The amazing aspect of this story is that AP doesn't bat an eye over the fact that this captain was offended by a bulls-eye poster of Osama bin Laden, or by his completely fantastic assertion that "hundreds of Muslims," presumably in the US, were being killed because "people believed they were involved" in 9/11.
What would the reaction have been if a German-American in 1942 complained about a bulls-eye poster of Hitler? Anyway, this also departs from the party line, the one that the media still retails: that the vast majority of Muslims abhor and condemn bin Laden. If we are to believe the conventional wisdom, this captain should have brought in the poster himself, not been offended by it. (Thanks to Teri for the link.)
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A police captain testified Tuesday that he suffered retaliation for complaining about a sergeant who brought in a "bull's-eye" poster of Osama bin Laden seven days after the Sept. 11 attacks.Khalid Mohammed Syed, 49, was the first witness on the first day of trial of his civil-rights suit against the city.
A native of Pakistan and a U.S. citizen since 1981, Syed joined the Philadelphia police department in 1990. He said the poster incident made him "scared for my life" and "terrified" his wife and two young children.
"I just could not believe that someone would have brought that poster in at a time like that," Syed testified, "at a time when hundreds of Muslims were being killed because people believed they were involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Within six months, Syed was accused by students in one of his police academy classes of making a derogatory comment about gays, joking about the al-Qaeda terrorist network, and suggesting some recruits try drugs to stay awake in class.
And this is supposed to be retaliation for complaining about the poster? Well, maybe it was. Maybe his students got the impression that if poking fun at Osama offended him, maybe he was on Al-Qaeda's side. What would have been unreasonable about that?
Post 9-11, lots of south asian cabbies in NYC (not necessarily muslims all) bought and displayed the US flag in their cabs as some sort of protection against possible hostility from the general populace.
Well, I guess an Osama bulls-eye or an Osama pants-down poster would've added to the security, eh?
A poster made him terrified for his life?? What a moron. What did osama have to do with him...if Im not mistaking, muslims in the US ...ASSURED us that osama was "not a muslim" that his actions and those of the hijackers were "un-islamic"...obviously just words. Muslims in the police force are the same as muslims in the armed forces....hard to know if they can be trusted...if faced with shooting a fellow muslim or saving his infidel partners life...what would a true muslim do? I know that many officers think this way, and with good reason, it is their life on the line
"Hundreds of Muslims were being killed"? Not a single Muslim has been killed in the United States, except those who have been killed -- such as one who dared to be a Muslim reformer in Arizona -- by fellow Muslims.
One Sikh was killed by an individual madman, not a lynch mob (the irony of this, since the Sikhs have always been fierce opponents of Islam, and under Muslim rule suffered a great deal; the Patna Conspiracy was originally a Jihad ordered against the Sikhs, and then expanded to include Hindus). And a Jewish seminary student was shot and killed, some years ago, by Muslims showing their support for the Jihad against Israel. End of story.
Not only should the suit be thrown out, but the captain, for his nonsense and lies, ought to be discharged. If he is offended by a poster showing Bin Laden as a target, he is in the wrong country. He is in the wrong civilization. He got off at the wrong stop. Really, he should rethink where his loyalties lie -- the loyalties he swore when he took the oath of citizenship. Does he remember that day, and what he said?
Please follow up on this story. It has all the right ingredients.
And as we all know, our courts are a nonviolent battlefield in the same Jihad waged by bin Ladan, the struggle for Allah to dominate the lands of the Infidel.
Turn the corrupt society and immoral rules of the Infidel against him...
The sooner we wake up to that and take legislative action, the better.
Oh yes, and if folks check reported hate crimes in the FBI stats for 2002-3...although there is an increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims, hate crimes against Jews are still more numerous, as I recall.
... Syed testified, "at a time when hundreds of Muslims were being killed because people believed they were involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks.
WTF? Excuse me? Where? Not in America. As best I can recall, a couple of cabbies were pulled out and beaten up in Brooklyn, and ONE Sikh was killed out west when a conservative republican decided to act like a conservative Muslim.
I frequent several liberal websites and I don't recall any reports of Muslims being killed because people believed (KNEW) they were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Much less "hundreds".
Now compare that to what would happen in a Muslim nation if a bunch of non-Muslims highjacked some planes and killed one-out-of-every thousand people in their nation, wiped out 1 percent of their economy, and destroyed three of their greatest buildings. There would be lynch mobs everywhere killing men, women, children, and pets. Any good Muslim that came to their defense would also be targetted.
It could be he was refering to military action in Afghanistan, but he sure makes it sound like vigilante mob action here at home.
Yeah, Muslims, Christians, pretty much everyone is damn good at pretending that they are "soooo oppressed." Even you right-wingers do this crap, so don't tell me about the PC crowd.
I remember at USF when this shit went down the Muslim boys would "bravely" offer to escort the Muslim sextoys (girls) to their cars... like anyone was going to hurt them. Please. Now you'd think that IF they REALLY were scared, they'd wear clothes instead of those little tents they wear. But noooooo. They HAVE to make sure EVERYBODY knows how holy they are. Naturally the menfolk blend right in.
I can't help it, but whenever I see a muslim girl shuffling around in the burqa and headjob, I imagine that she is thinking to herself, "I'm so oppressed by this decadent western culture. That tree over there is a Zionist. That bird that's flying by hates palestinians. All men want to rape me, but my burqa will protect me. I feel sorry for these western women and their "fashions." (etc.)"
I have to keep reminding myself that they are brainwashed from an early age to hate life and hate everything about life except their cult. I have to make myself pity them, instead of hate them. Sometimes it's hard being a liberal.
