What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
All tees - $10 view!
threadless.com - Threadless.com's Holiday Sale is full of awesomeness. $10 t-shirts, holy moley!
75 Comments
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I feel for Cindy Sheehan's loss, but she really is bringing disgrace to the memory of her son Casey.
- NotaSlickFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I thoroughly enjoyed the poster of "Hanoi Jane and John" wearing their No'n Ba`i Tho and the “Blood on their hands” logo courtesy of Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry. Cindy Sheehan is the poster child for all that is lame and insane in leftyville. “In the shadow of the Death Star”? She is gone and I mean waaaay gone as well is all of Code Stink and the vast majority of the left.
- Euangelion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28I no longer feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. For all I care she can marry Harry Belefonte and move to Venezuala
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Actually, I saw many more ignorant signs there today, in person.
1. "9/11 was an inside job"....lots of those
2. "Guilty of War Crimes"...lol, name one
3. "US Out of Iraq Now"....lol, what then? BTW, I saw a lot of those littering the ground between the Lincoln Memorial and the Arlington Memorial Bridge
4. "Bombing Turns People into Terrorists"....by that logic, people from Manhattan should be walking into mosques blowing themselves up, no? I haven't heard of many family members of employees at the WTC attending terrorist training camps, cutting the heads off Islamic fundamentalists, etc etc
5. "Give Peace a Chance"....very effective against suicide bombers, really
6. "Don't Dare Touch Iran"....nice
7. catch-all: 'Socialist brotherhood' signs; 'support the troops by ending the war' signs; every illegible word on the shields/oil drums (whatever the hell they were) carried by the SDS demonstrators (they walked right by me and I could not tell what they were or what they said. - goforbroke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Thanks to all the Eagles and patriots that stood against those delusional and misguided folks. One day those anti-Americans will realize the folly of their way.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I forgot one of the dumbest signs of the day: "I'm against the NEXT war too"
Friggin' rockets scientists that write that stuff, I tell ya. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Awesome.
Eagles - Right minded, respectable men and women...This is the majority of America.
Kkkkkkb - you're a complete dolt. I have to just assume you don't believe the crap you type here. It's just too pathetic.
I especially liked your comment, " i.e., trying to persuade the population of the U.S. that these other folks pose a threat, which transcends this apparent illogicality in policy. Fortunately, they have may very weak-minded folks like manchu, nota, bridge, etc...who are so eager to swallow the bait that they actually go a dig worms for them to be fed later. And what makes this even MORE interesting, is that they're not the least bit aware that they're even doing it."
What an absurd statement. Who needs persuasion? Are you not aware of the attacks on the US, mainly, 09-11 ? Oh, yes, I guess you'd say The US did it! It's the US who 'made' these people do what they do. derrrrr, go back to drinking your chomsky-flavored kool-aid, kid. You've got it all wrong, and most of US know better. It's just too simple to miss it.
Thank you, Eagles. What a great St. Pat's day! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20My apologies. Being that I am deeply entrenched behind the enemy lines here on the West Coast, I regret that I was not at this "event" in a physical form to register as a number, let alone a mass that stood up to the internationalist/socialist agenda. In the "spirit" of one of the most revered celebrations in our country - Saint Patrick's Day - I strangely enough chose to not swill green beer but rather see a wonderful film that depicts a powerful and beautiful struggle and fight for freedom and the rejection of tyranny: 300. Today, those in DC and elsewhere that stood-up to the enemies within, remind me of the 300 Spartans that fought against and stood up to the tyranny of their time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18yes yes moonbats, 9/11 WAS an inside job! Inside al-qaeda, where they planned plotted trained and executed a cowardly attack on innocent people, yeah it was indeed an inside job.
Now go take a shower and get a haircut you smelly hippie wannabes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Don't Tread On Me!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@bridgetown
That's a shame I don't see any of kkkkb's comments,, I've blocked him, it really is the only way to deal with trolls, they want you to respond to them, if you do they have succeeded, you can't have a conversation with one. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@cmarotta99
If the Eagles did have to take any action(s) to protect monuments or flags it would not have been much of a fight. The 'Cut and Run' and 'Surrender Now' crowd would have cut and run. They would have quickly surrendered rather than face reality. How many of them were wearing Muslim gunny (burlap) sack dresses? - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Wow, what a load of crap. That you could fit that much written diarrhea into one post is quite an accomplishment.
Me: "1. "9/11 was an inside job"....lots of those""
KB: "we DID, in fact, help to create the monster which came back to try and kill Dr. Frankenstein, it was sort of an inside job, though not in the same sense"
LOL, any proof? No, I thought not. Your knowledge of what we did in regard to Al Qaeda is laughable. You are conflating US support for the Afghani Mujahideen in the 1980s with the organization that preceeded Al Qaeda, the Maktab al-Khidamat. As for you statement about us creating the monster which came back to try and kill us: "This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery. The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Me: "2. "Guilty of War Crimes"...lol, name one"
KB: "There's nothing wrong with this statement of fact at all. This is a factually true statement."
And yet you don't name EVEN ONE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Me: ""3. "US Out of Iraq Now"....lol, what then?"
KB: "Doesn't matter, "what then?" "
LOL, now that's a nuanced answer. Who cares about the ramifications? Boy, it sure is easy to say "doesn't matter 'what then'" from behind the safety of your computer. It sort of has different implications if you're a Pro-US Iraqi politician, an Iraqi working as a local national hire on an FOB in Iraq, or just plain in favor of living in a democratic Iraq.
KB: "any sane person should have thought about this question before illegally invading another country..."
I'll just pass right by the unsupported claim of illegality on your part and go back to what I like to call "KB's Wayback Machine Theory of Solving Problems in the Here and Now". You did this with the discussion of Vietnam policy in 1973, as well. The problem set in 2007 is NOT whether or not to invade Iraq in 2003. That decision is made and done with. What is your solution NOW? "Doesn't matter", my ass.
--------------------------------------------
Me: "4. "Bombing Turns People into Terrorists"...."by that logic, people from Manhattan should be walking into mosques blowing themselves up, no?"...and "I haven't heard of many family members of employees at the WTC attending terrorist training camps, cutting the heads off Islamic fundamentalists, etc etc"
KB: "Huh? Why "by that logic"? I don't see the connection. People in Manhattan are rich. They don't need to blow themselves up. They'll hire someone to do it for them."
Did you read that, Manhattan? You're rich...go hire some hitman to go get bin Laden.
KB: "Of course you haven't. Why would they? They have an army."
Well, I'll pass right by the part where you equate the US Army with terrorists (remember, the sign said "Bombing Turns People into Terrorists", and you said the people of NY don't need to do the sorts of things associated with terrorists because they have the Army). The hole in your argument here is that we have not captured or killed bin Laden, and our military can't get into Pakistan to do it. Therefore, any revenge-seeking Manhattan-ite has to turn to other devices...and yet no terrorist camps for them, no stream of wronged New Yorkers crossing into Pakistan to take out bin Laden. Looks like your arguments don't hold water, KB.
KB: "...simply calling whining that David has used "terrorist tactics" against Goliath because he used a slingshot."
No, that would be a stand up fight between a relatively weaker combatant against a relatively stronger opponent. Our culture actually glorifies that sort of thing, hence its use as a metaphor across western civilization. For your argument to be correct, we'd have to whine that David, seeing that he couldn't defeat Goliath in open combat, chooses instead to quit the battlefield, locate Goliath's family, and slay them in their beds as they sleep.
--------------------------------------------------------
Me: "5. "Give Peace a Chance"...."very effective against suicide bombers, really"
KB: "Actually, it IS very effective against suicide bombers because had we NOT helped to create them in the first place, or done something to try and alleviate some of the conditions which led them to even have any desire or need to be in this position in the first place, they probably wouldn't exist."
Please explain to me how actions by the US tormented Mohammed Atta, a wealthy Saudi never bombed by the US, creating his desire to smash a loaded jet into the WTC. That would be good information.
By the way, yes, I am a Christian. Please cite for me any part of Christianity that describes my duty as a believer to lay down and accept the murder of my countrymen? Please explain the part where warfare in general is opposed by Christian tenents. If you bring up "Though Shall Not Kill", you better be prepared to speak about the true meaning of that commandment from the original Hebraic, "Though Shall Not Murder" .
KB: "Yes, these folks just appeared from nowhere. They just woke up one day and hated the U.S. because...uhh....we have Disney Land. They're just jealous of our freedoms. And all the rest of that nonsensical crap the propagandists try and infuse the naive with."
Well, I tell ya, you might want to actually examine what makes those people tick, rather than just transferring your beliefs onto people of different cultures. Here's a great article to at least start by Victor Davis Hanson: "Second, the terrorists, in their own words, were furious not at genuine “decadence” (many had no problem satisfying their own appetites while residing in the West plotting its destruction), but at a ubiquitous Western-inspired modernity itself—the result of which was that a traditional tribal society in the Middle East was being bypassed, socially, politically, and economically, not just by the West, but also by Asia, South America, and parts of Africa."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY0ZDUzN2UxNTQ1ODVmYjc2YjNkZjQ4NDFlMWRiNjU=
---------------------------------------------
Me: "6. "Don't Dare Touch Iran"....nice"
KB: "Damn right that's nice. Are you folks really this pathologically insane, or is someone paying you to be stupid? You have no business touching anyone."
Once again, you show you have absolutely no idea how international relations work. None. Lots of fantasy, lots of self-criticism for the US (tons of that...enough for three or four dozen normal folks), lots of "ideological house of cards" stuff, but no actual grasp of how nations interact. You show no understanding that there are several "levers" that compose national power: diplomatic, informational, economic, and military. The stupid answer to any problem requiring use of national power, the pathologically insane answer distilled down in the "Don't Dare Touch Iran" sign and your defense of it, is that it takes one lever of national power off the table for no rationally articulated reason. This is literally fighting with one hand tied behind your back...and self-inflicted at that. The rest of your thoughts on this are just gas. No support, no expectation of Iran to act in the way you would have the US act, no address to Iran's support to insurgent groups in Iraq...nothing. Just like any answer from you on anything that exists in the real world...just gas. Academia is much easier and less consequential than the actual interrelations between nations; you might want to stick with that.
-----------------------------------------
Odds and Ends:
KB: "And what's wrong with this? Oh, I see. It says "socialist" i.e., meaning people who believe in freedom, equality, etc...and "brotherhood" which means equality, etc"
Yes, it also means disregard of property rights (a fundamental of western civilization). It frequently manifests itself in the real world (read: not the "looks good on paper" world) in various pathologies, from the Ponzi scheme of the European socialist welfare states to the relative economic stagnation of those same states; to the concentration of power into single parties or single individuals (e.g. Venezuela); to even more extreme cases where Socialism becomes Communism becomes the perpetual "dictatorship of the proletariate" that crushes the very freedom you trumpet, naively. The equality thing I grant you: equality to see the state take from you the lion's share of the work of your own hands with tax rates into the 60% range (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Sweden); and the equality to demand cradle to grave services that rob citizens of their self-reliance. This sums it up nicely, "the willingness to subordinate individual liberty to...the "primacy of society" that's blighted the Continent for over a century: statism - or the "primacy of society" - is what Facism, Nazism, Communism, and the European Union all have in common." (Steyn, "America Alone", p. 49)
---------------------------------------------
Me: "'support the troops by ending the war' signs"
KB: "Yes? And? This is a fact. True, it's a little too late and they should have, and the more intelligent ones and informed ones DID have these, PRIOR to the illegal criminal invasion."
Ok, once again, I'll skip right by the unsupported allegation of "illegal criminal" invasion (isn't that a little repetitive anyway), and go right to the heart of the matter. If you think you are supporting the troops by ending the war, why don't you ask some Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines whether they'd feel supported by being brought home RIGHT NOW. Being one of those, I'll hazard the guess that any true warrior will tell you that being brought home, tail between legs, is not "support"...it's disgrace, failure, loss....and certainly not "support". So, call for the end of the war if you wish, but don't disingenuously cloak it in 'supporting the troops', you feckless loser.
-----------------------------------
KB: "You know good and well that you right-wing fanatics here, if given the power, would do this in a second, or would at least try to move things in this direction, sort of like Bush is with the "Patriot Act""
1. Proof? I thought not.
2. Patriot Act? If you demonstrate you have any idea what that act says, what powers it provides to law enforcement and intelligence services, I'll address this. Until then, it's just one more sound-bite for you to throw out as if you have a clue.
-------------------------------------------------------
KB: "manchu even comes back to say (quote a sign), what is actually MY favorite one of the day:
"I forgot one of the dumbest signs of the day: "I'm against the NEXT war too""
You have no idea how great it was to read you saying that. That you want to take that lever of national power off the table, without any context for what the next possible war could be, shows you to be the amateurish academic that you must be. What if it's genocide somewhere and the international community and the UN are begging us to intercede? KB says, "I'm against the next war too". What if it's a direct attack on the US homeland by an actual military force? KB says, "I'm against the next war too". What if it's a million-man North Korean Army spilling over the DMZ? KB says, "I'm against the next war too". Now that's nuance: no matter what the war is, who is involved, what's at stake, you're against the next war too. Brilliant. Once again, this is just a sample of why no "Libertarian Socialist" will ever be elected President. However, as KB said long ago, no Libertarian Socialist would ever want the job. Problem solved, I think. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Perhaps she got wind of the Gathering of the Eagles.....I'd bet on Fear being her reason for staying away. ;)
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15KB: "manchu, in what MUST be one of the more depraved, sick, and pathetic public comments ever, said: "I feel for Cindy Sheehan's loss, but she really is bringing disgrace to the memory of her son Casey." How in the name of Christ does someone being honest and telling the truth disgrace their lost son, you hate-filled nitwit."
Wow, did I touch a raw nerve there, KB?
Let me explain to you how Cindy Sheehan is bringing disgrace to the memory of her son, Casey. First off, Casey Sheehan volunteered for the US Army. Casey Sheehan showed discipline and commitment to his duty by deploying with his unit. He fought and died like a warrior. That is a very sad, regrettable thing, but also a thing to hold in sacred honor. His death is his, not his mothers. It brings disgrace on his memory that people equate Casey Sheehan's death on the field of honor not with HIS efforts, HIS gallantry, but with his MOTHER'S ceaseless carrying on and grand-standing. Did Cindy Sheehan have these anti-war positions before Casey Sheehan went to war? I don't know, but she certainly was a "nobody" to the anti-war crowd then. Now, she's the face of the anti-war cause simply because she had a son who died in this war. Why her and not some other mother? Probably because so few want to bring disgrace to the sacrifices of their sons and daughters...and that ought to give Cindy Sheehan pause.
As for your gas equating the invasion and counterinsurgency in Iraq to a bank robbery, I'm still waiting for you to show one way in which operations in Iraq are criminal. You won't give it, because it's not there. I infer (there's that word again, in proper use) from your repeated use of this meme that you think that by repeating it often enough, it will become true; it won't.
As for hate-filled nitwit....c'mon.....really, how goofy is that comment? Nitwit? Crushing...simply staggering. What ever will I do? - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14cleanshots...you're so right. Why do I bother?!!
I try to ignore it, but I can't Stand the disrespect for this great country and the protectors of it. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@kkkkkb
I have corrected you first comment so that it reads more correctly.
I've never seen so many demonstrations of ignorance in my life. Sheehan does support killers. Hanoi John and Hanoi Jane should grow the hell up. They show their ignorance and that of too many folks. Malkin demonstrate that the Gathering of Eagles are the REAL troop supporters. The Cut and Runners can kiss my ass, I'll cover it with a white flag so you defeatists can find it. The poster of the lady with the purple finger demonstrates the concern for the well-being for the population which we're helping to free from terrorism and which want us out AFTER we have stabilized the country.
". . . Also, I don't really recall seeing these "patriots" demonstrating their concern for the people during the past 30 years when Saddam was in power gassing his own people . . " Are you really old enough to recall anything that happened 30 years ago? A Gathering of hysterical Lemmings would seem a better and more accurate title for the surrender crowds
kkkkkb - kinky kos kid kicking knowledge backwards - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It would appear that the surrender crowds are in panic mode. They expected a free ride. Instead reality reared it ugly head and hit them right between the eyes.
- ladyjusa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Where was Hanoi Jane? Not much said about her? Was she even there?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Molon Labe/Lave!!
- Euangelion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11BTW what happened to valeyard??
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I was wondering the same thing.
- Apollo10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Like I've said before, anti war liberals are cowards, big on threats and small on followthrough.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This one was from last night; couldn't post it at the time:
"Me: "2. "Guilty of War Crimes"...lol, name one"
KB: "There's nothing wrong with this statement of fact at all. This is a factually true statement."
Me: "And yet you don't name EVEN ONE."
KB: "Didn't even know it was necessary given that this is as known as all the other facts mentioned above. I'm usually not asked to prove that the world is round either, so I don't go about doing it. However, even though I HAVE given you links to these several times already, probably 10 times or so, I'll do it yet again.."
and the citation given by KB? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/bush-war-crimes-the-nure_b_29056.html
Who is this author, Sheldon Drobny? Hmmm....let's check.
"Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Air America Radio."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=sheldon-drobny&name=Sheldon%20Drobny)
Seriously, KB, if you asked me to prove something and I came back and cited an article by Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes (founders of Fox News Channel) you'd skewer me. Yet, you have the temerity to say the war in Iraq is illegal because the founder of Air America said so? I'd say you've got some huevos if you weren't such a b@ll-less coward.
Anyway, that's enough tearing your worthless arguments down for one night. I have to tell you, you keep whining about me going to check out some trash you wrote on a previous post, but you keep throwing fresh manure on the current thread. I've got a job, dude! No way I can sit here doing this all day long, there's work to be done. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ cmarotta99
"Iraq war's anniversary sparks protests By AARON CLARK, Associated Press Writer "
So why was AARON CLARK, an AP writer conducting a protest? Was he trying to be story instead of reporting it?. Is he related to Green Helmet? Do we need more proof of media bias? - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6BTW, KB, do you ever admit when you're wrong?
