Along with:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16582

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16598

http://www.techcentralstation.com/121503A.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wood200501110730.asp

Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2005 10:00 AM

Well, I guess the end result of all this one-sided blather is that liberals hate America sooo much and we hate Christianity sooo much that we are willing to help Islam take over the world, even though we will be killed as soon as they take over.

Perfectly sound, conservative "reasoning." And Rush Limbaugh is innocent, Bill O'Reilly isn't a pervert, Imus never did coke, Bush is a Vietnam War hero, and James Baker is helping the Suadis defend themselves in a "frivolous" lawsuit.

As long as you continue to only tell half of the story, you can make anyone look like anything you want. Muslims do the same thing.

Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 10:26 AM

kj:

As usual, you're reacting personally. This doesn't have to be "Fair and Balanced" to be accurate.

ARE YOU DENYING THE FACTS? If not, what is your POINT on-topic?

Posted by: CGW at January 11, 2005 10:41 AM

KJ-

Why then are some neo-"treason of the intellectuals" types helping to undermine their own (secular, liberal) societies?

If they understood, as you apparently do, that they would be the first in line to be beheaded when their wish to see the "American Empire" destroyed was fulfilled, then it makes no sense, unless they are planning to convert, or be lap-dog dhimmis of the Restored Caliphate's mullahs and imams.

How DO you explain it?

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 11, 2005 10:45 AM

So long as you absolutely Refuse to say anything in criticism of the Left on this site, You are the one guilty 'telling half the story.' There are quite a few here, including myself, who criticize our own and with good reason. Not that you would ever deign to take notice or acknowledge same.

Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2005 11:16 AM

Both sides in the "unholy alliance" think they will destroy the other after their common enemy is destroyed. Not all Democrats are leftists, but the leftists captured the Party in the 60's and have been the dominant influence ever since. They have also infiltrated and achieved hegemony in the majority of the most influencial information/education/cultural institutions.
Leftists have hijacked the word Liberal, but are anything but Liberal. A neat trick.

A true Liberal will not take offense from an attack against leftist ideology.
What has happened is a major shift leftward that moved BOTH parties closer to the communist/socialist frame of reference.

Posted by: kentim at January 11, 2005 12:00 PM

The US population is split down the middle between liberals and conservatives. That's OK, and probably as it should be. Half the people are by disposition more conservative, the other half more liberal. It takes both wings for the eagle to fly.
However, there are limits to reasonable discourse. When a 'liberal' call for the end of the 'American Empire' and applauds the 'loss of the war in Iraq', then he has stepped over the line. The very notion of an 'American Empire' is debatable. Is he equating the USA with Stalin's Soviet Russia, with Mao's China, with Pol Pot's Cambodia, with Hitler's Germany? In Mr. Jensen's mind this is probably true. But is it really? Really?! Get real!
This is another example of 'poor choice of words', a disconnect between facts and their verbal descriptions i.e. rhetorical propaganda. People get so fired up about their ideological, partisan issues that they lose whatever objectivity they may have had.
Right-wing partisans are equally guilty of this.
You can't talk about issues unless your words describe facts as best as possible. Mr. Jensen has voiced his opinion and gives his opinion the legitimacy of 'facts'. He's a prime example of a pointy-headed left-wing liberal idiot.
Mr. Jensen lives in a free country and he's entitled to his opinion. It's troubling that he perceives the greates danger to exist in an 'Amerikkkan Empire', while willfully, blindly ignoring the very real danger of islamic fascism.

Posted by: Mike H at January 11, 2005 12:00 PM

"Mr. Jensen lives in a free country and he's entitled to his opinion."

One begs to differ. People who know nothing about a matter are not entitled to an opinion. Any opinion they might wish to offer would be without form and void. Those who prate about "an American Empire" know nothing of the greatest and most successful imperialist venture in history -- that of Islam. It not only conquered, but islamized, and even arabized, those it conquered, helping to make them believe that they had no other past, no other history, and that nothing but Islam, and Arabdom, mattered.

Life is too short to treat seriously such people as "Professor" Robert Jensen.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2005 12:12 PM

Kj - you would do well not to provide cover for these nihilistic pseudo-intellectuals. Only a complete freakin' idiot could contend that losing the Iraq war is good for ANYONE this side of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

FrontPage ran a similar article yesterday about darling of the Left Lynne Stewart:

Lynne Stewart: The Left On Trial
By David Horowitz

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16579

I once was also an intellectually lazy, nihilistic, Leftist simpleton who didn't understand anything about human nature, economics and the world. Maybe if I go back to reacting to the world in my formerly childish manner I can get tenured at Columbia or MIT, or study Law and rap with Lynne Stewart and the National Lawyers Guild about what wonderful people Omar Abdul Rahman and Co. are, while these murderous fanatics do everything in their power to kill me, my friends, my family and my countrymen. I was fortunate (deliberately) - I worked my way out of it. But for others like Lynne Stewart and Robert Jenson "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Better to remain ignorant than to face the error of your ways, eh?

Posted by: Mike at January 11, 2005 12:40 PM

Hugh: One begs to differ. People who know nothing about a matter are not entitled to an opinion.

I think Thomas Jefferson would not agree with you on that point. Nevertheless, people that give an opinion are not entitled to instant fame status. Many of them achieve their fifteen minutes of fame only as a consequence of right-wing blowhards jumping all over them in the mainstream media echo chamber. (Just consider the case of the ridiculous "Ebonics" brouhaha. It all started when a handful of schoolboarders in Oakland tried to think up a way to increase their funding for English studies. Rush et. al made it a national issue, a "hot button" issue, that sold many many ads and helped line the pockets of many would-be "social reformers" that have no knowledge of ANYTHING.) These are the selectively-outraged, high values cheerleaders of the "instant-expert-just-add-microphone" crowd. This includes Rush Limbaugh lecturing us on the evils of drug use (pre 2003), "Doctor" Laura dispensing with "mental therapy" and the letcherous, draft-dodging Bill O'Reilly telling us "how the Army works." Etc. etc. etc. And don't forget George Bush proclaiming that Islam has a "long tradition of peace and tolerance" and other vomit.

Those who prate about "an American Empire" know nothing of the greatest and most successful imperialist venture in history -- that of Islam.

I absolutely, positively, and without reservation could not agree with you more on this point. That is why it is so important for "us" anti-Jihadis to try and rationally show the academics that Islam is the most destructful, hateful, oppressive, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal cult in history. (Quoting from the memoirs of the Moghal invaders of India is a good start.) And-unlike the so-called Christian "Crusaders"-the Muslim jihad is ONGOING.

I am a lifelong LLLL* and I know the truth about Israel, Islam, jihad, etc. I didn't always know the truth. But I do now, and believe me when I tell you that the way to convince other liberals is rational debate, not Frontpage.com, newsmax.com, nationalist.com, (& etc.).com rants. I tell other liberals that if they dislike Christianity they should hate Islam. Then I tell them WHY.

It not only conquered, but islamized, and even arabized, those it conquered, helping to make them believe that they had no other past, no other history, and that nothing but Islam, and Arabdom mattered.

I whole-heartedly agree. That's why I come here. By the way, Islam is still doing all that stuff. So that should read:

It not only conquers, but islamizes, and even arabizes, those it conquers, helping to make them [i.e. "forcing them under threat of murder to"] believe that they have no other past, no other history, and that nothing but Islam, and Arabdom matters.

Well, we could go on and on about the terrible liberals spreading lies and propoganda about how great Islam-and how bad America-is. Or, we could go on and on about conservatives doing the exact same thing. As long as some of us continue to get our kicks by vilifying the liberals and blaming the liberals for all of our problems (including every terrorist attack) the Jihadis are laughing all the way to the mosque.

As for you other loudmouth liberalhaters, I will come back tomorrow after everyone has gaily piped in with his or her two cent's worth, and incinerate you with words, just like I always do.

Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 1:08 PM

KJ:

Get a life.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at January 11, 2005 1:27 PM

Mayhap Professor Jenkins should read up on Jared Diamond. No culture is blameless when it comes to conquest, forced values, forced conversion, etc.

But the end result of forcing western, secular, capitalist values on foreign peoples USUALLY results in democracy, greater equality, recourse to the law, and more freedom for everyone. Eventually. See pretty-much every nation in Europe, North America, South America; and Japan, India, Australia, and New Zealand; and--increasingly--sub-Saharan (i.e. "non-Muslim") Africa.

Whereas in Islam, it is just the opposite. See Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, etc.

We all (at least all of us liberals) hate to read the history of the British conquest of Scotland (thank you Mel Gibson.) But what most of us don't know is that just a few centuries prior to that, the Irish invaded Scotland and did the SAME THING to the then-indigenous Picts.

The same could be said about South Africa and the Afrikaners treatment of the black people. What most of us don't know is that the entire region was populated with Khosian (a.k.a. "Bushmen" now relegated to remote parts of Namibia, Angola, and South Africa) who were slaughtered with gay abandon by the INVADING Bantu people. The Bantus also caused the indigenous "Pygmies" of western Africa to "disappear" in recent-prehistoric times. Of course by the time the slave ships showed up, the people there were considered indigenous.

I think that the Polynesians, Native Americans, Aboriginies of Australia, and Negritos of New Guinea and environs actually settled unpopulated land. (And slaughtered both megafauna and one another with reckless abandon.) The rest of us are descended from johnys-come-lately. The only solace is the end result. What is the end result for the people of America, Israel, India, England, and other secular democracies? Freedom, justice, and equality that have yet to really take root in greater Islam.

It's kind of like the old conspiracy theorist whine: "The JOOOZ/Masons/Catholics are taking over!" To which I always say, "So? It's about time."

Meanwhile, the Muslims REALLY ARE taking over, and here we are debating about some dipshit journalism teacher in Texas. When his students graduate, and get a job in journalism, they are going to realize pretty quick that they--like the rest of us--have to make their bosses happy.

Hopefully their bosses aren't in bed with the Saudis or Sun Myung Moon. Hopefully their bosses are Zionists, or at least anti-jihadis.

And hopefully, they don't come here to read the truth about Islam and instead get a bunch of half-truths about liberals.

Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 1:31 PM

KJ: Get a life.

Reeeeal mature. Great comeback. "Go pound sand! Yeah!"

Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 1:33 PM

BTW

LLLL = Liberal, leftist, loser, loner. I admit it.

Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 1:34 PM

"As for you other loudmouth liberalhaters, I will come back tomorrow after everyone has gaily piped in with his or her two cent's worth, and incinerate you with words, just like I always do."

Yes, that's what "liberals" are supposed to do:
To incinerate with words.
Man, you are NOT a liberal. THESE　are liberals:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm

Men and Women who have the guts and brains to oppose the devils breathing.

You and me are just decadent westerners who like it warm and comfortable.

Posted by: nippon at January 11, 2005 1:37 PM

Loser.~ kj

I see you are ready for both 2006 and 2008.

But you still haven't said anything to disprove the contentions of the article Mr. Spencer posted.

Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2005 2:30 PM

"Well, we could go on and on about the terrible liberals spreading lies and propoganda about how great Islam-and how bad America-is. Or, we could go on and on about conservatives doing the exact same thing."

Really, kj? How many conservative professors at Columbia have wished a million Mogadishus on our troops in Iraq? How many conservative lawyers have stated that a US defeat in Iraq is a "good thing"?
Let's see the evidence of these America-bashing conservatives, and let's see how they're being lionized by grassroots conservatives. Let's not go Michael Moore and make statements we can't base in fact.

Posted by: Mike at January 11, 2005 2:34 PM

No. He won't do that, Mike. He'll just make out that groups like the KKK and the National Alliance are what conservatives are all about, as he has attempted to do in the past. Another total lie of course, but what else is expected?

Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2005 2:39 PM

Can all those who indulge in this bilge about an "American Empire" prove in what specific ways Iraq is an American colony? After all, that's what empires are about: establishing colonies for political or economic advantage. Establishing colonies means dominating those areas' politics through a viceroy, a governor-general or some representative of the sovereign. Tell me, kj et al, how does encouraging democratic elections that run the risk of rejecting American values fit the Spanish, French, Dutch or even British colonial models? How much oil (Iraq's only exportable resource) has the United States arbitrarily extracted for exclusive, domestic consumption? Are we encouraging mass immigration to Iraq to turn it into an American enclave?

And, kj et all, please tell me if you think the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was "colonization"?

Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at January 11, 2005 3:12 PM

The great lie exposed:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century. He was to the Right of the Communists but that is all. Nazism was nothing more nor less than a racist form of Leftism (rather extreme Leftism at that) and to label it as "Rightist" or anything else is to deny reality.(John J. Ray)
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
---------------------------------------

"As Alain Besancon points out in Commentary, the current vocabulary for our political spectrum is of Soviet origin. It placed socialists and communists on the left, "capitalists, imperialists" on the right. Once nazis entered the picture, they became the far right, and room was created for "moderates" in the middle.

Each of these propositions is a deception.

Placing communist socialists and national socialists at opposite ends feigned a quality difference between their agendas, and the people who joined them. It also hinted that everyone on the "right" was in some proximity to the hated nazis. Recently, "extremist" has been added to move those on the "right," rhetorically, ever closer to nazis." (Balint Vazsonyi)

http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/takeitserious.html

Posted by: kentim at January 11, 2005 3:33 PM

Kentim, you beat me to it:

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000400.html

Posted by: Gary at January 11, 2005 4:10 PM

"...with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance..."
Hardy har har.
And just how does one accumulate wealth? By reaping the rewards of their "responsibility and performance"!! That's Free Enterprise/Capitalism,not Socialism.
These monkies can't even get their economic systems straight. Read a damned Wall Street Journal now and then, will you?

Posted by: Mike at January 11, 2005 4:29 PM

It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace.

— Christopher Dawson

Posted by: Mike at January 11, 2005 4:35 PM

kj, you keep encouraging Christian-hating intellectuals (who for some reason get stuck in Leviticus, if they ever pick up a Bible) to start hating Islam, too. Glad to have you at the site.

In the meantime, I encourage those of you who are Christians to fill in the spiritual vacuum which creates lost souls like kj.

Posted by: former liberal WF at January 11, 2005 6:25 PM

I watched the early footage of the Iraq invasion and saw raw video from the embedded
reporters,two main story's never got on the evening news.
One was a hospital that was bombed,seems the
leftists( must be from all that they LEFT out in reporting) ran with the information that Maternity unit was hit and it was next to a red cross office. They got part of it right,it was a bomb and there was a red-cross office there,what they left out was that Saddam took over the unit and stored weapons in the Hospital,also the red-cross office was empty for a very long time because of the Cache of weapons next door to them.
The second item appeared around April 2003 and it was a volunteer Doctor that helped children
under the permission of Saddam,the Doctor refuted the claims that the USA was responsible for deaths of thousands of children and babies because of the sanctions.
He revealed in a TV interview that he was ordered to stay quiet about the death children the he kept in coolers for the use of propaganda
photo-ops when they were brought out to a area and strewn around as if killed by bombs or sickness.

I don't trust them and how ironic that the same Muslims that said the beheading videos were faked are the same ones that accepted a few photos
from the Abu Gharib prison as real and have never used the term "Alleged" to discribe the claims
made by prisoners.
The guy with the bag over his head couold have been anyone,or maybe these sex-starved moon-worshippers craved for a dominatrix to to kinky things since it wasn't allowed under Saddam.

Just because I saw a video of Forrest Gump
meeting Kennedy,Johnson,Nixon,Elvis,and Lennon,doesn't mean it's real.
If Muslims are tricked so easily by a few photos or a man claiming to hear voices in his head that are from Allah,them pity on them for embracing ignorance.

Posted by: ala-sux at January 11, 2005 9:16 PM

Some of the crazy comments made by Leftist Loonies make you wonder who the Enemy is!
Real danger is distortion of the truth which one sees in the Media because Mr and Mrs Joe Public believe what Journalists say more than Politicians. Academics have a lot of influence on the young who are idealistically seeking for something that is 'pure' to believe in and can easily be 'converted' and even do atrocities in the name of some Ideology like Islam or Communism.
A long and protracted expose of the Truth is all we can do against fools like Professor Jensen.

Posted by: Morgane at January 11, 2005 10:12 PM

What this guy Jensen misses is the basic fact of nature:

there will be a hierarchy in all biological organisms, and, at the complex level of human beings in social groups, some form of controlling "empire" is inevitable.

Or you have the past- endless chaos and tribal warfare, vendetta and darkness.

Which KIND of "empire" does he prefer -is the only question.

Considering the alternatives, I opt for the American/Western model. You have a Bill of Rights, and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Which other competing "empire" gives its members anything close?

Jensen has got himself a useful "schtick" (the evil American Empire ploy) and he is playing it like a child with a very annoying musical toy for all it is worth.

But would he rather live under any of the previous failed "empires" -like fascism or communism- or does he think he will have more freedom and justice under Islamic Sharia Law?

Why he wants to undermine the only basis for his survival as a "liberal" professor escapes me. If the "empire" that he hopes will fall DOES fall, he will soon be discovering the joys of silence- as the new rulers decree only Koranic Truth shall be taught in the future universities, renamed madrasas, of course.

Every society is flawed. I can criticise the American system and its HUMAN-ALL-TOO-HUMAN history for years, if I was so inclined. But, with the threat against it from a monolithic megalomaniacal theocratic terror state (the Restored Caliphate) breathing down our necks, I know better.

"Don't sh*t in your own nest," as my grandmother used to say.

And don't fight in the trenches over who ate the last chocolate bar when the enemy is attacking you with a suicidal death machine bent on global despotism.

Jensen reminds me of those whom the writer Philip Wylie criticized in his classic "Generation of Vipers" for weakening the West in the 1930's when they should have been re-arming, re-training and rJensstrengthening the will.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, Jensen will come back as a termite.

Both journalists and this grub love woodpulp.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 11, 2005 10:45 PM

“…you’ll find no mention of our armed forces’ recent string of victories against Islamist die-hards.”

What is this… “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? Sadam H attacked Iran and for decades he executed more Islamists than the Americans can shake a stick at. Then they overthrow him!?

“Son, we kicked those G’dam Islamist butts!”
“But sir, there were no Islamists until we came here.”
“We’re doing it to protect the stars’n’stripes and the land of liberty!”
“But sir, they had crappy old Soviet equipment and no WMDs.”
“This is for Iraqi freedom kid… pass the ammunition!”
“But sir, they don’t want freedom.”
“What are you, some kind of pinko commie faggot? Gung Ho!”
“No sir! We’re doing a damned fine job sir. God bless America!”

Meanwhile, the only “Islamist die-hard” that really matters, Osama BL, has avoided American retribution for over three years and is happily running around Pakistan (who is a supposed ally). Is there any U.S. pressure to make Pakistan democratise? Of course not. Double standards? Hmmmmmmm…..

Yes, Sadam was a butcher and a tyrant. But then, so what? America supported butchers and tyrants throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties – they even supported Sadam himself! Your heartache about the Iraqi people seems dishonest and hypocritical. Pity you didn’t cry the same tears about the death squads in Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala twenty years ago.

Your commitment to altering the nature of Islamic society through military force smacks of gross naivety. Islam is sick and rotten to the core, you know this, I know this. The creed of Islam is aggressive and despotic, it thrives upon conflict, you know this, I know this. There is no solution for that black Satanic vortex: the Muslim Middle East. They hate America. The more you help them, the more they hate you. The more lives you throw away for their sake, the more they spit in your faces.

You talk about the loony left, but personally I can’t understand how American conservatives can so happily put 2 and 2 together to make 5. You’re as bad as each other. You both foster internationalist Islam. The left thinks they can appease them with kindness, the right thinks they can crush them with half hearted brain-dead interventions which only serve to give propaganda victories to the Islamic cause. I hope the centrist Democrats can restore a little sanity into the White House.

Catch Osama, then tell us of victories against Islamist die-hards.

http://www.deoxy.org/emperors.htm

Posted by: Timbo at January 11, 2005 11:31 PM

Communists? Nazis? What percentage of the U.S. population is Marxist: 0.01%? What percentage of the U.S. population of is Nazi: 0.02%? How much power do these fruitcake groups have in 21st century America: nothing. The same can not be said for American Muslims, alas!

""responsibility and performance"!! That's Free Enterprise/Capitalism,not Socialism.
These monkies can't even get their economic systems straight."
.
Is communism better than capitalism? Yes and no. During times of peace, Communism does not deliver the goods to the general population, who remain poor. During times of war Communism does work quite well, if it didn’t the USA would have cleaned up in Vietnam very quickly indeed. Soviet industry during WWII coped very well with the logistical needs of the Soviet Armed Forces. (Only about 10% of their equipment was supplied by the western allies.) The initial Soviet defeats were not much worse than those suffered by the British, French and Benelux in 1940.
Their troops were well clad and some of the Soviet equipment, especially the tanks, were better than those of the Americans and British, and certainly gave the Germans a run for their money. We tend to forget that 80% of German battle losses were on the Eastern Front, and that the Russians fought armies that the Western allies never met (Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Spanish, etc.) Ignorant louts claim that most of the Germans died of the cold - which is of course simply BS.
This superiority of War Communism was also quite noticeable in the Korean War, when Soviet jet fighters proved to be better than the equivalent American warplanes. It also took the entire UN to push the North Koreans and the Chinese volunteers back to their former border. Also, we must note the superbly organized Communist Viet Cong, who conducted an extremely well orchestrated military campaign against a host of enemies. Unfortunately for the Vietnamese people this excellent Communist wartime organization did not (and can not) cross over into excellent Communist peacetime organization. In the end, it was peace that crushed Communism, not war. After the successful period of War Communism (which Mao tried to perpetrate during peace with his Cultural Revolution), China saved itself by turning 75% Capitalist. Pol Pot also realised that for the sake of the party, War Communism had to continue, so he declared war on his own people - which destroyed his own state. During the civil war the Khmer Rouge were a highly effective and well organized body, during peace they created a calamity.

I have a similar theory about Muslims. Like Communism, Islam thrives on sacrifice, martyrdom and conflict. Take this away from them and they loose their way. Giving them a small war to organize around is the best thing you can do for them.

Posted by: Timbo at January 12, 2005 12:43 AM

Timbo:

I left you an additional message on the Jan.5 "Angry Waves . . ." thread. I'm not sure whether or not you saw it.

Also, have you heard of the "honeypot strategy"?

CGW

Posted by: CGW at January 12, 2005 7:15 AM

kj:

You never responded to MY questions.

CGW

Posted by: CGW at January 12, 2005 7:18 AM

Btw, everyone: Am I behind the times, or is the newest left-wing nut theory that Al-queda does not even exist, and was made up by the 'neo-cons'?

Posted by: Gary at January 12, 2005 2:49 PM

Yeah, I came here to catch kj's promised "incineration". What a rip-off!

Posted by: Mike at January 12, 2005 3:28 PM

Mike, the word 'incinerate' was what caused me to go looking for the link I posted somewhere above. Interesting that the latest conspiracy theory is that Al-queda doesn't even exist, and that the leftist Academia, among others, wouldn't mind seeing Israel 'incinerated'... When I learned how much Hitler was a leftist/liberal/loser/loner, it all clicked.

Posted by: Gary at January 12, 2005 3:40 PM

ARE YOU DENYING THE FACTS? If not, what is your POINT on-topic?

Scream a little louder, please. I can't hear you.

Alright, I don't have enough time to blister everyone's fanny, but maybe I can answer you now.

No, I'm not denying the facts. I don't deny any facts. What I deny are opinions masquerading as facts, and faulty conclusions allegedly derived from the facts. Some people read Frontpagemag.com, liberalscum.com and nationalist.com and think that everything they read is a fact. So they derive a faulty conclusion; namely, that liberals hate America, hate Christians hate Israel, and love Muslims.

************************************************

Yeah, Gary. The Nationalists aren't conservative. They're reeeeeal liberal. That's why they hate homosexuals, hate Jews, hate black people, and hate race mixers.

And while we're at it, Strom Thurmond wasn't conservative either, was he? LOL.

And Cheney, he's must be pretty liberal to tell Biden to go f*ck himself on the US Senate floor. I can imagine you and the right-wing media echochamber going on and on for days if algore had DARED to say such a thing to Strom, Helms, Lott, or one of the other Dixiecrats you so admire.

**********************************************

Nip: Yes, that's what "liberals" are supposed to do: To incinerate with words. Man, you are NOT a liberal. THESE　are liberals:

Dear Nip: Yeah, and Alam Colmes is a liberal too, huh? He just sits there and lets that loudmouthed pr*ck walk all over him, is that what you want all liberals to do? No, people that will stand for what they believe are supposed to incinerate their "debate" opponents with words. Ali Sina isn't that liberal. Compared to most people raised as Muslims (and presumably in Iran) he is pretty liberal. So I guess you and I are in agreement that "real" liberalism is against Islam? I'm glad that one of you can admit it.

*********************************************

I see you are ready for both 2006 and 2008.

Sure, bring it on. If you "patriotic" types don't change the US Constitution just so Ahnold the pro-abortion, pro-gay "republican" can run for president, Hitlery is a shoe-in in 2008. I can't wait! Sure, we'll lose some more House seats as the naz-rep-cons continue to redistrict away the democratic areas. And we'll lose a couple more Senate seats as the full force of Nixon's Southern Strategy finally comes to blossom. Be proud! Hatred of Strom’s “darkies” is serving your party very well.

I’d rather stay in the party of losers than go to the party of Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and Jesse Helms. So you keep Fred Phelps, David Duke, and Jerry Falwell; and we’ll keep Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and Hilary Clinton.

But you still haven't said anything to disprove the contentions of the article Mr. Spencer posted.

I just read it. He quotes a “leftie”: “[The Democratic candidate] should forget about most of the Old Confederacy, since a clear majority of white Southerners will vote Republican as long as there is a flag to be waved, a homosexual to be pilloried, an abortionist to be consigned to hell, a tax to be cut and a program for the poor to be eviscerated.”

Well, I can’t disprove that, since it is a fact.

As for the rest of the hate rant, it is not directed at Muslims at all, but solely against those dreaded liberals. By cherry picking what some liberals have said, the intent of the writer is obviously to impugn all liberals. I could do the same thing, if I wanted to, by using the words of noted conservatives to show had bad “all” conservatives are.

No, I cannot and won’t deny that some liberals are in the dark as to the true nature of Islam, jihad, and the necessity of war. But the war in Iraq is a joke, a bread-and-circus diversion that has not only diverted our troops from making a more-likely-to-succeed hunt for Bin Laden (a.k.a. “Bin Forgotten”), it has also diverted the American people (the non-liberals) from realizing that Dub and Dick are taking us for a ride. Iraq wasn’t a threat to America or our allies, not even Israel. There are other dictators at large much worse than Saddam.

I can’t tell you how many times people told me before 9-11 “Over 500,000 Iraqi kids have died under US sanctions!” to which I responded “Saddam gets plenty of money to feed his people, it’s HIS fault that the chooses instead to build more palaces and send money to the “palestinian” “martyrs”.

See? It’s so easy to politely explain the truth to some people. Some will “get it;” others won’t. But NO ONE is going to learn the truth if you tell them that they just hate America, hate the military, hate Christianity, and are commies, Satanists, and cowards. That doesn’t work, but I guess that some of you will keep trying that approach.
*******************************
Why then are some neo-"treason of the intellectuals" types helping to undermine their own (secular, liberal) societies? If they understood, as you apparently do, that they would be the first in line to be beheaded when their wish to see the "American Empire" destroyed was fulfilled, then it makes no sense, unless they are planning to convert, or be lap-dog dhimmis of the Restored Caliphate's mullahs and imams. How DO you explain it?

You already answered the question yourself. You said, “If they understood, as you apparently do, that they would be the first in line to be beheaded…” That’s the big point, IF they understood. Here’s how YOU can help them to understand: explain the facts of Islam and Jihad to them (without trying to convert them the Christianity.) Be polite, be rational; be calm. If you are making a case against Islam, it should be easy to do; you have truth on your side. Don’t type in all caps. Don’t accuse them of hating America. No one really wants to see the so-called “American Empire” fall, since it doesn’t really exist. But some of us question the need to invade Iraq. We all now Saddam was a brutal dictator, but there are many brutal dictators. (Suharto, Pinochet, The Sauds, Musharef, etc.)

The Iraq invasion was a complete waste. A waste of soldiers and Marines that COULD be in Afghanistan searching for Bin Laden. A waste of taxpayer money for the world’s second-largest oil deposit. A waste of diplomatic clout that could have been used to chase Al-qaeda jihadis all over the world. A waste of resources that could have been spent protecting our ports, borders, and planes. Just a waste. And your side acts like it is as noble a venture as taking down Hitler or Hirohito. It’s not. It’s 1300 caskets flown into Dover, Delaware (thus far,) 3,000 amputees missing arms, legs, eyes, hands, feet, genitals; 4500 broken families, and—statistically at least—scores of thousands of men coming home with PTSD (add many of those to the list of broken families.)

You really can convince liberals that Islam is a fanatical bloodthirsty cult that murders innocent children, mutilates the genitals of girls, promotes slavery, empire, and conquest; hates homosexual rights, belittles women, and has no care for the environment. You will not convince anyone that the war in Iraq was an absolute necessity beyond those you’ve already tricked. (National polls show that the VAST majority of Bush supporters think that Saddam was linked to 9-11. The CIA and the 9-11 Commission say that he wasn’t, but what the hell.)

*********************************************************************

So long as you absolutely Refuse to say anything in criticism of the Left on this site, You are the one guilty 'telling half the story.'

You mean, “if you ever absolutely refuse…” don’t you? I DO criticize the Left. Just not to your satisfaction, apparently. I have bragged to you many times about shaming Democracy Now! into shutting down their “archives” link because I proved to them that they had a bias against Israel, and for the “palestinian” terrorists. The idiot professors that whine on and on incessantly about the “Apartheid State” of Israel, and the “beauty” and “peace” of Islam aren’t WORTH shooting. (Eddie Said, Juan Cole, etc. etc.) I couldn’t agree more with you and have many times. That doesn’t mean when Noam Chomsky says we shouldn’t have gone to war in Vietnam that he’s wrong, and it doesn’t mean when David Horowitz says that abortion is murder that he’s right. Let me say it again for the record: in my opinion we have every right to declare war upon, invade, and occupy any nation that harbors and encourages terrorist acts against the United States and our allies. We had every reason to do what we did in Afghanistan, and when I would encounter the hand-wringing Muslims and their red-eyed pet hippies on campus decrying W’s decision to attack the Taliban, I would set them straight every time (as I did when some of them whined about Clinton attacking Milosevic.)

There are quite a few here, including myself, who criticize our own and with good reason.

When and who? Please remind me? Did you criticize Reagan for funding the fledgling Taliban and turning his back on Beirut? Did you criticize Ollie North for trading Stinger Missiles with Hezbollah and Iran? Did you criticize Dub for not sending the full force of the United States Army and Marine Corps into Afghanistan after 9-11? Did you criticize Dick Cheney for selling oil equipment to Saddam in the 90’s? Did you criticize Rumsfeld for not adequately preparing our troops with Humvee armor and body armor for invading Iraq? Did you criticize Condi for pooh-poohing the Presidential Daily Briefing of August ’01 entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US?” Not that you would ever deign to take notice or acknowledge same.

I remember seeing the critical piece at Frontpage.com linked here. I ((Mr. Spencer and I discussed it recently. I also remember you at that time petulantly trying to make him ban me. Guess that fanny of yours is starting to blister, eh?)) It is the only reference I have ever seen to Grover Norquist besides the ones I make. Furthermore, Horowitz’ rather timid (by comparison) rebuke of his beloved colleague was prefaced with an entire paragraph--or was it two?—of gushing love.

I also recall a few times seeing some here “criticizing” Bush by saying something like “I just don’t see why he says Islam is such a tolerant and peaceful tradition.” Compare that to what is usually said here about ANYONE ELSE that says the same crapola.

You just don’t care what anyone says or does if an (-R) comes after their name, and do just the opposite if they have a (-D). Like those of you that say “Clinton was offered Bin Laden’s head on a platter three times and turned them down” yet say nothing about

You bray on and on about the evil leftists and never say a word about the more-evil extremist on the right (see nationalist.com and davidduke.com.) You constantly provide opinion pieces from the likes of newsmax.com and frontpagemag.com as “proof” that liberals hate America. Just read this from the last article of Herr Laskin’s rant cited above:

“…leftists are working to ensure a victory for the forces of Islamic radicalism.

All that craptalk is going to do is drive a few more dumb kids into the “Free Palestine” mindset. It would be just as repugnant, irresponsible, and incendiary for me to say “Rightists are working to ensure the death of as many US soldiers and Marines as possible.” Laskin, in the words of the great Dick Cheney, can go f*** himself.

Actually, he prefaced himself at the beginning of the ((very) long) paragraph ended as above. He said, “…the commentaries that stem from the margins of the Left are marked by one common purpose:... to ensure a victory of the forces of Islamic radicalism.”

Note that the quote reads “that stem for the margins of the Left…” Oh, the margins of the Left? Gee, I wonder how often frontpagemag.com has any comments about the commentaries that stem from the MARGINS of the Right? I mean like the KKK, the CCC, the Holocaust revisionists, the militias, the Timothy McVeigh types, the Federalist Society, the Savage Weiners and people like G. Gordon Liddy who advised his devotees to shoot Federal Agents in the head, as their bullet-proof vests would protect their torsos. I wonder.

YES! I admit, the MARGINS of the Left are foolish and ignorantly apologetic for pretty-much anything that isn’t Christian or capitalist.

The MARGINS.

The MARGINS.

Read that again for good measure: THE MARGINS!

It seems the dear Mr. Laskin is trying to make certain sleepy-brained people that the MARGIN of the Left represents the entire body. That is a fallacy of logic called “Hasty Generalization.” And, just referring to an article at a website as blatantly right-wing as frontpagemag.com is another fallacy, the Appeal To Unqualified Authority.

You all know the MAIN problem with all these academics is the vast sums of money donated by the House of Saud to fund “Middle East Studies Departments” that spread lies about Islam and Israel all over campus. Too bad no one in DC has the chutzpah to do something about Saudi. And its too bad that a certain influential bunch of people is in the Saudi’s robe pocket. But they all have (-R)s after their name, so no big whoop to you.

Again I say that all those pie-in-the-sky pollyannas and peaceniks that major in journalism (and otherwise) at the University of Texas (and elsewhere) are going to wake up and see the truth when they leave the safe confines of the Ivory Tower and mommy and daddy’s checkbook and venture out into the real world. And in the real world, they will probably wind up working for a conservative republican (as I do.)

I can only hope that should they ever attempt to really learn the truth about Islam and Jihad, they don’t stumble into a website that bashes liberals. And I hope that they don’t meet something that knows the truth about Islam who will glibly inform them that the Left hates America, loves Islam, hates capitalism, loves Satan, etc. etc. Because some ofh them just might become convinced.

No. He won't do that, Mike.

I just did.

He'll just make out that groups like the KKK and the National Alliance are what conservatives are all about, as he has attempted to do in the past.

No, I merely prove to you that just as you can quote some fringe group from the MARGINS of my ideology, I can cite some from the MARGINS of yours. And you can’t handle it. I’m not giving you hell; I’m giving you the truth and you think that its Hell.

Another total lie of course, but what else is expected?

Yes, it is a lie to say that all conservatives agree with the KKK, the CCC, the Nationalists, etc. Lucky for me I never said that. But they are conservative. They hate homosexuals, black people, jews, racemixers, catholics, “uppity wimmin”, the federal government (usually) and all other riffraff. Are they liberal? (Before you answer, please note that they also hate liberals.)

You know what is expected? It is expected that any loudmouth douchebag can lie and spew and moan about liberals all they want, and no liberal can answer him. Like Hannity and some gun nut (can’t remember which one) laughing at Colmes and saying, “Yeah… har har… if someone breaks into OUR house with a gun, WE’LL kill him. Alan would try to get him to sit down and talk about his feelings…. Har har.” And Colmes the sissy just sits there and takes it. Buddy, I’ve got news for you. If someone breaks into my house, with or without a gun, he’s going to get a hole through his chest that you could put a grapefruit through, period. No questions asked. I will hesitate just long enough to determine whether he’s wearing a police uniform; and if he’s not, he’s going to wake up with Arafat and Mohammed Atta. He’ll have a gun in his hand by the time the police show up.

So sorry to not live up to your expectations, Gary. Could it be that you were wrong? (“Of course not!” thinks Gary.)

And, kj et all, please tell me if you think the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was "colonization"?

Hell no. It was “victory” over people that declared war on us. We should have never left. We should have made them states. I agree with Ayn Rand, the conservative, liberals philosopher, who said that every free country has the right to invade every country that oppresses it’s people. Don’t use that against me to say we should have attacked Saddam. There are plenty of countries oppressing their own people, and we didn’t (originally) gog to Iraq to “free the Iraqis”; we went because “Saddam wouldn’t disarm.”

Don’t faint, but this liberal say that we should make everyone we conquer a state… but we should only attack them if they attack us (or our allies.) If we did that all along, we’d have Cuba, Deutschland, Haiti, Japan, Mexico, Afghanistan, parts of the Ottoman Empire (maybe even “palestine!”) and various parts of North Africa including Libya. (We might have even been able to get part of England.) And we should have also made Saudi Arabia accede to us along with all that pure, sweet crude if they wanted our protection during Bush Gulf War One. Wouldn’t that be great? How’d you like to fill up that SUV with premium unleaded at 60 cents a gallon? Imagine all those liberals, homosexuals, feminists, jews, artists, and pornographers immigrating into the newest addition to America, “Washington Arabia.” Too bad we had a spineless toady that was willing to “take care” of Saddam when he dared to threaten the brutal dictators with being overthrown…. on OUR dime. (Actually on our one-hundred billion dollars, about half of what Dub has thrown at Iraq.) Hey, come to think of it, I wonder if the Saudis feel safer now, knowing that their sworn enemy and would-have-been invader is behind bars? And to think it didn’t cost the Sauds one single dollar, and not one drop of precious Saudi blood. Oh well, I’m sure some of you can find a way to blame that all Slick Willie or some other lib’rul.

