March 31 Sources (Mock the Terrorists)

My favorite this time is Ridicule: An instrument in the war on terrorism. The author talks about how we should disrespect people like terrorists. They are dangerous, no doubt, but what kind of pathetic loser blows himself up in the hopes of getting 72 virgins? Mel Brooks made fun of Nazis because they didn’t deserve respect. Mocking the SOBs diminished them. Same goes for their modern equivalent. Let’s think of some good jokes.

A Barometer of Modern Morals
Achieving Balance in Corporate Governance
Duke Still Favorite
France and Its Muslims
Iraq Separate Realities of Republicans and Democrats
Ridicule: An instrument in the war on terrorism
Iraq Update
The Paper Trail

Speaking of ridicule, did you guys see the latest South Park about hybrids and San Francisco?

Posted by Jack at March 31, 2006 11:39 PM
Comments
Comment #137204

One thing I could NEVER understand about our ‘fight’ with the radical muslims IS ….
Why can’t we pick on them the same as we would anyone we think is being stupid or ignorant???
We are trying to understand them?
Bulls**t!
We should be mocking them. Ridiculing them. Showing them why we think THEY are ignorant. NOT showing why WE are ignorant because we don’t understand them.
We understand them.
They are living in the past and want to stay in the past while using our modern day technology and LAWS against us!

Everything we do anymore is so WUSSY. We are so worried about ‘offending’.
I’m offended when someone wants to blow ME up because I do not want to live in the past. The past being 2-3 thousand years ago.

Sometimes people just NEED to be offended just to show how selfish or stupid they are being.

What are they going to do if we offend them??? Blow us up?


Posted by: bug at April 1, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #137211

It is a PC world out there. I see it already permeating our culture, schools, politics so immensely that we can’t say anything without it offending someone. The saying holds true (and is actually a variation of something Abraham Lincoln once said)..you can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time. We can agree to disagree, but don’t be condescending about it. The thing about South Park is that it makes fun of EVERYBODY. It’s an equal opportunity “offender”. They don’t care who they piss off b/c more people laugh at it than ridicule it.

Now I’m going to offend people…liberals are idiots. Plain and simple. The way that every great society throughout time has fallen by the wayside is the sure belief that diplomacy works before action. The ancient Egyptians were originally barbaric, they conquered plundered and pillaged. Then they became “educated” and more “tolerant” as that happened, the people that they had control over got angry with their rule…they revolted and the empire fell. The Greeks were the same way, starting with Alexander, then became extremely educated…and fell. The Romans, the Russians, the Ottomans, even the British Empire (of which we were a part—for all of you who’ve forgotten history). All these great societies fell for the same reason, liberalism. Liberalism preaches tolerance and says that if someone is angry with us then there is a problem with us instead of saying “they don’t like our rules or decisions…move elsewhere and start a government that suits you.” Liberals are a strange sort, they don’t want the bible to be taught in schools but will allow the Quran to be taught in public schools. Michael Savage made this point—and though he’s OUT THERE it makes SENSE—that the more you allow multiculturalism into our society it just sets you up for this very problem…more and more people want their way of life to be accepted into the mainstream that pretty soon we’ll have 15 national languages, have nothing that sets us apart as Americans, and be susceptable to total “take over” by people who are in business to destroy us. We are the “melting pot” because despite the differences of each “culture” whether it be German, Irish, Italian, or Polish (the “old guard” of immigrants)is that they may speak their native languages in their own circles, but they still learned English and had to accustom themselves to the American culture, not vice versa.

All new great societies are created by war, all freedom is gained by war. If you don’t believe that look back at American history. Look at the Romans. Look at ANY “great society”. They were all woven of the same cloth. Should we ridicule Muslims for having some lame-brained ideas? Yes, but let’s not forget the libs either! Liberalism is: high-pressure feeling, low-pressure thinking, and incessant pressure to give away that which belongs to somebody else.

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #137212

Yes. PC.

PC to the point of imploding.
It is sickening.

I need an anti-depressant, a therapist, and a lawyer.
What a bunch of wimps we have become!!!

SUCK IT UP, STAND STRONG, AND BE AMERICAN!!!
We are proud and should not let the PC police destroy us!!

Posted by: bug at April 1, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #137213

Bug…honestly as a sufferer of depression (for varying reasons that I will NOT discuss), it isn’t as easy as just taking a pill. But the therapist and sometimes the drugs are necessary. I personally took myself off of antidepressants b/c I didn’t feel they were really helping anymore, but when I first went on them it was like night and day. Maybe I just needed the “kick-start”, but still, it worked. However, I get your point, I just don’t want you to belittle people who really do have a real problem. Damn, am I turning into a panzy? I’m really not offended, and you’re right too many people abuse that sort of thing…know a few. Also know a few people who SHOULD get treatment, but won’t. Life is tough, we all need help sometimes, but walking on egg-shells won’t help anyone.

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #137214

Robert,
Very good! Jack’s post is about mocking those who deserve it and you write an excellent satire mocking the sterotypical closeminded, uneducated, agressive, warmongering, hate-filled hypocritical conservative. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #137215

Brian…is that your emotion reering it’s ugly head or were you REALLY giving me a compliment? I just can’t tell. By the way, it wasn’t a “satire” of anything, it’s the truth. As for closed-minded? Hardly. Uneducated—college degree in engineering—strike two. Aggressive?—maybe passive -aggressive, I leave the REAL aggressiveness to the people who know the business…our men in uniform. War-mongering?—what is war-mongering? Standing up for your beliefs and standing up for the safety of the people of this country? or conquering half of Europe before someone does anything about it? Hate-filled? wow…we’re really reaching here. What was hate-filled? I called liberals idiots not told them that if they existed around me I’d beat them with a baseball bat. Hypocritical? Where?—prove it. Oh and the most offensive…conservative…wait a minute…that’s not offensive—HELL YES I AM, and proud of it. Good night.

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #137216

quit reading your talking points…that’s the same thing that dems and libs have called conservatives for 40+ years…get a new play-book Brian.

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #137217

Robert,
Good! Now you’re doing the absolute lack of introspection thing, too. I approve.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #137218

What do you mean Brian? Do you require therapy for every decision you make? Mayube your parents didn’t do their job??

There was a bank robbery yesterday.

The first thing the bank rep said was ‘We have brought in therapists for our employees.’

No one was held hostage. No one had a gun to their head.

I’m not saying it wasn’t scary.


My kids had to deal with a tornado warning, a siren going off tonight, while being home with a babysitter.
They called me. I told them they would be okay.
I called them when I left to head home.
They are fine. They survived. They handled it and their parents are home. They went to bed. Some people think they need a therapist. BULLSHIT!

Our country is full of a bunch of wimps who cannot suck it up and go on anymore.
We need therapists and pills.

Watch another commercial from a drug company and run to your doctor and tell him you need it.
Watch a bad event on TV and run to a therapist and deal with it.
Call a lawyer because you screwed up and want to blame someone else.

That’s the ‘new’ “American Way” and that is what is screwing us up!!!

Posted by: bug at April 1, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #137220

Bug,
I didn’t say anything about therapy. I was just being appreciative of good satire. It seems like you don’t like therapy very much. OK. I don’t know why you’d address your dislike to me. Perhaps you’re trying to satirize how conservatives jump to conclusions about people (like saying “maybe your parents didn’t do their job” based on nothing? If so, you’re doing a good job.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #137222

“sterotypical closeminded, uneducated, agressive, warmongering, hate-filled hypocritical conservative. Keep up the good work!’

Brian.

Is this what you said?

Posted by: bug at April 1, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #137225

Bug,
Notice the word “stereotypical.” That means I don’t really think that, but that what Robert wrote makes them look that way. Or do you think he was serious?

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #137228

By the way Jack, I like this topic. I think making fun of the violence in reaction to cartoons depicting muslims as violent is a good place to start.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 3:18 AM
Comment #137229

brian, meditate ON IT

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at April 1, 2006 3:20 AM
Comment #137233

Well I guess that I too am that whole list of unflattering adjectives that Brian Poole used because I too am offended by the terrorists desire to blow me up. I wonder if there is a support group out there to allow me to accept the fate dealt to me by terrorists with a positive attitude.

In with love, out with hate.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 1, 2006 3:58 AM
Comment #137237

Well Brian, you’re doing the false generalization of steriotyping a conservative person…isn’t that against the “rules” of liberalism b/c we aren’t supposed to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists and unworthy of being able to run the BUSINESS dealings of a port terminal. You know that this is a falacy of basic philosophical reasoning don’t you? Also, what lack of introspection. I addressed every single solitary “unflattering adjective”(goodkingned) that you threw out there. I’m also outraged that there isn’t outrage about the fact that these idiot islamofacists want to blow up everyone that disagrees with them….and you think GWB is bad…grow up, wake up, and smell what you’re shovelling

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 5:11 AM
Comment #137245

Robert,
You’re being too modest! Your post did a great job of meeting all of those stereotypes! Lets see:
Closeminded:

liberals are idiots. Plain and simple

uneducated:
The Greeks were the same way, starting with Alexander, then became extremely educated…and fell. The Romans, the Russians, the Ottomans, even the British Empire (of which we were a part—for all of you who’ve forgotten history). All these great societies fell for the same reason, liberalism.

agressive and warmongering:
All new great societies are created by war, all freedom is gained by war.

Hate-filled
liberals are idiots

hypocritical:
I just kind of threw that one in because I expected it in a satire mocking conservative values. But you rose to the challenge when you said first :
Liberalism is: high-pressure feeling, low-pressure thinking, and incessant pressure to give away that which belongs to somebody else.

And then:
quit reading your talking points…that’s the same thing that dems and libs have called conservatives for 40+ years…get a new play-book Brian.

This last pair of comments was also one of the places the lack of introspection comment came from.

Like I said, those things are a stereotype that I personally don’t believe all conservatives are like. I bet the real conservatives are pretty upset because your brilliant way of mocking them is reinforcing that stereotype and making them look bad.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 9:07 AM
Comment #137247

Robert:
Oh! I forgot a new one you snuck in in your response. “chicken-hawkey.” Here’s the quote.

Aggressive?—maybe passive -aggressive, I leave the REAL aggressiveness to the people who know the business…our men in uniform.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #137251

“The Greeks were the same way, starting with Alexander, then became extremely educated and fell.”

Of course, Alexander of Macedon (Macedonia is, of course, also in Greece) did his conquering around 336BC. The golden age of Athens (the high point of classical Greek education, art, and culture) was from approx. 800-400BC.

So, Alexander conquered Athens long after it hit its peak and went into decline. The Greekes never, ever eschewed war, they simply were conquered by someone supremely gifted at it. Alexander (who was tutored by Plato’s student Aristotle) also conquered Sparta, the home of the preeminent warriors in Greece.

Learn your history.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 1, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #137257

Definitions change… so, if you want to talk about Liberal England changing, it was the middle and upper class wresting power away from the nobility that were the Liberals of their day. I don’t think that they would recognize today’s liberals as being one and the same. Just a point.

Bug, I did get upset when a congressman was called a coward because of what he proposed in our own Congress. Was his proposal the right one? Even as a liberal I don’t believe it was. Does it make him a coward? Why? Because it might give aid and comfort to the enemy? Should we be letting the terrorists dictate through fear what can and can’t be said in congress? I am glad to see that some people agree that worrying about the terrorists has gone on long enough… or… was I mischarterizing what you were saying?

The religion of Islam was probably founded around 623 CE (or A.D. if you prefer). It is not a conflict that has been going on for 2-3 thousand years. Most of our ancestors at that time were wearing hides from animals and trying to figure out how to keep the fire going.

Alas, correcting someone on their misconceptions or misinformation is PC. I wonder if my son can use that when he gets back a graded paper? I will suggest it to him.

Humor has been used to mock the terrorists for years. However, I doubt that many people on this side of the site would have noticed. Jon Stewart is said to do “fake” news…. when he is really illustrating the irony of the news and he does sometimes create parodies of news clips to help do that. However, he has been mocking the terrorists for a long time.

I absolutely love the blame multiculturalism for intolerance! Intolerance isn’t the problem, it those “different” people. Please people… take responsibility for your lives. Don’t blame someone else.

If they would just be like me than everything would be fine! Instead, they insist on living their lives according to what they want to do. Where does that leave me? In a rage? Feeling powerless? Scared? Defensive? A victim?

I was not aware, and I surely won’t teach, that what makes us Americans is a shared color, ethnicity, religion or even language. Again, the language thing… same with every other nationality that came over… the language thing. A lot of second generation and almost none of the 3rd generation speak their ancestors language. What is different though, is unlike the Germans and Poles and Swedes, their skin color might continue to set them apart. Are they not Americans? Or, are they just the punch line to a joke? Possibly the fall guy for our own failings in life? Again with the victimization… it isn’t my fault, it is….”

It is interesting to think about mocking the terrorists… I thought we were doing that each time a politician stood up in Congress and spoke what he believed, rather than what people thought he should say based upon an assumption of how the terrorists would be encouraged or enraged.

People complain about PC limiting them to what they want to say… I would love some examples? What, “Nice butt?” Comments about watermelon when a black person is around? (Don’t forget the jab in the ribs and the big wink-wink to the other people when you make these comments). Or, is it PC if someone points out that it is the radical fundamentalists who are the terrorists, not all Muslims? Maybe those colorful little pet names we have for different races and ethnic groups need to be said but somehow you feel pressured not to?

Exactly what regulatory or statutory weight does PC have? Does and should a person have a right to make derogatory remarks about people… even groups of people? Sure. If they get shunned or ignored or someone decides it is their “right” to comment on a remark, well, that is the price for standing up for one’s convictions. Wasn’t that one of the things we used to charterize a great man as? One who stands by his convictions?

If liberals are idiots, then what does it say of the person that lets liberals dictate their speech? Victim? Wussy?

Possibly there should be a 12-Step program for people who have been traumatized because they feel they can’t say what they want to say…

12 Steps of PC Anonymous…

Step 1. I am powerless over letting others control my speech.
Step 2. Came to believe that only by saying insensitive and crude things would prove I am a man.
Step 3. May a decision to take responsibility for my words and not turn it over to someone else.
Step 4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of all the people I now want to piss off.
Step 5. Shared them with like minded people.
Step 6. Were entirely ready to spew out what I wanted to say because of my lack of shortcomings.
Step 7. Humbly thanked God for my not having shortcomings, unlike those I now have the balls to go out and ding.
Step 8. Made a list of all the people I had insensitively harmed.
Step 9. Went back and told them that I really wasn’t sorry.
Step 10. Continued to find new people and new ways to say rude things about them.
Step 11. Praying to God and thanking Him for making me so superior to those I mock.
Step 12. Finally waking up to being responsible, and not a victim… I am spreading the word at my local bar.

I do hope that this offends, because, sometimes people NEED to be offended to see how stupid they are being.

I agree that we need to fight terrorists rationally. This means with our speech, our humor, our chance to present what I believe is to be a morally superior way of life and worship… all of those things.

Yet, since out of the gate it was attacking Liberals for all of the ills of the conservatives lives… I though I would point out what a bunch of whiners it makes it sound like.

Are we laughing now?

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 1, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #137258

I have to commend Brian Poole on his unique way of excusing any statement by saying that he really doesn’t believe what he is saying. So if I were to call someone a chowderhead, for instance, I could deny that I REALLY believe that their brain cavity is filled with fish soup and thus not be engaged in the bad kind of name calling.

Chowderhead. I don’t REALLY believe that.

Wow! That works like a charm.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 1, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #137266

Mocking islamic terrorists may make you feel good, and may lighten the mood for some uptight or frightened individuals but it will in no way be a strategy of diminishing terrorists. They don’t care what we say or do, if you don’t believe as their twisted prophet demands, Allah or nothing at all, you die. Pretty funny stuff.

Posted by: JR at April 1, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #137271

Ned,
Excusing? I haven’t said anything that needs excusing.

Darren,
I’m laughing. Good post! The best way to fight terrorists is to not let them get to us. When we change our society because of their actions, they win by definition. When we live our live in fear, they win, by definition.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #137278

Yeah, let’s provoke the guys who are crazy enough to blow themselves up. That’s a good idea. (sarcasm)

Jack, we’re not dealing with an Evil State bent on world domination. We’re dealing with groups of individuals who really believe what they are doing. As wrong as it is, they believe you should be dead…not converted, but dead. They obviously can’t take a joke, or there would be a lot more Europeans drawing more cartoons out there.

While many muslims believe in peace, there are still a good number that are intolerant to other beliefs. So much, in fact, that they are willing to blow themselves up just to get rid of the non-believers, the infidels.

Now, if you want to make yourself a target…you go ahead and insult their beliefs, but make sure you keep away from public places. I’d hate to be at the same public event as you, when a terrorist decides to make himself a hero.

Posted by: Mike B at April 1, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #137281

Not only does “mocking the insurgents” need to happen in Iraq, but showing the “glory” of serving in the Iraqi army corps needs to happen.

The funny thing that struck me by reading this entry is that young Iraqi have no one to look up to. The insurgents are vicious, so how about a special forces Iraqi commando who was brutalized under Sadaam who carries cool weapons and uses bad A** maneuvers to take down terrorists in Iraq? One film could rally a lot of young Iraqis to this cause. Iraq needs its John Rambo. Just look how many young Americans were playing “army” after that movie. Well, Iraq needs its Rambo to show the value of supporting its fledgling army, all equipped with cool devices to take down the enemy. This would be the best piece of propaganda for us in Iraq, but it would have to be made by an Iraqi.

Posted by: Steve at April 1, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #137304

Humor has been used throughout history as a means of protest. Political humor has a long history of poking fun at kings and presidents. But when you are dealing with religious fanatics who believe their god has ordained they kill all non-believers, how will making fun of them diminish them? We are currently doing the only thing that will stop them, and that is kill them wherever we find them.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 1, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #137316

Slowthinker,
It sounds trite, and I know that you know this, but the vast majority of muslims do not believe that god has ordained them to kill all non-believers. The trick is in getting this mass of people to feel more akin to us than to the fanatics. Making fun of the terrorists will only make the terrorists more angry (if possible) but they’re going to try to blow people up anyway. However, if it is possible to make the masses of people ashamed of the terrorists, that could dry up their support, decrease their recruiting pool, etc. However, mocking and demeaning terrorists has to be paired with respect for the religion, culture, etc. of muslims who are not terrorists. Otherwise, it’ll backfire.

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #137317

We make fun of the Nazis. Islamic terrorists are small compared to the Nazis. Nobody should be able to earn respect by murder. I agree that it won’t change the minds of the actual leaders, or the nutty follower who really buy into the 72 virgins. They believe that crap, just like Joseph Goebbels believed in the Nazi master race. But others are attracted to them because they get respect.

We also should never allow the terrorist to claim they speak for Islam. Is is like the KKK claiming to speak for Christians. In fact, thinking of terrorist as more dangerous versions of the KKK makes a good analogy. Osama is the grand wizard and Zarqawi is the grand cyclops.

Think of what a suicide bomber really is. He is a loser and a fool. Smarter people than he is manipulate him to serve their goals. Maybe his own family is glad to get rid of him. After all, they get rid of their loser son and get to brag about it to equally retrograde neighbors.

Think of the horrible mother who is proud of her son for doing that. She is as much below our contempt as he is. She is the Nazi mother who proudly sent her son to murder women and children

So you recall the joke. Some terrorist mothers are showing pictures of their kids. It turns out that they all became suicide bombers. Finally, one of them laments, “they blow up so fast don’t they?”

Posted by: Jack at April 1, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #137324

Brian,
Excellent point. One of the reasons I stopped watching sitcoms was because I realized that most of the humor had to do with insults and demeaning people…

Irony of situations and the absurdity of the extreme beliefs would not necessairly bring down the wrath of most Muslims.

Possibly it is the misunderstanding of infidels in the Western mind. It means people who do not acknowledge the One True God, they call Allah, we call simply God. There is nothing in their religion against being a Jew or a Christian… and for many centuries Jew were treated much more humanely in the Islamic world than in most of Europe.

Like the trial of the man in Afghanistan… it was not because he was a Christian, but becuse he left the Muslim faith. A very fine point but significant. Most either didn’t know this or chose to bury it.

“MAN ON TRIAL FOR BECOMING CHRISTIAN”
“MAN ON TRIAL FOR LEAVING HIS FAITH (Apostasy)”

Which is more inflammatory?

Using something like exaggeration to highlight the absurdity of the terrorists extreme views… ones that mock the terrorists but not the religion.

We do this with parodies of televangelists that are over the top and I don’t know many Christians that don’t understand and appreciate it. They see it for what it is, pointing out the idiocy or the hypocrisy of the person, not the religion.

It doesn’t have to be mean and spiteful at all. However, I don’t know very many people with that type of wit.

Think Chevy Chase in European Vacation… he is funny because he illustrates all the “bad” things about an American tourist in Europe… it really is funny, without demeaning to America. However… I wonder if we would see it in the same light if it was done by France? Or an Arab country? Would we see the humor and laugh along? Or, would we want to protest that that doesn’t represent America?

Possibly it has to do with the human nature of, “I can talk bad about my brother/family but no one else can.”

I really would like to see people not take themselves and their country and their religion so seriously however that is not going to happen anytime soon.

I think that Jack’s original premise was correct… I for the life of me couldn’t understand why the early Roman’s didn’t just ridicule or ignore the early Christians… it was their dignity and morality even under persecution and adversity that drew in more converts. Humor could have nipped that in the bud!

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 1, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #137332
but what kind of pathetic loser blows himself up in the hopes of getting 72 virgins?

The same kind of pathetic loser who prays for their TB child to get well, instead of taking them to the hospital. Faith and religion is funny that way. And they certainly don’t see themselves as pathetic losers, but, winners for all eternity. Reality, is it real, or just a perception defined by each of us uniquely? And who can really say for another?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 1, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #137336

Yes David

That is what they think, but they are wrong. They will spend eternity in hell.

I am certain they are wrong and if they are not, nothing else matters, because god is a monster.

Posted by: Jack at April 1, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #137340

Brian

I thought the topic was mocking terrorists, and the Islamic terrorists are religious fanatics. And I am aware that not all Muslims are terrorists. But someone once said that all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Until all Muslims condemn terror done in the name of Islam, until they take upon themselves the responsibility to cleanse the murderers from their midst, the terrorists will continue to kill and the good will continue to be condemned along with the evil.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 1, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #137344

David

Evil done in the name of the Creator is not of the Creator, be it the Christian God or Allah.

Jack

A lot of historians, both secular and non-secular, agree with you. If it hadn’t been for the Romans, Christianity would have probably died on the vine.

As for anyone burning in hell, I leave those matters to my Creator. It is sufficient for the day that I look after my own soul.

Posted by: Slowthinker at April 1, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #137346

Brian, I am not a chicken hawk. I have my job and I am proud of the people who do their job in the military and also happy that they would VOLUNTEER TO DO IT. If I was called to do my duty would I be scared, yes, but I would do it. However, I’m glad that I don’t have to, but if libs have their way we won’t have a military left. Just look what happened to it in the 90’s…it was DESSIMATED.

The way you explain your unflattering adjectives with my words doesn’t seem to prove anything that you claim I’m being. “Liberals are idiots” isn’t closed-minded (btw iif I was closeminded that means I would have mind that’s close to me—weird). I am willing to admit that I was wrong about Alexander, but the Greek society was overly “educated” and liberalized…if you don’t think so…prove it. The reason power shifts is because of barbarism—basically. I said that war changes power and also leads to freedom. You need only to look at our history to see that’s true. That is not WARMONGERING. Warmongering is saying “hey…I like this country I want it. Let’s go conquer it.” I’m not a warmonger, but I don’t mind saying that war is interesting to me. I just don’t believe in being a panzy and saying “someone attacked us, let’s try to UNDERSTAND why they did—what’s wrong with us” instead of as Toby Kieth says “put a boot in your a$$.” TRY to be manly about this kinda thing instead of a wimp. Basically, if you’re a man…grow a pair. I am anything but stereotypical and you’re nothing but the stereotypical liberal. Just like I said, high pressure feeling…etc. You almost seem to be commenting on the messenger instead of the message, but it’s all good b/c you’re just using “satire”. You can claim someone is just like Hitler, but explain it away b/c it’s just “satire”. Whatever.

Posted by: Robert at April 1, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #137348

daren7160
Definitions sure do change. Take the word gay. Take the word diversity. Well, I won’t get carried away.

Posted by: tomh at April 1, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #137350

Another comment
The terrorists of today are being taught that they are stronger and we are weaker. That is the reason for their progress toward their goal. Until we can show them that they are weaker and we are stronger then the same old same old. Stronger and weaker is not applied to the military only. It needs to be applied to better principles of daily living. We need to show them that as the democrats say, there is a better way. But don’t do as the democrats do, just show them that there is a better way than their way.

Posted by: tomh at April 1, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #137353

Please folks, the Muslim population that doesn’t believe their god demands infidels to die are simply apostate. Despite all the claims of Islam being a religion of peace it is a lie. Read the Quran and the Hadith for yourselves. Those that chose not to follow the terrorists are out of the “islamic mainstream” in the words of their own evil prophet. I enjoy debate and a good arguement as much as most of you all seem to, but if someone can honestly read through even the most liberally interpreted version of the Quran and still say it’s a religion of peace, they are practicing the art of takiya, the art of lying for the cause of islam.

Posted by: JR at April 1, 2006 7:11 PM
Comment #137365

Robert,
If you think war is the solution, why didn’t you volunteer? Why wait to be drafted? Especially knowing that that’s never going to happen. The definition of a chicken hawk is someone who pushes for war but doesn’t fight it, preferring instead for other people to die. How does that not fit what you said? You basically admitted that, like Dick Cheney, you have other priorities. That’s OK, but don’t lie to yourself about being big, tough and brave.

Thanks again for showing hypocrisy and proving my point though. Lets see:

Liberals are idiots

and then you say
You almost seem to be commenting on the messenger instead of the message

Also, you seem to be very concerned about the state of my testicles. I’m perfectly fine in that regard, thanks, but it makes me wonder why you’re so interested. Insecurity in your own situation?

Posted by: Brian Poole at April 1, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #137370

Its not wise to mock our enemy. It only makes them stronger and us weaker. As much as I hate to admit it W is right on this one.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #137376

Brian

I’m not a chicken or a hawk, but I did serve my country in time of war, a war the politicians wouldn’t let us win. No, war is not always the answer. But the war against terrorism is a necessary war and one we can’t afford to lose. To do so would condemn the world to violence and death on an unimaginable scale.

Robert

If you want an idea of what Democrats think of the military, read “Dereliction of Duty” written by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, Bill Clinton’s military aide during Clinton’s second term. Patterson was the man who carried the nuclear launch codes. As such, he was never more than a few steps away from Clinton. If even a small portion of Patterson’s book is factual, it’s a scary picture.

Posted by: Slowthinker at April 1, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #137401

I would really love to see the question framed properly. This is just getting silly. Really it is.

All Americans want the terrorists eliminated. Whether dead, incarcerated for life or whatever. My goodness folks… it isn’t a pro-terrorist versus anti-terrorists.

The question is: What is the best way to deal with terrorism effectively.

Why in God’s name would anyone believe that anything this complex can be reduced to a single answer? Because they re-frame the question into one for political rhetorical advantage instead of what will actually be effective.

Terrorist Nation States such as Afghanistan needed to be dealt with militarily. Note the complete agreement with this action then and now. Absolute proof, beyond a reasonable person’s questioning that both sides agree that military force may be appropriate. However, as with Iran, and North Korea, it may not always be the best option. Discretion and attempts at other options are prudent.

The 9/11 terrorists had more ties to Germany and Saudi Arabia then they did to Iraq. Was this the best use of our military? Our national reputation and standing? Was it effective?

Some cite the lack of a significant terrorist attach since 9/11 as being the result of the invasion of Iraq. Was it? To ask this question, which is a reasonable question to ask is immediate shot down as partisan, not supporting our troops or our President in this time of war or some other silly such stuff.

When is an honest evaluation of the results of any action considered wrong? How can we know the benefits of an action if we cannot assess the results accurately? Can we learn from studying the results and use that knowledge to do better? Yes it we look at it. No if we refuse to because it may not give the results we want.

Terrorist Organizations Need to be dealt with through international cooperation with law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

As evidenced by the whole ports deal… when politicans crank up the rhetoric and make sweeping generalizations they find it very difficult to turn it back down. Those Senators and Congressmen, just like the President knew that there was no national security issues involved… but their constitutients had their views colored by the demonizing of the Arab world… not the terrorists. Thus, politically they had to act “affronted”. The President realized that he let loose an opportunity for the American people to be “prejudiced” against someone… they had a taste and they liked it.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 2, 2006 4:51 AM
Comment #137405

Good article, Jack. I never did understand why President Bush dignified terrorists by proclaiming a “war” on them. It gives them a patina of legitimacy and the aura of freedom fighters.

They’re nothing but common murderers and criminals and should be treated that way.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 6:47 AM
Comment #137418

I love the new underwater missele from iran 200 miles perhr underwater.But thats not the amazing thing the amazing thing is {how they tought camels to swim that fast)while most people were not lookin we set up to test a 700 thousand lb bunkerbuster bomb to be delivered by icbm none nuke but hell of a punch the test is this tuesday.And we need to think does russia want an all out war even china if it does go nuke it all over with but the crying. some or most might say the iran prez is insain let me be first in line but so was hitler and then came the blitzcreage

Posted by: allen stephens at April 2, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #137429

Lets be real for 1 minute!Can we sit back and wait to see another attack on us soil!Should we watch these tradgic events on fox or cnn and then listen to how brave our army of news media execs are for showing us that weve already been hit again so as to blame george for it.People will already be dead and hind site is 20/20 man the irony of 20/20 cbs’abc’nbc.The iran govt is banking on our stupidity and indeferance to others to whip our asses the 12th centry way.Camels are not as fast as horses but hold up better in the heat and sand.David slew goliath with a stone.And thats what many look at in the middle east.And what do you expect the russian govt to do.more cold war tacktics and figure our demize to there advantage and china wants us weak as to inslave our economy and people to help there starving abused economic state they dont make crap from themseleve they pirate it from us to begain with.poor camels 1 hump or 2 lumps

Posted by: allen stephens at April 2, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #137527

I for the life of me couldn’t understand why the early Roman’s didn’t just ridicule or ignore the early Christians… it was their dignity and morality even under persecution and adversity that drew in more converts. Humor could have nipped that in the bud!

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 1, 2006 04:28 PM

Darren7160
Your statement above seems to be premised on the belief that religious movements arise spontaneously and pass just as inexplicably. Religious movements gain power when they reflect the perceived needs of the worshippers. The Romans had to suppress Christianity because,like an revitalization religion, it inherently appealed to the suppressed people who joined the movement. Disregarding the growth of Christianiy without altering the social factors that made it appealing to the worshippers would not have diminished the growth of the movement.

Radical Islamisists belief that the implementation of hard line sharia law will facilitate the establishment of the Caliphat (sp). A central ruler guided by Allah who will restore Islam to the preiminent social and legal position in the current muslim areas and extend the Islamic rule to all societies. Make no mistake that the radical muslim agenda plans to stop with controlling middle east.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 3, 2006 3:16 AM
Comment #137560

Goodkingned,
I understand what you are saying about Christianity meeting the needs of the oppressed and I agree completely 110%. I can see where that would make the “mocking” thing less effective than I believed. I had forgot that.

The view then was towards preparing for the next world. Thus, what happened here was not as important and as long as they could worship then there intersts in the government were minimal. Their disinterest in temporal things made them seem benign to the state. It was when people, like Nero, needed a scapegoat did they become “enemies of the state.”

The hieracrchial structure of the church was also important because of the possibility of control and administration and coformity. I believe this was elemental in Constatine’s call for the Nicean council. A desire for a unified creed to deal with factional issues that would weaken it.

I really do appreciate your use of the radical to describe the true nature of the problem. It is great to discuss issues without the hyperbole and pleas to the emotion instead of using our intelligence and knowledge.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 3, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #137667

Darren7160 - point taken. Let’s clarify then shall we.

1.) not all liberals are stupid.
2.) not all liberals want to see america destroyed.
3.) not all liberals want to sit down with osama over a soy latte to discuss how we can appease his anger toward the west.
4.) not all muslims are terrorists.


HOWEVER, and it is dangerous to paint things with a broad brush, but there are instances where generalizations do come in to play.

For instance, in WWII, you could be relatively comfortable saying that there were no black people in the SS? Right??? Does this mean that all terrorists are muslim. Not all - terrorism is an act of violence to acheive a specific goal. Ireland, Basques, and even the Unibomber are all modern day terrorists. Each one has a specific issue and uses violence to acheive their ends. Same with the fundamentalists (I am assuming you mean muslim). But muslim’s can be from many races. Muslim is a name for someone who practices Islam, so it is a bit harder to “spot” an islamofascist.

I think we can also all agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, just like not all catholics bomb abortion clinics. So then, how do we use our satire/wit/speech to belittle what we all know to be a common enemy if we can’t distinguish the individual extremist from the group. We rally can’t. That’s the answer, so we are left with a few choices. Not say anything. Hope they go away. Try and “understand” the extremist position in the hopes that we can somehow sway their opinion…

Nah. I’ll take plain old ridicule. Verbal abuse. Public slandering. Am I better then the islamo-fascist? You betcha. Do I really care that a cartoon offended the non-islamo fascist? Not really. Sound callous? Yup, but remember, those people that were protesting the cartoon while burning down KFCs and western embassies were also cheering in the street when the world trade center was burning in the streets of NY.

You might want to keep that in mind when trying to “understand” the other side. It’s not that hard really. The terrorists that actually DO something (blow shit up) hate our way of life. Everyone else is envious. Either way, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass.

Posted by: b0mbay at April 3, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #137860

b0mbay,
I agree with what you said. No, not all Muslims are Arabs, and surprisingly enough… not all Arabs are Muslims… which is why I have always advocated being especially careful concerning the separation of Church and State… because I would rather have secular law in those countries so the Christian Arabs can enjoy their freedom of worship just as much as the Muslims can in a predominatnly Muslim country… That kind is kind of the argument many use for why we sould promote (as if it is needed) Christian values in this predominantly Chrisian nation.

I do not believe that I ever supported trying to understand the terrorists issues. What I have advocated was an understanding that these things do not happen in a vacuum… and, just as today we are supporting the President of Pakistan while he oppresses his people… we supported the Shah in Iran, Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, the earlier political take overs in Iraq, etc..

While the Unibomber is a certified nut case more appropriately discussed under mental illness, some of the other terrorists were a direct result of a lack of political participation or autonomy. The Boer War, the Basques, the IRA, the American Revolution, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq.

Possibly if we defined terrorists as it applied over history, weapons avaiablity (there were no real WMD back then so that is a matter of size rather than the action itself) in America we had a people that were not being properly represented in their own affairs, they didn’t have autonmony and rebelled as a means of winning independence. The loyalists in the colony definitely didn’t see them as freedom fighters. The same with the Jews uprising against Rome… one side sees themselves as fighting for their freedom, the other against established order and power.

Now. While we fight the extremists who use terror… terrorists, do we completely disregard all moderates because they belong to the same religion or region? Do we not addess the issues of the moderates just because they coincide with some of those of the terrorists? Has this worked with the Palastine issue?

I see no real effort towards the moderates because people might understand the difference and know that these people are radicals… they only know it intellectually… emotionally they really can’t separate them.

I don’t know what the answer is… but I am pretty sure that it isn’t ignoring the moderates.

The whole cartoon thing… I don’t know. I believe the resonse was way out of line when viewed as a single incident.. however, sometimes a small event can finally release the anger that has been building up over a long time of little events. Does this excuse it?

We might believe we wouldn’t act that way towards someone desecrating a cross or a picture of Christ… but the difference is we are the ones in power… we know that and that makes a big difference. If we were not the ones in power and the nations that were did this… then we might take it a bit more personal… getting sick and tired of our culture and religion not being respected just because we are not as “mighty” as those people.

I would much rather try to explore all sides of an issue, learn as much as I can and base my opinions on what I found out, rather on a news article or report that never gives the information required… they are reporting the news, not providing analysis and context.

I know that our closest Muslim country is Turkey. It has been striving for about a hundred years to be Western and secular. They were strong allies in NATO and helped up out numerous times. However, sometimes we still tend to take them for granted or to not appreciate that they are a separate country with different values and culture. Many just “assumed” that we would let them move through their country without an understanding of their historical conflicts with the Kurds.

Even as progressive as it is, Turkey is still jumping through hoops with the EU because they aren’t Western enough. Some might consider that a little high handed…

Regardles of the extremists, I would hope that a Cathholic, a Babtist, an Orthodox and a Muslim would all respect the symbols of the other. Remember Iconoclasm? Especially during the different rises and falls of the different sides in the Byzantine empire? Now those were bloody extremists! Over whether icons were idolotry or not.

I want to separate the terrorists from the nut cases… otherwise I would include all Christians in with The Westboro Church (Note his memorial section on the bottom of his website)

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Or this lovely demonstration:
SMYRNA, Tenn. - Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

I am not sure what all this makes me… but I do not believe that it makes me soft on terrorists. When someone in the communist terrorist group planted a bomb under my car in Greece I did not go after every member of the communist party. (Yes, I knew a few.. I was married to a Greek), nor did I blame the Greeks or the Orthodox church.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 4, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #137933

Darren7160,

Point taken. I think on this issue we are more in agreement than not. I tend to be a bit more knee jerk than you do perhaps. This may or may not necessarily be a bad thing though. Overthinking an issue in the place of necessary action can be a bad thing in some instances as well. But, thanks for your comments. Do you teach somewhere? I appreciate your well thought out arguments and the way you articulate them.

Posted by: b0mbay at April 4, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #138182

Darron:

Re Turkey. Screw them. They aren’t allies and their misrepresentation of there willingness to allow entry through their territory delayed deployment and forced the fast march through southern Iraq which left the insurgents in place.

When NATO refused to deploy additional defense for Turkey to protect them from insurgents crossing from Iraq, Americans rallied to there cause, expressing support to unilateral aid from the US. Then Turkey screw us. Good luck with EU membership!

Posted by: goodkingned at April 5, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #138185

Excuse me. The above should read
Then Turkey screwed us.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 5, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #138577
The funny thing that struck me by reading this entry is that young Iraqi have no one to look up to. The insurgents are vicious, so how about a special forces Iraqi commando who was brutalized under Sadaam who carries cool weapons and uses bad A** maneuvers to take down terrorists in Iraq? One film could rally a lot of young Iraqis to this cause…in Iraq, but it would have to be made by an Iraqi.
Yeah, Anbar Moustaf’ahnator. Posted by: John at April 6, 2006 9:45 PM
Post a comment