February 06, 2007
When confronted investigative-report style regarding his atrocious subretarded ranting at the US military in the Washington Post, chickendove William Arkin evaded and ran like the despicable coward that he is.
He was too busy skiing. Far too courageous and heroic to stand behind and answer for his anti-American slime.
Courage. Courage. Courage.
Here's the NBC report Arkin claims to have "mulled over." The reality is that the clip punctured Arkin's mainstream-mediot Cloud 9 lifestyle and revealed an uncomfortable truth that he can't deal with: the leftarded antiwarbots led by the likes of him are having a direct negative effect on the troop morale in Iraq. Deal with it, Arkin. You made the bed, you chose your side, and now you sleep in it:
ht: LGF
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:21 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 2 kb.
<P>Too bad the FOX reporter who confronted Anus Arkin didn't have better cross examination chops...and sound bites prepared to set Arkin up with. C- ....XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
<P>ie. Anus Arkin, Why do you hate American Soldiers and Marines? Why have you slandered American Heros? Who are you Arkin that American Patriots threaten you? Whats wrong with you? Why aren't you ashamed?
Posted by: Rubin at February 06, 2007 02:30 AM (n8YIu)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at February 06, 2007 06:39 AM (2OHpj)
Sad, isn't it? Republicans keep telling us, over and over, that "supporting the troops" means "supporting the war," but nobody pays any attention!! People keep right on asking, how about all those veterans against the war; why do their opinions count any less than those of the troops who support the war? And if you have such delicate sensibilities about supporting the troops, how come you call decorated veterans like Max Cleland and John Kerry and John Murtha traitors and cowards? And when it comes to supporting the families of dead veterans with adequate survivor benefits, how come then it's "Sorry, too expensive?"
Yup, the the more Republicans froth at the mouth with their liberals-hate-the-troops nonsense, the more the public just snickers and ignores them completely. Some troops don't like the fact that three-quarters of the American public is against the war? Some troops don't think you can support them and oppose the war at the same time? Tough crap. They're all big boys and girls. They'll get over the fact that some of their fellow citizens disagree with them, and will do their jobs just fine.
Posted by: legaleagle at February 06, 2007 04:20 PM (fMQ6j)
The troops know it. The proof is on the tape and in the media.
Go play in traffic.
Posted by: Good Lt at February 06, 2007 04:29 PM (D0TMh)
Posted by: greyrooster at February 06, 2007 05:37 PM (hEgPR)
I don't go for this sort of thing but since Jeff isn't here yet,
Hey! "Smeagoleagle"! The mission of our troops is to fight on behalf of the national interests of the USA, and by such exertions, keep us strong in the face of our enemies, and guard our freedoms. the war in Iraq is part of that greater mission. So called peace activists, and marxist sympathizers are against the mission, so they are against the troops, and it is obvious. You can see it in the way some of these 'peaceniks' support Hezb'Allah.
You can only enumerate a few vetrans who oppose the mission, even if you can find quite few who are dissatified with having their hands tied by politicians.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at February 06, 2007 08:24 PM (2OHpj)
How about legal canary? Yellow and sings at every opportunity.Posted by: greyrooster at February 06, 2007 09:35 PM (Lf9lR)
Arkin and hhis smega gobbling friends like legaleagle should be charged with convicted of then executed for treason...
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=16834
Posted by: doriangrey at February 12, 2007 09:55 PM (P3mNs)
January 31, 2007
The Jawa Report recently highlighted Marcotte's wildly inept prosecutorial fantasies and mindless hyperfeminist rambling, which were sporadically posted during first few months of the Duke Lacrosse incident. The case's rapid deterioration in full view of the public caused her to go completely silent on the issue after Summer 2006. For some reason.
She's probably busy trying to figure out a way to make the case that John Edwards' recent purchase of a multi-million dollar, 20-thousand-plus square foot mansion spoke truth to power to the rich elites in America and helped the most unfortunate among us. Don't worry - she'll think of something.
And just remember - there are Democrats proposing new anti-speech laws that aim to prohibit people from 'deceiving voters' during election time. Edwards had better lawyer up.
ht: Pablo @ protein wisdom
Posted by: Good Lt. at
10:18 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
Preach about the "Two Americas," and steal as much money as you can from the Two Americas' retarded little brother.
Posted by: wooga at January 31, 2007 02:34 PM (t9sT5)
January 17, 2007
Great find, Ragnar.
Kind of creepy, and even more so that it is hard to figure out exactly what happened now that Google's cache archives have been scrubbed of Trainwrecks' content along with most of the related thread wars at both sites.
Heaven Nose, I might note, is still standing.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
03:34 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: She at January 17, 2007 05:48 PM (JaWR6)
I'm sorry I did see the nose job. Truly amateur and sophomoric.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 17, 2007 07:03 PM (abVz3)
Fuck 'em.
Posted by: Joe Public at January 17, 2007 07:09 PM (qNaF9)
So the incident caused the removal of the comments. HN still wins, since they didn't shut down the entire site like TW did.
Posted by: Good Lt at January 17, 2007 08:06 PM (D0TMh)
They 'won'? Perhaps, in their petty little pissing contest. I'm not sticking up for Trainwrecks in particular - never read it, probably wouldn't want to - but these hardball, bully-boy tactics don't do a lot to promote freedom of speech on the web.
Their 'win' represents a loss for anyone who thinks that the 'net should be the last bastion of truly free speech. And so, I repeat - fuck 'em.
Posted by: Joe Public at January 17, 2007 09:41 PM (qNaF9)
Posted by: blackflag at January 17, 2007 10:40 PM (Ng7ee)
"Their 'win' represents a loss for anyone who thinks that the 'net should be the last bastion of truly free speech. And so, I repeat - fuck 'em."
So sayeth Joe Public, and I think based on what I saw of their own chest thumping antics, I'd be agreeing with Joe. Fuck 'Trainwreck' also, for abusing their free speech to cause pain! But let's not forget how wrong the kind of attack against them was!
Another point, I do not know where the new technology will be taking real warfare, and we do have Jihadist recruiting going on over the internet. I don't for a minute beleieve Joe Public thinks that stuff is OK, free speech or not. I'm just trying to point out the relevance to this as it affects the GWOT. I don't think enemy propaganda counts as free speech, nor do I think they much care for our own propagandizing.
THERE WILL BE TROUBLE!
We have seen a glimpse of what may come. It will not just affect people like me, who use our real names, as we can see from the article. We had what? Seven Million hits? How many are Jihadists, or future Jihadists? This 'trainwreck' wasn't anything. Nobody had their kid snatched, or their car bombed, or got sniped at, or shot in a drive-by. Time for my St John's Wort 
I think we should count this as another 'ding' in the alarm clock!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 05:41 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: sphost4f at April 03, 2007 02:10 AM (CWbf6)
January 15, 2007
And some people apparently are content with the lion's share of the corporate media transforming into the DNC press office.
Its complicated.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
09:56 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
What do Michael Moore's little red ants have in common with the 'Mexica' rascists who hate 'europeans', and love illegals? Same thing. Pretty soon all these boycotts will allow Disney to put its advertising money into more and even better films. Neato.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 16, 2007 05:25 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Dan Collins at January 16, 2007 07:49 PM (PaHki)
January 12, 2007
Unlike newspaper editors, AllahP even indicated in boldface type that he altered the back-lighting in the photo and removed some of the grain with the "Reduce Noise" filter.