You said NO ONE debates that the US supported bin Laden. I showed you one quick example of someone who DOES debate that. You just keep on rolling as if you hadn't been thoroughly contradicted. You just like the rhetorical flourish of the "no one debates" and "this is not even an issue" statements. You should know that those kind of absolute arguments paint you into a corner. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it's hilarious to watch kb go nuts, citing his sources...all of them shallow and only filtered through his prism of belief systems.
your bank robbery analogy is a joke.
Yes, geopolitics is quite a web. Much more depth than you are capable of knowing.
Here is an anology. I have a friend. I taught him how to use a gun. He goes psychotic and shoots me with that gun.
It is my fault I got shot. Only in your world.
You talk as if people don't have minds of their own. As if we are all puppets. As if bin laden and other jihadis are children who were 'willed' to do what they have done. I bet you think he was poor little arab, all povertry stricken as well, huh? derrrrrrrrr
You forget years and Years of the history of jihad.
Next you're going to tell me that jewish people are monsters and that women really are 3rd class beings and they believe these things because it's the USofA's fault! yeah that's it. you dolt.
THE GATHERING OF THE EAGLES......so far above and beyond any more discussion with the likes of you.
I am sorry that I contributed to your pathetic rants here. It won't happen again. yeesh.
I simply feel sorry for you and shall pray for your enlightenment.
Thank You Eagles! Awesome pictures I've found all over the net of the gathering...! :) - DanThePainter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7>...Now go take a shower and get a haircut you smelly hippie wannabes. >> Viper2
Look at the pictures; many of the Eagles were long haired and bearded men. Hairstyle is no longer a good indicator of political point of view. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In your attacks on the messengers your classifications show you are clueless. I have never read any of your more knowledgeable opponents claim anyone discovered planet earth. From your vantage point it appears the earth is flat and you have fallen off the edge.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5KB: "The Reagan-bin Laden killer brigade, skilled in such crafts as skinning Russian prisoners alive, blew back with a sickening vengeance"
Well, that would be a great story if bin Laden and his Arab-Afghan poseurs got their @sses out of Peshawar, Pakistan, and into the war in Afghanistan.
Really, KB....your source now is the Guardian? Laughable.
Get a real source. - NotaSlickFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@manchu2, I've skewered the brainless and witless "kababble" on numerous occasions before and "it" never gets it. "Kababble" is a sick and twisted loser who cannot be reasoned with much like dealing with a 5 yr olds temper tantrum. "It" needs a very long timeout, lots of therapy and plenty of meds. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your well thought and sourced rebuttals to the little twit and I'll just say that you tarred and feathered "kababble" into oblivion. That was fun to watch.
We are all waiting for "film at eleven" when "kababble" finally goes postal and rides heshe’s tricycle into a crowd of Rangers and finally gets his come-up-ance. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4KB: "In 1985, President Ronald Reagan received a group of bearded men with turbans – the Afghan Mujahiddin leaders. After meeting them in the White House he said "these are the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers". (Ronald Reagan)"
And were any of these Osama bin Laden?
Shall I just jump straight back to Peter Bergen's quote?
"This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery. The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html
Address that. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Me: "You are conflating US support for the Afghani Mujahideen in the 1980s with the organization that preceeded Al Qaeda, the Maktab al-Khidamat."
KB: "No, YOU are trying to downplay the connections, which NO ONE disputes..."
No one? Wait a sec...."This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery. The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html
So much for "no one"
As for the references you cite, really...come on, KB. You really throw that crap out there with a straight face?
- Centre for Research on Globalisation: "The Centre for Research on Globalization states to be "committed to curbing the tide of "globalisation" and "disarming" the New World Order"". The author, Michel Chossudovsky, "is an active member of the anti-war movement in Canada" and "was one of the first to question the Bush administration's assertion that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky) Is he still questioning bin Laden's culpability? Great article too...no proof of a CIA connection to bin Laden, but he finishes with a flourish, "Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden". That's great.....provide no proof, but then conclude with your premise....great technique.
- Emperor's-Clothes.com: "According to the publication, 'Le Figaro,' a CIA agent visited Osama bin Laden last July. 'Figaro' reports that this meeting took place while bin Laden was being treated in the American Hospital in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. The Figaro article unfortunately is not documented - that is, we only have the word of the author, Alexandra Richard, that the report is true. (6)"
NICELY DONE, KB! No proof...only the word of the author? LOL, and you call ME indoctrinated?
- democracynow.org: "During most of the 1980's, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to Afghanistan to support the mujahedeen - or holy warriors - against the Soviet Union, which had invaded in 1979."
Umm...ok, stipulated by everyone, not just loony Leftsis.
"The U.S.-supported jihad succeeded in driving out the Soviets but the Afghan factions allied to the US gave rise to the oppressive Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda."
That's all YOUR ARTICLE, http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/1425222, says. No proof...nothing. Great citation.
- World Socialist Website.org: Are you KIDDING? The words "bin Laden" DON'T EVEN APPEAR in that article. Are you high? Not only is the website a piece of *****, it doesn't even apply to your case, fool!
- Green Left.org: Oh, this one is beautiful. "How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter” is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and an “evil-doer”. "
Where precisely did anyone refer to bin Laden as a "freedom fighter". Are they referrring to Ronald Reagan calling the Afghani Mujahideen 'freedom fighters'? Well, I'm learning you're NOT one for nuance, KB, but bin Laden wasn't an Afghani Mujahideen....he was one of the 'Arab Afghans'. Want to know their reputation?
"Despite Azzam's famous fatwa and bin Laden's subsidies, there were never more than three thousand of these outsiders - who came to be known as the Arab Afghans - in the war against the Soviets, and most of them never got out of Peshawar" (Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower", p. 105)
The rest are just as laughable.
