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

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

113kb generated in CPU 0.0269, elapsed 0.1408 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1238 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 2160
Files: 7
Bytes: 28.7M
CPU Time: 1:01
Queries: 245136

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

May 26, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds