November 22, 2005
Bombing al Jazeera? Not a bad idea
Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera. Okay. It's still not too late. It's not like The Jawa Report Editorial Board hasn't made the same suggestion on a number of occasions.
Here is the latest 'editorial' cartoon from al Jazeera. Remember, this is the English version which is far less critical of the U.S. than the Arabic. I've put the two frames together (the original is animated). Click for a larger view. It shows the U.N. watchdog interested in a basic chemistry expirement by Iran while ignoring the far more serious use of 'chemical weapons' by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is why the insurgents fight us. Because they believe--exactly as the Left does--that America is guilty of the worst crimes. By characterizing the use of WP in Fallujah as 'chemical weapons' the critics are lumping the U.S. in with the worst and most despotic regimes in the world.
The same principle applies to those who accuse we on the Right of 'moral relatavism' and of 'not taking the moral high ground'.
The word torture, for instance, is used by the Left and by our enemies abroad to characterize certain interrogation techniques.
And because Jeff Goldstein is on effin fire lately, let me just throw a Goldstein quote in here as a response to the inevetable objection that I'm now defending torture:
One commenter even went so far as to say my arguments constituted a form of moral relativism—a charge I find completely uncredible: first, if one really is against torture, one should WANT to narrow the definition instead of adopting or accepting an expansive definition that hamstrings the pragmatic necessities of effective interrogation (which can include nothing more than a threat of coercion). To think of tactics like waterboarding or sleep deprivation as commensurate to rape rooms is troublesome, it seems to me—but that is exactly what one commits oneself to once one commits to a morally absolute stand on “torture” that abides such an expansive definition.Please Goldstein, don't hurt 'em.Because I don’t think all forms of suffering and anguish are equal—I am willing to draw distinctions where those who accept an expansive definition of “torture” cannot. And not being able to draw distinctions is where relativism comes in, I would argue.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:03 PM
| Comments (99)
| Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.
1
So, who doesn't yet understand that the dhimmicrats and all their various misbegotten minions are enemies of liberty, and should all be dumped alive into an open pit mine and covered up?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:26 PM (0yYS2)
2
What kills me is that they prefer to believe the words of those who hate us the most, the terrorists, Guilian Sgrena, al-Jazeera, uru knet, and every other nut job who simply has to do nothing but level an accusation, anything at all - and they go wild. They believe every single accusation without ever questioning the motive.
And all the while the left runs screaming and flailing and swearing to bring us to our knees for being so 'orrible! while those who are sworn enemies of the US sit back and gloat at their handiwork.
And they call us gullible? They call us puppets?
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 05:51 PM (YudAC)
3
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-11/21/article04.shtml
BAQUBA, Iraq, November 21, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – US occupation forces opened fire Monday, November 21, at a civilian car outside a military base northeast of Baghdad, killing five members of an Iraqi family, three of them children, police and hospital sources said.
"They are all children. They are not terrorists," shouted one relative. "Look at the children," he said as a morgue official carried a small dead child into a refrigeration room, according to Reuters.
"We felt bullets hitting the car from behind and from in front," said another survivor with blood running from a wound to his head and splattered on his shirt. "Heads were blown off. One child had his hand shot off," he added.
"The soldiers started shooting at us from all over. I slowed down and pulled off the road, but they continued firing," Ahmed Kamel Al-Sawamara, a 22-year-old student who was driving the car but escaped serious injury told reporters.
"I saw my family killed, one after the other, and then the car caught fire. I dragged their bodies out."
Two men and three children, aged one, two and three, were killed, and two women and a child were wounded, Iraqi police told said, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
Posted by: Ahmed Muzzafarin at November 22, 2005 05:58 PM (6O7E3)
4
See above for proof of what Oyster was saying. Just the accusation is enough, and accidental deaths are portrayed as murders. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 22, 2005 06:07 PM (JQjhA)
5
It is irresponsible to drive near a military base with a car full of children anyway. These people created this climate by condoning endless suicide attacks and now anyone is a legitimate target. However this whole story is probably a media beef-up anyway.
Posted by: Jester at November 22, 2005 06:18 PM (BypR5)
6
The funny thing is from those media sources is that they will never state the mistakes the people made in order to get shot.
Due to their proximity with a military base, I would assume they did not heed a sign, or order to stop.
This is not a new development, due to suicide bombers using vehicles to attack checkpoints, and barricades not following an order to stop your vehicle will get you killed.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:22 PM (CcXvt)
7
What kind of moron doesn't know that you don't go speeding toward a checkpoint and refuse to stop? Are there arabs that are really that stupid? Are they the cultural equivalent of liberals or something? What the hell does someone need to get a clue, besides getting their family riddled with bullets?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 08:08 PM (0yYS2)
8
They'd have you believe there was no posted warnings, if you look at the pictures of the Military vehicles they all have warnings not to approach them in Arabic on them, as do all of the checkpoints and i'm sure the frontgates of a Military installation have warnings to stop or not approach. Ignoring them is going to get you shot, and that is just common sense.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 08:25 PM (CcXvt)
9
I don't know if the claims about Bush wanting to bomb Al Jazeera are true, but if they are Bush has officially become as bad as the terrorists himself.
The reason terrorists are bad is because they kill civilians, undermine democracies, and try to sway the actions of government through violent means, right? If Bush did want to bomb Al Jazeera, he would be doing the exact same things.
Again, I don't know what happened or what his intents were.
Posted by: keith at November 22, 2005 09:38 PM (4NvFQ)
10
Awwww.... It's so cute to see you cuntservatives whining like the little retarded crack babies you are. Whatsamattuh, is the crumbling of Poppy Dumbass' evil enterprise getting your panties tied in knots? Afraid you won't be able to jack off to more beheadings and torture pics?
Yes, you dumbasses are gullible puppets, because you believe and happily digest every turd the Demon Administration throws your way.
How about we round up YOU filth bags and fling you into a mine?
Posted by: x at November 22, 2005 09:53 PM (1cCOi)
11
Because you are not man enough, little x. Now, begone, you little troll, and go ask your mommie for permission to use the computer. Maybe she won't make you deliver pizza's tomorrow, and she might let up on you and not make you vacumn the basement.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:10 PM (rUyw4)
12
Al Jazeera is state-owned by the government of Qatar-- just like Korean Central Broadcasting Station is state-owned by the North Korean government. Both are legitimate military targets if they are broadcasting anti-American lies and propaganda in a time of war. I personally hope we do drop a j-dam on them if they don't shut their damn yappers.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 10:31 PM (8e/V4)
13
Yep oyster, the haters would believe the word of a murdering Zarqawi over that of the elected president of a country.
I don't know how this same president can lie or cheat his way around when he is watched and watched by the haters and his opponents, every single minute of every day that he is in power.
Not sure if you guys saw the footage of George Bush in China, when he couldn't open a door, a simple mistake, but it was beamed around the world (front page on BBC's website) with absolute glee, we in Australia heard promotions of it for the evening news. The presenters were so happy they had this footage.
It is shameful how one could take that much glee from another's mistake.
Posted by: MathewK at November 22, 2005 10:39 PM (pVHqF)
14
Matthewk,
he played it off ok though. He deadpanned it and made a self-deprecating little joke and everybody laughed a bit, and then he thanked them again with a smile and walked away. When I saw it I thought, what's the big deal. Not nearly as big a deal as these Libs in the mainstream media would have us believe.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 11:34 PM (8e/V4)
15
"Al Jazeera is state-owned by the government of Qatar-- just like Korean Central Broadcasting Station is state-owned by the North Korean government. Both are legitimate military targets if they are broadcasting anti-American lies and propaganda in a time of war. I personally hope we do drop a j-dam on them if they don't shut their damn yappers."
So by this logic, the US should bomb the BBC for reprinting the Mirror article regarding Bush's supposed plan for bombing Al-Jazeera.
What's that? Spot a tragic flaw in your logic? Yes, that is right, clever boy ... the US isn't at war with Qatar ... anymore than we are at war with the UK. The fact is, the vast majority of broadcast news organizations in the world ARE government supported or financed, including in Europe, our allies. I guess it's time to start bombing France 2, I heard they said some not nice things about President Bush also.
Like it or not ... Al-Jazeera can broadcast pretty much what they want. By most accounts, they hold to good journalistic standards, with the exception of egregious displays of slain soldiers, combatants, and civilians. That stuff smacks of exploitation and sensationalism.
Then again, former US Marine Eddie Adams won a Pulitzer Prize for doing the same. http://facstaffwebs.umes.edu/msdemanche/images/eddie%20adams%20siagon.jpg
As for a political cartoon, that is opinion and commentary. They are definitely playing up the WP vs. refinement of weapons grade uranium. Not even Russia would try to equate the two. However, there are political cartoons that are printed in US papers that would seem equally outrageous ... that is the nature of political cartoons.
Posted by: gonethesun at November 22, 2005 11:42 PM (/RI77)
16
>>>"What's that? Yes, that is right, clever boy ... the US isn't at war with Qatar."
gonethesun,
the tragic flaw in your own thinking is the assumption that we have to be at war with Qatar to bomb Al Jazeera. We've bombed them once, we can bomb them again. Another tragic flaw in your thinking is that just because we won't bomb the BBC that we therefore can't bomb Al Jazeera. Like I said, not only CAN we bomb them, but we can bomb them AGAIN. What was that?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 12:12 AM (8e/V4)
17
Should the world stand still and let lies be told about them. When someone lies about me. I confront it and stop it. The lies Al Jazeera cost American and other lives. They should be warned to behave and punished if they do not.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:09 AM (ZaAd/)
18
little x is just letting off steam. Notice how the whole comment is in such general terms that there's not one thing of any substance to actually debate. It's just a drive-by, ad hominem attack because he/she doesn't have the balls to go head to head on any one issue.
Flail away, little x. What a cute email address. Think that one up all by yourself? Oh, and I'd get a new bowl of cornflakes. Looks like someone pissed in yours.
(Yes, hondo, my language is getting a little loose.)
Posted by: Oyster at November 23, 2005 05:46 AM (YudAC)
19
I have no love for Al Jazeera, however they are not a political mouthpiece of our enemy (ala Tokyo Rose, or Axis Sally) as such they are not a military target.
You cannot spread freedom, by burning all of the printing presses.
If the United States media routinely showed pictures, and video of beheadings, and executions made by the terrorists like Al Jazeera, people would be under no doubt of the enemy we face and the terrible lengths they're willing to go to.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 07:28 AM (CcXvt)
20
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're not a political mouth piece. There is far too much "reporting" done by al-Jazeera that belies that. However, I would agree that bombing their offices would be the wrong thing to do. Where would we draw the line? I mean hell, CNN and Newsweek demonstrate that they are all too ofen simply al-Jazeera-lite media organs. A media outlet doesn't have to be state-owned to show extreme bias. We've seen far too much proof of that.
It's just terribly sad that the overwhelming number of readers can't be objective even if the reporting isn't.
Posted by: Oyster at November 23, 2005 08:46 AM (fl6E1)
21
Not too long ago some winger bloggers were all over some CNN guy for saying that US forces targetted journalists in Iraq.
I guess he was wrong, we have our sights on the journalists in the countries we're allied to, like Qatar.
Posted by: actus at November 23, 2005 08:53 AM (Zi15r)
22
actus,
as I recall, us wingers actually thought it was pretty funny that journos embedded with the jihadis were getting shot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 09:18 AM (8e/V4)
23
Lemme get this straight... you want the US to perform what by any standard definition would be an act of state-sponsored terrorism against a news outlet on the sovereign soil of our most important Gulf allies -- who let the US and Brits base their bombers there?
Yeah, man, great idea -- if you want to hurt the US and its position in the world even more.
THIS is the kind of wacky hipocrisy that drives people in the center of the US -- and I'm a REPUBLICAN -- absolutely nuts.
The fact that the POTUS apparently thinks in the same stunted, shortsighted manner is utterly terrifying.
Posted by: D Moriarty at November 23, 2005 11:41 AM (6cZ5b)
24
actus: Do you know how stupid that sounds? First, you have already accepted, without compunction or factual evidence, that there were plans to bomb anything in Qatar at all without ever asking yourself why we would bomb buildings in a country giving us a needed tactical advantage. And then you'd have to accept, again without compunction or factual evidence, that we had "planned" to bomb any of their offices anywhere.
But anonymous sources with an axe to grind said so, so it MUST be true. Anyone against the war simply cannot lie, can they? Especially the Mirror which is by any Brit's admission, the equivalent of our own supermarket tabloids.
But don't let that stop you.
I also see how you're quick to use the "Qatar is our 'ally'" verbiage under these terms, yet, you'd be quick to condemn anyone else for doing so for any other reason and call them a hypocrite or stupid because Qatar is a "tactical" ally. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just be intellectually honest - for once. The more often you open your mouth to spew sarcasm without due cause, the more you marginalize yourself.
Posted by: Oyster at November 23, 2005 12:06 PM (fl6E1)
25
Firstly if this was a joke you must admit it is a sick joke, especially to the families of those killed by US bombs in the Al Jazeera Baghdad office. If any body said lets bomb america he -heh in any e-mail of his it is bound to get him in trouble! or is it because america is a democracy it gives it legitamcy to do the same things that it is fighting against.. terrorising innocents.
Secondly the main complaint is not only that Bush was seriously thinking of Bombing Aljazeera, but that his staff is not ademantly denying it.
And we know in politik speak what that means 90% percent of the time.
Journalist are being killed by terrorist because they are sean as mouth peices of the great satan.
And now it seems that Mr Gafney of the Security policy institue believes Al-Jazeera are enemy combattants therefore a legitemate target.
So when it all comes to it, democracy and freedom is the priveledge of the few and powerful. Not arabs or any one that disgrees with US policy, if I am wrong in any thing I am more than willing to hear comments.
I realy hope that the family of Mr Perle will put pressure on the White house administration to clarify their siuation otherwise, all journnalists or any body that does not have an opinion one way or another and is a journalist will be a target.
I have an open mind.
Posted by: Seifeddine at November 23, 2005 12:57 PM (qfxY8)
26
Sorry about the spelling!!!
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 01:08 PM (qfxY8)
27
Why do all the islam loving lefties visit this site once, hurl abuse and then never engage in ongoing argument. Typical of lefties, they can't keep it up.
Posted by: Jester at November 23, 2005 01:08 PM (BypR5)
28
I am here and I am listening but I am not at all a leftist, my father was tortured in tunisia by the current regime, and I have a suspicion of all those that have a superiority complex or an inferiority complex.
I can honeslty say that america is not a bad place, just as long as you are conservative, agree with the bush administration, and turn a blind eye to the torture the extra judicial killing and the bombing, because, they may do it but not as much as every body else, like saddam. and it does't happen in the US. So that is a bonus.
So lets admit it. Nobody is perfect.
America is better than many of the countries that it has bombed and the civillians that are killed are a bi product of war, it is not as if the regime would have killed them anyway.
Who isn't for open markets and democracy? I am all for them!
But to claim the the US the bastion of freedom is a grey area for me.
But I really want to have an adult conversation about this thing with al Jazeera.
I am open minded convince me!!!
I really need a dictionary
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 01:22 PM (qfxY8)
29
My Grandfather was a POW with the japanese(nasty little bastards they were)and fought to keep tyranny from our western culture. If there are problems in Tunisia with the government why don't the people rise up? The difference between oppressive countries and those with democracy is that democracy has to be fought for. Religions such as Islam are just a form of control and fear. It's not about nations but about national pride and a willingness to stand up to evil no matter the cost. Al jeezera is just a mouthpiece for evil doctrine as is most of the MSM in the west. Question what these organisations do. They want to sell their products by putting fear into the people.
Posted by: Jester at November 23, 2005 01:44 PM (BypR5)
30
I want to take a moment to thank all the leftards for stopping by to remind me how much fun I'm going to have when TSHTF, and how unnecessary will be any sense of human compassion or remorse for the actions that will be required and fully justified in order to mete out justice and set things right. If you meet me under such circumstances, you may be thankful if being buried alive is all you get, because there are many traitors among us for whom such an end would be far better than deserved, and given the luxury of time and convenience, I could think of many better, far more time-consuming rewards for treason.
No society lasts forever, and ours is no exception. Many great civilizations have risen and fallen back into the dust before our written record of history even began, and all, when at their peak, thought they would last forever, and ironically enough, actually began to fail when at their peak of prosperity. Just like us. The reasons for their failures are many and various, but there is no cause of the death of past civilizations from which we are immune. Civilizations are just like the people who build them; they are born, mature, grow old, and die.
I firmly believe we are living in the last days of Western civilization, and that the future of humanity is bleak and promises nothing but violence and misery for all people. We, the civilized people of the world, are tired of living it seems. We no longer have ambition to succeed, but rather are wracked with guilt because of our successs, and so we have stopped building, and have started tearing down. Our time is limited, and it doesn't help that many among us are too concerned with our own petty concerns to help keep things from falling apart, so that with each passing generation, there are fewer that contribute to the betterment of society, and more that demand that society contribute to their personal betterment.
I am prepared for what appears to be inevitable; that toward which so many are working so fervently and with such dedication, and when it comes, I will not be gentle nor forgiving to those who have destroyed that which was so excellent, and which so greatly merited preservation. I think that many will be surprised at the fury they will face for the destruction they have wrought, but there should be no surprise, because there are many like myself who are shouting warnings, though we are but voices crying in the wilderness. Be warned, and take thought for the future. Your lives depend on it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 23, 2005 01:45 PM (0yYS2)
31
You see in Tunisia when people rise up they are called terrorists. And as you know from your own history that thant not all uprising succeed.
Also when ever we rise up, we need the permission of the US embassy. If that is not forthcoming its not really going to work. But you do have a valid point if we truly wanted freedom, we would not cower waiting to be arrested or killed, we would say to hell with and fight tyranny head on. With any means possible. But again you would be called a terrorist, and if you get caught executed, and live the rest of your life in a desert prison, with the latest torture equpment brought from britain and the latet technique taught in france and the US being studiously applied on you, so again america is great!!!
By the by jester My grandpappy has shrapnel fighting against french occupation, and I did tell you most of the countries you bombed america was better, remeber you did bomb Japan.
Again, how exactly is aljazeera any different from fox news? How is it selling evil, what evil is it selling? Is america Always right? is american policy always right? I think nobody is perfect.
It is telling people about political dissedent in egyt libia and tnuisia, it is showing what is actually happening in our illeberal undemocratic countries... What is wrong with that?
As for religoin, I don't agree at all, the real fear in tunisia is not from religion I can tell you!!! its from whter or not you'll picked up by the secret police for saying something you should't... All this rehtoric about control and fear and Islam well I really can't fathom it... Not in tunisia anyway.
I am an Islam loving individual, definatly, it keeps me san, it keeps me hopeful the only thing you need is to be right. Am I a Bin Laden lover NO
What really worries me is the example that america is setting, Bin laden and his cohorts are a minority with in a minority within a minority.. I know you guys don't want to belive it but none of them had an islamic education ( bin laden an Engineer and Zaheri a DR) nobody belives they represent islam except in america and some backward placesin pakistan and saudi (saudi has one of the lowest muslim population in the muslim world) what is more worrieing a gang of misfit killing in the name of faith that disowns them or a democracy that says it is the bastion of democracy but still manages after this free speach and judicary, still manages to give moeny to dictator ships and kill civillians?
It seems that you guys don't want to stick the point about the aljazeera thing may be you know that you are wrong and can't discuss it head on, may be you are just bored in any case I continue to say i am extremely open minded... all this babble about the end of days remindsme the Bin laden speeches man... Get a chill pill... relax and just tell me what exactly you disgree with me on the aljazeera issue...
{{Again, how exactly is aljazeera any different from fox news? How is it selling evil, what evil is it selling? Is america Always right? is american policy always right? I think nobody is perfect - why can't aljazeera say this I have the comfort of watching aljazeera, so tell me what programms are you gus talking about?}}
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 02:16 PM (qfxY8)
32
a little history lesson about north africa:
you see arain christian were a hertical monetheisitic sect (not triniatarian) they mostly from the visgoth and vandal tribes. The vandals reaked haveoc on the orthodox catholics of the medtierannea and invaded the whole of north africa, they were ther for around a century befor the chisitan orthodx empire struck back, whouped ther asses. But the catholic said conver or die so they took to the hills, when the muslim came many become muslims... To get back at the roman oppressors some would say, others say because it kept them sepreate from the catholics/ orthodox, giving a seperate Identity... You can still tell who their descendants are they have red hear blue eye and fair skin, sometime blond hair and live all over north africa...
Does any body want to stick to the point now?
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 02:28 PM (qfxY8)
33
AL-JAZEERA is probably a more reliable news source than FOX news.
God Bless Michael Moore
Posted by: anonymous at November 23, 2005 02:31 PM (juZuJ)
34
>>>"God Bless Michael Moore"
anonymous,
and god bless his "minutemen" targeting innocent people at Jordanian wedding parties.
It's not a big surprise that you'd bless Michael Moore while cheering Al Jazeera. Both share the same anti-American agenda.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 02:41 PM (8e/V4)
35
ermm... have any of you gus watched al jazeera?
Really Jesusland what are you talking about...
They showed how the wedding was bombed who was bombed and human interest stories on it...
The anger in theri eyes the demos...
I really think you guys live in a plane of existance all to yourselves, so please jesusland tell me how is it so?
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 02:45 PM (qfxY8)
36
I swear, I think they all want to die just like their jihadotard heroes. Oh well, I've always been one for giving people what they want, good and hard.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 23, 2005 02:46 PM (0yYS2)
37
what the hell are you talking about?
Who wants to die? you? or are you willing to kill them?
Are that far removed from humanity to get whole bunch people and tell them theire you go bin laden came from here lets kill all of you...
I guess you would have really been a good soldier under british when they were killing your rebellind in the battle for independance...
I may had my doubts about some outlandinsh thing the tabloids had to say about murdering US soldiers, but maximus is anything to go buy then defenitly those children were killed on purpose...
So please if you have something intelligent to say I am more than willing to hear it...
Can you do it maximus can yah, I dare yah... ;-)
But I don't think that you want you are having too much pulling my bear (figuerative) and playing with my turban, or playing my long white arabic dress....
If you want kill people why don't you join Bin laden? He want to kill people because they don' agree with him and any civillian who disagrees is seen as a legitemate target...
May be you are bin laden disguided in an american flag burqa.. come to test me.... oh woe is me... I am in deep trouble.
Carry on killing jordaninans... after all if the american do it or the crazies do it... Dead is dead.
Posted by: seifeddine at November 23, 2005 02:56 PM (qfxY8)
38
I'll speak for myself here:
I've spoken to two people who have visited Tunisia. They both said things are quite a bit different there than in Saudi Arabia or other Mid East countries. They said that Morrocco is a great place to go as well. That the anti-American sentiment is not as prevalent there either. Remember, too, that al-Jazeera tailors their news to what ever area of the world they are "reporting" to as well. So I'm not surpirsed, seifeddine, that you are a bit confused.
There are many here with opinions that differ greatly on the issues in the middle east though. But most of us would just like the opportunity to visit each other's countries without reprisal or fear. That has never been possible in the middle east. Maybe someday soon it will be.
We don't feel we are perfect or have all the answers. Personally, I wish you no ill and hope things do get better for you in Tunisia.
Posted by: Oyster at November 23, 2005 03:15 PM (fl6E1)
39
thanks..
But oyster you must think that what is said is propostrus...
If you wish me no ill, and I believ you, and I watch aljazeera, and then I see fox news that telss me that I am an arab terrorist because I speak the lingo... come on.. you must admit that biased or unhinged reporting occurs everywher and cost lives on every side...
A tabloid headline about a militant cleric was released in a britsih paper after the 7/7 bombings, a group of pakistan yout were beaten by an National front (a bit like Nazi party) and an elery man ripped of the head scarf of a young woman... so why aren't we talking about irresponsible reporting from your end and how it costs live?
Because all this whooha that I hear about minerets and mosques come from people that have been fed terror stories about big dangerous beardies coming to get them...
But again I am now signing off it seems that no ones to talk about the issues head...
Maybe I am just too dense to understand so...
Forgive me if I have offended any one and I hop all of you a good night and safe home.
Posted by: SEIFEDDINE at November 23, 2005 03:25 PM (qfxY8)
40
At least the news article in reference to Omar Bakri Mohammed was the truth.
How about the flushed Quran? That actually cost people their lives.
The problem with 24/7 news networks, is that in the attempt to get a story "live" and be the first to break the "big one" stories do not get cross examined, or documents examined etc.
I'm not sure if it happened a whole lot before CNN set the standard of 24/7 news but I would bet it's only got worse.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 04:11 PM (CcXvt)
41
You're right, Dave. While it's not just al-Jazeera I have to admit that they are certainly ringleaders. Newsweek is guilty as charged, CNN, CBS and others as well.
I don't understand where she gets the notion that Fox news tells her she's a terrorist. Unless someone has led her to believe that.
Posted by: Oyster at November 23, 2005 04:37 PM (YudAC)
42
"Forgive me if I have offended any one and I hop all of you a good night and safe home"
Thank you for arguing your case even though we probably don't agree on certain things. My grandad was British so his country didn't bomb Hiroshima however the Hiroshima bombing was necessary to save many more lives.It stopped a nation of fanatics lead by an evil emperor who should have been punished as a war criminal.
Posted by: Jester at November 23, 2005 04:47 PM (BypR5)
43
Quothe seifeddine:
"Who wants to die?"
Go back and read it again, and pay attention this time.
"you?"
If I can take a few libtards with me, sure. We all go sometime, might as well do some good when we go.
"or are you willing to kill them?"
Yep.
"Are that far removed from humanity to get whole bunch people and tell them theire you go bin laden came from here lets kill all of you..."
So you're equating terrorists and they're supporters as "humanity"? Other than that little detail, the answer is yes.
"I guess you would have really been a good soldier under british when they were killing your rebellind in the battle for independance..."
A good soldier follows orders in accordance with the rules of war, but then, you're a liberal, and understand nothing of soldiers, or rules, or war.
"I may had my doubts about some outlandinsh thing the tabloids had to say about murdering US soldiers, but maximus is anything to go buy then defenitly those children were killed on purpose..."
Don't forget that we BBQ them with white phosphorous and use their blood to make matzo bread.
"So please if you have something intelligent to say I am more than willing to hear it..."
Anything anyone says that you could understand could hardly be described as intelligent.
"Can you do it maximus can yah, I dare yah... ;-)"
Look out the window, it's something shiny!
"But I don't think that you want you are having too much pulling my bear (figuerative) and playing with my turban, or playing my long white arabic dress...."
Okay that's about the most incoherent babble I've read in a while. Pulling your bear? Playing with your turban? And as far as your cross-dressing habits, I don't care to know more. Unless you put your bear in a dress; I'd pay money to see that.
"If you want kill people why don't you join Bin laden?"
Have you not read my post or are you too stupid to understand it?
"He want to kill people because they don' agree with him and any civillian who disagrees is seen as a legitemate target..."
And I want to kill him and anyone who agrees with him, is that so hard to understand?
"May be you are bin laden disguided in an american flag burqa.. come to test me.... oh woe is me... I am in deep trouble."
Please don't post while high, or stupid.
"Carry on killing jordaninans... after all if the american do it or the crazies do it... Dead is dead."
I'm sure you'll take comfort in that thought when it comes your turn to meet the headsman.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 23, 2005 04:49 PM (0yYS2)
44
A big bad stern-looking bulldog symbolizing the UN???? al Jazeera is either totally full of crap or hopelessly naive (or both).
A chihuahua looking for his chalupa would have been more appropriate.
Posted by: hondo at November 23, 2005 05:29 PM (Jvmry)
45
I love the cartoon!
Replace the bulldog with Roadrunner ...
Put a towel on Wily Coyote's head n' let him mix his brew
The book and pot - but of course the Acme Nuke Co, N. Korea
I think everybody knows what happens next
beep beep
Posted by: hondo at November 23, 2005 07:50 PM (Jvmry)
46
you fucking traitor dickheads.
america is on to you and we hate you...get ready for your trials you piece of shit losers. real americans killed your forefathers, the nazis, and we will kick your ass to..as your holy leader says...bring it on!
Posted by: ernieervin at November 23, 2005 08:17 PM (ocmaF)
47
lil' ernie! Glad to have ya back kid!
Oh, don't forget to let mom mash up all that turkey n' food tommarow for ya ...
Don't want ya chokin' on the bird now!
And just in case maxie doesn't get to ya before the holidays - maxie sez "Happy Thanksgiving - What's in your wallet!!! GGGRRRHHH!"
Posted by: hondo at November 23, 2005 08:25 PM (Jvmry)
48
Look! ernie's calling us poopie heads! that's cute.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2005 12:40 AM (8e/V4)
49
Bomb the BBC!
Posted by: jonny at November 24, 2005 12:57 AM (nytWC)
50
Maximus, you still haven't answered my question:
How do you know who supports Bin laden?
How do you know that Al Jazeera is supporting bib Laden?
Why do we need to believ american version of events - When ther is war shit happens, innocents get killed?
Why is it that america sees the need to use weopens of mass destruction, as accurate as they are, to fight the enemies of freedom, while if it truly believed in what it preached then saving and guarenteeing a single life is what troops are therefore?
the question are nedless apart from the bush administration who can say th truth?
As for broken english, I was teasing you, and no unlike good unlike you I don't drink alcahol.
Yu have deflated my whole rant... How annoying...
Getiing back to business:
When fox news equates everyting that bin laden does as islamic, and anycrime that is committed in say france as only muslim (which is not it is fifty fifty - if theycalled them minorities it would have benn fare) its like letting people calling those US soldiers and christian crusader, or the people in the Israeli army as just jews... It creates a simplistic world view of war of religions (which I am sure you want - I still believ you are bin laden in a burqa)and that muslims support bin laden.
Look I disagree with america on many issues why do I have to
Posted by: Seifeddine at November 24, 2005 03:36 AM (zxoHN)
51
"I will not be gentle nor forgiving to those who have destroyed that which was so excellent, and which so greatly merited preservation." (Improbulus Maximus).
Improbulus: you're an idiot. You talk about civilisation in a country that won't accept abortion, stem cell research or that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Your civilisation has removed geography from the compulsory curriculum, and sees evolution as "just a thoery". You deny human influence on climate change. The short-sighted nature of your politicians - and indeed the self-destruction inherent in such short-sightedness, which you dismiss as tiredness - is just bewildering to anyone from the outside. To people from countries that have history, heritage and civilisation, and a passion for life and all its beauty.
You have so much potential, yet all you do is shout the loudest.
I agree with most of Seifeddine's comments. So, bring it on big boy & friends, let's see you argue this one like men: prove to me that bombing press anywhere is in any way justifiable; and prove to me that the good of America outweighs the bad.
Because at the moment all I see about American society is poverty, discrimination and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Metyu at November 24, 2005 05:48 AM (HEPHC)
52
Metyu: I would simply direct you to this open letter from an American born Muslim.
Posted by: Oyster at November 24, 2005 06:26 AM (YudAC)
53
Metyu seems to think it's civilized to use babies as spare parts, or allowing women to give birth to an aborted fetus.
When do you want to 'recycle' the elderly Metyu? when do we force criminals to be organ-donors?
Metyu: I don't believe anyone cares about your opinion of America, nor justifying it to you. Just so we're clear.
Posted by: dave at November 24, 2005 08:21 AM (CcXvt)
54
Metyu incoherently blabbered:
"Improbulus: you're an idiot."
Oh, snap! Wow that stung.
"You talk about civilisation in a country that won't accept abortion, stem cell research or that the Earth is more than 6000 years old."
What is this country you speak of, and from what part of my post did you distill abortion, stem cell research, or Young Earth Creationism? It can't be America, where abortion is legal and common, stem cell research is humming along, and only a few people who are sincere but misinformed think that the earth is only six millenia old. You suck at making strawmen.
"Your civilisation has removed geography from the compulsory curriculum, and sees evolution as "just a thoery"."
I'd better tell the neighbor's kid that he needs to get rid of his geography and biology books then.
"You deny human influence on climate change."
Again, you suck at strawmen. There are more people in America who believe in climate change than not, and it's those few who are also the YEC's. The fact is that most people are well aware of climate change, since everyone over about the age of seven knows about the ice ages, which, of course, were caused by the Neanderthals driving their SUV's around.
"The short-sighted nature of your politicians - and indeed the self-destruction inherent in such short-sightedness, which you dismiss as tiredness - is just bewildering to anyone from the outside."
First, yes, our politicians are short-sighted, just like European ones, who have given the world two catastrophic wars in the last century, and who seem bent on inaction while Europe burns at the hand of muslims. Both wars, if I might remind you, America had to resolve.
My comment about cultural tiredness is not dismissive as anyone with the brainpower of a chimp could see if they had actually read my comment. Europe is a prime example of a culture that is tired of living, and is not even pretending to resist the new islamic invasion, and apparently, you have accepted your coming dhimmitude with total indifference, in which case, you do not deserve to survive.
"To people from countries that have history, heritage and civilisation, and a passion for life and all its beauty."
So all the people who came to America and built it came from places with no history, heritage, civilization, or a passion for life? Where is this dull, loveless place? Oh, that's right, it's the same place they were escaping to get away from oppression, institutional poverty, misery, and constant warfare: Europe. You set yourself up for that one moron.
"You have so much potential, yet all you do is shout the loudest."
And bring peace and civilization to the world, not to mention saving your stupid asses now and then, as we're about to have to do again.
"I agree with most of Seifeddine's comments."
Of course you do; you want to be his dhimmi bitch. Tell me, do you enjoy fellating muslims, or just accept it as a fact of life?
"So, bring it on big boy & friends, let's see you argue this one like men: prove to me that bombing press anywhere is in any way justifiable; and prove to me that the good of America outweighs the bad."
It sounds like you're a bitter neo-nazi who's resentful that we have a habit of taking down dictators. You don't deserve to be saved from the muslims, and when they've taken over, and you've converted to islam, and we have to go to war in Europe again, you'll probably gladly sign up to die for your pedophile prophet, and we'll galdly kill you with all the rest.
"Because at the moment all I see about American society is poverty, discrimination and hypocrisy."
Wow, you sure see a lot from halfway around the world, because here, even the bums on the street are fat, a black woman is third in line for the Presidency, and the only hypocrisy comes from idiot libtards like you who support terrorists but oppose war. Moron.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 24, 2005 08:40 AM (0yYS2)
55
Why is it that america sees the need to use weopens of mass destruction, as accurate as they are, to fight the enemies of freedom, while if it truly believed in what it preached then saving and guarenteeing a single life is what troops are therefore?
To which weapons do you refer Seifeddine, if you are referring to is white Phosporus, you have been misled.
White phosporus (and other colors) has been used on the field of war for illumination in more than just this war, of course it's secondary effects can be used to create fires, However incendiary weapons are not banned in War, at least to the point that they cause undue suffering.
It seems the Military has moved away from anti-personell incendiary weapons such as Napalm canisters, or flamethrowers, to my understanding the Pentagon said it deployed WP shells in order to attack a fortified enemy position, using both the heat and smoke to force the enemy to come out.
The problem is some weapons are perceived to be worse than others, for example is the 'bouncing betty' landmine, which using a spring will 'bounce' to the waist height of a man and explode, effectively sheering a man in half, is that worse than a conventional mine that will blow off your legs? Is a thermobaric bomb that will suffocate you, worse than being hit with a WP shell?
Even a round delivered by a pistol or rifle can cause suffering, for example a stomach wound in which you can live for days, is very painful and without treatment can take a very long time to die.
War is terrible, and every weapon causes suffering.
Posted by: dave at November 24, 2005 08:54 AM (CcXvt)
56
Seifeddine asked:
"Maximus, you still haven't answered my question:
How do you know who supports Bin laden?"
Because they mostly say so. Duh.
"How do you know that Al Jazeera is supporting bib Laden?"
You're right, they only propagandize for him because it's good for ratings.
"Why do we need to believ american version of events - When ther is war shit happens, innocents get killed?"
Who has ever denied that innocents get killed? Like most other idiots, you suck at making strawmen.
"Why is it that america sees the need to use weopens of mass destruction, as accurate as they are, to fight the enemies of freedom, while if it truly believed in what it preached then saving and guarenteeing a single life is what troops are therefore?"
You mean white phosphorous, which is a smoke and incindiary weapon? Like every other country on earth has used for decades now? You should stick to the National Enquirer for your news, idiot.
"the question are nedless apart from the bush administration who can say th truth?"
More pressing is the question of what the hell you're talking about. Look, let me make it simple for you: You're apparently an muslim arab, which means that you're a congenital liar twice over, and just because you believe your own lies, don't expect civilized people to do the same. I know your kind, I have walked among you, I know you for the backward, tribal savages that you are, so don't pretend for one minute that I'm going to buy your BS. Go back to humping goats in the desert and leave the civilized world to those who can live within it without having to blow themselves up for every petty, idiotic reason.
"As for broken english, I was teasing you, and no unlike good unlike you I don't drink alcahol."
Yet you still babble incoherently.
"Yu have deflated my whole rant... How annoying..."
Yet so easy.
"Getiing back to business: When fox news equates everyting that bin laden does as islamic,..."
Okay, name me a few muslims who have denounced him...
"...and anycrime that is committed in say france as only muslim (which is not it is fifty fifty - if theycalled them minorities it would have benn fare)..."
So when the rioting animals are shouting "allahu akhbar", it's because they're not muslims? Caught again, eh, oh ye son of pigs?
"...its like letting people calling those US soldiers and christian crusader,..."
Which pretty much all muslims do.
"...or the people in the Israeli army as just jews..."
Of course their ethnicity doesn't matter, as long as it's mainly women and children that get killed by the warriors of allah, (pig's blood upon him), right?
"It creates a simplistic world view of war of religions..."
Wow, islam at war against every other culture and religion in the world, it's just not possible!
"...(which I am sure you want - I still believ you are bin laden in a burqa)..."
Your childish, primative attempts at humor are funny, but not in the way you intend.
"...and that muslims support bin laden."
You're right, it's really the Mormons who are waging jihad against the civilized world.
"Look I disagree with america on many issues why do I have to"
If I understand you correctly, and by brain hurts with the effort, I think you disagree with America because you are, as previously stated, a backward, tribal savage who is frightened by the evils of the civilized world such as the internet, though you're willing to use it to spread the misery of the cult of your pedophile prophet (scalding bacon grease upon him), and to facilitate the killing of innocent people in his name. Your kind are the plague rats of our time, and should be exterminated.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 24, 2005 09:02 AM (0yYS2)
57
ya, reading this lame ass blog has convinced me that rusty shck doesnt really exist, nobody this totalitarian could obtain a Phd...true.
also, it is so devoid of reason and recognition of reality. let me guess, this blog is done in house in one of those RNC supporting billionaire pet projects right? all you paste eaters in your cublicles talking to each other about how much better you nerds are than the rest of "traitor america"..
in any event we are on to you and hate you and your holy pharioah...so eat shit.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 24, 2005 02:25 PM (ocmaF)
58
Muslims that have denounced bun laden:
The muslim council of britain france and europe, the alazhar clerical council, the saudi council for moral guidance and fatawa, ex militai men of bin laden, represanttives of the afghan arabs, and every single islamic council in the arab countries.
And they have annouced these where? Al Jazeera
Where denounciation after denounciation of acts of terror where given...
You have of course all the heads of state of the Arab world - the Dr tantawi head of Al Azhar and Odewh and Zindani, Qaradawi all are Doctors of the Law as the christian would call them - they are the most prominent in the arab world, and I can go on and on... but i would ask you to research it for yourself if you were just.
You really need to look through the web there are quite a few.
Look if we use the same understanding of islam that you have then we must also view the following as such:
blame the hutu-tutsi massacre on christianity, we must blame christianity for the massacre oof Chehcens During stalin's terror (he was of christian back ground after all)
Who gassed the jews in Nazi Germany? Not muslims
Who started both great wars? Not muslims - christians! How many children and women did christians kill in these wars?
Who bombed Hiroshima with Nuclear weopen or have ever used nuclear weopens against their enemies not muslims but peace loving christians! who have caused the most amount of deaths in the last century.... Not muslims but christians, going back by both world wars alone.
The second genocide killing in europe have not been committed by muslim in europe but by christians in bosnia (thank you USA helping us out)
Who was the oklahoma bomber? christian
What are the KKK - christian.
Who have killed women and children in most of the conflicts in the past 100 years emperically?christians in africa the americaand elsewhere
You must admit using your twisted logic christians have been a plague where ever you go you breed war and distruction you have killed women and children in the name of a concept that you would deny to others...
Let us go on and see further occupation: of algeria 1 million algerian muslims killed by french counter revolutionaries - french chirstians.
The massacres in german africa killing of 80% of the indeginous population not us muslims.
The massacre of the aboriginal population on the grounds that they are not human, not us muslims but christians.
The killing of native americans and the breaking of pacts with them, and the now admitted massacres and injustice committed against them not us muslims, christian sects.
The enforcement of segregation laws and the killing of your fellow citizens not us, lynching and what not was not a muslim tradition.
You really need to read the bible about casting the first stone.
We know Bin Laden has committed atrocities, and killed innocent women children, who are muslim and chritian such as in Jordan, where did you ever get a straw poll on what we think? Are all Americans crusaders? Do you want us to believe it...
I am rising to the bate because you are covering the truth.
Be Just in you assesment and stick to the point about al jazeera... answer the question properly don't think because you have raised rhetorical points that answers the question.
Never have I heard Al Jazeera support bin laden...
How do they mostly say? When where what time?
You pick holes in mysentances that fine, if you want to look good then just answer the question.
You have no idea about muslims at all you have never spoken to them have you? that is why you have a really warped reality, be honest with yourselves is what your saying anything different from being a bigot - racist... Your are basing argument on unfounded statements, you have never hear or listened to aljazeera, nor have actually spoken to any arab, you don't even know your own history never mind the muslims 1400 years of no suicide bombings... The first suicide bombing were committed by people of christian origin in greece in the fight against the ottman empire and the by leftist groups in europe and anarchists of christian origin... what are you really wanting to say?
That just because you don't know any muslims, or you don't understand there culture, or that fox news doesn't tell you of all the millions of muslims that denounce bin laden, therefore they are silent collaborators. I really hope that you grow a back bone and start really honestly looking at what you are saying and see if it is any different than the kind of rhetoric that german christians had about jews.
If I am a congenial Liar because I am an arab muslim, then just answer the question, don't try and dodge them, i don't doge you don't dodge mine...
Maximus I will not let you spread lies with out being accountable you have not at all answered my questions what you do is just spew your prejeduce whic is fine by me.
You are a free US citiezen after all. I hope my english is to your liking now Mr Bin Laden - I mena morphius... Morphius can I really believ anything you say to me? After american Lawyers, just like american Politicians find it hard to speak straight... Can I trust you to say something honest and non offending...
Maximus I hope i would have a realanswer not just a round of foaming dog thing that you do stick to the original questions and lets just get on with it
Posted by: seifeddine at November 24, 2005 04:29 PM (044md)
59
The muslim council of Britain are a bunch of wankers...they have fucked our nation with their hypocracy...bunch of parasites. They speak out against terrorism in public but condone it in private.
Posted by: Jester at November 24, 2005 05:53 PM (BypR5)
60
>>>"Who was the oklahoma bomber? christian"
ummm, no, he wasn't. He never claimed to be. The only one's claiming he was "christian" are Liberals and other apologists for muslim terror.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2005 06:51 PM (8e/V4)
61
>>>"You must admit using your twisted logic christians have been a plague where ever you go you breed war and distruction"
actually, no. Wherever christians have settled there have been created the greatest most prosperous, peaceful, and democratic societies the world has ever known. That's why you muslim barbarians are migrating to our lands by the hundreds of thousands, while we only visit your lands to elevate you out of the filth from which you appear incapable of escaping on your own.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2005 06:55 PM (8e/V4)
62
jesusland i will give you that what about the rest of what I had to say? don't try to duck the other points... Be brave!
Posted by: seifeddine at November 24, 2005 06:56 PM (044md)
63
answer the points, not the conclusion, you are not at all addressing any of the points, why?
Christian in africa and australia, they killed indegenous population, massacres that are recognised by current european governments, even you historian admit that the us has trampled on the right of Native americans....
Stick to the points answer them, I was using maximus's logic not claiming that christians are war mongers that killed jews and started two world wars, it is a rebuttal to maximus's logic...
Jesusland be brave answer the point!
Don't copy past things you don't like don't you agree that using maximus logic then christians can also be seen in a negative light?
Posted by: seifeddine at November 24, 2005 07:03 PM (044md)
64
>>>answer the points, not the conclusion, you are not at all addressing any of the points, why?
seifeddine,
look closely. I already addressed two of your so-called "points".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2005 07:09 PM (8e/V4)
65
you guys I am now signing off, I hope jesus land looks at his conviction and I hope maximus stops foaming...
Finanlly, visit a mosque talk to muslims and arabs, get to know them as human beings. Nazis used for bid knowing non arians, so don't submint to that kind of insular thinking... I gave you guys a few things to think about there is nothing much that interest me except this thread, on this site. So any christian out there that thinks I am attacking his faith I am just using the logic of some christian here that think it is ok to pick on muslims... According to our faith you are the nearest to us in affection... We used to root for you when you were fighting the pagans...
If maximus is there I think you are misunderston 15 year old that just like being contraversial.. You may not have answered anything I have said rationaly but you certainly were enterrtaining...
Jesusland my agreement was with your commnet about the oclahamo bomber, although he did get christain rights so, it was ana greement to keep you focused, but t did not...
good by god bless and I hope you guys are safe with you families - is it thanksgiving there now... happy days to you all.
PAX
Posted by: seifeddine at November 24, 2005 07:15 PM (044md)
66
what about the rest jesus land? what about the rest the rest do you agree with maximus logic... I know Isaid I am signing off but again do you agree to maiximus's logic... If you then all of the points have not been disproved or answered you have just given rhetoric, answer with fact!!
wHO WERE THE nAZI SUPPORTERS? THE KLU KLUX KLAN? HOW MANY PEOPLE DID THE CHRISTIAN KILL IN THE LAST CENTURY BE A MAN!!! ANSWER!!! THE LOGIC THAT MAXIMUS USES TO PORTRAY MUSLIM AS EVIL DOERS WILL ALSO PORTRAY CHRISITANS AS WORSE!!!
ADMIT IT OR ANSWER MY POINT WITH NON RHETORIC... I THINK YOU CANNOT BECUASE IT WILL MAKE YOU FACE UP TO A FEW TRUTHS ABOUT MAXIMUS LINE OF ARGUMENT!
Posted by: SEIFEDDINE at November 24, 2005 07:24 PM (044md)
67
seifeddine,
saying things with a burning passion and putting them in caps doesn't make them any more true than if you say them calmly and in conversational tones. At this rate you'll soon be strapping on an explosive vest by the looks of it. You are spouting rubbish upon rubbish and I would hardly even know where to begin in order to address the mountain of crap you've spewed so far. I've already addressed two of your rat turds, i.e., the ones about McVeigh being a "christian", and the bit about christians being a "plague" upon the land and blah blah blah. And then you follow those rat turds with even more verbal diahrrea like the one where you equate the Nazis with christians, etc. Did you know it was the Arabs who sided with the Nazis during WW2? Probably not. Read and learn you ignorant towel head:
The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection
Bosnian Moslems recruited the Nazi SS by Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/recruited.html
Meanwhile, christians were dying by the hundreds of thousands to end the Nazi terror.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 24, 2005 07:48 PM (8e/V4)
68
Seifeddine,
Just so you will know, I will give you a history lesson on Christian conquests of the 1900's. There were virtually none. Hitler was not a Christian and certainly in no way were any of his conquests considered Christian expansionism in any history books of which I am familiar. Hitler allied himself with Muslims in the Mideast, particularly Iraq. The fighting between the Italians and Ethiopians that later gave rise to the German occupation of most of No. Africa was never directed at the Muslim population but was between the Germans and the British. The British and later the Americans drove the Germans and Italians out of No. Africa.
The previous German Empire of WWI was allied with the Ottoman Empire, which was Muslim, and although Germany was Catholic for the most part, all the aggression of the Germans was against what you would consider to be Christians.
The Soviet Union, again not a Christian nation, already existed, and had taken majority Christian and Muslim areas away from the crumbling Ottoman Empire in the 1700's and early 1800's. The conquest of the Czars and later the Bolsheviks were not Christian in nature, but mainly conquered what you would say were Christian nations, namely Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
The United States increased it's size again by acquiring Christian areas, including some islands in the Pacific such as the Philippines, which did have a nominal Muslim population.
The British gave up the vast majority of its empire, including all the majority Muslim populations. The French also gave up their empire, or abandoned it under revolutions or threats of the same.
I'm trying to think of the Christian expansionism to which you refer. Please enlighten me. Thank you.
Posted by: knight templar at November 24, 2005 08:02 PM (rUyw4)
69
look forget the rehtoric lets stick to fact:
Did chrisitians instigate two world wars? yes or no?
Did german christians view jews as paria? yes or no?
did christian in the france kill people in algeria over 1 million yes or no?
how many people have been killed by christian wars in the las 100 years?
Those who colnised africa in german afric killing 80% claimed to be christians...
did christiain american kill black because of their color?
the klu klux clan is it christian?
you answere nothing at all you went back to is " muslims are just as bad" you have not exonarated christian from the 100 years of death.
you seem to be implying that it is okay, or you are seem to be saying that those who committed atrocities in these thing never claimed to be chrisitan, if so prove it!
you seem to be saying that there is a tenious link between Bosnian muslims and nazi germany even if there is is it okay to kill woman and children for the sins of the father?
you seem to be saying that the oclahamo bomber did not claim to be a christian even when he had chrisitian rites, you seem to be saying that Maximus twisited logic is right!!!
Oh by the way what of the thousands of muslilm who fought (not just sided) with the allieds? Do they really deserve you machinations and disrespect?
Be fair and right.
all those pakistani north africans and even egyptian who fought against the Nazi? Be a man! the Nazi member ship where christain, the SS soldiers where christains, and people who fought them where christians aswell don't you get it you still have not answered anything of the above...
If you affirm the logic of maximus then you are complicity in that kind of logic!!!
As for your last comment a maximus type answer would have replied like this:
The chrisitans shouldn't have started the terror or they would not have died stopping it.
remember thousnads of muslim soldiers who fought against the nazis!
I am not saying that christian are a plague just following maximus's assertians to their logical conclusion.. and yours
Posted by: SEIFEDDINE at November 24, 2005 08:12 PM (044md)
70
Knight templar - I am using the twisted logic of Maximus here and jesus land...
if we use your type of nalis then none of the conflict of the last 100 year are religously motivated... They are political, even if the poepl that are commtting these ware are christain, and are devoutly so, that there is no correlation between th wars that the christians have taken part in and the statement that all christian love violence etc....
that is something if I was putting my normal hat I would understand, but if I was putting a jesus land or maximus hat i would not....
But the british gave up their empire after what? never killing any cvillians? being good etc... true christians?
Again this irrational fear and hatred towards muslims is based on a premise if equally applies will show christian as villains?
Posted by: seifeddine at November 24, 2005 08:27 PM (044md)
71
Vile jihad videos are being glorified by the Religion of Peace™ (i.e., muslims) at Ummah.com:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70441
Posted by: dcb at November 25, 2005 12:02 AM (8e/V4)
72
Oyster: thanks for the link. I am friends with (though rarely suck the cock of) many muslims who denounce terrorism. I say to you as I say to them: religion necessarily causes conflict, give it up.
Improbulus: wow, you really bit! I wonder if you put as much passion into your personal life.
White people are "disappearing", e.g. Europe = 14% world population in the [80s?], it's less than 4% now: we stopped having children. That is not necessarily a bad thing, nor something that should be blamed on anyone.
Denouncing dictatorships per se ignores the life improvements for the majority achieved under authoritarian rule in East Asia.
I feel a quote coming on...
"In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love and 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
No-one seems to have answered sensibly the question about Al Jazeera, ho-hum.
I won't come back to this blog [in the near future] but I am interested in opinions and study development, so happy to hear from anyone via email.
Esp. you Dave I know you want to really. And Maximus, I really think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. MWAH!
Posted by: Metyu at November 25, 2005 07:20 AM (wp6Gh)
73
Okay Seifeddien idiot. You have crossed the line when you defame the KKK. Stupid idiot stop comparing the past to now. The christians, Buddists, Hindus, etc. are not a threat to world peace. What the muslim religion spawns is. The terrorists bombers and attackers of innocent people and muslims. Muslims asshole. Muslims. What happened hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with now. NOW THE TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS. Dork! Now go hug you muslim wife and have a little terrorist. TURKEY.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 25, 2005 07:22 AM (ZaAd/)
74
yeS...yes all Lefties just hate America. That's why we love illegal wars against tin-horn dictators that used to be on our payroll.
Idiot
Posted by: texastentialist at November 25, 2005 03:28 PM (5l9bc)
75
>>>"tin-horn dictators that used to be on our payroll."
really???????? How much did we pay him???????
Posted by: Carlos at November 25, 2005 05:54 PM (8e/V4)
76
I don't know if seifeddine will be back, but here goes anyway:
seifeddine: You're becoming shrill. You have so many facts wrong and demand that others address them. Your claim that Christians are gone mad and are killing so indiscriminately is ridiculous. By your argument, we are not to look at the real facts of what starts any war, but at what religion the any of them espouse. This is a totally wrong approach. When was the last time a war was started in the name of Christianity? When was the last time a war was started in the name of Islam?
Not only that, but let's add up the number of wars over time that were waged in the name of either religion. And until you're ready to face a few facts, not what you're being taught by those who wish to control and channel your ire to their own ends, I don't have much else to say. Your lack of education in history and your willingness to display that ignorance as your argument will forever doom you to hate others and be hated.
At one point, I even tried to extend a hand in understanding toward you and you chose to nip at that hand and go on your merry way of defending the indefensible with fallacies and warped reasoning. As a result, your insults to others here are insults to me as well and I'm finished with you.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2005 07:58 AM (YudAC)
77
Yes, many errors in the past gave rise to a few tinpot dictators. Although in some cases, it takes 20/20 hindsight to come to the decision that an error was made at all.
texastentialist (aside from being aptly named by denying rationalism) is like many on the left. They don't WANT mistakes to be righted. They see these past mistakes only as ammunition to use against the right all the while denying their own involvement. So when the right attempts to correct those errors, the left gets their panties in a wad. Because they stood around pointing fingers too long and wasted their chance to be the heroes and correct those errors.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2005 08:16 AM (YudAC)
78
Oyster,
the "we made Saddam" argument is hogwash. The RUSSIANS made Saddam, supplying him with up to 95% of his arsenal, and they continued to support him throughout our efforts to oust him. No irony at all to the anti-Bush Leftards on this thread that their views coincide with Russia's-- none at all. What a bunch of scumbags.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2005 10:50 AM (8e/V4)
79
carlos
Oyster's not talking about Saddam (Iraq Soviet Client State 1969 to the spider hole). There have been a few - minor backwater dickheads (weak too no less - we were never any good at picking them - unlike the Soviets).
Posted by: hondo at November 26, 2005 11:04 AM (Jvmry)
80
Actually, Saddam made himself, but everyone and their brother sold him arms, because 25 years ago, he was actually the most sane, stable Arab leader to be found, and made a good proxy to fight the Iranians. Our biggest mistake was in not providing him even better weapons so that he could crush Iran and bring the rule of the mullahs to an end, thus saving us over two decades of international terrorism. We could have controlled him, but we chose to abandon him, which was a stupid, stupid mistake, for which we are now paying.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 26, 2005 04:15 PM (0yYS2)
81
You're right hondo. I wasn't talking about Saddam. But let's not forget the fact, too, that Chirac was enamored with Saddam. Remember the 93% grade uranium he gave Saddam? For a reactor that was supposed to only produce energy? You don't need a grade of uranium that high for that purpose. Only a small percentage. I find Chirac to be quite scary in his want to be aligned with such nefarious people.
IM: you're right too. It would be much like me hiring a manger with little experience and not giving him any guidance in running the business. The problem is that we keep bowing to international pressure to do exactly that.
Posted by: Oyster at November 27, 2005 06:29 AM (YudAC)
82
Okay, lets see. the premise that religion is the source of all evil is just bogus, then you have to also admit that religion is the source of all law and charity - what is good... Remeber the soviet union, and the wars in pre islam arabia were about tribes and ethnicity, most people don't fight wars because of religion they fight inspite of it!!!
It has been proven that athiestic and secular dogmas become ritualistic and become religions thesleves - communism, French Laicisme and Ataturkism... Have convictions of faith dogmas... Just as religion is... the ideal of a world without religion is a fable, if they did not exist primordeal wars of annhilation... Religion is a mercy and a check, as well as a tool for the corrupt, why do humans always blame every one but themselve, when things go wrong, but when every thing goes right don't give credit where credit is due?
You can't focus on the bad and leave the good, if anything religon takes the edge off the bad.
Religion is the reasone why America was established after all, and that is not a bad thing.
now this for MAXIMUS - JESUSAND
I was using the example of christianity in order to show how rediculus jesusand's arguments are,and their twisted logic is.
Secondly a war based in the name of Islam. America does it in the name of what is right, its generals says god is helping them, and they go on in their christian lectures saying god told me to do this, so does bush saying god told me to do that...
Bin Laden he is saying it in the name of religion, because he and his followers are a minority, US estimate at most as 20,000 but at least 12,000. Out of 1,500,000,000. They do not represent muslims. But the argument stated above is that the Islam that every body believes in the full 1.5 billion is responsible for terror and war, based on the action of its followers not the tenets of Its faith. Sure they explain the tenets as a source of these extremists, but not as understood by the majority of muslims, why is that? So why am I not able to judge the christian faith in the same way? Again christians were responsible for most wars in the 20th century, does that reflect the violence in their faith - you say its peaceful, loving and civilised, but history shows it as anyting but.
So Islam is being judged by the last 30 years, why can i not judge christianity in the past 100 years based the argument fielded by maximus and jesus land.
The funny things, I don't really think chrisitianity is a violent faith I am just framing the argument framed by maximus and jesus land against them.
I am most definately pro religion, and judeo christian faith at that...
Jesusland and maximus probaly hate the christainty that condemsn george bush and asks to him repent for the wrongs he is committing, may even find the anglican bishop and quaker as hypocritical cowards because they differe with his perspective, they may even hate for his support of the arabs....
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 07:04 AM (99Bzq)
83
Okay let us do this when was the last time a stae did anything in the name of religion...
Aytollah khomeini in 1980's against saddam
nope
LEBENON: ATROCITIES OF SABRA... NOPE
Bosnians against the Serbs... Nope..
I see what you are getting at now, islam because it is not secular in nature, is more open to flack from those who try and put war and death on its doors, because state policy must reflect religous belief, even if that belief is shared by the majority of muslims that do not reside in that state.
When was the last time christian declared WAR - come on you must have watched the evngelical channel, apparent war was declared on satin in a turban, in Iraq, and the footage from the bbc about the christian leftenants etc...
Some christian have declared war some haven't, just like some muslims have declared war some haven't, in the name of theri prospective faith... EG: IRAQ -
Oyster be more specific in your crticisms and more accurate, I am really intrigued. I am starting to see where your mistaken notions lie.. You think muslims are a monolith... Even when christian are not... You still judge islam on a different basis than the prevelant faith in the USA.
Nothing for it Oyster clarify, liek alway I am dense.
Posted by: seif at November 27, 2005 07:23 AM (99Bzq)
84
When was the last war started in the Nmae of ISlam and when was the time a war was started in the name of christianity.. You tell me oyster dates and all....
I truly Am dumbstruck. after that let us get thing back on the question about aljazeera.
Posted by: Seifeddine at November 27, 2005 07:28 AM (99Bzq)
85
Vile jihad videos are being glorified by the Religion of Peace™ (i.e., muslims) at Ummah.com:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70441
Posted by: dcb at November 27, 2005 09:36 AM (8e/V4)
86
Seifeddine wrote: "the premise that religion is the source of all evil is just bogus..."
For good people to do good things is natural, and for bad people to do bad things is natural, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion. Humanity will never know peace until the religious fanatics have killed one another off, and only sane, peaceful atheists are left.
"...then you have to also admit that religion is the source of all law and charity..."
Nope. Natural human reason and compassion are the sources of all law and charity; religion is what makes otherwise sane people burn each other at the stake for witchcraft, and blow up schoolbuses.
"Remeber the soviet union, and the wars in pre islam arabia were about tribes and ethnicity..."
Hey, here's a clue; all wars are about tribes, it's just the size and structure of the tribe that keeps changing.
"...most people don't fight wars because of religion they fight inspite of it!!!"
Yeah bullshit. That must be why the Bible and Koran go on and on about smiting, raping, and pillaging. The Buddhists are the only major religion to actually practice peace, because that's the premise of their faith, not some angry god of tribal savages who wants to smell burning flesh.
"It has been proven that athiestic and secular dogmas become ritualistic and become religions thesleves - communism, French Laicisme and Ataturkism... Have convictions of faith dogmas... Just as religion is... "
Atheism, by its definition, means to be without theism; it is not a theism in and of itself, and can never be. We don't meet to talk about how much we hate everyone else, nor do we steal money from the poor, and we damn sure don't go around murdering innocent people like religious fanatics do. In fact, there's hardly a "we" there, because we tend to leave other people alone.
The only rituals I observe are the Morning Meditation on the porcelain altar, the Daily Ablution with soap and water, and two cups of Columbian dark-roast sacramental beverage. I don't need any myths, superstitions, or pointless rituals; life is weird enough as it is.
As for claiming that Communism is atheistic, that's also a proven fallacy, as it is a cult religion in and of itself, and exhibits all the characteristics thereof: Fanaticism, savagery cloaked in compassion, intolerance for dissent, and brutal punishment of free-thinkers, etc.. Communism is simply an updated version of our oldest social disease.
"...the ideal of a world without religion is a fable, if they did not exist primordeal wars of annhilation..."
Yeah, with religion, that's sooooo not the case now, and everything is just rosy. I wish all religous fanatics would go ahead and exterminate one another and leave the world to peaceful, sane people who have evolved past the need to kill one another over fairy tales.
"Religion is a mercy and a check..."
I guess that's why your compassionate and merciful god wants you to kill Jewish children; to keep them in check.
"as well as a tool for the corrupt"
Well I'll be damned. Finally, a word of truth. I'm sure it was a Freudian slip on your part though, as you're sure to be punished for it by the big invisible angry man in the sky.
"why do humans always blame every one but themselve, when things go wrong..."
When clearly an imaginary demon is at fault.
"...but when every thing goes right don't give credit where credit is due?"
You mean the invisible angry man in the sky or actual sane, reasonable people, who end up solving problems without thanks?
"You can't focus on the bad and leave the good, if anything religon takes the edge off the bad."
Yeah, I'm sure all those people who get their throats cut, and all the children killed in bombings, feel much better at the time of death to know it wasn't some atheist that was killing them, but a messenger of peace.
"Religion is the reasone why America was established after all, and that is not a bad thing."
No, sorry, wrong again. America was established so that people could be free; and those freedoms include the freedom to practice religion, or to be free from religion, as well as the tyranny of a religious state.
"...now this for MAXIMUS - JESUSAND
I was using the example of christianity in order to show how rediculus jesusand's arguments are,and their twisted logic is."
You're right. It would make much more sense if we all just went out and chopped a few heads off and murdered some children in the name of your imaginary friend.
"Secondly a war based in the name of Islam. America does it in the name of what is right, its generals says god is helping them, and they go on in their christian lectures saying god told me to do this, so does bush saying god told me to do that..."
Which, of course, is why American soldiers are building schools and hospitals, and muslims are blowing them up, with people inside.
"Bin Laden he is saying it in the name of religion, because he and his followers are a minority, US estimate at most as 20,000 but at least 12,000. Out of 1,500,000,000. They do not represent muslims."
And yet the islamic world treats him like a living god.
"But the argument stated above is that the Islam that every body believes in the full 1.5 billion is responsible for terror and war, based on the action of its followers not the tenets of Its faith."
Then why haven't muslims turned him in, rather than making posters and T-shirts with his image on them, a practice which, if I'm not mistaken, is idolatry, isn't it? Muslims are not only fanatical savages, they're hypocrites.
"Sure they explain the tenets as a source of these extremists, but not as understood by the majority of muslims, why is that?"
Because muslims are fanatical savages and hypocrites?
"So why am I not able to judge the christian faith in the same way?"
Because Christians don't go around cutting throats and blowing up schools?
"Again christians were responsible for most wars in the 20th century, does that reflect the violence in their faith - you say its peaceful, loving and civilised, but history shows it as anyting but."
Let's review your lies: WW1 - not caused by Christianity, but by greed for territory. WW2 - Fascim, a Marxist-inspired religion. Korea - Communism, Vietnam - Communism, the four wars of extermination against Israel, (which the arabs lost despite overwhelming superiority) - islam. All the various wars of "revolution" in Africa and Central and South America - Communism. I could go on, but you get the picture. Why is it arabs and muslims must lie with every breath? As a race and a religion, you are incapable of uttering the truth, unless it is by accident, and which you will immediately recant.
"So Islam is being judged by the last 30 years..."
Try the last 1300 years or so. You seem to forget that your tribal savages have been trying to invade Europe since you found out it was there.
"...why can i not judge christianity in the past 100 years based the argument fielded by maximus and jesus land."
Because the facts don't support such an argument. Duh.
"The funny things, I don't really think chrisitianity is a violent faith I am just framing the argument framed by maximus and jesus land against them."
When all else fails, accuse the enemy of your own crimes, eh? Tell ya what; if muslims worldwide can go one entire year without murdering one innocent person, then I'll recant and beg forgiveness.
"I am most definately pro religion, and judeo christian faith at that..."
Which means nothing.
"Jesusland and maximus probaly hate the christainty that condemsn george bush and asks to him repent for the wrongs he is committing, may even find the anglican bishop and quaker as hypocritical cowards because they differe with his perspective, they may even hate for his support of the arabs...."
I'm an atheist, in case you haven't figured that out by all the times I've said so, so go peddle that crap somewhere else, I think for myself, and don't need the big angry invisible man in the sky to tell me what to do, and I damn sure don't hear voices telling me that I have to murder innocent people for them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 10:01 AM (0yYS2)
87
Nope. Natural human reason and compassion are the sources of all law and charity
IM,
what is the source of "compassion"? Certainly not "human reason", as the bloodshed of the 20th century has made more than abundantly obvious.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 10:31 AM (8e/V4)
88
Maximus - You can be an atheis and have a religion as my old budhist Uni lecturere used to say...
The example of the Tao Te CHing is onw, taoism etc...
and you could believ in god and not have a religion...
Let me just back track did you say budhist never commited wars, I want maximus to double check himseld befor I respond...
Maximus are you sure... Look at Cambodia, China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, India, and the history of pre colonial pogroms and inter sect fighting and war... You really need to be more accurate...
Think about the history of shaolin, and Chinese litrature reaching the shores of japan...
Did you say christian don't go about killing children in schools? again are you absolutely sure? Think about Serbia, Russio, pre 1900, and during stalins terror, think about the IRA, think and think and think be fair and judge by the same ruler don't keep on changing the goal posts.
As for killing little jewish children, what do you think regiment 101? famed for killing civlian arabs, what about Kahane? Should we Judge Judaism by him?
Why do you despise arabs when they clearly in emeprical evidence of numbers have killed less in the last 100 year than the west?
Maximus either you are lieing or you need educating which is it?
Only a man who hast not read history of the past 1700 years can tell me chrisitainity did not produce its fait share of wars of religion, and progroms for those people of a different faith?
You said the fact don't support the argument how? and lets put it all down?
the chrisitian world before islam was fighting persia and Itself...
Post islam: Islam the mongol hordes, itself, the heretics in its midst, remeber the inquestion
Last 600 years colonialism, killing no whites with impunity, sanctioned by the church/ chruches.. The bloodiest wars occured in europ and not by muslims but by other - fellow christians...
WW1 and WW2 are instigate by who? muslims? What wars were greater that against israel or that in WW1 and WW2...
You use some of the argument against muslims, when it benefits and for you when it benefits you... Admit it? the IRA are what muslim? The christian Right that is pro war and pro Israel? Muslim? Be real! What am I lieing about exactly? You are saying arabs are the source of all evil, when the biggest killers in the last 100 years was not done by muslim but christians, I am using your logic go into emepric how many millinons did muslims kill in the last 100 year.. I am saying muslim adherent to the faith or claim to be and thos who are chrisitians? How many people have christains killed and how many have muslims killed in the last 100 years... compare it and then come back to me... You know what you will find that christian have killed more people, killed more people because of their faith and entered more wars...
include in the above number, the number that The terrorists in israel how many children have they killed... if you really want to be fair then add that the number of civillian the israelis have killed.. you will still find that we have not killed as many people or entered into as many wars.
You say that we treat bin laden like a living god using waht evidence, where when? I gave statement after statement, i proved that that muslim did denounce him, which nuslim world are you talking about? not the one i belong to certainly not the 1.5 billion muslims world? You answere with rethoric but no proofs why is that? answer me properly and be a man stop answering with stupid statements, such as -"they venerate him as a god" if you say the muslim world venerated bin laden on whose evidence are you saying this, you are saying it as a given when it isn't.
In afghanistan there are still songs about the atheist soviet union they believe it is their enlightened atheism that drove them to want to take over theri counties. and how many did atheist kill in the last 100 years... look back at russia and china. the terror, the cultural revolution, those pure atheist states...
tribal savagery- the wars in europe - italy- africa come at least open a history book, and who gave you guys the zero? you know I forget that you don't really have any idea about european history, the one that Kissenger learnt about Real Politik from... it was the war tor 200 year befor 1900 in europe!!! Christain europe.. For god's sake use specific evidence if not it is not worth my bother, there is a different betwen a smart response that sounds good, and one that relies on real evidence not statements you think are good... tribalism is nation statism in bigger format... Look at the history of franco in spain, he belived that spanish civilisation is is an exention of visigoth history, hitler and shall i go on... Bin laden is the muslim world's KKK, except he does it on creed only.
You said let us see if muslims can go a single year without killing an innocent? Let us do the same with the chrisitians then? up for the challenge, and let us tally? Jews as well... Atheist even, lets go.
It is fruitless but what critierai do you want to set Let us take it as a challenge, what are the criteria of an innocent etc... I am willing to take you up on that challenge...
Be a man, talk to me.
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 11:24 AM (MYCcc)
89
How many muslims have bought T-Shirts with bin laden on him out of the 1.5 bn, and how many christian wear racist fashions? let us compare numbers.
I haven't seen any in tunisia... None what so ever.. And that is the absolute god honest truth.
This argument is based presumptions, becuae you are not based on any real facts or figuers...
You really have an evil perspective based on prejeduce of us muslim
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 11:36 AM (MYCcc)
90
>>>how many christian wear racist fashions?
I don't know. How many? You don't know either, but it's enough for your purposes to simply hurl the accusation without any information whatsoever to back it up. That's all you've done this entire thread-- you hurl the accusation without the slightest scintilla of evidence to back anything up.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 12:43 PM (8e/V4)
91
"what is the source of "compassion"? Certainly not "human reason", as the bloodshed of the 20th century has made more than abundantly obvious."
Well I can pretty much assure you that it's not some imaginary angry invisible man in the sky. Reason and compassion go hand in hand, because compassion is a social survival technique. We learned long ago that if we take care of one another, we greatly increase our odds of survival. The societies that have been most successful are those who have learned this lesson, while those who are in a constant state of failure, i.e. arabs, Africans, et al, generally have not caught on.
Any claim that compassion comes from some imaginary deity of desert goat herders is false on its face, because many cultures with wildly different cosmologies have developed codes of ethics and morals that are astoundingly compassionate, such as the Hindus. Others have historically shown little respect for human dignity, at least to anyone not within their own group, most noticably the Judaic tradition and its derivatives. The ancient Hebrews were a warlike nomadic tribe who were a plague upon more advanced cultures, Christianity helped make the dark ages, and islam is trying to destroy civilization itself. Not only can civilization exist without religion, but its continuation may depend on the abandonment of it.
Many of the worst wars of the post-Roman era have been because of religion, and many more are yet to come. Now that religious fanatics have nuclear weapons, we may not survive to regret our cultural addiction to this dangerous delusion.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 01:19 PM (0yYS2)
92
"How many muslims have bought T-Shirts with bin laden on him out of the 1.5 bn, and how many christian wear racist fashions?"
One is too many. You should all be exterminated like the vermin you are.
"I haven't seen any in tunisia... None what so ever.. And that is the absolute god honest truth."
Sure it is. I will take that to mean it is a lie, because every word that comes out of an arabs mouth is a lie.
"This argument is based presumptions, becuae you are not based on any real facts or figuers..."
Except the fact that there are only about a thousand images on the internet to support it.
"You really have an evil perspective based on prejeduce of us muslim"
My "prejudice" was developed on September 11th, 2001, right about the time I saw images of muslims celebrating in the streets. You should all be killed because you are nothing but rats carrying the plague of islam into the civilized world.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 01:22 PM (0yYS2)
93
Jesus land that is the point, he is hurling accusation, you are hurling accusation? You are accusing all muslims as being bin ladens, without proof except for " they all say it", " they all support him"... Where is your accusation, why should i justify my self? when non here have? do you really want me to trawl through extrem right websites, and stats about kkk membership, and anti arab christain website, pro segregation chrisitan missions and come back here, but the onus... I will just as soon as every body here proves these unfounded allegations against muslims... why "because it is enough to hurl excuses without any shred of... evidence" look whose talking jesus land, go bakc and look at what you have written first.
It is Ok to pick on muslims, its ok to call muslims murderers, to tell them they sided with the nazi, to say all you want to say... But it is not ok to use your tools and logic of argument against you?
None has proved that muslims are any worse than chrisitians! just stating that" christian good, Muslim bad" doesn't make it true!!
So is using vage statement that " who buys bin laden shirts anyway" means that all muslims support him! It is just like me saying who are the memebrs of the kkk - white christian protestants does that equal that all white christian protestants are racists no! People god gave you reason, so reason fairly.
I hope that satisfy you jesus land go back to my statementsand remember the qualifiers.
I am using your own methodology against you, I have used evidence in reguards of manything written in them... answer those withcounter evidence if you can.
Posted by: SEIFEDDINE at November 27, 2005 01:25 PM (MYCcc)
94
Maximus, I have now proved you as a bigot, since you are willing judge muslims with one ruler and you fellow citezens with another.
How many racist t shirts, or KKK member are there, one is too many... That is that...
You hate me not because you think I am worse, or based on a fair judgement but based on your unshacable belief inyour supremacy...
I truly believe that if you were born in Iraq, you would have become a bin laden lutenant, not because it is inevetable, but your mentally is such, that no reason enters... "blind deaf and dumb and so they do not return" or do you maximus?
Is there any difference between you and anyother zelot that you despise, look at what you have actually written...
If we are to judged based on a few examples, what do you thin abu ghraib should we judge all amrican soldiers by that?
The excesses of the Vietnam war?
The lynching of and segregation in american history think maximus...
Just because of one event you have to blame it on a whole people?
How many civilian killed as collatoral damage now in iraq by us forces alone? Do I use it to prove that american are all evil!! compare it emperically with 9/11 bombing... Just because you are american doesn't make less human than you, nor have less rights than you... think maximus, why do you allow yourself to be a bigot...
Yousaw muslims celbrating in muslim streets which muslims and how many streets... I really do despair at you.
no evidence, just what you, what you saw,what you saw, not what happened, not based on real cocnrete evidence...
If this was a cour of law your case would be thrown out.
I really am sad to say this maximus, there is no moe reason for us to talk unless you come up with some real concrete evidence...
If your eyes are your only evidence, then do you want mine to be my only evidence aswell, of what Isaw of america first hand, of its sldiers and diplomats... I put that as a challenge to you maximus and lets forget about realities and lets justconcentrate on what we see on western tv stations not even arab ones... are you upt the challenge maximus?
A thousand images support it... A thousan images support that america is a white supremacist country aswel... be fair use quantifiable and usable evidence that can be proof conclusivly for yourself alone.
Posted by: SEIFEDDINE at November 27, 2005 01:50 PM (MYCcc)
95
"Maximus - You can be an atheis and have a religion as my old budhist Uni lecturere used to say... The example of the Tao Te CHing is onw, taoism etc..."
The Tao is not a religion, but a philosophy based on common sense, and was developed by a culture far more civilized than those that gave us the Big Angry Invisible Man in the Sky™.
"Let me just back track did you say budhist never commited wars, I want maximus to double check himseld befor I respond... Maximus are you sure... Look at Cambodia, China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, India, and the history of pre colonial pogroms and inter sect fighting and war... You really need to be more accurate..."
Okay name me one known Buddhist that started a war. Liar. Muslims are murdering Buddhists in Thailand right now, and I don't hear you bitching about that. All muslims are scum.
"Think about the history of shaolin, and Chinese litrature reaching the shores of japan..."
Wow, yeah, that's really damning evidence. The Shaolin conquered who again?
"Did you say christian don't go about killing children in schools? again are you absolutely sure?"
Yeah but I'm sure you're going to come up with some lies and misplaced facts...
"Think about Serbia, Russio, pre 1900, and during stalins terror, think about the IRA, think and think and think be fair and judge by the same ruler don't keep on changing the goal posts."
Bingo. Again; liar. How about Communists, Communists, Communists, and Communists?
"As for killing little jewish children, what do you think regiment 101? famed for killing civlian arabs, what about Kahane?"
So because you claim someone else did something bad, that excuses you? See, that's why arabs aren't civilized, and can only be made so at the point of a gun. You see nothing wrong whatsoever with the murder of children, but seek to excuse your crimes with specious claims.
"Should we Judge Judaism by him?"
Everyone should be judged on their own actions only, but this isn't about Jews, it's about muslims who want to destroy civilization. You are nothing but savages, one notch above monkeys, and can't really be called humans.
"Why do you despise arabs when they clearly in emeprical evidence of numbers have killed less in the last 100 year than the west?"
Let's crunch the numbers for the past 1300 years and start over. Besides, it isn't just about who killed how many where and when, it's about why and how. Arabs are cowards who attack women and children by sneak attack, then run away like dogs, whereas civilized people send armies to fight by the rules of war.
"Maximus either you are lieing or you need educating which is it?"
Maybe I just need to fell my knife on your throat you gutless arab dog. Your mother blows pigs.
"Only a man who hast not read history of the past 1700 years can tell me chrisitainity did not produce its fait share of wars of religion, and progroms for those people of a different faith?"
Blah blah blah.
"You said the fact don't support the argument how? and lets put it all down? the chrisitian world before islam was fighting persia and Itself...
Post islam: Islam the mongol hordes, itself, the heretics in its midst, remeber the inquestion Last 600 years colonialism, killing no whites with impunity, sanctioned by the church/ chruches.. The bloodiest wars occured in europ and not by muslims but by other - fellow christians..."
Yeah sure, whatever. Look, don't bother, I know you're an arab and a muslim, and therefore a liar and the son of a pig and a dog, and that your pedophile prophet was certifiably insane, what with hiding in caves and all, so STFU.
"WW1 and WW2 are instigate by who? muslims? What wars were greater that against israel or that in WW1 and WW2..."
So because we had two wars, wars in which muslims sided with the losers both times, by the way, and in the first of which arabs had to be taught to fight by a gay Englishman, that makes muslim pigs better how?
"You use some of the argument against muslims, when it benefits and for you when it benefits you... Admit it?"
Yeah, the truth works like that, it tends to benefit the truthful.
"the IRA are what muslim?"
Communists actually, but muslims provided them with arms and explosives, and taught them how to murder innocent people. Remember Libya? Yeah, you do.
"The christian Right that is pro war and pro Israel? Muslim?"
I don't hear of Christians calling to murder every muslims man, woman, and child, though they should, but they won't, because they're civilized people. What about the relief in Indonesia and Pakistan? Mostly Christian and Western. You disgust me you miserable lying piece of pig shit.
"What am I lieing about exactly?"
Only everything.
"You are saying arabs are the source of all evil..."
Yeah pretty much. If you were all exterminated, the level of global conflict would fall to almost zero.
"when the biggest killers in the last 100 years was not done by muslim but christians..."
Just because arab pigs are incompetent at warfare doesn't mean that you're good people. You suck so bad, that you outnumbered the Jews by serveral orders of magnitude, and still couldn't beat them in four trys.
"I am using your logic go into emepric how many millinons did muslims kill in the last 100 year.."
Current numbers are about three to five million, including the running count in the Sudan, Thailand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Chechnya, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway, America, Iran, Kashmir, etc. ad infinitum. You can't lie your way out of this one.
"I am saying muslim adherent to the faith or claim to be and thos who are chrisitians? How many people have christains killed and how many have muslims killed in the last 100 years... compare it and then come back to me..."
What you would ask, if you weren't a lying son of a pig and a dog, is how many were killed in the names of those religions. Christianity in the past 100 years? Less than a few thousand. Islam? Three to five million.
"You know what you will find that christian have killed more people, killed more people because of their faith and entered more wars..."
You're still trying to confuse communists and nazis with Christians, but it has always been the muslims who sided with the communists and nazis when it suited them. The only time muslims fought communists was in Afghanistan, and only then with our help. You are ungrateful pigs on top of being lying dogs.
"include in the above number, the number that The terrorists in israel how many children have they killed... if you really want to be fair then add that the number of civillian the israelis have killed.."
Israel can't be blamed for civilian casualties when arabs are too stupid to not have women and children in the houses where they build bombs.
"you will still find that we have not killed as many people or entered into as many wars."
Lies.
"You say that we treat bin laden like a living god using waht evidence, where when?"
Okay, call him a son of a pig. I dare you. You can't refute him, because he is exactly what a muslim is supposed to be.
"I gave statement after statement, i proved that that muslim did denounce him,"
None that I've heard.
"which nuslim world are you talking about?"
The one inhabited by lying pigs and monkeys like you.
"not the one i belong to certainly not the 1.5 billion muslims world?"
You can't even tell the truth about numbers. There's only a billion, not 1.5, descenants of worms on the planet.
"You answere with rethoric but no proofs why is that? answer me properly and be a man stop answering with stupid statements, such as -"they venerate him as a god" if you say the muslim world venerated bin laden on whose evidence are you saying this, you are saying it as a given when it isn't."
Except that it is. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?
"In afghanistan there are still songs about the atheist soviet union they believe it is their enlightened atheism that drove them to want to take over theri counties. and how many did atheist kill in the last 100 years... look back at russia and china. the terror, the cultural revolution, those pure atheist states..."
Communism is a religion you stupid fuck, as I've already stated, and as facts clearly support.
"tribal savagery- the wars in europe - italy- africa come at least open a history book, and who gave you guys the zero?"
The zero? WTF? Regardless, it isn't Europeans who are still cutting off peoples' heads and dragging their burned bodies through the street like you arab dogs do, but soon that will all change.
"you know I forget that you don't really have any idea about european history, the one that Kissenger learnt about Real Politik from... it was the war tor 200 year befor 1900 in europe!!! Christain europe.. For god's sake use specific evidence if not it is not worth my bother, there is a different betwen a smart response that sounds good, and one that relies on real evidence not statements you think are good... tribalism is nation statism in bigger format... Look at the history of franco in spain, he belived that spanish civilisation is is an exention of visigoth history, hitler and shall i go on... Bin laden is the muslim world's KKK, except he does it on creed only.
Yeah blah blah blah. I'm sick of listening to your idiotic crap. You're not only a liar, you're not even smart enough to do it well. You should be grateful for the existence of rats and worms, because at least they are something you can look down upon.
"You said let us see if muslims can go a single year without killing an innocent? Let us do the same with the chrisitians then? up for the challenge, and let us tally? Jews as well... Atheist even, lets go."
Okay you've already lost then, because muslim pigs kill more innocent people in one day than all others do in a whole year.
"It is fruitless but what critierai do you want to set Let us take it as a challenge, what are the criteria of an innocent etc... I am willing to take you up on that challenge..."
No you're not, you just want a forum to spread your lies.
"Be a man, talk to me."
Men don't talk to vermin, they crush them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 01:55 PM (0yYS2)
96
Maximus... I then invite you to tunisia, stay here for a week, i am too poor to pay your ticket... I advise you to come see for your self.
Its a challenge to you... If I am liar, then you must be brave and come to tunisia see it for yourself... Or if you do not want to there are three possible explanations a) you are a coward, b) you are a liar c) you just can't afford it d) you are scared of flying.
which is it maximus? Don't worry just because we see you spewing hatred everywhere doesn't mean we think you are a white supremacists, becuase all those spike lee movies, and the series roots... or even American History X..
Becareful maximus, don't show yourself a coward, and just be honest...
Apart from agreeing to your every word how do I prove to you I am honest? think about my offer...
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 02:06 PM (MYCcc)
97
Now maximus, you have brought the bacone, i wnat to check your figuers can I have your sources please...
If you don't give me your souces for the following:
The numbers killed by muslim in france germany and norway, etc...
And who by...
I again challenge you if you ahve any shred of truth in you.. provide your proof for the figuers above first their are many points I differ with but I just want to start with the figuers of how many muslim killed people in the pas 100 years and then I want to know where you got the the Ira are comunists, or that russia pre 1900 were comunists...
again your sources please or as everyone her now knows that you did not take me on the challenge... If you do not agree to the challenge that is a form of cowardice but the figuers with no evidence provided that is just a down right lie...
Now agains provide your source for pre 1900 russia
the ira as commies
the figuer of 5 million killed by muslims or is it musim extremist in the name of islam which is it?
Provide your source maximus if you are not the one accusing me lieing needs to recant or not darken this thread ever again
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 02:19 PM (MYCcc)
98
So you guys have all seen what maximus has written he now needs to prove the 5million figuer...
now it is time for proof can any body help maximus so that we can ascertain if he telling the truth....
and from now on does everyody agree that instead of calling him maximus we should call him The Lieing One? your thought please people....
Muslims took the armed side of the Alliad as any british on this thread will tell you...
but again... Maximus wher are your sources...
Budhism... Ta te ching is seen as a religous text of Taoism, that is why you have taoist priest... War instigated by budhist in japan... The samurai and ther zen discipline etc... I will get all the info people I am just waiting for maximus source evidence so I can have look at it..
Budhist monks were used to repel the mongol horde, and ther shaolin temple centre of manchu esistnace, and they were also used to repel japanese pirates... don't take my word for it yet i will get the dates and sources see you guys later mean while I willbe checking if maximus actually replies
Posted by: seifeddine at November 27, 2005 02:31 PM (MYCcc)
99
>>>"Reason and compassion go hand in hand, because compassion is a social survival technique."
The Germans were considered the most civilized, cultured and educated people in Europe, and they were also responsible for a little world war that resulted in the extermination of millions. Reason is useful for a good many things, but compassion isn't one of them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 03:03 PM (8e/V4)
Kos and the Left Betray Our Troops and Nation
Dear Markos,
You and the Left are sounding more and more like al Jazeera every day. You're blind hatred of the Bush Administration is endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers and embolding our enemies to kill them.
I know you 'love' America, but your 'love' of America is like that of an abusive husband who 'loves' his wife. You 'love' America so much that you will not let any opportunity pass to belittle and abuse her. You 'love' America only when America acts in exactly the way in which you believe it should act. When America gets out of line, you pull no punches.
Whether you 'love' America is beside the point just as whether an abusive husband 'loves' his wife is irrelevant. What I and the rest of America want is less of your proclamations of love, and more evidence of it.
From reading your blog I have come to the inevetable conclusion that you 'love' America so much that you are willing to kill it. I know you have the best of intentions for our great nation, but so does the abusive husband who really didn't mean to kill that bitch wife of his, but, you know, she just up and made him soooo angry that he couldn't help himself.
You have betrayed America with your perverse love in the exact way that an abusive husband betrays a wife. You are a traitor.
Your latest screed on the use of white phosphorous by the U.S. military in Fallujah is really beyond the pale. Equivocating between the U.S. military and the Saddam Hussein regime is exactly what our terrorist enemies do in their propoganda. You say:
Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.Jeff Goldstein responds to your the substance of your treasonous allegations here.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but supporters of al Qaeda read blogs like yours and take them seriously. The reason they fight us in Iraq is that they believe, like you do, that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Each time you publish insane theories about the U.S. using chemical weapons, they eat it up.
If you actually believe that the U.S. is as bad as Saddam Hussein regime, then I suggest you grow a backbone and join the mujahidin in Iraq. The moral implications of your statements are that we are the bad guys. If such is the case, then the inevetable conclusion for you--or an Iraqi 'fence-sitter'--is that morality requires armed resistance to the U.S.
In fact, at a jihadi forum which I frequent, the terrorists and their supporters make the exact same argument that you are making. White phosphorous has become quite the hot topic lately 'proving' that the mujahidin are in the right and that the U.S. really is the Great Satan.
Thank you for legitimizing the jihadists and their belief system. They love Americans like you and use words like yours to benefit their recruitment efforts. See, they say, even the Americans now understand that their own government must be stopped.
Which is exactly the morally correct conclusion to reach if you actually believe the U.S. is guilty of systematic torture, mass murder, and the use of WMD against civilians.
If you believe this, though, than you have made yourself an enemy of the United States of America. No, not the Bush Administration, but the United States. The country which you love, but only insofar as she acts in the exact manner proscribed by you.
You are like so many member of the Communist Party USA in the late 1940s and 1950s who loved America so much that they gave our nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Their acts of treason, like yours, were done out of concern for the nation and for principle. They didn't hate the U.S., they loved it, but only to the extent that their love was conditioned on the U.S. acting in the exact way in which they thought it should act.
They, like you, believed a strong U.S. was a danger to world stability. Thus, in their own warped minds, giving the A-bomb to the Soviets was the only morally appropriate thing to do. It was for America's own good, they thought.
Markos, I don't mind it when you attack one of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. That's just domestic politics. But war is different. Tearing down our troops and comparing them to Hussein's murderous Republican Guard is outside the bounds of patriotic dissent.
And please don't hide behind your military service. Plenty of traitors have served in the United States armed forces and plenty of patriots have had no military experience. Benadict Arnold, Aaron Burr, and Lee Harvey Oswald all served with distinction before they betrayed the country. Bill Clinton, a patriot in my book, had no military record.
Last, you might argue that it is the actions of the troops that have disgraced our country and not your characterization of them. This is an idiotic thing to say when the morality of the actions are in dispute.
Using white phosphorous during a battle is a fact. Calling them WMD is a characterization---a choice of words meant to equivocate them with Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds. It is your characterization--your choice of words--which degrades the soldiers who chose to use white phosphorous in the heat of battle to help the U.S. win victory over its enemies.
Facts are always morally neutral. It is human judgement that gives meaning to facts. By choosing to equivocate the use of white phosphorous to the gassing of the Kurds, you have morally judged our troops. You, in word and deed, have called our troops mass murderers. You have chosen to characterize them this way.
In light of that, I believe it would not be unfair to characterize you as a traitor. The kind of traitor that believes they are doing the right thing for the country that they love. But, alas, if you knew anything about traitors you would understand that the vast majority of them are well intentioned.
Cordially,
Rusty Shackleford
UPDATE: Apparently this has generated a lot of outrage. It should.
John Cole is pissed.
Confederate Yankee expresses righteouss indignation.
The Commissar, Dread Pundit Bluto, & Wunder Kraut agree.
Caedorioa has a slightly different nuance.
John at Castle Argghhh debunks the WP thing here.
Dean Esmay is right on here.
INDCent Bill makes up a new game out of this.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.
Jawa Fraternity: Alpha Kappa Qaeda
What fraternity does Rusty Shackleford advise at the University of Texas, Arlen? Why Alpha Kappa Qaeda, of course! Trust me, click the link. It's that funny.
Thanks to Ghost of a Flea for sending the link.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:55 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It took to long to get to its point. It needed to be 2 minutes shorter. Also, they should have included something about how AKQ can ace all their classes at major American universities. The faculty love these guys. I mean really "love" these guys.
Good concept with terrible execution. And no beheadings.
Posted by: Bill Dautrive at November 22, 2005 10:32 AM (G95Uf)
2
Some people are just tooo critical!
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 10:51 AM (Jvmry)
3
Regarding Rusty's Letter to Markos, above, holy shyte Rusty! You have put to words in a way I haven't been able to exactly my feelings about these traitorous 5th colunmists.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 11:12 AM (8e/V4)
4
Outstanding post on Kos. Agreed Linked and Trackbacked.
Posted by: The Commissar at November 22, 2005 11:40 AM (8UnDt)
5
Damned fine post about kos Rusty. Damned fine. But why aren't comments working on it?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 11:57 AM (0yYS2)
6
I turned the comments off on that post to Markos. We've got more than our fair share of trolls of late. That one post on Zarqawi being alive generated over 90 comments, with more coming all the time. I just don't have the time and energy to respond to them all right now, and I know you guys don't either.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 22, 2005 12:42 PM (JQjhA)
7
Kos: "Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.
Like torture, the apologists try to justify our use of such abhorrent techniques, oblivious to the fact that our moral standing is in tatters and our crediblity beyond repair. We aren't just losing the war in Iraq, we are losing our credibility in the world."
Speaking for the world (with no right to do so), I agree. That's it, really, nothing more, nothing less. Credibility (a worthless thing since you have the nukes to replace it) is the thing you lose in this war. Takes 2 world wars and a Jimmy Carter to get it back.
Posted by: A Finn at November 22, 2005 01:54 PM (lGolT)
8
Bloody awesome!
http://utterlyboring.com/archives/2005/11/22/thats_one_kille.php
Posted by: A Finn at November 22, 2005 02:08 PM (lGolT)
9
>>>"Takes 2 world wars and a Jimmy Carter to get it back."
Finn,
a Jimmy Carter? That's not the kind of "credibility" I'd give two rat turds to have back.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 02:36 PM (8e/V4)
10
Finn, don't post while stupid please.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:27 PM (0yYS2)
11
Sorry about the double trackback ...
OT: put a "comments closed" line on your other post. I'm with you on your ideas, but factually you need to correct something: it was Lee Harvey Osmond who like tried to kill some president or something. I think that that week family home evening was a trap.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at November 22, 2005 06:57 PM (pDgqa)
12
IM: Impossible, since it's no fun at all.
Carlos: Fine, just figured it was the "we really are doing this to make world peace"-credibility you wanted.
Posted by: A Finn at November 23, 2005 03:16 AM (cWMi4)
13
"we really are doing this to make world peace"
Finn,
I highly doubt there's a single country on the planet that would dare take our embassy hostage as under Carter. THAT'S credibility.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 08:50 AM (8e/V4)
14
Nah, that's crazy leprechaun/chimp with nukes. And the UN actually means something these days, so all hostile activity, except yours, leads to trouble.
Since I'm spamming for the last time, I might as well announce my "cut&run". Bye.
Posted by: A Finn at November 23, 2005 09:18 AM (lGolT)
15
Finn,
I gave you facts, you gave me a characterization.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 09:58 AM (8e/V4)
16
Three construction workers, one Italian, one German and one Finn, are sitting on a beam way up, eating their lunches.
The Italian opens up his sandwich and yells "Oh No, Salami again! If I open up my lunch tomorrow and find a salami sandwich again, I'm going to jump"
The German opens up his lunch next. "Oh, Bratwurst again! If I open up my lunch tomorrow and find another bratwurst...goodbye cruel world! I'm jumping"
The Finn is the last to open up his lunch. "Ah, heck, peanut butter and jelly again!
If I get peanut butter and jelly again tomorrow..."Look out below!"
The next day the Italian finds he's got a salami sandwich again. He jumps. SPLAT.
The German discovers another bratwurst in his lunch. He jumps. SPLAT.
The Finn opens lunch and finds peanut butter and jelly - Also he jumps. SPLAT!
The three wives of the construction workers talk to another construction worker to find out what happened and get together to talk about it. All three of them are upset and crying.
The widow of the Italian man says, "I don't understand. All he had to do was tell me he didn't want salami again."
The German's widow says, "I don't understand, either. Why didn't he simply tell me he wanted something other than bratwurst?"
The Finn's widow says, "I really don't understand it! My husband always made his own sandwiches!"
Posted by: Jimmy Carter at November 23, 2005 12:48 PM (3OPZt)
17
Suicidal tendencies, me? I hope it's not to imply mimicing of others to fit in, since I had no interrest in that. Just took the opposite view in as many things as possible. Goodbye.
Posted by: A Finn at November 23, 2005 02:43 PM (lGolT)
18
now finn - be honest ...
That was funny!
Posted by: hondo at November 23, 2005 05:42 PM (Jvmry)
The Face of Our Allies in Iraq: Photo Essay
This is the face of our allies in Iraq that some wish to abandon. No, you won't see any of this from the mainstream press. More photos from Michael Yon from Iraq here.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:49 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Um, Blog Sabbath Caption Contest???
Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2005 09:41 AM (dbxVM)
2
No, not this one.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 22, 2005 10:01 AM (JQjhA)
3
These images clearly show the brutal and oppressive use of learning materials by imperialist troops who are introducing these pure, perfect muslim children to the evils of education, and are clearly only helping them to learn so that they can learn what white phosphorous is before they are killed with it one day. TEACHERS AND CAPITALIST-IMPERIALIST SCHOOL SUPPLIES OUT OF IRAQ!!!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 12:01 PM (0yYS2)
4
maxie
over the top! Its a good picture - lighten up.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 01:30 PM (Jvmry)
5
Wow, what a gorgeous bunch of kids. I wish Michael would enable comments on his blog, so I could thank him for that photo-op. It made my day.
Posted by: Sean Conroy at November 22, 2005 03:47 PM (g/ftd)
6
Jesus hondo, how obvious do I have to make my satire?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:28 PM (0yYS2)
7
maxie
Obvious! No offence maxie - but ya gotta work on your satire! Satire is an art - like making a good omlet.
I picture you making an omlet by crushing the egg in your hand and then smashing it with a hammer, then running off to work to be in one of those Capital One Barbarian horde commercials ...
"What's in your wallet! GGGRRRHHHH!"
just joking - now that's satire!
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 04:48 PM (Jvmry)
8
Okay, I'm sorry if you can't read greg or DSM or any of the other village idiots in that, I was as obvious as I could be without drawing pictures.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 08:06 PM (0yYS2)
9
Umm, this photo essay is from the US protectorate of Kurdistan. The Kurd were always our 'friends'. Does not show the whole story..
Posted by: Jailor at November 24, 2005 04:18 AM (hDcCz)
10
KURDS OUT OF IRAQ!!!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 24, 2005 08:40 AM (0yYS2)
Murtha Has History of Urging Cut & Run
Jason at Generation Why does the yeoman's work of investigating Rep. John Murtha's (D-France) policy stances. The single greatest mistake made by the Clinton Administration was cutting and running from Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the financial and logistical force behind the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a much more insidious and, at the time, unknown character: Osama bin Laden.
Jason at Generation Why does the yeoman's work of investigating Rep. John Murtha's (D-France) policy stances. The single greatest mistake made by the Clinton Administration was cutting and running from Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the financial and logistical force behind the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a much more insidious and, at the time, unknown character: Osama bin Laden.As Jason notes in his excellent post, Murtha urged cutting-and-running from Somalia too--making the sacrifices of the men who died their vanity.
Osama had something of a religious experience while in Somalia in which he predicted that America would cut-and-run. When the U.S. did pull its troops from Somalia, some Muslims--including Osama himself--took this as a sign that bin Laden had mystical powers. Bin Laden would later recall to ABC News:
"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."Even though the reason most Democrats have for wanting our troops to immediately withdraw from Iraq comes from a good place (not wanting our troops to be harmed), the lesson our Islamist enemies will learn from such a withdraw is that the U.S. is weak, just as they predicted. We cannot let them have such a victory. The time for the policy debate about a military action must be BEFORE troops are deployed. Once they are deployed, it must be the policy of the United States of America to win at all costs. Anything less will only reify the mystic worldview of Islamists in believing that Allah is on their side and will lead to more acts of terror around the world.
More from Jason at Generation Why. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
08:37 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
1
>>>"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run in defeat after a few blows,"
Osama got it wrong. It's not the American soldier that runs in defeat after a few blows, it's these traitorous Liberals and their enablers in the mainstream media who are the bloody cowards.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 08:50 AM (8e/V4)
2
Is it just me or does he look like Jonathan Winters' twin?
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 09:14 AM (fl6E1)
3
A much more important question for all you dumb@sses, but is way above your head cause you are a bunch of dumb@sses would be
1)what were US soldiers doing in Somali to begin with.
2)what are US soldiers doing in Iraq to begin with.
Nothing besides screwing in other countries affairs where the US has no right to meddle.
When you continue a road of stupid policy, soldiers will die, in vain.
Murtha is giving you apes a great opportunity to jump back on the side of right, but instead you crawl deeper in the anus of wrong.
good luck pulling your head out.
choke on that turkey bluecoats.
Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at November 22, 2005 09:31 AM (/3n/k)
4
They were in Somalia to try to feed starving people you fucktard moron, a mission which was an outgrowth of liberal foreign policies, as exemplified by your golden boy Bubba Clinton. Tell you what, if I ever see you starving, I won't screw around in your affairs, since I have no right to meddle.
This post is a prime example of why all liberals should be rounded up and dumped into an abandoned strip mine, alive, then covered over and forgotten about.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 09:42 AM (0yYS2)
5
well stated Improbulus! I would help round up the liberals and dump their sorry anti-American asses in the mine with you. Liberals and the MSM are the biggest threat to America's existance!
Posted by: Andy Driggers at November 22, 2005 09:49 AM (tMU4W)
6
"1)what were US soldiers doing in Somali to begin with."
Good question, no good answer. We had no national interest in being there. However, once there the point becomes moot.
"2)what are US soldiers doing in Iraq to begin with."
We are there because we had a national interest in removing the Hussein regime. We are still there because we have a national interest in what sort of regime emerges. But, thanks for playing.
"Nothing besides screwing in other countries affairs where the US has no right to meddle."
We have a right to meddle in any country where we have a national interest.
"When you continue a road of stupid policy, soldiers will die, in vain."
When you don't support the troops and their mission, that is what makes their deaths vain. YOU make their death vain, not the policy. Policies are inherently neutral, only people construct meaning.
"Murtha is giving you apes a great opportunity to jump back on the side of right, but instead you crawl deeper in the anus of wrong."
Murtha is giving us 'apes' an opportunity to see how much people like you actually hate America and wish for her defeat.
You, on the Left, are like the abusive husband. You love America, of this I have no doubt, but only on your own terms and only inasmuch as America pleases you. You also love America so much that you will take every opportunity to beat her up when she displeases you.
Good luck pulling your head out of your ass. Again, thanks for playing.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at November 22, 2005 09:50 AM (JQjhA)
7
The troll doesn't even know how irrelevant he is. Keep up the frontal lobe release little man.
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 11:03 AM (fl6E1)
8
ironic.
one minute the United States is accused of not helping Africa because "they have no oil" yet when American soldiers are deployed in order to support the United Nations peace keeping and relief efforts they "shouldn't be there" and we have no "strategic need" to be there.
Then the left says the United States should have waited for the United Nations inspectors in Iraq, then you critique the U.S for supporting the United Nations?
Arguing with the left is like a dog chasing it's own tail.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 11:08 AM (CcXvt)
9
That's why I don't argue with them Dave, I just disparage them, which is actually better treatment than they deserve, and far better than they will get when TSHTF.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 12:08 PM (0yYS2)
10
>>>one minute the United States is accused of not helping Africa because "they have no oil" yet when American soldiers are deployed in order to support the United Nations peace keeping and relief efforts they "shouldn't be there" and we have no "strategic need" to be there.
You noticed too? That's because their tactic is to play both ends against the middle-- the middle being the United States. One set of moonbats vilifies the U.S. for intervening, while the other set of moonbats vilifies the U.S. for NOT intervening. Both sets of moonbats make mutually exclusive arguments but it doesn't matter because what really counts is their mutual hatred of America. And yet I just wouldn't DARE question their patriotism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:17 PM (8e/V4)
11
You're right Carlos, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:30 PM (0yYS2)
12
Well said Dave, Carlos.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:18 AM (ZaAd/)
Happy blogbirthday to The Rapist
Um, wait, sorry, The Therapist!
He's wacky. Check him out.
Posted by: seedubya at
01:52 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
Two Children of the Thirties
Long ago I decided that the fellow who deserves to be remembered for his interpretation of "The Sixties" was this guy, not this unmitigated sausage. (h/t: Lileks)
Swing low, sweet chariot.
Posted by: Demosophist at
01:21 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Holy crap. Vonnegut is worse than I thought. What sick and twisted reasoning.
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 06:21 AM (YudAC)
2
Typical for Kurt - he's always been like that. Note the Aussie spin - "he was supportive at first line". Yeah, sure.
Thats the typical left way to imply and hype credibility. Similar in a way to the current Murtha thing (he's a decorated vet so he must be right). See how it works.
Kurt burned out years ago. He's just trying to get back on centerstage.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 10:11 AM (Jvmry)
3
I've read Kurt's crap, and frankly can't see what all the noise was about. I guess he was the best his brain-addled generation of dropouts, losers, and stoners could produce.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 12:12 PM (0yYS2)
4
Whatever his political tastes are, Slaughterhouse Five is still a pretty cool book.
Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2005 03:57 PM (dbxVM)
5
A blind spider still catches a fly now and then.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 04:30 PM (0yYS2)
November 21, 2005
Sandra "Beth" Geisel Sexually Abused by Students Says Judge
(Albany, New York) Today, Albany County Judge Stephen Herrick formalized a six-month jail sentence as punishment for Sandra "Beth" Geisel (photo) after she pleaded guilty to one count of rape. And then, astonishingly, the judge made all her excuses for her by stating:
"At the time this occurred, you were needy, drinking heavily and had a low self esteem. While you looked at this as affection, you were being used, abused and sexually abused. You became their playmate."So, it appears that 42-year-old Geisel wasn't really responsible for her behavior. She had low self esteem and was victimized by the teen boys she met for sex. Holy-freaking-moly! The prosecution is outraged. The parents are outraged. And it's all because Judge Stephen Herrick is filled with boo-hoo logic which says a stupid woman can't be held responsible for her behavior.
Nevertheless, with credit for time served, Geisel skates out of jail next month with a hand slap and an apology. Poor thing. Note to all future defendants appearing before Judge "Bleeding Heart" Herrick: Wear a dress.
Previous on Jawa here. Companion at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
08:19 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Dude, none of my teachers ever looked anything like that. My teachers were all frumpy hausfraus who wore denim skirts and necklaces made out of wood.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at November 21, 2005 08:40 PM (QPe2p)
2
Why should she be punished just because the parents don't want their teenage boys to have sex? As if it would hurt the hormone-crazy dimwits in any way... Pfft, just lowers their opinion of women, and that quickly bounces back if they watch TV.
Posted by: A Finn at November 22, 2005 03:25 AM (cWMi4)
3
Absolutely astounding. Using Judge Herrick's logic, does this mean that sexual assault charges with be brought against the students involved? After all, they did supposedly take advantage of a woman who at the time was incapable of consenting to the act.
Posted by: Graeme at November 22, 2005 05:11 AM (xE2S7)
4
Good point, Graeme.
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 06:30 AM (YudAC)
5
Didya ever notice how the somewhat attractive female pedophiles get little jail time, or, in this case, is considered the VICTIM by this asshat judge and the, shall we say "aesthetically challenged" ones get 30 years??
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/15/national/main1043917.shtml
Posted by: disgruntledinca at November 22, 2005 08:46 AM (IpG/2)
6
Obviously, either all you guys Pissing and Moaning about a 42 year year old broad who doesn't look half bad, jumping a teen ager's bones and getting 6 months for it, don't remember being a horny 15 year old wishing for something like that or you've turned into anal recluses . . .
She did 'em a favor, helped herself out a little . . and got six months . . I think the judge might be just a little off to the left on this one . . . both on the sentence and his remarks . .
Posted by: large at November 22, 2005 01:20 PM (fEUSs)
7
The judge was right in both cases screwing thar ulgy womay must have been terrible torture. This chick whey brag city she was young too so. let me see checking the age fo the boys here to see if they are you know that age. Uh oh 16 on Britain thats legal unless the ager for botys ther is higher.
I've seen this with young techers before when I was a yonnd stutterer in grade school my speech teacher was gorgeous. Coach found her in playboy and she wa fired. no she never did me damn I was inn third grade bit no more stutter and I loved speech so.
When I was in HS it was not unheard of for younnger hip yeachers to show at student "parties" upon occasion. wrong. So it looks like a by statute yep she's guilty but both were wrong and at a party so he's no angel either. I bit easy maybe. Got to figure she was not the only girl he was trying to poke. But not escuse she knew better but I won't shake if I see her coming down the street. So 1st offense clear record. Parents choice so and I'll so that's cool. I ight hve went 364 days + some watch time. The judge judged and at at least when I live it she screw up later I can voe to off him.
Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2005 06:09 PM (D3+20)
8
If my son had scored on a good looking teacher I would be a proud dad. I fact I'm pretty sure he did. But being a gentleman he won't discuss it.
A proud dad.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:28 AM (ZaAd/)
9
Reading the comments of your viewers indicates to me an astounding lack of knowledge.
As a polygraph examiner who specializes in sex offenders, I have examined thousands of pedophiles. Many of the offenders I have tested, when interviewed over their sexual histories, ultimately admit when they were 14 or 15 they had sex with an adult teacher or an adult girlfriend of their mother or another adult relative.
The ones who admit to this usually have a lifetime of dysfunctional activity thereafter.
Ms. Geisel crossed the line with four children and six months is an extremely light penalty for assaulting these boys.
A male teacher who did this with four female students (at least here in Texas) would be doing some very serious penitentiary time and most probably a life sentence.
These four boys did not "get lucky". They'll be all screwed up for years and probably end up in therapy as well.
Posted by: john at November 25, 2005 08:59 PM (GEBk7)
10
John, you have pointed out an important issue, although you have it backwards. The way you state it, it would appear that the teenage sexual encounters are the cause of future sexual dysfunction. Now, did you consider that the kinds of boys that seek or are enthusiatic participants in this type of early sexual play may be already predisposed to all kinds of sexual involvement as they get older. What sort of sexual play were they into before the teacher came along? We all know that puberty brings on a lot of experimentation and these boys were 16 and 17 and not your innocent wall flower types either.
On thing I have always wondered though, is how does a women rape a man? If a man is not into it or frightened, wouldn't his willie refuse to cooperate?
Posted by: laura at November 26, 2005 09:42 AM (iiunC)
11
I beg to differ with John, the pedophile examiner. I encountered the same experience with a lovely, and much older woman, when I was just 16 years old. I am today neither a dysfunctional child molester or any type of pedophile, nor do I require "therapy". Please don't generalize!
In fact, looking back, a few memories of those wild times spent with her are some of the most poignant and memorable which I can recall experiencing with anyone. My parents too, were quite upset upon finding out (principly my mother), and threatened to take care of the matter by turning her in. At his point, I let them know any such action would preclude my future relationship with them. They quickly decided to let it go. It ran it's course in about 3 years or so.
The woman is long out of my life, my relationship with my parents is wonderful, and once in awhile when it's brought up, I still defend her, and we all realize we made the right decision.
All in all, it was probably the best learning experience from my adolescence, and helped mold me into the sexually knowledgable and caring man that I became.
I also have three teenage sons, and if they happened to encounter the same occurrence, I indeed would consider them fortunate or "lucky".
Today's Dad
Posted by: Kerry at January 07, 2006 05:43 PM (yfeAd)
Chris Matthews Jumps the Shark
Chris Matthews has finally jumped the shark. Excuse the metaphor, but Ace dropped the ball on the obvious one this time.
Chris Matthews has finally jumped the shark. Excuse the metaphor, but Ace dropped the ball on the obvious one this time.
I've never understood why so many on the Right hated Matthews so much. Personally, I always liked him much more than, say, Bill O'Reilly. Yeah, I thought, he's a blowhard, but name some one on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC who isn't?
I'm beginning to see where that disdain comes from.
"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.Different perspective? Right."If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
Matthews is the sort of liberal that would take great exception to Eisenhower's charicterization of WWII as the Crusade in Europe.
We dub thee: Chris Matthews, Dhimmi.
Malkin, Ace, and Charles Johnson, and Dan Riehl have more.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:35 PM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Chris Matthews, the clown, the democratic operative, the liar and liberal apologist, the hardly objective MSNBC host(what a choice of words) who loves himself more than anyone. He's a piece of shit.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:47 PM (rUyw4)
2
In the old days people like Matthews would be tripping all over themselves to get firsthand coverage and interviews with "the otherside".
Not this time baby! They scare the crap out of them!
Matthews n' kind are a bit embarrased 'bout being well er - gutless ... so to compensate they beef up their left image here at home (where its safe and warm). Its called "courage".
One can have an interesting discussion on the newsfilm coverage from theater - not the content but the technical aspects. Comparative analysis with past conflicts and technique is an eye-opener - has anyone noticed what I am talking about?
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 04:51 PM (Jvmry)
3
Quote the Edmonton Sun? Isn't that in Canada? Latest news from Canada. No more white people will be hired by the Canadian Government. Without exception Canada has decided that only minorities can be hired. White folks don't need to eat to.
A year ago, I told you guys Canada was going butts up to the muslims and others. This should be proof enough.
Even the United States didn't go that far. Just stupid programs to alienate whites youths. Dumb assed programs like affirmative action and giving minorites points in hiring simply because they minorites. Or the worst of all. Giving others seats in college who score less on the SAT.
Canada is soon to be just another third world begger.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 04:57 PM (ZaAd/)
4
I'm glad to know there was no discussion between 9/11 & Iraq, because frankly I was SICK of all the discussion at the time
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 21, 2005 05:03 PM (fbyDW)
5
That's funny beau!
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:06 PM (Jvmry)
6
Jeff,
You and me both.
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 05:07 PM (JQjhA)
7
>>>"the liar and liberal apologist,"
and now the terrorist apologist. But, oh, I won't question his patriotism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 05:22 PM (8e/V4)
8
I really dislike Chris Matthews (especially his rude treatment of Michelle Malkin), but let's give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
There is a real possibility that his reference was to the cantankerous fighting between Democrats and Republicans. Let's seee how he responds to this. He might not have realized how what he said was ambiguous and could have easily been taken the wrong way.
If he was refering to the terrorists, then I agree 10,000%: he has gone completely gone nuts.
Posted by: brightwinger at November 21, 2005 06:40 PM (RPsWa)
9
point taken and I agree
Someone look into this a bit more we jump the shark.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 06:59 PM (Jvmry)
10
Matthews is a punk ass bitch. People like him are the reason I have never met a New Englander I could stand.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 08:20 PM (0yYS2)
11
Yeah, I'm with brightwinger.
And also bear in mind that the quote isn't given in any context at all... it is merely thrown into a very, very short summary of things that he said, and the ambiguity is probably the fault of the reporter who wrote the article.
I think Chris Matthews is a complete moron, but he wouldn't say something like that--I hope.
Posted by: Dave S at November 21, 2005 08:40 PM (RcK9w)
12
i swear this is truth that you guys are some jackass republican funded scumball PR blog. Seriously , get out of your cubicle and look out the window. AMERICA HATES YOU. Thats why you have dichead cheney saying its "ok" for us to dissent from his holyness, oops that bush, i mean mr pat robertson.
america has abandoned your KOOKOO revolution, time to save face.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 21, 2005 10:56 PM (ocmaF)
13
ernie,
what, no "semper fi"? You're a phony, just like your stealth Liberal ideology. And it has to be stealthy because it's you Leftwing nutjobs America hates. If only most Americans knew half of what you Leftards really believe you'd be tarred and feathered and dumped into a river.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 11:52 PM (8e/V4)
14
Damn it, I hate it when that happens... I felt 2 IQ points slipping away.
Damn you, Earnie! Damn you!
Posted by: Dave S at November 22, 2005 12:28 AM (RcK9w)
15
Hey ernie, I thought I told you to shut up. Don't make me get out of the Bark-o-lounger and smack you around a bit.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 22, 2005 04:24 AM (CtVG6)
16
ernie: Switch to decaf, will ya?
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 05:24 AM (YudAC)
17
Ernie, WTF?
It'll be a cold day in hell before the majority of people agree with your wingnut self. Quit projecting!
By the way, heard of "spell check" dipshit?
You're probably some pasty-face zit ridden little 15 year old punk with no friends and you get your shits and giggles spending your time flaming people for attention.
What's wrong? Did mommy not breastfeed you? Did she drop you on your head? Do you even KNOW who your mother is?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: disgruntledinca at November 22, 2005 08:43 AM (IpG/2)
18
Love it, because whattyaknow...IT'S TRUE! Which is why it burns your @ss so bad!
the truth hurts.
Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at November 22, 2005 09:36 AM (/3n/k)
19
Grey, how does the Edmonton Sun reporting a news story "prove" that Canada is going "butts up to the Muslims?" I'm interested in your logic.
Unless, of course, you're just using the fact that it's the Edmonton Sun being quoted to justify your own opinions.
Posted by: Venom at November 22, 2005 09:39 AM (dbxVM)
20
America hates Republicans huh? I guess that's why the dhimmitards have been losing national elections for about ten years now? Goddamn idiot libtards all need killed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 09:54 AM (0yYS2)
21
I say we turn the electricity off on the liberal bastards for a few days and we can watch their black friends kill them.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:12 AM (rUyw4)
22
JJ, given that the longer we go without a terrorist attack raises the probability of a really massive one, I'd say we won't have to do anything, because the darlings of the media and the left, i.e. Osama and company, will take care of that. If we get a wave of really massive, multiple, coordinated attacks, our civil order will be shot to hell, and the cops will retreat and barricade themselves into their police stations, (remember the 1992 LA riots), and the liberals will be left at the tender mercy of those whom they've cultivated against society for so long. We evil conservatives, however, are generally well armed and unambiguous in our resolve to defend our homes, families, and country, so the coming possible cataclysm will favor us.
I wonder if liberals ever stop to consider that almost all the best terrorist targets in America are smack in the middle of blue states? Do they think Osama picked the WTC because he thought it was the GOP headquarters? Michael Mooreon seems to think so, and probably a lot of other libtards. They continue to promote the appeasement of people who will not be appeased, and surrender to people who do not want peace, but dominance. They honestly do believe that they are in greater danger from the hated non-liberals, (i.e. all sane, normal, patriotic Americans), than from al Qaeda, and therefore have chosen to stand with the enemy again, just like they did in WW2 when they supported Hitler and Stalin, and Vietnam when they supported Uncle Ho.
Liberals have consistantly made the wrong choice in matters of foreign policy time after time, starting with Woodrow Wilson and going right up to John Murtha, and should not be allowed to influence either foreign or domestic policy ever again. They're just too stupid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:29 AM (0yYS2)
23
Ah guys! I love lil' ernie! In fact, he and his kind are one of the reasons we have been so successful (conservatives) these past 20+ years.
Not all Americans share our conservative beliefs - but many are close and perrenial fence-sitters. It's the lil' ernies that provide that lil' push in our direction went it counts.
Here in NYC I know so many self-discribed "moderates" (whatever that is). They can't make up their minds and wobble back and forth.
But when a lil' ernie type pops up around them ... they all quietly move away from him with that bewildered disgusted look on their faces.
YOU GO LIL' eRNIE!!! YOU GO BOY!!!
Now actus is different - he knows its a competition! and not an exercise in looking at yourself in a house of mirrors and smiling back and striking a pose for "your supporters".
You go ernie! Since your not playing Marine anymore you could try Eagle Scout - but first do a lil' research this time - the only thing worse than a lousy lil' leftist is a lousy lil' leftist actor. Courage boy, courage.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 10:36 AM (Jvmry)
24
Break it to Filty easy Arrested Developmetn cancelled Scott Baios days on TV numbered.
Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2005 06:25 PM (D3+20)
25
>>>"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."
I just KNOW he wasn't talking about Republicans. The Leftards will try to "understand" jihadis, pedophiles and criminals of every variety. But Republicans? Not a chance.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 05:33 PM (8e/V4)
26
"Canada is going butts up to muslims and other minorites."
"White people need to be fed."
Rooster always seems to act like he's a helpless little victime that isn't being treated right in his own country, and he gets so mad when he sees "other minorites" advance or for heaven's sake get a damn job somewhere. Retarded, selfish, asshole.
Posted by: Anwar at November 24, 2005 08:35 PM (lib9o)
Happy Blogoversary
Happy Blogoversary to the second best blog written by fictional characters out ther--The Llama Butchers.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
OU Bomber Used TATP
We will grant that University of Oklahoma suicide bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III may have not been part of a larger Islamic plot.
But I think the larger issue is being missed here: if you want to blow yourself up, which major world-wide religion do you consult for the expertise?
No, it's not the Mennonites.
FBI agents found the same type of volatile high explosive believe to have been used in the suicide bombings in London inside the apartment of a University of Oklahoma student who blew himself up near a packed football stadium, according to newly released documents.Paranthetically, I also have a number of "'numerous text and image files on weapons and explosives', including one on TATP" and a video depicting a "lit match being placed above a white powder then a bright flash" on my computer. Of course, I got all of said images and videos from jihadi forums.....The FBI also found Hinrichs downloaded from the Internet "numerous text and image files" on weapons and explosives, including one on TATP four days before his death.
One video on his computer depicted a lit match being placed above a white powder then a bright flash.
The FBI also discovered "explosive experiments and paraphernalia" and 0.4 pounds of a white powder that turned out to be triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, which is composed of hydrogen peroxide and acetone, according to warrants to search the home of Joel Henry Hinrichs III.So, the case against Hinrichs seems to be closed for the FBI. He was a lone suicidial nut. Perhaps the only meaningful Islamic connection here is Hinrichs' source of inspiration: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, etc.
Even so, that is saying a lot.......
Posted by: Rusty at
11:36 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Probably was a lone nut out fishing for how to.
Sadly miss the ol' days when someone bent on suicide simply jumped off a bridge in the middle of the night or hanged themselves in the bathroom. Now its performance art with attempted audience participation.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 12:02 PM (Jvmry)
2
Would it be perverse to have some fun with this?
I'm looking for something lite and frivolous at the moment.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 02:31 PM (Jvmry)
3
Perverse, yes. Wrong, probably. So, go right ahead ;-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 03:08 PM (JQjhA)
4
So basically the Federal Bungling Idiots are stating that there's nothing to see here, and that we should move along? They must be slipping, because they didn't even murder a woman holding a baby this time.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 03:16 PM (0yYS2)
5
OK
Seen a photo of this kid. If he did delve into Islamobabble it could be the 72 virgin thing. It would probably be his only real chance to get a date - at least 1 of those 72 might say yes.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:46 PM (Jvmry)
6
Kid stuck me as - well - er virgin.
So what happens when you put 72 virgins and 1 virgin in a room? A lot of blank stares?
I'm trying - give me time
I'll be here all week
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:51 PM (Jvmry)
7
"We will grant that University of Oklahoma suicide bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III may have not been part of a larger Islamic plot"
How dare you! look at the beard! you're just promomting the liberal lie of tolerance and closing your eyes to reality!
Posted by: actus at November 21, 2005 04:47 PM (CqheE)
8
actus
You gotta work on your material - but keep trying
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:10 PM (Jvmry)
9
"actus" tries his hand at sarcasm, and falls flat. Keep trying.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 05:32 PM (YudAC)
10
My slightly more than two year old niece could snap on rectus so bad, and the only thing she's got right now is to whisper conspiratorially in your ear to tell you that you farted.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 08:22 PM (0yYS2)
11
This isn't the first time that the actions of Oklahoma Muslims have been covered up by the Federal Government.
They are afraid of public reaction if the truth was known.
But, that is no excuse for their continued lying about the extent of involvement of Oklahoma Muslims in the planning and execution of domestic terrorist attacks, especially when in the most egregious case of them doing this the politicians instead of telling the truth used the situation to succeesfully demonize his political opposition and get re-elected.
Posted by: Alex at December 19, 2005 01:30 PM (Mn7VD)
Bloggie Goodness
Okay, so Instapundit has cornered the market on referral posts. I'm not Glenn Reynolds, but I do play one on T.V.
Project Hero: 1LT Brian R. Chontosh receives Navy Cross. God bless our heroes serving in Iraq.
Don't question Murtha's patriotism! Ever. Any one who would question Murtha's patriotism cannot be, by definition, a patriot. More Murtha lunacy here. Fellow Jawa blogger, Chris Short, discusses last Friday's vote.
Plame-gate continues. Am I the only one that finds this 'story' a little boring.
Why Republicans are such pussies when it comes to fighting illegal immigration.
Me on a deck of cards? Awesome-o! Vote for Jawa!!!
Help Meryl Yourish find a job. No, 'professional blogger' is still not a 'job'.
Decision '08 turns numero uno. And to think I knew Mark when he was just a twinkle in Glenn Reynold's eye.
Judicial tyranny in....wait for it...Israel. Apparently the repurcussions of Marbury v. Madison know no boundaries.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:46 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Your link to astute blogger titled "Plame-gate continues" was misleading. I thought it would be about, well, Valerie Plame. It was about Murtha-gate. But was verrrrry interrrrresting.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 04:55 PM (YudAC)
2
And also regarding Astute Blogger's post: While he sees Murtha's "coming out party" as a smoke screen I saw it in one of two other ways.
The Democrats merely used him as a poster boy to push for an early withdrawal because three independent analyses opined that they could find no substance to the charge of "fixing" intelligence to go to war and the current commission wasn't coming up with any either. So before the report even has a chance to come out and deny that charge again they begin a new strategy in ernest.
Or ...
It's possible that a troop reduction (of what ever number) may very well be in the stars within the next year and by starting their push now they can claim credit for it when it happens.
Or ...
It could be all three; Astute's implications AND both of mine all rolled into one.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 05:46 PM (YudAC)
3
You missed that the judge reduced bail for Umer in Lodi.
http://camafia.blogspot.com/2005/11/latest-from-lodi.html
yes, I am shameless in my attempts to generate traffic
Posted by: KG at November 21, 2005 11:55 PM (eRMCR)
4
Thanks for linking Shiloh Musings, another of my "identities." Just a note from an old woman, the blue on black is hard to decipher.
Posted by: muse at November 22, 2005 02:07 AM (PZRjY)
5
me vote it in for the jawa come on punks.
Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2005 06:38 PM (D3+20)
Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates
The White House is now saying that it is "highly unlikely" that Abu Musab al Zarqawi died in a Mosul raid Saturday. Earlier Jawa post from Traderrob here.
Hat tip: Ron Wright who pointed us to this post by Evan Kohlmann and Dan Riehl, who has more here.
*Sigh*
Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader--and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians---would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn't. But it would be nice to know he was dead.
Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.
Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.
Not that they ever would come out and say, "We hope we lose."--Okay, occasionally they do actually let that slip from time to time-- But they do constantly downplay any good news and constantly barrage us with 'cover up' stories when there is even the slightest hint that some civilian in Fallujah might have got his feelings hurt because a U.S. soldier didn't present a search warrant from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon entering his house in the middle of a firefight.
Hence, the Left is skeptical of any and all progress in Iraq.
So, if we seem to bring you too many "Yipee, Zarqawi is dead" stories, please forgive us. Unlike our friends on the Left, we are anxious to see the enemies of the United States of America dead.
Call it being overzealous for the cause of America.
On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top Al Qaeda operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the two-story house.However, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Sunday that reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."
"I don't think we got him," said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, answering questions from reporters about whether al-Zarqawi had been killed in Mosul. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said there was "no indication" that the terror leader had been killed.
Hat tip: Ron Wright who pointed us to this post by Evan Kohlmann and Dan Riehl, who has more here.
UPDATE: Howie e-mails me with this article from CNN. Apparently, Zarqawi's family and 'tribe' have disowned him. Don't worry al-Khalaylehs, every family has a 'Zarqawi' or two they are ashamed of.
UPDATE II: Let me be clear on this, I used the word 'hard Left' to describe those who want us to lose not 'liberal' or 'Democrat'. Yes, I believe the people over at dKos want us to lose. They don't want our soldiers to die, but they do want us to lose. They actually believe America is the greatest force for evil in the world. If you believe that then the conclusions to be drawn are inevetable.
If we are the bad guys then the only thing for a moral person to do is to support our enemies.
And, yes, wishing for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq now is the same thing as wishing for our enemies to win.
It doesn't matter if in your heart you love America. Withdrawal is failure. Hence, wishing withdrawal now is wishing failure.
I am not Jesus. I don't care what is in your heart. What I care about is the extent to which you support the victory of the United States of America.
In the comments though, Ryan (unlike the madmatt troll) raises a legitimate concern wanting some evidence that the Left celebrates. Okay Ryan, here you are. Of course, they don't come out and say "Hooray, Zarqawi" but they do boo the home team. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
From the Democratic Underground:
I wonder when he can stop talking about Zarqawi, I want a new Boogie Man!Nothing will happen with Zarqawi until October 2006 Just in time for the election, in an appearance to make it look "normal" when Diebold once again scams an election.
We can't pull out of Iraq now. After all, we almost caught Zarqawi. I'll bet if we stay another year we'll almost catch him 10 or 12 more times. Plus we'll kill his No. 2 man at least twice. What a steaming crock of bullshit.
I don't think Al Zarqawi was there, and I don't think they thought he was there. This is like all those stories about how certain they were that they had killed Hussein in the first bomb attack of the war, or that they'd killed Bin Laden when they murdered that poor farmer and his two sons with their unmanned drone. They just want Americans to say "Wow, look, they have a reason for all this stuff" and go back to watching Family Guy before BushCo quietly says "Well, we missed him, but it was close."
It's a good thing they missed him...otherwise they would have to invent another Al-Qaida terroist for us to focus on.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:36 AM
| Comments (142)
| Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Repugnicans don't want to find osama, zarqawi etc...they are looking for constant war so they can continue to loot the treasury with their campaign financers. A few dead american kids...is worth it as far as repugs are concerned.
Posted by: madmatt at November 21, 2005 09:01 AM (h1rMx)
2
Dammit. Now I have to take the decorations down and cancel the catering service. Note to the guys (and gals) in the sandbox: Keep kicking terrorist buttski. You'll get him soon enough.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:03 AM (nt3NF)
3
I think you need to open a window, Madmatt. The oxygen content of the air you're breathing seems to be getting a bit low.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:09 AM (nt3NF)
4
Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ? I would like to see why anyone who celebrate.. The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site. Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations.
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (ads7K)
5
Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.
But don't you DARE question their patriotism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)
6
Hey all, been away for awhile. But this captured my attention. Pun intended. Did they get Zarqawi or not? I'm hoping that they get him alive. He needs to die very very sloooowly.
How's everyone doin'??
Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2005 09:15 AM (L3PPO)
7
Saying that just getting Zarqawi may not have much effect since it doesn't address the underlying Shia/Sunni conflict is "celebrating"?
Unbelievable! What are you guys smoking? No wonder the Right is burning up the last shreds of credibility.
Posted by: Ed at November 21, 2005 09:23 AM (yfKhZ)
8
Quothe John "It's the MATH!" Ryan:
"Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ?"
Okay John, www.liberalsmustalldie.com, there's your link.
"I would like to see why anyone who celebrate."
Look in the mirror perhaps.
"The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site."
Gee, I wonder how you know those two...
"Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations."
Yeah, more like an atmosphere of general glee. I guess they're saving the champagne until he releases his next headchopping video. Liberals all need to be killed in as painful a manner as may be contrived by modern technology.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:31 AM (0yYS2)
9
Could I see some evidence that anyone at Kos is "celebrating"?
The fact that you feel the need to lie about the issue says an awful lot about the security of your position.
Posted by: Tom Ames at November 21, 2005 09:34 AM (XuQJ6)
10
Boy you guys are getting more repugnant by the day. One comment at dKos that killing Zarkawi won't stop the violence in Iraq and you turn it into "the Left Celebrates".
Just how stupid do you think your readers are? You must have a pretty low opinion of your wingnut buddies if you think that "logic" makes any sense at all.
What am I saying? You all bought into Bush's idiotic war, so you must be very gullible or very slow. You probably think everything Rush says is gospel, too.
NOBODY celebrated the report that Zarkawi wasn't among the dead. He's a murdering terrorist who deserves death and I defy you to find a single Liberal who actually was pleased he escaped.
And your misleading headline doesn't accomplish anything but brand you as a liar.
Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (CMyz0)
11
Liberals need to be killed? Gee, that's more like what is being done to you folks. But you won't get it, just as some of you still don't get it that Nixon got caught. Some of you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Fortunately, the size of your group is getting smaller with each poll.
Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 09:41 AM (5Caqu)
12
Hold on... The dKos post said, "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Really, man. If you want to make an argument against liberals, don't make it so stupid. You hurt the cause.
Posted by: Bruce at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (SSjeP)
13
This post, which has now big picked up over at Salon, is really astonishing in its dishonesty. The dKos comment Shackleford cites begins, "The death if (sic) Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." The author then anticipates Shackleford's own opinion by declaring that the death of Zarqawi would "be a boon to the fight against terror," but that it would not solve the problem. Some celebration!
Posted by: Paul Turner at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (4lS1R)
14
The actual quote is
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Why do you call this a sign of dismay?
Can't you stop lying for even a moment?
Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!
Posted by: Fred at November 21, 2005 09:49 AM (eO3MK)
15
Hey jimbo and Percy's PoP, you stupid libtards, I hope when the rope begins to bite into your neck and you shit yourself, you feel so smug and arrogant then. I honestly look forward to the collapse of society so that I can watch pieces of shit like you die by the dozens. It has come to the point that you morons openly support the killing of American soldiers, and that shit's going to catch up to you sooner than you think. You all need your goddamn skulls crushed for being traitors, which is exactly what you are. You want a revolution dipshits? I'll give you your goddamn revolution. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (0yYS2)
16
Improbulus, you might want to get yourself to a doctor, pronto.
Untreated syphilis can damage the brain and cause dementia.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (7Fqgx)
17
Blah, blah, blah....you liberals just make me laugh. Now all of you have turned delusional as well. What makes you think everyone is all of a sudden on your side? Oh, those objective polls done by the objective media. Understand this, liberals, you are the ones on the wrong side of history, because you lose no matter how it turns out.
If we win, you lose but can continue to live in a free country and have all the rights free men enjoy, including, as demonstrated here, freedom of speech and expression. If the other side wins, you will be put to death, pay the dhimmi tax, be forced into slavery or have to convert to Islam. The way I see it, I prefer to win the war, but you libs, well, you seem to want to test fate. So be it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (rUyw4)
18
A blog aggregator ran the headline of this post, so I just had to come visit to see if it was real. I guess it is. This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low.
It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand.
I'm off now to take a shower and wont be back. May I suggest that as an appropriate response for the rest of the commenters?
Posted by: Observer at November 21, 2005 10:11 AM (8x2CG)
19
The Left dug up my garden and knocked over my garbage cans! That Darned Left!
Posted by: norbizness at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (EneHm)
20
IÂ’m confused.
Are all liberals opponents of the Iraq war?
Are all opponents of the Iraq war liberals?
Are all liberals the same?
Are they secular humanists and elitist academics, who drink chardonnay, drive Volvos, speak french, and just want to give Zarqawi a great big fat hug?
Or are they dirty scruffy pot smokers and filthy degenerates who just want to root for the downfall of America?
Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol.
And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 10:14 AM (7Fqgx)
21
I'm reading this blog for the first time, and I just followed your link to the dKos site, and for the life of me I didn't read anything there that could be interpreted as "dismay" at the possible news of Zarqawi's demise. Sorry, but even though I'm no fan of dKos, it's the Jawa Report that just took a big credibility hit in my book.
Posted by: Independent at November 21, 2005 10:17 AM (2MDoJ)
22
>>>"Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol. And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll."
So I guess Bush was right after all-- they do hate us for who we are, they hate us for our freedoms. Thanks for affirming that.
So are you libertines as willing to change your lifestyles in order to suit the terrorists as you are to see the U.S. change its policies to suit them? I think not. What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us. Too rich. It boggles the mind how myopic you people are.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)
23
"This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low. It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand."
Somewhere a pot and a kettle are laughing hysterically at that statement.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (nt3NF)
24
DailyKos quote:
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.
What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd."
Dr. Shackleford describes this as "dismay."
Dr. Shackleford is a liar. Unambiguously so.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 10:25 AM (2yc8s)
25
Let me be honest, I don't visit this site often so maybe you have posted on this topic before, but what is the definition of victory in your mind? Is it killing all the "terrorists", if so how do we know that all the terrorists are dead? Is it giving the Iraqi people a democracy? Well they have already voted 2 or 3 times, so doesn't that qualify as a democracy? Is it training an adequate amount of Iraqi troops? If so what is that number and is there an ETA on when that will be done?
I realize in asking these questions I am hurting the American troops, for that I am sorry...but I just had to know.
Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 10:27 AM (dXncd)
26
I blame the overzealous Jawa editorial board for choosing the word "Celebrate" for an article that clearly doesn't indicate anything like a 'celebration'.
Damn you editorial board!!!
;-)
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:38 AM (JQjhA)
27
Some of you need to look a bit deeper into what is being said and how they are saying it. There are two things that are obvious on the DU thread....1) They are completely dismissive of the reports of Zarqawi's demise (would their attitude be the same if A Democrat was president?) 2) The tone of the comments is unmistakably hopeful that the reports are indeed false. The skepticism goes beyond reason and into the area of disingenuous cynicism.
If you read all the comments in the entire thread it becomes clear that the majority of people there would prefer to have Zarqawi alive and well if his death would mean potential help for the President.
Posted by: traderrob at November 21, 2005 10:40 AM (3al54)
28
Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement, lying is out of the question.
Personally, I think some of the commenters are 'idiots'.
But that is just my opinion. Opinions, by definition, cannot be 'lies'.
But thanks for playing.
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:44 AM (JQjhA)
29
To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals;
If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win.
First of all, we outnumber you. Check the polls.
Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it. Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military.
Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield. Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet. And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter.
So go ahead and start a civil war. I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead. It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying...
Posted by: joviel at November 21, 2005 10:46 AM (tgsAE)
30
Oh, I like this. Large numbers of liberal trolls mean that they're uneasy and don't think things are going their way.
I think the overwhelming defeat of the cut and run resolution has something to do with it, and the thought of Zarqawi being killed scared them as well.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:49 AM (RHG+K)
31
>>>"If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win."
joviel,
us "fascists" are well armed. I personally have 2,000 rounds of armour piercing just waiting for you to bring it. And I know where to instantly get 2,000 more. What are you going to use? Foul language? Your own anti-gun dogma has reduced you to no better than sheep to the slaughter if you ever think to bring your "revolution". We'll gleefully mow you down by the thousands.
And no, you don't outnumber us. Temporary dissaproval of Bush doesn't a Liberal make. Every poll puts self-proclaimed Liberals in this country at less than 20%, while self-proclaimed conservatives approach 35%. Just bring it dudes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)
32
Sean, victory will come when enough Muslims understand that fighting us only makes their lives harder, but making peace with us makes their lives easier. You can't put a timetable on that, but you can observe progress if you're inclined to see it. The media never reports all the progress that's being made in Iraq, and the single greatest complaint that soldiers make is not about body armor, or homesickness, or fear, or the food, or anything like that; it's that the media never shows anything positive about their mission.
I was in Desert Storm, and I know what soldiers complain about, and I'm just not seeing much of that from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather bright, optimistic men and women, some no more than children to my eyes now, who believe in what they are doing and who want to help the people of Iraq become free and prosperous, so that we never have to fight them again. If only political correctness hadn't stopped us from taking out Saddam in '91, we wouldn't be here today, but the liberals interfered then too, and look where it got us; into another war.
For any society, war is eventually inevitable, because all it takes is a madman to invade peaceful neighbors, but many are avoidable if only the leadership has the backbone to do what is necessary when necessary. If Europe and America had stood up to Hitler at the first, he never would have invaded Poland or Czekoslovakia, but we didn't so we had to fight another war because of our leaders' timidity and shortsightedness. There is no such thing as "peace in our time" without the willingness to fight for it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (0yYS2)
33
It's absurd and stupid to claim that the left doesn't want Zarqawi dead, doesn't want troops to stop being murdered in Iraq, doesn't think the insurgency is barbaric, etc. I haven't read the Kos posts you're referring to, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Cindy Sheehan isn't much of a spokesman for the anti-war cause (although attacking her -- particularly at the outset of her appearance on the scene -- was pretty scummy). I don't know how much you're distorting things in attributing these feelings to the post on Kos. But I do know how much you're distorting things in attributing them to the left in general. I despise Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. I think they're fools and despicable liars. I also think that the insurgents are far worse. I find it sickening to constantly read about people being blown to bits in Iraq. I would be thrilled if the States won the war (if I thought that was possible) and if the insurgents went under. I was thrilled at the very possibility that Zarqawi might have been killed. Your claim that liberals secretly grin and applaud when the troops do badly simply isn't true in a single specific instance that I know -- and given that I split my time between New York and the Bay Area, that's plenty. (I suppose there are plenty of liberals who feel a smug superiority about their opposition to the war, and that's plenty unattractive, but their opposition is still sincere). Making this kind of statement and indulging in this kind of psychology is infantile; I can't even get particularly pissed about it, because there simply isn't any legitimacy to your ranting.
Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (N0a7W)
34
Perhaps Max should read the actual post which specifically differentiates between 'liberals' and the 'hard Left'.
No?
I guess Max is too busy spending time between San Francisco and NYC. Man, I love characitures that are real........
Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (JQjhA)
35
"Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement,
lying is out of the question."
Let's roll the tape. Dr. Shackleford wrote that "when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead (Dr. Shackleford write like Tonto talk), there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops."
For this, he cites this quote from a liberal: "The death of Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism, and one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Either Dr. Shackleford is a liar, or he should consider remedial reading.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (2yc8s)
36
Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it.
I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen.
Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 11:13 AM (dXncd)
37
Jesusland Carlos: What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us.
So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror.
Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 11:18 AM (7Fqgx)
38
I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes.
The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.
Posted by: ATS at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM (aDFHl)
39
I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes.
The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.
Posted by: ats at November 21, 2005 11:23 AM (aDFHl)
40
Rusty the first line on the post says " The Left Celebrates" I think that to be divisive. To me, it seems to show that everyone to one side of some arbitrary point is anti-American. Many people with long and strongly held conservative views opposed the war. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/857077/posts. Whether you were for it or against it then, or whether you were misled, or whether you have changed your views 180 degrees I think all would agree that we are in a war. When 25% or 37% or 52% of our country support such an endeavor "success" is problematical. IM ... I did try to put some "MATH" in just for you. Not so many people in high school enjoyed that subject, or high school latin for that matter, although I did. Actually I found the kos site from this one, either an actual link or one of the frequent mentions. And you are such a prankster, I did try to follow that link www.allliberalsmustdie.com. Using "google" didn't show anything. If you snatch up that domain, please give me a mention.(and not about my genitals) !
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:32 AM (ads7K)
41
How much of our discourse is fed by partisanship? Except for maybe the center 25% who have recently switched sides on the war, probably most of us started out on one side or the other. Maybe all of us are steeped in the partisan poisons of the Limbaughs and O'Reillys, who profit hugely by the crap that they spout. What I'm saying is, all may want to step back and try to look at things as they are, without the partisan blinders. Try to parse out what is really best for this country. Ultimately it will take many of us working together to solve our problems.
Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 11:38 AM (5Caqu)
42
Improbulus said: "I honestly look forward to the collapse of society...". Now who's rooting for the terrorists?
Shall I make a big blog headline out of that saying "Conservatives call for the destruction of America"? It would be as big a lie as your rantings that liberals openly support the killing of American soldiers.
Improbulus, I've argued with you before and you just spit venom and vulgarities without any kind of reason or thought. Rant away, so that all will know you for the fool you are.
I do hope you meet up with my son someday. He's a Marine, a Liberal and a Democrat - and proud of all three. According to your silly rant he should be rooting for his own death in Iraq. Since he's a liberal and you are calling for the death of all liberals, maybe the headline should be "Conservative calls for death of American Marines."
Then again, I doubt you'd really want to meet up with him. He has this silly idea that the Constitution means we're all equal citizens, left, right, liberal, conservative, man, woman, etc. And that anyone who wishes for the death of other Americans like you do, doesn't have a very good grasp of what being a Patriot or an American is all about.
Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 11:51 AM (CMyz0)
43
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Rodney King at November 21, 2005 12:22 PM (IpG/2)
44
>>>"So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror."
circlejerk,
you're just spouting neo-Lib talking points. You haven't a shred of empirical evidence that we're "losing" the war on terror. So far, zero terrorist strikes on the U.S., that's my evidence.
The neo-Lib message is so convoluted and backasswards that half of you neo-Libs don't even believe terrorism is a real threat, and the other half of you believe that "we had it coming to us" because of our "foreign policies". Yet the same hippie degenerates who decry our "foreign policy" are the first decadent westerners jihadis would decapitate if they had the chance. You're a bunch of clueless morons with a death wish.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)
45
what the hell is a neo-lib?
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 12:54 PM (7Fqgx)
46
And yes, 1) I believe that terrorism is a real threat, and think that our endeavors in Iraq are taking away from that fight. 2) The fact that there've been no attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove anything. According to your logic, then Clinton must have done a remarkable job keeping us safe during the '90's. 3) John Ryan is right, you're lumping everyone who disagrees w/the war in Iraq into the same mythic and monolithic "liberal" pile. We are not all liberals. 4) The only people with a death wish are those who quiver at the thought of the Rapture, and those folks are on your side, not mine.
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:07 PM (7Fqgx)
47
...that would be quiver with joy, not fear...my bad.
Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:08 PM (7Fqgx)
48
You must love being lied to.
Isn't this the same Zarqawi whose training camp the Pentagon located 2-3 times before the Iraq invasion, but Bush chose not to bomb his camp because he feared it would undermine the case for going in? And then Colin spent all this time in his 2003 UN speech talking about how bad Zarqawi was, as a reason for attacking Iraq, despite no cooperation between Zarqawi and Saddam.
"On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy [Zarqawi's] Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all."
http://www.slate.com/id/2108880
The article estimates Zarqawi alone is responsible for 1000 deaths since then, deaths that only happened because of political opportunism by your personal heroes.
Posted by: clb72 at November 21, 2005 01:12 PM (MGcSD)
49
"zero terror strikes in the US. That's my evidence."
That's pathetic. What is the average period of time between (Islamic) terrorist strikes in the US? 10 years or so? I sincerely hope that the efforts of the Bush administration will help slow down the terrorists, but there's really no way to measure. I do know that the frequency of terror strikes happening in Iraq since we invaded is practically daily, and at huge cost to the people we're supposedly trying to liberate. Imagine how they must feel when Bush says we're fighting terrorists there so we won't have to at home. No wonder 85% of them want us to leave.
Posted by: Randy at November 21, 2005 01:27 PM (bc3Ko)
50
clb72,
let me show you mine:
"That year [1996] the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it?"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:38 PM (8e/V4)
51
>>>"but there's really no way to measure."
Randy,
circlejerk appears to have figured out a way to measure it. Ask him. I did, and so far zip, nada, bupkiss.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:40 PM (8e/V4)
52
IM Pre Pearl harbor it was only the commie- liberals who wanted to help Europe fight the ultra right Nazis, and the country was deeply divided on this issue. The liberal President was categorized as a " warmonger". 9/11 unified our country in its fight against alQueda If you can not see what a cl*st*rf*ck this has turned into you then pay attention. It is now the "liberals" Mccain Clinton that advocate sending MORE troops ! The formerly conservative republicans are afraid of losing their seats and new raises so they want less troops ! It used to be that the liberals were for international nation building and now it's the conservatives.All the Army brass care about is another star. The battalion commanders say they need more troops. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html The original estimate necessary was 250,000. I sure as hell don't know what to do. I do know that when I am at sea and in dangerous waters and do not know exactly where a prudent mariner does not opt for "stay on course" As for "look in the mirror" I can and when I do I don't have to say "blame the liberals.blame the MSM, blame the minority party, blame the French"
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 01:46 PM (ads7K)
53
I think Sean Braisted asks a legitimate question: how do we measure victory?
The White House hasn't clearly answered that question, and that is a large part of the problem, IMHO.
Do you define it as the destruction of terrorist organizations and the rouge governments that support them? If so, we've still got Syria and Iran to go for sure, and potentially other countries as well.
Do you define it as the destruction of radical Islam? That would involve not only overthrowing governments, but eradicating entirely the most violent sects of Islam, and ruthlessly hunting down its members and destroying them. After what Germany attempted to do in WWII this seems unpalatable to most, but it is possible. The British, after all, were able to destroy the Thuggee. This destruction of violent Islam would also have to be done while encouraging the more liberal forms of Islam to fill the power vacuum in Islamic countries.
Do you define victory as the total destruction of Islam itself?
I think President Bush and most people would define victory as the destruction of terror organizations and the government that support them, but Bush has gone both beyond that and has done less than that at the same time. Bush has undoubtedly brought down two terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this has triggered Libya to turn over their WMD programs, and spurred democratic revolutions in several countries. But while the governments were relatively easy to topple, cutting out terror groups is a bloody, tedious process, but one that certainly can be done. So this goal is partially over, and perhaps once weÂ’ve established democratic governments that are strong enough to stand on their own, with military and police forces strong enough to fight their own internal terrorists, we can declare this a victory.
Or perhaps we should fight for the second or third types of victory.
Islam itself states it is incompatible with other religions that can otherwise coexist with each other. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians have all proven they can lives side-by-side with one another (and in my church at least, under the same roof), but Islam states bluntly that they world must be totally Islamic. At some point, there will perhaps be an all out war on Islam brought about by Islamic delusions of world conquest, but is now that time?
I, like Sean, hope sensible minds will take control of Islam and moderates will reform the religion. If not, they may set the stage for a war that will make the Crusades look like childÂ’s play.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2005 02:27 PM (g5Nba)
54
"when in danger or in doubt always post a sharp lookout when there isn't time to turn her slow her, stop her, or full astern"
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 02:46 PM (ads7K)
55
So, can we now say that right wingers are sad that Zarquawi's dead because now he can't kill any more soldiers and that's what right wingers stand for--killing American soldiers? That's why they don't want to bring the troops home--they want to keep that death toll rising? Makes as much sense as your saying "lefties" "celebrating" that he's still alive.
Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:15 PM (c1Sxs)
56
I read the DailyKos post on the alleged death of Zarqai. Anyone who calls it a sign of dismay simply isn't being honest. Not that that's unusual in the wingnut blogosphere.
Posted by: Laney at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (a6MF7)
57
You can't kill Zarqawi. He has Jihadomagic that allows him to be in more then one place at a time. He can teleport from one place to another instantly. He can regrow limbs and take over rival groups (ya'll know Zarqawi's group was a competitor to AQ, right?) just by thinking about it. He learned how from Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.
Posted by: John Gillnitz at November 21, 2005 03:22 PM (eHLUP)
58
I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq--that way rightwingers can continue their war of choice and we won't have to listet to any more of their crap about patriotism, "cut and run" (sooo funny coming from a couple of draft dodgers) and "support our troops." I support all those who voted for Bush going to meet theie destinies in the desert--just one more thing, they also have to pay for it. We won't miss you!
Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:31 PM (c1Sxs)
59
You lefty trolls are all delusional. I haven't laughed this hard since the lefty idiot tried to take my W sign out of my front yard and I shot him in his dumb ass with my BB gun. He lit out like a stuck hog, and for some reason my sign was left untouched the rest of the campaign.
Just for fun I still have a W sticker on my truck, and not one of you lefty shitheads have the guts to even say anything to me. Unless you are on the computer and then you pretend to be bad asses. Please, all of you lefties, it's just about pizza delivery time, you had better report to work or your mommie might kick you out of the basement. LOL!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 03:37 PM (rUyw4)
60
Enjoy reading your blog. But a fatwa? I didn't think you *sob* cared.
Posted by: The Heretik at November 21, 2005 03:44 PM (mLyjh)
61
Let's remember an al Zarqawi story the mainstream media evidently would like us to forget. In 2003, the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon report that stated that the military offered the Bush administration 3 separate opportunities to kill al Zarqawi. They knew exactly where he was in the Kurdish-controlled north. The Bush administration turned down the Pentagon all three times for political reasons -- they thought killing Zarqawi would undercut their rational for invasion -- this was the Pentagon's analyis, not mine. Of course, we know Zarqawi has gone on to personally cut two Americans' heads off and kill hundreds. For political reasons, the Bush admin. let him off the hook. Bush apologists: your thoughts?
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 04:11 PM (0jJ9w)
62
Uh, that you're full of shit, Bill. Just my thoughts. LOL!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:27 PM (rUyw4)
63
>>>I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq-
Mike,
funny you should say that. Most people currently fighting the war in Iraq DID vote for Bush.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 04:30 PM (8e/V4)
64
jc,
Even when the leftists and liberals did everything in their power to keep the military guys votes from being counted. The hypocricy of these liberals knows no bounds!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:34 PM (rUyw4)
65
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
10 points if you can tell me where that's from.
Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 21, 2005 04:37 PM (gxVyt)
66
we should draw and quarter a democrat liberal on pay per view so all of em will know that if you hate our troops and don't support Bush till the end. You will pay for it!
God Bless USA!!!
Posted by: jesusland twotooth at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (YClF7)
67
Holy Jesus People! Some real loony tunes out there today. Silly Internet Warriors fighting it out in cyberspace; such a spectacle.
Some of you are passionate, some apparently have some serious personality disorders. Vitriolic refexive name calling and dreaming of the deaths of those with whom you disagree are not signs of good mental health or social adjustment. They are signs of childishness and an inability to communicate in any effective way.
Make your point, back it up with facts, and maybe...just maybe someone will really consider what you are saying. But if you are compelled to toss around horrible invectives and profess hatred and intolerance of anyone of differing opinions you just label yourself as an unbalanced weirdo and I don't believe thinking people follow the lead of such hyperactive overcharged zealots of either side of this war argument. Real wisdom is never accompanied by such unwarrented dogmatic aggression.
Just my 2 cents and a plea for reason in on line discussions. This forum can be good but wading through the nut-job posts is getting a little tedious. Happy Harping!
Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:18 PM (6pXHD)
68
JesuslandJerk's response to facts is telling. Come on, Jesus Jerk. If you think al Zarqawi should be killed, why wouldn't you be pissed at the Bush administration for preventing the Pentagon from killing him? Making an extremely lame joke and then rushing to type a symbol which means "I'm laughing at my own joke," is hardly a response to a serious charge.
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (ThwLj)
69
Seems like some liberal in charge has requested that trolls attack this blog. LIBERALS: Here's my take. The problem with muslims is that all terrorists are muslims. So they get grouped together.
The problem with liberls and democrats is that all traitors, sickos and such we have encountered on this blog are liberals and democrats. So they get grouped together. As long as the liberal establishment contains people like Greg the traitor, Colon Baber, Ernie and such you will naturally be suspect. Kick the deviates out of your group then dialogue can begin for the good of all.
I will not work with muslims when they claim Osama ben Laden and rat face Zaqueery are part of their group. I will not work with liberals while they agree with commies like Greg the traitor and Colon Baber.
Clean the grap out of your ideals or be considered one of them.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:26 PM (ZaAd/)
70
It is going to be so much fun in the next few months to watch the Right wing try to explain their reasons for pulling-out from Iraq and try to re-write "cut and run" into something that sounds more patriotic. America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off.
Better go rip that big fat W bumper sticker off your car asap.
Posted by: the_truth at November 21, 2005 05:29 PM (ocHBO)
71
the_truth:
So you hope we do "pullout and run" so you can "stick it" to the republicans? possible Iraqi civil war, emboldened Jihadi warriors, and a caliphate state, but you'll get your zinger!! what an american!
I bet you also "support the troops" right?
Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 05:33 PM (CcXvt)
72
So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind.
Ask for facts and I guess this is what you get; wild emotional and a mob mentality devoid of introspection or dispassionate analysis.
Ask for reason and thought and you get a red-faced rant, full of hyperbole and devoid of rational discourse. Oh well, I asked for it. Manners, like good taste or class, are something that as an adult you either have or you do not. At least its obvious who is who in here. A Boor is a boor on either side of the argument.
Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:41 PM (6pXHD)
73
I read your piece about those at DailyKos have pinned their hopes on the defeat of our troops.
That's (barely) debateable.
But just in case I have some great news for them: Rummy and Bush are still running the show in the war.
Posted by: Robert at November 21, 2005 05:43 PM (cETWZ)
74
Rusty,
I think that's bullshit. The distinction between "the Left" and "liberals" was made in an ass-covering addendum, and it's nothing other than silly hair-splitting anyway. In the original post, "the Left" clearly refers to those who harbor left-wing beliefs; I wonder where you draw your line between mainstream liberals and far-to-the-margins wacks. I don't see any evidence that you show much respect for either. The real distinction, to me at least, is between liberals whose beliefs reflect nothing other than knee-jerk partisanship and liberals whose views are based on actual coherent outlooks/reading up on facts (I don't think that the Iraq war should ever have been about a left/right split -- just sanity versus insanity). In any case, my response to you is that I was referring to the substance of the post and I think "Update II" is disingenuous.
I live in neither San Francisco or NYC, incidentally. Nor does splitting my time between two locations take up all my non-flying hours. Still I'm curious which liberal caricatures (and as a caricature of a liberal elitist I have to inform that you misspelled that word) I confirmed in my post. Is it the caricature of liberals who post to conservative blogs without actually reading what they're responding to? I was unaware of that one. Or is it the caricature of liberals who reside in New York state and the Bay Area? Because that's not really a caricature; it's a fact of demographics.
Best,
Max
Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 05:44 PM (36mN0)
75
Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, seeking common ground for their political future together, agreed Monday there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, and that resistance was the right of all -- but that acts of terror should be condemned.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Egypt-Iraq-Conference.html
Posted by: bobby at November 21, 2005 05:45 PM (nP2fm)
76
Greyrooster, the problem with your argument that all traitors are liberals is that it doesn't conform to experience. The last two times our FBI has found a traitor in their midst, he was a conservative. The last guy, I forget his name now, was a conservative Catholic member of Opus Dea. In addition, last year, an FBI agent was forced to resign because he had been carrying on an affair with an agent for the communist Chinese. This agent was Katrina Leonge, who worked as a conservative fundraiser for the republican party in California. These facts don't support your meta-argument.
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:59 PM (frPZV)
77
Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing:
"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost in examples of justice and liberality."
--- George Washington, Letter to the Roman Catholics, March 15, 1790
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 06:02 PM (frPZV)
78
>>>"America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off."
the_trooth,
maybe you've been living in a cave because you appear not to have noticed that when given a chance to vote for a troop withdrawal, only 3 Dem moonbats voted for it. The rest must have been hiding in that cave with you. Thrash about mindlessly all you want, but the troops are staying until the mission is completed and the President calls them home. You don't like it? Then win some elections for a change.
It's obvious that you absolutely need America to fail in Iraq so that you can regain political power. But we aren't going to hand Iraq to terrorist anarchy just because you Libs have a greater loyalty to party than your own country.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:17 PM (8e/V4)
79
>>>Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing:
That's why I sometimes refer to you as neo-Libs. You're primarily Leftists and soft stalinists, not Liberals in the traditional sense (Washington wouldn't even recognize you), while the old school Kennedy Liberals have migrated to the conservative camp.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:21 PM (8e/V4)
80
DMAN:
Comparing Kazinski and Mcveigh sickos to muslims terrorist is an example of why a shut-in should stay in the fire house. The Irish are "correctly or not" fighting for their countries freedom. Religion is a secondary issue. Mcveigh and Kazinski where not religious zealots. Comparing two killers to thousands is stupid. Mcveigh was striking back for what he perceived as liberals taking over the country. Mainly, Clintons gang of social misfits like Janet Renos killing hundreds of men, women and children at Waco, Tx.
And since you are a booring idiot with nothing new to add. Time to get lost. We've heard the same bullshit before.
Go get bugger by a muslim. That is if your boyfriend isn't one.
You can bet your ass that the sorry assed government employees that were having fun killing these people were 100% democrats. As most parasites living off the tax payers are.
Your bullshit don't hunt here.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 PM (ZaAd/)
81
>>>"So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind."
Ok, how bout 99.99999% of terrorists are muslims. Better?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 07:19 PM (8e/V4)
82
Regarding Update II - unfortunately, that is the conclusion I have come to also - there are those I refer to as the "hard left" (I won't call them liberals or Democrats) individuals who believe the "imperialist" west must lose. Any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of our military is pronounced as fact. Argue with these boneheads and you're labeled as a . . .
A real liberal would side with the people not the dictators. Scratch beneath the surface of the "hard left" and what you'll find is hard core green, marxist, socialist, communist - but I repeat myself.
Centrist Dem
Posted by: Demi at November 21, 2005 07:50 PM (Yxvls)
83
Bill,
You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the ass. Now go back to the DU swamp and wallow with your fellow traitors. The HYPOCRISY of you liberals is beyond the pale.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 08:21 PM (rUyw4)
84
"Hypocrisy", Jesusland Joe?
Ever notice how most of the posters who threaten violence and dream of killing have "Jesus" in their handle? I can see these interbred Billy-Bobs laying back, masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind, then heading off to their local Southern Baptist bible-thumper on Sunday so they can proudly feel that they are more born again than their neighbors...
Guess what guys? Jesus wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, you poor pathetic hypocrites. Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate. This what religion does to the feeble-minded. I'll take a moral atheist over you amoral holyrollers anyday.
If your type gets into heaven, I'm not going. I have some standards, you know.
Posted by: Joviel at November 21, 2005 09:47 PM (tgsAE)
85
>>>"Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate."
how bout we aren't traitors who have put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country. That's gotta be good for at least a couple of degrees, no?
Posted by: dcb at November 21, 2005 10:43 PM (8e/V4)
86
>>>"masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind,"
This sounds to me like a classic case of projection.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)
87
WOW !!! Some people really are upset. You know we won the election I am saying that we should be more critical of our own scalawags then critical of their scalawags. I certainly feel like aI should keep a closer eye on what my dogs are doing then on what the neighbors dogs are doing. As for my bumper sticker every few years I replace my AuH2o->64
Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:02 PM (ads7K)
88
Children...take your medicine. Stop threatening to kill each other. WTF is the matter with you people? What ever happened to reasoned debate and who the hell are all these raving rude fools on both sides of the issue that can't have an online forum discussion without turning into evil 13 year olds talking about who they will kill that doesn't agree with them. You are an embarrassment to America and all it stands for. Grow the hell up.
Posted by: DMan at November 22, 2005 03:02 AM (6pXHD)
89
"put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country."
bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope.
Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 22, 2005 09:47 AM (gxVyt)
90
Quothe Sean: "Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it."
You are exactly correct, but given that any society is comprised of a ratio of sane to insane people, and that the insane ones are more likely to engage in abberant behavior, such as murdering innocent people in the name of X and fighting against the US military, and that insane fanatics going against the US military have a pretty short life expectancy, the ratio quickly becomes skewed in the favor of the sane people. In Iraq, a country of 25,000,000, the US military could not hold one inch of ground if the people didn't want us there, at least not without massive slaughter on a daily basis. So, the fact that 14 of 18 provinces are peaceful, and trouble is mainly concentrated in a few cities, tells me that the "insurgency" consists of a tiny, infinitesimally miniscule minority of thugs and idiots who are lining up in the express line to go meet their god, and the rest of the people are trying very hard to live normal lives of peace and prosperity, if only their "brothers in allah" would stop murdering them.
"I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen."
I hope so too, but they probably won't, because that's a one-way street with little chance to turn around. Once one is within that society, to leave means nothing less than death. Most likely, we'll have to keep killing them for a long time to come. Your lack of optimism is realistic and valid.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:14 AM (0yYS2)
91
Joviel,
You idiot. Jesusland is a place. It says nothing about religion. Can you be as stupid as you seem?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:17 AM (rUyw4)
92
Quothe joviel: "To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals; If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win."
Do you even know what fascism is, little boy? And what makes you think you would win any fight? Do you have fully automatic, armor piercing protest signs or something? There are over 200 million guns in America, almost completely owned by we evil non-libtards.
"First of all, we outnumber you."
Which is why you can't win national elections. Because you outnumber us. Right?
"Check the polls."
You mean that ones that are written and conducted by liberals, in liberal areas, with questions slanted to produce a desired result? Let me poll you: Is pedophilia okay or is George Bush evil? Oh, wait, sorry, you're a liberal, so it would be "all of the above".
"Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it.
Yeah that's great. Guess what? A liberal with a gun just makes a more justifiable target. When TSHTF and you go out on a rampage with your black and islamic brothers, destroying the very city you live in, it will just make it that much easier to identify and kill you.
"Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military."
Wow, that's really impressive. What was your unit? Dates of service? Duty posts? MOS? You do know that real veterans, like me, can spot a faker a mile away, don't you?
"Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield."
You keep thinking that.
"Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet."
That's funny. Well, I am a vet of Desert Storm, and I know that battlefield survival requires brains and balls, of which you fairy-ass liberal nancy boys have none. One guy I shared a tent with in Iraq, and stood guard duty every day, told me that he would surrender rather than fight because he didn't believe we should be there in the first place. He was another liberal who joined the Army because he wanted the free college money, and was horrified when he discovered we were going to war, and actually tried to desert, but got caught. You don't impress me much, because I've seen your kind and know them well. You are chickenshit cowards who shit yourselves and run at the first sign of trouble.
"And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter."
That's so funny in so many ways that you'll never understand. Thanks for the laugh!
"So go ahead and start a civil war."
It's your fellow idiot libtards who are always going on about a revolution, so go ahead and start one, you little chickenshit punkass bitch.
"I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead."
And I would gladly give you the opportunity, and then add your empty skull to my collection of fencepost ornaments.
"It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying..."
And not likely considering that you'd soil your pants and cry like a little girl at the first hostile contact. I've been shot at before, and by a real man, so I'm not worried about a little nancy-boy like you, or any other liberal waste of space.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)
93
LMAO!!! IM, you are in top form today.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 10:59 AM (8e/V4)
94
Oh Lordy, Lordy!!!!.....ive never seen so many freakin trolls in here before....its like a Royal Rumble match going on in here and looks like i missed all the action lastnite....Kos must have sent out his brigades to attack the Jawa and hopefully they have been repulsed....daym, and i sharpened up my axe, all for nothing.....oh well, better luck next time i hope
Posted by: THANOS35 at November 22, 2005 11:16 AM (66BHq)
95
Percy's Pop and other liberals, read carefully: I don't care what liberals say, and I'm not interested in debate with you. The matter is clear to me; either you stand with your country against its enemies, or you stand against it with its enemies, and I know that where I stand and where you stand are diametrically opposed on pretty much every issue. Most egregious is the fact that you are more interested in undermining our government's efforts to fight terrorism so that you can embarass Bush and retake control of the government than you are in actually fighting terrorism itself.
Do not think for one moment that we don't know you for the traitors you are, or that you will escape justice forever. Because of the efforts of groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, ANSWER, the Dhimmicratic party, et al, it's only a matter of time before the government is weakened to the point of being incapable of defending our nation, and then we shall see a wave of attacks as never before imagined, and our infrastructure will collapse, and there will be riots in the streets of every major city every day that will make the current events in Europe look like a frat party. That's when the gloves will come off and you will have to choose between standing with your country, or with its enemies, but it will be too late for you; you have already chosen, and your corpses will be stacked with all the other enemies of liberty, and nobody will shed a tear for you, because you are traitors.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 11:53 AM (0yYS2)
96
>>>"bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope."
fluffy,
it's some kind of a big secret that the Left is fully vested in the defeat of American "empire" in Iraq? Not at all. The future of the American Left for decades to come depends on it. You know it, we know.
You see, we don't use the word "traitor" the way you use "nazi"-- i.e., for shock value. The American Left are LITERALLY traitors. Read Rusty's latest post for a more in-depth explanation.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:23 PM (8e/V4)
97
Maybe the lefties are just trying to emulate the righties.
To the right, it's all about being on the winning side. They always beat their chest about winning the elections (no matter how many American voters they disenfranchise to do it).
In this case, maybe the lefties are on the side of the insurgents, because they want to be on the winning side. After all the US forces are led by Rumsfeld, and a President who couldn't lead his country out of a rainstorm.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (cETWZ)
98
I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes. This was reported by MSNBC and the Washington Post. What I'm trying to point out is that it's silly to refer to liberals as "traitors" when your own conservative administration has done more questionable things in the "War on Terror" than any American liberal. I got nothing but bullshit from the absurdly jingoistic and ignorant posters on this conservative board. If this is the state of argument for conservatives, you've already lost the war of ideas. Jesusland Joe and Improbabull Maxibutt, you guys are just pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You're unamerican in a very profound way and you're stupid to boot. I haven't seen anything from either of you that even begins to qualify as a cogent argument. All I see is angry young men with little understanding or appreciation of history, politics or our political system hurling silly, nonsensical accusations about patriotism and hate. What a profound waste of time to engage anyone like you idiots.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 01:49 PM (s5QlR)
99
>>>"I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes."
Bill,
You have no idea why the Pentagon passed on Zarqawi, therefore you have no real point to make. The best you can do from the comfort of hindsight is say it was some kind of a blunder. Beyond that it's just hot air. But it wasn't nearly the blunder Clinton made when he refused Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a platter. Answer that one if you really came here for some kind of dialogue.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 02:55 PM (8e/V4)
100
Jesusland Carlos,
When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"?
Oh that's right, we save the forests by opening them to logging companies, we help get cleaner air to breathe by rolling back emission standards, and we support the troops by baiting our enemies and reducing veterans benefits back home.
We also get to support the war by reducing taxes for the rich.
Makes as much sense as Christians who favor the rich over the poor.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (cETWZ)
101
Jesusland Carlos: according to the 9-11 Commission, reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true. I know many conservatives take it on faith that it happened, but the 9-11 commission found it to be a hoax. And, it wasn't the Pentagon that passed on the opportunity to kill al Zarqawi. According to the Pentagon, the administration wouldn't let them kill Zarqawi. To me, it's just another example of how poorly this administration has run the war on terror. This administration is all about politics and very light on policy.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 03:46 PM (V2qBv)
102
>>>"reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true."
Bill,
I'm afraid your superiors have lied to you again. Here is the audiotape of Bill Clinton himself admitting to the Long Island Association in Woodbury, New York, during the group's annual luncheon in February 2002 that he refused Sudan's offer because he had no "basis" on which to hold him.
http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:10 PM (8e/V4)
103
Carlos, let's try to get through this without personal attacks. I have no superiors. These are my own memories and thoughts. I think the problem is that we've got two separate hoaxes here and we're mixing them up. The hoax I was talking about is the one where the Sudanese General was supposed to have offered Clinton bin Laden. This was shown to be false for a number of reasons. In this quote you've offered, Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996. In fact, as far as 2 years later, in 1998, Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice both criticized Clinton's obsession with bin Laden as making the war on terrorism "too personal." And, don't forget that as late as the late '90s, American oil companies were wining and dining members of a Taliban delegation in Texas, still trying to get a deal for the trans-asian pipeline now going up into the "stans."
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:25 PM (V2qBv)
104
When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"?
So, I am to assume upon hearing President Bush on TV saying that, peaceful people all over the world, grabbed their AK-47's and their Quran and headed for Iraq? ready for Jihad because Bush said "Bring it on" ?
The only people harping on those words are the left, indeed I can say without a doubt, not one terrorist, or insurgent fighting in Iraq came to do so because of a invitation from the President of the United States "Bring it on" statement.
I can also say without a doubt that the left is enbolding terrorists by attacking the troops and the war on a daily basis, with calls for a withdraw, and asking if troops should be prosecuted for "war crimes", Bin Ladens words in regards to Mogadishu is a testament to what terrorists think about the U.S armed forces, and they're correct in the fact that when the killing starts, the politicians want them home.
we support the troops by baiting our enemies
tough words to our enemies in a time of war? who has heard of such ? I'm to assume the President should tell them "we'll stop if you stop?" - "Say Uncle!!"
what about your sides plan to run? that is supporting the troops? has that not emboldened our enemies?
With all this talk of a withdrawal "Time Table" they now know, they only have to wait us out of Iraq.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 04:42 PM (CcXvt)
105
Carlos, I would also have to point out that Clinton is the only president to have actually attempted to kill bin Laden. When he did this, he was accused of "wagging the dog." Now, the same people who accused him of trying to change the subject complain that he didn't capture bin Laden. I suggest all who are interested in how we fight the war on terrorism, read the 9-11 commission report. Compare the way the Clinton administration prepared and organized to the way the current administration handles threats. Clinton responded to increased threat assessments from the FAA by demanding weekly meetings with the heads of the CIA and the FBI. Bush responded to 55 specific FAA warnings, some of which mentioning flying airliners into buildings, by going on a 30-day vacation to Crawford.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:45 PM (V2qBv)
106
>>>"Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996."
Bill,
let's talk about Bill Clinton, then we'll talk about Bush.
The only reason Bill had no "basis" to take Osama, and that there was no "linkage" between the terrorists acts and bin Laden is because Bill was still treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, with formal rules of criminal evidence, probable cause, proper jurisdiction and yada yada yada instead of as a national security threat issue-- even after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. That is why he had no "basis" and no "linkage". The fact is however that we already knew Al Qaida was involved in the '93 bombing, and we already knew Osama was AQ. But treating AQ as a national security threat instead of a law enforcement issue would have been far too controversial for Bill. It was a hot potato, and Bill avoided hot potatos at any cost. Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud.
Now Bush. I haven't the slightest clue why Bush or whoever neglected to bomb Zarqawi. But given that Zarqawi was pretty much a nobody back then, and that Iraq was an extremely target rich environment at the time, I'm going to chalk it to a pretty big blunder (but still smaller than Bill's) that is now only apparent in hindsight. I fail to see how "politics" had anything to do with it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:46 PM (8e/V4)
107
Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw.
In other words, terrorists are listening carefully to some American citizens and some American politicians, but not at all moved by something the President says.
Does that argument really make sense to you?
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:50 PM (V2qBv)
108
But, Carlos, using law enforcement apparatus, every conspirator and participant in the '93 WTC bombing was caught, tried and convicted. They're in jail now. Clinton believed that terrorism required all law enforcement agencies in all countries to cooperate and that fighting terrorism was a law enforcement issue. I would hope that we would learn something from the attempt to make the struggle purely a military one. All we've done is create a new training ground, increase enrollment and make the world even less safe.
The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there. They had to muddy up the issue a bit, because they knew Zarqawi was not really being trained by Saddam's people. Saddam didn't like Zarqawi because he felt Zarqawi was a religious fanatic.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:00 PM (V2qBv)
109
Carlos says of Clinton: "Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud."
Clinton fired cruise missles at a terrorist training camp when he thought bin Laden was there. He was 45 minutes late. On that day, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. Clinton had a drug factory in the Sudan bombed. The CIA said that the factory was making explosive materials. Republicans lambasted him for this bombing, saying he was trying to "change the subject." According to the 9-11 commission report, Clinton "shook the trees" in the intelligence community relentlessly leading up to 2000. They were able to thwart a planned bombing of airports on New Years 2000. I'm really not sure what you mean by the "if he had the balls" thing. The record shows Clinton was completely immersed in fighting terrorism.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:14 PM (V2qBv)
110
Bill,
I thank you for your reply to dave.
Your reply was right on target.
A lesson for the both the left and the right is to "switch" your complaint.
That way you can see things from both sides.
Could you imagine the reaction if someone high-up in VP Al Gore's office was accused of outing a CIA agent?
Could you see Scalia dumping states rights to hand Gore the Presidency in 2000?
Could you imagine the howls of dissent if Clinton told our enemies to bring it in?
Is there any doubt we'd live in a one party country if the Dems were in charge on 9/11/2001?
This is why we need to scrap the 2-party system.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 05:16 PM (cETWZ)
111
Robert, I'm not sure I agree with you on scrapping the 2-party system, but you bring up an interesting set of points. Why are public reactions to scandal so different than in the 90's? In the 90's, just the charge that someone was fired at the Whitehouse travel office for political purposes was sufficient to cause a media firestorm and special investigation. Someone putting two file boxes into a closet instead of bringing them across the street to a storage facility was enough to trigger a special prosecutor. The media had "gates" for everything. What happened?
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM (V2qBv)
112
One of my oldest conservative friends believes that the media firestorm over Clinton was because of the sex. He says sex sells, but incompetence and fraud don't sell.
My response to that is Gannon/Guckert: Secret Service and FBI records show that a male prostitute under an assumed name visited the Whitehouse at night without checking out over 15 times and the media isn't interested???!!! People who believe in a liberal media conspiracy need to explain that one to me.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:38 PM (Mt1UV)
113
Robert: "Is there any doubt we'd live in a 1-party country if the Dems were in control on Sept. 11, 2001."
Robert, with respect, I do doubt that. Remember that when 8 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, barely a couple months into Clinton's first term, some republicans were calling for him to resign. Throughout the 90's republicans looked for any way to bring the democrat down. If Gore were in the Oval Office on 9-11-01, I have no doubt that Congressional republicans would have called for his resignation and called for immediate investigations.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:47 PM (Mt1UV)
114
Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw.
What an idiotic statement! three words said by the President three years ago -- versus day after day of the media making statements about torture, and "possible" use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq, Cindy Sheenan, anti-war protests covered 24/7, fake coffins and "Grim Milestones", Micheal Moore movies, congressman calling for a full withdrawal of troops, hours and hours of media coverage of Senators and Congressman accusing the President of the United States of lying about the intelligence.....
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:10 PM (CcXvt)
115
Dave, you seem to think insurgents or terrorists in Iraq are more motivated by what someone SAYS publically in America than they are by what our military is DOING in Iraq. I just don't agree with that. But, I agree with you that Bush didn't have to say "bring it on" to motivate them either. I don't think it's what we say. I think it's what we do. As far as the President and his administration lying, I don't know why anyone even tries to deny that anymore. "No doubt" means something, Dave. And, just today it came out that Bush and Cheney received a classified PDB on 9-21-05 that said there was no connection between Saddam and al Queda and Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. So, yes, they lied about the intelligence. Since they refused to show the PDB's to congress before they voted, congress did NOT have the same intelligence as the administration -- another lie exposed.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:24 PM (Mt1UV)
116
Sorry. Correction: Bush got the PDB that said Iraq was not involved on 9-21-01, not 9-21-05.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:26 PM (Mt1UV)
117
dave,
Anti-war protests covered 24/7?
By who, Al-Jazeera?
I remember them briefly being covered by the press before the war. I also remember the protesters were mocked in that same coverage as "professional protesters, tree-huggers, pacafists, etc.
I think a better name for the protesters might be "prescient".
I also remember the president saying he will not govern based on the ideas of "focus groups". Which must have sent the energy company executives into a tizzy.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 06:33 PM (cETWZ)
118
Dave, the most recent al Queda bombings were the suicide bombings at the hotels in Jordan. We now know from testimony of the wife whose belt didn't explode that they were looking for revenge for Falluja. They weren't in the slightest way motivated by Michael Moore. They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot. If you, as an American, think it's acceptable to use phosphorus weapons on civilians, that is your right. But, don't act like these things have no consequences.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:37 PM (Mt1UV)
119
Bill,
WP is not a chemical weapon. How f..king dumb can you be?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:40 PM (rUyw4)
120
Hey Joe, whether or not you want to call white phosphorus a "chemical weapon" is irrelevant. The soldiers referred to missions where it was used as "shake and bake" missions. The results are not unlike the use of napalm with respect to what they did to people. People had their skin burned off. So, call it what you want and, again, is there any way you proud conservatives can get through a posting without an ad hominem attack? Just wondering.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (Mt1UV)
121
Bill:
If you believe the words of terrorists, you are indeed special.
So let me see if this makes sense to you:
United States attacks and destroys all terrorist, and insurgent resistance in the City of Fallujah.
Terrorists attack a wedding party, during a strike against civilian Hotels in Jordan killing fellow Muslim citizens then quote it was justified because of the American attack on Fallujah, I don't even know how you even had the balls to quote that.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (CcXvt)
122
No need to get hysterical, Dave. I never said the attack was "justified." You posted that. What I said was that THAT was the reason the terrorist gave for the attack. I was simply using a recent event to illustrate a point -- terrorists don't care about what liberals or conservatives say here in America. They are motivated by our actions. That in no way justifies anything they do, it's just reality. But, can we end this tired old unamerican idea that questioning our government gives comfort to the enemy. They don't really care about public opinion in America. They have their jihad and that's all they need.
Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:56 PM (Mt1UV)
123
This crap has been debunked two weeks ago, and it is like a nine-headed snake. The United States has used WP in every war since and including WWII. Are you saying the US used chemical weapons in WWII?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)
124
Hysterical? a little bit "Chicken Little" from you, but there we go.
You used one of the most unpopular terrorist attacks, to prove a point that terrorists do not care what the U.S people, or politicians say, I guess I missed the point.
It's not questioning the Government that is "unamerican" it's the constant attack against the United States armed forces, that is unamerican -- even your comments regarding civilian attacks, using chemical weapons (and you accuse me of hysteria?) point to the fundamental point I am making, you believe the worse of the U.S army at any given time, without proof or doing any research. You believe the enemy -- that my friend is unamerican.
It's the same as the people that are demonstrating outside Walter Reed and taunting wounded soldiers, and people carrying flag-draped coffins in Veterans days marches, that crosses the line from questioning the Government, to attacking the Soldiers and that is unamerican.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 07:10 PM (CcXvt)
125
>>>The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there."
Bill,
sounds like spin to me. An argument could just as easily be made that Bush could have strengthened the terrorism case BY bombing the camp. Obviously, when handed a list of several hundred viable targets by the Pentagon, Bush made some choices, and now the usual political spinmeisters and conspiracy theorists are having their usual heyday with it.
Similarly, I'm not going to second guess Bill. Hindsight is 20/20, and I only raised the issue because people in glass houses like that shouldn't throw stones.
And I never got caught up in the Monica affair given I was a Democrat at the time. I still like Bill, actually, but he perjured himself in a sexual harrassment suit and he was rightly punished for it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 07:57 PM (8e/V4)
126
dave,
When did Murtha, Michael Moore, etc carry out any, never mind constant, attacks against the United States armed forces?
By the way, you might want to point your missives at the Republican controlled Congress, who can't find a cut to veteran's benefits they won't support.
I don't think Bill believes the enemy, he's just pointing out what they've said.
You believe the Bush administration even though, at this point, it flies in the face of common sense.
Here's some news for you, sometimes those in authority lie.
And unless you are a CEO or part of the top-earning 1% super rich in this country, your President is not acting in your best interests.
Just thought you should know.
Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 07:58 PM (cETWZ)
127
Robert:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
Michael Moore
Comparing the terrorists in Iraq, who use homicide bombs to kill civilians and united states soldiers to the founding fathers of America, and saying they'll defeat our Soldiers -- I'm sure you don't find that offensive but I'm sure the soldiers do.
Robert: He does believe the enemy:
hey were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot.
That isn't a quote from anywhere, that is his words.
I believe the Bush Administration because I say attacking the troops is unamerican?
Reality called, says he misses you.
Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 08:15 PM (CcXvt)
128
dave,
I apologize.
I didn't realize you were in Fallujah during the attack and saw it with your own eyes.
How long have you been back?
Are you going back there anytime soon?
I hope not. I'm looking for troop-supporters, like you, to help fight the veterans benefit reductions the Republican-controlled Congress is trying to push through.
Feet still firmly planted on the ground,
Robert
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 12:35 AM (cETWZ)
129
DMAN: What ever happened to reasonable debate????
The liberals and democrats screwed it up. It's resonable debate only if it fits their childish view of things. Anything else is unreasonable debate. Now go get your paycheck from the taxpayers and piss and moan about not getting a raise for sitting on your ass.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:44 AM (ZaAd/)
130
Robert:
your weakly veiled sarcasm is pretty pitiful.
let me break it down for you again so maybe you can comprehend:
"used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians"
1. Phosphorus rounds, or shells are not chemical weapons.
2. The United States Armed Forces does not target Civilians.
You and Bill however, continue to make my point. When someone says something bad about Soldiers (murder/chemical weapons/torture/moonbat theory) you're on-board, you're so there, wearing your Che T-Shirt, and flying your American flag upside down, burning with fake outrage.
Here is a little newsflash for you if you believe that large portions of the U.S Armed forces, which is made up of your fellow countrymen have no problem murdering civilians, using chemical weapons and routinely take part in torture and murder then you're no longer questioning the Government you're attacking the soldiers.
Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too, and then say they were fighting against the Government and their War.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 07:00 AM (CcXvt)
131
>>>Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too,
dave,
Robert accuses them of wantonly killing civilians with chemical weapons and the he cries in his soup for their "veterans benefits". LOL! These people just won't get their story straight. More likely he thinks he's found a wedge in yet another lame attempt to vilifiy "Bush".
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 08:59 AM (8e/V4)
132
Dave,
Thank you! And thank you for defanging the trolls on this thread. They truly are scum. They demoncrats did everything in their power to disenfranchise military personel in the last election, and then they have the cheek to come in here and accuse our soldiers of all kinds of atrocities.
I tell you I am sick of their kind. I would hate to know what I would do if one of these punks even tried to spit on one of our soldiers in my presence. Jail or not, I would do everything in my power to put the little punks(guy or girl) lights out.
When all the soldiers get back, the Left in this country will have some things they will have to answer for.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 10:22 AM (rUyw4)
133
dave, jesusland Joe:
WTF are you talking about?
You're both on this thread to vilify the left because in your tiny minds, those that think this war is wrong hate our soldiers.
(and those that think 2+2 doesn't equal 6 hate numbers).
Idiots.
Listen up morons. I like the soldiers. I feel bad they've been thrown into a disastrous situation without the proper numbers or battle gear (like the cut in veterans benefits we're not supposed to talk about that either--lest the hypocrisy becomes overwhelming).
Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?
No we cut taxes for the richest 1% earners in this country, but pay no attention to the fact our soldiers were sent to battle without the right gear.
(See, 2+2 does equal 4).
You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.
BTW, you're the last 2 people to admit it. Everyone else already knows.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:15 PM (cETWZ)
134
Bill,
I apologize for sinking to their level in the last reply.
It's just that it's aggravating to have them make believe they miss the point so consistently.
First they start by saying the left hates our soldiers, unlike the Bush supporters.
When I point out Bush's "bring it on line", they dismiss it.
When i point out the lack of funding for the war and the vets, they miss that one too.
They may not be idiots, but they play idiots on the web.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:22 PM (cETWZ)
135
They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot.
Robert
Robert accuses Soldiers of commiting atrocities in the battle for Fallujah, then wrings his hands in anguish that Veterans are not getting their benefits, what next Robert are you going to suggest we need to purchase Ace bandages for those injured by repetitive stress syndrome from kicking puppies?
Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?
Are you? no one is idiot!
let me guess you had a pan drive, to collect pans from your neighbours to melt down to make bombers ala WWII?
You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.
Bzzzt! wrong, I didn't vote Moron! thanks for playing!
You don't care about veterans, or the soldiers, you're just playing that card as a "zinger" towards the republicans the closest your side gets to Veteran care is standing outside Walter Reed taunting the wounded soldiers.
You're slime.
Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 03:03 PM (CcXvt)
136
Never been to Walter Reed Hospital.
Care to lie about me again?
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:15 PM (cETWZ)
137
I didn't write the quote you attributed to me. Nor have I ever been to Walter Reed Hospital.
Care to lie about me again?
The soldiers represent Americans. I am an American.
Why do you hate our soldiers??
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:18 PM (cETWZ)
138
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
Bring it on!
This is what you get when a cartoon character leads your country.
Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:20 PM (cETWZ)
139
Robert,
You are either psychotic or eight years old, I'm not sure which.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM (rUyw4)
140
And Robert,
You know damned well the Demoncrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers, and you are a liar if you say otherwise.
You accuse others of missing your points, and then ignore anything they say, so pot...kettle....black, do these words mean anything to you?
Now, what I think. I wish our soldiers were home today, not tomorrow. I have too many friends and relatives either wounded or killed(my wife's cousin was killed there last year) in Iraq already. But I have enough sense to know that we cannot leave Iraq until we have the situation stabalized, and their Army or Guard is ready to take over. If Iraq is left to the radicals, then it will be used as a springboard to engulf the region in a major war, most unlike what we have there now.
No one I know wants a war just for the sake of war, and the Left constantly saying that is nothing but a lie. If you think that, then you, sir, are wrong...wrong....wrong!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 04:07 PM (rUyw4)
141
robert,
the Left's "concern" for the troops comes through loud and clear.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 05:37 PM (8e/V4)
142
How would I "know damned well" the Democrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers?
Oh that's right, because someone with a keyboard and internet access said so.
How about a little proof? And don't tell me its because some film maker made a comment about how our troops shouldn't be in Iraq.
1) he's a film maker, and 2) he's right.
Now to your second point: I agree, we need to get our troops out of harm's way, but that's going to be a difficult task. The US is in a "you broke it, you fix it" situation.
Unfortunately, I think Civil War in Iraq is inevitable due to tribal history.
I don't have any answers for how we can make this work for both the US and Iraqi citizens.
Another of my concerns is that the US does not want democracy in Iraq. Our nations history has often shown this to be the case (Chile 1973, Iran 1952, etc). Are we really going to sit by and let Iraq control their own resources and cut better deals with the Chinese than with us?
I tend to think that those who pushed this war will think it was unsuccessful if that happens.
One thing we should all (left, right and middle) have learned from this debacle is that "BEFORE we let our leaders start a war is EXACTLY the time to question them".
I'm all for disdain of the Dems and the Left, but
it's because they let themselves be cowed by a bunch of clueless cowboys.
The tough questions (like "where's the proof", "what's the plan", etc) were never asked for fear that their Patriotism would be called into play. What a bunch of weenies.
As to jesusland carlos,
I've already pointed out how concerned the republicans are for our troops. (Not at all).
So other than me and you, who else?
Happy Thanksgiving to the troops. Hope to see you back in the US soon.
Posted by: Robert at November 24, 2005 11:05 AM (cETWZ)
Eight High Ranking al Qaida Blew Themselves Up
Okay folks, I know it's DEBKA, but even a blind sow can find an acorn once in awhile.
Eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders blew themselves up after a large American force Sunday noon laid siege to a building in which they were barricaded in Mosul, northern Iraq.
The US force, backed by helicopters and tanks, was led to the location by an intelligence tip. The troops had evacuated the area and were preparing to storm the building when the terrorists killed themselves.
Some Arab sources report that the American unit is busy trying to identify the 8 bodies, hoping against hope that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is among them. This is not confirmed by US military sources.
Again Arab Press is hardly a rock solid source but this story ties in with DEBKA'S post......
Arab press: al-Zaraqawi may have been killed
Arch terrorists and al-Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have been killed, Arab press have reported.
According to reports, American and Iraqi forces are currently checking whether al-Zarqawi's body can be found among the bodies of other al-Qaeda members that blew themselves up at a house that was besieged by the forces at the northern town of Musul. (Ali Waked)
UPDATE: Jerusalem Post reporting it as unconfirmed.
Memo to eight imbeciles, virgins on backorder.
UPDATE II: U.S. 'just missed' capturing al-Zarqawi
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces "just missed" capturing terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a gunfight over the weekend in the northern city of Mosul, U.S. military sources told NBC News on Monday.
The military had intelligence that indicated al-Zarqawi was meeting with high-level Iraq in al-Qaida lieutenants, a Pentagon source said.
As soldiers closed in on the site, there was an exchange of small arms fire, then it appears the three al-Qaida suspects blew themselves up to avoid capture.
The military is conducting DNA tests on flesh and blood recovered from the scene, but a Pentagon official said indications are that al-Zarqawi is not among those killed.
CRAP!
Companion OpiniPundit
Posted by: Traderrob at
08:10 AM
| Comments (48)
| Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.
1
poor Liberals. 8 less of Michael Moore's beloved minutemen and freedom fighters to fight The Man.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 20, 2005 12:04 PM (8e/V4)
2
Traderrob,
No, no, no, no, no. You keep getting it wrong. It is 70 VIRGINIANs not VIRGINs. It is SO hard to get good translators now days.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at November 20, 2005 12:24 PM (m64uD)
3
I thought it was raisins. Are you sure about the Virginians, CDR? That would be a terrible end for my fellow Americans in Virginia.
Oh, au revoir, Al-Queda assholes. Hope you enjoy your melted raisins.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 12:39 PM (rUyw4)
4
damn, if only republicans believed in their cause so much. pelase folks, every one of you paste eater fascists which have infioltrated america, go sign up, go fight your kookoo holy jihad so these national guard troops can come home and egt off of "stop loss". if you support his war you go fight it. thanbks for protecting us from the irrational fear you have internalized you pussies...all talk nothing else, this is b3ecoming onvious. america is turning on you and you know it. it is becoming culturally hip to hate the american taliban, all you geek boy theocrat wannabees afraifd of your genitals...go fight pussies, sign up or shut up. we see through you, you are exposed.
semper fi.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 12:40 PM (ocmaF)
5
Eight fewer Al-Qaeda assholes on Planet Earth!!
May they all roast in Hell!!
RadarCat
Posted by: RadarCat at November 20, 2005 12:48 PM (7CB7D)
6
ernie,
the only fascist on this blog is you who believes that unless people sign up for the military they should have no voice in their country's policies. semper fi my rear end you big Nazi.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 20, 2005 12:58 PM (8e/V4)
7
Hell, Ernie needs to go to school. And if the only people who have a say are the ones in Iraq, then Ernie needs to STFU, unless he is in Iraq himself.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 01:14 PM (rUyw4)
8
Oh maaaaaaan, do I dare hope it's true? And a truly Happy Birthday to me if it is! We ROCK!
Posted by: karin at November 20, 2005 01:18 PM (hXwZE)
9
If it's true, hopefully Zarqawi's head survived so that it can be strapped to a JDAM and returned to Bin Laden and Co. ala Billy Mitchell style.
Ernie, I have no idea what you're trying to say. On my planet, grammar, spelling and sentence structure is essential to understanding written text.
Posted by: Graeme at November 20, 2005 01:36 PM (0lid7)
10
Ernie, not sure which version of fascism you're talking about, maybe a polisci 101 would correct your academic misunderstandings. while you're at it, try to wrap your mind around a strategic objective rather than what's "culturally hip." states deal in power and security, i'd be interested to know what your goals for our country would be? if your concept US security in the world is as sophisticated as your vocabulary or your impressions of the taliban, i'm sure we could get you a job in iranian intelligence. It's fine if you have a different valuation of the benefits of our operation in Iraq, but how can you honestly respond in such a manner to a report tha Zarqawi may be dead? this would only be a positive event, for all parties.
best of luck, and please don't tarnish the marine corp, in the future you'd be better served signing "imprudentia et non fidelis"
-Benito
Posted by: benito at November 20, 2005 01:47 PM (SCRV9)
11
Y jsut keep following deferment cheney and awol bush as they slander and character assassinate everyone else. we know you have mud in your souls, eat it up paste eaters.
2085 dead us soldiers ...go sign up. come on american taliban, sing up for your jihad you fear mongers. what losers you are. and you know it, yes your fasicsm, holy state worship, black and white thinking under totalitarian sensibilities. you are destroying americas security, but are too stupid to see it...baba white sheep, keep following your leader into the abyss.
again, sign up pussies. let these soldiers come home so you can fight your fake ass holy war.
but again...Bush 34% favor him, the rest HATE HIM. and YOU. you pussies are on the losing end, america sees throguh you, feel the hate geeks.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 20, 2005 02:00 PM (ocmaF)
12
Wow, Ernie doesn't need to drink anymore coffee!! Please let us know what school system you came thru..I want to stay as far as possible from it!
Hope Zaraqawi is done..and yes I believe it's translated raisins..blow yourself up for a 89 cent box of raisins..what a life. Even their own religious teachers got it wrong, and who would want to be part of a religion that exploits men (blow yourself up for the reward), women (cover yourself till you pass out from the heat) and children (no school, no hope and then grow up)! Not much of a system to me.
Posted by: Debby at November 20, 2005 02:08 PM (XuLge)
13
gosh if these is true i am glad i have somr rum and coke to celebrate tonite,
Posted by: specks at November 20, 2005 02:09 PM (SaYEt)
14
ok, take a deep breath junior. i want you to know that you give me hope. i often wonder if the voracious masses who oppose the operation in iraq actually have a sound intellectual foundation. is it something i've missed? apparently not. granted, there are some very smart people out there that take a contrarian view of our actions (fukuyama or scowcroft)or some who disapproved of our methods (shinseki), i offer you their names for your own good. you had the opportunity to display a shred of intellect and instead you wrote what you did. honestly, cool down and then read it and think about how silly you are being. join the ranks of the rational or continue to make me smile.
-there is hope for you yet
-benito
Posted by: benito at November 20, 2005 02:15 PM (SCRV9)
15
lil' ernie wants you to possibly think he is or was in the USMC. Its a fantasy of course - he thinks it reinforces his rambling statements - it doesn't.
The unspoken beauty of the all volunteer military is that it is overwhelming Republican and or Conservative. Lil' ernie's never serve.
So I guess we are fighting our war - so lil' ernie can sit back and watch and feel frustrated at how impotent he is.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:18 PM (Jvmry)
16
why would one use reason to debate totalitarians, they are beyond reason. fukuyama aint shit, scowcroft was aginst the invasion, shinseki was ignored, but does this matter for moral values american taliban? no, they want others to go die so they can live in impotent fear as they follow their holy leader. screw them. 66% of america knows you and your jesus president are incompetent at best, murderous liars at worst. America is now against the paste eater nerd republican class. no more kids signing up for the fake ass holy war. ever wonder why?
so its your duty american taliban, sign up for you fake ass jihad.
and remember, 66% know you are full of shit, so call them traitors all you want as you decline and lose even more support.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 20, 2005 02:22 PM (ocmaF)
17
Running low on Ritilan kid?
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:29 PM (Jvmry)
18
hondo i will take that as you admitting defeat, i enjoy kicking totalitarian ass.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 20, 2005 02:32 PM (ocmaF)
19
Been trying to trackback, but no luck.
Just for everyone's general edification, ernie has admitted in another thread that he isn't really a Marine, but he plays one in his mind.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:36 PM (RHG+K)
20
The reports right now are sketchy at best. I got fingers, toes, everything crossed on this one. I don't like this 66% number, I'm over here in Italy where they don't like us much and my Italian friends at this point are pouring champagne and watching RAI in anticipation. AND kissing everyone. If true its a time to come together. God forgive Zaraqawi. He needs it.
Posted by: Angelo Petraglia at November 20, 2005 02:36 PM (xDHF8)
21
ernie, very impressive. where did you get your PhD in advanced foreign relations? you know what we'll start out small with some vocab words. i need you to look up totalitarian, Taliban, jihad, and america. you are blinded by your rage which feeds off your lack of knowledge of world history. for you to compare us government officials to the above concepts demonstrates your shocking lack of education. i honestly feel sorry for you. i'm sure we can arrange for some sort of scholarship. btw, very profound anlysis of Dr. Fukuyama... but good job on scowcroft, should i start repeating things from your postings?
Posted by: benito at November 20, 2005 02:37 PM (SCRV9)
22
Let's cut ernie some slack.
He's mourning the death of eight friends.
Personal loss like that must be tough.
Posted by: kanawa at November 20, 2005 02:39 PM (yg73z)
23
I doubt whether Zaqueery would blow himself up. That pussy is afraid to die. He gets others to die for him. He was shitting himself when he went to hospital injured according to reports. He is a coward of the highest order. Good riddance to the ignorant scum that follow him and die for him raisin toast awaits them.
Posted by: Jester at November 20, 2005 02:41 PM (wBDaS)
24
"black and white thinking"
IRONY ALERT
Posted by: Knemon at November 20, 2005 02:42 PM (QaHR7)
25
FR poster(Casloy) in Baghdad...
"It's 11:10 PM in Baghdad and I am hearing an inordinate amount of celebratory gunfire from every direction in the red zone. Wondering what they might be celebrating."
........
"Been hearing encouraging reports all day, but it could still be one of the occasional events mixed with wishful thinking."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1525620/posts?page=381#381
Posted by: kanawa at November 20, 2005 02:51 PM (yg73z)
26
sure ernie - you win - I give up - feel better now?
In fact - on behalf of all right-wing conservatives here - we surrender to your brillant presence!
So put on your beret - stick out that 30" chest - proudly wear you Che T-shirt (designer GAP 29.95)and plan your fantasy victory parade
ERNIE ERNIE ERNIE ERNIE
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:51 PM (Jvmry)
27
possible connection to this CBS report...
"In Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, Iraqi officials said police and U.S. soldiers surrounded a house before dawn Saturday after reports that al-Qaida in Iraq members were inside, said Brig. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri, a Mosul police spokesman.
As a fierce gunbattle broke out, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture. Five more died fighting, while four police officers also were killed. Al-Jubouri said officials were attempting to identify the dead insurgents.
In Baghdad, the U.S. command confirmed the firefight and said 11 U.S. soldiers, nine Iraqi army troops and one policeman were wounded. The U.S. statement put the insurgent death toll at seven."
Posted by: kanawa at November 20, 2005 03:01 PM (yg73z)
28
Ernie declared himself the winner and hauled ass. Just like all the little chicken shits on DU.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 03:24 PM (rUyw4)
29
Yes JJ, I've noticed the same thing; they flee the field, banners held high, loudly declaring victory while their foes pursue. By the way, ernie could be our poster boy for "don't post while stupid", but he's gotta fight greg and rectus for the honor.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 03:47 PM (0yYS2)
30
maxie
Greg maybe, but actus? No way. Actus is light-years more competent and literate than lil' ernie. Only fair.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:57 PM (Jvmry)
31
I'm not going to cut him any slack, because he seems smart enough to know better, which to me is the greater sin.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 04:09 PM (0yYS2)
32
@1330 western standard time Yahoo says he's dead. @1405 they are more sure he's dead. Google has so far ignored the story. I sure hope hes dead.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 20, 2005 04:19 PM (R3FcZ)
33
Been taking care of important stuff like delivering a bottle of fine home made wine to Grandpa. NPR reports that the US is attempting to identify the body at 4:30 pm cst. Be dead.
Posted by: Howie at November 20, 2005 04:46 PM (D3+20)
34
All men over there in the US,and other Countries we are Praying for you everyday in the USA! Be careful you are doing a good job! God will watch over you all! Beleive in him and he will watch over you and take care of you! Happy Thanks Giving Coming up!! Carl WV
Posted by: Carl at November 20, 2005 05:48 PM (wHHt3)
35
it's actually 70 dates, not raisins or virgins
Posted by: oc at November 20, 2005 06:00 PM (SAPTo)
36
I knew it! I knew that fag Zaqweeri would be to chickenshit to fight it out! What a tosser! I bet he cried like a bitch before that bomb blew his head clean out of his ass. Oh yeah, a message to ernie: shut up.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 20, 2005 06:29 PM (CtVG6)
37
Ernie: I would be glad to sign up again. Particularly if you were man enough to be on the other side. Truth is you are a big mouth coward. You wouldn't show up. You know it. I know it. Just another cry baby loser. You don't count and it hurts so you attack those that you wish you were like. Back to your room. You pathetic little freak. Mommy shouldn't have brought you a computer. You're not normal enough to communicate with you betters. Low life little freak. If you continue on perhaps a muslim will bugger you. Thats really what you want. Isn't it.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 07:02 PM (ZaAd/)
38
He Ernie where's your rubber duckie. Bert must be out today.
Looks like tonight still no confirmation. Maybe not him but time will tell.
Posted by: Howie at November 20, 2005 07:45 PM (D3+20)
39
The Zag might well be dead. Blowing himself up would be an attempt to prevent certain identification - a martyr is worth 15 minutes in reality - a living legend has the only true value.
Myself and others have believed OBL may well be same - buried under some mountain in Tora Bora. Cheap videos and cassettes passing thru multiple hands with significant time lag may be effort to keep legend alive. But without a body (in current political climate) definitive statement can't be made.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:43 PM (Jvmry)
40
Agent Brown says Ahmad Fadheel Nazaal al-Khalaylah of the Bani Hassan Tribe was born in Zarqa, Jordan in 1966. A troublemaker as a teen, Ahmad molested a girl. Ahmad found religion in Pakistan and went to Afghanistan. There, Ahmad found that Jihad had left the area and so did the Russians. Arrested not long after his return to Jordan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi was hardened in Prison.
Agent Jones says Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a "pig fucker".
Posted by: Agent Smith at November 21, 2005 06:19 AM (xXsDQ)
41
This is directed at ernie:
What leap of logic makes you think you are qualified to speak on behalf of U.S. National Guardsmen serving in Iraq?
My son, a Staff Sergeant with the Louisiana National Guard, has just returned from a tour of duty as a [decorated] combat infantryman in Iraq. Care to know what he thinks about the war in general and his role in it specifically? Probably not, since it is diametrically opposed to your own take.
"We need to be there. The Iraqi people are acting with great courage and committment toward securing their democracy, but they need our help. People who think we shouldn't be there need to go to the front lines and see what I have seen."
So much for your opinion of the National Guard as a bunch of Momma's Boys who are not 'real soldiers', and who have no higher calling than returning home.
Charlie M. Beckett, Jr.
US Army [1969-1972]
Posted by: Charlie Beckett at November 21, 2005 08:26 AM (2ZhL/)
42
Good post Charlie.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:59 AM (0yYS2)
43
There is no doubt in my mind ernie is a complete fraud. There is no limit to how low these Leftards will stoop that they now go around claiming "semper fi" after their despicable Leftist anti-American, anti-troop screeds.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:28 AM (8e/V4)
44
Oh yeah, Carlos, I've met numerous "veterans" who, when asked specific questions about dates of service, duty stations, units, etc., couldn't give a correct answer. Once, I asked a guy what unit he was in and he said the 82nd Airborne, so I asked him how long he was at Fort Stewart, and he said "five years". I asked him how long he was in the Army, and he said that was it, that he was stationed at Fort Stewart for five years with the 82nd Airborne. Except that the 82nd has never been at Fort Stewart, Georgia, but rather Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Liberals love to lie, but they're just not smart enough to be good at it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:42 AM (0yYS2)
45
IM,
any cause that requires the wholesale lying these Libs engage in by definition has to be rotten to the core.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 02:39 PM (8e/V4)
46
Yep, if you have to lie that much, i.e. every word you speak, then you can't be a good person.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 03:18 PM (0yYS2)
47
Ernie: My son is comming home soon after serving two tours as a Marine Corps Company Commander. He would sure like to meet you. You know, have a few drinks together and discuss the war against the muslim terrorists and how much of a pussy he and his men are. YOU GAME?
Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:51 AM (ZaAd/)
48
greyrooster,
Little Ernie the troll is probably bottoms up to one of his terrorist enabalers as we speak. You won't have to worry about him showing up to meet your son or anyone else, unless you were to get one of the Islamists to agree to bugger him, haha.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 03:50 PM (rUyw4)
November 20, 2005
Blogger Support Needed
Howie does requests so here we go with this one from Mr. Right vacation be damned.
I apologize for the mass e-mailing, but this is just too disgusting for words!My co-blogger at The Right Place, Anna (also of A Rose by Any Other Name, ), has twice written about the plight of a small MilBlog run by Grey Eagle. First, Anna asked people to drop by and post some encouraging words after she noticed some very rude and disgusting comments being left there by leftwing trolls.
I thought that was the end of it, but Anna has just recently posted again about Grey Eagle's blog after she visited once more and saw the newest post Grey Eagle had at the top.
I couldn't find a permalink at Grey Eagle's site, A Female Soldier 2, but as of my writing this, it was still the top post.
I can certainly understand that. Seems some trolls just don’t know when to quit. I seem to remember one calling the queen of England a fat beotch on a London bombing thread. So I can see how it gets to a person. So blog on Anna and you know to troll an “Honor the Dead Thread” just plain sucks. So I hope Anna keeps it up. Mr. Right sent me a copy of the post and I’ll post it in the extended entry but really surf over there and show your support for Anna.
Update: Me Screw up duh
Thanks for the links, Howie!Just to clear things up a bit, Anna is my co-blogger and was writing ABOUT a MilBlogger named Grey Eagle who runs A Female Soldier 2, which is the blog that has been under assault.
It is Grey Eagle who needs the words of support and encouragement, not Anna.
Sorry for any confusion my letter may have caused.
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. I was in a hurry on dialup and I sucked. But I'm used to that so Support both bloggers and Mr Right. I now return myself to my regularly scheduled vacation.
Posted by: Howie at
07:26 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1752 words, total size 10 kb.
1
Thanks for the links, Howie!
Just to clear things up a bit, Anna is my co-blogger and was writing ABOUT a MilBlogger named Grey Eagle who runs A Female Soldier 2, which is the blog that has been under assault.
It is Grey Eagle who needs the words of support and encouragement, not Anna.
Sorry for any confusion my letter may have caused.
Posted by: Mr. Right at November 20, 2005 08:18 PM (k52la)
2
What an awful thing for someone to do. I expressed my support for Grey Eagle at her blog. Hope someone helps her get the technical issues solved. Wish I had the know how.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 06:52 AM (YudAC)
3
It's always suprising to me that those who claim to be so caring, intellectual and morally superior can be such scum. 'We Support the Troops' yeah, nice way to show it.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 08:16 AM (nt3NF)
4
Let me point out that I don't mean any offense to pond scum or any similar algal growth. Unlike liberal scum, algae represents a vital component of the ecology and is a welcome presence.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 08:24 AM (nt3NF)
5
I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat that liberals are scum and should all be killed, but I'll do so until the people of this country rise up and slaughter them like the treasonous scum they are. Traitors do not deserve to live one day longer.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:54 AM (0yYS2)
6
me screw up name.
Posted by: Howie at November 22, 2005 06:26 PM (D3+20)
7
Howie,
Thank you for taking part in getting the word out on Grey Eagle's plight. I know that I was overwhelmed by the outpouring of support and it is still continuing. Please thank your readers and remember...thank our soldiers!
Anna
The Right Place Contributor
Posted by: Anna at November 23, 2005 02:20 PM (Mrl8I)
Morocco Nabs 17 Al Qaeda Suspects
The Moroccans are continuously in a state of high security alert after suicide bombings in Casablanca killed 45 people in 2003. As a result, extremists are watched very closely.
From Ninemsn:
Morocco security forces have arrested 17 radical Islamists on suspicion of belonging to a "terrorist structure" linked to al Qaeda, state news agency MAP said, quoting a police source.Bully!
[Update 11/20/05, 2350 EST]
(via In The Bullpen) According to ABC News, two of the suspected terrorists apprehended are former prisoners from the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Brahim Benchekroun and Mohammed Mazouz were arrested in late 2001 and accused of participating in weapons training conducted by al Qaeda. They were released from Guantanamo Bay in August 2004.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:18 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, it seems that islamophobia knows no bounds. It just makes me sick that people can't even practice a little introspective, peaceful inner-struggle suicide bombing without angering the neocons. Morocco our of Iraq!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 03:39 PM (0yYS2)
2
Out, dammit, out if Iraq. I hate it when good, biting satire is ruined by a typo. But then, on the bright side, at least I'm not a muslim, so I don't have to go cut off a schoolgirl's head because I screwed up.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 03:41 PM (0yYS2)
3
Damn another typo. I need to get drunk.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 06:22 PM (0yYS2)
4
I'm drunk and I can tipe.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:38 PM (ZaAd/)
5
I'm hung over. Does that count?
They've picked a number of those a second time who were released from Gitmo and elsewhere. Funny how there are many who ignore that niggling little fact as they advocate releasing more of them.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 07:04 AM (YudAC)
6
err .... they've picked "up" a number of those ...
This thread is doomed to be riddled with typos.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 08:54 AM (fl6E1)
7
Oy...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:02 AM (0yYS2)
Hysterical Left Begins Building New Lie: "She Called Murtha a Coward"
"He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that, 'Cowards cut and run, Marines never do'." - Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R) OhioThe latest burning question: Who called Democratic congressman Jack Murtha a "coward"? Was it Jean Schmidt, or a Marine Reserve colonel?
Reality and common sense have been lost in the hysteria. Read the quote. Neither called Murtha a "coward". Certainly not Schmidt, who was relaying a quote from a constituent, a colonel in the Marine Reserve. And the Marine didn't call Murtha a coward, either, if one takes the time to read the quote for comprehension, which few seem willing to do.
The Marine, quite clearly, is reminding Murtha that the accepted Marine tradition is "Reteat? Hell!" not the immediate and ignominious withdrawal that Murtha had publicly advocated. The Marine is admonishing Murtha that ignominious withdrawal is not a part of the Marine tradition. The Marine is trying to prod Murtha into doing the right thing, i.e., withdraw the call for surrender. The Marine is correct. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
01:07 PM
| Comments (145)
| Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"Who called Democratic congressman Jack Murtha a "coward"? Was it Jean Schmidt, or a Marine Reserve colonel?"
Both. The analogous concept would be publisher liability in libel.
Posted by: actus at November 20, 2005 01:27 PM (Zi15r)
2
Except, actus, the truth is NO ONE was called a coward. Instead, the acts of a coward and of a Marine were contrasted.
IMHO, the people who are taking Schmidt's statement as being about Murtha are the ones calling him a coward. They're making the association that neither Schmidt nor her constituent did.
BTW -- the real motivation here is to get Schmidt. She beat a Kossack Kandidate in a special election, so now they're out for her blood. Any lie is fine, so long as it serves that end.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 20, 2005 01:34 PM (Gn9tM)
3
"Except, actus, the truth is NO ONE was called a coward. Instead, the acts of a coward and of a Marine were contrasted."
Oh. And Murtha is not doing or advocating a cut and run strategy? Fine with me!
Posted by: actus at November 20, 2005 01:44 PM (Zi15r)
4
Neither did - I heard it all complete and in context. Dems and left will of course try and play it but it will be lame and useless. Can't sell something if you can't actually show and present it (it is available) out of fear others wouldn't "re-interpret it like them".
Besides - who would actually care about this one way or the other except the mil/vet community - does the Dem/left actually believe they can suddenly convert this constituency? Get real! Better chance pulling rabbits out of a hat. Lame lame lame!
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 01:53 PM (Jvmry)
5
ya ya, we know. first off your trite arguments between conservative and liberal is totalitarian crap, so you need to get over it so you can begin to think again.
your slimy oily reptiles NEVER do anything wrong, do ya? you didnt compare battle wounded amputee max cleland with being a friend of terrorists, you never impugned john kerry wither. you didnt claim john mccain was nuts over his war service in 2000 south carolina either. you slug idiots are disgusting and america is on to you. you are the minority folks, traitors leading us soldiers to their deaths because you are too stupid and weak to admit your phony ideology is shit and you have mud in your souls.
you chicken hawk jackasses, following deferment cheney, bad back gingrich, and cocaine AWOL Bush have no ouls, no courage, nothing. you are exposed as being the lickspittle fascists that you are. cowards.
go sign up for your holy jihad you pussies. let the national guard troops come home to work and raise their kids and you go fight for your impotence and fear. "conservatives", paste eater disgusting nerds, always willing for others to fight.
anyway, your slander aint shit, america hates you. feel it. acknowledsge it. you are petty sycophants for liars and your lack of dignity is obvious for all to see. sign your geek asses up. leave this nation, go die for your holy pharoah .
semper fi.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 01:53 PM (ocmaF)
6
ernie
And your are phony with nothing to show except the same old tired one-trick pony crap.
No soldier - just try (lamely) to imply you are to as if that will magically give you credibility.
Note public record - Max C lost his limbs playing sock hockey with a grenade - kinda embarrassing and stupid.
wouldn't even bother with rest - you don't rate extensive comentary.
Nothing is more pathetic than a lil' lefty play-acting Rambo.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:05 PM (Jvmry)
7
I find impersonating a Marine to be a particularly heinous act, Ernie. You should know that commenting reveals your IP to administrators. Most people realize that.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:06 PM (RHG+K)
Posted by: Eric Kephas at November 20, 2005 02:14 PM (5qKGR)
9
no my friends are marines and they hate you nerd dickheads whop are getting them killed with your trite reasoning. and of ocurse you cant defend the point. you moral value pusseis live off of character assassination and lies.
you call 66% percent of america traitors because they know you are full od shit. we think you 34% are traitors, you are on the losing side pussy boys, and we hold you responsible for every 2085 deaths. you idiots are on the way out. go out in public and spew your filth so we can beat your nerd asses.
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 02:14 PM (ocmaF)
10
Well, ernie my family are Marines (and Soldiers) and they say you're so full of shit you squish when you walk. The word used was "blivet", or ten pounds of shit in a five pound sack.
I do speak my mind in public.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:23 PM (RHG+K)
11
Your not a marine - but your friends are? Yeah - that will work. What a pathetic lil' dweeb!
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:24 PM (Jvmry)
12
I sense a lot of chicken hawks on this board.
Posted by: rick at November 20, 2005 02:28 PM (3B9Yj)
13
so why is it that military families blindly support deferment cheney and awol bush as their slanderous political machine defames people who actually served? that is incredibly undignified and irresponsible...as bush would say.
so in short, everyone understands "supporting the troops" but we also understand selling out the troops to muderers and liars. if you cant see that, then you no longer defend the constotition, but fascism.
so whatever, again, 66 % of america is awake and it will only grow, nobody supports your fake ass holy wars and tyhe lies of the republican attack machine...
imagine...karl rove makes south carolina certain john mccain is crazy due to his service, max cleland called a friend of bin laden, kerry's service was discgraced by your really cool band aids making fun of his wounds...now murtha...
but you guys cant see it. that is a shame and disgusting...ya, just keep following awol bush and deferment cheney as they kill more soliders for their lies. you should be ashamed for selling out the troops, again, 66% of us see it, why cant you?
ernie
Posted by: ernie at November 20, 2005 02:29 PM (ocmaF)
14
ernie's argument is that he hates Bush (and probably hates bush, too; seems a little light in the loafers, doesn't he?) so we should, too.
It's a tough call what's more pathetic, continually posting with no reason or logic, or pretending to be a Marine to bolster your weak attempts at debate.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 02:34 PM (RHG+K)
15
What is striking to me is how many military families, former and active soilders, former and current high ranking goverment officals that are Republicans HAVE spoken out against this war and the direction that it is taking. When you are in the active military you do not speak out against the president no matter what. So it just amazes me that so many have.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:40 PM (3B9Yj)
16
poor ernie
Like soooo many on the left they just can't realise that the "soldiers" don't give a fuck about them.
I'll make it easy for ya - their not "your" soldiers - their not "your" troops. The war is our war -OK - feel better?
One last thing - you and whatever mystical horde you think you represent - are not in charge. like they say in Russia - tuffski shitski!
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 02:40 PM (Jvmry)
17
It's been written that Bush does not talk to his father anymore because someone close to his dad spoke out against this war stragedy. That now he only talks to four advisors (all women) on a regular basis.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:44 PM (3B9Yj)
18
I know this is a pro-Iraq board and none of you are for withdrawing our troops because as you say it would be "cut and run". my question then is how long do we stay in Iraq?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:47 PM (3B9Yj)
19
Where did all you traitorous creeps come from? You are nothing more than a bunch of delusional shits from Indymedia and DU. Go back to the swamps, you potheads.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 02:52 PM (rUyw4)
20
Hey I'm not calling anyone here names. I'm just asking a question. Can't you have a civil conversation?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:56 PM (3B9Yj)
21
Jesusland joe,
how old r you?
Posted by: Sonnybear at November 20, 2005 02:57 PM (3B9Yj)
22
I don't feel like being civil when creeps come in here from DU and troll. Come back later, sonnybear.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 02:58 PM (rUyw4)
23
troll? Because I ask a question?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:00 PM (3B9Yj)
24
jesusland Joe,
I'll ask the quetion again;
How long do you think we should stayin in iraq?
P.S.I'm not trying start a fight I just want to know your opinion.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:02 PM (3B9Yj)
25
its been written ... ha ha ha ... er true - not true ?????
then again - what's your point?
How long? Till we win (ie achieve objectives, goals)!
If the Dems/left were rational they would focus on the definition of winning (a fair point any respectable right-wing conservative here would agree).
But they don't - because winning by any definition doesn't return them to power!!!!!!!!!!!
To them - winning only legitimizes Bush/conservatives etc. and they can't have that now, can they!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:03 PM (Jvmry)
26
hondo,
Huh,so how long will these goals take? 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, years?
again, just a question, not looking to fight with ya.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:07 PM (3B9Yj)
27
Sonnybear,
How long have we been in Europe? How long have we been in Korea? And dozens of other places in the World. Until Iraq is stabalized, and I might add, had the terrorists, insurgents, or whatever you call them, not received assistance from people right here in the US, I believe our troops would be coming home right now. Just my opinion.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 03:13 PM (rUyw4)
28
Again- simple - AS LONG AS IT TAKES!
Now question for you - when do you want to quit and fail?
A fair question - I was totally straightforward with my answer.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:17 PM (Jvmry)
29
The point I'm trying to make is that I believe we are going to start reducing (cut and run) our forces in Iraq by next year. The democrates know this and that is why there are trying to capitallize on this by callling for pullout within the next 6 months now. This way they can weaken the president and claim victory. The Repulicans on the other hand want to make it sound as if we have reached some our goals so thus they can say that they won. Same result just a different approach.
It's just politics, don't take is personally.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:24 PM (3B9Yj)
30
There is a big difference.
Reductions are inevitable as conditions change - draw down in any war is done over time. When WW2 ended did 10 million servicemen come home within a week?
My anger is this - if Dems see future reductions and drawdowns as signs of failure (for political gain or whatever) - then failure (losing)HAS ALWAYS BEEN their end goal. Why? Because they see America losing the war as an OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO RETURN TO POWER.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:36 PM (Jvmry)
31
Easy, I say pull them out within 6 months. I'm very hawkish when it comes to war, but this was so screwed up from the begining that the president as lost the american people. Politics are such that you cannot have a war that last past two terms. YOu only have a small window to get things right and sadly Rummie was not the guy to plan this War.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:38 PM (3B9Yj)
32
He's not a coward, he's just a scumbag dhimmicrat traitor who should be hanged with the rest of them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 03:40 PM (0yYS2)
33
I totally agree with your assement on the Democrates. But understand polictics is a two way street and I feel that people tend to only see there side as being the one that has any virtue.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:41 PM (3B9Yj)
34
I guess if I understand you correctly is that you agree with me that they will start reducing some troop levels my next year?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:45 PM (3B9Yj)
35
Finally! Your prepared for defeat - you want to surrender - hawkish like a sunshine soldier! The consequences .. you don't care - you can blame Bush - like that makes the consequences go away like magic pixie dust.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 03:48 PM (Jvmry)
36
Bullshit.
What exactly is Jean saying?
Posted by: Steve at November 20, 2005 03:53 PM (OyPHr)
37
why are you getting angry?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 03:54 PM (3B9Yj)
38
Murtha's a dirty, rotten, cowardly son of a bitch because he wants to cut and run and give the Islamists a victory in Iraq. If she didn't say it, then I just did.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 03:56 PM (rUyw4)
39
Hondo,
Do you agree that we are going to start reducing our exposure before the 06 elections?
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:00 PM (3B9Yj)
40
Because I will never accept defeatism regardless why its being advocated.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 04:00 PM (Jvmry)
41
Dinner time!
I talk to you guys later.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:01 PM (3B9Yj)
42
hondo,
It's not defeatism military that concerns you but the political consquences for the replublican party. Remember it was not to long ago that the Dems where in the hot seat on the other side of this debate. Nixon won in 68' under the promise to end the war and to to WIN it military. He bomb the hell out of the north to bring them to the peace table.
Posted by: sonnybear at November 20, 2005 04:11 PM (3B9Yj)
43
How U.S. Fell Under the Spell of 'Curveball'
The Iraqi informant's German handlers say they had told U.S. officials that his information was 'not proven,' and were shocked when President Bush and Colin L. Powell used it in key prewar speeches.
Posted by: Route Irish at November 20, 2005 05:53 PM (Eh9tH)
44
Look our country has done this before, all we have to do is say "Peace with honor" and then leave. The Iraqis will straighten out their own mess with out us. Since the polls on the war have turned upside down so have both political parties. The republicans now wanting troop withdrawals and the democrats now wanting to send more troops. WTF !! So I guess the best thing to do if they can not come up with a policy that we the people can live with is: BLAME EACH OTHER ! He started it. No I didn't. It was his fault. H;e called me a bad name. Sometimes this place reminds me of the two opposing squads of cheerleaders having a cat fight in the 4th quarter while the 2 teams are out there not really knowing what the outcome is going to be but still trying to give it their all.
Posted by: john Ryan at November 20, 2005 06:17 PM (ads7K)
45
by way of patriot routeirish@yahoo.com
"One hideous consequence of the White House's Big Lie - fusing the war of choice in Iraq with the war of necessity that began on 9/11 - is that the public, having rejected one, automatically rejects the other. That's already happening. The percentage of Americans who now regard fighting terrorism as a top national priority is either in the single or low double digits in every poll.
Thus the tragic bottom line of the Bush catastrophe: the administration has at once increased the ranks of jihadists by turning Iraq into a new training ground and recruitment magnet while at the same time exhausting America's will and resources to confront that expanded threat."
Posted by: Route Irish at November 20, 2005 06:29 PM (Eh9tH)
46
Not only did she call him a coward, she didn't even have the guts to do it on her own account. This is the world we live in. The chickenhawks are all heroes with other people's lives; a fighter who calls enough is a coward.
Posted by: Dr Zen at November 20, 2005 06:43 PM (78Q5w)
47
"Murtha's a dirty, rotten, cowardly son of a bitch because he wants to cut and run and give the Islamists a victory in Iraq."
Well, they've beat you, fuckhead. It's just a question of how many people have to die before you accept it.
Posted by: Dr Zen at November 20, 2005 06:45 PM (78Q5w)
48
Earnie: Semper Fi. From a real Marine. You sissy assed little punk.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:47 PM (ZaAd/)
49
Pulling the Coalition out of Iraq would be a colossal mistake now. In the short term, the soldiers will come home and families will be reunited. In the long term, chaos, will ensue as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia rush to fill the power vacuum in Iraq, something which has global repercussions. The perception that the West cannot sustain loses is already there and withdrawal will only confirm that, paving the way for an increase in attacks around the world. The citizens of Iraq are losing dozens everyday, but they aren't saying "Let's just give the country to Al Qaeda and be done with it." Withdrawal now will mean that the sacrifices have been for nothing. Even if the Coalition were to withdraw, then what? Will a better plan be formulated and then it all starts over again? Mistakes have been made in the waging of this war, but war is not precise - it's a mess where very bad things can happen. The United States needs to stay the course and finish the job. That can only be accomplished with forces on the ground with good leadership and clearly defined goals. The US has failed to stay the course in the past and now those events are studied by the terrorists. Anyone remember the Marine barracks in Beirut? The embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Mogadishu, Somalia? The USS Cole?
Why not apply the 'when things get tough, we cut and run' strategy to other policies? In that regard, I propose the following:
1) Humanitarian assistance to African countries aren't preventing famines, so there's no point really. Stop the wasting of federal funds! Bring the money home now!
2) All those children not performing well in the public school system are clearly a burden on society. Shut the schools down and send the children home. No use trying any more with them.
3) The border patrol isn't stopping illegal immigrants from flooding the US-Mexico border, so scrap the immigration laws, send the border patrol home and let the Mexicans come. They'll end up in the US anyway, right?
Posted by: Graeme at November 20, 2005 06:58 PM (krwm9)
50
Bringing peace and stability to a shithole like Iraq, at gunpoint yet, will never happen. Religious (as usual) and tribal differences there are not like anything we have ever encountered.
"Winning", as described, ain't gonna happen. Until people stop killing each other over whose 'Invisible Man in the Sky' is authentic and whose is fake, peace is not going to fall on Iraq. We had no idea what we got into and now we have no idea how to 'complete' this ever-morphing "mission". All the name calling and all the narrow-mindset rhetoric can't make this continued war justified. America has seen through the illusion and that toothpaste isn't likely to jump back in the tube. The web is unraveled, the lies revealed. Americans don't like being misled. Momentum will never return to the pro-war rah-rah group. The "progress is being made" line has evaporated. Re-evaluation is a foreign concept to this arrogant bunch od Neo-Cons in charge. They blew it. You folks attacking those who question this futile grinder in Iraq might spend less time reflexively attacking thinking people and engaging in a little self-exploration. You won't but if you ever did you might end up putting down the Kool-Aid and acting more like a thinking human being with the ability to ask questions and the dignity to listen to all sides intelligently.
Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 08:27 PM (A8hdT)
51
One more thing; Adjusted people with happy healthy sex lives don't turn every political argument (such as Iraq) into a referendum on homosexuality. People with repressed sexual urges and demons of their own happily do. It makes them feel better about themselves. You out there who are so obsessed with the sex lives of people you never met must interject your own conflict over sexuality into political discussions, I know. You just have to. That's what compulsion is all about.
Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 08:32 PM (A8hdT)
52
Interesting - the ones taking the brunt of the horror are the Iraqi people (primarily shia & kurds) - men, women, and children slaughtered (AND TARGETED DELIBERATELY!!!) by car, truck and other suicide delivery systems from those wonderful saddamists and jihadists.
Story related to me by 1SG (I'm in the rear stateside) - husband and wife school teachers beheaded in their home and three children murdered because they wanted a better Iraq. He can't get the image out of his mind. And there are plenty more stories like that.
To some here the solution is easy - just don't look - turn away.
And if we turn away then what - they will all live happily ever after? The real slaughter will begin with the saddamists and radical jihadists vieing for control.
What is it - battlegrounds you don't like - but killing fields are OK as long as we're not there?
Jihadists and terrorists flock to Iraq! But you don't want to fight them there - well, then where?
What makes hondo angry is experience - you don't give a flying fuck about the soldiers you claim to care for - and have little if any real contact with us.
At least Dman has to courage (sic) to express his indifference and hatred for all Iraqis - feel free to expand that to all others.
What pisses you whiners off is that all this simply detracts you from your daily carefree lives, or maybe some mean jihadist might come here and - god forbid - interfere with you vacation plans - maybe if we ignore them they will go away!
Want to end this? Then get your freakin' Dem politicians to vote NO! Ball-less wonders!
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:18 PM (Jvmry)
53
A friend of mine tells me that "you guys suck dead donkey dicks". I'd never say that about you guys, but the same friend tells me "you guys eat shit on rye". My friend simply has no respect for the rules of posting, so I want to apologize for what my fried said about you guys. Of course, I don't believe I have anything to apologize for since I am only relating what my friend had to say. By the way, did the Congresswoman apologize for what the colonel said, or did she apologize for her remarks? I was inclined to accept her apology and move on. I take it you guys don't accept her apology?
Posted by: Quizmos at November 20, 2005 09:39 PM (rcuoz)
54
Representative Murtha is an honorable Member of Congress, a veteran and a Marine. By insulting him and his service, you are insulting the millions of Americans who have proudly served who happen to disagree with the direction the Bush Administration's flawed and dangerous foreign policies. It appears the loyal adherents of the Bushian Warfare Cult present on the "Jawa Report" still don't get it.
Posted by: Collin Baber at November 20, 2005 09:40 PM (eDzLA)
55
Collin Baber,
At least Quizmos read the post and made an attempt at a relevant reply (though tragically limited by his homophobia, lack of intelligence, and stunted vocabulary).
But you Collin, have replied without reading the post, or, having read it, have failed to understand its import.
If I decide to delete Route Irish for posting off-topic, why not you, as well?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 20, 2005 09:54 PM (RHG+K)
56
Saw the statment - Murtha wasn't called a coward - re-intrepret or read into it all you like if it makes you feel happy.
As far as all the millions who proudly serve(d) - you ain't one of them - but don't let that stop you from claiming to speak for them.
Interesting - for this so-called issue to fly it must be endorsed by those "millions" (who else cares about this subject passionately?)- myself and those millions won't of course. Must be frustrating huh.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:56 PM (Jvmry)
57
This "you didn't serve" insult gets hurled around by both sides when its convenient. It is amusing to watch people fall in line with war policies concocted and promoted by a whole team of those who "never served" yet these same people, locked into that very war policy, feel inclined to use "never served" as an insult to be used AGAINST someone who defends the opinions of someone who DID SERVE. Guess it all depends on whose ox is getting roasted. This week the Republican spin machine got two flat tires and its overheating. Watch the attack machine rev up to compensate for the spin machine breakdown. What a show.
Posted by: DMan at November 20, 2005 10:13 PM (A8hdT)
58
I can't believe these dumb ass democrats. They are crying about the war when almost the entire House of Representatives, including all but three democrats, voted to keep our troops in Iraq. Go complain to your Congressman, you dip shits!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 10:44 PM (rUyw4)
59
I don't typically hurl something like that around - but the truth is - you didn't serve and feel inclined to speak for those who did.
Better yet - you wish to accept and defend the opinion of "one who served" and how dare anyone challenge him ...
But when those challenging also "did serve" then what - they don't count anymore? Their just ignorant dupes?
You don't give a damn who did or didn't serve! - you simply latch on it and hope it works for you.
And its not working for you now is it? Your still outside looking in, moving your feet in place and yet to get anywhere.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 11:08 PM (Jvmry)
60
She may not have called anyone a "coward" but it was not necessary to read the reserve Marine colonel's comments about Congressman Murtha. Jean Schmidt crossed the line. She has been an embarrassment to the Republican Party since she started her campaign.
Posted by: Jack at November 21, 2005 01:48 AM (XJ5N5)
61
Agent Jones, Agent Brown and I have served the Architect dutifully since 2009. We have never gone on holiday.
Posted by: Agent Smith at November 21, 2005 06:23 AM (xXsDQ)
62
Interesting topic guys. It's pretty amazing that the majority of you resort to fallacy and insults instead of supported arguments. But that's what Blogs are for, right? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing worse than a Bleeding Heart Commie Hippie Liberal is a Gun Toting Bible Thumping Right Wing Fascist Republican. There, now I feel like part of the "crew".
I like to read these Blogs from time to time because I like the perspective. I like to see and hear what people are thinking on a given issue. Many of you are blinded by party loyalty, but some of you DO have interesting points. Here's the problem...this post was about the comments made by a Representative on the floor of the House of Representatives, not about the fight for Iraq.
Here's the thing guys...she was BOOED OFF THE FLOOR! Booed...by her own party members as well as the "enemy democrats" across the isle. She was booed because of a breach of etiquette and character, and however you want to construe her comments (called him a coward/no she didn't) what seems to be lost in the discussion is that IT WAS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS SHE COULD HAVE SAID, AND SHE SHOULD APOLIGIZE for her lapse in judgment. She will be reprimanded by her own party for her actions and vilified by her Democratic opponents. By insulting a man who served and gave an argument that even President Bush has called "well supported", she gave the Left ammunition and may have galvanized more people who are sure whether to support the war or not AGAINST he cause. Call they stupid all you want, the Right need them as much as the Left.
Bottom line, whatever party you support, Web Logs are for name-calling and insults. Keep it off the floor of my Legislature.
Posted by: JoePa at November 21, 2005 06:42 AM (bIAXm)
63
I don't believe Murtha is a coward. But he is a political pawn and a dumb ass democrat.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 AM (ZaAd/)
64
DMAN is without doubt a pay professional. These turkeys use the same words, phases, etc: Easy to spot.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:22 AM (ZaAd/)
65
I think the time to leave Iraq was clearly stated already. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. When they belive they're capable of protecting themselves we can reduce our presence to a bare minimum and act only as tactical support.
I also believe that Jean Schmidt relayed a message from someone who deserved to be heard as much as any Senator or Representative. Many people didn't like that message and interpreted differently than others. Nevertheless, it's out there and one can simply take it or leave it.
And just saying that it was a personal insult doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 07:33 AM (YudAC)
66
Oh God, now one of the lib trolls (JoePa) is trying the "I'm an unbiased independent" gambit, and using it as a pretext to ignore the points made in the post.
Okay Joe, since you say that our Representatives "booed her off the floor" you're telling us that they were actually booing...the Marine who called her with his concerns about Murtha's senior moment.
That's supposed to make everybody feel better about their representation, that the opinion of a serving memeber of the military was booed off the floor by partisan Democrats?
Go back to the DU where you belong.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 07:37 AM (RHG+K)
67
Bluto, did you see the video?
Yes, people from both sides booed her off the floor. And no, in my opinion they were not angry with the Marine and his/her comments. They were angry at the decorum shown by a young Representative who made a poor decision on the floor of the Legislature. The comment is not what people should be taking issue with. The time and place the comment was raised was inappropriate.
Posted by: JoePa at November 21, 2005 08:01 AM (bIAXm)
68
I saw the video.
The comment was in no way inapropriate.
It's a truism that Marines never cut and run.
Got a problem with that truth?
Posted by: Vladimir at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (RzwGs)
69
"Yes, people from both sides booed her off the floor"
Er, is there a reason these people are un-named and identified?(The GOP ones)
Must be a bummer having to depend on an incident that was filmed for the record - and then depending on others to
re-interpret it according to your political position.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (Jvmry)
70
I reproduced Schmidt's remarks verbatim in this post.
Decorum isn't the point of this post.
Deliberate lying by Democrat-affiliated blogs and mainstream media is the point.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 08:35 AM (RHG+K)
71
General interest: anyone who wants an example of how leftist bloggers and their readers think should visit the link to "Shakespeare's Sister" below the fold and look at the comments.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 08:47 AM (RHG+K)
72
Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward, and even if she did, I fail to see what the fuss is about. If the Dems find it offensive, then they should point out the policies / legislations / strategies which they support to prove otherwise. Put the burden on Schmidt and company to prove that they're cowards. But because they can't, they have to resort to the 'Boo hoo. That's such a mean thing to say' defense. This is just like Gov. Arnold's 'economic girlie men' incident.
Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 08:53 AM (nt3NF)
73
WOW, I'm a "paid professional"!!! Cool, where do I go to get paid? Actually I'm a career firefighter (22 years) in a tough city. (Maybe you can find some other right-wing firefighter somewhere to call me a coward).
Funny how these guys can "see" over the internet and magically can tell "who served" (although in Murtha's or Cheney's case that doesn't matter this time) and who is a "paid professional" by the tenor of the post. Einstein would be jealous.
Maybe, since you are posessed of such clairvoyent power, you can tell us when we can get out of the shithole we created in Iraq. You don't, however, seem to be able to discern some simple things like: Who was behind 9/11
The ridiculousness of this war and its rah-rah cheerleaders (safe at home on line) continues to grow exponantially in direct proportion to the crumbling public support for the war-of-choice and the exposing of the stale Bush propoganda lines (staying the course, progress is being made....blah blah blah).
Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 09:04 AM (A8hdT)
74
I think you are doing a great job of spinning a very out of line comment by a congress person who has never served and who has very little experience to make such a comment.
You are right that she did not say “Murtha, you are a coward” but she was clearly making the connection, and her comments were out of line. She is like the rest of the War Mongering neo-Republicans, she has a lot to say, is willing to send our boys into harms way, but has never dawned a uniform and defended her nation. I have, and I am forever disabled because of my service.
Her comments discussed me, I expect that we all show each other respect, and I think that those that served there nation in a time of war, deserve at least the comment decency of any person.
Her comments were grossly out of line, and from a congress women who has been in congress less time than Martha was in a theater of war. Sick if you ask me, and what is more sick is your blind faith towards these neo-republicans (I call you this because real republicans have long died, Smaller gov, money smart, all dead) that you refuse to call foul no matter what they do....
The real question for you neo-republicans is, Do you have any shame what so ever?
Don't drfend this war monger cowards comments, it only makes you look dumb as hell.
Posted by: Mark at November 21, 2005 09:08 AM (jNk3r)
75
Let's see if I got this straight -
1) can't criticise if you haven't worn the uniform
2) if you have worn the uniform and criticise you don't count if you disagree with Dems/left
and this approach is supposed to have traction with who/what group?
The mil/vet community obviously.
Soooooo - why don't you take it to them directly -
they have boards, clubs, associations etc.
What's the problem?
The problem is they don't have much use for you either.
Must be tuff having an "issue" that simply uselessly fades in a matter of days.
I've never considered Service a benchmark - and I have nearly 30 years. I serve because I want to AND it allows others to not.
But if the left assholes want this as an issue - fine.
maybe a Robert Heinlein solution will appeal to all.
Citizenship, the right to vote, critical job positions restricted to mil/vets only - everyone else is simply a person with rights proscribed by the governing group.
Will of course disenfranchise the bulk of the US population and virtually all of the lib/left ...
But Service is voluntary - your choice
I don't immediately buy your "disabled status" - primarily because the lib/left has a tendency to "fib" if they think it gives their argument additional credibility.
You could be of course - the beauty is on a board with soooo many real vets just a few bits of information (which we and only we would understand) would settle the question.
We would of course still consider you an ass - but you would be one of ours. Fair enough?
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 09:59 AM (Jvmry)
76
Wow, you conservatives really are stupid. First you attack those with common sense by suggesting this woman did not call Murtha a coward, when it is clearly implied. Then you say that he called for the immediate withdrawl of the troops, which he said he was not doing. Only true cowards like yourselves would ever attack a decorated Marine while you enjoy and abuse the priviledges he so desperately fought to protect. You are despicable, and you reflect your leadership: An AWOL son of priviledge, and a loser who received five deferments from the defining war of his generation. Fight on Fighting Keyboarders!
Posted by: st at November 21, 2005 10:20 AM (rQn1G)
77
Let me clarify a few points for the mentally retarded liberal trolls who have swarmed in to fling some excrement:
1. Military service does not automatically make someone an expert on military strategy or foreign policy, nor does it make them a de facto spokesperson for the entire military. This is especially the case for lower ranking service members who may not understand things outside their own perspective as defined by experience. This is why generals are in charge, and privates aren't.
2. A lack of military service does not automatically disqualify anyone from being able to advocate military action, as a lack of a medical degree does not disqualify one from being able to know when someone is sick. The chickenhawk argument is childish and idiotic, especially considering that it's often directed at veterans. If it is wrong to for people to suggest that society take a course of action though they themselves will not be participating directly in that action, then why do liberals always want to redistribute all the wealth, except for their own? If liberals really believed that socialism worked, they'd have all moved to Canada, Cuba, France, Germany, or North Korea by now, but unfortunately they haven't. Liberals are gutless chickenshit liars who only think of their own short-term comfort, and never think of the future. This is why liberals must never be allowed anywhere near foreign policy or military planning. Or domestic policy, for that matter, though it's a different subject.
3. Anyone who can't understand the historical lessons of Korea and Vietnam, both cases where peace, rather than victory, became the objective, is doomed to repeat them. We still have 37,000 troops in Korea fifty years later, because we didn't win; rather, we agreed to quit shooting at one another, which is a far cry from peace, and now North Korea is trying every way they can to provoke a war by arming the enemies of civilization. It was liberals, mostly Communists in the 1950's, who led the drumbeat to withdraw from Korea, as they did a decade later during Vietnam, where we just quit fighting and pulled out to let the North Vietnamese slaughter the South Vietnamese, and which is still one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Only cowards and traitors could advocate the same, twice-failed course of action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but then, liberals are nothing but cowards and traitors anyway, and should not be allowed to live, much less make decisions.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:28 AM (0yYS2)
78
All of these military-supporting liberals...how is it that they always seem to pull a disappearing act when military absentee ballots are being invalidated by their party apparatchiks?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:37 AM (RHG+K)
79
Just to name a few liberals who aren't chickenshits, and do understand foreign policy:
Franklin Roosevelt:
As the father of the "new deal" he's about a liberal as one gets. Didn't stop him from guiding the country thru the difficult years of WW2, and ultimately ushering in our superpower status.
Harry Truman:
He authorized the dropping of two atom bombs, choosing a course of great tragedy over the alternative of greater tragedy in invading Japan.
Name calling will get us nowhere, and in case you have forgotten, we're all on the same side here folks. One of the reasons so many "liberals" oppose continuing in Iraq is specifically because of the long term consequences that action is reaping.
To put it in a nutshell, America is stronger when we have the world on our side. This will sometimes require small concessions on our part, like respecting international laws. But it's worth it, because we gain more than we lose. Anybody who can't appreciate the value of multilateral diplomacy, shouldn't be making foreign policy.
Never in history has a nation dominated by force of arms alone; but not for a lack of trying. Our military is a powerful tool, but it is only one of many tools. Ask the Israelis if they think a military is capable of stopping terrorists attacks.
Posted by: some liberal at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (o8uyV)
80
Good question Bluto. Maybe like Margaret Carlson, they consider them to be tax evaders and therefore not worthy of voting rights.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (0yYS2)
81
"clearly implied" - that's funny! That is quite different from "clearly stated" now isn't it?
Murtha is a decorated veteran - and hondo is a decorated Senior NCO - and I will now attack him openly as a gutless idiot. Feel better lib/left?
Since the lib/left wants to play this stupid credentials (as long as it serves them) game fine - then put up or shut up. If you are not mil/vet then your opinion pro or con doesn't count!
Simply prove your status - you know how if you are - and those here will know. So if its "important" then put out!
lil' ernie tried (ha ha) but being able to spell Sempre Fi wasn't good enough.
AWOL/deferments ... recycling old material now? - didn't work then - think it will work now? Is that all you got?
Think vets give a damn about deferments in the 50s n' early 60s (BEFORE THE VIETNAM WAR NO LESS) He and 30 million + other Americans - what a joke! Unless your advocating a standing military of say oh 20+ million!
AWOL is a MILITARY TERM - and military people understand it - and you don't - which is why the crap didn't fly among that very same mil/vet community. But go ahead - I enjoy seeing you fail again and again.
So come on! Military service seems to impress you (now) - show us what you got and who you are.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:01 AM (Jvmry)
82
Since your opinion doesn't count unless you are a mil/vet, that just about wipes out the entire Republican party. Here are the facts:
DEMOCRATS
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted in Army Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 with 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat
V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star &Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign
ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,
and Sol dier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and
Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze
Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
*! Pete St ark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star &DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft
but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul
Wallenberg.
Republicans -- These are the brave guys sending people to war:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not! serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 11:24 AM (w1fE2)
83
Let's see - any idea of the total number of Republican/Dems
serving in all offices nationwide?
Or constituency for that matter - total registered Dems/GOP
We're talking what - into the tens of millions maybe.
And your lil' weinie list is the "definative story"?
My My! And you get to chose who to include and who to leave out - how neat!
Oh - personally never liked Bob Dornan but "consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea???" as opposed to unconsciously???
You do realize that millions have served in peacetime - you implying that they don't count? Tis tis!
I'll stand by the Heinlein solution - only vets count (even lib ones) - which still leaves you out!
I am proudly confident that at the end of the day we (conservatives) vastly outnumber our liberal vet counterparts - and you still don't count.
Oh, last thing - since "the list" is sooooo important to you - why aren't you on it?
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:46 AM (Jvmry)
84
Oh - forgot
Cut & paste list?
Do your own writing and commentary.
reminds me of a line from Hamburger Hill "betcha don't even do your own fucking!"
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 11:55 AM (Jvmry)
85
You're right, I'm not a vet and I'll be happy to agree that disqualifies me, as long as it also disqualifies every single architect of the war in this administration. Let's turn it over to the real soldiers. As a matter of professional military pride, you guys can't possibly be happy with all the miscalculations these play soldiers have made. They have been wrong about absolutely everything, from how we would be greeted by the locals to how many troops we would need to how long the engagement would last to how much it would cost to the kind of armour we would need for our vehicles to whether we would be able to invade through Turkey, to whether we should secure the ammo dumps... our cause may be just, but these guys haven't gotten one thing right yet. They are making our armed forces look naive. Have you no pride?
Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 12:19 PM (w1fE2)
86
I get so tired of the chickenhawk argument and all its variations and implications. Suppose we disallowed all commenting from all who have never served. Think that'll clean up the comment sections and message boards? When that's done, want to make any bets on how many are for completing the job and how many want to pull out now?
If there were a way to do this, I would put all my money, every dollar, on the scale tipping so heavily on the side who wants to "stay the course" the other side would be so high up there they'd get a nose bleed.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 12:29 PM (fl6E1)
87
(forgive me if this posts more than once. There seems to be technical issues right now)
I get so tired of the chickenhawk argument and all its variations and implications. Suppose we disallowed all commenting from all who have never served. Think that'll clean up the comment sections and message boards? When that's done, want to make any bets on how many are for completing the job and how many want to pull out now?
If there were a way to do this, I would put all my money, every dollar, on the scale tipping so heavily on the side who wants to "stay the course" the other side would be so high up there they'd get a nose bleed.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 12:33 PM (fl6E1)
88
Perhaps the "chickenhawk" argument keeps coming back because you keep insisting on disqualifying everyone who hasn't served. I know, I know... consistency is such a troublesome thing. (sigh)
Posted by: iorek at November 21, 2005 12:41 PM (w1fE2)
89
There is grumbling within - you would be surprised - but we keep it in-house. There are actually boards where WE vent and complain. Reason - we know you and others out there would take the opportunity to jump on it and twist it to suit your own agenda.
Your doing it right now with your assessment commentary of deficiencies. Tell me - what exactly qualified you to "assess" and "identify"? This is what you hear - repeat HEAR - from those opposed with their own agenda. And what knowledge do you bring to the table to comprehend it all? And its a credible assessment because - why? - you accept and validate it?
Its tempting to actually address some of those points but then again - Who are you? Why would you even understand the mechanics and details involved?
So you think this makes our military forces look naive? - in your humble knowledgable opinion of course.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 12:48 PM (Jvmry)
90
So the point of your story is to point out the fact that a statement was brought up, but that the liberal media has twisted it to say that someone was called a "coward" here. Well, you shoot yourself in the foot and make yourself look stupid all in one quick stroke. You stated Murtha's proposal was the "...immediate and ignominious withdrawal that Murtha had publicly advocated."
Well, you're wrong. Flat wrong. His proposal stated that the troops should be redeployed out of Iraq "as soon as practicable." Not a quick, disgraceful and immediate withdrawl as you say that he proposed. Get your facts right before you spread one misinformation to attack another.
Posted by: Ordinary Average Guy at November 21, 2005 01:00 PM (yrKRt)
91
sorry osyter
Usually don't get heavily involved - try and keep it light approach - but lil' ernie and his ink hit a nerve and set me off.
Personally - military service "don't mean nuthin'" - till its shoveled in my face by those seeking to use it for their own agenda.
Preferred the ol' days when the left openly showed contempt for military service instead of now trying desperately to pimp it.
Expect now Jane Fonda to show up at my door to give me a big hug and take me to her breasts as one of her (America's)children (she's still kinda hot).
It's not going to happen of course.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 01:05 PM (Jvmry)
92
Reason people. Didn't this argument start out with the "hysterical left beginning a new lie?" I'm not hysterical and this is what I saw: freshman member of congress brings up a quote from a marine Colonel who told her to tell Murtha for him that, "cowards cut and run; marines do not." The colonel's words not hers. But you kinda have to wonder why Rep. Schmidt brought them up, though. Was it because she disagreed so vehemently with this opinion of Murtha? Doesn't seem likely; I don't bring up a lot of arguments that run counter to my own when making a case. Did she bring it up just to make small talk, kind of like, "Is it hot in here, or is it just me?" and it was mistaken by the hyper-senstive Democrats for a comment directed toward Murtha? Doubt that too. No, those who actually have the power of critical thinking and logic at their disposal can draw the connection that though she did indeed not say "Jack Murtha is a coward" (politicians are smarter than that; even the dense ones.), the context of the comment is plain. And this directed at a man who stops at Walter Reed twice a week to visit with the returning injured. Let's be generous and say this isn't a Republican talking. This is a bombastic idiot talking.
Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 01:10 PM (UHKaK)
93
Colonel Bubp's "message" for Murtha was clearly a warning: "You're on the wrong track, that's not how Marines act." Now, I realize it's politically expedient for Democrats to conflate this into, "You're a yellowbellied scumbag," but I'm fed up to here with Democrat political expedience. It's time the jackass party started putting the nation ahead of their own agenda. Won't ever happen, but it's time.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 01:31 PM (RHG+K)
94
Well that gung-ho crap flies better behind cozy desks stateside than it does when IEDs are taking the bottom half of your legs off. That was basically Murtha's response.
Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 01:50 PM (UHKaK)
95
So that Marine Col's comment is gung-ho crap while he's behind a cozy desk stateside - (wonder where he was last year by the way).
So back to where we started - Murtha is a vet - he agrees with you - so he is above reproach and no one has the right to challenge him ...
But the Col is a vet as I and others - Oh, just realized - we don't count ...
How convienent! A real winning argument!
How's this - Murtha is a vet, the Col is a vet, I am a vet and you are some one looking to latch on to a vet's shadow since you are not. Guess that make Murtha just the handy vet of the moment.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 02:07 PM (Jvmry)
96
Bingo hondo, right between the peepers.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 02:14 PM (RHG+K)
97
Hey Hondo, come down off the cross will ya? We get your argument already, we get it, we get it. Doesn't matter if Murtha agrees with me, I agree with him or we don't agree at all. Did I say he was some sort of God? Hell no. I just don't think veiled references to cowardice are apprpriate, especially to a man who's arguably paid a few dues. That's really beneath contempt.
Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 02:37 PM (UHKaK)
98
Heinlein's idea of citizenship only for veterans is about as unamerican as it gets. A better approach would be compulsary service. It would be unfortunate to see the militarization of civilian culture that would result, but I bet it would cut down on frivolous and poorly planned for wars.
It's not coincidence that many politicians lack military service, and even fewer of them have children in the military. While there are the rare individuals that come from backgrounds of privilage who choose to serve, they are the exception to the rule.
I thought long and hard about going into the military, but in the end, I didn't trust our government to use my service appropriately. Too often the military is used to serve the ambitions and line the pockets of the powerful. It's telling that the only people unambiguously gaining from the Iraq conflict are the friends and business partners of the administration.
Posted by: some liberal at November 21, 2005 02:37 PM (o8uyV)
99
The premise for Starship Troopers isn't really unAmerican, just unfashionable. Who are the "friends and business partners" who are gaining so unambiguously? Are you really just "some" liberal or one of the Bushitlerburton ones. Sometimes they're amusing in a monkeyhouse kind of way.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 02:48 PM (RHG+K)
100
Heinlein was a lil' nuts - but compulsary service (also known as forced conscription)?? That's the liberal way to get people to do the right thing? Under penalty of law? And you don't see that as fundamentally perverse?
Just politicians? Many professions, groups, and regions are under-represented - maybe a topic for discussion in its own right.
I didn't join the Army to serve my government. I joined to serve my country, family and friends. A distinction probably lost on some here.
You already possessed a self-rationalizing bias for non-service so why bother extrapolating it further in the Iraq issue?
Service entails the always present dangers of hardships and risks. Service for most is short term - then go about your life (career isn't required).
There are several motivators for non-service. Fear is one of them and never acknowledged - comfort (lack of) is another and never acknowledged.
The lamest (acknowledged) is disagreement with government policy.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:08 PM (Jvmry)
101
bluto
Forget the movie - read his writings. He was indeed one unusual character. Tempting but I'll pass on his vision. BTW - all democracies are "qualified" - example 18 to vote is a qualifier - there are obviously others.
His vision just one honorable tour of service (peacetime or otherwise). All others have rights as assigned (and defended) by democratic process (vets only). The rights assigned people were actually quite generous and liberal - they just had no part in the decision/enforcement process.
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (Jvmry)
102
iorek: I have never insisted "on disqualifying everyone who hasn't served". Never. It was simply a "what if" statement. That if we do, in fact, disqualify all who haven't served - like the left continues to try to do with the chickenhawk argument - then my scenario is the most likely to be a result. The funny part is the left is selective in which military or ex-military should be disqualifed. The only one's that can speak, in their book, are those who are serving or who have served AND agree with them. The rest are summarily ignored or rejected.
That's the crux of the whole thing. The left insists they support the troops but want them pulled out now. The guys and gals that are over there no doubt want to come home, but they overwhelmingly are emphatic that they believe they should finish the job first. Yet the anti-war left continues to ignore what those troops that are there are saying. Those troops have more weight in this issue than anyone.
Jean Schmidt was conveying a message that is largely ignored. By putting it out there on the floor, once and for all, it got heard loud and clear. And boy did it ever piss a bunch of people off.
However, she was very gracious in asking that it be stricken from the record and apologized. Hardly anyone has brought that up. Tell me, where are Dean's numerous needed apologies for the outlandish remarks he makes every single day? Where are the apologies from all the democrats who slimed Michael Steele? Hell, even Durbin apologized for his comments!
Schmidt apologized, but that doesn't seem to be enough for the left. They want her head on a pike. These people are more ready to say Saddam Hussein should have been left alone than they are to forgive a United States Congresswoman for a perceived insult. I find that troublesome.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 03:47 PM (fl6E1)
103
What she said most definitely does not fall into the category of something that "needed to be said." That's not leadership; that's blather. Understand the difference.
Posted by: Moto-d at November 21, 2005 03:48 PM (UHKaK)
104
Here's what I know. About 65% of the enlisted men and 70% of the officers in the active military are from the South and the West(except California), are predominantly white with some hispanics, are conservative in their politics and hate the hell out of leftists. That's what I know.
And I will tell you lefty trolls this, if our men come home from Iraq after having lost another war due to sympathy and help to the enemy from some people in the US, I'm not sure what they might do to the people who helped the enemy. But I know what they should do.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:20 PM (rUyw4)
105
Hey Joe, a thought. Relax.
Posted by: mindspring at November 21, 2005 04:23 PM (UHKaK)
106
Hey Spring, I couldn't be more relaxed. LOL!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:25 PM (rUyw4)
107
"Heinlein's idea of citizenship only for veterans is about as unamerican as it gets."
And unconstitutional too.
Posted by: actus at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (CqheE)
108
actus
I agree so what's your point? I'm just aware of the details of his philosophy. Too many flaws he never addressed.
Though you should realize that his vision would also qualify as a democracy - the question is in the qualifiers which all democracies do. He simply didn't believe in broad-based universal sufferage. (Oh, and our constitution originally in the begining didn't either).
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:00 PM (Jvmry)
109
hondo: I wasn't going by the movie - I have most of Heinlein's books.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 05:04 PM (RHG+K)
110
"What she said most definitely does not fall into the category of something that "needed to be said." That's not leadership; that's blather. Understand the difference."
I notice you don't seem to be very forthcoming with forgiveness. And I don't need to be told what "differences" I need to understand. While what she said could have been done in a much more diplomatic fashion, it wouldn't have been heard. It would never have been quoted by the MSM and especially would never have gotten more than a yawn by any anti-war democrat in the room.
I'm glad it got said. I'm sorry she had to do it wrongly to get anyone's attention. And I'm glad she apologized. You don't like my opinion? Tough titty.
Posted by: Oyster at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (YudAC)
111
DMAN: You have disqualified yourself as you admit you are just another democrat who hasn't worked on his own. Spent your entire life living off the taxpayers. Sitting around the station house cooking, reading, watching TV. Then figuring your best chance for a raise is with the cry baby democrats. You haven't been paying the bills so you don't count. Reality hits when you are not on the dole (government worker).
Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:40 PM (ZaAd/)
112
oyster!
Risque language? I'm shocked I tell ya, next thing I know you'll be dating musicians (from Under Siege.)
Posted by: hondo at November 21, 2005 05:42 PM (Jvmry)
113
Cripes. Someone's "deliberately lying for political gain," but it sure ain't lefties. Perhaps the reason Andrew Sullivan doesn't "know better," on this one is that there isn't a "Leftist meme creation frenzy" going on here, but rather, a very shrill and insulting junior congresscritter who got rightly called on some very nasty crap she tried to pull on a very well-respected member of the House (and former Marine). Let's get some ground rules down here:
Jean Schmidt represents a wide group of people. Since Murtha's comments were front-page news the day after his comments, it seems likely that her office logged quite a few calls regarding the issue, from a number of different perspectives. Some probably expressed support for Murtha's proposal. Others may have been ambivalent. But Rep. Schmidt chose to go to the floor of the United States House of Representatives with one from a constituent which was not only opposed to Murtha's proposal, but talked about cowards vs. Marines, too. So we can pretty much assume that for Schmidt to choose that particular call to her office to repeat aloud in the House, she almost certainly felt those words reflected her own position, more or less, too.
Next, the issue of whether she called Murtha a coward. Well, of course not, in those words - she didn't say "Jack Murtha, you are a coward." But let's further envision a scenario in which a man publicly expresses a fondness for, say, quiche. And someone else stands up and says "you know, homos like quiche....real men never do." Would you say that the comment was more or less intended to impugn the first speaker? Or just a harmless comment, which was, at most, urging the first speaker to "be a man?" Likewise, after Murtha had just gotten through advancing his proposal ("cut and run") in the chest-thumping über-macho dialect of wingnuttia, Schmidt;s standing up and relaying the message that cowards do what Murtha just advocated doing was indeed calling him a coward. Simple transitive property stuff, if you remember your basic math: if cowards say "cut and run" and Jack Murtha (according to Schmidt) says "cut and run," then Jack Murtha is a coward.
Unless you believe that the campaign of "lying for political gain" was launched simultaneously and instantaneously by dozens of individual Democrats who heard the comments and spoke up in outrage, then you pretty much have to accept the idea that, despite your best effort to spin it another direction, that is the common reaction most people had to Schmidt's remarks: she called him a coward, and it was out of line. Now, it's possible (to torture the math analogy a little longer) that what Schmidt REALLY meant was that the two subsets of people who "cut and run," cowards and, well, people like Jack Murtha, don't overlap entirely - that what she meant instead was that although both cowards and Murtha "cut and run," she didn't believe that one equalled the other....but if so, she offered no mitigating caveats to suggest that's what she thought. Instead, she just plowed on ahead with the ham-handed, insulting analogy.
The point here is that anyone who doesn't take an overly legalistic interpretation of the words Schmidt chose to put forth on the floor of the House can see that her words were indeed meant as a jibe at Murtha. Especially when you consider that Schmidt has since claimed she did not KNOW Murtha was a Marine. That kinda shoots to hell the "she was just relaying something from a constituent who wanted to remind Murtha of his marine roots. B.S. Schmidt wouldn't have chosen those particular comments to pass on had she not endorsed them herself, and the way they were constructed and delivered were quite clearly a salvo in what would have been the swift-boaring campaign of Jack Murtha.
But when it started to backfire as people - not just "lefties" -immediately interpreted Schmidt's remarks as calling Murtha a coward, from De Parle's article, the first iteration of Republican spin began to emerge::
""The poor lady didn't know Jack Murtha was a Marine - she really just ran into a hornet's nest," said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia.
Representative David Dreier of California said, "Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine."
Uh-oh....except that she DID know that he was, considering her attendance at the GOP press conference the night BEFORE her remarks on the floor, where several members mentioned Murtha's service. So THAT one doesn't fly, either.
So Schmidt's quite obviously a liar to boot - on top of a mean-spirited attack wombat. Perfect GOoPer material, in fact.
Posted by: Phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 01:49 AM (DpK6n)
114
Representative Schmidt, You disappoint me.
Posted by: Agent Smith at November 22, 2005 06:29 AM (iLDC1)
115
"unless you believe that the campaign of 'lying for political gain' wa launched simultaneously and instantaneously..." - of course it was. Lying for political gain is as natural as breathing to today's Leftist, phenobarbarella.
Despite paragraph after paragraph of disingenuous spin, you're still skewered on the fact that the blogs and MSM who accused Schmidt of calling Murtha a coward got the story wrong, most likely deliberately.
If a coach says to his team, "Quitters never win," does that mean he's calling them "quitters". Of course not, he's encouraging non-quitter behavior.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 10:20 AM (RHG+K)
116
You guys are nuts. Keep spinning though.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/NEWS01/511220352
Three days after Rep. Jean Schmidt was booed off the House floor for saying that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do," the Ohioan she quoted disputed the comments.
Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt, and he would never call a fellow Marine a coward.
Posted by: Justin at November 22, 2005 11:12 AM (MjUGS)
117
Justin: learn to comprehend English, both spoken and written. In over 100 comments, no one has been able to refute the basic premise of the post, to wit, that Murtha was not "called a coward", though some have claimed to divine the intent of the statement, evidently through telepathic means.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 12:10 PM (RHG+K)
118
ED. NOTE: Because the author of this comment tried to mimic another poster's (mine) identity in the signature, and I hate poseurs I have changed it to something more appropriate. - Bluto
You ***holes remind me of the drunk who grabbed the lamppost for support rather illumination. If this "cowards run, Marines don't" comment wasn't directed at Murtha's statements, then why in the hell would Rep. Schmidt even bring it up at that particular moment? As a general observation about the Marines? Come on.
If G.W. said something about lowering taxes and a Democratic stood up and said "Idiots are in favor of lowering taxes, guys with balls aren't" without EVER mentioning the Prez by name, what do you think Mr. Bush could fairly draw from that statement? Think maybe he might feel it was somehow directed toward him? Damn right.
I love how guys like Dread Pundit become conveniently dense, word-parsing and legal-technical at all the right moments. Telepathy? Hell, you don't need that to make a connection and all the bullshit hair-splitting in the world doesn't change the facts!!!!
Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 12:35 PM (UHKaK)
119
TLAR: if, as you say, the insult was delivered in clear language that needs no parsing, then certainly you could cut and paste the part where someone is called a "coward". Can't? I see.
Keep ranting, perhaps the rules of English usage will magically change if you wish hard enough.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 12:54 PM (RHG+K)
120
...lying for political gain, of course it was...
Bluto, you vastly overestimate the organizational abilities of the Democratic party. They are incapable of putting forth a coherent platform in political campaigns they plan years in advance for. What makes you think they can respond that quickly to a current event? The only party currently with that kind of organizational ability is the Republican party, which is why they control the government - because it's surely not based on representing the best interests of the american people.
Additionally, while in a strict literalist sense Schmidt didn't call Murtha a coward, she strongly implied it, which for most people is close enough. What I find most amusing about this strict literal approach to her statement, is that it's coming from the right. If anybody understands how to literally say one thing, but imply another, it's the republican party. To be literal, we could have brought the forces home years ago, because the "mission" was "accomplished".
One thing that would go a long way to defuse those who want to pull the troops out, would be for there to be a plan that might work. If the administration has a plan, they aren't sharing it with the rest of us, and it sure looks like they are stuck and blundering. Seems like their original plan went out the window, when the occupation ceased to be a "cakewalk" (to be literal), and they haven't had any good ideas since. We are all waiting for them to prove us wrong on this one...
For the sake of argument, suppose the original plan for the liberation of Iraq was fundamentally undoable. Sure, the troops want to be successful in their mission (and by doing their jobs with excellence, in my book, they are by definition successful); but they can't do the impossible. What if our government has proposed an impossible goal?
I think they have. At this point, the Iraqis view our forces as an army of occupation, and a certain number will be willing to resist us indefinately. And in the end, they care more about getting us out, than we care about staying. Further, Iraq itself does not have the necessary unity to become a stable democracy. They will fight each other until some sort of partitioning (or virtual partitioning) of the country has occurred.
I think the government led us into this war for the wrong reasons, and has been misrepresenting and changing these reasons all along. While the proposed course was ill advised, and difficult, I think at the beginning it was not completely impossible. What has made it impossible at this point, has been the poor decisions made by the administration. Incompetent decision making at the top is what has cost us our initial goals. If you want to place blame, it not be on those who realize we are in an unwinnable situation, but on those who got us there in the first place.
Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 12:57 PM (o8uyV)
121
I don't rant; I state.I leave the ranting up to tin-pot tyrants who run blog-sites.
"He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message that, 'Cowards cut and run, Marines never do'."
Was there another Murtha in the room?
Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 12:59 PM (UHKaK)
122
ha ha ha
Much ado about nothing - murtha fades away like so many nickel & dime "issues" of the left - and still they're outside looking in and frustrated as ever.
Fret not! - you'll find some other "ISSUE" to hurl in the air - and it will of course plop.
Recycle some old ones - your good at that (or lack creativity) and recycling garbage is good for the environment.
Deferments, AWOL, WP, Haliburton, and the list goes on ...
plop, plop, plop
Strange predicament isn't it. Your "success" is dependant on our defeat in Iraq - now that's a winning strategy (NOT)
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 01:27 PM (Jvmry)
123
2,200+ dead soldiers in Iraq, a guy says "enough" and you find cause to laugh. What a dink.
Posted by: mindspring at November 22, 2005 01:35 PM (UHKaK)
124
Simple - those soldiers are my brothers - I've lived with them - trained them and so on ...
To you they are a number to feign concern over and attempt to use for your own political ambitions ...
simple - actually so
ha ha ha
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 01:41 PM (Jvmry)
125
What nonsense - failure to achieve our goals in Iraq is a defeat for us all. National allegience supercedes political affiliation. All on the same side, remember?
I don't think anybody in enjoying this in the least. It's a bitter and unenjoyable thing to see many of the possible consequences that were warned of bear fruit. Many people (including those in the military establishment) saw this coming, but nobody was willing to listen at the time.
A call for troop withdrawal is the lesser of two evils, because we're not making it better for ourselves. First law of holes - when you are in one, stop digging.
Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 01:43 PM (o8uyV)
126
Anus Res: So, if a coach tells his team that "quitters never win..." is he calling them "quitters". By your logic he is, the bastard!
some lib: you seriously expect me to believe that the Dems aren't capable of reflexively trying to smear an opponent or coordinating a media campaign (especially with virtualy all of the major networks, cable news, and daily newpapers on their side)? Now you're just being openly disingenuous.
The trouble is, as Rusty has pointed out in his toppost, you folks have moved beyond the respectable status of "loyal opposition" and into the area of putting all of us in greater danger; solely to advance your political goals.
You just don't care what the consequences will be, so long as a "D" gets elected.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 01:43 PM (RHG+K)
127
Yes, I do believe the Democratic party is just that incapable. Just because I'm left, doesn't mean I'm a democrat - I'm independent, thank you very much.
The media is on the side of the democrats? Have we been in the same country for the last 5 years? The media takes sides, but does so capriciously; they just want a story to tell. They gave Bush a pass for 5 years, and now that the tide is turning, they are starting to change their tune.
Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 01:54 PM (o8uyV)
128
Hondo: Yeah, well, I've never been in the military. But I have family members who were, including dear old dad in Korea. He never said much about it --though as a frontline combat engineer he had plenty to say. He used to tell me "the guys who talk a little too much about their military service? They either never had any at all or if they did, they sat in the rear as clerk-typist." Which are you?
Posted by: mindspring at November 22, 2005 02:04 PM (UHKaK)
129
Was the media giving Bush a "pass" in 2000, when they declared Florida for Gore - before the polls closed in the heavily-Republican panhandle?
Was Dan Rather giving him a pass? Mary Mapes? Mark Halperin? Eason Jordan? Brian Williams?
Stick your head in the sand if you must, but the idea that the MSM is randomly biased is laughable, and, quite frankly, I have a very hard time taking seriously anyone who believes that.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 02:08 PM (RHG+K)
130
Actually don't talk much about it at all - beauty of the blog is that the written words are all there to see and remember - think most here would agree.
You want something OK
11B/12B/19D (my fav)/82B/96B not Q'd, but I do now have a desk, a coffee pot, a box of donuts and a private to send to the store ... oh, and I can and do type (quite good at it actually)
Next question is - why do you give a fuck - your not soooo why bother feigning any concern, interest or (oddly)prior "association" - dad - family members?
Yeah - so? What is it - gene therapy osmosis? Want an atta-boy for someone else?
Tell you what - I'll give you a lil' atta-boy if it makes you feel good. here in NYC that and 2 bucks will get you on the subway.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 02:23 PM (Jvmry)
131
You think a general, trite statement like "quitters never win" is analogous to "cowards run, Marines don't,:" especially knowing the context the coward statement was made in?
If Rep. Schmidt had walked up to John Murtha 6 months ago and made that same statement as fact, it would have meant very little. In fact, being as how he was a 37-year member of the Marine Corps, I'm assuming he would agree. As a general principal, it seems fair to say Marines are trained to meet the fight under any circumstances.
However, we're talking about more than the general principal here. There is a huge difference betwen meeting the fight and sacrificing lives needlessly in a poorly run war. Even a Marine isn't suicidal for God's sake.
As for Rep. Schmidt, she did not make her comments in an off-handed way;she made them immediaely after he made his statement concerning withdrawal. You wouldn't say the differing contexts gives the same statement two different meanings? Of course it does.
Quitters never win in football is true. But if coach says that after the other team shows up with ax handles and chains, he sounds a little out of touch. It's all in the context.
You're choosing to ignore context and focus instead on literal technicalities, a strategy smear merchants have honed with skill. And that makes you intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 02:30 PM (UHKaK)
132
Bluto: skewered? Hardly. The MSM didn't get the story wrong either. "Lying for political gain is as natural as breathing to today's Leftist" - only if you believe that dozens of multiple, simultaneous, INSTANtaneous shouts of outrage amount to "lying" AND that the Democrats in the House chambers that day were so Vulcan-mind-melded together that they all knew instantly what each other were going to do well enough to coordinate their "attack." Otherwise, this is weak fantasy at best, and - to use your phrase - disingenuous spin - in all likelihood.
If there'd been nothing to be upset or ashamed about in those remarks, why is Piece of Schmidt acting like the Great White Hermit Crab™ of the House for the past couple of days, and why has Bubp disavowed her words, saying that he never spoke Murtha's name, would never call a fellow Marine a coward, and that her characterization was unfortunate? Hell, if this was such a shining example of moral rectitude in the face of leftist treachery and weakness, why wouldn't the principals in this little melodrama be rushing to embrace their parts in it? Bubp clearly thinks that she as much as called Murtha a coward, else he wouldn't a) mention that HE'D never call a fellow Marine that and b) characterize her remarks as "unfortunate."
She said - in her statement - that Bubp had said what she mentioned he did about Murtha. Bupb now denies it. Either Bupb (a dedicated GOoPer shock-trooper in his own right) or Piece of Schmidt is lying. To absolve her of any active malice, you have to believe BOTH that it is not Schmidt but Bupb who is lying (or that it was a misunderstanding so fundamental that both participants in the conversation should be forced to take remedial English classes) AND that even though she called anyone who advocates "cut and run" as a strategy a coward and addressed these remarks to a man who just advocated that very thing, she did not intentionally expect people to draw that logical link between A and B. You also have to believe that at the previous night's press conference, Schmidt was simply daydreaming when Duncan Hunter and others were describing their admiration for Jack Murtha's service as a Marine, so that when she claimed she didn't know he was one....she was not lying.
That's a lot of coincidences to swallow, as Charles Johnson might have said during "Rathergate." In fact, it's almost assuredly bullshit.
Posted by: phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 02:50 PM (DpK6n)
133
With all this talk about whether or not withdrawal is a good idea, or nearly treasonous, I wonder what the Iraqis themselves would say? Guess what- they have an opinion:
Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_conference;_ylt=Avc9b3tvA.x8zeeT1MTSkSms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
excerpts:
"Iraqi leaders at a reconciliation conference reached out to the Sunni Arab community by calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and saying the country's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance. "
"The communique condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if they don't target innocent civilians or institutions that provide for the welfare of Iraqis."
So do you hear that? Iraqi leaders are saying the insurgents aren't terrorists, and have a legitimate right to attack american troops! Can someone explain to me what sort of success we can achieve when that is the opinion of Iraqis?
I repeat - the administration's bungling of the occupation has produced an unwinnable situation.
Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (o8uyV)
134
An "unwinnable situation" - just the type of comment that is beloved of the jihad, bullshit on its face, and the main reason I enjoy posting something like this that just agitates the hell out of the knee-jerk liberal crowd.
Having you here commenting on a two-day old post means that that many of America's enemies aren't causing mischief elsewhere. And I do consider you enemies, every bit as willing to help the other side as Kos.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 22, 2005 03:24 PM (RHG+K)
135
Knowing that you're watching out for the enemies of America let's us all sleep better at night...
Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 03:28 PM (UHKaK)
136
Yeah, I didn't expect Bluto had a victory plan either. Stay the course, right off a cliff.
I'm not agitated, I'm bored at work!
Posted by: some liberal at November 22, 2005 03:54 PM (o8uyV)
137
Agitates me? Nah. Amuses me with its dizzying spin is more like it. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is the first and likely last time I'll be visiting your little self-referential chateau on the web, because I *DO* spend most of my time out causing mischief elsewhere, for real. I just came here to wipe my d*ck on the curtains while I find some new bottles and rags to hold the gasoline.
Toodles, ya big, loveable, delusional wingnut, you! I've got a lot of important America-hating and enemy-abetting to do.
Posted by: Phenobarbarella at November 22, 2005 04:11 PM (DpK6n)
138
No comments to any of this from the Bloviating Blutarsky himself?!? Ah, must be tied up donning his mask and cape, and firing up the Blutmobile to save humanity from the agitated, mouth-frothing, bile-spewing libera-commies ready to overthrow all we hold dear. Yeah, think I'll be abandoing this shit-pile of a blog myself. It's fun to goad the facists, but only for so long...then you gotta get back to work finding new garbage to refute.
Posted by: Typical Leftist Anus Residue at November 22, 2005 04:31 PM (UHKaK)
139
#1 Bluto: You're posts are all over the place (Heinlein??) to be criticizing anyone for being off topic!
#2: Hondo(obligatory flame): Ok - so you pretty much fall into the latter category of those who talk too much: a dirt-pounder desk jockey. Congrats on the private to order around ... my PFC buddy would probably love cleaning your ass for you when he gets back next time from the shit-smelling (go figure) fly infested hell hole somewhat south of the real war on terror (Yeah ... I remember Bin Laden - up north in Pakistan). Safe place to avoid combat that would be! When Blaine and Chris ship out next spring, you'll be right here safe warm and dry just like me.
#3: Back to the original point of this: Now the issue isn't that she made a statement that has been widly interpeted as calling Murita a coward by all but the most blind of partisans - in this instance the miniscule distinction between a personally directed implication and direct assertion is really indistinguishable. Justified good point or not, this sort of talk is unnecessary and a non marine addressing a marine in this fashion is downright embarassing even if she claimed to be simply acting as messenger. It was as shrill as anything Hillary Clinton has ever dreamed of. The bigger issue, if one should be made at all, is she also completely lied regarding the marine source she claimed to be quoting. He has complained of the context and has clearly stated that he never intended his words to be directed the way she chose to use them.
Observation: The line that determines "leftie" is moving steadily rightwards ... soon most everyone will be lefties without ever even changing philosophy.
Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 06:15 PM (XIJy3)
140
I you asked me I would have sworn that Bluto's post was focused on the stories coming from the left and MSM stating pretty clearly that "Schmidt called Murtha a coward". No one's addressing that. They're attacking some on the right for using a technicality that she didn't outright "call him a coward" for a defense.
Since it's technicalities that we seem to be harping on here, some of you are so busy attacking Schmidt, and the right for defending her, that you forgot to defend the left for lying about it - technically.
Posted by: Oyster at November 22, 2005 06:19 PM (YudAC)
141
Hey Hondo if you are what you claim: Am I PAYING you to write this crap ... i.e. are you pulling government payroll and using army equipment to make these posts? I don't know many active mil who are off duty at 2:23 in the afternoon. It also appears that on the 21st you also spent the bulk of normal working hours posting to this blog.
If so - you are a slacking piece of crap! Spew propaganda on your own dime like the rest of us.
Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 06:23 PM (XIJy3)
142
ha ha ha
You are soooo clueless - and don't even realize how stupid you just came off. Like all the others, your dependent on advertised "associations" for your heroic bluster. Its kinda like "alcohol muscles" standing next to ya buddies huh. Tell Chris n' Blaine Top says hey and don't forget what you've been taught - and the PFC - got a jobslot open here - need a driver in S2 to drive my tired ass around and get more donuts.
ha ha ha
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 06:30 PM (Jvmry)
143
KGB
Oh, day off - rotating status ACTIVE/GUARD, DA CIV - equipment - sometimes - are you paying me? Your damn right you are! Fuckin'A! I can smell that pension Sweetpea, and it smells like victory!
ha ha ha
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 06:39 PM (Jvmry)
144
I know nothing about army life except that a few of my pals believed what the recruiters told them and find themselves dealing with more than they bargined for. I have recieved first hand descriptions of life on the gound in Iraq and taken away my own impressions regarding how they feel about this war in general - I don't speak for them, but find your characterization of the attitude of those who are serving to be inconsistant with the majority of the discussions I've had in social settings with many soldiers. I would describe their attitude as resigned, not gung-ho (nor anti war).
They have described life on a stateside base pretty well. I do know that stateside, soldiers have duty hours. I also know that even at PFC they are able to have lower rank enlisted men pull undesirable (late) shifts. Based on your braggidicio(ph), you indicate that not only do you have an office but also direct supervision duties and an unlimited supply of donuts - making it unlikey that you work late shifts.
I also know that you have not answered one question in such a fashion that makes your claims of active military service credible. In fact the hours that your posts cover indicate that even steady employment is unlikely.
So here it is: describe please, in plain english, what is your purported rank and where do you claim to be stationed? Have you served in Iraq? If so when and (again in plain english) what is the moniker your fighting group went under? What patch is on your combat fatigues? Any private in the army could answer those questions, posed by a civillian, in a way that their mother can understand it ... can you?
Final question: in Vietnam the soldiers called the enemy "charlie" what do they call the enemy in Iraq? (yes folks this war has a new one - hint: it's several thousand miles off from being racially accurate)
Oh yeah .. if you navigate those qestions and still claim to be in the military: Are you on duty and using government equipment to post to this blog? - I kind of think you are a piece of crap now regardless.
I may sound stupid, but at least I don't claim to be something I'm not.
Posted by: KGB at November 22, 2005 07:23 PM (XIJy3)
145
KGB
I'm at home now 'bout to watch some TV - steppin' out later to the NCO Club for some BS and a beer. (maybe a donut too).
You are soooo clueless with an apparent need to be taken seriously. Hondo is what hondo is - find a Private friend to decipher what you've been told (if you really cared).
I've actually said a lot, but you are the outsider who can't comprehend. Plain English? Ha ha - again the outsider - the non - who doesn't know ... though you would like to think you do from the eyes of others of course - that's actually kinda sad really.
Your the one son who needs validation. I completed the last of mine when I checked and signed off on the material in my Retirement Packet.
Come back tommarrow - this way I get paid to talk to you.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 07:54 PM (Jvmry)
November 19, 2005
Cut And Run
Could someone tell me the basis for the whole uproar over Murtha?
Why the shock? Why the outrage?
No one saw this coming? Democrats wanting to cut and run?
Bill Clinton, Mogadishu, October 1993.
When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?" Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:59 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A lot like mogadishu, it will be a democrat paying the price to get us out of a mess that they inherit from a republican.
Posted by: actus at November 19, 2005 11:16 PM (Zi15r)
2
wow, that was so "clever", and vacuous.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 19, 2005 11:46 PM (8e/V4)
3
Oh, I expected the "get us into" argument actus.
If you wish to play that game, then let's.
Truman got us into Korea. Eisenhower got us out.
Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam, Nixon got us out.
Still want to play the game, actus?
How convenient of you to ignore why Bush 41 went into Somalia, actus, at the behest of the UN and to feed the starving.
How convenient of you to ignore why Clinton pulled the troops out.
Because, like you, he never served, and never knew the bond that those of us who have create with our brothers-in-arms.
Shut up and serve, actus. Chicken.
Posted by: Vinnie's Ghost at November 19, 2005 11:57 PM (Kr6/f)
4
"Truman got us into Korea. Eisenhower got us out."
That was a pretty straightforward one, no?
"Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam, Nixon got us out."
I keep getting told that It was the anti-war left that got us out of there. But I guess not. I'll pin the blame on nixon.
Posted by: actus at November 20, 2005 12:16 AM (Zi15r)
5
That's very good actus.
But this post wasn't about Viet Nam, now was it?
I don't play the game, actus. I don't get distracted.
You have fun playing with yourself.
Shut up and serve, actus. Chicken.
Posted by: Vinnie's Ghost at November 20, 2005 12:22 AM (Kr6/f)
6
I like how you ignored why Bush 41 went into Somalia, actus.
To serve your little pet causes.
Posted by: Vinnie's Ghost at November 20, 2005 12:24 AM (Kr6/f)
7
>>>"I keep getting told that It was the anti-war left that got us out of there."
I was told it was the humanitarian Left that got us into Somalia to feed all the starving skinnies. I guess we'll pin it on Bush Sr. when they didn't have the balls to see it through.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 20, 2005 12:25 AM (8e/V4)
8
actus is a very intelligent person, and I respect him for that.
However, he uses his superior intellect to apply logic to something that it is inherently illogical, leftist-liberalism.
I can't imagine how confused he must be while trying to wrestle with such banal concepts such as good and evil, without any nuance.
Drives him nuts, I guess.
Kewl beans, I say.
Posted by: Vinnie's Ghost at November 20, 2005 12:48 AM (Kr6/f)
Viva La Revolucion?
The Jawa Report takes pride in bringing to the forefront the plight of hostages in Iraq.
Not all of our citizens are being held hostage in Iraq.
The next time you see a Che t-shirt, think of Walter van der Veer.
A Google search reveals Cuba government propaganda, Linda's post, and not much else.
From the Cuban site:
Havana, November 27(RHC)-- A court in Havana sentenced
late Wednesday US citizen Walter Van Der Veer to 15 years
in prison, on charges of promoting an armed action
against Cuba. Havana's district attorney's office had
requested 20 years. The text of the sentence says that
Van Der Veer is a declared enemy of Cuba's socialist state
who attempted to promote subversive armed actions in the
westerly Pinar Del Rio Province. For this purpose,
continues the text, Van Der Veer clandestinely introduced
military uniforms and other equipment, and was also
planning to launch attacks against tourists in Cuba.Arrested in August of last year, Cuban authorities also
discovered in his possession anti-Cuba propaganda and ink
pads to print out pamphlets signed by the Cuban
Liberation Front, a Cuban-American terrorist organization
based in Miami. According to his defense attorney, Van
Der Veer admitted to having spread anti-Castro propaganda
in Havana and that he belonged to 2 Cuban exile
organizations in Miami that promote the violent overthrow
of the Cuban government. And according to testimony by a
Cuban accomplice, Van Der Veer expressed interest in
obtaining weapons on the island.
May God bless Walter van der Veer and his family.
Of course, Walter just has to be the violent fellow portrayed by Castro, because, as we all know, American citizens are just flocking to Cuba to try and procure arms to overthrow that government.
Posted by: Vinnie at
08:05 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thank you
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 09:53 AM (Jvmry)
2
Thank you for this post Vinnie.
Thank you.
Posted by: LindaSoG at November 20, 2005 02:35 PM (3dnRu)
3
when Fidel (El Presidente For Life - how banana republic is that!) finally croaks, his brother Raul can then don the crown of majesty (sorry - El Presidente For Life) - just another old-fashioned hereditary monarchy.
Oh wait! Ol' Fidel does have offspring! A daughter! But alas, she fled years ago for Miami.
Posted by: hondo at November 20, 2005 11:19 PM (Jvmry)
4
Che vive!
Posted by: che vive at November 22, 2005 09:39 AM (/3n/k)
5
Nice restaurant, bit over-priced with small portions. Decor is a bit too retro and pretentious thought.
Posted by: hondo at November 22, 2005 10:44 AM (Jvmry)
Hurricane Murtha and the Coming Deluge (Updated)
The flap over last night's vote in the Congress on a version of Murtha's proposal (or at least the way the "Arab Street," as well as our dedicated enemies, see it) reminded me of a theme I worked on for a short time last year. That theme concerned the extinction of the Democratic Party. The notion I had was that the Democrats would become so short-sightedly self-serving that they'd self-destruct, leaving the US a single-party coalition of sub-factions for the remainder of the Terror War. As I recall, I felt the denouement could be pushed out to the 2008 election, but Dan Darling (now with Winds of Change) felt it might hit sooner. Well, my updated impression is that either the Democrats or the nation itself will self-destruct some time between now and November, 2008. Ultimately there aren't two sides to history. If you're standing in the wrong place when the storm hits, you won't last long.
Posted by: Demosophist at
02:35 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Yah and I keep loving the way they keep saying we are "playing politics" with the war. Uh duh that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. So it's OK for them to play politics ont he attack but for us do defend against it is just wrong.
Posted by: Howie at November 19, 2005 04:46 PM (D3+20)
2
You have lost it. You Republicans are a bunch of greedy, non-caring people that are really really paranoid of Democrats! You make me sick!
Posted by: Connie at November 19, 2005 05:29 PM (k7GID)
3
So go vomit.
Posted by: Howie at November 19, 2005 06:21 PM (D3+20)
4
Connie ain't so sweet, is she? Where is any greed in the post at hand? Stupid democrats, yes, greedy Republicans, no. I am in no way paranoid of democrats, just can't stand them, but that is not paranoid.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 19, 2005 06:26 PM (rUyw4)
5
I would reply to the troll du jour, but she likely won't be back to read my witty retort, so I won't waste the time. Besides, considering that her world-view is about as sophisticated as a Nancy & Sluggo comic strip, i.e. monochromatic, two dimensional, and as less taxing to the brain than say, breathing, she probably wouldn't understand anyway.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 19, 2005 06:30 PM (0yYS2)
6
Your dream of Empire is coming crashing down all around you.
Dinosaurs, suffocating in meteor dust.
The storm's tentacles, directed at you.
Posted by: Menezes' ghost at November 19, 2005 06:48 PM (eYI8D)
7
"Besides, considering that her world-view is about as sophisticated as a Nancy & Sluggo comic strip, i.e. monochromatic, two dimensional, and as less taxing to the brain than say, breathing, she probably wouldn't understand anyway."
Down with the unsophisticated simplistic world views!
Posted by: actus at November 19, 2005 07:05 PM (Zi15r)
8
That's just the typical M.O. of the hit-and-run troll. At least a couple of the lefty wackos in here will debate you regardless of their twisted logic. Connie obviously lacks the intelligence to back up her accusations. I vote Republican and I seriously doubt you come anywhere close to the amount of time I volunteer at the Ronald McDonald House or the amount of time that my wife devotes to being a Girl Scout Leader even though she's busy with other things because no one else in our mostly Democratic area would volunteer. We do these things not to feel good about ourselves but because they are the right things to do and we actually believe that we just might make a difference in a child's life. But because you disagree with our politics, you make a blanket statement that has nothing to do with the post. Take a long look in the mirror before blaming others for the hand you were dealt in life. So, why don't you get back down to Starbuck's and get me my scone? 'K, sweetie?
Posted by: slug at November 19, 2005 07:20 PM (NRSLh)
9
The ghost is a metaphysical giant, now isn't he. Haha!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 19, 2005 07:25 PM (rUyw4)
10
Hey I'm done vacation at last, at last I say. Holy cow I've kicked ass this year. Did more projects than I thought I could blogged so on and so forth. Now 8 days of nothing. Don't know what I'll do with myself.
Yall be good I'll see ya.
Posted by: Howie at November 19, 2005 07:50 PM (D3+20)
11
Bye, Howie, have fun, and come back soon. We'll miss ya.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 19, 2005 08:05 PM (rUyw4)
12
Hey,
Check out this bitch, "Sajimi" at:"Zaqueery Threatens to Behead King of Jordan".
She favors surgery, electric shock and drugs for "hate criminals". What a Liberal bitch!
Posted by: Menezes' ghost at November 19, 2005 08:22 PM (eYI8D)
13
>>>"Your dream of Empire is coming crashing down all around you."
greg,
ok, fine. It's all over for our "empire." But for our "dreams of empire" to come crashing down all around us, that means we'd have to lose in Iraq, right? So can we now all agree that you Libs have wanted the U.S. to lose in Iraq from the beginning? This late in the game, why keep pretending when everybody knows it. For people who are so obsessed with Bush's true motives, you people haven't been very honest about your own.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 19, 2005 11:51 PM (8e/V4)
14
I won't even address Connie, greg and actus. They're lashing out blindly.
I'm a huge Newt supporter. When I suggested I'd like to see him run, the only response I got was, "Nobody likes him." I think he has a no nonsense approach to issues that belies both parties. And I will vote for him given the chance. He is a "true" conservative.
As far as democrats go, there is only one democrat I would ever vote for for any office and that is Zell Miller.
Posted by: Oyster at November 20, 2005 04:54 AM (YudAC)
15
Who gives a shit what Murtha thinks. He's just another stupid democrat playing the game. This guy's nothing special. Why the big deal? Probably as dumb as connie above.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:24 AM (ZaAd/)
16
Newt's too valuable to be President. I think the best thing he can do is to keep on writing books and speaking, because when he explains it, only the most retarded mouth-breathing, pizza-delivering, living-in-his-mother's-basement moron like greg, or an effite, effeminate nancy-boy like rectus, who probably sits to pee, could not understand him.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 20, 2005 08:28 AM (0yYS2)
17
hahahahaha you repulbipuke theocrat turds of the holy state and infallibale pharoah. america hates you geek boys. you are now in the minority and everyone thinks you are coward pieces of shit, all talk, no walk. sign up geek boys. sign up for your american taliban fascist jihad. serious, sign up or shut up. thousands of troops want to come home to their families but can't because you pusseis have your heads up your asses. so it is your patritoic duty to sign up. now. put up or shut up. your little illusions and deficiencies are getting good kids killed. sign up or shut up. your president does not talk to god and your flag is not the cross.
sign up pussies, you are exposed, we see through you and we hate you.
sign up you paste eater pussies. we know your geek boy resentment fuels your fascism, sign up and allow these troops to come home.
losers. america hates you, you are marginalized and we hold you responsible for all US deaths.
semper fi.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 20, 2005 12:47 PM (ocmaF)
18
semper fi up your ass you big phony. If you're a marine I'm an astronaut. And learn how to spell for crissakes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 20, 2005 01:00 PM (8e/V4)
19
yup, american taliban jesusland asswipe carlos, you fucking pussy. eat shit paste eater, america hates you. go out in public and show us your tough guy views so we can identify you and beat your nerd ass. you are killing american soldiers with your pussy ideas you fucking shithead.
34% of you support your holy pharhoah asswipe, the rest hate him, and YOU. go fuck yoruslef pussy boy, we know you ltittle dick types have to be fascist, ya just cant help it can you you moral value retard.
eat shit. america hates you and we hold you responsible for all 2085 dead us soldiers for your impotence and lies.
again, bring your pussy ass conservative opinions in public and see what happens paste eater.
ernie
Posted by: ernieervin at November 20, 2005 02:06 PM (ocmaF)
20
I say what I want, when I want, ernie. It's called freedom of speech, and it will take more than a little shit like you to shut me up. I got a Bush sticker on my truck, and no SOB has been man enough to touch it yet. So shut up with your shit, as any dumb ass can be tough on the internet.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 20, 2005 05:22 PM (rUyw4)
21
ernie,
so you have a potty mouth, how nice. First you say only people signed up in the military can have a voice in this country, and now you threaten to inflict violence on people for expressing themselves publicly? You sound like a Nazi Brownshirt dude. You're a thug. And spare me your concern for the soldiers, most of them think you people are friggin traitors.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 20, 2005 06:00 PM (8e/V4)
516kb generated in CPU 0.0824, elapsed 0.2895 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.2362 seconds, 866 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
135 queries taking 0.2362 seconds, 866 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
