December 21, 2005
Taliban Johnny, A Thesis Regarding Expletives
Michelle Malkin, a very outspoken, considered by some (not this citizen journalist) a "controversial" figure, not to mention a racistsexistbigotedhomophobe, clues us in on this:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence by an unspecified amount, Lindh's attorney said Tuesday.
In deference to Michelle Malkin, and her longstanding friendship to the Jawa Report, I will place my reply under the fold, in the manner normally prescribed to graphic images.
Let that be your warning. Who the fuck do you think you are, you simpering shitnozzle?
What? Did you really think that we forgot your treachery? Do you think that because you got a pitiful 20 year sentence in lieu of the Tookie needle that the American public would just forget the name John Walker Lindh?
Think again, assmonkey.
You are a traitor. The American public knows you as such. You think you can sit there, whiling away the hours in the Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison until the majority of people forget who you are and what you did?
Nice try, shitweasel. That dog don't hunt, that bird don't fly.
Tell us, really, why you're begging for clemency. Aryan Nation don't like you much in there do they? Bet them Nation of Islam types don't go much for your type of Islam, either, do they? Most of them join up for protection, to survive until the end of their sentence. I wonder, how does it feel trying to convince someone they're going to get 72 virgins from Allah when they have your pasty-white, virgin ass bent over the cot? It's a long way from the comforts of Marin county, ain't it?
Look at the bright side, sweet cheeks, you got your deal. Shut your fucking mouth and serve what you deserve.
It must suck to be you, dickdrip. Where ya gonna go when you get out? Join the jihad in Iraq? It'll be done. Afghanistan? Been there, done that. Saudi? Yeah, right, can you say diplomacy?
Your only hope is France. Maybe. After all, you've proved your ability to surrender.
We don't forget so easily, twit.
We will always remember where you were when it happened.
Posted by: Vinnie at
01:59 AM
| Comments (73)
| Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Reduce his sentence? His sentence should be doubled. Wonder how many people he either killed or helped to kill before being caught? On second thought, the death sentence would be more appropriate.
Posted by: greyrooster at December 21, 2005 02:52 AM (pSK/I)
2
Let him out when Mike Spann comes back to life.
Posted by: Tony B at December 21, 2005 02:59 AM (+/H6t)
3
Awesome rant. Very satisfying.
Posted by: Cardinal Martini at December 21, 2005 03:22 AM (nLV11)
4
I wonder, how does it feel trying to convince someone they're going to get 72 virgins from Allah when they have your pasty-white, virgin ass bent over the cot?
Just call him Johnny Brokeback.
Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 04:15 AM (PYXzc)
5
Kick ass, Vinnie. It would be cool if President Bush could word his reply in the same fashion. Twenty years in an American prison is definitely not enough for him. If the sentence can't be increased or changed to death, then perhaps this: he fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance which pretty much now constitutes the Afghani government. After 20 years he should be turned over to the Afghanis to serve some time in a dank, depressing Afghan jail (by jail I mean a hole in the ground with corrugated sheeting as covering).
Posted by: Graeme at December 21, 2005 05:04 AM (LZHSo)
6
I said 2 years ago and this is why I said it. Kill the SOB. Send him to me and I'll do it! He killed at least one American (and an exJarhead) and probably more. He is a traitor, Traitors must be killed.
an old exJarhead
Posted by: Rod Stanton at December 21, 2005 05:19 AM (yONeR)
7
Agent Jones says that John Walker Lindh should be DRAFTED into the United States military where his profound knowledge of the SALAFIST TERRORISTS and Qaedic Arabic could be put to use as a AQT Tactics Briefer.
Agent Brown says that Frank Abignale was released from a lengthy term in Federal Prison to loyally serve his new FBI masters in tracking down and bringing numerous criminals to cold hard justice.
Agent Smith says that as the best police think like the criminals they catch, to nail BIN LADEN, we need a former Qaeda working on our side.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 21, 2005 06:10 AM (CpR+U)
8
You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush.
Personally, I'm hesitant to damn the guy because he went to Afghanistan before we decided to attack them. When he and his friends come under sudden full-scale military assault, I suppose the view of everyone here is that he should have said, "Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more. Let's hope they don't draft me and make me come shoot y'all!" Under the circumstances maybe that wasn't an option.
Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 06:18 AM (dT1MB)
9
Shannon, that was the most shallow-minded dissertation, riddled with BDS, I've come across in a while. First you admit we can't know what information he promised not to tell, then you assume Bush was the one who would be hurt by whatever information we can't possibly know. Furthermore, the guy was fighting with the Taliban before we got there. He was already an enemy and traitor.
Posted by: Oyster at December 21, 2005 07:41 AM (YudAC)
10
>>>"Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush."
yes, "obviously". Classified info is "obviously" always for the purpose of covering up malfeasance by "Bush." Classified info is never to protect our country, our troops or their tactics, or any other reason we don't have the sligtest about here . It's always nefarious.
>>>"Welp, it's been fun guys but you're the enemy now so I can't play with you no more.
That would have been exactly what I would have said. Not you? Then you should be in that prison getting ass banged with him.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 09:05 AM (8e/V4)
11
Oyster,
If my post resembles a dissertation to you, you need to spend more time reading stuff other than blogs. If it's the most shallow-minded thing you've seen on a blog, you need to read more blogs.
I didn't mention anything "hurting" Bush in my post. By the time he went to trial Lindh was front-page news. It's hard to believe that the prosecutor would have ofered him a deal without at least the president's tacit approval. When you make a deal with someone to hush up, you have a reason for it. I've really got no idea what Bush's reason was.
The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S. Maybe they were plotting something against us back then, and if Lindh knew about it that would make him a traitor. Whatever they were planning for us, they would have been fools to share it with the weird American guy they just picked up in Pakistan. I doubt the kid knew a damn thing.
Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 09:25 AM (dYdvr)
12
Lindh should be hung along with Aldrich Ames, Earl Pitts, Robert Hanssen, and John Pollard. And while were at it, find that SOB that leaked the "domestic spying" info and put him on the end of a rope too. Leaking info that is vital to national security is the same as engaging in combat against your own country. They are Traitors, one and all and should be treated as such.
Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:39 AM (D3+20)
13
That 'shut him up' argument is a bunch of crap, Shannon. If the US wanted to shut him up, he would have 'died in combat'. Putting him in an American prison for 20 twenty years doesn't stop him from talking no matter what piece of paper he signed. Please don't try to tell us that some low-level Taliban fighter had the goods on Bush to embarass him. That may work over at Kos, but the average IQ in this forum is higher and the blind devotion to a political party lower.
Also, the Taliban was a known enemy of the US before he dragged his sorry ass over there. If poor Johnny got himself in over his head, well then, he made his bed in had to lie in it. This is a case of a spoiled, rich, liberal punk from the Bay Area who thought he would go and make an anti-America statement by joining the Taliban army. I'm sure by the end of day one, he had wished he had packed extra underwear.
The next time you want to make a point, don't pull that condescending "you people should read up" bullshit and show us some real information from a neutral and reliable source, i.e. not from the DNC talking points or a celebrity quote from Rolling Stone magazine. Even if "It's complicated", we'll try to put our heads together and decipher it.
Posted by: slug at December 21, 2005 09:42 AM (wcNc2)
14
One more thing about hanging those traitorous wretches, MAKE IT PUBLIC !!!! Build a gallows on the national mall, hang them all and leave them hanging til their bones have been picked clean and sun bleached. Like all other laws in this country, you have to enforce the laws that are on the books, apply the punishment to fit the crime, and be consistent about it.
Posted by: memphis761 at December 21, 2005 09:50 AM (D3+20)
15
Just yesterday ShannonKW claimed to be a conservative, but then in the same comment came to the defense of the BBC. She is about as conservative as Pelosi, or perhaps Kos. A liberal is sooo easy to spot, they just can't help themselves.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 10:06 AM (rUyw4)
16
seminar bloggers.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:08 AM (8e/V4)
17
well it certainly shows that our hindsight is always 20-20. In 2000-1 the US government total aid to Afghanistan was about 150 million. Of which 43 million was in cash, to the Taliban. Google it
Posted by: john Ryan at December 21, 2005 10:22 AM (ads7K)
18
John,
yes, as part of the anti-drug effort there. Same with Colombia. And then 9/11 happenned. That should have been Johnny Taliban's cue to bail.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM (8e/V4)
19
Well, itÂ’s a pretty ridiculous request. Charlie Manson has a better chance of getting this President to reduce his sentence than young John.
Posted by: Brad at December 21, 2005 10:59 AM (3OPZt)
20
C'mon folks: all Taliban Johnny needs to do is get some hack to ghost-write a children's book about staying away from terrorism. He'll publish it, the NYT Book Review will give it five stars, the Hollywood crowd will go into a swoon, Heath Ledger will portray him in an Academy Award-nominated movie, he'll be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the next defeat-ocrat president will grant him a pardon.
Posted by: docjim505 at December 21, 2005 11:14 AM (MC8cP)
21
I'm with memphis on this one; we need public hangings of his sort. And politicians too, starting with Billary, John Kerry, Dingy Harry Reid, et al.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 11:25 AM (0yYS2)
22
If anything the Taliban / Al-Qaeda - Russia / Mujahideen should teach us as Americans, that is it is time for our Government to stop backing a horse because it suits a method to our means, the horse inevitably lands back at our door.
As Carlos mentioned the drug trade and Columbia, I'll add a little counter, sometimes even though our Special Forces are running interdictions at the will of our politicians, the same have already tied their hands behind their backs.
I believe it was in the book "Combat Swimmer" one of the Navy Seals tasked with hunting drug lords said that their operational orders were to capture, and hand over to local authorities. He had specifically requested if it would not be better to kill them, in order to make being a drug lord a dangerous job, while sending messages to others. He was told no, capture and hand to local authorities. Well of course they did, but nothing ever came of it because the drug lords already had local authorities in their pockets, and were released.
So why send in the SF, if you're not going to follow through? this is part of the problem: the cavalier actions of our politicians, with their "secret wars" and selective law enforcement, there is not enough thought behind it, no analysis of the reprocussions, or monitoring of the after effects and it inevitably gets people killed.
It's happened in Iraq too.
Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 11:28 AM (CcXvt)
23
dave,
sometimes the politicians are themselves restrained by Liberals, and other times restrained by the political realities on the ground. So it's not always unfair to criticize them for having to restrain the SF.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:44 AM (8e/V4)
24
...not always FAIR...
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 11:45 AM (8e/V4)
25
First off, I'm a dude. Uncommon first name, yes, and half of my junk mail is addressed to "Ms. ShannonKW."
Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos.
Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Fourth, I made no crack on Bush. I can't imagine what Lindh could know that would embarrass Bush personally. Wiki suggests that he was maltreated by his captor, but that doen't sound like enough to me. If I was a gambling man I'd bet that they shut him up to prevent him from becoming a hero to those who sympatize with him, but I wouldn't bet much.
Fifth, lazy, spoiled people aren't known for renouncing all the comforts of a wealthy family to study Arabic in Yemen, attend an austere religious academy in Pakistan, and take to the hills of Central Asia with a bunch of fanatic semi-barbarians. Loony is certainly plausible, but "spoiled" is right out.
I have this old-fashioned ability to respect the virtues of my enemies. If it was up to me, I would give Lindh a full pardon, a pair of sandals, and a one-way ticket to Yemen on the condition that he renounce U.S. citizenship and never return. Hell, out of generosity of spirit I'd even give him a kind farewell: "Sorry U.S. isn't Islamic enough for you. Get lost."
Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 12:06 PM (dYdvr)
26
Well my comments were in regards to all parties, if we were to look at the Russia / Mujahideen scenario, while the Government poured lots of money into financing a rag-tag guerilla force, and trained them in techniques to destroy soviet Helicopters via targetting the front/rear rotors to destroy the Soviets afterwards, we had to realise that these soldiers would move on? Even King Hussein of Jordan warned us that the returning Mujahideen enrolled into the Islamic Egyptian Jihad (which would then become the base of Al-Qaeda)
While the old adage applied is that "You cannot make an omelette, without breaking some eggs" and often it is true, but we should all expect accountability from our politicians, and request that for every action they make, they look to the future and the effects that they may create?
Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:07 PM (CcXvt)
27
Actually Shannon the seeds of his induction to Islam were started here, with his attendance of a Mosque funded by the radicals in Saudi Arabia. Also when you count out the "spoiled" I think you are going with the scenario that suicide bombers, and radicals are a product of being poor. That is not true, look at some of the profiles of suicide bomers in Iraq, they were living in relative wealth.
btw. Wikipedia leans so far left, I have to tilt my head to read the screen.
Posted by: dave at December 21, 2005 12:11 PM (CcXvt)
28
The guy is thought to have gone to Afghanistan in Spring 2001, which would be about half a year before the Taliban decided to elect themselves chief enemy of the U.S.
So, you're arguing that until about, oh, 8:30 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the Taliban Regime wasn't anti-American? You are arguing that Johnny Brokeback had no idea what he was getting into when he joined al Qaeda? He never got 'the talk' until 8:30 a.m. on September 11?
Can I buy pot from you?
Posted by: V the K at December 21, 2005 12:21 PM (1R6cr)
29
I hope they laugh at his request for a sentence reduction as they toss it into the wastebasket. I seriously doubt that he had any damaging information against the U.S.
Posted by: Dkelsmith at December 21, 2005 12:48 PM (a3ksX)
30
Lindh didn't volunteer or operate in a vacuum. He knowingly joined, participated with, and by extension, fully supported the ideology, the actions, and the "baggage" of the Tailban and AQ PRE 9/11. I don't care how young he was - 9/11 is not the benchmark to judge him by, but just one item in a string of related events.
There have been similar cases in the past - notably WW2 - of Americans (and other nationals) serving in the Nazi military by choice. In the case of the Americans - yes - pre Dec 7 '41.
I know a few were captured - but don't know what happened to them. I know many simply "disappeared".
Whatever ...
Lindh already has received clemency - his treatment & sentence went above and beyond compassion.
I would be open to him serving out the remainder of his sentence in an Afghan prison with his peers - plus additional charges could be brought against him by the Afghan government for his participation and actions against the Afghan people.
I consider that fair & compassionate.
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 12:58 PM (3aakz)
31
I don't have a feminine name so maybe I'm missing something. Can you please highlight and quote for me exactly where in Lindh's plea agreement it is that he is sworn to silence? Granted it is unaccompanied by the usual Wiki-flavored commentary but I think I understood almost every word used. The closest I see to anything approaching censure is this:
14. The defendant hereby assigns to the United States any profits or proceeds which he may be entitled to receive in connection with any publication or dissemination of information relating to illegal conduct alleged in the Indictment. This assignment shall include all profits and proceeds for the benefit of the defendant, regardless of whether such profits and proceeds are payable to himself or to others, directly or indirectly, for his benefit or for the benefit of the defendantÂ’s associates or a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. The defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by assigning the rights to his story to an associate or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family, or to another person or entity who would provide some financial benefit to the defendant, to the defendantÂ’s associates, or to a current or future member of the defendantÂ’s family. Moreover, the defendant shall not circumvent this assignment by communicating with an associate or a family member for the purpose of assisting or facilitating their profiting from a public dissemination, whether or not such an associate or other family member is personally or directly involved in such dissemination.
So whatever you have buried in that gray lump between your ears please be kind enough to spill it out here with links preferrably.
22. The defendant agrees that this agreement puts to rest his claims of mistreatment by the United States military, and all claims of mistreatment are withdrawn. The defendant acknowledges that he was not intentionally mistreated by the U.S. military.
Enjoy....
Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 01:40 PM (Vp1bn)
32
Nice work!
Yes! he can talk all he wants - he just can't get paid for it - which is becoming pretty standard in many criminal cases now.
It is a bit of a stretch to consider this "forced silence".
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 01:48 PM (3aakz)
33
not sue,
good job. Let that be a lesson to the rest of us about taking Libs at their word.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 01:59 PM (8e/V4)
34
Shannon said: "Second, I'm conservative compared with the mean here in the U.S. I just look liberal here because this board is somewhat to the right of Ferdinand Marcos."
Explain that please, specifically how "right" Marcos was, and how we, the denizens of TJR, are moreso in comparison. You may think you're conservative, but you still parrot the enemy's propaganda nicely.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 21, 2005 02:33 PM (0yYS2)
35
So you think he's a sheep in wolf's clothing, do you maxie?
Maybe right.
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 02:38 PM (3aakz)
36
It looks like line 22 pretty much prevents him from claiming to be maltreated, even if he was. It seems doubtful that that clause would have to be added if he was NOT maltreated, but also unlikely that the whole agreement was made for the sake of that line. (For the record, it wouldn't matter to me if he had been maltreated. The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so that score is settled.)
The non-profit clause would effectively gag him except in the case that someone decided to publish his story out of sheer charity. It is so broad that it prevents anyone at all from profitting by it. So this would prevent, "One Against America! The JWL Story!" from making the bestseller list and inspiring budding white jihadists everywhere, which supports my best guess above.
There is nothing in there I can see that totally shuts him up, but I already said I thought he didn't know anything in my original post.
Looking through to body of the agreement, it looks like it was mainly for intelligence purposes though with the other stuff tacked on.
Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 03:08 PM (dYdvr)
37
"The dude who supposedly did it already got his, so the score is settled." Nice job scumbag, you just let everybody here know exactly what you are. Fuck off to Yemen yourself.
Posted by: anti-walker at December 21, 2005 03:52 PM (i9Fox)
38
Another fly-by-night free emailer - of the "right" persuasion this time. Come back later when you invest some money in a real email account - until then - leave the insults to those who paid for the right to do it!
Awaiting greyrooster who has PAID his dues - now he knows how to insult - with style!
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 04:05 PM (3aakz)
39
So you are admitting that your initial post:
It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain.
is a load of bullshit? Thank you, Shannon. How very "conservative" of you. Now maybe you can go correct this "Wiki" that lead you astray.
Posted by: Not named Sue at December 21, 2005 04:15 PM (Vp1bn)
40
Hmmm....I think Johnny Tali got off lightly as it was, but one wonders why he would ask at this time. Perhaps he is just throwing mud at the wall with hopes of some sticking. He would die in prison if it was up to me.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 04:20 PM (rUyw4)
41
I agree with Shannon.
The guy joined the Taliban before we were at war with them. It would have been suicide for him to desert when the war commenced.
Besides, Bush and his oil buddies were cozy with the Taliban. When the Taliban turned down an "offer that they shouldn't have refused", the U.S turned on them BEFORE 9-11. Typical mafiosa behavior:
There was a preexisting desire to build gas pipelines in Afghanistan. “A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. A BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” 12-04-1997
http://news.b_bc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
(Take Out Underscore)
The Texas contingency must not have had a constructive meeting with the Taliban, because the pipeline contract was awarded to the Argentinean company Bridas.
Plans for a war against Afghanistan and Iraq had already been made prior to 9-11. “A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.”
http://news.bb_c.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
(Take Out Underscore)
On March 15th, 2001, Jane’s Defense reported that war against the Taliban had already commenced, “India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.”
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:12 PM (KzOsW)
42
For a good pre-9-11 timeline highlighting the rivalry for the TalibanÂ’s signature by Unocal and Bridas (BP Amoco Argentina), see:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/119.html
Johnny Boy, "Walkered" in on a deal gone bad.
IÂ’d buy his book.
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 05:52 PM (KzOsW)
43
Hmmmm,
Let's see. The thread topic is about Lindh's request for clemency. You agree with Shannon with a one-line opening sentence.
Then ZOOOOOOMMMMMMM! Off you go into Neverland!
OK. Fine.
Since you choose the exclusive material on the Taliban and Afghanistan (NOT Iraq everyone) - then come out of the fuckin' closet with conviction and courage and openingly claim the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ is illegal, fraudulent and a US conspiracy!
Come on! You coyly hint at it - now go for it! That's a winning strategy - yeah - right!
I swear! You are the most pathetic, educated yet inept writer I have encountered in years!
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 05:59 PM (3aakz)
44
Hondo,
I love how you circle jerk boys ignore my argument.
You lose, thanks fer playin'.
NEXT!
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:14 PM (KzOsW)
45
"1997"
Greg,
distrust and verify is our motto here. In fact Bill Clinton was president in 1997-- not "Bush and his oil buddies". Bush wasn't even a candidate for president.
The TalibanÂ’s entry into the United States was requested by the Unocal corporation and cleared by ClintonÂ’s State Department. Which would seem to prove that it was actually "Clinton and his oil buddies" who were cozy with the Taliban-- not "Bush".
As far as Unocal and the pipeline deal goes, that too is a lie. Unocal led an multinational consortium in the 1990s which undertook feasibility studies, but it pulled out of the project in 1998 because of security issues.
Three years after the invasion, Unocal still doesn't have a pipeline in Afghanistan. Why not? Doesn't "Bush" call the shots there? Musharraf and Karzai have signed a pipeline deal, and Unocal isn't part of that consortium. If "Bush and his oil buddies" had wanted a Unocal pipeline in Afghanistan, there would be one right now.
Your Unocal pipeline meme doesn't hold a drop of water.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:24 PM (8e/V4)
46
greg
Your "argument" was a series of links to OTHER PEOPLES writings, opinions, analyses, and thoughts. NOT yours.
You actually DIDN'T "argue" or write anything you moron! You didn't even attempt to analytically extropolate any shred of linkage or context.
This is the lame intellectual bankrupt equivalent of a 5 page term paper with 1 paragraph and 4 1/2 pages of footnotes and bibliography!
Whoever were your professors in analytical and creative writing were - I'd sue to get your money back!
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:35 PM (3aakz)
47
ps, correction: according to Unical, their decision to pull out was made on a commercial basis-- and has not been reconsidered.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (8e/V4)
48
JC
On this one don't even bother - in fact - force the real hinted issue - the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and AQ - don't play his idiotic and childish game - till he comes out and "ARGUES" it.
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:40 PM (3aakz)
49
hondo,
the conspiracy crowd is too pathetic for words. There's an excellent article on what makes these people tick, and why they latch onto conspiracies like their world literally depended on it:
"When a postmodern liberal is served up a myth which supports his shaky world view, he will cling to it, cherish it, and defend it. This is precisely why postmodern liberalism and far left ideologies are so thickly salted with myths. The myths are carefully protected with oppressive systems of political correctness where dissent is stifled. In Communist countries, dissent from Marxist myths earned you a trip to the gulag for labor and "re-education," or to an insane asylum where your "mental illness" can be cured by drugs, torture, and brainwashing techniques."
"When one has adopted a false world view, he requires the support of myths. Real life is constantly battering against his sand castle walls. Something with psychological power like myths are needed to shore up the jerry-built edifice of his false world view. When a conservative points out that the house has no foundation, the liberal can deny it, rationalize it away, or accuse the conservative of being a fascist. It is far easier to ignore the missing foundation if there is a ready made myth like Adorno's "authoritarian mind" to fall back upon. "The guy who is criticizing me is a fascist type. I can ignore his criticism. Let's attack the fascist."
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 06:46 PM (8e/V4)
50
Greg also loves the moonbats at the BBC, and uses them for reference, as if they are objective and don't have an ideology. The Al-Guardian, one of the worst of the Leftist rags in the UK, is the recruiting ground of choice for the BBC. Frankly, I'm surprised Johnny (Taliban) Lindh wasn't working for the BBC in 2000-2001. Perhaps that is how he ended up in Afghanistan, he was a reporter for the BBC working on the Unocal pipeline angle. Heh!
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 21, 2005 06:52 PM (rUyw4)
51
Carlos,
The Janes defense link is from MARCH 15, 2001.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush.
Third, the deal that was being sought by Unocal of the Taliban is not a “lie”. You go on to admit as much in your next sentence, “Unocal led an (sic) multinational…”
Finally, the spoils of war are still being sorted out in Afghanistan. Haliburton is a player and yes, Haliburton had a favored relationship with the government under Clinton too. I would bet that “American multinational Corporate” interests (an oxymoron) are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan should security issues be resolved.
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 06:56 PM (KzOsW)
52
JC
But he didn't make an argument or state a conspiracy. He in fact - did nothing! - and wants to be recognized for - nothing!
What annoys me is that is was LAME & LAZY! And he wants credit for it!
Any self-respecting leftist writer would sadly shake their head and give him a D ... I would give him a D- simply because his spelling was good - and I'm a nice guy.
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 06:57 PM (3aakz)
53
greg,
one simple question. If Unocal didn't drop out because of economic reasons (as they already stated), then why didn't they sign a deal when the Taliban fell? Just answer that one single question. Don't go onto other topics or rabbit trails. Focus like a laser beam on just that one question.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:06 PM (8e/V4)
54
>>>"Second, you know I hate both major parties. Fuck Clinton and Bush."
Show me where you go to harrass Democrats and Liberals. A link please.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:33 PM (8e/V4)
55
Carlos,
Again...
I would bet that “American multinational Corporate” interests (an oxymoron), INCLUDING UNOCAL, are primed to realize the full commercial potential that is Afghanistan SHOULD SECURITY ISSUES BE RESOLVED.
I have answered your question twice, but you're too thickheaded, as usual, to get it. "Economic reasons" and security issues are synonymous inn this case.
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:35 PM (KzOsW)
56
"I would bet..."
That's your answer?
See this article on post-modern need for myths and conspiracies:
The Myth Creating Process of the Left
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040630
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (8e/V4)
57
I harass liberals on this site all the time. IÂ’m a conservative and I belong here.
Now I get to ask you a question.
You claim to be a “Christian” and yet, yesterday, you encouraged Impy to “shoot him in the back of the head”, to paraphrase, when engaging one “Ben Franklin” in a mob frenzy.
Given that you claim to be a “Christian”, how do you reconcile such behavior?
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 07:50 PM (KzOsW)
58
greg,
did it piss you off?
That's how I reconcile it ;-)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 21, 2005 07:56 PM (8e/V4)
59
Carlos""I would bet..."That's your answer"
I have in fact bet.
I've made a nice chunk of change in the market. Valero (VLO) has tripled in the last year, Halliburton (HAL) has nearly doubled in the last 9 months, Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Conoco Phillips (COP) have also done me right.
But my best pick, should the H5N1 hysteria get out of control, is Gildeon Sciences (GILD). They developed Tamiflu and sold it to Roche for 10% royalties, which could be substantial (This is one of RumseldsÂ’ former companies).
I say, do as the royals do if you want to get ahead.
I made money during the Clinton and Bush Administrations and I still intensely dislike them both.
Posted by: Greg at December 21, 2005 08:26 PM (KzOsW)
60
This is drifting off the post topic.
This is not a bulletin board, or an open forum.
O ye of little faith, tread carefully, for thy Vinnie is a vengeful Vinnie.
Posted by: Vinnie at December 21, 2005 08:31 PM (Kr6/f)
61
Not named Sue,
Looking over my posts on this I don't think I was too far from the mark, especially considering that I didn't have the text of the agreement on hand and was referring to a Wikipedia article from memory. I stated what my source was and wasn't trying to "bullshit" anyone.
What got you all huffy and caused a thousand knees to jerk in unison appears to be a paranoid conviction that I was insinuating some sort of conspiracy or evildoing on the part of Bush WHICH I WENT OUT OF MY WAY TO DENY. Maybe you're sensitized to it because every time someone you don't agree with says "Bush" he's sure to follow it up with lunatic conspiracy theories or a comparison to a chimpanzee. I wasn't accusing Bush of anything wrong. I didn't even say the agreement was wrong. If you want to vent your bile on a Bush-basher at least have the goddamn self-restraint to wait till somebody bashes him.
You people do take the prize for this: You are the only people in ages to mistake me for a liberal. I've got no idea where you get this. Maybe you're mistaking conservatism with patriotism. Who knows? I do know I have extreme conservative beliefs that could shock the snuff down Farmer Brown's gullet:
I believe the max prison sentence in the US should be 5yrs--Any crime deserving worse should be punished with penal servitude or death.
I believe violent criminals should be impressed into penal battallions and used as cannon-fodder, because I like the idea of unleashing our internal foes on our extenal ones.
Dead prisoners should be scavenged for parts.
Repeat offenders (any crime) past a certain threshold should be deemed uncivilizable and released naked into large reservations to live the rest of their lives as hunter-gatherers.
The "Duty to Treat" (law requiring doctors to treat all patients in need) should be suspended in the case of self-inflicted injury. Junkies die on their own dime.
The vote should be given only to people who can make trouble. I'm still not sure if it was a good idea to give it to women.
All governement--local, state, and federal--must operate within a fixed budget. The budget may only be adjusted by referendum.
No entitlement programs. No medicare/medicaid. No Social Security. If you can't contribute to your own retirement fund, you're not worth propping up.
Ordering US military forces to attack in the absence of a congressional declaration of war should be deemed an act of treason and punished by death only.
I could go on, but I won't nauseate you further. I ain't a liberal.
Posted by: ShannonKW at December 21, 2005 08:41 PM (dT1MB)
62
Another Crook wannabe (same game)- laying out fishing hooks for those gullible to fall for it.
Posted by: hondo at December 21, 2005 10:56 PM (3aakz)
63
Greg, when are you going to get it through your thick skull that you're an idiot? Is it your particular curse to never realize that you're "special"? You should be wrangling shopping carts at the local Wal-Mart, not wasting your time on the internet.
By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site. If you do such things again, I will have no choice but to find you. Don't fuck up.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 11:40 AM (0yYS2)
64
Improbulus:"By the way, I've seen where you've been posting that article with my information, especially on the Tennessee Indymedia site."
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. "Agent Smith" is the one who outed you and I think I know who he is.
Please show me a link to what you are talking about and I will help you analyze the situation.
Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 01:45 PM (KzOsW)
65
Don't play stupid greg. Stalk me and you stalk a lion. It's time for you to stop playing your childish games and straighten up before you become the next celebrity of the 24 hour news cycle.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 02:49 PM (0yYS2)
66
Thank you for the resume, Shannon. It doesn't change the fact that you hung your ass out pretty far off a shaky platform.
Here you are in the first post you made to this thread:
You people should read up on why he got 20yrs. It's complicated, but the executive summary is they gave him a light sentence to shut him up. He has agreed not to publish any info about his experience as part of a plea bargain. Obviously, we can't know what it was that the govt. didn't want us to hear, but it seemed important enough to Bush.
Take your own advice? Google is your friend by the way. Also your enemy if you're ignorant(red flag clue here). You were wrong. You half-heartedly admitted as much yet you will probably stick to the same bullshit line of reasoning you had before you made the mistake of posting here. Willful ignorance is consistent if little else.
Here you are again making a complete ass out of yourself(by the way, you should paypal Greg for trumping your silliness):
Third, the conditions of Lindh's agreement are public knowledge. I got it from Wiki. If you know a reputable source that disputes it, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Yes, it is public knowledge so why did you rely solely(?) on "Wiki*". And you obviously couldn't give a shit about reputable sources since you didn't even bother to go directly to THE source--the court documents. Here you go, Ms. Shannon. Notice the first link. Woe is me!!1 So much effort and time invested in that research project.
By the way, my responses weren't knee-jerk dismissal of some liberal troll. It was actually serious snark directed at a fool. A fool who obviously had no qualms about flaunting his ignorance in public. If someone else had called you on it I'd have kept to myself. Whether you're a registered R or D makes no difference. Stupid people reside on both sides of the aisle. But given you are quantifiably stupid AND your "he got what he deserved" comment about Spann the scales tilted away from irrate paleo-con toward hackneyed Kos flunky.
* - You do know "wiki" is a platform for web design, right? You do know Wikipedia is not the only "wiki" in the universe, right, right? Of course, you probably know that as well as you know the details of Lindh's plea agreement. Who am I to question.
Posted by: Not named Sue at December 22, 2005 04:21 PM (YAEN3)
67
Impy,
Trust me, you are the furthest thing from my mind.
Send me the link and I might be able to tell you who did whatever you are talking about.
neuroman_268@yahoo.com
(Take Out The Underscore)
Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:17 PM (KzOsW)
68
Honestly greg, I don't really care who did it this time, but if it happens again, I'm going to find the person responsible.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 05:38 PM (0yYS2)
69
The question is...
Who is "Agent Smith"?
Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 05:58 PM (KzOsW)
70
Agent Smith is NOT you!
He (regardless of his political (and sexual) persuasion) writes his own material, is original and often creative - and occasionally amusing.
You are a dork - the kind of guy other leftists give the wrong time and address for protests to.
Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:14 PM (3aakz)
71
He is quite creative.
Posted by: Greg at December 22, 2005 06:26 PM (KzOsW)
72
And your not - we agree on something ....YYYYEEEAAAHHHHH!
Posted by: hondo at December 22, 2005 06:30 PM (3aakz)
73
I think Smith's as big a moron as the rest, because my two year old neice can come up with better crap than he does.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 22, 2005 08:10 PM (0yYS2)
68kb generated in CPU 1.1939, elapsed 1.8262 seconds.
119 queries taking 1.7692 seconds, 322 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 1.7692 seconds, 322 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