I remember one day walking through a parking lot to class and I saw a muslim kid at his car... he had a piece of Arabic calligraphy hanging from his rear-view mirror. He was examining, and then trying to remove, a piece of chewing gum from the hood of his car. Presumably it was thrown there by someone that didn't like his taste in rear-view mirror hangings. He looked pretty angry and sad.
I felt a little sorry for him, but no too much. Kind of like, I felt sorry for John McCain when the GOPers slandered him in the SC primaries... but I didn't say anything, because he may have recognized me as someone that regularly harassed the ubiquitous dawah booth, and maybe even accused me of the crime.
Oh, I didn't see Hugh's mention of the Sikh incident. Sorry for the redundant reduncdancy.
In case any of you would like a printable and very un-PC Osama target for your very own, they can be had here:
http://warhammer.mcc.virginia.edu/ty/targets.html
KeithJoy~ could you provide a link to the killing of that Sikh? I am curious to read that one.
KeithJoy~ I have just read 8 different stories relating to Frank Roque, if that is the person you are referring to.
Not One mentions political affiliation.
Why are you such a lying suck?
Provide the links.
Offended by a poster of making BinLaden a target? Give me a break! How did this police captain attain his rank? Certainly not by moving up through the rough and tumble of any organization, not with that thin skin.
This reminds me of the British jail guard that was fired for throwing a set of keys at a poster of Bin Laden, fired for offending the sensibilities of Muslim PRISONERS. The police captain incident is equally absurd.
I wonder if he identifies with Bin Laden as he felt threatned by that poster. His reaction speaks to his psychological make up. As do other Muslims, he expects special treatment.
As Americans were on the lookout for terrorists that "look the part," whether or not the poster existed, he would have noticed on the job and in the community.
As Hugh has said, thousands of Muslims were not killed or hurt in this country. This is a blatant lie. He expects special treatment and thus puts himself in harm's way. This man is a liability and can not be trusted.
Keith,
I'm surprised you didn't include liberals in your list of people who complain they're soooooooo oppressed. A fine example of slant if I ever saw one.
By way of example, I find it interesting that the 527 groups such as moveon.org produce multiple attack ads on Bush, and there's not one sound from him or his campaign. The Swift Boat Vets produce one or two ads attacking Kerry, and he's out there complaining bitterly about it. Sooooooo oppressed. And I don't care if you believe them or not - the example of behaviour is the point.
And Gary is correct as far as I know from what I've read - no political affiliation is mentioned that I can find, which makes your comment basically libel.
Why is it so goddamn hard for people here to keep from being so partisan??!!!
Being opposed to jihad and fundamentalist Islam is NOT a right-wing/left-wing issue. If it were, Dubya wouldn't be kissing Saudi butt and holding hands with Wahhabbist polygamist jerks in sunglasses.
I'm sorry, but I'm really upset at how many people use these forums to advance religious-political ideologies which, frankly, add nothing to the cause.
kafira,
Sorry to be so partisan, but I try never to start the fray. To me, we are all in the same boat - those of us who actually have a choice to be partisan, and the Islamic move to subjugate us all. However, I will respond to those who do start it, if nothing more than to point out that being partisan on this site is detrimental.
I think we also have a very partisan season here in the U.S.A., what with the presidential election coming up in a couple of months. Things are bound to heat up at this time.
Kafira, you hit the nail right on the head. I agree with you totally. It really makes me so angry to see people trying to advance their right wing causes on this forum.
And Keithjoy always seems to be the whipping boy around here. Yet his posts are more intelligent than many others which appear here.
Why don't we all pull together?
Aaah, my good friends....
But partisanship within limits can be beneficial indeed. Unless there's competition in the market place for ideas and competition within the 2 major parties on who's gonna do what in the war against jihad, where from will the incentive (not invective, mind you) come to novelty, innovation and ultimately progress?
Ok, don't wanna hurt partisan feelings here. Me, I like Bush the man over Kerry but Dems the party over the Repubs. Sad combo, I'd say.
Kafira - Blatant partisanship is used because each side believes the other with go after the jihadists in an unacceptable way, putting us at greater risk. Eventually and begrudgingly we will learn to pull together in order to survive.
And the religious context is inescapable as Islam is a politicized ideology masquerading as a religion. If allowed, the jihadists will force this "religion" on us.
Kafira~ Do you believe KeithJoy has the right to make unsubstantiated claims? That is exactly what he did with the jibe about the murder of that Sikh. Look up the articles yourself. KJ wants it to be a 'conservative republican' but he can't offer ANY proof. He just as regularly puts words in people's mouths (claiming we have called him a communist, which I have not found in a Single thread here since I came here 4 months ago), Assumes things about us that are NOT true, and ignore Every and ALL statements or answers from us when he does ask a question, instead wondering why we haven't answered them, or haven't answered questions which he never asked.
Leftist Takkyia. We provide links to Documented Facts and words of those he supports, he tosses acrimony and supposition, and never provides a link to prove any of it.
Partisan? Not from me. Tho I am sure he can manufacture a few things, or 'quote' myself and others (while leaving out the things that prove him wrong).
I wonder....is this guy being backed by others who are testing how much they can limit society's freedom of speech? There are some people who would love to make it illegal for westerners to express our emotions in public. Or is this guy just mad/crazy/paranoid.
And kj? when you come back to slander people here, drop the 'you called me a communist' bull. I read back thru every thread I could on both JW and DW, and never found one instance of someone labelling you, like you label us.
You are a Liar if you bring it up again.
Moslems should not be allowed in either law enforcement or the armed forces in the US. Yes, yes, I know, there may be "good" ones, more loyal to the US than to Islam, but how can you tell?
Kajira, you may notice that I usually don’t start the political argument. I answer lies from those that do start them. You can plainly see that Gary lies and lies. He says he’s non-partisan. Go to jihadwatch.com, and scroll down to the article from September 8 entitled “Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide.”
Now click on the ‘comments’ link and see the very first comment by our “non partisan” Gary. Keep in mind that this is the FIRST comment on the page, not an answer or snappy retort to some lib’rul leftist taqqiya. He says:
Will this mean that:
1. They will consult with France first?
2. They will consult with the UN?
3. They will go at it 'unilaterally'?
Pre-emptive.... Hmmm. I wonder if Kerry & Co. will now compare President Bush to Stalin instead of Hitler. Or not. That would create a conflict of interest, since Stalin was a communist. The kind of person Chomsky, et al tend to believe in, over and above the US.
And Israel is going to partner with them, eh? I can just see the gears grinding to a halt in leftist brains…
So you can see for yourselves that Gary is a partisan hack who is ALWAYS looking for an excuse to lie about lib’ruls, leftists, Kerry, etc. ALWAYS. Yeah Gary, I imagine that Israel-hating liberals like David Duke, Mel Gibson and Pat Buchanon have their brain gears grind to a halt, aren’t they?
Gary knows that the GOPers have sent out the order to hype up the phony “Kerry will seek approval from France before fighting terror” and “George W. Bush will NEVER need a permission slip to attack terrorists” blather, and he’s doing his level best to bring it up at every opportunity (as are certain unnamed web loggers.)
Gary tries and tries to change the subject: And kj? when you come back to slander people here, drop the 'you called me a communist' bull. I read back thru every thread I could on both JW and DW, and never found one instance of someone labelling you, like you label us. You are a Liar if you bring it up again.
He also tried this charade earlier on this comments page by claiming that he never said I was a communist, so why do I put words in his mouth, and then, “oh, kj must think its part of a conspiracy.” (Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.)
Yes Gary, it’s conspiratorial for you to say “…Stalin… the kind of person Chomsky et al. tend to believe in…” and then for me think that you presume that I believe in Stalin (over and above the USA no less.) I guess you didn’t come right out and call me a commie, but it’s pretty easy to read between the lines.
I guess I could imagine that when Son Of Infidel said above that the leftists need to be handled the same way as the Jihadis (its at the comments link for the jihadwatch.com September 11 entry) he’s not directly suggesting that “we” need to be killed, but it’s pretty easy to read between the lines.
Walkerclot, Gary, just like your adeptness in pretending that you are sooo oppressed (like constantly bringing up the mythical “lib’rul media”) you are quite handy at using lawyer-speak to try to “prove” your point.
As for the guy killing the Sikh being a conservative republican, and me being slanderous, (or as colt whanker said, "basically libel")... SO SUE ME. It’s called “humor”; look into the concept. (LOL… imagine poor Gary, his livid, angry rictus before his monitor, scrambling from one site to another for hours, wasting precious time he could be slandering Kerry (D-Hero) trying to find the voting affiliation of the murderer…. LOL… it couldn’t have been any better for me! BTW Gary, if you still want to be proven wrong, here’s a hint: voting registrations are public records; that’s why we know that “independent” Bill O’Reilly is really a republican.)
And Gary, did I understand you to recently lament the brazen jihadis in “central Ontario”? Do I take it then that you live in Ontario? In other words, are you "not even" an American? Please answer.
Anyway, you’re probably right Gary. After all, the KKK was liberal, the militias are liberal, the Nazis were liberal, the White Supremacists are liberal… it seems every group of cold-hearted killers is liberal, eh? Whenever you hear about a foreigner being targeted for murder because of the “way he looks” you can be pretty sure it was a leftist liberal that did it, because, after all, we are the ones that are always whining about how evil the foreigners are and how they “need to be dealt with.” Shyeah right.
Somone opines: I wonder....is this guy being backed by others who are testing how much they can limit society's freedom of speech? There are some people who would love to make it illegal for westerners to express our emotions in public. Or is this guy just mad/crazy/paranoid.
No, Gary is just conservative, that’s all. He decides he is right and that anyone that disagrees with him is wrong, even before the argument starts. (See the “drilling ANWAR argument from Sept. 8 jihadwatch article mentioned above.) And buddy, if you want to see the limits of free speech, go check out the militia websites, the council of conservative citizens website, www.freerepublic.com, or www.rotten.com.
Gary has already decided that anything bad which befalls the world is the fault of the dreaded lib’ruls, and anything good which comes around is owed to the con-rep Nazis. So he scours this site (and probably others) looking for places to get some jabs in about how evil Kerry, Clinton, Hitlery, etc. are.
Exasperated, Kajira asks, Why is it so goddamn hard for people here to keep from being so partisan??!!!
Because conservatives hate everyone that isn’t a conservative like them, and because I am one (of the few, alas) Liberals that won’t let them walk all over me. I’ve reddened Gary’s little candy ass on many occasions, and he always fires back with Send a link for proof! as if he’d really believe the link. Gary, here is a link for you once and for all pertaining to the Swiftboat Liars for Draftdodging Presidents:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html
Did you go? Now, do you believe a word of it? Of course not, for the same reason you don’t believe a word of what Mike Moore says. If it is derogatory of President Gump, it MUST NOT BE TRUE. I could send you a dozen or a hundred links; it wouldn’t change one synapse in your pea-sized reptilian brain. Why do you need me to send you a link? Don’t you have a search engine?
Like any good conspiracy theorist, you are constantly lumping other people into “the bad guy” category. Thus it has gone for Whoopi Goldberg, Mike Moore, the Dixie Chicks, Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, Linda Ronstadt, etc. etc. the list goes on and on. Everyone that DARES to think that Bush did a substandard job HATES AMERICA, HATE CAPITALISM, LOVES ISLAM, etc. etc. etc.
Gary, when I first came here I told you I was a Marine, and you COULD NOT BELIEVE IT (and still might not) because I wasn’t all for President aWol. That’s what conservatism is all about, babe. You start with your conclusions and then look for “facts” to back it up. So for instance, you start with the conclusion that the media is all leftist, liberal, commies that hate America; and that conservatives can’t get a word in edgewise. And every time that is repeated by Cal Thomas, George Will, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Tony Snow, John Scarborough (R-Murderer), Bill O’Reilly, Mike Medved, Mancow, Imus, Glenn Beck, Liddy, Dr. Whora, Mike the Savage Weiner, Ollie North (the ex-Marine traitor), everyone at Fux News, everyone at the Washington Moonie Times, everyone at the Wall Street Journal, and the rest of the GOP echo-chamber media, you believe it a little more.
Again, if you read all the comments from the Sept. 8 jihadwatch article I mentioned earlier, you will see that I explained the problem with Gary: This is the expected outcome when you reach your conclusion before you even hear the facts of the argument, and for you and your ilk the conclusion is always the same: the lib'ruls are wrong; the lib'ruls are evil.
Gary, as for me "not answering your questions" it seems to me that I do. One thing I don't do is go back to check again and again to see if some misguided fool has challenged me weeks after the original post; e.g. after today, I probably won't check the ass-reddening I handed you about drilling the ANWAR that started on September 8th. (You could always continue to lose the argument on a more recent comments page.) Despite what you might hope about lib'rul leftists loosers like me, I DO have a job. My boss has been a republican every since Reagan (R-Beirut) invaded Grenada to "punish the commies" DAYS after Hezbollah killed 241 US Marines.
Gary, while you are in jail, take some time to learn to think clearly. Why don't you read the intro to James Carville's book "We're Right, They're Wrong, And I Can Prove It" where he describes how he came home from the Marines to Lousiana in 1963 and switched overnight from conservative to liberal, kind of the opposite for what David Horowitz did.
By the way, my GOP-leaning anti-jihadi friends.
I admit my side is wrong on some issues. I can only find the truth about Islam at right-wing sights, I confess. I also dabble at littlegreenfootballs.com. I am constantly trying to convince other liberals to come to our side and see the truth about Islam and jihad. But it doesnt' help OUR cause to throw in the snide remarks about Kerry, Hitlery, Momma Ketchup, Jimmy Carter, etc. It will only alienate liberal peaceniks and pollyannas even more.
Some liberals can also be idealogues. Like on the issue of Israel and "palestine." But I try to convince them of the truth, not call them "fifth column socialists, Marxists, Maoists, Leninist, communists" etc. etc.
For this reason I ask you all again to tone down the petty political rhetoric and stick to the topics at hand. This way the occasional wayward liberal that does happen upon this site (as I did so long ago) won't be put off, and won't be left thinking that Islam "isn't so bad" and is just "being victimized by the conservatives."
And for those of you that are unwilling or unable to act decently, look for my size 13 boot to give you the redass.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go prepare myself and my family for our THIRD hurricane evacuation in a month. (I guess God must be mad at Florida, eh, Mr. Falwell?)
And here's another earfull for you "patriotic" phonies.... looks like I wrote it around the time hurricane Charley hit Florida, but I forgot to post it.
You are a bunch of liars.
You use so-called truth, reason, and logic, but just read the post previous to this one:
PS: As long as the Homosexuals stay in the closet, they are not a threat to world peace.
Posted by: Son of Infidel
Ooooh yeah, reeeeeal logical there Son. I guess you and Al Sadr are in complete agreement there.
Unlike most of you, I have a life, and a job. I also have a baby and one on the way. And I spent the weekend driving my little family all over Florida. I just don't have time to debate all of you, over and over. This is the way it usually goes: I see a post here in a comments section that tells some lies about Kerry, Clinton, or the other lib'ruls. I write back. Immediately, five or ten people write back that I hate America, that I am having a queer affair with Kerry and/or Mike Moore, that I am a commie faggot, that I hate America, that Bush is a war hero, etc. etc. If I take time to answer every blustery charge, I am immediately swamped with more sputum about Clinton's refusal to take custody of Osama bin Laden when he was "offered on a silver platter" (oh yeah, I love that one. An Arab Muslim Jihadi that controls Sudan was going to give the Great Satan another Arab Muslim Jihadi. Yeah.) and that Gore would have surrendered to the Taliban, etc. etc. Eventually, I just don't have time to answer ten different accusers again and again. If I dare to say that someone "looks good in brown lipstick" that is "a vicious personal slur" and my "only" tactic.
The phony patriots are free to call me a drug addict, hippy, communist, faggot, muslim, and anything else. Unlike the cowardly bunch that come here to whine about the lib'ruls, I am a former US Marine and can take an insult.
I am an anti-jihadi and have proven that on many occasions. You dipsh*ts come here to whine about Kerry, Clinton, and the lib'ruls, first and foremost.
You dismissively claim that you couldn't convince any liberals to realize the truth about jihad but I tell you that isn't the case. First of all, many of my liberal friends, including many in college (gasp!) think the same way I do about Islam in general and jihad in particular. I know you would rather not believe it, but it’s true. And some that didn't know the truth have learned it from me and accepted it. I could steer a lot of them to this site if it wasn't so blatantly partisan (the comments section mostly but also to some degree the articles... e.g. no mention of the Pakistani spy reporting on Alqaeda that was ousted by Bush & Co. after the DNC convention. Jesus Christ, what a bungle… just imagine what a rare gift it is to actually have a SPY in Alqaeda… oh well, too bad.)
Even at the biggest rallies for Dr. Al Aryan, no more than a hundred "pro" students showed up in support of him.... out of 42,000 students.
College isn't the hotbed of communist-liberal-antiAmerican-proIslam sentiment that you wish it was. (But when everything you know about college has come from Bill O'Really and Dr. Whora, I can see why.) Sure, maybe 500 would show up for the same thing at Berkely or Stanford. But they probably can't even get five at Pepperdine or Bob Jones.
I only have a little time, so let me just address the issue of Bush and Kerry.
Bush was a "C" student in high school (and a girlie man cheerleader!) and was admitted to Yale because his daddy went to Yale.
Bush was a "C" student at Yale and passed over hundreds of men on a waiting list to join the Texas Air National Guard because his daddy was a senator (at the time.)
Bush scored in the lowest 25% of the aptitude test for pilots, but was handed a slot in pilot school because his daddy was a pilot. He was trained to fly a plane that had been phased out of production, a plane that was not used in Vietnam.
Bush didn't even complete his tour of duty, because he wanted to work for a political campaign for his daddy's friend in Alabama.
Bush never made a dime in the "oil business" and was bailed out again and again by wealthy Saudis and other Bush Sr. friends.
Bush knew absolutely nothing about managing a baseball team and was handed partial ownership of the Rangers. A taxpayer-subsidized stadium let him "earn" 14 million dollars on an initial investment of less than one million dollars seven years before (a loan from one of daddy's friends.)
Bush's phony "ranch" is another gift from daddy's friends.... as governor of Texas he lived in a condo. He and Laura (who though not a Kennedy killed her fiancé in a car wreck) moved to their "ranch" when Dub was running for pres.
Bush admits that he was a chronic drunk until 40 years old, when he "found Jesus" (his favorite philosopher.) He is a failed, absentee parent in every way especially when comparing his kids to those of Bill Clinton and John Kerry.
Kerry volunteered to join the Navy after college and then volunteered for combat duty. The men that actually served under/with him on his boat say that he is a hero, as does the guy who’s life he saved, a Green Beret combat officer and now retired cop. But you probably will say that he too is an America-hating, commie lib.
Kerry worked with other Vietnam veterans that lobbied congress to bring the troops home from Vietnam. And when some of those groups started to espouse violent means, he quit. (Just imagine for a moment if Kerry, Jane Fonda, the Black Panthers and the hippies had been successful… there might actually be fewer names on the Wall in DC.)
It wouldn't matter if Kerry quietly ignored the growing list of dead Americans when he came home, the cons would still criticize him just as much. Like they did to Al Gore.
It wouldn't matter if Kerry had been a POW in Vietnam. The cons would still criticize him just as much. Like they did to John McCain.
It wouldn't matter if Kerry had won four "unquestionable" Purple Hearts in Vietnam. The cons would still question him just as much. Like they did to Wesley Clark.
It wouldn't matter if Kerry had lost a limb in Vietnam. The cons would still criticize him, just like they did to Bob Kerry (D-Nebraska).
It wouldn't matter if Kerry had lost THREE LIMBS in Vietnam... the cons would still criticize him, just like they did to Max Cleland.
It wouldn’t matter if Kerry had won the Congressional Medal of Honor, the cons would still criticize him, just like they did to Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii.)
All you so-called "patriots" wouldn't make a decent pimple on Kerry's ass. What happened to that con-rep mantra of the early nineties? "Never, ever trust a draftdodger"? The con side is one of mostly draftdodgers. Bush, Cheney, Newt, Kemp, DeLay, Armey, Quayle, Gramm, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rumsfeld, Robertson, Lott, Helms, Asscroft. The only war heros left in the rep. party are McCain (liberal, black daughter), Ollie North (traitorous liar), and Dole (impotent liar).
The Swiftboat Veterans for Bush are out to smear Kerry, plain and simple. None of them served on Kerry's ship. None of them questioned Kerry's service when they were actually in 'Nam (and some are on record for having praised him at the time.)
You loudmouth know-it-alls tell that tired, old, phony-patriot lie: everyone that criticized the government during Vietnam hates the troops. YOU cannot (or will not) understand that one can criticize the gov't and still support the troops. Even though that was exactly what the cons did when Clinton bombed Milosevic.
Now you try and try to make people think that anyone who dares criticize the Boy King hates this country. Nice try. I love my country, I have served my country in uniform (under Reagan no less) and I love the Constitution. You guys are trying the same crap that you always do, like you do over Israel, trying to lie and convince people that the democrats will sell out Israel.
You just can't let yourselves believe that anyone can love America as much as your great selves.
You love America soooo goddam much, everyone else must hate America, right? Why can't BOTH sides love America? Like both sides support Israel? Hillary has already said that the Security Fence is necessary and legal, and Howard Dean walked out on Amy Goodman, during a live radio interview, when she started to talk shit about Ariel Sharon. No matter what the fringe element says (like the lib "Peace and Justice" movement and the con Nationalist/Militia movement) says, the major players of both parties support Israel's fight against terror. So why can't you let yourself believe that (major players of) both sides will support OUR war on terror?
No, not you. For you its "Kerry will let France decide whether we fight terrorists! Kerry will pardon Saddam! A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden!" Blah, blah, blah. Tell me another one. Oh, here's one: "The economy is in GREAT shape!" LOL.
Oh my... it seems our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and the other jihad-sponsoring nations don't like "Farenheit 911." I guess you guys have something else in common.
Son of Infidel, the more you complain about sissies, the more obvious it is that you are projecting your discomfort with your own feelings onto the ones that dare to be out of the closet.
Oh great, now he's going to write back and call me a sissy.
That reminds me, it seems to me that a certain little boy recently said some crap about me standing up to muslims on campus. No, it wasn't just a staring contest. That was only once. On many occasions I waded into their midst at the dawah booth and would debate 5 or 10 of them at a time. Especially when they celebrated Holocaust Memorial Day with a display of poor, puppy-eyed palestinians in their "concentration camps" alongside posters equating the star of David with the swastika. Just like debating conservative republicans, it’s easy to debate conservative muslims: they love to argue but don't love to win the argument. Of course when truth is on your side, it’s easy enough to win. As I have shown here.
Every position you take on every person in the news is based neither on consistency, nor logic, nor reason. It is based SOLELY on whether the person in question has an (-R) or a (-D) after their name.
So a "D" movie star has no business talking politics and hates America, while an "R" movie star is a patriot and deserves to be heard.
A "D" veteran is a troop-hating communist and an "R" veteran is a patriot who loves his country.
You whined for eight years about a “D” president that dodged the draft, and say nothing for an “R” president that did the same.
A "D" politician who runs for a senate seat in a state that isn't her home is carpetbagging scum, but an "R" politician who does the same is a brave challenger that will bring a fresh perspective to his new-found constituents.
If an Army helicopter crashes and a "D" is president, let's see the families of the dead on Faux News to "air their grievances" with the administration (even if the troops were sent their by the previous president)... but if an "R" is president, and a Gold Star Mother complains, she is just an America-hating Bush basher with an ax to grind.
If catastrophe strikes eight months into an “R” president’s term, you blame the previous president, a “D”. Yet when the tragedy struck in the first eight months on the “D” president, you said nothing about the previous “R” president. (9-11 vs. Waco and “Black Hawk Down.”)
When John Heinz was killed (has anyone looked into a possible Kerry involvement.... hmmmmmm) your side begged, BEGGED Theresa to run for his vacant senate seat. And now see how you defile her. She had an "R" first, but now has a "D".
See? This is your "logic." But hey, I realize it works with most people. Look how long Joseph Goebbels (R-Bitburg) was able to use it. (And don't let yourself think of how that turned out.)
Hey Girly! Don't drop the soap!
ha-ha!
And don't forget folks that healthy debate and the right to speak our minds is what helps to set us apart from the brain-washed zombies of Islam. On the other hand we all have to realise that the old notions of LEFT and RIGHT are changing. For instance several of my friends are enviromentalists which would place them on the left of the political spectrum YET they are opposed to multi-culturalism, mass-immigration and Islam , which to some would place them on the right. The main thing is that we try and reach some compromise between us because our common enemy is Islam. If the Soviets and the West could overcome their differences (oh okay then, their hatred ) to beat the Nazis then we have to do the same. Let's not end up like the Spanish during the Civil War against the fascists when the anarchists, democrats and communists spent so much time fighting each other that Franco won. Ali Sina at FaithFreedom.org puts all this better than i can in his excellent "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". This is a must read for all those opposing Islam and the global jihad.
LOVE LIFE - HATE ISLAM
Keith,
Even if, as you stated above, you don't come back to read this, I still feel the need to reply a bit to your last two posts.
"It’s called “humor”; look into the concept."
okay, let's try this one: "al Qaeda for Kerry!"
An obvious poor attempt at a joke, yet it sent you into a huge tirade against Bar, including the Nazi label. Keith: It's called "humor"; look up the concept. That is pure bullshit BTW - you and Bar both intended to score a political dig, not make people laugh.
As far as humor goes,
Walkerclot - pretty funny
Colt Whanker - Gee, I wish mine was the size of a horse.
It's also BS that you rarely start any of this. I agree with you that many posters here start things on the Right-wing side of things, but quite often you're the first one to sling the mud. About two months ago we had a discussion on this, remember? And yes, I apologized for a misunderstanding I had on your commitment to the cause of fighting Islamization; I wouldn't have had that misbelief if you hadn't slanted everything you were posting at the time as an attack.
My sympathies for you and your family on the 1-2-3 hurricane punch - I hope you all survive it with lives and property intact. Hang in there.
Well, I came back to check... I just won't keep coming day after day after day after day.
I agree that we should be trying to come together and fight this deadly enemy. I wish I could direct my liberal friends to this site but I dare not... it would turn them off in a major way to read the dark threats of people like Son of Infidel and the madhatter chatter of Catharine.
Islam has in general screwed over liberals all through history and democrats specifically since 1967.
MY humor didn't equivocate a Vietnam war hero with Alqaeda. Kerry had money and the grades to go on to grad. school, but CHOSE to serve his country. Then, though he could have let his money keep him safely away from combat he VOLUNTEERED for combat duty. He didn't have to do that. He requested it. That says all I need to know, but then he was even exemplary as a combat officer. Go to that link I provided for Girly, and read what the "Swiftboat Veteran for Truth" had to say about Kerry when he was Kerry's commanding officer. Read all five pages; he uses phrases like "unsurpassed" and "stands out among his peers" etc. etc.
Contrariwise, none of us know the guy that killed the Sikh, but the kind of vigilante murder certainly does fit the mold of the KKK, the White Supremacists, etc.... not exactly hotbeds of liberal sentiment, to say the least.
I try to "take the high road"... I haven't STARTED any political comments lately, I've only RESPONDED to them (see the Gary example quoted above, from September 8th.)
Please note that sometimes the initial post by me is intended to respond to a political comment made in the main article by the webmaster.
The mass of the "rebuttals" to the arguments I offer are usually nothing more than base insults. Sometimes I may fire off an insult or two myself. It has never been my intention to really belittle someone, but I fight fire with fire, and I don't lay down and play dead (unlike, I admit, so many liberals.)
My point is simple: some on the right and some on the left kiss up to Islam. Bush and Bush Sr. are two of the worst (has anyone ever wondered why all of Reagan's and Bush's records have been sealed away? Probably not, so here's a hint: Afghanistan Jihadis were fighting the SOVIETS in the '80s.) But people come here to whine about Kerry and pretend that only liberals and democrats are kissing up to Islam... its just so farcial. Such blather contributes nothing to our discussion, or to our mission. In fact, it can aide our mutual enemy by keeping us divided and bickering amongst ourselves.
E.g., Spencer posted an article recently claiming that Hamas thanked the leftwingers for helping them. I only read the headline... IF this is true, it seems to me like a clever ploy to get the Israelis to fight amongst themselves.
Furthermore, there are many, many instances where Spencer has articles like this, like the one about Hamas liking "Farenheit 9-11" but NARY A MENTION of anything similar from the "other side." LIKE, the fact that Arafat praised Mel Gibson's (R-Holocaust Denier) "The Passion" and encouraged people to see it.
Like claims of the left being supposed enamoured with radical Islam and yet no mention of the FACT that Sami Al Aryan campaigned FOR George W. Bush and even had his family pose with him for a photo (I won't provide the link because you may think I am trying to trick you into a virus site. Use your search engine and see for yourself. The photo is out there and it is real. I remember when they had the rally at USF. Al-Aryan and the other modern-day Aryans hated Al Sore because Loserman was a Jew.)
LIKE the "leftist" attorney that smuggled messages for Yousef Ramsey, but NOT A SINGLE MENTION of the Bush administration revealing the name of the Alqaeda operative that provided the intelligence that led them to send Wall Street into a higher terror alert status.
That one in particular troubles me.... Pakistan admits that they were still using this guy as a mole in the Alqaeda network, in Pakistan. How f-in' hard is it to get a SPY into Alqaeda? Given what we all know about Islam and Jihad (in no small way thanks to you, Mr. Spencer) I daresay PRECIOUS few. And now, one less.
Now this is just the articles themselves, how about the comments? Much worse. Much, much worse.
The fact is, the national media, including the so-called "left" has spent 11 years questioning everything Clinton does and finding fault with every thing he does or tries to do (remember the right-wing anger when he sent the missiles to Sudan and Afghanistan?) Also it is obvious that NOTHING is too absurd to suggest, e.g. "Clinton fathered a crack baby", "Clinton is selling Arlington Grave plots", "Clinton murdered Vince Foster because he and Hilary were having an affair" and "Hilary is a lesbian", "Clinton shouldn't have started the Somalia War" etc.)
Yet for every bungle, for every faux pas, for every mistake Bush makes he gets the benefit of the doubt and a free ride from the mainstream media.
I fear that history will show that the US invasion of Iraq was a serious error that enabled our enemies in Afghanistan to recover while we focused on a pathetic, little man. Saddam is a mass murderer. And a tyrant. Hell, he probably had WMDs, but gave them to Alquaeda while it took us two months to stage the invasion. But he was not a key player, nor even a bit player in the jihad. He couldn't even hit Israel, much less America. He and people like him LIVE to hate Jews, and if he could have gotten his mitts on a missile AND a germ/gas/nuke bomb, he would have sent it to Tel Aviv without hesitation.
Now, let's use W's "logic" and persue it a little farther into the future than Bush likes to imagine. IF we can implement democracy there, how will it end? ARE muslims, in particular ARAB muslims hankering for free elections, equal rights, and "justice for all"? Or do they want to put in Sharia, as they have everywhere else in the world they gain a toehold? Well?
So, what will America do when we establish a democracy, and then leave... if they Iraqis vote in Sharia? Please tell me, anyone that thinks they know. The likelihood of this scenario, and the answer to my question should be obvious.
It will happen and we won't do a damn thing about it. Iraq has a Shi'ite majority and they will elect a bunch of assholes that will turn Iraq into another Iran, only one with vast oil wealth.
And the hypocrisy.... imagine what the rep-cons would be doing if 9-11 had transpired on Gore's watch. They'd be saying all the same things the "evil left" has been saying about Drunkya, only ten times louder and ten times more often. Tell me that ain't true.
Before my side could say "you know, if Gore was in office this wouldn't have even happened" the other side was screaming "Clinton caused this! Thank God W is president.... Gore would be trying to negotiate with the Taliban!!!" But please recall that no less that three terrorist attacks were thwarted prior to the Y2K event. Even on the heels of "impeachment" the Clinton administration focused on preventing terror attacks, not on building missile shield that won't work, and not on tax cuts for the wealthy.
That I am all for mulitculturalism is the REASON WHY I am against Islam, but I do have some conservative beliefs as well, like our need to support Israel, and the right for Israel to vigorously defend itself. Also I believe in the limitation of women in the military (they really shouldn't be in the military at all... it's no place for a lady and I will forbid my daughters from serving, under threat of disinheritance if necessary.)
I am 100% all for a war against terror, or even a war against Islam. But I can't help but think that had we FOCUSED on Afghanistan, where the terror nexis was, we could have done a lot more harm to Alqaeda et al. There are only 11,000 US troops in Afghanistan, yet there are 130,000 in Iraq. Imagine all the equipment, men, bombs, spy planes, drones, and intel. squandered in Iraq on the ground in Afghanistan.
I appreciate the kind sentiments from people like Walker Colt, Voltaire, and Kajira; and hope that maybe one day Gary, Son, Catharine, et al. will come here not to whine about liberals but to discuss the world-wide jihad and how to stop it. But until they do, or until Spencer bans me, I will not stand idly by while people use this forum as a cheap commercial for their own narrow, partisan crap. I don't like the preaching either, for you evangelicals out there, but there's no disputing matters of taste.
No matter what any of you say, the facts remain facts and the opinions remain opinions. And one fact is that the GOP begged Theresa Heinz (a.k.a. "Momma Ketchup"... I never get tired of that!) to run for the US Senate. That was only 12 years ago, people.
What I would really, really like to do is start a civil debate with one single jihadwatch devotee. If anyone wants to do this, please let me know. I don't check every single comments section, so if we get "lost" it could take a day or two for us to get back together. Plus I often go for days without even going on line.
We will only discuss on or two topics at a tiem until we have covered everything about that particular item. I'll start with a simple one.
There is a lot of claim about Bill Clinton "being offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter" and turning the offer down.
This seems like a preposterous claim on its face because the guys that run Sudan and Osama Bin Laden are cut from the same cloth. Furthermore, Osama brought millions of dollars into Sudan at a time when THEIR jihad civil war was really heating up... why would a national leader kill that golden goose? True, the USA would no doubt pay a handsome reward, but where in the world could the guy that turned Osama in go and expect to remain alive?
Finally, what DATES are we talking about here? Was it after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya? Because prior to that, we wouldn't have felt much a need to accept Bin Laden as a terrorist fugitive.
Next, some make the claims that Clinton tried to handle Osama "like a criminal instead of like a terrorist." So, when the missiles hit the Sudan chemical plant (a.k.a. "aspirin factory"... and? Al qaeda OWNED it; it wouldn't matter if they were making baby forumula, they would still sell the formula and use the proceeds to fund terror) and the training camp in Afghanistan, were they delivering subpeonas?
Also germaine to this point is the fact that after the twim embassy bombings, the Moonie Times (a.k.a. the "Washington Times") leaked the CIA knowledge of Bin Laden's use of satellite phones. Just prior to that, Russia had used the signal from a satellite phone to send a major Chechen jihadi off to Allah. So immediately, Bin Laden quit using satellite phones... and his trail went dead.
Comments?
My sympathies for you and your family on the 1-2-3 hurricane punch - I hope you all survive it with lives and property intact. Hang in there.
Thanks...it looks like we won't even need to evacuate this time.
It really is pretty rare for a hurricane to actually kill someone here in America, and the property is insured of course. Its worth it to have to never shovel snow or wash the salt from under my car.
The thing that scares me most about hurricanes is that they could start coming more frequently and turn Florida into a kind of Bangladesh (why DOES Allah curse them so? Probably they think for letting a few Hindus continue to live, or for not invading India.) Two consecutive years of four or five major hurricanes could seriously put the hurts on our property values...not to mention jack up our insurance rates (which would further wreck our property values.)
Another thing that alarms me is the existence of New Orleans... they'd need 48 hours to evacuate that city, and a hurricane 48 hours out is still over Cuba. The locals ain't prone to "worry" and "fuss." The transplants probably don't understand what a hurricane can do. But I heard projections that between the river and Lake Pontchartrain, if a hurricane hit at high tide it could kill 100,000 people.
The culturally-irreplacable and unique-for-America French Quarter is definitely below sea level... the only reason New Orleans didn't disappear decades ago is the levees and sea (river actually) walls.
So don't fret for me. I have a baby and one due in November, so we aren't taking any chances. But we are considering moving to New Orleans next year.
Keith,
Sure, I'll enter into civil debate with you. For things politic, however, I would prefer to take it offline from Jihad Watch - my "beef" with you (and quite a few of the other individuals hyar) has been the rather acrimonious atmosphere that develops in some of these posts. If any of you want to discuss (and I do mean discuss, not pontificate or "yell") the political issues with me and KJ, use this email address:
walker_colt_43@yahoo.com
It's a new address I've made, and I welcome any and all to the debate ("Forward All" has it's uses, eh?). Hopefully it won't have as much spam being fed to it, like my home address.
BTW, I must say that at times you DON'T take the "high road" at all ("Dr. Whora"? come on, that's not civilized or high-minded, whether you agree with her or not).
I don't know if I'll be the most extreme sounding board for you to work with - I took "the test" somewhere on the internet, and I didn't test out as a neo-con, but rather a "realist". Conservative yes, but like you some of my political leanings are probably considered to the left (environment, for one thing).
Anyway, if you get this, drop me a line. I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, but I will have my laptop with me and check the email address from time to time.
Keith,
Postscript: no, your humor didn't link al Qaeda with a Vietnam vet, but it did link an entire political group to murder. Same type of "humor", don't you think?
Well, again I say this. If the Sikh murderer is registered to vote at all (he probably doesn't even bother) I would bet anything that he has an "R" in his affiliation block. If you look at the mindset of conservative movements like the Klan, the militias, the white separatists, the segregationists, the lynch mobs, etc. you cannot in good faith tell me that this guy (the murderer of the Sikh) doesn't fit that mold.
Humor aside, I DO NOT think that ALL, or even MOST conservatives would do such a thing. But I KNOW that most people that would do so are very likely conservative.
I am not real, real interested in a private debate, because I wanted to debate for the benefit of the JW devotees, to try to put to rest petty lies and innuendo like "Bush and Mossad orchestrated 911" or "Clinton is responsible for 911."
But let me know when you return and we can start a private discussion.
They hurricane is the least of my problems now... I have a MAJOR sinus attack, my throat feels like I've been eating sandspurs.
Kj~ you mean conservatives like Senator Byrd? The KKK Democrat?