The drug-addled, anti-American, coke addicted, Democrat-supporting minions of Hollywood are preparing their antiwar screeds (shock!) just in time for the 2008 election cycle.

And how do they portray the military they claim to so vigorously support?

By portraying them as murderers, criminals, jail-bound psychopaths, indifferent killers of Iraqi families, questioning the sanity and mental capabilities of soldiers who enlist, making them into poor unwilling victims of PTSD, and by dragging out virtually every other leftwingnut smear they've ever used since their Vietnam.

You'll be just dazzled, people. Star-struck!

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm sorry, but this whole discussion of the links between this al Qaeda (in Iraq) and that al Qaeda (in Pakistan) is both uninformed about the nature of the worldwide Salafi jihad and about the organizational structure of al Qaeda in general. To speak of "linkages" between this al Qaeda and that al Qaeda is to imply that each organization is hierarchically run with some sort of intermediary running messages from "commanders" in Pakistan to "subcommanders" in Iraq.

It's simply not the case. Al Qaeda hasn't been hierarchically organized for years, long before the Iraq war. They simply don't have the ability to organize hierarchically. Even with a safe haven in Pakistan for the past year, its awfully difficult to to maintain span of control over jihadis in Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, Europe, and elsewhere from a cave in Waziristan or an internet cafe in Quetta.

It's also a misnomer to think of the al Qaeda as the terrorist threat. There are dozens and dozens of groups with the exact same ideology as al Qaeda, all intent to do harm on various societies around the globe, all of which believe intentionally killing civilians is an acceptable method of doing that harm.

Does it really matter to terrorist victims in Algeria whether those bombing them were calling themselves The Salafist Group for Call and Combat or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb? Same group, different name, and victims just as dead.

So, too, does it really matter whether the people beheading "apostates" (Shia), "traitors" (Sunnis working with Iraqi government), and "crusaders" (any non-Muslim foreigner working with Iraqi government) call themselves Ansar al-Islam, Tawhid wal Jihad, The Mujahideen Shura Council, The Islamic State of Iraq, or al Qaeda in Iraq? Same people, different name, and victims just as dead.

It also doesn't matter whether the person murdering the Korean hostage is a "home-grown" member of the "Taliban" or a "foreign" member of "al Qaeda". In the end, both "groups" want the same thing and are willing to use the same methods.

Further, those arguing that President Bush is overstating al Qaeda's part in the Iraqi insurgency really should be grabbed by the collar and dragged down to the Pentagon for weekly briefings. Yes, there are "nationalist" Sunni Arab insurgent groups, but there are also non-al Qaeda affiliated Salafist organizations in Iraq too.

Somehow I don't think Red Cross worker Enzo Baldoni would take solace in the fact that his murderers in the The Islamic Army in Iraq no longer work with al Qaeda in Iraq. Nor do I think that Akihiko Saito would really care that Ansar al-Sunnah decided not to join al Qaeda's umbrella organization after Zarqawi's death.

There are a few Sunni groups which are not Salafist jihadis of the al Qaeda stripe, but some of those are now working with us. But by far the greatest threat to our troops comes from the Salafis.

Last, and what started me thinking about this post, is the misnomer that before Abu Musab al Zarqawi "pledged allegiance" to Osama bin Laden, there were no links between the jihadis in Iraq and the al Qaeda. In fact, Abu Musab al Zarqawi came to Iraq from Afghanistan. He only joined the fighting with Ansar al-Islam, which was the Kurdish face of the global Salafi jihad, after he left the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

And we have the documents to prove it. The original documents can be found here. As Laura Mansfield reminded me today, Iraqi intelligence documents identify a cell of al Qaeda working in Iraq prior to the invasion, headed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi who is identified as member of "Tanzeem al Qaeda", or the "Al Qaeda Organization". The memo is dated August 17, 2002.

So, whether or not that al Qaeda ordered Abu Musab al Zarqawi to personally behead Nick Berg really misses the point. And whether or not that al Qaeda ordered this al Qaeda to recruit Indian doctors for jihad in Britain, also misses the point. All terrorists who consider themselves "al Qaeda" are a threat. And those terrorists who don't consider themselves "al Qaeda", but have the same ideology, goals, and methods are also a threat.

And even if al Qaeda in Iraq was a totally home grown bunch of jihadis, it still misses the point. Because when the next plane hits the White House, it will be of little comfort to know that the Iraqi pilot didn't get his orders from Zawahiri's cave in Waziristan.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.

Bob Owens has a few questions for The New Republic. They have some 'splainin to do.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Are we sure Ibraheem Hooper isn't just a bit played in a Carlos Mencia CAIR sketch? Our friends at The Nose on Your Face make the pages of the Guardian:

Buckley F Williams, from the "conservative leaning" satirical news blog The Nose On Your Face, says: "We're anti-Muslim-extremism, the loudest voice of the Muslim world right now, which would lead one to believe it is the dominant voice of the Muslim faith.

The intention of the cartoon is, he claims, to open up debate. "Muslim fanaticism is the problem, not Muslims. Islam is not coming across, to the average person, as a friendly or inviting religion. There must be many Muslims who don't like what's going on, but we're not hearing it."

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ibrahim Hooper, is unconvinced. Mr Hooper says: "I find the term Islamic Rage Boy offensive, as would anyone who applied the term to their own faith. It's an Islamophobic product by Muslim-bashers on internet hate sites."

He compares the cartoon to the anti-semitic imagery of 1930s Nazi Germany. "The cartoon is part of an overall growth of anti-Muslim rhetoric in this country. Someone is trying to link Islam with violence and anger and profiting from it."

UPDATE: A good observation.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Everyone else is doing a great job of debunking this, especially Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, but I just saw this quote over in Ace's excellent post, I figured the TNR editors just might want to see a few photos I have in the archives. "Scott Thomas" at TNR:

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Our enemies, on the other hand, celebrate their brutality and reward those engaged in it.

No 9mm's in Iraq? I'm guessing at least one of these pistols is a 9mm and at least one of them is a Glock.

WARNING: Some images below NSFW and show the "insurgents" in Iraq treating their captives the only way they know how: murdering them. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 3 kb.

Bullsh*t detectors are spiking at the Mudville Gazette , the Weekly Standard and Blackfive.

Questions have been raised. Questions like "did they fabricate a load of bullsh*t (again)? Do they think military members who might read it are idiots? Who is 'Scott Thomas?' Is he a liar, a sadist or both? Do civilian contractors walk around in unrecognizable uniforms carrying weapons in violation of the Geneva Conventions on a regular basis? Don't soldiers recognize uniforms of other military and non-military personnel when they see them? Doesn't UCMJ mandate that such alleged behavior like that of "Scott Thomas" be reported up the chain of command?"

You know - basic factual information that needs to be corroborated and usually is prior to publication. Not so with TNR, but hey! Leftists need something to believe in! We'll see as the Pentagon has been contacted to verify some of the information. And I'm sure TNR will be forthcoming with corroborating details

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

A case of an innocent journalist tragically killed in the haze of war? Or is something else going on here?

Namir Noor-Eldeen, a stringer for Reuters and for the New York Times, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, were killed by U.S. forces yesterday in Iraq.

Jemime Kiss, in this Guardian piece, claims that Namir Noor-Eldeen was killed by "friendly fire". But is there any evidence to suggest that local Reuters stringers have every been "friendly" to the U.S. military?

The facts in the case really aren't very clear. The Iraqi police are saying that the Reuters photog and his driver were killed by a "random American bombardment". But, to be honest, I wouldn't trust an Iraqi police report any more than I would a Reuters stringer.

Why? Because however the two were killed, this much is certain: U.S. troops were battling Iraqi police and a police lieutenant involved in the battle has been arrested for ties to Iranian backed Shiite insurgents.

Reuters is trying to frame the story as if the Americans, as usual, are busy in Iraq randomly shooting anyone and everyone on the streets. And journalists are busy decrying yet another death of a journalist in Iraq.

But they fail to mention that stringers often have at least some working relationship to insurgents.

They also fail to mention that insurgents generally film their own attacks. Dozens of these videos are released weekly. Any one on the scene of a battle with a camera who is not embedded with U.S. troops should be considered an enemy combatant.

This is why the Geneva Conventions are so clear about armed combatants wearing clearly identifiable markings--so that innocent civilians don't get killed. When was the last time Reuters noted to readers that every insurgent group in Iraq breaks the Geneva Conventions every time it tries to blend in with the local population? It is the insurgents, not the U.S. or its allies, that are responsible for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

The "report" obtained by Reuters alleging the random killing of the photographer was from "the closest station to the scene". But wouldn't one also assume that the police Lieutenant and Iraqi police killed by the U.S. were from that same station because of its proximity.

What kind of photos did Noor-Eldeen take? Hmmmm, it's almost like I've seen this photo before, somewhere.

A charred copy of the Koran lies in the wreckage, at the scene of a car bomb attack, in Baghdad, April 24, 2006. (Namir Noor-Eldeen/Reuters)

Question: Have the Zionist-Crusaders perfected the "Koran seeking bomb", or what?

And this one, seems, eerily familiar as well.......

A man walks inside a burnt Sunni mosque in Baghdad, February 23, 2006. (Namir Noor-Eldeen/Reuters)

Death is always a tragedy for the loved ones and friends of the deceased. But why is it that Reuters nearly always chooses to frame deaths in Iraq as if the U.S. was responsible and not the insurgents or terrorists? Could it be that Reuters places blame on the U.S. for nearly every tragedy because placing blame on the insurgents and Islamist terrorists hits closer to home?

UPDATE: How did Namir Noor-Eldeen get this shot?

"A masked insurgent carries a police flak jacket and rocket propelled grenade launcher after a police station was attacked in Mosul November 11, 2004."
(Namir Noor-Eldeen/Reuters 2004/11/11)

Posted by: Rusty at 11:04 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 5 kb.

1 My cookie-cutter response to these kinds of posts a la Zarqawi, etc:
Good. Glad he's dead. Hope he suffered.

Posted by: JacksSmirkingRevenge at July 13, 2007 01:15 PM (ptO0I)

2 My response is a bit different. How do keep ending up with the news organizations that figuratively speaking keep sawing the branch they sit on (undermining democracy and rule of law that allow them to report freely). My theory is that the fish rots from the head and the head has been infected by the parasites in form of wealthy or well connected jihadists.(http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188677.php). Add to this a recent story about Hamas insider in US media. Your thoughts?
 

Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at July 13, 2007 01:27 PM (gtZwa)

3 P.S.: Dr. Rusty this is a request specifically for you. Or at least a question. You guys have an ad banner on the top of the page. It's encounter books one. It keeps poping up the book called "Blowing up Russia". To cut to the chase it's the form of russian troofism rooted into questionable sources with cuddly ties to chechen islamists. So the question is are you just milking the ad or do you actually support the message?

Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at July 13, 2007 01:32 PM (gtZwa)

4 KB,

I don't see the ad. Anyway, we don't sell the ads directly. It's our syndicator, PJM, that does that.  If you're right, just think about  it as the Twoofers giving me money to debunk them :-)

Posted by: Rusty at July 13, 2007 01:35 PM (JQjhA)

5 more power to you

Posted by: Kamchatka Bear at July 13, 2007 01:57 PM (gtZwa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Idiotic Leftists continue to make the tired charge that the U.S. used Napalm in Fallujah. The next time we fight a war I hope we take the role of how propaganda must be used to win it seriously---- and then go FDR on the Left's asses.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:22 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Another Reuters stringer caught in the act.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Bryan and Michelle knock it out of the park with this one. Simply freakin' EXCELLENT.

