#1
In an age of nuclear fire, can civilization long survive these nihilists? Their love of death is rivaled only by the pedophile/rape-cult they claim to admire.
*Jane Fonda's first anti-war demonstration in 34 years. Well, I suppose we should thank God she's kept her mouth shut THIS long.
*Medea Benjamin:
- Her and Cindy Sheehan separated at birth?
- "Took the name Medea as a college freshman:" Medea, in Greek mythology, convinced children to murder their father through trickery and lies, and then killed her own children just to make a point.
Guessing lil' Susie Benjamin didn't read the fine mythological print when she took the name.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/29/2007 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Guessing lil' Susie Benjamin didn't read the fine mythological print when she took the name.
I don't know, Mike. I think she took the "Well-behaved women rarely make history" bumper sticker rhetoric to heart.
#6
See also FINANCIAL SENSE > JR Nyquist article > THE DESTRUCTION OF THE USA [short]; + YOUTUBE > REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME + ASIANET > US-IRAN WAR MAY SPARK REGIONAL CONFLICTS. Radics may retaliate by striking/attacking US cities, including Washington DC, wid WMD's. CNN > USA at war agz what is actually a RELIGIOUS CULT??? USA = GLOBAL SECURITY possibly meaningless as Cult adhere's to end-times = "END OF DAYS" fanatical beliefs. FREEREPUBLIC > USA + IRAN FIGHTING PROXY WAR IN IRAQ [ME?].
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /2007/01/countering_united_for_peace_and_justice_in_washington_dc.php on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.theredhunter.com Port 80
I imagine someone had their little feeling hurt at one time....a SPLENDIFERIOUS little boo boo to the pride perhaps, an injustice done on a small tender place that still hurtz. everyone say awwwwwwwwwwww
#9
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! C'mon, JUSTICE, we challenge you to say something intelligent and relavent. Got it in ya? ...crickets... Didn't think so.
#10
Do you prefer the auqua version of Fa, then, young man? I'll be sure to mention that to the head of the product development team -- it will quite modify their ideas of their target market. Tell me, are you quite satisfied with the shape of the container? It wasn't designed with the size of your hand in mind, I know, and he'll need that piece of information for the next improvement.
Sgt. Mom, he has a queer obsession with Rantburg, and with me. For some reason he's made up an object upon which to rest all his fantasies, as far as I can tell. Clearly this has been going on for some time, as dear Mrs. Davis hasn't been around regularly for over a year, and he also references others' minor posts. He's given me a moustache more flowing than either his mother's or his own, which indicates several worrisome things, as you know so well; he's attempted to step into my husband's place and give me orders; for some reason he's suddenly concerned about my father's career; and of course he's obsessed with bodily uncleanliness and odour, so common to a certain type. tu30301 has been finding him a rather amusing chew toy, but the young man does grow tiresome. It's been mentioned where he is posting from, but to be honest I can't be bothered to remember.
#11
Damn, and I thought some of my radio audience were truly whacked out, as far as the bizarre fantasies went.
Gotta hand it to the 'Burg, though. I thought nothing would ever top some of the calls I got, when I was doing the midnight rock and roll on EBS-Hellenikon.
You should have heard the ones that got called in - and on occasion were delivered in person - at AFRTS Kunsan. Made me wonder about that place sometimes...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/29/2007 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#14
TW slashed his peepee about a year ago and he's still angry about his bloody panties.
#26
As one sitting in the cheap seats and observing this non-exchange between the lovely and talented Mrs. T. Wife and the unexcusable Juicing in the Blendor, It is truly a thing of beauty.
The heroine scores a perfect 10 and doesn't even work up a single bead of sweat; meanwhile our resident troll (lowercase, not worthy of an uppercase) sneaks in, makes a feeble swipe and then slinks off to indulge itself in some perverse fantasy that makes the skin crawl trying to picture same.......
Sometimes, it's useful to take politicians at their word. George W. Bush has announced that he's sending an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq, to provide security in Baghdad and Anbar province. Gen. David Petraeus in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee said that it's impossible to achieve that goal without additional troops. He also said, in response to a question from Sen. Joseph Lieberman, that a congressional resolution disapproving of the additional troops would not have a positive effect on military morale.
We don't know whether this "surge" of troops to Iraq will achieve its goal, but we do know that Petraeus is held in high regard. Armed Services voted unanimously to confirm him.
With that in mind, let's look at the decisive words in the resolution approved with a 12-to-9 majority by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and which seems sure to be approved by a majority of the Senate. "The primary objective of the United States strategy in Iraq," reads the resolution, "should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq." Compromises with whom? The al-Qaida forces? What compromises would satisfy them? With the Baathist Sunnis? Ditto. With Sunni and Shia militias? Maybe some would be satisfied by "political compromises." But some probably won't.
Sometimes, the only way to stop the bad guys is to capture or kill them or threaten credibly to do so. It's not a bad idea to pressure the Iraqi government to act against the sectarian killers -- there's evidence it's already doing so. But if they don't have enough military strength to stop the violence -- and no one says they do -- those efforts could be too little.
Here the resolution fudges. "The United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces." It also says it is "not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by increasing the United States military force presence in Iraq."
So we shouldn't fight any harder, and we shouldn't send in any more troops to accomplish something -- the restoration of order in Baghdad and Anbar -- that Petraeus says can't be accomplished without more troops and different tactics.
This seems to envision that we keep doing just what we've been doing until the Iraqi forces grow stronger -- the same course of action that these senators say has failed. Then we should hand over responsibility to the Iraqi government "under an appropriately expedited timeline" -- classic bureaucratic language, which can mean in practice anything you want it to. And then everything will be fine.
Or at least if others cooperate. The resolution states that "greater concerted regional and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation" and "the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq."
Yes, it would and should. But it would and should also help the average porcine altitude if pigs could fly. Like the Iraq Study Group, the senators supporting the resolution are expressing pious hopes that very unlikely things will happen, that the governments of Iran and Syria will nurture tranquility and democracy in Iraq, that the French or the United Nations will come up with a recipe for Iraqi reconciliation that has somehow eluded us unsophisticated Americans. The pigs are up to 30,000 feet now.
"The main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq," reads the resolution, "should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq and accelerate training of Iraqi troops." Another bureaucratic fudge word -- "transition" -- which means that the resolution leaves the timeline for these things entirely open.
So the upshot of the resolution is that we should keep doing for some undetermined period of time pretty much what we have been doing, though it hasn't been working, and we should not do the different things that Petraeus thinks have a chance -- he's not guaranteeing success -- of working.
What the resolution tells us is that most members of Congress, echoing what they think is the view of most voters, yearn to return to the holiday from history that we thought we were enjoying between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001. And that they have no idea at all of how to get there.
#2
FOX's HIZBULLAH IN AMERICA + CNN's IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF BIN LADEN > reminds us that the WOT > WAR TO THE DEATH. Guess we know who's scared of fighting a nuke war even when recognizing that your enemies intend to utterly destroy you, even agz a Radical Islamist enemy which the MSM itself claims has little to no WMDS. CNN > JAMES BURNS > IRAQ represents an arena = spectacle of GLOBAL POLITICS first, while per se WINNING THE WOT = INSURGENCY is tertiary.
Having gone through a number of books written by Tariq Majeed of Baitul-Hikma-, Lahore, I have almost lost my belief that any factor other than the Zionists could have been behind the success or failure or rise and fall of any nation, in the history of mankind; even if the fault seemingly and clearly was committed by the nation concerned. A glance over the books mentioned below would reveal Jews conspiracy Waters Flowing Eastward (Jewish against Christians); Lous Marschalko who wrote, The world Conquerors - The Real War Criminals; The International Jew - The Worlds Foremost Problem; Pawns In The Game by Guy Carr; World revolution - The Plot Against Civilization, by Nesta H Webster; The Hoax of the 2oth Century, by Dr Arthur R Butz; The Case Of Israel - A Study of Political Zionism, by Roger Garaudy; The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, by Walter N. Sanning;
They Dare To Speak, by Paul Findley; What Price Israel, by Alfred M. Lilienthal; Memoirs of An Anti-Zionists Jew, by Elmer Berger; A Global Game For a New World Order, by Tariq Majeed of Lahore Cantt; Master Minds of Air Massacres of Aug 17 in Pakistan and September 11 In America, by Tariq Majeed, again.
Why did it happen to them, is not difficult to understand? Well, they are conspirators, and fabricators who even propagated against Moses the moment He was away from them, though only for a short while. Why were they made to live in the wilderness; the Mono Salva didnt suit them.
Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden share some unmistakable similarities. Hitler was portrayed as the greatest villain of the world, exactly as Osama is being portrayed now. The Nazi band was labelled as enemies of mankind, just as the Al-Qaeda band is branded now. The similarities must exist, as the same satanic schemers created both the characters and their teams. Zionists masterminded both the so-called Holocaust and September 11 Terror. Studying Hitler and Holocaust makes one quickly understand the Zionists Jews game built around Osama and September 11.
Holocaust was always suspect in many views. To kill six million Jews by the methods and in the period as claimed by the Jews was physically impossible. If thousands of Jews were being gassed to death in Germany daily for four or five years, it would have fetched headline news everyday, but it was not even mentioned as a historical event in the World War-II. The foremost in this regard was his decision to let the beleaguered British and French armies escape when a superior German strike force, having cornered them off Dunkirk, was poised to destroy them, very early in the war. Guderians tanks had swept up past Boulogne and Calais and were crossing the canal defence line close to Dunkirk when on May 24, 1940; an order from Hitler not only stopped their advance but actually called them back to the canal line. Evacuation of British Expeditionary Force had already begun on 23 May.
By June 24, when the operation came to an end, 198,000 British and 140, ooo French and Belgian troops had been saved. These troops were saved in the words of Western war historians, due to Hitlers fatal order of May 24 halting Guderian. Hitler was never even secretly contacted by the Allies assuring Germans victory at Germanys terms. To say that Hitler was not a ruthless aggressor will be travesty of the facts. Yes, certain record exists supporting Hitlers aims set only at liberating Germans lost territory in the First World War and no more. But actions speak louder than words.
Adolph Hitler was a programmed Puppet, like todays US- planted Heads of the Governments in the Muslim World. Why did Hitler open the Eastern Front - launched aggression on the Soviet Union with which he had no - aggression Pact? The information of Barossa was passed on to the West by a Western Agent from Japan. Throughout the world, the media heap abuse on those who express doubt about the orthodox version of the Holocaust.
In the German speaking countries, publically expressing doubt about the Holocaust is a political offence punishable by long prison sentences (Section 130 Paragraph 3 of German Penal Code; Section 3h of Australian Penal Code; Section 216 of Swiss Code).
This alone should be enough to arouse the suspicion of anyone who has the capacity to think critically. (CHP, PO Box 118, Hastings TN 34 3 ZQ, UK,emails:frage@vho.org). Osama bin Laden was more of a micro manager than he has often been portrayed as: The Commission says bin Laden personally gave Muhammad the go-ahead to begin laying the groundwork for the attack at a meeting in Kandahar - Afghanistan, in early 1999. Over the following 12 to 18 months, bin Laden chose or accepted oaths from all 19 of the eventual hijackers and appointed Muhammad Atta as the mission leader. Throughout the planning stage, bin Laden was the one who scaled back the more ambitious proposals...The Commission dispels the idea that Laden is worth as much as 300 million dollars. Though he did collect One million dollars a year in inheritance until he was cut off in 1994, he relied on fund raising to support al-Qaedas 30 million dollars annual budget.
It may be of no surprise that 9/11 Commission was almost wholly a Jewish body. Eight of its 10 members were known or thinly-disguised Jews. They were: Thomas H Kean (chair) Lee H Hamilton (vice Chair), Richard Ben -veniste, Jamie S Gorelick , Slade Gorton, John F.Lehman, Timothy J Roemer and James R Thompson. The other two, Fred F fielding and Bob Kerry, were most probably also Jewish, but deeply disguised, like John F Kerry who was revealed to be a jew only after he had emerged as the leading challenger to Bush in the 2004 US elections. The Commissions Staff, Executive Director Philip D Zelikow and Deputy Executive Director Chris Kojm, and General Counsel, Daniel Marcus were also Jews. To ensure that its verdict would keep the world misled on 9/11, the Commission employed a crafty tactic. Instead of investigating the situation on September 11, it situated the investigation!
The Commission adopted the bogus cover story, that Osama and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, as a belief and made it the starting point of its inquiry. This was a conspicuous feature throughout its proceedings. Are the Jews a cursed or a blessed nation; the record of their existence speaks for the real answer.
Posted by: john ||
01/29/2007 18:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The thought that people like him have operational control of nuclear weapons should give you nightmares tonight
Posted by: john ||
01/29/2007 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To kill six million Jews by the methods and in the period as claimed by the Jews was physically impossible
Ironically the Pak army killed three million Bengalis in a period of nine months using non-industrial methods. They surpassed the SS.
In Rwanda, the Hutu Interahamwe required only 100 days to murder 500 000 Tutsis.
