May 17, 2004
Sarin Bombshell
Like ants when their anthole has been disturbed, the Bush-haters are running around crazy, not quite sure what to make of this Sarin story. From DU:
Call me crazy but the finding of Sarin gas seems to indicate a spiralling decrease in security. If true it simply proves the point that borders are not secure. WMDs that were not in Iraq before are there now. Note to Bush: Be careful what you wish for.
Nice spin. Why is it so hard to admit the possibility that Bush was right? DU is a laboratory for cognitive dissonance. It ought to be assigned reading in psychology 101 courses.
When it comes to poison gas discoveries, i'm still holding my breath (heh heh). i'll wait and see if any significant stockpile is discovered. You see, unlike the Bush-haters, i had pretty much accepted that my side might have been wrong about WMDs. It's called intellectual honesty.
On the right, guys like Hannity and Medved were always pretty confident that we'd find the stuff. But even John Kerry was hedging his bets, saying last week that the WMDs might still be found. If you asked me, i would have scowled and said that asshole Scott Ritter was probably right. In fact, i said as much over a year ago.
On the right, the counter-argument was always: "If Saddam didn't have WMDs why did he refuse to allow inspections? Why didn't he cooperate fully?"
Two reasons make perfect sense to me. One, Saddam did finally relent. Just before the war started, i seem to remember a report about Saddam's 11th hour offer to allow full, unrestricted inspections, which we refused. If true, i'm not bothered by our refusal in the slightest. He had to go.
The other reason is that Saddam, correctly as it turns out, believed that we were going in no matter what. Knowing that he had an unavoidable fight coming, and that his military was totally unprepared to resist, much less win, he needed the myth of WMD as a force multiplier. If you know you're going to get rolled no matter what, isn't it a good idea to let the other guy think you've got a knife in your back pocket. It might give you that extra second or two you'll need to get the hell out of Dodge.
Another factor i've considered, in my attempt to explain why Saddam acted like he had WMD's while saying that he hadn't, is an often overlooked rationale behind most inexplicable human behavior: simple incompetence. You've seen it at your job countless times, i'm sure. A huge task is given to be completed within an unreasonably short time limit. Everybody scrambles to put it together, but there are inevitable mistakes.
The better the workers, the fewer mistakes, of course. But in the case of Iraq, these people were all short timers, who knew they were going to be out of a job soon. So the 1441 report they had to do contained a lot of errors, things they just didn't have time to check out for consistency. A lot of it might have been cut and paste. They probably didn't proofread it properly. Then when we got the report we interpreted it as being evasive; they had something to hide. When in fact they didn't. They were simply incompetent.
But, now that i've given my reasons for thinking that there were in fact no WMDs, it appears that i may be wrong again. Hopefully, i am wrong and we will uncover a cache of the stuff, if only to get it out of the hands of the enemy.
Update: According to Michele, now the Bush-haters are saying sarin is not a WMD? That's one for the Huh? files!
Posted by: annika at
08:47 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Great post, Annika. I love the line about DU being a laboratory for cognitive dissonance--no kidding!
Posted by: ilyka at May 17, 2004 09:55 AM (UUmio)
2
Excellent post. The spin on this story is making my head ache.
Posted by: Michele at May 17, 2004 10:05 AM (ONsnV)
3
If anything, this proves (yet again for the umpteenth time) that even if we'd literally found Saddam and Bin Laden in bed together with the trigger for an ICBM pointed at the US, there actually are people for whom that wouldn't be "enough." The mind boggles.
Posted by: Dave J at May 17, 2004 11:17 AM (VThvo)
4
Once we find more than 1 shell from pre-GWI erra that even the insrugents didn't know conatined sarrin then we'll have found something. But this is just grasping at starws.
Posted by: Zip at May 17, 2004 12:23 PM (sLwYT)
5
Excellent post. ISG has already found plenty of evidence of WMD capability, as well as scattered elements of actualy WMD. The whole argument, when it is conducted at a rational level, is a semi-useless debate over AMOUNT/QUANTITY, and whether said amount/quantity means Bush lied or not. Oddly, when it's conducted at an irrational level, might it decide a Presidential election?!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at May 17, 2004 12:30 PM (0GNJF)
6
Zip, I can understand the age objection if this were unitary Sarin, but it was described as binary, which would mean a considerable shelf life.
Given what the US was trying to avoid (Iraq becoming an ammo dump for international terrorists, among other things), the discovery of even one unmarked shell looms large. Imagine what that would do if properly mixed and detonated in a train station or mall or school -- if it happened here or in Europe, it might change behaviors for decades. One terrorist proxy with one shell and a few ideas about how to use it could terrify millions, even if they only killed hundreds. Aren't those the numbers the terrorists are looking at?
That shell is Madrid 10 times over, if "used properly."
Posted by: DrSteve at May 17, 2004 03:16 PM (LFL7X)
7
Zip,
From what do you conclude that it's pre-GWI stock? And
who cares if it is?
Old WMDs don't count? A WMD is a WMD, my friend. As long as it functions, it counts. The danger was never that he'd
make them, it was that he'd
use them. I don't care if the "sarrin" that's released in Grand Central Terminal is ten years old or newly-minted, if it performs as it's supposed to. And what does it matter whether the "insrugents" knew what it was? The question is whether Saddam's boys knew what it was -- and I'd be terribly surprised if they didn't. Even
that bunch of incompetent assholes must've had a separate pile for the chem rounds.
Also, it's two chemical artillery shells that've been found: One mustard, one "sarrin."
No, this doesn't prove that "Bush was right." We're still a ways from knowing with any certainty what it means. But methinks thou doth protest too much, at such an early stage of the game. "Grasping at straws?" Gimme a break!
Posted by: Matt_Rustler at May 17, 2004 03:40 PM (CF/QI)
8
Let's see - where to start:
DrSteve - if the administration were concerned about existing stockpiles and ammo dumps, they would've taken the obvious steps to secure the several thousand open air sites where shells like these and others are just sitting around for anyone to pick up. As for the shell... this type of binary shell can only be mixed in flight after firing. Attempting to dismantle and then physically mix would fail or at the least kill the perpetrators... where would they find the facilities to do that anyway?
Matt - can I remind you of AUM Shinrikyo? You know , cult in Japan that tried to unleash a coordinated Sarin Gas attack on the tokyo subway system in '95... they used more Sarin than was present in the shell (mixed).
It's a tragedy anytime innocent people are killed for anyone's political/social/religious agenda... and we've had more than enough already - though I feel fairly sure we're not even close to this opera being over. You think Zip "dost protest too much?!" No, give me... and yourself a break - as soon as this story broke - the right wing propaganda machine, and those merely duped by it rushed to trumpet it as proof... "here are the WMD's" - get real.
Posted by: rainlion at May 20, 2004 12:17 PM (zkjrJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 11, 2004
This Is Not A Religious War Bullshit
This is not a religious war like the Civil War was not about slavery. When the enemy prays to God while slicing off the head of an innocent civilian, you bet your ass it's a religious war.
We just don't want to admit it.
The enemy has no problem admitting it.
How many of you realize that when the Ottoman Empire entered WWI on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary (that's the losing side, for those who slept through history class), they did not do so by "declaring war," like any normal country would. No, the Ottoman Empire entered WWI by declaring "jihad."
It's always a religious war for those fuckheads.
The ultimate goal of the terrorists is religious. It is the establishment of a pan-islamic empire under religious rule according to shari'a law. It is the destruction of all jews. And by destruction, they mean slaughter. It is the forced conversion of Christians and Hindus, etc. to their evil bastardized religion.
They sliced off a guy's head.
They're barbarians. Brute animals. Worse than devil worshippers. At least devil worshippers only kill cats. These fucks kill innocent humans, and blaspheme the name of God while doing it. What awaits these pig-fuckers when they die? Eternal fucking fire, you can count on it. Hotter than a million mutha-fucking suns.
What does it take to slice off the head of another live, conscious human being? An innocent human being. With a knife. What is involved in that procedure? Could you do it? Do you think Private England would be capable of such a thing? Or Specialist Graner? Or General Karpinski even?
i bet even Scott Peterson couldn't do it. Not while the victim was still alive. Not with a knife.
Cutting through a fellow human's neck while they're still alive, with a knife, means slicing down through skin, severing arteries and veins, loosing a torrent of pulsing blood, sawing back and forth through thick muscle and tendon, crunching through the hollow, wheezing, screaming windpipe, hitting bone and disk, sawing again, pushing down, hearing it crunch, pop, putting your weight into it, slicing through the spinal cord, watching the body go limp, gripping the handle tight in all the slippery blood, sliding the blade through the last cords of muscle and tendon, blade striking the floor, watching the head roll forward, now just an inanimate object, though its eyes are open, then raising it, still warm, up to the camera.
Could you do that? Can you imagine the mind of someone who could? i simply can't fathom that kind of evil.
They chanted to Allah while they sliced off an innocent man's head. You can say this is not a religious war. You can say that God, assuming you believe in Him, doesn't take sides in a war. i say bullshit. God will deal with these unholy bastards. They will die someday, as all men must, and they will be shocked when they are finally confronted with His just punishment. His divine retribution. i pray too, that the United States will become the instrument of their death.
Posted by: annika at
06:53 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.
1
RIGHT ON. I am right there with you on every word. Fun modification-
"... a million MULLAH-fucking suns."
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at May 11, 2004 08:32 PM (b/7hi)
2
Terrorism Snow Globe-
The claim that Nick Berg was retribution is a metaphor for all past claims of Islamic victimhood that were used to justify all past acts of Islamic terrorism: from the Iranian Hostages and Leon Klinghoffer on through a litany of acts that include the Marine barracks and the Foreign Embassies and the Palestinian bombings and the WTC attacks and the IEDs that all lead straight through to Nick Berg.
Tonight many Americans and many Middle East Muslims went to sleep believing Abu Ghraib was the cause of Nick Berg's death. The lack of understanding- the naive belief that Nick Berg would be alive if not for Abu Ghraib, constitutes a major threat to a peaceful future for everyone.
Nick Berg's murder, along with the cover story and the millions who believe the cover story, is a history of Islamic Terrorism in microcosm. Watching it play out is like watching the action inside a miniature snow-globe: shake it and watch the same scene over and over and over and over and over and over, until a backwards culture repairs itself or a series of nuclear blasts brings an end to the cycle.
That is the cold reality of the situation, and that is what Americans and Middle East Muslims must think about, if we are to preempt the unthinkable.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at May 11, 2004 11:17 PM (b/7hi)
3
Every American needs to read this post. As a matter of fact, this post needs to be translated into every language so the whole world can read it.
Posted by: ginger at May 12, 2004 05:25 AM (BgaW7)
4
Nice comments, Annika. It's about time someone else is seeing this war as I see it.
Posted by: Jason H. at May 12, 2004 07:03 AM (yDD8m)
5
Honestly? You want the truth? If the people I was decapitating were the five fucks from that video, not only do I think I could do it -- I think I could do it with a dull pen knife. Really.
Posted by: Matt at May 12, 2004 08:04 AM (CF/QI)
6
Is this a religious war because THEY claim it's religious? Is it a religious war because GW Bush thinks he was chosen by God to lead the country? Is it a religious war because the majority of the country is Christian?
Gulf War I was a religious war according to S. Hussein. Nobody mentions that now. I'm curious as to your rationale for deeming this a "religious war."
Posted by: glenn at May 12, 2004 08:09 AM (1oqLe)
7
Good question Glenn. My opinion on the matter will probably be controversial, maybe not, but i should do a post rather than put it in the comments.
Matt, i don't think i could do it, even to those fucking animals, but i would watch will you did it.
Posted by: annika at May 12, 2004 09:22 AM (zAOEU)
8
The scandal of prisoner abuses by U.S. soldiers in Iraq has dealt a bigger blow to the United States than the Sept. 11 attacks - Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, Vatican foreign minister.
I'm outraged. Could you please tell the Vatican to shut the fuck up? Is the Catholic church actually evil or just stupid?
Posted by: d-rod at May 12, 2004 10:03 AM (CSRmO)
9
How idiotic.
The Vatican seems
want to become irrelevant. Who are they to be talking about scandal?
First remove the mote in your own eye, pope.
Posted by: annika! at May 12, 2004 10:29 AM (zAOEU)
10
The biggest ideological problem I see in America is that America has NOT identified the enemy. It's not terrorism, because terrorism is a tool the enemy uses. Islamofascism IS the enemy; Jihad IS the enemy; anyone who wants to establish sharia is the enemy - and folks like this enjoy civil rights protection in the US?
I am sick of the purists for who cry about the First Amendment, while supporting those who are seeking to throw the Constitution out in the garbage. Where will your First Amendment be then, professors?
Screw political correctness, and screw the whole "religion of peace" bullshit. It is time to kick organizations like CAIR out of the country, and put their leaders behind the bars. It is time to go after the ideologues of Islamofascism, in the US, in Saudi Arabia, and everywhere. It is time to go after Al-Jazeera, and to fight treacherous anti-American propaganda at home. Blogging is just a beginning. Time will come for the traitors in the media to find out what Americans think about them, or else those elites will destroy this country, just like the French elites destroyed theirs 200 years ago.
Posted by: Ivan Lenin at May 12, 2004 03:04 PM (j3KG7)
11
Matt, Matt, come now, that would be just plain exhausting, and we're a far more technically sophisticated people. It's time to dig out some of those old flame-throwers that we retired at the end of Vietnam. There's a nice collateral effect too. I'm betting that your average Arab fireman isn't really up to the task of keeping the shithole from burning to cinders.
On a literary note, Anni, ever notice the question to Lt Joyce in "Bridge on the River Kwai"? "Can you kill a man with a knife?" It's a euphemism for can you deal with the reality before you without hesitation.
Posted by: Casca at May 12, 2004 05:42 PM (q+PSF)
12
Casca, you must remember this exchange from the movie Untouchables, which i have been thinking about lately:
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is,
what are you prepared to do?
Eliot Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: And THEN what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because they're not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead.
Eliot Ness: How do you do it then?
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a
gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the
morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
Eliot Ness: I have sworn to capture this man with all legal powers at my disposal and I will do so.
Malone: Well the Lord hates a coward. Do you know what a blood oath is Mr. Ness?
Eliot Ness: Yes.
Malone: Good, cause you just took one.
Posted by: annika! at May 12, 2004 06:14 PM (Bqwch)
Posted by: Rae at May 12, 2004 06:37 PM (Y4u3V)
14
We can't be deaf, dumb and blind to the fact that Muslim terrorists are killing us because we do not bow down to Allah. That alone makes this a religious war. But religion (Christianity, in particular) has been so dumped on in this country, its place in the context of world events is forgotten. Make no mistake: Islamic terrorists are driven by their desire to obey Allah.
Posted by: La Shawn Barber at May 13, 2004 11:32 AM (Qa+f/)
15
I look at the Nick Berg thing this way... He went to Iraq to "help" in the reconstruction. That is he went to service the Capitalist Imperial Institution by stealing business away from the Iraqi people themselves so he could make money off of thier backs. Does it occur to anyone that Iraqis themselves are able to reconstruct thier own country that the Americans helped destroy in the first place? But at every turn they are kept out of the reconstruction unless KBR needs to have the bathrooms cleaned. The Companies are importing thousands of foreign works to do things that Iraqi people should be employed to do but arn't because they are deemed a security threat. I wonder why the Iraqi's are not included? Might be becuase the vast majority have been shut out by the CPA. This Berg guy is a vulture, no wonder they cut off his head. Address what the greivence is first and then make an objective judgment about what the video is about.
Posted by: fredhero at May 13, 2004 11:40 AM (hOFFp)
16
Fred, what you wrote is so idiotic, i'm tempted to say it's a hoax intended to embarass liberals.
Do i gather you believe:
1. Nick Berg got what he deserved.
2. His killers sawed off his head because some Iraqis couldn't get a job.
When trying to explain why the devil does what he does, it's important to actually listen to the devil's own words.
They killed Nick Berg because they hate all non-moslims. They express their hatred by killing. They like to kill. They want to kill. If confronted with two options for conflict resolution, one of which does not involve killing, the terrorist will always choose killing. Because they are worse than animals. They are pure evil.
You however, are a supreme idiot if you believe that this is about jobs. People in this country can't get jobs. My brother has trouble getting a job. Are you saying it'd be okay if he went out and killed someone? Does that justify sawing an innocent man's head off?
i pity your depravity, i really do.
And please don't respond to this comment. i don't care to argue your stupid logic, not today. Not after that video. i'll delete your ass and ban you, you fucking retard.
Posted by: annika! at May 13, 2004 12:11 PM (zAOEU)
Posted by: fredhero at May 14, 2004 01:55 PM (w/nTu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The True Atrocities
The true atrocities are being commited by our enemies, not by us.
But i pray that they will yet know the terrible retribution that awaits them. We must remain strong.
Strengthen the feeble hands,
steady the knees that give way;
say to those with fearful hearts,
'Be strong, do not fear;
your God will come,
he will come with vengeance;
with divine retribution
he will come to save you.'
[Isaiah 35:3-4]
Be strong.
Angry Update: What the hell's wrong with you people?! They fucking beheaded one of our guys! They fucking filmed it. i'm looking around the blogosphere and no-one, save Michele (God bless her), has a fucking word to say about it. Instapundit thinks it's only worth a measly line. Where's the Rottweiler? Where's Finch? Where's DuToit? Where's Lucas? i wanna see some rage, something, anything. Is everybody asleep, too shocked to care? The media will let this slip by if they can. i bet it won't be the lead on tonight's news. i bet it won't make tomorrow's front page. It's up to us to publicize this horror, people. Vent the outrage that the vast majority of non-blogging Americans are feeling right now. Just fucking say something!
Update 2: The Rottweiler checks in. Serenity checks in. Moxie checks in. Zomby too. And Reynolds deems it worthy of a few more lines. Sarah groks. So do Peter and Karol. LGF describes the video for those, like me, who can't watch it. Also, go read Will and Stephen at Vodkapundit. Then of course, there's Lileks. Tom draws strength from Churchill. See also Misha's second take, and Paul's take, and especially Banagor's "The Rage."
And many thanks go to my good friends at Candied Ginger for their link. Please read Candace's piece, perhaps the best of the lot on this tragedy.
As always, Wizbang was on top of it right away. But this morning's post disappoints me. Today is not a day for bikinis.
Sadly, the liberal bloggers that i read regularly have all chosen to ignore this atrocity. It's not a matter of left vs. right, Bush vs. not-Bush. Nick Berg was an American. How can anyone ignore his murder? It was intended as a message to all of us. A noteworthy piece at etalkinghead may explain why the only blogs that want to talk about Nick Berg seem to be on the right.
Posted by: annika at
11:51 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Outrage? From OUR press? Are you nuts? They only get outraged when WE cut off someone's fingernail or hair.
Oh, the beheading? They are just misunderstood; we need to treat them a little better.
When will our media get it that these are really, really eveil people and need to be killed. Every fucking one of them, like snakes.
Posted by: shelly s. at May 11, 2004 01:49 PM (AaBEz)
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 11, 2004 02:18 PM (oTkr8)
3
Sorry, I just heard about this an hour or two ago (workin' all day, y'know) and then posted something very brief about. I was going to post a more extensive rant, but I figired Misha had already done it better than I could.
Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 11, 2004 04:15 PM (NgWVQ)
4
Where is the outrage from the Muslim community? I'm not counting on it. The "religion of peace" is the biggest threat to the civilized world...but we are not supposed to say that because it might offend somebody. I don't want here anymore bullshit about Muslims being peace-loving people until I hear one important Muslim religious leader condem this and the thousands of other atrocities these sick, demented people have commited.
