August 19, 2005
Looking Forward to Reading It
American Soldier has frequently linked us as we have linked him. Congratulations on your first book. I hope it is a great success!!
SOLDIER LIFE: A DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN AMERICAN SOLDIER
(Pssst--don't expect the book to be promoted by the NY Times......)
Posted by: Rusty at
03:34 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
Kill Them All, Let Allah Sort Them Out
Muslim scholar gives big thumbs up to murdering children. Here's what he said on a TV station run by the terrorist organization Hizbollah in Lebanon. Yes, terrorists actually have their own TV stations in Lebanon. MEMRI:
"Islam is the religion of life in general, and not a blind religion. Islam does not surrender to foreign aggression. So stating categorically that Islam is a religion of love that rejects violence – This is a big lie. 'Take them and kill them wherever you find them.' This is taken from the words of Allah [the Koran]. About whom? About Allah's enemies. This is violence....He goes on to say why terrorism is justified: because it works.
Who said that violence is futile? What happened in Spain?....He brought his people to war. He had to be hit over the head with a large hammer in order to wake up [the Spanish PM]....Read the rest where he reminds Muslims that all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets and that it is the religioius duty of all Muslims to make war against the U.S.
If we lose in Iraq, we put the world in mortal danger or collapsing into a kind of chaos that has not been seen for a thousand years. Isolationists on the Right and internationalist utopians on the Left should heed this warning now before it is too late. Terrorism against the U.S. would certainly be reduced in the short run. However, the dark ages that will certainly emerge in Iraq if we withdraw has no chance of being isolated. It will spread, and with it ignorance, violence, and repression, until 1/3 of the world is consumed by it. In one or two hundred years, when this cancer has fully taken control of its host, it will look outward again, and our great-great-grandchildren will curse us for not eradicating it while we had the chance.
This is our choice: pay with our lives the price of keeping Iraq out of the hands of Islamic fascists now, or pay with a war on a Civilazational scale later--World War III which has the potential of making the last two World Wars seem trivial.
Hat tip: Beth at My VRWC who has more.
(Oh, and my meetings got out early.)
Posted by: Rusty at
02:16 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Wow, bout time one of em just comes out and says it. We should send him a nice shiny new buttplug, just because.
Posted by: tyler at August 19, 2005 02:27 PM (Y9Lwb)
2
Rusty, read Michael J. Totten's piece dated 8/12. He spells it out very slowly for the dummies who think if we just leave all will be well and they'll stop bothering us.
Posted by: Oyster at August 19, 2005 02:30 PM (fl6E1)
3
The only thing better than no meeting is meeting over.
Posted by: Howie at August 19, 2005 02:33 PM (D3+20)
4
...or pay with a war on a Civilazational scale later--World War III which has the potential of making the last two World Wars seem trivial"
As Conan O'Brien said once, (...Euro coin from Finland. Finland
'our Muslim extremists are too cold to go crazy', so... not my problem.
In case someone gives a damn, I'm not against the war in Iraq, I'm against dragging so many other countries in it with you. Now they're being targeted by fanatic monkeys because you didn't tell them to stay out of your war.
'our Muslim extremists are too cold to go crazy', so... not my problem.
In case someone gives a damn, I'm not against the war in Iraq, I'm against dragging so many other countries in it with you. Now they're being targeted by fanatic monkeys because you didn't tell them to stay out of your war.Posted by: A Finn at August 19, 2005 02:43 PM (lGolT)
5
I'm afraid, Finn, that the war is on your doorsteps already, but that you just don't realilze it yet. Today Iraq, tomorrow Sweden (huge problem in Sweden as we speak) tomorrow Finland. It's not a matter of 'if' only of 'when'.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 19, 2005 04:26 PM (JQjhA)
6
Why would they want Finland? No one else does. Our war Fin? Our war because countries like yours don't have the courage to stand up. Screw Finland. The trouble with Finland is that its full of fins. Things that mullets use to get around.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 20, 2005 01:59 AM (CBNGy)
7
Rusty: I on your team on this one. May as well get it over with. Or should we wait until Iran and Syria have nukes?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 20, 2005 02:02 AM (CBNGy)
8
That descent into chaos is exactly what the "liberals" want. The ones who were part of the Communist movement in the US, anyway.
Remember "The worse things are, the better they are"? They believe that society has to collapse into violent chaos. When things get bad enough, "The Rapture" will occur, and the "workers" will turn on the "oppressors" and massacre them. And, of course, after that, everyone (still alive) will live in a secular utopia, etc. Singing Kumbaya to the sound of secularly made harps.
Sooo, proving what you warn of and proving what we see over in
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/
will encourage the dedicated. "Hurray, we're winning!"
I hope it will have an effect on the uncommitted and those who have not yet become useful idiots.
Posted by: Phillep at August 20, 2005 09:44 PM (zNjIG)
9
Dangit, missed another chance to face The monogrammatic male chicken in real-time Verbal Combat... Oh well, whatever.
Alias of Dale Grib(b?)le: Our Muslims won't go crazy since it's too cold to riot all year and the racial equality laws work both ways around here, and they are based on "treat 'em like they treat you", so if they start getting jihady, getting all crusadey on them stops being a hate crime, so lynching, ethnic cleansing etc... until UN or Amnesty starts bitching about it and then we'll just ship them to Sweden.
Male chicken of unusual color for a chicken: The philosophy of participating in wars that are none of Finlands business: "Pay up or fight your own war", so why the heck should we fight your war if we get absolutely nothing from it and UN peacecorps already employ all the people who voluntarily fight other peoples wars?
Posted by: A Finn at August 22, 2005 02:54 AM (cWMi4)
10
Fins: Things that mullets swim with don't have enough insight to see down the road twenty years. I guess the roads are full of snow so they use it for sand and stick their heads in it for safety.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 22, 2005 06:29 PM (OvTKg)
11
The ignorant man (the terrorist)who said this is not a scholar,because our scholar know that their is no such thing in Islam tell the people to kill an innocent human being,in fact Islam prohibits this crime.
i think that those terrorists are hiding threir bad deeds behind Islam , true islam is not like what they are saying (believe me), i know this because i'm a muslim who knows that Islam advocates tolerance ,sympathy.......,but not killing innocent people, or children.
people...we can't just blieve the guys who don't have the authority ,knowledge a bout the religion which says their is only one God.
Posted by: ahmad at September 09, 2005 01:34 AM (vHKs/)
August 18, 2005
How Soon They Forget
When Rusty wrote this:
The Right has no identity phrase to delegitimize left-wing bloggers' anti-war stance equivelant to chickenhawk.
I couldn't believe that he had forgotten THIS.
Surveys are cool, I like surveys, but sometimes, in the schoolyard of socio-political blogging, it's necessary to throw it right back in their face. A little technique known as "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd."
"Chickenhawk" is clever, but pales next to "Airmchair Jihadi," don't ya think?
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:28 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
someone should think of a witty "human sheild" remark. Remember that idea?
Posted by: h0mi at August 18, 2005 06:51 PM (zpJBl)
2
I call them keyboard Jihadist.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 09:33 PM (CBNGy)
3
I find it interesting that the folks who claim to be trying to "save teh Iraqi people" aren't there acting as human shields -- against the terrorists.
Same with those trying to "save teh troops".
By their own standard, they are rank hypocrites.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at August 18, 2005 10:36 PM (4LNdn)
Chinese Propaganda: "US Troops Hold Iraqi Children Hostage"
It's so surreal that it's almost funny. The reason many in the world hate us--and the reason many terrorists believe they are engaged in a noble cause-- is because they read stories like this and believe them.
US troops held five children as hostages to demand handover of insurgents near a northern Iraqi town on Tuesday, police said."The US forces surrounded the village of Mazraa near Baiji and detained five children under 10 years old, calling on the residents by loudspeakers to hand over several other children showed on TV channels celebrating the killing of US soldiers after roadside blast last week," a police source from Baiji told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.
The US troops threatened to sweep the village by Wednesday morning to detain the other children and suspected insurgents, he said.
The US military, however, said they had no information about the incident.
Posted by: Rusty at
05:39 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
if it was the Chinese armed forces in Iraq, there would no longer be an Iraqi people, period
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 18, 2005 11:30 PM (IJ51c)
2
Can anyone prove it could not have happened? Since this logical paradox of "if you can't prove that there's no way it exists, it exists" works with gods and such, it applies here as well.
If it's true I suspect some guys were grumpy and drunk (since the noble art of making booze out of rations has been known here for 500 years, your guys should know it as well) and figured they should get some revenge. Your army has a tainted recent history with kids, maybe they moved the guys paying African kids candy for sex and the guys who had sex with minors in Japan to Iraq. (in case you didn't know, ever since WWII you've had a base in Japan, since they weren't allowed to have an army for a while and they needed one to avoid becoming Chinese)
Suspected response: "WHAT?!?! NEVER HEARD, NEVER HAPPENED, SOSIALIST BASTARD!"
Not sosialist, centrist, and yes it did happen since it was in the news here and EuroNews with big headlines, victims and interviews, and there's no way anyone can prove it could not have happened.
Posted by: A Finn at August 19, 2005 12:52 AM (lGolT)
3
I'm sorry, I wanted to believe it, but there was a lack of pertinent information in this story...I was snookered too. There was no mention of what platoon, or company did this.
This goddam thing was posted everywhere, but no confirmation info...not even a name. Calling it a wash-out.
Posted by: bryant tillman at September 11, 2005 05:58 PM (ly14y)
Islamic Army in Iraq Shoots Down 'Spy Plane'
It's funny, when you realize that they actually make the claim with a straight face and then see the picture of the 'American spy plane'.
You will recall they had made the same claim here.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:32 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I know satire when I smell it.
Posted by: Feisty at August 18, 2005 05:05 PM (BQCAh)
2
Did they happen to mention if they captured the pilot? I bet his call sign was "Roach!"
Posted by: Don Miguel at August 19, 2005 02:39 PM (+KixN)
August 17, 2005
Celebrate a Hero
Dan Riehl sent a long this link to me and I think it's worth sharing. It's the story of Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, how he earned the Navy Cross in Iraq, and how the media has ignored his story.
Posted by: Rusty at
04:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Whether you live (Leigh Ann Hester) or die (Rafael Peralta) as a hero, the MSM has no interest in you. But if you are deserter running to Canada like Jeremy Hinzman you will make the news.
Posted by: Don Miguel at August 17, 2005 05:28 PM (+KixN)
2
There was a rather long piece on him and his unit, and their performance in Fallujah, the other night on Fox: Company of Heros. And, of course, there's the video game thing. That's about it.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 17, 2005 06:54 PM (zzime)
August 16, 2005
Remember When Hollywood Wanted America to Win Its Wars? (Updated with link to video)
A friend of mine who works at a prestigious film school recently sent me a WWII cartoon produced by Warner Bros. and starring the voice of Mel Blanc. It reminded me that there was a time when Hollwyood put winning a war at the forefront of its agenda. There was a time when people like Michael Moore would not only have been booed off the Oscar stage and blacklisted--rigthfully so--but they would have also found themselves in a federal prison for incitement to treason.
Today Hollywood is either patently against our troops winning, full of moral equvication between our cause and the cause of our Islamofascist enemies, or full of bad news and defeatist messages.
The name of the film my friend sent to me is Rumors and stars the WWII anti-hero Snafu. The film may be downloaded by right-clicking this link and choosing 'save as' option, thanks to Drew at Conservative Friends. A brief synopsis of the film along with some screenshots and lessons that the Hollywood elite might learn from their glory days are posted below. I have the film in quicktime format, thanks to Bill Dauterieve, if any one would be willing to burn the bandwidth and has the server space (it's not large).
Posted by: Rusty at
04:00 PM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Try posting the video at putfile.com.
Posted by: Ariya at August 15, 2005 02:02 PM (noCGr)
2
its funny that you made this post Rusty...ive been seing commercials for the "Victory" war clips on tv, mostly late nite ones...just funny how they are being shown at this time, seems someone else feels just like how must of us do...that the liberals/leftists are trying so desperatly to cause the USA to loose this war, thing is we cant/must noe let them at all and any costs....and Hollywood used to pour out support films during WWII at an incredible rate to keep up the moral of both the American soldiers doing the fighting and the American civies back home to keep supporting those troops, morally and materially...what a shame that HollyWood has fallen into the sewer
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:44 PM (IJ51c)
3
oh, one more thing, i wish someone here would find out what some WWII vets feel about this whole thing...mostly how the soldiers are being treated here back home by the MSM and the liberal population...i know how my dad feels...as a WWII vet he is absolutely disgusted by people like Mickey Moore, Cindy Shennan, Kerry and many others...im would bet a million dollars that if my dad was back in his 20's he would slap the teeth right out of these clows mouths who bad mouth the US soldiers doing the bitter work of fighting in a foriegn country...these liberals/leftists who claim they support the soldiers yet go around and say the soldiers are killing children and women in Iraq, are destroying everything they find,shoot and torture Iraqi civilians and are a bunch of liars...i wont print what my dad actaully said...its not fit to print, and this comes from a 78 year old man's mouth...i would love to see a protest by WWII vets against these anti-war idiots.....what will those anti-war fools do???..hit and push down oldmen???...that would really make the American public see what scum these ant-war people really and truly are...they are the enemy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 15, 2005 02:53 PM (IJ51c)
4
Since Thanos asked,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5059864/
It's a little over a year old and not specifically their take on how today's soldiers are being treated here at home (though you can read support for the troops), but it does discuss the current conflict.
The veterans in the article make some pretty interesting arguments. One of them is that the reason you don't have the public behind the war is because there is no draft in place (and, as a result, you don't have widespread representation within the military). I don't know if I buy this, since Vietnam had the draft and the public wasn't any more unified then than it is now.
Still, it's a good article if anyone's interested in reading it. The last line of the article is a pretty good one, imo.
Posted by: Venom at August 15, 2005 03:34 PM (dbxVM)
5
Things have changed a lot in 65 years. I think the change started in 1949. They were at best not sure about Korea.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 03:45 PM (03F0I)
6
Remember when Hollywood....
No, in the time I have been alive this has never been the case.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 15, 2005 04:00 PM (jPCiN)
7
It sells Rusty. The MSM is not all about journalism any more. I think some of the people who work there are but the owners are all about $$$$$$
Posted by: Howie at August 15, 2005 04:31 PM (D3+20)
8
Hollywood was only pro-war during WW2, not so much during Korea, and anti in every war since. Actually, the American left was anti-war until Germany attacked the Soviet Union. So the left was on board with WW2, a Democratic President and allied with the Soviet Union.
Hollywood turned anti-war in Vietnam during the LBJ administration, a Democratic so I believe it has more to do with ideology than politics. If Vietnam was a war against right wing, who knows.
The left in America is now more aligned with the international left movement than with the US and its goals...that's a sad fact.
Posted by: Kate at August 15, 2005 05:09 PM (r32uj)
9
One big thing happened to our military immediately after WW 2. Can anyone quess what it was?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 15, 2005 07:08 PM (CBNGy)
10
I fondly remember the days when Hollywood offered us a black-and-white reflection of a far more complex reality, and cheerfully led the country to simplistic assumptions about the world so that our nation's young men would march proudly off to war in such morally unambiguous conflicts like Vietnam.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 15, 2005 07:53 PM (JVdjp)
11
Proff v N - you can kiss my ass you piece of sh---!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 15, 2005 09:41 PM (03F0I)
12
And now for something completely different...
To answer Mr. Greyrooster, since the Second World War, the Executive Branch has simply swiped the right to declare war away from Congress, leading to a series of police actions and quasi-wars, many of which remain horribly unresolved today.
Hollywood, surprisingly, actually teams up with the military so that Producers can get resources (ships, planes, base access) and the military changes scripts to attract recruits. Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591021820/103-4292484-1855054?v=glance
The American people must always be vigilant to prevent the military from coming to dominate the economy and government of our great land.
And now back to your circus...
Posted by: Collin Baber at August 15, 2005 10:16 PM (Xf0ch)
13
No, dumbass, he's talking about the integration of the Army and if you were half as smart in reality as you think you are in your fantasy world with the rainbow sky, you'd know that the President still doesn't have the power to declare war, and can't send troops on a major deployment without the approval of Congress. Congress overwhelmingly approved both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns, so STFU moron.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2005 10:53 PM (0yYS2)
14
Racist thugmaster Klanrooster! You creep - I bet it was you who ran over the crosses and flags at Crawford.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:50 AM (xNiEv)
15
Goddamit! The Baloney spreading the rumor was no other than GEORGE BUSH and his PNAC FRIENDS! We bought the rumor and look what happened!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at August 16, 2005 07:54 AM (xNiEv)
16
Hey, rusty, if it is below 10mb, try www.putfile.com for the hosting.
Posted by: William Teach at August 16, 2005 11:13 AM (Pzlrt)
17
Rusty:
We ain't seen nuthin' yet. Check out Jeff Goldstein's The Para(noid)llax View, about the treasonous tripe they're getting ready to foist. They've basically decided that Iraq is Vietnam, so they're now fully justified in pulling out all the stops to oppose it. This is gonna get real ugly.
Their PR job is really pretty easy. All they have to do is keep reiterating different versions of the same lie and the natural tendency of the human mind will be to aggregate bad news and ignore good. Over time they just plan to wear down any optimism. It'll take two things to stop them:
1. An institution that provides a level-headed and straightforward assessment of the military/political situation that the public comes to trust more than MSM.
1. A positive vision about where this is all leading, presented in a way that solicits involvement and sacrifice from citizens.
Once those take hold the extent and depth of the treason will become obvious and careers based on it will vanish.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 16, 2005 05:56 PM (zzime)
18
I would gladly run over Cindy's crowd of monkeys.
Colin Babeler still as stupid as ever.
Downing Street Moron still without pride.
I have a theory about the Collin babelers and Downing Street Morons of the world. They must be miserable little people. So lonely and miserable that they wish others to join their misery. So lonely and left out by normal people that they would even cheer for American to lose this conflict. Therefore proving them right and the beautiful people wrong. The ones that left them out of all the fun must be proven wrong. Even to the point of aiding the enemy. Sick little minds, without fiends, without pride, without honor. They really need to find a bridge to jump off and save themselves the pain of being nothing.
IM still the thinker. Bingo!
Now, has it make a difference. That is the question?
Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 09:54 PM (CBNGy)
19
you know what they say, greyrooster...Misery loves company
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 16, 2005 10:27 PM (IJ51c)
20
We had real patriotic celeberties back then i mean clark gabel and glen ford and all those who sold war bonds all we have in hollywood today are a bunch of filthy mouthed spoiled bed wetting bunch of ungreatful wretches
Posted by: sandpiper at August 16, 2005 10:55 PM (2cLBb)
21
Yea! Remember Bob Hope. And he wasn't even born here.
Christ! I just had a horrible thought. Cindy Sheehan running for governor of California. Or as vice president with Hilary (likes to watch BJs) Clinton.
Sun burn too bad from yesterdays fishing trip. Charlie says put vinegar on it? I'll try anything.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2005 11:10 PM (CBNGy)
22
the last patriotic actor in this country, besides Ronald Reagan, was in my mind, John Wayne...now there was a real American patriot
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 17, 2005 09:00 AM (IJ51c)
23
Didn't think anyone would touch my question. That's the problem. Sticking the head in the sand never solves anything. Clinton proved that.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 18, 2005 10:24 PM (CBNGy)
August 11, 2005
Deport. Radical. Foreign. Muslims. Now.
Should we be following the example of the Brits and deporting foreign nationals that support jihad? Steve Chapman says no. Stephen Green the Vodkapundit says yes. Dale Franks of the QandO blog agrees, and takes Chapman to task. And Goldstein agrees. All four are important essays. Read them all.
Which side is right, though? more...
Posted by: Rusty at
05:42 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1311 words, total size 8 kb.
1
The Brits may have to pay for this Islamist's heart surgery:
http://myerskatt.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_myerskatt_archive.html#112377655056924533
Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:32 PM (uBiDV)
2
They won't be deported just like Atta wasn't. And I predict that some of these people will in fact commit another major act of terror. However, that doesn't change the fact that they should be deported as soon as humanly possible, starting right now!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 06:35 PM (DDXXI)
3
Kitty,
Bakri was arrested in Lebanon today, sparing the British taxpayers.....
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/111483.php
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 11, 2005 06:37 PM (JQjhA)
4
Excellent! Will update my post on KittyLitter.
Posted by: kitty at August 11, 2005 06:49 PM (uBiDV)
5
if these imams are calling for jihad, the death of citizens in the host nation they are living in, than yes, they should be immediatly and without any sort of delay, deported back to any Middle eastern country of their choice...its ridiculous that someone who calls themselves a person who teaches their faith as one of peace and than tells his followers to go out and commit murder in name of their faith should even be given a second chance to stay...out they should go, like the vermin they are
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 06:50 PM (IJ51c)
6
I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 07:43 PM (RHG+K)
7
Rusty, to the contrary, we're WELCOMING radical muslims into the U.S. thanks to the United Nations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050811/ts_nm/iran_bush_dc
Posted by: Jason Smith at August 11, 2005 07:45 PM (TwSjW)
8
You know, I'm down with deporting foreign nationals that "support jihad" if that makes us safer. Aren't you, after all, basically talking about terrorists?
What I find troubling about your essay is this: Deportation, along with virtually every other policy you have advocated on this site, does not seem to lead to greater security. A multitude of analysts argue we are actually less safe now.
The problem(s) here seems to be the right wing interest in appearing strong or in seeking revenge. 9/11 made lots of Americans want to strike out at someone, and that's understandable. But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even.
Will deportation keep determined terrorists from striking? Probably not. Our borders are easily trespassed, and Al Qaeda terrorists are very adept at avoiding authority. I won't continue with this here... you get my basic point I'm sure... but consider this:
If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?
I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway. And that's a problem.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 07:50 PM (zxWKA)
9
how would doing nothing have made us safer from the terrorists from attacking us again, Proffesor???....do you understand the terrorist mind, the Middle Eastern mind???.....these arent just school yard bullies we are dealing with here....you know, school yard bullies will mostly give up on picking on you if you ignore them long enough as they want you to resist, it gives them a rise in their ego's....terrorists and especially the Middle eastern type will see this as you being weak and afraid of them and that you would do anything to make them leave you alone....kidnappings lead to ransoms, bombings lead to blackmail....so, Profesor youre saying that the USA should cower in fear, make payments, give terrorists anything and all they demand, just for peace,eh???....thats the cowards way out and that leads to just making the terrorists braver and wanting to pick on you even more, thats what gets the ego up of the Middle east, doing NOTHING to defend youreself and youre position....if the USA was all like you, Profeesor, we would all either be dead or slaves....youre a real patriot alright, Professor...yea, like Benedict Arnold
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 11, 2005 08:04 PM (IJ51c)
10
Safer by doing nothing? Or safer by being nothing, a deep part of our Jacksonian souls cries for vengance, ruin and American built portable Suns burning over islamobastard warrens. You call for us to destroy our essence and pretend to be French. Professor, profess no more, you do not, will not, know us, speak our language no more.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:10 PM (L6YIl)
11
Deport their American and Freedom loving butts to ANtarctica!
Posted by: William Teach at August 11, 2005 08:25 PM (Pzlrt)
12
Antartica is reserved for oil drilling, Mars for agriculture, Venus for Detuerium mining...
Mecury is available for Professors without a language.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 08:34 PM (L6YIl)
13
Gets kinda hot on Mercury Professor.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 11, 2005 09:20 PM (DDXXI)
14
However we deal with the issue, one thing is clear. Our constitution was not meant to be used as a virus, to destroy us from within.
Posted by: Sigmund, Carl and Alfred at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (dHZc2)
15
"But we should make policy based on rationally expected outcomes, not our desire to get even." - Peter Von Nostrand
Peter. Revenge IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people too weak to defend themselves.
Peter. Punishment IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people bereft of morality and justice.
Peter. Death IS a "rationally expected outcome", unless you believe you are dealing with a people who value forgiveness above survival.
Our enemies made a mistake on a par with the one made by Imperial Japan in 1941. GIGO. They thought that all Americans were weak, like Peter Von Nostrand. It turns out it wasn't so (though you still seek to increase the ranks of the sheep).
The defeat and utter subjugation of the backward and militant Japanese feudal society was a "rationally expected outcome", which came to pass. We can rationally expect nothing less in dealing with our current enemy. Maybe Mecca should not be made to glow for a thousand years as a reminder to Islam of its transgressions. But it is instructive and beneficial for Muslims to hear it openly discussed.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 09:24 PM (RHG+K)
16
Rigtwing efforts to deport jihadis is useless given the Left's goal of erasing our borders. We really do need to defeat the Leftist enemy within before we can even begin to make a dent on the jihadis.
Posted by: Carlos at August 11, 2005 09:39 PM (8e/V4)
17
We'll shade Mecury,a little, if the islamopigs behave.
Posted by: Norden at August 11, 2005 10:05 PM (L6YIl)
18
It looks like greg won't be missed, because the village has a new idiot now. The sad thing is that he has his own blog, but nobody ever visits it except for me and people who end up there by accident. I only visit to taunt him, but it's all echoes in there, and you can't get around for the cobwebs.
I have a question perfesser; hemp or nylon?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 10:51 PM (0yYS2)
19
It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. Rusty?
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 11, 2005 11:05 PM (zxWKA)
20
Peter, that's the trouble with hypotheticals. If they rely on preposterous assumptions, nobody takes them seriously. And rightly so.
But don't go away mad, here's a helpful tip for your blog. If you're going to invent playmates for yourself to comment with, use more imagination with the handles.
Lots of people know that "Dr. Von Nostrand" was an alias used by the character Kramer on "Seinfeld". If your only comments come from "Art Vandalay", well, geez man, that was the character George's alias. You need to explore a new paradigm. Maybe a comment signed by "Phoebe" or "Joey" would be more believable.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 11, 2005 11:21 PM (RHG+K)
21
"It appears that nobody wants to seriously address my hypothetical. "
I tried to get this loser to debate me several times, but he fled the field without firing a shot, then declared victory when I no longer felt like chasing him. Spill it Rusty, dish us some dirt on this waste of elemental compounds if you know him. I bet he gets picked on by kids at the mall, right?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 11, 2005 11:50 PM (0yYS2)
22
It is interesting what we've discovered in this little exercise:
We've discovered that hypotheticals are lost on the Jawa audience.
We've discovered that Bluto, counter to Rusty's assertion that national security is the primary reason for the state, is far more interested in revenge.
We've learned that Phano doesn't know who Benedict Arnold was.
We've discovered that Improbulus continues to search the Internet far and wide for a friend... in vain...
And we've learned that Norden speaks a language that is yet to be identified.
Hmmm... what else can we discover... certainly not a serious answer to the hypothetical "what would you advocate if doing nothing would give you more security than doing something"...
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:13 AM (REz6/)
23
We shouldn't deport them.
We should hang them here.
Publicly.
On every single channel.
Daily.
Posted by: Misha I at August 12, 2005 12:38 AM (IhKPT)
24
Von Nostrand, you pinhead. There's just no other way to put it. You are a stupid, bullheaded person without reading comprehension skills.
I did not say I was interested in revenge for its own sake. The possibility of revenge and retribution is useful for keeping people in line. If they believe their intended victim is too weak or fearful to exact revenge, then they are emboldened. That is a very simple concept.
Next time I respond to one of your natterings, if there is a next time, I'll use the Gunning-Fog index to keep my post at the fourth or fifth grade level, though that's certainly no guarantee you'll understand.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 12, 2005 01:04 AM (RHG+K)
25
Bluto. In other words, you answered the hypothetical by violating the perameters I had set. In other words, you didn't answer it.
Next?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 01:08 AM (REz6/)
26
I have to wonder if there is some coordination among the Wormtongues. They seem rather evenly distributed in the news groups critical of the left. I've noticed them showing up after some absurd leftist idiot like Greg gets shredded and retreats. Ever so "reasonable" they are.
"League of Grima", perhaps?
Sauron = Soros?
Posted by: Phillep at August 12, 2005 01:49 AM (zNjIG)
27
"parameters"
That said, von Nostrand is still pompous. Not to mention an "officious prick". Your perameters(sic) are an excercize in, well, stupidity.
"If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?"
Nothing? Should we do nothing? Doing nothing is what got us here. So your question was answered before 9/11.
I'll tell you what. Here's a parameter. You stay in your little do nothing circle and we'll do our best to save your sorry ass.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:23 AM (YudAC)
28
exercize ;-)
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 07:25 AM (YudAC)
29
If it was clearly known that America would have been safer after 9/11 by doing nothing, than by pursuing any of the policies it did following the attacks... what would you have advocated?
Hypothetically speaking, I would have supported sitting around and doing nothing. But, as has been pointed out, this hypothetical is implausible to the point of being dismissable. Hypothetically speaking, the response to 9/11 that would have rendered us most safe from further attacks would have been to use our psychic mind ray satellites to fry the brains of every anti-America, terrorism-nclined individual on the planet. And I'd have advocated that, too.
I'm tempted to think that you would have supported current policy anyway.
How charitable of you. You're free to believe that, and we're free to reiprocally believe that too many of you on the Left would continue advocating doing nothing even when it's proven that current policy, if imperfect, is still better than that nothing.
Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 09:51 AM (CouWh)
30
Professor Pete, tell ya what i know for a fact...youre arrogant and ignorant, and we know those two go hand in hand for leftists like you who when you know youve lost the arguement, you move the goal posts....nice try, loser...now go pick up youre toys
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 12, 2005 09:54 AM (IJ51c)
31
1. Every Saudi-funded mosque in the US needs to be monitored. 2. Every Islamic center and Islamic Studies program needs to be monitored. 3. The FBI needs to go to every mosque and make it clear that incitement to violence will not be tolerated. 4. Radical "religious" leaders who preach violence must be deported. If naturalized citizens, they should be warned to stop and if they don't, citizenship should be revoked so that they can be deported. 5. No religious visas should be issued to citizens of any country which does not reciprocate. 6. Radical mosques hosting preachers of violence need to be shut down and closed. Change the law if needed. Freedom of speech does not mean license to call for our destructoin. 7. If it takes a presidential Declaration of Emergency to do this, then do it.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 12, 2005 10:33 AM (WzxC8)
32
"I disagree with deportation. It's expensive and they're free to agitate elsewhere. I envision the renovation of Alcatraz as a new radical Islamist mecca."
Screw that! My tax dollars are already paying for gourmet meals, at club GITMO, for these f**kers. If they want to meet their "god", I'm eager to help them. A bullet in the brain is affordable, and suprisingly effective.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 12, 2005 11:30 AM (8sXP/)
33
I like it that the prof thinks the best way to get a bully to stop is by continuing to pay his extortion. I hope the guy doesn't have any kids.
Posted by: Defense Guy at August 12, 2005 11:31 AM (jPCiN)
34
Thanks for answering Brian. I don't like hypotheticals very often either, but in this case I thought it might be useful.
Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant, unless by "nothing" you mean that no countries were invaded counter to the will of 90% of world opinion. Aside from that... you couldn't just answer the question... you couldn't bring yourself to do that, could you.
Of course doing nothing isn't an option. The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security, which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that.
The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner. We, after all, don't want to be blown up either, and are just as interested in national security (perhaps more so) than you are.
Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history.
And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 12, 2005 12:05 PM (REz6/)
35
Oyster, anyone who thinks that "nothing" was done about terrorism before 9/11 is simply ignorant,
I suppose a more accurate response by Oyster would have meen "nothing effective". Your mileage may vary.
The point of the question was to force you to come to grips with the fact that many of you advocate policy based on revenge and the need to look strong, rather than the rational goal of producing more national security,
Actually, I think the argument's also been put forth in this thread that the one actually is a means to the other.
which may require much more subtlety and a hell of a lot more creativity than that.
Or may not, on a case by case basis. I'm inclined to think the two approaches are not as mutually exclusive as you think.
The question should have also forced some of you to realize that those who argue against the war in Iraq are actually acting in a patriotic manner.
Some are, some aren't. For your assertion to be true, it would also have to be true that ALL those opposing the ware share the same motivations, goals, and act to accomplish those goals in the same manner. I submit that the Antiwar movement is not nearly that homogenous. Some members of it fit your best idealistic description. Some fit our worst demonized description. many fall somewhere in the middle, on both lines of the patriotism boundary.
Funny thing, you guys are already on to tarring the left for your own invented hypothetical nuclear explosion that hasn't happened yet! It's as if you're admitting that your approach will fail, and that it is likely to produce what would be the single greatest calamity in American history.
Rather, we're preparing for the worst, regardless of whether we believe it will happen or not.
Realistically speaking, There's no guarantee nothing like this will ever happen, regardless of the course of actions we take. Even if we're right, it's possible we're not right enough. But that can be said of everyone, no?
And you have the nerve to suggest that the anti-war position is unpatriotic. Shame.
Again, the use of the definitive article is the weak point in that admonition.
Posted by: Brian B at August 12, 2005 12:57 PM (CouWh)
36
Nostrand: Again you put words in everyone's mouths because you disagree with a few. And add to that the fact that you do it in an "I'm morally superior" manner simply causes others to reject you. Your question was shortsighted and senseless. Period. To answer it in the manner "you" see fit, or at all, is to lend it legitimacy. You can take my statement that we did nothing as literally as you want, if it makes your argument fit better. 'kay?
Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends. Your lefty friends would flock to our side in a stampede. They eschew Christian morals and don't want them "pushed" on them, and yet, they wish to allow those within their midst who will push harder even stricter and more harmful dogmas on them. What hypocrisy.
To answer Rusty's question which, is very legitimate: How do I feel about deporting these goons? I think if they can make a law that makes it okay to deport them then it should be enough to lock them up. If it's cost some are worried about, they're costing us money anyway, here or abroad. And they're no less a threat somewhere else.
Posted by: Oyster at August 12, 2005 01:14 PM (fl6E1)
37
Oyster. I'm sorry. But my position is morally superior, no matter whether your top priority is national security, or reducing violence elsewhere.
"Take every bit of text on the web and replace the words Muslim and Islam with Christian and Christianity and take your current stance. I think you'll find "you" would have very few friends."
What on earth are you talking about? Nevermind. Don't answer.
I'm out.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 13, 2005 01:55 PM (JVdjp)
Bin Laden's True Ambitions
Posted by: Rusty at
04:35 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.
August 09, 2005
How we Lost the War on Terror
Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here --Sign over the gates of hell in Dante's Inferno. 
The key to winning a war, any war, is to convince the other side that there is no hope for success. Killing the enemy or controlling territory are not enough to win, but are only important inasmuch as they send the signal to the enemy that there is no use in fighting--you cannot possibly win.
As long as there is hope, there is will to fight.
[Below: an image from a recent al Qaeda in Afghanistan video distributed on the internet. The man pictured has a British accent and calls on Muslims everywhere to come to Afghanistan and fight the 'lies' of Blair & Bush.]
Are we winning the war against Islamic jihad? No. Let us step back for a moment and assess the situation for a moment.
We have conquered two countries which fomented jihad. We have killed or captured tens of thousands of violent jihadies. We have recruited the vast majority of world governments in fighting against the global jihadi network. Nowhere on earth, today, can the jihadis openly train for war against the United States. Nowhere.
Every battle we have waged we have won. In fact, on paper, the war is over. We have won. Time to go home.
Yet, in spite of the facts on the ground, the jihad is still waged. We have not lost, but we we are not winning either.
The jihad movement is not shrinking. It is growing. It is as if nobody told the jihadis that they were losing. That they do not know that they have been defeated at every turn. That they are unaware that there is no hope for victory in Iraq. That the global caliphate is a pipe dream.
This is exactly what is happening. The jihadis believe they are winning, or, at least, that they can win.
[Below: An image from a recent jihadi propaganda video distributed on the internet. The video claims that it was made in Sweden. The message in the video is clear: we can build bombs in the West with impunity and we will use them against you]
We have won every battle we have waged, yet we are losing the war.
There is one battle which we have lost. It is the most important battle, yet the one least understood. It is the battle which will ultimately decide the war. It is the battle that we have not yet decided to fight. It is the propaganda battle. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
04:34 PM
| Comments (49)
| Add Comment
Post contains 3255 words, total size 23 kb.
1
Oh yeah there is a battle all right a short sighted press is fighting for the enemy right now.
Posted by: Howie at August 09, 2005 03:37 PM (D3+20)
2
I haven't seen "Weapons of Mass Deception" yet, but I think it tries to say that the U.S. is fighting unfairly with our hugely superior propoganda methods. Basically saying that we're evil for employing information warfare tactics.
I am gonna sit down and watch it tonight, if I can sit through the entire thing. The book Information Warfare and Security speaks of how much info warfare we used the first time in Iraq. Constantly dropping leaflets from planes, basic supplies for civilians, and the constant message that there's no use in fighting because they can't win.
I don't know if these tactics simply aren't being used now or if we aren't being told of their use. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. wouldn't use info warfare very heavily, we know it's effective.
Posted by: tyler at August 09, 2005 03:39 PM (Y9Lwb)
3
We are using info warfare, but it is the kind of info warfare we waged 15 years ago. Times have changed, tactics must too.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 03:46 PM (JQjhA)
4
What our leaders failed to comprehend was the fifth column of non-Islamic traitors we have in the US. These people have been facilitated by the media just as they were during the Vietnam War. Most people find it hard to believe that there are a large number of people in the US who want their country to lose to the Islamists. Not because of their love for Islam, but their hate for Bush. What they are too stupid to understand is the implication of a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq.
I predicted two years ago that the Islamists could mount an insurgency in Britain and France and am glad to see that British intelligence now agrees with my assessment. The people of Europe have been disarmed and would be at the complete mercy of well trained and motivated jihadis. I have little doubt that the Islamists could succeed if they had a way of being resupplied. That, I believe, is the only thing holding them back.
Incidently, we are letting the same people into the US. They are from such countries as Somalia, Lebanon, Egypt, Eritria, Ethiopia, and the Sudan. Almost all these men have military training and know how to handle small arms and explosives. They are very dangerous, and would be suplemented by more who are coming across our southern border undetected. This is another reason that we must get control of our borders.
With most of our military overseas, I can see why the jihadis might be tempted to hit us hard, and I believe that is just what they are going to do. And soon. I hope you are prepared, Rusty.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 09, 2005 03:55 PM (DDXXI)
5
The CIA for some reason is not allowed to shut down Jihadi supporting groups like CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN and such toilet rags as the New York Times. Shame. I would be happy if they just started offing editors or reporters who support the Jihadis.
The UK is deporting the filth yet we still allow them to plot and act against us right here in Brooklyn.
Death to the Jihadi and all of it's supporters. Where ever they may hide.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 09, 2005 03:56 PM (5ceWd)
6
Rusty:
On a slightly more somber note (if that's even possible) the South became convinced they couldn't win by the combination of Sherman's March to the Sea, and the appalling losses Grant was willing to take on the battlefield without batting an eye as he sought repeatedly to outflank Lee. The seminal event was the Burning of Atlanta, which convinced a sufficient number of Copperhead leaning northerners that we could win.
The bottom line here is that there's nothing like leveling with the American people. There's a grand old tradition of politicians asking people for their vote. What we need here is a President willing to ask people for their willing sacrifice. "D" or "R" just doesn't matter.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 09, 2005 04:20 PM (IbWE6)
7
Rusty:
Oh yeah, I also wanted to say that this post is an absolute home frickin' run! Way to go dude!
Posted by: Demosophist at August 09, 2005 04:24 PM (IbWE6)
8
I agree. Shut the websites down. Tell the ISP that if they host another jihai site, then the ISP is shut down. Throw in a little monetary fine if they persist. We are at war, and I imagine that it's going to escalate to a nastier level before long. It's time the government started acting like we're at war. Wartime censorship is nothing new. We should also be monitoring every Saudi-funded mosque in the country, and deporting any "religious leader" who advocates for jihad or for harm against the US, our allies, or non muslims.
Posted by: Scott in CA at August 09, 2005 04:30 PM (5sKx5)
9
Funny..I always thought a "battle" was between two visible armies, usually with distinct uniforms and identifiable markings. You can't have a fair fight with this bunch of cowardly pussies. More fool them if they believe in the koran and it's lies as well as that 72 virgins crap. No free woman would ever want to sleep with one of these greasy perverts.
Posted by: Jester at August 09, 2005 04:32 PM (2FYdV)
10
Funny..I always thought a "battle" was between two visible armies, usually with distinct uniforms and identifiable markings. You can't have a fair fight with this bunch of cowardly pussies. More fool them if they believe in the koran and its lies as well as that 72 virgins crap. No free woman would ever want to sleep with one of these greasy perverts.
Posted by: Jester at August 09, 2005 04:32 PM (2FYdV)
11
Can the war of ideas be won with virtiually the entire Entrenched Media cheerleading for the other side?
Posted by: traderrob at August 09, 2005 04:47 PM (3al54)
12
Dr. Rusty I'm with you man!
We have much the same views on this war. Now how do we get the government to engage the enemy is this war of ideology. We must show the world that Islamofascism is doomed to failure just like Nazism, Communism, and Fascisim and many others that do not recognize the universal truth of the free will of men and women.
I've probably said this here before would a military commaner ever allow the enemy to gain air superiority over the battlefield? Hell NO!
Essentially we have allowed the enemy free run of CyberSpace in this war of ideas. The LL and the MSM are off in some self-flagellation of self pitty and are in theory and practice "rooting" for the enemy to the detriment of the American people.
The American taxpayer is funding the US Military to provide a level playing field in the global economy for the likes of IBM, Intel, Cisco, Covad, MS, Novel, AMD, ATT, and other IT giants to make a profit for their shareholders.
The least they could do in return is to disable the blocking and filtering of the free flow of info and ideas on the Net, the Blogos, cell phones, and text paging - Yo the Mad Mullahs of Iran and the Chinese who are the real enemy in this war.
These tryannical regimes will melt away like the Wicked Witch of the East did in the Wizard of OZ under the intense scrunity of the free world. The power of "Great Lie" to control the masses, fades when the truth is known.
Follow the links in this related post re the Pirates of the Barbary Coast and the GWOT. Also follow the links to other posts at Dean's World, Winds of Change, Roger L. Simon, and LGF:
Pirates and GWOT Link
Posted by: Ron Wright at August 09, 2005 04:58 PM (0XTbN)
13
Rusty -
the war of ideas is waged on blogs like this...and plenty of propaganda is sent around that way too. I don't think we have won, but we have not lost yet.
Posted by: Mr. K at August 09, 2005 05:25 PM (21AkZ)
14
I think the various components of the US "left" are too arrogant and chauvinistic to understand that Islam is a threat to them as well as their "enemies", the conservatives and classical liberals. 9-11 knocked that silliness out of some of them, but the lesson is wearing off and the news media is doing all it can to get them to forget.
Moslems regard the US "left" as more despicable than the US conservatives. If the left is able to gain ascendancy over the US, they will face an enemy that truly hates them for what they are. I think that the present Jihad is rather half hearted, compared to what we would see then.
Posted by: Phillep at August 09, 2005 05:28 PM (YqSRO)
15
We have conquered two countries which fomented jihad.
How can you lie like this Rusty?
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 06:21 PM (zxWKA)
16
Er, did I miss the part where the Taliban weren't institutionalized jihadis or where Saddam Hussein didn't send checks to jihadi martyrs who murdered Jews in Israel?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 06:24 PM (JQjhA)
17
By the way... you ARE winning the propaganda battle. How else do you think Bush won re-election? Regarding your comment yesterday that "the right has its crazies under control"... The right's crazies are in the White House!
Look at the blogosphere. Dominated by the right.
Look at the nightly news. No real explorations of the logic behind the war on terror.
Face the fact that I and many others have been pointing out from day 1... military action has created more terrorists than it has killed. It turns moderates into potential suicide bombers and mass killers. Am I excusing the actions of terrorists? Hell no! But if you aren't interested in knowing why terrorism can't be fought the way you want it to be fought then it is you who is blinded by ideology, not me or the left.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 06:27 PM (zxWKA)
18
On the contrary, you are so far to the Left that you cannot distinguishh the center. Bush is a center-rightist, just as Clinton was a center-leftist.
I also understand that my ideology distorts my world view. I do not claim that I know what objective truth is, only my perception of it. Can you say the same?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 06:32 PM (JQjhA)
19
Er, did I miss the part where the Taliban weren't institutionalized jihadis or where Saddam Hussein didn't send checks to jihadi martyrs who murdered Jews in Israel?
Re: the Taliban, you are correct.
Re: Saddam Hussein... Jesus H. Christ, Rusty. If you are going to be so dishonest as to suggest that Saddam freaking Hussein was at all interested in "fomenting jihad" then there is just no hope for you. Hussein had been acknowledged by a multitude of scholars as a predictable realist tyrant. Now you can try to blur the issue and focus on the fact that he was a tyrant, about which there is absolutely no argument. Or, you can focus on my point, which is absolutely rock solid: Hussein was about as far as you could get from a "jihadist" and, like all of the Middle Eastern dictators, supported extremist positions only when politically necessary. You know this to be true, Rusty. I know you, and I know you aren't ignorant of my point.
Funny thing... if you carry out the logic of your argument, the U.S. should have gone after Saudi Arabia first.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 06:38 PM (zxWKA)
20
I'd like to get in on this, but that post was way too long.
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at August 09, 2005 06:43 PM (VrYbI)
21
Just because Saddam didn't support al Qaeda, does not mean he did not support violent jihad. He did. That is a historical fact. If you can't accept that Hamas, Hezboallah, and Islamic Jihad are, er, jihadi groups, then there really is no room for discussion.
Supporting jihad does not necessarily mean supporting all jihadi groups. Syria, for instance, is both a secular government and also a big-time fomenter of jihad--but it is jihad aimed at Jews.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 06:45 PM (JQjhA)
22
On the contrary, you are so far to the Left that you cannot distinguishh the center. Bush is a center-rightist, just as Clinton was a center-leftist.
Sorry. But regarding foreign policy it is fairly ludicrous to argue that Bush is "center-rightist"... and I find this vague referencing of labels to be a bit silly in the first place... (go ahead and say I don't know what the word "silly" means like a pompous ass)
I also understand that my ideology distorts my world view. I do not claim that I know what objective truth is, only my perception of it. Can you say the same?
Uh... take a look at our two blogs Rusty. Among the two, which do you think would be considered more reasonable by scholars we both know?
Look in the mirror. You are one of the right wing extremists.
I acknowledge being far to the left, but I think it is just as plain as day obvious that I am far more committed to reasonable and rational approaches to evidence and policy. Dude, you called for the bombing of Mecca. Please.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 06:47 PM (zxWKA)
23
Just because Saddam didn't support al Qaeda, does not mean he did not support violent jihad. He did. That is a historical fact. If you can't accept that Hamas, Hezboallah, and Islamic Jihad are, er, jihadi groups, then there really is no room for discussion.
And this is enough of you to support invading Iraq as the second major policy decision in the war on terror. The sad thing is you know my point, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Even funnier, I'm not asserting anything that a large number of mainstream analysts would argue. You're way out on the right, Rusty. Come back to sanity.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 06:52 PM (zxWKA)
24
Extremist? Well, er, ok. I'm not sure what the hell you mean by that. I'm certainly not a 'right-wing' extremist, but I may be an extreme patriot. And I say fuck off to any one who doesn't want our country to win its wars.
This is war we are talking about, not sholarly research.
Save your scolarly research for the peer reviewed journals.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 06:54 PM (JQjhA)
25
Don't say I was lying, then, when clearly I wasn't. I did not know what your larger point was embedded in your diatribe as it was.
My post is not about whether we should have invaded Iraq. The historical fact is that we DID. The time for that discussion is past. The question now, is how do we win?
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 07:12 PM (JQjhA)
26
I just popped a zit on my back, and thus call him Mohammed. His brains were white and tinted with blood. allah akbar!
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 07:38 PM (Kv4B9)
27
I wish to join the anti-jihadi jihad! Please someone teach me to track and hack jihadi websites.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 07:40 PM (Kv4B9)
28
Professor Peter Von Nostrand,
Read my post above and check your frame of reference with others. You may find your frame of reference re Islamofascism is a bit skewed.
The 2nd generation folks in London were on course to blow themselves up before 9/11, Afganistan, Iraq, Madrid, and London. The Islamofascists (AQ and federation of other jihadists) declared war on us in the earlier 90's. It was only on 9/11 did we tend to take notice.
You can fault all the previous administrations including Bush I back to the 60s both R and D that have followed a strategic foreign policy in the ME of one of stability regardless of the tryanny and repressiveness of the governments we chose to support.
GWB has broken from this past policy and has announced to the world the US will no longer tolerate these represive regimes in the ME. We will no longer actively or passively support them against the will of their people. We are on the right course and we have nothing to apologize for regardless of what the Euro Weenies may whine.
If she hasn't already done so, standby, Dr. Rice in the very near future will take her little black coat and her sexy black boots to Saudi for a come to "Jesus meeting" and discuss the facts of life with the House of Saud. They have no military to protect them. We can drive a hard bargain right now for real governmental reform and equal rights for women. If they are relunctant to cooperate Dr. Rice can let those boots start walkin:
Animated Link
Audio -These boots are made for walkin
We don't care about their deal with the Devil (Wahhabies) to fund their religious madrassahs all over the world in exchange for allowing the Sauds to continue to "protect" Medina and Mecca and plunder the oil resources of the Arabian desert.
They are scared "shitless" of a revolt led by their prodogigal son OBL. The one thing that OBL has gotten right is the House of Saud are the biggest hypocrites in the World of Islam.
Posted by: Ron Wright at August 09, 2005 07:56 PM (6Aikz)
29
Sorry folks but the animated link bombed. Try this one:
Animated Link
or
http://www.nancysinatra.com/intro.html
Posted by: Ron Wright at August 09, 2005 08:05 PM (6Aikz)
30
Okay, zit joke aside, 9/11 seems to have created some illusionary transition zone, which we supposedly crossed. It is painted as if we had no cares in the world and no security in airports. Just pause, and think back, I for instance remember having my camera bag and ALICE pack searched in Seattle before boarding a flight in 1997. The Jihad has been on since the 1940's when Israel was established as a Jewish homeland. Evil never dies. It just restablished itself back in the cradle of civilization, and just in time to try and turn the clock back to some wet dream about the return of Saladin or some silly fantasy. (Iwould like some blue cheese dressing on my Saladin, to go with my baby back ribs please.Don't forget the bacon bits. The real ones, not that soy protien crap Mohammed reccomends.) Get off the Iraqi dick please! This Jihad is crap!The Jihad was in place in 72 in Munich, It was in place in the skies above Lockerbie, It was there in 83 when my brothers we killed in Beirut. At least in Beirut, Christians are fighting back without shame! I don't know if Rusty or Dick, er I mean Peter are really so called intellectuals, but an over vocabulated diatribe, does not a dialogue make. Circumlocution, yep I know big words, though I may spell them incorrectly some times.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 08:17 PM (Kv4B9)
31
The jihad has been on since the 7th century. The violent one frittered away after WWI, but its back at front and center since 9-11-01. The silent one has been ongoing all along, and is the greater threat.
Posted by: Mr. K at August 09, 2005 08:25 PM (zkVyW)
32
Nostrand has let his perceptions become so twisted that he can't see straight: "Blogosphere is dominated by right," is it, Perfessor?
Well explain Technorati ranking the America-hating leftist-promoting KOS two levels above LGF, a fact-based website promoting awareness of the aims, actions and attitudes of Islamo-fascism and its apologists today!
***
And IF we want to win the war on propaganda, let's play the biggest trump-card of all: Publicly accept the validity of Islam's Hadith promising the coming/return of the 12th Imam, the Holy Qaim, and publicly broadcast, in Arabic, the news of His Coming in 1260 AH, (May 23, 1844)!
By using THEIR sacred traditions in a way which does not denigrate or deny them, we say "They're right, and here is their fulfillment, and the Holy One has come in the Glory of God!"
We can catalyze the near-instantaneous conversion by troops, of hundreds of millions of used-to-be-Muslims into Followers of the Light!
Posted by: Karridine at August 09, 2005 08:30 PM (67/h4)
33
By "catalyze", do you mean in a literal sense, including extreme temperatures? and really bright light?
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 08:40 PM (Kv4B9)
34
By "catalyze", do you mean in a literal sense, including extreme temperatures? And really bright light?
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 08:40 PM (Kv4B9)
35
I would like the good professor to tell us how he would fight the war against terror. Surely he doesn't want to follow the two guys on the left, i.e. Carter and Clinton. They sure as hell failed.
The left has always been quick with the critisism and slow with any answers. I'm waiting......
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 09, 2005 08:42 PM (DDXXI)
36
Sorry, man, but hadiths don't carry the weight of Koranic versus. The 'sayings' are more like traditions, and thus are not 'proof' of the illegitemacy of Islam.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 08:42 PM (JQjhA)
37
I learn new stuff every day I read this blog. Now I have to read up on hadiths.
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 09:03 PM (Kv4B9)
38
Don't shut the jihadi sites down. Take them over. Publish our own propaganda and let the potential jihadis think the original owners are still posting.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 09, 2005 09:38 PM (RHG+K)
39
Rusty. Dude. I almost drank a 44 oz. tank of Mountain Dew just to try and establish some sort of common ground with you... but I just can't do it. When you suggest that Saddam's regime was more committed to fomenting jihad than it was to, say, its own survival, then you have reached the point where you are lying. It is the same sort of lie that the righties have pushed when they suggest that because Al Qaeda cells were operating in northern Iraq, Saddam was behind 9/11. It is pure distortion.
Also, stop suggesting the left doesn't support the truth, or that I have to support all American wars in order to be as patriotic as you.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 09:49 PM (zxWKA)
40
Here is why we can't win.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165210,00.html
Posted by: kstumpf at August 09, 2005 09:51 PM (Kv4B9)
41
I never ever suggested or alluded to "Saddam's regime was MORE committed to fomenting jihad than it was to, say, its own survival". I'm not sure how you read that in to anything I have written. Please stop using the word 'lie'. I have defendd you from my readers who have accused you of much, much worse. Please do not make me regret that.
I have never tried to establish a direct or indirect connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. But, as you know, al Qaeda is A jihadi organization, not THE jihadi organization. There are other jihadi organizations, and these organizations were supported by Saddam.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 09, 2005 10:02 PM (JQjhA)
42
Rusty, Do you honestly think I care if any of your readers accuse me of "much, much worse"? Honestly dude. Most of these people are stark raving mad, and their opinion means jack squat. It's funny. The reason why I and other lefties blog anonymously is to avoid having to worry about right wing nuts and what they might do. Meanwhile, I suspect your reasoning (and that of much of the anonymous right) is fundamentally different and much more closely related to the offensive nature of your content. Bombing Mecca? Dude, there is no moral justification for that kind of extremism, and you need to own that shit.
Anyhow, I calls them as I sees them, and in my non-scholarly journal opinion, your claim that "we have conquered two countries which fomented jihad" rises to the level of a lie. It is meant to suggest something that is false given any sort of commitment to proportionality. Maybe I'm wrong and you just disagree with what the vast majority of analysts believe, but I find it hard to accept that you are really committed to the idea that Saddam was a jihadist (or anything close to it), because almost all the evidence suggests quite the opposite. If anything, he wanted to kill those bastards even more than you do! Which is hard to believe but nevertheless, true. Dude! We (i.e. the same idiots like Rumsfeld who decided to invade Iraq) started supporting the guy precisely because he represented a counterveiling power relative to Islamic extremists! Come on!
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 09, 2005 11:21 PM (zxWKA)
43
kstumpf:
Hadith (Arabic): From MSA:
Reports on the sayings and the traditions of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) or what he witnessed and approved are called Hadith. These are the real explanation, interpretation, and the living example of the Prophet (s.a.w.) for teachings of the Qur'an. His sayings are found in books called the Hadith books. Some famous collectors of Hadith are Imam Al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam An-Nasa'i, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam At-Tirmizi, and Imam Majah. There are many others.
The hadith are the written collections of the sunnah* (sacralized traditions), and are interpreted literally, as all debate concerning their veracity was finished over a millennium ago.
Now you just have to read up on the Sunnah:
# sunnah From MSA:
In general, the word Sunnah means habit, practice, customary procedure, or action, norm and usage sanctioned by tradition. In specific, any time the word Sunnah is mentioned, it is to refer to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.). Here it means his sayings, practices, living habits. The Hadith are reports on the Sunnah. The two major legal sources of jurisprudence in Islam are the Quran and the Sunnah. The Sunnah may confirm what is mentioned in Qur'an, interpret and explain it, specify what is meant by some general verses, limit and restrict the meaning of some verse in it, or may explain something that has been revealed in Qur'an. The Sunnah has a high authority in Islam; and Allah in many places in the Qur'an orders the Muslims to follow the teachings of Prophet Mohammad (s.a.w.).
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at August 09, 2005 11:23 PM (Kr6/f)
44
Meh! Nothing against you Rusty but you have it all wrong. I'm a firm believer in "If you get them by their throat their hearts and minds will follow." Nothing's over til it's over but I'd say that we are winning the propaganda battle as well. ^_~
Posted by: Small Pink Mouse at August 10, 2005 01:01 AM (6krEN)
45
"I have never tried to establish a direct or indirect connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. But, as you know, al Qaeda is A jihadi organization, not THE jihadi organization. There are other jihadi organizations, and these organizations were supported by Saddam."
Saddam invades Kuwait in 1990. The US sets up bases in Saudi Arabia, and then kicks Saddam's ass out. The US stays in SA, the muslim holy moley land, and enforces no fly zones and other UN sanctions. Osama, the jihadist, declares jihad against all Americans and other related infidels, because they are in SA, the muslim holy moley lands, kicking secular Saddam's sorry ass. Meanwhile, some of Osama's muj visit Iraq, meet with Saddam's henchmen, for tea. Later, boats explode run into our warship and explode, our embassies are blown up, planes fly into our buildings, and Osama claims credit. Therefore, there is a connection between Saddam and Osama.
How about a little post doc work on that, you and cowbytheudders team up?
Posted by: Mr. K at August 10, 2005 05:25 AM (LRec9)
46
"I have never tried to establish a direct or indirect connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. But, as you know, al Qaeda is A jihadi organization, not THE jihadi organization. There are other jihadi organizations, and these organizations were supported by Saddam."
Saddam invades Kuwait in 1990. The US sets up bases in Saudi Arabia, and then kicks Saddam's ass out. The US stays in SA, the muslim holy moley land, and enforces no fly zones and other UN sanctions. Osama, the jihadist, declares jihad against all Americans and other related infidels, because they are in SA, the muslim holy moley lands, kicking secular Saddam's sorry ass. Meanwhile, some of Osama's muj visit Iraq, meet with Saddam's henchmen, for tea. Later, boats run into our warship and explode, our embassies are blown up, planes fly into our buildings, and Osama claims credit. Therefore, there is a connection between Saddam and Osama.
How about a little post doc work on that, you and cowbytheudders team up?
Posted by: Mr. K at August 10, 2005 05:27 AM (LRec9)
47
What Beth said! Double!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 10, 2005 10:24 AM (DDXXI)
48
Von Nostril back to your empty blog and shrink.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 10, 2005 04:03 PM (oKjnh)
49
I just watched a documentary on the Gaza Strip called "Death In Gaza". EVERYONE needs to watch this to get an understanding of what is going on in the Arabic world to propigate their hatred of the west. It is available on Netflix.
NOTE: This video was supposed to be propaganda against the west. But hearing what is being taught in school and at home and what the little children are taught to say from the time they are old enough to speak, is astonishing.
Posted by: Brad J at August 11, 2005 11:28 AM (Kk4wv)
August 08, 2005
Jihadis Training Child Terrorists
A new video produced by Iraqi terrorists shows children preparing to join the jihad. The video may be downloaded here or here. (via Doubletap at Vlad's forum). Images from the video are below.
At first I thought the video might be something like jihadi porn. A girl is shown in a burka with slow-motion close-ups of her exposed hands. That'll get your every day camel-humping jihadi terrorist hot and bothered. Show some skin baby!
But then, if you listen to the girls voice, you realize she is just a child. Perhaps in her early teens at best. Ok, so maybe it's just a young sounding shahid on her way to inherit her 72 grapes from the Lord of Moons.
Later in the video, though, another child joins the scene. This one is very young. Definitely a child. Both now carry pistols, praise Allah, and cry for vengance.
Disgusting. I often hear from the Left that the War in Iraq has left thousands of children dead and millions more with no hope. However, what kind of society that would be created if we were to give up and pull out? Just one more reason we must win in Iraq. It's for the children. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
01:34 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Also Rusty I read a while back that the Taliban are recruiting/ demanding younger and younger boys to join them in SE Afghanistan. They have been hit hard this year and it shows their desperation.
Posted by: Howie at August 08, 2005 03:08 PM (D3+20)
2
I'm not sure it shows their desperation as much as their disregard for the sanctity of childhood innocennce and life.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 08, 2005 03:14 PM (JQjhA)
3
"...disregard for the sanctity of childhood innocennce and life."
Rusty: Perhaps they think that this life is only tissue, too.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 08, 2005 03:21 PM (x+5JB)
4
Rusty YBP agreed.
Posted by: Howie at August 08, 2005 03:24 PM (D3+20)
5
but still they are running short on able bodied men. Good deal.
Posted by: Howie at August 08, 2005 03:26 PM (D3+20)
6
I agree, we do need to win this war, and not only for the
children, but for the women also. We also need to have the
Iraqi scrap any part of the new constitution that even smells
of the old Taliban regime. And even if they do believe this
life is just "tissue", they don't give it the value that some
of do once it is a life.
Posted by: Butch at August 08, 2005 03:49 PM (Gqhi9)
7
just like what the Palies do to their poor children...a little brainwashing, teach alot of hatred and viola, you got a little terrorist....such wonderfull people, these Islamicfascists, aint they???...well, they have said that they love Allah more than their families so this kind of disgusting act coming from the Muslims doesnt really surprise me, at least not much...and we know that the taliban in Afghanistan has been using children to fill its ranks as it runs out of adult idiots...its just spreading to Iraq is all....in a way this is both good and bad news....bad because now Marines have to worry about wether the little kid across the street is carrying an AK-47 or a suicide vest under his clothes and if he will have to kill a child, good in the fact that this shows the terrorists in Iraq seem to have a man shortage problem, at least for now as we can see
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 08, 2005 03:59 PM (IJ51c)
August 06, 2005
We Send Men and Women to Fight, Not "Kids" You Idiot
Perhaps the worst red-herring argument made by the Left against any war (remember, these guys were against Afghanistan every bit as much as Iraq--and the Gulf War, Panama, Grenada, Cold War, Vietnam, etc.), is the ol' "Would you send your kids to this war?" As if any parent would volunteer any child to be sent to any war. Palestinian parents, excepted.
Phil Hendrie reminds us that our all volunteer army is not made up of children. They are men and women, and damn fine ones at that:
To call the great professional men and women who serve in our armed forces "kids" is a semantical tactic employed by my Poseur Leftist friends. They know that by tossing this little hand grenade into the mix any hope one has for a debate on fact, as opposed to hysterical rumor, flies right out the window. Who can not, at a moment like that, bow their head, and ponder ever so deeply, the meaning of children dying in a war.Next time you see one of our brave soldiers at a restaraunt or bar, do America a favor and pick up their tab. Oh, and if you happen to come across Michael Moore, do America a favor and and give him a good swift kick in the ass.Ladies and Gentlemen, calling these great people, part of the best trained and best equipped military in the history of the world, "kids" is an obscene insult.
And it's intended as one....
Calling professional and very adult American soldiers "kids" is only one weapon in the emotional ammo dump the Poseur-Left keeps rummaging through. Unsubstantiated but oft-repeated and provocative charges of war crime, torture and over-kill keep the easily confused all the more easily confused. The very people who ask for infinitesimal and undeniable proof of WMD's and terror links offer nothing but ludicrous rumor and gossip to bolster their arguments.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:48 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You should bravely come out in favor of apple pie and mom in your next post.
Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 06, 2005 12:51 PM (REz6/)
2
I hate apple pie, but I do love your mother.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 06, 2005 12:54 PM (JQjhA)
3
What about someone picking up my tab every once in a while?
Posted by: Leopold Stotch at August 06, 2005 02:34 PM (MGVqW)
4
That's easy. Just turn yourself into a 5'9" stacked blonde chick.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 06, 2005 02:35 PM (JQjhA)
5
blonde - check!
chick - check!
5'9" - close enough
stacked - damn! no wonder I pick up my own tab.
Posted by: elisa at August 06, 2005 02:56 PM (LP2Sk)
6
I tried Von Nostril's mother. Now I know why ragheads prefer goats.
Any of you liberal assholes who believe my 26 year old Marine is a kid just bring your money. All bets will be covered.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 06, 2005 06:17 PM (CBNGy)
August 05, 2005
Jewish Terrorist Killed by Mob
I just found this story, courtesy of Glenn Beck's program:
At least three people were killed Thursday when a Jewish man dressed as a border guard opened fire on a bus in a northern Israeli village.Glenn Beck tells the story this way:The shooter was killed when assaulted by a mob of bystanders on the bus in the town of Shfaram in the northern Galilee region. About a dozen people were hurt.
The shooter boards the bus, shoots the bus driver, and two girls, ages 20-something. A policeman attempts to get the situation back under control. The shooter stops shooting to reload his gun. He is then attacked by others on the bus, who started hurling objects at him and beating him up. Then more people who had been watching the proceedings as the bus passed boarded the bus, and proceeded to kill this terrorist.
The real kicker is that the police had been tipped off about this particular terrorist, 19-year-old Eden Tzuberi. Tzuberi had deserted his post in the military about a month previously.
Guess who tipped off the police that this guy was a threat?
His parents.
This is a sad story. It's sad that it's come to this--civilians getting shot in buses, and other civilians taking justice into their own hands.
Terrorists, be warned. Don't think we'll sit there and just take it...
UPDATE by Rusty: Omri, blogging from Thorley Hall if I'm correct, sums the episode up nicely (via Charles Johnson):
And of course, the biggest difference is that when a Jewish terrorist kills Arabs, Jews call him a terrorist. When an Arab terrorist kills Jews, he's something else.Indeed. It's not that non-Muslim cultures never produce terrorists, it's just that it is only in Muslim cultures that we find political and religious authorities justifying terrorism at the highest levels. James Joyner has background on the story here.
Posted by: Suzanne at
12:33 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Civilians taking things into their own hands is the only way things get done in certain circumstances. It shouldn't have to come to that, but that's reality.
I'd gladly take the situation into my own hands. I would derive great pleasure from getting rid of one of these guys.
Posted by: tyler at August 05, 2005 12:38 PM (Y9Lwb)
2
Good work, fellow-irates!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 05, 2005 06:47 PM (3+9IT)
Bob Novak is a Whiny Bitch
I've been on vacation, so I don't know how the rest of the world is reacting to Bob Novak walking off of CNN, but my first reaction--before seeing the full video-- was that it just made him look like a whiny bitch. My second thought was that the ragin' cajun must have really said something outrageous to get Novak to say 'bullshit' on the air and walk off. Then I saw the video. It tuns out Novak is just a whiny bitch.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:37 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mickey Kaus thinks it may have been calculated to avoid answering questions about the Plame case, related to a statement he made recently about the Who's Who compendium. There was a copy of it on the desk, so someone was winding up to throw him a viscious pitch.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 05, 2005 11:09 AM (IbWE6)
2
That was bizarre. I agree it may have been related to Plame, or maybe he was just having a really bad day.
Posted by: Carlos at August 05, 2005 11:15 AM (8e/V4)
3
He pulled a Howie
Posted by: Howie at August 05, 2005 12:36 PM (D3+20)
4
Since it was snakehead he walked out on, I'd give Novak some slack. I don't buy the Who's Who fear factor - like Bob doesn't know folks are going to ask him about that?!? Don't think so. But the exchange doesn't warrant a BS exit. It's Carville, fer cryin' out loud. Yeah, whiny.
Posted by: tee bee at August 05, 2005 04:21 PM (q1JHF)
5
Personally, I am glad someone finally called it like it is. I might have punched that greasy bastard in the nose if it had been me he was talking to.
Posted by: Kstumpf at August 05, 2005 05:56 PM (UGyp2)
6
Okay, so now I'm offended! You know, Ted Kennedy once porked a Lebanese girl from Crowley, but that don't make a cajun any more than lizzard head is.
Posted by: Bullshark at August 05, 2005 09:46 PM (VFgdb)
August 04, 2005
New Zawahiri Tape Warns of New Attacks
Ayman al-Zawahiri has released a brand new video tape warning England of more attacks "because of Tony Blair's foreign policy decisions."
The al-Qaeda deputy said: "Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing."
In all fairness, Zawahiri and Al Qaida threatened England before Blair was in power, but why let the facts get in the way of a rambling psychopath.
The Associated Press offers a bit more from the video tape.
Referring to the Western nations contributing troops to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, he said: "As to the nations of the crusader alliance, we have offered you a truce if you leave the land of Islam."Hasn't Sheik Osama bin Laden told you that you will not dream of security before there is security in Palestine and before all the infidel armies withdraw from the land of Muhammed?" al-Zawahri added.
Al Qaida, under Osama Bin Laden, did offer European nations a truce and later rescinded the offering two months after the time period was up. The problem is that one of the main goals of Al Qaida is to topple Europe and turn it into a Sharia Law waste dump. It is part of the Caliphate state they wish to accomplish, therefore it is just more of the incoherrent ramblings of Zawahiri.
Where is this Bin Laden promised tape? According to various jihadi message boards, they were all excited Bin Laden was to release a video tape in May, then June and finally July. Furthermore, why has Zawahiri released two video tapes in two months yet no word from Bin Laden in almost a year?
The Associated Press also has new information of what was in the tape it is directed at the United States.
"As for you, the Americans, what you have seen in New York and Washington, what losses that you see in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the media blackout, is merely the losses of the initial clashes," he said, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks blamed on al-Qaida."If you go on with the same policy of aggression against Muslims, you will see, with God's will, what will make you forget the horrible things in Vietnam and Afghanistan."
He then addressed Americans, saying, "The truth that has been kept from you by (President) Bush, (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice and (Defense Secretary Donald H.) Rumsfeld is that there is no way out of Iraq without immediate withdrawal, and any delay on this means only more dead, more losses.
"If you don't leave today, certainly you will leave tomorrow, and after tens of thousands of dead, and double that figure in disabled and wounded."
The "media blackout" refers to a propoganda tool used by Al Qaida and radical Islamic fighters in the Afghan-Soviet War to say there are thousands more casualties and actually reported. We see this on just about every communique that comes out of Iraq and Zawahiri has adapted this for his own use.
As best I recall, the United States did not invade Afghanistan or Iraq until after Muslim agression, but my memory is a bit hazy. Perhaps someone could clear that up for me. The figure of "tens of thousands" dead soldiers is quite lofty considering the number just went over 1,800 this week. While I am sad for the loss of even one soldier, there is always a distinction between what Al Qaida says and what is the truth. Yet they run around and call everyone else liars. Heh.
Cross-posted at ITB
Other Coverage:
Joe's Dartblog
Posted by: Chad at
08:57 AM
| Comments (27)
| Add Comment
Post contains 608 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Yah, it's clearly Blair's fault. He's obviously the one running around planting bombs and denotating them. "Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing."
Sorry, but YOU, Zawahiri, are the one bringing destruction in central london.
These people's brains are totally screwed.
Posted by: tyler at August 04, 2005 09:10 AM (Y9Lwb)
2
Old bugger looks like crap. Me thinks life on the run does not agree with him.
Dear Lord: Please guide one of our beloved Special Forces members to this foul pimp and allow him to remove the old goat's head.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 04, 2005 09:16 AM (5ceWd)
3
Amen!
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 04, 2005 10:09 AM (DDXXI)
4
The capture or killing of Zawahiri would make more impact on the war against terror than capturing or killing Bin Laden, this guy should be the driving force rather than Bin Laden.
Posted by: dave at August 04, 2005 10:23 AM (DO6vD)
5
Dave, excellent point. Zawahiri is the driving force behind Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, but Bin Laden is the face behind the group for most jihadis. I personally would rather see Zawahiri captured or killed than Bin Laden.
Posted by: Chad Evans at August 04, 2005 10:27 AM (Yxk8B)
6
Why do I think "Iran" when I see that photo of Zawahiri?
He's obviously in front of a tent. His dress seems different.
Posted by: Allan Guyton at August 04, 2005 10:40 AM (NYNGR)
7
Well, Britain can breathe a little easier - the attacks they promise in videotapes, audiotapes and on web sites never seem to materialize.
Posted by: Eric J at August 04, 2005 10:47 AM (hrQvk)
8
http://www.homeland securityus.com/zawahiri.asp
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but coupled with this post @ tomoreport which explains it better:
http://thetomoreport.blogspot.com/2005/06/latest-zawahiri-video-signals.html
suggests the placement of Zawahiri's AK-47 rifle, is used to put forth attacks, close to his body for preparation, away for execution of plot.
take it at face value, but I found it interesting. Another thing that I found interesting in their videos, is that they could contain hidden messages (for example the Yemeni dagger in Bin Ladens cloak during one of his video, did that trigger the attack on Cole?) but why does Bin Laden appear to be wearing a Timex "IronMan" watch in a few of his videos?
Posted by: dave at August 04, 2005 10:53 AM (DO6vD)
9
Dave:
Good point. It would appear the Rifle is on his right side if you were sitting next to him. Let's not forget they believe they must warn first. But have we not already been warned. I'm not sure if this is a warning or a starters pistol. The Rifle seems to be sort of far back in the background. I wonder if the sunlight is the hidden message.
Posted by: Howie at August 04, 2005 11:08 AM (D3+20)
10
One would think bin Laden would have a MUCH more expensive watch than a Timex.
But they do take a licking...
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 11:26 AM (x+5JB)
11
"Zawahiri is the driving force behind Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden"
They've been up in those caves soo long that I'm sure he driving some sort of force behind OBL. hee hee...
Posted by: JustPlainJoe at August 04, 2005 11:48 AM (Xj6+u)
12
JustPLainJoe,
Oh, now I have that sick visual in my head! *gag*
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at August 04, 2005 01:16 PM (SZ940)
13
This infuriates me. Can you folks imagine what would happen if the U.S. did withdraw due to threats like this?
BUT--we are being slowly bled over there by the leech of terrorism, and we need to change tactics somehow. Fouteen dead marines in two days. Any ideas, anyone, that don't involve nuclear weapons?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 01:22 PM (x+5JB)
14
Undoubtedly, Zawahiri is the head of the beast. Bin Laden is simply his puppet. I've thought so since September 12th, 2001. The guy is evil incarnate.
And all the mainstream media idiots can talk about is how his clothes are so clean and pressed. Their idiocy is absolutely astounding.
What I want to know is why they're concentrating so hard on the UK. I thought America was the Great Satan.
Posted by: Oyster at August 04, 2005 02:05 PM (fl6E1)
15
Oyster: Yes, but England is his little red helper.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at August 04, 2005 02:23 PM (x+5JB)
16
reminds me of what Kruchev had bragged about..."We will bury you!!!"....where is the Soviet Union now???...Al Quada and Islamic militants are going the same way....into the dust bin of history and fallen dictatorships
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 04, 2005 02:37 PM (9gFP6)
17
If you listen to the words of the terrorists you see that all they do is take what is said by liberals in the West and then repeat it back in a scary voice.
al-Qaeda Get's Its Best Material From the West
Posted by: Insider at August 04, 2005 02:59 PM (m9bOd)
18
We should send Scott Baio into Dirkdirkistan to finish these bastards off once and for all. Sherpa sherpa Mohammad Jihad, Bakkalaa
Posted by: Filthy Allah at August 04, 2005 03:48 PM (5ceWd)
19
The leftists are the enablers of the terrorists. What can you or I do about it? Just asking.
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 04, 2005 04:12 PM (DDXXI)
20
Well, when Zawahiri said If you don't leave today, certainly you will leave tomorrow, and after tens of thousands of dead, and double that figure in disabled and wounded. then he must have meant that we'll leave in around 20 or 30 years. Extrapolating from the current death rate, anyways. (Although the wounded/disabled figure will be much higher than merely double.)
Posted by: Mark Flacy at August 04, 2005 06:18 PM (8aYgm)
21
"If you listen to the words of the terrorists you see that all they do is take what is said by liberals in the West and then repeat it back in a scary voice."
I agree. The danger is from such people who show their weakness by making allowances for creeps like this old fart of Islam. I hope Osama is suffering in ill health... this could be why this creature has decided to take on al-Qaedas PR role. Death to them all...preferably long and slowly. Long live Western culture!
Posted by: Jester at August 04, 2005 07:07 PM (QKZX5)
22
Why even put that old shit garbage on the news? It's nothing but retoric he learned to the America new media anyway. Same words, same old shit. Low life muslims, come out and fight like real men. You're nothing but a bunch of sissies.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 07, 2005 08:07 AM (9Dlss)
23
Typing in the dark sucks.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 07, 2005 08:09 AM (9Dlss)
24
Wake up everyone...the republicans and democrats are behind "Al Qaeda" and the "frat" boys are making out on the deal...create chaos then make money cleaning it up...throw an ideological agenda in there to make the puppets dance. Check out the PNAC report that went to DOD and JCS back in 2000 at newamericancentury.org. It states, "concern about the military becoming complacent if they don't have a new international competitor"...then voila BOOgieman Bin Laden...and that there was concern the "U.S. would lose it's global supremacy short of another cataclysmic attack like a new Pearl Harbor"....voila 9-11. How convenient. 9-11, 3-11 Madrid attacks,, 7-11 Boy Scout (BS) troup at an Army base recently, 411 Elm Street "Dealy" Plaza re. JFK assassination, OSwald, OSama Bin Ladin (A.M. be in Os Land), OSman Hussein of Rome linked to 7-21 (777/BlackJack) botched attacks....do we see a pattern here? BTW....
9-11...lets roll...Norman OK connection to OKC and Mousaoui, Normans first ruler was Rollo in 911 A.D., invasion of Normandy Beach, ect...John 9:11 regarding Jesus spitting on dirt and putting mud in blind mans eyes and telling him to go wash in the pool at Siloam to see....wake up....thousands of innocent people are being killed over this elitist 'game'.
Posted by: G.I.- Joe at August 16, 2005 06:35 PM (S0Kv/)
25
Wake up everyone...the republicans and democrats are behind "Al Qaeda" and the "frat" boys are making out on the deal...create chaos then make money cleaning it up...throw an ideological agenda in there to make the puppets dance. Check out the PNAC report that went to DOD and JCS back in 2000 at newamericancentury.org. It states, "concern about the military becoming complacent if they don't have a new international competitor"...then voila BOOgieman Bin Laden...and that there was concern the "U.S. would lose it's global supremacy short of another cataclysmic attack like a new Pearl Harbor"....voila 9-11. How convenient. 9-11, 3-11 Madrid attacks,, 7-11 Boy Scout (BS) troup at an Army base recently, 411 Elm Street "Dealy" Plaza re. JFK assassination, OSwald, OSama Bin Ladin (A.M. be in Os Land), OSman Hussein of Rome linked to 7-21 (777/BlackJack) botched attacks....do we see a pattern here? BTW....
9-11...lets roll...Norman OK connection to OKC and Mousaoui, Normans first ruler was Rollo in 911 A.D., invasion of Normandy Beach, ect...John 9:11 regarding Jesus spitting on dirt and putting mud in blind mans eyes and telling him to go wash in the pool to see....wake up....thousands of innocent people are being killed over this elitist 'game'.
Posted by: G.I.- Joe at August 16, 2005 06:37 PM (S0Kv/)
26
Wake up everyone...the republicans and democrats are behind "Al Qaeda" and the "frat" boys are making out on the deal...create chaos then make money cleaning it up...throw an ideological agenda in there to make the puppets dance. Check out the PNAC report that went to DOD and JCS back in 2000 at newamericancentury.org. It states, "concern about the military becoming complacent if they don't have a new international competitor"...then voila BOOgieman Bin Laden...and that there was concern the "U.S. would lose it's global supremacy short of another cataclysmic attack like a new Pearl Harbor"....voila 9-11. How convenient. 9-11, 3-11 Madrid attacks,, 7-11 Boy Scout (BS) troup at an Army base recently, 411 Elm Street "Dealy" Plaza re. JFK assassination, OSwald, OSama Bin Ladin (A.M. be in Os Land), OSman Hussein of Rome linked to 7-21 (777/BlackJack) botched attacks....do we see a pattern here? BTW....
9-11...lets roll...Norman OK connection to OKC and Mousaoui, Normans first ruler was Rollo in 911 A.D., invasion of Normandy Beach, ect...John 9:11 regarding Jesus spitting on dirt and putting mud in blind mans eyes and telling him to go wash in the pool to see....wake up....thousands of innocent people are being killed over this elitist 'game'.
Posted by: G.I. Joe at August 16, 2005 06:38 PM (S0Kv/)
27
Above posts were posted three times in memory of the attacks of the innocent on 9-11...the souls of the innocent cry out for justice.
Posted by: G.I. Joe at August 16, 2005 06:49 PM (S0Kv/)
August 02, 2005
ABC Gets Banned In Russia For Broadcast Of Interview With Terrorist Leader
At least the Russians know a terrorist collaborator and facilitator when they see one! If only we could do the same thing for the MSM's non-stop diatribe of Islamist-fueling anti-American articles:
A Russian government spokesman has said accreditations for ABC News reporters would not be renewed and that, in the meantime, they would not be allowed to talk to any Russian officials. This follows an ABC broadcast of an interview with warlord Shamil Basayev, a Chechen rebel leader (MSM-speak for a what everyone else would call a terrorist). In a statement, the Foreign Ministry said: "ABC is now unwelcome to contact any Russian state organisations or bodies.
Let's hear it for Putin. Way to go guy! We're talking about the terrorist who said he was behind the attack on a school in Beslan last September which killed around 300 people.
cross posted by Hyscience
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
09:53 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Anti
Bush
Communists
Posted by: Jonathan at August 03, 2005 01:10 AM (wdVtc)
2
Gee, could it be that the Russians are finally starting to wake up?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 03, 2005 01:14 AM (0yYS2)
3
The warlord Shamil Basayev? Who's that? He's fighting the oppressive Russian government in a movement of liberation /ABC
Basayev. That name sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, you mean the Butcher of Beslan. Now, that makes it all clearer. You got an interview and forgot to inform the Russian special forces who would love to whack the guy for killing 330+ men, women, and children in a school /Russians who love their kids and don't forget ABC perfidy
Posted by: lawhawk at August 03, 2005 08:57 AM (AcoYr)
4
what will it take for the US goverment to see how the MSM is full of traitors????....an interview with Osama himself in some cave or safe house on the Pakistan border???....how is it that the MSM can seem to get interviews with these mass murderers so easily and the military can not find these people???...gee, think it has something to do with the FACT that the MSM loves these mass murderer and would gladly give these scum air time just to make President Bush and all of America look bad???....i think its time{and i know what the liberal/lefties are gonna cry} that the US does something about these TRAITORS in the MSM...its one thing for them to REPORT on the war, not take sides and give aid, comfort and air time to the enemy
Posted by: THANOS35 at August 03, 2005 10:14 AM (9gFP6)
5
Three cheers for ABC -- I think
Posted by: Don Surber at August 03, 2005 09:22 PM (9dzVM)
6
3 cheers for ABC?!?
I hope you're joking. Otherwise, you need....therapy.
Posted by: Lonevoice at August 03, 2005 10:43 PM (pBQwB)
7
Way to go Russia.
Posted by: greyrooster at August 05, 2005 07:54 PM (CBNGy)
July 27, 2005
Still Yet Another Sandcrawler PSA
***Note, this poll is non-binding. It's up to the good Dr. as to what he wishes to do with his own blog. That being said, however, it's become rather obvious that someone has become quite the pest.
Posted by: Vinnie at
11:20 PM
| Comments (105)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Can I submit a write in? That is to let him continue posting, but give him a Scott Baio avitar.
Posted by: Charles at July 27, 2005 11:31 PM (lQ1Or)
2
If avatars were allowed, I'd say yes, but, alas, your point is moot.
Sorry.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 27, 2005 11:39 PM (Kr6/f)
3
Hey, it's your blog. But life is short, & I don't even want to waste the time it takes to scroll past all of DSM's foamy mouthed rants. Been avoiding the comments (mostly) for that reason.
Posted by: West at July 27, 2005 11:42 PM (0a5pR)
4
It's not my blog, it's Rusty's. And I've noticed several others avoiding the comments as well. Which is why I did this post.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 27, 2005 11:48 PM (Kr6/f)
5
I like polls, but I'd like to see Mad Dog Vinnie post a poll on something more interesting. You know, like what your favorite band is given a choice of, say, five bands. And I still want to know if I won the cocaine headline contest. I hear Mad Dog Vinnie worked it out with Rusty that he'd give the winner a free Carribean cruise.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 27, 2005 11:54 PM (8WaYp)
6
God-damn Downing Street Memo!
DSM keeps ruining all of my plans!
If DSM keeps stopping my oil war propaganda, I'll never take over the world..and I'll always be lonely!
- DUBYA BUSH
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 12:03 AM (ScqM8)
7
NEOCON COWARDS - YOU ARE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH!!!
In the American system, high government officials, no matter how powerful their positions, are not the law. They are subject to the law, which they are sworn to uphold, and when they violate the law they are held accountable.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal and unwarranted. Those who conspired to bring this war about must be identified and punished. Otherwise the United States will sink from the rule of law into the rule of men.
A true patriot does not confuse government with country. A patriot's loyalty is to his country, and loyalty to country requires holding government accountable.
- Paul Craig Roberts
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 12:08 AM (ScqM8)
8
GAH!! The headline contest!
I'll pick a winner tomorrow.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 28, 2005 12:12 AM (Kr6/f)
9
I want that trip Vinnie. Do you accept bribes?
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 28, 2005 12:40 AM (8WaYp)
10
Neither he, nor Greg, are worth the urine required to dislodge them from the toilet bowl.
They are guilty of censorship by babble. This sort of thing has killed innumerable news groups in usenet.
Posted by: Phillep at July 28, 2005 01:09 AM (zNjIG)
11
I defended greg and I defended the other moonbat Collin Baber even though they're both lunatics. I don't dislike DSM personally, but it's not like he's somebody you can have a serious exchange with. I don't actually even read his stuff it's so dumb. It's mostly crap. So is greg's stuff, but at least you can draw the guy into a reasonable exchange. Not so with DSM. He spews his garbage and that's about it. If you respond reasonably, he either ignores it or spews unrelated garbage in response. I vote ban him.
Posted by: Carlos at July 28, 2005 01:11 AM (8e/V4)
12
I'm with Carlos. I would like to add that this is the Jawa report. Not the hate the elected leaders of America report.
This scumbag has no pride. Would a person with pride start posting bullshit to attempt to influence a vote to ban him? Have some personal dignity Downing Street Moron. Go away and seek your own. They are not here.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 02:22 AM (CBNGy)
13
Klanrooster, you racist pigjumper - you recruit for the goddamned KKK and call for genocide. Talk about disgrace. The only pride you know is some kind of nazi white pride so screw you you prick from hell!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 02:56 AM (ScqM8)
14
"Another idea. Rally behind the Klan. I'm looking for a resurgence of the wonderful Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. A chapter in every community will drive the bastards back to where they came from. The government will not/can not protect us from this cancer. Believe in and support the KKK.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 24, 2005 04:29 AM"
Jesus, "Support the KKK"? Looks like DSM is the lesser of your resident evils!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 03:02 AM (ScqM8)
15
THe burrowing Klan mole - EXPOSED!!
"Support your local KKK chapter. Only the Klan can protect decent christan people from the Islamic threat. If you don't have a local chapter, now is the time to form one. As in the past when the Knights Templar protected Christians from the Islamic threat so shall the brave Knights of the Klan protect you now.
The federal government has shown they care more for the rights of America's enemy than they do of yours. Time for people to take control and protect themselves from threats and murders in our country. The Klan will protect you. Support them. We need new members, big members with big you know whats. Instill the same fear in them that they instill in our people. Fight back now. Support the Honorable, Brave Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. They will fight for you.
Posted by greyrooster at February 24, 2005 05:09 AM"
"The Klan will protect you"??? Screw you and your pointy headed bullshit!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 03:05 AM (ScqM8)
16
Even more Klanshit from the Rooster:
"The Klan are true Americans. Doing what they think best for their country and race. Have they made mistakes? Sure. You telling me the Democrats and Republicans haven't. Bullshit. Half of you say everything president Bush does is a mistake. The other half says Clinton is the devil incarnate. Everyone can change their objectives. Crap, forty years ago when people seen a group of black people they would say look at all those republicans. How many are now republicans? Thirty years ago we had the solid south. Which meant the south was solid democratic. Now it votes republican. Dr. Jack Shepard is now a republican.
Now, I ask you why can't the Klan change as the republicans and democrats did?
Over and over the liberal weenies on this blog keep reminding us that all muslims are not terrorists. Just a few in the minority. Well, all Klan members are not terrorists. Just a few. Should we condemn the entire organization because of the few. If so, then nuke the middle east. Same thing. The Klan wishes to save America. What's wrong with that? Turn them loose. They will solve the muslim problem in America. Isn't that what half of you are saying.The klan has expertise we can use in our fight against Islam. They know how to tie a hangmans knot. Do you? They have experience in burning Chur, er, mosques. Do you? We need this experience. Do you know which branch of an oak tree to throw the rope over? They do.
The Klan works for nothing. Try to get an expensive federal employee to work at anything.
The Klan cares about normal American citizens. The Federal Government only cares about weirdos and minorities. The Klan speaks for the white man. Who else does?
Got to go now. Have a date with a raghead who has been saying bad things about America. Going to make a good Christian out of him.
Hang in there brave, valiant bloggers. I'm sure your words have terrified those that wish to kill you. remember the pen is mightier than the sword. Wanna bet.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 24, 2005 09:00 PM"
Screw you, the jihadis and the Klan you racist bitch ho!!!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 03:08 AM (ScqM8)
17
Racist Klan Byotches, join up at Klanooster's hootie how-how joint, call collect as the Grand Friggin' Dragon-Wizard-Whackjob pays the bills!
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/105250.php (601)749-2500
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:09 AM (ScqM8)
18
Please allow DSM to voice his rantings. I don't agree with most of his views but perhaps he will make an attempt to argue his points in addition to engaging in personal diatribes. He can be vulgar, but no more so than others are to him. Most importantly, the guy makes me laugh.
HEAR ME, DSM! Your mother is a balding, alcoholic social worker and your father collects broken He-Man dolls.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 06:20 AM (gK4qM)
19
I voted to keep him even though I think DSM = Dick Sucking Maggot.
Posted by: Mr. K at July 28, 2005 06:21 AM (VudXl)
20
YBP - you are a weirdo who fantasizes Ceaucescu comes back to power, just so you can rule the masses by his side.
At least you are not a screaming racist bastard. Your insults are a blessing in disguise.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:24 AM (ScqM8)
21
Special K,
Your mind is a bread twisty and your mother is a Siberian Hamster.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:26 AM (ScqM8)
22
Remember kids, this poll is for informational purposes. I can't ban anyone.
Chad, bribes are always nice. heh.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 28, 2005 06:43 AM (Kr6/f)
23
The idiots mind is toast. Why keep his mindless babbling anti America, anti Christian bullshit. He is now a madman. Totally out of it.
Proof needed. He is now posting old posts that every regular has already seen. Grasping at straws, while attempting to change the subject matter which is get rid of the mindless prick. Let us go on to better subject matter than his constant lunatic ravings.
Ban the Bastard.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 06:44 AM (eVGfQ)
24
Klanrooster, your KKK recruiting, racist, putty ass is goin' bye-bye. I focus on the KKK contingent and leave the normal characters alone. You fight the Red White and Blue, as you support TRAITOR BUSH in his giant robbery.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:48 AM (ScqM8)
25
The pole is 4 to 1 to ban the madman. With the same soft hearted as usual voting to keep him. I commend them on their mercy. My question is do we want to continue losing track of every subject due to his constant lunacy. If there was a way to delete his posts like E-mails I would go along with letting those who wish to read his anti America rantings. However, there isn't. So off with his head.
Bedsides the guy is nuts.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 06:51 AM (eVGfQ)
26
Klanrooster, the scumbag of the prairie needs you to join his personal racist, illegal Church-bombing and cross-burning army. Join now at (601)749-2500, the bristly boar operator is standing by to take your call!!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:52 AM (ScqM8)
27
Klanrooster says, "off with his head", yet what he menas is that a rope be slung over an oak tree so he can perpetrate a lynching. Sorry, twistnutsack -(601)749-2500.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:55 AM (ScqM8)
28
(601)749-2500 (601)749-2500 (601)749-2500 for an army of one inmate!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:56 AM (ScqM8)
29
A true patriot does not confuse government with country. A patriot's loyalty is to his country, and loyalty to country requires holding government accountable.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 06:57 AM (ScqM8)
30
This is the first comments section I have been to in a while. Reason??? Too many lunatics in here ruining the threads and convoluting the subject matter. My choice not to enter comments any more because of it. I am all for oppinions that differ. I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I have the ultimate power though. I choose not to enter the comment section any more on this Blog. I find Rustys insights, and wit along with the many other people who post here very interesting. I read the articles everyday and form my own oppinions. I am afraid I am not the only one who does not visit the comments section any more. You have lost a large number of people. Rants, Raves, Personal attacks etc... tear down the substance, and integrity of the articles. They defeat the purpose of meaningful discussion. It is like trying to watch a movie in a theatre while one person keeps getting up and talking about whatever for a the period of time he chooses every few minutes Ranting, Raving, and attacking.... Ruins the movie for everyone. It certainly ruined this Blog,s comments section for me.
Posted by: Chris at July 28, 2005 07:34 AM (UQR/9)
31
I feel I can still comment and ignore anyone's comments I so choose. Let's assume DSM is, er, unhinged (and I don't think he is)--do we want to censor people because of this? Dish back what's dished at you. But there must be an effort to keep to the threads' subject areas.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 07:54 AM (x+5JB)
32
YBP:
I just have no interest in "dishing" anything. I look for open,intelligent, thought provoking, discussion. The kinds of Rants, Raves, and attacks that we are addressing today are better left to the terrorists. That is their baileywick. Drawing paralells,citing history, making an intelligent argument with your mind and not a filthy mouth, or an angry insurgent attack are what most intelligent people are looking for in the comments section. I am all for frank discussion...There should be SOME tennet of good behavior though.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at July 28, 2005 08:14 AM (UQR/9)
33
Chris: Agreed. As I stated, long as a person is civil to others, there's a good chance that they in turn will be civil to him or her (i.e., only the "dishers" need be concerned with "dishing it back").
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 08:29 AM (x+5JB)
34
DSM:
We are in the territory of outright madness. People such as yourself, who pretend that there could be some accommodation with the aims of this movement(al-Qaeda) - who see it as a new power balance in the world that must be addressed in foreign policy terms - are criminally irresponsible. There is nothing short of the extinction of democratic, secular society that would appease this enemy.
This new global confrontation is far more volatile than the cold war ever was. Back then, when we lived with our fears of a nuclear holocaust, we were up against a global debate about the quality of life. Capitalism and communism were both products of the 18-century enlightenment. They were locked in a disagreement about how it was best to live: which system was most likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Back then we were all humanists of a sort who believed that life was worth living and the way that societies were governed was critical to the welfare of our fellow men.
The battle of ideas got messy and scary when everybody got the sort of weapons that could have put an end to life of all kinds. But the fact that the weapons were never used was no coincidence: in the end, they valued life too much on both sides of the divide. Now we are at war with death itself and we cannot rely on that final rational decision to hold back from the brink.
Posted by: pjp at July 28, 2005 08:57 AM (PM/BC)
35
DSM: I would have nothing to do with Ceaucescu, who was a vampire-obsessed Communist who cringed at the site of crosses.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 09:11 AM (x+5JB)
36
Where else can I read the word hellibacon?
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 09:34 AM (D3+20)
37
>>>"Where else can I read the word hellibacon?"
That's true. Having him around does have it's uses.
Posted by: Carlos at July 28, 2005 09:42 AM (8e/V4)
38
For what it's worth, I don't quite follow most of the digressions DSM goes down. I mean, what's with this strange obsession with gophers and "boaring"? (I assume that's some form of ass pounding). Nowadays I usually just scroll past DSM's strange rants because they seem to involve the aforementioned items mixed in with Bush=Traitor/Nazi/Chimp and Greyrooster being a sheet wearing Klan member. It's entriely too predictable and tired.
Posted by: disgruntledinca at July 28, 2005 09:54 AM (IpG/2)
39
Yeah I like to died on that one.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 09:55 AM (D3+20)
40
All you have to do is read this thread. DSM offers absolutely nothing intelligable to the comments section of this or any other blog. He is nothing but a troll and should have been banned a long time ago. Ditto on Greg.(although occasionally Greg makes a wee little bit of sense)
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 28, 2005 10:04 AM (DDXXI)
41
As a contributing author I get to see some pretty strange comments roll by.
check this one out this AM
JEWS R THE FRIGGIN TERRORISTS! ALWAYS AV BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL B
JEWS R TROUBLEMAKERS!
JEWS R THE CRIMINALS!
FK U BASTARD JEWS!
ISREALIS R F@KIN STUPID,WEIRD AND BLEEDIN MENTAL!!! THE F@KIN ISREALIS R KILLIN THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD 4 NO F@KIN REASON!!!!!!!!!
JEWS R MURDERERS!!!!!!!
THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS R INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!
jews stink!
I'M GLAD THAT THE JEWS GOT CHUCKED OUT 4RM GERMANY! IT SERVES THEM RIGHT!
WELL,ONE DAY THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WILL GET RID OF THE BASTARD JEWS!
THE CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WILL RULE ISREAL JUST LIKE THEY'RE ALWAYS DID!
WE WILL COME AFTER THE FRIGGIN JEWS! AND WE'LL GET RID OF THEM! just like they did b4! U'LL C!
from Prs_ronaldo@yahoo.co.uk
See most of the real freaks post on old threads and think they are hiding or something. Something to think about when you are voting. also I edited the comment for profanity here but the held back nothing.
To see the thread search for russians hate jews in the search the Jawa.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 10:23 AM (D3+20)
42
But do you see how this rant is different than DSM's lines? He advocates killing nothing but gophers. If we're going by strict rules of debate than we're going to have to ban a lot of people.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 10:29 AM (x+5JB)
43
YBP my point exactly.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 10:36 AM (D3+20)
44
Ban a lot of people. So what? You let the crazies in & allow them to piss in the well or you don't. I don't like to drink piss, period. You are arguing about how much piss you can stand.
I spent many years as a multi-user system admin. At first you are all nice & friendly, give everyone lots of warnings, clean up their messes, but the transgressors never learn, and you and your user community suffers because of it, and there is always another one coming along and you start the process all over again.
After you learn your lessons, you become ruthless, rightly so, you run a tight ship, your response times go way down, and your user community benefits and you spend less time doing other peoples work & putting up with their BS.
You can learn the hard way or the easy way - but you will learn.
Posted by: West at July 28, 2005 10:56 AM (0a5pR)
45
Here's my 2 cents: You have DSM who obviously has a very different political leaning from the majority in here (but so do I) and who's posts can really piss people off. My observation is that he is extreme, but goes after others in here who are are also extreme.
Mind you, unless you're making a parody of someone's tragedy, I'm not likely to be offended by anyone's words, no matter how filthy, repulsive or obnoxious. I know most of you aren't like this though...and I've seen you take DSM's ranting quite personally. My advice is to lighten up, but I don't run this blog.
The issue that I find alarming is that while DSM isn't tolerated, you're all tolerating a guy like greyrooster, who is a open racist bigot drunk who's posts I find extremely ignorant, disgusting and just plain wrong....yet, nobody in here seems to condemn him and his white supremacy agenda...why is that? What does that say about JAWA?
I know the majority of you guys are thinkers and good people with good values, so why do you let this guy off the hook when DSM just babbles? DSM might be a babbling idiot, but greyrooster is just evil. I say if you're going to ban DSM, ban greyrooster too. Blatant racism should not be tolerated in here if you have good values. I like good political debate and can keep to the subject when I don't have some drunk always responding with his racist rants.
OR just simply ban everyone who's views you don't agree with and JAWA will turn into a sausage party of people who always agree with each other about everything (boring).
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 28, 2005 11:53 AM (5NVVZ)
46
Always funny to see YBP, Howie advocate the right of a dog to piss up their leg.
When you get tired of having wet, smelly trousers - join the rest of us.
I don't want Greg banned, even though I disagree with his views 99.9999999% of the time, they are presented clearly, and consise.
I want DSM banned because he does not debate, he just slanders and post off topic remarks and trolls to the point he twists the thread so off-topic with arguments that it's a waste of time reading unless you want to skip his 15+ threads comprising of:
KKKroster/Rove/Bush/boar/gopher/oil/nazi/
His comments are so stupidly random, I could replace him with a perl script.
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 12:26 PM (DO6vD)
47
I tend to agree with the previous post. Should you choose to ban DSM and not the likes of greyrooster, then that will send a very strong message out to the rest of the blogging "community" - to wit, that the Jawareport will not tolerate off-kilter dissenters, but will tolerate, acquiese, and by implication support venomous racists. Stepping down the path of banning posters is a slippery slope that implicates more than just precluding one indiviudal from making posts. Hence, it would seem that the only instances in which one would ban a poster would be vulgarity, profanity, lewdness, abusiveness, threats of violence, etc. etc. Such a situation does not encompass merely "whacky" posters or posters that "babble".
Anyways, it's your blog so do what you want.
Posted by: Artin at July 28, 2005 12:27 PM (iWm+P)
48
Always funny to see a person who get's to post whatever he likes advocate the banning of others.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 12:33 PM (D3+20)
49
I second the Scott Baio avatar!
Or perhaps a Gary Coleman avatar.
"Downing Street Memo" reminds me of an angry, short dicked, drawf for some reason. *shrugs*
Oh, hell, just ignore him.
Posted by: Princess Kimberley at July 28, 2005 12:35 PM (LNA9X)
50
For my 2 cents worth, I will have to agree most with
Osama, YBP and Chris. I believe we should all try to be
more civilized on the posts, at least take out the cussing.
(I am trying to reform myself.) I do believe that intelligent
individuals can have a form of discussion and not have to
break down to name calling, which I think Greyrooster is
incabable of. I admit, I do not read most of DSM post,
because he does rant to much. But I do find some gems every
now and then in them, such "A true patriot does not confuse government with country. A patriot's loyalty is to his country, and loyalty to country requires holding government accountable."
But my suggestion, since it is you site, is to allow
both Greyrooster and DSM stay, because I really hate
censorship.
Posted by: Butch at July 28, 2005 12:40 PM (Gqhi9)
51
I think everyone has the right to post what they want, you have an even greater privilege of setting the topic of the post. The point being most people exorcise restraint and keep on the topic provided.
This is not a "Freedom of speech" issue, the Internet has routinely removed people labelled as trolls:
troll
An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.
DSM does not debate the post, he starts his own "topic" on the threads, which often contain the elements of ostracizing people he does not agree with and posting flames, he has no redeeming qualities other than some find him amusing, at the expense at him distorting the message of the original post, and losing contributers.
Banning DSM from here does not restrict his speech, he has the ability to open his own twisted blog, which people could read, the point being I came here to read YOUR posts, and Rusty's et al, not DSM. open another vote and see how many people come here to read DSM's posts?
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 12:50 PM (DO6vD)
52
Howie: I don't understand your comment.
Dave: The solution is simple--I don't let DSM piss on my leg. I'm pro-Bush and pro-WOT, and he obviously is neither. (Greg posts long cut-and-paste jobs, too. I say let him, as long as they are on-topic.) His posts are, ahem, avante guard, but so what? He's not like "Freedom Fighter, advocating the killing of the U.S. or anyone here. And he has a sense of humor (unlike Freedom Fighter) and a way with words, and I value that. Let him stay. He doesn't bother me, and I'm 100% opposed to his political views, from what I gather. It has nothing to do with being "kind" or "soft"--I long to see Bin Laden's (and all terrorists' heads) on a pike. I say let him spout off, just like we do.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 12:50 PM (x+5JB)
53
I voted to ban him from comments. If he was contributing to the conversation in a coherent manner, it would be different. Instead, he cuts and pastes unrelated mantras from God-knows-where. I say, if he wants to put on his little aluminum foil hat and spout his own drama, he can make a free account at blogger.com.
Posted by: RomeoDelta at July 28, 2005 01:00 PM (AHaCg)
54
I'm just thin skinned. If DSM upsets me I'll delete him Dave. If he upsets you reply or not whatever. The only problem I have is when he spams up others comment theads especially a guest poster. I'm sure all this attention is like so discouraging for him.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:02 PM (D3+20)
55
DSM's mother snorts Bacon Bits and his father has the entire lyrics to "Waltzing Matilda" tatooed on the souls of his feet.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 01:08 PM (x+5JB)
56
There was an old Austrailian Stockman lying dying.
And he gets himself up onto one elbow and he says.
Watch me wallabies feed boys watch me wallabies feed
They're a dangerous breed boys so watch me wallabies feed.
I got's matilda too. Got some Aussies around here at work.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:14 PM (D3+20)
57
There's a big difference between having contrary views and just being a plain old disruptor. DSM is the latter. His comments serve not to pursuade opinions but rather to dissuade cogent discussion. I'm not a Psycholgist but my gut tells me he's like an obstinate 3rd grader constantly raising a ruckus in class, probably a misguided plea for notice and attention that he fervently craves. My opinion, either he learns to constructively add to the discussion or ban his misbehavin butt.
Posted by: traderrob at July 28, 2005 01:28 PM (3al54)
58
The only problem I have is when he spams up others comment theads especially a guest poster.
Oh! there was a time he DIDN'T spam up a comment thread? that might be worthy of printing up and selling on eBay for rarity.
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 01:30 PM (DO6vD)
59
Well, in the end of all this...it's up to the person who runs the blog. My only point is, I'll tolerate almost anything...but I draw the line with racism. I don't give a piss if you're left, right, christian, jewish, catholic, muslim, black, white, green, red or blue... I actually find DSM quite funny sometimes, so I'd be sorry to see him go.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 28, 2005 01:38 PM (5NVVZ)
60
Removing a troll isn't about "censorship" or "Freedom of speech" it seems that is a problem only on the Internet, here is a few examples to try:
Walk into the lobby of a nearest office building, shout at the top of your voice "BUSH LIED, and is making a new WTC out of solder's coffins, Hey you security guard, I think your mother is a mustached, jack boot licking Hitler fan, who eats dog entrails for breakfast"
removing you from the building, will not be "censorship"
Go to a basket ball game, shout at the top of your voice "Hey, Basketball fans, you guys are MORONS, only morons would think like you do"
being removed in that situation is not "censorship"
It isn't about censorship, it's about having the ability to say what you want, but showing restraint and respect for the people in your surrounding, intelligent debate on a topic and disagrement, is not the same as disrupting EVERYONE in your surroundings and labelling them as idiots, just to amuse yourself.
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 01:43 PM (DO6vD)
61
Dave I meant relative to himself not to others. He usueally does one or two but gets carried away and does 4 5 or 6 on the same thread right in a row at times. I got to work now.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:44 PM (D3+20)
62
Y'all noticed that DSM is silent. I got an email from another poster saying he was banned. Happy now??
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:48 PM (D3+20)
63
The banned poster has asked that I post this as a farewell.Howie,
If you have a moment, do me a favor and go to the
string regarding the banning of DSM and let the Jawa
Community know that I was banned while posting under
the nom de plum, de Menezes' Ghost". Tell everyone I
said good bye and wish them all the best.
Thanks,
Greg
"de Menezes' Ghost"
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:52 PM (D3+20)
64
If it means I can read coherent opinions of people, even if I agree with them or not, without having to skip 10 flamebait comments that serve no purpose other than to deform the original post, and degrade other people then yes, I am happy.
Oh my god!, I must be worse that Hitler, what next, will I want to burn books?
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 01:53 PM (DO6vD)
65
Howie: Huh? I thought only Rusty could ban people. Greg just e-mailed me and told me he hasn't been able to post. I told him to let ask you to look into it. And DSM has been silent for a while?
Hmmmmm.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 01:54 PM (x+5JB)
66
I suspect Rusty is online or has upped someones permissions. Wasn't me. I sent him to Rusty as there is nothing I can do about or would it's Rusty's blog.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 01:57 PM (D3+20)
67
osama makes a valid point about rooster. His racism doesn't particularly bother me because I'm on a hard backlash against my former Leftist colleagues, but osama makes a good point about how it makes this blog look-- not very good. It's not cool to promote the Klan. In rooster's defense though, he doesn't derail threads with unrelated pasted claptrap.
Posted by: Carlos at July 28, 2005 01:57 PM (8e/V4)
68
Carlos: See, I don't think he is a racist, contrary to what he says. He doesn't like whiners and people who badmouth their country. He thinks this country is #1. I'm with him three for three. I don't think he cares what color or race a person is. He cares about ATTITUDES.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 02:10 PM (x+5JB)
69
From Greg:
"YBP,
I will. If you have a chance, please go to the string
regarding DSM's banning and tell the Jawa Community
that I've been banned and say good bye to all for me
and wish them the best.
Thanks,
Greg"
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 02:14 PM (x+5JB)
70
Dave! You goose-stepper! Now look at what you've done!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 28, 2005 02:18 PM (x+5JB)
71
hey now!
If the thread had been to vote for greg's banning, I would have voted against it.
I might not like how Greg thinks, or care for his opinions but he contributes to a discussion, and brings a totally different viewpoint to it. albeit one that differs from the majority.
Point being he contributes to the threads, often on topic without singling out people for a tongue lashing.
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 02:27 PM (DO6vD)
72
Greg is just pulling our chains. Rusty would not ban him. Greg must be trying to make some sort of point. I don't know what it is though. We would all know if Rusty had banned someone already. I don't accept Greg's word that he has been banned. Propoganda.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at July 28, 2005 02:29 PM (ipaTi)
73
That is unless he was DSM. That might explain why Greg was banned. Hmmmmm food for thought.
Posted by: Chris at July 28, 2005 02:49 PM (ipaTi)
74
I beg to differ. Greg has been banned before and Rusty has not been talking about banning publicly. I doubt he would email both YBP and I if there was not some truth there of some kind.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 02:52 PM (D3+20)
75
Greg just sent me a screen shot of the banned message.
Posted by: Howie at July 28, 2005 03:37 PM (D3+20)
76
DSM and greg have 2 very different IPs. If I'm not mistaken, Chad ran down DSM to be in Australia.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 28, 2005 03:39 PM (Kr6/f)
77
Well, I was banned a week or so back...not knowing why. Rusty said he didn't even remember banning me but thought maybe it was in response to something I said which someone might have misinterpreted? Maybe a glitch? I still don't know. As far as DSM being Greg, I think that's quite a stretch. I know you guys want to lump all the moonbats into the same cage, but I think they are different people.
YBP: "I don't think he is a racist, contrary to what he says. He doesn't like whiners and people who badmouth their country. He thinks this country is #1. I'm with him three for three. I don't think he cares what color or race a person is. He cares about ATTITUDES"
Greyrooster is very open about being a proud racist. I assume you've read the stuff he says about black people and such? He thinks I'm a whiner and that I hate my country just because I don't like our current POTUS! I think that's a total bullshit cop-out. You can still love your country and what it stands for and be critical of our current president. When Clinton was in office and you guys didn't like that, were you traitors? No. YBP, I don't view you and greyrooster in the same light at all. You and I have had some intense discussions about religion, abortion, etc. but it never devolved into you or I threatening or insulting each other.
Carlos, I guess no blog is perfect. It's not that I never agree with greyrooster...but every single time I see his name in here or read his posts it is a glaring reminder of what he stands for. I'm also quite sure that his attitudes towards other races probably turn away people who would otherwise intelligently post in here without having to deal with racist responses. Anyway, I don't want greyrooster banned...but I think he should be discouraged from playing the race card all the time. I think it's a weak, bullshit response. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of digging on him because of this though...I could clean up my posts a bit too! I'm just surprised that when he posts racist words and then everyone looks the other way... A neutral response to one of human kind's worst sociological mindsets seems unacceptable to me.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 28, 2005 03:43 PM (5NVVZ)
78
then unban him. The guy is a Jawa staple.
Posted by: Carlos at July 28, 2005 03:43 PM (8e/V4)
79
I wouldn't be surprised it Greg and DSM were one and the same. I've certainly done my part trying to get them(it) to stay on topic and have received nothing but hate in return, although I admit I have dished out some insults myself.
Frankly, I won't miss Greg or DSM, although I doubt Greg has been banned unless he is DSM. Perhaps Rusty will solve the mystery.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 28, 2005 03:45 PM (DDXXI)
80
If I saw a racist comment on one of my posts, I'd delete. If I missed one, well, that's easy enough to do.
I'll go back through, and if I see any blatantly racist comments by anyone on MY posts, I'll whack 'em. I would hope my co-bloggers would do the same.
I don't read all the comments, so, if you see a racist comment, and it hasn't been deleted yet, feel free to let me know.
And remember kids, I didn't advocate banning anyone. If greg is banned, that wasn't my intention. However, DSM was getting to be enough of a pest that I felt it was necessary to gauge the mood, and, if Rusty saw it, to let him deal with it accordingly, if he so desired.
Posted by: Mad Dog Vinnie at July 28, 2005 04:20 PM (Kr6/f)
81
I am amazed at how astute some people are. Truly we have some deep thinkers on this blog. The same as we have some shallow minds who cannot put two and two together.
I have determined this and can prove it by going back to posts over the last 6 months.
The liberal set does not think. They react without thought or reasoning. They seem to be the same. They are always the first to initiate name calling, false accusations and such. They do not take pride or mention the many good things this great nation has done. They always focus on what THEY consider bad. They are also the lowest in their actions. Example: Attempts at hacking into peoples computers, attempting to release personal information on bloggers and anything they can do to personally attack those that disagree with them. I call them the Clinton bunch. They act like children. Like the Clinton bunch, when the people kicked the democrats out of the White House that their leader defiled. They cry, lie, exaggerate and are willing to use anything in an attempt to get their point across. Morality means nothing to them. They are always, always the ones who regress to the ass fucking, dick sucking name calling senario. The same ones who come back and pretend to be decent people. Some almost apologetic. Some are total lunatics controlled totally by their hatred for our elected government. Nothing but poor losers.
I cannot see one instance of a conservative behaving this way.
I love getting their goat on the racist thing. They are so easy. They also think that there is something evil about being a racist. When the truth is the vast majority of people are. My answer is racists are made, not born. I have also given my reason for being a racist. They have never disputed my reasoning or the facts. Not one time have I ever been disproven on any point I have made. Only hateful name calling is returned. Never an intelligent response. When in truth white people are far less racist than others. I will say they are few in number and the same who make excuses for the terrorist muslim fanatics. These same few are the ones who give aid and comfort to the enemy. The same ones who always take a stand against whatever America does. Being on the opposite side of them makes me proud.
A few have figured out the truth. They are always the conservative types. A few have been told the truth. Again conservatives because a liberal cannot be trusted.
This same few also seem to be the anti Christian, anti Jewish set. Yet they call others intolerant.
I am admittedly intolerant.
I am not a member of any religion. If I were I would be a Christian. If I were to be a Christian I would be a Catholic. My reasoning being that they were the first Christians. Also they are a force against the Islamofacists. Who I detest. I couldn't be a Jew because that is also a racial thing. Besides the KKK hates Jews. Right. Dumbasses.
When the enemies of my country are against me. I am proud. The stupid rantings of a few like Greg, DSMoron and Osamabeennowhere make me proud. Those crybabies who don't deserve to be in this country like Artin mean nothing. Butch is nothing but a toy. Something to amuse myself.
But I do see a patriot in him. Looking the wrong way with this insane I am black therefore I hate the republicans.
This Osamabeennowhere turkey that now cries (no one condemns the Greyrooster) Whine, whine. Why idiot? Ever think of the notion that they agree with me. Wow! How you going to handle that fact. They don't speak of it because they have been conditioned that way. Conditioned by cry babies and a government far to liberal in the past. Easy to now see the mistakes. England is a good example. You can stick your head in the sand but the majority cannot.
Answer this fact. Everyday white people are killed by blacks but not one case of the KKK killing anyone. Now why be bothered by a member of the KKK? Pretty stupid huh! Fixate on a group not doing a damn thing but ignore what needs to be addressed. Liberals are blind. Muslims are killing all over the world and you are blameing the President of America. Why is a person racist for believing white people are great? We need more blatant racists. Why? To wake people up. Is profiling blacks in NYC when looking for muggers wrong. Why? All the muggers are black (with a few Puerto Ricans). When I lived in NYC I never seen a white mugger and took the subway everyday. Profiling is a useful tool. You're the same as the excuse makers for the muslim killers. Only difference is you make excuses for another group.
But you keep crying and I'll keep telling it like it is.
No one is joining me and my friends Downing Street Moron and traitor Greg in calling Greyrooster names. Wha, wha, wha. Cry baby liberal Kerry loving Moron. Just another poor loser.
By the way liberal morons. This is the Jawa report. Not the hug a muslim report.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 04:59 PM (CBNGy)
82
Greyrooster. The only reason that nobody has attempted to discredit your posts is that your racist babble lacks any sort of credibility. If you crack one history book, you will find that the KKK is an organization that is unilaterally despised in this country. They lack any shred of credibility or legitimacy. The KKK has been responsible for the deaths, lynchings, beatings and abuse of thousands upon thousands of black citizens of this country. Yeah, we all know how proud you are to be white (trash). You yourself bitch about other people namecalling then do the same thing. That is called hypocracy. I know you don't care about me dude, and your opinion of me is insignificant. In fact, you have passed a books worth of judgement upon me based upon the first sentence in the preface. It's really quite amazing how you have that ability.
Also, white people commit crimes too - ever heard of white coller crime? Michael Milken, Ken Lay ring a bell? Lincoln Savings and Loan? Enron? The impact of their greed and criminal activity has destroyed the lives of thousands, yet you focus upon the black mugger in NYC.
Thankfully, your infectious rhetoric is confined to the obscure comment pages on blogs. Your "white power" viewpoints have no place in civil society. You are quick to call others that don't agree with you morons and idiots, but you lack the requisite intelligence to give those insults any meaning.
It is amazing how willing you are to ascribe the acts of one to the acts of entire population of people. That is simply not the way it works. Rather than recognizing the role immigration and foreigners have played in the success of this country, you scapegoat them. During WWII, the Japanese were confined to internment camps as a result of this attitude - yet, the all-Japanese contingency of American soldeiers were amongst the most decorated during WWII. The same applies to the all-black Tuskegee airmen. Minorities and people of color have also fought and died for this country. In a prior post you mentioned you are a Vietnam Vet. Didn't you see blacks and other minorities fight and die for their country as well?
Posted by: Artin at July 28, 2005 05:34 PM (iWm+P)
83
. Why is a person racist for believing white people are great?
I agree in that aspect, I remember a few months back, there was a report on the news that a girl had created a "white" club, to the outcry of other minorities that brandished it racist, even though the school had other clubs dedicated to African Americans, and Hispanics, actually here is the article:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/09/20/MN227767.DTL
Posted by: dave at July 28, 2005 06:10 PM (DO6vD)
84
i have just one thing to add tto this, kinda of in the line of the last post by dave....i am not rascist by any definition....i have friends who are white,black,hispanic and i respect them all....i dislike people for what they may have done or said not by the color of their skin....but in another vein i find it kind of rascist when its okay for black Americans to have what they call "black pride" when its very bad for any white person to say they have pride in being white as right away any black person will call you a rascist or a KKK member...i find this to be very hypocritical...i have also seen some Hispanics claim they are pround of their Spanish roots as i work in a big city in NJ were many of my coworkers are hispanic and black....this is something that should apply to everyone...to be proud of youre origins be it black, white, oriental,hispanic or any other race as long as youre not crowing it from the rooftop and keeping everyone else down with cries of rascism
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 28, 2005 07:42 PM (9gFP6)
85
As a frequent lurker and occasional poster here at The Jawa Report (which I discovered by way of Misha's The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, also a frequent target of trolls), here's my two cents' worth:
I don't like banning commenters; I love a spirited debate and find flamewars hugely entertaining. Nonetheless, I also voted to ban DSM because, IMHO, DSM has gone far beyond mere trolling. He doesn't even try to make any sort of rational point. His postings have degenerated into nothing more than really annoying spam occupying at least half or more of any discussion thread that he "takes part in" - or rather, tries to smother beneath a thick layer of hatred and irrationality dumped into the comment stream as fast as he can type it. DSM doesn't seek to debate or even argue; he simply wants to shout down and silence anybody who disagrees with him. By, if all else fails, taking up so much bandwith with his ravings that there isn't enough room for anyone else to even respond to him.
If he's going to act like a spammer, then by all means treat him like a spammer and shut him down.
F.E.T.E.
Posted by: Wes S. at July 28, 2005 09:37 PM (qS68i)
86
Well I'll be damned people actually get it. My faith in humanity has just went up a bunch. We can have a black miss America but a white miss America would be racist. We can have a Black policemans association but a white policemans association would be racist.
Again the ass kisser Artin continues to make excuses for others.
(The only reason noboby has attempted to discredit your posts) Who you speaking for turkey?. How do you know whats on others minds. Again, cowardly calling for and speaking for others. Do you know how many E-mails I get from major contributors on this blog? Asswipe, you are just an apologist.
When have I ever used the words white power. You are a liar. A liberal, anti-government bullshitter. So the excuse maker Artin now uses white collar criminals to justify the actions of muggers that maim and kill the elderly and innocent. You dog. How low can a human go.
Did the KKK commit acts of terror years ago? Certainly, everyone knows that. Think we need some foreigner to tell us that? Do you hate the Catholic Church? They burned people at the stake years ago. Do you hate the Protestants? They did even worse with their witch hunts. They don't do it today. Either does the Klan. Ever heard of a Klan member molesting little boys? Hell no. So why not direct your stupid hatred to the Catholic Church. Do you hate the Armenian terrorists? They are still in business.
I'm a racist. I have my reasons for being one. What is your reason for defending muggers and comparing them to white collar criminals. Cheaters they may be, but there no comparison to having a knife stuck in your gut. The problem with you liberal types is you lack the ability to understand reality.
The KKK despised in this country. Boy. You had better get out and see the world. News for you turkey. In some parts of the country California is made fun of more than the KKK. Everytime one of these local yokels discover that I am from Calif. I am the butt of joke after joke. To many here, everyone from California is gay. Which means they are as ill informed as you. The important thing is that you have never said anything on this blog. You can only talk about me. I can only assume that you wish to be like me but lack the courage. Stay in your ghetto. You belong there. Pacify those who you fear. Perhaps ass kissing will protect you. Perhaps not. Now shut your lying mouth. Talk about your own people.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 09:48 PM (CBNGy)
87
You seem to think it somehow matters that people in other parts of the country "make fun of" California. I really doubt people here care. The Terminator is our governor. If California was as terrible as you think it is, I am at a loss to understand why people flock to live in this great state. California contributes a great deal to this country. It's populations are both homogenious and diverse. California is home to countless brilliant minds. Does it have problems? Every state in this nation does.
You gain nothing by namecalling and label-stamping. I'm sure all the folks here are very proud that you are so courageous to stand up to a liberal from a state which people make fun of (Also, the KKK and other racist white supremicist organizations thrive in certain areas of California. Fontana - also known as "Fontucky" - is a haven for racist organizations.) It's all just a tyrade of insults and empty words.
But anyways, enough about you. You're right - I'm gonna move on. Let's all give a round of applause to greyrooster for an exciting and thought provoking experience. Your courage is commendable with your tough words like "boy" and "turkey". Anyways, looks like you already took your advice and got out of California. You are one ugly soul, Peace.
Posted by: Artin at July 28, 2005 10:53 PM (Oyvbq)
88
There's nothing wrong with anyone being proud of themselves, or their religion/race. That's a little different than wearing little white pointy hat, Greyrooster. You're not going to have any fans in here that are racist, as I can tell most don't agree with you on your racist rants. Either that, or they aren't saying so. To me, reading your posts can be just as bad as DSM's....gibberish peppered with exaggerations and unfounded paranoia...annoying and lame. Grow up.
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 29, 2005 12:05 AM (5NVVZ)
89
My feelings on banning were presented when this topic came up with someone else on the docket. I don't recall who it was or the exact comment I made, but I said something to the effect of "don't ban someone because you disagree with them." That said, I really haven't seen much out of DSM other than bizarre rants and raves. The guy(?) even calls people out to provoke more flames. Now that's just odd. Is it worth banning though?
If it is of any measure, he would be the only person banned on my blog for doing what he does here. I have neither the time nor the patience to delete comments that are blatently offensive to anyone other than myself. That is where I personally draw the line.
I must admit I never read comments and comments that come from people like DSM are one reason why. I mean why waste my time reading a bunch of whining people that have no interjected a reasonable (in the definition of debate) opinion? Dean Esmay has a wonderful comment community that is, for the most part, filled with intelligent responses and reasoned debate. That is more my cup of tea.
I figure I have two choices when it comes to commenters, trolls or not. I can either respond and offer my two cents regardless of how much or little the previous commenter agrees with it in hopes of striking a debate or I can ignore it. Sadly I've come to ignore 99 percent of comments only because the reasoned and the intelligent seemingly are so few and far between.
One key aspect to remember is that a community, which a blog that allows comments is, is only as strong as the commenters' reasoned arguments are. If all that exist are ramblings from someone believed to be a little kid, it will fail.
Anyways, that's my two cents but it's only worth half that at most. I must say this one comment thread, most of it at least, has been refreshing to read over because people actually came to the table with arguments worthy of debate. For that I thank you.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 29, 2005 02:02 AM (8WaYp)
90
I hate the United States of America. I want you all to vaporize in a horrific Nuclear Hell as I laugh at you from the bowels of Australia
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 29, 2005 02:42 AM (ScqM8)
91
You are afraid of the truth!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 29, 2005 03:59 AM (ScqM8)
92
Someone has the gall to fake messages from me with all kinds of sordid ideas. DSM hates wars and racist scumbags who don't fight fair.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 29, 2005 04:11 AM (ScqM8)
93
No kidding on Klinton, I'm talking NOW - send in BAER with a budget and he'll get Bin Laden in one month! BUSH is playing coy with you and me about Bin Laden. If each military aluminum coffin was 1.5 foot high, then 1800 coffins equals 2700 feet of dead Americans, right? BUSH is building two towers the height of the WTC with coffins of dead soldiers. All of these soldiers have been killed for a PACK OF LIES. Soldiers should not have to die for Bush's lies and sick adventures, but they are. BUSH is not a hero, he is a TRAITOR!!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 10:04 PM
Is Bin Laden still on vacation in the mountains?
Did not ex-CIA Baer not say he could nail UBL in one month?
Are not 1800 coffins x 1.5 ft high equal to 2700 feet high of coffins?
Were not the combined height of WTC1 and WTC2 equal to 2730ft?
Did Bush not lie about Uranium from Niger?
Is not deceiving the American People into war an act of treason?
Your enemy is not DSM.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 29, 2005 04:22 AM (ScqM8)
94
Wow am. Maybe he fell asleep. Update on what I know. Greg was banned simply becuase he abused right to post here in a manner that upset Rusty. greg pretty much does that. He gets banned and makes some changes trys really hard and slips back and screws up. I would imagine and it's total speculation on my part the ban will last a bit longer than last time as it did not take all that long for greg to get himself into trouble again. I find the whole process pretty entertaining as well I have/had the same problem mouth overloading ass in the past. I get a sick kick out of watching him gain confidence and slip ever so quickly right back into the same rut. That is I see myself in it that is why I kind of feel for him. So I'm sure greg will be back some day and I'm sure he'll try hard and I'm sure he will do the same thing but maybe it will take longer.
DSM I would not get too cocky just yet a little bird told me you are skating on thin ice and yes I dumped that "molest" comment like a hot rock. At first I had to look over IP addresses because I thought it may have been an impersonator. Should you get banned I'll not miss you like I do greg.
Posted by: Howie at July 29, 2005 09:00 AM (D3+20)
95
I take it that is an attempt to argue with some intelligence. Some facts are right. Chad had a great comment...... then here comes DSM again with comments out of nowhere. The thread was broken once again with rhetoric, and balogna. If you look at all of DSM's postings here you will see that none of them has anything whatsoever to do with this thread. He has built his own COFFIN here. Fact is we don't need him to carry on. We can do whithout his kind.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at July 29, 2005 09:03 AM (2lcVN)
96
Howie,
so greg was banned and DSM was not? That's bizarre.
Posted by: Carlos at July 29, 2005 10:06 AM (8e/V4)
97
Yeah that's what I was thinking too.
Posted by: Chris at July 29, 2005 10:25 AM (2lcVN)
98
Just wait gentlemen. Time you know.
Posted by: Howie at July 29, 2005 10:33 AM (D3+20)
99
DSM, if the United States is involved in a nuclear exchange, Australia is sure to be involved as you are our best ally. Thank you for your support all these years, and I mean it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 29, 2005 10:34 AM (DDXXI)
100
Oh hell lets make it an even 100 comments.
Posted by: Howie at July 29, 2005 03:14 PM (D3+20)
101
You're pushing your luck Howie. YOu must have an odd number of comments. Heh.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 29, 2005 03:30 PM (8WaYp)
102
Seriously though, did you guys ban greg?
Posted by: Carlos at July 29, 2005 06:45 PM (UWO6N)
103
Carlos, if that question is directed at me, the answer is of course not. I don't ban anyone otherwise I would have banned myself long ago. That Chad guy is just no good.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 29, 2005 08:48 PM (8WaYp)
104
Downing Street Moron: The people have spoken. Get lost punk.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 30, 2005 04:41 AM (CBNGy)
105
Seems everybody have their own definition of the word "racist"
Quick reminder:
[n] a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
[adj] discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
[adj] based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
Posted by: Ren at July 30, 2005 01:11 PM (a9tRx)
July 24, 2005
Ilario Pantano Should Sue This "Writer"
Ashraf Fahim is a self-described "freelance writer" and "news analyst" operating out of Brooklyn, New York and publishing primarily in Middle eastern and Asian "news" outlets unfriendly to the US.
Fahim is so long-winded and boring that I'm not going to reproduce the entire propaganda piece here; I'll just fisk a few choice paragraphs. The density of Fahim's drivel is by design - repeating lies over and over breaks down resistance and enures the reader to the obvious distortions and pretzel logic.
From The perils of colonial justice in Iraq:
Among its more vociferous opponents, the American project in Iraq is characterized as a classic colonial adventure, indistinguishable in nature or intent from the deepest, darkest chapters in Northern oppression of the South: America is to Iraq as Britain was to India or Belgium to the Congo. Proponents, on the other hand, argue the inherent benevolence of American empire - the export of democracy and egalitarianism in contrast to the transparent racist imperialism of yore.Make no mistake. Ashraf Fahim is among those vociferous critics, not an unbiased bystander as he pretends to be here. If you enjoy anti-American propaganda, check out his other writings here. But a close reading of Fahim's first paragraph is enough to pin down his mindset. Notice that Fahim's imaginary protagonists, the "vociferous opponent" and the "proponent" agree to the "colonial" nature of the War in Iraq. This is the straw man that Fahim is trying to create. But if the US is a "colonial" power, the same as Great Britain and Belgium were, where are the US colonies? Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? Fahim's thesis is doomed by definition, and his own faulty logic.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto. more...
Posted by: Bluto at
04:15 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 806 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Looks like the U.S. is being colonialist in Iraq to me.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 07:15 PM (ScqM8)
2
sure DSM, look at all those American's packing up all their possesions in the family car and moving to Iraq to buy some land....you stupid, ignorant piece of white trash
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 24, 2005 09:53 PM (9gFP6)
3
Iraq is America's Nigeria - lots of oil, corruption and more. Colony: A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
Dr. THANOS, explain how Iraq is not a colony.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 10:26 PM (ScqM8)
4
DSM,
Colony a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b: the territory inhabited by such a body
Dude, update your propaganda lexicon, you're embarrassing yourself.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 24, 2005 10:37 PM (RHG+K)
5
The individuals killed by Lt. Pantano were probably as 'innocent' as the individual killed by the British Police the other day.
When people who look like you and act like you are doing bad things to others and being actively pursued, it's generally a good advice to listen and obey the instructions of armed authorities - not act threatening and belligerent.
Posted by: Jonathan Murray at July 24, 2005 11:09 PM (7D30s)
6
Snuggly Bluto, there are many definitions of "colony". Lets' take a look at Iraq. Who runs the control tower at Baghdad Airport, the security of the International Zone, swims in Saddam's swimming pools, runs the Prison System, patrols the skies with planes and drones?
America the Beautiful!!!!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 11:12 PM (ScqM8)
7
Who did the same in Germany and Japan in 1945? Are they colonies of the US?
"...many definitions of 'colony'." Do you think you're one of George Orwell's pigs, now?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 24, 2005 11:32 PM (RHG+K)
8
I dunno, Popeye's Enemy,
Iraq has too much oil to be free of the Hellibacon colonizers. Bush and his twisty-minded buddies raped and ravaged the oil revenue 8 Billion missing from what I've heard. Goddamned disgrace.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 11:35 PM (ScqM8)
9
You don't know? Why, the US occupied Japan and West Germany. The USSR occupied East Germany. Who turned out to be a colonizer?
Hint: it starts with "US" and ends with "SR".
Your written idiomatic English isn't too bad, but you have no real grasp of our history or culture.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 24, 2005 11:56 PM (RHG+K)
10
THANOS35: For your info Downing Street Moron is not WHITE trash. Trash alright but diffinately not white. Either brown or black with a dirty rag on his head. He uses it to wipe his ass as his kind have yet to invent toilet paper. In fact, not many have a toilet so they carry their ass wipe on their heads. Thats where the phase shit head comes form. Direct someone watching Downing Street Moron wipe his ass and then wrap his head.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 25, 2005 01:39 AM (CBNGy)
11
The muslim huggers play this death of one idiot without the brains to stop with cops tell him to as the biggest news of the war on terror. What about the dozens of innocents killed by the terrorists. I guess thats small stuff. The bombings in Egypt must be small stuff. The biggest thing on their agenda is one death of a probable terrorist associate. Not the hundreds killed by Downing Street Morons friends.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 25, 2005 01:45 AM (CBNGy)
12
Psycho Klansman Greyrooster, in flagrante delicto with the wild mountain boar is a loser.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 25, 2005 02:30 AM (ScqM8)
13
Gayrooster in action: http://www.big-boys.com/articles/hunterkicksboar.html
Posted by: osamabeenthere at July 25, 2005 06:05 PM (perrS)
Al Qaida in Iraq Releases Video of Egyptian Diplomat and Sinai
It may be an off day for millions world-wide, but for Al Qaida, there's no such thing as an off day. Fresh off of claiming responsiblity for the terrorist attack on the Sinai Peninsula which killed around 90 people and injured close to 200, Al Qaida in Iraq has released a video of the now executed Egyptian diplomat Ihab al-Sherif saying there is a large Jewish presence in the Sharm al-Sheikh region.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq issued a 1:30 minute video today, July 23, 2005, depicting a "confession" of the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq, Ihab al-Sherif, as he discusses the Jewish presence (permission to stay) in Sinai. It is interesting to note that this video was released just hours after the triple bombing in Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, perhaps indicating some kind of connection between al-Qaeda in Iraq and the attack.
Not only does this video might show proof of a possible Al Qaida in Iraq connection, this video is intended to spark the ridiculous calls by some television "experts" claiming Israel had something to do with the terrorist attack.
It really matters not whether Al Qaida in Iraq carried out the attack in the Sinai as the other groups who claimed responsibility do have an operational connection to Al Qaida in Iraq and Al Qaida as a whole. We already know Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has attempted to stretch his arms outside of Iraq therefore it's hardly surprising there may in fact be a closer connection than previously thought. Then again, this very well could be well-timed propoganda to try to get Al Qaida in Iraq's name in the news again.
Infovlad has the video
Cross-posted at ITB
Posted by: Chad at
02:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Qaedas are SCUMBAGS!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 10:35 PM (ScqM8)
2
Downing Street Moron calling his mama and papa scumbags.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 25, 2005 01:47 AM (CBNGy)
3
Greyrooster is a scumbag.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 25, 2005 02:30 AM (ScqM8)
4
pmirfhuhfezii jireziji zerjijiozejrf fieizjhifoj
Posted by: tawfif at July 29, 2005 06:26 AM (/5fGb)
July 23, 2005
Radical Islamic Cleric in England Continues to Preach Hate
In the wake of the second terrorist attack in England, radical Islamic cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed seems to be more of an idiot than previously believed. The English government is drafting new laws to make this type of "hate speech" outlawed and deciding whether certain clerics who are urging jihad and terrorist attacks are worthy of deportation or imprisonment.
This doesn't stop Mohammed though as today he said attacks will continue until British soldiers are out of Iraq and Afghanistan (via Euphoric Reality).
"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said."If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.
Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.
The 'root cause', as Mohammed sees it is not radical Islam or his asinine ramblings, it is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must continue to remind these people of low intellect that there were in fact terrorist attacks before either war.
Mohammed tries to condemn the attacks against innocents, yet he supports the killing of Muslims throughout the Middle East. What is Mohammed's goal?
"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.
That too is the goal of radical Islam as a whole. I cannot say this enough even if I sound like a broken record. Radical Islam wants to turn the entire world into a Caliphate state where Sharia Law is the only law and we are all mindless followers of the only religion people like Mohammed sees fit. As I've said before, I refuse to be a pawn.
Cross-posted at ITB
Posted by: Chad at
03:12 PM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Idiot muslims and liberal muslim supporters need to be reminded constantly that the attack of the World Trade Center and Pentagon happened before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. The muslim terrorist attack on us is why we went to Afghanistan and Iraq. To put a stop to it. Dumbasses just can't seem to accept this fact. Fact #2. The attack on the United States was planned while the cheating bastard Clinton was president. It was conceived and planned well before President Bush was elected. It was thought of and put into action when Clinton was invading every little country that couldn't fight back. When they did, Clinton ran and called the troops back. Dumb shit, stupid muslims and their asshole lying supporters just don't get it. Tony Blair and President Bush are living heros. They are standing up to a situation completely caused by the previous administration that was made up of old ladies and midgets. Clinton's cowardous gave the terrorists confidence. They never figured on Bush and Blair going after them. Clinton would have ran as he did in Somalia. Bush is getting the respect back that the Clinton administration lost. You don't have to be the most popular person in a company, Government or whatever to be respected. But to run it you must let those less than you know that you are in charge. President Bush and Tony Blair have had to fight two wars. One against the muslim asshole terrorists. One against the idiot muslim hugging cowards in their own countries. I believe they are both heros and the finest leadership either country has had in many a year.
I don't expect everyone to see this as it does take some depth of thought.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 23, 2005 04:54 PM (CBNGy)
2
>>>"The English government is drafting new laws to make this type of "hate speech" outlawed and deciding whether certain clerics who are urging jihad and terrorist attacks are worthy of deportation or imprisonment.
That's very good. In the meantime, however, you will continue to stroke him the welfare checks he is so very much entitled to. You gotta love Liberalism.
Posted by: Carlos at July 23, 2005 06:08 PM (8e/V4)
3
Yep, the guy that got his head blown off in London was a Brazilian electrician. This war on terror is a nutcase psycho ward excuse for raging gubbamint violence.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 06:45 PM (ScqM8)
4
I will give a nickle to the punter that drains this cleric's head.
That is all this bearded fuckers life is worth now.
I put a fatwa out on his ass.
TO ALL PUNTERS AND SPIVS! DRAIN THIS FUCKERS HEAD!!!!!
Posted by: obsnooks at July 23, 2005 06:53 PM (xdqZV)
5
>>>"Yep, the guy that got his head blown off in London was a Brazilian electrician."
What the hell does his nationality or profession have to do with it? He could be a Malagasy electrician for all I care. He refused to stop, he got shot. Evolution at work.
Posted by: Carlos at July 23, 2005 06:58 PM (8e/V4)
6
obsnooky - are saying people should kill over speech? Slime-mouth-Greyrooster, so what do you think provoked those 9/11 bastards to come to America and blow up the buildings? It wasn't Islam, idiot. It was Da Gabbamint's hijinks overseas that da Gubbamint doesn't tell you about. Uncle Sammy has been on a worldwide resource rape-fest for years, pissing on hundreds of millions of people to snatch their oil and minerals. Bastards have taken your flag, thrown it over other countries and blanket partied them with coups, bombs and wars. No wonder they hate us, dickwad!!
So screw your blind jingoist patriotism, lynch-master of the forest - your life is a lie and your breath smells like a chickenhouse.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 07:13 PM (ScqM8)
7
>>>"Uncle Sammy has been on a worldwide resource rape-fest for years, pissing on hundreds of millions of people to snatch their oil and minerals."
And paying top dollar for it. The mooooslims would be eating sand if it weren't for Uncle Sam.
Posted by: Carlos at July 23, 2005 07:21 PM (8e/V4)
8
Now American troops are eating their sand, Carlos
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 07:47 PM (ScqM8)
9
you think I went home don't you DSM.
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 07:51 PM (D3+20)
10
hey DSM , if youre so supper smart, and from what ive seen, youre not, but lets say you are....lets see you come up with a better way to run the ENTIRE American government, you fucking armchair general with youre little peanut sized brain in youre big shark sized mouth
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 23, 2005 08:00 PM (9gFP6)
11
Now can Down Syndrome Meme get banned?
he's getting as stupid and pointless as BLSD, and his repetitive drivel needs to stop.
Posted by: dave at July 23, 2005 08:01 PM (DO6vD)
12
greyrooster has it right...were where you, DSM , when Clinton did NOTHING when the first bomb went off in the WTC back in the 90's????....you were probally sucking on ole Slick Willys wang, sharing it with that other whore....you probally cheered every thing Willy did, didnt you, you fucking terrorist loving whore, didnt ya, bitch???....oh of course, it was fine for the married President of the USA, Bill Clinton, to be having an affair right in the Oval Office, right on the desk that many great President of this country have say at and signed documents that made this country strong and great...you would have us all on our knees, bowing down to our Muslim overlords,praying to a death god who needs blood, dont you, you freaking heathen...go back under that rock you crawled out from under, you scumbag
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 23, 2005 08:12 PM (9gFP6)
13
I told you I was watching punk.
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 08:17 PM (D3+20)
14
Ok, TANOS, first, I'd run da GUBBAMINT within Kyoto, within ICC and stop rampaging around with DA MILITRY. Counterterror would be kept in the shadows and not a "noisy american spectacle". Patriot ACt would be shut down and border control strenghtened with 100,000 troops brought back from Iraq. My only bad and immoral thing would be to get a small LRRP sniper squad into afghanistan to take down Bin Laden PERMANENTLY, once and for all.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 08:29 PM (ScqM8)
15
My sincere apologies to Chad for touching his thread.
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 08:45 PM (D3+20)
16
well i can say if theres more bombs in the uk i bet you ll get some british nutters blowing up muslin places. this will happen it will get out of control british people will not take this, so a search for a group call combat 18 and there brother groups
http://www.whitepower.co.uk/bally.jpg
Posted by: noname at July 23, 2005 08:46 PM (eFuj0)
17
Heh. I don't waste time arguing with idiots who use three different screen names to strengthen his arguments, Howie. I prefer to laugh a bit more.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 23, 2005 08:53 PM (Ievlo)
18
Sorry again.
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 09:04 PM (D3+20)
19
Howie, there's nothing to apoligize for. I just meant that in this particular thread, there is basically one dissenter and it's the same dissenter who uses three different . . . nevermind.
Your comments, like everyone else's, are more than welcomed no matter how many personalities you bring to the table. Hey, there wouldn't be a comments section of the authors didn't want to hear any feedback.
Here's a bit of trivia. I'm sure greyrooster knows the answer. Which United States president used the United States military more in terms of sending it to the most foreign countries other than FDR?
Posted by: Chad at July 23, 2005 09:16 PM (Ievlo)
20
Kyoto???....you believe that garbage???....you think that the world can actually change something that is a naturally occuring act???....lemme tell ya something DSM....one, only one, volcano, when it erupts can pump out more toxic and deadly poisinous gases than the entire USA industry could....the world goes threw warming and cooling trends and has been for millions, if not billions of years, long before the first human like creature stood upright on this planet and humans have the arrogance to think they can stop an act of nature???...might as well as stop a hurricane in its tracks by blowing a fan in its direction, may as well stop an eartquake.....get it, its an act oif nature or if you like, an act of God...we can not stop the earth from warming up or cooling down....check up on the facts....
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 23, 2005 09:16 PM (9gFP6)
21
second, how would you keep the fight on terrorism in the shadows???....know what the press is???...the internet???...how do you keep such a huge amount of violence out of the news and away from the public???...and you seem to be the one who blames Bush for having secrets and here you are saying that you would conduct something in secret....hypocrisy, anyone???.....why should it be bad and immoral to kill a murdering terrorist like Bin Laden???....would you feel bad for a man eating shark, that killed and ate a few innocent children swimming in the ocean, when it is finally found and shot???....please...you put down a rabid, sick dog without mercy,without remorse, just like Bin Laden, because you would be doing society a big favor
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 23, 2005 09:23 PM (9gFP6)
22
I'll take a stab LBJ.
Yes chad I understand. I've been working watching him all day. I just got fed up. I'm extremely extremely tolerant but I take insults to the Jawa quite personally.
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 09:24 PM (D3+20)
23
Not LBJ is it?
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2005 09:26 PM (D3+20)
24
hmm. interesting. leak the nicks he uses other than DSM? Take out the trash!
Posted by: dave at July 23, 2005 09:48 PM (DO6vD)
25
DSM said to obsnooks: "...are saying people should kill over speech?"
I'm saying that. Yes, definitely. If someone stands up and says "kill the Jews, kill the Americans, kill the infidels, kill them wherever you find them." Then I say put a black bag team on him ASAP, along with anyone who was nodding in agreement when he said it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 23, 2005 09:56 PM (0yYS2)
26
IMPY, fly to Britain AND GUT SOME FISH AND CHIPS!! That preacher prick is hanging out at the same street corner day in and day out, he's not hard to find. Just get on a plane!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 11:10 PM (ScqM8)
27
IMPY, you live in NJ and can get to the UK in less than 24 hours from now.
Here is the chap you love so much: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1777503.stm
Here is the address of the mosque of the chap you love so much: http://www.salaam.co.uk/mosques/searchmosque.php?orgcode=121
Here is a map to his preaching spot: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=531402&y=186591&z=0&sv=N4%202QH&st=PostCode&lu=N&tl=~&ar=y&bi=~&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 23, 2005 11:33 PM (ScqM8)
28
I am saying that someone should drain his head. Just like that filth JFK had done.
Posted by: obsnooks at July 24, 2005 07:35 AM (xdqZV)
29
THANOS:'hey DSM , if youre so supper smart, and from what ive seen, youre not'
I love it when someone insinuates that another is stupid and then misspells words in their adversarial post.
"SUPPER"?
Posted by: greg at July 24, 2005 01:14 PM (/+dAV)
30
calling the kettle black,eh childmolester greg???
Posted by: THANOS35 at July 24, 2005 04:48 PM (9gFP6)
31
Now Greg. I detected that you had somehow gotten a little wiser lately. But there you go slipping back into the old grove. Whenever you agree with garbage such as Downing Street Moron you demean yourself. Downing Street Moron has replaced you as the most hated idiot on this blog. Jealous? Are you trying to get back to #1? Back it off and maybe, just maybe, someone will give interest to what you have to say. In the past, when you post something the immediate respond has been more stupid bullshit from the America hater. Now, that Downing Street Moron has replaced you are #1 bullshitter you should take advantage of the situation. That is, if you really have something meaningful to say. Which I still doubt. But anyone can leave the dark side and be enlightened. Think about it.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 24, 2005 05:19 PM (CBNGy)
32
BUSH is a traitor, Rooster, America knows it and now you fight the Red White and Blue. So sad, as the country is leaving you behind.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 24, 2005 10:37 PM (ScqM8)
33
Wrong you America hating, muslim loving pile of pig shit. America is joining me more and more everyday. America is tired of shit of the likes of you. You who give aid and comfort to the enemy. You are a traitor and deserve to be treated as such. Of course, to be a traitor you much first be an American. Which you ain't. But we will get you anyway. You have defiled my country, its elected leaders, its military heros. You have lied about all the aforementioned. You are a traitor. You will get yours. Time is on Americas side. We will demand that traitors like you be punished for their crimes against this nation. You will not walk free.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 25, 2005 02:18 AM (CBNGy)
34
Bush and Klanooster will share the same prison cell once this horrible war for oil is over and Bin Laden is dead like the gopher I blew away.
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 25, 2005 02:35 AM (ScqM8)
35
Only thing you blew was Bin Laden.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 28, 2005 03:32 AM (CBNGy)
36
You are a pigjumping racist brute Klan Rooster!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at July 28, 2005 03:55 AM (ScqM8)
37
Now here the truth.
The tragic 911 horrified everyone in the world, including Muslims, Jews and Christians. But what most people have never known is that this tragedy was put together by the US as an excuse way back in the 60's when (possibly the greatest) President Kennedy was in power. They were going to use this incident than to attack Cuba. This did not happen as the President rejected the idea. But decades down the line a hard line Christian Fundamentalist did not think of the consequences and jumped to the idea. This was all planned, Bin Ladden was a CIA man, and I really feel sorry for the American people. Why should a toss pot like Bush drag this good nation into such hatred of the east? As you are aware Islam has grown considerably, and Bush and others realized this has become a threat to America a long time ago Believe me, every incident you here is all conspiracy. The Member of Parliament Robin Cook dies suddenly! The poor guy was totally against this War and resigned. They killed him off and made it look like a heart Attack. ItÂ’s not hard for the government to do this, believe me. ItÂ’s a shame there is so much hatred. Before Bush came to power a good President was in power called Clinton. Ok he was not perfect but no way was there so much tension and hatred in the world as there is today. So thank you President Monkey Bush, 3 more years of this? What next Iran. Obviously. If the Jews get there way they will use the thick headed President to bomb Iran. But why? What have they done to hurt anyone? Who has used nuclear in the past 60 years? I hope that these 3 years go by quickly and someone with some brains brings stability to the world before a 3rd world war faces us. God help us from the hands of a mad Christian fundamentalist! One last point. Were you aware that the President great grandfather had a book published against the Islam religion? Look it up. Thanks for your time.
Posted by: CIA at August 13, 2005 01:18 PM (z3qsE)
275kb generated in CPU 0.0602, elapsed 0.1803 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.139 seconds, 626 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
134 queries taking 0.139 seconds, 626 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
