Jawa PSA: This is Abu Ayyub al-Masri. He is the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. If you run across this man, please kill him. Thank you.
1
Hey, are you guys issuing fatwas now too?
Good on ya! More please!!
F-A-S-T-E-R-!
Posted by: rtheyseryus at January 18, 2007 12:21 PM (MAPKL)
2
Any true patriot would kill any arab they come across. Arabs are the enemy of the USA and work for Satan himself.
Posted by: Alan Trammel at January 18, 2007 01:04 PM (DCZ7U)
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 18, 2007 04:05 PM (CtVG6)
4
But yes, this asshole severely needs a good case of death.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at January 18, 2007 04:44 PM (CtVG6)
5
We will eventually capture or kill him. Of that I have no doubt. It will take a few years though and sadly someone will take his place.
Posted by: Samuel Fisher at January 18, 2007 06:09 PM (SYd2E)
6
If he ever pokes his head around Boerne, TX I'll be sure to blow him away right after I give him a good kick in the balls first.
And troll at #2.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 07:38 PM (8e/V4)
7
Why sit in your mom's living room eating Cheesy Poofs and issuing fatwas for people halfway across the world whom you will never run across? Here's a better idea! Enlist! Let's look at the facts:
1) American troops are currently stationed in Iraq
2) Abu Ayyub al-Masri seems to also be in Iraq
3) If you enlist, the US military will give you a weapon, which will come in handy should you ever bump into al-Masri
4) The US military badly needs more troops, so the troops who are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty can come home and be with their families.
So c'mon, all you he-men. March down to the nearest recruiting office and put your money where your mouth is. I look forward to your confirmation that you have all done so.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 07:43 PM (DCYnK)
8
Paul,
why dont you enlist? Don't you Leftards always pretend you care about catching Osama? So enlist and join the hunt! Uncle Sam needs you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 07:58 PM (8e/V4)
9
why dont you enlist? Don't you Leftards always pretend you care about
catching Osama? So enlist and join the hunt! Uncle Sam needs you.Glad you asked. The reason I don't enlist is because I'm completely opposed to the war in Iraq, as I have been since well before the invasion. I understand that if I enlist, I won't be chasing down bin Laden, since that has been completely deprioritized under Bush.
Now, back to you, Carlos. You support the Iraq war. You want people dead at American hands. You claim to support the troops. Please explain why you don't enlist.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:00 PM (DCYnK)
10
why dont you enlist? Don't you Leftards always pretend you care about
catching Osama? So enlist and join the hunt! Uncle Sam needs you.Glad you asked. The reason I don't enlist is because I'm completely opposed to the war in Iraq, as I have been since well before the invasion. I understand that if I enlist, I won't be chasing down bin Laden, since that has been completely deprioritized under Bush.
Now, back to you, Carlos. You support the Iraq war. You want people dead at American hands. You claim to support the troops. Please explain why you don't enlist.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:01 PM (DCYnK)
11
(Sorry for the multiple postings. Seems there was a momentary server glitch.)
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:14 PM (DCYnK)
12
Glad you asked. The reason I don't enlist is because I'm completely
opposed to the war in Iraq, as I have been since well before the
invasion.If you're so glad I asked then why didn't you answer? You see, Osama isn't in Iraq. He's in Afghanistan. And we haven't caught him yet. Are you also against that invasion? If not, then sign up! They need you asap! Now trying answering.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 08:18 PM (8e/V4)
13
Speaking of cheesy poofs, how are those Funnyons, Alan Trammel?
Under your rule, should I go kill Shakira and Salma Hayek? After all, they are both half Arab.
Posted by: wooga at January 18, 2007 08:18 PM (t9sT5)
14
Carlos, I answered your question, but perhaps not clearly enough for you.
Anyone who enlists in the military has an infinitesimal chance of being sent to Afghanistan. The vast majority are sent to Iraq.
Therefore, while I support the mission in Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden, I don't see this tiny chance of doing something worthwhile as being worth enlisting.
Now, while you completely avoided answering my question directly, you did provide an answer in your own way. See, you didn't respond to my "why not enlist" question because you're afraid you'll be mocked for your answer, that you just don't wanna go. Why don't you want to go? Probably because you're afraid to insert your body into that hell on earth that we call Iraq, or, as Cheney famously put it, you have more pressing issues. But you're afraid to express this fear (as reasonable as it might be) because you're afraid you won't be able to maintain this facade of being a manly man afterwards.
Fear, fear, fear. Thanks for the answer.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:27 PM (DCYnK)
15
I don't respond to that question, not because I'm afraid of being mocked (for I have a good reason I don't enlist), but because that would dignify a question that doesn't deserve it.
As far as your lame excuse for not signing up, it doesn't explain why you and your "Liberal" pals didn't enlist before we invaded Iraq. It's my understanding there were plenty of openings when we went after the Taliban. Instead I saw a lot of your pals in the streets protesting that invasion too as I recall. Yet at the same time they also claim (when it's convenient) that we should be chasing Osama, not fighting in Iraq! Confusion abounds in the Leftist camp. They like having both ways as I understand.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 08:36 PM (8e/V4)
16
I don't respond to that question, not because I'm afraid of being
mocked (for I have a good reason I don't enlist), but because that
would dignify a question that doesn't deserve it. I...see. So you didn't find that question undignified when you asked it of me (and I answered you). But when someone asks it of you, suddenly it's undignified. Got it!
