The Rise of the Anti-Jihadists

The Internet has become a favored propaganda tool for Islamists, terrorists and al-Qaeda types the world over. It is used to distribute their videos, release their fatwa’s, troll for recruits, shore up their base, coordinate their activities and influence the mainstream media.

It has also given birth to a whole class of anti-jihadists who now wage their own propaganda war of commentary, analysis, and occasional mockery using websites and blogs as their personal weapons in the Terror Wars. The internet jihadist has now been matched by the keyboard crusader.

Some present themselves as scholarly, analytical, ‘think tank' type websites. Others are more confrontational with jihad-mocking movies and Mohammed cartoon contests. But what they all share in common is a mission to expose fundamentalist Islam, and the terror it inspires, as an enemy of the West that must be faced and fought without mercy or hesitation. The Anti-Jihadists have emerged on the web with a vengeance and have joined the blogosphere wars in defense of Western Civilization.

There is not a verse of the Koran or incident in the life of Mohammed that is not analyzed and thoroughly studied with great interest. And no violent action by a follower of the ‘religion of peace' goes unnoticed. As the blogosphere continues to expand in readership, power, prestige, and influence, those who see the religion of fundamentalist Islam and its followers as a threat akin to the communists and fascists of the last century will make their voices heard and their strident opinions known.

The Christian Middle Eastern Americans Council publishes www.Islamthreat.blogspot.com which describes itself as "The Blog of ‘Anti' Homicide-Bombers, Limb-Amputators and Women-Repressors". The www.GatesofVienna.blogspot.com blog declares ‘we are in a new phase of a very old war' and provides detailed, scholarly columns on the Islamic threat to the West. Websites such as www.counterterrorismblog.org , www.SiteInstitute.org, and the The Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com ) provide a number of experts and analysts putting every aspect of Islamic terrorism and the misnamed War on Terror under the microscope. They also provide a treasure trove of information, videos, and propaganda produced by the advocates of Islamic fascism. Such resources allow you to see the War on Terror through the eyes of the enemy.

In a few short hours one can learn more about the history, conduct, and actions of the Jihadists than you can during a four year stint at the average American university. You can watch their videos, read their fatwa's and press releases , and digest the analysis and commentary of everyone from nationally acclaimed experts to average citizens on whether Islam is radical and inherently violent or a simply misunderstood, happy-go-lucky religion of peace.

No war has ever been as closely followed, analyzed and dissected as the one that we are currently engaged in. The Jawa Report ( http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/) has led the way in showing the uncensored barbarism of the enemies of the West. There you can find video beheadings as well as pictures of slaughtered and mutilated hostages and US soldiers which the mainstream media has chosen to downplay, censor or ignore. The Fourth Rail (www.Billroggio.com), www.Israpundit.com , www.WesternResistance.com and www.jihadidujour.blogspot.com provide a constant daily stream of news and opinions on the War on Terror. And a brave group of former Muslims are risking their lives and ‘telling the truth about Islam' at www.Islam-Watch.org.

If you are infected by any of the debilitating defeatist diseases of the Left, especially the particularly virulent strains of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Tolerance, or Diversity, you will not enjoy your education by the Anti-Jihadists. The inoculation of Truth offered can be a jolt, but worth the initial pain and shock to the ideological mind and body that they may cause to the unprepared. They offer a straight forward, no holds barred, education into such fun topics as the cult of the Hidden Twelfth Imam, Sharia law, Taqiyya and Kitman, Dhimmitude, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and the three choices Islam offers the Kafir (infidel). We live in a world where all too often bumper sticker slogans, vague conspiracies, Bush bashing, and thirty second sound bites pass as political ideologies and inundate the public debate. The Anti-Jihadists have earned their seat at the table in the discussion and analysis of current events.

The often derided pajamahadeen and basement blogger has managed to not only become a growing, and increasingly powerful, force upon the political scene but upon the educational and information realms as well. Even as soldiers, terrorists and insurgents wage their wars on battlefields across the world, the battle of ideas is also being fought. The Internet has given the power to anyone with a computer to partake in the War on Terror. If the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, then the civilized world still has a chance. If you believe that the United States is the last, best hope for defeating barbarism, saving Western Civilization, and providing the light of Liberty to the world, then you will enjoy your journey into the heart of the Anti-Jihadist movement.

The various websites mentioned in this column should not be viewed as a definitive listing of Anti-Jihadist resources, but only as a representative sample of the many websites available on Islamic terrorism.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at July 30, 2007 9:21 AM
Comments
Comment #227835

You might all want a little dose of reality by Marty Kaplan:

There will be another 9/11; how will it be exploited by politicians this time?

Posted by: Rachel at July 30, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #227841

For some of the many instances of Muslims arguing that the Koran forbids terrorism, Google “Muslims against terrorism.”

Posted by: Gerrold at July 30, 2007 10:00 AM
Comment #227845

David Huntwork wrote: “The Internet has given the power to anyone with a computer to partake in the War on Terror.”

This statement deserves a caveat: The internet has also given vehicle to be read and heard to every pervert, liar, and uneducated person capable of typing and misspelling, and proferring their opinion or view, regardless of how illogical, deceptive, uninformed, or delusional.

“If the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, then the civilized world still has a chance.”

A sword in the hands of a child, can be a very dangerous toy. Let us hope that readers whose actions can and will make a difference in world events, can discern logic for illogic, fact from fiction, and motivation and intent as potential mold for the message.

On balance, I agree with your article, David, and a tremendous amount of researched fact and intelligent interpretation of those facts, are now available for readers around the world. But, I find I have to surf through an awful lot of the opposite as well to survey what is out there.

I don’t agree with your implication that media’s abstinence of displaying gruesome crimes of mutilation on public TV is somehow a shortcoming. Are you a proponent for unbridled uncensored violence on the 7AM and 6PM News on TV for our children to watch? If so, you would surely not be opposed to the far more innocuous missionary style sex on prime time TV, would you? Or, do you observe a double standard here?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #227909
I don’t agree with your implication that media’s abstinence of displaying gruesome crimes of mutilation on public TV is somehow a shortcoming. Are you a proponent for unbridled uncensored violence on the 7AM and 6PM News on TV for our children to watch?

We used to listen to the daily body count on the evening TV news during dinner during the Vietnam Conflict…and we saw lots of body bags…that’s why we knew the ghastliness and uselessness of war…the Iraq War has been sanitized by the media, demanded by the current regime…we only have one-way communication from all of our media outlets…even Yahoo! discarded being able to post opinions on news articles…

If no one sees the ugliness of war, famine, genocide one can’t really comprehend how awful these disgusting events really are…that’s why staunch anti-abortion activists display their gruesome photos on the roadside…there’s nothing wrong with reality unless you prefer to live in a childish world of fantasy…I would much rather deal in reality and truth instead of lies and omissions.

Posted by: Rachel at July 30, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #227913

Rachel, assuming that you believe war is necessary should they have shown more of the successes in Vietnam and more of the success in Iraq than they did/have?

I read the article you linked to from the Huffington report. They hit about 50/50 with me. I was hoping to read an article about fear mongering (maybe with a comment towards how the Dems use fear themselves … to be fair) and was disspointed that the article spent too much time rehashing, restating, and repeating “Bush Co Bad”.

It would seem to me IMO, that I can dig (using the interent) to find as much as I want on war, horror, blood, and guts. What I want from media is context and an educated angle.

One of the reasons why I come to this web page often.

Posted by: Honest at July 30, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #227914

Rachel, then write your media and ask for it on the 11PM news after the kids have gone to bed or on cable and satellite news with ratings so parents can protect the children.

But, IF we grant media the option of displaying gruesome mutilations as part of war coverage, I guarantee first Amendment issues will arise over the right to display all other manner of violence and realism as well. Is that a pandora’s box you want to open.

Look how long it has taken our society to get the ratings and parental controls, mediocre as they are for sex and ficitional violence. Blood and gore and sex sells advertising and it will quickly become a money maker to run footage of real rape murder crime scenes etc. if you let that cat out of the bag.

We are, I hope, a bit more civilized in our public spectator entertainment than the Romans were. I think it would be good to hold on to that. It is no coincidence that the majority of our violent criminals witnessed or experienced violence as youth. Youth are not equipped or prepared to handle the initial revulsion - fascination combination that violence presents. For many it evokes a drive to expose themselves to more of it as a means of overcoming the fear of it, and become immune to its revulsion, as an accomplishment.

Ask any soldier who has seen real combat if they think children should be exposed to that kind of violence and become conditioned to the point that it no longer bothers them? The vast majority would say that would not be a good thing for their kids. And they have some experience to back their opinion. Psychological research on the topic aside.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2007 10:43 PM
Comment #227915

DH
Great sites for those that want a return to the dark ages. One interesting point in common with many progressive sites is opposition to the proposed arms sale to the Saud despots.

Posted by: BillS at July 30, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #227917
But, IF we grant media the option of displaying gruesome mutilations as part of war coverage, I guarantee first Amendment issues will arise over the right to display all other manner of violence and realism as well. Is that a pandora’s box you want to open.

Last year, CNN was criticized (but certainly not punished) for showing footage, taken by insurgents, of snipers killing American soldiers. Images from Abu Ghraib were aired on all of the outlets. If a child is killed or wounded by an errant US bomb and the networks can get their hands on images, those images will be all over the news.

What “standards” are the media held to NOW in their war coverage? It isn’t a matter of granting them options—they set their own standards and are almost completely self-policing. News broadcasts have never been held to the same standard by the FCC as is, say, Janet Jackson when she flashed her boob at the Super Bowl.

Since Vietnam, there’s been no lack of willingness on the part of the media to air graphic realism. What a lot of us object to (which is why alternate media is so important) is that the networks will GLADLY run any images or footage that cast the American military or Americans in a bad or discouraging light while they routinely censor images and stories that relate to the routine brutality of our enemies on the grounds that such material is “too disturbing.”

Well, yes, it is disturbing. Extremely so, which is why we NEED to see it to understand what we’re up against. One half of the picture is not the whole picture, but that’s all you’re getting if you rely on the mainstream media.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 30, 2007 11:43 PM
Comment #227920

Very good points Mr. Remer. And I couldn’t agree more, and yet we sit here typing away using that potentially dangerous sword/pen in a constructive manner both here and on all our own blogs and websites. All tools can be used for bad and good, to educate and uplift and to tear down and destroy. Ask the tens of millions who died under Mao about the power of a pen wrapped in a little red cover. The power of ideas is amazing, and I deeply admire the brave men and women throught the net (and the world) who have dared to expose and challenge the followers of a dangerous and fanatical theology/ideology that are waging a worldwide war on all those who don’t convert or submit.

Posted by: David Huntwork at July 31, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #227929

David H, quite right. The world of civilized people can and should engage in the exposition of the horrors of terrorists and killers of innocents, regardless of who they are. Peace is never free or easy, but it is a common hope and dream of most people living in this world, and thus, is one of the truly universal common grounds amongst people in all cultures, which can potentially unify them in goal and effort.

You are to be commended for highlighting this opportunity for peace loving Americans to reach out and work with peace loving folks around the world in this effort using the internet.

Loyal Opp, there are many ways to communicate a message, as any artist, experienced journalist or media producer knows. One need not display graphic images for children to see; when one can paint those images with words which adults would understand and find just as disturbing, but, which would not be communicative to young children without the vocabulary or real world experience.

It never seems to fail that some conservative voices constantly seek to lower America to the terrorists standards and lead. They torture, we should torture. They summarily execute, we should summarily execute. They have no problem with collateral damage, why should we worry about it?

We are capable of, and should be, better than having to resort to their level in order to obstruct and defeat their efforts. Good cannot triumph over evil if good becomes evil in reaching for victory. Please pass that on to Pres. Bush for me, would you? He doesn’t seem to read my letters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 31, 2007 6:55 AM
Comment #227932
But, IF we grant media the option of displaying gruesome mutilations as part of war coverage

If we grant them the “option”???? good grief…ever heard of “freedom of the press”…gruesome mutilations, starving people, dying children are all the realities of war…why would you be unwilling to know what “your” military is doing in “your” name???

If we let kids play “war” on the neighborhood’s vacant lot and we don’t inform them of the bloodiness of war, aren’t we lying to them???

Sugarcoating war is an outright lie…

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 8:00 AM
Comment #227934

I would have to extrapolate from some of the above posts that even reading the following would be too much for many of you to stomach…not sure why the truth is so difficult to see, hear, and read:

US refuses to accept Iraqi refugees

Refusing to accept refugees will lead to those who worked closely with the US and their families being singled out for torture and death (remember the Hmong and Montagnard refugees the US let in during and after the Vietnam Conflict?)…really, don’t you want to know the devastation your “pro-family” government is causing to other families???

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 8:25 AM
Comment #227936

Mr. Huntwork, It seems another thing most of these links have in common is bashing and blaming the left. Are you sure the main interest of these sites is anti jihad or as it appears left vs. right politics? You are doing a disservice to those sites that are truely exposing jihadist by associating them with the lame right wing hate sites so prevalent in the links in your post.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 31, 2007 9:22 AM
Comment #227937

David H.

Great thread, until I hit this:

If you are infected by any of the debilitating defeatist diseases of the Left, especially the particularly virulent strains of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Tolerance, or Diversity, you will not enjoy your education by the Anti-Jihadists. The inoculation of Truth offered can be a jolt, but worth the initial pain and shock to the ideological mind and body that they may cause to the unprepared.

You had a great thing here, showing the brave members of Islam that fight the war of words against the Islamists (and against them, any dissent can cost you your head, literally) but then you gotta go throw this jab in. This entire post of yours is a study in what the Left has been saying for years: that Islam itself is not evil, just put to evil ends by evil individuals, and there are those in Islam that fight against these Jihadists. A quote like the above is nothing but an attempt to start a fight, and what we should be doing instead is applauding together the brave people whose sites you link to above.

Rachel

I agree that this society sugarcoats way too many things that it shouldn’t. I am the manager of a video game store, and it blows my mind the reaction parents have to some of the Mature rated games we sell. What always befuddles me is how the biggest objection that the parents have is not over the violence, but over the sexual content. Sex is the most natural thing in the world, and violence one of the most abhorrent, and yet WWII games get a Teen rating, but God forbid we show our kids a naked boob. That having been said, I think showing beheadings where my 8 year old can watch them is a little much. Kids are impressionable, and I would not want to have a conversation with my kids about why the guy in the mask just cut the other guy’s head off. “Inform(ing our kids) about the bloodiness of war” is one thing, rubbing their noses in it another.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at July 31, 2007 9:37 AM
Comment #227940

Here’s an idea: let’s show the stuff on TV and let parents actually BE parents and not turn the TV on around their kids if there’s something on that they don’t want their kids to see. “Look how long it has taken our society to get the ratings and parental controls, mediocre as they are for sex and ficitional violence.”? It hasn’t. We had that when I was growing up. All the parental control that was needed was actually standing up and turning off the TV or changing channels. Worked for sex, violence, and anything else that my parents didn’t approve of. Simple rating system too: they watched the stuff with me and changed the channels if they didn’t like what they saw.

Blocking things from TV before certain hours, calling for parental controls and rating systems, really just speaks to me of parents that want TV to be able to automatically raise their kids for them without their interaction or intervention.

Posted by: Jarandhel at July 31, 2007 9:55 AM
Comment #227943

My main objection against television news isn’t so much whether it shows gore or not — it’s that many people actually think they can be informed by watching it. I’m not talking about the trivial right or left slants; I’m talking about the inherent limitations in the typical “news” format.

There is good television, but it’s not very popular. Charlie Rose does a good job — just a guest or two sitting at a table non-polemically discussing the issues. Bill Moyers does the same thing. But it ain’t sexy and I imagine viewership isn’t a real threat to the conventional “news” crap Americans lap up. Everything gets insanely reduced — pro-war or anti-war, stay the course or cut and run. No room for nuance.

The political parties often play into this, and so do partisan hacks. We’re often guilty of it here. How many articles here don’t need to be read? We see who wrote them and know, instantly, which party line is going to be spouted. Bleh. Thank god for the few article writers who resist being hacks.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 31, 2007 10:16 AM
Comment #227944
This entire post of yours is a study in what the Left has been saying for years: that Islam itself is not evil, just put to evil ends by evil individuals

Just like Christianity has been over the ages…lots of good in Christianity lived as Jesus showed and taught…but perverted & put to evil ends by far too many…

Would love to see a well-researched article/TV news program showing the similarities between fundamentalist Christian thought and fundamentalist Islamic thought and fundamentalist Jewish thought…and the ends to which those thoughts lead. Most of our world “crises” at the moment are fundamentalist based…religion gone awry…this goes for the West just as much as the Middle East.

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 10:25 AM
Comment #227946

Ok, when the fundamentalist Islamists end their Jihad against the “infidels”, then one can talk about the other fundamentalist religions. Some of you need to show that you can and will do something about the Jihadists right now; not juxtapose and pontificate about other religions. Jeez!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 10:54 AM
Comment #227947

Being conservative and fighting and opposing Islamic fascism (and other totalitarian regimes, states, theologies and ideologies) basically goes hand in hand. To complain about perceived ‘bias’ in these websites is odd. Show me a ‘Left wing’ anti-Jihadist website that explores and covers the vast Islamist network that is waging a world wide war on the West. You won’t find many. I’d be surprised if you can find more than one.

Posted by: David Huntwork at July 31, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #227948

rad:

Do you really want to ignore how the fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians continue to influence current world crises and simply pin all the world’s problems on fundamentalist Islamists??? That’s extremely shortsighted! You can’t solve the world’s problems by taking one single group out of context…

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #227952

So, the Jihadists who kill, maim, rape and burn muslims is what you call taking them “out of context”?!! Why can’t some of you just address the immediate problem; you know, the one where these Jihadists tell us exactly what they think and what they are going to do (kill infidels)?!

What are some of you afraid of, offending the enemy?!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #227961

Let me approach this from a communications and cognitive theory standpoint: Not everybody in the Middle East supports the kind of Jihadi movement that Bin Laden advocates, and even among the supporters, there are varying reasons for and degrees of support. Islam is not a monolithic religion. Bin Laden might pretentiously claim to speak for everybody, but he is not the pope of Muslims. In fact, there is no person who can be said to have that authority, though Bin Laden would love to have it.

Many Muslims find Bin Laden’s extremist views to be not only objectionable, but even insulting; recall that he believes and states that many Muslims are bad muslims. They call them Takfiri (hope I got that right), a word that means something like slanderer, and its not a term with positive connotations.

Unfortunately, though Iraq has taken the polish off of Bin Laden, it’s made Bin Laden’s words resonate more deeply with Arabs.

The error here is the belief that if we make war ourselves on the Jihadis, on the theocratic governments, that if we work hand in glove to surpress the Islamists, we’ll win.

Unfortunately, these people are overlooking a major detail: at the end of the day, the people who can best get in the way of our enemies are the folks around them. Methods of intimidation may make our enemy’s philsophies more attractive. Constant war and strife will give our enemies an endless supply of evidence with which to declare our intentions evil to the Arab and Muslim world.

And no, it won’t help if we call those people collateral casualties, and pretend that it’s nothing big. For us, they may be collateral casualties, faceless dead, but to the cultures in the warzone, they are the people they know, and they likely consider them victims of ours.

It may seem too politically correct to some to consider things from the Arab and Muslim points of view, but the fact remains anybody trying to predict the reactions of these populations with the politically incorrect notion of casualties will get it wrong, because the Arabs and Muslims will not see things our way, just because we think it’s right.

Certainly, people in that region do not think of us in a politically correct way. They will look and see racists, colonialists, imperialists, and infidels. However, the actions that folks like the author would have us take would hardly encourage them to reconsider how they regard us, much less their support for those that oppose us.

We must recognize that it’s in our interests to keep things calm in the region, not stir things up. It’s in our interest not to provide a parade of bodies for their news organizations to show to the world. It’s in our interest to be seen as a positive force in the region by the Arabs on the street. Our enemies should be seen as disruptive, their backwardness resented, not looked towards with nostalgia. The motivation has to start at the grassroots to oppose the agenda of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Ultimately, the Jihadist movement lives or dies by the support of the people in those countries for it. If we want it die, we must do what it takes to calm down the anger that keeps that support going.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #227966
“Our enemies should be seen as disruptive, their backwardness resented, not looked towards with nostalgia. The motivation has to start at the grassroots to oppose the agenda of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Ultimately, the Jihadist movement lives or dies by the support of the people in those countries for it. If we want it die, we must do what it takes to calm down the anger that keeps that support going.”


Uhhh, General Petraeus and the rest of our soldiers are already seeing the “grassroots oppose the agenda of al-Qaeda and Bin Laden” via The Surge!

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #227967

Oh, Rad…

Think logically and resonably here…there are always at least two parties in a conflict and never is one completely innocent…

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #227968

Isn’t “the rise of the anti-jihadists” using such tools as the internet a good example of a front on the war against terrorism that enlists more “intelligent”, “sensitive” means of fighting the fight?

Weren’t those the phases used by Senator Kerry in his 2004 debate with w, in an argument that the blunt force use of the military could never fully succeed in the absence of more sensitive and intelligent tactics such as those detailed above by David?

Didn’t these same conservatives, with whom David Huntwork obviously aligns himself with, deride Senator Kerry’s views as those of someone who is “weak on terrorism”?

I’m sorry, but the hypocrisy of those on the right goes beyond humorous and right into being very sad. Sad because we all have suffered over the years from the sophistry that is offered as intelligent argument.

Sophistry: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.

Posted by: charles ross at July 31, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #227969

How many “grass roots” Iraqis are left when 2,000,000 have already fled the country????

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #227971

Jarandhel, you utterly fail to grasp the situation for millions and millions of parents. You see these parents get home from work, between 5PM and 7PM. The kids get home from school between 3:30 and 5 PM. Parent/s are working to stay in the middle class. Kids are on their own for evening news.

In addition, parents come home to a flurry of tasks and family maintenance todo lists. Again, not affording them the luxury of sitting down and watching TV with their kids.

Now in a two parent family, with one making enough so the other can stay home, your argument applies. But for the millions of families whose lives don’t conform that model, your recommendation is not very useful. Hence, the justification for parental locks, and ratings.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 31, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #227972
How many “grass roots” Iraqis are left when 2,000,000 have already fled the country????

Well, there are an estimated 27 million people in Iraq; so, that would leave 25 million grassroots!!!!

Now,let’s get back to the subject. You said “Think logically and resonably here…there are always at least two parties in a conflict and never is one completely innocent…”. Uhhh, ok, why don’t you just define (exactly) what side is the most problematic (to you) and what do you do about it?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #227975

David:

Then that’s a great reason for Americans to lobby for shorter work-weeks, higher pay, and similar measures to give parents of both genders more time to stay home and BE parents. It is not a good reason for parents to demand graphic violence not be shown on the evening news during war-time, or to demand features on the television designed to replace actual parental supervision.

Children are not stupid and are often quite capable of bypassing the locks their parents may place on certain programs or channels, in the same manner that they are more than capable of bypassing filtering software on computers. I have literally seen cases where children using a computer were more capable of overriding content-filtering software than the parents and teachers responsible for it being present on the computer in the first place. If you’re really interested in keeping your children from viewing certain material, nothing replaces proper supervision. If you’re not capable of being there yourself, arrange to have an older relative or neighbor or another responsible trusted adult watch the kid until you get home from work. Otherwise you’re really never going to have any say in what your children are exposed to, no matter what software solutions may be implemented.

It is also important to note the complete abdication of judgment displayed by parents demanding rating systems… rather than watch something themselves to see if it contains what they would consider objectionable content, they choose to rely on the judgment of whatever panel of strangers is employed to rate the movie. Nothing about that trend is healthy.

Posted by: Jarandhel at July 31, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #227976

Rad:

Do you absolutely have a blind spot as to what the US and Great Britain have done in the Middle East? Read some history!

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 4:02 PM
Comment #227977

So, are you saying that the US and England are the most problematic?!!! Are they the enemy to you?!!!


I asked: why don’t you just define (exactly) what side is the most problematic (to you) and what do you do about it?!!!


One more chance to splain yourself…


Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 4:14 PM
Comment #227982

Rad:

Your disingenuousness is not becoming…stop attempting to put words in my mouth and start using your intellect to determine what was actually said…the US and Great Britain (who cobbled Iraq together!)do not have a great track record in the Middle East (or much of anyplace…despite protestations to the contrary)…they have caused many problems and continue to do so…the Islamic jihadists are NOT the only problem in the world!

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #227983

So, is this what you call thinking “logically” and “reasonably”, by not admitting who you believe is the enemy?! Continually mispelling my name (even the abrided version)?! This is how you debate?!!

I would look at that as being “disingenuous”; someone who can’t even define who the Jihadists are, or who is (actually) worse, the Jihadists or USA/England?! It must be tough when one is debunked and is called out like that; however, if one is (indeed) candid, then it should not be hard to answer who you think the enemy (truly) is and what to do about them?!

Also, I like how you tried to “play down” the recent report of the success of the surge; it must suck for those that bet against the US!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #227984

Rahd:

define who the Jihadists are, or who is (actually) worse, the Jihadists or USA/England?!

I guess that would be a matter of who you are, where you live, and your life experience…the US and Great Britain have done great harm all over the world…read history…you can’t deny it…that doesn’t deny the problems being caused by off-the-track fundamentalist Islamists who are using religion (sort of like Great Britain’s colonizing, Spain’s colonizing…. Do you know know that the US invaded quite a number of foreign countries, causing the overthrow of duly elected officials while supporting heinous dictators)….You really just discard that knowledge or do you have no knowledge of those facts???

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #227985

The question was directed to YOU; so, I don’t know who you are, where you live, and your life experience, you are the one that should know that. And, quite frankly, I do not want to know that. All I did was ask you a (simple) question; to which you (still) did not answer! What I asked was: just define (exactly) what side is the most problematic (to you) and what do you do about it?!!! Is it the Jihadists or is it USA/England?!!!


Posted by: rahdigly at July 31, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #227988
just define (exactly) what side is the most problematic (to you) and what do you do about it?!!! Is it the Jihadists or is it USA/England?!!!

There is no “or” about it…all parties mentioned are causing the current problems…by current or past interventions, attitudes, and actions…

Or do you think that the US and Great Britain are “superior” and “can do no wrong”….

Posted by: Rachel at July 31, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #227990

Rahdigly-
The goal of American policy should be to promote American interests. al-Qaeda is back, stronger than ever, and though our enemies are looking bad, we’re looking worse than them. Even if those folks are losing popularity, we’re not doing much better than them, and the Anti-Americanism is on the rise, according to surveys.

Our stake in Iraq is one of security, and how does it benefit our security to have created a terrorist threat to us, where none was before, and to inflame the passions of the Middle East against us and our agenda? How have all the screw-ups and scandals of this war benefited us, and what makes you think people have just forgotten about them?

The surge will never do what it was meant to do. It will never make Iraq independent of us. Quite the opposite. You post an opinion by a couple of think-tank denizens, and act like all the official reports indicating that our goals once again have fallen short mean nothing. Not a month ago, this President reported that the reconstitution of the Iraqi army has not been successful, and that progress towards the most important issues of Iraq’s sovereignty over its territory, the integrity of its government, and civil order has just not occured. Even if those militias are becoming unpopular, they still have plenty of guns and military equipment, and nobody seems capable of making them give it up.

These are the realities on the ground, that even the Bush administration has acknowledged.

In the meantime, the folks in the Middle East watch night after night the kind of violence that’s going on in their own backyard, and they have to wonder that if Iraq, defined as a failed state even by our own State Dept., will blow up and riddle the rest of the region with its shrapnel. They don’t quite get themselves around to taking your politically correct view of how our soldier’s efforts should be seen, how our military intervention should be understood.

But hey, no matter, a couple of think-tank residents publish an op-ed, and everything’s alright.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #228024

Amen David Remer!

It is through the use of this type of overblown garbled propaganda that can result in a “president Bush” and like minded fascists of the 21st century.

This kind of ridiculous commentary is every bit as dangerous as the propaganda use by jihadists. By all means don’t take my word, just ask the families of the almost 4,000 dead American soldier from the Bush War in Iraq.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at July 31, 2007 11:58 PM
Comment #228044

Kim-Sue, I guess I’ll take that as a compliment. My propaganda should be ‘dangerous’, and thought provoking, and informative, and hopefully the slightest bit influential. Informing and educating the Western world about the enemy it faces was the point of this article, and of the many sites that I linked too and the many many more that I did not list. To defeat an enemy one must understand them, and their goals, their beliefs, their religion, their ideology, and their agenda. If one does not, then you are setting yourself up for failure,flailing about in the dark, believing the most ridiculous of statements (remember the line “Islam is the religion of peace”?) and allowing yourself to be buffeted about by the political and ideological winds of the day. I’m a firm believe in the notion that ‘knowledge is power’ and the more knowledge and understanding that I can cultivate the better and successful I am at doing my “.

Posted by: David Huntwork at August 1, 2007 2:37 AM
Comment #228045

finish the above sentence with the word …”job”…

Posted by: David Huntwork at August 1, 2007 2:42 AM
Comment #228055

Someone needs to send rahdigly and rachel to their rooms until they can both calm down. Yeesh! :v)

In all seriousness, both have a point. Islamist fundies are a lot more bloodthirsty than their Christian or Judaic counterparts, and thus are a much greater threat to world stability. When is the last time you heard of some 7th Day Adventist walking into a shopping mall in Queens and blowing himself up?

On the other hand, Christian fundies are the cause of a great deal of problems here. Do you think we would have such a debate over gay marriage, for example, if the Born Again crowd didn’t cherry-pick passages out of Leviticus? If they want to be consistant, they should also stone their sons when they mouth off and skip the bacon for the rest of their lives, but you don’t see that happening, do you? And of course, we have our beloved Dubya, whom I truly believe got hornswaggled into this whole Iraq debacle by the Neo-Cons because he thought it would get the ball rolling on the Book of Revelations.

Fundimentalism, whether here or there, is not a good thing. At best, it causes divides between those who should agree, and at worst it causes chaos and death.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at August 1, 2007 9:17 AM
Comment #228060
The goal of American policy should be to promote American interests. al-Qaeda is back, stronger than ever, and though our enemies are looking bad, we’re looking worse than them. Even if those folks are losing popularity, we’re not doing much better than them, and the Anti-Americanism is on the rise, according to surveys.


The same could have been said about the Japanese and the Nazis in WWII; the torture in the South Pacific and the holocaust could have been overlooked or “played down” to the Japanese-American internments by the FDR Administration. Of course I said “could have” b/c they didn’t. They did what they had to do to win and they did (indeed) win!! Yet, some of you out there would certainly interfered with that with your (magical) wonderful viewpoints on how the world should be; and the “two-card monty” stance some of you take on “War” and “Politics”. It is easy to “understand” and (even) blame both sides; yet, to actually make a firm decision takes courage, logic and leadership.


Which leads us to Rachel’s comments:

There is no “or” about it…all parties mentioned are causing the current problems…by current or past interventions, attitudes, and actions…Or do you think that the US and Great Britain are “superior” and “can do no wrong”…

So your answer is all parties are responsibible?! Nice! That sounds like a good leader.** If only General Washington, Lincoln, FDR & Churchill looked at their enemies that way.*** Yikes!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 1, 2007 9:59 AM
Comment #228062

leatherankh:

I’m afraid that line of reasoning is a fallacy. When is the last time you heard of an Islamicist walking into a shopping mall in Queens and blowing himself up either? The worst acts may not always take place in the US, but there’s no shortage of Christian terrorists around the world. In Jakarta just last week, 17 Christians were jailed for murdering and decapitating two Muslims. Their reason for attacking the Muslims? Revenge for the government convicting and executing three Christians who led a group that killed hundreds of Muslims at a boarding school in Poso in 2000.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSJAK25548520070726?pageNumber=2&sp=true

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 1, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #228128

Jarandehl, now c’mon, you know the standard Republican defense to such news is “But, by definition, their acts mean they weren’t true Christians. Same argument used by defenders of Islam. Which renders any attribution of heinous acts to any person of any religion a false accusation.

Yet, in the name of religions, heinous acts continue unabated in nearly every nation on earth. When faith triumphs over reason, logic, and definition, I can assure you, heinous acts are never far away. Bombing planned parenthood clinics, or the Twin Towers, or English subways, or Buddhist rampage in Indonesia, religion is at play hammering the message, faith vindicates all.

What a monumental perversion of the teachings of religious founders like Moses, Muhammed, Siddhartha, Christ, and the writers of the Upanishads, whose teachings reflect wisdom, intelligence, knowledge of history: and whose teachings demonstrate that education, peace, and tolerance, are both ends and means toward salvation. We would all do better to emulate our religious founders, rather than the writings and dictum of those who make their living as their messengers.

(My apologies to the likes of Kahlil Gibran.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2007 12:04 AM
Comment #228242

rahd:

Yup…all parties bear some responsibility…our country is rather new, just a little over 200 years…other countries have memories of colonization and other atrocities that are far longer than 200 years…yet, have you seen and read (you don’t seem to like reading or heeding history!) how many times the US has controlled the governments of foreign countries via CIA infiltration, economic policy, and direct invasion? Why not go back are find out how the country of Iran was well on its way to modern democracy with the election of a president only to have the US depose that president and install the Shah…that goes back to Eisenhower…before and since we’ve had much blood on US governmental hands…you might want to learn about atrocities committed in your name…it might help you understand that “they” don’t “hate our freedom”…they hate the atrocities we’ve committed in the name of freedom and democracy!!

Posted by: Rachel at August 3, 2007 10:50 AM
Comment #228245

COSTLY US COUPS

This posted for those who don’t see the US as having had any finger in the history and degradation of other countries…those countries remember the US…and what we did to their stability.

Posted by: Rachel at August 3, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #228252

What would Patton Say today!!


This is for all those invested in defeat and those that have tried to shun the idea that, with the media and anti-war coverage today, we would have lost WWII. This is what Patton would have said about the War on Terror. And, to those that have A.D.D., take some medication and watch and listen to the whole damn thing!!!



Posted by: rahdigly at August 3, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #228263

Patton would be wondering why we invaded a country that was no threat to us…and wonder why we were in Iraq longer than it took us to win against both Germany and Japan…

Posted by: Rachel at August 3, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #228279

No he wouldn’t! You obviously didn’t watch the video; b/c, that is a “Patton-like” speech. Now, I’m sure he would have more to say about your “all parties bear some responsibility” diatribe; he’d probably have more to say about your dodging and squirming when asked (directly) about who is more problematic and what to do about it.

This is more like what Patton would say today.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 3, 2007 5:04 PM
Comment #228283

Rahd:

Even auto insurance companies assign you 10% responsibility just for being on the scene…how much more responsibility does invading a sovereign country entail?

Posted by: Rachel at August 3, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #228286

Still didn’t watch the video, huh?! And, (still) didn’t answer who is more problematic (jihadists or USA/England)?! Man, this has to be hard on those of you that bet against the US; all b/c you hate our President. It has to be nerve racking just to know that the “Dumb, Fratboy, cowboy, Rich-Daddy’s Kid” just ran the tables on the left. Oh well, it is the choices in life; nice going lefties!!! Never (ever…ever,ever,ever!!) bet against the US. EVER!!! :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at August 3, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #228291
Still didn’t watch the video, huh?! And, (still) didn’t answer who is more problematic (jihadists or USA/England)?

don’t have to watch anything more on Patton…read enough history to know his stance…and problematic? I already answered…I deal in reality, not blind so-called patriotism…

Posted by: Rachel at August 3, 2007 9:31 PM
Comment #228327

Love how we’re “running” the Iraq War…

U.S. commanders are offering large sums to enlist, at breakneck pace, their former enemies, handing them broad security powers in a risky effort to tame this fractious area south of Baghdad in Babil province and, literally, buy time for national reconciliation.

American generals insist they are not creating militias. In contracts with the U.S. military, the sheiks are referred to as “security contractors.”

Posted by: Rachel at August 4, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #228332
Even auto insurance companies assign you 10% responsibility just for being on the scene…how much more responsibility does invading a sovereign country entail?

Well, the dems are going to need insurance then:
Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President


don’t have to watch anything more on Patton…read enough history to know his stance…and problematic? I already answered…I deal in reality, not blind so-called patriotism…

Apparently you do (indeed) need to brush up on your history; they don’t get more Patriotic than Patton. That is for sure! And, he addressed the appeasers and pacifists, letting them know exactly what he thinks of them. Not too good for some of you. He also believed that we need to defeat the enemy and always remember the lessons from history. Yet, some of you are too busy blaiming everyone but the (real) enemy and then using emotions and feeling to validate your points. Patton (and I for that matter) think history will see that kind of “logic” for what it truly is: cowardice!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 4, 2007 10:32 AM
Comment #228342

Rahd:

Blind patriotism isn’t patriotism…

Posted by: Rachel at August 4, 2007 1:16 PM
Comment #228348

Patriotism doesn’t equal practicality, reality, or intelligence…

Posted by: Rachel at August 4, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #228353

And neither does you blaming the USA/England; nor does it solve the Jihadist problem. And, you definitely don’t know Patton; he was a terrific leader and I’m sure he would feel this way about today’s war and today’s cowards.


Incredible! George S Patton’s New Speech-Iraq & modern world


It has to tick you pacifists and cowards off…

Posted by: rahdigly at August 4, 2007 3:09 PM
Comment #228377

rah:

Actually, what ticks us off is the fact that you accept fiction as fact, and discount the idea that a man with as much knowledge of military history and tactics as Patton would have been satisfied with the pathetic way this war has been handled. This is a man who made observations such as “A pint of sweat, saves a gallon of blood.” A man who said “Always do everything you ask of those you command.” Who said “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Most of all he said things like “Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.” and “Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.” and “Untutored courage is useless in the face of educated bullets.” And none of these words of his have been heeded in the execution of this war. In this war, we have spent gallons of our soldiers’ blood on foreign fields to avoid spending a pint of sweat here at home. We have asked our soldiers to do things their commanders have run from. We have tried to win our war by throwing our men at the enemy carelessly and letting them be killed, rather than making our real enemies die for their beliefs. We have not looked to the past to prepare for the unknowns of this war. We have been rash rather than taking calculated risks. And all we offer is untutored courage, rather than taking our time to educate ourselves on the real nature of the enemies we are fighting. This is not the war Patton would have wanted us to fight.

Frankly, it seems like there is only one statement of Patton’s that your side takes to heart: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” Unfortunately, you also seem to forget the the plan still needs to actually be good, not just violent.

Your side would also do well to take another piece of Patton’s actual advice: “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 4, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #228515

The plain truth, about Patton and the surge, is what “ticks” many of you off. The fact is, all those quotes from Patton, today’s PC and Multi-cultural crowd would have never would allow them. Today’s cowards wouldn’t have tolerated a leader like that and he would have called those cowards out, too. That is for sure!

Patton didn’t play! And, if you look at the year 1943, the US was getting its’ a$$e$ kicked and lost “gallons (upon gallons) of blood” of US soldiers, you would clearly see that the media and public didn’t turn on our soldiers and generals; they stuck behind the US and believed the enemy was the enemy. Today, you have congressmen/women that voted unanimously for General Patraeus, then, months later, undermined his strategy (SURGE). With today’s cowards, they would have done the same thing to Patton because they are against the war.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 6, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #228556

No, Rahdigly. The lies you’re telling about Patton are what tick us off. Patton was a great general, one with an extensive knowledge of military history and tactics. It shows in the speeches he made. He didn’t just talk about America needing to have the will to win, like the Right does today.

“If you don’t like to fight, I don’t want you around. You’d better get out before I kick you out. But there is one thing to remember. In war, it takes more than the desire to fight to win. You’ve got to have more than guts to lick the enemy. You must also have brains. It takes brains and guts to win wars. A man with guts but no brains is only half a soldier. We licked the Germans in Africa and Sicily because we had brains as well as guts. We’re going to lick them in Europe for the same reason.”
-General George S. Patton, Jr.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 6, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #228573

Jarandhel, you are proving the point that today’s media would never (ever!) have allowed Generals like Patton or leaders like FDR to do what they did back then to (actually) WIN the War.

Answer directly now. Would today’s media (and war critics) have said that Patton and other Generals failed and didn’t have the right strategy when ten of thousands of our soldiers (drafted by the way) died? 1,500 during the invasion of Normandy in a training accident (alone)! Tens of thousands died (for years); especially during 1943, would today’s critics have said they were wrong or that they needed a change in strategy?! You bet your a$$ they would!! What would today’s critics have said about the internment of Japanese-Americans?!

The answers are in Patton’s quoutes you cited earlier:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

Exactly! So, let us kill these sick Jihadists and make them die for their cause!!

“Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.”

We know that Chamberlain and the abolishionists argued against the war and tried to “appease” (or talk to) Hitler in the mid to late 1930’s; yet, Churchill and FDR saw the threat and argued (even pleaded) to fight them now before it is too late. History proved they were right and the “appeasers” were wrong. So, some of you should actually take heed to Patton’s quotes and learn from history and immediately deal with this enemy!!!

Yet, many of you will scoff at that data; you’ll continue to put you heads in the sand and say that we are “liars”. It has to suck for those of you that watched the Patton video: Incredible! George S Patton’s New Speech-Iraq & modern world You know damn well that the critics would have painted our leaders and heroes as the enemy; just like they are doing today. Yet, just like WWII, we will win this war and it will be inspite some of you (and you know who you are; and so do we!!!).

“I want you to remember that this war on terror, as well as our presence in the middle east, is necessary and inevitable. To those who can’t understand that, they need to spend more time on the History Channel and less time in the G*d damned chat rooms!!!”

Posted by: rahdigly at August 6, 2007 11:25 PM
Comment #228593

No, today’s media would not have said that. World War II was a VERY different situation than the Iraq war, and it’s pretty significant that we’ve already been in Iraq longer than all of World War II. You keep trying to paint this as weak liberals chickening out, but the fact of the matter is that this war could never have been won using the all guts and no brains strategy your side has endorsed. The sheer fact that we are spending so much blood and treasure in a country that had NOTHING to do with attacking us speaks volumes to the stupidity of our approach.

Let’s kick the jihadi’s asses? Sure! But the jihadis are al-Qaeda, not Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq. We’ve lost our focus in this war, and that’s why we’re losing. Even if we had managed to subdue Iraq, and didn’t let it degenerate into civil war, at best the war in Iraq would have been a distraction from the real war on terror. As it is, it’s completely removed our ability to effectively pursue the war on terror. We just don’t have the manpower.

No one has said we should appease our enemies. But isn’t that exactly what Bush has been doing by not pursuing bin Laden, and sinking all of our country’s resources into this Iraqi boondoggle?

And yes, you are a liar. Every time you repeat the words of that video, you are lying about Patton and what he would say and do if he were alive today. For gods sake, you really think Patton would have told people to watch the History Channel? He’d have told you to turn off the TV and pick up a god-damned BOOK.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 7, 2007 2:10 AM
Comment #228612

Today’s media and critics would have certainly said that about WWII’s leaders and generals. Definitely. Yet, they will never concede that point. Ever! And, Patton would certainly have considered the critics as cowards or as “sounding like the enemy”, no question about it!! You still haven’t backed up your “liar” statement with any facts at all. All you did is throw around a few Patton quotes; to which actaully made the pro-war’s point rather than the anti-war’s. Patton is not an anti-war guy at all; so, don’t even go there, you sound silly when you do that.

You still didn’t respond (directly) to the two quotes from Patton:

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

“Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.”

By the way, your points about Iraq and al qaeda are the same liberal talking points (half truths) that we’ve all heard for the past three years. They don’t work, dude. And, they definitely wouldn’t have worked with Patton; that is for sure!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 7, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #228627

If you can’t or won’t understand the real significance of Patton’s quotes, and what they actually prove about the man, I’m not going to waste any further time trying to convince you. I’m the one who posted those quotes in the first place, I hardly need to “respond” to them. I responded to your interpretation of them, and already showed why both interpretations are false. You’re simply twisting his words to try to assert that Patton would have supported this lunacy. No, Patton was not anti-war. But he was anti-stupidity.

“You are here to fight. This is an active theater of war. Ahead of you lies battle. That means just one thing. You can’t afford to be a goddamned fool, because, in battle, fools mean dead men. It is inevitable for men to be killed and wounded in battle. But there is no reason why such losses should be increased because of the incompetence and carelessness of some stupid son-of-a-bitch. I don’t tolerate such men on my staff.”

Unfortunately, this war is being run by stupid sons of bitches who are increasing our losses based on their incompetance, and who seem determined to continue to do so. They want our boys in the middle of a god-damned civil war that’s frankly none of our damned business. Al-Qaeda taking over there is about as likely as the Sunnis and Shia’s sitting down for a tea-party, so what’s our interest in staying? If Saddam was such a threat, he’s gone now. Why aren’t we? Why don’t we get the hell back to actually hunting down and killing bin-Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda?

Your talking points are the same Republican ones we’ve been hearing since 2003. “Don’t cut and run”, “support our troops”, “we need to win”, “stay the course”. It’s been done, and THAT is what isn’t working. We’re staying the course in a sinking ship. And Patton would have had both the smarts and the balls to admit it, rather than playing this administration’s apologist lapdog like you are.

This war accomplishes NOTHING for America. Nothing. Even one drop of american blood spilled to keep Iraq from having their little civil war is too precious a cost. Let’s leave them killing each other, and let God sort it out. It’s not our affair. Al-Qaeda is the group stirring up trouble.

See, Patton went to war actually knowing it’s causes. You want a real modern speech “by Patton?” Here it is:

“There are three two reasons why we should be fighting a war on Al-Qaeda rather than a war on Iraq. The first is because we are determined to preserve our traditional liberties. Some crazy terrorist bastards decided they were supermen and that it was their holy mission to rule the world. They’ve been pushing people around all over the world, looting, killing, and abusing millions of innocent men, women, and children. They were getting set to do the same thing to us. We have to fight to prevent being subjugated.

The second reason we should be fighting is to defeat and wipe out al-Qaeda and bin-Laden who started all this goddamned son-of-bitchery. They didn’t think we could or would fight, and they weren’t the only ones who thought that, either. There are certain people back home who had the same idea. And the only way to show them how wrong they were is to actually fight this war against them, and not let ourselves get sidetracked by this stupid bullshit in Iraq!”

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 7, 2007 12:49 PM
Comment #228635

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
“Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.”

Those two quotes (definitely) don’t fit the anti-war/Bush crowd. In fact, if anything it is a shot at them; they just are too(ooo) infected with the Bush Derangement Syndrome (DBS) to even notice.

You are still making the pro-war (victory) crowd’s point when you cite those quotes from Patton. The “Son-of-a-B*tches” he referred to would undoubtedly be the anti-war/Bush crowd. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he would have plenty to say about today’s congress and President for that matter. After all, he was a General and a “lifer”; they have their own politics and bureaucracies, believe you me. Yet, there’s no way Patton and other Generals would accept the rhetoric of today’s anti-war & MSM critics; especially when they have an all volunteer military. NO FREAKING WAY! I don’t care how much you hate this President; you will never (ever) be able to spin and twist Patton’s character to fit that (cowardice) role. Never! There wouldn’t have been a Patton if that were the case!

We are going to win! The problem for some of you is that it will be won despite of you.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 7, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #228637

We can’t win as long as we’re fighting the wrong enemy, and as long as we’re in Iraq we will be. Patton’s quote about making the poor dumb bastard die should be applied to terrorists, not Iraqis. His quote about studying history should be applied to knowing that you can’t force democracy on people, and also knowing that you can’t win a war you’re not fighting. As long as we’re fighting the war in Iraq rather than the war on Terror, we will NEVER win the war on Terror. And Patton would fucking know it.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 7, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #228642

Oh, and calling the “anti-war” crowd (more like anti-Iraq War crowd, we’re all for war on bin Laden and al Qaeda) cowards is really rich, considering that the man you’re supporting was so cowardly he gave up hunting a man who had actually led an attack on US soil to go fight Iraq and Saddam, which the entire world knew we’d already kicked the shit out of and left little more than a nutless wonder in a cage. Cowardice is fighting the war that’s easy, rather than the one that’s right. And your pitiful excuse for a leader couldn’t even manage to get the easy war right.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 7, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #228671

You are misquoting and (hell) even spinning Patton to join the BDS crowd; that is not Patton, nor is it the leaders of WWII. All those deaths in WWII, under his command, and then hearing him make those quotes, the BDS crowd would have tried him in the Hague for war crimes.

You have yet to address the two quotes that you cited; they are a perfect examples of how the positions the anti-war/Bush crowd have taken in today’s war. This video satire of Patton is as accurate as (possibly) can be of what a leader like that would say today; the problem, and the point you are refusing to understand, is that he could never give that speech today. The quotes you cited couldn’t have been made today; they just could not be made today! And, man, let me tell you how many of us long for someone like that. Hell, many of us veterans hate the “rules of engagement” our soldiers have to follow today; Patton certainly would have been defiant against them, or he would not have been able to complete his mission. No way!

You can spin it anyway you want, call people liars; however, the fact (and truth) of the matter is that you are the one that is reciting the liberal talking points (of today). They truly do not help our military or allies and (even) embolden the enemy. That is not Patton like; hell, it is not even WWII like. It has to pain those of you that chose this viewpoint; yet, that is a choice that many of you made and you have to live with it.


Watch it again, Jaranhdel, this is what he would say:

Incredible! George S Patton’s New Speech-Iraq & modern world

Posted by: rahdigly at August 7, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #228677

The day I take my view of what Patton would say from a video LABELLED PARODY is never going to come. Maybe you should turn off YouTube and pick up a book and learn to form an opinion for yourself. You might also want to learn how to form a coherent argument, rather than simply asserting your position as the truth without basis.

We’re done.

Posted by: Jarandhel at August 7, 2007 9:10 PM
Comment #228746

It has to s*ck for some of you. Trying to portray Patton (PATTON OF ALL PEOPLE!) siding with today’s MSM, anti-war/Bush crowd; shame on you. Now that you are (finally) “done”, you may want to take your own advice and brush up on history. Look at the death tolls under Patton’s command and then tell yourself (honestly) if tens of thousands of US deaths would have been tolerated today. Look at how his quotes would have been perceived today; hell, look at how you responded to this parody, that is a good indicator right there (Denial, anger and resentment). Take a long, hard look at History and then you will realize (exactly) why some of us (Patton fans) will never let you sully his name & legacy! He was a great leader and I wish more people like him were allowed in today’s (cowardice) environment!! It would be refreshing.

Later, dude…

Posted by: rahdigly at August 8, 2007 11:46 AM
Comment #228751

rahdigly,

I have been holding my comments through this whole diatribe.

Need I remind you just who fired the Generals that spoke their minds about this whole fiasco?

Here’s a hint, it wasn’t the American people, or Congress, or the MSN, and it certainly wasn’t the Democratic Party.

Patton was a great leader of men. Patton was also a loose cannon that didn’t know when to shut up.

Patton also took unnecessary, and unauthorized risks with American lives. Look up “Task Force Baum”, and see for yourself.

As for sullying Patton’s name, Jarandhel did nothing of the sort, except maybe in your imagination.

Posted by: Rocky at August 8, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #228753

Oh hey, Rock! Thanks for (helping) make my point that Patton would never have been able to show how great of a leader he (truly) was in today’s environment; they would have buried him with the death tolls and with the “loose cannon” stuff as well.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #228765

Just what color is the sky on your planet?

Your point is,…well, pointless.

Do you understand the difference between “loss of life” and “waste of life”?

From your previous responses, apparently you don’t. I do think the American public, and even the MSN understand that difference.

No matter what your opinion is (and BTW, you ignore my central point about who fired the Generals), it won’t change reality.
Patton was a pariah in the press even in his own time. His penchant for shameless self promotion is well documented.
Patton also should have been crucified for the Task Force Baum fiasco.

Patton or no Patton, the American people love a winner. If we were truly winning in Iraq, Mr. Bush would have all the support he needs and he wouldn’t suffering the criticism his policies richly deserve.

Posted by: Rocky at August 8, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #228773
Patton was a pariah in the press even in his own time. His penchant for shameless self promotion is well documented. Patton also should have been crucified for the Task Force Baum fiasco.

Yet, he wasn’t “Crucified” (then), today he would have been. You (again) are proving my point that today’s media/war critics would have never allowed our leaders to do what the did to win in WWII. Today the “pariah” IS the Press! Today’s critics are the Pariahs!! They would have never allowed someone like Patton to exist. There were mistakes in every war and it costed lives; “wasted” or “loss”! Some of you cannot escape history and you are going to have to except that leaders make decisions and people die for those decisions. That is how it works! It is never gonna change. Washington, Lincoln, Wilson,FDR, Churchill, Patton, etc. all have made decisions that lead to victory and that have led to tragedy and death. Accept it; those are facts of life. Today’s media and critics would have never allowed that from any of them, b/c “loss of life” (in the emotional sense) can never be excepted or explained. Errors (in today’s era) are scrutinized to the umpteenth degree.


Patton or no Patton, the American people love a winner.

Damn right! It is a shame some American Politicians are looking at any success in the war as a “Big Problem!”.

If we were truly winning in Iraq, Mr. Bush would have all the support he needs and he wouldn’t suffering the criticism his policies richly deserve.

Wrong! Tell you what Rock, since Jarandhel is busy looking up the history books, why don’t you watch the movie “Flags of Our Fathers”:

Flags of Our Fathers is a film about the Battle of Iwo Jima and tells the story of how the three surviving flag-raisers were used as propaganda tools by the United States government to lift the morale of the American people and raise money for the war effort.

Now there were other ways that the US used propaganda to sell the war; however, why did Truman and company have to use propaganda to convince Americans that we are winning?! Hmmmm?!!! Could they have done that today?!!! (again) hmmmmmm!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 8, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #228786

rahdigly,

“Yet, he wasn’t “Crucified” (then), today he would have been. You (again) are proving my point that today’s media/war critics would have never allowed our leaders to do what the did to win in WWII. Today the “pariah” IS the Press! Today’s critics are the Pariahs!! They would have never allowed someone like Patton to exist.”

Again you seem incapable of separating actual facts from this fiction you have created and continue to wrap your opinion around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Patton#Task_Force_Baum_controversy

“On March 24th, shortly after completing his crossing of the Rhine, Patton ordered US XII Corps commander Major General Manton Eddy to undertake an immediate operation to liberate the OFLAG XIII-B prison camp at Hammelburg, some 80 kilometers behind enemy lines. Eddy strongly argued against the necessity and prudence of the raid, reportedly going so far as to refuse to pass the order to the US 4th Armored Division without General Eisenhower’s approval. Patton, having no desire to involve Eisenhower (who was already well acquainted with Patton’s headstrong tendencies and would likely have cancelled the operation), flew to the XII Corps command post at Undenheim, waited until Eddy left for dinner, and personally delivered the operation order to Brigadier General Hoge of the US 4th Armored Division. Noting that intelligence indicated a strong Wehrmacht and possible SS Panzer presence in the area (as well as its relative distance from the front line), Hoge and “Combat Command B” commander Lieutenant Colonel Creighton Abrams told Patton that no less than a full Combat Command would be required. Patton rejected this, insisting that only a limited task force be sent. He planned to use 3,000 men but ultimately used two companies with 300 men and 15 tanks to raid the Hammelburg POW camp. He also mandated that his aide-de-camp and personal friend, Major Alexander Stiller accompany the force “to gain experience”.
The task force, named Task Force Baum (after its leader, Captain Abraham Baum), fought valiantly through significant resistance to liberate the camp, but was too exhausted and reduced in size from 52 hours of continuous fighting to break out of the noose of Wehrmacht reinforcements that rapidly swarmed into the area to surround them. The raid by Task Force Baum was a total failure, and only 35 of the 300 men returned—the rest were captured or killed.

After the news of the operation became public, it was revealed that Patton’s motivation for ordering the operation against apparent common sense and the strident objections of his officers was most probably personal: he had been informed on February 9th by General Eisenhower that his son-in-law, Lieutenant Colonel John K. Waters, captured in North Africa in 1943, was being held at Hammelburg. Until this information came out, Patton had always insisted he had no knowledge of the location of Waters. Upon further review, Patton’s explanation for insisting that Stiller go along also didn’t hold water; as a decorated World War I officer, Stiller had already seen significantly more combat than most of the men in Task Force Baum, and (most importantly) as a personal friend of Patton’s family, he had met Waters and would be able to identify him. Furthermore, Patton had always insisted that the operation to liberate the camp at Hammelburg was motivated by a deep concern for the welfare and safety of captured US servicemen, yet in an ironic twist, after Stiller was captured, Patton refused to try to liberate the camp where he and other survivors were being held, even though it was much closer to the 3rd Army line of advance than Hammelburg had been, and contained nearly twice as many troops. Patton’s superior, General Omar Bradley, later famously characterized the raid as “a wild goose-chase that ended in a tragedy.”“

Patton should have been Court Martial-ed then just as anyone that pulled this stunt now should be.
I have no disrespect for Patton. He was a great General, and I admire him for his tactical, and strategic genius and the application of his knowledge of history to warfare.
A knowledge you don’t appear to share or choose to ignore.

I don’t need a “parody” of General George S. Patton to convince me of his greatness.

Strategy and tactics in warfare have changed radically since WW2, yet much that we knew then has been ignored by those that lead us now, and our efforts in the Middle East are the worse for it.

Posted by: Rocky at August 8, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #228820

Just look at my quote you pasted above and then look at your response to it. You said: “Patton should have been CourtMartial-ed then just as anyone that pulled this stunt now should be.” The answer was he wasn’t Court Martial-ed!!! Then and now are two (completely) different times; which has been my point long before you interrupted. Take a look at the previous comments and then you’ll see where you are proving my point (yet again).


Posted by: rahdigly at August 9, 2007 12:01 AM
Comment #228822

rahdigly,

Apparently you just don’t understand that someone can admire an icon like Patton, yet recognize his faults and know that Patton was a human, and had his flaws.

What he did re: Task Force Baum was very wrong, and totally insubordinate, even for the 40’s military. He got off probably because he had served honorably and he had friends in high places.

This administration has relieved Generals in Iraq for much less than Patton ever did, yet you refuse to recognize that fact.

Your point is meaningless, you don’t seem to get that, and I don’t know if you ever will.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #228841

If Patton were around today it wouldn’t be the administration that would have a problem with him; it would be the press and the anti-war/Bush crowd. This administration would never have relieved Patton; the press and the BDS crowd would’ve been calling for him to resign. It would be the same liberal talkings points we’ve had to hear for years now; the same stupid sh*t. And the problem is that some of you chose the position that: Whatever is good for this country (success in Iraq) is bad for you and whatever is good for you (defeat in Iraq) is bad for this country. Patton would never (ever!) have taken that position; in fact, it would have been the “bad for America” crowd that would have been routing against him.


Rock, you can waste time saying this point is meaningless, that point is meaninless, the video is a parody, it is fake; yet, the bottom line is: this is how Patton would’ve viewed this war (today) and, b/c it is not an anti-war message, some of you hate it. Bigtime! You guys just lose it! And, I have to tell ya, it is just awesome watching some of you come unglued.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #228849

rahdigly,

“the video is a parody, it is fake; yet, the bottom line is: this is how Patton would’ve viewed this war (today) and, b/c it is not an anti-war message, some of you hate it.”

A parody?

Well duh! Ya think?

As for Patton’s views;
Patton was an educated man.
Patton probably would have praised the first days of Iraq when everything was working, but as Jarandhel stated,
Patton would have abhorred the war of attrition and chaos that followed.
Patton would have abhorred the lack of change in strategy, and the useless loss of life because of it.
Patton would have wondered if our leaders had lost their collective minds, trying to subdue a country as large as Iraq with too few troops.
Patton would have wondered why it was taking so long to train Iraqi troops,
why the insurgency wasn’t quelled when it was in it’s infancy,
why we were trying to rebuild a country while trying to secure it,
why we were building a massive, palatial embassy in a war zone,
why 4 years later, there is still only sporadic electricity and water,
oh, and BTW, the country still isn’t secured.

Patton was no dummy, as you would have us believe.
Patton would have been kicking ass and taking names from the beginning and would have decried the massive incompetence.

As for your point;

You give nothing to back it up, except your imagination. You cite nothing but someone else’s idea of parody and satire, and when confronted with reality, repeat the same tired hyperbole aud nauseum.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #228864

Rock, the “reality” is you did not mention how Patton would have responded to today’s media; how he would’ve responded to (today’s) anti-war crowd. No mention about how he would be received by (today’s) media and Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. You say he was no dummy (and I concur); however, he would have been considered a “dummy” today or even worse, just as you have implied the generals (of today) are or must be. You ignored how leaders (of any era) made mistakes and people died; yet they weren’t “impeached” or “court-martialed”, it was considered part of war and being a leader. You also (conveniently) ignored how our leaders (in WWII) had to use propaganda to sell the war to fellow Americans. Today, selling Iraq, to the BDS crowd, is being a “neo-con”, “Bushite”, “right-wing follower”, etc.

You and the other blogger have been proving my point the entire time. You talk out of both sides of your mouth with Patton: “he’s a great leader”; “he should’ve been crucified for Task force Baum”— yet he wasn’t (again proving my point). And you try to view him going against (today’s) administration (they way the BDS crowd has done); yet, today’s BDS crowd would have been after a leader like Patton, mainly b/c he is a hard, charging take no prisoners kind of guy. And, that just pi$$e$ the BDS crowd off; they hate people (non-PC) like that. Hate them!

Man, this video really has some of you unhinged; your panties are in a bunch!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 9, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #228902

rahdigly,

“You talk out of both sides of your mouth with Patton: “he’s a great leader”; “he should’ve been crucified for Task force Baum”— yet he wasn’t (again proving my point).”

Are all great leaders pure as the driven snow?

Let’s say you’re Eisenhower (probably a stretch, but oh well), and one of your generals has just by-passed you and authorized a mission that is not only foolish but is done for personal reasons, AND results in the loss of more than 80% killed or captured.
What do you do?


Why do you insist on dealing in absolutes when stating your opinion?
Why do you continue to turn my probably’s into must be’s?

You’ve done this for a couple of year now and I just don’t get it, and, BTW, your point suffers because of it.

Posted by: Rocky at August 9, 2007 11:01 PM
Post a comment