matthew wrote:
Let these Islamicist assholes throw themselves at us; we'll either kill them or round them up and punish them.

I made my point. Anyone who has ever spent an hour around a frat boy pussy like GWB, who had his chance to risk his life for his country but instead spent his Vietnam years doing blow and driving drunk around Alabama and getting bounced out of the Air National Guard ( pretty hard to do when your daddy is George Bush ), and then gets himself nepotized into the job of commander-in-chief, any of us, we see that guy say "Bring them on!" to the insurgency, we are disgusted by the fool playing with fire and get madder at the direction of a country allowed to exist by fellow fantasy world tough guys like the crowd of PNAC chicken hawk deserters and the people in Doylestown who vote their puppet in.

I'm laughing at you seeing GWB say, "Bring them on!" and thinking, "That's the kind of man I want to be when I grow up". You see a leader. Maybe you should grow up. Do not pretend to yourself that you personally are fighting a battle against the "Islamicist assholes". Real people in the real world are spilling blood for this lost cause / perpetual war funding crusade, and your comic book Catholicism that lets you think you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the poor people down in the shit is too retarded for me to answer in any way but with insults.

clocker bob wrote:Real people in the real world are spilling blood for this lost cause / perpetual war funding crusade, and your comic book Catholicism that lets you think you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the poor people down in the shit is too retarded for me to answer in any way but with insults.

I would see a band called "Comic Book Catholics".

[url=http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=7gwpscepet200mhzklx9zer&r=20.asx]America!

Fuck yeah![/url]

Here's three Islamicist assholes you won't have to personally dispatch from the planet, Matthew. An Israeli gun boat handled it last week. They were having a beach party in Gaza, probably with explosive-laden picnic baskets. Hamas will certainly not retaliate ever again, not after this convincing display of US-funded military might.

I had the good taste not to post the accompanying flash video of the paramedics retrieving the body parts from the bloody sand- the sirens and the screaming, just too much.



I'll make this space available for you to post pictures of suicide bomb attacks against Israel, so 'two wrongs make a right' world can be returned to its proper orbit...

Children are not enemy combatants. Even if they "hate our freedoms" with every fiber of their bodies from birth, they are not. We have a very expensive and technologically sophisticated military that tolerates unjustifiable collateral casualties because of what, impatience? They couldn't at least pretend to offer Zarqawi the chance to spare the innocent in that house? What could he do, fly into the sky if he had warning of the impending bombs? He was caught.

Haste makes waste, apparently.

A Note on the Death of Abu Museb Al-Zarqaawi
by Mike Holmes

One aspect of the recent spectacular bombing death of alleged Iraqi terror leader Abu Al-Zarqaawi has thus far passed without comment. This sad fact is yet another indication of the conditioned tolerance we have absorbed regarding the ongoing killing of innocent civilians there.

We are told that along with the alleged “Mr. Big” of Iraqi terror, his “spiritual advisor” (who led the U.S. to him) was killed as well as a yet unidentified “woman and child.” The supposed spiritual advisor has not been labeled a terrorist and no one has commented on whether his death was in fact justified. As for the woman and child, no one has identified them either (at least in the western press to date).

For the sake of argument let’s assume Al-Zarqaawi was indeed as evil as he is portrayed. I have no evidence to the contrary.

Let us again suppose that he was a ruthless serial killer of Americans here in the U.S., and that law enforcement trapped him in a remote house in a California date palm orchard along with his minister and an unknown “woman and child.” And that they were all surrounded by law enforcement (as was Al-Zarqaawi in Iraq surrounded by U.S. and Iraqi military).

Would we not be horrified and outraged to learn that instead of waiting out a surrender or at least offering to wait until the hostages/innocents could be safely extricated, that the U.S. government decided to drop two 500 lb. bombs on this surrounded house? Killing everyone inside instantly, except for Mr. Big, who somehow survived a bit longer?

Even the worst serial killer would not have been “captured” in a way that killed three other people, at least two of whom seem to be mere victims of bad circumstance. While there have been notable exceptions (the Branch Davidians, the Philadelphia MOVE group) law enforcement doesn’t normally ignore the presence of others, hostages or innocents, even to capture the worst criminals. And with the Davidians and MOVE, they were offered a chance to surrender and bombing wasn’t the first thing done.

Yet in Iraq the killing of women and children is totally ignored so long as “Mr. Big” is killed. The valuable intelligence and even propaganda value of capturing this guy was totally ignored in the rush to bomb him into oblivion, along with anyone else in a 100-yard radius.

The horrific element here is that unlike incidents involving Marines revenge killing people hiding in their houses, no one even blinks at these other deaths. Not a single word of condemnation is uttered. We are conditioned to think that this savagery is normal, even expected, even laudable.

Good point Bob. Very good point. I think we've become too used to hearing about civilians being killed in the crossfire. It seems to have become acceptable in public opinion.

It seems odd that given the possibility of cornering the guy, they didn't choose to catch him alive. If he was important as they say he was, I am surprised that they did not choose to interrogate him.

And on that subject, I was speaking last night to my housemate who knows a planespotter over here. Did you realise that it was these blessed hobbyists who broke the scandal over the secret rendition flights? This network of planespotters started to notice very odd patterns in the distribution of military planes in civilian airspace and civilian planes in military airspace, compared notes, then told the press. Bless you, binocular planespotter hobbyists!

The funniest thing that the planespotter told her was that MI5 (presumably) started to try to infiltrate them, turning up at their regular spots. But they were easy to identify, they had followed their homework too unimaginatively. They all wore the very latest, trendiest (in the planespotter world) macintoshes, had the newest, best shiny binoculars, and generally stuck out like tits on a fish. Bless our incompetent security services!

sparky wrote:Good point Bob. Very good point. I think we've become too used to hearing about civilians being killed in the crossfire. It seems to have become acceptable in public opinion.

It seems odd that given the possibility of cornering the guy, they didn't choose to catch him alive. If he was important as they say he was, I am surprised that they did not choose to interrogate him.

I tend to think they didn't want to interrogate him because they know more about "al Qaeda in Iraq" than he ever did. But even if he was or wasn't a useful accomplice to the fabricated nightmare of "al Qaeda is everywhere", they could have ended his employment with the agency more cleanly.

-and-

No, I didn't know the planespotters' role in exposing the rendition flights. I was reading about a prosecutor in Italy who is trying to build a case against the CIA for using Italian airports in the rendition network, but I didn't finish the article yet, so I won't write any more until I get more facts. The Swedes were also very indignant about these CIA escapades in their country.

clocker bob wrote:[I made my point. Anyone who has ever spent an hour around a frat boy pussy like GWB, who had his chance to risk his life for his country but instead spent his Vietnam years doing blow and driving drunk around Alabama and getting bounced out of the Air National Guard ( pretty hard to do when your daddy is George Bush ), and then gets himself nepotized into the job of commander-in-chief, any of us, we see that guy say "Bring them on!" to the insurgency, we are disgusted by the fool playing with fire and get madder at the direction of a country allowed to exist by fellow fantasy world tough guys like the crowd of PNAC chicken hawk deserters and the people in Doylestown who vote their puppet in.

I'm laughing at you seeing GWB say, "Bring them on!" and thinking, "That's the kind of man I want to be when I grow up". You see a leader. Maybe you should grow up. Do not pretend to yourself that you personally are fighting a battle against the "Islamicist assholes". Real people in the real world are spilling blood for this lost cause / perpetual war funding crusade, and your comic book Catholicism that lets you think you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the poor people down in the shit is too retarded for me to answer in any way but with insults.

Bob Bob Bob....

You did not answer my questions.

Calm down. Take a deep breath. This post what with its ad hominem is really indicative of your rather skewed worldview and leftist thinking. Just answer my questions.

matthew wrote:First off.....Bob, you are typing irrationally.....

Now then....

alex maiolo wrote:I never lament the loss of a bad guy who blows people up, or the fact that others like him went down at the same time. However, this helps nothing, and truth be known, might actually hurt because it will energize Al Q in Iraq.

THIS is exactly the type of thinking that I despise, nay, that I vomit out of my mouth. Why? Because it is neither here nor there, but in the mushy middle of nowhere. The biblical allusion is apt here. Spoken like a true liberal; a tit for a tat. Fuck that.

Let these Islamicist assholes throw themselves at us; we'll either kill them or round them up and punish them.

No, Matthew. Your public record on this topic begins here- your drunken chest thumping, 10,000 miles away from Iraq. You cannot pretend that you want to 'discuss the strategic ramifications of Zarqawi's death' now, not when you began with this. And reading it again, as painful as that was, I see that you barely knew what you were writing:

"The biblical allusion is apt here. Spoken like a true liberal; a tit for a tat. Fuck that."- Matthew

Huh? Do you even know what the phrase 'tit for tat' means? It means 'eye for an eye'. You support that, remember? And yet here, you say that it represents liberalism, and to 'fuck that'??

Man, such a dope you are.

Have you used your 'in-depth studies of Nietzsche' to explain to us why 'Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher' yet? And to explain that 'Nietzsche died before our father's father's father's father was born'? How hammered were you when you wrote that nonsense?

That's your last free lecture from me. Good luck with your pseudo-intellectualism.

Sorry to interrupt...but I've finally found the NY POST image I was referring to on Friday.

Clocker Bob wrote:
No, Matthew. Your public record on this topic begins here- your drunken chest thumping, 10,000 miles away from Iraq.

And you are in Chicago, sir...lest your "location" be a lie.

Bob then wrote: You cannot pretend that you want to 'discuss the strategic ramifications of Zarqawi's death' now, not when you began with this. And reading it again, as painful as that was, I see that you barely knew what you were writing:

I previously wrote: "The biblical allusion is apt here. Spoken like a true liberal; a tit for a tat. Fuck that."- Matthew

Huh? Do you even know what the phrase 'tit for tat' means? It means 'eye for an eye'. You support that, remember? And yet here, you say that it represents liberalism, and to 'fuck that'??

Man, such a dope you are.

Bob, as usual you miss the nuance.

Tit for tat is a strategy game...and by using it I was implying that liberals see the world not in terms of right and wrong but rather in terms of the will-to-power and the methods to gain MORE POWER (for lack of a better terminology)...which they do.

Bob wrote:Have you used your 'in-depth studies of Nietzsche' to explain to us why 'Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher' yet? And to explain that 'Nietzsche died before our father's father's father's father was born'? How hammered were you when you wrote that nonsense?

The "father's" thing is a minor detail Bob...I made an error that is not really pertinent to what we're really concerned with here. I'm glad it was noticed *wink*