1 The armor question has been openly discussed. In this article two retired Lt.Col (army and marine) discuss the problems. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june06/armor_1-11.html I am not sure of how sophicticated the training is of terrorist snipers.

2 If any american GI are harmed becuase of this we should indite the whole New York Times and hang FRANK RICH

3 I'd like to see the NYT blown up on live video with all aboard; that'd be news worth hearing.

4 There was another paper in just the last few days (maybe it was the Times) that at the last minute pulled a story at the request of the Pentagon that would have explained, in detail, new ways the military is handling the IED problem in Iraq. These idiots only hold back grudgingly and sometimes only briefly with much whining and complaining of "Censorship!" the whole time. They have little regard for the damage they do. I'm with IM. Except I don't want anyone hurt, but I'd sure like to see their systems go down. And I'd like to know what morons give them all this detailed information so I can punch them myself.

5 Instead of putting our troops in danger, wouldn't it be nice to have American newspapers print some information that would actually help them. What about some positive information about the progress in Iraq? I don't think I read anywhere in these major papers that in January, Iraqi Security Forces planned and executed 27% of the total operations in Iraq. I guess this isn't good news... I'm ashamed to think how these troops feel when they hear about the type of things blasted through our media here in America. They need to know we support them, and this is clearly not the way to do it...

6 Is anyone else noticing how my comments draw so little negative reaction these days? In fact, more and more people are starting to sound like me. It makes it worth getting up in the morning to know that I'm not alone in this fight.

1 The problem with Islamic Law is that it only applies to Muslims. If you kill a Christian, Jew, or non-Muslim, it is not murder. Hence rape of a kufir is not rape, thus anything goes when another person is not Muslim. Now you see why sharia law is so popular with the Muslims, as it gives them complete freedom to do whatever they want with non-Muslims. A terrible set of laws and uncivilized to say the least is how I would describe them.

2 JJ, It also gives them complete freedom to do whatever they want to their women, so long as everyone in the room (except the woman) was up for it.

3 Islamic law is civillized. Islamic law applies to everybody living in a country or under the rule of the muslim leader. Jesusland Joe you seem to base your argument on your views, please provide sufficeint evidence that what you have said is true. Fiqh of Sex Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki mentioned in al-Madkhal: The beginning of the night is better… One must avoid intercourse with one’s wife before any foreplay, because it has been interdicted. Rather, one should play around with her and jest with kisses, touches and the like. Then, one sees that she is ready, prepared, and desirous of him, only then should he initiate intercourse. The wisdom of the Lawgiver in this is evident, for the woman derives pleasure as a man does. If he approaches her while she is unprepared, he may fulfill his need, but she may not, and would feel frustrated… Before penetration, one should say, Bismillah Allahumma Jannibna al-Shaytan, wa Jannib ish-Shaytanu ma Razaqtana, as has been authentically reported in the sunna… One should be careful to fulfill the rights of the wife with regards to intercourse, and to safeguard her religion. One should fulfill oneself [=orgasm] after she has achieved fulfillment, to be under the general rubric of the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), “Allah is in the assistance of a servant as long as he is in the assistance of his fellow.” One should not have intercourse without covers… It is best to perform ghusl before sleeping after intercourse. Or, at least to do wudu and wash the private parts. [f: One should not, at the very least, leave washing the private parts.]

4 Yes, they chop off your head or stone you equally. See, civilized. Or maybe not. I guess it is better to be an oppressed Christian--forbiden, by law, to publicly carry out the 'Great Commission', than to be a Muslim heretic. Malik's Muwatta Book 36, Number 36.18.15: Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If someone changes his deen - strike his neck!" The meaning of the statement of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in our opinion and Allah knows best, is that "if someone changes his deen, strike his neck!" refers to those who leave Islam for other than it - like the heretics and their like, about whom it is known. They are killed without being called to tawba because their tawba is not recognised. They were hiding their kufr and publishing their Islam, so I do not think that one calls such people to tawba, and one does not accept their word. As for the one who goes out of Islam to something else and divulges it, one calls him to tawba. If he does not turn in tawba, he is killed. If there are people in that situation, I think that one should call them to Islam and call them to tawba. If they turn in tawba, that is accepted from them. If they do not turn in tawba, they are killed. That does not refer as we see it, and Allah knows best, to those who come out of Judaism to Christianity or from Christianity to Judaism, nor to someone who changes his deen from the various forms of deen except for Islam. Whoever comes out of Islam to other than it and divulges that, that is the one who is referred to, and Allah knows best!

5 Amaad, Where do I start? Christians and Jews living under Muslim law, or sharia, if you prefer, were forced to pay the jizra, or a tax for the privilege of being a second-class citizen. They had to acknowledge the superiority of the Muslim, were not allowed to ride a horse or carry a weapon to protect themselves, and were required to go barefoot in many instances. No Christian religious processions were allowed, no Christian was allowed to talk to a Muslim about Jesus, and if a Christian were to say that Jesus was divine, he or she was killed. As in dead. If assualted by a Muslim, Christians were not allowed to defend themselves, but had to beg the Muslim attackers to stop. If they could not afford to pay the tax, they were sold into slavery or executed. Not good. Now you say this was a long time ago, but tell me, can a Christian talk to a Muslim about Jesus in Saudi Arabia? Can a Christian have a Bible in Saudi Arabia? Can a Christian give a Bible to a person in Indonesia, Malaysia, Libya, etc. Get the picture. No freedom of religion. No freedom, period. Do I need say anything about the rights of women? Honor killings? Forced to wear burkas, headscarfs, and I could go on and on. Need I? I thought not.

6 I wonder what the law is about muslims having sex with goats and other animals?

7 New to the Blog, really enjoy it. I was enlightened by the following passage right here on this website. It's straight from the Koran. This is what the "Non-Muslim"/"Non-Islamic" (whatever) is up against. [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

1 Faith & begorrah, all the whining and wanking about some limey soldiers dishing out a little arse-whuppin' in Iraq makes me sick to me gullet with disgust. Growing up in Northern Ireland you weren't considered a man until you had a British boot upside your head at least once. In fact we called it the Belfast Bar Mitzvah. So you bleedin' heart should quit your whinin', the squaddies could have been shooting them li'l Iraqi bastards. Pogue mahone and Free Ireland!

2 Paddy makes a good point; why is it nobody ever shed any tears over the British brutalities in Ireland? Maybe because they're white people? Nah...

3 Paddy and IM: My Irish barber and I have had exactly that story and similar ones such as that over the years. Basically, we're both just sick and tired of whiney pukes of any flavor, especially the ones doin' it for the sake of the TV camera's. Don't show any cartoons or beheadings though. Panties on my head or no head for panties to be on....hmm. Survey says.........! Assume the worst, we'll not sort out the retractions at a later date.

4 What is really annoying is that this story will now dominate the media. We can expect hours of commentary criticizing the entire military coalition in Iraq. So while the mainstream media tries to condemn the rebuilding of Iraq, and veers away from daily progress being made in Iraq, I hope there will be some voices out there (thank you Progress For America!) reiterating the stories of new schools, roads and the foundation for a new Iraq.

5 Those British soldiers are not police officers any more than our troops are. They are trained to kill, not deal with an unruly public. Those Iraqis are lucky to be alive if you ask me.

6 The only way to deal with muslims is to kill them and bury them covered in pigshit.

1 Another good foundation--in memory of my favorite liberal feminist, RIP: http://www.fernholland.org/

2 The American Feminist only cares about abortion on demand, gay marriage, and why no man would have their ugly ass. They don't give a shit about real issues regarding women like being a piece of property in the Middle East.

3 andy I agree - but you left out American Feminists are also overwhelming white, affluent, privilaged and progressive. The really oppressed women of the world are of a different shade.

4 Andy nailed it.

5 Leave it to the feminuts to do this kind of thing

1 what bush is waiting for to use the nuclear on these bastards. he should use them before due date runs out!!!!!

2 Guss, Whaaaaaa???

3 Maybe he ment the nut cracker?

4 re: MSM Hypocrisy thanks for pointing it out again. It can't be repeated often enough.

5 Yeah, but the Abu Gharaib prisoners were in their underwear! And they were frightened by dogs!! That's really humiliating, don't you get it?? How dare you draw moral equivalence between these two episodes.

6 More Abu Ghraib abuse photos. Two teens forced to wear panties on head by sadistic vixen.

7 I think the world should know... I'm a mild mannered,Phd Molecular biologist by day.. A devious, raving Aye-rhab hating infidel by night... I already have the virus ready! There is a key component in the brain chemistry of the beaten and cowed followers of Islam. Same said component makes this slightly modified Rhino virus...very deadly. They will sneeze themselves to death! Tsk!!!!!!

8 I think I just read that book.

9 Change of topic: Whats up [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] with MSM? [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] They'll show pics of humilated [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] Arab terrorists with panties on their heads, [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] But the panzy ass fuckwits [Bush, Rummy, Halliburton, noWMDs] refuse to broadcast videos and pics which reveal how evil and deadly our Muslime enemys are.

10 You dignify them by calling them "insurgent soldiers." They are terrorists, and nothing more.

11 As many have aptly pointed out, not only has this Jihad by Islam been thrust upon us and the West by the events of 9/11 as we sat literally “sucking our thumbs,” complaisant in our “Secular Progressive, Multi-Cultural, Politically Correct, Fairy Tales and Fantasies” of our own creation, that subsequent events have dismally proven exceedingly naive and wrong, such as the continuing riots, death, and destruction over the Mohammed caricatures, or the “Democratic Election” of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, and other events which are being fueled exponentially by an ever more blatant and open “Culture War” on the part of Islam to overthrow Western Democratic Values, and have them replaced with a worldwide Caliphate; but we are also presently beset by those within our own society, who still immersed in the Leftist, Socialistic opiate of the aforementioned “Fairy Tales,” openly fight against the War on Terror, undermine it in every way they can every step of the way, wish to dismantle our Military as San Francisco Board of Supervisors Gerardo Sandoval told the Nation on an interview with Shaun Hannity the other night, that wish that we would loose in Iraq irregardless of the young men and women of our military who have sacrificed their lives in this endeavor to free Iraqis and the rest of the world from Saddam, and call for our defeat and to cut and run, like Howard Dean and Congressman John Murtha, those who proudly hail their having “Filibustered” the extension of the Patriot Act a “victory” like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, those who consistently oppose and relentlessly undermine every action of the Administration like Nancy Pelosi, or who wish to tie the governments hands in fighting terrorism while “championing” the rights of the terrorists to the point of being their most ardent allies such as Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin and all the rest of their above demagogue ilk, who form a veritable “Fifth Column” in our midst, with the help of the Left leaning, biased, Mainstream Media, which of course will not publish the pictures of the horrors that took place in Saddam’s prisons, much less publish such pictures as those appearing in Jawa about any of the executions, tortures, and all the barbarity that is proudly carried by the Islamist terrorists in front of cameras and then swiftly disseminated through the airwaves by Aljazeera all over the Muslim world, lest, as with the Mohammed cartoons, they offend “Muslim sensitivities”! We are waging a War on Terror, and “Cultural Wars” on two fronts, and one of our enemies lives amongst us! The irony about how “selectively” our Mainstream Media chooses which pictures to air, and make a whole lot of hooplah about, is that while for days now CNN, along with most other major American news outlets, has literally cowered, and failed to show solidarity with their brethren news outlets and publications in Europe (who have had the courage to do so), and to stand up for "Freedom of Speech, and of Expression," repeatedly refusing to show the controversial Mohammed Danish cartoons, claiming that they did not want to “add more fuel to the fire” in a plethora of Wolf Blitzer “apologia,” no sooner had new pictures of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal been made public by some “sleazy” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, than Paula Zahn had it on her show within hours, complete with “dissident ex-serviceman” bashing our Military et al, without the least apparent qualm about any consequences: the lives it would cost, as happened with the first round of Abu Ghraib pictures with Nicholas Berg, or how many more of our Servicemen will be exposed to greater danger, and be killed as a result! That, even in the face of the fact that it is not breaking news, that the case has been exhaustively investigated by the Pentagon and the Military, and all those that were involved in the scandal have been courtmarshalled, disciplined, reprimanded, or demoted! I must say, that for CNN, Paula Zahn, and her fellow pundits, who were so overly "concerned" with accommodating Muslim sensitivities: “barbarity” and “intolerance,” when it came to showing innocuous Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to propagate these new Abu Ghraib pictures, which at any rate just basically show more of the same as those already published, is nothing but an abhorrent exercise in “ journalistic pornography,” and is totally unconscionable!!! Perhaps the real reason that CNN, Blitzer, and Zahn did not wish to risk showing the pictures of the Mohammed cartoons was that they did not want to run the risk of being “personally” targeted, and their lives endangered by irate Islamists, for doing so, and so they hid under their desks. But now, they scrambled to show the Abu Ghraib pictures, which they believe boosts their Liberal biased “political perspective” against the Administration and its policies, while generally not placing “THEIR” lives in danger (after all, how can it, since with it they aid the “Islamist Propaganda machinery, and Al Qaida?”), yet places the lives of our soldiers, and others working in Iraq, at greater risk. After all, if as a result of these pictures there are more American casualties, wouldn’t that also bolster their position of blaming it on what CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour openly calls the “failed policies of the Administration in Iraq” ?!?! The blood of every US casualty, every civilian death, and every beheading that results from Paula Zahn and CNN enthusiastically, needlessly, helping to disseminate these new Abu Ghraib pictures is on their hands!!! How can we be expected to win the War on Terror with such amongst us?!?! It is appalling!!! Althor

12 Hey Wonderduck, you the same duck from RW sparkle?

13 The leftist whiners consider them to be soldiers, so the whiners should also expect those soldiers to follow the same rules they expect our soldiers to follow. But they don't. Because they are on their side.

14 Apparently, MSM doesn't want the public to see evidence of the vicious terrorist IslamOfascist Monkees brutally torturing, killing and beheading their fellow Muslims. Men, women and children. On practically a daily basis. You see, if more of the masses saw these disgusting photos, more of the masses would start to realize how uncompromising and purely evil these murderous IslaMO Monkee scum truely are. They would start to see the wisdom in working to annihalate ALL of them. Destroy them all without prejudice. They are scourge, they are a disease, these viscious killer monkees, they must all burn on Earth before Hell gets a shot at them. Anybody who feels these monkees have any legitimacy at all is either a total fool, just plain ignorant, or one of the terrorists themselves, or their enthusiastic supporters. If only we could lead these Jihadist Head-Chopping Monkees, and only them, all to one big isolated area...let them call it their own country. It would probably take less than 24 hours before they committed and act of war, then the country could 'simply' be nuked. It is us or them! GOT IT? COMPRENDE???

15 In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.

16 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly. That said, I'm one of those sillys who think America's soldiers should hold themselves to a higher standard. These photos have nothing to do with the well documented allegations of torture perpetrated by poorly supervised soldiers at Abu-Ghraib, gitmo, and Bagram. Pointing out another horror doesn't detract from the one already before you. Except to make those of us with the ability to reason wish that our soldiers were using effective means of info-extraction rather than torture to gain the information necessary to bring the people you point out here to account.

17 Can't some cable media be convinced to show these photos?? There must be a way to show these!!! R.Taylor

18 The media sympathizes with the enemy, so they make excuses for all their many and barbaric atrocities. But they don't cut US any slack at all. I have sweet dreams at night of terrorists kidnapping embedded reporters and slicing their fucking heads off. I always wake up happy after those dreams. And I'm a girl.

19 The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reasons: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it.

20 By comparing the brutal acts of terrorist savages with our soldiers, we set the bar at the level of the terrorists. This is unwise, to say the least, when we are engaged in a war in which winning hearts and minds is literally everything. We must assume a profoundly moral high ground. Nearly all the Abu Ghraib victims were later released from prison, having been rounded up en masse. Most committed no crimes. And even if they had committed crimes, does it make us look god to inflict such wanton cruelty on them? Of course on a Cruelty Scale of 1 to 10, it may score only a 6, compared with the terrorists' 10. But that's still way too high a score. When we need the world to be with us and not against us, this is counterproductive in the extreme. We are there to liberate these people, not harm them in any way. These were not Al Qaeda terrorists, they were mainly innocent men and women, many teenagers. If you think it's okay to rape rape and wound them, you are entitled. but this is not what America stands for, and to simplistically say that the terrorists do worse things is hardly a reasonable argument. We are supposed to be better.

21 Richard, The problem with your "High and Haughty" road of "American Higher Morality" is that when we capture these people that have committed these heinous barbarities as shoiwn in the above pictures we do not do the world a favor and eradicate them from the face of the earth, but on the contrary, we take them prisoners, and keep, them in Guantanamo in climate controlled conditions, with amenities, and Chicken Terriyaki dinners, which to the likes of Senators Kennedy, Durbin and their ilk, or United Nations' "Secretary General of Pilferage and Corruption" Kofi Anam and his anti-American brethren, is nothing but "sheer, inhuman, torture," We can't fight these monsters with our hands tied behind our back as we are, second guessing every move, just parading our soldiers down the "Death Alleys" of Iraqi cities as if they were "target ducks" in a carnival, for the amusement, and target practice of these animals. We should be waging the war more "agressively," retaliating to their barbarity with appropriate military harshness, not "pussy-footing" around the way we are! We have to stop being, such "idealist" fools, and "bleeding hearts," and realize that this is a brutal enemy which despises, and does not value in the least human life, not even that of their own, or of themselves, and that therefore we have to deal with them accordingly, lest we all perish, or are overrun! You and others of your persuation, especially in Washington, should stop "whining" from your "High Moral Ground" of self-congratulatory "conceit," and face reality in a more pragmatic way... before it is too late for us all!!! Althor

22 Well, as a poster upthread makes abundantly clear, American troops DO hold themselves to a higher standard, and American troops turned in the original Abu Ghraib deviants! And they'll STILL hold themselves to a higher moral and actual standard than the Isalamizoids! America's soldiers aren't all Baha'is, but they certainly act as rationally and as morally acceptably as the Followers of the Glory of God!

23 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them

24 get out of iraq everything will be fine us uk armys rape little girls andkill them kill kill kill and be killed

25 Again Althor, I'm all for tratoing monsters and barbarians with the forces that's necessary. But as I said, most of those in Abu Ghraib were there by accident and were release by the US army, which acknnowledged they had done no wrong. We can't terrorize all brown people. Remember, we are there to liberate them. If they are not worth helping and not deserving of our compassion, what are we doing there? What are we dying for?

26 Yeah, these photos and acts are all terrible. The people perpetrating the murders you show, and those yet unshown, should be brought to justice swiftly. Ok, so Libs want a "higher" standard of morality for our troops. Big woop dee doo. So do we all. But that still doesn't explain why the MSM avoids printing these pictures. The reason is simple: "The media doesn't show the savage acts of our enemy for 1 reason: they want us to lose the war. So they show photos that will incite our enemy, but they won't show photos that will incite Americans because that might steel our resolve and we might fight the war to win it." --Rachel

27 I agree with Althor. "Freedom," "justice" and "decency" are pussy-ass ideals that make America weak. Truth is, we need to become even MORE ruthless and savage than our enemies, in order to prove our righteousness and worthiness to survive. And to hell with nuking a "Muslim" nation. Let's vaporize a totally innocent country -- like Lichtenstein -- just to show the Islamist scum we're even CRAZIER than they are...and we mean business. Screw this "beacon of liberty" crap. Our so-called "ideals" are for old women and bedwetters. Frankly, I'd rather be "alive" than be an "American."

28 kuniyat, how bout screw your clumsy attempts at irony and humour.

29 These are obvious Zionist provocations and falsities. All the world knows that the Jihadists are humane strugglers against the Imperialism of the Jews and Bush. These are lies, all lies. Place more photos of the evil Americans torturing the poor innocent Iraqi people at Abu Ghraib. Show us photos of the President of Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussein, being tried in a kangaroo court run by Jews and Americans.

30 What irony?

31 RE: The Geneva Conventions include Protocol 1, added in 1977 but not ratified by the U.S., Iraq or Afghanistan. It mentions that all parties in a conflict must respect victims' remains, though doesn't mention the photographing of dead bodies. a true incident: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/050920glaser/ relating articles: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051026/NEWS/510260382

32 I look at what is happening in Kurdistan, and the future that the leaders there have in mind for their people, and I am enheartened. Then I look at the rest of the Middle East, and there is nothing but hate, violence, and radicalism. What is the real shame in all this is that the Middle East could be a paradise on Earth, if the people there would just quit hating and get a vision of what they COULD accomplish without radical Islam. Look to Kurdistan Arabs and see what you could become if you really wanted to. You are the only thing holding yourself back.

33 Dear moron: The reason the UN is not demanding an investigation into murders by Islamofascists is because Islamofascists do not hold seats in the UN. You are unbelievably, almost impossibly, ignorant. Your ignorance is all-emcompassing. It is simply awesome in its scope. Say that there were an Islamofascist seat at the UN. What possible bearing would THEIR behavior have on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of ours? Further, since when did we look to Islamist fascists for guidance on questions of ethical wartime behavior? This isn't a difference of opinion. This is basic moral reasoning and you're apparently incapable of exercising it. You are a fool.

34 SP, It takes one to know one.

35 Dr. Rusty Shackleford decides that extremist killers are no longer either terrorists or insurgents but soldiers! If a lefty did that the wingnuts would have conniptions but he's bending the usual rhetoric all out of shape so he can try to counterspin the recent Abu Graib photos, so that's OK, right? Hey Rusty, does that mean the detainees have Geneva Convention rights or is it OK if America descends to the lowest pit of it's enemies' vileness too? The argument that "others do it so it is OK if I (or we)do it too" as forwarded by many of your commenters is a typical argument from moral paucity exhibited by sociopaths. It can be used to "justify" everything from driving while drunk to serial rape and murder. It only works if you don't understand the difference between right and wrong, though. -C

36 These photos would, if widely shown, only ADD to the anti-Americanism currently sweeping the planet, because they would be perceived as yet more evidence that we have - either contrary to naive intentions, or deliberately, depending on your ideological predisposition - unleashed hell in Iraq. The PR battle is lost.

37 Did I miss the part of the post were Rusty said: "Terrorists are beheading civilians in Iraq, so we should do the same" "Terrorists create false trials, and execute, we should do the same if they're captured." It isn't about moral equivalency, or "What we did isn't so bad, look what the real bad guys do" the entry simply compares how the media does not publish any photographs of victims of terrorists/insurgents, does not talk about "two Iraqi's civilians were beheaded by terrorists" or "civilians kidnapped and shot" but spends weeks talking about how Soldiers abused prisoners, Soldiers who were turned in by their own, have since been tried and sentenced for their crimes, the media runs photograph after photograph of the explicit violence metered out by rogue Soldiers and then claims that pictures of the aftermath of Nick Burg, et al. are to explicit to air.

38 Hey guys, let's remember, Muslims are not the enemy here, just the murderous religious psychopaths and the brutal wannabe dictators. The Kurds, who are Sunni Muslims, LOVE America. As Michael Totten put it, the Kurdish areas of Iraq are mor pro-American than America.

39 SP, that's great. Now tell us why the MSM refuses to print pictures and run video of enemy atrocities.

40 its very simple. Gentlemen 'discuss' issues, animals fight. When animals fight, there are no rules. I think the biggest mistake the coalition forces made was not dis-arming EVERYBODY. If they want to get a handle on this insurgent fighter problem, they should announce a new type of curfew: If you have a weapon of any kind, you are open season. that goes for weapons found in homes, garages or burried in the yard. Peaceful Iraqi's don't need guns at this point in time. They can re-aquire them after the country is at peace. In the meantime, weapon=corpse. No exceptions. Also, I'm kinda curious about the roadside bombs too. Are they remotely detonated, or proximity triggered? If its the latter, a well-armoured vehicle in the front of each convoy with explosive-detecting equipment should help. If they are remotely detonated, why can't jamming equipment be used? a massive high-powered jamming signal could interrupt the remote detonation of the bombs. Just a thought.

41 JC Because it would present a broader truer picture of the reality of all this. We can't have that now, can we?

42 Jesusland Carlos: I'm sure the reasoning is that the pictures and videos of the enemy atrocities are much more graphic. For all of the horrible, war-losing, credibility-destroying, anti-American acts being depicted in the Abu-Ghraib footage and pictures, none of it involves anything as bad as a beheading. Which is commendable in a "well you punched a nine year old girl in the face, but at least you didn't stab her" sort of way.

43 jamming equipment was deployed.

44 "seriously?" more graphic? no one is asking publishing someone as their head is being sawed off, however Rusty has posted things that do not contain graphic violence until the very end. Examples that come to mind would be the downed pilot who was made to get on to his feet before being executed. The two Iraqi men you see here in their video before being beheaded for being apostates. Several mass executions of Iraqi national guardsmen who were made to kneel after watching one of them being beheaded while the others were shot in the head one at a time (same with the Nepalese) This somehow is less graphic than for example naked iraqi pyramids, mock fellatio, blooded prisoners, dead Iraqi's in a bodybag on ice or punches being thrown on naked prisoners on the ground etc? please.

45 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?' I understand the frustration about ongoing publication of US abuse photos, obviously. Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world; is comparing ourselves to these guys and saying, 'Hey! They do worse stuff!' the proper response?

46 I'm curious. If news outlets publish those photos of hostages, are they guilty of broadcasting 'the bad news?' Do you watch the news? these are the same people that gave you the "Grim milestone" run ups, waiting for the quota to be filled. Still, we're a democracy holding ourselves up as an inspiration to the rest of the world How do old pictures, that people have been tried and sentenced for inspire the world? did I miss something?

47 Slippery Pete, The question you refuse to ask yourself is just what are you prepared to do to protect your country and your way of life. Apparently you are not prepared to do much. This is not a Kumbaya choral group we are facing in the Al Qaeda and the Islamofascists. These are people who are prepared to do anything to kill you and the rest of us. If you are not willing to look at the photos of what they are doing right now and compare that to the photos of what went on at Abu Ghraib and see that there is a fundamental difference, then you do not deserve to have the kind of life you are now leading. These people have told us over and over and shown us over and over what they will do and you still stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them. Pitiful!!

48 JC - The reason the "MSM" runs (some) US atrocity pictures but not videos of Islamofascists beheading people is that the latter is far more graphic. They never show videotape that graphic, no matter who's committing atrocities against whom. Obviously you've already signed onto some kind of weird, paranoid conspiracy theory wherein the US media secretly wish for the downfall of American because they hate it and love Islamic fascists. I can see what you're getting at. There's another reason the "MSM" (what a stupid term) focuses on American abuses. It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists. Until recently, nobody expected US personnel to act that way. It's a classic man-bites-dog story. I find it telling that certain elements of the right don't see it that way, if you know what I mean (and - let's be frank - you probably don't). (PS: the most recent photos were published in Australian newspapers, if I'm not mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM")

49 dave: Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with any media outlets publishing any of these photos or videos. I can see their reasons for not doing so, but it wouldn't bother me a bit if they did. The more info the better. Though I'm a liberal, I agree that the mainstream media generally does a piss poor job of laying out all of the facts relevant to forming a coherent opninion on a variety of issues. Although, even with perfect information at everyone's disposal, I'm not sure a lot of folks have the reasoning ability for it to do any good. Witness the tendency of people to start screaming about kidnappings and beheadings when some western news agency has the gall to publish photos of American soldiers torturing the prisoners under their watch. Yes, these beheadings, kidnappings, and generally brutal acts are horrifying, but, they are a separate issue.

50 dick: Yup, they are brutal and ruthless and want you and me and everyone we know and love dead. I want them stopped. I just don't think torturing prisoners gets that done. In fact, I think it swells the terrorists' ranks and provides crap information that our military and intelligence personnel have to waste time and money on. Beyond that, there is a moral highground that this country (and to a lesser extent western civilization) has always aspired to. Which is precisely the reason I want those that wish it harmed stopped in as effective a way as possible. We abandon our highest aspirations when we excuse the torture of prisoners.

51 The "too graphic" excuse is too lame. That problem could be solved by simply pixelating the pictures, JUST LIKE THE COWARDLY MSM PIXELATED PICTURES OF MOHAMMED.

52 >>>It's because everybody expects Islamic fascists to act like fascists. SP, Really? If that's the case, why does Michael Moore call them "minutemen" and "the revolution"? In fact, the further Left of the political spectrum you go, the more they tell us America is to blame for the world's misery and these islamic fascists are just "victims" of "colonialism." No, the MSM doesn't go that far, granted. They merely refrain from telling the whole story. Why? I think it's for the reasons we've already stated. They don't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war. It doesn't suit their agenda.

53 Jesusland Carlos: I think you're on to something here...So the reason Donald Rumsfeld refused to send enough troops in to secure the weapons caches and keep the peace after the initial invasion was because he didn't want to inflame American passions in favor of the war...he's a leftist plant! Please. The abysmal conduct of this war is what's been reducing support of it.

54 Of course, anyone with any knowledge of the origins of the Iraq War knows that it was cooked up by Neocons who are almost all Jewish extremist supporters of Israel. The four leading promoters of America going to war against Iraq were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. All four are Jewish supporters of the radical Likud party in Israel. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser wrote a strategic paper for the foreign government of Israel and Benjiman Netanyahu in 1996 called A “Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although these men became the framers of the American Iraq War policy, the paper they wrote was about securing Israel's realm by fostering war against Iraq and ultimately Syria and Iran. The paper suggests that Israel's way to destroy Damascus (Syria) is through Baghdad. The problem they faced was that it would be hard to get Americans to pay the tremendous price of the Iraq war for Israel. Would Americans be willing to have thousands killed, tens of thousands maimed, hundreds of billions of dollars expense and the spawning of worldwide hatred of America for Israel's ability to dominate the Mideast? Of course not, so they produced the lie about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and the lie that Baghdad was an imminent threat to America. Hardly a mention was made of Israel. The whole process was supported by key Jewish supremacists in different parts of the American intelligence establishment. For instance the man who was in charge of the Iraq Intelligence section of the CIA was Stuart Cohen, a radical Jewish Israeli advocate. Here is quote from ABC when Cohen was defending his intelligence reports on the Iraq “weapons of mass destruction.” Sunday, November 30, 2003. 12:46pm (AEDT) CIA admits lack of specifics on Iraqi weapons before invasion The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has acknowledged it “lacked specific information” about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq. However, an explanation issued over the weekend by veteran CIA analyst Stuart Cohen, who was in charge of putting together the 2002 intelligence estimate and currently serves as vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, … We now even know from an Associated Press Article (thanks to an Israeli intelligence chief) that Israel itself provided a lot of the bogus data on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Associated Press December 4, 2003 Israeli General Derides Findings on Iraq by Peter Enav - Associated Press Writer “JERUSALEM – A former Israeli intelligence officer charged Thursday that Israeli agencies produced a flawed picture of Iraqi weapons capabilities and substantially contributed to mistakes made in U.S. and British pre-war assessments on Iraq. The comments of reserve Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom represented an unusual criticism of the Israeli intelligence community, long regarded as one of the world's best. Prior to his retirement in 1998, Brom served in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years, and acted as the deputy chief of planning for the Israeli army… Is it anti-Semitic to point out these facts? Is it anti-Semitic to point out that the most powerful lobby in the United States Congress (AIPAC) is actually for a foreign country: Israel! It is right now in the midst a huge scandal because of its espionage against the United States of America. Is it anti-Semitic to state that the most powerful lobby in America worked tirelessly for the war against Iraq. Not only were the fingerprints of Israel all over the intelligence and government agencies, they are all over America's free press. The two most powerful newspapers in the United States (and both supported the war wholeheartedly) are the NY Times and the Washington Post. Of course, being the main newspaper read by almost every member of the U.S. Government in Washington, DC, the Post has huge influence on politics. Both papers are thoroughly controlled by Jewish supremacists. In fact, in replying to the article that attacked Representative Conyers, Mr. Conyers had to complain to the Chief Editor Mr. Abramowitz and chief Ombudsman, Mr. Getler. It is this same paper that suggests telling the truth about Israel is “anti-Semitism.” It is this same paper that drove Howard Dean to attack those who told the truth about Israel and the Iraq War. And its not just the Post or the Times. Thousands of other newspapers and most of the media conglomerates are dominated by Jewish radicals. Here's a quote from one of the leading Jewish newspapers in America on the subject, the Los Angeles Jewish Times: Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch's News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout – however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.” (Los Angeles Jewish Times Oct. 29. 1999) [other sources claim Murdoch's mother, Elisabeth J. Greene, is Jewish] Is it anti-Semitic to state these obvious facts showing the relation of Jewish-dominated media to this disastrous war. Finally, Dean criticized the fact that some leaflets distributed at the DNC claimed that Israel was behind the 911 attack. Very few claim that Israel arranged for the attacks themselves, but there can be little doubt that the attacks took place in direct relation to our Israel-hijacked Mideast policy. Even Osama bin Laden himself said clearly that his anger toward America was primarily because of America's support for Israel's criminal actions. He said this in numerous media interviews before the trade center attacks. But, in the wake of the attacks, these facts were ignored. The pro-Israel media and forces in government, including Bush's main speech writer at the time, David Frum, went out of their way to proclaim that America was attacked because they hated our democracy, our freedom! Well, they didn't attack the longest standing democracies in the world, Switzerland or Iceland! If Americans realized we faced such an atrocious tragedy because of Israel's nefarious control of our foreign policy too many Americans might ask a very good question – Is supporting the criminal activities of Israel really worth it? The Jewish supremacists cannot afford that question to be asked, because the answer is just too obvious. Is it anti-Semitic to tell the truth about why so much of the world hates America?

