Posted by: Steve White ||
01/13/2006 00:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
Posted by: Bird Dog ||
01/13/2006 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Awwwwwww. Is Ray Gunn dead? Pity. We hardly got to know him.
Why don't you go over and comment on the "Stupid in America" post. We'd appreciate your expertise.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
Posted by: Bird Dog ||
01/13/2006 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Go whine somewhere else bird dog. There is no freedom of speech in someone else's house. You gave up the right to be treated with respect when you started posting with a bunch of pseudonyms.
We listened to what you have to say, and we still disagree with you. I even read your crap when it hits the sinktrap. You lack facts, and your arguments have been found to be unpersuasive. Be civil and/or go away.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/13/2006 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
" President Bush Attempts To Shore Up Iraq Support"
By Jim Malone
Washington
13 January 2006
President Bush continued his efforts this week to rebuild public support for his handling of Iraq with speeches this week in Washington and Kentucky. But, those Democrats who oppose him on Iraq are not backing down.
Iraq figures to be a major issue in the November congressional elections, and Mr. Bush is trying to improve Republican prospects by convincing the public that the United States must stay in Iraq and finish the job.
But the president also had words for Democrats who oppose him on Iraq, warning them not to engage in what he called irresponsible debate in the months ahead.
"But one way people can help as we are coming down the pike in the 2006 elections is to remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harms way and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy," he said.
Democrats remain split on Iraq but many of them disagree with the president's suggestion to tamp down the debate over Iraq.
Democratic Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia discussed the issue during a recent town hall meeting with some of his constituents.
"There is nothing more patriotic, nothing more American than engaging in a debate, even an intense, heated, contentious debate over the future our nation should take," he said."
Something very interesting happened in this site yesterday. An article similar to the one I posted above listed President Bush as making the almost the exact same quote in paragraph#3 of this post.
I made the point that I thought that the quote was politically motivated and the basis of it
is unproven in regards to Iraq. I asked Bush supporters in this site to "prove" what Bush was saying was true. In other words provide surveys, or statistics that show that there is a connection between anti war rhetoric/criticism and events covered in the MSM and "embolding the
enemy" in surges of violent attacks on the U.S. military and Iraqi coalition supporters in Iraq. I also asked for documented"proof" that anti-war critism/rhetoric is indeed as Mr. Bush proclaims is "demoralizing the troops in harms way".
To me these are two very simple logical questions challenging President Bush's assertions.
What I got in rebuttal in this website was a two long ago instances in Germany and Vietnam that were supposedly similar to what is going on in Iraq and also a discredited letter from Al Qaeda
in Iraq leader Ayman Al Zawahri.
I dismissed all of this so called "proof" on the grounds that all of it was flawed. I asked specifically about what is going on in Iraq currently NOT what happened in Germany and Vietnam. The Al Zawahri letter was discredited in the very article the rebuttal poster listed.
What followed was a flurry of ad hominen attacks
on me by the regular posters in this site with my rebuttal post being "redacted" by the "neutral" site moderator.
I as well as some of my democratic associates who monitor this site all shook our heads in disbelief
and amazement at the responses. Apparently this site has a double standard for posters. If you agree with the proprieter of this site and his
viewpoints you are free to "troll", use inflammatory language and profanity and call people names as long as it's against the people he views as the "enemy". If you do it in oppositon you are labeled a "troll" have your
post dedacted and are threatened with being banned. Evidently the regular posters and the proprieters of this site are only interested in
dialogue with people that agree with them.
Civlized discourse is definitely NOT what is
happening in here for sure.
Posted by: Bird Dog ||
01/13/2006 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
stupid in america..?
what did the british healines say when bush was re-elected?
"How could 50 million+ Americans be so STUPID?"
LMAO
Posted by: Bird Dog ||
01/13/2006 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
So why are they all suddenly on our side against the regime in Tehran? This is a huge turnaround from successful sabotage against the United States and the UK four years ago. The political calculations have changed. But why?
Hereâs a thought. The US has a big cache of documents showing that Chirac and de Villepin received Oil-for-Food moneys from Saddam, contrary to their own laws. So did Putin. So did the Chinese. The US could leak some interesting stories to the international press, probably enough to defeat de Villepinâs election run for president of France, and to embarass Putin in Moscow. Even Chinaâs corrupt politicians might get a little nervous. The Communist Party has been known to turn on corruption when it becomes too public.
The US has now had four years to study 2 million documents from Saddamâs secret archives. A lot of Baath Party torturers must have been eager to talk to the US, just as the Nazis were eager to cooperate after WWII. There must be thousands of Kurds and Shiites out there gunning for their old Baath enemies. So there must be a steady flow of intelligence about Oil for Food and a lot of other Saddam-era influence buying abroad. It defies belief to think that we just havenât asked anybody how Saddam managed to buy at least three of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Would it be silly to think that we have the goods on Chirac and Putin? Do we know who was bought off by Saddamâs oil in Beijing? Has Dr. Rice been dropping quiet hints in her travels to those places?
Weâve all been wondering why George W. Bush has been so quiet, in the face of an endless barrage of screaming accusations from the Left. Maybe he doesnât care about all that. Maybe heâs onto bigger game â like knocking down the next most dangerous member of the Axis of Evil. And given the huge political corruption in France, Russia and China, maybe Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld are just doing what adults sometimes have to: They are taking their lumps for the greater good. Maybe we are quietly twisting some arms.
#1
The political calculations have changed because in Iraq America took the lead, they knew America would see it through and they enjoyed bloodying our noses, especially since it might help prevent Oil for food from being uncovered.
In Iran the US said Europe can take the lead and things have gotten worse and worse and if the US doesn't bail them out they'll find themselves in range of Iranian nuclear tipped missiles before long.
A completely disorganized effort to annoy hyper-sensitive Moslems is called the "Making Fun Of Mohammed Cartoon Contest".
Put simply, many non-Moslems who write about Islam, or make drawings of Mohammed, are threatened. But nobody and nothing should be "above being made fun of". So the way to help them overcome their hyper-sensitivity is to overwhelm them with so many objectionable works that they chill out, or at least get more entertaining with their seething.
Since they will sometimes threaten the lives of authors and cartoonists, publishers and web servers, it behooves those who want to Make Fun Of Mohammed to be anonymous.
The Internet provides the solution with Peer-to-Peer file transfers. Virally-spread anonymous cartoons, whose filenames are all prefixed "MFOM - (whatever).jpg", are now being disseminated.
Anyone who wants to can create an MFOM - xxxxx.jpg (or something), being utterly blasphemous about Mohammed or Islam.
And the best part is that since few people have much artistic talent, they can just take an existing cartoon, say Doonesbury, or the one written by Ted Rall, erase whatever dialogue is in the balloons, and replace it with something very offensive to those who get offended far too easily. Not a cartoonist you like, though, as it might get him in trouble.
As long as you don't sign the cartoon, there is no practical way to trace its origin. The winners of the cartoon contest are those whose cartoons are eventually discovered and result in maximum seething and empty threats--a fine prize indeed, putting the creator on a par with Salman Rushdie, albiet anonymously.
Of course, if some ignorant Imam wants to threaten Ted Rall, well, that would be unfortunate, wouldn't it?
In any event, just whipping out a cartoon in a few minutes and putting it in the upload area of your P2P software is all it takes.
Perhaps we could even start the hunt for the "Best Mohammad Joke Ever", like the "Best Blonde Joke Ever" that Donald Sensing so helpfully points to. (Damn him! I'm still chuckling...)
#2
Fact: Muslims want us to enforce their perverse sharia, and succeed in doing so when we bend to their crude pressure. Professor Pipes publicized this case of dhimmi injustice:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2001/december/hardingC35767.htm
Muslims can be trusted as far as you can spit against a hurricane. They don't want to coexist with us; they want to eliminate our existence.
#4
"They don't want to coexist with us; they want to eliminate our existence."
I believe that statement to be an accurate assessment. However, to be more specific they want to eliminate your existence. To be clear, when I say âyourâ, I refer to those that advocate their genocide and ethnic cleansing as a solution.
#5
Incomplete, DepotGuy. They are pretty keen on eradicating my personal existence, and that of the trailing daughters as well. We are Jewish, female, educated, opinionated, and Jewish. Oh, and my father has a medal from the Haganah (and the double taxation that goes with it). They are pretty keen on wiping him out, too. In fact, they aren't nearly as interested in CaziFarkus as they are in me and mine.
#6
Depot G, are you planning on being the last one 'eliminated'? Good luck. YOU are on their list. Seems you are misreading those that only read one book.
Syria fratricide update from trusted source. London and MI6 have hold of General Ali Dubah of the Syrian Air Force, who defected last week to give up the secrets of the al-Assads and to pose a deal for the regime change in Damascus. Ali Dubah offers Rifaat al-Assad, exiled brother of the dead king Hafez al-Assad. London favors this choice because it would team a restored Alawite regime with elements of the Sunni urban elite and also with the Druze of Lebanon and Syria -- the one constituency that London trusts in the region.
Paris and Saudi elements (ancient Crown Prince Sultan and his lean, hungry son Bandar) have a sharply different approach to regime change. They want Khaddim, the Paris-defected vice president who now routinely goes on French TV and rats out the al-Assads as the Macbeths of Damascus. Khaddim wants the crown for himself, and this would ally him with the Moslem Brothers (slaughtered by Rifaat al-Assad in 1982) and with the tribals of the Iraq border region. Khaddim would also continue the insurgency in Iraq in order to maintain the loyalty of the black marketeering tribals. The Saudi elements like this solution because it would keep Iraq in turmoil. Any stable democratic Iraq threatens the Arabian plutocrats.
Doomed, penniless Egypt likes a Sunni urban elite, tribals, Moslem Brother solution as well, but not with the regicidal traitor Khaddim. Hosni Mubarak wants to maintain the clumsy Bahsar al-Assad in power in order to demonstrate that a weakling son can succeed a bullying father, establishing an Ummah precedent for Hosni passing his throne to half-pint Jamal Mubarak without civil war on the Nile.
Iran has gory appetitites too, to maintain the insurgency and keep Iraq bootless; but Iran also worries about losing its access to Damascus and the HizbAllah Shiites of southern Lebanon, so Iran must make a deal with whoever wins in the Damascus daggerfest.
London versus Paris. MI6 versus Deuxieme Bureau. Cairo versus Riyadh. Iran vs. London, Paris, Riyadh. Cairo vs. Cairo. And the United States is completely beside the point, a non respected player, a muscle boy with might and fight but no harem spy cunning. These are the days of the secret war for Syria. Expect daggers, bombs, demarches, betrayals, and a fight to the finish of the brothers al-Assads.
Syria, and Lebanon, aren't falling because of London or Paris. WhoTheFuck do they think they are? We're cleaning up the fucking disasters they left behind post-WW-II now (Can you say Sykes-Picot?) Why would we trust these morons to "carve up" anything? Arrogant assholes.
#3
The assumption is a palace coup will determine the next leader of Syria, who will be Assad MKII. I'd dispute this assumption, not least because in modern times, I can think of an example of it happening, except perhaps in the darker parts of Africa (and excluding pure military coups). My analysis would have either a conventional military coup with promises of more democracy that might be fulfilled or a slide into disorder and a slow lose of control especially in the Kurdish North East, which we hear almost nothing about, yet must be full of weapons and men with Pergamesh training from Iraqi Kurdistan. My guess is large parts are already a no-go area for the Syrian military and the Kurds are biding their time.
#5
phil_b, that would be "Peshmerga". I hope that you are not being deliberately cryptic. ;-)
TW, that may be some kind of inference that Hafez acquired similar status like Elvis...with a difference that no one is claimimg about the first seeing him alive. ;-)
#1
I see Kim's point: the second amendment should allow inidividual citizens to arm themselves like an individual soldier. Higher levels of organization, and weaponry, are reserved for state and federal armies.
One Canadian, in a discussion about the Pentagon's plans for invading Canada, warned us about their snipers. While any sort of "resistance" Canada would put up if we were motivated enough to invade them, would be laughable, BUT I would count on a way higher body count than Iraq solely because of those snipers. Thus, I heartily agree with Kim's suggestion that citizens be allowed to own sniper-worthy weapons: I think it would be possible for Vidalia, Georgia, to field more snipers, albeit not as good, as the Canadians. Multiply that by all the cities and towns in the United States with populations of at least 10,000, and you'll see a situation where nobody would even THINK of trying to invade North Dakota.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