Posted by: john ||
01/29/2007 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whenever I read insane Islamodribble like this horseshit article, I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off-- and everyone else, really-- if we'd just obliterated this fucking pigsty called "Pakistan" the afternoon of 9/11.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/29/2007 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Not that it has any relevance in context, but this passage is hilarious:
It may be of no surprise that 9/11 Commission was almost wholly a Jewish body. Eight of its 10 members were known or thinly-disguised Jews. They were: Thomas H Kean (chair) Lee H Hamilton (vice Chair), Richard Ben -veniste, Jamie S Gorelick , Slade Gorton, John F.Lehman, Timothy J Roemer and James R Thompson.
"The voicing of the unpopular being the very soul of free speech, the right to give and take offense shall not be infringed."
Sometimes I think it is time to insert the above into our First Amendment. Whether it's an off-color joke or colorful commentary, it's now hard to make anything but the most plain vanilla statements without offending somebody. In fact, so ingrained is the notion of being offended that it's become a topic of TV commercial satire. Just think about GEICO's commercials with stone-age characters taking umbrage at the slogan, "So easy a caveman can do it."
Ironically, associating cavemen with being thin-skinned is quite apropos, since it is a frailty born of the more ignoble aspects of man's nature. As to this, I think about documentarian Alby Mangels who, while visiting primitives in Papua New Guinea, warned against "knocking back their hospitality." Prudence dictated he be wary, as those less spiritually and morally evolved are ruled by pride, the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins. And, lest we entertain the fancy that it is the superior person who doesn't give offense, know that it is actually the superior one who doesn't take it. It's hard to offend the humble.
In truth, though, our civilization is not as overcome by pride as by duplicity. And this is what is truly offensive (in the way an odor is so) about this offensiveness business: Screaming "That's offensive!" is nothing but a ploy. Yes, you heard it here first, few who emit that utterance are actually offended.
They just don't happen to like what you're saying.
I'll explain precisely what is going on. Liberals trade on this ploy, using it as a standard response whenever their sacred cows come under scrutiny. If they were tolerant, they would simply accept that some will espouse what we despise. If they were honest, they would simply say what they mean. But tolerance is just another ploy, and honesty, well, it has never served the ends of the left, and never less so than here.
A good article that I posted at my website, then decided was worthwhile to share here.
I wasn't aware you had your own website. How about sharing the address? Thanks.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/29/2007 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
tu - there isn't one yet.
Interesting article. I suggest everyone read it:
So, first you demonize speech refutative of your agenda by labeling it "offensive," which cultivates social codes and attendant social pressure facilitative of the change you desire. Then, as these social codes become more widely accepted and entrenched, expressing them through rules and laws becomes more acceptable. This leads to the next stage, the organizational expression of them - the speech codes in various private institutions. And once sufficiently inured to these, it's time for the last stage of this imprisoning of ideas: The legislative expression of these social codes known as hate speech laws.
Case in point: It becomes harder for traditionalists to argue against homosexual marriage if they're scorned and ostracized for saying homosexual behavior is sinful, destructive or disordered. It becomes harder still if those who do so are punished within the context of our schools and businesses. And it becomes impossible if the government arrests you for such expression.
Example: Heard on the news the other day that there was a fight between two people. It was being investigated as a hate crime simply on the basis that one of the people involved used the N-word (and yes the N-word user was white while the other was black).
I was like...what? ptah has a website? I feel like the last to know! I'll chalk it up to lack of reading comprehension.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/29/2007 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Isn't it funny how GLOBALISM, SOCIALISM, + STRATIFICATION/CANTONIZATION, etal. only applies to Amerika. Caring about the world = defeating andor deatroying the USA-West, NOT having to teach the world to feed and care for itself. THE SOCIALISTS LOVE SOCIALISM AS LONG AS THEY AREN'T AFFECTED BY IT.
#8
Spot on Joe, and I'd like to take this time (while I still have the 1st Amendment and Fred's blessing on his private property) to tell all those socialist countries that are willingly sleeping w/the enemy to go F*CK THEMSELVES IN THEIR STUPID *SSES. What you sew so shall you reap.
Newly elected Sen. James Webb, D-VA, wrote this essay in the fall of 1995. The lessons about one lost war, and its instructive value for those who would force us into a second (including Sen. Webb), should prove obvious. -- The Editors.
About a year ago I made a presentation to a group of high-powered account executives at one of the world's largest investment banks. My speech discussed Vietnam's current demographics, its economic future, and the desirability of doing business there. During the question-and-answer period I was challenged by a gentlemen of about my age who had never been to Vietnam and who in his youth had obviously been opposed to the war. Why, he asked rather snidely, would I want to do business with the communists when I had tried to kill them as a Marine? Where was my consistency of thought? And indeed why did we even fight a war if they were so keen to do business with us?