Posted by: Blu at May 11, 2004 04:21 PM (lj3Ju)
5
I watched the ABC news tonight and they are attempting to blame the beheading on the anger the Arab world feels over seeing the pictures of the prisoners. They can't even own up to these people being evil when they behead one of our men. That is just disgusting.
Posted by: Jonathan at May 11, 2004 05:03 PM (8ygiB)
6
That doesn't surprise me Jon. Did they lead with the story, at least?
Posted by: annika! at May 11, 2004 05:17 PM (zAOEU)
7
It really is time to introduce these people to Sherman's philosophy of war, i.e. it's hell, and as soon as we make them figure that out, we'll be close to being done.
Posted by: Casca at May 11, 2004 06:27 PM (q+PSF)
8
Not too shocked to care... trying to find words filthy and low enough to describe the perpetrators of the atrocity done to this innocent being.
People really need to get this and your description of beheading a living human being helps drive home the enormity of the act.
I WANT THEM TO BURN!!!!! GOING OUT TO THE WOOD PILE RIGHT NOW!!!!
Posted by: Bonfire7 at May 11, 2004 10:58 PM (Ij50v)
9
Annika, look a Tomfoolery.
http://djslybri.blogspot.com/
Mutted rage, but rage.
Posted by: Chuck at May 12, 2004 06:02 AM (s6c4t)
10
I have several things to say about it. I also have the links to video if you are so inclinded.
naproom.mu.nu
Posted by: Tom at May 12, 2004 07:52 AM (eAINt)
11
i feel better knowing that many of you are angry as i am about this. i'm also surprised to see the LA Times put this story above the fold this morning. i won't buy that rag, and i'm sure the article is sufficiently tilted left-wing, but i truly expected them to bury it on page three.
Posted by: annika! at May 12, 2004 09:29 AM (zAOEU)
12
Peter told me the news over my graduation dinner and both of us posted as soon as we got home. I'm also surprised at the lack of insta-coverage though I think we'll see more about it in the next few days.
Posted by: Karol at May 12, 2004 10:12 AM (AGo3+)
13
As one of your readers who is further to the left, I feel the need to speak up. The thing is, I don't know what to say. I don't often blog about the war, because it upsets me to do so. I
do discuss it - on online forums, at home. But I find it easier to participate in a dialogue about things like this than to make a singular statement.
I guess I'm saying that just because something isn't in my blog doesn't mean that I'm not thinking about it.
Posted by: other Annika at May 12, 2004 10:51 AM (hQUF1)
14
To be honest, I'm not so much angry at the enemy, because you don't get angry at rabid dogs; you just shoot them.
But I am angry at those who exploit the pictures of prison abuse to their political advantage, while saying nothing about this. That's not just hypocricy; that's plain treason, and people who help the enemy should be put to trial. I am sick of the "good guys" on the left who'd rather be politically correct than human.
Posted by: Ivan Lenin at May 12, 2004 02:43 PM (j3KG7)
15
The bikini pic was an on the way out the door quickie post, which given the tone of the day may have best been saved for later.
Posted by: Kevin at May 12, 2004 03:35 PM (bwshg)
16
I'm shocked, sad and angered.
There are no words. Except you know what? You said what I think. If anyone had the slimmest notion that this war is NOT about the Islamofascists against anyone who isn't, then the events of this week should prove them wrong.
It's frightening. Damned frightening. And when I'm this numb with rage and grief, I escape.
Sorry, but that's what my blog is about - for me.
Posted by: Emma at May 12, 2004 11:22 PM (kpNlZ)
17
There is bit of a distinction between state sponsored abuse and the actions of a rogue agents. Especially when the state based its invasion on removing tyranny and introduction democracry. You can't invade a foreign nation and not expect people to live up to your words.
Posted by: jim jones at May 14, 2004 12:05 PM (3vAcw)
18
BUSH LIED - BERG DIED!
Posted by: fredhero at May 14, 2004 01:58 PM (w/nTu)
19
Please don´t feel ofended.
The video is tricked. I´m video editor expert and FBI veteran for video works. The movie is the worst quality for webcams and reading the file with the most advanced tools for video editing I have four questions:
1. Where is the compression header of file for video files?
2. Not blood flow (maybe in the 326 missing frames on the long video) where is the blood?.
3. The screams is not in movement-audio sincrony (why the voice is in right sincrony but not the murder and the screams?).
4. In the head exposition (where is the blood?). In adition, in this part of video, with the video editing tools reveals most of 100 frames missing.
My personal opinion with forense support is:
This is a propaganda movie with the only goal for "war on terror" support. Please our president is a puppet member of a very powerful gang of killers, but they think about the all american people like an standar serie of Simpson Homer.
PD
If Nick Berg is Dead, God bless him.
If youre are alive, take your money for a complete change of face and give some to your family.
The FBI veterans are not killers
Posted by: Edward Maddox at May 17, 2004 10:42 AM (eDZ9g)
20
Interesting comment, Edward Maddox. How long have you been speaking English. You should brush up on your grammar, it might help your credibility just a tad. Good luck spamming!
Posted by: annika at May 17, 2004 07:14 PM (CmuaG)
21
Despite Maddox's grammar... those are very apparent and damning questions? You have no response? Come on... the most obvious one is the blood, or lack thereof of commensurate amounts.
And just to give you something else to chew on (probably me in your response) - Or how about this one... when the first photos and reports of prisoner abuse (in Afghanistan and Guantanemo) were released to the public by the US. government last year why did the administration do nothing about it?
Posted by: rainlion at May 20, 2004 11:58 AM (zkjrJ)
22
i'm not sure it's true that the administration "did nothing about it." But if it is, you won't catch me defending them on the Abu Ghraib scandal. While i personally don't think we were hard enough on the fucks, there
is such a thing as Geneva.
But in regards to your "questions" about the Berg video. Why do you even have questions. After Daniel Pearl, and everything else, is it so hard to believe that a terrorist would behead a guy? Why are you so eager to play the hoax card on this one? What is the point? You don't give an alternate theory. Are you trying to say that the CIA killed Berg? If so, you're going to have trouble convincing reasonable people of it.
Just because people can come up with questions does not mean that they're always reasonable questions. i can come up with good questions about whether the earth is round, whether evolution is true, whether we landed on the moon. Doesn't mean they're reasonable questions to ask.
i didn't watch the video. i did see stills, and i saw enough blood in the stills to convince me. Then again, i've never seen anyone beheaded before, so i don't have a frame of reference. Do you?
It's hard for me to decipher Maddox's "questions" because his english skills are so poor. Is he saying there are 100 missing frames or is he saying 326? (That's like the number of communists in the state department according to McCarthy. The number keeps changing.) The voice is not in "sincrony" because he's watching it over the internet. It's called streaming video. Someone who doesn't know how to spell "synchronization" probably doesn't make enough money to afford broadband.
On the lack of blood, use your head to figure this one out. The heart pumps blood, not the head. The brain contains tiny blood vessels, blood is not going to pour out of them quickly. Certainly it's not going to gush. The only large vessels coming out of the head are the arteries and veins like the carotid and the jugular. These are going to drain (not gush) blood right away, probably as soon as they are severed. That probably happened early in the process of cutting the head off. By the time the whole neck was severed, the blood from inside the skull was probably dripping in drops too small to show clearly in the low quality video. Even still, i saw evidence of dripping blood in the stills i saw, when they held Berg's head up to the camera.
Look, if it's a hoax, perpetrated by the CIA or Mossad, or whoever you want to blame it on, don't you think it would be more perfect? The fact that there are little flaws (like strange edits) suggests to me that it's authentic. If it were a hoax, the perpetrators would want to avoid giving people reason to doubt the video's authenticity.
And come on. Maddox says he's an FBI veteran? Right. He couldn't even fill out an application, let alone pass a written test. If the very first line in his comment is an outright lie, why give any credence to the rest of it.
Posted by: annika! at May 20, 2004 02:54 PM (zAOEU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 10, 2004
Only Serious Progressives Should Read This
You know me. i'm a staunch Republican. Although i'd never vote for Nader, i can still listen to the man and put myself in the place of someone who opposes Bush, hypothetically speaking. And when i do, i can't see how any principled progressive can say that
the man does not make a hell of a lot of sense.
What do we do as red-blooded Americans who want clean politics and progressive, responsive policies . . . ? We sit around engaging in the 'least worst?' [He imitates a voter, holding his nose.] 'I'll go vote for Gore.' Or do we get out there, like Thomas Jefferson counseled, try to change the paradigm, enrich the dialogue, get more candidates, local, state, national.
Democrats gotta be wishing they had Gore right about now. Kerry makes Gore look like Clinton, and everybody knows it. Including Nader, who offers this strategic criticism and advice:
I'm going to say [to Kerry], look, you're not doing that well in the last month. Here's a chickenhawk . . . making you explain your first Purple Heart, and why you did this and that. You've had Dick Clarke . . . and . . . Michael Moore and . . . Bob Woodward putting Bush on the defensive, and you're getting blurred.
The problem is these consultants who have got their hooks into the Kerry campaign. I mean, $27 million for a Madison Avenue image builder? He's not his own person. If there's one thing the mass of voters can see through, that's someone who is not his own person, someone who has more antenna than brains. They really see through that.
And you peaceniks out there?
You know where Kerry stands on the war in Iraq. How can you support him? Your man is Nader, he
will end it now.
You can take the greatest country in the world into a war quagmire, based on fabrications, deceptions, and lies.... The one thing you don't want to do when you're fighting terrorism is to produce more of it, and he's doing exactly that. He's now turned Iraq into a magnet for stateless terrorists, and we're stuck, because now collective ego is involved.
[People say:] 'We're not going to cut and run. We got to support the troops.' To which I say, I want to to protect the troops, to get them out of there. [emphasis added]
You disgruntled Democrats, instead of talking about how you can dump Kerry gracefully and replace him with another Democrat, why not take this opportunity to really overthrow the tyranny of the two party system? Don't let the old boy network of Democratic party operatives in their smoke filled rooms dictate who you can or can't vote for.