The one thing brought up in some of your citations was the comment by Milt Bearden, because that's a name I've read of before, so it bore some looking into. The quote given is interesting, but it's poorly quoted. Here's the actual story: "Milt Bearden, the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, denied cooperating with bin Laden, but he knew of his efforts: "There were a lot of bin Ladens who came to do jihad, and they unburdened us a lot. These guys were bringing in up to twenty to twenty-five million dollars a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war."3
The citation is from:
3. Mary Anne Weaver, "The Real Bin Laden," The New Yorker, January 24, 2000, p. 34. Former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro has also denied that the CIA cooperated with bin Laden. See Vincent Cannistraro, "Holy Terrorism," The Washington Post, February 9, 2000, p. A20
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg1383.cfm)
Sorry, KB, you're coming out very badly here, and for good reason.
KB: "So, what do we have here? we have manchu just deciding to erase several decades of history in order that he may force whatever is left to fit into his fairy tale. Sorry, manchu, but that the U.S. supported them is WAAAAAAY old, and not even controversial"
Well, if it is so easy to prove me wrong, why do you use CRAP citations like you did? If you're trying to prove the US supported the mujahideen in it's insurgency against the Soviets.....stipulated! If you've got something worthwhile to prove the US financed, trained, or directed bin Laden, bring it on, brother. So far you've shown me exactly ZERO. Your sources are the worst kind of anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, hate-america-first drivel. Hell, your MSNBC citation links to a front page to the story with about one paragraph that doesn't constitute any proof...then goes no further (broken link, it appears)Your sources don't show any proof of anything, except that the authors are willing to write anything that makes America guilty of creating the attack on 9/11. That's a steep charge, and it should be leveled by sober people with hard facts and not just gossip. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pardon me for skipping around a bit, but I just had to address this piece of useless crap you threw out before destroying any of your other other ramblings:
Me: "By the way, yes, I am a Christian. Please cite for me any part of Christianity that describes my duty as a believer to lay down and accept the murder of my countrymen?"
KB: "Sure. "Thou shalt not kill". Doesn't say a damn word about it being okay or not okay for it to be your countrymen, their countrymen, or anyone else. This is irrelevant..."
Me: ""If you bring up "Though Shall Not Kill", you better be prepared to speak about the true meaning of that commandment from the original Hebraic, "Though Shall Not Murder"."
KB: "Well, as predicted, here goes one of the MANY spins, apologetics, etc.....to what basically amounts to an excuse. Killing is killing is killing."
Well, I certainly never figured you'd venture into the land of "moral idiocy"....sarcasm, sarcasm
That certainly was easy. I asked you a simple question. You dismissed the question and went for the predictable "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Of course, being so in love with your own writing, you do this sentence by sentence thing and don't just go straight for the part where I predicted your move and challenged it. Your nuanced, intellectual response to a challenge laid down honestly? "as predicted, here goes one of the MANY spins, apologetics..."
LOL, hey, Mr Smart Guy, address the freaking issue. You're no Hebraic scholar, I'm sure. Here are a few examples of real Hebrew scholars:
"Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html)
How about this? "The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad" (http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html)
Or maybe this? "Unfortunately, St. Jerome (342 – 420 CE), in his Latin Vulgate, used the phrase Non occides, “you shall not kill.” The German equivalent
was chosen by Luther (Du sollst nicht töten), and the English equivalent was selected by King James’ translation committee for their great Authorized Version of 1611. “Thou shalt not kill” thus remained virtually the only wording of the command in English until the 20th century brought with it new, more accurate translations. Some of the new translations have provided the correct English translation for the original Hebrew term in the command. This
correction helps clarify the parallel between the Old Testament legal system and modern legal systems on the issue of murder. Most modern
legal systems distinguish between the justified “kill” and the wrongful “murder.”" (http://www.mssm.edu/msjournal/71/71_5_pages_355_357.pdf)
Now bear in mind, I haven't cited any loony-toons Lefty websites like you....but mine are pretty good: they all actually address the issue I raised, unlike your half-hearted, 'oh here comes the spin' response. Take issue with the points raised, if you have the stomach for it.
Putting the Hebrew lesson aside for a moment, though, one is left with the matter of your moral idiocy, which you positively flaunt.
KB: "Killing is killing is killing"
So, you're saying there is no moral difference between any killing? Let's test that:
1. Man robbing store shoots clerk to death (easy, murder)
2. Drunk driver runs over pedestrian, killing him (easy, negligent homicide, basically murder-lite)
3. Driver going 10 miles per hour over speed limit hits child who darts into street from behind a parked car (involuntary manslaughter)
4. Driver obeying speed limit hits child who darts into street from behind a parked car (ooh...tougher...manslaughter? no... accident? yeah, that's it)
5. Man being mugged struggles with attacker and hits him in throat, crushing his larynx causing death (justifiable homicide? I think so)
I see big moral differences in each of the five. Some are criminal as Hell, some are absolutely innocent, and some could be found guilty of murder but for the lack of 'mens rea' (i.e. criminal intent). You, in your Leftist moral equivalence, have made them all the same. What an idiot!
KB, you are so INDOCTRINATED in your Leftist lunacy, you can't distinguish the easily distinguishable. You can't rebut arguments with logical argument, but must deflect with trite buzz words like "spin" and "apologetics." You, Sir, are a rather poor opponent.
- sherman50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I see how you conveniently forget to mention that they gave money to FARC, too. And where is the "hypocrisy"? The government rightfully punished them. Trying to change the subject with this desperation is pretty weak Chomskyboy.
- manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Me: "Really, KB....your source now is the Guardian? Laughable."
KB: "You WOULD think that one of the few papers which is even remotely objective would be "laughable""
This gets funnier by the reply. KB...you are going to write with a straight face that the Guardian is remotely objective?
- "In August 2004, for the US presidential election, the daily G2 supplement, edited by Ian Katz, launched an experimental letter-writing campaign in Clark County, Ohio, a small county in a swing state. Katz bought a voter list from the county for $25 and asked people to write to those on the list undecided in the election and, giving them an impression of the international view and the importance of making the correct decision. There was something of a backlash to this campaign, and on 21 October 2004, the paper retired it." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Political_alignment_and_controversies)
VERRRRY objective....
- "Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, The Guardian published an article on its comment pages by Dilpazier Aslam, a 27 year old British Muslim journalism trainee from Yorkshire.[21] Aslam was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group, and had published a number of articles on their website."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Political_alignment_and_controversies)
Nice. To their credit they eventually fired Aslam.