I answered by pointing out that I have always believed in the strength of the culture and people of Vietnam, that the conditions now emerging in that country are approaching, however slowly, what I and others wanted to see twenty-five years ago; and that it was the communist government's actions, not American intransigence, which had held back the country during the last two decades.
Before the next question was asked, I was interrupted by another million-dollar-a-year man, who it turned out was a Yale graduate and an Army veteran of the Vietnam War. He had become so angry from old memories that his face was on fire.
"You're being too nice to this guy," he said. "I'll tell you why I have no problem doing business in Vietnam. I spent eighteen months there, and I never hated my enemy as much as I did the people who ... on me when I came home."
#1
The question then becomes, "Why did he recognize that we won the war (due to a superior military)and lost the peace (due to the Gramscian left in our midst) in Vietnam, yet fails to do so now?"
Was he promised something by the left? Is that why he changed?
Or perhaps he fears that his generation's sacrifices and deprivations (which he obviously values tremendously) will be eclipsed by another, making his own appear less by comparison?
At any rate, the opening anecdote defines well the constant need to distinguish between hot wars with hot enemies and the cold war that we still fight with Marxism, albeit cultural in this era rather than economic.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/29/2007 7:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The American military was not defeated upon the field of battle in Vietnam. It was not defeat at the MOG. It is not defeated upon the field in Iraq.
The enemy won the first two because their allies stabbed their own military in the back for political gain and posturing. One and only one party has engaged in and has defeated the American military. What party could that be? What party is that of Sen. Webb?
How many times do you get to stab your own military in the back before all the repeated lessons of history come to play?
Consent of the governed is not about votes. Dictators often get that 99% vote on their 'elections'. It's about the willingness of the people to literally lay it on the line, to give that last full measure of devotion. Ever think that many are willing to die for the Donks or their lap children of the MSM?
#5
How many times do you get to stab your own military in the back before all the repeated lessons of history come to play?
Consent of the governed is not about votes. It's about the willingness of the people to literally lay it on the line, to give that last full measure of devotion. Ever think that many are willing to die for the Donks or their lap children of the MSM?
Well said. The contract is being eroded.
I think the war will eventually come to a neighborhood near us.
#6
I guess I'll say it again. The US did not lose the war in Viet Nam. It abandoned its ally when the ally was threatened with overwhelming conventional invasion in 1975, unlike the case in 1972 when a previous North Vietnamese conventional invasion was smashed using mostly South Vietnamese ground forces & US air support. By 1975 the North had rebuilt its forces with extensive (and expensive) support from the USSR. This next conventional invasion met with no support from the US government. Each ARVN soldier then had 20 cartridges & 2 grenades. To quote Jerry Pournelle "[South] Viet Nam accordingly and predictably fell. ... Since the United States did not participate in resisting this flat out invasion from the North, how is this a defeat for the United States armed forces? WE DID NOT FIGHT. That was a political decision. Had we fought and lost you could call that a military defeat, but it takes twisted thinking to say that the Army was defeated when it was not fighting...It is easier to blame the [US] army for failing in Viet Nam than it is to accept the fact that the American people and their Congress betrayed an ally and thereby condemned millions to death and torture...You can prove anything if you make up your data. You can draw any lessons you like from history if you ignore all the inconvenient historical facts. You may learn from good history but you learn little from bad history.
And it is not good history to say that the US armed forces lost a war they were no longer fighting when their last engagement in that theater was an unalloyed victory. "
Oddly enough, Noam Chomsky thinks the US won, in that the North had to abide by the rules of the World Bank. The Soviet Union bankrupted itself financing this war & its next one in Afghanistan, and is no more.
#7
About the victory of the South over the North in 1972, Pournelle also said "To any rational person destroying a 150,000 man invading force and capturing or destroying an armored corps looks like victory." Of course, this event was not reported that way & has been conveniently ignored by most ever since.
#8
#7 - sounds just like iraq. We've won every tactical battle yet it's a "quagmire". F*cking stupid media - and more troubling is the ignorant average moron who has the privelege to vote some moonbat in to the WH but cannot connect the dots on iraq, UN resolutions from 1991, al q, muzzy fundies, and wmd's.
Yeah, the $million question is why is Webb not saying the same of iraq? If we leave iraq early it will inevitably be a humanitarian crisis prolly surpassing 'nam/cambodia together - what an asshole. We've lost way less people in this conflict then in parallel to 'nam *and* prolly have more to gain from a stable democratic iraq in 2007 then we ever did from a stable democratic 'nam in 1975.
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.