Stop voting defensively, stand up for your principles and for what you really believe. You hate the war? You hate corporate power? You wanna see the environment protected? Gotta have those abortions on demand? Do you really think Kerry shares your principles? A former military man whoÂ’s admitted to shooting civilians in wartime? An elitist snob who's been sucking off the tit of corporations by way of marriage all his adult life? A hunter who owns guns and SUVs is gonna care about the environment? Can you really trust a churchgoing catholic to defend your precious abortion rights?
You progressives. Why would you vote for the status quo? Another Yale rich boy president who, instead of having cronies in Big Oil dictating the shots will simply take his direction from his Big Ketchup in-laws. Don't play that game anymore.
[Democrats] say, 'support us, we have to beat George Bush.' I'm sorry. We played that game for 20 years. We're not playing it.
But isn't a vote for Nader a vote for Bush, you say? Maybe. But not if Kerry's going down anyway. Did you ever ask yourself “why isn't Kerry leading in the polls by 20 points, with all the bad news lately?” Because he sucks, that's why. And people are going to stay home rather than vote for him.
In October there will probably be a last minute surge in support for Nader when people realize KerryÂ’s going to lose, and Nader will get blamed for blowing the election again. In reality, a surge in Nader votes will be a protest of people who realized that Kerry was going down anyway and they felt free to vote their conscience.
So why not follow your conscience right now and tell everyone that you're voting for the guy who agrees with you the most? Suggest to your friends that they do the same. Build momentum for Nader now, don't wait until it's too late. If Nader starts polling high early in the summer, one of two things might happen. Either his support will snowball and he might win, or Kerry will realize that he needs to move closer to Nader's ideology to have a chance. Either way, you progressives come out ahead!
Seriously. ; )
Posted by: annika at
08:32 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Dead on political analysis. The key to Kerry is getting the voter turnout in states like Ohio and PA and Michigan. Unless he does something to excite his base and the swing voters, he's toast.
And with the economy doing fine and not too many folks--except for the ABB types--really getting too outraged about the war, Bush wins. Voters vote the economy. And I don't think the prisoner abuse thing will get a lot of traction among average Americans.
Posted by: albo at May 11, 2004 07:34 AM (ZPx7m)
2
Kerry blows. Gore blows. Nader would never get elected.
There really is no good option for the election this year. I'd never vote for Bush and Kerry is a tool.
Posted by: glenn at May 11, 2004 08:30 AM (1oqLe)
3
Nicely put.
I believe the technical term for this would be Dive and Conquer.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at May 11, 2004 03:54 PM (4819r)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Should He Stay Or Should He Go?
The calls for Rumsfeld's resignation seem to be nearing the point of critical mass. i'm as yet undecided on the issue. i've always liked the guy, and i think he's been a great Secretary of Defense. i think it's unfair to blame him for what happened at Abu Ghraib, yet i understand the doctrine of accountability. The demand that he resign is mainly hardball "gotcha" politics, in my view.
Yet i don't see the demands lessening any time soon. Rummy did not make friends among the uniformed elite, with his abrasive management style. i doubt they'd go to bat for him. The left is salivating at the chance to force a resignation, because they so desperately want to recapture the power they think they had back in the days of Vietnam.
Ideally, i'd like to see Rumsfeld stay, but CENTCOM go, along with a lot of the top brass over in Iraq. Sacrificial lambs? Maybe, but i think there's plenty of legitimate criticism regarding the post "end of major combat" phase, which would justify an overhaul of the leadership now. Often in war -- and you saw this in WWII a lot -- turnover at the top is the only way to get younger, more effective officers into command positions.
However, i'm afraid that the chant "Rumsfeld must go" may get so loud that politically, Bush may have no choice but to get rid of him. Unfair as i think that would be, it might also be the best thing for our country.
Posted by: annika at
12:04 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Well, I dislike his politics, but I think he's a great entertainer -- and would love to have him to run against, too. Liberals get energized by dislike of him; it would be a loss if he left.
Posted by: Hugo at May 10, 2004 05:10 PM (jdBQm)
2
If he does resign, I wonder how that will affect the dynamic of the administration. The aggresiveness of Cheney and Rumsfeld tended to balance out against the studied pacifism of Powell. Rice has managed to stay in the background through most of this, and I think people underestimate President Bush's peacable nature. I get the impression that he'd rather be friends with the world, but since it isn't possible, he'll make the hard decisions and stick to them. Like I said, it's a balance, and it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out if changes are made.
Posted by: Ted at May 10, 2004 06:47 PM (ZjSa7)
3
How, pray tell, do you know what's going on inside a group of which you are not a part? Only those on the inside know. This remains true in all human endeavor.
Rumsfeld is clearly the best SecDef this nation has ever had. The only mistake here was firing Karpinski too fast, and I don't think that call was made in country.
BTW, where's the foul here? I thought you folks were all for homo-eroticism?
Posted by: Casca at May 10, 2004 07:30 PM (q+PSF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 06, 2004
Excellent News
Here's a bit of good news out of LAX, if you can believe that.
Six French journalists were arrested and deported when they tried to enter the country to cover a trade show.
Six is definitely a good start. Now, how quickly can we round up the rest of the journalists and Frenchies and kick them out too?
Posted by: annika at
11:42 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Annika,
You need to prioritize. First the French, _then_ the journalists.
Regards,
Tony
Posted by: Tony at May 07, 2004 08:41 AM (QwFky)
2
Or, per Gen. Sherman's advice, we could always just shoot them instead. It's probably cheaper than deportation. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at May 07, 2004 09:13 AM (RhlLQ)
Posted by: Robert McClelland at May 07, 2004 06:12 PM (oaT5K)
4
I hope you know just what a hilarious self-parody you are, McClelland. Thanks for the laughs, as always.
Posted by: Dave J at May 09, 2004 07:23 PM (RhlLQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 26, 2004
Medals Schmedals
It all depends on what the definition of 'medals' is.
i don't really give a rat's ass what Kerry threw over the fence. It's the fact that he threw anything over, and the lies he told about the men serving in Vietnam, which he has yet to apologize for, that disqualifies him from the presidency, in my opinion. Not that you asked for my opinion.
Posted by: annika at
11:11 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course we asked for your opinion; it is important, especialy when it is on all fours with ours!
Posted by: shelly s. at April 26, 2004 11:16 AM (rZmE1)
2
For me his present day "full grown and should be wiser" adult character is even more important of an issue than mistakes and deceptions he committed in 1971. He continues to lie in the present day on his website, and in an L.A. Times interview in Friday's edition, saying "I never mislead anybody." Also, his claims of a Republican plot are a stretch, as no Republican ads or campaign personnel have publically touched the "medals controversy," at least as far as I know.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at April 26, 2004 03:39 PM (AaBEz)
Posted by: PoliticalBlogger at April 27, 2004 12:11 PM (SfBQW)
4
For the love of... PB, you do understand that all of Bush's military records have been released, don't you?
What other proof is required, I don't know.
Posted by: Jon at April 30, 2004 11:46 AM (B9rRW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2004
Pat Tillman
There's so much to say about
the death of Pat Tillman, and i know i can't say it all. i knew about his story before he went into the Army because i listen to
Jim Rome's show. i can remember the glowing praise Rome had for Tillman and his decision to give up his pro career to join the Army and enter Ranger training. Like Rome, i always thought he'd come back to us.
It's true that Tillman's sacrifice is equal to the sacrifice of all the brave men and women we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if there is a difference, it's that we civilians who have not been touched by any personal loss, have now been given a face to put on the sacrifice of those heroes who are over there protecting us. i feel Tillman's loss because i knew him as a fan, however remotely, and it brings home to me the sacrifices of all the men and women who have died or been injured to protect me.
Here's a very poignant salute to Pvt. Tillman written before he went overseas, which reminds us that Tillman joins the ranks of other great patriots like Ted Williams.
Here are some of the tributes coming in now.
And i want to note that Tillman was killed in action, on a mission to hunt Al Qaeda. He was literally killed in the act of protecting you and me.
Pat Tillman was my age. When 9/11 happened i, like many people i know, thought about enlisting in the armed forces. i also thought about the FBI or the CIA. But i didn't follow up on anything. There were others who joined and would join. i had my life and my plans, and my patriotic fervor subsided in time. Not that i ever became un-patriotic, but let's just say i chose not to make the personal sacrifice.
Pat Tillman did. And not only did he give up the comfy bed and the new wife and the safety of life in the U.S., he gave up millions of dollars too. Not only that, he was in the NFL. It's not just money. It's fame, too. He gave up the adoration that anybody who's ever played the game of football knows is one of the great perks of the sport. Chicks dig football players. i was a cheerleader, i know. Even a married guy like Tillman must have appreciated the rare power to turn heads in any bar or restaurant simply because they are in the NFL.
If somebody offered me three mil to join the Army, i would have done it in a heartbeat. But Tillman did just the opposite. He gave up an NFL contract for the opportunity to risk his life. Why? Because he loved America, and he had a sense of duty so great that i can't even comprehend it. And he not only risked his life, he gave it.
i know that somewhere up there this morning, Ted Williams is buying a beer for Pat Tillman and saying "good job soldier." God bless him.
More: i've been somber and teary-eyed all day, because of the news. Today being casual Friday, i took my usual Friday lunchtime power walk around Century City. i listened to Sean Hannity on my walkman. Of course he was talking about Pat Tillman, and saying the nicest things about our people serving in the military. That made me even sadder. Then he played Toby Keith's beautiful song "American Soldier" and i totally lost it.
Oh, and I don't want to die for you,
But if dyin's asked of me,
I'll bear that cross with honor,
'Cause freedom don't come free.
There i was, sitting on the curb in front of the mall, with tears streaming down my face. i looked like a mess. The poor valet guy had to ask me if i needed help. It was embarrassing; i'm not normally an emotional person. But all i could think about was how much i love and appreciate the people serving in our armed forces. i really do, i love them all. If it takes Pat Tillman's death to really bring that home to me, there's one good thing that comes out of his loss.
Posted by: annika at
11:01 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Well said, Annika. The best I've read about it today so I won't even try to to express my feelings here.
Posted by: Blake at April 23, 2004 11:41 AM (AKSiu)
2
He was always a class act during the usually ugly UofAz/ASU rivalry games. He lived a great life and will be missed. I've been thinking of joining up for a while now, I'm for the war, might as well walk the walk...we'll see, but I'm seeing things each week that are pointing me in that direction.
Posted by: Scof at April 23, 2004 12:17 PM (XCqS+)
3
As a Christian pacifist,I cannot support the use of force in the cause for which Pat Tillman died.
But I can honor the example of placing duty before personal gain, of placing simplicity before luxury. As a Mennonite football fan, I really dug the way he lived so at odds with typical NFL stars. I grieve the loss of a man who played a violent game and died a violent death, but who was always willing to embrace such a humble lifestyle.
Posted by: Hugo at April 23, 2004 01:48 PM (We/wN)
4
You've put this better than I probably ever could, Annika, so thanks. Words fail.
If you want to put your own particular talents and education to work in the service of the country, there's always JAG after law school. God knows if I could ever get myself back into decent shape, I'd still probably do it.
Posted by: Dave J at April 23, 2004 03:01 PM (VThvo)
5
That was wonderfully written and expresses why the nation is reacting so strongly.
Posted by: Jane at April 23, 2004 05:07 PM (0GNJF)
Posted by: Brent at April 23, 2004 07:49 PM (w+y2e)
7
I am a big guy. I am NFL Noseguard sized. And I am a rugged guy. You'd be pretty happy to walk into the dark alley with me by your side. And I'm pretty much a guy's guy. I'm not a patient listener when the women begin chitchatting about who is dating who and who might get a divorce, and I flatly refuse to enter a department store in the company of my girlfriend or, for that matter, any woman whatsoever.
And since 9/11 I have had, I don't know, maybe a dozen spontaneous crying jags like you experienced outside Century City. Probably more, I haven't counted. Triggered by a song; or a photograph; or a story; in which almost anyone displays selflessness or courage or devoted love for a family member. I've halfway got tears in my eyes now typing this and just thinking about it.
When I saw the citizens of Comfort, TX standing by roads and waving flags during the funeral procession their fallen neighbor, I cried enough to wet an entire bath towel. I love my country, and I love my fellow citizens, and I love you guys on this blog.
Heck of it is, I'm only working on my first beer of the night. You'd think this was a 4 beer post b/c it's so sappy!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at April 23, 2004 09:50 PM (rZmE1)
8
Guys like Pat Tillman only come along once in a while. In a world full of ersatz bullshit, he was the real deal, and in death will transcend. He's a good face for all those folks who pull the wagon in this world. May God bless him and his. He will be missed.
Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2004 03:16 AM (DGeKw)
9
A very touching and personal remembrance, both in the essay and reader comments. It's truly remarkable how Tillman's death has stirred our country. I've put up an essay as well -- as have many others, I'm sure -- but I'm sure moved by the compelling, thoughtful writing here at annika's.
Posted by: robofrost at April 25, 2004 04:09 PM (rywVr)
Posted by: glenn at April 26, 2004 09:27 AM (1oqLe)
11
Wow, what a great thing to read. I went to high school with Pat and Kevin and I am so honored tohave known them. I heard the news the morning of when I got a call from a friend of ours in high school and that day all I could do was what News and hear all I could. The news doesn't tellus anything I was so sad so I turned to home videos from high school..Pat wasn't on them but Kevin was and it helped ease the pain and brought back good memories so ever since I have found sites like this to help get through my day. Reality has hit home and it hurts. the service is still to come so we will see how that goes! Keep up the great support even if you disagreee with war we are there, there's nothin we can to to stop it so stand united and get our guys and gals home safe!!!!!
Posted by: Janae at April 28, 2004 04:21 PM (s6c4t)
12
When I served in the US Army during the first Bush War, almost every single soldier I knew and served with joined the US Army for the exact same reason: to make a better life for themselves and their family.
Truth betold, for many soldiers enlistment is their last option to make a good life.
But Pat Tillman didn't join to make a better life for himself or his family. He enlisted to make a better life for the rest of us. And that sets him apart...a hero that even other heroes look up to.
Posted by: Robbie at April 29, 2004 06:16 AM (NTEY5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 21, 2004
The Magnificent Bastards
The "Magnificent Bastards" is the moniker of the historic Second Battalion of the Fourth Marine Regiment.
Rush Limbaugh read this message at the end of his show today. It was written by the 2/4's CO and upon hearing it, i was filled with pride and gratitude at the power and sacrifice of these wonderful Marines:
Early in the morning we exchanged gunfire with a group of insurgents without significant loss. As morning progressed, the enemy fed more men into the fight and we responded with stronger force. Unfortunately, this led to injuries as our Marines and sailors started clearing the city block by block. The enemy did not run; they fought us like soldiers. And we destroyed the enemy like only Marines can. By the end of the evening the local hospital was so full of their dead and wounded that they ran out of space to put them. Your husbands were awesome all night they stayed at the job of securing the streets and nobody challenged them as the hours wore on. They did not surrender an inch nor did flinch from the next potential threat. Previous to yesterday the terrorist thought that we were soft enough to challenge. As of tonight the message is loud and clear that the Marines will not be beaten.
Today the enemy started all over again, although with far fewer numbers, only now the rest of the battalion joined the fight. Without elaborating to much, weapons company and Golf crushed their attackers with the vengeance of the righteous. They filled up the hospitals again and we suffered only a few injuries. Echo company dominated the previous day's battlefield. Fox company patrolled with confidence and authority; nobody challenged them. Even Headquarters Company manned their stations and counted far fewer people openly watching us with disdain. If the enemy is foolish enough to try to take your men again they will not survive contact. We are here to win.
What kind of enemy is it who thinks they can fuck with the Marines and win? If you ask me, i think the enemy is fully aware that they are going to their death when they attack the Marines, and that's why they attack.
i found another article about the 2/4 in Iraq, which is interesting because of the contrast in tone. Where the piece written by an actual participant is filled with resolute pride, the piece filtered by media bias exhibits a more somber, defeatist tone.
'I didn't sleep. I lay in the bed,' Oety recalled, sitting alone with a cigarette after a Marine memorial service Sunday.
The American deaths fell most heavily on Oety's 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines Regiment, a storied unit known as 'the Magnificent Bastards' that hardly needed another infamous battle on its resume.
Five died from just one 13-man squad ambushed on a road they patrolled every day.
'I can't stand that area,' said Oety, 24, of Louisville, Ky. But Oety did what his battalion is known for: plunging back in.
The contrast between the two perspectives is striking to me. Journalists, for the most part, are gutless, ignorant hacks. It doesn't surprise me that a journalist would focus on casualties, rather than accomplishments. Journalists don't understand what our soldiers, marines and sailors are doing, nor do they want to. It frightens them.
Update: Blackfive contrasts AP and Reuters coverage of the so-called cease fire.
Posted by: annika at
01:45 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Tim at April 21, 2004 01:50 PM (jYU4N)
2
I'll tell you why the journalists reporting are such gutless, clueless, hacks. Their templete is the Viet Nam War. Not to mention their editors are refugees from that era who've never grown up. Hey, I lived it. Was college student during the mid-70's.
What they're not getting is this--different times, different enemy, who wants you and I dead. Period. End of story.
Eloquence means nothing.
Posted by: joe at April 21, 2004 03:19 PM (3kULp)
3
I remember the day in al-jubayl, saudi arabia in Feb of '91 when a reporter stopped by weapons repair shop I ran to see if anyone wanted to give an interview.
One PFC offered to go in front of the camera the reporter's side-kick was carrying. The first five or so questions related to who he was, where he was from, and what he did.
The best part came shortly thereafter when the reporter asked if the PFC felt guilty that his job might help inflict death and injury on a kid his age in the Iraqi army. The PFC replied, "I count on it because that is my job.
If I could shoot the f**kers myself I would. It would get me home quicker."
I gave the PFC the day off after the reporter and his side-kick ran from our shop in disgust.
Semper Fi, Marines. Semper Fi.
Posted by: jcrue at April 21, 2004 03:48 PM (G9kk0)
4
I'll tell you something about our USMC. A friend of mine signed up to be a marine six years ago, but when he couldn't pass the physical tests the first time, they almost deferred him to the army corps. Not the kind of person to relent to anyhthing, he worked his butt off and got buffed up. Then he went through and passed the physical. I was there with him in the gym, and was wondering why he was working himself almost overexerting himself sometimes.
"It's the marines."
I didn't know what that meant until what I heard from the Iraqi commanders. When it was told the Americans were coming, they weren't surprised, but not too scared.
That changed very quickly when they heard the MARINES were coming too! They went to near panic upon hearing that.
Sure, I might never be buff enough to join the Marines (or have the nerve to join the armed forces much less. I know, I'm a coward, but I know who's brave and who's not, and I do salute them!) but after hearing that from my friends and recent events, I have thought twice.
Always Faithful.
Semper Fidelis
Posted by: Charles Hammond Jr. at April 22, 2004 03:49 PM (/FXjU)
5
I was there in Ramadi, with the best. And I will tell you this. We are not war monging killers. We are marines and we do as ordered in our countries service so that the American people can wake up day by day and live their lives with the freedoms that we have today. And what does it take to have this you might ask. Marines and other branches of the service to go out day by day and put our lives on the line for what we love and care about most in life. Our families and our friends, and it takes a stable country to have this, I have been to Iraq so I know how good we have it here and what we all as americans take for granted. We take our freedoms for granted and we forget how the strength of our military has brought us what we have today.
Remember those who we lost over there, many were my buddies, and let their legends go on as heroes as that is what they are, heroes.
Semper Fidelis
Posted by: Lcpl grunt FOX CO 2/4 at December 13, 2004 11:47 PM (/hs21)
6
I served with Fox co.2/4 in Vietnam Fox relieved Echo co at the groucho marx battle near Cam-lo that is where Capt Howard V Lee earned his congressionl medal of honor.I have never seen a braver outfit than 2/4 I am proud to have served Semper Fi
Posted by: Philip L Hickman at January 04, 2005 10:40 PM (lVR1d)
7
I have a real problem with Keith william Nolans book the magnificent bastards.Mr.Nolan is a good writer but,the cover of the book tells of a marine and army operation and they became known as the magnificent bastards,and I'm quite sure that the uninformed readers will come away thinking that the combined Army and Marine unit are the magnificent bastards.I am sure that the Army unit is a brave and noble group but 2/4and 2/4 alone are the magnificent bastards.Col.Joe (Bull)Fisher a veteran of Iwo jima gave us that name and we are most assuredly proud bastards.
Posted by: Philip L. Hickman at January 07, 2005 11:27 PM (lVR1d)
8
I am proud to say that I have been to war with those Magnificent Bastards. I served as Golf Company's Police Sergeant for the 7 months we spent in Iraq. These men are my brothers and America would do well to remember that they are also thier brothers, husbands and sons. These men lived and died by the power of thier wills and the support of thier brothers. I will go to the ends of hell with these men, and make no mistake, hell would be for the taking if you put the Marines of 2/4 on the task.
Posted by: AKH GUNS-UP!! at April 18, 2005 09:17 PM (cYPBD)
9
I am proud to claim the title as "Marine", just as I am proud to have been a member of the "Magnificent Bastards", these titles have been earned not given. People may look in disgust at my tatoo of the eagle,globe,and anchor with "Magnificent Bastards" wrapped around it. But those that know only offer thanks and praise. "Semper Fi" to all Marines, and especially those of Echo Co 2ndBtn 4th Marines
Posted by: J Smith at May 09, 2005 10:05 AM (VIEln)
10
I'm am proud to say I served in the greatest branch of the armed forces, The United States Marine Corps, and am the son of a career Marine who served with the Magnificent Bastards in Vietnam. They deserve all the praise and admiration we as a country can give them, because as Marines the 2/4 were hard charges that never gave up on a fight, and many stayed to the bitter end to fight along side of their brothers knowing full well the consiquences of their actions. Marines never leave their own and never back down from any challenge! Semper Fi!
Posted by: Mike Hudson at June 09, 2005 02:07 PM (65OVX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 19, 2004
You're Not Even Safe After They Kill You
Even after they kill you,
the terrorists want to find your body and desecrate it. This is the type of people we should appease? i don't think so.
The body of a Spanish police officer who was killed in a raid on suspected Islamic terrorists was removed from its tomb Sunday night, dragged across a cemetery, doused with gasoline and burned, a Spanish police official told CNN.
i don't want to hear anyone saying that we need to understand why the hate us, that they're just fighting for their own freedom, or that we are in any way responsible for what these demons are trying to do to the civilized world. They are evil, plain and simple. In fact evil isn't a strong enough word.
Link via LGF.
Posted by: annika at
02:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We know why they hate us. Anyone who doesn't get that must own the rosiest rose-colored glasses in the world.
I'm thinking it's a matter of time until the civilized world--the coalition--will not stand for any more of this kind of stuff and will take decisive action in its own inimitable way.
There's no way we'll tolerate 10th Century totalitarianism, 'cause that's what were talking about.
Eloquence means nothing.
Posted by: joe at April 19, 2004 04:51 PM (aTqdX)
2
I have always believed that there were two sides to every story, but I am not too sure I can see the other side of this one. But then my sister sent me something today that was intended to be humorous, that actually does shed some light onto the mind process of these Islamic terrorists. Their fanatical religious leaders have robbed them of everything that makes life enjoyable and promise them everything they could ever wish for should they die in an effort to promote the religious ideology of their leaders. By making death more attractive than life, they have created an Army of fanatical martyrs. However, I have yet to see the Islamic text that promises 72 virgins for desecrating the graves of your enemy.
Posted by: Tiger at April 19, 2004 08:40 PM (XiOlO)
3
Two sides to every story has the hidden message that both sides are of comparable validity and are equally deserving of a hearing. Ain't necessarily so.
Posted by: Lee at April 19, 2004 09:22 PM (X2b6R)
4
You folks have it all wrong; there is a way to stop the killing and the terrorism. We all just need to convert to Islam.
Annika, go get fitted for your burka, be sure to get shoes to match. Forget the education; stay home unless escorted by a male. Be examined and treated by doctors using a mirror, so they don't look directly upon you. Blogging gets you flogging.
The rest of us get the 72 virgins.
Unfortunately, they all look like Janet Reno.
Posted by: shelly s. at April 20, 2004 05:49 AM (rZmE1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2004
Google Bomb
Maybe you've heard about
this:
waffles
Posted by: annika at
05:09 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I added you to my list of participants. Let me know if this is a problem, if it is I can take you down. If you would like, you may add the following to your site as a permanent feature (at least until election day... a lot of participants have thrown this on their site) (A HREF="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank") (img alt="Esoteric Diatribe" src="http://home.comcast.net/~nosboca2/waffles2.gif"/) (/br) Waffles(/A). All you need to do is replace the ()'s with these -> >
Posted by: Ken at April 16, 2004 07:41 PM (u/Tc2)
2
A,
I've got my own Kerry tribute going, but you'll have to scroll down below the Alien Zen cartoon.
Enjoy,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 18, 2004 09:27 AM (w2ALR)
3
the < QUOTATION of b>REICH WHING DUMBASS of DAY:
> Bob Tarantino was simply exceeded in the department of dumbassery today. < the better i>"You listen upwards? Howzabout you listen to the top, and you return account that after partnering upwards with the fascistic dictatorship of Saddam to stripe their own pockets, UNO does not deserve to have other drew to ruin the lives of Iraqis."> what can I says. Even while the situation in disintigrates of Iraq and the account of body goes up on the level of the invasion and colonization initial, of the lucky finds of this rube it in with the refuse UNO (which does not colonize to steal oil for rich rubes of Whing de Reich) with a package of lies are blatent. At least the major part of other Reich Whingers timidly looks at their laces while Iraq goes down in chaos, but not this rube. It entered overwork throwing the crap to no matter whom and each one which it can find to pin the blame above for this still another astonishing failure of bush of Whing de Reich. Stomp out of vermin of Whing de Reich!
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 18, 2004 10:25 AM (br4tr)
4
Robert I can not understand what you are saying.
"situation in disintigrates of Iraq and the account of body goes up on the level of the invasion and colonization initial, of the lucky finds of this rube it in with the refuse UNO"
Seriously man, that makes no sense. And I'm not talking politics, that's just incredibly bad english. You should be ashamed and consider sterilization. Maybe somebody's pulling my chain but that's just horrible...
Posted by: Scof at April 18, 2004 12:05 PM (XCqS+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Analogy
i'm into short blog entries today for some reason. Here's an analogy i thought up today:
Libertarians are to Republicans as Orange County is to Los Angeles.
Most people around the country think of Orange County as part of the Los Angeles area. Most people in Los Angeles think of Orange County as if it were part of Los Angeles. However, if you mention this to anyone from O.C., they'll insist adamantly that they're not from L.A., they don't like L.A., and they never go to L.A. unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
In the same way, Republicans like to think of Libertarians as kindred spirits. Non-Republicans also seem to lump the two together. But Libertarians usually get pissed if you call them conservative and they're often just as likely to rip Bush as any Democrat.
Posted by: annika at
04:50 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes Yes Yes. Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin.
And the O.C. is not L.A. much worse, they should hang out with the No Cals.
Most of the people from L.A. have other concerns and don't realize the amount of time and energy spent on L.A. bashing up north.
Posted by: Steve S, at April 17, 2004 12:39 AM (qyZe/)
2
Having grown up in the Bay Area, i do.
Posted by: annika at April 17, 2004 10:56 AM (wMcqX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 15, 2004
Okay, i Got One Too
Courtesy
Kevin's Wizbang and his fabulous
Kerry Sloganator, here's my attempt:
Posted by: annika at
01:03 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Shouldn't that be in in the "Huh? files" rubric? Anyway, I'm sure it's good but I can't figure out what the Demoid is trying to say yet. I'll get back to ya later, after I have my coffee.
Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 07:15 AM (1Rvfx)
Posted by: Capt. Poopdeck at April 15, 2004 07:59 AM (+xC6N)
3
There's an PM drivetime radio show in Boston hosted by a priceless guy named Howie Carr who knows where about 90% of the bodies are buried, literally and figuratively.
He has a contest where they play 30 seconds of Ted answering a question...if you can count the number of times he says "ahh" you win...even if you listen intently it's almost impossible to do it...it's hilarious.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 15, 2004 10:29 AM (loMDg)
4
Jason, you're SO making miss Boston. How I wound up in Florida I will never know.
Posted by: Dave J at April 15, 2004 02:29 PM (VThvo)
5
D-Rod, youre absolutely right. Rubric added.
Posted by: annika! at April 15, 2004 04:47 PM (fYCyV)
6
DUMBASS REICH WHING QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Today's quote comes from Matt Shifrin, a first lieutenant in the US Military Dumbass Corps.
"I don't know if we were fighting terrorism directly by invading Iraq and ousting Saddam [Hussein], but I do know that as long as these extremist groups are planning and expending resources by attacking soldiers in Iraq, they are less capable of attacking helpless civilians in the U.S., Israel and other civilized nations."
