Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWith 14 more dead Americans today, in three helicopter crashes, it's beginning to look like President Obama will, after all, opt for a significant escalation of the war -- at least, according to the Wall Street Journal. On Saturday, the paper reported the first substantial leak about the president's plans after the weeks-long policy review:
"The Obama administration is moving toward a hybrid strategy in Afghanistan that would combine elements of both the troop-heavy approach sought by its top military commander and a narrower option backed by Vice President Joe Biden, a decision that could pave the way for thousands of new U.S. forces."The emerging strategy would largely rebuff proposals to maintain current troop levels and rely on unmanned drone attacks and elite special-operations troops to hunt individual militants, an idea championed by Mr. Biden. It is opposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul, and other military officials.
"One scenario under consideration, according to an official familiar with the deliberations, calls for deploying 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. reinforcements primarily to ramp up the training of the Afghan security forces. But Gen. McChrystal's request for 40,000 troops also remains on the table.
"People familiar with the internal debates say Mr. Obama rejected a strictly counter-terror approach during White House deliberations in early October. One official said Pentagon strategists were asked to draft brief written arguments making the best case for each strategy, but the strategists had difficulties writing out a credible case for the counter-terror approach -- prompting members of Mr. Biden's staff to step in and write the document themselves.
"Signs the White House is moving towards Gen. McChrystal's view of the conflict mounted Friday as the 28 North Atlantic Treaty Organization defense ministers endorsed the commander's counterinsurgency strategy and signaled they might be open to modestly increasing their military and civilian contributions to the war effort."
If this is true, there's a gloomy way to assess it, namely, that Obama is intent on "winning" the war, whatever it takes, and that an increase of 10,000 to 20,000 US forces -- even if called "trainers" -- is just a downpayment. The more optimistic, or shall I say, charitable interpretation is that this is another "feint" by Obama, i.e., that the president understands that the war isn't winnable, and yet he's unwilling to suddenly reverse course and set a drawdown timetable. (Training Afghans is Senator Carl Levin's preferred solution, as hopeless as that task might be.) Christine Fair, the AfPak specialist, is willing to give the latter interpretation to what Obama might do. As she told me in a recent interview:
"I do think we need to keep the training mission. In fact, it's possible that we could even scale up our troops in order to get the hell out. Right now, the training mission is woefully understaffed. Only one in three spots are filled. So if you put troops in, and you put them on a training mission so that instead of a kinetic mission we build up those forces so we can get the hell out. And we need to put up a big tin pot, saying, These troops can't support themselves.'"
Fair, an intelligent observer, is a strong opponent of the COIN (counterinsurgency) cult, and she ridicules those who conflate the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Here's a partial transcript of her comments, in our interview. It's worth reading in full:
Q. Do you have any idea of what Obama's going to do?FAIR: "No, I think we are genuinely in a place of confusion about what our national interests are. And it doesn't help that there's this class of people who say that if we don't decisively defeat the Taliban, then Al Qaeda will come back. Or my favorite is if we let the Taliban come back, then Al Qaeda will come back. And of course that's a moronic view, because the Taliban never even left Afghanistan. The Taliban are back. They didn't leave. They consolidated their position, they expanded their position, and they've made new inroads into places that were previously secure.
"So we need to be asking a different question, which is not, How do we defeat the Taliban?' Because that assumes that the Taliban are defeatable, given our national resources and I don't know how to say this nicely, this be-caped, kleptocrat narco-trafficker president who got reelected through massive fraud as our partner in Kabul. So the question we should be asking is not, How do we defeat the Taliban?' but, How do we secure our interests vis-ΰ-vis Al Qaeda in spite of the return of the Taliban?'
"And this return of the Taliban, I might add, was also facilitated by Karzai himself. I mean, I was there as an election monitor, and the news was absolutely rife with stories about deals that were made by Karzai whereby stuffed ballot boxes would be returned through [Taliban] territory without problems, while at the same time no individual would actually have to cast a vote, so the Taliban would not have egg on their faces for letting people vote! So Karzai actually facilitated deals with the Taliban to enable his electoral fraud. And in other cases, Taliban commanders contested the election at the provincial level, either directly or through proxies. They basically threatened any of the competition. So at the level of political engagement, the Taliban are already in the game.
"And there's another thing that drives me nuts, apart from conflating Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which seems to be the name of the game. And that's that the term Taliban' has come to mean everything and nothing. Just because we can't deal with Mullah Omar doesn't mean that some commander in a narco-trafficking district in Helmand is not flippable because he's controlled by Mullah Omar. So what's needed is a real, honest debate about what's happened, what mistakes have we made, which ones are recoverable and which ones aren't?
"And that's another reason why this COIN approach won't work. Some mistakes that we made, we can't recover from. Like letting the Northern Alliance back in, these recuperated warlords that Afghans hated. Not only did we let them back in, we made them the outsourcers of our security problem. So that led to a number of problems. Because when the Pakistanis saw that the Northern Alliance were back, despite our promises that we wouldn't let the Northern Alliance take Kabul, the Pakistanis read that as giving the Indians the keys, because they were back, supplying the Northern Alliance, they had an air base in Tajikistan they were using to resupply the Northern Alliance, they had a military officer there to train the Northern Alliance. So when the Pakistanis view the Northern Alliance as an Indian proxy, it was for good reason: they were an Indian proxy! I actually met an Indian brigadier general who claimed that he trained the Northern Alliance from the base. A lot of this is out in the open domain, whereas the Indians used to deny it. And now that's out, the Indians say, If it wasn't for us you wouldn't have the Northern Alliance to go into Afghanistan with.' And the Indians are very proud of their record with the Northern Alliance. And so that also explains why when the Northern Alliance came back, the Pakistanis very quickly reassessed what the Americans understood about what they were getting involved in, i.e., we didn't understand much. And that it wasn't in their interests to dump the Taliban. I think that's why, in very short order, the Pakistanis supported the United States at the strategic level while still very much maintaining their strategic engagement with the Taliban as well."
Q. If there's a way out of this, do we need to start with the Pakistanis, get them to bring the Taliban to the table? And maybe that means giving the Pakistanis and the Saudis some stuff that they want, because we need their cooperation?
FAIR: "That's one formulation of the problem. I have a somewhat different take. If you believe that the Taliban is our key national security concern, then what you say is right. I don't think they are our preeminent national security concern. The Taliban are a bunch of hillbillies. They are a parochial, territorial insurgency. Despite all of the hullaballoo, they don't really have an international agenda. These guys are focused on Afghanistan, period. Our concerns are Al Qaeda. And there are more Al Qaeda operating in Pakistan than in Afghanistan, and there are more international terrorist groups operating in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. A vast majority of these international terrorist conspiracies that have been busted in Europe and the U.K., their footprints are in Pakistan. Obviously, Jaish-e Muhammad, Lashkar-e Taiba, the list goes on and on and on. These guys are all in Pakistan. And Pakistan has been using militant groups for six decades as part of their policy.
"So I would argue that we've got this so completely bass-ackwards that it's almost comical! We've got these troops in Afghanistan, so we've got to placate Pakistan, cajole it, make it feel important, throw money at it, because we need Pakistan to support the logistics. So we have this narrative that says, to stabilize Afghanistan we need to get Pakistan's support. Stabilizing Afghanistan's not the goal. Quite the contrary. We need to be in a different place in Afghanistan so we can play hardball with the Pakistanis. So the idea is, we have to stabilize Afghanistan, so we need to get Pakistan and all these other clowns on board? That's not our objective. Our objective is to wrap up international terrorism, limit our exposure to it, and to preclude a nuclear exchange on the Indian subcontinent, and to preclude nuclear proliferation. And all of the return addresses for those problems are right there in Pakistan. And because of our position in Afghanistan, we are so adversely positioned to deal with Pakistan."
Q. So, what do you think we should do?
FAIR: "I think we should do what's currently being discussed, which is: realize we can't win the counterinsurgency, because it's not ours to win. Foreigners don't win at counterinsurgency, locals do. And locals are not going to win this, because this local government is just so sub-optimal! Bad government is worse than no government at all. We can keep building the Afghan army, the police but they can't ever pay for it. They can't pay for their own election! How are they going to pay for an army?
"I think we should go ahead, keep throwing resources at training, try to set up some trust fund to pay for this when it stabilizes, but really get our troops out of kinetics. The more troops we have killing people, the harder it is. Everyone blames us for everything. When the Taliban kills civilians we get blamed, because without us there would be no insurgents. When we kill civilians, the Taliban of course exaggerates the numbers and says that we killed women and children going to the mosque, or whatever, whatever makes us look really bad. We get blamed for propping up this corrupt government. So I think we should be scaling back the COIN effort, recognizing that it's not winnable. Rather than sending our men and women to their doom, we should be asking questions. What is the alternative to COIN? Take for granted that we're going to lose the COIN. How do we secure ourselves against Al Qaeda?"
Q. But is Al Qaeda such a big threat?
FAIR: "I'm with you. This has been a fake argument."
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Well, he's going to get hit from both sides.
Certainly from the Left, even Middle....and the Right will surely find a way to criticize it, while giving them exactly what they want.
No doubt it'll be along the lines of "Not enough!" or "Didn't do it soon enough!"
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 12:07pm
As usual, Mask is right. Obama is applying just enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda and at just the right time time to get it done. Victory will soon be ours. God bless America. Hoorah!
Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 12:18pm
"If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
hmmmmm........
""The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan helps Obama," Gergen said in an interview. "It provides him with useful arguments.""
ouch.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/ 07/06/obama_mccain_split_over_afghan_strategy/?page=2
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 12:29pm
If Obama does this, he will go down in history as a mass murderer. We need more than 60,000 troops to ensure victory. Sending in between a sixth and a third of that for domestic political reasons is pathetic and disgraceful. Why bother fighting at all if you are not willing to commit the resources we know we NEED to win? Why send soldiers off to die while deliberately leaving them without any possibility of accomplishing their mission? This is treason and mass murder and war crimes against one's own army.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 12:38pm
UH, OH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pakistan 'holds elite Iran force'
Iran has blamed a Pakistani group for an attack on its Revolutionary Guards
Eleven members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards force have been arrested in Pakistan after illegally entering the country, police there say.
They were detained in Mashkel near the Pakistan-Iran border, they added.
It comes eight days after a suicide bomb killed 42 people, among them six Revolutionary Guard commanders, in Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 12:49pm
We need more than 60,000 troops to ensure victory.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 12:38pm
oh, shut up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 12:50pm
"Why send soldiers off to die while deliberately leaving them without any possibility of accomplishing their mission? "
of which "mission" do you speak? the "global counter-insurgency" mission? or the "nation-building" mission? or the "get bin laden" mission? or the "defeat al qaeda" mission? or the "protect women's rights" mission? or the "secure the population" mission? or the "what about pakistan?" mission? or the........
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 12:53pm
We need more than 60,000 troops to ensure victory.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 12:38pm
oh, shut up.
"Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 12:54pm
here's the "mission": invade and occupy any country which might constitute a threat to either israel or the united states; kill hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims; torture and imprison every male between 18 and 34; set up a massive police state; secure the population; fix elections; pretend we're fighting terrorism, while denying this it has anything to do with "nation building"; spend trillions of dollars doing so; and finally (and most importantly) deny healthcare to desperate americans while claiming it's a "luxury we cannot afford" or that "there is no provision in the constitution allows the government to provide any sort of welfare to people"........rinse, repeat for the next election cycle.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 12:57pm
I don't have a lot of confidence in our ability to deal with this enemy. So far, we have been unable to find out where their funding is coming from, much less cut it off. Either we will not or cannot destroy the poppy fields and so a bunch of rag tag, home grown terrorists run a $500M enterprise and we are powerless to do anything about it.
This does not give me great confidence that we will be any more successful in trying the new ground game.
Posted by sherbug at 10/26/2009 @ 12:59pm
"of which "mission" do you speak?"
The mission to destroy the Taliban or at least disrupt them so that the Afghan army will be able to defeat them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:06pm
destroying the poppy fields will do wonders for our popularity with Afghani people, for whom that crop is their only possible livelihood.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 1:12pm
"The mission to destroy the Taliban or at least disrupt them so that the Afghan army will be able to defeat them"
you are utterly clueless! did you not read the article?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:16pm
>>>Q. But is Al Qaeda such a big threat?
FAIR: "I'm with you. This has been a fake argument."<<<
There is nothing "FAKE" about the Al Qaeda threat. The president deals with this threat on a daily basis and has been fairly successful at taking out Al Qaeda leadership and thwarting planned attacks.
Granted, there are some in the MIC that want to exploit the terrorist threat for economic gain, but we should not conflate their bad motives to mean there is no actual terrorist threat.
But more to the point, FAIR and DREYFUSS refuse to do the risk analysis that the president MUST do.
ARE YOU WILLING TO RISK THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRESSIVE CAUSE ON A "BELIEF" THAT AL QAEDA WILL NOT STRIKE AMERICA AGAIN IF WE WITHDRAW FROM AFGHANISTAN?
Because "another" attack from Afghanistan will be Obama's "Iranian Hostage Crisis" that will make one term a certainty just like it did for jimmy Carter. And what was the result of that - 30 years of Reagan Revolution!
Sorry, but that is a NON-STARTER, ROBERT DREYFUSS.
I think FAIR and FEINGOLD and others do have a point - Al Qaeda CAN strike from anywhere in the world, including Afghanistan. But all this means is that we need a new way of fighting global terrorism, not that we should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. As I have said repeatedly on these threads, developing a truly "international" Rapid Response Force under international command that can root out terrorism wherever we find it appears to be the appropriate long-term solution, and Afghanistan could be a convenient starting point to get this force off the ground and functional.
I have ZERO confidence that Afghans will be able to police their own country. They don't even have basic political control.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 1:18pm
If you want to see what the future of the Afghan war will be like for our troops spread out in lonely outposts as per the McCrystal plan now modified by the Obama White House go see an old French Legionaire movie such as "Beau Geste" or "March or Die".
Anyone who has been in combat knows there are two types of commanders: killing officers and murdering officers. A killing officer will get you killed doing the right thing (that is just the luck of battle). But a murdering officer will get you killed following his agenda (ideology, religion, finances, politics, personal glory, advancement, etc.). I know which type McChrystal is (just look at his lunatic plan for outposts) but I didn't think Obama and the Democrats would just throw away our troops in a feckless war just to buy time until the next elections are over.
Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm
Regardless of what you may like to think, we cannot allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan again.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm
"There is nothing "FAKE" about the Al Qaeda threat"
Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border.
But you progressives would never do that, nor would you favor defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban militarily, nor do you support Israel, and you've set in place the Islamification of Europe.
Why do progressives love jihad?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
"But all this means is that we need a new way of fighting global terrorism, not that we should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan."
are these terms mutually exclusive in your mind?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:35pm
"But you progressives would never do that, nor would you favor defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban militarily, nor do you support Israel, and you've set in place the Islamification of Europe.
Why do progressives love jihad?"
this is precisely the sort of language which should be flagged.
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border"
had to chuckle at the idea of muslims entering through mexico! can you imagine the minutemen on your arrival?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:43pm
"this is precisely the sort of language which should be flagged."
No, it's just what you don't want to accept. If there were no Muslims in America anywhere, then AQ could not attack America.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Why do you stop at our borders? If your logic and rhetoric are correct, then the only way to really stop these Muslims and Middle Easterners is with a full, pull-out-all-the-stops, bomb them to oblivion, smite all their children, Christ-blessed Holy Crusade against these jihadist towelheads. 40,000? 60,000 troops? Hell, let's bring back the draft and send 500,000 after them.
Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 1:47pm
>>>are these terms mutually exclusive in your mind?
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:35pm <<<
Only "somewhat" mutually exclusive - I think they are more "sequential" than mutually exclusive.
I personally would not feel safe withdrawing from Afghanistan without developing the Rapid Response Force first. With the force in place, the "world" - not the US - decides when to use it to thwart terrorism and prevent genocide.
I have a problem putting this force under the UN Security Council as currently constituted because of the veto power wielded by "single" nations. A better approach would be to allow a UN Security Council vote, and if there is a veto, put it to the full UN body with a 88% voting threshold for using this force.
If 88% of the world thinks we should use the international force in a particular case, then this is about as close to a global consensus that one can get.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 1:51pm
metteyya,
fair enough. but an increase of troops signals one certainty: more death and destruction. and terrible, terrible debt. we saw this in every other conflict of this sort in the past.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:58pm
"Why do you stop at our borders? If your logic and rhetoric are correct, then the only way to really stop these Muslims and Middle Easterners is with a full, pull-out-all-the-stops, bomb them to oblivion, smite all their children, Christ-blessed Holy Crusade against these jihadist towelheads. 40,000? 60,000 troops? Hell, let's bring back the draft and send 500,000 after them."
The difference is that in WW2, Germany declared war on us and Japan attacked us.
The Germans and Japanese actually had, you know, powerful armies and an advanced navy and an air force that seriously threatened us.
Every Muslim country is a backwards, primitive, tiny third-world tyranny without clean water or medicine. Every one of them is pathetically weak. Muslims contribute nothing to the world in terms of science and technology. The jihadists who attacked us on 9/11 were thieves of airplanes they never could have built. The Taliban is a bunch of cavemen from the Stone Age. We could overthrow the government of every Muslim country without ground troops and without a single dead American soldier if we wanted to.
They only pose a threat to us because we let them. We could have prevented 9/11 without firing a shot.
There's nothing racist about it. On the contrary, I'm all for Hispanic immigration. We can happily allow immigrants from civilized countries. But our government has a moral responsibility to preserve our right to life. The only way to ensure that thousands of us are not killed by Islamic jihadists is to free the US from all Muslims.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 2:02pm
The mission to destroy the Taliban or at least disrupt them so that the Afghan army will be able to defeat them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:06pm |
ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!
destroying the poppy fields will do wonders for our popularity with Afghani people, for whom that crop is their only possible livelihood.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 1:12pm
buy the entire crop.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:03pm
"buy the entire crop."
I agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 2:03pm
" Muslims contribute nothing to the world in terms of science and technology"
except for having invented both
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 1:58pm
I have NEVER favored escalation in Afghanistan, and I am not sure about this 10-20k troops for training purposes. The thought is that you CAN successfully train Afghans to police their own country, but I don't think you can do that until you establish basic political control and a functioning government in Afghanistan.
Karzai is a joke, but right now he is all we've got. Solving this political/governing issue is what lays the groundwork for successful training missions, economic development, and our eventual withdrawal.
As long as most of Afghanistan is ungovernable, any "training" of Afghans might lead to some unwelcome blowback in the future.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 2:06pm
"except for having invented both"
Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 2:08pm
I have ZERO confidence that Afghans will be able to police their own country. They don't even have basic political control.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/26/2009 @ 1:18pm
that's because their "country" was created by a bunch of "superior" of folks who knew what was best for them.
another attack on america will not come from afghanistan but from
GREEDY,
STUPID
FOREIGN
POLICY.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:16pm
Regardless of what you may like to think, we cannot allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan again.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm
yep, we need the nice folks of the northern alliance.
maybe if you stopped sticking your finger up everybody's ass, they'd give up trying to shit on you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:18pm
Regardless of what you may like to think, we cannot allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan again.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm
america is being raped from within
and all you can think of is MORE ways to go deeper in debt.
sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:19pm
"Solving this political/governing issue is what lays the groundwork for successful training missions, economic development, and our eventual withdrawal"
fair enough
"Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about"
from wikipedia: "Muslim scientists thus combined precise observation, controlled experiment and careful records[16] with a new[13] approach to scientific inquiry which led to the development of the scientific method"
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 2:25pm
The biggest attack on the US has, in dollar terms, come from its own banks. In terms of dead children annually, from its own weapon mfrs & the NRA, the annual toll of dead US kids always exceeding the dead of 9/11, the dollars -- a few trillion, so far -- ripped off by Goldman et al vastly exceeding 9/11 dollar losses ... which site, thank you Mayor Mike Bloomberg, still remains mainly a big hole in the ground. And what's that hole all about, Multibillionaire Mike?
Now watch Mike try to buy the White House in '12.
Posted by sloper at 10/26/2009 @ 2:30pm
The biggest attack on the US has, in dollar terms, come from its own banks. In terms of dead children annually, from its own weapon mfrs & the NRA, the annual toll of dead US kids always exceeding the dead of 9/11, the dollars -- a few trillion, so far -- ripped off by Goldman et al vastly exceeding 9/11 dollar losses ... which site, thank you Mayor Mike Bloomberg, still remains mainly a big hole in the ground. And what's that hole all about, Multibillionaire Mike?
Now watch Mike try to buy the White House in '12.
Posted by sloper at 10/26/2009 @ 2:32pm
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border. "----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
So "all Muslims and Middle Easterners" are potential terrorists, RWNC?
How does bigotry against Muslims like that jive with your "We HAD to go into Iraq to save those poor people" and "We MUST stay in Afghanistan to save those poor people" rants?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:53pm
"So "all Muslims and Middle Easterners" are potential terrorists, RWNC?"
No.
However....
If there were no Muslims in America anywhere, then AQ could not attack America.
Are you prepared to sacrifice your life and the lives of your loved ones to give refuge to illiterates from primitive backwards countries?
Let's get Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, European, Vietnamese, Korean, Mexican, and Chilean immigrants who will actually contribute to our society.
Muslims are many times more likely to be rapists than other groups.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
"How does bigotry against Muslims like that jive with your "We HAD to go into Iraq to save those poor people" and "We MUST stay in Afghanistan to save those poor people" rants?!??!?"
I'm so depressed at the pathetic and wretched state of the entire Muslim world, I'm thinking about becoming an isolationist at this point. We are saving 180,000 Afghans every year through improved healthcare brought about by the war, and if they aren't grateful, fuck 'em.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:23pm
"all you can think of is MORE ways to go deeper in debt."
I think it's time to cut back spending to Capitalism Magazine/Libertarian party levels.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:28pm
From: "Why Don't I Care About the Palestinians?"
"The Arabs, whatever their medieval achievements (as best I can understand, they were mainly achievements of transmission -- "Arabic" numerals, for example, came from India) are politically hopeless. Who can dispute this? Look at the last 50-odd years, since the colonial powers left. What have the Arabs accomplished? What have they built? Where in the Arab world is there a trace or a spark of democracy? Of constitutionalism? Of laws independent of the ruler's whim? Of free inquiry? Of open public debate? Where in your house is there any article stamped "Made in Syria?" Arabs can be individually very charming and capable. Collectively, though, as nations, the Arabs are no-hopers. They can't handle modernity, for some cultural reason we don't understand and can't do anything about.
All of this applies to the Palestinians. I spent some of my formative years in Hong Kong, a barren piece of rock with zero natural resources, under foreign occupation, chock-full of refugees from the Mao tyranny. The people there weren't lounging in UNRWA camps or making suicide runs at the governor's mansion. They were trading, building, speculating, manufacturing, working -- with the result that Hong Kong is now a glittering modern city filled with well-dressed, well-educated, well-fed people, proud of what they have accomplished together, and with a higher standard of living than Britain herself. If, following the Oslo accords -- or for that matter, in the 20 years of Jordanian occupation -- the Palestinians had taken that route, had set aside their fantasies of revenge and massacre, and concentrated on building up something worth having, I might respect them. As it is, I don't."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:39pm
The above essay also states that the best way to deal with the Palestinians is:
"Expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza, those territories then incorporated into Israel."
I'm inclined to agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:46pm
If there were no Muslims in America anywhere, then AQ could not attack America.
thomas jefferson thinks you're an asshole.
Are you prepared to sacrifice your life and the lives of your loved ones to give refuge to illiterates from primitive backwards countries?
you mean like ireland, china, poland, germany. YOU ARE A FUCKING IMMIGRANT!!!!!!!!!
Let's get Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, European, Vietnamese, Korean, Mexican, and Chilean immigrants who will actually contribute to our society.
yeah, and kick out all the stupid bigots!
Muslims are many times more likely to be rapists than other groups.
THEY'LL EAT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!
Crime Statistics > Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount # 1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people # 2 Seychelles: 0.788294 per 1,000 people # 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people # 4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people # 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people # 6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people # 7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people # 8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people # 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people # 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 56 India: 0.0143187 per 1,000 people # 57 Qatar: 0.0139042 per 1,000 people # 58 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0132029 per 1,000 people # 59 Greece: 0.0106862 per 1,000 people # 60 Georgia: 0.0100492 per 1,000 people # 61 Armenia: 0.00938652 per 1,000 people # 62 Indonesia: 0.00567003 per 1,000 people # 63 Yemen: 0.0038597 per 1,000 people # 64 Azerbaijan: 0.00379171 per 1,000 people # 65 Saudi Arabia: 0.00329321 per 1,000 people
bigoted fool.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 5:01pm
I'm so depressed at the pathetic and wretched state of the entire Muslim world, I'm thinking about becoming an isolationist at this point. We are saving 180,000 Afghans every year through improved healthcare brought about by the war, and if they aren't grateful, fuck 'em.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:23pm
never, ever, open your mouth outside the united states.
you are such an asshole.
that's not ad hominem, just the truth.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 5:04pm
"Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape
Norway's most important paper Aftenposten ran a story earlier this week saying that 65% of the rape crimes in Oslo were committed by foreigners, even though they only represent a mere 23% of the population in the Norwegian capital. The article was prompted by a call by the Rape Commission (Voldtektsutvalget) to the imams to put rapes and the attitude against women on the agenda.
Foreigners are six times more likely to figure in crime statistics concerning rapes in Oslo. During the first two months of this year sixteen rapes and rape attempts have been committed, and the three men the police are looking for in connection with four of those cases have one thing in common: they all have a Muslim background. Especially Somalis and Iraqis seem to be well represented in the statistics."
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1937
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:29pm
Thanks for the only laugh so far, frosty. It shows how sick this thing is that the one guy who has the guts to tell it like it is (you) should seem amusing, a kind face in a sea of assholes. Maybe two..... Darla's doing her share.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/26/2009 @ 5:31pm
"Jihad through rape: Attacks on Western women by Muslims
According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brε, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:33pm
"The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as "their women," the women who "belong" to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men -- his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us -- our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:34pm
"The number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas."
Click on the picture on the following link to see how barbaric primitive Muslims who should be deported behave in Europe: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2e_1215575185
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:37pm
Would you rather have Muslims that commit 70% of rapes in European nations, or Japanese who have the lowest number of rapes and highest rates of conviction of any advanced nation in the world?
Especially since, you know, the Japanese actually have CONTRIBUTED to science and technology and culture?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:44pm
"Are you prepared to sacrifice your life and the lives of your loved ones to give refuge to illiterates from primitive backwards countries?
you mean like ireland, china, poland, germany. YOU ARE A FUCKING IMMIGRANT!!!!!!!!!"
But I'm not from primitive backwards countries, and Ireland, China, Poland, and Germany are not what I would call primitive and backwards.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:46pm
Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
Fine.
Then the US should withdraw all military assets from the Middle East and stop meddling in all Middle Eastern affairs.
Are you comfortable with that?
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 5:48pm
Would you rather have Muslims that commit 70% of rapes in European nations, or Japanese who have the lowest number of rapes and highest rates of conviction of any advanced nation in the world?
Especially since, you know, the Japanese actually have CONTRIBUTED to science and technology and culture?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:44pm
Where did you get the figure about 70% of rapes being committed by Muslims?
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 5:52pm
"The number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:37pm
Does the resident Islamophobe have any evidence these rapes are all being committed by Muslims?
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 5:54pm
One of the dumbest posts yet by Dreyfuss (especially his inclusion of the completely clueless Fair). And the sycophants who echo this idiocy by Dreyfuss are just as bad.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:54pm
One of the dumbest posts yet by Dreyfuss (especially his inclusion of the completely clueless Fair). And the sycophants who echo this idiocy by Dreyfuss are just as bad.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:54pm
One of the dumbest posts in response to a Dreyfuss blog.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 5:57pm
Let's get Japanese, Chinese, Jewish, European, Vietnamese, Korean, Mexican, and Chilean immigrants who will actually contribute to our society.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
It's inoric you should mention Japan. US GI's on Okinawa commit the vast majority of rapes on the Island.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:00pm
"Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:29pm
Women soldiers have died of dehydration to avoid late night trips to toilet http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/48992/
"...a 22-year vet talks about her time in Iraq and, in one of the more disturbing parts, Janis Karpinski reveals that General Sanchez ordered that dehydration deaths of frightened female soldiers were not to be labeled as such..."
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:03pm
http://tinyurl.com/dhan2
"70 percent of French prisoners are Muslims"
http://tinyurl.com/yfh4wvw "The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents."
About 70% of that is Muslims. According to links I mentioned earlier, in other parts of Europe 65% of rapes are commited by Muslims.
"Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape" http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1937
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:04pm
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
Fine.
Then the US should withdraw all military assets from the Middle East and stop meddling in all Middle Eastern affairs.
Are you comfortable with that?"
Fine. More Americans would live that way.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:05pm
Fine. More Americans would live that way.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:05pm
Agreed. of course, the the oil and military giants would go bankrupt and the US dollar would become worthless, but yeah, more Americans (and Arabs) would live.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:08pm
"Agreed. of course, the the oil and military giants would go bankrupt and the US dollar would become worthless, but yeah, more Americans (and Arabs) would live."
Actually, 180,000 Afghans would die every year and far more Arabs would die, but why should we sacrifice ourselves for their sake?
That would actually be good for the US dollar.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:11pm
"http://tinyurl.com/dhan2 "70 percent of French prisoners are Muslims"
That's a blog not a source.
"Oslo Muslims Six Times More Likely to Rape" http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1937"
That source says refers to foreigners not Muslims.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:13pm
"Then the US should withdraw all military assets from the Middle East and stop meddling in all Middle Eastern affairs."
One caveat: We will still support Israel, but will encourage Israel to expel all the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:13pm
"deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
DarlaLOON loves to see American soldiers die which is a real oxymoran (heavy on the MORON part) given her anti-war stances!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 6:15pm
"encourage Israel to expel all the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank."
And encourage Europe to expel all of it's Muslims as well.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Actually, 180,000 Afghans would die every year and far more Arabs would die, but why should we sacrifice ourselves for their sake?
That would actually be good for the US dollar.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:11pm
If we'd stayed out of Iraq,. 1.2 million Iraqis and 4 thousands Americas would be alive today, not to mention, 3 trillion still in US bank accounts.
If we'd stayed out of Afghanistan to begin with, there would be no Taliban or Mujahadeen.
And once the US dollar ceases to be the default international currency, which will happen once oil ceases to be traded in US dollars, it will become worthless.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:21pm
"And once the US dollar ceases to be the default international currency, which will happen once oil ceases to be traded in US dollars, it will become worthless."
The world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, but they remain untapped because of environmental laws. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil production capacity, thanks also to environmental laws.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:24pm
And encourage Europe to expel all of it's Muslims as well.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Europe isn't ignorant, fearful adnd xenophobic as we are. They can handle it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:33pm
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 6:15pm
While the right haters send these men off to die, and pay contractors money to feed the soldiers rancid food, filthy water and electrocute them while taking showers.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:36pm
The world's largest supplies of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska, but they remain untapped because of environmental laws. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil production capacity, thanks also to environmental laws.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:24pm
Mexico is the 3rd largest supplier to the US. Alaska doesn'tt even rank in the top 10.
The largest reserves as in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Russia.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:39pm
One caveat: We will still support Israel, but will encourage Israel to expel all the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:13pm
So you are in favor of genocide and ethnic cleansing too? How surprising.
Actually, by your logic, the Jews woudl be expelled, seeing as they are largely immigrants and a tiny minority in the Middle East.
Do you not believe in property rights or do you admit to being a fascist.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:41pm
"Europe isn't ignorant, fearful adnd xenophobic as we are. They can handle it."
They can handle Muslims coming in and committing 70% of rapes and setting up Sharia law?
Shingo, have you seen the bearded Muslim protestors of Europe?
They carry signs saying:
"Europe you will pay your extermination is on its way!"
"Prepare for the REAL Holocaust!"
"Freedom Go to Hell"
"Whoever Insults the Prophet- Kill Him!"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Behead those who mock Islam"
"Annihilate those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay your 9/11 is on its way"
"Freedom of expression go to Hell"
"Your democracy- No, thanks!"
"Jesus is the slave of Allah"
"British police go to Hell"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"The veil is women's liberation"
AND...seriously...
"The European countries are inciting and hurting the feelings of the Muslims"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:50pm
"Mexico is the 3rd largest supplier to the US. Alaska doesn'tt even rank in the top 10."
Of course it isn't one of our top suppliers! Its oil is UNTAPPED due to environmental regulations!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:53pm
"So you are in favor of genocide"
No. The Palestinians are utterly shameless, deluded barbarians who live like primitive animals, but I only favor letting them go and immigrate to the Arab dictatorship of their choosing.
They are the ones who favor genocide.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:55pm
Shingo, have you seen the bearded Muslim protestors of Europe?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:50pm
Yes. It's what you call a storm in a teacup.
Have you seen the right wing skinheads in London carrying Israeli flags?
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 6:57pm
"Have you seen the right wing skinheads in London carrying Israeli flags?"
No, but naturally all skinheads hate Israel. Hitler was a great fan of the Palestinians, whose leader organized Muslim SS divisions and helped plot the Holocaust.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:59pm
No. The Palestinians are utterly shameless, deluded barbarians who live like primitive animals, but I only favor letting them go and immigrate to the Arab dictatorship of their choosing.
They are the ones who favor genocide.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:55pm
The Palestinians are the original inhabitants inhabitants of the land, which was stolen from them. In fact, 85% of Palestinians have Jewish heritage, so I guess that makes you a filthy anti Semite.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:00pm
No, but naturally all skinheads hate Israel. Hitler was a great fan of the Palestinians, whose leader organized Muslim SS divisions and helped plot the Holocaust.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:59pm
The skinheads hate Jews, not Israel, they are right wing after all. They just happen to hate Muslims more than Jews, liek all right wingers. It was at a demonstration against a Mosque that they wielded the Israeli flags.
And no, the Palestinian leader, who was appointed by the British, had no part to play in the Holocaust and there were no Muslim SS divisions. In fact,t eh Palestinians ignored his calls for Jihad and fought with the allies.
Interestingly, 150,000 Jews did join the Nazi party and enrolled in the Nazi military.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:04pm
Of course it isn't one of our top suppliers! Its oil is UNTAPPED due to environmental regulations!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 6:53pm
It's oil is untapped because the oil companies want to keep it untapped.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:05pm
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (see here and here and here and here) collaborated with the Nazis in WW2, explicitly supported the Holocaust, and asked the Germans to bring the Holocaust to the Jews of Palestine. The violent, Jew-hating Mufti was involved in years of organising pogroms and killings of Jews in Palestine, such as the Hebron Massacre of 1929 (also here and here). In Nov 1940 the British approved a plan to assassinate the Mufti, and they released members of Irgun to kill him in Iraq in 1941. Sadly, the plan failed. The Mufti issued a fatwa "summons to a holy war against Britain" in May 1941. All things evil are "holy" in the minds of people like this. He fled to Nazi-occupied Europe, where he urged Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Palestine. Hitler promised him that as soon as he managed to take Palestine, he would exterminate all the Jews. The Mufti recruited 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who killed innocent Jewish civilians, including children, in Croatia and Hungary. At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (hanged as a war criminal 1948) said: "The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures." The Mufti inspected Auschwitz and urged the guards running the gas chambers to work harder. There is truly a place in hell for the Mufti: "He personally lobbied the Fόhrer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichmann tried to cut a deal with the British government to excha
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:07pm
...exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:07pm
"the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist, anti-democratic governmental system to other countries." - Quote from the leader of the Palestinians, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, welcoming the Nazi rise to power, 1933.
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'" - Quote from the Mufti after WW2.
"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all." - Quote from the Mufti calling for a genocide of the Jews when Israel was declared a state, 1947. Luckily, the Palestinians failed to carry out their genocide.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm
Many of the Muslim protestors in Europe carry signs reading:
"God Bless Hitler"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:10pm
"Europe isn't ignorant, fearful adnd xenophobic as we are. They can handle it."
They can handle Muslims coming in and committing 70% of rapes and setting up Sharia law?"
Actually, I think most Europeans are appalled by their government's immigration policies, but feel powerless to change them. Plus, when they try to, The Nation calls them fascists and Nazis. Why do people flock to Europe, when they could immigrate to the paradise of the Middle East or the paradise of Africa? Why doesn't the Nation ever ask that question, hmmm?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:17pm
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (see here and here and here and here) collaborated with the Nazis in WW2, explicitly supported the Holocaust,
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:07pm
Debunked propaganda.
The Mufti was in exile from 1939, and the Irgun were involved in killing British troops in Palestine. It was the British who appointed him after all.
When the Mufti issued a fatwa "summons to a holy war against Britain" in May 1941, the Palestinians ignored him and fought with the allies.
There is no transcript from the Nuremberg Trials, of the allegations by Dieter Wisliceny.
The Mufti was of no consequence becasue he had no following and no power. He was despised among the vast majority of the Palestinians.
It's true that he lobbied Hitler against Jews being sent to Palestine becasue he feared that the immigrants would colonize and take over Palestine, and his fear was justified.
As for Jewish children fleeing to Palestine, Ben Gurion was famos for saying that:
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the (Jewish) children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel." -- David Ben-Gurion
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves; politically we are the aggressors, and they defend themselves. The country is theirs because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle do
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:22pm
"the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist, anti-democratic governmental system to other countries." - Quote from the leader of the Palestinians, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, welcoming the Nazi rise to power, 1933.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm
All this proves is that Husseini was an asshole.
Here is what Prime Minister Menachem Begin once said, referring not just to Arabs, but to the entire world.
"Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982)
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm
They can handle Muslims coming in and committing 70% of rapes and setting up Sharia law?"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:17pm
There is no Sharia Law in Europe and no, Muslims are not committing 70% of rapes.
"Actually, I think most Europeans are appalled by their government's immigration policies,but feel powerless to change them.":
As someone who travels to Europe frequently, I can assure you, they are not. I realize you haven't traveled, but you should travel there one day.
"Why do people flock to Europe, when they could immigrate to the paradise of the Middle East or the paradise of Africa? Why doesn't the Nation ever ask that question, hmmm?"
Parts of Mexico are a paradise, but Mexicans still try to immigrate to the US.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:29pm
Luckily, the Palestinians failed to carry out their genocide.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm
The Palestinians never tried. they rejected the Muftis calls, whole the Irgun and stern gang were indeed carrying out genocides in Deir Yassin.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm
But I'm not from primitive backwards countries, and Ireland, China, Poland, and Germany are not what I would call primitive and backwards.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 5:46pm
not now.
but when many immigrants from this countries arrived in the u.s., they were considered the scum of the earth.
may i remind your bigoted "brain":
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES YEARNING TO BREATHE FREE, THE WRETCHED REFUSE OF YOUR TEEMING SHORE. SEND THESE, THE HOMELESS, TEMPEST-TOSSED TO ME, I LIFT MY LAMP BESIDE THE GOLDEN DOOR!"
i think the french should come and take that statue back because "people" like you just don't deserve it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
"The Palestinians never tried. they rejected the Muftis calls, whole the Irgun and stern gang were indeed carrying out genocides in Deir Yassin."
No, the crazy Muslims attempted to exterminate the Jews in 1947 and 1967. But, they were too primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent to defeat the Jews despite their superior numbers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
"Expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza, those territories then incorporated into Israel."
I'm inclined to agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:46pm
you best be careful or karma is going to expel you from earth.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:54pm
"As someone who travels to Europe frequently, I can assure you, they are not. I realize you haven't traveled, but you should travel there one day."
It seems like there is a real backlash against Muslims raping 6 times as many people as everyone else in France. There are whole political parties in European countries devoted to deporting the primitive Muslim religious fascists who use rape as a means of jihad against the West.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:56pm
"There is no Sharia Law in Europe"
There is in Britain and Ireland.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:58pm
No, the crazy Muslims attempted to exterminate the Jews in 1947 and 1967. But, they were too primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent to defeat the Jews despite their superior numbers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
Rubbish.
The Palestinians had no part to play in the 1948 war.
Israel started the 1967 war. As Menachem begin admitted that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (iii)
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:05pm
There is in Britain and Ireland.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:58pm
Rubbish. There is no Sharia law in either country. The only law is the law of the land.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:06pm
It seems like there is a real backlash against Muslims raping 6 times as many people as everyone else in France.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:56pm
No there isn't becasue Muslims are not raping 6 times as many people as everyone else in France.
"There are whole political parties in European countries devoted to deporting the primitive Muslim religious fascists who use rape as a means of jihad against the West."
Indeed, the Nazis were such a party.
Gerhard Shroeder, the right wing fascist leader who admired Hitler, is another.
In Britain, there is the BNP, a right wing xenophobic party, who are campaigning for a white only Britain.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:10pm
But, they were too primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
my lord,
you just don't get it, do you?
if you believe in hell, you'd better be very, very worried.
are you the reincarnation of some viceroy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:10pm
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (see here and here and here and here) collaborated with the Nazis in WW2,
Posted by assholesuperior
so did prescott fucking bush!
do want to exterminate the bushes as well as the muslims?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:14pm
Great point Frosty. Don't you just love how the wingnuts keep getting trapped by their own arguments? Just wait for rightwingnutcase to argue that Precott. as an American, was morally infallible, so it doesn't count.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:17pm
now THIS is rape:
"According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:24pm
"No there isn't becasue Muslims are not raping 6 times as many people as everyone else in France."
They have been proven to be doing so in Norway. Odds are the stats in France are similar since Muslims often view rape as a means of jihad against the West in the name of otherworldly emotion.
"do want to exterminate the bushes as well as the muslims?"
No one said anything about extermination.
"if you believe in hell, you'd better be very, very worried." Luckily, I don't.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:26pm
"According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:24pm
You missed a decimal, between "4" and "oo"!
Remember the Balloon Boy where it was clear the size of the helium balloon, could never support a 50-lb kid! Do the math at $320 million a day for fuel.....and see if it computes.
Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:32pm
They have been proven to be doing so in Norway.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:26pm
No they haven't. Your article said foreign perpetrators contributed to half the rapes, not Muslims.
"No one said anything about extermination. "
How about forcing them to leave the US?
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:38pm
"No they haven't. Your article said foreign perpetrators contributed to half the rapes, not Muslims."
No, foreigners contributed to 85% of rapes. Muslims were 6 times more likely to rape.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:40pm
"How about forcing them to leave the US?"
Don't you want to be safe from terrorism?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:41pm
and what of the rapes in the u.s.?
who does those?
must be those primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent indians.
send 'em back to where they came from!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:49pm
Don't you want to be safe from terrorism?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:41pm |
wasn't there a terrible case of terrorism perpetrated by a rightwingnutcase in oklahoma city?
i say expel the primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent bastards!
"From 1995 to 2005, over 60 domestic terrorism plots were foiled due to preventive measures taken in response to the bombing."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:55pm
No one said anything about extermination.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:26pm
so what do you propose to do with all 1.5 billion of these primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent muslims?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:05pm
Don't you want to be safe from terrorism?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 8:41pm
No one is ever safe from terrorism. Just ask the residents of Oklahoma. In any case, 12 unarmed people die every day from gun shots or tazers from police.
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 9:07pm
JIHADISTS UNITE!
Five soldiers charged in Iraq rape-murder case Mahmoudiya mayor says alleged rape victim was 14
Abuse, Torture and Rape Reported at Unlisted U.S.-run Prisons in Iraq by Lisa Ashkenaz Croke
Beyond Abu Ghraib, witnesses say Americans have committed and may still be carrying out acts of extreme depravity against inmates in US custody at two dozen bases whose names are not household words outside Iraq.
Report: Iraq prisoner abuse photos depict torture, rape
LONDON (AP) -- A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Obama's administration does not want released.
Photos of US soldiers' alleged rape, sexual abuse in Iraq
Several articles have come out recently about the prevalence of male on female rape that is occurring among troop units fighting in Iraq. The first is an article that I found online at Salon.com, and the second was the cover story of the New York Times Magazine two weeks ago.
At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.
Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 9:37pm
so did prescott fucking bush!
do want to exterminate the bushes as well as the muslims?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:14pm
Not surprising to see you spout another internet hoax as supposedly true
<The Union Banking Corporation of New York was eventually seized for violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Prescott Bush, our current President's Grandfather and of course our former President's father. Keep that in mind when considering the moral and political dispositions of the Bush family.
While this is based on fact, it is not entirely accurate. The Union Banking Corporation was founded by a Dutch bank that was formed and controlled by a German steel magnate and one-time Nazi supporter Fritz Thyssen. The executive members consisted of various Dutchmen and some Americans, one was Prescott Bush. Assets of the bank were frozen on May 10, 1940 when Germany invaded the Netherlands, because it was a Dutch owned company, however it was formally seized by the government in 1942, a total of $3 million was taken.
Prescott Bush was a director of the UBC with only one share. While he was a member of this company, it really proves no moral stance or is proof of helping the Nazis take power as some other conspiracy theorists claim. I am not an apologist for the Bush family, trust me on that one, my point is that there were many Americans that had mild and heavy ties with the Nazis and their beliefs, such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh (the pilot).>
http://tinyurl.com/yk2uh3r
Wow, his father-in-law got him a job with Averill Harriman (Democrat and former UN Ambassador) where he had a title and one share of stock. You're an idiot.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:14pm
"You're an idiot"
so christian of you, reverand.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 10:50pm
"You're an idiot"
so christian of you, reverand.
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 10:50pm
When you lie about someone, you deserve to be called out for it.
And, yes it's Christian in the tradition of Jesus who called out people with far worse epitaphs, like
Brood of Vipers
Serpents
Hypocrites (continuously)
Blind Guides
White Tombs full of dead man's bones
Accused of devouring widows' houses
Full of extortion and self indulgence
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:16pm
"deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
DarlaLOON loves to see American soldiers die which is a real oxymoran (heavy on the MORON part) given her anti-war stances!
You are the true idiot DarlaLOON!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 11:16pm
whatever anti, you fraud
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 11:55pm
whatever anti, you fraud
Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 11:55pm
OOOWWW, great comeback Darla (LOL)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 12:16am
Wow, his father-in-law got him a job with Averill Harriman (Democrat and former UN Ambassador) where he had a title and one share of stock. You're an idiot.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:14pm
No you are antisocialist. Prescott Bush was charged and found guilty under the Trading with the Enemy Act
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 12:19am
DarlaLOON loves to see American soldiers die which is a real oxymoran (heavy on the MORON part) given her anti-war stances!
You are the true idiot DarlaLOON!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 11:16pm
I see you're stuck in a wingnut loop.
Posted by Shingo at 10/27/2009 @ 12:22am
"OOOWWW, great comeback Darla (LOL)"
the truth isn't funny, antisocialist.
Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:38am
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2004 23.59 BST
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 06:56am
Interesting the cognitive dissonance of rightwingnutcase, isn't it?
On the one hand, he'll bemoan not going into Iraq and toppling Saddam in 2003...or pulling out of Afghanistan now as "genocide for the poor people in those countries."
On the other, he hates and fears Muslims...i.e. like Iraqis and Afghanis!??!?!?!?
It shows something I think was buried during the hey-day of neo-conservatism under Dubya. The Hard Right naturally hated Muslims, way back to the Iranian Revolution, if not simple mistrust back centuries more. 9/11 of course worked it up to a fever-pitch.
But Dubya and the neo-cons needed to appear friendly to Islam to promote the idea that invading Iraq and "promoting democracy in the Middle East". Contradicting their base's bigotry towards Muslims.
Now, with Bush gone, the coolant rods have been pulled out of the reactor and the bigotry has re-emerged. BUT, they're still quoting the old 2003-2008 talking points on "helping the poor people in the MidEast"....AND at the same time, telling us they don't like them.
With any cognitive disonance...the contradiction makes them look foolish and just plain weird to others...and drives them...crazy.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:36am
BTW, next rightwingnutcase post on how "Pulling out of Afghanistan would show unfeelingness and/or hatred of the people there"....I'm re-posting these-
"Just expel all Muslims and Middle Easterners from America, don't allow any more in, and prevent them from trying to get in illegally through the Mexican border."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 1:30pm
"Muslims contribute nothing to the world in terms of science and technology."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 2:02pm
"Muslims are many times more likely to be rapists than other groups."----Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:42am
don't forget this:
But, they were too primitive and weak and backwards and unintelligent to defeat the Jews despite their superior numbers.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 7:52pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:43am
Thanks FZ...added.
Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:51am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 06:56am
I guess you hate the truth. I already posted that Prescott Bush owned ONE SHARE in UBC. and there is NO RECORD that he made money from the Nazi's. only scurrilous unsubstantiated charges-but that's the way you leftists operate.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:16am
i don't give a fuck about prescott bush -- he's dead.
you don't KNOW diddly about the man -- you just read crap on the internet.
what i do care about, however, is bigoted cretins [heheh] who only have murder on their minds.
god is watching you, larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:08am
It is a pity, some comments are crossing the limit.Please don't use obscene language and stick the comments to the subject.
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:28am
a word is but a collection of sounds.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:43am
The thing to remember here is that we really shouldn't care what the Taliban does. They are not international terrorists.
If you are concerned about the terrorist bogeyman, then remember this. It is our invasion and occupation of Muslim countries, and the killings of hundreds of thousands of Muslim people (most of whom are completely innocent), which is fueling the recruitment of terrorist groups.
The next time a 9-11 type event occurs, we will find that the reasons for the attack are because of our policies of invading Muslim countries and killing their citizens. And we will have it coming to us.
Is there any difference, really, between 9-11 and the shock and awe campaign unleashed in Baghdad in 2003? Both events were repugnant, heinous acts of violence against an innocent civilian population. According to the Oxford Research Group, 6,616 civilians were killed just in the initial shock and awe aerial invasion of Baghdad. 2995 people, mostly civilians were killed in the 9-11 attacks.
Please don't tell me that what we did was justified because it was done in the context of war. War is just a label that's used to justify killing civilians. There is no fundamental difference between war and acts of terrorism; they are just different methods of using violence to get an outcome. Neither is acceptable.
And if we want the other side to see that violence is not the answer, then we will need to to reject its use as well, except in true self-defense. The place to start this is Afghanistan. The time to do it is now.
www.guerillapost.com
Posted by Petemuldoon at 10/27/2009 @ 11:04am
Great comment Petemuldoon! Both wars are unwanted and illegal. www.leadingtowar.com
Posted by Dastu11 at 10/27/2009 @ 11:33am
(Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982)
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
This reads like a bunch of internet BS. The internet is full of anti-semetic lies, and this looks like one of them. Would need a credible verifisble source to believe this nonsense.
Posted by gren at 10/27/2009 @ 3:27pm
The Palestinians had no part to play in the 1948 war.
Israel started the 1967 war. As Menachem begin admitted that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (iii)
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you're a one-man false propoganda machine.
1948 -- palestinian militia attacked Jewish settlements and towns, and laid seige to Jerusalem from the UN resolution in November 1947 through May 1948 when the British left, the Resolution took effect, and the armies from five Arab countries launched attacks against the newly proclaimed state of Israel.
1967 -- the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba was an actr of war, and the Egyptians forced the UN peacekeeping force out of the country. The context of Begin's statement is not provided. Begin probably was making some point about taking the initiative in action; for which that spin on the 1967 war served a purpose.
Posted by gren at 10/27/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Shingo at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
As set forth in wikipedia: Amnon Kapeliouk (hebrew: אמנון קפליוק; born 1931 - 26 June 2009) was a French-Israeli journalist and author. Amnon Kapeliouk's published works... He was accused by CAMERA of misrepresenting a quote by Menachem Begin to suggest that the Israeli Prime Minister had described Palestinians in a speech to the Knesset as being "beasts walking on two legs".[3]
Posted by gren at 10/27/2009 @ 3:40pm
"Expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza, those territories then incorporated into Israel."
I'm inclined to agree.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/26/2009 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
While you are entitled to your opinions, this is the view of an extremist, and should not be confused with the views of or attributed to 98% of Zionists.
Posted by gren at 10/27/2009 @ 3:55pm
Q. But is Al Qaeda such a big threat?
FAIR: "I'm with you. This has been a fake argument."
I was with you until this. Yeah, they're a fake threat unless they happen to blow up the plane your or someone you love is on. give it a rest.
Why is it that the left always defeats itself with its own stupidity? There are bad people in the worls. Muslim extremists are dangerous. Yes Virginia, terrorists do exist.
For Christ sakes, I just can't stand the people in the damned left, and yet, I can't even stand to be around the right. And I'm no moderate. So where does that leave me?
Please, grow up people.
Posted by AnglScarlett at 10/27/2009 @ 9:17pm
I just love the talk about how advanced Muslim culture was several hundred years ago. I already knew that, i.e. the creation of the concept of the zero in mathematics, the art and culture of the Alhambra in Spain, the preservation of ancient classics that otherwise might have been destroyed during the Middle Ages. All very nice, but as far as I can see today (not centuries ago), Islamic culture has placed the entire world on a trajectory to theological-orgasmic catastrophe, while giving impetus to the End Times asshole brigades of the Christian Right that ran this country for eight years and that still has the current Revoltican Party by the gonads.
I don't give a crap about the wonders of Muslim culture over the ages, or Christian culture or any other religious whack jobs. I give a crap about what I see coming out of Muslim culture today and it isn't pretty. That said, I would still pull all of our troops out and let them have at it. Oil would go to $200 a barrel and the global economy would crash once and for all, but at least we would have the pleasure of seeing them eating each other's entrails for a few years.
Fact is, I hate religious fanatics of all stripes, Muslim, Christian, Fuzzy Wuzzy or whatever. They represent pathology and metastatic evil that the world would be far better off without.
Posted by Mark S. at 10/27/2009 @ 11:03pm