Of course, you have a really good reason. Of course you do! You just don't want to tell me what it is.
(This reminds me of so many nerds who would claim that they had had sex with some beautiful model living in France.)
Don't worry, Carlos. I remember the time in my life when that line of reasoning would carry the day. Thanks for the childhood memories. But it still doesn't change the fact that you're clearly a coward, who is too terrified even to discuss going to fight a war that you support with so much hot air, much less actually go.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:46 PM (DCYnK)
17
As far as your lame excuse for not signing up, it doesn't explain why
you and your "Liberal" pals didn't enlist before we invaded Iraq.Because I didn't trust Bush to tell the truth about the real reasons for the Afghanistan invasion or 9/11. It's only years afterwards, after we deserted the Afghanis to the Taliban, that I discovered the truth for myself, that I've come to support that military action.
I didn't protest that invasion. I was too busy trying to figure out what the true situation was, to expound on my ill-formed judgments at that time. I always considered 9/11 a reprehensible crime, and that the criminals responsible should be brought to justice. I just wasn't so quick to take Bush's word for who those criminals were, and had to find out for myself.
But back to you, Carlos. You seem to have absolutely no problem querying people as to their choice of joining or not joining the military. But when the same question is put to you, you scurry. To me, this blatant hypocrisy indicates that you have something to hide. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 08:51 PM (DCYnK)
18
I...see. So you didn't find that question undignified when you asked it
of me (and I answered you). But when someone asks it of you, suddenly
it's undignified. Got it! Of course, you have a really good reason. Of course you do! You just don't want to tell me what it is.It's a ridiculous question whoever asks it. But nobody would deny it makes great rhetoric! Which is the only reason you ask it. So back at ya!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 08:53 PM (8e/V4)
19
It's a ridiculous question whoever asks it.Why? I think it's extremely pertinent, in understanding the pro-Bush mindset. See, I look at Bush supporters rabidly questioning other people's patriotism, cheering on the war even through lies and distortions, calling for other people's deaths (even Americans), and bellowing that we should all support the troops. Well, the troops are in need, you guys are supportive of the cause, and you are able to serve (correct me if I'm wrong here, but if you're not able to serve, surely many of your fellow travelers are).
And yet most of you choose to remain home fighting the good fight with the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
I look at this and see hypocrisy of the most cowardly form. But I admit, I've never once heard a Bush supporter explain exactly why they haven't enlisted. That's because, like you, most Bush supporters react to my question "why don't you enlist" the way those cartoon housewives react to a mouse running loose on the kitchen floor. For that reason I'm unable to augment my understanding with some real feedback.
But it's okay. If anything, I've learned to accept the personal limitations of Bush supporters, and their inability to admit fear surely ranks high among them. I'm sure you had loads of sex with many beautiful models living in the Paris area, just as you no doubt have a very compelling reason for remaining out of harm's way.
Sweet dreams.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 09:06 PM (DCYnK)
20
Paul: I don't enlist because I am to old and have already served in the Marine Corps twice. Once as an E and once as an O. I was in Vietnam twice. While they will not allow me to enlist because of my age I still would be more than glad to kick your stinking ass. You say you don't enlist because you are against the war. I say you are a coward. My two sons say you are a sissified asshole coward. Now you have something to be against. Now you have a reason to fight. You can pick any of us three and show that you are a man. And after I beat the living shit out of you I fully intend to piss on you.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2007 09:25 PM (w+w6p)
21
Oh yea! Would you like to bet on the outcome? I always like to make a buck or at least pay for my expenses to where ever we can get together.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 18, 2007 09:27 PM (w+w6p)
22
And yet most of you choose to remain home fighting the good fight with the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.What have you done for your cause lately? Let me guess, you're tapping on your keyboard? LOL. Thought so.
More rightwingers put their money where their mouth is than Leftards do. Which is why FAR more enlist in the military than do Liberals, and which is why conservatives even give more to charity than Liberals do. Liberals care about "the poor" from the comfort of their keyboards as long as somebody else pays for it. Did I just change the subject? Not if we're talking about walking the walk. When it comes to the "good fight" you're all talk.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 09:59 PM (8e/V4)
23
Greyrooster, your rage would be better vented at those very people who are responsible for the fact that your sons (and you, back in the day) have been sent to fight in an unnecessary war, while they remain at home typing platitudes from the safety of their living rooms. I am against this war, and it is ridiculous to suggest that I fight in it, just as it's ridiculous for me to suggest that your sons go and fight in some faraway land for causes that are not their own.
Seriously, Grey, why defend people who claim to believe in this war, but would never consider making the kind of sacrifice you and your sons have made?
As for your Fred Sanford impression, thanks for the comedy relief. You're probably right. From the sounds of it, you and your sons could beat the crap out of me. While I'm pretty fit, I haven't focused on my ability to resolve my conflicts through violence, as I've got more effective means at my disposal. However, I'm far from a coward. If we were all in the same room together, I would continue to assert my position regardless of you and your sons and your neanderthal can of whupp-ass. I am content to take a beating in asserting my truth. Fortunately, though, I never have to.
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 10:12 PM (DCYnK)
24
What have you done for your cause lately?Carlos, you've got lots of questions but no answers. So, until you manage to find your balls and answer my original question, I'm going to have to cut you off on answers. Suffice it to say that, regardless of your meaningless generalizations about liberals and conservatives and who gives what, my wife and I engage in charities both local and national, donating quite a lot of money as well as our energy. I'd be happy to provide details if you can quickly change your soiled panties and try and explain why it is you believe in this war with all your heart, but just can't seem to get out to Iraq and help our brave men and women in uniform!
Posted by: Paul at January 18, 2007 10:15 PM (DCYnK)
25
Paul,
because whatever point you think you're making about me personally, it doesn't change one iota what's happenning on the ground in Iraq, it doesn't prove anything about the war on terror, or Bush's policies. Right? So the chickenhawk meme amounts to nothing more than a fancy ad hominem. So why would I dignify it? LOL. I wouldn't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 18, 2007 10:20 PM (8e/V4)
26
Paul is a dipstick! He tries to make a case that your free speech, and right to an opinion only get counted if you are serving in the military, and then he goes on to pretend that he is somehow imune to the same restriction. His atempt to disqualify YOUR FREE SPEECH shows the burning hypocracy of the left, and its leadership.
It seems as if Paul would like us to live inside the movie "Starship Troopers" where if you don't serve, you don't vote. Somehow I doubt the left really want that to happen, because they would lose almost all political power, but that won't stop them from using such double speak against US.
Paul is also obviously a raging bigot. He doesn't think disabled people should have an opinion about the war, or pregnant people, or old people, or anyone who might have a physical obstacle to participating. If you have a relative serving, you still don't count. If you have a spouse serving, you still don't count. UNLESS you OPPOSE the war. Then, miraculously, you count.
Hey paul! I'm old! Even still I can fight from my keyboard you cowardly anti-American peice of shit! I will support what I believe is best for my country, in the way that best suits my abilities. You can fuck off if you don't like it, because you can't do shit about it anyway, can you? CAN YOU? You try and sell your idea of who is allowed to have their free speech down in Chavez land! I hear he likes to shut up his political opponents just like you do. Of course, HE HAS GUNS! You only have your whiney mini-me-Marxism and no balls to back it up.
ABOUT PAUL, In Paul's perfect society only those who SERVE can support the war, but since they are prohibited from speaking about their political views, by the rules of conduct, they are effectively silenced! That means the only voice that is legitimate in Paul's fascist paradise is the voice of the anti-war non-participant. That's what he is saying!
Clearly a hypocritical attempt to limit speech he doesn't agree with. Remind him that our Founding Fathers didn't all stand in uniform when they began our revolution from foriegn rule. They served as they were able. Many had only their words with which to fight, and that is what they did.
Paul is officially, leftist-idiot-of-the-month as far as I'm concerned.
I hope he gets hit by a plummeting asteroid!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:25 PM (2OHpj)
27
Watch him try and spin this the other way!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:30 PM (2OHpj)
28
Like abolitionists who didn't get into uniform weren't right to be abolitionists! Thtats the meat of his stupid question 'why not enlist?'
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:32 PM (2OHpj)
29
Nothing could get Paul into uniform, I wager. I think he is just another Marxist wannabe who thinks he can bully people with his vocabulary, and his snarkiness. Ask him whay would make him serve. he will say it doen't matter. he will say it isn't an issue here. yet I'm saying he is an anti-American asshole, and I claim he can think of nothing for ewhich he would enlist! Asking what he WILL fight for is relevent to my acusation that he is a stooge for Marxism, and doen't really care about anything other than trying to shut uop our opinions! USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:37 PM (2OHpj)
30
I'd like to see paul explain where American military power was ever well used. marxists usually can't do that because America can't do anything right where Marxists are concerned.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:38 PM (2OHpj)
31
I'm suppossing that we should just curl up into a little isolationist ball so that the Marxists like Paul can continue to poison our food, and the worlsd can keep going to hell. Then the great Marxist revival can occur, and save us from non-Marxist imperialism!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:40 PM (2OHpj)
32
I bet paul is a leftist university proffessor, and teaches this swill to our young people, calling it 'critical thinking'! As if! We know that Marxists only teach 'critical thinking' to tear down our western democracy, to make way for their own socialist agenda. Yeah, I have an opinion here PAUL, is that OK with you, OR DO I HAVE TO FILL OUT THE PERMISSION SLIPS FIRST!???
USA, all the way !
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:43 PM (2OHpj)
33
I'm gonna go get a pot of coffeee, see you in a bit!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 18, 2007 10:44 PM (2OHpj)
34
Not to distract from Paul's much-deserved verbal pummeling by Mike W...
But as anyone else looking at that picture wonder at what point Jimmy Smitts joined Al Qaeda?
I'm just saying...
Posted by: Wearyman at January 18, 2007 11:53 PM (4tfP8)
35
So the chickenhawk meme amounts to nothing more than a fancy ad hominem. So why would I dignify it?It's all right, Carlos. You don't have to explain.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 12:19 AM (pihhk)
36
Mike, I don't think you need any more coffee. Sedatives, man. Under the tongue. Sort you right out.
In the meantime, I can't help but address some of your sillier assertions:
He tries to make a case that your free speech, and right to an opinion
only get counted if you are serving in the military, and then he goes
on to pretend that he is somehow imune to the same restriction.How on earth you got to that conclusion, I'll never know. I never suggested anything even approximately resembling that, nor would I. Of course, I suppose it would make a decent strawman argument, if it made any sense.
He doesn't think disabled people should have an opinion about the war,
or pregnant people, or old people, or anyone who might have a physical
obstacle to participating.Again, let me suggest you lay off the caffeine for a while. I never said anything close to that.
Seriously, Mike, I think I wrote pretty clearly. Can't you just address what I wrote, rather than make up these made interpretations?
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 12:31 AM (jaOnq)
37
I still want to kick his ass. I hate these simple minded socialists that think they know something about the world. You can't teach them any better by words or a good ole ass whipping. But the good ole ass whipping, if done with the proper vigor, will shut them up. You stomp them out like any disease you don't wish to spread.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2007 12:34 AM (w+w6p)
38
It's all right, Carlos. You don't have to explain.I know.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 12:36 AM (8e/V4)
39
Anyhow, I think I should restate what I originally said, so it doesn't
get completely lost in Mike's disturbed episode. I asked a question:
why is it that those of you who support the war, are able bodied and of
age (Greyrooster and Mike, this question doesn't relate directly to you), and
clearly have no qualms about violence and mass carnage, plus a great passion for the fight, why don't you enlist? What is preventing you from joining "The Great Struggle of This Generation(TM)?"
I've asked many Bush supporters that question, as have others. And I've never once seen an answer given. Always evasion. Carlos' "I won't dignify that with an answer" non-answer was text book, pretty quick and standard, like the McDonalds of lame excuses. But in the face of consistent denial, people are left to form their own conclusions.
The obvious conclusion is, as Carlos said, "the chickenhawk meme." The fact that the chickenhawk charge has been leveled millions of times at millions of armchair warriors shouldn't detract from the essential truth of it. Similarly, many more people have said "the earth rotates around the sun," and it doesn't make it any less true.
Personally, I find it to be true because it's the only thing that explains the denial. See, if people assumed that I was a hypocritical coward and all I had to do was answer a question to clear up this misunderstanding, then I'd surely do it. Unless, of course, my answer would make me sound like a hypocritical coward.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 12:43 AM (CuLcx)
40
Greyrooster, I've got this mental picture of you that's priceless! Keep up the good fight!
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 12:45 AM (CuLcx)
41
why is it that those of you who support the war, are able bodied and of
age (Greyrooster and Mike, this question doesn't relate directly to you), and
clearly have no qualms about violence and mass carnage,There could be any number of acceptable reasons. Certainly in my case. Not that it's any of your business. And even if you don't find the reason acceptable, who cares? It's irrelevant to whether the war in Iraq is just or unjust. And that's all that matters. That's why your silly meme is essentially just an ad hominem. So why should we play along with your silly little game? I don't think rooster should have.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 01:17 AM (8e/V4)
42
There could be any number of acceptable reasons. Right. Such as...?
I mentioned that yours was the McDonalds of lame excuses. The other, more complex variety I'd call the Chili's of lame excuses, where the guy says "well, uh, I've got a wife and family to support." As if our military didn't also have families. That's a slippery slope that you're probably glad you didn't go down.
And even if you don't find the reason acceptable, who cares? It's irrelevant to whether the war in Iraq is just or unjust.Whether or not the citizenry are willing to risk their lives in a war is absolutely relevant to whether or not it was a well advised move. You can't have such an ambitious war without such support. And it's you guys who deny them this support. You voted for this. You ra-ra-ed for it. But when it comes time to actually follow through on what you're cheering for? Crickets...
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 01:34 AM (LZHth)
43
Pule:
"
The reason I don't enlist is because I'm completely opposed to the war in Iraq, as I have been since well before the invasion."
When are you going to enlist in Al Qaeda and become a faceless, forgotten martyr in Iraq? The terrorists are spread too thinly and are in desperate need of more
retards recruits. They need your aid in the noble opposition to mankind.
Well, big mouth? Spare us your chickenhawk cluckings and go support the terrorists with more than your cunt shaped mouth. Join the opposition officially. As more than a cyber failure, I mean.
Show us that you oppose the "war" with more than a keyboard and a flabby, pasty, hairless, little, pimpled ass.
According to you and yours, you leftist traitors are the only ones who are allowed to comment on the war.
Remember, if you don't serve, your opinion doesn't count. According to the left's doctrine.
Since you don't serve,
SHUT THE FUCK UP LITTLE BITCH SNIFFER!
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 02:07 AM (abVz3)
44
Well I serve and let me say this, we live in a country where every one does not need to or has to serve. Per Capita our military is very small compared to the rest of the world's military. There is no logic to the argument if you support the war you must serve then. To all those who support the troops and the long haul, I have no problem pulling a trigger, loading another round, or stepping up to the plate for you. For those on the other side of the fence the same goes to you as well.
Posted by: DAT at January 19, 2007 08:06 AM (qjEEJ)
45
we live in a country where every one does not need to or has to serveAgreed. I'm not saying everyone has to serve. I'm simply asking why they don't. Apparently everyone is too embarrassed about their answer to state it aloud.
There is no logic to the argument if you support the war you must serve then.There is, actually. When we've got our military experts saying that the military is broken, with reservists doing 3 and 4 tours of duty, recruitment not meeting demand, and politicians saying that we need to enlarge the military overall with troops we haven't got, then the logic is quite clear that if you support the war, the military would certainly benefit from you enlisting.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 12:59 PM (jHh4c)
46
Jeff, your fly is still down. Each of your posts, you demonstrate for all who can read that you really don't have anything to say, no coherent argument whatsoever to support your worldview, and can only come up with the most childish variety of insults.
One question: how old are you? Seriously. If you don't want to tell me your real age, can you just indicate whether or not you are over 18?
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 01:00 PM (jHh4c)
47
Apparently everyone is too embarrassed about their answer to state it aloud.Paul,
fine. Because the army doesn't need middle-aged men with bad knees. Okaaay? My god you are tedious.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 02:43 PM (8e/V4)
48
Because the army doesn't need middle-aged men with bad knees.
Nice one, Carlos. You see, a bit of persistence paid off, to where you finally wheeled out your real excuse, that you're clearly none-too-proud of.
The maximum age to enlist in the army or reserves is 42. How old are you, and what have you been doing these past 5 years?
Bad knees? That's not a problem. There is a huge need for administrative personnel to coordinate activities. In fact, most of our military are involved in those roles. I guarantee, Carlos, the military both wants you and has many places that you could effectively fill.
So please, put your money where your mouth is. Your excuse could apply to thousands of troops that are currently serving, but it didn't stop them from joining "The Great Struggle of This Generation(TM)." Nor should it stop you.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 02:49 PM (jHh4c)
49
Paul,
I answered. Now you answer. Why didn't you enlist after we invaded Afghanistan. Pony up or shut up.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 02:58 PM (8e/V4)
50
Now you answer. Why didn't you enlist after we invaded Afghanistan.I've already answered that question above, very clearly. I can't come over to your house and read it for you, Mr. Rogers style. Sorry.
About your answer (which I can tell you already regret having given), sorry but it doesn't wash. We're talking about "The Great Struggle of This Generation(TM)." Sore knees and a few gray hairs doesn't disqualify you. Cowardice and hypocrisy don't either.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 03:01 PM (jHh4c)
51
I've already answered that question above, very clearly.Paul,
You answered "very clearly" the question you
wish I had posed to you-- not the one I actually did pose to you.
I'll ask again. When we invaded Afghanistan-- but BEFORE we invaded Iraq-- why didn't you enlist?
I'm waiting.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 03:07 PM (8e/V4)
52
Pule:
Why don't you enlist in Al Qaeda? Unlike your ridiculous lies about military "experts" claiming the American military is broken, Al Qaeda really is broken, and in desperate need of recruits who oppose America's presence in Iraq. The Al Qaeda boys accept anybody, regardless of age, intelligence, or physical condition. Even a nutless wonder like you would qualify. Al Qaeda is in the front lines protesting BusHiterBurton's illegal and immoral war against the brown people for their oil.
Answer the qustion you pathetic coward. Why don't you oppose the "war" in Iraq with more than a keyboard and the ineffectual old chickenhawk canard?
Now take my cock out of your mouth and zip up my fly. Stop crying. You didn't earn your 50 cents. The terrorists in Iraq are waiting for you to fellate them. Maybe. Most of them have fled Baghdad in advance of the "broken" U.S. military's troop buildup. Your heroes soiled themselves when they heard Bush was sending an extra 21,500 troops to help Iraqi forces conduct door to door searches in a Fallujah style extermination campaign.
Hurry! Enlist before it's too late! Stop trying to aid and abet the terrorists with your impotent comments. The day is done and it's Martyr Time, baby!
Dickweed.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 03:29 PM (abVz3)
53
I'll ask again. When we invaded Afghanistan-- but BEFORE we invaded Iraq-- why didn't you enlist? Okay, Carlos, let me take you by the hand and point you to my answer, that your sad reading skills prevented you from grasping the first time around. See comment #17 above. And then come back and explain why your inability to see it the first time
does not mean that you are mentally deficient.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 03:31 PM (jHh4c)
Posted by: Darth Odie at January 19, 2007 03:37 PM (2cR/Y)
55
Because I didn't trust Bush to tell the truth about the real reasons for the Afghanistan invasion or 9/11.Paul,
Afghanistan was the known and verified site of at least a dozen of AQ training camps-- the camps from which the 9/11 bombers came. Even Bill Clinton dropped a couple of bombs on them.
So it wasn't "Bush" whom you distrusted, it was, as the old saying goes, your own lying eyes that you distrusted. Now isn't that conveeeenient! LOL.
You sir, are a first class hypocrite.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2007 03:38 PM (8e/V4)
56
Jeff, if you like, you can continue making your ridiculous assertions, and I'll keep slapping them down. I think it's a good demonstration for the others reading these threads.
Unlike your ridiculous lies about military "experts" claiming the American military is brokenFormer secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that the U.S. Army
"is about broken" and could not support sending a significant increase
of Soldiers to Iraq.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,120754,00.htmlI know, I know, Powell is a pinko commie faggot, right?
Al Qaeda really is brokenWow, Jeff, you know, that is the first true statement you've written here. Yes, Al Qaeda is truly broken. It consists of a handful of guys, trying desperately to insert their brand into the global dialogue, in hopes of some recognition and continued relevance. This has been true since very shortly after the Afghanistan invasion. And yet, it doesn't prevent our government from wheeling out the old AQ boogeyman to get you lot to piss your collective pants every time, pavlov's dogs style.
Why don't you oppose the "war" in Iraq with more than a keyboard and the ineffectual old chickenhawk canard?The chickenhawk canard is hardly ineffectual, as it's rendered mute everyone on this page who has tried to refute it. But in answer to your question, I have done and continue to do a lot to oppose this war. Engaging in a bit of Bush-supporter ridicule is just an occasional hobby of mine.
I protested several times (lotta good that does with an administration who holds popular opinion in utter contempt), donated
heavily to candidates around the country who promised to end the war, held politicians (both Dem and Rep) accountable for voting for the war through many letters in, wrote letter to the editor.
Now, what have you done to support the war, Jeff?
(Crickets...)
That's right, Jeff. Nothing. Your contribution has been to sit at your mom's house eating Cheesy Poofs and rail against the wars opponents, while all along you're too cowardly to go yourself.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 03:41 PM (jHh4c)
57
Congress sets the limits on the size of the armed forces. Even if everyone enlisted who visits this website there still is a limit. So really this argument is moot and silly. JCS ( joint chiefs of Staff) are kicking around the idea of upping the army by 30,000 by 2010. Ohh and I will put another jihadi on the barbie for you Paul!
Posted by: DAT at January 19, 2007 04:01 PM (qjEEJ)
58
Congress sets the limits on the size of the armed forces.Yes, true. But not relevant to what I'm saying. Currently, with the current congress-approved size of the military, the only way our military is able to meet even a portion of its obligations in Iraq is by requiring multiple tours of duty, and relying heavily on the national guard, which is not meant to be used for overseas fighting. This is breaking the military, as Powell and other military leaders have already described. To remedy this situation, the military desperately needs new recruits, as their own spokespeople say. There is plenty of room for them right now.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 04:06 PM (jHh4c)
59
I didn't enlist because my priorities are elsewhere -- I'm basically a selfish person and prefer to further my civil career. My family has a history of service, and a tremendous kill ratio, so that provides me with some comfort. Genetically, I have many attributes which would make me an excellent choice for the military (my only obvious flaw is I dislike the smell of burning flesh). So there is really no reason for me not to enlist other than my own personal desire to make some money and enjoy the good life in Southern California.
But I'm a war supporter. Does that make me a chickenhawk? Well, I pay more than my fair share of taxes -- I certainly support the military financially. I also happen to support increasing the benefits for military personnel (and I support funding for research and to provide superior equipment), and I'm willing to face tax increases to do so, all in order to make military service less of a hardship, thereby eliminating recruiting problems.
There are a lot of other programs I support, but don't want to make the personal sacrifice to actively participate in (beyond opening my wallet or going to the voting booth): cancer research, public schools, medicare. I'm not about to become a scientist, teacher, or doctor -- does that mean my support for these programs is subject to a "101st Teaching Keyboardist" slur?
No, such an attack is ultimately a logically invalid ad hominem attack. We have a voluntary military, just like we have voluntary medical, teaching, and research professions.
Only when we have mandatory military service (which I would support, since universal service would eliminate the competitive disadvantage imposed on my career for taking years off to serve) would the 'chickenhawk' argument have any weight beyond as a trivial rhetorical device for the logically impaired.
Until then, the 'chickenhawk' slur will continue to be used, if only because it actually has a sting felt by conservative patriots --
we wish we could serve, and feel guilty that we aren't serving (be it for age, ability, or even just selfish reasons). The problem is that the left would never feel such a sting, as their disdain for our troops (or at least patronizing condescension) precludes any such pangs of guilt.
Posted by: wooga at January 19, 2007 04:51 PM (t9sT5)
60
But I'm a war supporter. Does that make me a chickenhawk?Yes. You're able to go, you support the cause, but you'd rather stay home and make the big bucks and let poor kids go in your stead. I'd say that's a pretty close definition of a chickenhawk. Your relatives' military accomplishments are irrelevant. I can point to those as well, but haven't because it has no bearing on what we're talking about.
cancer research, public schools, medicare. I'm not about to become a
scientist, teacher, or doctor -- does that mean my support for these
programs is subject to a "101st Teaching Keyboardist" slur?No. Because cancer research, public education and medicare are 3 areas where you must be a professional in that field in order to participate. On the other hand, the military is designed for general public participation.
we wish we could serve, and feel guilty that we aren't serving (be it for age, ability, or even just selfish reasons).Bullshit. You can serve. You just don't want to. Don't pretend you wish you could serve.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 05:16 PM (jHh4c)
61
By the way, Wooga, I do commend you on clearly having more courage than your fellow chickenhawks, who have all probably chosen not to fight for the same reason you have, but are too ashamed to admit it. Well done!
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 05:43 PM (jHh4c)
62
Hopefully this thread will die soon. Paul, did you know that the army exceeded its recruiting goals? I bet this irks you. ALSO not every one can serve or needs to serve?? why even harp on a issue like this?? to debate something like this using fallacies just makes you look inmature and retarded. Before you talk about multiple tours and breaking the military why dont you walk a mile in my shoes!!! PAUL where were you when I was deployed to Bosnia for 13 months!!! and I lived on a tank the whole time! PAUL where were you when I was in Kosovo for 6 months then went to Kuwait less than 4 months again, PAUL, ohh I forgot you dont serve.
Posted by: DAT at January 19, 2007 06:10 PM (qjEEJ)
63
Hopefully this thread will die soon.Why do you hope that?
