July 14, 2006
Hamas Attacks San Francisco, Repulsed By Zionist Crusaders
Zombie has done it again.
"Protest at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco."
"Protest at the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco."
Of particular note is the fact that an equal number of pro-Israel supporters showed up.
stein hoist: LGF
Posted by: Vinnie at
11:13 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Notice the folks on the pro-Israel side look like regular folks with jobs and families, while the pro-paleo side look like thugs and potential suicide bombers, wearing hoods and AK-47s on their t-shirts.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 15, 2006 12:44 AM (8e/V4)
2
I'm sure there were a lot more pro-hezbollah activists who wanted to be there. Tough to attend these pep rallies when yer doing 25 to life.
Posted by: REMF at July 15, 2006 02:52 AM (7RMSi)
3
Look at the behavior of all those BLACK Americans.
Hating Israel.
Hating Christians.
Hating America.
Hating Whitey.
Don't see a single KKK member protesting against the Jews. But I see a lot of black scumbags cheering for Hezbollah.
BUT FACTS DON'T COUNT.
Hating Israel.
Hating Christians.
Hating America.
Hating Whitey.
Don't see a single KKK member protesting against the Jews. But I see a lot of black scumbags cheering for Hezbollah.
BUT FACTS DON'T COUNT.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 15, 2006 10:00 PM (kylJG)
July 11, 2006
Pig
Utter, despicable, vile disgusting pig.
I was going to leave it at that, but may as well blockquote an excerpt for posterity's sake.
Great post. One of the soldiers who was "decapped and mutilated" (a LOT less fun than a decaf and milk, lemme tell ya!) was Thomas Tucker from Madras, Oregon. Tucker was tortured and murdered as payback for what other American troops did. What goes around comes around. Warrior karma.
Yeah, well, karma is karma, and you'll get yours, bitch.
Stein hoist: Misha's comments
Posted by: Vinnie at
11:20 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Despicable" is hardly an adequate term for this one. I hope the day comes soon when justice can be meted out to subhumans like this. I don't know how she got the way she is, but she needs to be put out of her misery.
Posted by: Richard at July 11, 2006 11:55 PM (7KF8r)
2
Scum like this don't deserve the protection of the soldiers she so readily scorns.
Posted by: Mathewk at July 12, 2006 01:35 AM (pVHqF)
3
In my "happy place", "What goes around comes around" are the last words she ever hears.
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at July 12, 2006 03:25 AM (maXzk)
4
Dr. Frisch keeps on piling bad Karma up for herself and one day she will find that her Karma will run over her Dogma.
Posted by: Nahanni at July 12, 2006 05:33 AM (4RC58)
5
I'm always in wondermeant of how low a democrat can go.
Waiting for 6:00 AM start. We are ready for make of for our last to days of getting nothing but sunburn. Today is our day. Look out fish. Would like to use Frisch as chum if she wouldn't stink up our grinder.
Yesterday, more U.S. citizens were killed Iraq than New Orleans and Washington D.C.
Todays news correctly claims that 70% of all blacks in U.S. and born out of wedlock. Al Sharpton says quotas in hiring is the answer??????????????????? While we don't expect black women to stop screwing at the drop of a hat, perhaps, explaining to them what a condom is would help.
Progress?? A black murderer in New York actually accused of a hate crime in the murder of a white woman.
Gee whiz, was the 9/11 murderers ever accused of Racism? Guess Jawas don't count as racists.
Gotta drink this coffee before we head out.
OUTLAW ISLAM
Waiting for 6:00 AM start. We are ready for make of for our last to days of getting nothing but sunburn. Today is our day. Look out fish. Would like to use Frisch as chum if she wouldn't stink up our grinder.
Yesterday, more U.S. citizens were killed Iraq than New Orleans and Washington D.C.
Todays news correctly claims that 70% of all blacks in U.S. and born out of wedlock. Al Sharpton says quotas in hiring is the answer??????????????????? While we don't expect black women to stop screwing at the drop of a hat, perhaps, explaining to them what a condom is would help.
Progress?? A black murderer in New York actually accused of a hate crime in the murder of a white woman.
Gee whiz, was the 9/11 murderers ever accused of Racism? Guess Jawas don't count as racists.
Gotta drink this coffee before we head out.
OUTLAW ISLAM
Posted by: greyrooster at July 12, 2006 05:55 AM (WKGQV)
6
Tell me again Rusty why liberals shouldn't all be lined up and shot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2006 05:55 AM (v3I+x)
7
Because Maxie if we put them in a row behind each other we can get 2-3 kills with a single large cal bullet. Think of the cost savings.
hondo - a fiscal conservative!
hondo - a fiscal conservative!
Posted by: hondo at July 12, 2006 07:42 AM (MVgHp)
8
"Tell me again Rusty why liberals shouldn't all be lined up and shot?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2006 05:55 AM"
Because then we'd have no one to make fun of..
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2006 05:55 AM"
Because then we'd have no one to make fun of..
Posted by: mrclark at July 12, 2006 08:14 AM (H9LTb)
9
You tell her Vinnie.
Posted by: Howie at July 12, 2006 08:21 AM (D3+20)
10
She's vile. But if you go to her website you will see that she has removed that post. So somewhere inside that putrid sack of pigshit called Deb Frisch, there is yet a glimmer of humanity.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 12, 2006 09:17 AM (8e/V4)
11
I am still calling BS on this payback crap.Does anyone really believe that without the rape of the young Iraqi women these monsters would capture US troops and give them cookies and soft drinks? These terrorist were doing this before and they will do it after until we kill every one of them.
Posted by: Randman at July 12, 2006 10:09 AM (Sal3J)
12
The only scum worst than the terrorists are the scum here in the US who support them. Like the wart hog Deb the professor of whom we speak. Vile and disgusting. Yep, she is that and more.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 12, 2006 10:27 AM (rUyw4)
13
She turned off comments on her thread(Fritch)? DANEgerous was right on target. No claim of revenge until after the news of the alledged rape broke. Fits al-Qaeda's media strategy to a T.
Posted by: Howie at July 12, 2006 10:34 AM (D3+20)
Posted by: Brad at July 12, 2006 12:29 PM (6mUkl)
15
That's what I meant hondo; I figure a .50 BMG round could get a couple dozen.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2006 06:13 AM (v3I+x)
LGF : Revised Flight 93 Memorial is the Same as Original
Rather than copy the entire blog post, I'll just point you to LGF, where Charles points out that the NEW & IMPROVED Flight 93 memorial retains the same Islamic crescent shape as the original design.
And yes, it still points straight to Mecca.
And yes, it still memorializes the 40 passengers and their 4 murderers.
Arrrrgggghhhh.....
Posted by: Ragnar at
05:02 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can not believe it. Someone needs their butt kicked.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 11, 2006 06:16 PM (D2g/j)
2
In the words of John McEnroe, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"
Are we merely our forestalling our dhimmitude, or are we serious about winning the civilizational struggle? Idiocy like this strongly suggests the former.
Are we merely our forestalling our dhimmitude, or are we serious about winning the civilizational struggle? Idiocy like this strongly suggests the former.
Posted by: Vince at July 11, 2006 06:52 PM (WH40Y)
3
Alec Rawls is the real go-to guy on this. He will be attending the public hearing, and anyone in PA should as well.
His site is here: Alec Rawls.
It's not too late, but folks have to use the public comment and get friends like PA's own Curt Weldon involved.
This monument, as is, would be a disgrace and perpetually spit in the face of the heroes of Flight 93, the FDNY, NYPD, and our brave soldiers who have continued the fight begun by Beamer and his fellow passengers.
His site is here: Alec Rawls.
It's not too late, but folks have to use the public comment and get friends like PA's own Curt Weldon involved.
This monument, as is, would be a disgrace and perpetually spit in the face of the heroes of Flight 93, the FDNY, NYPD, and our brave soldiers who have continued the fight begun by Beamer and his fellow passengers.
Posted by: Allan at July 11, 2006 07:39 PM (wWKro)
4
A retired Two Star General has now questioned the official story about a big plane hitting the Pentagon on 9-11, and he claims to have the expertise to back up his skepticism. Here's the video.
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv
And by the way, Flight 93 was shot down.
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv
And by the way, Flight 93 was shot down.
Posted by: Greg at July 11, 2006 07:49 PM (q5wwn)
Posted by: USCitizen at July 11, 2006 09:07 PM (CXdAE)
6
Greg is so full of shit its dripping out his ears. I'm not kidding. This idiot is sick, sick, sick.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2006 09:17 PM (y4Vli)
7
I sent in my two cents about the crescent moon for flight 93. They must love Islam, and hate America. In which case, why do they live here?
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 11, 2006 09:32 PM (D2g/j)
8
The force is weak in Greg. The ringing in his ears is the bell telling him the fries are done.
Posted by: Robert at July 11, 2006 10:25 PM (LYLpo)
9
If I eat too much chili, I will sometimes leave a crescent moon in my drawers. I believe that when it is because I ate too much pork bb-q the smell gets all the way back to the muslimes. I suggest they put the memorial down in the south. I know it is a long way from the site of the crash. However, this way you can rest assured the only crescent moon visible at the site will be in the sky. Islam will die on the vine if it tries to set up shop too far outside of Atlanta. I know a few fellas who like to hunt vermin.
Posted by: Cmunk at July 11, 2006 10:40 PM (n4VvM)
10
Was it shot down by JOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooooozzz greg? You're a fucking moron and should be shot.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2006 05:59 AM (v3I+x)
11
I agree IM.
Posted by: Max at July 12, 2006 08:13 AM (aPkwd)
12
Here is what I found for the memorial design from the official site. There is a crescent, but it is completely enclosed and faces sw.
There are 40 groves of trees and 40 windchimes in the "tower of voices." Not 44.
Where in the document is the information that the crescent faces east? Other than red maples in a circle I happen to think it looks very serene and respectful.
https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/Flight93_bulibmgr/docs/Newsletter%204%20--%20November%202005%20full%20size.pdf
There are 40 groves of trees and 40 windchimes in the "tower of voices." Not 44.
Where in the document is the information that the crescent faces east? Other than red maples in a circle I happen to think it looks very serene and respectful.
https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/Flight93_bulibmgr/docs/Newsletter%204%20--%20November%202005%20full%20size.pdf
Posted by: BelchSpeak at July 12, 2006 09:29 AM (UyFYg)
13
Yes, all liberals love monuments to our enemies. Why is that?
Someone, anyone ban that idiot Greg. Ban him forever and ever. Snuff out his links, and in a salute to the terrorists he supports, chop off his access to the Jawa.
And call the police wherever he is and report that he is back on the meth, or mushrooms, or something illegal, because he is hallucinating again.
Someone, anyone ban that idiot Greg. Ban him forever and ever. Snuff out his links, and in a salute to the terrorists he supports, chop off his access to the Jawa.
And call the police wherever he is and report that he is back on the meth, or mushrooms, or something illegal, because he is hallucinating again.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 12, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
14
But Greg shooting down that plane does not fit the 9/11 inside job thing. If you are on control why shoot anyone down?
Posted by: Howie at July 12, 2006 10:45 AM (D3+20)
15
The crescent moon stands for Islam, and Allah.
Did you not know that BelchSpeak? Or, you do know that, and you love Islam. In which case get the F##k out of this country. Don't leave mad, just leave.
Did you not know that BelchSpeak? Or, you do know that, and you love Islam. In which case get the F##k out of this country. Don't leave mad, just leave.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 12, 2006 03:21 PM (8uWFo)
16
Howie,
One possibility is that the passenger revolt threatened to reveal some aspect of the operation that the government didn't want revealed.
JJ,
I sense a frantic desperation developing in you. Your world is crumbling.
One possibility is that the passenger revolt threatened to reveal some aspect of the operation that the government didn't want revealed.
JJ,
I sense a frantic desperation developing in you. Your world is crumbling.
Posted by: Greg at July 12, 2006 06:54 PM (q5wwn)
17
Please don't ban Greg. We need him as an example of how ignorant the enemy can be.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 12, 2006 09:36 PM (zDBgv)
Posted by: EEprom at July 12, 2006 11:46 PM (77WWI)
19
Who killed Kennedy is a legitimate question.
Posted by: Greg at July 13, 2006 11:52 AM (q5wwn)
20
Please, people, calm down. If you go to the park service website, you will see that Belch is right, and LGF and Alec and Jawa are dead fucking wrong. There is NO memorializing the 4 assholes who killed the passengers and crew of the jet. None. zip. It is just a lie to get conservatives worked up, angry, and writing bizarre emails. it is NOT true. Please please check it out for yourself. There is NO memorializing of the hijackers. None. Don't fall for these lies.
As for pointing to Mecca--wrong again.
It isn't even clearly a crescent. I didn't see one in the design. There is a natural bowl to the land, which the designer has incorporated into the design.
This reminds me of all the kooks (Buchanan and Perot leading the charge) who were angry about the Vietnam Wall. They called it a shameful design, a disgusting insult to those who died. And when Reagan showed his usual courage, and stuck with the design--it was embraced by veterans all across the country. But for months, it was used for fundraising, and to make PEOPLE ANGRY...just like these lies.
There is no aspect, not one, nothing, in this memorial that remembers the hijackers. There is nothing, not a shred, of Islamic architecture in this. CALM DOWN. Look at the facts.
Sheesh.
As for pointing to Mecca--wrong again.
It isn't even clearly a crescent. I didn't see one in the design. There is a natural bowl to the land, which the designer has incorporated into the design.
This reminds me of all the kooks (Buchanan and Perot leading the charge) who were angry about the Vietnam Wall. They called it a shameful design, a disgusting insult to those who died. And when Reagan showed his usual courage, and stuck with the design--it was embraced by veterans all across the country. But for months, it was used for fundraising, and to make PEOPLE ANGRY...just like these lies.
There is no aspect, not one, nothing, in this memorial that remembers the hijackers. There is nothing, not a shred, of Islamic architecture in this. CALM DOWN. Look at the facts.
Sheesh.
Posted by: jd at July 15, 2006 10:48 AM (DQYHA)
July 10, 2006
British Muslims Mock 7/7 & 9/11 Victims, Support Terror. U.K./Birmingham Subsidizing (UPDATED/BUMPED)
Allah now has the video up. It's truly sickening. In it, the speaker makes fun of Korean hostage Kim Sun-Il, murdered by Tawhid i Jihad (predecessor of al Qaeda) for begging for his life. The audience laughs.
Allah now has the video up. It's truly sickening. In it, the speaker makes fun of Korean hostage Kim Sun-Il, murdered by Tawhid i Jihad (predecessor of al Qaeda) for begging for his life. The audience laughs.They laugh at the beheading murder of a Korean tourist, then condemn terrorism.....the "terrorism of the British government".
I saw the video of Kim Sun-Il being murdered. Anyone who laughs at it, should be dead or in jail. I'm truly sickened.
--------------------
A new video of British Muslims at a 7/7 conference shows just how big a problem the West has with a fifth column of terror supporters among us. In the video, a Jamaican born immigrant named Trevor Brooks--introduced as Abu Izadeen-- takes the microphone and goes off on an hour-long rant about how Britain can avoid another 7/7 attack.
Although the video has been taken down from the website run by British followers of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, thanks to Dominic Whiteman and other members (who wish to remain anonymos at this time) from a secret London based organization called Vigil, The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. Video can be seen here.
The video is shot at a Birmingham community center on July 2, 2006. The video was released on the internet on 7/7, in order to coincide with the anniversary of the London bombings. Interestingly enough, The Jawa Report had previously tracked down followers of the now exiled radical cleric Omar Bakri Muhammed to The Birmingham Grid for Learning, which is owned and operated by the City of Birmingham.
Does the City of Birmingham know that its public facilities are being used by members of The Saved Sect, al Ghurabaa, the Society of Muslim Lawyers, and other spin-off groups from the now banned al Mujahiroun group to spread hate, extremism, and support for terrorism?
You may remember these British Islamists from their website (which we archived since they deny it) and subsequent protest in which they called for 'death to all those who insult Mohammed'.
Despite a few arrests and the forced exile of their leader Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed to Lebanon, Tony Blair's government has not followed through with promises made to shut down this network of radical Islamists.
In an interview over the weekend, Bakri presented himself as a spokesman for the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, headed by Osama Bin Laden. He warned that, ""the day will come that the flag of Islam will fly over the Big Ben and the British Parliament." more...
Posted by: Rusty at
11:59 PM
| Comments (75)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1592 words, total size 12 kb.
1
Birmingham, I was avoiding travel to that city as early as 1995, most of my friends avoided it too.
Posted by: davec at July 10, 2006 04:09 PM (voZp6)
2
It saddens me to see how the British are simply rolling over and letting these Islamic insects/squatters move in and take over their country. They have some serious Islamic problems in the U.K. that will only become tangible in the form of another bomb placed on a subway, airplane, taxi, etc. Wake up people! The British media is also another huge problem. They are worse than ours because there isn't a legitimate Blog class in the U.K. The people get their only news from a media that has its head up its ass or in the clouds-I haven't figured out which. Those people are seriously misinformed. The Brits need to open their eyes and react before what happened in France (as if anyone cares) happens to them.
Posted by: Jacks Smirking Revenge at July 10, 2006 04:21 PM (CtVG6)
3
The U.K is being shaped, and coerced into a multi cultural, politically correct society by its Government.
When you find your own countries flag threating to 'diversity' and then the church wishes to change the patron saint [George] because it's considered to be offensive to Muslims, you've in trouble.
The U.K is ashamed of it's imperial past, and has gone to great lengths to apologize for it, ignoring the strengths that once made it great, and appearing weak to the immigrants in their midst is not helping its case.
When you find your own countries flag threating to 'diversity' and then the church wishes to change the patron saint [George] because it's considered to be offensive to Muslims, you've in trouble.
The U.K is ashamed of it's imperial past, and has gone to great lengths to apologize for it, ignoring the strengths that once made it great, and appearing weak to the immigrants in their midst is not helping its case.
Posted by: davec at July 10, 2006 04:42 PM (voZp6)
4
"Those people get their only news from a MEDIA that has its head up its ass or in the clouds-I haven't figured out which."
Sorry-I forgot a sleazy, tabloid MEDIA whose most reliable source for news is about as legitimate as the National Inquirer is here in the states.
Sorry-I forgot a sleazy, tabloid MEDIA whose most reliable source for news is about as legitimate as the National Inquirer is here in the states.
Posted by: Jacks Smirking Revenge at July 10, 2006 04:42 PM (CtVG6)
5
"Those people get their only news from a MEDIA that has its head up its ass or in the clouds-I haven't figured out which."
Sorry-I forgot a sleazy, tabloid MEDIA whose most reliable source for news is about as legitimate as the National Inquirer is here in the states.
Sorry-I forgot a sleazy, tabloid MEDIA whose most reliable source for news is about as legitimate as the National Inquirer is here in the states.
Posted by: Jacks Smirking Revenge at July 10, 2006 04:46 PM (CtVG6)
6
It's funn how in different parts of the world, different angles are highlighted. It makes all kinds to make a bunch, remember the normals amongst us are the mainstay of society. We're just not radical enough to get on TV. The one's you posted are indeed a black spot on us, but then we have a future to be proud of...
These Muslim kids are a welcome sight:
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/d...tentPK=14866249
Pupils at Nottingham's only Muslim school made banners condemning terrorist activities on the anniversary of the London bombings.
Around 120 youngsters at the Islamia School in Hyson Green held up the posters while observing yesterday's two-minute silence.
They banners read 'Muslims against terrorists', 'Murderers are not martyrs' and 'Islam means peace'.
The pupils also prayed for the victims of the 7/7 atrocities and sang a nasheed, or Islamic hymn.
Deputy head Sajidah Munir said: "We talked to pupils about how upset and aggrieved everyone was about the bombings.
"We also talked about how some people have this perception that Muslims are terrorists and what we can do about it."
He added: "The children said they would like to make their feelings known by creating their own posters.
"We made a prayer for people who passed away and for people who lost loved ones.
"The majority of Muslims in this country were born here. We feel for people in this country."
Eleven-year-old pupil Aqdas Aslam, from Radford, said: "I felt very sad and upset that people could have done this evil thing.
"The terrorists have hurt and killed many people in my country. It was a crime against humanity."
Meanwhile, three Muslim men from the city travelled to London to attend the tributes in the capital wearing matching T-shirts bearing the slogan 'Beat terrorism'.
They stopped to speak to some of those laying flowers and giving out wrist bands bearing the date of last year's atrocities.
Suhail Butt, an IT worker originally from Nottingham and now living in Manchester, said what they were doing was raising awareness.
He said that whilst they had had some "funny looks" while travelling on the Tube, he and his friends, Kaisar Altaf and Zahid Iqbal, both from Nottingham, thought it was important to show their solidarity with those remembering the attacks.
The trio said that the visit was a repeat of the one they made to the capital two months after the attacks and that they had so far raised £1,500 for the Red Cross and Unicef.
The anniversary of the July 7 bombings, which killed 52 people in the capital, was marked by a two-minute silence at noon.
Adrian Johnson, 37, from Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Stan Brewster, 52, from Swanwick, in Derbyshire, were among the victims of the four blasts.
These Muslim kids are a welcome sight:
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/d...tentPK=14866249
Pupils at Nottingham's only Muslim school made banners condemning terrorist activities on the anniversary of the London bombings.
Around 120 youngsters at the Islamia School in Hyson Green held up the posters while observing yesterday's two-minute silence.
They banners read 'Muslims against terrorists', 'Murderers are not martyrs' and 'Islam means peace'.
The pupils also prayed for the victims of the 7/7 atrocities and sang a nasheed, or Islamic hymn.
Deputy head Sajidah Munir said: "We talked to pupils about how upset and aggrieved everyone was about the bombings.
"We also talked about how some people have this perception that Muslims are terrorists and what we can do about it."
He added: "The children said they would like to make their feelings known by creating their own posters.
"We made a prayer for people who passed away and for people who lost loved ones.
"The majority of Muslims in this country were born here. We feel for people in this country."
Eleven-year-old pupil Aqdas Aslam, from Radford, said: "I felt very sad and upset that people could have done this evil thing.
"The terrorists have hurt and killed many people in my country. It was a crime against humanity."
Meanwhile, three Muslim men from the city travelled to London to attend the tributes in the capital wearing matching T-shirts bearing the slogan 'Beat terrorism'.
They stopped to speak to some of those laying flowers and giving out wrist bands bearing the date of last year's atrocities.
Suhail Butt, an IT worker originally from Nottingham and now living in Manchester, said what they were doing was raising awareness.
He said that whilst they had had some "funny looks" while travelling on the Tube, he and his friends, Kaisar Altaf and Zahid Iqbal, both from Nottingham, thought it was important to show their solidarity with those remembering the attacks.
The trio said that the visit was a repeat of the one they made to the capital two months after the attacks and that they had so far raised £1,500 for the Red Cross and Unicef.
The anniversary of the July 7 bombings, which killed 52 people in the capital, was marked by a two-minute silence at noon.
Adrian Johnson, 37, from Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Stan Brewster, 52, from Swanwick, in Derbyshire, were among the victims of the four blasts.
Posted by: Asim Aquil at July 10, 2006 04:47 PM (bFpCL)
7
More examples of moon god worship.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 10, 2006 04:53 PM (8uWFo)
8
More examples of moon god worship.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 10, 2006 04:55 PM (8uWFo)
9
Most muslims are "against" terrorism, but never fail to qualify their statement that it's Bush's fault, or Tony Blair's fault, or the Joooos's fault. Sick.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 10, 2006 04:56 PM (8e/V4)
10
All good news Asim, I only wish I could believe that any muslims were sincere, but I know all about taqiyyah, the islamic religious doctrine that sanctions lying for the advancement of islam. I will never believe that there are any muslims anywhere who are anything but enemies of civilization. If humanity is to progress further, then islam must be eradicated like the plague it is, along with the rats that carry it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 10, 2006 04:56 PM (v3I+x)
11
More examples of moon god worship.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 10, 2006 04:57 PM (8uWFo)
12
Hyson Green eh? do they cry when they see the Hookers? 
Wasn't some of the 7/7 bombers from outside Nottingham, Beeston?
I am glad at least some are putting out statements condemning terrorism, if more Muslim schools and religious institutions did it, it would help the case of the true moderates, because the terrorists right now seem to the ones talking the loudest.
Wasn't some of the 7/7 bombers from outside Nottingham, Beeston?
I am glad at least some are putting out statements condemning terrorism, if more Muslim schools and religious institutions did it, it would help the case of the true moderates, because the terrorists right now seem to the ones talking the loudest.
Posted by: davec at July 10, 2006 04:58 PM (voZp6)
13
ship them all back home and vote BNP !!!
Posted by: rob at July 10, 2006 05:15 PM (QpkBe)
14
I thought you should know that Al Qaeda in Iraq has shown the video of the two beheaded soldiers. I hope you haven't eaten because it is disturbing. I almost vomited.
Posted by: George Ramos at July 10, 2006 05:19 PM (CnDtU)
15
To Jack's Smirking Revenge: In response to:
"It saddens me to see how the British are simply rolling over and letting these Islamic insects/ squatters move in and take over their country."
If you read the above article you can clearly see that the Brits are not rolling over AT ALL. Moreover, it's British spies who downed terrorists like Ujaama in the US by infiltrating international terror groups and conning evidence off them to ensure convictions. Just because we don't boast in public doesn't mean we can't boast the socks off you in private! Shoulder to shoulder - you need us just as we need you - and together we'll have these "insects" (just another form of Nazi vermin) yet.
"It saddens me to see how the British are simply rolling over and letting these Islamic insects/ squatters move in and take over their country."
If you read the above article you can clearly see that the Brits are not rolling over AT ALL. Moreover, it's British spies who downed terrorists like Ujaama in the US by infiltrating international terror groups and conning evidence off them to ensure convictions. Just because we don't boast in public doesn't mean we can't boast the socks off you in private! Shoulder to shoulder - you need us just as we need you - and together we'll have these "insects" (just another form of Nazi vermin) yet.
Posted by: John Bull at July 10, 2006 05:26 PM (jBuWy)
16
John Bull, unless you have long hair, and big tits, don't stand so close. Now, we can have a pint.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 10, 2006 05:36 PM (D2g/j)
17
An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."
Wake up.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."
Wake up.
Posted by: Greg at July 10, 2006 05:37 PM (q5wwn)
18
to be fair about the comment about it was british spies who brought down people like james ujaama, as the person who brought down ujaama and abu hamza i can confirm it was not british spies who i worked with or for but american and common wealth country spies. british mi5 and police were forced by american action in new york to take action.
The Spy and The Terrorist: The Real Story
Glen Jenvey is the real-life hero who nailed terror chief Abu Hamza. The would-be James Bond tricked the hook-handed hate cleric into handing over the video tapes which brought about his downfall last week. Gravel-voiced Jenvey posed as a fellow terrorist supporter who wanted to bring death and destruction to Britain. Jenvey even set up a website praising Al Qaeda to lure the Finsbury Park hate preacher into his trap. The sophisticated sting led to jail for Britain’s public enemy number 1 after his crucial evidence set off a chain reaction of events around the world.
It gave FBI investigators - who already saw Hamza as a British Bin Laden - enough proof to jail one of his American disciples for setting up a terror base in the US.
The tapes showing Hamza preaching hate side-by-side with Taliban supporter James Ujaama persuaded the American to plead guilty to terror charges.
Until then, Ujaama had always claimed he never met Hamza or even knew who he was. But with the threat of a 25-year sentence, the American provided hundreds of pages of testimony against Hamza in return for just two years in jail.
That forced British police to arrest Hamza after US prosecutors asked for him to be extradited - and led to the seizure of the race hate tapes used against him at the Old Bailey.
Jenvey, 40, said: “I’m glad that I’ve helped get him jailed because I could see he was truly evil from the start. I was asked to sign a statement saying I was willing to give evidence in the US when I was interviewed by the anti-terror squad back in 2003.
“But the tapes have obviously been damning enough to put him away here.â€
Those tapes reveal the pair at a metting at Finsbury Park Mosque calling for a Islamic revolution. (world-wide against arab governments).
“I hated him for what he was doing, so I suppose it was a bit of crusade against Hamza.
“I’d spied on people before - bizarre as it sounds - as a bit of a hobby, because I was interested in it. And I suppose I fancied myself as a bit of a spy.
“Hamza came to my attention after Al Qaeda blew up the USS Cole in 2000 and Muslim terrorists came to much greater prominance.
“I’d been looking into the Tamil Tigers in London for years and grew to loathe all terrorists.
“But Hamza struck me as being worse than them, just like Hitler who he praised in his videos.
“That’s why I was determined to bring him down.â€
Jenvey, who lives in a sleepy Berkshire village miles away from the inner city areas where Hamza preached, went on: “I was concerned about the things he had on his website, which I felt were threatening to both the UK and the US.
“But the only way to get close to him was to become a fanatical Islamic terrorist like him.
“So I set up a false website called Islamic News, which praised jihadis around the world.
“I also set up links to other websites, including Hamza’s “Supporters of Shariahâ€, tricking them into thinking I was hellbent on forming some kind of Islamic state.
“It wasn’t the hardest thing to do - as I’d had the experience of getting inside a group to spy on them when I worked as the Tamil Tigers press officer to spy on them for the Sri Lankan military.
“But it had become an obsession bringing Hamza down and I jacked in my job as a van driver to spend all hours posing as a fanatical Muslim.
“I passed on the information I found, but found people weren’t paying much attention.
“Then September 11 came and made me more determined to focus on Hamza and bring him to justice.
“I telephoned him directly, saying I was the press officer for a Kashmir terrorist group.
“I also emailed him telling him that I had a brother who was recruiting terrorists and raising funds for the Kashmir group. Then when I spoke to him on the phone again I told him that it would help if I had tapes of his speeches.â€
Jenvey went on to reveal the tense moment when he first spoke to Hamza.
He said: “I was sat in a bedroom pushed up into the corner like all home computer geeks seem to do.
“I was getting fed up with waiting for the video tapes to come so I picked up the phone and rang Hamza, who I called Hook because of the metal hook he has for a hand.
“I said hello in Arabic and went on to complain that no one was doing anything to help our brothers abroad, that muslims were being killed around the globe and no one said anything.
“I said we needed to do something and I need his help. During this time Hamza was praying down the phone while I was talking but not overpowering my speech.
“He was listening. I said I had to be careful but I needed some video tapes. Not just the normal stuff but real jihad stuff that I could make into films and recruit British muslims in the south west of England to raise funds for Kashmiri terrorist groups which was called The Brothers in Kashmir.
“I tempted him with the promise that it would get more people into his mosque in London.
“Although I had to listen through his demented rants and prayers, he didn’t take much persuading to agree to let me have the tapes, so I could recruit young Muslims in the south west/east of England.
“Within a month, he sent 20 audio tapes, and a week later we got the two-hour video tapes.
“They had titles like “The Way of the Shabah, Jihad conference March 12, 2000, The battle of Taweed today August 10, 1998 and lesson one Tafseer of the Quran, Hamza UK.
“I was shocked by what they showed because Hamza was clearly calling for Muslims to rise up here and in America.
“And it was clear to me that this person sitting there in the middle of the table inside the mosque was more than just a hate-filled preacher.
“His knowledge of the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole are far too detailed for him to be anything other than involved. He has to have links with the attackers.
“In one of the videos he shows off an Arabic doumantary about the making of the Twin Towers and I’m sure they were all made before September 11.
“It all added up to Hamza being a major player in the terrorist world.
“Everyone will be aware of Hamza’s pure hatred now, but it was a real shock to me when I first saw them.â€
The videos show graphic scenes of muslim fighters talking about carrying out suicide missions and massacres of Muslims.
And in one of the videos, obtained by the johnathangaltfilms.com , Hamza praises Muslims for carying out suicide attacks - as long as they kill more kuffars (those who don’t believe in Islam).
“There’s no question about it. The tapes Hamza handed over to me were designed to spread his hate-filled messages,†explained Jenvey.
“They were aimed at turning young Muslims into terrorists. Who knows, he probably sent the same things to the 7/7 bombers.â€
Jenvey made his findings available to the FBI, who were putting evidence together to link Hamza to a terrorist plot in Oregan.
Officers from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch took statements from Jenvey after a request from the FBI and passed it on to their US colleagues.
The statement made on June 6, 2003, by Jenvey said: “I am willing to be interviewed by the US authorities in relation to this matter and if required I would be willing to travel to the USA and provide evidence in open court.†but no action was taken by british government or police?
The evidence is ready to be used now by US government prosecutors in New York, where Hamza is wanted for setting up a terrorist training camp.
The FBI claims Hamza is part of a plot to provide weapons training to American mujaheddin on a cattle ranch in Bly, Oregon along with fellow fanatic James Ujaama, who is being held in the US.
The charges carry a 25-year jail sentence.
Sources close to the case say they will press for his extradition to America after he has served his sentence in the UK.
A video that Jenvey has handed over to the johnathangaltfilms.com shows Hamza sitting next to Ujaama at a meeting.
That tape was used against Ujaama by the FBI.
When he was first arrested, he denied knowing Hamza. But when he was shown the tape he changed his plea against terrorist charges to guilty.it was this video that brought down Hamza.
And he is the key witness against Hamza if he is handed over the US authorities.
Hamza is also wanted in Yemen for his alleged role in organising the 1998 kidnappings of 16 tourists by the Islamic Army of Aden.Hamza is sat next to two of the kidnappers 5 months before the events calling for westerners to be killed.
Four of the hostages died during a shootout during a rescue operation.
BACKGROUND ON HOW JENVEY GOT INTO SPYING
“I’d been in spying for other countries before. It was something I just fell into after I went travelling in the 1990s.
“My father had been in the military and I suppose that’s what I wanted to do - and I knew the Americans would be interested in stuff from inside Iran - so I contacted the military attache at the embassy in London.
“It might seem strange to people, but I’m not the type of person to go on beach holidays. Whenever I go anywhere I find out where the embassies are after I get off then plane.
“I only spoke over the phone to the miliary attache at the US embassy, but it was clear they wanted information from inside the country.
“It was all very casual, but I could tell they were keen to get on-the-ground information.
“From there I went on to spy on the Tamil Tigers after becoming their press officer.â€
The Spy and The Terrorist: The Real Story
Glen Jenvey is the real-life hero who nailed terror chief Abu Hamza. The would-be James Bond tricked the hook-handed hate cleric into handing over the video tapes which brought about his downfall last week. Gravel-voiced Jenvey posed as a fellow terrorist supporter who wanted to bring death and destruction to Britain. Jenvey even set up a website praising Al Qaeda to lure the Finsbury Park hate preacher into his trap. The sophisticated sting led to jail for Britain’s public enemy number 1 after his crucial evidence set off a chain reaction of events around the world.
It gave FBI investigators - who already saw Hamza as a British Bin Laden - enough proof to jail one of his American disciples for setting up a terror base in the US.
The tapes showing Hamza preaching hate side-by-side with Taliban supporter James Ujaama persuaded the American to plead guilty to terror charges.
Until then, Ujaama had always claimed he never met Hamza or even knew who he was. But with the threat of a 25-year sentence, the American provided hundreds of pages of testimony against Hamza in return for just two years in jail.
That forced British police to arrest Hamza after US prosecutors asked for him to be extradited - and led to the seizure of the race hate tapes used against him at the Old Bailey.
Jenvey, 40, said: “I’m glad that I’ve helped get him jailed because I could see he was truly evil from the start. I was asked to sign a statement saying I was willing to give evidence in the US when I was interviewed by the anti-terror squad back in 2003.
“But the tapes have obviously been damning enough to put him away here.â€
Those tapes reveal the pair at a metting at Finsbury Park Mosque calling for a Islamic revolution. (world-wide against arab governments).
“I hated him for what he was doing, so I suppose it was a bit of crusade against Hamza.
“I’d spied on people before - bizarre as it sounds - as a bit of a hobby, because I was interested in it. And I suppose I fancied myself as a bit of a spy.
“Hamza came to my attention after Al Qaeda blew up the USS Cole in 2000 and Muslim terrorists came to much greater prominance.
“I’d been looking into the Tamil Tigers in London for years and grew to loathe all terrorists.
“But Hamza struck me as being worse than them, just like Hitler who he praised in his videos.
“That’s why I was determined to bring him down.â€
Jenvey, who lives in a sleepy Berkshire village miles away from the inner city areas where Hamza preached, went on: “I was concerned about the things he had on his website, which I felt were threatening to both the UK and the US.
“But the only way to get close to him was to become a fanatical Islamic terrorist like him.
“So I set up a false website called Islamic News, which praised jihadis around the world.
“I also set up links to other websites, including Hamza’s “Supporters of Shariahâ€, tricking them into thinking I was hellbent on forming some kind of Islamic state.
“It wasn’t the hardest thing to do - as I’d had the experience of getting inside a group to spy on them when I worked as the Tamil Tigers press officer to spy on them for the Sri Lankan military.
“But it had become an obsession bringing Hamza down and I jacked in my job as a van driver to spend all hours posing as a fanatical Muslim.
“I passed on the information I found, but found people weren’t paying much attention.
“Then September 11 came and made me more determined to focus on Hamza and bring him to justice.
“I telephoned him directly, saying I was the press officer for a Kashmir terrorist group.
“I also emailed him telling him that I had a brother who was recruiting terrorists and raising funds for the Kashmir group. Then when I spoke to him on the phone again I told him that it would help if I had tapes of his speeches.â€
Jenvey went on to reveal the tense moment when he first spoke to Hamza.
He said: “I was sat in a bedroom pushed up into the corner like all home computer geeks seem to do.
“I was getting fed up with waiting for the video tapes to come so I picked up the phone and rang Hamza, who I called Hook because of the metal hook he has for a hand.
“I said hello in Arabic and went on to complain that no one was doing anything to help our brothers abroad, that muslims were being killed around the globe and no one said anything.
“I said we needed to do something and I need his help. During this time Hamza was praying down the phone while I was talking but not overpowering my speech.
“He was listening. I said I had to be careful but I needed some video tapes. Not just the normal stuff but real jihad stuff that I could make into films and recruit British muslims in the south west of England to raise funds for Kashmiri terrorist groups which was called The Brothers in Kashmir.
“I tempted him with the promise that it would get more people into his mosque in London.
“Although I had to listen through his demented rants and prayers, he didn’t take much persuading to agree to let me have the tapes, so I could recruit young Muslims in the south west/east of England.
“Within a month, he sent 20 audio tapes, and a week later we got the two-hour video tapes.
“They had titles like “The Way of the Shabah, Jihad conference March 12, 2000, The battle of Taweed today August 10, 1998 and lesson one Tafseer of the Quran, Hamza UK.
“I was shocked by what they showed because Hamza was clearly calling for Muslims to rise up here and in America.
“And it was clear to me that this person sitting there in the middle of the table inside the mosque was more than just a hate-filled preacher.
“His knowledge of the attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole are far too detailed for him to be anything other than involved. He has to have links with the attackers.
“In one of the videos he shows off an Arabic doumantary about the making of the Twin Towers and I’m sure they were all made before September 11.
“It all added up to Hamza being a major player in the terrorist world.
“Everyone will be aware of Hamza’s pure hatred now, but it was a real shock to me when I first saw them.â€
The videos show graphic scenes of muslim fighters talking about carrying out suicide missions and massacres of Muslims.
And in one of the videos, obtained by the johnathangaltfilms.com , Hamza praises Muslims for carying out suicide attacks - as long as they kill more kuffars (those who don’t believe in Islam).
“There’s no question about it. The tapes Hamza handed over to me were designed to spread his hate-filled messages,†explained Jenvey.
“They were aimed at turning young Muslims into terrorists. Who knows, he probably sent the same things to the 7/7 bombers.â€
Jenvey made his findings available to the FBI, who were putting evidence together to link Hamza to a terrorist plot in Oregan.
Officers from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch took statements from Jenvey after a request from the FBI and passed it on to their US colleagues.
The statement made on June 6, 2003, by Jenvey said: “I am willing to be interviewed by the US authorities in relation to this matter and if required I would be willing to travel to the USA and provide evidence in open court.†but no action was taken by british government or police?
The evidence is ready to be used now by US government prosecutors in New York, where Hamza is wanted for setting up a terrorist training camp.
The FBI claims Hamza is part of a plot to provide weapons training to American mujaheddin on a cattle ranch in Bly, Oregon along with fellow fanatic James Ujaama, who is being held in the US.
The charges carry a 25-year jail sentence.
Sources close to the case say they will press for his extradition to America after he has served his sentence in the UK.
A video that Jenvey has handed over to the johnathangaltfilms.com shows Hamza sitting next to Ujaama at a meeting.
That tape was used against Ujaama by the FBI.
When he was first arrested, he denied knowing Hamza. But when he was shown the tape he changed his plea against terrorist charges to guilty.it was this video that brought down Hamza.
And he is the key witness against Hamza if he is handed over the US authorities.
Hamza is also wanted in Yemen for his alleged role in organising the 1998 kidnappings of 16 tourists by the Islamic Army of Aden.Hamza is sat next to two of the kidnappers 5 months before the events calling for westerners to be killed.
Four of the hostages died during a shootout during a rescue operation.
BACKGROUND ON HOW JENVEY GOT INTO SPYING
“I’d been in spying for other countries before. It was something I just fell into after I went travelling in the 1990s.
“My father had been in the military and I suppose that’s what I wanted to do - and I knew the Americans would be interested in stuff from inside Iran - so I contacted the military attache at the embassy in London.
“It might seem strange to people, but I’m not the type of person to go on beach holidays. Whenever I go anywhere I find out where the embassies are after I get off then plane.
“I only spoke over the phone to the miliary attache at the US embassy, but it was clear they wanted information from inside the country.
“It was all very casual, but I could tell they were keen to get on-the-ground information.
“From there I went on to spy on the Tamil Tigers after becoming their press officer.â€
Posted by: glen jenvey at July 10, 2006 06:00 PM (0EqiT)
19
I see Greg the traito is still a low life lying asshole.
Is mentioning that this asshole Brooks is black a racist comment? What are the black muslims in our prisons planning? What are the black muslims on our streets planning?
RACIST, RACIST, RACIST. Don't like them, never have, never will. AND BLACK MUSLIMS IN AMERICA AREN'T RACIST.
Keep academic head in sand and they will go away. HA! Idiocy, Stupid, Dumb.
Is mentioning that this asshole Brooks is black a racist comment? What are the black muslims in our prisons planning? What are the black muslims on our streets planning?
RACIST, RACIST, RACIST. Don't like them, never have, never will. AND BLACK MUSLIMS IN AMERICA AREN'T RACIST.
Keep academic head in sand and they will go away. HA! Idiocy, Stupid, Dumb.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 10, 2006 06:14 PM (2clci)
20
By the way. We are not anywhere near winning the Tarpon Tournament. In fact we are tied with 10 others for dead last. Tommorrow we will rise to the occasion. I hope, but it don't look good. No spirit here. Tonight I will worship the Margarita god. Has worked before.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 10, 2006 06:25 PM (2clci)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 10, 2006 06:28 PM (8e/V4)
22
IDF soldier killed in Gaza raid laid to rest in southern Israel
“The IDF is investigating whether he was killed by friendly fire.â€
http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/735652.html
Look quick. There was a whole story on this and now the updated version has a single line about it.
Please, please don't throw me in the biting patch.
“The IDF is investigating whether he was killed by friendly fire.â€
http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/735652.html
Look quick. There was a whole story on this and now the updated version has a single line about it.
Please, please don't throw me in the biting patch.
Posted by: Greg at July 10, 2006 06:40 PM (q5wwn)
23
The vermin must be eradicated.. period.
Posted by: Richard at July 10, 2006 06:42 PM (7KF8r)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 10, 2006 06:45 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Greg at July 10, 2006 06:46 PM (q5wwn)
26
jenvey, great post. I would like to believe it is a true story. Do you think individuals like Hamza follow the true Islam in the Koran?
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 10, 2006 06:57 PM (D2g/j)
27
Oh hey greg, how do you find time to troll for JOOOOOO news when you're not downloading kiddy porn?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 10, 2006 08:26 PM (v3I+x)
28
Greg is a 'codfish'!
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 10, 2006 08:44 PM (rUyw4)
29
Richard: Vermin must be eradicated. You talking about Greg? If so, I agree.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 10, 2006 10:49 PM (2clci)
30
Now can I say something racist? This turkey looks like he lives in the Chocolate City. Put don't worry bro. We know your beliefs were caused by the socio-ecomonic sitution that whitey placed you in. So carry on with your kill the infidels. After all you are just a product of racism.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 10, 2006 11:00 PM (2clci)
31
They seem to be popping up like mushrooms these day’s, well-spoken English/American jihadis. They seem to be getting more and more confident and the media is willing to listen to them. And they are starting to make fun of us. Their propaganda is working. It’s time to switch over to Defcon 2!
Don’t talk about these guys. Look them up and beat the crap out them. They in your own country now!
Don’t talk about these guys. Look them up and beat the crap out them. They in your own country now!
Posted by: Dan at July 11, 2006 02:13 AM (Z2OsI)
32
I can't let this pass without saying, Americans have no idea how poor the state of their own press is compared with the UK. The tabloids you mention are the most notorious, but there are several outstanding broadsheets which are millions of times more free-thinking and radical than the New York Times for example (ie The Guardian, The Indepenedent, The Observer-check out their webites- not to mention Channel Four News's cutting-edge reporting and exposes.)Outside of the US, The US media has a very poor reputation indeed or its sicophantic, unquestioning attitide to its government and lack of international coverage although unless you leave the US you probably wouldn't even know this. I'm not trying to make a dig at you but I'm flabberghasted at the naivity and ignorance of anyone who can disparagethe UK media in contrast with the US media!!! Most UK journalists won't even work in the US because the papers/TV news are in such bad shape! Try having a look at some of our news if you really want to know what's going on in Iraq/rest of the world.(Sorry we love you really!!!)
Posted by: mindy at July 11, 2006 08:21 AM (BIKLF)
33
I can't let this pass without saying, Americans have no idea how poor the state of their own press is compared with the UK. The tabloids you mention are the most notorious, but there are several outstanding broadsheets which are millions of times more free-thinking and radical than the New York Times for example (ie The Guardian, The Indepenedent, The Observer-check out their webites- not to mention Channel Four News's cutting-edge reporting and exposes.)Outside of the US, The US media has a very poor reputation indeed or its sicophantic, unquestioning attitide to its government and lack of international coverage although unless you leave the US you probably wouldn't even know this. I'm not trying to make a dig at you but I'm flabberghasted at the naivity and ignorance of anyone who can disparagethe UK media in contrast with the US media!!! Most UK journalists won't even work in the US because the papers/TV news are in such bad shape! Try having a look at some of our news if you really want to know what's going on in Iraq/rest of the world.(Sorry we love you really!!!)
Posted by: Mindy McConnell at July 11, 2006 08:21 AM (BIKLF)
34
I can't let this pass without saying, Americans have no idea how poor the state of their own press is compared with the UK. The tabloids you mention are the most notorious, but there are several outstanding broadsheets which are millions of times more free-thinking and radical than the New York Times for example (ie The Guardian, The Indepenedent, The Observer-check out their webites- not to mention Channel Four News's cutting-edge reporting and exposes.)Outside of the US, The US media has a very poor reputation indeed or its sicophantic, unquestioning attitide to its government and lack of international coverage although unless you leave the US you probably wouldn't even know this. I'm not trying to make a dig at you but I'm flabberghasted at the naivity and ignorance of anyone who can disparagethe UK media in contrast with the US media!!! Most UK journalists won't even work in the US because the papers/TV news are in such bad shape! Try having a look at some of our news if you really want to know what's going on in Iraq/rest of the world.(Sorry we love you really!!!)
Posted by: Mindy McConnell at July 11, 2006 08:22 AM (BIKLF)
35
At least we ignorant Americans know to only post once.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at July 11, 2006 08:55 AM (1j9aH)
36
look it's one of them dere euroPEONS telling us Americans how it is we don't travel outside the country and get us an edumication about the world.
Please. I've travelled Europe, and America both, hands down America -- everytime.
How some Europeans think they're so damn sophisticated because they ride a train to another country, or drive fifty miles through a country to the next is beyond me.
Please. I've travelled Europe, and America both, hands down America -- everytime.
How some Europeans think they're so damn sophisticated because they ride a train to another country, or drive fifty miles through a country to the next is beyond me.
Posted by: davec at July 11, 2006 10:08 AM (voZp6)
37
Surely Mindy can't be serious. Those rags in the UK are only good for starting a fire in the fireplace. Or toilet paper if you get stuck in the wilderness. Or wallpapering a mosque.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 11, 2006 10:32 AM (rUyw4)
38
The real casualty is going to be "the Liberal tradition," especially the modern version of that tradition that makes "inclusion, tolerance and diversity," its hallmarks.
Before England and Europe fall to Islam, there will be a belated, pent-up counter-reaction to all this and will probably be evidenced in the rise of the racialist "HARD" or "FAR" Right. The likes of Le Pen in France, Haider's Freedom Party in Austria and their like in England and elsewhere will mark the beginning of Europe's gut-reaction to Muslim extremism.
Before Islam makes significant inroads in Europe, there'll be mass expulsions, possibly even a full-scale pogrom directed on these Third World invaders.
Yeah, Allah be praised indeed.
Before England and Europe fall to Islam, there will be a belated, pent-up counter-reaction to all this and will probably be evidenced in the rise of the racialist "HARD" or "FAR" Right. The likes of Le Pen in France, Haider's Freedom Party in Austria and their like in England and elsewhere will mark the beginning of Europe's gut-reaction to Muslim extremism.
Before Islam makes significant inroads in Europe, there'll be mass expulsions, possibly even a full-scale pogrom directed on these Third World invaders.
Yeah, Allah be praised indeed.
Posted by: JMK at July 11, 2006 10:35 AM (famkb)
39
We hope.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2006 10:41 AM (R7ENl)
40
The democratic party has gone so far to the left that they need a new name.
I honestly believe they would sacrifice things good for this country just to prove our elected president wrong. Their hatred for anything that disagrees knows no bounds. Now Lieberman is on the receiving end of their wrath. I don't feel sorry for him. He made his own bed. Just wished to point out how quickly these liberal dorks will turn on their own.
I honestly believe they would sacrifice things good for this country just to prove our elected president wrong. Their hatred for anything that disagrees knows no bounds. Now Lieberman is on the receiving end of their wrath. I don't feel sorry for him. He made his own bed. Just wished to point out how quickly these liberal dorks will turn on their own.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2006 10:48 AM (R7ENl)
41
dave you need to live rather than travel in order to appreciate and compare the two places. My guess is you are born and bred American and took a 2 week vacation somewhere in europe and then came home. Most people prefer their homeland. In any case its a personal preference and not a school yard my country is better than yours argument is it ?
Posted by: rob at July 11, 2006 03:36 PM (QpkBe)
42
jesusland, The mosques will have decent wallpaper state funded by governement racial integration type subsidies etc. The orginal Church of England establishments will be the ones using the tabloid rags for roof repair.
Posted by: rob at July 11, 2006 03:50 PM (QpkBe)
43
"We hope."
Greyrooster
<
<
<
Me too...I've been hoping for that for a looong while now.
As for the Democratic Part here in America, it doesn't need so much a new name, as a replacement.
Let the Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Soros Wing of that Party become the Democratic Socialist Party of America and let the Liberatrians fill the void they leave as one of America's two major Parties.
The Lieberman fiasco is more proof that the hard-Left will attempt to canabalize anything that doesn't march in lock step with them...better to be opposed to them rather than a dissenting ally.
Greyrooster
<
<
<
Me too...I've been hoping for that for a looong while now.
As for the Democratic Part here in America, it doesn't need so much a new name, as a replacement.
Let the Moore-Sheehan-Franken-Soros Wing of that Party become the Democratic Socialist Party of America and let the Liberatrians fill the void they leave as one of America's two major Parties.
The Lieberman fiasco is more proof that the hard-Left will attempt to canabalize anything that doesn't march in lock step with them...better to be opposed to them rather than a dissenting ally.
Posted by: JMK at July 11, 2006 04:45 PM (famkb)
44
Then your guess would be incorrect, I have lived 10 more years in Europe, that I have in the U.S -- sorry to bust your little "culture" bubble!
Posted by: davec at July 11, 2006 04:46 PM (voZp6)
45
Hey! Enough of this bash the Brits crap. I love the English. That is the ones that are truly English.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2006 04:46 PM (y4Vli)
46
ok dave its when you use the term "travel" i associate that with a shorter than 10 year period ! I would have called that "lived". Comparing Europe to America is not a valid comparison, thats just too much generalization. The Europeans are no way united or culturally similar.
Posted by: rob at July 11, 2006 05:34 PM (QpkBe)
47
The truth is that, no matter how much a part of the population is against another, there is nothing that can be done about it. Unless you want the overthrow of the "democratic values" that Busho preaches to these muslims.
Posted by: Maria at July 11, 2006 06:12 PM (87a0f)
48
The Jamaican convert problem is becoming serious in south london, all the young drug dealers and hoodrats where I grew up have now converted to mohammedism and they are truly a law unto themselves, even the yardies are scared of them. Its a serious problem! They should be made to renounce their perverted faith or exiled.
Posted by: Dave Clarke at July 11, 2006 07:11 PM (nVAKg)
49
War is coming to Europe again, my friends, and you people in Europe had better get prepared. These Muslim rats are coming after you, whether you like it or not, and you will have two choices.
You can continue the course you are on and you will be destroyed, or you can do whatever is neccessary to end the threat, and if that means expelling all Muslims, then that is what you will have to do. That is what Spain had to do after the Reconquista, as the Muslims living there were in a continual state of rebellion.
You can continue the course you are on and you will be destroyed, or you can do whatever is neccessary to end the threat, and if that means expelling all Muslims, then that is what you will have to do. That is what Spain had to do after the Reconquista, as the Muslims living there were in a continual state of rebellion.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 11, 2006 07:46 PM (rUyw4)
50
jesusland of course you are right but in most european countries you cannot voice that opinion without being regarded as a racist. Certainly no MSM will cover that opinion in case of tipping the multicultural cauldren.
Posted by: rob at July 11, 2006 07:57 PM (jaQRE)
51
Well, yes, of course, rob, and it is no different here in the US. Our great advantage over you in Europe is our right to own firearms. And I will tell you I have exercised that right, and my entire family as well. My wife and three children are well versed in the use of firearms, which includes safety measures as well. Of course, a lifestyle that includes deer, duck, bear and small game hunting keeps us polished. We are as ready as anyone can be for what is coming, if it comes. I pray not, but am prepared for the worst.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 11, 2006 08:29 PM (rUyw4)
52
ROB, ROB, ROB: Being a racist is cool. All the silent ones are really racist too. Nothing wrong with being called a racist when you are one. I have never met a black that wasn't a racist. Saying being racist is bad means you are calling all blacks bad. RACIST AND PROUD OF IT. You would be surprised at the company you get.
Resist the destruction of your country. GO RACIST. Mother nature knows best. If heard the saying don't mess with mother nature. When we allowed muslims and blacks to migrate to the western world we messed with mother nature. Nature didn't put them here. We did. Like the cane toad and rabbits in Aussie land. Same results. Don't mess with mother nature. Send them back.
Resist the destruction of your country. GO RACIST. Mother nature knows best. If heard the saying don't mess with mother nature. When we allowed muslims and blacks to migrate to the western world we messed with mother nature. Nature didn't put them here. We did. Like the cane toad and rabbits in Aussie land. Same results. Don't mess with mother nature. Send them back.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 11, 2006 09:39 PM (y4Vli)
53
The only way to deal with muslims is to kill them; they're either at your feet or at your throat.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 12, 2006 06:22 AM (v3I+x)
54
jesusland. In the UK you definately have the right to own a firearm. You just have to apply to the police and have a reasonable cause, i.e gun club memeber etc its not a problem to get one. They do check where you store it and that usually must be a locked cabinet. If anyone threating came in my property i could blow their heads off with my shotgun in self defense. Only complications are that they must be a real threat i.e have a weapon and are trying to attack and not flee.
Posted by: rob at July 12, 2006 11:23 AM (QpkBe)
55
Yeah, good luck Rob, what with trying to get your shotgun out of a locked cabinet while an armed intruder waits politely. You guys are so screwed. You've let Britain become infested with third world vermin and now they can kill and rape with impunity and nobody in the country can do anything about it.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 13, 2006 06:26 AM (v3I+x)
56
hey max you only have have to demonstate the storage facility in order to get a license. Once you have the license nobody is going to be checking that you have the bad boy under your pillow at night 
Yes the UK is infested, its the refugee hot spot because of benefits, free health care etc. I dont like it but i cant stop it. We have to wait for the "rivers of blood" before the politians wake up. As for nobody in the country can do anything about it there is a police force.
Yes the UK is infested, its the refugee hot spot because of benefits, free health care etc. I dont like it but i cant stop it. We have to wait for the "rivers of blood" before the politians wake up. As for nobody in the country can do anything about it there is a police force.
Posted by: rob at July 13, 2006 02:02 PM (QpkBe)
57
Some confusion on what i was meaning by racist. I do not think its cool just to hate a person simply because of skin color or even because they may be racist. Thats pure hate for hates sake.
I was on about the inability to be able to express a dislike for a race/religious/immigrant group on the basis that they refuse to integrate into society and are against everything a country stands for, without being branded a racist with the meaning above. Thats i think is the problem especially in the UK.
I was on about the inability to be able to express a dislike for a race/religious/immigrant group on the basis that they refuse to integrate into society and are against everything a country stands for, without being branded a racist with the meaning above. Thats i think is the problem especially in the UK.
Posted by: rob at July 13, 2006 02:16 PM (QpkBe)
58
That's 100% right Rob.
The distinction, of course, is between "hate" and "self-preservation."
Right now radical (even traditional "Sharia Law adhering") Islam poses a very real threat to the West.
A reaction to that kind of threat is very different than hating a person solely because of their religion, skin-color, etc.
I think this misguided political correctness that has gripped the West, will likely make the ultimate reaction against the Islamo-fascists much more intense, even much more ugly than it would have and possibly should have been, in its absence.
No country can long tolerate any group preaching violent, hatred and open insurrection in its midst, the way the radical Islamicists are now doing in the West.
Across the globe Islam cannot seem to tolerate any other religion. In Kosovo they initiated the genocide of the Christian Serbs, in Darfur, the Sudan, they've raped the non-Muslims, in the Mid-East they've eradicated or expelled most of the Christian Arabs and war with the Jews, in Kashmir they war with the Hindus, in the Phillipines with the Catholics.
This brand of Islam is a cult NOT a religion and it is a cult of hatred.
It is ironic that the so-called "anti-racist" laws in places like Europe and elsewhere are not used against this most vile, racist cult.
The eventual backlash will, more than likely, be tremendous.
The distinction, of course, is between "hate" and "self-preservation."
Right now radical (even traditional "Sharia Law adhering") Islam poses a very real threat to the West.
A reaction to that kind of threat is very different than hating a person solely because of their religion, skin-color, etc.
I think this misguided political correctness that has gripped the West, will likely make the ultimate reaction against the Islamo-fascists much more intense, even much more ugly than it would have and possibly should have been, in its absence.
No country can long tolerate any group preaching violent, hatred and open insurrection in its midst, the way the radical Islamicists are now doing in the West.
Across the globe Islam cannot seem to tolerate any other religion. In Kosovo they initiated the genocide of the Christian Serbs, in Darfur, the Sudan, they've raped the non-Muslims, in the Mid-East they've eradicated or expelled most of the Christian Arabs and war with the Jews, in Kashmir they war with the Hindus, in the Phillipines with the Catholics.
This brand of Islam is a cult NOT a religion and it is a cult of hatred.
It is ironic that the so-called "anti-racist" laws in places like Europe and elsewhere are not used against this most vile, racist cult.
The eventual backlash will, more than likely, be tremendous.
Posted by: JMK at July 13, 2006 03:55 PM (3VLhf)
59
Dave Clark: They should be exile for no other reason than they are not English people.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 13, 2006 06:28 PM (0UFK+)
60
JMK i agree, i have never met a muslim who can defend himself/herself on these arguments. they are born into it smostly and are forced to stay in it.
Posted by: rob at July 16, 2006 07:09 PM (jaQRE)
61
I suppose, in a sense, we're all "born into" whatever cultural belief system we hold to, Rob.
The problem with radical/traditional Islam is that it never went through a Reformation, where it rethought and abandoned the view that "All those who don't accept (Jesus, Moses, Allah, etc) deserve death and are less than those who are believers."
That is why it is correct to say that Islam is stuck in the 7th Century. That's why traditional/radical Islam cannot peacefully coexist with any other group anywhere in the world today - in Kashmir they clash with Hindus, in the Mid-East they've clashed with both Christians and Jews, in the Phillipines with Catholics, in Darfur (the Sudan) with non-Muslims and in the Balkans with Christian Serbs and Croats.
At this point, right now, what is called "radical" or even "traditional" Islam is more a dangerous cult, than a "religion of peace."
If you're point is that there are moderate Muslims in those regions, afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals, that's probably true, but all the more reason that radical/traditional Islam be reined in by the outside world.
The problem with radical/traditional Islam is that it never went through a Reformation, where it rethought and abandoned the view that "All those who don't accept (Jesus, Moses, Allah, etc) deserve death and are less than those who are believers."
That is why it is correct to say that Islam is stuck in the 7th Century. That's why traditional/radical Islam cannot peacefully coexist with any other group anywhere in the world today - in Kashmir they clash with Hindus, in the Mid-East they've clashed with both Christians and Jews, in the Phillipines with Catholics, in Darfur (the Sudan) with non-Muslims and in the Balkans with Christian Serbs and Croats.
At this point, right now, what is called "radical" or even "traditional" Islam is more a dangerous cult, than a "religion of peace."
If you're point is that there are moderate Muslims in those regions, afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals, that's probably true, but all the more reason that radical/traditional Islam be reined in by the outside world.
Posted by: JMK at July 17, 2006 02:41 PM (NXjzN)
62
I like how you idiots call for mass murder and violence because a handfull of other idiots are doing the same thing, try using your head for half a second and you'd realise that you're about the same as the 'vermin'... either really stupid or suffering some form of paranoid mental illness. I just hope you're still not scared of the nasty communists hiding under your beds. Promoting violence is a crime, it doesnt matter if he's Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, or supporter of far-right knuckle dragging political parties, this is all very boring.
Posted by: bob at July 21, 2006 05:41 PM (Z9m0N)
63
I love it. "I gave up my job as a van driver to become a full-time spy". BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
How could anyone believe that tosh!
How could anyone believe that tosh!
Posted by: Harry Barracuda at July 23, 2006 07:23 AM (WwIKu)
64
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:31 PM (7U+09)
65
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:31 PM (7U+09)
66
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:31 PM (7U+09)
67
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:32 PM (7U+09)
68
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:33 PM (7U+09)
69
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:33 PM (7U+09)
70
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:34 PM (7U+09)
71
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you non belivers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:34 PM (7U+09)
72
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you british pub goers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:35 PM (7U+09)
73
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you british pub goers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:35 PM (7U+09)
74
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you british pub goers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:35 PM (7U+09)
75
i am married to a muslim so dont insult us muslims, i am a convert to islam the only true way of life.all you british pub goers get a life or go down the pub and take a bimbo blond home thats what you are only good for.
mandy(amina islam)
mandy(amina islam)
Posted by: mandy at July 23, 2006 05:36 PM (7U+09)
June 14, 2006
Stick With Interviewing The Dogcatcher, Dude
Omaha radio talk show host Tom Becka, doing his best to be "edgy" and "provocative," not to mention "hip," gets the smackdown from Ann Coulter.
The money quote, "Christianity is not a religion."
Like PTG, I don't care what you think about Coulter, this guy should stick to interviewing Neighborhood Watch captains or some of the usual low-level ineffectual city bureaucrats.
In his own ad for his own show, he states "I'm no Rush Limbaugh..." and how true that is. I don't care what you think about Limbaugh, either, but you can't deny he's good at radio.
As the wife says about this interview, and I quote, "he's disrepectful, rude, and disgusting."
Amen.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:03 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
1
wow. What a moron. I was cringing for the dude.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 14, 2006 11:43 PM (8e/V4)
June 12, 2006
Who Buys This Crap? (Pun Intended)
So there I am, sitting on the gilded Editor In Chief Pro Tempore throne, minding my own business and thumbing through the latest edition of Entertainment Weekly (shutup, bastards) when I notice that the Dixie Chick's latest..uh..album is in week 2 at the top of the charts.
The natural question is in the title of the post.
But then I notice the numbers. And the undisguised attempt to put lipstick on a pig:
Life may be twice as "Nice" for the Chicks, still on top in week 2 with 271,000, a less than 50% drop
I think they scored around 500 large with the first week, and 271 large this week, with a grand total of about 871,000 plus-minus sold.
In a nation of 280,000,000 people.
What an accomplishment. I felt better after thinking about that.
I like irony. The anti-American Dixies Chick's defiant, triumphant return to the CD shelves dropped almost 50% in the same week that Kos had his Konvention.
In his shining city on the hill, Reagan smiles.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:55 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I heard that they cancelled 40%(?) of their concerts in the states due to stagnant ticket sales.
They're trying to spin it as "broadening their fan base abroad" as they try to book dates in Candada.
Maybe some Jihadis there will want to go, after all...the Dixie Chicks hate BOOOOSH too.
They're trying to spin it as "broadening their fan base abroad" as they try to book dates in Candada.
Maybe some Jihadis there will want to go, after all...the Dixie Chicks hate BOOOOSH too.
Posted by: mrclark at June 12, 2006 11:53 PM (4QhQ1)
2
Sooper-sikret message to Vinnie:
Does Mrs. aut Morire know you're rummaging through her mags in search of fashion tips?
Does Mrs. aut Morire know you're rummaging through her mags in search of fashion tips?
Posted by: Rusty at June 13, 2006 04:46 PM (RwmBV)
June 07, 2006
The Idiot Returns
Michael Crook, of Forsake the Troops infamy, is back with a new pile of crap at www.disownthetroops.com.
Actually, it's just the same crap in a new bag. And nah, I won't link it, you'll have to type it in.
Crook is arguably one of the most hated people in America, so it always shocks me that he's still sucking oxygen.
Posted by: Vinnie at
05:14 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.
1
John Ryan will be glad his lover is back.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:05 PM (di2KJ)
2
Rooster illustrates exactly the purpose this neo-Nazi crank serves--he stokes up the rightwing by making them imagine that there are thousands of people out there who hate the troops. Instead of linking him to his actual roots, or to those who so unwisely gave him a platform (Fox News), he can be linked to the left, even though he has NOTHING to do with the left, at all.
He is exactly like the deluded fool who burned the Reichstag to scare Germans. He's a propaganda tool for the right wing.
I can't believe that you are mentioning him again. Pathetic.
He is exactly like the deluded fool who burned the Reichstag to scare Germans. He's a propaganda tool for the right wing.
I can't believe that you are mentioning him again. Pathetic.
Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 06:15 PM (aqTJB)
3
Have you ever conversed with Michael Crook, jd? Because I have, in a now defunct forum called Weapon Depot.
He's as hard left as they come.
He's as hard left as they come.
Posted by: Vinnie at June 07, 2006 06:29 PM (/qy9A)
4
What's wrong with that sick ****. There's nothing wrong with being anti war but saying U.S soldiers derserve to die is disgusting.
Posted by: Jack Miller at June 07, 2006 07:07 PM (CnDtU)
Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 07, 2006 08:46 PM (Gn9tM)
6
I'm sure he said hardleft things, Vinnie. But he's a noted liar and crank. His background is on stormfront, as a white supremacist. I suppose it is possible that he was faking then, and that's he's really left. But that's not the most common guess. Go here to find out more:
http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-crook
http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-crook
Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 08:48 PM (DQYHA)
7
Crook is neither left nor right - he is just one pathetic nut job desperate for attention - any kind! Just ignore him - he isn't worth the bytes.
Posted by: hondo at June 07, 2006 09:56 PM (el7nZ)
8
jd, I don't need to find out any more about Michael Crook. I know way too much as it is.
Actually, Weapon Depot is back up, but the site owner took out the Citizens Against Michael Crook section.
Ah, you should have seen the replies when I had him thinking I was going to take a vacation in Syracuse.
Good times, good times.
Actually, Weapon Depot is back up, but the site owner took out the Citizens Against Michael Crook section.
Ah, you should have seen the replies when I had him thinking I was going to take a vacation in Syracuse.
Good times, good times.
Posted by: Vinnie at June 07, 2006 10:01 PM (/qy9A)
9
HAY!!
Why the freak do you think this is LEFT?
You sick people are always eager to advance your ideological battle of left vs right. It is clearly obvious that these people are trolls trying to get a reaction out of you.
Like me, but only worse...
Why the freak do you think this is LEFT?
You sick people are always eager to advance your ideological battle of left vs right. It is clearly obvious that these people are trolls trying to get a reaction out of you.
Like me, but only worse...
Posted by: Splatter on You at June 07, 2006 10:39 PM (rtnQC)
10
It is time these people and their entire families of traitor scum were put to death. there can be no criticism of the military, the government, or our infalible elected leaders.
God Bless America and Death to Traitors
God Bless America and Death to Traitors
Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at June 07, 2006 11:03 PM (Nhfns)
11
Test.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 08, 2006 12:12 AM (FRalS)
12
F him. Zarqawi is DEAD!
Posted by: Ariya at June 08, 2006 01:06 AM (yHb0A)
13
Zarqawiwi is reported DEAD!
America might get the credit (or the blame) for this, but Zarkman had already become a liability for bin Hidin and al-Qaeda; unable to foment civil war, unable to kill unarmed civilians in any number large enough to make a difference; and HUMILIATED on videotape by showing himself to be fumbling, inept and INCOMPETENT with the S.A.W., he may have been killed by al-Qaeda!
Whatever. Good riddance!
America might get the credit (or the blame) for this, but Zarkman had already become a liability for bin Hidin and al-Qaeda; unable to foment civil war, unable to kill unarmed civilians in any number large enough to make a difference; and HUMILIATED on videotape by showing himself to be fumbling, inept and INCOMPETENT with the S.A.W., he may have been killed by al-Qaeda!
Whatever. Good riddance!
Posted by: Karridine at June 08, 2006 01:22 AM (c12pQ)
14
Oh, yeah... Give a listen to "Waiting for the Blow to Fall!" (Zarqawi's Lament) at
BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com
Karridine
BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com
Karridine
Posted by: Karridine at June 08, 2006 01:25 AM (c12pQ)
15
Well, Splatter, you might think your attempts at humor (trolling) is harmless.
Even if you do not believe what you post in your attempts to control us, there are hundreds of people who do. Your posts encourage them to blow up children and women by making them think there is solid support for their cause in the US, and elsewhere in the world.
YOU carry part of the responsibility for the actions of the Moslem terrorists.
YOU are partially responsible for deaths, suffering and poverty in the Middle East.
YOU are partially responsible for the problems they are having implementing democracy there.
Because you think people trying to do something to reduce the pain and suffering is funny.
Proud of your accomplishments?
Even if you do not believe what you post in your attempts to control us, there are hundreds of people who do. Your posts encourage them to blow up children and women by making them think there is solid support for their cause in the US, and elsewhere in the world.
YOU carry part of the responsibility for the actions of the Moslem terrorists.
YOU are partially responsible for deaths, suffering and poverty in the Middle East.
YOU are partially responsible for the problems they are having implementing democracy there.
Because you think people trying to do something to reduce the pain and suffering is funny.
Proud of your accomplishments?
Posted by: Phillep at June 08, 2006 11:56 AM (OpGpa)
16
Oh my g-d......thats it, i think i'm going to hang myself....
Posted by: joshman at June 08, 2006 04:47 PM (8g9JA)
17
This is why I have the site http://savethesoldiers.com
to combat these sick individuals...
We have started a petition for our soldiers who are being "convicted"of murder, attacked, and slandered by the Main Stream Media. This is for all the troops out there. Haditha is a specific incident where the MSM has jumped to their conclusions to feed their political agendas. This isnt the the only one of their lies but just one of a list of thousands. Sign The petition and let the soldiers know you are supporting them 100% and not rushing to judgement, spreading lies, or decieving those that support you like the MSM and various eroneous politicians who seem to thrive on our soldiers demise!
to combat these sick individuals...
We have started a petition for our soldiers who are being "convicted"of murder, attacked, and slandered by the Main Stream Media. This is for all the troops out there. Haditha is a specific incident where the MSM has jumped to their conclusions to feed their political agendas. This isnt the the only one of their lies but just one of a list of thousands. Sign The petition and let the soldiers know you are supporting them 100% and not rushing to judgement, spreading lies, or decieving those that support you like the MSM and various eroneous politicians who seem to thrive on our soldiers demise!
Posted by: noodlehead at June 08, 2006 06:17 PM (EHsSh)
18
JD: What's wrong with white supremacists? I guess not many of them are gay.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 09, 2006 05:47 AM (4Ospb)
19
Actually, a lot of white supremacists in history have been gay, greyrooster. Hitler's early supporter, Ernst Rohm, the leader of the SA, was big-time gay. Hitler had no problem with various sexual practices, but the Wehrmacht required that that the SA be reined in, and the corporate barons were also a little freaked out by it, so in the Night of Long Knives, they got rid of Rohm. Rudolph Hess, another early Hitler supporter, was also supposed to be gay. I'd guess that among current white supremacists, there are probably around the usual percentage of male homosexuals in the general population (3-5%, the 10% is a liberal half-truth, a misreading of Kinsey that now has sacred status, but no scientific basis). There would be two trends pushing against this: first, that most supremacists are virulently homophobic in their public comments. This would push away any out, and proud, gay. But it would also attract some people who secretly wrestle with their gayness, and thus use homophobia to cover it up, to themselves and others. Some of the most virulent homophobes have had gay tendencies, just as some of histories greatest anti-Semites believed they might have Jewish blood. (oh, and some closeted gays might be attracted to the hyper masculinity and black leather militarism so prominent in the white supremacist community).
Posted by: jd at June 09, 2006 08:16 AM (DQYHA)
20
http://www.michaelcrook.org/statements/statement06092006.html
MICHAEL CROOK TO RUN FOR ONONDAGA COUNTY SHERIFF
MAYS LANDING, NEW JERSEY: Michael Crook, currently a dual resident of Mays Landing, New Jersey, and Liverpool, New York, has announced that he will file the necessary paperwork in July, when the application process opens, to run for Sheriff of Onondaga County, New York.
Crook is hoping to displace longtime Sheriff Kevin Walsh. As a dual resident, Crook has satisfied the necessary requirements to initially run.
Crook said, "If I win, I hope to make sweeping and immediate changes to modify the pay structure in order to be more realistic for the taxpayers. I am not a champion for the deputies; my loyalty lies with the taxpayers."
MICHAEL CROOK TO RUN FOR ONONDAGA COUNTY SHERIFF
MAYS LANDING, NEW JERSEY: Michael Crook, currently a dual resident of Mays Landing, New Jersey, and Liverpool, New York, has announced that he will file the necessary paperwork in July, when the application process opens, to run for Sheriff of Onondaga County, New York.
Crook is hoping to displace longtime Sheriff Kevin Walsh. As a dual resident, Crook has satisfied the necessary requirements to initially run.
Crook said, "If I win, I hope to make sweeping and immediate changes to modify the pay structure in order to be more realistic for the taxpayers. I am not a champion for the deputies; my loyalty lies with the taxpayers."
Posted by: James at June 10, 2006 09:10 PM (jWfeU)
Navy Corpsman Shackled: Where is Cindy Sheehan?
A Navy Corpsman suspected of shooting Iraqi civilian shackled for months, no charges filed. Torture! Geneva Convention violations! Where is the Cindy Sheehan & the Left when they are most needed? But don't question their patriotism.
Update: I earlier said Marine, but the man is in fact a Naval corpsman. He's also shackled only during the time he's out of solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.
Vinnie said he'd kill me if I didn't change that. Apparently, to a Marine, there is nothing worse than being called a squid.
Which reminds me of an old joke about a certain number of submariners going down..........
UPDATE DEUX: Now I'm in trouble for calling the corpsman a "squid". Sorry. That's what you get when you try to hang out with the cool kids and use the lingo, but when you are in reality a certified geek. You may all now turn your backs and pretend you don't know me.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:25 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But don't question their patriotism.
No, it would never occur to me. The whitey in question is obviously an agent of "the Man" and deserves what's coming to him for killing all those brown munchkin noble savages.
No, it would never occur to me. The whitey in question is obviously an agent of "the Man" and deserves what's coming to him for killing all those brown munchkin noble savages.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 11:44 AM (8e/V4)
2
Rusty he is shackled only durring the time he is out of his cell. He alsoo has access to a TV music books. However if the Hard Right are waiting for the Hard Left to hold candlelight vigils for him they may have to wait until next week when his lawyer expects charges of murder and kidnapping and conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to commit kidnapping to be placed on his client. Of course in the heavily hostile political climate of today IF Cindy did come out in support of him the right would have to take the opposite course and call for the harshest of penalties. Probably from your old sea duty you might recall that squids never got the best of care in the brig anyway.http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1851659.php
Posted by: john ryan at June 07, 2006 12:41 PM (TcoRJ)
3
Yea this hero of our country remains chained to go for his 1 hour a day excercise.
While the stinking muslims in our detention center get special food, their stinking pig shit Koran and excerise most of the day.
THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE LEFTARD LIBERAL CRYBABIES WHO HAVE ALLWAYS CARED MORE FOR THE ENEMY THAN OUR TROOPS.
May all you sorry scumb sucking leftard democrats burn in hell. You are responsible. When this country gets straightened out may your cowardly names pop up.
While the stinking muslims in our detention center get special food, their stinking pig shit Koran and excerise most of the day.
THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE LEFTARD LIBERAL CRYBABIES WHO HAVE ALLWAYS CARED MORE FOR THE ENEMY THAN OUR TROOPS.
May all you sorry scumb sucking leftard democrats burn in hell. You are responsible. When this country gets straightened out may your cowardly names pop up.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 12:43 PM (dJg9q)
4
"He alsoo has access to a TV music books"
Thanks john "shit-for-brains" ryan...
What ambulating turd fed you that load?
Thanks john "shit-for-brains" ryan...
What ambulating turd fed you that load?
Posted by: Former Navy Corpsman (HM2) at June 07, 2006 01:56 PM (+jLMT)
5
Who could be a greater hero than a man who executed an unarmed civilian with only 10 of his brave comrades for company.
Truly an example to us all.
Truly an example to us all.
Posted by: Sonic at June 07, 2006 03:07 PM (Gsn6c)
6
Squids???
Hard to believe such stupidity exists out there.
Navy Corpsmen assigned to Marine units are treated and respected as much, if not more, than other members of the unit.
Anyone care to guess what type of weapon this "squid" was carrying?
Hard to believe such stupidity exists out there.
Navy Corpsmen assigned to Marine units are treated and respected as much, if not more, than other members of the unit.
Anyone care to guess what type of weapon this "squid" was carrying?
Posted by: Former Navy Corpsman (HM2) at June 07, 2006 03:20 PM (+jLMT)
7
grayrooster ROCKS! you are reading my mind old timer.
Posted by: Leatherneck at June 07, 2006 03:58 PM (D2g/j)
Posted by: Vinnie at June 07, 2006 04:32 PM (/qy9A)
9
>>>Sonic, did you see the part about "no charges filed?"
To Leftards, "no charges filed" only matters when it's terrorists and jihadis in Guantanamo. Don't question his patriotism though.
To Leftards, "no charges filed" only matters when it's terrorists and jihadis in Guantanamo. Don't question his patriotism though.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 04:46 PM (8e/V4)
10
Aren't you going to chime in on Ann Coulter's outrageous attack on the widows of 9-11?
It will only foster sympathy and increase the probability that an independent investigation will be convened.
Your ship is sinking.
It will only foster sympathy and increase the probability that an independent investigation will be convened.
Your ship is sinking.
Posted by: Greg at June 07, 2006 05:06 PM (q5wwn)
11
Sonic, please tell me that was satire or some kind of lame joke. Because, even should all the charges prove to be true, he is nothing like his islamofascist scumbag counterpart who makes a living out of killing innocents. The islamofascist scumbag PLANS it. Explain yourself, please.
Posted by: ThePolishNizel at June 07, 2006 06:10 PM (4Gza1)
12
John Ryan: You are a lying stinking traitor.
I just talked to the father of one of the Marines. How dare a commie bastard like you deminish what is happening to these Marines. This is the worst day in the history of the Marine Corps. They do not have tv or books. All he can see is a sand dune out the back of a small window. He is shakled by the ankles and waist wheneven he leaves his cell. His hands are handcuffed to his waist chains. When he visits his parents he cannot touch them. He must talk throught a glass window. Another Marine held on the same phony charges must see his wife and daughter chained in the same fashion. The chains are not removed for his visits. He is chained in the same manner when taken for his shower and exercise. The chains do not come off so in reality he cannot excerise.
No charges have been filed against these Marines.
The Islamic pigs who are related to the ALLEGED victims will not allow the bodies to be exhumed because the truth would come out.
They waited months to notify authorities fo this trumped up bullshit.
This is another weapon used by these 7th century barbarians. They know that the traitors like Murtha will champion their cause. When all the Marines are proven innocent. What kind of Marines will they be?
One of these heros was on his THIRD thats right THIRD tour.
He was a participant in the invasion of Bagdad. He was with by Son during Fallujah. He is a member of the 3rd Batt. 5 Marines, 1st Division. One of the very best units in the history of America.
Lt Calley of Mai Lai fame was never shackled like this.
This horrible action is caused by the liberal, leftest, commie sob's in America. Our brave boys and their families are scared to death. Not of the ememy in Iraq but the enemy here. The real enemy that takes the strenght from Americans. The Murthas, Sheehan, John Ryan and other scum sucking trash.
These Marines are innocent. They were there protecting the future of Freedom. The future of Christianity. The future of democratcy. The freedom of choice. Anyone who doesn't see this stupid. And so's his mama.
I just talked to the father of one of the Marines. How dare a commie bastard like you deminish what is happening to these Marines. This is the worst day in the history of the Marine Corps. They do not have tv or books. All he can see is a sand dune out the back of a small window. He is shakled by the ankles and waist wheneven he leaves his cell. His hands are handcuffed to his waist chains. When he visits his parents he cannot touch them. He must talk throught a glass window. Another Marine held on the same phony charges must see his wife and daughter chained in the same fashion. The chains are not removed for his visits. He is chained in the same manner when taken for his shower and exercise. The chains do not come off so in reality he cannot excerise.
No charges have been filed against these Marines.
The Islamic pigs who are related to the ALLEGED victims will not allow the bodies to be exhumed because the truth would come out.
They waited months to notify authorities fo this trumped up bullshit.
This is another weapon used by these 7th century barbarians. They know that the traitors like Murtha will champion their cause. When all the Marines are proven innocent. What kind of Marines will they be?
One of these heros was on his THIRD thats right THIRD tour.
He was a participant in the invasion of Bagdad. He was with by Son during Fallujah. He is a member of the 3rd Batt. 5 Marines, 1st Division. One of the very best units in the history of America.
Lt Calley of Mai Lai fame was never shackled like this.
This horrible action is caused by the liberal, leftest, commie sob's in America. Our brave boys and their families are scared to death. Not of the ememy in Iraq but the enemy here. The real enemy that takes the strenght from Americans. The Murthas, Sheehan, John Ryan and other scum sucking trash.
These Marines are innocent. They were there protecting the future of Freedom. The future of Christianity. The future of democratcy. The freedom of choice. Anyone who doesn't see this stupid. And so's his mama.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:33 PM (di2KJ)
13
Sonic: Anyone saying this corpsman purposely killed any innocent people is a lying piece of shit. Why not move and live with those you cheer for.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 06:38 PM (di2KJ)
14
>>>Aren't you going to chime in on Ann Coulter's outrageous attack on the widows of 9-11?
Ann Coulter's delivery is always outrageos, and almost mostly true. Them widows should STFU already. Being grieving widows doesn't make them policy experts. The Dems are the lowest of the low for manipulating them that way.
Ann Coulter's delivery is always outrageos, and almost mostly true. Them widows should STFU already. Being grieving widows doesn't make them policy experts. The Dems are the lowest of the low for manipulating them that way.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 06:51 PM (8e/V4)
15
So he didn't plan to shoot an innocent man in the head?
Well that makes it ok then, sorry to have even mentioned it. He just acted on impulse, understandable really and no need to lock him and throw away the key....
Well that makes it ok then, sorry to have even mentioned it. He just acted on impulse, understandable really and no need to lock him and throw away the key....
Posted by: Sonic at June 07, 2006 07:01 PM (Gsn6c)
16
And who says he shot an innocent man in the head? You? Seen the body? Any body seen the body? Let me see here. We are taking the word of muslims over the word of the Marines. Did you know that murtha's claim that the marines acted out of vengence has allready been proven to be bullshit? The Marines were not informed of the loss of one of their own until after they returned to headquarters.
Pops you bubble huh.
Pops you bubble huh.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2006 07:13 PM (di2KJ)
17
Rusty,
Thanks for posting this on your website. It seems too impossible to be true. A former Marine Colonel of mine dismisses the whole story and his quote is "lawyers lie."
Thanks for posting this on your website. It seems too impossible to be true. A former Marine Colonel of mine dismisses the whole story and his quote is "lawyers lie."
Posted by: RepJ at June 07, 2006 09:40 PM (wZLWV)
Posted by: RepJ at June 07, 2006 09:55 PM (MWGDv)
19
You say he didnt, seen the guy alive?
Glad to hear that the Marines did not act out of vengence, so why did they execute women and children then?
Glad to hear that the Marines did not act out of vengence, so why did they execute women and children then?
Posted by: Sonic at June 07, 2006 09:59 PM (Gsn6c)
20
>>>so why did they execute women and children then?
Have you ever heard a Lefty show that kind of enthusiasm when it involves islamic terrorists? I never have. lol!
Have you ever heard a Lefty show that kind of enthusiasm when it involves islamic terrorists? I never have. lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 10:11 PM (8e/V4)
Posted by: Sonic at June 07, 2006 11:09 PM (Gsn6c)
22
No he laughs at your fake outrage, you fucking meat puppet. I don't believe I've seen you condemning the Jihadi's on the same threads about Iraqi women / children killed in car bombs or suicide bombs, but that's because you're only concerned when a U.S Soldier is possibly implicated.
What a terrible existence it must be to think less of your fellow countrymen than you do terrorists.
Ooze back under your rock turdball.
What a terrible existence it must be to think less of your fellow countrymen than you do terrorists.
Ooze back under your rock turdball.
Posted by: davec at June 08, 2006 12:05 AM (CcXvt)
23
Sonic,
I'm guessing you think "dissent" is patriotic, right? How bout shitting on your country 24/7. Is that patriotic too? That's all you people do-- shit on your country 24/7. You should be ashamed of yourself. Some day when you're an old man you'll hopefully be a lot wiser and realize what a stupid dumbfuck you were in your youth.
I'm guessing you think "dissent" is patriotic, right? How bout shitting on your country 24/7. Is that patriotic too? That's all you people do-- shit on your country 24/7. You should be ashamed of yourself. Some day when you're an old man you'll hopefully be a lot wiser and realize what a stupid dumbfuck you were in your youth.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 08, 2006 01:19 AM (8e/V4)
24
objecting to soldiers executing children is now 'unpatriotic"?
You guys would have fitted in really well in Berlin in 1941.
You guys would have fitted in really well in Berlin in 1941.
Posted by: Sonic at June 08, 2006 03:04 PM (Gsn6c)
25
>>>Vinnie said he'd kill me if I didn't change that. Apparently, to a Marine, there is nothing worse than being called a squid.
Which reminds me of an old joke about a certain number of submariners going down..........<<<
But please, I don't want any Navy men questioning the patriotism of this statement.
Which reminds me of an old joke about a certain number of submariners going down..........<<<
But please, I don't want any Navy men questioning the patriotism of this statement.
Posted by: iGNORANT jACKOFF at June 08, 2006 03:05 PM (ZucvC)
26
Do you realy think CINDY SHEEHAN will bother with this when she and her band of blabbering fools are still running around the globe acting so irresponsible?
Posted by: sandpiper at June 09, 2006 07:52 PM (XnXsx)
June 05, 2006
Thank God For Osama Bin Laden?
Good grief.
That's about all I have to say. Well, I could say more, but this is a PG-13 blog.
BTW, next to mine and the missus', Plains Feeder is my favorite home state blog. I read it every day, you should give it a look-see often.
Posted by: Vinnie at
12:43 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
B&N Employee Shuns Military
This is funny because it's indicative of the 'we support the military, just not the war' type of latte drinking liberal. From Sean in RI:
I went into the local B&N to do some reading this weekend. When I walked in the greater said hello to the people in front and asked them to join the B&N club.My advice? I'd stop bathing for a week or two, grow a goater, put on my Docs, and throw on that Che tee that's been languishing at the bottom of the closet since I was a freshman in college.When it was my turn to be greeted the nice lady looked me over and suddenly became busy fixing the books behind her. Didn't really think much of it because I hate greeters as much as the perfume spraying terrorists in mall stores. Next couple behind me got the greeters perky treatment, which made me look back to see if her books were all in odder or what.
Then it dawned on me, I got profiled. I was wearing my Army T-shirt, and a hat that said Hard Rock Cafe Saigon. The profile I matched, conservative former military Republican.
Now my question to you is should I go back in the same gear or go back dressed as a whiny liberal? This kind of burns my ass, I did all told between Marines and Army National Guard 14 years service, and this is the way some one showing any signs of supporting the military gets treated?
But that just might be my subconcience need for the undying approval of my intellectual & moral superiors on the Left.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:18 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 1 kb.
1
They are the same group who allow a pedophile coffee book to be sold. So buck up little camper, next time go in there and buy a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook wearing the same clothes. They won't know how to profile you. (The Original One) Better yet, I wouldn't go back there at all. Borders is just as good and a bit cheaper.
Posted by: Cmunk at June 05, 2006 08:39 AM (7teJ9)
2
Stop sounding like a whiny liberal. Everyone is not a liberalcommiepinko out to be prejudiced against the military.
I also object to having B&N in the title, as even if true it obviously isn't a company policy.
I also object to having B&N in the title, as even if true it obviously isn't a company policy.
Posted by: MiB at June 05, 2006 08:46 AM (6jwxg)
3
B&N is also the term used for Burlington Northern Railroad. My father worked for 40 years on the railroad. All the live long day.
Posted by: Cmunk at June 05, 2006 08:58 AM (7teJ9)
4
Pete McCloskey joined the Navy at 17, and was discharged honorably in 1946. He joined the Marines in 1948. He won both the Navy Cross and a Silver Star. Here is a link to last weeks Wall Street Journal on the race for that house seat. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114911946350468091-AZbjwxRW1hDM1HPQH6MLdjiqPGo_20060630.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
Posted by: john ryan at June 05, 2006 09:00 AM (TcoRJ)
5
throw on that Che tee that's been languishing at the bottom of the closet since I was a freshman in college.
I'm impressed. You can still wear that.
I'm impressed. You can still wear that.
Posted by: RLS at June 05, 2006 09:02 AM (Lh7Vt)
6
So MIB what exactly is B&N's company policy in relation to conservative books, mainly product placement? And yes it is true, it did happen, and I'm sure it will continue to happen.
Posted by: SPO at June 05, 2006 09:02 AM (OZn2O)
7
It was very clearly stated that it was a B&N employee and never was there any indication that the writer implied it was B&N policy. I don't care if it was a Piggly Wiggly store. The story highlighted an overt prejudice by the person whose job it was to greet people. Not size them up and greet the ones she thought deserved it.
The real problem is how does one complain, even to the company, about such an issue without being considered whiney or paranoid? The writer simply decided to showcase an obvious prejudice to others. Now if he walked in wearing filthy clothing and smelling of urine and had a hair mat the size of a football on the back of his head, I could understand the woman's aversion. Otherwise - nope.
The real problem is how does one complain, even to the company, about such an issue without being considered whiney or paranoid? The writer simply decided to showcase an obvious prejudice to others. Now if he walked in wearing filthy clothing and smelling of urine and had a hair mat the size of a football on the back of his head, I could understand the woman's aversion. Otherwise - nope.
Posted by: Oyster at June 05, 2006 09:29 AM (ULAbo)
8
Dude that was too funny. Great effin post!!!! I read it to all my colleagues and they ROFLed. I get the same thing man.
Dude, you got friends in DC, and I got your back anytime. Here is something cool to do, when your in that situation, I often find myself there at parties, libraries, malls, coffee shops and bookstores.
Its a way of picking a fight' but everyone knows whinyass libs are puny she-men.
For example: go to a coffee shop and start talking about how in the next year our DoD interrogation policy, via Directives or people like Pelosi and Mccain, is going to succumb to asking terrorists if they would like Cheesecake or Cherry Pie, and if they tell us where the baddies are, they get both!!!!
Something I do, then I go on and say we need dogs permanetly attached to every US interrogator. See, extremists are used to she-men puny lib dogs in their country (rat-dogs) you get a black dog, they think its the devil, hell try using Pigs, they can be trained to bark and bite shit too.
Madcap!!
Dude that was too funny. Great effin post!!!! I read it to all my colleagues and they ROFLed. I get the same thing man.
Dude, you got friends in DC, and I got your back anytime. Here is something cool to do, when your in that situation, I often find myself there at parties, libraries, malls, coffee shops and bookstores.
Its a way of picking a fight' but everyone knows whinyass libs are puny she-men.
For example: go to a coffee shop and start talking about how in the next year our DoD interrogation policy, via Directives or people like Pelosi and Mccain, is going to succumb to asking terrorists if they would like Cheesecake or Cherry Pie, and if they tell us where the baddies are, they get both!!!!
Something I do, then I go on and say we need dogs permanetly attached to every US interrogator. See, extremists are used to she-men puny lib dogs in their country (rat-dogs) you get a black dog, they think its the devil, hell try using Pigs, they can be trained to bark and bite shit too.
Madcap!!
Posted by: Capster at June 05, 2006 09:45 AM (JF5DO)
9
SPO: I don't know or don't care. I use amazon.
Oyster: You've seen complaints about the juxtapositioning of names and occurances in order to imply things, in FH911 and elsewhere. This is the same thing. I know Rusty is a good guy and he didn't nefariously plot this, but its still a bad juxtapositioning.
Oyster: You've seen complaints about the juxtapositioning of names and occurances in order to imply things, in FH911 and elsewhere. This is the same thing. I know Rusty is a good guy and he didn't nefariously plot this, but its still a bad juxtapositioning.
Posted by: MiB at June 05, 2006 01:37 PM (RwDCC)
10
Tune in next week, when Rusty thinks he sees the face of Jesus in a Taco.
Slow news day, ala CNN or what?
Slow news day, ala CNN or what?
Posted by: davec at June 05, 2006 05:35 PM (CcXvt)
11
The owner of Barnes and Noble is one of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party and LLL "causes".
Here is a little test for you the next time you go in there. Go and look for books by Al Franken or Michael Moore, then go look for books by Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity. I bet you find it very easy to find the Franken and Moore books but you have to go on the equivalent of an Easter Egg hunt to find books by Hewitt or Hannity.
Here is a little test for you the next time you go in there. Go and look for books by Al Franken or Michael Moore, then go look for books by Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity. I bet you find it very easy to find the Franken and Moore books but you have to go on the equivalent of an Easter Egg hunt to find books by Hewitt or Hannity.
Posted by: Nahanni at June 05, 2006 08:11 PM (Zw1aW)
12
Great one Capster:
For me. A cup of hot coffee accidently spilled all over the bitch works better. All it takes is a big sneeze.
For me. A cup of hot coffee accidently spilled all over the bitch works better. All it takes is a big sneeze.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 04:54 AM (PV2nq)
Posted by: MiB at June 06, 2006 05:16 AM (RwDCC)
14
MIB: I use Amazon also, I just like getting an idea of what I'm going to buy online by hitting the B&N or Borders.
What is it you are implying when you make the reference of trying to find Satanic Verses in a Christian book store, in reference to finding conservative books in B&N?
What in the headline was purposely misleading? What was arrainged and placed out of context to achieve the so called juxtapositioning? Greeter: employee of B&N, Customer: former military + military supporter. Nothing was implied other then the employee profiled a customer. Pure facts, noting else. This is the kind of stuff Oprah gets stores shut down for if it involves race, sex, or sexual prefernce issues. So what should the headline have said "book store employee shuns military"? Well then we should take the reference to the military out also if we are taking B&N out. So it would be "bookstore employee shuns customer"? But then shouldn't we get rid of the reference that the employee worked for a bookstore, etc etc etc. Hard facts are the B&N greeter decided on who she was going to greet, and who she wasn't. I didn't realize she had that much leeway into who she was to greet and who she could ignore. It makes a person think that maybe they shouldn't be in that store. It could also bring unwanted attention to it, which is very easily done in little Rhodie.
What is it you are implying when you make the reference of trying to find Satanic Verses in a Christian book store, in reference to finding conservative books in B&N?
What in the headline was purposely misleading? What was arrainged and placed out of context to achieve the so called juxtapositioning? Greeter: employee of B&N, Customer: former military + military supporter. Nothing was implied other then the employee profiled a customer. Pure facts, noting else. This is the kind of stuff Oprah gets stores shut down for if it involves race, sex, or sexual prefernce issues. So what should the headline have said "book store employee shuns military"? Well then we should take the reference to the military out also if we are taking B&N out. So it would be "bookstore employee shuns customer"? But then shouldn't we get rid of the reference that the employee worked for a bookstore, etc etc etc. Hard facts are the B&N greeter decided on who she was going to greet, and who she wasn't. I didn't realize she had that much leeway into who she was to greet and who she could ignore. It makes a person think that maybe they shouldn't be in that store. It could also bring unwanted attention to it, which is very easily done in little Rhodie.
Posted by: SPO at June 06, 2006 05:48 AM (OZn2O)
15
So Rusty lives in Rhode Island? How many universities are located in RI? Looks like the search for Rusty's secret identity is picking up!
Posted by: Cmunk at June 06, 2006 07:35 AM (7teJ9)
16
>>>>Go into a Christian bookstore, try to find The Sanatic Verses.
MIB,
I've come to expect dumb comments on blogs, but that one takes the cake, lol!
MIB,
I've come to expect dumb comments on blogs, but that one takes the cake, lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 08:20 AM (8e/V4)
17
If the original post by Sean had been about a black person perceiving that he was avoided by a greeter in walmart because he was black, a lot of people here would doubt the veracity of the claim. I've seen many people, black, conservative, whatever, assume that a perceived minor slight was because of their race or ideology, when in fact it was just chance. Perhaps this greeter didn't notice him, perhaps she actually HAD work to do, perhaps she he resembles an ex-boyfriend or friend of ex, perhaps she experienced sudden stomach upset...there could be a THOUSAND reasons for this reaction, but many of you accept it immediately as gospel--DISCRIMINATION against conservatives/military/Republicans. Please. Calm down.
In Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza has a marvelous anecdote about how the common black complaint about whites thinking they all look alike is entirely dubious, since it is not racism but human nature. I'd make the same initial assumption about Sean's claim. Why did he immediately assume prejudice, and why did so many of you accept it immediately?
In Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza has a marvelous anecdote about how the common black complaint about whites thinking they all look alike is entirely dubious, since it is not racism but human nature. I'd make the same initial assumption about Sean's claim. Why did he immediately assume prejudice, and why did so many of you accept it immediately?
Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 12:57 PM (aqTJB)
18
There is a Starbucks in the Clear Lake area of Texas where many of the employees are deranged anti-Bush haters. How do I know? Everytime I went through their drive through, the same cars were parked off to the side where everyone in the d.t. line had to look at them. Three or four cars with the most vitriolic bumper stickers against the President that you ever saw. They were there everytime, and I did witness an employee getting out of one of the vehicles to put on his Starbucks apron. I stopped going there long ago.
Posted by: RepJ at June 06, 2006 05:11 PM (y6n8O)
19
>>>Why did he immediately assume prejudice, and why did so many of you accept it immediately?
My theory is that because of past racism, blacks have been conditioned to look for racism. But racism has become a taboo, so the instances of real racism are now few and far between. But black folks still have that lingering paranoia, so they find racism where there is none. Their paranoia is understanble, but I still think it's mostly paranoia.
The military have also been sensitized. They notice Liberal loathing. The difference is that Lib loathing for the military has not become taboo to Libs. Lib attitudes towards the military are largely unchanged. So when a military man notices different treatment, he isn't being paranoid, he's being aware.
My theory is that because of past racism, blacks have been conditioned to look for racism. But racism has become a taboo, so the instances of real racism are now few and far between. But black folks still have that lingering paranoia, so they find racism where there is none. Their paranoia is understanble, but I still think it's mostly paranoia.
The military have also been sensitized. They notice Liberal loathing. The difference is that Lib loathing for the military has not become taboo to Libs. Lib attitudes towards the military are largely unchanged. So when a military man notices different treatment, he isn't being paranoid, he's being aware.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 07, 2006 12:39 AM (8e/V4)
20
OK now to let the liberal protectors in on a little secret now that they feel better about defending something they just know didn't happen. I've gone into that store plenty of times, have been greeted by the same greeter and others. The only difference is this time instead of just wearing an average t-shirt and Sox hat I wore an Army t-shirt and Hard Rock Cafe Saigon hat. No her job wasn't to arrange books that were aleradya rranged, her job was to greet every one coming through the doors, thus her positioning. Nice try guys but you liberals are about the most intolerant group of people I've ever come in contact with.
Posted by: SPO at June 07, 2006 06:54 AM (OZn2O)
21
SPO--if that's the case, your story is much more believable, and I'll agree with you that your conclusion that it was discrimination against military/conservatives was accurate. I don't think it was wrong to be skeptical when it was just one incident, which was all we had to go by.
As for liberals being intolerant--sure, it happens. Perhaps the party out of power (particularly when it is completely powerless, as now) goes a little apeshit. Certainly, that happened to some conservatives and Republicans in 1993. War also tends to bring out more intolerance on all sides. Conservatives can be very intolerant. Perhaps it says more about the person than it does about the ideology, if members of both ideologies can be prejudiced, judgmental, and overall assholes.
As for liberals being intolerant--sure, it happens. Perhaps the party out of power (particularly when it is completely powerless, as now) goes a little apeshit. Certainly, that happened to some conservatives and Republicans in 1993. War also tends to bring out more intolerance on all sides. Conservatives can be very intolerant. Perhaps it says more about the person than it does about the ideology, if members of both ideologies can be prejudiced, judgmental, and overall assholes.
Posted by: jd at June 08, 2006 01:11 PM (aqTJB)
House Candidate Receives Funding from al Qaeda Linked Man
Here's a shocker, former Rep. Pete McCloskey of California is being forced to return $2,100 he received from a man being investigated for helping fund al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. What possible reason could the terror supporter have for giving money to McCloskey? It seems that McCloskey bellieves that the Jews just have way too much power.
Posted by: Rusty at
07:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
June 02, 2006
The Strange Alliance of Socialists with Islamist Radicals
Dr. Sanity has a fascinating discussion of the intellectual evolution of the modern Left (see especially this chart) and the strange alliance it seems to have with Islamists. It seems to me explanation is quite simple: both share a common enemy, us.
Common enemies do create strange alliances. But don't question their patriotism.
Posted by: Rusty at
12:12 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Look, there is no alliance between the left and islamofascism, and this chart no more proves it than similar charts did by the Birchers connecting the NAACP with Stalin. don't confuse your domestic opponents with our foreign enemies. The left may be wrong in its responses to the war on terror, but their errors are not motivated by a desire to see victory by the islamofascists. To use some pseudo-intellectual link between postmodernism and islamofascism to make yourself feel morally superior to those you disagree with is an intellectual crutch you shouldn't need.
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 05:33 AM (DQYHA)
2
jd,
It's not a formal alliance, and perhaps not even a conscious one. But Lib/muslim mutual hatred of whitey (conservatives) and the Man (Republicans) results in behavior that might as well be an alliance. It shows up in how Libs won't question islam, and try to destroy anybody who does. Worse, they defend it, even when objectively speaking it represents everything they should hate. Not a coincidink. It isn't out of "respect" for religion either, as is evident by the way they attack christianity 24/7 which they despise. No such defense for christianity! That's because they feel islam is being afflicted by the same evil force that afflicts them (whitey). Out of that sense of mutual affliction grows a feeling of kinship and an informal alliance of sorts between the two begins to take shape organically. Of course, most of the Lib foot soldiers aren't consciously aware this alliance, they just read the memo and spout the talking points. But the results, whether they are aware of it or not, are real. The intellectual vanguard of the Left are probably aware of it though. And they intend to ride the dragon that is islam for as long as they can to suit their purposes. And when they done with whitey and the Man, only then wil they turn their humanistic guns on islam. But Liberalism isn't equipped to defeat the dragon once whitey is gone. It's a suicidal strategy.
It's not a formal alliance, and perhaps not even a conscious one. But Lib/muslim mutual hatred of whitey (conservatives) and the Man (Republicans) results in behavior that might as well be an alliance. It shows up in how Libs won't question islam, and try to destroy anybody who does. Worse, they defend it, even when objectively speaking it represents everything they should hate. Not a coincidink. It isn't out of "respect" for religion either, as is evident by the way they attack christianity 24/7 which they despise. No such defense for christianity! That's because they feel islam is being afflicted by the same evil force that afflicts them (whitey). Out of that sense of mutual affliction grows a feeling of kinship and an informal alliance of sorts between the two begins to take shape organically. Of course, most of the Lib foot soldiers aren't consciously aware this alliance, they just read the memo and spout the talking points. But the results, whether they are aware of it or not, are real. The intellectual vanguard of the Left are probably aware of it though. And they intend to ride the dragon that is islam for as long as they can to suit their purposes. And when they done with whitey and the Man, only then wil they turn their humanistic guns on islam. But Liberalism isn't equipped to defeat the dragon once whitey is gone. It's a suicidal strategy.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 03, 2006 08:20 AM (8e/V4)
3
OK, for the record, liberals don't despise Christianity, as I've already demonstrated on another post. Most liberals are Christians. Many who are not Christians are strongly religious. Atheists and Agnostics don't make up enough of America to compose all the liberals, particularly when you consider that many conservatives are atheists and agnostics (many of my libertarian and objectivist friends are, as well).
Please stop saying things that are manifestly, obviously untrue. It could be claimed, without obvious error, that many liberals despise fundamentalist christianity. Or, that many liberals believe in a strong separation of Church and state, stronger than you believe necessary or good. But to claim that "liberals despise Christianity" isn't true, and makes you look dumb.
But now to the alliance.
Please stop saying things that are manifestly, obviously untrue. It could be claimed, without obvious error, that many liberals despise fundamentalist christianity. Or, that many liberals believe in a strong separation of Church and state, stronger than you believe necessary or good. But to claim that "liberals despise Christianity" isn't true, and makes you look dumb.
But now to the alliance.
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 09:19 AM (DQYHA)
4
If there is some kind of conscious or unconscious alliance between liberals and islamofascists, why is it that:
liberals in congress voted to support the war in Afghanistan, against islamofascism?
Liberals in the country supported that war as well.
Liberals were among the only people to protest the treatment of women under the Taliban before 9-11.
Some liberals have been protesting the treatment of women in Saudia Arabia for a long time.
I could go on, but here's the crux of the argument: liberals may be perceived as being pro-Muslim for two reasons: first, they don't believe that Islam is incompatible, in the end, with democracy, if it can be reformed. Many people on this list disagree with the president, and believe that Islam is evil, and remains inevitably so, because it was founded by a warmongering pedophile. While I've come to understand that there is something different about a religion founded by a man holding a sword, I don't think that this means that Islam is inevitably evil. More prone to a certain exclusionary faith? Sure. But liberals tend to see hope for Islam.
Second, liberals tend to want more inclusion domestically for religious minorities of all kinds, including Muslims. That doesn't mean they are allied with islamofascism. in fact, one could argue that inclusion of muslims in the lives of America is one reason we haven't had the paris riots here, or the number of islamofascists cells that they have had there.
liberals in congress voted to support the war in Afghanistan, against islamofascism?
Liberals in the country supported that war as well.
Liberals were among the only people to protest the treatment of women under the Taliban before 9-11.
Some liberals have been protesting the treatment of women in Saudia Arabia for a long time.
I could go on, but here's the crux of the argument: liberals may be perceived as being pro-Muslim for two reasons: first, they don't believe that Islam is incompatible, in the end, with democracy, if it can be reformed. Many people on this list disagree with the president, and believe that Islam is evil, and remains inevitably so, because it was founded by a warmongering pedophile. While I've come to understand that there is something different about a religion founded by a man holding a sword, I don't think that this means that Islam is inevitably evil. More prone to a certain exclusionary faith? Sure. But liberals tend to see hope for Islam.
Second, liberals tend to want more inclusion domestically for religious minorities of all kinds, including Muslims. That doesn't mean they are allied with islamofascism. in fact, one could argue that inclusion of muslims in the lives of America is one reason we haven't had the paris riots here, or the number of islamofascists cells that they have had there.
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 09:24 AM (DQYHA)
5
Carlos "the libs, the left, these seem to be perjoratives that incompass tens of millions of people here in the USA. Yes there are extreme views held by those both on the left and the right but you know Carlos that is just one of those things about living here in these United States Quite frankly I worry more about right wing American loonies than those on the left.
Posted by: john ryan at June 03, 2006 09:30 AM (TcoRJ)
6
I suppose this could have also been entitled "The strange alliance of rightists with Islamist radicals". Certainly many would agree that much of what is wrong with Islam today comes from the wahabi sect/cult of Islam. This sect has achieved its importance because of the massive funding it has received and is continuing to receive from the Saudis. I think it would be difficult to describe them as socialists or liberals.
Posted by: john ryan at June 03, 2006 09:36 AM (TcoRJ)
7
Questioning the patriotism of the left is like questioning the right on whether this war was begun only for war and profits. Both arguments are devise and help only the people we are fighting.
Posted by: john ryan at June 03, 2006 09:45 AM (TcoRJ)
8
jd, john,
most Libs are just regular working slobs trying to get through this thing we call life just like everybody else. They consider themselves "Liberal" because they believe in all the nice slogans and platitudes. Fine. I'm not talking about them. Their only sin is being dupes. I'm talking about the leadership who drives the movement and leads those poor slobs by the nosering.
most Libs are just regular working slobs trying to get through this thing we call life just like everybody else. They consider themselves "Liberal" because they believe in all the nice slogans and platitudes. Fine. I'm not talking about them. Their only sin is being dupes. I'm talking about the leadership who drives the movement and leads those poor slobs by the nosering.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 03, 2006 09:52 AM (8e/V4)
9
jd,
I regret inserting Lib hatred for christianity into the mix because I consider that a distraction from the more relevant point I was making about the Lib/muslim alliance and Lib apologetics for what really should be their mortal enemy-- islam.
When people like john ryan blame christianity for flesh eating Spanish dogs, or when Libs blame christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust, and make up easily debunkable lies about Pope Pius, etc., or obsess about the "Crusades" which happenned almost 1,000 years ago, I know I'm not talking to people who love chritianity. They hate it. And they are ALWAYS Lefties. Thus, not all Libs hate christianity, but just about everybody who hates christianity is a Lib. Capish? It's kinda like not all muslims are terrorists, but just about all terrorists are muslims. Same thing.
Liberals used to speak out for women's rights under the Taliban because the Taliban were so extreme they were a safe target. Or they'd make issue about genital mutilation because it is also so extreme making it another quite safe target. But the status of women in general under islam has never been an issue for Lefties. That might offend the "diversity is strength" wing of the Lefty party. And that shyness has become even more pronounced because any wiff of support for women's rights under islam might play to Bush's benefit. So now we have complete silence about islam from the Left. And worse, Lefties like john ryan who should hate islam far worse than they hate christianity actively defend islam and apologize for it. So you see, your mutual enemy-- whitey-- has created strange bedfellows indeed. An alliance of convenience.
I regret inserting Lib hatred for christianity into the mix because I consider that a distraction from the more relevant point I was making about the Lib/muslim alliance and Lib apologetics for what really should be their mortal enemy-- islam.
When people like john ryan blame christianity for flesh eating Spanish dogs, or when Libs blame christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust, and make up easily debunkable lies about Pope Pius, etc., or obsess about the "Crusades" which happenned almost 1,000 years ago, I know I'm not talking to people who love chritianity. They hate it. And they are ALWAYS Lefties. Thus, not all Libs hate christianity, but just about everybody who hates christianity is a Lib. Capish? It's kinda like not all muslims are terrorists, but just about all terrorists are muslims. Same thing.
Liberals used to speak out for women's rights under the Taliban because the Taliban were so extreme they were a safe target. Or they'd make issue about genital mutilation because it is also so extreme making it another quite safe target. But the status of women in general under islam has never been an issue for Lefties. That might offend the "diversity is strength" wing of the Lefty party. And that shyness has become even more pronounced because any wiff of support for women's rights under islam might play to Bush's benefit. So now we have complete silence about islam from the Left. And worse, Lefties like john ryan who should hate islam far worse than they hate christianity actively defend islam and apologize for it. So you see, your mutual enemy-- whitey-- has created strange bedfellows indeed. An alliance of convenience.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 03, 2006 10:00 AM (8e/V4)
10
Not to mention all the talking points on Osama tapes sound exactly like Michael Moore's talking points. After all, they are battling a common enemy, so an informal alliance makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 03, 2006 10:04 AM (8e/V4)
11
Ok, I appreciate the clarification on your target. It is not manifestly wrong to say that a small group in the leadership of the left despises Christianity. I don't agree at all, but at least it is not gobsmackingly stupid.
I'm one of those people who bring up the crusades and inquisition and the conquistadors. I don't do it because I despise Christianity. Some people do, I grant you. I've known atheists who act like the Inquisition was yesterday. I've had secular jews blame the Catholic Church for Hitler, or whatever (Pious did many wrong things, but the link between his acts and Hitler in a simplistic fashion is afactual and often accompanies hatred of Catholics or Christians in general).
But I think the reason why many liberals bring up these historical facts is simply that many Americans do not realize how ugly Christianity's history is, and thus when they look at Islam's present AND past, they mislead themselves into thinking that Christianity is morally superior BECAUSE of its past. That's simply not true. If it is morally superior, it is because of the truth of its revelation. You cannot blame Christ for Christians who go bad. You therefore do not need to ignore or whitewash the history of Christians who have done wrong in the name of Christ. It does not take away from the beauty and power of the resurrection if you have faith in it. The bible itself tells us that many will come in the name of God and mislead. That's how I see those who executed non-believers in the name of Christ.
I'm one of those people who bring up the crusades and inquisition and the conquistadors. I don't do it because I despise Christianity. Some people do, I grant you. I've known atheists who act like the Inquisition was yesterday. I've had secular jews blame the Catholic Church for Hitler, or whatever (Pious did many wrong things, but the link between his acts and Hitler in a simplistic fashion is afactual and often accompanies hatred of Catholics or Christians in general).
But I think the reason why many liberals bring up these historical facts is simply that many Americans do not realize how ugly Christianity's history is, and thus when they look at Islam's present AND past, they mislead themselves into thinking that Christianity is morally superior BECAUSE of its past. That's simply not true. If it is morally superior, it is because of the truth of its revelation. You cannot blame Christ for Christians who go bad. You therefore do not need to ignore or whitewash the history of Christians who have done wrong in the name of Christ. It does not take away from the beauty and power of the resurrection if you have faith in it. The bible itself tells us that many will come in the name of God and mislead. That's how I see those who executed non-believers in the name of Christ.
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 11:26 AM (DQYHA)
12
jd,
christianity's past is not ignored nor whitewashed, it's just not an issue, that's all. The war on terror is NOW, radical islam is NOW, and changing the subject to what happenned 1,000 years ago during the "Crusades" is as silly as it is enfuriating. It's also very revealing of the aforementioned Left/islamic alliance. Islam's past IS relevant because it has a bearing on NOW. The same cannot be said of christianity's past. Thus there is no reason to come here to an anti-terror blog and keep harping about the "Crusades" and flesh-eating christian dogs but for that Left/islamic alliance. That alliance REQUIRES you to defend islam (past and present) and to divert attention towards irrelevant topics like flesh-eating christian dogs.
christianity's past is not ignored nor whitewashed, it's just not an issue, that's all. The war on terror is NOW, radical islam is NOW, and changing the subject to what happenned 1,000 years ago during the "Crusades" is as silly as it is enfuriating. It's also very revealing of the aforementioned Left/islamic alliance. Islam's past IS relevant because it has a bearing on NOW. The same cannot be said of christianity's past. Thus there is no reason to come here to an anti-terror blog and keep harping about the "Crusades" and flesh-eating christian dogs but for that Left/islamic alliance. That alliance REQUIRES you to defend islam (past and present) and to divert attention towards irrelevant topics like flesh-eating christian dogs.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 03, 2006 12:16 PM (8e/V4)
13
I think part of this is that Americans underestimate how alive history is in other parts of the world. I remember in 2000 I was in Moldova, and a legislative aide handed me his commemorative nato keychain, still in fury over our bombing of Serbs, saying he never wanted to have anything that said NATO in his pocket. Orthodox Christians are linked by a thousand years of fighting against Muslims. Serbs are attached to Kosovo by events that happened in 1300s. And Arabs rally around the Crusades because it was one of the most recent victories for their civilization. So they bring up the Crusades a lot (which was why Bush immediately retracted when he called our war a "crusade" in 2001.)
If someone brings up Islam's past, I'm going to bring up Christianitys. If someone brings up Islam's present, I've sometimes brought up christianity's past similar conduct, because it brings out the hope that if we got better, they can to.
It is NOT an attack on christianity, nor is it part of an "alliance" with islamofascists. It's just a way to answer logically.
Comparing the histories of religions, to see which was the MOST brutal, is rather silly. Rusty hasn't backed up his afactual assertion that Islam has killed more people than anything except communism, and I for one am not even slightly surprised. But let's suppose he could--he posts some research from someone who says: communism killed 140 million, islam killed 130 million, fascism 90 million, and, wait for it, Christianity ONLY killed 85 million!!! Yay! But wait--should we all convert to Buddhism? Since they haven't killed nearly as many (I have no idea, say 3 million). Bahais probably haven't killed anyone, since it's against their religion AND they've never had state power or terrorism. That must be the best religion.
As I said before, Christianity stands or falls on whether you believe in the resurrection and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if Torquemada killed 50,000 Jews in Spain hundreds of years ago in Jesus' name. If there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, then what some caliph did in 1134 doesn't change that truth. And it doesn't matter how old Aisha was when Mohammed married her, either (does it matter that Jesus emerged in a polygamous culture? That David and Solomon WERE polygamous? David Koresh's theology wasn't entirely ahistorical...)
If someone brings up Islam's past, I'm going to bring up Christianitys. If someone brings up Islam's present, I've sometimes brought up christianity's past similar conduct, because it brings out the hope that if we got better, they can to.
It is NOT an attack on christianity, nor is it part of an "alliance" with islamofascists. It's just a way to answer logically.
Comparing the histories of religions, to see which was the MOST brutal, is rather silly. Rusty hasn't backed up his afactual assertion that Islam has killed more people than anything except communism, and I for one am not even slightly surprised. But let's suppose he could--he posts some research from someone who says: communism killed 140 million, islam killed 130 million, fascism 90 million, and, wait for it, Christianity ONLY killed 85 million!!! Yay! But wait--should we all convert to Buddhism? Since they haven't killed nearly as many (I have no idea, say 3 million). Bahais probably haven't killed anyone, since it's against their religion AND they've never had state power or terrorism. That must be the best religion.
As I said before, Christianity stands or falls on whether you believe in the resurrection and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if Torquemada killed 50,000 Jews in Spain hundreds of years ago in Jesus' name. If there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, then what some caliph did in 1134 doesn't change that truth. And it doesn't matter how old Aisha was when Mohammed married her, either (does it matter that Jesus emerged in a polygamous culture? That David and Solomon WERE polygamous? David Koresh's theology wasn't entirely ahistorical...)
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 05:17 PM (DQYHA)
14
I forgot to note how true one of John Ryan's comments was--there IS more of an alliance between Islamo-radicalism and the far right in this country than there is between the left and Islamo-radicalism. Both the far right kooks and the salafis hate Jews and israel. Both have vast conspiracy theories about it. Their websites often link to each other. David Duke is a huge advocate of splitting our foreign policy from Israel's. If Rusty is really looking to make a nice chart, there are actual real connections there, not the fantasies and illusionary extrapolations from this website. That does NOT mean that the rightwingers in general are in bed with Islamofascists, any more than the bizarre anti-Bush conspiracies on the left that dovetail with some salafi crap mean that Howard Dean et al are part of an unconscious alliance.
We are all in this together against the salafis. Stop dividing us.
We are all in this together against the salafis. Stop dividing us.
Posted by: jd at June 03, 2006 05:21 PM (DQYHA)
15
>>>I think part of this is that Americans underestimate how alive history is in other parts of the world.
Yes, well I'm not talking about other parts of the world, I'm talking about home grown Lefties, not Kosovars and muslims holding 1000-year old grudges and still living in the 12 century. I'm talking about home grown Lefties whose only real knowledge of history is the Leftwing talking points about evil christians and the "Crusades", etc., but a wilfull ignorance about everything else, especially the far more relevant history of islam. It is a politically motivated wilfull ignorance, and it reveals their loyalties.
If David Duke is a rightwing nutjob with sympathies for radical islam (because of their mutual hatred of jews), you won't see conservatives defending him and apologizing for him the way the Left apologizes for its nutjobs. Your nutjobs are mainstream, ours aren't. That's why Duke is so fringe as to be irrelevant and not a force to be reckoned with. He's just another red herring, just like the "Crusades."
Yes, well I'm not talking about other parts of the world, I'm talking about home grown Lefties, not Kosovars and muslims holding 1000-year old grudges and still living in the 12 century. I'm talking about home grown Lefties whose only real knowledge of history is the Leftwing talking points about evil christians and the "Crusades", etc., but a wilfull ignorance about everything else, especially the far more relevant history of islam. It is a politically motivated wilfull ignorance, and it reveals their loyalties.
If David Duke is a rightwing nutjob with sympathies for radical islam (because of their mutual hatred of jews), you won't see conservatives defending him and apologizing for him the way the Left apologizes for its nutjobs. Your nutjobs are mainstream, ours aren't. That's why Duke is so fringe as to be irrelevant and not a force to be reckoned with. He's just another red herring, just like the "Crusades."
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 09:00 AM (8e/V4)
16
"Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric and turned it against us."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/europes_politics_of_victimolog.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/europes_politics_of_victimolog.html
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 09:30 AM (8e/V4)
17
Carlos--just because they have cleverly adopted the rhetoric of the left doesn't mean there's an alliance, consciously or unconsciously, any more than Hamas adopting the rhetoric of Bush and democracy indicates an alliance there.
And please, be certain that I DID say that the existence of an alliance between the right's fringe (like Duke) and Islamofascists does not indicate anything about the rightwingers generally. I said that. I meant it. If there are some kooky leftists who have allied (formally or informally, consciously or unconsciously) with islamofascists, please name them. I don't see it. I've seen the meme that somehow the Iranian president's letter was "democratic talking points." But even if this were true, it does not indicate an alliance. A degree of cleverness, and some coincidence. But to say that the left is allied with our enemies is dangerous, divisive, and erroneous rhetoric, which only helps our enemies by destroying the unity we need for victory. I believe, fervently, that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terror. I believe it has armed our enemies and devastated our own strength. But I would never say that this makes Bush an ally of Al Qaeda (even though Al Qaeda uncorked non-alcoholic champagne when we invaded--it was their firmest desire). Calling Bush an ally of Al Qaeda is as wrong as saying the left is an ally of islamofascists. Neat chart--just dead wrong.
And please, be certain that I DID say that the existence of an alliance between the right's fringe (like Duke) and Islamofascists does not indicate anything about the rightwingers generally. I said that. I meant it. If there are some kooky leftists who have allied (formally or informally, consciously or unconsciously) with islamofascists, please name them. I don't see it. I've seen the meme that somehow the Iranian president's letter was "democratic talking points." But even if this were true, it does not indicate an alliance. A degree of cleverness, and some coincidence. But to say that the left is allied with our enemies is dangerous, divisive, and erroneous rhetoric, which only helps our enemies by destroying the unity we need for victory. I believe, fervently, that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terror. I believe it has armed our enemies and devastated our own strength. But I would never say that this makes Bush an ally of Al Qaeda (even though Al Qaeda uncorked non-alcoholic champagne when we invaded--it was their firmest desire). Calling Bush an ally of Al Qaeda is as wrong as saying the left is an ally of islamofascists. Neat chart--just dead wrong.
Posted by: jd at June 05, 2006 06:57 AM (l5lV5)
18
Carlos: Very well said. Common sense. A wonderful thing.
JD: If you have time check back in the archives and you will see the glee the left on this blog has posted whenever something bad has happened to our troops overseas. We have even had some say that 9/11 was a good thing. Not is bed with the Islamofacists? Maybe to you. But I'm convinced some are.
An example that I know is true. One of their hero's Jane Fonda.
The liberal Jane Fonda (AKA Hanoi Jane) goes to Viet Nam to show the the North Vietnamese that many Americans (the left) are in agreement with them. Her Agdenda. Bring the troops home. Sound familiar?
See meets on camera with some (resently cleaned up) POWs. She asks them aren't they happy over the wonderful care they have given. They believe she is saying this because the Vietnamese are watching and filming. Several of them slip her folded up notes while shaking her hand.
When finished this liberal who calls herself a caring American hands the notes to the Vietnamese Officer in charge. Before she leaves the room the beatings commence. Three of the seven Pows die from the beatings. She doesn't complain or even mention this incident.
Was she in bed with the enemy? I say yes.
Was Kerry? I say yes but the liberals, and blacks were 100% behind him.
JD: If you have time check back in the archives and you will see the glee the left on this blog has posted whenever something bad has happened to our troops overseas. We have even had some say that 9/11 was a good thing. Not is bed with the Islamofacists? Maybe to you. But I'm convinced some are.
An example that I know is true. One of their hero's Jane Fonda.
The liberal Jane Fonda (AKA Hanoi Jane) goes to Viet Nam to show the the North Vietnamese that many Americans (the left) are in agreement with them. Her Agdenda. Bring the troops home. Sound familiar?
See meets on camera with some (resently cleaned up) POWs. She asks them aren't they happy over the wonderful care they have given. They believe she is saying this because the Vietnamese are watching and filming. Several of them slip her folded up notes while shaking her hand.
When finished this liberal who calls herself a caring American hands the notes to the Vietnamese Officer in charge. Before she leaves the room the beatings commence. Three of the seven Pows die from the beatings. She doesn't complain or even mention this incident.
Was she in bed with the enemy? I say yes.
Was Kerry? I say yes but the liberals, and blacks were 100% behind him.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 06:43 AM (PV2nq)
19
I don't defend the conduct of Jane Fonda. I do find it very illustrative of the poverty of your arguments relating to Iraq that asked to show any evidence, a single example, a moiety of proof, that there exists an alliance between islamofascists and the left, that you retreat to Jane Fonda and North Vietnam. Shoot, I could do better than that--why not drag out Michael Moore's "moral equivalent of the minutemen" in regard to Iraqi "insurgents"? (I could shoot that down, but at least it's an example that is about Iraq and not ancient history).
Face it--there is no alliance between the left and islamo-fascists except in the feverish imaginations of many on the right. Just as there is no true alliance between Bush and the house of saud except in Michael Moore's mind and some on the left.
We are all in this together. We differ on tactics, we differ on targets, but no major American political figure of the left or right is allied, consciously or unconsciously, formally or informally, with islamofascism.
Face it--there is no alliance between the left and islamo-fascists except in the feverish imaginations of many on the right. Just as there is no true alliance between Bush and the house of saud except in Michael Moore's mind and some on the left.
We are all in this together. We differ on tactics, we differ on targets, but no major American political figure of the left or right is allied, consciously or unconsciously, formally or informally, with islamofascism.
Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 09:45 AM (7QCpZ)
20
jd,
if we're "all in this together", then why the dearth of posts on Liberal blogs about the Toronto raids? Liberal blogs consistently ignore and downplay this kind of news item. Gee, I wonder why.
"The profoundly unserious, serial tantrum-throwing angry left blogosphere has almost totally ignored the anti-terror raids in Canada; Ace of Spades and Seixon both tried to find some concern among the fools and hate-spewers, and came up empty. Probably too busy watching Truthout for news of Karl Rove being frogmarched to prison."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20919_Angry_Left_Not_Angry_About_Islamic_Terrorism#comments
When the Left starts showing a real concern about terrorism, then I'll believe "we're all in it together" pie in the sky platitudes.
if we're "all in this together", then why the dearth of posts on Liberal blogs about the Toronto raids? Liberal blogs consistently ignore and downplay this kind of news item. Gee, I wonder why.
"The profoundly unserious, serial tantrum-throwing angry left blogosphere has almost totally ignored the anti-terror raids in Canada; Ace of Spades and Seixon both tried to find some concern among the fools and hate-spewers, and came up empty. Probably too busy watching Truthout for news of Karl Rove being frogmarched to prison."
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20919_Angry_Left_Not_Angry_About_Islamic_Terrorism#comments
When the Left starts showing a real concern about terrorism, then I'll believe "we're all in it together" pie in the sky platitudes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 11:23 AM (8e/V4)
21
Well, I was able to find leftwing blogs talking about it in about 22 seconds. Checked out Crooked Timber's post by belle waring, critiquing the NYT's coverage, and agreeing with instapundit.
Also--I wonder why no one on this blog is mentioning that these people are, of course, innocent until proven guilty. that seemed to be a HUGE deal for folks here when we were talking about Haditha. I think the principle applies in both cases, but I'm just old fashioned (and PLEASE don't pounce in and say it is only a principle here. Innocent until proven G is part of the anglo-American legal tradition, of which Canada partakes).
Also--I wonder why no one on this blog is mentioning that these people are, of course, innocent until proven guilty. that seemed to be a HUGE deal for folks here when we were talking about Haditha. I think the principle applies in both cases, but I'm just old fashioned (and PLEASE don't pounce in and say it is only a principle here. Innocent until proven G is part of the anglo-American legal tradition, of which Canada partakes).
Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 01:08 PM (aqTJB)
22
Oh, and I think both the left and the right blogospheres have their blind spots, don't you? When good economic news is announced, rightwing sites make HUGE headlines of it. Leftwing sites tend to shut up or discredit or point out other economic indicators not doing so well. When crappy news like the recent decline in the stock market happens, left wing sites report it, and the right is silent. It's just like members of Congress in the 90s. When the economy was going well, Dems crowed, and Republicans ignored or were negative (or said it was due to their policies, not Clintons). Good blogs report both sides.
Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 01:12 PM (aqTJB)
23
And when exactly is the rightwing blogosphere going to report the truth about what is happening in Iraq?
****
In Baghdad, leaving home to work, shop or visit family has become an increasingly dangerous proposition. Violence rears up without warning; residents navigate a citywide obstacle course of roadside bombs, shootouts and security checkpoints.
The city just had its deadliest month since U.S.-led forces invaded the country in 2003, new Iraqi government documents indicate. More people were shot, stabbed or otherwise violently killed in May than in any other month since the invasion, according to Health Ministry statistics. The figure does not include slain soldiers or civilians killed in bombings, on whom autopsies are not usually performed.
Last month alone, 1,398 bodies were brought to Baghdad's central morgue, the ministry said. All over the city and out into the provinces, corpses surface on a daily basis in garbage dumps, in abandoned cars or along roadsides. They often bear marks of bondage and torture
****
In Baghdad, leaving home to work, shop or visit family has become an increasingly dangerous proposition. Violence rears up without warning; residents navigate a citywide obstacle course of roadside bombs, shootouts and security checkpoints.
The city just had its deadliest month since U.S.-led forces invaded the country in 2003, new Iraqi government documents indicate. More people were shot, stabbed or otherwise violently killed in May than in any other month since the invasion, according to Health Ministry statistics. The figure does not include slain soldiers or civilians killed in bombings, on whom autopsies are not usually performed.
Last month alone, 1,398 bodies were brought to Baghdad's central morgue, the ministry said. All over the city and out into the provinces, corpses surface on a daily basis in garbage dumps, in abandoned cars or along roadsides. They often bear marks of bondage and torture
Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 01:27 PM (aqTJB)
24
jd,
can you give me 3 links to liberal anti-terror blogs so I can see for myself?
In response to your question about innocent before proven guilty, we accord that privilege to our GIs, not to terrorists and pedophiles.
can you give me 3 links to liberal anti-terror blogs so I can see for myself?
In response to your question about innocent before proven guilty, we accord that privilege to our GIs, not to terrorists and pedophiles.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 06, 2006 01:52 PM (8e/V4)
25
Actually, in Anglo-American tradition, it applies to everyone, it is a universal right. As I pointed out in the haditha post, it doesn't bind anyone but the court, but it seems silly to apply it with religious fervor in one case, but not in the other. I'd submit that investigative authorities would be far more likely to erroneously exonerate an American GI and to erroneously convict an accused terrorist or pedophile, than either reverse situation. That being the case, one should probably act with greater restraint in those cases. But whatever.
Three anti-terror liberal blogs? They are ALL anti-terror, the ones I've seen. They may not take the tactic that you want them to take, it may be one that you disagree with, but that does NOT make them pro-terror. It's a tactical, not a strategic difference.
Three anti-terror liberal blogs? They are ALL anti-terror, the ones I've seen. They may not take the tactic that you want them to take, it may be one that you disagree with, but that does NOT make them pro-terror. It's a tactical, not a strategic difference.
Posted by: jd at June 07, 2006 10:02 AM (aqTJB)
May 26, 2006
Haditha, Jack Murtha, & The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Have you ever seen Murtha & MacBeth in the Same Room? Think about it......
Let me just add that abuses happen in war. In all wars. U.S. soldiers participated in massacres in WWII. The fact that soldiers do bad things in war says nothing about the morality of that war.
The proper response to misconduct in war is court martial, not condemnation of the war. Those wishing to condemn the war in Iraq because of the misconduct of soldiers are engaging in deceptive propaganda. They will still oppose the war, even if it turns out soldiers are innocent of the charges.
The morality of the U.S. is demonstrated over and over again each time someone is charged with abuse or other war related crimes. The fact that we actually prosecute such criminals is quite revealing.
Contrast this to our enemies who praise the very same behavior they condem us for. Hostage taking, the execution of prisoners, and the targetting of civilians are all things the so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq boast of. Not only are 'martyrs' praised for targetting civilians, to add insult to injury, their 'glorious deeds' are video taped and then distributed on the internet to much fanfare.
We at The Jawa Report unequivocally condemn any actions by U.S. soldiers which violate the customary rules of war. If any U.S. soldier participated in the massacre of civilians, they ought to receive the harshest of punishments.
But unlike extreme Leftist who want to believe the worst things about our soldiers, we reserve judgement. We do not believe any and all accusations of 'war crimes' against U.S. soldiers because we are very aware that most of these accusations are unfounded and made by people with a political agenda.
If we were to believe, prima facie, all of the accusations levelled against our troops by Islamists and Leftists, then we would be forced to believe that the U.S. nuked the Baghdad airport, that our soldiers rape and pillage, and that they kill infants while mocking crying mothers. So excuse us if we are sometimes dismissive of accusations of war crimes when each and every time a U.S. soldier kills a terrorist cries of Geneva Convention violations are raised.
As Aesop's fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf teaches us, though, sometimes there really is a wolf.
Was there a massacre in Haditha last year? We do not and cannot know the answer to that based on the information at hand. We should let the investigation continue. If military investigators substantiate the claim, then those soldiers involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
But there is another moral to Aesop's fable. One that is often overlooked. That moral is that any person that would believe the boy who cried wolf after so many false alarms are naive. In the end, no one in the village believed the boy because of his long track record of deception.
In Aesop's time, wolves really were a constant threat to a flock. They were not uncommon, so the plausibility of a wolf stalking the village flock was very believable. The fact that wolves were a real and common danger made the boy's initial lies seem all the more likely.
But what if wolves were a threat, but a very an uncommon occurence? What if the boy had cried lion or tiger instead of wolf? Do you think the villagers would have been fooled more than once?
Those that prima facie accept the Haditha massacre allegations are actually worse than the villagers described by Aesop. They want to believe that U.S. soldiers are the big bad wolf. They want to believe the very worst about those that risk their lives on their behalf.
There is no other explanation. Either the U.S. routinely massacres civilians or it does not. If it does not, then why condemn soldiers before a full and complete investigation has been carried out?
There are wolves out there, but since they are so rare these days, to believe the boy before sending out independent investigators to verify his less than stellar track record would be stupid, naive, or worse.
Previous: Censure Jack Murtha
UPDATE: Could the accusations be true? Like I said, yes. One of the moral of the boy who cried wolf story is that even liars sometimes tell the truth. If the NY Times story is correct that charges are forthcoming, then whoever is found guilty ought to be strung up.
UPDATE: Allah and The Commissar have additional comments. I agree. Except, what do you do with a messenger who has an agenda?
As Orwell noted, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
Update: Bithead, who I haven't heard from in ages, agrees.
UPDATE: Let me clarify something: When I began writing this post, I only knew of Murtha's conveying the allegations. That's what started the post. After writing the post, I've learned that there is strong evidence against at least two Marines.
I still do not want to believe the allegations are true. But that's just me, I want to believe the best things about my country. But, those allegations may turn out to be true. Even so, my point remains valid: there were those on the Left who have been screaming about this from the beginning, from the very day it happened--they wanted it to be true. They have been beating on the "war crimes" drum for a long time now. They may be right, in this instance, but with such a track record, can you blame me for being dismissive?
In any event, I personally volunteer to pull the trigger at the execution of any Marine who intentionally killed women and children.
UPDATE: Captain Ed, "This makes me physically ill." Me too, buddy, me too. In fact, I have been in a foul mood all day over this.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:14 AM
| Comments (117)
| Add Comment
Post contains 985 words, total size 6 kb.
1
How DARE Murtha tell uncomfortable truths?!?!?
Quite telling that there is 10 times more wingnut outrage at Murtha for telling the truth about this episode than there is at the actual atrocity.
Quite telling that there is 10 times more wingnut outrage at Murtha for telling the truth about this episode than there is at the actual atrocity.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 10:12 AM (iBcDZ)
2
Quite telling that there is so much willingness on the Left to believe accusations that some of our troops are war criminals before any charges are brought...
But I would never question your patriotism.....
But I would never question your patriotism.....
Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:23 AM (JQjhA)
3
It's the PENTAGON, you know, the UNITED STATES MILITARY, that's saying there were war crimes committed.
But I would never question your patriotism.
But I would never question your patriotism.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 10:28 AM (iBcDZ)
4
The only "uncomfortable truth" here is the eager willingness on the Left to use the bad apples to tarnish the entire military and even their country. Contrary to what they'd have us believe, it doesn't solve the problem and it won't win them any elections. All it does is stoke our enemies and gets our boys killed. You think Abu Graib on the front of the NYTimes helped one single person? On the contrary, it probable got people killed. You Lefties fucking suck.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 10:30 AM (8e/V4)
5
No, it's the NYT saying that there might be forthcoming charges. If they are guilty, charge them then hang them.
Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:36 AM (JQjhA)
6
Other congressmen are saying worse things about what happned there. Rep. John Kline (R-MN) is a retired Marine colonel. Past duties include flying Marine One the president's helicopter. After being briefed by the Commandant of the Corps he is quoted as saying " this was not an accident. This was direct fire by Marines at civilians". He added "This was not an immediate response to an attack, This would be an atrocity." When congressmen say things like this after being briefed by the Commandant, I think we better listen. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012552.php The second is a link tobio info about Rep Kline. I tried to post a link to the quotes by Kline but got the dread "questionable content" So look on the NYT or CT wbsites for these.
Posted by: john ryan at May 26, 2006 10:39 AM (TcoRJ)
7
I don't see anywhere the Pentagon calling them "cold-blooded murderers" while the matter is still under investigation. That's all Murtha.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)
8
John,
And Benedict Arnold was a General. So what?
I think you'll find that in the updates I have more.
And Benedict Arnold was a General. So what?
I think you'll find that in the updates I have more.
Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 10:52 AM (JQjhA)
9
Haditha. Boy, you warbloggers sure got what you wanted, didn't you?
Posted by: mrs ibrahim al-jaafari at May 26, 2006 11:35 AM (B6GxD)
10
Well, when the USMC brings them up on charges of capital murder, it will be doing exactly that--accusing them of being cold-blooded murderers.
Again, this is the US military's report that condemns them. Not the eeevil MSM or whatever other bogeymen you like to throw out there.
Again, this is the US military's report that condemns them. Not the eeevil MSM or whatever other bogeymen you like to throw out there.
Posted by: Geek, Esq. at May 26, 2006 11:45 AM (iBcDZ)
11
>>>Well, when the USMC brings them up on charges of capital murder, it will be doing exactly that--accusing them of being cold-blooded murderers.
That's a PROSECUTOR'S job. Perhaps you're not aware that the USMC also provides them with defense attorneys, and also considers them innocent until proven guilty.
Murtha has forsaken his role of investigator and assumed the role of prosecutor. It's all just disgusting Lib politics. Like Orwell said, "the quickest way to end a war is to lose it" (hat tip: Rusty).
That's a PROSECUTOR'S job. Perhaps you're not aware that the USMC also provides them with defense attorneys, and also considers them innocent until proven guilty.
Murtha has forsaken his role of investigator and assumed the role of prosecutor. It's all just disgusting Lib politics. Like Orwell said, "the quickest way to end a war is to lose it" (hat tip: Rusty).
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 12:23 PM (8e/V4)
12
IF these guys are guilty, I'll volunteer to pull the trigger at their firing squads.
But the Lefty media--not the MSM, I'm talking the "indymedia" crowd--had these guys convicted with the very first accusation and film which was nothing more than footage of wounded which could have been anything. Since that same crowd has routinely cried "war crimes" hundreds of times in the past, it's only natural that I, or any other sensible person, would dismiss another accusation.
This accusation may be true, but I pray that it is not.
But the Lefty media--not the MSM, I'm talking the "indymedia" crowd--had these guys convicted with the very first accusation and film which was nothing more than footage of wounded which could have been anything. Since that same crowd has routinely cried "war crimes" hundreds of times in the past, it's only natural that I, or any other sensible person, would dismiss another accusation.
This accusation may be true, but I pray that it is not.
Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 01:16 PM (JQjhA)
13
I've linked this commentary, and quoted it heavily. As I told my own readers;
This is really a top notch write-up, and puts to words much of my own thinking, and addresses some of the discussions I've had in email with various people.
This is really a top notch write-up, and puts to words much of my own thinking, and addresses some of the discussions I've had in email with various people.
Posted by: Bithead at May 26, 2006 01:26 PM (+w3w9)
14
How funny. Reading past posts on this issue, you right wingers have reason to feel uncomfortable. Your defense of State is almost holy, like the USSR or something...CENSURE MURTHA...because he told the truth and upset your sunday school training.
Rusty brings up a good fact about "innocent until proven guilty", but really, you folks never defend that...i.e. sadamms with bin laden! saddams got nukes! all muslims should be jailed and deported! The only case for innocent until guilty is the military? interesting, what an objective concept for rule of law!
But ya, you folks can backtrack and rationalize all you want (you are good at that, just like liar BUSH), but really, read your past comments and you will see why we find you folks jokers.
commie
Rusty brings up a good fact about "innocent until proven guilty", but really, you folks never defend that...i.e. sadamms with bin laden! saddams got nukes! all muslims should be jailed and deported! The only case for innocent until guilty is the military? interesting, what an objective concept for rule of law!
But ya, you folks can backtrack and rationalize all you want (you are good at that, just like liar BUSH), but really, read your past comments and you will see why we find you folks jokers.
commie
Posted by: commie at May 26, 2006 01:47 PM (1esPS)
15
And Benedict Arnold was a traitor ? Rusty I am not quite sure what to make of that ? That is like tarring ALL who have honorably served ? Look Murtha was the first to speak about Haditha. Now Rep Kline is also saying the same thing. These are 2 Marine colonels who are saying this after being briefed by the Commandant of the Corps.Is this the new definition of a leftist ? Anyone who questions Iraq ? And Rusty what about death threats ? Will you publish the IP address and track down those who put death threats on YOUR blog ?
Posted by: john ryan at May 26, 2006 01:53 PM (TcoRJ)
16
Innocent until proven guilty applies ONLY to those directly involved in the judicial process. Members of Congress and other political figures ROUTINELY comment on matters that have not yet been judged. Murtha has access to information that you don't. He looked at the evidence, and came to the same conclusion as that Republican congressman. He may be proven wrong. But he is calling it as he sees it. It would be institutionally problematic and a big mistake for the head of the Marine Corps to say what Murtha said. But Murtha didn't just ASSUME that the marines were guilty. He looked at the best evidence available, stuff you haven't seen.
I don't think one can entirely separate a war from the way it is conducted. A just act can become unjust depending on the way it is done. Ends do not justify all means. The level of incompetence in the conduct of this war (leaving aside smoking questions about the manner in which it began, and the untruths told to the public) raises fundamental questions about its morality. These troops, if guilty, deserve punishment. But those who never planned for resistance, those idiots/liars who said "the insurgency is in its last throes" when it manifestly was not, and armored and provisioned our troops accordingly, are morally culpable as well. The fury of those trapped into doing an occupation on the cheap, with no strategy for victory, can be easily imagined. They were told they'd be greeted as liberators...they were told "mission accomplished" "last throes" "WMD"....
Wilsonian dreams have bitter wakeups. And bloody ones.
I don't think one can entirely separate a war from the way it is conducted. A just act can become unjust depending on the way it is done. Ends do not justify all means. The level of incompetence in the conduct of this war (leaving aside smoking questions about the manner in which it began, and the untruths told to the public) raises fundamental questions about its morality. These troops, if guilty, deserve punishment. But those who never planned for resistance, those idiots/liars who said "the insurgency is in its last throes" when it manifestly was not, and armored and provisioned our troops accordingly, are morally culpable as well. The fury of those trapped into doing an occupation on the cheap, with no strategy for victory, can be easily imagined. They were told they'd be greeted as liberators...they were told "mission accomplished" "last throes" "WMD"....
Wilsonian dreams have bitter wakeups. And bloody ones.
Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 02:00 PM (aqTJB)
17
No, it's not tarring all that served--at least, that's not how I intended to use it--it's only putting military service in its proper context IRRELEVANT.
And the more I read on the story, the more it sounds like there is evidence against at least two Marines. Still not ready to convict them, even in the court of public opinion, but I am willing to do so once a verdict is handed down.
And the more I read on the story, the more it sounds like there is evidence against at least two Marines. Still not ready to convict them, even in the court of public opinion, but I am willing to do so once a verdict is handed down.
Posted by: Rusty at May 26, 2006 02:04 PM (JQjhA)
18
Rusty
Your last paragraph said it all for me - I agree and would join you - nothing else to say or discuss.
Your last paragraph said it all for me - I agree and would join you - nothing else to say or discuss.
Posted by: hondo at May 26, 2006 02:55 PM (k/PLS)
19
>>>i.e. sadamms with bin laden! saddams got nukes! all muslims should be jailed and deported!
lmao! Now look who's being the joker. Murtha isn't just some dude shooting the shit at happy hour, he's a friggin congressman speaking in public to the world.
But if you believe we blow as much or more hot air than Murtha and the Left do, the hot air we blow doesn't cut against our country 24/7. The Left's hot air universally cuts against our country, so no wonder people want you strung up as traitors from the nearest light pole.
And that doesn't even address your inability to segregate Constitutional standards (like the one where people who are charged with a crime are presumed innocent) from mere opinion about world events (i.e., Saddam's got nukes). Two different animals. It's amazing how people so self-congratulatory about their "nuance" can be so thick.
lmao! Now look who's being the joker. Murtha isn't just some dude shooting the shit at happy hour, he's a friggin congressman speaking in public to the world.
But if you believe we blow as much or more hot air than Murtha and the Left do, the hot air we blow doesn't cut against our country 24/7. The Left's hot air universally cuts against our country, so no wonder people want you strung up as traitors from the nearest light pole.
And that doesn't even address your inability to segregate Constitutional standards (like the one where people who are charged with a crime are presumed innocent) from mere opinion about world events (i.e., Saddam's got nukes). Two different animals. It's amazing how people so self-congratulatory about their "nuance" can be so thick.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 03:04 PM (8e/V4)
20
As far as the death penalty--I don't think it would be justified in most cases of wartime atrocities. There are so many mitigating circumstances--if you are constantly under threat of being killed, you see your buddy blown to bits, you are filled with rage at all the people in that country, who you momentarily think are all terrorists...
I'm not justifying what may have happened, but I'm saying that I would never want some 19 year old sent to death for what they did in a moment like that. 30 years, maybe. Death? no.
If I believed in the death penalty (as I once did), I could see giving it to an officer at My Lai. But even the ones who shot the toddlers at My Lai...under orders. That seems to be an extenuating circumstance that precludes the ultimate punishment. Those who gave the orders for the civilians to be herded into trenches and shot...yeah.
From what little we know about the Haditha case, it doesn't seem to be a plan that was ordered from above by anyone. More like pent up rage finding expression after a fellow Marine was killed.
Incidentally--while I do think our military is composed of some of the finest people in this country, and certainly stacks up well against any other military in terms of integrity and honor--there are many cases of illegal murders that go unpunished. Read a history of our occupation of the Phillippines. Or the new book out on the unit in Vietnam that was exposed two years ago in the Toledo Blade. My Lai was exceptional, and the left used it to tar all servicemembers and that was wrong. But it was not the only exception, and if this book is true, it may not even have been the worst. It was just the time that the story got out.
War is hell. Which is why there is a special place in hell reserved for those who lead a nation into an unnecessary and poorly planned war.
I'm not justifying what may have happened, but I'm saying that I would never want some 19 year old sent to death for what they did in a moment like that. 30 years, maybe. Death? no.
If I believed in the death penalty (as I once did), I could see giving it to an officer at My Lai. But even the ones who shot the toddlers at My Lai...under orders. That seems to be an extenuating circumstance that precludes the ultimate punishment. Those who gave the orders for the civilians to be herded into trenches and shot...yeah.
From what little we know about the Haditha case, it doesn't seem to be a plan that was ordered from above by anyone. More like pent up rage finding expression after a fellow Marine was killed.
Incidentally--while I do think our military is composed of some of the finest people in this country, and certainly stacks up well against any other military in terms of integrity and honor--there are many cases of illegal murders that go unpunished. Read a history of our occupation of the Phillippines. Or the new book out on the unit in Vietnam that was exposed two years ago in the Toledo Blade. My Lai was exceptional, and the left used it to tar all servicemembers and that was wrong. But it was not the only exception, and if this book is true, it may not even have been the worst. It was just the time that the story got out.
War is hell. Which is why there is a special place in hell reserved for those who lead a nation into an unnecessary and poorly planned war.
Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 03:38 PM (aqTJB)
21
I still think Murtha should be drawn and quartered. If he'd been a true patriotic American he would have never passed on this story of these allegations. All this story does is give aid and comfort to the enemy.
It would have been better if it had never happened, or at the very least, never have surfaced to the lgiht of day.
I appreicate what you have to say Rusty. I agree, we should always believe in what is Best about our country, not look for ways to criticize it. The only way for this nation to remain strong is if we think positively and optimistically.
It would have been better if it had never happened, or at the very least, never have surfaced to the lgiht of day.
I appreicate what you have to say Rusty. I agree, we should always believe in what is Best about our country, not look for ways to criticize it. The only way for this nation to remain strong is if we think positively and optimistically.
Posted by: stockressy at May 26, 2006 03:39 PM (cg8tr)
22
The best response to your passionate views, Stockressy, was said by one of the greatest Republican senators of the 20th Century:
Robert Taft, Dec 19, 12 days after Pearl Harbor
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
What Murtha did in alerting the nation to excesses in the occupation is in that noble tradition.
Robert Taft, Dec 19, 12 days after Pearl Harbor
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government ... too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
What Murtha did in alerting the nation to excesses in the occupation is in that noble tradition.
Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 04:28 PM (aqTJB)
23
Incidentally, one of the principled causes that Taft later became famous for was his defense of several Nazis who he believed had been treated terribly by our forces, and were about to be executed unjustly. This was at a time when we had uncovered the crimes of the Nazis, and they were universally hated. Taft believed that we would be judged by how we treated our enemies. He was right to seek justice even for those who had allied with a cause that was evil and inimical to justice. The same is true today.
Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 04:33 PM (aqTJB)
24
Buahahahahaha....
Little visit to my geek buddies on the ultra-right. How are you loosers holding up? How's The American Facist Front doing today?
So Murtha was right. But you are still all pissy like a sissy. They will hang these three or four dickweed marines for killing women and children, and yet these faggety righties will still go on bitching and moaning about conspirancies. Never admit you fucked up. It's the RIGHT way.
See you later wipeasses. Don't stroke each other's cocks too hard. Remember, they are small and they are the only ones you got.
Y tu tambien pendejito.
Buahahahahaha.....
Little visit to my geek buddies on the ultra-right. How are you loosers holding up? How's The American Facist Front doing today?
So Murtha was right. But you are still all pissy like a sissy. They will hang these three or four dickweed marines for killing women and children, and yet these faggety righties will still go on bitching and moaning about conspirancies. Never admit you fucked up. It's the RIGHT way.
See you later wipeasses. Don't stroke each other's cocks too hard. Remember, they are small and they are the only ones you got.
Y tu tambien pendejito.
Buahahahahaha.....
Posted by: citizen #2338866547990 at May 26, 2006 04:41 PM (jZ6cC)
25
Well, that brought the level of discourse up appreciably.
Posted by: jd at May 26, 2006 05:52 PM (aqTJB)
26
>>>So Murtha was right.
That may be so, and justice should and will be done. But the difference between you Lefties and us is that we aren't celebrating and drooling at the mouth about it.
We see the prosecution of human rights abusers as a sign that our country is a nation of laws and that when people commit crimes they should pay the price. While you use these instances for the opposite purpose-- to parade the abusers before the world as your trophies in order to prove what an evil country we are. It's so obvious in the way you handle these situations. That's why you people suck and are so often confused for traitors. But I won't question your patriotism. I wouldn't dream of it!
That may be so, and justice should and will be done. But the difference between you Lefties and us is that we aren't celebrating and drooling at the mouth about it.
We see the prosecution of human rights abusers as a sign that our country is a nation of laws and that when people commit crimes they should pay the price. While you use these instances for the opposite purpose-- to parade the abusers before the world as your trophies in order to prove what an evil country we are. It's so obvious in the way you handle these situations. That's why you people suck and are so often confused for traitors. But I won't question your patriotism. I wouldn't dream of it!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 06:35 PM (8e/V4)
27
I bet Murtha did it!
/sarc
And when the families of the inoccent dead come after our soldiers, are we going to call them terrorists?
Hearts and minds...
/sarc
And when the families of the inoccent dead come after our soldiers, are we going to call them terrorists?
Hearts and minds...
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 06:46 PM (dVXgZ)
28
You stupid liberals/leftists make me sick. Do you think that these type of things do not happen in all wars? For example, I had a friend who was in Patton's 3rd Army who routinely, along with his friends, raped German women and looted everything they could get their hands on. And WWII was the so-called Good War. It wasn't. There is no "good" war.
And our soldiers in Iraq should not be held to a standard of perfection. That is not possible. The military reflects society at large. Do people in our society murder and steal? Of course they do, and so do some people in the military. You shitheads who try to hold our military to perfection are nothing but hypocrits, because you are the first ones to take up for criminals and their rights. So go on to one of your circle jerks and leave us the hell alone. I'm sick of your shit!
And our soldiers in Iraq should not be held to a standard of perfection. That is not possible. The military reflects society at large. Do people in our society murder and steal? Of course they do, and so do some people in the military. You shitheads who try to hold our military to perfection are nothing but hypocrits, because you are the first ones to take up for criminals and their rights. So go on to one of your circle jerks and leave us the hell alone. I'm sick of your shit!
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 26, 2006 07:27 PM (rUyw4)
29
>>>you are the first ones to take up for criminals and their rights.
Yes, that's because criminals are "victims" of society, whereas these soldiers are agents of "the Man." lol! Lefties are funny.
Yes, that's because criminals are "victims" of society, whereas these soldiers are agents of "the Man." lol! Lefties are funny.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 26, 2006 07:45 PM (8e/V4)
30
jesusland joe...
So, umm, should our men and women rape people or something?
I'm sure some Ba'athists raised points similar to yours when they gassed the Kurds. There is no good war, just do it.
Cheers.
So, umm, should our men and women rape people or something?
I'm sure some Ba'athists raised points similar to yours when they gassed the Kurds. There is no good war, just do it.
Cheers.
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 08:42 PM (dVXgZ)
31
It is sickening to me that the anti-war-aging-hyppy crowd are GLOATING that some Marines are up on charges like this.
GLOATING.
What is wrong with people like that - who would gloat and point out to the whole world that someone might have done something they shouldn't have??
If they were harboring terrorists - they were guilty of harboring terrorists. In past wars, any other war, the whole town would have been carpet bombed.
But the unholy left is determined to get as many of our guys killed as posible so they can count bodies. So they are fighting with one arm tied behind their collective backs.
Why does the left WANT our country to lose the war on terror? Why does the left WANT our soldiers to be guilty of atrocities and are willing to exagerate them to make them look as bad as they can.
Don't EVER say 'I support the troops BUT I don't support the war'. You have no idea what that means.
What's criminal is that these soldiers are being tried in the media and by liver-lillied liberals who have probably never held a gun - much less had one shot in their direction.
GLOATING.
What is wrong with people like that - who would gloat and point out to the whole world that someone might have done something they shouldn't have??
If they were harboring terrorists - they were guilty of harboring terrorists. In past wars, any other war, the whole town would have been carpet bombed.
But the unholy left is determined to get as many of our guys killed as posible so they can count bodies. So they are fighting with one arm tied behind their collective backs.
Why does the left WANT our country to lose the war on terror? Why does the left WANT our soldiers to be guilty of atrocities and are willing to exagerate them to make them look as bad as they can.
Don't EVER say 'I support the troops BUT I don't support the war'. You have no idea what that means.
What's criminal is that these soldiers are being tried in the media and by liver-lillied liberals who have probably never held a gun - much less had one shot in their direction.
Posted by: Salvadore at May 26, 2006 08:45 PM (X6tm3)
32
Rusty;
I think you make a grave mistake when you limit your complaints about people who want to believe the worst in our troops, to the left. I have been personally witnessed to much in the way of the same attitude , from people who call themselves libertarians. Of the two, I find the latter more disturbing.
I also have some questions as regards the release of the information, and the timing thereof. It does seem a little odd, that this investigation could have preceded for months, and just now we're seeing it in the news ... on the leading edge of an hotly contested election cycle... I have little in the way of evidence to back that point, but I submit that it makes no sense not to at least raise the question given we've seen this kind of thing before.
I think you make a grave mistake when you limit your complaints about people who want to believe the worst in our troops, to the left. I have been personally witnessed to much in the way of the same attitude , from people who call themselves libertarians. Of the two, I find the latter more disturbing.
I also have some questions as regards the release of the information, and the timing thereof. It does seem a little odd, that this investigation could have preceded for months, and just now we're seeing it in the news ... on the leading edge of an hotly contested election cycle... I have little in the way of evidence to back that point, but I submit that it makes no sense not to at least raise the question given we've seen this kind of thing before.
Posted by: Bithead at May 26, 2006 08:46 PM (XFcTY)
33
It makes me ill, too. As does Murtha, but not for mentioning it. Rather, for making the bizzare claim that the soldiers killed people in cold blood while also claiming they did it because of the pressure put on them. He's mixing contrary mental states -- and implicitly excusing troops of what what he believes to be cold-blooded murder -- to make a partisan attack. And couldn't even wait for charges to be filed to make that attack.
Granted, that doesn't make me as sick as the underlying offense, should the charges be proved. But Murtha's crass opportunism remains nauseating.
Granted, that doesn't make me as sick as the underlying offense, should the charges be proved. But Murtha's crass opportunism remains nauseating.
Posted by: Karl at May 26, 2006 09:07 PM (+HaUc)
34
I expect the traitor Murtha to announce he will be testifying for Saddam's defense.
Mrs Ibrahim al-piggy above. Go cover your ugly face. Why do muslims cover their womens heads and not their camels. Because the camels are better looking.
Mrs Ibrahim al-piggy above. Go cover your ugly face. Why do muslims cover their womens heads and not their camels. Because the camels are better looking.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 26, 2006 09:12 PM (pfOwp)
35
greyrooster,
It's nice to see some good ole' honest, open sumpremacy. Noce of that "they hate are values" crap. Just real, honest HATE. Thanks.
PS I mean, they were only jawas, right?
It's nice to see some good ole' honest, open sumpremacy. Noce of that "they hate are values" crap. Just real, honest HATE. Thanks.
PS I mean, they were only jawas, right?
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 26, 2006 09:18 PM (dVXgZ)
36
So on Memorial Day Lefties release unproven allegations against Marines. Based on hearsay evidence from Iraqis.
Yeah civilians get killed in wars. During WWII in the Pacific, my Grandfather was a Marine Flamethrower man (he survived, most didn't, you had a bomb on your back and were the target of every Japanese soldier). Each cave he'd rappell down to could hold soldiers waiting to kill Marines or civilians. The only way to survive was to hose the cave down with flamethrowers. Sometimes they'd kill Soldiers waiting to kill them. Sometimes kids and women.
Did that make him a War Criminal? I think not.
If the Marines simply killed civilians in a free fire effort, well, that sucks. But you do what you have to do to stay alive. I'm not going to judge. It hardly sounds like My Lai (which was BTW stopped by fellow Army officers).
To the Lefties out there: Tawana Brawley, The Duke Lacrosse "Rape" case, etc. Sometimes people just LIE and guilty of being a White Male is (not yet Lefties) not a capital crime. So far NCIS has not made a finding, and those guys love to get scalps. It's how they make their career.
THAT should speak volumes. At WORST from what I've read the Marines violated regs to go shoot at people shooting at them to stay alive. I won't judge people in combat doing what they need to stay alive. Regs favor civilians to the point of losing our troops lives.
Yeah civilians get killed in wars. During WWII in the Pacific, my Grandfather was a Marine Flamethrower man (he survived, most didn't, you had a bomb on your back and were the target of every Japanese soldier). Each cave he'd rappell down to could hold soldiers waiting to kill Marines or civilians. The only way to survive was to hose the cave down with flamethrowers. Sometimes they'd kill Soldiers waiting to kill them. Sometimes kids and women.
Did that make him a War Criminal? I think not.
If the Marines simply killed civilians in a free fire effort, well, that sucks. But you do what you have to do to stay alive. I'm not going to judge. It hardly sounds like My Lai (which was BTW stopped by fellow Army officers).
To the Lefties out there: Tawana Brawley, The Duke Lacrosse "Rape" case, etc. Sometimes people just LIE and guilty of being a White Male is (not yet Lefties) not a capital crime. So far NCIS has not made a finding, and those guys love to get scalps. It's how they make their career.
THAT should speak volumes. At WORST from what I've read the Marines violated regs to go shoot at people shooting at them to stay alive. I won't judge people in combat doing what they need to stay alive. Regs favor civilians to the point of losing our troops lives.
Posted by: Jim Rockford at May 26, 2006 09:28 PM (4878o)
37
So how come the only time the US military actually prosecutes anybody for all the attrocities which are reported to them is when a video tape or photograph awkwardly shows up to prove the attrocities irrefutably to be true?
Do some research and see how many blatantly illegal and immoral acts have been reported to have been committed by US troops. How aggressively do you really think the top brass investigate these claims? The report being published next week will point to two attempts to cover up the massacre at Haditha. The number of stories I have read which make similar allegations must run to the hundreds, and like I say, many sounded very credible to me.
Too bad most of the survivors of these attrocities weren't quick witted enough to grab a Sony Handycam or Canon Powershot in order to record the merry games their liberators occasionally like to play.
Kapishe?
P.S. The points I make above are obviously incorrect since they contradict the way Americans like to view themselves. QED.
Do some research and see how many blatantly illegal and immoral acts have been reported to have been committed by US troops. How aggressively do you really think the top brass investigate these claims? The report being published next week will point to two attempts to cover up the massacre at Haditha. The number of stories I have read which make similar allegations must run to the hundreds, and like I say, many sounded very credible to me.
Too bad most of the survivors of these attrocities weren't quick witted enough to grab a Sony Handycam or Canon Powershot in order to record the merry games their liberators occasionally like to play.
Kapishe?
P.S. The points I make above are obviously incorrect since they contradict the way Americans like to view themselves. QED.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 27, 2006 01:37 AM (YBYf6)
38
I’ve been reading John Poole’s book Militant Tricks. Creating an incident where Marines or Soldiers violate the laws of war is the preferred means to fighting. This incident took ten marines out of action, not by IED but by lawfare. It will get more media time than an IED of the same magnitude. More Marines will guard the accused instead of fighting. Marine Officers will prosecute, defend and judge, instead of leading. And twelve Marines and Sailors will be a jury instead if frightening. This is better than attrition warfare.
The Militants must have an overreaction. Any civilians or militants that die in the cause will go to paradise. The US overreacts with firepower, sudden and overwhelming. If I understand correctly Marines and Soldiers are to assault an ambush. The Militants would have figured this out by now. Bring in civilians, create an ambush but one with a second trap. A Lawfare trap. And you only need it to work one time in ten.
The Militants will use the fact that we enforce laws, rules and discipline. A strength used against us is masterful strategy. I pray this is what’s going on and that the Marines are innocent.
The Militants must have an overreaction. Any civilians or militants that die in the cause will go to paradise. The US overreacts with firepower, sudden and overwhelming. If I understand correctly Marines and Soldiers are to assault an ambush. The Militants would have figured this out by now. Bring in civilians, create an ambush but one with a second trap. A Lawfare trap. And you only need it to work one time in ten.
The Militants will use the fact that we enforce laws, rules and discipline. A strength used against us is masterful strategy. I pray this is what’s going on and that the Marines are innocent.
Posted by: James Bortmas at May 27, 2006 05:50 AM (5SDtF)
39
Regardless of what the Marines may or may not have done, what is at issue here is how the lefturds react with glee to any news that will further their cause, i.e., the defeat of America in this war. The Marines, if guilty, should pay for their crimes, but the lefturds should all be hanged for giving aid and comfort to the enemy by propagandizing for them.
Liberals hate America, our military, and our way of life, (though not enough to leave - shame), and demonstrate daily that they want nothing more than for the terrorists to win. I look forward to the day when there's war in the streets here, and they side with the muslims; then it's open season.
Liberals hate America, our military, and our way of life, (though not enough to leave - shame), and demonstrate daily that they want nothing more than for the terrorists to win. I look forward to the day when there's war in the streets here, and they side with the muslims; then it's open season.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2006 06:50 AM (0yYS2)
40
It's nice to see some good ole' honest, open sumpremacy. Noce of that "they hate are values" crap. Just real, honest HATE. Thanks.
hahaha! Behold how the irony sails clear over the heads of Lefty's who so self-righteously defend the honor of muslims despite the supposedly bad apple muslim terrorists, and yet have no problem impugning the entire U.S. military and their country for the alleged bad apples such as at Haditha. The irony is so stark that you have to wonder how Libs can possibly miss it and yet still tie their shoes in the morning. That kind of stupidity can't be faked. That's why we call it Leftardism. It's a mental disorder.
hahaha! Behold how the irony sails clear over the heads of Lefty's who so self-righteously defend the honor of muslims despite the supposedly bad apple muslim terrorists, and yet have no problem impugning the entire U.S. military and their country for the alleged bad apples such as at Haditha. The irony is so stark that you have to wonder how Libs can possibly miss it and yet still tie their shoes in the morning. That kind of stupidity can't be faked. That's why we call it Leftardism. It's a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:29 AM (8e/V4)
41
The points I make above are obviously incorrect since they contradict the way Americans like to view themselves. QED.
You don't make "points", you make allegations. Unfounded ones. It doesn't matter that they are unfounded, unproven, etc., YOU believe they are true, and that's goood enough for you. I guess you'll have to excuse me if it just isn't good enough for me.
I don't know how aggressively the top brass investigates every single claim that comes their way. Neither do you! America haters have been crying wolf for so long only a FOOL would still take them at their word. It's kind of like how you call everybody you don't like "nazi" and "fascist", etc. Well, after a while when a REAL nazi comes along nobody's listening anymore. So this ONE time at Haditha is supposed to prove all your prior lies true? Hardly. Abu Graib, you say? Was being investigated by the MILITARY ITSELF long before you Lefties got your greedy little hands on it. So I guess I don't have any reason to believe your unfounded allegations after all.
You believe the worst about our troops until proven untrue, while I believe the best about our military until proven untrue. That's the difference between you and us on this Memorial Day.
You don't make "points", you make allegations. Unfounded ones. It doesn't matter that they are unfounded, unproven, etc., YOU believe they are true, and that's goood enough for you. I guess you'll have to excuse me if it just isn't good enough for me.
I don't know how aggressively the top brass investigates every single claim that comes their way. Neither do you! America haters have been crying wolf for so long only a FOOL would still take them at their word. It's kind of like how you call everybody you don't like "nazi" and "fascist", etc. Well, after a while when a REAL nazi comes along nobody's listening anymore. So this ONE time at Haditha is supposed to prove all your prior lies true? Hardly. Abu Graib, you say? Was being investigated by the MILITARY ITSELF long before you Lefties got your greedy little hands on it. So I guess I don't have any reason to believe your unfounded allegations after all.
You believe the worst about our troops until proven untrue, while I believe the best about our military until proven untrue. That's the difference between you and us on this Memorial Day.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:35 AM (8e/V4)
42
>>>"This makes me physically ill." Me too, buddy, me too.
While the Leftards can't contain their glee. America hating traitors.
While the Leftards can't contain their glee. America hating traitors.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 07:55 AM (8e/V4)
43
If they're guilty, take them out.
The first thing that came to mind were stories my uncles told me about Nam of children running up to GIs (whether at a helo or anywhere with grenades on them...
I just wish... as a Marine, Murtha would've spoken as much about the good things we've done there. We've had officers at pressers ask him why no letter, no welcome back, do you know what you're doing to the troops? ... nada. True as someone who served (and I can't get into months vs. decades of reserve duty, one day in war is rough enough), but he knows what they're going through and what this is going to do to morale... that's the twist of the knife.
But the left would do well to stay away from the Vietnam references... this is no Nam; You will not demoralize our troops like you did then. My life on that one.
The first thing that came to mind were stories my uncles told me about Nam of children running up to GIs (whether at a helo or anywhere with grenades on them...
I just wish... as a Marine, Murtha would've spoken as much about the good things we've done there. We've had officers at pressers ask him why no letter, no welcome back, do you know what you're doing to the troops? ... nada. True as someone who served (and I can't get into months vs. decades of reserve duty, one day in war is rough enough), but he knows what they're going through and what this is going to do to morale... that's the twist of the knife.
But the left would do well to stay away from the Vietnam references... this is no Nam; You will not demoralize our troops like you did then. My life on that one.
Posted by: Ali at May 27, 2006 08:38 AM (hDlfX)
44
"I look forward to the day when there's war in the streets here, and they side with the muslims; then it's open season."
Craaaaazzzzy...
BTW, do you just get lost everytime you try to sign up down at the recruitment office, or are you just a xenophobic coward?
Why do I get the feeling that at least half of the posters here are just obese gun nuts who've never met a Muslim in REAL life?
"You just hate 'Murica" accusations in 5, 4, 3....
The louder you say it the more you'll believe it!
Craaaaazzzzy...
BTW, do you just get lost everytime you try to sign up down at the recruitment office, or are you just a xenophobic coward?
Why do I get the feeling that at least half of the posters here are just obese gun nuts who've never met a Muslim in REAL life?
"You just hate 'Murica" accusations in 5, 4, 3....
The louder you say it the more you'll believe it!
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 27, 2006 08:48 AM (dVXgZ)
Posted by: dcb at May 27, 2006 09:14 AM (8e/V4)
46
Right wing robotic fool, IM has served in the military and fought in the Gulf War. Most of the time it is better for a fool like you to shut up, and perhaps the rest of the World will not find out. Too late in this particular case, but perhaps prudence will serve you well in the future.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 27, 2006 10:58 AM (rUyw4)
47
hey Robot, most people serving in the military are pretty rightwing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 27, 2006 11:08 AM (8e/V4)
48
I don't think serving in the military at one time excuses IM's racist and violent views. I'm still amazed that people here defend him. I'm not saying he should be banned. I just think we should start a collection for his therapy. Medication might help.
Murtha's comments were angry and outraged. That's the appropriate response to the conduct in question. And for those of you who want him to show that he supports the troops--the man has been visiting almost every week at Walter Reed hospital, with wounded vets. That's what eventually caused him to question the president's strategy. The vast majority of Americans are doing so, even without that insight.
When it comes to Bush's war, a pungent Southern saying comes to mind. No matter how hard you try, you cannot polish a turd. No matter how hard Bush tries to spin this, America sees the truth, finally.
Murtha's comments were angry and outraged. That's the appropriate response to the conduct in question. And for those of you who want him to show that he supports the troops--the man has been visiting almost every week at Walter Reed hospital, with wounded vets. That's what eventually caused him to question the president's strategy. The vast majority of Americans are doing so, even without that insight.
When it comes to Bush's war, a pungent Southern saying comes to mind. No matter how hard you try, you cannot polish a turd. No matter how hard Bush tries to spin this, America sees the truth, finally.
Posted by: jd at May 27, 2006 03:16 PM (w8VZ1)
49
So, jd, you fucktard moron, is islam now a race? No, it isn't, idiot. I love how you assholes come out of the woodwork to strut and crow any time there's bad news, but hopefully it won't be long before you start seeing your kind hanging from overpasses, and then we'll see how much crowing you do. You're all gutless cowards who'd rather be a muslim's bitch than fight for your country. Fuck you; you all deserve to die.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 27, 2006 03:39 PM (0yYS2)
50
"but hopefully it won't be long before you start seeing your kind hanging from overpasses"
Ohhh... So scared.
Lemme guess, you drink too much and have anger management problems?
50 years ago you would have been talking about the coming war with the blacks.
Loser.
Ohhh... So scared.
Lemme guess, you drink too much and have anger management problems?
50 years ago you would have been talking about the coming war with the blacks.
Loser.
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 27, 2006 03:57 PM (dVXgZ)
51
jd,
it's not "Bush's war" that you people have such a huge problem with, it's "Bush" himself what is driving you up the wall. That's been the case ever since Florida 2000. The rest is just silly tantrums by sore losers, who honestly wouldn't be making such a fuss if it was Clinton who was doing it instead of Bush. That's the plain truth and if you did some soul searching you'd have to admit it to yourself. That's why we just weather your little rants the way a mother does when her spoiled brat rolls on the floor in a fit of rage and holds his breath. The 2008 elections won't be long in coming and then you'll move onto the next GOP incarnation of evil to give your lives purpose.
it's not "Bush's war" that you people have such a huge problem with, it's "Bush" himself what is driving you up the wall. That's been the case ever since Florida 2000. The rest is just silly tantrums by sore losers, who honestly wouldn't be making such a fuss if it was Clinton who was doing it instead of Bush. That's the plain truth and if you did some soul searching you'd have to admit it to yourself. That's why we just weather your little rants the way a mother does when her spoiled brat rolls on the floor in a fit of rage and holds his breath. The 2008 elections won't be long in coming and then you'll move onto the next GOP incarnation of evil to give your lives purpose.