There are one or two voices of sanity in this DU this thread - I feel bad for those folks.
No updates yet from the legions of leftosphere imbeds in Iraq.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
02:09 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Darth Odie Sidiousness at January 12, 2007 05:43 PM (YHZAl)
November 30, 2006
He's more like Kryptonite to common sense...and Jenny Craig.
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:38 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 07:16 PM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Howie at November 30, 2006 07:48 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: dick at November 30, 2006 11:02 PM (2wtXk)
That Michelle is even a bigger moron than you guys!!
Typical conservative pundit.
The story keeps changing, every time they tell it, but, at least they are consistant ...consistantly wrong.
Could she be anymore whacked out?
Yeah, the US government was justified in putting all those Americans in prison camps, during WWII, since their ancestors are Japanese.
Is there anyone here, that actually agrees with Michelle?
Keep talking like she does, and you, also, will have a Fatwah issued in your names.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at December 01, 2006 06:45 AM (2uSUl)
A Fatwa!? Where.....Damn, you had me all excited there for a minute!
Posted by: Howie at December 01, 2006 09:01 AM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: john at December 01, 2006 04:15 PM (Zpedp)
2. Right, left, who cares? Michelle is easier on the eyes and uses those sexy things of hers.
Yeah, that's right. She calls them FACTS.
Ever notice how short people who criticize Michelle Malkin are on FACTS?
Long on hypocrisy (right, Keith Olberman?), short on FACTS.
Facts are sexy and Michelle's got 'em.
Wish I could send her a t-shirt that reads "Don't hate me because I've got sexy facts. Hate me because your former readers/viewers found out I have sexy facts!"
Posted by: GI Joe at December 01, 2006 09:22 PM (0euLV)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 02, 2006 12:47 AM (bLPT+)
Posted by: sandpiper at December 03, 2006 11:43 PM (as4nC)
November 25, 2006
I've noticed there's a certain group of Jawa commenters for whom the answer to every problem seems to be to "nuke Mecca," to nuke this or that Arab city and/or otherwise kill massive numbers of Muslims in some genocidal campaign. To my knowledge, none of the commenters offering these solutions have ever been able to explain how this plan is supposed to work out in practice to our benefit. I suspect there's a reason for that. I suspect that "nuke 'em" is a knee-jerk, emotional reaction, and little (if anything) more than that. Little (if any) thought given to winning the long-term conflict. Little (if any) thought given to a long-term strategy.
If you really think nuking Mecca, Riyadh, Cairo, Beirut, Damascus, Islamabad or all of the above is a good strategy for winning this conflict, then you really ought to do the rest of us the courtesy of laying out what you expect to happen in the aftermath of the suggested nuclear holocaust and why. If you haven't really considered what happens in the aftermath, then you shouldn't be surprised when others are disinclined to take the idea seriously.
Posted by: Ragnar at
01:46 PM
| Comments (86)
| Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.
We will have to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat somehow. Once Iran has nukes, they will be able to find a way to use them. We can't allow that. We need to be able to totally destroy the means of production of such weapons. Nukes are an indescriminant but efficient way to get the job done.
It may also be a good way to encourage rogue states to stop being rogue states.
North Korea is a similar threat. The biggest problem in using force to remove North Korea's nukes, is the xenophobia that China's leadership still has towards the capitalist west. Shocking China into a frightened reaction could be worse in the grand scheme.
With Iran, I would go as far as recommending China particpate in rebuilding. They have more interest in Iran's economy than we do.
Wherever we may need to use nukes, I am sure we will have to help rebuild. Like we did in Japan. In so doing, we will have a hand in creating a new relationship, like the one we developed with Japan.
I have no problem with Wafa Sultan's idea of transforming Islam, and I see no problem with a rational form of Islam existing. We need to keep all options on the table against violent, aggressive Islam.
Now, I'm not supposed to be here, cause I am very busy this weekend. So catch you all later
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 25, 2006 02:35 PM (2OHpj)
What's more reprehensible is the recent surge in the number of mentally challenged trolls who get all of their news from Airhead America, and who are determined to drown out any opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:03 PM (vBK4C)
To be clear, I wasn't only referring to the "nuke Mecca" comments. I know those aren't quite as common as "It's long since time we turned that whole place into a parking lot / glass factory" and similar comments, but it's the same idea.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at November 25, 2006 03:13 PM (ab5VJ)
The Time magazine reported 1/3 of those polls are paying more attention to the news headlines today in light of the end of times.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/story.html
For those so inclined there is the Rapture Ready Index which touts itself as being similar to the Dow Jones stock average. It had 2 million individual hits on ONE day ! Today's index is 161 somewhat below its all time high but still VERY HIGH !!
http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.ht2.html
2 million hits !!
Posted by: John Ryan at November 25, 2006 03:15 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:16 PM (vBK4C)
Posted by: Capt Hook at November 25, 2006 03:17 PM (nzqB7)
North Korea has no usable weapons; their "fizzle" shot occurred because
they only have REACTOR grade plutonium (80% pure or less), which could
only be refined to weapons grade at enormous cost. They don't
have significant usable uranium, (3) most Russian nukes are
mothballed and have degraded to an unusable state, (4) Iran has no idea
what they're doing, and Russia is just taking their money. Iran
seems to have hoped to get a North Korea nuke, but now realize that
huge, ship-sized nukes that only fizzle are useless.
Here are some of the people who are helping us win this war:
Lebanese Girl (no viruses):
http://ikbis.com/beirut%20girl/shot/1300
THIS is what it's all about. Democracies have to be willing to die, so
this person can do this anytime she wants, without interference or
persecution. (It's not dirty, it's just FUN, and full of spirit, and
hope, and JOY). Islamists will never win, as long as we all agree
that this girls’ freedom is worth dying for. Her dance precedes
the birth of Islam.
Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 25, 2006 03:25 PM (+WNUd)
Since I have made a similar remark in the past let me please make amply clear that I do not condone genocide. I leave that to the Hitler's and Stalins and Mao's and Islamists of this world.
My suggestion of wiping out Mecca and Medina, after ample notice of evacuation, is in relation to the Muslim psyche. Namely, a psyche that only understands force and dominance. Wiping out the primary focal point of their (pseudo)-religion will give them the jolt they need to understand that gone are the days of 1400 years ago when could, by shear brutality, invade and kill and convert other peoples and destroy their civilizations and then claim the accomplishments of their victims as their own. You see, from their perspective the patience and tolerance of the West and its willingness to comprise are weaknesses that they want to use to defeat the west.
In the words of William Shakespear
"In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility. But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger. .... Summon up the blood, disguise the fair nature with hard-favour'd rage ..." [King Henry V Scene I]
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:21 PM (EdIIN)
But we did it. Not just ONE time, but TWICE.
I believe in pre-emptive defense. We can NOT let Iran get the nuke and I don't believe our government or anyone else has a clue as to when actually they will get the bomb. I do believe that they are further along than we estimate.
It is evident that the only way to deal with the militant faith of Islam is to eliminate it.
I would applaud and support President Bush if he launched a surpirse nuculear attack on Qom and Tehran, Iran. Damascus needs to be seriously considered as well.
The aftermath of conducting a preemptive nuclear strike or strikes and the aftermath that follows, i.e. a lot of dead people in an enemy nation, is far more palatable than doing nothing and waiting to let them strike a western nation or Israel first. Then we respond.
