Article

2004-05-23 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by RWV 2004-05-23 1:26:54 PM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bush is who they fear. They won't attack. What is absolutely lamentable is that neither the American nor European "bien pensants" can see it.

Posted by Theodopoulos Pherecydes 2004-05-23 1:57:02 PM|| 2004-05-23 1:57:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Too true, Theo.
(You aren't another Greek sent to torment us by Katsaris, are you?)

Posted by Jen 2004-05-23 1:58:41 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-05-23 1:58:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 LOL, Jen.

I don't know that the terrorists will think things through, though. They saw a strike affect Spain, and will want to believe that the same thing will happen in the US, despite there being a logical arguement that says otherwise.

After all, if these people were logical (not to mention sane), they wouldn't be terrorists in the first place.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2004-05-23 2:16:37 PM|| [http://punictreachery.typepad.com/] 2004-05-23 2:16:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I disagree. Precisely because Bush is their nemesis they will attack, as they have everything to gain and not much more to lose. If they can affect public opinion, ruin the economic recovery, and spoil the sense of security we've had (since we've had no more attacks on our soil since 9/11), then they can help usher in Kerry and the new Golden Age of Appeasement.

Posted by Dar 2004-05-23 2:18:26 PM|| 2004-05-23 2:18:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 after all, they were right that America would retreat after 9/11, right, Omar and Saddam? These mooks aren't the tactical geniuses we fear, but are capable of pulling off individual successes at soft targets. Nevertheless, they are getting rolled back every friggin day. How many men does Sadr have in his feared Mahdi militia today?

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-23 2:19:47 PM|| 2004-05-23 2:19:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 They will hit when they can. It's coming. It's the severity of the attack that is the big question. What say you Gentle?

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-23 2:32:30 PM|| 2004-05-23 2:32:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm inclined to believe they won't try another mass-casualty attack on US soil - at least not for the time being. IIRC, the CIA found out from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (that guy who looks like Ron Jeremy) that Al-Q was surprised at US public reaction to the 9/11 attacks. They'd expected something more along the lines of the reactions they got from the Spaniards this last March - when instead they awakened public fury and resolve.

The butchering of Nick Berg has also had an effect on the average Joe - even here in Seattle, I heard people discussing his murder, the savagery of the perps, and the perfidy of the US news media in, first, trying to "justify" it as "retaliation" for the Abu Ghraib scandal, and second, in quickly forcing the Berg story down the Memory Hole in favor of more All Abu Ghraib, All The Time coverage. I've even heard these sentiments from my liberal friends.

If Al Q was going to play it tactically and strategically smart, they'd go for a mass-casualty attack in Iraq, either a WMD attack or a coordinated series of large-scale suicide bombings and human-wave assaults against US troops and other Coalition targets. I think they realize they made a BIG propaganda mistake with the Nick Berg video - they have to know that a lot of folks in the US have reawakened to the savage nature of our opponents. OTOH, a huge death toll in Iraq (say, if they were able to kill 1000+ US troops in the course of a week or less) would play into the hands of Al-Q and its allies in the US media, who will pull out the propaganda stops even further to undermine the war effort and ensure John Effin' Kerry's election in November.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-05-23 2:56:17 PM|| 2004-05-23 2:56:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I don't know that the terrorists will think things through, though. They saw a strike affect Spain, and will want to believe that the same thing will happen in the US, despite there being a logical arguement that says otherwise.

Yeah, just like digracing Jimmy Carter really turned things around for the Iranians.

Posted by Zenster 2004-05-23 3:24:35 PM|| 2004-05-23 3:24:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm naturally going to relate this to my long-standing prediction that we will see major violence from the home-grown left, with some crossover and collaboration from AQ.
In this case, the objective of pre-election violence would not be to change the result but to disrupt the election and de-legitimize the process itself.
This is hopeless, barring some entirely unforeseen event, but it is consistent with their fantasy ideology and this always trumps reality in their planning.
In terms of the pop-revolutionary fantasy ideology, this would gain global attention and legitimize their status as a Palestinian-style "resistance movement."

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 4:07:37 PM|| 2004-05-23 4:07:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 You guys are taking a much too parochial approach. Muslim terrorists don't just attack to influence American public opinion. They attack to get their fund-raisers excited and to get new volunteers for the jihad.

If nothing else, a successful terror attack on US soil will help with recruitment efforts. Who wants to go into Muslim countries to kill other Muslims? Successfully killing thousands of Americans in the heart of the Great Satan itself should help get Muslim volunteers excited about jihad again. And all those Muslim financial donors who were starting to get impatient about their funding being used to kill Muslims will now get a clear shot at what they perceive to be Islam's unambiguous enemy - Uncle Sam.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-05-23 4:10:07 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-05-23 4:10:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ricky, they don't have a problem with out getting angry. Because, after all, not every American got angry at them.

