any more than Viacom did with South Park). I'm sure Google still links to counterterrorism blogs - just ones that conduct themselves in a more civil manner. Don't blame Google for making a business decision. Rupert Murdoch would do the same thing.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:39 PM (7AEHv)

3 This isn't a forum, it's a blog. Big difference. I could care less about Google, Google is just a thing. I care about people, like my good friend Rusty Shackleford, and his reputation, which is being tarnished by some commenters.

Posted by: Vinnie at May 22, 2006 11:49 PM (/qy9A)

4 OK, fine. I'm just saying your cohorts cared enough to post about it, and linked to two other blogs that did, too. Just thought it was ironic that die-hard capitalists couldn't see it as a business decision, rather a conspiracy by "left-leaning Google". Left, right - they go wherever the money is. Pardon me for ranting on in your thread. I'm done now.

Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:59 PM (7AEHv)

5 How about killing everyone but Jennifer Love Hewitt, Alyssa Milano, Tiffani Theissen and myself?

Posted by: MKL at May 23, 2006 12:22 AM (GKZaQ)

6 Now it's been a couple months since I've spent any time reading a left-wing blog, but personally, I always found it odd that the left-wing sites rarely (and I mean very rarely) featured a dissenting voice, respectfully or otherwise. Think they're over-policing? I do. I've posted at Kos, DU and HuffPo and seen my comments disappear or never appear at all, even though I took special pains to be respectful. They have the right to delete anything they want, but in doing so, they present an inaccurate picture and promulgate a single and narrow view. Some people feel more comfortable sitting around and patting each other on the back with no challenges cluttering their world view or monitors. It's not for me though. We get a lot of dissent at Jawa. And a lot of healthy argument that is bound to produce a few insults. Sometimes it goes overboard with the threats and the "kill 'em all" comments, but ... I think the real complaint being made here is not as Theo suggests, that Jawa is too hateful for Google news feeds, but that Google regularly features "news" sites that consistently disseminate glaringly false information and obvious propaganda while eliminating other sites almost arbitrarily. There are far too many instances belying their "fairness doctrine" and "pecking order" assertions. I guess it's all in "how" one promotes hatred and encouragement toward ill action. Just do it subtley and look "official" and voila! you're in. Google shouldn't remove Jawa from its news feeds because of complaints or for not censoring its comments, but because it's a blog and not set up as a real news site. Google has a blog search function. We don't see Kos or DU or command-post in their news feeds, but we sure have HuffPo and uruknet! The fact that Google's officers and staff do not hide their leftist, even socialist, views doesn't help them. The fact that they so willingly censor content for certain markets doesn't lend much credence to their denials. The fact that for years now you can still type in "failure" and George Bush's bio is still the first result doesn't help.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 04:23 AM (YudAC)

7 The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with the left-wing consensus is often instantly branded a "troll." Daily Kos, for example, has a ruthlessly efficient post deletion mechanism. In my case, I learned that just asking questions about the post deletion mechanism can get you branded as a troll. Once a poster is branded a troll, his or her posts will be summarily deleted, as nothing he or she says, no matter how well-reasoned and rational, is considered worth listening to. The left perceives a need to control speech, while the right-wing blogs are generally much more accepting of free speech. This is a microcosm of the world. Where the right runs things in the world (e.g., modern Europe, the U.S.), we have often seen noise, disagreement and disorder. Where the left runs things (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) things are generally much quieter and orderly. Some may believe it is because communists are just a lot happier. I don't. Free speech, while it certainly has its benefits, also has its attendant costs (dissention, hurt feelings, mixed messages to outsiders, etc.). Controlled speech, while it has its own benefits, often carries a much greater price (fear, supression of good ideas, gulags, massacres, etc.).

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at May 23, 2006 04:24 AM (Y0zGO)

8 Very well put, Ragnar.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)

9 Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:27 AM (0yYS2)

10 Can you just shut up and kill someone or try to so we don't have to listen to your inane rantings anymore? I'll even give you my address and you can come and try for me. How about it, IM?

Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 05:35 AM (B9sDR)

11 >>Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest. Seriously, kid, you listen to way too much Insane Clown Posse. Put the CD down, drop the copy of Rage, take off the trenchcoat, and re-integrate into modern society.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:42 AM (gOPcw)

12 I'm all for excluding rabid ranting - it detracts from the quality of any Blog and makes the host look dumb and besides, anyone who can use a computer can express themselves in better ways if they want to. I'm all for excluding repeat trolls as well, but then since I'm too lazy to create a blog, my opinion doesn't count for a whole lot in such matters.

Posted by: goesh at May 23, 2006 06:48 AM (1w6Ud)

13 >>>The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world. That's why I don't bother with Leftwing blogs. First they force you to register, and if you don't tow the party line your comments get deleted even when you walk on eggshells to be respectful so as not to get deleted! But yet in their minds they're all about "free speech." lol! when you point out the obvious to them, they say the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not private entities and if you don't like it just leave.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 07:21 AM (8e/V4)

14 The common masses are morally incapable of handling freedom and must have right imposed upon them.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (FCC6c)

15 I disagree about your collective ascertions that liberal blogs police content any more than right wing blogs. Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity... On the majority of Lefty blogs, you're definitely going to be labeled a troll for dropping rascist, ignorant, disruptive, or abusive comments, but rarely are you banned outright without warning. That's a Pajamas Media/ Freeper M.O. To my knowledge, I've never heard of a lefty blog banning without several warnings... No offense to this fine sight, of course. As for the Google thing, well, no shit, they don't want to be associated with hate speech. Call it what it is. Terms like "Gutter Religion" (Grey Turkey) Or sweeping baseless denegration of a race of people is hate speech. Just because some don't have a problem using it (being comfortable in your own rascist skin must feel good) doesn't mean its acceptable for public consumption. It's just a sign of the growing ignorance in some quarters. More Education would be a good start. Read a book, for christ's sake. I've been to Northern Africa- yeah, it's a troubled region, but that doesn't mean they couldn't use some honest help into the 21st century. People's people, ya know? Just the situations that we find ourselves in differ.