But we will wait and wait hoping in vain that the matter will blow over, but in the meantime our enemies will grow stronger and more powerful with nuclear bombs and more of them.
I prefer the "aftermath" of killing hordes of them first, before they kill hordes of us first.
If we had the nuculear bombs in January 1941-1942 and used them, we could have saved alot more American and Japanese lives.
The Japanese who if having the knowledge that we had nukes in 1941 and we indeed were to have had them then, they might not have struck Pearl Harbor. However, Iran is looking to create a Holocaust to bring back their false messiah and they know we got nukes and their leadership still is not phased by such knowledge for their religious ideology blinds them to reality.
So let's give them their Holocaust without our mutually being a part of what is laid to waste, by striking them first.
We can do it FIRST or do it TOGETHER, i.e. a nuclear response. I prefer doing it first.
So yes to genocide...nuke Syria and Iran.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:26 PM (38GUY)
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:36 PM (38GUY)
I don't want to support genocide, but Islam is putting us in the corner and we have no choice but to fight. It is either their genocide of us or we them. Again I don't like genocide, but if forced into a corner I prefer genocide them!
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 04:43 PM (38GUY)
I do love my Iran, but if decisive action is not taken now, what FLLaw33870 suggests, namely nuking population centres would become inevitable.
As things are now, I feel that round-the-clock unrelenting conventional bombardment of the concentrations of the primary prop of the regime namely the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp) and their auxiliaries Basiji with perhaps one or two tactical bunker-busting nukes against their nuclear and missile facilities is sufficient to do the job without having to kill millions of civilians. Put another way, if about 500,000 supporters of the regime are not killed soon; then there will be no choice but kill tens of millions of Iranian civilians most of whom have no love for the regime.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:45 PM (EdIIN)
Posted by: Mark at November 25, 2006 04:48 PM (isTfo)
"Under your pardon. You must note beside,
That we have tried the utmost of our friends,
Our legions are brim-full, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth every day;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."
And not just our "ventures" but our liberties and lives.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:50 PM (EdIIN)
The Mullah Regime of Iran already has about four nuclear war heads which they bought when the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Also, they already have missile which can, God forbid, carry these warheads to Israel. But they are trying to make even longer range missiles and make their own warheads; so that they can hold Europe hostage while they attack Isreal. In other words, they want to be able to dissuade the U.S. and it allies from a retaliatory strike (after the Mullahs have attacked Israel) by threatening to murder millions of Europeans.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 04:57 PM (EdIIN)
Posted by: Vinnie at November 25, 2006 05:10 PM (/qy9A)
I wasn't focusing on your comments in particular. In fact, you have a long history here of supporting of your positions with well-reasoned arguments.
As to your point, I'm fairly confident that an announcement that Mecca was to be destroyed would be met with a mass overnight hajj to Mecca. Would we actually pull the trigger if Mecca were packed with millions of Muslim women and children, including some Americans? I seriously doubt that we would. If we failed to make good on our threat, our bluff will have been called. We will have been exposed as the paper tiger bin Laden accuses us of being.
On the other hand, suppose we pulled the trigger and made good on our promise. There would be 1.3 billion Muslims in the world whose Big Holy Box had just been incinerated by the U.S. How would they react? Would they cower in fear or despair, or would they redouble their efforts to make the West pay a price?
The second question, I don't have an answer to. I suspect the answer is that some would retire in despair while others would be galvanized to action. If the second group outnumbered the first group, seems that bombing Mecca would be counterproductive.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 05:17 PM (/kcXh)
I pray that something else can happen to avoid the death of many wonderful people in Iran. Sadly, I don't think it will be possible.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 25, 2006 05:39 PM (38GUY)
Good point.
Posted by: Darth Vag at November 25, 2006 07:17 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 25, 2006 07:36 PM (VMUjK)
I think you are missing a salient point here. That point being that it doesn't matter wether we strike them or not, the numbers of muslims committed to killing us will increase REGARDLESS of what we do, simply due to the fact that the entire religion is FOUNDED on the concept of Holy War and conquest. The way I see it, if we do not wipe them out, they will grow to a size where we won't be able to deal with them. At that point we will end up having to use nukes anyway, perhaps as a retaliatory strike after they have already hit one of our cities. These aren't people we can negotiate with. If negotiation is off the table, our only two choices with someone who wants us dead is to either roll over and die, or to begin killing them.
I chose to kill them rather than die. I'd rather have the innocent children of Muslims die than my children. Obviously, the best choice is for neither to die. But that choice is rapidly dwindling away. At some point we will have to choose, them or us. I choose us. If that means we have to nuke Mecca, Tehran, Damascus, and anywhere else we must to force the surrender of Islam to Western ideals, then so be it.
Personally I think a single, small yield nuke would be enough. Perferrably at one of thier smaller "holy" sites. We might even be able to get away with a conventional weapon, such as a MOAB. Once that site is struck, the President needs to go on Television and broadcast worldwide that every time an American interest is struck, we destroy another holy site. We then need to outlaw Islam in the United states as a Cult. (Cults do NOT get protection under the Constitution). We then need to advise all muslim nations that we will immediately break off all diplomatic ties with any nation which codifies Sharia law, and immediately expell all of thier citizens from our borders.
We need to take a "scorched earth" approach to this. Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists and the tinpot dictators of the world will fall in line. It's not a pretty way to approach it. It's dirty, ugly, foul and nasty. It's also the only effective way to stop Islamofacism. They must be made to fear us more than they hate us.
Posted by: Wearyman at November 25, 2006 07:37 PM (4tfP8)
I appreciate the passion, but have you really considered the full consequences of what you recommend? Are you truly prepared to accept (and impose) those consequences on the world--and particularly, on yourself?
I'm not saying you haven't considered them, or that they shouldn't be endured, but you didn't discuss them.
The fundamental point of my post was : if you want to seriously discuss the scorched earth policy, I believe you need to be ready to rationally discuss the consequences of the policy--all of them, good and bad.
That was (or at least was intended to be) the whole point of the post, and I haven't heard anyone address that point.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 07:57 PM (wOWk7)
You said this in your comment:
Once we have demonstrated our willingness to obliterate anyone who stands in our way, the Islamists . . . will fall in line.
What evidence do you have that this is true?
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 25, 2006 07:59 PM (wOWk7)
The destruction of Mecca, or Medina would not go unanswered, and would be the rallying cry for attacks against the United States, even by people considered 'moderate' by Islamist standards.
I would hope that the West has a lot more ingenuity, and ability than needing to use a sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack.
Posted by: davec at November 25, 2006 08:27 PM (QkWqQ)
Would the nuclear war against the muslims bring on the "End of Days" ? Is this the secret plan of the fundametal right wing, the so called base of the Republican party ?
Has their been a christian clerical ruling on whether a good buddihist will be taken away in the rapture or will the buddhists fall into the "Left Behind" group?
Posted by: John Ryan at November 25, 2006 08:32 PM (TcoRJ)
Sir, your nephew who's serving in Iraq and all coalition troops are in my prayers. I pray for their safety and their victory not only on the battlefield but also for their success in moral and spiritual matters as well.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 09:37 PM (EdIIN)
I must confess that sometimes anger gets the better of me and I do have what you correctly call "knee-jerk" reaction.
Best
/GM
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at November 25, 2006 09:40 PM (EdIIN)
Ahh.. I misunderstood what you were getting at.
As far as the consequences, yes I have thought of them. Here are some of the consequences of an extreme scorched earth policy in relation to Islamofacism:
- Thousands, if not millions of dead throughout the middle east and various other areas of the world.
- Severe economic depression worldwide as oil production slows to a crawl.
- Possible outbreak of other wars due to outrage from other countries. (This depends on the rate at which total war is conducted.)
- Potential environmental damage from oil fires that would be uncappable due to high radiation levels making it deadly for oil workers to enter the area.
That's just a few of the possible serious problems. Of course, these assume that we would have to annihilate most of the middle east in a full tactical nuclear strike. I seriously doubt that would ever be necessary. Frankly, I doubt Nukes would even be needed. All we would need are a few well placed MOABs, and some heavy duty air strikes on key locations. Once the Imams see that we are perfectly willing to leave them with nowhere to worship and nowhere to live, they will fall in line for fear of thier lives and livelihoods.
This ties into your second response to me. What evidence do I have that a scorched earth campaign would be effective? History. All of it. You see, while Liberals love to say silly things like "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" the truth is that one single thing has defined ruling nations from slaves. Military Force and the willingness to use it to it's brutal maximum. Yes, there have been revolts, and occasionally there have been situations where the little guy has come out on top (The American Revolution, for example.) But those instances are few and far between. In almost every case, the most effective way to deal with an enemy is to destroy him, or his will to fight, completely and utterly.
With the Islamofascists we are dealing with religous fanatics. Fortunately for us, much of thier religion is bound up in PHYSICAL things. Like Mecca, or the Dome of the Rock, or that damned Box-thing (I still don't know what that one's all about). The point is, if you take away the physical objects that represent thier religious power, you take away much of thier religious zeal. You crush their spirit by crushing the things they hold dear. Yes, the FIRST bomb will beget many screams and war crys. the Second and Third will beget whimpers and begging for mercy.
You also have to take the same approach on the home front. Frankly, Islam is NOT a religion. It is a cult. A big cult, granted. But still a cult. Cults aren't necissarily granted equal protection under the law with regards to religious freedom. (See Branch Davidian or The Moonies) Particularly if thier beliefs include a fundamental animosity towards America. Islam falls into this category. Islam needs to be outlawed in America. Tear down the mosques, Eject any Immams with dual citizenship or no citizenship, and give all muslims a choice: Renounce Islam or Leave. Those that refuse to do either can either be deported or jailed. Make America safe for all the real religions of the world by purging ourselves of the "Followers of the Pedophile". Yes, these methods are brutal, cruel, and maybe a bit inhumane. But what other choice do we have when faced with "Kill those who insult Islam" and "Death to America" coming from within our OWN SHORES?
I don't know. I hope that it never comes to this. I hope that GW's plan for democracy in the middle east will work exactly as he envisioned it, and cause a new renniasance of freedom and brotherhood to spread across all the middle east.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Posted by: Wearyman at November 25, 2006 11:33 PM (4tfP8)
The Kaabah has been destroyed at least three times already, destroying would serve no purpose, they would just rebuild it again. It would however be the rallying call that got United States citizens home and abroad killed, for many years to come.
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 12:04 AM (QkWqQ)
Posted by: Vinnie at November 26, 2006 01:17 AM (/qy9A)
The U.S told Israel not to retaliate against the Scud launches in the Gulf War, and Saddam tried hard to get Israel involved, it was because he knew once Israel got involved, the middle east would have been against the coalition. Same situation in the theoretical destruction of the Kaaba, it would amass huge support for Jihad throughout the whole of the Muslim world, which admittedly does not take much.
There is history to support it though:
Wikipedia: The Grand Mosque Seizure on November 20, 1979
In revolutionary Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini falsely claimed in a radio broadcast that the United States was behind the seizure. This rumor instantly swept through the Persian Gulf region. Hatred fueled by these rumors peaked within hours in Islamabad, Pakistan, and on November 21, 1979, the day following the takeover, the U.S. embassy in that city was overran by an angry mob, which then burned the embassy to the ground. A week later this hatred swept to the streets of Tripoli, Libya where an angry mob attacked and burned the U.S. embassy there on December 2, 1979.
Pakistan has Nuclear weapons, they would not sit by idly after an attack on Mecca.
Terrorism isn't something we should be using the military for, they are a blunt tool, anti-terrorism is a precision strike.
There isn't always going to be a state entity to hold responsible for terrorist attacks, but there will always be people, after the Black September attacks Governments realized the dangers, they activated some of the worlds most elite anti-terrorist teams around from the SAS to GSG 9. Launching "black operations" to assassinate the people that instigate and plan these operations would cause a lot of damage to organizations like Al-Qaeda, denying them propaganda at the same time.
We need to be able to infiltrate the organizations, recruit more -- there is a multi-million reward for Bin-Laden and you can imagine at least fifty people in the world know where he is, this is the problem, money or not they will not betray him.
I think we can agree in the folly of having the worlds most powerful military in one country, and your enemy in another, and not being able to cross the border to capture him, it's time to use something else.
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 02:13 AM (QkWqQ)
I think you hit on several of the most serious consequences. I think davec is spot-on about the use of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in such an event.
The worldwide depression you mention would almost certainly occur, leading to widespread displacement, famine, disease and death around the world.
As to the rationale for such an attack, I'm not persuaded. If our enemy was Britain, Germany, Russia, China or some other generally secular enemy that sought material gain, it would make perfect sense to destroy his stuff in order to punish him and make the war cost him more than he could ever hope to gain through further military action.
If I don't misunderstand them, our enemies in this conflict don't seek material gain in this life. They don't even seek to survive.
Given these facts, I don't see how blowing up--or threatening to blow up--material things is supposed to dissuade them from doing their jihadi stuff.
On the other hand, I can see how blowing up their holy stuff will get the fence-riders off the fence real quick-like--and not in a good way.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 03:31 AM (btGZA)
As to some of the other posts, I think it is nonsense to say we will create terrorists if we get "mean" and strike back.
FLL, I think you need to come to grips with the idea that killing people and blowing shit up does not have a value unto itself. Killing people and blowing shit up has value to the extent--and ONLY to the extent--that the killing of people and blowing up of shit advances a worthwhile strategic goal.
Taking actions that have the effect of adding to the number of your enemy's allies without garnering any material benefit to your own strategic goals isn't "tough," "courageous" or "manly." It's just stupid.
Taking actions that undermine your enemy's plans while denying him additional reinforcements isn't being "squeamish." It's being smart.
Think about it this way: if we were at war with one Asian country (let's say North Korea), but the rest of the Asian countries in the area were staying neutral, would it be SMART or STUPID to start broadcasting propaganda messages that we think all Asians are cowards and don't know how to fight?
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 03:50 AM (uudki)
Posted by: George guy at November 26, 2006 04:06 AM (eWkFC)
Islamic fundamentalists and John Ryan thinks that "any" call for strong
action or retaliation has some Christian plot at its root or some crazy
Republican right wing. As if any such sentiment came out of thin
air. While he sits there in his lotus position spewing
dispassionate strawman arguments, the radical Mullahs, Imams and
Ahmadinejad himself are the ones who have spoken out loud about
bringing on the final battle and used not Christianity, but Islam, to
justify it. It's the Caliphate, stupid. Not the Rapture.
While I don't doubt for a second that there are Christians who believe
in the Rapture or believe that it may be near, it's the radical Muslims
who are not just talking about the end times or a "final solution", but openly trying to make it a reality.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2006 05:47 AM (YudAC)
I think most of those "nuke Mecca" comments are throwaway hyperbole, and I haven't actually seen very many of them.
What's more reprehensible is the recent surge in the number of mentally challenged trolls who get all of their news from Airhead America, and who are determined to drown out any opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2006 03:03 PM
===================
Are you the pot or the kettle?
Posted by: No Fear at November 26, 2006 05:53 AM (MPCBF)
Posted by: No Fear at November 26, 2006 05:57 AM (MPCBF)
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 07:39 AM (pU0SG)
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:04 AM (pU0SG)
As the world at large has moved on to recognizing that innocent people
must be spared if at all possible, Islamic fundamentalists have not
recognized this. And you have cast yourself into the same lot,
using your own God as justification.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2006 08:24 AM (YudAC)
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:31 AM (pU0SG)
Posted by: hank at November 26, 2006 08:41 AM (pU0SG)
that would vaporize the rock and make the whole area radioactive. Every Hadj visit would kill millions every year (these folks won't let Radiation poison stop the Hadj) The Hajji will declare that the rock got miracled up to heaven/paradise by Allah his self and every Hadji that dies there post strike automatically gets launched to paradise also. In other words Nuke Mecca and the Moslem world would declare VICTORY over the INFIDEL.
The Moslem's would unite and fight a real open war and then we would be forced to destroy whole populations just to end the war.
Oil prices? please we would have to take that oil under fire just to keep the war going.
The Hadji would burn that oil efore we got anymore of it.
Nuke Mecca and the whole world would change over night. We would have to kill every Moslem in the world. Literally!
The only way to even threaten Mecca would be a high air burst that lights up Mo's holy place but does no actual damage and yes, even then Hadji will declare Victory.
I hate these creeps as much as anybody does but I am not prepared for a Moslem Holocaust to haunt us the way the Jewish Holocaust haunts the Germans, And Bubba that's what it would take mass produced death for them.
That would destroy our culture.
Now to promise to nuke them if they nuke us and to actually do it that might be the route to go. though no Democlown or republiclown will even consider that.
Face it, Nuclear weapons use by the United States is off the table even if we get nuked first.
Posted by: Barry 0351 at November 26, 2006 09:24 AM (XXEg4)
That means you cannot outlaw an established religion. you cannot declare it a cult. you cannot deport it back where it came from.
This Moslem up rising is going to last a thousand years and at this stage nobody knows where it will lead.
While The United States may not nuke Mecca there is no hard fast rule that says some other aggrieved party will not. Christian terrorist may suicide attack with nukes, Russia might to avenge a nuked Russian city, a nuclear attacked China would not hesitate.
The odds of Mecca surviving this thousand year war is really quite slim.
Posted by: Barry 0351 at November 26, 2006 09:59 AM (XXEg4)
But again, I don't recall endorsing such an extreme stance.
I would prefer that muslims change religions.. to something, anything, less barbaric and pagan.
I don't see that happening either.
To paraphrase a Soggy Bottom Boy, we are in a tight spot.
Posted by: JeepThang at November 26, 2006 10:16 AM (yZQoS)
john ryan,
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2006 12:52 PM (8e/V4)
Of course, what with all the Liberals going there. How many times have you hit it?
I don't know...I kinda had the feeling he has never hit it.
Posted by: Randman at November 26, 2006 05:52 PM (Sal3J)
Heavens no... so wasteful in time and resources. I would much prefer doing something else... take out Syria and re-balance the Middle East a bit...
And then at the next al Qaeda bombing, announce that any Islamic force that wishes to help run the Holy Cities in Saudi Arabia will get the full and utter protection of the US air forces, of which we have a few aircraft, if I remember correctly. Just let them all know that *any* Islamic National Army can take part, yes even Iran... their Army, not Guards or Basij, but the regular armed forces... and that the Holy Cities are open to all of Islam thereafter and all of Islam must run them. We have shown that you don't need big Armies to win such battles, like in Afghanistan. After that all of Islam is to send representatives... say at 5,000 followers... maybe 30,000... some nice proportion to give them a large and unwieldy body for deliberation. Wonder how long the sewers will run, the water work, and all the other daily necessities continue onwards under such a thing? Once they learn how to govern a couple of measly Holy Cities, then they should be ready to tackle governing themselves. And we could wish them luck! From the sidelines.
That is what is known as 'pulling the rug out from under the enemy' and 'leaving them holding the bag'. They can either prove to each other that they do, indeed, have a 'religion of peace'. Or not. Because this is their fight, so let them fight it out. In their Holy Cities. Against each other. Come one, come all! See how Islam treats their Holy Cities.
Never said anything about genocide by doing nothing now... but such blood will be on their hands entirely.
Posted by: ajacksonian at November 26, 2006 06:34 PM (oy1lQ)
The victims of islam in places like Africa and Asia would not be angry, and they would like us.
Killing a large number of muslims could be considered genocide. I'd be interested to hear why this would be any wronger than nuking Imperial Japan to prevent far more innocent deaths was.
Islam will not go away politely or voluntarily. It will continue to plague civilization until it is confronted. Taking out Mecca and Medina would be a huge blow to the koranimals, who believe "allah" is protecting them as "holy" cities for all eternity.
Dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear campaign would be difficult, but dealing with the aftermath of a conventional bombing campaign would be dificult. Hell, the kind and gentle precision bombing carried out against Hussein's regime in Iraq has been ferociously dificult to deal with thanks to mindless opposition from America-last vermin, and may end in a feckless retreat forced by the left.
Civilization has the means to kill islamic zealots, wipe out their power centers, appropriate their wealth, convert the less psychopathic muslims to peaceful religions, and criminalize islam, but it doesn't have the will.
A limited nuclear strike against certain islamic targets will not seem so unthinkable if jihadis detonate any nukes on U.S. soil, which most experts foresee happening.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 06:55 PM (bLPT+)
are the enemy, whether they bear weapons or not, and their only goal is
our extermination. Anyone who thinks we can live in peace alongside
muslims is an idiot, and will get no pity from me when the muslims
whose asses they kiss come to enslave or kill them. Moreso, all
lefturds are with the enemy, and will gladly help them in their
campaign of rape and murder, but I'm probably just wasting my breath,
because although sheep can apparently read, they obviously can't
comprehend. But don't let the truth bother you, just see what's on the
Disney Channel and go back to chewing your cud.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2006 07:52 AM (v3I+x)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (jmS3p)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:39 PM (jmS3p)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:40 PM (XbK6+)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:41 PM (XbK6+)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:43 PM (osb1B)
However, I am afraid that if the world allows militant Islam to continue to expand and experience perceived successes, we may find outselves in a seemingly never ending struggle with a decentralized, violent, uncompromising enemy. The non-militants Muslims will either be frightened into silence, or maybe quietly and waiting on the sidelines hoping for their more violent brethren to succeed.
During the Second World War, the major powers were not afraid to wage "total war" on each other. Civilian targets were legitimate because the destruction of the civilian infrastructure was seen as a means of destroying the enemy's ability to resupply their war machine and continue fighting. However, it also served the purpose of making the populations of the defeated powers (which had been deluded by the NAZI fascists and the Japanese military government) realize that their visions of glory were wrong. The German and Japanese civilian populations of the 1940s probably would not have reassessed their values and become the progressive, representative and (essentially peaceful) countries that they are today without the devastating losses they suffered in the 1940s.
So, what are we to make of the Middle East and the global hot spots? We no longer allow wars to be fought to the bitter end. When one side starts to lose badly, the UN (or some other entity) steps in and negotiates an end to hostilities. The result? The losing government (and the subject people) don't bear the full weight of their defeat...they can rationalize away their loss (just as the Germans did after their loss in the First World War).
There is an old episode of classic STAR TREK named "A Taste of Armaggedon." In that episode, Kirk and the Enterprise find two planets at war. The battles are fought by computer, but the casualties are real (if the computer indicates that you are a fatality, you have to report to a termination center). Kirk destroys this system and explains that it was immoral. If you sanitize war....if you make it less painful and less dreadful, then you make it more likely that you will HAVE war.
Thus, our modern age of limited war allows aggressive regimes like Iraq, Iran, and the others (think of all those warlike states in Africa) to consider war as a viable option. If it goes bad...well...the UN will step in before they are totally conquered. Hence, we get more war and more suffering.
Thus, it may be necessary for the US and the western world to end this era of limited war. If someone wants to make war on us, we will fight with every weapon at our disposal and we will not stop fighting until the enemy is totally destroyed. The opposition population must suffer horribly as a lesson so that other countries won't want to repeat that mistake.
War must be horrible. War must be the ultimate nightmare. Countries must realize that they cannot be hostile and aggressive without facing their own destruction.
Posted by: Hugh at November 27, 2006 07:42 PM (E0kgP)
Isn't your "scorched Earth" policy suggestion at odds with the "divide and conquer" suggestions you espouse elsewhere?
I agree with your present suggestion, but that just makes your past suggestions bizarre and obsolete (by your own reckoning.)
What the fuck?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 10:39 PM (bLPT+)
You stated: "I think that most people who write "nuke [fill in the blank]" are not truly thinking of the consequences."
Sadly, I think most who make that statement HAVE thought out the consequences and with that considered still must make said statement.
In the blank, I place Syria and Iran, along with threatening Saudia Arabia to stop its export of militant Islam or else.
"Militant Islam"....so redundant.
If you have not reached the same conclusion, you will for the post you wrote contains a lot of wisdom concerning the need for a nation to feel the FULL WEIGHT of defeat.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 28, 2006 02:23 AM (38GUY)
Yes, there are contradictions in my post. That is why this whole situation is so troubling and difficult. My mind recoils at the idea of the violence I am defending.
And let's not forget that every situation is unique.
Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2006 06:36 AM (E0kgP)
Most of us recoil at the thought of that level of violence. That's why the islamopithecines are able to continue their jihad.
I've personally come to the conclusion that killing a huge number of muslims is necessary to make the world a much, much, better place. I don't like the idea of killing brainwashed peasants who could be made to see reason, but as long as they live under islam, they won't be allowed to see reason, and I'm willing to acrifice every one of them for the safety of my own people. The way I see it, any population that allows violent muslims to run hog wild earn what they're eventually going to get from the West, or even China. Even if they are oppressed, they're still part of the problem.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 11:18 PM (bLPT+)
In the event of a military crises (Iranian nuke for example) select a target site.
Declare your target. In the media. You know that AlJazeera will share with the Arab speaking/ Islamic world.
State loudly, and publically, in all media forms, that if it is the will of Allah that America should submit to Islam, then the target will not be struck by our attack.
However, if the target is smashed (Mecca, whatever) then Allah surely does not favor those who attack America.
Challenge God/Allah to a fight. Demand that he protect the muslim target. Declare that in the absence of divine intervention, the target will be destroyed.
Then after 3 days, nuke it hard. Then say, "Where was Allah? Why didn't he come?"
Say, "Why did anyone ever believe Mohammed? Look how his own words, suppossedly given to him by Allah, have been disproven. Where are all the Angels that Mohammed promised would come to your aid? See what blind submission to Mohammed has brought you."
You will seperate the wheat from the chaff for sure. Some will still want to fight, but they will lack state sponsors, I'm fairly sure.
Peace would be nice.
In nature peace only comes to those creatures which are to dangerous to be attacked.
Still busy, but I figured I'd see whats up. Be excellent to each other!
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 12:55 AM (2OHpj)
Dear Michael Weaver:
I like the way you think! You think like Elijah. Who? Elijah an Old Testament Prophet not to be confused with Elijah Wood who played the role of hobbit Frodo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings Series.
Here are the verses in I Kings about Elijah that your post reminds me of which are as follows:
1KI 18:16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 And it came about, when Ahab saw Elijah that Ahab said to him, "Is this you, you troubler of Israel?" 18 And he said, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and you have followed the Baals. 19 "Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
1KI 18:20 So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel, and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel. 21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. 23 "Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox, and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. 24 "Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, He is God." And all the people answered and said, "That is a good idea."
1KI 18:25 So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one ox for yourselves and prepare it first for you are many, and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26 Then they took the ox which was given them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal from morning until noon saying, "O Baal, answer us." But there was no voice and no one answered. And they leaped about the altar which they made. 27 And it came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened." 28 So they cried with a loud voice and cut themselves according to their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And it came about when midday was past, that they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.
1KI 18:30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD which had been torn down. 31 And Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Israel shall be your name." 32 So with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he made a trench around the altar, large enough to hold two measures of seed. 33 Then he arranged the wood and cut the ox in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, "Fill four pitchers with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood." 34 And he said, "Do it a second time," and they did it a second time. And he said, "Do it a third time," and they did it a third time. 35 And the water flowed around the altar, and he also filled the trench with water. 36 Then it came about at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near and said, "O LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, today let it be known that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. 37 "Answer me, O LORD, answer me, that this people may know that Thou, O LORD, art God, and that Thou hast turned their heart back again." 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, "The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God." 40 Then Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape." So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
Like your post Elijah set up the Prophets of Baal to prove their god was false and powerless.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:27 AM (38GUY)
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 06:37 PM (38GUY)
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 29, 2006 07:59 PM (0TutP)
This post followed mine,
"Dear Michael Weaver:
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:27 AM "
Then there was SPAM!
Then ther was this post,
"Well I see Satan has arrived...
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 06:37 PM "
My question is ... which Satan are you refering to? The guy who keeps advertising sex toys in these threads? Me, for suggesting we could, maybe, nuke Mecca as a gross, and brutal way of stripping Allah from the Jihadist ranks? Or was it something else?
If it was me, that is OK. I've been called 'satanic' before. In the context of declaring war on Allah, it is a fair comparison I guess. I was just trying to understand your posts, and they way they came about.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 29, 2006 10:58 PM (2OHpj)
I was calling posts 64 and 65 Satanic...saying I see Satan has arrived with the porn spam. I did NOT post posts 64 & 65, some sicko spammer did.
No I wish I had written your excellent post. I agree with you and your post simply reminded me of the story, which I recounted here, of Elijah who was/is a great man and prophet of God NOT a spokesman for Satan.
I did sent an email to Mr. Rusty Shackleford about these porn spam posts. He sent a nice kind response. Here is his response:
From: rusty shackleford
Subject: Re: Request Ban of Porn Spam poster
"Unfortunately, we're getting slammed by spammers right now.
Literally, hundreds of similar messages are hitting our servers as we speak. I'm going to shut down comments alltogether within the next 24 hrs until we get this thing under control.
Thanks and sorry,"
Back to you Michael Weaver...I was NOT accusing YOU of being Satan. I apologize for any confusion that one line sentence in my post #66 may have caused.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 30, 2006 11:00 AM (38GUY)
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 30, 2006 11:00 AM (38GUY)
Posted by: Joseluis at May 15, 2007 09:40 PM (H6duJ)
Posted by: Clifford at May 16, 2007 12:24 PM (kr4qv)
Posted by: Rodrigo at May 17, 2007 10:01 PM (IEJ1/)
Posted by: Darwin at May 20, 2007 06:05 PM (CPx3g)
Posted by: Koby at May 21, 2007 11:25 AM (e29D8)
Posted by: xanax at May 21, 2007 02:08 PM (EiWnq)
Posted by: Samuel at May 23, 2007 06:18 AM (ifhuX)
Posted by: Kwame at May 23, 2007 10:51 PM (zkH+y)
Posted by: Rashaad at May 24, 2007 02:52 PM (IrxPs)
Posted by: Cael at May 25, 2007 11:10 AM (98UgX)
Posted by: Anderson at May 26, 2007 03:13 AM (LtwN/)
Posted by: Jessy at May 26, 2007 05:10 PM (XH+37)
Posted by: Chandler at May 27, 2007 09:19 AM (CJslR)
Posted by: Zion at May 28, 2007 12:59 AM (NCYkN)
Posted by: Aron at May 28, 2007 04:57 PM (l1lx3)
Posted by: Rodney at May 29, 2007 06:11 PM (d7O8I)
Posted by: Terrell at June 01, 2007 02:14 AM (2jvwk)
Posted by: Caleb at June 01, 2007 08:19 PM (6xZIY)
Posted by: Ryne at June 02, 2007 04:36 PM (RcUGX)
September 11, 2006
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:13 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Aluminum Clairvoyant at September 11, 2006 10:28 PM (3JFiV)
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at September 11, 2006 10:52 PM (3nKvy)
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 11, 2006 11:31 PM (HSkSw)
Posted by: Larry Hammick at September 11, 2006 11:32 PM (0iSGp)
The fucking conspiracy theorists should be sent to Iraq to talk about America the Evil with Islamists.
I had a big foam finger with OSAMA DOES NOT APPEAR IN VIDEOS ANYMORE BECAUSE THE CIA COMPUTER ANIMATOR BROKE on it, but Greg stuck it up his ass.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 11, 2006 11:41 PM (HSkSw)
19 hijackers CONSPIRED together, were funded, trained and supported by secret terrorist network Al-Queda. THIS IS A CONSPIRACY BY DEFINITION.
Posted by: QC at September 12, 2006 01:14 AM (ebe/J)
The conspiracy theorists we denounce are those who imply the US government participated in 9/11.
Most people here probably don't need the extra explanation, but you are evidently not the brightest bulb here.
You are dumb, so please do society a favor by not voting or sitting on a jury.
Posted by: Darth Vag at September 12, 2006 02:21 AM (HSkSw)
Posted by: greyrooster at September 12, 2006 06:54 AM (YyQDW)
Posted by: DAT at September 12, 2006 07:18 AM (zdxXx)
That was very impressive.
Is he related to Sir Isaac Newton?, 'cause he sounds just like him.
Posted by: Greg at September 12, 2006 07:21 AM (PnoGS)
Posted by: Jauhara at September 12, 2006 07:23 AM (Z8kfp)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 12, 2006 08:23 AM (paKD6)
This, or course, is normal behavior in the reverse universe of moonbatdom.
Posted by: n.a. palm at September 12, 2006 08:23 AM (CWQzg)
Posted by: QC at September 12, 2006 11:41 AM (PX+vn)
August 23, 2006
So, am I the only blogger left on the planet who hasn't been stalked by Deb Frisch?
Posted by: Rusty at
02:28 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
Provided of course, her people, your people, and my people still talk.
Then there's Howie's people that have to be considered.
We have to bring them, as well as Mike's people. If not, none of this will ever work.
See what I'm saying?
Have a good one bud!
Posted by: dick at August 23, 2006 02:44 PM (XlQVK)
Posted by: Scott Armstrong at August 23, 2006 02:46 PM (SahP1)
Rusty, quick question, would saying Chomsky diminishes his work in linguistics with his political views? Am I correct in my interpretations of him as an anarchist? I don't read his work. Nor do I study him. But what I have read is not flattering.
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 23, 2006 03:23 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 23, 2006 03:38 PM (8e/V4)
SeeMonk,
Chomsky describes himself as an "anarcho-cynicalist".....but what that means precisely isn't clear. We know what he's against, just not exactly what he's for...other than things like 'justice' and what not. When I've heard him talk of the future, it's usual in warmed over Marxist or anarchist terms. Very vague.
Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2006 04:50 PM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2006 05:02 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 23, 2006 05:12 PM (8e/V4)
Does this sound close?
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 23, 2006 06:10 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Howie at August 23, 2006 08:26 PM (YdcZ0)
Posted by: 1sttofight at August 23, 2006 08:41 PM (Jv+Zw)
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 23, 2006 08:46 PM (v3I+x)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 24, 2006 08:00 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2006 08:25 AM (eId1k)
SeeMonk: You're closer than you think with your description of Chomsky and his followers. While they extoll the virtues of communism or socialism, individually they secretly believe that somehow they are likely to fare better and have more to offer than others because they have an inflated opinion of themselves, have very little understanding of basic human nature and few of them have any experience with actually living under such an oppressive system.
There's is no such thing as the utopia (equal society) they propound. We need only look at past and current communist societies or socialist societies. There is always an upper class that lives in bigger houses, drives nicer cars, eats better food, has better access to power and clean water, etc. only because they're willing to make and enforce the rules.
That equal and equitable utopia exists solely between their ears. Chomsky is blind to the realities.
Sure, there are upper and lower classes in a capitalistic society, but there is also opportunity for anyone willing to work harder to advance.
Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2006 09:14 AM (jg3CX)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 24, 2006 10:28 AM (7teJ9)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 24, 2006 10:32 AM (rUyw4)
My fave is:
Woman: Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your tea.
Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife, I would surely drink it.
Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2006 10:49 AM (jg3CX)
The real benefit to political discourse in America, would be that she would have something to do with her time. Second, I could get some good "grudge lovin'" and serve my country yet again!
Oh, and she could start stalking a nobody. This keeps her away from all of you good folks of the Blogosphere.
Can I get an amen?
Posted by: dc at August 24, 2006 11:12 AM (gLzbz)
Posted by: SeeMonk at August 24, 2006 12:13 PM (7teJ9)
Posted by: w3 at August 24, 2006 02:54 PM (DRifx)
Posted by: jesusland joe at August 24, 2006 08:37 PM (rUyw4)
July 24, 2006
Posted by: Vinnie at
06:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.
July 23, 2006
Doesn't fit with your view that American citizens shouldn't be evacuated from a war zone, does it?
After all, the title of the post does read "AMEN!: Canadian Columnist Says About "Canadians" in Lebanon What I Said About "Americans" There"
Key word. "There."
I mean, how can you post pictures of a protest of Hezbollah supporters in Dearborn, Michigan, and then claim that those same people shouldn't be evacuated from a war zone? Since, well, they're not in the fucking war zone to begin with.
Retard.
But, hey, don't bother posting an actual picture of an actual American citizen being evacuated.
Debbie Schlussel makes Glenn Greenwald look like a goddamn genius. At least he attempts to cover his tracks.
So far, 8000 American citizens, out of 25,000, have been evacuated from Lebanon.
According to Debs, MOST Americans in Dearborn Lebanon are Hezbollah supporters.
According to FACT, Most Americans in Lebanon are not being evacuated.
Does it not then stand to reason that MOST of the Hezbollah-American-Lebanese-Americans are staying behind to, well, SUPPORT HEZBOLLAH?
And how dare she spit on the actions of our military members, who willingly do whatever they can to rescue American citizens out of harm's way.
Debbie Schlussel, do you honestly think that there is a U.S. Marine, or sailor, who thinks that the American citizen they are evacuating doesn't deserve it?
Of course you don't, the only thing you've served in your life is your own sorry ass.
Posted by: Vinnie at
01:56 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: George Ramos at July 23, 2006 07:19 AM (CnDtU)
Posted by: MiB at July 23, 2006 07:34 AM (SsNTi)
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2006 08:35 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: MiB at July 23, 2006 09:56 AM (SsNTi)
Hey, George, want to split a lawyer?
Posted by: William Teach at July 23, 2006 01:45 PM (doAuV)
Posted by: George Ramos at July 23, 2006 03:44 PM (CnDtU)
Of course you don't, the only thing you've served in your life is your own sorry ass."
Oh brother - it's just as lame to see the chickenhawk argument coming from someone on the right as it is to see from the Moveon and Kossack crowd. If what Schlussel has written is wrong, knock it down with facts, but don't resort to the tired, intellectually dishonest chickenhawk argument.
Posted by: SeafoodGumbo at July 23, 2006 04:44 PM (OHu4y)
Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief Pro Temporeâ„¢ at July 23, 2006 04:54 PM (/qy9A)
It is the chickenhawk argument - the only reason that you mention Schlussel's not having "served" in comparison to U.S. Marines and sailors is to contend that her opinions are not as valid as theirs. That's the chickenhawk argument.
You also write "do you honestly think that there is a U.S. Marine, or sailor, who thinks that the American citizen they are evacuating doesn't deserve it?" Since you deign to speak for these soldiers, can you provide some proof that this really is the almost unanimous view of the soldiers? It may be the case that you can't even find "a" soldier who thinks the evacuation is wrong, but I have no idea what the support is for this evacuation, and neither do you.
Posted by: SeafoodGumbo at July 23, 2006 05:36 PM (OHu4y)
Posted by: the other white meat at July 23, 2006 05:55 PM (LB0kL)
Another clairvoyant in the group.
There's really no need to respond, since your soothsaying skills mean you know what I would say anyway.
But it's still not the chickenhawk argument.
Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief Pro Temporeâ„¢ at July 23, 2006 06:32 PM (/qy9A)
As for MiB's and Gumbo's little peevish miasma, all I can say is--how would YOU countervail an incoherent argument? More succinctly, when one knocks down the faux-moralism of some orwellian she-devil, one must simply deconstruct the absurdity and lay it bare--It's NOT Vinnie's duty to assemble and order the blocks of all political existence for your amusement.
His point was that protestors in Michigan don't have a heck of a lot to do with Americans who were (more likely, than not) studying at the American University of Beirut, et al.
His point was also that the loosely-knitted analogy, posited by that aforementioned she-devil, (which simplistically equated Canada's problems as some natural truism for the US) didn't hold much water and was a specious argument, at best.
So, I'm sorry MiB and Gumbo (I thought you died in Forrest Gumps arms, Gumbo) if you find it difficult to understand 'words' or 'sentences' but that's hardly the fault of Vinnie.
Posted by: All_That's_Mumtaz at July 23, 2006 07:07 PM (VWb2F)
(didn't see anything on the local news either)
It was small, staged, or non-existent.
Posted by: Rodney Dill at July 23, 2006 08:31 PM (tGTSA)
Instead of the snark and just telling me that it isn't the chickenhawk argument, why don't you explain why it isn't a chickenhawk argument.
Posted by: SeafoodGumbo at July 23, 2006 08:55 PM (OHu4y)
When I say it isn't the chickenhawk argument, that's pretty fucking clear. It's not the chickenhawk argument.
And that's my last words on the subject.
Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief Pro Temporeâ„¢ at July 23, 2006 09:15 PM (/qy9A)
"As for MiB's and Gumbo's little peevish miasma, all I can say is--how would YOU countervail an incoherent argument? More succinctly, when one knocks down the faux-moralism of some orwellian she-devil, one must simply deconstruct the absurdity and lay it bare--It's NOT Vinnie's duty to assemble and order the blocks of all political existence for your amusement."
First, MiB and I have made quite different points, so you should have addressed us separately, but it seems that you view any dissention as being from a monolithic block which can be addressed together.
"His point was that protestors in Michigan don't have a heck of a lot to do with Americans who were (more likely, than not) studying at the American University of Beirut, et al."
And you know this how? I don't pretend to know the number of those being evacuated who are Hizb'Allah supporters, or the number who are innocents caught in the middle of something. The problem is that neither do you,Vinnie, or Debbie Schlussel, but ya'll are trying to assert something as fact where I'm willing to admit that we don't really know. If you took the percentage of those being evacuated who are Hizb suupporters, Debbie is asserting that practically 100% are supporters, while Vinnie is asserting that practically 0% are supporters. I don't see any proof for either argument. There was an interesting article today that spoke of how those who live in the Hizballahland part of Lebanon are all Hizb-related: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2281184_1,00.html
[[In its power base in southern Lebanon, particularly south Beirut and the Bekaa valley, it is possible for a visitor to spend a whole week without stepping outside a Hezbollah business unit: the hotel he checks into, the restaurant he eats in, the taxi that takes him around, the guide who shows him the sights and the shop where he buys souvenirs all belong to the party.]]
I would view Americans who have been living in this area to be Hizb supporters. Also of note was a comment I saw on LGF where someone who had previously worked for State mentioned that there were thousands of people in Colombia (I think) who had American passports of convenience who neither spoke English, had any affinity for the U.S., or cared at all about the nation, but kept the passports as insurance in case things ever got too ugly in Colombia. I wouldn't doubt that the same situation has been repeated by some in Lebanon. How many, I don't know. This is why I don't naturally assume that everyone being evacuated is an innocent American caught up in the mess. Maybe the majority are, but I don't have any way of knowing. How many of those being evacuated were from the Hizb'Allah area would seem to me to be the best indicator of the percentage of those who were not "innocent."
"So, I'm sorry MiB and Gumbo (I thought you died in Forrest Gumps arms, Gumbo) if you find it difficult to understand 'words' or 'sentences' but that's hardly the fault of Vinnie."
You're thinking of Bubba Gump.
Posted by: SeafoodGumbo at July 23, 2006 09:29 PM (OHu4y)
Oh, well that settles it - it's just 'cuz you say so. It's not because you don't want to, it's because you can't.
Posted by: SeafoodGumbo at July 23, 2006 09:46 PM (OHu4y)
spend some time in lebanon and you'd see what kind of americans hang out there
and stop dishonestly posting pictures of kids, you can use pictures of kids as strawmen to prove anything
why don't I post some westboro baptist church kids photos, that proves westboro baptist church can't be bad right?
Posted by: truthteller at July 23, 2006 10:39 PM (Xqi30)
41 queries taking 0.0904 seconds, 359 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