I'll throw you a bone for the Guardian's "objectivity", "the paper is generally held up as an example of good journalism and its comment and opinion pages, though DOMINATED BY (my emphasis) left-liberal writers and academics " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#Political_alignment_and_controversies) they will occasionally throw a bone to center-right voices, whatever that means in the UK.
Hey, I understand that you like the paper. That's your choice. Are you one of the GROLIES, by the way?
-------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, as it turns out, my scoffing at the Guardian was a poorly aimed comment better directed against your ZNet article. In it, author Greg Palast (from 'the 2000 election was stolen!' fame; 'the 2004 election was stolen!' fame; and 'why is the Department of Homeland Security trying to arrest me for surreptitiously photographing an oil refinery?' fame) does a 'once around the world' attack on Ronald Reagan that's a mile wide and 1/8 of an inch deep.
The proof Palast provides that bin Laden came out of the "Reagan Frankenstein factory"? He cites J. Michael Springmann, formerly chief of the visa section at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
here's the CBC interview of Springmann:
"CBC: Where did Afghanistan seem to fit into this whole pattern? Because it seems they were going to the US to collect or be rewarded for some past deed, or to be trained for another. Where did Afghanistan fit in?"
(note: that isn't just a bit of a leading question is it?)
"Springmann: Afghanistan was the end user of their facilities. MY SOURCES TOLD ME (emphasis mine) that they were coming to the United States for training as terrorists, and they would be sent back to Afghanistan. But then the countries that had originally had supplied them certainly didn't want them back. These were people that had been given skills in overthrowing governments, destroying armored columns and things like this, and the various governments in the region frankly didn't want them back, because they thought they might apply these skills at home."
"CBC: If the CIA had a relationship with the people responsible for September 11, are you suggesting that they are in some way complicit?"
"Springmann: Even through omission or failure to act."
"CBC: Do you have any evidence, any paperwork from all of these years that might go towards supporting all of this?"
"Springmann: Regrettably not. I had something at some point. My predecessor in Jeddah had begun a file of people with peculiar attributes who got had got visas. I kept it up, I added to it. I learned later on after I had left, that this file had been mysteriously been shredded."
"CBC: But you're quite sure that Mohammed Atta and others had their visas issued in Jeddah?"
"Springmann: This is what I was told by reading an article in the Los Angeles Times."
(http://www.911review.org/Wiki/CiaVisasForPatsies.shtml)
Evidence? Regrettably not? LOL....this is like your Emperor's-Clothes.com citation, which itself cited 'Le Figaro'? "The Figaro article unfortunately is not documented - that is, we only have the word of the author, Alexandra Richard, that the report is true. (6)" http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm
Ok, so let's follow the bouncing ball:
KB cites Palast
Palast cites Springmann
Springmann cites.....his "sources"
Springmann had documentary evidence, but it was shredded "regrettably"
Springmann cites the LA Times as proof that Atta got his visa in Jeddah
Where in that equation to you have anything constituting proof? When do we ever reach solid ground and get some proof?
Does Springmann say that he personally knew that persons from Saudi Arabia, applying for visas to the US, who HE rejected were given visas anyway? Yes. Ok, I'll buy that part. However, once you jump from that to "Afghanistan was the end user of their facilities", you've left the realm of proof and entered the land of conjecture. What's worse, Springmann can't tie these guys to bin Laden, either. Wasn't that the premise of OUR argument?
Mind you, this information is from www.911review.org, which is a fanatically loony-toons site. These are the guys saying that the 9/11 "hijacker patsies" are still running around alive, citing www.welfarestate.com/911/. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rock on Eagles!!!
Judging by the insanity on this thread, seems to me you've ruffled the feathers of one who, even you, would defend. More power to you.
And Thanks Again!!! - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3KB: "Actually, the REALLY TRUE WARRIORS, though the notion of warrior is itself rather pathetic in this day and age, should just leave on their own or refuse to go, like Watada. HE is a patriot. He has my full support."
Ok, my head is spinning from that one.
1. Are you saying that Watada is the "really true warrior", a patriot with your full support?
-or-
2. That REALLY TRUE WARRIORS are rather pathetic?
-or-
3. Both?
I'd tear this one apart, but for the life of me don't know whether you're singing someone's praise or insulting them. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, KB's response to my explanation about Cindy Sheehan's actions bringing disgrace to her son, Casey, really seem to have sent him off the deep end. Too bad Michelle Malkin already published "Unhinged". Maybe she'll do "Unhinged 2: Wrath of KB".
Highlights:
KB: "And if I were Sheehan's surviving son, and this giy had been my brother, I'd probably have walked into your house and pulled a Stone on you."
....yaaaawwwwnnnn.........gas
---------------------------------------------------
KB: "That ALL parents are not pissed and doing exactly what Sheehan is is what's pathetic and sad."
Ahhh...I get it. Cindy is right and all those other grieving parents are wrong. Wow....she must be quite a lady. She has no class, no cogent arguments, and no respect for the life Casey chose or the death that claimed him. She's on her 15th hour of fame, so I think she owes us 14 hours 45 minutes back.
-----------------------------------------------------
KB: "fighting itself has nothing to do with what's being fought about is good or not"
Hey, you may have a point there, but who decides? I think Casey gets a vote, and I think his vote counts a hell of a lot more than Cindy Sheehans's.
------------------------------------------------------
KB: "You simple-minded fu*k. It brings disgrace on no one other than the crimal asses who sent him to his needless death to admit that her son was killed in a war which wasn't worth it."
Wow...lots of sputtering and profanity there. You seem well under control...not.
By the way, since you decided to let go with some profanity, how about I call you a gutless, b@ll-less coward who isn't worthy of even thinking about Casey Sheehan, or any other fallen warrior, let alone talking or writing about them? I imagine you are the very guy John Stuart Mill had in mind when he wrote, ""War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-----------------------------------------------------
KB: "I assume that you think that Mark Klass is grandstanding, too, after his dauther was murdered, etc...."
Actually KB, once again...that is called a "Straw Man Argument". I never mentioned Mark Klass. You really are very bad at this debating thing.
