Rand Simberg hits a home run with this one. A few excerpts (emphasis added):
September 8, 1940
LONDON (Routers) The new government of Winston Churchill, in office for a few scant months, came under fire today, after the seemingly senseless destruction of property and lives in the city by German bombers yesterday. Many are blaming the new Prime Minister for the bombings, which they view as a result of his stubborn support of an illegal war against Vichy France, and inappropriately aggressive policies against the misunderstood Germans.
"Under Chamberlain," said one Labour backbencher, "we had peace for our time." [Must have been named Galloway.]
"Now," he went on, "under this new brutal and dictatorial Tory rule, Churchill, along with his poodle Franklin "Delanodamngood" Roosevelt, has brought this wretched war home to Whitehall itself, and ordinary Londoners."
...................................
Some scholars of Northern European studies think that in fact, ultimately, these acts of violence have a deeper cause--the years of poverty brought on by imperialistic policies against Germany. The tragic Treaty of Versailles after the Great War kept Germany on its economic back for years, and the resulting deprivation has fueled the anger of young bomber crews brought up in the depths of the long depression.
Under these circumstances, most think it little wonder that the Germans have been driven to such desperate measures as bombing innocents, in the wake of such unremitting animosity and economic scarcity. It no doubt adds to their fury that many of their bombers were shot down in the raid by British anti-aircraft fire and RAF aircraft (weapons that many think should be outlawed, or at least renounced, in the interest of international stability), at the cost of probably hundreds, perhaps thousands, of brave German lives.
More shockingly, many even believe, with some justification, that the German bombers were deliberately targeted, while the gunners attempted to miss British aircraft, a government policy that some properly view as a particularly cruel form of ethnic profiling.
Given such policies, they say, Britain should prepare for more such attacks in the future, until the government can understand why the Germans hate us, and act on that understanding with more rational and humane policies.
...................
Read the whole thing. It's painfully true.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/14/2005 16:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We've learned absolutely nothing from history, have we?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/14/2005 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#3
bigjim-ky is right.
But the lesson not learned is that leftists will use the same tired strategy of blaming the good guys first while protecting the scum of the earth, pre-emptively turning the conversation toward THEIR contextual ideals. They did it then, they do it now, they'll continue doing it until they get tired of merciless ridicule and mockery.
Take back the conversation and have a few yucks at their expense (Living in Boulder, I get plenty of practice)! When some idiot starts in with their screed, LAUGH AT THEM. For instance, a fun response to oh-so-many lefty topics is, "Since you obviously have no interest in self preservation and can't be taken seriously, I'll just stand here and laugh at your spittle-spewing pie-hole for a minute or two. Hey, wait, don't leave...yet".
#4
The aggressive actions of the US warship "Greer" only three days ago, in which its sailors lobbed depth charges at a German submarine (though fortunately with no casualties), has only fed such concerns.
Oh, this is TOO cool! Greer. Like Admiral Greer, from "Hunt for Red October"? Just a coincidence, you say? Maybe. Greer was the first US ship to fire on a suspected German submarine, in 1940. It was escorting a British convoy near Iceland. That's bit past the 12-mile limit, folks!
What was the name of the ship prominent in Clancy's novel, "Hunt for Red October"? (And also in "Red Storm Rising")? Oh, yeah. The "Rueben James". What was the first US Navy shipsunk in WW II? Well, you know! And when? Three or four months before Pearl Harbor. Clancy knew his history!
Can you imagine Dan Rather finding out about that? FDR could've been impeached. How quickly we forget. Should he have been? No, he was leading the US in the correct direction, but history would not recognize that fact for quite a while.
Those who can not remember the past a condemned to ....ummm... I forget.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/14/2005 21:39 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
First Molly Ivins apologizes for mis-stating that we'd killed more Iraqis than Saddam and now this? Actually, Koch has been very supportive of the Prez on Iraq. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?
Posted by: BA ||
07/14/2005 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Koch has been very supportive of Bush's foreigh policy since about 11 am on 9/11. He even campaigned for Bush in Florida in 2004.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2005 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
If you go to the link, you'll have to advance to page 16. DC Examiner. By Tony Snow.
If you want sure proof of Americaâs moral inversion, consider this: For allegedly refusing to tell a lie, George Washington became a man of legend. For telling the truth, Karl Rove became Public Enemy No. 1. Let us review the summerâs preeminent political scandal. Two years ago, Karl Rove cautioned Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper against believing a story detailed by former diplomat Joseph Wilson.
Wilson wrote in The New York Times: (a) that he, Joseph Wilson, had been dispatched by Dick Cheney to conduct a secret mission to Niger where he was to ascertain whether that nation had sold yellowcake uranium to Saddam Hussein; (b) that he, Joseph Wilson, sipped tea with local diplomatic and governmental worthies who assured him nothing was going on; and (c) that he, Joseph Wilson, concluded that the president lied during a State of the Union address by accusing âAfricanâ nations
of selling uranium to Iraq. Democrats swiftly accused the president of lying his way into the war and the press pounced.
The problem was that Wilson was playing fast and loose with the facts. In Niger, he behaved less like James Bond than Maxwell Smart â blustering, strutting, preening â and posturing as an important personage. With this as background, Rove warned reporters that Wilsonâs grandiose claim of having been tapped by the vice president (which he later expanded to include the director of the C.I.A.) was fictional. The person who engineered the hiring was Wilsonâs wife, who, Rove added, worked on weapons of mass destruction for the CIA.
When Robert Novak rehearsed the facts in a column and included the name of Wilsonâs wife, the former diplomat exploded. He hotly denied that she got him the job. He huffed that the missus was a âcovertâ agent who had been exposed because he, Joe Wilson, had dared expose the White House.
In subsequent retellings by Howard Dean and other Democrats, Mrs. Wilson became Wonder Woman,
risking death while fighting on the âfront lines of the war on terror.â Before long, the engines of justice
began to chuff and churn. A Senate panel discovered that Wilsonâs wife, Valerie Plame, did indeed recommend him for the trip. Wilsonâs report to the State Department, contrary to his New York Times account, mildly seconded the administrationâs theory that crime bosses in Niger had retailed weapons-ready uranium to Saddam. Further probes by British intelligence revealed that African nations had sold yellowcake to the despot, making Joseph Wilson three-for- three on getting things wrong.
Meanwhile, the president appointed a special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. He asked Fitzgerald to determine whether the mere mention of Plameâs name violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it illegal to (a) knowingly reveal the name of a âcovert agentâ who has worked undercover in a foreign country within the past five years, (b) with the aim of blowing that personâs cover and (c) attempting to undermine the nationâs intelligence-gathering capabilities. The answer is no: Plame hadnât been a covert agent in years (if she ever had been) and she wasnât acting as if the revelation had plunged her into mortal peril. She and her hubby went on a whirlwind tour of the East Coast social circuit, beaming and posing for glitzy photos from Washington to New York. Here are Roveâs sins: He answered a reporterâs phone call. He tried to protect the journalist from publishing a false account. He mentioned Wilsonâs wife without mentioning her name. He agreed to release reporters from promises to keep his identity and information confidential. (He did this 18 months ago.) He cooperated with the special counsel. He broke no law. He told the truth. Democrats, so quick to demand equal protection for Guantanamo-based terrorists, have demanded Roveâs defenestration without so much as reciting his Miranda Rights. Reporters, meanwhile, seemed more offended that Rove attempted to correct their errors than that Joe Wilson played them for chumps. But being a Washington political figure means never having to say youâre sorry â which is why this story
is destined for one more turn. When the truth proves deeply embarrassing for Joseph Wilson, Democrats and the press corps, the presidentâs foes will resort to one final gambit.
They will claim the entire controversy was orchestrated by â you guessed it â Karl Rove.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/14/2005 07:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
of course it was orchestrated by me! You fools. BWAHAAAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake â a form of lightly processed ore â by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What's your point, Mike? That he didn't say in this particular piece that Dick Cheney didn't ask him to go? Even if you score a point on this one, how does that change the fact that
1. He was played the fool about the yellowcake sales.
2. He was a partisan hack that was wrong on all accounts
3. That the Dems are being made fools by getting in a hissy fit that Rove warned a reporter with facts that proved true?
Hang your hat on that if you wish - but it's sad and pathetic if that is all you are left with.
#8
Sorry Mike S, that post doenst help you a bit - That was Wilsons BACKTRACK, not his original pack of lies that was published in the NYT.
In other words, you are being disingenuous at best, covering for a liar by repeating his covers for his lies.
Mikey - you are as much a liar as Joe Wilson when you do that.
At worst you are aiding and abetting political hacks by deliberately spreading disinfomation in the hopes of hiding the truth: the truth that your side has run out of ideas and publicly lies and dissmebles for political power, becuase they no longer have a moral core. It marks you as a liar, and as the sort of scum who should be jailed.
#10
LEt me rephrase - that is a redacted version - Joe Wilson implies (as you can see) that Cheney sent him - and his public comments subsequent to the NYT article show him making those claims: Cheney sent him to the CIA, the CIA wanted him there, etc etc.
This stuff is OLD, and Jow Wilson has been outed on every bit of that article as being a liar. Check the report for the Senate investigation.
The facts are out there if you check into them. And they support Wilsom being a liar, and his wife just being a desk bound agent after Alrich Ames blew her cover back in *1997*. She was NOT a covert. This is the Old-Boy network at the CIA at work: trying to cast the blame for the results of of poor management and fieldcraft on someone else - in this case trying to blame a "leaker" for sooomethign that was not a leak to begin with.
It can hardly be a leak if the info was not classified to begin with.
Its akin to trying to prosecute someone for leaking a US Army Field Manual that they bought off ebay which turned out to be UNCLASSIFIED.
The special counsel is trying his damnest to dig up something to justify his office's continued existence, in hopes of becoming a special prosecutor, not just a counsel.
Sadly for him, and for the left, there simply is no "there" there for them.
The ONLY reason this is a headline event is that the openly partisan press has decided to help thier side by trying to make something of nothing, in order to try to weaken the Republicans before the supreme court noiminations come up.
They are that desperate - and that out of touch, and that bought in by a pack of lies. Just look back to the Dan Rather forged memo if you want to see the truth of thier inability to handle the truth when it doesnt fit their warped views.
Its sad - the "4th branch" of the US has become corrupt and partisan.
Its pretty sad how the more Democrat/left the press has become, the further it leaves behind facts, reason, honesty and fairness, and how much more it relies on lies, rumors, innuendo, smearing, and sensationalism.
#11
I do NOT welcome MS back. I hope he will leave again for the same reason that he left months ago. His return is NOT a positive development at Rantburg. Finding him here again has ruined my day.
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/14/2005 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ignore the lying UN-defender. Moral equivalence with terror makes him as big a scumbag as the asshats he droolingly defends. Go back to your hole MS, cretin
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/14/2005 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Isn't MS a Kennedy Konspiracy Kook?
Mikey's a lying sack o' crap. His defense of Joe "Mint Tea" Wilson is just more evidence of same.
I do NOT welcome MS back. I hope he will leave again for the same reason that he left months ago.
He left because he couldn't stand admitting he got all his goddamned facts wrong, right?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/14/2005 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Re: #10 (Old Spook) -- that is a redacted version - Joe Wilson implies (as you can see) that Cheney sent him - and his public comments subsequent to the NYT article show him making those claims: Cheney sent him to the CIA, the CIA wanted him there, etc etc.
Can you provide the different words he used in his original NYT article?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Re #13 (Robert Crawford): He left because he couldn't stand admitting he got all his goddamned facts wrong, right?
I left because I was fed up with .com, Tom and Frank G calling Aris an "attention whore" and because I was fed up with Poison Reverse's "it's all about meeeeeee" responses to all Aris's comments.
I came back because I missed you, Robert.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I called you an "attention whore" too, MS. But what you really should be called is a "SINK-TRAPPED TROLL".
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/14/2005 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Hey, still holding out for Kofi Annan's innocence? Or have you dropped him for Joe Wilson?
I notice you're playing semantic games with the "Cheney asked" bit, rather than focusing on some essential facts:
o Wilson said his wife didn't suggest him. Senate Intelligence Committee says he lied.
o Wilson said he found no evidence of Iraq trying to get uranium. SIC says he lied.
Why should we believe a claim that's supported only by sloppy parsing of what he wrote when his major claims are complete BS?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/14/2005 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I, for one, welcome those from the cold, if they can be civil. An echo chamber is not interesting or challenging. I don't recall Mike going off the rails too often. I just regret he's the best they're willing to send in.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
07/14/2005 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The 'Opinion' section, Mr. Slywester? Isn't that like Jayson Blair making a comeback by working for the Penny Saver
#20
What I Didn't Find in Africa By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake â a form of lightly processed ore â by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Of course, it was his wife, Valerie Plame, who reccomended him for the assignment.
Posted by: ed ||
07/14/2005 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Re #20 (ed)
The question I posed is whether the following quotation by Tony Snow is a valid characterization.
Wilson wrote in The New York Times: (a) that he, Joseph Wilson, had been dispatched by Dick Cheney to conduct a secret mission to Niger
Do you, Ed, think that's a valid characterization of what Wilson wrote?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Yes. Wilson said Vice President Dick Cheney had questions, and Wilson was asked to go to Niger. What Wilson wrote makes it clear he was going to Niger on the behest of the VP. Cheney didn't personally select Wilson to go to Niger, but when the VP has questions, someone was going to investigate on his behest. Wilson's wife offered him up and he agreed to go.
Here is another Wislon quote: "The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there."
Posted by: ed ||
07/14/2005 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Read it again:
Wilson wrote in The New York Times: (a) that he, Joseph Wilson, had been dispatched by Dick Cheney to conduct a secret mission to Niger
I'll keep your response in mind, Ed, whenever I contemplate whether you are a serious person.
.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#24
At some point you just have to say, "yeah, I did it what are you going to do about it"?
#25
I'll keep your response in mind, Ed, whenever I contemplate whether you are a serious person.
!
This coming from the fellow who believes the Iraqis should have to pay for investigations into the fraud committed against them.
Thank God Sylwester's back. There weren't enough clowns around.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/14/2005 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Tony Snow: Wilson wrote in The New York Times: (a) that he, Joseph Wilson, had been dispatched by Dick Cheney to conduct a secret mission to Niger
Joseph Wilson: In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake â a form of lightly processed ore â by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government
----------
Another reason I left is that the low quality of discussion here. Most of it's just demagoguery, as on the responses about this issue right here.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/14/2005 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Why don't you be moving along then?
Posted by: Neutron Tom ||
07/14/2005 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#28
hurry along Mike, the short bus has arrived to take you on your way.
#29
Is this the summertime sausage story between a deadly hurricane and the next missing child drama? Clearly that is what the Republican spin-cycle would prefer us to believe. Or does this one stink like a loaf on the Whitehouse lawn so big that Barney the Terrier would need a transfusion? The Left smells blood. Predictably they are unable to control their impulses. All they can see is what appears to be the pale underbelly of their arch-nemesis. It doesnât much matter that no one has been charged with a crime let-alone found guilty. Heads must roll! But make no mistake the stench has lingered through all the confidential source blather. The RNC had no choice but to take it up a notch. Bamn! Circle the bandwagons and make sure the message points have been distributed. The RNC synopsis of their Message Points document reads, âMr. Rove was attempting to advise a reporter about potential inaccuracies in a story that he was writing later, were proved to be incorrect. The attacks by Democrats are clearly political in nature.â So there you have it. Move alongâ¦nothing to see here folks. One Old Spook said, there simply is no âthereâ there. Maybe heâs right. Either way, dust off your Propaganda 101 cause it already reeks on both sides.
Mike S hasn't and doesn't violate any Rantburg rules. He's welcome to post. You're welcome to reply. Flame wars solve nothing and waste both time and bandwidth.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2005 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#31
But Steve, doesn't he hafta speak english to be understood?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/14/2005 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Wow Mike, you've just opened my eyes! The next time my employer's president's secretary calls and asks me to meet with a client, I'll be sure to introduce myself to the client and state that she, the secretary, considers them a vital customer, and identifying and satisfying their needs is important her and me.
Better yet, I have yet to see where she, a secretary, is in my org chart chain of command. What is a secretary doing ordering me around. Guess I'll just tell her where to get off. Thanks again! Your gift just keeps on giving. I think I will offer your wisdom at the next staff meeting. I'll call it "Sylwester's Serious Semantic Shenanigans" in your honor.
Posted by: ed ||
07/14/2005 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#33
God bless Joe Wilson, as he has succeeded like no one else to exposure the Dummycrats as the incarnate of Act Out.
Thus far, the Dummytude have pointed their finger at virtually anything that has reached D.C. (homeland security, Gitmo, Iraq, torture, Abu Ghriab, etc.) and have gained no traction.
But no other topic like the Dummycrats supporting an out-and-out lieing, sanctimous, pompous, self aggrandizer like Wilson could have insured complete Dummyratic defeat in the '06 and '08 elections.
Thank you Joe Wilson, the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/14/2005 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Just for once.... Another reason I left is that the low quality of discussion here. Another reason I left is that the low quality of discussion here. Another reason I left is that the low quality of discussion here. Another reason I left is that the low quality of discussion here.
#37
"I left because I was fed up with .com, Tom and Frank G calling Aris an "attention whore" and because I was fed up with Poison Reverse's "it's all about meeeeeee" responses to all Aris's comments."
I feel very privileged to be put in the same category as FG, Tom, & .com.
"I left because I was fed up with .com, Tom and Frank G calling Aris an "attention whore" and because I was fed up with Poison Reverse's "it's all about meeeeeee" responses to all Aris's comments."
I feel very privileged to be put in the same category as FG, Tom, & .com.
As he prepared to leave office, the deputy secretary of defense engaged in a series of conversations with the author on Iraq, democracy, intelligence, 9/11, and how he believes America must make its way in the world
by Mark Bowden
Long article but worth it -- hit the link.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/14/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Wonder if the UBL crew and associates ever take the time to examine themselves and what their world view has accomplished in the last 5 years? Keep in mind that UBL and his ilk are always fond of saying that the world is as âtheir godâ wills it.
Just 5 years ago UBLâs living example of pure- Islamic government, the Taliban, had almost free run to govern the majority of Afganistan. Those boyos in black turbans had the ability to create an Islamic paradise replete with Sharâia enforced down to the smallest detail. The holy-than-thou Taliban had an opportunity to create a model system so good that all of humanity would eventually flock to it. Instead âtheir godâ willed that 19 crazed hijackers would have their day in the sun and that the US coalition would oust the Taliban and have the âstudentsâ and their erstwhile supports studying and writing fatwas in the dim light of mountain caves in Pashtun friendly areas. UBLâs god has willed it as so.
The UBL crew is convinced that militant Islam is the wave of the future and âtheir godâ has willed it so. Yet of an estimated world population of 6,400,000,000, it is estimated that although there are 1,300,000,000 Muslims and less than 5,000,000 believers subscribe to the UBL crewâs world view. And although the hard-core element of militant Islam remain as steadfast as ever, there is growing evidence that support from the general Islamic and world public for the UBL crew is shrinking. UBLâs god has willed it as so.
The UBL crew is always ranting and raving about how much âtheir godâ hates democracy, infidels and freedom. Yet when it came time for UBLs god to hand out the worst natural disaster in the past quarter century â the tsunami of 2004 â the wrath of that natural disaster occurred not in the citadel of the infidels but in the very heartland of UBLâs supporters. UBLâs god has willed it.
One would think that at this point the UBL crew might try to figure out if âtheir godâ is really on âtheirâ side.
#2
Wonder if the UBL crew and associates ever take the time to examine themselves and what their world view has accomplished in the last 5 years? Keep in mind that UBL and his ilk are always fond of saying that the world is as âtheir godâ wills it.
WELL, since we started our response to the situation, oil has gone up to about sixty dollars a barrel and the various middle eastern governments have made a killing in the market (among other places).
Just food for thought.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
07/14/2005 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yet of an estimated world population of 6,400,000,000, it is estimated that although there are 1,300,000,000 Muslims and less than 5,000,000 believers subscribe to the UBL crewâs world view.
Five million seems an extreme underestimation. UBL pulls mid double-digit support in public opinion polls in much of the Islamic world when Muslims are polled about public figures they admire. Perhaps there are 5M potential spodeydopes ready to strap bricks of C4 to their chests and board busses full if Infidel schoolchildren, but it's the hundreds of millions who view these activities with quiet satisfaction that are the true heart and soul of the Islamofascist movement.
#4
AzCat is right, because anyone who wants to be a true Moslem must in logic strive for taqiya, jihad, and sharia. There is no middle way except to become an apostate (and be killed for that).
To be a Moslem as such is to declare oneself a supporter of permanent religious war against all non-Moslems. It's pretty simple. Doesn't matter whether their false god seems to grant them victories or defeats --they are required to devote their life to Mo's eternal jihad. Note also that defeat is easily perceived as temporary, and can be taken as a sign of not being devoted enough to the jihad.
#5
I'd like to argue that the way to win against Islamofascism is not to point internal inconsistencies in their arguments and behaviours.
They are irrational by choice and consider non-Moslems to be impure and unworthy of life. What makes you think that they'd want to listen to your words? Theo Van Gogh tried that in the last minutes of his life.
To committed Moslems, non-Moslem lives and words are worth nothing.
#6
So, let's talk about the gassy kroll. Was it the Martians do you reckon? Or crazed KKK killers from Kanapolis? Do you have links? If not why not, I'll hang out for another 3 minutes, if no links are forth comming that I agree with then you are a Cad and a Bounder. A likely stone cold crazy.
#7
Shipman I don't think your comment was addressed to me but if it was would you accept data from ultra-lefty Pew as a valid source? After all if they're shading or push-polling they'll be doing so in a direction that'll minimize my point.
In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.
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.