55 Wow. It's raining bullshit from all sides...

56 Cleanup on Isle 1: Jewish conspiracy feces dropped everywhere, please bring mop.

57 The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI © 2003 WTM Enterprises All rights reserved. In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote, It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1] Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to get the United States to fight for their interests? To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack, neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel. Although the term neoconservative is in common usage, a brief description of the group might be helpful. Many of the first-generation neocons originally were liberal Democrats, or even socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They drifted to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as the Democratic Party moved to the antiwar McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in that rightward drift. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg puts it: One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's security. [2] For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy." And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote: The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him. But the style is the same." [3] In the following essay I attempt to flesh out that thesis and show the link between the war position of the neoconservatives and the long-time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the Israeli mainstream itself. In brief, the idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem. War and expulsion To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring") the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom Segev writes: The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants.... "Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer — or its morality. However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4] The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and what is possible in such great hours is not carried out — a whole world is lost." [5] The "revolutionary times" would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though its area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or the "Land of Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a viable state. The opportunity to grab additional land occurred as a result of the 1967 war; however, that occupation brought with it the problem of a large Palestinian population. By that time world opinion was totally opposed to forced population transfers, equating such a policy with the unspeakable horror of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949, had "unequivocally prohibited deportation" of civilians under occupation. [6] Since the 1967 war, the major question in Israeli politics has been: What to do with that territory and its Palestinian population? It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of the right-wing Likud government, that the idea of expulsion resurfaced publicly. And this time it was directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization of the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian expulsion. Such a proposal, including removal of the Palestinian population, was outlined in an article by Oded Yinon, titled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," appearing in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings. Thinking along those lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988, that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide "the circumstances" for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper. [7] Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi critiqued the war/expulsion scenario — referring to "Israeli intentions to impose a Pax Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat them harshly" — in his very significant work, Israel's Fateful Hour, published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal, given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the weakest Arab state — Lebanon — will disabuse people of similar ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to achieve the overall goal. U.S. Realpolitik In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to befriend Israel — in fact they could openly oppose the Jewish state. The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate the demands of the Muslim nations — most crucially their demands involving the Palestinians. Pursuing its policy of ensuring the security of Middle East oil supplies, by the mid 1980s Washington was heavily supporting Iraq in her war against Iran, although for a while the United States had also provided some aid to Iran (viz. the Iran-contra scandal). Ironically, Donald Rumsfeld was the U.S. envoy who in 1983 paved the way for the restoration of relations with Iraq, relations which had been severed in 1967. The United States along with other Western nations looked upon Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the Ayatollah's Iran, which threatened Western oil interests. U.S. support for Iraq included intelligence information, military equipment, and agricultural credits. And the United States deployed the largest naval force since the Vietnam War in the Persian Gulf. Ostensibly sent for the purpose of protecting oil tankers, it ended up engaging in serious attacks on Iran's navy. It was during this period of U.S. support that Iraq used poison gas against the Iranians and the Kurds, a tactic that the U.S. government and its media supporters now describe as so horrendous. In fact, U.S. intelligence facilitated the Iraqi use of gas against the Iranians. In addition, Washington eased up on its own technology export restrictions to Iraq, which allowed the Iraqis to import supercomputers, machine tools, poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague. In short, the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weaponry of horror that administration officials are now trumpeting as justification for forcibly removing Saddam from power. [9] When the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, the United States continued its support for Iraq, showering her with military hardware, advanced technology, and agricultural credits. The United States apparently looked to Saddam to maintain stability in the Gulf. But American policy swiftly changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Neoconservatives were hawkish in generating support for a U.S. war against Iraq. The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, headed by Richard Perle, was set up to promote the war. [10] And neoconservative war hawks such as Perle, Frank Gaffney, Jr., A.M. Rosenthal, William Safire, and The Wall Street Journal held that America's war objective should be not simply to drive Iraq out of Kuwait but also to destroy Iraq's military potential, especially her capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The first Bush administration embraced that position. [11] But beyond that, the neocons hoped that the war would lead to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation of Iraq. However, despite the urgings of then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the full conquest of Iraq was never accomplished because of the opposition of General Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, the field commander. [12] Moreover, the United States had a UN mandate only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter would have caused the U.S.-led coalition to fall apart. America's coalition partners in the region, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia, feared that the elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups. That could have involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq that would have spread to Turkey's own restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, Iraq's Shiites might have fallen under the influence of Iran, increasing the threat of Islamic radicalism in the region. Not only did the Bush administration dash neoconservative hopes by leaving Saddam in place, but its proposed "New World Order," as implemented by Secretary of State James Baker, conflicted with neoconservative/Israeli goals, being oriented toward placating the Arab coalition that supported the war. That entailed an effort to curb Israeli control of her occupied territories. The Bush administration demanded that Israel halt the construction of new settlements in the occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees for Israel's resettlement of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Although Bush would cave in to American pro-Zionist pressure just prior to the November 1992 election, his resistance disaffected many neocons, causing some, such as Safire, to back Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. [13] The network During the Clinton administration, neoconservatives promoted their views from a strong interlocking network of think tanks — the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP) — which have had great influence in the media and which have helped to staff Republican administrations. Some of the organizations were originally set up by mainline conservatives and only later taken over by neoconservatives; [14] others were established by neocons, with some of the groups having a direct Israeli connection. For example, Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, was a co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri). And the various organizations have been closely interconnected. For example, the other co-founder of Memri, Meyrav Wurmser, was a member of the Hudson Institute, while her husband, David Wurmser, headed the Middle East studies department of AEI. And Perle was both a "resident fellow" at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a trustee of the Hudson Institute. [15] In a recent article in the The Nation, Jason Vest discusses the immense influence in the current Bush administration of people from two major neocon research organizations, JINSA and CSP. Vest details the close links among the two organizations, right-wing politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires, and Republican administrations. [16] Regarding JINSA, Vest writes: Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush administration, JINSA's board of advisors included such heavy hitters as Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas J. Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, and [Michael] Ledeen — Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. [17] Vest notes that "dozens" of JINSA and CSP "members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core." And Vest continues: "On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but 'total war,' as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, 'regime change' by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative." [18] Let's recapitulate Vest's major points. The JINSA/CSP network has "support for the Israeli right at its core." In line with the views of the Israeli right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to eliminate the enemies of Israel. And members of the JINSA/CSP network have gained influential foreign policy positions in Republican administrations, most especially in the current administration of George W. Bush. "Securing the realm" A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, titled "A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm." It was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan whereby Israel would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. [19] Note that these Americans — Perle, Feith, and Wurmser — were advising a foreign government and that they currently are connected to the George W. Bush administration: Perle is head of the Defense Policy Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Wurmser is special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton. It is also remarkable that while in 1996 Israel was to "shape its strategic environment" by removing her enemies, the same individuals are now proposing that the United States shape the Middle East environment by removing Israel's enemies. That is to say, the United States is to serve as Israel's proxy to advance Israeli interests. On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the neoconservative Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime." The letter continued: "It will not be easy — and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to [adopt such a strategy]." Among the letter's signers were the following current Bush administration officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense Department), Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense). [20] In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq. [21] Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.). [22] President Clinton would only go so far as to support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition. [23] In September 2000, the neocon think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC) [24] issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," that envisioned an expanded global posture for the United States. In regard to the Middle East, the report called for an increased American military presence in the Gulf, whether Saddam was in power or not., maintaining that "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [25] The project's participants included individuals who would play leading roles in the second Bush administration: Cheney (Vice President), Rumsfeld (secretary of defense), Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense), and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). Weekly Standard editor William Kristol was also a co-author. In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes — confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians," and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors. "His foreign policy team," Kagan observed, "will be critically important to determining what his policies are." And columnist Robert Novak noted: "Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in most on Middle East policy." [26] In short, Wolfowitz and Perle would provide the know-nothing Bush with a ready-made foreign policy for the Middle East. And certainly such right-wing Zionist views would be reinforced by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the multitude of other neocons who would inundate Bush's administration. Neocons would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign policy. [27] A Perle among men Perle is often described as the most influential foreign-policy neoconservative, their eminence grise.[28] He gained notice in the 1970s as a top aide to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), who was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members. During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, where his hard-line anti-Soviet positions, especially his opposition to any form of arms control, earned him the moniker "Prince of Darkness" from his enemies. However, his friends considered him, as one put it, "one of the most wonderful people in Washington." That Perle is known as a man of great intellect, a gracious and generous host, a witty companion, and a loyal ally helps to explain his prestige in neoconservative circles. [29] Perle isn't just an exponent of pro-Zionist views; he has also had close connections with Israel, being a personal friend of Sharon's, a board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer Soltam. According to author Seymour M. Hersh, while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI wiretaps picked up Perle providing classified information from the National Security Council to the Israeli embassy. [30] Although not technically part of the Bush administration, Perle holds the unpaid chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. In that position, Perle has access to classified documents and close contacts with the administration leadership. As an article in Salon puts it: "Formerly an obscure civilian board designed to provide the secretary of defense with non-binding advice on a whole range of military issues, the Defense Policy Board, now stacked with unabashed Iraq hawks, has become a quasi-lobbying organization whose primary objective appears to be waging war with Iraq." [31] "Actions inconceivable at present" As Bush and his people came into office in January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted government officials and politicians speaking openly of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001; noted for his ruthlessness, he had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated. [32] Public concern was mounting in Israel over demographic changes that threatened the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Haifa University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, "Demography of Eretz Israel," which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied territories. [33] Moreover, it was recognized that the overall increase in population would exceed what the land, with its limited supply of water, could support. [34] It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve expulsion through militant means. As one left-wing analyst put it at the time: "One big war with transfer at its end — this is the plan of the hawks who indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation." [35] In the summer of 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported that Israel had completed the planning for a massive and bloody invasion of the Occupied Territories, involving "air strikes by F-15 and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ... tank brigades and infantry." Such bold strikes would aim at far more than simply removing Arafat and the PLO leadership. But the United States vetoed the plan, and Europe made its opposition to Sharon's plans equally plain. [36] As one close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene presciently wrote in August 2001, "It is only in the current political climate that such expulsion plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible." [37] Once again, "revolutionary times" were necessary for Israel to achieve its policy goals. And then came the September 11 attacks. Revolutionary September The September 11 atrocities provided the "revolutionary times" in which Israel could undertake radical measures unacceptable during normal conditions. When asked what the attack would do for U.S.-Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded: "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." Netanyahu correctly predicted that the attack would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror." Sharon placed Israel in the same position as the United States, referring to the attack as an assault on "our common values" and declaring, "I believe together we can defeat these forces of evil." [38] In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the September 11 attacks had joined the United States and Israeli together against a common enemy. And that enemy was not in far-off Afghanistan but was geographically close to Israel. Israel's traditional enemies would now become America's as well. And Israel would have a better chance of dealing with the Palestinians under the cover of a "war on terrorism." Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the neoconservatives began to publicly push for a wider war on terrorism that would immediately deal with Israel's enemies. For example, Safire held that the real terrorists that America should focus on were not groups of religious fanatics "but Iraqi scientists today working feverishly in hidden biological laboratories and underground nuclear facilities [who] would, if undisturbed, enable the hate-driven, power-crazed Saddam to kill millions. That capability would transform him from a boxed-in bully into a rampant world power." [39] Within the administration, Wolfowitz clearly implied a broader war against existing governments when he said: "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few criminals are taken care of." [40] On September 20, 2001, neocons of the Project for the New American Century sent a letter to President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism and stressing that the removal of Saddam was an essential part of that war. They maintained that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." Furthermore, the letter-writers opined, if Syria and Iran failed to stop all support for Hezbollah, the United States should "consider appropriate measures against these known sponsors of terrorism." Among the letter's signatories were such neoconservative luminaries as William Kristol, Midge Decter, Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Gaffney, Kagan, Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Perle, Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Solarz, and Wieseltier. World War IV In the October 29, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard, Kagan and Kristol predict a wider Middle Eastern war: When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared with what looms over the horizon — a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.... But this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. [42] Kagan and Kristol seem to be looking forward to this gigantic conflagration. In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen dubs the conflict "World War IV," a term picked up by other neocons. Cohen proclaims that "The enemy in this war is not 'terrorism' ... but militant Islam.... Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign." Cohen calls not only for a U.S. attack on Iraq but also for the elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which "would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden." [43] Critics of a wider war in the Middle East quickly recognized the neoconservative war-propaganda effort. Analyzing the situation in September 2002, paleoconservative [44] Scott McConnell wrote: "For the neoconservatives ... bin Laden is but a sideshow.... They hope to use September 11 as pretext for opening a wider war in the Middle East. Their prime, but not only, target is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even if Iraq has nothing to do with the World Trade Center assault." [45] However, McConnell mistakenly considered the neocon stance to be only a minority view within the Bush administration: The neocon wish list is a recipe for igniting a huge conflagration between the United States and countries throughout the Arab world, with consequences no one could reasonably pretend to calculate. Support for such a war — which could turn quite easily into a global war — is a minority position within the Bush administration (assistant secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz is its main advocate) and the country. But it presently dominates the main organs of conservative journalistic opinion, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times, as well as Marty Peretz's neoliberal New Republic. In a volatile situation, such organs of opinion could matter. [46] Expressing a similar view, veteran columnist Georgie Anne Geyer observed: The "Get Iraq" campaign ... started within days of the September bombings.... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and advisor Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen. Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the "Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else. Geyer believed that this line of thinking was "being contained by cool heads in the administration, but that could change at any time." [47] Lighting up the recesses of Bush Neoconservatives have presented the September 11 atrocities as a lightning bolt to make President Bush aware of his destiny: destroying the evil of world terrorism. Ironically enough, Podhoretz adopted Christian terminology to describe a changed Bush: A transformed — or, more precisely, a transfigured — George W. Bush appeared before us. In an earlier article ... I suggested, perhaps presumptuously, that out of the blackness of smoke and fiery death let loose by September 11, a kind of revelation, blazing with a very different fire of its own, lit up the recesses of Bush's mind and heart and soul. Which is to say that, having previously been unsure as to why he should have been chosen to become President of the United States, George W. Bush now knew that the God to whom, as a born-again Christian, he had earlier committed himself had put him in the Oval Office for a purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against the evil of terrorism. [48] In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, administration heavyweights debated the scope of the "war on terrorism." According to Bob Woodward's Bush at War, as early as September 12 Rumsfeld "raised the question of attacking Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in the war on terrorism." [49] Woodward adds, "The terrorist attacks of September 11 gave the United States a new window to go after Hussein." On September 15, Wolfowitz put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Wolfowitz expressed the view that "attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain," voicing the fear that American troops would be "bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was doable." [50] However, the neoconservatives were not able to achieve their goal of a wider war at the outset, in part because of the opposition of Secretary of State Powell, who held that the war should focus on the actual perpetrators of September 11. (That was how most Americans actually envisioned the war.) Perhaps Powell's most telling argument was his declaration that an American attack on Iraq would lack international support. He claimed that a U.S. victory in Afghanistan would enhance the United States's ability to deal militarily with Iraq at a later time, "if we can prove that Iraq had a role" in September 11. [51] Powell diverged from the neocon hawks in his emphasis on the need for international support, as opposed to American unilateralism, but an even greater difference lay in his contention that the "war on terror" had to be directly linked to the perpetrators of September 11 — Osama bin Laden's network. Powell publicly repudiated Wolfowitz's call for "ending states" with the response that "we're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations, that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think 'ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself." [52] Very significantly, however, while the "war on terrorism" would not begin with an attack on Iraq, military plans were being made for just such an endeavor. A Top Secret document outlining the war plan for Afghanistan, which Bush signed on September 17, 2001, included, as a minor point, instructions to the Pentagon to also start making plans for an attack on Iraq. [53] Bush's public pronouncements evolved rapidly in the direction of expanding the war to Iraq. On November 21, 2001, in a speech at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, he proclaimed that "Afghanistan is just the beginning of the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win." [54] On November 26, in response to a question whether Iraq was one of the terrorist nations that he had in mind, Bush said: "Well, my message is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable." Note that Bush included possession of weapons of mass destruction as an indicator of "terrorism." And none of that terrorist activity necessarily related to the September 11 attacks. [55] Transformation complete The transformation to support of a wider war was complete with Bush's January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially decoupled the "war on terrorism'' from the specific events of 9/11. Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The danger now was said to come primarily from three countries — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — which he dubbed "an axis of evil" that allegedly threatened the world with their weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. [56] The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by Bush's neoconservative speechwriter, David Frum. [57] By April 2002, Bush was publicly declaring that American policy was to secure "regime change" in Iraq. And in June, he stated that the United States would launch preemptive strikes on those countries that threatened the United States. [58] According to what passes as the conventional wisdom, Iraq now posed such a threat. Moreover, by the spring of 2002, General Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command, began giving Bush private briefings every three or four weeks on the planning for a new Iraq war. [59] Neoconservatives both within and without the administration sought a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that would not be encumbered by the conflicting goals of any coalition partners. That push was countered by Powell's efforts to persuade Bush that UN sanction would be necessary to justify a U.S. attack, which the President ultimately found persuasive. That slowed the rush to war, but it also represented a move by Powell away from his original position that Washington should make war on Iraq only if Baghdad were proven to have been involved in the September 11 terrorism. The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors, with sweeping inspection powers, would determine whether Iraq was violating her pledge to destroy all of her weapons of mass destruction. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002) places the burden of proof on Iraq to show that she no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction. The resolution states that any false statements or omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further material breach by Iraq of her obligations. That could set in motion discussions by the Security Council on considering the use of military force against Iraq. While some have claimed that this might mean that war would be put off, [60] it also allows the United States to use the new UN resolution as a legal justification for war. In fact, the United States could choose to enforce the resolution through war without additional UN authorization. As British journalist Robert Fisk writes: "The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war without UN permission." [61] Armchair strategists Neoconservatives not only have determined the foreign policy leading to war against Iraq but have played a role in molding military strategy as well. Top military figures, including members of the Joint Chiefs, initially expressed opposition to the whole idea of such a war. [62] But Perle and other neoconservatives have for some time insisted that toppling Saddam would require little military effort or risk. They pushed for a war strategy dubbed "inside-out" that would involve attacking Baghdad and a couple of other key cities with a very small number of airborne troops, as few as 5,000 in some estimates. According to the plan's supporters, such strikes would cause Saddam's regime to collapse. American military leaders adamantly opposed that approach as too risky, offering in its stead a plan to use a much larger number of troops — about 250,000 — who would invade Iraq in a more conventional manner, marching from the soil of her neighbors, as was done during the Gulf War of 1991. Perle and the neoconservatives, for their part, feared that no neighboring country would provide the necessary bases, so that this approach would likely mean that no war would be initiated or that, during the lengthy time needed to assemble this large force, opposition to war would so burgeon as to render the operation politically impossible. Perle angrily responded to the military's demurral by saying that the decision to attack Iraq was "a political judgment that these guys aren't competent to make." [63] Cheney and Rumsfeld went even further, referring to the generals as "cowards" for being insufficiently gung-ho about an Iraq invasion. [64] Now, one might be tempted to attribute Perle and the other neocons' rejection of the military's caution to insane hubris — how could amateurs pretend to know more about military strategy than professional military men? However, Richard Perle may be many things, but insane is not one of them. Nor is he stupid. Undoubtedly he has thought through the implications of his plan. And it is apparent that the "inside-out" option would be a win-win proposition from Perle's perspective. Let's assume that it works — that a few American troops can capture some strategic areas and the Iraqi army quickly folds. Perle and the neocons appear as military geniuses and are rewarded with free rein to prepare a series of additional low-cost wars in the Middle East. On the other hand, let's assume that the mini-invasion is a complete fiasco. The American troops are defeated in the cities. Many are captured and paraded around for all the world to see. Saddam makes bombastic speeches about defeating the American aggressor. All the Arab and Islamic world celebrates the American defeat. American flags are burned in massive anti-American celebrations throughout the Middle East. America is totally humiliated, depicted as a paper tiger, and ordinary Americans watch it all on TV. How do they react? Such a catastrophe would be another Pearl Harbor in terms of engendering hatred of the enemy. The public would demand that American honor and prestige be avenged. They would accept the idea fed to them by the neoconservative propagandists that the war was one between America and Islam. Washington would unleash total war, which would involve heavy bombing of cities. And the air attacks could easily spread from Iraq to the other neighboring Islamic states. A war of conquest and extermination is the neocons' fondest dream since it would destroy all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. (It appears that the Pentagon has augmented the magnitude of the Iraq strike force to reduce the risk of the aforementioned scenario.) [65] "Our Enemies, the Saudis" Indications are plentiful that the war will not be limited to Iraq alone. On July 10, 2002, Laurent Murawiec, at Perle's behest, briefed the Defense Policy Board about Saudi Arabia, whose friendly relationship with the United States has been the linchpin of American security strategy in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Murawiec described the kingdom as the principal supporter of anti-American terrorism — "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent." It was necessary, he claimed, for the United States to regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy. Murawiec said Washington should demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around the world, prohibit all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli propaganda in the country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain, including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis refused to comply with the ultimatum, Murawiec contended that the United States should invade and occupy the country, including the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, seize her oil fields, and confiscate her financial assets. [66] Murawiec concluded the briefing with the astounding summary of what he called a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East:" "Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." In short, the goal of the war on Iraq was the destruction of the United States' closest allies. It would be hard to envision a policy better designed to inflame the entire Middle East against the United States. But that is exactly the result sought by neoconservatives. [67] Predictably, the day after the briefing, the Bush administration disavowed Murawiec's scenario as having nothing to do with actual American foreign policy and pronounced Saudi Arabia a loyal ally. [68] However, the White House did nothing to remove or even discipline Perle for holding a discussion of a plan for attacking a close ally — and individuals have frequently been removed from administrations for much smaller faux pas. We may be certain that the Bush administration's inaction failed to assure the Saudis that Murawiec's war plan was beyond the realm of possibility. Murawiec's anti-Saudi scenario simultaneously emerged in the neocon press. The July 15, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard featured an article titled "The Coming Saudi Showdown," by Simon Henderson of the neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And the July/August issue of Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee, contained an article titled, "Our Enemies, the Saudis." [69] The leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia, Stephen Schwartz, made his views known, too, though he did pay a price for it. Schwartz has written numerous articles as well as a recent book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, in which he posits a Saudi/Wahhabist conspiracy to take over all of Islam and spread terror throughout the world. As a result of his anti-Saudi comments, Schwartz was dismissed from his brief tenure as an editorial writer with the Voice of America at the beginning of July 2002, thus becoming a martyr in neoconservative circles. [70] As Thomas F. Ricks points out in the Washington Post, the anti-Saudi bellicosity expressed by Murawiec "represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration — especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian leadership — and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely allied with administration policymakers." [71] By November 2002, the anti-Saudi theme had reached the mainstream — with an article in Newsweek alleging financial support for the 9/11 terrorists from the Saudi royal family, and commentary on the subject by such leading figures in the Senate as Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). [72] Bush administration policy has come a long way but has still not reached what neocons seek: a war by the United States against all of Islam. According to Podhoretz, doyen of the neoconservatives: "Militant Islam today represents a revival of the expansionism by the sword" of Islam's early years. [73] In Podhoretz's view, to survive resurgent Islam the United States must not simply stand on the defensive but must stamp out militant Islam at its very source in the Middle East: The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, this axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen. After the great conquest, the United States would remake the entire region, which would entail forcibly re-educating its people to fall into line with the thinking of America's leaders. Podhoretz acknowledges that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American and anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaims that "there is a policy that can head it off" provided "that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II." [74] Expulsion redux Within Israel herself, however, the Arabs would not be expected to adopt a "new political culture"; they would be expected to vanish. Expulsion of the Palestinians is inextricably intertwined with a Middle Eastern war — or, in Ben-Gurion's phrase, "revolutionary times." As the post-September 11 "war on terror" has heated up, the talk of forcibly "transferring" the Palestinians has once again moved to the center of Israeli politics. According to Illan Pappe, a Jewish Israeli revisionist historian, "You can see this new assertion talked about in Israel: the discourse of transfer and expulsion which had been employed by the extreme Right, is now the bon ton of the center." [75] Even the dean of Israel's revisionist historians, Benny Morris, explicitly endorsed the expulsion of the Palestinians in the event of war. "This land is so small," Morris exclaimed, "that there isn't room for two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will only be one state between the sea and the Jordan. That state must be Israel." According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support expulsion of Israeli Arabs. Three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli Arabs to leave. [76] In April 2002, leading Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld held that a U.S. attack on Iraq would provide the cover for Prime Minister Sharon to forcibly remove the Palestinians from the West Bank. In Creveld's view, "The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades," which would rely on "heavy artillery." Creveld continued: "Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed.... Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973." [77] Although Creveld did not express any opposition to this impending expulsion, in September 2002, a group of Israeli academics did issue a declaration of opposition, stating, "We are deeply worried by indications that the 'fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." [78] The declaration continued: The Israeli ruling coalition includes parties that promote "transfer" of the Palestinian population as a solution to what they call "the demographic problem." Politicians are regularly quoted in the media as suggesting forcible expulsion, most recently [Knesset members] Michael Kleiner and Benny Elon, as reported on Yediot Ahronot website on September 19, 2002. In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon described the Palestinians as a "cancerous manifestation" and equated the military actions in the Occupied Territories with "chemotherapy," suggesting that more radical "treatment" may be necessary. Prime Minister Sharon has backed this "assessment of reality." Escalating racist demagoguery concerning the Palestinian citizens of Israel may indicate the scope of the crimes that are possibly being contemplated. [79] In the fall of 2002, the Jordanian government, fearing that Israel might push the Palestinian population into Jordan during the anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq, asked for public assurances from the Israeli government that it would not make such a move. The Sharon regime, however, has refused to publicly renounce an expulsion policy. [80] Simply a pretext As is now apparent, the "war on terrorism" was never intended to be a war to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. September 11 simply provided a pretext for government leaders to implement long-term policy plans. As has been pointed out elsewhere, including in my own writing, oil interests and American imperialists looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil-rich Central Asia within the American imperial orbit. [81] While that has been achieved, the American-sponsored government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan is in a perilous situation. Karzai's power seems to be limited to his immediate vicinity, and he must be protected by American bodyguards. The rest of Afghanistan is being fought over by various war lords and even the resurgent Taliban. [82] Instead of putting forth the effort to help consolidate its position in Central Asia, Washington has shifted its focus to gaining control of the Middle East. It now appears that the primary policymakers in the Bush administration have been the Likudnik neoconservatives all along. Control of Central Asia is secondary to control of the Middle East. In fact, for the leading neocons, the war on Afghanistan may simply have been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel. That is analogous to what revisionist historians have presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "back door to war" approach to World War II. Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to be able to fight Germany, and he provoked Japan into attacking U.S. colonial possessions in the Far East. Once the United States got into war through the back door, Roosevelt focused the American military effort on Germany. [83] The oil motive But what about the American desire for controlling Iraqi oil? Iraq possesses the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, next to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, many experts believe that Iraq possesses vast undiscovered oil reserves, making her the near-equal of Saudi Arabia. Most critics of war allege that American oil companies' desire to gain control of Iraqi oil is what motivates U.S. war policy. Some, mostly proponents of war, have also argued that, once in control of Iraqi oil, the United States could inundate the world with cheap oil, thus boosting the American and world economies out of recession. [84] Although the arguments have a prima facie plausibility, the oil motive for war has a couple of serious flaws. First, oil industry representatives or big economic moguls do not seem to be clamoring for war. According to oil analyst Anthony Sampson, "oil companies have had little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business, as falling share prices indicate." [85] Further, it is not apparent that war would be good for the oil industry or the world economy. Why would Big Oil want to risk a war that could ignite a regional conflagration threatening their existing investments in the Gulf? Iraq does indeed have significant oil reserves, but there is no reason to believe that they would have an immediate impact on the oil market. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, points out: In terms of production capacity, Iraq represents just 3 percent of the world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level as Nigeria's. Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that could take more than a decade. In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil nations. [86] A war would pose a great risk to the oil industry in the entire Gulf region. As William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale and a member of the President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers, writes: War in the Persian Gulf might produce a major upheaval in petroleum markets, either because of physical damage or because political events lead oil producers to restrict production after the war. A particularly worrisome outcome would be a wholesale destruction of oil facilities in Iraq, and possibly in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq destroyed much of Kuwait's oil wells and other petroleum infrastructure as it withdrew. The sabotage shut down Kuwaiti oil production for close to a year, and prewar levels of oil production were not reached until 1993 — nearly two years after the end of the war in February 1991. Unless the Iraqi leadership is caught completely off-guard in a new war, Iraq's forces would probably be able to destroy Iraq's oil production facilities. The strategic rationale for such destruction is unclear in peacetime, but such an act of self-immolation cannot be ruled out in wartime. Contamination of oil facilities in the Gulf region by biological or chemical means would pose even greater threats to oil markets. [87] Nordhaus's forecasts may be excessively bleak. However, the point is that the experts simply cannot gauge what will happen. War poses tremendous risk. In his evaluation of the possible economic impact of a war on Iraq, economic analyst Robert J. Samuelson concludes: "If it's peace and prosperity, then war makes no sense. But if fighting now prevents a costlier war later, it makes much sense." [88] None of this to deny that certain oil companies might benefit from a Middle East war, just as some businesses profit from any war. Particular oil companies could stand to benefit from American control of Iraq, since under a postwar U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government, American companies could be expected to be favored and gain the most lucrative oil deals. However, that particular oil companies could derive some benefits does not undercut the overall argument that war is a great risk for the American oil industry and the American economy as a whole. An American-imperialist strategic motive might be more plausible than the economic interests of the oil industry and the economy in general. Instead of the current informal influence over the oil producing areas of the Middle East, the United States would move into direct control, either with a puppet government in Iraq providing enough leverage for Washington to dictate to the rest of the Middle East, or actual direct U.S. control of other parts of the Middle East as well as Iraq. Presumably that state of affairs would provide greater security for the oil flow than exists under the current situation, where the client states enjoy some autonomy and face the possibility of being overthrown by anti-American forces. Neoconservative Robert Kagan maintains, "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." [89] Neoconservatives often try to gloss over this projected American colonialism by claiming that the United States would be simply spreading democracy. They imply that "democratic" Middle East governments would support American policies, including support of Israel and an oil policy oriented toward the welfare of the United States. However, given popular anti-Zionist and anti-American opinion in the region, it seems highly unlikely that governments representative of the popular will would ever pursue such policies. Only a non-representative dictatorship could be pro-American and pro-Israeli. Zionist U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) put it candidly in calming the worries of an Israeli member of the Knesset: "You won't have any problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." [90] A truly foreign imperialism Control of the Middle East oil supply would certainly augment U.S. domination of the world. However, American imperialists who are in no way linked to the Likudnik position on Israel — e.g., Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft — are cool to such a Middle East war. [91] If such a war policy would be an obvious boon to American imperialism, why isn't it avidly sought by leading American imperialists? Direct colonial control of a country's internal affairs would be a significant break with American policy of the past half-century. America might have client states and an informal empire, but the direct imperialism entailed by an occupation of the Middle East would be, as Mark Danner put it in the New York Times, "wholly foreign to the modesty of containment, the ideology of a status-quo power that lay at the heart of American strategy for half a century." [92] Moreover, a fundamental concern of American global policy has been to maintain peace and stability in the world. Washington preaches probity and restraint to other countries regarding the use of force. Hence, for the United States to launch a preemptive strike on a country would undoubtedly weaken her ability to restrain other countries, which would also see a need to preemptively strike at their foes. In short, the launching of preemptive war would destabilize the very world order that the United States allegedly seeks to preserve in her "war on terrorism." In fact, world stability is often seen as central to the global economic interdependence that is the key to American prosperity. [93] Since America already exercises considerable power in the oil-producing Persian Gulf region through her client states — Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates — it is difficult to understand why American imperialists would make a radical change from their status-quo policy. Would the benefits to be gained from direct control of the region outweigh the risks involved? War could unleash virulent anti-American forces that could destabilize America's Middle East client states and incite terrorist attacks on

58 http://www.nowarforisrael.com/

59 stop polluting the comments with your tinfoil rants asshole, wipe the foam flecks from the corner of your mouth and go take a sip from a good mug of STFU. No one wants to read 250 lines of idiotic rambling bullshit, especially when anyone so inclined could click on a link.

60 not to mention other Middle Eastern countries, would place a heavy burden on the U.S. government and people. [94] Would such a burden be acceptable to the American people? Would they support the brutal policies needed to suppress any opposition? In the 1950s the people of France would not support the brutality necessary to retain the colonial empire in Algeria. Even in the totalitarian Soviet Union, popular opinion forced the abandonment of the imperialistic venture in Afghanistan, which contributed to the break-up of the entire Soviet empire. In short, the move from indirect to direct control of the Middle East would strike men who were simply concerned about enhancing American imperial power as the gravest sort of risk-taking, because it could undermine America's entire imperial project. Direct American control of the Middle East would not only prove burdensome to the American people but would also undoubtedly provoke a backlash from other countries. That almost seems to be a law of international relations — operating since the time of the balance-of-power politics practiced during the Peloponnesian War. As Christopher Layne points out: The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful — becomes a hegemon — the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the security of all other states. So throughout modern international political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states. [95] The British Empire, which might seem an exception to the rule of the inevitable failure of hegemons, achieved its success because of its caution. Owen Harries, editor of the National Interest, has pointed out that England's imperial successes stemmed from her rather cautious approach. "England," observed Harries in the Spring 2001 issue, "was the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much dreaded.'" Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire need of such a warning." [96] Obviously, the American takeover of the major oil-producing area of the world would be anything but a cautious move. It would characterize a classic example of what historian Paul Kennedy refers to as "imperial over-stretch." Tied down in the Middle East, the United States would find it more difficult to counter threats to its power in the rest of the world. Even now it is questionable whether the U.S. military has the capability to fight two wars at once, a problem (from the standpoint of the U.S. regime) that has now come to the fore with the bellicosity of North Korea. [97] In essence, it is not apparent that intelligent American imperialists concerned solely about the power status of the United States, which holds preeminence in the world right now, would want to take the risk of a Middle East war and occupation. No American motive The previous analysis leads to the conclusion not only that the neoconservatives are obviously in the forefront of the pro-war bandwagon but also that pro-Israeli Likudnik motives are the most logical, probably the only logical, motives for war. As I have noted, Likudniks have always sought to deal in a radical fashion with the Palestinian problem in the occupied territories — a problem that has gotten worse, from their standpoint, as a result of demographic changes. A U.S. war in the Middle East at the present time provides a window of opportunity to permanently solve that problem and augment Israel's dominance in the region. The existing perilous situation, as Likud thinkers see it, would justify the taking of substantial risks. And a look at history shows that countries whose leaders believed they were faced with grave problems pursued risky policies, such as Japan did in 1941. [98] In contrast, no such dire threats face the United States. American imperialists should be relatively satisfied with the status quo and averse to taking any risks that might jeopardize it. *** The deductions drawn in this essay seem obvious but are rarely broached in public because Jewish power is a taboo subject. As the intrepid Joseph Sobran puts it: "It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits." [99] So in a check for "hate" or "anti-Semitism," let's recapitulate the major points made in this essay. First, the initiation of a Middle East war to solve Israeli security problems has been a long-standing idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks. Next, Likudnik-oriented neoconservatives argued for American involvement in such a war prior to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since September 11, neocons have taken the lead in advocating such a war; and they hold influential foreign policy and national security positions in the Bush administration. If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing extraordinary about my thesis. In the history of foreign policy, it has frequently been maintained that various leading figures were motivated by ties to business, an ideology, or a foreign country. In his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the "passionate attachment" of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the detriment of the United States. It is just such a situation that currently exists. We can only look with trepidation to the near future, for in the ominous words of Robert Fisk, "There is a firestorm coming." [100]

61 and ps, John, nobody's reading your useless spam.