------------------------------------------------------
KB: "I just read one of her articles yesterday and was surprised how much more intelligent she is than I thought before"
Oh, good gracious! You're kidding me? "Cindy Sheehan on May 12, 2006 published a letter titled "Oh no, Canada".[21] In the letter, she wrote that the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was "wildly unpopular from coast to coast up north and there is a growing sense of unease about his emulation of a very unpopular person in the USA but even more in Canada: George Bush." However, two days prior to the letter's publication SES Research released the results of a poll[22] indicating approval for the Prime Minister in every part of the country. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan)
You mean that brain-child?
"Sheehan has come under criticism for a number of comments, including one which she wrote on the Daily Kos Sheehan blog on September 24, 2005, concering Hurricane Rita:
"I am watching CNN and it is 100 percent Rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!" [43]
In response to the blog, she recieved criticisms such as "the right-wing media has painted [her] as a self-centered, self-absorbed woman and [she is] living up to that image". [44] These comments made by Sheehan are no longer available at Daily Kos."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_and_criticism_of_Cindy_Sheehan#Family_of_other_military_personnel_killed_in_Iraq)
Or how about this piece of insightful writing?
"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."
(http://www.slate.com/id/2124788/sidebar/2124791/)
She's a loon. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm sorry, this is the whole Milt Bearden quote:
"Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did, but did I say that this tall, slim, ascetic Saudi was instrumental? No, I did not. There were a lot of bin Ladens who came to do jihad, and they unburdened us a lot. These guys were bringing in up to twenty to twenty-five million dollars a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra two hundred to three hundred million dollars a year. And this is what bin Laden did. He spent most of the war as a fund-raiser, in Peshawar. He was not a valiant warrior on the battlefield."
THE REAL BIN LADEN
New Yorker | 1-24-2000 | MARY ANNE WEAVER - sherman50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"No reason to pretend like FARC is somehow equal to the AUC."
Haha. I was just pulling your chain. I know you didn't mention FARC cuz you support them. Anyone who spouts some Marxist/communist crap at some point will always get the support of the Chomskyite totalitarian brigades.
"Okay, well that's all fine and dandy, but were the roles reversed, ALL of you, and I mean everyone of you, would be screaming that it was the country who supported the company, how they must have known better, that everyone was responsible, etc....as ALWAYS happens, i.e., another example of your hypocrisy."
Wrong. Your strawmen are weak. If governments caught and punished guilty companies and individuals we would have no problem. But you prefer to play stupid.
"Hey, personally, I don't believe that the entire U.S. should be held responsible for the actions of one company either,"
Pretty much contradicts half the things you have ever written. Liar.
"Look at you trying to construct your apologetics even when the company has admitted to supporting terrorists. Pathetic."
Liar. I'm glad my government punished them.
"The thought that this should happen to a U.S. company is simply unimaginable to you, isn't it? THIS, squirmwood, is a sign of SEVERE indoctrination, too."
It's unimaginable because the US government has jurisdiction over punishing them and can prosecute them in a court of law. Also, there is no need to use military force when prosecuting the Chiquita company because they are not an armed force that will shoot at police trying to issue a warrant. Your roundabout way of trying to condemn the US for crushing the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and liberating more than 20 million people is a pathetic joke. Take your Chomskyite double think and go jerk off to a poster of bin Laden.
"My boy"? I'm from the left, dumbass."
Your opposition to Saddam was exposed as a fraud. The Chomskyites flip flopped because you're just anti-American. It's the only thing that you're consistent at. Once again I'll say that your sore loser fanaticism is a joke. Communism is dead and your excitement that maybe Hugo Chavez will do it right this time is the saddest thing I've ever see. - sherman50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And? This makes it better? They funded the right-wing death squads as well as those fighting for the people, i.e., the ones normally considered to be the terrorists?"
I just find it interesting that you didn't mention FARC, that's all, no need to throw a fit.
"What do you mean "Where is the hypocrisy"? It's right in front of your face where it usually is, but which you don't see because the cataracts of indoctrination are just a little too thick. We say that other countries can't support terrorism, and we support terrorism. You act as if this is something unusual."
No "we" didn't support terrorism. One company paid protection money to some terrorist groups and they were prosecuted and punished by the US government when it was found out what they did.
"Really? The government started bombing Chiquita into oblivion, looking for the managers who did this so that they, like Saddam, who killed far less, could be hanged? Really? I'll have to go turn on the tube. I must have missed this one."
Excuse me, are you playing stupid? Does the Chiquita company have a band of heavily armed fanatics that have killed many people? Do they have training camps to be bombed? Do they control a country? Have they ordered attacks on anybody? No, they are a single company that paid protection money to some thugs. To compare them to a totalitarin government that has killed millions of people is so dumb not even you can truly believe it.
I love how you slipped in a sly defense of your boy Saddam. Nice little Chomskyite doublethink. - NotaSlickFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sherman50: Don't even bother with the "kababble" thing. "It" is useless, worthless and ignorant of reality and can only spew mindless and unsupportable tirades of worthless lies. "Kababble" is not worth responding to. When I see "it" is present on a post I first chuckle, then pray that the poor, dumb, weirdo gets some (major amounts of) mental help. I tried to reason with "it" a few times b4 but I soon found out I (as well as the rest of the net) was dealing with a BTK/Unabomber kind of brainless moronic simpleton.
Lets just sit back and hope “It” forgets to know how to ride “It’s” tricycle. Loony’s like “kababble” either end up in an asylum/prison or are lost in the dust of history/time. In this case, either way serves humanity to the best. Later toad “kababble”. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3blah, blah, blah, blah
And The Gathering of Eagles was Still a fabulous success! - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hey KB, let's just skip to the chase: when you say the CIA created bin Laden, are you just saying that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets? I'm tired of these debates with you where there is no firm ground to touch because your position keeps slightly altering. If you saying
that because:
1. CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
2. bin Laden was in Pakistan supporting Arab jihadis traveling to Pakistan to support the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan
that therefore:
3. The CIA supported/created bin Laden
let me know. If your position is something else, please lay that out in a very concise statement of position. If you can't do that, I don't have time for your arguments. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3KB: "manchu said: KB: "The Reagan-bin Laden killer brigade, skilled in such crafts as skinning Russian prisoners alive, blew back with a sickening vengeance"
KB: "Making up quotes now, are we, manchu. I did NOT say the above sentence, though it's somewhat accurate."
You don't even read the crap you copy-paste into your own posts, do you?
From KB on 3/20/07
KB: "But terrorists are like homing pigeons -- they have a bad habit of coming home to roost. In spook-world, it's known as "blow back." The Reagan-bin Laden killer brigade, skilled in such crafts as skinning Russian prisoners alive, blew back with a sickening vengeance. That story ran world wide at the top of the BBC nightly news -- except in the USA where it bounced off the electronic Berlin Wall. Our media was careful not to wake America from its nap, to hide the deeply disturbing truths behind Grandpa Gipper's grin."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5715"
Are you schizo or something, KB? Do you have two personalities alternating posting replies? - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3KB: "My statement are always concise and you have never demonstrated them not to be. As a matter of fact, this is usually the reason you don't like them, they're quite concise, just as my demonstration above was demonstrating that you lied. Can't get much more concise than the above. Anyway, your lies aside, this basically sums up my argument, though probably much more eloquently.
http://struggle.ws/issues/war/chomsky_b26_sept19.html"
LOL...KB, your article is 2,097 words long. This is what you consider a "concise statement" of your position? By the way, those are Chomsky's words, not yours. Don't YOU have any words on this subject?
Never mind. I got it. I'm done with you on this subject. You will not state your position in your own words in a concise way. I won't chase you around anymore as your position changes. - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3KB: "I've never said the words above which is what you implied. You put KB: "......" as if I said the words. Just more evidence of deceit and lying."
LOL....now that's rich. So you're just copying and pasting for the hell of it? 'This is what this guy says, not that I believe it or anything'. What a loser.
No, you threw that in because 1) you agreed with it, or 2) you thought it helped make your point. I'm not in a written shoot-out with whatever jackass really wrote those lines originally, I'm engaging you in debate. If you don't support the guy's characterizations, why quote them?
What a weasly attempt to side-step
-----------------------------
KB: "YOU screw up and lie, and now accuse me of being crazy because I pointed out your deceit"
I really do feel like I'm debating a crazy person now. YOU post something, I quote your posting of that thing, then you act like you've NEVER LAID EYES ON IT BEFORE......now you think I'm lying about what you said? HEY DUMBASS....if you don't want the quotes associated with you...DON'T USE THEM.
------------------------------------------------
KB: "Anyway, manchu, don't you EVER admit when you were wrong? Told you it would bite you on your arse. It's funny that it only took a day."
Unlike you, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I have no issue with that. That's what being a man is about: personal accountability. You, on the other hand, are now weasling out from under the words in the quotes YOU cite to defend your positions. YOU are the one who blames right-wing Digg administrators for making your posts disappear (http://digg.com/world_news/The_Democrats_embrace_hateful_new_imam). YOU are the one who takes the clear meanings of YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL GODFATHER out of their stated texts when confronted with them (also http://digg.com/world_news/The_Democrats_embrace_hateful_new_imam.)
You could tell me something would bite me in the @ss right now and say it only took a second to happen...that doesn't make it true. If you have some real points to debate, please bring them up. Your constant shifting of blame onto others is tiresome. - Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Rock on Eagles!!!
Judging by the insanity on this thread, seems to me you've ruffled the feathers of one who, even you, would defend. More power to you.
And Thanks Again!!!
I hope to see more of it. It's nice to show the world there's more to America than idiots wearing Pink! - manchu2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2KB: (referring to Victor Davis Hanson) "He's NOT a military historian, nor does anyone believe he is to my knowledge. He's playing his role. He works for a right-wing "think tank", plays with National Review, this alone should say enough, and even allows himself to be lowered into the pit of depravity, Frontpage Magazine, which DOES say enough."
Hmmmm....there's a lot of wiggle room in that "nor does anyone believe he is to my knowledge". However, to provide some knowledge to you:
Victor Davis Hanson (born 1953 in Fowler, California) is a neo-conservative military historian, columnist, political essayist and former classics professor, best known as a scholar of ancient warfare as well as a commentator on modern warfare.
- (held) the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002–03)
Wrote the following books:
- Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. University of California Press, 1983. ISBN 0-520-21025-5
- The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Alfred A. Knopf, 1989. ISBN 0-394-57188-6
- Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, editor, Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0-415-04148-1
- The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, Free Press, 1999. ISBN 0-684-84502-4
- The Wars of the Ancient Greeks: And the Invention of Western Military Culture, Cassell, 1999. ISBN 0-304-35222-5
- Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, Doubleday, 2001. ISBN 0-385-50052-1
Published in the UK as Why the West Has Won: Carnage and Culture from Salamis to Vietnam, Faber, 2001. ISBN 0-571-20417-1
- A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, Random House, 2005. ISBN 1-4000-6095-8
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson)
By the way, Hanson says he's a registered Democrat, for what that's worth.
Ahhh, but I can see why you wouldn't consider him a historian. After all, the pseudonymous Werther, "a Northern Virginia based defense analyst" says "Let us stipulate straightaway: Victor Davis Hanson is the worst historian since Parson Weems". That's quite a stipulation on his part! (http://www.counterpunch.org/werther09072005.html)
Add to that the fact that Gary Brecher, the much heralded "war nerd", thinks Hanson is "one of these snotty ***** with three names: Victor Davis Hanson. Oh, sorry: Doctor Victor David Hanson". Clearly, "Every war nerd on the net knows more about what's happening in Iraq than he does."
(http://www.exile.ru/2005-July-28/victor_hanson.html)
I can understand how you think Hanson's association with FrontPage Magazine "does say enough" (though you don't ever articulate what exactly that does say). David Horowitz, Editor in Chief? Good gracious! Bat Ye'or? Saints Preserve Us! Charles Krauthammer....Robert Spencer.....Dennis Prager...does it ever end? Wow....that's so....conservative....that must be prima facie evidence of some kind of war crime or something.
What a loon you are.
Pretty damning stuff....yaaawwwnnn. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