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Above: A frame grab from a video at YouTube of a woman with a bandana reading "kill jews".

Robert Spencer has the details. I'm not a Jew, but if any one wants to call me that name I'd take it as a compliment. Because you can't spell YouTube without j-i-h-a-d.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:56 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Because the mainstream media is invested in propagating only bad news from the War on Terror, here's the CENTCOM roundup of stories the mainstream media refuses to run.

FAILED TRUCK BOMBER TREATED, TALKING

CAMP STRIKER, IRAQ BAGHDAD - A failed truck bomber, wounded in his attempt to destroy a coalition battle position, was treated, evacuated and is providing information to those he tried to kill.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1445 words, total size 11 kb.

You have to watch this video (in two parts) to understand just how the MSM helped the global jihad by being complicit in Palestinian propaganda about the death of Muhammad al Durah. The accidental death of the young boy has made him a martyr icon for the cause against 'Zionist oppression' and those that support Israel (namely, the U.S.).

Videos below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 10:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

The wonderful folks at the Republican Study Committee have added The Jawa Report to their blogroll:

There you have it, folks: documented confirmation of the Jawas' highly secret connections and influence within the highest levels of American government.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:43 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

News that somehow slips through the cracks of the mainstream media's eleventy-seven layers of editors.

SIX TERRORISTS KILLED, VBIED DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED

North of Fallujah Thursday afternoon, Coalition Forces conducted an operation to capture suspected terrorists allegedly associated with al-Qaeda senior leadership. Coalition Forces attempted to stop their vehicle, but when the suspected terrorists resisted, Coalition Forces used proper escalation of force measures and engaged the vehicle with automatic weapons, killing three men.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 756 words, total size 6 kb.

The blogfather reports that YouTube has suspended the account of one notoriously evil terror supporter. So, are they going to finally take the online jihad seriously? I doubt it. As Ragnar notes, his video Naughty at the Border has way more hits than most of YouTube's top 100 videos, but somehow it's been excluded from the list.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Since it's possible, then doesn't Achem's razor suggests these photos are not doctored? Because the simplest explanation, that it's doctored, just seems so......tin-foilish. Probabilities be damned! more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Talk about your luck. It's lucky enough that you get a high-resolution photo of one Zionist "missile" milliseconds before it hits some poor innocent Palestinians standing around, minding their own business. It's like winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning---rare, but it happens. But what kind of four leaf clover do you have in your pocket to get two photos of Zionist-Crusader missiles raining down on the heads of innocent women, children, and (presumably) cuddly panda bears? [click for larger]

Nusseirat Refugee Camp, -: An Israeli rocket (slighty right of C) is visable as it falls toward great plumes of smoke that rise from a Hamas Executive Force building during an Israeli air strike in Nusseirat refugee camp in the centre of the Gaza strip, 25 May 2007. Warplanes pounded the Gaza Strip for a ninth day today as Palestinians continued to fire rockets into Israel despite a call from Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas for a truce. AFP PHOTO/MAHMUD HAMS (Photo credit should read MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images)

Thanks to Curt.

Brian from Snapped Shot remains skeptical of my skepticism, but shares my disdain for the usual Pali media swarm and staging of the "wounded".

Meanwhile, David of Lunde Designs believes he has found the original photo, which implicates the imperialist Americans in the plot to kill innocent Palestinian women, children, and kittens: more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:35 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

UPDATE 05/30/07 a.m: The incredibly lucky photog got a second photo of a "missile" on the same day.
-----------

The Seattle Times ran this as their "photo of the day". What's wrong with this picture? (Click for bigger pic)

Here is the caption from the Seattle Times:

Palestinians run as a rocket falls at them during an Israeli air strike on the Hamas Executive Force building in Nusseirat refugee camp in the centre of the Gaza strip, Friday. Warplanes pounded the Gaza Strip for a ninth day as Palestinians continued to fire rockets into Israel despite a call from Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas for a truce.

I'm also guessing that the guy in the green soccer shirt wouldn't be able to follow said "missile" with his eyes. Notice how he appears to be looking right at the incoming "missile".

So, is this a case of a "doctored photo"?

Here's a close up of the "missile" from the largest version of the photo I could find, and which I've only blown up to about triple the original size.

If it's a photoshop, it's a good one. Notice the squarish pixelization around the "missile". Maybe some one who is better at digital photography or at Pshopping than me can explain that. Just an artifact of blowing it up? But the bluring around the "missile" can also be seen in the original, just sharper edges when you blow it up.

The photo is attributed to "MAHMUD HAMS / AFP/GETTY IMAGES". How fast was Mahbud Hams camera? So fast that he not only caught the missile just before it struck, but just after it struck too. A Peter Parker moment? (click for bigger)

Doing a quick search of Yahoo News Photos, here are a few related pics. Yahoo News Photos did not pick up on the photo showing the "missile", but it did carry the followup photos by Mahmud Hams of the "missile strike" at Nusseirat. Only they're not all attributed to Mahmud Hams.....

And, wouldn't you know it, another hallmark of fauxtography: the swarm carrying the "injured child".

More below..... more...

Posted by: Rusty at 06:25 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 2461 words, total size 17 kb.

Further to Rusty's message, any Star Wars geek knows that, the Star Wars movies paint a picture of an Empire that generally tolerates capitalism. Though the Emperor rules the political sphere with an iron fist, the details of day-to-day commerce seem to generally be left to the free market. The cantina at Mos Eisely (which may or may not have had another name, depending on who you ask) is a good example. The Imperials know generally what's going on there, but elect, for whatever reason, to look elsewhere. Same with the Jawas. Only the Maker knows what sort of illicit "free enterprise" those little bastards were up to. In Empire Strikes Back, when Lando's arguing with Vader in the Cloud City, Vader threatens him with a permanent garrison--implying that the Empire hadn't taken much of an interest in what was going on Bespin at that time, although it certainly could, if Calrissian wanted to push it. At any rate, geeks like me who pay attention to the underlying economic messages running through popular culture get the idea that the Empire is a fascist system--that is, "fascist" in the economic sense.