Paul, did you know that the army exceeded its recruiting goals? I bet this irks you.The fact alone does not irk me. The fact that this is being used to suggest that the military does not need more people, that is irksome, yes. Because those recruiting goals do not take into consideration our personnel needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, such that we need to abuse the national guard and send them on multiple tours to Iraq.
ALSO not every one can serveCorrect. This criticism isn't directed at those who can't serve.
why even harp on a issue like this??Because it shows that, rhetoric aside, even the war's supporters do not fully support the war, since so many of them who could help choose not to, even despite the fact that the military clearly needs more bodies. I'm sorry if that conclusion makes you uncomfortable, but it's pointless blaming me for that. I didn't create these conditions. I'm merely drawing your attention to them.
to debate something like this using fallacies just makes you look inmature and retarded.If I have used any logical or factual fallacies, I invite you to point them out.
Before you talk about multiple tours and breaking the military why dont you walk a mile in my shoes!!!DAT, assuming all that is correct, then you are clearly not a chickenhawk. In terms of your support for war, you clearly walk the talk. Now, while you rail against me for not having served right there with you, I can't help but notice that you do not point these comments to your fellow Bush supporters, who were also absent, but who significantly also portray themselves as gung-ho Rambo types, calling for death and questioning the patriotism of those who don't agree with them, all from the comfort of their own homes. To criticize me and not your fellow travelers strikes me as pretty glaring hypocrisy, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 06:30 PM (jHh4c)
64
Bottom line just cause you support the war does not mean that you have to serve. Your fallacy you are using in your argument is this: just cause you watch football means that you must play football. Please go to College or a University and take a boolean logic class.
Posted by: DAT at January 19, 2007 07:54 PM (qjEEJ)
65
Paul: I have a very good mental image of you too. You really should shave your legs when wearing a dress.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 19, 2007 09:01 PM (w+w6p)
66
Bottom line just cause you support the war does not mean that you have to serve.Agreed. I never said that it did. What I did say is that, if you support the war that is going so badly and truly needs more troops, then you probably should serve. At the very least, you should have a very good reason why you shouldn't serve.
Your fallacy you are using in your argument is this: just cause you watch football means that you must play football.No. To make such a comparison is a logical fallacy. To make a more realistic comparison, you'd have to change the conditions of football. Say you really love football. Your very life depends on it, as well as the lives of everyone you know and love. (Because those are the stakes that most war supporters perceive in Iraq.) Let's say football is in serious danger of being canceled, because of several reasons including the fact that there just aren't enough players. Now, that makes for a better comparison. In that case, you still don't have to play football. But through your non-action, unless there's a great reason for why you don't play, you are essentially betraying your cause.
Please go to College or a University and take a boolean logic class.I wouldn't try and match degrees or education with me, soldierboy. From your usage, I take it you don't know what boolean logic is.
Posted by: Paul at January 19, 2007 09:07 PM (UJWSl)
67
Pule:21,500 troops have been sent to Iraq. So much for Powell's asinine assessment.
Al Qaeda is one islamopithecine terrorist organization out of thousands. All of them need to be exterminated. Stock up on hankies while you can, Rosenberg.
The chickenhawk canard has been thoroughly thrashed by every man on this site. You still haven't put your rhetoric to the test. Become a suicide bommber, bitch. You sure don't have what it takes to win an argument, or control the flow of debate.
If I had a nickel for every leftist puke like you that I made soil himself in terror, I'd be a fucking milionaire. Newsflash, fag-lick: People listen to guys like me.
NOBODY listens to pussies like you. You couldn't persuade a hungry four year old to eat a cookie, and
you are undoubtably bullied into submission on a daily basis.
You're a loser and we're all laughing at you.
You provide a perfect example of the intellectually weak and unprincipled left.
Thanks for allowing me to goad you into exposing the bankruptcy of your movement's ideology. You were quite easy to manipulate. It didn't take much prodding on my part, because your psychotic left-wing intemperence renders you incapable of rational discourse.
You have been bitch slapped by everybody here.
You have no shame, and your plagiarized arguments have no game. America is going to succeed in Iraq, and that's just tearing you up, isn't it, Megalito.
Have you joined Al Qaeda or Hizbollocks yet? If not, stop bad-mouthing America's aid to Iraq. Put up or shut up, queerbait.
Haw, Haw HAW! Here's looking at you......sucking my dick!
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 11:40 PM (abVz3)
68
Pule:
Why do you want the terrorists to destroy Iraq? Why don't you have the balls to join any of the terrorist groups you so clearly support? Why do you hate your own country?
Good luck giving an honest answer, asshole.
Your plagiarized chickenhawk ploy has been torn to shreds. You have no other argument. You're a one trick wonder and you're shooting blanks now.
Bang, bang, you're dead, bitch.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 19, 2007 11:57 PM (abVz3)
69
Me:
cancer research, public schools, medicare. I'm not about to become a
scientist, teacher, or doctor -- does that mean my support for these
programs is subject to a "101st Teaching Keyboardist" slur?Paul:
No.
Because cancer research, public education and medicare are 3 areas
where you must be a professional in that field in order to participate.
On the other hand, the military is designed for general public
participation.
You don't need to be a 'professional' to be a teacher. Or a researcher. Or to work in a hospital. The highest levels require significant experience, but all are readily accesible to the below average public at an entry level. All you have to do is go through some 'basic training.'
Your claim that the military is designed for general public participation is very illustrative of your ignorance about the military. Sadly, it also exemplifies my point about the left either having disdain or patronizing condescension towards the military -- in your case, both are present.
It is
much harder to get
through just the basic training requirements for the military than it
is to be able to teach children, work in a hospital, or even do medical
research. I happened to do all three while still a minor, without a
highschool diploma.
I bet you are one of those who thinks the military is disproportionately poor, black, and uneducated, right?
Posted by: wooga at January 20, 2007 01:07 AM (2YapR)
70
Sorry, I missed out, but life got in my face, and I had to punch it out!
More on serving, since dickweed thinks that only military service counts ...
If I were ten years younger, and had the same library, and education, and resources, my best way to help the troops would still be to do what I am doing right now. Sometimes words are more powerful weapons. I believe they are the weapons that are doing the most damage to our side in this war, and so I fight back with words.
I use what college I have, in concert with a collection of books on the military, politics, history, and religion. I am the harshest kind of anti-authoritarianist, and whichever dog wins this fight, if it turns into an oppressor, it will be my enemy. My support for Bush was based almost entirely on my sense of who would do more damage to the Bill Of Rights, and our national sovreignty. I still think I made the right choice.
That still means I know where my best options are located, and that means supporting victory for the best country in the world. It means stopping Marxism, (which rhetoric you mimic Paul, even if you try to hide it) it means stopping Islamism, and it means throwing of the shackles of PC behavior, and just learnuing to be different, even if we are aggravating.
I know my pen is mightier than any sword I could wield, coffee, or not! That is where my skills are not just average, or below. That is in spite of inheriting my families dyslexia. I KNOW I will make an impact with my writing someday, and it will be more of an impact than I could make shooting individual terrorists.
I have heard YOUR (Paul's) kind of soft slander used to try and discredit those who support our troops, but it is only a distraction. There are many ways to serve, and which ever one you choose is up to your best judgement. Maybe your make bandages! Maybe you just stay home and keep the economy up. Whatever you do, your entitled to your opnion, and there is no test required. It is NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT OUR OWN, how we serve. All we need to know is that we do. Paul isn't really concerned with that antway.
WE ARE FIGHTING ON THE PROPAGANDA FRONT! That is a genuinely neglected area of the conflict, and we are desperately needed. I really believe Paul is just here to try and undermine our value to the cause of getting the truth out. Ask him if he wants America to win against the insurgents in Iraq. If he can ask us why we arent in uniform, we can ask him that.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 20, 2007 03:55 AM (2OHpj)
71
Mike:
Your writing has made an impact on
me. Far more people read these comments than participate, so it's safe to assume that you've impacted others, as well.
You're a persuasive writer.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at January 20, 2007 11:31 PM (abVz3)
72
Thank you Jeff!
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at January 22, 2007 02:05 PM (2OHpj)
73
Yea! He's made me rethink a few things.
Posted by: greyrooster at January 24, 2007 12:52 PM (w+w6p)
74
I just popped by to see if any of you had fought to have the last word, fully expecting that you had. But when I read these threads, I had an insight about the Iraq war I'd like to share with you.
The reason why the Americans cannot be victorious over the insurgency in Iraq is because the Iraqi insurgency are at home, whereas the Americans are in a foreign country. Eventually, the Americans will leave (even if it's after 100 years), and the insurgency will remain.
To illustrate this point, let's look at this blog. I'm like the Americans, and you lot are like the Iraqi insurgency. While I have won pretty much all the battles I have engaged in here, adequately defending my own point while dismantling others (as well as doing so with a level of maturity you guys can't even get your heads around), you folks will always have the last word. Because, while you guys reside here (for whatever reason I can only imagine), I don't.
Therefore, regardless of how I dismantle your points with superior arguments, and make some of you like poor Jeff look incredibly immature, in the end, you guys will be standing here beating your chests like Baghdad Bob, claiming the Mother of All Victories in jawdropping defiance of a page full of facts directly above. At that point, just like the Iraqis, you will be left with nothing but your own bad ideas.
You don't believe me? Watch the next few posts. I predict they will be entirely devoid of substance, rely wholly on ad hominems, and communicated in a way that most kids over the age of 14 would find embarrassing.
Compare this to what's likely to happen the day after the last US troops leave Iraq.
Posted by: Paul at January 30, 2007 08:13 PM (GRUFb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
For today's Jawa fight club assignment I want you to start an e-mail fight with a jihadi, and lose.
Yahoo! Geocities has responded to your complaints and has removed a German language al Qaeda website. The "al Jawab" are the German branch of the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF), an al Qaeda propaganda outlet.
The Voice of the Caliphate channel is back up, and still broadcasting from Germany. Presently, they are showing an Islamic Army in Iraq compilation video of various "operations" against U.S. targets. Not shown is the video of the Islamic Army in Iraq murdering Italian Red Cross worker Enzo Baldoni. That would be bad PR.
The latest in the continuing saga of the Lee Tucker propaganda film. Two days ago, the Islamic Army of Iraq--a notoriously brutal terrorist organization known for it's murder videos of Western civilians-- released a high-production value film proporting to have been made with images and letters found on the flash drive of a dead "Marine", Spc. Lee Tucker. The video was narrated in native English, in what was proportedly the voice of Lee Tucker. The message of the video was that many soldiers were anti-war, and that Tucker had died in a cause he did not believe in. UPDATE: Video below, scroll down.
You're a coward.