They have the press on their side; they have the Democrats on their side; I'm not sure another attack on the US would enrage us or just make the poltroons among us more determined to cave.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-23 4:12:17 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-23 4:12:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#12
This is hopeless, barring some entirely unforeseen event, but it is consistent with their fantasy ideology and this always trumps reality in their planning.

Whose fantasy ideology, the Islamists or the leftists?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-23 4:13:21 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-23 4:13:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Indeed, ZF, I have always taken it for granted that the 9-11 attacks were aimed as much at AQ's supporters and sympathizers as at Americans.
It was a statement of power and status, resonating well with historical resentment of Islam's (largely self-inflicted) humiliation, as well as with the Islamic culture's standards of authority.
The same is true of the forthcoming domestic terrorists. To the worshippers of Che and Mumia, lethal violence is the signature of sincerity, determination, and authenticity. This, in turn, signifies the legitimacy of their positions and therefore, their right to rule.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 4:22:38 PM|| 2004-05-23 4:22:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Robert,
"In this case" meaning the leftists.
There are many similarities between the two ideologies, however, including identical characterizations of the opposition and (most crucially imho) a reliance on propaganda methods whose viability is fading ie, the power and credibility of the institutional media.

This is a cultural war in the most profound sense. It is the elite media culture's last chance for absolute power. Many realize this; among the elitists themselves, their dupes, their terrorist proxies and academic agents; and among the opposition.
This is why I am expecting an absolute showdown within a year, probably before the end of this year.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 4:31:38 PM|| 2004-05-23 4:31:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Robert, I don't think the true-believing poltroon class is that large a subsection of the populace. There are plenty of honest liberals on our side - our own Liberalhawk as an example - who don't buy the Chomskyite L-Cubed party line. Like I said above, I have some liberal friends who've FINALLY realized that much of the media is flat-out on the other side. If Al-Q made another mass-casualty attack on US soil, and the media pulled the bullshit they did in the months after 9/11, you'd start seeing L-Cubed journos dangling from lampposts.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2004-05-23 4:58:07 PM|| 2004-05-23 4:58:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I'll bite.

An "absolute showdown", 'Conspiracy? How do you see that coming about? With the makeup of the sides being..?

And Rick, would that make L-cubes: Lynched Leftist Lingoists?

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 5:13:58 PM|| 2004-05-23 5:13:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I named them, Scott.
Specifically, I see an outbreak of violence from the far left, in opposition to the re-election of Dubya if that happens, in opposition to Kerry's failure to meet extremist demands if he happens to win. (I am one of the Democrats here, though not a liberal by post-LBJ standards.)

The extreme left sub-culture has an alliance of convenience with the Islamofascist enemy. More importantly, the left as we know it today is largely a creature of the institutional media culture. Large-scale violence will lead to the collapse of this dominant media culture, since alternative sources now exist and the dominant culture's assumptions and worldview will be completely inadequate to explain or influence the new reality.

For more on the symbiosis of media culture and violent radicalism, see:The Conquest of Cool by Thomas Frank.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 5:36:59 PM|| 2004-05-23 5:36:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Lacerated Larynx Liars

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 5:42:41 PM|| 2004-05-23 5:42:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Atomic Conspiracy-- your multiple posts on your thesis are appreciated. Never ever stop reminding people that the left is THE ENEMY.

And yes, there are liberals (like myself) who have indeed pulled their heads out of their asses. More than you might think...

Posted by ne1469 2004-05-23 5:47:57 PM|| 2004-05-23 5:47:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Interesting.
One of the things I've always disdained is the 'left-right' continuum. Let's see: Communism on the far left, fascism on the far right. And the difference being? National vs. International Socialism?! So evidently it's a circle. And that's exactly what the elitists have been running us in. Pitting Americans against each other with distictions without difference.

The scale should be absoulutism. Totalitarianism on one side (call it 'plus') and anarchy on the other. With Jeffersonian constitutionalism (governing least) firmly on the 'minus' side.

A similar measuning stick would be helpful in knowing friend from foe in your showdown.

Lacerated? Piano wire. Waaay messy.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 5:59:45 PM|| 2004-05-23 5:59:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "One of the things I've always disdained is the 'left-right' continuum."

I disdain poor spelling and pointless semantic diversions.

"Let's see: Communism on the far left, fascism on the far right. And the difference being? National vs. International Socialism?! So evidently it's a circle. And that's exactly what the elitists have been running us in. Pitting Americans against each other with distictions without difference."

I have said nothing about a continuum and I have certainly not represented this as a conflict between communists and fascists, with all that implies. In this conflict, communists and nazis are demonstrably on the same side.

The "left" designates a particular set of affiliations and positions in the present context. It is not a description, but a designation, used by the "left" itself. At the very least, they are fond of characterizing opposition as "right-wing" despite the obviously fascistic overtones of much of their own rhetoric.

"The scale should be absoulutism. Totalitarianism on one side (call it 'plus') and anarchy on the other. With Jeffersonian constitutionalism (governing least) firmly on the 'minus' side. A similar measuning stick would be helpful in knowing friend from foe in your showdown."

I had this to say on another string:

This war is a major breaking point in world history. In broadest terms, it is a showdown between a hellish alliance of authoritarian power-seekers on one side and the principles of the Enlightenment on the other.
It has been building for 200 years and it will not end soon.
It will get worse, much worse, before it gets better.

The self-designated "left" has a warrant for the term, despite their alliance with conventionally designated "right-wing" ideas such as religious rule and antisemitism. The traditional, and original, designation of left and right has to do with opposition to, or support of, the prevailing power structure and authorities. This is how the Communist hard-liners who tried to overthrow Gorbachev in 1991 came to be designated as "right-wing," they represented the dominant power structure in opposition to radical change.

In our present context, the Jeffersonian Republic (an outgrowth of the Enlightenment) is the prevailing and traditional structure while the proponents of totalitarianism, shariah law, and institutional media culture are the opposition.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-05-23 6:40:43 PM|| 2004-05-23 6:40:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I am really surprised at the people who think that a large attack won't occur pre-election in the USA becuase it would result in a Bush re-election. Madrid is now the template and will be for years to come. Whether it produces the same result in the USA remains to be seen. I am not as confident as you that it will not produce another Spanish outcome. Even if it doesn't and the public's mood can be accurately determined, you assume that the jihadis can both accurately determine the mood and act rationally in response which I doubt (on both counts). I think an attack is is a certainty and probably multiple coordinated attacks.

Posted by Phil B 2004-05-23 6:46:18 PM|| 2004-05-23 6:46:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Oooohh, touchy, touchy A.C. Yours is a superior intellect. Is it my spell check or the fact that you voted for Clinton twice?

With all the changing affiliations, I'm just trying to figure out who I can't turn my back on. Not too long ago, it was libs like you (were?!) Keep looking into the light, you might get there.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 6:56:19 PM|| 2004-05-23 6:56:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I think an all-out attempt on Bush's life is more likely than a mass casualty strike. Think about it... Would we then run old man Cheney? Bush, I fear, is indispensable to victory over the jihadis (and their local fifth column).

Posted by someone 2004-05-23 7:03:02 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:03:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Zhang, regarding your question in #10, the scary thing is that a number of these terrorist jihadis - the Wahhabis come to mind first and foremost, but I'm sure there are others - regard any interpretation of the Qu'ran other than their own as apostasy. In many ways, Islamic solidarity is something of a myth, existing in name only. Muslims have been killing each other since not long after their Profit, may bees pee upon him, bit the dust and went to the big Burning Olive Garden in Hell; in fact, three of the first four caliphs (the "Rightly-Guided" caliphs, companions of the Profit, may bees pee upon him, all) were murdered. With these extremists, being of another sect is the equivalent of not being a true Muslim. They may not target other Muslims intentionally, or at least say so - that would, for obvious reasons, be a mistake on their part - but it happens, sure as hell. So the idea that harming another Muslim is something Islam forbids is certainly a myth. There are far too many excuses for extremists to use.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 7:08:00 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:08:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I wouldn't put it past the jihadis to try something else here. It's a scary thought, to be sure, but I'm not sure that even if, God forbid, Kerry was elected, it would be a victory for the enemy. Think about it: we get hit on 9/11, we go in and take down two countries and, according to several accounts, cripple al-Q for quite a while. Criticism of the handling of the war leads to a questioning of the President's abilities, and during a critical election, we're hit again. So, if we assume that Kerry wins because of that, what happens next? And remember, I don't like that idea, but this is purely hypothetical.

There was a lot of solidarity after 9/11, not to mention outrage. There's questioning now as to how we're handling things in Iraq, and to be sure, we made a couple of mistakes in Afghanistan such as letting Binny get away, but no one questioned whether we should go in there. Well, the antiwar crowd, but we ignored them because no matter how vocal they were, they did not represent the majority of Americans. Now if we were to be attacked again, given what happened before, do you really think it likely that John Kerry would be able to stand in front of a grieving and angry populus, a populus that put him in office, and declare, "We must make peace with them. We must acknowledge that this is in retaliation for mistakes we have made and so we must pull out of Iraq and give into their demands"?

I don't think so. I think if he tried to do that he'd be lynched on the spot, or there would be a mass popular movement to impeach him, or something. I simply don't believe that even he could get away with doing nothing. Clinton could because those attacks took place overseas. If it happened here, if it involved innocent civilians, it would be a different story.

My two cents, anyway. Although I have to agree with you, AC, that it's entirely conceivable that the left would try something. They don't seem to realize what would happen if the Islamists won (a similar quandry to the Arabs and the Nazis in WWII, actually; very interesting story, that, but I've taken up enough space with this post already. Ask me about it if you want to know more).

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 7:18:31 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:18:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I've been thinking along those same lines; in fact, I think a Kerry victory could turn out to be an absolute disaster for Islam.

If Kerry is elected, whether on the heels of a terrorist attack on the U.S. or not, then he-- and anyone who follows him in office-- will conclude that it was because America simply does not have the stomach for a protracted conflict like the one we're engaged in now.

The jihadis will draw that same conclusion and it will embolden them, all the more so if a Kerry victory follows a Spain-style pre-election attack. And they will redouble their efforts, making further attacks inevitable.

And you're right: John Kerry would NOT be able to just stand there and do nothing; but neither could he embark on another idealistic, Bush-style campaign to reform the Muslim world, because he would be convinced-- by his own election victory-- that the country will not stand for a long war.

So he feels he simply MUST do something, something which will settle the matter decisively. And he will feel that he has only weeks, or at most months, in which to do it.

Frankly, I don't see where he's got a helluva lot of choices: looks to me like he just pushes The Big Button.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-23 7:37:28 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:37:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Interesting lines of reasoning, guys. But I think you're still trying to rehabilitate Judas. (as it were) The reason most conservatives fear a Kerry administration is because of who he'd be beholden to. It would be Clinton redux. (without the economy balancing the budget) Military morale, respect for the U.S. (I didn't say love), non-legislating judges, all down the toilet. I don't believe the powers behind him -the 'hate America first' crowd, is gonna let him lead us to any sort of victory. Even if he were so inclined. BTW, which way IS he inclined?

Today, that is.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 7:56:00 PM|| 2004-05-23 7:56:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Scott, I have no intention of "rehabilitating Judas." I think we'll be in real trouble if he's elected. I hope with all my heart that we won't see a Kerry victory come November. All I'm saying is that I don't think that he'd be able to get away with his bi-polar positions in the face of another devastating al-Q attack on American soil.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 8:01:38 PM|| 2004-05-23 8:01:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Kerry would be the least of the problems with his administration. The people he'd be forced to pick would be the biggest.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-23 8:05:15 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-05-23 8:05:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Doc, you're probably right, but the fact that he'd maybe wanna 'get away with' some of his equivocations says it all. But if GWB doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat (one I hope he bought, not inherited) we better get used to thinking about a Kerry win.

Does Soldier of Fortune still print?

Exactamundo, RC. Think, Jocelyn Elders.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 8:13:39 PM|| 2004-05-23 8:13:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Wait, Scott, I'm confused. What all does "he'd maybe wanna 'get away with' some . . ." say?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 8:19:37 PM|| 2004-05-23 8:19:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 #24 I think an all-out attempt on Bush's life is more likely than a mass casualty strike. Think about it... Would we then run old man Cheney? Bush, I fear, is indispensable to victory over the jihadis (and their local fifth column).
Posted by: someone 2004-05-23 7:03:02 PM

Definetly a possibilty. It could be done. Mass volley of man portable sams?. PRGS fired at Air Force One on landing rollout?. Lets admit it we have all played around with these scenarios as mental excercise. Personally I expect Bush to ask Cheney to step aside citing health concerns. Who to nominate in his place? Powell, I don't think he'd break his promise to his wife. Rummy, not in this life time. McCain, possible but I have doubts. Rice, BINGO!!!!!!

Posted by cheaderhead 2004-05-23 8:27:51 PM|| 2004-05-23 8:27:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I firmly believe George Bush to be as indispensible to the survival of the United States of America as a free nation as Winston Churchill was to England. There is no one of his stature able to step forward at this time. Maybe Condoleeza Rice in the future, but not now. The Presidency is not a place for learner's permits.

I believe that John Kerry is a hollow shell consumed with ambition. If he were to achieve his goal and become president, I believe he would be bereft of direction. The people around him are a mishmash of politically correct fools, poltroons, idealogues, and monumentally ambitious thieves who mistake soundbites for deep thought. The looting of the US that would take place under a Kerry "administration" would make US Grant's look like a model of probity

May God bless and protect George Bush and lead him and the Republic to victory.

Posted by RWV 2004-05-23 9:01:01 PM|| 2004-05-23 9:01:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 "But I think you're still trying to rehabilitate Judas."

I hope you didn't mean me; I absolutely loathe John Kerry, and I have ever since he pulled that "Winter Soldier Investigation" bullshit back in 1971 when I was in the Army. We had a word for people like him: buddyfucker.

Although "traitor" will do just as well, I suppose.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-23 9:06:47 PM|| 2004-05-23 9:06:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Sorry Doc, following the Wolves/Lakers on net. (The Ticket better get in the game or the Pups are done!) You had said, "I don't think he'd be able to get away with his bi-polar (cool - I'm gonna steal that) positions". I was just pointing out that he might want to "get away" with stuff he couldn't. Goes to motive, Your Honor. "In the Kingdom of God, motive is everything," -Augustine (or Aquinas maybe)

Yeah, I did Dave, until I realized I might possibly have to look for silver linings if Kerry wins too. Suicide is not an option.

RWV - I wish I was as confident in GWB as you. I still remember his dad. (Globalist. No real friend of conservativism) I like Junior, I just wish he wasn't from the same Texas cabal.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 9:31:45 PM|| 2004-05-23 9:31:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Okay. That clears it up; thanks!

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-23 9:43:24 PM|| 2004-05-23 9:43:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 "Yeah, I did Dave, until I realized I might possibly have to look for silver linings if Kerry wins too."

I'm not thinking of the nuclear annihilation of a billion Muslims as a "silver lining," actually; I really, REALLY would like to avoid that, if at all possible. Which is why I want this exercise we've undertaken in Iraq to succeed, and for us to continue exerting maximum effort to try to make it a success.

Frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence that the Islamic world can be de-toxified; and each day my confidence in a positive outcome erodes just a little bit more. But we've got to try.

Like I said to someone on the morning of 9/11: I'm not afraid of what the Muslims might do to us; I'm afraid of what they might force us to do to them.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-05-23 9:46:37 PM|| 2004-05-23 9:46:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 That what the Muslims don't understand and what scares me.We might have to kill a billion ppl I really don't like that.

Posted by djohn66 2004-05-23 10:01:07 PM|| 2004-05-23 10:01:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Maybe Iran could be a testing site.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-23 10:04:11 PM|| [http://www.twin-towers.net/muslims.htm] 2004-05-23 10:04:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 You guys are right of course. They could drag us to their level. They remind me of the knight in Holy Grail -"It's just a scratch". I really don't want to see several thousand of our sons die while they see if Allah (Allan - yuks!) is up to the task.

But it's a foregone conclusion that they will strike us again. Just with what is the question. And that begs our response. Many wags here have said 'Mecca' as a retaliatory site. I used to think it was just enthusiasm. Now, I'm not so sure. I believe that this war is with Islam, regardless of what the "moderates" think. I believe we should say up front that Mecca is the target if there's another 9-11. Heck, even give them time to evacuate, just because we CAN. Then send it to MOAB. Then announce to them them the next TWO cities. (Karachi and Tehran? Damascus and Qom?) None of this ground-pounders-at-perpetual-risk crap. I don't care if they never get democratized. They don't seem to be that interested. They can worship their moon god all they want, just keep the killing amongst themselves.

Posted by scott 2004-05-23 10:30:27 PM|| 2004-05-23 10:30:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 If the Coalition were to pack their bags & depart from Iraq, Shi'ites would be knocking off Sunnis, al-Qa'ida terrorist moles would be blowing up Iranian agents...and doing it soooo peacefully.

Persian dogs against Arab swine, just as it was during the Iran-Iraqi war.

Funny that there were no 'western' ground troops in either Iran or Iraq during that war, yet somehow they managed to butcher & gas each other in the name of Islam.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-05-24 12:02:07 AM|| [http://www.ldolphin.org/morey.html] 2004-05-24 12:02:07 AM|| Front Page Top

12:31 Shipman
12:31 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:15 Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:13 Gentile Shipman
12:11 Gentile
12:11 Gentile
11:32 Phil B
11:22 ruprecht
11:19 ruprecht
10:57 Phil B
10:55 Robert Crawford
10:22 .com
10:06 Robert Crawford
09:52 CrazyFool
00:26 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Atomic Conspiracy
00:19 Mark Espinola
00:02 Mark Espinola
23:52 Mark Espinola
23:37 RWV
23:34 Jen
23:33 scott