The missing Anchorhead conversation is an unfortunate omission. Star Wars as a movie about a fight over autoritarian central planning is even cooler than Star Wars as a movie about a fight against a bunch of white British guys and their planet-killing spaceship. Some war films, but definitely a minority, set forth an actual reason for the conflict between the two sides. Braveheart's a good example. The English were worth fighting against because otherwise they'd take your stuff and rape your wife. Continuing the general "anti-English" theme, Star Wars sets forth a titanic struggle between some hard-ass white British guys and everybody else, but it never goes much further than that. Taken at face value, the message of Star Wars might be "watch out for white British guys--and if you get the chance, you should definitely blow up their planet-killing spaceship." For better or worse, this message just doesn't have much general applicability at this point in history. Personally, I'd much more enjoy a movie about a struggle against authoritarian central planning.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

1) Administrations do not go to war, nations do. We did not fight the Nazis, we fought the Germans. The Nazis had no armies, the Germans did. America is at war. This is not Bush's war, it is ours. If you do not consider this your war, then you missed the patriotism boat, because it is. To think of this as someone else's war is to think of yourself as no longer part of American society.

2) Once committed to war, the only option is to win. We already won the original war in Iraq--against Saddam Hussein. But this is a different war. The war today is against violent Islamists, all related in one way or another to al Qaeda or Khommeinists in Iran.

Oddly, the Democrats supported the war against Saddam Hussein, but seem intent on losing to al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq. If anything, the meritis of this second war in Iraq are far greater than the merits of the war with Saddam Hussein.

If the Democrats point is that the first war, against Hussein, caused the second war, against al Qaeda and Iranian proxies, then I am happy to admit that we are at fault. Yes, removing Hussein from power led to a power vacuum in which Khommeinists and al Qaeda jihadists emerged. Our postwar military actions certainly didn't help.

So, because our actions against one enemy led to the emergence of a far more dangerous second enemy, then the answer is to ...... not fight the greater second enemy?

That logic baffles the mind! We defeated the Nazis, but that victory led to the emergence of a far more powerful and deadly enemy---the Soviet Union. The Nazis only wanted to control Europe, but the Soviet Unions had in mind the worldwide people's state. And, even worse, they had the weapons and capability of killing every single soul on the entire world.

By the logic of Democrats today, fighting the Soviet Union for 50 years in the Cold War was a mistake because it was "hard", "costly", a "mire", seemingly "endless", and because our own actions led to that war.

3) Root for the home team, or get the hell out of the stadium.

Jules Crittenden has related.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:30 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

Think again. If you've ever wondered what might happen if a herd of prey refused to go along with the script...

Posted by: Ragnar at 03:26 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't miss Jonathan Foreman's article in National Review from yesterday. Jonathan explains how the MSM's distaste for working with coalition forces, rooted in a liberal distrust of government, actually hands the information battlespace to the enemy.

Via National Review: A knowledgeable, thoughtful, and clear-eyed reporter might also consider that local civilians in areas dominated by the Taliban almost always claim that there are no Taliban, and have never been any Taliban, in their area. They make this claim out of either fear or loyalty. During fierce fighting in September in the same Panjwayi area, the local elders also claimed, absurdly, that there were no Taliban around, even though more than 500 of them were killed in pitched battles there and the area is at the center of the movement’s heartland.

More important, it is standard operating procedure of the Islamists in Afghanistan — as it is in Lebanon and Gaza and Iraq — to claim that all casualties on their side are civilians. Indeed, the Taliban would be grossly incompetant at asymmetric and information warfare if they didn’t make that claim. (Just as al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers would be foolish if they did not cry “torture” when detained at Gitmo or elsewhere.)...

...You might expect journalists to take some note of these practices and of the propaganda element of the war, and accordingly to exercise a little caution, if not skepticism, before they unquestioningly parrot an allegation of mass civilian deaths. (Surely they must be aware that reports of an atrocity can have enormous real world effects? Surely they have some sense that various Afghan players might lie in order to advance their cause?) Generally, however, they do not. For the most part, Taliban claims are assumed to be true. Statements by Coalition spokesmen, on the other hand, are a different matter. Such officials are said to make “claims,” and they are essentially assumed to be propagandists, if not flat out liars, by many correspondents (who won’t say as much in print, of course, but ask them about it over a drink).

Posted by: Howie at 11:14 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

May 04, 2007

American Family Association on the Virginia Tech Shootings

Good Lt's post reminded me of this little video gem from the American Family Association...

Just like earlier pronouncements by Christian leaders that 9/11 was America's own fault, statements like these do more damage to the public image of Evangelical Christians than the most fired-up atheist will do on his best day.

Posted by: Ragnar at 07:53 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

1 THANK GOODNESS that Bush has pushed those crazy people into the background.  Every religion gets crazy when it gets fanatical.

Posted by: DemocracyRules at May 04, 2007 09:18 PM (L/SIz)

2 Call me crazy then, cause it seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Take morality out of the equation and you get the predictable results.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 04, 2007 09:48 PM (8e/V4)

3 What really pisses me of is that Taber Alberta is about 600 miles west on their map. They had it at about Brandon Manitoba. Stupid Bible Thumpers.

Posted by: ted Kelly at May 04, 2007 09:52 PM (6zYc4)

4 Only if you're a non-Christian, and then only because the very mention of G-d and Christianity as a force for good offends you.

Because the message is true. Watch it again and try to ignore the mention of that scary word "G-d".

What the clip says isn't that anybody but the murderers pulled the triggers, it's saying that we, as a society, sowed the seeds that are producing a bloody harvest now.