Ah, such a nice sentiment that Iraq has been turned into a slaughter ground so that the rest of us can be safe and sound from attacks on our soil by terrorists. Following that same logic, I hope Canada remains safe from attacks because terrorists are too busy blowing up American skyscrapers. You stupid, mindless Reich Whingers never learn. I just wish you were too stupid to breed!
Kerry will win 40 states!
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 15, 2004 05:48 PM (tyrEY)
7
You Reich Whing perverts will now have to get real jobs!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040415/en_nm/leisure_porn_dc_2
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 15, 2004 06:22 PM (tyrEY)
8
It's somehow comforting to know that you're your own worst enemy, McClelland. Please, rant away to your heart's content.
Posted by: Dave J at April 16, 2004 06:17 AM (VThvo)
9
Gee, hostile little fella ain't he?
I guess I would be too if I had to delude myself as often as he apparently does. On the bright side, with an active imagination like his, he can always create a world where SOMEONE might agree with him...
Posted by: John at April 16, 2004 07:48 AM (7UPKM)
10
"Jon Bon Jovi and I have a lot in common. He was one of the 50 most beautiful people in
People magazine. I read
People magazine." - John F. Kerry, 4/16/04
Posted by: d-rod at April 16, 2004 04:10 PM (CSRmO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 14, 2004
annika's Own Political Artwork
i made these, but they sure would look good on your sidebar, i think.
(If you do take one, please copy it and load it on your own server so Pixy doesn't get mad at me for using up his bandwidth. Also, a link back here would be appreciated, but not required.)
Posted by: annika at
02:57 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I absolutely love the picture of Kerry with Michael Jackson's nose.
Posted by: Bird Brain at April 14, 2004 04:33 PM (JCxVY)
2
You forgot to add Bob Byrd's sheet.
Posted by: Dave J at April 14, 2004 09:13 PM (+MjkF)
3
Thanks Annie, I sent the Long John pic to hundreds of my pals..It really is the "Picture of the Week".
Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:47 AM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2004
Ashcroft Testimony: First Impressions
i'm listening to Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony as i type this. It's clear to me, after his opening statement, exactly why people hate and fear him so much. He's very good. The AG landed a number of effective shots in his statement, and i can't wait to hear how the opposition tries to deflect them. It's also clear that Dick Clark and Dr. Rice were the undercard and Ashcroft's is the heavyweight title match. i was
that impressed.
Gotta go, Ben Vineste is on now, yakking about the PDB again.
. . .
WTF? Ben is asking about Ashcroft using a chartered jet? Slimeball. Why doesn't he ask if Ashcroft was the one who warned all the jews to stay out of the WTC on 9/11? Why doesn't he ask who planted the bomb in the Pentagon and made it look like a plane crash? Aaack!
. . .
Now the idiot commenter at NPR cuts in to assure his audience that they will "have a look at" Ascrofts answer to the sleazy chartered jet question after his testimony is over. Whaaat? Why the hell don't they "have a look at" Ashcroft's more serious and relevant accusations about Clinton's and Reno's eight year incompetence spree? Aaaack!
. . .
Why do the commisioners keep calling him General? He's not a general, he's an attorney general. The word "general" modifies the noun "attorney."
. . .
i'm unable to listen that closely because i am annoyingly distracted by the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks.
. . .
It's now over, i didn't notice any effective counter-punches by the commisioners. Now the spinning begins.
Posted by: annika at
01:34 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I forgot that Ashcroft was testifying today. I've got to listen to it.
Posted by: La Shawn Barber at April 13, 2004 03:04 PM (tW8zw)
2
Annika,
Go to Instapundit for what appears to be a conflict of interest involving one of the commission members--Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general.
This is the kind of shit--Gorelick's--is what will distract us from what's important--winning the terrorism war now. The Monday morning quarterbacking/after the fact analysis is an exercise in politicizing 9/11.
Watch for further spin. And watch for dizzy spells.
Posted by: joe at April 13, 2004 03:53 PM (dprmZ)
3
"the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks." When I've got a post to finish or a great article to read, well over the past 18 months of bloggin I've gotten pretty good at creating that false impression
Posted by: Scof at April 13, 2004 04:27 PM (XCqS+)
4
People very frequently address Attorneys General (both state and federal) as "General." It's one of my pet peeves, but such longstanding usage isn't going to change.
Posted by: Dave J at April 13, 2004 04:43 PM (VThvo)
5
Annika, the bombshell was that after a long build up about the "wall' that was built between criminal and terrorist investigations (to "preserve" testimony for prosecutions), the Clinton folks overdid it with memos that totally handcuffed terrorism investigators from getting info on real potential terrorism plots.
Gorelick was mouthing denials to her fellow Commissioners, then, in a moment of high drama, Ashcroft stated that he had declassified the Memo and released it on the spot. Needless to say, Gorelick was both the author and her initials appeared on the document.
There is now a building pressure for her to resign and testify to the Commission.
The Memo cause Ben-Veniste to change course and ask Ashcroft about his refusing to fly regular commercial flights, to which Ashcroft replied that both he and his wife always fly regular commercial flights.
Goelick was trying to get under the table, reminiscent of Teddy Kennedy during the Impeachment Hearings when Arlen Spector asked him "If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to engage...?"
Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:57 AM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2004
One Difference Between Us And Them
The
troll comment i got this morning reminded me about something i've been thinking about since my visit to the State Capitol last weekend. It's an example to illustrate one difference between people on the left and people on the right.
i know i'm gonna be generalizing here, so save your breath. i'm aware that the majority of people on the left are not freakazoids who need to be locked up. There's some very decent and thoughtful lefties on my own blogroll, for instance. i also know there's some real whack-jobs on the right too, and in fact some of them actually have been locked up. (Right wing crazies tend to stay in jail though, instead of being offered tenure.)
Anyways, here's my observation. The great state of California has had thirty-eight governors in its history. Many are unknown. Some, however, are perhaps more famous:
- Hiram Johnson (the great reformer, who gave us the recall election);
- Leland Stanford (who gave us Stanford University, boooo);
- Earl Warren (later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, disliked by liberals as well as conservatives);
- Ronald Reagan;
- Jerry Brown (Known as "governor moonbeam," he once dated Linda Rondstadt, wouldn't dare to swat a medfly, and appointed his former chauffer as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.* He's now the mayor of Oakland.
- Jerry's father Pat Brown (who gave us our freeways);
- Pete Wilson;
- Gray Davis;
- and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Inside the California State Capitol building are portraits of most of the governors in our state's history. (i looked for, but couldn't find Davis' portrait, and Arnold's is not yet finished.) One thing seemed odd to me as i got to the top of the stairs at the front of the capitol, where the portraits of our latest governors hang. Out of all the paintings in the building, only one is encased in plexiglass.
Can you guess which one?
No, it's not left leaning Jerry Brown's.
No, it's not that great judicial activist, Earl Warren's.
That's right, it's Ronald Reagan's.
Can you guess why his portrait, out of all thirty-eight governors, has to be protected by a layer of plexiglass? No, it's not UV light. Notice that Reagan's is hanging next to three other non-plexiglassed portaits.
The reason is that some asshole slashed Reagan's picture a few years ago. A left-wing-hater-nut-case. Some liberal fuck, with a head so filled with bitterness and so empty of common sense, that he or she thought vandalizing the portrait of one of our greatest presidents might be a good way to "raise people's consciousness."
Well, one might ask, if one of the governors' portraits was slashed why don't they encase all of them in plexiglass? Why not protect Jerry Brown's ugly abstract, or Earl Warren's distinguished visage on the second floor landing? Surely they're at risk of being slashed too?
No, you see only a conservative icon like Ronald Reagan can inspire such hatred and vitriol. Because he was, and still is, so loved, his portrait remains a target for the haters. And unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of lefties who have no problem being violent and destructive when they want to send their little hate messages. Conservatives might dislike Jerry Brown (especially conservatives living in Oakland these days), but they're not going to slash his picture.
Lefties like the one who vandalized Reagan's portrait, and the one who blew up all those SUV's in L.A. last year, and the professor who vandalized her own car, and the ones who screamed in my face as i walked to class during last year's anti-war demonstrations, and the ones who carry signs saying New York looks better without the World Trade Center, and the ones who smash the windows of Starbucks Coffee because it's a successful business, and the one's who go around saying that the terrorists in Iraq should kill more Americans, etc. etc.
Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.
So when an idiot like this morning's troll says that he thinks conservatives should be "exterminated like vermin" and "need to be snuffed out of existence," how am i supposed to take that? Is it rhetorical hyperbole, or is the guy a real nutjob who needs to be monitored closely?
My point is this: in the cultural war that's been going on in this country for the last forty years, one side always seems to be more violent than the other, if not in deed then in rhetoric. i'm sure there's some psychological or sociological reason for that phenomenon, but i have no clue what it might be, nor at this point do i give a shit. i just think it's worth noting.
* In 1986, the late Justice Rose Bird became the first California Chief Justice to be voted out of office for being too liberal. Sounds familiar?
Update: Thanks to Blake for pointing out this example reported by Drudge, which further butresses my argument:
Campaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!
"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.
i might also add as examples, the many angry liberal callers to the Michael Medved show, one of whom i heard say that he wished Medved would just commit suicide and "save us the trouble" of killing him. Or the time Alex Baldwin screamed on and on about "stoning Henry Hyde to death."
Posted by: annika at
06:04 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 8 kb.
1
It may well be because they are cut from the same cloth as the Lenins and Stalins and Maos and Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world--political descendents of Jean Jacques Rosseau, who once wrote:
"... every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy."
The "social rights" referred to here are the "rights" of the collective, not individual rights. In other words, those of us who stand astride the path of the relentless march of creeping socialism, who insist on the preservation of individual rights against their violation by an increasingly intrusive state, have made ourselves enemies of the state, and deserving of death.
Rousseau is their founding father. Is it any surprise that his children espouse the same?
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 12, 2004 09:12 PM (c8BHE)
2
Regarding conservatives in Oakland, I don't think many dislike Jerry Brown. The far right (if they exist) and the far left probably dislike him equally, he is pro-business, pro-growth, tough on crime and high-profile. Generally I think people feel fairly lucky to have an ex-governor as a mayor and some (slow) progress is being made although his hands are tied in lots of ways.
Posted by: d-rod at April 12, 2004 09:27 PM (YKu7i)
Posted by: ginger at April 13, 2004 05:15 AM (eYQ9U)
4
D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland, and see it they began to spike upward around the time of Jerry's first term. i believe they do. i'm not saying there's any correlation. (Okay, maybe i am.)
Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 09:14 AM (zAOEU)
5
Great timing on this, Annika! Check out the headline on Drudge for another example to back up your observation.
Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 09:40 AM (AKSiu)
6
Annie, you're probably right that the overall crime rate went up early on. Murder rates went up - then down a lot, then back up (a lot). It would be interesting to chart that against some other variables. Didn't seem like the city sponsored "anti-war seminar" last year with Robert Sheer and various anti-Israeli speakers had much effect in educating the public about "peace".
Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 10:18 AM (CSRmO)
7
I wish someone would put all Reich Whing scum-sucking vermin against walls and pull the trigger - repeatedly! All Reich Whing, bottom feeding, Hate Mongering, lowlifes should be squashed.
Here are TRUE AMERICAN HEROES!
http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 13, 2004 10:48 AM (WwSqc)
8
Speaking of "bottom feeding hate mongers", McClelland, you're making a parody of yourself.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 13, 2004 11:56 AM (sGeYL)
9
As a 6th generation Californian (on mom's side; Dad is from Austria, like Arnold), I share your appreciation for California history. I am sorry that Reagan's portrait requires protection; as a man of the left, I have no truck with those who attack symbols, unless they are Byzantine iconoclasts.
But you know full well the right is capable of tough tactics. Think the violent halting of the recount in Miami in 2000. Forgot it? Go here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/riot-n29.shtml
And/or here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html
Just one example of the fact that bad behavior is found among those who hold a variety of ideological views. Something that any student of history already, surely, knows, but something that we all conveniently ignore when we are structuring our arguments!
Posted by: Hugo at April 13, 2004 12:48 PM (LNc8S)
10
Robert McClelland,
I'm not necessarily a right winger or conservative, but odds are you'd find my views more disturbing. In any case you'd probably lump me in with the right wingers because of a few shared views. So with that being said...
Your shit talking is childish & impractical. First of all I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with the actions you claim you desire. So instead you'll hope to inspire others with an actual backbone to do what you would have done.
But your lack of courage aside, how exactly are you gonna crush people like me? How are you gonna place me up against a wall? Do you honestly think I'll just come along quietly because the arguments you use are so compelling? Think I'll submit myself to you & your mob for the good of the state?
See you seem to forget that while people on the left/socialist side of the political spectrum tend to dislike firearms & push for prohibitions on them, people such as myself & a good portion of right wingers as you'd classify them tend to support not only the possession of firearms but practice with them.
So in short if you or anyone else attempted to bust in my door or otherwise tried to place me up against a wall you'd discover a whole new connotation to the phrase "disproportionate force".
It always cracks me up when the side of the political spectrum that usually preaches the need for gun control turns around & starts calling for violent retaliation against those with dissimilar views. Perhaps that's why gun control is such a priority for leftist/socialists - it's so hard to impress your view on people by force when those people are better armed & more proficient with said arms than you are.
But please think about what you're saying. I know you're just talking shit & even if you had the means you'd lack the balls to follow through with it, but could you at least make your threats a bit more credible?
BTW, with all your comparisons of the right wingers to that much reviled national socialist party of late, did you ever recall that it was the Nazi's (& the communists)who disarmed people & executed them for their political views? In essence your comparison is lacking & you make that more obvious (in addition to showing your hypocrisy) by advocating the same methods the Nazi's (& communists) used to stiffle & crush dissent.
But should you ever feel the urge to start following through on your threats, feel free to make me the first one you attempt this on. I'm sure everything will get sorted out right then.
Posted by: Publicola at April 13, 2004 01:09 PM (Aao25)
11
Annika, Glad to help and thanks for the mention on your blog.
Hugo, True, there is a lot of stupidity on both sides (especially with the heated 2000 election) but ask yourself something. Why is it that large protests are always from leftist groups and why do so many of them turn violent (anti-war protests, anti-globalization protests, etc.)? Do a little research and let me know how many "conservative" protests turn violent and compare the number to the leftist side. I'd bet anything the contrast is enormous.
Annika's argument happens to be one of the reasons I moved from left to right about eight years ago.
In fact, Annika, I think another good argument to make about the differences is the concept of trade-offs. Rather than go into it in detail, I'll just ask you if understand what I mean by this?
Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 01:26 PM (AKSiu)
12
Publicola, Since McClelland linked to the SF "remember Falluja" demonstration, he probably suscribes advocating domestic acts of terrorism similar to one of the speakkkers:
"It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change
fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!"
They aren't talking about targeting people who can defend themselves with guns. Some of these little bomb brats think taking out grandma and the kids would do just fine.
Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 01:35 PM (CSRmO)
Posted by: annika! at April 13, 2004 03:37 PM (zAOEU)
14
Well written Publicola! And should he manage to get past you, which I HIGHLY doubt, you will have a long list of people to help you out.
Posted by: budly at April 14, 2004 12:44 PM (6/1Z7)
15
Don't mess with Publicola or his good friend Garand!
Posted by: annika! at April 14, 2004 02:45 PM (zAOEU)
16
D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland
Okay sweetie, I did my homework assignment, not by googling but by talking to "sources close to the Man". First, he asked me if I wanted the "political" answer - I responded that I'd rather just hear the truth... So in general according to him then, dividing crime stats into violent vs. non-violent (the definitions of which may be questionable), the former has gone down while non-violent (theft,etc.)has gone up. He also said that when looking at a map, there is an "extremely high" correlation between
where parolees are "located" and the areas where most crimes occur.
I doubt that is the official "political" position one might hear about in the news. Can I have a gold star now?
Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 09:54 AM (CSRmO)
17
Very intresting post. Amazing how liberal simpletons continually pine for differences and respect for "diversity" but get rather violent if (!)you DIAGREE with them on anything.
Posted by: Mark at April 16, 2004 05:26 PM (Vg0tt)
18
Just wanted to point out that Leland Stanford also drove in the golden spike that was the final bit of the connection of the trans-continental railroad. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Nothing like a far left wing fascist that thinks that everyone that does not agree with them is evil. That's a pretty fascit concept to me.
Posted by: Ben Skott at June 10, 2004 11:25 AM (ogcAP)
19
There are some nutcase left-wingers out there, but most of the anti-business people aren't left-wingers; they're anarchists. They get associated with the left because they have socialist economic leanings, but they are actually in favor of totalitarian governmental functions (though they really don't understand that.) Now they might be Leftists...But that is a different discussion entirely...
Posted by: flaime at June 10, 2004 03:18 PM (uKXhE)
20
A correction to the above: They are self-described anarchists.
Posted by: flaime at June 11, 2004 12:37 PM (Bax1+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Question
Where are all those assholes who, just a few months ago, were complaining that Halliburton was paying its employees too much for working in Iraq? Was
Thomas Hamill getting paid too much?
Posted by: annika at
11:56 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So because of him the entire argument is invalidated. I think not.
Posted by: glenn at April 12, 2004 12:56 PM (1oqLe)
2
Yes Glen, the argument is invalidated. In order to get civilian workers to risk their lives the pay must be increased. It's simple risk versus reward. One must only take a high school economics class to understand the concept.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 12, 2004 01:54 PM (+wzD6)
3
Hey Jonathan you clown. It always cracks me up when someone brings up an opposing political viewpoint and out comes the "you're dumb" comments.
How about this? It would only take the common sense usually possesed by 8 year old schoolgirls to know not to question someone's intelligence just because they disagree with you.
Retard.
Posted by: glenn at April 13, 2004 07:35 AM (1oqLe)
4
Glenn,
Please do a little reading before you perpetuate myths:
Halliburton made $46 million in operating profit on $1 billion in revenue from Iraq operations in 2003. That's a 5% gross margin.
Then when you add interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization net profit is a lot less, around a 1%-2% net margin.
Would the evil "profiteer" liberal Halliburton myth put up with an avalanche of BS from people like you and the NYT, etc. AND its employees being killed for a 1%-2% net profit margin?
Please shut the fuck up about Halliburton and move on the the liberal criticism du jour about Bush...you're about 8 weeks behind.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 13, 2004 01:12 PM (loMDg)
5
Jason, I think you need to tell Annika to "shut the fuck up" considering that she was the one that posted this just yesterday.
Uh-uh-uh-duh!
What's that? Nothing to say? Annika brought up the discussion? I'm painted into a corner now so I better think of something witty to say?
Posted by: glenn at April 13, 2004 01:57 PM (JWs/7)
6
Sorry, i'm lost. i agree with what
he said, but i disagree with
him.
Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 05:30 PM (zAOEU)
7
A poor try to dodge the issue you brought up: You posted that the "argument" against Halliburton is not "invalidated" by Thomas Hamill.
The point (made by KBR's 2003 Iraq income statement) is there was never an "argument" to begin with: The Halliburton squealing is an appeal to the emotions of antiglobalization, anticorporation and anticapitalist liberals.
You want a real Iraq scandal? check out the UN oil-for-food billions being casually thrown around during the 90's...although I doubt you'll be interested in that because it involves sacred cows like Kofi Annan's son, France and other parties who were "profiteering" with Saddam to starve the Iraqi people.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 14, 2004 08:11 AM (loMDg)
8
So I am a “retard” and a “clown” because Glenn claims I called him dumb because he has an opposing viewpoint? Interesting…
I was simply trying to explain basic economic principles.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 14, 2004 08:44 AM (+wzD6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
151kb generated in CPU 0.1796, elapsed 0.2829 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.2456 seconds, 333 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
