unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

It’s people like you and your “America’s” fault mentality that will get me and my kids killed, to hell with your family…. If your such a moron as to want to “fight fair” against a savage, vile enemy… go ahead… But do not endanger MY family with your passivist views of defense. KILL THEM ALL AT ALL COSTS BEFORE THEY KILL YOU… Patton had a great statement on that… “Your job is NOT to die for your Country, but to let that other poor bastard DIE for his”. You would do well to remember that before you tuck your kids into bed tonight or send them off to the local school that is being targeted by terrorists for maximum terror impact. No worries, people like me will be thier to stop the enemy before they kill your family, I hope.

So, if you use the present tense, yes, I am a fan of Israel.

Johan Klaus on January 13, 2009 at 6:12 PM

I can guess that. I am too, but unlike some here, I believe the team made some pretty big mistakes early on which is complicating things later in the season.

Great idea. We’ll put Hamas next to the Indian reservations and within a few years, they’ll lose interest in jihad and become blackjack dealers and part/full time sots.

NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Or the Indians will begin waging jihad again. There is always the law of unintended consequences.

Not the first part of his life. And certainly not of Winnie Mendala. As a conciliator, yes, I am a fan. Sadly, his successors in office have made the mistake of supporting Mugabe in Zimbabwe — something Mandela has gone out of his way to condemn.

So, if you use the present tense, yes, I am a fan.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM

So, if you use the present tense, yes, I am a fan of Israel.

I take the far view — that Israel must crush utterly Hamas, but it must also give something back to those whose lands it took.

Maybe a casino or two?

Great idea. We’ll put Hamas next to the Indian reservations and within a few years, they’ll lose interest in jihad and become blackjack dealers and part/full time sots.

Er … that’s just war. Or, do you consider JFK to have been a “terrorist” for threatening to nuke the USSR if Cuba lobbed a nuke at French Guyana, thereby bringing a feeling of terror to all of the Soviet population? Which brings up the point that you must consider our strategic nuclear arsenal to be “illegal”. Is that your attitude about our nukes? (I’m just trying to understand exactly how detached from reality you are)

I view nuclear weapons used against civilians as “illegal”, and am in favor of nonproliferation. The weapons exist — you cannot put the genie back into the bottle. I also view MAD as a valid doctrine, given their existence. Do I think every country is entitled to them? NO. Do I think the US used its arsenal wisely? NO. But we’ve grown up a bit since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

BTW, if you think that the label “terrorist” for our enemies is a definition, then you are just clueless. It is a label that was originally used as a definition, but no longer serves that purpose. What it is now used for are non-uniformed arab/persian/muslim fighters, who just happen to use terrorism most of the time. But even if they attack military installations, they are still terrorists, because that is now just the label of the enemy. Period.

I like Wikipedia’s definition better, since it links the act to the emotion at the root of the act. You are welcome to use the term as you state, but your use will be and is incorrect. The term is used to describe military action around the world, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. The Tamil Tigers come to mind immediately

Timothy McVeigh and his willing helpers were also terrorists, in my book. Not an ounce of Muslim intent in their brains (McVeigh was, in fact, Catholic), but terrorists nonetheless.

Okie doke. So … if I get your drift, the Allies in WWII must have been terrorists, and they did something that you should not have tolerated – totally defanging the Axis and bringing the greatest peace and prosperity that the free world has ever seen, in good part by killing tons of enemy civilians. It did take killing almost 10% of the German population and around 4% of the Japanese population – which you would consider to be beneath contempt, I guess – those damn Allies … Is that how you see it? Should the Allies have thrown WWII because the tactics required were too intolerable? Okay.

progressoverpeace on January 13, 2009 at 3:47 AM

No, they didn’t need to throw the war, but nobody is claiming that destroying Dresden’s cathedral shortened the war, any more than Germany gained advantage by destroying Coventry. So yes, I count those who authorized targeting civilians as terrorists. Accidentally missing a military target is not the same as deliberately hitting a civilian target.

As I point out elsewhere, Sherman in his march targeted war materiel, and never targeted civilians for reprisal or attack. We occasionally lapse in our efforts to wage Just War, and those lapses are permanent stains, and those who willingly perform the lapses are terrorists and war criminals.

Note that my argument applies equally to Hamas. I’m not making distinctions. Furthermore, in this conflict, unlike some others it has created or participated in, Israel is making an effort at Just War. They are allowed a Just War, because their civilians have been targeted by terrorism willed by Hamas.

> You can’t shave.
> Your wives can’t shave.

Mercy4Me on January 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Not at all. It depends which bit of the body you are talking about..

Each Friday, the public lavatories of a business park where I used to work would acquire an unusually large number of pubic hairs in the sinks and on the floors. This began to happen only after an Islamic book distribution company took a place there.

I have also heard from one Muslim woman that it was necessary to shave because, according to her, the devil would play (or hide, I forget which) in pubic hair. Other people claim it is just a hygiene issue.

If the Islamic teachings concerning these matters are correct then I surmise that the Lunatic God invented pubic hair as a means of keeping his slaves occupied and itchy.

How Allah must laugh at his prisoners.

unclesmrgol on January 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM

See, I didn’t even have to be here to continue this discussion. In my absence, the point was made over and over again. You don’t agree with the point, but that is moot.
I cannot “blog” at all hours of the day… as I stated in another thread, I own/run 2 businesses and have 2 small children. Time is ALWAYS an issue for me.
Let’s just say we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

JellyToast on January 12, 2009 at 6:14 PM

A+

irongrampa on January 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM

WOW

Guardian on January 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM

100+

*** Sometimes, yeah sometimes, the folks at HA make me smile, all is NOT lost, we still have a few in America that have not gone all mushy Politicaly Correct and weak. Simple common sense is all that true leaders need, the ability to look evil in the face, then PUNCH IT till it dies. These vile creatures are out to destroy American and all within our once great Nation. It matters not to them your color, creed, sexual orientation, religion (or lack there of) nor does it matter to them your age… For America, the time is fast approching to choose life or death, violence in OUR streets and schools, parks and stadiums, train stations and buses is only a matter of time. The far left in America will see to it over the next four years that we are NOT ready to defend our borders or our Nation… Will you be ready? Terrorist should be wiped out, in THIER homes, not ours… In THIER streets, not ours… In THIER schools, not ours… They have called death noble, let’s take the fight to them and give them nobility in abundance… For the sake of America and YOUR children, WAKE UP AMERICA, time to kill them all before it’s too late!

One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.

Why don’t you just say “One man’s enemy is another man’s ally”, which is as devoid of information as your statement (either version)? Just be clear that you can’t tell the difference between an enemy and an ally and stop beating around the bush.

I honestly think that there is no respectful way of talking about terrorism, and terrorism is an objective act.

BTW, if you think that the label “terrorist” for our enemies is a definition, then you are just clueless. It is a label that was originally used as a definition, but no longer serves that purpose. What it is now used for are non-uniformed arab/persian/muslim fighters, who just happen to use terrorism most of the time. But even if they attack military installations, they are still terrorists, because that is now just the label of the enemy. Period.

If someone does terrorism (deliberate acts designed to bring a feeling of terror to a population), their acts do not deserve respect.

Er … that’s just war. Or, do you consider JFK to have been a “terrorist” for threatening to nuke the USSR if Cuba lobbed a nuke at French Guyana, thereby bringing a feeling of terror to all of the Soviet population? Which brings up the point that you must consider our strategic nuclear arsenal to be “illegal”. Is that your attitude about our nukes? (I’m just trying to understand exactly how detached from reality you are)

It is not something anyone here should want to do, nor is it anything anyone of us here should tolerate.

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 3:16 AM

Okie doke. So … if I get your drift, the Allies in WWII must have been terrorists, and they did something that you should not have tolerated – totally defanging the Axis and bringing the greatest peace and prosperity that the free world has ever seen, in good part by killing tons of enemy civilians. It did take killing almost 10% of the German population and around 4% of the Japanese population – which you would consider to be beneath contempt, I guess – those damn Allies … Is that how you see it? Should the Allies have thrown WWII because the tactics required were too intolerable? Okay.

“One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist” is a formula by which one speaks flippantly of a matter of which it seems good to speak more respectfully. It seems it would have served better to have said something such as, “Men whom we acknowledge as having loved and served their country have sometimes attempted to benefit it by horrible and terrifying means.”

Kralizec on January 13, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Short and to the point is not flippant, but it certainly is better. The idea is rendered in such a way that it sears the mind. And I’ve changed the words around to better represent the idea I was trying to put across: One man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot. That lets some people be patriots without being terrorists, unless one believes that the verb “to be” is reflexive rather than indicative. I honestly think that there is no respectful way of talking about terrorism, and terrorism is an objective act. If someone does terrorism (deliberate acts designed to bring a feeling of terror to a population), their acts do not deserve respect.

It is not something anyone here should want to do, nor is it anything anyone of us here should tolerate.

The guiltiest in those centuries were South of us as to “owning slaves” and few today among the Left are willing to discuss this.

S on January 13, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Wasn’t the equation as to how many wrongs really do make a right discussed in some Far Side cartoon?

Mandela’s a Communist.

S on January 13, 2009 at 1:10 AM

So? If I hated everyone who disagreed with me on economic policy, I’d not have a friend in the world, methinks.

I automatically distrust Communists because I think their economic model is untenable — it certainly doesn’t maximize production because the nobody is incentivized to produce more, or even to produce “better”. One of my relatives who escaped communism taught me that maxim, because no matter how diligently he herded ducks, he got paid the same as the guy who goofed off half of the day; after a while, he goofed off half the day too.

That said, there is at least one dyed-red-in-the-wool communist who think Mandela is a capitalist.

unclesmrgol on January 13, 2009 at 12:58 AM

I did not “forget” anyone from my “list” — there as no list — I pointed out to everyone else here (you appear to have missed this) that the point of anyone “owning slaves” is or was hardly unique to the early United States and Colonial times prior to that.

Slavery remains in use in our present times in other areas, AND, as to our early nation and Colonial times before that, something like ONLY NINE PERCENT OF AFRICANS were sent to North America — the overwhelming majority were shipped to SOUTH AMERICA.

The guiltiest in those centuries were South of us as to “owning slaves” and few today among the Left are willing to discuss this.