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (yFm36)

16 >>>Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... >>>They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity. Blue Patriot, that's not true. If you spent any time at all at LGF you'd know a Lefty troll called "Gordon" has been posting their for years. He gets harrassed, but he never gets deleted and he hasn't been banned. Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:09 AM (8e/V4)

17 OK, Carlos, I had the exact same treatment at LGF, Confederate Yankee, and Free Republic. In fact, I never got to post a second comment after disagreeing with someone at FR. Just banned. I think we agree that civil discourse is probably best, that some people don't like to hear discenting opinions, and people with their own blogs can do WTF they want. YEAH, AMERICA!

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 08:13 AM (yFm36)

18 >>Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother. Well, here's the thing, Carlos. Since I've been here I've seen you post almost nothing but strings of insults and profanity. In fact, the very first post I saw from you was exactly that, and it continued through the rest of the thread. To some extent you've shown an ability to have a rational discussion, as in the "Cold, Hard Cash" post, but the majority of what I've seen from you is still irrational and profane ranting. As an observer here, what do you think is more likely to me to be the cause of your ban? That you were mistreated, or that you were just being abusive and you were banned for it? This is why I hate blogs and bloggers. All this whining, yet, for the most part, it seems to me that all the people being kicked out of left/right/up/down/over/under blogs are simply being treated like children because they were acting like children. As an aside, my experience with LGF was a bit different. I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there. The message this sends, of course, is that if you annoy us, we'll ban you, but we don't have a problem with our members making death threats. So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior".

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:29 AM (gOPcw)

19 The key term there is annoyed. It's more the overall level of annoyance that gets you. TxMxP thinks he was the first annoying thing that ever happened. I doubt it. probably just the straw the broke the camels back. Wrong place wrong time.

Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 08:40 AM (D3+20)

20 Are you implying that LGF doesn't ban blatant trolls? I will assure you, they do, when/if they're discovered, as do most other sites.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:43 AM (gOPcw)

21 >>>So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior". TmMxP, "bad behaviour" is where commenters personally harrass other commenters, kinda like what you constantly do. You see, I have stong opinions about Liberalism, and the Left, and radical islam, etc. It's no secret I loathe them. But I generally refrain from personally harrassing other commenters who happen to be Leftwingers. I let them say their peace and respond to the substance of their comments without feeling the need to personally attack them-- the way you do. That is unless they themselves are personal harrassers-- like you are. Then I feel free to get on their case and make their lives miserable while they're on this blog. I've found they don't last very long here after that. You're getting pretty close to the point.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)

22 Carlos, this is the very first thing you said to me: >>You come hear to troll, and then you pretend outrage when you're told to fuck off. lol! Lefty orwellianism knows no bounds. Come hear with a respectful attitude to argue the issues, and you'll be treated respectfully. Otherwise kindly fuckoff. After I took exception to Bluto issuing a string of epithets, threats, and insults as a way to ask that another poster stop being abrasive. WHO is the harrasser here?

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:01 AM (gOPcw)

23 Suddenly everyone seems obsessed here with "rational discourse." I actually like a fair amount of random ranting. But then I actually like heavy metal. TxMxP: you say that you hate blogs and bloggers - I don't understand why you continue to read and comment. I think you just don't like people with opinions different than yours, and you are trying to either change them, or stop them.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 09:04 AM (aH6Zf)

24 JC personally sees to it that ratings go up and numbers increase!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:13 AM (FCC6c)

25 TxMxP, like I've told you numerous times before, if you come here with attitude (in that case towards Bluto), you'll get attitude back. But if you come here realizing you are on other people's turf and act respectfully you'll be treated respectfully in return, at least by me. I treat people they way they deserve to be treated. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to blow off steam from time to time, but you came here and were rude right off the bat.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:22 AM (8e/V4)

26 First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing. Second of all, there's nothing wrong with trying to change opinions. I realize that some on this type of site feel otherwise, but I happen to think that honest dialogue between competing ideologies is usually better than worse. Finally, I hate blogs and bloggers for the simple reason that they basically stop anything approaching honest dialogue. Most people who hold strong enough opinions to rant on things seem to also have an amazing lack of perspective on those opinions, and a complete and total lack of evidence to support them. I blame things like blogs for that problem because they create echo chambers where the most "amusing" post wins, no matter how devoid of any actual information it might be. I'd rather try and fix that problem (though I realize I can't) than just ignore it. Besides, why do you care? If your opinion is so firmly rooted in fact that it won't change, the worst that can happen is that I'll give you the opportunity to exercise your arguments so you can better make them in the future.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (gOPcw)

27 Wow, a halfway decent back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives on the internet. Maybe there's hope for us, after all. Being an independent thinker (but not necessarily and Independent) means applying the same standard to both parties. In other words, if the situation were reversed, would you argue the same way? Or are you parroting party talking points? Example: Would conservatives be up in arms if Bill Clinton was trampling on the Constitution or spending us into monstrous debt? Or do you defend the $90,000-in-his-freezer Democratic congressman, yet say nasty things about Tom DeLay's indictment? etc. etc.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 09:36 AM (7AEHv)

28 I don't like ANY of them. As far as I'm concerned this entire ridiculous government is out of control and has been since at LEAST Nixon, probably before that. I'm sometimes inclined to think that the entire thing started falling apart after the Spanish-American war. However, at the moment the "right" is in control and it's tearing things apart, so that's who I complain the most about. When the liberals are in control and everybody has to wear a fanny pack to filter their farts in case it might kill a common housefly, then I'll be up in arms against them. All I want is to be left alone. I hate politics. I hate government. But I can't just ignore them because they're constantly forcing their way into my life. If it's the liberals, they're trying to tell me I have to put something new on my car to improve the emissions or I can't put a manger scene on the sidewalk by my house (although I'm not religious) because it might offend some mysterious shadowperson in the bushes. If it's the conservatives they're telling me I can't watch certain TV shows because they're "bad" for showing a nipple or I have to worry about them snooping on my damn library records. I just want left alone. I don't want to be fighting with everybody all the time. But, frankly, if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it. That goes for BOTH sides because BOTH side are constantly trying to screw me.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:09 AM (gOPcw)

29 Hey, TxMxP - that's a swell bubble you're living in. You may live enough of a hermitous existence not to affect anyone, but I doubt it. Government is a very necessary "evil", because without it, we'd tear each other apart, quite frankly. Humanity isn't exactly a noble species. Government keeps us (sometimes) playing by the same rules and (sometimes) keeps us safe. No one said it's perfect - all the better reason to get involved and right what's wrong with it.

Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 10:15 AM (7AEHv)

30 I don't want anarchy, I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:08 AM (gOPcw)

31 TxMxP: you write: "First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing." then you write: "...if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it." regarding LGF, you write: "I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there." I say: I think trolling for kicks is one way of stopping opinions. I think it's a little ridiculous to admit to be trolling for kicks and then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. And you're annoyed because they still post there. Were they trolling for kicks? Probably not. As Howie noted, it sounds like annoy is the key word here.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 11:14 AM (aH6Zf)

32 "I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues." Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:34 AM (nBOAO)

33 Heroic, Trolling for kicks, in this case, sounds more like going to a site like LGF when your political flag blows to the left. You know that the majority of opinions may be counter to your own, but you go to that blog for the lively discussion, or to laugh at the monkeys, or whatever. That in itself isn't wrong, but you cross a line when you tear down meaningful discussions for the sake of name calling, topic hi-jacking, etc. We all could probably be accused of being a bit quick to jump on a person who's first post has an obvious slant that opposes our own. "Shut them up and shut them down."

Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 11:43 AM (yFm36)

34 How do you figure I'm "stopping opinions". What action have I taken that is preventing anybody from stating their opinion on any matter on this or any other site? How does trolling do that? I'd argue to the contrary, in fact. When you troll people, half the time you wind up with BETTER discussions than if you just left them alone. If it weren't for slashdot trolls, there'd NEVER be a decent discussion on that site. And when I say "bash heads", I mean like what I'm doing here. My coming in here and forcefully stating my opinions in no way prevents anybody from stating theirs. To the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it hasn't ENCOURAGED people to state their opinions. >>...then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. Uh. Yea. Sorry for finding death threats directed at me offensive. >>Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent. But, it will never happen because people are too busy radicalizing on either side of the fence.

Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:50 AM (gOPcw)

35 TxMxP: I think you're too pessimistic. There are a number of decent blogs out there where rational discourse and good ideas are being discussed. I won't recommend any because that is something that is determined by the reader. But I visit a few that are quite reasonable and logical and the comment sections are populated with some very smart people. I tend to lean a little right. (According to a couple people here recently though, I'm anywhere from a socialist to a bigot to a nazi and today I go called a hypocrite.) I'm not so unreasonable though and I can dish it out, but I can take it too. I only get worked up when someone keeps telling me I'm wrong on just about every thing I say and like anyone else here, I'm not ALWAYS wrong. I know that looks like one big run-on sentence and it probably is, but well, I just want to be clear.

Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 12:20 PM (nBOAO)

36 The problem here isn't liberal vs. conservative and who carries the biggest stick. It's the problem that the MSM caused and it's now returning with the likes of Google. The MSM squelched diversity on the airwaves. As a result the internet became a competiting way to express almost overnight. Well done too. Now here comes Google, using public infrstructure, much like the public airwaves the MSM uses, trying to impose its own vision of acceptable thought. Anyone that has read MyPetJawa for about 10 minutes would know its edgy, opinionated from the right but not hate. How many other sites are excluded from search engine results at Google because Google doesn't like them? Or how many sites are returned but so low in the hierarchy that nobody would scroll down to find it, just because Google may not like their editorial slant? Censorship sucks anyway the cuts are made. Today it's from the left, tomorrow it could be from the right.

Posted by: changehappens at May 23, 2006 03:00 PM (Bmhbf)

37 Isn't it wonderful I slipped through the cracks!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:01 PM (FCC6c)

38 Guys, why do you bother trying to speak truth to these lefturd trolls? They lie in every post, and if they ever utter the truth, it's by accident and they repent immediately and tell a lie twice as great to cover it up. They're liars and idiots, and you're not going to get anywhere wasting your time on them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:54 AM (0yYS2)

39 Blue dress patriot by his own admission above is a troll.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:00 PM (pzM6K)

40 Notice blue dress patriot now decides for us what is acceptable for public consumption. Thats exactly what the mad moolas in islam decide also. Don't know who this marxist prick is but he sure doesn't believe in freedom of expression for all. Only for his commie leaning leftard buddies. Change your dress leftard sissy.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:06 PM (pzM6K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 20, 2006

Overheard At The Watercooler

"I told my kid that if he ever said he was going to join the Army or the Marines or any of that shit that I'd kick his ass."

Nah, I didn't say anything. I decided it was better let the idiocy shine on its own.

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

1 A man at work told me his son wants to go into the Army and he told his son he would hate it because he would have to make his bed every day. I just stood there in shock at the jerk Father telling me this, bragging to me about this and he knows I am a huge supporter of our troops. He wanted a reaction and all I said was... Tell him to join the al-quada they probably don't have beds to make in their caves.

Posted by: Wild Thing at May 20, 2006 09:19 AM (tj1zH)

2 Thinking...this is a tough one. serious enough to think about. For starters I think the Father should not exclude options like that from consideration. Every opportunity has to be considered carefully esecially when you are young when it's hard to do.

Posted by: Howie at May 20, 2006 10:04 AM (D3+20)

3 Well, it's so obvious: you should send the kid some pamphlets for the the Navy and AIr Force! Actually, this guy will be regretting those words when his son turns 27 and is still living at home.

Posted by: Thrill at May 20, 2006 10:47 AM (DYb4r)

4 He's probably more comfortable with the thought of his wife and children getting raped and murdered by muslims than his son having to make his bed every day. Liberals must all be killed.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 20, 2006 12:58 PM (0yYS2)

5 I guess IM got knocked around pretty bad over in Iraq and thinks everyone here should pay ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 20, 2006 01:01 PM (FCC6c)

6 What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Jesus H. you're stupid, even for a liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 20, 2006 07:32 PM (0yYS2)

7 IMHO, if the kid is man enough to join the military, its probably the father who would get the ass-kicking.

Posted by: KobeClan at May 22, 2006 07:38 AM (iJmNW)

8 The only time he would need a kick in the rear is if he ever joined GREEPEACE,SIERRA CLUB,PETA,WORLD WILDLIFE FUND or any of the other liberal wussie eco-freak group or if he snuck out of the house to see that crap HOOT

Posted by: sandpiper at May 23, 2006 10:07 PM (K3hNB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 10, 2006

ACLU Challenges US Sovereignty

Brandishing a list of 51,000 signatures as backup for their campaign of innuendo and half-truths against American interrogation of captured terrorists, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding that the US State Department subordinate itself to the UN Committee Against Torture:

"Instead of denying the systemic abuse of detainees confirmed by its own documents, the U.S. government must own up to the truth and take full responsibility," said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project who is currently observing the committee's examination of the U.S. report in Geneva. "We hope that the Committee Against Torture will hold the government accountable for the torture and abuse of detainees both within the United States and abroad."

It's odd that an organization that stuffs money into its members' pockets by defending the indefensible should tell a United States government department that it has no right to defend itself from the ACLU's own trumped up charges. Of course, the ACLU is still smarting from the knowledge that its own communications with international terrorist organizations may have been monitored by the NSA.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:26 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

May 09, 2006

MA Mosque Claims U.S. Government Behind 9/11

"Mohammed's Mosque" in Springfield, MA, seems to be affiliated with The Nation of Islam. Dave has the backstory here.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Boston mosque" ? Springfield is 125 miles from Boston it is about as distant as you can get from Springfield and still be in the same state. Is this some kind of Red Sox hate/guilt by association smear.

Posted by: john Ryan at May 09, 2006 08:03 PM (TcoRJ)

2 The Nation of Islam? Those guys are still around? And taken half way seriously?

Posted by: KG at May 09, 2006 08:06 PM (hyH5v)

3 Thanks John. Duly noted. Not all that familiar with my New England geography.

Posted by: Rusty at May 09, 2006 08:13 PM (JQjhA)

4 Hmmm....125 miles, huh, John. That seems pretty close to me, but I live in Texas, and I hear tell that we have counties in Texas bigger than Massachusetts. Back on topic, I sense a moonbat/Islamic convergence in the atmosphere. It needs to be dealt with before it gets out of hand, although I doubt whether the Islamists have much use for the moonbats other than cover for terrorism. This could get interesting if the 2006 elections bend toward the Left.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 09, 2006 08:19 PM (rUyw4)

5 Here is what we should do.....Fly very high powered drones directly into the Muhammad Mosque in Springfield and watch it burn like a towelhead's asshole after eating too many peppers. Then we photograph the Mosque with two big burning holes in it!

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 09, 2006 08:20 PM (mqTcV)

6 Who's the speaker, Greg?

Posted by: davec at May 09, 2006 08:22 PM (CcXvt)

7 We're be the mothership?

Posted by: hondo at May 09, 2006 09:09 PM (SeBrl)

8 I still say these maggots have no business in the U.S. and certainly no right to be spewing this nonsense. I like Steve's idea. It's quick, simple, and problem solved.

Posted by: Richard at May 09, 2006 09:10 PM (7KF8r)

9 I keep telling everyone that we're going to be fighting them in the streets here pretty soon, but does anyone listen? Hello, do I carry the Curse of Cassandra? Buy a rifle with a thousand rounds of ammo and learn how to use it. Then buy another thousand. And another, etc.. A surplus bolt action rifle, which can be bought for one hundred dollar and change, in the hands of a trained shooter is sufficiently deadly to police the streets of our own nation, though an AK would serve better in most cases. Trust that muslims are training to kill you, because they are, and they state it openly, though liberals try to lie and tell us we're islamophobic for not wanting to be enslaved and murdered. Screw them, they will have to choose sides soon, but they're not welcome on my side, as they are traitors and must be dealt with accordingly. Let's get this thing rolling boys, I'm not getting any younger.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 09, 2006 10:16 PM (0yYS2)

10 if you dont eradicate islam it will eradicate you

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 10, 2006 12:21 AM (k8yUp)

11 Hell, IM, I'm buying as fast as I can, but dammit, this bird flu crap has forced me to spend some money on preparation for it. But I'm getting there.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 10, 2006 05:36 AM (rUyw4)

12 Ah hell, just stay away from coughing birds!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 10, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)

13 I grill pork chops on the weekends just to piss off the moon god worshipping POS around the world. Also, I think it is time to burn the Islamic flag, and pass out candy. Then send the video to AL-Jazzera. Maybe, we should start out own rifle squad, and get the line of fire, and single envelopment down. But, everyone has there own type of weapon, and if anyone gets killed on the line, we can not use that weapons ammo. Thoughts anyone?

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 10, 2006 01:44 PM (D2g/j)

14 Wow, what an impressive group of people you are. Scared of Islam, scared of bird flu... What's the news going to make you scared of next? I wonder how many of you have been our of this country? Anyone here visited an Islamic country? ("Wow, I bet it's pure chaos and carnage out there! TheyÂ’d hate me and try to kill me for being Christian!") Please reply back with your PERSONAL experience with Muslims. I'd be fascinated to hear what these people have done to you personally. Fools. I just hope you don't also claim to be Christian - that would be even more ridiculous. My Point - it's easy to be scared of things you don't know about. Especially if you sit at home and gather your opinions from the news...and then talk about it with other people who are informed by the news. You have nothing to base your own opinions on. Please, go out of this country and form an opinion for yourself. Spend a month in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, ANYWHERE - and form your own opinion. It's sheltered people like you that live in fear. Fear brings ignorance. Ignorance results in violence. Stupid People are Violent.

Posted by: JB at May 10, 2006 04:34 PM (Fd0d6)

15 just to show that the opinions of those mentioned is held by many other rational people, here is a quick summary of some of the more notable questioners of 9/11: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 David Ray Griffin: Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology, and the author or editor of thirty books Morgan Reynolds: A & M Professor of Economics Emeritus, former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center Steven E. Jones: Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. James H. Fetzer: Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than two dozen books and co-chair of S9/11T Andreas Von Buelow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years. Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist with articles in The Village Voice, CounterPunch, Online Journal, Wired, In These Times, Insider Magazine, and From The Wilderness. John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher and ethicist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and author of six books on public policy issues this is just a very short list, you'd be quite surprised to see how many others there are. do some research, be informed, no matter what your position.

Posted by: anonymous at May 10, 2006 05:39 PM (5ctaJ)

16 I have no 'fear' of Islam. I have fear that idiots like you will force all people into a defeatist position which the strong such as myself will be swept away with the muslim loving morons like you. Sort of like the All-Pro lineman who happens to play on a bad team, thus he has a losing record. It is not his fault, but his correct and outstanding play are not rewarded with victories and he is forced to suffer defeats because of the rest of his team.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 10, 2006 11:00 PM (tziza)

17 Wow - Steve-o. I know you can't back out of your frame of mind now because you've already invested a lifetime keeping the word "dumb" alive, but seriously - next time you're wonderin' what's wrong with kids today, you might wanna check out the examples you give'm to work with. You're a man of hate, not faith. At least we know where you stand. Sincerely, Someone not afraid of other human beings who may where towels on their heads just as culturally as a cowboy hat.

Posted by: bw at May 11, 2006 02:13 AM (6J02b)

18 What dose that wacy wussie LOUIS FARIKHAN think of it all?

Posted by: sandpiper at May 11, 2006 07:42 AM (U+eLg)

19 you are damn right I hate them. I hate anyone who celebrates strapping a bomb around their own children's waists and cheering their deaths because with their deaths came the deaths of others.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 09:58 AM (IhZeu)

20 you are damn right I hate them. I hate anyone who celebrates strapping bombs around their own children's waists and cheering their deaths because with their deaths came the deaths of others.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 09:59 AM (IhZeu)

21 Perhaps my comments were too accusatory to invite rational conversation - My apologies. LetÂ’s go back to one single point: What opinions have you formed based on your own direct experience with Islam? Have any of you ever left the United States and visited an Islamic country? Your opinions are that of a very sheltered person. You reference websites and television as the basis for your beliefs. I prefer real life interaction. Before I commit to hating a group of people, I like to have some type of personal interaction with them. In my first trip to Indonesia, I was scared of the crazy radicals and terrorists I would encounter. After a few days of unconditional hospitality and kindness from the locals, my entire reality shifted. Also, SteveÂ…come on. We have the same radical behavior in this country. How many school shootings and Timothy Mcvay type bombings have wee seen from Americans in the last five years?

Posted by: JB at May 11, 2006 10:33 AM (Fd0d6)

22 Not sure about school shootings, but I can definitely say there have been no OK City bombings in the last 5 years. We have actually intercepted 2 or 3 Columbine style shootings. What domestic chaos has to do with Islamic terrorism escapes me. Neither OK City or Columbine had anything to do with a religous ideology. Unless you are saying Islamic terrorism is actually a cover for some type of anarchy movement we don't know about.

Posted by: Cmunk at May 11, 2006 01:04 PM (7teJ9)

23 I have never lived in an Islamic country, though at the rate things are going I might be one day, and that is totally irrelevant. I never lived in Nazi Germany either, so according to your logic, I am unable to discuss Nazis. Keep defending the religion which wishes to swallow you whole. You do what you do--acquiesce...and I will do what I do--fight the bad guys. Simple game. Here is an easy way for you to identify who is who if you are having trouble doing so... The Muslims are the ones who stand BEHIND children while firing their weapons....we are the ones who stand in FRONT of them.

Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 01:41 PM (2Lskf)

24 I love how libtards fall all over themselves to condemn us for wanting to protect ourselves and our nation against their allies, the muslim scum who chop off the heads of innocent people. When the shit goes down, we'll have to hang all the liberals first, because they'll betray us to the goatfuckers if we don't.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 16, 2006 04:36 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

By Left's Standars, FDR Was Hitler

Don't question their patriotism.

Via Powerline, this from The American Spectator:

IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.
In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.

No, not THE President Roosevelt? Yes. In fact, the article goes on to quote a letter from Roosevelt to J. Edgar Hoover specifically authorizing the surveillance of those that disseminate enemy propaganda--no doubt a reference to the German Bund and many other groups that were actively engaged in trying to keep the U.S. out of the war, i.e. peace activists.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:11 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Rusty by the Right's standard at that time FDR was Stalin. So what does any of that prove ? Washington was a slave owner blah blah blah. Holding historical figures to present day standards seems to me to be creating easy targets. How about a post instead on something a bit more current, say the disaray in the C.I.A. ? I seem to recall reading about that in the MSM last week.

Posted by: john Ryan at May 09, 2006 10:38 AM (TcoRJ)

2 Libs have different standards for Democrats. Kind of like Jimmy Carter appointing a Navy admiral to head the CIA (Stansfield Turner), but throw a hissy fit when Bush appoints an Army guy for exactly the same post. That's why it's best just to ignore them, or just laugh at them.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 09, 2006 10:40 AM (paKD6)

3 Does that mean we should start calling him Chimpy McPolio? Seriously Rusty, if we're going to mirror the intellectual reactions of the left, then we should simply rain down hate, err, I mean 'tolerance' on people who disagree with us.

Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at May 09, 2006 11:04 AM (v3hgS)

4 Any one else hear that giant sucking sound??? WTF is that. Oh just John Ryan again. Never mind.

Posted by: Howie at May 09, 2006 11:09 AM (D3+20)

5 Interesting piece in the Spectator. One key difference that is controlling from then and now is this: Congress has spoken on national security wiretapping, in the FISA case. When Jackson wrote his memos for FDR, there was NO congressional statute addressing this point. As articulated by no lesser light than Jackson in the steel seizure case, when the president acts with statutory authority granted by Congress, it is constitutional unless the constitution directly forbids it. When the Congress hasn't spoken to a matter, it is a gray area, tasking judges with divining where the power rightfully resides. But when the president, given a statutory path to achieve a given end, ignores or thwarts Congress' will, it can ONLY be upheld if the Constitution grants that power to the president strictly. This is tantamount to strict scrutiny, and thus, FDR's actions would have been in zone 2, and Bush's post FISA acts in zone 3. That's a huge difference, in legal terms.

Posted by: jd at May 09, 2006 11:13 AM (aqTJB)

6 Jd, noted and already over-ruled a while ago. Bush's actions fall under the president's wartime powers, and we've seen legal judgments to that effect. Besides which, this is only an issue if you have a deep inner need for that. Or are you going to start complaining when they search your luggage at the airport when you leave or enter the country?

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 10, 2006 02:08 AM (xdVg/)

7 Is this argument an example of the tu quoque fallacy? Agree or disagree, showing your reasons.

Posted by: OH at May 10, 2006 10:33 AM (dYUmX)

8 FYI Carlos, Stansfield Turner had retired before he was DCI. The last active duty military officer in the poisition was Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (1947-50). So, the "Carter did it" example of a double standard doesn't apply. Thanks for playing!

Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 12:51 PM (qtUKx)

9 daphne, Stansfield Turner was head of the Navy War College, a MILITARY institution-- and therefore hardly "retired"-- when Carter called him up to the CIA. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 10, 2006 01:30 PM (paKD6)

10 I don't know what was "overruled". Jackson's steel seizure division of presidential powers? FISA? As you know, there is no explicit grant of wartime emergency powers in the Constitution, which distinguishes it from most constitutions. There are statutory examples of powers that grow in war, and Congress and the courts have treated the president deferentially. But Bobby Inman got it right yesterday, yet another intel/law expert who says the president broke the law when he ignored FISA. There is another side to the debate, but it is hardly as simplistic as the Spectator makes it out to be.