Posted by: dcb at May 27, 2006 04:54 PM (8e/V4)
52
"a pungent Southern saying comes to mind. No matter how hard you try, you cannot polish a turd."
Two things come to mind here, I am a Southerner and I have never heard that saying. The other is I think the saying to be true, and I think that jd is one dull dude. No shine on you, my friend.
Two things come to mind here, I am a Southerner and I have never heard that saying. The other is I think the saying to be true, and I think that jd is one dull dude. No shine on you, my friend.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 27, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)
53
Right wing robot: Right. They are only Jawas and this is the Jawa report. Those that harbour terrorists, make excuses for terrorists, financially support terrorists, cheer for terrorists, comfort terrorists need you to stand up for them. Friggin dingbat. My good ole fashion hate comes from their actions.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 27, 2006 10:07 PM (Vc+ll)
54
greyrooster,
Gimme a call when you actually interact with a Muslim.
But that would require that you put down the beer and step outside instead of getting your worldview secondhand from semiliterates.
GASP
Gimme a call when you actually interact with a Muslim.
But that would require that you put down the beer and step outside instead of getting your worldview secondhand from semiliterates.
GASP
Posted by: Right Wing Robot at May 28, 2006 12:31 AM (dVXgZ)
55
Such stinging wit, especially since it's apparently coming from an 8th grader.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)
56
Robot,
I used to hang out with international students back in my college days and I had 5-6 muslim friends from different parts of the middle east, including a paleostinian and a Paki. Swell guys all of them. But when Salman Rushdie was fatwad for writing that book, every single one of my muslim friends supported the fatwa and said he deserved to die. Does that qualify as "moderate" to you? It sure doesn't to me. And yet these guys were what we consider the "moderate" muslims. So if these well-educated, well to do elite muslims have views alien to us, how much worse the muslim rabble in the streets.
I used to hang out with international students back in my college days and I had 5-6 muslim friends from different parts of the middle east, including a paleostinian and a Paki. Swell guys all of them. But when Salman Rushdie was fatwad for writing that book, every single one of my muslim friends supported the fatwa and said he deserved to die. Does that qualify as "moderate" to you? It sure doesn't to me. And yet these guys were what we consider the "moderate" muslims. So if these well-educated, well to do elite muslims have views alien to us, how much worse the muslim rabble in the streets.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 28, 2006 07:54 AM (8e/V4)
57
Yeah Carlos, it's like the Paki I know who is just the nicest guy in the world, until you bring up the JOOOOOOOOOoooooooz.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 28, 2006 08:14 AM (0yYS2)
58
I see the Right-wing robotic turd has left his circle jerk and rejoined us. Don't worry, little man, it might get longer than two inches. And I hear you can order stuff to help, although I doubt it works for anything more than making money off little jerks like you.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 08:54 AM (rUyw4)
59
OK, IM--I type corrected--you are a religious bigot, not a racist.
You also seem to have something against the mentally handicapped, since you repeatedly use them as an epithet against those with whom you disagree.
But overall, I just think you need to get help. If you set up a website asking for donations so you can afford therapy, put me down for at least a fiver. Better to do something now, before you shoot up a mosque or an Islamic school.
You also seem to have something against the mentally handicapped, since you repeatedly use them as an epithet against those with whom you disagree.
But overall, I just think you need to get help. If you set up a website asking for donations so you can afford therapy, put me down for at least a fiver. Better to do something now, before you shoot up a mosque or an Islamic school.
Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 10:24 AM (vjCuu)
60
From what I have seen and heard about the mosques in the US, most of them are teaching hate and jihadism and should be shut down before someone from one of these mosques either kills hundreds or perhaps thousands in a terrorist attack. I read report after report in even the liberal rags about the hate and the tenets of sharia being taught in these mosques and Islamic schools.
I'd be willing to make you a bet Mr. jd that someone with a connection to one of these mosques kills a bunch of people before a mosque is ever attacked. And if you think diffently, then you apparently fall under the category of useful idiot. Most liberals do.
I'd be willing to make you a bet Mr. jd that someone with a connection to one of these mosques kills a bunch of people before a mosque is ever attacked. And if you think diffently, then you apparently fall under the category of useful idiot. Most liberals do.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 11:54 AM (rUyw4)
61
Actually, I'll take that bet. If you read most terrorism analysts, they have an interesting puzzle: why have many terrorists been linked to mosques and Islamic centers in Europe, and so few to American ones? Why are so many islamo-fascists growing up in Europe, and so few here? It is not because we lack Muslims.
Many think it is because Europe does such a poor job of integrating them into its social system and economy, and we do it much better. I think that's certainly true.
Why do you think it is so?
I agree, incidentally, that what is taught in some mosques and schools and madrassas is odious. Do you really think it is "most"? What source are you using for that judgment? However, even if it is "most", how could the government shut down these, as you advise, and remain faithful to the First Amendment (either free exercise or free speech or freedom of association). As I read the key cases of First Amendment law, I see no right of the government to shut down a church for teaching hatred. Do you?
Many think it is because Europe does such a poor job of integrating them into its social system and economy, and we do it much better. I think that's certainly true.
Why do you think it is so?
I agree, incidentally, that what is taught in some mosques and schools and madrassas is odious. Do you really think it is "most"? What source are you using for that judgment? However, even if it is "most", how could the government shut down these, as you advise, and remain faithful to the First Amendment (either free exercise or free speech or freedom of association). As I read the key cases of First Amendment law, I see no right of the government to shut down a church for teaching hatred. Do you?
Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 01:40 PM (w8VZ1)
62
The First Amendment is not a recipe for the nation to commit suicide, jd. If these mosques are teaching hate, and most of them are, they should be shut down, period. That is my view of the First Amendment. It does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theatre, either.
That some would disagree with my position is hardly surprising, jd, as many in the US support terrorists who would kill us all if given the chance. Just my 2 cents.
As for shutting down churches that teach hate, most of the Christian Identity churches were either forced out of business by lawsuits or threat of arrest. I think these mosques should be forced out with the same technique, but if that were not successful, then arrests of these imams teaching hate should be comtemplated. Whether it can be done I don't know, but I tell you that what is being taught in these mosques is to overthrow the government and institute sharia law. Perhaps not today, but soon, these people will act. Remember what I said today when you hear it happen, and give me credit. I'm sorry to say that I have already predicted many of the things that have already happened. I hope I am wrong about this, but I fear I am right. We shall see.
That some would disagree with my position is hardly surprising, jd, as many in the US support terrorists who would kill us all if given the chance. Just my 2 cents.
As for shutting down churches that teach hate, most of the Christian Identity churches were either forced out of business by lawsuits or threat of arrest. I think these mosques should be forced out with the same technique, but if that were not successful, then arrests of these imams teaching hate should be comtemplated. Whether it can be done I don't know, but I tell you that what is being taught in these mosques is to overthrow the government and institute sharia law. Perhaps not today, but soon, these people will act. Remember what I said today when you hear it happen, and give me credit. I'm sorry to say that I have already predicted many of the things that have already happened. I hope I am wrong about this, but I fear I am right. We shall see.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 02:44 PM (rUyw4)
63
Justice Jackson: the constitution is not a suicide pact. We are in agreement. But in quoting clear and present danger (schenk v US), you have to be aware of how that standard has been used by our government (Brandenburg v Ohio is the case most relevant to what you are describing, in which a Klan leader was arrested for preaching violence and hate at a rally--case thrown out because of first amendment). We defeated the right wing nazi sympathizers of the 30s and 40s without sacrificing on the 1st amendment. We defeated the left wing domestic commies without breaking the 1st amendment (with a few sad exceptions). I believe our country is strong enough to continue in that proud tradition. We will beat these bastards, have no doubt, and we can do it without closing mosques. If a mosque is directly linked to a specific plot or act, yeah, do what we did to Rahman. But not just for what they preach. The mind is forever free, even to go down dangerous paths of evil.
And I still don't know where you are getting the idea that "most" mosques in this country preach the hatred and violence you refer to. Where are you getting this concept?
And I still don't know where you are getting the idea that "most" mosques in this country preach the hatred and violence you refer to. Where are you getting this concept?
Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 03:51 PM (w8VZ1)
64
I'm not saying you are wrong about "most" mosques--I'm just wondering how you know it to be true.
Posted by: jd at May 28, 2006 03:53 PM (w8VZ1)
65
Well, jd, I'm kinda lazy today, but I'll give you a couple of sites for your "enjoyment". But go to www.freedom house.org or The New York Sun on October 5, 2005, or perhaps a Senate investigation into hate literature found in many mosques in the US. The American Taliban came out of the mosque in Orange County(where there has been a Jewish/Zionist/American hatefest going on in the past week or two, or hell, just google up hate literature in mosques and see what you find. They ain't teaching respect for the First Amendment, but jihad and using the American system to destroy us. I,for one, am not going to sit around and watch them destroy me, my family, or my country.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 04:10 PM (rUyw4)
66
And I'm not saying that most Muslims are reading or subcribing to this hate literature, but if only 10% of them are, we are in one hell of a mess.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 28, 2006 04:17 PM (rUyw4)
67
Most muslims are fine and decent people, but they are fine and decent DESPITE islam, not because of it. My muslim friends from college wanted Salman Rushdie lynched not because they were evil killers, but because of their religious and social indoctrination. Blashphemers are to be lynched, naturally. They saw nothing untoward about it, and it was I who was being insensitive to them for telling them they were wack. Islam is incompatible with Western values, so if muslims choose migrate to the West they should leave their islam behind, thank you very much. And don't call me a "racist" you fucking retarded Leftards. I don't hate islam nearly as much as you DESPISE christianity.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 28, 2006 05:34 PM (8e/V4)
68
"I think certain versions of Islam are incompatible with Islam."
What version of Islam condemns sharia law, or jihad? Give me your proof, jd.
What version of Islam condemns sharia law, or jihad? Give me your proof, jd.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 04:17 AM (rUyw4)
69
So being anti-islam is "racist", but being anti-christian is just regular ol Liberal. That's the logic of the "reality-based" community.
Posted by: dcb@dcb at May 29, 2006 06:40 AM (8e/V4)
70
JD, if I'm a religious bigot it's because the followers of said religion are psychopathic murderers, and you are a piece of shit apologist for them. A good lefturd is a dead lefturd. Now go cry to Rusty to ban me you little bitch.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 29, 2006 06:41 AM (0yYS2)
71
I wish you would answer my question, jd. What versions of Islam don't teach jihad and sharia law? And there is no version of Christianity that teaches its followers to blow up abortion clinics. Quite the contrary. That is nothing but a straw man you set up to knock down and claim moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 07:18 AM (rUyw4)
72
IM, you should know by now that whatever epiteths you use on me, I'm not calling for your banning. In fact, I consider that the more you post here, the less likely you will be to shoot up a mosque, so I see this as steam venting.
I don't find that these sources you cite can be used to back up the "most" comment. Moreover, I don't think that any of the evidence offered so far would support violating the First Amendment. We can beat these guys without giving up on what our fathers fought so hard for: freedom.
Uh, I don't despise Christianity. Why would you say that? What have I ever said about Christianity that would give you that idea?
I think certain versions of Islam are incompatible with Islam, as is true also of christianity and Judaism. The American Taliban wasn't convinced to kill Americans in his American mosque, but in Pakistan. There are radical mosques here that preach hate, but I don't want them shut down for that preaching, any more than I want a right wing church that teaches the killing of abortion doctors is moral. When that church or mosque gets directly involved in murder--bring the full force of law down upon them. This does raise the risks to you, to me, to children, whatever. That's the risk that we accept as our birthright as Americans. Freedom comes with responsibilities and risks. I prefer it to the alternative.
I don't find that these sources you cite can be used to back up the "most" comment. Moreover, I don't think that any of the evidence offered so far would support violating the First Amendment. We can beat these guys without giving up on what our fathers fought so hard for: freedom.
Uh, I don't despise Christianity. Why would you say that? What have I ever said about Christianity that would give you that idea?
I think certain versions of Islam are incompatible with Islam, as is true also of christianity and Judaism. The American Taliban wasn't convinced to kill Americans in his American mosque, but in Pakistan. There are radical mosques here that preach hate, but I don't want them shut down for that preaching, any more than I want a right wing church that teaches the killing of abortion doctors is moral. When that church or mosque gets directly involved in murder--bring the full force of law down upon them. This does raise the risks to you, to me, to children, whatever. That's the risk that we accept as our birthright as Americans. Freedom comes with responsibilities and risks. I prefer it to the alternative.
Posted by: jd at May 29, 2006 07:46 AM (5/DFH)
73
Uh, I don't despise Christianity. Why would you say that? What have I ever said about Christianity that would give you that idea?
jd,
would you deny with a straight face that that the Left despises christianity? raaaaaaaacists!!! Or maybe they just think they have legitimate reasons to hate christianity, just as lots of conservatives have a lot of reasons to fear islam. Except the Leftards happen to be wrong. Christianity has always been part of the American fabric, while islam hasn't (nor Leftardism for that matter). Both are alien ideologies.
jd,
would you deny with a straight face that that the Left despises christianity? raaaaaaaacists!!! Or maybe they just think they have legitimate reasons to hate christianity, just as lots of conservatives have a lot of reasons to fear islam. Except the Leftards happen to be wrong. Christianity has always been part of the American fabric, while islam hasn't (nor Leftardism for that matter). Both are alien ideologies.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 29, 2006 07:53 AM (8e/V4)
74
Hmm...jd, there are several questions here for you to answer. We're waiting.
And I, for one, am not willing to wait until some jihadist pops off a nuclear bomb before I decide to do something about it. That is not one of the risks of freedom. You just set up another straw man and knocked him down, jd. Don't you ever get tired of that?
And I, for one, am not willing to wait until some jihadist pops off a nuclear bomb before I decide to do something about it. That is not one of the risks of freedom. You just set up another straw man and knocked him down, jd. Don't you ever get tired of that?
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 09:05 AM (rUyw4)
75
JD, I'm not "likely" to shoot up a mosque, I'm just waiting until they start shooting first ;it's a basic military principle of self-defense, which gives moral and legal justification to retaliation. It's called war.
Muslims are the enemies of civilization and are going to start their shit here sooner or later, as they always do everywhere they go, and the lefturds who stand with them will fall with them. It's a good time to decide whether you'd rather live under the US Constitution or sharia law.
Muslims are the enemies of civilization and are going to start their shit here sooner or later, as they always do everywhere they go, and the lefturds who stand with them will fall with them. It's a good time to decide whether you'd rather live under the US Constitution or sharia law.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 29, 2006 12:57 PM (0yYS2)
76
jd,
any word on that revolution you Lefties keep threatening? As you can see, armed to the teethe conservatives like IM are getting mighty fidgety.
any word on that revolution you Lefties keep threatening? As you can see, armed to the teethe conservatives like IM are getting mighty fidgety.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 29, 2006 02:11 PM (8e/V4)
77
No sharia law for me, IM. I would prefer death to living under the yoke of islam, or communism and fascism for that matter. The prophet mohammed(piss be upon him) can kiss my grits!
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 29, 2006 02:43 PM (rUyw4)
78
The testimony of a 10 year old child who survived the attack on her family's house in Haditha is below. Happy memorial day.
As Iman tells it, US marines burst into her house 15 minutes after the bomb destroyed the Humvee, apparently looking for insurgents. They shouted at her father. Then a grenade was thrown into her grandparents' room. She saw her mother hit by shrapnel. Her aunt grabbed a baby and ran from the house.
Soldiers opened fire inside the living room, where most of the family were gathered. Her uncle Rashid came downstairs, saw what was happening, then fled outside, where he was pursued by Marines and shot.
"Everybody who was in the house was killed by the Americans except my brother Abdul-Rahman and me," Iman said. "We were too scared to move and tried to hide under a pillow. I was hit by shrapnel in my leg. For two hours we didn't dare to move. My family didn't die immediately. We could hear them groaning."
Iman's grandfather Abdul al-Hamid Hassan, her grandmother Khamisa, her father Walid, uncle Mujahid, her mother, uncle Rashid and cousin Abdullah, 4, had all been fatally wounded.
As Iman tells it, US marines burst into her house 15 minutes after the bomb destroyed the Humvee, apparently looking for insurgents. They shouted at her father. Then a grenade was thrown into her grandparents' room. She saw her mother hit by shrapnel. Her aunt grabbed a baby and ran from the house.
Soldiers opened fire inside the living room, where most of the family were gathered. Her uncle Rashid came downstairs, saw what was happening, then fled outside, where he was pursued by Marines and shot.
"Everybody who was in the house was killed by the Americans except my brother Abdul-Rahman and me," Iman said. "We were too scared to move and tried to hide under a pillow. I was hit by shrapnel in my leg. For two hours we didn't dare to move. My family didn't die immediately. We could hear them groaning."
Iman's grandfather Abdul al-Hamid Hassan, her grandmother Khamisa, her father Walid, uncle Mujahid, her mother, uncle Rashid and cousin Abdullah, 4, had all been fatally wounded.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 02:08 AM (YBYf6)
79
And you too, rocket whatever. I just got through reading about some of the atrocities the British committed against American colonists in the Southern stategy campaign in the Revolutionary War. This kind of shit happens in war, and what makes one superior to the other is how one procecutes the people who carry out these illegal attacks on civilians. I don't recall reading about any British being prosecuted for their cowardly acts.
And I would appreciate it if you would publish the accounts of the murders, beheadings, throat slashings, beatings, torture and other atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by your friends in the insurgency. And you might want to keep score, if you had any sense. FOAD, turd!
And I would appreciate it if you would publish the accounts of the murders, beheadings, throat slashings, beatings, torture and other atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by your friends in the insurgency. And you might want to keep score, if you had any sense. FOAD, turd!
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 07:39 AM (rUyw4)
80
Hey rocketScientist, what happened to that Iraqi girl makes you feel all good inside doesn't it? You don't care that she'd suffered, only that Americans are involved. Like JJ, pointed out, what about the Iraqis who go un-named, who die EVERYDAY because "freedom fighters" planted a bomb in a market or beheaded a truck driver or fired mortars at elementary schools or shot teachers in classrooms or booby trapped an ice cream truck or buried mines in the road or blew up a mosque during prayers or shot people for wearing the wrong clothes, all as standard operating procedure? How many schools have the insurgents built? How many miles of water and power distribution systems have they installed? How many hospitals and clinics have they built and stocked? I guess all that's not really important is it?
Posted by: Graeme at May 30, 2006 08:53 AM (CNRPz)
81
rocket,
the difference between you and us is that atrocities like this fill your heart with joy. You posititively drool with glee. Who really cares about that little child right? I can almost see you wringing your hands from the anticipation of being able to smear your country. That's all that matters to you. We know it, and you know it.
And ps., Memorial Days aren't intended to be "happy". It's a day or remembrance, you Leftwing fucktard.
the difference between you and us is that atrocities like this fill your heart with joy. You posititively drool with glee. Who really cares about that little child right? I can almost see you wringing your hands from the anticipation of being able to smear your country. That's all that matters to you. We know it, and you know it.
And ps., Memorial Days aren't intended to be "happy". It's a day or remembrance, you Leftwing fucktard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 09:34 AM (8e/V4)
82
Sorry, I meant to say certain versions of Islam are incompatible with democracy and western values.
What version of Islam rejects the Koran and Sharia law? Well, that's like saying "what version of christianity rejects the bible?" What they DO differ on is interpretation. Many Sufis, for example, adopt a far more mystical version of Islam. Many Sunnis, in countries like Morocco and Tunisia, and indeed throughout the Muslim world, adopt a far more moderate interpretation of the hadiths and the Koran. They don't live under Sharia law as we think of it here. There used to be strong forces of secularism in the Arab world (the baath party was one, cofounded by a Christian Arab--things went fascist pretty quickly, in both Syria and Iraq, but the initial idea was and remained secular for many years).
And yes, I deny with a straight face that the "left" hates Christianity. I can prove it with simple logic. Liberals make up between 15-25% of America, depending on how you define it. Christians make up between 75-89% of America. Studies show that a majority of liberals are, in fact, Christians. How could it be otherwise, in a country that is so strongly Christian? Q.E.D.
Oh, and someone wanted a Church that defended abortionist killing? Operation Rescue has been supported by a number of Right wing Christian churches, and its leadership supported Michael Bray, who wrote the book A Time To Kill, advocating the murder of abortion doctors. Several other fringe Christian groups do it as well. I'm not saying that this is as widespread as Muslim groups advocating violent jihad against jews etc. Far from it. Just saying that those churches that preach hate should be allowed to keep doing it, just a Mosque that preached that Jews were dogs should be allowed to do it. Or that bunch of wackos in Kansas who preach that homosexuality is why our troops are dying in Iraq. Or that idiot Pat Robertson who said that feminists and gays and the ACLU caused 9-11 because of God's wrath. All of them get a 1st amendment. At least, in my America.
What version of Islam rejects the Koran and Sharia law? Well, that's like saying "what version of christianity rejects the bible?" What they DO differ on is interpretation. Many Sufis, for example, adopt a far more mystical version of Islam. Many Sunnis, in countries like Morocco and Tunisia, and indeed throughout the Muslim world, adopt a far more moderate interpretation of the hadiths and the Koran. They don't live under Sharia law as we think of it here. There used to be strong forces of secularism in the Arab world (the baath party was one, cofounded by a Christian Arab--things went fascist pretty quickly, in both Syria and Iraq, but the initial idea was and remained secular for many years).
And yes, I deny with a straight face that the "left" hates Christianity. I can prove it with simple logic. Liberals make up between 15-25% of America, depending on how you define it. Christians make up between 75-89% of America. Studies show that a majority of liberals are, in fact, Christians. How could it be otherwise, in a country that is so strongly Christian? Q.E.D.
Oh, and someone wanted a Church that defended abortionist killing? Operation Rescue has been supported by a number of Right wing Christian churches, and its leadership supported Michael Bray, who wrote the book A Time To Kill, advocating the murder of abortion doctors. Several other fringe Christian groups do it as well. I'm not saying that this is as widespread as Muslim groups advocating violent jihad against jews etc. Far from it. Just saying that those churches that preach hate should be allowed to keep doing it, just a Mosque that preached that Jews were dogs should be allowed to do it. Or that bunch of wackos in Kansas who preach that homosexuality is why our troops are dying in Iraq. Or that idiot Pat Robertson who said that feminists and gays and the ACLU caused 9-11 because of God's wrath. All of them get a 1st amendment. At least, in my America.
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 10:15 AM (5/DFH)
83
If you are defining "left" to mean a small minority atop the Democratic Party who are devoted secularists and are fooling the Christian liberals and moderates, you might be able to make your case....except...
Hillary Clinton--church going Methodist (in fact, went to church almost every week in the WH, something Bush hasn't done, nor did Reagan)
John Kerry church going Catholic
Al Gore: Southern Baptist
Jimmy Carter--most religious president we ever had in the 20th century, except perhaps Wilson. Really incompetent in many ways, but man, nobody ever took prayer as seriously as this guy. Every day, constantly. Maybe we should try MORE secularism?
And don't make me get down with the civil rights-christian connection!
"the left hates Christianity". uh...right.
Hillary Clinton--church going Methodist (in fact, went to church almost every week in the WH, something Bush hasn't done, nor did Reagan)
John Kerry church going Catholic
Al Gore: Southern Baptist
Jimmy Carter--most religious president we ever had in the 20th century, except perhaps Wilson. Really incompetent in many ways, but man, nobody ever took prayer as seriously as this guy. Every day, constantly. Maybe we should try MORE secularism?
And don't make me get down with the civil rights-christian connection!
"the left hates Christianity". uh...right.
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 10:21 AM (5/DFH)
84
>>>>If you are defining "left" to mean a small minority atop the Democratic Party who are devoted secularists and are fooling the Christian liberals and moderates, you might be able to make your case....except...
If just for argument's sake I accept your premise that Leftards don't hate christianity (your Hilary and Jimmah examples), but instead focus on the "mean small minority atop the Dem party", do you call this minority "racist" every time they say something vile about christianity? I doubt it. More likely you just tsk tsk them and maybe, MAYBE try to correct them. IF that. I'm willing to bet you just ignore it. Now do you see why getting called "racists" by you Leftards is such a joke to us?
If just for argument's sake I accept your premise that Leftards don't hate christianity (your Hilary and Jimmah examples), but instead focus on the "mean small minority atop the Dem party", do you call this minority "racist" every time they say something vile about christianity? I doubt it. More likely you just tsk tsk them and maybe, MAYBE try to correct them. IF that. I'm willing to bet you just ignore it. Now do you see why getting called "racists" by you Leftards is such a joke to us?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 10:37 AM (8e/V4)
85
Nope, wrong again, jd. You did not quote any version of Christianity that advocates or encorages abortion clinic bombings. You say right wing churches(whatever that is) supported Operation Rescue, and they supported murder and clinic bombings. Now what version of Christianity is that? Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Pentecostal?
You won't answer my question about what version of Islam rejects jihad and sharia law because they all teach it. I'm not saying there are not moderate Muslims, but that there is not a moderate Islam. All the schools(madhahib) of Islamic jurisprudence(fiqh) teach violent jihad and sharia supremacism.
The problem I have is with Islam, because violent jihad was part and parcel of Islam from the very first, and if someone tells me that jihad and sharia are just things that are misunderstood by some Muslims, I know them to be deceivers, but if they say that jihad and sharia are wrong and should be eliminated from Islam I recognize them as reformers. There are few reformers. Meanwhile the jihadists get all the justification they need straight from the Koran.
You won't answer my question about what version of Islam rejects jihad and sharia law because they all teach it. I'm not saying there are not moderate Muslims, but that there is not a moderate Islam. All the schools(madhahib) of Islamic jurisprudence(fiqh) teach violent jihad and sharia supremacism.
The problem I have is with Islam, because violent jihad was part and parcel of Islam from the very first, and if someone tells me that jihad and sharia are just things that are misunderstood by some Muslims, I know them to be deceivers, but if they say that jihad and sharia are wrong and should be eliminated from Islam I recognize them as reformers. There are few reformers. Meanwhile the jihadists get all the justification they need straight from the Koran.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 12:12 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 12:40 PM (8e/V4)
87
Thanks, Carlos. A great teacher and a man of vision, but probably too late to save us. For the sake of my children, I pray not. Time will tell.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 01:07 PM (rUyw4)
88
Most of the people here (including the blog author) denouncing Murtha are the ones who are too chickenshit to put their money where their mouth is and go fight for their country.
How typical of most of you, don't have any problem denouncing men in uniform who don't agree with your worldview.
Shame on most of you.
How typical of most of you, don't have any problem denouncing men in uniform who don't agree with your worldview.
Shame on most of you.
Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 01:59 PM (07Xhv)
89
Who in the hell rang your bell, DJ? Go to the mushroom heads over at Kos and join the circle jerk over there. All you dopeheads need to pool your brain cells in the hope of coming up with one functional brain.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 02:26 PM (rUyw4)
90
"Who in the hell rang your bell, DJ? Go to the mushroom heads over at Kos and join the circle jerk over there. All you dopeheads need to pool your brain cells in the hope of coming up with one functional brain."
Shouldn't you use the time from posting on this blog towards finding a job instead peabrain?
It seems like you like to jerk off to this blog every moment you access it.
Fuckhead, you're nothing but a failed abortion.
Shouldn't you use the time from posting on this blog towards finding a job instead peabrain?
It seems like you like to jerk off to this blog every moment you access it.
Fuckhead, you're nothing but a failed abortion.
Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 02:49 PM (07Xhv)
91
To the commentators above who scream that the insurgents have commited untold attrocities over the last 3 years it should be pointed out that there was no insurgency in Iraq before Bush/Cheney's blundering invasion. Saddam was a grade-A asshole but he was an unusually stable ruler, Iraqis were not dying at the rate of 10 - 30,000 deaths per year (depending on whether you go with the official estimates or the ones by independent organizations). Its also important to note that Iraq was a secular society where women could work (there were many female doctors in Iraq) and people could enjoy things like electricity and running water for more than 3 hours a day.
In actuality, the United States is responsible for the insurgency. You don't aggree? Ask yourself who disbanded the Iraqi army and police? Who is responsible for not maintaining border security in Iraq? Who is responsible for going into Iraq with 'just enough troops to lose the war'?
Who launched an invasion which was illegal under international law, not supported by the international community, unneccessary and antithical to America's laws and values?
What will it take for you partisan boneheads to sit back and realize that, dang, this was a screw-up.
Patriotism is not defined as defending the insane and immoral policies of a nation's leaders. Read up on what the founding fathers had to say on this very subject, you might start with Jefferson.
Also, I can't help but notice the repeated allegations that I am 'gloating' over these instances. You attack my personal motivations without knowing a damn thing about me. I understnad why you do this, you cannot answer the substance of the points I raise so you resort to the classic junior-high debate team trick of going after the character of your opponent. Hell, why not, it worked great when you smeared shit all over Kerry's war record, right?
Creeps.
In actuality, the United States is responsible for the insurgency. You don't aggree? Ask yourself who disbanded the Iraqi army and police? Who is responsible for not maintaining border security in Iraq? Who is responsible for going into Iraq with 'just enough troops to lose the war'?
Who launched an invasion which was illegal under international law, not supported by the international community, unneccessary and antithical to America's laws and values?
What will it take for you partisan boneheads to sit back and realize that, dang, this was a screw-up.
Patriotism is not defined as defending the insane and immoral policies of a nation's leaders. Read up on what the founding fathers had to say on this very subject, you might start with Jefferson.
Also, I can't help but notice the repeated allegations that I am 'gloating' over these instances. You attack my personal motivations without knowing a damn thing about me. I understnad why you do this, you cannot answer the substance of the points I raise so you resort to the classic junior-high debate team trick of going after the character of your opponent. Hell, why not, it worked great when you smeared shit all over Kerry's war record, right?
Creeps.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 03:11 PM (YBYf6)
92
OK, here's a Christian religious sect that supports murder:
http://www.armyofgod.com/
You're right, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that supports murdering doctors. I have consistently said that Christianity has experienced a reformation, and that Islam needs to do the same.
There are moderate interpreters of the Sharia law and the hadiths who do not interpret Jihad the way you do. Here's one example among many:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1257426,00.html
Indeed, the president himself evidently hopes that men like Allawi and Maliki are moderate Muslims in Iraq, as is Karzai in Afghanistan. If there are no moderate muslim groups...then has the president been lying to us?
He'd never do something like that!
http://www.armyofgod.com/
You're right, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that supports murdering doctors. I have consistently said that Christianity has experienced a reformation, and that Islam needs to do the same.
There are moderate interpreters of the Sharia law and the hadiths who do not interpret Jihad the way you do. Here's one example among many:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1257426,00.html
Indeed, the president himself evidently hopes that men like Allawi and Maliki are moderate Muslims in Iraq, as is Karzai in Afghanistan. If there are no moderate muslim groups...then has the president been lying to us?
He'd never do something like that!
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:18 PM (5/DFH)
Posted by: DJ at May 30, 2006 03:27 PM (07Xhv)
94
Khan is great, thanks for the address, I hadn't caught up on what he was doing lately.
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:33 PM (5/DFH)
95
An example from the al-Guardian! Surely you jest. And if you will read my comment, I never said that there are not moderate Muslims, but that Islam itself is violent and radical. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you have not provided me with any version of Islam that does not support jihad and sharia. Because there are none.
And the Army of God is all you could come up with for a Christian sect supporting clinic bombings and murder. On what verses in the New Testament do they base their murder and maimings. All Christians I know condemned abortion bombings in Alabama, and the murder of one doctor in NY. Hardly an international terror group, jd. And you might mention Eric Rudolph, but 2 or 3 do not a terrorist group make. The Earth Liberation Army is the most active US terror group, according to the FBI. Try again, jd.
And the Army of God is all you could come up with for a Christian sect supporting clinic bombings and murder. On what verses in the New Testament do they base their murder and maimings. All Christians I know condemned abortion bombings in Alabama, and the murder of one doctor in NY. Hardly an international terror group, jd. And you might mention Eric Rudolph, but 2 or 3 do not a terrorist group make. The Earth Liberation Army is the most active US terror group, according to the FBI. Try again, jd.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:34 PM (rUyw4)
96
One more comment. Yes, Khan was moderate, but where is his influence? What version of Islam is under the jurisprudence(fiqh) of Khan?
Even the "moderate" Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand support sharia and jihad. Did I not see the leader of Malaysia giving aid and comfort to Hamas? Or maybe I dreamed it.
Even the "moderate" Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Thailand support sharia and jihad. Did I not see the leader of Malaysia giving aid and comfort to Hamas? Or maybe I dreamed it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:42 PM (rUyw4)
97
Well, if you don't like the Guardian, how about the Khan website? He links to many writings, his own and others, which show that there are MANY moderate interpreters of Islam, many GROUPS and many SCHOOLS which teach moderate Islam.
One of the problems here is that Islam differs fundamentally in its organization from Christianity. Christianity is organized in a top-down fashion around denominational lines. Islam has one major division--shi'ite/sunni (there are a few other sects of very small nature, like Alawites, Ismailis, Druze to some extent, and then Sufism, which is more of a practice or mystical discourse than a denomination--one can be a Sunni and practice Sufi rituals, etc). Take Iraq--there is NO one authority who could say "Jihad does not mean violence against infidels" or "Jihad means violence against infidels". Even the marja, the collection of top clerics, isn't universally recognized as controlling, as Sadr has made clear. Islamic institutions lack clear lines of authority for a multitude of historical reasons some going back centuries, others to the recent temporal/religious splits in countries like Syria and Egypt.
So, when I give you people like Khan and this guy from the Guardian, you say--but they're not a denomination! They're not an organization! But there are very few such organizations. It's not the way it is organized. It is organized around various holy interpreters of the Koran, and some are Wahhabis/Salafis, some are really liberal, and the vast majority occupy a shifting gray area between these extremes. It is to that majority that we must appeal.
One of the problems here is that Islam differs fundamentally in its organization from Christianity. Christianity is organized in a top-down fashion around denominational lines. Islam has one major division--shi'ite/sunni (there are a few other sects of very small nature, like Alawites, Ismailis, Druze to some extent, and then Sufism, which is more of a practice or mystical discourse than a denomination--one can be a Sunni and practice Sufi rituals, etc). Take Iraq--there is NO one authority who could say "Jihad does not mean violence against infidels" or "Jihad means violence against infidels". Even the marja, the collection of top clerics, isn't universally recognized as controlling, as Sadr has made clear. Islamic institutions lack clear lines of authority for a multitude of historical reasons some going back centuries, others to the recent temporal/religious splits in countries like Syria and Egypt.
So, when I give you people like Khan and this guy from the Guardian, you say--but they're not a denomination! They're not an organization! But there are very few such organizations. It's not the way it is organized. It is organized around various holy interpreters of the Koran, and some are Wahhabis/Salafis, some are really liberal, and the vast majority occupy a shifting gray area between these extremes. It is to that majority that we must appeal.
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:44 PM (5/DFH)
98
Also--Joe, your question about the Army of God illustrates that you didn't even go to the linked website. Every few inches on the page, they have a bible verse to defend their violence. You don't want to say they are an organized Christian group, okay, now we are playing semantic games. What are they, then?
American Christian attitudes on violence against abortion providers are on a spectrum. some would kill abortion doctors. Very few. Some larger group would actively or indirectly support such actions. Some larger group would see those acts as the regrettable outcome of abortion's violence. Many more are pro-life but reject murder. And then many Christians (most, in fact) are pro-choice, and reject the murders as well.
My point was that no church or mosque should be shut down for what it preaches, even if it preaches violence or hate. In having that stance, I stand with Jefferson, Madison, Washington--who are YOU standing with?
American Christian attitudes on violence against abortion providers are on a spectrum. some would kill abortion doctors. Very few. Some larger group would actively or indirectly support such actions. Some larger group would see those acts as the regrettable outcome of abortion's violence. Many more are pro-life but reject murder. And then many Christians (most, in fact) are pro-choice, and reject the murders as well.
My point was that no church or mosque should be shut down for what it preaches, even if it preaches violence or hate. In having that stance, I stand with Jefferson, Madison, Washington--who are YOU standing with?
Posted by: jd at May 30, 2006 03:48 PM (5/DFH)
99
Army of God is not a version of Christianity. So what was the point of looking it up. And it has no influence, and I know of no attacks committed by the Army of God in recent years.
And I'm standing with Lincoln, who arrested the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from voting for secession. And imprisoned 15,000 non-combatants, and suspended the right of habeus corpus. That's who. To save the nation. That's why. Any other questions?
And I'm standing with Lincoln, who arrested the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from voting for secession. And imprisoned 15,000 non-combatants, and suspended the right of habeus corpus. That's who. To save the nation. That's why. Any other questions?
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:54 PM (rUyw4)
100
Whoops, I meant "writ of habeus corpus".
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 03:59 PM (rUyw4)
101
Most of the people here (including the blog author) denouncing Murtha are the ones who are too chickenshit to put their money where their mouth is and go fight for their country.
what yawner that was. You thought that one up all on your own? You Lefties must really be hurting for some new material. Tell you what, as long as we're a democracy (a Republic actually), I'll continue to speak my mind on any topic I choose regardless of having served in the military or not. Comprende? You don't like it, move to China.
what yawner that was. You thought that one up all on your own? You Lefties must really be hurting for some new material. Tell you what, as long as we're a democracy (a Republic actually), I'll continue to speak my mind on any topic I choose regardless of having served in the military or not. Comprende? You don't like it, move to China.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:06 PM (8e/V4)
102
>>>Who launched an invasion which was illegal under international law,
blah blah blah. Like we haven't heard those same Leftwing talking points about a billion times in the last 3 years. And you'd have to have been on Mars not to have heard our talking points back about a billion times too. If you're going to troll rightwing websites how bout you come up with some new material, something worth responding too.
You don't want to be accused of gloating when our GIs screw up or when something bad happens to our country? then DON'T gloat, you effing morons.
blah blah blah. Like we haven't heard those same Leftwing talking points about a billion times in the last 3 years. And you'd have to have been on Mars not to have heard our talking points back about a billion times too. If you're going to troll rightwing websites how bout you come up with some new material, something worth responding too.
You don't want to be accused of gloating when our GIs screw up or when something bad happens to our country? then DON'T gloat, you effing morons.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:14 PM (8e/V4)
103
>>>And you'd have to have been on Mars not to have heard our talking points back about a billion times too.
Your comment is very telling. Many of the partisan supporters of the war i come accross on these blogs seem to regard this as some form of debate to be reduced to 'talking points', flame wars and other pointless rhetorical tricks. This isn't the yankees versus the red sox you assholes. A war being illegal and immoral is not a talking point. Up to 100,000 people are dead, the better part of a trillion dollars has been squandered, a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil and de-facto clerical, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe.
But go ahead and yawn if you will.
I guess your Fox News sized flickering attention span can't deal with the fact that moral standards don't flip-flop with the latest 'talking points'.
Your comment is very telling. Many of the partisan supporters of the war i come accross on these blogs seem to regard this as some form of debate to be reduced to 'talking points', flame wars and other pointless rhetorical tricks. This isn't the yankees versus the red sox you assholes. A war being illegal and immoral is not a talking point. Up to 100,000 people are dead, the better part of a trillion dollars has been squandered, a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil and de-facto clerical, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe.
But go ahead and yawn if you will.
I guess your Fox News sized flickering attention span can't deal with the fact that moral standards don't flip-flop with the latest 'talking points'.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 04:26 PM (YBYf6)
104
correction:
a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil WAR and de-facto clerical RULE, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe.
a large nation in the middle east is lurching towards civil WAR and de-facto clerical RULE, and America has lost its credibitlity and reputation accross the globe.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 04:29 PM (YBYf6)
105
>>>A war being illegal and immoral is not a talking point.
Uh, yeah. That's definitely a talking point.
>>>Up to 100,000 people are dead,
Another talking point. Lefties were claiming 100,000 dead 2 years ago, so now those numbers must be up to about two billion dead, no? Most of them killed by the insurgents (your buddies).
>>>I guess your Fox News
The whole "Fox news" isn't a talking point? lol!
You're one big walking, talking cliche. Honestly, you should take your cues from jd, above. He's wrong on just about everything, but his material is original. He's not here spouting the talking points. Move along now back to Kos. They just released another memo for you to read.
Uh, yeah. That's definitely a talking point.
>>>Up to 100,000 people are dead,
Another talking point. Lefties were claiming 100,000 dead 2 years ago, so now those numbers must be up to about two billion dead, no? Most of them killed by the insurgents (your buddies).
>>>I guess your Fox News
The whole "Fox news" isn't a talking point? lol!
You're one big walking, talking cliche. Honestly, you should take your cues from jd, above. He's wrong on just about everything, but his material is original. He's not here spouting the talking points. Move along now back to Kos. They just released another memo for you to read.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 04:51 PM (8e/V4)
106
>>>Lefties were claiming 100,000 dead 2 years ago, so now those numbers must be up to about two billion dead, no? Most of them killed by the insurgents (your buddies).
So peer-reviewed researchers at Johns Hopkins University and medical experts from The Lancet can be conveniently boiled down to the catch-all term of "lefties", huh? Who's dealing in cliches?
Yes, some of the points I raise have been raised before, does that make them invalid? Check out the original argument I made in my first post regarding the fact that the military only ever prosecutes when there is photographic or viddeo evidence of an attrocity. Is that a cliche?
For your information, cliche is a stylistic weakness in artistic endeavor, it is not a counter argument to rational debate. If anything cliche is often seen to be based upon broadly observed truth. In any case the single biggest cliche spouter in this fine land is your hero, George W. Bush with his endless meaningless sound bites a la "I believe in democracy".
My point about Fox News was in regard to its effects on your attention span. That observation isn't particularly cliched either. The fact that you can't seem to parse an argument only demonstrates its veracity - ie, your attention span is shot to shit.
You should definitely stick to Fox and shouting back at The Daily Show.
By the way I have no idea what this 'Kos' site you keep nattering about is. I don't spend my time trolling web forums, however this issue (Haditha) relates to some research I'm working on and I thought I'd check in to see how the wackos in rightwing blogland are spinning it.
It is YOUR responses which are drearily predictable.
So peer-reviewed researchers at Johns Hopkins University and medical experts from The Lancet can be conveniently boiled down to the catch-all term of "lefties", huh? Who's dealing in cliches?
Yes, some of the points I raise have been raised before, does that make them invalid? Check out the original argument I made in my first post regarding the fact that the military only ever prosecutes when there is photographic or viddeo evidence of an attrocity. Is that a cliche?
For your information, cliche is a stylistic weakness in artistic endeavor, it is not a counter argument to rational debate. If anything cliche is often seen to be based upon broadly observed truth. In any case the single biggest cliche spouter in this fine land is your hero, George W. Bush with his endless meaningless sound bites a la "I believe in democracy".
My point about Fox News was in regard to its effects on your attention span. That observation isn't particularly cliched either. The fact that you can't seem to parse an argument only demonstrates its veracity - ie, your attention span is shot to shit.
You should definitely stick to Fox and shouting back at The Daily Show.
By the way I have no idea what this 'Kos' site you keep nattering about is. I don't spend my time trolling web forums, however this issue (Haditha) relates to some research I'm working on and I thought I'd check in to see how the wackos in rightwing blogland are spinning it.
It is YOUR responses which are drearily predictable.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 05:14 PM (YBYf6)
107
One more thing, you said that most of the dead in Iraq have been killed by insurgents (who you moronically categorize as 'my buddies'). Did you miss my point in the previous post that since the US is responsible for creating the security vacuum in Iraq the US is also responsible for those deaths?
Guess your not up to speaking to that point.
Rumsfeld ignored all military advice. He wanted a cheap war to prove his theories that America's technological superiority would allow it to swoop into any zone in the world and remould any nation the neocons chose to focus on in the image of american corporate democracy. The dumbass should have been indicted in 2004.
Well, what can you expect from a jackoff whose main achievement in this world has been to loby the FDA to approve Nutrasweet - a carcinogen.
Guess your not up to speaking to that point.
Rumsfeld ignored all military advice. He wanted a cheap war to prove his theories that America's technological superiority would allow it to swoop into any zone in the world and remould any nation the neocons chose to focus on in the image of american corporate democracy. The dumbass should have been indicted in 2004.
Well, what can you expect from a jackoff whose main achievement in this world has been to loby the FDA to approve Nutrasweet - a carcinogen.
Posted by: rocketScientist at May 30, 2006 05:22 PM (YBYf6)
108
rocket, you should go back and reread your comments. You would see that you are guilty of the same behavior you accuse others of participating in. Dumb ass!
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 06:17 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 30, 2006 06:24 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 30, 2006 06:48 PM (8e/V4)
111
I volunteer to pull the trigger on anyone who would pull the trigger on any U.S. Marine.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM (a7z59)
112
Right wing robot: I have no desire to interact with any member of a religion dedicated to the distruction of every other religion. I leave that to the sissy leftards. They believe interaction with them will protect their cowards asses. I don't.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 02:03 PM (a7z59)
113
Rocket Scientist,
I'm not going to waste bandwidth or server space arguing the why's and wherefore's of this war. I will however take you to task on one small but very significant point. Question...if as "some" have said the Marines in question committed these murders as a result of "stress" can we really hold them accountable for there actions? The reason I ask this question is quite simple. You seem to neatly deflect responsiblity for acts committed by insurgents quite easily, ie; had the U.S. not started the war the insurgents wouldn't be committing attrocities. Now I'm not arguing whether the war itself is just/unjust but I will ask you point blank, are you saying insurgents are not responsible for the acts they commit? I guess using your paradigm the death of 3000+ people in New York on 911 cannot be blamed on the terrorists that piloted the planes nor on the masterminds of the operation. Certainly, someone here in the U.S. government must be responsible? Lets put this same paradigm to use in everyday life. If I lose my job because my company decides to downsize and lay me off after 20 years of faithful service and lets say 1 week before I'm due to retire, can I be held responsible for walking into my boss's office and blowing his head off with a shotgun? I mean hey...he fired me...I'm angry...ergo I'm not responsible for my actions, am I? Now remember we're not arguing whether my boss/company was justified in laying me off. I'm trying to determine I'm responsible for my actions.
Now Rocket, I am a former Marine, and if the alledged allegations are proven true then the Marines involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. It's called accepting responsiblity for ones behaviour. It's also called accepting the consequences for said behaviour. Now since we ask our military personnel to be responsible for their actions should the insurgents be held to lesser standards?
I sincerely look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Jack Chalker
I'm not going to waste bandwidth or server space arguing the why's and wherefore's of this war. I will however take you to task on one small but very significant point. Question...if as "some" have said the Marines in question committed these murders as a result of "stress" can we really hold them accountable for there actions? The reason I ask this question is quite simple. You seem to neatly deflect responsiblity for acts committed by insurgents quite easily, ie; had the U.S. not started the war the insurgents wouldn't be committing attrocities. Now I'm not arguing whether the war itself is just/unjust but I will ask you point blank, are you saying insurgents are not responsible for the acts they commit? I guess using your paradigm the death of 3000+ people in New York on 911 cannot be blamed on the terrorists that piloted the planes nor on the masterminds of the operation. Certainly, someone here in the U.S. government must be responsible? Lets put this same paradigm to use in everyday life. If I lose my job because my company decides to downsize and lay me off after 20 years of faithful service and lets say 1 week before I'm due to retire, can I be held responsible for walking into my boss's office and blowing his head off with a shotgun? I mean hey...he fired me...I'm angry...ergo I'm not responsible for my actions, am I? Now remember we're not arguing whether my boss/company was justified in laying me off. I'm trying to determine I'm responsible for my actions.
Now Rocket, I am a former Marine, and if the alledged allegations are proven true then the Marines involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. It's called accepting responsiblity for ones behaviour. It's also called accepting the consequences for said behaviour. Now since we ask our military personnel to be responsible for their actions should the insurgents be held to lesser standards?
I sincerely look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Jack Chalker
Posted by: Jack Chalker at June 01, 2006 09:42 AM (wAYpN)
114
Mr. Chalker,
Your examples above don't hold, they are classic though frankly obvious logical fallacies. We are responsible for the insurgency for the simple fact that we deliberately destroyed Iraq's security structure during and after the invasion.
If you don't see why this is relevant, let me explain. There is a principle in law whereby a person is held responsible for the negative effects of their actions if a reasonable person could reasonably expect those negative effects to result from their actions.
This is why, for instance, a car manufacturer would be held responsible if they knowingly sold a vehicle with faulty brakes. They would even be held responsible if they sold a vehicle which they did not test carefully enough to check that the brakes work properly (since good brakes are so important to the safe running of a vehicle it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to ensure they are of top quality).
It has been exhaustively documented that Rumsfeld/Bush etc. entered Iraq with virtually no plan for the occupation. Famously, Paul Bremner disbanded the Iraqi police and security forces and we all remember the scenes of open looting and general chaos on the streets of Baghdad.
The fact that Rumsfeld sent in roughly one third the number of troops the military top brass estimated neccessary to keep the country stable resulted in the situation we have become horribly familiar with - a nation out of control where the rule of law does not apply.
These things were both predictable and predicted before the invasion.
An excellent link summarizing just SOME of the pre-invasion warnings of an iraqi quagmire
This is not such a complex idea to understand, in fact it is nothing more than Colin Powell's famous 'If we break it, we own it' formulation (the so-called Pottery Barn rule of foreign diplomacy). Bremner's mistake has been grudgingly admitted by members of the White House staff and the fact that such a huge blunder was allowed to occur shows that Bush was asleep at the wheel and did not take the neccessary care to plan for the post-invasion. Thus we are morally responsible for the insurgency.
Its very important to understand that we altered the status quo in iraq when we invaded and subsequently disbanded its police force and army. It is this that makes us morally responsible. Imagine what the streets of America would look like if every cop and national guardsman were suddenly taken out of service and the only people left with weapons were a lot of disenfranchised ex-army/police malcontents who had a serious grudge with the new sheriff in town. Starting to understand?
For completion's sake - if my boss fires me it is not reasonable for him to expect me to appear in the office the next day with the intent to murder him. However, if I was a night watchman guarding a bank vault and one day my boss - the bank manager - fired me without replacing me, he would surely have some answering to do to his own superiors when that same night the vault was broken into and the bank's treasure was stolen.
On a side note, please do not use half-baked comparisons to 9/11 in order to compose a reducto ad absurdum argument. It really pisses me off when people use 9/11 as a cheap prop for their arguments. I'm a New Yorker and ex-worker at World Trade Center Tower 2 (Aon Corporaton - 99th floor) and I don't use this fact to prove my points because to do so would be extremely distasteful and disrespecful to the dead, you shouldn't do it either.
And finally, not to sound pompous, but the language you use in your post indicates you have some degree of intelligence (unlike most people on these boards). Why wasn't this clear to you before you posted? You could have saved us both some trouble. Could it be you are letting your partisan prejudices cloud you thinking?
Your examples above don't hold, they are classic though frankly obvious logical fallacies. We are responsible for the insurgency for the simple fact that we deliberately destroyed Iraq's security structure during and after the invasion.
If you don't see why this is relevant, let me explain. There is a principle in law whereby a person is held responsible for the negative effects of their actions if a reasonable person could reasonably expect those negative effects to result from their actions.
This is why, for instance, a car manufacturer would be held responsible if they knowingly sold a vehicle with faulty brakes. They would even be held responsible if they sold a vehicle which they did not test carefully enough to check that the brakes work properly (since good brakes are so important to the safe running of a vehicle it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to ensure they are of top quality).
It has been exhaustively documented that Rumsfeld/Bush etc. entered Iraq with virtually no plan for the occupation. Famously, Paul Bremner disbanded the Iraqi police and security forces and we all remember the scenes of open looting and general chaos on the streets of Baghdad.
The fact that Rumsfeld sent in roughly one third the number of troops the military top brass estimated neccessary to keep the country stable resulted in the situation we have become horribly familiar with - a nation out of control where the rule of law does not apply.
These things were both predictable and predicted before the invasion.
An excellent link summarizing just SOME of the pre-invasion warnings of an iraqi quagmire
This is not such a complex idea to understand, in fact it is nothing more than Colin Powell's famous 'If we break it, we own it' formulation (the so-called Pottery Barn rule of foreign diplomacy). Bremner's mistake has been grudgingly admitted by members of the White House staff and the fact that such a huge blunder was allowed to occur shows that Bush was asleep at the wheel and did not take the neccessary care to plan for the post-invasion. Thus we are morally responsible for the insurgency.
Its very important to understand that we altered the status quo in iraq when we invaded and subsequently disbanded its police force and army. It is this that makes us morally responsible. Imagine what the streets of America would look like if every cop and national guardsman were suddenly taken out of service and the only people left with weapons were a lot of disenfranchised ex-army/police malcontents who had a serious grudge with the new sheriff in town. Starting to understand?
For completion's sake - if my boss fires me it is not reasonable for him to expect me to appear in the office the next day with the intent to murder him. However, if I was a night watchman guarding a bank vault and one day my boss - the bank manager - fired me without replacing me, he would surely have some answering to do to his own superiors when that same night the vault was broken into and the bank's treasure was stolen.
On a side note, please do not use half-baked comparisons to 9/11 in order to compose a reducto ad absurdum argument. It really pisses me off when people use 9/11 as a cheap prop for their arguments. I'm a New Yorker and ex-worker at World Trade Center Tower 2 (Aon Corporaton - 99th floor) and I don't use this fact to prove my points because to do so would be extremely distasteful and disrespecful to the dead, you shouldn't do it either.
And finally, not to sound pompous, but the language you use in your post indicates you have some degree of intelligence (unlike most people on these boards). Why wasn't this clear to you before you posted? You could have saved us both some trouble. Could it be you are letting your partisan prejudices cloud you thinking?
Posted by: rocketScientist at June 02, 2006 05:00 AM (YBYf6)
115
Official site of the National Football League http://footballbetting.pro.ie
Posted by: mikel at June 03, 2006 03:08 AM (Np86E)
116
If you are going to believe every accusation
made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that
the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct...
while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to
be shot in the face with sh__ and sued by the government for stinking.
made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that
the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct...
while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to
be shot in the face with sh__ and sued by the government for stinking.
Posted by: viet vet at June 13, 2006 04:37 PM (K2U10)
117
If you are going to believe every accusation
made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that
the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct...
while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to
be shot in the face with sh_t and sued by the government for stinking.
made by the left about the military. Does that mean that since Murtha served in Vietnam that he was a drug crazed killer? And why is it that
the left has managed to find two politicals that served in the military (Murtha and Kerry) and everything that they say is correct...
while everything that anyone else that served in the military is b.s. if it doesn't agree with them whether it is a political, strategic, moral, etc. How can someone that was a rookie Navy officer (Kerry) for a few years feel that he has the expertise to make better strategic decisions than a career military person (i.e. the joint chiefs of staff). These guys ought to
be shot in the face with sh_t and sued by the government for stinking.
Posted by: viet vet at June 13, 2006 04:39 PM (K2U10)
May 24, 2006
I Coulda Been A Contendah!
Catch it before it gets pulled. Jesse MacBeth, noted traitor, seditionist, and all around loser has a MySpace page.
Here's the only blog entry.
The comments are a laugh riot.
Background on MacBeth, if you haven't heard of him yet.
Posted by: Vinnie at
04:18 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Evidently something they don't emphasise in Imaginary Ranger school is to always proofread your writing.
Posted by: Graeme at May 24, 2006 04:39 PM (/8W6w)
Posted by: dick at May 24, 2006 05:37 PM (XlQVK)
3
My favorite quote comes from the commie lefttard "fake, but accurate" Blue Bunny:
Wow. I dont know if this is really you or someone saying it is... but the comments people left you are pretty outrageous and hard to read. Military people are wishing you would die and people are screaming at you like you are some type of traitor. I for one am not going to write you off just yet. I know that there are alot of people out there who dont want to hear the things you said and just because the army says you were never enlisted means nothing. They are professional liars and have an image to uphold, and arent going to be happy to admit if what you said is true, is true! I have no idea why people are screaming you are a liar anyways, even Jim Murtha just admitted to the very thing you are talking about - Soldiers killing 24 innocent civilians in retaliation to a comrades death, one while praying. Its on the news, its all been said before so why are people shocked by your comments??? Even if you turn out to not have been a real ex ranger, I know the things that you said were truths, even if under a false identity. If you were actually discharged, then you have the proof and should be showing it. To all you military people reading this, dont bother emailing me it will go unread. If you want to be respected, act respectful. Wishing death on someone (Anyone!) does not do your cause any good. You cant cry foul and scream murder. Stop and think how you are portraying yourself, because every horrible word out of your mouths is only being shifted in favor of our fight against the war.
You are our enemy, fucktard.
Wow. I dont know if this is really you or someone saying it is... but the comments people left you are pretty outrageous and hard to read. Military people are wishing you would die and people are screaming at you like you are some type of traitor. I for one am not going to write you off just yet. I know that there are alot of people out there who dont want to hear the things you said and just because the army says you were never enlisted means nothing. They are professional liars and have an image to uphold, and arent going to be happy to admit if what you said is true, is true! I have no idea why people are screaming you are a liar anyways, even Jim Murtha just admitted to the very thing you are talking about - Soldiers killing 24 innocent civilians in retaliation to a comrades death, one while praying. Its on the news, its all been said before so why are people shocked by your comments??? Even if you turn out to not have been a real ex ranger, I know the things that you said were truths, even if under a false identity. If you were actually discharged, then you have the proof and should be showing it. To all you military people reading this, dont bother emailing me it will go unread. If you want to be respected, act respectful. Wishing death on someone (Anyone!) does not do your cause any good. You cant cry foul and scream murder. Stop and think how you are portraying yourself, because every horrible word out of your mouths is only being shifted in favor of our fight against the war.
You are our enemy, fucktard.
Posted by: davec at May 24, 2006 05:54 PM (CcXvt)
4
I come off as a little less crazy every day, don't I? Lefturds are our enemies, and give aid and comfort to our enemies. They want innocent people to die, and America to lose.
They. Should. All. Be. Hanged. Until. They. Stop. Kicking.
They. Should. All. Be. Hanged. Until. They. Stop. Kicking.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 06:07 PM (0yYS2)
5
Why do you lefturds want innocent people to die, and why do you give aid and comfort to our enemies? Why do you want America to lose the war on terror?
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 24, 2006 06:12 PM (rUyw4)
6
Yes when I read this story I was amazed that any one would take this guy as the real thing including the "far left" of these wild and sadistic tales.
Posted by: jjhays at May 24, 2006 06:44 PM (l9idq)
7
Blue Bunny is completely and irretrievably clueless; or a hopelessly immature 16 year old. A sharp slap in the face might work .... eh, maybe not.
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 08:56 PM (YudAC)
8
If you want to scare this kid, try him for war crimes...
Posted by: Agent Meatball at May 24, 2006 09:37 PM (30FRH)
9
I'm lovin' it!â„¢ Damn! I wish the net was around in '71 - ala Winter Soldier! Hey Kerry! How's your good ol' buddy Captain Al?
Posted by: hondo at May 24, 2006 10:30 PM (DaNq1)
10
Hondo, I think the â„¢ gives you away as nothing more than a paid shill for the Evil Global Dominating Earth Destroying Animal Mutilating Greedy Capitalist Hegemonic Corporate entity best known by its scary clown spokespersonâ„¢.
If you're going to do that, please change your nickname to "Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With Cheeseâ„¢." Or, for those on a budget, "The Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With Cheese Extra Value Mealâ„¢."
If you're going to do that, please change your nickname to "Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With Cheeseâ„¢." Or, for those on a budget, "The Double Quarter Pounder Hondo With Cheese Extra Value Mealâ„¢."
Posted by: Vinnie at May 24, 2006 11:20 PM (/qy9A)
11
You know, Jesusland Joe asks a question I wonder about constantly...
Why DO these guys want to see the country they live in defeated? Is it self-loathing? Is hatred of the current Administration enough to overpower what should be a basic desire for self-preservation?
Honestly, a majority of these acts - fake soldiers, fake news, etc. Seem like treason to me. I do not use the word lightly.
I saw a bumper sticker last weekend that said "Dissent is Patriotic". No it isn't, you asshat. Supporting your country is patriotic. You can disagree with government policies and still want to see the country continue to flourish and thrive, but to be in such a state where you wish ill-will on America... to actually believe maligning this great country we are so fortunate to live in is important enough to make up stories about attrocities... That is too much for me to comprehend.
I've followed Improbulus Maximus's comments and, while I absolutely respect his opinion, tend to think there are some extreme over-generalizations there. I can absolutely feel the same frustrations. I don't know if I'd want to go so far as starting to string eveybody up, by my G*d, people HAVE been executed for doing far less in a time of war.
To answer your question, IM, I still read you as extreme, but yes, coming off a little less crazy every day.
Why DO these guys want to see the country they live in defeated? Is it self-loathing? Is hatred of the current Administration enough to overpower what should be a basic desire for self-preservation?
Honestly, a majority of these acts - fake soldiers, fake news, etc. Seem like treason to me. I do not use the word lightly.
I saw a bumper sticker last weekend that said "Dissent is Patriotic". No it isn't, you asshat. Supporting your country is patriotic. You can disagree with government policies and still want to see the country continue to flourish and thrive, but to be in such a state where you wish ill-will on America... to actually believe maligning this great country we are so fortunate to live in is important enough to make up stories about attrocities... That is too much for me to comprehend.
I've followed Improbulus Maximus's comments and, while I absolutely respect his opinion, tend to think there are some extreme over-generalizations there. I can absolutely feel the same frustrations. I don't know if I'd want to go so far as starting to string eveybody up, by my G*d, people HAVE been executed for doing far less in a time of war.
To answer your question, IM, I still read you as extreme, but yes, coming off a little less crazy every day.
Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at May 25, 2006 03:32 AM (maXzk)
12
Liberals side with terrorists and other enemies of America, who have all publicly stated that they want to kill us, yet I'm the extremist. Wake the hell up people. It's later than you think, and your soft, spoiled suburban McDisney life is about to come crashing down around you. Apathy is not a survival plan.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 25, 2006 04:51 AM (0yYS2)
13
Agent Meatball: 'Zactly. He should get 60 to life just for his grammar.
Posted by: Oyster at May 25, 2006 05:06 AM (YudAC)
14
>>Why DO these guys want to see the country they live in defeated?
I'm guessing it is some twisted sense of guilt that overrides even selfpreservation. They see the BS on CBS/CNN et al and feel they have to do SOMETHING. If they can bask in the warm, soft embrace of Cindy Sheehan while they are at, all the better.
...just a guess though. I don't get it.
I'm guessing it is some twisted sense of guilt that overrides even selfpreservation. They see the BS on CBS/CNN et al and feel they have to do SOMETHING. If they can bask in the warm, soft embrace of Cindy Sheehan while they are at, all the better.
...just a guess though. I don't get it.
Posted by: tuffbeingright at May 25, 2006 08:08 AM (6pAmW)
15
Actually 'Blue Bunny' is a super moonbat, not your regular kind:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=7993410
I had a hard time figuring if it was real, or a parody like the 'blue flypaper' blog.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=7993410
I had a hard time figuring if it was real, or a parody like the 'blue flypaper' blog.
Posted by: davec at May 25, 2006 08:23 AM (CcXvt)
Kosfest--"We Hate America!"
George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism (1945) : In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by [the U.S.] must be in the wrong.
Kos, on news that two Americans had been murdered in Fallujah: Screw them!
Kos supporters on their upcoming annual hate America meeting: The 9/11 Conspiracy: A skeptics view
Posted by: Rusty at
09:32 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Kosfest...lol.
Oh, what to wear, what to wear...
All the leftist punks are going to be peeing their pants deciding whether to wear a traditional Che t-shirt or one that insults the President.
And whether to put in the eyebrow ring even though its infected just to make a statment or what maaaaan...
Oh, what to wear, what to wear...
All the leftist punks are going to be peeing their pants deciding whether to wear a traditional Che t-shirt or one that insults the President.
And whether to put in the eyebrow ring even though its infected just to make a statment or what maaaaan...
Posted by: mrclark at May 24, 2006 11:33 AM (dReBH)
2
Leftist gatherings always crack me up. I dont' care what anyone says - donning a tutu and a Che shirt does not lend any credibility to the wearer.
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 12:11 PM (nBOAO)
3
>>>And whether to put in the eyebrow ring even though its infected just to make a statment or what maaaaan...
Perhaps some enterprising young conservative could promote it as the freak show it's sure to be and charge admission for it.
Perhaps some enterprising young conservative could promote it as the freak show it's sure to be and charge admission for it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 12:51 PM (8e/V4)
4
Hmm. I can't speak for them, because I can't stand their shrill whining, but I can say that if I were the target of your snide insults, I'd take a great deal of solace in the fact that you apparently have little to attack beyond my appearance.
I'd rather look like an idiot than be one.
I'd rather look like an idiot than be one.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 24, 2006 02:19 PM (gOPcw)
5
TxMxP,
there's only one thing worse than an idiot, and that's an idiot that also looks like an idiot.
there's only one thing worse than an idiot, and that's an idiot that also looks like an idiot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 24, 2006 03:23 PM (8e/V4)
6
How can one look like an idiot without being one? Mark Twain said "Clothes make the man; naked people have little influence on society." Were he among us now he might say "...lefturds who wear tinfoil hats have little influence on society".
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:02 PM (0yYS2)
7
On the contrary, TxMxP. You've given us plenty of fodder without ever having to lay eyes on you.
Posted by: Oyster at May 24, 2006 04:20 PM (YudAC)
8
Will it be held in SAN FRANCISCO or UC BERKELEY?
Posted by: sandpiper at May 25, 2006 02:38 PM (760E/)
May 22, 2006
Not In My Name
From this point forward, comments on my posts (read: Vinnie's posts) exhorting the faithful to kill everyone but themselves (do it! oh, please!) will be deleted.
You know who I'm referring to. Or maybe not, since your comment in response has been deleted.
I'm still reading the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and frankly (Charles Martel!) speaking, you have a lot in common with 7th century Mohammedism.
Methinks we have some (as they say on 24) moles.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:49 PM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sounds like you're starting to get an inkling as to why Google has to filter you out. They've got their brand to protect, and don't want to be associated with threatening content.
I've been on left-wing and right-wing discussion boards, and the left-wing boards police their objectionable content (death threats and the like) much better than the right-wing boards do.
Lefties are also a lot less likely to make the threats in the first place. I'm sure someone here could quote some instances of that sort of thing on left-wing boards, but they're generally removed when pointed out.
Here, as on other right-wing boards, they tend to be left alone or even encouraged. I commend you for taking a step in the right direction, Vin.
I've been on left-wing and right-wing discussion boards, and the left-wing boards police their objectionable content (death threats and the like) much better than the right-wing boards do.
Lefties are also a lot less likely to make the threats in the first place. I'm sure someone here could quote some instances of that sort of thing on left-wing boards, but they're generally removed when pointed out.
Here, as on other right-wing boards, they tend to be left alone or even encouraged. I commend you for taking a step in the right direction, Vin.
Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:17 PM (7AEHv)
2
Case in point.
(Although changehappens gets points for originality - killing people to use them for chum. Nice.)
I should add that it isn't just the boards that Google is taking umbrage with - it's the content, as well.
You're completely within your rights to taunt Muslims, post Muhammad cartoons, and the like - just don't expect a corporation like Google to go along with it (any more than Viacom did with South Park).
I'm sure Google still links to counterterrorism blogs - just ones that conduct themselves in a more civil manner.
Don't blame Google for making a business decision. Rupert Murdoch would do the same thing.
(Although changehappens gets points for originality - killing people to use them for chum. Nice.)
I should add that it isn't just the boards that Google is taking umbrage with - it's the content, as well.
You're completely within your rights to taunt Muslims, post Muhammad cartoons, and the like - just don't expect a corporation like Google to go along with it (any more than Viacom did with South Park).
I'm sure Google still links to counterterrorism blogs - just ones that conduct themselves in a more civil manner.
Don't blame Google for making a business decision. Rupert Murdoch would do the same thing.
Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:39 PM (7AEHv)
3
This isn't a forum, it's a blog. Big difference.
I could care less about Google, Google is just a thing.
I care about people, like my good friend Rusty Shackleford, and his reputation, which is being tarnished by some commenters.
I could care less about Google, Google is just a thing.
I care about people, like my good friend Rusty Shackleford, and his reputation, which is being tarnished by some commenters.
Posted by: Vinnie at May 22, 2006 11:49 PM (/qy9A)
4
OK, fine.
I'm just saying your cohorts cared enough to post about it, and linked to two other blogs that did, too.
Just thought it was ironic that die-hard capitalists couldn't see it as a business decision, rather a conspiracy by "left-leaning Google".
Left, right - they go wherever the money is.
Pardon me for ranting on in your thread. I'm done now.
I'm just saying your cohorts cared enough to post about it, and linked to two other blogs that did, too.
Just thought it was ironic that die-hard capitalists couldn't see it as a business decision, rather a conspiracy by "left-leaning Google".
Left, right - they go wherever the money is.
Pardon me for ranting on in your thread. I'm done now.
Posted by: Theo at May 22, 2006 11:59 PM (7AEHv)
5
How about killing everyone but Jennifer Love Hewitt, Alyssa Milano, Tiffani Theissen and myself?
Posted by: MKL at May 23, 2006 12:22 AM (GKZaQ)
6
Now it's been a couple months since I've spent any time reading a left-wing blog, but personally, I always found it odd that the left-wing sites rarely (and I mean very rarely) featured a dissenting voice, respectfully or otherwise. Think they're over-policing? I do. I've posted at Kos, DU and HuffPo and seen my comments disappear or never appear at all, even though I took special pains to be respectful. They have the right to delete anything they want, but in doing so, they present an inaccurate picture and promulgate a single and narrow view. Some people feel more comfortable sitting around and patting each other on the back with no challenges cluttering their world view or monitors. It's not for me though.
We get a lot of dissent at Jawa. And a lot of healthy argument that is bound to produce a few insults. Sometimes it goes overboard with the threats and the "kill 'em all" comments, but ...
I think the real complaint being made here is not as Theo suggests, that Jawa is too hateful for Google news feeds, but that Google regularly features "news" sites that consistently disseminate glaringly false information and obvious propaganda while eliminating other sites almost arbitrarily. There are far too many instances belying their "fairness doctrine" and "pecking order" assertions. I guess it's all in "how" one promotes hatred and encouragement toward ill action. Just do it subtley and look "official" and voila! you're in. Google shouldn't remove Jawa from its news feeds because of complaints or for not censoring its comments, but because it's a blog and not set up as a real news site. Google has a blog search function. We don't see Kos or DU or command-post in their news feeds, but we sure have HuffPo and uruknet!
The fact that Google's officers and staff do not hide their leftist, even socialist, views doesn't help them. The fact that they so willingly censor content for certain markets doesn't lend much credence to their denials. The fact that for years now you can still type in "failure" and George Bush's bio is still the first result doesn't help.
We get a lot of dissent at Jawa. And a lot of healthy argument that is bound to produce a few insults. Sometimes it goes overboard with the threats and the "kill 'em all" comments, but ...
I think the real complaint being made here is not as Theo suggests, that Jawa is too hateful for Google news feeds, but that Google regularly features "news" sites that consistently disseminate glaringly false information and obvious propaganda while eliminating other sites almost arbitrarily. There are far too many instances belying their "fairness doctrine" and "pecking order" assertions. I guess it's all in "how" one promotes hatred and encouragement toward ill action. Just do it subtley and look "official" and voila! you're in. Google shouldn't remove Jawa from its news feeds because of complaints or for not censoring its comments, but because it's a blog and not set up as a real news site. Google has a blog search function. We don't see Kos or DU or command-post in their news feeds, but we sure have HuffPo and uruknet!
The fact that Google's officers and staff do not hide their leftist, even socialist, views doesn't help them. The fact that they so willingly censor content for certain markets doesn't lend much credence to their denials. The fact that for years now you can still type in "failure" and George Bush's bio is still the first result doesn't help.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 04:23 AM (YudAC)
7
The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world. Anyone who disagrees with the left-wing consensus is often instantly branded a "troll." Daily Kos, for example, has a ruthlessly efficient post deletion mechanism. In my case, I learned that just asking questions about the post deletion mechanism can get you branded as a troll. Once a poster is branded a troll, his or her posts will be summarily deleted, as nothing he or she says, no matter how well-reasoned and rational, is considered worth listening to.
The left perceives a need to control speech, while the right-wing blogs are generally much more accepting of free speech.
This is a microcosm of the world.
Where the right runs things in the world (e.g., modern Europe, the U.S.), we have often seen noise, disagreement and disorder.
Where the left runs things (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) things are generally much quieter and orderly. Some may believe it is because communists are just a lot happier. I don't.
Free speech, while it certainly has its benefits, also has its attendant costs (dissention, hurt feelings, mixed messages to outsiders, etc.).
Controlled speech, while it has its own benefits, often carries a much greater price (fear, supression of good ideas, gulags, massacres, etc.).
The left perceives a need to control speech, while the right-wing blogs are generally much more accepting of free speech.
This is a microcosm of the world.
Where the right runs things in the world (e.g., modern Europe, the U.S.), we have often seen noise, disagreement and disorder.
Where the left runs things (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) things are generally much quieter and orderly. Some may believe it is because communists are just a lot happier. I don't.
Free speech, while it certainly has its benefits, also has its attendant costs (dissention, hurt feelings, mixed messages to outsiders, etc.).
Controlled speech, while it has its own benefits, often carries a much greater price (fear, supression of good ideas, gulags, massacres, etc.).
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold at May 23, 2006 04:24 AM (Y0zGO)
8
Very well put, Ragnar.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)
9
Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 23, 2006 05:27 AM (0yYS2)
10
Can you just shut up and kill someone or try to so we don't have to listen to your inane rantings anymore?
I'll even give you my address and you can come and try for me. How about it, IM?
I'll even give you my address and you can come and try for me. How about it, IM?
Posted by: MiB at May 23, 2006 05:35 AM (B9sDR)
11
>>Theo, and any other libturd who reads this, you are liars and hypocrites, as well as enemy propagandists, and will never be taken seriously by anyone with a brain as long as you continue to be so. Google News carries lots of pro-jihadi websites where they make regular exhortations to kill non-muslims, but are they getting dropped? No. Liberals are scum, you know the rest.
Seriously, kid, you listen to way too much Insane Clown Posse. Put the CD down, drop the copy of Rage, take off the trenchcoat, and re-integrate into modern society.
Seriously, kid, you listen to way too much Insane Clown Posse. Put the CD down, drop the copy of Rage, take off the trenchcoat, and re-integrate into modern society.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 06:42 AM (gOPcw)
12
I'm all for excluding rabid ranting - it detracts from the quality of any Blog and makes the host look dumb and besides, anyone who can use a computer can express themselves in better ways if they want to. I'm all for excluding repeat trolls as well, but then since I'm too lazy to create a blog, my opinion doesn't count for a whole lot in such matters.
Posted by: goesh at May 23, 2006 06:48 AM (1w6Ud)
13
>>>The left-wing blogs often delete comments at the drop of a hat when those comments disturb their fragile view of the world.
That's why I don't bother with Leftwing blogs. First they force you to register, and if you don't tow the party line your comments get deleted even when you walk on eggshells to be respectful so as not to get deleted! But yet in their minds they're all about "free speech." lol! when you point out the obvious to them, they say the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not private entities and if you don't like it just leave.
That's why I don't bother with Leftwing blogs. First they force you to register, and if you don't tow the party line your comments get deleted even when you walk on eggshells to be respectful so as not to get deleted! But yet in their minds they're all about "free speech." lol! when you point out the obvious to them, they say the 1st Amendment only applies to government, not private entities and if you don't like it just leave.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 07:21 AM (8e/V4)
14
The common masses are morally incapable of handling freedom and must have right imposed upon them.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (FCC6c)
15
I disagree about your collective ascertions that liberal blogs police content any more than right wing blogs. Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity... On the majority of Lefty blogs, you're definitely going to be labeled a troll for dropping rascist, ignorant, disruptive, or abusive comments, but rarely are you banned outright without warning. That's a Pajamas Media/ Freeper M.O. To my knowledge, I've never heard of a lefty blog banning without several warnings...
No offense to this fine sight, of course.
As for the Google thing, well, no shit, they don't want to be associated with hate speech. Call it what it is. Terms like "Gutter Religion" (Grey Turkey) Or sweeping baseless denegration of a race of people is hate speech. Just because some don't have a problem using it (being comfortable in your own rascist skin must feel good) doesn't mean its acceptable for public consumption. It's just a sign of the growing ignorance in some quarters. More Education would be a good start. Read a book, for christ's sake. I've been to Northern Africa- yeah, it's a troubled region, but that doesn't mean they couldn't use some honest help into the 21st century. People's people, ya know? Just the situations that we find ourselves in differ.
No offense to this fine sight, of course.
As for the Google thing, well, no shit, they don't want to be associated with hate speech. Call it what it is. Terms like "Gutter Religion" (Grey Turkey) Or sweeping baseless denegration of a race of people is hate speech. Just because some don't have a problem using it (being comfortable in your own rascist skin must feel good) doesn't mean its acceptable for public consumption. It's just a sign of the growing ignorance in some quarters. More Education would be a good start. Read a book, for christ's sake. I've been to Northern Africa- yeah, it's a troubled region, but that doesn't mean they couldn't use some honest help into the 21st century. People's people, ya know? Just the situations that we find ourselves in differ.
Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 07:57 AM (yFm36)
16
>>>Look at the big ones- LGF, Red State, The Freepers... >>>They all ban without warning if you question their dogma or sanity.
Blue Patriot,
that's not true. If you spent any time at all at LGF you'd know a Lefty troll called "Gordon" has been posting their for years. He gets harrassed, but he never gets deleted and he hasn't been banned. Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother.
Blue Patriot,
that's not true. If you spent any time at all at LGF you'd know a Lefty troll called "Gordon" has been posting their for years. He gets harrassed, but he never gets deleted and he hasn't been banned. Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:09 AM (8e/V4)
17
OK, Carlos, I had the exact same treatment at LGF, Confederate Yankee, and Free Republic. In fact, I never got to post a second comment after disagreeing with someone at FR. Just banned. I think we agree that civil discourse is probably best, that some people don't like to hear discenting opinions, and people with their own blogs can do WTF they want.
YEAH, AMERICA!
YEAH, AMERICA!
Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 08:13 AM (yFm36)
18
>>Now compare that to my treatment at Kos. Not ten minutes after I post a comment it's gone. That's the God honest truth. So why bother.
Well, here's the thing, Carlos. Since I've been here I've seen you post almost nothing but strings of insults and profanity. In fact, the very first post I saw from you was exactly that, and it continued through the rest of the thread. To some extent you've shown an ability to have a rational discussion, as in the "Cold, Hard Cash" post, but the majority of what I've seen from you is still irrational and profane ranting.
As an observer here, what do you think is more likely to me to be the cause of your ban? That you were mistreated, or that you were just being abusive and you were banned for it?
This is why I hate blogs and bloggers. All this whining, yet, for the most part, it seems to me that all the people being kicked out of left/right/up/down/over/under blogs are simply being treated like children because they were acting like children.
As an aside, my experience with LGF was a bit different. I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there. The message this sends, of course, is that if you annoy us, we'll ban you, but we don't have a problem with our members making death threats.
So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior".
Well, here's the thing, Carlos. Since I've been here I've seen you post almost nothing but strings of insults and profanity. In fact, the very first post I saw from you was exactly that, and it continued through the rest of the thread. To some extent you've shown an ability to have a rational discussion, as in the "Cold, Hard Cash" post, but the majority of what I've seen from you is still irrational and profane ranting.
As an observer here, what do you think is more likely to me to be the cause of your ban? That you were mistreated, or that you were just being abusive and you were banned for it?
This is why I hate blogs and bloggers. All this whining, yet, for the most part, it seems to me that all the people being kicked out of left/right/up/down/over/under blogs are simply being treated like children because they were acting like children.
As an aside, my experience with LGF was a bit different. I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there. The message this sends, of course, is that if you annoy us, we'll ban you, but we don't have a problem with our members making death threats.
So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior".
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:29 AM (gOPcw)
19
The key term there is annoyed. It's more the overall level of annoyance that gets you. TxMxP thinks he was the first annoying thing that ever happened. I doubt it. probably just the straw the broke the camels back. Wrong place wrong time.
Posted by: Howie at May 23, 2006 08:40 AM (D3+20)
20
Are you implying that LGF doesn't ban blatant trolls? I will assure you, they do, when/if they're discovered, as do most other sites.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 08:43 AM (gOPcw)
21
>>>So, yes, I deserved my ban from LGF, but at the same time they sure seem to have a highly suspect notion of what constitutes "bad behavior".
TmMxP,
"bad behaviour" is where commenters personally harrass other commenters, kinda like what you constantly do.
You see, I have stong opinions about Liberalism, and the Left, and radical islam, etc. It's no secret I loathe them. But I generally refrain from personally harrassing other commenters who happen to be Leftwingers. I let them say their peace and respond to the substance of their comments without feeling the need to personally attack them-- the way you do.
That is unless they themselves are personal harrassers-- like you are. Then I feel free to get on their case and make their lives miserable while they're on this blog. I've found they don't last very long here after that. You're getting pretty close to the point.
TmMxP,
"bad behaviour" is where commenters personally harrass other commenters, kinda like what you constantly do.
You see, I have stong opinions about Liberalism, and the Left, and radical islam, etc. It's no secret I loathe them. But I generally refrain from personally harrassing other commenters who happen to be Leftwingers. I let them say their peace and respond to the substance of their comments without feeling the need to personally attack them-- the way you do.
That is unless they themselves are personal harrassers-- like you are. Then I feel free to get on their case and make their lives miserable while they're on this blog. I've found they don't last very long here after that. You're getting pretty close to the point.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 08:51 AM (8e/V4)
22
Carlos, this is the very first thing you said to me:
>>You come hear to troll, and then you pretend outrage when you're told to fuck off. lol! Lefty orwellianism knows no bounds. Come hear with a respectful attitude to argue the issues, and you'll be treated respectfully. Otherwise kindly fuckoff.
After I took exception to Bluto issuing a string of epithets, threats, and insults as a way to ask that another poster stop being abrasive.
WHO is the harrasser here?
>>You come hear to troll, and then you pretend outrage when you're told to fuck off. lol! Lefty orwellianism knows no bounds. Come hear with a respectful attitude to argue the issues, and you'll be treated respectfully. Otherwise kindly fuckoff.
After I took exception to Bluto issuing a string of epithets, threats, and insults as a way to ask that another poster stop being abrasive.
WHO is the harrasser here?
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:01 AM (gOPcw)
23
Suddenly everyone seems obsessed here with "rational discourse." I actually like a fair amount of random ranting. But then I actually like heavy metal.
TxMxP: you say that you hate blogs and bloggers - I don't understand why you continue to read and comment. I think you just don't like people with opinions different than yours, and you are trying to either change them, or stop them.
TxMxP: you say that you hate blogs and bloggers - I don't understand why you continue to read and comment. I think you just don't like people with opinions different than yours, and you are trying to either change them, or stop them.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 09:04 AM (aH6Zf)
24
JC personally sees to it that ratings go up and numbers increase!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 09:13 AM (FCC6c)
25
TxMxP,
like I've told you numerous times before, if you come here with attitude (in that case towards Bluto), you'll get attitude back. But if you come here realizing you are on other people's turf and act respectfully you'll be treated respectfully in return, at least by me. I treat people they way they deserve to be treated. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to blow off steam from time to time, but you came here and were rude right off the bat.
like I've told you numerous times before, if you come here with attitude (in that case towards Bluto), you'll get attitude back. But if you come here realizing you are on other people's turf and act respectfully you'll be treated respectfully in return, at least by me. I treat people they way they deserve to be treated. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to blow off steam from time to time, but you came here and were rude right off the bat.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 23, 2006 09:22 AM (8e/V4)
26
First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing.
Second of all, there's nothing wrong with trying to change opinions. I realize that some on this type of site feel otherwise, but I happen to think that honest dialogue between competing ideologies is usually better than worse.
Finally, I hate blogs and bloggers for the simple reason that they basically stop anything approaching honest dialogue. Most people who hold strong enough opinions to rant on things seem to also have an amazing lack of perspective on those opinions, and a complete and total lack of evidence to support them. I blame things like blogs for that problem because they create echo chambers where the most "amusing" post wins, no matter how devoid of any actual information it might be.
I'd rather try and fix that problem (though I realize I can't) than just ignore it.
Besides, why do you care? If your opinion is so firmly rooted in fact that it won't change, the worst that can happen is that I'll give you the opportunity to exercise your arguments so you can better make them in the future.
Second of all, there's nothing wrong with trying to change opinions. I realize that some on this type of site feel otherwise, but I happen to think that honest dialogue between competing ideologies is usually better than worse.
Finally, I hate blogs and bloggers for the simple reason that they basically stop anything approaching honest dialogue. Most people who hold strong enough opinions to rant on things seem to also have an amazing lack of perspective on those opinions, and a complete and total lack of evidence to support them. I blame things like blogs for that problem because they create echo chambers where the most "amusing" post wins, no matter how devoid of any actual information it might be.
I'd rather try and fix that problem (though I realize I can't) than just ignore it.
Besides, why do you care? If your opinion is so firmly rooted in fact that it won't change, the worst that can happen is that I'll give you the opportunity to exercise your arguments so you can better make them in the future.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 09:34 AM (gOPcw)
27
Wow, a halfway decent back-and-forth between liberals and conservatives on the internet. Maybe there's hope for us, after all.
Being an independent thinker (but not necessarily and Independent) means applying the same standard to both parties. In other words, if the situation were reversed, would you argue the same way? Or are you parroting party talking points?
Example:
Would conservatives be up in arms if Bill Clinton was trampling on the Constitution or spending us into monstrous debt? Or do you defend the $90,000-in-his-freezer Democratic congressman, yet say nasty things about Tom DeLay's indictment? etc. etc.
Being an independent thinker (but not necessarily and Independent) means applying the same standard to both parties. In other words, if the situation were reversed, would you argue the same way? Or are you parroting party talking points?
Example:
Would conservatives be up in arms if Bill Clinton was trampling on the Constitution or spending us into monstrous debt? Or do you defend the $90,000-in-his-freezer Democratic congressman, yet say nasty things about Tom DeLay's indictment? etc. etc.
Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 09:36 AM (7AEHv)
28
I don't like ANY of them. As far as I'm concerned this entire ridiculous government is out of control and has been since at LEAST Nixon, probably before that. I'm sometimes inclined to think that the entire thing started falling apart after the Spanish-American war.
However, at the moment the "right" is in control and it's tearing things apart, so that's who I complain the most about. When the liberals are in control and everybody has to wear a fanny pack to filter their farts in case it might kill a common housefly, then I'll be up in arms against them.
All I want is to be left alone. I hate politics. I hate government. But I can't just ignore them because they're constantly forcing their way into my life. If it's the liberals, they're trying to tell me I have to put something new on my car to improve the emissions or I can't put a manger scene on the sidewalk by my house (although I'm not religious) because it might offend some mysterious shadowperson in the bushes.
If it's the conservatives they're telling me I can't watch certain TV shows because they're "bad" for showing a nipple or I have to worry about them snooping on my damn library records.
I just want left alone. I don't want to be fighting with everybody all the time. But, frankly, if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it. That goes for BOTH sides because BOTH side are constantly trying to screw me.
However, at the moment the "right" is in control and it's tearing things apart, so that's who I complain the most about. When the liberals are in control and everybody has to wear a fanny pack to filter their farts in case it might kill a common housefly, then I'll be up in arms against them.
All I want is to be left alone. I hate politics. I hate government. But I can't just ignore them because they're constantly forcing their way into my life. If it's the liberals, they're trying to tell me I have to put something new on my car to improve the emissions or I can't put a manger scene on the sidewalk by my house (although I'm not religious) because it might offend some mysterious shadowperson in the bushes.
If it's the conservatives they're telling me I can't watch certain TV shows because they're "bad" for showing a nipple or I have to worry about them snooping on my damn library records.
I just want left alone. I don't want to be fighting with everybody all the time. But, frankly, if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it. That goes for BOTH sides because BOTH side are constantly trying to screw me.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 10:09 AM (gOPcw)
29
Hey, TxMxP - that's a swell bubble you're living in.
You may live enough of a hermitous existence not to affect anyone, but I doubt it.
Government is a very necessary "evil", because without it, we'd tear each other apart, quite frankly.
Humanity isn't exactly a noble species. Government keeps us (sometimes) playing by the same rules and (sometimes) keeps us safe.
No one said it's perfect - all the better reason to get involved and right what's wrong with it.
You may live enough of a hermitous existence not to affect anyone, but I doubt it.
Government is a very necessary "evil", because without it, we'd tear each other apart, quite frankly.
Humanity isn't exactly a noble species. Government keeps us (sometimes) playing by the same rules and (sometimes) keeps us safe.
No one said it's perfect - all the better reason to get involved and right what's wrong with it.
Posted by: Theo at May 23, 2006 10:15 AM (7AEHv)
30
I don't want anarchy, I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:08 AM (gOPcw)
31
TxMxP:
you write: "First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing."
then you write: "...if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it."
regarding LGF, you write: "I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there."
I say: I think trolling for kicks is one way of stopping opinions. I think it's a little ridiculous to admit to be trolling for kicks and then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. And you're annoyed because they still post there. Were they trolling for kicks? Probably not. As Howie noted, it sounds like annoy is the key word here.
you write: "First of all, I have no interest in "stopping" opinions. I defy you to find one example of where I've tried to do any such thing."
then you write: "...if I have to bash heads to try and temper some of this insane radicalization that's going on in this country, so be it."
regarding LGF, you write: "I trolled them twice for kicks and got banned the second time. I would note however that while I was banned for merely trolling, two other people who threatened to beat me up and, in one case, stab me, still post there."
I say: I think trolling for kicks is one way of stopping opinions. I think it's a little ridiculous to admit to be trolling for kicks and then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking. And you're annoyed because they still post there. Were they trolling for kicks? Probably not. As Howie noted, it sounds like annoy is the key word here.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at May 23, 2006 11:14 AM (aH6Zf)
32
"I want a small system of government that provides a structure in which people can resolve material differences. What we have now is a government that's trying to provide a ready-made solution for every single problem in the country so that people don't have to address their own issues."
Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.
Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 11:34 AM (nBOAO)
33
Heroic,
Trolling for kicks, in this case, sounds more like going to a site like LGF when your political flag blows to the left. You know that the majority of opinions may be counter to your own, but you go to that blog for the lively discussion, or to laugh at the monkeys, or whatever.
That in itself isn't wrong, but you cross a line when you tear down meaningful discussions for the sake of name calling, topic hi-jacking, etc. We all could probably be accused of being a bit quick to jump on a person who's first post has an obvious slant that opposes our own. "Shut them up and shut them down."
Trolling for kicks, in this case, sounds more like going to a site like LGF when your political flag blows to the left. You know that the majority of opinions may be counter to your own, but you go to that blog for the lively discussion, or to laugh at the monkeys, or whatever.
That in itself isn't wrong, but you cross a line when you tear down meaningful discussions for the sake of name calling, topic hi-jacking, etc. We all could probably be accused of being a bit quick to jump on a person who's first post has an obvious slant that opposes our own. "Shut them up and shut them down."
Posted by: Blue Patriot at May 23, 2006 11:43 AM (yFm36)
34
How do you figure I'm "stopping opinions". What action have I taken that is preventing anybody from stating their opinion on any matter on this or any other site? How does trolling do that? I'd argue to the contrary, in fact. When you troll people, half the time you wind up with BETTER discussions than if you just left them alone. If it weren't for slashdot trolls, there'd NEVER be a decent discussion on that site.
And when I say "bash heads", I mean like what I'm doing here. My coming in here and forcefully stating my opinions in no way prevents anybody from stating theirs. To the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it hasn't ENCOURAGED people to state their opinions.
>>...then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking.
Uh. Yea. Sorry for finding death threats directed at me offensive.
>>Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.
But, it will never happen because people are too busy radicalizing on either side of the fence.
And when I say "bash heads", I mean like what I'm doing here. My coming in here and forcefully stating my opinions in no way prevents anybody from stating theirs. To the contrary, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it hasn't ENCOURAGED people to state their opinions.
>>...then be annoyed because someone slams you back in a manner not to your liking.
Uh. Yea. Sorry for finding death threats directed at me offensive.
>>Now THAT I'll get behind one hundred percent.
But, it will never happen because people are too busy radicalizing on either side of the fence.
Posted by: TxMxP at May 23, 2006 11:50 AM (gOPcw)
35
TxMxP: I think you're too pessimistic. There are a number of decent blogs out there where rational discourse and good ideas are being discussed. I won't recommend any because that is something that is determined by the reader. But I visit a few that are quite reasonable and logical and the comment sections are populated with some very smart people. I tend to lean a little right. (According to a couple people here recently though, I'm anywhere from a socialist to a bigot to a nazi and today I go called a hypocrite.) I'm not so unreasonable though and I can dish it out, but I can take it too. I only get worked up when someone keeps telling me I'm wrong on just about every thing I say and like anyone else here, I'm not ALWAYS wrong.
I know that looks like one big run-on sentence and it probably is, but well, I just want to be clear.
I know that looks like one big run-on sentence and it probably is, but well, I just want to be clear.
Posted by: Oyster at May 23, 2006 12:20 PM (nBOAO)
36
The problem here isn't liberal vs. conservative and who carries the biggest stick. It's the problem that the MSM caused and it's now returning with the likes of Google. The MSM squelched diversity on the airwaves. As a result the internet became a competiting way to express almost overnight. Well done too. Now here comes Google, using public infrstructure, much like the public airwaves the MSM uses, trying to impose its own vision of acceptable thought. Anyone that has read MyPetJawa for about 10 minutes would know its edgy, opinionated from the right but not hate. How many other sites are excluded from search engine results at Google because Google doesn't like them? Or how many sites are returned but so low in the hierarchy that nobody would scroll down to find it, just because Google may not like their editorial slant? Censorship sucks anyway the cuts are made. Today it's from the left, tomorrow it could be from the right.
Posted by: changehappens at May 23, 2006 03:00 PM (Bmhbf)
37
Isn't it wonderful I slipped through the cracks!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 23, 2006 08:01 PM (FCC6c)
38
Guys, why do you bother trying to speak truth to these lefturd trolls? They lie in every post, and if they ever utter the truth, it's by accident and they repent immediately and tell a lie twice as great to cover it up. They're liars and idiots, and you're not going to get anywhere wasting your time on them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2006 04:54 AM (0yYS2)
39
Blue dress patriot by his own admission above is a troll.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:00 PM (pzM6K)
40
Notice blue dress patriot now decides for us what is acceptable for public consumption. Thats exactly what the mad moolas in islam decide also. Don't know who this marxist prick is but he sure doesn't believe in freedom of expression for all. Only for his commie leaning leftard buddies. Change your dress leftard sissy.
Posted by: greyrooster at May 25, 2006 10:06 PM (pzM6K)
May 20, 2006
Overheard At The Watercooler
"I told my kid that if he ever said he was going to join the Army or the Marines or any of that shit that I'd kick his ass."
Nah, I didn't say anything. I decided it was better let the idiocy shine on its own.
Posted by: Vinnie at
09:03 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
A man at work told me his son wants to go into the Army and he told his son he would hate it because he would have to make his bed every day. I just stood there in shock at the jerk Father telling me this, bragging to me about this and he knows I am a huge supporter of our troops. He wanted a reaction and all I said was...
Tell him to join the al-quada they probably don't have beds to make in their caves.
Tell him to join the al-quada they probably don't have beds to make in their caves.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 20, 2006 09:19 AM (tj1zH)
2
Thinking...this is a tough one. serious enough to think about. For starters I think the Father should not exclude options like that from consideration. Every opportunity has to be considered carefully esecially when you are young when it's hard to do.
Posted by: Howie at May 20, 2006 10:04 AM (D3+20)
3
Well, it's so obvious: you should send the kid some pamphlets for the the Navy and AIr Force! Actually, this guy will be regretting those words when his son turns 27 and is still living at home.
Posted by: Thrill at May 20, 2006 10:47 AM (DYb4r)
4
He's probably more comfortable with the thought of his wife and children getting raped and murdered by muslims than his son having to make his bed every day. Liberals must all be killed.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 20, 2006 12:58 PM (0yYS2)
5
I guess IM got knocked around pretty bad over in Iraq and thinks everyone here should pay ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 20, 2006 01:01 PM (FCC6c)
6
What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Jesus H. you're stupid, even for a liberal.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 20, 2006 07:32 PM (0yYS2)
7
IMHO, if the kid is man enough to join the military, its probably the father who would get the ass-kicking.
Posted by: KobeClan at May 22, 2006 07:38 AM (iJmNW)
8
The only time he would need a kick in the rear is if he ever joined GREEPEACE,SIERRA CLUB,PETA,WORLD WILDLIFE FUND or any of the other liberal wussie eco-freak group or if he snuck out of the house to see that crap HOOT
Posted by: sandpiper at May 23, 2006 10:07 PM (K3hNB)
May 10, 2006
ACLU Challenges US Sovereignty
Brandishing a list of 51,000 signatures as backup for their campaign of innuendo and half-truths against American interrogation of captured terrorists, the American Civil Liberties Union is demanding that the US State Department subordinate itself to the UN Committee Against Torture:
"Instead of denying the systemic abuse of detainees confirmed by its own documents, the U.S. government must own up to the truth and take full responsibility," said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project who is currently observing the committee's examination of the U.S. report in Geneva. "We hope that the Committee Against Torture will hold the government accountable for the torture and abuse of detainees both within the United States and abroad."It's odd that an organization that stuffs money into its members' pockets by defending the indefensible should tell a United States government department that it has no right to defend itself from the ACLU's own trumped up charges. Of course, the ACLU is still smarting from the knowledge that its own communications with international terrorist organizations may have been monitored by the NSA.
Via Stop the ACLU.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:26 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It has been clear for a while now that the ACLU is nothing but the legal arm of the global anti-American movement. It should be shut down and all its members arrested for sedition and/or treason.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 10, 2006 01:10 PM (0yYS2)
2
Agreed! I can not stand the ACLU. They hate this country, and everything it stands for.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 10, 2006 02:05 PM (D2g/j)
3
Agreed.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 10, 2006 05:11 PM (paKD6)
4
The ACLU stands for ATHEISTS.COMMUNISTS. and LAWYERS.UNDERGROUND they are as evil AL QUEDA and as vile as ever
Posted by: sandpiper at May 11, 2006 07:36 AM (U+eLg)
5
You mean American Communist Lawyers Union. Sandpiper, there are a lot of atheists, like myself, who have actually served our country at the risk of our lives. What have you done? Fuck off.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 11, 2006 08:17 AM (0yYS2)
6
IM, didn't you go through debriefing after your time in the service? Were you not treated for post-traumatic disorder?
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 16, 2006 12:32 PM (FCC6c)
May 09, 2006
MA Mosque Claims U.S. Government Behind 9/11
"Mohammed's Mosque" in Springfield, MA, seems to be affiliated with The Nation of Islam. Dave has the backstory here.
Posted by: Rusty at
07:48 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Boston mosque" ? Springfield is 125 miles from Boston it is about as distant as you can get from Springfield and still be in the same state. Is this some kind of Red Sox hate/guilt by association smear.
Posted by: john Ryan at May 09, 2006 08:03 PM (TcoRJ)
2
The Nation of Islam? Those guys are still around? And taken half way seriously?
Posted by: KG at May 09, 2006 08:06 PM (hyH5v)
3
Thanks John. Duly noted. Not all that familiar with my New England geography.
Posted by: Rusty at May 09, 2006 08:13 PM (JQjhA)
4
Hmmm....125 miles, huh, John. That seems pretty close to me, but I live in Texas, and I hear tell that we have counties in Texas bigger than Massachusetts.
Back on topic, I sense a moonbat/Islamic convergence in the atmosphere. It needs to be dealt with before it gets out of hand, although I doubt whether the Islamists have much use for the moonbats other than cover for terrorism. This could get interesting if the 2006 elections bend toward the Left.
Back on topic, I sense a moonbat/Islamic convergence in the atmosphere. It needs to be dealt with before it gets out of hand, although I doubt whether the Islamists have much use for the moonbats other than cover for terrorism. This could get interesting if the 2006 elections bend toward the Left.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 09, 2006 08:19 PM (rUyw4)
5
Here is what we should do.....Fly very high powered drones directly into the Muhammad Mosque in Springfield and watch it burn like a towelhead's asshole after eating too many peppers. Then we photograph the Mosque with two big burning holes in it!
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 09, 2006 08:20 PM (mqTcV)
6
Who's the speaker, Greg?
Posted by: davec at May 09, 2006 08:22 PM (CcXvt)
7
We're be the mothership?
Posted by: hondo at May 09, 2006 09:09 PM (SeBrl)
8
I still say these maggots have no business in the U.S. and certainly no right to be spewing this nonsense. I like Steve's idea. It's quick, simple, and problem solved.
Posted by: Richard at May 09, 2006 09:10 PM (7KF8r)
9
I keep telling everyone that we're going to be fighting them in the streets here pretty soon, but does anyone listen? Hello, do I carry the Curse of Cassandra?
Buy a rifle with a thousand rounds of ammo and learn how to use it. Then buy another thousand. And another, etc.. A surplus bolt action rifle, which can be bought for one hundred dollar and change, in the hands of a trained shooter is sufficiently deadly to police the streets of our own nation, though an AK would serve better in most cases.
Trust that muslims are training to kill you, because they are, and they state it openly, though liberals try to lie and tell us we're islamophobic for not wanting to be enslaved and murdered. Screw them, they will have to choose sides soon, but they're not welcome on my side, as they are traitors and must be dealt with accordingly.
Let's get this thing rolling boys, I'm not getting any younger.
Buy a rifle with a thousand rounds of ammo and learn how to use it. Then buy another thousand. And another, etc.. A surplus bolt action rifle, which can be bought for one hundred dollar and change, in the hands of a trained shooter is sufficiently deadly to police the streets of our own nation, though an AK would serve better in most cases.
Trust that muslims are training to kill you, because they are, and they state it openly, though liberals try to lie and tell us we're islamophobic for not wanting to be enslaved and murdered. Screw them, they will have to choose sides soon, but they're not welcome on my side, as they are traitors and must be dealt with accordingly.
Let's get this thing rolling boys, I'm not getting any younger.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 09, 2006 10:16 PM (0yYS2)
10
if you dont eradicate islam it will eradicate you
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 10, 2006 12:21 AM (k8yUp)
11
Hell, IM, I'm buying as fast as I can, but dammit, this bird flu crap has forced me to spend some money on preparation for it. But I'm getting there.
Posted by: jesusland joe at May 10, 2006 05:36 AM (rUyw4)
12
Ah hell, just stay away from coughing birds!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 10, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)
13
I grill pork chops on the weekends just to piss off the moon god worshipping POS around the world.
Also, I think it is time to burn the Islamic flag, and pass out candy. Then send the video to AL-Jazzera.
Maybe, we should start out own rifle squad, and get the line of fire, and single envelopment down. But, everyone has there own type of weapon, and if anyone gets killed on the line, we can not use that weapons ammo. Thoughts anyone?
Also, I think it is time to burn the Islamic flag, and pass out candy. Then send the video to AL-Jazzera.
Maybe, we should start out own rifle squad, and get the line of fire, and single envelopment down. But, everyone has there own type of weapon, and if anyone gets killed on the line, we can not use that weapons ammo. Thoughts anyone?
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 10, 2006 01:44 PM (D2g/j)
14
Wow, what an impressive group of people you are. Scared of Islam, scared of bird flu... What's the news going to make you scared of next?
I wonder how many of you have been our of this country? Anyone here visited an Islamic country? ("Wow, I bet it's pure chaos and carnage out there! They’d hate me and try to kill me for being Christian!") Please reply back with your PERSONAL experience with Muslims. I'd be fascinated to hear what these people have done to you personally.
Fools. I just hope you don't also claim to be Christian - that would be even more ridiculous.
My Point - it's easy to be scared of things you don't know about. Especially if you sit at home and gather your opinions from the news...and then talk about it with other people who are informed by the news. You have nothing to base your own opinions on.
Please, go out of this country and form an opinion for yourself. Spend a month in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, ANYWHERE - and form your own opinion. It's sheltered people like you that live in fear. Fear brings ignorance. Ignorance results in violence.
Stupid People are Violent.
I wonder how many of you have been our of this country? Anyone here visited an Islamic country? ("Wow, I bet it's pure chaos and carnage out there! They’d hate me and try to kill me for being Christian!") Please reply back with your PERSONAL experience with Muslims. I'd be fascinated to hear what these people have done to you personally.
Fools. I just hope you don't also claim to be Christian - that would be even more ridiculous.
My Point - it's easy to be scared of things you don't know about. Especially if you sit at home and gather your opinions from the news...and then talk about it with other people who are informed by the news. You have nothing to base your own opinions on.
Please, go out of this country and form an opinion for yourself. Spend a month in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, ANYWHERE - and form your own opinion. It's sheltered people like you that live in fear. Fear brings ignorance. Ignorance results in violence.
Stupid People are Violent.
Posted by: JB at May 10, 2006 04:34 PM (Fd0d6)
15
just to show that the opinions of those mentioned is held by many other rational people, here is a quick summary of some of the more notable questioners of 9/11:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
David Ray Griffin: Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology, and the author or editor of thirty books
Morgan Reynolds: A & M Professor of Economics Emeritus, former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center
Steven E. Jones: Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies
Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
James H. Fetzer: Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than two dozen books and co-chair of S9/11T
Andreas Von Buelow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist with articles in The Village Voice, CounterPunch, Online Journal, Wired, In These Times, Insider Magazine, and From The Wilderness.
John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher and ethicist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and author of six books on public policy issues
this is just a very short list, you'd be quite surprised to see how many others there are.
do some research, be informed, no matter what your position.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
David Ray Griffin: Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, at the Claremont School of Theology, and the author or editor of thirty books
Morgan Reynolds: A & M Professor of Economics Emeritus, former Chief Economist for the United States Department of Labor, former Director of the Criminal Justice Center
Steven E. Jones: Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and an editor of its forthcoming publication, Journal for 9/11 Studies
Robert M. Bowman: Former Director of the U.S. Advanced Space Programs Development in the Carter and Ford administrations, former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
James H. Fetzer: Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than two dozen books and co-chair of S9/11T
Andreas Von Buelow: former state-secretary in the German Defense Ministry, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.
Wayne Madsen: investigative journalist, author, and syndicated columnist with articles in The Village Voice, CounterPunch, Online Journal, Wired, In These Times, Insider Magazine, and From The Wilderness.
John McMurtry: FRSC, moral philosopher and ethicist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada and author of six books on public policy issues
this is just a very short list, you'd be quite surprised to see how many others there are.
do some research, be informed, no matter what your position.
Posted by: anonymous at May 10, 2006 05:39 PM (5ctaJ)
16
I have no 'fear' of Islam. I have fear that idiots like you will force all people into a defeatist position which the strong such as myself will be swept away with the muslim loving morons like you.
Sort of like the All-Pro lineman who happens to play on a bad team, thus he has a losing record. It is not his fault, but his correct and outstanding play are not rewarded with victories and he is forced to suffer defeats because of the rest of his team.
Sort of like the All-Pro lineman who happens to play on a bad team, thus he has a losing record. It is not his fault, but his correct and outstanding play are not rewarded with victories and he is forced to suffer defeats because of the rest of his team.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 10, 2006 11:00 PM (tziza)
17
Wow - Steve-o. I know you can't back out of your frame of mind now because you've already invested a lifetime keeping the word "dumb" alive, but seriously - next time you're wonderin' what's wrong with kids today, you might wanna check out the examples you give'm to work with.
You're a man of hate, not faith. At least we know where you stand.
Sincerely,
Someone not afraid of other human beings who may where towels on their heads just as culturally as a cowboy hat.
You're a man of hate, not faith. At least we know where you stand.
Sincerely,
Someone not afraid of other human beings who may where towels on their heads just as culturally as a cowboy hat.
Posted by: bw at May 11, 2006 02:13 AM (6J02b)
18
What dose that wacy wussie LOUIS FARIKHAN think of it all?
Posted by: sandpiper at May 11, 2006 07:42 AM (U+eLg)
19
you are damn right I hate them. I hate anyone who celebrates strapping a bomb around their own children's waists and cheering their deaths because with their deaths came the deaths of others.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 09:58 AM (IhZeu)
20
you are damn right I hate them. I hate anyone who celebrates strapping bombs around their own children's waists and cheering their deaths because with their deaths came the deaths of others.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 09:59 AM (IhZeu)
21
Perhaps my comments were too accusatory to invite rational conversation - My apologies. Let’s go back to one single point:
What opinions have you formed based on your own direct experience with Islam? Have any of you ever left the United States and visited an Islamic country?
Your opinions are that of a very sheltered person. You reference websites and television as the basis for your beliefs. I prefer real life interaction. Before I commit to hating a group of people, I like to have some type of personal interaction with them. In my first trip to Indonesia, I was scared of the crazy radicals and terrorists I would encounter. After a few days of unconditional hospitality and kindness from the locals, my entire reality shifted.
Also, Steve…come on. We have the same radical behavior in this country. How many school shootings and Timothy Mcvay type bombings have wee seen from Americans in the last five years?
What opinions have you formed based on your own direct experience with Islam? Have any of you ever left the United States and visited an Islamic country?
Your opinions are that of a very sheltered person. You reference websites and television as the basis for your beliefs. I prefer real life interaction. Before I commit to hating a group of people, I like to have some type of personal interaction with them. In my first trip to Indonesia, I was scared of the crazy radicals and terrorists I would encounter. After a few days of unconditional hospitality and kindness from the locals, my entire reality shifted.
Also, Steve…come on. We have the same radical behavior in this country. How many school shootings and Timothy Mcvay type bombings have wee seen from Americans in the last five years?
Posted by: JB at May 11, 2006 10:33 AM (Fd0d6)
22
Not sure about school shootings, but I can definitely say there have been no OK City bombings in the last 5 years. We have actually intercepted 2 or 3 Columbine style shootings. What domestic chaos has to do with Islamic terrorism escapes me. Neither OK City or Columbine had anything to do with a religous ideology. Unless you are saying Islamic terrorism is actually a cover for some type of anarchy movement we don't know about.
Posted by: Cmunk at May 11, 2006 01:04 PM (7teJ9)
23
I have never lived in an Islamic country, though at the rate things are going I might be one day, and that is totally irrelevant. I never lived in Nazi Germany either, so according to your logic, I am unable to discuss Nazis.
Keep defending the religion which wishes to swallow you whole. You do what you do--acquiesce...and I will do what I do--fight the bad guys.
Simple game. Here is an easy way for you to identify who is who if you are having trouble doing so... The Muslims are the ones who stand BEHIND children while firing their weapons....we are the ones who stand in FRONT of them.
Keep defending the religion which wishes to swallow you whole. You do what you do--acquiesce...and I will do what I do--fight the bad guys.
Simple game. Here is an easy way for you to identify who is who if you are having trouble doing so... The Muslims are the ones who stand BEHIND children while firing their weapons....we are the ones who stand in FRONT of them.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at May 11, 2006 01:41 PM (2Lskf)
24
I love how libtards fall all over themselves to condemn us for wanting to protect ourselves and our nation against their allies, the muslim scum who chop off the heads of innocent people. When the shit goes down, we'll have to hang all the liberals first, because they'll betray us to the goatfuckers if we don't.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 16, 2006 04:36 AM (0yYS2)
By Left's Standars, FDR Was Hitler
Don't question their patriotism.
Via Powerline, this from The American Spectator:
IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort.No, not THE President Roosevelt? Yes. In fact, the article goes on to quote a letter from Roosevelt to J. Edgar Hoover specifically authorizing the surveillance of those that disseminate enemy propaganda--no doubt a reference to the German Bund and many other groups that were actively engaged in trying to keep the U.S. out of the war, i.e. peace activists.In short, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charted a bold course in defending the nation's security in 1940, when he did all of these things.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:11 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Rusty by the Right's standard at that time FDR was Stalin. So what does any of that prove ? Washington was a slave owner blah blah blah. Holding historical figures to present day standards seems to me to be creating easy targets. How about a post instead on something a bit more current, say the disaray in the C.I.A. ? I seem to recall reading about that in the MSM last week.
Posted by: john Ryan at May 09, 2006 10:38 AM (TcoRJ)
2
Libs have different standards for Democrats. Kind of like Jimmy Carter appointing a Navy admiral to head the CIA (Stansfield Turner), but throw a hissy fit when Bush appoints an Army guy for exactly the same post. That's why it's best just to ignore them, or just laugh at them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 09, 2006 10:40 AM (paKD6)
3
Does that mean we should start calling him Chimpy McPolio?
Seriously Rusty, if we're going to mirror the intellectual reactions of the left, then we should simply rain down hate, err, I mean 'tolerance' on people who disagree with us.
Seriously Rusty, if we're going to mirror the intellectual reactions of the left, then we should simply rain down hate, err, I mean 'tolerance' on people who disagree with us.
Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at May 09, 2006 11:04 AM (v3hgS)
Posted by: Howie at May 09, 2006 11:09 AM (D3+20)
5
Interesting piece in the Spectator. One key difference that is controlling from then and now is this: Congress has spoken on national security wiretapping, in the FISA case. When Jackson wrote his memos for FDR, there was NO congressional statute addressing this point. As articulated by no lesser light than Jackson in the steel seizure case, when the president acts with statutory authority granted by Congress, it is constitutional unless the constitution directly forbids it. When the Congress hasn't spoken to a matter, it is a gray area, tasking judges with divining where the power rightfully resides. But when the president, given a statutory path to achieve a given end, ignores or thwarts Congress' will, it can ONLY be upheld if the Constitution grants that power to the president strictly. This is tantamount to strict scrutiny, and thus, FDR's actions would have been in zone 2, and Bush's post FISA acts in zone 3. That's a huge difference, in legal terms.
Posted by: jd at May 09, 2006 11:13 AM (aqTJB)
6
Jd, noted and already over-ruled a while ago.
Bush's actions fall under the president's wartime powers, and we've seen legal judgments to that effect.
Besides which, this is only an issue if you have a deep inner need for that. Or are you going to start complaining when they search your luggage at the airport when you leave or enter the country?
Bush's actions fall under the president's wartime powers, and we've seen legal judgments to that effect.
Besides which, this is only an issue if you have a deep inner need for that. Or are you going to start complaining when they search your luggage at the airport when you leave or enter the country?
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 10, 2006 02:08 AM (xdVg/)
7
Is this argument an example of the tu quoque fallacy? Agree or disagree, showing your reasons.
Posted by: OH at May 10, 2006 10:33 AM (dYUmX)
8
FYI Carlos, Stansfield Turner had retired before he was DCI. The last active duty military officer in the poisition was Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (1947-50). So, the "Carter did it" example of a double standard doesn't apply.
Thanks for playing!
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 12:51 PM (qtUKx)
9
daphne,
Stansfield Turner was head of the Navy War College, a MILITARY institution-- and therefore hardly "retired"-- when Carter called him up to the CIA.
Thanks for playing.
Stansfield Turner was head of the Navy War College, a MILITARY institution-- and therefore hardly "retired"-- when Carter called him up to the CIA.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 10, 2006 01:30 PM (paKD6)
10
I don't know what was "overruled". Jackson's steel seizure division of presidential powers? FISA? As you know, there is no explicit grant of wartime emergency powers in the Constitution, which distinguishes it from most constitutions. There are statutory examples of powers that grow in war, and Congress and the courts have treated the president deferentially.
But Bobby Inman got it right yesterday, yet another intel/law expert who says the president broke the law when he ignored FISA. There is another side to the debate, but it is hardly as simplistic as the Spectator makes it out to be.
But Bobby Inman got it right yesterday, yet another intel/law expert who says the president broke the law when he ignored FISA. There is another side to the debate, but it is hardly as simplistic as the Spectator makes it out to be.
Posted by: jd at May 10, 2006 03:51 PM (aqTJB)
11
Carlos sweetie,
Stansfield Turner - Naval War College 1972-74
Stansfield Turner - DCI 1977-81
Thanks for playing!
Stansfield Turner - Naval War College 1972-74
Stansfield Turner - DCI 1977-81
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 09:20 PM (GyHLs)
12
Dems had to find something to criticize. But Hayden being a general in the Army is a non-issue. He's the highest ranking military intelligence officer in the country and therefore eminently qualified (unlike Stansfield Turner was).
Posted by: dcb at May 10, 2006 10:06 PM (M3nr/)
13
dcb, then why the pre-push no by Republicans to the Hayden nomination? Big Bill is asking the same question now on the teevee.
And now Stansfield Turner wasn't qualified, aty. I think James Webb would like to weigh in on that. Let's see. I'll ask him, as opposed to taking the word of "dcb" on a blog.
Thanks for playing
And now Stansfield Turner wasn't qualified, aty. I think James Webb would like to weigh in on that. Let's see. I'll ask him, as opposed to taking the word of "dcb" on a blog.
Thanks for playing
Posted by: daphne at May 10, 2006 10:50 PM (GyHLs)
14
daphne,
don't take my word for it.
"Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting. He quickly found, however, that the CIA was a far more complex and elusive entity than he had expected."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm
don't take my word for it.
"Although Turner had had little previous experience in intelligence, he viewed it simply as a problem of assessing data, or, as he described it to his son, nothing more than "bean' counting. He quickly found, however, that the CIA was a far more complex and elusive entity than he had expected."
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/whokilled.htm
Posted by: dcb at May 11, 2006 08:37 AM (WCwrR)
15
DCB--was Daphne right about Turner and the war college? You have a funny way of admitting that someone correctly identified a mistake in your post.
Posted by: jd at May 11, 2006 01:46 PM (aqTJB)
Posted by: MegaTroopX at May 15, 2006 08:26 AM (gveym)
May 08, 2006
Next on ACLU's Agenda: Rip the Distinguished Service Cross from my Grandfather's Corpse
So, the ACLU has succeeded in getting a court to order a cross be removed from a San Diego monument honoring our fallen soldiers? I guess the logic is that putting a cross up to commemorate our fallen dead is just the first step toward a Rightwing theocracy. You know, the American Taliban and all that.
I suppose that had it been a giant phalis honoring Mother Gaia, the ACLU would have had no problem. You can sign a petition against the court's action here.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:23 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
1
By the Left's definition of "theocracy", America has always been one. So it's not the "American Taliban" who are trying to turn us into a "theocracy", it's the Leftards who are trying to change how this country has always been. They are a secular taliban.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)
2
You know, it pisses me off when people call Ashcroft, Robertson, or Falwell "Taliban". it is the modern equivalent of "nazi". It isn't accurate. None of these gentlemen want to construct a state in which homosexuals are actually executed. None of them want to impose complete religous orthodoxy.
By the same token, to call the ACLU "secular Taliban" seems more than a little offensive, more than a little extreme, and just a whole lot wrong. The ACLU would be the secular Taliban if they executed Christians for not converting to secularism, or forced women to NOT wear modest clothing on pain of death.
Relax--there is no war on Christmas, and what little war there is on Christians is a skirmish at best. Christians are and will remain the majority. Polls show that atheists are far less popular, and have real trouble getting elected to anything. They also have their children taken from them, just because they are not Christian (it has happened in more than 70 documented divorces, and these are just the cases where the judge actually SAYS it). If there's a war going on here, it is against atheists.
But neither side in this "war" is anything like the Taliban.
By the same token, to call the ACLU "secular Taliban" seems more than a little offensive, more than a little extreme, and just a whole lot wrong. The ACLU would be the secular Taliban if they executed Christians for not converting to secularism, or forced women to NOT wear modest clothing on pain of death.
Relax--there is no war on Christmas, and what little war there is on Christians is a skirmish at best. Christians are and will remain the majority. Polls show that atheists are far less popular, and have real trouble getting elected to anything. They also have their children taken from them, just because they are not Christian (it has happened in more than 70 documented divorces, and these are just the cases where the judge actually SAYS it). If there's a war going on here, it is against atheists.
But neither side in this "war" is anything like the Taliban.
Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 10:08 AM (aqTJB)
3
Well Carlos the country is changing. It has always been in the process of change, most of it for the good. Social and political conservatives are usually against change. Things that we now take for granted like the right of women to vote were considered frighteningly radiacal 100 years ago. Discrimination against catholics was prevalent even in the 1960 presidential election. That was the way things used to be. Our country has survived and thrived on its ability to change.
Posted by: john Ryan at May 08, 2006 10:59 AM (TcoRJ)
4
jd,
the difference is Falwell tolerates different viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas-- the secular taliban doesn't. That's why they're always in court.
the difference is Falwell tolerates different viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas-- the secular taliban doesn't. That's why they're always in court.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 11:06 AM (8e/V4)
5
>>>Well Carlos the country is changing.
That's fine. But it's the "American taliban" that is constantly accused by the Left of wanting to change this country into a theocracy. Obviously that's just another lie from the "reality based community". The worst the christian fundies can be accused of is not going along with the Leftwing program. And there are plenty of non-fundies who aren't going along with it either.
That's fine. But it's the "American taliban" that is constantly accused by the Left of wanting to change this country into a theocracy. Obviously that's just another lie from the "reality based community". The worst the christian fundies can be accused of is not going along with the Leftwing program. And there are plenty of non-fundies who aren't going along with it either.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 11:09 AM (8e/V4)
6
The ACLU (secular taliban to you--thanks for neither responding to my pointing out how nobody in our cultural wars deserves to be called Taliban nor from refraining from it--feel better, now that you have libeled your enemies? something in that Bible you love so much about bearing false witness? Or you have the expurgated version?) doesn't object to ANY groups expressing themselves, whether it is Jerry Falwell or NAMBLA or Nazis, so long as they are doing it with their own money, on their own land, or in a public place that is open to all other expressions (ie, free speech zone). What they DO object to is government sponsorship of religious speech or government discrimination against certain speech. You can think they draw the net too widely, but you certainly can't say that they are "taliban" or that they don't want Mr. Falwell to have his speech. They just don't want our tax dollars to pay for Mr. Falwell's speech. Back when Baptists were Baptists (as John Ryan wisely points out, these things change), they ardently opposed any government sponsorship of religion. That's why Jefferson's letter on wall of separation was the Danbury BAPTISTS. In truth, the founders were very divided on the precise line between church and state, and Jefferson, along with Paine and some others, were on the left of that debate. But most of the major founders were Deists of one kind or another, and that is a very different thing from what we think of today as "Christian fundamentalist". It is intellectually dishonest for people like Falwell to point to "endowed by their creator" in the DOI and say that proves we are a Christian nation. Jefferson didn't even believe in the divinity of Christ, and even a cursory glance at a bio of him proves this.
Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 12:25 PM (aqTJB)
7
The ACLU is one of the most vile groups in this country and the usial rotten seculay judges i mean we need to revoke the ACLUs tax exempt status this group is as bad as AL QUEDA and as nasty as any communists group and lets remember its got its HQ in HANOI ON THE BAY or SAN FRANCISCO
Posted by: sandpiper at May 08, 2006 12:40 PM (gJhPg)
8
ACLU is for what ever feeeeellllsss good. It is a New Age religion. A few examples are, abortion as a form of birth control, gay marriage, and NAMBLA.
The ACLU is trying very hard to shape America to appear like Europe. Where there are no limits, and forget about morality, because it is hate speech. This is New Age thought, and New Age religion where children grow up not understanding limits, or what is right, and wrong.
P.S. For those who are wondering what NAMBLA is, it is child sex between a man, and boy. SICKOS.
One of the biggest LIES of the ACLU, and their like is the founding fathers were Deists. They were not. Most prayed to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.
The ACLU is trying very hard to shape America to appear like Europe. Where there are no limits, and forget about morality, because it is hate speech. This is New Age thought, and New Age religion where children grow up not understanding limits, or what is right, and wrong.
P.S. For those who are wondering what NAMBLA is, it is child sex between a man, and boy. SICKOS.
One of the biggest LIES of the ACLU, and their like is the founding fathers were Deists. They were not. Most prayed to Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 02:17 PM (D2g/j)
9
Actually, Leatherneck, I didn't say that the Founding Fathers were all deists. I said "most of the major founders" but that's a little vague. How about Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe? That's the Father of the DOI, the Father of our Country, the Father of our Constitution, the author of Common Sense "the pen of the Revolution", the greatest intellect at the time of the Founding, and, in total, four of the first five presidents of the United States?
That good enough for ya, Leatherneck? Deism was very popular in intellectual circles at the time of the founding, and is best characterized by this quote from Voltaire: "the existence of a watch presupposes the existence of a watchmaker". This is what Jefferson meant by "nature and nature's God"
That good enough for ya, Leatherneck? Deism was very popular in intellectual circles at the time of the founding, and is best characterized by this quote from Voltaire: "the existence of a watch presupposes the existence of a watchmaker". This is what Jefferson meant by "nature and nature's God"
Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 04:15 PM (aqTJB)
10
jd, you are wrong. You want to be right, but you are not, and never will be. Perhaps, your lot will change all of history to suit your New Age agenda.
That being said jd, I will not cut your stupid head off for believing as you do.
That being said jd, I will not cut your stupid head off for believing as you do.
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 04:38 PM (D2g/j)
11
Thanks for letting me keep my head on my non-leathery neck.
But if I'm wrong, do me the favor of showing me where. Are you saying these men were not Deists? Are you saying that other, more important founders were not Deists (Adams?)? Are you saying that my interpretation of Deism is wrong? (certainly, there were differences in the Deist beliefs of Washington and Jefferson. Washington clearly had no problem with a national proclamation about prayer, and Jefferson did). It is easy to say "you're wrong". But it really isn't the glimmer of a refutation.
But if I'm wrong, do me the favor of showing me where. Are you saying these men were not Deists? Are you saying that other, more important founders were not Deists (Adams?)? Are you saying that my interpretation of Deism is wrong? (certainly, there were differences in the Deist beliefs of Washington and Jefferson. Washington clearly had no problem with a national proclamation about prayer, and Jefferson did). It is easy to say "you're wrong". But it really isn't the glimmer of a refutation.
Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 04:43 PM (aqTJB)
12
Incidentally, Adams was a Unitarian, which makes five of the first five presidents either Deists or unitarians. If this was a "Christian" nation, it wasn't in any sense a Christian nation the way most Christians today would understand it. Moreover, Washington approved a treaty with the Barbary States which stated EXPLICITLY that the US was not a Christian nation.
Posted by: jd at May 08, 2006 05:35 PM (aqTJB)
Posted by: Leatherneck at May 08, 2006 06:29 PM (D2g/j)
14
>>>What they DO object to is government sponsorship of religious speech or government discrimination against certain speech.
jd,
thanks for reciting the talking points to me (like I hadn't already heard them a thousand times). I can tell the difference between government sponsorship of religion vs what the Left claims is government sponsorship of religion, thank you.
jd,
thanks for reciting the talking points to me (like I hadn't already heard them a thousand times). I can tell the difference between government sponsorship of religion vs what the Left claims is government sponsorship of religion, thank you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 08, 2006 07:51 PM (paKD6)
15
Leatherneck--great site on religious history of US. I was wrong about Adams, I think, upon reading that. I didn't realize how significant the Emerson influence on Unitarianism was. I should have known, though, given Adams' status as the first president to exploit religion falsely (he called Jefferson an atheist and/or satanist, although they later patched things up when both were in retirement).
But the website is in error on deism, particularly in its treatment of Paine and Jefferson. It uses Deism's critics to define it, which is hardly balanced. Also, it ignores the fact that deism was an incredibly diverse philosophical school, without a unifying document. It was founded on the belief in reason, and for that reason, Jefferson wrote a bible that removed all miracles. He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, he believed in Christ's teachings. He had a real problem with the trinity, as did many deists.
But an interesting site, nonetheless. I'm intrigued by the quote from Hamilton. As one of my favorite Founders, Hamilton is one whose view on this I actually don't know and should.
But the website is in error on deism, particularly in its treatment of Paine and Jefferson. It uses Deism's critics to define it, which is hardly balanced. Also, it ignores the fact that deism was an incredibly diverse philosophical school, without a unifying document. It was founded on the belief in reason, and for that reason, Jefferson wrote a bible that removed all miracles. He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, he believed in Christ's teachings. He had a real problem with the trinity, as did many deists.
But an interesting site, nonetheless. I'm intrigued by the quote from Hamilton. As one of my favorite Founders, Hamilton is one whose view on this I actually don't know and should.
Posted by: jd at May 09, 2006 11:32 AM (aqTJB)
16
Hey JD...yeah there is a war going on against the athiests...when they want to tear crosses down that commemorate my ancestors that have fought for our freedom and theirs, you darn tootin there is going to be war. Just as we do not tolerate terrorists attcking our country, we will not stand for our own people attacking us. If they do not like how this country is ran or what it was found on..they can leave with my blessing. Let them start their own country with their own rules
They can have no crosses, no christians, the ACLU and all the baby killing abortionist and homosexuals they want. They can call it Rainbow City.But when it comes to my freedoms they better back off because I will fight to the death for what I believe.
They can have no crosses, no christians, the ACLU and all the baby killing abortionist and homosexuals they want. They can call it Rainbow City.But when it comes to my freedoms they better back off because I will fight to the death for what I believe.
Posted by: CJ at May 23, 2006 11:04 PM (GRjOw)
April 27, 2006
We Support the Troops, Not the War
UPDATE: Ian, "Don’t you dare question their patriotism!" Indeed.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:13 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 01:19 PM (CcXvt)
2
It's time some of these scum were arrested,and get what's comming to them. A year in jail, with "bubba" wanting to become thier personal proctologist might straighten these dip-shits out.
Posted by: Frank Saxon at April 27, 2006 01:37 PM (BFlCR)
3
WELL JUST DON'T STAND THERE MAGGET, GET SOME PAINT, AND A BRUSH, AND GET BUSY. Then post a guard.
Sgt. Leatherneck, make it happen!
Sgt. Leatherneck, make it happen!
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 27, 2006 01:41 PM (D2g/j)
4
"We won't fight your wars!" ... OK ... I figured that one out ...
On the Navy Doors it says .... Fuck Off! Hmmmmmmm!
This one may be an ROTC response - I've known a few swabbies with a keen sense of humor.
Anyway .... the Left is sooooooo daring! What next .... toilet paper in the trees, ringing doorbells at night n' hiding? Oooooooo! I'm sooooo frightened!!!!
On the Navy Doors it says .... Fuck Off! Hmmmmmmm!
This one may be an ROTC response - I've known a few swabbies with a keen sense of humor.
Anyway .... the Left is sooooooo daring! What next .... toilet paper in the trees, ringing doorbells at night n' hiding? Oooooooo! I'm sooooo frightened!!!!
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 01:58 PM (SeBrl)
5
Quick! Rusty! I'm scared! Hold my hand!
On second thought - after seeing that photo with that Imperial Trooper - forget about it.
On second thought - after seeing that photo with that Imperial Trooper - forget about it.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 02:03 PM (SeBrl)
6
Track down those no good maggots and make them clean it up with a toothbrush and teacup and pay for it out of their own pockets then they should be suspended and barred forever from ever returning
Posted by: sandpiper at April 27, 2006 02:08 PM (V8weA)
7
"Anyway .... the Left is sooooooo daring!"
Yeah, "the Left" did it. We decided to do it at our annual meaning. Drrrrrrr.
Yeah, "the Left" did it. We decided to do it at our annual meaning. Drrrrrrr.