We removed morality, we removed belief in a higher authority, we taught our kids that "good" and "evil" are nothing but meaningless constructs, we taught them that discipline is bad and that actions shouldn't have consequences, we taught them that violence, abuse, profanity and lewd behavior are just different, equally valid ways of "expressing yourself", we taught our kids to worship at the Altar of ME, ME, MEEEEEEE!, we taught them that the end justifies the means, that there IS no "gold standard" of good behavior... The list goes on and on.

It would be nothing short of a miracle if our children HADN'T ended up screwed in the head.

This valueless society that we have built created a fertile ground for Littleton, VA Tech et al just as surely as VA Tech's "gun free zone" made sure that Psy-Cho gunned down 32 instead of, say, 3. Just as surely as the filth that passes for "education" in Gaza and the West Bank guarantees the daily atrocities of suicide bombers.

Deny it all you want, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Posted by: Misha I at May 04, 2007 10:01 PM (gihp5)

5 Wow, good catch. This video is exactly like the Phelps video.

Next time, though, you might want to provide some type of link to shore up the "Christian leaders saying 9/11 was our fault" argument, because I don't recall the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox churches saying anything of the sort.

Posted by: Vinnie at May 04, 2007 10:02 PM (/MVxv)

6 AFA goes a bit overboard at times.  I disagree with thier camapign against Ford.  Just seems likeoever kill.  That being said my aunt and uncle is a big supports and he drives an F150. Always has......  They left a church one time becuase the preacher had been divorced one time.  So they are "fundamentalists".  But violent my lands no.  My aunt is sweet and my uncle can't even kill and eat the rooster that flogs him mercilessly.

Posted by: Howie at May 04, 2007 10:12 PM (YHZAl)

7 Madeline Murray O'Hare simply pointed out that if they allowed prayer in school, which prayer should it be-Catholic, Jewish, Protestant-Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist? Nevertheless, from my own personal experience, she was a vile human.
 
Another point: I don't know when this whole "teachers can't beat children" thing came into vogue. I started public school, first grade in 1974 and I got my ass beat by one school employee or another at least 30 times. (about half of those were a choice between 4 hour Saturday morning D-hall or 20 paddles). A teacher once picked me up and threw me 3 ft into a wall because...OK...I needed it. Another used to turn his college ring around and whack the back of our heads with it for talking. I was strip searched twice (like I was stupid enough to carry).
 
Gen X, we get the short end of everything.
 
Anyway, got over it, went to college, got the sheepskins, the rest is legend.

Posted by: CozMark at May 05, 2007 12:28 AM (KetHw)

8

"exactly like the Phelps video"   I often agree with Vinnie, but not this time.  I have to agree with Misha's statement though, and Jesusland Carlos, as they reflect my own thinking. 

There is such a thing as 'objective good' and it tends to manifest itself naturally where the cultural tendencies are not hostile to it. I wasn't forced to attend Bible Study in Grade School, but we DID have it. It harmed nobody, oppressed none, and it gave the kids who chose to attend, some values to consider.  Those values served me well until I rejected religion, and it took me awhile to realize why my life had started going downhill.

I'm not a Bible-thumping young-earther. I am a Christian, and I believe the core values are healthy ones for individuals, and society.  I did not arrive at this because someone told me it was the only truth. I searched for the truth, and I rediscovered it in the message of Jesus. 

Where you find truth is not for me to decide, but ... I believe we are endangering our society by NOT treating certain old fashioned values as being objectively superior. We are wallowing in moral equivalance, which is simply an illusion, used to mask the immorality of those who hide behind the concept. This won't work!

We can't pretend that striping religious expression from schools hasn't contributed to the loss of moral values that go with religious expression.  Other values end up filling the void when this happens.  Unhealthy values ...

Another vid caught my eye while I was considering how to respond to this, and I offer the link here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL0Y-y37y10&mode=related&search=

I recommend you watch it, and the responses.  You may be impressed ...

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 05, 2007 12:31 AM (2OHpj)

9 FA Hayek wrote a book (not "The Road to Serfdom") where he made the case that capitalism/free markets had been developed over millenia and that they had been found to be the most effective and efficient way (not the righteous way, fairest way, etc) to get things done for the good of a society/civilization. It just worked better than anything else, why mess with it.
 
The point he made regarding socialism being unworkable because it is counterintuitive, applies here in that all of this stuff that's being tried out on kids in schools today is in repudiation of what has worked for millenia. In other words, where would mankind be if our forefathers had allowed its children to act the way children are TAUGHT to act today?
 
Would we have made it this far?

Posted by: CozMark at May 05, 2007 12:50 AM (KetHw)

10 Vinnie sez:

This video is exactly like the Phelps video.

It's not.  Never said it was.  Similar?  Yup.

I don't recall the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox churches saying anything of the sort.

Nice straw man.  Did I say "ALL Christian leaders?"  Did I say "the leader of every denomination of every sect of Christianity in every nation on the planet?"  Nope.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 01:32 AM (8wvua)

11 Misha sez:

we, as a society, sowed the seeds that are producing a bloody harvest now.

Okay, let's not go overboard with the rhetoric, here.  "Bloody harvest?"

This valueless society that we have built created a fertile ground for Littleton, VA Tech et al

While I generally agree with your concern about values, I don't buy the "valueless society" line.  And you're stretching to pin blame for the VT psycho on American culture--as if the psycho wouldn't have been a psycho if he'd been born 50 years ago?

Were we a "valueless society" when Charles Whitman shot up UT 40 years ago?

Were we a "valueless society" when Andrew Kehoe blew up the Bath School 80 years ago?

Were we a "valueless society" when James Foster shot up St. Mary's, or when Lizzie Borden snapped 120 years ago?

Conversely, Did we have a "society of values" when we wiped out Native Americans with guns, disease and a clear conscience?
 
Did we have a "society of values" when we had no problem with one man owning another man and disposing of him as he pleased, or later, when white mobs could lynch a black man with impunity?  Were these expressions of our "values?"  I certainly hope not.

The truth is, our values have changed over the years.  In some ways for the better, in other ways for the worse, to be sure, but this idea that there was some golden age of moral behavior when most people knew right from wrong and acted accordingly is simply a myth.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying we haven't lost our way to a large degree when it comes to preserving positive aspects of our culture and our ethics, but sometimes a psycho is just a psycho--despite whatever political agendas a psycho might be useful for.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 02:11 AM (8wvua)

12 The truth is, our values have changed over the years.  In some ways for the better, in other ways for the worse, to be sure,

Well, some people believe for the worse, see?  And I'll grant you that your examples like Charles Whitman may prove them wrong about this change in values leading to mass murders a la VT, but I challenged you to QUOTE me anything in that clip that qualifies "crazy", or that even remotely resembles Fred Phelps.  No paraphrasing. A quote, please.  Because I'm well aware how hip and cool it is to hate the religious Right even among factions of the Republican party, but for once I'd like to see something concrete and factual to back it up.  Again, I'm looking for Fred Phelps crazy.  Thanks.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 05, 2007 05:28 AM (8e/V4)

13 i posted something similar to this a few weeks back, but more in regards to Islamic fundamentalism... although, it does bear a lot of similarities to the reasons for crime problems in the US:

"Other countries, including our enemies train their children to kill, be
soldiers, and promote their morals at all costs including death... We
teach our children that fighting is wrong, that everyone in the world
is good, and that gay relationships are normal....

They teach their kids to have families with lots of children... We fight for a womans right to have an abortion...

They
fight to make their religion the primary focus of every part of their
lives... We fight to keep religion out of government and schools...

They
hold rallies and marches in the streets shouting death to America and
Israel... We argue that people in our own country should be allowed to
burn our own flag...

They demand that women remain covered so as
to keep them pure... We celebrate the life and death of a drugged out
sluts and music/sports stars that beat their wives... We also fight for
the rights of pedophiles and even pass laws saying that it is against
free speech to block pornography in public libraries

They attack
at all costs, fighting and killing whomever stands in their way, then
they decry the innocents as martyrs and blame their death on the
enemy... We make our troops so laden down with rules and regulations
that they hesitate to fire even when they are being attacked, and the
prosecute them and send the to jail when they make mistakes..."

http://twizted-reality.blogspot.com/2007/04/survival.html

Posted by: chris at May 05, 2007 07:11 AM (rBjHa)

14 Common sense rules:
"Call me crazy then, cause it seems perfectly reasonable to me.  Take
morality out of the equation and you get the predictable results."

Does this excuse people from accepting individual resonsibility for their actions? Nope. But when we, as a culture, ferment a sewer, it's gonna breed disease and pestilence of the the soul.

Akon, anyone?

Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 05, 2007 08:05 AM (akLU0)

15 Carlos:

QUOTE me anything in that clip that qualifies "crazy", or that even remotely resembles Fred Phelps.

Resembles Fred Phelps?  I've never claimed it goes to the same level, but there are several passages in there that are just plain stupid.

"And someone ... published pictures of nude children, and then stepped further by making them available on the internet, and we said 'everyone's entitled to free speech.'"

I'm not sure if that passage qualifies as "crazy" or just "stupid."  So, the VT psychoman just murdered 32 people in cold blood because my Mom took a naked baby picture of my nephew and emailed it to my Grandma?  You really believe that's what happened here?

"And now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates, even themselves."

I missed the news stories of these armies of American children who have no conscience and murder without remorse.  I think that's because they don't exist.  Was this passage crazy?  Stupid?  Crazystupid?  You decide.

Truth is, I've never bought in to the Old Testament idea of "collective responsibility for collective sin."  Actually, I don't even believe in earthly punishment for individual sin.  I sure as hell don't believe in collective punishment for individual sin.  There's simply too much evidence to the contrary for any person to come to the conclusion that God punishes the wicked and rewards the righteous collectively or individually.  Are Donald Trump and Kobe Bryant wealthy because of their amazing righteousness?  Did my grandfather die a young death because he was evil?  Did God really send Hurricane Katrina to punish America?  Is the stock market high because we've been good lately?  Did God really have the 32 students at Virginia Tech killed because he was still pissed off at Madalyn Murray O'Hair?  If God metes out the pain based on sin, how is it that Las Vegas is still standing?

I know God.  God doesn't hand out punishments and goodies based on behavior.  God isn't like that.  If you think he is, then you're just wrong.  End of story.

Even if you agree with the film's fire-and-brimstone message, the overall video, and particularly its timing, was ill-advised and not consistent with Christian values.

An illustration:

Person 1 : I just had a disaster in my life.  I'm feeling miserable and confused.  I don't know where to turn.

Person 2 : I'm here for you, my friend.  Let me know if I can help in any way.

Person 3 : Heh.  A disaster, you say?  And whose fault is that?  You didn't do what I suggested, and now you're in trouble.  I have no sympathy for you.

So, which one of persons 2 and 3 is the Christian?

I'm well aware how hip and cool it is to hate the religious Right even among factions of the Republican party,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't "hate" the Religious Right. I do think the movement has been poorly served by its own leaders.  Additional damage to the image of the Religious Right is done by its own members every time they reflexively defend folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and groups like the AFA every time they stick their feet in their mouths and say something crazystupid like "America had it coming."

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 08:40 AM (kmSd/)

16 It was a bit simplistic (but then again it as supposed to just be a quick summary polemic, so it pretty much had to be), but there was nothing Phelps-like there. I had no problem with it.

Posted by: Smashmaster at May 05, 2007 10:21 AM (8YZ3W)

17 Ragnar,

yes, they say stupid things, but this wasn't one of them.  There's a HUGE difference between saying that 9/11 was retribution from God vs saying cultural immorality leads to depraved behaviour.    I think you would agree that you've conflated the two.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 05, 2007 10:41 AM (8e/V4)

18 I think you would agree that you've conflated the two [arguments].

Conflated?  No.  Combined for the purposes of the discussion?  Yes.

My reason?  BOTH arguments fall into the same category of telling America that insane and heartbreaking, but extremely rare occurrences have happened because America brought it on itself, and BOTH fall into the same category of having no rational argument behind them.

God doesn't punish with retribution on Earth, despite what Falwell and Robertson may believe.  There is simply no correlation whatsoever between good behavior (by an individual or a nation) and goodies from God.  It just doesn't happen.  There is no causation.  It doesn't mean God doesn't care if we're good, it just means he doesn't whip out the fire and brimstone machine anymore.

Similarly, the psycho at VT didn't kill those people because someone sent a naked picture of a baby over the internet or because we allow gay pride parades to take place in our major cities or because children have access to condoms or because somebody read "Heather has two Mommies" to the psycho when he was a little boy.  There's just no correlation, much less causation, between the two.  The VT psycho did what he did because he was stark raving loony.  Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy did what they did because they were psychopaths.  If there was a correlation between sexual immorality and school violence, we'd be discussing the constant stream of senseless school murders in San Francisco, Las Vegas and Amsterdam, but we're not, because it isn't happening there.  Instead, we discuss school shootings in Virginia and Colorado, neither of which is known for a Sodomite lifestyle.

As I've said many times on this thread, there's a strong case to be made that we need to GET BACK TO BASICS when it comes to teaching children about culture and ethics.  Presentation of specious, stupid arguments is not an acceptable substitute.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 02:03 PM (s2k74)

19 Ragnar,

I might have missed it, but I didn't hear one word about the VT shooting in that clip.  And I listened twice.  Did somebody else hear it?  Please let me know if you did.  But methinks we've got the classic strawman here.  The AFA thinks cultural immorality and human depravity are related, and you don't.  Big deal.  You still fail to make any "Fred Phelps" connection here.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 05, 2007 02:42 PM (8e/V4)

20
My bad.  He mentions Blacksburg, VA. 

My point still stands.  Big deal.  If you can prove someone wrong doesn't mean you've proved them crazy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 05, 2007 02:51 PM (8e/V4)

21 <blockquote>I'm not sure if that passage qualifies as "crazy" or just "stupid." 
So, the VT psychoman just murdered 32 people in cold blood because my
Mom took a naked baby picture of my nephew and emailed it to my
Grandma?  You really believe that's what happened here?</blockquote>

Never let it be said that you don't know what <i>reduction ad absurdem</i> is, Ragnar ;-)

Is anybody saying that all non-Christians are evil or that all Christians are good? Maybe, but it sure isn't me, nor do I see any of it in that video clip.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I honestly don't believe that the AFA were complaining about your family sharing pictures of you as a baby. Somehow I think they were referring to the sort of pictures and video that a certain former ACLU President was caught jerking off to, pictures and video involving little girls being raped and the like.

Removing values doesn't guarantee that you turn into a psychopath, it just makes it more likely. Adding values doesn't guarantee that you behave yourself like a good human being, it just makes it more likely.

Let's take a purely hypothetical example. Two equally large groups are brought up two different ways.

One group is taught that there is no objective "right" or "wrong", only constructs, that whatever gets them through the night is OK, that all choices are equally valid and that we must respect them all equally because "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". They're also taught that all bad decision they make are due to society forcing them to, that they're to blame for nothing, and that their bad behavior shouldn't have consequences either here or in the afterlife, because they're really only oppressed people misunderstood by their peers.

The other group is taught the exact opposite.

Are all members of group 1 going to become murderous psychopaths?

Are all members of group 2 going to become saints?

The answer to both questions is, of course, "no."

The next question is: Which group is more <i>likely</I> to produce a maladjusted psychopath?

The answer to that one <i>ought</I> to be obvious.

Does that remove responsibility for his actions from him? Of course it doesn't, he's still responsible for what he's done.

But that's not the same as saying that his upbringing was irrelevant.

Posted by: Misha I at May 05, 2007 03:48 PM (gihp5)

22 But methinks we've got the classic strawman here.  The AFA thinks cultural immorality and human depravity are related, and you don't. 
 
OK, let's keep it straight.  What you've just set forth is the strawman.  I don't necessarily disagree that "cultural immorality" and "human depravity" are "related" in some way, but the AFA is not making a broad, general statement along the lines of "depravity and immorality are related."

The AFA is making a more specific argument--namely, that the perpetration of murderous violence by one group of psychotic people can be traced back, in some causal way, to un-Christian activities, in particular sexual activities (specifically "homo stuff,") violent video games, headbanger music, naked baby pictures and public school policies regarding public prayer--most of which have had their most direct effect on completely different people than the people who did the identified violence.  The available evidence just doesn't support this argument, no matter how hard the AFA might pray for it to be so.

So, no, it is not about the AFA having one opinion and me having a different opinion.  It is about the AFA being wrong, stupid, and silly on this issue, and making videos designed almost exclusively to rile up their base while simultaneously making them less able to think critically.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 04:07 PM (DMHz7)

23 Misha -

Just saw your comment.  On my way out the door right now.

Short answer: I believe a maladjusted psychopath is a maladjusted psychopath.  I believe a maladjusted psychopath with religion is as likely to think God told him to kill people as an atheist psychopath is to believe he's killing at the behest of aliens.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe empirical evidence shows that violence-disposed mentally ill children exposed to Christianity on a regular basis are demonstrably less likely to kill than violence-disposed mentally ill children not exposed to Christianity.

If the VT psycho had a reduced level of exposure to Christianity in his upbringing AND there is a demonstrable inverse correlation between being exposed to Christianity and being a violent psychopath, then there is at least some theoretical basis for the argument that a reduced exposure to Christianity had a correlation with--and perhaps even a causal effect on--the VT psycho's activities.  In the absence of such a showing, however, there is no such basis.

I don't think either of the above conditions exists, but I'm open--as always--to being proven wrong.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 05, 2007 04:26 PM (/Qv55)

24 Ragnar,

again, don't confuse wrong with stupid or crazy.   I'm not trying to prove the AFA right.  I'm saying you're wrong to equate this with Fred Phelps.  And if you're wrong, does that make you crazy?  See my point?

Cheers

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 05, 2007 05:36 PM (8e/V4)

25

"Baby pictures"  I have seen this in a lot of comments. 

The context was that immorality was OK as long as it was a private matter. Like Clinton cheating on his wife was a private matter, and we shouldn't be concerned if he was immoral behind closed doors. Like personal/private immorality wasn't a serious/dangerous character flaw!  (Not condemning people for orientation, etc, so back off you over-reactors out there) 

However the vid leads into the idea that if any immorality is OK if it stays 'private', then it's OK to feed that market of immorality, in the form of pedophilia, produced by sick twisted Akon worshippers or whatever. The child pictures are p-o-r-n!  They are acceptable, because it isn't anyone elses business if it stays 'private', or out of the public eye. In this way, exploitation of children becomes a more lucrative cash industry, and society says 'OK' by adopting a default of moral equivalance! 

Because it was 'private'.  But you know, your public self will always carry your private self into areas it maybe shouldn't go!  A kindergarten teachers pedophilia stash is no big deal while it stays private. Right?

Ragnar has provided a great article here. Heavy handed delivery screws up basically good message, and everyone gets lost in the details!  Semblance of 'blame America' in the message alienates some of the audience. It's true, that this vid doesn't do a good job of explaining it's message, and only wierdo's like Carlos, Misha, and me, actually filter through to the real intent, because we are ready to accept it.  Ragnar's point is valid.

I would still loan Ragnar my filter to watch the vid through, and ask him to do it again. to a lot of people, the connections between things in the film are obvious, and it isn't meant as a comdemnation of America, but a warning that we have been asleep at the wheel, and need to wake up!

Personal morality tends to become public eventually.  Nothing is really that private, when you get right down to it.  I would rate the vid a '3' for (effort-minus-clarity of message).  I would not 'favorite' it, even as an example of how to screw up something good.  It wasn't an anti-American vid.  IMO.

USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 06, 2007 12:21 AM (2OHpj)

26 To Ragnar on #23.  I ahte to put it this way, but it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is.  Christianity is a value system.  Any humane value system would help a society. A value system like Jesus actualy taught, includes personal responsability.  Christianity IS a core values sytem of western civilization, and it actually fits neatly with the idea that if you do something wrong, you don't blame the other people in your school, and go in there and kill them all.                Anyway .... Good article, that got people thinking!       
                                     USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 06, 2007 12:27 AM (2OHpj)

27 Jesusland Carlos sez:

And if you're wrong, does that make you crazy?  See my point?

No.  Yes.

Michael Weaver:

If the video was making the point that many messed-up people in this world could benefit from Christianity, I wouldn't have any problem with it.  I think that's a good message.

For anyone who sees nothing wrong with this video, I ask you to put yourself in the position of someone who just lost a child in the VT killings.  Now imagine sitting in front of your computer to receive a "Christian" message about the tragedy.  You might reasonably expect something loving, comforting and uplifting, maybe something from the words of Jesus Christ.

Instead, the video tells you that YOU YOURSELF are responsible for your own child's death, and that you've just "reaped what you've sown."

Is that really what Christianity is all about?

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at May 06, 2007 06:47 PM (CGDG2)

28 Ragnar!  "Is that really what Christianity is all about?"    No! And that isn't really what I was saying. I agree it is a ham-fisted and clumsy delivery. The content is not without value.  As I said, your article is a very good one, and it draws a lot of ideas out into the open for discussion.  I get touchy about morality issues because of my owwn baggage. We all see things through our own lense, and it is worthwhile sometimes to see things through someone elses. My joining the gripers over your 'babe' pictures is an example. We need an Estella Warren picture on another thread even as I type this   IMO !   But 'babe' pics can seem ham-fisted if your lense isn't used to the presentation.  Anyway, I'm not fighting anyone here on purpose. If it seems like it, I apologize.                            
                                  USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at May 06, 2007 09:18 PM (2OHpj)

29 Stupid liberal idiots would rather blame the NRA just like NYCs jerk faced mayor tried to blame the big apples crime rate on the NRA and neighboring states instead of his own incompetence and arrogence

Posted by: sandpiper at May 06, 2007 11:51 PM (I9Upt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Americanizing Shelley in Theaters Today

This debut offering from American Pride Films bills itself as overtly pro-American. If true, that would be a welcome relief from most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood. I haven't seen the film, so I'm not in a position to confirm or deny the claim. I am, however, in a position to confirm that Americanizing Shelley stars a hot chick:

More pics of the hot chick here. More on the movie here.

Posted by: Ragnar at 10:07 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Not hot.

Posted by: Ortzinator at May 04, 2007 12:32 PM (JleDT)

2 hot enough to melt steel -for the third time in history

Posted by: Son of a Pig and a Monkey at May 04, 2007 01:23 PM (KsxrY)

3 Not hot.

You can get your pics of men elsewhere. She is smoking but way too much clothing for your post Ragnar 

Posted by: Randman at May 04, 2007 03:50 PM (Sal3J)

4 I understand children of mixed-race marriages exhibit "hybrid vigor" and are more likely to be smart and successful, like Tiger Woods.

Hey, just looking at this logically (Yeah, riiiiight).

LOL!

She is a smokin' hot babe. Yummy.

Posted by: Hucbald at May 04, 2007 09:32 PM (fvz9M)

5 That's hot.  Are you taking notes Ragnar?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 04, 2007 11:57 PM (8e/V4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment