Who Is the "Taliban"?

David Rohde's series "Held by the Taliban," which began running in the New York Times on Sunday makes gripping reading. (You can read Part I here and Part II here.) But so far, at least, it seems that Rohde isn't clear on what the Taliban is. And his confusion is important, because one's view of the Taliban is critical for US policy going forward. If the Taliban is one and the same with Al Qaeda, religious fanatics dedicated to a global jihad against the West above all, with no willingness to compromise, then that's one thing. But if the Taliban is a compex social organism whose leaders are separate and distinct from Al Qaeda, and if it's possible to persuade some or most of the Taliban's leadership and commanders to sit down and talk, then that's something else.

At first, Rohde seems to imply that his view that the Taliban was not as militant and vicious as Al Qaeda was foolish:

"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of 'Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.

"Living side by side with the Haqqanis' followers, I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious. Contact with foreign militants in the tribal areas appeared to have deeply affected many young Taliban fighters. They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world."

What exactly is Rohde getting at here? He says that he was wrong to believe that the Taliban was aimed at "controlling Afghanistan," then he notes that he is being held by "Haqqanis' followers" -- who are not the same as the Taliban, which is based in Quetta, Pakistan -- and then he mentions "hard-line Taliban," implying that there is a softer version.

Then Rohde muddies the picture even further. Later in Part I, he says:

"I saw the Haqqanis as a criminal gang masquerading as a pious religious movement. They described themselves as the true followers of Islam but displayed an astounding capacity for dishonesty and greed."

Wait a minute! Earlier he told us that the Taliban are religious fanatics who want to create a worldwide emirate of Islam -- and now the Haqqanis are portrayed as "masquerading" as pious. Which is it?

Still later, still in Part I, he says:

"I still did not know which Taliban faction had abducted us."

Okay, so the Taliban has "factions." To me, that means that some of it -- perhaps most of it? -- might be willing to negotiate, rather than slit the throats of all foreigners and less-than-pious Muslims.

Toward the end of Part I, Rohde adds:

"In my mind, Qari and Atiqullah [two of his captors] personified polar ends of the Taliban. Qari represented a paranoid, intractable force. Atiqullah embodied the more reasonable faction: people who would compromise on our release and, perhaps, even on peace in Afghanistan."

That makes sense, and it reinforces the idea of Taliban factions. So it seems that Rohde believes that some of the Taliban are amenable to the idea of a peace settlement.

Truth is, the Afghan insurgency is a volatile and highly complex phenomenon, involving three interlinked insurgent groups, the Taliban itself (based in Quetta and run by Mullah Omar and his council, or shura), the Haqqani group, and the Hizb-e Islami group of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.The three are partners of sorts, but they are different entities with their own ties to supporters, including links to the Pakistani ISI. Alongside them, and working with them, are various criminal gangs, drug organizations, timber and diamond smugglers, tribal chieftains and warlords, the shattered remnants of Al Qaeda, Uzbek militants, and more.

The counterinsurgency devotees in Washington and at Centcom want to peel away faction by faction, village by village, tribe by tribe, those who might opt to pledge fealty to the regime in Kabul. Even assuming that President Karzai's de-legitimized government could ever command the support of such rebels, getting them to go along would take many, many years of patient persuasion, bribes, and threats, along with years of heavy fighting to "clear, hold, and build" those areas.

Alternately, the United States, NATO, and (hopefully) a new Afghan government can seek a deal with the top- and mid-ranking Taliban leaders, in part by getting Pakistan's army and the ISI on board. That's the political solution that doesn't require General McChrystal's Thirty Years' War-style COIN approach.

Comments (136)

1. Yes, we have to distinguish between the moderate extremists and the really extreme extremists....

   Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/18/2009 @ 11:07pm

2. >>>Alternately, the United States, NATO, and (hopefully) a new Afghan government can seek a deal with the top- and mid-ranking Taliban leaders, in part by getting Pakistan's army and the ISI on board.<<<

   This doesn't sound like an "immediate" withdrawal solution, ROBERT DREYFUSS.

   Getting a legitimate Afghan government with new elections will take time.

   It is also not clear how centralized the three main factions of the Taliban are, and whether any deal would necessarily bind tribal leaders in disparate parts of Afghanistan.

   There really is a serious "lack of government" problem in Afghanistan, and until this is solved there will always be the prospect of Al Qaeda returning to Afghanistan once we withdraw.

   Without building new government structures that have real power and legitimacy throughout Afghanistan, we would have to depend on multiple deals with many different tribal leaders, and enforcement of these agreements would be uncertain at best.

   The loose structure of warlords and tribal leaders that permits the opium trade would be the only alternative with which to strike a deal, and I do not know a whole lot of people who would trust them with US or global security. Your security is only as strong as the strength of your bribe or threat (economic or military).

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/18/2009 @ 11:07pm

3. Well, the answer surely will come to The Messiah.....after all, he's just so intellectual, so worldly, deep thinker and smart.....so the legs-easily-tingled crowd said.

   Posted by Happy at 10/18/2009 @ 11:19pm

4. #

   Well, the answer surely will come to The Messiah.....after all, he's just so intellectual, so worldly, deep thinker and smart.....so the legs-easily-tingled crowd said.

   Posted by Happy at 10/18/2009 @ 11:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   all that and a bag of chips...

   the name brand of the chips? "he didn't get us into the mess"...

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/18/2009 @ 11:25pm

5. Posted by dexter666 at 10/18/2009 @ 11:25pm

   Happy is such a dweeb. He spends his time either counting money or trying to piss off people at this site. I don't think he is even very 'invested' in some of his opinions. If he thinks that it's insulting or will get a rise out of some 'liberals' he just puts his clown shoes on and starts typing.

   He strikes me as someone who is taking a lot of antidepressants.

   Posted by ficheye at 10/19/2009 @ 12:06am

6. Well, the answer surely will come to The Messiah.....after all, he's just so intellectual, so worldly, deep thinker and smart.....so the legs-easily-tingled crowd said.

   Posted by Happy at 10/18/2009 @ 11:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Surprisingly the inability to think coherantly or decisively in a timely manner is so highly reguarded as a sign of "intellectualism" by the leftist! I guess inexperienced emptysuited rhetoric is only the second sign of a gifted leader ! (unless there is leg tingle also)

   Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:34am

7. Mr. dryfuss should remember an American general said it best and is especially applicable to the islamic facist terrorist problem, "kill them all and let God sort them out"!

   Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:37am

8. Posted by ficheye at 10/19/2009 @ 12:06am | ignore this person | warn this pers

   he's tom tancredo. got lots of time on his hands.

   i like ol' hap and the troll brigade. i'm from souf crakalaka, so if i learned long ago how to like people with retarded ideologies.

   don't mean i pull any punches when i argue with him. that's the great thing about internet anonymity. if i said the things to him in person i say here, i'd expect someone to get smacked. i DO come from souf crakalaka, after all...lol...

   but here we all snarl and scratch and claw and nobody gets smacked - physically, at least.

   figuratively, now...people get seriously hurtified...

   i'm one of the hurtifiers, i'm afraid. the left hand of god, but what would one respect from "dexter666", the right hand of god? well, linguistically, perhaps...

   regardless, hap is always an obnoxious foil and a valued enemy.

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/19/2009 @ 01:48am

9. Rohde is a good writer, but a poor analyst.

   He's excellent at working up suspense, somewhat cloying/disingenuous in pumping sympathy for himself. Was he waterboarded? No. Did they pound his head into walls? No. Did they set dogs on him? No. Did he know what he was getting into reporting in a war zone? After 7 years, one would hope so.

   He can't complain now, he'll make a few million on the book.

   And the Pashtun will continue fighting to drive the foreign invader/military occupier from their lands, just as -- one would hope -- Americans would fight if the US were invaded & occupied, say, to preemptively prevent the world's largest, by far, nukes owner & only country ever to have incinerated hundreds of thousands of humans with those weapons, from ever using those weapons again.

   Posted by sloper at 10/19/2009 @ 04:31am

10. "Happy" and "BigPasture,"

    this thread is NOT about President Obama, and no matter how much he may make your legs tingle, you cannot MAKE this thread be about him. The rest of us do NOT share your obsession with him. Okay?

    This thread is about dealing with the various personalities within the Taliban. Dreyfuss has suggested that we and our allies can make constructive deals with enough warlords that we can forestall a ruinous war between the Taliban, the Karzai government, and Pakistan. Does that idea appeal to you at all?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 08:11am

11. MR. Dreyfuss. it won't work. you are trying to fit the taliban and other actors in afghanistan into a neat little box that can be worked with by western standards. if you have not by now, after more than 10 years of observation of the taliban, the very core of their existence is wrapped in a world of black and white. there is no compromise. as much as you, and all of us would wish.

    remember, these are people have reigned holy terror on their own people. our efforts to convince them we would be their "friend" and leave if only they would denounce alqaeda and international jihad is a naive pipe dream.

    USA making peace, as you would have it, does not make it so.

    parsing the NYT article to discredit the author and find players who do not want the stone age caliphate, is softheaded and delusional.

    do not ever forget, they enabled al qaeda to orchestrate murderous attacks on USA and other assets for several years. they will accomodate again if we give them one inch of breathing room.

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 08:26am

12. The weird thing about the right-wingers who now demonize ultraconservative Muslims is that during the 1980s they had no problem at all funneling billions of dollars to them in support of their anti-USSR jihad.

    Hekmatyar was one of those. We (and the Pakistanis) helped create him. In the pre-Taliban civil war in the early 1990s, Hekmatyar used vicious tactics against Tajik and Uzbek warlords. As a Pashtun, he was fighting people he saw as his enemies. He's still fighting them, now in alliance with the Taliban.

    Personally, I despise the man. But it's odd, at best, for right-wingers to suggest that the man we created and supported 25 years ago is now untouchable. If you start dividing Afghans into good fanatics and killers (i.e., the Northern Alliance) and bad fanatics and killers (i.e., the Taliban and Hekmatyar), I don't see the point. Time for a deal.

    Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am

13. Whoever they are we just wasted the 7 billion dollars the administration handed over to the Pakistani Government.

    When are we going to stop spending money on everything but the people of this country?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 09:17am

14. terrorist problem, "kill them all and let God sort them out"! Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:37am

    Does that include the "teabaggers" and the fascist right wing buttmonkeys that babble over the airwaves 24/7??

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 09:22am

15. Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:37am |

    You go, Stalin!

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/19/2009 @ 09:27am

16. If he thinks that it's insulting or will get a rise out of some 'liberals' he just puts his clown shoes on and starts typing.

    this pretty much sums up the neocon's presence in these threads. yawn. they are both boring and tedious, which is why they occupy my ignore list. you know who you are.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 09:39am

17. This thread is about dealing with the various personalities within the Taliban. Dreyfuss has suggested that we and our allies can make constructive deals with enough warlords that we can forestall a ruinous war between the Taliban, the Karzai government, and Pakistan. Does that idea appeal to you at all?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 10/19/2009 @ 08:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Mr. dryfuss should remember an American general said it best and is especially applicable to the islamic facist terrorist problem, "kill them all and let God sort them out"!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    It tells me just how dense you really are!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:07am

18. Posted by BugPustule at 10/19/2009 @ 10:07am

    What are you talking about?

    Try 'Taliban'. Go ahead, it's OK. Lets hear your voice on this topic. Then go ahead on a little opinion piece about US interventionism in the middle east and Afghanistan.

    Ease into it slow. For G-ds sake use spell check. Or a dick-shun-ary.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/19/2009 @ 10:50am

19. I have been in continuing disagreement with Mr Dreyfuss on the status of the Taliban. Peter Bergen who I consider one of the best informed journalists on Al Qaeda and the Taliban offers a substantive argument on the merger of these two groups (a point I have been making that is contested by many here on the left)

    The Front

    The Taliban-Al Qaeda merger.

    Peter Bergen

    October 19, 2009 (New Republic)

    Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan...

    Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan that border it have always been the epicenter of the war on jihadist terrorism-and, at least for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be. Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan. in recent years, Taliban leaders have drawn especially close to Al Qaeda. (There are basically two branches of the Taliban-Pakistani and Afghan-but both are currently headquartered in Pakistan, and they are quite a bit more interwoven than is commonly thought.) Today, at the leadership level, the Taliban and Al Qaeda function more or less as a single entity.

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

20. The Taliban-Al Qaeda merger (continued)

    Meanwhile, the Taliban, like Al Qaeda, has tried to attack the West. According to Spanish prosecutors, the late and unlamented leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, dispatched suicide bombers on a botched mission to Barcelona in January 2008. Pakistani Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar confirmed this in August during a videotaped interview in which he said that those bombers "were under pledge to Baitullah Mehsud." The point is not that the Taliban is going to mount a widespread campaign of terrorism in the West-it isn't-but simply that the Taliban's approach to combat has increasingly merged with Al Qaeda's.

    This summer, Mustafa Abu Al Yazid, one of Al Qaeda's founders and a current member of its leadership council, described his group's rapport with the Taliban during an interview with Al Jazeera in Afghanistan. "We are on a good and strong relationship with them," he explained, "and we frequently meet them." He also said that his organization continues to regard Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful"-in effect acknowledging that the Taliban leader is Al Qaeda's religious guide, a position he has enjoyed for the past decade.

    http://tinyurl.com/yfzqxj9

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:04am

21. "The weird thing about the right-wingers who now demonize ultraconservative Muslims is that during the 1980s they had no problem at all funneling billions of dollars to them in support of their anti-USSR jihad." Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am

    who knew the bad guys on the payroll 15-20 years ago would go rogue? i remember being relieved when the taliban consolidated power and ended their civil war in the mid-90's. why, but why, did the clinton admin let them help bin laden, one USA's former contractors?

    you call for a deal? what deal? we leave. they declare victory. the jihad hits the road again a la 9\11? sweet deal!

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 11:42am

22. you call for a deal? what deal? we leave. they declare victory. the jihad hits the road again a la 9\11? sweet deal! Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 11:42am | ignore this person | warn this person

    do you honestly believe that the reason we have not been attacked in the manner of 9/11 is that we've had an ineffectual war in Afghanistan?

    the planning of 9/11 took place in Germany and in this country. the Taleban had nothing to do with it.

    those camps in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.

    9/11 is impossible to duplicate. the next attack will be of a different nature. who rules Afghanistan will not be a factor.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 12:01pm

23. stupid humans.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2009 @ 12:04pm

24. Mr. dryfuss should remember an American general said it best and is especially applicable to the islamic facist terrorist problem, "kill them all and let God sort them out"!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 12:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    It tells me just how dense you really are!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:07am

    BigPasture: You do a fine job representing your compadres.

    Keep up the good work.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/19/2009 @ 12:39pm

25. Taking military pressure off gihadists in their home regions is not a good idea. Neither is a Vietnam-style escalation to prop up a corrupt regime. The only answer left is for NATO to be the harasser of the Taliban element, not the occupier of Afghanistan -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; awesome satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 10/19/2009 @ 12:40pm

26. Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    essentially, our neocon friends just change the label they apply to the combatants involved--and that makes the conflict all shiny and new again!!!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/19/2009 @ 12:41pm

27. I don't think any Afghan government will reflect Western standards. Whatever form of government emerges in that country is up to the Afghans. However, we can work on developing the Afghan Army to provide some degree of security for the Afghan people.

    Posted by pjcasey at 10/19/2009 @ 12:44pm

28. I have been in continuing disagreement with Mr Dreyfuss on the status of the Taliban. Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

    Anti, do you really think Dreyfuss or anyone else for that matter gives a damn what your opinion is concerning the Taliban?

    You must remember your place. You are the Archie Bunker type curmudgeon we keep around for kicks and grins...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 12:57pm

29. Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan...

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

    Hmmmm......suppose that this has something to do with US origination and sponsorship in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    Ain't no mystery unless you are Christian crusader bent on eliminating Islam as a competing faith.

    One God - One World right Larry?

    G-d is watching - Larry - always.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/19/2009 @ 1:21pm

30. "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." This sentence, attributed to abbot Arnaud, actually has its origin in the early 13.th century, justifying indiscriminate killings of suspected heretics during the Albigensian Crusade against Cathars.

    Posted by Georgius at 10/19/2009 @ 1:41pm

31. ....during the 1980s they had no problem at all funneling billions of dollars to them in support of their anti-USSR jihad." Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am

    That, and many other instances of US intervention in that part of the world including Iran contra and continuous meddling in oil rich regions have brought us to where we are now and, doubtless, have had a hand in shaping the social structure now so vibrant and militant in that part of the world.

    But the neo-cons, predictably, just obfuscate and make comments that, masquerading as some sort of patriotism, urge everyone to support our ever growing efforts to subdue this part of the globe when it's really just a continuation of the hydra headed MIC... which is capitalism's usual answer to economic woes. Blow stuff up... drop bombs, shoot missiles... we'll make more! And G-d Bless Armerica (sic).

    So your axial point gets ignored, sadly.

    Much like the article about Michelle Bachmann and her lunacy. The first thing that happened was... the conservatives started talking about Reagan. If they weren't so dead set against cloning... well, that's another blog!!

    Posted by ficheye at 10/19/2009 @ 1:49pm

32. to provide some degree of security for the Afghan people. Posted by pjcasey at 10/19/2009 @ 12:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    this is really not our problem.

    whenever I hear about a jobs program sponsored by us in Afghanistan, I wanna puke.

    we need a jobs program here in the USA. that is our problem.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 1:55pm

33. "do you honestly believe that the reason we have not been attacked in the manner of 9/11 is that we've had an ineffectual war in Afghanistan?" Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 12:01pm

    1. yes i do.

    2. what's your definition of ineffectual? if you mean creating some glorious beacon of freedom and liberty out of the existing stone age culture and medieval religion, you would be right. who really thought that possible? don't say bush and cheney. they knew that was not possible even as they were telling that lie to us.

    by going in, mowing down some people who detest our way of life AND who would not hesitate to butcher each other, much less us westerners, and keeping them off balance and insecure so they cannot again project jihad from that land, that would be effectual

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 1:57pm

34. they cannot again project jihad from that land, Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 1:57pm

    Flawed logic there bucko. Islamic extremists can "project" jihad from practically ever corner of the world.

    So is your solution to invade every country at once or just one at a time?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 2:21pm

35. Security is needed for development!

    Posted by pjcasey at 10/19/2009 @ 2:26pm

36. Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 1:57pm

    And since 9/11 was in part planned in our own country, maybe we should invade and occupy ourselves. You know, declare Martial Law and root out all those ornery ragheads in their hidey-holes in your neighborhood.

    How does that sound?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 2:30pm

37. "And since 9/11 was in part planned in our own country, maybe we should invade and occupy ourselves. You know, declare Martial Law and root out all those ornery ragheads in their hidey-holes in your neighborhood. How does that sound?" Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 2:30pm

    as you say. a little mass deportation would help our security. how is this "bucko's" logic flawed? was bin laden operating out of the waldorf astoria? when did he last set foot in saudi? where are the training camps now? besides pakistan and afghanistan?

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 2:39pm

38. "The weird thing about the right-wingers who now demonize ultraconservative Muslims is that during the 1980s they had no problem at all funneling billions of dollars to them in support of their anti-USSR jihad." Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am

    It's hardly "weird". The Soviet Union killed more people around the world than "The Jihad" could ever hope to do. And those it didn't kill were denied basic human rights. In short, the Soviet Union of the Cold War was the world's biggest terror sponsor. Their tanks rolled through the capitals cities of Eastern Europe and stomped out democracy wherever they went. They had 30,000 tanks poised to rush through the Fulda Gap.

    Allying with the Mujahideen to hand the Soviets a defeat was a no-brainer. And Charlie Wilson, if the movie and book is any indication, was hardly a "right winger".

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

39. "The weird thing about the right-wingers who now demonize ultraconservative Muslims is that during the 1980s they had no problem at all funneling billions of dollars to them in support of their anti-USSR jihad." Posted by RobertDreyfuss at 10/19/2009 @ 08:51am

    It's hardly "weird". The Soviet Union killed more people around the world than "The Jihad" could ever hope to do. And those it didn't kill were denied basic human rights. In short, the Soviet Union of the Cold War was the world's biggest terror sponsor. Their tanks rolled through the capitals cities of Eastern Europe and stomped out democracy wherever they went. They had 30,000 tanks poised to rush through the Fulda Gap.

    Allying with the Mujahideen to hand the Soviets a defeat was a no-brainer. And Charlie Wilson, if the movie and book is any indication, was hardly a "right winger".

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

40. I'm seriously starting to think we need to develop some sort of Roto-Rooter procedure for the brain in this country.

    Seems there are alot of blocked up neural pathways in a "large portion" of American Brain Matter..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 2:44pm

41. where are the training camps now? besides pakistan and afghanistan?

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/19/2009 @ 2:39pm

    Maybe in our local parks and playgrounds!!

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 2:47pm

42. Conversation Overheard in a Terrorist Training Camp:

    Osama: So, Akmed how are the devoted coming along with their training?

    Akmed: Good your Holiness, we have ten of them chewing up two cases of Wrigley's Spearment Gum in preparation for our plastic explosives training.

    Osama: Very Good Akmed! We wouldn't want them blowing themselves up just yet, would we?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 3:00pm

43. Akmed: No sir! But they may have to see a dentist after the excercise..

    Osama: Good thing we have Universal Healthcare!

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 3:07pm

44. Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan...

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

    Hmmmm......suppose that this has something to do with US origination and sponsorship in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

    Ain't no mystery unless you are Christian crusader bent on eliminating Islam as a competing faith.

    One God - One World right Larry?

    G-d is watching - Larry - always.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/19/2009 @ 1:21pm

    That quote was from Peter Bergen who is far more expert on Al Qaeda than anyone here including Dreyfuss. Bergen is the last westerner to interview Bin Laden.

    Why don't you give us your proof that Bergen is wrong.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:47pm

45. glorious beacon of freedom and liberty

    you must be out of your mind.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 5:14pm

46. in recent years, Taliban leaders have drawn especially close to Al Qaeda. (There are basically two branches of the Taliban-Pakistani and Afghan-but both are currently headquartered in Pakistan, and they are quite a bit more interwoven than is commonly thought.) Today, at the leadership level, the Taliban and Al Qaeda function more or less as a single entity.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 11:01am

    Actually, the rality is quite the opposite.

    Since 2001, the Taliban have become resentful of Al Qaeda, becvasue it was Al Qaeda that led to them being removed from power.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 5:41pm

47. That quote was from Peter Bergen who is far more expert on Al Qaeda than anyone here including Dreyfuss. Bergen is the last westerner to interview Bin Laden.

    Why don't you give us your proof that Bergen is wrong.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:47pm

    How about you consult Michael Sheuer, who as head fo the Bin Laden unit at the CIa for 8 years, is far more expert on Al Qaeda than anyone here including Bergen?

    Sheuer states emphaticalyl that there is no Al Qaeda/Taliban.

    And why is it that we are accepting the word of Spanish prosecutors, twho are NOT intleligence experts, over the expertise of our ouwn inteliegnce experts?

    Maulvi Omar has no credibility and as a turncoat or a defector, his motives have to be questioned. His testimony has ot been regarded as significant or credible enough to nterest our own intelligence agencies.

    There is no evidence that the Taliban is going to mount a campaign of terrorism in the West. Indeed, the Taliban have never ventured beyind the Afghan/Pakistan border.

    The sadn fact Larry, is that your fringe web sites are not credible, though it is fasdcinating to watch the right ioscilate between citing Al Qaeda sources to prove their argument, while dismissing the testimony of Al Qaeda sources when it's incovenient.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 5:53pm

48. It's hardly "weird". The Soviet Union killed more people around the world than "The Jihad" could ever hope to do.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/19/2009 @ 2:42pm

    Around the world?

    How many peoepl around the world did the Soviet Union kill and in what parts of the world did it kill them?

    BTW. We've stopmped out more han our share of democracies adn Charlie Wilson reckons we should leave Aghanistan.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:02pm

49. That quote was from Peter Bergen who is far more expert on Al Qaeda than anyone here Posted by antisocialist at 10/19/2009 @ 4:47pm

    I thought you were the resident "expert" on Al Qaeda. If not you should be. You have more in common with them than anyone else here.

    Lets see... Both you and Al Qaeda are fascist religious extremists. Both you and Al Qaeda are nationalistic. Both you and Al Qaeda believe that force of arms are a viable solution to political and religious disagreements. Both you an Al Qaeda believe that armageddon is a happy solution. Both you an Al Qaeda believe that your GOD will bless you in Heaven. Both you an Al Qaeda believe in Jesus.

    I could go on and on. But what's the point?

    You are the American Taliban..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 6:02pm

50. "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own." This sentence, attributed to abbot Arnaud, actually has its origin in the early 13.th century, justifying indiscriminate killings of suspected heretics during the Albigensian Crusade against Cathars.

    Posted by Georgius at 10/19/2009 @ 1:41pm

    That explains why BigPasture is so fond of this quote. Indiscriminate killings of suspected heretics is right up his alley.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 6:09pm

51. "How many peoepl around the world did the Soviet Union kill and in what parts of the world did it kill them?"

    Afghanistan: USSR killed 1-2 million.

    Propped up Communist China and helped Chinese Communists, who killed 70 million people, conquer the country.

    North Korea: Occupied by USSR, which set up puppet regime that has killed more than 4 million people.

    Korean Air Lines Flight 007: Soviets shoot down Korean plane for no reason. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed, including Lawrence McDonald, a sitting member of the United States Congress.

    Soviet troops crushed a popular uprising and rebellion in Budapest, Hungary in 1956 and ended insubordination by the Czechoslovak government in 1968. In addition to military occupation and intervention, the Soviet Union controlled Eastern European states through its ability to supply or withhold vital natural resources.

    Soviet military advisors trained and assisted Saddam's forces in the rape of Kuwait.

    "On the night of August 20 - August 21, 1968, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary and Poland invaded the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in order to halt Alexander Dubček's Prague Spring political liberalization reforms.[1]

    In the operation, codenamed Danube, varying estimates of between 175,000 and 500,000 troops[2] attacked Czechoslovakia; approximately 500 Czechoslovaks were wounded and death of 108 was related to the invasion.[3][4] The invasion successfully stopped liberalization reforms and strengthened the authority of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

    The invasion was followed by a wave of emigration, unseen before, which stopped shortly after. An estimated 70,000 fled immediately, and the total eventually reached 300,000.[46]"

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:35pm

52. "You are the American Taliban.."

    You are a far-left nutcase.

    If force is not a viable way to solve problems, why are 180,000 Afghan civilians saved every year as a result of our liberation of their poor oppressed country?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

53. "Sheuer states emphaticalyl that there is no Al Qaeda/Taliban."

    He's also emphatically stated that he wants Osama to carry out a new 9/11 so that Obama improves border security.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:39pm

54. Question to "Citizen Carrier" who are all these people that the USSR killed? More than the U.S. and its allies during the Cold War? I seriously doubt it.

    On "sanctuaries for planning terror" --what was needed for 9/11? A room, maybe some chairs? Certainly not whole countries.

    Posted by shoebeacon at 10/19/2009 @ 8:44pm

55. Shingo, as a libertarian pacifist, why do you support both the jihad and the Soviet Union?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:45pm

56. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:35pm

    "Afghanistan: USSR killed 1-2 million"

    1 million over 10 years. We killed any many more in Latin America alone.

    "North Korea: Occupied by USSR, which set up puppet regime that has killed more than 4 million people."

    Do you have a source for this?

    "Korean Air Lines Flight 007: Soviets shoot down Korean plane for no reason. All 269 passengers and crew aboard were killed,..."

    We shot down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian air space in 1986, killing 290 on board.

    "Soviet troops crushed a popular uprising and rebellion in Budapest, Hungary in 1956 and ended insubordination by the Czechoslovak government in 1968."

    They probably called that a surge against terrorists.

    "In addition to military occupation and intervention, the Soviet Union controlled Eastern European states through its ability to supply or withhold vital natural resources."

    We do that to, with and without military pressure.

    "Soviet military advisors trained and assisted Saddam's forces in the rape of Kuwait."

    Saddam didn't need any soviet military advisor to train and assist in invading Kuwait. Meanwhile, we trained and assisted Saddam to attack Iran.

    "On the night of August 20 - August 21, 1968, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Hungary and Poland invaded the Czechoslovak"

    In April 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 8:49pm

57. Shingo, as a libertarian pacifist, why do you support both the jihad and the Soviet Union?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:45pm

    The Soviet Union doesn't exist.Perhaps it still does on planet wingnut?

    In answer to your question, I never supported the Soviet Union, though I respect Russia.

    And seeing as you support all US foreign policy, good or bad, the reality is that you are the one who supports jihad.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 8:51pm

58. footnote to the "whose killed more" debate: the Captain of the U.S.S. Vincennes, which shot down the Iranian civilian airliner, so I hear, won a medal for doing so.

    Posted by shoebeacon at 10/19/2009 @ 8:57pm

59. "In April 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq."

    Right, ousting a genocidal dictator who killed more than 2 million people, being greeted as liberators, building water purification plants/hospitals/schools, and setting up a democracy.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:58pm

60. "I respect Russia."

    Why?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:59pm

61. "North Korea: Occupied by USSR, which set up puppet regime that has killed more than 4 million people."

    Do you have a source for this?"

    Surely you must know that the Soviet occupation forces installed Kim Il-Sung, right? He killed about 1.7 million according to R.J. Rummel. The 90s famine killed more than 1.8 million. Kim Jong-Il has also directly killed numerous hundreds of thousands and runs concentration camps with gas chambers.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:03pm

62. "Meanwhile, we trained and assisted Saddam to attack Iran."

    We offered no training, though we did sell him slightly less than 1% of the weapons he recieved through his 24-year rule.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:04pm

63. "We shot down an Iranian passenger plane in Iranian air space in 1986, killing 290 on board."

    True. That was a crime and a tragedy.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:06pm

64. "1 million over 10 years. We killed any many more in Latin America alone."

    Sources?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:07pm

65. We offered no training, though we did sell him slightly less than 1% of the weapons he recieved through his 24-year rule.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:04pm

    No we sent a lot more than that, including all the helicopters Saddam used to launch his WMD's.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 9:13pm

66. Shingo, perhaps you should look into how much of Saddam's weapons were provided by the USSR.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:21pm

67. Surely you must know that the Soviet occupation forces installed Kim Il-Sung, right? He killed about 1.7 million according to R.J. Rummel. The 90s famine killed more than 1.8 million. Kim Jong-Il has also directly killed numerous hundreds of thousands and runs concentration camps with gas chambers.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:03pm

    Are you suggesting the 90s famine was orchestrated by Kim Jong-Il?

    Does that mean that Bush orchestrated Katrina to kill black people?

    Tell me about the concentration camps with gas chambers?

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 9:23pm

68. Shingo, perhaps you should look into how much of Saddam's weapons were provided by the USSR.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:21pm

    The USSR ceased to exist in the 80s.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 9:25pm

69. I don't see any mass starvation of millions in South Korea, do you?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:26pm

70. It did?!?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:27pm

71. I don't see any mass starvation of millions in South Korea, do you?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:26pm

    So I take it you have a theory that Kim Jong-Il orchestrated the 90s famine to kill 1.9 million of his own people. Why do you think that is?

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 9:29pm

72. Are you saying that Mao isn't to blame for starving tens of millions of Chinese?

    In fact, Kim Il-Sung also starved hundreds of thousands, and pursued policies that might have killed millions, but the Soviets made him give up those policies by threatening to cut off aid.

    You might ask yourself why Kim is the only fat man in North Korea or why none of his inner circle or family starved. If he cares so much about his people, why do none of them have medicine or clean water, and why are they so hungry they resort to cannibalism?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:38pm

73. Its remarkable how you make it sound like a fringe conspiracy that Kim caused the famine. The international community even gave him enough aid to prevent the starvation, but he didn't use it correctly.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:46pm

74. I have never seen so much bullshit in all my life. A bunch of ignorant self absorbed assholes pulling statistics and conclusions straight out of their butts.

    And then waving them around in the air so that anyone reading them get's a woof of the putrid.

    Shingo should be shit'o and rightwingnutcase should be commited.

    Find somewhere else to spew. I'm getting nauseous..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 9:55pm

75. You might ask yourself why Kim is the only fat man in North Korea or why none of his inner circle or family starved.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:38pm

    The only fat man in North Korea? Wow, you're starting to sound as deranged as Michelle Backman.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 10:27pm

76. Its remarkable how you make it sound like a fringe conspiracy that Kim caused the famine. The international community even gave him enough aid to prevent the starvation, but he didn't use it correctly.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 9:46pm

    Look, if you're going to peddle the notion that Mao and Kim Jong Ill deliberately starved millions of their own people, then you have to have a theory as to what their motivation was for doing so.

    New Orleans was given plenty of aid, but FEMA and the DOHS failed to use it properly. Does that mean there was a conspiracy to kill black people in NO?

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 10:31pm

77. Find somewhere else to spew. I'm getting nauseous..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/19/2009 @ 9:55pm

    Whatever you say chaoszen. Your factual contribution to this debate has been mind numbing.

    I feel humbled.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 10:34pm

78. Since 2001, the Taliban have become resentful of Al Qaeda, becvasue it was Al Qaeda that led to them being removed from power.

    Posted by Shingo at 10/19/2009 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Shingo falsely presumes he is smarter than worldwide intelligence sourses who all acknowledge alliances exist!

    "A wave of attacks against top security installations over the last several days demonstrated that the Taliban, Al Qaeda and militant groups once nurtured by the government are tightening an alliance aimed at bringing down the Pakistani state, government officials and analysts said. … But the style of the attacks also revealed the closer ties between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and what are known as jihadi groups, which operate out of southern Punjab, the country's largest province, analysts said. The cooperation has made the militant threat to Pakistan more potent and insidious than ever, they said. The government has tolerated the Punjabi groups, including Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, for years, and many Pakistanis consider them allies in just causes, including fighting India, the United States and Shiite Muslims. But they have become entwined with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and have increasingly turned on the state. The alliance has now stepped up attacks as the military prepares an assault on the Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan, where senior members of the Punjabi groups also find sanctuary and support."

    Like I said best thing to do about the islamic facist terrorist problem, "kill them all and let God sort them out"!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 10:56pm

79. "Shingo should be shit'o and rightwingnutcase should be commited."

    I know you think I should be committed, since you are a Communist who supports Communism and supported the USSR and who thinks that North Korea is an anti-imperialist worker's and people's democracy. You don't accept that Communism always fails everywhere no matter what. You don't accept that Mao killed 70 million Chinese, and North Korea has killed over 4 million North Koreans, and Lenin killed 4 million Russians, and Stalin killed 20 million, and Pol Pot killed 2.2 million, and African Communists killed more than a million, and the Vietnamese Communists killed 1.7 million. You are obviously a pseudo-rebel anti-American teenage conformist without a cause trying to establish your "individuality". You'll grow up eventually.

    "Shingo should be shit'o"

    Thanks for your mature, intelligent insights.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 11:50pm

80. "Look, if you're going to peddle the notion that Mao and Kim Jong Ill deliberately starved millions of their own people, then you have to have a theory as to what their motivation was for doing so."

    They are evil. That's the only motivation they need.

    What was Pol Pot's motivation for murdering 2.2 million Cambodians?

    To create a "Communist utopia".

    This was Mao's plan as well. In fact, Pol Pot essentially recreated Mao's great leap forward in Cambodia. Some people have argued that while Mao's policies did cause tens of millions to starve to death, he didn't INTEND for the policies to do so. But as a delusional, criminally insane dictator surrounded with advisers afraid to question him, he refused to simply accept reality and reverse his policies, convinced that the ends would justify the means.

    The same thing may be true for North Korea. Personally, though, I think Kim just wants to sell food on the black market and devote money from infrastructure to arms and brutalize the populace so they can't revolt in order to militarize his country and develop WMD and maintain fierce control of power.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 12:00am

81. "Look, if you're going to peddle the notion that Mao and Kim Jong Ill deliberately starved millions of their own people, then you have to have a theory as to what their motivation was for doing so."

    So, what is your position? Do you deny the genocides occurred, or (as the above statement seemingly implies) believe Kim and Mao DID cause the famines through their policies "but only on accident"?

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 12:04am

82. Shingo, why don't you develop a modicum of human feeling, compassion, and conscience, and look at pictures of little starving children in North Korea, and think about what they must feel like, and imagine yourself in their place for decades on end, and ask yourself when staring into their eyes when their photo was taken, and if they're still alive? Why don't you acknowledge their suffering and misery, give them a moment of silence, utter a secular prayer for their sake? Why don't you petition your government to alleviate their plight? Why don't you protest Kim Jong-Il's regime and demand the ICC issue a warrant for his arrest for genocide and crimes against humanity?

    Why do you take this time instead to defend him as a good, well-meaning man, even as he tortures and rapes and beats and starves little children with their families in concentration camps while you type this very minute? Look at pictures such as I described above, and maybe they'll shock you into recognizing with moral clarity that evil does exist and that George Bush isn't the devil.

    Kim Jong-Il, along with Omar al-Bashir, is the Hitler of our times.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 12:17am

83. "In April 2003, we invaded and occupied Iraq." Right, ousting a genocidal dictator who killed more than 2 million people, being greeted as liberators, building water purification plants/hospitals/schools, and setting up a democracy. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:58pm

    And it was a bargain at 692,763,602,050 dollars. And counting. Hey, what about if you pay?

    If force is not a viable way to solve problems, why are 180,000 Afghan civilians saved every year as a result of our liberation of their poor oppressed country? Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

    And cheap, too. So far it comes to $229,565,884,433.

    We are the beacon of freedom and justice in the world today. As long as the people will continue to pay for these wars they could go on forever. 'The Forever Wars'. Has a nice ring to it.

    The cost of ALL of our wars since 2001? $922,331,274,391.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/20/2009 @ 02:34am

84. glorious beacon of freedom and liberty you must be out of your mind. Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 5:14pm

    read the whole paragragh. get the phrase in full context. your arrogant, intolerant, condescending prejudice is showing

    Posted by mikeflynn at 10/20/2009 @ 06:54am

85. Larry - as to Mr. Bergen, all I need to mention is CNN, but I also dispute his assertion that OBL wasn't a CIA asset. In any event, as pointed out by other astute bloggers here, there are "better and more qualified" experts than Bergen that we should be listening to. Bergen shills for escalation.

    'Kerry began the Q&A of the three witnesses by soliciting an update on how Al Qaeda is faring in Afghanistan eight years after the invasion. "The president's strategy is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan," he said. "Is it a fair judgment to say that that has happened?... They're not in Afghanistan?"

    Sageman and Grenier agreed with that assessment. (The third witness, Peter Bergen, a journalist and senior fellow with the New America Foundation, said the number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn't as important as "their influence ideologically and tactically." As the lone witness who is a proponent of an increased military presence, it is striking that Bergen had the least amount of on-the-ground experience on the panel.) '

    Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan - Greg Kaufman - The Nation - 10/09/09

    Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 09:36am

86. glorious beacon of freedom and liberty you must be out of your mind. Posted by emile duBois at 10/19/2009 @ 5:14pm

    I said that as well a little further down. Of course I was being sarcastic.

    Mr Flynn seems to like the idea of mowing people down. Could it be that he has a bright future in the lawn care sector? I jest, darkly.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/20/2009 @ 12:58pm

87. Security is needed for development! Posted by pjcasey at 10/19/2009 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    economic security is what's needed.

    IN THIS COUNTRY.

    the economic and other well being of Afghanis is not my concern.

    that of fellow Americans is.

    FEED AMERICA FIRST.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/20/2009 @ 1:34pm

88. "And it was a bargain at 692,763,602,050 dollars. And counting. Hey, what about if you pay?"

    I admit that a very strong case can be made against the Iraq war due to its cost and the question of if the money could have done even more good elsewhere than it did in Iraq had we spent it differently (as well as the question of if Iraqis really want to be free, as opposed to just free of Saddam but under a more mild tyrant).

    However, my position is summed up best by what Christopher Hitchens wrote in 2002: "Taking the points in order, it's fairly easy to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy's bad guy. He's not just bad in himself but the cause of badness in others. While he survives not only are the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples compelled to live in misery and fear (the sheerly moral case for regime-change is unimpeachable on its own), but their neighbors are compelled to live in fear as well. However--and here is the clinching and obvious point--Saddam Hussein is not going to survive. His regime is on the verge of implosion. It has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Like the Ceausescu edifice in Romania, it is a pyramid balanced on its apex (its powerbase a minority of the Sunni minority), and when it falls, all the consequences of a post-Saddam Iraq will be with us anyway. To suggest that these consequences--Sunni-Shi'a rivalry, conflict over the boundaries of Kurdistan, possible meddling from Turkey or Iran, vertiginous fluctuations in oil prices and production, social chaos--are attributable only to intervention is to be completely blind to the impending reality. The choices are two and only two--to experience these consequences with an American or international presence or to watch them unfold as if they were none of our business."

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 3:20pm

89. Given the inevitability of Iraq's implosion, I believe that simply allowing it to descend into anarchy and chaos without an intervention would have ultimately turned it into a genocidal wasteland ruled by jihadist warlords and tribal Islamists, the Congo of the Middle East, a vortext of chaos and misery that would claim millions of lives and spread violence to all its neighbors, and a fertile base for AQ operations against America. Further, Iraqi oil will be needed in the future to prevent a complete economic meltdown and catastrophe, and saving it from this bleak future indeed was worth a very high price.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 3:27pm

90. "If force is not a viable way to solve problems, why are 180,000 Afghan civilians saved every year as a result of our liberation of their poor oppressed country? Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/19/2009 @ 8:38pm

    And cheap, too. So far it comes to $229,565,884,433."

    Actually, that is pretty cheap to save 180,000 innocent men, women, and little children every year. It's a lot less than Obama's failed stimulus.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 3:36pm

91. "the economic and other well being of Afghanis is not my concern."

    Although it actually shows you to be intellectually honest, I find this a strange position for a purported radical.

    Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 3:43pm

92. rightwingnutcase,

    Just in case you are not also gunslinger, I will re-post my contributions to a debate he and I had over the 80 milion "murders" he attributed to Mao on Ari Melbar's blog, "AP Asks If Obama Is 'Obnoxiously Articulate:'"

    "Mao was a Stalinist scum bag but this myth has been exploded by a number of credible researchers who have found that not only is the overall number of deaths attributed to Mao and Chinese Communism inflated and based on faulty, if not dishonest, demographic assumptions but that the 'excess' deaths that can be attributed to Mao and the CCP were largely the result of wrong-headed agricultural and industrial policies undertaken during the Great Leap Forward. This in a country dragging itself up from economic ruin, threatened by the world's first nuclear power, but still able to increase the life expectancy rate by around 80%."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 10:50pm

    "As despicable as Mao was, the 80 million dead figure doesn't hold up, nor does describing all of the deaths that did take place as being murder. The Great Leap Forward exacerbated China's longstanding problems with food sufficiency. It was a huge mistake, but that doesn't mean Mao 'murdered' the millions who died because of it."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/16/2009 @ 3:22pm

    "I am defending historical accuracy. It is inaccurate to say that Mao 'murdered' 80 million people. Was Mao, like Stalin, a murderer? Yes. But did his murder victims number in the tens of millions? No."

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/17/2009 @ 8:29pm

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/20/2009 @ 4:19pm

93. Al Qaeda never existed, and according to Wayne Madsen, the U.S. sent the Taliban to Iraq. "Not only did the U.S. import Taliban fighters from Afghanistan to attack civilians and U.S. soldiers, it also allowed Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army to import materials to make IEDs, according to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who appeared recently on Russia Today," "Madsen: Taliban Imported to Conduct False Flag Terrorism in Iraq," by Kurt Nimo. <http://www.infowars.com/madsen-taliban->

    <imported-to-conduct-false-flag-terrorism-in-iraq/>

    Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 4:36pm

94. the following comes from a site that attempts to compile all resource numbers and then analyze for a logical conclusion.

    <People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975):

    Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here.>

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 4:40pm

95. Our own government carried out the World Trade Center demolition and Pentagon bombing, and anyone who is not blind knows it. One look at the jet crash into WTC 1 in slow motion is sufficient proof. See

    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-

    didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

    http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

    The youtube videos have been removed from the ghostplane webpage, but the still frames are equally useful.

    http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/

    In this video a witness says "it was a bomb." Next, it reveals the absence of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and in the crater in Pennsylvania.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?

    v=_0eC3uns3pA&NR=1

    The live television broadcasts from the World Trade Center made no secret of the bombs and controlled demolition. See

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

    Read the accounts of the fire and rescue workers themselves.

    "Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories," by David Ray Griffin

    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?

    story=20060118104223192

    Try refuting "Proof of the Demolition of WTC 1, 2, 6, 7 by Internal Explosives" at

    http://www.indymedia.org/es/2004/07/855929.sht

    ml

    Explain why the Bureau of Transportation Statistics never recorded the departure of flights AA 11 and AA 77 on 9/11/2001. Explain why the original BTS records said flights UA 93 and UA 175 were diverted. Download:

    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

    http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/s

    rc/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepaturesData.xml

    http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?

    p=127629

    This provides all the links one needs to nuclear demolition websites:

    http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com

    Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 4:53pm

96. Every time I download a URL more than one line long, I receive an error message.

    The government did not start lying about terrorism on September 11, 2001. The live television broadcasts from Oklahoma City said a huge bomb exploded in the building and two more were defused:

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITI

    CS/OK/ok_city1.wmv

    The following is an October 28, 1993 CBS broadcast, revealing that the 1993 trade tower bombing was originally an FBI sting operation, but real explosives were substituted for the "harmless powder." Of course, that could be more disinformation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

    More on the Oklahoma City bombing:

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oklahoma_bo

    mbing_index.html http://www.wingtv.net/elohim.html http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mcveigh2.htm http://www.stopcovertwar.com/McVeigh.html http://www.hourofthetime.com/okcbombingcoveru

    p.html

    These links deal with the 1993 WTC bombing and the frame up of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, by Judge Mukasey, until recently Attorney General Mukasey.

    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/adam.htm

    http://911review.org/Wiki/FirstWTCBombing.shtm

    l http://tinyurl.com/5zxrxm http://www.coastalpost.com/97/3/16.htm

    For the truth about the USS Liberty and USS Cole attacks, download http://whatreallyhappened.com/COLE/ http://www.hartford-

    hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html http://www.wrmea.com/archives/March_2004/04

    03010.html

    Read, The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, by Michael Collins Piper.

    http://www.afrocubaweb.com/news/mossadjfk.htm

    Also download AOL propeller markoller, and click the link to my Washington Post blog homepage. The Post blog prints things no other newspaper blog would dare.

    Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:04pm

97. The Taliban announced Osama bin Laden's death on December 16, 2001, and considering his health, there is no reason to doubt it. He was in the last stages of kidney failure, and only a blind man would believe the fat Osama confession tape. They might as well have chosen a midget to play the 6'6" pencil thin emaciated, sickly Osama.

    Osama bin Laden was also an American ally, who never had more than four million dollars, which he earned as a road contractor in Sudan. See

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/o

    sama_dead.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-

    1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--

    U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?

    context=va&aid=6722

    http://www.911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html

    http://emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm

    http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.ht

    ml

    Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:07pm

98. On 9/11 - and Bush Administration's account.

    Oct. 2006 May 2002

    Telling the truth 16% 21%

    Hiding something 53% 65%

    Mostly lying 28% 8%

    Not sure 3% 6%

    Source: The New York Times / CBS News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 5:10pm

99. The FBI intended to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorism hoax, but he was shot by the ISI instead. So, substitute was located and sent to Guantanamo. Naturally, he was an ugly, hairy, mean looking behemoth, and he looked at least 50. Download

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30D

    f01.html

    Furthermore, Khalid spoke fluent English, Arabic and Urdu, and he graduated from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University with a mechanical engineering degree. So, how could he have uttered this gibberish:

    Most of these facts which be written are related to this hard drive. And more than eleven of these facts are related to this computer. Other things are which is very old even nobody can bring any witnesses for that you as you written here if it will be ah a value for you for the witness near by you will do it. This computer is not for me. Is for Hawsawi himself. So I'm saying I need Hawsawi because me and him we both been arrested day. Same way. So this computer is from him long time. Also the problem we are not in court and we are not judge and he is not my lawyer but procedure has been written reported and the way has mostly as certain charged against me: tell him, [Arabic Phrase].

    See page 11 of the BBC transcript of his hearing and confession, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_0

    3_07_mohammed_transcript.pdf

    IS KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) AN IRAQI AGENT?

    http://www.spiritoftruth.org/ksm.htm

    This article is obvious disinformation. I only bring it up because it is one of the few web pages which still shows the authentic passport photograph of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:12pm

100. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed attended the Baptist, Chowan University for a semester in 1984, before studying engineering at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Does this sound like the behavior of a rabidly anti-American, Muslim fanatic? I quote from the Chowan University website:

     Thank you for taking the time to browse this section of our website to learn more about what Chowan offers to Baptist churches and to our friends in churches of other denominations.

     At Chowan, we are grateful for our longstanding relationship with the Baptists of North Carolina and Southeast Virginia. Our affiliation with the Baptist of North Carolina and Virginia, which began in 1848, has been a happy one, and we are grateful to God for the mutual benefit that this relationship has brought to both Chowan and the Baptists of North Carolina and Virginia. The prayer support of the Baptist family has seen Chowan through both difficulties and triumphs. The financial support that the University has received through the years from Baptist churches and individuals, as well as through the Cooperative Missions budget of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, has made it possible for many students, who might not have been otherwise, to attend Chowan University and experience and exceptional quality education in a Christian university setting.

     Chowan University, as a church-related institution, was founded upon and is dedicated to Judeo-Christian values.

     If you would like additional information or further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at mcswar@chowan.edu or 252-398-6317.

     May God continue to bless you and Chowan University!

     Ron McSwain Director, Church Relations http://www.chowan.edu/alumni-giving/church-

     relations.htm

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:14pm

101. This is a letter that was sent by Neturei Karta Palestine to Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar

     NETUREI KARTA of THE ORTHODOX JEWRY JERUSALEM, PALESTINE P.O.Box 5053 Jerusalem

     Jan. 16/08

     To Honorable Doctor Mahmud Al-Zahar As Orthodox Anti-Zionist Jews we harshly condemned the brutal acts of terrorism committed by the Zionist thug regime against the Palestinian People.

     We wish to express our most sincere sympathies to all suffering Palestinians, especially following the latest vicious attack of the Zionists in Gaza.

     We also wish to express our most sincere sympathies to you personally, Dr. Al-Zahar, for the death of your son, Hussam, at the hands of the Zionists following on the tragic murder of your other son, Khalid, several years ago at the hands of the Zionists.

     We pray fervently to God to stop the vicious crimes of the Zionist regime and to dismantle that absurd Zionist state and restore all the rights to the Palestinian People, both those living inside Zionist-occupied Palestine and in other countries as refugees.

     RABBI MEIR HIRSH

     Neturei Karta Jerusalem, Palestine

     http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Statements/20080

     123.cfm

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:17pm

102. Lobotomizers of Humanity

     I feel like the character Winston Smith in Orwell's satire, 1984. The boredom is unbearable. Totalitarianism is fine for sponges and plants, but it is no life for rational beings.

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:19pm

103. Zionist Occupation Government

     IS ISRAEL BLACKMAILING AMERICA? FOX NEWS SPIKES FOUR PART STORY ON PHONE TAPPING SCANDAL http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bl

     ackmail.html

     Fox News: Israeli Spyring http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring

     The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press By Wayne Madsen http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/052

     405Madsen/052405madsen.html

     Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/m

     otherofallscandals.html

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:23pm

104. Journalistic goosesteppers, psychological warfare specialists, sock puppets and Big Brother:

     What is worse than cutting the wings off birds? Answer: destroying the human capacity for critical thought. That is your dream, and you are well on your way to achieving it. All that remains is to eliminate the last subversive thought on the Internet.

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:26pm

105. The BBC broadcast the collapse of WTC 7 26 minutes before it happened, and they repeated the absurd cover story that the steel beams were weakened by fire. This is no secret in Britain, but Americans have been kept in the dark for eight years.

     The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/b

     bc_wtc7_videos.html?q=bbc_wtc7_videos.html

     Check out "Part of the conspiracy?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/p

     art_of_the_conspiracy.html

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:27pm

106. Would you believe that America was behind the trial and hanging of one of Saddam Hussein's doubles? He might be mistaken for Saddam's defective twin with crooked teeth.

     Our "Saddam" prisoner in Iraq - is NOT Saddam! http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/05-16-

     05/discussion.cgi.50.html

     The Capture, Trial and Conviction of Saddam Hussein - Another US Intelligence Farce http://www.sott.net/signs/editorials/signs20061106

     _TheCaptureTrialandConvictionofSaddamHusseinA

     notherUSIntelligenceFarce

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 5:34pm

107. Why is it never surprising that when these 9/11 conspiracy kooks land here from whatever distant mental health center they came from, that it only takes a little while before their anti-semitic hearts are revealed.

     Kooks like Mark Oller are just another in the string of conspiracy nutjobs who will almost certainly before long start quoting the "protocols of Zion" for us.

     A glance through his blog shows him to be a Holocaust denier, promoting the view that Hitler was "forced" into WWII by so-called atrocities of the Polish people against Germans.

     A rather new twist in this bizarre little mind that has visited us is his promotion of the idea that there are NO PALESTINIAN SUICIDE BOMBERS. IT'S ALL A ZIONIST TRICK.

     Well Mark, go back into your little hate filled dark hole. You've had your few minutes in the light and all you did was bring some of your stench with you.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 6:16pm

108. Larry-

     You are a fine one to preach:

     'Nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel's Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation. (The total period of seven years is interpreted as the fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel [Dan. 9:27].)

     In order for most of today's Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement's support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians' imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

     Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.'" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.

     This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 7:05pm

109. But they do not hear the two themes put together: "We can avoid death, but only because two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will inevitably die in a future holocaust. America must therefore support the nation of Israel in order to keep the Israelis alive until after the Rapture." Fundamentalist ministers expect their congregations to put two and two together on their own. It would be politically incorrect to add up these figures in public.'

     The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel. Gary North - An excerpt

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 7:06pm

110. Again, however, one can't make too big a fuss about this, since "Bible prophecy" demands this carnage. It's "God's will" for the world to fall apart, for tensions to further inflame between Jews and Arabs, for the United States to lead the charge in a pre-emptive strike on Iran, to rebuild a third Jewish Temple after tearing down the Islamic mosque, etc. All you have to do to prove this is cut passages like Genesis 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2, Ezekiel 36 and 37, and Daniel 9:24–27 out of context (along with the entire book of Revelation), make up some handy-dandy prophecy charts, and confidently present it to Biblically illiterate Christians who don't know any better.

     While there are many doctrinal disputes amongst Christians, there are none that have as much practical significance as this one. I strongly disagree with those who deny the Trinity, but those who deny the deity of Christ are not clamoring for war, bombs, and destruction. Likewise, Christians disagree vehemently over issues like eternal security or the proper mode of baptism, but thankfully we've grown up and stopped killing each other over those issues in the last couple hundred years.

     When it comes to questionable or inaccurate beliefs about the end-times, however, they are shaping many people's foreign policy and worldviews for the worse. It is causing many to hold troubling escapist views towards the world. I know this because I am constantly told by other Christians that "we are not in the business of fixing up the world, we are just in the business of saving souls until the rapture!" It is in part because of faulty eschatology that Evangelical Christians, more than any other demographic group in America, supported the ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 7:15pm

111. And it is faulty eschatology that is causing this same group of people to believe the militaristic agenda behind Rev. Hagee's bombastic oratory. After all, it's all been ordained, so how can we oppose it?

     But maybe, just maybe, their preciously held beliefs about future prophecy are way off. Maybe they are dead wrong in their views and maybe all the wars, destruction and carnage they think are inevitable aren't necessarily mandated by God. Maybe the Bible is teaching exactly the opposite regarding these matters than what they teach.

     Alas, no matter how many false predictions these guys make, or how many damaging theological and political beliefs they espouse, people continue to follow their dangerous teachings. It's time for both Christian and non-Christian alike to call this crowd out on their bad theology, false prophecies, and deadly worldview.

     Hopefully Hagee is right that 2007 is going to be a significant year in Bible prophecy. It would be significant indeed if Biblical scholars, pastors and laymen finally and at long last rescued the doctrine of eschatology from the doom and destruction crowd of militaristic pretribulationists. Here's hoping that with each passing year the theology of Hagee and his ilk is exposed for how Biblically inaccurate and destructive it really is.'

     Pastor Bill Barnwell - March 2007 - Excerpt

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 7:16pm

112. In order for most of today's Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement's support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians' imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

     Every time you hear the phrase, "Jesus is coming back soon," you should mentally add, "and two-thirds of the Jews of Israel will be dead in ‘soon plus 84 months.'" Fundamentalists really do believe that they probably will not die physically, but to secure this faith prophetically, they must defend the doctrine of an inevitable holocaust.

     This specific motivation for the support of Israel is never preached from any fundamentalist pulpit. The faithful hear sermons – many, many sermons – on the pretribulation Rapture. On other occasions, they hear sermons on the Great Tribulation.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 7:05pm

     First of all, I am not a fundamentalist.

     2ndly, it isn't just that 2/3 of Israel dies, most of mankind will die during the tribulation, either from the destruction and murder of the anti-christ, or as G-d's judgments are poured out.

     And you are truly ignorant if you don't think that we share all of this with nonbelievers.

     You ought to think about the possibility that we are right.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 7:37pm

113. antisocialist,

     Why did you put the word, "forced," in quotation marks. I never said "forced." I wrote: "Forget all you preconceptions. Forget a life time of brainwashing. Germany was provoked into war, and the Polish corridor and Polish atrocities against German civilians was the last straw." http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/07/04/adol

     f-hitler-uniting-danzig-with-germany/

     I did write: "Those with the inclination can read The Forced War, David L. Hoggan, 1961. Hoggan is not a Nazi sympathizer in the slightest, but he puts most of the blame for the outbreak of the Second World War on Britain, Poland and Lord Halifax."

     I am a holocaust denier. Zionist leaders, on the other hand, wish it were true. It is so useful for propaganda purposes, and highly profitable. Even if the propaganda were true, who is more to blame, Nazis or Zionists. Before answering, read "Ten Questions to the Zionists," by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl. http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm

     I have a question, antisocialist. Have you looked the jet crash into the south tower of the World Trade Center in slow motion? It is phonier than a Road Runner cartoon. The jet doesn't even make a hole in the wall. The slow motion crash videos were removed from youtube on December 24, 2008, but a few websites have not been purged yet. See

     http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-

     didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html

     http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

     If you can answer one more question, what the hell is socialism? It is as meaningless as democracy, which is as meaningless as anarchy government.

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 7:44pm

114. More on rapture

     The doctrine of imminency was the teaching of the apostles and most of the church until the 5th century.

     http://www.raptureready.com/rr-imminency.html

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 7:49pm

115. Larry -

     Do you draw distinctions in your classification of Muslim belief?

     No.

     A fundamentalist is one who believes in literal interpretation of the bible, broadly speaking.

     I don't believe you are right, and furthermore, I believe that you are attempting to create self-fulfilling prophecy.

     This is sin. This is the Anti-Christ.

     I believe that you are threatening world peace with your beliefs. If you are wrong about Rapture, we all die.

     How insane is this?

     Stop interfering with God. Let go and let God.

     You will be a happier person, and much less of a sociopath.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 8:13pm

116. MarkOller and OneVote, I can't take your conspiracy theories anymore. Ignored.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:17pm

117. Only the truth needs to be suppressed. Falsehoods can be refuted. See

     The Cruelest Hoax that ever was

     http://www.propeller.com/groups/anti-group-

     group/conversations/view/2454275/?

     comment=4933167#comment_4933167

     A Jewish Defector Warns America By Benjamin H. Freedman

     http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/freedman

     .html

     I discovered this gem from "When Victims Rule" By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

     War Could Create Resentment Against Jews

     Did you know the term "Final Solution" apparently was first used by American Jews to apply to Germans? In a 1941 book entitled Germany Must Perish, Theodore Kaufman advocated the sterilization of all Germans (pp.82-89). The American Jewish Committee endorsed this call for genocide. Needless to say, it enraged the Nazis.

     http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=512

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 8:26pm

118. "I am defending historical accuracy. It is inaccurate to say that Mao 'murdered' 80 million people. Was Mao, like Stalin, a murderer? Yes. But did his murder victims number in the tens of millions? No."

     He murdered 65 million people. This is the most widely accepted and statistically probable estimate. That you are obsessed with ridiculous conspiracy theories is irrelevant. Mao did cause tens of millions of deaths, and I don't care if you think he "accidentally" killed tens of millions (which must be very hard to do).

     Jung Chang broke it down in Mao: the Unknown Story (2005) Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries, 1950-51: 3M by execution, mob or suicide Three-Anti Campaign, 1952-53: 200,000-300,000 suicides Great Leap Forward, 1958-61: 38M of starvation and overwork Cultural Revolution, 1966-76: > 3M died violent deaths Laogai camp deaths, 1949-76: 27M TOTAL under Mao: 70M

     R.J. Rummel broke it down as:

     Estimate: Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75) The principle episodes being... All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000 incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000 Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000 Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000 Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides War: 3,399,000 Famine: 34,500,000 Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths TOTAL: 72,260,000

     Cited in Rummel: Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M direct/indirect deaths. World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist Tyranny (1971): 64.5M Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above) Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War). Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979): 39.9M Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies, Deaths in China Due To Communism

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:29pm

119. "Scholars believe that Mao in some way was involved in the death of at least 40 million people and possibly as many as 80 million, more deaths during peace time than any other leader. Most of them perished during the Great Famine in the late 1950s, which followed the Great Leap Forward. Millions more may have died in the Cultural Revolution." http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=69&catid=2&subcatid=6

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:35pm

120. Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 7:37pm

     "First of all, I am not a fundamentalist."

     No, you just sound and think like one and believe the same things that fundamentalists do.

     "You ought to think about the possibility that we are right."

     It's possible, but unlikely.

     Posted by Shingo at 10/20/2009 @ 8:39pm

121. "A glance through his blog shows him to be a Holocaust denier, promoting the view that Hitler was "forced" into WWII by so-called atrocities of the Polish people against Germans."

     And of course, Mao was "forced" to kill nearly 70 million people....

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:42pm

122. "No, you just sound and think like one and believe the same things that fundamentalists do."

     You think he's as bad as the Taliban?

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:43pm

123. Who are the Taliban? Look no further than the suicide bombing in Pakistan where a pathetic piece of excrement blew himself up in a womens cafeteria killing many simply because the women were trying to get an education which is forbidden by the Taliban. Don't forget, these are the same dog piles that blew up the ancient Budda statues in 2001. Now, in light of the murder of the students, where is NOW or the other worthless feminist leaders for their self-serving thoughts? No where.

     Who are the Taliban? They represent the "Religion of Peace" don't you know....better named the "Religion of pieces of flesh". 'F' em

     Posted by pyeatte at 10/20/2009 @ 9:12pm

124. MarkOller and OneVote, I can't take your conspiracy theories anymore. Ignored.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:17pm

     Perhaps you forgot to read the NY Times/CBS poll that I posted above. In 2006, 81% of those polled believe that Bush's account of 9/11 is hiding something, or a total lie.

     With 81% in disbelief and looking for answers, I am afraid you are conspiracy theorist RW.

     There are multiple polls that support the above poll results.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 9:17pm

125. For the non-Disney version of Judaism and Israel, download Alabaster's Archive at

     http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/index

     .html

     It contains books and articles which are freely available in Israel, but Americans are not supposed to know exist.

     Also investigate Jewish Tribal Review at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/

     Anyone who thinks Zionists represent Jews in general needs to read "The Jews of Iraq," by Naeim Giladi. http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/NaeimGiladi.cfm

     If it is free debate you want, check out the comments section of The Washington Post. The Washington Post is as much of a Zionist propaganda organ as Commentary, but the comments section is uncensored, and the length limit is 5000 characters.

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 9:24pm

126. Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Also see:

     The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany The Economic Boycott of 1933

     'Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the "New Germany" at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.

     The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel - a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.'

     The Barnes Review 2001

     JewsAgainstZionism - True Torah believers - support this view of Holocaust.

     Posted by OneVote at 10/20/2009 @ 9:41pm

127. This is an extreme example of a politician groveling to Israel. Even AIPAC is too embarrassed to show it, but can still be found at the Radio Islam website:

     Senator Hillary Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) February 1, 2007

     http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/u

     sa/hillaryclinton_aipac.htm

     Watch Senator Biden, now President Biden, call himself a Zionist on Shalom TV in Israel.

     http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/u

     sa/biden_zionist.htm

     The Enforcer Rep. Rahm Emanuel is leading the Democratic charge to retake the House next year. Will his old-school combativeness rub off on his more timid colleagues? JOSHUA GREEN Posted Oct 20, 2005 2:44 PM

     And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one campaign veteran recalls. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."

     http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/809198

     6/the_enforcer

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 10:01pm

128. I do not wish to neglect Christian Zionists.

     The Widening Crusade Bush's War Plan Is Scarier Than He's Saying Sydney H. Schanberg Tuesday, October 14th 2003

     http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-10-

     14/news/the-widening-crusade/

     George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace Ewen MacAskill The Guardian, Friday 7 October 2005

     http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/ira

     q.usa

     Watch what Germans are allowed to watch on broadcast television but Americans are not. There are English subtitles.

     Radical Christians in Iraq Panorama

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m61elAh5F1c

     I am willing to give credit where credit is due. The Jewish conspiracy is the only force powerful enough to stand up to the Christian colossus.

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/20/2009 @ 10:50pm

129. One vote;

     I realize that many who are not involved day to day in christian practice tend to lump all conservative christians as fundamentalists, but that is in error.

     As I've cited, I'm a pentecostal and most fundamentalists do not accept my even being called a Christian. Fundamentalists are perhaps the next smallest segment of Christianity to the liberal or mainline Protestants who are near extinction.

     Pentecostals are now the largest segment of Christianity in Protestantism in the US and worldwide and cross into Catholicism (36% of Catholics are now Pentecostal or Charismatic).

     http://tinyurl.com/yfn2t7b

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 10:50pm

130. "Everyone's First Reaction Was 'Controlled Demolition'," by Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, September 11, 2006:

     History is written by the winners - if the government had announced that gargoyles from the planet Jupiter had destroyed the towers with mind rays - the mainstream media would have lined up, saluted, licked boots, and supported that explanation.

     http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2

     006/110906controlleddemolition.htm

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/21/2009 @ 01:43am

131. It is long past time to admit that The United States is dead. The nation has been seized by a gang Zionist maniacs from 1984. It did not start on September 11, 2001. It started with the Balfour declaration in 1917, if not earlier.

     I see no remedy, but the worst thing we could do is restore democracy and our decrepit constitution. Constitution fetishists need to read The Frozen Republic, by Daniel Lazare. The Twilight of Democracy, by Patrick E. Kennon, demolishes democratic and free market ideology, itself. Kennon calls it "the cargo cult of the late twentieth century."

     I also recommend the Machiavel Review at http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/

     Posted by MarkOller at 10/21/2009 @ 02:27am

132. Mr. Dreyfuss, in this "deal" do Afghani women get a seat at the negotiating table? Because you mentioned them not one time.

     Or do we just let the men make the deal and then the women can suffer the consequences?

     To be clear, I am not against a deal, and I want us out of Afghanistan, but in no way am I willing to sit back and let all the big men make the deal with the Taliban. Sharia law must be off the table for the US to make any deal, and afghani women who have been fighting for their rights for decades must have a seat at the negotiating table.

     And it is articles like yours that give me more and more disdain for the male left in America.

     Boy, if they were treating blacks that way you wouldn't forget to mention it. But it's only women.

     Posted by AnglScarlett at 10/21/2009 @ 07:29am

133. Pentecostals are now the largest segment of Christianity in Protestantism in the US and worldwide and cross into Catholicism (36% of Catholics are now Pentecostal or Charismatic).

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/20/2009 @ 10:50pm

     Larry - The Barna Group?

     Do you have a cite for me that isn't self promoting?

     All groups with an agenda seek to overstate their adherents.

     If, a person shares a sliver of your belief, that doesn't mean that they accept all of your beliefs.

     And, I wonder what The Barna Groups questions were in their "study"?

     Most Christians aren't theologians.

     Are their Pentecostals against the Wars?

     Many early Pentecostals asked, Why go to war when Jesus is on his way?

     When World War I broke out, most adherents to the fledgling Pentecostal movement stood firmly on the side of pacifism. The movement's leaders, like Frank Bartleman and Charles Parham (who married a Quaker) had made it a key tenet years before, even though they believed war was inevitable.

     The position drew strength from at least two quarters. First, Pentecostals took literally the biblical injunctions to "Love your enemies" and "Thou shalt not kill."

     But Pentecostals also believed their movement heralded the end of the world as they knew it. As ardent premillennialists, they envisioned a final earth-shaking revival even as the world hastened down the final path of destruction that would lead to the coming Millennium.

     From this perspective, the outbreak of war in 1914 offered tangible proof that the end was near and fighting against militant forces in Europe was useless. The only important battle was the warfare for souls.

     Most Pentecostal denominations, therefore, took stands against the war.

     James Goff - 1998 - Christian History

     Posted by OneVote at 10/21/2009 @ 09:11am

134. Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/20/2009 @ 8:29pm

     I will have to try to respond in detail later, but please name any of the "ridiculous conspiracy theories" that I am supposedly obsessed with. I am neither a Holocaust denier nor a 9/11 truther, which are the two conspiracies that have so far come up on this thread.

     Posted by cka2nd at 10/21/2009 @ 09:52am

135. "Boy, if they were treating blacks that way you wouldn't forget to mention it. But it's only women."

     Excellent observation. I wonder why the left has become so sympathetic to outright misogyny.

     "I am neither a Holocaust denier nor a 9/11 truther, which are the two conspiracies that have so far come up on this thread."

     You might as well be a Holocaust denier, given your love of Mao.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/21/2009 @ 3:11pm

136. Excellent observation. I wonder why the left has become so sympathetic to outright misogyny.

     Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/21/2009 @ 3:11pm

     I didn't know Ronald Regan was a lefty.

     Posted by Shingo at 10/21/2009 @ 11:33pm