Posted by: jpe at April 27, 2006 03:30 PM (5ceWd)
8
The Left is targeting Rotc and military recruiters all over the country, but mostly in Leftwing cities like Seattle and San Fransicko. Lefty efforts against the military go beyond mere vandalism and have escalated into actual violence:
"Since the beginning of 2003, there have also been more than a dozen other often violent incidents aimed at military recruiters or property throughout the country, according to the police, recruiters and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a few cases, vehicles have been set on fire; in others, blood has been thrown through windows. Spokespeople for the military have downplayed the incidents even as some recruiters have increased security at their stations."
"That same day, before dawn, the police arrested a 19-year-old Manhattan College junior who they said threw a burning rag into an Army recruiting station that was closed for the night in the Parkchester section of the Bronx, and jammed the door locks with powerful glue. He was caught carrying a handwritten note declaring that a "wave of violence" would occur throughout the Northeast on Jan. 31, aimed at the "military industrial complex" in response to American military actions, the police said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/21recruit.html?ex=1146283200&en=80e57a1e476cdfcf&ei=5070
"Since the beginning of 2003, there have also been more than a dozen other often violent incidents aimed at military recruiters or property throughout the country, according to the police, recruiters and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a few cases, vehicles have been set on fire; in others, blood has been thrown through windows. Spokespeople for the military have downplayed the incidents even as some recruiters have increased security at their stations."
"That same day, before dawn, the police arrested a 19-year-old Manhattan College junior who they said threw a burning rag into an Army recruiting station that was closed for the night in the Parkchester section of the Bronx, and jammed the door locks with powerful glue. He was caught carrying a handwritten note declaring that a "wave of violence" would occur throughout the Northeast on Jan. 31, aimed at the "military industrial complex" in response to American military actions, the police said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/nyregion/21recruit.html?ex=1146283200&en=80e57a1e476cdfcf&ei=5070
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 04:23 PM (M3nr/)
9
I'm sure it happened in the middle of the night so that no one would kick their asses.
jpe, are you really that ignorant or just in denial? Whether or not it was someone you agree with, it was most definitely the far-left wing of your party. By definition, this is exactly the work of the far left. At least admit the obvious.
jpe, are you really that ignorant or just in denial? Whether or not it was someone you agree with, it was most definitely the far-left wing of your party. By definition, this is exactly the work of the far left. At least admit the obvious.
Posted by: slug at April 27, 2006 04:40 PM (wYW63)
10
A good liberal is a dead liberal.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 27, 2006 05:01 PM (0yYS2)
11
Anyone who disagrees with the war should die. No one should have a voice. Liberals should have their mouths blown off.
Posted by: Bill at April 28, 2006 10:06 PM (wZLWV)
12
would be proud of all of you.
Posted by: Ray Quinonez at April 29, 2006 12:35 PM (/nEuU)
13
People are dying, and your complaining about a little paint, get a clue.
Posted by: Ray Quinonez at April 29, 2006 12:37 PM (/nEuU)
14
would be proud of all of you
Posted by: Ray Quinonez at April 29, 2006 12:39 PM (/nEuU)
15
Who is we?
Posted by: greyrooster at May 01, 2006 08:52 AM (XioYD)
April 25, 2006
First to Fall to Sharia? The Academy
Yes, I actually teach at a university. No, I will never reveal my identity.
Case in point, Detroit Free Press:
An Islamic student group at Michigan State University demanded Monday that university officials publicly reprimand a professor whose Feb. 28 e-mail called on Muslims who don't "like the values of the West" to leave the United States....Case in point #2, Daniel Pipes in FrontPage:In addition to a reprimand, the student group wants the university to implement diversity training programs for faculty and a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.
Who would have thought that Belmont University of Nashville, Tennessee, would apply the Islamic law to its staff? But just that happened earlier this month.Indeed. Hat tip to Robert Spencer.
More from Michelle.
Update: So, you say bad things about Islam: you're fired or reprimmanded; you say only good things about Islam, yet are a partisan Democrat then Yale wants to hire you. The academy in a nutshell.
Former academic Joyner, and present academic Taylor chime in.
Another update: Speaking of Steven Vincent, it turns out that Cole took swipes at Vincent not a week after he had been murdered. Class act, all around.
And another former academic, Jeff Goldstein, has more on Cole here.
Warning: Image below clearly violates Islamic law and may be deemed offensive. View at own risk. more...
Posted by: Rusty at
08:15 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.
1
To hell with academe, send them wherever the MSM is going.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 25, 2006 08:18 AM (8sFwj)
2
So why are they bending to the demands of a bunch of islamic extremists anyway? i say they should deport them all back to sudan or where ever they came from
Posted by: sandpiper at April 25, 2006 08:43 AM (mi9uJ)
3
Since when has it become the responsibility of those who have been here to change our ways to accomidate these newcomers?
Muslims have traditionally managed to live in the US with Jews and Christians without (any real) problems.
How about a mandatory seminar for muslims on American values, laws and TOLERANCE...
Muslims have traditionally managed to live in the US with Jews and Christians without (any real) problems.
How about a mandatory seminar for muslims on American values, laws and TOLERANCE...
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 25, 2006 08:51 AM (JXdhy)
4
The islamic student group should be thankfull that all the professor did (or rather, is able to do)is write letters saying that if they don't like things, then leave. The Copts, other Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sudanese blacks would be happy if all their critics in islamic dominant countries did was write letters instead of the choice they get now: submit, leave or die.
Posted by: Graeme at April 25, 2006 09:23 AM (N5vCl)
Posted by: Brad at April 25, 2006 10:58 AM (3OPZt)
6
After our society has been thoroughly balkanized, it's the intellectuals will be the first to flee when the civil war starts, leaving the rest of us who can't leave behind to do the fighting and dying.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 25, 2006 04:23 PM (paKD6)
7
Rusty, I've narrowed it down and decided you're either Juan Cole or Noam Chomsky. Once I figure out which, you're busted.
Posted by: The Unabrewer at April 26, 2006 02:44 AM (CDwI3)
8
Acadamia hasn't fallen to sharia, it has embraced it with open arms. Liberals are nothing but sycophants for terrorists and dictators.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 26, 2006 03:15 PM (0yYS2)
April 19, 2006
The True Voice of the Left
What appears below is not the usual fare for this website. It is a reprint of the bile and abuse that conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has received following her reposting of a Students Against War press release that contained contact information for SAW head conspirators. SAW is the group that rioted against military recruiters at UC Santa Cruz.
Now the SAW fools are claiming that Michelle's repost of their press release is resulting in death threats. Of course, since they themselves first posted this information it's hard to see their complaint.
This is how the Left reacts when they become too unhinged to maintain the veneer of civilization. If you're easily offended by gutter language, don't read any further: more...
Posted by: Bluto at
10:56 PM
| Comments (29)
| Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Simply charming!
Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at April 20, 2006 12:10 AM (3smJS)
2
That must be some of that lefty "nuanced" thinking I keep hearing about.
Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 20, 2006 12:28 AM (blNMI)
3
Man, have you got WAY to much time on your hands. Does your mommy know that you're playing on her computer?
Posted by: Lonevoice at April 20, 2006 01:09 AM (QnxoD)
4
Because of how evil the amerinazis have made America, Jesus Christ has removed His blessing. Can't you tell? http://www.deanberryministries.org/index3.h*ml
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 20, 2006 02:14 AM (h/YSB)
5
dean berry - NO YOU AREN'T A REAL AMERICAN, BECAUSE IT WAS EUROPEANS WHO CREATED DEATHCAMPS AND USED ZYCLON B, AND YOUR HINT THAT YOU CONFUSE AMERICANS WITH THE NAZI'S OF GERMANY TELLS ME YOU ARE CONFUSED. SO LET ME CLEAR THINGS UP FOR YOU:
IN AMERICA WE DO NOT PUT THE VERB AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE UNLIKE THE GERMANS
IN AMERICA WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, UNLIKE THE EUROPEANS
IN AMERICA WE DO NOT HAVE DEATH CAMPS OR DEATH MARCHES LIKE THE FOLLOWERS OF COMMUNISM DID IN CAMBODIA (REMEMBER COMMUNISM IS EUROPEAN IN ORIGIN)
IN AMERICA WE HAVE WENT TO EUROPES ASSISTANCE TO SAVE THEM FROM THE KAISER AND HITLER AND THE HEIRS OF VLADIMIR LENIN, BECAUSE THE EUROPEANS WERE SO HELPLESS.
IN AMERICA WE CREATED MORE WEALTH IN 225 YEARS THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD COULD DO IN 3000 YEARS THUS BENIFITING AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WE ARE GENEROUS TO SHARE WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD
IN AMERICA WE HAVE A DYNAMIC ECONOMY RATHER THAN THE SLUGGISH EUROPEAN ECONOMY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SOCIALIST (look at what happened with the berlin wall, the west berliners were living in luxury while over the wall in soviet east berlin the citizens could only look at the superior life everyone on the other side of the wall enjoyed)
IN AMERICA WE DO NOT PUT THE VERB AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE UNLIKE THE GERMANS
IN AMERICA WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, UNLIKE THE EUROPEANS
IN AMERICA WE DO NOT HAVE DEATH CAMPS OR DEATH MARCHES LIKE THE FOLLOWERS OF COMMUNISM DID IN CAMBODIA (REMEMBER COMMUNISM IS EUROPEAN IN ORIGIN)
IN AMERICA WE HAVE WENT TO EUROPES ASSISTANCE TO SAVE THEM FROM THE KAISER AND HITLER AND THE HEIRS OF VLADIMIR LENIN, BECAUSE THE EUROPEANS WERE SO HELPLESS.
IN AMERICA WE CREATED MORE WEALTH IN 225 YEARS THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD COULD DO IN 3000 YEARS THUS BENIFITING AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WE ARE GENEROUS TO SHARE WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD
IN AMERICA WE HAVE A DYNAMIC ECONOMY RATHER THAN THE SLUGGISH EUROPEAN ECONOMY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SOCIALIST (look at what happened with the berlin wall, the west berliners were living in luxury while over the wall in soviet east berlin the citizens could only look at the superior life everyone on the other side of the wall enjoyed)
Posted by: I GET DRUNK WITH TED KENNEDY at April 20, 2006 04:11 AM (Uvtly)
6
Why must some people on the left be obsessed with her genitalia?
Posted by: Leovinus at April 20, 2006 05:36 AM (I42Iw)
7
"If you had a conscious..."
Some real mental giants there. I guess that's opposed to having an UNconscious. Are these people in college? I noticed none of them misspelled the C word.
Leovinus, it seems many on the left, when in a snit, resort to very UN-PC epithets all the time. They simply cannot fathom how a minority person wouldn't be on their side so since said minority person doesn't toe the line that they think minorities should, they call them by the derogatory names they normally rail against others doing. You see, if a conservative calls someone stupid or ignorant, in the eyes of a lefty they're a misogynist, xenophobe or racist. But the double standard does not allow for the reverse.
As far as the death threats go, I don't know what to say. None of them ever reprint them to for others to see. And of course, if that has happened, that's wrong too. The problem there is that they willfully claim their own whereas we quickly reject the nut cases.
Some real mental giants there. I guess that's opposed to having an UNconscious. Are these people in college? I noticed none of them misspelled the C word.
Leovinus, it seems many on the left, when in a snit, resort to very UN-PC epithets all the time. They simply cannot fathom how a minority person wouldn't be on their side so since said minority person doesn't toe the line that they think minorities should, they call them by the derogatory names they normally rail against others doing. You see, if a conservative calls someone stupid or ignorant, in the eyes of a lefty they're a misogynist, xenophobe or racist. But the double standard does not allow for the reverse.
As far as the death threats go, I don't know what to say. None of them ever reprint them to for others to see. And of course, if that has happened, that's wrong too. The problem there is that they willfully claim their own whereas we quickly reject the nut cases.
Posted by: Oyster at April 20, 2006 06:02 AM (YudAC)
8
I guess this is exactly what Michelle talks about when she describes them as "unhinged." What remarkably unclever people.
Posted by: Asgerd at April 20, 2006 06:53 AM (w4Fe9)
9
That is disgusting. Not only are these people not very articulate, but they're obvioulsly bigots too. But then that's all the left really has.. invective, vitriol, and a deep intolerance for anyone with views different than their own.
Posted by: Richard at April 20, 2006 07:43 AM (7KF8r)
10
I don’t support for a moment the language of abuse, sexism, and racism that Malkin was subjected to. Having been on the receiving end of some of that from some on the right, I think it hurts us all, regardless of the source.
But I’m frankly shocked at you, Bluto, for not having sympathy for those who have been threatened with death as a result of their personal info being posted at Malkin’s site. Several weeks ago, you declined to provide any specifics of a bar fight you were engaged in back in 1975, for fear that to do so on your blog would lead to some in your small town identifying you, and thus exposing you to Al Qaeda and its supporters, who had threatened you with death on some other website. I don’t believe that the death threats these people have received are any less credible than that. (I don’t believe either of you is in any danger, but since you thought YOU were in danger, that Al Qaeda would identify you, out of all the right wing bloggers, it is at LEAST as credible that some right wing fringe nut job would commit violence against these lefties). Why don’t you have sympathy for people, like you, who take extremely unlikely death threats very seriously?
No one should face a death threat for political activism in this country, just as no one should be abused like Malkin was.
You should read some of the unbelievable hate mail that Andrew Sullivan gets from left and right. People on the right in particular write at length about how they long for his AIDS death. Nice.
But I’m frankly shocked at you, Bluto, for not having sympathy for those who have been threatened with death as a result of their personal info being posted at Malkin’s site. Several weeks ago, you declined to provide any specifics of a bar fight you were engaged in back in 1975, for fear that to do so on your blog would lead to some in your small town identifying you, and thus exposing you to Al Qaeda and its supporters, who had threatened you with death on some other website. I don’t believe that the death threats these people have received are any less credible than that. (I don’t believe either of you is in any danger, but since you thought YOU were in danger, that Al Qaeda would identify you, out of all the right wing bloggers, it is at LEAST as credible that some right wing fringe nut job would commit violence against these lefties). Why don’t you have sympathy for people, like you, who take extremely unlikely death threats very seriously?
No one should face a death threat for political activism in this country, just as no one should be abused like Malkin was.
You should read some of the unbelievable hate mail that Andrew Sullivan gets from left and right. People on the right in particular write at length about how they long for his AIDS death. Nice.
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 07:44 AM (uT71O)
11
They simply cannot fathom how a minority person wouldn't be on their side
Liberals are terrified of minorities escaping the Democrat plantation. It would mean political extinction for the Dems.
Liberals are terrified of minorities escaping the Democrat plantation. It would mean political extinction for the Dems.
Posted by: dcb at April 20, 2006 07:47 AM (8e/V4)
12
jd,
as Bluto has already stated, since the SAW folks themselves first posted this information it's hard to see their complaint. When people like SAW publicly post their contact info, it means they're not trying to hide their identity. Savvy? And you don't get people like Michelle Malkin to do you any favors by calling her a slanty-eyed cunt. Maybe they should have asked nicely.
as Bluto has already stated, since the SAW folks themselves first posted this information it's hard to see their complaint. When people like SAW publicly post their contact info, it means they're not trying to hide their identity. Savvy? And you don't get people like Michelle Malkin to do you any favors by calling her a slanty-eyed cunt. Maybe they should have asked nicely.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 07:55 AM (8e/V4)
13
jd, the SAW idiots posted their own info. Michelle simply reposted their "press release". In response, the Left has threatened Michelle's children, and posted directions, with map, to her house.
There is also the question of the remarkable similarity in the grammar and sentence construction of the alleged email "death threats" that SAW has reproduced, sans headers, on their site.
As is your wont, you mischaraterize and tell outright lies about past comments. That is why I seldom engage you, and, frankly, hold you somewhat in contempt; only somewhat, because your prevarications seem to stem more from mental deficiency than conscious intent to deceive.
There is also the question of the remarkable similarity in the grammar and sentence construction of the alleged email "death threats" that SAW has reproduced, sans headers, on their site.
As is your wont, you mischaraterize and tell outright lies about past comments. That is why I seldom engage you, and, frankly, hold you somewhat in contempt; only somewhat, because your prevarications seem to stem more from mental deficiency than conscious intent to deceive.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 20, 2006 07:57 AM (RHG+K)
14
I agree that they were foolish for posting their personal info anywhere, but you have to admit, on the blogosphere, the location matters, too. Some websites get 10 hits a day, others several hundred thousand. My main point is, why isn't Bluto sympathetic to their fears, when they so closely mirror his own? There have been right wing killers in this country, domestic terrorists, whether they have shot abortion providers, gay activists, bombed clinics and gay clubs, attacked moderate Cubans, etc, just as there have been animal rights activists who use terrorism, etc. I also think that local right or left wingers are far more likely than Al Qaeda terrorists to take actions short of murder--like egging houses, vandalizing cars, which Malkin's publicity also exposes these folks to)
Also, Jesusland--you are assuming that every person who asked for their info to be removed was abusive. I very much doubt that to be the case. I think some of the insulters were angry that she didn't remove it after being asked.
Also, Jesusland--you are assuming that every person who asked for their info to be removed was abusive. I very much doubt that to be the case. I think some of the insulters were angry that she didn't remove it after being asked.
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 08:04 AM (uT71O)
15
SAW are these the same collage educated crap heads who have those stupid 70s antiwar bumper stickers on their cars i understand where UC Santa Cruz has gotten some retaliation over their blocking military recruters their leader a lowlife bit of pond scum CHARLES PETERSON was suspended and theres talk of cutting off US SANTA CRUZES money
Posted by: sandpiper at April 20, 2006 08:10 AM (nMpEK)
16
>>>I think some of the insulters were angry that she didn't remove it after being asked.
I'm sure you'd like to think that. But Malkin has been taking this kind of abuse for years. The fact that the Left is populated by angry haters isn't really even news.
I'm sure you'd like to think that. But Malkin has been taking this kind of abuse for years. The fact that the Left is populated by angry haters isn't really even news.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 08:10 AM (8e/V4)
17
If I misrepresented your past comments on the death threats you received, and your using them to refuse to talk about an incident more than thirty years ago, then I apologize. To avoid future misunderstandings, please specify what I'm getting wrong.
I'm aware of some mental deficiencies but not as applicable to this case.
I don't know that similarity in grammar/language in the death threats mean they aren't real. Again, why don't you have some sympathy for people who are in the same boat you found yourself in? Do death threats only matter when they threaten rightwingers?
And isn't it a little simplistic to say "The LEFT" posted Malkin's information? I could just as simply say "The Right" destroyed an airliner when Orlando Busch used a missile to shoot down a civilian plane. Judging right or left by the actions of its fringers is a poor debating tactic that besmirches those who engage in it.
I'm aware of some mental deficiencies but not as applicable to this case.
I don't know that similarity in grammar/language in the death threats mean they aren't real. Again, why don't you have some sympathy for people who are in the same boat you found yourself in? Do death threats only matter when they threaten rightwingers?
And isn't it a little simplistic to say "The LEFT" posted Malkin's information? I could just as simply say "The Right" destroyed an airliner when Orlando Busch used a missile to shoot down a civilian plane. Judging right or left by the actions of its fringers is a poor debating tactic that besmirches those who engage in it.
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 08:14 AM (uT71O)
18
>>>Judging right or left by the actions of its fringers is a poor debating tactic that besmirches those who engage in it.
We on the Right dissavow our lunatics. But on the Left, the lunatics have taken over the insane asylum. That's the difference.
We on the Right dissavow our lunatics. But on the Left, the lunatics have taken over the insane asylum. That's the difference.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 08:22 AM (8e/V4)
19
Carlos--I don't know if I agree that the Left hates more than the right. There seems to be a lot of hate on both sides. Certainly, in the Clinton years, the hate was more on the right, at least that's the way it seemed to me. What is alarming is the level of hatred infesting American politics at all levels. It's very different from the 70s, or even the 60s at their worst, I think. It is tough to imagine our elected officials being as friendly to each other as John Kennedy and Barry Goldwater were in the Senate, or Hubert Humphrey and Dick Russell, or Ev Dirksen and LBJ or Tip O'Neil and Gerald Ford. Politics has become very bitter, very partisan, very personal, and very much about destroying the opposition. They aren't just wrong, they are EVIL LYING BASTARD IDIOT FASCISTS with mental deficiencies.
I think we all should be concerned about that, whether we are left, right or center. It's very bad for the country. Bitter discourse tends to precede revolutionary upheaval.
I think we all should be concerned about that, whether we are left, right or center. It's very bad for the country. Bitter discourse tends to precede revolutionary upheaval.
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 08:23 AM (uT71O)
20
Commenting specifically on the leftists' communication skills, who knew there were keyboards in the sewer?
Posted by: Mike at April 20, 2006 08:27 AM (XeoHY)
21
I don't think the right has disavowed Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or other obvious spewers of hate. John McCain is going to speak at Jerry Falwell's college. Falwell blamed 9-11 on gays and abortionists and feminists. He blamed 20 murders on Clinton. Pat Robertson has been disavowed by some, but many have not, and he called for placing a nuke in the State Dept and assassinating a foreign leader.
You have your haters, the left has theirs. I don't think you are right to say that one side has disavowed its haters, while the other has not. If our haters our Sheehan, Moore, McKinney, they are no less "disavowed" than Coulter, Falwell, and Robertson on your side.
You have your haters, the left has theirs. I don't think you are right to say that one side has disavowed its haters, while the other has not. If our haters our Sheehan, Moore, McKinney, they are no less "disavowed" than Coulter, Falwell, and Robertson on your side.
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 08:28 AM (uT71O)
22
>>>I don't think the right has disavowed Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or other obvious spewers of hate.
Show me where Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh have threatened to sew up Hilary Clinton's cunt with barbed wire, then you've got a point. Otherwise, the comparison is specious.
Show me where Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh have threatened to sew up Hilary Clinton's cunt with barbed wire, then you've got a point. Otherwise, the comparison is specious.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 08:33 AM (8e/V4)
23
>>Ann Coulter
Our hard Right spewers aren't anti-American traitors like hard Leftists are. That's why we don't have to dissavow them.
Our hard Right spewers aren't anti-American traitors like hard Leftists are. That's why we don't have to dissavow them.
Posted by: dcb at April 20, 2006 08:38 AM (8e/V4)
24
jd's defense of these lunatics is prima facie evidence that the Left sanctions, protects, and even nurtures hatred to serve its ends. His inability to point to equivalent behavior from the Right must be a source of great frustration to him.
As a young college student, perhaps jd will yet outgrow his need to justify the excesses of his political brethren, and even embrace a rational political philosophy as his brain begins to mature.
As a young college student, perhaps jd will yet outgrow his need to justify the excesses of his political brethren, and even embrace a rational political philosophy as his brain begins to mature.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 20, 2006 08:48 AM (RHG+K)
25
She posted the info to shine light on leftist, anti-war activities. These degenerates are the ones who are descending into crude obscenities. Michelle will always stand up for what she believes in, no matter what threats come her way.
Posted by: Andrew at April 20, 2006 08:58 AM (Q9gZ/)
26
A disavowal of hatred and violence ? Perhaps it is time to taker a look in the archives again. Does anyone remember any posts regretting what had been said during the early days of the kidnapping of the christian peacemakers ? I do not recall anyone chastisng the use of " a dull knife" on their throats.
Posted by: john Ryan at April 20, 2006 10:10 AM (TcoRJ)
27
john ryan,
I remember clearly the dissavowal of and apologies for hyperbolic language used about the CPTs. Do you think Leftards will make similar apologies to Michelle Malkin? Hell would freeze over before that happenned.
And on an unrelated topic, why is posting comments on this blog always so wacky? Half the time I get an error message saying commenting is suspended. What gives?
I remember clearly the dissavowal of and apologies for hyperbolic language used about the CPTs. Do you think Leftards will make similar apologies to Michelle Malkin? Hell would freeze over before that happenned.
And on an unrelated topic, why is posting comments on this blog always so wacky? Half the time I get an error message saying commenting is suspended. What gives?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 10:26 AM (8e/V4)
28
DPB--I NEVER defended the people who attacked Malkin. I did just the opposite. Why are you lying about that?
And I think most people "on the left" would disavow someone who advocated sewing up Malkin's vagina, even as rhetoric. You are whipping up a hatred for a whole ideology, based on the extreme intemperate language of a few. I used Limbaugh, Coulter, etc, because you said the left was being led by the fringe. By that, I thought you meant the radical figures in the left: Moore, McKinney, etc. If you meant these specific commenters, then it is an even easier argument. They are NOT representative of the Democratic party, or the left generally. If you go to left/right blogs, you see very intemperate language, hateful language, depending on how extreme the webpage is.
ON THIS BLOG COMMENTS SECTION, one poster has advocated the extermination of all Muslims and liberals. Killing them all. Asked for clarification, he repeated his desire for all of them to be killed, as threats to civilization.
Only one poster even disagreed with him.
Genocidal extermination--yeah, the left is the place of traitorous haters, exclusively.
Note to DPB--by bringing up right wing haters, I'm not defending the people who attacked Malkin. I never have. I'm only restating that because you seem to think I did. Never did. Never would. Never will. Are we clear on that?
And I think most people "on the left" would disavow someone who advocated sewing up Malkin's vagina, even as rhetoric. You are whipping up a hatred for a whole ideology, based on the extreme intemperate language of a few. I used Limbaugh, Coulter, etc, because you said the left was being led by the fringe. By that, I thought you meant the radical figures in the left: Moore, McKinney, etc. If you meant these specific commenters, then it is an even easier argument. They are NOT representative of the Democratic party, or the left generally. If you go to left/right blogs, you see very intemperate language, hateful language, depending on how extreme the webpage is.
ON THIS BLOG COMMENTS SECTION, one poster has advocated the extermination of all Muslims and liberals. Killing them all. Asked for clarification, he repeated his desire for all of them to be killed, as threats to civilization.
Only one poster even disagreed with him.
Genocidal extermination--yeah, the left is the place of traitorous haters, exclusively.
Note to DPB--by bringing up right wing haters, I'm not defending the people who attacked Malkin. I never have. I'm only restating that because you seem to think I did. Never did. Never would. Never will. Are we clear on that?
Posted by: jd at April 20, 2006 10:36 AM (aqTJB)
29
jd,
can we at least put to rest the Leftwing myth of the "angry white male"? Not to mention all the other self-serving Leftwing myths about how loving they are, and how the Right is so "angry" and "hate filled". The Left is second to none in their hate-filled anger.
Re Maxie's hate and anger, he's the exception on this blog, and others who have tried to go that route have been threatened with banning by Rusty & Company. Considering how hateful you Lefties like portraying this blog, you'd think it was populated by Maxies. It isn't.
can we at least put to rest the Leftwing myth of the "angry white male"? Not to mention all the other self-serving Leftwing myths about how loving they are, and how the Right is so "angry" and "hate filled". The Left is second to none in their hate-filled anger.
Re Maxie's hate and anger, he's the exception on this blog, and others who have tried to go that route have been threatened with banning by Rusty & Company. Considering how hateful you Lefties like portraying this blog, you'd think it was populated by Maxies. It isn't.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 20, 2006 10:44 AM (8e/V4)
April 17, 2006
Pulitzer Gives Award For Treason
Jeemany Christmas
Forbes Via Mike Hampton at The Department of Home Land Stupidity :Pullitzer Prize my....who are these "jurors" anyway?
The jurors awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting “to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times for their carefully sourced stories on secret domestic eavesdropping that stirred a national debate on the boundary line between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberty.†While the Times sat on the story for over a year and ultimately edited it due to national security concerns, many called the revelation of the program’s existence a threat to national security. President Bush himself called its publication “a shameful act.â€
Oh wait we have them right here on comments via Mike again., eh eh ah-hem....
Narda Zacchino, deputy editor, San Francisco Chronicle (Chair)more...Mike Connelly, executive editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Kenneth Paulson, editor, USA Today
Delia Rios, national correspondent, Newhouse News Service, Washington, DC
*George Rodrigue, vice president/managing editor, The Dallas Morning News
*past Pulitzer Prize winner
Posted by: Howie at
08:30 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Narda Zacchino, deputy editor, San Francisco Chronicle (Chair)
Mike Connelly, executive editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Kenneth Paulson, editor, USA Today
Delia Rios, national correspondent, Newhouse News Service, Washington, DC
*George Rodrigue, vice president/managing editor, The Dallas Morning News
*past Pulitzer Prize winner
Mike Connelly, executive editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Kenneth Paulson, editor, USA Today
Delia Rios, national correspondent, Newhouse News Service, Washington, DC
*George Rodrigue, vice president/managing editor, The Dallas Morning News
*past Pulitzer Prize winner
Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 17, 2006 08:46 PM (FVbj6)
Posted by: West1 at April 18, 2006 01:35 AM (OkonL)
3
Um. Thats not treason.
Posted by: actus at April 18, 2006 02:40 AM (CqheE)
4
Libs hate monitoring of Al Queda contacts in the US.
Posted by: mrclark at April 18, 2006 06:42 AM (IMrft)
5
But I don't read any of these publications, and they are all going out of business. Ah, the beauty of it all.......
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 18, 2006 08:04 AM (gx67A)
6
I fail to see how this damages our security one iota. Like Al Qaeda suddenly says--wait, I'll stop phoning Ahmed in Arizona, for fear of the warrantless wiretapping, even though it was well known that the US had broad FISA wiretapping powers prior to 9-11, that were expanded by the Patriot Act. If the program is necessary, and exposure ends it, then you might have a case. So far, exposure hasn't ended it. All it has done is raise the question--why didn't the president ask Congress for this power? Or why didn't the president go through FISA?
For my part, I'm glad that the NYT published this, and it is eminently worthy of a Pulitzer. The press must function as the watchdog on our liberties.
As Hamilton said in the 8th federalist--"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates...will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free..."
For my part, I'm glad that the NYT published this, and it is eminently worthy of a Pulitzer. The press must function as the watchdog on our liberties.
As Hamilton said in the 8th federalist--"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates...will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free..."
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 02:50 PM (aqTJB)
7
It wasn't known that there was an efficient program in place, or how that program operated. Now terrorists have been alerted to take extra precautions. That means that the first direct evidence you, jd, see of the damage done by the traitors at the Gray Lady will probably be the next major terror attack on this country. The NYT has a history of lying and treason; google Walter Duranty.
We didn't need for the NYT to issue a direct warning to jihadi terrorists in order to help Risen sell books.
This is like saying that publishing convoy sailing dates during WWII wouldn't have been treasonous because it was well known that convoys would be sailing.
Perhaps if you took off your Democrat partisan hat and put on your American thinking cap the issue would be clearer for you, jd.
We didn't need for the NYT to issue a direct warning to jihadi terrorists in order to help Risen sell books.
This is like saying that publishing convoy sailing dates during WWII wouldn't have been treasonous because it was well known that convoys would be sailing.
Perhaps if you took off your Democrat partisan hat and put on your American thinking cap the issue would be clearer for you, jd.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 18, 2006 05:26 PM (RHG+K)
8
Did anyone get arrested for droppping this dime? I know the Old York Times was looked at until the news died down. The MSM seem to be connected to the New World Order (NWO). I guess Mr. Bush did not go alone with something the NWO wanted, and there lies the reason perhaps. That U.N. tax of ten cents a barrel of oil for world peace has not happened. Why?
I don't know folks, I'm just thinking out loud. Will the U.S. bypass the U.N. again? The NWO does not like countries acting alone. They are all part of the team, and Bush on at least one subject did not go along, and caused France, Germany, Russia to lose a lot of money. It has been a few years now, will they all make nice, and play for the same team?
Terrorists, whom Iran loves to support, were alerted. Iran may become part of the Nuke club due to contracts. Contracts in Iran give the same above mention countries money. Just like Iraq.
I'm just bringing up topics because I do not like the NWO, the U.N., and the MSM; Also, I am at work and have to much time to think.
I don't know folks, I'm just thinking out loud. Will the U.S. bypass the U.N. again? The NWO does not like countries acting alone. They are all part of the team, and Bush on at least one subject did not go along, and caused France, Germany, Russia to lose a lot of money. It has been a few years now, will they all make nice, and play for the same team?
Terrorists, whom Iran loves to support, were alerted. Iran may become part of the Nuke club due to contracts. Contracts in Iran give the same above mention countries money. Just like Iraq.
I'm just bringing up topics because I do not like the NWO, the U.N., and the MSM; Also, I am at work and have to much time to think.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 18, 2006 08:28 PM (D2g/j)
9
Before 9-11, any attentive person knew that over 17K warrants had been issued under FISA, and after 9-11 this was expanded and made even more user friendly. What did Al Qaeda learn from the NYT disclosure? That there were more warrants. We didn't learn how this program "operates" did we? I've seen speculation about data mining, but no usuable intel. Nothing remotely comparable to troop ship sailing time, which is just inflammatory rhetoric. All Al Qaeda learned from the NYT disclosure is that the president was wiretapping without Congress' knowledge, in direct contradiction to Congress' intent as expressed in law, and without a warrant, as required under the 4th amendment.
Maybe if you took off your Republican partisan helmet, and put on your freedom-cherishing, liberty-loving American hat, maybe you'd see this correctly.
JD
Maybe if you took off your Republican partisan helmet, and put on your freedom-cherishing, liberty-loving American hat, maybe you'd see this correctly.
JD
Posted by: jd at April 18, 2006 09:49 PM (uT71O)
10
Look jd, I understand that the MSM serves a purpose. But they've assigned themselves various titles like 'objective', 'unbiased' and 'equitable'. Instead, they play word games and use improper terms like 'domestic wiretapping'. They imply more than they say by acts of ommission, misleading and sometimes employing flat out falsifications. If we need watcdogs like this then we wouldn't need watchdogs like blogs to keep an eye on the MSM.
So far we have had many indications that there are those in Congress, the FBI, the CIA, the DIA and every other acronym out there that no one can be trusted to keep certain national security issues secret. It's absolutely no surprise that those members of Congress who were involved were few. We've never had an enemy quite like this. I would think it calls for stronger or more secretive measures. The NYT writers, Risen and Lichtblau, had an awful lot more information than was printed and it took the NYT a year, a year!, to decide that they might have to edit the story.
You say that "Before 9-11, any attentive person knew that over 17K warrants had been issued under FISA, and after 9-11 this was expanded and made even more user friendly." If this is the case, then why was the story so worthy of a Pulitzer? Hell, any attentive person knew. Right?
The NYT is in the sensationalism business. Listening in on phone calls made to terrorists is nothing new or exciting. But put the label 'domestic wiretapping' on it, provide an air of indignation and make the story reminiscent of a past President's transgressions and POW! you've got a story.
This whole thing is horsesh*t. Prove to me it hasn't been done by every President during times of war AND peace, but in this case - it's the evil Bush regime.
Meh.
So far we have had many indications that there are those in Congress, the FBI, the CIA, the DIA and every other acronym out there that no one can be trusted to keep certain national security issues secret. It's absolutely no surprise that those members of Congress who were involved were few. We've never had an enemy quite like this. I would think it calls for stronger or more secretive measures. The NYT writers, Risen and Lichtblau, had an awful lot more information than was printed and it took the NYT a year, a year!, to decide that they might have to edit the story.
You say that "Before 9-11, any attentive person knew that over 17K warrants had been issued under FISA, and after 9-11 this was expanded and made even more user friendly." If this is the case, then why was the story so worthy of a Pulitzer? Hell, any attentive person knew. Right?
The NYT is in the sensationalism business. Listening in on phone calls made to terrorists is nothing new or exciting. But put the label 'domestic wiretapping' on it, provide an air of indignation and make the story reminiscent of a past President's transgressions and POW! you've got a story.
This whole thing is horsesh*t. Prove to me it hasn't been done by every President during times of war AND peace, but in this case - it's the evil Bush regime.
Meh.
Posted by: Oyster at April 19, 2006 04:56 AM (YudAC)
11
Oyster--the 17K warrants were FISA warrants. FISA was established in 1978 in response to two things--the rampant abuse of wiretaps by the FBI and by presidents, Dem and Repub, in the 35 years studied by the Church commission, AND the need to have a fast, sub-4th amendment procedure to monitor spies and, an afterthought, terrorists. FISA set up a rapid approval process, in which a federal judge was permanently in Washington (on a rotating basis) to approve these warrants. It was so easy to get one that prior to 2001, only one had been turned down! And while the turnaround time was 24 hrs for approval, the FBI and AG could, if they felt it necessary, conduct the wiretap in advance for 72 hours while waiting for approval. So no waiting was necessary.
This IS a real issue because the Constitution forbids searches without a warrant. I'm someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says (yes, I'm against Roe). Why did the president need to go around FISA? Why did the president not ask COngress for a new law (he would have gotten it. Hell, he'd get it today. Just ask. That's what checks and balances are all about).
Yes, in wartime, presidents have taken broad powers. Lincoln closed newspapers, etc. But this is a war that will last our lifetimes and beyond. We must not have an executive out of control. And it IS domestic wiretapping--in the sense that I only care about it when one of the people being monitored is in this country. The president's right to surveill abroad is not checked by any constitutional limit. His power to do so at home is--or should be.
We would be safer if we didn't have a constitution. We would have less crime if the police could search any home, any time they wanted to. We'd be a lot safer if the cops could confiscate everyone's guns. But because of the constitution, they can't. Thank God.
This IS a real issue because the Constitution forbids searches without a warrant. I'm someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says (yes, I'm against Roe). Why did the president need to go around FISA? Why did the president not ask COngress for a new law (he would have gotten it. Hell, he'd get it today. Just ask. That's what checks and balances are all about).
Yes, in wartime, presidents have taken broad powers. Lincoln closed newspapers, etc. But this is a war that will last our lifetimes and beyond. We must not have an executive out of control. And it IS domestic wiretapping--in the sense that I only care about it when one of the people being monitored is in this country. The president's right to surveill abroad is not checked by any constitutional limit. His power to do so at home is--or should be.
We would be safer if we didn't have a constitution. We would have less crime if the police could search any home, any time they wanted to. We'd be a lot safer if the cops could confiscate everyone's guns. But because of the constitution, they can't. Thank God.
Posted by: jd at April 19, 2006 07:39 AM (uT71O)
12
And they also gave the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to a known terrorists leader YASSIR ARAFAT and our fomer jerk in the whitehouse JIMMY CARTER
Posted by: sandpiper at April 19, 2006 08:31 AM (bzZNq)
13
I agree giving it to Arafat was a huge mistake. And of course, they also gave it to former terrorist Menachem Begin, right? The Irgun wasn't planting flowers, it was planting bombs. Bombs that killed innocent and guilty alike. Read some of Jablonsky's own words to know how deeply the underground embraced the slaughter of civilians as a necessary strategy in achieving nationhood. One could say that Begin deserved it for choosing peace after a lifetime of war. That would also depend on how one sees the settlements, Sabra and Shatila, and the ugly Lebanon war as a whole. Michael Deaver threatened to resign if Reagan didn't stop the shelling of civilians in Beirut by the Israelis. RR picked up the phone, called Begin, shouted at him, and thirty minutes later, halfway around the world, the guns that had killed so many innocents suddenly were silenced. It's a riveting moment in Deaver's biography but it also raises the question-Begin gets the peace prize, and then does this?
Posted by: jd at April 19, 2006 08:42 AM (uT71O)
14
jd, the arguments I've heard are not about being able surveille for 72 hours while waiting for approval, nor that it only generally takes 24 hours to gain approval. These are things that can't be argued. The issue is that the process of getting to that point where the wait is so short and so favorable and so streamlined is cumbersome and demanding. Understandably so, but only to a degree. Even if it was so good and so efficient it was also obstructed by others in disallowing communication between organizations - one who might apply for the FISA warrant and the other who might not.
But even so, you're operating under the impression that what was being done was illegal. There are far smarter people than you or I, constitutional scholars and lawyers, who can't agree on the lawfulness or constitutionality of the program. The arguments from both sides are quite good, but we only hear the arguments that the media agrees with unless we're willing to dig for information ourselves. Personally, I'd err on the side of our safety. However, that's my personal opinion.
But even so, you're operating under the impression that what was being done was illegal. There are far smarter people than you or I, constitutional scholars and lawyers, who can't agree on the lawfulness or constitutionality of the program. The arguments from both sides are quite good, but we only hear the arguments that the media agrees with unless we're willing to dig for information ourselves. Personally, I'd err on the side of our safety. However, that's my personal opinion.
Posted by: Oyster at April 19, 2006 08:49 AM (xmFw3)
15
Oh, and for Carter, who has been justly criticized on a number of points, I think the peace prize was mostly about Camp David, as well as his postpresidency work on disease and disorder. What he has done with the guinea worm is truly amazing. Compare his post presidency activities with those of any other president, except perhaps Hoover, and they have been remarkably selfless. Habitat for Humanity? Election monitoring? While many presidents simply retire, or travel the world making millions, this guy, love or hate his presidency, has done a world of good.
Also--Camp David was his finest hour. He brought a lasting (if cold) peace between Egypt and Israel, nations that had fought major wars in 47-8, 56, 67, and 73, along with numerous border fights. Nobel prizes have been given for a lot less. the world is a better place because of Camp David. Even Carter's opponents acknowledged that.
Also--Camp David was his finest hour. He brought a lasting (if cold) peace between Egypt and Israel, nations that had fought major wars in 47-8, 56, 67, and 73, along with numerous border fights. Nobel prizes have been given for a lot less. the world is a better place because of Camp David. Even Carter's opponents acknowledged that.
Posted by: jd at April 19, 2006 08:49 AM (uT71O)
16
Fore!
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 09:13 AM (FCC6c)
17
Oyster--good points. The process for getting the warrant needed to be streamlined--and it was, by the Patriot Act revisions. If further change was needed, why not do it the legal way--by asking Congress? Moussaoui's case showed that there were problems with the interp of FISA by FBI/Justice lawyers (they turned down the field office request for a FISA warrant to look in his computers--it MIGHT have stopped 9-11)--not the federal judge. We still don't know who did that--they should have been fired. But we haven't held anyone accountable for 9-11 failures or Iraq intel failures. Maybe we never will.
But the difficulty of agencies communicating was CREATED by the president's warrantless wiretapping. The FISA court, when told of the illegal (ok, questionably legal) wiretapping, said, hey, you can't have any of that crap in our courtroom, because we are following the law. So no evidence obtained without a warrant can be used to get a warrant. This does create difficulties, I agree--but the difficulties were created by the president's decision to, at best, dodge the law.
Again, we would all be safer, against terrorism and against crime, if we didn't have that pesky constitution. If we strip searched everyone within 10 miles of the president, we could almost guarantee we'd never have another assassination. Thank God we don't. Balancing liberty and security is never easy--and should never be done by one branch, without the knowledge and usually the consent of the others. That's the way the constitution works.
But the difficulty of agencies communicating was CREATED by the president's warrantless wiretapping. The FISA court, when told of the illegal (ok, questionably legal) wiretapping, said, hey, you can't have any of that crap in our courtroom, because we are following the law. So no evidence obtained without a warrant can be used to get a warrant. This does create difficulties, I agree--but the difficulties were created by the president's decision to, at best, dodge the law.
Again, we would all be safer, against terrorism and against crime, if we didn't have that pesky constitution. If we strip searched everyone within 10 miles of the president, we could almost guarantee we'd never have another assassination. Thank God we don't. Balancing liberty and security is never easy--and should never be done by one branch, without the knowledge and usually the consent of the others. That's the way the constitution works.
Posted by: jd at April 19, 2006 10:13 AM (aqTJB)
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 19, 2006 11:01 AM (FCC6c)
19
They dont gove prizes or awards for those who have earned them they only give them to the ones who show how left-wing they can be after all they gave the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE to terrorist leader YASSIR ARAFAT and to that idiot JIMMY CARTER and they gave a oscar to that idiot MICHEAL MOORE for his junk film BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and they ignore the real good films to award trash like CHICAGO,AMERICAN BUETY,SIDEWAYS,and MILLOIN DOLLAR BABY
Posted by: sandpiper at April 20, 2006 02:47 PM (4v/PL)
442kb generated in CPU 0.108, elapsed 0.2065 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.1224 seconds, 750 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
55 queries taking 0.1224 seconds, 750 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