Posted by: jd at May 10, 2006 03:51 PM (aqTJB)

11 Carlos sweetie, Stansfield Turner - Naval War College 1972-74 Stansfield Turner - DCI 1977-81 Thanks for playing!

Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 09:20 PM (GyHLs)

12 Dems had to find something to criticize. But Hayden being a general in the Army is a non-issue. He's the highest ranking military intelligence officer in the country and therefore eminently qualified (unlike Stansfield Turner was).

Posted by: dcb at May 10, 2006 10:06 PM (M3nr/)

13 dcb, then why the pre-push no by Republicans to the Hayden nomination? Big Bill is asking the same question now on the teevee. And now Stansfield Turner wasn't qualified, aty. I think James Webb would like to weigh in on that. Let's see. I'll ask him, as opposed to taking the word of "dcb" on a blog. Thanks for playing

Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 10:50 PM (GyHLs)

14 daphne, don't take my word for it. "Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting. He quickly found, however, that the CIA was a far more complex and elusive entity than he had expected." http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm

Posted by: dcb at May 11, 2006 08:37 AM (WCwrR)

15 DCB--was Daphne right about Turner and the war college? You have a funny way of admitting that someone correctly identified a mistake in your post.

Posted by: jd at May 11, 2006 01:46 PM (aqTJB)

16 It should be noted, Hayden is Air Force, not Army. /quibble

Posted by: MegaTroopX at May 15, 2006 08:26 AM (gveym)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 08, 2006

Next on ACLU's Agenda: Rip the Distinguished Service Cross from my Grandfather's Corpse

So, the ACLU has succeeded in getting a court to order a cross be removed from a San Diego monument honoring our fallen soldiers? I guess the logic is that putting a cross up to commemorate our fallen dead is just the first step toward a Rightwing theocracy. You know, the American Taliban and all that.

I suppose that had it been a giant phalis honoring Mother Gaia, the ACLU would have had no problem. You can sign a petition against the court's action here.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:23 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

1 By the Left's definition of "theocracy", America has always been one. So it's not the "American Taliban" who are trying to turn us into a "theocracy", it's the Leftards who are trying to change how this country has always been. They are a secular taliban.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

2 You know, it pisses me off when people call Ashcroft, Robertson, or Falwell "Taliban". it is the modern equivalent of "nazi". It isn't accurate. None of these gentlemen want to construct a state in which homosexuals are actually executed. None of them want to impose complete religous orthodoxy. By the same token, to call the ACLU "secular Taliban" seems more than a little offensive, more than a little extreme, and just a whole lot wrong. The ACLU would be the secular Taliban if they executed Christians for not converting to secularism, or forced women to NOT wear modest clothing on pain of death. Relax--there is no war on Christmas, and what little war there is on Christians is a skirmish at best. Christians are and will remain the majority. Polls show that atheists are far less popular, and have real trouble getting elected to anything. They also have their children taken from them, just because they are not Christian (it has happened in more than 70 documented divorces, and these are just the cases where the judge actually SAYS it). If there's a war going on here, it is against atheists. But neither side in this "war" is anything like the Taliban.

Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 10:08 AM (aqTJB)

3 Well Carlos the country is changing. It has always been in the process of change, most of it for the good. Social and political conservatives are usually against change. Things that we now take for granted like the right of women to vote were considered frighteningly radiacal 100 years ago. Discrimination against catholics was prevalent even in the 1960 presidential election. That was the way things used to be. Our country has survived and thrived on its ability to change.

Posted by: john Ryan at May 08, 2006 10:59 AM (TcoRJ)

4 jd, the difference is Falwell tolerates different viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas-- the secular taliban doesn't. That's why they're always in court.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 11:06 AM (8e/V4)

5 >>>Well Carlos the country is changing. That's fine. But it's the "American taliban" that is constantly accused by the Left of wanting to change this country into a theocracy. Obviously that's just another lie from the "reality based community". The worst the christian fundies can be accused of is not going along with the Leftwing program. And there are plenty of non-fundies who aren't going along with it either.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 11:09 AM (8e/V4)

6 The ACLU (secular taliban to you--thanks for neither responding to my pointing out how nobody in our cultural wars deserves to be called Taliban nor from refraining from it--feel better, now that you have libeled your enemies? something in that Bible you love so much about bearing false witness? Or you have the expurgated version?) doesn't object to ANY groups expressing themselves, whether it is Jerry Falwell or NAMBLA or Nazis, so long as they are doing it with their own money, on their own land, or in a public place that is open to all other expressions (ie, free speech zone). What they DO object to is government sponsorship of religious speech or government discrimination against certain speech. You can think they draw the net too widely, but you certainly can't say that they are "taliban" or that they don't want Mr. Falwell to have his speech. They just don't want our tax dollars to pay for Mr. Falwell's speech. Back when Baptists were Baptists (as John Ryan wisely points out, these things change), they ardently opposed any government sponsorship of religion. That's why Jefferson's letter on wall of separation was the Danbury BAPTISTS. In truth, the founders were very divided on the precise line between church and state, and Jefferson, along with Paine and some others, were on the left of that debate. But most of the major founders were Deists of one kind or another, and that is a very different thing from what we think of today as "Christian fundamentalist". It is intellectually dishonest for people like Falwell to point to "endowed by their creator" in the DOI and say that proves we are a Christian nation. Jefferson didn't even believe in the divinity of Christ, and even a cursory glance at a bio of him proves this.

Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 12:25 PM (aqTJB)

7 The ACLU is one of the most vile groups in this country and the usial rotten seculay judges i mean we need to revoke the ACLUs tax exempt status this group is as bad as AL QUEDA and as nasty as any communists group and lets remember its got its HQ in HANOI ON THE BAY or SAN FRANCISCO

Posted by: sandpiper at May 08, 2006 12:40 PM (gJhPg)

8 ACLU is for what ever feeeeellllsss good. It is a New Age religion. A few examples are, abortion as a form of birth control, gay marriage, and NAMBLA. The ACLU is trying very hard to shape America to appear like Europe. Where there are no limits, and forget about morality, because it is hate speech. This is New Age thought, and New Age religion where children grow up not understanding limits, or what is right, and wrong. P.S. For those who are wondering what NAMBLA is, it is child sex between a man, and boy. SICKOS. One of the biggest LIES of the ACLU, and their like is the founding fathers were Deists. They were not. Most prayed to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 02:17 PM (D2g/j)

9 Actually, Leatherneck, I didn't say that the Founding Fathers were all deists. I said "most of the major founders" but that's a little vague. How about Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe? That's the Father of the DOI, the Father of our Country, the Father of our Constitution, the author of Common Sense "the pen of the Revolution", the greatest intellect at the time of the Founding, and, in total, four of the first five presidents of the United States? That good enough for ya, Leatherneck? Deism was very popular in intellectual circles at the time of the founding, and is best characterized by this quote from Voltaire: "the existence of a watch presupposes the existence of a watchmaker". This is what Jefferson meant by "nature and nature's God"

Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 04:15 PM (aqTJB)

10 jd, you are wrong. You want to be right, but you are not, and never will be. Perhaps, your lot will change all of history to suit your New Age agenda. That being said jd, I will not cut your stupid head off for believing as you do.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 04:38 PM (D2g/j)

11 Thanks for letting me keep my head on my non-leathery neck. But if I'm wrong, do me the favor of showing me where. Are you saying these men were not Deists? Are you saying that other, more important founders were not Deists (Adams?)? Are you saying that my interpretation of Deism is wrong? (certainly, there were differences in the Deist beliefs of Washington and Jefferson. Washington clearly had no problem with a national proclamation about prayer, and Jefferson did). It is easy to say "you're wrong". But it really isn't the glimmer of a refutation.

Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 04:43 PM (aqTJB)

12 Incidentally, Adams was a Unitarian, which makes five of the first five presidents either Deists or unitarians. If this was a "Christian" nation, it wasn't in any sense a Christian nation the way most Christians today would understand it. Moreover, Washington approved a treaty with the Barbary States which stated EXPLICITLY that the US was not a Christian nation.

Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 05:35 PM (aqTJB)

13 //home.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htl www.creationists.org Keep those lies to yourself.

Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 06:29 PM (D2g/j)

14 >>>What they DO object to is government sponsorship of religious speech or government discrimination against certain speech. jd, thanks for reciting the talking points to me (like I hadn't already heard them a thousand times). I can tell the difference between government sponsorship of religion vs what the Left claims is government sponsorship of religion, thank you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 07:51 PM (paKD6)

15 Leatherneck--great site on religious history of US. I was wrong about Adams, I think, upon reading that. I didn't realize how significant the Emerson influence on Unitarianism was. I should have known, though, given Adams' status as the first president to exploit religion falsely (he called Jefferson an atheist and/or satanist, although they later patched things up when both were in retirement). But the website is in error on deism, particularly in its treatment of Paine and Jefferson. It uses Deism's critics to define it, which is hardly balanced. Also, it ignores the fact that deism was an incredibly diverse philosophical school, without a unifying document. It was founded on the belief in reason, and for that reason, Jefferson wrote a bible that removed all miracles. He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, he believed in Christ's teachings. He had a real problem with the trinity, as did many deists. But an interesting site, nonetheless. I'm intrigued by the quote from Hamilton. As one of my favorite Founders, Hamilton is one whose view on this I actually don't know and should.

Posted by: jd at May 09, 2006 11:32 AM (aqTJB)

16 Hey JD...yeah there is a war going on against the athiests...when they want to tear crosses down that commemorate my ancestors that have fought for our freedom and theirs, you darn tootin there is going to be war. Just as we do not tolerate terrorists attcking our country, we will not stand for our own people attacking us. If they do not like how this country is ran or what it was found on..they can leave with my blessing. Let them start their own country with their own rules They can have no crosses, no christians, the ACLU and all the baby killing abortionist and homosexuals they want. They can call it Rainbow City.But when it comes to my freedoms they better back off because I will fight to the death for what I believe.

Posted by: CJ at May 23, 2006 11:04 PM (GRjOw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

207kb generated in CPU 0.0413, elapsed 0.1548 seconds.
125 queries taking 0.1252 seconds, 499 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 3435
Files: 13
Bytes: 44.6M
CPU Time: 1:46
Queries: 391231

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

May 26, 2006

May 24, 2006

May 22, 2006

May 20, 2006

May 10, 2006

May 09, 2006

May 08, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds