Saturday, July 09, 2005


The July 7 attacks on the London transportation infrastructure should serve as a wake-up call to all people who still cling to the idea of a so-called «war on terror». These events in London are real evidence about O. bin Laden: We must talk to this man. I feel America and her vassals need to sit down like adults, in some neutral spot like Geneva, meet with O. bin Laden or his representatives, and work things out. War is not the answer. War is never the answer. Communication and compromise are. Once everything is resolved, America can call her troops home, and the insurgents can return to their jobs and families. Swords will be beaten into ploughshares; the lamb will lie down with the lion. More butter. Less guns. There is precedent for this. The American president R.M.Nixon, a right-wing icon, initiated dialogue with Chinese leader Mao Zedong in order to avoid war. The People's Republic of China is now one of America's biggest trading partners; loss of the stream of manurfactured goods from China would have dire consequemces for America's consumer, and by currency the American economy. Too, Nixon also had a policy of détente with President L.I.Brezhnev of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to avoid war. This was due to the theory of Natural Assured Destruction, in which it was felt that in a war, both America and her adversaries would be utterly destroyed. While this theory may apply today, G.W.Bush pays no heed and rushes nearly unilaterally to war; his «coalition» consisting of minimal troops from a handful of countries. Enough troops, however, to make those countries targets for retaliatoin. This is where the United Kingdom now finds herself; Pime Minister T. bLiar now finds himself at a crossroads. He must make a hard decision. Had Bush been pesident during Nixon's time, I feel he would have rushed to nuclear war with both the USSR and China. Like bLiar, Bush now must make a decision: Continue with the unwinnable «war on terror» and lead America to more body bags, with eventual combat on American soil; or the Peace Table, with America and her adversaries talking, not fighting.

57 Vignettes:

At 2:21 p.m., July 09, 2005, Blogger The Whisperer vignetted...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 2:35 p.m., July 09, 2005, Blogger JR vignetted...

So let me get this straight… Sit down with Bin Laden and talk like adults… I would have to forgive him for 911 or give him a free pass… That is a little hard for me… Tell me, how you were able to forgive him???

At 3:51 p.m., July 09, 2005, Blogger Storm Trooper vignetted...

I've decided to make this a blog of interest. Make I link? Lemme know??? Good stuff - I ganked you liberal drinking logo.

At 5:25 p.m., July 09, 2005, Anonymous Erik vignetted...

When I first read this I thought, "Wow, you have no idea what is going on in this world." After finishing it, I'm afraid I still agree with my initial thought.

While I agree that good communication can help solve many problems in our world, I have to completely disagree with you in talking to Mr. bin Laden. To even think that this is possible is ridiculous on so many levels, it's almost morally repugnant. To think that we could actually sit down and talk to Mr. bin Laden after the attacks he carried out on our soil, regardless of our blame in the entire situation, is impossible. There is no way in the world that this would ever happen.

Wake up and get a smell of reality, man!

I agree that America played a major role indavertantly to have received the attacks of 9-11 due to our wraped foreign policies and globalization becoming Americanization around the world, but our actions were not the same as the actions his fractions carried out. What he did is unforgivable. What he did was wrong. And yes, our troops are fighting a war that is harsh and somewhat senseless, but it is ultimatly making us more secure.

It you think that talking is the only way to solve this as our ways of life are in danger, then you really need to research your history again and see that it's not always the answer. Moreover, the options you have laid out on the table for America and her allies are not the only ones with the only outcomes. To think that is antiquated and illogical.

At 7:23 p.m., July 09, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...


You say, "our troops are fighting a war that is harsh and somewhat senseless, but it is ultimatly making us more secure"

Could you tell me how, please??

At 10:14 p.m., July 09, 2005, Blogger Enigma America vignetted...

Nice blog. Glad you told me about it, I've bookmarked it in my favorites.

At 10:15 p.m., July 09, 2005, Blogger Enigma America vignetted...

I liked your profile especially, " Workers of The World, Unite!".........The Communist Russia motto, eh?

At 9:17 a.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Erik vignetted...

Certainly, Mack.

The war in Iraq is forced war that wasn't required of us and solely built on flawed information. Nonetheless, our presence in the middle east and western asia has helped bring the fire back to the people who started it in the first place (and by this, I mean the terrorists, not the Iraqis of Afghanis). I'm not saying that this is the best answer, though, but sometimes you can't just sit back and let the chips fall. Action needs to be taken.

If discourse was the way to solve this problem, don't you think it would've already occured by now? And don't say that Bush hasn't tried to talk. It takes ALL sides to talk. Moreover, it is clear that Osama would never engage in discourse with the U.S. after the attacks on 9-11 as previewed from his numerous video tapes aired thereafter. Osama has never really liked the U.S., even when our country trained him as an operative during the Invasion of Afghanistan. Tell me, mack, how exactly you think Osama would ever engage in discourse with the U.S. let alone even want to?

At 9:23 a.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Pipe Jones® vignetted...

Click me for someone who makes a lot more sense than Hooey.

At 11:39 a.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Mack vignetted...

Erik wrote:

"The war in Iraq is forced war that wasn't required of us and solely built on flawed information. Nonetheless, our presence in the middle east and western asia has helped bring the fire back to the people who started it in the first place (and by this, I mean the terrorists, not the Iraqis of Afghanis)."

So the deaths of all those Afghans and Iraqis don't matter at all as long as you feel "safer"? Tens of thousands of innocent people??

London has just been bombed, three synchronised bombs in the underground, and one apparently late, on a bus. It could just as easily have been Washington DC. Could you explain again to me how the US is now safer???
I'm afraid I don't get it.


You know, I assume, that the UK sent troops into Northern Ireland. It made no difference. In fact it made matters worse. Their killings on Bloody Sunday caused major recruitment for the IRA. Internment (cf. Guantanamo) didn't work either. Eventually they had to talk to the IRA. In fact, they were talking to them long before they admitted it publicly. The IRA is now on ceasefire for years, and elections take place -- although there is a long way to go yet.

Loyalist paramilitaries have been just as active in bombing and killing as the IRA. In fact, the Stevens Inquiry showed that MI 5 and the RUC were involved in Loyalist murders of nationalists. But that is by the by. The fact is that negotiations took place with the IRA.

All over the world, former "terrorists" are now in power, and various goverments negotiated with them after swearing publicly that they never would.

But could you please explain again how the US is safer now??


BTW, the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to Pakistan (an ally of the US) after 9/11. Bush refused. Why? I reckon bin Laden would talk to the US, but the US doesn't want to listen. Because what bin Laden wants, in essence, is ALL US presence out of Arab countries -- all bases, all interference, all influence. He wants no further US collaboration with Saudi Royals, no huge financial backing for Israel, no meddling in the Middle East.
The US doesn't want to hear that. Because of Israel, and because of oil.

At 6:49 p.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...


I don't mean to insult you, but you are delusional!

bin Laden can not be reasoned with. I know that you believe that he can, but he is not rational. He is filled with nothing but hate and malice. He would rather cut your head off as opposed to the alternative of talking to you, or anyone else.

And no, the US didn't just, "bring it on ourselves," as you insinuate with this screed you put forth.

bin Laden represents only those who are willing to cross that line into pure fundamentalist oppression, which has NO political entity or state to associate or compromise with or, as I would say, appease.

You, however, are convinced that YOUR position is the only correct one, which makes you just as totalitarian as bin Laden.


At 6:57 p.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...


Your previouse posts and replies lead me to believe that YOU or, somehow, someone else with your point of view (whatever that is) on this COULD secure safety for America on her own soil.

Care to elaborate on how that would be done?

At 7:29 p.m., July 10, 2005, Anonymous Casual Observer vignetted...

Mack said...
I'm afraid I don't get it.

Man, ain't THAT the truth?!

BTW, the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to Pakistan (an ally of the US) after 9/11.

Oh, REALLY?! And on what do you base THAT nonsense???

At 7:37 a.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous Erik vignetted...

Mack, you're not seeing that the main issue, asdie from "the infidels" presence is Arabia, behind all these problems is globalization. If you could find a solve for globalization, aside from JUST discourse as you and howie seem to advocate, then much of the animosity towards America would be allieviated.

Furthermore, I'd like to note that you bring up the London bombings and contrast them to America, questioning if we are safer. We are safer because our security agencies and the money we fund towards them. Moreover, if you read the background behind the attacks in London you'll find that many people were thinking it was more of a matter of when than a matter of how. You seem to think that negoitiating with terrorists would've stopped this, but it wouldn't have. Fact remains that even if we engaged in discourse with the terrorists "that rule the world" as you claim (which, they don't) we'd still have problems with terrorism across the world. This is largely due to extremism within relegion, something that no one can ever really solve for--even if you talk to them about it.

So, when you look at the issue on the whole you see that simply talking to people who are essentially irrational about life and how to live it is not going to get you anywhere. If the ideologies between them differ so much that you cannot grasp them or find some sort of control between them, then there is nothing you can do to preseve the peace or even try to establish it. There are steps you can take, sure, but discourse isn't the only answer. You yourself never provide justifiable means as to how discouse would solve this problem in the first place. And, as Aristotle so wisely noted: He who asserts must prove. If you can't prove it, then maybe you should back down and listen.

Finally, bringing globalization back into the picture, because the world is becoming so interwoven through economics more so than ever before, the leaders of the world must find ways to properly deal with the majority issues. By majority, I mean the people of the world who see Americans as a non-ethnic minority in the world who essentially control all of the markets. If these issues could be allviated, then, perhaps, a great deal of ethnic hatred towards America would be eased. Again, you still provide no response to this or how you believe simple discourse with bin Laden would ultimately lead to a more peacful America, and for those reasons alone your case is as flawed as your rebuttal to my claims which are properly backed.

Lastly, I know it's been said before, but you and Howie should look into learning Mandarin or Russian because obviously that's the world you wish you were in. And yeah, America might not be great, but it sure as hell beats living in any other places where totalitarinism and socialism are driving the people and the country into the ground. You're not progressive, you're retroactive and dillusional.

At 1:50 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger B&N vignetted...


Please answer me ONE question?

Do you think Neville Chamberlain's actions were the correct one's in the years leading up to say, late 1939 or early 1940?

Oh, and don't worry, I am WELL aware of that bit of history, so no need to give me a lecture. Just a simple answer will do, but expand on WHY if you must.

I really appreciate your time.

At 3:00 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous RWing Nut vignetted...

Mack wrote in part "London has just been bombed, three synchronised bombs in the underground, and one apparently late, on a bus. It could just as easily have been Washington DC. Could you explain again to me how the US is now safer??? "
You are making an unsupported assumption and then claiming that the US is no safer based on it. This is called propaganda. Kindly cite some proof for your claim or absent that share with me the logic of why OBL would choose to strike the UK instead of the US if he had an option for either.

Howie & the rest of the terrorist apologists are perfectly willing to signal any wack-job with a grievance against the US that it's OK to attack us and kill however many you can because all we'll do is sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate. It's OK to react to terrorism by selling-out our allies and abandoning our security because us little Eichmans brought it on ourselves. Well the same is true for the terrorist when the US led coalition responds militarily, they brought it on themselves by slaughtering innocent civilians.

At 3:56 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous steve vignetted...

Anyone want to end terrorism? >Zionist's make peace and create a state for the Palestinians---subtract 90%. >Exit Iraq now----subtract 5%. >Stop trying to impose democracy using violence--subtract 5%. Peace

At 7:54 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

This is simply sad.

How does China = Massive Terrorist Threat?

How does Osama Bin Laden = Mao Zedong?

No, really. One is a communist state, the other is a society of countries, people, and powers who are bent NOT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S.A., but on the destruction on civilization as we know it. Including (as this case demonstrates, the U.K.)

One is an old, balding man with poor fashion sense; and a flair for deflowering underage girls. The other is a crazy astetic with a beard, bent on turning the world into a fumdamentalist state based on neo-islamic ideals.

One could draw certain paralells, but I digress.

Go smoke some more weed and drink liberally, please. If you kill more brain cells, maybe your articles will become even more pathetic.

At 9:15 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger Josh Fahrni vignetted...

i see u havbe a blog. i to hav blog

<..a vary progebsibe one..>

At 9:16 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous the truth vignetted...

i agree with you howie.

sitting down at the bargaining table and making compromises has won every major conflict in history.

or at least thats what liberal arts college professors will have you believe.

just remember, there was another occasion when we spread our imperialism around the globe, declaring war on nations before they ever harmed us. unless of course it was actually the german and italian armies that bombed pearl harbor...

At 9:28 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous the truth vignetted...

and mack...

i feel MUCH safer living in america now.

probably from that whole lack of exploding buses on american soil thing.

At 9:30 p.m., July 11, 2005, Anonymous slap vignetted...

the only thing worse than a moron is a moron who reads a book and thinks he's a genius....

*cough cough* HOWIE *cough cough*

At 9:30 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

The Truth, you are also an imbecile. Abeit, an imbecile with his/her heart in the right place, but an imbecile nonetheless.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, not the Germans or the Italians.

And everyone knows you use an ARMY to bomb things.

At 9:41 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Oh, and while I'm on this subject.


That is all.

At 11:30 p.m., July 11, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

Very funny Josh.

At 8:07 a.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous Inquisitor vignetted...

Howie's definitely got a point.

Let's not forget how many '911s' the u.s. rained on others for many decades. Surely the U.S., and the herd grazing its pastures, otherwise known as 'citizens', didn't think that the 'chickens wouldn't one day come home to roost'?

Btw, let's not forget who armed Bin Laden.

Let's not forget that 'Al Qaeda', translated, means, 'The Database', which refers to a file of those supported by the CIA in their instigated, coordinated and sponsored 'jihad' against the USSR whilst the latter was occupying Afghanistan. Did the U.S. not think that once the Russians were evicted that they would not turn their guns against them? After all, how is the USSR any different from the US when one considers their imperialistic tendencies and the hardships they had afflicted on the Middle-Eastern population, amongst others, for decades to date. This is simply a case of the U.S. lacking an appreciable amount of foresight.

Another point. The U.S. is a terrorist state itself that has sponsored murders, bombings, etc, etc, worldwide. The only differences between them is that Al Qaeda doesn't employ spin doctors, does not have the media in its jockstrap and is not a spatially distinguishable state.

In truth, both the U.S. and Al Qaeda have been conducting a 'war on terror'.

Now, i know this site is generally frequented by americans, so i'm expecting insults mistaken for intelligent response. But do try.

At 9:15 a.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...


Your logic simply stupifies me.


I can only hope that some day you can shake hands with Osama.

BTW, the US has not oppressed ANYONE or ANY people in the middle east. Your sad diatribe is aimed at getting people into some kind of self-loathing paranoia.

I will have no truck with the idea that there is such thing as a 'Zionist oppressor', and NO, I am not supporting Israel when I say that. I feel that Muslims, Jews and Christians have been living with one another for 2000 years in the middle east and in all that time, have never truly managed any real or lasting peace. It is NOT the US's fault or responsibility to intervene or 'fix' their problems.

Yes, I do agree that the US has 'sponsored' much of what has become al Qaeda, and, at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do to whomever was calling the shots. We chose to formally oppose the USSR invasion of Afghanistan on a strictly diplomatic level, at least formally. All the while, we were keeping the Afghani rebels funded and equipped with hardware and intelligence.

I would think that you leftists would appreciate this approach, since it avoids having to declare wars and all that nastiness, as Howie has so shown his resentment for.

The US is far from perfect, and we have screwed the pooch before, for sure. To lump the citizenry, and even some of the more questionable leaders that 'We the People' have elected, into the same batch of murderers like OBL, to me Inquisitor, is not only not true, but an insult.

You need to have your head examined!


At 9:38 a.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous Jackson vignetted...

Oh, you naive little college students. This war has nothing to do with terror. This war is about your mom having to drive all you kids to soccer practice in her overly large vehicle, in other words oil! You think we'd actually do something about 9/11 had we another energy source? Did we do anything about terrorists when they bombed the WTC the first time?

At 10:39 a.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous RWing Nut vignetted...

Inquisitor, you should review history a bit closer. OBL tolerated the US for some time after the Afganistan conflict was over. Only when the Saudis chose to have the West over OBL's crew to defend them against Saddam did he declare jihad on the US. To say the US brought terrorism on itself is nonsense. UBL has a problem with the Saudi government. But, to attack them too directly would dry up his funding. So, instead he attacks the West.

Jackson, the "blind shiek" and Ramsey Yousef among others are serving life sentences in the US for the first attack on the WTC. OBL was also indicted for the crime. The Clintonista administration took a law enforcement approach to combating terrorism which in hindsight proved to be inadequate. It's not about the oil. It's about the survival of a free society.

At 3:47 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

I dunno -- no one in the string seems to get the central point (that makes reason most likely impossible) -- it's the level of desperation involved here -- we're not talking about aggressive attempts at domination like the Anschluss or Pearl Harbor -- we're talking about people who are so desperate they will strap dynamite to their asses and blow themselves up to take everyone down with them. So it's not appeasment in that case to ask just what our contribution to the desperation is, and is there any way we can change what we do in order to change what they're doing. But because they're so desperate, the possibility of sitting down with them in reason doesn't look like something I'd bet on.
Here's a clue -- they didn't invade us ... oh they took down the WTC, but I don't see their dhows lining up in New York Harbor. Jihad means, simply, to drive out the invaders. And that is what that was .. .take down the symbols and mother-ships of the invaders -- the Pentagon and the Monetary center... (I'm not justifying it -- I'm looking at why it seemed a good idea to those people) they thought we'd back off... wrong...

Now, on the other side, we have an administration that is so deep in the throes of Xeno- and Homo-phobia -- so terririfed that the world is changing in ways too weird for them so fall back to what they know as Americans -- get someone else's kids to bomb the crap out of some darkies... help them to feel good -- and while on that subject -- that lame-o piece of shit Kerry who we all looked to as someone who could pull down Monkey Boy and his minions, campaigned like a mackeral rotting in the sun -- the only thing he took action on was to join Bush's people and say he would go for a "No Gay Marriage" amendment -- so being a war hero wasn't enough -- he wanted to show the world he could be a fag-basher too. Fuck him. His name is on my spam list.

The one good thing on the horizon is the lying bastards are doing what they always do -- getting so arrogant they're going to self-destruct. Still, it'll take us a couple a seriously cometently liberal governments to restore the country to some degree of being a country -- paying off the debt, restoring military benefits, social security and medicare benefits, undoing the sweetheart deals, and prosecuting the hell out of everyone connected to this administration. 20 years at least just to get even.

At 4:28 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Xeno and Homo-phobia? Racism?

You ass, one of the first things GW did was go on TV asking for Americans not to blame or harass the Muslim community. He called Islam a "beautiful religion," for Christ's sake! As for bombing the "darkies," as you refer to them. Has is ever ocurred to you that most of the followers of these religions ARE of a certain genetic predisposition towards having dark skin? We aren't at war with them because they look different, we're at war with them because THEY'RE HELL-BENT ON BLOWING US ALL TO KINGDOM COME!

What is so fucking hard to understand about that?

I seriously don't get the homo-phobia part. As a conservative, I support gay marrage and so do most conservatives. GW does, too, just in a CONSERVATIVE manner. (Meaning: no idiotic knee-jerk legislation that we'll regret later.)

God, your comment is just so fucking full of stupid, I don't have time to go over it all. Have fun feeling self-righteous, enlightened, or whatever you feel after spouting so much bullshit. But you're wrong, DEAD wrong.

At 6:28 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

Amazing -- if you can come to the conclusion the GW supports Gay marriage then you're smoking something GW and his masters at the Big Pharma companies would definitely disapprove of.

-- "no idiotic knee-jerk legislation?" He's leading the fight for an idiotic knee-jerkoff constitutional amendment to prevent same sex marriages from being legalized anywhere in the country.

Anything that comes out of GW's mouth -- aside from the sweat in there from ass-kissing his puppet masters -- is written for him to say -- of course he mouthed the words, didn't cost him anything to say.

What a condescending thing that is to tell someone they have a beautiful religion --- "Yes, your religion is cute, kids, even beautiful" like he's got a right to judge -- but the man is not a conservative --- the man is a theocratic neo-Cromwellian Christian.

He is the antithesis of someone who is conservative in a Libertarian sense ... he has introduced government into private life places the (oo-eee-ooo scary devil)Liberals would never have done out of respect for individuals and their rights.

And the point there, that you managed to miss again -- is that the suicide bombers are desperate to a point that reasoning with them is beyond possibility. It's the non-suicide bombers -- like that famous muslim Timothy McVeigh -- who might still have reasoning factulties -- but then again, if you can convince yourself GWE is in favor of gay marriage, then you're quite possibly not capable of reason yourself.

At 7:35 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Emerson vignetted...


Glad to see you writing the surrender line again. It must be driving people crazy.

At 8:26 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Conservative in the Libertarian sense?

Helloooo! He didn't run under the Libertarian ticket...if he did, your claims of his and my mutual smoking of hashish would probably ring true. As it is, I've never even seen the stuff; and while he may have in his college years, so did several other presidents. It's a moot point. (Albeit, a point that MIGHT make sense if I were stoned, like a Libertarian.)

What makes this point even more moot is that he wouldn't have won by running on the Libertarian ticket.

Big Pharma-masters? Corporate puppeteers? Can't you be more original? You find it so easy to believe that America's government is corrupt to the core, and that we're the source of all the problems in this world. But the fact of the matter is that we're not so bad as all that, and furthermore, other countries are just as "corrupt" or worse. A certain amount of "corruption" is inherent in human affairs. I can name some communist regimes that were far more corrupt than the U.S. could ever be.

Oh, and if Bush and the VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY (tm) were fighting to drive out the gays, it would have been done a long time ago. Same for Muslims, but it didn't happen; neither contingency occurred. States will pass legislation to allow gay marriage where it is wanted by the populace, and that's how it should be. There is ZERO need for an amendment to the constitution. I honestly think you're being unnecessarily hard on GW.

I'm more than capable of reason; I'm simply not capable of accepting crazy, Moore-esque conspiracy theories as the products of reason.

At 9:39 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

No -- what you seem incapable of is actually reading what I actually wrote and responding to that instead of responding to something you apparently wrote in your dreams --

libertarian -- small-L ... not the Libertarian Party (god help us all), but Conservatives who believe in individual freedom -- Bush has done more to have the state encroach on personal freedom than any president I can recall going back to Truman.

I never said AMERICA's Government is corrupt to the core nor that "we're the source of all the problems in the world." Thats the crap guys like you fling when anyone makes ANY criticism at all -- that and "Moore-esque" -- you guys sure have your little demons and your little pat phrases and your talking points all lined up... at least you didn't say "America Hater."

I think THIS administration is corrupt to the core. I think Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld use GW like a rented mule ... I think he's as vague as a 60's hippie ... I think that since we are internationally omnipresent, we could at least consider IF we are involved in the dynamic taking place and if so how, and would a change in tactics improve things. but you guys drefuse to even consider that somewhere along the line of us using a huge percentage of the world's resources, we might have short-changed someone else in his or her need for some stuff. You guys seem to be all Deus Lo Volt -- whatever we do, God has Willed it.

"We're not so bad and bsides other countries are worse" so there... What are you? 9 Years old?

Again you make something up I didn't say and then answer it as if I said it -- I didn't say they're intent of "driving out the gays," and while you acknowledge we don't need a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, that is EXACTLY what GW has promised to pursue, i.e., make it impossible for any state to decide whether or not it wants to extend the right of marriage/legal stuatus to everyone. HE IS THE ONE WHO WANTS THAT -- HE'S SAID SO. I'm not being hard on him. I'm not making it up.

And oh, by the way, that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was pretty much proven by demonstrating the millions spent by that California member of the Mellon Banking family ... hmm, Scarfe was his name... to "Find anything you can against Bill Clinton."

And I didn't say there is such a thing now.

You assume a whole lot of what you think I say and believe and you're way way off...

The pharmaceutical industry put a shitload of money in Bill Clinton and then George Bush's campaign to make sure no one was going to lighten up on medical marijuana in the various states where it was made legal.And Clinton was a prick and prosecuted people with cancer using medical so has Bush's people. Be more original? Sorry, but I've read the contribution lists.

FInally, with thousands of Americans dead, many more thousands maimed and mutilated and mentally destroyed and even more bystanders in Iraq ("Ooops, collateral damage, sorry about your mother and your wife...") all based on one sequential pack of lies mouthed by GW and written by whomever ... with Osama ben Laden sort of forgotten and the Bush family and the Ben Laden family so tight (it was Ben Laden's father that bailed GW out when Arbusto went belly up) ... i just wonder about coincidence after coincidence... the difference between getting a blowjob and starting a war based on lies (as did LBJ and Reagan/Bush and Teddy Roosevelt, also) is the difference between -- well suppose you met a lovely lady -- wwhich would you want her to do ... suck you or shoot you?

These assholes are raining death and destruction on people who never did anything to us but make faces and call us names -- a dictator WE put in there (Nixon/Rumsfeld) and just managing to not find the people who DID harm us ... these rec room patriots who were too goddamn precious to serve when the country asked them to stand up and take their place in line don't seem to mind sending others to their deaths -- and the irony is they're making things worse, increasing the number and expertise of terrorists -- not "fighting them there" but creating more -- WHAT conspiracy theories -- it's all right out there in the open -- every time Halliburton "loses" another $5 billion I think of the Republicans getting all apoplectic about Clinton Travel Office people giving contracts without sending them out for bids .. for a few thousand here and there...

Hey -- I'm an old guy -- I'm not going to live long enough to be sifting through the rubble with you who are now students -- but when it all falls down, perhaps you'll remember the words of Lord Buckley --- "If you get to it and you can not do it, then there you jolly well are, aren't you?" Right now, it's Iraq... a while ago it was Vietnam... before that it was that frozen swirling toilet of death in Korea...

I'm not saying the democrats are GOOD GUYS because this particular set of GOP biggies are BAD Guys ... I'm saying these are the guys who have the job and they're not only not doing it, they're shaming us all and causing untold damage now and for many years to come. Just remember it when you're paying off what GW and his people shoveled out of the Treasury to their pals. That doesn't make those nutless wonders in the Democratic Party into some kind of heroes. Just that GW and his crowd are scum.

This may be the most corrupt adinistration since the Grant Administration.

If you want to disagree with me, please disagree with what I actually say, not with some right-wing demonic fantasy of what some supposed "liberal" (and I'm really not a liberal, never have been)
is supposed to say.

If you can't think more originally than to fling daily talking point catch-phrases, well, perhaps your professors will consider that cute. I consider that rather dimwitted.

At 9:44 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Ex Justica Mortis, Saint.

At 9:51 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

For the record, I'm not in college, I don't have any professors, I don't listen to Bill O'Reilly, and I'm not a big fan of his, either.

At 9:57 p.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous thetruth vignetted...

and your dumb as hell

At 9:59 p.m., July 12, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

The scorn of fools is my sustenance, thank you.

At 11:58 p.m., July 12, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...


At 3:22 p.m., July 13, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

If you're not in college, then why do you say on your blog that you're a student at Auburn?

And I never said you were a fan of Bill O'Reilly -- christ, I may think you're a jerk who parrots talking point phrases and who makes retorts to things never said outside the voices in your mind -- that's my opinion -- but I would NEVER be rude enough to suggest you were THAT low, that you were an O'Reilly fan.

At 3:23 p.m., July 13, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

Oh, my mistake -- sloppy reading of your blog profile -- you're 16 -- so you're a high school student not college ... ok, my mistake ... hell, when I was 16 I thought I knew everything too.

At 11:27 p.m., July 13, 2005, Anonymous Inquisitor vignetted...

rwing nut,

You aren't wrong in your view. Except that it does not take the wider socio-psychological status quo within which UBL and all the support that he boasts, exists. The u.s. should have taken the iranian reference to the states as 'the great satan' seriously in terms of that being indicative on where this might locate the u.s. along dichotomous ideological continuums that enabled the iranians to think of them in such a manner. It could be easily argued that this would rely on and feed existing perceptions of the u.s. along with how any armed jihadic body, albeit funded by the u.s., might locate them in the event of any crisis with them. The instance you mentioned that you assert as being the 'cause' cannot but serve only as a catalyst. People do not generally rise up on the spur of the moment when they were only sharing a tea together a minute earlier. There has to be a culture of animosity and antagonistic contradistinction in the cultural perspective.

At the end of the day, though it is very convenient to address symptoms rather than the cause(in the best traditions of 'Justice Leaque', to believe that these jihadists just came out of the woodwork with no external instigation is nothing short of illogical. This war has very little to do with 'UBL' or 'Al Qaeda'. They may have been and may be 'rallying points' but seldom serve as the 'reasons' for such rallying. These are just catch-all phrases that attempt to explain a phenomena that transcends these in order to forestall the sense of helplessness that would otherwise be pervasive and serve as a threat to the established ruling governments themselves.

This whole situation indicates a global islamic consciousness awakened and consolidated via a number of sources and over time by, amongst others, u.s. aggression and terrorism in the middle east. It is a very difficult situation indeed as the growth of non-state terrorism has an evolutionary path which requires different types of solutions at its various stages of development. Unfortunately, it has now reached what i call the 'sectarian consciousness' stage from its earlier 'placardistic' and 'aggressive activism' stages which were still 'issue focused'. Now its become culture focused. Upsetting.

But you have to understand that to many muslims, every child or person killed in Iraq, etc, may be 'collateral damage' to the u.s.(and this term itself did little to endear the americans to muslims worldwide) but is a 'muslim' killed by an 'infidel' to them. The 'muslim-infidel' dichotomy itself is further emphasised in their minds by such terms and actions. With such a perspective, it is no doubt that more extreme reactions, in the form of what the west chooses to perceive as 'Al Qaeda', arise. Contrary to public conceptions, Islam is not in its entirety a 'peaceful' religion and that itself serves as an impetus to what is seen as 'terrorism' to some and 'martyrdom' to others. But that is another matter. I'll be posting a perspective on that in about 24 hours at my site.


At 12:18 a.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Jeez, your posts/replies are far too long, far too long to write a suitable reply to, but I’ll try.

It sounded rather Moore-esque to criticize the Bush Office as being a wholly corrupt gaggle of buffoons; controlled from behind the scenes by some large corporation or secret society or whatnot. (Who are, of course, after money.) It's his "talking point," if you catch my drift. And I hope you'll excuse me for assuming, since I run into quite a few people who accept everything Mr. Moore states as fact. I guess coming from you, it was supposed to be totally original or something, whatever. I'm jaded to the whole conspiracy theory biz. Furthermore. I don’t know how you expected me to reply to the “talking points” comment, since that’s O’Reilly’s big thing.

In short, most of what you said sounded very “liberal,” and, thanks to your sparse profile, I had to assume. Maybe you could fix that? What do you call yourself, praytell?

I don’t believe that GW and his merry men are as corrupt as you would claim they are, and I HIGHLY doubt that the war is based on reckless aggression, lies, racism, or money. I’ve heard both stories, I’ve read/listened/watched as much as I can take in, and that’s how I see it. There simply isn’t enough evidence to convince me otherwise. However, if you have some substantial evidence to back up your claims, other than opinion, I'll be happy to listen/read up on them. I’m sure if it were as blatantly wrong and corrupt as you say it is, there should be some evidence, right?

Clinton VS. GW? You can portray GW as a darkie bombing fearmongerer, and that’s all fine, but Clinton did his fair share of pointless bombing runs against countries who *GASP* never attacked the U.S. in any way, (aiding and abetting terrorists aside.) I’m sure those people hate us too, but you simply went on to praising his fellacial clemency, a train of thought which is…flawed at best.

And about the American losses?

Thomas Jefferson: “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I think that about sums it up. Why do you think those men and women took up arms for their country? It wasn’t for the military discount, I assure you. Each and every one of them knew what they would be facing, and while their deaths are a tragic; death is sometimes a grim necessity. (I’m planning on spending 8 years active service after I get out of college, so claim I haven’t thought about this or I’m too cowardly to go myself.) In short: people die in wars especially military personnel. This is a war.

Collateral Damage? What about the hundreds of thousands of lives claimed by suicide bombers? What about the 12 kids and the marine who was handing out candy that got blown away today by a suicide bomber? There may have been a few innocents killed in the conflict, but there always are in wars. Why do you ask the U.S. to justify accidental casualties when the enemy is actively seeking them? Isn’t that slightly inane?

I think that’s about all I care to reply to. Everything else is either in limbo or moot.

This is turning into quite the discussion.

At 7:15 a.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger plectic vignetted...

No, we are going to win the war on terror ..with more terror.


At 10:15 a.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger kwl vignetted...

Lets just look at this objectively for one moment.
1. What is it that Bin Laden wants? For sure no one knows, except that unless you fall lockstep with his fundamentalist Islamic Muslim ideals, then you are an infadel.
2. All infadels must die.
3. If your country does not fall lockstep in this ideology, then your country is an infadel and must be destroyed. Jihad calls for this destruction.
4. Given that, what are you going to talk about? Do you think you can reason with him? Maybe baptize him as a Christian, Budhist or deny it altogether and become an Atheist? Do you really think he can have a conversation with you without wanting to saw your head off with a dull sabre?

Is there any thing we can go on in how to reason with this guy other than to completely cowtow to his views?

There are those that simply will not be reasoned with and OBL fits that bill.

At 12:46 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

Briefly then -- just because "Moore" and "Liberal" are in your mind doesn't mean they have ANYTHING to do with me. I have no idea what Michael Moore thinks. And I am certainly not a liberal.

If you want to water the tree of liberty, go down to the recruitment office and join up. Otherwise you're just some hypocritical bullshitting rec room patriot shouting "Let's you and him fight."

You just STILL bring up tired old saws that have nothing to do with what I wrote -- you seem to have missed my point of NOT excusing Clinton or the Democrats. BUT the people in power are always the ones responsible.

Obviously you pay more attention to O'Reilly than to anyone else -- "Talking points" are so identified with the Bush admin, all journalists, right and left agree, just disagree on good or bad. I had no idea O'Reilly had anything to say about talking points, other than to parrot them.

So join up or fuck off -- I did my time in the military. Why don't you?

Learn to read before you criticize what I wrote. You're making a fool of yourself.

As to what I call myself? Sainpterle.

Get out of school and out of mommy and daddy's rec room and find out how things work in this world. Learn toread and learn to think and let me know in a few years.

At 3:11 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

You were too "stupid" to "read" my profile properly, or "think" that a 16-year old would be a little young to be in college. So I could say the same about you, but since my profile is smaller than these pamphlet-essays you insist on posting, it's less excusable.

But hey, we all make mistakes, right? Even arrogant-ass old people. A bit of humility would have earned you some respect, but no, you chose to be a hypocrite and drag age into the issue. Not only that, but you completely ignored MY arguements, and responded with something so utterly Ad Hominem that I am almost moved to laughter.

Do you have any evidence to back up all of these bold claims of yours? I'll be happy to read and think about them.

Way to go, Marat.

At 4:43 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

Hey enough -- I was only quoting your profile in which yo usaid you were a student and in Aubrun (city or college?) and then you corrected my assumption and YOU said you were NOT a college student ...

you can't even remember to keep your crap straight --

talk to me when you've actually been somewhere and done something -- Iraq might be a good place to start, since you want to water the tree of liberty...

At 5:12 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger hooey vignetted...

If «Cecil» is 16, by the tiem he is 18 Shrub should have re instated the draft.

At 5:20 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

You know, I really don't want to talk to you.

Really, this is pointless. You tell me to "read" and "think" when it's obvious you're incapable of doing the same, then you insult my age. (That seems to be your strongest arguement.) Not is this only a low personal attack which is completely unrelated to any point of interest whatsoever, but it suggests that you have little else to fall back on.

Never-mind the fact that you refuse to supply any information about yourself, feel free to use mine against me. I'm sure if I had lied, you would have never known. Besides, fair is fair.

I'm not going to ask for evidence again, because it's apparent that there is none, and your claims are the product of delusion and rampant paranoia. It's obvious that you're nothing more than a bitter, angry malcontent, and further discourse with you is entirely pointless.

That being said, I'm bowing out. Good day.

At 5:21 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Cecil The Ninja vignetted...

Tiem makes fools of us all, Howie.

At 6:39 p.m., July 14, 2005, Blogger Saintperle vignetted...

Not your age -- your shallowness ... I'm being kind by attributing it to your age.

At 9:02 p.m., July 14, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous vignetted...



I've always despised web posts that are filled w/ name calling and no substance, but I just can't stop it. I don't have the energy to cast the pearls before this swine.

You are an idiot.


At 2:44 p.m., July 20, 2005, Anonymous Whadda FOX! vignetted...

"The terror attacks in London knocked some wind out of the sails of European global warming (search) activists.

They wanted to turn the G-8 meeting in Scotland into an attack on the way we live here in the states. They think they're cleaner than we are because they've signed on to the Kyoto Protocol (search), which mandates reductions in carbon fuel emissions.

But the Kyoto worshippers are a bunch of hypocrites. Turns out for all their talk about cleaning up their environment, European signers of Kyoto have been getting dirtier. Greenhouse gas emissions for Europeans increased by 1.5 percent last year. Under Kyoto these emissions are supposed to go down 8 percent by 2012. Whoops! (Source: The Washington Post)

And it's not just the air. When I was growing up in Washington, D.C., the Potomac River (search) was so polluted you could practically walk on it. Today, folks are jet skiing on the Potomac. Same thing has happened in New York's Hudson River (search). Meanwhile the Thames, the river that runs through London, is more choked with sludge and pollution than ever.

So the message to the pious Euro crowd that waves around the Kyoto Protocol while keeping things as stinky as ever: Ecology begins at home. Clean up your own act before you start lecturing us about ours.

And that's the Observer.

Read it and weep...Oh wait, easier to bury your collective empty heads in the sand....or just leave it in that other "safe deposit box", southerly oraface.

At 3:24 p.m., July 25, 2005, Anonymous reallifehero vignetted...

I'm sorry that your ivy league education has not allowed you a balanced perspective and understanding of real life. Idealism aside, much of higher education, especially that of the ivy league (which I was a part of) is nothing short of brainwashing.

At 2:39 p.m., July 28, 2005, Anonymous freethinker vignetted...

Scrolling through, reading some of the interesting posts, wondering why I wasted my time reading some of the blather by saintperle and his ilk... thatnk God there are youngsters out there such as Cecil & Josh who actually have a brain and are able to read and discern truth from the fiction, fallacies and outright lies being spewed forth by the MSM. Maybe you yourself should actually try reading facts, saintperle, as opposed to the iv hooked up to your arm from the MSM


<< Home