62 Hey Rusty, please delete the spam. Thanks.

63 The attack on September 11 was certainly not about people hating our freedoms. It was purely in response to America's foreign policy; and it was primarily about our monetary and military support of Israel. many others say that they must fight America for its support of 50 years of Israel's terrorism against the Palestinian and other Mideastern people. He says this in precisely the same way that some say we must bomb Afghanistan into further oblivion for supporting the terrorism of Bin Laden. America is seen as a terrorist nation for having supported the Israeli ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians from their land and homes and the stripping them of their most basic human rights, even depriving them of the right to live where they were born! America is accused of supporting terrorism for backing Israel, even America is aware that Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians in its jails each month. America is called terrorist for supporting Israel even as it killed 40,000 Lebanese in its invasion of that country. They ask the world how America could support Israel even as it bombed civilian Red Cross shelters and killed women and children by the score. Millions of people ask how the President of the United States could dine in the White House with Israel Sharon, a man with a proven history of massacring civilians, and who even Israel held responsible for the cold-blooded murder of 2000 people at the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon. America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. It is difficult for us to act morally superior to our enemies when our own U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, told Leslie Stahl of CBS that America's causing the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it." What would you say, of someone who thinks it is worth killing 500,000 children in order to punish one man? We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences. Any nation that bombs another naturally creates millions of angry enemies against it. America has repeatedly done that in recent times. We have taken sides in foreign conflicts, offered military assistance and weapons, and even bombed other nations. Our actions have caused the loss of many thousands of lives, including the lives of thousands of civilians. Many of the nations we bombed had never harmed a single American or acted in any way against the interests the United States. For instance, we now partially blame Afghanistan for what happened on September 11. Have we conveniently forgotten that we bombed Afghanistan (and killed many innocent civilians) three years ago when we tried to kill Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan is led by the same people we previously helped against the Soviets. At that time, we actually supported the terroristic activities of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets and their collaborators. When Bin Laden later turned against us, we attempted to kill him by bombing Afghanistan. We have seen the intense reaction of Americans to the attack on the Trade Centers. What would be the reaction of Americans to any nation who fired Cruise missiles and dropped thousands of bombs on America? After Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan, the Taliban promised revenge against America. September 11 may be that revenge. We bombed Iraq after it invaded Kuwait, yet we supported Saddam Hussein with money and arms when he warred with Iran. In contrast, we continued to monetarily and militarily support Israel even after it invaded Lebanon and killed tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians. We support the Zionist state even though it tortures thousands of political prisoners in its jails. American support enabled Israel to ethnically cleanse itself of 700,000 Palestinians. Bush says we must strike down terrorists wherever they are in the whole world, but he has shared tea and crumpets with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, one of the world's leading most brutal and bloodthirsty terrorists. Sharon committed a number of crimes against humanity, among them the massacre of 2,000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Mr. Bush did not strike Mr. Sharon, instead he toasted him. But why must the media and government create this huge, absurd lie about why we were attacked on September 11. This Big Lie is, of course, meant to hide an obvious truth. Its purpose is to keep Americans from associating this attack with our Israeli policy. If that happens people might begin to wonder if it is in our true interest to having given Israel countless billions of our dollars. They might begin to wonder if it is good for America to serve as the Israeli's shock troops and techno killers in attacks on Israel's enemies such as Iraq. So, the unvarnished truth is that we suffered the terror of September 11 because of our support of the criminal policies of Israel. We have let our country be controlled by a foreign lobby that has worked against the best interests of the American people. Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America. And now, under guidance of the Israel Lobby and the Jewish controlled media, the Zionists are preparing America to strike a massive blow against all of Israel's mortal enemies in a global war. They are already talking about not only bombing, but invading and occupying whole nations such as Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Such would spawn a huge wave of hatred and retribution against America from all over the planet. The costs of such a war would cost the American people untold billions of dollars and could well cause the deaths of thousands of Americans. Finally, such a war would not end terrorism, but only spawn more acts of terror against us.

64 >the most recent photos were published >in Australian newspapers, if I'm not >mistaken. Plus Salon, which is hardly "MSM" SP, The pictures originally ran on Australia's SBS network, but were soon picked up by CNN and Reuters. Which, last time I checked, were part of the so-called "mainstream media."

65 America is also called a terrorist state for causing the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children. ...While Saddam Hussein spent 9 BILLION dollars building his new palaces after the war. Get a clue moron.

66 "Donald Rumsfeld" seriously, That's great. But again, you still haven't explained why the MSM won't report/publish islamic atrocities. You simply keep throwing out the red herrings. The last one was something about expecting "higher standards" from our troops, which completely avoids having to address the MSM's failure to tell the truth. Keep spinning and avoiding the issue, and I'll keep dragging you right back to it.

67 You asked why the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, despite the fact that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty. You apparently learned only recently of how the Israelis got away with that attack. You seem completely unaware of how Israel and its American Zionists control America. You should know that Zionists control the US government and the media. If you have a significant position in the government or are a significant voice in public, the Zionists will destroy you! If you object to blind support of Israel, they will label you anti-Semitic and threaten you and cost you your job. Do you know that if you complain about Zionist influence, you will receive hate mail and threats of violence? If you object to the billions of dollars of your taxpayer money going to Israel, the Zionists will label you a Jew-hating Aryan, and they will pretend that you don't care that "6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust". They will use that "history" to play on yours and everyone else's collective guilt. They will also use it to distract attention from slaughterers like Sharon who kill and maim and destroy everything Palestinian. Zionist Israel and its American supporters will continue the blatant murders of Palestinians - old men, women, children and cripples - until the Zionist genocide of Palestinians is complete. They truly learned much from the Nazis! And, yes, America and Americans' billions supports it all - the killing, the maiming, the destruction of property, the deprivation, the imposed poverty, the theft of water rights, the Bantustans, the Apartheid Wall and the suicide bombers. Do you wonder how America supports the suicide bombers? When an entire people are overpowered, tortured, repressed, subjugated and subdued beyond hope, with America standing on the sidelines applauding and paying for it while Europe turns its head away, what do you expect the people to do? They can't cry. They have no tears left. They can't fight tanks and Apache helicopters and F-16s with stones! If they fire a rocket that hits no one, the source of the rocket will be destroyed anyway. Firing rockets against Israelis with the latest American military detection equipment amounts to suicide with no results. The suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves in a weak attempt at resistance are actually creations of Israel and America. Thanks again to the billions of dollars Americans cough up each year for their endowment. Don't ever again ask why. Ask fellow Americans when you're going to put a stop to the long distance support for a Mafioso of Zionist hit men. When are you going to insist that the president and his men - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Cohen - all closer to Israel than they are to America - get prosecuted as members of an organized crime syndicate? Make no mistake: Zionism in America is organized crime! When will you stop electing Senators and Representatives to Congress who can't resist the lure of Zionist support? They're nothing more than legislators who embrace the same organized crime syndicate. When will you stop reading the crap written and published by the New York Times, the Washington Post and US News? When will you stop being influenced by the broadcasts of the Murdoch empire and Fox News? When will you stop supporting organized Zionist crime and take America back from Israel for Americans?

68 Tinfoil, spam, and bullshit all over the place. Yuck. We're gonna need a hell of a lot of that sawdust-vomit-pickup-stuff.

69 here is an answer for all zionists here These phrases, "hate speech" and "anti-Semite", are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms. Indeed they have been used so much that they have become red warning flags that the person using those phrases has something to hide and needs to shut down the discussion by any means possible. By screaming "hate speech" or "anti-Semite", Israel's supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved. It is not "hate" to point out facts the American people should be paying attention to, especially on the threshold to what might turn out to be a world war started by deception. It is not hate to ask what really happened to the USS Liberty in 1967 when Israel attacked and killed US sailors. It is not hate to ask if the Lavon Affair can be repeated to sway public opinion in the US. it is not hate to denounce isreali crimes,massacres,ethnic cleansing,mass killings,genocide,assassinations,murders,deportati on,extermination,and holocaust against palestinians. it is not hate to hate this criminal fascist racist nazi zionist ideology which were condemned by the general assembly in 10 th november 1975,resolution number 3379 "as a form of racism,fascism and nazism"

70 It is not hate to call you a gibbering conspiracy nutball either.

71 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please we have the pro-Israelis, the perpetual zionists, who, no matter in which country they live, or are citizens of, are only loyal to the state of Israel and no other, who work for the advancement of Israel's benefit at the expense of whatever nation in which they live. They will act as espionage agents, attempting to learn and divulge sensitive and critical secrets from the military and industrial sectors of governments in the nations in which they live, and pass them on to Israel for use or for sale to others. Their infamous work in America is a good example of this.

72 and read this pure truth Traitors to the United States have allowed a terrorist foreign nation (israel) to control the United States government. that a foreign nation controls America's foreign policy. William Fulbright asserted on ABC's Face the Nation television program that “Israel Controls the United States Senate. It is true that they control the most influential newspapers in America, including the top three: The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. They also own the top three newsmagazines: Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. But, even more importantly, they thoroughly dominate the television and broadcast media, the two largest media conglomerates being Time-Warner and Disney; and their domination includes the network news executives of the main three networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. The extreme pro-Israeli partisanship of the media is why most Americans are woefully ignorant of Israel's terrorist record. All this article needs to do is apply just a tiny pinprick into the balloon of Israeli propaganda, for it will take only a few good jabs to burst the balloon of lies surrounding Israel. during the last 58 years Israel has engaged in more murderous terrorism than any other nation in the world; and that by supporting its criminal behavior, America is now reaping the fanatical hatred of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Support for Israel's terrorism has directly led to the terrorism now going on against the United States. Most Americans don't even realize the magnitude and scope of Israeli terrorism because of the Jewish media control mentioned by General Brown.

73 U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail. Moreover, we do not view the Sharon regime as “America's best friend.” Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness. Though we have given Israel $20,000 for every Jewish citizen, Israel refuses to stop building the settlements that are the cause of the Palestinian intifada. Likud has dragged our good name through the mud and blood of Ramallah, ignored Bush's requests to restrain itself, and sold U.S. weapons technology to China, including the Patriot, the Phoenix air-to-air missile, and the Lavi fighter, which is based on F-16 technology. Only direct U.S. intervention blocked Israel's sale of our AWACS system. Israel suborned Jonathan Pollard to loot our secrets and refuses to return the documents, which would establish whether or not they were sold to Moscow. When Clinton tried to broker an agreement at Wye Plantation between Israel and Arafat, Bibi Netanyahu attempted to extort, as his price for signing, release of Pollard, so he could take this treasonous snake back to Israel as a national hero. Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israel's treachery against the America. and this Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our nation. Let us begin now to acquire knowledge and to take action toward this necessary end. and read this Palestinians won't get their independence until Americans get theirs! - Ariel Sharon: "We control America" "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister,Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001. "Israel controls the United States Senate." - Sen.William Fulbright and this We must continue to educate our people on this vital point. The most important issue of our time is the Jewish supremacy over our media, our government, our economy, our culture, our future. They are leading us to utter ruin. It is not just Palestine that is occupied by Jewish supremacists; it is New York and Washington D.C. It is not just the West Bank of the river Jordan they occupy; it is the East Bank of the Potomac! I told you that the main difference between the West Bank Palestinians and the Average American, is that the average American does know that his nation is occupied. and this we have to thank the Palestinians for making such terrible sacrifices to help the world see what the Israelis and the Jewish zionists are criminal nazis. Let us hope that the sacrifices made by the Palestinian people will wake up many more around the world and fill them with disgust at America's continuing support for a criminal state of Israel. and this World Zionism, today, constitutes the last racist ideology still surviving and the Zionist's state of Israel, the last outpost of "Apartheid" in the World. Israel constitutes by its mere existence a complete defiance to all international laws, rules and principles, and the open racism manifested in the Jewish State is a violation of all ethics and morals known to Man. and this Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) truth must be known by all americans and this We must cut off the source of terrorism. That source is not Muslim fundamentalism, it is American support for Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. The American government has been supporting the Jewish Supremacist State of Israeli with economic and military funding, though Israel denies the basic human rights of Palestinians. We believe that our economic and military aid to Israel has caused tremendous hatred toward America and that unlimitedly, it is the American people who suffers the consequences. and this Israel has a very powerful lobby in Washington and no one dares speak of big brother unless in praise or on bended knees. American taxpayers have been forced to hand over more than 120 billion dollars in foreign aid since 1960 and there is no end in sight, even while our domestic problems continue to mount. Our deficit and our national debt is at an all time high, our social security funds are about defunct, and now we need to close military installations to save money. Yet, you will never hear any person up on the hill suggest a reduction of aid to Israel. They know, that such a suggestion would disbar them from the cliques of political power.

74 dave we all know you are a zionist fascist traitor to america read this please Yes, you have me. I am praying to Yahweh right now that you don't die in a fiery carwreck which pushes your spinal column out of your mouth.

75 Sweet mohammed, Johnf.. Get your own Blog.. oh, my allah. It's like you get paid by the word.

76 Jesusland Carlos: Actually, upthread I indicated that I think the media should publish the photos, pixelated or not. That last bit was me indicating that I think your thesis about them refusing to do so because they don't want to inflame american passions in support of the war is weak at best. What the mainstream media wants more than anything else is advertising dollars. Clearly they think publishing the photos would put some of those dollars in jeopardy-for whatever reason. As I said, I assume the reason is that they are "too graphic". You can think that's right or not, but I'd bet a hell of a lot of money it's what the producers or editors say when someone proposes publishing them. Maybe airiing the photos would make support levels for the war increase, or maybe not. There are a whole lot of reasons to criticize the running of this war that more graphic demonstrations of the enemy's barbarity will not erase.

77 I know a johnf type. Hates USA & anything to do with it, yet is a most intelligent person when discussing anything not related to USA. johnf go get a life, read a book of consequence, that is not leftist shit propaganda. Stop wanking off to Michael Moore while your at it, we know you do!

78 Here is the problem I have with many who take the "higher moral ground" position ... You strain at every gnat that looks like American abuse ... but swallow the camel of Islamofascist abuse with only a little throat-clearing in the process. If you were consistent, your criticism of America would be drowned out by your demands that the President act even more forcefully to put a stop to what was shown in the above pictures. What I am talking about here is not wanton slaughter -- it is called precision-guided ruthlessness, embodying the ideal that America is "no greater friend ... no worse enemy". Establish that ideal, and we will win the hearts and minds of the peaceful, while putting an end to those who view peaceful interaction as a weakness to be leathally exploited. Yet, those of you who seem to be so concerned about "morality" stop short of such a call ... and in some cases, compound the inconsitency by demanding that we leave these thugs in place ... or when we do catch them, demanding that we read them their Miranda rights and treat them like ordinary scofflaws instead of the enemy they are. You seem to think that American abuse is the only problem worth resolving ... and not only leave others as victims, but ignore the tendency of such abuse to spread and gain strength when left unchecked. Maybe even grow enough, if left alone, to leave us with two choices in the future ... submission to those who perpetrate such abuse, or a nuclear World War to keep it away from our shores. We can put a stop to this now ... and we could have done so, at a far smaller cost, years ago. We did not, because a significant proportion of our society came to support a "moral standard" that was based upon overextended idealism and not human reality ... in particular, the reality that sometimes, a timely, violent, and decisive response to such abuses of humanity's inalienable rights is necessary and proper. In short, that war IS the answer, sometimes. We must be sure that today's "higher moral ground" is based upon human reality, and not that same flawed idealism that stayed our hand for so long ... or even more will lose their lives and freedom. I'll leave you with the last lines of a song heard on the front lawn of Halliburton in 2004: Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace Right through to your core of disdain For the principles that have made America great And the freedom you say you proclaim If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ... Your protests, my friends Sound much like breaking wind Your protests sound much like breaking wind

79 Smooth, johnf. Blame Israel and the Jews for all the problems in the world and then try to discredit anybody who would suspect you're a jew-hater. That's like saying blacks aren't as highly evolved as whites and that maybe for the betterment of the human race we should sterilize anybody who is more than 5% negro, but you can't call me a bigot or I'll ignore you. If it looks like an anti-semtite, if it talks like an anti-semite and smells like an anti-semite; chances are... Seriiously, the only way you wouldn't get called a Jew-hater is if we were in an alternate reality where apples are called oranges.

80 It is utterly appalling, and unbelievable, that an otherwise reputable blog like this, would be filled with such off-the-wall, non-sensical, anti-semitic, apologist-for-Islamist-violence comments, full of lunacy, and hatred, many of of them literally "justifying" the death of three thousand innocent people on 9/11, as a collateral of "Zionism," as if the Mexican janitor who came to America seeking a better life, the negro lady working as a Maid in the Hotel, the Muslim tourist visitor to the Towers, the many children, or all the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, of every imaginable Nationality who died pulverized on that fateful day by this heinous, diabolical act, worthy only of the religion of the "Satanic verses," were all but "conspiring Zionists"!!! Not only are we facing the constant threat of violence descending upon us all, unexpectedly, ravenous, and uncalled, for in our Cities, our schools, and our homes, even as we go on with the daily struggles of our lives, from these people who will fling "Allah's Gift of Life" in His very face, gratuitously killing themselves and others, even their own, in total disregard of "His" precious "Gift," just to kill or injure one of their brothers in Abraham, the Jews, or an American, for the "heinous crime" of America supporting a people that have been persecuted and massacred in total disregard for two thousand years, culminating with the Holocaust, which, of course, never happened, and is only a "Zionist" invention, the numbers tattoed on the forearms of the remaining aged survivors, and the horrifying memories they carry within them not withstanding, who DESERVE A HOMELAND as every other people in the world; but the erosion of our "Freedom of Speech," and "Freedom of Expression," as more European governments, as well as the American Media, cower before Islamist violence over those ridiculous cartoons, backing off and capitulating, by sacrificing our "Freedoms" in order "not to offend" Islam, in fact giving it a "Privileged" status above all other Religious beliefs, that do not threat to burn and kill when offended, in a supposedly "Pluralistic" society; a 'Privileged" status which many even want to legislate into Law!!! Some Muslims have even had the gall to compare this Mohammed "Looney Toons" cartoon insanity to the "Muslim 9/11" !!! Were it only that they had limited themselves to burning mocking drawings and pictures of the Twin Towers, instead of MURDERING three thousand innocent people, for which the Palestinians celebrated dancing in the streets of Gaza and passing out sweets!!! It is amazing that we allow these people, shielded by the very "Freedoms" they so hate, as witnessed by some of the signs wielded by Muslim protesters of the cartoon fiasco in London recently: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/british_urging_1.php to utilize the rights, and freedoms we grant them, to try to kill us, or to ram their islamist ideology of intransigence and hatred down our collective throats!!! Wouldn't it be ironic to see all those "American Feminist" women (and "girlie men" who feel like women, as Arnold would say), who so cherish their right to irresponsible promiscuity over the right to life of the children of their own conception, or their right to impose upon the rest of us their "Alternate Lifestyles," who in the majority are devout "Leftist Democrats" who have undermined President Bush's War on Terror every step of the way through the Democrat demagogues that through their votes they have empowered in Washington, be forced to were "burkhas," be "subject" to their husbands, fathers, brothers or other males in their family, and summarily "executed" for the least act of promiscuity, or stoned to death in public for their homosexuality?!?! However, perhaps the opponents of the Iraqi war do have one meritorious point after all, about how we should not have gotten involved in the conflict. These "Islamist terrorists" and "insurgents" deserve no better than such a "viper" as Saddam to decimate them, and keep them in check... the way he used to! It is saddly reminiscent of that old Greek tale of the Benevolent Log who was King of some frogs in a pond, and the frogs complained to Zeus about how "ineffectual," and "powerless" the log was as a King, since no matter what they, the frogs, did, he just sat there; and then were answered in their request by Zeus, who sent them a snake as King in its stead, which not only kept the frogs in check, but ultimaly ate them all! As proven by the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories, perhaps "Democracy," and Islam, are just simply incompatible, just as apparently it is also incompatible with "Peace," "non-violence," and "tolerance"!!! Althor

81 I work here at Camp bucca in Iraq and Ive been on the convoys north of here for 10 months. Ive been shot at and had friends killed. As far as Im concened allah and everyone of these shit house rat bastards of islam and muslim faith can suck my nutsack and eat my western shit.

82 Why doesnt the U.S. Government take a few lessons from Israel? Quit fucking around with these bastards, the hell with the snivelling sadsacks and candy-ass liberals and world opinion...these islamic/muslim psychotic murderers started this war, lets finish it. This aint a game, its WAR. So lets get it over with and go home.

83 to sum up Althors thoughts into 3 points.. 1. it's not the muslims fault, 2. it's Israel's fault but if not, then... 3. it's the West's fault.

84 Dear The Other Dave, Have you read my posts all the way through?!?! You must be confusing me with that "anti-semite" Johnf!!! I support the Administration, the President, and his Policies, and believe the War in Iraq to be not a "luxury," but a "necessity" in the War on Terror! Perhaps you misunderstood my being "ironic," and "sarcastic" about how perhaps these Iraqi people willing to blow themselves up and their fellow Muslims, in order to harm or kill an American soldier, do not deserve "Democracy," but a ruthless Dictator like Saddam who kept them in check by populating mass graves, and "really" torturing them at Abu Ghraib, not just by "humiliating" them as some of our misguided soldiers did, who since then have been tried and convicted for their crimes. I state in the above posts that after having been maligned, ostracized, and persecuted for two thousand years, culminating in their near extermination in Nazi Concentration Camps, the Jewish people DESERVE a Homeland, and to return to their Historical roots! I support Israel's Right to Exist as a Nation, and their heroic struggle amidst a sea of enemies, and have openly condemned all the barbarity, the intolerance and the montrous violence in which most Muslims seem willing to engage on the slightest pretext! Contrary to your assertions, I have not blamed the West and Israel for the escalation of Islamic violence, but rather called for us in the West to open our eyes to see the looming threat Islam poses to Western Civilization, and our values of "Freedom of Speech," "Freedom of Expression, "Freedom of Religion," and "tolerance"!!! You really must have me confused with someone else!!! Regards, Althor

85 Anti- Saudi bellicosity by the Administration indeed Johnf! Pfff!!! The Bush Admonistration has so much "bellicosity" against Muslims and Arabs, that they want to give the UAE control of our ports!!! It's like the farmer hiring the "fox" to guard the "chicken coop"! This world is going nuts!!! Althor

86 I cant believe the pure bullshit Ive been reading on this blog...has everyone forgotten WW1, WW2? If we dont stop this bullshit here in this fucked up, shithole part of the world, its gonna be in our own backyards. The muslim assholes have already attacked the U.S., Spain, France (but who gives a shit about those chickenshit frogs anyway) etc... Anyone remember 9/11? These assholes are EVIL, PERIOD. Didnt somebody once say something to the effect of "in order for evil to succeed, good men need do nothing?" C'mon people, it dont matter who you are, if you arent a muslim, then your a target. So lets turn the tables on these bastards and quit pussy-footin' around and just shoot em all.

87 sorry Althor.. I skimmed through the posts and new that someone was doing the long winded replies.. and saw yours.. my fault for being too lazy to look up and see that it was the other guy taking up all the space..

1 There must be some mistake. Surely Helen Thomas died long ago and what we see today are just some stubborn neurons still trying to fire up. She reminds me of one of those old prostitutes that thinks if she applies enough makeup, she'll look as good as she ever did. The problem is that Helen never looked good.

2 I thought she was a Disney animatronic, you know, like Lincoln in the Hall of the Presidents.... But you're right, an old whore is more likely and more appropriate

3 Never could understand the left's perverted obsession with the term "chickenhawk". Its so stupid! A conservative/republican whose never served is a chickhawk. A conservative/republican who has served is a fascist. A liberal/democrat whose never ... it's not important A liberal/democrat who has ... is a hero ......... A leftist never serves! I'm not talking about just politicians! - just in case some lib/left dickhead chides in. I'm talking about the general population! I served - 27 years - active and reserve - and I know damn well which segments of society we're drawn from! And its overwhelming NOT liberals, leftists, democrats whatever. How about a new term - CHICKENDOVE What's totally weird about all this is that the insult "chickenhawk" is put out there because it is suppose to resonate and have some traction within the overall extended military community! IT DOESN'T - BECAUSE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE!

4 "reality-based community" Orwell is rolling in his grave.

5 Read the transcript, its pretty obvious the unbiased press corps loath the current administration. The whining and complaining over the delay in letting them know, seems even more pathetic, now that i heard/read her excuse.

6 CalTechGrrl: Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, Disney assassinated Animatronic Lincoln. I was sad when I learned they replaced him with some other nonsense.

7 I think they had to do kill Licoln. I mean, after the Pirates of the Carribean came alive and started eating the tourists...

8 "A conservative/republican" who never served is a chickenhawk" You know a chickenhawk is another term for Red Tailed Hawk. Just some useless information for you. I wonder if the moonbats know that?? There little retort is actually a compliment. Go figure.

9 Helen Thomas is a horrid, horrid human being (and I use that term loosely - "human being" I mean) and she's really hard to look at without wincing.

10 I put Helen Thomas in the Howard Dean category. I say let them speak publicly and often. The more America sees of them, the better for us. The average person watches Helen Thomas and is repelled by her. When Americans hear the rude comments and questions at the press conferences and see her physical appearance, the whole package is so horrible most people with any taste instantly take the side of whoever is answering the question. I say itÂ’s a great face to put on the left.

11 Most Americans (including many who voted for Bush/Cheney) agrees with Helen's opinion on the Iraq war. I'm sure Helen opposed the Vietnam war during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as well. Hardly a sign of crippling journalist bias to have an opinion that is different than the president's. Helen has given every president "hell" for her entire career -- which is FAR more valuable to American citizens than having a press full of fawning fools. I am embarrassed for the VP AND for Brit Hume when Brit is the only "reporter" the VP can face. It makes Brit look like the administration's propaganda minister, if not their lap dog.

12 He also has a significantly larger audience than many of his rivals - especially in cable (here that CNN!). If Cheney had gone to CNN then the left outcry would be he's continuing the coverup by attempting to minimize distribution.

13 Good for the VP and Fox and America. David Gregory and Helen Thomas, the crybabies of the MSM were made irreverent. The times they are a changin and there are plenty of media alternatives to NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. I hope Helen and David felt like the guys in the black smith shop the first time the saw an automobile drive by. People donÂ’t need your buggy whips anymore. David Gregory acted like a punk and IÂ’m not the one that noticed. I hope this was some kind of watershed event in media relations. ItÂ’s their own fault; the white house press corps jumped the shark this week.

14 Whatever, Matt. Helen Thomas is a bitter woman and the fact that she hates everyone equally is not a facet of her personality I would champion or even excuse. Her line of questioning is always more sneering accusation than inquiry and a lot more unproductive than anything. She's done no one any favors.

15 I was just flipping channels when I stopped on CNBC. They were going to commercial and the anchor said “coming up, the man gunned down by Vice President Cheney speaks”….. Really!

1 Serenity - hands down! I'm hanging up my uniforms come Aug after 27 years. If I'm gonna crew with anybody now its going to be with a bunch of ragtag renegades looking for that mythical bank with all that gold - woof woof!

2 hondo, I thought that was Kelly's Heroes!

3 Er yeah! And this is my authorization ............

4 Matrix Nebuchadnezzar - I may be the One. Somebody tell Angelina Jolie.

5 Bluto I've seen your photo - a memorable character actor yes - a leadding man pretty boy .... well, you can dream.

6 No, to get Angelina you have to Seven.

7 How about on the star ship USS ENTERPRISE or what about being part of the JUPITER 2 LUANCH CREW? or aboard the SSRN SEAVIEW?

8 I crush leading man pretty boys like so many mincing, effeminate ants.

9 Bebop Have to be on the good ship Bebop.

1 However, the Abu Ghraib abuses were discovered by U.S. troops and were being investigated before any photos were ever leaked to the press. In fact, the existence of the investigation and, I believe, the filing of charges, were mentioned during daily briefings as the events occured. At the time, the press just ignored the story. It wasn't until a defense attorney passed the photos on to muckrakers that the story became big, and, against the facts, the press decided to run with a "COVER UP" theme.

2 I was watching a protest march in Iraq last night on the news. the protest ws to demonstrate against the British treatment of the tenns who pitched rocks at them. The Brits are prosecuting these men. Whil I can understand why they kikc the crap out of them the proper action would have been to simply arrest them. A mistake. Howiever the thought I had was if Sadam was still in power and teens had pitched rocks at his men what would have happened? Probably much worse and the protest would have definately been a no no.

3 The images themselves are not what disturb me the most. What's really disturbing is the fact that we are supposed to be different than other people in the world. We are'nt freaking barbarians. We were in a state of war from 1940-1945 too, with Hitler brutalizing our people, but everyone agreed we dont do business that way, because we are American. Crap like this makes us absolutely no better than anyone else in the world. We're just a bunch of bloody savages now. The privates and sergeants who did this crap should get a slap on the wrist and the high level officers should be publically tried and jailed for life, made an example of. Instead our political leaders try to defend the behavior.....makes me absolutely sick

4 Dave, Much worse happened in WWII. MUCH MUCH WORSE by AMERICANS. And, during WWII, OUR troops were sometimes CONVICTED, just like they are today. The ONLY difference between now and then is that the media wanted us to WIN during WWII. Now, the media doesn't care one way or another.

5 I remember reading about all of the German soldiers that surrendered as we entered Berlin, and the hundreds of our troops that were taken from the battlefield in order to detain, and secure them. Oh wait. no I didn't.

6 You didnt "take" Berlin Dave, that was the Red Army.

7 I am just waiting for Saddam to use the "few bad apples defense". Command responsibility is the key to maintaiing proper discipline. Abu Ghraib was a tilting point both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We lost badly in public opinion. Americans started to ask "Is this what we are asking of our troops?" And Rusty WWII was 60 years ago, our country and our military holds itself to a higher standard than that now. Segregation and internment by ethnicity (or religion) would no longer be accepted by most Americans.

8 Oh boy. Lectures on morality from a Yemeni. Great. Found those missing boomies yet, burqa-boy? What say we pull a few dozen Islamonuts outta Gitmo cages and ACTUALLY shoot the bastards? Then feed 'em to the sharks. Works for me.

9 Yes, but John, we are holding our troops to a high standard--that's the whole point. It's idiotic to say that because standards are broken that the standards do not exist.

10 Howie, the Brits were in full uniform and armed. . . those 'teens' (such an innocuous term for thugs) got off easy (IMHO). As for the Abu Ghraib nonsense . . .the prisoners are all alive. I wouldn't waste any ink prosecuting our military personnel for anything I saw in the photos.

11 One thing that really sickened me, but which I didn't mention in my post, was how the Reuters presentation of the new photos almost caressed them, showing zooms and pans and lingering on the most brutal images. It was a very effective technique, if your intent is to disgust and anger. I'm sure it will be very helpful in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and so on.

12 Wow! Unreleased photos from an old story that was investigated and brought to trial. My My - why recycle an old story just because more of the orignal evidence is available? Simple - hopefully it will aid in inciting further violence and even death of American military personnel and civilians in the region, along with fueling attacks aimed at American and related targets. May even be helpful in speeding up the executions of currently held hostages in region. All this makes for good theater and drama - vivid newstories with gory details and loads of time for babbling overall commentary. Could also help in upcoming 06 and 08 elections too! Why wouldn't the MSM here go near publishing the cartoon story? Simple - muslims would get angry and may try to kill their personnel where accessible - attack & destroy their bureaus in other countries - and possibly attack them & their families right here in the US. It wouldn't be hard - ABC headquarters here in NYC (57st) is easily reachable - you could wait outside and simply shoot newspeople coming out of the building - or a suicide bomber can simply run into the lobby of NBC etc etc etc. So - what we have here is an odd combination - self-serving dicks who are also cowards. Such is the state of the MSM - thank God for alternatives!

13 Howie What you are referring to was actually filmed - as suspected - the video has been selectively edited. Involved immediately prior was a grenade attack on the British compound (great footage of explosions on the roof - unknown if any Brit casualties - seems to be left of recent commentary). Video is from Brit spotters on adjoining roof - ID'd perps and fowarded info to unit in compound. Why Brits didn't open fire and kill "youths" is beyond me. Moved in in riot gear (assuming snipers in overwatch) and beat the crap out of them. Me personally would have killed them and not risk the lives of my personnel - Brits! Go figure! Now they are in the position of having an "investigation" of what should have been seen from the start as a defensive combat operation. I wish there was a Brit here who could explain all this lunacy to me.

14 "Even the most enlightened and peaceful nations on earth have their share of sadists. Both Iran and Denmark have had citizens murdered because they appeared to utter or publish blasphemous things. What differentiates the two is that in Iran it is official state policy to execute blasphemers while in Denmark the man who killed Pym Fortun is treated as a criminal." Denmark? I think you'll find that whether you were actually referring to Pim Fortuyn, the right-wing gay Dutch politician who was assassinated during his election campaign by a left-wing environmentalist, or Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker stabbed to death by a fundamentalist Muslim over his movie Submission, who I think you're confusing Pim with, both were Dutch. I don't always agree with you. Sometimes I do, but either way, the facts should be correct - it makes your argument much more compelling.

15 "Self-serving dicks who are also cowards". Lol! Yep, hondo, I couldn't have described the MSM any better had I tried. Thanks for a good laugh!

16 Thanks Fact Checker. Fixed. But let's just pretend it never happened. Nothing to see here folks, move along!

17 The press has been the biggest scapegoat in this whole mess. Idiots like Rumsfeld and the Bushies bitch about the press being too liberal and not reporting the "good things." The Liberals point at Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, other media outlets, embedded reporters, etc. and weep about the "right-wing bias." Let's face it: It's all entertainment, and people want to be entertained by content that meets their personal viewpoints. Me? I don't have any idea why we're in Iraq because my president lied to me about it, so it's hard for me to judge which side of the news is "real." Watch what makes you happy and don't pretend to know the truth. Namaste.

18 Thanks for shout out in your post to my related post at Church and State: http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com/2006/02/abu-ghraib-vs-danish-cartoons.html I am not making excuses for these soldiers. I feel like some went too far and need to be dealt with. But I like the line of thinking in your response to Dave's comment on Feb 15th, 1:58pm. Nice post.

19 Thanks for the linkage Rusty. Much appreciated.

20 What basis do you have for declaring the photographs of prisoners shot in the head as hoaxes ?

21 Actually I kinda hope the muslims seethe and riot over these photos. A lot of westerners are sick and tired of how these animals react to these types of things. It just strengthens the idea that islam and western culture are incompatible.

22 That Australian TV station SBS (*spit*), is well known among us to be plainly anti american and anti australian, infested with commies and left wing lunatics, just that we are stupid enough to fund them and their poison. Personally i think most Australians will just go about their business if a JDAM was to go completely off course all the way from iraq and, shock-horror, hit their SBS HQ (*hack-spit*) here in Sydney. Just be sure to apologise and let the loony leftists squeal and run with spines in hand to the UN/EU for a week or two and the whole thing will just fizz away, the world will probably be a lot safer, not to mention outfits like BBC and CNN might suddenly find their spines and support the soldiers that give them the right to 'free speech'.

23 The irony is that while for days now CNN, along with most other major American news outlets, has literally cowered, and failed to show solidarity with their brethren news outlets and publications in Europe (who have had the courage to do so), and to stand up for "Freedom of Speech, and of Expression," repeatedly refusing to show the controversial Mohammed Danish cartoons, claiming that they did not want to “add more fuel to the fire” in a plethora of Wolf Blitzer “apologia,” no sooner had new pictures of the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal been made public by some “sleazy” Australian news channel, than Paula Zahn had it on her show within hours, complete with “dissident ex-serviceman” bashing our Military et al, without the least apparent qualm about any consequences: the lives it would cost, as happened with the first round of Abu Ghraib pictures with Nicholas Berg, or how many more of our Servicemen will be exposed to greater danger, and be killed as a result! That even in the face of the fact that it is not breaking news, that the case has been exhaustively investigated by the Pentagon and the Military, and all those that were involved in the scandal have been courtmarshalled, disciplined, reprimanded, or demoted! I must say, that for CNN, Paula Zahn, and her fellow pundits, who were so overly "concerned" with accommodating Muslim sensitivities: “barbarity” and “intolerance,” when it came to showing innocuous Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to propagate these new Abu Ghraib pictures, which at any rate just basically show more of the same as those already published, is nothing but an abhorrent exercise in “ journalistic pornography,” and is totally unconscionable!!! Perhaps the real reason that CNN, Blitzer, and Zahn did not wish to risk showing the pictures of the Mohammed cartoons was that they did not want to run the risk of being “personally” targeted, and their lives endangered by irate Islamists, for doing so, and so they hid under their desks. But now, they scrambled to show the Abu Ghraib pictures, which they believe boosts their Liberal biased “political perspective” against the Administration and its policies, while generally not placing “THEIR” lives in danger (after all, how can it, since with it they aid the “Islamist Propaganda machinery, and Al Qaida?”), yet places the lives of our soldiers, and others working in Iraq, at greater risk. After all, if as a result of these pictures there are more American casualties, wouldn’t that also bolster their position of blaming it on what CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour openly calls the “failed policies” of the Administration in Iraq?!?! The blood of every US casualty, every civilian death, and every beheading that results from Paula Zahn and CNN enthusiastically, needlessly, helping to disseminate these new Abu Ghraib pictures is on their hands!!! How can we be expected to win the War on Terror, with such as these amongst us?!?! It is appalling!!! Althor

24 The moral cowardice you all display is disgusting. When an American institution acts in a certain way, we as Americans must accept the consequences, even if those consequences are a long time in coming and even if those consequences are not to our liking. Your wild desire to rid yourselves of this burden borders on the treasonous. You are beneath contempt.

25 oh please these animals deserve more than that compare to what they did to america give me a brake life goes on

26 The Americans have always been, and are, hobnobbing with the Muslim dictaors and rulers (including Saddam Hussain) so long as it is profitable for them. When it is inconvenient they will talk about democracy, threat to world peace because of WMD etc. Real humbugs. Now they are caught in a vicious cycle. They have been helping the Afghans against the USSR during the cold war period and the Iraqis when Saddam was their puppet. Now those Arabs have turned against them. Quite a logical end.History, recent history of the world, reveals the fact that the Americans have always been involved in the breach of world peace.

1 It is a minority, but its not tiny. Read somewhere that the % threshold for potential domestic success(sic) of an aggressive violent minority movement (ex. radical islamic fascisism) is apx. 15% of the population. I suspect they are close to in in a number of muslim countries.

2 Given that more than 1/3 Muslims in Britain claim that English Jews are legitimate targets in the Pali/Israeli conflict, I suspect that the number is MUCH higher than that.

3 % in a muslim country is what matters. In Britain its mostly SOP BS - their version of acholol muscles.

4 iam ashamed. iam sure though these ppl arent doing this because of their "extreme religious beliefs", they just think its cool to look big and bad and they think their being made fun of. like this is sensitive stuff. u dont go to a black guy and call him a nigger. u would get snuffed. this the same.

5 Pity Poor Canada

6 Why pity Canada?

7 thts stupid i would tell. am not sure if this is true. but if it is it doesn`t have anything to do with islam,Islam doesn`t even accept stupid guys like those.I am muslim and am living in a neighbourhood made up of both muslims and christians we love each other and we all care about each other.those ppl are not muslims. Indeed they hate islam so they`re trying to make islam look bad.

8 u know usama bin ladin is not allowed to visit saudi arabia and all of the muslim countries. look at the pakistani army. they are teaming up with the us to find al zarqawi and beat him up.

1 Rusty, I like the Kurdish option, and hate the rest. As I look at Michael Totten's photos of Kurdistan, I keep thinking that the entire ME could be like that if it were not for radical Islam. What a crime.

2 I try to stay positive and optimistic - but it is hard at times. I look for signs - good and bad. Bad sign not mentioned anywhere - emmigratration from ME region (legal & illegal) by non-islamic minorities. It is surging! From Pakistan to Lebanon. given Rad Islam's desire for confrontation at the weakest points - I'm keeping my eye on events in Lebanon.

3 hondo, I would not want to be a Maronite Christian in Beirut right now. I believe most will leave Lebanon within 5 years.

4 Here chat of up-surge of illegal arab immigrants attempting entry from Mexican border. Friend in INS says those caught are Christians from Iraq & lebanon - also some Paki's & Iranians (Christians and some smaller religious groups). Not much talk about it - they are not security threats - but don't bode well for positive development in ME.

5 Thanks for posting this for us. visit here

1 Those wily Jews; no wonder I had a craving for KFC last night.

2 Burnt Muslims smell like chicken.

3 ...but they taste like pork.

4 So now the Islamists have joined with PETA? Heh.

5 Eat KFC! Support the Pentaverate!

6 savages are destroying their own cities.

7 The fact that they also destroyed a portrait of Musharaff and a government building suggests that the cartoons are just an excuse to lash out against the regime. It would make for some good journalism if someone would ask people on the streets of these islamic countries what these cartoons look like. I'm sure the answers would be quite suprising.

8 Add a towel on the head of the Colonel Sanders and you got yourself new material for cartoons of Muhammed... - Max

9 Scene today at the Lahore KFC: Clerk: “Welcome to KFC may I have your order please?” Customer: “Thank you and Death to America. I would like a bucket of your finest regular flavor chicken and two biscuits.” Clerk on Microphone: “One bucket of Extra Crispy yard pimp and two charcoal briquettes.” Customer: “You are out of great regular flavor chicken?” Clerk: “Yes ever since last night.” Customer:”Perhaps I will go to the Kut n Kabab next door.. I need a hair cut anyway.” Clerk: “Death to America.” Customer: “oh, ya, Same to you.”

10 Is PETA infiltrating this mob of hoods and brainwashing them with their crap?

11 An excuse? I would call burning an American franchise to protest DANISH published cartoons an excuse, but maybe I'm just crazy like that. The fact that a local businessman (most likely a fellow Muslim) is the one that lost his business and money after their "outrage" at a Danish newspaper is obviously wasted on the idiots that did it. I guess harm against a fellow Muslim is measured in the Orwellian sense: "Some Muslims are more equal than others."

12 Muslims won't eat pork because pigs are unclean to them. Reason they roll around in their own feces, yet muslims will eat chickens which are known to eat their own feces, go figure. Eat up muslims you are what you eat you chicken s**ts.

13 Why does KFC even bother, i mean everytime something happens in the world, the pakistan KFC is burnt down. Now if these enraged muslims could just return all the aid money that America gives to pakistan. Afterall its a bit hypocritical to hate Americans and Jews but take their money on the side. Perhaps America should make the first move, take back some of the aid, that they don't have to give, who knows it might just instill a sense of gratitude, shock-horror, in the haters.

14 Its great marketing at the very least.

1 Bravo. When every major intelligence agency in the world, including our own agency as well as the prior administration, says it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, then the appropriate action is to treat it like a duck. The dots were all there. Not connecting them as they were would have been negligent.

2 What I want to know is why you had to add a shill for skepticism to the beginning of the post. Objective reality being what it is, one must always keep the proper context of any decision in mind - which includes all of what you said, even assuming "I can know objective reality" (which is what enables us to know probabilities; the assumption that some objective reality exists and is knowable, and we can measure how close we are to it, approximately.)

3 Skepticism is the soul of wisdom, because it causes one to question everything and seek evidence for every assertion. one cannot truly learn if one is not a skeptic. That said, there is a significant difference between skepticism and pathological denial, the latter being one of the leftards' problems.

4 Excellant post DR. Rusty.

5 More bad intelligence from Wa Post writer Howard Hurtz " Michael Yon may not be a household name, but he emerged last year as the reporter of choice for many conservatives and supporters of the war. His blog inspired so much buzz that by last month only 83 other blogs, out of about 26 million on the Internet, received more links from other websites. "Yon's emergence from obscurity is emblematic of Internet-age journalism, in which a lone writer with little experience can build a significant following by deeply mining a specialized niche. In the blogosphere, opinions fly with abandon. Unconventional characters thrive who would make the mainstream media blanch. What big newspaper or television network, after all, would have taken a chance on a self-taught war correspondent who once killed a man in a barroom fight, and whose last venture had him pursuing an American cannibal around the globe?" Sounds like a natural for cable news.

6 It was a bad decision followed by other wrong decisions. At some point people have to realize that things are not going well. The director of Shin Bet is already questioning wether it would be better to have a despot in charge of iraq or the chaos that is there now.

1 Makes you wonder why muslim culture (particularly arab) has been on a downward spiral these past 1000 years - Aaaahhh - things was so much better in the ME when the Turks ran everything.

2 It's heartwarming to see all this Muslim support for rights too many of us take for granted. By the way, Sri Lanka is the adopted home of Arthur C. Clarke, not Isaac Asimov, who is currently dead.

3 Arthur Clarke lives in Sri Lanka, not Azimov. Azimov doesn't live anywhere, he's suffering from a mild case of "dead." FYI. You may want to get a picture of the massive turnout (about 50 people) for the "Free Muslims against Terrorism" rally to compare and contrast with these rallies. I'm just sayin'.

4 Rusty, this was the funniest post I have seen all week. Thank you.

5 You rule.

6 The signs demostrate 'Muslim tolerance' clearly.

7 Where was this outrage for the 9-11 'toons' being printed globe wide? Seems like islam is only at peace when; like the meaning of the name, 'surrender' is a foot eh?

8 "The Muslim World"-- a phrase I am beginning to dislike intensely. These people are insane, no doubt about it!

9 THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR 'FREEDOM.' etc.

10 Don't sweat it. Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov are interchangeable like David Niven and Alec Guiness. One was in Star Wars and one was in River Kwai. Anyways, one of them is apostate because his Three Fatwas of Robotics didn't include the 4th, "A robot may not show irreverence to the prophet, or, through inaction, allow the prophet to come to irreverence."

11 Mockery of Islamic intolerance is civic duty for western man (and woman).

12 ..........just wait. Piglet is next!

13 everytime I see a muslim woman without a viel in these protests I want her to put one on ...I think the muslims are right about that one!!! they produce ugly woman and should keep them under cover ..

14 im ordering a shirt that says "Islam is a blast" with a stencil of a bomb w/fuse below the text

15 These turd burglars are such idiots. Me thinks it won't be much longer now before shooting Islamists becomes common sport.

16 I was rather pleased to see this site until the inconsistencies between the images and the text: A "candel light vigil" in Western terms normally means standing quietly holding single lit candles in ones hand, not necessarily torching "things" in obvious anger... Anyway, maybe we could at least ask for consistency? I think the folks at Egyptian Al Fagr daily paper should be rather worried round about now! They printed the cartoons too!

17 I thank all those Muslims for continuously proving what hypocritical, backwards savages they are on world wide TV

18 I know 'We can play the spot the Bin Laden contest' with these pictures!! If you win your life is spared!

19 Screw your "religion" and your prophet! I'm rolling my bullets in bacon grease. allah - piss on him - and his piss ant backward, 7th century toadies Fight islam Now

20 Islam must be secularized as Christianity has been. The only way to do that without resorting to several dozen hydrogen bombs is to infect Islam wherever it is found with the promise of human rights and democracy. Although I am technically an atheist, I would never deny that Christianity has been a force for Liberation. When was the last time that could be said of Islam? Many, many centuries ago and only in some places. Secular Christianity is ascendant. We all have an obligation to Civilization, no matter what we think of Christianity in practice, to make sure that the Liberation that Christ makes possible is preserved and advanced. We have a concomitant interest in undermining Islam whenever feasible. I salute this site for its courage in acting on its responsibilities in this regard.

21 Oh, and the Asimov thing was very funny.

22 These 7th century savages love death as we love life - they say it all the time - it's their mantra. This is a deal we should be able to make to the satisfaction of all parties without the slightest guilt. We would only be giving them what they want and getting what we want in return. Everybody Happy. Why don't we dump live swine on these countries or at the very least, why don''t we overfly these countries and spray a heavy film of bacon grease and pig entrails. Why don't we just drop dead pigs on their cities? Let's do the smart thing(s) and the thing(s) that degrade them the most. Their goal is a rewarding after life in service to allah (piss on him). We should be doing the things that cut off and prevent and penalize those rewards. Why don't our soldiers AS POLICY coat their ammo in pig grease and advertise it. Thinking about jihad abdul? Fugetaboutit! When we kill you we're doing it with pork - no virgins for you sucker! You'll rot in hell. Fight islam Now

23 They love death........then paint yourself a nice black target on your forehead......yes the color of black......LIKE YOUR DEATH CULT.....and we will be happy to send you quickly to your PARADISE in heaven.....so you can finally get it on with your 72 virgins. And hopefuly....they look better than your sisters here on earth. Bless it be to your GREAT ONE.......MOJO the slave master!

24 Islamism is not compatible with modern civilization and never will be. Mark my word, before we see peace in the world I think there will be a great "cleansing". Bush#1 killed the neutron bomb program and scrapped all of the warheads that Reagan built but I bet we see revitalized soon if not already. Like a great physic on humanity to rid itself of a toxic substance. Never Forget, Never Give In.

25 RIGHT ON..............Montan Infidel!

26 I wish we could just chill out and stop hating. I guess the only peace that will come is from above and we should just get used to death and pain. I guess forgivness is a thing of the past. It just bothers me cause I know deep down every human wants peace. To have pride is the curse of man and humility is the gift. And to all you haters, try praying for peace

27 LOL, this was too good, I have to show this to others, it really shows how Islam is a religion of Peace. And the captions, priceless. Gooooo Freedom, LOL. Great post. Cheers.

28 ...photos of crowd sizes in these locations would be enlightening, I'm sure...

29 Sri Lanka is not the adopted home of Isaac Asimov as the caption states. Isaac Asimov died in 1992 . Sri Lanka is the adopted home of Arthur C. Clarke.

30 Lets bring them Democracy! They seem so eager for it. see you all at the recruiting office, right?

31 Muslims are filthy degenerates. They make me sick when I see or hear them.

32 The smartest trick the devil ever did, was to convince the world he didn't exist. Mohamed was the devil, and his evil seed is alive and well. I shudder to think of the carnage that awaits us, and only hope that, once again, evil is defeated.

33 I like the text in the last image because it is thru!

34 IRAN ask for holocaust, but forget largest holocaust is done by islam in indian-subcontinent, ever in human history, they say bycott all countries which publish holocaust images, here is a link of a islamic country which has reprinted cartoons http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html will they burn there embassy too, the main thing is muslims are still living in 13th century, and they think a freak like mohammed will come and take there 9 yrs old dauther on camel. hey grow up u primitive apes, we r humans, at least bring humanity in you, instead of burning embassies and killing innocents

35 the only thing i can say "Kill all who don't agree 'ISLAM religion of Peace'" and close your eyes to truth, i think that cartoon with blacken mohammed eyes and open women eyes speak more then words! but what really is this "exotic shoe ritual in above images, looks like a stuid form of primitive dance,

36 ehhh, look at there teeth, i think not only womens, muslim mens should also cover their faces, someone please send dentist to them, please refer it to UN, it a outbreak of a diseases of teeth..

37 Actually, Alec Guinness was in both "Star Wars" and "The Bridge on the River Kwai". No David Niven in either.

38 If you make the protestors Jews - you'd think it was a rally against David Irving, or Ernst Zundel, or John Demjanjuk.

39 Hey, don't you people who disparage the women in the photos for their looks realize that good-looking Muslim women get thrown in jail, "married" to the highest bidder, raped and then executed? That's the only way the men can deal with what excites them. Alright, alright, I shouldn't have made a generalization, maybe this only happens in Iran.

40 Disappointing, but not entirely unpredictable when even George Bush is apologizing. They're a little like that bratty kids who become a hellions because their parents are too intimidated to treat their behavior with the disrespect it deserves. They'll also assume (because they always have in the past) that if we shut up for this they can probably kill a bunch of us with impunity too. Just do it under the cover of their "outrage." But, I maintain that if the Western press had stated a specific policy that the only reason they weren't going to publish the cartoons was to provide "moderate" Muslims a forum that wouldn't compromise them, and that if no such muslims came forward within X amount of time they'd just publish in solidarity with Denmark, the result would have been to provide cover for the anti-extremists. By stating no such policy, and simply being proper Dhimmi, they've not only dishonored themselves but forced any real moderates (assuming there are some) into hiding and persecution. Dumb. Thus, a situation that was ready-made to work to our advantage turns into the enemy's, all due to an excess of timidity.

41 Believe it or not, everyone in the world sees the stupidity, childish nature, and pure foolishness of the islamic radicals(almost all islam), yet they are scared to say anything for fear of terrorism. Even annan himself is afraid since seeing his own UN aid offices being pillaged and held hostage in peace loving palestine. The world needs to stop being afraid, stop with the battered wife syndrome,"what did we do to bring this on ourself" crap. This is exactly what ultratolerance has brought the world. The most tolerant, liberal, enlightened people of places like Denmark, Norway etc. are seeing the fruits of their pandering. Here also, in the U.S. We are not very far behind How many more effigies burned and protests do we have to see before the "boy who cried wolf" is no longer listened to on a world level?

42 Funny people over there, most of them have never seen the pictures of the profet. Like what else do they do ? Work ? ^^ Anyways, thyr're just afraid that people will think by themselves. "Shut up and rape some woman" Islam has no Napoleon or some other revolutionist, there is just no progress in technology and stuff.

43 Islam is a very appealing religion......to mentally lazy individuals. For centuries, muslims have been taught that all that is needed to get by is anger and violence. All that they supposedly need to build a functioning civilization has been put forth in a book and they've happily embraced it, even though it has consistently brought them oppression and strife. Despite this, there's still no desire to look beyond what has been taught for a better way of doing things. Instead of putting out the effort and applying any degree of thought to their problems, it's far easier to blame someone else and fall back on anger and violence until others get fed up enough to fix the problem for them. If they are to progress in this world, Islamic countries and islamic culture in general will always lag behind the West and the counties of the Far East. Until that happens, they'll just be seen as a nuisance that has managed to spread globally (as demonstrated by the above photos) - no better than the lowly zebra mussel.

44 I'm sorry-bbut no where in the photos is there a single sign of the protestors you claim are supporting freedom of speech......ALL the photos show those AGAINST the westerners and democracy....what are you all seeing here? I think this is just another piece of propaganda!

45 Ooops. I screwed up the last part of my post it should read: If they are to progress in this world, they must learn to think for themselves, as individuals. If not, islamic countries and islamic culture in general will always lag behind the West and the countries of the Far East.

46 They've been in the Dark Ages for so long, that they don't know how to act like rational human beings.

47 Our mere existance is an insult to Islam as far as I can tell.

48 We're so screwed. *Sighs* Or they are.

49 Lahpap, the captions are pure sarcasm bro, they are not supposed to be promoting islamofascism, they are taking what the people say about muslims being mostly peaceloving and moderate and mocking it.

50 Who else out there thinks we are only months or a few years away from WWIII? What we have to remember about the majority of the islamic population is that they are very uneducated, many are illiterate and hang on every word of kuran interpretation that they're mosque leaders tell them. There is no other outside influence. Iran and syria have a state run media. Iraqis were'nt allowed to have satalites during saddams reign. They are purposefully being kept in the dark from what is really going on in order to keep the propoganda train going. The power to stop terror lies soley in the hands of islams leader at the national and local level. That is who needs to be held responsible, especially since its obvious that they prefer to keep the average arab uneducated.

51 I think that any person that degrades the religion of another is just plain stupid. This is the type of arrogance that promotes hatred among the peoples of the world. What ever happened to respect of others? It is time to quit putting down Jews, Christians and Muslims and start getting along. This may sound simplistic but in reality, it must happen or we are all doomed to a terrible future. Anyone who may not agree is a hate monger. Alan Askit

52 That is true realist, although respect for other religions, knowing when violence is justified and a sense of reason is not limited to literate and educated folk. Education can very often make people blind to what's really important in life. Thus the governments and imams are partly to blame for this mess, but individuals must be held accountable for their own actions and lack of control.

53 Alan, I agree about the hatred, but I think again that we need to stop playing the roll of the battered wife and start putting some serious pressure on the leaders of islam to tell the truth to their people. Im sick of people of the civilized world of religions other than islam, constantly apologizing for cartoons and naked pyramids at abu ghirab, meanwhile, people are being beheaded, shot execution style, and tortued by one religous group (islam), And so-called moderate muslims are completely silent. Keep in mind that there is not one conflict in the world right now that muslims are not involved in, kasmir, sudan, iraq, chechnya, idonesia, malaysia, palestine, kenya, uganda, france,afghanistan, and so on and so forth. I have been always tought to love my enemies, but i have aLSO BEEN TOUGHT TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND DEFEAT EVIL THAT COMES TO MY DOOR, AND ITS HERE!

54 Graeme, i agree to a point with you, but when I see a 2 year old palestinian boy spewing out words like, "the israelis are dogs that like to drink palestinian blood", It is obvious that it is all a brainwashing passed down through uneducated parents who have seen nothing but war, and with no media for checks and balances, the Leaders are the only source of news that those parents get and rely on.

55 Alan, That is a nice simplistic idea that the world should live in peace. But that can never happen. What we have seen in the news with these "peaceful demonstrations" is the truth of how this section of the globes population thinks of those who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs. So long as there are free thinkers their will always be conflict. Some of us in the west have tried to get alone with muslims but to no avail. You see Alan, the muslims don't want to get along with the rest of us. From what I am able to understand of the muslim mindset is that they hold the world to their set of religious laws weather we are muslim or not. It's time to wake up and take notice of what is happening. Time to come out from under the covers without your white flag.

56 Cartoons perpetuating stereo types are not funny, especially those with religious leaders. The world would be in an uproar if the Pope was depicted in a cartoon molesting young boys or Christians were shown blowing up abortion clinics. This has occurred with several priests and Christians extremists, but it is not the entire Catholic religion or Christian faith. Unfortunate stereotype's perpetuated by ignorant people. The Muslim religion and it's views have been portrayed inaccurately and unfairly due to lack of information regarding true Muslim beliefs. There are extremists in all religions and races, unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the moist oil. The U.S. is not to blame for the cartoon, but the U.S. media is to blame for showing only one side of a religion and group of individuals, which when you read about true Muslim beliefs, it does not advocate violence and provides equal rights and opportunity to women. The country they reside in is the oppressors, not the religion. I am of course an American who seeks out information through written literature, not just the boob tube or Internet but The Bible and The Koran. I try to investigate both sides of the issue before I jump on a bandwagon. These are sensitive times and people have the right to their religious leaders and beliefs to be respected, not degraded. Patricia Dallas, Texas

57 This is not a protest.

58 patricia, The difference of your hypothetical sitution about a pope cartoon and the current cartoon fiasco is the reaction. Even christian extremists would never go as far as to try to attack soldiers, burn down embassies, or throw gas bombs at consulates. As far as boycotts, yes,when christians and others see things they object to in the media or commerce, they boycott. That is the beauty of free speech. Its, freedom to speak, but not free from responsibility. However, in the islamic culture, they are easily enraged and enflamed to the point of violence. The theme is consistant all across the globe. If you dont see it you are blind. As far as womens rights being supported in the kuran, maybe somewhat, but in the reality of most muslim cultures, you are sorely disinformed. for example,in the relativly moderate theocracy of iraq(pre-war), saddam issued a written decree granting a no questions asked right of a man to execute his wife or any other woman related to him that was suspected of committing adultery, with no consequences. Thats just one example, but its not the only one. If you think thats equal rights, then youre a little confused.

59 I, a christian would see a cartoon of a molester priest and probably not be pissed, because it has merit. The cartoon of the profit has merit and is trying to catch attention because the world sees nothing but violence from these regions of the world. Im sure the media doesnt report all it should, but i do know first hand that the culture of islam is easily swayed and turned to hate and violence

60 "they produce ugly woman and should keep them under cover .." are you kidding me? ever see Persian women? - well, the ones in exile outside of Iran, without the veil? Hot hot hot.

61 Its time for all real christian folk to pray .pray and then pray some more . We are living in very dangerous times and our world needs Gods mercy like never before.[no joke!]

62 I agree it is time to have some open air prayer meetings to answer this demonic upsurge friendofsinners

63 It is time every civilized freedom loving person start practising Reverse Dhimmi policies in day to day life when dealing with these brain washed desert goons.It is our duty to this wonderful world of our ours and we owe it to our children.I am a Hindu from India and pretty sad to face these foolish fascist forces -brainwashed idiots.I hope you white guys wake up-we in India have been fighting them for 700 uears

64 There is an enemy within just as Ajax points out .check this out with christians in Indonesia or parts of Nigeria .Time to wake up world and stop allowing our values to be downtrodden .i agree this sunday lets call the church to pray for Gods answer to the situation .humans have lost the plot .

65 Im awake!!! Cant say that for all westerners, but i know about half of americans are there Good luck in defense of your culture and sovereignty AJAX

66 Yeah, it's time to pray but it's also time to pass the ammunition. It's way past time to start calling the nazis nazis The overwhelming naevite and simplistic "lets all get along" crap being expressed here and EVERYWHERE will buy us all a front row seat to nuclear winter. Speak Up! Please Fight islam Now

67 THIS IS INCREDIBLE TO SEE ALL THESE "WHACK-A-DOOS" OUT PROTESTING "EN MASSE", DON'T ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WORK??? OH YEAH- THATS RIGHT, THE EUROPEAN TAX DOLLARS SUPPORT THEM TO STAY AND EXPLOIT THE SYSTEM AND MAKE THEIR DEMANDS ON A CULTURE AND SOCIETY THEY OBVIOUSLY NEVER HAVE ANY INTENTION OF UNDERSTANDING, RESPECTING OR INTEGRATING INTO. MULTI-CULTURISM WITH THESE FANATICS WHO TRULY HATE WESTERN CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION IS AN IMPOSSABILITY. ANOTHER CRUSADE WOULD BE WELCOME AT THIS POINT. REMEMBER, IT WAS THE MUSLIMS WHO INVADED AND MURDERED THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE-THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THE CRUSADES-TO SAVE THE PEOPLE AND TAKE BACK THE LANDS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CHRISTIAN.

68 Fuck the muslims fuck islam what a bunch of pricks

69 Nice tolerance. Oh yeah, and Bunkerbuster is a cunt!

70 TOLERANCE? Maybe you should try living in a community suffocated by muslims who hate your very existence-they torch our vehicles (90,000 to be exact) and attack the crippled and burn them alive as they are screaming for help. TOLERANCE? WHY?? We have to witness our children being attacked in the schools because they are not muslim. We support them with our taxes and build housing to appease their constant whining that they are being mistreated and ignored. Yet, they come to our communities with no job skills and refuse to speak the language, how can they get a job with a second grade education? They are allowed to have four wives for each man and as many concubines they can fuck-thus producing a population crisis, since in the Koran they teach them everything else on how to kill, but not how to swollow! It is alright for their imam to tell them that the jews eat little children but to depict a pedophile-murdering-thief in a C-A-R-T-O-O-N is enough for these islamofascits to threaten the western world with another 9-11 is worthy of TOLERANCE??? Go fuck yourself, and we all hope you never breed you self-rightous wanna-be do-gooder the whole is a happy place idiot.

71 where do you live fatwa?

72 Man i got Islamophobia by there protest and bycott, i think it would be a big favor for us, if islamic countries break all contact and stay in there middleeast desert, fucking sheeps and riding camels, this will be good for our societies,(western and eastern{India, china, asia pacific and so on}) as before entering our world they have to learn basic paradigims of humanity... including right to freedom, and giving basic equality to all humans

73 HI EVERYONE OUT THERE, I THINK ITS NOT ONLY ME, BUT EVERYONE OUT THERE IS PISSED OF BY THESE STUPID PRIMITIVE APES {MUSLIMS } I DECIDED TO READ THE WHOLE TEXT FORM ABOVE AND FOUND SOME PRIMITIVE APES ALSO VISITED THIS SO 1ST REPLY THERE QUESTIONS BEFORE THEY PUT A NEW FATWA AND ONE MORE BOMBATTACK; THEN I M BACK TO MY HUMANS; mimi asked "THIS IS INCREDIBLE TO SEE ALL THESE "WHACK-A-DOOS" OUT PROTESTING "EN MASSE", DON'T ANY OF THESE PEOPLE WORK???" answer : MIMI ITS WEEKEND; THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE HERE FOR US;BUT BY THE WAY HOW U GET UR MONEY TO LIVE. -> BY ROBBING UP OTHERS OR BY KILLING AND LOOTING, I MEAN UR GOVT. DONT GIVE MONEY TO YOU, THEN HOW U MANAGED TO COME ONLINE; ONE MORE THING MIMI........... U WILL NOT FIND A SHEEP HERE, SO U CAN CHOOSE A BETTER NAME THEN MIMI anyways there are a lot of wakeup calls, a lot of anger, but the main approach is still missing to let get unite, somewhere already initiated at my side, but need a support from all of u, we alone cant do anything but if we all unite can form a preassure on our stupid politicians, to make it in right way, i have indian roots and i m also a hindu as AJAX above, but i think AJAX missed the read story, indian media dont tell anything at all inside india, we even dont know completely about holocaust, did i say holocaust... we even dont know about hindu-holocaust (Largest in human history, not kidding) why because indian govt. want to secure there votebank of 20% muslims, on name of peace between different religion's. the main thing here is hiding and , this means this time one more contry is facing black age, please help me to stop it, as i dont want to see 2nd generation of islam evolving from india. i m in europe and also i also attend sunday christian prayers as well as synagoge... but is it all, we have to do something but not like this, i want to unite all of us, we can for all our govt to go hand to hand... i m no more in india, but indian NRI play a big role, u know money plays sometimes... and rest can be dont by others, here we have Americans, australians and so on.. perhaps we all can go hand in hand, making petitions and so on.. this will build not only international preassure by local preassure too, if u all want to join and support this idea just email me at perfektm-at-gmail-dot-com (just to get rid of spams so using this convention) as being united we can at least make our multicultural world toughther

74 The jihad began with the prophet (Muhammed) 1400 years ago and continues to this very day. We in the west are generally not aware of this. Even moderate muslims are conditioned (perhaps subliminally) to the ultimate goal of world wide dominance of Shiara (koranic law). Truth, logic and (apparent) promises of negotiation mean nothing. They are merely agents towards achieving the ultimate victory of the Dar al Islam (world of Islam and "peace") over the Dar al Harb (world of discord and infedels).

75 Islam is a complete joke. What kind of prophet do these people worship that can't withstand a few scriblings on paper. Islam is pathetic! Islamic newpapers make the Jews look evil on a daily basis. Islam can dish it out but cannot take it! What a bunch of dysfunctional, pathetic vile savages! Fuck Islam!

76 Just what the hell is this "perfektm" trying to say? And to prove you're a hypocrit - why are you picking on a name? mimi-is a spoof name you genius. You are "trying" to preach tolerance and god knows what else but you are pety enough to vent about a name, first a cartoon, now a name. You have no idea about what you are venting about. I have the ability to go on-line just like you do. You are trying to posture as self-righteous and intelligent, but to no avail. If you want people to unite, remember what has happened in Europe, Europe has tried and tried to practice integration and tolerance of the multi-culture, but to no avail. Now we have rioting, burning, looting and constant threats of attacks by moslum youths (remember, this is the second generation moslums who are doing this) their parents were tolerant and accepting to integrate in a new culture. Now we have the imams who take advantage of the youths and preach their anger and hate and tell them to go riot and vandalize and murder, there is a lot of intolerance, hate and anger in the moslum world towards western culture and civilization and it is only growing stronger. It seems only natural that this feeling is to be reciprocated towards moslumfacists who want to impose their will on the country they are trying to practice a "reverse crusade" upon. We know very well they practice female castration on their little girls in Europe because plenty of these little victims end up in emergency rooms from hemorraghing and/or shock due to infection. Yeah, keep on telling me about this "lovely" ideology of hate. Wake Up!!!

77 OUT EM OF THE UK

78 FUCK MOHAMMED, BURN HIS HEAD.

79 Anyone notice how the Muslims seem to be going crazy in every country, but no protest in the US (except for the talking heads on TV)? I believe that by living here, US Muslims have become civilized enough that they know that's not how to handle a problem... -- Also, A LOT of Muslims believe 9/11 was a US Gov and Jewish conspriacy. But did you see the protester with the sign that read "Europe-You're 9/11 is Coming"...al-Lucy...you have some 'splainin' to do!!!

80 mimi, i think perfektm is in agreement that islamic intifada's are wrong, he just wants everyone to unite together in a big happy circle of friendship which is so impossible it should not be mentioned here. No, we gave peace a chance. To any radical islamists out there. You dont know the trouble you are bringing on your own. If people like amadinejhad keep running there mouth and threating us with nonproliferation, that sandbox you call a home is going to be a 4000 square mile glass parking lot before all is said and done. You assholes could have done whatever you wanted with iraq by now if you would have just let us rebuild it and leave. But now we aint leavin until the peace is made(never). You say you want us out of iraq, you are keeping us there you stupid fucks. And you know why no one listens to most of your allegations of abuse, occupation, and strife? its because everytime a muslim stubs his toe on the street, you burn flags and effigies and toss gas bombs at embassies. Now, you are picking on countries like france, denmark, and norway who have been very tolerant of your culture and religion while everyone else has had it with you. Good job on burning your bridges eveywhere you go. Everyday you create more enemies cuz everyone is tired of your propoganda and lies, No peaceful god would produce the hatred coming from muslims all over the earth, especially in the past week. Now, all civilized countries , even the EU, will begin to turn their backs on you, one by one, until your the ones being boycotted.

81 funny, LOL, tim s

82 BS"D Kinda puts those tepid cartoons in perspective, as well as proving them right, if not anywhere near harsh enough.. Nice job..

83 Ah...our we all burning with the 'peace of islam' yet? I agree with 'fight islam now' fuck mohammed and allah. Give them what them seem to want so badly...death. Deport these vermin out of our country back to where they came from, and then get rid of as many as we can.

84 "realist", thanks for the translation, that was a tough one to translate. Your viewpoint is 100% on the truth. Thanks for a clear-headed and honest to the point view. All these bastards do is snivel and whine, well then join the 21st century and get out of the dark ages!! We cannot let them win, then we will be going back in history and would have achived nothing with the deaths of our ancestors who fought for the freedoms of speech, religion, and even for a woman to walk around WITHOUT a potatoe sack on her head. These people are controlling, manipulative and totally exploitive of any venue which will give them a way to trodden our culture and beliefs that our ancestors fought to achieve. WAKE UP AND JOIN THE RESISTENCE!!!

85 I have read with great interest all of the posts since mine as of yesterday, and all of those since 2/10. I am greatly impressed with the majority of posters. It really seems as if the "world" as represented by the diverse nationalities here at Jawa is fed up with Islamic Fascism. They will not "go away" they will not "moderate" they have an agenda, it has been spoken and written. They want to destroy the West and subjugate same. The threat is greater than German Nazism. That was fomented by just one relativly small nation whereas "Islamism" is multi-national. We can all wank away here in cyberspace about how fucked the whole situation is, but damn lets do something in real time. Speak out when you are in public, in the grocery, at the bank, at work, wake up those you can. Write, call, harass, cajole etc.your elected officals to not give in and get your nation ready to get on the offensive with these people in your lands and in their homelands. Support a BAN ON IMMIGRATION FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES in your homelands. Support deportation for those that are sponging off of your society. Arm yourselves and prepare to defend yourselves and all you hold dear if you live amongst them.

86 People are waking up; Europe, this is not a contridiction that I speak: Against the muslims; Against the Jews! That's right; against both of their sorry asses. Global war against zion! White intifada! Indigenous White people are the palestinians of Europe, riot against BUSHISRAEL! Justice for the US Liberty!

87 The hell with the Islamist facist for how long will the free world let the muslims keep us in fair of them? while they keep getting larger and larger making greater and greater demmands on ut to take away our freedoms. THE media and our politcians are all sell outs to our way of life. Mohammed was a cold hearted murder&rapist Married to many many wifes and one 9 year old hes a baby fucker he also married his own sons wife claiming Allah said it was ok because Allah knew mohammed lusted for his Own sons wife. the man is Evil and anti christ...No mercy or love in his heart. That's why hos followers are the same way. the fruit doesn't fall far from the teee.

88 DOWN WITH ISLAM; MAN U SEEN THEIR SIGNS? ISLAM WILL RULE EUROPE KILL BEHEAD MURDER WHO EVER INSULTS ISLAM ALL IN BRAITAN BY MUSLIMS? MAN THEY WILL IF WE DON'T WAKE UP AND FIGHT BACK AND SPEAK UP AND STOP GIVING INTO THIS MONSTER SATANIC CULT OF ISLAM. THEY WON'T GIVE UP UNTIL THEY MAKE THE WORLD MUSLIM THATS THEIR RELIGION. THEY WANT US ALL TO GO BACK TO THE ARAB DESERT OF THE 7TH CENTURY....DO U WOMEN WANT TO BE SLAVES AGAIN? IF SO ISLAM IS FOR U. IF NOT AND U LIKE YOUR FREEDOM INDEPENDENCE FIGHT BACK, WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WEST KEEP SILENT AND SUPPORT THE MUSLIMS? WHEN ANY ONE WITH HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THE MUSLIMS WANT THE WORLD UNDER THE ISLAMIC BANNER..THE ISLAMIC RELIGION TEACHES THEM TO ALWAYS FIGHT TO MAKE THE WORLD ISLAMIC NO MATTER WHAT. EVEN BY WAR.ISLAM IS NOT CHRISTIANY TEACHING LOVE AND PEACE..MOHAMMED SAID KILL THEM UTNIL NONBODY WOSHIPS NOTING BUT HIM. ISLAM IS DEATH TO THE FREE HUMAN SOUL......IF U LIKE DEATH U LOVE ISLAM FIGHT FOR LIFE DEFEAT ISLAM...

89 Anyone notice how the Muslims seem to be going crazy in every country, but no protest in the US (except for the talking heads on TV)? I believe that by living here, US Muslims have become civilized enough that they know that's not how to handle a problem... Or it could be the Citizens in the U.S back their free speech with a couple of fellows called Smith and Wesson / Heckler and Koch, in Europe of course they can't so much as defend themselves from violence, let alone their freedom. The only thing Muslims would prove by burning people's property in this country would be Darwin's theory.

90 MIMI and REALISTIC and all of u, if u think that killing al muslim will solve this, then remember if u even plan a step, ur own govt will be ur enemy, your own protection system(police) will bring u down, 1st step in this process should be to unite and bring our countries out of this islamophobia, ok tell me how many of EU countries stand next to denmark, if EU is so united, EU can also break all ties with all islamic countries, like what all islamic countries have done, man we are not united, if we all have same enemy then why not get united to fight them, putin support hamas is a good example, why we need unity, if we all are united our govt. will be forced to support each other, not islamic nations ..... best example of such support to islam is here 1. "Australia Cracks Down on Rioters, Unless They're Muslim" URL : http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/154101.php or u want to hear freedom of speech, so see this 2. "Sweden shutdown news website on cartoons" check on bbc, i cant use url completely so use news-dot-bbc-dot-co-dot-uk and then /2/hi/europe/4700414.stm or just see a few days back comment from chirac, dont be muslims, we are Human's , we think and then take step, remember we think, dont take any step which make us weak, we dont have to fight our govt. but we have to make them change to meet our requirments... Hope now u got my point, and thats why i want all of us to unite, in a way that when ever we see something going wrong in our countries which is promoting islamic mentality, we all can stand toughther, and say our govt to request the other to condem that.... it works in a read good way, as soon as we all reach a unity then we can think of something else... right now we are nothing just a handful of crazy people who no one will support, even if something happens to u, no one from this whole group will support u, let islam see what they want, they do something wrong in one corner of globe, they must get a slap till other side of globe, lets reply back with there policy... ---------now some tension releasing doses--------- what is the difference between a MUSLIM EGO AND A SHEEP? NONE! THEY BOTH HAVE INFLATED BALLS! WHAT DO ISLAM AND ISLAMB HAVE IN COMMON? ONE IS A LAM, THE OTHER IS A LAMB! THEY BOTH WORSHIP SHEEPS! WHAT DOES A MUSLIM AND A BOMB HAVE IN COMMON? THEY BOTH EXPLODE! WHAT DOES THE KORAN AND KAMU SUTRA HAVE IN COMMON? BOTH TEACHES TO GET ON ALL FOURS! WHAT FEATURES DO MUHAMMED AND A BOWLING BALL HAVE IN COMMON? THEY BOTH LOOK LIKE A BOMB! WHICH BEARD IS LONGER, MUHAMMEDS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, OR A GOAT? NEITHER, THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME. THEY GET THE SAME HAIRCUT FROM THE SAME BARBER OR BARBERIAN WHO IS MORE OPEN? AN ASSHOLE OR A MUSLIM? AN ASSHOLE, AN ASSHOLE LETS EVERYONE IN, A MUSLIM DON'T LET ANYBODY IN. WHAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO A MUSLIM? FREEDOM TO DIE! WHY DO MUSLIMS TAKE MORE THAN THEY GIVE CAUSE THEY ARE USED TO BLOWING EACH OTHER UP I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY ACCEPT BEING GAY! WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUHAMMED AND A COWARD? THEY'RE THE SAME, A MUSLIM! at last to all of u AllahHuFuckbar MIMI sorry i thought you are more stupid muslim

91 In the interest of fairness, here are some truly moderate Muslims, who deserve our support: http://www.freemuslims.org/ They're a good group; though not nearly large or vocal enough, i'm afraid, to make much of a difference at this point, considering the wretched mess that Islam as a whole has been allowed to become.

92 The shame is the liberals here is the WEST have convinced the masses that everyone is EQUAL. How do we fight this war against ISLAM when people now believe everyone is EQUAL? Equality is a myth, but the masses do not believe this. What needs to be done cannot be done: All MUSLIMS need to be expelled from the west. ALL MUSLIMS must be segregated from the rest of humanity. Will this ever happen? No. And it is so sad that is will never happen. We are watching the fall of WESTERN MAN right before our very eyes...

93 To Perfektm: No, definitely NOT a musi, but a victim of this "jihad". My brother was beaten and stomped to death in Strasburg by a group of muslim youths. This is happening all over Europe-random attacks on innocent citizens. He was studying law. So there is and will never be tolerance and acceptance for a culture which breeds hateful, useless scum who attack citizens because they do not follow their perverted views on an ideology of hate. JOIN THE RESISTENCE - IT IS GROWING AND WE NEED MORE STRENGTH TO FIGHT THE "INVADERS".

94 Brilliant point/idea Demosophist. IMHO the best of the thread so far. Pity the media is not even aware (let alone meaningfully engaged) in their own survival. No clue they themselves (and not "Cheney's Halliburton mercenaries") are on the front line this time, and there are real enemies (not the strawmen of the "Bush cabal") against whom they must think and cooperate strategically in order to survive. [Demosophist] But, I maintain that if the Western press had stated a specific policy that the only reason they weren't going to publish the cartoons was to provide "moderate" Muslims a forum that wouldn't compromise them, and that if no such muslims came forward within X amount of time they'd just publish in solidarity with Denmark, the result would have been to provide cover for the anti-extremists. And cover for themselves, too. When "moderate" Muslims - inevitably - didn't come forward, and hundreds of publications went forward in unison with a barrage of cartoons, the media's position would have been unassailable (at least from Western criticism over "sensitivity toward mainstream Muslims"). Also, the contention that "there *is* a moderate Islam that respects Western norms of society" would have been tested, one way or the other, for all to see. By stating no such policy, and simply being proper Dhimmi, they've not only dishonored themselves but forced any real moderates (assuming there are some) into hiding and persecution. Agree. Though whether a "Muslim" who is sufficiently moderate to coexist with us in good faith is still following Mohammed's writings in letter *or* spirit is a topic for another thread...

95 sorry o Hear that MIMI, i can understand, my ancestors have to suffer a lot due to muslims, they killed a lot of hindu's, and still they are killing them, there are still genocides running in islamic countries to kill non-muslim's, but i can't belive in straßburg, its not too far from me, i am in freiburg, i can feel your pain, and its more than me, at last i had never seen my those ancestor's but you hav lost your brother, i m joining you in this resistance.... JOIN THE RESISTENCE - IT IS GROWING AND WE NEED MORE STRENGTH TO FIGHT THE "INVADERS"

96 Hey Just a Idea, What u think, as we all know, we ban all those things in our country, which promotes terror attack's , check this "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Qur'an, Sura 9:5 dont you think its enough to ban Quran in west if taken court approach ...... LOL

97 This is the kind of protests you will never see in the daily birdcage linners of from the talking heads

98 Hey yeah that should be enough to ban it also check this site out guys!!! http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ Jim.

99 thanks for the site. i have seen it all now and fear that there is no end to this, we can laugh and joke about all these sites and cartoons but the truth is that, here in South Africa at least, we are banned from seeing these cartoons now in our press. after a very short court case with a few thousand muslim protesters outside (cape town). for the first time since appartheid ended in 1994, our (south african) freedoms are gone! what is next, will they force me to eat hallal next? live and let live, please leave us alone

100 Dave is right, the only reason they haven't been pitching a bitch here over those stupid cartoons is because a lot of us out there would give them a fuckin' shot gun or rifle up their muslim ass. My husband and I have been telling people about the deal with islam around where we live...because...unfortunately...the people in the area we live in have a mentality that it doesn't affect them because it isn't here. We are doing our best to dispel that ignorant thinking. Because, even in BFE USA, this shit WILL affect EVERYONE if we don't nip it in the bud now! I am a woman who cherishes her rights...and I don't wish to be treated like I'm property...or worse. I hate violence folks, but me and me mate aren't pacifists. we have no problems with getting rid of a major problem that puts our whole way of life in peril. DEATH TO ISLAM!

101 u r right simone, you know the 3rd largest türkish city, guess what? Berlin.. yes Berlin in Germany, they have so many Türk and they are here from years still not even accepted german language, i am in europe from last 2 years i can speak german now, i dont know why they can't the main thing is they only want to put there faith and culture on us, but never want to accept our open cultures, this is a real threat now, i am indian by root, but have seen they have dont voilence in india too, though they contribute only 20% of indans... i will blame govt's which have islamophobia and are afraid of muslims, check http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/154101.php u will be shocked by this news

102 Dam... And the judge that passed that ruling is a muslim... no one had taken up the cugel to fight the ruling either... the south african press and politicians are all dimmis... sad but true. Our so called freedom is only freedom when it suits the ANC. There can never be racial harmony while the goverment practices afirmative action either.

103 If Western free speech is terrorism as claimed in one of the signs above, then what is the expression of Muslim rage?

104 DESTROY Islam before it destroys YOU!

105 Hello. Im going to ignore the ignorant comments on this site. Cause those ppl are just as bad as the idiots lighting kfc on fire. For those of you who are somewhat intelligent, and are as flabbergasted with all this cartoon crap as I am. Id like to say a few words. I am muslim. I think these protestors are bigger idiots than you think. But unfortunately, the press never prints my words. they only prints the words of psycos who support bin laden. Islam has been taken over by POWER HUNGRY MEN, from the second the Prophet died. and that is the sad truth. Its been 1400 years, and the religion is still under hostage, by pscyo bearded me, who just want power, and brain wash everyone to believe what they say is true. The sader reality is, that the quran mentions Jesus and Moses as many if not More times than it mentions the Prophet. Islam today, is a sad sad reality, Jesus and Mohammed must be looking down thinking what a bunch of losers. Allah (for those of you who are unbelievably ignorant) is God, Allah aka God aka the almighty aka the guy upstairs. Muslims are so power hungry that they killed Mohammed's own grandson for it. So you can imagine how senseless it all is. All im saying is dont blame Jesus, for what Bush is doing. Dont Blame Mohammed for what Osama is doing. A plea from a SECULAR WESTERNIZED MUSLIM

106 Please give peace a chance! Every one have the right to talk but not to critisize others. Take things moderately.

107 To all Muslims: Your culture and people were decieved by a mad man named Mohammad many centuries ago. Mohammad established a "cult of personality" that was inflicted on his homeland and the lands that Muslims conquered and has endured unto this day. This cult is not unlike the cults the world has seen in modern times surrounding people like Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Joseph Smith, Kim Il Song, Kim Jong Il, David Korsesh, Jim Jones etc, etc. The problem with cults is that the longer they endure the more they are "accepted" yet they are still nothing more than the day they they were established. (Example: The Mormon Church, a "cult of personality" that fled to the hinterlands of the Utah desert after being run out of the settled lands of the east and flourished out of sight of civilization.) Explore the the history of your "religion" and search your soul and you will see the truth. The World will not see Peace and Muslim lands will not become part of a peaceful worldwide civilization until those that have been brainwashed by the sins of mad man; reject him and his cult. After your eyes have been opened encourage others to open theirs. Peace will prevail when the enemy is defeated.

108 Mr INFIDEL. Im sorry that you have no idea what ur talking about. You said...DEAR MUSLIMS, YOUR CULTURE AND PEOPLE.... Um...Muslims have about 50 different cultures... thats why they keep killing each other. and um....If there was no Mohammed thered be no Muslims...so to address Muslims and then tell them that their people were hijacked by the founder....ugh... makes no sense. Second of all...Islam was hijacked by 3 guys. Omar Farooqi, Osman and Abu Bakr, the moment Mohammed died. and 90% of the protesters are following in these 3 guys footsteps. THAT IS THE BIGGEST HIDDEN TRUTH OF ISLAM. and the other 10% of the protesters are following in KHOMEINIS footsteps. NO ONE IS FOLLOWING MOHAMMED. NO ONE AT ALL. so stop taking it out on him, its like blaming jesus for what the american soldiers did in abu ghraib....its illiterate. so pls get facts right. else rename this blog...."BLOG FOR PPL WHO KNOW NOTHING"

109 Mariam and other Muslims In order: 1. "Your culture" meant expressly ALL Muslim cultures 2. I didn't say "hijacked" I said "Decieved" Mohammad was a FALSE PROPHET, just like the many false prophets before and after him, sorry to inform you. He created a movement, a cult whatever you want to call it to benefit himself and control others. Look into it, there are numerous sites, books etc. that chronicle the founding of Islam and its falsehood. 3. Yes, after Mohammed died others even more corrupt than the founder took over the religion to consolidate power amongst themselves. 4. The basic premise of Islam, the teachings of the "prophet" etc. hold no tolerance for any other religion, (not that I am religous and could care less what another believes, as long as its premise allows me to live my life unencumbered by anothers beliefs) but when you have a "religion" of intolerance, a religion that in its texts (in many instances)calls for the death or subjugation of all non-believers no matter what some "moderate" Muslims may say you have an institution that can not co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world. 5. If we, meaning all persons concerned for peace in the world, could snap our fingers and make all of the fanatics in the world of Islam disappear in the next second the world would see a time of relative peace, but only for a short time. The teachings of the texts of Islam would again corrupt future generations of would-be-fanatics and we would be in the same situation again, restore the Caliphate, subjugate all non-muslims, live in the 7th century, put women in burkas, "honor killings" etc. It is a snake that eats its' own tail. 6. Believing that Islam can exist in the world harmoniously with others and that it was only corrupted by corrupt and evil followers of the "prophet" is like saying that National Socialism in Germany in the 20's and 30's, a movement that put the population back to work after WW1 and the Great Depression was a benevolent movement that was "hijacked" by a few "bad apples", would be ludicrous, it's not so, it (Nazism)in itself was an evil and corrupt death cult at its' heart also. Find something else to believe in, I could care less what, leave Islam like millions of enlightened others have and encourage others to do likewise. Things can change, one person at a time, it's the only option other than World War. Think and you shall be free.

110 Hello Infidel. To claim that Mohammed was a false prophet, is basically opening doors to claiming that any prophet was a false prophet, line of books mention prophets before them, ie, torah...then bible...then koran...then whatever. So I mean to say Mohammad is a load of crap, you might as well say that Noah was a lunatic, Moses had hallucinations, and Jesus was a Magician. I'm not the most religious person in the world. But Religion is that....BELIEF. theres no proof of anything. not that noah had an ark that moses parted the sea that jesus was born of a virgin or that mohammad was gods prophet or even that krishna walked the earth! The Quran has statements in it like... you know...kill the infidels....blah blah but I mean who knows who wrote the quran, or the bible, or the torah, or the geeta, or anything. My point is, if you BELIEVE that Mohammad was a Prophet, then you have to believe that everyone else was too. If you believe that Jesus was born of from the Virgins womb....then you gotta believe everything is possible. Its very possible, that Mohammad and his message have been totally MESSED and MIS CONSTRUED. infact thats my point. These idiots who protest, dont even know anything, they dont read anything, the believe what their paretns and idiot leaders say...even the Quran has different interpretations, but they interpret it the way they feel like, so whose to say they didnt change what they wanted..... OH THE QURAN IS COMPLETE AND UNCHANGED... but really who knows....no one. My point was that you were very quick to blame it all on MOHAMMAD and his messed up ways. the quran was compiled after he died....and Osman asked ppl...hey what did Mohammed say...wait lemme right that down...oh ya? he said that too? oh ok lemme get that too.... Religion itself....its just blind belief. Either you believe there were prophets, or you believe there werent. you cant just blame one guy for the messed up minds of millions. i agree theyve turned islam into a cult. but that doesnt mean thats what it was supposed to have been. -m

111 I find is strange that the billboard were created so that Americans can read it. haha. Another staged protest by American paid Muslums.

112 It seems that one important thing to realize is prophethood requires two or three witnesses. As does anything else by law. Mohammad has himself and his own word. The Quran admits this as his evidence. It is the soul evidence of prophethood. I see it as one thing, one witness not two or three. Next, the preservation of the Quran could be a self-fulfilling prophesy just because you believe he was a prophet. It does not prove such. It could be kept by human means. The Bible for example can be accurately traced to the second century in all but 9 verses in the NT. Furthermore, Christians and Jews have kept the OT independantly for 2000years. There are no alteration here either for just as long as the Quran has been around. They would not go unnoticed either. No one would allow the other to corrupt the text openly. Yet, this doesn't say much. The Quran says that there is evidence in the Christian injil and torah of Mohammad. As for prophecies, I see none in the NT that need fulfilling by Mohammad. As the Quran says. Mohammad didn't know his NT. (The only one he could fulfill is the antichrist.) Some quote the verse in John about a helper/comforter/teacher. Read the context, it is a spirit who convicts the world not a prophet who has bodily form! The OT I am sure could be construed to support Mohammad but there is a question if the Christ of Christianity fulfilled it or a Coming messiah of Judaism. It is too ambiguous for evidence. It must be specific. Christ fulfilled 103 prophecies in the OT in the narratives about his life. Mohammad maybe just a few. Mohammad's witness is singular only upon the Quran and the narrative of his life. The narrative is sketchy because it shows his family and friends thought he was possessed. Whoops. Finally do you believe all the original battles of Islam were defensive. It is quite defensive to spread from the middle east to Spain in about one century. It is your duty to "prove" it is not a radical religion. A religion cannot escape its beginnings.

113 Muck Fuslims

114 What about the x-muslim turned christian in afgana-stain that is being tried for carrying a bible. Sentence is death. Now that's the difference between a muslin martyr and a christian martyr. The christian is beheaded for taking a stand not to bow down and worship a false god. The muslim takes out as many unbelievers as he can. Which one do you think the one and only will stand by. As for as I care I don't want to live by someone so intolerant that they can't love the christian - Jew - muslim brother from the same Father.

1 Hehe...Touche!

2 >>>I thought they were the equivalent of the Taliban? Only if you assume Leftwing platitudes have any bearing on reality.

3 Because they have jobs.

4 The muslims are more upset about the cartoons than they were about the Abu Gharib photos. I think that they should be shown together, as an expression of free speech fredom of the press.

5 John Ryan, did you have a point?

6 Where's my Mr. Mohammed Head? I want him to try on the fuse shoes and the dynamite hat. C'mon. . .somebody make a Bombhead Bobble doll. . .

7 ideaguy, it's a Turbomb! And Mohammed is in it, a true classic, and is descriptive of the issue at hand. Now that's an idea I like.

8 John Ryan Very interesting. Such an act/linkage would be a provocative enticement to escalate the violence to new levels of mindless death and destruction, much like we saw with the phony Gitmo/Koran/toilet story. Is this want you want? I wonder sometimes about Maxie - being so over-the-top n' all - maybe he had a bad experience with a pack of Camel Cigarettes as a kid .... but you! .... lurking in the shadows behind the facade of the great Buddha! - Masquarading as a "man of peace"! So, when you sit down amongst the candles with your bells and chimes ... do you quietly chant to yourself ..."I rode a tank, Held a generalÂ’s rank, When the blitzkrieg raged And the bodies stank ..." So your a fraud Buddhist and a covert provacator - so be it - at least I know now who you are.

1 I dig the hell out of Chuck! He's one of those, we call sleepers. Like playin' chess and suddenly all you see is a Queenless self induced mushroom cloud. Faaaaak! This is when the question prances about your brain singing the nananananer song. The same one asked by Insanetor Swimmer after his riveting display at the Alito hearings . Why am I Dumb? Is it the money? The Booze? Na, it's gotta be da chicks! Self procurement- is that a word or even possible? Chuck's logic is so fuckin' right on, even God has reconsidered..........three times by my count.

1 All these comparisons revealing hypocrisy are pretty much the same. If there's any sensitivity their not posting because they care about Muslims but because they fear Muslims. In bigger part tho, it goes against their liberal/Leftist ideology. Muslims, those making the noise, already have a disposition against America and our traditional values. The Left has allied itself with their disposition. Of course Christian and Jew bashing and freedom of the press will remain.

2 The battle lines have been drawn and are obvious to most of us.

3 Thats a pretty darned good point from Dr. Stoch.

4 What is missed here in all the confusion is that the cartoons were part and parcel to a valid news story. The story was about self-censorship being practiced by news organizations because of fear of radical Muslims. The newpaper commissioned the illustations to see if cartoonists would be willing to draw cartoons of Mohammed, risking the ire of Muslims. You have all seen the results. The story itself is coming true. The reaction of the West should have been full support of the cartoonists. When Western governments and even Bush criticized the publication of what was and is a valid story, the reaction was seen as more weakness. Had the reaction been strong and forceful, this situation would have already calmed down. But now the radicals see that violence and protests work, so what do you think they will do now? Exactly, every time these people want something, no matter how unreasonable it is, they will resort to violence, because the West has rewarded violence. By encouraging violence and protest, the West, including the US, has gone way down the appeasement road. You know what happened with Hitler. A world war with tens of millions killed was the result, and we seem hellbent on having another. Oh, yeah, just as an aside, illustations of Mohammed have been around for hundreds of years, including the cartoons in question recently published in an Egyptian newspaper and other images sold in Iran. Muslims lie if they say that images of Mohammed are forbidden, or even uncommom for that matter. But, you see, the Koran gives Muslims the right to lie to the kufirs and infidels. Great religion you have there.

5 Yeah the left wing media outlets and politicians only have the balls to give free kicks to America, Conservatives, Christians and Jews.

6 [snif], you had me at Shackleford ... [hug] [/bad gay] But I'm seriously, how have we not made this connection before ...

1 >>>"Could it be that they are afraid of revealing who they are?" Yes. My understanding is that they are actually located in a middle eastern country, so their lives would be in danger if they were placed physically. Give credit where it's due. These are precisely the people we don't want to alienate. There is no winning the war on terror without them.

2 True, but one cannot alienate 'allies'. Alliances are formed out of mutual interests. It is only when those mutual interests diverge that we can expect our alliance to end.

3 A couple comments: a) I lived in Saudi Arabia for about 5 1/2 years working for the oil company there, and I must say this about the collective guilt: While as an Westerner (American) I certainly reject the notion of collective guilt, it's not likely they will anytime soon. The Middle East is very much a group culture in a way that just defies Western analysis. I had to see it and live in it to really get it. b) J. Carlos above I think is quite right. If they really are Muslim moderates living in the Middle East right now, they would have every reason to hide their identity. I know I certainly would. I think the larger and more long-term bottom line is this: If that culture can't adapt to modernity better than it's doing now, eventually, it'll be destroyed in the same sort of way more primitive cultures always are destroyed by the more advanced ones. Not because anyone will purposefully set out to do so at first. They'll just ankle bite long enough that the West will turn around and finally stomp them out. I think the only hope for anything different is something like the experiment going on in Iraq today.

4 Beth, I can't find much to disagree with in your post. Great job, everyone should read it and perhaps they would understand, but maybe your insight comes from living in Turkey and watching the radical tide roll in. In any event, it is obvious you are familiar with Islam.

5 Good job Beth! Glad you brought up the part about Islam is an" ideology, not a race" or religion by the terms I understand religion to be. (I had my ass handed to me over at Protein Wisdom-I think-these things happen sometimes as I try to educate myself and I lose track of who gave me the last shelacking). In talking (I'm living in Japan) with my Jordanian and Turkish "friends/customers", who none of them claim to be Muslim for reasons to many to mention, they have explained a lot of history to me about the Islamic practices and the region. They really don't like each other much and both privately tell me,"As your friend you should not trust the (Turk/Arabs-depending on who's doing the talking)." Oddly or not, the business I've conducted with both peoples has not been in my favor as each chisels away at the end of the deal, in spite of no complaints on a job well done. Which is why I add 20% to both in the estimates-gotta admire the humor. Something about forewarned is forearmed, I think. I do 99% of my business with the Japanese and have NEVER had any problem getting paid and additional orders. The true irony enters when the ONLY foreigner that I've done business with (a self-proclaimed Anarchist), has gone above and beyond the contract and payments for services, unsolicited and immediately. A Frenchmen, an honorable Anarchist. You should've seen the seething fury a few years back when the war was getting underway. I was surrounded by three Brits, a Frenchmen, two Aussies and another American, trying to find out "Why George Bush.....yadda yadda yadda". Inside I was deep in my memory banks in search of an actionable response-I love pressure, really, but not idiocy. I came across a memory of Chesty Puller and started smiling. Before long I was laughing like Strother Martin (as Liberty's lacky ) when Edmond O'Brien was getting the beating of his life, in that classic "The Man who shot Liberty Valance". (BTW-A movie replete with some very interesting symbolisms applicable even for todays unfolding events.) At any rate the one sided verbal assault on yours truly, dried right up. I wonder if any of that has to do with the Frenchmens honorability.

6 I keep forgetting to ask- please to forgive unknowing FNG for dumb questions, but that's why they callem' FNG's. I should sign in as humble dummy, but I here pride is one of the first things to go and based on what I got left, I clearly missed something, somewhere along the way! What's the meaning of TPS REPORTS-LOL and I forgot the others already-too much preamble, but it was a good year, so I bought three jugs. Now don't be laughing at me!

7 Forest, Oyster here, reporting for dummy duty. I've asked that myself and no one's yet told me. So you're not alone there! We demand some one clue us in NOW!

8 I don't even know what FNG is. I'm so ashamed.

9 A TPS report refers to a movie called Office Space. If you haven't seen the movie you should do so right away! It is one of the funniest movies of all time IMHO and, it just gets funnier with each new viewing (I have watched the movie at least 4 times). So, in the movie, this poor shlub is working a worthless job, filling out (or not) worthless forms. One of the forms that he is repeatedly harrassed about is a TPS report. Go immediately and rent the movie.

10 I've seen the movie. But I don't understand what it has to do with a blog, as Rusty used to have at the comment prompt "No TPS Reports, Please". Because if he means "no useless or worthless comments", we could eliminate a bunch of jerks that come here.

11 hihthee

12 Oyster: FNG means ....ing New Guy But now we've got an hihthee and IMHO to deal with! As Insanetor Kennedy put it, when he asked about terrorism, being a Senator for the "US", why is the booze tax as high as it is, who's Olds is that, breathing without lying...... "WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?"

1 I agree completely. In fact, I've known some of the most wonderful Nazi's you'd ever want to meet. Just because they hate everyone who isn't like them doesn't make them bad people. Now pardon me while I go get my eyes unstuck from where they rolled back in my head.

2 I agree Maximus. The problem I have with many Muslims, and why I do at times hate, is not their over blown sensitivities and warped judgments of western motives, but their own lust for hate. They don't wanna reason. They're beyond caring - for anyone but themselves, but that's really not true either. I'm talking about those we see, who are over sensitive and make it public display. By and large they are fascists. They're no better - they deserve no greater understanding - than Hitler's followers. Its hard to love or forgive so many would-be Reinhard Heydrichs.

3 That said, does anyone know where I can pick up some Koran brand toilet paper?

4 A letter to Ms. Zerbisias. Rusty, if I'm missing something (ala - the point), let me know (I've been studying Islamic history like a gnat on crack to try to understand things, recently, I'm just trying it on - feel fre to tell me to go jump in a lake) Afternoon, I see that you're getting an interest response in the blogs regarding your "Hate behind Right Wing Blogburst" article. First off, I'm a centrist, so let's not make any quick judgements - nor, am I wanting to come across as cheeky, or rude. I'd like to simply state fact, ask some questions and move along. Secondly, I've been reading the right wing blogs and have not found hatred of muslims. What I have found is hatred of Radical Muslims. There's a difference. And, the bloggers I've read have gone out of their way to denote that difference. Some, ala Jawa Report, have gone so far as to incite their dismay over Islam, or the teachings of the Qu'ran; but have also circled back to make a clear definition of their feelings. One fo those feelings being that they do not hate muslims. This point, you leave out. I disagree that there was no need to republish the cartoons. I think in doing so, the Radical Muslims have exposed themselves to everyone. Which is a good thing. I also think that not to reprint is, as one muslim I've spoken with has said, "forces us to to submit to the will of the Radicals." Another viewpoint you left out. Also, considering how the deafening silence of the moderate muslims has the West wondering what is going on, it's good to have something hypocritcal in the Radicals' mindset be exposed. In a way, the end justifies the means. Which is exactly the same creedo that the Radical muslims use to defend their seperations from the Qu'ran, which they say they want to defend. The Qu'ran strictly forbids murder and suicide. So, a suicide bomber is violating the tenents of the Qu'ran, but do so, as they say, to save Islam. To non-violently respond to a non-believer is also a tenent of the Qu'ran. Two wrongs, my friends, do not a right make. Especially when what the Radical muslim sees as being right is a total bastardization of the religion they claim to protect. Please note: the Qu'ran does allow for images of Mohommed; but not images that can be used for devotional or idolitarian purposes. There is a major diffence. I think your article making a blanket statement about the hatred of the "cons" is simply short-sighted. Actually, I believe some of the points you use to display your stronger issues are short-sighted: "I hope that's the real reason for their reticence. I would hate to think that newspapers are backing away to avoid angry protests, to prevent ad boycotts, out of political correctness or a sense that some communities should get special treatment or, most of all, because they fear violent reprisals." That is EXACTLY why the North American media is not showing the cartoons. In a very non-sublte way, the North American media is allowing itself to succumb to the will of the Radical muslim. This one is just kinda' ignorant: "As for violence, I would guess that Muslims are more victims than perpetrators." You would guess wrong, if you're implying that the perpetrators are non-mulsim. What is true is that Radical muslims hate non-Radical muslims - as it's the Radical faction that is doing most of the killing of all muslims. So, whereas muslims may be the victims, the Radical muslims are the perpetrators, not the West, or the "cons." Basically, what it amounts to is that people of the West, yourself included, don't understand Islam, nor do they understand that the Radical movement's roots go to al-Wahab, in Egypt, at the end of the 18th century - nor, further, is the fall out of the endings of both World Wars understood. What people fail to realize, is that muslim v. muslim violence has been ongoing; same as has been going on with christian v. christian violence; but different in the sense that most of the current and near-history of muslim v muslim violence starts within the corrupted muslim governments. Actually, taking that a step further, I don't think you are well enough informed to the overall issue as to be making statements like the ones that you've made. It's not cut and dry, and it's not white-bread. I would hope that you'd do some research into the root cause of this issue .. starting with Wahabiism, and going forward to discover what people are actually talking about - and then using your articles not only to convey what you've found, but to quell any of the sort of further bickering that you seemed to have created by widening the chasm between Right and Left. Using your voice to point out that you think "cons" hate muslims only incites anger, which, if that is your goal, only solidifies my concept of your short-sightedness. If I'm incorrect, then either I didn't read the article correctly, or you didn't construct it correctly. Though, comments like this: "Frankly, we're a lot more tolerant society than our own intolerant right would like to believe." Makes me wonder what your intent on the article was - if it wasn't to lash out, blindly, at a group of people with whom you do not agree, or possibly even understand. If that's the case, you're verging on the hypocritcal. Finally, this statement displays simple ignorance to machinations of not only the subject matter, but the backstory and details of the muslim world: "Which makes me wonder who the real hate-mongers are: those who are cut off from modern communications technology and are more easily subject to the machinations of ignorant clerics — or those that should know better and who claim to be morally superior." In your article, it appears that you are claiming moral superiority over the "cons"; but, you should know better than to base your opinions on the scanty amount of actually information you used to generate your column. What then, does that make you? If you'd like, let me know what you think. Thank you, Pete

5 I donÂ’t believe in the writings and teachings of Muhammad or think he is actually one of GodÂ’s profits. Having said that, I get no satisfaction in looking at cartoons that mock him. I have had many personal experiences where my religious beliefs have been mocked and insulted. I donÂ’t take it very well and I can understand exactly how this group feels. As I have said before, there is a difference between my faith and theirs. I tell people they are going to hell if they donÂ’t change, but I donÂ’t send them there. I want to kill someone who butchers children all day long but I donÂ’t. I want to impose my faith and beliefs on everyone else, but I donÂ’t. IÂ’m just sitting back and watching this unfold and have no idea how it will play out. Will the libs in the MSM stand up to these people? If they do, it will be like telling Tony Soprano you arenÂ’t going to pay the protection money. There will be consequences, reporters; artistÂ’s writers will be killed. I thought these days might be a long way off, but things seem to be coming to a head pretty quickly. My daughter's High School history class is spending the entire hour talking about this subject today. It will be interesting to talk to her tonight about what the kids think.

6 "Will the libs in the MSM stand up to these people?" Absolutely not. The MSM have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place on this one and they are going to ignore it and hope it goes away. They've gone out of their way for 40 years or so to put any anti-Christian message on the air and then hide behind the 1st amendment and "the people's right to know". Now, they come off as frightened little hypocrites because, in their own words, "we don't want to offend anyone". What they really mean is "we don't want to offend anyone who will chop our heads off." This puts them in a precarious position the next time a really offensive Christian story comes along. So, they are just going to ignore the whole thing and hope it blows over soon. They generally have very limited short-term memory but you might expect them to avoid offending even Christians for at least a day or two.

7 >>>they hate Muslims. I generally only hate the violent muslims-- which is better than these Lefties can say about their hate for christians.

8 As an evangelical Christian(Southern Baptist) you can imagine how many times I could have threatened someone for insulting me or my religion. And I will say that I have argued my heart out with some of the people who seem to hate me for no particular reason other than the fact that I am a Christian. That said, I still believe that these people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, because the truth of the matter is this. If they don't have freedom, neither do I. And no Muslim in the US should have any more freedom than anyone else, and any Muslim, or anyone else for that matter, who threatens to kill or harm someone who is exercising their right to freedom of speech or expression should be dealt with in the harshest way according to our laws.

9 Muslems, if they truly follow their religion, are not lovable. This does not mean that we should not love them as fellow human beings--even if it means our soldiers must kill them in combat.

10 again how would yyou like if a muslim mocked jesus ...what would you do let it go or stand up for your believe....cathlics will never let you mock the pope.

11 ashley, are you blind or something? The Pope and Jesus and the Virgin Mary are continually mocked by the Left. No, we don't like it. But do you see christians rioting in the streets burning down buildings, kidnapping people and threatening terrorism? The answer is NO. If you don't understand what free speech means, then go back to Arabia where you muslims appear to be far happier.

12 I know lots of Catholics who have mocked the pope.

13 I have to correct myself from my earlier comment about the MSM waiting at least a day or two to offend Christians again. From littlegreenfootballs: "The New York Times wonÂ’t print the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, out of sensitivity to Muslim readers. But they donÂ’t hesitate to reach back seven years and publish the picture of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant dung ..." I'm sure this is an attempt to take attention away from the fact that they still are afraid to publish the cartoons. Pathetic.

14 The sooner we have open war in the streets of America, the better, because then we can rid ourselves of the scum we call liberals and muslims, and the parasites we call government.

15 IM, are you rooster?

16 If laws against offensive blasphemy were to become in vogue, one could make the argument that they would require the banning of Islam itself. After all, that faith blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christ by denying his divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection, and also claims the Bible contains falsehoods. I'me certainly offended by those tenets of a faith that I must therefore believe to be demnically inspired.

17 IM: No Shit! But I'd have to say the smokem if ya gottem we aint got no effective (they seem to keep puttin' a D in front of anything effective) drug policy parasites IN the government!!!

18 No Carlos, I'm just a kindred spirit, and I'm ready to chew gum and kick ass. And I'm all outta gum.

19 The following is a list of fair and impartial contemporary scholars' testimonies about Mohammed: Fair contemporary celebrities, upon reviewing and reading the biography of Allah's Messenger SAAW fully admitted his honor, nobility and leadership. The following are dome of their testimonies: 1. Mahatma Gandhi, in an interview with Young India Newspaper, said, 'I wanted to know the characteristics of the man who possesses the hears of millions of people, without any doubt. I became fully convinced that the sword was not the mean by which Islam gain it positions and grounds. It was rather the simplicity of the Prophet, his truthfulness, promptness, dedication, and devotion to his companions and followers, besides his unmatched courage and his unparalleled trust and confidence in His Lord; Allah, the Almighty, in addition to his full belief in his Mission and Message of Islam. These matters were the qualities and descriptions that paved the way and eased the difficulties, and not the sword. After completing the second volume of the biography of Mohammed, I felt sorry that there wan not enough materials to learn more about his life.' 2. Professor Rama Chrishna Raw, in his book entitled, 'Mohammed, the Prophet', says: 'We can not know the entire personality of Mohammed, but all what I can present of his life is fantastic scenesÂ… There is Mohammed, the Prophet and messenger, Mohammed the fighter, the businessman, the spokesman, the reformer, the orphans' guardian, the slaves' protector, the women's liberator, the judge, and all these roles were enough to qualify him to be a hero.' 3. The Canadian orientlist Dr. Zuwaimer, in his book entitled, 'The East and its customs', says, 'Undoubtedly, Mohammed was on of the greatest Muslim religious leaders. We can rightly say that he was a super efficient reformer, eloquent, brave, courageous, great thinker whom we should not attribute to him any description that contradicts the above qualities. The Glorious Quran, which he brought forth for humanity, is a great testimony for this claim. 4. The German orientlist Britly Saint Heller, in his book entitled, 'The Orientlists and their creeds', says, ' Mohammed was the head-of-the-state, who looked out for the life of his people and their freedom. He punished those who committed crimes and felonies during his lifetime. He called for the worship of One God; monotheism. He was extremely kind in his call to his religion, even with his enemies. He possessed two characteristics in his personality amongst the highest qualities: justice and mercy. 5. The British writer and critique, Bernard Show, in his book Mohammed, which was ordered to be burnt by the British authorities, says, 'This world is in a bad need for a man with the thinking style and ability of that of Mohammed. This Prophet who always placed his religion in a respectable and honorable position. This religion is the strongest to digest all civilizations and be an eternal religion. I notice that many British citizens embraced Islam rightfully. This religion will find great accommodation in Europe.' The clergy men in the middle ages, as a result of discrimination and ignorance, had painted a dim picture for Mohammed. They considered him an enemy for Christianity!. However, after researching his personality, I discovered that he was a great man. I concluded that he was never an enemy for Christianity; rather he should be called the savior of the humanity. In fact, if he is given the leadership in our world today, he will resolve the entire world problems in a manner that secure peace and prosperity for the entire humanity. 6. Senrasten Asoji; Semitic languages professor says in his book, 'The history of Mohammed's life', 'We would not be fair to Mohammed if we denied his great qualities and characteristics. Mohammed led a real battle against ignorance and barbarism insisting on his principles. He continued to fight against the oppressors until he reached a clear victory. His religion is the greatest religion and he is above all great people in history.' 7. Senex, the American orientlist in his book, "The Arabs' Creed', says, ' Mohammed appeared after . His mission was to promote andfive-hundred-and-seventy years of Jesus improve the human minds by introducing the best ethics and morals to them and teaching them monotheism, and informing them about the Hereafter, or life-after-death.' 8. Michael Hearts, in his book, 'The 100 most influential people in history', 'Choosing Mohammed to be the first, most important and greatest men in history may surprise the readers, but he is the only man throughout the history who succeeded on the religious and worldly affairs levels. There are messengers, prophets and wise men who started great missions, but they died before completing them, such as the Messiah in Christianity, Moses in Judaism. But Mohammed is the only messenger who completed his religious message and all it rulings were complete. Complete nations and peoples followed the religion of Mohammed during his lifetime. Besides, he established a government and a state, which is considered as a worldly affair as well. Mohammed united all the tribes and clans in one people and established laws-of-life. He set his nation to preach the religion to the rest of the world. Therefore, he is the only man throughout the history who succeeded on the religious and worldly affairs levels. 9. The Russian writers; Tolstoy, whose literature and writings are considered to be on the best international literature: 'It suffice Mohammed that he salvaged a humiliated bloody nation from the grip of Satanic customs and put them on the road of development and progress. The Shariah laws of Mohammed shall spread all over the world because it agrees with the common sense and wisdom. 10. Dr. Shperk, the Austrian says, 'The entire humanity should be proud that a man like Mohammed belongs to it. Despite his being unlettered man he was able to bring about a legislation system that we will be the happiest people is if we reached its peak and the maximum of that legal system.' 11. The English philosopher, Thomas Carlyle, the Nobel Prize winner says in his book, 'The Heroes', 'It is extremely shameful to anyone to believe that Islam is nothing but a bunch of lies. And, it is equally shameful to believe that Mohammed is a liar and cheater.' We must fight such shameful rumors. The mission that Mohammed achieved and fulfilled is still the lit candle for the past twelve centuries for approximately two-hundred-million people. How would one believe that the principles, which this huge number of people lived and died by were a mere lie and trick!? 12. Ghotte; the German writer also says, 'We, the European people, with all our thoughts and concepts, did not reach yet what Mohammed had achieved. There will be no one to beat Mohammed and his principles that he called for. I have searched the history for the best example, and found it to be in the personality of Mohammed. Truth must prevail as Mohammed was able to subject the entire world by the pure words of monotheism.' These were some excerpts of the some of the renowned international scholars of the world concerning Prophet Mohammed. Why then to say, write or publish harmful items that destroy and harm instead of construct and benefit? I can see that many are not understanding Islam, or just having their ideas from the media without looking for the facts or searching for reality, and I canÂ’t answer all of these issue in one message, so, if you have any question or doubtful regarding Islam just let me know by sending to my email mahallam@hotmail.com and I will answer you by email or message here. Best regards,

20 FACT: If you spent all your time and the time of all people blogging away trying to convince someone that ISLAM is not GODÂ’s message and mercy to all mankind, you will not stop it. CONCLUSIONS: Your hate campaign is an act of self-importance satisfaction.

21 FACT: If you spent all your time and the time of all people blogging away trying to convince someone that ISLAM is not GODÂ’s message and mercy to all mankind, you will not stop it. CONCLUSION: Your hate campaign is an act of self-importance satisfaction.

22 "Respect international law & stop supporting Danish newspaper" To: The Secretary General of the United Nations Organization, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, European Union Heads of State, Members of the European Parliament ENGLISH VERSION: 1- On September 30th, 2005, 12 caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad were published in a Danish newspaper (Jyllands Posten). These caricatures were then republished in other magazines in Germany, Austria and France. 2- However, according to the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights that was ratified by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976, these actions are considered crimes and in violation of international law. The 2nd paragraph of article No. 20 of this covenant states: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." 3- Therefore, both as Muslims and 1.5 billion of the 6 billion citizens of the global community, we ask the United Nations Organization and the leaders of the world, in particular the European politicians who supported the Danish newspaper paper and delayed enforcement of international law, including the International Covent on Civil and Political Rights, Declaration of Principles on Tolerance and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to investigate our complaint and judge those who committed this crime in a proper international legal tribunal. 4- We Muslims do not seek violence. According to our religious beliefs, the humanity of a person remains incomplete unless he is free and we hold the conviction that according to this saying of Imam Ali we are obliged to: “Be kind to people! Because if they are not your brothers and sisters in religion, they surely are your brothers and sisters in creation." In a world increasingly moving toward hatred and division, wherein ideas like peace, tolerance and friendship among nations seems quite fragile, it is your duty to keep your sworn commitments that you believe in the shaping of an equal world, free of war and discrimination. We hope you prove to us that you respect us as we respect you as equal, intelligent and civilized humans. Thank you for taking the time to read this. http://www.petitiononline.com/islamic/

23 Being a liberal muslim from Malaysia, i accepted the cartoons as a bad taste of humor and shrugged it of. That's it and 80% of other muslims are doing the same but of course there's a minority that took it seriously. All in all, the media should not lashed the whole muslim nation bacause of the actions of several temperemental extremists. And please, there is a big difference between Islam and Muslim. Big, BIG difference. Look it UP!

1 I volunteer for firing squad duty. Or put us in a small room (I'm old and can't run much) with my Kbar and wait 15 min. Like Johnny Walker he should be dead! I will do it for free!

2 Hell, they could make a pretty penny by auctioning off positions on the firing squad. I'd sell a kidney if I had to.

3 Rod Never do anything for free - its Un-American. Even a Marine deserves a paycheck - i'll do it - for scale.

4 I'll start the bidding at $1,000.

5 He's not an American. He's a towelhead with papers.

6 1000!!!! Hell! I was prepared for scale! At my rate that's about base 110.00 a day not including allowances. Rusty, if you ever want to start your own Army sign me up! Don't tell that Marine - those guys are dense n' will sign up for 3 hots and a cot.

7 hondo (3 hots ) Heard that! Now that the army is at a grand a day, us old jarheads ought to be worth something in that range, especially with you as my agent. Rod and I might have some common ground in the can't/won't run dept. but I still prefer the old fashioned method to rid this world of these soulless pukes! Much more rewarding from a spiritual level and 100% organic!