Tell me, kj et al, how does encouraging democratic elections that run the risk of rejecting American values fit the Spanish, French, Dutch or even British colonial models?

They don’t. I don’t think we are in Iraq for reasons of Empire; President Rove sent the troops there to take our attention off the failures of the Bush administration, and try to promote some “if you hate Bush you must hate the Troops” propaganda.

How much oil (Iraq's only exportable resource) has the United States arbitrarily extracted for exclusive, domestic consumption?

Probably none. But they are pumping 54 million barrels a day. It’s got to be going somewhere. Where?

Are we encouraging mass immigration to Iraq to turn it into an American enclave?

I wish! Of course not, but unlike my brethren on the MARGINS, I have never claimed that this was the case, since I have never had reason to believe it.

Now, I answered your questions. Will you please answer mine? How much money has Halliburton made on this little invasion of Iraq? And please, spare me the attempted equivocation of Halliburton’s no-bid contracts in Iraq with their no-bid contracts in Bosnia. Algore didn’t “used to” own Halliburtion.

********************************************************

Yet another conservative revisionists chimes in:Clearly, the idea that Hitler was a Rightist is probably the most successful BIG LIE of the 20th Century.

Yeah, that Hitler, he was a staunch Christian, against abortion, against “immoral modern music”, against the Unions, against the Jews, against the blacks, against the Gypsies, against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, against the homosexuals…. What a liberal!

Golly! I wonder why that other satanic liberal, the dreaded FDR, “let us get bombed at Pearl Harbor” (according to right-wing revisionists seeking to destroy to social programs he build) as a pretense for attacking Hitler? After all, they were both liberal, right?

Jesus Christ, I have to laugh at you pathetic people sometimes. I really have to laugh. I can’t believe that any of you really believe all the crap you say. What a joke.

By the way, how do you account for the difference between Hitler’s “socialist” nation and all those “other” socialist nations NOW in Europe? Like England, France, Sweden, Norway, etc? Maybe Hitler was using the word “Socialist” like some other people use words like “morals” and “values.” Maybe Hitler was using the word “socialist” to take away from great industrialist in Germany that were Jewish? Here, I have a idea for you. Go to google, and find any Hitler speech. Substitute the word “liberal” for every mention of the word “Jew”; likewise replace “Clinton/Kerry/Hillary” with “Roosevelt,” “Judaica” with “liberalism/academia” and “Germany” with “America.” What have you got? Instant right-winger!

I know you won’t “have time” to conduct this experiment, so let me do one for you. I just went to google, typed in “Hitler” and “speeches” and went to the first site on the results page. I clicked on the first link at that site and got this little gem:

For us there are only two possibilities: either we remain German or we come under the thumb of the Jews. This latter must not occur; even if we are small, we are a force. A well-organized group can conquer a strong enemy. If you stick close together and keep bringing in new people, we will be victorious over the Jews.

Compare that to this:

For us there are only two possibilities: either we remain Americans or we come under the thumb of the liberals. This latter must not occur; even if we are small, we are a force. A well-organized group can conquer a strong enemy. If you stick close together and keep bringing in new people, we will be victorious over the liberals.

Now please tell me that doesn’t sound like something off of a.m. radio.

And--what do you know?--check out this little piece of the second speech. Hitler says, “So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains then the Right.”

Wow. I guess that just shot your “Big Lie” theory out of the water, eh? LOL. (Go read it for yourself and see that its really not as bad as it seems. Hitler went on to criticize Right as well. You’re welcome.)

And STILL he cries: It also hinted that everyone on the "right" was in some proximity to the hated Nazis. Damn those liberals! Thank goodness that no one would EVER hint that everyone on the “left” was in some proximity to the hated Commies or Muslims, huh? LOL. Oh your poor, misguided dittoheads.

Kentim, you beat me to it

And then I beat all of you over the head with it.

And just how does one accumulate wealth? By reaping the rewards of their "responsibility and performance"!! That's Free Enterprise/Capitalism, not Socialism.

So apparently Hitler was wrong when he said that he was a socialist? I could agree more. And I also agree with you that the way to accumulate wealth is to reap the rewards for my responsibility and performance. That’s why I started my seven-year four-year degree in college at 31 after swinging a hammer for 9 years (and four thereafter.)

kj, you keep encouraging Christian-hating intellectuals (who for some reason get stuck in Leviticus, if they ever pick up a Bible) to start hating Islam, too.

Yes, sir! Can do!

Glad to have you at the site.

Thanks. I ‘ve actually been here for a long time but I’ve been busy lately.

In the meantime, I encourage those of you who are Christians to fill in the spiritual vacuum which creates lost souls like kj.

Thanks anyway, friend. There’s no soul here to lose. It was beaten out of me as a child, along with all the diamonds in my mind. I tried Christianity but couldn’t stand the intolerance and conservatism.

Good Christians like my Grandfather, Herr Schindler, Pastor Niemuller, Father Damien, Mother Theresa, St. Francis, etc. will always be drowned out by bible-thumping, fire-and-brimstone grace junkies like Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, Mel Gibson, etc. Especially now that modern Christianity is little more than a branch of conservative politics. Maybe when the pendulum swings back, that will change.

Pray for me if you have nothing better to do, but don’t worry; I’m covered anyway. It says something in the bible about those who bless the descendants of Israel (or Abraham or whatever) will be blessed by Yaweh. I doubt that anyone blessed by the god of the bible would be sent to the hell of the bible…. That reminds me. I love to ask Muslims, “do you believe the bible?” Because they ALWAYS say “Yes.” So I ask them if they believe Psalm 86.4 (or something like that; I haven’t done it in a while, haven’t seen any Muslims in a while (sigh).) It’s the verse imploring Yaweh to destroy those that want to say that Israel is no more or something like that. Maybe one of my good Christian friends here can quote the exact chapter and verse.

The second item appeared around April 2003 and it was a volunteer Doctor that helped children under the permission of Saddam ,the Doctor refuted the claims that the USA was responsible for deaths of thousands of children and babies because of the sanctions. He revealed in a TV interview that he was ordered to stay quiet about the death children the he kept in coolers for the use of propaganda photo-ops when they were brought out to a area and strewn around as if killed by bombs or sickness.

I’ve already covered that; if you fools didn’t jump on me like Klansmen on a liberal in the ‘60s and fire back with twenty or thirty comments for every one of mine, you’d know that I always said the numbers were bullshit, and even if true, they—or the true number—was completely the fault of Saddam himself. (Goddam! Imagine what HE could have done to the Saudis!) Please recall that liberals, hippies, peaceniks, and other riffraff were whining about Clinton all through the nineties about the alleged millions of dead waifs at the hands of the sanctioning US and—get this!—the UN! Gee! It’s almost as if the liberal MARGIN gets mad every time a group of children dies, and excoriates whoever is in office at the time, even if it’s another liberal!

I have often thought that a lot of the children/adults killed by the “Zionist invaders of ‘palestine’” were actually killed by someone else (say, girls killed by their parents for having a late period) and then planted at the nearest Israeli tank. Or if those “palestinians” that just plain die of cancer, tuberculosis, etc. have their bodies staged/planted in a way to stir up more jihad crazies. Anyway.

Some of the crazy comments made by Leftist Loonies make you wonder who the Enemy is!

That’s Mister Leftist Loonie to you, pal. You “know” who the Enemy is. People like me. You know what you have to do. Kill some of us; make an example. Go ahead. The ends justify the means. Bomb an abortion clinic. Blow up a federal building. Mail anthrax to a democrat. You “know” who the Enemy is. You know how to punish them. You are just afraid of going to prison for life.

Mohammed Atta also “knew” who his Enemy was. Maybe you should shut the f*** up.

Real danger is distortion of the truth which one sees in the Media because Mr and Mrs Joe Public believe what Journalists say more than Politicians.

Is that why 60% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved with 9-11? Is that why 60% of Americans believe that Clinton raised their taxes? Is that why 90% of the Bush supporters think that it was CRUCIAL to our defense to invade Iraq?

Academics have a lot of influence on the young who are idealistically seeking for something that is 'pure' to believe in and can easily be 'converted' and even do atrocities in the name of some Ideology like Islam or Communism.

Yeah, those Commies sure are big threat, huh? And Lord Bush really showed them a thing or two when they shot our spyplane down in Hainan in April 2001. (Haha… it was sooooo funny to hear Rush bloviate for hours about the many definitions of the word “sorry.” Too bad he left one out.)

You are so out of touch. Academics can’t get their students to comb out their dreadlocks, wear shoes, or study, but you think they can get them to convert to Islam or communism? Haha… that’s hilarious. Too bad you believe it. The problem, as usual, is Islam and Suadi money (and political connections) that is converting Islam. Dupes think that Islam is reeeeeal different from Christianity, so if they leave Christianity, they think that they should join Islam. If they can get past the hatred of women, homosexuals, jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and xtians, they’ve got it made. (Some of the women wake up and split after they get their first good beating.)

A long and protracted expose of the Truth is all we can do against fools like Professor Jensen.

I couldn’t agree more but accusing liberals of hating America and the hating the troops and hoping for a victory for radical Islam isn’t going to help the matter. And if I was attending Jensen’s college, I would offer a standing invitation to debate anyone about the so-called “greatness” of Islam (or conservatism) or the “evil” of Israel (or liberalism) as I did here at USF. I never heard of Al Aryan until he was already banned from campus (yes! Banned by academics, from an academic venue!) But had he returned, I would have made it my business to remind him every day that he is a murderer of women and children.

Timbo, if you’re looking for rational debates, and friendly discourse, I fear that you have come to the wrong place. As you can see for yourself. That’s an interesting theory you have there though.

You never responded to MY questions. CGW

Sorry, CGW (“Can’t Get Wet”?) but I have a life outside of jihadwatch.com comments.

Btw, everyone: Am I behind the times, or is the newest left-wing nut theory that Al-queda does not even exist, and was made up by the 'neo-cons'?

You are neither behind the times, nor is the new theory (blah blah blah.) You’re problem is that you depend of ideologues for your information, who tell you aaaaaaaall about the liberal MARGIN and try to make you think that all liberals think that way (you then proceed to convince others of the same.) Nice try though.

Yeah, I came here to catch kj's promised "incineration". What a rip-off!

Don’t look now, Mike, but I think that’s my boot print on your thoroughly-reddened heiney.

Mike, the word 'incinerate' was what caused me to go looking for the link I posted somewhere above. Interesting that the latest conspiracy theory is that Al-queda doesn't even exist, and that the leftist Academia, among others, wouldn't mind seeing Israel 'incinerated'... When I learned how much Hitler was a leftist/liberal/loser/loner, it all clicked.

You forgot to mention that it is the MARGIN of the leftist academia. Funny that you forget that EVERY time.

Again I say, damn that liberal Hitler. And that liberal child molester Strom Thurmond. And the liberal Jew killer Mohammed. And the liberal David Koresh. And the liberal PM Suharto. And the liberal Idi Amin. And all those liberals Muslims that beat their wives. And that liberal Pontius Pilate. And that liberal Genghis Khan. And that liberal Arafat. And that liberal Huey P. Long. And that liberal King George. And those liberal confederate slave owners that killed thousands of United States soldiers and sailors. And those damn liberal Mogals that sacked India. And those damn Muslim invaders that destroyed Constantinople. And that liberal Timothy McVeigh. And that liberal Fred Phelps. And that liberal (you get the idea.)

Well, I’ll see you all at another comment. I’ll try to come back, but I’m probably not going to have time to address your 100 or so retorts.

ALright, you want your rebuttall; that was it. I didnt' have time to proofread it so please excuse my sloppy mistakes. Enjoy it. Or better yet, don't enjoy it.

Posted by: kj at January 13, 2005 5:31 PM

I will come back tomorrow after everyone has gaily piped in with his or her two cent's worth, and incinerate you with words, just like I always do.
Posted by: kj at January 11, 2005 01:08 PM

That is some great comedy!

Posted by: Bar at January 13, 2005 9:52 PM

Yeah, that Hitler, he was a staunch Christian, ........... What a liberal!
Posted by: kj at January 13, 2005 05:31 PM

Yes kj, A liberal.
That is why JFK father was a avid Nazi supporter, if I know anything about the Kennedy’s, one thing for sure they are not conservative!

Everyone who reads kj’s post, remember that kj says stuff just to make people mad, most of his stuff is twisted BS.
I don’t know why the liberals cant discuss a topic with lowing it to name calling.

Posted by: Bar at January 13, 2005 10:12 PM

KJ-

"Hitler was a Christian..." ?

Have you not read "Mein Kampf"? Adolf was a nihilistic "Wotan"/"Aryan" Deutsche-blood anal-sadistic mystic who wanted all churches/synagogues/temples/etc. destroyed and "replaced with astronomical observatories" (in his own phrase).

About as 'Christian' as Jeffrey Daumer.

He hated all of the major religions equally but played the German churches like cheap fiddles to empower his own demented nationalistic ends. And was a quasi-scientific progressive who liked the machinery of modernity but not the enlightenment required to bring it about.

Which is why he expelled 'non-Aryan' scientists from the Reich and thereby lost the A-bomb and the war.

The same reason Islam will fall.

It piths its own brains, and thinks it can steal enough technology from its enemies to defeat them. (Such cherry picking always ends in the pits.)

That theory -of buying rope from your enemies to hang them with- plays well with suckers who don't understand the breadth of what an advanced culture requires (freedom of thought/conscience/etc.).

The failures of the West (taught in all of its schools, freely) are chains of cotton candy compared to the adamantine mind cages that the Global Terror State will bring.

You can pick your own little nits at leisure once you've slain the mad dogs biting at your heels.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 13, 2005 10:47 PM

Hahaha.

Funny.

Too bad leftists are ILLIBERAL.

Posted by: kentim at January 13, 2005 10:55 PM

*lol* You leave so Much out, kj. and not sure which of us you think 'tried to get me banned' but it wasn't me (your reference to it comes after a line of mine you quoted), nor have I ever been 'petulant'. Keep up the 'lie, repeated enough' however, it may someday work.

Just like the outright lie that Republicans put the Jim Crow laws in place in the south. Can't refute the historical record there, but maybe if dems were in charge long enough you could bury it...

eh. Waste of my time.

Wait! almost missed this one:

You are neither behind the times, nor is the new theory (blah blah blah.) ~kj

The forums I have been reading at are all over this one, kj. I picked it up from the bastards who support your side, NOT from anyone on the Right. Drop your bullshit. One only has to look in places like TalkLeft or the DU to see it being avidly discussed.

Posted by: Gary at January 14, 2005 6:59 AM

kj:

I would apologize for "screaming", but since you did it several times in your own post, I guess the need is obviated. At least I'm not verbally abusive and don't lower myself to profanity and name-calling, which you typically are and do. (There, are you happy? No shouting, just emphasis. BTW, all caps is considered shouting, not screaming. There is a difference.)Your theoretical interpretation of my name as a profane acronym was especially vile, uncalled-for and says more about you than it does about me. As it is, I have never stated my political, religious, etc. affiliations on this site and may have more in common with you than you know. You may have succeeded in further alienating a cohort by your vitriol, in which you seem to actually revel. That also says a lot more about you than it does me.

This is what I don't understand. The mature, responsible adult response to criticism (even of one's own "side") when the validity of that criticism is justified, as in the case of Robert Jensen mentioned above, is to accept it. The immature, childish, irresponsible response is to immediately shift or deflect blame to another target - "It wasn't me!" Why couldn't you have just said, "This guy is wrong, what he writes is unacceptable, and it does not represent what I and the majority of liberals think or believe." That would have been a lot more credible than an immediate attack upon the right and how "They do it, too!", another immature response.

That being said, I am not your enemy and your insults do not affect me in a personal manner; they only shape my opinion of you. You are obviously intelligent, articulate, and opinionated, all of which are fine, but the emotionally-generated desire to insult and abuse detracts from the impact of your overall message, which otherwise could be quite powerful. I say this as someone who holds no ill will against you, and I hope that you can accept it in the same vein. If not, I'm sure you'll just flame me in your next post, which will be a waste of your time - I am simply not affected by vituperative emotional rants. Logical, rational arguments are another story - and you have plenty of those. If you could stick to that ability, and refrain from constantly attacking the other "side" and remain on topic, you could be a true powerhouse here.

Finally:

Buddy, I’ve got news for you. If someone breaks into my house, with or without a gun, he’s going to get a hole through his chest that you could put a grapefruit through, period. No questions asked. I will hesitate just long enough to determine whether he’s wearing a police uniform; and if he’s not, he’s going to wake up with Arafat and Mohammed Atta. He’ll have a gun in his hand by the time the police show up.

ROFLMAO ! ! ! Are you sure you're not a closet "neo-con" after all? ;-)

Posted by: CGW at January 14, 2005 7:27 AM

Oh and hey, while you are assigning blame: don't forget that Carter also played a major role in this mess:

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000239.html

And Yes, I know. You will say 'if that is true.' Odd how there is always an 'if' when it comes to democrats but it Must be the case if it is a Republican.

Posted by: Gary at January 14, 2005 9:51 AM

Bar lies: Yes kj, [Hitler was] A liberal. That is why JFK father was a avid Nazi supporter, if I know anything about the Kennedy’s, one thing for sure they are not conservative!

How about that Prescott Bush? He did business with the Nazis while we were at war with them. Oh, never mind! He's got an "R" after his name. He and the rest of his snotty, yankee, blue-blood, old money litter.

Everyone who reads kj’s post, remember that kj says stuff just to make people mad, most of his stuff is twisted BS.

I know; I know. The truth does make people mad. But maybe it will help you. Or perhaps you can point out some of the twisted bs? You cons have a bad habit of saying that something is just so much bs, yet can't point out any examples. Just like Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 911." If it is full of lies, why hasn't he been sued?

I don’t know why the liberals cant discuss a topic with lowing it to name calling.

We can. It’s just hard to resist throwing in a zinger every now and then to keep you interested, crapeater.

*********************************************

profitsbeard: [Hitler wasn’t a Christian…] …He hated all of the major religions equally but played the German churches…

If you visit this non-partisan link,

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html

you will see that the question of whether Hitler was a Christian is still open for debate. He made many claims that can go either way, but there is no disputing that the vast majority of the Nazis and Germans in general were (and still are) Christians; and that Hitler was baptized, served as an altar boy, and considered joining the priesthood.

The belt buckle of (official) SS uniforms said “God is With Us.” You can say they weren’t Christians, but which god do you think they meant? Allah? Buddha? Krishna?

Overall, your rebuttal is kind enough but I think that you are mistaken.

********************************************************************

Kentim steps right in it: Hahaha. Funny. Too bad leftists are ILLIBERAL.

From www.dictionary.com:
il•lib•er•al ( -l b r- l)
adj.
Narrow-minded; bigoted.
Archaic. Ungenerous, mean, or stingy.
Archaic.
Lacking liberal culture.
Ill-bred; vulgar.

Hey, Kentim. You’re right. Remember when Al Franken called young Jenna Bush “The White House dog”? Then he tried to blame it on his staff? Oh, wait. That was Rush Limbaugh (R-Oxycontin.) How about the times Katie Couric advised medicinal marijuana using cancer patients to “Aim for the head” when the feds bust in? Ooops… my bad. That was G. Gordon Liddy advising the Tim McVeigh types. Well, I KNOW--how about that rabid Noam Chomsky who said that he wished the 911 hijackers had hit the Wall Street Journal. Oh sh*t. I was mistaken again; that was the lovable Ann Coulter (and the New York Times, respectively.) Let’s see… there’s the photos of Barbara Streisand nude, legs agape…. Oh drat! That was “Doctor” Laura. Damn! Maybe you’re wrong.

Kentim, before you attempt to respond about how “archaic, ungenerous, mean, ill-bred, and vulgar” the leftists are, I’d like you to listen to Mike Savage for a week.
*********************************
Gary: *lol* You leave so Much out, kj. and not sure which of us you think 'tried to get me banned' but it wasn't me (your reference to it comes after a line of mine you quoted),

Yes you did. You didn’t come right out and say “Ban him! Ban him!” but the last time Robert Spencer and I had a little debate, you typed some crap that seemed obvious you were urging him to ban me. (Ha Ha.)

…nor have I ever been 'petulant'.

You are snide, snippy, petulant, immature, myopic, and one-track-minded. You have been and are all of these things. You are constantly throwing little cheap shots into every topic, no matter what the topic is, about how bad the lib’ruls are. Go back and read through for yourself. I can do it for you if you “don’t have the time” or if it “isn’t worth your effort.”

Just like the outright lie that Republicans put the Jim Crow laws in place in the south. Can't refute the historical record there, but maybe if dems were in charge long enough you could bury it...

YES!!! YES!!! Now I have you. YES!!!

I never, ever said that Republicans put the Jim Crow laws in place in the south. They were democrats, but they were conservatives. Most democrats voted against civil rights and most republicans voted for it. But that was a long time ago. Huey P. Long was a racist, fascist prick and… a democrat. But he was a conservative.

After Truman started desegregation (the military, etc.) Old Strom Thurmond still hated the Republicans enough that he couldn’t join them. Instead, he tried to start the so-called “Dixiecrats.” About twenty years later, when Johnson signed the Voter Rights Act, he and the some other “old school” democrats bolted. (Ronald Reagan, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, etc.) A few more left after Clinton tried to take on the HMOs (Shelby, etc.) and now (that Zell has gone nuts and Cleland has been turned into Bin Laden by President Rove) the south is pretty-much completely lost to the party “of Lincoln”; now the party of Strom Thurmond.

(By the way, speaking of the South, Ronald Reagan's first campaign rally after he won the Rep. nomination in 1980 was in Philadelphia, Massassippi, a wide spot in the road known primarily as the place where white bigots murdered three civil-rights workers (one black man and two liberal, yankee, Jews) in 1964. Ray-gun’s topic was “states rights,” which the cracker rabble loves. They feel the feds have bullied them, especially as concerns segregation and Jim Crow. Black people and white liberals recognize that "states rights" is code for “oppression and disregard for human rights;” as sure as Pat Buchanon’s phrase “International Bankers” means “Jews.” Reagan's choice of THAT topic in THAT city clearly let his feelings be known. Of course you didn’t know this. The “liberal media” never talk about it. And, now that you DO know it, you still don’t believe it, do you?)

Please spare me the lecture about the GOP and Rice, Powell, and Thomas. I know that the GOPers can APPOINT a black person; let’s see them ELECT some. OJ Watts is gone; a college football star anomaly in a land of knuckledragging racists. You get 5-10 percent of the black vote… so why aren’t they all voting for the Reps?

eh. Waste of my time.

I know how you feel, but it’s not like you have anything better to do. I, on the other hand… I wouldn’t have even come back to put another boot to your already-reddened GOPer ass if not for the fact that both my kids fell asleep waaay earlier than usual.

Wait! almost missed this one: You are neither behind the times, nor is the new theory (blah blah blah.) ~kj …..The forums I have been reading at are all over this one, kj. I picked it up from the bastards who support your side, NOT from anyone on the Right. Drop your bullshit. One only has to look in places like TalkLeft or the DU to see it being avidly discussed.

And one need only visit nationalist.com, freerepublic.com, mikesavage.com, liberalscum.com, etc. etc. to see other topics being avidly discussed.

Hey Gary… how about if I start a webpage and call it “The Real Republican Platform” and start talking about how great it would be to get the darkies back onto the farms, the Kikes back to Germany, and the Queers into the ovens. Then I could come back and say, “The Right hates black people, Jews, and homosexuals! (Ahem.) I know, because I picked it up from the bastards who support your side, NOT from anyone on the LEFT. Drop your bullshit. One only has to look in places like Davidduke.com or the therealrepublicanplatform.com” to see it being avidly discussed.”

Or, better yet (for me; worse for you,) how about I got to freerepublic.com and gather up some nice little tidbits and paste them in here so you will know how your conservative brethren REALLY feel? Hmmmm?

*************************************

CGW sez…I would apologize for "screaming", but since you did it several times in your own post, I guess the need is obviated. At least I'm not verbally abusive and don't lower myself to profanity and name-calling, which you typically are and do.

Would you like to borrow a hanky?

(There, are you happy? No shouting, just emphasis…

Scroll up now and read your first comment. An entire sentence in all caps. Now look at the next comment, from profitsbeard. One word in his last sentence is in caps. Now THAT’S using caps for emphasis.

…BTW, all caps is considered shouting, not screaming. There is a difference.)

Dude, that is soooo like, bs. Please, right now, go to www.dictionary.com, type in “scream” and hit the “thesaurus” button and go see for yourself that in the eight most popular usages of the word “scream” it is synonymous with “shout.”

Your theoretical interpretation of my name as a profane acronym was especially vile, uncalled-for and says more about you than it does about me.

”Can’t Get Wet” is profane and vile now? Jeez, where do you live? Virginia?

As it is, I have never stated my political, religious, etc. affiliations on this site and may have more in common with you than you know.

Well, let’s hear it (see it.)

You may have succeeded in further alienating a cohort by your vitriol, in which you seem to actually revel.

Hey, I don’t come here to convince people that they should become liberals or democrats. I’m just not going to stand by and take it like Alan Colmes, which is what all the GOPers expect. And when I go to a certain left-wing, anti-Fascism site, I don’t stand idly by while people bash Israel and the Zionists and apologize for the “Palestinians”.

Gary tells half the story by bringing up the liberals, and I tell the other half by bringing up the conservatives. Period.

That also says a lot more about you than it does me.

Whatever.

This is what I don't understand. The mature, responsible adult response to criticism (even of one's own "side") when the validity of that criticism is justified, as in the case of Robert Jensen mentioned above, is to accept it. The immature, childish, irresponsible response is to immediately shift or deflect blame to another target - "It wasn't me!" Why couldn't you have just said, "This guy is wrong, what he writes is unacceptable, and it does not represent what I and the majority of liberals think or believe."

This guy is wrong, what he writes is unacceptable, and it does not represent what I and the majority of liberals think or believe.

That would have been a lot more credible than an immediate attack upon the right and how "They do it, too!", another immature response.

I not going to let people lie and lie. I’m not going to take it lying down. The “mature response” would be to do what you said, and it would work about as well as John Kerry’s trying to rationally debate Dubya when he said, “Let’s avoid these labels. They really don’t mean anything.” and Dub went straight into “He’s more liberal that Ted Kennedy! He’s liberal! He’s a liberal!”

Alas, rational debate doesn’t do anything for some people. Zingers, one-liners, asides, sound bites, catchy phrases. But let’s just read my original post again (the one after Gary’s half-dozen links to opinion “essays” about how much liberals hate America):

KJ:Well, I guess the end result of all this one-sided blather is that liberals hate America sooo much and we hate Christianity sooo much that we are willing to help Islam take over the world, even though we will be killed as soon as they take over. Perfectly sound, conservative "reasoning." And Rush Limbaugh is innocent, Bill O'Reilly isn't a pervert, Imus never did coke, Bush is a Vietnam War hero, and James Baker is helping the Saudis defend themselves in a "frivolous" lawsuit. As long as you continue to only tell half of the story, you can make anyone look like anything you want. Muslims do the same thing.

Please tell me where I am wrong here.

I know that Jihad has nothing to do with America politics, but I come here and see the crap that is hurled at the everything liberal, and I cannot keep silent (unless I am too busy with my life.) The Right is notorious for using EVERY situation as a commercial to push forward their narrow agenda. Have you ever even listened to Rush Limbaugh?

That being said, I am not your enemy and your insults do not affect me in a personal manner; they only shape my opinion of you.

I feel the same way, and by golly, if there ever really is a jihadwatch convention in my vicinity, I will make every effort to go and shake the hands of Gary, DC Watson, Nathan, you, and the rest of my good-time buddies. I’ll buy a round of Guiness and single malts. But like I said, I’m not going to be bullied and I’m not going to stand down while anyone else is.

You are obviously intelligent, articulate, and opinionated, all of which are fine,

Thank you!

but

Uh-oh.

the emotionally-generated desire to insult and abuse detracts from the impact of your overall message, which otherwise could be quite powerful.

Otherwise? I’d say it IS quite powerful. I’m not near as insulting as have been many of my detractors here. Sometimes I may lump all of you into a single entity and throw an inappropriate (for some of you) insult. Sorry about that. Usually the insults are strictly for Catharine, Gary, Nathan, Rikki, etc. I don’t intend to hurt anyone’s feelings but if people wouldn’t try to use this forum as a way to insult liberals I would only say things on which we all agree (like Islam, Jihad, FGM, etc.)

Let me say this yet again. I am painfully aware that some liberals, especially out there in the MARGINS are completely wrong about Islam and Jihad. Some are naïve, some are gadflies, some are just plain stupid, some have been co-opted, some have been swayed by the “poor, oppressed palestinians,” some have been bought off, and some may just be plain evil. But don’t pigeonhole me. And don’t say that I or anyone else hates the troops, hates America, loves Bin Laden, etc. etc. unless you can back it up.

I say this as someone who holds no ill will against you, and I hope that you can accept it in the same vein. If not, I'm sure you'll just flame me in your next post, which will be a waste of your time - I am simply not affected by vituperative emotional rants.

I don’t flame. I give the red-ass. Your retort was nice enough, and I am responding in kind. I hope this doesn’t disappoint you.

Logical, rational arguments are another story - and you have plenty of those. If you could stick to that ability, and refrain from constantly attacking the other "side"

… and sit quietly, like Alan Colmes while Gary walks all over “my” side? I can’t.

…and remain on topic,

This all started when the article was entitled “Leftist Terror PR Machine” or somesuch. I was only fighting back. There are plenty of Right-wing terror PR apologists and propagandists with LOTS more power than some nutty journalism professor in Texas. I have named some of them so many times before that it should be by now for you a familiar litany. I think that just the quartet of George H. W. Bush, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, and Grover Norquist trumps any coterie of academic apologists that the likes of frontpagemag.com can dream up.

you could be a true powerhouse here.

There may just come such a day. If only we could all talk about Islam and its many faults instead of certain people trying to drag politics in. Lately I have tried to refrain from striking the first blow, but I will always swing back. (Unless, like I mentioned before, I am too busy being a father.)

KJ: He’ll have a gun in his hand by the time the police show up.
CGW: ROFLMAO ! ! ! Are you sure you're not a closet "neo-con" after all? ;-)

I thought you’d like it. ~(:^/) It’s all true, and yes I’m sure. The fact is that people can’t be as easily pigeonholed as Rush et al. would like. I hold many conservative views, including limiting the role of women in the military. But I have that view from having served in the Marines, where the role is already pretty limited, and they (women Marines) still are very counterproductive (starting fights, marrying up the ranks, special treatment, etc.) Furthermore, many of them are raped, more than you handle knowing. It’s no place for a lady, and I will encourage my daughters to stay away from the military like Islam. If they want to serve their country, they can go to college and get a PhD in engineering or physics and work for the Department of the Army/Navy etc. or a defense contractor. It’ll pay five times more and be “just” a job.

And those kids in my life is the main reason I keep a Keltech .38 within arm’s length at all times. I use hollow points, the special purple-tipped kind that lose their velocity if they go through a wall (in case I miss. (I won’t miss.)) The hollow projectiles mushroom out to do extra damage but as an added bonus, they are less likely to exit the surprised intruder and fire into an innocent bystander/bysleeper. My kids won’t be able to pull the action back and chamber a round until they are at least ten or so, so I keep the magazine full and the chamber empty. Me shucking the barrel with be the last thing an intruder hears.

I think I’m off topic now, so let’s get back to Gary’s last little rant:

*******************************************

Oh and hey, while you are assigning blame: don't forget that Carter also played a major role in this mess: http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/000239.html And Yes, I know. You will say 'if that is true.' Odd how there is always an 'if' when it comes to democrats but it Must be the case if it is a Republican.

Sniff, sniff… waaaah. You guys are so mean to us GOPers… waaah.

Gary, you simpleton. LOL… I love that article you linked there… it’s great! I am going to save it so the next time someone says that Reagan didn’t help Islam, I can show them this….LOL…Oh, poor Gary. Its bad enough that you were named after Spongebob Squarepants’ pet snail, and now this… LOL.

I don’t think you read most of that article, or you linked the wrong one. Did you mean to include this parts that read:

…Brzezinski's enthusiasm was shared by William Casey, a veteran of the OSS and the director of the CIA under President Reagan. In the mid-1980s, Casey committed CIA funds to the even grander plan of organizing the Muslims of the world into a global jihad against Soviet communism.

…I guess he thought they’d stop there…

By the mid-1980s, the CIA office in Islamabad, Pakistan, had become second in size only to the headquarters in Langley, Virginia; and American assistance to the Afghan Islamists, channeled through the CIA and the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, was running into billions of dollars.

January 15–21, 1998… Brzezinski said: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" That some stirred-up Muslims were a minor price to pay for the collapse of the Soviet empire cannot but seem now an especially cynical and wrongheaded bit of Realpolitik.

…and I wonder if he would say that it was “worth it” today?

…got Afghan Mujahideen to mine and bomb military installations a few kilometers deep inside Soviet territory; but plans for more such attacks were hastily dropped after the Soviet Union threatened to invade Pakistan.

Oh, that would have been terrible! If that had happened, Pakistan would probably be some third-world theocratic hellhole by now! Wait a minute…

But [CIA puppet] Prime Minister Zia's encouragement of the jihad in Afghanistan produced hundreds of thousands of radical Islamists who make Pakistan an unstable country;

Oooops.

In fact, Hekmatyar, who inaugurated his career as a radical Islamist by assassinating a left-wing student at Kabul University in the late 1960s, is held responsible for the murder of many rival Mujahideen as well as some of the liberal-minded Afghan intellectuals who had fled Kabul for Pakistan after the Communist coup in 1978. Hekmatyar's rocket attacks on Kabul during the civil war in 1994 killed more civilians in the capital city than had died in ten years of anti-Communist jihad.

Another “terrible liberal” like Hitler, who killed liberals, like Hitler did?

The book is about the covert US effort to arm and train the mujahadin in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. Calpundit shares some utterly gruesome anecdotes from the book that reveal how truly deluded Richard Perle -- and Ollie North -- were. The holding onto their delusions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is what is so consistent about Perle and his circle.

Thanks for the ammo, Gary! With opponents like you, I don’t need any friends!

ROFLMAO.

Gary, how does my boot feel against your derriere?

Gary:Keep up the 'lie, repeated enough' however, it may someday work.

You are living proof. I don't need to lie. The truth is on my side.

Posted by: kj at January 15, 2005 10:51 PM

I think I should clarify two points...

I never saw women Marines actually start fights. But (just like everywhere else, at all times) that magical little thing they sit on and those two interesting protuberances between their shoulders CAUSED many a fight.

As for the number of women raped in the military, apparently I can’t handle the facts either. It is very hard to find online, and despite searching for at least 30 minutes, I couldn’t find the answer. But nationally, 13% of women are raped at some time.

This is especially poignant for me as I had a very close friend in the Marines that was a Woman Marine. She told me that she had been gang-raped by--of all people--Marine Corps brig guards. I begged her to tell the MPs but she refused.

Anyway, if I ever find the actually number I'll let you know. But if its not at least 25% (double the national average) I'll eat my hat.

Posted by: kj at January 15, 2005 11:28 PM

‘including limiting the role of women in the military’
‘I use hollow points, the special purple-tipped kind that lose their velocity if they go through a wall (in case I miss. (I won't miss.)) The hollow projectiles mushroom out to do extra damage but as an added bonus, they are less likely to exit the surprised intruder and fire into an innocent bystander/bysleeper.’
Posted by: kj

Wow I actually agree with kj on something!

'That was Rush Limbaugh (R-Oxycontin.)'
And I have to admit that is pretty funny also.

Posted by: Bar at January 16, 2005 3:29 AM

kj:

Fair enough.

I don't believe that this forum (at least for me personally) is the place for me to display my affiliations or beliefs, other than anti-jihadism, anti-dhimmitude, patriotism and the belief in the utter superiority of and inevitable continuous development of Enlightened Western Civilization. I only ask that you don't pigeon-hole me because many of your assumptions would be wrong. Many here are ideologically closer to you than you realize but are put off by harsh rhetoric from both sides. I USUALLY try to ignore the extremes from the "MARGINS" and focus on the issue at hand, without letting other, less important (to me, anyway) considerations sidetrack me. (Did you like my use of caps there? Did ya, huh, did ya? :-) )

BTW, my point about screaming vs. shouting, despite what the dictionary may say, is that screaming implies hysteria, while shouting may just be a warning, or used when someone is too distant to hear normal speech, etc. (although it may also be used to display anger and other negative emotions). Either way, my intent was to "question loudly". :-)

kj: I give the red-ass.

I believe the term you're looking for is "chap ass", as in "I chap ass". ;-)

Here's hoping for that JW convention, my brother!

CGW

Posted by: CGW at January 16, 2005 6:31 AM

But none of what you say or claim justifies the academic, media and political leadership of left getting away with the bullshit above, kj.

Posted by: Gary at January 16, 2005 11:59 AM